the osprey · 2017-03-02 · current issue of the osprey once again, the osprey contains arti-cles...

While we often hear that we are anover-regulated nation, the truth is thatthousands of miles of salmon and steel-head streams continue to be subjectedto contamination by hazardous pesti-cides, even though the National MarineFisheries Service has determined thatthe legal use of these pesticides jeopar-dizes the survival of multiple runs.

Author Sharon Selvaggio, HealthyWildlife and Water Program Directorfor the Northwest Center forAlternatives to Pesticides describesthe continuing threat that dangerouschemicals in our waterways pose towild fish and other aquatic life.

For more information about NCAPvisit their website atwww.pesticide.org.

Despite years of effort torecover endangered andthreatened Pacific salmonand steelhead, some of themost toxic pesticides still

legal in America continue to entertheir habitat. Common-sense efforts to

keep these pesticides out of streams,including stream buffers and forego-ing application when soils are saturat-ed, have been ordered by the foremostfish agency in the country — the

National Marine Fisheries Service —but the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has yet to act on theserecommendations.Pesticides are ubiquitous in our mod-

ern world, with nearly a billion poundsof pesticides applied each year in theU.S., the majority in agriculture.

Pesticides are designed to kill. Oncethese chemicals escape into thenation's rivers, they are nothing morethan poisons to both fish and humans. And escape into the waters they do.According to the U.S. GeologicalSurvey, which monitors surface watersnationwide as part of the NationalWater Quality Assessment Program(NAWQA), pesticides occur frequentlyat harmful levels in the nation’s riversand streams. Data gathered between2002-2011 show that:

�l in agricultural areas, more than 60%of sampled streams contained pesti-cides that exceeded at least one chron-ic aquatic-life benchmark, �l in urban areas 90% of streams con-tained pesticides exceeding at leastone chronic aquatic life benchmark.

In the Pacific Northwest andCalifornia, the unfortunate and unin-

SMSMSMSMSM

THE OSPREYA Journal Published by the Steelhead Committee

International Federation of Fly Fishers

Dedicated to the Preservation of Wild Steelhead • Issue No. 80 JANUARY 2015

SALMON ANDPESTICIDES

— PAGE 1 —

CHAIR’S CORNER:TRANSITIONS

— PAGE 3 —

MT. POLLEY MINE DISASTER

— PAGE 9 —

KLAMATH RIVERDAMS

— PAGE 13 —

HOOD RIVER RECOVERY

— PAGE 16 —

Continued on Page 4

Clean Water for Salmon:An Elusive Goal

by Sharon Selvaggio— Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides —

IN THISISSUE:

Pesticides are ubiquitous in our

modern world, withnearly a billion pounds

applied each year in the U.S.

http://www.pesticide.org

It isn’t news to wild fish advo-cates that clean water is anabsolutely crucial component ofhealthy aquatic ecosystems.We’re pretty good at keeping

our eye on water quality in the streamswhere wild fish swim and spawn. Weadvocate for closing roads in forestswhere they contribute to erosion andsedimentation, and for buffers off lim-its to loggers to protect riparian corri-dors (on that note, NOAA and the EPAhave just rejected Oregon’s loggingrules as inadequate for protecting fishand water quality — the only WestCoast state not to qualify).

And there are catastrophic eventsthat focus our attention because oftheir magnitude and immediateimpact, such as chemical spills or minepollution, such the Mount Polley Mine

disaster in British Columbia, detailedin this issue of The Osprey.But there is also a significant cause of

water pollution, perhaps even moreinsidious because it often “flies underthe radar” of wild fish advocates —pesticides that commonly end up in ourstreams. A difficult issue involvingcomplex chemicals and equally com-plex regulations, they are more widelyused than many of us realize. But asSharon Selvaggio, author of our coverstory on pesticides describes, even ifthey don’t often result in mass die-offsof fish that make the evening news,these contaminants can have seriouslydetrimental effects over the long-term.It’s a subject that wild fish advocateswould do well to learn more about andpay more attention.

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 Stan Young • Norm Ploss

William Atlas • Schuyler DunphyScott Hagen Contributors

Sharon Selvaggio • Norm PlossAaron Hill • S. Craig Tucker

Kate Conley

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 JANUARY 2015 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 80

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

What’s in the Water?

http://ospreysteelheadnews.blogspot.com/

http://www.ospreysteelhead.org/

mailto:[email protected]

Another chapter of theSteelhead Committeebegins with a new Chair.First things first, a bounti-ful thank you to Will Atlas

for the years he served as Chair. As ascientist, he added much to theCommittee. He’s now on a new journeyevolving his career but remains a val-ued member. At the same time Willjoined, the Committee was fortunate tohave other younger scientists and anenergetic shop owner and steelheadguide join the ranks.When the past Chairs asked if I would

serve, my reaction was to make sureeveryone understood my servicewould be transitional. More on futureCommittee plans below.

Personal Background

My first steelhead was caught onCalifornia’s Smith River in the 1970s.During that same period, Gloria and Imade several float trips on the lowerDeschutes. It was, however, in the1980s when my fly fishing for steel-head evolved on California’s Klamathand Trinity Rivers. Many great storiesand a long-term friendship still withone of the guides. Mac and I werecamped on the Klamath in 2002 at thefront end of the big salmon kill.Having also caught steelhead inOregon and Washington added to theappreciation. Fly fishing for silvers inAlaska on several trips rounds out thelarger fish with a fly. Much of myfavorite fishing includes golden troutin the high Sierras up to 12,000 feetand float tubing California and CentralOregon.

During the 1970s, with friends inSanta Cruz, California we formed“Save San Lorenzo Association” in partto oppose a small dam. Became a FFFmember and attended my first con-clave in Steamboat Springs, Coloradoin the mid 1970s. Around 2000, theConservation Chair of the NorthernCalifornia Council was looking for

someone to start a steelhead commit-tee. In doing that, I attended the nowdefunct Steelhead Summit Alliance inSeattle, and joined the FFF SteelheadCommittee as California rep. About thesame time I became an FFF LifeMember.

Work options were limited for adegree in International Relations andEconomics. And so during this sameperiod I studied Civil Engineering,becoming a Registered Civil Engineerin California in 1982. Went to work inlocal government ultimately for sever-

al cities, counties, and special districts.Covering many discipline areas, myfavorite has always been environmen-tal issues.After several decades in Santa Cruz,

Gloria and I moved to Bend, Oregon inspring 2013.

Committee into the future

Being closer to the Northwest waspart of the reason the past Chairs sug-gested I become Chair. With them, wecarried on a conversation over severalmonths. We generally agreed on con-tinuing and some new directions forthe Committee:

l The Osprey remains the crown jewelof the committee, publishing insightfularticles impacting migratory fish.

l Continue to participate in lawsuitsand even the threat thereof where wesee actions moving adversely to thefish. As always, this will be in conjunc-

tion with other organizations when wehave mutual values and interests in anissue.

l Activism, testimony, letters, etc. togovernment agencies in support of oropposition to various proposed actions.

l Prior to starting as Chair, we wereable to easily get clarification on thecurrent IFFF wild migratory fish poli-cies. The correct ones were recentlyreposted on the IFFF web site.

l Committee By-Laws: To insurefuture leaders of the Committee haveeasy access to understanding theworking of the Committee we willembark on memorializing theCommittee with ‘by-laws’ or ‘standardoperating procedures’ similar in formto those of the IFFF Board. Soundsdull, but it will save future and pastCommittee members from re-writingtheir thoughts on how the Committee operates as they did for me.

l Meetings: Our future meetings willbe more widespread. Three each year,Seattle, Portland, Bend.

l 2015 Meetings and Locations: May18, Portland. August during the FlyFishing Fair in Bend. December,Seattle.

l Participation during 2015 Fly FishingFair in Bend. We propose to have ourmeeting and at least one panel discus-sion/presentation. Any member of theIFFF with an interest in steelhead con-servation is welcome to become amember of the Committee.

Current Issue of The Osprey

Once again, the Osprey contains arti-cles by participants on the frontline ofconservation. Read and becomeinformed.

The Osprey remainsour “Crown Jewel,” publishing insightful articles impacting wildsteelhead and salmon.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 80 JANUARY 2015 3

Transitionsby Norm Ploss

— Chair, Steelhead Committee —

CHAIR’S CORNER

tended creatures at the receiving endinclude 17 runs of salmon and 11 runsof steelhead listed as endangered orthreatened under the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA). Fish and otheraquatic organisms are particularlyvulnerable to pesticide contaminationof water, since pesticides can be car-ried far downstream and aquaticorganisms are immersed throughouttheir lives.

What Harm Can Pesticides Causeto Fish or Their Prey?

While the intended effect for the pes-ticide application may be eliminatingfruit-boring insects in apples or pre-venting weeds in new fields of wheat,the toxicity inherent in pesticides(which includes herbicides as well asinsecticides, fungicides, rodenticides,and wood preservatives) can posedirect harm to non-target organisms.Even if aquatic areas are intentionallyavoided, runoff, leaching, and evenatmospheric deposition of pesticidesfrom use sites can carry repeateddoses of pesticides into streams. Fish and aquatic animals are exposed

to pesticides in three ways (1) dermal-ly, with direct absorption through theskin by swimming in pesticide-contam-inated waters, (2) through breathing,by direct uptake of pesticides throughthe gills during respiration, and (3)orally, by drinking pesticide-contami-nated water or feeding on pesticide-contaminated prey. Any of these routes of exposure can

cause direct mortality in short timeframes (acute toxicity). This is thekind of poisoning that occurs withspills, which sometimes results inlarge fish kills. Some of the mostacutely toxic pesticides to fish oraquatic invertebrates includeorganophosphate pesticides (such asdiazinon, malathion, and chlorpyrifos)and carbamate pesticides (such as car-baryl). These are nerve poisons andact by disrupting nervous signals inanimals. Pyrethroid chemicals arealso highly toxic to fish. Pyrethroidsmimic the mode of action of the plant-derived pesticide pyrethrin, but aremuch more toxic and persistent in theenvironment. They attach to soil parti-

cles and are washed into waterways onsediment. Thankfully, the majority of pesticide

contamination in salmon streams doesnot result in the immediate death offish. This does not mean, however, that

salmon and steelhead are safe frompesticide effects. Small "sublethal"doses of some pesticides can lead tochanges in behavior, weight loss,impaired reproduction, inability toavoid predators, and lowered toleranceto extreme temperatures. Indirecteffects can include changes in habitat,including a reduction in the abundanceof prey species. The overall conse-quences of sublethal doses of pesti-cides can be reduced adult survivaland lowered populations. This is arisky outcome, especially for popula-tions already depleted and stressed byother factors such as passage issues,warm temperatures, and presence ofexotic fish.

Is Our Government Doing its Jobto Keep the Water Clean?

It is the EPA’s responsibility toensure that pesticide use doesn’t harm

endangered species (see sidebar onpage 6). But unfortunately for salmonand steelhead, the EPA has failed thepublic trust. In fact, EPA only beganevaluating pesticide effects to listedPacific salmon and steelhead after

being sued in 2001 by a coalition ofenvironmental and fishing groups,including the Washington ToxicsCoalition, Northwest Center forAlternatives to Pesticides, PacificCoast Federation of Fishermen’sAssociations, and Institute forFisheries Resources.The suit focused solely on 54 broad-

spectrum and highly toxic pesticides,all of which had been found at levelshigher than EPA’s own “aquatic lifestandards” in rivers on the West Coast.These 54 compounds were toxic tomore than fish; many were document-ed as highly toxic to humans, bioaccu-mulative in human tissue, humanendocrine disrupters, and/or knowncarcinogens or mutagens. In 2002, the U.S. District Court ruled

for the salmon, ordering EPA to initi-ate the Endangered Species Act evalu-ation process. Interim no-spray


Salmon and PesticidesContinued from page 1

Continued on next page

While pesticide contamination of streams usually doesn’t result in immediate die-offsof fish, sub-lethal doses can result in numerous negative effects that lower their abil-ity to survive. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

buffers for the 54 chemicalsalong salmon-bearing streams(300 feet for aerial sprays, 60 feetfor ground sprays) were orderedby the Court in 2004, at least untilpermanent protection measurescould be devised through the con-sultation process.

The Consultation Results

EPA’s initial assessment deter-mined that 37 of the 54 pesticides“may effect” listed salmonids (aterm that includes both salmonand steelhead). These 37 pesti-cides were submitted to NMFSfor formal consultation under theESA.

Since 2008, NMFS has beenreleasing Biological Opinions(“Biops”) for these 37 activeingredients in a series of “batch”consultations (pesticides aregrouped where they have a com-mon mode of action). Of the 28pesticides reviewed in completedBiological Opinions so far, a dis-mal picture has emerged, withthe following results :

l 19 pesticides were determinedto pose jeopardy (likelihood ofextinction) to one or more salmonor steelhead runs

l 21 pesticides were determinedto pose adverse modification tothe critical habitat of one or moreruns

l The ESUs with the highest num-ber of jeopardy calls are Chinooksalmon (Sacramento River win-ter and Central Valley springruns) and steelhead (CentralValley California, CentralCalifornia Coast, and SouthernCalifornia runs).

Figure 1 (opposite) shows thenumber of jeopardy and adversemodification calls for each chem-ical that has so far completed theconsultation process. Figure 2shows the number of jeopardyand adverse modification calls byrun.


Continued from previous page


(upper bar)

(upper bar)

(lower bar)

(lower bar)

For each Biop with a jeopardy oradverse modification call, NMFS hasincluded mitigation measures knownas the Reasonable and PrudentAlternative (RPA) to prevent or miti-gate pesticide harm, as required (seesidebar). Interestingly, rather thanrecommend cancellation of these pes-ticides, these RPAs include more mod-erate measures such as:

�l Drift and runoff buffers�l Application limitations when windspeeds exceed 10 mph�l Application prohibitions when soilmoistures are already saturated or astorm event is likely in 48 hours fol-lowing the application�l Reporting of all incidents of fish mor-tality

After 12 years of Analysis andRegulation, Aren’t Salmon BetterProtected Now?

A citizen might expect that EPAwould have followed the recommenda-tions from NMFS, as the law requires.In fact, EPA has NOT used its powerunder FIFRA to implement the RPAsor equivalent measures. This not onlybodes ill for salmonids but throws intoquestion the whole meaning and pur-pose of federal endangered specieslaw.Much to the disappointment of the

coalition of groups involved in the liti-gation, the buffers that were mandatedwhile EPA completed the consultationprocess were eliminated once theBiological Opinions were complete.The buffers were eliminated, eventhough the logical conclusion of theBiological Opinions — implementationof permanent protective measures asoutlined in the RPAs — was neveracted on by EPA.

In addition, the process hasunleashed pushback from the chemicalindustry. The first Biop was chal-lenged in court by Dow Chemical, andhas been remanded to the NMFS forre-evaluation.Other pushback has been in the form

of proposed waivers from pesticidereview in Congressional legislation.

For instance, in 2011, one version ofthe federal Farm Bill included a provi-sion that would have prevented theEPA from taking actions to protectendangered species from harmful pes-ticides under the ESA, without the vol-untary agreement of pesticide manu-facturers. The same Farm Bill draftalso included a clause that would haveeliminated Clean Water Act protec-tions as they apply to pesticides.

The Good News

Thankfully, environmental and fish-ing groups have been monitoring the

EPA and Congress and working steadi-ly to uphold sensible pesticide policy. For example, the Northwest Center

for Alternatives to Pesticides andother groups, including the NorthernCalifornia Council of the InternationalFederation of Fly Fishers, noticedEPA’s lack of action on the RPAs, andfiled a complaint in federal court(through environmental law firmEarthjustice) asserting that this lackof action and the remand of the firstorganophosphate Biop amounted toillegal take of listed salmonids. Thisaction resulted in a settlement agree-



Continued from previous pageA SHORT PRIMER ON LAWS GOVERNING PESTICIDES

AND ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION

FIFRA — The Law governing pesticide approvals in the US

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to assess humanand environmental safety factors prior to approval of pesticides under theregulations pertaining to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and RodenticideAct (FIFRA) and other guidelines pertaining to pesticides.

The Endangered Species Act Requires Agencies to Evaluate their Actions

Like other Federal agencies, EPA is required to determine whether itsactions, including decisions on pesticide registrations, may affect specieslisted as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. (ESA).Agencies are required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) [together known as“the Services”] to allow the fish and wildlife agencies to independently con-sider other agencies’ actions. Agencies can forego consultation with the Services when the agency deter-

mines “No Effect” to a listed species, however the definition of this isextremely narrow. Agencies are required to initiate consultation when theiranalyses conclude that their actions are “likely to adversely affect” listedspecies. Agencies must also consult with the Services when they concludethat an action is “not likely to adversely affect” due to situations wheneffects on listed species are expected to be discountable, insignificant, orcompletely beneficial. Under any determination that doesn’t result is a “No Effect”, the Services

are required to concur with this call in writing. This serves as an importantcheck by agency biologists who are familiar with the rare species at hand,and provides consistency in ESA administration and enforcement across avariety of scenarios.Consultations with the Services conclude when the Services, in a written

Biological Opinion, determine whether a Federal action may pose “jeopardy”to a listed species, or “adverse modification” of its critical habitat, if desig-nated, with an explanation of their reasoning.When the Services find jeopardy or adverse modification to a species stem-

ming from a federal action, they identify, in the Biological Opinion, reason-able and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to avoid such effects. In the case of thepesticide Biops, the RPAs are those actions that can be implemented by EPAin a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the registration and thatthe Services believe would prevent jeopardy to listed species or destructionor adverse modification of critical habitat.

ment in 2014, which reinstates thebuffers where chlorpyrifos, diazinon,malathion, carbaryl, and methomyl areused adjacent to salmon-supportingwaters. These reinstated buffers willbe in place until permanent protectivemeasures are established (or unlessthe new consultation process deter-mines no adverse effect).

Fighting back against chemicalindustry influence in the Farm Bill, thePacific Coast Federation ofFishermen’s Associations submittedtestimony warning that inclusion ofthese waivers would allow corpora-tions a de facto veto over a federalenvironmental law and would substan-tially change existing laws “to elevatefinancial considerations above envi-ronmental protections… makingfuture species recovery that muchmore difficult for other industries,including farming.” The letter alsopointed out that environmental protec-tions for rivers and estuaries help pro-tect fishing industry jobs and benefitthe multi-billion dollar fishing indus-try. This monitoring paid off; the billpassed without the damaging inclu-sions. Other good news is that, since 2001,

eight chemicals that were a part of theset of 37 pesticides submitted for con-sultation have been wholly cancelled,and an additional eight chemicals havehad some uses cancelled or restricted.Most of these cancellations andrestrictions have occurred in theorganophosphate group, a particularlyhazardous group of pesticides. Whilesome of these actions have occurreddue to farmworker or drinking waterconcerns, salmonids benefit from thecancellations.

In Oregon, some members of thestate Legislature are signaling theirdesire to move ahead in 2015 with a billto increase buffer zones betweenspraying areas and drinking water andto increase the notification require-ments for nearby residents. Thisaction follows on the widely reportedincidents of overspray of rural resi-dents and their water sources lastyear, involving some of the same com-pounds that NMFS analyzed in theirbiological opinions, such as 2,4-D andtriclopyr. Also in Oregon, a task force appoint-

ed by Governor John Kitzhaber recent-ly recommended reactivation of thestate’s pesticide use reporting system(which has been defunded since 2009).This system helps facilitate betterunderstanding of pesticide use andassists with logical, sensible approach-es for mitigating use risks.

What’s Next for Salmonids andPesticides?

Under request by NMFS, EPA, andother federal agencies, the NationalAcademy of Sciences (NAS) conveneda committee to review the scientificand technical issues related to deter-mining risks posed to listed species bypesticides. The salmonid issue is notthe only driver for this; EPA has beenhit by a number of lawsuits related toits inadequate assessment of endan-gered species in its pesticide registra-tions. In April 2013, the NASCommittee published their review ofthe risk assessment process and pro-vided recommendations to EPA andthe Services. A major conclusion of the committee

was that the Services and EPA need acommon approach to risk assessment.Heartening to endangered species pro-ponents, the NAS panel urged relianceon probability models in evaluatingpotential effects on threatened andendangered species, rather than the“risk quotient” approach EPA uses inthe rest of its registration program. In the short run, EPA will prepare a

new biological evaluation on theeffects of three organophosphate pes-ticides (chlorpyrifos, diazinon, andmalathion) to ALL listed speciesnationwide. A separate evaluation willaddress two carbamate pesticides(carbaryl and methomyl). These bio-logical evaluations are expected to beprepared over the next 12-24 months,with formal consultation with theServices (as needed) to follow.

What You Can Do

Ultimately, the process has revealedthat it is foolhardy to assume that pes-ticide use in accordance with currentpesticide labeling is sufficient to avoidimpacts to listed species, includinglisted salmonids. Over the long run,eliminating use of toxic pesticides,using them in ways that are proven to

minimize impacts, and/or adoption ofalternative, less-toxic means to man-age pest problems will most protectsalmon from toxic runoff.

The Northwest Center forAlternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) andits partner organizations continue towatchdog the federal and state agen-cies and Congress on pesticide issues,and to advocate for effective pesticideregulation for protection of both com-munity and environmental health.NCAP works with farmers andresearchers to develop alternatives tothe pesticides that are affectingsalmon populations. Please refer to ourwebsite at http://www.pesticide.org formore information.Consumers, farmers, and fish advo-

cates can contribute to this work inmany ways.

1) Practice low-impact approaches andseek alternatives to pesticides on yourown properties as much as possible.

2) Support organic agriculture in yourfood buying habits.

3) Observe the legally mandatedbuffers adjacent to salmon-supportingwaters (60 feet for ground applica-tions, 300 feet for aerial applications)if you do apply chlorpyrifos, diazinon,malathion, carbaryl, and methomyl.See the Salmon Mapper athttp://www2.epa.gov/endangered-species/salmon-mapper

4) Even if salmonids aren’t in yourlocal water body, utilize effectivebuffers around streams, rivers, wet-lands, and ditches to avoid the likeli-hood of pesticides reaching salmonstreams.

5) Engage with the issues by joiningNCAP’s advocacy efforts. During pub-lic comment periods on federal actionslend your voice to the process by pro-viding comments to the EPA,Congress, your associates, or themedia. NCAP posts actions you cantake on our website at www.pesti-cide.org - check regularly for opportu-nities to take action. Join NCAP’semail list. Please contact us for ques-tions you may have about this work.



See page 8 for a discussion on waterquality monitoring.

http://www2.epa.gov/endangered-species/salmon-mapper

http://www2.epa.gov/endangered-species/salmon-mapper

Water Quality Monitoring: The Promise and Limitations

By Sharon Selvaggio

Water quality monitoring is a good way to evaluate expo-sure but cannot be relied upon as a definitive answer aboutwhether and how much salmonids or their prey are exposedto pesticide contaminants. Within the range of Pacificsalmonids, pesticides in surface water are monitored by avariety of federal and state agencies, counties and tribes.While water quality monitoring efforts provide an importantclue to the exposure of salmonids to pesticides, monitoringdata and interpretation is subject to some important limita-tions.

1) Most pesticides are not monitored. Only a fraction ofregistered active ingredients are included in surface watermonitoring efforts. Approximately 1,100 active ingredients(the key toxic ingredient in pesticides) are registered in theU.S. Yet, the U.S. Geological Survey National WaterQuality Assessment (NAWQA) program tests for a maxi-mum of 128 active ingredients and 57 degradation products(degradation products can be equally or more toxic than theparent pesticide). In Washington, state-led monitoring in2013 in selected salmon streams included analysis of 174pesticides (including 34 degradates).

2) Enforceable standards don’t exist for most pesticides. To be useful, monitoring results need to be compared to knownstandards of risk. However, only a tiny number of registered active ingredients are subject to enforceable Clean WaterAct standards. Many of the others have (non-enforceable) “aquatic life benchmarks” designated, but even these onlycover a fraction of the registered pesticides. Of the pesticides and degradates analyzed by NAWQA, less than 80 chemi-cals are linked to one or more chronic aquatic-life benchmarks.

3) Even the best monitoring is only a limited snapshot of actual exposure. Water quality monitoring is expensive, withlaboratory costs ranging from $500-$1,000 per sample, depending upon what is analyzed. This doesn’t include the cost ofsample collection, transport, or sampling design. To effectively speak to the actual presence of harmful chemicals, anadequate number of sampling locations needs to be selected, and these sites monitored frequently enough to capture thefull range of exposure that may be occurring.

4) The EPA does not regulate pesticide mixtures in waters. Salmon encounter “chemical soups” in most streams;NAWQA results indicate that pesticides usually occur as mixtures. The EPA acknowledges in its own documents the pos-sibility that low-level exposures to multiple chemical substances toxic by a common mechanism could lead to the sameadverse health effect as would a higher level of exposure to any of the substances individually. This is known as addi-tive or synergistic effect. For example, streams that contain detectable levels of different organophosphates (such asmalathion and chlorpyrifos) should be assessed for the combination of effects, not just separate effects from each chem-ical, because these pesticides both interfere with nerve impulses in the same way. In such situations (which are com-mon), comparisons to single-compound benchmarks may tend to underestimate the potential for adverse effects forsome sites.

5) Uncertainty in risk benchmarks. Water-quality benchmarks are estimates of the concentrations below which adverseeffects on humans or aquatic life are not expected to occur. For some benchmarks, there is substantial uncertainty inunderlying estimates of no-effect levels, depending on the methods used to derive them and the quantity and types oftoxicity information on which they are based.

In short, monitoring efforts are helpful, and useful in understanding trends over time, or for understanding spatial dif-ferences over large scales, but (unless very intensive sampling is underway) may be of limited use in truly understand-ing exposures in defined locations and times.


Water quality monitoring by a variety of government agencieshelps determine the degree of exposure by pesticides tosalmonids. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

On August 4, 2014, a dam at the MountPolley Mine in British Columbiabreached, sending contaminated waterinto habitat that provides spawningand rearing habitat for Fraser Riversockeye salmon. Author Aaron Hilldescribes the disaster and its potentiallong-term impacts on wild salmonruns. Aaron Hill is the ExecutiveDirector of the Watershed WatchSalmon Society, a BC-based non-profitthat works to protect wild salmon andtheir habitats. Find out more about theSociety at:www.watershed-watch.org.

The memories of epic eventsoften never leave us.Whether it’s somethingbeautiful, like the birth of achild, or something horri-

ble, like a violent atrocity, you remem-ber where you were, who you werewith, and what you were doing at thatcrystallizing moment. That is why Ithink I will always remember standingon my sister’s deck on the afternoon ofAugust 4, 2014, across the highwayfrom the Skeena River, having a bar-beque with a handful of family andfriends, when I first heard about theMount Polley Mine disaster, and weswarmed around the small screen onmy father’s phone to watch the aerialfootage of the devastation.

The Mount Polley open-pit copperand gold mine looms over Polley Lakein the forested hills west of QuesnelLake—a monarch of a lake shaped likea sideways “Y” that spans 81 kilome-ters from east to west, straddling thedivide between British Columbia’sinterior plateau and the CaribooMountains. Quesnel Lake is especiallypretty, and pretty special. It is thedeepest fjord-type lake in the world; sodeep that its maximum depth of 511meters (1,677 feet) was only recentlymeasured. It drains into the QuesnelRiver, which in turn feeds the mightyFraser. Quesnel Lake produces a lot of

salmon, and most famously, sockeyesalmon.

Quesnel sockeye are “cyclical”,meaning that every four years, on the“dominant” year, they come back inbig numbers, followed by the “sub-dominant” year, and then two “off-cycle” years. Annual returns of 10 mil-lion sockeye to Quesnel Lake were notunusual in the late 1800s, until placermining during the Cariboo gold rush(including a short-lived dam at the lakeoutlet that blocked fish passage), theinfamous 1914 landslide that blockedthe Fraser River at Hell’s Gate, indus-trial fishing pressure, and other insults

conspired against them. But over thepast few decades, Quesnel sockeyecame back to once again become amajor contributor to the Fraser Riversockeye aggregate. Following a col-lapse of the dominant cycle in 2009—along with most other Fraser sockeyestocks that year—there was a massivereturn of the so-called sub-dominantcycle in 2010. Their progeny returnedstrong again in 2014 with preliminaryestimates that over 800,000 of thesefish—three times the previous genera-tion—swam back to spawn in the fall-out of one of the biggest mining disas-ters in history, where their offspringwill spend their first year of life. In the wee hours of August 4, 2014,

just two weeks shy of the expectedpeak of the Quesnel sockeye run, a sec-

tion of the Mt. Polley Mine’s 35 meter(115 foot) earthen dam—essentially agiant berm—gave way and let loose 25million cubic meters of wastewaterand mining sludge from the foursquare kilometer tailings impound-ment. The torrent hit Hazeltine Creekjust below where it drains Polley Lake,raising Polley Lake’s surface by 1.5meters (4.9 feet), while HazeltineCreek—a small, forested stream youcan nearly jump across—became araging river of muddy destruction,hurling trees and earth and everythingin its path into Quesnel Lake, 8 kmdownstream. It was still going strongwhen the sun came up and it didn’t sub-side for four days. Luckily, no one was killed. But the

disaster ruined local tourism operatorsfor the season, and maybe longer.Secwepemc Nation (aboriginal) fisher-men who were harvesting the bonanzaof Quesnel sockeye pulled their netsfrom the water over fears that the fishswimming through the polluted waterwould be toxic. "The timing of it is cat-astrophic for our people,” Chief AnneLouie of the Williams Lake band toldthe Canadian Press. “Right now, every-body would be preparing their fish forthe winter, but that has not been done."

Dozens of miners were put out ofwork, and Imperial Metals’ share pricefell by half, where it remains. Theentire area was put under a State ofEmergency, and local residents weretold not to drink the water. PremierChristy Clark and her Mines Ministerflew into the town of Likely a few dayslater wearing jeans and rolled-up shirtsleeves for the TV cameras. BillBennett managed to fan the flames thatwere already threatening to engulf histenure as BC’s Mines Minister when hecompared the catastrophe to a naturallandslide and said that while it wassurely “a mining disaster,” it didn’tqualify as an “environmental disaster.”(He quickly retreated to safe ground,


On August 4, 2014,Mt. Polley Mine’s

earthen dam gave wayletting loose 25 millioncubic meters of sludge

and wastewater.


Mount Polley Mine DisasterThreatens Fraser River Sockeye

By Aaron Hill— Watershed Watch Salmon Society —

http://www.watershed-watch.org

henceforth simply referring to theevent as “a disaster”.) Within days,three separate investigations werelaunched: One by the province’s ChiefInspector of Mines, a multi-agencycriminal investigation being led by theConservation Officer Service, and anindependent review panel featuringthree eminent geotechnical experts. Hazeltine Creek is now a muddy, greyswath of wasteland, over 50 meterswide: a moonscape. And Quesnel Lakeand river, which are usually crystalclear in the winter, remain an eerieglacial green owing to the vast sedi-ment load from the ultra fine mine tail-ings still suspended in the lake and stillflowing on into the Fraser. While thewater generally meets minimum stan-dards for safe drinking, governmentwater quality testing in Quesnel Lakenear the mouth of Hazeltine Creek thisfall showed levels of chromium, cobalt,copper, iron, silver, vanadium, and zincthat exceeded official standards foraquatic life. In Hazeltine Creek itself,the list grew to include arsenic, man-ganese, mercury, nickel, thallium, andtitanium. Copper is particularly badfor aquatic life. There’s a reason it isthe active ingredient in anti-foulingbottom paint for boats in places wherethe deadly copper-based paints havenot yet been outlawed. Heavy expo-sure will kill fish outright, but thereare serious sub-lethal effects at lowerlevels. Exposing fish to dissolved cop-per, and some of these other metals, isknown to impair their sense of smell,making them more susceptible topredators. It also stunts their growth,and impairs their migration behaviors,their reproduction, and their immunesystems. Lakeside residents who used to drink

their tap water, and know how crystal-clear the murky water should be, arestill drinking the bottled water beingsupplied to them by Imperial Metals.According to a recent article in theWilliams Lake Tribune, the only filterscapable of removing the ultra finemine tailings from the lake water wereplugging up after only two days of use.A local fishing lodge operator, SkeedBrokowski, told the newspaper hedoesn’t open his mouth in the showeranymore. The future of Quesnel sockeye and

the other fish rearing in the Lake andRiver is as murky as the unseasonablygreen metals-laden water they’re nowliving in. Aside from any resident fishtrying to survive in the utter devasta-tion of Polley Lake and HazeltineCreek, things may be the worst for thejuvenile sockeye rearing in QuesnelLake. Federal fisheries scientistsreported that the large return of adultQuesnel sockeye had very high spawn-ing success (98%) relative to the long-term average (84%). Luckily, Mt.Polley wasn’t an acid-draining mineand sediment transport modelling sug-gests that the concentration of metals-

laden sediments in the water columnwill be declining over the next fewmonths. But researchers from theUniversity of Northern BC’s QuesnelRiver Research Centre (QRRC) track-ing the sediment plume throughout thelake since the very day of the disasterfigure that a substantial proportion ofthe sediment load settled out onto thebottom of the lake during the summerand fall before winter temperaturesspurred the annual mixing of the lake’sthermal layers. Most of the toxic met-als are bound to the sediments andbecause of Quesnel Lake’s extremedepth, everyone is hoping that thosesediments will stay on the bottom,below the limits of where the lake’s

water is thought to mix. However, oneof North America’s top limnologists,Dr. Jack Stanford of the University ofMontana, worries that metals couldleach back into the water over time.Citing past research on Quesnel andsimilar lakes, he told WatershedWatch: “Laval et al. showed that upwelling

from the deep layers of Quesnel Lakeoften dramatically cools the riverbelow the lake. So the mine wasteswith the toxic sediments will go to thebottom, no doubt, but if the bottomwaters become the least bit hypoxicthe metals will go into solution and flux

into the water column by these advect-ed intrusions and upwell into the light-ed zones where they will bioaccumu-late and/or chronically inhibit produc-tivity, as apparently occurs in Coeurd’Alene Lake in Idaho, which hasreceived acidic mine wastes for yearsand where the USA is spending billionson cleanup of mine wastes. I would betthat the Horsefly [River] spawners [atributary of Quesnel Lake] will swimright through the initial plume, unlessit is toxic at the surface, and that thereal impacts are months and yearsfrom now as the [sockeye] juvenilestry to mature in the lake.”




Debris torrent remnants float across Quesnel Lake. Photos courtesy Quesnel RiverResearch Centre, University of Northern BC.

So now it’s mostly a waiting game.Dozens of scientists from various uni-versities, government agencies, FirstNations, and the mining company areinvolved in monitoring the effects ofthe disaster on various parts of thereceiving ecosystem, and the resultswill trickle out over the comingmonths and years. Imperial Metalswas made to produce a mitigation plan,which was eventually accepted by theProvince, and which they are nowimplementing—slowly. They seem tobe doing what they reasonably can tostabilize the toxic muds that constitutethe wasteland formerly known asHazeltine Creek’s riparian area, beforethe snow melts this spring, and thecreek swells and rages over the metal-lic sludge. And it won’t change the factthat a vast proportion of the spilledsediment is already settling out intoQuesnel Lake, along the shores of theQuesnel River, the Fraser River, and inthe Salish Sea. Sure, the company mustdo what mitigation they can, but weshouldn’t pretend that it will amount toanything more than a few drops in abucket that can not be unspilled. The important thing now is to under-

stand what exactly happened, why ithappened, who was responsible, andhow we can make sure nothing like thishappens again. A few weeks after the catastrophe, I

was visiting some friends when theirneighbor stopped by. He is a retiredmining engineer who spent most of hiscareer overseeing the developmentand operation of big mines all over theworld, including some here in BC.After a couple of beers I asked thisgruff but earnest expert what hethought had happened at Mt. Polley.

“It’s obvious what happened”, hesaid. “They filled it up too full and itbust open.” We’ll probably find out soon; perhaps

by the time you’ve read this. Theexpert panel’s report is due by January31. But we already know that themine’s foreman in charge of the tail-ings facility quit his job in June, justtwo months before the disaster, afterworking there for seven years, partlybecause he was fed up with manage-ment’s negligent attitude toward thetailings impoundment. Two days afterthe dam burst, he had this to say to

Global News:“They needed to put in five million

tonnes [of rock] around the dam,because they added, once they went toa bigger mine life, they added fivetimes the amount of water. That damwas never designed to hold five timesthat amount of water. Five milliontonnes, well we got maybe a couplehundred thousand. And that’s it, in twoyears. I’d had enough.”We also know that in 2011, following

the appearance of a 10 meter-longcrack in the dam the year before, theengineering company that originallydesigned the dam walked away frombeing the facility’s Engineer of Recordand provided this written warning tothe mining company: “The embank-ments and the overall tailings

impoundment are getting large and itis extremely important that they bemonitored, constructed, and operatedproperly to prevent problems in thefuture.” And we know that just three months

before the disaster, the tailingsimpoundment was found to be danger-ously close to overflowing, and thecompany was ordered to lower it,which they did.Most importantly, we know that this

disaster happened in the wake of adecade and a half of deregulation andfunding cuts to the provincial and fed-eral government authorities chargedwith ensuring toxic wastes don’t maketheir way into our rivers, lakes, andoceans. We know that the frequency ofgovernment geotechnical inspectionsat BC mines declined substantiallyover the past 14 years, with the num-ber of engineers on staff droppingfrom five in 2000, to just one from 2004to 2011. I could go on. If there is an upside to any of this, it

is likely to be found in the furiousattention from First Nations and thegeneral public that this disaster hasfocused on the impacts of mining tolands and waters, the consequences ofgovernment deregulation of the min-ing sector, and the current govern-ment’s penchant for saying “yes” tojust about any mining proposal that theindustry puts forward. Back in May 2014, The Osprey ran an

excellent overview of the onslaught ofmining activity and other developmentin the transboundary watersheds run-ning from BC into Southeast Alaska, byChris Zimmer of Rivers WithoutBorders. Two of the several mines hediscussed—Red Chris and Kerr-Sulpherets-Mitchell (KSM)—are worthtalking about here.

The same company that runs theMount Polley mine, Imperial Metals, isalso building the Red Chris mine onTodagin Mountain near Iskut, BC.Among other things it will destroy oneof the most productive stone sheephabitats in the world, and turn a pris-tine lake into a tailings dump. Word isthat when the company was trying tosell the Tahltan First Nation on the pro-ject, they told them that the tailingspond at Red Chris would be modelledafter the one at Mt. Polley. Shortlyafter the disaster a courageous groupof Tahltan patriots known as theKlabona Keepers blockaded the RedChris access road for two weeks, earn-ing a personal visit from the companypresident and the Mines Minister. Thestandoff ended when the companycommitted to an immediate third-partyreview of the mine’s design. Thereview found 22 issues with the designof the tailings dam that Imperial hasmore or less agreed to address beforebeginning production. The report alsonoted that if the dam at Red Chris col-lapsed, the ensuing devastation wouldeclipse that at Mt. Polley.

The KSM mine is an even biggermonster. Situated 30 km from theAlaskan border, it straddles the head-waters of the Unuk River, which flowswest into Alaska’s Misty FiordsNational Monument, and the headwa-ters of the Bell-Irving River, a majorfish-bearing tributary of the NassRiver, which is BC’s third largestsalmon producer after the Fraser andSkeena. KSM is believed to hold the




Three months beforethe disaster, the

tailings impoundmentwas found to be dangerously overflowing.

largest undeveloped copper and goldreserves of any mine in the world. Itwould feature three open pits, one ofwhich would be the deepest in theworld, and two tailings impoundmentswith earthen dams like Mt. Polley,except at 218 m and 239 m these oneswould stand nine times higher. Bycomparison, Hoover Dam is 221 mhigh, but made out of concrete. KSMwould also generate billions of tonnesof acid-generating waste rock and thetailings would need to be treated inperpetuity. Following the Mt. Polleydisaster, environmental groups, fisher-men, and First Nations in SoutheastAlaska re-raised the alarm about howCanada runs its mines in the trans-boundary watersheds. Alaska senatorsMark Begich (D) and Lisa Murkowski(R) even called on US Secretary ofState John Kerry to ask for a more rig-orous review of the proposed KSMmine by Canadian authorities. ButKSM had already been approved bythe rabidly pro-mining provincial gov-ernment in July 2014 and some of theaffected First Nations on the Canadianside were already on board with theproject. Despite efforts by theGitanyow Nation and conservationgroups like SkeenaWild ConservationTrust and Rivers Without Borders, andour Alaskan allies, KSM was quietlyapproved by the feds over the recentChristmas break. Unless the opposi-tion to this mine increases dramatical-ly, or the junior mining company thatowns it is unable to attract enoughinvestment to build it, this one lookslikely to go ahead. So what was all that about a silver lin-

ing? A few days after the disaster,news media reported that theNeskonlith—a member group of theSecwepemc Nation, based 200 km fromMt. Polley, near Kamloops—barredImperial Metals from conducting anyfurther exploratory work for a pro-posed lead and zinc mine in Neskonlithtraditional territory. According to CBCNews, Chief Judy Wilson issued aneviction notice in person at the compa-ny’s Vancouver headquarters, saying:“We don’t want them in the watershedabove our communities here.” Thatwatershed happens to be the AdamsRiver, BC’s biggest sockeye producer.

Looking 200 km southwest of Mt.

Polley, it is hard not to beoptimistic that the politicalfallout from the disaster willhelp put the final nail in thecoffin of the beleagueredNew Prosperity mine pro-posal. Teztan Biny (a.k.a.Fish Lake) is a sacred placefor the Tsilhqot’in peopleand home to tens of thou-sands of rainbow trout.Taseko Mines wanted to turnthe whole lake into a tailingspond. The Tsilhqot’in Nationand their allies have fiercelyopposed the project, anddespite approval and lobby-ing from BC’s provincialgovernment, the project wasrejected by the federalEnvironment Minister. Arevised proposal was alsorejected by the feds lastyear. The new proposalwould have reduced theimpact on Fish Lake but stillwould have had substantialimpacts to fish, water, andwildlife, with grossly inade-quate mitigation measures,according to a review thatWatershed Watch’s CraigOrr co-authored for theTsilqot’in NationalGovernment (TNG). Whilethe company was busy suingthe federal government fornot adequately consideringtheir latest proposal, theTNG unilaterally declared the minearea to be part of a new tribal park, afew months after they won a historicSupreme Court decision recognizingtheir title to over 1,700 square kilome-ters of land elsewhere in their tradi-tional territory.It’s too early to know just how bad the

Mt. Polley disaster was for salmon andresident fish in the Quesnel system, butwe’ll be watching closely as the sea-sons turn and the data come in. Butthose mine wastes are now in the waterand they’re not coming back out,except to flow downstream. So whilewe’re waiting to hear more about theimpacts, we will also be taking a closelook at those various investigationsinto the cause of the disaster as theycome out. This will present an impor-tant opportunity for First Nations andconservation advocates in BC, Canada,

and beyond, to begin reeling in thisrisky industry and their governmentbackers, and to provide a little morehope for water and fish. If you want tohelp, write to your local elected repre-sentative, tell him or her why they cannot allow another Mt. Polley to everhappen in your province or state.Remind them what is at stake. Andkeep at it. You can also support thepeople and organizations who havemade it their job to fight for yourwaterways and fish populations, bydonating money, by getting in touch tosee how you can get involved, or both.If you want to help support indepen-

dent monitoring of the Quesnel systemin the wake of the Mt. Polley disaster,Watershed Watch recommends givingto the Quesnel River Research Centreat http://www.unbc.ca/quesnel-river-research-centre.



Hazeltine Creek in October 2008 before the mine dis-aster (top) and in October 2014, (above) after thedam breach. Photos courtesy Quesnel RiverResearch Centre, University of Northern BC.

http://www.unbc.ca/quesnel-river-research-centre

http://www.unbc.ca/quesnel-river-research-centre

Author S. Craig Tucker updates us onthe current state of negotiations, poli-tics and strategies for removing thefour dams on the Klamath River to ben-efit wild salmon and steelhead. Tuckeris Natural Resources Policy Advocatefor the Yurok Tribe, one of the fiveNative American Tribes, along with theYurok, Shasta, Hoopa and Klamaththat traditionally lived along theKlamath River, and for whom the riverand its salmon are culturally and eco-nomically important. For more infor-mation on the Karuk Tribe visit theirweb site at: www.karuk.us

For those keeping a watchfuleye on the Klamath River,the 113th Congress’ lameduck session was quite thenail biter. A broad coalition

of Native American tribes, conserva-tion, fishing, and farming groups havebeen pressing Congress since 2010 topass legislation aimed at implementinga set of agreements that would lead tothe removal of the lower four KlamathRiver dams, fairly balance water usebetween the environment and agricul-ture, improve irrigation infrastruc-ture, and restore fisheries habitat allacross the basin. The needed legisla-tion was championed by Oregon’sDemocratic senators Ron Wyden andJeff Merkley, with support fromCalifornia Senators Diane Feinsteinand Barbara Boxer, both Democrats.Oregon Congressman Jared Huffman,Republican, championed the bill in theHouse. The senators worked to includethe Klamath legislation in one of theomnibus bills in early December butOregon congressmen Republican GregWalden blocked the bill language in theHouse, leaving Klamath communitieswith a lump of coal in their holidaystockings. However, some think thatCongressman Walden’s stance may besoftening in the wake of broadeningsupport for the Agreements from his

conservative base.But before we get to that, let’s

remember why the Klamath is soimportant.

The Klamath River watershed ismassive. About the size of Maryland,the Klamath Basin encompasses over12,000 square miles. Stretching fromthe peaks of the Cascades in southeast-ern Oregon to the foggy, fern riddledredwood forests of California’s NorthCoast, the Klamath is one of the mostecologically unique, economically pro-ductive, and culturally diverse water-sheds in America.

The Klamath hosts an array ofanadromous and resident fish. Before

the era of dam building, springChinook were the largest run of fish onthe Klamath. With much of their habi-tat blocked by dams, the Klamath onlymanages to sustain a small vestigialrun of springers. Fall Chinook are thedominant run today, attracting sports-men and commercial anglers to theregion. Prized particularly by tribalcommunities are the Pacific lamprey,which make their way into theKlamath in late winter or early spring.Winter steelhead and green sturgeonalso call the Klamath home as well asresident suckers or c’wam, residenttrout, and river mussels. Coho salmonare federally listed as threatenedunder the Endangered Species Act, asare the Klamath’s Lost River suckers.

With large runs of fish come largenumbers of anglers. Some are lookingfor the unique experience of landing afierce winter steelhead while othersare out to make a living in pursuit ofKlamath River salmon stocks offshore.Tribes fish both commercially and cer-emonially with different tribes havingdifferent fishing styles. This influx offishermen brings millions in touristdollars to the region. Klamath salmontravel thousands of miles in the ocean,which means the economic benefits ofthe Klamath fishery is not limited tothe Klamath Basin. The offshoreKlamath Management Zone stretchesfrom Coos Bay, Oregon to MontereyBay, California. This means that thehealth of the Klamath dictates howmany salmon can and can’t be harvest-ed along a large portion of the WestCoast, affecting the economy of manycoastal fishing communities.Another feature of the Klamath, and

maybe its most important, is thediverse communities of people whocall the basin home. Even beforeEuropeans arrived, the Klamath basinwas culturally diverse. Tribes in thebasin fall into at least three radicallydistinct language groups and each hasits own unique history and culturalpractices. Today, the Yurok, Karuk,and Klamath Tribes of Oregon still livealong the Klamath River and fish itswaters. As the United States sought to “devel-op” the arid lands of the West, theBureau of Reclamation built theKlamath Irrigation Project in south-eastern Oregon, draining wetlands andcarving irrigation canals in the land-scape. These lands were homesteadedby veterans of World Wars I and II,who were promised an ample supply ofwater from Upper Klamath Lake togrow crops and their own communi-ties. Upstream of Upper KlamathLake, in the sub-basins that form the



The Campaign to Remove FourKlamath River Dams Continues

By S. Craig Tucker— Karuk Tribe —

Fishing communitiesfocused their activismat PacifiCorp and initiated discussionswith the irrigation

community.

www.karuk.us

Klamath’s headwaters, other indepen-dently minded ranchers cleared theland to grow cattle and hay which gen-erated still more conflict with theKlamath Tribes.In the 20th century, a private utility,

the California Oregon Power Companybuilt a complex of hydropower dams inthe middle Klamath Region. Today thatcompany is called PacifiCorp and islargely owned by billionaire investorWarren Buffett. Although these damsprovide no irrigation diversions, theydo disrupt natural flows, block fish pas-sage, and degrade water quality, thusexacerbating the impacts of irrigatedagriculture on fisheries.

Although the Klamath’s conflict ofcultures began when Europeans begancolonizing the area 150 years ago,many would say that in many ways theconflict reached its zenith in 2001 and2002. Just a few years after cohosalmon and Lost River suckers whereput on the Endangered Species List, adrought led federal agencies to curtailwater deliveries to the KlamathIrrigation Project. This shortage ofirrigation water led some farm andranching families to economic ruin andmany others to civil disobedience.With US Marshalls looking on, protest-ing farmers temporarily took over theirrigation headgates at the Klamath ACanal and turned on the water.Although this action was more symbol-ic than practical, the protest put agreat amount of political pressure onthe Bush administration. In 2002, withthe basin still caught in the strangle-hold of drought, water was this timediverted to farms and ranches over theprotest of Klamath River tribes. Thatfall an estimated 68,000 salmon diedbefore spawning in what has beencalled the largest adult fish kill in UShistory. This time it was tribes, fisher-men, and environmentalists that tookto the streets.Over the next few years, the irriga-

tion and fishing communities tradedbarbs in the media and filed numerouslawsuits. In the midst of the debateover water diversions, PacifiCorp’slicense to operate their Klamathhydropower dams, which have nothingto do with irrigation diversions,expired. Although at first blush thismay appear to be bad timing, in actual-

ity the timing could not have been bet-ter. For decades, the major storyline inthe Klamath had focused solely on irri-gation diversions largely becausethere is little opportunity to affectchanges to dam operations betweenlicense renewals. It’s common for alicense to operate a private hydropow-er dam to last 30 to 50 years, so whenone expires it creates a once-in-a-life-time opportunity to make majorchanges in how a river is managed.In the case of the Klamath, the reli-

censing process set the table for mean-ingful negotiations between warringparties. With neither irrigation com-munities nor fishing communities win-ning decisive legal victories and com-munities wearying of the constantacrimonious fight between neighbors,everyone was primed for a differentapproach.As relicensing started, tribes, fisher-

men, and conservation groups quicklyfigured out that a golden opportunitywas before them. It was becomingincreasingly clear that these particu-lar dams were modest power produc-ers at best and that in order to get anew license PacifiCorp would likely berequired to install fish ladders and mit-igate their significant water qualityimpacts. Thus, when the cost of reli-censing was compared to the value ofthe electricity the dams could produce,it became clear that dam removalwould likely be cheaper than getting a

new license. It’s a lot like trying to getyour old jalopy to pass an emissionstest. Are you really going to invest in acatalytic converter for that ’74 Buickor are you trading it in for a Prius?Tribes, fishermen, and conservationgroups resolved to collectively con-vince PacifiCorp that it was time forthe Prius.As fishing communities increasingly

focused their activism (and litigation)at PacifiCorp, it afforded leaders fromthese communities to initiate meaning-ful discussions with leaders from theirrigation community. Parties to thesediscussions called a cease-fire fromlawsuits and press releases andinstead resolved to work together on astrategic plan to resolve their differ-ences. The groups relied heavily ontechnical analyses and sophisticatedhydrologic modeling to develop possi-ble resolutions to the water-sharingproblem. At the same time, tribes andtheir allies were putting pressure onPacifiCorp to consider dam removalwith protests, direct action, and litiga-tion.Long story short: after five years of

difficult negotiation, the fishing and theirrigation community associated withthe Klamath Irrigation Project devel-oped a joint plan to fairly share waterresources, invest in habitat restora-tion, and improve irrigation infra-structure. However, this agreement




The uppermost Klamath River dam slated for removal is the J.C. Boyle Dam, locatednear Klamath Falls, in Oregon. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

hinged on PacifiCorp agreeing to termsfor dam removal in a separate yet con-nected agreement. With fishing andirrigation communities now forming acoalition bent on solving the Klamathcrisis, PacifiCorp came to the table andthe dam removal agreement was soonforged. Both agreements were signedin a large ceremony in Salem, Oregonin 2010. The Agreements describe rules for

determining water allocations for agri-culture, the river, Upper Klamath Lakeand the wildlife refuges. One featureof the Agreements is the enlargementof Upper Klamath Lake to more close-ly resemble its original size thusadding 97,000 acre feet of storage tothe water equation. In addition, theAgreements call for the lower fourKlamath dams to be removed in 2020.The habitat restoration and irrigation

improvements laid out the inAgreements would be funded with fed-eral dollars (approximately $18 milliona year for 15 years) and dam removalfunded by PacifiCorp ratepayers(cheaper than relicensing the dams)and a California Water bond.PacifiCorp has already collected near-ly half of the $200 million it committedto dam removal and the Californiawater bond that just passed addsanother $250 million. This $450 milliontotal far exceeds dam removal costestimates in the environmental impactreport released by the Department ofInterior last year.However, the newly forged biparti-

san Klamath Coalition was a victim ofbad timing. As the Agreements werebeing signed, the national economywas starting to melt down. That fall,Tea Party conservatives won enoughseats in the House of Representativesto strangle any bills seeking to appro-priate money. The Klamath Coalition continued to

organize support for the legislationdespite the setbacks. Then in 2012,another wild card was dealt. Afternearly 40 years of percolating throughthe courts, a judge issued a determina-tion in the Klamath adjudication,awarding the rights to much of thewater in the Upper Klamath Basin tothe Klamath Tribes. Although theKlamath Tribes’ position was that theKlamath Agreements would go further

to restore fisheries than a water rightsadjudication, Congress appearedunwilling to help solve the Klamathcrisis by enacting the Agreements.Thus, the Klamath Tribes had littlealternative to using their right to shutoff water to farms in 2013, leaving100,000 cattle high and dry.Particularly hard hit by this were inde-pendent irrigators upstream of theKlamath Irrigation Project. These irri-gators drew water from theWilliamson, Sprague, and Wood Riversystems which are the Klamath’s trueheadwaters.The water shut-off led the Oregon

congressional delegation to call for aCongressional Task Force to addressthe conflict. The Task Force, made up

of representatives of many of the par-ties to the Klamath Agreements,trimmed the budget for implementingthe Agreements and laid out the basicstructure for a third Agreement, thisone between the Klamath tribes andirrigators upstream of Upper KlamathLake. Thus, early in 2014, the UpperKlamath Basin ComprehensiveAgreement (UKBA) was signed. TheUKBA allowed the Klamath Tribes tosee their water needs met in a way thatwas flexible enough to keep irrigatedagriculture in the Upper Basin eco-nomically viable. This Agreement alsohinges on the implementation of theother two Klamath Agreements includ-ing provisions for dam removal.With remarkably broad support from

the bottom of the basin to the top, fromthe political far left to the far right,approval from congress was in thebag! Well…not exactly. Despite a flurryof last minute organizing and a show ofsupport from traditionally conserva-tive groups such as the Oregon FarmBureau and Cattlemen’s Association,Congressmen Walden still killed the

bill. Walden cited local opposition to dam

removal from some corners ofKlamath County, Oregon and SiskiyouCounty, California. But the factremains that communities with themost at stake in the Klamath havedeveloped a solution to the crisis thatmeets their collective needs to surviveeconomically and culturally.However, just days after the 113th

Congress ended its session,Congressman Walden offered somecause for optimism. In a speaking tourin Klamath County, he appearedimpressed by the reversal of some ofconstituents to now support theAgreements. Walden said in an inter-view with Klamath Falls TV stationKOBI reporter Lyle Ahrens that he’snot in favor of dam removal, but“we’re taking a second look at thatbecause of all of the issues that are atplay with no real alternative on thetable.” The change in position by local lead-

ers came slowly as many of the facts ofthe Agreements were made clear andthe risks of doing nothing were becom-ing better understood. Those of us inthe lower Klamath Basin understandthat conservative lawmakers have ageneral distaste for dam removal. Butthese dams in particular are not worthsaving: they are poor power producers,they divert no irrigation water, andeven their owner is supportive of theirremoval under terms of the KlamathAgreements. Additionally, no federaldollars will be used to remove them.

What is clear is that the fate ofKlamath communities is inCongressman Greg Walden’s hands.He is now a prominent leader of theRepublican controlled House. Many ofhis constituents could face severe eco-nomic hardships if the drought per-sists another year and the Klamathtribes have to once again exercisetheir senior water rights, thus curtail-ing irrigation diversions. He canensure his constituents avoid this dis-aster by passing the Agreements thatKlamath communities worked so hardto develop. For more information see www.kla-

mathrestoration.gov and www.kla-mathriver.org



With broad supportthroughout the basin,Congressional approvalfor the Agreement was a sure thing. Well, not quite.

www.klamathriver.org

www.klamathriver.org

www.klamathrestoration.gov

www.klamathrestoration.gov

Author Kate Conley is EastsideStewardship Lead for the ColumbiaLand Trust, which is heavily involvedin restoring the Hood River. Founded in1990, Columbia Land Trust conservesand cares for the vital lands, watersand wildlife of the Columbia Riverregion. The nonprofit has 3,000 mem-bers and has conserved more than30,000 acres of land in 14 countiesaround the Columbia River, from theJohn Day River near The Dalles,Oregon, to the Pacific Ocean. ColumbiaLand Trust has earned accreditationfrom the Land Trust Alliance, whichrecognizes those land trusts thatadhere to national standards for excel-lence, uphold public trust with rigorousethical standards, and take steps toensure that conservation efforts arepermanent. For more informationabout the organization visit their web-site at: www.columbialandtrust.org.

The Powerdale Dam onOregon’s Hood River camedown in 2010 without exces-sive fanfare. Tucked awaybehind private orchards,

diverting water without backing up alarge reservoir, the dam remainedunfamiliar to many in the Hood Rivervalley for nearly 90 years. But thosewho know the Hood River and its fish—the anglers, the biologists, the irriga-tors who rely on the same water thatsupports threatened fish species—know that the dam’s removal wasmomentous. Dam removal concludeda planning process that had seemedinterminable at times and kicked off anew phase in watershed management. The Hood River flows north, carrying

glacial melt down Mount Hood’s slopesthrough evergreen forests, throughacres of apple and pear orchards, andfinally through the city of Hood River,where the Hood meets the ColumbiaRiver. Flowing in line with the crest ofthe Cascades, the Hood River marksthe Cascade Mountains divide between

rainy westside and arid eastside. Thisunique transition zone supports adiversity of flora and fauna and haslong attracted human use, includingintensive logging and agriculture inthe early days of Euro-American set-tlement. “The geographical featuresof the Hood River watershed coupledwith past and current land use prac-tices provide a unique suite of contem-porary environmental parameters forfish. Probably no other Oregon water-shed of comparable size offers such awide range of habitat diversity as wellas anthropogenic influences,” explainsPhilip Simpson, fisheries researcherwith Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife (ODFW).

In terms of fish species, the HoodRiver is “likely the most diverse in thestate” according to Rod French,District Fish Biologist with ODFW.Salmonid species endemic to the HoodRiver include steelhead (winter andsummer runs), resident rainbow trout,Chinook salmon (spring and fall runs),coho salmon, resident cutthroat trout,sea-run cutthroat, bull trout, andmountain whitefish. Pacific lampreyare also among the anadromousspecies that spawn in the Hood River. Though hard data are lacking, histor-

ical fish runs were “certainly largerand healthier than today” according toFrench. Timber harvest, splashdamming, road development, andwater diversions for irrigation and

power generation all compromised fishhabitat in the early 1900s and in somecases continue to stress the systemtoday.

Powerdale Dam was built in 1923.With a 6,000 watt capacity, it was thelargest single power unit in Oregon atthe time. Electrification of rural areaswas unusual in the 1920s but localdemand was high due to the economicimportance of apple orchards in theHood River Valley. Electricity gaveHood River’s agricultural production afurther boost, leading to more irriga-tion pumping stations and theirinevitable impact on stream flows. The Powerdale Dam was a run-of-

river project at river mile 4.2 consist-ing of a concrete diversion dam 206feet long and 10 feet high. The damdiverted water into an above-groundpipeline that carried the water approx-imately 3.5 miles downstream to apowerhouse. Early fish ladders werepoorly designed and ineffective. Eventhe latest ladder completed preventedpassage for lamprey. For otherspecies, inadequate downstreamscreening was the most significantproblem. In the early days, fish weresucked into the diversion and passeddown to the powerhouse. In lateryears, various screening upgradesremained problematic. In addition tocompromising fish passage, thePowerdale project dewatered thereach from the dam to the powerhouse.With lower flows, pollutants were con-centrated, habitat was reduced, andfish migrations were delayed.After decades of declining fish runs,

hatchery supplementation in the HoodRiver began in the 1950s with steel-head and rainbow trout releases. Bythe 1970s, the native Hood Riverspring Chinook run was extirpated,and spring Chinook hatchery releasesbegan in the 1980s. “Some limitedcoho salmon and cutthroat trout hatch-ery augmentation was also experi-



With Powerdale Dam Removed, Hood RiverHabitat and Fish Making Comeback

By Kate Conley— Columbia Land Trust —

In terms of the numberof species of fish, theHood River likely hasthe most diversity in

the state.

www.columbialandtrust.org

mented with in the 1970s” says French.The Endangered Species Act (ESA)listings brought a new focus to fish-eries management in the 1990s. Bulltrout and the Lower Columbia DistinctPopulation Segment of steelhead,Chinook and coho are all listed asThreatened under the ESA.

In the Hood River basin, fisheriesmanagement is a joint responsibility ofthe Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife and the Confederated Tribesof Warm Springs (Tribes, for short).The Tribes hold federally-reservedfishing rights in the Columbia River

and the Hood River watershed, arisingfrom an 1855 treaty. ODFW and theTribes jointly implement the HoodRiver Production Program, funded bythe Bonneville Power Administration.Program goals include:• Establish a naturally self-sustainingspring Chinook salmon populationusing Deschutes River stock;• Rebuild naturally self-sustainingruns of summer and winter steelhead;• Maintain genetic characteristics ofwild anadromous populations;• Restore degraded fish habitat;• Contribute to tribal and non-tribalfisheries and ocean fisheries; and

• Monitor and evaluate program effec-tiveness.

Despite its many detriments, thePowerdale Dam provided a unique toolfor fisheries management. As Frenchexplains, a trapping facility at the fishladder “provided a place to capture allmigratory fish at a location low in thebasin to collect hatchery broodstock,count returning fish, and selectivelyallow fish to escape to upstreamspawning areas…. Due to the trap anddam’s unique ability to act as aresearch site, several significant stud-ies were published based on the inter-actions between hatchery and wildfish. In fact, removal of the dam was

actually delayed a couple of years soongoing research could be completedat the dam.”

The long process leading to damremoval began in 2003, when damoperator PacifiCorp decided to decom-mission the Powerdale HydroelectricProject rather than make the costlyupgrades that would be required torelicense the project through theFederal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC). Extensive flooddamage in November 2006 took theproject out of commission earlier thanplanned. Although power generationceased, another three years passed

before the dam and most of the associ-ated features were demolished in 2010.

Once the infrastructure wasremoved, the river channel wasredesigned to maintain water depthand prevent impassable jumps. By2011, results of hydrology monitoringindicated that the re-graded reach ofthe river had recovered to naturalslopes and channel morphology andwould maintain fish passage over a fullrange of flows. Riverbed materialsshifted naturally to form a mid-chan-nel bar just downstream of the formerdam site.

In accordance with FERC rules,decommissioning involved the devel-opment of a Settlement Agreementamong PacifiCorp and various stake-holders (National Marine FisheriesService, US Fish and Wildlife Service,ODFW, Oregon Water ResourcesDepartment, the Tribes, AmericanRivers, and the Hood River WatershedGroup). The stakeholders not onlydecided who would own the 400 acresof PacifiCorp’s Powerdale lands in thefuture, they also created aConservation Easement to controlfuture management of the property.

In 2013, Columbia Land Trustassumed ownership of approximately300 acres of the former PowerdaleHydroelectric Project lands and HoodRiver County acquired the remaining100 acres. Both owners are legallybound by a Conservation Easement tomanage the Powerdale lands with fourgoals in mind:• Goal 1: Protect the existing fish andwildlife habitat while allowing forhabitat restoration and enhancement;• Goal 2: Retain existing recreationaluses;• Goal 3: Allow for expanded recre-ational and educational opportunities,provided those are consistent withGoal 1; and• Goal 4: Acknowledge and preservethe right of Confederated Tribes ofWarm Springs tribal members to exer-cise their Treaty-secured off reserva-tion fishing rights on the Powerdalelands.Columbia Land Trust’s growing pres-

ence in the Hood River watershed hasimplications for future conservationon private lands in the basin. In fact,Columbia Land Trust and a privatelandowner on the East Fork Hood


The Hood River flows free where the Powerdale Dam once stood. Photo by PalomaAyala Vela



River soon will be signing a new con-servation easement to protect a 180-acre property that includes forestedriparian land and prime spawninghabitat. The Land Trust’s role is just one part

of the ongoing efforts to restore theHood River’s habitats and hydrologicprocesses. The Hood River WatershedGroup has served as the hub forrestoration planning and implementa-tion since 1993. At a recent WatershedGroup meeting, members presentedsome of their 2014 accomplishments.One project in 2014 involved heli-copter placement of large woodydebris into Lake Branch, a tributary tothe West Fork Hood River. LakeBranch provides spawning and rearinghabitat for ESA-listed summer steel-head, spring Chinook, and non-listedresident rainbow trout but has beenseverely impacted by past loggingpractices. The installation of log jamsshould help increase channel and flood-plain connectivity and hasten develop-ment of habitat favorable to salmonids.This habitat enhancement project wasimplemented jointly by the Tribes andthe US Forest Service. Also in 2014, the US Forest Service

partnered with Middle Fork IrrigationDistrict to improve fish passage at theIrrigation District’s diversion. Aroughened stream channel was con-structed adjacent to the diversion, cre-ating a steep riffle that will be passableto fish at almost all flow levels. Thisproject ensures that the diversion willnot cut off steelhead and bull troutfrom their spawning groundsupstream. In 2014, Columbia Land Trust began

restoration work on the Powerdalelands. The Land Trust rehabilitatedPacifiCorp’s failed revegetationattempts on the bare riverbanks adja-cent to the former dam site. The LandTrust also contracted for the removalof nearly half a mile of 10-foot-diame-ter steel pipeline from the HoodRiver’s floodplain, which was leftbehind when PacifiCorp walked awayfrom the property. Design work is already underway for

restoration of natural floodplain func-tion at the former pipeline site, withconstruction anticipated in summer2015. A berm that protected thepipeline from flooding will be breached

and the floodplain will be enhancedwith large woody structures to slowflood flows and create refuges for fishduring high water events. For thefuture, Columbia Land Trust and itspartners have set their sights on otherlocations within the Powerdale corri-dor that would benefit from similarrestoration work. Though some ofthese will involve tough negotiationsand significant fundraising, long-termplans for the Powerdale lands envisiona scenic corridor that provides high-quality fish and wildlife habitat as wellas hiking and angling opportunitiesjust minutes away from a bustlingdowntown.

Fish research and monitoring is acritical component of the restorationplanning and assessment processes.State, federal and tribal biologistshave helped identify habitat deficien-cies, set restoration goals, and providefeedback on the impact of restorationinvestments in the Hood River water-shed.

Since 2004, juvenile steelhead andspring Chinook in the Hood River havebeen marked with PIT (passive inte-grated transponder) tags. Recapturerates from screw traps in the HoodRiver and detections at other PIT tagreaders along the migration routeallow biologists to estimate smoltabundance, juvenile survival rates toBonneville Dam, and smolt-to-adultreturn rates.

In the Hood River, total steelheadsmolt abundance has trended upward,especially from 2011 to 2013. PhilSimpson of ODFW surmises thatamong the factors that may have con-tributed to this trend, the increase inhabitat availability and connectivityafter dam removal may be important.

In addition, low flows have been atleast average or higher in recentyears, and summer steelhead hatcherysupplementation ended in 2009, whichcould have led to an increase in sum-mer steelhead survival.The survival rate of hatchery smolts

moving downstream from Hood Riverto Bonneville Dam has also trendedupward in the last couple years, afterlagging substantially behind the wildsteelhead survival rate (71% on aver-age from 2005 to 2013) for years. Thechange may be due to the larger size ofhatchery smolts prior to release in thelast few years. From 1994 to 2008, theaverage smolt-to-adult return rate forwild steelhead was 6.72%, but just1.95% for hatchery steelhead. Thesefigures are not too far from programgoals of 7% survival for wild and 2%for hatchery steelhead. PIT tagging has shed light on some

interesting trends in juvenile springChinook survival as well. Some springChinook are caught at screw traps andtagged in spring at age 1+ while othersare caught and tagged in fall at age 0+.The spring tagged group has shownsignificantly higher survival rates thanthe fall group. It seems that fish in thefall group are leaving the Hood Riverbasin at a very young age and adultreturns from this group are very low(0.15% to Bonneville Dam).

Monitoring of adult returns to theHood River has been more challengingsince dam removal. Weirs at severalstrategic locations throughout thewatershed now serve the same twopurposes as the former fish trap atPowerdale. They allow for removal ofhatchery-origin steelhead from thenaturally spawning population andenable estimation of adult abundance,though the weirs are not nearly as reli-able as the former fish trap.

Adult hatchery steelhead returnshave been increasing in the last fewyears, likely due to larger smolt size atrelease. Recent returns of hatcheryspring Chinook have been consistent,though jack returns have been higherthan normal. In 2013, an estimated 800adults and 500 jacks entered the HoodRiver. Though low, these numbers lookpositive when compared to adultChinook returns of less than 100 in thelate 1990s. Coho salmon are found in the Hood




Fish research and monitoring are criticalfor restoration, and

biologists have identified habitat deficiencys and set restoration goals.

River in low numbers. In 2013, reddsurveys revealed coho higher in thewatershed than previously but it hasbeen particularly difficult to monitortheir small populations since damremoval. “We are continuing to devel-op methods that can satisfy monitoringgaps that were created by the removalof Powerdale, particularly withregards to adult summer steelhead,coho, and fall Chinook,” explainsSimpson.

Pacific lamprey historically werefound throughout the Hood River basinbut the Powerdale Dam blocked theirupstream passage. Since damremoval, the Tribes have begun moni-toring the recolonization, distributionand abundance of lamprey using elec-trofishing and antennas that detectadults tagged at Bonneville Dam. In2012, three tagged adults were detect-ed at the mouth of the Hood River andammocoetes (larvae) were found lowin the East Fork Hood River. In 2013,14 Bonneville-tagged adults weredetected and ammocoetes were founda mile further up the East Fork.Though often overlooked while salmonand steelhead take the spotlight,Pacific lamprey may have the mostdramatic post-Powerdale recoverystory.

The return of a free-flowing HoodRiver brings both opportunities andnew challenges to the native fish of theHood River basin, and to the peoplecharged with managing fisheries andhabitat enhancement programs.Overall, the outlook is positive. A 400-acre riparian preserve has been estab-lished on the edge of a growing city, tobenefit both fish and anglers. Lampreyare recolonizing territory they couldn’treach for 90 years. Spring Chinook areholding steady. And according toSimpson, “the fact that steelhead smoltabundance has been trending upwardsince 2010—while survival during out-migration has remained relativelysteady—is encouraging from a recov-ery perspective. The fact that thelower river is no longer fragmented iscritical for long-term species recov-ery.” Columbia Land Trust is thrilledto be involved in Hood River conserva-tion at such a pivotal time in the water-shed.

THE OSPREY

PHONE

E-Mail

CITY/STATE/ZIP

NAME

I am a . . .

❏ Citizen Conservationist

❏ Commercial Outfitter/Guide

❏ Professional Natural Resources Mgr.

❏ Other

ADDRESS

Thanks For Your Support

The Osprey — Steelhead Committee International Federation of Fly Fishers

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

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

❏ Friend or fellow angler

❏ Fishing show

❏ Fly shop, lodge or guide

❏ Another publication.Which?

❏ Club or conservation group meeting

❏ Other

Yes, I will help protect wild steelhead

❏ $15 Basic Subscription

❏ $25 Dedicated Angler Level

❏ $50 For Future Generations of Anglers

❏ $100 If I Put Off Donating, My Fish

Might Not Return Home

❏ $ Other, Because

I Am a New Subscriber ❑

I Am An Existing Subscriber

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

Send My Copies by Standard Mail (Hardcopy) ❑ ❑


THE OSPREY OFFERS ELECTRONIC MAILING AND ACCEPTS ONLINE DONATIONS

Subscribers may now, at their option, receive The Osprey as a PDF fileattached to an e-mail.The Osprey staff wants to emphasize that this is subscribers’ choice based

on how you prefer to receive mailings and what fits your lifestyle. Some pre-fer the speed and ease of forwarding, copying, and manipulating that elec-tronic documents provide. For others, there is no substitute for a printed doc-ument that can be read anywhere. To open PDF files, e-mail subscribers willrequire the Adobe Acrobat Reader, which can be downloaded free of chargeat: www.adobe.com/products/reader/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 and send it to the International Federationof Fly Fishers with your contribution to support The Osprey and the cause ofrecovering wild steelhead and salmon. You also have the option of making a secure credit card donation to support

The Osprey and wild steelhead and salmon by going to 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.


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

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

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

2014 HONORS LISTThe Osprey wishes to

thank the dedicatedpeople and organiza-

tions who gave their finan-cial support in 2014. Ourreaders are our primarysource of funding andwithout your support wecould not continue pub-lishing. The usual dona-tion envelope is provided.Whatever you can affordwill be much appreciated(and used wisely).

$500 to $999

James HubbardSteamboatersBruce WilliamsSteelhead Society of British Columbia

$200 to $499

Howard A. JohnsonSouthern Oregon FlyfishersJohn SullivanPete BroomhallJames R. HolderJohn MacDiamidJohn SagerDouglas C. Schaad

$100 to $199

Art CarlsonJohn B. LundWashington State Council InternationalFederation of Fly FishersJames R. Adams

Jay H. BecksteadBob BettzigKeith BeverlyPeter Caverhill/B.C. Federation of Fly FishersHugh ClarkMichael GabrionScott HagenLawrence C. HillJoseph JaquetSteve LewisJim McRobertsKatherine W. MyersJohn H. ReidJohn T. RogersJim SchrammCraig SmelterPete SoverelEric TaylorDavid ThyerClinton B. TownsendPeter J. TronquetPaul J. UtzFrancis C. WoodStanford Young

$50 to $99

Felton JenkinsDon KneassLeonard A. VollandJohn O.G. JenkinsJohn RandolphBruce M. BakerJack W. BerrymanJesse L. BlakeBarbara L. BrownFrederick BucknerRichard W. CarnsGreg ConnollySam CraigH. Ben Dennis

Patrick DunhamJoe FergusonCharles GearheartThomas G. HendersonJim HoschouerDavid JohnsonRichard E. JohnsonJay JonesJohn JonesWilliam E. LombardChris MadisonTom McKeyDavid W. NarverJosey PaulBill PearcyNorm PlossBill RedmanHarley ShaverDonald L. StarkinRob StewartRobert E. TarletonDale TimberlakeDake H. TraphagenAlex UberScott E. WattsJohn Winzler, Jr.

$15 to $49

John L. BoyceDave LentzStephen C. HaskellTeresa KaszaJames ShivleyRalph K. WetherellBruce AllenJon W. ArcherStephen W. AsherCliff BarkerJohn R. BaumanDanny BeattyDavid BeattyPaul Beckmann

Richard A. BennettJoseph and Amy BogaardJeff BrightJohn BrinkleyLarry BrownJoseph BrownCharles P. BucariaGerry ByrnesFred CarterArlene ChristyJohn M. CunninghamDan DeanChris DenchfieldJeff DevoreLouis W. DuncanRonald DyslinKevin EastmanEric FiguraJim FisherPat FordWill GodfreyRonald L. GranthamCharles B. HammerstadKurt HedeenEd HeidelInland Empire Fly Fishing ClubElmer E. JantzJoseph M. KellyWilliam Guy KilburnMark A. KuipersRick KustichCraig B. LacyMichael W. LaingRichard LevinthalAlan L’HommedieuYancy LindWilliam W. LumNathan MantuaElsi MarchandoRobert J. MasonisGregory McDonald

Timothy McGilvreyDave McTeagueRoger M. MeeksJack MitchellFrank MooreBrian MorrisonGordon R. NorthrupDavid J. OdellMichael L. OgleSarah O’NealCraig OrrDave PeckEric A. PettineChuck PevenJerry E. ReevesMichael P. RogersVictor RougeauEd SmithBlake SmithHans SolieCharles SpoonerBrad StaplesJoseph A. StoneDavid SwankChris TaylorJames B. TippettJohn A. TitlandRobert TuckBill TurnerSteve and Debbie TurnerPat TrotterMark Robert TuttleRobert Van KirkScott WallaceDr. James M. WaltonAlexander A. WardRichard WattsThomas J. WeselohBrad WestKenneth WilliamsSam WrightRichard Young

the osprey · 2017-03-02 · current issue of the osprey once again, the osprey contains arti-cles...

Documents