the osprey - jim yuskavitch · the osprey letters to the editor the osprey welcomes submissions and...

Jim Lichatowich provides fisheriesconsulting services through his firmAlder Fork Consulting in ColumbiaCity, Oregon and is former AssistantChief of Fisheries for the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife. Richard N. Williams, PhD has workedon Columbia River salmon and steel-head issues for over 30 years. He is theSenior Conservation Advisor to theInternational Federation of Fly Fishersand is a member of the SteelheadCommittee. He lives in Eagle Idaho.Both authors have served on numer-

ous salmon management technicalpanels.

The 1990s were a calamitousperiod for salmon and steel-head management. The cen-tury-long decline in abun-dance reached alarming

levels leading to the listings of twenty-eight Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESU)1 under the federal EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA). Many of us work-

ing on salmon management and recov-ery in the Pacific Northwest during the90s believed that the ESA listingswould shake the foundation of salmon

management enough to change the sta-tus quo. We were wrong. ESA rulesintended to improve the salmon’s sta-tus were bureaucratized, ritualizedand normalized to the point that theybecame part of the status quo, result-ing in little real change. Case in Point:the Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the

Columbia River Federal Power sys-tem, the preparation of which wasimposed by the ESA, has been rejectedby the courts four times and the mostrecent one may be on the way to a fifthrejection. The recovery prescriptionsin the BiOps have been too close to thestatus quo for the courts to take theproposed solutions seriously. The status of salmon remains a crisis.There is no other way to view the list-ings under ESA. Unfortunately, howev-er, it is a crisis that has failed to causeintrospection and critique by salmonmanagers of the record leading up tothe listings. This failure is, in part, dueto impediments to the incorporation ofcurrent science into salmon manage-ment and mitigation programs(Lichatowich and Williams 2009), ageneral lack of historical perspectiveamong salmon managers (Pauly 1995),and to a pathology resulting from acommand and control approach tosalmon management (Holling and

SMSMSMSMSM

THE OSPREYA Journal Published by the Steelhead Committee

International Federation of Fly Fishers

Dedicated to the Preservation of Wild Steelhead • Issue No. 81 MAY 2015

FAITH INNATURE

— PAGE 1 —

CHAIR’S CORNER:KINDRED SPIRITS

— PAGE 3 —

STEELHEAD & A WARMING CLIMATE

— PAGE 9 —

MCKENZIE RIVERWILD CHINOOK

— PAGE 13 —

VICTORIES ON THEEAST FORK LEWIS

— PAGE 17 —

Continued on Page 4

Faith in Nature:The Missing Element in Salmon

Management and Mitigation Programsby Jim Lichatowich and Richard N. Williams

— Alder Fork Consulting and The College of Idaho —

IN THISISSUE:

The salmon crisis hasfailed to cause

introspection and critique by salmon

managers of what ledto the ESA listings.

Every wild fish advocate iswell aware of how histori-cally abundant salmon andsteelhead once were. Theycrowded the rivers during

spawning runs and easily supportedsustainable fisheries for NativeAmerican tribes along with commer-cial fishermen and sport anglers. Andas every wild fish advocate also knows,that incredible abundance is largelygone and river systems that once pro-duced many thousands of fish may nowproduce just hundreds, or dozens, andin too many cases, none at all. But that is not because Nature is no

longer capable of producing abun-dance, as Jim Lichatowich and RickWilliams observe in their importantcover story in this issue of The Osprey.It is because many salmon managers

have rejected the idea that Nature cansupply enough fish on its own to sup-port prosperous fisheries, may beunaware of how many fish the riversthey manage once produced and relyalmost solely on the technical fix ofhatcheries. To make matters worse,that view and philosophy tends to bepassed down through generations ofsalmon managers.What is to be done? It won’t be easy

to convince salmon managers that theycontinue to rely on a flawed conceptualfoundation, and hatcheries in particu-lar. But there are examples out there,such as Osoyoos Lake sockeye recov-ery, that don’t rely on traditional mod-els that should stimulate a rethink ofhow we can again return natural abun-dance to our salmon and steelheadstreams.

The International Federation of Fly Fishersis a unique non-profit organization con-cerned with sport fishing and fisheriesThe International Federation of Fly Fishers (IFFF)

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

Name ________________________________Address _______________________________City ________________________ State _____Zip ____________ Phone_________________E-Mail ________________________________

Join by phone at 406-222-9369or www.fedflyfishers.org

Contributing EditorsPete Soverel • Bill Redman Doug Schaad • Norm Ploss

William Atlas • Schuyler DunphyScott Hagen Contributors

Jim Lichatowich • Richard N. WilliamsNorm Ploss • Lisa Crozier

Michelle McClure • Dave ThomasArlen Thomason • Steve Jones

LayoutJim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY

Letters To The EditorThe Osprey welcomes submissions

and letters to the editor. Submissions may be

made electronically or by mail.

The OspreyP.O. Box 1228

Sisters, OR [email protected](541) 549-8914

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

The Osprey © 2015ISSN 2334-4075

THE OSPREY IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERUSING SOY INK

SMSMSMSMSM

ChairNorm Ploss

EditorJim Yuskavitch

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

2 MAY 2015 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 81

by Jim Yuskavitch

Your membershipincludes a subscription

to Flyfisher, themagazine of IFFF.

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

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

Join the InternationalFederation of Fly Fishers

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

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

The Osprey Blog:www.ospreysteelheadnews.blogspot.com

Believing in Nature’s Bounty

http://ospreysteelheadnews.blogspot.com/

http://www.ospreysteelhead.org/

mailto:[email protected]

Before and since my hipreplacement I’ve had plen-ty of time to follow a broadspectrum of news. Thiscomes to me naturally by

training and personal interest. Some ofthat news relates directly to fisheriesand some relates importantly but tan-gentially. Good news is out there some-where, but negative news is easy tofind:

• New twist to the Chambers Creek[Washington] Steelhead story. NMFS ismoving from a Draft EIS (years inprogress) backwards to a Draft EA.Fish conservation advocates arguethat only through the process of com-pleting a full EIS can NOAA adequate-ly evaluate the cumulative effects ofall Puget Sound hatchery programs onthreatened and endangered speciesincluding Puget Sound's wild steel-head.

• Steelhead Summit Alliance re: SkagitRiver. April 18th meeting at theUniversity of Washington. The Skagit,once home to returns of 100,000 wildsteelhead and a favorite destinationfor many anglers, has been reduced toless than four percent of its historicalabundance, as described by biologistNick Gayeski of the Wild FishConservancy. Yet according toGayeski, the river has lost only a thirdof its productive habitat since theearly 19th century. "Prospects andpotential for recovery are not as grimas you might think," he said. Manyspeakers hoped that with a settlement-mandated cessation of hatchery plantsinto the Skagit River for the next 12years, the river's wild fish might havea chance at unhindered recovery.Enough, so that the reopening of a sus-tainable winter catch-and-releaseangling season may happen.

• An opinion piece in the San FranciscoChronicle on April 20th. Don’t ignoreSan Francisco Bays Needs during the

Drought. “Gov. Jerry Brown’s decisionto require 25 percent mandatory urbanconservation while ignoring agricul-ture — which consumes 80 percent ofdeveloped water supply — has beenwidely criticized. But most peoplebarely are aware that the heaviest bur-den to conserve water is on ourbeloved San Francisco Bay estuary —and as a result the Bay may experiencea wave of species extinctions in thecoming months and years.”

• An article by a pair of authors fromOregon State University published inSan Francisco Estuary & WatershedScience [13(1)]. Forecasting the MostLikely Status of Wild Salmon in theCalifornia Central Valley in 2100.“Since the mid-1800s theSacramento–San Joaquin river systemin the California Central Valley hasexperienced a dramatic decline in thedistribution and abundance of wildsalmon, along with many extirpations.The causes of the decline are many,and have been well studied. Despiterestoration efforts spanning decadesand involving large expenditures, runsof wild salmon in the Central Valleycontinue to decline. Using the mostprobable policy and ecological scenar-ios (i.e. effects of continued harvest,continued stocking from hatcheries,changing climate, continued humanpopulation growth and associated

demands for scarce water resources)and based on expert judgment”, theauthors “assessed the most likelyfuture of wild salmon runs in theCentral Valley in 2100.” They “posedseven open-ended questions to seniorsalmon science and policy experts infederal and state agencies; local,regional, and national organizations;non-governmental organizations; anduniversities. With a promise of com-plete and permanent anonymity, theseexperts provided answers. Mostexperts concluded that by 2100 wildsalmon in the Central Valley will beextirpated or minimally abundant ifcurrent trends continue.”

• A bill has been introduced in theHouse of Representatives that wouldamend the Magnuson-Stevens Act indetrimental ways. The act governsmarine fisheries management in theUnited States. Representative DonYoung (R-Alaska) introduced H.R.1335, the misleadingly named“Strengthening Fishing Communitiesand Increasing Flexibility in FisheriesManagement Act,” which wouldreverse years of progress made in USfisheries management.

• Lastly as I get to the point of this col-umn, the articles in this current issueof The Osprey, without subtlety, high-light the perilous conditions wildsalmon and steelhead today as we facethe future.

Often enough, I encounter environ-mental situations or groups working onan issue that looks insurmountable.Almost every time, I recall a (c.1980s)visit to the Gray Lodge Wildlife Areain California’s Sacramento Valley.Gray Lodge is primarily a waterfowlrefuge and seasonal hunting area andalso contained formerly abundant pop-ulations of wild pheasants. At theCheck Station, I picked up a standalonereprint of an article from the Sierra

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 81 MAY 2015 3

Kindred Spiritsby Norm Ploss

— Chair, Steelhead Committee —

CHAIR’S CORNER

Continued on page 19

President Theodore Roosevelt and natu-ralist John Muir at Yosemite Valley,California in 1903.

Meffe 1996). These shortcomings haveleft managers ill prepared to deal withthe crisis and have actually caused aretreat into the status quo and the poli-cies that are responsible for thesalmon’s impoverishment. In thisessay, we explore this conundrumthrough an examination of the nexus ofa flawed conceptual foundation and theproblem of shifting baselines. Ourfocus is on the Columbia River where,for thirty-two years, a massive fishand wildlife mitigation program hasbeen underway. The authors have acombined 29 years of service on inde-pendent science panels working inassociation with that mitigation pro-gram.

Background

In 1980, the U. S. Congress passed thePacific Northwest Electric PowerPlanning and Conservation Act (PowerAct), which did three things of signifi-cance for the Columbia Basin’s salmon.It created the Northwest Power andConservation Council (Council), aquasi-governmental entity composedof two members from Montana, Idaho,Washington, and Oregon and directedit to work toward greater paritybetween salmon conservation andhydroelectric power production. ThePower Act also directed the Council todevelop a fish and wildlife program(FWP) to mitigate fish and wildlifelosses due to the operation of thebasin’s hydroelectric system (Willis etal. 2006). The first FWP was releasedin 1982 and it has gone through a seriesof revisions since then. The FWP hasbeen called the world’s largest ecosys-tem restoration program (Lee 1993). The Council estimated the size of the

predevelopment annual run of salmonin the Columbia River at ten to fifteenmillion fish. Then it set a modest miti-gation goal of five million salmon(Williams et al. 2006) amounting to adoubling of the average run size of twoand a half million fish in the early1980s. In the thirty-two years sincerelease of the first FWP and after atotal expenditure of about fifteen bil-lion dollars, adult salmon productionhas not reached the goal of five millionfish. Even with the large runs of fall

Chinook and sockeye salmon in recentyears the total run has remained belowthe Council’s modest goal. Since 1989, the Council’s mitigation

program included independent scien-tific review and evaluation. Thereview panel created in 1989 has had asuccession of three names: ScientificReview Group (SRG) 1989 – 1994, theIndependent Scientific Group (ISG)1994 – 1995 and the IndependentScientific Advisory Board (ISAB) 1995to the present. While the group’s namechanged several times, up until about

2000, its membership and its assign-ment to provide scientific evaluationof the Council’s FWP was largelyunchanged. In 1996, the Power Act wasamended to create the IndependentScientific Review Panel (ISRP), whichwas given the task of providing annualpeer review of individual projects pro-posed for funding within the frame-work of the FWP. The ISAB and theISRP are still performing scientificevaluation of the FWP and the individ-ual projects associated with it.

The FWP’s ConceptualFoundation

In 1995, the Council asked theIndependent Science Group (ISG) toreview the conceptual foundationunderlying salmon mitigation effortsin the basin — a project that the ISGhad independently started a coupleyears earlier, but was not able to give itthe attention it deserved. What is a conceptual foundation as

the ISG understood and defined it? Itis the set of principles, assumptions,and possibly myths that give directionto management and research activi-ties. The conceptual foundation deter-

mines how problems are defined andthe range of appropriate solutions. It isa powerful part of any management ormitigation program; yet it is rarelyacknowledged or critically evaluated(Lichatowich et.al. 2006). The Counciland the ISG rightly believed an exami-nation of the conceptual foundation ofthe FWP was warranted. The ISG completed its work on the

FWP’s conceptual foundation in 1996and published a summary of its reportto the Council in Fisheries Magazine(Williams et al. 1999). We quote fromWilliams et al. (1999): “We concludethat management of the ColumbiaRiver and its salmonid populations hasbeen based on the belief that naturalecological processes comprising ahealthy salmonid ecosystem can, to alarge degree, be replaced, circumvent-ed, simplified, and controlled byhumans while production is main-tained or even enhanced.” The ISGthen identified three global assump-tions that form the FWP’s conceptualfoundation. 1. “The number of adult salmon andsteelhead recruited is primarily a pos-itive response to the number of smoltsproduced. This assumes that human-induced losses of production capacitycan be mitigated by actions to increasethe number of smolts that reach theocean, for example, through barging,the use of passage technology at dams,and hatchery production.” 2. “Salmon and steelhead productioncan be maintained or increased byfocusing management primarily on in-basin components of the ColumbiaRiver. Estuary and Ocean conditionsare ignored because they are largelyuncontrollable.”3. “Salmon species can effectively bemanaged independently of one anoth-er. Management actions designed toprotect or restore one species or popu-lation will not compromise environ-mental attributes that form the basisfor production by another species orpopulation (Williams et al. 1999).”

The ISG then concluded: “Afterreviewing the science behind salmonrestoration and the persistent trendsof declining abundance of ColumbiaRiver salmon, we concluded that theFWP’s implied conceptual foundationdid not reflect the latest scientificunderstanding of ecosystem science of


Faith in NatureContinued from page 1

Continued on next page

Fisheries managershave at best a weakunderstanding of the

history of their profession and the former magnitude ofpristine abundance.

salmonid restoration” (Williams et al.1999).

The three assumptions describe ahighly simplified salmon productionsystem and the extensive use of tech-nology. Natural resource managersoften simplify the resource they areoverseeing to the commodity that canbe derived from it such as number offish harvested, logs, amount of waterdiverted for irrigation, and so on. Inthe simplified system, the commodi-ty’s abundance is the primary measureof management’s performance. Thisreduces the amount and complexity ofinformation needed to “manage” and atthe same time gives the illusion of con-trol and predictability over the produc-tion of commodities (Holling andMeffe 1996; Bottom 1997; Scott 1998).In salmon management, the sense ofcontrol is enhanced by the ease withwhich salmon can be artificially propa-gated in hatcheries.

The Council, recognizing inadequa-cies in its early versions of the FWP(NPPC 1994), released a revised plan in1994 that included ecological elementsconsistent with current science as wellas elements consistent with the con-ceptual foundation described above.The Council coordinates the develop-ment of the recovery plans, but it canonly recommend, not dictate, whichparts of the plan are implemented.Salmon mangers actually determineimplementation of the FWP throughtheir selection of projects and the pro-posals they submit for funding. Themanagers chose to implement thoseparts of the 1994 plan that were consis-tent with the familiar, but flawed con-ceptual foundation. Consequently theirselection of projects focused primarilyon artificial propagation and fish pas-sage. They largely ignored those partsof the plan based on current ecologicalscience including protecting biodiver-sity and creating native salmon andsteelhead refuge watersheds. In itsreview of the suite of projects actuallyimplemented, the ISRP noted that,“There is a noticeable discrepancybetween the mix of projects actuallyfunded and the ISRP’s interpretationof the intent and priorities of the[1994] FWP” (ISRP 1997). By theirselection of projects, managers clearlyshowed the power of conceptual foun-

dations, even one with serious flaws, toinfluence decisions.Why would managers implementing

a salmon mitigation program thatexpends well over a hundred milliondollars annually cling to a flawed con-ceptual foundation? We believe animportant part of the answer lies in theconcept of shifting baselines — andtheir consequences!

Shifting Baselines

Fisheries managers have at best aweak understanding of the history oftheir profession (Smith 1994). They arealso largely unaware of the magnitudeof the difference between the pristineabundance of important fish stocksand their current status. In recentyears, several authors have tried tocorrect this deficiency, but its persis-tence has created and maintained theshifting baseline syndrome (Pauly1995; Roberts 2007; Jackson et al. 2011;Bolster 2012).

Here is a brief description of the syn-drome. As each generation of fisheriesbiologists enters the profession, it con-siders the status of fish stocks at thattime as the baseline, the standardagainst which progress or lack of it isto be measured. In the case of a declin-ing fishery, this leads to a gradualdownward shift in the baseline as eachgeneration of young biologists entersthe profession and ultimately to theimpoverishment of the fishery, as canbe seen in Columbia River Harvestdata from 1865-2000 (Figure 1). Theinsidious feature of this process is thatthe warning signs on the way to impov-erishment largely go unnoticed(Roberts 2007).

Harvest trends in Columbia Riversalmon (Figure 1a and 1b) in recentyears show the low abundance of popu-lations through the 1990s with rebuild-ing starting in 1999. Examining har-vest trends over a longer time series(Figure 1c and 1d) helps put the very


Continued from previous page


Figure 1. Shifting Baselines shown by Columbia River salmon and steelhead harvest of four different time periods (a-d) starting with 1991 ESA Listings. Note shaded boxes incor-porate the previous graph into the next longer time series. Years of harvest are shown with harvest in pounds (x 1000) on the Y axis in each graph.

1A 1B

1C 1D

modest gains achieved in recent yearsinto perspective compared to histori-cal abundance. The longer trendlinesalso underscore how depressed cur-rent populations are compared to his-torical abundance. Shifting baselinescauses us (inadvertently) to overlookhistorical records and see currentmodest successes as something morethan they actually are.

Shifting baselines cause another

problem. Because we don’t know thehistorical produc-tivity of salmon inthe smaller eco-regions ofColumbia RiverBasin, we fail tounderstand andappreciate thelatent productivitythat can bereleased whenenvironmental andhuman caused con-straints arereduced or elimi-nated. We have,however, had snap-shots of that capac-ity in 1991-1993,and 1999-2004,when a combina-tion of high smoltproduction (most-ly hatchery ori-gin), and favor-able environmen-tal conditions inthe river andocean resulted inlarge runs ofsalmon and steel-head (Figure 2).Managers have

viewed thesespikes in abun-dance as evi-dence that theartificial produc-tion system forsalmon is work-ing. A few politi-cians have goneas far as todeclare salmonrecovery effortssuccessful. Thatinterpretation isconsistent withthe conceptual

foundation. Unfortunately, it missesthe larger lesson, which is that salmonand steelhead have an innate ability torespond rapidly to favorable ecologi-cal conditions. This is even more trueof wild fish than for hatchery fish. If a generation of salmon managers

views already impoverished popula-tions of salmon as the baseline againstwhich the performance of their mitiga-tion programs is measured, it can actu-

ally lead to practices that attempt tomaintain those populations in theirimpoverished state (Roberts 2007).The shifting baseline syndrome clear-ly hides the magnitude of the declinein a fishery by ignoring longer-termhistorical records and consequently,the magnitude of management’s fail-ure. A shifted baseline allows the peri-odic occurrence of “record runs” thatare actually a small fraction of thereal, historical baseline (Lichatowich2013). Since the magnitude of manage-ment’s failure is hidden, there is littleincentive for critical review or changein the status quo. Failed managementpractices are continued as in the exam-ple of the Council’s 1994 plandescribed above. The nexus between a shifting base-

line and a flawed conceptual founda-tion has another important conse-quence. If the managers falselybelieve that the impoverished state ofthe salmon when they entered the pro-fession is the baseline, it will causethem to conclude that natural produc-tion cannot be expected to make a sig-nificant contribution to the existingfisheries and satisfy the growingdemand from an expanding population.We have, while serving on independentscientific review panels, frequentlyheard managers claim that naturalproduction cannot sustain a fishery.This belief persists even though histor-ically, natural production sustainedharvest levels that have never beenequaled by artificial propagation. Wecharacterize this attitude on the part ofsalmon managers as a loss of “faith innature.” It is an attitude that helpsensure that a flawed conceptual foun-dation and its failed mitigation prac-tices will persist. It’s a self-reinforcingstrategy. The loss of faith in naturejustifies the reliance on hatcheries toboost the number of salmon. Theweight of evidence now supports theconclusion that those hatcheries arecontributing to diminished productivi-ty of natural production, which rein-forces the lack of faith in natural pro-duction (Chilcote et al. 2011; Christie etal. 2011; Araki et al.2007a; Araki et al.2007b; Kostow and Zhou 2006).

Discussion

We discuss two examples of recent




Natural Origin Fish @ Lower Granite Dam

Natural Origin Fish

2A

2B

Figure 2. Returns of natural origin (a) Snake River Spring/SummerChinook, 1962 – 2005, showing a sharp increase and decreasebetween 1999-2005 and (b) Columbia River Spring Chinook, 1979– 2003, showing a sharp increase and decrease in 2001.

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook ESU

Upper Columbia Spring Chinook ESU

67,500

60,000

52,500

45,000

37,500

30,000

15,000

15,000

7,500

5-Year GeomeanNatural Origin Fish

Total Natural Origin Fish5-Year Geomean

1962 1968 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998 2004

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

01979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

salmon recovery programs. One illus-trates a strong faith in nature andshows why its loss is not justified. Theother illustrates that the loss of faith innature can lead to bizarre decisions.

Okanagan River/OsoyoosLake Sockeye

The Columbia River sockeye salmonfollowed the general trend in decliningabundance of the other salmon speciesin the basin. The commercial fisheryfor sockeye was terminated in 1972.The average run over the 35 years fol-lowing the closure of the fishery wasabout 72 thousand fish. In 2008, theOkanagan River/Osoyoos Lake sock-eye (Osoyoos) underwent a dramaticincrease in abundance with 213, 607fish crossing Bonneville Dam. Thishigher level of productivity has contin-ued through 2014 with 614, 179 sockeyecounted at Bonneville (Figure 3). TheOsoyoos sockeye made up about 80percent of the counts of sockeyesalmon over Bonneville dam and mostof the Osoyoos sockeye crossingBonneville Dam are wild. Hatcheryproduction makes up about 10 percentof that run. Keep in mind that theOsoyoos sockeye spawn above ninedams in the Columbia River.

Several factors contributed to the

increase in natural production ofOsoyoos sockeye salmon. Improvedsurvival passing the main stem damsand improved ocean conditions werefactors, but they couldn’t have beenthe main cause, because if they were,it would have led to dramatic increasesin other salmon populations. Instead, itappears the main causative factor wasa “non-traditional mitigation measure”

(Kahler 2013). The success startedwith studies of the Osoyoos sock-eye’s life history and the identifi-cation of ecological factors thatlimit survival during the part oftheir life cycle spent above WellsDam. In 1999, following a reviewof the capacity of spawning habi-tat, the sockeye escapement tar-get was increased from 38, 900 to58, 730 spawners with provision toincrease to 135, 471 (McMillian2013). This in itself showed a con-siderable faith in nature. Then aFish-Water Management Tool(FWMT) was developed. TheFWMT is a decision supportmodel that helped managersreduce density independent mor-tality on eggs and fry. The FWMTwas also used by managers to helpreduce oxygen depletion and tem-perature constraints on juvenilerearing habitat. Once the FWMTwas implemented in water year2005, smolt production jumpedfrom an average three hundred

thousand a year to three million with ahigh of over eight million (Kahler2013).

The FWMT shows how technologywas used to inform management andboost Osoyoos sockeye runs. In thisexample, technology (the FWMT) wasembedded in a conceptual foundationbased on the salmon’s natural life his-




Figure 3. Abundance of Okanagan/Osoyoos Lake Sockeye, 1977-2014, showing the dramaticincrease in recent years. Figure courtesy Bill McMillan

RiverNumber of

DamsNumber of

AnadromousSalmon

HabitatRestoration

Focus

Osoyoos 9 1Major

restorationeffort thoughFWMT

Natural production

Elwha 08 (5 sp Pacific

salmon, steelhead,coastal cutthroat and

bull trout

Pristine habi-tat above olddam sites

Major hatcheryprogram

superimposedon recovering

natural production

Table 1. A comparison of the Osoyoos and Elwha salmon restoration programs.

benefitting

tory and knowledge of the ecologicalconstraints on survival. That approachfocused on restoring ecosystem link-ages and the sockeye’s inherent pro-ductive capacity instead of the moreconventional approach that circum-vents those linkages with artificialpropagation. It also required a strongfaith in nature (and the sockeyesalmon!) to go against conventionalwisdom and invest in an ecologicalapproach above nine dams.

The Elwha River EcosystemRestoration Program

The removal of two large dams on theElwha River in 2012-2014 has receivednational attention. Those dams blockedsalmon migration to the upper basin

since early in the 20th century.Removal of the dams gives salmonaccess to pristine habitat inside theOlympic National Park. The circum-stances in the Osoyoos and the Elwharestoration programs could not bemore different (Table 1). The removal of the Elwha dams giv-

ing salmon access to pristine habitatseems to establish a set of circum-stances that would not require a strongfaith in nature to emphasize the recov-ery of natural production. However,the recovery plan contains this state-ment “This section introduces the useof artificial propagation for certainstocks as a primary (emphasis added)and effective means to meet planpreservation and restoration objec-tives. (Ward 2008)”2 As a result, therecovery plan emphasizes the use ofartificial propagation. We believe thisemphasis is unwarranted and unneed-ed for the recovery of natural produc-tion in the basin. Furthermore, thesuperimposition of a large hatcheryprogram will likely hinder the restora-tion of natural production among theElwha’s diverse salmonid stocks.

Part of the recovery programincludes a new sixteen million dollarhatchery. Part of its purpose is to pro-vide a refuge for native salmon duringthe expected high levels of sedimentduring dam removal operations; how-ever, there is little doubt that thehatchery will remain at full capacity

after the sediment lev-els drop to a normalrange. In its review ofthe Elwha restorationprogram the HatcheryScientific ReviewGroup (HSRG) stated:“The main concern theHSRG has with theElwha Plan is thepotential unintendednegative consequencesof excessive and pro-longed hatchery influ-ence (HSRG 2012).“

The author DylanTomine summed up thesituation on the Elwhaat a public meeting onthe Recovery Program.He said “We have lostfaith in MotherNature.”3 We agree!

Faith in Nature

“And most important, only when gov-ernments that typically ensure eco-nomic interests and values over all oth-ers decide that they are willing to re-construct the human salmon relation-ship as an ecological one rather thanan economic one will the true salmonwars, the wars between society and thesalmon be over.” (Scarce 2000).

If we go way back to the beginningsof salmon management by Euro-Americans, we would clearly see thatthe conceptual foundation identified inWilliams et al. 1999 and reproducedearlier in this paper has its origins in afew basic assumptions made by thosefirst managers. Salmon managerstoday will often bristle at the sugges-tion that their work is predicated onassumptions made 130 years ago. Butthe assumption that the supply ofsalmon could be maintained if the nat-ural production system was simplifiedand controlled has been documented asmanagement’s initial conceptual foun-dation (Lichatowich 1999). Over time,that conceptual foundation has beenadjusted to reflect changes brought onby new technology and industrialdevelopment in the Columbia Basin.However, the basic assumption thatsimplifying and controlling productionremained the underpinning of salmonmanagement through all the periods of

shifting baselines shown in Figure 1(Lichatowich et al. 1996). It is our conclusion that shifting base-lines and a loss of faith in natureallowed the false assumptions and theresulting flawed conceptual founda-tion to persist in spite of its record offailure. Successful salmon recoveryprograms that deviate from the cur-rent approaches, such as the Osoyoos,should cause the Council and salmonmanagers throughout the region toreexamine, once again, the underlyingconceptual foundation of the FWP.Perhaps with Osoyoos as an example ofsuccess and with a renewed faith innature, managers may be willing toreconsider the assumptions made solong ago and move beyond their con-straints into a more ecological rela-tionship with the salmon.

Citations:

1 ESUs are the salmon equivalent toDistinct Population Segments (DPS)commonly used in ESA listings andrecovery planning. 2 Page ix Elwha River Fish RestorationPlan3 Tomine’s statement at the meetingwas shown in the documentary filmDam Nation.


Removal of the Elwha Dam offered a prime opportunity tolet nature restore the Elwha River’s anadromous fish runsinstead of the same old hatchery model. Photo courtesyJohn R. McMillan, NOAA/NWFSC


Michelle McClure is currently the divi-sion director for the Fishery ResourceAnalysis and Monitoring Division atthe NW Fisheries Science Center(NOAA) in Seattle. She spent manyyears conducting research and work-ing with policy makers on issues relat-ed to the recovery and conservation ofsalmonids in the Columbia RiverBasin, and co-led the InteriorColumbia River Technical RecoveryTeam for salmon and steelhead. Shehas been working on issues of climatechange related to endangered species,and is beginning to focus on marinespecies subject to harvest as well.Lisa Crozier has worked in the Fish

Ecology Division at the NorthwestFisheries Science Center since 2004.Her primary research goal since com-ing to NWFSC is to quantify the effectsof climate change on population viabil-ity of Pacific salmon, considering bothecological and evolutionary responsesover the full life cycle. She works most-ly on salmon in the Columbia andSacramento rivers.

With a geographic rangethat once extended asfar south as Baja,California, the broadestrange of life histories

and highest thermal tolerance of anyPacific salmon, Oncorhynchus mykissis arguably the most diverse andadaptable of the six Pacific salmonspecies (Oncorhynchus spp.) native tothe U.S. As climate change progressesand aquatic environments adjust, theecological and genetic diversity ofsteelhead will likely prove decisive infacilitating this species’ persistence.Like other salmon, they excel at colo-nizing newly created habitat andadapting locally to complicateddynamics. However, 11 out of 14 pop-ulations of steelhead on the West Coastare already listed as threatened or

endangered under the EndangeredSpecies Act, and thus additional stressfrom climate change poses a more omi-nous challenge. How will steelheadrespond to climate change? Our dis-cussion complements a recent reviewof ocean stages by Kate Myers andNate Mantua (“Climate Change andOcean Ecology of NorthwestSteelhead,” The Osprey, May 2013); wehere focus on climate impacts andresponses expected in freshwater lifestages.

Projected Climate-InducedChanges in FreshwaterHabitats

Rising year-round temperatures andshifts in hydrological regimes are themajor climatic changes to freshwaterthat will impact salmon life history andindividual fitness in the comingdecades. Under a business-as-usualcarbon emissions scenario, air temper-atures in the Pacific Northwest areexpected to rise 2.3-9.2°F in winter and3.4-9.4°F in summer within the next 50years. Water temperatures will likelywarm at about 80% of the rate of airtemperature. Reduced snowpack athigher elevations will also produce anearlier and smaller spring freshet.Changes in precipitation are far lesscertain, and variability in historicalprecipitation has always been very

high, extending the time horizon fur-ther into the future when meanchanges due to climate change will bedetectable. Nonetheless, many climate models

project more extreme storm events inthe cool season, while drier summersbecome the norm. Increased winterflooding and summer drought may thuspose increasing threats to salmonfreshwater stages.

How will these physical changesaffect steelhead? Rising temperaturespresent the greatest direct risk forpopulations that already experiencenear-lethal summer temperatures.These include steelhead in warmerstreams in California, southernColumbia and Snake Rivers, and west-ern Oregon. High temperatures limitsurvival of adult migrants, especiallythose that migrate long before spawn-ing, “summer-run” fish, and juvenilesthat typically spend one or more sum-mers in freshwater. More than other salmon, adult steel-

head in the Columbia River use cooltributaries as thermal refugia alongtheir migration route. In general, themore time they spend in these refugia,the lower their survival. Seeking head-water tributaries in Idaho, however, isalso associated with lower survival.The primary reason thought to explainthese observations is that steelheadconcentrated in smaller refugia ortributaries become more vulnerable toharvest. Importantly, even catch-and-release fishing causes far higher mor-tality for salmon in warm conditions,and females are more likely to dieafter handling than males. Exposure to high water temperatures

and low flow is often punctuated bydisease outbreaks, which can lead todramatic fish kills. In 2002, roughly70,000 Chinook salmon died in theKlamath Basin when gill rot diseaseflourished. The warm temperatures


Rising temperaturesare the greatest riskfor fish populations

that already experience near-lethal summer temperatures.


Steelhead Persistence andAdaptation in a Warming World

By Lisa Crozier and Michelle McClure— NW Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries —

and low flows caused by the combina-tion of a drought year and humanwater diversion provided perfect con-ditions for the disease to spread quick-ly and reach epidemic status.Warming can increase virulence of avariety of diseases by acceleratingpopulation growth rates and move-ment of disease agents. Disease trans-mission among fish also increaseswhen fish are tightly concentrated intolimited pools. Furthermore, salmonimmune systems are compromised bythermal stress. Thus high tempera-tures and close concentrations ofsalmon are very strong predictors ofhigh mortality. Sub-lethal temperatures are just as

important as lethal temperatures inshaping population response to climatechange. Exposure of adults to sub-lethal temperatures during migrationmay impair egg viability, eitherthrough reduced egg provisioning ordirect thermal stress in utero.Developmental temperatures canaffect skeletal and muscle morpholo-gy, as well as fin position. However,the influence of temperature on ratesof growth and development is perhapsmost important of all.

Metabolic rates increase exponen-tially as temperatures rise, affectingdevelopment and energy balance at alllife stages. For example, in warmerwater, fry emerge earlier and smaller,with smaller yolk reserves. Thesesmaller reserves increase the urgencyof switching to an external food supplyin early winter or spring. Historically,natural selection has favored emer-gence timing that matches the avail-ability of food, leading to highly popu-lation-specific spawn timing. Changesin thermal regimes will alter both ofthese processes, potentially resultingin a mismatch between fish needs andprey availability. This in turn willdirect pressure on and possibly driveevolution in spawn timing.Once they reach the juvenile stage,

growth rates have an optimum temper-ature that reflects the trade-offbetween increased food consumptionand the acceleration of metabolic ratesat warmer temperatures. At warmertemperatures, food is usually moreabundant; however, prey quality canalso decline, and fish need more food to

sustain minimum functioning. Theoptimal temperature for growth istherefore higher in very productiveenvironments with few fish and lowerin more nutrient-poor environmentswith higher density. Thus, a web ofinteractions affects juvenile steelheadphysiology. Winter water temperature also has

important ramifications. Food isscarce in winter, placing a priority onminimizing energetic expenses overprey capture. Shorter, warmer winterscould bring higher energetic costs andhigher mortality. Come spring, juve-nile steelhead “determine” whetherand when to smolt, based in large parton growth rates and lipid reserves. Ifjuveniles grow quickly enough tolower their mortality risk in the ocean,but not so quickly that conditions infreshwater favor skipping the oceanstage altogether, they will smolt. Salmon are carried downstream by

the spring freshet during their juve-nile migration, and lower flows (result-ing from reduced snow accumulationover winter) typically lead to lowersmolt survival. Migration timing alsoplays an important role in smolt sur-vival, and will likely advance earlier inthe year with warmer, smaller and ear-lier spring flows. Ocean arrival timingprofoundly influences marine survival;however, it is not clear whetherchanges in ocean conditions will shiftthe optimal arrival time. In mid-elevation basins, peak flows

might shift from spring to winter, withpotential effects on egg survival,growth, and migration timing. Moreintense storms in fall and winter arelikely and would result in floods ofgreater magnitude and frequency dur-ing these seasons. These drivers areexpected to negatively influence fall-spawning salmon and trout. However,rainbow trout and steelhead might bebetter suited for this hydrologicalregime because they spawn after win-ter flooding. The effects on adultmigration might be population-specif-ic, with access to spawning areasdependent on migration timing that isappropriately matched to adequateflows for passing over physical barri-ers. In some cases, the current migra-tion timing might be less successfuldue to the new combination of thermalstress during migration, low flows, andwinter flooding. However, these conse-

quences are highly site specific.In sum, most projections indicate

that salmon habitat will decline withclimate changes anticipated during the21st century, although O. mykiss suf-fers less than other salmon becausethey spawn in the spring. Despite thisgeneral pattern of habitat declineacross salmon species, growth willlikely improve in some cases, such aswarming of relatively cool habitat.Similarly, streams with low flows tendto improve with projections ofincreased fall and winter rain,although these projections are uncer-tain. Negative effects of warming often

appear in summer and winter, whenconsumption cannot compensate forincreased metabolic demands.Reduced precipitation in summerexacerbates the risks posed byextremely low flows. Changes ingrowth rate also affect the timing ofvulnerability to predators such asbass, which are size selective. A specific analysis of vulnerability

for Pacific Northwest steelhead foundthat populations in the southern part ofthe region face greater threats fromtemperature, while those in the interi-or and northern parts will likely con-front substantial flow changes.Unfortunately, many populations thatalready face severe conservation chal-lenges also face the greatest threatsfrom climate change.

Anthropogenic Stressors

The direction of these impacts is sim-ilar to that of many anthropogeniceffects already confronted by salmonpopulations. Many habitat modifica-tions raise stream temperature,increase the intensity of flooding andreduce summer minimum flows. Lossof shading from riparian vegetationand interchange of flows between thechannel and subsurface flows, forexample, raise stream temperature.Water that transits through the groundis cooler and more consistent thanwater exposed directly to radiativeheating.Barriers, armoring, and incised chan-

nels all reduce connectivity betweenstreams and their floodplain, limitingthe natural ability to maintain diversestream habitats that would otherwise




provide refugia from high tempera-tures and flooding. Irrigation with-drawals exacerbate low flows, leavingsome streams completely dry in sum-mer.

Construction of dams and storagereservoirs for flow control and year-round power production has alteredboth the thermal and hydrologicalregime of regulated rivers. Theseeffects are similar to climate changeeffects in some cases, but opposite inothers. In the Columbia and SnakeRivers, freshets are much smaller andpeak earlier in the year than wouldoccur in a free-flowing river. Reservoirs typically increase sum-

mer temperatures by lengthening thetime for equilibration between waterand air temperature, and increasetransit time for smolts. However,some dams are managed to releasewater that is cooler in summer andwarmer in winter than a free flowingriver. Targeted releases of deep, coolwater from stratified reservoirs suchas Dworshak Reservoir in Idaho canlower temperatures in some reaches.These cases present opportunities formitigating some effects of climatechange.

Adapting to Climate Change:Plasticity and GeneticChange

In response to all of these environ-mental changes, organisms can altertheir exposure or sensitivity to unfa-vorable conditions by changing behav-ioral or physiological traits.Phenotypic traits, such as migrationtiming or thermal tolerance vary inhow “plastic” they are. Plastic traitschange systematically with environ-mental conditions within the lifetimeof an individual. This relationship iscalled a “reaction norm.” Highly plas-tic traits that have shifted quickly inresponse to recent climatic changesinclude age at juvenile migration,growth rate, size at age, seasonal tim-ing of adult migration and spawning,and fecundity. Evolutionary adaptation, on the other

hand, reflects selection acting on atrait, and occurs over generations.Thermal tolerance, for example, is

strongly genetically determined, andwill likely require strong selection inorder to change. Nonetheless, O.mykiss contains genetic variability forthis trait, as shown by rapid laboratoryselection of rainbow trout with greatlyenhanced heat tolerance. Similarly,developmental sensitivity to tempera-ture is generally considered to havelow plasticity, although exposure towarm temperatures during particulardevelopmental windows has beenshown to alter these responses in somefish. Like heat tolerance, developmen-tal responses in O. mykiss have adapt-ed locally to natural habitat hetero-geneity using genetic variation thatexists in many populations, and hencecould theoretically evolve in responseto climate change. In fact, many traits

involved with juvenile growth anddevelopment, age at smolting and ageat maturity have successfully adaptedin less than 30 generations to new habi-tat after Chinook salmon were intro-duced in the southern hemisphere.Although historically, genetic adapta-

tion to local environments clearly hasoccurred in nearly all traits, it is diffi-cult to predict rates of response tofuture climate change because of thecomplex selection landscape in thewild. Many traits are tied togetherphysiologically or temporally. Forexample, if you change migration tim-ing, the subsequent life stage may facea total different set of conditions. Ourpredictive ability is further hamperedbecause it is usually not possible toemploy standard methods for demon-strating evolutionary change inresponse to recent climate change insalmonids, because we cannot directlycompare modern and ancestral popula-tions under the same conditions, norcan we usually identify the parentage

of all individuals in a population.Nonetheless, some examples of genet-ic change have been shown in migra-tion timing. Serendipitously, several decades ago

researchers in Auke Bay, Alaskainserted molecular markers into thegenome of pink salmon to differentiatebetween early and late modes of a nat-urally migrating population. Onemarker specifically identified the latemigrants, while neutral markerstracked levels of genetic drift in thepopulation to separate natural selec-tion from random processes. Frequencies of these early vs. late

migration markers have been indepen-dently monitored for both odd- andeven-year populations of pink salmonsince the 1970s. In both populations,the late-migration mode disappearedin the early 1990s, coincident withsome unusually warm years in thestream. Loss of the molecular markerindicated that the entire late-migrantsegment of the population had disap-peared rather than their descendantshaving shifted to an earlier migration(a plastic response).

Migration timing, like most traits,incorporates both plastic and geneticcomponents. In the Columbia Riverbasin, steelhead, sockeye, and Chinooksalmon have also shifted their migra-tion timing since the 1950s. Most adultsockeye and spring/summer Chinooksalmon stocks migrate prior to warmsummer temperatures, and they nowmigrate earlier than in the 1950s.Conversely, many fall Chinook andsteelhead stocks migrate after sum-mer temperatures decrease, and theyhave shifted their migration date laterin the year. Both responses allow fishto avoid peak temperatures in themainstem, which now consistentlyhover over 20°C for much of the sum-mer. Later migration appears especially

advantageous for steelhead adultsbecause it reduces the bioenergeticcost of holding over the entire winter.This cost increases exponentially withtemperature, so a difference of even1°C in mean temperature entails lossof precious reserves that will not thenbe available for reproductive activity.In the Columbia River basin, theseshifts are likely a plastic response toenvironmental cues used by individu-




The complexities ofclimate change makeit difficult to predictthe rate of genetic

response to a changingenvironment.

als to modulate their behavior, at leastin part. However, evidence from ananalysis of sockeye salmon migrationsurvival suggests that selection mayhave acted on these populations aswell. Selection has acted by shifting the

reaction norm for migration timingover the past 60 years. Steelhead andother salmonids have been well servedby a combination of genetic and plasticresponses that have allowed them tooccupy diverse habitats and condi-tions. They can respond quickly tochanges in the environment, but natur-al selection refines the response overtime. Thus evolution and plasticity acttogether to shape the behaviors thatsupport anadromy in Pacific salmonand that allow them to respond to achanging world.However, populations must persist in

order to adapt. A primary concernregarding modern climate change isthat depressed populations may lacksufficient genetic variation to providethe raw material for rapid evolution.This would mean salmon populationsare closer to going extinct in responseto strong selection or chance eventssimply because they have a smallerstarting point. Thus, a process thatmight have eventually produced a bet-ter-adapted phenotype could die outbefore it has time to spread within oramong populations. Nonetheless, innatural populations, some traits havealready adapted in response to recentclimate change.

What Can We Do?

In summary, the major climaticchange to the freshwater environmentthat will impact steelhead in the com-ing decades is rising temperature.Risk of increased mortality is greatestin summer, but shifts in flow regimemay increase winter flows and stormintensities, resulting in decreasedsnowpack with an earlier springfreshet and lower minimum flows.

Despite the high adaptability andflexibility of steelhead, long historiesof salmon abundance from the paleo-logical record and historical documen-tation reveal large swings in popula-tion size over time. Not all of thesefluctuations are climate-driven, nor do

all populations respond similarly to agiven climate. Nonetheless, many ofthese swings do correlate with majorchanges in climate, from regime shiftsof the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to theLittle Ice Age. Generally, warmer cli-mates have been less favorable forsalmon, demonstrating limits in theability to compensate for climatechange. These impacts are similar in direc-

tion to many anthropogenic impactsalready confronted by salmon. On theplus side, the similarity betweenanthropogenic and climate changeimpacts provides an advantage:restoration to mitigate anthropogenicimpacts can also lessen many impactsof climate change. Tim Beechie and hiscolleagues have laid out a clear frame-work for conducting restoration to mit-igate for climate change. Their guide-lines for conservation prioritizerestoring natural processes that keepwaters cool and habitats diverse.Restoration of these processes willrequire maintenance of natural flowregimes, reconnection of streams withtheir floodplains, and expansion ofriparian vegetation. Like other salmon, adult steelhead

can be most vulnerable when they seekthermal refuge in deep pools or head-water tributaries. Fish hold in thesepools and are relatively easy to catchduring such periods. Even if releasedafter catch, steelhead and othersalmonids experience high rates ofmortality after handling. Thus, protec-tion of thermal refugia in general andfrom fishing in particular is a key com-ponent of preserving a successful sum-mer-run life cycle. Steelhead face many challenges in

the coming years as temperatures con-tinue to rise, stream flows change, andhumans demand more of limited fresh-water. The odds of persistence for thisspecies are enhanced by a natural abil-ity to adapt to variable environments.However, to foster this resilience, wemust ensure that populations remainabundant and that heterogeneous habi-tats remain accessible to the greatestextent possible.

Further reading

Beechie, T., H. Imaki, J. Greene, A.Wade, H. Wu, G. Pess, P. Roni, J.Kimball, J. Stanford, P. Kiffney, and N.Mantua. 2013. Restoring salmon habi-tat for a changing climate. RiverResearch and Applications 29:939-960.

Crozier, L. G., A. P. Hendry, P. W.Lawson, T. P. Quinn, N. J. Mantua, J.Battin, R. G. Shaw, and R. B. Huey.2008. Potential responses to climatechange in organisms with complex lifehistories: Evolution and plasticity inPacific salmon. EvolutionaryApplications 1:252-270.

Dalton, M. M., P. W. Mote, and A. K.Snover. 2013. Climate change in theNorthwest: Implications for our land-scapes, waters, and communities.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Katz, J., P. B. Moyle, R. M. Quinones, J.Israel, and S. Purdy. 2013. Impendingextinction of salmon, steelhead, andtrout (Salmonidae) in California.Environmental Biology of Fishes96:1169-1186.

NorWest. Regional Database andModeled Stream Temperatures.http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NorWeST.html.

Wade, A. A., T. J. Beechie, E.Fleishman, N. J. Mantua, H. Wu, J. S.Kimball, D. M. Stoms, and J. A.Stanford. 2013. Steelhead vulnerabilityto climate change in the PacificNorthwest. Journal of Applied Ecology50:1093-1104

Web Resources

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/4/8153_09302014_105020_Crozier-Lit-Rev-Climate-Change-BIOP-2013.pdf

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/index.cfm

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/wpg/ecosystem_processes/climate_change.cfm

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/jb-climate-scale-phys-varia.cfm














David Thomas is a member of theMcKenzie Flyfishers and for 60 years acommitted fly fisher, conservationistand nature photographer. Trained as apopulation biologist and biostatisti-cian, he taught at the University ofCalifornia and later was a researcherat NIH and in the pharmaceuticalindustry.

Arlen Thomason is ConservationChair for the McKenzie Flyfishers, andis an author, outdoor photographer, andlife-long fisherman. He trained as amolecular biologist and worked formany years in biomedical research.

You can learn more about theMcKenzie Flyfishers at: https://mcken-zieflyfishers.wordpress.com

The Willamette River origi-nates in the CascadeMountains and drains mostof northwest Oregon, join-ing the Columbia River near

Portland. The tributary rivers of theUpper Willamette River Basin (UWB)have supported a spring run ofChinook salmon (O.tshawytscha) sincelong before humans arrived. The stockis assumed to have evolved its earlyseasonal run timing in response to theneed to pass the Willamette Falls nearOregon City when there was sufficientflow. It has been estimated that in theNineteenth Century, Chinook escape-ment in the basin could have numbered275,000, with approximately 40%returning to spawn in the McKenzieRiver subbasin. Since then, the wildChinook population has decreased dra-matically, with only two of seven sub-basin populations still consideredviable. Of those two, the McKenzieRiver population is by far thestrongest, remaining the best hope forrecovery of UWB Chinook salmon, andit has been designated a “legacy” or“stronghold” population by fisherymanagers. That fact notwithstanding,the McKenzie Chinook population has

itself shrunk to an alarmingly smallsize, recently recording an all-timelow. The “last best hope” for savingUWB Chinook salmon from completeextinction is in serious danger. How wegot to this point and what is being doneor could be done to reverse this trendis the subject of the remainder of thisarticle. The usual suspects—habitat,harvest, hatcheries, and hydropower—all play their roles.The McKenzie River begins high in

the extensive lava field aquifer of thecentral Oregon Cascades and tumbleswest for 90 miles through a NationalWild and Scenic River corridor to itsconfluence with the Willamette River

near Springfield. The river drains abasin of 1,340 square miles and is fedby several major tributaries, mostnotably the South Fork, which is 30miles long and historically providedprime spawning habitat. Like the restof the basin, the McKenzie subbasinsaw substantial anthropogenic envi-ronmental (habitat) degradation dur-ing the late Nineteenth and earlyTwentieth centuries. By the late 1940s,an estimated 46,000 spring Chinookreturned to the McKenzie River. Partof this reduction was certainly due tohabitat degradation and waterremoval, particularly in the developedlower river. And though there is littleor no exact documentation of the ocean

and freshwater harvest in the lowerColumbia River during the early years,it’s known that those rates were oftenextremely high, requiring strict regu-lations to avoid extirpation of theentire Columbia River salmon run. Nevertheless, at that time it was pro-

posed that the McKenzie River couldpotentially still support up to 80,000spawning Chinook. However, between1942 and 1969, a series of dams wereconstructed in the Willamette Basin,creating barriers to substantial pro-portions of spawning habitat. Threedams were constructed on theMcKenzie River — Blue River Dam,Cougar Dam and Trail Bridge Dam —resulting in the loss of approximately22% of potential spawning habitat.

Along with the wild population ofMcKenzie Chinook salmon, the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW) or its precursors have main-tained a hatchery stocking program onthe river since 1907. Prior to WorldWar II the Chinook hatchery programfollowed a practice of blocking theentire salmon run in the lower river toallow the collection of eggs and milt.Today this practice would be consid-ered astounding; however at the time,fishery managers assumed that all fishof one species were essentially inter-changeable and could be replaced orreassigned as Man found it convenient.At the same time, hatcheries were con-sidered more efficient at producingfish equivalent to those spawned innature. Thus it was thought that hatch-ery spawning was a boon both to thefish and to those who benefited fromtheir harvest. Today we know differ-ently about the true effects of hatch-eries, a subject we will come back tobelow.

From 1945 to 1960 an average of18,000 returning Chinook on theMcKenzie River was observed, with ahigh of about 46,000. However the con-



McKenzie River Chinook Salmon:A Legacy Population in Peril

By Dave Thomas and Arlen Thomason— McKenzie Flyfishers —

The wild McKenzieRiver Chinook

population is the mostgenetically intact inthe Upper Willamette

River basin.

https://mckenzieflyfishers.wordpress.com

https://mckenzieflyfishers.wordpress.com

dition of the river changed substantial-ly with the initiation of the UpperWillamette Project managed by theArmy Corps of Engineers (COE). Thisproject was intended to provide floodcontrol, irrigation support, hydropow-er, and recreation opportunities in theWillamette Basin. The project ulti-mately resulted in the construction of13 dams, starting in 1942 and complet-ed in 1969. In the McKenzie River twodams, Blue River Dam on Blue River(1969) and Cougar Dam on the SouthFork McKenzie (1963), were construct-ed. In addition, Trail Bridge Dam(1963) blocked the mainstem of theriver for fish passage at river mile 82.The latter dam was constructed by alocal utility company and is intended toprovide power to the metropolitan areadownstream. The same utility alsoowns Leaburg Dam on the McKenzieRiver, three miles east of the town ofLeaburg. It was built in 1929 to divertwater from the river’s mainstem to ahydropower plant. The water is subse-quently returned to the river down-stream. As the dam is of low height andhas a functioning fish ladder it is notconsidered a serious impediment tofish passage. In total, these damsdenied fish passage to about 40 milesof potential Chinook spawning habitat.After dam construction was complet-

ed the number of naturally spawningChinook in the McKenzie River contin-

ued to decline from the post-WW IIbaseline. The estimate for 1990-2005was an average 2,104 wild Chinookreturning annually. Most of the blamefor the continuing decline has focusedon the dams. However, while there islittle doubt that the dams have con-tributed, they block access to onlyabout 20% of the potential spawninghabitat in the McKenzie basin, failingto completely explain the approxi-mately eight-fold decline in the wildsalmon population. Still, as dams werethe most visible change and very like-ly had some impact, they seem to havebecome the preferred culprit. As aresult, the COE and the State ofOregon agreed that as mitigation, thefederal government would supportMcKenzie Hatchery production ofabout 840,000 smolts, based on thenumber of returning salmon that thedammed rivers were assumed to haveotherwise contributed. The COE main-tains ownership of the hatchery, whichis managed under contract by ODFW.The number of Chinook smoltsreleased in the McKenzie River fromthis hatchery averaged about 1,200,000annually from 1990 to 2011, withODFW funding production of theexcess over 840,000.

Despite the concept that hatcheryoutput was intended to “supplement”the native spawning Chinook numbersin addition to mitigating lost anglingopportunity, there has been little or no

evidence of a positive effect on wildChinook salmon recovery. On the con-trary, the fishery science literaturehas increasingly demonstrated that inmost instances interaction betweenhatchery-origin and naturally-spawnedanadromous fish exert strong negativeeffects upon the wild fish population.As the evidence has accumulated,attention of the scientific and conser-vation communities has progressivelyturned to the likelihood that hatcheryoperations are a major contributor tothe demise of wild populations. (Arakiand Schmidt 2010) Such harmfuleffects were already well known by1999. In that year, as the number ofMcKenzie Chinook dropped below1,500 spawners, the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) listed the spring Chinooksalmon in the entire Upper WillametteBasin as threatened under theEndangered Species Act (ESA) anddesignated the spring Chinook salmonan Evolutionarily Significant Unit(ESU) of their species. Following list-ing, the agencies (in this case the COE,Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) andDepartment of Reclamation) responsi-ble for managing the species wererequired to provide a BiologicalAssessment (BA) of the status of thespecies, factors contributing to itsbeing threatened, and correctiveactions that will lead to the species’recovery. This document was preparedand sent to the section of NOAA thatoversees these issues, the NationalMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS),which has the authority to approveprograms or require changes it judgesas “prudent and necessary” to improvethe situation. Beyond the BA, a hatch-ery program that could harm the listedESU requires submission and approvalof a Hatchery Genetic ManagementPlan (HGMP) that defines the bound-aries of the program, and describesactions that will be taken to assure thatthere are no effects that are signifi-cantly detrimental to recovery of thewild stock. Further, NMFS regulationsrequire systematic monitoring of thestatus of the listed species or stocks sothat trends, positive or negative, canbe identified and the consequences ofactions determined. Thus COE submit-ted a BA and draft HGMP to NMFS forreview and comment. A program for




A wild spring Chinook salmon on spawning beds in the upper McKenzie River,Oregon. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

systematic monitoring of the status ofChinook salmon in the basin was put inplace and executed by ODFW undercontract with the COE.

The key issues specific to theMcKenzie River identified in the BAand subsequent responses from NMFSwere the following:

• Provide fish passage for Chinooksalmon at Cougar Dam to reestablishthe South Fork run.

• Modify the release of water from theproject dams to reduce impact uponspawning and rearing of salmon belowthe dams.

• Reduce genetic introgression (inter-breeding) between wild and hatcherystock. At that time the plan was to cap-ture all hatchery-origin fish that didnot return to the hatchery before theycould cross Leaburg Dam into theupper river, thereby creating a “wildfish sanctuary” for native spawnersabove the dam.

• Create a systematic monitoring pro-gram consistent with the ESA require-ments. This would include fin clipping,and later otolith marking to confirmwhether a fish was truly naturallyspawned even if it appeared not to beclipped.

• Based on new standards for reducingpotential impact of gene exchangebetween wild and hatchery stocks,increase the incorporation of wildspawners to about 20% of the brood-stock (i.e., create an “integrated”hatchery stock).

The various agencies’ responses tothese requirements were at bestmixed. Some progress was made insetting new standards for release ofwater from project dams, and a moni-toring program was initiated to trackthe status of native spawning Chinookand the numbers of hatchery fish thatescaped to spawn. However, there wasno tangible progress in establishingfish passage at Cougar Dam. Thenewly-implemented monitoring pro-gram documented that the level ofgenetic introgression continued to be

unacceptably high. The number of wildChinook continued a downward trend.On the administrative side, NMFS hadnot accepted the originally submittedBA, and there was no HGMP agreed toby all the participating parties.As a result of this lack of progress, in

2007 the Willamette Riverkeepers andthe Northwest Environmental DefenseCenter filed a complaint in federalcourt contending that the involved fed-eral agencies were in violation of theESA for not completing the requiredprogram documents or actuating theprograms. In early 2008, the agenciessettled the case, with NMFS agreeingto produce a Biological Opinion (BiOp)in response to the various drafts ofHGMPs; that the COE would proceedwith their Cougar passage project; andthe effort to reduce genetic introgres-sion by removing hatchery strays atLeaburg Dam was to proceed. Thisresulted in an Upper Willamette Basin2008 BiOp from NMFS which statedthe action items and timelines for com-pletion, and the COE produced a newBA because the prior document wasnow obsolete. Notably, the issues andtheir proposed solutions did notchange much from what had been dis-cussed during the previous 8 years,though the data accumulated over thistime reinforced the need for action.In 2011 NMFS and ODFW produced a

document entitled “Upper WillametteRiver Conservation and Recovery Planfor Chinook Salmon and Steelhead”(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/chinook_steelhead_upper-willametteriver.pdf), which generallycovered the requirements of the BiOpbut largely omitted firm time framesfor achieving these goals, or penaltiesfor failing to do so. During their prepa-ration of public comments on this doc-ument, the McKenzie Flyfishers andSteamboaters became concerned bythe lack of progress on implementingactions specified in either the 2008BiOp or the 2007 settlement agree-ment. For instance, while the BiOpstated that the percentage of hatcheryorigin spawners (pHOS) in theMcKenzie River should be < 10%, theobserved values consistently averagedaround 40% or more for the riverbelow Cougar Dam; and the major planfor reducing pHOS, involving installa-tion of a hatchery/wild fish sorter atLeaburg Dam, had been abandoned as

infeasible. Further, the dates set by the2008 BiOp for downstream passage offish spawning above Cougar Dam hadcome and gone; and the program forincorporating native spawned Chinookinto the hatchery broodstock was notbeing followed.Equally concerning was the lack of

any credible programmatic responseto a rapidly evolving scientific litera-ture demonstrating the surprisinglysevere impact of hatchery origin fishspawning in the wild, or to new molec-ular tools for monitoring these effectson natural populations. For example,recent papers have raised seriousquestions regarding the ability of“integrated” hatchery practices toavoid reduction in reproductive per-formance among wild spawners. (Seefor example, Chilcote, M. W., K. W.Goodson, and M. R. Falcy. 2011.“Reduced Recruitment Performancein Natural Populations of AnadromousSalmonids Associated with Hatchery-Reared Fish.” Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68 (3):511–22. doi:10.1139/F10-168.) One con-clusion that can be drawn from thisanalysis is that the effective popula-tion size (Ne) of naturally spawningsalmonids is substantially smaller thanthe total number of spawners. Thissubject warrants considerably moreanalysis but it should caution us thatjust counting redds and carcasses maysubstantially misstate what is going onin the rivers and mask issue whicharise from small breeding populations(e.g., inbreeding, allele loss and adap-tation to changing environments).(Allendorf, Luikart Aitken, 2013)Based upon the above information,

we concluded that continued high lev-els of genetic introgression couldthreaten the viability of the McKenzieRiver Chinook ESU regardless of priorassessments of this risk. Following dis-cussions with each of the agenciesinvolved in managing this fishery, andwith support from the WesternEnvironmental Law Center, inDecember 2013 the McKenzieFlyfishers and Steamboaters filed acomplaint in Federal Court allegingthat the COE and ODFW were in viola-tion of the ESA and its associatedadministrative requirements. Thecomplaint alleged that the agenciesoperated the McKenzie Hatchery for




http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/chinook_steelhead_upperwillametteriver.pdf



years without an approved HGMP;allowed a genetic introgression levelof at least four times the limit set byNMFS; and failed to establish fish pas-sage at Cougar Dam, despite therequirements set out in the 2008 BiOp.The plaintiffs asked for a summaryjudgment barring the release of morethan the number of Chinook smolts

needed for conservation purposes(reestablishing a spawning populationabove Cougar Dam) until there was anapproved HGMP defining the scope ofthe program. The matter was set for asettlement conference in June 2014.That process resulted in the COE andthe plaintiffs agreeing to an immediatethree-fold reduction in Chinook smoltsreleased into the McKenzie River, theCOE’s submission of an updatedHGMP for the McKenzie Hatchery toNMFS within 45 days, and their finaldecision on the program for fish pas-sage at Cougar Dam no later thanMarch 2015. However, ODFW refused to settle the

case and it ultimately went before afederal judge in Eugene, Oregon at ahearing on March 2, 2015. The judge’sruling, released on March 13, deniedthe plaintiffs’ request for summaryjudgment and injunctive relief, on thegrounds that there had been corre-spondence between ODFW and NMFSindicating that the latter foundODFW’s proposed program appropri-

ate, and thus ODFW was protectedfrom liability. Based on this reasoning,the court also accepted ODFW’s rightto release the 605,000 smolts that theywere proposing. This number effec-tively cuts the smolt release number inhalf from the historic program levels,and should have some positive effecton reducing genetic introgression.Importantly, however, the court alsoaffirmed, as did the court in the simi-

lar Sandy River Case, that the evi-dence accepted by all parties clearlyconfirms that genetic introgressionbetween hatchery origin and wild fishof the same species harms the latter.Further, the judge ruled that the targetset in the 2008 BiOp for the maximumacceptable genetic introgression, asmeasured by the pHOS proxy, must bemet in a reasonable time frame accept-able to the court. Specifically his orderstates that “…the defendants need tounderstand that this may not be kickeddown the road endlessly. Accordingly,the court intends to oversee thisprocess to ensure that the target is metin a realistic time frame.” The courtstated that its ruling in favor of ODFWis “contingent upon defendants con-sulting with NMFS to establish a timeframe for defendants to achieve a lessthan ten percent pHOS and submittinga proposal of the deadline to this courtfor approval. Defendants have ninetydays to submit the proposal to thecourt.”We are disappointed that the court

did not find ODFW liable for ESA vio-lations, but feel that the court’s findingthat genetic introgression is harmfulto endangered fish is an importantprecedent, with implications for manyissues involving anadromous fish. Weare also gratified that the court ismaintaining jurisdiction over thedevelopment of critical correctiveactions to the management of this fish-ery. At the same time, we observe thatthe COE has not yet announced a deci-sion on whether to complete a projectfor downstream fish passage atCougar Dam, despite the commitmentthey made in the 2014 settlementagreement. Also, ODFW recently sub-mitted its own HGMP for theMcKenzie Hatchery independent ofthe COE, even though COE owns thehatchery and has always been regard-ed as the agency primarily responsiblefor HGMP submissions. COE hasobjected to the approval of such a doc-ument, asserting that ODFW has nostanding in the process. We are cur-rently monitoring the situation.Today it’s generally agreed that, of

the various stocks of Chinook salmonin the Upper Willamette Basin, it’slikely that only the Clackamas andMcKenzie River stocks are sufficient-ly productive to avoid extirpation; andthat the McKenzie River population isthe most genetically intact and mostlikely to be the source of recovery ofthese iconic wild fish. Sadly, althoughthe conservation value of these fish isunquestioned, the escapement has con-tinued to drop over the past 12 yearsand in 2014 was at the lowest numberof natural spawners ever observed onthe McKenzie River.

Bibliography of Citations:

Araki, H., and C. Schmidt. 2010. IsHatchery Stocking a help or harm?Evidence, limitations and future direc-tions in ecological and genetic surveys.Aquaculture 308:S2-S11.

Allendorf, F.W., G. Luikart and S.N.Aitken. 2013. Conservation and the

Genetics of Populations, 2nd Ed.Willey-Blackwell, Chichester, U.K.(See Chapters 6-8 and 14-18).



Historical PerspectiveWillamette Spring Chinook

350,000300,000250,000200,000150,000100,00050,000

0

Number of Fish

1800s

1900

1910

19201930

19401950

1960

197019801990

2000

Decade

Natural Fish Hatchery Fish

Author Steve Jones is President ofClark-Skamania Flyfishers. Founded in1975, the group’s members are tirelessadvocates for wild fish, habitat andconservation on the lower ColumbiaRiver and its tributaries. To learn moreabout them, visit their website at:w w w . c l a r k - s k a m a n i a -flyfishers.org/index.html

Many are attracted to flyfishing in their searchfor a way to pursue afish without consumingit. To them, catch and

release makes sense. When your preyswims away to fight again, anglingbecomes a better way to enjoy a riveror a wilderness or an afternoon awayfrom the job. People become fly fisher-men when they realize that fly fishingis not about how to fish, it’s about howto be.

It’s about giving back to the lake,sharing what you know, picking upyour litter, fencing the cattle out of theriver, restoring the meandering tribu-tary, replanting the banks, conservingthe water, removing the invasivespecies, reestablishing the native fish.Without conservation, fly fishing risksbecoming quaint or merely pic-turesque. With conservation at its core,fly fishing can create an energetic com-munity of anglers like Clark-SkamaniaFlyfishers.The club was founded in 1975 by fish-

ermen concerned about the decliningquality of water and fishing on theWashougal River in Clark County,Washington and the Wind River inSkamania County to the east. Since itsfounding, the club has had a conserva-tion director among its regular offi-cers. Conservation directors, such asMark Heirigs today and past directorsCraig Lynch and Dennis Ward, work tokeep the club abreast of fisheriesissues. Today the club has 176 mem-bers and regularly draws about 100 tomonthly meetings where conservation

is a regular part of the discussion. It’salso a regular part of the action.On a weekday morning in December,

2014, about a dozen club membersmilled around offices of theWashington Department of Fish andWildlife Lewis River hatchery. Manyof them were regulars at this event.They sipped coffee and swapped sto-ries about recent outings and lousyweather. Ed Wickersham, a long-timeCSF member and past president,stepped out of the office to announcethey would be handling four bins ofsalmon carcasses that day, nearly

1,000 fish. All would be distributed inthe East Fork Lewis to the south. Aftertrucking the totes to the river, thework is done by hand. Using a pike, ahoe-like tool with a spike on the end, aclub member spears each fish and toss-es it into the water at various pointsalong the river. Decomposing carcass-es add nutrients to the river, whichprovide food for bacteria and insectsat the base of the aquatic food chainsteelhead need to thrive.Logged, burned, mined, over-fished

and over-developed, the East ForkLewis River has gone from a source oflegendary steelhead runs to a rivercrowded with hatchery plants andvague promises that one day thenatives would recover. By the 1990s,the native steelhead had dwindled toendangered status. In the mid 2000sCSF members began volunteering toplace hatchery carcasses in the EastFork to replace the biomass lost from



Wild Fish Victories on Washington’sEast Fork Lewis River

By Steve Jones— Clark-Skamania Flyfishers —

Conservation is thecore of flyfishing thatcreates an energeticcommunity of anglers.

Members of the Clark-Skamania Flyfishers place salmon carcasses along the EastFork Lewis River as part of the stream enrichment program. Photo by Steve Jones

http://www.clark-skamania-flyfishers.org/index.html

http://www.clark-skamania-flyfishers.org/index.html

native runs and give what nativesremained a source of nutrients. NowCSF members lead the effort, whichhas placed more than 10,000 carcassesin the East Fork so far this year.CSF also participated in a detailed

two-year evaluation of the East Forkthat resulted in its designation as oneof three gene bank tributary rivers ofthe lower Columbia River for winterand summer run steelhead. And earlierin 2014 when CSF members were alert-ed to a potential logging operation onprivate land adjacent to a popular EastFork campground, the club quicklyjoined Friends of the East Fork, a localenvironmental group, in an appeal toWashington State land use officials.Simultaneously, Friends of the EastFork began searching for a conserva-tion buyer for the tract. As land useofficials began uncovering problemswith the logging plan, the landownerchanged his mind about cutting andsold the land to a conservation buyer. And CSF is putting its money where

its mouth is too. The club has mademore than $8,000 in grants during thepast decade to conservation work onthe East Fork. It will join with others tohelp finance another East Fork restora-tion project in 2015. Money for such efforts comes from

the annual CSF Banquet. The club hasheld an annual fundraising banquet for38 years and in that time has raisedand donated more than $185,000 to con-servation and outreach efforts. Most ofthe club’s spending is focused on con-servation in Washington and the lowerColumbia River basin. CSF has used itscash to support like-minded environ-mental groups such as the GiffordPinchot Task Force in its fight to pre-vent mining on Green Mountain, in theheadwaters of the Lewis River. And tohelp introduce new generations to fish-ing and conservation the club has sup-ported the local Klineline Pond kidsfishing day since 2008 and the Salmonin the Classroom program since 2009.One of CSF’s most recent contribu-

tions to wild fish conservation was its$15,000 grant to the Columbia LandTrust for its effort to protect criticalbull-trout habitat on Pine Creek, aLewis River tributary. Those fundswere used by the land trust towardsthe purchase of more than 2,800 acresof forest and riparian land that, when

combined with a previous 2,330-acrepurchase, now protects nearly thecreek’s entire upper watershed.When you fly fish you come to appre-

ciate every day miracles. You can gothrough a run time and again with noresults and then be surprised with arambunctious big fish. Good fly fishersunderstand the better fly they tie, thebetter cast they present, the betterchance of a fish pulling tight on thatline. For a generation, members of CSFhave understood the better stewardswe become, the better environment wecreate, and the better we all are for it.


THE OSPREY OFFERS ELECTRONIC MAILING

Subscribers may now, at their option, receive The Osprey as a PDF fileattached to an e-mail.If you are an existing subscriber who would like to switch to e-mail deliv-

ery or a new subscriber for either printed or e-mail delivery, please completethe redesigned coupon on Page 19 and send it to the Federation of Fly Fisherswith your contribution to support The Osprey and the cause of recoveringwild steelhead and salmon. Effective immediately you also have the option of making a secure credit

card donation to support The Osprey and wild steelhead and salmon by goingto the following link: http://www.fedflyfishers.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4329. By either means, the steelhead and salmon will thank you for supporting

The Osprey.


Sorry about thatWe misidentified U.S.Congressman Jared Huffman inS. Craig Tucker’s article on theKlamath River dams in theJanuary 2015 issue of TheOsprey.

Congressman Huffman is aDemocrat who representsCalifornia’s 2nd District. Weapologize for the error.

Clark-Skamania Flyfishers contributed $15,000 to help the Columbia Land Trust pur-chase property along Pine Creek, an important tributary of the Lewis River. Photocourtesy Columbia Land Trust

www.columbialandtrust.org

http://www.fedflyfishers.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4329

THE OSPREY

PHONE

E-Mail

CITY/STATE/ZIP

NAME

I am a . . .

❏ Citizen Conservationist

❏ Commercial Outfitter/Guide

❏ Professional Natural Resources Mgr.

❏ Other

ADDRESS

Thanks For Your Support

The Osprey — Steelhead Committee International Federation of Fly Fishers

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

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

❏ Friend or fellow angler

❏ Fishing show

❏ Fly shop, lodge or guide

❏ Another publication.Which?

❏ Club or conservation group meeting

❏ Other

Yes, I will help protect wild steelhead

❏ $15 Basic Subscription

❏ $25 Dedicated Angler Level

❏ $50 For Future Generations of Anglers

❏ $100 If I Put Off Donating, My Fish

Might Not Return Home

❏ $ Other, Because

I Am a New Subscriber ❑

I Am An Existing Subscriber

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

Send My Copies by Standard Mail (Hardcopy) ❑ ❑


Chair’s Column, continued from page 3

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

Club entitled “Kindred Spirits” [orsome title very similar].

Recent reports of efforts on twofronts caught my attention as theyregard the thesis offered by “KindredSpirits”:

• Klamath Basin RestorationAgreement [KBRA]. KBRA wouldchange and share water distribution inthe Klamath Basin and set the stage forremoval of dams thus opening manymiles of habitat for migratory fish. It isofficial that Lower Klamath NationalWildlife Refuge, [founded during theTheodore Roosevelt presidency as thefirst refuge for migratory waterfowl],will receive no water this year. [Manywill recall the salmon kill of 2002 in theKlamath River. I have received a copyof the April 20, 2015 letter to threeCongress members (including mine)signed by numerous organizations andbusinesses urging Congressionalapproval of the (years in the making)agreement. These include: national &state fisheries and waterfowl advo-cates, Northern California Council ofthe IFFF, plus commercial fishinginterests & recreational fishing guideservices/shops. There were 37 signato-ries total.

• Theodore Roosevelt ConservationPartnership (TRCP) on the potentialsale of public lands. “WHAT’S ATSTAKE” “OUR LANDS FORSALE”“America’s 640 million acres offederal public lands – including ournational forests and Bureau of LandManagement lands – provide huntingand fishing opportunities to millions ofAmericans.

“Without these vast expanses ofprairie and sagebrush, foothills andtowering peaks, the traditions of hunt-ing and fishing as we have known themfor more than a century would be lost.

“Efforts are afoot across nineWestern states (Arizona, Colorado,Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,Oregon, Utah and Wyoming) to wrestpublic lands from the federal govern-ment and put them under state owner-ship.“States are simply not equipped to

shoulder the enormous costs associat-ed with fighting wildfires, maintainingroads and trails, treating noxious

weeds and conducting habitat restora-tion. “The transfer of federal lands to the

states would result in one likely out-come: the fire sale of these lands to thehighest bidder – billionaires and for-eign corporations who may neitherunderstand nor value America’s out-door heritage. Once privatized, theselands will become off limits to mostsportsmen in perpetuity.”

I posted a Facebook comment regard-ing the TRCP item similar to this: “IfHunters- Fishermen/Women-Environmentalists joined together, thecoalition would be unstoppable.” Thisis the core concept of the “KindredSpirits” article.To my surprise, a reply came from

TRCP pointing me to the “Partners”page of their website. The list includes

43 total organizations. Three on the listare ones to which I’m a Life Memberincluding the International Federationof Fly Fishers. Two more I’ve been anannual member for years. And anotherhalf dozen are organizations I feel anaffinity towards. Some of the organizations involved in

both cases have paid Washington DCstaff, permanent office headquartersalso staffed. While both lists of partners are truly

substantial, the number of “KindredSpirits” in my imagination is muchlarger. These two are examples theconcept is building. However, we’vestill got a ways to go to build theunstoppable coalition working and pro-tecting diverse environments. Theunstoppable coalition that naturallywould support wild salmon and steel-head!

THE OSPREY

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

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage Paid

PAIDBozeman, MTPermit No. 99

the osprey - jim yuskavitch · the osprey letters to the editor the osprey welcomes submissions and...

Documents