Author Caren E. Braby is MarineResources Program Manager for theOregon Department of Fish andWildlife. Learn more about the pro-gram at: www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp

Deservedly at the top of thelist of the most concern-ing climate changeimpacts, ocean acidifica-tion (OA) is often

referred to as global warming’s “equal-ly evil twin”, a term first coined in 2009by former NOAA Director and long-time Oregon State UniversityProfessor, Dr. Jane Lubchenco. Whydoes OA get this dubious title?Because it could be described assneaky. Ocean acidification has beenquietly progressing without muchnotice, while global warming (and evenother climate-related impacts, such assea-level rise) are arguably better-understood and have been receivingmuch of the media and policy atten-tion. OA is at heart a chemical change in

ocean conditions due to absorption of

atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Inthe Eastern Pacific Ocean, we havefirst-hand experience with this cli-mate-related oceanic change – we areexperiencing impacts today that will

not be seen globally for decades. Theincreases in OA are resulting in biolog-ical responses that are likely to lead tobroad ecosystem changes across theWest Coast – probably changing whatwe think of as “normal” forever. Whilethere is much we have yet to learnabout OA and its impacts, we do knowquite a bit about the resulting changes

we are seeing in ocean chemistry andbiology. And, we are seeing conversa-tions emerge among industry mem-bers, researchers, policy-makers, andcoastal communities about OA and thechallenge of addressing and adaptingto what lies ahead.

Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery

Acidification ground zero is arguablyat the Whiskey Creek ShellfishHatchery, located in Netarts Bay,Oregon. This hatchery supports muchof the oyster aquaculture industryacross the West Coast, supplying larvaland juvenile oysters to oyster growersin California, Oregon, Washington, andbeyond. Whiskey Creek staff rear theyoung oysters, as well as the nutrient-rich algae that fuel the oysters to growto a shippable size. Packets of larvaeget sent overnight to oyster growers,who then entice the larvae to attach tooyster shells or other hard surfaces,after which they are called “spat”.

®

THE OSPREYA Journal Published by the Steelhead Committee

International Federation of Fly Fishers

Dedicated to the Preservation of Wild Steelhead • Issue No. 83 JANUARY 2016

OCEANACIDIFICATION

— PAGE 1 —

GROWTH &SUSTAINABILITY

— PAGE 3 —

ROGUE RIVER DAM REMOVAL

— PAGE 9 —

GREAT LAKES WILD SALMON

— PAGE 13 —

2015 DROUGHTREPORT

— PAGE 17 —

Continued on Page 4

Ocean AcidificationGlobal Warming’s Evil Twin

by Caren E. Braby— Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife —

IN THISISSUE:

Ocean acidification is“sneaky,” quietly

progressing withoutmuch notice while

global warming gets allthe attention.

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

ContributorsCaren E. Braby • Norm PlossJim McCarthy • Bob Hunter

Brian P. Morrison • Jim Yuskavitch

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

®

ChairNorm Ploss

EditorJim Yuskavitch

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

2 JANUARY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83

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 Storm Beneath the Sea

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

The Osprey Blog:www.ospreysteelheadnews.blogspot.com

International Federationof Fly Fisherswww.fedflyfishers.org

Ilike visiting the coast as muchas anyone and try to visit asoften as I am able despite therather long four-hour drivefrom my home on the east side

of Oregon’s Cascade Mountains.While most people prefer to visit in

the summer when the days are sunnyand warm and the ocean fairly calm, Iprefer to visit in the dead of winterwhen the Oregon coast is rainy andstorm-battered. Storm watching is oneof my favorite pastimes, sitting on arock (or if the weather is really badthrough my motel window) as greatswells gather offshore and powerfulwaves crash against rocky headlands. But below the unruly surface a stormof another sort is brewing, a sinistermix of climate and chemistry calledocean acidification whose effects sci-entists are just now beginning tounderstand.

This issue’s cover story, clearly toldby Caren Braby, Marine ResourcesProgram Manager for the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, is avaluable primer on this looming threatto the world’s oceans.

As Braby relates, while climatechange gets all the press, climatechange’s evil twin, ocean acidification,is quietly doing its insidious damage.Particularly affecting ocean animalsthat use calcium carbonate to manu-facture shells, the commercial oysterindustry has been the first to suffereconomically from ocean acidification,and oceanographers have been watch-ing worriedly as coral beds around theworld have declined and even died offfrom the same cause.She points out that it is too soon to tellhow ocean acidification may impactsalmon and steelhead. I have a feelingwe will find out soon enough.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83 JANUARY 2016 3

Growth and Sustainabilityby Norm Ploss

— Chair, Steelhead Committee —

CHAIR’S CORNER

As we add to our accumulat-ed knowledge over life-times, some things irritateus more. If we’re luckyenough, we let go of most.

Here are a couple of lesser irritants:Ever walk on the beach or leave yourvehicle to fish a favorite spot? It’s vir-tually impossible not to see cigarettebutts on the ground. What do theythink? The ‘Cigarette Butt Fairy’ willbe along to pick them up. I’ve heardthe words ‘robust’ and ‘disingenuous’enough for a lifetime. And to argue, a more important irri-

tant: Climate change deniers. RossGelbspans book, “The Heat Is On” waspublished January 1997. That wasenough for me to understand some-thing really big was up. There’s nodenying Climate Change in 2016. BillNye, The Science Guy, author of a newbook “Unstoppable” says it best: “Wedo have this non-trivial problem ofhaving to get deniers out of the way.They’re trouble.” The Osprey has pub-lished several articles on climate andwild fish.Wild salmonid fisheries are examplesof the concepts of ‘Growth’ and‘Sustainability”. How we view theseterms has nudged my intellectual irri-tation bone for a long time.Some commentators have recently

pointed out that Gross DomesticProduct [GDP] Growth is hoveringaround 2% and that 4% is required.The other ‘Growth’ of course is popula-tion. The US Census Bureau estimatesthe 2014 US population at 318.7 million.It projects in 2020 population will be334.5 million and by 2050 398.3 million.Those 80 million people will rely on

GDP growth to provide jobs, housing,and infrastructure to have satisfactorylives here in the US. All that growthwill undoubtedly place pressure onwatersheds, rivers, etc. This is cer-tainly not to the advantage of wildsalmon and steelhead where they exist. I first came upon the modern envi-

ronmental uses of the term ‘sustain-

ability’ when active with Acterra in the1990s in Palo Alto ( www.acterra.org ).Acterra’s Business EnvironmentalAwards [BEA] program covers theentire 9 County Bay Area and beyond.It includes education, government, andbusiness enterprises as potential can-didates for awards. The BEA celebrat-ed its 25th Anniversary in 2015. In2007 Acterra and the BEA establishedits highest award, the Award forSustainability. As part of the judgingteam in the first years, we visited

some of the most well known regionalentities who applied for the award.Acterra remains for me elite amongstfront line environmental organiza-tions.

What these award applicants andwinners analogously share with wildsalmon and steelhead is the desire tocontinue indefinitely and endure. The pillars of the ‘sustainability’ dis-

cussion are energy, ecology, economy,and social justice. Each term offeringdifferent meanings depending on theview point taken. What continues toplague the discussion is the nature of a‘closed loop’ or of a ’linear system.’Does a ‘sustainable’ entity take fromthe environment and dispose back intothe environment a ‘net zero’ impact orbyproducts that provide for anotherprocess.Some have brokered the discussion tobecome ‘sustainable development.’That is growth without end by anyname.

There are some great examples of‘closed loop’ sustainability in naturalsystems. Undisturbed forests forexample. However, two of myfavorites are the Plains Indians andwild salmon and steelhead. The PlainsIndians were nomadic. They movedfrom place to place with the seasons.Taking from the environment enoughto sustain their lives and moved on asthe seasons dictated. By the time thefollowing year arrived, and theyreturned to the previous year’s season-al camp, not much had been changedor altered. Wild salmon and steelhead,given reasonably stable ocean condi-tions and largely unaltered rivers andwatersheds, return year after year. Iwould argue examples of ‘closedloops’.

Wikipedia excellently summarizesmy conflicted thoughts:

“Despite the increased popularity ofthe use of the term “sustainability”, thepossibility that human societies willachieve environmental sustainabilityhas been, and continues to be, ques-tioned—in light of environmentaldegradation, climate change, overcon-sumption, population growth and soci-eties’ pursuit of indefinite economicgrowth in a closed system.”

Wild salmon and steelhead grow totheir maximum population and sustainthose populations when least intrudedupon by human actions!

This is my last column as SteelheadCommittee Chair. A year volunteercommitment has passed quickly. Theyear 2015 was relatively (not com-pletely) calm for wild fish. A few victo-ries, few losses, in the widest view -not much really changed. Let us wishThe Osprey great growth and sustain-ability.

The pillars of the “sustainability

discussion” are energy,ecology, economy and

social justice.

Oyster growers then transfer the spatout into the bays or estuaries for grow-ing up to a marketable size for eating. Whiskey Creek’s expertise is in massproduction of larvae, which is an art asmuch as a science. The hatchery man-agers had been effectively producinglarvae for decades. Then, unexpected-ly, their skills were challenged in 2007,when they experienced inexplicabledie-offs of oyster larvae. Initiallyattributed to bacterial infection, thedie-offs continued even after the bac-teria were under control. Over thenext year of trial and effort in adjust-ing hatchery operations and workingwith researchers, water chemistrybecame a likely culprit. Connectionsbetween ocean currents, ocean acidifi-cation, and hatchery rearing successwas laid out in a landmark peer-reviewed article by Alan Barton andother researchers in 20121. How are operations at the hatchery

today? The managers are successfullyproducing oyster larvae for the aqua-culture industry, but they are doing itby carefully monitoring water chem-istry and making necessary chemicaladjustments to the culture water, pri-marily when summer upwelling brings“bad water” to their intake pump. Fornow, the adjustments are working.However, as ocean acidification wors-ens, their challenges in maintainingeconomically viable larvae productionwill likely grow. Since the problems at the hatchery

first began in 2007, a groundbreakinggroup of industry members,researchers and policy-makers, hasrisen to the challenge and collectivelyhas discovered much about the causesand impacts of ocean acidification,locally. Equally notable, this group hasbrought global attention to this issuethat threatens the productivity ofoceans and the diversity of marine lifeworldwide.

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxidedrives ocean acidification

The underlying causes of ocean acid-ification are based on the laws ofphysics, particularly the dynamics ofhow gases move from the atmosphereand dissolve (or are absorbed) into the

ocean (Figure 1). Atmosphere-oceangas exchange is constantly occurring,being that oceans cover 70% of theearth’s surface. As more of a particu-lar gas accumulates in the atmosphere,more of that gas is absorbed by theocean. Since the beginning of theindustrial era, atmospheric CO2 (andother gases and particulates related tofossil fuel combustion) has increasedat an unprecedented rate to a veryhigh level (2015 marked the first yearin modern history when CO2 topped400 parts per million, or “ppm”), which

has led to more CO2 being absorbed bythe ocean. In fact, the ocean is recog-nized as one of the most important“sinks” of our growing atmosphericcarbon problem, absorbing more than25% of the globe’s combustion-gener-ated CO2 (with plants and atmosphericaccumulation accounting for most ofthe remainder).

4 JANUARY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83

Ocean AcidificationContinued from page 1

Continued on next page

Figure 1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by the ocean and causesthe water to become acidified. Acidified water is one of a multitude of stressesassociated with climate change that threatens marine animals, especially thosethat make calcium carbonate shells. (Figure credit: Kelsey Adkisson, ODFW)

Ocean currents bring deep, old, acidi-fied water to Oregon’s shore

Even if we were to stop combustion-generated CO2 TODAY, we would con-tinue to see a rise in acidification fordecades to come. How can this be? Theocean water that reaches Oregon’sshore during summer upwelling has aCO2 “signature” from the Kennedy era(when atmospheric CO2 concentrationwas 320 ppm). The more acidifiedwater from today’s gas exchange(when atmospheric CO2 is at 400 ppm)is just now sinking in the North Pacific,being converted into deep ocean cur-rents that will reach Oregon 50 yearsfrom now. Here’s a rough sketch of how this all

works. The ocean looks like one bigpool of water but it is layered, like abig wedding cake. Ocean currentscrisscross the ocean at differentdepths. Each layer can have a uniquetemperature and unique chemistrybased on where the layer was generat-ed – these unique characteristics forma “signature” for each layered watermass. Just like air masses in ouratmosphere, cold water sinks belowwarm layers of water. Because of thisdynamic, cold water in polar seas sinksand moves below warmer water mass-es, generating much of the movementof deep ocean currents. At some point,these currents are pushed back up tothe surface elsewhere on the globe. Anewly-completed video describing thisis now available for anyone to view oruse, at www.OregonOcean.info.

Complicating this ocean currentsstory, cold ocean water can absorbmore CO2 gas than can warm water.Cold polar waters are therefore super-charged with CO2, before they sinkbelow the surface. Because the deepcurrents are isolated from the atmos-phere, organisms use up the oxygenand produce additional acidifying CO2,which is trapped deep in the oceanuntil it later reaches the surface andreestablishes gas exchange with theatmosphere. In the North Pacific, off the coast of

Japan, there is an area that generatestwo of these deep currents. One cur-rent travels eastward to the US WestCoast, taking approximately 10 yearsto reach Oregon’s shore. Another cur-

rent takes approximately 50 years totravel south to the equator, then up thecoast from Ecuador, to Mexico,California, Oregon, and beyond. It isthese deep, acidified waters that are

upwelled each spring and summeralong our coast and that continue tocause problems for oyster larvae pro-duction at the Whiskey Creek ShellfishHatchery. But it is not just oyster cul-ture that is at risk – it is all marineorganisms that are exposed to acidicconditions. At present, we do not know

enough about which species are vul-nerable, or which locations will be“hotspots” of extreme OA. Now, therace is on for researchers to under-stand who will be next to show symp-toms from our acidifying coastalwaters.

What we know about ocean acidifica-tion now (Available on www.OregonOcean.info)

1. Ocean water is rapidly becomingmore acidic.

In less than two centuries, oceanacidity has increased worldwide by30%. This rapid change is a result ofhuman-generated CO2 being emittedinto the atmosphere, which is absorbedby the world’s oceans and increasingevery year. CO2 absorption reducesthe pH, causing increased acidity thatreduces carbonate, a key component ofsea water. Reduced carbonate canhave detrimental impacts to marinelife, particularly to organisms that useit in making their shells. IncreasingOA has been tracked for several

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83 JANUARY 2016 5

Long-term datasetspositively correlatehuman-generatedatmospheric CO2production with

increases in oceanacidification.

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

Animals that require calcium carbonate to produce shells such as mollusks and coralshave been among the first ocean creatures to suffer from ocean acidification. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

decades by hundreds of researchersworldwide. These long-term datasetspositively correlate human-generatedatmospheric CO2 production withincreases in OA.

2. Coastal Oregon and the West Coastare particularly vulnerable to OA andhypoxic zones.

The compounded effects of naturaland human-generated factors increasethe intensity of OA off Oregon, exacer-bating the impacts from seasonalhypoxic zone formation. Naturallyoccurring seasonal upwelling of acidi-fied deep ocean waters is a componentof the Pacific Northwest’s ocean car-bon chemistry processes. This naturaloccurrence results in fluctuating acidi-ty levels throughout the year.Concurrently, low oxygen hypoxiczones form in nearshore areas.Hypoxic zones occur when oxygenbecomes so depleted from decomposi-tion that seawater can no longer sup-port most aerobic marine life.

Oregon’s marine species are accus-tomed to seasonal encounters withboth upwelling and hypoxic zones.However, human-released CO2 (andrelated factors) is intensifying the nat-

ural fluctuations so that they are moreextreme and more frequent, resultingin acidic conditions that are intolera-ble to some species. For some species,even small changes in ocean carbonchemistry can cause very significantproblems.

3. Organisms that use carbonate intheir shells are already showing nega-tive impacts from acidification.

Many sea animals including oysters,clams, mussels, corals and some plank-ton species use abundant dissolved cal-cium and more limited dissolved car-bonate from ocean water to form theircalcium carbonate shells. As CO2 hasrisen, the availability of carbonate hasdecreased, making it more difficult forthese and related organisms to pro-duce and maintain their shells.Sensitivity to pH fluctuation hasalready been demonstrated inpteropods, free swimming sea snails,which are an integral component inmarine food webs. Reduced pH levelscan result in pteropod shell deformi-

ties, dissolutionof shell exterior,and lower rates ofshell develop-ment. The rippleeffect that thiswill have on foodwebs is unknown.

4. Differentspecies react dif-ferently to chang-ing seawaterchemistry.

OA will not killall ocean life.However, manyscientists agreethat there will bechanges in thenumber and abun-dance of marinespecies. With sig-nificant impactsalready occurringto larval shellfishand plankton

species, scientists are also concernedabout amplified impacts to specieshigher in the food web that prey onthese organisms. For example, threatsto crab larvae may not only have impli-

cations for crab harvests, but couldalso affect survival rates of juvenilecoho and Chinook salmon that rely onthe larvae as an important food source.As a response to changing ocean chem-istry, we might expect that somemarine ecosystems will be populatedby different, and potentially fewer,species in the future.

5. Oregon’s economy is already beingnegatively impacted by OA.

The Whiskey Creek ShellfishHatchery appealed to Oregonresearchers to help them with failedproduction in their hatchery. The storyof the discovery of the role of OA inthis hatchery failure has become well-known in the Pacific Northwest andeven world-wide. Seawater chemistrymodulation of their mariculture tankshas made it possible for WhiskeyCreek to continue its business, but it isnow more complex and expensive tomaintain productivity at past levels. Atleast one other Pacific Northwest shell-fish hatchery has given up and left thearea due to challenges associated withmaintaining production in the face ofintensifying OA. Much less known butwith greater potential impacts, are theeffects of OA on wild populations inOregon that are facing OA outside ofcontrolled hatchery settings.Scientists and fishery managers areconcerned that the fishing industrymay also be vulnerable to OA. Whilewild fish population impacts have notyet been linked to OA, as OA andhypoxic zones increase in frequencyand intensity, experts anticipate thatlinkages will emerge.

Beyond Whiskey Creek – TakingAction in Oregon and the West Coast

There are a number of initiativesafoot to increase the understanding ofthe science and build it into sound pol-icy, with the overall goal of adapting toocean acidification and other climate-related stressors on the West Coast. In2011, the State of Washington con-vened a Blue Ribbon Task Force, com-prised of regulators, researchers,industry members, and other stake-holders, to determine how to addressOA locally, within that state. Then in

6 JANUARY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83

Continued from previous page

Continued on next page

The oyster industry has already been seriously affected byocean acidification and it may only be a matter of time before itharms other fisheries. Photo courtesy Pacific Shellfish Institute

2013, California initiated a sciencepanel (which quickly grew to includemembers from Oregon, Washingtonand British Columbia) to conduct acomprehensive review of the scienceof ocean acidification and hypoxia,guided by specific questions and infor-mation needs of West Coast resourcemanagers. The West Coast Ocean

Acidification and Hypoxia SciencePanel (“science panel”) has been work-ing for over two years to providestrategic recommendations that can beused by resource managers – and theyhave nearly completed their work.

The next steps will be critical – sincethere is always more to be done thanthere is time or money to accomplish.The task at hand, following on theheels of the science panel, will be tofind the most strategic actions to take.

At the Forefront of Determining theMost Strategic Actions

The Pacific Coast Collaborative(including Governors from California,

Oregon and Washington, and thePremier of British Columbia) has beenspending considerable time preparingfor the handoff from the science panel,including convening state agencies,meeting with federal partners and pur-suing policy-development opportuni-ties. The California Ocean ScienceTrust, which has staffed the sciencepanel, will also play an important rolein facilitating the path from science to

policy. While global action on climate will bedetermined by the success of planningevents such as the Paris talks in 2015,regional action on OA will be deter-mined by locally developed conversa-tions and plans. Investing in researchthat informs OA policy will be high onthe list. Raising awareness throughoutreach, such as publishing articles inThe Osprey and other media outlets,will help. Convening community lead-ers, industry members, agency staff,to determine best practices and oppor-tunities to collaborate will also beimportant. Much of this work will beled by government officials, but thereis room for much more than what canbe done by government officials alone.

We need help addressing this globalproblem - the time to act is now.

Ocean acidification is a big problem,which will require global politicalchange to fully mitigate. But there aremany things we can do locally to makeour future less extreme. What can youdo as an individual? Stay informed onocean issues, especially on climatechange and ocean acidification (one

place to start is with the Mathis et al20152 article that introduces an entireissue of Oceanography, dedicated toOA). Support ocean research. Talk tothe people you know about theseissues, to raise awareness. Engage insound policy development, targetingclimate and OA issues. And overall, dowhat you can to be a good steward ofour climate and of the ocean.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83 JANUARY 2016 7

Continued from previous page

Ocean acidification is slowly changing the chemical makeup of the world’s oceans. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Ocean Acidification

Acknowledgements

The work above represents leadership and contributions from manywho are not listed as co-authors; their intellectual contributions havebeen repeated and repackaged in this article by me. In particular, theleadership of the members of the Oregon Fish and WildlifeCommission, Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery managers, West CoastOcean Acidification and Hypoxia Science Panel members (Oregonmembers: Jack Barth, Francis Chan, Burke Hales, George Waldbusser,Waldo Wakefield), and representatives from the Governors’ offices(California, Oregon, Washington) and Premier’s office (BritishColumbia), who have identified the problem and are pursuing adaptivesolutions to meet this challenge collaboratively. In addition, I acknowl-edge the federal leadership to build the Interagency Working Group onOcean Acidification, and invest in ocean observing, research and educa-tion on this issue.

References for Further Reading

1 Barton, Alan, Burke Hales, George G. Waldbusser, ChrisLangdon, and Richard A. Feely. 2012. The Pacific oyster,Crassostrea gigas, shows negative correlation to naturallyelevated carbon dioxide levels: Implications for near-termocean acidification effects. Limnol. Oceanogr., 57(3), 2012,698–710.

2 Mathis, Jeremy T., Sarah R. Cooley, Kimberly K. Yates,and Phillip Williamson. 2015. Introduction to this specialissue on ocean acidification: The pathway from science topolicy. Oceanography, 28(2), 2015, 10-15.

Websites

Oregon Ocean Info (Ocean Acidification tab – includes linkto the new video on ocean acidification)www.OregonOcean.Info

West Coast Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia Science Panelhttp://www.oceansciencetrust.org/project/west-coast-ocean-acidification-and-hypoxia-science-panel/

Pacific Coast Collaborativehttp://www.pacificcoastcollaborative.org

Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidificationhttp://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/IWGOA.aspx

8 JANUARY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83

Lawsuit Filed to ProtectPuyallup River Salmon

A coalition of conservation organiza-tions has filed a lawsuit against theElectron hydroelectric project onthe Puyallup River, Washington toprotect Puget Sound wild Chinooksalmon, steelhead and bull trout.

The federal government knowsthat the dam kills and injures ESA-listed Chinook salmon and steelhead,but has allowed the dam owners tocontinue to ignore the EndangeredSpecies Act, specifically Section 9 ofthe Act, which prohibits any personfrom “killing, trapping or harmingan endangered species.”

Previously operated by PugetSound Energy, the hydro project isnow owned by Electron Hydro LLC.The lawsuit asks that the project’soperations be reviewed and modifiedto be compatible with salmon andsteelhead recovery.

Historically, the Puyallup hadChinook salmon runs of about 42,000wild fish annually, now down to about1,300. In 2007, Puget Sound steel-head were listed as Threatenedunder the ESA, and were once muchmore abundant in the river. The Puyallup River, which flows

from Mt. Rainier to CommencementBay in Puget Sound, is one of eight“core areas” for bull trout in thePuget Sound region, and a local pop-ulation exists in the upper PuyallupRiver, where higher elevations pro-duce the cool water temperaturesthey require. In 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service listed the populations of bulltrout in the Coastal/Puget Soundregion in Washington, including inthe Puyallup River, as threatenedwith extinction under the ESA.

In 2004, USFWS issued a draftrecovery plan for Coastal/PugetSound bull trout, which lists an abun-dance target for bull trout in thePuyallup River at 1,000 adults. Bycontrast, as of 2004 the populationwas fewer than 100 adults.The lawsuit was brought by the

Western Environmental Law Centeron behalf of American Rivers andAmerican Whitewater.

Jim McCarthy lives in the RogueValley, and is CommunicationsDirector and Southern OregonProgram Manager for WaterWatch.Bob Hunter is a WaterWatch boardmember and previously the lead staffperson for WaterWatch's “Free theRogue Campaign.” Learn more aboutWaterWatch at: www.waterwatch.org

Three decades ago, the ideaof removing dams to bene-fit fish and rivers conflict-ed with widely held valuesand beliefs. For many,

dams were – and for some, still remain– symbols of progress and monumentsto the control of nature. But not alldams are still providing the benefitsfor which they were originallydesigned. Many have become function-ally or economically obsolete. Somehave been abandoned. Today, the negative impacts of dams

on river systems and fish are muchbetter understood. The growing num-ber of successful removals of obsoletedams on fish-bearing streams hasitself become a celebrated symbol ofprogress, and represents a fundamen-tal change in our relationship withrivers. Dam removal is now recog-nized as a legitimate river manage-ment option for restoring rivers andfish runs. The communities ofOregon’s Rogue River basin have goodreason to be proud of our significantcontribution to this profound change.Together, we are trailblazing one of themost successful dam removal andriver restoration efforts in NorthAmerica.The Rogue River in southwestern

Oregon is one of the most productivesalmon and steelhead rivers in thePacific Northwest, with five runs ofsalmon and steelhead, plus lampreyand cutthroat trout. Yet, for over onehundred years a series of dams on themainstem and important spawning

tributaries severely impacted Roguebasin fish. After persistent leadershipover three decades from WaterWatchof Oregon, Savage Rapids Dam, theCity of Gold Hill Diversion Dam, andGold Ray Dam were finally allremoved in a three year span from2008 to 2010, providing unimpeded fishand boat passage on 157 miles of themainstem Rogue from William JessDam to the Pacific Ocean. During thattimespan, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers notched its partially com-

pleted Elk Creek Dam, freeing upaccess to important salmon, steelhead,and cutthroat trout spawning areas onElk Creek. In 2015, WaterWatch andour partners removed Wimer Dam andFielder Dam, providing unimpededaccess to 70 miles of high quality habi-tat in Evans Creek, another importantsalmon and steelhead spawning tribu-tary. These two barriers had both beenranked in the top ten on the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife’sstatewide fish passage priority list.[See appendix for a short summary ofthe dam removals]Since this unprecedented number of

dam removals began, evidence – bothscientific and anecdotal – has begun toemerge about the benefits to the Roguebasin.

Unimpeded Fish Passage/Eliminationof Delays

Dams have multiple impacts on fishand river systems. One of the most sig-nificant impacts is as a barrier imped-ing fish passage. 2008 to 2010 were bigyears for upper Rogue migratory fish.The removal of Savage Rapids, GoldHill, and Gold Ray dams – alongsidethe notching of Elk Creek Dam –turned migration bottlenecks into free-ways. The three mainstem Rogue damsimpeded passage of significant por-tions of the basin’s five runs of salmonand steelhead, Pacific lamprey, andcutthroat trout to over 500 miles ofupstream habitat, including 50 miles ofthe mainstem. Spring Chinook salmonwere particularly hard hit, having tonavigate the three mainstem dams toget to their upstream spawning areas.With the removal of these three dams,salmon and steelhead are now showingup at the hatchery at the base ofWilliam Jess Dam two weeks earlierthan they have ever been observed.This gives some evidence of the delaysthe dams caused. Anglers are also reporting fish in the

upper river earlier than in the past,and that the fish are strong and in goodshape. Eliminating the delays in adultupstream migration allows the fish toaccess their upper basin spawningareas in better condition and withmore energy reserves for spawningeffort. Having more early and healthyfish increases the likelihood that fishcan take advantage of optimal flowconditions to move into tributaryspawning areas, and have more energyto access habitat higher up in the sys-tem. This all translates into increasedspawning success, and ultimatelymore fish. Besides impeding fish passage for

upstream migrating adult salmon,dams can completely block upstream

Removal of a growingnumber of obsolete

dams on fish-bearingstreams has become acelebrated symbol of

progress.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83 JANUARY 2016 9

Continued on next page

A New Look to the RogueRogue River Basin Leads Paradigm Shift on Dams

By Jim McCarthy and Bob Hunter— WaterWatch —

access for juvenile fish and cutthroattrout. Juvenile fish must be able tomove up and down in a river system toavoid high and low flows, and accessrearing habitat. Once juvenile fishmove below a dam they can no longeraccess important rearing habitatupstream.Cutthroat trout in the upper Rogue

River are called fluvials, meaning theyuse the mainstem Rogue like theocean, and use spawning tributariesthe way sea-runs use coastal streams.Cutthroat trout are not good jumpersand have trouble navigating fish lad-ders. The mainstem dams isolated cut-throat populations. Tributary damssuch as Elk Creek, Fielder, and Wimerblocked access to cutthroat spawninghabitat. For example, in 1992 the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers began trappingmigrating salmon and steelhead belowwhat was then half-built Elk CreekDam and hauling them to upstreamspawning habitat. Technicians alsohauled what cutthroat they caught inthe trap. That first winter, only ninecutthroat were trapped. Three yearslater, the numbers grew to 68, and bywinter of 2001-02 crews captured andhauled triple-digit numbers of cut-throat to spawning grounds. Since theElk Creek Dam notching in 2008, cut-throat trout have unimpeded access totheir historic spawning areas. Theremoval of the Evans Creek dams in2015 should similarly benefit the cut-throat in that system. The combination of dam removals

and protective fishing regulations hassparked a resurgence of cutthroattrout on the Rogue. As reported in aJuly 26, 2013 Medford Mail Tribunearticle by Mark Freeman, “Big Bite,Big Fight”, Rogue anglers are report-ing tremendous catches of cutthroattrout, with some over 20 inches.

Reduction in Mortality and Injury

Dams injure and kill fish. Adultsmigrating upstream can jump out offish ladders, where they are strandedand die. Adults jumping against theface of dams are injured or killed, andadults and juvenile fish spilling overthe tops of dams also suffer injury andmortality. Predators concentrate

below and above dams, because fishare more available and vulnerableprey at these sites. Juvenile fish aremuch more susceptible to predation inthe slow moving water created byreservoirs upstream of the dams. AtSavage Rapids Dam, there were highjuvenile losses because of entrainmentthrough and impingement at the inade-quate fish screens on the irrigationcanals and pump turbine system.These sources of injury and mortalityare entirely eliminated by damremoval.

Reclaimed Habitat and Water QualityImprovements

The reservoir behind Savage RapidsDam inundated approximately 3.5miles of prime fall Chinook habitat.The reservoir behind Gold Ray Daminundated another 1.5 miles. In a trueif-you-remove-it-they-will-spawn fash-ion, big fall Chinook are now spawningby the hundreds in what used to besterile sections of the Rogue Riverinundated by water and silt behind

10 JANUARY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83

Continued on next page

Continued from previous page

Gold Ray Dam was removed in 2010, allowing the Rogue to again run unimpededfrom Lost Creek Reservoir to the Pacific Ocean. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

A modern system for pumping irrigation water from the Rogue was a key componentfor securing support for removing Savage Rapids Dam. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

what used to be Savage Rapids andGold Ray dams. With the dams gonenow and the accumulated sedimentwashed away, the exposed gravel barsnow teem with big Chinook diggingand spawning in their egg nests, calledredds.

In less than a month after theremoval of Gold Ray Dam in 2010, fallChinnok salmon made use of spawninggravel exposed in the old reservoirpool. The Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife counted thirty-sevenredds that first fall in the old reservoirpool. By 2013, biologists had counted111 redds. In 2010, one year afterremoval of Savage Rapids Dam, therewere 91 fall Chinook salmon redds inthe former reservoir area. By 2012there were 195 redds. This reddrevival is a telling example of therestoration benefits of dam removal. The notching of Elk Creek Dam also

created tremendous habitat reclama-tion potential. This is because the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers still ownsapproximately 3,000 acres of what wasto have been a reservoir pool for thedam. Four miles of low gradient, unde-veloped Elk Creek runs through thisland, which is slated for riparian andflood plain restoration. This workshould make this area even more pro-ductive for salmon, steelhead and cut-throat trout in the future. The reservoirs also harbored inva-

sive warm water species such as large-mouth bass, Umpqua pike minnow, andredside shiners. The removal of thedams has eliminated strongholds forthese harmful and unwanted species.With the elimination of the reservoir

pools there are also some temperaturebenefits, as the reservoirs slowed theriver and allowed it to warm. The cool-ing benefits of removing the reser-voirs will become more and moreimportant with climate change bring-ing higher termperatures and moresevere droughts to the region.

Restoration of Natural RiverProcesses

The removal of the dams helpsrestore natural river processes such assediment transport, gravel recruit-ment, and increased flood plain com-plexity. This helps improve overall

river spawning, rearing and high flowrefugial habitat. There are alwayssome short term impacts involved indam removal, but findings from anOregon State University study on theimpacts of the Rogue Dam removalsand dam removal on the CalapooiaRiver show that the impacts are smallwhile the recovery is quick.Interestingly, the study found biologic

recovery was even faster than physi-cal recovery in these rivers after damremoval. Unfortunately, there was some publicscaremongering after the damremovals, whichattempted to spreadfalse claims aboutthe contamination ofwater supplies.These claims wereshown to be totallyunfounded and havebeen soundlydebunked. The truthis these damremovals demon-strate that damremoval can be anextremely valuablerestoration tool, withthe benefits greatlyoutweighing theshort-term minorimpacts. That thesefacts are nowbecoming betterunderstood – alongside public aware-ness that dam removals provide realbenefits to rivers, fish, and local com-munities – is a major achievement forriver conservation.

Recreational Benefits

With the removal of the mainstemdams there are not only 157 miles of

unimpeded fish passage, but also 157miles of unimpeded boat passage,increasing run of the river boatingopportunities and offering one of thelongest free-flowing reaches of riverin the west for multi-day trips. In addi-tion, more high quality day trips haveopened up with dams no longer block-ing passage. The stretch of the RogueRiver between Touvelle State Park andFisher’s Ferry takeout is now getting alot more use from rafts, kayaks anddrift boats. The area has become popu-lar with anglers, commercial raftingcompanies and fishing guides, drawnto the increased access and the num-ber of new and productive runs thathold fish. The long term benefits of animproved salmon, steelhead and cut-throat trout fishery will surelyenhance the recreational experienceon the Rogue.There is also improved public access

to some 500 acres of public land locat-ed upstream of Gold Ray Dam site, and3,000 acreas of public land upstream ofthe Elk Creek Dam site, where the pub-lic is now enjoying new outdoor recre-ational opportunities.

Fish Abundance

One of the big questions in connec-tion with the Rogue dam removals ishow to quantify the total increase infish numbers. Unfortunately, this ishard to nail down because of all theother factors affecting fish runs.Ocean conditions and flow conditions

Continued on next page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83 JANUARY 2016 11

Continued from previous page

Elk Creek Dam, on a major tributary of the Rogue, wasnotched in 2008. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Removal of the damshas eliminated strongholds for

invasive warmwaterfish such as shiners,

pikeminnow and bass.

can mask the benefits from these damremovals. On top of this, it will take afew generations of salmon and steel-head going through their varied lifecycles before some of the benefits arefully realized. What we do know is con-ditions for salmon and steelhead in theRogue basin have greatly improvedbecause of dam removal. Good yearswill be better and bad years will not beas bad because of these importantriver restoration projects. There isnow greater resilency in the system,and one of Oregon’s most spectacularrivers is now healthier, and has a bet-ter chance of maintaining salmon andsteelhead runs into the future.

Momentum for More Restoration inthe Rogue

The success of the Rogue damremovals has created momentum foradditional barrier removal and otherriver restoration projects in the basin.This year WaterWatch, in conjunctionwith the Gold Hill Irrigation District,completed a project to improve fishpassage at a diversion located betweenthe old Gold Hill and Gold Ray damsites. This diversion was the mostharmful remaining on the mainstemRogue below the William Jess Dam andwill complement the benefits of themainstem dam removals. Four watershed councils merged lastyear, creating the Rogue RiverWatershed Council, which now hasgreater capacity to deliver high quali-ty restoration projects in the UpperRogue Basin. Watershed councils andother groups doing restoration in thebasin have formed the Rogue basinPartnership and developed an actionplan to coordinate efforts, increaserestoration funding capacity andincrease the effectiveness of restora-tion efforts in the basin. Information isnow being developed on an additionalthirty-three high impact barriers onRogue Basin tributaries. As we cele-brate the major accomplishments thathave been achieved, we hope to see thecontinued restoration sucesses in theRogue Basin.

Continued from previous page

12 JANUARY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83

A Roundup of Dams Recently Removed on Oregon’s Rogue River System

Savage Rapids Dam

Savage Rapids Dam was a 39-foot high, 500-foot long irrigation diversion damthat spanned the mainstem of Oregon’s Rogue River at rivermile 107. Thestructure’s fish ladders and screens did not meet current standards, and attimes the dam completely blocked upstream fish passage. Savage RapidsDam had long been considered the biggest fish killer on the Rogue. It wasremoved in 2009, after a 21 year long legal and political battle led byWaterWatch. The dam’s irrigation diversion function was replaced by a mod-ern pumping system.

City of Gold Hill Diversion Dam

Gold Hill Diversion Dam was an 8-foot high concrete dam spanning the RogueRiver a mile upstream of Gold Hill, Oregon. The dam was a defunct hydro-facility only used by the city to divert its municipal water needs. It had no lad-ders and was the second greatest barrier to fish passage in the Rogue RiverBasin. The diversion function was replaced by a new municipal water pumpsystem, and the obsolete dam was removed in 2008.

Gold Ray Dam

Spanning the mainstem of the Rogue at rivermile 125, this 38-foot high, 360-foot long dam was built in 1904 to generate power, but by 1972, power gener-ation at the dam ceased permanently because the facility was obsolete and nolonger economically viable. At that point, Jackson County took ownership ofthe dam and agreed to its removal as it was a liability to the county. It wasremoved in 2010. With the removal of Gold Ray, the Rogue River flowedfreely from the Lost Creek Project to the Pacific Ocean for the first time in106 years – a distance of 157 miles.

Elk Creek Dam

This dam was a partially completed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam span-ning Elk Creek, completely blocking fish access to an important spawningtributary of the Rogue River. For decades, the Elk Creek Dam sat partiallyconstructed and served no useful purpose. Historically, an estimated thirtypercent of the Rogue Basin’s coho salmon spawned in Elk Creek, alongsidepopulations of Chinook, summer and winter steelhead, and cutthroat trout. Itwas notched in 2008, allowing fish back to historic spawning areas.

Fielder and Wimer Dams

These abandoned obsolete irrigation diversion dams were located on EvansCreek another important Rogue River spawning tributary with 70 miles ofhigh-quality salmon and steelhead habitat above the dams. The OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife ranked them both among Oregon’s top 10statewide fish passage priorities. Both these dams were removed in 2015,based on landowner agreements secured by WaterWatch.

Author Brian Morrison is a FisheriesBiologist with the Ganaraska RegionConservation Authority. Brian is alsothe past president of the OntarioChapter – American Fisheries Society,and has close to 20 years of experienceworking with native and naturalizedsalmonids in the Great Lakes. Learnmore about the Ganaraska RegionConservation Authority at:www.grca.on.ca

The Great Lakes endemicfish community has beensignificantly altered or lostdue to deforestation, over-fishing, pollution, and inva-

sive species. Concurrently, the GreatLakes have also acted as a large-scaleunplanned experiment of speciesrecovery (e.g., lake trout) and intro-ductions involving colonization, estab-lishment, local adaptation, and natural-ization. In essence, the Great Lakescan be viewed as a microcosm of whatcould happen when fish have some lat-itude to display their life history andbehavioral plasticity across a broadsuite of environmental variables. Ananalogy would be Darwin’s finches,which are polymorphic for varioustraits (e.g. beak size), which offer dif-ferent survival advantages based onthe current environmental conditions In a previous edition of The Osprey

(September 2010), steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss) within a singlewatershed were viewed within the con-text of local adaptation that hasoccurred since introduction in 1890.Within this summary I highlight localadaption of other Pacific salmon(Oncorhynchus sp.) across the GreatLakes. A symbol of the ecology ofPacific salmon is their ability to colo-nize and thrive in a wide variety ofhabitats. This will be explored throughthe unique traits (local adaptation) thathave developed for species that havebeen introduced and are now natural-

ized across the Great Lakes. Theseinclude traits that are novel fromsource populations. The Great Lakesalso host a variety of habitat types,with the physical conditions beingdiverse and variable over time andspace. Each species vignette is basedon the existing literature, along withfield observations primarily fromOntario’s side of the Great Lakes, thatare sustained by natural reproduction. Pacific salmon were most recently

(1960s to present) introduced as part of

an attempt to restore balance andecosystem integrity back into theGreat Lakes. Commercial harvest,introduced sea lamprey (Petromyzonmarinus), and pollution reduced thenumber of top predators in the lakes,while prey fish species such as alewife(Alosa pseudoharengus) experiencedunprecedented population sizes.Pacific salmon were introduced toreinvigorate lagging recreational andcommercial fisheries (Tody andTanner 1966), while utilizing/control-ling the superabundant “trash” fish(e.g. alewife), and act as a new toptrophic species within the lakes. Asecondary goal from these early intro-ductions was to develop naturallyreproducing populations, which wouldbe given management priority overtheir hatchery conspecifics (Tody andTanner 1966). As a contingency plan,scientists were contemplating intro-

ducing striped bass (Morone saxatilis)as an alternative, if Pacific salmonwere not able to meet the cultural andecosystem goals set for them. Sincethese stocking events, the success ofPacific salmon, and the ensuing recre-ational fisheries, a profound culturalsignificance is now associated withthese species in the Great Lakes.

Chinook Salmon

Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha)were first introduced in the GreatLakes in 1874, from eggs provided bySpencer Baird from California(McLeod River, Sacramento Riverdrainage). The first documented adultreturn was in 1877, but limited returnswere noted, and stocking ceased in1881 for Lakes Ontario, Erie, andSuperior. Ontario initiated a secondattempt to introduce Chinook salmonfrom 1919 to 1925, but based on limitedadult returns, and very little docu-mented natural reproduction, theseefforts were discontinued. It isbelieved that approximately 9.3 – 11million Chinook salmon were stockedbetween these two stocking eras. Thebulk of the contemporary Chinookstocking initiatives began in 1967 byMichigan (800,000 juveniles), andstocking of all the Great Lakes wasoccurring by 1971. These efforts wereconducted using source fish from theGreen River, Washington, and are con-sidered to be ‘tule’ lower ColumbiaRiver strain. Chinook salmon fromPuget Sound have also been includedwithin hatchery programs, in additionto a spring run strain from Idaho andWashington, that was introduced intoLake Superior. Survival from thesestocking events was exceptionallyhigh, with over 100,000 Chinook caughtin Lake Michigan during the 1969 sea-son alone. Despite strong returns tothe U.S. fisheries, Ontario was only

Continued on next page

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83 JANUARY 2016 13

A Great Lakes Lesson in LocalAdaptation and Naturalization

By Brain P. Morrison— Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority—

A symbol of the ecology of Pacific

salmon is their abilityto colonize and thrivein a wide variety of

habitats.

seeing limited returns to LakesOntario, Erie, Huron and Superior dur-ing the 1970s. Between 1967 and 1998,approximately 336 million Chinooksalmon were introduced, primarily onthe U.S. side of the Great Lakes.

Chinook salmon fisheries in theGreat Lakes were believed to be sus-tained by hatchery supplementationprogrammes. By the early 1980s asmuch as 23% of caught salmon were ofwild origin (Carl 1982), In addition,stray hatchery Chinook were coloniz-ing tributaries that had never beenstocked. More recent studies showthat approximately 99% of Chinook onthe Ontario side of Lake Superior areof wild origin, 75% on Lake Huron(92% in Georgian Bay), and approxi-mately 50% in Lake Ontario. OnlyLake Superior does not receive sub-stantial supplementation programs. Itis now evident that wild reproductionis widespread and many populationsare now self-sustaining.As part of the colonization and natu-

ralization of Chinook salmon acrossthe Great Lakes, unique traits began toemerge. For instance, during May of1983, spawning adults were observedin the Michipicoten River (LakeSuperior) (Kwain & Thomas 1984).Since this first documentation, this lifehistory trait has been found on tribu-taries of Lake Huron and Lake Ontario.Spring spawning has only been docu-mented in one population within theirnative range, the Sacramento River.These spring spawning individuals arederived from parental stocks that mayhave spawned in November andDecember, but in some Great Lakesrivers, the temperatures could be toocold to initiate embryonic develop-ment (Behnke 2010). Spawning for fallrun individuals can occur as early asthe first week of August, or as late atthe end of December, with the bulk ofspawning occurring betweenSeptember and October. Generally,watersheds with large levels ofgroundwater discharge have adultsspawning the earliest. Adults havealso been known to migrate upstreamas early as July. An extreme exampleis for the Nottawasaga River (LakeHuron basin), where during July andAugust adult Chinook Salmon willmigrate approximately 30 km

upstream through warm (25-30°C), lowgradient river prior to reaching theirfirst cold water refugia, and primaryspawning tributary, the Pine River.Chinook salmon have also been docu-mented to spawn on open lake shoals(Powell and Miller 1990). The pres-ence of young have been observed inopen lake habitats, suggesting there issome natural recruitment from thisspawning strategy, but it’s signifi-cance/persistence is limited at best.Chinook salmon have also been docu-mented to use a wide breadth of depthswhile living in the lakes. Bergstedt(2010) documented adult Chinooksalmon using habitats as deep as 750feet in LakeHuron, which isthe deepest partof the lake.

Selection hascome from otherinteresting means.From 1988 to 1992,large fish die-offsaffecting Chinooksalmon occurredin Lake Michigan.Cumulative stres-sors were the dri-ving cause, butthe diseaseBacterial KidneyD i s e a s e(Renibacteriumsalmoninarum )was found regu-larly associatedwith dead individ-uals. Following these die-off events,Great Lakes populations had greaterresistance to R. salmoninarum expo-sure when compared to their sourcepopulation, the Green River. A recip-rocal transplant experiment showsthat the Great Lakes populationdemonstrated significantly highermortality when exposed to the marinepathogen Listonella anguillarum(causative agent of vibriosis), whencompared to the Green River (Purcellet al. 2008). Despite a continued closegenetic tie, this suggests that GreatLakes Chinook exposed to R. salmoni-narum have diverged from theirancestral population in response topathogen-driven selection.Suk et al. (2012) looked at genetic

population structure across 13 water-sheds within the Ontario side of Lake

Huron, including Georgian Bay, usingmicrosatellite markers. They deter-mined that within as little as 10 gener-ations, there was low, but statisticallysignificant, genetic differentiation.This demonstrates that natural repro-duction in combination with strongselection is driving local adaptationprocesses and emerging genetic popu-lation structuring similar to Chinookintroduced elsewhere (e.g. NewZealand – Quinn et al. 2001), where runtiming, life history, and genetic differ-entiation has developed for each popu-lation/watershed, from a shared com-mon ancestry.Haw (2015) has hypothesized that a

contributing element to the over-whelming success of Green Riverstrain Chinook salmon within theGreat Lakes and elsewhere is tied tothe long history of watershed alter-ation, habitat loss, pollution, and demo-graphic constraints that the populationendured, and the resulting broodstockhas traits that enable colonization suc-cess in habitats that have also beenaltered. However, this idea has notbeen tested.

Pink Salmon

Pink Salmon (O. gorbuscha) werefirst captured in a tributary of LakeSuperior in 1959, which sparked asearch to determine where the individ-uals came from, as there were notrecords of any management agency

Continued on next page

14 JANUARY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83

Continued from previous page

After an accidental release of hatchery pink salmon in Ontarioin 1956, the fish have established naturalized populationsthoughout the Great Lakes region. Photo by Brian Morrison

attempting to introduce Pink salmon inthe Great Lakes. After searching,managers discovered that approxi-mately 21,000 fry were accidentlyreleased into an Ontario tributary in1956. Pink salmon were originallybrought from the Lakelse River(Skeena River drainage, BritishColumbia) to develop a recreationaland subsistence fishery for FirstNations people in Hudson and JamesBay. The latter project ultimatelyfailed, but the small release into theGreat Lakes was successful at estab-lishing naturalized populations (Kwain& Lawrie 1981). From their first detec-tion, within 20 years, pink salmon hadcolonized Lake Superior, Lake Huron(1969), Lake Michigan (1973), and alsodeviated off their obligatory two-yearPacific life cycle to develop even andodd year runs. Adults were found tomature at both age 1 and age 3, in addi-tion to the typical age 2 (Kwain &Chappel 1978). By the late 1970s, Pinksalmon had successfully establishedthe entire Great Lakes, with naturallyreproducing populations documentedin tributaries to all the lakes (Dermott1982). As population sizes increased,greater effort was expended to docu-ment population dynamics. In oneOntario tributary to Lake Superior, bythe late 1970s, it was estimated thatgreater than 90,000 adults returned!What makes this even more incredibleis the early belief that pink salmonwould not persist within an entirelyfreshwater environment, since they donot have any populations within theirendemic range that are entirely land-locked. Lakelse River pink salmonwere also introduced intoNewfoundland and Puget Sound, and inaddition to Hudson Bay, were unsuc-cessful (Quinn 2005), but succeeded inthe Great Lakes likely due to dumbluck, past ecosystem changes (highphosphorus loading, shifts in nativefish community) along with an unantic-ipated match between genetics andlocal environments. In addition to sig-nificant population sizes documented,it was also noted that pink salmonwould feed while on their spawningmigration. Of over 600 stomachs ana-lyzed within one river, 15% containedfood, consisting of terrestrial insects,fish, and zooplankton. Pink salmon

have also been documented tohybridize with Chinook salmon in theSt. Mary’s River, creating hybridscalled pinooks.

Coho Salmon

Coho Salmon (O. kisutch) have beenintroduced from a variety of sourcepopulations, including the SkagitRiver, Columbia River and CascadeRiver. Initial stocking events occurredin the 1870s, but it is believed thatlarge scale stocking in the late 1960sled to the current levels of abundance,and the development of naturalizedpopulations within the Great Lakes.Successfully established across allGreat Lakes, coho salmon do not seemto have deviated from their juvenile oradult life history traits, with one yearin nursery streams and one to twoyears spent in the lake prior to spawn-ing being the only life historiesexpressed.

Kokanee Salmon

Kokanee salmon (O.nerka) is a fresh-water form of sockeye salmon, nativeto the western half of North America.Ontario’s largest introduction of koka-nee salmon occurred in Lake Huronfrom 1964 to 1969, using source popu-lations from British Columbia,Colorado, Montana, and Washington(Collins 1971). These included a mixof source populations that had riverineand lacustrine spawning traits. Intotal, approximately 5.5 million koka-nee salmon were stocked (inclusive ofeggs, fry, and fingerlings). Fromthese plantings, individuals returnedto stocking sites, as well as strayedinto new portions of the lakes. Adultsreturning ranged from 18 to 49 cm inlength, and were in their third year oflife. In addition to efforts in LakeHuron, kokanee were also introducedinto Lake Ontario, with over 3 millionstocked between 1969 – 1972 (Wainio etal 1975). Successful spawning in somestreams and shorelines was document-ed, but over the long term kokanee didnot persist within the Great Lakes. Prior to the release of kokanee into

Lake Huron, the Ontario Departmentof Lands and Forest stocked 250 year-lings into Boulter Lake (HastingsCounty) in June 1960 (Fallis 1970).These fish were a riverine spawning

stock from Kootenay Lake, BritishColumbia. Mature kokanee were cap-tured during the late summer and fallof 1963, indicating the initial stockingevent was successful. Based on thissuccess, an additional 920 fingerlingswere released in 1965, raised fromgametes collected during the fall of1964 (Fallis 1970). Boulter Lake is a 41.1 hectare olig-

otrophic lake, with a mean depth of 9.3m, and a maximum depth of 23 m.Spawning was completed within thelake over an area of cobble and coarsegravel, with mature adults being cap-tured from September to April. Thebulk of the spawning kokanee werecollected during November andDecember. During 1970 sampling, 184mature Kokanee were captured (106males and 57 females). Males had anaverage fork length of 286.7 mm(range 258 to 370), while females hadan average fork length of 288.2 mm(range 257 – 317). The age structure ofthe fish comprised four ages (age 0 upto age 3+), which is consistent withother kokanee salmon populations(Collins 1971). Fish aged 2+ and 3+comprised the adult spawning popula-tion. The success of kokanee salmon intro-duction in Boulter Lake shines, rela-tive to other introductions, especiallybased on the number of individualsstocked. In George Lake (southwest ofSudbury), 80,600 fry and fingerlingswere introduced in 1966/67, but noadults were recovered (Fallis 1970).Similar to introductions within LakeHuron, adults were captured and suc-cessful spawning was documented, butthe populations were not able to persistover time. Despite the antiquatednature of these studies, it is believedthat kokanee salmon still persist with-in Boulter Lake.It is hoped this paper will help to set

a baseline on where species can devel-op adaptive traits, and provide exam-ples of this plasticity in salmonids andalign with Lichatowich and Williams(The Osprey, May 2015) demonstratingthe incredible persistence of animalsto survive and prosper given opportu-nities to do so. Additionally, it iswished that these species vignettescan be used to help restore wild popu-lations across their native range.

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83 JANUARY 2016 15

Continued from previous page

16 JANUARY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83

Letters to the Editor Dear Editor:

I have worked for the Yakama Nation fisheries program since 1986. I enjoyedreading Faith in Nature by Jim Lichatowich and Richard Williams in the May2015 issue of The Osprey and agree with the authors’ “faith in nature” position,having witnessed the tremendous intrinsic productivity of salmonid populationswhen environmental conditions line up. However, I find myself at odds withtheir interpretation of the history of salmon declines in the Columbia Basin. Thisinterpretation reflects the views of a cadre of critics who insist on blaming thestatus of salmonid populations in the Columbia Basin on the management sys-tems many of them were a part of during their professional careers. These crit-ics generally rest their arguments on the flawed perception that salmon manage-ment and salmon managers operate in a cloistered, science-based communitysomehow removed from the industrial and political priorities that shaped, andcontinue to shape, the Columbia Basin of today. By giving only passing allusionto the catastrophic history of ecosystem destruction over the last 150 years, theauthors unfairly feed the impression that the status of salmonid populationstoday is the result of deliberate and strategic poor judgment by salmon man-agers who most often were simply responding to political priorities and decisionprocesses over which they had little influence. Their theory perpetuates themyth that the remedies for the wholesale destruction of salmonid ecosystemscan be found within salmon management systems by applying the “right” sci-ence-based management policies. Salmon management does not exist within aclosed system where better science and smarter managers will overcome thedisruption of salmonid population dynamics caused by human development ofthe Columbia Basin. If we want to correct a problem, we must properly diagnose its cause. I won’t

argue that the management of Columbia Basin salmonid populations is perfect;my exposure to tribal perspectives has led me to conclude that proper manage-ment is not human management of ecosystems but, rather, management ofhumans in ecosystems. However, in the face of the great diversity of demandson the Columbia Basin for human economy and population growth, singling outpast and present salmon management systems as the cause and cure for salmondeclines makes as much sense as, to paraphrase Ed Chaney, stomping out ciga-rette butts while the house burns down. The fact is, wild salmon need wildrivers, and no amount of tinkering with management systems or faith in naturewill alter that inconvenient ecological truth.

Steve ParkerYakama Nation Fisheries ProgramWhite Salmon, WA

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 has been editorof The Osprey for the past 15 years.Learn more about climate change inthe Pacific Northwest at:www.fws.gov/pacific/climatechange/changepnw.html

The drought that struck theWestern US last year hadwide ranging impacts bothon the environment and thedaily lives of the region’s

residents. Water use austerity wasimposed on California residents astheir lawns went brown, wildfiresburned bigger and hotter in Westernforests, and the amount of water usedby the agriculture industry cameunder increasing scrutiny. Along theWest Coast, severe drought conditionsthat included low water and high tem-peratures played havoc with Pacificsalmon, steelhead and trout popula-tions.According to a December 4, 2015

report by The Columbia BasinBulletin, conditions were fairly unre-markable from October 2014 throughMarch 2015 when precipitation acrossthe basin ranged from 70 to 100 per-cent of normal. But in April, droughtconditions hit, with precipitation —including both rain and snow — at 50 to90 percent of average depending uponthe particular region within the basin.Throughout the first three months of

2015, temperatures in the southernColumbia River basin averaged asmuch as 6 degrees Fahrenheit abovenormal, eventually expanding to theentire basin. In January 2015, exceptfor the Snake River basin, which hadslightly more snow, snowpack throughthe Columbia River basin was 50 per-cent or less of normal and the CascadeMountain range was down by 50 per-cent. The Columbia River water sup-ply, which is measured at The DallesDam, was originally estimated to be 83percent of normal, but turned out to be

67 percent. As the year went on, tem-peratures and precipitation began tocreep back towards normal, lesseningthe drought’s impact somewhat. That was not necessarily much com-

fort for the salmon and steelhead. Bymid-June, water temperatures in theColumbia River had hit 70 degreesFahrenheit — too much for many ofthese coldwater species to cope with.Streams across California, Oregon andWashington became lethally hot andlow for salmon and steelhead. InWashington, in June, for example, the

flow in the Skykomish River near GoldBar was 9 percent of average, theSnoqualmie near Carnation, 18 per-cent, and the Cowlitz at Packwood, 23percent. In late July, a half-mile of theSouth Fork Skokomish River went drywith just a few shallow pools of stand-ing water along its edges.During that same period, water tem-

peratures in the Stillaguamish,Okanagan River, Pend OreilleBoundary Reservoir, Touchet Riverand Sammamish River exceeded 68degrees during the day.

Drought Hits Fish Hard

Low water levels and hot water canwreak havoc on salmon, steelhead andother coldwater fish species at a num-ber of stages in their life cycles, as out-lined by the Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife on their website:

Adult Fish

Adult salmon could have difficultiesreaching upstream spawning groundsif river flows remain below normal.

Some salmon species spawn in channelmargins, side channels, and smallertributaries. If those areas are unavail-able because of low flows, some fishwould have to spawn in mainstemwaters, where salmon redds could belost when flows drop. In the fall, reddsin the mainstem also would be moresusceptible to bed scour resultingfrom high water or flooding.

Warm water temperatures canincrease the likelihood of outbreaks ofcertain diseases in adult fish popula-tions, especially fungal and bacterialdiseases, possibly leading to fish killsor reduced reproductive success.

Juvenile Fish

Downstream migration of juvenilesalmon in the spring is linked to thesurge in stream flows created byrunoff from melting snow in the moun-tains. With most mountain snow packsgone, there could be changes in themigration patterns of young fishattempting to reach saltwater to con-tinue their life cycle.

Juvenile salmon, trout and other fishspecies in smaller streams couldbecome stranded in isolated pools dur-ing low stream flows.

Warmer-than-normal stream tempera-tures and low dissolved-oxygen levelsin isolated pools can be lethal to fish,and juvenile fish trapped in smallpools are susceptible to predators suchas birds and raccoons.

Warm water temperatures also

THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83 JANUARY 2016 17

The 2015 DroughtThings Heat Up for Salmon and Steelhead

By Jim Yuskavitch— The Osprey —

2015 was the hottestyear on record world-wide and the second

hottest recorded in theUnites States.

Continued on next page

increase predation on juvenile salmonand steelhead by warm water fishspecies, such as northern pike minnowand smallmouth bass.

Impacts on Fish Hatcheries

Poor water quality, high temperaturesand reduced water supplies can resultin an increase in fish disease, treat-ment costs and mortalities at fishhatcheries.

A lack of water would require somefacilities to pump water from deepwells, adding significant costs to oper-ations.

Early releases of juvenile salmon andtrout – plus additional stress related tohandling, trucking and relocatingthose fish – will increase mortalities.

Structures that allow adult salmon andsteelhead to return to hatcheries mayhave to be modified to provide passageto the facilities.

Impacts on Recreational Fishing

Fishing in rivers could be restricted ifstream flows are low enough to createobvious passage problems for fish.Salmon and other fish species canbecome isolated and stressed by highwater temperatures and low flows,making them more vulnerable toincreased fishing pressure or illegalfishing activity.

Access to some freshwater fishingareas could be restricted if lake andriver levels recede to a point whereboat ramps are unusable.

Over the course of 2015, many of theabove situations and outcomes came topass.

High Water Temperatures Kill Fish

In June 2015, the Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife identified highwater temperatures as the main causein the deaths of spring Chinook salmonin the Willamette River and in sometributaries. Salmon begin to comeunder stress, and are more susceptibleto diseases, once water temperaturesexceed 60 degrees Fahrenheit. By

June, water temperatures inthe Willamette River hadranged from 70 to 74degrees, while tempera-tures in the Clackamas wentas high as 64 and up to 66 inthe Santiam River. In July2015, water temperatureson the North Umpqua Riverexceeded 71 degrees.Early the following month,ODFW reported finding anumber of dead and dis-tressed sockeye salmon inthe lower Deschutes River,although the fish had actual-ly been bound up theColumbia River and proba-bly swam into theDeschutes in search of cool-er water. The salmon weredetermined to have diedfrom a bacterial infectioncalled columnaris thataffects fish when watertemperatures are high anddissolved oxygen levels low.Ultimately, at least 250,000sockeye salmon, half thetotal Columbia River sock-eye run, died from highwater temperature related causes.Some of these fish fruitlessly sought acoldwater refuge in the White SalmonRiver, as they had in the lowerDeschutes. Concerned that the endan-gered run of Redfish Lake sockeyesalmon might be threatened, IdahoDepartment of Fish and Game cap-tured Idaho-bound sockeye and tookthem to a hatchery so they couldrecover in cool water. Also in July,more than 100 wild spring Chinooksalmon died in the upper Middle ForkJohn Day River due to low flows andhigh water temperatures.

While there wasn’t much fisherymanagers could do about the drought,some efforts were made to help fishwhere possible. On the Sol Duc Rivernear Forks, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife crews put 400 sand-bags out to narrow a part of the riverto deepen the water, making it easierfor salmon to pass upstream to spawn.

In California, Governor Brownsigned an executive order, “AProclamation of Continued State ofEmergency” that allowed some envi-ronmental reviews to be bypassed so

that more than a dozen water andstream-related projects that wouldhelp fish and fish habitat could moveforward. High water temperatures inthe Sacramento River threatened thatstream’s run of ESA-listed Chinooksalmon, which had 22 percent fewerthan normal juveniles migrating down-stream in 2015.

Hatchery Programs Affected

One of the biggest impacts thedrought had was on state fish hatcheryprograms, prompting agencies to takeaction at their facilities to keep watercool and releasing fish earlier thanusual.By July 2015, of 83 fish hatcheries

operated by WDFW, more than a dozenwere adversely affected by thedrought including low water levels andhigh temperatures. By that time thestate had lost about 1.5 million juvenilehatchery fish. Within the Green Riverbasin, the Soos Creek Hatchery lost34,000 steelhead — half of its typicalinventory —and 153,000 coho salmondue to hot water related diseases. At

18 JANUARY 2016 THE OSPREY • ISSUE NO. 83

Continued from previous page

The 2015 drought hit coldwater fish populations hardacross the West. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Continued on next page

the Icy Creek Hatchery, water flowsdropped by half within one week. Someof the actions WDFW took to combatthose hostile conditions included re-circulating water to help lower tem-peratures or sending fish to otherhatcheries that were less impacted bythe drought.In Oregon, more than 150,000 sum-

mer steelhead fingerlings died at theRock Creek Hatchery along the NorthUmpqua River due to bacterial infec-tions and parasites resulting from highhatchery water temperatures.

Releasing hatchery fish ahead ofschedule was also a strategy used bystate agencies. In February 2015, theCalifornia Department of Fish andWildlife released about 600,000 juve-nile winter steelhead from its hatch-eries. In May, the Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife released trophysize hatchery trout into several lakeson the north coast four months early.Fish were also released early from theMakah and Skookum Creek hatcheriesin Washington.The US Fish and Wildlife Service

euthanized 80,000 coho salmon at theMakah National Fish Hatchery thatwere infected with bacterial disease toprevent it from spreading. Sockeyesalmon in the Quillayute River wereseen with heavy fungus infections,which is an indication of gill rot.

Streams Closed to Angling

State agencies’ primary response tothe drought emergency, from a fishconservation perspective, was large-scale angling closures in many riversor river reaches throughout theregion. By mid-July 2015, WDFW hadclosed 30 rivers in Washington to pro-tect fish. Some rivers were closedcompletely while others were onlyopen from midnight to 2 pm to keepanglers from fishing during the hottestpart of the day when fish mortalitywould be highest. The National Park Service closed

fishing in most of the rivers inOlympic National Park including theBogachiel, Sol Duc, Dickey, Queets,Hoh and perhaps a dozen more.Oregon closed some of its top streamsas well, including the lower Deschutes,Rogue, Willamette and Clackamasrivers, among others. California closed

many stream to angling as well.However, as temperatures cooledtowards fall, the rivers were eventual-ly re-opened.In response to drought conditions,

WDFW also placed limits on suctiondredging for gold and mechanicallyremoving aquatic vegetation on morethat 60 rivers and streams.

What’s in Store for 2016?

Predictions for 2016 look better,although a strong El Nino (probably afactor in last year’s drought) is expect-ed to continue into the beginning of theyear. The Columbia Basin Bulletinreports that temperatures will beabove normal for the first few monthsof the year, then drift back downtowards normal, while precipitation isexpected to be generally in the normalrange or slightly below. Flows in the

Columbia River should be in the nor-mal range into April, and then dropslightly below normal through thesummer months. If these predictionshold true, wild salmon and steelheadshould have an easier time in 2016.

However, the impacts of El Ninoaside, climate scientists have deter-mined that 2015 was the hottest yearworldwide since record keeping beganin 1880, beating out last year’s recordtemperatures. It was the secondhottest year in the US. Those back toback record hot years indicate that theplanet is beginning to heat up at amore rapid pace due to human-causedclimate change, virtually guaranteeingthat salmon and steelhead will contin-ue to find themselves in hot water inthe years ahead.

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. 83 JANUARY 2016 19

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

Continued from previous page

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

2015 HONORS LISTThe Osprey wishes to

thank the dedicatedpeople and organiza-

tions who gave their finan-cial support in 2015. Ourreaders are our primarysource of funding and with-out your support we couldnot continue publishing.The usual donation enve-lope is provided. Whateveryou can afford will be muchappreciated (and used wise-ly).

$1,000 and Up

The North Umpqua Foundation

$500 to $999

James HolderJames HubbardWashington Fly Fishing Club

$200 to $499

Jay BecksteadPeter BroomhallLawrence HillJames RatzlaffDoug SchaadSouthern Oregon FlyFishersPeter SoverelChris StromsnessJohn SullivanStanford Young

$100 to $199

Allan AlvanBill BakkeBC Federation of Fly Fishers

Robert BettzigBarbara BrownGary ClarkMichael GabrionFelton JenkinsDonald JohnsonHoward JohnsonJon LundSteve LewisJohn MacdiarmidJames McRobertsJohn RogersJohn SagerJames SchrammWilliam TattamPaul UtzWashington State Council IFFF

$50 to $99

Danny BeattyJack BerrymanKeith BeverlyFrederick BucknerGerry ByrnesThomas CampbellHugh ClarkBen DennisJohn DeYongeMichael DornfeldSteve EggeEd HeidelJim HoschouerElmer Jantz

John JenkinsDavid JohnsonRichard JohnsonSerge KarpovichMark KuipersMichael LaingVance LuffFrank MooreJosy PaulWilliam PearcyEric PettineBill RedmanJoyce & Marty ShermanCraig SmelterCharles SpoonerDonald StarkinRobert TarletonAlex UberTim UnterwegnerLeonard VollandMary WahlPhillip WhiteWil WilkinsRichard WilliamsSam Wright

$15 to $49

Bruce AllenTom AnackerBruce AshleyBob BaileyBruce BakerRichard BennettDick BlewettJeff BrightJohn BrinkleyLarry BrownJoanna BuehlerRichard BurgeKeith Burwell

Fred CarterGreg ConnollyKenneth CrowJeff DevoreMichael DullLouis DuncanCal ElshoffScott FerrisSean GallagherSteve HaskellThomas HendersonTucker HikesJohn WarrickDonald JohnstoneChristopher JonesJoseph BrownGuy KilburnDon KneassCraig LacyWilliam LenheimAlan L’HommedieuDennis LockettJerry MahonyElsie MarchandoDaniel McDanielTimothy McGilvreyJack MitchellGordi NorthrupDave OdellLee PatzaSteve PettitSteve RajeffJohn RandolphThomas RoweYale SacksTodd SandellHans SolieAndrew StilesBarbara SuttonDavid Thomas Joint TrustClinton Townsend

Drake TraphagenPatrick TrotterRobert Van KirkTyrell VanceScott WallaceDick WattsDoug WebbRay WhiteKenneth Williams

2014 Donors NotRecognized in the January 2015 Issue

$200 to $499

Greg Pitts

$100 to $199

James R. Holder

$50 to $99

Joe Jauquet

$15 to $49

Boley Law LibraryBradley StaplesBruce AshleyClint BrumittJames JonesJohn M. DavisRaymond StewartRichard ButlerRob Ferroggiaro