Lawsuit Update: A Big Day in Court


The Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse. Photo by Krista Isaksen.

On July 17, the DRA again appeared before Judge Michael Simon in Federal District Court for a hearing in our lawsuit against Portland General Electric.  The hearing was scheduled to address several motions that had been filed in the case this spring.

First, PGE had filed a new motion to have the case dismissed—the company’s third such attempt since DRA brought this lawsuit in 2016.  In the current motion, PGE argued that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), rather than federal court, is the most appropriate venue to hear DRA’s claims.  PGE made this argument despite the fact that FERC has no expertise in water quality issues, has not been authorized to implement or enforce the Clean Water Act, and is not involved in formulating state water quality standards and requirements.

Next, the hearing addressed competing motions for “summary judgment” filed by DRA and PGE. With these motions, the parties each argued that the facts and law are sufficiently clear for the case to be decided without the need for a trial. After lengthy argument, Judge Simon indicated that he would likely issue a ruling later this summer.

Here at DRA, we will be eager to read Judge Simon’s analysis of the case. We believe that compliance with water quality requirements at the Pelton Round Butte complex is a critical first step to protecting and restoring this invaluable river, and we will be prepared to continue this important fight if necessary.

As always, this fight would not be possible without the support of people like you. Thank you for all you’ve helped us accomplish, and for your support as we move forward. Watch the DRA blog for further updates on this important case!

Deschutes River Alliance: Cooler, cleaner H2O for the lower Deschutes River. 

Click here to Donate.

Click here to sign up for the Deschutes River Alliance email newsletter.

Black Spot Disease in the Lower Deschutes

For anyone who has fished the lower Deschutes River this year, it is not news that many of the fish being caught have Black Spot Disease (BSD). How many fish? We’ve received reports of as many as 100% of 30 fish caught over a three-day trip between Trout Creek and Harpham Flat. Most reports are that 60 to 80% of landed trout have obvious evidence of BSD.

Lower Deschutes River bull trout showing obvious Black Spot Disease. Photo courtesy of Nick Wheeler.

We, along with several of our supporters, have contacted representatives of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife about this issue, and have been told there is nothing to be alarmed about. One of our supporters received an email from ODFW that included the following:

“ODFW has done some research on the effects of blackspot [sic] on spring chinook [sic] smolts in the John Day River and found that the parasite had no adverse effects on condition or survival, even fish that were severely infected performed the same as uninfected fish. Our pathologists also have stated that blackspot [sic] is not categorized as a disease, meaning that it does not appear to effect the host. It is also important to note that blackspot [sic] is very cyclical, and most often comes and goes through time.”

We’ve not seen any research reports from ODFW regarding BSD, although it’s not unusual for these reports to not be advertised or be made readily available. What is unusual is that anglers who fish the bodies of water mentioned by ODFW do not report seeing BSD. This is not to say that BSD isn’t present on the John Day and other rivers, but it’s clearly not present right now to the same extent as in the lower Deschutes.

According to the statement from ODFW, BSD “is not categorized as a disease.” This is a curious claim. Why is it called Black Spot Disease? In all of the scientific literature that we searched, it is always referred to as a disease. This is because infection with BSD results in both systemic inflammation and tissue changes in fish. Inflammation is evidenced by increased cortisol (a hormone associated with stress and inflammation) levels. The skin and scale changes seen on fish with BSD are not caused by trauma. So we have a transmissible infective organism causing inflammation and tissue changes. That meets the definition of a disease.

The fish ODFW representatives have observed with BSD are noted to be in good condition. Yes they are, when they are caught. But no one is performing long-term observation to see what the consequences of chronic infection might be. We are now in the third year of BSD being observed in lower Deschutes River fish, so it’s obvious that more fish are being infected for longer periods of time. None of the studies on BSD to date look at longer-term infections, so those consequences are unknown.

What is known is that fish do die of BSD. According to reports, once fish are infected in the eyes or mouth, survival is limited. And fish with high parasite loads tend to be of lower weight.

The ventral surface of a redband trout with Black Spot disease, caught in the lower Deschutes River in late April 2017. Photo by Jamey Mitchell.

Black spot disease is caused by a flatworm (trematode) parasite known in the scientific community as Uvulifer ambloplitis, and also known as “neascus.” This parasite has a complicated life cycle that starts with eggs in water, which hatch and become juveniles known as miracidia, which in turn infect aquatic snails.  In snails this form of the parasite matures into the next life form, known as cercariae.  Cercariae are shed by the snails and become free swimmers, which attach to fish.  Once the cercariae have attached to the flesh of a fish, the fish develops an immune response that causes the dark spot.

Fish-eating birds are the next host, which become infected when they ingest infected fish.  The cercariae develop into adult flatworms, which means that fish-eating birds are internally infected with the parasite.  The parasite then produces eggs, which are shed in feces by fish-eating birds, and deposited in water where the life cycle is reinitiated.

This summer, many have observed decreases in fish-eating birds in the lowest forty miles of the Deschutes. Kingfishers are rarely seen now in that reach of river (they were previously seen in pairs occupying nearly every reach of river), and merganser populations in the lower forty miles have declined. Are these birds becoming infected with neascus and dying? Or is something else going on? Unfortunately, no one seems to be investigating this phenomenon.

Increases in BSD are associated with increased water temperature and increased aquatic snail populations—both conditions that Selective Water Withdrawal Tower operations have created in the lower Deschutes River. Further, research has demonstrated that rather than being “cyclic,” BSD is linked to sustained elevated water temperatures and algae growth.

The likely solution to reducing BSD is a return to cooler water temperatures and less nutrient loading in the lower Deschutes River. This would require that the SWW tower draw more water from the bottom of Lake Billy Chinook before discharging downstream.


Schaaf, Cody J, Suzanne J. Kelson, Sébastien C. Nussle, & Stephanie Carlson . Black spot infection in juvenile steelhead trout increases with stream temperature in northern California. Environmental Biology of Fish,; April, 2017.

McAllister, CT, R. Tumlison, H.W. Robison, and S.E. Trauth. An Initial Survey on Black-Spot Disease (Digenea: Strigeoidea: Diplostomidae) in Select Arkansas Fishes. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 67, 2013

Schaaf, Cody J. Environmental Factors in Trematode Parasite Dynamics: Water Temperature, Snail Density and Black Spot Disease Parasitism in California Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Submitted to University of California Berkley for Masters Thesis, May, 2015.

Deschutes River Alliance: Cooler, cleaner H2O for the lower Deschutes River. 

Click here to Donate.

Click here to sign up for the Deschutes River Alliance email newsletter.

Lawsuit Update: DRA Working to Defend Citizens’ Ability to Protect Water Quality at Hydroelectric Projects

Round Butte Dam and the Selective Water Withdrawal Tower.

We’ve received several inquiries lately on the status of the DRA’s ongoing lawsuit against Portland General Electric. Since our last update, there have been some developments in the case.

First, a brief recap. Last August, the DRA filed a Clean Water Act “citizen suit” against PGE, alleging hundreds of violations of the water quality certification for the Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project. These violations are directly related to the Project’s installation and operation, since 2010, of a Selective Water Withdrawal facility above Round Butte Dam.

The Project’s water quality certification (known as a Clean Water Act “Section 401 Certification”), issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, contains several requirements for criteria such as pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. These requirements were formulated to ensure the Project complies with Oregon’s water quality standards. These water quality standards, in turn, are designed to protect aquatic life in Oregon’s waters. Since the SWW tower came online, DRA researchers and supporters have witnessed a dramatic decline in ecological function in the lower river.

Algae on rocks, one mile below the Pelton-Round Butte Reregulating Dam.

Soon after the DRA filed suit, PGE filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the Clean Water Act does not authorize citizen groups like the DRA to enforce the requirements found in Section 401 Certifications. PGE argued further that water quality enforcement authority at hydroelectric projects should be given exclusively to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), a federal agency with no water quality expertise. Given that the CWA unmistakably authorizes enforcement by citizens (and local state agencies) in these situations, we strongly resisted PGE’s arguments.

In March, after extensive briefing and oral argument, Federal District Court Judge Michael Simon issued an important ruling–important not only for our fight to restore the Deschutes River, but also for river advocates across the country. Judge Simon found that the DRA’s lawsuit—and, by extension, other, similar suits involving hydroelectric projects—are clearly authorized under the Clean Water Act. In fact, according to the federal judge, such an interpretation is “the only construction that is consistent with the text of the [Clean Water Act] and the purpose and policy of the CWA.” This ruling allowed the DRA’s suit to proceed—fantastic news for those who cherish a healthy ecosystem and clean, cold water in the lower Deschutes River. We believe Judge Simon’s decision ultimately will enable us to present evidence, as necessary, of PGE’s violations.

Lower Deschutes River Redband trout. Photo by Brian O’Keefe.

This brings us to the current status of the litigation. Despite the fact that Judge Simon’s well-reasoned, detailed analysis was based on a straightforward reading of the law, PGE has filed a petition asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear an appeal of Judge Simon’s ruling.

In response to this request for appeal, the DRA has now filed two briefs with the Ninth Circuit, arguing forcefully that there is no reason for the Court to hear the appeal, given the Clean Water Act’s clear, unambiguous language on this point. We are now waiting for a decision on whether the Ninth Circuit will hear PGE’s appeal. The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Spring Reservation, a co-owner of the Project, have filed a brief aligning themselves with PGE on the issue of citizens’ enforcement authority. Meanwhile, the states of Oregon and Washington have filed a joint brief on behalf of the DRA.

This issue has great significance for water quality in the lower Deschutes River, and for rivers across the country that are impacted by hydroelectric projects. In PGE’s telling, water quality enforcement authority should not be vested in the citizens and the state agencies who are most knowledgeable, engaged, and invested in water quality. Instead, PGE argues this authority resides exclusively in a federal agency with little interest or expertise in enforcement of water quality law. While perhaps this result would be desirable for PGE and other dam operators across the country, it is certainly not the result intended under the Clean Water Act, which explicitly authorizes citizens to bring lawsuits in just this type of situation.

The Clean Water Act citizen suit provision is an essential tool allowing citizens to secure compliance with critical water quality standards. The DRA will do whatever it takes to protect this important enforcement tool–and to restore clean, cold water and a healthy aquatic ecosystem to our beloved lower Deschutes River.

Keep an eye on the blog for more updates as they develop!

Deschutes River Alliance: Cooler, cleaner H2O for the lower Deschutes River. 

Click here to Donate.

Click here to sign up for the Deschutes River Alliance email newsletter.

How Healthy Are Lower Deschutes River Redband Trout? Read Steve Pribyl’s Letter to ODFW.

Lower Deschutes River redband trout. Photo by Brian O’Keefe.

Last week Steve Pribyl, retired ODFW biologist on the lower Deschutes River and DRA board member, sent a letter to ODFW Director Curt Melcher and to each member of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. The letter responds to recent ODFW assertions regarding the health and abundance of the lower Deschutes River redband trout population. Steve points out several critical misstatements from the agency that misrepresent the results of recent ODFW resident trout surveys. That letter can be read here.

As a brief summary, ODFW has performed electrofishing on the lower Deschutes River each April from 2014-2017 to capture and measure redband trout. After this year’s survey, an ODFW Field Report claimed there “is no indication the population has been adversely effected [sic]” by Selective Water Withdrawal operations, and that “Deschutes redband appeared to be in good abundance based on how easily [sic] they were to catch during this year’s monitoring.” SWW supporters have taken these statements and cited them repeatedly as evidence that the lower Deschutes redband trout population is as healthy and abundant as ever.

Obviously, we are all hopeful that the redband trout population below Pelton-Round Butte is healthy and abundant. However, as Steve explains, there is simply no way to know this based on the ODFW surveys performed to this point. These surveys have all been conducted to collect information on a few metrics, on a limited sample of trout, in only a few locations, at one point in time. This sampling is not designed to, nor is it capable of, estimating trout abundance and overall population health in the 100 miles of the lower Deschutes River. In fact, a 2016 ODFW field report specifically qualified the ability of these studies to assess trout abundance, stating “Abundance will not be evaluated due to the difficulty of accurately estimating trout abundance in large productive rivers like the Deschutes.”

Steve spent 20 years of his 30-year ODFW career on the lower Deschutes River, and performed many of the surveys that ODFW now claims to be “replicating.” In his view, ODFW’s statements on trout population health and abundance are extremely misleading, and are simply not supported by the survey data collected. We are disappointed that ODFW is making such unsupported statements, which are now being repeated by various Deschutes Basin stakeholders. And it is unfortunate that ODFW has not implemented adequate pre- and post-Selective Water Withdrawal monitoring studies to truly evaluate the population health of redband trout in the lower Deschutes River.

Lower Deschutes River Redband trout. Photo by Brian O’Keefe.

It is also unfortunate that such detailed studies were not mandated during the Pelton-Round Butte FERC relicensing process. At that time, ODFW had the authority to recommend various licensing conditions related to fish and wildlife. The agency did in fact recommend several such conditions, which were largely incorporated into the final FERC license. However, ODFW did not recommend that the licensees (PGE and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs) perform any type of baseline redband trout monitoring in the lower river, or any post-SWW follow-up monitoring to assess changes in population health and abundance below the Project. This was a missed opportunity: rather than requiring the licensees to monitor and assess redband health populations, any such studies must now be funded and performed by ODFW. The redband studies performed so far seem designed to minimize cost and staff time, rather than to make detailed, accurate assessments about the trout population.

We think it is also worth mentioning that in ODFW’s post-SWW reports on redband trout health, the agency has failed to mention the black spot disease epidemic currently being observed in the lower river. Any discussion of fish health in the lower Deschutes River right now must include the infections being regularly observed in caught fish. Given the high numbers of Black Spot-infected fish observed by anglers these last two years, it is highly unlikely that ODFW has failed to observe the disease in their surveys.

The ventral surface of a redband trout with black spot disease, caught in the lower Deschutes River in late April 2017. Photo by Jamey Mitchell.

In sum, it seems that native redband trout in the lower river have become a lower priority for the management agencies—and the Pelton-Round Butte licensees—than the salmon and steelhead being planted above the Project. This is truly unfortunate, as the lower river trout population is an incredible native resident resource, and much of the year is what draws anglers and others to the lower Deschutes River.

We urge you to read Steve’s letter.

Deschutes River Alliance: Cooler, cleaner H2O for the lower Deschutes River. 

Click here to Donate.

Click here to sign up for the Deschutes River Alliance email newsletter.

Smallmouth Bass in the Lower Deschutes River

Many folks who have spent time on the lower Deschutes River this summer have noticed something unusual. Smallmouth bass, typically quite rare in the lower Deschutes, are suddenly present in large numbers. What are they doing there? Where did they come from? How does their presence affect resident fish? Today, we attempt to answer some of these questions, in two parts. In the first part of today’s post, we give an overview of this summer’s bass invasion, and attempt to sort out why we’re suddenly seeing so many of this particular species. In the second part, Steve Pribyl, former Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Biologist for the lower Deschutes River, provides a history of smallmouth bass in the lower river—a critically important perspective on what we’re seeing in the river this year.

Part One: 2016 Lower Deschutes River Bass Invasion

The weird things happening in the lower Deschutes River and its tributaries just never seem to end. A year ago the big story in the lower river was the two fish die-offs in June and early July. First with sockeye near the mouth, then spring Chinook near the confluence with the Warm Springs River.

This year, like in a science fiction movie, it’s the invasion of smallmouth bass. In a science fiction movie the bass would be from outer space, but in this case they are, in all likelihood, from the Columbia River.

Almost as soon as anglers began fishing for steelhead this summer in the Deschutes River’s lower 40 miles, we started hearing reports of smallmouth bass being caught. There have always been stories and rumors of a bass being caught here or there, perhaps once or twice a season in the lower river. But the reports this summer were of six bass being caught at a time! Or a dozen or more in a single float trip. Far more bass were being caught than steelhead (no surprise given the weak steelhead run this year).

By mid-August we had reports of smallmouth bass being caught as far upstream as Buckhollow Boat Ramp.

The most successful lure or fly for catching smallmouth in the Deschutes this summer was the Blue Fox spinner. We also heard reports of smallmouth bass being taken on steelhead flies, with streamers seeming to be the most productive. It is worth noting that these are not the sorts of flies and lures one would use if purposefully fishing for bass!

The problem with the bass invasion is that no one seems to know if these fish have moved in permanently, or are just visiting. We’ll not know until next year. But there is reason for alarm. If these fish do become residents in the lower Deschutes River, the redband trout population is at certain risk. Smallmouth bass and redband trout do not coexist well. Multiple examples abound of healthy rainbow trout populations being decimated after the introduction of bass into a trout fishery.

Why are smallmouth bass moving into the lower river? The most likely answer anyone has proposed is that warm spring water temperatures in the lower Deschutes River lured bass up from the Columbia River. Bass come out of winter dormancy when water temperatures reach the mid- to upper fifties, or even sixty degrees. They then seek out warm water to increase spawning success. This year the lower Deschutes River reached those sorts of temperatures over a month before the Columbia River did, likely attracting bass at that time. (For a biological discussion of smallmouth bass and temperature influence on bass behavior, see ).

The following graph shows that the Columbia River in The Dalles pool reached 60 degrees F right around June 1.


And this graph shows that the lower Deschutes River at Moody (just upstream from the confluence with the Columbia River) first reached 60 degrees F in mid-April.


Another important question as we unravel this mystery is whether the lower Deschutes River at Moody is warmer now than it was prior to selective water withdrawal operations at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. There are no data with which to make that determination, as there wasn’t a temperature gauge at Moody until July 2011. However, the following graph shows that temperatures immediately below Pelton-Round Butte are now much warmer in the spring than they were prior to the commencement of selective water withdrawal operations.


Previous DRA research has illustrated that these higher discharge temperatures at Pelton-Round Butte impact river temperatures all the way to the confluence with the Columbia River. So it’s quite likely that spring temperatures at Moody are now significantly higher than before SWW operations began. Unfortunately, these higher spring temperatures resulting from SWW operations may very well be responsible for this year’s smallmouth bass invasion.

It has been suggested that bass in the lower Deschutes River might be of little consequence as bass and other species seem to be coexisting in the John Day River. But this is not an analogous situation. There isn’t a redband trout fishery in the John Day River that would be threatened by smallmouth bass. Juvenile anadromous fish are said to migrate down the John Day River somewhat earlier in the year than Deschutes River steelhead and Chinook juveniles. This means that in the John Day River the juveniles are migrating in colder water temperatures, when smallmouth bass are still dormant.

We won’t know the longer-term consequence of this year’s bass invasion until next year. If juvenile bass are present in the lower Deschutes River, it will be safe to assume that they have colonized the lower river.

Part Two: History of Smallmouth Bass in the Lower Deschutes River

By: Steve Pribyl

I worked for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as a fish biologist on the lower 100 miles of the Deschutes River from 1977 to 1980, and again from 1985 to 2004. In addition to this work experience, I fished the river extensively during those years and have been able to spend even more time fishing since my retirement. I am very familiar with the history of smallmouth bass in the lower Deschutes River.

With the exception of drastically increased smallmouth bass abundance in 1996, which I will discuss below, there has always been a very, very small background number of smallmouth bass in the Deschutes River downstream from Macks Canyon (river mile 25). Before this year, the furthest upstream that I had personally observed a smallmouth bass was at Bull Run (river mile 18), with other very occasional observations downstream from there.

I fished the river downstream from Macks Canyon extensively for both trout and summer steelhead for almost 40 years before catching my first smallmouth bass this summer. Similarly, friends of mine that have guided professionally for steelhead on the river, several for more than 30 years, have caught very few smallmouth bass. Prior to this summer, these friends relate to me that in their entire careers on the Deschutes (with the exception of 1996, as discussed below), they probably caught less than 10 smallmouth bass total in literally thousands of days on the river.

Steve Pribyl with a recent catch.

Steve Pribyl with a recent catch.

1996 was an unusual year in the lower Deschutes River. That year, smallmouth bass were very abundant downstream from approximately Harris Canyon (river mile 12). In August 1996, guides reported catching up to 8 or 10 smallmouth each day while fishing for summer steelhead. I recall rowing an enforcement trip with members of the Oregon State Police, Fish and Wildlife Division, that summer where we contacted two anglers at Sharp’s Bar (river mile 5.5) that were actually targeting smallmouth bass and having considerable success. I specifically remember this event because while we were observing these subjects at a distance through binoculars, it appeared they were catching and keeping trout in excess of the legal size and catch limits. I recall the disappointment of the Oregon State Police troopers when further investigation revealed the fish to be smallmouth and no citations were going to be issued!

Smallmouth bass continued to be caught regularly and in impressive numbers throughout August and into early September of that year, but disappeared from the catch by mid to late September.

The sudden abundance of smallmouth in the lower Deschutes River in 1996 was both troubling and curious to me at the time. Large numbers of smallmouth had been present in the Columbia for many, many years, and the fish were present in Lake Billy Chinook, the reservoir formed by Round Butte Dam at about river mile 110. Yet they were rarely seen in the Deschutes River. I theorized at the time that either water temperatures in the Deschutes were colder than smallmouth bass really preferred, or the gradient of the Deschutes was higher then they could cope with very effectively. Either or both of these factors kept smallmouth bass from colonizing the river from upstream or downstream. Yet suddenly, in the summer of 1996, large numbers of smallmouth bass were present in the lower 12 miles. The temperature regime in the Deschutes had not changed that year, and obviously the gradient had not changed to allow smallmouth to live more effectively there.

With the information at hand, we formed a theory about the sudden increase in smallmouth bass that year. The passage of time, while not proving the theory correct, certainly has not disproved it either.

There was a very large rain on snow flood event in early February, 1996. Without researching flows in the Deschutes basin, I do recall that flows at the Moody gage were in excess of 70,000 cfs and that Warm Springs River at its mouth flowed in excess of 30,000 cfs.   Large volumes of flood water coming into Lake Billy Chinook necessitated a period of spill from the reservoir. Again, without researching it, I don’t recall how much was spilled, or for how long, but it was substantial. We theorized that there were many smallmouth bass entrained in that flood spill and passed through both Lake Simtustus and the Reregulation Dam Reservoir into the flowing Deschutes. These smallmouth bass, finding the upper parts of the Deschutes colder than their preferred temperature, progressively moved downstream until they found the warmer water of late summer in the lower 12 miles more to their liking, where they then took up residence. When water temperatures cooled in mid- to late September below those that smallmouth prefer, the fish again started to move downstream, this time into the Columbia. After 1996, smallmouth were again only a very rare capture, and I largely quit worrying about the species invading the lower Deschutes.

Smallmouth abundance in the lower 12 miles of the Deschutes has changed dramatically in 2016. In July, anglers started to catch five to ten per day while targeting steelhead, with steelhead gear in steelhead water. Several anglers in early August have actually targeted smallmouth and report catch rates of up to 10 smallmouth per hour, catch rates that would be considered good on the John Day River, a regionally famous smallmouth fishery. Smallmouth in excess of 16 inches in length have been reported from the Deschutes this summer. Even more unusual—and almost beyond belief—is the photo documentation of a largemouth bass caught in the Deschutes at river mile 12 in early August! This is the one and only documented largemouth sighting I am aware of in the Deschutes and I can’t even begin to wrap my head around what that means.

The obvious questions are (1) where are these smallmouth bass coming from, and (2) what has changed to allow the species to flourish in the lower Deschutes? With regard to the first question, I believe these fish are traveling up the Deschutes from the Columbia River. The protocol at the Pelton-Round Butte fish passage facility is to not pass smallmouth captured at that facility downstream into the lower Deschutes, so it is unlikely the fish originated above the dams.

So what is allowing smallmouth to flourish in the lower river this summer? While stream gradient in the lower Deschutes has obviously stayed constant, temperatures in the lower Deschutes have changed significantly. I believe PGE’s surface water withdrawal operations, designed to aid downstream juvenile passage at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex, have increased water temperatures in the lower river enough, and for a long enough period of time, that smallmouth bass are now able to invade the Deschutes from the Columbia River and find conditions that have apparently allowed them to flourish.

It remains to be seen how long smallmouth will now continue to use the lower river, but with continued releases of warmer water into the Deschutes from the surface of Lake Billy Chinook the situation is not likely to change. This is certainly troublesome, given the obvious negative impacts to resident salmonids from smallmouth predation.

Deschutes River Alliance: Cooler, cleaner H2O for the lower Deschutes River. 

Click here to Donate.

Click here to sign up for the Deschutes River Alliance email newsletter.

The DRA Position on Fish Reintroduction in the Deschutes Basin

Fish captured at Selective Water Withdrawal Tower being prepared for truck transportation around the three dams at the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Complex. Photo by Greg McMillan.

Fish captured at Selective Water Withdrawal Tower being prepared for truck transportation around the three dams at the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Complex. Photo by Greg McMillan.

A Portland General Electric (PGE) spokesperson recently stated that the Deschutes River Alliance is opposed to the reintroduction of salmon and steelhead above the Pelton-Round Butte Dam Complex. Here is the quote: “They [the DRA] want to go back to status quo prior to the selective water withdrawal system, and essentially to abandon the reintroduction effort for salmon and steelhead above the dams.”  The statement was made in the August 24, 2016 edition of The Source newspaper.

We are not sure what the PGE spokesperson was basing that information on. We have never stated that we want to “abandon the reintroduction effort.” His statement was erroneous and misleading. The DRA has regularly asserted our support for fish reintroduction – on our blog, at public events, and in various publicly disseminated documents.

The Deschutes River Alliance does support fish reintroduction as long as it doesn’t take place in violation of the Clean Water Act, or degrade the ecology of the lower Deschutes River and tributaries above the Pelton-Round Butte Dam Complex.

However, if the fish reintroduction goals are not attainable without serious negative consequences to other valuable resources, then the value of fish reintroduction needs to be reassessed. Unfortunately, what the PGE representative might have been trying to say is that PGE can only conduct fish reintroduction with the methods being currently employed. We believe that demonstrates a lack of willingness to adapt to conditions as they are. The concept of “adaptive management” is written into the dam license documents. To date all adaptive management efforts have been directed at reducing the water quality requirements for dam operation. Nothing has been changed; the goals have only been set lower. It is time to adopt alternatives that protect water quality while holding promise for even higher rates of fish reintroduction success.

Fish capture facility at the Selective Water Withdrawal Tower. Photo by Greg McMillan.

Fish capture facility at the Selective Water Withdrawal Tower. Photo by Greg McMillan.

At the present time, fish reintroduction efforts based on surface water withdrawal at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex are consistently violating the Clean Water Act. That is the basis of our lawsuit against PGE, an action we do not take lightly or without extensive research, analysis and careful consideration.

Further, selective water withdrawal and the resulting water quality violations have led to major changes in the ecology of the lower Deschutes River. These include changes in benthic algae, changes in aquatic insect hatches and populations, and changes in insectivore (insect eater) populations such as songbirds and bats. Warmer spring water temperatures due to surface water withdrawal are very likely responsible for a smallmouth bass invasion in the lower river. This year the Deschutes River at the mouth reached 60 degrees about 45 days before the Columbia River did, likely luring bass from the Columbia into the Deschutes.

The ecological impacts of tower operations are not limited to the downstream ecosystem. A recent report (Genetic Determination of Stock of Origin for Oncorhynchus mykiss Collected in the Upper Deschutes River Basin, Adams, DeHaan, et al, March, 2015) states that native redband trout have been all but extirpated from Whychus Creek. The cause cited is the genetic introgression of hatchery steelhead (planted for reintroduction purposes), which, once planted in Whychus Creek, failed to out-migrate and spawned with native redband trout. This has perhaps changed the redband trout genetics in Whychus Creek forever.

We strongly support the habitat rehabilitation work being done on Whychus Creek, McKay Creek, the upper watershed of the Warm Springs River, and the work being done in the upper reaches of Trout Creek. These are necessary efforts. These habitat improvement projects should take place irrespective of fish reintroduction for all the benefits this work provides. But the hatchery fish used for reintroduction purposes should not displace native resident fish.

Redband trout, lower Deschutes River. Photo by Brian O'Keefe.

Redband trout, lower Deschutes River. Photo by Brian O’Keefe.

Fish reintroduction efforts began in 2008 when juvenile fish were first planted in the tributaries to Lake Billy Chinook. To date, the results of the reintroduction effort have been less than successful. Numerical goals defining successful fish reintroduction contained in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license for the project have never been met, and we can see no likelihood that they will be.

PGE has claimed that they need more time. To do what? What is going to change in the next year or two that will result in enough juvenile fish migrating to the fish collection facility at Round Butte Dam (there to be trucked around the dams), or enough adults returning to the Reregulation Dam (to be trucked up to the reservoir), to meet the stated and defined goals of the reintroduction program?

Last year 32 sockeye salmon returned to the Pelton-Round Butte Hydroelectric Complex. Later analysis showed that only 3 of those fish originated from the dam complex. PGE claims that this year 400 sockeye have returned to the project. But how many of those fish are from out of basin or not otherwise part of the reintroduction program? Steelhead and Chinook salmon returns have been less than bountiful. Juvenile arrival numbers at the fish collection facility at Round Butte Dam would predict no improvement in adult fish returns for at least the next few years.

An objective audit of the fish reintroduction program needs to take place. We believe a major revamping of the reintroduction program is necessary if the program is to succeed and the serious unintended consequences of reintroduction are to be stopped.

The DRA has always supported fish reintroduction. But the fundamental requirements of the Clean Water Act must be upheld, and the Deschutes River’s ecology and resident species must not be sacrificed.

The reason that fish need to be reintroduced is because several major runs of anadromous fish were lost when the dams were constructed, blocking access to some of the most important spawning habitat in the Deschutes Basin. Let’s not compound that loss with a new generation of loss.

Deschutes River Alliance: Cooler, cleaner H2O for the lower Deschutes River. 

Click here to Donate.

Click here to sign up for the Deschutes River Alliance email newsletter.

Yellowstone River Closed Due to Fish-Killing Parasite

On Friday, August 19, Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks announced the closure of 183 miles of the Yellowstone River to all recreational use. The reason for the closure was the discovery of over 2,000 dead mountain whitefish and reports of dead rainbow trout and cutthroat trout.

Photo: Google Photos

Photo: Google Photos

The cause of the fish die-off appears to have been proliferative kidney disease (PKD), which is caused by a parasite known as Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae. In the past, this organism has caused outbreaks of disease and fish death amongst salmonids in various hatcheries and freshwater in the Pacific Northwest. It seems to be most hazardous to fish when water temperatures reach and stay above 54 degrees F. The Yellowstone River has been low and warm this year.   There are no antibiotics to treat the infection.

The Yellowstone River was closed to prevent transmission of the infectious agent to other waters.

Photo: Google Photos

Photo: Google Photos

We want to bring this to everyone’s attention as a reminder that if you travel to different bodies of water to fish, please be sure to clean wading boots, waders, fish nets and boats prior to moving to the next body of water. There has been a fair amount of controversy and disagreement as to what adequate cleaning consists of. We are providing a link to the most recent, and arguably most logical, guidance on the cleaning of fishing equipment. The instructions are relatively easy to follow and don’t include any measures that shorten the life of your gear (bleach, heat, etc.).

The instructions can be found at this link:

Please help us keep the lower Deschutes River and all bodies of water free of invasive species!

Deschutes River Alliance: Cooler, cleaner H2O for the lower Deschutes River. 

Click here to Donate.

Click here to sign up for the Deschutes River Alliance email newsletter.