2011

S C I E N C E E D U C A T I O N A D V O C A C Y

W I L D F I S H

J O U R N A L

Publication of the WILD FISH CONSERVANCY

Featuring:

The Elwha River Recovery

2

BOARD OF DIRECTORSCandace Beardslee, Recording SecretaryStephen Conroy, PhD, PresidentJoe Kelly, Vice PresidentHugh Lewis, Secretary/TreasurerThomas Quinn, PhDDick Rieman Bern Shanks, PhDVance Jenning STAFFErin Allee, Administrative AssistantKurt Beardslee, Executive DirectorCandace Beardslee, Retail ManagerThomas Buehrens, Research Fishery BiologistDavid Crabb, Field TechnicianJohn Crandall, EcologistTrent Donohue, Outreach & DevelopmentNicolas Eckhardt, GIS AnalystJames Fletcher, BiologistNick Gayeski, Aquatic EcologistJamie Glasgow, Science & Research DirectorTara Gregg, Field ScientistMark Hersh, Water Quality SpecialistWendy Marsh, Research EcologistAndrew McAninch, GIS/IT SpecialistBill McMillan, Field BiologistTodd Sandell, Research BiologistTerri Shell, Bookkeeper/Office ManagerFrank Staller, Field TechnicianArny Stonkus, Ecologist/EngineerMicah Wait, Conservation DirectorMary Lou White, Project Manager/Biologist

NEWSLETTERTrent Donohue & Mark Hersh, EditorsCandace Beardslee, Layout & Design

Visit our website at www.wildfishconservancy.org

Wild Fish Journal is a publication of the Wild Fish Conservancy. Comments and letters are encouraged and welcome.

Please send all correspondence to: Wild Fish Conservancy, P.O. Box 402, Duvall, WA 98019

Office: 15629 Main Street NE, Duvall, WA 98019email: info@wildfishconservancy.org

phone: 425-788-1167, fax: 425-788-9634

W I L D F I S H J O U R N A L

Inside:4. Restoring the Elwha River: We’re Halfway There

5. The Elwha Revisited by Bruce Brown

12. Sustainable Seafood: Good for Humans and Good for Wild Fish

17. Historical Abundance of Puget Sound Steelhead

19. Mitchell Act Hatcheries – Columbia Basin Factory Fish for Harvest

21 - 27. Special Section on the Elwha River: Why harvest and hatchery reform are essential for its recovery

28. Groundfish - Between a Rock and a Hard Place

30. Science Updates

44. Advocacy Updates

47. Education Updates

48. Neither Rains, Nor Pains, Nor Gloom of Lice: WFC’s Volunteers Were There

51. 2010 Wild Fish Soirée Thank You

Follow us on:

Cover paintingof the Elwha River: “River Bend” by Robin Weiss.

A special thank you to Damon Brown and Robin Weiss for letting us use their paintings in this issue of the Wild Fish Journal.

1

2

3

7

4

5

13

1411

12

910

6

15

15

6

3 6

1. Elwha River page 42. P.S. Steelhead Historical Abundance p 173. Fish Passage Restoration p 304. Cypress Island Nearshore p 315. Skagit Steelhead p 326. Water Typing p 347. Icicle Research p 368. Multnomah County Fish Diversity and Distribution p 389. Ellsworth Creek p 3910. Weiss Creek p 4011. Grays Harbor p 4112. Methow Water Quality p 4313. Icicle Advocacy p 4414. Education p 4715. Volunteers p 4816. Skeena Historical Chum Reconstruction17. Enbridge Oil Pipeline18. Cherry Creek19. Garrison Creek20. Deer Lagoon21. Dosewallips River Restoration22. Duckabush River Restoration

Journal Article

Current project, see www.wildfishconservancy.orgfor information on these projects

17

8

2221

2018

3

19

3

16

2010-2011 Wild Fish Conservancy Projects

Wild Fish Conservancy gratefully acknowledges your support for our work

on behalf of wild fish and their ecosystems. Together we are making a difference.

4

Restoring the Elwha River: We’re Halfway ThereKurt Beardslee

Photo: One of the first pieces of concrete from the Elwha Dam demolition.

The Elwha is the largest salmon and steelhead restoration project in the world. This is the time to celebrate our accomplishments, and then clearly and honestly acknowledge what’s left to be done.

On September 17, 2011, the removal of the two massive Elwha River dams began. Over twenty years of tedious hard work and dedication by Native Americans, environmental organizations, private citizens, state and federal agencies, and politicians achieved something no one else in the world has ever done. This milestone is something worth celebrating, and everyone should be extremely proud of those that made it happen.

But removing the dams alone will not restore the legendary salmon and steelhead runs to the Elwha River. It will not restore the biological integrity of the Olympic National Park, it will not protect or restore its existing native salmon and steelhead, and it will not restore the one-hundred-pound Chinook for which the Elwha is so famous.

Why not? Scientists have identified four major reasons for the decline of salmon and steelhead: habitat loss, dams (also known as “hydro”), hatcheries, and harvest, and they have adopted the “Four H’s” as a mantra since the first Endangered

Species Act listings of salmon and steelhead. But you never see all four being addressed in

a recovery plan, no matter how large or small the system. The Elwha is no exception, even with all

of the attention paid to it. Absent from the Elwha recovery plan is a comprehensive assessment of the

effects of hatcheries and harvest. Wild Fish Conservancy has always sought to find solutions encompassing all four limiting factors. In 2010, we announced our Harvest Reform Campaign, renewing our effort to find practical solutions to the problems posed by harvest. This issue of the Wild Fish Journal illuminates our work on hatcheries and harvest but also places a special emphasis on the risk they pose to the recovery of the Elwha ecosystem.

Dams and habitat degradation get most of the attention because they are easy to see and understand, but addressing only those is equivalent to a halfway effort. Hatcheries and harvest represent barriers to wild fish recovery as much as any concrete dam does, and resolving the problems caused by hatcheries and harvest will not be easy. More so than dams and habitat, hatcheries and harvest are accompanied by politics and denial, a difficult combination to overcome. This effort will require an even larger and dedicated coalition than it took to accomplish the Elwha dam removal, and the coalition will need to be an international one.

The Elwha is the largest salmon restoration project in the world. This is the time and place to get it right. @

This is the largest dam removal project in human history, and represents a tremendous step forward for the cause of wild salmon. Thirty years ago, most people – even most salmon fanatics – thought this day would never come.

Come it has! However, the removal of the dams on Elwha does not provide a “happy ending” to the wild Elwha salmon story. The wild Elwha salmon still face daunting challenges and the regeneration of the lost upriver runs is not assured.

“River Bend,” Elwha River valley plein air oil painting by Robin Weiss.

The Elwha RevisitedBruce Brown

5

The wild salmon of the Elwha are important – because the fish are famous, and because their destruction by an illegal power dam 100 years ago provided the blueprint for the subsequent destruction of many of Washington’s significant wild salmon runs.

Now in 2011, exactly 100 years after the gates of flamboyantly illegal Aldwell Dam closed the Elwha to anadromous fish, the Olympic National Park is preparing to tear out the power dams on the Elwha for the purpose of salmon restoration.

In fact, the Olympic National Park’s wild salmon restoration project actually EXPANDS what has historically been one of the biggest dam-associated problems on the Elwha: the production of hatchery salmon, in this case at the Elwha Tribe’s federally-built salmon hatchery, which is slated to TRIPLE hatchery production as part of the Park’s wild salmon plan.

What? You don’t restore wild salmon by maximizing hatchery production. You restore wild salmon by minimizing and then

A California Fish and Game biologist holds a Chinook salmon estimated to weigh ninety pounds when it returned from the Pacific in the fall of 2008. A federal official credited the huge fish’s survival to the closure of the ocean fishery in previous years. (CA Dept. of Fish and Game photo; http://www.redding.com/news/2008/nov/04/07/)

Norbert Ketola, project manager for the new Elwha Hatchery, stands near a series of hatchery ponds. In February 2010, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe broke ground on the ten-acre fish hatchery project. The main building is over 7,000 squre feet in size and will contain incubators, a hatch room, offices, a conference room, and a control room for the water filters, pumps, and switches. Ketola said the hatchery has the capacity to hold several hundreds of thousands of fish, keeping different species separate (information and photo source: Sequim Gazette; photo by Amanda Winters).

6

To find the wild salmon that once graced the 320-square-mile Elwha River system, you must go to the state archives in Olympia. There, you can examine the records storage folder that contains the runs’ remains. Filed under “Elwha Dam,” the packet is comprised of a series of documents, beginning with a letter from James Pike, game warden of Clallam County, to Washington Commissioner of Fisheries J. L. Riseland. In an almost breathless tone that can still be detected seven decades later, Pike sounded the alarm.

“I have personally searched the Elwha River & Tributaries above the Dam, and have been unable

to find a single Salmon,” he wrote in a scratchy, fountain pen script in the fall of 1911. “I have visited the Dam several times lately ... and there appear to be Thousands of Salmon at the foot of the Dam, where they are continually trying to get up the flume. I have watched them very close, and I am satisfied now that they cannot get above the Dam.”

The dam in question was a hydroelectric project then under construction in a narrow gorge about five miles upriver from the mouth of the Elwha. It was planned as an eighty-foot-high concrete retainer with a radical design that called for the dam to be hung from the canyon walls without a footing on bedrock below the river. Financed by a Chicago investment banking firm and overseen by a board of directors that included several prominent Seattle businessmen, the Olympic Power and Development Company’s Elwha project was the greatest monument to venture capitalism yet seen on the peninsula. It was also in clear violation of the law.

Washington’s first legislature had passed a law in 1890 requiring the construction of fish passage devices, such as fish ladders, on dams “wherever food fish are wont to ascend.” This law, which was part of the state’s wider fisheries authority concerning the length of the commercial fishing seasons, empowered the commissioner of fisheries to levy fines for violations and obtain court orders for the removal or modification of illegal dams.

eliminating hatchery production. Spend about 15 minutes with the Elwha story, and you realize that the wild salmon on the Elwha were originally killed by two things: (1) the construction of the dams and (2) the operation of salmon hatcheries that were supposed to mitigate the damage caused by the dams.

So the fight for the fish goes on in the 21st century. As the wild Elwha salmon turn in this new/old direction, here’s a look back at a story from the Wild, Wild West: how the great native Elwha Tyee or King Chinook were lost to dams and hatcheries in this excerpt from the 1981 book that launched the wild salmon movement in the Pacific Northwest, and the fight to remove the dams on the Elwha, Mountain in the Clouds: A Search for the Wild Salmon.

You don’t restore wild salmon by maximizing hatchery production.

7

8

British Columbia commissioner of fisheries described Washington fishery law as simply a “dead letter.”The problem, of course, was that

protecting the wild salmon inevitably meant limiting some private individuals’ opportunity to enrich themselves at the public trough. This the authorities were loath to do, especially when powerful financial interests were involved. Washington Fish Commissioner Riseland managed to ignore the Elwha Dam throughout an extensive publicity campaign, as well as the first year of actual construction. Not even the warning from the Clallam County game warden could provoke him to action. When Elwha Dam was completed in October 1912, it still lacked fish passage facilities. Then two things happened in quick succession: the radical foundation of the dam blew out to a depth of eighty feet, and Ernest Lister was elected governor of Washington.

A last-minute nominee of the Democratic party who was not expected to win, Lister went to Olympia with few political debts, and some ambitious plans. Although he was born to a wealthy Tacoma family and maintained close social and business ties with the commercial leaders of the area, Lister drew much of his political philosophy from John Rodgers, the state’s early radical writer and Populist governor. Lister was an idealist who saw growth and development as the way to a better world and was determined to hasten its coming with a clean government that consciously served the common good. “You gentlemen,” he told the legislature in his inaugural address, “are sent here by your constituents to get your share of the pie. I am sent here by all of

The facts of the matter were, however, much different. In 1899, the U.S. fish commissioner’s report to Congress noted that “in Washington, while the throwing of sawdust into streams is prohibited, it is reported that the regulations have not been well enforced.” The same report was appalled that laws regulating the commercial salmon fishing seasons were not enforced outside southern Puget Sound in the vicinity of the state capital. In 1911, a disgusted

Elwha Dam 1914, Asahel Curtis photo.

Elwha River dam site before construction.

The Elwha Dam just prior to removal.

Laws regulating the commercial fishing seasons were not enforced outside southern Puget Sound.

the people to see that not too much of it is distributed.”

Then as now, “the pie” was made up largely of public resources such as fish, timber, water and minerals entrusted to state management. Lister had little personal

knowledge of the state’s salmon resource, but he received some astute counsel on aspects of the situation from W. H. Kaufman, Whatcom County assessor and Grange leader. In a letter to Lister of December 28, 1912, Kaufman gave the governor-elect a vivid picture of the operations of the salmon canning industry, which was then centered around Bellingham in Whatcom County:

I came to this country in 1899, and the cannerymen had dominated county politics for some time prior, especially the assessor’s [office] and board of equalization; so that up to the time I took office as assessor they had paid only HALF as much taxes as other people- – having been able to keep outside of school and road districts, they paid neither school nor road taxes! Up to 1906 they paid NO TAXES WHATSOEVER, although the fishing privileges of this county alone are worth over $6,000,000...

By 1899 the Fish Trust – by log rolling, and wining and dining legislators, had obtained enough influence in the legislature to secure the adoption of the infamous “secrecy” joker, by which it is provided that the statistics of the Fish Commissioner’s office shall be “confidential,” “shall not be open for inspection of the public,” nor “communicated to any person” – that includes county assessors, legislative investigating committees, the governor himself, ANYONE WHO MIGHT LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THE VAST PROFITS OF THE FISHING INTERESTS... No more scandalous piece of graft legislation disgraces the records of any state...

Kaufman had written a number of articles for the Bellingham American-Reveille to set forth “the facts

in the case,” but before long the cannery owners and their allies bought the paper and closed it to all coverage of their operations. Now Kaufman was asking governor-elect Lister to appoint a fish commissioner who was “fire tested.” Lister was impressed. Three months later, he named as fish commissioner Leslie Darwin, the former editor of the American-Reveille who, had run Kaufman’s muckraking cannery articles.

Like Kaufman, Darwin was appalled by both the canneries’ tremendous wastage of fish (so many unused salmon were dumped overboard that human health risks were commonly incurred wherever canneries operated, according to state and federal reports from the period) and their gross profiteering at public expense. “It seems to me,” he said later, reflecting on the central dilemma of the salmon’s already evident decline in Washington, “to be a crime against mankind--against those who are here and the generations yet to follow--to let the great salmon runs

Governor Ernest Lister

Bellingham area canneries in the early 1900s.

9

Bruce Brown’s research notes for “Mountain in the Clouds.”

of the State of Washington be destroyed at the selfish behest of a few individuals who, in order to enrich themselves, would impoverish the state and destroy a food supply of the people.”

With Lister’s approval, Darwin moved swiftly to reform the administration of his office and attack the canneries’ use of dummy corporations to avoid paying the state tax on canned salmon, their frequent deployment of oversized traps and pound nets, and most especially, the “secrecy joker” that kept all cannery information hidden from public scrutiny. At the same time, he made some effort to enforce the wider environmental sanctions necessary for the salmon’s survival, including the law requiring the construction of fish ladders at all dams. Writing to the bankrupt owner of a small mill dam on a tributary of the Elwha, Darwin put the matter bluntly: “Unless the dam is immediately equipped with a fishway in accordance with [the law], we shall have to proceed under statute to blow it out.”

Regarding the much larger and more damaging Olympic Power dam on the mainstem Elwha, however, Darwin found the situation “perplexing.” Although the dam, which was being rebuilt, still lacked fishways, Darwin never seems to have considered applying the law with the same rigor as in the case of the mill dam on the nearby Elwha tributary. The influential Olympic Power backers (among them, the salmon-trolling banker Joshua Green) and the governor’s own infatuation with hydroelectric power (Lister was one of the first to propose a dam at Bonneville on the Columbia) encouraged Darwin to attempt a more exotic solution.

The Elwha Dam file in the Washington State Archives contains an August 1913 letter from Darwin to

Olympic Power in which he proposed for the first time that the owners of the dam build a hatchery in lieu of a fishway. While acknowledging that “no officer of the state has any right to waive one of the state’s statutory requirements,” Darwin went on to say that the law could be circumvented if the hatchery physically adjoined the dam, which could then be considered a state obstruction for the taking of eggs to supply the hatchery. The science of artificial salmon propagation was entirely unproven at this time, but caught up in the sweep of the idea, Darwin declared enthusiastically: “my plan forever eliminates bother in the future.”

Olympic Power was cool to the suggestion. “It would appear that you [Darwin] were making a very heavy demand on us,” replied Thomas Aldwell, president of Olympic Power. Aldwell, who was a native of Toronto, Canada, had been promoting the dam since 1894, when he acquired the contested title to a 160 acre “homestead” on federal land in the Elwha gorge. His early life had been similar to Darwin’s in many respects (he, too, came to the Northwest in the 1890s, served as manager of a provincial daily newspaper, and worked for the government), but when it came

10

to personalities and politics, the two men were as different as the interests they served.

Aldwell saw “peace and power and civilization” in the development of environmentally destructive industry and pushed the theme without respite for more than fifty years. He was deep into several unhappy railroad speculation schemes, the U.S. Army’s unfortunate logging of the spruce above Lake Quinault, the development of the four pulp and paper mills that provide most of the employment in Port Angeles, his own commercial and residential developments and, of course, the dam. Blessed with an ample portion of bravura, Aldwell cheerfully recounted in his autobiography, Conquering the Last Frontier, how as president of the Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce he helped dispense more than $120,000 in bribes and kickbacks to persuade industries to locate in Port Angeles.

On the Elwha, Aldwell was able to stall Leslie Darwin and the state for nearly a year, but on June 4, 1914, the fish commissioner delivered an ultimatum. “I am sorry that you have made no response to my last query to you relative to the hatchery at the foot of the Elwha Dam,” he wrote. “Unless I hear from you in some positive manner in five days, I shall issue an order for you to erect a fishway .... It is out of the question for us to allow another run to beat its brains out against that dam.” Presented with the matter in this fashion, Aldwell did an immediate about-face, signing an agreement with the state on August 14 which committed Olympic Power to donate land for a hatchery, and contribute $2,500 toward its construction.

The deal between Darwin and Aldwell was itself illegal, of course. State law still required the construction of fish passage facilities at every dam that blocked the migration of salmon. Olympic Power’s Elwha Dam had been in violation of the law for five years, and should by rights have been removed at the company’s expense. Darwin himself could have been charged with malfeasance in the case, based on the evidence in the State Archives. Instead, Lister convinced the legislature to change the law so that hatcheries could be built in lieu of fish passage facilities. With this legal nicety out of the way, the flood began. During the first few years of his administration, Darwin accepted seven hatcheries in supposed compensation for the substantial runs of wild salmon lost to dam construction on rivers such as the White Salmon, Chehalis and Elwha.

The Elwha hatchery went into operation in 1915. Initially, the state was able to collect as many as two million eggs annually from fish that were born before the dam was built but within a few years the pool below the dam was nearly empty of fish. None of the wild salmon that used to spawn above the dam remained, and the hatchery had been unable to replace them. In 1922, the year after Darwin retired, the Department of Fisheries abandoned the Elwha hatchery and left the few remaining wild salmon to their own devices.

A subsequent title search revealed that ownership of the hatchery site had never actually been

transferred to the state as promised… @

Join Now!Become a Wild Fish Conservancy member and help support

projects and initiatives like those in the Wild Fish Journal. For more information, visit wildfishconservancy.org or call 425-788-1167.

First, Riley Starks. Riley, who along with his wife Judy Olsen, moved to Lummi Island in 1992 and founded Nettles Farm. At the same time he began reefnetting for salmon. A life-long commercial fisherman, Riley became disillusioned with the quality of food available at that time, and has spent the past twenty years demonstrating that we don’t need to go to Europe to experience fine artisan food at its source. He realized that reefnetting was not only the most sustainable method of catching salmon, but also allowed for unsurpassed quality due to the gentle handling and bleeding techniques.

He also marketed Nettles Farm produce in the form of Nettles Farm pasta, made in their on–farm commercial kitchen, created the first small on-farm USDA poultry slaughterhouse on the West Coast, and marketed reefnet-caught salmon as Lummi Island Wild, all of which have been featured in Deborah Madison’s cookbook, Local Flavors. In 2001 Riley and Judy purchased the Willows Inn, near the farm, and created a fine dining restaurant and agro-tourism based inn that continues to educate through direct experience. It has been featured in Gourmet, Sunset, Taste, and Seattle magazines, as well as in the PBS series “Puget Sound Matters,” and “Fixing the Future,” and in the book series Washington: Renewing the Countryside. Recently star chef Blaine Wetzel has joined the Willows Inn, which prompted a January, 2011 New York Times article naming the inn as one of “Ten Restaurants Worth a Plane Ride.”

Blaine is a 2011 semifinalist for the James Beard Foundation Award for Rising Star Chef of the Year.

Trent Donohue: Why is it so important to fish this way? What are the benefits to you, your way of life, your community?

Sustainable Seafood: Good for Humans and Good for Wild Fish

If we are going to recover wild fish and at the same time eat salmon, a greater emphasis needs to be placed on catching and consuming hatchery-origin fish. That can be done when fishers use selective harvest gear and methods. But how best to promote these sustainably-caught fish? Wild Fish Conservancy’s Outreach & Development Director Trent Donohue spoke with Riley Starks and Jon Rowley, two Puget Sound-area entrepreneurs who each in their own way are working to bring sustainable, locally-produced salmon to area consumers.

Riley Starks

12

Riley Starks: Since the corporate fish traps were banned from Legoe Bay in the 1930s, reefnet fishing has defined the culture of Lummi Island. There were once 78 gears in Legoe Bay alone, and more in the other San Juan islands. As salmon runs dwindled, and treaties with both tribal governments and the Canadian government cut the number of salmon available to non-treaty fishers, the number of reefnet gears still fishing is down to eleven. Reefnetting is not practiced anywhere else in the world. The proximity of the reefnet fishery to the shore allows anyone walking or driving by to have a first-hand experience of the salmon run, which is a precious public resource. Most people on the island know someone who reefnets, and so has easy access to salmon. The more people are able to have direct experience with salmon runs, the more they become advocates for the survival of this iconic animal.

TD: There’s a growing trend towards supporting local farmers and eating local. Do you see a similar trend–small infrastructure, small boats, harvesting selectively–in the seafood industry?

RS: People are increasingly interested in knowing where their food comes from, and how it is handled.

Reefnetting provides a unique opportunity for transparency in salmon harvesting and processing. There is no “dirty little secret” lying behind the rhetoric of our fishery.

Lummi Island Wild reef net.

Reefnetting: The oldest net fishing known to man. Originally practiced by Native Americans of the Puget Sound area in war canoes using cedar bark rope and marsh grass to simulate underwater reefs.

There is no “dirty little secret” lying behind the rhetoric of our fishery.

TD: What’s the most important concept for a chef or consumer to understand about selective/sustainable fishing methods?

RS: The fact that reefnetting produces almost zero bycatch mortality. Bycatch often defines and limits the management of fisheries, because the presence of mixed stocks at any given time means that fishers might be catching endangered stocks or species while targeting healthy stocks. There is no dilemma inherent in the reefnet fishery.

TD: What are the best ways to educate the public/consumers about selective/sustainable fishing methods?

RS: The best way is to get them out on the gears, so they can see for themselves. Barring that, grocery store campaigns with real people telling their stories and standing next to videos of the fisheries.

TD: Thank you, Riley; this is great information, and I’m sure our readers will be heartened to hear of Puget Sound reefnetters who are working to bring us food while protecting wild fish.

RS: My pleasure, Trent.

Jon Rowley is a former hook-and-line commercial fisherman and life-long scholar of the seafood industry from harvest to table. Jon works with restaurants, retailers, and seafood companies, as well as publishers, editors, and such luminaries as Julia Child and Sheila Lukins. Rowley has received national marketing awards and considerable media coverage for programs he has initiated such as Bruce Gore “Signature Salmon” and fresh Copper River salmon. He has a particular passion for oysters and has initiated a number of oyster promotions and festivals around the country. He has provided marketing and consulting services to Taylor Shellfish Farms, the West Coast’s largest shellfish grower, for the past twenty years. He serves as Contributing Editor to Saveur and is featured in Gourmet’s PBS TV series “Diary

of a Foodie” and Gourmet’s “Adventures with Ruth” and is the recipient of numerous awards and recognition for his work including induction into the prestigious James Beard Foundation’s Who’s Who of Cooking Professionals in America and FOOD ARTS magazine’s Silver Spoon Award.

Trent Donohue: What does the idea of a sustainable fishery mean to you?

Jon Rowley: Looking at a definition of “sustainable”: able to be maintained at a certain rate or level; conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources. Applied to a fishery, the lines blur. Fish would do fine, if humans weren’t confusing the equation. A short list of human-induce fish woes include overpopulating (humans), denuding the hills of forests, putting who knows what number of unfriendly chemicals in the water, blocking rivers with dams, oil spills, overfishing, disease, mismanagement, and by-catch, to name a few.

And now comes climate change and ocean acidification. Will ocean acidification affect food sources on the ocean? In one decade, halibut have

Jon Rowley. Photo by Bill Whitbeck.

14

become more than 30% smaller for the same age fish. What would have been a 20 lb. halibut now weighs 14 lbs. Something is going on out there.

TD: Do you think it’s obtainable?

JR: Perhaps sustainable at current levels if we have the will power collectively; but will we ever see historic levels again? And then along comes the Frazier River with the largest run of sockeyes in recorded history to confound things.

TD: There’s a growing trend towards supporting local farmers and eating local. Do you see a similar trend in the seafood industry?

JR: Unfortunately we don’t have much of a local seafood industry anymore, at least as far as fish go. To the extent there is one, it is supported. Dungeness crab, spot prawns and cultivated oysters, clams and mussels are cases in point.

We tend to think of Sea-Tac and all of the fish flown from Alaska, as part of the 100-mile diet. During the seasons, salmon appear to be plentiful and they are, but few are actually local. Local fish and shellfish

availability at local farmer’s markets is a relatively recent development. TD: Do you think that restaurants are moving towards more sustainable fish offerings on their menus?

JR: Yes, even when they don’t completely understand the issues (who does?). Many chefs/restaurants are touting sustainability; some like Rick Moonen in Las Vegas and Kevin Davis at Blueacre/Steelhead Diner are effective spokespersons for sustainable fisheries. The various programs like the Monterey Aquarium Seafood Watch program have done a good job of creating awareness with their green-yellow-red lists. The issue is covered at chefs and restaurant conferences. “Chilean seabass” has given way to fresh sardines on menus. Some restaurant menus will tout sustainability on their menus. Whole Foods makes a big deal of it in their seafood departments. [Seattle-based PCC Natural Markets is committed to sustainable seafood policies and initiatives, and offers “seafood only from ecologically sustainable fisheries.” – ed.]

TD: Do you see a willingness by the consumer to pay more for a sustainable product similar to organic fruit/vegetable market?

JR: Should there be an added cost to “sustainable” fish? Paying more money for a product usually comes down to perception of value. Perception of value can be enhanced with a good story, better quality, identified provenance, whatever is special about it, the restaurant’s reputation, and knowledgeable professional service. “Sustainability” is a recent dining consideration; how it factors into menu pricing remains to be seen. It will probably vary case by case. Some “sustainable” fish like sardines will cost more because of the special handling and distribution costs required for the more perishable species.

TD: If you had only a few minutes to convince someone that selecting sustainable seafood is important, what would you say?

15

JR: We can support businesses that are taking the right stand and express appreciation to restaurants that are doing it right. Promotions that feature sustainably-caught fish. We need workshops and forums that establish dialogue among key players. Education, education, education! And remember that a consumer makes a meal purchase; a restaurant

makes purchases for many meals. Working with restaurants and their suppliers gets more bang for the buck.

TD: Thank you for giving Wild Fish Conservancy this insight into how restaurants can help recover wild fish!

JR: You’re welcome, Trent.

Contact information for Riley and Jon: Riley Starks, E-Mail: innkeeper@willows-inn.com360-758-2620, http://www.lummiislandwild.com/http://www.nettlesfarm.com/http://www.willows-inn.com/

Jon Rowley & Associates, 2920 West Boston Street, Seattle, WA 98199-1631, Telephone: 206.283.7566, E-Mail: rowley@nwlink.com. @

JR: I usually deal with chefs more than consumers. I would pitch chefs on the good business and doing-the-right thing angles of a “sustainable” menu. A restaurant has the opportunity to establish positioning in their marketplace with a good mission statement, especially if it is followed through with purchasing and staff training.

On the restaurant level it becomes a question of establishing a value system that is integral and perceptible part of the culture of the restaurant. A fish purchase is a reflection (or not) of a “sustainable” value system.

TD: Lastly, what can consumers and restaurants do to help us move to a sustainable system?

Willows Inn, Lummi Island.

Blue Acre Restaurant, 1700 7th Ave Seattle, WA.

A fish purchase is a reflection (or not) of a “sustainable” value system.

Follow WFC on Facebook!

Stay engaged with all the latest news of interest to the

WFC community & join in the conversation with other

wild fish supporters.

facebook.com/wildfishconservancy

16

The complete article entitled “Historical abundance of Puget Sound steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, estimated from catch record data” appeared in the March 2011 issue of the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, volume 68, pages 498-510, and can be accessed at our website.

The Puget Sound steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, was listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2007, prompting the initiation of recovery planning. Recovery planning requires, ultimately, the identification of conditions under which the “evolutionary significant unit” (ESU) can be considered to have been recovered and subsequently removed from the list of threatened and endangered species (“de-listed”). A number of factors are considered when setting recovery goals and de-listing

criteria, such as population sizes, life-history, and geographic and genetic diversity. Generally, in order to de-list a species, a sufficient number of self-sustaining populations within the ESU must be established. An important consideration is to identify conditions that, when attained, will afford each population a very high probability of persisting over the long-term in the face of all normal environmental variation. In this context, some key questions are “How many populations are needed?” and “How big do they have to be?” and the correct answers undoubtedly lie somewhere between the conditions that existed immediately prior to the ESA-listing and some previous time when the abundance and diversity of the listed populations were much closer to pristine, pre-development conditions.

In this regard, recovery under ESA confronts many of the same problems and controversies that have arisen in discussions of the rebuilding of overfished marine stocks. In a recent discussion of rebuilding depleted marine stocks, A.A. Rosenberg and co-authors (2005) noted that “… it is important to recognize that fisheries for key

Historical Abundance of Puget Sound Steelhead Nick Gayeski, Bill McMillan, and Pat Trotter

A horse-drawn commercial steelhead seining operation at the confluence of the Clearwater and Snake Rivers in eastern Washington. Similar techniques were used in Puget Sound.

1889 Native American fish weir.

17

as well as the remaining aggregate of rivers and streams in Puget Sound.

The best estimate of total abundance ranged from 485,000 to 930,000, with a mode of 622,000. Compared with the 25-year average abundance for all of Puget Sound of 22,000 for the 1980–2004 period, our results show that current abundance is likely only 1%–4% of what it was prior to 1900. Because we have lost no more than one-third of the

lengths of streams potentially accessible to adult winter-run steelhead in 1895, the loss of freshwater habitat alone can account for this reduction in abundance only if there was an extraordinary decline in

productivity. Currently accessible freshwater habitat is either under-occupied by juveniles and adults, or (in conjunction with other factors) is not capable of supporting the numbers of juveniles and adults that it supported near the turn of the twentieth century – or both.

In order to assure that Puget Sound steelhead actually recover (i.e., there is a reasonably low probability of having to re-list the fish in the subsequent 100 years), the abundance of wild winter-run adult steelhead populations throughout Puget Sound may need to be considerably greater than it was in the years immediately prior to the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead. Such large populations were likely essential for the long-term persistence and resilience of Puget Sound steelhead in the face of past environmental variation, but today, environmental variation is only getting worse. @

Reference Rosenberg, A.A., Bolster, W.J., Alexander, K.E., Leavenworth, W.B., Cooper, A.B., and McKenzie, M.G. 2005. The history of ocean resources: modeling cod biomass using historical records. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3(2): 78–84.

commercial species like cod were far more productive in the past. As we attempt to rebuild these fisheries, our decisions should reflect real and realistic goals for management, not just recently observed catch levels.” We believe that the same perspective applies to the recovery of Puget Sound steelhead under the ESA.

History can provide the necessary baseline for comparing the current status of steelhead populations and can therefore be a useful tool for recovery

planning. However, the absence of high-quality quantitative data regarding population abundances and dynamics, of the sort recognized today as necessary for proper fish population management, poses a considerable challenge. And historical information, when available, must be carefully analyzed before it can inform recovery goals. We analyzed several kinds of available historical information for Puget Sound steelhead and developed a robust estimate of the abundance of several specific populations as well as Puget Sound as a whole immediately prior to the turn of the 20th century. Using 1895 as our benchmark year (the year of the peak commercial catch of steelhead), we combined data on the commercial harvest of winter-run steelhead and average weight of steelhead with historical information on Euro-American development and settlement of Puget Sound, which enabled us to estimate the number of steelhead “harvested” outside of the commercial fishery, the overall intensity of the harvest of Puget Sound winter-run steelhead, and the terminal run sizes of adult steelhead. We employed a statistical analysis to address the uncertainties associated with the estimation process and developed abundance estimates for four large northern Puget Sound rivers

Currently available freshwater habitat is either under-occupied, or incapable of supporting the historical numbers of fish – or both.

18

Mitchell Act Hatcheries: Columbia Basin Factory Fish for Harvest Nick Gayeski

Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery

19

Although they probably are not a great subject for a song, harvest and hatcheries go together much more closely than either love and marriage or a horse and carriage. Without hatcheries, harvest would have ended long ago with the fisheries exhausted.

Before European settlers arrived, approximately 10 to 16 million wild salmon returned to the Columbia River any given year. Harvest was responsible for the initial decline, then dams and habitat degradation added their tolls. Hatcheries began to prop up harvest way back in the horse and carriage era, and in 1938, Congress enacted the Mitchell Act that established “one or more stations in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho… for the conduct of necessary investigations, surveys, stream improvements, and stocking operations.” The purpose was straightforward: “to provide for the conservation of the fishery resources

of the Columbia River.” Hatcheries came to the Columbia in full force.

Today, the Mitchell Act’s “Artificial Production Program” operates or funds 62 hatchery programs at 17 facilities with an annual release of more than 71 million juvenile salmon and steelhead in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and the “Screens and Fishways Program” constructs, operates and maintains more than 700 fish screens at irrigation diversions to protect juvenile salmon and steelhead, and 90 fishways to enhance adult fish passage to nearly 2,000 miles of stream habitat in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

The two Mitchell Act programs are funded separately via annual Congressional appropriations. Since 1997 annual appropriations for the artificial production

program have ranged between $11 and $16 million, distributed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce). Many hatchery programs funded through the Mitchell Act are now directed at conserving genetic resources through “integrated” production programs that use local broodstock to produce fish for harvest, spawning in the wild to boost local wild populations, or both.

Since NMFS has both mitigation and ESA responsibilities, it recognized a need to streamline hatchery management in the Columbia Basin, so as to better assure consistency with regional efforts to implement “hatchery reform” and in general to “operate hatcheries based on the best scientific principles while contributing to sustainable fisheries, meeting our commitments to tribal treaties, and helping to recover naturally spawning populations of salmon and steelhead.” In order to accomplish this objective NMFS recently issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on Mitchell Act Hatcheries, with the primary purpose of developing “a policy direction related to Columbia River basin hatchery production that will 1) guide its decisions about the distribution of funds for hatchery production under the Mitchell Act; and 2) inform its future review of individual Columbia River hatchery programs under the ESA.” WFC submitted extensive comments on the DEIS.

NMFS’ approach to developing its desired “policy direction” in the DEIS was to characterize five broad alternatives ranging from status quo operations to complete closure of Mitchell Act hatcheries, with several intermediate alternatives that apply “intermediate performance goals” and “stronger performance goals” (based loosely on recommendations from the Hatchery Science Review Group) to upper and lower Columbia Basin hatcheries in different combinations. The three intermediate alternatives that NMFS described would each result in reductions to the overall scale of hatchery programs in the Columbia. The current level of production of all salmon and steelhead by all hatchery programs, both Mitchell Act and non-Mitchell Act, measured in numbers of juveniles released per year is

144,000,000. Under the intermediate alternatives total production would be reduced to between 107,000,000 and 118,000,000. Under the No Mitchell Act-funding alternative, total production would be 52,000,000. For a variety of reasons that we cannot go into in such a brief report, none of the three intermediate alternatives are likely to achieve the level of risk-reduction to ESA-listed populations required to assure recovery.

In short, we do not believe the “policy direction” that NMFS outlined appropriately subordinates NMFS’ discretion in distributing Mitchell Act Funds to ESA requirements -- which are necessary to assure the recovery of the numerous wild salmon and steelhead populations that are harmed by Columbia Basin hatchery programs. The DEIS explicitly shies away from “prescribing narrowly the way the production programs will be operated,” preferring an approach that permits hatchery operators (and NMFS itself) broad discretion in determining which hatchery programs may be harming recovery and what should be done about them.

20

Continued on page 50

21

Risks Associated with Proposed Hatchery Production in the Elwha River Nick Gayeski

State, federal, and tribal fishery managers have proposed numerous hatchery-related actions affecting native winter steelhead and spring and fall Chinook in the Elwha basin. These include continued release of non-native Chambers Creek hatchery steelhead plus using wild winter steelhead and Chinook to develop hatchery populations in a “supplementation” program. These hatchery fish will then be allowed to spawn in the wild. Both of these actions pose significant risks to the native steelhead and Chinook populations that should benefit from dam removal.

The recovery of native Elwha winter steelhead is threatened by the releases of hatchery-origin Chambers Creek juvenile steelhead, and also by the return of the adult fish. Rearing juvenile native steelhead will compete for space and food with released smolts and from the smolts that fail to migrate and instead residualize in the basin. Native adult steelhead will compete for space on the spawning grounds with uncaught hatchery adults and will incur genetic risks from interbreeding. Crosses between wild native steelhead and Chambers Creek steelhead produce significantly fewer, if any, returning adult offspring than wild-only matings. This lowered fitness of wild-hatchery crosses threatens the native steelhead population directly through genetic introgression when adult progeny do return to spawn, and indirectly, when no progeny return, by wasting the precious genetic resources of the wild fish involved in the crossed matings.

In order to avoid harmful impacts of non-local hatchery stocks on depressed wild populations, fishery managers look to supplementation. This entirely experimental practice is supposed to provide a numerical increase for the wild population while involving little or no genetic harm to the wild population. Unfortunately, there is little evidence to support this. Research shows that hatchery steelhead and Chinook derived from local wild populations have significantly lower reproductive success than the

wild populations. Crosses between such hatchery fish and wild fish also have lower reproductive success than wild-only crosses. These levels of reproductive success generally range between 30% and 80%. In other words, for every ten returning adult offspring of wild-only matings in the river, crosses involving supplementation fish produce only three to eight.

Such lowered levels are serious for wild populations that are already barely able to replace themselves, which is usually the case for populations that are considered candidates for supplementation actions in the first place. Of further concern, the lowered levels of reproductive success relative to the original wild population appear to occur very early in the supplementation project, often as early as the first generation or two of hatchery breeding.

Given such evidence, it is critically important that the progress of the supplemented populations, especially the relative reproductive success of hatchery spawners, is carefully monitored and a robust adaptive management plan is in place. Supplementation should only be employed for a brief period of time (one or two generations at most) that is clearly identified at the outset of the action. During the course of a supplementation project, unambiguous, measurable quantitative thresholds for levels of population increase and minimum acceptable levels of relative reproductive success should be identified and monitored.

Unfortunately, the Elwha Fish Restoration Plan contains no such clear standards for the conduct of the proposed supplementation actions, nor is any maximum duration for such programs identified. This is deeply concerning, as without such specificity the public has no assurance that fish managers will not turn the so-called supplementation into long-term “local broodstock” production hatchery programs, and preclude the recovery of a wild ecosystem. @

Caught Far From Home:Pacific Salmon Treaty Managed Fishery Chinook Catch Composition 1999 - 2010

Migratory salmon can be caught far from their region of origin. For example, West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI) Chinook caught in the SE Alaska area fishery make up 15% of the total Chinook catch of that fishery. But those fish correspond to 68% of all WCVI-origin Chinook caught in the eastern Pacific. All other fisheries combined, including the WCVI fishery itself, land less than a third of harvested WCVI Chinook.

Aside from the Puget Sound fishery, Puget Sound Chinook are primarily harvested in these four fisheries. The vast majority (70-80%) are caught in the Georgia Strait fishery and the WCVI fishery.

Watershed-specific data indicate that 80% of the ocean-harvested Elwha River Chinook are caught in the WCVI fishery.

SE. AK

Columbia

WA OR C

oast

Puget S

Frasier

Georgia

W. Coas

t VI

N. Coas

t BC

SE Alaska Fishery

North/Central BC Fishery

West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI) Fishery

WA/OR Coast Fishery

Georgia Strait Fishery

Figure 1

All charts are sized proportional to average total catch for the relevant years. Size ranges from: 297,917 for N. Coast BC, to 65,197 for Georgia Strait. Data source: Chinook Technical Committee, Pacific Salmon Commission.

Of all the Chinook caught in SE Alaska, only 3% are native to Alaska.

Origin of fish by region

Kurt Beardslee, map by Andrew McAninch

where they originate. It doesn’t take long before the dilemma becomes obvious. In this environment where healthy and weak stocks are co-mingled, the fisheries should be designed and implemented to protect the weakest stocks while harvesting the most abundant. But as hard as managers may try, they can’t do it. Even with highly sophisticated modeling and forecast predictions, these tools are just too dull to meet the needs of today’s recovery efforts, if harvest rates are to be maintained.

For example, imagine the Elwha River. Soon the dams will be gone, opening up roughly seventy miles of excellent habitat within the Olympic National Park, habitat just waiting to be re-colonized. But of the Elwha Chinook that are caught in the ocean fishery, 80% of them are harvested in the West Coast Vancouver Island fishery, where fishers may be targeting the more abundant Fraser River and Columbia River Chinook. This ocean fishery management strategy, as it exists today, cannot protect returning Elwha Chinook in this co-mingled fishery without significantly reducing the harvest of the healthiest stocks. The end result is that Canada’s fishery is harming Washington’s recovery. Another example can be illustrated by the Chinook of the west coast of Vancouver Island. There, pristine old-growth rivers where wild Chinook can thrive still exist, yet some of these rivers have as little as 1% of the Chinook they did fifty years ago. These rivers cannot afford any harvest and may never recover without managers giving priority to their recovery. That can only be done on an individual basis, but unfortunately, hundreds of miles to the north, Alaska is busy harvesting Chinook to the degree that of all of the West Coast Vancouver Island Chinook landed in the ocean fishery, 68% are caught in Alaska. Some are very likely remnants of the highly depressed stocks.

Today’s fishery management is far more precise than it was even twenty years ago, but it still lacks the ability to manage at a scale that is necessary to recover individual salmon and steelhead stocks. Fisheries management needs to change, and ending the ocean Chinook fishery should be considered. This fishery impacts Chinook the most because of their complex life history. Living the longest, Chinook are

Continued on page 27

he harvest of Pacific salmon throughout the Northwest has dramatically changed over time. We have changed where, when, and how we

harvest, as well as how many we catch and even why we catch them. All of these changes combined have changed the salmon itself as harvest has altered the physical size of the fish and changed the age at which they mature. Harvest has reduced their diversity and abundance and may have even affected their ability to survive over time. It is urgent that we completely reevaluate how harvest is affecting salmon recovery and how harvest must be changed.

Historically, indigenous people of the northeastern Pacific fished for salmon when the fish returned to their natal rivers. Since they fished in or near the river, the impact of the fishery was confined to the river. If a river was over-harvested the local community would suffer the consequences when the next generation of salmon returned.

European settlers arrived and brought new technologies that helped fishermen expand how and where they could fish. Sail power, then gas and diesel engines and factory canneries forever changed the ability to exploit this rich new resource. Fishers were no longer confined to fishing the rivers near their communities. In the rich, new, ocean fishing grounds, fishers caught salmon that originated from many distant rivers. This shift to an ocean fishery represents the start of the mixed-stock fishery and the dilemma it poses for us and the international managers1 that are now in charge of the fishery.

At the beginning of this new fishery almost all salmon populations were healthy, which reduced the effect of fishing on any individual stock. Today, however, stocks from up and down the coast vary dramatically as to their health. While some are healthy and suitable for harvest, other stocks may be struggling to survive, recognized as a stock of special concern, or even protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Currently, the majority of harvested salmon are caught in this mixed-stock fishery, far from their rivers of origin. The pie charts2 in Figure 1 (opposite page) illustrate where Chinook are caught in relation to

23

T

1920

1960

10 lbs

15 lbs

20+ lbs

1975

Average weight of Chinook Salmon from 1920 to 1975.See text for references.

Figure 1

Fishing the Nursery is Shrinking ChinookNick Gayeski, maps by Andrew McAninch

The mixed-stock area of the Pacific Ocean is the nursery of Pacific salmon. The fishery in this area extends 200 miles off-shore. A mixed-stock fishery occurs in an area where more than one stock is present. Because individual stocks vary in their abundance, non-selective fishing in a mixed-stock area can adversely affect depleted stocks.

During the Chinook season, neither commercial nor recreational fishers are required to release wild Chinook. Any Chinook over the minimum size can be retained. Imagine the legendary 100 lb. Elwha Chinook surviving eight years of constant fishing pressure in the mixed-stock fishery zone.

he life history of Chinook salmon differs in important ways from those of the other salmon species. Compared to all other Pacific salmon,

Chinook salmon are bigger, they reach sexual maturity at a variety of ages (three and older for females, two and older for males), and they can attain older ages, up to eight years. Chinook salmon are, of course, well known for their relatively large body size. Historically, Chinook commonly attained weights in excess of fifty pounds and occasionally exceeded one hundred pounds. This characteristic is the result of not just longevity, but also a unique pattern of adult growth.

Chinook salmon grow relatively slowly during the first two years in the ocean and progressively faster in later years. This pattern indicates that Chinook “traded” the increased risk of dying before reaching maturity in exchange for the increased benefits of larger body size. Those benefits include not only more eggs to deposit, but larger, better quality eggs that give newly emerged fry a better chance of surviving early life in freshwater. Large-bodied Chinook can spawn in deeper, faster water, and build nests in larger cobbles that better protect eggs from scour during high flow events. Thus, Chinook salmon are potentially able to exploit spawning habitat that

25

T is simply unavailable to other salmon and steelhead, such as the spawning habitat in and above the steeper canyon reaches of the Elwha River.

These inherent attributes of Chinook resulted in large populations (in excess of one million in some large river basins) of large fish, at least until the intense commercial fisheries began in the last quarter of the 19th century. Up to 1920 or so in the Sacramento/San Joaquin and the 1930s in the lower Columbia River, the average weight of Chinook caught by the various in-river commercial fisheries exceeded twenty pounds (McDonald 1894, Rich 1940, Yoshiyama & Moyle 1998). By the 1960s, average weights coastwide had dropped below twenty pounds, and were closer to fifteen pounds in most areas. By 1975, the average weights of many stocks had begun to approach ten pounds (for the entire BC coast and Georgia Strait; Ricker 1981).

The average ages of Chinook declined in a corresponding manner. For example, based on tagging data conducted off the west coast of Vancouver Island in the late 1920s, Ricker (1981) estimated the spawning-age composition of unfished Chinook populations in this area to be: 12% of the population was three-year-old fish; 29%, four-years-old; 31%, five-years-old; 23%, six-years-old; and 5%, seven-years-old, yielding an average age of 4.8 years. By the mid-1990s, the average age of most British Columbia and Washington Chinook populations was less than 3.1 years. Significantly, the most common age of the majority of Chinook populations today is four-years-old, in contrast to five-years-old prior to the 1950s. In many of today’s populations, the second most common age is three-years-old, whereas prior to the 1950s it was six-years-old. This constitutes a huge decrease in spawning potential and life history diversity, and thus, in the resilience of Chinook populations to environmental challenges.

What caused this decline in age and size? Numerous factors have probably contributed to the current drastic condition of Chinook, including harvest, competition in the ocean from large hatchery releases, and large-scale changes in the ocean environment. However, the last two most likely only make worse changes that are fundamentally caused by harvest.

Elwha River

The only time when wild Chinook must be released is during the short interval that they transit through the US side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca on their way to the Elwha. The requirement to release wild Chinook applies only to recreational anglers, not tribal or commercial fishers, who are permitted to fish using non-selective gear methods.

26

For thousands of years prior to European colonization, Native Americans harvested salmon with traditional methods in or near the rivers as mature salmon returned from the sea to their natal waters. Generally, the descendants of Europeans used in-river gillnet fisheries during the first fifty years of commercial salmon fishing starting in the 1870s and targeted large Chinook. By the 1920s, when motorized fishing boats enabled fisheries to extend to the estuaries and the near ocean, the average size and age of many Chinook stocks within large rivers like the Sacramento/San Joaquin, Columbia, and Fraser had already been reduced, despite average catch weights that still ranged twenty to thirty pounds.

The consequence of developing the ocean troll fishery meant that immature, growing Chinook that were still one to three years away from maturity were subject to constant harvest pressures. This highly favored those fish that would have naturally matured at a younger age. With an ocean fishery, the longer a fish stays at sea, the greater the likelihood it will be harvested. Over time, this effect will reduce the average age and size of the population, as the portion that would have matured at an older age will now be harvested. In the case of Chinook salmon, older (and consequently larger) seven- and eight-year-old fish are disappearing from runs. These fish are the most productive within the population and their absence indicates a serious stock failure as well as an overall reduction in productive capacity. If the more productive older/larger and female fish were not targeted and released, the quality of the escapement would increase. The net result of all of this is that today’s Chinook salmon populations are significantly less complex and diverse in life history than they were a century ago. They are younger and smaller, and growth rates of the majority of populations have been changed in negative ways. Those populations are less likely to have the growth and maturity rates required to produce fish that are five-years-old and older that mature at large body sizes in excess of forty pounds.

Can this trend be reversed? Yes, but it will require changes in harvest rates and practices, and unless selective fishing methods that harvest only hatchery fish are mandated, it will also require reductions

in hatchery releases of Chinook and other salmon species. Ocean harvest rates will need to continue to be reduced and fisheries that directly or indirectly encounter immature Chinook, particularly troll fisheries, must either be terminated or become selective. Fisheries that select for larger Chinook, particularly gillnet fisheries, must also be eliminated or become selective. Then the proportionately few remaining older, larger, natural-origin Chinook will return to spawn in the immediate future and become the foundation for the slower, longer process of recovering the proportions of five-year-old and older age classes that were typical of most historic Chinook salmon populations.

This perspective is especially relevant to the recovery of Elwha River Chinook following the removal of the Elwha dams. The legendary large body size of Elwha Chinook was probably essential to the ability of the population to colonize the middle and upper Elwha basins where they were required to pass through several rough canyon reaches and make use of large spawning substrates in the deep, fast waters of the upper basin. The science on how populations respond to harvest indicates that the large-bodied Elwha Chinook will not be restored simply through dam removal if no other measures are taken. Restoring the Elwha Chinook probably requires a closer examination of how harvest has and will continue to affect the stock. @

ReferencesMcDonald, M. 1894. The salmon fisheries of the Columbia River Basin. Report of Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries.Rich, W.H. 1940. Seasonal variation in weight of Columbia River Chinook salmon. Department of Research, Fish Commission of the State of Oregon, Contribution No. 5. Ricker, W.E. 1981. Changes in the average size and average age of Pacific salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences v.38, pp.1636-1656.Yoshiyama, R.M., F.W. Fisher, and P.B. Moyle. 1998. Historical abundance and decline of Chinook salmon in the Central Valley region of California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v.18: 487-521.

The Chinook that escape the ocean fishery and enter Puget Sound are then subjected to three more fisheries: 1) tribal (including subsistence, ceremonial, and commercial), 2) non-tribal commercial, and 3) recreational. Total average annual catch (2004-2008) in Puget Sound of Chinook was 148,514 fish1. The tribal fishery landed 64% of the Chinook caught, the recreational fishery, 31%, and the non-tribal commercial fishery, 5% (Figure 1). The recreational fishery uses selective fishing gear and targets hatchery fish as sport fishers are required to release wild Chinook. Tribal fishers and non-tribal commercial fishers are not required to release wild Chinook in Puget Sound although some commercial fishers do fish selectively (see the story on page 12 regarding reefnetter Riley Starks). @

Endnotes1 Data obtained from annual reports of the Puget Sound Chinook Comprehensive Management Plan prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound Treaty Indian Tribes. See, for example http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00975/wdfw00975.pdf.

exposed to the effects of this fishery for a long period of time. Closing the ocean Chinook fishery, while allowing fishing to take place at the mouths of respective rivers, would allow for more precise management with the greatest amount of benefit to the resource and the least amount of disruption to the overall fishery. Moving harvest to the local level, coupled with the implementation of selective fishing techniques which allow the safe release of wild fish, will maximize the harvest of hatchery fish while allowing wild fish the opportunity to return to their rivers of origin.

Note that Figure 1 on page 22 does not include pie charts for Puget Sound, Columbia River (in-river fisheries), Oregon state waters, and California waters. Data for those areas were not readily available, sufficiently comprehensive, or comparable to the available data at the time these analyses were conducted. Wild Fish Conservancy intends to publish a comprehensive report on Pacific salmon harvest in 2012. @

Endnotes1The Pacific Salmon Commission, made up of representatives from Canada and the US, manages the harvest of Chinook salmon through the Pacific Salmon Treaty. 2The data used in Figure 1 are model-estimated catches provided by Dr. Rishi Sharma, U.S. Co-Chair of the Chinook Technical Committee of the Pacific Salmon Commission. The model relies on spawner escapement data over brood years for all stocks, as well as coded-wire tag recoveries from catch areas and spawning grounds. The model is generally considered to provide highly accurate estimates of the proportions of the different stocks making up the catch in each of the fisheries. We are indebted to Dr. Sharma for providing the data. Wild Fish Conservancy is solely responsible for the conclusions drawn from the data.

Caught Far From Home, continued from page 23.

27

Puget Sound Chinook HarvestNick Gayeski

Non-tribal commercial

5%

Tribal64%

Recreational31%

Puget Sound Chinook Catch Composition:

2004 - 2008

Figure 1

Groundfish - Between a Rock and a Hard PlaceJames Fletcher, photos by Janna Nichols

The science shows that protected areas result in spectacular increases in abundance, biomass, and average size.

Yellowtail Rockfish

This is a summary of a longer article. Please go to the Wild Fish Conservancy website to read the complete article.

Groundfish and rockfish populations have declined dramatically throughout Puget Sound in the last twenty-five years and some common species that once dominated our fisheries are now significantly depressed. Pacific cod and hake populations have collapsed, and the three most commonly caught rockfish, copper, quillback, and brown, declined so significantly during the 1980s and 90s that commercial targeting of rockfish was closed or limited in many areas of Puget Sound. Currently, thirteen species of rockfishes have been listed by the state as candidates for protection, and NOAA’s Fisheries Service listed three populations of Puget Sound rockfish under the Endangered Species Act.

It’s easy to point the finger at commercial operations since they have had the overwhelming impact on most stocks; but there are some nearshore fisheries, such as lingcod and rockfish, which receive a significant amount of pressure from recreational anglers. According to NOAA’s Fisheries Service, recreational fishing from 2003-2007 accounted for an average 850,000 lbs of lingcod per year; that’s 365,000 lbs more than the average commercial harvest of 485,000 lbs.1 The recent recreational harvest for rockfish is comparable to the annual commercial harvest prior to 1998.2 Anglers are so successful catching these fish because of increased fishing effort and improvements in modern fishing gear including electronic aids. As a result, several species of rockfish continue to be caught on a scale that contributes to their decline, much less a rate that promotes recovery.

The decline of groundfish and other species has prompted state agencies and private organizations to advocate for a regional network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to promote both the recovery of depressed species and ensure ecosystem health. The state’s 2010 draft

Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan (PSRCP )3 contains a strategy to develop a “science-based system of marine reserves and rockfish conservation areas” to restore the integrity of habitat, the populations, and also to manage fisheries. Similar sentiments were expressed in WDFW’s 1998 groundfish plan, but they have yet to be fully realized. Puget Sound currently hosts a variety of MPAs, ranging from fully-protected areas to designations that actively encourage targeted fishing; but harvest is completely prohibited in only a small area (2.2 square miles). If it seems obvious that fishing is detrimental to fish populations it appears less so to a large and vocal portion of the fishing community. The initial stages of planning for creating a network of marine reserves (in this article, “marine reserves” means “no fishing”) in Puget Sound have been opposed by some commercial and sport fishers claiming their livelihoods or “right to fish” are under threat. The argument that there isn’t enough science to predict how marine reserves will function may have had weight twenty years ago, but no longer. There are

28

Black Rockfish

Canary Rockfish

hundreds of recent independent studies that document the benefits of marine reserves, not only in small artisanal fisheries, but virtually all types of marine ecosystems, and sometimes on a very large scale. The science clearly shows that protecting geographical areas from fishing leads to spectacular increases in abundance, biomass and average size of exploited species. In every study the single difference between the protected area and outside is fishing, and the dominating factor that controls the abundance and size of exploited species is fishing, not pollution, or marine mammals, or any other reason.

The research also indicates that overfishing has reduced population size, removed the oldest and largest fish, and reduced reproductive potential. This indicts traditional fishery management – quotas, size limits, gear limits, bag limits, and seasonal restrictions. Such techniques have been particularly ineffective at managing slow-growing, late-maturing reef fish such as rockfish, cabezon, and lingcod. In contrast, marine reserves are more successful in promoting recovery of these fish.

A team of scientists at WDFW have examined whether Puget Sound rockfishes, lingcod, and other bottom fishes respond to protection from fishing in no-take reserves and determined that rockfish and lingcod are more abundant, larger, and produce more offspring inside reserves when compared to fished areas.4

Upon establishment of marine reserves, the degree to which fishers might suffer in the short-term (or long-term) is not predictable but depends instead greatly on a number of factors. In some situations, fishers may in fact benefit by finding more profitable water. But the long-term benefits of effectively designed and managed marine reserves can greatly outweigh any short-term costs of displacement.

Envision a seascape where 20% of Puget Sound is protected from fishing. That would still leave 800 square miles of water to set a line or net. By acting as a buffer against stock collapse and supplementing nearby fisheries, a reserve network is likely to improve catches, both in the form of more fish, larger, and more valuable fish, and less variation in catch levels from year-to-year. This won’t happen overnight. It may take years or possibly decades to achieve, depending on the life histories of the target fish and how depressed the populations are, but the science – contrary to much of the emotion – shows the investment is clearly worth it. @

Endnotes1 Personal communication from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver Spring, MD. 2 W. Palsson et al. (2009). The biology and assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.3 http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/rockfish/ 4 Details of this work can be found in a series of reports and publications written largely by biologists Wayne Palsson and Robert Pacunski of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Resources Division.

29

Science Updates

WFC Fish Passage Restoration ProjectsJamie Glasgow and Brent Trim

When it comes to fish habitat restoration, improving fish passage remains one of the most effective and cost-efficient project types routinely implemented in the region. Anthropogenic barriers to migration have significant impacts on wild fish: limiting distribution, reducing access to spawning and rearing habitats, and disrupting the spatial habitat complexity historically available to fish populations. Whether for resident species that spend their entire lives in one watershed, or migratory species that travel thousands of miles, instream barriers compromise a populations’ ability to weather environmental uncertainties. Evolutionary fitness of the entire population is weakened when barriers restrict gene flow, creating small, isolated sub-groups that can suffer from inbreeding. By interrupting habitat connectivity, even a single barrier can have a disproportionately large impact on the health and vitality of a wild fish population.

Furthermore, when (not “if”) undersized and unmaintained culverts fail upstream of fish-bearing reaches, the resulting catastrophic impacts to

downstream aquatic habitat can take decades to recover. The investment of time and money to restore passage at one location in a watershed not only allows species to recolonize their historical range, but can

benefit the entire stream ecosystem as well. When done properly, fish passage projects also restore natural stream processes, improving the transport of sediment, wood, and water.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of restoration opportunities. In 2002 (the most recent data available), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife estimated that approximately 33,000 full or partial barriers to migration exist on fish-bearing streams in Washington. Since our inception in 1989, Wild Fish Conservancy has worked hard to reverse this trend by implementing fish passage projects that improved fish access to dozens of miles of critical spawning and rearing habitat. In 2009 and 2010, WFC removed barrier culverts on salmon spawning streams including two Snoqualmie River tributaries (Indian Creek and Weiss Creek), a

Green River tributary in South King County (Thomas Creek), and Snyder Creek, flowing to Puget Sound in west Olympia. Steelhead, coho and chum salmon, cutthroat trout, sculpin, and native freshwater mussels are expected to benefit from these projects, along with all of the advantages that accrue to the riparian flora and fauna from restored stream connectivity. In coming years, WFC will monitor the recolonization of these watersheds upstream from our barrier removals.

Financial support for these projects was provided by a variety of sources: WDFW’s Family Forest Fish Passage Program, Salmon Recovery Funding Board, King Conservation District’s Opportunity Fund, Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (via People for Puget Sound), and Evergreen State College.

WFC anticipates implementing five more fish passage restoration projects in 2011. @

WFC replaces an undersized culvert on Snyder Creek with a properly- sized box culvert.

30

Fish-monitoring in the Cypress Island NearshoreBrent Trim

Washington State established the Aquatic Reserve Program “to conserve high quality native aquatic ecosystems in both freshwater and marine environments.” Cypress Island is the least-developed island in the San Juan archipelago, and its nearshore is one of only five Aquatic Reserves in Puget Sound. In 2009, the Washington Department of Natural Resources contracted Wild Fish Conservancy to conduct an assessment of nearshore fish resources at this, one of the state’s newest Aquatic Reserves. Through February snowstorms, an August heat-wave, and brisk October gales, WFC biologists (with invaluable assistance from Skagit and Island County Beachwatcher volunteers! See p. 48) conducted beach seining around the perimeter of the island at sample sites that included sheltered coves, broad bays, exposed high-energy beaches, and deep-water point bars. Sixty species of marine fish (from twenty-one families) were netted including numerous bottom-dwelling sculpins, predatory greenling and lingcod, surf perches, clingfishes, flounders, and soles. Forage fish species (sand lance, cod, herring, anchovy, and smelt) were well represented, as were the eel-like gunnels, cockscombs, warbonnets, and pricklebacks that are favorite prey items for Puget Sound’s largest breeding colony of pigeon guillemots, located just offshore in the tiny Cone Islands.

Depending on the season, the daily catch also included pink, chum, coho, and Chinook salmon smolts that utilize nearshore feeding grounds following their out-migration from natal Puget Sound rivers. Coded wire-tag recoveries from juvenile salmon originating in regional hatcheries yield important information. Not surprisingly, hatchery salmon from nearby rivers (Skagit, Samish, and Nooksack) made up the bulk of the tagged fish, though a lone hatchery Chinook from the Chilliwack River was netted, demonstrating that juvenile salmon

from the British Columbia’s Fraser River system utilize the Cypress nearshore as well.

Research partnerships are a direct outgrowth of WFC’s nearshore work in recent years. The Cypress Island project provided over eighty Chinook tissue samples to biologists at Skagit River Systems Cooperative and NOAA Fisheries for their joint study of the stream origins of juvenile wild Chinook in Puget Sound nearshore mixed-stock rearing habitats. Several dozen gut-content samples obtained through non-lethal stomach-pumping of juvenile smolts from the Cypress nearshore were incorporated into a San Juan Islands salmon diet study conducted by research staff from Kwiáht (a nonprofit conservation laboratory based on Lopez Island). The 2009 season is considered a pilot project; WDNR and WFC staff continue to pursue funding to conduct a full-scale investigation of the nearshore marine fish communities of the Cypress Aquatic Reserve, with the ultimate goal of establishing a long-term monitoring program capable of elucidating demographic trends of nearshore fish populations in the areas of Puget Sound that have been withdrawn from development pressures through Aquatic Reserve status. @

Brown Irish Lord (Hemilepiotus spinosus); yet another of the many amazing species of sculpin inhabiting the Cypress Island nearshore waters.

31

Skagit Steelhead: Who Are They Really?Brent Trim

One can hardly imagine the North Cascades landscape without the Skagit River, the arterial that ties mountains to sound with wild and scenic waterways from southern British Columbia to Skagit Bay. The Skagit has long been synonymous with wild steelhead. Once considered a lasting stronghold, natural steelhead production has declined in the Skagit, as with the rest of the Puget Sound region, leading to the 2007 Endangered Species Act listing, and forcing steelhead managers to deal with the causes for the decline.

One likely culprit may be hatcheries. Research has demonstrated conclusively that hatchery fish reduce survival rates for wild salmon and steelhead. Several possible mechanisms have been identified: 1) direct competition for resources; 2) predation of hatchery sub-adults on wild juveniles; 3) introduced diseases; and 4) the loss of genetic fitness and diversity. The last has become the focus of intensive study throughout the region. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s largest hatchery facility is located on the Cascade River (a Skagit tributary), and has been producing winter steelhead for release into the Skagit at an average rate of 414,000 smolts per year since 1985 (maximum of 663,500 in 2000). The deleterious effects of hatchery fish that potentially stray and inter-breed with natural-origin steelhead must be understood within the context of the overall recovery strategy for wild steelhead.

Biologists from Seattle City Light (operators of the hydro-electric power dams on the upper Skagit), Skagit River Systems Cooperative, the Upper Skagit Tribe, WDFW, and Wild Fish Conservancy have recently initiated research into these questions by collecting tissue samples from anadromous and resident Oncorhynchus mykiss throughout the Skagit basin. During a wetter-than-normal September 2010, WFC field technicians captured more than 400 juvenile steelhead from the anadromous zone of the mainstem Skagit and tributaries in North Cascades National Park, and Sauk River tributaries on adjoining National Forest lands. Teams from partner agencies collected samples from returning adult steelhead and resident rainbows throughout the lower watershed as well. A snippet of tail fin, a quick length measurement, and the fish is released otherwise unharmed. To determine the degree of hatchery hybridization with these wild trout, all of the tissue samples are sent to a WDFW laboratory for microsatellite DNA mapping. This project is in its earliest phase, but will lead to further study as baseline data are analyzed and implications of the findings are considered.

In the meantime, returning steelhead numbers continue their precipitous decline region-wide, forcing an early closure to steelhead fishing in Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca rivers and streams for the second consecutive year, in order to reduce the incidental take of wild steelhead. However, catch-and-release fishing may be the lesser of concerns. The ecological and evolutionary threat to our wild salmon and steelhead posed by hatchery programs can no longer be ignored, but, as always, knowledge about the extent of the problems posed by hatcheries will go a long way toward implementing solutions. @

Science Updates cont.

Top: WFC field technician David Crabb electrofishing on the Skagit River.Bottom: Skagit River steelhead parr.

32

Water Typing: The Price of ProtectionBrent Trim

Let’s consider for a moment the smaller watersheds in the suburban areas of western Washington. Most of us cross several of these streams every day without ever giving them much thought. They pass silently and unnoticed through culverts and under bridges, beneath our roadways as we drive to and from our place of work, school, gas station, or grocery store. Unfortunately, these streams are often over-looked by state regulators as well, with potentially disastrous consequences for native fish populations. Case in point: using the officially-sanctioned state water type maps, a residential or commercial developer proceeds to de-vegetate the many un-mapped or misclassified tributaries, converting them into roadside ditches through obstructing driveway culverts, straightened channels crashing through un-shaded, heavily-fertilized lawns, or an exposed series of stormwater retention ponds. Sound familiar? Have you seen this in your neighborhood?

The cost can be high. In many landscapes, streamside habitat is far and away the most valuable for maintaining biodiversity. Terrestrial and aquatic bird, mammal, amphibian, and invertebrate species that depend on the riparian environment are crowded into ever-smaller patches. Eventually they find themselves homeless as habitat is first fragmented, and then disappears entirely. The degraded riparian forest no longer buffers and cools the

streams from the summer sun, resulting in thermal pollution of waterways inhabited by temperature-sensitive salmonids and other native fish. Streams that were once perennial go seasonally dry due to the re-direction of “inconvenient” tributaries into pipes and ditches, the removal of water-retaining streamside vegetation, and the destruction of feeder springs. Year-round storage capacity for the entire watershed is reduced, with less water available for resident and migratory fish, and for people. Without vegetation to protect streambanks, erosion rapidly increases during our heavy rainfalls, destabilizing

Science Updates cont.

34

the channel, and silting salmon spawning grounds. The over-widened and incised channel is now more sluice-box than natural stream. Slope failures and landslides are imminent; people’s homes endangered. Enter Wild Fish Conservancy’s water typing team. Equipped with the latest LiDAR-derived charts and aerial photographs, we proceed to locate, map, and correctly classify streams that often don’t even appear on current state and county water-type maps – the very maps that are used by municipal planning departments to regulate land-use activities adjacent to our fragile streams. Water type surveys correct and refine the GIS model used to classify Washington’s waterways by ground-truthing the very stream maps produced from this model, often resulting in a significant increase in the amount of habitat legally classified as fish-bearing. And here’s where the proof hits the pavement (quite literally, in the case of streamside development): the official water type classification is tied directly to the width of the riparian buffer that is required by local governments (mandated by the state’s Growth Management Act) to be maintained along our streams. If a fish-bearing stream is misclassified, the risk of losing that all-important riparian forest buffer in the face of development pressure is greatly increased. When we correctly classify a stream, the law requires that the habitat be protected. It’s that simple.

Water typing also provides an immediate opportunity for surveyors to expand our knowledge about local fish distributions, to document current habitat conditions and anthropogenic barriers to fish migration (such as

poorly-designed culverts or private dams and impoundments), and to discover potential threats to water quantity and quality such as illegal diversions and improper discharges into state waterways. Water typing continues to be a vital component of Wild Fish Conservancy’s mission to protect and restore native fish habitat. It is certainly not an inexpensive proposition, but the importance of the work cannot be understated. It is perhaps the most efficient instrument available, the “biggest bang for the buck,” to ensure that instream and riparian habitats are provided the full measure of protection available under current regulations.

Several alternative options can provide for more robust long-term stream protection, but the difficulty of arranging conservation easements with landowners, or the prohibitive expense of outright property purchase often limit the usefulness of these other tools as pro-active stream protection measures. Seen in this light, water typing becomes

WFC field technician Frank Staller working to classify a previously unclassified stream.

Water typing is the most efficient instrument to ensure instream and riparian habitats get the protection they merit.

35

the most cost-effective solution for safeguarding streams on a landscape scale.

Since 2009, Wild Fish Conservancy has conducted water type surveys on many miles of streams in watersheds including the Beckler and Pilchuck basins (major tributaries of the Skykomish and Snohomish Rivers in Snohomish County), Wildcat Creek (a Chehalis River tributary in Grays Harbor county), Hylebos Creek (a tributary to Puget Sound’s Commencement Bay near Tacoma), Patterson Creek in suburban east King County, and Salmon Creek in Clark County near Vancouver. Surveyors continued mapping and classifying streams throughout the San Juan Islands, and the numerous tributaries to South Puget Sound in Thurston and Mason Counties.

Funding for WFC’s water typing work comes from several sources including the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, USDA Forest Service, and Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (www.pugetsoundkeeper.org). Partnerships are integral to WFC’s success as we expand our water typing efforts into new watersheds. Project partners with the Suquamish Tribe provided extra field staff, allowing us to double our efforts in the Miller Bay watersheds of North Kitsap County. The non-profit Friends of the Hylebos (www.hylebos.org) is instrumental in contacting local landowners for access, and orienting WFC field crews to their watershed. To find Chinook and coho salmon, rainbow and cutthroat trout, native sculpins, and freshwater mussel populations persevering in a degraded stream system such as the heavily urbanized, industrialized landscape of Hylebos Creek is positively inspiring. Our streams have a built-in capacity to heal themselves. If we provide protection for the habitat, our native fish and backyard wildlife will return to stay. @

Icicle Research Project AccomplishmentsNick Gayeski

In summer 2009, a field crew of four was kept busy sampling fish and the aquatic food web at study sites in upper and lower Icicle Creek and Chiwaukum Creek. In addition to sampling of aquatic invertebrates important to the diets of fish, samples of riparian vegetation and algae were collected for stable isotope analyses that will help us understand how

Science Updates cont.

36

“Boulders on Icicle Creek,” plein air oil painting by Damon Brown.

energy flows upward to rainbow trout and juvenile salmon.

That same summer, for the third year, scale samples from over 200 rainbow trout were collected in upper Icicle Creek and will enable us to determine the age of fish and the relationship between fish age and length. On-going analyses of Icicle Creek samples are nearly complete and reveal significant genetic structuring (population subdivision) over the length of the upper Icicle.

We also conducted night-time snorkel surveys in two major tributaries of the upper Icicle, Jack and French creeks, to document juvenile bull trout, and collected nineteen tissue samples for DNA analyses by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In early autumn, we also conducted weekly surveys of upper Icicle and French Creeks for spawning redds of large migratory bull trout.

In late August of both 2009 and 2010 we conducted snorkel surveys of the eighteen-mile length of Icicle Creek from French Creek to the East Leavenworth Bridge, downstream of the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery. We have a valuable tool in monitoring the distribution and overall abundance of resident rainbow and juvenile and adult

bull trout (including the migratory life history), now that five consecutive annual surveys have been completed.

In 2010 our focus shifted to quantifying aquatic habitat at several Icicle study sites using an Acoustic Doppler Profiler (ADP), a boat-mounted tool that measures current depths and velocity in three dimensions and associates each depth-velocity measurement with a GPS measurement at a fine resolution (about 20 inches by 20 inches). At each site, we measured current depth and velocity over the entire length and most of the width and obtained a detailed picture of the distribution of depths and velocities. Then we used a hand-held current meter and measured depths and velocities at the specific locations where rainbows were resting and feeding. These two types of data will enable us to estimate the amount of preferred habitats and compare this to the observed numbers of rainbow of various size classes.

We also conducted paired daytime and nighttime snorkel surveys for juvenile bull trout at seven sites over a three-mile length of Chiwaukum Creek to evaluate a novel cost-effective approach that relies primarily on

“Boulders on Icicle Creek,” plein air oil painting by Damon Brown.

37

daytime snorkel surveys. We obtained valuable data on the distribution of juvenile bull trout in the surveyed length and confirmed our hypothesis of the effectiveness of the new method. A manuscript describing this study is currently in preparation.

There is now a considerable amount of information and we plan on producing a synthesis report in

Multnomah County Fish Diversity and Distribution StudyJamie Glasgow

The Multnomah County (Oregon) Department of Community Services has selected Wild Fish Conservancy to conduct a study of fish diversity and distribution for Beaver and Upper Johnson Creeks located in Multnomah County and Clackamas County. The two watersheds have urban, suburban, and agricultural land uses, and are significantly impaired from water quality and habitat impacts. Approximately twenty-nine stream miles are included in the survey reaches, of which approximately

20% will be surveyed for fish presence by a Wild Fish Conservancy electrofishing team. The results of this study, which will complement similar Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife investigations in nearby watersheds, will allow assessment of changes in stream health and fish assemblages over time, and guide land use planning and development decisions.

This seasonal assessment of fish species composition and distribution began in September 2010, and will continue in March and September 2011. Summer 2010 surveys in Beaver Creek yielded abundances of juvenile coho salmon (listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act) and rainbow trout that exceeded expectations. Other native fish species documented by WFC include several native sculpin species, speckled and longnose dace, northern pikeminnow, peamouth, redside shiners, suckers, and brook lamprey. Additionally, WFC documented the presence of native freshwater mussels, and four non-native fish species. @

Science Updates cont.

summer 2011 on the results of our rainbow research to date, as well as several manuscripts that will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.

Support for WFC’s Icicle Creek research project has been provided through the generosity of the Icicle Fund, our members, and the Conservation Biology Division of the NOAA Fisheries Service, Seattle. @

38

Ellsworth Creek: Cutthroat and Rainbow Hybrid GeneticsJamie Glasgow

The Ellsworth Creek watershed, which drains into Willapa Bay in southwestern Washington, is owned and managed as a natural reserve by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Since 2007, TNC has contracted Wild Fish Conservancy to perform a variety of fish and instream habitat surveys to help characterize the watershed’s physical and biological conditions so that changes in habitat and species composition can be evaluated over time.While performing fish species composition surveys, WFC staff observed, among other fish species, what appeared to be pure cutthroat and rainbow trout, along with what appeared to be cutthroat-rainbow hybrids. The potential presence of hybrids was noteworthy as hybrids are typically fertile and can reproduce, sometimes leading to “hybrid swarms” where pure rainbow and cutthroat trout disappear and only hybrids remain. In coastal systems like Ellsworth, where the two trout species co-evolved, the conservation implications of hybridization are poorly understood.

In 2008, WFC, in collaboration with TNC, was awarded funding from through a competitive U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program to conduct a study on coastal cutthroat and rainbow trout hybridization in Ellsworth Creek. The primary goal of the study was to use molecular genetics to determine the spatial distribution of hybrids and relate it to habitat characteristics. The analyses revealed that pure coastal cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and hybrids were present, and that hybridization had progressed beyond the first (F1) generation. The presence of multiple age classes for all of these genetic groups

with the exception of F1 hybrids, and the presence of post-F1 hybrids suggests that hybrid survival and fitness is greater than zero. The lack of age 0+ hybrids in this study and the greater relative abundance of post-F1 hybrids among age 1+ fish suggests that initial hybridization events between pure cutthroat and rainbow trout may be infrequent, which is consistent with studies on other streams.

A secondary objective was to relate the genotypes of each trout to their photographs and field identifications to determine the accuracy of field identification and assess the correlation between visual characteristics of individual fish and their known genotypes. We found that incorporating phenotypic characteristic and field identification error analyses into data collection and reporting can provide guidance for which traits are more reliable to identify a fish. These results improve future field identification of coastal cutthroat, rainbow trout, and hybrids.

The Final Report for this study is available on our website. @

39

Weiss Creek is a three square-mile watershed that flows into the Snoqualmie River from the east near Stillwater, in King County. The watershed supports coho salmon, resident and sea-run cutthroat trout, freshwater mussels, native sculpin, brook lamprey, and possibly steelhead. Over the past twelve years, Wild Fish Conservancy has completed extensive channel, fish passage, and riparian restoration within the Weiss Creek watershed.

In 1999, WFC restored the lower mile of the watershed where it flows through the Snoqualmie floodplain. Since then, WFC has improved wetland habitats further upstream and monitored the type and number of salmon returning there. During summer 2008, WFC removed a temporary culvert and replaced it with a thirty-four feet long steel bridge, and in 2009, WFC removed a second barrier culvert

Wild Fish Conservancy Keeps on Working in Weiss CreekMary Lou White

A barrier culvert blocking fish passage on Weiss Creek was replaced with this wooden bridge.

just upstream and replaced it with a wooden bridge.WFC has funding and plans to remove a derelict box culvert that is no longer used by the landowners and which creates a partial or full barrier to fish migration; the extent of the passage barrier depends on sediment and debris-loading conditions that change seasonally. Removal of that fish passage barrier will improve fish passage to greater than 90% of the watershed, because the barrier is located near the mouth of the stream (immediately upstream from the SR203 crossing).

If you are aware of privately-owned culverts that may impede fish passage, please contact Wild Fish Conservancy – we may be able to help restore fish passage and alleviate road maintenance concerns for you. @

Science Updates cont.

40

New Multi-Year Research Project in Grays HarborMicah Wait

Grays Harbor is the fourth-largest estuary on the west coast of North America and is situated between the mouth of the Columbia River and the Olympic Peninsula. Its major tributary is the Chehalis River, one of the largest rivers in Washington. It is also the estuary for several rivers draining the southern slopes of the Olympic Mountains, including the Humptulips, Wishkah, Wynoochee, and Satsop. Historically, Grays Harbor supported large runs of Chinook, coho, and chum salmon, as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout, but for a variety of reasons, including logging, historic pulp mill activity (effluents from the mills have now been greatly improved), gravel mining, diking and fill of tidal marsh land, and urbanization, most of these populations have declined. However, the region is still considered a salmon stronghold, and presently no populations are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act except bull trout. The estuary is also an important rearing ground for a variety of larval and juvenile baitfish, including surf smelt, herring, anchovy, and sardines, which make up an important trophic layer in the marine food web.

Estuaries play an important role in the life cycle of Pacific salmon: they provide a transitional habitat between natal streams and the feeding grounds of the nearshore Pacific Ocean, where juvenile

salmon migrate, feed, and undergo the physiological transformation required to move from fresh to salt water. Many recent studies have highlighted the importance of intact estuarine habitat for juvenile salmon, and research conducted in the Skagit River estuary has shown that in some years the amount of available estuary habitat is a limiting factor for juvenile Chinook salmon.

In an effort to better understand how juvenile salmon utilize estuarine habitats in Grays Harbor, Wild Fish Conservancy is initiating a multi-year study that will include a habitat inventory and assessment as well as sampling of the juvenile fish community throughout tidally-influenced portions of the estuary. Juvenile fish will be sampled using beach seines and fyke nets, and the information collected will include species, size, abundance, coded wire tag data, and water quality parameters. We will also take fin clips from steelhead, cutthroat, and bull trout for genetic analysis to aid WDFW and NOAA Fisheries in their efforts to create a genetic baseline database for these populations on the Washington coast. The objective of this project is to provide a scientific basis for the evaluation and prioritization of future habitat protection and restoration efforts in Grays Harbor. The Grays Harbor project relies heavily on volunteer

A starry flounder, easily identified by bold black bars in the fins and, unlike other flatfish, rough, shark-like dorsal scales.

WFC intern Molly Gorman holds up the cork line as a beach seine set is completed.

41

effort and we have been fortunate to have three full-time volunteers working since early March. Molly Gorman and Jesse Lang both graduated from the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Science program in 2010. Molly previously worked at the UW zebrafish genetics lab and has volunteered at the Seattle Aquarium; she is interested in aquatic ecology and marine ecosystems. Jesse continues to volunteer at the Seattle Aquarium and aspires to become a marine biologist; her main interest is the study of sharks and rays. Our other full-time volunteer is Christian Sartin, who is finishing his first year at Evergreen State College in

Science Updates cont.

WFC research biologist Todd Sandell and volunteers Elanor Wolff and Kim Jones review the finer points of fish identification.

42

Olympia. Christian designed his own independent study program this term in exchange for credit hours at ESU and he hopes to continue on in salmonid research.

Other volunteers on the project thus far include Bob Wadsworth, who has helped consistently, Matt Buss, Sarah Farley, Julia Comstock-Ross, Curtis Vincent, Craig Zora, and Nicholas Pace. If you are interested in getting involved, please visit the WFC web site to learn more, or contact Todd Sandell at todd@wildfishconservancy.org. @

The Methow River watershed has undergone significant anthropogenic alteration over the past century stemming from agricultural and urban development that have acted in conjunction with inherent natural variation to reduce instream flow, limit channel function, and reduce the extent of riparian vegetation.

Recently, stream temperature – a critical component of fish habitat – has been measured at levels exceeding state criteria. Increased temperature can negatively influence salmonid productivity by limiting growth, reducing metabolic rates, increasing susceptibility to disease and predation, while creating thermal barriers to migration.

These elevated temperatures have triggered Clean Water Act listings for the Methow River and in turn the listings necessitate a temperature Total Maximum Daily Load study for the river. To address this situation, Wild Fish Conservancy, in partnership

Methow Centennial Clean Water GrantJohn Crandall

with the Town of Twisp, Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation, and the Methow Restoration Council, has received funding through WA Department of Ecology’s Centennial Clean Water Program to conduct a basinwide water quality restoration and effectiveness monitoring project.

The three-year project will address water quality problems through the development of a clean water strategy that involves implementation of projects that will reduce water temperatures. These projects include floodplain, side channel restoration, and riparian revegetation.

The project will also develop a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the restoration efforts at improving water quality. Additionally, the project will assist with the on-going effort to develop a more extensive and active public outreach and education program in the Methow. @

43

Icicle Creek in Chelan County is the largest tributary to the Wenatchee River, and drains the eastern part of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. Migratory salmonids listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (bull trout and steelhead) do not have free access to the Wilderness Area because of passage impediments caused by structures operated by the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery. Probably most readers of

Dam(n)ed for 70 Years

Dams operated by the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery impede wild fish, including ESA-listed spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout, from accessing the upper Icicle Creek basin in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. A one-mile section of the river adjacent to the LNFH has also been degraded by hatchery operations. A brief history:

• 1939 to 1941: The LNFH was constructed and fish passage to the pristine upper Icicle Creek basin was blocked.

• 1998: Icicle Creek Watershed Council and WFC ask LNFH to open historic channel of Icicle Creek; USFWS places in-stream structures on National Register of Historic Places and starts EIS process.

• 2002: Restoration EIS signed by FWS Regional Director.

• 2003: After being informed by LNFH that they have no money for restoration, ICWC raises funds and removes Dams 3, 4 and part of Dam 2.

• 2005: WFC files suit under Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water Act (CWA).

Some Good Ideas, Some Great Ideas – And One Dam Bad IdeaMark Hersh

44

Advocacy Updates

• 2006: CWA suit settled and ESA suit partially settled. Negotiations begin with all stakeholders. • 2007: WFC refiles ESA lawsuit. Negotiations continue.

• 2008: USFWS issues new “biological opinion” on bull trout. Negotiat ions completed on water intake design and begin on restoration.

• 2009: US District Court rules against WFC on ESA case; WFC appeals. USFWS ends negotiations and releases proposal to rebuild Dam 2 which is panned by WFC, ICWC, and public.

• 2010: Appeals court reverses District Court decision. WA Department of Ecology issues CWA “certification.” WFC and Center for Environmental Law and Policy challenge. WFC and a private citizen challenge water diversions. Settlement talks continue. @

Wild Fish Journal know that and the fact that Wild Fish Conservancy has been working with Leavenworth-area citizens since 1998 to restore the Icicle Creek ecosystem.

Since 2006, the federal government, WFC, and other stakeholders discussed what improvements could be made to the Hatchery’s infrastructure so that they could continue to operate but with a smaller cost to the ecosystem. These “PASS” discussions were making progress, or so we thought, until the agencies got distracted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus” act) and came up with a proposal that was essentially their own. At a public meeting held in December 2009, the agencies put forth their plan and were met with a skeptical public. With good reason, because the government proposed to replace the old Dam 2 with… a new Dam 2!

Thankfully, the skepticism made the agencies pause. In the meantime, discussions on settling the lawsuits continued, and a handshake agreement has been reached. WFC realizes that given the current structures, migratory fish are adversely affected even if all structures were completely open 365 days a year. New structures are needed if Icicle Creek is to be restored and the LNFH continues to operate, and there is no indication that the federal government is looking to close the facility.

After seventy years of blockage, the last thing this Wilderness river needs is a new dam. In the PASS discussions, WFC and some agency personnel advocated that a passive flow-split structure could adequately maintain habitat and allow passage for wild fish, without compromising Hatchery operations or the tribal fishery for hatchery spring Chinook. We maintain that position and will continue to advocate for it.

Meanwhile, WFC’s ecological research project on Icicle Creek continued in 2009 and 2010 (see related article in this issue of the Journal). Our research efforts have always buttressed WFC’s advocacy, and Icicle Creek is a great example of our science and advocacy working hand-in-glove. We expect that 2012 will be the year when the responsible government agencies begin to outline a plan for true ecological restoration for Icicle Creek. It is far past time that they did.

Wild Fish Conservancy deeply appreciates support for our work to restore Icicle Creek provided by grants from the Icicle Fund, the Conservation Alliance, the Horizons Foundation, the Bullitt Foundation, and donations from our members. @

45

Advocacy Updates Cont.

My father was an auto mechanic for a while, so I grew up around tools. Now, I use “tools” in the conservation

business. Just as I learned as a kid when to use a certain wrench, I’ve

learned that some tools protect wild fish and their habitat better than others.

The Clean Water Act is supposed to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and

biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The accompanying investment in wastewater treatment

facilities has accomplished a lot, but everyone can think of some waters that are not as teeming with life as they once were. Not all of those declines can be attributed to ocean conditions or over-fishing. In 1975, the US Environmental Protection Agency drew a line in the sand and required states to develop “water quality standards” regulations. An existing concept known as the “antidegradation policy” was re-stated so that the integrity of our waters – such as it was on November 28, 1975 (or if the integrity was better at a later date, then that later date) – must be maintained.

Today, Washington’s standards extend protection to “all indigenous fish and nonfish aquatic species” and this “applies to all waters and sources of pollution.” Therefore, the antidegradation policy extends beyond wastewater discharges (“point” sources) and includes agriculture, forestry and land use changes (“nonpoint” sources).

In the 1980’s, the Washington Department of Ecology used the antidegradation policy to protect the fish of the Dosewallips River and required Jefferson County PUD No. 1 to leave adequate water when running their proposed hydroelectric project. The PUD appealed the “Elkhorn case” all the way to the US

Supreme Court, but the Court upheld the state’s use of the antidegradation policy. But declining salmon runs, competing uses of water, and Endangered Species Act listings have spawned newer laws and initiatives. Surely they are better than something cooked up in the late 60’s? I compared those new tools to the state’s antidegradation policy and in 2009, my findings were published by the West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy (see the paper at the WFC website).

Even after the Supremes ruled, the spirit of the antidegradation policy is missing from most state initiatives. Instead, habitat is protected primarily by the state’s Growth Management Act and other state laws. Cities and counties implement these laws, however, and they do not have to ensure that their

regulations are as strong as the antidegradation policy. There is not a statewide set of standards to ensure GMA consistency among local governments. Other state laws and initiatives and even recovery plans do not apply a standard equivalent to the antidegradation policy. Our habitat has to be protected using the most stringent threshold, not the most recent. Ecology has a responsibility to enforce the antidegradation policy but if the buck is passed to local governments that use weaker standards, there must be oversight by Ecology and the USEPA to ensure that the most stringent level of protection is being applied. Otherwise, we will have spent literally billions of dollars cleaning up our waters from direct discharges, only to lose them to the slow, but steady degradation from land-use conversion and other nonpoint sources. @

Rusting Tools In The ToolboxMark Hersh

Habitat protection should be based on the most stringent law in effect, not the most recent.

46

Education Updates

Another year has flown by and Wild Fish Conservancy has been busy educating students and citizens about fish, healthy ecosystems, and the importance of conservation. In addition to wrapping up a few more fieldtrip seasons, we’ve participated in a couple of community festivals and we’ve partnered with local organizations on some smaller education projects to teach students about fish and their habitats.

In late 2010, WFC conducted its 100th Environmental Discovery Program fieldtrip at Oxbow Center for Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment (previously known as Oxbow Farm) in Carnation, WA. We continue to work with 10 to 20 classes each school year and our most recent season brings us to a grand total of over 2500 students since the program’s beginning in 2002. This combined classroom and fieldtrip program continues to be our most popular program and many of the participating teachers now return with a new batch of students every year. One of these teachers, Mrs. Olson, says “these opportunities allow students to connect the classroom learning to the real life of the outdoors, and to discover the environment of the valley and the many wonders of nature.”

Last summer, we spent a gorgeous warm August weekend hosting an educational booth at the Stillaguamish Festival of the River. This community festival focuses on the local watershed and it seems to get bigger and busier every year. WFC hosted an educational table and a craft activity and we talked to hundreds of visitors about current WFC projects. A little later in the festival season, WFC led salmon and nature walks at the Girls Scouts’ Salmon Come Home Festival at Camp River Ranch.

Last September, we headed to Leavenworth once again to lead sessions during the 4th grade Fall Field Days at Barn Beach Reserve. WFC taught students

WFC’s Educational Development ProgramCasey Ralston

from Leavenworth and Wenatchee about watersheds, runoff, and pollution and also set up a station on the bank of the Wenatchee River so students could observe the salmon that were migrating upstream. We hope to continue this educational partnership for many years to come as it is a nice complement to our ongoing research activities in Icicle Creek. This is also a great opportunity for WFC to work with students from another part of the state.

As always, I’d like to say thank you to everyone who makes WFC education programs a reality. Many thanks to our funders, to our partners, to Oxbow Center for welcoming us back each season, and to our amazing volunteers who give their time to teach the students. @

47

The 2009 field season on the Cypress Island Nearshore project provided an excellent opportunity for resource-sharing with both Skagit County and Island County Washington State University (WSU) Beach Watcher Programs. These folks were the backbone of our nearshore efforts on Cypress, pulling nets, counting fish, and learning the art and science of beach seining. Wild Fish Conservancy would like

to extend our sincerest appreciation and thanks for the hard work put forth by these “citizen scientists” to help conserve and restore Puget Sound’s marine resources.

Not to be outdone, Wild Fish Conservancy’s volunteer scientists in the spring of 2010 in Tofino, BC, were always smiling, upbeat, and ready to work hard despite torrential rain, churning seas, heavy nets,

Neither Rains, Nor Pains, Nor Gloom of Lice: WFC’s Volunteers Were ThereAudrey Thompson and Brent Trim

perpetually wet feet, and few days off. You might not guess that the five women smiling from the bow of the boat had already worked a field season of three months of twelve-hour days – during which it rained almost every day!

Despite no experience, by the last day these women could identify any sea louse, maneuver the skiff

among shallow rocks, and navigate across boisterous exposed seas in dense fog. All were stronger for hundreds of hours pulling nets, enriched academically with the intellectual rigor of scientific expedition, and ever eager to learn more, pull harder, and drive better... and they did it all for free.

With tight budgets and limited resources, Wild Fish Conservancy’s research efforts are possible only

48

through our volunteers. We would like to thank the 2009 Cypress Island Nearshore project volunteers and the 2010 BC volunteers for their dedication to the project and for being on-time and ready every day to do whatever was asked of them.

It is sometimes a challenge to match volunteers with our research projects’ needs, but if you want to help protect wild fish by assisting in our top-notch scientific efforts, contact Trent Donohue at the WFC’s office in Duvall. @

Clayoquot Sound Volunteers: Back row from left, Rhonda Elliott, Anne Harmann, Jessica Warner, Corey Clatterbuck. Front, Audrey Thompson. Inset; Amanda Barg.

WFC Staff ProfilesTodd Sandell, Research Biologist.Todd joined WFC in December, 2010 and is leading the field team for the Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish Use Assessment Study. He earned his PhD from Oregon State University, where he studied the disease ecology of the bacterium causing bacterial kidney disease in juvenile salmonids from nearshore waters of the northeast Pacific.

Erin Allee, Administrative Assistant.Erin keeps track of awarded grant funds and works with research and restoration project managers at WFC to insure resources and personnel are appropriately distributed. She comes to WFC after working for the State of Alaska’s Division of Coastal and Ocean Management where she implemented the Alaska Coastal Management Program.

Thomas Buehrens, Research Fishery Biologist.Thomas joined WFC as a Research Fishery Biologist in June, 2011. Emphasizing quantitative tools and principles of fish behavior, Thomas is developing and managing research projects to improve understanding and conservation of salmon populations and their habitats. He came to WFC after completing his M.S. in Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington. @

Skagit County WSU Beach Watchers: Adria Banks (coordinator),Christine Betchley (coordinator), Bob Barry, Chris Brown, Kurt Buchanan, Margaret “Lin” Folsom, Timm Manns, Jack Middleton, Tom Richards, Sheila Thomas, ChrisWood, Tom Vos.

Island County WSU Beach Watchers: Mahmoud Abdel-Monem, Bob Buck, Doug Kollasch, Melissa Merickel, Ji Somers, Ken Urstad.

49

A policy to establish weirs will disregard the needs of wild fish.

Mitchell Act Hatcheries, continued from page 20.

50

In contrast to the approach NMFS adopted in the DEIS, we recommended that NMFS should have adopted a strong, ESA-compliance-based perspective and use the opportunity afforded by the EIS to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the impact of hatchery programs on Columbia River salmon and steelhead. This approach should be focused on recovery of ESA-listed salmonids and protection of other wild salmonid stocks. Such an approach would start with an independent scientific assessment of hatchery programs and their impacts on ESA-listed wild populations, and would complete Phase II of the Independent Economic Advisory Board’s economic analysis of hatcheries so that informed decisions can be made regarding the allocation of increasingly scarce dollars to both hatchery augmentation of harvest and the furtherance of the recovery of ESA-listed ESUs.

A critical component of any reform of Columbia Basin hatcheries that should be directly addressed by the final EIS is the rapid transitioning to selective fishing gears for all in-Basin harvest of salmon and steelhead. Hatcheries that produce fish for harvest simply must be able to a) assure that in-river harvest directed at hatchery fish release all non-target, listed, wild fish unharmed, and b) capture all hatchery fish except those required to return to the hatchery facilities for broodstock needs. Programs that cannot

achieve the second objective must simply be reduced in scale (fewer fish produced and released). Without this, no hatchery program that supports harvest can hope to be consistent with ESA requirements.

Reducing the number of hatchery fish produced would minimize wild fish/hatchery fish interactions as scientific consensus indicates that such interactions are harmful to wild fish recovery. Rather than suggest such a step, however, the DEIS proposed the creation of new temporary and permanent weirs across numerous tributaries during hatchery fish returns to prevent them from spawning with wild fish. As WFC has been working for many years to remove hatchery-built fish passage barriers that are operated with little or no regard to the requirements of wild fish to move up and down river systems, we were not supportive of this recommendation of the DEIS.

Rather than emphasize greater use of weirs, which is yet another way to externalize hatchery program costs to wild fish and their ecosystems, the final EIS should include a greater evaluation of other measures to reduce pHOS (the percentage of hatchery-origin fish on spawning grounds in the wild), including measures like selective fisheries, which place the burden on removing hatchery fish on those who benefit from the hatchery system. These measures should be included in alternatives, rather than the DEIS’s emphasis on weirs.

Overall, we believe that the EIS is a great opportunity for an examination of the entire salmonid hatchery system and the concept of “mitigation” for dams through artificial production. Such a review should be conducted by an independent panel such as the National Academy of Science and should be completed before a final EIS is prepared. Objective independent review of hatcheries and decision-making: it seems to Wild Fish Conservancy that they go as well together as love and marriage or a horse and carriage. And the combination is desperately needed if we are going to continue to attempt to recover wild fish while continuing to harvest hatchery fish. @

51

A special thank you to the following donors who helped make the 2010 Wild Fish Soirée and Benefit Auction a success.

Wild Fish Conservancy respects and appreciates their commitment and generosity. Please remember them when making future purchases.

Thank You

Oxbow CenterPatagoniaPCC Natural MarketsPepperbridge Winery /Amavi CellarsThomas P. QuinnRed Hook BreweryRoyal Wulff ProductsSan Juan SafarisSand LamoreuxSeattle Repertory TheaterSeattle SymphonyThe HerbfarmTofino Swell LodgePat & Rena TrotterTucker House InnMarilyn & Craig TuohyTwisp River Pub & Methow Valley Brewing Co.Bev WattW Seattle HotelWild River PressWillows Inn, Lummi IslandWillows LodgeKen Winkleblack

Angler’s Book SupplyAnthony’s RestaurantsArch AnglersAsset Management StrategiesAvid AnglerKurt BeardsleeBellevue ClubBelltown BilliardsBill & Lynn McMillanSteve BroccoCafé LagoCascade Fly Fishing AdventuresCavatappi DistributionCenter for Wooden Boats Chateau Ste Michelle John Howie Restaurants Clayoquot Wilderness ResortColeman Columbia SportswearDavid CrabbJohn Crandall Danner BootsDeLille CellarsDeschutes Angler

Doe Bay Resort & Retreat Dukes Chowder House Duvall BooksJeff Edvalds/Flywater GraphicsEMP/SFMEverGreen Escapes FarBank EnterprisesJohn Farrar FilsonFrank Amato PublicationsHallmark Inns & Resorts Inc. Harry LemireJamie GlasgowLittle Stone Fly FisherDoris McFarlandBruce & Jeanne McNae Montana Fly CompanyMount Rainier Guest ServicesMystic Outdoors & Emerald River MarketingNorthwest Film ForumNorthwest Fly Fishing Osprey RaftingOvenell’s Heritage Inn

Wild Fish Soirée & Benefit Auction

Friday, November 4th, 2011Chateau Ste. Michelle Winery, Woodinville, WA.

Featuring Keynote Speaker, Bruce Brown - author, activist, Pacific Northwest icon, salmon guru,

and Elwha River expert.

Join us for a memorable evening of live music, gourmet food, fine wine, and lively socializing as we celebrate the removal of the Elwha dams and the 30th anniversary of Bruce Brown’s classic book, Mountain in the Clouds: A Search for the Wild Salmon!

We’re celebrating the world’s largest salmon restoration project. The dam removal has begun and seventy miles of pristine habitat in the Olympic National Park will finally be open to returning wild steelhead and salmon. There’s still much more to be done, but we’re halfway there, so let’s celebrate this accomplishment. Please join us to toast this very special occasion with old and new friends.

For more information about the 2011 Wild Fish Soirée & Benefit Auction please contact Trent Donohue at trent@wildfishconservancy.org or call (425) 788-1167.

Celebrating the Elwha River