Author Chris Winter is Co-ExecutiveDirector and Staff Attorney at the CragLaw Center in Portland, Oregon. Tolearn more about the Crag Law Centerand its work visit: www.crag.org

Each fall as the rains start inthe Pacific Northwest, cohosalmon begin to make theirway back to their spawninggrounds in the rivers and

streams of the Oregon Coast Range.For millennia, the old-growth forestsand watersheds of the Pacific coastsupported bountiful runs of thesenative salmon, with estimates of annu-al production ranging from 1.75 mil-lion to over 5 million individual fish.To put that number into perspective,runs of this size would average out toseveral hundred spawners per mileacross the range of occupied spawninghabitat. Over time, however, withwestern settlement, changes in landuse, and increased harvest rates, thosenumbers began to plummet, bottomingout in the 1980s and 1990s at around

20,000 spawners, a tiny fraction of thehistoric runs.These dramatic population declines

triggered a now familiar policy andscience debate as the Oregon coast

coho was eventually listed under theEndangered Species Act as a threat-ened species. The range of the Oregoncoast coho, as defined by the NationalMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS),stretches from the Necanicum Rivernear Seaside on the north to the SixesRiver near Port Orford on the south

and includes iconic fish-producingwatersheds like the rivers and streamsthat feed into Tillamook Bay, as well asthe Alsea, the Siuslaw and the Umpquarivers. NMFS first listed the Oregoncoast coho as a threatened species in1998. After extensive litigation overthe agency’s listing process, NMFSagain listed the Oregon coast coho asthreatened in 2008. Since then, in both2011 and 2015, after detailed statusreviews, NMFS retained the species’listed status, confirming that seriousthreats to the viability of Oregon coastcoho remain. Despite the fact that the coho has

been listed as threatened since 2008,NMFS, until just recently, had failed tomove forward with a recovery plan forthe species. The ultimate objective ofthe ESA is to rehabilitate a species —and the ecosystems that it dependsupon — to the point where federal pro-tections are no longer required, andSection 4(f) requires NMFS to preparea recovery plan, which serves as a

®

THE OSPREYA Journal Published by the Steelhead Committee

International Federation of Fly Fishers

Dedicated to the Preservation of Wild Steelhead • Issue No. 84 MAY 2016

OREGON COASTCOHO SALMON

— PAGE 1 —

COPPER RIVERSALMON RESERVE

— PAGE 8 —

SALMON ANDDROUGHT

— PAGE 13 —

IFFF AND THE FUTURE

— PAGE 3 —

WILD FISH COURT VICTORIES

— PAGE 15 —

KLAMATH DAMSAGREEMENT

— PAGE 18 —

Continued on Page 4

Oregon Coast Coho RecoveryPlanning Limps Along

by Chris Winter— Crag Law Center —

IN THISISSUE:

Although listed as threatened since2008, NMFS onlyrecently moved

forward with a cohorecovery plan.

The International Federation of Fly Fishersis a unique non-profit organization con-cerned with sport fishing and fisheries

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

Name ________________________________Address _______________________________City ________________________ State _____Zip ____________ Phone_________________E-Mail ________________________________

Join by phone at 406-222-9369

Contributing EditorsPete Soverel • Bill Redman Doug Schaad • Norm Ploss

Ryan Smith • Schuyler Dunphy

ContributorsChris Winter • Len Zickler

Gabriel Scott • Miles JohnsonJim Yuskavitch

Design & LayoutJim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY

Letters To The EditorThe Osprey welcomes submissions

and letters to the editor. Submissions may be

made electronically or by mail.

The OspreyP.O. Box 1228

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

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

The Osprey © 2016ISSN 2334-4075

THE OSPREY IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERUSING SOY INK

®

ChairVacant

EditorJim Yuskavitch

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

2 MAY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84

by Jim Yuskavitch

Your membershipincludes a subscription

to Flyfisher, themagazine of IFFF.

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

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

Join the InternationalFederation of Fly Fishers

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

The Wild Fish Advocates’ Toolbox

Visit The Osprey on the Web at:www.ospreysteelhead.org

The Osprey Blog:www.ospreysteelheadnews.blogspot.com

International Federationof Fly Fisherswww.fedflyfishers.org

In a certain sense, this issue ofThe Osprey might be called thewild fish problem-solving edi-tion that provides some casestudies on how wild fish advo-

cates use the courts to fight, often suc-cessfully, for wild fish, along withpassing protective laws and workingwith agencies and stakeholder groupsto find ways to do right by salmon andsteelhead.Case in point is my story on this

spring’s spate of legal and legislativevictories including the rejection of thefederal government’s Columbia-SnakeRiver Biological Opinion, for thefourth time, and court decisions thataffirm or leave in place protections forfish habitat and water quality inOregon and wild salmon and steelheadhabitat protection and steelhead inAlaska’s Tongass National Forest.Our cover story on Oregon coast coho

salmon, along with the article on pro-tecting fish from future droughts,highlights how, when fish managementagencies lag in efforts to protect flag-ging fish populations, wild fish advo-cates will move to push those agenciesinto action — using the courts if needbe.On the other hand, the story outliningthe plan to create a salmon reservewithin Alaska’s Copper River water-shed is an example of a cooperativeapproach to salmon and steelhead con-servation.And, as illustrated in our article on

the signing of the Klamath damsremoval agreement, when politiciansget in the way, the people who care andare involved can make it happen any-way.There are many tools available to

wild fish advocates. The trick is to findthe right one for each situation.

Guest columnist Len Zickler isspokesman for the InternationalFederation of Fly Fishers Chairman ofthe Board Committee. Find out moreabout IFFF at: www.fedflyfishers.org

“If you don’t know where you’re going,you’re going to end up someplaceelse”...-Yogi Berra

Ilove baseball and I love YogiBerra quotes! I also love flyangling! The InternationalFederation of Fly Fishers hasbeen my connection to the fly

angling world. It is the vehicle I haveused in my quest for improved angling,better casting, and participation in theconservation of important waterresources required for a qualityangling experience.The Federation has been the connec-

tion between my professional life as anenvironmental planner and my sport-ing life as a fly angler. The quest to bea better angler is what drew me to theFederation and ultimately to a leader-ship position with the Board ofDirectors.

Current Board President PhilGreenlee approached me and asked if Iwould be willing to participate on anExecutive Director Search Committee.The committee set out in early 2014 tostart the Executive Director searchprocess. Thanks to Phil’s leadership,we have realized financial stability andonce again operate on a strong founda-tion.However, this is when the Yogi Berraquote revealed particular relevance. Itwas clear to the committee, while theFederation was once again financiallystable, it had no strategic plan to guidethe organization. Our leadership ischaracterized by many successfulbusiness and government leaders, allof whom recognize that without a planit’s hard to make positive progress. The Federation has demonstrated,even without a unified direction, we

can make a positive difference in theangling world. Our casting and tyingprograms are world-class and unparal-leled! The work of our councils andclubs across the United States and theworld is excellent! This is all goodnews.Regarding a unified direction, there

have been many attempts in the past toinitiate a strategic planning processesfor the Federation, however, they wereabandoned due to a lack of continuityin leadership or a lack of funding.

Imagine what it would be like if wewere unified by a clear direction,vision and purpose? As a foundationfor the executive director searchprocess, the committee set out toaccomplish this objective and I believewe have laid the foundation for thefuture of the Federation.Our effort included an examination

of the 2010 IFFF strategic plan. Eventhough a great deal of work went intothe 2010 plan, there was no budgetattached to it and therefore it was notimplemented.A strategic planning committee con-

vened in Denver in 2015 to begin thework of updating the strategic plan.We left Denver with an updated mis-

sion and vision statement and recom-mitment to our core values. Simplystated, the Federation is the only out-door sports organization entirelyfocused on the fly angling community.We are the “One Stop Shop” for every-thing Fly angling!

Our historical roots are in conserva-tion through fly angling. As Lee Wulffonce suggested...”the more people weintroduce to fly angling, the more con-servationists we create!” We re-dedi-cate ourselves to our conservationroots and stewardship ethics.Further, our educational offerings in

fly casting and fly tying are world-class and unparalleled! We are the onlyoutdoor sports organization dedicatedto a full range of educational offeringsfocused on fly angling.Regarding our mission and vision, asNorman Maclean’s father suggested tohim in “A River Runs ThroughIt”...”write it again, half as long”...

Therefore, restated, the Mission of theFederation is:

To support, enhance and preserve flyfishing opportunities. Fundamental tothis mission is environmental steward-ship and education.

The Strategic Vision is:

At its core, the Federation is the onlynonprofit, outdoor sports organizationexclusively representing fly fishing forall fish in all waters. Our core connec-tion vehicle is education. We strive tobe world-class educators in four areas:casting, fly tying, fly fishing skills andconservation.

The Steelhead Committee and its sci-ence-based journal The Osprey, as theFederation’s advocates for the conser-vation of wild steelhead and Pacificsalmon and the restoration of degrad-ed habitats, understand our conserva-tion roots and history as well as any-one. The Federation’s recommitment to

our conservation roots is evidenced byour recent signing-on to letters of sup-port to maintain the integrity of theClean Water Act and to address issuesassociated with livestock grazing on

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84 MAY 2016 3

The Federation, The Futureby Len Zickler

— IFFF Board of Directors —

GUEST’S CORNER

Our historical rootsare in conservationthrough fly angling,and the more flyanglers the more conservationists.

Continued on Page 19

template for how the federal govern-ment will achieve this outcome. It isNMFS policy to have a recovery planin place within two and half years of aspecies being listed. But by 2015,seven years after the Oregon coastcoho was most recently listed asthreatened, NMFS had yet to releaseeven a draft of the recovery plan.As a result of the bureaucratic delay,the Center for Biological Diversity andOregon Wild filed a lawsuit seeking tocompel NMFS to produce the blueprintfor recovery. Lo and behold, the plan-ning process that had stalled out foryears suddenly started moving again,and NMFS released a draft recoveryplan for public comment in December

of 2015, about 5 months after the law-suit was filed. Unfortunately, the draftplan comes up far short and representsmore of a missed opportunity than aworking blueprint for meaningfulprogress towards recovery.Recovery plans under the ESA are

intended to address the threats that ledto the imperiled status of the species.

To evaluate the draft plan released byNMFS, we need to understand whatfactors continue to threaten thespecies and what the best available sci-ence teaches us on how to reversethose trends. Under section 4(f) of theESA, the final recovery plan must theninclude:

l a description of site-specific man-agement actions that are necessary torecover the species;

l objective, measurable criteria forde-listing the species; and

l estimates of the time and costrequired to carry out the measures setforth in the plan.

In the case of the Oregon coast coho,the factors that led to the decline ofthe species have been well document-ed. Coho salmon rely on freshwaterand estuarine habitats from the timethey emerge from their eggs in thespring until they migrate to the oceanapproximately one year later. Duringthat first year of their life, juvenile

coho require cool, slow moving fresh-water streams with good water qualityto grow and survive through the sum-mer and winter season. Coho salmontherefore need complex stream habi-tat that provides shelter and refuge forover-wintering juveniles during peri-ods of high flows, and deeper pools andcold water during the summer months.NMFS and the scientific communityhave reached a broad consensus thatthe lack of complex stream habitat is alimiting factor in the production ofsmolts of Oregon coast coho.The landscape within the range of theOregon coast coho is dominated byforestlands under a patchwork of dif-ferent ownership, including federal,state and private entities. The qualityof stream habitat is dependent on the

land management practicesof these different jurisdic-tions. The North Coastregion consists largely ofprivate forestlands in shortrotation harvest manage-ment, along with approxi-mately 600,000 acres ofstate-owned forestland withthe Tillamook and Clatsopstate forests. These stateforests are managed by theOregon Department ofForestry under a statutorymandate to achieve thegreatest permanent valuefor the state based upon abalance of multiple usesincluding fish habitat, tim-ber harvest and recreationmanagement. They alsoinclude some of the lastremaining strongholds forthe coho, including theKilchis, Trask, Salmonberryand Wilson Rivers. ODF hasbeen widely criticized forthe inadequate riparian pro-tections that apply to loggingactivities on private andstate forestlands that pro-vide freshwater habitat forthe coho.

The middle and southern regionsinclude much more federal land,including large areas owned and man-aged by the U.S. Forest Service andthe Bureau of Land Management.While those federal lands are current-ly managed under the aquatic conser-

4 MAY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84

Coast CohoContinued from page 1

Continued on next page

Protecting habitat, including sufficient logging setbacks along Coast Range streams, is criticalfor restoring wild Oregon coast coho salmon. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

vation strategy in the NorthwestForest Plan, both the Forest Serviceand BLM have considered weakeningthose riparian protections in order toincrease harvest rates.In the draft recovery plan for the

Oregon coast coho, NMFS reiteratesand summarizes earlier findingsregarding these and other threatsresulting from the destruction or cur-tailment of freshwater habitat. In2011, the NMFS Biological ReviewTeam (BRT) stated that the long-termdecline in populations of the Oregoncoast coho reflects downward trendingconditions in freshwater habitat andthat remaining habitat may not be suf-ficient to sustain the species duringcycles of poor ocean conditions.Logging activities have reducedstream complexity by decreasing lev-els of large woody debris, increasingdelivery of fine sediment, and alteringgeomorphology and watershed hydrol-ogy. In addition, sediment deliveryfrom landslides and a dense networkof logging roads has degraded waterquality by increasing levels of sus-pended sediment and water tempera-tures. Combined with the impacts ofclimate change, the BRT concluded

that rising water temperatures willcontinue to have an overall negativeeffect on the status of Oregon coastcoho. And the coho is also sufferingfrom the impacts of other land man-agement activities, including agricul-tural runoff and urbanization. Afterconducting a thorough analysis ofhabitat threats and voluntary restora-tion efforts, the BRT concluded thatthere was little evidence that the over-

all trends in freshwater habitat hadimproved since the mid 1990s. Insome areas, like the North Coast, theBRT concluded that habitat conditionscontinue to trend downward, in partic-ular with respect to large wood and

sediment, as a result of logging androad management on state and privatelands.In the draft recovery plan, NMFS

also looked at whether existing regula-tory mechanisms are adequate to pro-tect the long-term viability of theOregon coast coho. Here again, NMFSconfirmed many years of analysisdemonstrating that Oregon’s ForestPractices Act, in particular, is outdat-ed and fails to protect aquatic habitatand water quality. In particular, NMFShighlighted riparian buffers under thestate logging rules called RiparianManagement Areas (RMAs), whichvary from 10 feet to 100 feet depend-ing on stream classification. NMFSdiscussed a wide of body of scientificevidence documenting that bufferwidths on small and medium-sizedfish-bearing streams and non-fishbearing streams are insufficient toachieve and maintain water qualitynecessary to sustain Oregon coastcoho. The RMA widths are also insuf-ficient to ensure enough recruitmentof large woody material into thestream network to provide for com-plex, off channel habitat.NMFS also called out Oregon’s fail-

ure to address the dense network oflogging roads on state and privatelands, especially “legacy roads” thatwere built decades ago and have sincefallen into disrepair. Oregon’s ForestPractices Act does not cover any ofthese legacy roads, and in many placesfailed stream crossings, old culverts,and severe erosion are contributingextremely high levels of sediment tothe stream network. This contributionof sediment can occur both chronicallyand episodically as a result of land-slides and blowouts.These basic findings set forth in the

draft recovery plan came as no sur-prise to people who have been trackingthe fate of the Oregon coast coho. Fordecades, the State of Oregon and theDepartment of Forestry have beenpromoting voluntary restorationefforts and arguing that the stateforestry laws are adequate to protectthe coho in an effort coordinated withthe timber industry to limit the scopeof federal regulatory authority. Andfor decades, a mountain of scientificevidence has been steadily buildingthat these non-regulatory approaches –

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84 MAY 2016 5

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

NMFS’s draft recoveryplan fails to articulate

identifiable site specific actions toaddress degraded habitat conditions.

Juvenile coho salmon require overwintering habitat with lots of in-stream wood andprotection from extreme highwater events. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

and Oregon’s State ForestPractices Act — are failingto ensure the survival andrecovery of the Oregon coastcoho. Most recently, in 2015,EPA and NMFS issued a jointfinding under Coastal ZoneManagement andReauthorization Act(CZARA) that Oregon’s for-est practices rules fail toprotect and maintain federalwater quality standards.Those findings eventuallyresulted in the federal gov-ernment stripping $1.5 mil-lion in federal funding fromOregon’s nonpoint sourcecontrol program. Given this context, many

people were waiting withbated breath to see ifNMFS’s proposal for recov-ering the Oregon coast cohowould reach to the point ofbeing able to de-list thespecies. Relying on popula-tion data from the last cycleof more favorable ocean con-ditions, the timber industryhas been angling towards de-listing theOregon coast coho, asserting thatfreshwater habitat conditions haverecovered to the point that federal pro-tections are no longer necessary. Untilthe release of the recovery plan, how-ever, NMFS had never set forth anyobjective recovery criteria, nor hadNMFS identified what specific mea-sures must be taken before it will de-list the species. Many viewed therecovery plan as an opportunity forNMFS to articulate how the federalgovernment was going to exercise itsauthority under the ESA to reverse thehabitat trends that continue to threat-en the coho salmon.

Unfortunately, but perhaps notunforeseeably, the draft plan releasedby NMFS late last year comes up farshort. NMFS sets as an objective toestablish self-sustaining, naturallyspawning populations of coho in thewild that are sufficiently abundant,productive, and diverse so as to nolonger need federal protection. Thedraft recovery plan, however, isalmost entirely aspirational withoutany concrete, specific steps necessary

to achieve that outcome. In broadterms, NMFS punted on almost everysingle important decision, statinginstead that it would determine at afuture time the site-specific manage-ment actions and the changes to exist-ing regulations that would need to bemade. NMFS offered little more than aplan to develop a plan at some unde-fined future point in time.As an example, the draft plan fails toarticulate identifiable, site-specificactions to address degraded habitatconditions. Instead, NMFS speaksbroadly about the theory of habitatrestoration and identifies in broad cat-egories the habitat features that areessential to conservation of the cohosalmon. These of course have beenwell known for decades. But NMFSdoes not explain how and where withinthe range of the Oregon coast coho itproposes to achieve measurable gainsin habitat necessary to recovery thespecies. In the absence of these spe-cific recommendations, NMFS fallsback on an amorphous plan to establisha “common framework and innovativepartnerships.” Instead of including

site-specific recovery objectives asrequired by the ESA, NMFS says thatits “recovery strategy calls forincreasingly effective voluntaryactions, regulatory mechanisms, andenforcement of laws and regulations.”NMFS also states that it will supportthe recovery efforts undertaken aspart of the Oregon Coast CohoConservation Plan, and it will help toconvene collaborative groups to for-mulate Strategic Action Plans (SAPs).But none of the site-specific detailshave been included in the recoveryplan itself. Similarly, NMFS completely fails to

identify any specific regulatorychanges that need to be made toaddress degraded habitat conditionson State and private lands that aremanaged under the Oregon ForestPractices Act. The draft recovery planinstead contains a qualitative goal ofreducing the “negative impact offorestry management” by “modifyingstate statute and/or regulations andpolicies for fish-bearing and non-fishbearing reaches; develop and update

6 MAY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

Minimizing introgression of hatchery coho salmon genes into the wild coho population is anotherimportant aspect for successful recovery. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

measures for landslide prone areas.”Again, however, the recovery plan issupposed to be the site-specific blue-print for bringing the coho back to thepoint at which it no longer needs feder-al protection. These specific details –the recommended changes to the inad-equate regulatory mechanisms – arerequired by the ESA to be set forth inthe recovery plan itself. NMFS hasinstead included extremely generalaspirational objectives without articu-lating any measurable criteria that canbe utilized to track progress towardsde-listing. There is a large body of sci-entific evidence that NMFS could havedrawn from to recommend bufferwidths, steep slope logging protec-tions, and legacy road managementrequirements necessary to recover theOregon coast coho. Instead, NMFSdeferred having to make these politi-cally difficult decisions, which leavesa gaping hole in the recovery plan. Weknow based on the best available sci-ence that we must fix these regulatoryproblems in order to recover theOregon coast coho, but NMFS com-

pletely fails to recommend specificcriteria or management actions to doso. In the end, the draft recovery plan

for the Oregon coast coho represents alost opportunity. NMFS could have

used this opportunity to provide a real-world assessment of the changes in theforest management and other landuses that will be necessary to recoverythe Oregon coast coho. Instead, thedraft plan reads like a synthesis ofpast, well-known scientific work and avague work plan to formulate future

recovery strategies, all with the unspo-ken objective of protecting the exist-ing status quo. When will the real, con-crete and measurable recovery planbe developed? That question is leftunanswered by NMFS in the draft. NMFS has stated that it intends to

release the final recovery plan by theend of the year, so stay tuned. CragLaw Center has been working with theCenter for Biological Diversity,Oregon Wild and the lawyers atKampmeier & Knutsen LLC on thedraft recovery plan, and we will pro-vide another update once the final planhas been released. Unless the finalplan is brought into compliance withthe mandates of the ESA, NMFS mayonce again find itself in court defend-ing bureaucratic back flips while habi-tat conditions on the Oregon coast con-tinue to trend down over time.

A pair of wild coho salmon spawn in a small stream on private forestland along the Oregon coast. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84 MAY 2016 7

Continued from previous page

NMFS may once againfind itself in court

defending bureaucraticback-flips while cohohabitat conditions continue to decline.

Gabriel Scott is Alaska Legal Directorfor Cascadia Wildlands, a conservationorganization based in Eugene, Oregon.Learn more about their work atwww.cascwild.org.

South-central Alaska’s CopperRiver, one of the world’s pre-mier salmon rivers, offers amodel example of the meritsand promise of salmon con-

servation. The annual migration ofsalmon by the millions feeds abundantwildlife, subsistence villagers, sportanglers, and one of the world’s premiercommercial fisheries. Copper Riversalmon fill a premium market nichethat, in turn, has allowed the humaneconomy to grow in support of salmonconservation. That economic power,along with cultural, natural and histor-ical forces, has caused interests toalign, to a remarkable degree, with theinterests of the salmon. How did it get this way, and how do

we keep it this way? Continued ecolog-ical health of the Copper River water-shed is due in large part to historicalevents, but remains vulnerable. At thesame time, the potential for lucrativeconservation is huge. Efforts areunderway on many fronts to protectthe habitat. Cascadia Wildlands cur-rently is focused on designating theCopper River Delta portion of theChugach National Forest as a “wildsalmon reserve.” This article re-introduces the “wild

salmon reserve” concept in a historicalcontext as a worthwhile goal for theCopper River Delta. It is hoped thatour experience contains lessons thatmight be useful to conservation effortselsewhere.

The Invaluable Copper River

The Copper River is one of nature’sgreat wonders. Start with the peaks,rising thousands of feet, cut through

by glaciers and extending beyond thehorizon. Here you will find mountaingoat, wolverine, and eagle. Out of themountains and glaciers flow thousandsof streams and rivers. A watershed thesize of West Virginia collects into themighty Copper River, the main arteryfor the return of millions of spawningsalmon.

At the place where the river entersthe sea the river has built a massiveflatland delta. At 700,000 acres, theCopper River Delta is rivaled on thiscontinent for size only by theMississippi. Unlike the Mississippi, thedelta here remains biologically intact.Miles and miles of ponds, sloughs,rivers, streams, muskeg, sedge wet-lands—water in every conceivableform— creates an impenetrable, mas-sively productive wetland. In thesewaters live a multitude of waterfowl,

like swans and Canada geese, as wellas rearing coho salmon, wanderingwolf and feasting bear.

Extreme tides leave a massiveexpanse of exposed mud twice a day onthe delta. Out on the sea, “the flats” inlocal parlance, is where the famouscommercial salmon fishery takesplace. Billions of tiny shellfish in the

tidal flats also give rise to anotherincredible natural phenomenon, theannual spring stopover of millions ofshorebirds. Undeniably a biological jewel, the

Copper also illustrates how, whensalmon receive the premium prices inthe market, they can support robustcommunities. Conservation does pay. The biological riches of the Copper areused and appreciated in various ways.The huge watershed has very few res-

The Copper River drains thousands of square miles of Alaskan wilderness and boastsamong the most valuable runs of salmon in the world. Photo by Brett ColePhotography.

8 MAY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84

Continued on next page

A Copper River Wild Salmon Sanctuary

By Gabriel Scott— Cascadia Wildlands—

idents. Cordova (pop. 2,500) along thecoast near the Delta is the largesttown, and home to the commercialfishing fleet. Here, Copper River salmon support

one of the world’s most valuable com-mercial fisheries. The early timing,reliable abundance, and pristine habi-tat have made “Copper River salmon”a delicacy that commands a strongpremium in the market. A single kingsalmon is worth more than several bar-rels of oil; more than a ton of coal. Subsistence—that is, customary andtraditional hunting and fishing forfood— remains an economic mainstay.The Eyak natives, whose homeland isroughly synonymous with the CopperRiver Delta, have always subsisted onsalmon. Upriver, the Ahtna people con-tinue to live in traditional villages andsubsist on salmon, safeguarding theirheritage even as they have become fullparticipants in the modern, cash-basedsociety. Virtually every household inthe watershed keeps a stock of CopperRiver salmon for food.

In recent decades, locals havewatched as sport anglers discoveredthe Copper’s abundant runs of coho.Subsistence users scratch their headsin perplexity at the notion of catch andrelease and regard it as “playing withyour food”, but welcome the newsource of income. Entrepreneurs oper-ate lodges at small remote cabins scat-tered through the area, doing thrivingbusiness with small groups of fly fish-ermen. As ecotourism has become a major

industry, locals have expanded visitoropportunities. Birders and photogra-phers come from all over the world toCordova for the spring ShorebirdFestival, witnessing the arrival of mil-lions of shorebirds. Summer salmonfestivals, and autumn mushroom festi-vals, are also taking off.

A history of Conservation

To understand where we are, we needto know where we’ve been. The CopperRiver region entered the modern eraat the turn of the last century, at thetime in American history when it wasfirst realized that the frontier did notextend forever. This period saw thefirst modern conservationists: poets

and explorers like John Muir, andpractical men like Gifford Pinchot andTheodore Roosevelt. The first settlerson the Copper were accompanied bythe first conservationists. The historyof conservation here mirrors the histo-ry of environmentalism in America.That history could be understood ashappening in three eras: frontier set-

tlement, statehood, and then the ExxonValdez oil spill and its ongoing after-math. The notion of the salmon reserve wasactually the original American idea ofwhat to do with Alaska’s vast biologicalresources. When the first U.S. ForestService officials dispatched to Alaskain a small steamer, they reported backto D.C. that while the timber didn’t

seem to be worth much, the salmonfisheries were truly extraordinary. Inthat era of unbounded frontierexploitation, the notion of a “salmonreserve” leapt to mind.Ultimately, Pinchot and conservation

allies in the Roosevelt administrationsettled on U.S. Forest Service over-sight of the region, and in that waysought to lock in conservation ofAlaska’s salmon rivers and forests. Insouthcentral Alaska, this meant creat-ing the huge, 7 million acre ChugachNational Forest.The Copper River Delta in particularfigures prominently in that early histo-ry. The Bureau of Land Management,which sought to move public lands intoprivate hands, and the Forest Service,which sought to conserve renewableresources according to the “modern”principle of conservation (“the great-est good for the greatest number forthe longest time”), had their greatestconfrontation here. In the mountains beyond the Copper

River Delta lie the Bering River coal-fields, a rich coal vein. Fearing that theJ.P. Morgan/ Guggenheim Trust weresweeping up a monopoly on the coal-field, Pinchot drew his line in the sand.What followed was the epic

The commercial salmon industry, reliant on a healthy Copper River watershedecosystem, is a major driver of the local economy. Photo by Brett Cole Photography.

The Copper Riversupports one of theworld’s most valuablecommercial fisheriesthat commands topprices at market.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84 MAY 2016 9

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

Ballinger/Pinchot controversy, a hugenational scandal (think Iran-Contra inthe 1980s). Pinchot eventually resignedin disgust, but conservation won thewar. The monopoly oncoal was broken, thecoal remains in theground, and the CopperRiver Delta becamealmost all entirelyunder the jurisdictionof the Forest Service.In the early settlementperiod, theMorgan/GuggenheimTrust built a railroad upthe Copper River toreach a rich vein ofnearly pure copper inthe high headwaters atKennecott. The richKennecott copper washauled away over thenext thirty years. Then,abruptly, the railroad,mine and town wereabandoned. The wilder-ness has reclaimed theland with haste.Throughout the regiontoday remain scatteredremnants of the “syndi-cate days,” looming likethe ruins of someancient civilization outof a tangle of trees andbrush.

The next historicalera, Alaska Statehood,was inspired by twothings: the discovery ofoil, which was of nation-al interest, and the uncheckedexploitation of Alaska’s resources, andparticularly salmon, by outside corpo-rations, which was of overriding inter-est to Alaskans. TheMorgan/Guggenheim approach ofhauling away wealth, then abandoningthe area, rankled settlers. So whenAlaska became a state, it banneddestructive fish traps outright andincorporated Pinchot’s ideas into thestate’s constitution, mandating thatfish and other wild resources werethere for public use and must be man-aged on a sustained yield principle formaximum benefit of the population. It wasn’t until the mammoth oil find at

Prudhoe Bay in the seventies howeverthat the country seriously had to grap-ple with Alaska land. To simplify acomplicated history, the dueling inter-ests of resource conservation and

exploitation, national and state inter-ests, and immigrant and indigenousconstituents, divided Alaska land own-ership among themselves. The result isthe network of parks, forests, refuges,state and private lands that we havetoday.When the dust cleared, the Copper

River delta mostly remained ForestService land and was given a specialstatus. Unique in the Forest Servicesystem, the Delta is to be managed pri-marily for fish and wildlife habitat (notmultiple use). Much of the rest of thewatershed headwaters were containedwithin Wrangell St. Elias National Parkas Wilderness. The remainder was

divided between newly created AlaskaNative corporations, the State, andBLM. The result today is that the water-

shed is a patchwork of landowners,

each with its own priorities and way ofdoing things. Still, all land managersremain united in strong common causeto manage the watershed for salmonabundance and healthy habitat. TheState of Alaska is directly responsiblefor sustainable fisheries under theconstitution, and fishing is a huge eco-nomic driver. Federal land agencieshave relatively strong conservationmissions. The Alaska Native corpora-tions, who today control the bulk of theexploitable resources (coal, oil, tim-ber), are comprised of Alaska Nativeshareholders, who are more reliantthan anyone on long-term ecologicalhealth.

10 MAY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

Alaska’s massive Copper River watershed provides habitat for a wide range of wildlife along withstrong, healthy runs of salmon. The 700,000 acre Copper River Delta is second in size only to theMississippi River Delta.

Those common interests are particu-larly solid as a result of the 1989 ExxonValdez oil spill in nearby PrinceWilliam Sound. The Exxon Valdezutterly devastated the local economy,fisheries and wildlife of PrinceWilliam Sound. The spill drove homethe harsh reality that natural abun-dance can be lost in a moment. Andwhat’s more, locals learned that, nomatter what promises are made, in theend it is up to residents to protect theenvironment from harm. Nobody willdo it for them.The Copper faces the familiar threatsto habitat, and except for the interven-tion of activists motivated by the oilspill, the pristine natural environmentof today could have been lost. At thetime of the oil spill, Native corpora-tions and the State were busily tryingto develop. A highway was being builtup the Copper River, a cruise shiplodge planned for the Delta, a deepwa-ter port begun near Cordova, spruceand hemlock forests were beingmowed down for log exports, oil explo-ration loomed and a massive coal minewas planned at the Bering River coal-field. None of these ventures mademuch economic sense, but at that timeof billion dollar boondoggles and roadsto nowhere, such threats were immi-nent.The lessons of the oil spill however,

and the funds it made available forrestoration, resulted in the gradualdropping away of most of the proposedboondoggles. Thanks to local activists,the highway was stopped, the cruiseship plans were forgotten, the deepwa-ter port remains theoretical, oil rightswere abandoned, and most of theremaining privately owned forestswere moved into conservation ease-ments. The Bering River coalfield, the orig-

inal source of Pinchot’s ire, remainsthe one major thorn in the side ofefforts at permanent protection. Whileit is located within the generally “safe”USFS land, rights to mine the coal areowned by a Korean corporation(KADCO), and the regional ANCSAcorporation, Chugach Alaska Corp. Ifdeveloped, the coal mine would involveroads across the Delta, mountain-topremoval mining and untold damage tosalmon rearing habitat.

Copper River Salmon Reserve

It is in this context that the currentefforts for a Copper River salmonreserve have emerged. The effort

seeks to lock in conservation gains onpublic lands by building up the positiveframework for common managementof interests in the salmon. The current Chugach National Forestland management plan revision offersthis opportunity. The delta, biological-ly the crown jewel of the watershed, isalmost all USFS land. Unlike other

national forests, where the agency isbeholden to some extractive industry,the Chugach faces a more pure chal-lenge of wild land management. Thetwin goals of the new plan are simple:sustainability and resilience.

Currently, the delta is managedunder a designation called “501b,” ref-erence to the statute declaring the areamust be managed primarily for fishand wildlife habitat. Under its newForest Plan, the Forest Service coulddeclare the “501b” areas as “CopperRiver Wild Salmon Reserves.” There are three distinct advantages

to the wild salmon reserve approachhere: (1) it embraces rather thanexcludes locals; (2) it establishes aname brand protected area, but doesnot require congressional approval oran executive order; and (3) it facili-tates creative solutions to problemsposed by private inholdings.

The conflict between local andnational interests has sunk many awell-intended effort. Gifford Pinchot,seeing the problem even then, stronglybelieved therefore that forest rangers

Continued on next page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84 MAY 2016 11

Continued from previous page

Salmon, drying on racks, is a primary food source for residents of the Copper Riverregion. Photo by Brett Cole Photography.

The twin goals of theplan to create a

Copper River SalmonReserve are simple:sustainability and

resilience.

should live and work in the forest,among the settlers. This bit of institu-tional brilliance has allowed the USFSto build local expertise and trust.While locals burned Pinchot in effigy,the local forest rangers still enjoyed

good relations with the community.The Forest Service has been a local aswell as a national agency. Rangers arethere to help locals find firewood,hunting grounds and fishing holes; torescue lost hikers and pull trucks outof the mud; and to participate in localeconomic efforts like the shorebird,salmon and mushroom festivals.The National Park Service by con-

trast, which manages the even moremassive Wrangell St. Elias NationalPark, has had little success winningover the locals, or integrating thepark’s missions into local people’slives. Park rangers are strangers inmost of the communities. While rela-tions are improving, the park hasinspired more local resentment thansense of common purpose. The park’s

main achievement is permanent pro-tection of a vast, capital “W”Wilderness. Together with adjacentwilderness in Canada, this is thelargest protected wilderness in theworld. That is a wonderful achievement for

conservation, but is not one on which

conservationists are likely to buildtoday. In the late 1990s, conservation-ists sought to expand on the park andestablish the Copper River Delta asdesignated wilderness. Despite abun-dant support from national environ-mental groups, those efforts failed dueto opposition from Alaska’s conserva-tive congressional delegation. Capital“W” Wilderness is ideologically anath-ema to Republicans in congress, and isnot generally popular among ruralAlaskans. There is no doubt the localswant the Delta to remain wild. Theyalso want to be able to use it.The salmon reserve concept address-es this concern by embracing localusers, especially anglers, while stillmaintaining conservation as the domi-nant priority. Whereas designated

wilderness establishes its value asbeing the absence of human impact,the salmon reserve’s value is the pres-ence of wild salmon habitat. It can bethought of as non-ideological wilder-ness. The salmon reserve approach also

addresses the practical threats to habi-tat, which come not from feder-al land managers but from pri-vately owned “inholdings” ofresources inside the publicareas. The one problematicinholding on the Copper RiverDelta is the Bering River coal-field—the original source ofPinchot’s ire.Happily, over the last twenty

years efforts to develop thecoalfield have repeatedly beenbeaten back, and today a per-manent conservation deal pay-ing the developers to keep thecoal in the ground is withinreach. The Wild SalmonReserve would add impetus tothat effort. A U.S. presidentcould establish a legacy (hinthint) by using federal funds tomake the coal deal work, there-by ensuring health of the feder-al wild salmon reserve. In con-trast to a wilderness area, con-servation easements wouldallow the Alaska Nativelandowners to retain title totheir ancestral lands, while stillconserving the area for itsimportant public purposes. In closing, the Copper River

should be celebrated bysalmon-lovers everywhere as a

living example of the truth that wild-land conservation on a massive scale isboth achievable and profitable to localresidents. Sustaining this successrequires a flexible, non-ideologicalapproach by conservationists, and anunderstanding of the historic forces atwork. It is hoped that anglers and conserva-tionists will support CascadiaWildlands’ efforts to establish a WildSalmon Reserve on the Copper Riverdelta, and can draw some lessons fromour experience that might be usefulelsewhere.

Continued from previous page

12 MAY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84

Establishing a Copper River Salmon Reserve would protect this remarkable landscape and allits wonders for use by present and future generations of Americans. Photo by Brett ColePhotography.

Author Miles Johnson is Clean WaterAttorney for Columbia Riverkeeper.This article is adapted from a lettersent by a coalition of conservationorganizations to Will Stelle, RegionalAdministrator for the West CoastRegion National Marine FisheriesService, urging the agency to developplans to protect salmon and steelheadfrom future extreme drought conditionssuch as experienced in 2015. To learn-more about Columbia Riverkeepervisit: www.columbiariverkeeper.org.

High water temperaturesin the Columbia andSnake Rivers last sum-mer proved disastrousfor salmon and provided

a disturbing glimpse at the future ofColumbia Basin fisheries. In 2015,more than 250,000 adult sockeye diedin the main-stem Columbia and Snakerivers because warm water preventedthem from successfully migratingthrough fish ladders at the dams. Forendangered Snake River sockeye, theresult was catastrophic: 96% of return-ing spawners perished before passingLower Granite Dam on the SnakeRiver. Similar fish kills in 2016 or 2017could push endangered Snake Riversockeye back to the brink of extinc-tion.Fisheries scientists concluded that

Columbia and Snake River dams werelargely responsible for the high watertemperatures and delayed fish migra-tions in 2015, which caused disease anddeath in adult salmon. An October 27,2015, letter from eight independentfish scientists shared this conclusionwith NOAA and accused federal regu-lators of repeatedly failing to make the“major changes to dam operations thatare necessary if we are going to con-tinue to have wild salmon and steel-head in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. . . .” A report by a federal scientificresearch group called the Fish Passage

Center also found that dam operationsharmed adult salmon. The FishPassage Center concluded that:

l Long-term exposure to water tem-perature over 20° C harms adultsalmon and steelhead.

l Water temperature at nearly allColumbia and Snake river dams regu-larly exceeded 20° C during summer2015.

l Fish ladders—that draw warm waterfrom the surface of reservoirs—oftenexpose adult salmon to the highesttemperatures and the most acute ther-mal stress.

l The temperature difference betweena warm fish ladder and a cooler damtailrace often stops adult salmon frommigrating up the fish ladder.

l High water temperature in theColumbia and Snake Rivers, especiallyin adult fish ladders at the dams, is a“long-recognized problem thatremains largely unmitigated.”

Cold water releases from DworshakDam in Idaho did not significantly helpadult Snake River sockeye in 2015. In light of these scientific findings,

and to prevent similar fish kills in thenear future, a coalition of river advo-

cacy groups sent letters to NOAA andthe U.S. Army Corp of Engineersrequesting emergency measures toprotect adult salmon and steelhead inthe Columbia and Snake Rivers. Thisbroad coalition included ColumbiaRiverkeeper, Snake RiverWaterkeeper, Idaho Rivers United,Friends of the Clearwater, Advocatesfor the West, Fighting Goliath,American Rivers, Endangered SpeciesCoalition, Great Old Broads forWilderness, Natural ResourcesDefense Council, NorthwestSportfishing Industry Association,Sierra Club, Save Our Wild Salmon,and Whale and Dolphin Conservation.These groups asked NOAA and theArmy Corps to prepare emergencymeasures to significantly increase sur-vival rates of adult salmon and steel-head attempting to migrate throughColumbia and Snake river dams andreservoirs. Summer 2016 is almost here, but the

federal regulators have failed to putforward meaningful new protectionsfor fish. In response to mediainquiries, representatives from NOAAand the Army Corps have discussedinstalling more temperature sensors,cooling the fish ladder at LowerGranite dam by releasing cold waterfrom Dworshak Dam, moving SnakeRiver sockeye upriver by truck, andimproving tributary habitat.These proposed measures would not

prevent future fish kills like thoseseen in 2015 because: Better temperature data will only

give dam operators a slightly clearerunderstanding of an obvious problem.

l Releasing cold water fromDworshak Dam to decrease fish laddertemperatures at Lower Granite Damfailed to prevent the 2015 fish kills;most Snake River sockeye salmon didnot even reach Lower Granite Dam.

Continued on next page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84 MAY 20166 13

Salmon and Steelhead Need Protection from Hot Water and Drought

By Miles Johnson— Columbia Riverkeeper —

Summer 2016 isalmost here, and

federal regulators havefailed to put forwardmeaningful droughtprotections for fish.

l Dam operators could only trap a fewadult sockeye in 2015, and truckingsalmon from eastern Washington tocentral Idaho is not a viable solution.

l According to modeling by the EPA,tributary water temperatures—whileimportant for spawning and rearing—have little or no effect on water tem-peratures in the main-stem Columbia.

Unfortunately, none of the ‘solutions’floated by NOAA and Army Corpsspokespeople would prevent futuredie-offs of Columbia and Snake Riversockeye. Federal regulators also prepared a

draft “2015 Sockeye Salmon PassageReport” discussing the 2015 crisis andpotential measures to improve adultfish passage. The draft reportacknowledged that the impacts of cold-water releases from reservoirs likeDworshak Dam “attenuated rapidly,”and that most Snake River sockeyeactually died further downstream, inthe lower Columbia. Sadly, the draft

report did not propose any concretemeasures to reduce water tempera-tures in the lower Columbia or in theSnake below Lower Granite Dam.Instead, the draft report suggestedthat trapping adult fish and trucking

them to central Idaho is an effective“hedge”—even though fisheries man-agers were only able to collect a hand-ful of adult sockeye in 2015, despitesubstantial efforts. NOAA has predicted that hot weatherand low flow conditions similar to 2015will reoccur in the near future. Federalregulators’ inability to propose mean-ingful emergency measures to protectfish bodes poorly for the survival ofthe endangered Snake River sockeyeand the Columbia Basin’s other iconicsalmon runs.

14 MAY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84

Continued from previous page

High water temperatures in Columbia River basin streams played havoc with salmonand steelhead in 2015. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

THE OSPREY OFFERSELECTRONIC MAILING AND ACCEPTS ONLINE

DONATIONSSubscribers may now, at their

option, receive The Osprey as aPDF file attached to an e-mail.

The Osprey staff wants toemphasize that this is subscribers’choice based on how you prefer toreceive mailings and what fitsyour lifestyle. Some prefer thespeed and ease of forwarding,copying, and manipulating thatelectronic documents provide. Forothers, there is no substitute for aprinted document that can be readanywhere. To open PDF files, e-mail subscribers will require theAdobe Acrobat Reader, which canbe downloaded free of charge at:www.adobe.com/products/reader/If you are an existing subscriberwho would like to switch to e-maildelivery or a new subscriber foreither printed or e-mail delivery,please complete the redesignedcoupon on Page 19 and send it tothe International Federation ofFly Fishers with your contributionto support The Osprey and thecause of recovering wild steel-head and salmon. You also have the option of mak-ing a secure credit card donationto support The Osprey and wildsteelhead and salmon by going tothis link: http://www.fedflyfishers.org/Conservation/TheOspreyNewsletter/tabid/225/Default.aspxBy either means, the steelhead

and salmon will thank you for sup-porting The Osprey.

Author Jim Yuskavitch is Editor of TheOsprey.

With continually declin-ing wild fish popula-tions, degraded habi-tat, proliferation ofhatchery fish, and the

uncertainty of climate change’simpacts on the freshwater and oceanenvironment, among other ills, wildsalmon and steelhead advocates areused to bad news as part of their dailydiet. But this spring has brought anumber of important court decisionsin favor of wild fish and their habitatthat should give everyone some cheer,proving, once again, that the law andscience are on the side of wild fish andtheir advocates. Here’s a rundown onthose legal victories compiled fromvarious reports:

Federal Judge Michael Simon RejectsFourth Columbia River BiOp

On May 4, U.S. District Court JudgeMichael Simon rejected the NationalMarine Fisheries Service’s latestColumbia River Biological Opinion(BiOp) that purported to outline how torestore declining runs of wild Pacificsalmon and steelhead in the Columbia-Snake river system, where currently13 wild runs are listed under theEndangered Species Act. This is thefourth time the federal government’sColumbia River BiOp has been reject-ed in federal court. Former FederalJudge James Redden rejected the gov-ernment’s Columbia River salmonrecovery plans in 2004, 2008 and 2010,sending them back for rewrites. TheMay 2016 ruling is in response to a law-suit brought by a coalition of fishinggroups, conservation organizations(including the InternationalFederation of Fly Fishers), clean ener-gy advocates, the Nez Perce Tribe andthe state of Oregon challenging the

current BiOp. The BiOp is supposed to be an actionplan that details how the federal damson the Columbia and Snake rivers areto be managed to minimize salmon andsteelhead mortality — especially for

downstream migrating juveniles —and present a plan to recover dwin-dling runs of wild-origin fish. Thereare four large dams on the lower

Columbia River and four more on thelower Snake River, all operated by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers that arethe primary culprits in wild salmonand steelhead declines, especially onthe Snake River. The dams have partic-ularly affected Idaho’s Redfish Lakesockeye salmon run. Now ESA listed asendangered, they have hovered on thebrink of extinction for decades.The dams’ detrimental impacts on

salmon include inundation of spawninghabitat, degrading habitat by slowingriver velocity, heating rivers andreservoirs to unhealthy, and some-times fatal, temperatures, and killinglarge numbers of downstream migrat-ing smolts as they pass over the damsor through the turbines. Juvenile fishmortality rates can reach 90 percentfor some runs.Judge Simon’s ruling invalidated the

most current BiOp on the grounds that

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84 MAY 2016 15

For the fourth timesince 2004, the federalcourts have rejectedthe Columbia RiverBiOp and sent it backto the drawing board.

Continued on next page

Federal Judge Michael Simon threw out the federal government’s most recentColumbia River basin salmon recovery plan, suggesting that removing the fourSnake River dams was an option to seriously consider. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

The Courts Come Through for Wild Fish

By Jim Yuskavitch— The Osprey —

it did not manage the dams in a man-ner consistent with salmon recovery,and, in laymen’s terms, “threw it out.”Judge Simon said in his decision: “Formore than 20 years, NOAA Fisheries,the Corps and BOR (Bureau ofReclamation) have ignored the admon-ishments … to consider more aggres-sive changes to the FCRPS (Federal

Columbia River Power System) to savethe imperiled listed species.” And,“The agencies instead continued tofocus on essentially the same approachto saving listed species — minimizinghydro mitigation efforts and maximiz-ing habitat restoration. Despite bil-lions of dollars spent on these efforts,the listed species continue to be in aperilous state.”Specifically, Simon rejected the BiOpon a number of factors.

1. It rejected the plan’s basic “trendingtowards recovery” legal framework,because it allowed the agencies to con-clude that their recovery plans were

working even though there was “verylittle actual improvement in fish abun-dance.”2. The plan relied too heavily on uncer-tain and speculative habitat improve-ments to make up for harm to salmoncased by the dams.

3. He found that the federal govern-ment did not adequately assess the“potential catastrophic impact” of cli-

mate change on salmon and steelheadin the Columbia River basin.

4. He found that the agencies violatedthe National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) because they did not considerother alternative strategies to fishrecovery, since the established strate-gies have “already cost billions of dol-lars, yet they are falling apart.”

5. He also noted that removing the fourdams on the Snake River is a recoveryoption that should be considered.

Judge Simon ordered that NMFS pre-pare a new biological opinion and com-

plete NEPA analysis that complieswith the law by March 1, 2018.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Attempt toOverturn Tongass National ForestRoadless Protections

In late March, the U.S. SupremeCourt decided not to hear a last-ditcheffort by the state of Alaska to exemptthe Tongass National Forest, in

Southeast Alaska, from thenational rule that protects,road-free, undevelopedareas in the national forestsfrom logging and road con-struction. The state ofAlaska wanted to overturna Ninth Federal DistrictCourt ruling that said, inagreement with an earlierfederal court ruling inAlaska, that a previousdecision by the BushAdministration to exemptthe Tongass National Forestfrom the “Roadless Rule”was done improperly andreiterated a settled rulethat says federal agenciescannot change policies andignore previous factualfindings and decisions justbecause a new administra-tion is elected. Along with the federal

government, conservationgroups, the OrganizedVillage of Kake (an Alaskannative tribe) and areatourism businesses hadurged the Supreme Court toleave the Roadless Ruleprotections in place.

The purpose of the Roadless Rule isto protect “large, relatively undis-turbed landscapes”, in national forestfrom clearcuts and logging road con-struction, while still allowing othereconomic development such as trans-mission lines, hydropower projects,tourism activities, federally-financedpublic roads and mining.

The Osprey published an article inthe May 2014 issue by MarkHieronymus, Sportfish OutreachCoordinator for Trout Unlimited’sAlaska Office, detailing the tremen-dous value of the Tongass NationalForest for wild salmon and steelhead.

16 MAY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

By refusing to hear the state of Alaska’s legal challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed roadlessprotections to remain in place in the Tongass National Forest. Photo by Mark Hieronymus

Encompassing almost 17million acres and spanning500 miles of SoutheastAlaska’s coastline, theTongass is the largestnational forest in the U.S.and provides spawninghabitat for literally hun-dreds of millions of salmonand steelhead each year. Ofthe approximately 5,000streams in the Tongass,about 450 of those hold runsof steelhead, most of whichare wild. Research conducted by

Trout Unlimited, theNational Audubon Societyand The NatureConservancy identified 77watersheds comprising 1.9million acres that representthe best and highest qualitysteelhead and salmon habi-tat in the forest, and areworking to protect habitatin these areas. Dubbed the“Tongass 77,” these nearly 2 millionacres would conserve an additional 23percent of salmon and steelheadspawning habitat. The Ninth CircuitCourt’s previous ruling and the USSupreme Court’s decision not toreview, and possibly overturn, that rul-ing will increase the odds of protectingthis vital habitat.

Court Upholds Oregon Law to Keep itsStreams Clean, Protect Fish Habitat

In another March decision, theFederal District Court of Oregon ruledthat the state of Oregon has the right toregulate state and federal land for thepurpose of protecting water qualityand fish habitat, and that recent statelegislation accomplished that aimwithout conflicting with federal law.This issue goes back to 2013 when theOregon State Legislature passed sen-ate Bill 838 that put temporary restric-tions on the use of motorized gold min-ing equipment such as suction dredgesin and near Oregon streams withessential salmon habitat, and to protectwater quality. The law went into effectin January 2016 and is in effect until2021. The legislation was passed inresponse to serious habitat and water

quality degradation problems in south-ern Oregon salmon and steelheadstreams, including the Rogue River,that have seen an increase in suctiondredge gold mining operations inrecent years — not all of them legal.

Gold miners sued the state lastOctober, claiming that federal law didnot allow the state to pass laws protect-ing environmental resources on feder-ally managed lands and waters. But thecourt disagreed. Participants in sup-port of the state legislation includedRogue Riverkeeper, Pacific CoastFishermen’s Association, Oregon CoastAlliance, Cascadia Wildlands, NativeFish Society and the Center forBiological Diversity.

The latest scientific research showsthat gold mining activity contributesmercury into rivers and damages fishhabitat through physical disturbancecause by motorized mining equipment.There have also been conflicts amongminers, anglers, boaters and otherrecreationists.

The Osprey has regularly coveredmining issues in southern Oregon andthe threats they pose to wild fish.These include a story on suctiondredge mining by Forrest English ofRogue Riverkeepers in the January2014 issue, and proposed nickel minesin the Smith River basin by MichaelDotson of KS Wild in the September2014 issue.Currently, members of Oregon’s con-gressional delegation are working topass legislation that would prevent anynew mining claims on 100,000 acres offederal lands in southern Oregon, andthe Bureau of Land Management isproposing a seven-year moratorium onany new mines in that area while thelegislation works its way though theU.S. Congress.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84 MAY 2016 17

Continued from previous page

The Oregon court’s ruling on Senate Bill 838 affirms that Oregon and other states have the author-ity to pass laws protecting fish habitat and water quality on federal lands. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

The court ruled thatstates have the right toprotect fish habitat and water quality on federally managed

lands.

After decades of conflict inthe Klamath Basin on theOregon-California border,the agreement to removethe four lower Klamath

River dams was finally signed inKlamath, California on April 6, 2016.The agreement was signed by repre-sentatives of the U.S. Department ofInterior, U.S. Department ofCommerce, PacifiCorp, which owns thedams, and the states of Oregon andCalifornia.A separate agreement with Klamath

basin irrigators was also signed bystate and federal officials that will helpfarmers and ranchers in the regionavoid any adverse legal or financialimpacts from the removal of the dams.After years of negotiations and con-

troversy, Klamath basin stakeholderssigned an agreement in 2010, theKlamath Hydroelectric SettlementAgreement and the Klamath BasinRestoration Agreement — to begin theprocess of removing the four lowerKlamath River Dams — Iron Gate,COPCO 1, COPCO 2 and J.C. Boyle. Then in 2014, the Upper Klamath

Basin Comprehensive Agreement wassigned. Congressional members fromOregon and California worked to passlegislation in the U.S. Congress in 2015to move forward with the dam removalplans, but were temporarily thwartedwhen Oregon Representative GregWalden (R-Hood River) included alarge transfer of national forest landsto county ownership and the legislationstalled, as Congress adjourned for theyear and the Klamath BasinRestoration Agreement expired at theend of 2015.

However, all the Klamath Basinstakeholder groups including conser-vation, agriculture, tribal, state, coun-ty, and federal agencies and othersagreed to continue to move forward inspite of reaching a dead end in

18 MAY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84

With the April 2016 agreement signing, wild fish advocates are back on track to seethe four lower Klamath River dams gone by 2020. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Once the third largest producer of salmon in the lower 48 states, the Klamath will seeits fish populations rise again with the removal of the dams. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Continued on next page

Klamath Dams AgreementFinally Signed

By Jim Yuskavitch— The Osprey —

public lands. We will also be focusingon efforts to advocate for the mainte-nance of public access to all watersacross the United States.There are some Federation memberswho question our commitment andadvocacy for environmental, cleanwater and habitat restoration issues.They believe these issues are too“political.” To those, I would suggest,“the train has left the station”. TheFederation will not be walkingback five decades of commitment toour conservation and stewardshiproots in advocating for all fish and allwaters.The Academy, an IFFF initiative thatdevelops educational programs for allaspects of fly fishing, is another way

we will demonstrate our commitmentto our conservation ethic. Through theAcademy, we will develop a world-class outreach program to further ourstewardship and conservation pro-grams. Work has begun on this effort,and we are excited about the directionand progress. Please stay tuned, as wewill be rolling out curriculum for useat the Council and club levels.

I want to personally thank theSteelhead Committee and Board ofDirectors for their support of our mis-sion, vision, and strategic direction.With your support and cooperation,I’m confident the roadmap we’ve laidout will give us a terrific direction for“The Future - The Federation”.

THE OSPREY

PHONE

E-Mail

CITY/STATE/ZIP

NAME

I am a . . .

❏ Citizen Conservationist

❏ Commercial Outfitter/Guide

❏ Professional Natural Resources Mgr.

❏ Other

ADDRESS

Thanks For Your Support

The Osprey — Steelhead Committee International Federation of Fly Fishers

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

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

❏ Friend or fellow angler

❏ Fishing show

❏ Fly shop, lodge or guide

❏ Another publication.Which?

❏ Club or conservation group meeting

❏ Other

Yes, I will help protect wild steelhead

❏ $15 Basic Subscription

❏ $25 Dedicated Angler Level

❏ $50 For Future Generations of Anglers

❏ $100 If I Put Off Donating, My Fish

Might Not Return Home

❏ $ Other, Because

I Am a New Subscriber ❑

I Am An Existing Subscriber

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

Send My Copies by Standard Mail (Hardcopy) ❑ ❑

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 84 MAY 2016 19

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

Continued from previous page Guest ColumnContinued from page 3Congress and amended the previous

agreements to initiate the damremoval process.

The agreement signed in Aprilrequires PacifiCorp to transfer itsoperating license for the dams over toa private company called the KlamathRiver Renewal Corporation that willoversee removal of the dams in 2020.PacifiCorp decided that it was in theirand their customers economic bestinterest to remove the dams ratherthan build fish ladders to allow salmonand steelhead to ascend the river toreach historical habitat that is nowblocked by the dams.The Klamath River was once the

third most productive salmon river inthe contiguous U.S. after theColumbia and Sacramento river sys-tems. However, habitat loss, overfish-ing and construction of hydroelectricdams that cut off more than 400 milesof upriver spawning and rearing habi-tat caused a serious decline in theriver’s salmon and steelhead runs.The Klamath’s runs of spring and

fall Chinook salmon have declined butnot enough to put them on the federalEndangered Species list. KlamathRiver coho salmon, however, werefederally listed as Threatened in 1997and as Threatened by the state ofCalifornia in 2004. The Klamath alsohas both winter and summer steel-head runs, along with sea run cut-throat trout.There are also four species of suck-

ers in the Klamath River basin, two ofwhich, the Lost River sucker and theshortnose sucker, are listed asEndangered.A 2010 economic impact study foundthat removing the Klamath damswould result in a $2.24 millionincrease in annual income from com-mercial and recreational fishing andincrease annual fishing related busi-ness revenues by $1.45 million in thefour northern California and southernOregon Klamath basin counties.Overall income in those counties fromfishing, and habitat restoration andconstruction activities associated withdam removal, would be more than $52million in the four counties over an 11-year period.The total cost to remove the dams isestimated to be about $450 million.

THE OSPREY

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

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage Paid

PAIDBozeman, MTPermit No. 99