Author Gary Macfarlane is theEcosystem Defense Director for theMoscow, Idaho-based Friends of theClearwater. Learn more about theorganization at: www.friendsoftheclearwater.org

Those who seek the wildanadromous fish of theOncorhynchus genus—salmon and steelhead—know the problems the

lower Snake River dams—Ice Harbor,Lower Monumental, Little Goose andLower Granite—create for their long-term survival in places such as Idaho’sClearwater River basin. Those damshave long been identified as the majorfactor in listing wild runs in the SnakeRiver basin under the EndangeredSpecies Act. Further, the Pacific lam-prey, a native fish and traditional foodof the Nez Perce Tribe, are equally ifnot more threatened by the dams. What may not be as well known, how-

ever, is the mounting and strong evi-dence that the dams make little sense

from economic perspectives, includingtransportation and power generation.The Nez Perce Tribe, citizens—includ-ing a retired US Army Corps ofEngineer expert and citizens living

along the Clearwater River—and orga-nizations such as Idaho Rivers United,Save Our Wild Salmon, and SouthernResident Killer Whale Chinook SalmonInitiative have been digging into thefacts surrounding the lower fourSnake River dams and finding somesurprises. Studies by Earth Economics

and Rocky Mountain Econometricshave also been revealing. (See Mojica,J., Cousins, K., Briceno, T., 2016.National Economic Analysis of theFour Lower Snake River Dams: AReview of the 2002 Lower SnakeFeasibility Report/EnvironmentalImpact Statement. EconomicAppendix (I). Earth Economics,Tacoma, WA; and Jones, A. 2015. LowerSnake River Dam Navigation Study.Rocky Mountain Econometrics. Boise,ID). I am also indebted to informationcompiled by Jim Waddell, a retired USArmy Corps of Engineers expert onSnake River dams, and Lin Laughy, anactive and involved citizen of theClearwater Valley, Idaho. Much of thisarticle is a summation of their reportsand work.The main reasons for construction of

the lower Snake River dams were fornavigation and power generation.However, as Mojica et al. (2016) states,“In the early 1900s, there were severalfailed attempts to gain support from

®

THE OSPREYA Journal Published by the Steelhead Committee

International Federation of Fly Fishers

Dedicated to the Preservation of Wild Steelhead • Issue No. 85 SEPTEMBER 2016

SNAKE RIVERECONOMICS

— PAGE 1 —

COLUMBIA BIOPREDUX

— PAGE 7 —

HATCHERYHISTORY

— PAGE 10 —

STEELHEADSANCTUARY

— PAGE 3 —

WILD STEELHEADDECLINE

— PAGE 13 —

HOH RIVERRESEARCH

— PAGE 16 —

Continued on Page 4

The Damning Economics of the Snake River Dams

by Gary Macfarlane— Friends of the Clearwater —

IN THISISSUE:

There is strong andmounting evidencethat the four lowerSnake River dams

make little economicsense.

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

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

Name ________________________________Address _______________________________City ________________________ State _____Zip ____________ Phone_________________E-Mail ________________________________

Join by phone at 406-222-9369

Contributing EditorsPete Soverel • Bill Redman Doug Schaad • Norm Ploss

Ryan Smith

ContributorsGary Macfarlane • John Kober

Anna Sewell • Bill BakkeMara S. Zimmerman

Design & LayoutJim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY

Letters To The EditorThe Osprey welcomes submissions

and letters to the editor. Submissions may be

made electronically or by mail.

The OspreyP.O. Box 1228

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

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

The Osprey © 2016ISSN 2334-4075

THE OSPREY IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERUSING SOY INK

®

ChairVacant

EditorJim Yuskavitch

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

2 SEPTEMBER 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85

by Jim Yuskavitch

Your membershipincludes a subscription

to Flyfisher, themagazine of IFFF.

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

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

Join the InternationalFederation of Fly Fishers

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

Looking into Dam Economics

The Osprey has been cover-ing the never-ending fightfor Columbia and Snakeriver wild salmon and steel-head since the problems

caused by federal hydroelectric damson the river system came to a head inthe later 1980s and early 1990s.Recently, a federal judge once againrejected the federal government’s lat-est plan to recover salmon and steel-head runs, and ordered the ObamaAdministration back to the drawingboard to come up with one that willmeet legal and biological muster. Thisis the fifth time the courts have reject-ed recovery plans, called BiologicalOpinions, or BiOps.

Earthjustice attorney Anna Sewelldoes an excellent job of explaining thelatest legal outcome, while putting itinto historical context in her story“Judge Says Columbia and SnakeRivers Continue to Cry” beginning onpage 7. The venerable and long-timewild fish advocate Bill Bakke has con-tributed two Columbia River system-related stories to this issue as well,detailing how the history of salmonand steelhead management on theriver has been, and continues to be,

dominated by the hatchery model andhow that approach has not only failedto recover wild fish numbers, but hashad exactly the opposite effect.

But, of special note, is our coverstory by Gary Macfarlane of Friendsof the Clearwater, who delves into theeconomic aspects of the four lowerdams on the Snake River—notorioussalmon and steelhead killers—and howit just doesn’t pencil out. It’s a keyargument for taking out the dams thathas not received much press untilrecently, and Macfarlane’s story in thisissue of The Osprey really lays it allout, from the small amount of, and eas-ily replaced, power the dams provideto the money-losing, inefficient rivertransportation business.And lest you think we have forgotten

about steelhead in other regions, MaraZimmerman of the WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, tellsus about a new long-term study on theHoh River that promises to provide uswith important data on wild steelhead,while John Kober of Pacific Rivers fillsus in on legislation to protect Oregon’sfamed North Umpqua River wild steel-head habitat.

This issue’s guest columnist is JohnKober, Executive Director of PacificRivers, one of a number of conservationorganizations advocating for the desig-nation of the Frank Moore WildSteelhead Sanctuary within Oregon’sNorth Umpqua River Watershed.Based in Portland, Oregon, you can

find out more about the organizationand its work at:www.pacificrivers.org

Over the past three years,Pacific Rivers workedwith Oregon Senators RonWyden and Jeff Merkleyto develop and advance

legislation that would designate theNorth Umpqua’s Steamboat Creekwatershed as the Frank Moore WildSteelhead Sanctuary. Steamboat Creekis one of Oregon’s most importantrivers for wild summer steelhead. Thislegislation would protect approximate-ly 100,000 acres of public land for crit-ical steelhead spawning and rearinghabitat and as a coldwater refuge foradult steelhead during the hottestmonths of the year. Thanks toSenators Wyden and Merkley the billrecently passed through markup in theU.S. Senate’s Energy and NaturalResource Committee, and is poised tomove through the Senate.

Senate Bill 1448 accomplishes twogoals. First, it honors World War II vet-eran Frank Moore, a decorated warhero who fought on the shores ofNormandy during the Allied invasionof Europe, earning the prestigiousChevalier of the French Legion ofHonor for his bravery. Upon returninghome to Oregon, Frank dedicated hislife to conserving and protecting hishome watershed, the North Umpqua.Second, the bill permanently protects

critical portions of Steamboat Creek,one of the last remaining cold watersanctuaries for spawning steelhead in

the Pacific Northwest.Frank Moore has been angling for

over 80 years, and is a world-renownedfly fisherman. After World War II,Frank and his wife Jeanne started theSteamboat Inn, which has served as agathering place for fly fishing enthusi-asts from all over the world. Frank hasserved on the Oregon Fish and WildlifeCommission, received numerous con-servation awards including theNational Wildlife FederationConservationist of the Year, the WildSteelhead Coalition ConservationAward, and has been inducted into theFreshwater Fishing Hall of Fame. Wethank Frank and Jeanne for their life-

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85 SEPTEMBER 2016 3

Frank Moore Wild SteelheadSanctuary Bill Moves Forward

by John Kober

— Pacific Rivers —

GUEST’S CORNER

Continued on Page 18

This legislation wouldprotect about 100,000acres of public land forcritical wild steelhead,

salmon and trout habitat.

Frank and Jeanne Moore relax in their home along the North Umpqua and discusstheir decades of efforts to protect the river’s wild steelhead and salmon from all man-ner of threats. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Congress to build the dams due to abenefit-cost ratio below one.” It wasn’tuntil dam “proponents claimed ‘indi-rect benefits’” that the politicalprospects for the construction of thedams changed. These “indirect bene-fits” skewed the analysis and haveproven to be illusory.

Navigation

Navigation on the lower Snake is insteep decline. Even the website of theU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (Corps)admits as much. TheCorps’ website onwaterborne commercenotes that over the past20 years freight vol-umes, mostly grain, onthe lower Snake havedeclined 69% at IceHarbor, the lowest damon the Snake River. ThePort of Lewiston (POL)handles the only con-tainerized freightshipped on the lowerSnake River.According to the POL’sown shipping reports,since 2000, containertraffic has declined by82%. On April 8, 2015,the POL suspended allcontainer shipmentsfrom Lewiston, thoughlimited container traf-fic has since resumed.However, shipmentsare now being bargedand then go via railfrom Boardman,Oregon to Puget Soundrather than Portland.

The State ofWashington Marine Cargo Forecast(2009, the latest available when thereports upon which this article isbased were compiled) projectedincreases in annual growth for lowerSnake River waterborne tonnage from2002 to 2039. However, actual tonnageshipped during the first 12 years of theforecast period declined by 32%. Itwould seem the 2009 forecast shouldhave checked the actual data and com-

pared it to the earlier projection,rather than just repeating an obviousmistake.

The Corps rates the performance ofa waterway based on a factor of oneton of freight being shipped one mile,or a ton-mile. A “high use” waterwayships three to five billion ton-miles offreight annually, a “medium use”waterway one to three billion ton-milesannually, and a “low use” waterwayless than one billion ton-miles annual-ly. A waterway shipping less than one-half a billion ton-miles is considered awaterway of “negligible use.” Just 0.3billion ton-miles of freight is shippedannually on the lower Snake River.

Claims that barging on the Snake ismore efficient than rail are wrongbecause those claims have used nation-wide data rather than local data. Forexample, shipping barges on the lowerSnake River generally range from oneto four per load whereas on theMississippi, they range from fifteen tofifty per load. It is like comparingapples and oranges. In any case, astudy from Washington State

University (Ball, Trent and Casavant,Ken. 2001. “Impacts of a Snake RiverDrawdown on Energy and EmissionsBased on Regional EnergyCoefficients,” University ofWashington Dept. of Civil Engineeringand Washington State University)shows truck/rail is actually 24 percentmore fuel efficient than truck/barge inthis region. (NOTE: All commodities inthis region are first trucked to eitherthe railhead or water port for ship-ping.). The emergence of the privatelyfunded unit train facility at McCoy(near Oakesdale, Washington), whichhauls grain to Puget Sound, is a testa-ment to rail’s efficiency, even when

barging is highly subsidized by USTaxpayers.

Indeed, navigation on the lowerSnake River is an economic boondog-gle. The costs of maintaining an aginginfrastructure—repair of locks oftentakes fifteen weeks during which timeriver transportation is shut down—areincreasing, and they are paid by us, theUS taxpayers. As Jones notes in his

4 SEPTEMBER 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85

Snake River DamsContinued from page 1

Continued on next page

Transporting agricultural commodities down the Snake River is becoming increasingly difficult to jus-tify from an economic standpoint. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

2015 study from Rocky MountainEconometrics, “The $7.6 million bene-fit of navigation is now dwarfed by the$24-plus million it costs to maintainand mitigate the channel.” Lastly, thefollowing quote from Forbes Magazinesums up the barging issue nicely:

Once the thriving centerpiece of 19th-and early 20th-century logistics... theriver barge business has become award of government largesse.Washington [D.C.] picks up more of thecost of riverborne shipping than anyother type of logistics enterprise in theU. S. except, perhaps, resupplying theInternational Space Station.

Christopher Helman, Forbes MagazineApril 15, 2013

Power

The four lower Snake River dams—Lower Granite, Little Goose, LowerMonumental and Ice Harbor—are runof the river dams, meaning they arenot very high, don’t hold that much

water, and therefore don’t generate asmuch head for power generation as dohigh dams. High dams also don’t usual-ly have locks for navigation or laddersfor fish passage. In any case, dams ofany type rarely operate at full capacitydue to variations in stream flow andother factors. From 2004 to 2014, the

lower four Snake River dams operatedat about thirty-two percent of capacityin terms of electric generation.

The Snake River, though relativelylarge by standards of the drier West,doesn’t consistently carry the volumeof rivers in wetter places. Thus, the

reliability of hydropower generation isin question. Due to lack of reservoirstorage, the four lower Snake Riverdams are only able to generate powerin a “run of river” fashion that mirrorsseasonal runoff cycles. These cycleswill be affected by climate change. Insum, power generation at the lowerSnake River dams occurs in the springwhen supply is high and demand is low.When demand is highest, the lowerSnake River dams are unable to meetthe energy demands of the coldest andhottest months of the year.Since capacity for these dams to gen-

erate electricity is not large, the actualcontribution of the dams to the energysupply in the Northwest is low. Thelower Snake River dams account forabout three percent of the power in theNorthwest. Wind generation in theNorthwest currently contributes morethan twice the amount of power com-ing from the lower Snake River dams.While there are environmentalimpacts from wind generation, thepoint of this is to show the relativelysmall contribution of the lower SnakeRiver dams to the Northwest’s currentenergy supply. In addition, the genera-tors on the dams need to be replacedsoon, and that will be a significant cost.This cost alone will likely outweighany benefits to the hydropower fromthe dams.

The Upshot

There is no question that the dams onthe lower Snake River kill fish, mil-lions of them. It is well known thatefforts to mitigate fish passage, juve-niles and adults, have proven largelyineffective in recovering fish popula-tions, especially wild fish. The millionsof dollars that have been spent havenot been effective. Global warming ismaking the reservoirs even moredeadly for fish as the slack water heatsup under the desert sun in late June,July and early August. In 2015, thesockeye salmon runs were devastatedby hot water. Indeed, in 2013 NOAAFisheries admitted “Chinook survivalthrough the hydropower system hasremained relatively stable since 1999with the exception of lower estimatesin 2001 and 2004.” The proven positivebenefits of increased spill and othermeasures have only been able to stabi-

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85 SEPTEMBER 2016 5

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

Wind generation in theNorthwest currentlycontributes more thantwice the amount of

electricity coming fromthe Snake River dams.

In the long run, the Northwest’s power needs will be better met by wind energy devel-opment rather than relying on the hydropower produced by the four lower SnakeRiver dams. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

lize low run numbers of fish.The best measure of recovery suc-

cess for threatened and endangeredsalmonids is the smolt-to-adult return,or SAR, ratio. Mere survival requires aone percent SAR ratio, and recovery ofSnake River salmon and steelheadrequires a two to six percent ratio. TheSAR rate for wild Chinook salmon overthe past 18 years has averaged justover 0.5 percent and has not surpassed0.8 percent in any year.

Not only do the dams threatensalmonids and Pacific lamprey—aspecies that has received far too littleattention—they also threaten speciesdependent of those fish. The SouthernResident Killer Whale population ofthe Puget Sound region depend onChinook salmon as a major food itemand the Snake River was once a prima-ry source of those fish. That orca pop-ulation has perhaps 80 whales, anextremely low number.

The loss of the fishery—both salmonand Pacific lamprey—also violatestreaty rights. Salmon and lamprey areof prime importance to many NativeAmerican tribes. We have a legal andmoral obligation to maintain fish inrivers, and the slack water behind thelower Snake River dams hardly quali-fies as a river. Besides, healthy riversand fish runs benefit all residents ofthe Northwest, human and nonhumanalike.The aging system of inland waterway

navigation presents a daunting prob-lem for the Corps. Simply put, it can-not maintain this entire infrastructureand must make some hard choices. In2010, the National Academy ofSciences, at the behest of the Corps,came up with some financial recom-mendations. The Academy concludedthe Corps was in an “unsustainable sit-uation” and was “facing increased fre-quency of infrastructure failure andnegative social, economic and publicsafety consequences.” An alternativethat was suggested was the divestitureor decommissioning of certain pro-jects. It would seem the lower SnakeRiver dams are the prime candidatefor decommissioning through removalof the riprap portions of the dams, theleast expensive and most effectiveway to breach the dams to recover theSnake River.

Retired career US Army Corps engi-

neer Jim Waddell completed a compre-hensive reevaluation of the waterway,based on the Corps’ 2002 Report, usingthe same methodology the Corps hadused to prepare its 2002 Report.Waddell was the former DeputyDistrict Engineer for Programs in the

Walla Walla District, so he was inti-mately familiar with the lower SnakeRiver dams and the 2002 effort. Hisconclusions are that we cannot affordto keep the dams. The costs are toohigh, both in real dollar terms and lossof native fish populations, and the ben-efits are too low.

The confluence of several factors,including the recent legal victory by

Earthjustice (who represented severalplaintiffs) the Nez Perce Tribe (anAmicus) and the State of Oregon (aPlaintiff-Intervenor), indicate the timeis ripe for making the decision toremove/breach the lower Snake Riverdams. Certainly, the Clearwater Riverbasin will benefit; the pure wild steel-head in the Selway will benefit; theNez Perce people will benefit; and,indeed, all will benefit. As Lin Laughystates, “The issue isn’t whether we canafford to breach the four Lower SnakeRiver dams, but whether we can affordnot to breach them.”

6 SEPTEMBER 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85

Continued from previous page

We have a moral obligation to manage the Columbia River system for the benefit ofboth fish and people, now and into the future. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

We have a legal andmoral obligation to

maintain fish in rivers,and the slack waterbehind the dams hardly qualifies. For more information on the econom-

ics of the Snake River dams see:

damsense.org

http://srresurrection.org

www.nimiipuuprotecting.org

https://srkwcsi.org/

www.wildsalmon.org

www.idahorivers.org

www.friendsoftheclearwater.org

Anna Sewell is an Associate Attorneyfor the Earthjustice Northwest Officein Seattle, Washington. Visit their web-site at:www.earthjustice.org/about/offices/northwest

When we last updatedreaders of The Ospreyon the status of theSnake and ColumbiaRiver salmon and

steelhead Biological Opinions (BiOps)in 2014, we ended the article withJudge Malcom Marsh’s 1994 admonish-ment that “the situation literally criesout for a major overhaul.” Two yearslater, U.S. District Court JudgeMichael Simon quoted this oft-repeat-ed phrase in his 149-page, thoroughlydismantling of the National MarineFisheries Service’s (NMFS) “2014Supplemental BiOp” under theEndangered Species Act (ESA). JudgeSimon also observed: “The FederalColumbia River Power Systemremains a system that ‘cries out’ for anew approach and for new thinking ifwild Pacific salmon and steelhead,which have been in these waters sincewell before the arrival of Homo sapi-ens, are to have any reasonable chanceof surviving their encounter with mod-ern man.” As Homo sapiens considertheir options, the fish continue to swimin this crying collection of reservoirsand concrete, waiting for the possibili-ty of major changes to restore theorganic machine they call home. On May 4, 2016, Judge Simon decided

that NMFS’s 2014 BiOp violated theESA, and that the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers and U.S. Bureau ofReclamation illegally failed to reviewthe environmental consequences ofadopting that BiOp under the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA).BiOps are decision documents issuedby the government that analyzewhether a proposed federal action is

likely to jeopardize the continued exis-tence of an endangered or threatenedspecies, or destroy or adversely modi-fy such a species’ critical habitat. Theproposed activity cannot be carriedout unless the expert governmentagency, in this case NMFS, finds it willnot result in either of these two out-comes. If other measures called “rea-sonable and prudent alternatives” canbe taken which sufficiently avoid thethreat though, the activity may pro-ceed with these mitigating modifica-tions. In this way, BiOps often become

plans for how federal agencies willcarry out projects in listed species’habitats without causing those speciesto slide into extinction, if such an out-come is possible. The federal agencyactivity in the 2014 Supplemental BiOpwas continued operation of the seriesof dams on the Columbia and Snakerivers, and the listed species were thethirteen endangered and threatenedsalmon and steelhead populations thatlive in those rivers. The 2014 BiOpconcluded the continued dam opera-tions, when combined with 73 mitigat-ing “reasonable and prudent alterna-tives” such as habitat restoration pro-jects, would not jeopardize the listedsalmon and steelhead or adverselymodify their critical habitat. The gov-ernment agencies in charge of operat-ing the system did not evaluate theenvironmental impacts of—or alterna-

tives to—this decision, as required byNEPA. When the BiOp was issued, a coalition

of fishing groups, conservation organi-zations (including the InternationalFederation of Fly Fishers), clean ener-gy advocates, the Nez Perce Tribe, andthe state of Oregon challenged thedecision on the grounds that it reliedon speculative and uncertain habitatrestoration measures, failed to proper-ly address the impacts of climatechange on the listed fish, and used anillegal standard to measure whetherthe proposed activity would avoidjeopardy among other things. JudgeSimon agreed with these plaintiffs andfound the 2014 BiOp illegal under theESA and also found that the agenciesillegally failed to review the environ-mental consequences of their actionsunder NEPA. This decision markedthe fifth time that a court has over-turned a BiOp in this case, and the firsttime that a court has found a NEPAviolation. In order to understand thesignificance of this most recent opin-ion though, it is useful to brieflyreview the history of the legal battle tosave wild salmon and steelhead in theColumbia River Basin.

Unlike some major oversights inhuman history, we built the dams onthe Columbia and Snake rivers withfull knowledge that we were riskingsome of the most prolific salmon andsteelhead runs in the world. As oneconservationist warned in a letter toCongress regarding the proposed IceHarbor dam on the Snake River in1955: “Ice Harbor project would in ouropinion be the most destructivemethod ever devised, outside of poisonor dynamite insofar as either commer-cial or sports fishery for salmon is con-cerned.” These words proved prophet-ic, as after the dams’ construction wewatched every population of SnakeRiver salmon and steelhead plummet,

Continued on next page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85 SEPTEMBER 2016 7

The latest decisionmarks the fifth time acourt has overturned aBiOp, and the firsttime it found a NEPA violation.

Judge Says Columbia and SnakeRivers Continue to “Cry Out”

By Anna Sewell— Earthjustice —

either into the pages of ESA listingnotices—or worse, into extinction. Thefour Lower Snake River dams are aparticularly harmful obstacle tosalmon that must migrate to the cool,high-altitude spawning habitat of cen-tral Idaho, which cur-rently representsover 70% of therecovery potentialfor these at–riskspecies. Since thelate 1990s, the fightto ensure that thesefish survive andrecover has focusedon the need to par-tially remove orbypass these dams—a measure supportedby a deep consensusamong fisheries biol-ogists as the singlemost effective wayto restore healthySnake River salmonand steelhead.

The current courtcase regarding thelegality of ColumbiaRiver Basin salmonand steelhead BiOpsbegan in 2001, inresponse to theFisheries Service’s2000 BiOp. ThisBiOp found that theColumbia and Snakeriver dams are likelyto jeopardize the sur-vival and recovery ofeight salmon andsteelhead popula-tions. But instead ofadvocating for damremoval or othermajor systemchanges, the govern-ment proposed onlyspeculative anduncertain mitigationmeasures like habi-tat restoration andunspecified reformsto hatchery opera-tions, and minortweaks to dam opera-tions. While habitatrestoration and other

measures are needed to restore wildfish, they are insufficient to shoulderthe burden alone. Recognizing this, in2003, the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Oregon rejected the 2000BiOp and sent the government agen-cies back to the drawing board.

New dam-sustaining BiOps in 2004,

2008, and 2010 were tested before thecourt, and all were also found wanting.Throughout that decade, the govern-ment relied on minor tweaks to thesystem that repeatedly failed to avoidjeopardy to the survival and recovery

There are more than 130 dams within the Columbia River basin, 56 of which were built exclusively forhydropower, while the remaining are multipurpose dams. Source: Northwest Power and ConservationCouncil

8 SEPTEMBER 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

of the listed fish. In 2014, the govern-ment agencies had yet another chanceto make critical changes. As JudgeSimon thoroughly explained in his Mayopinion though, the government madethe same mistakes it made in previousBiOps. The opinion explains that fortwenty years, the government hasignored repeated court directives toconsider breaching one or more of thefour Lower Snake River dams, andinstead relied on expensive and uncer-tain habitat restoration measures thathave failed to recover these imperiledspecies. The 2014 BiOp, like many ofits predecessors, illegally used thesespeculative, hopeful half-measures tojustify its cheery conclusion that thesespecies will continue to survive fullthrottle operation of the Columbia andSnake dams.

Judge Simon also found the BiOpused an illegal standard the govern-ment called “trending toward recov-ery” to measure the legality of its con-clusion under the ESA. The govern-ment used this concept to rationalizeits determination that the listed fishwill survive and recover if there is anydemonstrated population growth, nomatter the size of the populations. Inother words, one fish more this yearthan last year is enough, even if weonly have two fish. Judge Simonrejected the use of such a standard,finding that the fish “remain in a high-ly precarious state,” that low popula-tion sizes are dangerous for species onthe brink of extinction, and that the“trending toward recovery” standardfailed to consider that danger to thespecies.The unrealistically optimistic conclu-

sion in the 2014 BiOp was further jus-tified by the government’s improperanalysis of the effects climate changewill have on listed salmon and steel-head. Judge Simon found that “NOAAFisheries’ analysis does not apply thebest available science, overlooksimportant aspects of the problem, andfails properly to analyze the effects ofclimate change . . . and how it increas-es the chances of a catastrophicevent.” The opinion does not mentionthe hundreds of thousands of adultsalmon that died in hot water inColumbia and Snake reservoirs in thesummer of 2015, including 99% of the

returning Snake River sockeye thatyear. As the climate continues towarm, slack-water reservoirs becomeincreasingly dangerous places forthese cold-water fish to live.

In spite of the nearly two decades ofgovernment intransigence and thefatal legal flaws in the 2014 BiOp,Judge Simon expressed hope that thegovernment will fix the problems heidentified in the next BiOp, which he

ordered to be completed in 2018. Thisjudicial optimism is in part based onthe fact that he also ordered the agen-cies to conduct a comprehensivereview of the system’s environmentalimpacts and alternative operationsunder NEPA—the first time the courthas ordered such relief in this case.When analyzing environmentalimpacts under NEPA, the governmentmust prepare an environmental impactstatement that considers all “reason-able” alternatives to the governmentactivity and chooses among thesealternatives. Judge Simon observedthat this type of review “may finallybreak the decades-long cycle of court-invalidated biological opinions”because it provides a broader andmore thorough look at options than theESA’s review of whatever specificactions the government agencies arewilling to propose. The Judge did notmince words, using his NEPA order toput dam removal back on the table. Inhis view, it is “doubtful” the govern-

ment will be able to avoid consideringLower Snake dam removal or bypass-ing in its environmental review underNEPA, as this option “may be consid-ered more financially prudent andenvironmentally effective than spend-ing hundreds of millions of dollarsmore on uncertain habitat restorationand other alternative actions.”

The next steps in this case are thegovernment’s preparation of its 2018

BiOp and the environmental reviewunder NEPA. The government has fiveyears—until 2021—to complete anenvironmental impact statement thatcomplies with NEPA. However, thegovernment must take some criticalinitial steps to outline the range ofalternative actions it will consider inits environmental impact statement bySeptember 30, 2017, and there is a sta-tus conference scheduled with thecourt for October 30, 2017. We expectthe government agencies to hold pub-lic hearings and invite written com-ments from the public throughout thisprocess, likely beginning with initialpublic comments and hearings laterthis year or early next. Stay tuned andbe ready to mark your calendars whenthese opportunities are announced.Our best hope for making sure thevoice of the salmon does not disappearforever from the Columbia and SnakeRivers is to raise as many of our voicesas we can on their behalf.

The Dalles Dam inundated Celilo Falls, a former traditional Native American salmonfishing site, and is one of the four federal dams encountered by migrating fishbetween the mouth of the Columbia and the Snake River. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85 SEPTEMBER 2016 9

Continued from previous page

Author Bill Bakke is founder andDirector of Science and Conservationof The Native Fish Society, located inPortland, Oregon. Learn more aboutthe group’s work at: www.nativefishsociety.org

Atimeline for following themanagement of salmonand steelhead would tellus that since 1850 salmonmanagement and man-

agers have been privatizing the publiccommons (ISAB 2013). The history ofColumbia River salmonid managementhas set the stage for the entire WestCoast. That is why what happens onthe Columbia and efforts to recoverpopulations that are threatened withextinction should be informative aboutwhat is going on in the whole region.Knowing something about the histor-

ical context of salmon managementwill probably help one to better under-stand the present day problems. If onedraws a line from 1850 to 2016, thereare events, insights and discoveriesthat are worth knowing about. As youfollow down that line to the present,there is a branch that describes adivergent perspective about salmonand management. So let’s start walkingdown that line.

First, though, there are a few thingsworth noting. There are beliefs, factsand money which all play a decisiverole in the outcome. Initially, the com-mercial fishery excessively exploitedsalmon resources. At that time, thefocus of management was to supportthe commercial fishery and that per-spective has persisted. For example: “It has been shown that

the present intensity of fishing is suchthat, in 1938, over 80 percent of thespring run and between 60 and 70 per-cent of the main fall run of chinooksalmon were taken in the commercialfishery. It seems reasonably certainthat, at least for the spring run of chi-

nooks on the Columbia, the escape-ment is well below the level that wouldprovide the maximum sustained yield.For the May run of chinooks it isshown that only about 1 fish out of 7escapes the commercial fishery andavailable for the future maintenanceof the run.” (Rich 1942)

In 1875, Spencer Baird, U.S. FishCommissioner, told The (Portland)Oregonian that by investing in hatch-eries it would no longer be necessaryto regulate harvest and protect habi-

tat. He did not have any proof to sup-port that conclusion, but he did believethe states would not effectively man-age wild salmon based on his experi-ence on the East Coast with Atlanticsalmon. Baird set the stage for thefuture, because it let the governmentand the politicians off the hook. All heneeded was money to fund the hatch-eries. The public now would fund pro-grams to mitigate fishery impacts andwatershed development.Three years later, in 1878, Livingston

Stone, U.S. Deputy Fish Commissionerand pioneering fish culturist, atBaird’s request, came to theClackamas River and developed thefirst salmon hatchery on the Columbiabecause the runs had declined. Stonewas an advocate that salmon were notlocally adapted, but returned to riversrandomly, primarily to those riverswith a vigorous, rapid flow. (In 1879,

Stone directed the introduction ofstriped bass to the West Coast, puttingthe fingerings in barrels and shippingthem across the country by railroad.)By the mid 1890s, the impact of com-

mercial fishing on Columbia Riversalmon was becoming a concern.Warned Barton W. Evermann, Ph.D.,Ichthyologist of the United States FishCommission, “The alarming decreasein the salmon catch of the ColumbiaRiver within recent years, the impor-tance of preventing the continuance ofthis decrease, and the desire and hopethat the salmon industry may berebuilt to its former importance, ren-der imperative a most careful study ofthe natural history of the salmon andmore accurate knowledge of the loca-tion of their spawning beds, their timeof spawning, and the temperature andother physical conditions under whichtheir spawning takes place.”

During that same period, U.S.Commissioner of Fish and FisheriesMarshall McDonald noted, “...fisheriesin a large measure prevent the run ofsalmon into and up the rivers, then aserious decline in the fisheries isinevitable. The regulation…of the fish-eries should…assure the largest oppor-tunity practicable for reproductionunder natural conditions. Artificialpropagation should be invoked as anaid and not as a substitute for repro-duction under natural conditions. It isevident, therefore, that fish culturaloperations cannot be relied uponexclusively or chiefly to maintain thesalmon supply of the Columbia.”

While Evermann and McDonald rec-ognized the value of the Columbia’swild salmon runs and the importanceof protecting them from overharvestas well as their habitat, others had adifferent view.

David Starr Jordan (StanfordUniversity) was an influential thinkerand expert on salmon and in 1902 con-

10 SEPTEMBER 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85

Continued on next page

Knowing the history ofhatcheries in the

Columbia River helpsus better understandcurrent problems with

fish recovery.

The History of Salmonid Management onthe Columbia Affects Entire Northwest

By Bill Bakke— The Native Fish Society—

cluded, “We fail to find any evidencethat salmon return to spawn on thesame spawning grounds…” So now weknow that salmon do not return to theriver of their birth and that hatcheriescan replace the salmon and their habi-tats. These beliefs had a profoundeffect on development of salmon man-agement that is still operating today.

Those who didn’t buy into the ideathat hatcheries could replace naturalproduction pushed back, although theyultimately lost the argument. In 1917,John Cobb, who would become thehead of fisheries at theUniversity of Washingtonwrote: “In some sectionsan almost idolatrous faithin the efficacy of artifi-cial culture of fish forreplenishing the ravagesof man…and nothing hasdone more harm than theprevalence of such anidea.” Willis Rich, in 1927,concluded, based on hissalmon tagging work,“Since each race is self-propagating, it becomesperfectly apparent thatall parts of the salmonrun must be given protec-tion if the run as a wholeis to be maintained.” In1948, he recommended:“The importance of thefact that the salmon andsteelhead return as adultsto their home streamsand tributaries is obvi-ous; it is essential thateach independent, self-perpetuating populationof fish be preserved ifdepletion is to be avoid-ed.”

The beliefs of Baird,Stone and Jordan that hatcheries werethe solution to maintaining salmonruns in the Columbia River systemwere challenged by scientific investi-gation. Willis Rich established the con-cept of the Home Stream Theory asthe only management approach to con-serve the salmon and maintain thefisheries. The concept of salmon man-agement in place for 73 years divergedbased on fact rather than belief. Thereare now two perspectives on salmon

management: 1) Conservation and 2)privatizing the public commons to pro-duce a product for the market econo-my. Which perspective will win?

The divergent perspective of Richled to Oregon’s Wild Fish ManagementPolicy in 1978, the first ESA salmonlisting in 1991, and the 1996 review ofNorthwest salmon management by theNational Research Council in the bookUpstream. In discussing hatcheriesthe NRC said: “Hatcheries have result-ed…in reduced genetic diversity with-in and between salmon populations,increased the effect of mixed-popula-tion fisheries on depleted natural pop-

ulations, altered behavior of fish,caused ecological problems by elimi-nating the nutritive contributions ofcarcasses of spawning salmon fromstreams, and probably displaced theremnants of wild runs.”

But hatcheries were also crucial forallowing natural resources develop-ment on the Columbia River system,especially hydropower development,and wild fish were in the way. The U.S.Department of Interior, in a 1947 state-ment declared, “The Northwest and

the Department Committees have eachassumed that the Columbia River fish-eries cannot be allowed indefinitely toblock the full development of the otherresources of the river. It is, therefore,the conclusion of all concerned thatthe overall benefits to the PacificNorthwest from a thorough goingdevelopment of the Snake andColumbia are such that the presentsalmon run must be sacrificed. Thismeans that the Department’s effortsshould be directed toward ameliorat-ing the impact of this developmentupon injured interests and not towarda vain attempt to hold still the hands of

the clock.”Hatchery mitigation eclipsed the

Home Stream conservation recom-mendations of Willis Rich. Rock IslandDam (1933) was already in operationon the upper Columbia, soon to be fol-lowed by Bonneville Dam (1938) andGrand Coulee Dam (1941).

Spencer Baird was correct that thegovernment was unwilling to protectthe salmon, therefore his promise thathatcheries would maintain the fishery

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85 SEPTEMBER 2016 11

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

Hatchery production remains the dominant salmon and steelhead management strategy on theColumbia River system that was set in motion many decades ago. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

would dominate social and profession-al perspectives.

In 1938, the Mitchell Act was passedand became the primary source of fed-eral funding for hatchery developmentin the Columbia basin. In 1960, MiloMoore, Director of the WashingtonDepartment of Fisheries made whatmay be the most definitive statementabout the pro-hatchery justificationever uttered when he said: “…artificialtaking of spawn may provide the reali-ty – salmon without rivers.”

The U.S. Congress established theNorthwest Power Planning Council in1980. Through its fish and wildlife pro-gram with Bonneville PowerAdministration, it has provided over$15 billion in funding on salmon pas-sage, habitat and hatcheries, but hasfailed to achieve the goal of generatinga run of 5 million hatchery, natural(naturally spawning hatchery fish) andwild fish in the Columbia River. In1991, the first wild salmon populationswere given protection through the fed-eral Endangered Species Act.

The hatchery promise to provide har-vest mitigation for the fisheries hasnot yet materialized and recovery ofwild salmon through the authority ofthe ESA has not yet been effectivelyapplied, while the conservation recom-mendations of Willis Rich have beenset aside; a footnote in history.

Continued from previous page

12 SEPTEMBER 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85

Domain Species Populations ESA Listing

Willamette/LowerColumbia Chum Salmon 16 Threatened (1999)

Spring/Fall Chinook Salmon 32 Threatened (1999)Upper Willamette Chinook 7 Threatened (1999)Lower Columbia Steelhead 23 Threatened (1999)Lower Columbia Coho Salmon 24 Threatened (2005)Upper Willamette Steelhead 5 Threatened (1999)

Interior Columbia Snake River Fall Chinook 1 Threatened (1992)Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook 31 Threatened (1992)Upper Columbia Spring Chinook 3 Endangered (1999)Snake River Basin Steelhead 24 Threatened (1997)Middle Columbia Steelhead 18 Threatened (1999)Upper Columbia Steelhead 5 Threatened (1997)Snake River Sockeye 1 Endangered (1991)

Total by Species:

Chum 16Chinook 74Steelhead 75Coho 24Sockeye 1

Total Populations Protected by the Endangered Species Act: 190

Source: NW Power Planning and Conservation Council (Updated 11/3/2105)

190 Species of Salmon and Steelhead Threatened withExtinction in Columbia River System

This table contains information that is difficult to find, but in 2015 the NW Power Planning and Conservation Council pro-vided an update. It is still not easy to find, and that is probably why most people do not realize that 190 populations ofsalmon and steelhead are threatened with extinction in the Columbia River. The intense commercial fishery and decliningharvest caused the cannery owners, fishermen and fish managers to build the first hatchery on the river in 1877. The publictook action to eliminate some forms of commercial gear (1927) in order to increase spawning escapement, but it did notwork. The public got the Snake River Chinook protected through the Endangered Species Act in 1992. More hatcherieswere built but an effective program for wild salmonid recovery has not yet been applied.

Author Bill Bakke is founder, andDirector of Science and Conservationof The Native Fish Society, located inPortland, Oregon. Learn more aboutthe group’s work at: www.nativefishsociety.org

Comparing wild steelheadharvest in the ColumbiaRiver for the years 1890through 1892 to the steel-head passing Bonneville

dam in 2014, illustrates a tremendousdecline in wild steelhead.

The 1890 through 1892 commercialfishery was confined to a period fromApril 10 to August 10, while the countof fish passing Bonneville Damincludes the full five months. Duringthose years the April harvest was just1.5 to 15% of the total catch, makingthe months May, June and July a peri-od of highest harvest. Of course, thesteelhead in the early years are of wildorigin while 20% of the steelhead in2014 are of wild origin based on theassumption that 80% of the ColumbiaRiver salmonid run is of hatchery ori-gin. Not all the hatchery steelhead aremarked with an adipose fin removed,so the number of true wild fish passingBonneville Dam is less than the countof so called “unclipped” steelhead.Harvest, even when it is intense, does

not consume all the fish, so the kill ofwild steelhead is likely less than thetotal run for the period of the fisheryin the late 1800s. The passage atBonneville Dam does not include wildsteelhead harvested below the dam,even though they cannot be legallyharvested, there is some un-quantifiedby-catch mortality, and so theBonneville Dam count does not includeall the wild steelhead that entered theriver. In addition, a few wild summersteelhead enter tributaries below thedam. Given those limitations it is stillpossible to compare wild steelheadabundance in the Columbia in the late

1800s to that of recent times. Also, themonths considered are during the timeperiod of the summer steelhead migra-tion.

In 2014 the passage of unclippedsteelhead at Bonneville Dam fromApril 1 through August 31 was 42,914fish. The wild steelhead catch fromApril 10 through August 10, 1890 was287,375 fish. In 1891, the catch for thissame time period was 218,205 wildsteelhead and in 1892 it was 464,926

fish. It is worth noting that the averageweight of wild steelhead in the catchwas 10 pounds with some fish weigh-ing 40 pounds.

The passage of wild steelhead atBonneville dam in 2014 for the full fivemonths was 15% of the 1890 catch,19% of the 1891 catch and 9.2% of the1892 catch. It should also be noted that in the late

1800s the Columbia River catch wasdeclining, and it was a concern of themanagers as well as the fishermen andcanners. Their concern led to the firstfish hatchery in the Columbia basin in1877 for the purpose of increasing thesupply of salmon for the commercialfishery. The commercial fishery wasstarted in 1866 and the commercialpack peaked in 1883 and 1884 then con-tinued to decline. McDonald, U.S. FishCommissioner, said, “In 1889 the pack-ers began canning bluebacks (sockeye)and steelheads to make up the defi-

ciency of the supply (of chinook) andextended their fishery intoSeptember.”

Evermann and Goldsborough madesome interesting observations aboutColumbia River steelhead in 1907, pub-lished in Volume 27 of the Bulletin ofthe U.S. Bureau of Fisheries: “The cen-ter of abundance of the steelhead isevidently the Columbia River. Mr. F.M. Warren of Portland, reports that therun in the Columbia, Rogue, and otherOregon rivers was large in 1902 and1903. This first spring run in 1903 wasabout June 20 and continued two days,the fish averaging only 7 pounds. Thefish of the later run (August) weremuch larger, averaging about 15pounds. A few may be taken in theColumbia any day of the year. Thelargest one of which we have a definiterecord was caught at Corbett, on theColumbia River, by Reed Brothers. Itwas seen by Mr. J. N. Wisner andweighed 42 pounds. Reed Brothersstate that they often get steelheads ofthat size.

“On September 11 many steelheadswere seen in Mr. Warren’s cold-storageplant at Goble, on the Columbia. Theywere being caught in traps near by. Atthis time it was difficult to tell malesfrom females. A female examinedshowed the roe to be very immature,indicating that spawning would proba-bly not have occurred before Februaryor March.

“One hundred and five exampleswere measured and weighed. Thelengths varied from 31 to 45 inches andthe weights from 10.5 to 32.5 pounds.The average length was 37.03 inchesand the average weight 18.48 pounds.Several examined at Pyramid Harborin August were 26 to 32 inches long andweighed 9.5 to 13.5 pounds. One takenat Bell Island was 33 inches long andweighed 9 pounds.“In September and October, 1897, Mr.

Continued on next page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85 SEPTEMBER 2016 13

Wild Steelhead Adundance in ColumbiaRiver Shows Sharp Decline 1890s - 2014

By Bill Bakke— The Native Fish Society —

In the early 1900s,observers reported thatcatches of 40-poundColumbia River

steelhead were notuncommon.

A. B. Alexander, of the Bureau, exam-ined a large number of steelheads atthe Cascades and at Celilo, on the

Columbia River. Many were seen,September 18 and 19, ascending thefalls. In all 4,179 were examined; ofthese, 1,531 were males and 2,648females; 476 males and 900 femaleswere regarded as well developed andready to spawn within a month or sixweeks. “This ripening of the steelhead in the

fall is probably unusual. All otherobservations indicate that this speciesis a spring spawner. In the headwatersof Salmon River, in Idaho, it spawns inearly spring—usually in May andJune.”

I have seen 40-pound steelhead,stuffed and mounted, at the Fisheriesoffice in Smithers, BC. These wereSkeena steelhead taken in the salmongill net fishery that had spawned sev-eral times and were 8 years old. To seethese giant steelhead can take one’sbreath away, and to think that theywere not uncommon in the Columbiacauses one to realize that importantpages of steelhead biological diversityhave been ripped from the river’srecord. It is possible that these 40-plus-pound Columbia River fish werewhat we call B-run steelhead from theNorth Fork Clearwater or the MiddleFork Salmon. They were able to spawnand return to the sea, mend, and returnas spawners several times. The dams

and commercial fisheries destroyedthat unique life history. Fall spawningsteelhead captured at Cascades andCelilo is an animal that no longerexists, and where their home river orspawning area was located may neverbe known. The notes of a few biologists travers-

ing the immensity of the ColumbiaRiver in the 1890s now read like talltales in a book of mythology. We havea glimpse of what was because theywrote down what they saw and it waspublished in obscure papers waiting tobe rediscovered in the Library of

Congress. Even then, steelhead hadbeen diminished by commercial fish-eries since the peak harvests of 1884,but this great river still had all itsarms and legs. The Payette was stillhome to B-run steelhead and therewere still steelhead spawning inNevada and in Canada, over a thousandmiles inland, nurtured by RockyMountain snow. Now one lives with theghosts of what was and the hunger forwhat could have been. We are confinedby what is and that is precious and can-not be further diminished.

References:

Marshall McDonald. 1895. Bulletin ofthe United States Fish Commission,Washington, D.C.U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers.2014.Annual Fish PassageReport.

Evermann, B.W., and E.L.Goldsborough.1907. The Fishes ofAlaska. IN: Bowers, G.M. 1907.Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau ofFisheries, Vol. XXVI, 1906.Department of Commerce and Labor,U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.Washington, DC.

14 SEPTEMBER 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85

Continued from previous page

As early as the late 1800s, cannery owners were concerned about a decline in salmonruns due to heavy fishing pressure. Photo courtesy Salem Public Library

In the early 1970s, recreational fishingfor salmon and steelhead on theColumbia River could still be prettygood. Photo Courtesy OregonDepartment of Transportation.

Fall spawingColumbia River

steelhead is an animalthat no longer exists,and its life history will

never be known.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85 SEPTEMBER 2016 15

With the demise of the proposed dam, Alaska’s Susitna River will continue to flowfree and its salmon runs will thrive. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY OFFERSELECTRONIC MAILING AND ACCEPTS ONLINE

DONATIONSSubscribers may now, at their

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

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

If you are an existing subscriberwho would like to switch to e-maildelivery or a new subscriber foreither printed or e-mail delivery,please complete the redesignedcoupon on Page 19 and send it to theInternational Federation of FlyFishers with your contribution tosupport The Osprey and the causeof recovering wild steelhead andsalmon.

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

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

ALASKA GOVERNOR BILL WALKER KILLSSUSITNA DAM PROJECT

In late June, Alaska Governor Bill Walker ended work on a proposed dam onthe Susitna River that the state had been pursuing since 2011 that would havehad significant negative impacts on that river system’s salmon runs, and theriver’s environment in general. Richard Leo, of the Coalition for Susitna DamAlternatives, covered this story in the September 2013 issue of The Osprey.

The free-flowing Susitna River, in central Alaska, is home to all five NorthAmerican salmon species and includes the state’s fourth largest run of Chinooksalmon within the 19,000-square-mile watershed. The seasonal sport fishingindustry generated by the river’s salmon runs brings in about $143 millionannually and creates approximately 2,000 jobs.

The proposed dam would have been located 184 miles upstream from CookInlet. At 735 feet, it would have been the second-tallest dam in the U.S. Theestimated cost to build the dam was $5.2 billion. The state of Alaska hadalready spent $180 million on the dam planning phase to date. The project’shigh expense was cited as the reason for shutting it down.

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

The Osprey Blog:www.ospreysteelheadnews.blogspot.com

International Federation of Fly Fishers

www.fedflyfishers.org

Dr. Mara Zimmerman is a ResearchScientist at the WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). Research in her science unitfocuses on the life cycle and diversityof anadromous fishes in tributaries tothe lower Columbia River and in riverson the Washington coast. Check outtheir website at: www.wdfw.wa.gov

The Hoh River leaves animpression far greaterthan its 299 square milefootprint on the landscapebetween the glaciers of

Mount Olympus and the Pacific Ocean.The first time that I visited the HohRiver was our summer vacation in2009. Having lived east of theMississippi River for most of my life, Inow find myself continually awestruckby the rivers, mountains, and ocean ofthe Pacific Northwest. That summer,after exploring piles of driftwood andcolorful pebbles at Rialto Beach, wemade our way inland towards the Hohrainforest, one of the largest temper-ate rainforests in the United States.Our first stop was the Oxbow camp-ground off US highway 101 just southof the town of Forks. Here, the rivernarrows into a chute that navigates abedrock-enforced u-shaped bend in theriver. The downstream velocity of theriver is interrupted by boulders morethan 12 feet in diameter that cause thewater to churn and tumble before com-ing to rest in a downstream pool. In thesummer, this pool quietly glidesbetween a bedrock cliff and gravel barbut I envisioned the location underwinter flows, with the river rippingthrough the canyon, forcibly carryingtrees and boulders caught in its path.Winter would also bring steelhead withtheir muscular bodies poweringupstream through the turbulence,determined to complete their home-ward journey. I also envisioned the sil-very silhouettes of their smolts scoot-

ing and surfing their way through theoxbow in the spring. The garden ofboulders and turbulent waters of theoxbow would be just one of the manyunpredictable interruptions encoun-tered on their seaward journey. I findirony in the smolts’ seaward journey —they follow a millennia-old path that ishardwired into their DNA and yet eachindividual embarks on this perilousjourney as a maiden voyage, sights yetunseen.

Steelhead of the Hoh River are thefocus for a new collaborative researchprogram between WDFW and a num-ber of conservation partners that hasdeveloped over the last several years.In the spring of 2012, I accompaniedRon Warren and Jim Scott, both fromWDFW, as well as Pete Soverel fromThe Conservation Angler (and IFFFSteelhead Committee member) andMike Hagen from the Hoh River Truston a tour of the river. Together, weenvisioned the potential for a long-term steelhead research program thatmight improve the management andconservation of the species. Recentdeclines in steelhead abundance onmany rivers in western Washingtonhave highlighted critical gaps in ourunderstanding of steelhead biologyand ecology and these gaps limit theability to manage this species. In lightof these limitations, as well as emerg-ing issues such as climate change,there was a strong need to develop a

robust research and monitoring pro-gram.

The Wild Salmon Center describesrivers like the Hoh River as ‘strong-holds’ for conservation based on thehealth and diversity of fish popula-tions. As a focal watershed forresearch, the Hoh River representsone of the last strongholds of wildsteelhead in Washington State. Sixty-five percent of the watershed is inpristine condition, protected withinthe boundaries of the OlympicNational Park. Downstream of thepark, much of the river corridor is pro-tected and managed to restore mature,naturally functioning habitat thanks tothe purchase of 10,000 acres of land bythe Hoh River Trust and The NatureConservancy over the last ten years.The river is home to summer- and win-ter-run steelhead as well as a diversityof wild salmon, trout, and char species.High quality freshwater habitat result-ing from this landscape-level conser-vation benefits all anadromousspecies, but especially species such assteelhead that spend up to four yearsin freshwater before migrating to thesea. The river supports a steelheadfishery with important economic andsocial benefits to the Hoh Indian tribe,local communities, and anglers fromaround the world. Perhaps due to itswildness or remoteness, the steelheadfishery on the Hoh River has a partic-ular draw for anglers on Washington’snorth coast. Many are concerned for the future of

steelhead in the Hoh River. In general,these concerns involve increased fish-ing effort, dry summertime tributarychannels, and reduction in life historydiversity. The central message is simi-lar regardless of the messenger: 1) theHoh River and its fish populations arehighly valued, 2) changes to the fishand the river ecosystem over time areconcerning, and 3) more actual data

16 SEPTEMBER 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 54

Continued on next page

New Hoh River SteelheadProject Gets Underway

By Mara S. Zimmerman— Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife —

The initial goal of thislong-term study will

address the abundanceand diversity

of adult steelhead.

would be useful for fish managementand conservation. The Hoh River Steelhead Project was

developed to benefit the conservationand management of steelhead on theHoh River and to inform steelheadmanagement more broadly inWashington State. A research frame-work that identifies the goals andapproach for this work was crafted byJohn McMillan (Trout Unlimited), andPete Soverel (The ConservationAngler) and myself. The goals of thisresearch are to increase understand-ing of steelhead biology and ecologyand better explain trends in survival

and diversity. The research is orga-nized around a life cycle framework,meaning that our work will considerthe freshwater and marine life stagesseparately. With an envisioned timeframe of 10-12 years, the first studieswill address the abundance and diver-sity of adult steelhead. For example,we will evaluate a measure known tofishery biologists as ‘fish per redd’that is needed to translate the numberof redds (nests that female steelheaddig to lay their eggs) into adult abun-dance (total number of fish in theriver). Most of the stock assessmentprograms for steelhead in WashingtonState rely on the numbers of observedredds but the fish-per-redd measure israrely available for large rivers such

as the Hoh River. This leaves stockassessment biologists to rely on infor-mation from smaller watersheds thatmay not translate well to survey condi-tions and steelhead behavior on largerivers. An additional objective will beto better understand whether the tim-ing of freshwater entry is related tothe timing of spawning. While a por-tion of the wild winter steelheadreturn enters the rivers in lateNovember or early December eachyear, the spawn timing of these earlyreturning winter steelhead is not wellunderstood and further information isneeded to guide stock assessment pro-grams and better understand currentfishing impacts.

With a vision crafted, the real test ofthe Hoh River Steelhead Project willbe its implementation. Two occur-rences were responsible for thelaunching of our pilot year in 2016.First, WDFW dedicated funding forthe purchase and staffing of a sonaroperation. The sonar instrument usessound waves to “see” underwater.Given proper positioning and site con-ditions, fish moving up and down-stream in the slate blue waters of theHoh River can be enumerated oneframe at a time. In Washington State,this technology is currently used toenumerate sockeye at the outlet ofLake Ozette and Chinook and steelheadin the Elwha River. In 2016, we collab-orated with Keith Denton (K. Denton &

Associates) to test this equipment atseveral field sites on the Hoh River,looking for the best locations for long-term study. In the future, we plan touse the sonar to derive an independentestimate of winter steelhead abun-dance in the Hoh River and developone of the first fish-per-redd conver-sion rates for steelhead in large riversin Washington State. The secondoccurrence, which helped to launchour pilot year, was the beginning of acitizen science team. The citizen sci-ence effort involved a handful ofanglers and guides who stepped for-ward to help collect biological infor-mation from the fish they caught. TheTrout Unlimited Science Program wasinvaluable in helping to set up thisteam. The collaboration between sci-entist and angler is one that I hadexperienced in Kamchatka, Russia andone that may bring substantial bene-fits to the future of steelhead researchin the Hoh River. In the first year, vol-unteers collected biological informa-tion from steelhead caught in multipleareas of the river, including OlympicNational Park. Over the next fewyears, we hope to combine angler sam-pling efforts with radio-telemetry inorder to better understand the connec-tion between steelhead age and growthin the ocean and their migration timingand spawning in freshwater. The Hoh River has left many impres-

sions on me since my first visit in 2009.Sometimes I have visited on officialbusiness and sometimes out of curiosi-ty, stealing away on a weekend toexplore the South Fork or the conflu-ence of Tom Creek inside the bound-aries of Olympic National Park. Onsome visits, I have been accompaniedonly by elk browsing their waythrough empty campgrounds, while onother occasions I have encounteredmore people fishing the Hoh Riverthan I typically encounter on anevening walk through my neighbor-hood in Olympia. My visits haverevealed a dynamic river that bothchallenges its occupants (people, fish,and wildlife) and rewards them, if onlythey have the patience and tenacity tostay the course. My colleagues and Iare up to the challenge, and in theyears ahead, I look forward to learningabout and from the Hoh River.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85 SEPTEMBER 2016 17

Continued from previous page

A long-term study just beginning on Washington State’s Hoh River will eventuallyprovide fishery managers with a host of data on wild steelhead. Photo by StevenPavlov, Creative Commons License

18 SEPTEMBER 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85

Guest ColumnContinued from page 3

Continued on next page

The Frank Moore Wild Steelhead Sanctuary would protect nearly 100,000 acres within the Willamette and Umpqua nationalforests. It includes more than 50 river miles of critical habitat for summer and winter steelhead, coho salmon, and cutthroat andrainbow trout. The sanctuary would protect streams within the watershed of Oregon’s famed North Umpqua River.The sanctuary has been named in honor of Frank Moore, a decorated World War II veteran who returned home to Oregon afterthe war, operating the legendary Steamboat Inn along the banks of the North Umpqua for 30 years, and along with his wifeJeanne, labored tirelessly to protect and conserve the river’s wild fish populations, and steelhead in particular. Frank and Jeannestill make thir home along the North Umpqua River.The “Frank Moore Wild Steelhead Special Management Area Designation Act of 2016” (S. 1448) was introduced into the U.S.

Senate by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) on October 8, 2015.

Steamb

oat Cre

ek

North Umpqua River

long dedication to this importantwatershed, and for acting as tirelessstewards to the sport and toSteamboat creek.

The Frank Moore Wild SteelheadSanctuary preserves over 50 miles ofSteamboat Creek and the surroundinglandscape, protecting clean drinkingwater, wildlife habitat, and creatingscenic recreation space for fishing,hiking, and more. The North Umpquawatershed draws anglers from far andwide to cast for summer and fall steel-head, fall and spring Chinook salmon,coho salmon and sea-run cutthroattrout. Additionally, black bears, riverotters, bald eagles, spotted owls, elkand much more wildlife call thiswatershed home, making this sanctu-ary crucial for biodiversity, carbonsequestration, and a healthy well-functioning ecosystem.

We are now working with OregonCongressman Peter DeFazio to repli-cate this effort in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, so that we can pro-tect this vital resource and honorFrank Moore in perpetuity.

THE OSPREY

PHONE

E-Mail

CITY/STATE/ZIP

NAME

I am a . . .

❏ Citizen Conservationist

❏ Commercial Outfitter/Guide

❏ Professional Natural Resources Mgr.

❏ Other

ADDRESS

Thanks For Your Support

The Osprey — Steelhead Committee International Federation of Fly Fishers

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

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

❏ Friend or fellow angler

❏ Fishing show

❏ Fly shop, lodge or guide

❏ Another publication.Which?

❏ Club or conservation group meeting

❏ Other

Yes, I will help protect wild steelhead

❏ $15 Basic Subscription

❏ $25 Dedicated Angler Level

❏ $50 For Future Generations of Anglers

❏ $100 If I Put Off Donating, My Fish

Might Not Return Home

❏ $ Other, Because

I Am a New Subscriber ❑

I Am An Existing Subscriber

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

Send My Copies by Standard Mail (Hardcopy) ❑ ❑

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 85 SEPTEMBER 2016 19

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

Continued from previous page

Steamboat Creek, a major tributary ofthe North Umpqua River would be pro-tected from development with designa-tion of the Frank Moore Wild SteelheadSanctuary. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

The 31-mile fly fishing only section of the North Umpqua River attracts anglers fromall over the world who come in search of its famed summer run steelhead. Photo byJim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY

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

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage Paid

PAIDBozeman, MTPermit No. 99