The Ospreyospreysteelhead.org/archives/TheOspreyIssue41.pdf · THE OSPREY A Newsletter Published by...

It’s been a frustrating ten years for con-servationists fighting to save the wildsteelhead and salmon runs of theColumbia and Snake rivers. Fantasticsums of money have been thrown at theproblem, countless studies conductedand endless recommendations and poli-cy directives issued. A decade later, lit-tle has really changed. Even worse,much of the effort on the part of the var-ious Federal agencies charged withdeveloping, implementing and monitor-ing wild fish conservation strategiesseem little more than pretense.

In this issue’s cover story, Pat Ford,executive director of Save Our WildSalmon Coalition, brings us up to dateon this long-standing issue and fills us inon the possibility for making realprogress in the not-too-distant future.

“People cannot restore wild salmon. But peoplecan create the conditions that allow wild salmon torestore themselves.”

Wild Salmon Forever: A Scientific Blueprint, 1994

Where stands the effort torestore abundant wildsalmon and steelhead tothe Columbia and SnakeRiver basins? I sketch

here a necessarily partial answer whichfocuses on the dam-and-reservoirdegraded or obliterated habitats in bothrivers — not because it is all that mat-ters, but because it matters a lot, and itis our coalition’s focus on behalf of ourdiverse fishing and conservation mem-bers. And I will ask, not for the first orlast time, for some help from each ofyou.

In what follows, I will say “salmon”for brevity, while generally meaningsalmon and steelhead.

THE SALMON

The 2001 adult return of wild salmonto both basins was the largest in over adecade, delivering the good news that atleast one year-class of Snake andColumbia salmon is in decent if still nothealthy condition. Most scientists cite

as the primary reasons the well above-average flow conditions in 1999 whenmost of these returning adults went tosea, and much improved ocean condi-tions. Dr. Rick Williams, former chair-man of the Independent ScientificAdvisory Board for salmon, said a fewmonths ago, “People’s actions have hadlittle if anything to do with this goodreturn.”

Jack counts for 2001 indicate that the2002 wild adult return will likely be lessthan 2001, but still well above the aver-age for the last 10 years.

At the same time, the 2001 outmigra-tion of juvenile salmon to the ocean wasthe worst in at least a decade. Extremedrought conditions and the BonnevillePower Administration’s terrible rivermanagement led to extremely poor sur-vival for salmon migrating through thereservoirs. As many salmon as could becaptured were put in barges and trucks.If the past is any guide, survival rates ofthose fish will also be very low. Whichmeans adult returns in 2003 are likely to

THE OSPREYA Newsletter Published by the Steelhead Committee

Federation of Fly Fishers

Dedicated to the Preservation of Wild Steelhead • Issue No. 41 • JANUARY 2002

IN THISISSUE:

HOGAN DECISION IMPCTS

— PAGE 8 —

NORTH UMPQUAREVISITED

— PAGE 14 —

HATCHERY VS.WILD CATCH RATES

— PAGE 13 —

Still Upstream: Columbia and SnakeRiver Salmon and Steelhead Recovery

by Pat Ford— Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition —

Continued on Page 5 ➣

It’s a new year and life goes on,although I suspect most of usentered 2002 with a different per-spective and perhaps some newpriorities than we had a year ago.

Foremost on that list of priorities is“defending the homeland,” to keepAmerican citizens safe in our own coun-try and to protect our freedoms so theycan be passed on to those who comeafter us.

The defense of the American home-land has manifest itself in a variety offorms, not the least of which has beenthe deployment of U.S. troops to the bat-tlefields of Afghanistan. Here at homewe donate blood and money, fly flags andpatiently cooperate with tighter airportsecurity. We’re at war now. Things aredifferent, we’re told, perhaps never tobe the same again.

For conservationists, it’s been a dilem-ma. How to criticize an aggressivelyanti-environmental administration with-out seeming unpatriotic? We want todefend the homeland, too.

Last fall, just after the terroristattacks, Secretary of the Interior GaleNorton came to Portland, Oregon andspoke to the Society of EnvironmentalJournalists. Among the many topics dis-cussed was oil drilling in the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge. It was neces-sary, she said, for reasons of nationalsecurity. In the battle to end recreation-al gold mining in the Klamath andSiskiyou mountains of southern Oregonand northern California — an activityparticularly destructive to salmon andsteelhead streams — a miner says thatthis is no time to “lock up” mineralresources. A letter to the editor in mylocal newspaper declares that it is timeto increase logging on our nationalforests for “the war effort.” It seemsthat, in the aftermath of September 11,increased natural resource extractionand less stewardship is the patrioticthing to do.

President George W. Bush has beencompared recently to TheodoreRoosevelt, presumably because his deci-sive action in Afghanistan is reminis-cent of T.R.’s no-nonsense foreign policy.The President has even been seen toting

around the latest biographical block-buster “Theodore Rex” by EdmundMorris.

There was much more to T.R.’s presi-dency. Roosevelt broke corporatemonopolies, established nationalwildlife refuges, railed against the tim-ber barons of his day who would “skinthe earth and move on,” and created for-est reserves throughout the country tokeep the insatiable clearcutters at bay.

In 1907, Western Republicans, lividwith Roosevelt’s Forest Reserve desig-nations of formerly public domain lands,added an amendment to an agriculturebill removing 16 million acres of publiclands in the West from Forest Reserveprotection. In response, Rooseveltadded 13 new Western forest reserves— then signed the bill.

Roosevelt was long gone by the startof World War II, but his chief foresterGifford Pinchot was still around and inhis mid-70s. In 1942, former associatestipped him off that logging companies inPennsylvania were severely overcuttingpublic lands.

Writes Char Miller, author of “GiffordPinchot and The Making of ModernEnvironmentalism,” “Not even a nation-al emergency could excuse this misman-agement of public lands. ‘The war callsfor wood, but not for forest destruction,’Pinchot said for we will ‘have need ofour forests after the war is won.’”

On a bright day in 1903, TheodoreRoosevelt and the naturalist John Muirwere together at the Grand Canyon.Roosevelt was awestruck at its grandeurand beauty. He was so taken that laterthat year at a speech in Sacramento,California he admonished his audienceto care for and preserve the Nation’snatural wonders thundering, “We arenot building this country of ours for aday. It is to last through the ages.”

He was bringing the message of con-servation and stewardship of naturalresources to the American citizenry. Hewas driving home the point that for ourcountry to be strong it needed to use itsnatural bounty carefully and wisely,with an eye to the future. He wasdefending the homeland. And so are we.Bully!

THE OSPREY

Contributing EditorsJohn Sager • Pete SoverelBill Redman • Stan Young

Terry Davis

ContributorsBill Redman • Pat Ford

Patti Goldman • Bill BakkeJeff Dose • Bill McMillan

Robert Lackey

Design & LayoutJ. Yuskavitch Resources

Letters To The EditorThe Osprey welcomes submissions

and letters to the editor. All submissions can be

made either electronically or by mail.

The OspreyP.O. Box 1228

Sisters, OR [email protected]

(541) 549-8914

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

The Osprey © 2002

THE OSPREY IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERUSING SOY INK

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

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

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

ChairmanBill Redman

EditorJim Yuskavitch

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

Homeland Defenseby Jim Yuskavitch

2 JANUARY 2002 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 41

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 41 JANUARY 2002 3

CHAIR’S CORNER

PACIFIC RIM WILD SALMON & STEELHEAD CONFERENCEby Bill Redman

— Steelhead Committee —

In early November 2001 I had theopportunity to attend the WildSalmon Center’s Pacific Rim WildSalmon & Steelhead Conferencein Portland. Just seven years

ago, the Wild Salmon Center was only agleam in the eye of Pete Soverel, a for-mer chair of the FFF SteelheadCommittee. Today it is an organizationwith a small but capable staff, a nearmillion dollar budget contacts with sci-entists and salmon management peopleall over the North Pacific Rim, and themission to protect healthy salmon andsteelhead habitat and stocks.

More than half of the conference wasdevoted to reports on the status ofsalmon and steelhead stocks in theirnative range by speakers from Japanaround the North Pacific Rim toCalifornia. They reviewed the currentstatus of their stocks, reasons fordecline of depressed stocks and threatsto healthy stocks, and actions requiredfor protection and recovery. The samethemes recurred again and again. Thispaper reviews some of the majorthemes.

HUMAN CAUSES OF DECLINE

Wild salmon and steelhead are placedat risk primarily because man uses nat-ural resources. Recovery will requiresignificant reduction of these risks. Thehuman causes of decline are well knownand are similar on both sides of thePacific, although the impact of eachcause varies by area and watershed.They include the usual well documentedlitany under the four H’s: habitat, hydro,hatcheries, and harvest.

Some fascinating correlations weremade regarding the health of salmonpopulations. The risks tend to increaseas human population increases, as thesize of the individual stock decreases, asthe time juveniles spend in fresh waterincreases, as the distance of freshwater migration increases, and in thesouthern parts of their range (probablyrelated to the population factor).

The history of salmon decline alsodemonstrates repeatedly that man’s

meddling with natural processes causesunexpected consequences, many ofthem harmful.

NATURAL CAUSES OF SALMON

ABUNDANCE CYCLES

The natural cycles of salmon abun-dance are tied, in large part, to varia-tions in climate and ocean conditions.Climate influences river flows duringmigration seasons. Climate and oceanconditions together influence ocean cur-rent movements, upwelling, water tem-

peratures, and the abundance andmovements of salmon and their preyand predator species. Salmon runs areat greatest risk of extirpation when thelows in the natural cycles are amplifiedby the destructive acts of man. The realtests of management come at thesetimes.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN

SALMON MANAGEMENT

In addition to the stock status reports,there were several featured speakerson various aspects of salmon manage-ment. Their combined insights soundedlike the start of a manifesto for realsalmon and steelhead recovery. Thefollowing six strategic directions wereparticularly compelling. The principalpresenter of each direction is named atthe end of the paragraph.

1. It is time to change from managingabundance, which generally doesn’twork in the long run, to managing diver-sity. Conservation of species requiresconservation of each component popula-tion and each life history variation,including those provided by the smallerstocks, which carry a disproportionateamount of the life history diversity.This diversity provides the species as awhole with the resilience to surviveextreme environments. A major exam-ple of doing it the wrong way is theColumbia system, where, after decadesof managing for abundance, there arenow many fewer life history variations,and fewer fish, than there were histori-cally. (Dan Bottom, NorthwestFisheries Science Center, NMFS)

2. The climate and ocean influencedcycles of salmon productivity includethe Pacific Decadal Oscillation, whichoccurs over decades; inverse oscilla-tions, in which relative abundance inAlaska is accompanied by scarcity inthe lower 48, and vice versa a decade ortwo later; and a year-to-year SouthernOscillation (El Nino). Other than verylimited ability to forecast El Nino one toa few seasons ahead, there is no demon-strated skill at predicting these cyclesand their effects on salmon populations,especially at the individual stock level.The goal of improving prediction insuch models as Maximum SustainedYield is inherently flawed. Even if wecould predict the cycles, there is no abil-ity to change them in the foreseeablefuture. Therefore, the focus of salmonrecovery must be entirely on the humancaused problems, with plenty of conser-vatism to allow for the natural fluctua-tions. (Nate Mantua, Climate ImpactsGroup, University of Washington)

3. Monitoring the critical measure-ments of salmon stock health and theeffects of management actions on themis vital to any serious attempts at pro-tection and recovery. It allows man-agers to answer the question: “How arewe doing?” Measurement of results hasgenerally been the primary casualty of

Continued on next page ➣

Wild salmon and steelhead are placed atrisk primarily because

man uses naturalresources.

budget trade-offs. Jim Lichatowichquoted an economist speaking in a dif-ferent context to describe the currentstate of salmon recovery as, “leakingships firmly anchored in nonsense.”Without informative data, harmful deci-sions are often made, sometimes bydefault, as fish slide toward extinction.(Jeff Rodgers, Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife)

4. A vital piece of the riverine habitatpicture is the movement of nutrientscarried by salmon from the oceanupstream to the river and its flood plain.Most coastal rivers are low in nutrients,so without the salmon, the ecosystemstarves. Fewer adult salmon mean lessfor the next generation of juveniles toeat. A healthy watershed typicallydemands salmon escapements severaltimes the escapement goals set by fishmanagement agencies today. (JeffCederholm, Washington Department ofNatural Resources)

5. The random variation of many envi-ronmental factors emphasizes that theirrelationships with salmon productivityare not linear, but much more complex.Equilibrium, self-perpetuating fisherymanagement models such as MaximumSustained Yield are simply not realworld. Their basic assumptions ignorehighly changeable estuarine and marineconditions. (Bottom, Mantua,Cederholm, and Jack Stanford, FlatheadLake Biological Station, University ofMontana)

6. The use of hatcheries for conserva-tion, specifically the supplementation ofwild runs — either by direct supple-mentation or indirect by leakage oraccident — should be rejected outright.Wild fish sanctuaries where habitat pro-tection comes first need to be estab-lished, widely separated from hatcheryfish by geography and timing of spawn-ing. Since hatchery fish are much lesssuccessful surviving and spawning inthe wild than wild fish, the linkagebetween wild and hatchery fish needs tobe broken by making the hatchery fishas different as possible from the wildfish. The speaker sees the future role ofhatcheries producing these “differ-ent"”fish as supporting fisheries and fish

farms in “industrial zones.” (MartGross, Professor of ConservationBiology, University of Toronto)

My only reservation about any ofthese ideas is Mart Gross’s apparentendorsement of salmon farms support-ed by hatcheries. Two reports onsalmon farming were released in earlyDecember 2001. The Leggett Report, aCanadian study of the impacts ofsalmon net pen aquaculture in BritishColumbia, found that salmon farmscause major coastal environmentaldamage and pose a significant threat towild fish stocks. The report made sixrecommendations, the first of whichwas to “Remove all net-cage salmonfarms from the marine environment by1 January 2005.”

Not surprisingly considering its trackrecord, the National Marine FisheriesService reported “very little to no risk”from net pen salmon farming in thePacific Northwest. If NMFS were afootball or basketball team, its effortson behalf of wild salmon and steelheadwould be described as “soft.” My trustgoes with the Canadian report. The bur-den needs to be on the farms to provethey don’t increase the risks to wild fish.

With that one exception, this line up ofscience-based ideas needs to be trans-formed into action.


Continued from previous page

Ocean conditions, a wild card beyond the control of humans to affect, remains a little-understood factor thatimpacts salmon populations from year to year, for better and for worse. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

THE WILD

SALMON CENTER

The Wild Salmon Center is anon-governmental, non-profitorganization dedicated to the sci-ence, conservation and healthyeconomic development of salmon,trout, char, taimen and steelheadfisheries and their river ecosys-tems along the Northern PacificRim. It maintains offices inWashington, Oregon and Russia.

Projects of the Wild SalmonCenter include wild salmon andsteelhead research and the devel-opment of watershed conservationplans in the Russian Far East,development of a report detailingthe status and threats to wildsalmon and steelhead across theNorthern Pacific Rim and aneffort to establish wild steelheadand salmon sanctuaries in thePacific Northwest.

To find out more about the WildSalmon Center call them at (503)222-1804 or visit their web site atwww.wildsalmoncenter.org.

mirror the very low levels which char-acterized the 1990s.

There are of course differencesamong individual species and stockswithin these general results. But onebroad implication from the above sum-mary is that 2003 will be a very impor-tant year for Snake and Columbia riversalmon. A large year-class of wild juve-niles will be heading to the ocean fromheadwaters of both rivers. Given theprecarious condition of other year-classes, good survival is critical. Earlyin 2001, Trout Unlimited released anupdate of its peer-reviewed extinctionanalysis for Snake River salmon. Thatanalysis, which takes into account thelarge year-class of 2001 adults, still pre-dicts extinctions will begin in 2016 ifpresent trends continue.

POLITICS AND MANAGEMENT

In December 2000, the federal gov-ernment adopted a plan to restoreColumbia and Snake River salmon.While admitting that Lower Snake Riverdam removal was the surest way torestore Snake River salmon and steel-head, the plan proposed to try a series ofother measures first, with check-ins in2003 and 2005 as to whether they areworking. These measures are a familiarlist: tributary and estuary habitatimprovements; increased flows and spillin migratory habitats affected by dams;hatchery reform; and some additionalharvest restrictions. For ColumbiaRiver salmon, particulars differed butthe overall package was essentially thesame. Little noticed at the time was howsketchy the plan actually was. Thedetails — that is, what actually wouldoccur to help fish, by whom, and when —were left for later documents to be writ-ten by other agencies. We still awaitthose documents.

At the time, the package was estimat-ed to cost between $300 to $500 millionmore than the roughly $400 millionalready being spent annually onColumbia/Snake River salmon recovery.Neither the Bush Administration nor itsagencies have released more precisecost information for the obvious reasonthat it has no intention of asking for orspending the money.

Since then, the big story has been the

massive failure to implement the newplan. In April 2001, BPA declared apower emergency, took control of rivermanagement, put total emphasis on gen-erating energy and money, and spectac-ularly violated the flow and spill provi-sions of the new plan. The plan’s targetflows and spill guidelines in both riverswere not achieved on a single day of the2001 salmon and steelhead out-migra-tion. The result was the worst out-migration since Endangered SpeciesAct listings of salmon and steelheadbegan in 1991. At the same time, neitherthe tributary nor the estuary habitatmeasures in the new plan, nor its hatch-ery reforms, were begun. Some of theplan’s measures — hatchery reformsfor example — cannot be implementedbecause what those reforms haven’t

been specified yet. Others could beimplemented but there is neither politi-cal commitment nor money to do them.Large scale water acquisition is anexample of this.

Congressional salmon appropriationsfor 2002 held steady at the old level ofabout $400 million. The BushAdministration did not seek additionalfunds, and with a few honorable excep-tions, neither did the NorthwestCongressional delegation. Nor didCongress re-direct any of the $400 mil-lion away from technological fixes andbureaucracy toward habitat restoration.

Adopted in December 2000, the planwas spectacularly violated in 2001 bythe very agencies that adopted it. It willnot be implemented in 2002 due to a lackof funding and a clear lack of commit-ment by the Administration and theagencies. As for 2003, it is certain that

the Administration’s proposed budget,when released in a few months, will atbest hold salmon funding steady at the$400 million level. It could even be cut.

We have, in other words, a continua-tion of the decades-long game in whichfederal agencies, the Northwest PowerPlanning Council, and Northwest statespretend to restore Columbia and Snakeriver salmon. Much of the NorthwestCongressional delegation conspires inthat pretense. With due regard to manygood people within those entities whoare genuinely trying to make recoveryhappen, overall it is an expensive andcynical game. The new federal salmonplan is not being implemented.

A few conclusions can be drawn, orreaffirmed, from these events: TheBush Administration cares little forsalmon. The Northwest delegation, as awhole, pays salmon little focused, orga-nized attention. The U.S. Congress hasnot and will not fund the official, legally-established salmon plan. The BonnevillePower Administration, not the NationalMarine Fisheries Service, is in chargeof Columbia Basin salmon recovery.

OUR RESPONSE

First, salmon advocates have anaggressive litigation response under-way. Groups have filed an EndangeredSpecies Act challenge to the new salmonplan, with a ruling anticipated in thesecond half of 2002. Groups are pursu-ing Clean Water Act litigation againstthe Army Corps of Engineers’ manage-ment of the lower Snake River dams.We have won the first two rounds andexpect a court verdict in round threeperhaps as early as mid-2002. Groupshave filed a Northwest Power Act law-suit against Bonneville PowerAdministration for their salmon-be-damned river management in 2001.Timing of a decision in that case is hardto predict. Additional lawsuits underthese same laws are likely in 2002. Inmost cases we are coordinating closelywith legal initiatives by the ColumbiaRiver Treaty Tribes.

We are also actively defending theESA listings in the Columbia and Snakeriver basins from attacks on them occa-sioned by Judge Hogan’s recent rulingwhich struck down the ESA listing ofOregon coastal coho. That ruling hasnow been stayed by a higher court pend-



Still Upstream, Continued from page 1

Adopted in 2000, thefederal plan to restoreColumbia and Snakeriver steelhead andsalmon was violated

spectacularly in 2001.

ing review of the decision’s merits.Secondly, we are building pro-salmon

initiatives in the U.S. Congress. In July2001, U.S. Representative JimMcDermott (D-WA) introduced theSalmon Planning Act, HR2573. The billhas three provisions. It calls for scientif-ic peer review of the new salmon plan bythe National Academy of Sciences; itorders completion of planning studies(engineering, economic, and energy)needed to remove the Lower Snake Riverdams; and it authorizes the Army Corpsof Engineers to remove the dams if fed-eral agencies find that dam removal isnecessary to comply with federal lawand treaty.

McDermott gave two reasons for intro-ducing the bill: (1) To assure sound plan-

ning which provides the region options incase the new salmon plan fails to restoresalmon, and (2) to put pressure on theBush Administration and its agencies toindeed implement the new plan. Webelieve the implementation failuredescribed above validates McDermott’sconcern that the new plan will not beimplemented unless pressure to do so isapplied.

The bill now has 54 co-sponsors, includ-ing three Republicans. McDermott, as ofthis writing, is the only sponsor from theNorthwest. We will keep working withhis office through 2002 to add additionalco-sponsors, with emphasis on additionalNorthwest and Republican co-sponsorsand champions.

We will keep working in theAppropriations process to increase

salmon funding, andre-direct what isa p p r o p r i a t e dtowards habitatrestoration andaway from techno-logical fixes. In2002, as Congressconsiders the bud-get for 2003, we willbe seeking just over$800 million insalmon funding. Ifwe fail, we will seekto make it as clearas possible that theresult will be a near-total failure by thefederal agencies toimplement the newsalmon plan in itsfirst three years ofoperation.

We will be payingclose attention toenergy legislation,seeking to assurethat BonnevilleP o w e rAdministration andNorthwest utilitiesare held account-able for theirsalmon obligationsin any bills that dealwith Northwestenergy facilitiesand institutions.

While most of our2001 work was inthe House of

Representatives, we will be focusingmore time in 2002 on the Senate —including Northwest Senators.

Third, we are sponsoring critical ana-lytical work. In December, Save OurWild Salmon released a report on the2001 juvenile salmon migration, whichshowed that BPA could have providedsignificantly more help for salmon, espe-cially with spill, than it did. Providinghalf the summer spill required by thenew plan, for instance, would only havecost an average Seattle City Light resi-dential customer 19 cents a month. YetBPA said no. (The full report is availableon our website: www.wildsalmon.org)

In late January we will release a broad-er scorecard, documenting the failure offederal agencies, the Administration,and Congress to implement the newsalmon plan. Other analysis to bereleased in 2002 includes an independentenergy impact study, economic benefitstudies of the 2001 salmon fisheries, atransportation infrastructure analysisfor eastern Washington and a computersimulation study of restoring a free-flow-ing lower Snake River.

Fourth, after a suspension due to theSeptember terrorist attacks, we willresume our Northwest and nationalmedia work in support of Columbia andSnake River salmon.

Fifth, we will continue to build publicsupport for Columbia and Snake Riversalmon recovery and for the majoractions needed for recovery.

SIGNS OF PROGRESS

When fellow conservationists ask mehow it goes with salmon, their startingpoint is usually pessimism — a hostileAdministration, an “energy crisis,” timidelected leaders, the Hogan decision, theArmy Corps’ of Engineers recentannouncement that dam removal is overand done with, the nation’s new focus onsecurity and war, etc. I understand thepessimism, but I think it overlooksimportant signs of progress, and the factthat this effort is going to take awhile.

Take dam removal. Dam removal is ameans, not an end. Even so, it can be usedas a partial measure of public and politi-cal support for salmon recovery. In 2001the Goldsborough Dam, near Shelton,Washington, was removed, restoring 14miles of excellent spawning and rearinghabitat for salmon. Agreement was




Drought conditions in 2001 wreaked havoc for fish and people alike across thePacific Northwest from the Klamath basin (top photo) to the Columbia River.Photos by Jim Yuskavitch

How You Can HelpPlease help. In the first months of 2002, Save Our Salmon and our member groups are making a major effort to per-suade specific Northwest members of Congress to join U.S. Representative Jim McDermott and Oregon GovernorJohn Kitzhaber in public actions to restore Columbia and Snake River salmon. This effort can only succeed with alarge amount of grassroots pressure from constituents. At the same time, our large and growing national networkwill be doing the same in targeted non-Northwest states, with special focus on moderate Republicans.

Your Senators and Congressperson need to hear from you. Please take a few minutes to call or write your Senatorsand Representative. Better yet, do both.

In the House

Ask your Representative to co-sponsor the Salmon Planning Act, HR 2573, a common sense approach to planning forthe future of wild Columbia and Snake river basin salmon and the communities that depend on them. Ask them tosupport increased salmon funding, with priority to habitat restoration and protection.

In the Senate

Ask your Senators to introduce legislation to restore wild Snake River salmon and protect our communities byrequiring the completion of dam removal studies and authorizing the removal of the four lower Snake River dams ifit is necessary to comply with federal laws and treaties.

How to contact your Representative and Senators:

1. Write to U.S. Representative or Senator _______, Washington D.C., 20515 (Representatives) or 20510 (Senators).

2. Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. All you need to know is your zip code and the operator can connectyou with your Representative and Senators.

Thanks very much. To find out more, check the Save Our Wild Salmon web-site at www.wildsalmon.org.

reached among federaland state agencies, con-servationists, farmers,and Oregon members ofCongress to removeSavage Rapids Dam onthe Rogue River — a pro-posal which just a fewyears ago provokedfierce opposition. Thefund to remove theElwha dams continued togrow, with actualremoval likely to beginin 2004 or 2005.

Since most Northwestdams which harmsalmon are not going tobe removed, I also add to this list theapplication by the Yakama Nation to theFederal Energy RegulatoryCommission for the license to operatePriest Rapids and Wanapum Dams onthe mid-Columbia, expressly to produce

both energy and salmon. The two damsare now operated by Grant CountyPublic Utility District, whose manage-ment since 1955 has neither been goodfor salmon nor responsive to the broadpublic support for salmon recovery. A

decision is years away, but the applica-tion is a positive sign of changing per-spectives on dams.

In 1998, the Save Our Wild SalmonCoalition board of directors voted tolead and coordinate a campaign toremove the four Lower Snake Riverdams — both as a necessary step torestore Snake River salmon, and togreatly expand the envelope of politicalpossibility for salmon recovery general-ly. We knew at the time it would be along and uphill effort. We have set our-selves the goal of securing authorizationto remove the dams by 2005. It won’t beeasy, but most things worth doing aren’teasy. If Snake River salmon are clearlybeing restored without dam removal,salmon advocates will gladly renouncedam removal. We do not believe pre-tending to restore salmon will restoresalmon. We do not believe the people ofthe Northwest or nation will settle overtime for the pretense rather than thereality.



Power shortages, real and perceived have kept Columbia and Snake riversalmon and steelhead smolts in barges instead of in the rivers where theybelong. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

On September 10, 2001 U.S. DistrictJudge Michael Hogan orderedEndangered Species Act protectionremoved for Oregon coastal cohosalmon. It was a decision that sent theconservation community reeling lessfor the delisting than for the reasonwhy. Hogan ruled that the NationalMarine Fisheries Service should havetaken hatchery fish into account whenthe agency made its determination toput Oregon coho under the protectionof the ESA.

The story began in 1999 when aPhilomath, Oregon banker videotapedOregon Department of Fish andWildlife (ODFW) staff clubbing hatch-ery coho salmon to death at its FallCreek fish hatchery in the Alsea Riverbasin to prevent them from spawningwith wild fish. The videotape circulat-ed among property rights groups whosaw the potential to derail ESA list-ings for fish in the Pacific Northwestby having hatchery fish considered thesame as wild fish. The reasoning wentthat if wild and hatchery fish wereconsidered identical, then there wouldbe no need for ESA protections sincesociety could produce all the steel-head, salmon and trout it wanted infish hatcheries.

This alliance of property rights,agricultural and real estate interestsfirst brought a lawsuit against ODFWand its policy to destroy excess hatch-ery fish to prevent them from spawn-ing with wild populations. When thatfailed, they went to the state legisla-ture to have a law passed preventingthe state from viewing wild and hatch-ery fish differently and therefore frommanaging them differently. That effortalso failed.

Next, with help from the conserva-tive law firm, the Pacific LegalFoundation, the property rightsgroups filed a lawsuit in federal court,where they got their favorable ruling.For now, though, all ESA protectionsfor coho remain in place as a coalitionof conservation groups plan anappeal.

In the following piece, excerptedfrom a longer paper, Patti Goldman,

managing attorney for the Seattleoffice of the Earthjustice LegalDefense Foundation gives us anoverview of the Alsea Valley Alliancev. Evans decision (commonly calledthe Hogan Decision by we non-lawyers) and its potential implica-tions for fish and for the EndangeredSpecies Act.

Earthjustice Legal DefenseFoundation is representing the con-servation and fishing organizationsthat have intervened to appeal theAlsea Valley decision.

The district court decisionin Alsea Valley Alliance v.Evans, has unleashedtremendous confusion anduncertainty over the fate

of the salmon and steelhead listings inthe Pacific Northwest. As Jack deYonge, a former Seattle PostIntelligencer editor, summarized: the“decision reminded me of a cottontailracing through the briars: First thisway, then that way, and back aroundand finally, where in the hell are we?”

The turmoilstemmed, in part, fromthe delisting remedyordered by the court,which unraveled theprotective scheme forOregon coast cohosalmon with a strokeof a pen. Now that theNinth Circuit hasstayed that orderpending final resolu-tion of the appeal, theturmoil should subsideand the focus shouldshift to the deliberatedevelopment of a long-term resolution of thiscontroversy.

Over the comingyear, the underlyinglegal ruling will be reviewed, refined,and applied in the courts and theNational Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS). Because the hatchery popu-lations that may be added to the equa-tion are not self-sustaining in the wild,

and because of continuing threats tocoho survival, the most likely (andonly legally defensible) outcome isthe continued listing of wild salmonand steelhead that have previouslybeen found to warrant the protectionof the Endangered Species Act (ESA).As a result, the Alsea Valley decision,even if upheld on appeal, will producefew, if any, changes in the ultimateprotection afforded wild salmon inthe region.

Nonetheless, the issues posed inAlsea Valley generate fascinatingquestions. Can introduced or hybridspecies be protected under the ESA?Or, for that matter, could farm fish bepart of, or be the reason for denying,a species listing under the ESA? Is aspecies recovered when it thrives incaptivity but not in the wild or in thewild for only a portion of its lifecycle?

This paper assesses the potentialoutcomes of the upcoming judicialand regulatory proceedings, conclud-ing that, when the dust settles, wildsalmon will retain ESA protection.

THE ALSEA CASE

The Alsea Valley case began as a chal-lenge to the closure of the Fall CreekHatchery in Oregon within the AlseaRiver basin. The Fall Creek Hatchery



The Hogan Decision and Its Implicationsby Patti Goldman

— Earthjustice Legal Defense Foundation —

Unlike hatchery fish, this wild coho salmon fry is genetically adapted notonly for life in the wild, but to the very stream that it hatched in, reared inand will eventually return to for spawning. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

had produced coho since the early1950s for commercial and sports fish-ing. By the late 1990s, less than onepercent of hatchery production wasreturning to the basin as adults.Because the program was ineffectivein terms of costs and returns, and itwas found to be a significant factorcontributing to the decline of wildcoho in the basin, the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW) decided to close the hatcheryin 1997. The last release of coho juve-niles occurred that year.

Hatchery fish returning to the FallCreek Hatchery in 1998 and 1999were killed and the fish either sold toprocessors (with the revenue support-ing future hatchery programs) orplaced in streams for nutrient enrich-ment in the basin. The Fall CreekHatchery became a cause celebrewhen a videotape captured the club-bing of the returning hatchery fish in1999.

Alsea Valley Alliance first went tostate court, seeking a preliminaryinjunction that would have requiredODFW to allow the remaining hatch-ery fish to stay in the river and inter-breed with the wild run. JudgeRobert J. Huckleberry of the LincolnCounty Circuit Court denied themotion. Alsea Valley Alliance thenwent to federal court seeking thesame relief in the form of a tempo-rary restraining order, which thatcourt denied.

THE CHALLENGE TO THE

OREGON COAST COHO LISTING

Alsea Valley Alliance then amendedits complaint to challenge theEvolutionary Significant Unit (ESU)and hatchery policies on their faceand the application of those policies inthe Oregon coast coho listing.Notably, the Fall Creek Hatchery cohowere one of the four hatchery popula-tions excluded from the Oregon coastcoho ESU. Accordingly, the legalargument that ultimately carried theday for Alsea Valley Alliance wouldhave no impact on its initial attemptto compel ODFW to allow the FallCreek hatchery fish to spawn.

Alsea Valley Alliance presented itschallenge in moralist overtones:

NMFS interprets the ESA to protect acertain population of coho salmon notupon whether the population is thesame species, but instead based uponthe parentage or the method of spawn-ing, or, worse, upon NMFS’ arbitraryideas of which particular coho blood-lines should exist for procreation, andwhich should be aborted. Indeed, toimply that the two terms have a genet-ic significance would be analogous toclaiming that a fetus conceivedthrough in-vitro fertilization is a dif-ferent species than a fetus conceivednaturally.

Moralistic underpinnings aside, thecase sought to eliminate constraintsimposed by the listing based on thetheory that plentiful hatchery popula-tions should suffice:

[The government’s hatchery policy is]skewing resources away from thesalmon populations most in need ofhelp, and toward many plentiful popu-lations needing less attention. Toooften, the policy has led to massiverestrictions on land managementactivities, with huge and largelyignored social and economic costs,under the guise of protecting habitatfor ‘wild’ salmon while ignoring thriv-ing hatchery salmon.

THE DISTRICT COURT RULING

In an order issued September 10,2001, the district court resolvedcross-motions for summary judgmenton the issues raised in the amended

complaint. While the challenges tothe ESU and hatchery policies werebarred by the six-year statute of limi-tations, the court heard the plaintiffs’challenge to NMFS’ utilization ofthese policies in the Oregon coastcoho listing.

With respect to the ESU issue, plain-tiffs argued that NMFS acted illegallyby aggregating coho populations fromnumerous river basins to compriseone distinct population segmentbecause salmon populations from spe-cific river basins generally do notinterbreed with salmon from otherbasins. The court rejected this claim,holding that “[t]he NMFS interpreta-tion of what constitutes a ‘distinctpopulation segment’ is a permissibleagency construction of the ESA . . . .Specifically, the NMFS creation of anESU (Evolutionary Significant Unit)and the factors used to define it, geog-raphy and genetics, are within per-missible limits under the ESA.”

Turning to the hatchery issue, basedsolely on the ESA definition of“species” to include subspecies and“any distinct population segment . . .which interbreeds when mature,” thecourt held that “[l]isting distinctionsbelow that of subspecies or a DPS(distinct population segment) of aspecies are not allowed under theESA.” Instead, according to thecourt, “NMFS may consider listingonly an entire species, subspecies ordistinct population segment . . . . OnceNMFS determined that hatcheryspawned coho and naturally spawnedcoho were part of the same DPS/ESU,the listing decision should have beenmade without further distinctionsbetween members of the sameDPS/ESU.”

Nothing in the district court opinionindicates whether a listing will bewarranted when NMFS applies thenew legal interpretation on remand.The court never scrutinized NMFS’scientific findings that the hatcherypopulations pose genetic and ecologi-cal threats to the wild salmon. Rather,the case turned on a purely legalquestion: Does the ESA permit NMFSto list only wild salmon populationswhen it has characterized certainhatchery populations as part of thesame ESU as the wild fish? In thecourt’s view, because NMFS had




Can introduced orhybrid species be

protected under theESA? Is a speciesrecovered when it

thrives in captivity?

explicitly found that nine of the 13hatchery populations should beincluded in the Oregon coast cohosalmon ESU, it had tied its own handsand must list that unit on an all-or-nothing basis. Notably, however, thecourt’s opinion holds out the possibili-ty that NMFS could have definedhatchery populations as a separatedistinct population segment in whichcase it could have listed only the wildsalmon.

INTERVENTION OF

CONSERVATION AND

FISHING GROUPS TO

APPEAL

Shortly after the districtcourt issued its decision,eight conservation and fish-ing organizations (OregonNatural Resources Council,Pacific Rivers Council,Pacific Coast Federation ofFishermen’s Associations,Institute for FisheriesResources, Audubon Societyof Portland, Coast RangeAssociation, SiskiyouRegional Education Project,and Sierra Club, collectivelyreferred to as ONRC) filed amotion seeking to intervenefor purposes of appeal. Byorder entered on November16, 2001, the district courtgranted ONRC interventionto appeal, relying on well-establishedNinth Circuit precedent on timelinessof post-judgment motions to inter-vene for purposes of appeal and find-ing that the government no longeradequately represented ONRC’sinterests in light of its decision not toappeal. Alsea Valley Alliance isappealing the decision granting inter-vention to appeal.

ONRC is appealing the districtcourt decision on two grounds: (1) thatthe district court erroneously con-cluded that the ESA prohibits a listingof coho salmon that excludes thehatchery fish under the facts present-ed in this case; and (2) that given theplight of Oregon coast coho salmon,the district court should not have setthe listing aside but rather shouldhave kept the listing in place during

remand to reconsider the listing deci-sion.

STAY OF THE DISTRICT

COURT DELISTING ORDER

ONRC filed a motion for an emer-gency stay of the district court’sdelisting order, which the court ofappeals granted on December 14,2001. The Oregon coast coho listingwill remain in effect until the NinthCircuit appeal is finally resolved.

NMFS REVIEW OF THE

HATCHERY POLICY AND

LISTINGS DECISION

On November 9, 2001, NMFSannounced that it would not appealthe Alsea Valley decision to the NinthCircuit. Instead, NMFS has releasedits “Hatchery Salmon ESA ListingReview Action Plan,” promisingdevelopment of a new hatchery policythrough notice and comment rule-making, and application of that policyto 24 salmon and steelhead listings.

The hatchery policy rulemaking isscheduled to begin in February 2002,with a proposed hatchery policy, fol-lowed by a 60-day public commentand public hearing period. NMFSplans to publish a final hatchery poli-

cy by September 2002. This processwill address “how the ESA should beapplied to those salmon populationsthat include fish reared in hatch-eries.”

NMFS has announced that it willpropose listing determinations for the24 potentially affected salmon andsteelhead listings, including Oregoncoast coho salmon, within 45 days offinalizing its new hatchery policy, pro-ducing listing decisions in December2002. The Northwest FisheriesScience Center will update its infor-mation on the status of the various

listed salmon and steelheadto be ready to apply thefinal hatchery policy in thefall of 2002.

The Alsea Valley decisionspurred a flurry of delistingpetitions and 60-day noticesthreatening to bring look-alike cases against othersalmon and steelhead list-ings. Since NMFS is apply-ing the Alsea Valley deci-sion to develop a new hatch-ery policy and revisit thepotentially affected list-ings, litigation is unneces-sary to achieve this goal.Should litigation nonethe-less follow, it is unlikelythat a court will order adelisting, even if it agreeswith the legal holding inAlsea Valley, given thatnew agency policies andlisting determinations will

apply to that legal ruling and will soonsupersede the challenged policy andlisting determinations and that theNinth Circuit granted a stay of theOregon coho delisting order.

POTENTIAL OUTCOMES

Alsea Valley has propelled a seriesof questions concerning listing of wildsalmon and the role of hatchery fish tothe forefront. An interplay of judicialand administrative proceedings willforge a resolution. While there arevarious scenarios, the bottom line isthat wild salmon warrant protectionunder the ESA. This paper reviewsthe options, but explains why the endresult will be close to, if not the sameas, the status quo.



Property rights groups want hatcheries to produce all of the Pacific Northwest’s salmonand steelhead as a way to pass off the costs of, and avoid responsibility for, the destruc-tion of public natural resources for private financial gain. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch


THE NINTH CIRCUIT DISTRICT

COURT DECISION COULD BE

OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

The district court based its decisionon a narrow reading of the ESA’sspecies definitions and the listing sec-tion which provides for promulgationof regulations that “determinewhether any species is an endangeredspecies or threatened species”because of the statutory listing fac-tors. The Ninth Circuit may well dis-agree with the conclusion that all ornone of a species may be listed, draw-ing from three features of the Act.

First, Congress unquestionablyintended for the ESA to protect fishand wildlife in their natural environ-ments and to recover populations sothat they could be self-sustainingwithout human intervention.Mandating the inclusion of hatcheryfish in an ESA listing runs counter tothe ESA goal of protecting species intheir natural environments. The dis-trict court’s interpretation could leadto the anomaly of predicating ESAlisting decisions on the well-being ofpopulations that can survive onlythrough human intervention and cannever achieve recovery within themeaning of the ESA. This result can-not be reconciled with the ESA’s pur-pose and jeopardy provisions, partic-ularly when it would impede the abili-ty of coho salmon to survive in theirnatural environment.

Second, the courts have construedthe ESA’s species definitions in a flex-ible manner to afford the species theprotection they need. For example, inSouthwest Center for BiologicalDiversity v. Babbitt, the district courtconcluded that the term “distinct pop-ulation segment” “allows differentmanagement practices to ensure theappropriate level of protection for aspecies based on its actual biologicalstatus,” drawing from a series of splitlistings, such as the listings of theLouisiana black bear and the baldeagle, in which only one portion of aspecies was accorded listing protec-tion.

Third, the Act expressly identifiesand regulates artificial propagation asa conservation measure without sug-gesting a role for artificially propa-

gated animals in listing decisions.Nothing in the Act envisions account-ing for artificially propagated animalsin a listing decision, although if hatch-ery populations have contributed tothe decline of wild salmon, a listingwould be warranted under the statuto-ry listing factors. Under the ESA’sconservation provisions, NMFS could,after making the listing decision,carve out appropriate protections forhatcheries that are essential for con-serving, i.e., leading to the recovery,of listed salmon. This is the modelincorporated into the ESA’s experi-mental population provisions, which

allow NMFS and the Fish and WildlifeService to spell out the precise ESAprotections that will apply to experi-mental populations.

An analogy may help in framing theinquiry. Consider farm fish that arecomprised of the same broodstock aswild salmon. Should an ESA listing berequired to consider and include thefarm fish that spend their entire livesin net pens because they may begenetically similar to the wildsalmon? If a technical lumpingtogether of farm and wild fishrequired such a result, it would surelydefy the ESA’s purpose of protectingfish and wildlife in their natural envi-ronments.

It appears that Congress did nothave fish-production hatcheries inmind when it crafted the ESA’sspecies definitions and conservationprovisions. However, Congresseschewed rigid species definitionsand envisioned the use of artificialpropagation to recover listed wild

species. The Ninth Circuit couldreverse on the ground that a rigid all-or-nothing listing rule runs counter tothe statutory purposes and scheme.Such a ruling would obviously pre-serve the status quo.

NMFS MAY SPLIT WILD AND

HATCHERY POPULATIONS

INTO SEPARATE ESUS

The Alsea Valley decision arosebecause of how NMFS defined theESU. NMFS included hatchery fish inthe ESU and, under the legal ruling inAlsea Valley, it must list all or none ofthe ESU it identified for listing pur-poses. (To be considered a distinctpopulation of Pacific salmon, called anESU, it must be substantially repro-ductively isolated from other conspe-cific population units and represent animportant component of the evolu-tionary legacy of the species.) IfNMFS had instead split the wild andhatchery populations into two sepa-rate ESUs, it could list only the wildESU under the narrow legal ruling inAlsea Valley.

The Alsea Valley decision leavesNMFS free to redefine the ESU toexclude hatchery fish. The districtcourt recognized this possibility inAlsea Valley. Oregon Governor JohnKitzhaber has asked NMFS to rede-fine the Oregon coast coho ESU toexclude the hatchery fish because ofthe harm hatchery fish pose to wildsalmon and their habitat. OnDecember 19, 2001, Trout Unlimited,joined by 13 other fishing and conser-vation organizations, urged NMFS totake this approach in crafting its newhatchery policy.

In its new hatchery policy, NMFScould split wild and hatchery fish intoseparate ESUs based on their diver-gences in their life histories, repro-ductive, physiologic, and physicalenvironments. A split ESU would beconsistent with the ESU policy. First,hatchery fish are substantially repro-ductively isolated since most hatch-ery fish do not spawn in the wild. Eventhose hatchery fish that stray are dis-tinct from wild salmon because oftheir poor reproductive performance.Second, hatchery fish represent a dif-ferent evolutionary legacy than their




The bottom line isthat wild salmon

warrant protectionunder the ESA.The

end result will be closeto, if not the same, as

the status quo.

wild cousins because they have beenbred for traits that increase survivalin the hatchery but impede their abil-ity to survive in the wild.

Splitting hatchery fish into a sepa-rate listing unit is also consistent withthe distinct population segment poli-cy. First, hatchery populations arediscrete or markedly separate fromwild salmon based on their behav-ioral, reproductive, and run-timingdifferences, as well as their suscepti-bility to disease and competition withwild salmon for territory and mates.Second, hatchery populations lack thesame significance to the persistenceof salmon in the wild. Unless thehatchery population embodies the lastremnants of a population, itsloss will not produce a signifi-cant gap in the species’ range.

If NMFS split hatchery andwild coho salmon into two sepa-rate ESUs, listing of the wildsalmon ESU would be com-pelled under the ESA listingfactors and the NMFS’ priorfindings that wild salmon needESA protection. A split ESUwould, therefore, maintain thestatus quo for the wild salmon.This scenario would leavehatchery populations unlisted.For the Oregon coast coho, thelisting would remain identicalto the current listing: Naturallyspawning salmon would be pro-tected under the ESA, whilehatchery fish would not be list-ed.

NMFS MAY PROTECT SOME

HATCHERY POPULATIONS

Even if NMFS retained its currentdesignation of the Oregon coast cohoESU, it would need to list the entireESU under the ESA’s listing factorsbecause of the precarious and declin-ing state of the wild populations andthe adverse impacts of the hatcheryfish on coho survival and recovery inthe wild. Because hatchery fishdiminish the fitness and diversity ofsalmon populations and cannot sus-tain themselves without the artificialand continual intervention of humans,wild Oregon coastal coho salmon willcontinue to need the protection of the

ESA regardless of how the hatcheryfish are characterized as a legal mat-ter. As NMFS found in its coho listingdeterminations, wild coho populationnumbers are depressed, and theirhabitat is severely degraded bydecades of logging, irrigation, agri-cultural practices, and development.The only credible scientific determi-nation that could flow from these con-ditions is affording Oregon coastalcoho salmon ESA protection.

If NMFS listed an ESU that lumpedwild and hatchery fish together, theESA’s protections would safeguardthe ability of wild coho to survive andrecover in the wild and have little, ifany, applicability to artificially propa-gated populations, unless those popu-lations were essential for recovery.

Finally, while critical habitat andSection 7 consultations apply to feder-al agency actions, it is the take prohi-bition that reaches nonfederal activi-ties, along with federal actions. Themost likely outcome, however, is thatthe take prohibition will apply only tohatchery populations that are essen-tial for recovery.

Under the ESA, the take prohibitionapplies immediately upon listing toendangered species. NMFS hasincluded hatchery populations in itslistings of salmon and steelhead asendangered, provided they have beencategorized as within the same ESUas the wild fish. Accordingly, the takeprohibition already applies to hatch-ery populations within endangeredESUs. This would continue to be thecase.

For threatened salmon and steel-head, NMFS must promulgate a 4(d)rule which embodies the take prohibi-tion and other safeguards that NMFSdetermines are necessary and advis-able for the conservation of thethreatened species. If NMFS has pre-viously decided that certain hatcherypopulations are essential to thespecies’ recovery, it would need toprotect those hatchery fish in its 4(d)rule. Conversely, hatchery popula-tions that are not essential for recov-ery would receive no protection in a4(d) rule. The same determinationsthat NMFS previously made in thelisting context would dictate the 4(d)protections afforded the hatcherypopulations.

Ironically, given Alsea ValleyAlliance’s motivation in bring-ing the lawsuit, the one sce-nario that is not viable is aNMFS’ decision to deny protec-tion to the wild salmon that arecurrently listed. Even if NMFSretains an ESU that lumpshatchery and wild fish together,the inclusion of the hatcheryfish in the ESU cannot producea no-list decision. NMFS hasalready found that the current-ly listed wild salmon are indecline because of one or moreof the statutory listing factors,including the threats posed byhatchery fish. A listing is,therefore, warranted under theESA. Hatchery fish cannot be abasis for circumventing ESAprotection because they are not

self-sustaining in the wild. The hatch-eries could close or malfunctioneither temporarily or permanently.Without the constant influx of juvenilehatchery fish, the hatchery fish wouldno longer produce returns. Instead,hatcheries can enter the ESA equationonly as a tool to promote wild salmonsurvival and recovery, receiving ESAprotection only when they effectivelyserve that goal.



A typical Oregon Coast Range stream provides critical rearing and spawninghabitat for runs of wild salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Bill Bakke, executive director ofThe Native Fish Society, always hassomething interesting to say aboutsteelhead and salmon. This articlecomparing catch rates for wild andhatchery steelhead on Oregon’sDeschutes River is no exception.

Anglers on the Columbiaand Deschutes rivers saythat they catch more wildsteelhead than hatcherysteelhead even though

there are more hatchery fish in theriver. Data gathered by the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife onDeschutes steelhead catch rates andrun size from 1977 to 2000 supportsthis observation. This data is collect-ed from the mouth of the river toSherars Falls. The catch rate is basedon the number of steelhead caughtper 100 hours of angling.

From 1977 to 1993 the catch rate forwild steelhead is five fish compared totwo hatchery fish per hundred hoursof fishing. During this time period, theestimated number of wild steelheadpassing Sherars Falls was 87,000 com-pared to 150,000 hatchery steelhead.Even though hatchery fish were moreabundant their catch rate was lower.All hatchery steelhead were fin-marked beginning with the 1986 run.

From 1994 to 1997 the catch rate forhatchery fish exceeded that for wildsteelhead in the Deschutes for thefirst time. The number of wild fish inthe run also declined from an averageof 5,118 fish in 1977-1993 to 1,855 forthe years 1994-1997. In 1992 and 1994the wild steelhead run dropped belowa thousand fish for the first time. The1994 run size was only 482 fish.During this period of time the hatch-ery run increased from an average of8,823 fish (1977-1993) to an average of19,620 (1994-1997). The hatchery runwas more than ten times larger thanthe wild run. This was due primarilyto a massive increase in hatcherystrays from elsewhere in theColumbia Basin. In 1996 the non-native strays were over 23,000 fish.

Even though hatchery steelheadwere ten times more abundant thanwild fish, the catch rate for wild fishwas nearly equal to that of hatcheryfish. The wild fish catch rate rangedfrom .91 to .96 fish to 1.0 hatchery fish.The worst catch rate was in 1996when the ratio to wild/hatchery catchwas .52:1.0.

Hatchery steelhead are produced tomitigate for the loss of wild steelhead

due to dam construction in theDeschutes Basin. The stray hatcheryfish that enter the Deschutes are miti-gation fish for dams elsewhere in theColumbia Basin. There is no explana-tion for this difference in contributionto sport fisheries, but anglers are notgetting the full benefit of mitigationsince they are catching proportionallyfewer hatchery fish than wild fish.

Having hatchery fish in the riveralso creates a more insidious problemthat could reduce the number of wildfish in the fishery. In 1977 a DeschutesRiver steelhead study was conductedfor the purpose of comparing the sur-vival rates of hatchery and wild steel-head in natural streams and in thehatchery. That study showed thathatchery fish do not survive instreams as well as do wild steelheadand that hybridization between wildand hatchery steelhead actuallyreduced the number of progeny com-pared to wild spawners.

On the other hand, the wild steel-head did not survive in the hatchery

as well as the hatchery steelhead.This study also showed that thesechanges in survival happen rapidly,because the hatchery steelhead wereof wild native Deschutes stock rearedin the hatchery for only two genera-tions. So selection for a hatchery typefish with lower survival in nature hap-pens quickly. This scientific work wasconfirmed by a study conducted onthe Kalama River showing the sameresults. In that study "”the success ofhatchery fish in producing smolt off-spring was only 28 percent of that forwild fish.”

When Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife biologist, Mark Chilcote,reviewed steelhead data, he came tosome startling conclusions. Chilcotesays, “Seventy-two percent of the vari-ation in productivity of a naturalspawning population can be explainedby the percentage of hatchery fish inthe spawning population. Finally, withrespect to hatchery programs, theimpact of naturally spawning hatch-ery fish on the capacity of a popula-tion to produce recruits is universallyadverse. It is a reasonable inferencethat wild steelhead populations arebetter off when returning hatchery fishare prevented from escaping into nat-ural spawning areas.”

Another study of hatchery and wildsummer steelhead on Washington’sKalama River shows that wild fish aremore productive than hatchery fish bya factor of ten.

The conservation ethic of releasingall steelhead, both wild and hatchery,is well developed among DeschutesRiver anglers. They release a lot offish, including hatchery steelhead. Upto 57 percent of the hatchery steel-head are released in some fisheries onthe Deschutes. However, this conser-vation ethic, when extended to hatch-ery steelhead, is likely to backfire onthe angler. When those hatchery fishare released they may interbreedwith wild steelhead and contribute tothe decline of future wild steelheadabundance in the river.


Hatchery and Wild Steelhead Catch Rates Differby Bill Bakke

— Native Fish Society —

From 1977 to 1993,the catch rate for wildsteelhead was five fishper one hundred hoursof fishing compared toonly two hatchery fish.


Recovery or Status Quo? The North Umpqua Settlement

by Jeff Dose

— Roseburg —

In the January 2001 issue of TheOsprey, Jeff Dose and Jim Long gave us,in two separate articles, an in-depthlook at the then-ongoing negotiationsbetween federal and and state agenciesand Scottish Power for the renewal of aFederal Energy Regulatory Commissionlicense to continue operating the NorthUmpqua Hydroelectric Project.

A settlement has now been reachedand Dose is back to give us his take onthe settlement and what it holds in storefor Oregon’s famed North Umpqua Riverand its storied wild steelhead.

Dose is a forest fish biologist on theUmpqua National Forest. The opinionsexpressed in this article are his own.

As has been so eloquently dis-played in these pages byPete Soverel, Bill Redman,and many others, specialinterests, driven largely by

short-term economic and political fac-tors, play an extraordinarily large rolein most decisions about the conserva-tion and use of natural resources.Especially publicly owned resources.Those whose interests are best servedby maintaining the status quo havebeen, to date, very successful in arguing“burden of proof” and “inadequate sci-ence” to resist any substantial change.Within the hydropower industry, thesearguments have been very successful.Unfortunately, another such example isthe recently announced settlement forthe re-licensing of the expired NorthUmpqua Hydropower Project (NUHP).

The Project, first licensed in 1947, islocated on the upper North UmpquaRiver in Oregon’s southern CascadeMountains and consists of eightdam/reservoir/powerhouse complexes,over 30 miles of flumes and canals, sixmiles of penstocks and tunnels, andapproximately 100 miles of projectrelated roads. It lies completely on pub-lic land within the boundaries of theUmpqua National Forest and forms theupper terminus of the 34-mile-longNorth Umpqua Wild and Scenic River,which includes all of its hallowed "fly

water." The project was designed andconstructed with little thought for main-taining ecological processes such assediment and large wood transport, ade-quate by-pass flows or passage facilitiesfor fish or other aquatic and ripariandependent organisms. As a result, theProject has caused substantial adverseimpacts to aquatic ecosystem processesand resource values, in particular sev-

eral indigenous anadromous fish stockswithin the basin — including the abun-dance and distribution of the NorthUmpqua’s legendary wild steelhead.

On June 13, 2001, in Salem, anannouncement was made that an agree-ment (of a sort) had been reached —through secret negotiations — betweenPacifiCorp (owned by Scottish Power)and a consortium of state and federalagencies regarding the terms of a newlicense for the project. Conservationand fishing interests, long participantsin the re-licensing process, were notincluded. As might be expected,spokespersons expressed great opti-mism for the future as a result of theagreement. A question quickly arose inmany peoples’ minds, particularly thoseclosest to the river, such as theSteamboaters and the few truly inde-pendent scientists, who were omittedfrom the secret negotiations: Is the opti-

mism justified? Will the agreement, if itactually becomes the basis for the newlicense, result in substantial restorationof the North Umpqua River so as togreatly benefit the people of Oregon andthe nation? Sadly, the answer is no.

Nonetheless, there will clearly besome improvement over the current sit-uation — it would be hard to get muchworse. The terms specified in the agree-ment will fall far, far below what couldbe achieved by mandating more ecolog-ically-based measures using scientificprinciples from restoration ecology andconservation biology. These are thesame principles, based on naturalprocesses and disturbance regimes,that provide much of the managementdirection for the U.S. Forest Service inmuch of the Pacific Northwest.

Nearly all the aquatic resource mea-sures proposed in the agreement —although lavishly funded — will notrestore watershed processes. Some arestill conceptual in nature (i.e., requiremore study or design work), most aregenerally either techno-fixes or will beof minor consequence, and some willlikely have continuing adverse impacts— on balance, little more than minortweaks of the status quo.

It is in the pursuit of this tweakingthat the views of local flyfishers andindependent science got lost. Actionsthat support institutional and economicgoals — rather than conservation andrecovery of natural resources — rise tothe fore when independent science andcitizen oversight are removed from theprocess.

Nowhere in this deliberation is thismore evident than in the secret deal thatwas cut between Scottish Power and theOregon Department of Fish andWildlife. A Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) between thosetwo entities contains nearly all of theproposed actions and elements relatedto salmon and steelhead habitat man-agement in the re-licensing. The sup-porting rationale for the MOU is, on bal-ance, incomplete, inaccurate, and


Aquatic resource measures proposed in

the agreement —although lavishlyfunded — will notrestore watershed

processes.

biased — some of the assumptions andmost of the predicted effectiveness andoutcomes have already been rejected byhighly qualified, experienced, indepen-dent experts.

For one, in addition to not being evenremotely related to impacts from thehydro project, the purported benefits tonative fish in Rock Creek are illusory —and not based on sound ecological prin-ciples. Rock Creek, a North Umpquatributary located 35 miles downstreamfrom the lowermost project dam,presently has very poor existing habitatconditions for native salmonids which,at the same time, are overwhelmed bythe presence of very large numbers ofhatchery spring chinook, coho, and sum-mer steelhead. Resolving this situationwill require addressing and reversingthe root causes that have led to thedemise of native salmon and the degrad-ed watershed conditions. The causesare: high-intensity, short-rotationclearcutting throughout most of thewatershed; extremely high road densi-ties and the presence of many miles ofvalley-bottom roads; and the currentoperation of Rock Creek hatchery andits facilities. Very little is proposed thatwould begin to reverse these causal fac-tors.

Another example is the agreement towaive fish passage at Slide Creek Dam.By addressing only the present condi-tion of the river , which has been alteredby stopping all gravel transport (atupstream dams), rather than the pre-project environment, the potential bene-fits from restoration have been disin-genuously downplayed. The area thatwould be accessed could be effectivelyrestored by changing project operationsupstream, and unlike at Rock Creek,once completed, would represent a gen-uine, substantial increase in high qualityfish habitat.

Yet another is the construction of fishladders and screens at Soda SpringsDam that would pass some, but not all,native salmon and steelhead (and cer-tainly not most other aquatic organisms)into a highly fluctuating reservoir inhab-ited by native and exotic predators and ariver that has its flows ramped up anddown by a factor of ten on a daily basis.This creates a highly unnatural environ-ment that may produce a few fish, butdoes very little to restore watershedprocesses such as sediment and large

wood transport or improve water quali-ty. It also precludes the restoration of arare, ecologically very important hot-spot for fish and other aquatic organ-isms that lies under the reservoir.Instead, what is proposed is a few,untried and unproven, technofixes as areplacement.

So why all this elaborate, expensivewindow dressing? It appears to me, thatfor reasons only known to them, ScottishPower decided to not take the single-most effective action for restoring theportion of the upper North UmpquaRiver that was historically used bynative salmon and steelhead — remov-ing Soda Springs Dam. The costs forthis credible restoration are comparableto what is proposed in the agreement.By some estimates, removal would beeven less expensive than what the par-ties have agreed to and the generationcapacity loss is small — 11Mw or 6 per-cent of the project’s total. The science isclear, removing Soda Springs Dam is theonly action that would address thecausal factors of decline, re-connectfragmented habitats for all organisms,and restore watershed processes to theNorth Umpqua River. The only one.

Once that decision was made, aremarkable sequence of secret negotia-tions, political strong-arming, mediamanipulation, and financial inducementskicked in. Coincidently, independentscience, which would have revealed thefallacy of the proceedings, was kickedout along with citizen oversight. Oncethose events occurred, the stage was setfor agencies and elected officials to gofor the deal. Some agencies were co-developers and whole-heartedlyembraced it, others were more reluc-tant. Either way, the deal was done andall the river got was a minor tweak ofthe status quo.

This is the first opportunity in morethan 50 years to make changes to thisproject to reflect changing societal val-ues and incorporate current scientificprinciples. It is probably the last for atleast the next 35 years, perhaps ever.Recovery grounded in the naturalresilience of biological systems shouldbe our goal. In the long run, it will beless painful, far less expensive, and infi-nitely more durable than dependence onthe treadmill of half-way technology.



The NorthUmpqua RiverSettlement: A

Sampler

Here are a few examples of thefinal settlement agreement:

✔ PacifiCorp shall provide voli-tional upstream fish passage atSoda Springs Dam by means of avertical-slot fish ladder that meetsdesign criteria established byNMFS, USFWS, and ODFW forpassage of adult salmonids andlamprey. These fish passage facili-ties shall be tested and functioningby the seventh anniversary of theNew License.

✔ PacifiCorp shall provide down-stream fish passage at SodaSprings Dam by the seventhanniversary of the New License.

✔ PacifiCorp shall maximizespawning habitat for anadromousfish in the main-stem NorthUmpqua River with a priority onChinook salmon spawning, giventhe natural constraints of the riverchannels. PacifiCorp shall imple-ment measures contained torestore, create, and/or enhancespawning habitat in these areas.

✔ Commencing in 2002, PacifiCorpshall commence initial test place-ments of boulders to evaluate howgravel deposits are affected by dif-ferent sizes and configurations ofboulder placements under the fullrange of existing flow regimes todevelop design standards that areconsistent with in-stream flows.

The complete settlement agree-ment can be found on the OregonDepartment of Fish and WildlifeWeb site, www.dfw.state.or.us. Goto the Main Fish Page.

In this provocative and controversialessay, Robert T. Lackey, a fisheries biol-ogist with the Environmental ProtectionAgency in Corvallis, Oregon offers up aless-than-rosy view of the future of wildsalmon in the Pacific Northwest. Heargues that, to truly save the last of thewild runs, society needs to make majorchanges in the way people live and dobusiness. Yet so far, society has notmade much of an effort to curb its insa-tiable appetite for constant develop-ment, increased use of natural resourcesand a perpetually growing human popu-lation.

In addition, charges Lackey, fishresearchers, conservationists and oth-ers involved in trying to save wildsalmon and steelhead have been toooptimistic with the public, with eachother and with themselves over the oddsof success.

Is it a call to surrender before the bat-tle has been lost, a cold-eyed view ofhow things really are or something inbetween? Read on and let us know whatyou think.

Are we professional fisheriesscientists collectively guiltyof encouraging delusionsabout the possibilities forrestoring wild salmon to the

Pacific Northwest?In my informal discussions with col-

leagues, most conclude that the likelyscenario for wild salmon numbers (evenassuming implementation of hotlydebated “restoration” proposals) is acontinuing long-term downward trajec-tory in California, Oregon, Washington,and Idaho. A key basis for this soberingconclusion is that the human populationin the Pacific Northwest (includingBritish Columbia) will almost certainlygrow dramatically through this century— from the current 14 million tobetween 40 and 100 million. Predictionsof population levels a century from noware contentious, but I have yet to findanyone who disputes the presumptionthat there will be many more people inthe region by the end of this century.Whether the number will be 40, 60, 80,or 100 million is contested, but the pop-

ulation will be several times higher. Acursory examination of regional datadepicting historical human populationdensity/development and wild salmondistribution/abundance reveals a starknegative relationship.

Speaking as a scientist and not as anadvocate of any policy position oroption, the assumed future level of theregion’s human population is simply afactor to be considered in evaluating thefuture of wild salmon. Given the pre-

dicted human population increase, theoverall, long-term, downward trend inwild salmon abundance is nearly certainunless there are spectacular changes inthe life styles of the region’s inhabi-tants. But, apart from equivocal pollingdata, opaque political rhetoric, andgrand statements of intent, there is littletangible evidence that most people arewilling to make the substantial personalor societal changes needed to restorelarge runs of wild salmon. I contendthat the future of wild salmon is nothopeless or foreordained, but societyhas collectively shown scant willingnessto adopt the policy choices necessary toreverse the long-term downward trendin wild salmon.

Thus, after considering ecological andsocietal context, most colleagues con-clude, usually “off the record,” that by2100 wild salmon in the PacificNorthwest will consist of mere rem-nants of pre-1850 runs. None of the

species likely will become extinct by2100, but many stocks or populationswill have disappeared, and those thatremain will have small runs incapableof supporting appreciable fishing with-out technological interventions such ashatcheries or artificial spawning chan-nels. To visualize the most likely future,we only need look at the remnantanadromous salmonid runs in the east-ern United States, continental Europe,and the Asian Far East, especiallyChina, Japan, and Korea. At one timeeach of these regions supported thriv-ing populations of wild salmon. They nolonger do, nor is there any likelihoodthey will in the foreseeable future.

As society’s fisheries experts, shouldwe perpetuate the delusion that thePacific Northwest will (or could, absentpervasive life-style changes) supportwild salmon in significant numbersgiven the current trajectory of theregion’s human population growth cou-pled with most individuals’ unwilling-ness to reduce substantially their con-sumption of resources and standard ofliving? It is not our role as scientists toassert that society should make thechanges necessary to restore wildsalmon, but our implicit public opti-mism about restoring wild salmon per-petuates an avoidance of reality.Intended or not, we end up misleadingthe public. Let me illustrate with a per-sonal example.

Recently I completed a manuscriptthat assessed the future of PacificNorthwest wild salmon . Any assess-ment dealing with salmon always stimu-lates scientific and policy debate, butmy primary conclusion was: The nearcertain growth in the human populationin the Pacific Northwest through thiscentury, coupled with little indicationthat most people will accept the enor-mous life style changes necessary toperpetuate, much less restore, wildsalmon, means that restoring “fishable”runs of wild salmon in California,Oregon, Washington, and Idaho is a pol-icy objective that is not likely to beachieved.

Most of the several dozen fisheries



Defending Realityby Robert T. Lackey

— U.S. Environmental Protection Agency —

To visualize the futurewe only need look atthe remnant runs ofanadromous fish inthe eastern U.S.

Europe and the AsianFar East.

scientists who reviewed the manuscriptaccepted the conclusion as realistic,even intuitively obvious, but the follow-ing were typical reactions to the overallmessage:

“The message is correct, but it is toopessimistic.”

“You need to look for a way to tell thestory more optimistically.”

“Such a pessimistic message isn’t fair toall those fisheries biologists in thetrenches trying to do their best to savesalmon.”

These people were not challenging thehuman population trajectories present-ed in the manuscript. They acceptedthe population growth trajectory andthe continuing unwillingness of mostpeople to make the sacrifices necessaryto reverse the downward trend in wildsalmon. There is, of course, a possibili-ty that society will collectively adopt“voluntary simplicity” as a dominantlife style, but most readers did notexpect such a change to transpire on alarge scale. Even so, the message, theyargued, would be better received if itwas cast in more upbeat terms. Howcan assessing the future of wild salmonbe concurrently acknowledged as accu-rate and too pessimistic? Should it notbe a hallmark of fisheries scientists toprovide realistic predictions of thefuture rather than either pessimistic oroptimistic ones?

As expected, many reviewers offeredthe usual arguments about the relativeimportance of commercial, recreation-al, and Indian fishing, dams and theiroperation, agriculture, forestry, urban-ization, roads and right-of-ways, pollu-tion, changes in the climate of the oceanand atmosphere, competition and preda-tion from exotic species, predation bymarine mammals and birds, and variousconcerns about hatcheries and commer-cial aquaculture. However, the overallconclusion of nearly all reviewers didnot differ greatly.

Most fascinating was the recurringsuggestion, even a plea, to "lighten up"and be more optimistic and positive inassessing the future of wild salmon. Ihad written the article to be blunt,direct, and realistic, and I avoided bothpessimism and optimism. How could

reviewers conclude that the manuscriptwas realistic in content and conclusion,but at the same time encourage me toabandon realism and honesty in favor ofoptimism — a suggestion that wouldmislead all but the most astute readers?

Several reviewers suggested that ifmy objective in writing the article wasto help save wild salmon (it was not),then the accurate, realistic messagewould leave proponents dejected. Thiscommon sentiment is captured by:

“You have to give those of us trying torestore wild salmonsome hope of success.”

Conversely, a few vet-erans of the salmonwars confessed theirregret over the “opti-mistic” approach thatthey had taken duringtheir careers in fish-eries, and theyendorsed the “tell it likeit is” tactic. They feltthat they had, especiallyearly in their careers,given false hope aboutthe effectiveness offishways, hatcheries,and the ability of theiragencies to managemixed stock fishing. I was left with afeeling that many professional fisheriesscientists have been, and still are, subtlypressured by employers, funding orga-nizations, and colleagues to “spin” fish-eries science and policy realism toaccentuate optimism.

Other reviewers took professionalrefuge in the reality that senior man-agement or policy bureaucrats definethe policy questions, and thus theresearch, often resulting in narrow,reductionist scientific information andassessments. Rarely are fisheries scien-tists empowered to provide “big pic-ture” assessments of the future ofsalmon. Whether inadvertent or not,such information often misleads thepublic into endorsing false expectationsof the likelihood of the recovery of wildsalmon. For many of us, such implicitoptimism is a healthy, rewarding way togo through life.

Is adopting unfounded “professional”optimism a harmless adaptive behaviorof little import? After all, “think posi-tive” slogans are a hallmark of many

self-improvement programs. What iswrong is that optimism does not conveywhat is happening with wild salmon, andit allows the public, elected officials, andfisheries managers to escape the tor-ment of confronting triage.

Fisheries scientists should be realisticand avoid being either optimistic or pes-simistic. This professional stance doesnot covertly argue in favor of an“imperative” to save wild salmonregardless of the cost of society, nordoes it necessarily support a “defeatist”strategy. Such choices should be made

by an informed public that is aware ofthe difficult tradeoffs. Restoring wildsalmon is only one of many competing,important priorities, and the public isentitled to be accurately informed aboutthe long-term prospects of success.

It is easy to find comfort in debatingthe nuances of hatchery genetics, evolu-tionarily significant units, dam breach-ing, salmon barging, selective fishingregulations, predatory bird control,habitat restoration, atmospheric andoceanic climate, and unintentionallymislead the public about the realities ofthe situation with wild salmon. As dis-comforting as it may be to disclose thefuture of wild salmon relative to soci-ety’s apparent values and preferences,our most useful contribution as fisheriesscientists is providing information andassessments that are policy-relevantbut policy-neutral, understandable tothe public and decision makers, andscrupulously realistic about the future.Otherwise, we simply squander our pro-fessional credibility to become acolytesof delusion.



Are all efforts to restore wild salmon and steelhead untimately doomed?Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Last year, Bill McMillan, well-known, long-time wild steelhead andsalmon advocate published a substan-tial paper “Males as Vectors toHatchery/Wild Spawning InteractionsAnd the Reshaping of WildSteelhead/Rainbow PopulationsThrough Fishery Management” devot-ed to his hypothesis that , according toWashington Trout, which is distribut-ing the paper, “the temporal breadthfor potential spawning is so broad formale steelhead/rainbow trout that it isimpractical and perhaps impossibleto effectively manage for temporal iso-lation of wild and hatchery steelheadwhen they cohabit mutual spawningareas.”

With McMillan’s permission wehave published a short excerpt fromhis paper. To receive a complete copy,contact Washington Trout at (425) 788-1167 or by e-mail at [email protected].

On March 25, 1985, whilewalking Winkler Creek, atributary to theWashougal River,Washington at River Mile

9, I found what appeared to be a wildfemale steelhead (no missing fins)spawning with two males that hadmissing dorsal fins, as is characteris-tic of many hatchery steelhead. [Thiswas one year prior to all hatcheryadults returning with adipose fin clipson the Washougal. However, stubbeddorsal fins were found in 88 percent ofKalama River hatchery steelhead.Dorsal stubbing was presumed to be asimilar indicator of hatchery steel-head origin on the Washougal River.

Some 75 feet downstream, WinklerCreek emptied into the Washougal. Atthe mouth, yet a third male wasadvancing into the smaller stream’sfreshet. It seemed remarkable thatthis fish could swim against the con-centrated current. Sores spotted itsbody. One eye was surrounded in thewhite mess of fungus. Its movementswere slow, deliberate, and yet, drivenupstream to the active redd.

Although I could not determine if hehad a missing dorsal fin or not, thisthird male registered vividly in mymind because of his juxtapositionwith the two better-conditioned hatch-ery males vigorously spawning withthe wild female. It emphasized thatsteelhead, unlike Pacific salmon, donot necessarily die shortly afterspawning. And while female steel-head expend their eggs in a single

spawning, males are potentially capa-ble of generating sperm throughrepeated spawnings.

I made a number of tributary walkson the Washougal River in late Marchand April 1985. It was purely the acci-dent of needing moderate exercise torecover from a hernia operation. Ilingered and watched with less hurrythan on most spawning surveys. Dueto the leisurely pace, maybe I wasmore inclined to mentally explorewhat I observed.

On March 26, 1985, in a quarter-milesearch of an unnamed tributary thatsome call Slough Creek (River Mile8), I found one steelhead spawningpair — both wild (no missing fins). Themale was large for the small size ofthe creek and was distinctively col-ored.

On April 2, 1985 (seven days later),I returned to Slough Creek. No activespawning was found, but I did see thesame distinctively sized and colored

male as observed actively spawningon March 26th. He seemed to be wait-ing for other females to arrive andgave every appearance of being avital, strong and reproductively capa-ble fish.

A HYPOTHESIS BEGINS

TO TAKE FORM

It was something simple and ele-mental in the general understandingof the differences between beingmale and female.

Because of the prolonged time spanfor potential male spawning, it may bevirtually impossible to temporally iso-late hatchery from wild steelhead onthe spawning grounds while preserv-ing the diversity of wild steelheadspawning timings necessary foreffective adaptation to differing habi-tat niches, variations in annual weath-er conditions, or longer term climaticfluctuations.

However, March 15th is the datethat the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife has chosen to deter-mine hatchery from wild steelheadspawning as a blanket managementtool for Washington steelheadstreams. Spawning activity on, orprior to, March 15th is assumed to bethat of hatchery steelhead inWashington. Spawning activity there-after is assumed to be that of wildsteelhead. The assumption that hatch-ery steelhead are effectively isolatedfrom spawning with wild steelhead isfundamental to Washington’s steel-head management.

If March 15th is not an effective cri-teria for determining the separationof hatchery from wild steelheadspawning, Washington’s steelheadmanagement plans fall apart unlesshatchery and wild steelhead areeffectively isolated from spawningtogether by some other mechanism.

If genetic diversity of wild steel-head (one aspect of which is breadthof spawning timing) is a fisheriesmanagement goal, or if reduced



The Male Steelhead Hypothesisby Bill McMillan

— Washington Trout —

Washington state’ssteelhead managementplans fall apart unlesswild and hatchery fish

are isolated fromspawning together.

diversity is considered a risk to long-term wild steelhead/rainbow survivalas a species in the broader interestsof science and other facets of humanculture, then male steelhead, in par-ticular, would seem to be a particularproblem. If their potential spawningtiming is longer than for females,then hatchery selection for earlyspawning females may not temporallyisolate hatchery males from wildfemales, nor wild males from hatch-ery females.

A resulting failure to temporallyisolate hatchery and wild steelheadwould perpetually introduce hatcherysteelhead characteristics that reducespawning success in riverine environ-ments into wild steelhead/rainbowpopulations on an annual basis. Due tothe resulting high mortality of hatch-ery/wild steelhead crosses, evidenceof such crosses may never show upthrough genetic evaluations — thesteelhead carrying the genetic evi-dence of such wild/hatchery crosseshaving largely died before maturity.Those time periods whenhatchery/wild spawning interactionsmost overlap might result in an even-tual gap in wild steelhead entry times,wild steelhead spawning times, and inwild steelhead numbers to fill thosehabitat niches in which that specificspawning timing may be critical tosurvival.

THE MALE STEELHEAD

HYPOTHESIS TAKES THE

FORM OF A WIDER STORY

Lacking direct means to test thesuspicion about the part that malesteelhead play in extending the likeli-hood of hatchery/wild steelheadspawning interactions, it wasn’t untila fishing experience eight years laterthat I began to see the potential mag-nitude of the implications. Theseimplications then took the form of alarger story that subsequent experi-ences and a search for more evidencewould have to confirm.

On an angling tip from a friend, Ihiked to the hatchery tributary’s junc-tion with the main Washougal Riveron March 1, 1993. As he said, steel-head were spread in visible “rafts”through a 200-foot section of water.

After two hours of fishing I hookedfive but only managed to bring one tohand for examination — an adiposeclipped male. All of those hooked orseen appeared to be dark-coloredmales and all likely hatchery origin.Hatchery females had been done andgone for nearly two weeks. [Over thenext two weeks I did not fish. But end-ing with a freshet of high water onMarch 15th that made the riverunfishable for a week thereafter, myfriend returned three times to thesame piece of water near the hatcherytributary. I asked him to record thesex and origin of what he caught. Helanded 12 steelhead. All were darkhatchery males.]

Satisfied that I was going to catchnothing but ripe hatchery males fromthe water near the hatchery tributarythat day, I returned to my cabin to fisha favorite run. Just before dark Icaught and released a large wildfemale. Despite her bright silversides, her swollen belly and distendedvent indicated she would be spawningwithin a few days. It wasn’t untilreaching the cabin door that I remem-

bered the gauntlet of hatchery malesthat she would have to pass through ahalf-mile upstream.

She was the only wild steelhead Iwas to catch all winter. What few wildmales that had been waiting may havespent themselves in the previousmonth’s spree with plentiful andmature hatchery females. Even ifthey had not, through sheer numbersshe was left primarily to the horde oflingering hatchery males. Somewould hound her and follow her towherever she was destined. Thehatchery males had no other options,nor did the wild female. It was thedestiny that modern steelhead man-agement has created — a componentof the spiral to depletion of wild steel-head. What has happened was built ona flawed supposition: Sufficient spawntiming differences between wild andhatchery steelhead exist to minimizecrosses between the two. The error inthat supposition has been based on thefallacy that the potential spawningtiming of hatchery and wild steelheadholds the same for males as forfemales.

@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@e?@@h?@@h?@@h?@@h?@@h?@@h?

@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

?@@?@@?@@?@@?@@?@@

?@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@

?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@

@@g@@g@@g@@g@@g@@g@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Please return this card with your donation to receive

THE OSPREY

PHONE E-MAIL

CITY/STATE/ZIP

NAME

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

Iam a . . .

❏ Citizen Conservationist

❏ Commercial Outfitter/Guide

❏ Professional Natural Resources Mgr.

❏ Other

ADDRESS

Thanks For Your Support

The Osprey — Steelhead Committee Federation of Fly Fishers

PO Box 1595 Bozeman, MT 59771-1595



Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage Paid

PAIDBozeman, MTPermit No. 99

THE OSPREY

Federation of Fly FishersP.O. Box 1595Bozeman, MT 59771-1595

Address Service Requested

The Osprey wishes to thank thededicated people and organi-zations who gave their finan-

cial support in 2001. Our readersare our primary source of funding.It’s pretty remarkable that ourhome-grown journal, which onlycomes out three times a year, hasdeveloped such a generous follow-ing. Don’t think we’re not grateful,and a bit humbled.

We have always skated on thinfinancial ice, and will continue to doso. But without your support wefold up. The usual donation enve-lope is provided. Whatever you canafford will be much appreciated(and used wisely).

$500 AND UP

North Umpqua Foundation

Oregon Council, FFF

The Steamboaters

Tom White

$100 TO $499

Nicholas H. Anderson

Anonymous

Peter Broomhall

Frank Cerniway

Scott Hagen

James R. Holder

Maurice E. Holloway

Howard A. Johnson

Charles Ray

Bill Redman

Save Our Wild Salmon

Helen S. Schilling

Smokey Mountains FlyFishers

Steamboat Inn

Peter Tronquet

Patrick D. Wood

$50 TO $99

A. Felton Jacobs

George Johnson (Pullman)

Serge Karpovich

Lee Lashway

Jon B. Lund

James C. McRoberts

Allan Poobus

Stan Young

$25 TO $49

Frank Amato

David A. Bailey

Jay H. Beckstead

Robert T. Behnke

Robert L. Bettzig

Campbell River Branch,SSBC

Jerome C. Daley

John M. Davis

Terrence J. Davis

Thomas K. Henderson

Brant Hubbard

James R. Hubbard

David L. Johnson

George Johnson (Bellevue)

Donald L. Johnson

Richard Kennon

Nathan Mantua

Albert Mull

David W. Narver

A. Ted Pearson

Michael M. Piehl

Jerry E. Reeves

James L. Shively

Rich Simms

Pete Soverel

Lee Straight

Katoumi S. Tanimura

John Townsell

Richard Williamson

Sam Wright

2001 HONORS LIST

The Ospreyospreysteelhead.org/archives/TheOspreyIssue41.pdf · THE OSPREY A Newsletter Published by...

Documents

Transcript of The Ospreyospreysteelhead.org/archives/TheOspreyIssue41.pdf · THE OSPREY A Newsletter Published by...