Steve Pedery is Conservation Directorfor Oregon Wild. Chandra LeGue is theorganization’s Western Oregon FieldCoordinator. Find out more aboutOregon Wild at: www.oregonwild.org

The Rogue, Umpqua,McKenzie, Nestucca,Clackamas are all iconicOregon waters that arehome to valuable runs of

wild salmon, steelhead, and cutthroattrout. Every year, these rivers drawpeople to live, work, and recreate inWestern Oregon, fueling our economyand adding immensely to our quality oflife. These rivers flow through the 2.6 mil-

lion acres of public lands in WesternOregon known as “O&C” lands, primar-ily managed by the US Bureau of LandManagement. Historically, these landswere subject to some of the worstabuses of the clearcutting epidemicthat ravaged the region in the 1970sand 1980s. The 1994 Northwest ForestPlan curbed clearcutting (at least on

public lands), and put some water-sheds and fish populations on the slow,painful process of recovery.But a severe fiscal crisis now facing

a number of western Oregon counties

has some politicians longing for “thegood old days” when logging was king,and salmon, clean water, and wildlifetook a back seat. Subsidies from fed-eral taxpayers to these county govern-ments, first from shared clearcuttingrevenues in the 1970s and 80s, then

from direct federal payments, areexpiring. Congress is in no mood toextend them, and local taxpayers haveflatly refused to tax themselves to payfor government services. A majorbudget crisis — and rehash of theclearcutting frenzy that put manyPacific Northwest salmon and steel-head runs on the endangered specieslist — is brewing.

The Oregon and California RailroadRevested Lands

A prominent conservationist onceobserved that expecting an Oregonpolitician to behave rationally on log-ging is like expecting a West Virginiapolitician to behave rationally on coalmining. The long, sordid history of the“Oregon and California RailroadRevested Lands,” or simply O&CLands, may have provided the inspira-tion for that statement. Managed primarily by the US Bureau

of Land Management (BLM), these low

SMSMSMSMSM

THE OSPREYA Journal Published by the Steelhead Committee

International Federation of Fly Fishers

Dedicated to the Preservation of Wild Steelhead • Issue No. 77 JANUARY 2014

CLEARCUTTINGPARADISE

— PAGE 1 —

CANADIANPETRO STATE

— PAGE 3 —

COASTAL CONSERVATION PLAN

— PAGE 7 —

FORGOTTENRIVERS

— PAGE 11 —

BASS INVASION

— PAGE 15 —

SUCTION DREDGEMINING

— PAGE 17 —

Continued on Page 4

Clearcutting Paradise in Western OregonCounty budget shortfalls have politicians proposing to

liquidate forests along some of Oregon’s most beloved rivers by Steve Pedery and Chandra LeGue

— Oregon Wild —

IN THISISSUE:

A rehash of theclearcutting frenzy

that put manysalmon and steelheadruns on the ESA list

is brewing.

The International Federation of Fly Fishersis a unique non-profit organization con-cerned with sport fishing and fisheriesThe International Federation of Fly Fishers (IFFF)

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

Name ________________________________Address _______________________________City ________________________ State _____Zip ____________ Phone_________________E-Mail ________________________________

Join by phone at 406-222-9369or www.fedflyfishers.org

With one notable excep-tion, this issue of TheOsprey focuses onOregon, which, as withthe other West Coast

states, once boasted fabled salmon andsteelhead fishing (think Zane Gray andthe North Umpqua River) but now is ashadow of its former glory and abun-dance.This issue’s articles highlight a range

of troubles that started wild fish ontheir trajectory of decline and contin-ue to do so, most of which are humancaused.Of particular note is our cover story

on a proposal to introduce a new man-agement regime that is less protectiveof anadromous fish habitat on 2.6 mil-lion acres of Oregon and Californialands that are scattered in a checker-board pattern across the temperaterainforests of western Oregon. Theselands contain 56 strong salmon andsteelhead populations with the bestwild fish habitat on 1,414 miles ofstreams encompassing 1.9 millionacres. Nearly 2 million Oregonians gettheir drinking water from O&C foreststreams. Seeing that this tremendous

amount of salmon and steelhead habi-tat is protected has been called “one ofthe most important land conservationopportunities in our lifetimes,” by WildSalmon Center President Guido Rahr.Other important Oregon wild fish sto-

ries highlighted in this issue includethe expansion of smallmouth bass intoheadwater streams used by steelheadand salmon, fueled partially by thedeliberate reintroduction of bass byfishery managers, along with climatechange that creates better bass habitatin former coldwater reaches. There isalso a report on Oregon’s efforts toprotect fish habitat from damagecaused by suction dredge gold mining,along with a timely critique ofOregon’s Coastal Multi-SpeciesConservation and Management Plan.

Finally, be sure to read Will Atlas’compelling story on the sad declineB.C.’s Capilano and Seymour rivers.Once providing excellent steelheadangling near Vancouver, their healthysteelhead runs steadily decreased, theresult of dam construction, overfishingand an overall neglect for what the fishneeded to thrive.

Contributing EditorsPete Soverel • Bill Redman Stan Young • Norm Ploss

William Atlas • Schuyler DunphyScott Hagen Contributors

Steve Pedery • Chandra LeGueWill Atlas • Joe Ferguson

David Lawrence • Forrest English

LayoutJim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY

Letters To The EditorThe Osprey welcomes submissions

and letters to the editor. Submissions may be

made electronically or by mail.

The OspreyP.O. Box 1228

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

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

The Osprey © 2014

THE OSPREY IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERUSING SOY INK

SMSMSMSMSM

ChairWill Atlas

EditorJim Yuskavitch

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

2 JANUARY 2014 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77

The Oregon Specialby Jim Yuskavitch

Your membershipincludes a subscription

to Flyfisher, themagazine of IFFF.

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

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

Join the InternationalFederation of Fly Fishers

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

Over the last several years,environmental protectionsin Canada have been underattack by Prime MinisterStephen Harper’s

Conservative government. However,in the last year the administration hasreached new lows, undermining vitalhabitat protections, and ignoring theconcerns of First Nations and othercommunities impacted by resourcedevelopment. All this to advance theinterests of an energy sector bent onextracting as much wealth as possiblefrom Alberta’s oil sands, no matterwhat the environmental and socialcosts might be.

Last month in Calgary, the JointReview Panel (JRP) convened by theCanadian National Energy Board(NEB) gave the Enbridge NorthernGateway pipeline the green light, con-tingent upon the company meeting anumber of conditions. The NorthernGateway pipeline will carry bitumen(heavy unrefined oil) from the AlbertaTar Sands to Kitimat on the NorthCoast of British Columbia for export toAsian markets. Along the way thepipeline will cross the Fraser Riverbefore running down the Skeenawatershed to Kitimat, with hundreds

of stream crossings in its path. Then,at Kitimat the oil will be loaded ontosupertankers and shipped downDouglass Channel, threatening theentire north and central coast of B.C.with a potentially catastrophic spill.Importantly, the JRP found that the

risk of an oil spill would be significant,but still deemed the project to be in thepublic interest.All told, the project would bring the

threat of oil spill to all of B.C.’s mostsignificant salmon bearing ecosys-tems, without any major economicbenefit to the province. Further, itwould expedite the extraction of bitu-men from the Alberta Tar Sands, the

dirtiest, most envi-ronmentally harm-ful oil on the planet,for export to Asianmarkets. In short,the EnbridgePipeline and otherslike it represent ablatant disregardfor the environ-ment that perme-ates the currentCanadian regime.In the event of aspill it couldunleash untoldharm upon thefreshwater and

marine environments that are essen-tial to B.C.’s economy and to FirstNations food harvest, and will moveour planet ever closer to climate cata-strophe.With unanimous First Nations oppo-

sition to the pipeline, the fight is farfrom over, but the JRP approval of theproject is the latest in series of actionstaken by the Canadian federal govern-ment to undermine environmental pro-tections and expedite resource extrac-tion projects no matter the cost. Thisyear, the government made sweepingchanges to the Fisheries Act, removingprotection for habitats that do not cur-rently support commercial, aboriginalor sport fisheries. That simple changeremoved habitat protections from avast majority of aquatic habitats inCanada. The government also movedto streamline the EnvironmentalAssessment process, and many poten-tially harmful projects are no longersubject to environmental scrutiny.Then, near the end of 2013, it wasannounced that the NEB, not theDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans,would be in charge of reviewingimpacts to fish and fish habitat whenenergy projects are concerned, effec-tively bringing the politicization of theenvironmental review process rightout in to the open. With the future of Canada’s environ-

ment, our climate, and Canada’sdemocracy hanging in the balance, Ican’t help but wonder when Canadianvoters will draw the line. Because ifcomplacency wins the day in the nextfederal elections and theConservatives are once again electedto a majority government, the future isgrim for Canada’s environment and theplanet.

The Enbridge Pipelineand others like it

represent a blatantdisregard that

permeates the currentCanadian regime.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77 JANUARY 2014 3

Canadian Petro StateThe Fight Continues for Canada’s Soul and the Future of Our Climate

by Will Atlas— Chair, Steelhead Committee —

CHAIR’S CORNER

Bill McKibben and other climate activists protest theKeystone XL Pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada’s tarsands to the Gulf Coast. Photo courtesy chesapeakeclimate.

elevation forestlands are scatteredacross western Oregon, from theslopes of Mount Hood and theClackamas River watershed in thenorth to the banks of the wild Rogue inthe south. Though these lands arelargely found in a “checkerboard” mixwith private lands; from a conserva-tion standpoint they provide a vitallink between the Oregon Coast Rangeand the inland Cascades for both forestand stream-based wildlife. According to a 2012 analysis by The

Nature Conservancy (The NatureConservancy and Wild Salmon Center.2012. Atlas of Conservation Values onBureau of Land Management Holdingsin Western Oregon. Oregon Explorer:http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/ExternalContent/TNC) one tenth of salmonspawning, rearing, and migrationalhabitat in Western Oregon is found on

BLM lands, and 56 of the 63 “strongpopulations” (determined by the WildSalmon Center) spend a portion oftheir lives on these lands. The water inthese streams also provides cleandrinking water to over 1.8 millionOregonians. The history of these lands is marked

by political scandals and criminalbehavior worthy of a Hollywoodmovie. In the 1860s, shortly after the Civil

War, Congress began offering landgrants from federal public land toassist in rail and wagon road construc-tion in the western United States. In1866, the State of Oregon received ahuge grant including every othersquare mile in a 40-mile wide swath ofland stretching from Portland south tothe California border. The Oregonstate government then gave the land toa railroad company, purportedly to sellat reasonable prices to settlers in

order to cover thecosts of railroad con-struction and encour-age settlement of thestate.

But what happenedwas very different.The company — theOregon & CaliforniaRailroad — insteadstarted an illicit enter-prise of selling off vasttracts of forestland tothe highest bidder. These shady dealings

resulted in a hugepolitical scandal. A1904 report by TheOregonian newspaperfound that as much as75% of the land saleshad violated federallaw. Then-PresidentTheodore Rooseveltintervened, proclaim-ing his intent to “cleanup the O&C land fraudmess, once and forall!” Over 1,000Oregon politicians,businessmen, and rail-road executives wereinitially indicted,including UnitedStates Senator John H.Mitchell, andCongressmen John N.

Williamson and Binger Hermann.Almost all ultimately evaded prosecu-tion and prison.

With Roosevelt’s intervention, theO&C lands went back into federal own-ership, to be managed for theAmerican public by the Department ofthe Interior. In 1937, Congress passedthe Oregon and California RevestedLands Sustained Yield ManagementAct (O&C Act), a law directing that thelands be managed for a mix of timberproduction, clean water, and other val-ues—including funding for county gov-ernments. Though subsequent lawslike the Clean Water Act andEndangered Species Act put a greateremphasis on conservation, for decadestimber production under the O&C Actand the mandate to provide money tocounties reigned supreme.

The End of the Gravy Train

The advent of modern diesel heavyequipment and powerful chainsaws inthe 1970s and 80s paved the way for amuch more aggressive form of loggingin Pacific Northwest forests. This wasparticularly true for the relatively low-elevation O&C lands, where goodgrowing sites had produced big oldtrees and their proximity to roads andlogging mills made them prime tar-gets. At the height of the clearcuttingepidemic in the 1980s, two squaremiles of old-growth forest was beinglogged each week in Oregon, withmuch of this volume coming off theO&C lands. This logging on O&C lands produced

an enormous windfall for rural west-ern Oregon county governments. Theyreceived half of the revenues fromthese clearcuts, meaning they wereable to vastly expand budgets and gov-ernment services while maintainingsome of the lowest local tax rates inthe nation.But while the clearcut logging epi-

demic was good for county budgets, itwas terrible for the fish and wildlifethat depended on Northwest forestsand rivers. By the late 80s, specieslike coho salmon, spring Chinooksalmon, northern spotted owls, andmarbled murrelets were in steepdecline. Frustrated that federal agen-cies like the BLM and Forest Servicerefused to protect them, conservation

4 JANUARY 2014 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77

ClearcuttingContinued from page 1

Continued on next page

The mottled pattern shows the checkerboard of public andprivate ownership that makes up the O&C lands region ofwestern Oregon. Map courtesy Oregon Wild.

groups took matters into their ownhands. Citizen enforcement of lawslike the Endangered Species Act putthe brakes on runaway logging andland abuse, and created the crisis thatlead to the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan.The plan was historic for many rea-sons, not the least of which being thatit represented the first effort any-where in the world to implement a sci-ence-based management plan forforests and rivers at a regional scale.Predictably, the logging industry hatedit. So did county governments accus-tomed to large logging paymentchecks from the federal government.Though extensive logging has contin-ued on the O&C lands (averaging 150 to200 million board feet of timber peryear since 1994), logging levels diddrop in order to comply with environ-mental laws that protected threatenedspecies and aimed to restore habitatlost from decades of unsustainable log-ging. County budgets took a major hit.Congress responded with federal legis-lation and a direct subsidy from UStaxpayers. A coalition of Western sen-ators developed the Secure RuralSchools Act, and sold it to the rest ofCongress as a transition plan to helpcounty governments that were depen-dent on logging revenues. The 18Western Oregon counties that receivedrevenue from timber sales on the O&Clands were given special considerationwhen the legislation passed in 2000.Oregon received the lion’s share ofSecure Rural Schools money, and the18 O&C counties received most of thatfunding.Though originally sold as a six-year

program, these subsidies were extend-ed several times. Unfortunately, west-ern Oregon county politicians andmany rural voters did not seem to viewthe payments as a transition strategy,but rather as a new permanent entitle-ment. With the rest of Congress losingpatience with demands for annualextensions, voters rejecting local taxlevies, and a stubborn recession, by2010 and 2011 many counties were infiscal crisis.

Everything Old is New Again

The budget crisis resulting from theend of federal subsidies is very real,

and it is forcing drastic cuts in manycounty budgets. Yet despite deep bud-get cuts, there seems to be littleappetite from rural O&C county resi-dents for modernizing tax rates to bemore in line with state-wide averages.In 2013, residents of coastal CurryCounty twice voted down levies tomaintain law enforcement, the secondtime by an almost two to one margin.Josephine County voters similarly shotdown a measure to maintain sheriff’spatrols, as have voters in several othercounties.But where some might see the col-

lapse of law enforcement and othercounty services as a problem, some inthe logging industry and Congresshave sensed an opportunity. Longfrustrated by the environmental pro-tections of the Northwest Forest Plan,prominent logging mill owners andlogging industry lobby groupslaunched a campaign to promote theidea of re-linking county budgets tologging. If we simply allowed them toaggressively log the O&C lands, andsend revenues to the counties, localpoliticians would once again be rollingin money.While the idea of trying to resurrect

the economy of 1979 might soundabsurd to most people, with politiciansdesperate to find some plausible ideafor resolving the crisis (other than

raising taxes), it has caught fire. It ismuch more popular for a candidaterunning for county commissioner totell prospective voters thatEndangered Species Act restrictionson clearcutting is to blame for lawenforcement cuts than it is to advocatefor raising tax rates that haven’tchanged much since the 1960s.And the problem isn’t limited to local

politicians or Tea Party candidates. In2012 and 2013, Congressman PeterDeFazio (D-OR) joined with the HouseRepublican leadership to draft a coun-ty funding plan that can only bedescribed as a logging, oil, and coalindustry lobbyist’s fantasy. The bill,known as H.R. 1526, mandates inten-sive logging and other resourceextraction on public lands across thenation in order to hit inflated revenuetargets for county governments. Tomeet the mandated county fundinggoals, environmental laws such as theEndangered Species Act and CleanWater Act would not apply to projectscarried out under the legislation. Inaddition, the right of citizens to partic-ipate in and challenge the decisions ofgovernment agencies for these pro-jects would be severely limited.Wrapped into H.R. 1526 is a proposal

known as the “O&C Trust Act” — draft-ed by Rep. DeFazio. It would essential-

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77 JANUARY 2014 5

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

More clearcuts exempt from current environmental protection laws could be thefuture of Oregon & California lands in western Oregon. Photo by Kristian Sybek.

ly privatize approximately 1.2 millionacres of O&C lands and hand themover to a logging “trust” to be managedfor industrial logging to generate rev-enue for county budgets. Rather thanthe Northwest Forest Plan, this loggingwould be regulated under Oregon’sabysmal state Forest Practices Act,where clearcutting is rampant andstream protections have been provento be inadequate to protect wild fishruns. Despite a veto threat fromPresident Obama, H.R. 1526 passed theUS House of Representatives inSeptember of 2013.

Don’t Call It a Clearcut

While many political observerschalked DeFazio’s lurch to the right upto the timber politics of his district andthe growing influence of the Tea Partyin rural Oregon, he is not alone inembracing a “clearcut solution” to thecounty funding crisis.

Oregon’s Senator Ron Wyden, whohelped author the original SecureRural Schools subsidy payments, isuniquely positioned to craft a morerational approach to funding countygovernments. As chair of the powerfulSenate Energy and Natural ResourcesCommittee, he has jurisdiction over allpublic lands in the country, as well as adistinguished history as a conservationchampion. Indeed, conservation advo-cates largely cheered when hereleased his “Principles for an O&CSolution” document in 2012, whichcommitted to maintaining strong con-servation safeguards.

Unfortunately, when Wyden wadedinto the fray in November of 2013 hisplan almost entirely abandoned hisprevious commitments. Instead ofmaintaining conservation values, hisproposed legislation would eliminatethe conservation reserve system of theNorthwest Forest Plan, dramaticallyweaken Endangered Species Act rulesthat protect wild coho and otherspecies from logging, and limitAmericans’ ability to have a say in howtheir lands are managed. Wyden’s billcuts logging buffers for many seg-ments of rivers and streams in half,weakening key protections for thesalmon and steelhead runs they sus-tain. And, his bill would entirely elim-

inate “survey and manage” rules thatrequire the BLM to look for rarespecies before logging an area, andmodify sales to protect them wherethey are found.Knowing that clearcutting is unpopu-

lar, Wyden seized on a type of loggingeuphemistically referred to as “vari-able retention regeneration harvest” tomeet county funding targets. It differsfrom old-school logging in that only70% of the trees in a stand areclearcut.

Shared Responsibility

Wyden’s bill largely tells the loggingindustry and county politicians whatthey want to hear — that we can resur-rect the economy and county fundingmodel of the 1970s. Not only is thatirresponsible, it also won’t work. Eventhe most optimistic projections of rev-enues under Wyden’s clearcutting planshow it producing less than half of themoney county governments aredemanding.

There are common-sense alterna-tives, and a number of conservationgroups and pro-conservation countycommissioners have advocated ashared responsibility model foraddressing budget shortfalls. Thisapproach hinges on three key con-cepts.The first is improving government

efficiency and eliminating duplicativebureaucracy. Currently, US taxpayersare funding both the US Bureau ofLand Management and the US ForestService to do essentially the same jobin western Oregon (albeit on differentlands). Consolidating the westernOregon BLM, and the western OregonBLM forestlands they manage, into theForest Service would eliminate thisduplication and could save taxpayers

tens of millions of dollars. That moneycould in turn be used to fund counties,or invested into restoration-based thin-ning projects that create jobs andexpand tax revenues.Second, a responsible, conservation-

based approach to forestry can gener-ate jobs and revenue while improvingenvironmental health. Rather thanresorting to aggressive clearcutting(or euphemisms like “variable reten-tion regeneration harvest”), the suc-cessful model of thinning projects inyounger stands pioneered by theSiuslaw and Mt. Hood national forestscan generate substantial timber vol-ume while restoring more natural con-ditions in forests and watersheds.While some in the logging industrycontinue to demand logging trees over100 years old, others have builtextremely profitable logging andmilling operations off of thinning theseyounger stands. Finally, no plan for addressing O&C

county budget shortfalls will workwithout an honest conversation abouttaxes. It is silly to expect federal tax-payers to support western Oregoncounties, either with direct paymentsor aggressive clearcutting on publiclands, when those counties currentlyenjoy some of the lowest tax rates inthe nation. Current actions by DeFazioand Wyden are making matters worse,promoting the idea that a logging bailout is just around the corner andpainful decisions about budgets andtaxes are unnecessary. It is also worthnoting that Oregon largely eliminatedtaxes on private logging lands in the1990s. Simply adopting a timber har-vest tax similar to those of Californiaand Washington could largely solvecounty budget woes.

The Rogue. The Umpqua. TheMcKenzie. The Nestucca. TheClackamas. These watersheds, likedozens of others that happen to flowthrough western Oregon’s BLM lands,deserve better than to be treated as apiggy bank to bail county politiciansout of a crisis largely of their ownmaking. If western Oregon is to havehealthy, sustainable wild fish runs forfuture generations, and fiscallyresponsible county governments, wemust move beyond the notion that wecan clearcut our way to prosperity.

6 JANUARY 2014 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77

Continued from previous page

A responsible, conservative approach

to forestry can generatejobs and revenue while improving the environment.

The Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife is requesting public commenton its draft Coastal Multi-SpeciesConservation and Management Plan(CMP). This plan will govern manage-ment actions including hatchery andharvest operations and fishing regula-tions for at least the next ten years, andprobably longer. Many wild fish advo-cates regard it as scientifically sus-pect, and representing a high risk forwild fish throughout much of theOregon coast. A series of public meet-ings will be held on the coast com-mencing January 21. The public com-ment period is open until February 10.

To review the CMP, the 25-pageExecutive Summary, the schedule ofpublic meetings, and the IMST reportdiscussed below, go to:

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/coastal_multispecies.asp

Comments can be mailed to ODFW orsubmitted on-line. To comment on line,go to:

ODFW.CoastalPlan@state.or.us

Author Joe Ferguson is a board mem-ber of the Steamboaters, an organiza-tion dedicated to protecting Oregon’sNorth Umqua River. Learn more aboutthe Steamboaters at:www. steamboaters.org.

The Coastal Multi-SpeciesConservation andManagement Plan is a con-servation plan required bythe Oregon Departartment

of Fish and Wildlife’s Native FishConservation Policy (NFCP), whichimplies a plan designed to benefit wildfish. But that is incorrect. This is pri-marily a hatchery and harvest man-agement plan, designed to continuecurrent management practices while

avoiding serious depletion of the cov-ered populations, or SpeciesManagement Units (SMUs).

The key here is to understand theterms as they’re defined in the rulesunder the Native Fish ConservationPolicy:

Conservation: Managing for sustain-ability

Optimum: The desired fish productionlevel contained in a management plan

Sustainable: Persistent over time

Serious depletion: Eligible for state orfederal Endangered Species Act listing

Consequently, the minimum manage-ment threshold for wild fish is verylow: avoiding extinction or ESA listing.ODFW has broad legal latitude in thefocus of individual native fish conser-vation plans. While they must providefor “recreational, commercial, cultur-al, and aesthetic benefits of optimumnative fish populations...” a 2002Oregon Attorney General’s opinion,issued just prior to NFCP adoption,concluded that the Oregon Fish andWildlife Commission had broad lati-tude in implementing conflicting legalmandates and that “the Commissionhas authority to pursue managementmeasures that favor naturally pro-duced fish.”

I will acknowledge here that ODFWis under considerable pressure fromelected officials and a large segmentof the sport fishing population to pro-vide fish for consumption and not tofocus on protection and recovery ofwild fish. I also recognize that hatch-eries are necessary; we’re not going toreturn to conditions that existed 200years ago. However, the CMP repre-sents the only opportunity in the fore-seeable future to clearly define risksto coastal wild fish populations andbegin changing management focus todeal with those risks adequately, andthis proposal fails badly.The draft CMP was reviewed by two

separate scientific groups: TheIndependent Multi-DisciplinaryScientific Team (IMST), authorized bythe Oregon Plan for Salmon andWatersheds (15 pages, available onODFW’s CMP website); and a separatepanel assembled by Steamboaters andthe Native Fish Society consisting ofSteven Cramer & Associates, ChuckHuntington, and Dr. Chris Frissel (30pages, available on the NFS website,www.nativefishsociety.org). Keypoints are itemized therein on pp 3 &4).Both of these reviews point out the

same serious weaknesses in the draftCMP and the resultant high risk toOregon’s coastal salmonid populations.(Note: the IMST review was done onthe June 15, 2013 draft of the CMP). Iurge you to read these scientificreviews and contact ODFW and theOregon Fish and Wildlife Commission with your concerns.

Here are some of the important sec-tions of the draft CMP:

1. Desired Status and Limiting Factors

Continued on next page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77 JANUARY 2014 7

Oregon’s Coastal Multi-SpeciesConservation and Management PlanRisking wild salmon and steelhead along Oregon’s Coast?

By Joe Ferguson— Steamboaters —

The CMP is the onlyopportunity in the

foreseeable future toclearly define the risksfor coastal wild fish.

(pp 31-35)2. Management Actions for HatcheryFish (pp 36-52)3. Table 13, Proposed hatchery pro-gram with changes (pp 42)4. Table 17, Proposed wild fish harvestareas (pg 66)5. Impacts from Climate Change andHuman Population Growth (pg 93).

This article will highlight some of thescientific weaknesses in the CMP, fol-lowed by concerns specific to theUmpqua River.

Overview

The CMP is written primarily to val-idate current hatchery and harvestmanagement practices. It notes thatthere is no crisis with coastal salmonidpopulations and none of the SMUs areESA listed, although spring Chinookand chum salmon are “at risk” andanadromous cutthroat trout popula-tions are depressed. While the CMPproposes some small changes thatreduce risk to some wild populations, itcontains no overall strategy toincrease the health and geneticstrength of coastal wild fish popula-tions, ignores or downplays significantrisks to wild fish populations (includ-ing impacts from hatcheries, climatechange, and potential habitat loss),relies on unspecified adaptive manage-ment but lacks funds for adequatemonitoring, and actually increasestotal hatchery production. From theIMST report (p 1):

“However, we have major concernsthat the CMP places excess faith inhatcheries, makes multiple assump-tions with minimal data if any, (and)limits discussion to the pressures thatODFW can regulate thereby omittingmajor land use and socioeconomicpressures....”

There is no comprehensive plan toimprove wild fish abundance or genet-ic strength

The CMP notes that there is no crisisnow for coastal salmonid populations.However most populations are at afraction of historical levels, and farless able to deal with the expected neg-

ative impacts described in the CMP.As the Steamboater’s Panel reportnotes:

“The Plan’s viability assessmentsfocus too narrowly on aggregatedrecent count data, disconnected fromlong-term trends in abundance andspatial and temporal diversity.” (p 17)

The desired status of the wild fishpopulations, a critical element of theplan, was defined by staff and not sub-ject to discussion by the stakeholderpanels convened by the department. The “Portfolio” approach described

in the plan, used to manage wild fish atthe SMU level, accepts potential seri-ous impacts to individual populations

as long as the SMU remains viable, andconsequently ignores the potentialimpacts to or loss of individual sub-populations (“The CMP places hatch-ery fish and harvest in nearly allbasins. This is a constant stressor, nota portfolio strategy” – IMST p 2).There is no mention of the importanceof these smaller populations to theoverall health and genetic strength ofthe SMU; in fact there’s no discussionor goal related to the maintenance orimprovement of genetic strength or

variability, or the importance of themany individual life histories thathave allowed the SMUs to survive.Wild Fish Emphasis Areas are water-

sheds with no hatchery program, butthis concept is primarily a new namefor what occurs now. Two watershedswere added to the hatchery-free list(Kilchis River and Big Elk Creek in theYaquina system) and two were sub-tracted (Little Nestucca River andYaquina Bay). As noted in the Panelreport:

“It appears there is at best weakalignment between proposed wild fishemphasis areas and watersheds previ-ously recognized by ODFW and otherauthorities as having high habitatintegrity and priority for habitat pro-

tection and restoration.” (P 18)For example, the Nestucca Riverwatershed is identified in the OregonConservation Strategy (ODFW 2006) asan “extremely important area fornative salmonids” and as an AquaticDiversity Area by the AmericanFisheries Society. The CMP proposesto increase the hatchery programsfrom 390,000 to 540,000 in theNestucca and begin a new program of

8 JANUARY 2014 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77

The wild summer steelhead run on the famed North Umpqua River in southwesternOregon is just one of many runs of salmon and steelhead whose future health will bedetermined by the coastal conservation plan. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

30,000 spring Chinook smolts in theLittle Nestucca.

Hatchery Impacts

Hatchery impacts to wild fish areacknowledged in the CMP, but to alarge degree dismissed. There are twojustifications for this:The CMP doesn’t list hatcheries as

either a primary or secondary limitingfactor for wild fish (Table 11, p 34)because of the lack of an in-depth coastwide analysis of the impacts to individ-ual populations. Such a study isn’t pro-posed in the CMP, but there is a wealthof studies that would allow ODFW toprepare a rough estimate.Limiting factors are those that pre-

vent reaching the Desired Status.Since we’re at or near the desired sta-tus as defined in the CMP, ODFW feelsit isn’t necessary to really addresshatchery impacts.

The CMP does call for “clear andmeasurable goals...for each hatcheryprogram” (P 38) and refers to Table A-III:4 (p 157) for pHOS (% of hatcheryorigin fish in the spawning population).But while the Interim Criterion forpHOS in the NFCP is 10%, that figureis exceeded in the CMP wherever nec-essary to accommodate hatchery oper-ations. Even the 10% figure is suspect;it’s not arrived at from scientific stud-ies, but more an arbitrary figure cho-sen as a management goal by state andfederal agencies.

From the IMST report:

“IMST appreciates the dilemma ODFWhas in trying to rehabilitate wildsalmonid populations versus providingconsistent harvest opportunitiesthrough use of hatchery fish ...Nonetheless, there is a clear contradic-tion between increasing hatchery pro-duction to sustain increased harvestversus decreasing hatchery productionand harvest to decrease the risk to wildsalmonids. Therefore, much strongerarguments are needed than are provid-ed given the fiscal and ecological costsof hatchery production relative to otherfiscal needs … the genetic costs ofhatchery fish straying to spawninggrounds, and increased feeding compe-tition in freshwater (citations) and atsea.” (p 4)

Feeding competition at sea is not dis-cussed, and the total hatchery produc-tion is increased from approximately 6million to 6.3 million. Noting TheOsprey article (Climate Change andOcean Ecology of NorthwestSteelhead, Myers and Mantua, May2013) about shrinking ocean foragingarea and prey base, this is another crit-ical issue that should be addressed, butisn’t.

Climate Change

The CMP acknowledges potentialimpacts from climate change but pro-posed actions are limited: 1) Followthrough with and possibly acceleratehabitat improvement, and 2) movetheir abundance targets up (it’sunclear what this accomplishes).Again quoting from the IMST report:

“We commend ODFW for the consider-ation of climate change and humanpopulation growth. However, candidly,those sections are too superficial toprovide sufficient useful guidance in aconservation plan.”

It’s true that retention and improve-ment of critical habitat would allowwild salmonids to better withstandfreshwater climate change impacts,and it’s true that ODFW doesn’t controlhabitat management or impacts.However, a more in-depth discussion isneeded about what is necessary to pro-tect wild fish populations from theseimpacts. From the Panel report:

“The Draft CMP lacks a clear explana-tion and analysis of the seriousness ofthe challenge ahead ... and adoptssomething like a wait-and-seeapproach, proposing no specific pre-emptive actions to combat potentialclimate-related losses of populationproductivity and resilience.” (p 5).

Habitat Issues

Habitat loss and continuing degrada-tion is recognized as a primary or sec-ondary limiting factor for all speciesand there are significant issues affect-ing habitat identified in the CMPincluding climate change and humanpopulation increases (particularly inTillamook, Douglas, and Josephinecounties). These issues are dealt with

in a superficial manner. Granted, habi-tat impacts from land use is a highlycharged political issue; nevertheless,the CMP leaves this issue for others toresolve, and includes no description ofon-going impacts or potential solutionsfor the problem. In addition, currentproposed Federal legislation thatchanges management of O&C lands,and the pending process for adoptionof a new BLM Western OregonManagement Plan, both present largepotential negative impacts to salmonidhabitat and both are ignored. As notedin the Panel report, the CMP:

1. Fails to identify what needs to befixed and where, or to predict the mag-nitude of fish benefits that are expect-ed from any habitat improvements.

2. Provides little guidance for spatiallyprioritizing watershed and habitat con-servation measures.

3. Fails to link hatchery and harvestmanagement with capacities estab-lished by existing habitat and water-shed conditions. (p 20)

Monitoring

With the risks inherent in the draftCMP and the reliance on unspecifiedadaptive management techniques, astrong comprehensive monitoring pro-gram is critical to avoid further dam-age to wild fish populations. The mon-itoring program in the CMP (AppendixV) is very general in nature, andODFW admits they will need addition-al funding for implementation,although no estimate of the fundingshortfall has been provided. From thePanel report (p 21):An effective, explicit, and integrated

monitoring and evaluation protocol isprobably the most important singleproduct of any conservation plan.The plan completely ignores the use

of genetic analysis, the most effectivetool for monitoring genetic impacts ofhatchery programs on native fish pop-ulations.The draft CMP offers no framework,

including benchmark criteria, mea-surement indicators, data sources, andreporting protocol for ensuring:Habitat condition for key wild stocksare stable or improving;

Continued from previous page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77 JANUARY 2014 9

Continued on next page

Demographic viability and perfor-mance of key wild stocks are stable orimproving;

Genetic integrity and realized lifehistory diversity of key stocks aremaintained or improving;Harvest rates on key stocks are stay-ing within ranges prescribed in theplan.The IMST review asks “How will the

effects of specific increases ordecreases of hatchery releases andharvest rates on wild fish in the vari-ous basins be evaluated scientificallywithout an appropriate monitoring sys-tem?” and also notes, “A carefullydesigned effectiveness monitoringprogram also is needed for assessinghabitat improvement projects.” (p 5)

Lack of proactive plan for chum andspring Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout

Chum salmon in Oregon and springChinook in the South Umpqua Riverare in danger of extinction, andanadromous cutthroat trout popula-tions are depressed, but there is littleproposed to address these species.The IMST review notes that the CMP“… is particularly shallow in its con-sideration of cutthroat and chum” (p 1)and goes on to note similaritiesbetween the analysis of cutthroathealth (a lack of information but anassumption the SMU is healthy) andthe analysis of salmon prior to 1991when it was discovered that the situa-tion was far worse than assumed. Italso mentions the steep decline in cut-throat counts at Winchester Dam onthe North Umpqua as a warning sign.

Recommendations

1. Complete a coast wide in-depthanalysis of hatchery impacts on wildfish populations.

2. Recognize and analyze impacts fromdeclines in ocean conditions (increas-ing temperatures and acidification,decreasing prey base, etc) and relateocean conditions to increased hatcheryreleases.

3. Identify watersheds with greatestpotential for wild fish production anddevelop plans for maximizing wild fish

abundance and genetic diversity inthose locations.

4. Develop a comprehensive recoveryplan for chum and spring Chinooksalmon.

5. Develop a comprehensive monitor-ing plan and a budget for implementa-tion.

6. Partner with the Bureau of LandManagement to identify the produc-tive spawning/rearing tributaries formainstem Umpqua River winter steel-head.

Umpqua Basin

Fish populations in the UmpquaBasin, and particularly the NorthUmpqua River, are healthier thanmany coastal rivers, although not with-out problems.

The North Umpqua River springChinook run is relatively stable, butfar below historical levels; most wildfish spawn upriver with minimalhatchery fish in that population andthe pHOS (% of hatchery fish spawn-ing) in the primary wild fish spawningarea is below 10%.

The North Umpqua River wintersteelhead run will continue to be com-pletely wild. The pHOS over the last 6years has averaged approximately 5%.The CMP proposes to raise this to 10%.Hatchery fish are strays from theSouth Umpqua River.

There will be efforts to determinesummer steelhead pHOS and limit it to10%, initially through adult trapping atRock Creek.Cutthroat trout can no longer be har-

vested in the Umpqua Basin above theForks (but retention would continue inmainstem Umpqua tributaries).

The primary concerns we have forthe Umpqua are these:

1. Harvest of wild winter steelhead(WWSt):

While noting the unique size and lifehistories of Umpqua Basin wintersteelhead, the initial CMP draftsreviewed by the stakeholders panelincluded harvest. The current drafteliminated the harvest proposal butthis will be a big issue during the pub-

lic process. ODFW staff have consis-tently supported harvest in theUmpqua. This is the healthiest run ofthe largest steelhead remaining on theU.S. coast; as such, it is viewed not as aprecious resource to protect, butrather as an opportunity for harvest.

2. Inflated size of the wild winter steel-head run

The Biological Assessment (BA) of2005 estimated that over half thereturning adult WWSt in the Umpquasystem are produced in tributaries ofthe mainstem river, with approx 25%each from the North and SouthUmpqua rivers. The BA is frequentlycited as evidence to support harvest:Harvest impacts will be minimal andwidely dispersed. However, thisassessment is highly suspect; neitherODFW nor BLM biologists can identifythe high-quality rearing habitat thatwould produce these numbers. NorthUmpqua juveniles rear in the NorthUmpqua itself after age 1+. That lifehistory clearly won’t work for main-stem or South Umpqua tributaries dueto lethally high water temperaturesand millions of smallmouth bass. Itseems more likely the majority ofWWSt in the Umpqua may be NorthUmpqua fish and therefore more sus-ceptible to impacts from harvest.

3. Climate change impacts in the Northand South Umpqua watershed will bemore severe than Coast Range water-sheds. They are the only westernCascades watersheds in the plan, andare heavily dependent on snowpack tomaintain summertime water tempera-tures and flows.

4. South Umpqua River wild popula-tions are not given much considera-tion:

Fall Chinook appear to be relativelystable. Spring Chinook are severelydepressed and at risk ofextinction.Winter Steelhead are stable;the hatchery program is proposed toincrease from 120,000 to 150,000 whichwill lead to unspecified impacts onSouth Umpqua River wild steelheadand increased stray rates into theNorth Umpqua River.

10 JANUARY 2014 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77

Continued from previous page

Author Will Atlas is Chair of theFederation Of Fly Fishers SteelheadCommittee and is conducting fisheriesresearch at Simon Fraser University.

British Columbia has longbeen a mecca for steelheadfly fishing, a place whichhas nurtured many of thetraditions now taken for

granted by modern anglers. From theearly writings of the famed angler andconservationist Roderick Haig-Brownto works by more contemporary fish-ers who ply the waters of the fabledSkeena, Thompson and elsewhere,British Columbians have contributedmore than their fair share to the prac-tice of angling summer run steelheadwith a fly. Preeminent among the tac-tics which draw their contemporaryroots to British Columbia is the use ofdry flies for summer steelhead. Haig-Brown’s writings early writings on thesubject are considered by many thefoundation of modern dry fly fishing,however by the time he took his firstCampbell River summer run on a steel-head bee, anglers in Vancouver hadbeen catching steelhead on the dry formore than two decades.The Capilano, and its sister river the

Seymour, drain south from the snowladen peaks in Garibaldi Park to theBurrard Inlet in North Vancouver.Owing to its proximity to Vancouver’surban center, the Cap as it is affection-ately called, and to a lesser degree theSeymour, were early cradles of flyfishing for summer run steelhead inCanada. Throughout the first half of

the 20th century the two rivers and thenative summer steelhead that calledthem home provided generously forlocal anglers.

Owing their existence to theserendipitous combination of geologi-cal good fortune and evolutionarywillpower, coastal summer runs are arelative rarity throughout their native

range. Unlike the interiorraces of summer steelheadfound in the Skeena,Columbia, Klamath andother large transmountainrivers, coastal summer runsoccupy watersheds that fre-quently also support a winterrace of steelhead. Fragileand rare even in the best oftimes, these fish returnannually to reaches of riverwhere high falls or steep,narrow canyons formimpassable barriers to win-ter and spring migratingfish. Gaining access to theseremote reaches of river byentering freshwater duringsummer when migrationconditions facilitate passage,summer runs utilize rela-tively small portions of mostwatersheds. Consequentlymost runs are relativelysmall, numbering anywherefrom 50 to maybe 2,000 fishin some of the larger popula-tions. Despite their relative rari-

ty, coastal summer steelheadhave supported a disproportionatenumber of the historically significantsummer steelhead fisheries in theregion including the Stamp and Heberon Vancouver Island, The Deer Creekrun on the North Fork Stillaguamish,and the famed North Umpqua. Theserivers loom large in our written andoral history as steelhead fly anglers,however, before the “fly water” on theUmpqua, before Wes Drain and EnosBradner walked the banks of the Stilly,there were the Capilano and Seymour;two beautifully secluded rivers full ofwilling summer runs just minutesfrom western Canada’s fastest grow-ing city. All that ended in 1927 on theSeymour when the construction ofSeymour Falls dam blocked upstream

passage of summer runs to theirspawning grounds above SeymourFalls. Three decades later, in 1954, theCapilano River summer run met thesame fate when Cleveland dam wasbuilt fewer than four miles above tide-water. While the Capilano and Seymourhave long since been forgotten asangling destinations, the story of thesetwo rivers provides important lessonsand insights about our past, presentand future in an era of dam removaland changing cultural priorities.Through historical accounts and inter-views with the few surviving anglerswho experienced the Cap and Seymourin their glory days, I set out to learnabout the rivers that were once home

Continued on next page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77 JANUARY 2014 11

Historical photo of Capilano Canyon, Capilano River,British Columbia.

The Lost Capilano and SeymourFinding hope for the future on two forgotten rivers

By Will Atlas— Steelhead Committee —

to a unique and precious race of sum-mer steelhead before being taken forgranted and cast aside, a casualty ofpopulation growth and a city’s insa-tiable appetite for growth.

A Brief History

The Burrard Inlet bisects the city ofVancouver into two distinct halves,Vancouver and North Vancouver. In1886, when Vancouver was incorporat-ed, the North Shore was accessibleonly by boat. In 1889 came the firstEuropean settlement on the banks ofthe Cap when George Grant Mackaypurchased three lots and constructed asummer home above the First Canyon.His son Harry Mackay was among thefirst people to fly fish the Capilano forsteelhead. By the early 1900s, asaccess to North Vancouver improved,the Capilano became well known for itsrun of summer steelhead and fishingpressure increased dramatically. Localanglers, concerned over the crowding,began to realize the preciousness oftheir fishery. Brian Williams the Chief Game and

forest warden from 1905 to 1918 noted; “Apart, however, from its merits as abeauty spot, it also stands in a class byitself as a fishing stream. Owing to itsclose proximity to Vancouver it hasbeen fished and fished, until you mightthink that fishing in it was a thing ofthe past…yet it is still a stream inwhich good fishermen can be reason-ably sure of catching fish, providedconditions are favorable. “For steelhead fishing there are few

streams that have better runs of fish,but they have become educated andare not to be caught be everybody andeven an expert must have the water inproper condition and a chance to fishwithout somebody else getting in hisway. To demonstrate the possibilities ofthis stream, I may say that one manlanded over sixty steelhead the seasonbefore last and more than half of themwere caught in the Capilano and sever-al other men had over twenty out ofthat stream.”

In the days before the catch andrelease ethic, even a modest number ofanglers were capable of taking a toll ona population of summer runs, and themajority of Capilano steelhead, which

entered freshwater between May andJuly, were subject to months of intenseangling pressure during the summerand fall. Local anglers quickly recog-nized the fact that their fishery was indanger of being ruined. In his bookFishing in British Columbia, authorT.W. Lambert noted the rise in pres-sure on the Capilano, “The Coquitlam, Capilano and other

rivers have been much overfished bylegal and probably by illegal means.The sport used to be excellent, andwould soon improve again under prop-er conditions. It would be an excellentthing if an angler’s club was formed inVancouver, and part of the water pre-served.”

These concerns prompted seasonalclosures on the Cap and Seymour, withthe fishery closing each year from thebeginning of August to the end ofSeptember. Even with closures restricting fish-

ing during two prime months, anglersfrom Vancouver found excellent sportin the Cap and Seymour. The UpperCapilano was especially beloved by flyanglers. Moving upstream from themouth of the Canyon was a series ofonce legendary, now forgotten pools.First were the Stove Pipe Pool —named after the pieces of water mainwhich lay in the pool, and Blaney’sCribbing. Then after a long rapidcame the Crown Creek pool, Lower andUpper Darling, and the Snake Ranchpool, which was the upper end of thelegal fishing water. In his bookCapilano: The Story of a River, authorJames W. Morton describes the sceneon the upper river, “The top end was fished mainly in the

fall. The keen observer knew the sum-mer run of steelhead passed the secondcanyon about the middle of June orearly July, leaving only a few weeks

before the season closed on the firstday of August; he also knew these fishwould “hole up” for months just abovethe second canyon. On October 1 hewas back, starting in the first pool inthe valley, the Blue Rock. It was abeautiful spot and a good holding pool,but if the wild summer steelheaddecided to run downstream, it was intothe Second Canyon in a flash, and thedisappointed angler would replace histerminal gear.”

Among the most popular methodspracticed by fly anglers on the UpperCap in those days was the upstreamdry fly, and a densely hackled bivisiblepattern called the whiskey and sodawas a favorite in the day.

Through the eyes of the anglers

Jerry Wintle grew up in EastVancouver and caught his first steel-head in the Capilano River in 1945 atthe age of 16. He is one of the fewremaining anglers who fished thatCapilano in the days before the dam.Now in his eighties, he has fished allover the region from the Dean andSkeena Rivers to the Skagit inWashington. For decades Jerry spenthis vacations on the banks of BritishColumbia’s fabled steelhead rivers,often flying to remote destinations inhis floatplane. Yet despite a lifetime ofangling all over the region, his earlymemories of fishing the Capilanobefore the dam remain etched in hismemory. We met Jerry and his wife Jean at

their house in Pitt River. PeteBroomhall, an avid steelheader in hisown right and an old childhood friendof Jerry’s, drove me out along theFraser through the rainy Novembermorning, past the Brunette andCoquitlam Rivers, across Pitt River toJerry and Jean’s house. Over coffee wetalked about the old days, the Capilanoand Seymour, and a lifetime of fishingand adventuring Jerry and Jean haveshared in British Columbia and abroad. In the 1940s, North Vancouver was asmall community with a couple ofIndian reserves and probably a fewthousand residents spread from DeepCove to areas west of the Capilano. TheCapilano and Seymour supportedstrong runs of both winter and summersteelhead that entered freshwater

Continued from previous page

12 JANUARY 2014 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77

Even with closuresduring two prime

months, anglers fromVancouver found

excellent sport on theCap and Seymour.

Continued on next page

nearly year round. Jerry, who lived inEast Vancouver, would ride the streetcar from his home, across the BurrardInlet to the Capilano. He remembersone street car ride in particular, “When I first started fishing I’d fish

the Capilano. This one day I was up onthe Capilano in May or June. I caughtthis fish and it was skinny and allbrown, I thought it was the best thingin the world. I killed it and I was on thestreet car going home, a guy gaveme hell for killing a kelt.”With their proximity to the grow-

ing urban center of Vancouver, theCapilano and Seymour attractedtheir share of fishing pressure. Oneday at the bottom end of theCanyon, Pete remembers seeing 19anglers fishing one pool at the sametime. Despite the occasional crowdsthe mood on the river was generallycordial in those days, maintained bythe mutual respect shared amongthe anglers that frequented thebanks of the river. Jerry noted, “itwas fished heavy but not like today,not as aggressively.”Before the dam and the decades of

hatchery supplementation that fol-lowed, winter steelhead typicallybegan entering freshwater duringthe late fall and continued to runwell into April. Pete recalled a longdead friend, known for his prowessas a steelhead angler who fished theSeymour year round, “In those daysthe run timing was quite protractedand steelhead could be found in therivers every month of the year.Hillier Williams, a logger, pridedhimself with catching the first winterrun of the year every year on theSeymour. October was when he gotone.” Summer runs in the Seymour andCapilano entered the river starting inspring and immature “spring run” fishwere regularly caught starting asearly as April, entering freshwater afull year before spawning. Pete evenknew of one summer run caught inMarch but they really started arrivingin May and June, “fishing in May couldbe quite good when the river was inshape.”

Unlike their cousins to the south,which return to Deer Creek in theStillaguamish watershed, summersteelhead in the Cap and Seymour

were relatively large with the majorityof fish returning after two or threeyears at sea. Both rivers also support-ed healthy returns of both summer andfall run coho. Like summer steelhead,the coho arrived early in the summerto facilitate passage above the canyonsand into the upper watersheds.Remembering the glory days on theCap, Jerry noted the diversity of theruns that once thrived there, “The bigthing about the Capilano is it had runsof all fish, it had cohos, a smaller run

of bluebacks (small summer run coho),winter steelhead and summer steel-head.” The Seymour too had a nice runof summer coho, “Seymour had asmany summer cohos as the Capilanoand had an especially big run of jacks.”During the winter and early summer,angling was done in the lower threemiles of the river. At times during thewinter and spring, fishing could begood in the lower river, but fly fisher-men eagerly awaited summer. By earlyJuly the fish had passed above thecanyon into the upper river. In theupper river anglers found water ideal-ly suited to fly fishing. Above thecanyon, the river’s gradient relaxed,and it formed several beautiful runs.Jerry recalls a few pieces of water

with particular fondness. Comingupstream to the Crown Creek runthere was a long rapid and a drop justbelow the tail of the pool. The run wasstudded with lot of nice sized bouldersand the fish would be well spaced. Thewater was of a perfect depth rangingfrom three to five feet depending onthe conditions, perfect for fly fishing.“I used to dry fly fish around CrownCreek.” At times the fishing could befantastic, “I remember coming overthe bank and into the tail and you could

see these fish all coming up into thepool.”

Sadly, the construction ofCleveland dam in 1954 drownedmuch of the Upper Capilano undera reservoir and blocked the migra-tion of salmon and steelhead intowhat habitat remained.

Dam Construction on the Capilano

The dam was the brainchild ofErnest Cleveland, water commis-sioner for the Greater VancouverWater District (GVWD) from 1926to 1952. Originally proposed in1929, construction of the dam wasdelayed, first by the stock marketcrash and later by the Second WorldWar. By the late 1940s Vancouverwas booming again, buoyed by thepost-war euphoria and economicgrowth. In those days, drinkingwater for the city was supplied bySeymour Falls dam and by a smalldiversion dam situated below theCanyon on the Capilano. Eager tosupply the growing population ofpost-war Vancouver with water, theGVWD revived the long dormant

plan for a dam at the bottom of theCapilano Canyon. Work began on the dam in 1950, with

surprisingly little fanfare or opposi-tion from the local community. Despitehalf a century of experience with dambuilding and the inevitable collapse ofsalmon populations that followed, theGVWD was silent on the impact thedam would have on fish in theCapilano. Among the few voices ofopposition at the time was none otherthan Roderick Haig-Brown who point-ed out the value of such a tremendousfishery in Vancouver’s backyard, say-ing it would easily be worth a milliondollars to preserve the Capilano and

Continued from previous page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77 JANUARY 2014 13

Dry fly caught steelhead. The upper CapilanoRiver was especially beloved by fly anglers.Photo by Will Atlas

Continued on next page

“perpetuate sport fishing in a streamwhich is so close to a giant city.”Despite the concerns voiced by a few

dedicated anglers over the fate of thefishery, the GVWD forged ahead with-out provisions for fish passage or miti-gation. The Canadian FederalFisheries Act mandated that compa-nies or individuals who blocked fish-bearing streams provide means forfish passage or conservation at theirown expense. However, even after thestart of construction the GVWD hadnot notified federal fisheries authori-ties of any proposed mitigation effortsfor the dam. Frustrated by the lack ofconsultation or concern for the fishery,chief Fish and Game CommissionerFrank Butler called a press conferencewhere he announced that fisheriesauthorities were considering filing aninjunction to stop the dam unlessGVWD agreed to mitigation measures.Drawing on the precedent set south ofthe border in Washington State wherehatcheries had long been used as areplacement for salmon runs ruined bydam building Fish and Game authori-ties required the GVWD to agree tobuilding a hatchery to replace wildsalmon populations. They alsorequired that provisions be made topass fish above the 300 foot high dam.However, despite their promises, theGVWD refused initially to fund thehatchery and it was not built until1970. Construction of Cleveland Dam was

finished in 1954 and the effects of thedam on wild salmon and steelheadwere swift and severe. At full capacitythe reservoir above the dam coveredmore than 700 acres reaching a lengthof 3.5 miles. However the primaryproblem, other than the inundation of3.5 miles of habitat, was the down-stream passage of salmon and steel-head from the upper watershed. A trapand haul facility constructed at thebase of the dam allowed workers topass migrating fish above the dam, butthe 300 foot drop from the top of thereservoir to the river below resulted inextremely high mortality for outmi-grating juveniles.

The river downstream of the damwas also severely impacted. Duringthe dry summer months as much as80% of the river’s flow was diverted

for drinking water leaving the lowerriver dewatered, warm, and inhos-pitable to migrating and holdingsalmon and steelhead. With the damblocking the supply of gravel and finesediment from up river, spawninghabitat for salmon in the lower rivereventually became limited to a fewsmall creek mouths. At the time of dam construction, the

Capilano supported about 10,000 pinksalmon in odd years, 7,000 chumsalmon spawning in the lower riverbelow the canyon, and roughly 1,000summer steelhead and 7,000 cohospawning above the dam site. The con-struction of the dam caused an imme-diate severe decline in the abundanceof both summer coho and steelhead. By1965 only 49 steelhead and 612 cohoreturned to the Capilano. Today a com-bined run of fewer than 100 summerand winter steelhead return to the Capeach year.

Recovery Efforts

In the 1990s after decades of declin-ing returns of wild salmon and steel-head in the Capilano, Metro Vancouvermunicipal authorities decided to take asecond look at fish passage into theupper river. Upstream passage ofadults had been discontinued duringthe 1970s when dam managers realizedfish were not successfully outmigrat-ing from the upper watershed. Sincethen, all returning adults had beentaken into the hatchery. While change has been slow to come

on the Cap, the water use planningprocess has been a major catalyst, andefforts to recover viable populations inthe Upper Capilano are now underway.Smolt downstream passage over thedam has been the main impediment torecovery, and survival for fish thatpass over dam remains a limiting fac-tor. The long term goal is to install afish collection system at the dams spillway, and planners have looked to someof the fish passage facilities at dams inWashington State for inspiration. Inthe meantime their mandate is to try toimprove the survival of fish comingdownstream from above the dam inany way possible. For the last fouryears biologists have been trying tocapture as many smolts as possibleabove the dam in the reservoir andpass them safely downstream. These

efforts have been very successful forcoho with about 100,000 smolts cap-tured annually, much less so with steel-head. Using PIT tags, biologists havealso been able to assess the smolt toadult survival for coho that are cap-tured in the upper Cap, and about 1%of the fish survive to adulthood, mean-ing that the downstream passageefforts have resulted in approximately1,000 more coho returning to the rivereach year.

The recovery of steelhead in thebasin remains a far more difficultchallenge. Steelhead smolts tend to bemuch larger than coho and conse-quently they are difficult to catch inthe upper watershed. There is alsomajor concern about the availability ofadults that could potentially act ascolonists. Having been blocked fromtheir spawning grounds above thecanyon, summer steelhead in the Capare now functionally extinct and thefew steelhead that remain in the lowerriver have been domesticated andinbred to the point that they are nearlyincapable of spawning successfully inthe wild.

Despite these challenges, there isrenewed hope for the future of wildsalmon and steelhead in the Cap andthe fact that fish are once againreturning to their historic spawninggrounds above the dam is a major stepforward. However, the fact remainsthat the two rivers are foreverchanged, and even the most valiantefforts cannot fully recover what hasbeen lost. Thankfully, we now live in anera of growing concern for the impactsof dams on wild salmon. For the firsttime in our history, dams are beingremoved and more fish passage isbeing constructed. The hope is thatwild fish populations will respond tocostly dam removals and fish passagefacilities by recovering their full abun-dance and diversity in areas upstream.In most cases the fish will respond, butin places like the Capilano andSeymour the damage may havealready been done. The loss of theseunique summer steelhead is a painfulreminder of the costs of progress, anda cautionary tale for future genera-tions about the impacts of dams andother shortsighted developments builtwithout concern for the value of water-sheds and the wild fish they support.

14 JANUARY 2014 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77

Continued from previous page

David Lawrence recently received hisPhD in freshwater ecology from theUniversity of Washington’s School ofAquatic and Fishery Sciences. HisPhD work evaluated how climatechange, riparian land management,and non-native species will interact todetermine the future of salmon thatrear in streams. Further details on thiswork can be found at http://depts.wash-ington.edu/oldenlab/

Smallmouth bass make for agreat fight on the line, andlong ago home-sick eastern-ers, reminiscent for theirfavorite sport fish, set out to

introduce them in their new homes inthe Pacific Northwest. The introduc-tion of smallmouth bass sparked con-troversy even in the late 19th century.Archives from the Oregonian, thePacific Northwest’s longest runningnewspaper, capture both sides of thisdebate, where some warned that “thispredacious fish seems the naturalenemy of all young fish” (1898), whileothers claimed “the bass will provehimself, if given an opportunity, thebest friend of … our salmon and trout”(1893). ‘Frienemy’ they have remained.Fast-forward to the present, and fishand wildlife agencies in the states ofWashington and Oregon continue to betangled in a management dilemma sur-rounding smallmouth bass. Theseagencies are simultaneously chargedwith providing a thriving recreationalbass fishery, while preventing theirimpacts to the economically valuable,and critically endangered wild salmonthey, at times, feed on.The impacts of bass on salmon in the

Pacific Northwest have been the sub-ject of some debate. Overall, themajority of studies examining theeffects of smallmouth bass on salmonruns have concentrated on thehydropower corridor of the Columbiaand Snake River systems. In theselarge river systems, the impact of bass(as well as other non-native recreation-

al sport fish) has been highly variable,where juvenile salmon constitute any-where from 0-80% of bass diets(Sanderson et al. 2009). To date, basshave been considered a much smallerthreat relative to a native northwest-ern predator of juvenile salmon, thenorthern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilusoregonensis). The magnitude of preda-tion caused by pikeminnow within theslow-moving reservoir habitats creat-ed by the dam complex is consideredso great that Bonneville PowerAdministration has supported a bountyfishery for this fish, averaging $1 mil-

lion per year since its inception in1998. In 2004, however, researchersworking in the Yakima River discov-ered that bass can reduce Chinooksalmon runs dramatically. As much as35% of the juvenile ocean-typeChinook salmon produced in theYakima River are consumed by small-mouth bass according to this work(Fritts and Pearsons 2004). The picture currently emerging sug-

gests that bass effects on salmon runsmay occur where researchers previ-ously were not looking. That is, bassare likely to have the greatest impacton salmon under conditions similar tothose observed in the Yakima River;i.e., when bass overlap with salmonwhen they are small (subyearlings<70mm), when temperatures are warmenough to encourage bass consump-tion, and when water conditions arerelatively clear. These conditionsoccur in tributary river systems rather

than the big water of the ColumbiaRiver, where salmon smolts outmigrat-ing to sea are relatively large, andmany stocks run when water tempera-tures are too cool for bass consumption(<10° C). Our current hypothesis,therefore, is that certain salmon runsof the Columbia River may be highlysusceptible to bass predation, whileothers, given their run timing and lifehistory (e.g., those that rear instreamversus those that do not), are not.Even if salmon don’t end up in a bassbelly, bass that co-occur with salmonrearing in tributary habitats mayincrease the stress on young salmon,and reduce their growth, as evidencedby experiments performed by LaurenKuehne, a recent graduate of theUniversity of Washington’sFreshwater Ecology and Conservationlab, led by Dr. Julian Olden (Kuehne etal. 2012).

The range of bass continues toexpand in tributaries of the ColumbiaRiver, with and without additionalhuman assistance. In many river sys-tems bass were introduced in down-stream areas where warm watersenhance their growth. Most managersthat introduced them did not anticipatethat bass would colonize upstreamareas. And therein lies the problem;these cooler upstream areas also pro-vide nursery habitat for some salmonspecies, including spring-run Chinooksalmon that spend a full year in theriver before migrating to the sea. In anarticle in Freshwater Biology, col-leagues and I documented theupstream intrusion of bass into salmonrearing grounds in the John Day River,a Columbia River tributary in north-eastern Oregon (Lawrence et al. 2012).Bass were originally introduced to thelower North Fork John Day River toenhance recreational fishing opportu-nities, but they didn’t stay put. Sincetheir introduction in the 1970s, basshave moved 80-120 km (50-75 miles)upstream, and they now occupy as

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77 JANUARY 2014 15

Bass range continuesto expand in Columbia

River tributaries, with and withouthuman assistance.

Stemming the Upstream Tide ofSmallmouth Bass in PNW Streams

By David Lawrence— University of Washington —

Continued on next page

much as 22% of rearing habitat avail-able to juvenile Chinook salmon in themainstem of the North Fork John DayRiver.

The increasing degree of overlapbetween bass and Chinook salmoncould be especially problematicbecause juvenile Chinook salmon don’trecognize bass as predators, an over-sight likely resulting from an unsharedevolutionary history between predatorand prey. Kuehne discovered thisthrough a series of lab experimentsthat were part of her Masters thesiswork (Kuehne & Olden 2012). Whenexposed to the chemical ‘smell’ of theirnative predator, northern pikeminnow,juvenile Chinook salmon engagein a series of evasive escapebehaviors. These include a burstof rapid swimming and then hun-kering down low and freezing inan attempt to prevent detection.However, when juvenile Chinooksalmon were exposed to the smellof bass they did not attemptescape. Rather, they acted as ifno threat loomed, swimmingopenly around the experimentaltank, just as they did when theywere exposed to control waterwith no predator scent. Thiswork suggests that juvenileChinook salmon are likely to bemore susceptible to predation bybass when they co-occur becausetheir defense systems are nottuned to bass as a predator. Fishcommonly use smell (i.e., olfactory)cues to anticipate the presence of apredator. Kuehne was able to repeatthese observations in a tributary of theYakima River, providing additionalsupport to her lab observations.

Climate forecasts for the PacificNorthwest point to warmer streamsthat will both enable further upstreamexpansion of bass in river systems,while reducing quality habitat foryoung salmon. In an article recentlypublished in the journal EcologicalApplications, I predicted how farupstream bass will move and howwarming stream temperatures in 2040and 2080 will alter the overlap betweenpredatory bass and their potentialsalmon prey (Lawrence et al. in press).This research, which used the NorthFork and Middle Fork John Day River

as a test system, revealed that bass arelikely to move significant distancesupstream resulting from climate-induced stream warming—as much 39km (24 miles) in the North Fork and 78km (48 miles) in the Middle Fork JohnDay River. These advances will resultin a 2-3 times increase in bass overlapwith juvenile Chinook salmon duringtheir rearing phase, especially in theearly summer (a period when juvenileChinook salmon exhibit their greatestdownstream distribution).Simultaneously, thermally suitablehabitat for Chinook salmon within theJohn Day River is projected todecrease by as much as 76% in length(i.e., km of stream) and 95% in streamvolume (Ruesch et al. 2012).

Therefore, Chinook salmon must con-tend not only with a reduction in ther-mally suitable habitat that resultsfrom the direct effect of climatechange, but they must also face theincreasing intrusion of predatorysmallmouth bass into that shrinkinghabitat. Ultimately it is the interactionbetween these stressors that willdetermine the fate of stream rearingsalmon populations in the PacificNorthwest. But all is not lost. There are strate-

gies available to stem the upstreamtide of bass. One that we are currentlyinvestigating is the potential to reducebass upstream movement throughriparian restoration, encouraging there-growth of streamside vegetationthat has been removed from the landor overgrazed by cattle. These plantsprovide critical shade by intercepting

the warming rays of the sun. The con-servation of intact riparian areas andthe re-planting of heavily grazed areascould provide a dual benefit of pre-venting bass from moving farther intosalmon rearing grounds while helpingto maintain cold temperatures thatyoung salmon need to grow adequatelybefore their sojourn to the sea. We arenow in the process of using a series ofinterconnected models to strategicallyprioritize restoration efforts to limitthe further upstream colonization bybass, while maintaining juvenileChinook rearing habitat. In the case ofthe Middle Fork John Day River, a sys-tem that lost a large portion of its veg-etative shade due to riparian grazingand historic dredge mining activities,

our models suggest restorationwill be essential to maintain ther-mally suitable water for rearingsalmon and keeping bass out.Without it, forecasts for 2080 sug-gest Chinook salmon will beextirpated from the Middle ForkJohn Day River, and the distribu-tion of bass will extend all theway up to the river’s headwaters. In the meantime, managers in

Washington state are implement-ing a strategy of their own tolimit the impact of bass (as wellas other non-native predators) onyoung salmon. They recentlyraised the bag limit on bass, thatis, the number of bass that can bekept by anglers on a given fish-ing day within parts of theColumbia and Snake Rivers, and

their tributaries. Similar proposals areunder consideration by fishing man-agers within Oregon. This potentialrule change may meet opposition froma warm water fishing community thatprizes their favorite fighter, bothintrinsically and in the form of mil-lions of dollars in annual revenueresulting from the fishery (Carey et al.2011). Managers will have to tread thedifficult ground of balancing the valueof non-native recreational fisheriesagainst their cost to salmon recoveryefforts, as tribal, local, state and feder-al government agencies seek to savemarginal wild, native salmon runs andboost salmon production in others.

*Literature Cited, Page 19

16 JANUARY 2014 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77

Continued from previous page

Dark dots illustrate how smallmouth bass havespread from their orginal upper Mississippi Riverbasin range. Map courtesy David Lawrence

Forrest English is the Director ofRogue Riverkeeper. For more informa-tion on Rogue Riverkeeper and its workto protect clean water and fish, visittheir website at www.rogueriverkeep-er.org.

Wild rivers, along withtheir clean water andsalmon, define ourregion. But destructivegold mining throughout

the American West has a long historyof conflicts with those defining values.Hydraulic mining blasted entire hill-sides worth of sediments downstreaminto spawning beds, while hard rockmines discharged acidic water taintedwith heavy metals into our riversdecades after their closure.

I once had a conversation with aForest Service economist who was fas-cinated with gold mining, both histori-cal and current — much of the miningoccurs on our public lands such asthose managed by the Forest Serviceand Bureau of Land Management. Hetold me that even in its heyday, thegold rush in Oregon produced just 3%of the Western gold, and that waslargely snapped up using mining meth-ods that are illegal today. He went on tosay that today’s miners are pickingover the scraps from the 1800s, andthat he couldn’t see how anyone wasactually making any money.Essentially, the current crop of miners,and suction dredgers in particular, arehobbyists.Suction dredging is a popular method

of gold mining. The technique uses afloating gasoline-powered dredge tovacuum up the stream bottom, dumpsthis vacuumed material through asluice where the gold drops out of therest of the sediments, and spits thesediment back into the stream creatinga turbid plume.Gold is heavy. The idea is that suck-

ing up the stream bottom — preferablyall the way down to bedrock — will get

at gold that has settled to the lowestpoint. Unfortunately, the lowest pointis otherwise known as a stream orriver, and habitat for salmon, steel-head, and less classically charismatic(but no less important ecologically)species such as lamprey and aquaticmollusks.Any fisherman can tell you that that

sucking up gravel on stream and riverbottoms and dumping it back damagesthe aquatic ecosystem. To no surprise,a number of peer-reviewed studiesconfirm that suction dredging hasharmful effects on species that maketheir homes in our streams and rivers.

Salmon, steelhead, and trout eggs,larvae, and juveniles are killed whenthey pass through a suction dredge.Aquatic insects, amphibian eggs, andmollusks, all of which are sources offood for trout and young salmon andsteelhead, are also killed by thesedredges. The plume of dirty water thatemanates from the back of a dredgesettles out downstream, creating a finecoating of silt on the stream bottom.This thin layer of silt smothers theaquatic insects and juvenile fishes thathide among the rocks and gravels.

Dredging disturbs natural graveldeposits, creating much looser piles ofgravel — called tailings — in thestream. Dredgers claim they are creat-ing valuable habitat for fish, by break-ing up the hard compacted naturalgravel beds. It is true that these dis-turbed gravel piles are attractiveplaces for salmon and trout to spawn

in. However, studies show that salmonredds placed in tailings are much morelikely to be washed away during ordi-nary winter flows than redds located innatural gravel beds. Essentially thescouring effects of winter floods gen-erally only go so deep in natural grav-els, such that the pocket of eggs is safefrom the crushing effects of movingrocks. However, scour occurs muchdeeper in tailings so that eggs and lar-val salmon either get crushed orwashed away during typical winterstorms. As fishermen can easily under-stand, washing out a redd means lessreproductive success, and fewersalmon.

Today, dredging operations targetknown gold-bearing streams wheremining took place in the 19th and 20thcenturies. Historically, liquid mercurywas used in gold processing, and thatmercury was often discharged intostreams and deposited into stream sed-iments. Miners today talk about find-ing gallons of mercury while dredgingon the Rogue River. Water qualityremains a major concern as waste isdischarged and contaminated sedi-ments are re-suspended in the river.Mercury is toxic and gets picked up bythe small animals that live along thestream bottom and accumulates in thefood chain of aquatic organisms, ter-restrial wildlife and ultimatelyhumans. Other natural and human-gen-erated contaminants such as tracemetals or synthetic organic com-pounds like pesticides can be presentin river sediments where suctiondredging occurs. Dredgers often tar-get deep sediments that would not nor-mally be mobilized during ordinarywinter scour events.What we have today is a hobby that

destroys streambed habitat and pol-lutes our rivers.In recent years, California has placed

a moratorium on suction dredgingthroughout the state, and Idaho —

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77 JANUARY 2014 17

Continued on next page

Oregon Takes First Steps to ProtectSalmon from Instream Gold Mining

By Forrest English— Rogue Riverkeeper —

What we have today isa hobby that destroysstreambed fish habitatand pollutes our rivers.

rarely known as a bastion of strongenvironmental protections — recentlyintroduced a new permit that closesareas to dredging because of impactsto endangered salmon, steelhead andbull trout. California’s moratorium canonly be lifted if all significant environ-mental impacts can be successfullymitigated, and permit fees are suffi-cient to pay for the program includingan effective enforcement capability —estimated at over a million dollars peryear. The California Water Board’sposition on the issue concludes, “Basedon the water quality impacts of recre-ational suction dredging, we recom-mend that the existing moratorium becontinued indefinitely, or that thisactivity be permanently prohibited.Given the current scientific under-standing of this activity’s impacts, thisis the only and the most cost-effectivemethod to fully mitigate all significantwater quality impacts.” If that quote isany indication, I think the moratoriumis here to stay. Idaho’s new permit is issued by the

US Environmental Protection Agency,and is required to meet federal rulesabout protecting endangered salmon,trout and other species at the directionof the National Marine FisheriesService and US Fish and Wildlife, thusclosing particularly sensitive water-sheds throughout the state to dredging.This style of management fits perfect-ly with National Marine FisheriesService recommendations for therecovery of threatened coho salmon inSouthern Oregon and NorthernCalifornia, which included creatingspecial closed areas as seen in Idaho.

The rising price of gold and theCalifornia moratorium have led to asharp increase in the intensity ofdredging activities in my home state of

Oregon. As of 2005, there were only414 permits issued statewide, in 2011 itstood at 1,527 permits, and by 2012 thathad grown to 2,409 permits. While thebulk of permits are issued toOregonians, a significant chunk ofthem are given to out of state miners.On any summer day a drive along theRogue River (the most dredged riverin the state) or the Umpqua (second-most dredged river in Oregon), youcan find pickups with plates fromNorth Carolina, Arizona, Washingtonand California. If you get out of yourcar and look and listen around a bit,chances are you will see or hear anoperating dredge nearby. The noise

tends to spoil thepeaceful sounds ofrushing water thatfolks travel fromfar and wide toexperience.

Suction dredgingharms fish andwater quality whenthe rules are beingfollowed. To makematters worse,much of the timethose rules are not

followed. Suction dredging frequentlyoccurs on small and remote streamswith little oversight. When I go into thefield and come across miners along astream, we often see them digging intothe banks of the river, dragging gascans out to their dredges to refuel,damming up smaller streams, andchoking the streams with dirty waterfrom bank to bank for up to a half mile.Each of these activities is explicitlyforbidden by required permitsbecause of environmental impacts.Mining into the stream banks in partic-ular can take decades to restore natu-rally, causing the stream to becomeshallower and wider. Even more inter-esting is that a number of local miningadvocacy groups encourage theirmembers to not obtain permits for any-thing, believing that the 1872 MiningLaw gives them the right to ignore allother laws. They believe that theirright to mine takes precedence overany other values our streams andrivers provide, from clean water andfish habitat, to quiet recreation.Without sufficiently funded enforce-

ment built into the permitting pro-gram, it is very difficult to reduce

18 JANUARY 2014 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77

A suction dredge gold miner works a small southwestern Oregon stream, with grav-el tailings piled behind his suction dredge. Photo courtesy Rogue Riverkeeper

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

damage to our public waters. Since it iscurrently cheaper to get a suctiondredge permit than a fishing license, Ithink it’s fair to say we can and shouldraise these fees and stop subsidizing adamaging hobby.Due to the rapid increase of suction

dredging and the concerns regardingimpacts to salmon in particular, 2013saw Oregon take a significant first steptowards better regulations dealingwith suction dredging. Driven by pro-fish legislators like state Senator AlanBates (D-Medford) and strongly sup-ported by conservation groups, river-side landowners, fishermen andrafters, the Oregon House and Senatepassed into law Senate Bill 838. Thisnew law will change how Oregon dealswith suction dredging in the future,and will be implemented in three phas-es.The initial phase — in effect for 2014

and 2015 — reduces the number of per-mits that can be issued in essentialsalmon habitat to 850. The 850 permitswill be issued to give preference tolong time permit holders and Oregonresidents, rather than to the morerecent out of state permittees.The second part of the law directs the

Governor’s office to create a new sci-ence-based suction dredging frame-work for the legislature’s approval in2015. This process identifies betterprotections for threatened salmon andtrout, and simplifies the dredging per-mitting process as needs to be met.The third and final part of Oregon’s

law — a five-year moratorium on suc-tion dredging in salmon habitat — willgo into effect only if the legislaturefails to act in 2015 by approving theGovernor’s yet to be proposed regula-tory framework.These changes are all good steps for-

ward, but the future is yet unwritten.I’m looking forward to going back tothe drawing board, and developingrules for instream gold mining inOregon that put fish and water qualityfirst. I hope you’ll all be there to askfor exactly that. Then we can go backto fishing and enjoying our favoriteidyllic rivers, preferably withoutfalling in a newly dredged pit at ourfavorite spots.

THE OSPREY

PHONE

E-Mail

CITY/STATE/ZIP

NAME

I am a . . .

❏ Citizen Conservationist

❏ Commercial Outfitter/Guide

❏ Professional Natural Resources Mgr.

❏ Other

ADDRESS

Thanks For Your Support

The Osprey — Steelhead Committee International Federation of Fly Fishers

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

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

❏ Friend or fellow angler

❏ Fishing show

❏ Fly shop, lodge or guide

❏ Another publication.Which?

❏ Club or conservation group meeting

❏ Other

Yes, I will help protect wild steelhead

❏ $15 Basic Subscription

❏ $25 Dedicated Angler Level

❏ $50 For Future Generations of Anglers

❏ $100 If I Put Off Donating, My Fish

Might Not Return Home

❏ $ Other, Because

I Am a New Subscriber ❑

I Am An Existing Subscriber

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

Send My Copies by Standard Mail (Hardcopy) ❑ ❑

Continued from previous page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 77 JANUARY 2014 19

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

Smallmouth Bass in PNW Streams

Literature cited

Carey, M.P., Sanderson, B.L., Friesen, T.A.,Barnas, K.A. and J.D. Olden. 2011.Smallmouth bass in the Pacific Northwest:A threat to native species; a benefit foranglers. Reviews in Fisheries Science19:305-315.Fritts, A.L. and T.N. Pearson. 2004.Smallmouth bass predation on hatcheryand wild salmonids in the Yakima River,Washington. Transactions of the AmericanFisheries Society 133: 880-895.Kuehne, L.M., Olden, J.D., and J.J. Duda.2012. Costs of living for juvenile Chinooksalmon in an increasingly warming andinvaded world. Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences 69: 1621-1630.Kuehne, L.M., and J.D. Olden. 2012. Preynaivety in the behavioural responses ofjuvenile Chinook (Oncorhynchustshawytscha) salmon to an invasive preda-tor. Freshwater Biology 57: 1126-1137.

Lawrence, D.J., Olden, J.D., and C.E.Torgersen. 2012. Spatiotemporal patternsand habitat associations of smallmouthbass (Micropterus dolomieu) invadingsalmon-rearing habitat. FreshwaterBiology 57: 1929-1946.Lawrence, D.J., Stewart-Koster, B., Olden,J.D., Ruesch, A.S., Torgersen, C.E., Lawler,J.J., Bucher, D.P., and J.K. Crown. In press.The interactive effects of climate change,riparian management, and a non-nativepredator on stream-rearing salmon.Ecological Applications.Ruesch, A.S., Torgersen, C.E., Lawler, J.J.,Olden, J.D., Peterson, E.E., Volk, C.J., andD.J. Lawrence. 2012. Projected climate-induced habitat loss for salmonids basedon a network model of stream tempera-ture. Conservation Biology 5:873-882Sanderson, B. L., Barnas, K. A., and A.M.W.Rub. 2009. Nonindigenous Species of thePacific Northwest : An Over looked Risk toEndangered Salmon, BioScience 59: 245-256.

THE OSPREY

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

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage Paid

PAIDBozeman, MTPermit No. 99

2013 HONORS LISTThe Ospreywishes to

thank the dedicatedpeople and organi-

zations who gave theirfinancial support in 2013.Our readers are our pri-mary source of fundingand without your supportwe could not continuepublishing. The usualdonation envelope is pro-vided. Whatever you canafford will be muchappreciated (and usedwisely).

$1,000 and greater

Bruce McNae

$500 to $999

John SullivanNorth UmpquaFoundationSteelhead Society ofBritish ColumbiaSteamboatersJames R. Hubbard

$200 to $499

Howard JohnsonStanford YoungSouthern OregonFlyfishersOsprey Flyfishers ofB.C.Jerry Myers

$100 to $199

Bruce WilliamsPaul Swacina

Robert A. MeadDavid R. KoopmansTerry VaughanPaul J. UtzBarbara A. Sutton, MDChris StromsnessPete SoverelIra SmithJim SchrammJohn SagerJohn T. RogersBrian E. Riddell, Greg PittsJames McRobertsJohn MacDiarmidSteve LewisCharles KellerJames HolderLawrence C. HillScott HagenMichael GabrionFrank P. EscalonaDuane C. DahlgrenHugh ClarkDavid F. BrownHarold BoswellRobert L. BettzigJay H. BecksteadBill BakkeJames R. Adams

$50 to $99

Dale TimberlakeBob HeirmanRichard JohnsonRobert StewartDr. William PearcyJoseph RoyPuyallup FisheriesHannah BelfordJohn Rosenberg

Eric A. PettineJohn Winzler, Jr.Thomas J. WeselohLory WatkinsAlex UberDrake H. TraphagenJohn TitlandEric TaylorDonald J. StarkinCharles SpoonerSnake River SalmonSolutionsBlake SmithCraig SmelterJohn A. SchernerTodd SandellTim PurvisJosey PaulJohn NarverDavid W. NarverTom McKeyDaniel A. McDanielNathan MantuaGerald B. MahonyChris MadisonDon KneassFelton JenkinsStephen C. HaskellBruce E. HarangJoe FergusonStephen M. EggeRichard W. CarnsClint BrumittRobert BrownBarbara L. BrownJack W. BerrymanBruce M. BakerJon W. Archer

$15 to $49

Joseph A. Stone

Eric FiguraFred CarterTed SouzaGreg ConnollyDanny BeattyLarry BrownDavid ThyerDavid MorycChuck PevenCraig B. LacyJeff ReeseLee RicksJohn MeaneySteve RajeffRichard YoungSam WrightJames S. WilhelmPhilip C. WhiteDouglas WebbRobert Van KirkSteve and Debbie TurnerDavid ThomasBrad StaplesKeith StammJim SchmitzMichael P. RogersSteve PettitDan PageBrian MorrisonJohn C. McGlennVance J. LuffWilliam E. LombardWilliam A. L’HommedieuRichard LevinthalWilliam LenheimRick KustichJay JonesElmer E. JantzThomas G. HendersonEd HeidelKurt Hedeen

Will GodfreySean GallagherRobert Ferroggiaro, Jr.Chris DenchfieldCharles P. BucariaLarry BrownJohn L. BoyceCliff BarkerBruce AshleyTodd BrownChris TaylorSarah O’NealRobert JohnsonAndy LandforceJohn ButlerRick RuppLuke KellyJesse J. BlakeJonathan StumpfGlen MendelMike PetersenDavid BorokowskiFrancis C. WoodWild Salmon CenterAlexandra A. WardLeonard A. VollandPat TrotterJames B. TippettThomas B. RoweFrank MooreDon McAffeeGregory P. JohnsonRaymond EvansLouis W. DuncanKenneth A. CrowMichael CrisseyCindy CharlesBoley Law LibraryJay BennettLyle E. Manson (InMemorium)