2013 Wild Fish Journal

2013

W I L D F I S H

J O U R N A LS C I E N C E E D U C A T I O N A D V O C A C Y

Publication of the WILD FISH CONSERVANCY

Sustainability

2

BOARD OF DIRECTORSCandace BeardsleeStephen Conroy, PhD, PresidentVance JenningJoe Kelly, Vice PresidentHugh Lewis, Secretary/TreasurerGraham MacKenzieJack Stanford, PhDDick Rieman Bern Shanks, PhD

STAFFKurt Beardslee, Executive DirectorCandace Beardslee, Retail ManagerJohn Crandall, EcologistTrent Donohue, Outreach & DevelopmentJames Fletcher, BiologistNick Gayeski, Aquatic EcologistJamie Glasgow, Science & Research DirectorTara Gregg, Field ScientistMark Hersh, Water Quality SpecialistAaron Jorgenson, Field TechnicianStephen Kropp, E.I.T. Hydrologist/Civil EngineerWendy Marsh, Research EcologistAndrew McAninch, GIS/IT SpecialistTodd Sandell, Research BiologistTerri Shell, Bookkeeper/Office ManagerFrank Staller, Field TechnicianArny Stonkus, Ecologist/EngineerAdrian Tuohy, Field TechnicianMicah Wait, Conservation DirectorMary Lou White, Project Manager/Biologist

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

Visit our website at www.wildfishconservancy.org

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

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

Office: 15629 Main Street NE, Duvall, WA 98019email: [email protected]

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

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

Inside:

Follow us on:

4 Green Certification is Big Business6 WFC Investigates the Threat of Net Pen Viruses to Wild Salmon14 Following Up on The 2012 IHNV Outbreak in Puget Sound16 Clayoquot Sound Sea Lice Research18 Cohen Commission19 Okanagan Sockeye: Astonishing Wild Abundance Above Nine Columbia Dams20 Skeena River Historical Salmon Abundance Reconstruction Project 26 Abundance: The Lost Cornerstone of Salmon-Driven Ecosystems 34 Restoring Cherry Valley: From Ditch to Meandering Creek38 Climate Change in the Chehalis River and Grays Harbor Estuary40-45 Science Updates46 Advocacy Update48 Grays Harbor Project Volunteers50 22nd Wild Fish Soirée and Benefit Auction51 2012 Wild Fish Soirée Thank You

Ruby Beach by Damon Brown, p 25, www.damonbrown.org

3

Journal Article

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

1

6

4

7

5

3

13

16

18

18

1819

19

19

8

2

22

19

20

24

23

27

92511

26

1217

1014

19

21

1. SE Alaska Chinook fishery p 42. WFC Investigates Net Pen Viruses p 63. Puget Sound IHN Outbreak p 144. Clayoquot Sound Sea Lice Research p 165. Okanagan Wild Sockeye Abundance p 196. Skeena River Historical Salmon Abundance p 207. Abundance: The Lost Cornerstone of Salmon- Driven Ecosystems p 268. Cherry Valley Restoration p 349. Climate Change in the Chehalis River/Grays Harbor Basin p 3810. Hood Canal Nearshore Fish Use Assessment Project p 4011. Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish Habitat Use Project p 4112. Hoh River Feasability Study p 4213. Methow River Lamprey Survey p 4314. Dosewallips River Restoration p 4415. Icicle Creek Research project p 4516. Methow River Water Quality Study p 4517. Elwha River Hatchery Lawsuit p 4618. Fish Passage Restoration Project19. Water Type Assessment20. Multnomah Co. Fish Passage Inventory21. Garrison Creek Restoration Project22. Dosewallips Restoration Project23. Columbia River Sea Lion Lawsuit24. Germany Creek Monitoring Project25. Twanoh Nearshore Restoration26. Wynoochee Bull Trout Study27. Commercial Selective Fishing Research Project28. Icicle Advocacy

2013-2014 Wild Fish Conservancy Projects

Wild Fish Conservancy gratefully acknowledges your support for our work

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

15

28

2

4

Green Certification is Big Business Kurt Beardslee

Sea life has sustained and been cherished by cultures for thousands of years. Much has changed since the ancient Roman artisans created this mosaic. What will history show about our ability to conserve our rich marine heritage for future generations?

Sus-tain-a-ble:  conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.

Sustainability is an important word at WFC. It is at the heart of everything we do and is reflected in the articles in this Journal, but does it mean the same thing to everyone?

Sustainability is commonly part of the discussion when we’re talking about our social obligations to future generations. It’s also a word we often use and frequently see in advertising to tout a product’s “green” status. If you’re looking for a product that’s good for the environment, and

the label on the package says “sustainable,” you may feel more confident that you’re choosing the right product. Because the word has attained such selling power, it has now become Big Business and consequently the definition of sustainable is losing its meaning. As marketplace demands increase, pressures to reduce sustainability standards increase.

It all comes down to truth in advertising. As consumers, all of us want confidence in the information we’re given about the products we buy so we can make informed decisions.

To help consumers work their way through deceptive advertising jargon, independent certifiers entered the marketplace. There are now a variety of independent organizations providing product

assessments for many different food industries, including seafood. From the industry’s point of view, the goal of requesting an assessment is to obtain certification that the assessed product is “sustainable.”

Independent assessment and certification is a valuable public service that should be encouraged and supported. Sustainability labeling can be an important conservation tool. Like anything else, however, it is subject to political and financial pressures.

The largest and most prominent independent seafood certification body is the London-based Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). In recent years, WFC has been investigating the certification of different fish products by MSC and others. During the past year, we have spent considerable time and effort investigating MSC’s re-certification of Alaskan salmon by participating as stakeholders in the recertification process. Through our investigations, we have concluded that MSC is one of the best large-scale certifiers, if not the best certifier in the world, for seafood products, and they have appropriately certified many fisheries.

5

But how good is the best? The southeastern Alaska Chinook fishery,

along with all other salmon fisheries of Alaska, was accepted by the MSC as a sustainable fishery in 2000 and again in 2007. The Alaska salmon fishery was one of the first fisheries accepted by MSC and helped the organization gain prominence as a respected certifier of sustainably caught seafood. Although the 2007 certification expired in October 2012, the fishery is currently undergoing another re-assessment, which includes all salmon species and fishing gear types in sixteen areas across the state.

In 2000, MSC put seventy conditions on the Alaska salmon harvest that identified areas for improvement. It is clear that MSC does not agree that all US-based fisheries are sustainable as claimed, for example, by NOAA Fisheries. And it appears that many consumers don’t either, given that they are willing to pay more for an independent organization to certify their purchase as sustainable. Even Wal-Mart and McDonald’s insist on having independent certification of their seafood products.

Wild Fish Conservancy and our British Columbia-based conservation partners entered the discussion regarding the current re-certification and met with the MSC assessment team in October 2012. We identified significant inconsistencies between some components of the Alaska salmon fishery and the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainability. Our main concern was with a possible re-certification of all Chinook harvested in Alaska as sustainable.

So what’s the problem?The problem is that the southeast Alaska

Chinook troll fishery primarily targets and harvests non-Alaskan Chinook, including several depressed stocks among which are US stocks listed as threatened under the ESA. Let me explain. Of the Chinook harvested in the southeastern Alaska fishery, fewer than 4% are native to Alaska while the remaining 96% come from British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon (see the in-depth discussion in the 2011 Wild Fish Journal, available at our website). So when you go to Whole Foods Market, for example, and you purchase some wild Alaskan Chinook that is certified as sustainable, you have less than a 4% chance that you’re going home with a sustainably harvested wild Alaskan Chinook. Your “sustainable” wild Alaskan Chinook very well may be an ESA-listed Elwha River Chinook from Washington or a Chinook bound for the gravels of a pristine old-

growth river on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Many of these Chinook populations are depressed, and some are teetering on the edge of extinction.

The MSC’s “public comment draft report” was released in July, 2013, and it recognizes that 96% of the Chinook caught in the southeast region of Alaska are not from Alaska, and that many of these non-Alaskan stocks are in poor condition. Regardless, MSC proposes in this same report to certify this fishery as sustainable. The rationale they give is that these Chinook are all co-mingling in the same location so hence they are “inseparable or practically inseparable.” In common speak, they claim it’s impossible to fish where they’re fishing and not intercept non-targeted fish. We agree. And the solution to this problem is very simple: don’t fish there! Move the fishery out of the parts of the ocean where co-mingling occurs and fish closer to Alaska’s Chinook-producing rivers. In this way, Alaska could manage a sustainable Chinook fishery and the remaining 96% of Chinook could eventually return to their natal rivers, from British Columbia to Oregon, to be managed on a watershed scale where healthy populations could be harvested and weaker populations would be allowed to rebuild. The main problem inherent in the present fishery is due to the scale at which it is managed and certified.

Sustainability can only be accomplished through local stewardship, practiced day to day, and passed from generation to generation. Attempting stewardship at the coarse scale that exists today is difficult if not impossible to achieve. Small-scale community stewardship has a far better chance of achieving sustainability as the fate of the fishery then becomes personal.

Big is not bad, we are just in need of a different kind of big. We need to shift from a centralized scale to a local scale of fishing and certifying, where the sum of the small becomes the new Big. In the meantime, WFC and our partners will continue to engage with MSC and other certifiers to demand truthful and accountable labeling so consumers can make informed decisions. @

Background Recent detections of Infectious Salmon Anemia virus (ISAV) in British Columbia and outbreaks of Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis virus (IHNV) in B.C. and Washington State have highlighted the risk of pathogen introduction, amplification, and transmission from open-water salmon aquaculture to wild Pacific salmon populations. A third virus, salmon alphavirus (SAV), has also been detected in net pen-reared Chinook salmon from a farm in Clayoquot Sound, off the West coast of Vancouver Island. ISAV and IHNV are two of the most virulent pathogens of salmonids, and for this reason both are listed as “reportable diseases” by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the international body charged with controlling the spread of animal diseases. Both ISAV and SAV are exotic pathogens in the Pacific Northwest and have never been previously detected in our waters, meaning that native stocks are unlikely to have resistance to these viruses. None of these salmon viruses pose a threat to human health. In addition to introducing viruses, an impact of salmon farming that has recently gained attention is the potential for salmon raised in net pens to generate more virulent strains of these pathogens, both introduced (ISAV and SAV) and native (IHNV). The high rearing densities, continuous introduction of naïve (non-immune) hosts into the net pens, stress, infection by multiple pathogens, and lack of selection for resistance (all fish are harvested, rather than breeding those that have a higher natural resistance) found in fish-farming operations result in ideal conditions for viral amplification and the evolution of increasingly pathogenic strains. Net pen salmon farming operations, which are open to the ocean and flush with each tide, can release enormous quantities of viral particles in a plume around each pen. Juvenile wild (and hatchery)

WFC Investigates the Threat of Net Pen Viruses to Wild Salmon

Todd Sandell

American Gold Icicle Seafoods’ floating net pen platform and equipment near Ediz Hook, Port Angeles.

Open water (net pen) aquaculture is now practiced for a variety of species world-wide, ranging from tilapia and catfish to salmon and barramundi. Originally conceived as a way to reduce fishing pressure on threatened stocks while they recover and increase food supplies in the developing world, net pen aquaculture is now big business. Even though many of these problems are also long-associated with on-land fish hatcheries, the scientific community has only slowly become aware of some issues with net pens, including:

Escapement- exotic species may be introduced into the environment, leading to competition and disrupting ecosystems. Creating triploid (theoretically sterile) farm stocks does not guarantee

Potential Effects of Open Water Salmon Aquaculture

6

salmonids, which are most susceptible to these viruses, often swim through these areas during their emigration to the ocean.

IHNV was detected for the first time in farmed Atlantic salmon in Puget Sound in early May 2012 , and by the end of the month Seattle-based American Gold Seafoods began removing more than a million pounds of Atlantic salmon from infected net pens off the southern tip of Bainbridge Island, just across from Elliot Bay (the virus has been detected at Puget Sound hatcheries and in wild sockeye in previous years). American Gold Seafoods operates two hatcheries near Rochester, WA, and has pens off Bainbridge Island, Port Angeles, Cypress Island and Hope Island in Puget Sound. Despite a “quarantine” of the infected pens (which does not prevent the virus being shed from infected salmon into the water flushing through the pens), the virus quickly spread to open water facilities at two other locations in Puget Sound, including one near the Orchard Parks Marine Reserve and one in Clam Bay, close to the water intake for NOAA’s Manchester Research Facility (where several native tribes raise brood stock for recovery of endangered salmon stocks) [Map at: http://wildfishconservancy.org/images/wild-fish-runs/IHNNetPens.jpg ]. At the time, Bruce Stewart, fish health program manager for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, voiced concern over the delay in removing the infected salmon: “American Gold reported increased mortalities starting in April. We now are at end of May and infected fish are still in those pens shedding virus.”

Oversight of fish health concerns in Washington state is supervised by John Kerwin (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) who said the virus is a big concern. “Any first time it occurs [in farmed salmon], you don’t fully understand the impact to wild fish,” Kerwin told the Seattle Times1. “We know it can impact (farm) fish. If we move fast, we can try to minimize the amplification.” WDFW is charged with overseeing the aquaculture industry and has the legal power to order the destruction of infected farmed salmon, but American Gold

American Gold/Icicle Seafood’s net pen near Fort Ward, Bainbridge Island.

that escapees will be unable to breed, and if genetically similar species are used, escapees can interbreed with native stocks, lowering their fitness.

Common food sources- fishmeal is usually made from locally captured baitfish and/or invertebrates, creating indirect competition by removing food for native stocks. In addition, energy is required to capture the baitfish/invertebrates and turn them into fishmeal, as well as to transport these products to the farms.

Release of antibiotics- due to high densities and the stress of captivity, bacterial pathogens are more likely to infect fish in captivity, resulting in the widespread use of antibiotic feeds; up to 40% of these antibiotics can be excreted into the environment by farmed fish, with the potential to create antibiotic resistant bacterial strains. Note that “antibiotics” (anti-bacterial drugs) are not effective in treating viral infections.

Release of anti-parasitics and other chemicals used for disinfection- larger, multicellular parasites like sea lice or Ichthyobodo require the use of toxins for treatment, which flow out into the areas surrounding net pens. In addition, chemicals used to clean the pens, boats, etc. used on farms may be released, exposing local species to detrimental chemicals.

Feed conversion efficiency (FCE)- a certain amount of energy, known as FCE, is lost (for digestion, metabolism, and

7

excretion) every time a predator consumes an organism. Thus farming a higher trophic level piscivorous predator like salmon requires a great deal of feed (estimated at 4-6 lbs. of baitfish) to produce one pound of salmon. If the goal of aquaculture is to feed the world, it makes much more sense to farm first-order trophic level consumer species like tilapia, which can be fed easily cultured zooplankton or phytoplankton prey. These prey can be grown at land-based, contained facilities without harvesting from the local ecosystem.

Effluent biological oxygen demand (BOD)- effluents from net pens contain large amounts of feces (as you may have guessed but didn’t really want to think about…). In any event, this effluent is rich in nitrogen and ammonia, which can create biological blooms as bacteria and other organisms consume the effluent and rapidly reproduce. The increase in microorganisms’ respiration can deplete the local environs of oxygen, leading to fish kills or altering the behavior of local species. Pathogens- studies on parasitic sea lice, including one by WFC, have demonstrated that net pen farming leads to high infection prevalence and severity on wild juvenile salmon which migrate past the pens, leading to higher mortality rates. Bacteria, viruses and parasites (pathogens with complex life cycles that are not transmitted directly from fish-to-fish) may also be transmitted in the water flushing through the pens. @

refused to grant access to the net pens either for testing or placement of sentinel cages, which could be used to monitor viral exposures. The issue of oversight needs to be resolved as the industry faces renewal of their permits by the Washington Department of Ecology in 2013. On May 5th 2012, IHNV infections were also reported in farmed Atlantic salmon from net pens in Clayoquot Sound, near Tofino, B.C. Mainstream Canada, the owner, proceeded to cull roughly 600,000 Atlantic salmon from the pens in Dixon Bay, but other infections were soon detected at farms north of Tofino and a coho salmon farm operated by Grieg Seafood on the Sunshine Coast (near Sechelt). Viral isolates from both B.C. and Washington were determined to be in the U clade (see viral sidebar for more information). However, analysis of the viral isolates by Drs. Gael Kurath (USGS) and Kyle Garver (Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans or “DFO”) revealed slight differences in the genomes that suggest the outbreaks did not have a common source. This is the first time that IHNV had been detected in farmed fish in B.C. in more than nine years; the previous outbreak lasted for two years and resulted in the deaths of over 12 million farmed salmon from thirty-six salmon farms.

Our northern neighbors’ response In 2009, the (federal) Canadian government announced the formation of the Cohen Commission to investigate the drastic declines in Fraser River sockeye salmon (see “Cohen Commission” p 18), and in the autumn of 2011, the Commission announced that, in regard to the latest reports of ISAV in B.C. waters, the Commission requested disclosure of relevant documents as well as holding two days of hearings. Several facts came to light. The testimony shows that B.C. and federal Canadian government officials may have known of the presence of ISAV for years following a 2004 manuscript reporting that ISAV was detected in Pacific salmon from Alaska to southern BC. The manuscript was left unpublished due to concerns over the repeatability of the results by government labs. Those concerns are valid, but testing should have been pursued further to determine if the virus was present. Instead, DFO weakened the regulations governing pathogen testing of Atlantic salmon

Farmed Atlantic salmon, dead from IHN, floating on the surface of one of Cermaq’s salmon farms in Clayoquot Sound in 2001.

8

eggs imported from Northern Europe, allowing the industry to proceed unchecked. In 2010, the B.C. salmon aquaculture industry announced they would no longer allow the government to sample their net pens for pathogens – and the government acquiesced. The DFO also muzzled one of their own top scientists, Dr. Kristi Miller, threatening her with seizure of her prized genomic sample library and cutting research funds to limit her lab’s progress after she identified viral disease as a likely cause of the Fraser River sockeye declines in a paper she and co-authors published in Science (volume 331, 214, 2011).

Since that time, a number of both fresh and archived samples have tested positive for the ISAV virus in B.C.; none have yet been reported in the U.S. Testing of the severely depressed Cultus Lake juvenile sockeye showed that nearly 100% of the fish were positive for ISAV, as were a number of other archived samples from the Fraser River Basin (dating

back to 1986), and 25% of farmed Chinook from Clayoquot Sound (2011). Even five Atlantic salmon purchased at B.C. supermarkets and submitted by Alexandra Morton (pictured at left) tested positive in

March 2012 (24 of 25 of these same samples were also positive for PRV). Several of these detections identified the ISAV strain as being of European origin, indicating that the virus was potentially introduced via Atlantic salmon egg importation.

During that time the response from the federal Canadian government and the provincial B.C. government was less than what you would hope from

the stewards of B.C.’s wild salmonids. Rather than act to protect one of Canada’s (and the U.S.) most important natural resources – wild salmon – the B.C. government first denied that the virus was present in

B.C., citing an inability to reproduce the test results or relying on outdated test protocols (cell culture) that were unlikely to detect some strains of the virus. In May 2012, a bill was introduced into the B.C. parliament that would have made it illegal for persons – whether government, public, or press – to disclose animal disease information, with offenders facing heavy fines and up to two years in prison. Fortunately, outcry

from many quarters forced the bill to be quietly tabled – but not withdrawn – from the 2012 session. The Canadian government also missed an opportunity to investigate the role of farmed salmon in the decline of wild stocks, particularly sockeye salmon. The Cohen Commission refused to investigate the detections of ISAV and the recent IHNV outbreaks; its final report was made public in late 2012. Also in May 2012, DFO refused a WFC research permit application that would have allowed us to sample in Kennedy Lake and Clayoquot Sound to investigate the dynamics of viral transmission in the system.

Finally, in March 2013, a new, comprehensive monitoring effort was unveiled. The non-profit groups Genome BC and the Pacific Salmon Foundation announced that they were partnering with DFO – Dr. Kristi Miller, the government researcher that was “muzzled” after publishing her results in Science, to be precise – in a study of microbe occurrence in wild, hatchery, and aquaculture-raised salmonids2. Dr. Miller’s laboratory has developed a technique that can test ninety-six samples for forty-five microbes at one time. This analytic capacity will build a large information base very rapidly. It is still unclear if researchers will be provided with open access to salmon farms for testing, though the study

Pale heart and liver of a coho salmon, indicative of disease or poor health.

9

Figure 1

“Figure 1. Adult Returns of Wild Salmonids in Control (Black) and Exposed (Blue) Stocks, with Aquaculture Production (Red).” As aquaculture production has increased, the survival of native stocks has declined across the northern hemisphere (The Bay of Fundy and the St. John River are located on Canada’s eastern coast). [Source: Ford & Meyer, PLOS Biology, 2008 (V6, Issue 2)]

Do you like what you’re

reading?Join Now!

Become a Wild Fish Conservancy member and help

support projects and initiat

ives like those in the

Wild Fish Journal.

For more information, visit wildfishconservancy.org or call 425-788-1167.

intends to survey wild, hatchery and aquaculture-produced salmon. This is a big step because finding – and admitting – that ISAV is present in the B.C. net pens could result in international borders being closed to Atlantic salmon imports, threatening a $2 billion dollar a year industry. While salmon farming does provide jobs for many Canadians, failure to contain these exotic viruses could threaten the much larger work force of commercial fishermen and seafood processors, as well as the revenue from recreational salmon fisheries. It’s about time the Canadian government took this issue seriously and agrees to take part in a comprehensive monitoring effort that will give accurate information on the prevalence of these dangerous viruses.

Actions taken by WFC WFC moved quickly to raise awareness of the threat and encouraged state and federal agencies and NGOs to begin sampling last November. In collaboration with wild salmon advocates from across

the West Coast, we developed a standard sampling protocol to ensure viable sample preservation and provided sampling kits to interested parties. WFC staff began sampling salmon carcasses for ISAV in Washington waters in the fall of 2011, focusing on the Skagit and Snohomish River basins because of their proximity to the Fraser River. The first set of these samples was sent to the Norwegian OIE reference laboratory for analysis in December, 2011, and they were negative for ISAV. However, almost all of the sockeye salmon samples from the Olympic Peninsula were strongly positive for IHNV, foreshadowing the outbreaks in Puget Sound net pens later that year. Since that time, we have also sampled Atlantic salmon heads purchased from Seattle-area markets for ISAV, PRV, and IHNV. To date these samples have all been negative for ISAV.

Beyond direct testing, WFC has also proposed research projects aimed at determining the contribution of net pens to viral amplification and the potential for these viruses to infect emigrating juvenile wild salmon off Vancouver Island and in Puget Sound. In addition, WFC is collaborating with Drs. Gordon Luikart and Jack Stanford of the University of Montana’s Flathead Lake Biological Station on a proposal to investigate the risk posed by shipments of farmed Atlantic salmon infected with ISAV, IHNV and SAV to supermarkets throughout the West. Improper disposal of these carcasses by consumers may allow the virus to be introduced into local watersheds, placing local wild trout and salmon populations at risk to viral exposure. The molecular tests required for these samples are extremely expensive: $50 per sample for a single virus, and roughly $140 to test both gill and kidney tissue from a single fish for two viruses, which quickly adds up to tens of thousands of dollars. In 2011 and 2012 we applied for grants from the Clayoquot Biosphere

Jamie Glasgow sampling coho salmon for disease.

11

Deepwater Bay #1Deepwater Bay #2

Deepwater Bay #3

12

There are eight Atlantic salmon net pen facilities in Washington’s estuarine waters where smolts are raised to marketable size, plus one land-based hatchery that produces the smolts.  The net pen complexes can  be over a quarter-mile long, nearly 200 feet wide, and hold up to 450,000 ten-pound salmon.  The largest uses a maximum of over 20,000 pounds of food per day.  While they are permitted by state and federal agencies, the permits do not take into account all the potential risks posed to wild fish. 

Olympia

Tacoma

Seattle

Everett

Bellingham

Port Angeles

Hope Island

Ediz Hook

Fort Ward

Orchard Rocks

Clam Bay

Scatter Creek Atlantic Salmon Hatchery

Trust, Patagonia, and a number of private charitable foundations to fund this research, and will continue to seek additional funding sources.

The presence of these viruses poses a serious threat to native salmon species that are already in decline or endangered. As has often been said, salmon do not respect international boundaries, and most of the Chinook and coho salmon exiting rivers on the coasts of Washington and Oregon, and to a lesser extent, California, migrate north along the B.C. coast during their life cycles. Export of infected tissues (fillets and heads) on the international market could also jeopardize salmon populations in Russia (Kamchatka), China, Japan, and Korea as well as the U.S.; some of these are the last remaining healthy salmon stocks in the world. Closer to home, we have spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to help restore wild salmon to the Pacific Northwest; we need to know if farmed salmon are introducing or amplifying pathogens that infect our native fish, jeopardizing that investment.

The best solution is to move aquaculture facilities onshore, with fish grown in tanks to reduce the number of escapees and with the effluent treated and monitored to minimize pollution and prevent the release of pathogens. This approach is more costly, but open-ocean aquaculture is artificially inexpensive – it does not take into account the cost to the environment, including wild salmon and the baitfish species they depend on.

For more information on these viruses, as well as answers to frequently asked questions, please visit the WFC website.

(Endnotes)1 http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018296136_farmedfish27m.html Accessed March 13, 2013.2 http://www.genomebc.ca/media/news-releases/2013/salmon-health-past-present-and-future/ and http://www.psf.ca/newsandmedia/press-releases/363 Accessed March 13, 2013. @

13

The spring of 2012 was marked by unusually severe disease outbreaks in net pens in both Washington and British Columbia. In May, a major outbreak of Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis virus (IHNV) occurred at three Atlantic salmon farms off Bainbridge Island in Puget Sound, just minutes from downtown Seattle: Fort Ward, Clam Bay, and Orchard Rock. There had also been outbreaks at three salmon farms in British Columbia (two Atlantic salmon net pens and one coho salmon facility).

Even though IHNV is naturally occurring in the Pacific Northwest, viral amplification is a serious concern. Net pens can create an environment that is conducive to the production of more virulent strains of the virus. Given the high densities of the farmed fish in the pens (and a lack of resistance in Atlantic salmon to IHNV), these operations have the potential to release millions of viral particles into the seawater flushing through the pens with each tide, with the potential to infect juvenile wild salmon passing by on their outmigration to the Pacific Ocean (the virus can survive for up to three weeks in seawater). Juvenile salmon are at the highest risk of mortality from IHNV infection, although survivors may act as carriers of the virus and may also shed viral particles when stressed; in some cases adult fish succumb to the infection.

During the Bainbridge incident, the net pen operator emptied the farm, although it took some time to do so because the live fish were harvested and processed for marketing, while dead fish were composted. Under state law, they could have been ordered to immediately remove and destroy all the fish.

After the incident, Wild Fish Conservancy contacted the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), the agency that issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES” authorized under the federal Clean Water Act) permits to the eight Atlantic salmon net pens in Puget Sound. DOE told us that state law gives the responsibility

Following Up On The 2012 IHNV Outbreak in Puget SoundMark Hersh

Manchester State Park

14

for disease (and a few other net pen issues, such as preventing mass escapes) to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

We then contacted WDFW and learned that there is no real “plan” in place when a disease outbreak occurs, at least not one that is evident from

IHN infected Atlantic Salmon net pens

Orchard RocksConservation Area

Fort Ward State Park

15

the permit. During the outbreak, WDFW asked the net pen operator’s permission to place “sentinel” fish in cages (fish that would be analyzed for virus after a time interval). The net pen operator refused, and WDFW did not pursue the matter – they lacked the staff or money to follow up even if the operator had

agreed. This, despite an admission by WDFW to the Seattle Times that they did not “fully understand the impact to wild fish” from the outbreak1.

One of the conditions of a state’s being given Clean Water Act NPDES responsibilities is that they have sufficient resources to ensure that natural

resources are protected, so we then contacted the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That agency has oversight responsibilities over DOE’s issuance of Clean Water Act permits, and besides that, the agency is pumping millions of federal tax dollars into Puget Sound projects. You might

think they would be especially concerned about disease outbreaks in net pens, as the 2012 incident happened very close to their own laboratory in Manchester, WA.

We pointed out to EPA that now would be a perfect time to ensure that the NPDES permits included provisions regarding disease outbreaks, because the permits were up for renewal. The current system, where WDFW did not appear to require a plan or any pro-active procedures is unacceptable. Disease-producing organisms are “pollutants” under the Clean Water Act, and when a state takes on the responsibility of issuing those permits, it has to ensure that it has the resources to properly monitor and enforce the permits. To us, WDFW’s response was tepid, at best. EPA would be within their rights to “object” to any permits that DOE issues that are not protective of fish (one can reasonably argue they have a duty to object to a permit that is not protective of fish).

In response to our letter, EPA declined to do anything at this time. The public and EPA will be given a chance to comment on the new permits after DOE issues them. Since then we have learned that EPA itself is working on a permit for tribal net pens in Puget Sound (EPA writes the permits when affected waters are under tribal rather than state jurisdiction). We will formally comment on both of these processes, but will have our recommendations on disease issues submitted to all of the agencies before that. Check our web site for further developments on both fish disease issues and Atlantic salmon net pens.

(Endnotes)1 http://seattletimes.

com/html/localnews/2018293493_apwafishviruswashington1stldwritethru.html. @

IntroductionWild salmon have been an integral part of

the economic, cultural, and ecological fabric on the Pacific Coast of North America for thousands of years. Over the last several decades wild salmon stocks have declined sharply across the region. These declines have been linked to lost and altered habitat, overharvest, disease, and hatchery practices.

Open net pen salmon farming in the inland marine waterways of British Columbia began in the 1970s. By 2002, farmed salmon had become BC’s largest agricultural export. Much controversy exists regarding the impacts of salmon aquaculture on wild salmon stocks. However, there is no doubt that pollution, escaped fish, and the production of pathogens and parasites such

Clayoquot Sound Sea Lice ResearchMicah Wait

as sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) and ISAV (Infectious Salmon Anemia virus), have the potential to negatively affect migrating juvenile salmon as they transition from freshwater to marine habitats.

Sea lice are a natural epizootic parasite of adult salmon, but are rare on juvenile migrants (Morton et al., 2004). Recent large-scale blooms of sea lice (L. salmonis) abundance however are correlated with establishment of adult salmon farms around the world including Canada (e.g., Morton et al., 2004), Norway (Bjorn and Finstad, 2001), Scotland (MacKenzie et al., 1998), Ireland (Tully et al., 1999), etc.

In 2009 and 2010 Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) sampled over 7,800 chum salmon fry in the nearshore waters of Clayoquot Sound in British Columbia to document sea lice infection rates on juvenile salmon. The purpose of this study was to determine whether juvenile salmon migrating past salmon farms had higher sea louse infection rates than those that did not.

MethodsSalmon fry were collected by seining in a

manner similar to Morton et al. (2004, 2008) and Krkosek et al. (2004, 2006, 2010) between February and June of 2009 and 2010. Salmon fry were seined

Clayoquot Sound. Photo: Sander Jain

16

Clayoquot Sound Sea Lice ResearchMicah Wait

in a 120-foot standard beach seine. In 2009, WFC identified fifty sample sites representing shallow beaches, rocky shorelines, and rock shelves along the fjords of Clayoquot Sound at varying distances from salmon-aquaculture facilities and salmon-bearing rivers. In 2010, forty-six of those sites were re-sampled. Clayoquot Sound has five main fjord systems with varying numbers of salmon farms that created a gradient of potential aquaculture impact throughout the study site, including one fjord with no salmon farms. Juvenile salmon were held following each seine pass, and seines were repeated in the same location until a sample size of thirty of an individual species was attained. Each fish was scrutinized individually under 5x and 10x magnification through a clear plastic bag with fresh sea-water. Presence and life-stage identification of any sea lice attached to the fish were recorded by staff trained to identify life stages of L. salmonis and Caligus clemensii. After analysis, juvenile salmon were carefully released where they were collected.

Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with the total number of lice per fish as the dependent variable, and exposure to salmon farms, temperature, salinity, and fish length as predictor variables.

Results 2009 WFC assessed louse infection rates on over 4,500 juvenile chum salmon. Those collected at sites that were unexposed to salmon farms had an infection rate of 0.048 mean lice per fish, with a 2 Standard Error range of 0.0305 to 0.0750. Fish collected at exposed sites had an infection rate of 0.108 mean lice per fish, with a 2 Standard Error range of 0.0762 to 0.153.

Put another way, an average juvenile chum in average conditions is likely to have on average 0.048 lice on it, or about 4.8% of fish should be infected at baseline levels. Exposure to farms increases the average abundance to 0.108, meaning that exposure to salmon farms increased the abundance of lice on juvenile salmon two times over baseline levels.

2010WFC assessed louse infection rates on over

3,300 juvenile chum salmon. Those collected at sites that were unexposed to salmon farms had an infection rate of 0.074 mean lice per fish, with a 2 Standard Error range of 0.042 to 0.130. Fish collected at

exposed sites had an infection rate of 0.267 mean lice per fish, with a 2 Standard Error range of 0.177 to 0.401.

Put another way, an average juvenile chum in average conditions is likely to have on average 0.074 lice on it, or about 7.4% of fish should be infected at baseline levels. Exposure to farms increases the average abundance to 0.267, meaning that exposure to salmon farms increased the abundance of lice on juvenile salmon 3.6 times over baseline levels.

DiscussionOur research demonstrates a measurable

effect of salmon farms on the infection rate of juvenile chum salmon by sea lice parasites. Further research needs to be conducted to determine if infection rates altered by the presence of salmon farms are having population-level effects at the watershed and regional scale. However, given the severely depressed salmon population numbers in the rivers of Clayoquot Sound, any increased mortality or sub-lethal compromise of juvenile salmon should be viewed with caution. The results indicate that increasing the number of licensed salmon farms in Clayoquot Sound will result in further increases in the lice load on migrating juvenile salmon. We know increased lice loading is harmful or fatal to individual fish (Dawson 1998, Bjorn et al. 2001, Morton et al 2004), but questions about population-level effects remain unanswered. Wild Fish Conservancy believes that a moratorium should be placed on new or expanded Atlantic salmon net pens on the west coast of Vancouver Island until such questions are answered and new siting criteria are developed and applied to all net pens. The “Cohen Commission” made similar recommendations regarding the larger effects of net pens in regard to the Fraser River (see “Cohen Commission” p 18). @

Clayoquot Sound juvenile salmon infected with sea lice.

17

*References are available at http://wildfishconservancy.org/2013-wfj-references

In 2009, the Fraser River in British Columbia experienced one of the lowest returns of sockeye salmon since the 1940s, and the commercial fishery was closed for the third consecutive year despite pre-season estimates that were very favorable. That third closure punctuated a two-decade long decline of the Fraser sockeye. The Canadian government (actually, the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative in Canada) responded by establishing a commission headed up by a Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Bruce Cohen, to investigate. The “Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River,” or “Cohen Commission,” as it came to be called, studied the issue for two-and-a-half years, examining over three million pages of documents, and hearing testimony from 179 witnesses.

Certainly anyone that has followed the plight of wild salmonids in the eastern Pacific would not be

surprised that the Commission did not uncover any “smoking gun” that might explain the two-decade decline in productivity. As Justice Cohen wrote, “[t]he idea that a single event or stressor is responsible… is appealing but improbable.” That’s not to say it failed to find serious problems.

The Commission noted the split mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the Canadian federal agency that both promotes aquaculture and is supposed to protect wild salmon

stocks – and called for that to end. Another key finding of the final report is that federal and provincial laws and policies to protect habitat and wild salmon

stocks are not adequately funded, implemented, or enforced. The Commission recommends that Canada form an independent body to evaluate DFO’s progress in implementing its own seven-year-old Wild Salmon Policy.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? South of the border, the US and state agencies have policies that promote aquaculture and commercial fishing. They also operate fish hatcheries, and many of those hatchery programs, probably most, harm wild salmon. Oh, yes, the agencies also have legal responsibilities for protecting wild fish and habitat, which should take precedence over aquaculture, commercial fishing, and fish hatcheries – but they do not. For instance, Washington adopted its Wild Salmonid Policy in 1997 and over fifteen years later it has not been implemented. You can take a look at any or all of the policies and recovery efforts, and you would find that if they have been around for any period of time then they are either inadequate or they have not been fully implemented.

The Commission also calls for additional measures to address disease concerns from salmon farms, including greater transparency and data sharing with non-governmental researchers among its seventy-five specific recommendations. It calls for a moratorium for any new or expanded Atlantic salmon fish farms on the Fraser sockeye migration route and the development of new siting criteria for the farms, with new and existing farms subject to the new criteria. While the focus was on the Fraser sockeye fishery, many of the recommendations will help the overall recovery for BC salmonids.

Do we need such an investigation in the US, where agency biologists and policy-makers must testify under oath about their decisions and the decision-making process?

Are salmon in the US any less deserving of protection than BC salmon? Certainly not.

Do we have the audacity to conduct a fearless, independent investigation of our agencies and our own efforts?

That’s less certain. @

Mark Hersh

Commissioner Bruce Cohen

18

19

Okanagan Sockeye: Astonishing Wild Abundance Above Nine Columbia Dams

Bill McMillan

Table 1. Bonneville sockeye salmon counts 2008-2012 (Fish Passage Center www.fpc.org).2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

213,607 177,823 386,525 185,796 515,673

Continued on page 28

[Editor’s note: Submitted to Wild Fish Conservancy August 16, 2012. The US spelling of the river/watershed is “Okanogan,” while the Canadian spelling is “Okanagan.” Because the subject sockeye actually spawn in Canada, this article will refer to “Okanagan” in most instances in the text.]

In 2008, the sockeye salmon counts at Bonneville Dam astonished Columbia Basin water managers and fishery scientists. From average returns in the 1990s of just over 42,000 sockeye per year, the number suddenly shot up to 213,607 (Table 1). Bonneville sockeye counts of that magnitude had not occurred since 1953 and 1955, the only two other years since 1938 that had exceeded 200,000 sockeye (Fish Passage Center website www.fpc.org). It was not a one-time event and has become a five-year trend of increase:

Each of the most recent five year sockeye counts has been greater than any count since 1955, and 2010 and 2012 are the highest counts in Bonneville counting history.

Putting the Recent Columbia Basin Sockeye Story into PerspectiveThere are but three remaining sockeye salmon populations in the Columbia Basin: 1) Redfish Lake of the

upper Salmon River in Idaho, 2) Lake Wenatchee of the Wenatchee River in Washington, and 3) Osoyoos Lake of the Okanagan River basin with spawning grounds in southern British Columbia. The most famous population is one of near-eradication. In 1991, just one sockeye returned to Redfish Lake, a male that came to be known as “Lonesome Larry” around which a captive breeding hatchery program was initiated to attempt to save the population from extinction (NWFSC 2008). The Redfish Lake system is above eight Columbia and Snake River dams, 900 miles from the Pacific Ocean at an altitude ranging from 6,512 to 7,014 feet. In 1955, 4,361 wild sockeye returned (CBB 2011), even at that time far below the historic estimate of 40,000 (Fritsch 2012). The results of the captive breeding program have thus far prevented extinction, but natural productivity has responded little beyond that of recent history and with the apparent necessity of a continued hatchery breeding program. The hatchery-dependent nature of the program may prevent sufficient productivity to occur in the wild to expect a significant natural population response. The consequences of having reduced a sockeye population to this level may be that the only alternative is a continued expensive life support system that may never achieve more than the equivalent of a salmon zoo, rather than achieve a goal of population recovery (Tables 2 and 3).

Skeena River Historical Salmon Abundance Reconstruction Project

Nick Gayeski

20

Pacific salmon and steelhead are under assault across the Pacific Rim from a host of threats, including overfishing, climate change, release of hatchery fish, open-water aquaculture, and habitat loss and damage resulting from urbanization, mineral extraction, and logging. It is increasingly important to not only halt, if not reverse, the damage, but also to preserve and retain the few remaining relatively intact salmon watershed ecosystems. On the east side of the Pacific Rim, British Columbia (BC) and Alaska are home to several large river salmon ecosystems that are still relatively intact and still retain large fractions of their original habitat complexity and biodiversity. One such ecosystem of great interest to many US citizens and one that many can actually visit and enjoy with relative ease is the Skeena River in north-central British Columbia. Wild Fish Conservancy has recently begun to develop productive working relationships with kindred conservationists dedicated to preserving the Skeena’s remaining legacy of salmon biodiversity.

BackgroundThe Skeena River,

located in the northwestern portion of British Columbia, is the second-largest watershed in British Columbia, and home to a rich diversity of populations of steelhead and all five Pacific salmon species. The Skeena is over 550 kilometers (nearly 350 miles) long and enters the Pacific at Prince Rupert, just south of the Alaska panhandle, draining an area of 54,432 square kilometers (21,000 square miles; Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2008).

The Skeena is well-known to steelhead anglers as the home of above-average size steelhead from legendary rivers such as the Kispiox, Babine, Sustut, and Bulkley/Morice. But it is also well-known for historically large-bodied Chinook and large annual runs of sockeye and pink salmon. The Skeena is geologically complex, encompassing

numerous biogeographic regions and ecosystem types from coastal lowlands to the temperate forest uplands of the interior Nechako Plateau. Its headwaters include the headwaters of the upper Skeena in the Slamgeesh range of north-central BC, which is part of the Sacred Headwaters1, the headwaters of the upper Bulkley River on the Necahko Plateau in west-central BC, and the headwaters of the Morice in the glacier fields of the Coast Range. As a result, the Skeena and its numerous tributary rivers contain numerous types of river ecosystems and high degrees of habitat complexity, with correspondingly high levels of diversity of populations and life histories for each of the salmon species.

By comparison with most rivers on the west coast of the US, the Skeena remains remarkably intact and holds great promise as a stronghold of salmon and steelhead biodiversity. But the river is not free of threats to that diversity, both past and present. Both railroad construction (which began as early as 1910) on the north bank of the Skeena downstream of the town of Terrace, and later highway construction restricted channel migration and restricted or eliminated access of fish to off-channel spawning and

Skeena River

21

rearing habitats. For the most part, until the 1970s, little major habitat damage to tributary watersheds had occurred. During the thirty-year period from the 1970s to 2000s, logging occurred in most of the major tributaries, especially those close to the major roadways on and near the lower and middle Skeena River (up to the Kispiox) and the Bulkley River. Much of the damage that was caused by the logging of the 1970s and early 1980s has begun to heal.

Historical information, including efforts by government scientists to rebuild the stocks, indicates that the major impacts on the health and diversity of the Skeena’s salmon and steelhead populations have been due to overfishing, and that started well before any impacts to riverine ecosystems. Major commercial fisheries developed in the lower Skeena by the mid-1880s focused primarily on sockeye and to a lesser extent on coho and Chinook. The landed catch of sockeye exceeded one million for the first time in 1899. In the same year the commercial catch of Chinook exceeded 100,000. By 1911, catches

of both sockeye and pink salmon each regularly exceeded one million, and catches of coho and Chinook regularly exceed 200,000. Steelhead was primarily by-catch in these fisheries, particularly the sockeye fishery which was by far the most lucrative of all of the fisheries. Steelhead by-catch in excess of 20,000 annually became a regular occurrence after 1914 (Argue and Shepard 2005).

Before 1950, overfishing had clearly occurred and resulted in both major declines of total abundance of all species, as well as loss of diversity as numerous small populations of all species succumbed to the intense harvest pressure of the mixed-stock fishery in the lower Skeena. That fishery primarily targeted sockeye originating from Babine Lake, which historically had contributed 70% or more of the Skeena’s total sockeye production. The 2008 Report of the Skeena Independent Science Review Panel (Walters et al. 2008) noted that by 1950, roughly one-third of Skeena salmonid populations had disappeared.

BC train with cargo of canned salmon around 1920. The banners on the side of the train; “Canned Salmon, Gift of British Columbia to Imperial Government.”

22

The decline in diversity and an attendant reduction in the abundance of the remaining populations have, more or less, continued since 1950 with one major exception. By the 1930s overfishing had resulted in a considerable decline in the annual catch of Skeena sockeye. Between 1932 and 1950, the sockeye catch failed to exceed 800,000 in 13 of the 19 years. Catches remained depressed through the 1960s. By the early 1960s studies by Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) had concluded that sockeye production from Babine Lake was limited by lack of available spawning habitat, and plans were made to enhance the amount of available spawning habitat in Babine Lake by building artificial spawning channels in several major tributaries of the Lake2. What became known as the Babine Lake Development Project (BLDP) began in 1965, and by 1976 artificial spawning channels on the Fulton River and Pinkut Creek had a capacity for nearly 800,000 sockeye spawners (Gottesfield and Rabnett 2008). Sockeye harvest in the lower Skeena began to rise above one million by the mid-1970s and

by the 1980s and 1990s regularly exceeded 2 million (Wood 2000).

The artificial increase in Babine sockeye production during this entire period had significant impacts on the abundance and diversity of most other salmon as well as steelhead populations in the Skeena, because the timing of their river entry overlapped with the targeted Babine sockeye. Steelhead and sockeye populations from outside the Babine were particularly affected.

Canada Gets a Wild Salmon PolicyBy 2000, habitat damage due to logging

and mining, the legacy of past overfishing, and the prevailing harvest policies, all combined to result in significant declines in most of BC’s wild salmon (and steelhead) populations, prompting DFO to develop a Wild Salmon Policy (WSP; DFO 2005), which was officially adopted in 2005. The WSP requires that “conservation units” (CUs) be identified and maintained. A CU is defined as “a group of wild salmon sufficiently isolated from other groups that,

Early 20th century British Columbia coastal cannery.

23

if lost, is very unlikely to recolonize naturally within an acceptable timeframe (e.g., a human lifetime or a specified number of salmon generations).” Once conservation units for a species within a watershed are identified, status “indicators” and “benchmarks” must be identified. These are the numerical biological criteria that must be attained in order to assure the preservation of the CU.

CUs are currently being identified and indicators and benchmarks developed for Skeena salmon populations. Significantly, steelhead was not included under the WSP, and DFO has received considerable criticism for this. The Report of the Skeena Independent Science Review Panel (Walters et al. 2008) emphasized the neglect of steelhead in the WSP and strongly recommended that steelhead be addressed and CUs identified for Skeena steelhead. A draft document funded by the Pacific Salmon Foundation identifying steelhead CUs for the Skeena was published in April 2011 (Tautz et al. 2011). In June 2012, DFO began to develop its own analysis to identify CUs for Skeena steelhead.

Wild Fish Conservancy’s Skeena ProjectIn July 2011, Wild Fish Conservancy

began a collaborative project with the Skeena Wild Conservation Trust (SKWT) to help inform the identification of Skeena salmon and steelhead CUs and associated indicators and benchmarks. Project leads are Nick Gayeski for WFC, and conservation ecologist Michael Price for the SKWT. Dr. Jack Stanford, director of the Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, is a collaborator on the project. A major objective of the project is to analyze historical salmon and steelhead commercial harvest data for the lower Skeena and provide estimates of the annual run sizes that produced the catches.

The first phase of the project, an estimate of size of the chum salmon run in the period 1916 to 1919 (when chum were first harvested in the lower Skeena in large numbers), has recently been completed and a publication of the analysis and results will soon appear in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Chum salmon are the most depressed species in the Skeena with a total annual spawning population estimated to be less than 30,000. In contrast, the average annual catch of Skeena chum in the four years from 1916 to 1919 was 150,000. At least 80% of the spawning and rearing habitat available to chum in 1920 is still available

today, so the decline of chum has been considerable. Understanding how large the annual chum run circa 1920 was, and comparing current estimates of run sizes to the amount and quality of habitat still available, will help to insure that conservation benchmarks and recovery targets for Skeena chum CUs are set appropriately, and will also help to focus research on the factors that are currently limiting chum production.

The next task of the project is to estimate the size of steelhead population during the 1916-1919 period. We hope to complete this project within the next year, contingent on funding, and ultimately, we hope to complete the picture of the Skeena’s considerable historical salmon and steelhead runs. WFC always tries to advance ecosystem restoration by establishing or enhancing the scientific foundation of the restoration effort. Here, our work will help to rebuild this magnificent river ecosystem because managers will have the information they need to set appropriate chum salmon CUs.

ReferencesArgue, A.W., and Shepard, M.P. 2005.

Historical catch statistics for Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in British Columbia, 1828 to 1950. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2601. Vancouver, B.C. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/316713.htm accessed July 6, 2012.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2005. Canada’s policy for conservation of wild Pacific salmon. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/315577.pdf accessed July 6, 2012.

Gottesfeld, A.S. and K.A. Rabnett. 2008. Skeena River Fish and Their Habitat. Skeena Fisheries Commission and Ecotrust.

Tautz, A.F., S. Pollard, R.S. Hooton, R.A. Ptolemy, and E.B. Taylor. 2011. Skeena steelhead conservation units. A project of the Skeena Watershed Initiative supported by Living Rivers Fund and the Pacific Salmon Foundation. http://skeenawatershedinitiative.com/libraryfiles/lib979.pdf accessed July 6, 2012.

Walters, C.J., Lichatowich, J.A., Peterman, R.M., and Reynolds, J.D. 2008. Report of the Skeena Independent Science Review Panel. A report to the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the British Columbia Ministry of the

24

Environment. Victoria, BC. http://www.psf.ca/sisrp.pdf accessed July 6, 2012.

Wood, C.C. 2000. Managing biodiversity in pacific salmon: the evolution of the Skeena River sockeye salmon fishery in British Columbia. American Fisheries Society symposium 49: 349-36.

(Endnotes)1 The Sacred Headwaters refers to the

subalpine area that contains the headwaters of the Skeena, Nass, and Stikine rivers.

2 Babine Lake, in which the majority of juvenile Babine River sockeye rear before becoming smolts, is the largest natural lake in British Columbia, covering a total area of 191 square miles. Because of its size, it generally has significantly more rearing habitat area than the available sockeye spawning habitat, considerable though it is, can fill. What simpler way to “solve” this “problem” than by building more spawning habitat? There is now some reasonable doubt as to whether or not there really is a free lunch here, but that is an important story for another day (issue). @

In Memoriam: Take a quiet moment and remember the

friends and supporters that we have recently lost. All shared a love for the waters and

wild fish of the Northwest and a passion for protecting them for future generations. Our thoughts go out to their families and friends.

James CarlsonGael Dunchene

Fritz GerdsDaniel Goodman

Tim IrishHarry LemireDoug Rose

Rosemary Weise

From time-to-time, Wild Fish Conservancy needs volunteers for a variety of activities, whether it’s fieldwork or help with our annual auction. If you’re committed to wild fish recovery and would like to volunteer, sign-up online at http://wildfishconservancy.org/support-wfc/volunteer or email us at [email protected]

Volunteer with the Wild Fish Conservancy

and Help Save Wild Fish!

Bag Harbour stream. Photo by John Alexander.

Abundance: The Lost Cornerstone of Salmon-Driven EcosystemsBill McMillan

 One small creek in the Queen Charlottes: While trying to determine what historic

salmon productivity might once have been prior to Euro-American contact, it has occurred to me that the combined predator and aboriginal harvests of salmon – that once supported large populations of bears, wolves, and seals, and relatively few people – might help to determine a salmon baseline. T.E. Reimchen has done considerable predator research regarding salmon consumption on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I was struck by the salmon database he used from one small creek that comes into Bag Harbour, a stream too small to have a specific name beyond being called Bag Harbour stream (Reimchen 2000). It is described as having a width of 5-20 m (~15-60 ft) and average depth of 0.5 m (19.5 in), and is entirely contained in old growth forest on the now-protected Gwaii Haanas site at the southern tip of Moresby Island. The length of stream used for spawning is indicated as about 1400 m (0.87 mile).

Despite pristine habitat, the peak run-sizes of salmon have fallen (Reimchen 1994). It is also thought the bear population may be dropping correspondingly with salmon, although bear information did not begin to be collected until the latter 1970s to 1980s. The salmon escapement data for Bag Harbour stream go back to 1947. The salmon in the creek are primarily chum, but also pink salmon on their return years and some coho. Although a small stream, it had returns of ~35,000 chum salmon in both 1947 and again in 1962 (over 40,000 salmon/mile both years, and 20,000 redds/mile). By 1977, the peak had dropped to ~19,000 and to ~12,500 by the late 1980’s. By the time of the studies in the mid to latter 1990s, numbers were down to 2,500-7,000 salmon (Reimchen 2000). Although the population of chum has shown considerable historic fluctuation, with as few as 1,000 at low points in the 1970s and 1980s, the overall trend has been that of decline. Reimchen (1994) indicates that the salmon population is well below historic levels – yet, in

26

the lower 48 of the US, a return of 2,500-7,000 to a stream that size would now be considered remarkable and likely at historic peak levels. But, in fact, US managers rarely consider what historic levels actually were beyond data from the relatively recent 1970’s to 1980’s, long after great depletions have occurred.

In the 1990’s, Bag Harbour black bears killed an average of 13 salmon/day over a 45 day spawning period (Reimchen 2000), or 585 salmon/bear/year. It was estimated that bear populations on streams with abundant salmon are twenty times greater than populations without salmon in the streams. Bears killed from 58%-92% of salmon that escaped to Bag Harbour stream, but 70%-80% of the salmon were already spawned out or mostly spawned out. Bears also targeted larger males in particular.

Typically, the older (further back in time) salmon data are, the larger the numbers are. Most likely, there had already been significant commercial harvest impacts on salmon all along the BC coast and the Queen Charlottes by 1947 and 1962 (the chum salmon peaks at Bag Harbour). Haig-Brown (1946) indicated that historic purse seining off the mouths of small Vancouver Island streams had at times

greatly depleted their returns of salmon. The same was reported by Narver (2010) off Alaskan creeks in the 1950’s and was called “creek robbing” which required special enforcement emphasis. Given the trends elsewhere, Bag Harbour salmon may once have been even more abundant than the earliest data show.

References:

Haig-Brown, Roderick L. 1946. A River Never Sleeps. William Morrow & Co., New York. p 284.

Narver, David W. 2010. What Did You Do in Alaska, Grandpa? Seven Summers in Alaska: Salmon, Bears and Untouched Wilderness. David W. Narver, Victoria, BC. p 9-10.

Reimchen, T.E. 1994. Further studies of predator and scavenger use of chum salmon in stream and estuarine habitats at Bag Harbour, Gwaii Haanas. Canadian Parks Service, Queen Charlotte City, BC.

Reimchen, T.E. 2000. Some ecological and evolutionary aspects of bear-salmon interactions in coastal British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 78: 448-457. @

27

28

Lake Wenatchee’s original wild sockeye population was greatly depleted by the early 1900s (Fulton 1970). A reasonable approximation of the historic returns of Wenatchee Lake sockeye from 1960 to 2011 is provided by a combination of more recent counts at Tumwater Falls on the Wenatchee River (1998-2011), and by determining the difference in sockeye counts between Rock Island Dam and Rocky Reach Dam for the earlier period (1960-1997) to capture the Wenatchee River sockeye entry that is between the two dams (WDFW 2012). In the Hatchery Scientific Review Group’s evaluation of the Lake Wenatchee sockeye population there were great concerns about the low replacement rate of hatchery-origin fish compared to wild:

Run size in recent years has averaged approximately 15,000 fish, and hatchery-origin fish make up less than 5 percent of the escapement due to poor survival of the hatchery fish … It was observed that the replacement rate of hatchery-origin fish has averaged less than that of natural-origin fish (0.89 versus 1.24). This situation greatly limits the options available for meeting both conservation and harvest goals …The Lake Wenatchee sockeye population is the only population in the ESU and it is therefore important that this stock not be lost. The population is not listed but the escapement goal of 23,000 fish is not being consistently met. Based on 11 years of data, the observation that the replacement rate for hatchery-origin fish averaged less than that for natural-origin fish (0.89 versus 1.24) led the HSRG to recommend that the program be discontinued if this situation cannot be reversed, possibly by making operational changes to the program…

Transference of this low productivity rate of Wenatchee hatchery sockeye to the wild population would reduce their productivity as well, and potentially already has. This may explain the relative lack of response to better survival conditions by Lake Wenatchee sockeye as compared to the wild Osoyoos Lake sockeye salmon in the Okanagan River basin that have been the drivers of the recent 5-year increase in sockeye counts across Bonneville Dam (Figure 1).

Prior to 1999, the sockeye returning to the Columbia basin (destined to return to the spawning grounds of the Okanagan River in southern British Columbia) had estimates as high as 200,000 sockeye in 1967, when downstream Columbia catch and Wells Dam escapement counts were added together. There have also been years of less than 5,000 returning sockeye from 1961-1963, and again in each of 1994, 1995, and 1998 (Figure 2).

In 1971, it was estimated that the spawning grounds were near or at full capacity with 38,900 spawners, and in 1980 at 80% capacity with 14,968 female spawners (Hyatt and Rankin 1999). However, a thorough evaluation of both spawning habitat and lake productivity subsequently occurred with the result that from a habitat-based perspective, a defensible range of objectives was 58,730 to 135,471 sockeye spawners passing Wells Dam. Because at that time sockeye escapements had rarely met even the lowest of this range, however, the lower level of escapement was chosen as the preliminary target as explained by the authors:

Table 2. Recent returns to the Redfish system of lakes (Fritsch 2012).

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total 7 257 26 22 3 27 6 3 4 650 833 1,355 1,118

Wild 0 0 4 6 0 4 2 1 3 142 85 178 150

Table 3. Historic Redfish Lake area returns when all were wild in passage at Lower Granite Dam (NWFSC 2008).

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990209 531 458 123 25 96 218 211 122 47 34 15 29 23 2 0

Continued fron page 19

31

Figure 1

Columbia Basin Sockeye Counts at Bonneville Dam (all populations), Wells Dam (Okanagan population), & Lake Wenatchee (difference between Rock Island and Wells Dam counts)

1938 to August 15, 2012 (Okanagan sockeye still increasing at Wells Dam in 2012)

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

2012200820042000199619921988198419801976197219681964196019561952194819441940

Bonneville sockeye Wells/Okanagan sockeye Lk Wenatchee sockeye

Okanagon Basin Sockeye Harvest, Escapement, and Total Return Past Wells Dam 1953-2012 (as of August 15th in 2012)

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

Okanagan harvest Okanagan escapement Okanagan return past Wells Dam

Increased escapement & reduced harvest

Figure 2

30

Our attempts to use habitat-based approaches to objectively define escapement goals for Okanagan sockeye have, in our view, been reasonably successful in identifying a defensible set of minimum escapement objectives. Specifically, 58,780 sockeye enumerated at the Wells Dam or 29,390 as peak counts in the Upper Okanagan River escapement “index area” should be regarded as defensible, provisional escapement objectives. We have adopted conservative assumptions at each of several steps in our habitat-based analysis of escapement needs. Thus, it is likely that existing spawning and rearing habitat in the Okanagan River and Osoyoos Lake will actually support a higher escapement objective than that specified here. However, it is also clear that all of the evidence examined by us supports the inference that neither spawning ground nor lake rearing capacity currently limits Okanagan sockeye population size. Accordingly, adoption of a provisional escapement goal of 59,000 Okanagan Sockeye passing the Wells Dam should suffice until such time as the stock rebuilds to levels that might actually challenge available habitat and warrant further refinement of escapement objectives.

These objectives became the new drivers for Okanagan basin sockeye management. The bottom line: greater escapement than previously considered was deemed necessary.

Zosel Dam is on the U.S. portion of the Okanogan River just south of the border. The spawning grounds for Osoyoos Lake sockeye are 42 km upstream of the dam and lake (Hyatt and Rankin 1999) in an 8 km section of the Okanagan River (Hyatt et al. 2012). Remarkably, the primary spawning area is limited to a 2.4 km (1.49 miles) reach of remaining natural river channel just below McIntyre Dam, upstream of the town of Oliver, BC. Historically the spawning area was much greater, but river channel from the primary spawning area to Osoyoos Lake has been channelized for flood control since 1957. Nevertheless, some spawning occurs in that section and in a limited amount in Osoyoos Lake itself. The productivity level of Osoyoos Lake is high compared to other BC sockeye lakes, but it is largely limited at this time (and maybe historically was) to the northern half of Osoyoos Lake in BC which is apparently deeper and maintains a water temperature range required for juvenile sockeye productivity. The numbers of both juvenile and returning wild

sockeye salmon produced in this spawning area seem remarkable to some, but by habitat measures it was anticipated if escapement and stabilized habitat were to drive management. This increase has taken place despite global warming and downstream/upstream passage through nine mainstem Columbia River dams (and Zosel Dam on the Okanagon).

The Okanagan basin sockeye recovery program dates to 1997 as initiated by the Okanagan Nation (Bussanich 2011). The Okanagan Fish and Water Management Tool (FWMT) project was a subsequent multi-group collaboration of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Okanagan Nation Alliance, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, and Douglas County (Washington) P.U.D., the operator of Wells Dam. It was developed in 2001 and implemented in 2004 as a means to provide fish-friendly flows in the Okanagan River to reduce losses of eggs and fry to flood-and-scour and drought-and-desiccation periods from operation of Penticton Dam as the major water control mechanism in the Okanagan River (Hyatt et al. 2012). Prior to 1997, operation of the dam for water uses erred on the side of commercial and economic interests (flood control, irrigation, urban infrastructure, recreation) at the expense of natural system needs (fish production at multiple life history stages, biodiversity maintenance). The inflow of the Okanagan River also impacts the sockeye-rearing productivity of Osoyoos Lake. From August to October each year, a temperature/oxygen “squeeze” can occur in the lake, but pulses of released water into the lake can reduce sockeye losses during this critical period of one year lake rearing. As a result of Okanagan flow management measures, Osoyoos Lake sockeye smolt production has gone from the historic average of 300,000 per year to 2,000,000 per year, with a spike to 9,000,000 in 2008.

The upward trend of record-breaking sockeye escapement numbers to the upper Okanagan has also been correlated to 1) the elimination of the Columbia basin sockeye fishery (as a result of ESA-listing of Redfish Lake sockeye), thus providing more upstream escapement for the non-listed Okanagan sockeye, 2) revisions of Canadian sockeye escapement to test the upper limits of productive capacity, and 3) favorable survival in the ocean in recent years (Hyatt et al. 2012). It is apparent that ocean conditions alone do not explain the Okanagan sockeye trend the past five years. As Figure 1 demonstrates, Lake Wenatchee

sockeye have not similarly responded, and while Redfish Lake sockeye have responded positively (Table 2) the wild/natural return remains well below the levels of 1975-1977 (Table 3). The Osoyoos Lake sockeye are also probably benefitting from court-ordered increased flows at Columbia/Snake basin dams to better facilitate downstream passage of smolts to the ocean. But it is clear that the Okanagan River spawning grounds can carry far more sockeye escapement than previously assumed, and those larger escapements have produced far more smolts (Hyatt et al. 2012).

Thanks to the remarkable returns of wild sockeye to the Okanagan basin, the Okanagan Nation in British Columbia and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington have a revived harvest opportunity. In 2012, the Colvilles were planning a harvest of about 50,000 sockeye using a purse seine at the mouth of the Okanogan River (although the July 1, 2012 Colville tribal fishing regulation notice indicates that about 100,000 may be harvested [Peone 2012]). The purse seine was fished in a selective manner, allowing the harvest of marked hatchery fish while releasing unmarked wild salmon and steelhead some of which are ESA-listed (CBB 2012). The Okanagan Nation Alliance was then planning a harvest of another 80,000 sockeye on the Canadian side in 2012, with both Native American groups planning to share the bounty with other tribes (CBB 2012). This does not include the recreational and tribal fisheries, or the hatchery broodstock collections that occur elsewhere in the Columbia basin (Table 4). The combined total in 2010 was 69,806 sockeye harvested and collected for hatchery broodstock (Wright and Bussanich 2011).

Hyatt et al. (2012) summarizes that with regard to Osoyoos Lake sockeye: the implementation of the FWMT stabilized smolt production per spawner with reduction of density independent losses; high spawner abundance has subsequently utilized a greater portion of habitat capacity for both spawners and rearing fry with concomitant increases in smolt production; smolt output from Osoyoos Lake increased 5-10 fold from 1998-2010 compared to the 1970-1997 interval; and recent record returns of Columbia River sockeye primarily reflect production of wild Okanagan sockeye responding to increases in escapement, smolt production, and smolt-to-adult survival (with less than 10% of the Okanagan sockeye salmon production coming from the Skaha hatchery fry plants).

Along with implementation of the FWMT and the increasing return of wild/natural sockeye production occurring in Osoyoos Lake, there has been a program of reintroduction of sockeye into Skaha Lake (the next lake upstream from Osoyoos Lake), which will expand upstream to Okanagan Lake. McIntyre Dam operation has been modified to provide sockeye passage to the upstream lakes. However, rather than test the potential for natural sockeye recolonization, instead wild Lake Osoyoos broodstock have been taken from the Okanagan River for egg taking with subsequent hatchery-reared fry releases into Skaha Lake. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the survival of hatchery fry releases into Skaha Lake (10-44% with average of 17%) has only been about one-fourth of the survival (to pre-smolt stage) of the wild sockeye fry to pre-smolt survival rate at Osoyoos Lake (39-82% with average of 64%) (Bussanich 2011). The result has been that less than 10% of the returning sockeye to the

31

Table 4. Okanagan sockeye harvest and broodstock collections that occurred throughout the Columbia basin in 2010 (from Wright and Bussanich 2011).

Harvest Broodstock

Okanagan Nation Alliance 18,069 940

Osoyoos Lake Recreational 243

Colville Confederated Tribes 16,241

WA Mid-Columbia Recreational 10,622

Lower Columbia Treaty / Yakama Nation Broodstock 22,468 2,150

32

Table 6. Skaha Lake sockeye production from hatchery reared fry releases (from Bussanich 2011).

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Spawn escape 19,000 41,000 32,000 21,000 14,000 129,000

Outplant fry 360,000 1,205,000 1,384,000 1,479,000 885,500 1,614,000

Fry to pre-smolt 44 12 10 13 20 14survival (%)

Table 5. Osoyoos Lake wild sockeye production (from Bussanich 2011).

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Spawn escape 19,000 41,000 32,000 21,000 14,000 129,000

Spring fry 1,035,000 4,521,800 2,359,200 3,833,799 1,179,600 10,321,500

Fry to pre-smolt 82 39 59 57 73 75survival (%)

Okanagan basin are of hatchery origin from Skaha Lake while 90%-plus is that of wild production from Osoyoos Lake (Hyatt et al. 2012). This has not gone unnoticed: Bussanich (2011) poses the question, “[i]s lower in-lake survival of Skaha juveniles a hatchery or lake effect?” A paired hatchery fry release comparison in both Skaha and Osoyoos lakes was planned for 2012 in order to investigate (Bussanich 2011).

Given the present – and increasing – wild productivity of Osoyoos Lake sockeye, it is unclear why a risk is being taken by releasing hatchery fry as well. Osoyoos Lake is obviously providing sockeye salmon productivity well beyond prior expectations, and is providing salmon harvest opportunities unknown in recent upper Columbia history. The lesser risk would be to experiment instead with cessation of the hatchery program and to test natural recolonization, but unfortunately, that is apparently not even a consideration.

The 2011-2017 plans are for 3.5 million hatchery reared sockeye fry released into Osoyoos and Skaha Lakes (3.5 times more than previous average plants into Skaha Lake, despite concerns about the impact of the previous level of plants on lake productivity), produced at the newly constructed Penticton Hatchery (Bussanich 2011).

What is apparent is that fisheries science had previously misjudged the remaining natural productivity for wild sockeye salmon in the upper Columbia basin, and may have similarly misjudged the remaining productivity for wild salmon and steelhead throughout the Columbia/Snake basin based on past perceptions of what the habitat could carry. The apparent carrying capacity of the habitat may well be more a limitation of fishery management vision than that of habitat. With greater emphasis on providing necessary wild spawning escapement, dramatically reducing emphasis on hatchery programs by instead reinvesting moneys into protecting and recovering habitat, and by providing sufficient spill at the dams, the wild salmon and steelhead of the Columbia basin might well shift into a similarly dramatic recovery as what is presently occurring with Okanagan/Osoyoos Lake sockeye.

However, despite the apparent success of wild sockeye at Osoyoos Lake, the vision remains steadfast to continue in the past Columbia basin mold of perpetually greater investments in that which has not demonstrated similar success – the hatchery programs.

*References are available at http://wildfishconservancy.org/2013-wfj-references

33

This issue of Wild Fish Journal devotes a lot of space to harvest. You are probably getting hungry by now, right? Here we profile two local companies where you can get sustainably caught seafood. Bon appetit!

Duke’s Chowder HouseDuke Moscrip, the founder and CEO of Duke’s Chowder House (actually there are six Duke’s Chowder

Houses around Puget Sound), is a fanatic about fresh seafood. He makes it a point to meet with all of his suppliers, and that includes going out on the fishing boats to ensure that the catch is handled correctly in order to stay fresh and tasty. Every fish has a source code, so that they can tell who supplied it, where it was processed

and sometimes even the exact area and boat that landed it. It’s unlikely that consumers could ever know as much about the origin and handling of their seafood – unless they harvest and process it themselves.

Duke started out as a stockbroker, but found that he spent so much time dining with associates and clients that he was becoming an expert on restaurants. He was a partner in Ray’s Boathouse in Seattle in the 70s, working

incredibly long hours at both his day job and at the restaurant before striking out on his own. One of the signature items is the chowder (naturally), based on Duke’s grandfather’s recipe, the “best chowder in New England.” Duke has brought it west to this area. Nothing artificial, all natural.

He and his chef, Bill, even share a blog where they talk about seafood. What if you go to Duke’s and all of a sudden you want… a burger? Go ahead, it’s going to be from grass-fed, hormone-free beef. But if Dungeness crab and Copper River coho are available (don’t assume the latter is on the menu even if available elsewhere; some years the fish just don’t meet Duke’s specifications), why not go with one of those choices? It’s unlikely you can have a better seafood meal with more thought put into the ingredients than you can get from a Duke’s Chowder House (www.dukeschowderhouse.com).

Eat in? Eat Out? Either Way, Eat Sustainably!

Duke Moscrip inspects the catch.

Continued on page 37

Mark Hersh

Floodplain habitats – seasonally-flooded valley bottoms that often straddle low-gradient rivers – are widespread in the Pacific Northwest due to its geology, hydrology, and glacial history. Accordingly, the Northwest’s native fish have evolved to rely on floodplains and the important rearing and high-flow refuge habitat, and migration corridors, they provide. Many of the same floodplain features that are important for native fish, including ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, are also important for agriculture.

Agriculture has a significant footprint in Western Washington. The vast majority of farms exist within the historical floodplains of large rivers and their tributaries where fish and farm habitats intersect. In King County alone there are 1,800 active farms existing on approximately 50,000 acres. There, it is estimated that there are approximately 1,000 miles of agricultural ditches that are straightened floodplain tributaries or were dug to drain wetlands. Most ditched habitats provide reduced water quality and poor instream fish habitat compared to what

existed historically. There are also many miles of levees and dikes with tide gates that are designed to keep floodwaters off of floodplains, and dozens of agricultural pump facilities designed to remove water from the floodplains when they flood. Unfortunately this flood management infrastructure also compromises fish access to and from floodplain-rearing habitats, disrupts the vital connection between rivers and their floodplains, and otherwise interferes with the natural processes that create and sustain diverse fish and wildlife habitats in floodplains.

As our understanding of fish ecology and farm needs evolves, it becomes increasingly evident that there are many opportunities to adjust status-quo management of farmland habitats to benefit both agriculture and fishes. Such was the case in Cherry Valley, the floodplain at the confluence of Cherry Creek and the Snoqualmie River.

Cherry Creek is located just north of Duvall, thirty miles east of Seattle in King County. As the Snoqualmie River’s lowest major tributary, its

Jamie Glasgow

Before: Lateral C in Cherry Valley Wildlife unit.

Restoring Cherry Valley:From Ditch To Meandering Creek

34

location provides high intrinsic potential for ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook, steelhead, and other salmonids in the Snoqualmie River. The watershed drains twenty-seven square miles of forested hills, rural-residential development, and farmlands. Where the watershed flows into the Snoqualmie River, its 700-acre floodplain is comprised of pastures and croplands (300 acres) and the Cherry Valley Wildlife Area (CVWA; 400 acres) managed by the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for conservation and recreation. WFC has documented use of the Cherry Valley floodplain habitats by thousands of salmonids and other native fishes, including ESA-listed Chinook salmon and steelhead.

In 1998 WFC documented that the unscreened “macerating” pump facility, operated by a Drainage District that includes the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to seasonally remove floodwaters from Cherry Valley, was a direct cause of mortality to thousands of juvenile salmonids. In addition to the direct impacts of the macerating pump, fish habitat in Cherry Valley was limited

by poor water quality, a ditched and straightened mainstem channel, and over six miles of simplified and disconnected floodplain channels that lacked habitat complexity and diversity. The poor condition of fish habitat in Cherry Valley is not unique; there are dozens of floodplains with similar characteristics across western Washington and elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest where fish and farms compete for limited resources.

In 2003, Wild Fish Conservancy conducted a feasibility study to assess how native fish rearing and spawning habitat could be improved and natural processes restored in Cherry Valley without impacting existing agricultural land use. WFC worked closely with Drainage District 7, the Snohomish Conservation District, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, NOAA Fisheries, and affected landowners to develop a restoration plan with a high likelihood of success. The plan, agreed upon by the farmers, the agencies, and Wild Fish Conservancy, included improvements at the pump facility as well as instream and riparian habitat restoration.

After: Lateral C in Cherry Valley Wildlife unit.

35

In 2004, the Drainage District, with assistance from the Snohomish Conservation District, upgraded the pump facility with a more fish-friendly system to improve fish passage to and from critical floodplain habitat. In 2006 WFC, in partnership with the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, Drainage District 7, Snohomish Conservation District, and WDFW, received funding to evaluate the effectiveness of the new unscreened Hidrostal pumps at the Cherry Valley pump house. That spring, WFC’s pilot study documented much lower mortality of fish passing

through the pumps; while In 2012, after twelve years of studies, planning, partnerships, stakeholder meetings, and dogged determination, Wild Fish Conservancy constructed the Waterwheel Creek Restoration Project in Cherry Valley. The project was designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat within the public Cherry Valley Wildlife Area without compromising drainage and other infrastructure for adjacent farmland, while complementing other Wildlife Area uses including hunting, dog-training, and wildlife-watching. The centerpiece of the project is a new 4,200-foot long naturalized stream channel and riparian corridor for Waterwheel Creek, which is currently ditched across the Wildlife Area. Dirt resulting from the channel excavation was used to fill the three existing drainage ditches and create hummocks, or planting hills, within the new riparian

corridor. WFC also placed large logs with rootwads within the constructed stream channel to improve fish habitat. Working with partners, such as Stewardship Partners, Sound Salmon Solutions, Wilderness Awareness School, and WDFW, WFC will perform extensive planting of native trees and shrubs adjacent to the naturalized channel. Concurrent with the project, WDFW has installed a new bridge across the downstream end of Waterwheel Creek and improved fish passage at twelve other locations within the CVWA.

Abandoning the stagnant drainage ditches and creating one larger, naturalized stream channel will improve water quality and dramatically increase the amount and quality of habitat available to native fish. The new channel alignment mimics the sinuosity and complexity of the likely historical conditions and, to the extent possible, will restore natural features including channel-adjacent shrub-scrub wetlands and beaver ponds. In the coming years WFC will continue working with partners to plant native trees and shrubs alongside the naturalized channel, and will be monitoring the restoration

project within the context of an adaptive management plan developed with the Drainage District.

Funding for the habitat restoration project was awarded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, King County, the King County Conservation District, and Stewardship Partners.

(Endnotes)

1 http://wildfishconservancy.org/resources/publications/wild-fish-runs/snoqualmie-floodplain-dissolved-oxygen-study

2 http://wildfishconservancy.org/resources/publications/wild-fish-runs/mortality-in-juvenile-salmonids-passed-through-an-agricultural-hidrostal-pump/at_download/file @

Volunteers assist with tree-planting along the newly restored Waterwheel Creek in the Cherry Creek / Snoqualmie River floodplain.

36

Seattle-based PCC Natural Markets is the largest consumer-owned natural food retail co-operative in the United States. PCC has nine stores in the Puget Sound region and is owned by nearly 45,000 members. Besides having stringent standards for the products they carry and building relationships with farmers and throughout the community (including a partnership with WFC), they pride themselves on offerings of natural food (and other products) from sustainable sources.

That includes seafood. PCC sells only the highest-quality seafood that is healthy for both the consumer and the environment. PCC was the first full retail partner in the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program, and still rely on that program, offering only seafood from ecologically sustainable fisheries. They will not sell varieties with unsafe levels of PCBs, mercury, or other contaminants. Greenpeace USA has ranked PCC Natural Markets the top retailer in the United States for sustainable seafood policies and initiatives.

PCC also does an excellent job in raising these issues with their membership. Their monthly newsletter “Sound Consumer,” often leads off with stories about sustainable practices, and their July 2012 issue had three major stories on seafood sustainability.

Besides buying fresh seafood from local suppliers who follow the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s guidelines, PCC makes sure that their canned and frozen seafood follow the same standards. They are particularly careful about what types of canned tuna they offer and they have even ensured that the sushi available in their delis complies with the standards. Perhaps one of the most difficult tasks when sourcing seafood is finding supplies of sustainably farmed seafood, but PCC has done that as well. PCC is a great choice when you want to find sustainably caught (or raised) seafood (www.pccnaturalmarkets.com).

PCC Natural Markets

37

Continued from page 33

When reporting the results of the study of juvenile fish habitat use in Grays Harbor, Wild Fish Conservancy scientists decided it was important to model sea level rise (SLR) in an effort to anticipate future habitat loss as well as planning for inundation and the creation of new habitats beneficial to juvenile fish. Using recently available, highly accurate LiDAR elevation data, we ran a Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) under three SLR scenarios (59 cm, 75 cm, and 1 meter) to model habitat change from the present to the year 2100. The results predict a dramatic decline in forested swamp land and tidal mud flats, with a concurrent increase in salt marshes if the shoreline is not armored (the “initial condition” of habitat, along with two of the 75 cm scenario figures are shown below and at right).

Incorporating climate change into salmon conservation planning is important both because of the severity of the direct threat to wild salmonids and also to avoid funding conservation projects that might be undermined by climate change (for example, shoreline restoration projects may need to take into account the anticipated sea level rise to remain feasible). This report was prepared for the Chehalis Basin Habitat Work Group, and the results have been shared with Grays Harbor County to assist with future property acquisition and planning so that juvenile fish habitat in the estuary is preserved in the future, offsetting the losses due to inundation. The full report is available at the WFC website.

Climate Change in the Chehalis River and Grays Harbor Estuary

Todd Sandell & Andrew McAninch

Figure 1 . Grays Harbor estuary initial habitat classifications from the 1981 National Wetland Inventory study (1981).

38

Figure 2. Estimated habitat changes in Grays Harbor estuary in 2025 with an increase of 75cm in sea level rise by 2100.

Figure 3. Estimated habitat changes in Grays Harbor estuary in 2100 with an increase of 75cm in sea level rise. @

39

The Hood Canal Nearshore Fish Use Assessment is a pilot study examining juvenile salmon habitat use patterns, in order to refine the recovery strategy for ESA-listed stocks of Hood Canal summer chum and Chinook salmon. During the first year, we focused on compiling existing data in order to develop a future study plan, but also conducted limited sampling during peak outmigration periods in the Hood Canal nearshore. Sampling was conducted using fine-meshed beach seines which were deployed at about twenty-five sites using a motor boat, in order to collect data on salmon abundance, environmental and habitat parameters, and population genetics. @

Hood Canal Nearshore Fish Use Assessment Project

Science Updates

Snake Prickleback

40

Grays Harbor in southwestern Washington historically supported large salmon runs, as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout. Most populations have declined, but Grays Harbor still boasts some high-quality rearing habitat for juvenile salmon. In 2011, Wild Fish Conservancy initiated an assessment to better understand how juvenile salmon use Grays Harbor’s estuarine habitats. The project, now in its third year of data collection, has provided information on the distribution, abundance, habitat use, and timing of juvenile salmon and other fish species, building a scientific basis for the evaluation and prioritization of future habitat protection and restoration efforts. @

Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish Habitat Use Project

41

Science Updates cont.

Although 65% of the Hoh River watershed is within Olympic National Park, many important large tributaries and floodplain complexes are affected by industrial forestry outside the Park. Partnering with Jefferson County, the Hoh Indian Tribe, and the Hoh River Trust, Wild Fish Conservancy is conducting an assessment and feasibility study that will help identify potential restoration sites and develop a conceptual design for the highest priority restoration action. @

Hoh River Feasibility Study

42

The Chewuch River, a major tributary to the Methow River, is one of the last remaining strongholds for Pacific lamprey in the Upper Columbia. WFC staff are monitoring the status and trend of this population to determine how salmon-based restoration activities affect lamprey.

Few adult lamprey are returning to the Upper Columbia and WFC staff are tracking the status and trends of these ancient fish through annual surveys of larval rearing habitat.

Larval Pacific lamprey (called ammocoetes) utilize soft, silty substrate for rearing shown here in the Chewuch River. An ammocoete may remain in these freshwater habitats for up to seven years before migrating to the Pacific Ocean. @

Methow River Lamprey Survey

Larval Pacific Lamprey. Photo, Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

Science Updates cont.

Looking upstream at the core of an Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) before the sediment is installed as ballast to help hold the jam in its location. Not only will this jam help to increase the diversity of in-channel habitat through the creation of scour holes in what was previously a homogenous channel, but it will also split the flow of the river, encouraging channel expansion and the formation of a diverse suite of habitats in a previously constrained and simplified reach. @

44

2011 ELJ one year after it was completed.

Dosewallips River Restoration Project

The Icicle research project has entered a planned phase of low-intensity monitoring of our study sites. Field work of 2012 included snorkeling two sites in the upper Icicle with the aid of three high school students and former WFC communications Director, Ramon Vanden Brulle as volunteers, as well as bull trout spawning surveys coordinated with the Mid-Columbia Fisheries Resource Office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

In 2012, University of Idaho graduate student Chau Tran completed her Master’s degree under project partner Dr. Brian Kennedy which was based on research on the feeding ecology of juvenile rainbow trout in the upper Icicle. A manuscript describing the results is being prepared for publication with Kennedy and WFC project lead Nick Gayeski as co-authors.

Icicle Creek Research Project

WFC is engaged in a long-term examination of water quality trends in the Methow River Subbasin in a program funded through the Washington Department of Ecology. A key aspect of this study is monitoring water temperature at numerous locations throughout the watershed to determine the effects of salmonid-based habitat restoration. @

Gayeski and project partner National Marine Fisheries Service geneticist Dr. Gary Winans are also completing a manuscript for publication reporting the results of the genetic analyses of upper Icicle rainbow trout populations. Several other related publications of our research results are planned or in preparation. @

Methow River Water Quality Study

45

Wild Fish Conservancy, the Conservation Angler, the Federation of Fly Fishers Steelhead Committee, and the Wild Steelhead Coalition filed suit on February 9, 2012, against the Olympic National Park, NOAA Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and representatives of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (LEKT) (in their official capacity as hatchery operators) for ignoring best available science and violating the Endangered Species Act. The suit alleges that by permitting, funding, and operating the Elwha Hatchery, the defendants threaten the recovery of Chinook salmon, native steelhead, and killer whales. State and federal agency scientists, along with the independent Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG), pointed out that the hatchery plan gives no measurable goals for wild fish recovery, provides no timetable for ceasing the hatchery production, and that wild fish recovery is going to be hampered by the implementation of the Elwha hatchery plan.

On February 27, 2012, an agreement was reached with the LEKT in that WFC and its partners agreed not to seek a preliminary injunction against the LEKT’s planned 2012 release of non-native, hatchery-raised “Chambers Creek” steelhead, and the LEKT agreed not to release those steelhead that year. Unfortunately, further

Elwha River basin. Photo: Tom Roorda

Elwah River Hatchery Lawsuit

Advocacy Update

46

The new Elwah Tribal hatchery, the “House of Salmon,” is a $16+ million federally funded facility.

Elwah River Hatchery Lawsuit

The new Elwha Tribal hatchery, the “House of Salmon,” is a $16+ million federally funded facility.

47

settlement efforts were unsuccessful. Worse, the federal government has since approved a Biological Opinion under the Endangered Species Act and “Finding Of No Significant Impact” under the National Environmental Policy Act in an attempt to comply with the law, but in our opinion without appropriately addressing the scientific and legal flaws of their hatchery-based “recovery” plan. Nonetheless, the federal judge hearing the case recently dismissed one of our claims as moot.

We plan to appeal the federal judge’s decision and we have filed supplemental complaints to the Court asserting that the Biological Opinion does not comply with the Endangered Species Act and that a full environmental impact statement should have been prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act that considers alternatives to the hatchery-based plan. The district court must hear those claims before the matter can be appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.

Our goal remains that the recovery plan should be focused on wild fish, not hatchery fish, and that such a plan should be in place when we have a free-running Elwha. @

Graduating from the University of Washington with a bachelor’s degree in Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and going into the bleak job economy of 2010 was one of the most exciting – and terrifying – experiences of my life. I was thrilled to have a degree from the country’s top fisheries university, but after several applications elicited little or no response, I realized entering the field was not going to be easy. On the same day I began interviewing for other positions (solely as a source of income), a fellow graduate told me about a volunteer opportunity with Wild Fish Conservancy for the Grays Harbor project. I was initially skeptical, but once I learned about the project, I thought much more of the possible experience than a salary. After a few hours consideration, I turned down a follow-up interview at a medical clinic. As it turned out, the decision to join the project was probably the best career choice I could have made at the time.

Part of the initial draw for me was that my parents own a condominium on the waterfront of Grays Harbor and I had enjoyed my visits to the area. In addition, I thoroughly looked forward to finally being an active part of ongoing research; previously I had only participated in field trips and simulated field research as part of the University of Washington’s program. Although I had heard of beach seines and fyke nets, I had honestly never used – or even seen – either gear type before beginning this project. I was also eager to advance my juvenile salmonid and other fish identification skills as I had never really had the opportunity to observe these species in the field.

My first week in Westport taught me perhaps my first valuable lesson in field work: it is constantly subject to change. Plagued by high winds (which made sampling impossible) and engine troubles, we were unable to sample for the first week, but did manage to get soaked in the short time we were out. After that was remedied by a smaller boat, and

sampling began, I was a little unsure and hesitant as to where I should be, walk, and how to help out on either shore or at sea. The terrain of the sampling sites also had the thickest and deepest mud I have ever encountered. The learning curve for the first few actual days of sampling was steep to say the least, but after getting repeatedly stuck in said mud, I began to get a feel for the project. I built a picture of the study design while acquiring field skills and this set the tone for the rest of the season as I continued to build on my knowledge.

Eventually the day-to-day activities began to stabilize and the team began to really work well together. While we still had the coldest and wettest spring on record to contend with, I grasped what needed to be done in order for things to run smoothly. Seining with a 100-foot net would not be effective without an in-sync team (one person definitely can’t pull it into shore on their own, trust me). I took advantage of the leadership opportunities by training the stream of volunteers assisting with the research, and by concisely and confidently conveying direction

Grays Harbor Project VolunteersBy Molly Gorman

Molly Gorman with a sea-run cutthroat from the Gray’s Harbor near shore sampling.

48

to the team. There often isn’t time to second-guess yourself when you’re in difficult conditions or at a crucial point in the set.

I also gained a laundry list of practical skills such as knot tying, boat handling and maintenance, and data entry. I came to realize the importance of attention to detail in order to make sure the hours of actual sampling were translated into useable data.

The project gave me the chance to get started in my field just as I was about ready to settle for something different. Sure, the experience was not always easy when mud, rain, wind, and occasional motion sickness got in the way, but I gained the confidence and leadership experience I needed to enter the work force. I know with certainty that I would not have been hired at my current position with the California Department of Fish and Game if I had not participated in the Grays Harbor project. Most of the skills I learned have directly applied to my current job. I felt confident in my fish identifications from day one, and in fact, many of my colleagues were just as eager to hear my opinion on a difficult identification as to hear those of other coworkers.

Almost every morning when I leave for work at my job, I think that I could be working at that medical clinic, and I am so glad that instead I chose to take a chance on the WFC internship position. I am grateful to the Wild Fish Conservancy staff, especially the Grays Harbor crew leaders Dr. Todd Sandell and James Fletcher. They both used every possible opportunity to teach me, and without them I would not have achieved all that I have since my time in Westport. I hope to follow their examples when I lead my own crew. My time working with the Grays Harbor project continues to support my career, and will always represent my first professional opportunity to test my resolve and motivation, while pushing myself to learn all that I can. @

Field biologists, photographers, guides, and educators love ‘em.

Wild Fish Conservancy Photariums are indispensable tools for observing live fish in the field. Made of durable Plexiglas, Photariums are lightweight and corrosion-proof. They are available in three standard sizes and can even be custom-made to your size specifications.

Visit http://wildfishconservancy.org/store, for more information.

What’s a Photarium?

For scientific research, or safely documenting

your catch, Wild Fish Conservancy

Photariums are the answer!

49

Join us on November 1, 2013 at the Chateau Ste. Michelle, Washington’s oldest and most acclaimed winery, for a memorable evening of gourmet food, fine wine, and lively socializing. We are excited that Jim Lichatowich is our keynote speaker this year. Jim, author of the much-acclaimed Salmon Without Rivers, will preview his new book, Salmon, People, and Place: A Biologist’s Search for Salmon Recovery. Signed copies will be available for purchase.

The Wild Fish Soirée, Wild Fish Conservancy’s principal fundraising event, will begin with a silent auction, champagne reception, and live music followed by a gourmet dinner and live auction. The Soirée is a great opportunity to meet and mingle with the Wild Fish Conservancy’s staff, Board of Directors, and members while bidding on a variety of items including exotic fishing trips, fly fishing equipment and accessories, weekend getaways, gourmet dinners, books, fine art, and much more.

Last year’s event was a tremendous success as over $67,000 was raised for Wild Fish Conservancy’s unique science, education, and advocacy initiatives. Of course, we hope to surpass that this year but we need your support. To continue working for wild fish, the Wild Fish Conservancy depends on you and people like you who are committed to wild fish conservation. Help us meet the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead by attending this year’s Wild Fish Soirée and Benefit Auction. Even better, bring some friends so that they can learn about our shared passion and Wild Fish Conservancy’s work.

Proceeds from the Benefit Auction support the Wild Fish Conservancy’s work to preserve, protect, and restore the region’s wild fish and the habitats on which they depend. Wild Fish Conservancy is reaching out to communities, influencing policy leaders, and advocating bold, innovative, and effective approaches to conserving salmon, steelhead, trout, and other wild fish populations throughout the region.

For more information about the 2013 Wild Fish Soirée & Benefit Auction please contact Trent Donohue at [email protected] or call (425) 788-1167. @

22nd Annual Wild Fish Soirée & Benefit Auction

50

Angler’s Book SupplyAnthony’s RestaurantsArch AnglersArgosy Cruises Asset Management StrategiesCliff BarkerKurt BeardsleeBellevue ClubBelltown Billiards Gary & Ann BergquistBonnier CorporationSteve BroccoC.F. BurkheimerCafé LagoCascade Fly Fishing AdventuresCascade Kennels Inc.Chateau Ste MichelleColemanColumbia SportswearColumbia WineryDavid CrabbJohn CrandallCreekside AnglingDeLille CellarsDeschutes AnglerDr. SlickDukes Chowder HouseDuvall BooksJeff EdvaldsElliot Bay BooksEmerald Water AnglersJean Ferrier

A special thank you to the following donors who helped make the 2012 Wild Fish Soirée and Benefit Auction a success. Wild Fish Conservancy appreciates their commitment and generosity. Please remember them when making future purchases.

Frank EverettExOfficio FilsonFishEyeGuy Photography Flyfishers Pro Shop Frank Amato PublicationsJamie GlasgowGlobe Pequot PressGood Nature PublishingHill’s Discount FliesIcicle Outfitters & GuidesIndian Valley MotelJohn Howie RestaurantsBill KindlerLittle Stone Fly FisherLost River WineryJ.D. LoveHolly Magowan & Rosemary Weise EstateMagic Waters PatagoniaDoris McFarlandBill & Lynn McMillanBruce and Jeanne McNaeMichaels RestaurantMontana Fly CompanyMount Rainier Guest ServicesEd NewboldNorthwest Film ForumNorthwest Outdoor CenterBrian O’KeefeOxbow CenterPatagonia

Patrick’s Fly ShopPCC Natural MarketsPeninsula OutfittersPublishers Mailing Service & Jeff JensenRay’s Boathouse, Cafe & CateringRedington / FarBank Enterprises Royal Wulff Products Sage / FarBank EnterprisesSan Juan SafarisSazerac Co.Seattle SymphonyShelter RestaurantSmith Optics Suyama, Peterson, Deguchi Sweetwater TravelTacoma Rainiers BaseballTemple Fork OutfittersThe Estate of Fritz GerdsThe Estate of Harry LemireThe HerbfarmTofino Swell LodgeTulio RistoranteMarilyn & Craig TuohyTwisp River PubW Seattle HotelBill WhiteWings Wildlife StudioWinthrop InnWoodinville PrintingWright & McGill Co

51

Friday, November 1stChateau Ste. Michelle Winery, Woodinville, WA

Original painting by Damon Brown, www.damonbrown.org

Featuring Keynote Speaker, Jim Lichatowich,presenting his new book,

SALMON, PEOPLE & PLACE

Wild Fish Soirée &Benefit Auction