THE OSPREYospreysteelhead.org/archives/TheOspreyIssue64.pdf · THE OSPREY A Journal Published by the Steelhead Committee Federation of Fly Fishers ... process for the US Army Corps

Based in The Dalles, Oregon, JasonSeals and Rod French are assistantdistrict and district fish biologists,respectively, for the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife’s Mid-Columbia Watershed District.

For decades, anglers from allover the world have traveledto Oregon’s Deschutes Riverwith the hopes of feeling thepull of a summer steelhead.

Long before the first sport anglers,Warm Springs tribal members fishedDeschutes steelhead and continue thattradition today. Since 1977, an averageof over 12,000 sport anglers annuallytraveled to the lower 40 miles of theDeschutes from July to the end ofOctober. The fishing experience isunlike any other in the PacificNorthwest, where canyon tempera-tures often exceed 100 degreesFahrenheit, the air smells like sage-brush, rattlesnakes keep you on yourtoes, middle of the night wake-up callsby freight trains are frequent, and tensof thousands of summer of steelhead

swim the river. This popular fishery is primarily dri-

ven by the catch of wild steelhead,Deschutes Basin hatchery steelheadfrom Round Butte Fish Hatchery, and

out of basin stray hatchery steelheadfrom programs located throughout theColumbia Basin. Population monitor-ing has shown hatchery stocks greatlyout numbered wild steelhead in theDeschutes — however, surveys ofangler catch tells a different story.

Angler surveys suggest that harvest ofhatchery fish is composed of a combi-nation of out of basin hatchery straysand Round Butte hatchery fish, butwild fish make up an unusually largecomponent of the total fish caught.

Ongoing population monitoring ofsummer steelhead in the DeschutesRiver clearly shows a large influx ofstray hatchery origin steelhead begin-ning in the early 1980’s. The causativemechanisms that drive steelhead tostray into the Deschutes are not fullyunderstood and certainly deserves fur-ther investigation. However, as sum-mer steelhead pass over The DallesDam on their upstream journey, theyare exposed to slow moving reservoir

THE OSPREYA Journal Published by the Steelhead Committee

Federation of Fly Fishers

Dedicated to the Preservation of Wild Steelhead • Issue No. 64 • SEPTEMBER 2009

DESCHUTESRIVER STRAYS

— PAGE 1 —

OREGON FORESTPRACTICES

— PAGE 10 —

HEMLOCK DAMREMOVED

— PAGE 13 —

NEW ERA FORTHE OSPREY— PAGE 15 —

ALAMEDA CREEKUPDATE

— PAGE 17 —

Continued on Page 4

Deschutes River Juggling ActManaging native wild summer steelhead and out-of-basin strays

by Jason T. Seals and Rod A. French

— Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife —

IN THISISSUE:

The impact of spawning interactions

by out-of-basin hatchery strays on

Deschutes basin wildsteelhead is unknown.

The Osprey is now also available via

electronic delivery. See page 14 for details.

The big news in the papers on the day I sat down to write my editorialwas the announcement by PacificCorp executives that the companyhas reached an agreement with a variety of stakeholders to removefour of their dams on the Klamath River — Iron Gate, COPCO 1 andCOPCO 2, on the California reach of the river and J.C. Boyle in

Oregon. Even though actual work on the dams’ removal would not begin until2020, there are still many fac-tors to be dealt with, and somebelieve the arrangement does-n’t adequately address thewater use and allotment issuesin the Klamath basin.Nevertheless, it is still goodnews for the salmon and steel-head of the Klamath River, andespecially spring Chinook,which will see some 350 milesof additional habitat open tothem once the dams are gone.

In contrast, despite decadesof protest, political lobbyingand legal battles, the federaldam situation on the Columbiaand Snake rivers remains most-ly unchanged — a little betterunder the ObamaAdministration than the previ-ous one, but not by much.

But battles against dams can be won with persistence and dedication. Big onessuch as the Klamath, but smaller projects as well, such as the Hemlock Dam,reported on in this issue of The Osprey.

These battles also remind me that protesting dams in the defense of fish andpeople who depend on fish is a part of U.S. history and as American as apple pie.In the early 1800s citizens in New England fought plans to build dams on localrivers intended to power mills and factories, recognizing that they would blockpassage for Atlantic salmon, shad, alewives and other fish locals relied on fortheir food and livelihood, preventing the runs from reaching their spawninggrounds. These citizens also recognized that by damming the rivers, industrial-ists were exerting control over local resources, the local economy, and therefore,the local populace. Their efforts to stop the dam builders were rarely successful.

Closer to home many people, including biologists, anglers, commercial fisher-men and Indian tribes, spoke out against the dam building frenzy on theColumbia and Snake rivers, also to no avail.

But the Klamath dams may well come out, and many others in the PacificNorthwest are being removed or will be in the near future, something that nottoo many years ago was considered an environmentalist pipe dream.

But with persistence and dedication by wild fish advocates, dams that serve lit-tle purpose other than killing fish can be taken out, and those that contribute areal benefit to society can be fixed to make them more fish friendly. It’s theAmerican thing to do.

THE OSPREY

Contributing EditorsPete Soverel • Bill Redman Stan Young • Norm Ploss

William Atlas • Schuyler DunphyThomas Buehrens

ContributorsJason T. Seals • Rod A. FrenchBill Redman • Ralph Bloemers

Amanda Pade • Norm PlossJeff Miller Layout

Jim Yuskavitch

Letters To The EditorThe Osprey welcomes submissions

and letters to the editor. Submissions may be

made electronically or by mail.

The OspreyP.O. Box 1228

Sisters, OR [email protected]

(541) 549-8914

The Osprey is a publication of TheFederation of Fly Fishers and is pub-lished three times a year. All materialsare copy protected and require permis-sion prior to reprinting or other use.

The Osprey © 2009

THE OSPREY IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERUSING SOY INK

The Federation of Fly Fishers is aunique non-profit organization con-

cerned with sport fishing and fisheriesThe Federation of Fly Fishers (FFF) supports con-

servation of all fish in all waters.FFF has a long standing commit-ment to solving fisheries problems atthe grass roots. By charter and inclina-tion, FFF is organized from the bottomup; each of its 360+ clubs, all overNorth America and the world, is aunique and self-directed group. Thegrass roots focus reflects the realitythat most fisheries solutions must comeat that local level.

ChairmanBill Redman

EditorJim Yuskavitch

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

2 SEPTEMBER 2009 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 64

Fighting Dams an American Tradition

by Jim Yuskavitch

The J.C. Boyle Dam on the Klamath River is theuppermost of four that PacifiCorp proposes toremove beginning in 2020. Photo by JimYuskavitch

The following commentarywas written in late August,before the Administration’sSeptember 15th response tothe court on changes to the

Federal Columbia River SystemBiological Opinion (BiOp) for recoveryof ESA listed Columbia system steel-head and salmon. It is now September16th, and the modified plan wasreleased yesterday. Sadly, what wewrote in August based on the bestintelligence available at that timeappears on first review to confirm ourworst fears about the lack of move-ment to a more fish friendly recoveryplan. As expected, the government hasadded some tributary and estuaryhabitat work without doing much ofanything serious to improve the bigproblem, migration through the hydrosystem. The BiOp even reduces theamount of spill over the dams orderedby the court for the last several yearsin spite of scientific evidence pub-lished by the Fish Passage Center thatadditional spill has improved adultreturns. The plan also describes aprocess for the US Army Corps ofEngineers to develop a plan on how tostudy dam removal should salmon runsdecline even further. Given the glacialpace of change in past hydro systemactions to improve passage, this couldtake decades. Once again we look toJudge James Redden to require thegovernment to actually implement theESA for the Columbia system’s steel-head and salmon.

In the last issue of The Osprey (May2009), I wrote optimistically about theappointment of Dr. Jane Lubchenco tolead the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration. Shebrings impeccable scientific creden-tials and attitude to the job of protect-ing and recovering the steelhead andsalmon of the American West.Indeed, the new administration raisedhopes on May 1st. The federal defen-dants asked the judge who will rule on

the legality of the 2008 FederalColumbia River Power SystemBiological Opinion (FCRPS BiOp) forrecovery of the Columbia River sys-tem’s ESA listed steelhead and salmonto delay for 60 days a decision on thelatest in a long running series of law-suits to allow the administration “tomore fully understand all aspects ofthe BiOp.” The Court granted therequest on May 4.

On May 18th, the Court issued a guid-ance letter to the litigants offering itstentative thoughts on the 2008 BiOpand how it could be improved to

address the Court’s concerns. Amongother measures the Court suggested“alternative hydro actions, such asflow augmentation and/or reservoirdrawdowns, as well as what it will taketo breach the lower Snake River damsif all other measures fail.”

On June 19th, the defendants under-standably asked for and the Courtgranted an additional 45 days, untilAugust 14th, to continue its review.As July transitioned into August, redflags started to appear, raising doubtsas to whether the government willreally address the hydro systemimpacts on migrating salmon in itsBiOp. On August 10th the federaldefendants requested, and the Courtgranted, an additional 30 day delayuntil September 15th, stating that theyare in “the process of finalizing ourposition on the FCRPS BiOp” and

would like to discuss and explain ourprocess and position on the FCRPSBiOp.” This sounds uncomfortably asif the federal government had madetheir decision before August 10th andwould use the following month to pol-ish their response, possibly addingmore hatchery and tributary habitatmeasures without seriously improvingmainstem hydro operations, essential-ly nibbling at the edges as they havedone for the last 15 years.

It now appears that the defendantsspent most of their time between May18th and July 29th selling the newadministration on the current versionof the BiOp, rather than engaging theplaintiffs in serious negotiations.Apparently a meeting on July 29thresulted in the administration makingits decision to let the important hydrosystem and mainstem passage sectionsof the BiOp stand as is, and to dress upthe sections less critical to migratingsalmonids, so that the Court might letthe 2008 BiOp stand.

Shortly after the August 10th requestfor extension, all three plaintiffs – the15 conservation and fishing organiza-tions, the state of Oregon, and the NezPerce tribe – requested a status con-ference with the Court. Theyexplained that there had been three“listening sessions” by administrationleaders – a half day with all of theaffected states and tribes on May 26th,one hour with the conservation andfishing organizations on June 25th, andone hour with the river users the sameday. At all of these sessions, no ques-tions were asked and no mutualengagement took place. Other thanthat, no other formal interactionsbetween the plaintiffs and defendantswere held between May 18th andAugust 10th, in spite of writtenrequests by all three plaintiffs, andclaims by the defendants that “thisprocess has been inclusive of variousparties’ concerns from the beginning,

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 64 SEPTEMBER 2009 3

New Columbia BiOp just like the Old BiOpby Bill Redman

— Steelhead Committee —

Again, we look toJudge Redden to holdthe government’s feetto the fire to protect

Columbia Riversalmon and steelhead.

CHAIR’S CORNER

Continued on Page19

conditions in the Columbia River, withwater temperatures that commonlyreach and often exceed 70 degreesFahrenheit. The large volume andhigh gradient flows of the Deschutes,combined with lower water tempera-tures, likely make it a natural attrac-tion for stray steelhead to venture up.While straying steelhead present agolden (or chrome) opportunity foranglers, they pose a unique quandaryfor fish managers due to the populari-ty of the fishery and the conservationrisk out of basin hatchery stray steel-head present to native Deschutes steel-head.

Low abundance of wild steelheadstocks in the late 1990s prompted theNational Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) to list the Middle ColumbiaRiver steelhead Distinct PopulationSegment (DPS) as a threatened speciesunder the Endangered Species Act in1999. The status and viability of wildsteelhead populations in the DeschutesBasin are critical to recovery of theMiddle Columbia River steelhead DPS.The high incidence of stray hatcherysteelhead found in the Deschutes wasidentified as a primary threat to theDeschutes wild steelhead population inOregon’s Recovery Plan for OregonSteelhead Populations (Carmichaeland Taylor, 2009). Additionally, one ofthe key recovery plan strategies iden-tified for the recovery of Deschutessummer steelhead was to reduce theabundance of stray hatchery fish that

spawn naturally.

Run Size Estimates AboveSherars Falls

The Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife (ODFW) has estimat-ed the number of adult hatcheryand wild steelhead passingupstream over Sherars Fallssince 1978. Peterson mark-recap-ture estimates are conducted bymarking steelhead captured atthe adult salmon and steelheadtrap located at Sherars Falls andsubsequently re-sampling steel-head and recovering tagged fishat other trapping sites, primarilyRound Butte Dam Trap, WarmSprings National Fish Hatchery,and other weir locations (Figure1). Three components of the runare estimated, which include: (1)wild; (2) Round Butte Hatchery(Deschutes); and (3) out of basinstray hatchery stocks. Differentstock types are determined byobserving different hatchery fin-marks, or the lack of a hatcherymark which indicates a wild originfish. Deschutes hatchery stock steel-head have long had a unique fin markcombination, as identified by a combi-nation of a maxillary and adipose finclip; all other hatchery marked fishwere identified as out of basin hatch-ery stock.

Results of these estimates suggestthat the proportion of wild and RoundButte stock steelhead above Sherars

Falls are relatively sta-ble; however, dramaticvariation and high pro-portions of out of basinhatchery strays occur.Wild steelhead num-bers above SherarsFalls fluctuated fromhigh run years of about9,500 fish to low runyears around 500 fish.Natural variation ofthese run years hasshown cycles with highreturns occurring inthe early 1980s andearly 2000s (Figure 2).As with other MiddleColumbia steelheadpopulations, numbersof wild fish returning

to the Deschutes during the 1990s werelow. Trends of Round Butte Hatcherystock estimates were similar to wildreturns and ranged from 1,159 to 9,373.Out of basin hatchery stray steelheadrun estimates were as low as 300 in1979, but greatly increased as the1990s progressed and peaked at 25,263fish in 2002. With these increasedstray rates, the proportion of out ofbasin hatchery stocks compared towild stock passing above Sherars Fallswas very high. Between 1978 and thelate 1990s, the proportion of out ofbasin hatchery strays dramaticallyincreased from 7% to 72% of the totalnumber of steelhead estimated to passover Sherars Falls.

Steelhead Angler Catch Estimates

Steelhead angler surveys have beenconducted by the ODFW on the LowerDeschutes River since 1977 atHeritage Landing and the MacksCanyon Road. These surveys are gen-erally located to target anglers that arefishing along the Macks CanyonAccess Road, anglers that launch boatsfrom the Macks Canyon Road and takeout at Heritage Landing, anglers that


Deschutes RiverContinued from page 1

Continued on next page

Figure 1. Map of the lower Deschutes RiverBasin.

Out of basin stray hatchery steelhead numbers peaked inthe Deschutes River in 2002. Photo by John McMillan

drive jet boats upstream fromHeritage Landing and bank anglers onthe west side of Deschutes State Park.Estimates did not represent anglersthat accessed the river by foot or bicy-cle from the east side of DeschutesState Park, or angler use by the KloanRoad. Results of the creel surveysserve as an indication of angler effortand catch on the Lower Deschutes.

Wild steelhead typically representedthe highest proportion of the total esti-mated angler catch, even though theywere the lowest proportion of the totalsteelhead sampled at the Sherars FallsSalmon and Steelhead Trap between1990 and 2008 (Figure 3). For mostyears since 1990, the proportion ofwild steelhead estimated in the totalsteelhead caught by anglers was over60%, while the proportion of wild steel-head in the total steelhead catch at theSherars Falls Trap was well below 30%in all years except 2000. Hatcherysteelhead, especially out of basin strayhatchery steelhead, greatly outnum-bered wild steelhead during these runyears, but wild steelhead were themajority of the total angler catch in


Continued from previous page


Figure 2. Estimated escapements of wild, Round Butte Hatchery Stock and out of basin hatchery steelhead, and percentof out of basin hatchery steelhead above Sherars Falls, 1978 to 2009.

The lower 100 miles of the Deschutes River provides anglers with some of Oregon’sbest summer steelhead fly fishing in a spectacular canyon. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

most years. Wild steelhead were caught at higher

catch rates than hatchery steelhead byanglers between 1998 and 2008, even inyears when hatchery steelhead greatlyout numbered wild steelhead. Forexample, in the 2001-02 run, we esti-mated 34,636 hatchery steelhead and8,749 wild steelhead passed overSherars Falls. The fishery thatoccurred during this run year cap-tured hatchery fish at a rate of 4.99fish per 100 angler hours, while theycaptured 7.01 wild steelhead per 100angler hours (Figure 4).

The explanation as to why wild fishare caught at higher rates is unknown.The data certainly suggests that wildfish are possibly more aggressivebiters than hatchery fish. It’s possiblethat hook and release numbers of wildfish are over-estimated due to anglersinflating their actual catch. It’s alsopossible wild fish are caught multipletimes since they must be released byanglers. However, an average of 23%of the hatchery fish estimated in theangler surveys between 1998 and 2008were, like wild fish, hooked andreleased or somehow not observed by

the surveyor. Another theory could bethat population monitoring by theSherars Falls trap does not appropri-ately represent the proportion of wildfish downstream of Sherars Falls; how-ever, relatively few natural spawningtributaries are located downstream.

Whether wild fish are more aggressivebiters or not, their contribution andimportance to the Deschutes steelheadfishery is undeniable.

Assessing the Impacts of StrayHatchery Steelhead

The impact of spawning interactionsthat out of basin stray hatchery steel-head have on wild steelhead in theDeschutes Basin is unknown. Strayhatchery fish that enter the Deschutesare either caught and removed byanglers, leave the Deschutes and trav-el somewhere else in the ColumbiaBasin, or remain in the Deschutes tospawn. Based on information gainedby the long term monitoring conductedin the Deschutes, it is apparent that aportion of stray hatchery fish remainsin the basin through the spawning peri-od, and likely spawns in the naturalenvironment. The exact proportion ofstrays that enter the Deschutes in thesummer and fall that stay through thespawning period is unknown. ODFWtypically tags approximately 1,500 to2,000 out of basin strays at the SherarsTrap with external, individually num-bered, orange anchor type tags.Anglers and hatcheries annuallyreturn many of these tag numbers tothe ODFW from around the Snake andupper Columbia River tributaries.While it is obvious that a proportion of




Figure 3. Percent wild steelhead of the total steelhead estimated in Deschutes steelhead angler surveys and percent wildsteelhead of the total steelhead captured at the Sherars Falls Trap, 1990 to 2008.

Wild fish make up anunusually large

component of anglercatch on the

Deschutes River.

the out of basin stray steelhead thatenter the Deschutes are falling backinto the Columbia and continuingupstream to other river systems, mea-suring the proportion that remains inthe Deschutes basin to spawn andinteract with wild Deschutes steelheadremains a critical uncertainty.

Spawning habitat for wild summersteelhead in the lower Deschutes isprimarily limited to a few tributariesincluding Buck Hollow Creek,Bakeoven Creek, Trout Creek, ShitikeCreek, Warm Springs River, and a fewother smaller tributaries. Some fishalso spawn in the main stemDeschutes, especially in low wateryears when tributary access is poor.The amount of spawning in the mainstem of the Deschutes is unknown dueto the river’s large size and the diffi-culty of observing redds in springflows. Adult steelhead returning to theDeschutes appear to be very oppor-tunistic in this semi-arid climate dur-ing good water years, and take advan-tage of additional spawning opportuni-ties when they become available.Numerous intermittent small tribu-taries provide additional spawninghabitat when spring flows permit adultfish to swim up and spawn in thespring. Two of the largest spawningareas for wild summer steelhead in thebasin are Trout Creek and BuckHollow Creek. In recent years whenruns were robust, Trout Creek support-ed as many as 600-800 redds, whileBuck Hollow Creek had 200-400 redds(ODFW 2007).

Even though the amount of spawningby stray hatchery steelhead in theDeschutes basin is unknown, somelevel of stray hatchery fish spawningdoes occur. Obtaining information onexact numbers of stray hatchery fishspawning is difficult, without directobservation. While conducting spawn-ing ground surveys, ODFW samplershave frequently observed hatcherysteelhead spawning with wild originfish. Observing post spawn carcassesduring steelhead spawning surveys isrelatively uncommon in the Deschutes.Between 2001 and 2004, however, sur-veyors in Buckhollow Creek found 27wild carcasses and 24 hatcheryspawned carcasses. While the magni-tude of spawning interaction betweenwild and hatchery fish is yet to be

determined, the potential of adverseeffects of hatchery steelhead spawn-ing interactions with wild Deschutessteelhead may be high. Several recentstudies, along with the MiddleColumbia Recovery Plan, have sug-gested serious risk to wild populationsfrom hatchery fish interacting withwild populations (Leider et al. 1990,

Reisenbichler and Rubin 1999).Recent findings from studies on theHood River, the next major drainage tothe west of the Deschutes, suggestalarming declines in reproductive fit-ness when hatchery and wild fishspawn together naturally (Araki et al.,2007). While the impacts of stray




Steelhead populations, including wild fish, Round Butte Hatchery-origin fish and outof basin strays are monitored at the Sherars Falls fish trap (top photo, courtesyODFW). Round Butte Hatchery, above. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

hatchery steelhead spawning with wildsteelhead have not been measured inthe Deschutes basin, ODFW managersare concerned that similar negativeinteractions may be occurring.

Tributary Adult Traps

In an effort to better understand theeffects of stray steelhead on theDeschutes, ODFW has searched forgrants to fund a research experimenton Bakeoven and Buck Hollow Creeksfor the analysis. Bakeoven and BuckHollow Creeks are both important wildsteelhead spawning streams in theDeschutes Basin. These two adjacentwatersheds are remarkably similar,both physically and with the numbersof wild and hatchery fish that utilizetheir respective spawning habitat. Notonly are they both important spawningtributaries, but they have similar flow

patterns, are parallel to each other,flow through similar habitat types, andtheir headwaters originate from nearthe same area. These characteristicsmade for a rare treatment and controltype of research opportunity to studythe effects of stray hatchery steelheadand wild steelhead in a natural envi-ronment. The intent of the proposedexperiment was to remove stray hatch-ery steelhead from one creek andallow the other stream to act as a con-trol. The reproductive success, or fit-ness, among other important popula-tion variables, would subsequently beevaluated and compared for eachstream. Unfortunately, fundingrequests for a complete research pro-ject have not been successful.

In response to continued high num-bers of stray hatchery fish observed inthe Deschutes, ODFW recently began ascaled down approach to monitoringthe spawning interaction of stray

hatchery and wild steelhead inBakeoven and Buck Hollow Creeks.Funds were received from the OregonWildlife Heritage Foundation, withassistance from the Native FishSociety, to purchase materials toinstall adult steelhead traps on eachstream. The objectives of the trappingwere to assess the true number of wildand hatchery origin steelhead enteringeach tributary to spawn, block theaccess of hatchery steelhead in thetributaries, collect baseline life historyand genetic information on each popu-lation, and conduct pathological evalu-ations on the hatchery fish. Each trapwas located close to the confluence ofthe creek with the Deschutes, and con-sisted of a large aluminum trap box,with vertical plastic pipe weir panelsresting on steel A-frames.

Adult steelhead were sampled inBakeoven and Buck Hollow creeks




Figure 4. Estimated angler catch rates of wild and hatchery steelhead in the Deschutes steelhead fishery, 1998 to 2008.

from late January to the end of May,2009. Trapping was successful in BuckHollow Creek, with a total of 360 wildand 32 stray hatchery steelhead cap-tured. Stray hatchery fish comprised9% of the total number of steelheadcaptured at the trap, which was lowerthan expected based upon previousyears spawning surveys and the per-centage of strays estimated passingSherars Falls. The 2008-09 run yearwas not an exceptionally large strayyear at Sherars Falls, which may haveaffected stray catch at the trap.Subsequent years of trapping will beneeded to develop a series of catchdata to better understand spawnerescapement and stray rates.

Trapping in Bakeoven Creek was adifferent story, with only 15 wild andno stray hatchery steelhead captured.While these low numbers were alarm-ing, it is possible that run timing wasearlier into Bakeoven Creek, and manyfish passed upstream prior toinstalling the trap. In fact, 14 wildkelts and one hatchery kelt were cap-tured upstream of the trap afterspawning that were not capturedmigrating upstream. The Januaryinstallation of the traps may havemissed the front end of the migrationup Buckhollow Creek as well. Futuretrap installation, based on the initialyear’s results, will occur in earlyDecember.

An adult steelhead trap has beenoperated in a diversion structure locat-ed on lower Trout Creek since 2006,however, success of the trap has beenlimited due to the ability of fish toavoid the trapping structure duringhigh water conditions. Funding hasrecently been secured to construct andoperate a new temporary weir and trapon Trout Creek, similar to the struc-tures on Bakeoven and Buck HollowCreeks, which should begin operationin the winter of 2009-10. This newtrapping facility should provide con-siderable insight on the magnitude ofhatchery straying into this importanttributary.

Management and Monitoring

Determining the reproductiveimpacts that out of basin stray hatch-ery steelhead have on wild summersteelhead in the Deschutes River will

guide managementapproaches in thefuture. Operation ofadult steelhead trapsin Bakeoven, BuckHollow, and Troutcreeks is beginning toprovide needed infor-mation on the magni-tude and proportion ofstray hatchery steel-head escaping intoimportant natural pro-duction areas. With abetter understandingof the magnitude andtiming of strays enter-ing tributaries, and asmore hatchery pro-grams mark individualfish with unique tags,the operation of thetributary traps willprovide managers with better informa-tion on the origin of stray hatcheryfish. This information may then be uti-lized to better understand the possiblemechanisms that cause straying, andbased upon this information, hatcherypractices may be further refined, orriver management may be altered todecrease the incidence of straying.

Spawning interactions between wildand stray hatchery fish pose a seriousconservation risk to wild Deschutessteelhead, while the importance ofhatchery fish in the Deschutes to theangling public must also be recog-nized. Out of basin hatchery fish makesubstantial contributions to both thesport and tribal fisheries in theDeschutes, and anglers harvestinghatchery fish can be effective at limit-ing their numbers. Constructingweirs, traps, or other physical struc-tures on the main stem Deschutes tocontrol strays is likely not feasible.Until the mechanisms that cause highstray rates are understood and actionsare undertaken to control straying,high stray rates are likely to continuein the Deschutes. Continued monitor-ing of population abundance, anglercatch, protecting and restoring habi-tat, and evaluating spawning interac-tions between wild and hatchery fishwill be necessary for fishery managersto make informed decisions on wildDeschutes steelhead in the future.

References

Araki, H., B. Cooper, and M. S. Blouin.2007. Genetic Effects of CaptiveBreeding Cause a Rapid CumulativeFitness Decline in the Wild. Science:318.

Carmichael, R.W. and B.J. Taylor.2009. Conservation and Recovery Planfor Oregon Steelhead Populations inthe Middle Columbia River SteelheadDistinct Population Segment. OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife,Salem OR.

Leider, S.A., P.L. Hulett, J.J. Loch, andM.W. Chilcote. 1990. Electrophoreticcomparison of the reproductive suc-cess of naturally spawning transplant-ed and wild steelhead trout through thereturning adult stage. Aquaculture 88:239-252.

ODFW. 2007. Middle ColumbiaFisheries Management District AnnualReport. Unpublished report. OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, TheDalles, Oregon.

Reisenbichler, R.R. and S.P. Rubin.1999. Genetic changes from artificialpropagation of Pacific salmon affectthe productivity and viability of sup-plemented populations. ICES Journalof Marine Science 6:459-466.



Summer steelhead angling on the Deschutes typically runsfrom July well into December, peaking in October. Photo byJim Yuskavitch

Author Ralph Bloemers is co-executivedirector and staff attorney for the CragLaw Center. Based in Portland,Oregon, the Crag Law Center is anenvironmental law firm that provideslegal representation to citizens andgrassroots groups working to protectand sustain the Pacific Northwest’snatural legacy. To learn more about thecenter visit www.crag.org.

On August 14, 1933, afternearly two months ofexceptionally dry weather,Oregon Governor JuliusMeier ordered the state

forests in southern and eastern Oregonclosed, and he pleaded with the loggerson private land in the northwesternpart of the state to shut down. Despitehis request, one of our nation’s mostvivid and memorable wildfires ignitedin Oregon’s Tillamook rainforest. Thefire started when a logger tried to getone more log out before the requestedclosure of logging operations. Hisengine strained as it pulled a giantDouglas fir over a rotted windfall lyinghalf buried in the forest floor, wheredry leaves and slash from past loggingprovided the tinder to spark the fire.The alarm rang out and the men triedto contain the blaze, but were forcedback as the wind fed the growingflames. Ten days later the fire burstinto national headlines when “a greatorange wall of flame eighteen milesacross the front of the fire explodedout of the treetops. All the firesbecame one enormous inferno, belch-ing smoke and flame up, up, up into theheavens. A cloud forty miles widemushroomed into the sky, to hang dull,red, angry, and ominously over theblaze.”

Settlers fled the flame, falling treeskilled people, and the watersheds of

the Wilson, Nestucca,Trask, Nehalem andSalmonberry riverswere largely burned.Tillamook reported aserious milk shortageas the cows wereunable to graze on pas-tures covered by ashesup to three feet deep.Not until a hard peltingrain came down inearly September wasthe fire contained. Thefire consumed most ofthe trees within a311,000-acre block ofcoastal rainforest. Injust a 24-hour period,on August 24 and 25,240,000 acres had burned.

In 1939, history repeated itself whena fire started and spread from loggingoperations. And, then again in 1945and 1951, fires were ignited by loggingoperations in cut-over lands, and eachtime burned across multiple water-sheds. Most of the timber companiesthat owned and logged these lands losteverything, including their equipment,and defaulted on their tax obligations.Unable to pay their property taxes, theland reverted to the counties. But thecounties were unable to manage theselands and so they were transferred tothe State of Oregon’s Department ofForestry. The Department of Forestryengaged in an aggressive effort toreplant the forests.

Today, the Clatsop and Tillamookstate forests in the Oregon CoastRange comprise approximately a halfmillion acres and are vital habitats forsustaining native aquatic and terrestri-al species. The reforestation effort isfrequently hailed as an Oregon successstory where men, women and childrenfrom all walks of life chipped in to

replant Oregon’s coastal rainforest.This story is true in part, but the forestwas replanted densely and not alwayswith native tree species. Because ofthis, significant portions of trees sufferfrom a disease called Swiss needlecast, and the dense even-aged planta-tions have made it hard for wildlife torecover and thrive.

Under Oregon law, the Oregon Boardof Forestry is charged with managingthese state forestlands so they producethe greatest permanent value to thestate. The greatest permanent valuecontemplates that the state will pro-vide timber, fish and wildlife, cleanwater and recreational opportunities.These coastal forests contain theTrask, Wilson and Kilchis rivers.Despite the mismanagement of thepast, these rivers are still home tosome of the last remaining runs of wildnative fish.

For example, the Trask River beginsat the foot of the Oregon Coast Rangeand winds its way through theTillamook State Forest before entering


Timber Trumps FishOregon Board of Forestry drastically reduces protections

for coastal rainforest and threatened salmon runsBy Ralph Bloemers

— Crag Law Center —


The Trask River is one of Oregon’s most important CoastRange salmon and steelhead streams. Photo by JimYuskavitch

Tillamook Bay in Tillamook, Oregon.The Trask River hosts three differentruns of Pacific salmon as well as win-ter steelhead. Cutthroat trout are alsopresent throughout its watershed. TheTrask is well-known for its particular-ly plentiful run of large fall Chinooksalmon, which begin returning to theTrask River in October. While salmonup to seventy pounds have been caughtin the Trask, salmon in the 20- to 40-pound range are more common.Oregon Coast coho salmon are alsopresent in the fall, while springChinook salmon begin returning inApril. The steelhead run is strongestduring the first three months of theyear and offers great fishing. Most ofthe steelhead on the Trask River are ofwild origin and must be releasedunharmed.

In April of this year, the Board decid-ed to abandon its decades long practiceof reaching decisions by consensus.Then, at its June 2 meeting, the Boardtook a vote and decided, four to two, toelevate timber production over theother values in contradiction to staterules that require it to enhance andrestore fish and wildlife habitats in theforests. Specifically, the Board votedto replace the forest management plan,which had promised to restore the for-est so that at least 50% of it was olderforest structure, with a new plan toprovide only 30% older forest struc-ture. While the Board’s stated rationalewas to “revise the Northwest OregonForest Management Plan to allow a dif-ferent balance of economic, environ-mental, and social benefits” in realitythe Board shifted away from a bal-anced mix of environmental protec-tions and resource extraction towardone that tips decidedly in favor of log-ging.

The Tillamook and Clatsop stateforests comprise about a half millionacres of Oregon’s Northwest Coastalrainforest. The Board’s new directionmeans that in 80 years, the Tillamookand Clatsop state forests will only have150,000 acres of land in an older, morecomplex structure. Less protectionand more logging also means there willbe a larger network of roads that areactively used for timber hauling.These roads will be bleeding sedimentinto coastal rivers and streams andharming fish. More land would be reg-

ularly clearcut and replanted in planta-tion forests. In other words, an addi-tional 100,000 acres of land in theTillamook and Clatsop state forestswill be managed for industrial timberharvest. The wildlife in these landswill not be able to recover to historiclevels as had been planned. The roadbuilding and associated hauling activi-ties will negatively impact alreadystruggling native fish populations.

The Board knows that its plan toboost logging is not popular with themajority of Oregonians and so it tooksteps to try to minimize opposing

points of view. The Board did not cir-culate a large number of opposingwritten comments from the public,including a pointed letter from OregonState Senator Jackie Dingfelder (D-Portland). Senator Dingfelder wrote:

“I do not believe that Oregon’s inter-ests would be best served by raisingtimber production above other valueson the forest, nor do I believe that adecision on forest management shouldbe made if the record is not ready. Inparticular, I hope that you will takecare that long-range managementdecisions are anchored in peer-reviewed and interdisciplinary sci-ence. My experience has been thatshortcuts on science often lead to longdelays on implementation.”

While the public’s opposition wasreceived, the Board did not respond.The Association of NorthwestSteelheaders, the Pacific RiversCouncil, the Wild Salmon Center, theNative Fish Society and the NorthwestGuides and Anglers Association care-fully reviewed the decision and deter-mined that it appeared to violate statelaw. The groups teamed up with the

Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, theCenter for Biological Diversity and theCoast Range Association and engagedthe Crag Law Center to prepare andfile a petition formally asking theBoard to reconsider its decision. Inthe petition, the groups asked theBoard to provide the science support-ing its decision and explain how itsnew plan complied with state law. Inthe petition, the groups expressedtheir concern for the significantimpact that this new management planwill have on aquatic habitat in theClatsop and Tillamook state forests.

The petition argues that the Board’saction violates state law and ignoresstate plans for the recovery of theOregon coast coho. The Board ischarged under the Oregon state law tomanage the state forestlands for thegreatest permanent value for the stateof Oregon. While the Board has chosento put a strong emphasis on the gener-ation of revenue through timber pro-duction in attaining greatest perma-nent value, the concept is actuallymuch broader and includes an obliga-tion to maintain, enhance, and restorehabitat.

For instance, state law requires thatforest conditions should be managed to“result in a high probability of main-taining and restoring properly func-tioning aquatic habitats for salmonids,and other native fish and aquatic life”and also calls for “protecting, main-taining, and enhancing native wildlifehabitats.” Similarly, the “State ofOregon Coast Coho Conservation Planfor the State of Oregon” is based on thepremise that: “[h]abitat managementand improvement is the key to protect-ing and enhancing coastal coho.” Thus,the Board is obligated to enhance andrestore aquatic habitats in the Clatsopand Tillamook state forests.

Instead of using the best availablescience, the Board relied on a comput-er-based study to model the relativeeffects of its current plan versus thenew plan on “species of concern” in thetwo state forests. The Board used thisstudy to opt for the new plan. Despitethe availability of specific standardsfor habitat recovery in the “OregonCoast Coho Conservation Plan,” theBoard used a model that ignored habi-tat restoration by simply claiming thatstandards for habitat restoration do




The Board voted toelevate timber

prodution over otherforest values in

contradiction to staterules to restore fishand wildlife habitat.

not exist. With regards to habitat enhance-

ment, the Board acknowledged that itsplan had a low probability of enhanc-ing watershed function and hydrologicfunction despite the state mandate fora plan that requires a high probabilityof maintaining and restoring properlyfunctioning habitats for salmonids.

In other words, the Board’s plan doesnot come close to meeting this require-ment. Similarly, the Board completelyignored sedimentation as a problem,even though there are readily avail-able scientific methods to conduct thiskind of analysis. For example, thereport admits that hydrologically con-nected roads will have an impact onfish habitat, but then states that “thereare no modeled outputs on sedimentfrom roads.”

The Board also assumed that 100-foot buffers in fish-bearing and 50-footbuffers in non-fish bearing streams areadequate to protect aquatic habitat.While the Board cited studies to claimthat 100 feet is adequate for largewood recruitment it did not provide ascientific citation for the propositionthat the 100 and 50 foot buffers areadequate to ensure suitable streamtemperatures for aquatic life. TheBoard acknowledged that stream tem-perature would increase as timber har-vests increase within 100 feet ofstreams, but it never determined orconsidered whether harvests outsideof the 100 foot buffer negativelyimpact stream temperature. TheBoard also completely ignored sedi-mentation as a function of bufferwidth, despite available scientificinformation from the AquaticConservation Strategy of theNorthwest Forest Plan that providesguidance on the necessary bufferwidths to ensure a high probability ofprotecting aquatic habitats.

In making its decision, the Board didnot consider how climate change isaffecting and will affect Oregon’scoastal rainforests and how theseforests could help mitigate climatechange. The best available sciencesuggests that older forests act as animmense carbon sequestration mecha-nism and serve as an increasinglyvaluable function in maintaining thehealth of our planet and reducing glob-al warming. But by increasing harvest

levels and reducing targets for com-plex living forest structure, the Boarddid not consider how its change limitsits ability to obtain the greatest perma-nent value from these lands.

With climate change, Oregon’scoastal rainforests will likely seeincreased storm precipitation withlower flows during the dry season. TheBoard did not consider how clearcut-ting and increased peak flows will neg-atively impact fish habitat in the faceof regional climatic changes over thelong-term. The smaller buffers andincreased sedimentation are very like-ly to combine with climate change toincrease stream temperatures, yet theBoard did not even consider whetherthe surrogates it used to measure habi-tat effectiveness in its chosen modelare currently adequate or that theywill remain adequate in the short- andlong-term to assess habitat healthgiven the predicted impacts of climatechange.

The Board relied on a report whichacknowledged that a 40% reduction inpotential habitat will lead to a largenumber of less-favorable predictedoutcomes at 80 years. Examplesinclude a predicted reduction in thepercent of complex landscape from50% to 30%, a predicted reduction inpercent landscape in older foreststructure from 40% to 27%, a predict-ed reduction in suitable large patchesfor American marten and northernspotted owl from 18% to 10%, anincrease from 15% to 25% of youngstands, and a decrease from nearly60% to 35% for the amount of water-sheds which were set aside to providerefugia for aquatic life (known as“aquatic anchor habitat”).

Fish are predicted to lose groundunder the new plan relative to antici-pated recoveries under the currentplan because the new plan reduces theamount of aquatic anchor habitat. Yetdespite the numerous negative envi-ronmental effects under new plan, theBoard concluded that almost everyspecies of concern would fare equallywell under either the old or the newplan. In other words, the Board reliedon the species of concern report toconclude that the total effect of a largenumber of predicted negative ecologi-cal changes to the environment underthe new plan, relatively to the old plan,is essentially nothing. This predicted

outcome appears to be based on a num-ber of individual comparisons, and itignores the cumulative impact of theproposed activities that are authorizedby the new plan.

A coalition of groups has cometogether to challenge the Board forchoosing to ignore state law and itsown rules and customs. The groups

believe that the new plan not onlyignores the best available science butit runs directly counter to it. The onlything the Board did not ignore werethe industry’s interest in getting cheaptimber off of Oregon coastal rain-forests.

While the coalition of groups hasfiled a petition to try to ensure that theTillamook and Clatsop State Forestsare protected and restored to their his-toric conditions, they need your help toaccomplish these goals. Fishing is abig part of Oregon’s recreation econo-my, and as people who enjoy theseresources you are well equipped toexpress how the value of recreationshould translate into dollars for main-tenance and restoration of habitat. So,pick up the phone or write GovernorKulongoski and ask him to restore bal-ance on these lands.

Editor’s Note: On September 9, 2009,the Oregon Board of Forestry met inSilverton and voted unanimously toreplace the previous plan with the newone that increases logging on theTillamook and Clatsop state forests.The new plan will be implemented in2012.



The new plan for Oregon state forestsputs timber ahead of fish and wildlifehabitat. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Amanda Pade is a senior at DukeUniversity. She spent the summer asan intern with the Crag Law Centerand is working on a documentary filmon river restoration projects due out in2010.

Deep in the old growthforests of the GiffordPinchot National Forest, aheavy rain drops wateronto the lush canopy. The

water drips down from the trees, seepsthrough the undergrowth and perco-lates into the headwaters of TroutCreek. Now, for the first time indecades, the crystal clear water gath-ers steam and flows unobstructed intothe Columbia River to greet the return-ing wild fish.

Earlier this summer, a local workcrew with Jim Dean Construction andForest Service scientists began theHemlock Dam removal and restorationproject on Trout Creek in the headwa-ters of the Wind River watershed. TheWind River flows through the GiffordPinchot National Forest in southwestWashington and joins the ColumbiaRiver 45 miles east of Portland.Hemlock Dam was located just a fewmiles upstream from Trout Creek’sconfluence with the Wind River.

At the beginning of the 20th century,Trout Creek was one of the region’sbest steelhead rivers and provided upto 40% of the habitat for the WindRiver’s now-threatened wild steelhead.In 1935, a 26 foot high concrete archdam was constructed by the CivilianConservation Corps under FranklinDelano Roosevelt’s New Deal to createhydroelectric power, jobs and econom-ic stimulus in the midst of the GreatDepression. The dam was later adapt-ed to provide irrigation water to theWind River Tree Nursery. Hydropowergeneration ended in the 1950s and thenursery was closed in 1997, leaving thedam inactive and useless.

The dam impededwild steelheadmigration anddegraded waterquality and altereddownstream habi-tats for a widerange of species.The river waterbehind the damwas heated to fatal-ly high tempera-tures and tons ofsediment built upbehind the dam,depriving down-stream spawninggrounds with a reg-ular supply ofgravel that wildfish need to growand thrive. Nowthat the work hasbeen completed,wild steelhead willbe able to access thirteen miles ofhigh-quality habitat above the dam,and steelhead populations are project-ed to increase by up to 66% in thefuture.

The U.S. Forest Service owned andoperated the Hemlock Dam andannounced in December of 2005 that itplanned to dredge the lake and removethe dam. Skamania County opposed thedam removal and filed an appeal. TheGifford Pinchot Task Force, a localconservation and restoration group,retained the Crag Law Center to inter-vene in the case and Crag helpeddefend the Forest Service and theWashington Department of Ecology.Earlier this year, the key part of thecounty’s lawsuit was successfully dis-missed and the appeal was defeatedclearing the way for the removal ofHemlock Dam.

After this roadblock was removed,the dam removal proceeded swiftlythis summer. The lead on the project,

Forest Service hydrologist BengtCoffin, conducted extensive research,planning and preparations. First, thematerials were gathered and the crewswere readied. Then, fish screens wereinstalled above the dam and four largepumps were set up to remove anddivert the river around the reservoirand below the dam. During the project,the familiar sound of a running rivercame not from the streambed, whichhad been dewatered, but from the mas-sive black pipes that were threadedthrough the woods, along the road andaround the dam site. With the waterdiversion in place, fish biologists thenremoved all remaining fish in the damremoval area using the process of elec-tro-fishing. About thirty volunteers perday from a wide array of organizationsworked with the U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Yakama Nation and theWashington Department of Fish andWildlife. The fish removal effort lasted



Hemlock Dam now a Memory74-year-old dam on Washington’s Trout Creek removed

By Amanda Pade— Crag Law Center —

Trout Creek’s historical channel was re-watered in August2009, following the removal of Hemlock Dam. Photo courtesyU.S. Forest Service


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

Federation of Fly FishersP.O. Box 1688Livingston, MT 59047

THE OSPREY NOW OFFERS ELECTRONIC MAILING

Subscribers may now, at their option, receive The Osprey as a PDF fileattached to an e-mail.

The Osprey staff wants to emphasize that this is subscribers’ choice basedon how you prefer to receive mailings and what fits your lifestyle. Some pre-fer the speed and ease of forwarding, copying, and manipulating that elec-tronic documents provide. For others, there is no substitute for a printed doc-ument that can be read anywhere. To open PDF files, e-mail subscribers willrequire the Adobe Acrobat Reader, which can be downloaded free of chargeat: www.adobe.com/products/reader/

If you are an existing subscriber who would like to switch to e-mail deliv-ery or a new subscriber for either printed or e-mail delivery, please completethe redesigned coupon on Page 19 and send it to the Federation of Fly Fisherswith your contribution to support The Osprey and the cause of recoveringwild steelhead and salmon.

Effective immediately you also have the option of making a secure creditcard donation to support The Osprey and wild steelhead and salmon by goingto the following link: http://www.fedflyfishers.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4329.

By either means, the steelhead and salmon will thank you for supportingThe Osprey.

The Osprey on the WebThe Osprey now has its own new section on the Federation of Fly Fishers re-designed website. Learn about our mission, check on the status of wild steelheadpopulations, download past copies of The Osprey, subscribe and donate.

Go to: www.fedflyfishers.org and click on the Conservation tab, then the Native Fishtab to reach The Osprey pages.

To donate go to: www.fedflyfishers.org, then click on the “Support Us” tab. Be sure tospecify your donation is for The Osprey.

Check out our new blog at: http://ospreysteelheadnews.blogspot.com/

four days and relocated stranded fishto safer waters above and belowHemlock Dam.

With preparations completed, con-struction crews notched the dam inlate June, dredged sediment through-out July and then removed the dam onAugust 3rd. Project planners opted toremove the dam piecemeal rather thanemploy the blow-and-go method usedin the Marmot Dam removal on theSandy River. This unique, first-of-its-kind dam removal method offers bet-ter protection for both downstreamand upstream environments through-out the process. The silted-in reservoirwas not flushed downstream, butinstead trucks hauled huge amount ofsediment out to the old nursery fields,removing invasive species from thearea and restoring the old streambed.The crews have rebuilt over two thou-sand feet of channel, using trees, treeroots and river rock to reinforce banksand emulate the natural flood plain re-established through historic photosand surveying.

By removing Hemlock Dam, theForest Service and conservationgroups involved have restored adiverse habitat for threatened wildsteelhead and illustrated the benefitsincurred from dam removal and riverrestoration. As river restoration cam-paigns gain traction all over the PacificNorthwest, the Hemlock Dam removalprocess serves as an important exam-ple of the collaborative efforts neededto create free flowing rivers that bene-fit fish restoration, ecosystem recoveryand recreational use.

Editor’s Note: On August 14, 2009, TroutCreek’s restored historic channel abovethe dam site was re-watered.Beginning early that morning, waterwas carefully diverted into the channelusing two pumps to reduce the amountof turbidity. The job was completed bylate morning, and according to the U.S.Forest Service, a staff member con-ducting turbidity monitoring spotted asteelhead in the newly watered creekreach — the first of its kind to swimunimpeded into upper Trout Creek ofits own volition in more than 100 years.Video is available on youtube linkedthrough our blog.


Norm Ploss is a California civil engi-neer with fishery related experience inprojects such as improved fish passageand urban runoff. He is founder of theNCCFFF Wild Steelhead Committee, amember of the Steelhead Committee,and sits on The Osprey’s EditorialBoard.

Change comes in many ways.Each new dawn can deliverimproved opportunities forcatching a trophy steelheador see a great river tem-

porarily ‘blown’ out. Fall 2008 saw anational political campaign filled with‘change’ talk as if it were an end initself. Only time will tell if any of thistalk filters down to improved condi-tions for migratory fish.

Shortly after the fall national electioncampaign, in early 2009, a little noticedannouncement spawned extensiverestless discussion of change amongstThe Osprey Editorial Board and theFederation of Fly Fishers (FFF)Steelhead Committee. Within the lastyear, The Osprey turned 22. For almosthalf of that period Bill Redman, ofMercer Island, Washington, has beenthe chair of the Steelhead Committeeand leader of The Osprey. Heannounced that he would resign hisposition by May 2010, but remainactive with the Committee.

A flurry of e-mails between editorialboard members and committee mem-bers followed. A special Committeemeeting was held in May where thediscussion focused on the future of theSteelhead Committee and The Osprey.Out of those discussion came a numberof proposed changes to The Osprey andFFF Steelhead Committee. Theseinclude:

• Updating and identifying The Osprey/Committee “Mission” and

“Vision”

• Status & emphasis of The Osprey

• The Osprey delivery options

• The Osprey Steelhead News blog

• A new website

• Providing a focal point for wild fish advocacy information

• Leadership and future planning

• Fundraising

Mission

Dedicated to the Preservation of WildSteelhead and Salmon. The FFFSteelhead Committee (Committee) isthe action entity within FFF for wildsteelhead and Pacific salmon protec-tion and restoration.

The Committee advocates and edu-cates on behalf of the persistence ofwild steelhead and salmon by dissemi-nating information on the most recentand progressive research and ideasdesigned to restore and preserve wildsalmonid populations.

The Committee, by every legal andethical means, will work to reverse thedecline and promote the recovery ofwild steelhead and Pacific salmonstocks throughout their native range

around the North Pacific rim. Stockhealth is measured by abundance,spawning productivity, distribution,and diversity. This can be achievedonly with healthy habitats from thespawning beds to the North Pacific,harvest strictly limited so as not toimpact stock health, wild fish produc-tivity always prioritized ahead of har-vest, and hatchery stocking used onlyas the exception reserved for extremesituations, not as common practice.

The Committee, through the effec-tive use of our journal The Osprey, ourwebsite and blog, will work to reversethe decline and promote the recoveryof wild steelhead and Pacific salmonstocks throughout their native rangearound the North Pacific rim.

Vision

Wild steelhead and salmon protectedand restored to within the core of theirhistoric range. Wild stocks achievesustainable abundance. Watershedhealth is assured providing clean andproductive streams. River and oceanconditions have become key indicatorsof mankind’s stewardship of our envi-ronment.

The Osprey

For over twenty years, theFederation of Fly Fishers SteelheadCommittee has worked to raise aware-ness and interest in the science, policyand management surrounding wildsteelhead and salmon. Over that peri-od, we have utilized The Osprey as ourprincipal communications outreachfor the conservation of wild steelhead.The Osprey is the definitive publica-tion on wild steelhead managementissues, which we and others have usedeffectively to influence managementdecisions affecting these fish, from


The SteelheadCommittee will workto reverse the decline

and promote the recovery of wild

steelhead.

New Era for The Osprey andFFF Steelhead Committee

By Norm Ploss, P.E.— Steelhead Committee —


Columbia hydro issues to hatchery,harvest and land use policies. Webelieve that our history and body ofwork demonstrate convincingly TheOsprey’s contribution to wild steelheadconservation. For some time, the FFFhas made The Osprey available in PDFformat online and, over the past year,the Committee has been taking smallsteps to improve The Osprey’s onlinepresence and increase public aware-ness of steelhead conservation issues.Working with the staff at FFFHeadquarters, the Committee hasmade modest improvements to TheOsprey pages on the FFF website.

We have changed the written descrip-tion of The Osprey from newsletter to“Conservation Journal of Steelheadand Pacific Salmon.”

The banner of The Osprey will read“A Journal Published by the SteelheadCommittee -Federation of Fly Fishers”beginning with the September 2009issue.

The journal is now available fordelivery either by mail in hardcopy oron-line in portable document file (pdf)format.

Steelhead Website and Blog

In December 2008, in an effort toexpand our web presence and providea more timely outlet for relevant steel-head and salmon news we entered theblogosphere. The blog has been fre-quently updated and has seen a posi-tive response in the form of web traf-fic. Ultimately we envision a new web-site with the blog as a central elementas we seek ways to mobilize andinform fish advocates in a timely man-ner.

We have located a source of grantfunds to cover the initial developmentof the site and the first year of mainte-nance. We hope this will greatly widenour coverage and the potential sourcesof funding for The Osprey and FFF.Financial management will remainwith FFF, so contributions will flowdirectly to FFF headquarters.

The Osprey blog can be found athttp://ospreysteelheadnews.blogspot.com/

The Committee believes the rapidlyexpanding use of non-print communi-

cations media by the public presents awonderful opportunity to increase TheOsprey’s reach and effectivenessbeyond the current distribution of TheOsprey and our modest blog. Manypeople now receive all or most of theirnews online. In these circumstances,the Committee would like to dramati-cally improve The Osprey’s web pres-ence and expand its influence for thebenefit of wild steelhead and salmon.The Committee proposes a two-phase plan to create a separatewebsite that will allow theCommittee to better pursue itsmission and vision. We envision ahigh quality site with informativecontent, ultimately creating thefinest wild fish resource center onthe web.

The first phase will establish auser-friendly design, organizedinto an accessible format, whileimproving the content of andaccess to the blog as central fea-tures to the on-line message/pres-ence. The blog provides a uniqueresource for the most up to dateinformation, including recent sci-entific research, opportunities forpublic comment, and political develop-ments that affect our fish and rivers.The Committee will also set aside aportion of our start up funds for webmarketing, ensuring that our websiteis easily found using the most popularsearch engines.

The Osprey can currently be found onthe FFF web site at: http://www.fedfly-fishers.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4392

In the second phase we hope to pro-vide timely information on the statusof wild fish in our region, dam andweir counts, redd counts and presea-son forecasts. We also hope to providea library of relevant scientific litera-ture for those who have an interest inexpanding their understanding of theissues and the science that informspolicy.

Leadership and Future Planning

The Osprey Editorial Board and theSteelhead Committee are wellequipped for these expanded func-tions, having members with expertisein fisheries biology, habitat restorationand engineering, wild fish advocacy,

non-profit organization management,web development and design and con-servation journalism.

Collectively, the Committee and itsEditorial Board maintain a wide rangeof contacts among leading biologists,conservationists, managers and politi-cal leaders. Within the coming months,more discussion and a successor to thecurrent chair will emerge.

Fundraising

Currently, a letter has been sent topast key contributors in an ongoingfundraising effort. This outreach willallow us to update key interested par-ties on urgent matters and judge TheOsprey’s effectiveness. Contributionswill continue be sent to the FFF head-quarters with the funds dedicated toThe Osprey.

Those who contribute $250 or more in2009 will receive a copy of LaniWaller’s latest book, “A Steelheader’sWay,” and his Steelhead Legacy DVD. For the future of wild steelhead, weare thankful.

Conclusion

For over twenty years The Osprey hasbeen the definitive voice for northwestwild salmon and steelhead. TheCommittee is excited by the opportuni-ties and challenges of a web-connectedworld to catalyze action on behalf ofwild steelhead and salmon to ensurerecovery, conservation and abundancefor wild salmon forever.



The work of the FFF Steelhead Committeeaims to secure the future for wild steelheadand salmon. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Author Jeff Miller, Executive Directorof the Alameda Creek Alliance,updates us in this article on wild steel-head restoration efforts and progresson California’s Alameda Creek since helast wrote about it three years ago. Tolearn more about the Alliance, visitwww.alamedacreek.org.

The restoration of steelheadto Alameda Creek has accel-erated since the article pub-lished in the May 2006 issueof The Osprey on our

efforts to restore native fish tothe largest tributary to southernSan Francisco Bay. Numerousfish passage projects for anadro-mous fish have been completedor are moving forward, environ-mental review is beginning onseveral major water infrastruc-ture projects, and critical deci-sions on stream flows for nativefish will be made in the next fewyears.

Fall 2006 — Two Dams areRemoved

The San Francisco PublicUtilities Commission removedtwo obsolete dams from theNiles Canyon reach of AlamedaCreek. Niles Dam, first built in the1840s, was demolished by August, andthe last rubble from Sunol Dam, whichhad stood since 1901, was removedduring a ceremony in September.Sunol Dam is the largest dam yetremoved in the Bay Area for fishrestoration.

Seventeen public agencies and non-profit organizations began jointly-funded flow studies to determine howmuch water might be needed at criticaltimes to support a viable steelheadpopulation in Alameda Creek, whilealso considering other native fish andwildlife, and minimizing potentialimpacts to drinking water supplies.

The ongoing cooperative technicalstudy is being conducted by renownedindependent fisheries consultantsMcBain & Trush.

Summer 2007 — Fish BarrierRemoved

Zone 7 Water Agency and theLivermore Valley School District com-pleted removal of a concrete crossingthat was a potential fish passage barri-er from Arroyo Mocho, an AlamedaCreek tributary behind Granada High

School in Livermore. The projectenhanced creek habitat by restoring amore natural stream channel, reducedthe amount of trash thrown in thearroyo, and helps potential steelheadmigration through the Arroyo Mochotributary.

The Alameda County Flood ControlDistrict and Alameda County WaterDistrict signed an agreement to designa fish ladder that will allow steelheadto bypass a cement barrier known asthe BART weir and an adjacent inflat-able water supply dam in the lowerAlameda Creek flood control channel,the main barriers to fish migration intoAlameda Creek. The agencies

announced their goal to have the fishladder constructed by 2010.

Spring 2008 — Fish ScreensInstalled

The Alameda County Water District(ACWD) completed installation anddedicated four state of the art fishscreens on the ACWD water supplydiversion below Mission Boulevard inthe Alameda Creek flood control chan-nel. These screens will reduce thepotential for out-migrating juvenile

steelhead or other fish to betrapped in the diversionpipelines and adjacent ground-water recharge ponds at QuarryLakes Regional Recreation Area.

Fall 2009 — Fish PassageProvided

The Alameda County WaterDistrict is completing construc-tion on two additional fish pas-sage projects in the AlamedaCreek flood control channel.The ACWD has permanentlyremoved the fabric portion of itslowermost rubber dam from the

channel and has discontinued useof an unscreened water diversionat this location. A section of the

dam's remaining foundation wasnotched and a low-flow fish ladder wasinstalled to allow for fish passageunder all conditions. The ACWD is alsofinishing installing a fish screen at theBunting Pond water diversion to elimi-nate the potential for entrainment ofout-migrating juvenile steelhead at theintake location.

The ACWD and the Alameda CountyFlood Control District are proceedingwith planning for installing a modifiedvertical slot fish ladder over the infa-mous BART weir and middle inflatabledam, targeted for construction nextyear. The draft environmental review


Alameda Creek UpdateWild steelhead spawning documented

By Jeff Miller— Alameda Creek Alliance —


One of two steelhead to spawn in Alameda Creek lastyear. Photo courtesy Alameda Creek Alliance.

documents for the project should bereleased this fall, and geotechnicalstudies in support of design for the fishladder are under way in the vicinity ofthe BART weir. The design of the fishladder has many challenges due to theneed to accommodate the operations ofthe middle rubber dam and fish migra-tion under the widest and most rele-vant range of flows for fish to bypassthe BART weir.

The Alameda Creek Alliancelaunched an Alameda Creek FishBarrier Removal Scorecard to mea-sure the progress of all dam removaland fish ladder projects over majorand minor barriers. So far, 38% of allfish passage projects in the watershedneeded to get steelhead to their spawn-ing grounds have been completed andan additional 25% are in the planningstages and scheduled for completion inthe next few years. Nine of the 10 bar-riers on mainstem Alameda Creek arelikely to be remediated within the nextthree years. These projects will makeup to 20 miles of Alameda Creek andits tributaries accessible to ocean-runfish for the first time in over half a cen-tury.

Historic Spawning Steelhead Pair

In late February 2008 a pair of adultsteelhead dubbed “Bonnie and Clyde”were given a helping hand upstreampast barriers in lower Alameda Creekand radio tagged to monitor theirmovements. Bonnie was a 27 inch long,8.5 pound female and Clyde was a 28inch-long, 8 pound male that migratedup the Alameda creek flood controlchannel to the impassable BART weir.The moved and released fish swamtogether up Niles Canyon to the tribu-tary Stonybrook Creek, where theywere exhibiting spawning behavior inearly March. They consummated thefirst steelhead spawning in suitablehabitat in the Alameda Creek water-shed since the early to mid-1960s, asignificant milestone in the decades-long effort to restore Alameda Creek.In May hundreds of young steelheadtrout thought to be the offspring of thishistoric steelhead pair hatched inStonybrook Creek, the first naturalreproduction of steelhead in the water-shed in over four decades. AlamedaCreek Alliance volunteers helped East

Bay Regional Park District fisheriesbiologists monitor the young fish overthe summer and fall. Despite a criti-cally dry summer and fall and the sub-sequent loss of most of the fry, a hand-ful of juvenile steelhead apparentlysurvived the drought and dry seasonlow-flow conditions in the creek.

Calaveras Dam Rebuild

With all major fish passage projectsin the watershed now underway, thelast piece of the puzzle for AlamedaCreek restoration is water. The SanFrancisco Public Utilities Commission(SFPUC) is beginning environmentalreview on its project to rebuild theseismically challenged Calaveras Dam

in upper Alameda Creek, as part of the$4 billion program of retrofits to SanFrancisco’s aging water system.

San Francisco, voted the secondgreenest city in the U.S., should beoperating their water system in an eco-logically responsible fashion, but sadlythat is not what is being proposed forAlameda Creek. The SFPUC dismissedconsideration of the impacts of itsthree dams in the watershed on steel-head trout in Alameda Creek when cer-tifying the programmatic environmen-tal impact report for their WaterSystem Improvement Program in fallof 2007.

The SFPUC needs a federal permitfor the dam rebuild and had urged theArmy Corps of Engineers to make adetermination of “no effect” on steel-head trout and issue a permit without aformal consultation with federal regu-lators under the Endangered SpeciesAct. In April of 2008 the NationalMarine Fisheries Service announcedthat formal consultation will berequired for the project and rejected

the “no impact on steelhead” determi-nation.

The SFPUC has since significantlychanged their position and will be eval-uating potential steelhead impacts dur-ing environmental review for the pro-ject and has agreed to minimal flowreleases for fish, but is still proposingdam operations and flow schedules forCalaveras Dam inconsistent withrestoring a sustainable run of steel-head below the dam. The SFPUCalready diverts 86 percent of thestream flows of the upper AlamedaCreek watershed and operatesCalaveras and San Antonio reservoirswith no minimum bypass flows to keepnative fish downstream in good condi-tion. Their programmaticEnvironmental Impact Report contem-plates diverting almost all of the win-ter and spring stream flows fromupper Alameda Creek at the AlamedaDiversion Dam.

We are working hard to ensure thatthe replacement project includes oper-ating the new dam to provide favorablesteelhead habitat below the dam. Weare confident that we can secure suit-able water flows for steelhead whenCalaveras Dam is rebuilt, as requiredby state laws and the EndangeredSpecies Act.

We support San Francisco makingneeded retrofits to its water system;however SFPUC dams in AlamedaCreek currently operate in violation ofstate wildlife protection laws, and torebuild a major dam without a commit-ment to provide adequate water releas-es to allow restoration of steelheadtrout to downstream habitat inAlameda Creek is unacceptable. Weanticipate a major campaign of educa-tion, outreach, lobbying San Franciscopoliticians and regulatory agencies,providing expert comments, andpotential litigation to improve theCalaveras Dam replacement project.

The coming few years will be criticalfor restoring our native fish runs andmore natural stream flow and habitatin Alameda Creek. Get involved andhelp us restore Alameda Creek. Formore information visit the AlamedaCreek Alliance web site atwww.alamedacreek.org.



In February 2008, apair of steelhead

spawned in AlamedaCreek — the first to

do so since the mid-1960s.

including the parties to the litigation.”The Court turned down the plaintiffs’request for a status conference with-out comment.

Other regional political leaders andgroups with a stake in the ColumbiaRiver have written to President Obamaand Dr. Lubchenco on the BiOp duringthe summer, usually coming down pre-dictably on one side of the issue or theother. Most notably, former GovernorsCecil Andrus of Idaho, John Kitzhaberof Oregon and Mike Lowry ofWashington wrote to the President onAugust 3rd stating their thinking thatthe Court will probably find the cur-rent BiOp to be illegal. They suggestedthat “settlement talks under theCourt’s aegis on law and science, andunder your leadership for related eco-nomic and political issues” are inorder.

If the BiOp on September 15th standspretty much as is on hydro systemactions, the decision will have highlevel Washington state politics, pastand present, written all over it. In thefederal organization chart there is oneperson between Dr. Lubchenco and thePresident, current Secretary ofCommerce and former two termWashington Governor Gary Locke.Governor Locke invested little or nopolitical capital in salmon recoveryduring his eight years as governor.Also, he probably hears from currentWashington Governor ChristineGregoire and the state’s two senators,Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell,with some regularity. Although allthree have done some worthwhilethings for the environment while inoffice, Governor Gregoire supportsthe current version of the BiOp, and allthree appear to be avoiding even theremote possibility of significantlychanging the operation of or breachingthe four lower Snake River dams inSoutheastern Washington. Feelingsrun high about the dams in that part ofthe state, and political consequences,specifically votes, are considered.On Columbia system steelhead andsalmon recovery, the differencebetween Washington and Oregon isstark. Oregon wants a BiOp that willactually recover the ESA listed fishand stands side-by-side with the con-

servation and fishing groups as a plain-tiff in the litigation. The Columbia sys-tem is a regional and national treasure,and its fish follow watershed bound-aries, not political. I stand withOregon.

If the BiOp that is scheduled toemerge on September 15th fails to sig-nificantly address mainstem passage,we will again be dependent on DistrictCourt Judge James Redden to hold thefederal government’s feet to the fire.

THE OSPREY

PHONE

E-Mail

CITY/STATE/ZIP

NAME

I am a . . .

❏ Citizen Conservationist

❏ Commercial Outfitter/Guide

❏ Professional Natural Resources Mgr.

❏ Other

ADDRESS

Thanks For Your Support

The Osprey — Steelhead Committee Federation of Fly Fishers

P.O. Box 1688 Livingston, MT 59047

To receive The Osprey, please return this coupon with your check made out to The Osprey - FFF

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

❏ Friend or fellow angler

❏ Fishing show

❏ Fly shop, lodge or guide

❏ Another publication.Which?

❏ Club or conservation group meeting

❏ Other


Yes, I will help protect wild steelhead

❏ $15 Basic Subscription

❏ $25 Dedicated Angler Level

❏ $50 For Future Generations of Anglers

❏ $100 If I Put Off Donating, My Fish

Might Not Return Home

❏ $ Other, Because

I Am a New Subscriber q

I Am An Existing Subscriber

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

Send My Copies by Standard Mail (Hardcopy) q q

Chair’s CornerContinued from page 3

Receive a free copy ofLani Wallerʼs latest book“A Steelheaderʼs Way”

along with his SteelheadLegacy DVD when youcontribute $250 or moreto The Osprey in 2009

For the future of wildsteelhead, we thank you!

THE OSPREY

Federation of Fly FishersP.O. Box 1688Livingston, MT 59047

Address Service Requested

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage Paid

PAIDBozeman, MTPermit No. 99

Documents

THE OSPREYospreysteelhead.org/archives/TheOspreyIssue64.pdf · THE OSPREY A Journal Published by the Steelhead Committee Federation of Fly Fishers ... process for the US Army Corps