the osprey 2 - wordpress.com

THE OSPREYThe International Journal of Salmon and Steelhead Conservation

Issue No. 95 January 2020

Lower Columbia River Pound NetsAdapting fish traps to reduce bycatch mortality

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:• GREAT LAKES WILD STEELHEAD RESEARCH • NORTH

UMPQUA RIVER: GUARDING STEELHEAD AND A PROBLEMATICDAM • LETHAL COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER

WATER TEMPERATURES

2 The Osprey

Contents

The Osprey © 2020ISSN 2334-4075

THE OSPREYChair

Pete Soverel

EditorJim Yuskavitch

Editorial CommitteePete Soverel • Ryan Smith Greg Knox • Ralf Kroning Rich Simms • Guido Rahr

Scientific AdvisorsRick Williams • Jack Stanford

Jim Lichatowich • Bill McMillanBill Bakke • Michael Price

Design & LayoutJim Yuskavitch

Letters To The EditorThe Osprey welcomes letters to the

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

The Osprey69278 Lariat

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

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

Cover Photo Courtesy NASA

3

5

22

Columns & NewsFrom the Perch — Editor’s Message

Hits and Misses — Chair’s Corner

Letters to the Editor

Fish Watch: Wild Fish News, Issues and Initiatives

Response of a Heavily Exploited Great Lakes Steelhead Population to Reduced Harvest

By Brian Morrison

Diversity of a Small Lake Ontario Wild Steelhead Population

By Brian Morrison

The Steelhead Guardian

By Lee Spencer

Bringing the Rule of Law to Winchester Dam on theNorth Umpqua River

By Jim McCarthy

Columbia and Snake River Water Temperatures Becoming Increasingly Lethal for Salmon

By 55 Fisheries and Natural Resource Scientists

Commercial Fish Traps for Bycatch Mortality Reduction in Salmon Fisheries

By Adrian Tuohy

6

4

10

13

20

14

17

Features

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

January 2020 • Issue No. 95 3

Solving the Wild Fish Bycatch Problemby Jim Yuskavitch

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

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

So when you subscribe/donate to TheOsprey, you not only receive a subscrip-tion yourself, but you also help us putThe Osprey into the hands of the peoplewe need bring to our side to save ourwild fish.Please go to the subscription/donationform on page 23 or on-line athttp://www.theconservationangler.comand donate whatever you are able.Thank you.

Jim YuskavitchEditor, The Osprey

Sending The Osprey todecision makers is key to our wild fish

conservation advocacy.Your support makes

that possible.

The cover story for this issue of The Osprey, “Com-mercial Fish Traps for Bycatch Mortality Reduc-tion in Salmon Fisheries” by Adrian Tuohy of theWild Fish Conservancy puts forward a potentialsolution for addressing the challenge of maintain-

ing commercial salmon fishing in mixed stock fisheries whileprotecting wild fish — especially stockslisted under the Endangered SpeciesAct.The idea is to adapt traditional Native

American fish traps to commercial fish-eries by using them in place of gill nets.The fish are captured live in these“pound nets” that refer to the trap or“pound” in which they are caught. Then,the wild salmon and steelhead can beseparated and released unharmed whilehatchery salmon are retained for har-vest. The traditional commercial gill net

fishery on the lower Columbia River,where the experimental fish trap wasoperated, has long been controversialsince they are non-selective and resultin high bycatch mortality. Resentment, especially fromrecreational Columbia River salmon anglers, has often runhigh against the gill netters. Over the decades there havebeen a number of unsuccessful attempts to ban commercialgill nets on the lower Columbia River either legislatively orthrough ballot measures. A more recent strategy is to de-velop hatchery-based terminal fisheries specifically in-tended for gill net harvest.In the Columbia River, which includes mixed-species runs

that are often made up of both hatchery and ESA-listed wildsalmon and steelhead, fishing seasons — both recreational

and commercial — are largely driven by the incidental catchof protected wild fish. Each run of wild fish has a maximum incidental catch mor-tality quota, so when a hatchery run is mixed with a wild fishrun, the season is shut down when that incidental take quotais reached.

Commercial fishing typically has ahigher rate of incidental bycatch mor-tality and reaches the quota faster thanrecreational fishing. Developing practi-cal and cost effective ways to commer-cially catch fish with a lower wildsalmon and steelhead bycatch mortalityrate not only allows more wild fish toreach their upriver spawning groundsbut also permits longer seasons for bothcommercial and recreational fishersalong with a greater harvest of hatcheryfish. It’s a win-win situation all around.Finding ways to reduce bycatch mor-

tality and overall waste of fish will helpother river systems besides the Colum-bia. On the Fraser River system in British

Columbia, for example, First Nations chum salmon gill netfisheries that focus on the harvest of females for roe resultsin the waste of large numbers of male chum. In addition, by-catch mortality is also a key factor in the decline of wildsteelhead in the Fraser River basin, and on the ThompsonRiver in particular. Eventually developing better commercial fishing methods

and putting them into widespread use will go a long ways toprotect wild salmon and steelhead in mixed stock fisheries.

Reduced wild fishbycatch mortalitymeans longer

recreational and commercial fishingseasons and greater

harvest ofhatchery fish.

When deciding on a regu-lar column to be part ofall future issues of TheOsprey, we settled onHits & Misses with the

understanding that “Hits” would ad-dress developments favorable for wildsalmon and steelhead, and “Misses” toidentify policies, actions and outcomescalamitous to continued persistence ofwild salmon and steelhead. Over thetwo years since the re-launch of The Os-prey we have sought good news to in-clude in this column. It has been hard tosustain. Excepting isolated glimmers ofhope, the rare good news is often coun-terbalanced by bad news, unwise poli-cies, circumvention of the law and so onthat often accompanies the good newsjust cited — a process assaulting ourhopes for a brighter future and confi-dence in the integrity of persons and in-stitutions. Almost without exceptionhopeful policies are subverted from theget go by the very agencies entrustedand charged with the responsibility forhusbanding our natural resources andheritage. Consider these examples forflavor:

Elwha and Klamath Dam Removals

Hit

Fish blocking dams have or will betorn down.

Misses

Fish recovery plans are hatcherybased and doomed to failure, thussquandering billions of dollars in publicfunding for programs that demonstra-bly hinder fish recovery. With muchballyhooing the actual or promised ap-propriation sums of public money forremoval of mainstem are staggering —$350 million for the two dams on theElwha River and $1 billion-plus for theplanned removal of three dams on theKlamath. These removals were to re-sult in the restoration of wild steelheadand salmon runs to these storied rivers.

Not content to trust the fish to sort outhow to best utilized newly opened habi-tat, massive hatchery interventionswere incorporated into “recovery”plans for both river systemsBefore implementing a similar, hatch-ery-based plan for the billion-dollarKlamath project, it seems reasonable toconsider how that model has workedout on the Elwha. In short: not so hot.Hatchery “assisted” Chinook salmonand winter steelhead populations havenot colonized the pristine habitat up-stream of the removed dams, whichcomprise 97% of the watershed, orhave shown any significant increasedabundance. Natural origin summersteelhead — all wild with no hatcheryoverlay — on the other hand, have re-sponded most dramatically, increasingfrom a zero baseline to current, and stillexpanding, population of at least 500 to600 annual returning fish — all natu-rally adapted to their environment andall for free!The simple explanation is that senior

fisheries managers at the federal, state,local and tribal levels don’t trust thefish to know with whom they shouldbreed, how to utilize newly opened habi-tat and so on. The Klamath recoveryplan is a rerun of the unsuccessfulhatchery based Elwha recovery plan ona spectacularly expanded scale. Notonly will the Klamath continue to beflooded with maladapted hatcherysteelhead and Chinook, unlike theElwha dam removal it won’t even re-move all the dams. So we are going tospend a billion plus dollars to tear downthe dams while agencies continue tocontaminate the river with hatcherystocks that will impede recovery ofwild populations. In other words, it is arecipe for certain failure of the recov-ery plan, which is doomed to biologicalfailure. Does it make sense to spend bil-lions and then implement a recoverystrategy that has already failed onElwha?For example, each spring the Wash-

ington Department of Fish and Wildlifereleases about five million Chinooksalmon smolts, typically in two pulsesover a day or two each in May and June

coinciding with the big spring tides.Hatchery fish know nothing aboutchanging water flows associated withthese big spring tides. As a conse-quence, many thousands are strandedwhen the tide goes out. Not surpris-ingly, thousands of marine creaturessuch as eagles, seagulls, grebes, mur-relets, cormorants, seals, sea lions, ot-ters, raccoons, minks, crabs, andpredatory fish have also figured outthat the Elwha estuary is a cheap diningspot for a few days each spring. I amskeptical that many of these hatcheryreleases make it to their high seas nurs-eries so it should come as no surprisethat a vanishingly small percentageever return as adults.

Snake River B-Run Steelhead Fisheries

Hit

Under threat of a lawsuit and in theface of disastrously low wild steelheadreturns, Idaho Fish & Game closedamost all wild steelhead fisheries. Withdam counts at or near all time lows, theagency appeared to act in a responsiblemanner.

Misses

It turns out the IDF&G action was aruse. Once sufficient numbers of hatch-ery fish had been captured for brood-stock, the fisheries were reopened,including fisheries that would interceptwild B-run steelhead whose total es-capement to thousands of miles of ex-cellent to pristine habitat probablytotaled less than 500 fish. It is past timeto upgrade the Endangered Species Actlisting of Idaho steelhead from threat-ened to endangered, especially B-runs,which are teetering on extinction andexposed to intense recreational fish-eries in their natal waters. Washingtonand Oregon conservation closures re-main in effect even though virtually allIdaho steelhead have already swumpast. Go figure.

Continued on next page

4 The Osprey

HITS & MISSES — CHAIR’S CORNER

Major Misses in BC and AlaskaBy Pete Soverel

Fraser River Interior Steelhead

Unmitigated Miss (An Insult Re-ally)

As all steelheaders know, Thompsonand Chilcoltin steelhead populations areteetering on the brink of extinction, nownumbering less than 200 altogetherdown from around 30,000 or so in the1950s. In spite of incredibly low re-turns, which have diminished rapidlytowards extirpation, Canadian authori-ties refuse to list the stocks as threat-ened. Instead of listing and providinglegal protections. The Department ofFisheries and Oceans substituted a piein the sky recovery plan without anylegal teeth. The outcome is predictable–— near term extinction.

Pebble Mine, Alaska

Galactically Stupid Miss

In the redo of the Environmental Im-pact Statement for the Pebble Mine atAlaska’s Bristol Bay, (recall that thefirst EIS came back concluding that themine could not safely be built), the USArmy Corps of Engineers confirmedthat the environmental review processwould not address potential collapse ofthe retention dams that include 2,800-acre storage lakes despite recent in-stances of retention dam failures inBrazil and British Columbia. A five-year-old can predict the consequencesof such a failure in the headwaters ofBristol Bay salmon streams. It is mystifying how agencies respon-

sible for safeguarding the public andpublic interest can simply refuse to dowhat is right and sensible. This actionreminds me of Major General JulianSchley of the US Army Corps of Engi-neers testimony before Congress thathe was not paid to be a nursemaid tofish in response to public objections tothe planned construction of BonnevilleDam at the head of tide on the ColumbiaRiver. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Pebble Mine

permit the Environmental ProtectionAgency is certain to issue would requireits owners to relocate their headquar-ters and housing just down stream ofthe retaining dams?


Continued from previous page LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Another Side to the Story?

Dear Editor,

Found a copy of your May 2019, Issue #93, of The Osprey. In “Hits and Misses—Chair’s Corner, BC Misses Big Time, 2018-2019 Ecstall River, British Columbia Fi-asco” you roast both fishermen and DFO over limited fishing allowed for EcstallRiver Chinook. You refer to the fishermen involved as being “illegal fishers” andbeing “apprehended” and rounded up in a “helicopter raid” after stating they wereusing “angling permits” and had received “ DFO authorization” to survey EcstallChinook. Seems to me there might be another side to the story. In late July, 2000-2010, I, along with several fishing buddies, drove with my sled to Terrace, BC tofish the Skeena river system for the world class Chinook fishing available there(1,248 miles, one way). On two different occasions, during our fishing trips to thearea, we took the opportunity to make the 40+ mile trip across the Skeena estuaryand up the Ecstall estuary and river for memorable two day fishing adventures.The area is extremely remote and both times we were there the fishing was opento catch and release only. There was an upper deadline with only several miles ofriver open to fishing. Just below the fishing deadline there were several very basicone room structures on one side of the river and a fishing tent camp on the otherside (I believe it belonged to Komoham Lodge). The fishing was good and the fishwere gorgeous. On one of the trips we were the only fishermen on the river. Therewas a DFO employee staying in one of the structures taking samples from Chinookfor what he explained were for DNA analysis. He gave us a type of punch thatwould punch out a small sample of the dorsal fin and deposit the sample in thehollow handle. Before releasing a fish we would take a sample as he instructed usand before we left we returned the punch containing the samples to him. Wethought it was great to have a role in the research on these special fish. Isn’t itpossible that DFO actually wanted some limited research or survey done on thefish in this remote, hard to reach river and Komoham Lodge had the logistics andknowledge to accomplish it with no expense to DFO. I’m guessing the “rich Amer-icans” leave a fair amount of their dollars in the local economy and with DFO forall their non-resident licenses and permits. I know we always did.

Bob SpelbrinkSiletz, OR

Pete Soverel, Chair, The Osprey Management Committee, replies:

Dear Mr. Spelbrink,

Thank you for your comments on my report (The Osprey, “Hits & Misses”) of il-legal Chinook fishing on the Ecstall River by high profile, wealthy American an-glers hosted by Komoham Lodge. Let’s be clear: your angling on the Ecstalloccurred during an open season for Chinook. The operation I reported on occurredduring a closed season (emergency closure due to low Chinook returns). The pro-gram was conducted in secret. DFO stonewalled/dissembled when queried on thishighly unusual program: refused to provide copies of permits; justifications, namesof officials who purportedly authorized the program; data collected; supervisionby DFO and so on. Local reaction was outrage with the Skeena and tributariesclosed to recreational angling while a group of rich Americans, arriving in asquadron of private jets, fished the closed Ecstall while Canadians sat on the shore.Local DFO officials kept the program secret. When locals raised pointed questionsabout the program, DFO dispatched an enforcement team which closed the pro-gram down. DFO has refused to provide any response/justification for the program,identification of officials who purportedly authorized the program, provide copiesof any data collected/analyzed, made no effort to enlist support from local Cana-dian conservation organizations (Steelhead Society of BC, Skeena Wild, Sport Fish-ing Advisory Group, local tribal groups, etc.).

Wild Pacific salmonid de-cline south of Alaskahas been driven inlarge part by poor har-vest and hatchery man-

agement since the late 1800s, which hasmostly failed to recognize the ecologi-cal (or ‘place-based’) needs of uniquesalmonid populations (read more fromGayeski et al. 2018 athttps://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10062). Priorto the arrival of Europeans to the regionand the industrial revolution, First Na-tion cultures effectively managed wildsalmon harvest by waiting for the fishto return to natal rivers and streamsand harvesting in moderation, therebyensuring appropriate escapement of ge-netically distinct populations. Salmonwere often harvested in or near riversof origin with passive gears such as fishtraps, weirs, or reef nets, enabling se-lective harvest of robust populationsand successful release of non-targetstocks. Since the 20th century, salmonmanagement has become increasinglyreliant on hatchery production and hasallowed for intensive harvest fartherfrom rivers origin with non-selectivegear-types. Consequently, this has re-duced genetic diversity and enhancedmixed-stock harvest and bycatch mor-tality to indiscriminate wild popula-tions—many of which are now listedunder the U.S. Endangered Species Act(ESA).

As climate change accelerates andother anthropogenic threats (such ashabitat loss and dams) continue tothreaten the diversity and abundance ofwild Pacific salmonids, there is a grow-ing need to reconsider the conventionalfisheries management paradigm ofhatchery production and non-selectivemixed-stock harvest if wild populationsand constrained coastal fisheries are tobe restored. Our recent paper titled“Survival of Salmonids from an Exper-imental Commercial Fish Trap” (avail-able for download at:https:/ /doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10292)demonstrates the viability of modifiedfish traps for in-river selective harvest

of hatchery-origin salmon (or other ro-bust wild stocks) and reduction of by-catch mortality. Through pairedmark-recapture, we estimated the post-release survival effect from an experi-mental fish trap over a 400-kmmigration in the lower Columbia River,WA. Relative survival ranged from0.944 ((SE) ̂ = 0.046) for steelhead (On-corhynchus mykiss) to 0.995 ((SE) ̂ =0.078) for Chinook salmon (O.tshawytscha). These published resultsand findings from our most recent re-search season on the lower ColumbiaRiver (currently in-preparation forpeer-review) support use of fish trapsfor selective harvest and a return to theplaced-based management approach

historically exemplified by PacificNorthwest First Nation cultures. Ulti-mately, use of passive fishing tech-niques and placed-based managementstrategies may prove to be a win-winsituation for fishers, threatenedsalmonid stocks, management, and theenvironment.

What is a Fish Trap?

The fish trap was a historically effec-tive indigenous and commercial gearused in Pacific salmon fisheries. FirstNations constructed traps of wood and

stone in rivers and streams, harvestingsalmon sustainably for thousands ofyears. Europeans adapted the First Na-tion salmon trapping technique, incor-porating innovations from otherregions including the Great Lakes andScandinavia. Demonstrating consider-able efficiency in lower Columbia Riversalmon fisheries in the 1880s, commer-cial fish trapping rapidly expanded tosalmon fisheries on the Washingtoncoast, Puget Sound, and Alaska wherethe tool became favored by largesalmon canning corporations. The fish-ing method was eventually banned inWashington State and Oregon in 1934and 1948 respectively, primarily due topolitical reasons and the gear’s per-ceived contribution to salmon decline inunregulated fisheries. Contrary to thespecified intent of the ban, resourcemanagement agencies (putting theirfaith in the unproven potential of hatch-ery production) failed to reduce totalmixed-stock fishing effort and meet bi-ologically acceptable escapement goals.Shortly after the elimination of fishtraps, Columbia River and Puget Soundsalmon fisheries collapsed. Consisting of a series of pilings,

stakes, or anchors and attached webfences that extend from the high-watermark to the riverbed, fish traps pas-sively funnel returning adult salmonfrom the shoreline ‘lead’ (positionedperpendicular to shore) to a maze ofwalls and compartments. Adultsalmonids swim against the current, en-tering progressively smaller compart-ments of a fish trap (‘heart’, ‘spiller’,and ‘live well’ respectively). The finalcompartment has dimensions appropri-ate for operators to sort the catch forharvest or passive release with little tono air exposure and handling.Salmonids remain free-swimmingwithin a fish trap and selected mesh di-mensions minimize or prevent entan-glement altogether.

Commercial Fish Traps for Bycatch Mortality Reduction in Salmon Fisheries

By Adrian Tuohy

6 The Osprey

Use of passive fishingtechniques and placed-based

management strategiesmay be a win-win forfishers, threatenedsalmonid stocks,

management, and the environment.


Objectives

The purpose of our research was todesign, construct, and evaluate the per-formance of a modified commercialfish trap for selective in-river harvestand reduction of wild salmonid bycatchmortality (for more information, seethe full-length publication at

https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10292).Specifically, objectives were to esti-mate and compare immediate and post-release mortality of wild Chinooksalmon and steelhead from an experi-mental fish trap relative to commercialgears that were previously evaluated inthe lower Columbia River throughpaired mark–recapture. Given preciseand unbiased estimates of catch compo-sition and bycatch mortality for a fishtrap, it is our hope that resource man-agement agencies may consider imple-menting alternative commercial gearand returning to a placed-based man-agement approach for wild salmonids.Along with hatchery reform and habitatprotection/restoration, we believe re-sponsible harvest reform will con-tribute to wild salmon recovery andrevitalization of coastal fisheries.

Methods

Partnered with a long-time lower Co-lumbia River commercial fisherman,

the Wild Fish Conservancy constructedWashington State’s first commercialfish trap since 1934 in the CathlametChannel of the lower Columbia River,WA (rkm 67). The trap consisted of alead (~90 m), jigger, heart, tunnel, andspiller; the dimensions and designswere inspired by blueprints containedwithin the legal deeds of traps that hadbeen constructed in the same location acentury ago. Mesh dimensions and ma-

terials were carefully selected to mini-mize entanglement of fish and dragwithin the water column. All fine-mesh

nets were secured to untreated woodpilings from the riverbed to roughly 1m above the high-water mark. An alu-

minum marine mammal deterrent gatewas installed at the entrance to theheart to prevent entry of large mam-mals to the trap while enabling fish pas-sage.

The spiller and tunnel were engi-neered for deployment and retrieval toand from the riverbed with line and pul-ley. Weights at each corner of the com-partment enabled gravity to draw themesh flush to the riverbed during eachsoak period. A solar-powered electricwinch was designed, built, and installedto haul the bottom mesh of the spillerupward through the water column tothe shallows at the completion of a set,allowing captured fishes to be accessedswiftly from the depths of the riverwith minimal stress. We constructed apontoon dock equipped with a live welladjacent to the spiller, enabling fishtransferred from the spiller compart-ment with line and pulley to be sortedby fishers or biologists. Within the livewell, all fish remained free-swimmingand submerged within continuously cir-culating river water. With the comple-tion of a set, a door to the live well wasopened, allowing captured fishes to bereleased with minimal handling (view ashort video on the fish trapping processat https://vimeo.com/310697782).

WFC operated the gear daily fromAugust 26 through September 27, 2017.We counted, measured, and identifiedall fish by species and origin (hatcheryor wild, as determined by the absenceor presence of the adipose fin). All Chi-nook salmon and steelhead werescanned for Passive IntegratedTransponder tags. If PIT tags were de-tected, codes were recorded. In the ab-sence of an existing PIT tag, adultChinook salmon and steelhead were PITtagged in the peritoneal cavity. In addi-tion, non-lethal genetic samples weretaken from Chinook salmon and steel-head to analyze stock-composition. Allfish were then passively released fromthe live-well, and the next set was initi-ated. We used the statistical approach of

paired mark–release–recapture to esti-mate relative post-release survival ofChinook salmon and steelhead from thefish trap to upriver detection points.Similar to prior alternative gear studiesin the lower Columbia River, controland treatment groups of Chinooksalmon and steelhead were PIT-taggedand released for detection at mainstemdam PIT tag arrays. This was done tocontrol for handling and PIT-tagging ef-


Along with hatchery reform and habitat

protection/restoration,we believe responsibleharvest reform willcontribute to wild

salmon recovery andrevitalization of coastal

fisheries.

Continued from previous page


Columbia River fishermen harvesting salmon from a trap in the early 20th Cen-tury. Photo courtesy Wild Fish Conservancy

8 The Osprey

fects on adult salmonid survival,thereby isolating the commercial treat-ment effect in analysis. The treatmentgroup consisted of Chinook salmon andsteelhead that were lifted through thewater en masse by the winch andspilled from the pound-net spiller to thelive well. This process of capture mir-rored how the gear would be operatedin a commercial setting (as designed in2017). The control group was unex-posed to potentially damaging commer-cial capture procedures, andfree-swimming fish were sourced oneat a time with a rubberized dip net atthe project site. This control sourcingtechnique was likely less stressful thanprocedures used in previous ColumbiaRiver commercial gear studies, duringwhich control group fish were trappedat the Bonneville Dam adult fish pas-sage facility, dip netted, PIT-tagged,trucked downriver to the test fishing lo-cation (rkm 225), and transferred froma truck into the water to repeat the up-river migration for a second time. Con-sequently, survival in our study is likelybiased lower relative to prior studies.A pair of Cormack (1964) single re-

lease–recapture models was used to es-timate post-release survival oftreatment Chinook salmon and steel-head relative to controls between thecapture and release site (rkm 67) andvarious upriver detection points to Mc-Nary Dam (rkm 470). Essentially, thissurvival estimation technique (in itsmost simplistic form) compared detec-tion rates of the treatment group to thecontrol group (i.e., Relative Survival =Streat/Scontrol; see the full-length pub-lication athttps://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10292 for fur-ther detail). This mark-recapturemethodology was similar to that ofprior commercial gear studies con-ducted in the lower Columbia River;however, it must be noted thatcapture/release sites differed betweenstudies. The tag-and-release locationsfor seine and tangle-net studies werebetween rkm 209 and 233 of the Colum-bia River. Our experimental trap waslocated at rkm 67. As a result, survivalin our study was measured over agreater distance and duration.

Results and Discussion

Analyzing bycatch survival and catchcomposition, our study demonstratedthat the experimental trap effectivelytargeted hatchery-origin Chinook and

coho salmon (O. kisutch) while dramat-ically reducing bycatch mortality ratesrelative to conventional commercialfishing gears. During the 2017 study,7,129 salmonids were captured, includ-ing 2,670 Chinook salmon (47.9% adi-pose fin-clipped; 16.3% jack salmon),3,501 coho salmon (52.4% adipose fin-clipped; 16.4% jack salmon), 921 sum-mer steelhead (80.9% adiposefin-clipped), 29 resident/residualizedrainbow trout (O. mykiss) (77.8% wereadipose fin-clipped), and eight uniden-tified salmonids Oncorhynchus spp. An-

alyzing Chinook salmon survival to Mc-Nary Dam (400 km upriver migration;13 day median travel duration), the fishtrap outperformed all other gearstested on the lower Columbia River,with relative survival estimated at0.995 (CI (0.924 ≤ (τ cumulative ) ̂ ≤1.071) = 0.95) (Table 1). For steelhead,relative survival from the fish trap toMcNary Dam was estimated at 0.944(CI (0.880 ≤ (τ cumulative ) ̂≤ 1.012) =0.95). These results were achieved de-spite a significant tagging location dis-


Experimental commercial fish trap in the lower Columbia River, WA in 2019.Photo courtesy Wild Fish Conservancy

Gear Chinook Survival

SteelheadSurvival

Gill Net 0.520 0.522

Tangle Net 0.764 0.764

Beach Seine 0.750 (0.710-0.790) 0.920 (0.820-1.000

Purse Seine 0.780 (0.720-0.850) 0.980 (0.930-1.000)

Fish Trap 0.995 (0.924-1.071) 0.944 (0.880-1.012)

Table 1. Relative survival estimates from five commercial gears studied in thelower Columbia River and associated 95% profile (if available, in parenthesis).Table adapted from Tuohy et al. (2019), available athttps:/doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10292.



advantage relative to prior ColumbiaRiver gear studies (operations at thetrap occurred nearly 150 km downriverof seine and tangle net evaluations). Although results from our 2017 study

were a dramatic improvement overconventional commercial gears, thefish trap (unlike most other existinggears) has great potential to be furthermodified to improve bycatch survivaland capture efficiency. Since the 2017study, we have made design changesthat have achieved 100% survival of re-leased salmonid bycatch. Today, the lineand pulley electric winch system from2017 is no longer necessary for haulingthe mesh bottom of the spiller/tunnelcomplex to the shallows for sorting ofthe catch. A passive capture design wasimplemented in 2019 by adding a newupstream tunnel to the existing spillercompartment. This upstream tunnelpassively funnels migrating fishes indi-vidually from the spiller to the shallowsof an attached upstream live well, elim-inating minor air exposure, handling,crowding, and net contact associatedwith the prototype commercial process.Evaluating potential benefits from themodified passive capture designthrough two separate survival estima-tion techniques in 2019 (mark-recap-

ture and net-pen holding), the modifiedtrap demonstrated no detectable effecton sockeye (O. nerka) and coho salmonrelease survival and a significant im-provement over the 2017 prototype de-sign. These preliminary results provide

further evidence that the gear may beeffective in addressing wild salmonidbycatch mortality and existing com-mercial fishery constraints. Further re-search investigations with the modifiedpassive trap design are now tentativelyscheduled in new fluvial locations inOregon and British Columbia for 2020-2021.

If regulated and managed appropri-ately to meet the biological needs ofunique salmonid populations, a transi-tion from conventional gill nets to mod-ified fish traps (and other selectivegears including reef nets, fish wheels,and shallow seines) has potential to ben-efit wild salmonid recovery, orca whalerecovery, and First Nation, commercial,and recreational fisheries. Use of pas-sive, selective gear in or near rivers oforigin can help to reduce wild salmonidbycatch mortality in mixed-stock fish-eries, maintain age and size structureof harvested fish populations, alleviatefishery constraints, and improve thequality and marketability of seafoodproducts. Commercial fishing opera-tions could be paired with low-impactdata collection by resource manage-ment agencies using fish traps to betterunderstand fish run timing, abundance,behavior, and ecology. Although furtherresearch is necessary for the gear (i.e.,new river locations, new designs, ma-rine mammal interactions), results ofour work show that modified fish trapshave potential to nearly eliminatesalmonid bycatch mortality for the ben-efit of the environment, fisheries man-agement, and coastal fishingcommunities.

Adrian Tuohy is a biologist and projectmanager at Duvall, Washington-basedWild Fish Conservancy. To learn moreabout selective gear research forsalmonid recovery, please visit WildFish Conservancy’s website atwww.wildfishconservancy.org and readthe full-length publication in the journalof Fisheries:

Tuohy, A.M., Skalski, J.R., and N.J.Gayeski. 2019. Survival of salmonidsfrom an experimental commercial fishtrap. Fisheries. 44(6): https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10292.

Fish traps allow hatchery fish to be retained while wild fish can be released un-harmed. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch


If regulated and managed

appropriately, a transition from

conventional gill netsto modified fish trapshas the potential tobenefit wild salmon,orcas, and fisheries.

10 The Osprey

Response of a Heavily Exploited Great LakesSteelhead Population to Reduced Harvest

By Brian Morrison

Steelhead (Oncorhynchusmykiss) display a broad rangeof life history strategies,which enable the species totolerate transfer into unoccu-

pied but suitable habitats (O’Connell etal. 1997). Although steelhead are an im-portant species for recreational anglingin the Laurentian Great Lakes, rela-tively little ecological or evolutionaryresearch has been done on this speciesin Ontario. Since this species has beenpresent in Lake Superior for over a cen-tury, it provides an excellent system inwhich to study responses to transplan-tation. The initial stocking program inLake Superior commenced in 1883 andlikely utilized California’s McCloudRiver stock (Sacramento RiverDrainage) (MacCrimmon and Gots1972). Subsequent stocking events con-sisted of stocks originating from Red-wood Creek (California), the Willametteand Rouge drainages in Oregon as wellas drainages from the Olympic Penin-sula and the Columbia River in Wash-ington (Krueger et al. 1994; Crawford2001). By 1905, it was believed thatnearly all tributary streams flowinginto the North Shore of Lake Superiorhad spawning populations of steelhead(Crawford 2001). Along much of theCanadian shoreline of Lake Superior,steelhead populations were allowed tothrive and adapt with relatively littledisturbance. This is virtually the onlylarge area in the Great Lakes wheresteelhead have been allowed to adapt tolocal environmental conditions freefrom any anthropogenic impacts (e.g.supplemental stocking) (George 2001)as highlighted in the May 2001 (Number39) issue of The Osprey (http://os-preysteelhead.org/archives/TheOspreyIssue39.pdf).Lake Superior steelhead have the abil-ity to spawn multiple times, a charac-teristic that appears to be aprerequisite for optimal recruitment(George 2001). Most healthy popula-tions have repeat spawning levels be-tween 50 and 70 percent for both sexes(Swanson 1985; Clarkson and Jones

1997). Males tend to have higher natu-ral mortality and therefore lower re-peat spawning, probably due tomultiple spawning events within oneseason and the period of time spent inspawning streams (George 2001). Malesare capable of spawning three or fourtimes in successive years while femalescommonly have four to six spawningmigrations in healthy populations, atrait also exhibited only in wild Kam-chatka steelhead populations(Kuzishchin et al. 2002). Low repeatspawning rates suggests high rates ofangler exploitation (Clarkson and Jones1997). Additionally, life history diver-

sity is believed to increase the likeli-hood of population persistence byspreading risk across life histories(Schindler et al. 2010). Increased pop-ulation stability via high life history hasbeen demonstrated for steelhead(Moore et al. 2014), along with variouspopulations of Pacific Salmon(Schindler et al. 2010, Braun et al. 2016).In the late 1980s, north shore Lake Su-perior anglers expressed concern thatincreased angling pressure was causingdeclining steelhead numbers and thatthe average size of angler caught fishwas smaller (George and Bozak 2007).The steelhead fishery in Lake Superioris primarily focused on the annualspring migration of mature adults totheir natal streams for spawning,where adults become more vulnerable

to angler harvest. Prior to 1995, a dailybag limit of five steelhead/rainbowtrout of any size was in place for LakeSuperior and its tributaries (MNRF Un-published data). Reduction of bag lim-its to a single steelhead occurred in1995 on most tributaries with additionalsize restrictions imposed on urban fish-eries located in the city of Thunder Bay,Ontario.The overall goal of this project is to

describe the response (population dy-namics and life history diversity) of aheavily exploited steelhead populationswhen angler harvest is removed or sig-nificantly reduced. This includes ex-amining what dynamics driveunexploited or reference naturalizedsteelhead populations in the GreatLakes, and the underlying importanceof life history diversity and repeatspawning levels. Portage Creek is a 7,600 ha (60km2)

watershed that lies on the Sibley Penin-sula located on the north shore of LakeSuperior draining into Black Bay, ap-proximately 50 km east of the City ofThunder Bay. Portage Creek is consid-ered a moderate-sized stream, with alength of 16 kilometers and an averagegradient of 4.5 meters/kilometer.Starting in the spring of 1994, public

access was controlled when the land ex-changed between landowners, whichmeant that angling pressure was nonex-istent and therefore minimal exploita-tion was occurring. This newlyrestricted access created a tremendousopportunity to study in detail the popu-lation dynamics of a steelhead stock inone of the most northerly (and extreme)locations in the Great Lakes. Monitor-ing is done in partnership with the On-tario Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Forestry (OMNRF) and the NorthShore Steelhead Association. Data was collected by anglers who

worked with OMNRF biologiststhrough a scientific collectors permit,with all angled fish having length, sex,scale sample, fin clip (unique fin eachsampling season to validate for tag


Along much of theCanadian shoreline of

Lake Superior, steelhead were allowedto thrive and adaptwith little human

interference.


loss), and tagged. A repeat spawningindex is used to determine populationhealth for Great Lakes steelhead, witha target of at least 50% of the popula-tion being a repeat spawner for the pop-ulation to be considered healthy(Swanson 1985, Clarkson and Jones1997). The purpose of this tool is to as-sess total mortality/survival rates onthe adult component of the population.Additionally, this program also demon-strates the value of angler-gathereddata and partnerships in fisheries man-agement. Following the removal of angler har-

vest from the population, the populationrose from an estimated 855 individualsin 1995 to a peak of 2,059 by 2004 (Fig-ure 1). Population size prior to 1995was estimated based on life history (re-peat spawning rates), while the popula-tion after 1995 was estimated usingPeterson mark-recapture information.It took about one steelhead generation(5 years) before the population reallystarted to grow. From 2002-2008 thepopulation remained above 1,500 indi-viduals. In addition to the increasedpopulation size, the repeat spawningrate also increased over time, and re-mained above 50% all years except twosince 2002 (Figure 2). This delay of ageneration before the population beganto grow suggests that repeat spawnersare an important component to helpsteelhead populations increase in size.Total adult survival in a given year hasbeen documented to be as high as 88% ,and individuals spawning up to 10 timesin their life, and living up to 12 yearsold! Based on erosion patterns on thescales, the life history of older fish cangenerally only be validated through theuse of concurrent tagging information.The repeat spawning levels observedare similar or exceeding those docu-mented for wild healthy populations inwestern Kamchatka. Starting in 2008,the population size started to decline,and this did not correlate with the adultsurvival rates as expressed in the re-peat spawning index. A similar moni-toring program on the McIntyre River,which flows into Lake Superior in thecity of Thunder Bay showed populationincreases over the same time period.Sampling was with an electroniccounter 1999-2004, and angling (mark-recapture) since 2005(https://northshoresteelhead.com/pro-ject). This introduced a problem to bi-ologists trying to figure out how anunexploited population with exception-

ally high adult survival rates couldcrash, while an adjacent populationcould be growing. It was realized that Black Bay is a

warmer water bay within Lake Supe-rior that originally contained an exten-sive population of Percid species —walleye (Sander vitreus) and yellowperch (Perca flavescens). Following ex-tensive commercial exploitation, amoratorium was placed on commercialharvest of walleye within the bay in

1969 and yellow perch in 2003. Thismoratorium was extended to recre-ational anglers in 2008 in the northernwaters of Black Bay and tributaries.Concurrently, walleye were stockedinto the bay starting in 2003, with indexnetting showing increases in walleyeabundance starting in 2008 and remain-ing high. The prevailing thought is it’s

this increase in walleye populationthat’s either predating upon steelheadsmolts as they leave Portage Creek andother tributaries draining into BlackBay, or out-competing for food re-sources as post-smolts. Additionally,there has been a shift in smolt age thatdoes survive to adulthood, with age-1smolt age comprising approximately80% of first time (maiden) spawnersuntil 2008, when age-2 smolts increasedin proportion, with 100% of the maiden

spawning population being age-2 smoltsin 2018. The Portage Creek study shows the

importance of long-term datasets formonitoring population health. As thepopulation recovered following the re-moval of angling exploitation, manyagencies may have stopped monitoring



Figure 1. Estimated Population size for Portage Creek steelhead, 1994-2008.

Figure 2. Repeat spawning rate for Portage Creek steelhead, 1994-2018.

12 The Osprey

assuming the population was healthy.This shows that unexpected changeswithin the ecosystem, or with otherspecies can have effects on wild steel-head populations within Lake Superior,and long-term monitoring is critical tobe able to determine these changes.Additionally, this study also demon-strates the value of having multiplelines of evidence beyond just popula-tion size to help elucidate what changesare occurring, or what life stage theymay be occurring at. Anglers overseen by OMNRF biolo-

gists collect all of the data for thisstudy. This form of data collectionhelps anglers understand the sciencethat is being collected, and they canhelp understand and champion forwardmore restrictive regulations to protectpopulations when required. Further-more, when anglers are catchingtagged steelhead, they also understandhow vulnerable they are to angling,both in a single day, in a season, andacross seasons. One instance, which isnot unique, was when an individual wascaught for the first time, sampled(length, scale sample, tagged, and a fincut off), released, and then caught onthe very next cast. Based on data acrossthe dataset, approximately 31% of thepopulation is caught by anglers anygiven year, and upwards of 50% of thepopulation on high years (Figure 4).This is based on approximately two an-glers fishing each day during thespawning migration (~30 days). It’s nothard to believe on rivers with high an-gler effort, much of a steelhead popula-tion may be hooked or caught byanglers.

Brian Morrison is a free-lance fisheriesbiologist previously working at severalConservation Authorities in Ontariosince 2001 in a range of roles and capac-ities, and has had the fortune to studynaturalized and wild salmonids acrossthe Great Lakes.


Figure 3. Estimated Population size for Portage Creek steelhead, 1994-2018

Figure 4. Estimated proportion of population caught by anglers 1995-2017.


The overall goal of this proj-ect was to gather quantita-tive information on thepopulation dynamics andlife history strategies of

rainbow trout within Wesleyville Creek.This information will be used to helpserve as a reference for describing anunexploited small stream rainbow troutpopulation in the Lake Ontario basin.Wesleyville Creek is a 9.5 km2 water-

shed located west of the Municipality ofPort Hope. It is considered a coldwaterwatercourse, draining from the LakeIroquois Shoreline physiographic re-gion. It is also considered one of thehealthiest small watersheds on thenorthshore of Lake Ontario, a uniquefeature in southern Ontario. Wes-leyville Creek historically contained adiverse fish assemblage, dominated bybrook trout. Brook trout are still pres-ent within the watershed, and havebeen prioritized for maintaining the na-tive gene pool within this population.Wesleyville Creek also has a lake runpopulation of rainbow trout (On-corhynchus mykiss), coho salmon (On-corhynchus kisutch) as well as a lakerun population of white sucker(Catostomus commersonii). The entirewatershed is in private ownership,which precludes access to anglers. Itssmall size is also a deterrent for an-glers. The stream is frequently cut offfrom Lake Ontario due to naturalprocesses at the shingle beach at themouth of the watershed, and is usuallyonly accessible following larger rainevents that allows the watercourse topunch through the rocky beach and cre-ate fish access (through 10 years ofmonitoring, I have yet to see a fish ac-tually swim across this shingle beach)Adult rainbow trout were captured byelectrofishing and dip netting. Cap-tured rainbow trout were sampled forfork length, and checked for existingtags/fin clips, sex. Scale samples (N=10)and tissue sample (5 mm circle of fintissue, dry preserved) were taken fromall fish for age and genetic analysis.Various life history traits can be deter-mined from scales, including stream

age, lake age, total age and number oftimes the individual has spawned. Themajority of smolts left after two yearsin the stream, while most adults re-turned after two years in Lake Ontarioto spawn for the first time, which is acommon pattern for wild steelhead inthe Great Lakes. A maximum of threespawning events have been docu-mented within this watershed. Thehighest sample size for any year be-tween 2010 and 2017 was 80 individuals,and averaged 39 individuals, while thehighest estimated population size

through the study period was in 2013,with 520 ± 235 individuals. The run tim-ing is predominantly during the spring,although the odd individual migrates asearly as the fall or winter. Through this monitoring program,

several interesting anecdotes were ob-served while working this steelheadpopulation. This watershed is notstocked, with hatchery plantings occur-ring in other Lake Ontario watersheds,but the same adult male with an adiposeclip was captured within the stream twoconsecutive years. This is the first timeI had observed non-stocking site fi-delity, but fidelity to a non-natal stream.Through all years of sampling, one res-ident male was captured during thisstudy, and was captured the same day amature male parr was also captured,while both were courting a migratoryfemale. It was the only time either lifehistory pathway was observed within

this watershed highlighting the diver-sity that can develop even within smallpopulations. There is no angling within this water-

shed due to private ownership, howeverapproximately 10% of returning adultsshowed indications of being caught orencountered by anglers, likely thetrolling/downrigger fishery in Lake On-tario with torn or missing maxillary.Life history information also indicatepoor adult survival, with approximately56% average mortality across the 2010– 2017 monitoring period, likely largelythe result of this fishery in Lake On-tario (this contrasts to Portage Creek,which averages 70-80% adult survival).This highlights that even if spawningstreams are protected, anglers can stillhave impacts on adult populations whenthere is high angling pressure outsidespawning/rearing watersheds. There is evidence that size at first

maturation within Lake Ontario tribu-taries is dictated by watershed size. Forexample, Wesleyville Creek is thesmallest watershed with life history in-formation, and it has the smallest sizeadults maturing (age-4, -5), in contrast,the Credit River is the largest, and hadthe largest fish maturing at the sameages. Other watersheds are intermedi-ate in size and steelhead matured atsizes in between these two watersheds(Figure 2). Mean summer dischargewas used as a proxy for watershed sizein this figure. The presence of largerfish at older ages in Wesleyville Creekindicate that these large fish (whichtend to be repeat spawning individuals)are able to access the watershed, butthere are selective forces that promotesmaller age at first maturity. Much ofthis adaptation across all these water-sheds would have occurred largelysince the 1970s (approximately 45years, or 9 steelhead generations) whennaturalized steelhead in Lake Ontariowould have colonized most watersheds.

Diversity of a Small Lake Ontario Wild Steelhead Population

By Brian Morrison

A shingle beach cuts off steelhead ac-cess to Lake Ontario. Photo by BrianMorrison

14 The Osprey

The Steelhead GuardianProtecting wild North Umpqua summer steelhead from poachers

By Lee Spencer

This is a brief and generalized history ofthe Fish Watch Program and the Steam-boat Creek Basin, a subdrainage of theNorth Umpqua River in southern Ore-gon. My dog, Maggie, and I are campednext to a pool located some miles upthis creek and as I write this, I am veryclose to being done with the 2019 eight-month season protecting the wild sum-mer steelhead that make use of a poolthat serves them as a thermal refuge.We are protecting the steelhead thathold here from human poaching and ha-rassment. I do not protect the fish fromotters or other undomesticated crea-tures.

The prehistory of the thermalrefuge Big Bend Pool onSteamboat Creek — a criti-cally important tributary ofthe North Umpqua River

for wild salmon and steelhead — goesback for at least four thousand yearsbased on two obsidian projectile pointsfound at the site. A Clovis style pointthat has been dated to approximately15,000 years ago, was recovered withinthirty miles of the pool. Except in themost generalized of terms, the prehis-toric period is mostly a mystery. Undoubtedly, the event of greatest

significance during the time citedabove — when European-Americanswere unknown on this continent — wasthe creation of Crater Lake when thetop of the volcano Mount Mazama blew,resulting in the now water-filledcaldera that forms the lake. There arelayers of volcanic tephra from thisevent that are more than fifty feet thickin the Umpqua Basin. With the excep-tion of one other thing, this eruptionmust have been the most disastrousevent to occur to wild Pacific salmonpopulations during the last 10,000years. The exception, of course, is the hatch-ery-caused disruption to wild Pacificsalmon and steelhead populations,which has undermined their evolution-ary relationships from southern Cali-fornia to Alaska and beyond. It may be

argued that the Mount Mazama erup-tion undermined no fish population’sevolutionary relations, though somemay have become attenuated for awhile. Hatchery fish introductions onthe other hand, have had disastrousevolutionary affects on every wild pop-ulation they have interbred with. It was the discovery of the Bohemia

Gold Strike in 1858, and later perhapsthe manning of local fire lookouts, thatare responsible for the first significantuse by European-Americans of the mid-dle and the upper parts of the Steam-boat Creek Basin. A historic but nowdefunct trail joins Steamboat Falls—lo-cated around forty-six miles from the

town of Roseburg—with the Bohemiamines. I have been told that the peoplewho brought supplies to the fire look-outs now and then caught steelheadfrom Big Bend Pool on SteamboatCreek and smoked them for the personsmanning the lookouts. In the late 1950s, decisions were madeon local, state, and federal levels to dec-imate all the Steamboat Creek oldgrowth timber they could get at by hookor by crook. This decision led directlyto the construction of a system of dirtand gravel roads in the middle and theupper portions of the Steamboat CreekBasin. This road system brought dyna-mite into the picture both to assist inbuilding the roads and, now and then, to

gather wild steelhead that collected inBig Bend Pool every year. The use of the internal combustion en-gine also helped to kill SteamboatCreek’s ancient forests along with open-ing them up to poaching on an industrialscale. This industrial poaching earnedthe pool the name The Dynamite Holebecause poachers would toss dynamiteinto the pool to kill steelhead thatsought the thermal refuge of its coolwaters in large numbers. Over the lastfew seasons, hatchery steelhead havemade up less the 1% of the fish holdingin the pool. This is still too many, but itallows me to say that the fish being pro-tected are for the most part wild andalso to point out if poachers took onlyhatchery fish I, for one, would thankthem.It was still called the Dynamite Hole

when I began my solitary seasons at thepool. For now, I believe the name of thepool has become Big Bend Pool. Somefolks do continue to call the pool by itsprevious name, which—if nothingelse—is a good reminder of the bigtrees which are pretty much gone alongwith the original large numbers of wildsteelhead.Coeval with the removal of the ancientforests and the not-at-all-as-ancientroad systems in the upper basin, theOregon Department of Fish andWildlife constructed a ladder at Steam-boat Creek Falls. These falls are lo-cated four miles down creek from hepool.It is only fair to say here that the

ODFW and I do not see eye to eye onanything at all. I have been lied to somany times and with such vigor by thisagency that I would not give a singlepinch of volcanic tephra for their beliefor opinion about anything. When thisstate agency is mentioned in this articleit is so that I can discount them, not tocite them as an information source. Ibelieve that this to be one of the mostfundamental truths contained in this ar-ticle. To show how stupidly awry the plans


The value of FishWatch is that it protects the wild

summer steelhead ofSteamboat Creek.

This is of paramount importance.

of the local state hatchery fish agencycan be, here is a history of this ladder.In 1957, at approximately the same timeas the construction of the road systemin the Steamboat Creek Basin, ODFWhad the main falls on Steamboat Creekladdered to mitigate for damage thatblasting in the are did to the natural fishpassage route.Prior to that, the wild steelhead were

able to surmount the falls. The jumpthat was necessary to get past the fallswas a leap of ten feet that originally hada wonderful plunge pool below it to as-sist the leaper. To show how wellthought out this ladder at SteamboatCreek Falls was, it has broken down andhad to be reconstructed at least fivetimes during the now seven decades ofits existence. It is also unclear howlong the ladder blocked fish passageeach time it failed due to debris block-ing it. Each blockage could have lastedlonger than a year given how poorly thewild Pacific salmon are managed nowand to all intents and purposes havebeen since management commenced inthe basin of the Umpqua River. At nearly the same time, spring Chi-

nook and summer steelhead began tobecome that terrible entity, hatcheryfish. As we become more aware, it isnow a well-known fact that hatcheriesmay be the gravest danger by far tosustaining wild fish populations. Forwhat it is worth, I believe the evidenceis now incontrovertible that there is noupside to either hatchery fish or hatch-ery people. Other factors that were coming into

play at about this time where the con-struction of main-stem dams on theNorth Umpqua, spinning reels, single-egg hooks, and designation of the fly-fishing only zone on thirty miles of theriver that is the primary rearing areafor juvenile salmonids. Complexities have mounted more and

more since we—yes, us—began to givethought to improving the circum-stances of wild Pacific salmon and, asnear as I can tell, we have failed in ourevery effort to do so.I am hazy about how the Fish Watch

Program got started other than to saythat it did and it was a protective re-sponse to poaching. It is worth notinghere that the entire Steamboat Creekbasin was closed to all angling in the1930s. I think the Fish Watch Programbegan in 1992 when what is thought tobe the last dynamiting of the pool oc-curred. At this time, many people, in-

cluding various state and local agen-cies, corporations, and great-hearted in-dividuals got together and proposed areward of $15,000.00. No one has col-lected this reward yet. Also at this time, piecemeal, individu-

als began to hide out at the pool with theidea of catching some the poachers and

some poachers were caught. I was notinvolved in these initial adventurousdays at Big Bend Pool, not becomingone of the volunteers until 1996. Myown involvement with Fish Watch oc-curred because of an outreach by DaveHall, Joe Ferguson, and Steve Evens ofthe Steamboaters, the local advocacyorganization for North Umpqua wildsteelhead.I believe it was around 1996 that The

North Umpqua Foundation began tooffer a per diem of $30.00 to be given toanyone who spent twelve of twenty-four hours at the pool and this time wasto incorporate the night time. The perdiem has now been increased to $45.00a day.It shortly became apparent that it wasvery difficult to get volunteers forgiven twelve-hour periods and an effortwas made to find someone who couldspend more or all of the time at the poolwhen the adult—but still-maturing—summer steelhead were using it as arefuge from summer temperatures. Ibecame aware of this search and volun-teered for the spring, summer, and au-

tumn of 1999. I did this because itseemed to me that staying a full seasonat Big Bend Pool was the right thing todo . . . it still does. My friend, Jim VanLoan — long-time North Umpqua wildsteelhead conservationist and formerowner of the famous Steamboat Inn —was the person who specifically asked

me if I could stay at Big Bend Pool fora full eight-month season.By the end of that first year, not too

much to my surprise, I had a very inter-esting time protecting the summersteelhead populations that use the pool.I was, as well, fascinated watching theWestern Cascades portion of the PacificNorthwest’s season cycle around me.By the end of that first season, I wasquite ready volunteer for another . . . asI am doing as I write this.The Fish Watch Program is straight-

forward: a person spends at leasttwelve of every twenty-four hours—in-cluding the night—keeping an ear outand an eye on the refuge pool and thefish. Mostly, I am in plain view down at the

pool reading a book, talking to Maggie,documenting natural history observa-tions, and answering the questions ofvisitors. During my first ten seasons,my good dog, Sis, was with me and nowmy good dog, Maggie, is my companion.That said, it is important to keep dogsand people out of the water within at



Critical spawning habitat, about 100,000 acres of the Steamboat Creek basin wasrecently designated a Wild Steelhead Special Management Area. Photo by JimYuskavitch


least a quarter mile upstream from therefuge. Even contact for brief seconds,seriously spooks the fish once the scenthas entered the pool and been capturedby one of the pool’s eddies.As I mentioned above, a large and

very interesting part of my time at thepool is documenting the behavior ofwild steelhead and other creatures. Ikeep a notebook next to me for this pur-pose when down at my perch. Truth betold, I watch the vegetation, theweather, and I document stories peopletell me, and jokes too if they make melaugh. Right now, these notes amountto more than six million words.I call these notebooks my natural his-

tory notes. These notes are archived byThe North Umpqua Foundation and areavailable free to the public at:http://northumpqua.org/lees-steelhead-notes/. The actual natural history notesmake up the first 20% of a season’snotes. The remainder of the notes arecomparisons with the notes from previ-ous seasons. As an example of what canbe found in these natural history notes,Appendix 4 of the most recent notesdocuments 2,800-plus approaches — orrises if you prefer — by the pool steel-head to leaves, twigs, lichens, some in-sects, and a variety of other things. Thediscussion of each approach includesthe text as documented in the relevantvolume of natural history notes.The value of Fish Watch is that it pro-

tects the wild summer steelhead of theupper and middle part of the SteamboatCreek Basin. This is of paramount im-portance. A very much secondaryvalue is that of seeing the summersteelhead and answering questionsabout them. I say secondary becausethe wild summer steelhead are aware of

everyone and potentially spooked byeveryone who visits the pool. It tookme years to learn about this awarenessby the steelhead. Were it possible, Iwould try to keep even myself awayfrom these fish, however, the watcherdoes need to maintain a modicum ofawareness about what is going on in theplace they protect. It sounds brutal I know, but people

should stay away from the pool, asstated above. This, however, will never

happen. The next best thing that couldhappen is that all the interpretive sig-nage should be removed from the flatabove the pool. Yes, there is anAirstream trailer, commodes, and a 125-gallon propane tank. My twenty yearsat the pool suggests strongly that, in theabsence of informational signs andkiosks, nearly a third of the visitorswould not visit the pool—thinking it wasa strange private camp of some kind.I was off the pool all of last year as I

looked after my Mom and so was unableto argue against a huge and very, veryheavy and bright and colorful metalkiosk that has been placed less than astone’s throw from the pool and in plainview from the road along SteamboatCreek. Just because something is pos-sible does not mean that it should hap-pen.My observations over the course of

this past season clearly show that thiskiosk attracts attention and, necessarilytherefore, increases the number of vis-itors to the pool and, also necessarily,increases the spooking of the wild sum-mer steelhead seeking refuge to thepool.The poacher memory in the case of

the Dynamite Hole will be long. No poolthat holds hundreds of wild summersteelhead will be easily forgotten. Actu-ally, I am reasonably sure that, even ifthere is no more poaching or harass-ment here, this refuge pool will be re-membered as a locus of poaching forhuman generations. And, sorry, butthese things will be especially true if in-formational signage remains plainlyvisible at this poaching site.

Lee Spencer has been guarding the wildsummer steelhead in the SteamboatCreek basin for more than two decades.His book about his experiences, A Tem-porary Refuge: Fourteen Seasons withWild Steelheadwas published by Patag-onia Books in 2017. It was reviewed inthe September 2017 issue of The Os-prey.

Lee also publishes his Steelhead Noteson the North Umpqua Foundation web-site detailing his many observationsover the years. You can read them at:http://northumpqua.org/lees-steelhead-notes/

16 The Osprey


Within the Umpqua River watershed, the North Umpqua offers world famoussummer steelhead fishing, and includes a 32-mile fly-fishing only reach. Map byShannon1. Published under the Creative Commons 4.0 International License.Converted to black and white.

By the end of that firstyear, I had a very interesting time protecting the

summer steelhead. Bythe end of the first

season I was ready tovolunteer for another.


Bringing the Rule of Law to WinchesterDam on the North Umpqua River

By Jim McCarthy

Acoalition of twenty fishing,conservation, and whitewa-ter groups has formed topush state and federal au-thorities to enforce state

and federal laws at Winchester Dam onthe North Umpqua River near Rose-burg, Oregon to protect fish runs, waterquality, and public safety. One of thecoalition’s priorities is to ensure thedam’s owner, Winchester Water ControlDistrict, is held responsible for viola-tions resulting from a recent unpermit-ted major repair effort at the dam inOctober 2018, which included a pollu-tion spill and fish kill in the NorthUmpqua River that was extensivelydocumented by the Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife as well as the Ore-gon Water Resources Department. Dur-ing an attempted repair of the southabutment, Winchester Water ControlDistrict did not seek required permits,did not hire a qualified engineer expe-rienced with dams or in-water work,and did not follow ODFW’s written rec-ommendations to protect aquatic re-sources during the repair. This resultedin a pollution plume and fish kill whengreen concrete contaminated the riverduring the adult migration of federally-listed Oregon Coast coho salmon. Ac-cording to ODFW, the pollution plumeextended a third of a mile downstreamand killed juvenile Chinook salmon andsteelhead, as well as Pacific Lampreyammocoetes and mussels.Fortunately, in the wake of this need-

less damage to the North Umpqua, thecoalition has seen some welcomeprogress. On August 12th, 2019, the Ore-gon Department of EnvironmentalQuality issued a Pre-Enforcement No-tice regarding violations of state lawduring these repairs. On October 16th,2019, OWRD downgraded the dam’scondition rating from “fair” to “poor”with a warning that it could be down-graded further if the dam’s knownsafety issues are not addressed in atimely manner. Unfortunately, going onone year after a spill and fish kill therestill has not been substantive action by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Serious problems at this dam extend

beyond the slipshod 2018 repairprocess, pollution spill, and fish kill.The troubling history of Winchester

Dam further demonstrates the pressingneed for authorities to step up and pro-tect the incredible North UmpquaRiver from the longstanding problemsat this dam. The facts of the dam’s his-

tory include:Dating back to the turn of the previ-

ous century, Winchester Dam is an ob-solete and deteriorating structureproviding no flood control, hydropower,

or water supply function. It inflicts sig-nificant harm on salmon, steelhead, andwater quality in one of Oregon’s mostfamed and valuable rivers. Due to thesefisheries impacts, this dam is listed byODFW as among the state’s highest pri-orities for improving fish passage. Thedam also lies entirely within state des-ignated Essential Salmonid Habitat andimpounds waters listed by Oregon asimpaired under Clean Water Act Sec-tion 303(d). Winchester Dam is categorized as a

“high hazard” dam by the Oregon De-partment of Water Resources (OWRD),primarily due to potential loss of life inthe case of dam failure among the largenumber of boaters, swimmers, fisher-men, and other river recreationists who


The troubling historyof Winchester Damdemonstrates theneed to protect theNorth Umpqua from

its longstanding problems.

Winchester Dam has a history of poor maintenance and repair that impacts theriver’s salmon and steelhead runs. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

18 The Osprey

frequent the banks, waters, public park,and boat ramp immediately down-stream of the dam. Besides potentialloss of life, other documented OWRDconcerns include potential damage tothe water intake structure owned by theCity of Roseburg and possible damageto two highway bridges and one rail-road bridge, also immediately down-stream. Despite these risks, the damowners have rebuffed repeated writtenrequests by OWRD to update theiremergency action plan, which dates to1987. Past concerns regarding this struc-

ture have been so significant thatOWRD issued a Dam Safety Order onMarch 13, 1986 finding the dam “struc-turally unsound and in danger of fail-ure” with “structural deficiencies” of“dynamic and long-standing nature”and ordered professional engineeringplans drawn up for its replacement orremoval. This order was modified onMarch 3, 1988 after extensive inspec-tion — including testing of steel tie rodsand underwater inspection — and re-pairs overseen by a qualified engineer.The modified order allowed for contin-ued dam operation on the condition thata certified engineer hired by the damowners undertake a state-approvedoversight regime of regular inspec-tions, monitoring, testing, and repair,and to periodically submit “safe life ex-pectancy evaluations” to OWRD.OWRD files contain little evidence thatthe dam owners have attempted to com-ply with this order. The coalition hasfound no evidence that WWCD has ben-efitted from the services of a qualifiedengineer since 2006, when files show aWWCD-hired engineer submitted a cur-sory 2-page “Winchester Dam RepairNarrative” which briefly outlines a 12-day-long drawdown and repair effortbut lacks substantive plans, data,methodology, and analysis. OWRD filesindicate WWCD has not submitted re-pair narratives of any kind since 2006.For in-water repairs of a designatedhigh hazard dam since 2006, WWCD hasapparently been relying almost com-pletely on Basco Logging, and more re-cently, on a building foundationcontractor who has attempted to patchthe dam face and fish ladder with con-veyor belt material. Disregard for permits and lack of ac-

countability for the Winchester Damowners has seemingly been the rule inregards to dam repairs since PacificPower & Light gave away the structure

to WWCD in 1969, after the then-hy-dropower dam was heavily damaged bythe infamous 1964 Flood. Public recordsindicate that Winchester Dam has beenrepaired at least 17 times since 1964 –or an average of once every 3 years –but the coalition has been unable to dis-cover any instances of enforcement ofpermitting requirements to protectUmpqua Basin fisheries, water quality,and public safety. It is reasonable to ex-pect the dam’s well-documented dy-

namic and long-standing structuraldeficiencies will require even more fre-quent repairs in the future. We havefound records of several extendeddrawdowns and repair efforts in recentdecades, including years 1991, 1997,1999, 2006, 2009, and 2013. But just asin 2018, relevant agency files do notshow permits for these activities, nor

do they contain records of fines orother consequences for WWCD.Records do show that the extensive un-permitted in-water work noted aboveinvolved fish salvage, removal-fill,blockage of fish migration, and signifi-cant sediment releases in one of Ore-gon’s finest salmon and steelheadstreams.

Drawdown for dam repair releasessignificant volumes of sediment accu-mulated within the reservoir pool, de-positing it onto Essential SalmonidHabitat and into the water intake of theCity of Roseburg immediately down-stream. A newspaper account of the1991 repair drawdown states “siltgushed” after the raising of the dam’sroller gates. Flow through these twogates is forceful enough to stop all up-stream fish migration. It is reasonableto assume this flow velocity scours outand mobilizes large volumes of sedi-ment and turbidity.According to ODFW and press ac-

counts, the temporary drawdown of thereservoir pool behind Winchester Damto allow structure repair, which directsall river flow through the dam’s tworoller gates, results in a total upstreampassage barrier for migratory fish dueto flow velocity. Judging from publicrecords, in recent decades WinchesterDam repairs completely stopped theupstream migration of fish for a mini-mum of 16 days in 1991, 13 days in 1997,12 days in 1999, 12 days in 2006, and 17



Winchester Dam is listed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as ahigh priority for improving fish passage. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Disregard for permitsand lack of

accountability fromWinchester Dam owners regarding

repairs seemingly hasbeen the rule.

days in 2013. Some of these repair peri-ods overlap the adult migration periodof the North Umpqua’s ESA-listed Ore-gon Coast coho and likely resulted inthe delay of their migration. Reservoirdrawdown causes mass mortality ofdesignated Species of Concern Pacificlamprey ammocoetes in reservoir poolsediments. A 2013 press account withODFW staff commentary describesthousands of reservoir pool area ammo-coetes dying or being consumed bybirds during repairs, despite appar-ently ad-hoc mitigation and salvage ef-

forts. Roughly half of the 2,000ODFW-salvaged ammocoetes were esti-mated to have died in the process. Inaddition, a November 4, 2013 ODFWmemorandum of a post-repair intera-gency meeting indicates drawdownmay impact ammocoetes in sedimentsas much as 2 miles upstream of the damand that some gasoline-powered pumpsused in the reservoir area during the re-pairs “were refueled without any kindof spill containment.” A February 4,2014 ODFW memo characterized the2013 manual ammocoete salvage ef-forts at the dam as “futile.”

Winchester Dam’s concrete southabutment lies partially on sediment anddebris, not bedrock, and therefore isperpetually undermined by flowingwater, at times creating cave-like holeslarge enough for human divers to ex-plore. The dam’s aged, 367-foot-wide,cobble-filled wooden crib structure alsoregularly produces large holes acrossits face, creating entrainment/false at-traction flows consistently described inengineering reports over the decades

as encompassing up to half of theriver’s flow in summer. The recordshows that these long-standing struc-tural deficiencies necessitate regular,natural resources-impactful repairs totemporarily reduce significant publicsafety risks and/or fish passage prob-lems. Judging from public records, re-pairs to these problem areas have beenundertaken since the late 1980s withoutthe benefit of prior professional engi-neering surveys, written engineeringplans, permitting, or meaningful evalu-ation of repair effectiveness. Instead,the record of repair as a whole showsthese repeated efforts produce

ephemeral im-provements be-fore reversion tothe harmfuland/or hazardousstatus quo ante.Allowing re-peated, unpermit-ted, andessentially futilerepairs to Win-chester Dam hascompounded thec o n s i d e r a b l eharm this struc-ture has inflictedupon the NorthUmpqua River’sresources. Given this history

of significant andrepeated natural

resources impacts during dam repairs,as well as longstanding public safetyconcerns, to allow further repairs tothis structure without the benefit ofagency required permitting and over-sight from a certified engineer wouldrepresent a reckless disregard for thefisheries, water quality, and people ofthe Umpqua Basin. Unfortunately, there has not been as

much progress on other priority areasof concern at the dam. For example,ODFW currently lacks a substantivewritten system or analysis for maximiz-ing fish passage efficiency at Winches-ter Dam at different flows. ODFWmaintains and operates the fish ladderthrough an easement providing access,but recently declined the coalition’swritten offer to provide an aquatic en-gineer at no cost to ODFW to independ-ently analyze the ladder and create acomprehensive system for maximizingladder efficiency at different flows. Tomake matters worse, one of WinchesterDam’s most obvious and chronic prob-lems is a hole in the dam’s crib face

flowing directly into the fish ladder,creating a false attraction flow insidethe ladder itself. The record shows thisproblem persists for years betweendam repairs. Because the problems at the outlaw

Winchester Dam are so acute, long-standing, and costly to address, re-es-tablishing the rule of law tosatisfactorily protect the NorthUmpqua’s resources will likely requiredam removal. If so, the coalition willwork to support a removal solutionwhich benefits the North Umpqua’s ir-replaceable natural resources as wellas the people, communities, andeconomies dependent upon the healthof this remarkable river.

Jim McCarthy is Southern Oregon Pro-gram Director for WaterWatch of Ore-gon. To learn more about their workvisit them at:www.waterwatch.org



The fish counting station at Winchester Dam. Photo by JimYuskavitch

Basco Logging Fined for Violating Water Quality Standards

In late January, the Oregon Depart-ment of Environmental Quality finedBasco Logging $53,378 for violatingstate water quality standards thatcaused pollution killing fish duringrepairs on Winchester Dam in fall2018. The state concluded that it is-sued the penalty “because the NorthUmpqua River is important habitatfor threatened Oregon Coast cohosalmon and several other sensitivespecies, and your activities resultedin the discharge of sediment and wet( or "green") concrete to the river, de-grading aquatic habitat and killingnumerous fish. These incidents alsonegatively affected the quality of theprimary drinking water source fortwo community water systems - Cityof Roseburg and Umpqua BasinWater Association, serving approxi-mately 37,700 people (28,800 and8,900, respectively).“Your dam repair activities were

conducted without following all es-tablished in-water work best man-agement practices, despite receivinginformation in advance from stateand federal agencies on how to pro-tect water quality and residentaquatic species.”

20 The Osprey

Last October a group of 55 fisheries andnatural resources scientists signed andsent a letter to Pacific Northwest poli-cymakers, governors and members ofCongress describing increasingly lethalwater temperatures for salmon andsteelhead on the Columbia and Snakerivers due to the hydroelectric damsand climate change. They emphasizedthat science-based solutions will needto be applied to correct this serious sit-uation. Signers of the letter includedscientific advisors to The Osprey RickWilliams, Jack Stanford and Jim Licha-towich. Here is the complete letter:

In recent decades, adult salmonand steelhead migrating upriverto spawning grounds in the Co-lumbia Basin have suffered de-creased survival. This is in part

due to dangerously warm water in themainstem Snake and Columbia Rivers,caused by hydro-electric developmentthat created slackwater reservoirs anda changing climate. Excessively highwater temperatures, above 20°C/68°F,are now normal for extended periods inJuly, August, and September. The four lower Snake River reser-

voirs have a significant impact on thesein-river temperatures. Based on model-ing, EPA states that an un-impoundedriver could, on average, be 3.5°C/6.3°Fcooler in late summer and early fallwhen measured at the site-potential forJohn Day Dam. EPA modeling alsoshows that, when considered collec-tively, the four lower Snake Dams canaffect temperatures up to a potentialmaximum of 6.8°C/12.2°F (EPA, 2003).This water temperature issue remainsunmitigated and will worsen as the cli-mate continues to warm. With limitedresources in the existing hydrosystemto cool the river, the restoration of thelower Snake River by breaching its fourdams is the only action available thatcan substantially cool mainstem watertemperatures on a long-term basis.

Key Findings

The Federal Columbia River PowerSystem (FCRPS) reservoirs on the

lower Snake River increasingly warmthe river above critical levels from Julyto mid- September, significantly reduc-ing salmon reproduction and survival.This problem was first recognized inthe 1990s, and still remains largely un-mitigated today. All available informa-tion to date about the court-orderedNational Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) review now being conducted in-dicates that federal agencies will pro-pose no plan to adequately address thiscritical issue.

Cold-water resources to protect mi-grating salmonids in the existing hy-drosystem are extremely limited; thereare no additional resources availablethat can significantly cool the river.Restoring the lower Snake River by re-moving its four federal dams will sig-nificantly reduce mainstem watertemperatures on a long-term basis, andis likely the only action that can do so,substantially lowering the risk of ex-tinction for salmon and steelhead here.

The Details

Late summer and early fall water tem-peratures in the mainstem lower Snakeand lower Columbia Rivers have risento critical levels in recent years, due inlarge part to the presence of FederalColumbia River Power System (FCRPS)dams and reservoirs. Reservoir heatingis exacerbated today by a warming cli-mate. Historically, construction ofFCRPS dams and reservoirs increased

slackwater surface area and decreasedwater velocity compared to a free-flow-ing river; increased slackwater surfacearea now serves as a collector of solarenergy, and the slow-moving water al-lows more time for heat to accumulate,compared to free- flowing conditions(Yearsley et al. 2001, EPA 2003, FPC2015). The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has modeled impacts ofthe presence of dams and reservoirs onwater temperature to develop a TotalMaximum Daily Load (TMDL) for tem-perature in the Columbia and SnakeRivers. Based on this modeling, EPAstated that an un-impounded rivercould, on average, be 3.5°C/6.3°F coolerin late summer and early fall whenmeasured at the site- potential for JohnDay Dam. EPA modeling also showedthat, when considered collectively, thefour lower Snake Dams could affecttemperatures up to a potential maxi-mum of 6.8°C/12.2°F (EPA, 2003). Theimpact of additional heating in lowerSnake River reservoirs is clear, and itcan drive water temperatures above68°F for extended periods in late sum-mer and early fall – dangerous forsalmon and steelhead. In summer 2015, 96% of endangered

adult Snake River sockeye salmon diedduring their upriver migration throughthe lower Columbia and Snake Rivers,due to the combined effects of very hotair and water temperatures, low flows,and the presence of mainstem damsand their associated reservoirs (FPC2015). The extreme conditions faced bymigrating adult salmon in 2015 will be-come more frequent as the climate con-tinues to warm. Although the poor success of the adultmigration documented in 2015 forSnake River sockeye is an extreme ex-ample, reduced migration success dueto high water temperatures has beenobserved for sockeye in other years,and for other Snake River salmonspecies generally (Crozier et al. 2014,McCann et al. 2018). These studies indi-cate that all Snake River salmonspecies (sockeye, spring/summer Chi-

Columbia and Snake River Water TemperaturesBecoming Increasingly Lethal for Salmon

By a coalition of 55 fisheries and natural resource scientists

Breaching the fourlower Snake Riverdams is the only action available to substantially coolmainstem water temperatures.



nook, fall Chinook and steelhead) expe-rience reduced survival at elevatedwater temperatures above 18°C (64°F),which is, notably, 2°C cooler than the es-tablished water quality standard of20°C (68°F). The proportion of adults ofeach species or run-type that experi-ence temperatures in excess of 18°C de-pends on the timing of their uprivermigration; steelhead, fall Chinook andsockeye have a greater exposure tohigh temperatures than adultspring/summer Chinook (McCann et al.2018), because they migrate later in thesummer, when temperatures arehottest. In addition, adults that weretransported (barged) as juveniles ex-hibit impaired homing ability, which re-sults in slower migration speed, lowerupstream survival, and higher strayrates. Temperature tolerance or intolerance

in salmon and steelhead (and fish gen-erally) has been well documented in thescientific literature, and local adapta-tion can play a role in thermal limits fordifferent populations of the samespecies. Effects of high temperature onadult salmon migration include directmortality, migration delay, and mayalso include depletion of energy re-serves through delay and increased res-piration, reduced gamete viability, andincreased rates of disease (e.g., McCullough et al. 2001). It is well estab-lished that water at higher temperaturecarries less dissolved oxygen, whilecooler water carries more and benefitsall salmon species. In the Snake/Columbia mainstem, im-

pounded by FCRPS dams, fish laddersoften expose adult salmon to elevatedtemperatures due to the warm surfacewater used to provide ladder flows(Keefer and Caudill 2015). High watertemperatures can result in fish repeat-edly entering and exiting these ladders,reducing survival rates. Ladders thathave a high temperature gradient fromwarm surface waters in the forebay tocooler tailwaters can also delay migra-tion of adult salmon through the lad-ders, reducing survival. The migrationdelays typically result in delayed mi-gration to spawning grounds, increasedtotal thermal exposure, and decreasedmigration success (Caudill et al. 2013,Keefer and Caudill 2015). Elevated water temperature in the Co-lumbia and Snake Rivers is a long-rec-ognized problem that to date remainslargely unmitigated (NMFS 1995; EPA2001, FPC 2015). The inability to meet a

temperature water quality standard of20°C (68°F) in summer and the issue ofelevated fish ladder temperatures arelong-standing problems, both recog-nized in the 1995 FCRPS BiologicalOpinion (NMFS 1995). In general, thetemperature exceedance problem hasbeen more severe in the Snake Riverthan in the Columbia River (FPC 2015).In 2015, temperatures exceeded the20°C standard for 35% to 46% of theApril-August passage season at allFCRPS projects except Lower GraniteDam (LGR; FPC 2015).

Current FCRPS strategies to cooloverheated mainstem water in theSnake River rely primarily on the re-lease of cold water from DworshakReservoir (on the North Fork Clearwa-ter River) to help cool a portion of thelower Snake River from July into Sep-tember, to protect migrating juvenileand adult salmonids. Dworshak’s coldwater releases have generally kepttemperatures from exceeding the 20°Cstandard to Lower Granite Dam’s tail-water, but the 20°C standard is rou-tinely exceeded downstream(http://www.fpc.org). Cold water vol-umes from Dworshak are limited andmust be used judiciously during theJuly-September period. Efforts to coolthe adult fish ladders with auxiliarypumps at Lower Granite and LittleGoose Dams have shown some potentialto reduce migration delay at those dams(FPC 2015), but do not mitigate thelarger problem of warm summer watertemperatures in the entire lower SnakeRiver and in the lower Columbia. Climate change is exacerbating exist-

ing elevated temperature problems,and the severe problems faced in 2015will increase in frequency. Snake Riversockeye have been identified as ex-tremely vulnerable to climate changedue in part to their long migrationthrough exceptionally warm reaches ofthe Snake River (Crozier et al. 2019).Data from recent years confirm thatcurrent strategies to cool the mainstemare insufficient, and the alternativescurrently under evaluation by the Fed-eral Action Agencies in the NEPA re-view process appear to inadequatelyaddress this problem. (http://crso.info). Schultz and Johnson (2017) used the

EPA temperature model (RBM-10) tosimulate water temperatures in thelower Snake River throughout the sum-mer of 2015, assuming that its fourdams and reservoirs in eastern Wash-ington did not exist; the simulationsalso assumed that cold water releasesas in 2015 from Dworshak would con-

tinue. Their simulations indicated thata free-flowing lower Snake River wouldhave remained cool enough for salmonto migrate successfully in 2015 (i.e.,met the 20°C standard, except for briefperiods after which temperaturesquickly returned to a safe level), de-spite that summer’s record-breakingair/water temperatures and low flows.For comparison, most parts of the im-pounded lower Snake River during Julyand August of 2015 were dangerouslywarm, becoming lethal for salmon andsteelhead. Although not evaluatedspecifically, the modeled temperaturesat Ice Harbor Dam suggest that thecooling effect of dam removal (withcold water releases from Dworshak)would have extended downstream atleast to the confluence of the lowerSnake and Columbia rivers. Shultz andJohnson (2017) concluded that “a free-flowing Lower Snake River could re-main viable salmon habitat—at leastfrom a water temperature perspec-tive—despite some degree of climatechange.” In the current NEPA review process,

in which FCRPS alternatives are beingstudied by federal Action Agencies torestore ESA-listed salmon populations,strategies to reduce overall mainstemwater temperatures do not appear to besufficiently addressed. This seriousflaw, if uncorrected, will mean that hotmainstem water will remain unmiti-gated and salmon and steelhead losseswill continue and worsen over time, es-pecially for Snake River stocks. The option of breaching lower Snake

River dams, combined with existing ormodified cold water releases, has enor-mous potential to alleviate the very se-rious problem of elevated summertemperatures in the lower Snake River,and increase the survival rate from out-migrating smolts to returning adults(smolt-to-adult return; SAR) for allsalmon species (Marmorek et al. 1998,Peters and Marmorek 2001, McCann etal. 2017). It would also significantly in-crease available spawning and rearinghabitat for imperiled Snake River FallChinook. No other action or actions can signif-

icantly lower summer water tempera-tures in the lower Snake River on along-term basis, while also providingadditional cooling in the lower Colum-bia.


22 The Osprey

FISH WATCH — WILD FISH NEWS, ISSuES AND INITIATIVES

Cryptobia Parasite Kills Hundreds of FallChinook on Oregon North Coast Rivers

In response to a fall Chinook salmon die-off due to an out-break of the parasite cryptobia made worse by low waterconditions, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlifeclosed salmon angling in more than a dozen North Coast wa-ters to protect the spawning run.In early December, ODFW counted about 200 dead Chinookin the Wilson river, although because many of the carcasseshad been scavenged the actual mortality was probably con-siderably higher. The River was then closed to salmon fish-ing from December 7 through December 31.However, later in the month excessive pre-spawner fall

Chinook mortality was documented in other North Coastrivers. In response the Necanicum River basin, Nehalem Bayand River, North Fork Nehalem, Tillamook Bay, TillamookRiver, Trask River, Kilchis River and Miami River, NestuccaBay and River, Three Rivers and Liittle Nestucca River andwere also closed to salmon fishing for the remainder of themonth. No cryptobia-caused salmon mortalities were foundoutside the North Coast river systems.Cryptobia is a naturally-occurring parasite and is not nor-

mally considered a major threat to fish. However, during lowwater periods salmon will tend to congregate in larger num-bers in search of cold water refugia and may become moresusceptible to mass infection and die-offs.

Cooke Aquaculture Will Pay $2.75 Millionto Settle 2017 Net Pen Collapse Lawsuit

Last November, just days before having to go to court todefend itself against a Clean Water Act Violation lawsuitbrought by the Wild Fish Conservancy resulting from a col-lapse of one of its Atlantic Salmon net pens in Puget Sound,

Cooke Aquaculture agreed to settle for $2.75 million. Thefunds will go to the Rose Foundation for Communities andthe Environment in a series of annual payments and will bededicated for environmental projects that protect wildsalmon and orcas in Puget Sound. Funds will also be used toreimburse the Wild Fish Conservancy’s litigation expenses.In August 2017, a net pen off Cypress Island operated by

Cooke Aquaculture collapsed, releasing 300,000 disease-in-fected Atlantic salmon into Puget Sound. A previous courtruling found that the company failed to conduct required in-spections of nets and anchors, and accurately monitor andreport the number of Atlantic salmon escaping from its pens.The court also found that the company did not develop plansthat included procedures for inspecting cages, storing chem-icals, disposing of harvest blood and tracking the number offish it was holding in the pens.Cooke Aquaculture was eventually fined $332,000 for the

escape. Since then, the Washington State Legislature passedlegislation phasing out Atlantic salmon net pen operationsoff the Washington coast.

WDFW Grants Cooke Aquaculture Permit to Farm Steelhead in Puget Sound

Despite the company’s disasterous net pen breach in 2017,and that Washington State is in the process of phasing out At-lantic salmon farming in Puget Sound, in January the Wash-ington Department of Fish and Wildlife granted CookeAquaculture a five-year permit to farm steelhead in its ex-isting facilities.Key to receiving the permit is that it is for steelhead, whichwill be mostly females and sterile. While the WashingtonState legislature voted to phase out fish farming in its watersas current permits expire, it only targets farming non-nativefish. Since steelhead are a native fish, switching to thatspecies may allow fish farms to continue operating in PugetSound. However, there are still a number of steps Cooke Aquacul-

ture needs to complete before it can begin its steelhead farm-ing operation. The company still needs to be granted a waterquality permit from the Washington Department of Ecology.And WDFW is requiring a number of conditions that the com-pany must meet. These include allowing net inspections twotimes each year, developing a fish escape prevention and re-sponse plan, testing for disease and genetic analysis.It will also be required to go through a public review and

comment process that will take a few months.

Orca Task Force Releases Second Reportand Conservation Recommendations

The Southern Resident Orca Task Force released its secondand final report and recommendations in November for theconservation of Puget Sound orcas and Chinook salmon —their primary food source. Some of the recommendations

The North Fork Nehalem was one of the streams on Ore-gon’s North Coast closed to salmon fishing last Decemberdue to a cryptobia outbreak. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch



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

16430 72nd Ave., WestEdmonds, WA 98026

SUPPORT THE OSPREY

Send My Copies By E-Mail q

Send My Copies by Standard Mail q

PHONE

E-Mail

CITY/STATE/ZIP

ADDRESS

Yes, I will help protect wild salmon and steelhead

❏ $15 Basic Donation/Subscription

❏ $25 Dedicated Angler Level

❏ $50 For Future Generations of Anglers

❏ $100 So There Will Always Be Wild Fish

❏ $ Other

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

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

Or donate at: www.theconservationangler.org

NAME

specific to Chinook salmon include:

1. Significantly increase investment in restoration and ac-quisition of habitat in areas where Chinook stocks most ben-efit Southern Resident orcas.

2. Immediately fund acquisition and restoration of nearshorehabitat to increase abundance of forage fish for salmon sus-tenance.

3. Significantly increase hatchery production and programsto benefit Southern resident orcas consistent with sustain-able fisheries and stock management, available habitat re-covery plans and the Endangered Species Act.

4. Prepare an implementation strategy to reestablish salmonruns above existing dams, increasing prey availability forSouthern Resident orcas.

5. Increase spill to benefit Chinook for Southern Residentsby adjusting total dissolved gas allowances at the Snake andColumbia River dams.

6. Establish a stakeholder process to discuss potentialbreaching or removal of the lower Snake River Dams for thebenefit of Southern Resident orcas.

7. Support full implementation and funding of the 2019-2028Pacific Salmon Treaty.

8. Reduce Chinook bycatch in West Coast commercial fish-eries.

9. Support authorization and other actions to more effec-tively manage pinniped predation of salmon in the ColumbiaRiver.

10. Reduce populations of nonnative predatory fish speciesthat prey upon or compete with Chinook.

11. Monitor forage fish populations to inform decisions onharvest and management actions that provide for sufficientfeedstocks to support increased abundance of Chinook.

12. Support the Puget Sound zooplankton sampling programas a Chinook and forage fish management tool.

The complete report can be found at:

https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/OrcaTask-Force_FinalReportandRecommendations_11.07.19.pdf

umatilla Tribe Breaks Ground on New Chinook Salmon Spawning Facility

In January, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla IndianReservation broke ground on a new spring Chinook salmonspawning facility near Milton-Freewater, Oregon. The facil-ity, which will be located at the existing South Fork WallaWalla Chinook salmon spawning facility, is intended to re-store spring Chinook salmon runs to Walla Walla basinstreams including the South Fork Walla Walla River, TouchetRiver and Mill Creek, where they have been absent from thebasin for about a century. The goal is to return 2,000 springChinook salmon back to the basin by 2025 and perhaps even-tually as many as 5,000 annually.The $20 million-plus project is funded through the Bon-

neville Power Administration’s hydropower mitigation pro-gram. The incubation and spawning facility is scheduled toopen in spring 2021.


THE OSPREY

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

the osprey 2 - wordpress.com

Documents