NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-105

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Status Review of Eulachon

(Thaleichthys pacificus)

in Washington, Oregon,

and California

March 2010
NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-NWFSC Series

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC series to issue scientific 

and technical publications. Manuscripts have been peer 

reviewed and edited. Documents published in this series 

may be cited in the scientific and technical literature.

The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFSF/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been 

split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center.

Reference throughout this document to trade names does 

not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, NOAA.

This document should be referenced as follows:

Gustafson, R.G., M.J. Ford, D. Teel, and J.S. Drake. 2010. 

Status review of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in

Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-105, 360 p. 
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-105

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Status Review of Eulachon

(Thaleichthys pacificus)

in Washington, Oregon,

and California

Richard G. Gustafson, Michael J. Ford,

David Teel*, and Jonathan S. Drake

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Conservation Biology Division

2725 Montlake Boulevard East

Seattle, Washington 98112

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Conservation Biology Division

Manchester Research Station

7305 East Beach Drive

Port Orchard, Washington 98366

March 2010

*
ii

Most NOAA Technical Memorandums

NMFS-NWFSC are available online at the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov)

Copies are also available from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone orders (1-800-553-6847)

e-mail orders (orders@ntis.fedworld.gov)
Table of Contents 

List of Figures...............................................................................................................................................v

List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................................vii

Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................ix

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................xiii

Introduction: Summary of Information Presented by the Petitioner.............................................................1

The DPS Question: Evidence for Discreteness and Significance.............................................................2

Summary of Abundance and Population Trends ......................................................................................3

Summary of Risk Factors .........................................................................................................................4

The Species Question....................................................................................................................................6

Eulachon Life History and Ecology..............................................................................................................8

Taxonomy and Species Description .........................................................................................................8

Eulachon and Human Cultural History.....................................................................................................9

Historical and Current Distribution ........................................................................................................10

Life History Stages .................................................................................................................................33

Reproduction and Development .............................................................................................................41

Trophic Interactions................................................................................................................................54

Information Relating to the Species Question ........................................................................................57

Evaluation of Discreteness and Significance for Eulachon....................................................................72

BRT DPS Determination ........................................................................................................................78

The Extinction Risk Question.....................................................................................................................80

Abundance and Carrying Capacity.........................................................................................................81

Recent Events .........................................................................................................................................83

Status Assessments.................................................................................................................................85

General Demographic Indicators............................................................................................................87

Assessment of Demographic Risk and the Risk Matrix Approach ......................................................132

Threats Analysis ...................................................................................................................................134

Qualitative Threats Assessment............................................................................................................166

Overall Risk Determination..................................................................................................................171

Summary of Risk Conclusions for the Southern DPS of Eulachon......................................................171

iii
Significant Portion of Its Range Question............................................................................................176

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................177

References.................................................................................................................................................183

Appendix A: Life History Tables..............................................................................................................229

Appendix B: Selected Accounts of Eulachon in Local Newspapers ........................................................259

Oregon (Columbia River).....................................................................................................................263

Oregon (Umpqua River).......................................................................................................................303

Washington...........................................................................................................................................316

California..............................................................................................................................................325

Appendix C: Selected Accounts of Eulachon in Early Historical References..........................................331

Klamath River.......................................................................................................................................332

Columbia River.....................................................................................................................................332

Fraser River, British Columbia.............................................................................................................343

Other British Columbia Waters ............................................................................................................343

Appendix D: Selected Accounts of Eulachon in an Early Periodical .......................................................347

Appendix E: Substantive Scientific Comments from Peer Review ..........................................................353

Delineation of a Distinct Population Segment......................................................................................353

Appropriateness of the Scope of the Assessment .................................................................................357

Status of the Southern DPS of Eulachon ..............................................................................................358

Use of Political Boundaries for Defining a DPS ..................................................................................360

iv
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Distribution of eulachon spawning rivers in the Northeast Pacific Ocean .................................11

Figure 2. Eulachon spawning areas mentioned in the text in the conterminous United States..................12

Figure 3. Major known eulachon spawning rivers in British Columbia ....................................................13

Figure 4. INPFC statistical areas off the U.S. West Coast.........................................................................30

Figure 5. Duration of reported eulachon spawn timing in various river systems arranged north to 

south from left to right on the x-axis...........................................................................................................45

Figure 6. Box plots of the initial day of river entry in various river systems ............................................46

Figure 7. Comparison of mean and standard deviations of eulachon vertebral counts in various 

rivers...................................................................................................................................59

Figure 8. Length-weight relationship of eulachon from various rivers......................................................60

Figure 9. Comparison of FST values of the Columbia River eulachon sample to other samples ...............63

Figure 10. Ecoregions in the Pacific Maritime Ecozone of British Columbia...........................................66

Figure 11. Approximate locations of oceanographic currents, oceanic domains, and coastal 

provinces in the Northeast Pacific ..............................................................................................................68

Figure 12. Marine zoogeographic provinces of the North Pacific Ocean..................................................70

Figure 13. Major stocks of Pacific herring in the Northeast Pacific in relation to the Georgia Basin 

Pacific herring DPS and the Southeast Alaska Pacific herring DPS ..........................................................72

Figure 14. Geographic boundaries of possible eulachon DPSs considered by the BRT............................74

Figure 15. Monthly values for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation index .......................................................84

Figure 16. West coast Vancouver Island offshore eulachon biomass index..............................................91

Figure 17. Queen Charlotte Sound offshore eulachon biomass index .......................................................92

Figure 18. Mean CPUE of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas off the U.S. West Coast..........................95

Figure 19. Estimated biomass of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas off the U.S. West Coast................96

Figure 20. AFSC bottom trawl survey biomass estimates for eulachon and fishery incidental catch 

of eulachon in the Gulf of Alaska ...............................................................................................................97

Figure 21. Map of major shrimp management areas on the coast of British Columbia.............................98

Figure 22. Commercial eulachon fishery landings in the Columbia River and tributaries from 1888 

to 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................115

Figure 23. Commercial landings of eulachon and estimated total number of days the fishery was 

open in the Columbia River from 1935 to 2009 .......................................................................................116

Figure 24. Commercial landings of eulachon and estimated total number of days the fishery was 

open in the Cowlitz River from 1960 to 2009 ..........................................................................................116

v
Figure 25. Columbia River commercial eulachon landings and CPUE as pounds per delivery..............117

Figure 26. Columbia River larval eulachon sampling .............................................................................119

Figure 27. Eulachon landings in Fraser River commercial fishery and total fish caught in Fraser 

River test fishery.......................................................................................................................................120

Figure 28. Fraser River eulachon spawning stock biomass from 1995 to 2009 ......................................123

Figure 29. Trend of Fraser River eulachon spawner abundance from 1995 to 2009...............................124

Figure 30. Estimated eulachon First Nations fishery landings on the Bella Coola River........................129

Figure 31. Commercial landings in ocean shrimp trawl fisheries off the U.S. West Coast and in 

British Columbia off the west coast of Vancouver Island ........................................................................162

vi
List of Tables 

Table 1. Worksheet for evaluating potential of DPS or DPSs of eulachon that incorporate spawning 

populations in California, Oregon, and Washington using the likelihood point method............................74

Table 2. Mean CPUE of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas as reported in AFSC groundfish bottom 

trawl surveys on the continental slope ........................................................................................................93

Table 3. Mean CPUE of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas as reported in AFSC triennial 

groundfish bottom trawl surveys on the continental slope..........................................................................94

Table 4. Estimated biomass of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas as reported in AFSC triennial 

groundfish bottom trawl surveys on the continental slope..........................................................................94

Table 5. Estimated number of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas as reported in AFSC triennial 

groundfish bottom trawl surveys on the continental slope..........................................................................94

Table 6. Marine Recreational Finfish Statistical Survey and Shore and Estuary Boat Survey 

eulachon catch data for Oregon between 1980 and June 2005 ...................................................................99

Table 7. Eulachon landings from the Columbia River and tributary commercial fisheries.....................103

Table 8. Eulachon landings from the Columbia River and tributary commercial fishery and total 

numbers of fish in the catch. .....................................................................................................................108

Table 9. Estimated eulachon fishery landings for available subsets of the southern distinct 

population segment ...................................................................................................................................111

Table 10. Estimated eulachon spawner biomass in the north arm and south arm of the Fraser 

River and total number of eulachon..........................................................................................................120

Table 11. Available estimated eulachon spawner biomass or estimated total number of spawners in 

British Columbia rivers in the DPS...........................................................................................................122

Table 12. Qualitative assessments of eulachon run strength for rivers north of the Fraser River, 

1991–2007. ...............................................................................................................................................125

Table 13. Template for the risk matrix used in BRT deliberations..........................................................133

Table 14. Example worksheet for analysis of the severity of current threats to the southern 

eulachon DPS............................................................................................................................................168

Table 15. Results of qualitative ranking by the eulachon BRT of severity of threats for Klamath 

River eulachon ..........................................................................................................................................169

Table 16. Results of qualitative ranking by the eulachon BRT of severity of threats for Columbia 

River eulachon ..........................................................................................................................................169

Table 17. Results of qualitative ranking by the eulachon BRT of severity of threats for Fraser 

River eulachon ..........................................................................................................................................170

Table 18. Results of qualitative ranking by the eulachon BRT of severity of threats for eulachon in 

mainland British Columbia Rivers south of the Nass River .....................................................................170

vii
Table 19. Description of reference levels for the BRT’s assessment of the species’ or DPS 

extinction risk............................................................................................................................................172

Table 20. Example worksheet and results of the evaluation of the overall level of extinction risk 

for the southern DPS of eulachon using the likelihood point method ......................................................173

Table A-1. List and classification of known and possible eulachon spawning areas and estuarine 

areas... .....................................................................................................................................................230

Table A-2. Eulachon distribution information in U.S. West Coast estuaries...........................................235

Table A-3. Documented occurrence of eulachon in northern California rivers.......................................241

Table A-4. Latitudinal and depth distribution of eulachon in fishery-independent upper 

continental slope and continental shelf bottom trawl surveys of groundfish on the U.S. West Coast......242

Table A-5. Latitudinal, longitudinal, and depth distribution of eulachon in AFSC fisheryindependent bottom trawl surveys of groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska, eastern Bering Sea, and 

Aleutian Islands ........................................................................................................................................243

Table A-6. Age distribution of selected adult eulachon populations as determined by reading 

otolith increments......................................................................................................................................244

Table A-7. Mean length of adult eulachon for selected river basins for individual years, sex, 

and age. .....................................................................................................................................................246

Table A-8. Mean weight of adult eulachon for all available river basins for individual years, sex, 

and age. .....................................................................................................................................................253

Table A-9. Range and peak timing of documented river entry or spawn timing for eulachon................256

Table A-10. Documented avian predators on spawning runs of eulachon...............................................258

Table A-11. Temperatures at the time of river entry and spawning for eulachon in different river 

systems......................................................................................................................................................258

Table B-1. Available newspaper indices and records in online digital and microfilm format 

searched for reference to the presence of information on eulachon spawning runs in Washington, 

Oregon, and California..............................................................................................................................260

viii
Executive Summary 

On 27 November 2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received a 

petition seeking to list southern eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), as a threatened or endangered 

species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. NMFS evaluated the petition to 

determine whether the petitioner provided substantial information as required by the ESA to list 

a species. Additionally, NMFS evaluated whether information contained in the petition might 

support the identification of a distinct population segment (DPS) that may warrant listing as a 

species under the ESA. NMFS determined that the 27 November 2007 petition did present 

substantial scientific and commercial information, or cited such information in other sources, that 

the petitioned action may be warranted and, subsequently, NMFS initiated an updated status 

review of eulachon in Washington, Oregon, and California. 

The Eulachon Biological Review Team (BRT)—consisting of scientists from the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service—was formed by NMFS, 

and the team reviewed and evaluated scientific information compiled by NMFS staff from 

published literature and unpublished data. Information presented at a public meeting in June 

2008 in Seattle, Washington, and data submitted from state agencies and other interested parties 

were also considered. The BRT also reviewed additional information submitted to the ESA 

Administrative Record. 

The BRT was charged with consideration of the following questions: 

1. Consider, consistent with the criteria defined by the joint USFWS-NMFS DPS policy 

(61 FR 4722; 7 February 1996), whether eulachon warrant delineation into one or more 

DPSs. 

2. Once the DPS structure for eulachon has been delineated, assess the level of extinction 

risk facing the species (including any DPS in the United States) throughout all of its 

range. 

3. In articulating the assessed level of extinction risk, describe the BRT’s confidence that 

the species or DPS is: at high risk of extinction, at moderate risk, or neither. 

4. In the BRT’s evaluation of extinction risk, please include a consideration of the threats 

facing the species/DPS that may or may not be manifested in the current demographic 

status of populations. Please document the BRT’s consideration of these threats 

according to the statutory listing factors (ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)–(C), and (E)): the 

present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease 

or predation; and other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. In 

describing the threats facing the species/DPS, please distinguish between threats (e.g., 

human actions or natural events) and limiting factors (e.g., the physical, biological, or 

ix
chemical processes that result in demographic risks to the species/DPS), and qualitatively 

rank, if possible, the severity of identified threats to the species’ persistence. The 

consideration of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (section 4(a)(1)(D)) 

will be conducted by the regional office or offices in concert with the evaluation of 

efforts being made to protect the species. 

5. If the BRT determines that the species or delineated DPS is at neither moderate nor high 

risk throughout all of its range, please consider whether it is at moderate or high risk 

throughout a significant portion of its range. 

Guidance on what constitutes a DPS is provided by the joint USFWS-NMFS policy on 

vertebrate populations. To be considered distinct, a population, or group of populations, must be 

discrete from the remainder of the species to which it belongs and significant to the species to 

which it belongs as a whole. Discreteness and significance are further defined by the services in 

the following policy language (USFWS-NMFS 1996, p. 4,725): 

Discreteness: A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered 

discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: 

1. It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. 

Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation. 

2. It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of 

section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

Significance: If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more 

of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance will then be 

considered in light of congressional guidance (see Senate Report 151, 96th 

Congress, 1st Session) that the authority to list DPSs be used sparingly while 

encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In carrying out this 

examination, the services will consider available scientific evidence of the 

discrete population segment’s importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This 

consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

1. Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting 

unusual or unique for the taxon, 

2. Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of a taxon, 

3. Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 

elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range, or 

4. Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. 

x
After consideration of the all available scientific data, the eulachon BRT has determined 

that the petitioned unit of eulachon that spawn in rivers in Washington, Oregon, and California is 

not a species under the ESA, as it does not meet all the biological criteria to be considered a DPS 

as defined by the joint USFWS-NMFS 1996 policy on vertebrate populations. However, the 

BRT has determined that eulachon spawning in Washington, Oregon, and California rivers are 

part of a DPS that extends beyond the conterminous United States and that the northern 

boundary of the DPS occurs in northern British Columbia south of the Nass River (most likely) 

or in southern British Columbia north of the Fraser River (less likely). The BRT found it 

difficult to establish a clear northern terrestrial or river boundary for this DPS in light of the fact 

that the BRT believes the northern boundary is essentially determined by oceanographic 

processes. However, it was the majority opinion of the BRT that the northern boundary of the 

DPS is south of the Nass River on the north coast of British Columbia. The BRT proposes that 

this DPS be termed the southern DPS of eulachon. The BRT also concluded that the eulachon 

spawning in the Nass River and further north consist of at least one additional (northern) DPS. 

The BRT qualitatively ranked threats to the southern DPS of eulachon subpopulations 

that spawn in the Klamath River, Columbia River, Fraser River, and British Columbia coastal 

rivers south of the Nass River. In each case, the BRT ranked climate change impacts on ocean 

conditions as the most serious threat to persistence of eulachon. Climate change impacts on 

freshwater habitat and eulachon bycatch were scored as moderate to high risk in all subareas of 

the DPS, and dams and water diversions in the Klamath and Columbia rivers and predation in the 

Fraser and British Columbia coastal rivers were also ranked within the top four threats in their 

respective regions. 

The BRT was concerned that although eulachon are a relatively poorly monitored 

species, the weight of the available information indicates that the southern DPS of eulachon has 

experienced an abrupt decline in abundance throughout its range. Considering this large decline, 

in addition to other risk factors, the BRT determined that the southern DPS of eulachon is at 

moderate risk of extinction throughout all of its range. 

xi
xii
Acknowledgments 

The status review of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) was conducted by a team of 

scientists. NMFS gratefully acknowledges the commitment and efforts of the Eulachon 

Biological Review Team (BRT) members and thanks them for generously contributing their time 

and expertise to the development of this status review. 

The Eulachon BRT relied on comments and informational reports submitted by the public 

and by state, tribal, and federal agencies. The authors acknowledge the efforts of all who 

contributed to this record, especially the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), California Department of Fish and Game, 

and Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 

Numerous individual fishery scientists and managers provided information that aided in 

preparation of this document and deserve special thanks. We particularly thank Dr. Doug Hay, 

Nearshore Consulting, Nanaimo, British Columbia (Scientist Emeritus, Pacific Biological 

Station, DFO); Brad James, WDFW; Olaf Langness, WDFW; and Tom Rien, ODFW; for 

information, data, opinions, and advice. 

We also thank Megan Moody, Nuxalk Nation, Bella Coola, British Columbia; Andy 

Lecuyer, Environmental Advisor, Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., Kemano, British Columbia; Michael R. 

Gordon, M. R. Gordon & Associates Ltd., North Vancouver, British Columbia; and Irene Martin, 

Skamokawa, Washington, for providing documents or steering us toward those who could. 

We also thank five anonymous scientists whose peer review of an earlier version of this 

document provided added clarity. 

xiii
xiv
Introduction: Summary of Information Presented 

by the Petitioner 

In 1999 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received a petition (Wright 1999) 

to list eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in the Columbia River and its tributaries as a threatened 

or endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. NMFS 

determined that the 1999 eulachon petition failed to present substantial scientific and commercial 

information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (NMFS 1999). 

On 27 November 2007, NMFS received a new petition seeking to list eulachon in 

Washington, Oregon, and California as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA 

(Cowlitz Indian Tribe 2007). NMFS evaluated the petition to determine whether the petitioner 

provided substantial information to list a species as required by the ESA. Additionally, NMFS 

evaluated whether information contained in the petition might support the identification of a 

distinct population segment (DPS) that may warrant listing as a species under the ESA. NMFS 

determined that the 27 November 2007 petition did present substantial scientific and commercial 

information, or cited such information in other sources, that the petitioned action may be 

warranted and, subsequently, NMFS initiated a status review of eulachon in Washington, 

Oregon, and California (NMFS 2008). 

A Eulachon Biological Review Team (BRT)1

—consisting of scientists from the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and U.S. Forest 

Service—was formed by NMFS, and the team reviewed and evaluated scientific information 

compiled by NMFS staff from published literature and unpublished data. Information presented 

at a public meeting in June 2008 in Seattle, Washington, and data submitted to the ESA 

Administrative Record from state agencies and other interested parties were also considered. 

The BRT proceeded on the directives included in the Draft BRT Eulachon Instructions 

Memo that was received from the NMFS Northwest Region on 19 May 2008. In the memo the 

BRT was charged with consideration of the following questions: 

1. Consider, consistent with the criteria defined by the joint USFWS-NMFS DPS policy 

(61 FR 4722; 7 February 1996), whether eulachon warrant delineation into one or more 

DPSs. 

 

1

 The Eulachon BRT consisted of: Jonathan Drake, Robert Emmett, Kurt Fresh, Richard Gustafson, Mindy Rowse, 

and David Teel, NWFSC; Matthew Wilson, AFSC; Peter Adams, SWFSC; Elizabeth A. K. Spangler, USFWS; and 

Robert Spangler, U. S. Forest Service. 
2. Once the DPS structure for eulachon has been delineated, assess the level of extinction 

risk facing the species (including any DPS in the United States) throughout all of its 

range. 

3. In articulating the assessed level of extinction risk, describe the BRT’s confidence that 

the species or DPS is at high risk of extinction, at moderate risk, or neither. 

4. In the BRT’s evaluation of extinction risk, please include a consideration of the threats 

facing the species/DPS that may or may not be manifested in the current demographic 

status of populations. Please document the BRT’s consideration of these threats 

according to the statutory listing factors (ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)–(C), and (E)): the 

present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease 

or predation; and other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. In 

describing the threats facing the species/DPS please distinguish between threats (e.g., 

human actions or natural events) and limiting factors (e.g., the physical, biological, or 

chemical processes that result in demographic risks to the species/DPS), and qualitatively 

rank, if possible, the severity of identified threats to the species’ persistence. The 

consideration of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (section 4(a)(1)(D)) 

will be conducted by the regional office or offices in concert with the evaluation of 

efforts being made to protect the species. 

5. If the BRT determines that the species or delineated DPS is at neither moderate nor high 

risk throughout all of its range, please consider whether it is at moderate or high risk 

throughout a significant portion of its range. 

The Eulachon BRT submitted a summary status review document (BRT 2008) to the 

NMFS Northwest Region in December 2008. In April 2009 we asked a number of scientists 

with expertise in eulachon biology or viability analysis to review that document (BRT 2008). 

Substantial scientific comments received from five peer reviewers and our responses to these 

comments can be found in Appendix E. Numerous changes have been incorporated into the 

present document in response to suggestions made by the peer reviewers. 

The DPS Question: Evidence for Discreteness and Significance 

The petitioner noted that early mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genetic information 

(McLean et al. 1999) suggested that eulachon did not exhibit genetic discreteness and gave little 

support for subdivision of population structure throughout the species’ range. However, other 

biological data including the number of vertebrae, size-at-maturity, fecundity, river-specific 

spawning times, and population dynamics indicated that there is substantial local stock structure 

(Hart and McHugh 1944, Hay and McCarter 2000). The petitioner described these latter 

observations as consistent with the hypothesis that there is local adaptation and genetic 

differentiation among populations. Recent microsatellite genetic work (Beacham et al. 2005) 

appears to confirm the existence of significant differentiation among populations. The petitioner 

summarized these findings as indicating that although the Fraser River, mainstem Columbia 

River, and Cowlitz River spawning populations are genetically distinct from each other, they are 

more closely related to one another than either population is to the more northerly British 

Columbia populations (Beacham et al. 2005). Although the petitioner felt that the available 

2
information is inconclusive, the petitioner noted that eulachon may be composed of several DPSs 

separated by differences in run timing, spawn timing, meristics, and genetic characteristics. 

The petitioner concluded that the available genetic, meristic, and life history information 

is inconclusive regarding the discreteness of eulachon populations. However, the petitioner 

argued that under the DPS policy, eulachon populations in Washington, Oregon, and California 

are collectively discrete from more northerly populations because they are delimited by an 

international governmental boundary (i.e., the U.S.-Canada border between Washington and 

British Columbia) across which there is a significant difference in exploitation control, habitat 

management, or conservation status. The petitioner noted that the United States and Canada 

differ in their regulatory control of commercial, recreational, and tribal or First Nations eulachon 

harvest, and also differ in their management of eulachon habitat. The petitioner concluded that 

there is no assurance that the United States and Canada will coordinate management and 

regulatory efforts sufficiently to conserve eulachon and their habitat, and thus the DPS should be 

delineated at the border between Washington and British Columbia. 

The petitioner argued that the southern eulachon population segment is significant under 

the DPS policy because the loss of the discrete population segment would cause a significant gap 

in the taxon’s range. The petitioner stated that eulachon have largely disappeared in rivers 

throughout the southern portion of their range, and that eulachon in the Columbia River probably 

represent the southernmost extant population for the species. The petitioner argued that the loss 

of the Columbia River eulachon population and any dependent coastal spawning populations 

could represent the loss of the species throughout its range in the United States, as well as the 

loss of a substantial proportion of its historical range. 

Summary of Abundance and Population Trends 

The petitioner stated that although eulachon abundance exhibits considerable year-to-year 

variability, nearly all spawning runs from California to southeastern Alaska have declined in the 

past 20 years, especially since the mid-1990s (Hay and McCarter 2000). Historically, the 

Columbia River has exhibited the largest returns of any spawning population throughout the 

species’ range. The petitioner noted that from 1938 to 1992, the median commercial catch of 

eulachon in the Columbia River was approximately 1.9 million pounds (lb). From 1993 to 2006, 

the median catch had declined to approximately 43,000 lb, representing a 97.7% reduction in 

catch from the prior period. Although there was an increasing trend in Columbia River eulachon 

catch from 2000 to 2003, recent catches have been extremely low. The petitioner also presented 

catch per unit effort (CPUE) and larval survey data (JCRMS 2006) for the Columbia River and 

tributaries in Oregon and Washington that similarly reflect the depressed status of Columbia 

River eulachon during the 1990s, a relative increase during 2001 to 2003, and a decline back to 

low levels in recent years. 

The petitioner also noted that eulachon returns in the Fraser River showed a similar 

pattern to those in the Columbia River; a rapid decline in the mid-1990s, increased returns during 

2001 to 2003, and a recent decline to low levels. The petitioner stated that egg and larval 

surveys conducted in the Fraser River since 1995 also demonstrate that, despite the 

implementation of fishing restrictions in British Columbia, the stock has not recovered from its 

mid-1990s collapse and remains at a precariously low level. An offshore index of Fraser and 

3
Columbia rivers eulachon biomass, calculated from eulachon bycatch in an annual trawl survey 

of shrimp biomass off the west coast of Vancouver Island, illustrates highly variable biomass 

over the time series since 1973, but also reflects stock declines in the mid-1990s and in recent 

years, according to the petitioner. With respect to eulachon populations further south in the 

species’ range, the petitioner noted that populations in the Klamath River, Mad River, Redwood 

Creek, and Sacramento River are likely extirpated or nearly so. 

Summary of Risk Factors 

The petitioner described a number of threats facing eulachon range-wide and facing 

populations in U.S. rivers in particular. The petitioner expressed concern that habitat loss and 

degradation threaten eulachon, particularly in the Columbia River basin. The petitioner argued 

that hydroelectric dams block access to historical eulachon spawning grounds and affect the 

quality of spawning substrates through flow management, altered delivery of coarse sediments, 

and siltation. 

The petitioner expressed strong concern regarding the siltation of spawning substrates in 

the Cowlitz River due to altered flow management and the accumulation of fine sediments from 

the Toutle River. The petitioner believes that efforts to retain and stabilize fine sediments 

generated by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens are inadequate. The petitioner noted that the 

release of fine sediments from behind a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) sediment 

retention structure (SRS) on the Toutle River has been negatively correlated with Cowlitz River 

eulachon returns 3 to 4 years later. The petitioner also expressed concern that dredging activities 

in the Cowlitz and Columbia rivers during the eulachon spawning run may entrain and kill fish, 

or otherwise result in decreased spawning success. 

The petitioner also noted that eulachon have been shown to carry high levels of chemical 

pollutants (EPA 2002), and although it has not been demonstrated that high contaminant loads in 

eulachon result in increased mortality or reduced reproductive success, such effects have been 

shown in other fish species (Kime 1995). The petitioner concluded that no evidence suggests 

that disease currently poses a threat to eulachon, but noted that information presented in the 1999 

petition (Wright 1999) to list eulachon suggested that predation by pinnipeds may be substantial. 

The petitioner expressed concern that depressed eulachon populations are particularly 

susceptible to overharvest in fisheries where they are targeted or taken as bycatch. The petitioner 

acknowledged that eulachon harvest has been curtailed significantly in response to population 

declines, and that were it not for continued low levels of harvest, there would be little or no 

status information available for some populations. However, the petitioner concluded that 

existing regulatory mechanisms have proven inadequate in recovering eulachon stocks, and that 

directed harvest and bycatch may be important factors limiting the recovery of impacted stocks. 

The petitioner emphasized the need for further fishery-independent monitoring and research. 

Finally, the petitioner concluded that global climate change is one of the greatest threats 

facing eulachon, particularly in the southern portion of its range where ocean warming trends 

may be the most pronounced. The petitioner felt that the risks facing southerly eulachon 

populations in Washington, Oregon, and California will be exacerbated by such a deterioration 

of marine conditions. According to the petitioner, these southerly populations, already 

4
exhibiting dramatic declines and impacted by other threats (e.g., habitat loss and degradation), 

might be at risk of extirpation if unfavorable marine conditions predominate in the future. 

5
The Species Question 

As amended in 1978, the ESA allows listing of DPSs of vertebrates as well as named 

species and subspecies. Guidance on what constitutes a DPS is provided by the joint USFWSNMFS (1996) policy on vertebrate populations. To be considered distinct, a population, or 

group of populations, must be discrete from the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs and 

significant to the taxon to which it belongs as a whole. Discreteness and significance are further 

defined by the services in the following policy language (USFWS-NMFS 1996, p. 4,725): 

Discreteness: A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered 

discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: 

1. It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. 

Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation. 

2. It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of 

section 4(a)(1)(D) of the [Endangered Species] Act. 

Significance: If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more 

of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance will then be 

considered in light of congressional guidance (see Senate Report 151, 96th 

Congress, 1st Session) that the authority to list DPSs be used sparingly while 

encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In carrying out this 

examination, the services will consider available scientific evidence of the 

discrete population segment’s importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This 

consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

1. Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting 

unusual or unique for the taxon, 

2. Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of a taxon, 

3. Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 

elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range, or 

4. Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. 

The interagency policy states that international boundaries within the geographical range 

of the species may be used to delimit a distinct population segment in the United States. This 

6
criterion is applicable if differences in the control of exploitation of the species, the management 

of the species’ habitat, the conservation status of the species, or regulatory mechanisms differ 

between countries that would influence the conservation status of the population segment in the 

United States. However, in past assessments of DPSs of marine fish, NMFS has placed the 

emphasis on biological information in defining DPSs and has considered political boundaries 

only at the implementation of ESA listings. Therefore, the BRT focused only on biological 

information in identifying whether DPSs of eulachon could be delineated. 

7
Eulachon Life History and Ecology 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Scientific Nomenclature 

Eulachon are an anadromous smelt in the family Osmeridae and are distinguished from 

other osmerids by having 4–6 gill rakers on the upper half of the arch (others have 8–14 gill 

rakers), distinct concentric striae on the operculum and suboperculum (other osmerids lack these 

concentric striae), and 8–11 pyloric caeca (others have 0–8 pyloric caeca) (McAllister 1963, Hart 

1973, Mecklenburg et al. 2002). McAllister (1963) provides a taxonomic synonymy for the 

species, which was originally described from the Columbia River as Salmo (Mallotus) pacificus

by Richardson (1836). The genus Thaleichthys has only one species and valid subspecies have 

not been described (McAllister 1963). The binomial species name is derived from Greek roots; 

thaleia meaning rich, ichthys meaning fish, and pacificus meaning of the Pacific (Hart 1973). 

Common Names 

Native, Indian, and First Nations languages 

The common name officially recognized by the American Fisheries Society (Nelson et al. 

2004) for Thaleichthys pacificus is eulachon (pronounced you-la-kon in the United States), 

which is originally derived from the Chinook Indian trade language of the lower Columbia River 

(Hart and McHugh 1944, Moody 2008). Numerous variations include hoolakan, hooligan, 

hoolikan, olachan, ollachan, oolachan, oolichan, oulachan, oulachon, oulacon, ulchen, ulichan, 

uthlecan, yshuh (Hart and McHugh 1944), ooligan, olachen, and olachon (Moody 2008). The 

Yurok Tribe of the lower Klamath River call eulachon quat-ra (Larson and Belchik 1998) and 

the Quinault Tribe named the fish páagwáls (Olson 1936). Each First Nations group in British 

Columbia has a unique name for eulachon (Hay and McCarter 2000, Moody 2008). The First 

Nations of the lower Fraser River called eulachon swavie or chucka (Hart and McHugh 1944); 

and the Haisla and Tlingit of Alaska call it juk’wan or za’xwen and ssag or saak, respectively 

(Krause 1885, Betts 1994, Willson et al. 2006). 

English 

Besides eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus is known by numerous local common English 

names including candlefish, small fish, savior fish, salvation fish, little fish, fathom fish (because 

it was sold by the fathom) (Hart and McHugh 1944), and Columbia River smelt. 

8
Eulachon and Human Cultural History 

Eulachon were, and still are, highly important ceremonially, nutritionally, medicinally, 

and economically to First Nations people in British Columbia and Native American tribes in 

northern California and the Pacific Northwest. Many ethnographers and historians have stressed 

the cultural and nutritional importance of eulachon to the Tlingit of Southeast Alaska (Mills 

1982, Olson and Hubbard 1984, Krause 1885, Betts 1994), Tsimshians of the north coast of 

British Columbia (Stewart 1975, Halpin and Seguin 1990, Martindale 2003), Haisla of Douglas 

Channel and Gardner Canal of British Columbia (Hawthorn et al. 1960, Hamori-Torok 1990), 

Haihais and Oowekeeno of Rivers Inlet in British Columbia (Hilton 1990), Nuxalk (formerly 

known as the Bella Coola) of the central coast of British Columbia (Kuhnlein et al. 1982, 

Kennedy and Bouchard 1990), Kwakwaka’wakw (formerly known as the Kwakiutl) of the north 

and central coast of British Columbia (Curtis 1915, Rohner 1967, Macnair 1971, Mitchell 1983, 

Codere 1990), Stό:lō of the Fraser River (Duff 1952), Quinault of the Washington coast 

(Willoughby 1889, Olson 1936), Chinook and Cowlitz on the lower Columbia River (Boyd and 

Hajda 1987, Byram and Lewis 2001), and Yurok on the Klamath River (Pilling 1978, Byram and 

Lewis 2001). In many areas, eulachon returned in the late winter and early spring when other 

food supplies were scarce and were known, for this reason, as savior or salvation fish (Boyd and 

Hajda 1987, Byram and Lewis 2001). 

Major aboriginal subsistence fisheries for eulachon reportedly occurred on the Stikine, 

Nass, Skeena, Kitimat, Bella Coola, Kingcome, Klinaklini, Fraser (Macnair 1971, Kuhnlein et al. 

1982, Mitchell 1983), and Columbia rivers (Boyd and Hajda 1987). Eulachon were eaten fresh, 

smoked, dried, and salted, and rendered as oil or grease. Especially to the north of the Fraser 

River, the fat of the eulachon was rendered into oil, or what is commonly called grease, which is 

solid at room temperature and was a common traditional year-round condiment with many foods, 

as well as a medicine for skin rashes and internal ailments among First Nations people on the 

central and north coasts of British Columbia and in some parts of Alaska (Kuhnlein et al. 1982). 

Kuhnlein et al. (1982, p. 155) stated that: 

The cultural significance of ooligan grease cannot be underestimated, as it was 

(and continues to be) a prominent food and gift during feasts and potlatch 

ceremonies. Early ethnographers among the Nuxalk and Kwakiutl people noted 

that it was a sign of poverty for a family to be without ooligan grease. 

Eulachon grease was widely traded to First Nations such as the Haida and Nootka of 

Vancouver Island and First Nations in the interior of British Columbia that had no rivers with 

eulachon runs (Krause 1885, Green 1891, Martindale 2003). Sutherland (2001, p. 8) has stated 

that “by trading the grease [First Nations people] obtained wealth, prestige, and power.” Ancient 

trade routes up the Nass and Bella Coola river valleys, in particular, and through the mountains, 

became known as “grease trails” after the traffic in eulachon grease, packed in wooden boxes 

(Collison 1941, Hart and McHugh 1944, Stewart 1977, Byram and Lewis 2001, Hirch 2003). 

Numerous sources describe the methods, which varied slightly from area to area, of extracting 

the oil by boiling the fish bodies (MacFie 1865, Lord 1866, Swan 1881, Krause 1885, Green 

1891, Macnair 1971, Stewart 1977). 

9
The largest and most important eulachon fisheries for grease production were on the Nass 

and Klinaklini rivers of British Columbia (Stacey 1995), although grease was produced by all the 

First Nations with fishing rights on eulachon rivers north of the Fraser River (Swan 1881, 

Macnair 1971). As many as 2,000 people annually migrated to the eulachon fishing grounds 

(Tsawatti) on the Klinaklini River at the head of Knight Inlet (Macnair 1971, Mitchell 1983, 

Stacey 1995), some traveling from as far as 402 km (250 miles) away by canoe (Codere 1990). 

The assemblage on the Klinaklini River included nine winter village groups of the Southern 

Kwakwaka’wakw (formerly known as the Southern Kwakiutl) (Mitchell 1983). A comparable 

assemblage of five other Southern Kwakwaka’wakw winter village groups and the bulk of the 

Nimpkish First Nation people from Vancouver Island congregated at Quaee at the head of 

Kingcome Inlet on the Kingcome River to harvest the spring run of eulachon (Mitchell 1983). 

Kennedy and Bouchard (1990, p. 325) in an ethnographic summary of the Bella Coola First 

Nation noted that “Because of their abundance and their value as a trade item, eulachons 

(particularly when rendered into highly valued grease) were second only to salmon in importance 

to the Bella Coola.” 

Historical and Current Distribution 

Freshwater Spawning Distribution 

Eulachon spawn in the lower portions of certain rivers draining into the northeastern 

Pacific Ocean ranging from northern California to the southeastern Bering Sea in Bristol Bay, 

Alaska (Hubbs 1925, Schultz and DeLacy 1935, McAllister 1963, Scott and Crossman 1973, 

Willson et al. 2006) (Table A-1 in Appendix A, Figures 1 through 3). This distribution coincides 

closely with the distribution of the coastal temperate rain forest ecosystem on the west coast of 

North America (Figure 1). Both Willson et al. (2006) and Moody (2008) have recently reviewed 

the coast-wide spawning distribution of eulachon in North America. 

Monaco et al. (1990) and Emmett et al. (1991) summarized distribution and abundance of 

fishes in U.S. West Coast estuaries (see Table A-2) and based on the references cited therein 

described adult eulachon as common in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay on the Washington coast, 

abundant in the Columbia River, common in Oregon’s Umpqua River, and abundant in the 

Klamath River in northern California. In addition, a number of estuaries where eulachon were 

thought to occur in rare relative abundance included Puget Sound and Skagit Bay in Washington; 

Siuslaw River, Coos Bay, and Rogue River in Oregon; and Humboldt Bay in California (Monaco 

et al. 1990, Emmett et al. 1991). Hay and McCarter (2000) and Hay (2002) identified 33 

eulachon spawning rivers in British Columbia and 14 of these were classified as supporting 

regular yearly spawning runs. Willson et al. (2006) and Moody (2008) list numerous rivers that 

support eulachon runs in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska and on the coastline of Alaska in the 

southeastern Bering Sea (Table A-1). McPhail and Lindsey (1970, p. 198) suggested that 

eulachon “apparently survived glaciation south of the ice sheet along the Pacific coast of North 

America” and likely “entered the Bering Sea from the south” following the Wisconsian 

glaciation. 

10
Klamath River

Columbia River

Fraser River

Klinaklini River

Nass River

Burroughs Bay

Copper River

Berners Bay

Susitna River

Twentymile

River

Nushagak

River

Northeast Pacific Ocean

30°N

40°N

50°N

170°W 160°W 150°W 140°W 130°W

Figure 1. Distribution of eulachon spawning rivers (open circles) in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. 

California 

Hubbs (1925) and Schultz and DeLacy (1935), leading ichthyologists of their day, 

described the Klamath River in northern California as the southern limit of the range of 

eulachon. Miller and Lea (1972, p. 62) in the California Department of Fish and Game’s 

(CDFG) Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California reported that the eulachon “spawns in 

rivers from Mad River north.” More recent compilations state that large spawning aggregations 

of eulachon were reported to have once regularly occurred in the Klamath River (Fry 1979, 

Moyle et al. 1995, Larson and Belchik 1998, Moyle 2002, Hamilton et al. 2005) and on occasion 

in the Mad River (Moyle et al. 1995, Moyle 2002) and Redwood Creek (Ridenhour and Hofstra 

1994, Moyle et al. 1995) (Table A-1, Figure 2). 

In addition, Moyle et al. (1995) and Moyle (2002) state that small numbers of eulachon 

have been reported from the Smith River (Table A-1). CDFG’s Status Report on Living Marine 

Resources (Sweetnam et al. 2001, p. 477–478) states that “The principal spawning run [of 

eulachon] in California is in the Klamath River, but runs have also been recorded in the Mad and 

Smith rivers and Redwood Creek.” Allen et al. (2006) indicated that eulachon usually spawn no 

further south than the lower Klamath River and Humboldt Bay tributaries. The California 

11
2 1 Mad River

2 Redwood Creek

3 Klamath River

4 Umpqua River

5 Tenmile Creek

6 Columbia River mainstem

7 Sandy River

8 Kalama River

9 Lewis River

10 Cowlitz River

11 Elochoman River

12 Grays River

13 Quinault/Queets rivers

14 Elwha River

1

5

7

8

9

10 6

12 11

13

14

Washington

Oregon

California

Pacific

Ocean

Regular eulachon run

Irregular eulachon run

3

4

Figure 2. Eulachon spawning areas mentioned in the text in the conterminous United States. 

12
Figure 3. Major known eulachon spawning rivers in British Columbia (based on Hay and McCarter 2000 

and Hay 2002). 

Academy of Sciences (CAS) ichthyology collection database (online at http://research

.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/collection/index.asp) lists eulachon specimens collected 

from the Klamath River in February 1916, March 1947, and March 1963, and in Redwood Creek 

in February 1955. 

A search of available online digital newspaper resources (listed in Table B-1) revealed an 

early account of eulachon (aka candlefish in northern California) in the Klamath River in a 

newspaper article in 1879 (Appendix B). Runs large enough to be noted in available local 

newspaper articles occurred in the Klamath River in February 1919, March 1968, April 1963, 

and April 1969, in Redwood Creek in April 1963 and April 1967, and in the Mad River in April 

1963 (Table A-3 and Appendix B). An early memoir by a traveler surveying timber resources on 

the Klamath River reported eulachon being harvested (15–20 lb in a single dip net haul) by 

Yurok tribal members in the early 1890s (Pearsall 1928) (Appendix C). Petersen (2006) reported 

on interviews with Yurok and Karuk tribal fishers on the lower Klamath River that indicated 

eulachon were abundant in the river in the 1960s. Petersen (2006, p. 88) stated that “one fisher 

remembered picking up 75 pounds of fish in one dip” and that another remembered “filling the 

back of a pickup truck in one hour” with eulachon in 1966. 

13
Young (1984) collected eulachon in Redwood Creek in April 1978 and in the Klamath 

River in April 1978, March and April of 1979, and 1980. Bowlby (1981) documented eulachon 

in the diet of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) through gastrointestinal content 

analysis and in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) through scat analysis and gastrointestinal content 

analysis in the Klamath River during spring 1978 and 1979. One California sea lion contained 

186 eulachon in its gut on 10 April 1978 when the carcass was recovered 1 km upriver from the 

river mouth, and sea lions “were observed at Klamath Glenn, 9.6 km upriver, while fishermen 

dipnetted these congregating fish from shore” (Bowlby 1981, p. 59). Eulachon have been 

reported to spawn at least as far as 40 km upstream on the Klamath River (Fry 1979, Hamilton et 

al. 2005). Larson and Belchik (1998, p. 5) noted that “In the Klamath, adults generally migrate 

as high as Pecwan Creek ..., have been witnessed as high as Weitchpec ..., but specific 

spawning areas are unknown.” 

Eulachon have been occasionally reported from other freshwater streams of California. 

Fry (1979, p. 90) reported that the largest eulachon run in California occurred in the Klamath 

River, and that eulachon occurred in “fresh water from the Gualala River, California, 

northward.” Although Odemar (1964) has been cited as evidence that eulachon occurred in the 

Russian River, Odemar (1964) actually stated that “No runs of T. pacificus have been reported in 

the Russian River, or in any river south of the Mad River, and it does not appear that the fish 

examined off the Russian River in May 1963 were destined to spawn there.” 

Eulachon were not observed by Eldridge and Bryan (1972) in a larval fish survey of 

Humboldt Bay, California, and Barnhart et al. (1992, p. 101) stated that eulachon are “not 

reported in Humboldt Bay tributaries,” although they are occasionally recorded in Humboldt Bay 

itself. Monaco et al. (1990) described eulachon as rare in Humboldt Bay and, in addition to 

several personal communications, cited Gotshall et al. (1980) and Young (1984) as supporting 

references (Table A-2). Gotshall et al. (1980, p. 229) recorded eulachon as an “occasional 

visitor” in winter to Humboldt Bay, California. Young (1984) stated that: 

Specimens [of eulachon] have occasionally been taken, during the spawning 

season, in Jolly Giant and Jacoby creeks (George Allen, pers. comm., 1980). 

Both of these streams empty into Humboldt Bay. 

Jennings (1996) reported on observations of adult eulachon in creeks tributary to 

Humboldt Bay, California, in May 1977. A single spawned-out adult male eulachon was 

collected in a downstream migrant trap on Jolly Giant Creek, approximately 7 km south of Mad 

River, and a total of seven adult eulachon were observed in another downstream migrant trap in 

Jacoby Creek, located 8.5 km south of Mad River (Jennings 1996). 

Although Minckley et al. (1986, their Table 15.1, p. 541) indicate that eulachon were 

native to the Sacramento River and drainages within the south California Coastal to Baja 

California region, no verifying references for these assertions were given. Recently, Vincik and 

Titus (2007) reported on the capture of a single mature male eulachon in a screw trap at RKM 

228 (RM 142) on the Sacramento River. 

14
Coastal Oregon 

Monaco et al. (1990) and Emmett et al. (1991) summarized distribution and abundance of 

eulachon in major Oregon estuaries and listed the Rogue River, Coos Bay, Siuslaw River, and 

Umpqua River as possessing records of eulachon presence. More recently, Willson et al. (2006, 

p. 36–37) listed the following drainages on the coast of Oregon as supporting eulachon spawning 

runs (based on Emmett et al. [1991] and personal communications with fish biologists of 

ODFW): Winchuck, Chetco, Pistol, Rogue, Elk, Sixes, Coquille, Coos, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and 

Yaquina rivers; and Hunter, Euchre, Tenmile (draining Tenmile Lake), and Tenmile (near 

Yachats, Oregon) creeks (Table A-1). 

Monaco et al. (1990) described eulachon as rare in the Rogue River and, in addition to a 

personal communication, cited Ratti (1979b) as a supporting reference (Table A-2). Although 

smelt and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) were reported from the Rogue River estuary by Ratti 

(1979b), no specific mention of eulachon occurs in this report. Roffe and Mate (1984) reported 

the presence of otoliths representing at least 120 eulachon from harbor seal scat collected in 

April 1978 on the Rogue River, which represented 16.7% of the identified harbor seal prey. 

Reimers and Baxter (1976) reported that adult eulachon were caught in a downstream 

migrant trap in the lower portion of the Sixes River in Oregon between 1964 and 1972, although 

dates of occurrence or numbers caught were not provided. Reimers and Baxter (1976) suggested 

that these adults had possibly been spawning and were headed downstream at the time of 

capture. 

Gaumer et al. (1973) recorded the taking of 28 eulachon in June 1971 by recreational 

fishers at the city docks of Bandon, Oregon, in the Coquille River estuary. Kreag (1979) also 

lists eulachon as occurring in the marine portion of the Coquille River estuary. 

Monaco et al. (1990) described eulachon as rare in Coos Bay, Oregon, and, in addition to 

a personal communication, cited Cummings and Schwartz (1971), Hostick (1975), Roye (1979), 

and Wagoner et al. (1988) as supporting references (Table A-2). Cummings and Schwartz 

(1971) included eulachon in their list of fishes occurring in Coos Bay and indicated that eulachon 

were found up to 11 km (6.8 miles) upstream of the mouth of the bay. Although whitebait smelt 

(Allosmerus elongatus) and surf smelt were reported from Coos Bay by Hostick (1975), no 

specific mention of eulachon occurs in this report. Roye (1979, p. 36) referenced Cummings and 

Schwartz (1971) in describing eulachon as occurring in the lower 14.5 km (9 miles) of the Coos 

Bay estuary. The final version of the draft report, cited by Monaco et al. (1990) as Wagoner et 

al. (1988), stated that “eulachon may have occurred in large numbers in past years [in the Coos 

Bay estuary], but they have apparently not been abundant enough in recent years to attract an 

active dipnet fishery” (Wagoner et al. 1990, p. 100). More recently, Miller and Shanks (2005) 

surveyed the distribution of 28 identified larval and juvenile fish species in Coos Bay for more 

than three years between 1998 and 2001, but did not encounter eulachon. 

Two reports (Gestring 1991, ODFW 1991) were found that list eulachon as a native fish 

species occurring in Tenmile and North Tenmile lakes, although no further information on 

frequency of occurrence or abundance were provided in these reports. 

15
OFC (1970) reported that from 4,000 to 5,000 lb of eulachon were landed by two 

commercial fishermen in the Umpqua River during 31 days of drift gill net fishing from late 

December 1966 to mid-March 1967. OFC (1970, p. 34) stated that “The fishing area extended 

from the Highway 101 bridge at Reedsport upstream about 4 miles.” A sport fishery for 

eulachon also operated over this period in the Umpqua River (OFC 1970). Monaco et al. (1990) 

described eulachon as common in the Umpqua River estuary and, in addition to a personal 

communication, cited Mullen (1977), Ratti (1979a), and Johnson et al. (1986) as supporting 

references (Table A-2). Neither Mullen (1977) nor Ratti (1979a) mention eulachon and Johnson 

et al. (1986, their Table 1) list eulachon as occurring in trace amounts in their trawl and beachseine samples from April 1977 to January 1986. 

Williams (2009, p. 2) reported that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 

has “no direct observations of eulachon spawning in the Umpqua” River, but provided additional 

information “on eulachon observations and captures during inventories.” Williams (2009, p. 2) 

noted that: 

two random observations of eulachon [were reported] from Little Mill Creek [a 

tributary of the lower Umpqua River] on December 8, 1954 and January 26, 1955. 

The fish found in 1954 measured 6 inches in total length. 

Williams (2009, p. 3) also reported on the results of seine collections conducted during March to 

November from 1995 to 2003 in Winchester Bay estuary on the Lower Umpqua River, which 

documented the 

presence ... [of eulachon] in 4 of the last 14 years. Forty-four fish were found in 

May 1995, 80 fish during April and July 1998, 54 fish during March and May 

1999, and 2 fish during June 2003. Seining was also conducted in the lower 

Smith River estuary [a tributary of the Lower Umpqua] at three sites during 1999 

during February and March, but no eulachon were captured. 

A search of available online digital newspaper resources (listed in Appendix B) revealed 

anecdotal evidence that an extensive recreational fishery for eulachon occurred in the lower 

Umpqua River at least from 1969 to 1982 during January to April. The last reference to 

eulachon in the Umpqua River in these digital newspaper resources occurred in 1989 

(Appendix B). 

Monaco et al. (1990) described eulachon as rare in the Siuslaw River estuary and, in 

addition to a personal communication, cited Hutchinson (1979) as a supporting reference (Table 

A-2); however, we have been unable to locate a copy of this document. 

WDFW and ODFW (2008) describe the occasional occurrence of small numbers of 

eulachon in Tenmile Creek (not be confused with the Tenmile Lakes Basin), just south of 

Yachats, Oregon. Between 1992 and 2008, a total of 75 eulachon were caught in traps designed 

to catch outmigrating salmonid smolts located 0.8 km upstream from the ocean. Eulachon were 

caught in 1992 (24), 1993 (6), 1994 (1), 1995 (1), 1996 (1), 2001 (26), 2003 (3), 2005 (10), 2007 

(1), and 2008 (2). As reported in WDFW and ODFW (2008): 

Eulachon were seen in February (3 years), March (6 years), April (7 years) and 

May (1 year). The earliest observed arrival was the week of February 3 in 1992. 

16
The latest observed presence was the week of May 21 in 2001. Fish lengths 

(annual averages) ranged from 155 to 208 mm FL. Local biologists suspect the 

eulachon spawn in the creek based on the trapping location, fish size, and that 

some fish appear to be spawned out. 

Although Monaco et al. (1990) describe eulachon as not found in the Yaquina River 

(based on several personal communications) (Table A-2), Borgerson et al. (1991) list eulachon as 

occurring in the Yaquina River basin, but do not elaborate further on the evidence for this 

opinion. 

Columbia River 

Large spawning runs of eulachon occur in the mainstem lower Columbia River and the 

tributary Cowlitz, Lewis, Sandy (Craig and Hacker 1940), Grays (Smith and Saalfeld 1955), 

Kalama, and Elochoman (DeLacy and Batts 1963) rivers and Skamokawa Creek (WDFW and 

ODFW 2001, 2008). Smith and Saalfeld (1955) stated that eulachon were occasionally reported 

to spawn up to the Hood River on the Oregon side of the Columbia River prior to the 

construction of Bonneville Dam in the 1930s. In times of great abundance (e.g., 1945, 1953), 

eulachon have been known to migrate as far upstream as Bonneville Dam (Smith and Saalfeld 

1955, WDFW and ODFW 2008) and may extend above Bonneville Dam by passing through the 

ship locks (Smith and Saalfeld 1955). Eulachon likely reached the Klickitat River on the 

Washington side of the Columbia River in 1945 via this route (Smith and Saalfeld 1955). 

On average, the highest incidence of spawning occurs in the Cowlitz River (Smith and 

Saalfeld 1955, Wydoski and Whitney 2003), although on occasion eulachon may avoid the 

Cowlitz entirely, due to unfavorable environmental conditions (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

Sporadic spawning runs occur in the Grays, Elochoman, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy rivers 

(JCRMS 2007, 2008, 2009). Stockley (1981, p. 1) stated that “occasionally, with very large 

runs, smelt ascend and enter the Washougal” River on the Washington side of the Columbia 

River at RKM 195. Stockley and Ellis (1970) suggested that in years of low abundance eulachon 

may not enter the Columbia River tributaries but remain within the mainstem Columbia River. 

In 2001 eulachon migrated upstream to Bonneville Dam at RKM 234 and spawned in all the 

major tributaries of the lower Columbia River, including the Sandy River (Howell et al. 2001). 

In 1953 eulachon were observed spawning in Tanner Creek on the Oregon side of the Columbia 

River near the base of Bonneville Dam (OFC 1953, WDFW and ODFW 2008). 

Craig and Suomela (1940, p. 11) stated that “smelt are reported to confine their spawning 

activities to the lower 5 miles of the [Sandy] river” and that “this section is characterized, 

especially near the mouth, by moderate riffles and an abundance of glacial silt and sand.” 

Anderson (2009) noted that eulachon have been observed on the Sandy River, Oregon, as far 

upstream as Gordon Creek at RKM 20.9 (RM 13). In addition, ODFW (Williams 2009, p. 1) 

stated that: 

The Sandy River in Oregon is the only Oregon tributary known to support a run 

of eulachon. However, it is sporadic and none have been seen in the last 6 to 8 

years. ... Based on observed sport fishing activity in the Sandy, we believe that 

spawning took place from the mouth up to RM 2.5. 

17
Williams (2009) also reported on the onetime observation by an ODFW stream surveyor 

in February 1991 of eulachon in Conyers Creek, a tributary of the Clatskanie River, which is in 

turn a tributary of the lower Columbia River on the Oregon side of the river. The stream 

surveyor reported that eulachon were seen holding in pools within the lower 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of 

Conyers Creek during a daytime flood tide, but none were observed in the main stem of the 

Clatskanie River. 

WDFW and ODFW (2008, p. 4) indicated that eulachon “used [Grays River] more 

frequently than commercial landings would suggest.” Furthermore, Anderson (2009, his Table 

1, p. 2) stated that the normal extent of eulachon spawning on the Grays River extended to the 

“covered bridge (RKM 17.4).” 

Smith and Saalfeld (1955, p. 22) reported that: 

The lowest suitable spawning ground on the Cowlitz is located just below Kelso 

and the upper limit of spawning was noted in 1946, when smelt eggs were found 

in river bottom samples taken upstream almost to the mouth of the Toutle River, 

20 river miles [32.2 km] from the Columbia. 

In describing the principle spawning reaches of eulachon in the Cowlitz River, WDFW and 

ODFW (2008, p. 4) stated that eulachon: 

typically move upstream about 16 miles [25.7 km] (Castle Rock/Toutle River 

mouth area), often up to 34 miles [54.7 km] (Toledo area), and on occasion up to 

50 miles [80.5 km] upstream (Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery barrier dam). ... 

Upstream movement during the past 15 years or so has apparently been limited to 

the Castle Rock/Toutle River mouth area. 

Stockley (1981, p. 1) indicated that eulachon “have been known to ascend the Toutle 

River [tributary of the Cowlitz River] occasionally,” particularly before the 1980 eruption of 

Mount St. Helens (WDFW and ODFW 2008). Anderson (2009, p. 3) stated that: 

Adult eulachon were observed to enter the Toutle River prior to the eruption of 

Mount St. Helens. ... Though the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) has no reports of eulachon using the Toutle River since the eruption ... 

WDFW considers the Toutle River as potential primary habitat due to its past use 

and vicinity to primary Cowlitz River spawning grounds. 

WDFW and ODFW (2008, p. 4) indicated that eulachon “used [the Kalama River] more 

frequently than commercial landings would suggest.” In addition, Anderson (2009, his Table 1, 

p. 2) said that the normal extent of eulachon spawning on the Kalama River extended 

“downstream of Modrow Bridge (RKM 4.5).” 

Anderson (2009, his Table 1, p. 2) indicated that the normal extent of eulachon spawning 

on the Lewis River extended to the “upper end of Eagle Island (RKM 18.8).” WDFW and 

ODFW (2008, p. 4) stated that eulachon: 

typically move upstream about 10 miles [on the Lewis River] but on occasion 

upstream 19.5 miles [31.4 km] to Ariel [aka Merwin] Dam. ... Biologists believed 

that a natural sediment blockage prevented upstream movement past river mile 7 

18
[11.3 km] for a number of years, from 1977 until the mid-1980s. Spawning 

eulachon have since been observed upstream of river mile 7 [11.3 km]. 

Anderson (2009, p. 2) noted that “eulachon spawn within the main stem of the Columbia 

River, but spawning ground locations are not well known.” Smith and Saalfeld (1955) reported 

that spawned out and partially spawned out eulachon captured near Eagle Cliff on the main stem 

of the Columbia River identified this area as a eulachon spawning ground. Howell et al. (2001, 

p. 12) also noted that Eagle Cliff at RKM 82 “on the Washington shore [is] historically 

recognized as a major mainstem eulachon spawning area” and that “spawning in the main stem 

of the Columbia River has never been recorded upstream of Martin’s Bluff” at RKM 117. 

Romano et el. (2002) collected eulachon eggs between RKM 56 and RKM 118 on the 

Washington side of the main stem of the Columbia River; however, mapping the extent of 

spawning on the main stem will require much additional sampling (Anderson 2009). Anderson 

(2009, p. 3) noted that: 

In years of very high eulachon abundance, spawning has been observed in the 

main stem of the Columbia River upstream of RKM 137 as eulachon travel to the 

Lewis and Sandy rivers and as far as Bonneville Dam on rare occasion. Primary 

spawning habitat could, therefore, extend from the estuary upstream to at least as 

far as the Sandy River (RKM 193). 

The earliest mention of eulachon in the Columbia River occurs in the journals of 

members of the Lewis and Clark Expedition during February and March 1806 (Gass 1807, 

Moulton 1990, Moring 1996) (Appendix C). Throughout the 1810s–1820s, the journals of 

several fur trappers and explorers (e.g., Gabriel Franchère [Franchère 1967, 1968, 1969], Robert 

Stuart [Rollins (ed.) 1995], Wilson Price Hunt [Rollins (ed.) 1995], Alexander Henry [Gough 

(ed.) 1992], and Alexander Ross [Ross 1849]) describe the appearance of large eulachon runs in 

the lower Columbia River and their importance to the local Native American tribes 

(Appendix C). 

Subsequently, several contemporary references (Suckley 1860, Lord 1866, Anderson 

1872, 1877, Crawford 1878, Huntington 1963) (Appendix C) indicate a major decline in 

Columbia River eulachon abundance occurred between the mid to late 1830s and mid to late 

1860s. Similarly, several secondary references (Summers 1982, Urrutia 1998, Hinrichsen 1998, 

Martin 2008, 2009) cite additional sources that indicate eulachon were at low levels of 

abundance prior to about 1867, when eulachon were once again seen in large numbers. 

Anderson (1872, footnote on p. 30–31) (Appendix C) stated that eulachon: 

were formerly very abundant in spring on the lower Columbia; but suddenly, 

about the year 1835, they ceased to appear, and thence-forward up at least to 

1858, none frequented the river. I have been informed, however, that they have 

since reappeared, and that there is now a regular supply as formerly. 

Subsequently, Anderson (1877, p. 345) (Appendix C) said: 

Formerly resorting in enormous shoals to the estuary of the Columbia River, 

[eulachon] disappeared suddenly about the year 1837, and continued to absent 

itself for many years, until recently, when it suddenly reappeared in shoals as 

numerous as of yore. 

19
Similarly, Lord (1866, p. 96) (see Appendix C) observed that: 

Some 50 years ago, vast shoals of eulachon used regularly to enter the Columbia; 

but the silent stroke of the Indian paddle has now given place to the splashing 

wheels of great steamers, and the Indian and the candle-fish have vanished 

together. 

An early settler on the Cowlitz River, Edwin Huntington (Huntington 1963, p. 5) 

(Appendix C), recalled that: 

Not within the memory of the oldest white inhabitant had there been any smelt in 

the Cowlitz River until some time in the early sixties. I am not certain what year I 

first saw them, but there was a heavy run and nobody paid much attention to 

them—not even the Indians. ... After the second or third year of their return, 

people began to sit up and take notice. In 1865, a young lady school teacher, 

Miss Baker (afterward my wife) having learned how to make hair nets, conceived 

the idea of making dip nets in which to catch them and soon everybody had nets 

and were catching them by the ton and shipping them to Portland. The Indians 

had a tradition that there had been smelt here many many years before, but to 

punish them for some offense the Sahely Tyee had taken them away and it must 

have been a good many years as the oldest of them did not seem to know much 

about tradition. 

Summers (1982, p. 31) in a local history of the town of Kelso, Washington, at the 

confluence of the Cowlitz and Columbia rivers, related that: 

The earliest record of a smelt run was found in a 1867 diary written by W. A. L. 

McCorkle, a settler at Lexington. He tells of small silvery fish coming into the 

Cowlitz during that year and that no smelt had been observed by Americans 

earlier than that. Settlers came beginning 1850. Of course, the Cowlitz Indians 

and other tribes had caught smelt in the Cowlitz many years before the Americans 

came. 

However, a memoir written by Peter W. Crawford (Crawford 1878, p. 369) indicates that 

early settlers were aware of “small numbers” of eulachon on the Cowlitz River, and that large 

runs were noted, after an absence of 17 years, in the spring of 1865. Crawford (1878, p. 369) 

(Appendix C) stated that: 

In Feby and March 1865 there appeared a strange little fish unknown to the early 

settlers of Cowlitz or lower Columbia River. Although the Indians declared that 

those little finny swarming beings of the deep had frequented the waters of the 

Cowlitz River before but had absented themselves for 17 years, during which 

period no Indian had seen a school. ... The early settlers on the lower Cowlitz 

remember having a few such little fellows in small numbers. 

Hinrichsen (1998, p. 16) reported that “According to historian Duncan Stacey, Hudson’s 

Bay Company documents describe very low returns in the Columbia River from about 1835 to 

1865.” However, examination of microfilmed records from the Hudson’s Bay Company 

Archives (Fort Vancouver Report 1826–1845 [reel #1M783] and Fort Vancouver Post Journal 

20
1825–1836 [reel # 1M148]) did not reveal any reference to eulachon or smelt in these records. 

Fort Vancouver was a Hudson’s Bay Company post from 1825 to 1860 near the present location 

of Vancouver, Washington, on the lower Columbia River. Another early reference (Swan 1881, 

p. 258) mentions that “eulachon are found in limited numbers at certain seasons in the Columbia 

River.” 

A search of available online digital newspaper resources (listed in Appendix B) revealed 

mention of eulachon in the Columbia River or “smelt” as items for sale in local fish markets in 

the spring of 1867. A two sentence article in the Vancouver Register (Vancouver, Washington 

Territory) for 6 April 1867 (Appendix B) indicates that large numbers of “smelt” were present in 

the Columbia River off the city of Vancouver (at about RKM 170) at that time. This newspaper 

article said that previously “this ... fish ... [had] never before been known to come up higher than 

Lewis River,” which indicates that eulachon were known to occur in some numbers prior to 1867 

in the Lewis River or in the Columbia River, downstream of the Lewis River. 

Two advertisements of “smelt” for sale in Portland, Oregon, fish markets appeared in 

early newspapers, one in April 1867 and another in April 1868. Since April is near the tail end 

of the traditional period for eulachon run timing in the Columbia River, and other species of 

smelt are available at that time, it is uncertain whether these advertisements (Appendix B) refer 

to eulachon or some other species of smelt. An advertisement of eulachon for sale (referred to as 

Oak Point smelt) in a local fish market appeared on 15 January 1869 in the Daily Oregonian 

(Portland) (Appendix B). In later years the eulachon commercial fishery commonly operated in 

the vicinity of Oak Point on the Lower Columbia River indicating that this advertisement of 

“Oak Point smelt” likely refers to eulachon and not some other smelt species. 

A newspaper article published in the Daily Oregonian on 13 March 1885 (Appendix B) 

reported that: 

a pioneer, who resided for many years on the lower Columbia, says that there 

were no smelt or oolachan, as they were called by Indians, in the Columbia from 

the time he came here till in 1863, when they appeared in vast numbers about the 

middle of February, and have been plentiful every season since. In Irving’s 

“Astoria” mention is made of the great quantities of smelt in the Columbia in 

1826. Shortly after they forsook the river entirely and did not return till 1863, 

having been absent nearly 40 years. 

Coastal Washington 

Outside of the Columbia River Basin, eulachon have been occasionally reported from 

other coastal Washington rivers. Swan (1881, p. 258) noted that “eulachon are found in limited 

numbers at certain seasons in ... Shoalwater bay [Willapa Bay], Gray’s Harbor, and at the mouth 

of various small streams of the coast.” WDFW and ODFW (2001) stated that “Washington 

rivers outside the Columbia Basin where eulachon have been known to spawn include the Bear, 

Naselle, Nemah, Wynoochee, Quinault, [and] Queets ... rivers.” Willson et al. (2006) listed 

Willapa Bay (North, Naselle, Nemah, Bear, and Willapa rivers), Grays Harbor (Humptulips, 

Chehalis, Aberdeen, and Wynoochee rivers), and the Copalis, Moclips, Quinault, Queets, and 

Bogachiel rivers as supporting eulachon spawning runs. 

21
Monaco et al. (1990) described eulachon as common in Willapa Bay based on a personal 

communication (Table A-2). Smith (1941) noted that: 

A small smelt run was noted in the north fork of the Nemah River on 7 February 

1941. The fish ascended the Nemah River as far as the mouth of Williams Creek, 

which stream they entered for a distance of about 100 yards. ... An old resident of 

the community reported that this was the first smelt run that had occurred during 

his 48 years in the section. 

According to WDFHMD (1992), adult eulachon “were found in the Naselle and Bear 

rivers, tributaries of Willapa Bay (B. Dumbauld, WDF, pers. comm.)” in 1992. WDFW and 

ODFW (2001, p. 12) reported “that in 1993, when the eulachon run into the Columbia River was 

delayed (presumably due to cold water conditions), they were noted in large abundance in the 

Quinault and Wynoochee rivers, outside the Columbia Basin.” 

Monaco et al. (1990) described eulachon as “common” in Grays Harbor and, in addition 

to a personal communication, cited Deschamps et al. (1970) as a supporting reference (Table 

A-2). Deschamps et al. (1970, p. 16) reported the capture of a single adult eulachon in a seine 

catch in March 1966 and stated that “It is unlikely that the Chehalis system [which drains into 

Grays Harbor] has a run of any consequence, although strays or feeding fish from other areas 

probably visit the upper harbor at times.” WDFW and ODFW (2001, p. 12) reported that 

eulachon “were noted in large abundance in the ... Wynoochee” River, a tributary of the 

Chehalis River, in 1993. Simenstad et al. (2001) recorded eulachon as of “rare” occurrence in 

sloughs of the Chehalis River estuary in 1990 and 1995. 

Willoughby (1889) and Olson (1936) record the Quinault Indian Tribe as taking eulachon 

in the lower Quinault River with dip nets. Olson (1936, p. 36) stated that: 

The people of the lower villages often came down to the river mouth to catch 

smelt (komólnil) and candlefish (páagwáls). Both were taken in the surf of the 

beach, though the candlefish often ascend the river for several miles. There was 

usually a big run every three or four years, when the water was literally filled with 

fish. The time of the run varied, usually occurring between January and April. 

The Washington Department of Fisheries annual report for 1960 (Starlund 1960) and 

statistical report for 1970 (Ward et al. 1971) listed commercial eulachon landings in the Quinault 

River in 1936 (36,315 lb [16,507 kg]), 1940 (6,917 lb [3,144 kg]), 1953 (93,387 lb [42,449 kg]), 

1958 (34,387 lb [15,630 kg]), 1960 (135 lb [61 kg]), and 1961 (1,051 lb [ 477 kg]). Fiedler 

(1939, p. 213) also records 36,300 lb (16,500 kg) of eulachon taken by dip net in the coastal 

district of Washington State in 1936. WDFW and ODFW (2001, p. 12) reported that eulachon 

“were noted in large abundance in the Quinault” River in 1993. Quotations from unattributed 

sources were presented in Workman (1997) that described eulachon occurring in and about the 

Quinault River in January 1936 and February 1993. NWIFC (1998, p. 11) reported that 

“candlefish, or Columbia River smelt, were caught in significant numbers at the mouth of the 

Queets River for the second time in 5 years in late January [1998].” A noticeable number of 

22
eulachon make an appearance in the Queets, Quinault, and occasionally, the Moclips rivers at 5–

6 year intervals and were last observed in the Quinault River in the winter of 2004–2005.2

Shaffer et al. (2007) reported on the capture of 58 adult eulachon in the Elwha River on 

Washington’s Olympic Peninsula (Figure 2) between March 18 and June 28, 2005. This was the 

first formal documentation of eulachon in the Elwha River, although anecdotal observations 

suggest that eulachon “were a regular, predictable feature in the Elwha until the mid 1970s” 

(Shaffer et al. 2007, p. 80). Other Olympic Peninsula rivers draining into the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca have been extensively surveyed over many years for salmonid migrations; however, 

eulachon have not been observed in any of these other systems (Shaffer et al. 2007). 

Puget Sound 

Girard (1858) based his description of a new species Thaleichthys stevensi (later 

synonymized with Salmo [Mallotus] pacificus Richardson, 1836 as T. pacificus [Richardson, 

1836] [McAllister, 1963]) on a single specimen collected in Puget Sound by George Suckley. 

The published figure (Girard 1858, his Plate LXXV, his Figure 1 through Figure 4) of this single 

specimen is detailed enough to be identifiable as a eulachon. Later, Suckley (1860, p. 348–349) 

in his Report Upon the Fishes Collected on the Survey (text republished in Suckley and Cooper 

1860) stated that eulachon were “a very delicious fish, in some years coming in great shoals in 

the bays in the lower part of Puget Sound, and along the coast near the mouth of Frazer’s River.” 

Suckley (1860, p. 348–349) also stated that eulachon were “abundant in Puget Sound” and that 

“several eulachon in the recent state [dried] were obtained by me from different portions of the 

lower end of Puget Sound;” however, these specimens were lost when in transit to “Washington 

city” and their identification cannot be verified. Similarly, Lord (1866, p. 96), in his The 

Naturalist in Vancouver Island and British Columbia, stated that “the eulachon has also 

disappeared from Puget’s Sound.” 

Curiously, although these early authorities (Girard 1858, Suckley 1860, Lord 1866) 

describe Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) and eulachon as occurring in Puget Sound, they make 

no mention of surf smelt, longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), or Pacific sand lance 

(Ammodytes hexapterus) in Puget Sound. Swan (1881, p. 258) also stated that eulachon were 

found “in limited numbers at certain seasons ... in the waters of Puget Sound” and they are 

“found on Puget Sound occasionally with the sand-smelt Hypomesus olidus.” Since H. olidus, or 

pond smelt, is a freshwater species, Swan may have meant to refer to the abundant surf smelt. 

Jordan and Starks (1895, p. 793) also listed eulachon as “abundant in spring” in Puget 

Sound, although they did not obtain specimens themselves. They cite a local fisherman as 

reporting “that this species buries itself in the sand of the beach,” which indicates that the fish 

referred to by the local fisherman were not eulachon, but were possibly either surf smelt or 

Pacific sand lance. Both surf smelt and Pacific sand lance are currently common in Puget Sound 

and spawn on Puget Sound beaches, and Pacific sand lance are locally known as “candlefish” 

(Penttila 2007). Therefore, there is substantial reason to believe that mention of abundant 

eulachon in Puget Sound in some nineteenth century references (Suckley 1860, Lord 1866, 

 

2

 L. Gilbertson, Quinault Indian Nation, Taholah, WA. Pers. commun., 27 June 2008. 

23
Jordan and Starks 1895) results from misidentification with either the common longfin smelt or 

surf smelt, neither of which were mentioned in Suckley (1860) or Lord (1866). 

DeLacy et al. (1972) gathered available fish collection records for Puget Sound from 

academic and fisheries agencies sources and indicated that between 10 and 49 reports of 

eulachon exist in these records for the San Juan Islands. However, no more than 10 reports of 

eulachon specimens exist for each of the Juan de Fuca Strait, Everett, Seattle, central Puget 

Sound, and south Puget Sound regions (DeLacy et al. 1972). Monaco et al. (1990) described 

eulachon as rare in Puget Sound and, in addition to a personal communication, cited Miller and 

Borton (1980) as a supporting reference. Miller and Borton (1980) list five eulachon specimens 

collected in Puget Sound (one each in Port Susan, off Everett, and in Carr Sound, and two at 

Carkeek Park), which are deposited in the University of Washington Fish Collection, and seven 

eulachon specimens reported in the University of Washington Boat Log (one each at Golden 

Gardens, Port Madison, Herron Island, Penn Cove, and three in or near Carr Inlet). Currently, 12 

specimens of eulachon collected in Puget Sound are deposited in the University of Washington 

Fish Collection (searchable database at http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/ 

ichthyology/index.php). 

Miller and Borton (1980) also reported a personal communication dated 22 April 1976 

from a biologist with the Puyallup Tribe indicating that eulachon “spawn in Wapato Creek, 1 

mile upstream from the mouth of the Puyallup River.” Fiedler (1941, p. 463) recorded 10,200 lb 

(4,636 kg) of eulachon landed in Puget Sound in 1938 in a commercial fishery using drag bag net 

gear. The precise location of this fish catch is not recorded (Fiedler 1941). 

There are some records of transplant efforts to Puget Sound rivers from Columbia River 

source populations. An article in a Centralia, Washington, newspaper in 1932 (Centralia Daily 

Chronicle, 1 February 1932, p. 2, col. 8) (Appendix B) reported that: 

Another attempt will probably be made this year by the state fisheries 

department to transplant Columbia River smelt to streams flowing into Puget 

Sound. Attempts have been made in the past and a large number of smelt were 

planted in the Nisqually River several years ago. Floyd [Lloyd] Royal of the state 

biological department is making a study of the matter here, and it is probable that 

smelt spawn will be hatched in the state hatchery on the Kalama river and the 

young smelt planted in both the Snohomish and Skagit rivers if the attempt to 

hatch them proves successful. 

Similarly, Wendler and Nye (1962, p. 9) stated that: 

A smelt transplant was initiated in 1959 from the Lewis River to the Puyallup 

River.... Approximately 4,500 fish were transplanted with an estimated egg 

potential of 40 million. This was considered a minimal number to plant for a 

species which requires mass spawning for successful reproduction. However, a 

measure of success may be seen if Columbia River smelt are present in the 

Puyallup during the spring of 1962. 

A recent WDFW technical report entitled Marine Forage Fishes in Puget Sound (Penttila 

2007, p. 19) presents detailed data on the biology, status, and trends of surf smelt and longfin 

smelt in Puget Sound, but states that “there is virtually no life history information within the 

24
Puget Sound basin” available for eulachon. Similarly, detailed notes provided by WDFW and 

ODFW (2008) as part of this review, do not provide evidence of spawning stocks of eulachon in 

Puget Sound rivers. Interestingly, a newspaper account in The Daily Oregonian of Portland for 4 

March 1876, cautions the public “against buying Puget Sound smelt [a likely reference to surf 

smelt] for Columbia River smelt [eulachon]” (Appendix B). 

Monaco et al. (1990) described eulachon as rare in Skagit Bay and, in addition to a 

personal communication, cited Miller and Borton (1980) as a supporting reference (Table A-2). 

Miller and Borton (1980) report on a total of 20 eulachon specimens collected in the San Juan 

Islands, southern Strait of Georgia, and Strait of Juan de Fuca and recorded in boat logs and 

museum collection records; however, samples from Skagit Bay were not included in this list. 

The Nooksack River has been frequently listed as supporting a run of eulachon (WDFW 

and ODFW 2001, Wydoski and Whitney 2003, Willson et al. 2006, Moody 2008); however, 

Anchor Environmental (2003, p. 27) stated that: 

Longfin smelt [Spirinchus thaleichthys] are also called “hooligans” and are 

sometimes mistaken for eulachon. Eulachon occurrence and spawning has not 

[been] documented in the Nooksack River. 

The run of hooligans into the Nooksack River commonly occurs in November, which is outside 

of the normal spawn timing period for eulachon, and these fish have recently been positively 

identified as longfin smelt.3

British Columbia 

Hay and McCarter (2000, their Table 1) listed a total of 33 eulachon spawning rivers in 

British Columbia; however, only about 14 of these river systems were thought to have regular 

yearly eulachon returns (Table A-1). These 14 river systems and the estuaries or inlets they are 

associated with from south to north are the Fraser River (Strait of Georgia), Klinaklini River

(Knight Inlet), Kingcome River (Kingcome Inlet), Wannock River (Rivers Inlet), 

Chuckwalla/Kilbella rivers (Rivers Inlet), Kimsquit and Dean rivers (Dean Channel), Bella 

Coola River (Dean Channel), Kemano/Wahoo rivers (Gardner Canal), Kowesas River (Gardner 

Canal), Kitlope River (Gardner Canal), Kildala River (Douglas Channel), Kitimat River 

(Douglas Channel), Skeena River (Chatham Sound), and Nass River (Portland Inlet) (Hay and 

McCarter 2000, Hay 2002). 

Many of these distributions were discovered or verified during a series of 

ichthyoplankton surveys of eulachon larvae on the mainland coast of British Columbia 

(McCarter and Hay 1999). These surveys “suggested the occurrence of eulachon spawning in ... 

rivers not previously known to support eulachon spawning” (McCarter and Hay 1999, p. 8). In 

particular, small spawning runs of eulachon may be detected through ichthyoplankton surveys 

“that might be missed by conventional fishing techniques (gill nets or seine nets) on adults” 

(McCarter and Hay 2003, p. 17). Willson et al. (2006) and Moody (2008) recently listed 

numerous rivers in British Columbia thought to support eulachon runs and these distribution 

data, essentially the same as in Hay and McCarter (2000), are provided in Table A-1. 

 

3 G. Bargmann, WDFW, Olympia, WA. Pers. commun., June 2008. 

25
Fraser River—Early reference to eulachon being caught by First Nations groups on the 

Fraser River in 1827–1830 appear in the journals of the Hudson’s Bay Company post Fort 

Langley, located on the south bank of the lower Fraser River near the Salmon River 

(MacLachlan 1998) (Appendix C). According to Swan (1881, p. 258) eulachon “taken in 

Fraser’s River near the boundary line between Washington Territory and British Columbia are 

superior to those taken further south, and are sold in the Victoria market, where their excellence 

is highly prized.” 

Recent surveys of the Fraser River indicate that eulachon primarily spawn in the lower 50 

km (Hay et al. 2002), although earlier studies reported spawning occurred at least up to RKM 

100 (McHugh 1940), and perhaps as far upstream as Hope, more than 150 km from Vancouver, 

British Columbia (Moody 2008). McHugh (1940) surveyed eulachon egg distribution in the 

Fraser River using a bottom dredge and determined that spawning in 1940 occurred mainly 

between the towns of Mission and Chilliwack, over a distance of about 13 km. Samis (1977, 

p. 1) stated that “localized areas of spawning may occur in the north and south arms of the Fraser 

River, in the Pitt and Alouette rivers, and in other tributaries.” However, similar to the findings 

of Hart and McHugh (1944), Samis (1977) found the highest concentration of eulachon eggs in 

the Fraser River in May 1976 to occur upstream of Mission, adjacent to Nicomen Island. 

Higgins et al. (1987, p. 2) noted that “potential [eulachon] spawning sites exist in the lower 

Fraser River adjacent to Barnston, McMillan, and Matsqui islands (Samis 1977), which are 

approximately 100 km, 130 km, and 175 km from the Fraser River mouth, respectively.” 

Interannual variation in spawning locations in the Fraser River occur (Hay and McCarter 2000, 

Hay et al. 2002), with most spawning being above New Westminster in 1995, below New 

Westminster in 1996, and in the tributary Pitt River in 1999 (Hay and McCarter 2000). 

Other British Columbia rivers—Outside of the Fraser River, only limited aspects of the 

biology of eulachon have been studied in other spawning rivers in British Columbia, including: 

the Kingcome (Berry and Jacob 1998), Wannock (Berry and Jacob 1998, Moody 2008), Bella 

Coola (Moody 2008), Kemano (Lewis et al. 2002, Ecometrix 2006), Kitimat (Pedersen et al. 

1995, Kelson 1997, Ecometrix 2006), Skeena (Lewis, 1997, Stoffels 2001), and Nass (Langer et 

al. 1977) rivers. 

Eulachon were normally located no further upstream in the Kemano River, British 

Columbia, than RKM 2.7, about 1.5 km above saltwater, although they have been rarely 

observed up to RKM 4.3 (Lewis et al. 2002). Eulachon spawning is limited to the lower 1.6 km 

of the nearby Wahoo River (Lewis et al. 2002). Stoffels (2001, p. 4) described areas of the lower 

mainstem Skeena River and several tributaries (Table A-1) and stated that: 

The eulachon spawn in the main stem Skeena, with high value spawning grounds 

around the lower Skeena River Islands and around the mouth of the Kwinitsa 

River (D. De Leeuw, WLAP, pers. comm.). Eulachon also spawn throughout the 

Ecstall River system, almost up to Johnston Lake and in the Khyex, the Scotia, 

the Khtada, Kasiks, Gitnadoix and other tributaries in the vicinity (Don Roberts, 

Terrace, pers. comm.). 

Eulachon reportedly spawn upriver in the Nass River to about RM 32 (RKM 51.5), which is the 

near the limit of tidal influence (Langer et al. 1977). 

26
Although eulachon are not thought to maintain populations in island rivers (Hay and 

McCarter 2000), anomalous spawning events have reportedly occurred in the Somass, Nimpkish 

(Hay and McCarter 2000), and Kokish rivers (Willson et al. 2006) on Vancouver Island, as well 

as in “unnamed rivers on Haida G’waii [Queen Charlotte Islands]” (Willson et al. 2006, p. 35). 

Alaska 

Moffitt et al. (2002) indicated that at least 35 rivers in Alaska have spawning runs of 

eulachon, including one in a glacial stream on Unimak Island, the first island in the Aleutian 

Island chain off the western end of the Alaska Peninsula. According to Moffitt et al. (2002, p. 

3), “this is probably the only island in Alaska with a glacial river of the type similar to mainland 

systems used for spawning.” Armstrong and Hermans (2007, p. 2) stated that “no eulachon runs 

in island rivers have been reported in Southeast [Alaska].” Aspects of the biology of eulachon 

have been studied in the following Alaska rivers: the Stikine (Franzel and Nelson 1981), Taku 

(Flory 2008b), Chilkoot (Betts 1994), Chilkat (Mills 1982, Betts 1994), Copper (Moffitt et al. 

2002), Eyak, Alaganik (Moffitt et al. 2002, Joyce et al. 2004), Twentymile (Kubik and Wadman 

1977, 1978, Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003), and Susitna (Barrett et al. 1984, Vincent-Lang 

and Queral 1984). 

Both Willson et al. (2006) and Moody (2008) listed numerous other Alaska rivers thought 

to support eulachon runs and these distribution data are provided in Table A-1. In some years, 

commercial harvests have occurred on eulachon in the Copper, Stikine, Unuk, Chickamin, and 

Bradfield rivers (Moffitt et al. 2002, Armstrong and Hermans 2007). Jordan and Gilbert (1899, 

p. 439) indicated that eulachon occurred in the “Nushagah [Nushagak] River” that flows into 

Alaska’s Bristol Bay in the southeastern Bering Sea. Other more recent compilations also list the 

Nushagak River as supporting a run of eulachon (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, Willson et al. 2006). 

The Nushagak River is the northern most system reported to support a run of eulachon. 

Larval plankton surveys suggest that the upstream limit of eulachon distribution in the 

Taku River occurs at about RKM 44 (Flory 2008b). During exceptionally large runs, eulachon 

have reportedly been seen “at Bull Slough, near the Tulsequah River in Canada” (Flory 2008b, p. 

16). Tidal influence affects the Taku River up to about RKM 35 (Flory 2008b). Eulachon were 

observed from the mouth of the Susitna River up to about RKM 80 in 1982 and 1983, although 

the greatest concentration of spawning occurred within the lower 46.6 km of the main channel of 

the Susitna River (Barrett et al. 1984). 

Physical characteristics of spawning rivers 

Hay and McCarter (2000, p. 12) noted that some eulachon rivers are “large or turbid, with 

high sediment loads; others are small and clear.” Despite these apparent differences, they 

recognized that “virtually all [eulachon rivers] have spring freshets, which are characteristic of 

rivers draining large snow packs or glaciers.” Although this is true of most rivers supporting 

eulachon in British Columbia and Alaska (Hay et al. 2002), many eulachon rivers in the lower 

Columbia River basin and on the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington are not fed by 

extensive snowmelt or glacial runoff. However, most systems that support eulachon and are not 

fed by snowmelt still possess extensive spring freshets. Hay and McCarter (2000, p. 12) 

suggested that the apparent requirement for snow pack or glacier-fed spring freshets may be the 

27
reason why “there are no known eulachon spawning rivers found on any large coastal islands, 

including Vancouver Island, Queen Charlotte Islands, Kodiak, or any of the small coastal islands 

in northern British Columbia or southeastern Alaska.” 

The lack of eulachon larvae in waters examined during ichthyoplankton surveys off 

Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands in April and May (Hay and McCarter 1997) 

“reinforce the conclusion that eulachon spawning is mainly confined to coastal rivers that have a 

distinct spring freshet and drain major glaciers or snowpacks” (McCarter and Hay 2003, p. 16). 

Typically, eulachon spawn well before the spring freshet, near the seasonal flow minimum, 

especially on the mainland coast of British Columbia (Lewis et al. 2002); however, Fraser River 

eulachon appear to spawn during the height of the freshet (Stables et al. 2005). In many rivers, 

eulachon spawning appears to be timed so that egg hatching will coincide with peak spring river 

discharge (Flory 2008b). 

Marine Distribution 

Although they spend 95–98% of their lives at sea (Hay and McCarter 2000), little is 

known concerning the saltwater existence of eulachon. They are reported to be present in the 

“food rich” and “echo scattering layer” of coastal waters (Barraclough 1964, p. 1,337), and “in 

near-benthic habitats in open marine waters” of the continental shelf between 20 and 150 m 

depth (Hay and McCarter 2000, p. 14). Hay and McCarter (2000, their Figure 5) illustrated the 

offshore distribution of eulachon in British Columbia as determined in research trawl surveys, 

which indicate that most eulachon were taken at around 100 m depth, although some were taken 

as deep as 500 m and some at less than 10 m. Schweigert et al. (2007, p. 11) stated that “the 

marine distribution of adults in British Columbia includes the deeper portions of the continental 

shelf around Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, and the west coast of 

Vancouver Island, generally at depths of 80–200 m.” Mueter and Norcross (2002) reported 

eulachon were present in 32% of triennial bottom trawl surveys on the upper slope and 

continental slope in the Gulf of Alaska between 1984 and 1996 and were caught at depths down 

to 500 m in the Kodiak, Yakutat, and southeast areas of Alaska. Armstrong and Hermans (2007) 

indicated that eulachon are commonly caught in trawls in the coastal fjords of Southeast Alaska. 

Further information on eulachon distribution in research bottom trawl surveys is below and in 

Table A-4 and Table A-5. 

Smith and Saalfeld (1955, p. 12) reported the occasional capture of eulachon in the 

offshore “otter trawl fishery,” particularly in November to January near the mouth of the 

Columbia River “as the mature smelt approach the Columbia River.” Emmett et al. (2001) 

reported the capture of small numbers of eulachon by nighttime surface trawls targeted on 

pelagic fishes off the Columbia River in April to July of 1998 and 1999. About 10% of hauls in 

1999 contained from one to a maximum of eight eulachon (Emmett et al. 2001). Eulachon also 

occur as bycatch in some U.S.-based groundfish fisheries (Bellman et al. 2008) off the U.S. West 

Coast and more commonly in the California and Oregon ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) 

fisheries (NWFSC 2008). The Pacific Fishery Management Council has prohibited at-sea directed 

harvest of eulachon in U.S. West Coast waters and eulachon are not an actively managed or 

monitored species (PFMC 2008); therefore there is a paucity of data on at-sea distribution of 

eulachon off the U.S. West Coast. 

28
U.S. West Coast groundfish trawl surveys 

Fishery-independent surveys conducted off the U.S. West Coast that provide data on 

distribution or abundance of eulachon in the ocean are very limited (Table A-4). The Northwest 

and Alaska Fisheries Center (NWAFC, before it split into NWFSC and AFSC) and AFSC 

conducted groundfish trawl surveys on the continental slope (at depths of 184–1,280 m) 

periodically from 1984 to 1987, and annually beginning in 1988. Continental shelf (at depths of 

55–183 m) surveys were conducted triennially from 1977 to 2001 by the NWAFC and AFSC. 

The NWFSC assumed responsibility for the slope portion of the groundfish survey starting in 

1998 and expanded the depth coverage to include the continental shelf as well as the continental 

slope in 2003. Many of these groundfish surveys report catch as occurring in one of five 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) statistical areas. These INPFC areas 

from north to south are: 1) Vancouver (U.S.-Canada border to lat 47°30′N), 2) Columbia (lat 

47°30′ to 43°00′N), 3) Eureka (lat 43°00′ to 40°30′N), 4) Monterey (lat 40°30′ to 36°00′N), and 

5) Conception (lat 36°00′N to the U.S.-Mexico border) (Figure 4). 

Eulachon were reported in the triennial groundfish bottom trawl surveys on the U.S. West 

Coast continental shelf in 1977 (Gabriel and Tyler 1980), 1980 (Coleman 1986), 1983 

(Weinberg et al. 1984), 1986 (Coleman 1988), 1989 (Weinberg et al. 1994a, 1994b), 1992 

(Zimmermann 1994, Zimmermann et al. 1994), 1995 (Wilkins 1998, Wilkins et al. 1998), 1998 

(Shaw et al. 2000, Wilkins and Shaw 2000), and 2001 (Weinberg et al. 2002, Wilkins and 

Weinberg 2002) (Table A-4). These surveys targeted rockfish from 1977 to 1986, and were 

subsequently designed to estimate Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) and juvenile sablefish 

(Anoplopoma fimbria) abundance, as well as other commercially important groundfish 

(Weinberg et al. 1994a). However, these groundfish surveys were designed to sample bottom 

dwelling species and capture only a small and erratic portion of the pelagic distribution of 

eulachon. 

The 1977 shelf groundfish survey recorded eulachon in six of nine assemblages off the 

Washington and Oregon coasts, being most abundant within the Nestucca Intermediate 

Assemblage (90–145 m) off Oregon (Gabriel and Tyler 1980). Trawl surveys in 1980–1986 

occurred between Monterey Bay, California, and either Northern Vancouver Island (1980), 

Estevan Point, Vancouver Island (1983), or the U.S.-Canada border (1986) at depths of 55–366 

m (Coleman 1986, 1988, Weinberg et al. 1984). From 1989 to 2001 triennial groundfish bottom 

trawl surveys covered all West Coast INPFC areas from Vancouver to Monterey, inclusive. In 

1980 eulachon were recorded as the fifteenth most common fish encountered at depths of 

55–183 m in the INPFC Eureka area, but were not recorded within the top 20 species 

encountered in the INPFC Vancouver, Columbia, or Monterey areas (Coleman 1986). 

Latitudinal and longitudinal range and minimum, maximum, and mean depth distribution 

of eulachon captured in the triennial surveys from 1989 to 2001 are provided in Table A-4. 

Eulachon were found into the far south Monterey INPFC area in the 1989 survey but were not 

recorded in either the Monterey or Eureka INPFC areas in surveys conducted between 1992 and 

2001. Mean depth of occurrence of eulachon in these surveys varied between 137 and 147 m, 

with minimum depths of 59–79 m and maximum depths of 322–466 m (Table A-4). 

29
Vancouver

Oregon

Columbia

Eureka

Monterey

Conception

California

Washington

Point Conception

Point Reyes

Point Arena

Cape Mendocino

Cape Blanco

Cape Lookout

Cape Falcon

47°30'

40°30'

40°10'

36°

43°

Willamette

Klamath

Columbia

San Joaquin

Kings

Sacramento

Figure 4. INPFC statistical areas off the U.S. West Coast. Modified from Pacific Fishery Management 

Council Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/georock.pdf. 

30
Eulachon were occasionally sampled in West Coast upper continental slope groundfish 

trawl surveys conducted between 1984 and 1999 by the NWAFC and AFSC (Raymore and 

Weinberg 1990, Parks et al. 1993, Lauth et al. 1997, Lauth 1997a, 1997b, 1999, 2000) and 

between 1999 and 2002 by the NWFSC (Builder Ramsey et al. 2002, Keller et al. 2005, 2006a, 

2006b). These surveys covered habitat between 183 and 1,280 m from the U.S.-Canada border 

to lat 30°30′N (Lauth et al. 1997, Lauth 1997a, 1997b, 1999, 2000, Keller et al. 2005, 2006a, 

2006b), although annual surveys prior to 1997 covered only a portion of the area each year 

(Table A-4). This depth range is deeper than is preferred by eulachon (Hay and McCarter 2000), 

so these surveys likely missed the vast majority of eulachon, which occur on the continental shelf 

and not the slope. 

Minimum, maximum, and mean depths of eulachon captured during the 1989–2002 

survey years are given in Table A-4; however, eulachon were seldom encountered at these 

depths (below 183 m) and their reported occurrence in trawl hauls ranged from 6% of trawls 

conducted between 1989 and 1993 to fewer than 1% of all trawls in 2001. Presumably, eulachon 

were not encountered during the NWFSC 1999 bottom survey of the U.S. West Coast continental 

slope, as this species is not included in the comprehensive list of species encountered (Builder 

Ramsey et al. 2002). Eulachon were captured as deep as 608 m during the 2001 survey (Keller 

et al. 2005). 

Starting in 2003, the NWFSC conducted combined slope and shelf surveys for groundfish 

between depths of 55 and 1,280 m (Keller et al. 2007a, 2007b, 2008) off the U.S. West Coast 

(Table A-4). Sampling in these slope and shelf surveys, in contrast to the NWAFC and AFSC 

triennial bottom trawl surveys (discussed above), did not extend into the Canadian portion of the 

Vancouver INPFC area where the triennial surveys had encountered the majority of eulachon. 

Currently, eulachon abundance in the Canadian portion of the Vancouver INPFC is tracked by 

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) during the annual surveys of shrimp 

biomass off the west coast of Vancouver Island (DFO 2008a). Eulachon were found at depth 

extremes of 51 to 237 m in the NWFSC surveys, with mean depths of 119 to 130 m during the 

three survey years (Table A-4) (Keller et al. 2007a, 2007b, 2008); however, eulachon biomass 

estimates were not presented in these survey documents. Some eulachon were found as far south 

as 34°N in the INPFC Conception area in 2003 and 2004 (Keller et al. 2007a, 2007b), a southern 

distribution that had not been recorded in groundfish surveys since 1989 (Weinberg et al. 1994a) 

(Table A-4). Pacific hake trawl surveys in U.S. and Canadian waters off the Pacific Coast have 

also reported incidental catch of eulachon (Fleischer et al. 2005, 2008), although details on catch 

location were not provided. 

Alaska trawl surveys 

Latitudinal and longitudinal range and minimum, maximum, and mean depth distribution 

of eulachon captured in AFSC bottom trawl surveys in the Gulf of Alaska (triennially from 1984 

to 1996, biennially from 1999 to 2007), Eastern Bering Sea (annually from 1982 to 2008), and 

Aleutian Islands (triennially from 1983 to 1997, biennially from 2000 to 2006) regions of Alaska 

are summarized in Table A-5. Eulachon are a common species in the Gulf of Alaska trawl 

surveys (Stark and Clausen 1995, Martin and Clausen 1995, von Szalay et al. 2008) and are 

particularly abundant in the Chirikof and Kodiak INPFC areas (von Szalay et al. 2008). In the 

31
2007 trawl survey, eulachon were present in about 31% of the hauls under 300 m deep and 9% of 

hauls below that depth, although none were seen deeper than 700 m (von Szalay et al. 2008). 

Eulachon distribution and abundance were also incidentally reported in two summer echo 

integration-trawl (EIT) surveys of prespawning walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) on 

the Gulf of Alaska continental shelf in 2003 (Shumagin Islands to Prince William Sound) and 

2005 (Islands of Four Mountains to south Prince William Sound) (Guttormsen and Yasenak 

2007). Eulachon were the fourth and third most abundant species by numbers of fish caught in 

midwater trawls in the Gulf of Alaska in 2003 (10% of total) and 2005 (18% of total), 

respectively. Eulachon constituted 6.6% of the fish caught during EIT bottom trawls in 2003 in 

the Gulf of Alaska, but were not recorded in bottom trawls in 2005 (Guttormsen and Yasenak 

2007). 

Marine distribution maps of eulachon captured in AFSC research bottom trawl surveys of 

the Eastern Bering Sea continental shelf between 2001 and 2007 are provided in Nebenzahl 

(2001), Acuna et al. (2003), Acuna and Kotwicki (2004, 2006), Lauth and Acuna (2007a, 

2007b), and Acuna and Lauth (2008). Abundance estimates for eulachon are not generally 

provided in these documents as they are “not adequately represented in the samples,” which is 

“due to the bottom sampling nature of the survey” (Nebenzahl 2001, p. 27). 

Ichthyoplankton surveys 

Ichthyoplankton surveys in the northeastern Pacific Ocean commonly report the capture 

of osmerid larvae, but few studies have identified smelt larvae to the species level (Waldron 

1972, Richardson and Pearcy 1977, Doyle et al. 2002, Auth and Brodeur 2006, Parnell et al. 

2008). It is also possible that by the time eulachon reach the open ocean where these 

ichthyoplankton surveys occur, they may have grown sufficiently to be able to avoid capture in 

slowly towed, fine-mesh ichthyoplankton nets. 

Mixed stock genetic analysis 

Beacham et al. (2005) used variation at 14 microsatellite DNA loci to examine the stock 

composition of trawl and research surveys in marine areas off British Columbia. Using a genetic 

baseline data set of eulachon populations in eight rivers in Washington and British Columbia, 

they estimated the proportional composition of three marine-caught samples. A sample of 184 

eulachon was collected during a shrimp research survey near Nootka Sound off the west coast of 

Vancouver Island in May of 2000. The largest proportions of fish were estimated to be from the 

Columbia River (56.6%, SD = 10.4) and Fraser River (37.5%, SD = 10.1). Populations in other 

rivers were estimated to contribute less than 6% to the sample. A sample of 100 eulachon 

sampled as bycatch in a shrimp trawl fishery near Chatham Sound (off British Columbia’s north 

coast) in March 2001 was estimated to be largely fish from the British Columbia central 

mainland (51.6%, SD = 13.8) and from the Nass River (37.4%, SD = 10.9). Columbia (1.7%, 

SD = 2.4) and Fraser (2.1%, SD = 3.6) rivers contributed a small fraction to the sample. A third 

sample of 200 fish taken in research shrimp surveys in Queen Charlotte Sound in March 2001 

was comprised of substantial proportions of Columbia, Fraser, British Columbia central 

mainland, and Skeena rivers, all contributing between 22.1% (SD = 5.9) and 27.1% (SD = 6.9). 

32
Beacham et al. (2005) concluded that although eulachon marine migrations are largely 

unknown, there is spatial structure to the distributions of fish from different rivers. Their data 

indicate that Queen Charlotte Sound is an area inhabited by eulachon from very diverse origins 

including fish from nearby rivers as well as from more northern and southern sources. Analysis 

of samples in the south (off Vancouver Island) were dominated by Columbia River and Fraser 

River fish, whereas eulachon in the most northern marine region sampled, Chatham Sound, were 

largely from British Columbia coastal rivers north of the Fraser River. 

Life History Stages 

Eggs 

Eulachon eggs from the Columbia River are reported to be approximately 1 mm in 

diameter (Parente and Snyder 1970, WDFW and ODFW 2001). In the Fraser River, eggs have 

been variously reported to “have an average diameter between 0.03 and 0.04 inches [0.76–1.02 

mm] after preservation in formalin” (Hart and McHugh 1944, p. 9), to measure “ less than 1.0 

mm diameter” (Hay and McCarter 2000, p. 18), or to be “small (≈0.8 mm)” (Hay et al. 2002, p. 

20). According to Garrison and Miller (1982, p. 119), “the eggs show considerable irregularity 

in shape and have numerous oil globules in the yolk.” This irregularity in shape likely refers to 

unfertilized eggs. 

Mature eggs are reported to have an outer sticky membrane that turns inside out after the 

broadcast spawned eggs are fertilized and remains attached to the egg by a short stalk, which 

serves to adhere the egg to particles of sand or other substrates (McHugh 1940, Hart and 

McHugh 1944, Smith and Saalfeld 1955, Hay and McCarter 2000). Hay et al. (2002, p. 18) 

speculated that as eulachon eggs may attach to small sediment particles and appear to develop 

while being actively carried downstream by river currents that “the mobile incubation (or 

‘tumble’ incubation) may even have a selective advantage because it may spread the eggs over a 

broad space, thereby reducing predation and optimizing environmental conditions.” 

Pedersen et al. (1995) found no significant relationship between egg weight and female 

body length in the Kitimat River, British Columbia. Eggs weighed 0.26–0.58 mg with a mean 

and standard error of 0.43 ± 0.01 mg (n = 58) (Pedersen et al. 1995). Similarly, Hay and 

McCarter (2000) reported eggs from the Fraser River to weigh 0.36–0.68 mg (0.51 ± 0.01 mg, 

n = 106) in 1995 and 0.30–0.68 mg (0.44 ± 0.01 mg, n = 100) in 1996 in the Fraser River. Mean 

eulachon egg weight in the Kemano River, British Columbia, was estimated at 0.43 mg (± 0.16 

SD, n = 429) (Lewis et al. 2002). 

Smith and Saalfeld (1955) reported that eulachon eggs from the Columbia River required 

388, 378, and 370 daily cumulative degree Fahrenheit days (equivalent to 198, 192, and 188 

degree Celsius days) to hatch in the Naselle River Hatchery, Kalama River Hatchery, and the 

University of Washington School of Fisheries hatchery, respectively. In hatchery conditions, 

Smith and Saalfeld (1955) reported eggs taken from the Cowlitz River hatched in 19 days at 

temperatures that varied from 9.4 to 12.7oC. These data led Smith and Saalfeld (1955) to 

estimate that eulachon eggs would hatch in 30–40 days, given the usual water temperatures in 

February and March in the Cowlitz River. Assuming similar thermal requirements for 

incubation, Langer et al. (1977) estimated that it would take 30–40 days for eulachon eggs to 

33
hatch in the Nass River, British Columbia. Artificially spawned and incubated eulachon eggs 

from the Cowlitz River hatched in 21–25 days when reared at 6.5–9.0oC (Parente and Snyder 

1970). Berry and Jacob (1998 p. 4) reported the incubation period in the Kingcome River in 

Kingcome Inlet, British Columbia “to be approximately 21 days.” Flory (2008b, p. 3) cited a 

personal communication indicating that the incubation period for eulachon in Southeast Alaska 

ranges from four to six weeks, longer than the typical three to five weeks common in more 

southern regions. 

Lewis et al. (2002) estimated that the number of accumulated thermal units (ATUs, one 

ATU equal to one degree Celsius for one day) between the peak of adult spawning and larval 

migration for eulachon in the Kemano River, British Columbia, in 1990 to be 204 degree-days 

based on daily recorded temperatures. In 1997 the number of ATUs to reach 50% larval hatch 

were estimated to be 340 in the Kemano River and 235 in the nearby Wahoo River (Lewis et al. 

2002). Duration of egg incubation in the Kemano River was calculated at 50 days (Lewis et al. 

2002). Similarly, 51% of eulachon larvae hatched in the Kitimat River, British Columbia, in 

1993 after accumulating 258 ATUs and 87% of hatch occurred at an estimated 307 ATUs 

(Pedersen et al. 1995). The shortest duration of incubation of eulachon eggs from deposition to 

hatch was 35–39 days, the earlier time period equating to approximately 168 ATUs (Pedersen et 

al. 1995). 

In the Twentymile River in Southcentral Alaska, incubation was estimated during three 

time periods at 47–50 days, which equated to between 294 and 321 ATUs, based on calculations 

using mean daily water temperatures (Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003). Moody (2008, p. 3) 

reported that earlier studies had found eulachon eggs from the Bella Coola River hatched in 54 

days at about 6oC, equivalent to about 340 ATUs. Howell (2001) reported that 400oC ATUs 

(752oF ATUs) were accumulated prior to hatching, after a minimum of 47 days, by eulachon 

eggs stripped from Cowlitz River broodstock and incubated at a constant temperature of 48oC 

under artificial hatchery conditions. The anomalously high number of ATUs required for 

hatching in this experiment may have been an artifact of the experimental conditions (Howell 

2001). 

Pedersen et al. (1995) postulated that incubation requirements may vary with latitude, and 

Spangler (2002) and Spangler et al. (2003) noted that, in general, the number of ATUs required 

for eulachon egg incubation appears to increase with increasing latitude. 

Parente and Snyder (1970) provide the only published observations on eulachon 

embryonic development, which is typical of teleost fishes. In laboratory conditions at 

temperatures ranging from 6.5°C to 9°C; a blastodisc appears at 3 hours after fertilization, 

cleavage is occurring by 30 hours, invagination of the gastrula is in process at 60 hours, and the 

head and auditory capsule are apparent at 120 hours. At 300 hours (12–13 days) a weak heart 

beat is present, which is stronger by 400 hours. By this time the yolk sac is about one-half its 

original size. The active embryo begins hatching at about 500 hours (20–21 days) and all eggs 

under observation hatched within 5 days of each other (Parente and Snyder 1970). 

34
Larvae 

Newly hatched larvae are transparent, slender, and about 4–8 mm in length in the 

Columbia River (Parente and Snyder 1970, WDFW and ODFW 2001), 4.0–6.5 mm in the Fraser 

River (Hay et al. 2002), and 4–6 mm in the Kemano River (Lewis et al. 2002). Eulachon larvae 

are reported to be feeble swimmers and are rapidly carried downstream to estuarine portions of 

rivers and inlets within hours or days of hatching (McHugh 1940, Hart and McHugh 1944, Smith 

and Saalfeld 1955, Parente and Snyder 1970, Samis 1977, Howell 2001). In the Columbia River, 

larval eulachon are usually located near the bottom during their downstream migration (Smith 

and Saalfeld 1955, Howell et al. 2001). Larval nutrition is provided by the yolk sac prior to first 

feeding (WDFW and ODFW 2001). Spangler et al. (2003) detected higher levels of downstream 

drifting larval eulachon during low light intensity periods at night than during the day in the 

Twentymile River, Alaska. Care must be taken in many parts of the range that larval eulachon in 

rivers are not confused with superficially similar cottid (sculpin) larvae (Kelson 1997, Flory 

2008b). 

Ichthyoplankton surveys indicate that larval eulachon may be retained for weeks or 

months in estuaries (McCarter and Hay 1999, 2003), especially in inlets or fjords on the British 

Columbia mainland coast (McCarter and Hay 2003). These surveys also indicate that eulachon 

larvae are mostly present in the top 15 m of the water column, with few larvae occurring below 

20 m (McCarter and Hay 1999, Hay and McCarter 2000). Hay and McCarter (2000, p. 19) 

showed that newly hatched larvae were about 3.6–8 mm in length and that in mainland inlets on 

the British Columbia coast “mean eulachon larval size (mm) generally increased at each 

sampling station in a seaward direction away from eulachon spawning rivers.” Although larvae 

disperse seaward from their spawning rivers, they also “appear to be retained in inlets” and fjords 

to some degree on the British Columbia coast (Hay and McCarter 2000, p. 21). Ichthyoplankton 

surveys also showed that larvae were smaller in shallow water than those captured in deeper 

depths (McCarter and Hay 1999, Hay and McCarter 2000). During the period from April to 

August, larval eulachon on the central British Columbia coast were estimated to grow from an 

initial size of 3–4 mm to 30–35 mm in length (McCarter and Hay 1999, 2003). 

Robinson et al. (1968b, their Table I) determined that almost all eulachon larvae in the 

Strait of Georgia, off the Fraser River during daylight on 6 June 1967, were distributed in the top 

6.5 m of the water column, with the greatest density (50–150 larvae/m3

) occurring between 1.7 

and 3.5 m depth. McCarter and Hay (1999) found that eulachon larvae (mostly ≤15 mm in 

length) in mainland inlets on the central coast of British Columbia were mainly found within the 

top 15 m of the water column during springtime plankton tows and suggested that larval 

densities were greater near the surface at night than during daytime tows. 

Juveniles 

Information on the distribution and ecology of juvenile eulachon is scanty, owing to these 

fish being too small to occur in most fisheries and too large to occur in ichthyoplankton surveys 

(Hay and McCarter 2000). Eulachon that range 30–100 mm in length, exhibit schooling 

behavior, and have developed pigmentation and lateral scales are generally classified as juveniles 

(Hay and McCarter 2000). Barraclough (1964) sampled juvenile eulachon in the Strait of 

Georgia in winter and spring with midwater trawls and shrimp trawls and indicated that Fraser 

35
River eulachon may spend their first year of life in the Strait of Georgia; however, observer data 

indicate that virtually no eulachon were caught as bycatch in the late 1990s in the Strait of 

Georgia shrimp fishery (Hay et al. 1999a). A larger mesh size is used in commercial shrimp 

trawls, compared to the mesh size used in Barraclough’s (1964) studies (Hay and McCarter 

2000), suggesting that juvenile eulachon may be present in coastal waters but are difficult to 

detect without a directed effort. Hay and McCarter (2000, p. 22) reported that “it seems that ... 

[juveniles] disperse to open, marine waters within the first year of life and perhaps within the 

first few months.” 

Adults and Spawners 

Age composition 

The two common methods of estimating age in eulachon, either through counting rings 

on scales or on otoliths, have not been validated for any population of eulachon (Ricker et al. 

1954, DeLacy and Batts 1963, Higgins et al. 1987, Hay and McCarter 2000, Moffitt et al. 2002, 

Clarke et al. 2007). Age as determined from scales is typically one to three years less than age 

determined from otolith increments (Ricker et al. 1954, Langer et al. 1977, Higgins et al. 1987). 

Several early studies expressed doubt as to the reliability of using otolith rings to determine 

eulachon age (Smith and Saalfeld 1955, DeLacy and Batts 1963). Consequently, the 

determination of age from scales and otoliths are not considered reliable methods by many 

researchers (Ricker et al. 1954, Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay et al. 2003, Clarke et al. 2007). 

Clarke et al. (2007, p. 1,480) noted that many dark bands or pseudo-annuli are present in whole 

and polished otoliths “that have been interpreted as winter growth zones in past ageing attempts” 

and that “sectioned otoliths viewed under transmitted light can reveal fewer zones,” indicating 

some of the problems with this ageing methodology. 

In some cases “there is no corresponding increase in size (length or weight) with putative 

[increase in] age” (Hay and McCarter 2000, p. 15). Higgins et al. (1987) also reported overlap in 

fork lengths (FL) between putative age classes of eulachon. However, in the Twentymile River, 

Alaska, eulachon body length has been shown to increase with age in both males and females, as 

expected (Spangler 2002). Beamish and McFarlane (1983) highlighted the importance of 

proving that a technique for ageing a species is accurate (age validation). Age validation 

“requires either a mark-recapture study or the identification of known-age fish in the population” 

(Beamish and McFarlane 1983, p. 741). It is important to point out that age validation is 

different than determining the precision of an ageing technique by assessing the level of 

agreement among several age readers. Despite the acknowledged problems with age 

determination in eulachon, numerous studies have reported age composition of spawning 

populations of eulachon based on examination of growth increments on either scales or otoliths 

and these data are presented in Table A-6. 

Although age determination of eulachon is admittedly difficult and uncertain, adult 

spawners are variously reported to be 3–4 years old (Smith and Saalfeld 1955) or 3–5 years old 

(WDFW and ODFW 2001) in the Columbia River; 2–3 years old (McHugh 1939, Ricker et al. 

1954) or mostly 3 years old, with some 2-, 4-, and 5-year-olds in the Fraser River (Hay et al. 

2005); and mostly age 3 (Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 2002) or 2–5 years old (Schweigert et al. 

2007) in British Columbia. The majority of adult eulachon on the Columbia River are reported 

36
to return at age 3, although some are purported to be up to 9 years old (WDFW and ODFW 

2001). Wydoski and Whitney (2003, p. 106) also stated that some eulachon “may live for 9 

years;” however, these age estimates are based on the unvalidated otolith methodology. 

Clarke et al. (2007) examined seasonal changes in trace elements incorporated into 

otoliths to estimate age structure of eulachon populations in the Columbia, Fraser, Kemano, 

Skeena, and Copper rivers. It has been shown that barium (Ba) and calcium (Ca) are 

incorporated into the aragonitic matrix of fish otoliths in proportion to their concentration in the 

environment (Bath et al. 2000). Barium concentrations are normally about three times greater in 

deep ocean waters than in surface waters; however, for about 3 months during the summer, 

wind-driven upwelling of deep barium-rich waters occurs off the west coast of North America 

and “these upwelling events should therefore impart a seasonal barium peak ... in ... [eulachon] 

otoliths” (Clarke et al. 2007, p. 1,481). As expected, Clarke et al. (2007) found that eulachon 

otoliths had low Ba:Ca levels in the outer region of the otolith in February and March and high 

levels in the summer. Clarke et al. (2007, p. 1,488) used laser-ablation inductively coupled 

plasma mass spectrometry to reconstruct the Ba:Ca profile of eulachon otoliths and stated that: 

a single age class of fish was observed to spawn in the systems examined in this 

study. Only 3-year-old eulachon were observed from the spawning populations in 

the Fraser and Kemano rivers, and the majority of fish for the Columbia, Skeena, 

and Copper rivers were also composed of a single age class; 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds 

from the Columbia, Skeena, and Copper rivers, respectively. 

These data suggest that populations to the south spawn at an earlier age than more northern 

populations. Clarke et al. (2007, p. 1,489) concluded that “seasonal fluctuations in Ba:Ca 

observed in this study suggests that, to date, many eulachon have been aged incorrectly” and that 

“Ba:Ca variations appear to match expected annual shifts in ambient chemistry and so offer a 

more reliable annual marker for ageing.” 

Analyses of size frequencies have also been used to estimate age of at-sea (Ricker et al. 

1954, Barraclough 1964, Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay et al. 2003, Clarke et al. 2007) and inriver (McHugh 1939) eulachon. These methods have identified age 1+ and age 2+ eulachon in 

the ocean (Barraclough 1964, Hay et al. 2003) and indicate that “the largest size mode [in the 

ocean] corresponds to the size modes observed in spawning rivers” (Hay et al. 2003, p. 5). Size 

frequency analysis indicates that most eulachon in British Columbia are spawning at age 3 (Hay 

and McCarter 2000). 

Body size 

Eulachon are reportedly the largest species of smelt in the family Osmeridae on the west 

coast of North America (Scott and Crossman 1973). Published reports of maximum eulachon 

body length of 305 mm (Clemens and Wilby 1967, Miller and Lea 1972) are likely in error 

(Miller and Lea 1976, Mecklenburg et al. 2002). Specimens of 254 mm (Miller and Lea 1976, 

Mecklenburg et al. 2002) from the Bering Sea represent the maximum known length for 

eulachon. Mean lengths of male and female eulachon in the Twentymile and Susitna rivers of 

Southcentral Alaska are greater than 200 mm FL (Table A-7), much larger than mean lengths in 

rivers further south (Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003). These authors also noted that the 

37
mean weight of eulachon in the Susitna and Twentymile rivers was greater than in eulachon 

spawning in more southern rivers (Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003) (Table A-8). 

Moffitt et al. (2002) found mean length of male eulachon on the Copper River to be 

significantly longer than females in all years analyzed from 1998 to 2002. There were also 

significant differences in length among years for both male and female eulachon from the 

Copper River. Male eulachon were also found to be significantly longer and heavier than female 

eulachon in the Twentymile River, Alaska, in 2000 and 2001 (Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 

2003). Male eulachon were significantly larger than females in the Kemano River, British 

Columbia, and both sexes were significantly longer than eulachon in the nearby Wahoo River 

(Lewis et al. 2002). 

Length of pelvic and pectoral fins of female eulachon from the Fraser River were both 

14.3% of the standard body length, compared to 17.6% for pelvic fins and 15.8% for pectoral 

fins in male eulachon (McHugh 1939, Hart and McHugh 1944). By comparison, Langer et al. 

(1977) found that lengths of pelvic and pectoral fins of female eulachon in the Nass River were 

11.1% and 11.8% of the standard body length, compared to 13.4% for pelvic fins and 12.7% for 

pectoral fins in male eulachon. Both sexes of eulachon in the Nass River apparently possess 

“relatively smaller fins than do Fraser fish” (Langer et al. 1977, p. 33). Craig (1947, p. 3) stated 

that among Columbia River tributaries: 

fishermen consistently claim to find larger smelt in the runs comprising the Lewis 

and Sandy river populations than those in the Cowlitz River stocks. Such size 

variation has been statistically proven sound in 1946 when large samples of fish 

were measured from both the Cowlitz and Sandy rivers. 

Clarke et al. (2007, p. 1,484) found significant differences in length and weight of 

eulachon from five river systems (Columbia, Fraser, Kemano, Skeena, and Copper) and found a 

trend towards larger fish in more northerly populations “and the largest fish were from Alaska 

and northern British Columbia.” Clarke et al. (2007) suggested that eulachon likely spawn after 

reaching a minimum fork length of 160 mm and a body weight greater than 30 g and that these 

size thresholds are obtained at an earlier age in southern latitudes and later in the far north. 

Available data on eulachon body length and weight from throughout the species’ range are 

compiled in Table A-7 and Table A-8, respectively. 

Vertebrae meristics 

Hart and McHugh (1944) and DeLacy and Batts (1963) attempted to identify stocks of 

eulachon based on differences in the number of vertebrae present in adult fish on the spawning 

grounds. Hart and McHugh (1944, p. 6) counted vertebrae, which varied from 65 to 72 per fish, 

in eulachon samples from the Nass River, Rivers Inlet, Knight and Kingcome inlets, and Fraser 

River and found: 

the Fraser river run to differ in average vertebral number from the runs to the 

more northern parts of the province.... This indicates that mixing between the 

runs to the Fraser and more northerly rivers cannot be extensive because, if it 

were, any differences in vertebral count would soon be eliminated. 

38
Similarly, DeLacy and Batts (1963, p. 33) counted vertebrae, which also varied from 65 

to 72 per fish, in eulachon samples taken between 1953 and 1962 in the lower Columbia River 

and its tributaries and reported that “an indication of heterogeneity was found among eight 

collections of smelt made in 1956 from the Cowlitz, Kalama, and Sandy rivers.” Based on these 

data, DeLacy and Batts (1963, p. 33) stated that their study found “scant evidence of 

heterogeneity in the total Columbia River smelt population;” however, “there is enough 

suggestion of heterogeneity to justify further exploration of the possibility that smelt do move to 

the spawning grounds in some nonrandom fashion.” 

Sexual dimorphism 

There are a number of morphological differences between male and female eulachon at 

maturity. Mean length is in general longer in males than in females (McHugh 1939, Higgins et 

al. 1987, Lewis et al. 2002, Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003, Cambria Gordon 2006). 

Although age-2 males were statistically greater in length than the same age females on the Nass 

River in 1971, length of age-3 through age-5 fish did not vary between the sexes (Langer et al. 

1977). Mean weight of males was statistically greater than that of females in the Twentymile 

River, Alaska, in 2000 and 2001 (Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003) and in the Kemano River, 

British Columbia, from 1988 to 1998 (Lewis et al. 2002). However, mean lengths and weights 

of male and female eulachon in the Fraser River from 1995 to 2001 as reported by Hay et al. 

(2002, their Table 3) did not show consistent differences between the sexes. McHugh (1939) 

was also unable to detect significant difference in size between males and female eulachon from 

the Fraser River. 

Males differ from females in having numerous tubercles on the body, head, and fins, and 

particularly along the lateral line (McHugh 1939, Hart and McHugh 1944, McAllister 1963, 

McPhail and Lindsey 1970, Spangler et al. 2003). In males, “the muscles of the body wall have 

undergone considerable development, so that the body wall is considerably thicker, and the 

whole fish is more firm and rigid than the female” (McHugh 1939, p. 21). Females are smoother 

in appearance with far fewer tubercles and do not possess the mass of muscle along the lateral 

line (McAllister 1963, Spangler et al. 2003). The pelvic fins are also larger at the base and 

longer in male compared to female eulachon; the ends of the pelvic fins often reach as far 

posterior as the level of the anus in males, but are much shorter in females (McHugh 1939, Hart 

and McHugh 1944, McAllister 1963, McPhail and Lindsey 1970, Spangler et al. 2003, Cambria 

Gordon 2006). Hart and McHugh (1944, p. 4) reported that female eulachon have a more 

tapered form than male eulachon. Spangler (2002) found females retained teeth to a greater 

degree (84.0–96.9%) than did males (3.4–32.4%) in the Twentymile River, Alaska. 

Proximate analysis 

The very high fat content of eulachon led many Native American tribal groups in 

Southeast Alaska and First Nations in British Columbia, especially to the north of the Fraser 

River, to render the fat of the eulachon into oil or “grease” (Kuhnlein et al. 1982, Hay and 

McCarter 2000). Several early studies investigated the chemical characteristics of eulachon oil 

with regard to its nutritional qualities (Brocklesby and Denstedt 1933, Brocklesby 1941, Bailey 

et al. 1952). However, Clark and Clough (1926, p. 505) were the first to publish on the 

proximate composition of eulachon flesh and they reported that a single sample of the edible 

39
portion of fresh eulachon from the Columbia River contained 11.2% fat, 13.2% protein, and 

1.4% ash. Although Clark and Clough (1926) studied the composition of Columbia River 

eulachon, these results were subsequently republished in Babcock (1927) as typical for British 

Columbia. Stansby (1976) found the mean (and range) of percent moisture, oil, protein, and ash 

in the raw muscle of 16 eulachon specimens from the Columbia River to be 79.6% (76.5–81.3), 

6.3% (4.6–9.0), 14.6% (13.2–15.3), and 1.3% (1.1–1.4), respectively. Stansby’s (1976) data 

were also reported in Sidwell (1981). 

Whole unprocessed eulachon sampled in Knights Inlet on the British Columbia coast 

contained 16.7% fat and 72.3% moisture (Kuhnlein et al. 1996). Mean percent values for 

eulachon caught at sea in the Gulf of Alaska were 18.8% oil (as total lipid), 11.9% protein, 1.6% 

ash, and 68.1% moisture (Payne et al. 1999). Similar mean values for sea-caught eulachon in the 

eastern Bering Sea were 19.9% oil (as total lipid), 12.5% protein, 1.5% ash, and 66.7% moisture 

(Payne et al. 1999). Of 14 species of forage fish in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea, eulachon 

had the highest oil content (16.8–21.4%) and the lowest moisture content (64.6–70.8%) (Payne 

et al. 1997, 1999). No significant differences in composition of eulachon were seen between the 

Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea when fish of a common size range collected in the same 

season of the year were compared (Payne et al. 1999). 

In the Gulf of Alaska, eulachon were found to have the lowest mean moisture content 

(64%), lowest mean ash content as a percentage of dry mass (4%), highest dry mass energy value 

(7.7 kcal/g), and highest wet mass energy value (2.6 kcal/g) among 18 fish and 5 squid species 

analyzed (Perez 1994). These energetic values were obtained using bomb calorimetry (Perez 

1994). Payne et al. (1999) derived a mean value for eulachon wet mass energy of 2.47 kcal/g 

derived from calculations of caloric content using energy coefficients for protein and oil from 

Gulf of Alaska eulachon. These eulachon energy values were the highest in relation to moisture 

content of the 13 forage fish analyzed (Payne et al. 1999). Similarly, Anthony et al. (2000) 

reported that eulachon had the highest mean lipid content (50% of dry mass) among 39 forage 

fish species analyzed in the Gulf of Alaska. Eulachon also had a much higher water content as a 

percent of wet mass (71%) than would be expected given its high lipid content (Anthony et al. 

2000). A sample of 34 eulachon (141–202 mm standard length [SL]) also had the second highest 

mean energy density, after northern lampfish (Stenobrachius leucopsarus): 6.5 kcal/g (27.2 kJ/g) 

dry mass or 1.8 kcal/g (7.49 kJ/g) wet mass (Anthony et al. 2000). 

Iverson et al. (2002) examined fat content and fatty acid composition in 26 species of fish 

and invertebrates in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Fat content of 20 eulachon samples taken in 

spring were uniformly the highest in fat content and ranged 15–25% fat with a mean value of 

19% fat (Iverson et al. 2002). The next highest fat content was found in adult herring, which 

ranged 7–20% fat with a mean value of 14% fat (Iverson et al. 2002). Eulachon possessed 

unique fatty acid signatures that “differed most from all other finfish, cephalopod, or crustacean 

species studied” (Iverson et al. 2002, p. 177). Eulachon in Prince William Sound had “extremely 

high levels of 18:1n-9, moderately high levels of 14:0 and 16:1n-7, and extremely low levels of 

polyunsaturated fatty acids such as 20:5n-3 and 22:6n-3” (Iverson et al. 2002, p. 177). The 

dietary source of this unique fatty acid signature in eulachon is currently unknown (Iverson et al. 

2002). 

40
The apparent differences in fat content between eulachon samples in the Columbia River 

(6.3% fat; Stansby 1976), Knight Inlet on the British Columbia coast (16.7% fat, Kuhnlein et al. 

1996), and in the Gulf of Alaska (19% fat, Payne et al. 1999, Iverson et al. 2002) likely had a 

significant impact on American Indian and First Nations uses for these fish. MacLachlan (1998, 

p. 183) stated that: 

On the northern coast, eulachon were a major source of oil, but on the Fraser, as 

on the Columbia, they were eaten fresh or smoked whole. A difference in oil 

content may have been the basis of this difference in use. 

Reproduction and Development 

Sex Ratio 

Many studies have reported that sex ratios in eulachon are either biased in favor of males 

(Smith and Saalfeld 1955, Kubik and Wadman 1977, 1978, Franzel and Nelson 1981, Higgins et 

al. 1987, Lewis 1997, Lewis et al. 2002, Moffitt et al. 2002, Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003) 

or are highly variable depending on time and location of sampling (McHugh 1939, Hart and 

McHugh 1944, Langer et al. 1977, Pedersen et al. 1995). On the other hand, Hay and McCarter 

(2000) and Hay et al. (2002) report that the ratio of spawning male to female eulachon in their 

gill net samples from the Fraser River in 1995–2002 was approximately 1 to 1, with the 

exception of 1998 when the sex ratio was 1.7 to 1. 

All reports of eulachon sex ratio should be viewed with caution, as proportions of male to 

female eulachon have been reported to vary with fishing gear type, distance upriver, distance 

from the river shoreline, time of the day, and migration time (McHugh 1939, Langer et al. 1977, 

Moffit et al. 2002, Lewis et al. 2002, Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003). Langer et al. (1977, 

p. 33) reported that “sex ratios varied with location, within the duration of the run, and between 

years in the Nass River.” Lewis (1997) suggested that sex ratios skewed in favor of males may 

be due to longer residence time of male eulachon in freshwater compared to females. Moffit et 

al. (2002) postulated that as spawning commences, females may avoid the riverbank and disperse 

to the center of the river, thus skewing sex ratios calculated from dip net sampling along 

riverbanks. Spangler (2002) and Spangler et al. (2003) reported that sampling with different gear 

types (gill nets versus dip nets) resulted in different sex ratios in the Twentymile River, Alaska. 

However, Franzel and Nelson (1981) reported that fishing gear did not significantly change the 

sex ratio of eulachon captured in the Stikine River, Alaska. 

Mc Hugh (1939) and Hart and McHugh (1944) reported that the sex ratio varied during 

the fishing season in 1939 and 1941 in the Fraser River; males predominated in the early part of 

the eulachon run, but in the latter part females came to predominate. A similar situation may 

obtain in the Columbia River basin, where WDFW and ODFW (2001, p. 15) stated that analysis 

of sex ratios indicated that “female return timing is skewed later than that of males,” although 

females never appear to dominate. Pedersen et al. (1995, p. 16) reported that earlier studies in 

the Nass River had found “a changing sex ratio during the spawning season,” whereas another 

study based on daily monitoring had found 55% males and 45% females. Lewis et al. (2002) 

also reported changing sex ratios over the duration of the eulachon run in the Kemano River, 

British Columbia; however, there appeared to be two pulses of female returns, and males rather 

41
than females appeared to dominate the later part of the run. The proportion of males was also 

found to increase as the run progressed in 1971 on the Nass River (Langer et al. 1977) and at 

Flag Point Channel on the Copper River in 1998 and 2000–2002 (Moffit et al. 2002). 

The overall sex ratio reported by Smith and Saalfeld (1955) for the Columbia River basin 

was 4.5 males to 1 female. Similarly, Higgins et al. (1987) and Rogers et al. (1990) found a sex 

ratio of 3.4 males to 1 female in Fraser River samples collected in April 1986 and Rogers et al. 

(1990) reported the ratio to be 5.9 to 1 in 1988. Sex ratios in the early 1930s in Cowlitz River 

dip net, Lewis River dip net, and Columbia River gill net samples were 3.2 to 1, 12.3 to 1, and 

6.8 to 1, respectively (Smith and Saalfeld 1955). In 1946 sex ratios in commercial fisheries were 

10.5 to 1 in the Cowlitz River and 2.8 to 1 in the Sandy River, which may reflect the bias in the 

fishery for the more marketable male eulachon (Smith and Saalfeld 1955). Since males 

dominate the early part of the run in the Columbia River, they are more prevalent in both the 

sport and commercial fisheries, which preferentially target the first fish to return (WDFW and 

ODFW 2001). 

Sex ratio of male to female eulachon in the Kemano River, British Columbia, ranged 

from 1.1 to 1 to 10.7 to 1 with a mean of 4.4 to 1 between 1989 and 1997; however, when 

weighted by fish abundance over the duration of the run, the true sex ratio was estimated at 1.6 to 

1 (Lewis et al. 2002, p. 72). Males predominated in upriver locations in both 1970 and 1971 in 

the Nass River (Langer et al. 1977). However, in the Fraser River the proportion of male to 

female eulachon was independent of the distance of upriver capture (along a 31 km gradient) 

among April 1986 (Higgins et al. 1987, Rogers et al. 1990) and April/May 1988 (Rogers et al. 

1990) samples. 

Franzel and Nelson (1981) found that gill net–sampled eulachon in the Stikine River, 

Alaska, over two years had a sex ratio of males to females of 17.5 to 1. Eulachon sex ratios on 

the Copper River, Alaska, and nearby systems were also dominated by males in all samples 

(Moffitt et al. 2002). The percentages of males at Flag Point Channel on the Copper River in 

1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002 were 78%, 60%, 72%, and 69%, respectively. At 60-km Channel on 

the Copper River in 2002, males represented 61%–85% of the captured eulachon (Moffit et al. 

2002). On the Copper River delta, the percentages of males in 1998 and 2000 were 91% and 

66%, respectively, in Alaganik Slough and ranged from 82% to 98% in January to February 

2001 in Ibeck Creek (Moffit et al. 2002). Eulachon collected in Twentymile River, Alaska, from 

May 15 to June 2, 1976, and from April 29 to June 5, 1977, had a cumulative sex ratio of 5 males 

to 1 female (n = 204) (Kubik and Wadman 1977) and 7.4 males to 1 female (n = 408) (Kubik and 

Wadman 1978), respectively. Sampling by dip net in the Twentymile River resulted in male to 

female ratios of 6.7 to 1 in 2000 (n = 394) and 2.1 to 1 in 2001 (n = 2,711) (Spangler 2002, 

Spangler et al. 2003). Barrett et al. (1984) reported average male to female sex ratios of 

prespawning eulachon of 1.6 to 1 in late May 1982, 1.3 to 1 in early June 1982, 1.2 to 1 in midMay 1983, and 0.6 to 1 in mid-May and early June 1983. Spawning and postspawning ratios 

were higher due to the shorter stream residence time of female eulachon (Barrett et al. 1984). 

Smith and Saalfeld (1955, p. 22) first hypothesized “that the type of spawning of smelt 

may necessitate an excess of males.” Moffitt et al. (2002, p. 26) postulated that in the case of 

eulachon, which broadcast-spawn eggs and sperm in fast moving rivers, “a large number of 

males upstream may increase the probability of egg fertilization.” Spangler et al. (2003, p. 46) 

42
also postulated that a sex ratio skewed in favor of males “may be a key element to successful 

spawning” and that “fertilization would increase with more available milt in the water increasing 

the probability of eggs being fertilized.” Hay and McCarter (2000, p. 23) stated that spawning 

involves groups of fish and eulachons must closely synchronize the timing of spawning between 

sexes, because the duration of sperm viability in freshwater is short, perhaps only minutes. 

Interestingly, Langer et al. (1977, p. 32) reported on a second-hand observation of spawning in 

eulachon, suggesting that a group of males simultaneously released milt upstream of a group of 

females that laid their eggs as the milt drifted over the downstream female eulachon. Lewis et al. 

(2002, p. 83) observed spawning eulachon in the Kemano River, British Columbia and reported 

that: 

At night in the riffles, males lay next the females, beside them and on top of them. 

We observed small puffs of milt and eggs drifting in the water. We interpret this 

behaviour as egg laying behaviour because we had not seen it during the day and 

because we examined rocks at the site during daylight hours ... and discovered 

eggs adhering to the rocks. 

Fecundity 

Hart and McHugh (1944) noted that fecundity in the Fraser River ranged about 17,300–

39,600 eggs in female eulachon measuring 145–188 mm SL. Average fecundity was about 

25,000 eggs per female (Hart and McHugh 1944, Hart 1973). Smith and Saalfeld (1955, p. 22) 

report a fecundity of 20,000–60,000 for female eulachon ranging 140–195 mm length from the 

Columbia River. Both Clemens and Wilby (1967) and McPhail and Lindsey (1970) report 

fecundity to be about 25,000 eggs in an average size female. Hay and McCarter (2000) reported 

total fecundity range of 20,000–40,000 eggs, the number generally increasing with fish size. 

Depending on fish size, fecundity can range 7,000–31,000 eggs on the Columbia River (Parente 

and Snyder 1970, WDFW and ODFW 2001). 

Mean total fecundity in Fraser River eulachon ranged from a low of about 31,200 to a 

high of about 34,100 when estimated between 1995 and 1998 (Hay et al. 2002). Mean relative 

fecundity (total fecundity divided by female body weight) of Fraser River eulachon ranged from 

a low of 683 eggs/g in 1995 to a high of 898 eggs/g in 1997 (Hay et al. 2002). There are 

significant differences in fecundity among years in Fraser River eulachon, which are likely 

related to “significant interannual differences in mean size (length and weight)” (Hay et al. 2002, 

p. 11). 

Mean fecundity of 58 eulachon from the Kitimat River, British Columbia, in 1993 was 

about 22,900 eggs with a range of 3,242 to 47,798 (Pedersen et al. 1995). Relative fecundity in 

the Kitimat River was calculated at 504 eggs/g female body weight (Pedersen et al. 1995). 

Based on 5 years of data, mean eulachon fecundity in Kemano River, British Columbia, was 

about 27,000 and ranged 6,744–57,260 eggs. Mean relative fecundity of Kemano River 

eulachon over this 5-year data set was 544 eggs/g female body weight (Lewis et al. 2002). 

Mean fecundity of eulachon in the Copper River, Alaska, was estimated at about 35,520 

(range: 12,202–52,722) in 2000 and 36,200 (range: 18,645–62,855) in 2001 (Moffitt et al. 2002). 

From these data, Moffitt et al. (2002) estimated relative fecundity of eulachon from the Copper 

River in 2000 and 2001 as 790 and 792 eggs/g female body weight, respectively. Fecundity in 

43
the Twentymile River, Alaska, ranged from as low as 8,530 to as high as 67,510 and reportedly 

increased with increasing length, weight, and age (as determined by otolith increment analysis) 

(Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003). 

Homing 

Smith and Saalfeld (1955, p. 12) examined migration behavior of eulachon in the 

Columbia River and its tributaries and stated that: 

The so-called “homing instinct,” influencing fish to return as adults to the stream 

in which they were hatched, has not been established for smelt. ... The 

irregularity of the runs into the various tributaries virtually precludes the existence 

of a home tributary influence. 

McCarter and Hay (1999) and Hay and McCarter (2000) argue that both the short time 

eulachon larvae spend in the natal freshwater environment and their small size would preclude 

their ability to imprint on a spawning river. Eulachon larvae are very small, 4–6 mm in length, 

weigh only a few mg at hatching, and are flushed into the estuarine environment almost as soon 

as they rise into the water column. Hay and McCarter (2000, p. 13) noted that eulachon larvae 

are so small that they “may lack the necessary physiological tissue (i.e., olfactory rosette and 

associated nervous system memory capacity)” to imprint on the freshwater natal spawning river. 

However, eulachon larvae may spend weeks to months in nearby estuarine environments where 

they grow significantly in size and may develop the capacity to imprint on large estuaries and 

eventually home to these areas as adults (McCarter and Hay 1999, Hay and McCarter 2000). 

These considerations would suggest that large river estuaries, inlets, and fjords may serve as the 

smallest stock structure unit for eulachon (McCarter and Hay 1999, 2003, Hay and McCarter 

2000, Hay 2002, Hay and Beacham 2005). 

Spawn Timing 

McCarter and Hay (1999, p. 12) emphasized that: 

Based on concepts developed from observation of spawning of Pacific salmon, 

the timing of [eulachon] spawning runs should be biologically adapted to each 

river. If so, and if the same model is applied to eulachons, then each population 

would be adapted to each river. 

However, several authors emphasize that there is no clear latitudinal (Hay and McCarter 2000, 

Cambria Gordon 2006) or other pattern (Hay et al. 2002) apparent in eulachon spawn timing 

(Table A-9, Figure 5). Over the whole range of eulachon from northern California to the 

southeastern Bering Sea, Hay and McCarter (2000, p. 17) noted that: 

the most southern runs (i.e., the California and the Columbia River runs) are 

early, beginning in late January, whereas some of the Alaska runs are much later 

(May), although not too dissimilar to [eulachon in] the Fraser [River, which run in 

April through May]. 

However, eulachon have been known to spawn as early as January in rivers on the Copper River 

delta of Alaska (Moffitt et al. 2002), as late as May in northern California, and from January to 

April in various subbasins of the Columbia River (Table A-9, Figure 5, and Figure 6). Analysis 

44
0

50

100

150

200

250

Susitna River

Twentymile River

Copper River

Nass River

Kemano River

Fraser River

Elwha River

Cowlitz River

Tenmile Creek

Day of run year (1 November = 1)

21 

1 

2

7 

7

1

5

12

2 

May 1

January 1

Figure 5. Duration of reported eulachon spawn timing in various river systems arranged north to south 

from left to right on the x-axis. Dates of spawn timing have been converted relative to the day of 

the run year beginning on November 1. Numbers above plots indicate the total years of data 

available for each system. Data from Barrett et al. (1984, reported in Spangler et al. 2003), 

ADFG (1972, 1973, 1974, reported in Spangler et al. 2003), Kubik and Waldman (1977, 1978), 

Spangler (2002), Spangler et al. (2003), Morstad (1998, reported in Spangler et al. 2003), Langer 

et al. (1977), Lewis et al. (2002), Hay et al. (2003), Shaffer et al. (2007), B. James,4

 and WDFW 

and ODFW (2008). 

of spawn timing as a stock identifier in eulachon is also complicated by observed variation in the 

duration of spawn timing from year to year, the presence of multiple spawning runs in some 

rivers, and observations of eulachon returning earlier in recent years in some systems relative to 

historical data (Moody 2008). 

California 

Historically, eulachon runs in northern California were said to start as early as December 

and January and peak in abundance during March and April (Table A-9). Larson and Belchik 

(1998, p. 5) reported that: 

The timing of the Klamath, Redwood Creek, and Mad River spawning migrations 

were similar to the Columbia’s runs, which usually begin in December and 

January (S. King, ODFW, pers. comm.). The Klamath run continued until around 

May with peak occurrence between March and April. 

 

4

 B. James, WDFW, Vancouver, WA. Pers. commun., 12 May 2008. 

45
Day of run year (1 November = 1)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Columbia River (Oregonian 1867-1923)

Columbia River (initial delivery 1949-2008)

Grays River (initial delivery 1949-1985)

Cowlitz River (initial delivery 1949-2008)

Cowlitz River (Kelsonian/Longview News 1908-1935)

Kalama River (initial delivery 1950-1995)

Lewis River (initial delivery 1949-1990)

Sandy River (initial run day1929-2003)

Elwha River (initial run day 2005)

50

39

13

13

48

14

20 30 1 10

Tenmile Creek (initial run day 1992-2008)

Figure 6. Box plots of the initial day of river entry in various river systems as reported in local 

newspapers (Appendix B and Smith et al. 1953), commercial fishery deliveries (B. James5

), 

Shaffer et al. (2007), and WDFW and ODFW (2008). Dates of initial river entry or fishery 

delivery have been converted to the day of the run year beginning on November 1. Numbers 

above plots indicate the total years of data available for each data set. 

Similarly, Young (1984) reported on the collection or observation of adult eulachon in the 

Klamath River and Redwood Creek in April 1978 and in the Klamath River in March and April 

in both 1979 and 1980. Young (1984, p. 62) further stated that eulachon begin their migration in 

the Klamath River “in January in small numbers well before the main spawning runs (more than 

one may occur) in March and April, and then continuing on a smaller scale.” 

 

5

 See footnote 4. 

46
Columbia River and tributaries 

Smith and Saalfeld (1955, p. 24) noted that eulachon “may be found in the Columbia 

River between late December and mid-May.” Howell and Uusitalo (2000, p. 3) documented that 

historically eulachon migration into the Columbia River “begins in December, peaks in 

February, and continues through May.” Bargmann et al. (2005, p. 22) stated that “peak 

[eulachon] abundance [in the Columbia River] is usually in February, but may be as late as 

April.” 

Initial arrival of eulachon in the Columbia River and its tributaries can be estimated from 

historical landings data in the commercial fishery (WDFW,6

 Howell and Uusitalo 2000) (Figure 

6). Documented eulachon landings in the Columbia River have occurred as early as December 

13 and as late as February 21 with an average date of around January 8 for the years 1949 to 

2008, based on data supplied by WDFW.7

 Based on newspaper accounts of eulachon in the fish 

markets of Portland, Oregon, from 1867 to 1923 (Appendix B), the earliest date of appearance of 

eulachon in the Portland markets was November 23 and the mean date of initial appearance was 

February 12 (Figure 6). 

Similarly, documented eulachon landings in the Cowlitz River have occurred as early as 

December 13 and as late as March 11 with an average date of around January 25 for the years 

1949 to 2008, based on data supplied by WDFW.8 Newspaper accounts of initial appearance of 

eulachon in the Cowlitz River between 1908 and 1935 were summarized in Smith et al. (1953) 

and give the earliest date of January 30. In the Grays River between 1949 and 1985, initial 

eulachon landings occurred as early as January 3 with an average initial date of February 20, 

based on data supplied by WDFW.9

 In the Kalama River between 1950 and 1995, initial 

eulachon landings occurred as early as January 14 with an average initial date of April 1, based 

on data supplied by WDFW.10 In the Lewis River between 1949 and 1990, initial eulachon 

landings occurred as early as January 5 with an average initial date of April 16, based on data 

supplied by WDFW.11

WDFW and ODFW (2008) provided the initial arrival dates of eulachon in the Sandy 

River, Oregon, for the years 1929 to 2008, although no run was recorded in 48 of the 79 years. 

The earliest appearance of eulachon on the Sandy River occurred on January 23 (the next earliest 

being February 28) and the latest on April 21, with an average data of initial appearance of about 

March 21 (Figure 6). Craig (1947, p. 3) stated that eulachon “runs into the Sandy and Lewis 

rivers normally occur later than those in the Cowlitz.” Smith and Saalfeld (1955, p. 13) also 

noted that “the Cowlitz fish [appear] in the early part of the season, and the Sandy fish nearly 

two months later.” Comparison of average dates of initial landings in the commercial fishery in 

the Cowlitz River (January 25) and in the Sandy River (March 21) confirm that a nearly twomonth period separates the average run timing in these two tributaries (Figure 6). 

 

6 Statewide eulachon landings database, B. James, WDFW, Vancouver, WA. Pers. commun., 20 June 2008. 

7

 See Footnote 6. 

8 See Footnote 6. 

9

 See Footnote 6. 

10 See Footnote 6. 

11 See Footnote 6. 

47
British Columbia 

On the mainland coast of British Columbia, earliest eulachon spawning occurs in the far 

north in February to early March in the Nass River, and the latest spawning occurs in April and 

May in the Fraser River in the far south (Table A-9, Figure 5). This pattern of spawn timing is 

reversed from the apparent overall range-wide pattern of eulachon spawning earlier in the south 

and later in the north (Hay and McCarter 2000). Early researchers variously stated that eulachon 

enter and spawn in rivers in British Columbia “from the middle of March to the middle of May” 

(Hart and McHugh 1944, p. 7) or “during March, April, and May” (Clemens and Wilby 1967, p. 

123). Hart and McHugh (1944, p. 7) also affirmed that “The time of appearance is fairly 

constant from year to year in each locality and the runs are apparently of progressively shorter 

duration from south to north.” Similarly, McCarter and Hay (2003, p. 16) noted that: 

In some rivers, such as the Kitimat or Kemano, the time of spawning is relatively 

early, beginning in early March and in others, such as the Fraser or Klinaklini, the 

timing is later, beginning in April or May. 

Fraser River—The early journals of Fort Langley, a Hudson’s Bay Company post on the 

lower Fraser River, indicate that eulachon were observed in the Fraser River on 28–29 April 

1828, 14 April 1829, and 4 May 1830 (MacLachlan 1998) (Appendix C). McHugh (1939) 

suggested that the presence of spent fish in the catch indicated that spawning may occur 

throughout the two-month period from early April until late May in the Fraser River. Hart and 

McHugh (1944) sampled eulachon on the Fraser River 12 April–19 May 1939 and 4 April–8 

May 1940. Ricker et al. (1954, p. 1) noted that historically the eulachon fishery operated in the 

Fraser River “between the middle of March and the middle of May, from the mouth of the river 

up to Mission and Matsqui.” More recently, Hay et al. (2002, p. 20) stated that eulachon enter 

the Fraser River “in late March and April to spawn” and Stables et al. (2005) recorded the capture 

of eulachon by trawl net in late April and early May of both 2001 and 2002. 

Kitimat River—In 1993 eulachon spawned in the lower 4 km of the Kitimat River 

March 20–30 (Pedersen et al. 1995). Peak spawning in 1997 occurred March 7–19 (Kelson 

1997). 

Kemano River—Lewis et al. (2002) reported that eulachon run timing in the Kemano 

River extended from late March to early April in 1980 and typically lasted from March 22 to 

April 10 between the years 1988 and 1998. Females entered the Kemano River in two distinct 

pulses separated in time by from several days up to 10 days (Lewis et al. 2002). Typically the 

run duration was about 15 days in the Kemano River, “ranging from 4 to 20 days” and “over the 

11 year study [1988–1998] there was a trend for the eulachon run to begin and end earlier” 

perhaps in “response to changing sea temperatures” (Lewis et al. 2002, p. 68). 

Skeena River—Adult eulachon were present in the Skeena River March 10–20, 1997 

(Lewis 1997). Historically, the Skeena River eulachon run was reported to occur between early 

February and late March (Lewis 1997). 

Nass River—Swan (1881) noted that two spawning runs of eulachon appear in the Nass 

River, one that normally begins between March 16 and 22, but sometimes occurs as late as 

March 28 to April 4, and a second run that enter the river towards the end of June. Langer et al. 

48
(1977, p. 45) verified that eulachon typically enter the Nass River in mid-March, peaking in late 

March, and the run may extend into mid-April and may consist of “two overlapping spawning 

waves.” 

Alaska 

Moffitt et al. (2002, p. 3) stated that “eulachon enter river systems from January through 

early July” in Alaska. Eulachon typically spawn in early April in the Taku River in Southeast 

Alaska and may migrate beneath river ice to reach the spawning grounds (Flory 2008b). Franzel 

and Nelson (1981) reported that the eulachon run in the Stikine River, Alaska, in 1979 and 1980 

occurred in early April soon after spring breakup and lasted for up to 3 to 4 weeks. Marston et 

al. (2002, p. 231) reported that eulachon spawning runs in 1995–1997 in the Antler and Berners 

rivers in Berners Bay in Southeast Alaska began between May 3–6 and lasted 10–12 days, 

“although spent fish or a few late spawners remained in the rivers until the end of May.” More 

recently, eulachon have spawned in mid to late April in Berners Bay rivers (Flory 2008a), 

spawning 26 April–14 May 2004 in the Antler River in particular (Eller and Hillgruber 2005). 

Chilkat and Chilkoot rivers—Krause (1885) indicated that two runs of eulachon 

occurred in the Chilkat River region of Southeast Alaska, a February run and a separate run in 

late April to mid-May. The later run was characterized as larger in both numbers and individual 

fish size (Krause 1885). Mills (1992, p. 8) stated that the main eulachon run occurred “between 

mid and late May” on the Chilkat River. Betts (1994, p. 19) reported that both the Chilkat and 

Chilkoot rivers supported two runs of eulachon, “a small run in February, and en masse most 

commonly in mid-May.” Eulachon harvest on the Chilkat River occurred 1–7 May 1990 and 6–

16 May 1991 (Betts 1994). On the nearby Chilkoot River, harvest occurred 6–9 May 1990 and 

9–16 May 1991 (Betts 1994). Betts (1994) also reported that salmon fishwheels on the Chilkat 

River caught eulachon 7 May–17 June 1991. Eulachon reportedly spawn in several rivers in the 

Yakutat region of Alaska in March to early June (Rogers et al. 1980). 

Copper River delta—Eulachon run timing in the Copper River, Alaska, and in nearby 

rivers of the Copper River delta is variable, and in many cases two runs separated by weeks to 

months have been observed in the same rivers (Moffitt et al. 2002, Joyce et al. 2004) (Table 

A-9). Eulachon were observed in the Eyak River on the western Copper River delta 16–23 June 

2002, but did not appear in Ibeck Creek in 2002, a tributary of the Eyak (Joyce et al. 2004). In 

2003 there were two separate eulachon runs observed in the Eyak River, February 15–22 and 

June 9–13. Eulachon were observed in the tributary Ibeck Creek 28 January–17 March 2001 

(Moffitt et al. 2002) and 15 February–1 March 2003 (Joyce et al. 2004). On the central Copper 

River delta, eulachon were present in Alaganik Slough as early as 9 February 2001 (Moffitt et al. 

2002), 9–16 June 2002, and during two periods in 2003, February 23–26 and May 29 to June 15 

(Joyce et al. 2004). In the Copper River itself, eulachon were present as early as May 19 and as 

late as May 24 at Flag Point Channel between 1998 and 2002, and the duration of the run lasted 

8–14 days (Moffitt et al. 2002). Eulachon were present at Flag Point 20 May–2 June 1998, 19–

28 May 2000, 19–30 May 2001, 24 May–6 June and 16–24 June in 2002, and 1–5 March and 

17–19 April 2003 (Joyce et al. 2004). Eulachon were also present at 37-mile Bridge on the 

Copper River 16–23 June 2003 (Joyce et al. 2004). 

49
Twentymile River—The eulachon run in the Twentymile River “spanned a period of 25 

days between May 13 and June 6” in 1976 (Kubik and Wadman 1977, p. 37) and “44 days from 

April 23 to June 5” in 1977 (Kubik and Wadman 1978, p. 54) (Table A-9). Spangler (2002) and 

Spangler et al. (2003) cited an additional 7 years of observations in the Twentymile River where 

the spawn period ranged 18–54 days. Eulachon were captured in the Twentymile River by dip 

nets 4 May–21 June and 17 April–9 June in 2000 and 2001 (Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 

2003). Spangler (2002, p. 27) stated that “the eulachon run lasts over a longer period of time in 

the Twentymile River than in any other river for which data are available.” In contrast, other 

researchers have stated that the duration of eulachon spawning migrations decreases from south 

to north (Hart and McHugh 1944, Scott and Crossman 1973). 

Susitna River—Based on the presence of adults, two runs of eulachon were observed on 

the Susitna River in Southcentral Alaska in 1982 (May 16–30 and June 1–8) and 1983 (May 10–

17 and May 19 to June 8) (Barrett et al. 1984, Vincent-Lang and Queral 1984). Initial eulachon 

run timing likely precedes these early dates for the first run, as fish were present as soon as 

sampling was possible following ice breakup in both years (Vincent-Lang and Queral 1984). 

Actual spawning occurred on the Susitna River May 21–31 and June 4–9 in 1982, and May 15–

22 and May 23 to June 5 in 1983 (Barrett et al. 1984). 

Multiple spawning runs 

A number of rivers are reported to have two or even more separate spawning runs of 

eulachon, including the Chilkat River (Krause 1885, Betts 1994), Chilkoot River (Betts 1994), 

Copper River (Moffitt et al. 2002, Joyce et al. 2004), and Susitna River (Vincent-Lang and 

Queral 1984) in Alaska, and the Nass River (Swan 1881, Langer et al. 1977) and Kingcome 

River (Berry and Jacob 1998) in British Columbia. Based on adult run timing, Langer et al. 

(1977) suggested there could be up to three waves of spawning on the Nass River. Berry and 

Jacob (1998, p. 4) reported that there appeared to be four waves of eulachon spawning activity in 

the Kingcome River, British Columbia, in 1997, “with peaks on April 2, April 15, April 21, and 

May 2.” There may also have been an earlier eulachon spawning event in March and a later one 

in early June in the Kingcome River (Berry and Jacob 1998), based on the presence of eggs and 

larvae; however, experience in other river systems raises the possibility that some of these eggs 

and larvae may have been confused with those of sculpins (cottids) (Kelson 1997). Indications 

of eulachon spawning in May and June, based on egg and larval presence, in the Kitimat 

(Pedersen et al. 1995), Skeena (Lewis 1997), and other rivers on the central and north coast of 

British Columbia are suspect, due to the presence of sculpin larvae in these rivers that may have 

been misidentified as eulachon larvae (Kelson 1997). 

Semelparity versus Iteroparity 

Numerous references (McPhail and Lindsey 1970, Hart 1973, Scott and Crossman 1973, 

Samis 1977, Garrison and Miller 1982, Lewis et al. 2002) cite Barraclough (1964) as evidence 

that eulachon may be iteroparous. In fact, Barraclough (1964, p. 1,337) noted that the presence 

of dead eulachon found in the Columbia and Fraser rivers indicates many die after spawning. 

The evidence in Barraclough (1964, p. 1,337) that eulachon may be iteroparous occurs in the 

statement that: “spent eulachon in good condition caught by trawlers in the Strait of Georgia off 

the mouth of the Fraser River suggest that some eulachon recover after spawning, and may 

50
spawn a second time.” However, it is uncertain whether the spent eulachon observed at the 

mouth of the Fraser River, as reported by Barraclough (1964), recovered and lived long enough 

to spawn in a subsequent season. Some additional secondary sources indicate that some 

eulachon are iteroparous (WDFW and ODFW 2001, Mecklenburg et al. 2002, LCFRB 2004b). 

According to WDFW and ODFW (2001, p. 4), “although adults can repeatedly spawn, most die 

after spawning.” Mecklenburg et al. (2002, p. 175) stated that “most [eulachon] die after 

spawning, but some survive to spawn once more.” 

Earlier authorities (McHugh 1939, Hart and McHugh 1944, Clemens and Wilby 1946, 

Ricker et al. 1954, Smith and Saalfeld 1955) reported that eulachon were semelparous (spawn 

once in their lifetime and die soon after spawning). McHugh (1939) and Hart and McHugh 

(1944) noted that the outer edge of the scales in spawning eulachon in the Fraser River were 

resorbed and showed a characteristic clear margin. This region of the scale is commonly called a 

spawning mark or spawning check. However, these authors found no eulachon with a previous 

year’s spawning check and “concluded that none of the fish examined had spawned in a previous 

year” (McHugh 1939, p. 21). Similarly, Langer et al. (1977, p. 39) stated that “since no 

spawning checks were noted on any scales from the Nass River, repeat spawning is probably 

minor or nonexistent on the Nass.” Eulachon in the Kemano River also showed no evidence of 

spawning checks on the otoliths (Lewis et al. 2002). Smith and Saalfeld (1955, p. 25) reported 

that: 

All available evidence indicates that smelt die after one spawning. In all 

spawning studies where live smelt were allowed to spawn in the confines of [a] 

hatchery trough, death followed extrusion of the spawn. In addition, commercial 

fisherman, who fish in the Columbia River after the smelt run, report the 

tremendous abundance of dead smelt on the river bottom. 

The evidence is strong that most, if not all, eulachon in the southern portion of the range 

(south of about 54°N latitude) are semelparous (Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 2002, Hay et al. 

2002, 2003), “although there may be some iteroparity (survive spawning) at higher latitudes, in 

Alaska” (Hay et al. 2003, p. 2). Hay et al. (2002, 2003) presented three lines of evidence for 

semelparity in eulachon from British Columbia: 1) direct observation of postspawning mortality 

in the form of beached and floating carcasses in many rivers, 2) only eulachon with well 

developed teeth are found at sea, whereas all spawning eulachon observed in the Fraser River 

have undergone substantial tooth loss and resorption, and 3) the largest size class of eulachon in 

British Columbia are found in rivers during the spawning runs and are much larger than any 

eulachon caught anywhere in the nearby ocean. However, retention of teeth in significant 

numbers of spawning eulachon in the Twentymile River, Alaska (Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 

2003), indicates that some of these fish may survive spawning, return to the sea, and begin 

feeding again. Teeth retention rates in spawning eulachon in the Twentymile River were 84% 

and 97% for females, and 3% and 32% for males in 2000 and 2001, respectively (Spangler 2002, 

Spangler et al. 2003). 

Although age determination in eulachon has not been validated (see above discussion in 

the Age Composition subsection, p. 35), Lewis et al. (2002) examined age composition as 

estimated from otolith increments of prespawning eulachon captured in a fishery and 

postspawning carcasses on the Kemano River and reported that the carcass sample had: 

51
a greater proportion of fish age 5 years [than did the prespawning sample] (31% 

versus 21%) and a lower proportion age 3 (18% versus 41%) and 4 years (51% 

versus 38%). Based on these data, we reject the null hypothesis that Kemano 

River eulachon are semelparous. 

However, Clarke et al. (2007) reported that the pattern of seasonal oscillations in barium and 

calcium deposited in eulachon otoliths (see discussion in Age Composition subsection on page 

36) and the lack of a freshwater strontium signal in otoliths of spawners indicate that eulachon 

are semelparous. Comparison of length frequencies of eulachon at sea and in the Kemano River 

also indicate that Kemano River eulachon are semelparous, and are estimated to spawn at age 3 

(Clarke et al. 2007). Otoliths of eulachon that had spawned in freshwater in a previous season 

would be expected to show a corresponding decrease in the strontium to calcium ratio 

representative of this time spent in freshwater; however, this was not evident in otolith samples 

from any of five river systems (Clarke et al. 2007). Strontium to calcium ratios are much higher 

in bony structures of fish secreted while in the marine compared to freshwater environment, have 

been used to detect migration of fish between these two environments in many studies, and can 

detect exposure to freshwater conditions of as little as 6 hours. This study “supports the 

hypothesis that [eulachon] are semelparous” (Clarke et al. 2007, p. 1,490). 

Spawn Behavior 

Selection of spawn substrate 

Eulachon eggs were reportedly preferentially laid on sand in both the Fraser (McHugh 

1940, Hay et al. 2002) and Nass rivers (Langer et al. 1977). Eggs were primarily found attached 

to pea-sized gravel and only secondarily on sand in the Columbia River (Smith and Saalfeld 

1955). Eggs laid in areas of silt or organic debris reportedly suffer much higher mortality than 

those laid over sand or gravel (Langer et al. 1977). Although eulachon eggs are most commonly 

laid on a sand substrate, eggs have been found on silt, gravel to cobble–sized rock, and organic 

detritus (Smith and Saalfeld 1955, Langer et al. 1977, Vincent-Lang and Queral 1984, Lewis et 

al. 2002). 

Estuary spawning 

Based on movements of adult eulachon tracked with gastrically implanted radio tags in 

the Twentymile River, Spangler (2002) and Spangler et al. (2003) speculated that a portion of the 

eulachon population in this river may have spawned in the estuary. Some tagged fish moved in 

and out of the lower river and did not move upstream of the tagging site. Spangler et al. (2003, 

p. 52) stated that “if fish are capable of spawning in the estuary, larval sampling [and thus 

abundance estimation methodology] could be missing a segment of the population leading to 

erroneous results.” However, Armstrong and Hermans (2007, p. 4) cite an unpublished study 

indicating that eulachon egg survival is reduced on exposure to salinities of 16 ppt and greater, 

and thus successful spawning in estuarine salinities greater than this is unlikely. 

Spawn migration 

According to Spangler et al. (2003, p. 2), “There are no consistently reported 

environmental factors known to influence spawning run timing of adult eulachon throughout 

52
their range.” These factors include water temperature, tide height, and river discharge rates 

(Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003). However, both water temperature and river discharge rate 

are cited as factors that may initiate upriver migration of eulachon in local river basins (Ricker et 

al. 1954, Smith and Saalfeld 1955, Langer et al. 1977). 

Spawn temperature 

It is apparent that “the temperature at which eulachon spawning runs commence varies by 

geographic area” (Spangler 2002, p. 71); however, a clear pattern is not readily discernible. 

Columbia River eulachon are reported to spawn at temperatures between 4oC and 10oC and that 

the spawning migration is inhibited at temperatures less than 4oC (WDFW and ODFW 2001). In 

2001, most eulachon avoided the Columbia River until mid-February when the temperature rose 

above 4oC (Howell et al. 2001). Spawning in the Fraser River reportedly occurs “at temperatures 

exceeding 6 or 7oC whereas temperatures in northern rivers, which sometimes are ice covered 

during spawning, are much lower” (Hay et al. 2003, p. 2). Mean, minimum, and maximum 

water temperatures during spawning in the Kemano River in March-April between 1992 and 

1998 were 3.1oC, 1.1oC, and 6.5oC, respectively (Lewis et al. 2002). Langer et al. (1977, p. 18) 

reported that “1971 temperature records from the Nass [River] indicated that peak [eulachon] 

migration was occurring at temperatures as low as 0–1°C.” During the 8-day peak eulachon 

migration in the Nass River in 1971, the mean daily water temperature ranged from 0.3 to 2.0°C 

(Langer et al. 1977, their Table 6). Temperature at the onset of the eulachon run in the 

Twentymile River, Alaska, ranged 2.8–6.0°C (Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003); however, 

over the entire spawning run temperatures varied “from 1.6°C to 12.7°C in 2000 and from 0.5°C 

to 10.7°C in 2001” (Spangler et al. 2003, p. 28). Eulachon spawned in the Susitna River, Alaska, 

in 1982 and 1983 when temperatures ranged about 6–11°C (Barrett et al. 1984, Vincent-Lang 

and Queral 1984). 

Spawning under ice 

Swan (1881, p. 260) stated that eulachon arrive in the Nass River “about the time the ice 

begins to break up” and that in “some years the ice remains solid until after the fish are caught, in 

which case holes have to be cut in the ice to put down the nets.” Langer et al. (1977, p. 43) 

documented this under-ice eulachon fishery on the Nass River in 1969 and stated that “adult 

migration occurs at colder river temperatures than previously recorded.” Hay and McCarter 

(2000) also noted that spawning may occur under the ice in some northern British Columbia 

rivers. Eulachon reportedly migrate, and presumably spawn, under the ice on the Unuk River in 

Southeast Alaska, and this under-ice migratory behavior may have also occurred in the past on 

the Twentymile River in Southcentral Alaska (Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003). Flory 

(2008b) reported that in April 2006 on the Taku River in Southeast Alaska, “eulachon schools 

were observed up river [before ice break up], indicating the fish moved underneath the ice [to] 

access spawning grounds (E. Jones, pers. comm.).” 

Spawning at night or under low light levels 

Several authors indicate that eulachon mainly spawn at night (Smith and Saalfeld 1955, 

Parente and Snyder 1970, Lewis 1997) or under low light conditions (Spangler 2002), and this 

has been suggested as possible predator avoidance behavior (Spangler et al. 2003). Smith and 

53
Saalfeld (1955) reported that captive eulachon always deposited eggs at night, and when partially 

spent eulachon were captured at night in the Cowlitz River, freshly deposited eggs were sampled 

on the river bottom the next morning. Lewis et al. (2002, p. 74) reported that “female eulachon 

migrated into the [Kemano] river to spawn in darkness on high tides, retreating by day to the 

lower river” and that egg drift was greatest at night in the Kemano River. 

Tidal level during spawning 

Periods of low river discharge and high tides are associated with peak adult eulachon 

migration in both the Nass River, British Columbia (Langer et al. 1977), and the Twentymile 

River, Alaska (Spangler 2002, Spangler et al. 2003). Higgins et al. (1987, p. 6) were unable to 

discriminate between interacting effects of light and tide on eulachon migration in the Fraser 

River but did note that fishing success was best “at dusk on the high slack tide.” Lewis et al. 

(2002) also suggested that eulachon spawning may be tied to nighttime high tides, and noted that 

“higher tides reduced water velocity, allowing eulachon to swim further upstream.” 

Flow velocity and depth during spawning 

In the Kemano River, British Columbia, eulachon preferred water velocities from 0.1 to 

0.7 m/s (Lewis et al. 2002). Earlier studies on Kemano eulachon indicated that many eulachon 

are unable to maintain long-term position in the stream at flow velocities greater than 0.3 m/s 

(Lewis et al. 2002). In the Susitna River, Alaska, “water velocities ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 feet/s 

[0.2–0.8 m/s] are most commonly utilized for spawning” (Vincent-Lang and Queral 1984, p. 5). 

McHugh (1940) found the heaviest concentration of eulachon eggs in the Fraser River at 

a depth of 25 feet (7.6 m). Likewise, Langer et al. (1977) reported eggs to be more abundant at 

depths greater than 4 m than in shallower waters in the Nass River, British Columbia. In the 

Columbia River, larval eulachon were recovered in waters from 3 inches (0.1 m) to more than 20 

feet (6.1 m) in depth and spent adults have been caught as deep as 75 feet (22.9 m) (Smith and 

Saalfeld 1955). However, eulachon may live long enough after spawning to be swept far 

downstream from the spawning grounds, so the presence of spent eulachon may not indicate that 

spawning occurred in the vicinity. In the Kemano River, British Columbia, eulachon preferred 

depths between 0.5 and 2.3 m, but used available habitat from 0.2 to more than 4 m in depth 

(Lewis et al. 2002). In the Susitna River, Alaska, “depths ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 feet [0.2–0.9 

m] are most commonly utilized for spawning” (Vincent-Lang and Queral 1984, p. 5). 

Trophic Interactions 

Diet 

Larval and juvenile eulachon are planktivorous (WDFW and ODFW 2001). Barraclough 

(1967) and Robinson et al. (1968b) examined stomach contents of larval (5–15 mm FL) eulachon 

caught in surface trawls in the Strait of Georgia in early June of 1966 and 1967, respectively. 

Although 5–8 mm FL larvae still possessed a yolk sac, larvae as small as 6 mm FL had fed on 

copepod nauplii. Other stomach contents of larval (≤15 mm FL) eulachon in the Strait of 

Georgia included phytoplankton, centric diatoms, copepod metanauplii, copepod eggs, barnacle 

54
eggs, rotifers, cladocerans (Podon sp.), ostracods, and polychaete larvae (Barraclough 1967, 

Robinson et al. 1968b). 

Barraclough (1967), Barraclough and Fulton (1967), and Robinson et al. (1968a, 1968b) 

examined stomach contents of postlarval and juvenile (20–69 mm FL) eulachon caught in 

surface trawls in the Strait of Georgia in early June 1966, July 1966, May 1967, and June 1967. 

Stomach contents of eulachon in the Strait of Georgia included phytoplankton, barnacle eggs, 

barnacle nauplii, copepod eggs, copepod nauplii, copepods (Pseudocalanus sp., Acartia 

longiremis, Acartia sp., Microcalanus pygmaeus, Calanus sp.), cladocerans, ostracods, mysiids, 

larvaceans (Oikopleura sp.), and in one case a larval eulachon (Barraclough 1967, Barraclough 

and Fulton 1967, Robinson et al. 1968a, 1968b). Larger specimens of eulachon (91–157 mm 

FL) collected in the Strait of Georgia had consumed barnacle eggs, copepods (Pseudocalanus

sp., Acartia longiremis, Calanus sp.), cladocerans, and gammaridean amphipods (Robinson et al. 

1968a, 1968b). 

Smith and Saalfeld (1955, p. 12) stated that the only recognizable prey found in stomachs 

of adult eulachon captured off Washington in 1948 were abundant “remains of the cumacean, 

Cumacea dawsoni.” Other authorities have reported that juvenile and adult eulachon eat 

primarily “euphausiids and copepods” (Hart 1973, p. 149) or “euphausiids, crustaceans, and 

cumaceans” (Scott and Crossman 1973, p. 323). Hay (2002, p. 100) stated that “eulachon 

stomachs from offshore waters indicate that [they] mainly consume the euphausiid Thysanoessa 

spinifera.” Yang et al. (2006) examined the stomach contents of 39 eulachon from a single haul 

in the Gulf of Alaska in 2001 that ranged in size from 160 to 210 mm FL. Food items and their 

percent of total stomach content weight included mysids (2.7%), cumaceans (2.1%), hyperiid 

amphipods (5.9%), the euphausiid T. inermis (25.8%), other euphausiids (40.8%), larvaceans 

(1.7%), teleost fish (13.8%), undetermined fish remains (2.6%), and unidentified material (4.6%) 

(Yang et al. 2006). 

Predators 

Marine mammals 

Numerous pinnipeds prey on eulachon both at sea and during eulachon spawning runs, 

including: 1) Stellar sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) (Beach et al. 1981, 1985, Jeffries 1984, Bigg 

1988, Marston et al. 2002, Womble 2003, Sigler et al. 2004, Womble and Sigler 2006, Womble 

et al. 2005, 2009), 2) California sea lions (Beach et al. 1981, 1985, Bowlby 1981, Jeffries 1984), 

3) northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) (Clemens et al. 1936, Spalding 1964, Antonelis and 

Fiscus 1980, Antonelis and Perez 1984), and 4) harbor seals (Fisher 1947, 1952, Spalding 1964, 

Pitcher 1980, Beach et al. 1981, 1985, Bowlby 1981, Jeffries 1984, Roffe and Mate 1984, 

Olesiuk 1993, Marston et al. 2002). Other nonpinniped marine mammal predators on eulachon 

include baleen whales, beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) (Moore et al. 2000, Rugh et al. 

2000, Speckman and Piatt 2000), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) (Marston et al. 

2002, Witteveen et al. 2004), killer whales (Orcinus orca), harbor porpoises (Phocoena 

phocoena) (Jeffries 1984), Dall’s porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli) (Kajimura et al. 1980, Stroud et 

al. 1981, Jeffries 1984), and white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhyncus obliquidens) (Morton 2000). 

55
Birds 

Numerous authors (WDFW and ODFW 2001, Spangler 2002, Willson and Marston 2002, 

Marston et al. 2002, Maggiulli et al. 2006) report large numbers of gulls (Larus spp.), terns 

(Sterna spp.), ducks (Anatidae), bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), shorebirds 

(Scolopacidae), corvids, and other birds feeding on live and dead eulachon during spawning 

events. Documented bird predators on spawning aggregations of eulachon in various river 

systems are summarized in Table A-10. 

Ormseth et al. (2008, their Table 2) listed the estimates of eulachon contribution to 

seabird diets (percent weight of eulachon in the predator’s diet) based on a mass-balance 

ecosystem model derived from predator diet data in the Gulf of Alaska for the following birds: 

kittiwakes (Rissa spp.) (4.3%), murres (Uria spp.) (3.0%), puffins (Fratercula spp.) (6.1%), 

cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.) (3.0%), gulls (Larus spp.) (8.2%), shearwaters (Puffinus spp.) 

(5.0%), and albatross/jaeger (3.5%). 

Fish 

Numerous fish species have been recorded as consuming eulachon, including spiny 

dogfish (Squalus acanthias) (Chatwin and Forrester 1953, Jones and Geen 1977), green sturgeon 

(Acipenser medirostris) (Fry 1979), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) (Hart 1949, Yang 1993, 

Yang and Nelson 2000, Yang et al. 2006), walleye pollock (Yang 1993, Yang and Nelson 2000, 

Yang et al. 2006), Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) (Scott and Crossman 1973, Yang 

1993, Yang and Nelson 2000, Yang et al. 2006), sablefish (Yang 1993, Buckley et al. 1999, 

Yang and Nelson 2000, Yang et al. 2006), Pacific hake (Alton and Nelson 1970, Outram and 

Haegele 1972, Livingston 1983, McFarlane and Beamish 1985, Rexstad and Pikitch 1986, 

Buckley and Livingston 1997, Buckley et al. 1999), rougheye rockfish (Sebastes aleutianus) 

(Yang and Nelson 2000), and arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias) (Kabata and Forrester 

1974, Yang 1993, Buckley et al. 1999, Yang and Nelson 2000, Yang et al. 2006). 

Larval and juvenile eulachon have also been reported to be the occasional prey of Pacific 

herring, surf smelt, Pacific sand lance, kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus), threespine 

stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Chinook salmon (O. 

tshawytscha), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), coho salmon (O. kisutch), chum salmon (O. keta), and 

pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) salmon in the Strait of Georgia (Barraclough 1967, Barraclough and 

Fulton 1967, Robinson et al. 1968b). Juvenile white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) in the 

Columbia River are known to consume large quantities of eulachon eggs during spawning events 

(McCabe et al. 1993). Marston et al. (2002) reported that coho salmon and Dolly Varden 

(Salvelinus malma) may also feed on eulachon eggs and larvae. In addition, juvenile eulachon 

may occasionally consume larval eulachon (Barraclough 1967, p. 26). 

Other predators 

Marston et al. (2002) noted that terrestrial mammals such as bears (Ursus spp.), wolves 

(Canis lupus), river otters (Lontra canadensis), and mink (Mustela vison) likely prey on 

eulachon either during or after spawning events. 

56
Parasites 

Compilations of parasites and fish hosts in British Columbia (Margolis and Arthur 1979, 

Kabata 1988, McDonald and Margolis 1995, Gibson 1996) listed two trematodes (Pronoprymna 

petrowi and Lecithaster gibbosus), a cestode (Phyllobothrium sp.), a nematode (Contracaecum

sp.), and a parasitic pennellid copepod (Haemobaphes disphaerocephalus) as known parasites on 

eulachon. The trematode L. gibbosus was found in stomachs of juvenile eulachon collected in 

the Strait of Georgia with 29–59 mm FL (Robinson et al. 1968a, 1968b, Barraclough 1967). 

Similarly, the trematode P. petrowi was found in the stomachs of juvenile eulachon collected in 

the Strait of Georgia with 32–38 mm FL (Barraclough 1967). Arai (1967, 1969) reported the 

trematode L. gibbosus, a larval cestode Phyllobothrium sp, and a larval nematode Contracaecum

sp. in eulachon from Burke Channel, an inlet on the south mainland coast of British Columbia. 

Hoskins et al. (1976) reported the occurrence of the parasitic copepod Haemobaphes diceraus on 

a eulachon host, from Port Hardy on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Kabata (1988) and 

McDonald and Margolis (1995) described another pennellid copepod (H. disphaerocephalus) as 

parasitic on eulachon from British Columbia. Kabata (1988) noted that the report of H. diceraus 

infecting eulachon by Hoskins et al. (1976) occurred before H. disphaerocephalus was described 

as a separate species. The pennellid copepods in the genus Haemobaphes attach themselves 

headfirst to the bulbous arteriosus of the host fish with the body protruding from the gill arch 

(McDonald and Margolis 1995). 

Information Relating to the Species Question 

Approaches to Addressing Discreteness and Significance 

The BRT considered several kinds of information to delineate potential DPS structure in 

eulachon. To address the discreteness criteria, the BRT primarily considered patterns of genetic 

variation among eulachon sampled from various locations along the coast, patterns of variation 

in life history and morphology, and ecological and environmental differences between eulachon 

populations. Comparison of spawning distribution, spawn timing, meristic variation in vertebral 

counts, elemental analysis of otoliths, and genetic variation have also been cited as evidence for 

stock discrimination in eulachon (Hay and McCarter 2000, Beacham et al. 2005, Hay and 

Beacham 2005). For the significance criteria, the BRT focused primarily on ecological 

differences among populations and on whether loss of such populations would create a 

significant gap in the range of the species. 

Life history and morphology 

Isolation between populations may be reflected in several variables, including differences 

in life history variables (e.g., spawning timing, seasonal migrations), spawning location, parasite 

incidence, growth rates, morphological variability (e.g., morphometric and meristic traits), and 

demography (e.g., fecundity, age structure, length and age at maturity, mortality rates), among 

others. Although some of these traits may have a genetic basis, they are usually also strongly 

influenced by environmental factors over the lifetime of an individual or over a few generations. 

Differences can arise among populations in response to environmental variability among areas 

and can sometimes be used to infer the degree of independence among populations or 

subpopulations. Begg et al. (1999) have emphasized the necessity to examine the temporal 

57
stability of life history characteristics in order to determine whether differences between 

populations persist across generations. 

Persistence of spawn location and spawn timing 

Eulachon generally spawn in rivers that are glacier fed or have peak spring freshets. It 

has been argued that the rapid movement of eggs and larvae by these freshets to estuaries makes 

it likely that eulachon imprint and home to an estuary into which several rivers drain rather than 

to individual spawning rivers (McCarter and Hay 1999, Hay and McCarter 2000). Thus the 

estuary has been invoked as the likely geographic stock unit for eulachon (McCarter and Hay 

1999, 2003, Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 2002, Hay and Beacham 2005) (Table A-1). 

Variation in spawn timing among rivers has been cited as indicative of local adaptation in 

eulachon (Hay and McCarter 2000), although the wide overlap in spawn timing and river entry 

timing among rivers makes it difficult to discern distinctive geographic patterns in this trait. In 

general, eulachon spawn earlier in southern portions of their range than in rivers to the north. 

River entry and spawning begins as early as December and January in the Columbia River 

system and as late as June in Southcentral Alaska (Table A-9, Figure 5, and Figure 6). However, 

they have been known to spawn as early as January in rivers on the Copper River delta of Alaska 

and as late as May in northern California. The general spawn timing pattern is reversed along 

the coast of British Columbia, where the earliest spawning occurs in the Nass River in the far 

north in February to early March and the latest spawning occurs in the Fraser River in April and 

May in the far south (Table A-9, Figure 5). There is also some evidence that different waves or 

runs of eulachon may occur in some basins, based on run-time separation (Table A-9). 

These differences in spawn timing result in some populations spawning when water 

temperatures are as low as 0–2°C, and sometimes under ice (Nass River, Langer et al. 1977), 

whereas other populations experience spawning temperatures of 4–7°C (Cowlitz River, Smith 

and Saalfeld 1955) (Table A-11). 

Morphology 

Differences in the mean number of vertebrae in eulachon from northern and southern 

rivers in British Columbia have been cited as indicative of population separation (Hart and 

McHugh 1944, Hay and McCarter 2000), although no differences were evident in population 

means between the Fraser and Columbia rivers (Hay and McCarter 2000) (Figure 7). However, 

meristic differences such as these can vary with environmental conditions and it is impossible to 

determine the underlying causes of these differences from the available data. It has often been 

shown that the number of vertebrae formed during early development is subject to modification 

by temperature such that the average vertebral number in fish populations is greater in the 

northern versus the southern portion of the range and the mean vertebral number in a population 

may also vary from year to year within a population (McHugh 1954, Waldman 2005). In 

addition, morphometric and meristic differences between groups of fish are often subtle and 

relating such differences to a specific degree of isolation among populations can be difficult. 

58
Year

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965

Number of vertebrae

66.5

67.0

67.5

68.0

68.5

69.0

69.5

70.0

70.5

Fraser River

Knight and Kingcome inlets 

Rivers Inlet 

Nass River 

Cowlitz River 

Columbia River 

Sandy River 

Kalama River 

Elochoman River 

Chignik Lake, Alaska 

Figure 7. Comparison of mean and standard deviations of eulachon vertebral counts in various rivers. 

Data from DeLacy and Batts (1963) for the Columbia River, its tributaries, and Chignik Lake. 

Data from Hart and McHugh (1944) for rivers in British Columbia. 

Coastwide, there appears to be an increase in both mean length and weight of eulachon at 

maturity with an increase in latitude (Table A-7, Table A-8, and Figure 8). Mean eulachon fork 

length and weight at maturity range from upwards of 215 mm and 70 g in the Twentymile River 

in Alaska to 175 mm and 37 g in the Columbia River. Although eulachon obtain a larger body 

size in the northern portion of their range compared to populations in the south, this relationship 

may be somewhat obscured by problems associated with the ageing of this species (Hay and 

McCarter 2000). Most Pacific herring also exhibit a latitudinal cline in mean size-at-age, such 

that Pacific herring in southern locations (e.g., California) exhibit small size and Pacific herring 

in the north (e.g., Bering Sea) obtain a far larger size at a similar age (Stout et al. 2001a, 

Gustafson et al. 2006). This pattern is typical of many vertebrate ectotherms where higher 

rearing temperatures result in reduced size at a given stage of development (Lindsey 1966, 

Atkinson 1994). 

Otolith chemistry 

Hay and McCarter (2000) and Hay and Beacham (2005) reported on attempts to use 

differences in the elemental makeup of eulachon otoliths (earbones) to detect stock structure 

among various rivers on the coast of British Columbia. Significant variation occurred in the 

elemental analysis associated with the date of the laboratory elemental analysis. Despite these 

sources of potential error, the results indicated that there were differences in the elemental 

59
Mean fork length (mm)

160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Mean weight (g)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Twentymile River 

Eyak River 

Ibeck Creek 

Aleganik Slough 

Copper River 

Stikine River 

Skeena River 

Kitimat River 

Kemano River 

Fraser River 

Elwha River 

Columbia River 

Figure 8. Length-weight relationship of eulachon from various rivers. Standard linear regressions fit the 

data to lines for each population that has multiple observations. Standard lengths and total 

lengths have been converted to fork length using equations published in Buchheister and Wilson 

(2005). 

composition of eulachon otoliths over a broad geographic range, but that “elemental analysis was 

not useful to distinguish between closely adjacent stocks” (Hay and Beacham 2005, p. 10). 

Age composition 

Age determination of eulachon has been difficult to validate and estimates of age based 

on otolith or scale increments may not be accurate (Ricker et al. 1954, Hay and McCarter 2000). 

However, in general, studies using otolith aging techniques have concluded that some eulachon 

spawn at age 2 or age 5, but most are age 2 or age 3 at spawning (Willson et al. 2006). Recently,

Clarke et al. (2007) pioneered a method to estimate eulachon age at spawning from analysis of 

variations in barium and calcium in the otoliths. This study indicated that age structure of 

spawners in the southern areas may be limited to one, or at most, two year classes (Clarke et al. 

2007). According to Clarke et al. (2007): 

The number of Ba:Ca peaks measured in the eulachon populations varied; 

eulachon captured in Barkley Sound, located off the west coast of Vancouver 

Island (ocean), had 1.5 and 2.5 peaks, Fraser River eulachon were all 

characterized by 3 peaks, and Columbia River eulachon exhibited 2 or 3 peaks. 

All of the fish in the Kemano and Skeena rivers examined were characterized by 3 

peaks in Ba:Ca with the exception of two Skeena River fish that had 4 peaks. 

Fish collected from the Copper River in Alaska had 3 or 4 peaks. The number of 

60
peaks in Ba:Ca observed in eulachon otoliths increased with increasing latitude, 

suggesting that the age at maturity is older for northern populations. 

Genetic differentiation 

The analysis of the geographical distribution of genetic variation is a powerful method of 

identifying discrete populations. In addition, such analysis can sometimes be used to estimate 

historical dispersals, equilibrium levels of migration (gene flow), and past isolation. Commonly 

used molecular genetic markers include protein variants (allozymes), microsatellite loci (variable 

numbers of short tandem DNA repeats), and mtDNA. 

One widely used method of population analysis is sequence or restriction fragment length 

polymorphism (RFLP) analysis of mtDNA, which codes for several genes that are not found in 

the cell nucleus. mtDNA differs from nuclear DNA (nDNA) in two ways. One way is that 

recombination is lacking in mtDNA, so that gene combinations (haplotypes) are passed unaltered 

from one generation to the next, except for new mutations. A second way is that mtDNA is 

inherited from only the maternal parent in most fishes, so that gene phylogenies correspond to 

female lineages. These characteristics permit phylogeographical analyses of mtDNA haplotypes, 

which can potentially indicate dispersal pathways for females and the extent of gene flow 

between populations (Avise et al. 1987). Although the lack of recombination allows for some 

types of analysis that are difficult to conduct with other markers (e.g., microsatellites), inferences 

of population structure (or lack thereof) from mtDNA are limited by the fact that the entire 

mitochondrial genome is inherited genetically as a single locus. Mitochondrial studies are 

therefore most useful for detecting deep patterns of population structure, and may not be very 

powerful for detecting structure among closely related populations. 

Microsatellite DNA markers can potentially detect stock structure on finer spatial and 

temporal scales than can other DNA or protein markers, because of higher levels of 

polymorphism found in microsatellite DNA (reflecting a high mutation rate). Relatively high 

levels of variation can increase the statistical power to detect stock structure, particularly among 

closely related populations. In addition, microsatellite studies usually involve analysis of 

multiple genetic loci, which increases the power to detect differentiation among populations. 

The BRT reviewed four published genetic studies of genetic population structure in 

eulachon. One of these studies (McLean et al. 1999) used RFLP analysis to examine variation in 

mtDNA. The other studies (McLean and Taylor 2001, Kaukinen et al. 2004, Beacham et al. 

2005) analyzed microsatellite loci. Additional detail on two of these studies can be found in 

McLean (1999). 

McLean et al. (1999) examined mtDNA variation in two fragments (each containing two 

genes NADH-5/NADH-6 and 12S/16S rRNA) in 285 eulachon samples collected at 11 

freshwater sites ranging from the Columbia River to Cook Inlet, Alaska, and also in 29 oceancaught fish captured in the Bering Sea. Samples were taken at two sites (Columbia and Cowlitz 

rivers) in two years and all other locations were sampled in single years. Overall, 37 mtDNA 

composite haplotypes were observed in the study. Two haplotypes were found in all sampling 

locations and together accounted for approximately 67% of the samples in the study. Eight 

61
additional haplotypes were present at multiple sites and the remaining 27 haplotypes were 

“private” (found only in one location). 

An analysis of the nucleotide substitutions separating the 37 haplotypes revealed that the 

haplotypes were all closely related, with the number of substitutions ranging between 1 and 13. 

The mtDNA haplotypes clustered into two major groups and the frequencies of the two 

haplotype groups differed among sampling sites, particularly in the Alaska and Bering Sea 

collections compared to samples from further south, although these differences were not 

statistically significant. Approximately 97% of mtDNA variation occurs within populations and 

about 2% is found among regions (FST = 0.023). McLean et al. (1999) also found that genetic 

distance among sampling locations was correlated with geographic distance (r2 = 0.22, P = 

0.0001). Based on these results, McLean et al. (1999) concluded that there was little genetic 

differentiation among distinct freshwater locations throughout the eulachon range. However, 

McLean et al. (1999) noted that association of geographic distance and genetic differentiation 

among eulachon populations suggested an emerging population subdivision throughout the range 

of the species. 

In a later study, McLean and Taylor (2001) used five microsatellite loci to examine 

variation in the same set of populations as McLean et al. (1999). The populations in the 

Columbia and Cowlitz rivers were represented by 2 years of samples with a total sample size of 

60 fish from each river. However, several populations were represented by very few samples 

including just 5 fish from the 3 rivers in Gardner Canal and just 10 fish from the Fraser River. 

Results from a hierarchical analysis of molecular variance test were similar to that of the 

McLean et al. (1999) mtDNA study, with 0.85% of variation occurring among large regions and 

3.75% among populations within regions. 

Tests of differentiation were significant among several pairs of populations in the 

microsatellite study (27% of tests after correction for multiple comparisons), particularly 

comparisons that included populations in the Columbia and Cowlitz rivers and those with the 

Nass River sample and samples taken further south. FST (a commonly used metric to evaluate 

population subdivision) was estimated as 0.047 when sample sites were considered separately, 

and was significantly different from zero. In contrast to the mtDNA analysis, genetic distances 

among populations using these five microsatellite loci were not correlated with geographic 

distances. Overall, however, McLean and Taylor (2001) concluded that their microsatellite 

results were mostly consistent with the mtDNA findings of McLean et al. (1999) and that both 

studies indicated that eulachon have some degree of population structure. 

The most extensive study of eulachon, in terms of sample size and number of loci 

examined, is that of Beacham et al. (2005). Beacham et al. (2005) examined microsatellite DNA 

variation in eulachon collected at 9 sites ranging from the Columbia River to Cook Inlet, Alaska, 

using the 14 loci developed by Kaukinen et al. (2004). Sample sizes per site ranged from 74 fish 

in the Columbia River to 421 from the Fraser River. Samples collected in multiple years were 

analyzed from populations in the Bella Coola and Kemano rivers (2 years of sampling) and also 

in the Nass River (3 years of sampling). 

Beacham et al. (2005) observed much greater microsatellite diversity within populations 

than that reported by McLean and Taylor (2001) and all loci were highly polymorphic in all of 

62
the sampled populations. Significant genetic differentiation was observed among all 

comparisons of the nine populations in the study and FST values for pairs of populations ranged 

from 0.0014 to 0.0130. A cluster analysis of genetic distances showed genetic affinities among 

the populations in the Fraser, Columbia, and Cowlitz rivers and also among the Kemano, 

Klinaklini, and Bella Coola rivers along the central British Columbia coast. In particular, there 

was evidence of a genetic discontinuity north of the Fraser River, with Fraser and 

Columbia/Cowlitz samples being approximately 3–6 times more divergent from samples further 

to the north than they were to each other (Figure 9). Similar to the mtDNA study of McLean et 

al. (1999), Beacham et al. (2005) also found that genetic differentiation among populations (FST) 

was correlated with geographic distances (r = 0.34, P < 0.05). 

Beacham et al. (2005) found stronger evidence of population structure than the earlier 

genetic studies, and concluded that their results indicated that management of eulachon would be 

appropriately based at the level of the river drainage. In particular, the microsatellite analysis 

showed that populations of eulachon in different rivers are genetically differentiated from each 

other at statistically significant levels. The authors suggested that the pattern of eulachon 

differentiation was similar to that typically found in studies of marine fish, but less than that 

observed in most salmon species. 

FST

0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014

Cowlitz River

Fraser River

Klinaklini River

Bella Coola River

Kemano River

Skeena River

Nass River

Twentymile River

Figure 9. Comparison of FST (a measure of genetic distance) values of the Columbia River eulachon 

sample to other samples. Data are from Beacham et al. (2005, their Table 4). See Beacham et al. 

(2005, their Figure 1) for sampling locations. 

63
Although Beacham et al. (2005) found clear evidence of genetic structure among 

eulachon populations, the authors also noted that important questions remained unresolved. The 

most important one in terms of identifying a DPS or DPSs for eulachon is the relationship 

between temporal and geographic patterns of genetic variation. In particular, Beacham et al. 

(2005) found that year-to-year genetic variation within three British Columbia coastal river 

systems was similar to the level of variation among the rivers, which suggests that patterns 

among rivers may not be temporally stable. However, in the comparisons involving the 

Columbia River samples, the variation between the Columbia samples and one north-of-Fraser 

sample from the same year was approximately five times greater than a comparison within the 

Columbia from two different years. Taken together, there appears to be little doubt that there is 

some genetic structure within eulachon and that the most obvious genetic break appears to occur 

in southern British Columbia north of the Fraser River. To fully characterize genetic 

relationships among eulachon populations, additional research will be needed to identify 

appropriate sampling and data collection strategies. 

Ecological features 

The analysis of ecological features or habitat characteristics may be informative in 

identifying population segments that occupy unusual or distinctive habitats, relative to the 

biological species as a whole. One of the criteria that may be useful for evaluating discreteness 

as articulated in the joint DPS policy (USFWS-NMFS 1996) relates to the population being 

“markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of ... ecological 

... factors.” In addition, the persistence of a discrete population segment in an ecological setting 

unusual or unique for the taxon is also a factor identified in the joint DPS policy that may 

provide evidence of the population’s significance. Oceanographic and other ecological features 

may also contribute to demographic isolation between marine populations. 

Freshwater (spawning) environment—The presumed fidelity with which eulachon 

return to their natal river, estuary, inlet, or area implies a close association between a specific 

stock and its freshwater or estuarine environment. Differences in life history strategies among 

eulachon populations or stocks may have arisen, in part, in response to selective pressures of 

different freshwater and estuarine environments. If the boundaries of distinct freshwater or 

estuarine habitats coincide with substantial differences in life histories, it would suggest a certain 

degree of local adaptation. Therefore, identifying distinct freshwater, terrestrial, and climatic 

regions may be useful in identifying eulachon DPSs. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has established a system of ecoregion designations 

based on soil content, topography, climate, potential vegetation, and land use for the 

conterminous United States (Omernik 1987) and Alaska (Gallant et al. 1995). Historically, the 

distribution of eulachon in Washington, Oregon, and California corresponds closely with the 

Coastal Range Level III Ecoregions as defined in Omernik and Gallant (1986) and Omernik 

(1987). Similarly, Environment Canada (2008) has established a system of ecozones and 

ecoregions in Canada. Ecozones in Canada have been described as “areas of the earth’s surface 

representative of large and very generalized ecological units characterized by interactive and 

adjusting abiotic and biotic factors.” Each ecozone consists of numerous ecoregions that are 

described as “a part of a province characterized by distinctive regional ecological factors, 

64
including climatic, physiography, vegetation, soil, water, fauna, and land use” (Environment 

Canada 2008). 

Coastal range ecoregions of the United States—Extending from the Olympic Peninsula 

through the Coast Range proper and down to the Klamath Mountains and the San Francisco Bay 

area, this region is influenced by medium to high rainfall levels due to the interaction between 

marine weather systems and the mountainous nature of the region. Topographically, the region 

averages about 500 m in elevation, with mountain tops under 1,200 m. These mountains are 

generally rugged with steep canyons. Between the ocean and the mountains lies a narrow coastal 

plain composed of sand, silt, and gravel. Tributary streams are short and have a steep gradient; 

therefore, surface runoff is rapid and water storage is relatively short term during periods of no 

recharge. 

These rivers are especially prone to low flows during times of drought. Regional rainfall 

averages 200–240 cm per year, with generally lower levels along the southern Oregon coast. 

Average annual river flows for most rivers in this region are among the highest found on the 

West Coast when adjusted for watershed area. Peak flow of coastal rivers occurs during winter 

rain storms common in December and January. Snow melt adds to the surface runoff in the 

spring, providing a second flow peak (spring freshet), and there are long periods when the river 

flows are maintained at a level of at least 50% of peak flow. During July or August there is 

usually little or no precipitation; this period may expand to 2 or 3 months every few years. River 

flows are correspondingly at their lowest and temperatures at their highest during August and 

September, with the exception of glacier fed systems. The region is heavily forested primarily 

with Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red 

cedar (Thuja plicata). Forest undergrowth is composed of numerous types of shrubs and 

herbaceous plants. 

Terrestrial ecozones and ecoregions of Canada—All rivers that support regular runs of 

eulachon in British Columbia are within the Pacific Maritime Ecozone, which consists of 14 

ecoregions (Figure 10). The Lower Mainland, Pacific Ranges, and Coastal Gap ecoregions 

contain rivers supporting regular runs of eulachon as defined in Hay and McCarter (2000) and 

Hay (2002), and two rivers, the Nass and the Skeena, drain out of the Nass Basin Ecoregion 

(Environment Canada 2008). 

The Lower Mainland Ecoregion (196 in Figure 10) is dominated by the Fraser River and 

occupies the Fraser River valley from Chilliwack and the Cascade Range foothills downstream 

to the Fraser River delta and northward from there to incorporate the Sunshine Coast. Mean 

summer and winter air temperatures in this region are 15°C and 3.5°C, respectively. At sea 

level, less than 10% of winter precipitation falls as snow, although maximum precipitation 

occurs in the winter. Mean annual precipitation in the Fraser River valley ranges from 200 cm in 

the Cascade foothills to 85 cm at the river’s mouth. Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 

dominates native forest stands with an understory typically containing hollyleaved barberry, aka 

tall Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), salal (Gaultheria shallon), and mosses. Disturbed sites 

are commonly dominated by stands of red alder (Alnus rubra). Drier natural sites consist of 

mixed stands of Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), Douglas fir, western hemlock, and 

occasionally, Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii). Wetter areas contain mixtures of western red 

cedar, Douglas fir, and western hemlock. Soils consist of unconsolidated clay-like and silty 

65
Pacific Maritime

Ecoregions

184 Mount Logan

185-186 Northern Coastal Mountains

187 Nass Basin

188 Queen Charlotte Ranges

189 Queen Charlotte Lowland

190 Nass Ranges

191 Coastal Gap

192 Pacific Ranges

193 Western Vancouver Island

194 Eastern Vancouver Island

195 Georgia-Puget Basin

196 Lower Mainland

197 Cascade Ranges

Yukon

British

Columbia

Figure 10. Ecoregions in the Pacific Maritime Ecozone of British Columbia. Map modified from online 

source: http://ecozones.ca/english/zone/PacificMaritime/ecoregions.html. 

marine deposits, silty alluvium, glacial till, and glaciofluvial deposits. Eastern hills in the 

ecoregion up to 310 m in height are formed from bedrock outcrops of Mesozoic and Paleozoic 

age. 

The Pacific Ranges Ecoregion (192 in Figure 10) extends from the southern extent of the 

steeply sloping irregular Coast Mountains at the U.S.-Canada border to Bella Coola in the north. 

These mountains range from sea level to as high as 4,000 m and are made up of granite and 

crystalline gneisses. Many rivers in this region originate in expansive ice fields, and numerous 

glaciers extend into the lowlands. Many steep-sided, transverse valleys bisect these mountains 

and terminate in inlets or fjords. Mean summer and winter air temperatures in this region are 

66
13.5°C and –1°C, respectively. Mean annual precipitation in this ecoregion ranges from 340 cm 

at high elevations to 150 cm at sea level. This ecoregion consists of three main regions 

distinguished by altitude: an alpine zone above 1,800 m, a subalpine zone between 900 and 1,800 

m, and a coastal forest zone below 900 m. The coastal forest zone is dominated by stands of 

western red cedar, western hemlock, and Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) and in drier sites by 

Douglas fir and western hemlock. 

The Coastal Gap Ecoregion (191 in Figure 10) extends from Dean Channel north to the 

border between British Columbia and Alaska and is bounded by the taller Pacific Ranges to the 

south and the Boundary Ranges to the north. The low-relief mountains in this ecoregion consist 

of the Kitimat Ranges, which rarely reach higher than 2,400 m and are made up of granitic rocks 

and crystalline gneisses. Although many inlets and fjords bisect this mountainous coastline and 

terminate in steep-sided, transverse valleys, glaciers are less common and smaller than in areas to 

the south and north of this ecoregion. Mean summer and winter air temperatures are 13°C and –

0.5°C, respectively. This ecoregion has the highest mean annual precipitation in British 

Columbia, ranging from 200 cm on the coast to more than 450 cm at high elevations. At sea 

level, the forests are dominated by western red cedar, yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis 

nootkatensis), and western hemlock. Some Sitka spruce and shore pine (Pinus contorta var. 

contorta) are also present with red alder being common on disturbed sites. Low-lying bogs and 

stream fens are common types of wetlands. Forests in upland areas are dominated by western 

red cedar and western hemlock, whereas Pacific silver fir and western hemlock are found in 

areas with poorer drainage. 

The Nass Basin Ecoregion (187 in Figure 10) lies between the interior and coastal 

portions of the Coast Mountains in west-central British Columbia and is an area of low relief 

composed of folded Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments that is almost encircled by mountains. 

The Nass Basin is drained by the Nass and Skeena rivers to the ocean through large gaps in the 

Coast Mountains and consists of a gently rolling landscape generally below 750 m in altitude. 

Mean summer and winter air temperatures in this region are 11.5°C and –9.5°C, respectively. 

Mean annual precipitation ranges up to 250 cm at higher elevations to 150 cm in the lowlands. 

The moist montane zone is dominated by western red cedar and western hemlock, whereas 

forests in the subalpine zone contain subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), lodgepole pine (Pinus 

contorta var. latifolia), and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii). 

Oceanic environment—Ware and McFarlane (1989) built on previous descriptions of 

oceanic domains in the northeast Pacific Ocean by Dodimead et al. (1963) and Thomson (1981) 

to identify three principal fish production domains: 1) a southern Coastal Upwelling Domain, 2) 

a northern Coastal Downwelling Domain, and 3) a central Subarctic Domain (aka the Alaskan 

Gyre) (Figure 11). The boundary between the Coastal Upwelling Domain and Coastal 

Downwelling Domain occurs where the eastward flowing Subarctic Current (aka the North 

Pacific Current) bifurcates to form the north-flowing Alaska Current and the south-flowing 

California Current in the vicinity of a transitional zone between the northern tip of Vancouver 

Island and the northern extent of the Queen Charlotte Islands (Figure 11). Similarly, Longhurst 

(2006) identifies an Alaska Downwelling Coastal Province and a California Current Province 

within the Pacific Coastal Biome. 

67
Figure 11. Approximate locations of oceanographic currents, oceanic domains (Ware and McFarlane 

1989), and coastal provinces (Longhurst 2006) in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. 1–Alaska Coastal 

Downwelling Province (aka Coastal Downwelling Domain), 2–Transition Zone, and 3–California 

Current Province (aka Coastal Upwelling Domain). 

Longhurst’s (2006) work provides a worldwide ecological geography of the sea that 

identifies 4 primary oceanic biomes and 51 biogeochemical provinces based mainly on 

differences in regional physical processes that act on regional patterns of phytoplankton growth 

that are partially defined by “the interaction between light, nutrients, mixing, and stability in the 

upper part of the water column.” This scheme to partition the ocean into provinces differs from 

previous attempts by relying on oceanographic features that drive phytoplankton ecology rather 

than on biogeography of species or water current patterns alone (Longhurst 2006). The steps 

taken and data analyzed to define biogeochemical provinces in the ocean are detailed in 

Longhurst (2006). 

Within Longhurst’s (2006) Pacific Coastal Biome, ocean distribution of eulachon spans 

the Alaska Downwelling Coastal Province and the northern portion of the California Current 

Province (Figure 11). Longhurst (2006) places the boundary between the Alaska Coastal 

Downwelling Province and the California Current Province between the Queen Charlotte Islands 

at 53°N latitude and the northern end of Vancouver Island at 47–48°N latitude, where the 

eastward flowing North Pacific Current encounters the North American continent and bifurcates 

68
to form the north-flowing Alaska Current and south-flowing California Current. Different 

modes of physical forcing and nutrient enrichment characterize these provinces. 

The Alaska Coastal Downwelling Province spans the coastal boundary region from the 

Aleutian Islands east and south to the Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwai’i) at about 53°N 

latitude and extends seaward to the Alaska Current velocity maximum (Longhurst 2006). The 

continental shelf in this region is dominated by nearly year-round onshore downwelling winds. 

Large amounts of precipitation and runoff from melting glaciers along the mountainous Alaska 

coast is another feature of this province. In summer and fall, when runoff is at maximum, waters 

in the fjord-like coastline and in the Alaska Coastal Current are usually highly stratified in both 

temperature and salinity. Following the spring phytoplankton bloom, stratification in the top 

layers of the water column limits nutrient availability and leads to subsequent nutrient depletion. 

Occasional wind events lead to temporary local upwelling of nutrients and subsequent 

phytoplankton blooms. 

The northern extent of the California Current Province (aka California Upwelling Coastal 

Province) begins where the eastward flowing North Pacific Current splits near Vancouver Island 

near 47–48°N latitude, creating the southward flowing California Current and northward flowing 

Alaska Coastal Current (Longhurst 2006). The southern boundary of this province occurs off the 

southwest tip of Baja California, where the North Equatorial Current begins. Seasonal winddriven upwelling is a dominate feature of this province, especially in the northern portion of the 

province. This process carries nutrients onshore where they are upwelled along the coast, 

leading to high primary production that lasts through much of the spring and summer. Nearshore 

upwelling also results in higher salinities and lower temperatures compared to offshore locations. 

A widely recognized Transition Pacific Zone (Ware and McFarlane 1989, BC Ministry of 

Sustainable Resource Management 2002) occurs between the Alaska Coastal Downwelling and 

California Current provinces whose “northern boundary is indistinct and approximately 

coincident with the southern limit of the Alaskan Current” (BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource 

Management 2002, p. 35). This zone is characterized as a mixing area between boreal plankton 

communities to the north and temperate plankton communities to the south, and incorporates the 

waters of Queen Charlotte Sound and Hecate Strait (i.e., north of Vancouver Island and inshore 

of the Queen Charlotte Islands). In the summer, the California Current may affect the southern 

portion of this transition zone with the inshore Davidson Current flowing south in the summer 

and north in the winter (BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management 2002). 

Marine zoogeographic provinces 

Marine zoogeography attempts to identify regional geographic patterns in marine species’ 

distribution and delineate faunal provinces or regions based largely on the occurrence of endemic 

species and of unique species’ assemblages (Ekman 1953, Hedgpeth 1957, Briggs 1974, Allen 

and Smith 1988). These province boundaries are usually coincident with changes in the physical 

environment such as temperature and major oceanographic currents. Similar to the above 

ecological features category, boundaries between zoogeographic provinces may indicate changes 

in the physical environment that are shared with the species under review. 

69
Ekman (1953), Hedgpeth (1957), and Briggs (1974) summarized the distribution patterns 

of coastal marine fishes and invertebrates and defined major worldwide marine zoogeographic 

zones or provinces. Along the coastline of the boreal eastern Pacific, which extends roughly 

from Point Conception, California, to the eastern Bering Sea, numerous schemes have been 

proposed for grouping the faunas into zones or provinces. A number of authors (Ekman 1953, 

Hedgpeth 1957, Briggs 1974, Allen and Smith 1988) have recognized a zoogeographic zone 

within the lower boreal eastern Pacific that has been termed the Oregonian Province. 

Another zone in the upper boreal eastern Pacific has been termed the Aleutian Province 

(Briggs 1974). However, exact boundaries of zoogeographic provinces in the eastern boreal 

Pacific are in dispute (Allen and Smith 1988). Briggs (1974) and Allen and Smith (1988) 

reviewed previous literature from a variety of taxa and from fishes, respectively, and found the 

coastal region from Puget Sound to Sitka, Alaska, to be a gray zone or transition zone that could 

be classified as part of either of two provinces: Aleutian or Oregonian (Figure 12). The southern 

boundary of the Oregonian Province is generally recognized as Point Conception, California, and 

the northern boundary of the Aleutian Province is similarly recognized as Nunivak in the Bering 

Sea or perhaps the Aleutian Islands (Allen and Smith 1988). 

Briggs (1974) placed the boundary between the Oregonian and Aleutian provinces at 

Dixon Entrance, based on the well-studied distribution of mollusks, but indicated that 

distributions of fishes, echinoderms, and marine algae gave evidence for placement of this 

Figure 12. Marine zoogeographic provinces of the North Pacific Ocean. Modified after Allen and Smith 

(1988). 

70
boundary in the vicinity of Sitka, Alaska. Briggs (1974) placed strong emphasis on the 

distribution of littoral mollusks (due to the more thorough treatment this group has received) in 

placing a major faunal break at Dixon Entrance. The authoritative work by Valentine (1966) on 

distribution of marine mollusks of the northeastern Pacific shelf showed that the Oregonian 

molluscan assemblage extended to Dixon Entrance with the Aleutian fauna extending northward 

from that area. Valentine (1966) erected the term Columbian Subprovince to define the zone 

from Puget Sound to Dixon Entrance. 

Several lines of evidence suggest that an important zoogeographic break for marine fishes 

occurs in the vicinity of Southeast Alaska. Peden and Wilson (1976) investigated the 

distributions of inshore fishes in British Columbia and found Dixon Entrance to be of minor 

importance as a barrier to fish distribution. A more likely boundary between these fish faunas 

was variously suggested to occur near Sitka, Alaska, off northern Vancouver Island, or off Cape 

Flattery, Washington (Peden and Wilson 1976, Allen and Smith 1988). Chen (1971) found that 

of the more than 50 or more rockfish species belonging to the genus Sebastes occurring in 

northern California, more than two-thirds do not extend north of British Columbia or Southeast 

Alaska. Briggs (1974, p. 278) stated that “about 50 percent of the entire shore fish fauna of 

western Canada does not extend north of the Alaskan Panhandle.” In addition, many marine fish 

species common to the Bering Sea extend southward into the Gulf of Alaska, but apparently 

occur no further south (Briggs 1974). Allen and Smith (1988, p. 144) noted that “the relative 

abundance of some geographically displacing [marine fish] species suggest that the boundary 

between these provinces [Aleutian and Oregonian] occurs off northern Vancouver Island.” 

Blaylock et al. (1998) examined the distribution of more than 25 species of parasites in 

432 juvenile and adult Pacific halibut sampled over much of its North American range and found 

evidence of three zoogeographic zones as determined by parasite clustering; northern, central, 

and southern. Similar to studies with other invertebrates, Blaylock et al. (1998, p. 2,269) found a 

breakpoint between zoogeographic zones in the vicinity of the Queen Charlotte Islands. 

Other marine fish DPS designations 

It is also useful to briefly review the size and complexity of other designated DPSs of 

marine fish that have undergone the status review process and have thus been considered both 

discrete and significant to their respective biological species. DPSs have been designated for 

portions of the range of Pacific herring (NMFS 2000, 2005, 2008b), Pacific hake, Pacific cod, 

walleye pollock (NMFS 2000), copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus), quillback rockfish (S. 

maliger), brown rockfish (S. auriculatus) (NMFS 2001), bocaccio (S. paucispinis) (NMFS 

2002), and smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) (NMFS 2003). 

Several marine fish DPSs cover large geographic areas (e.g., Pacific cod and walleye 

pollock DPSs extend from Puget Sound to Southeast Alaska, two West Coast DPSs of bocaccio 

rockfish were designated off Washington and Oregon [the northern DPS] and off California and 

Mexico [the southern DPS], and all smalltooth sawfish in U.S. waters were designated a separate 

DPS). At slightly smaller geographic scales, a Southeast Alaska Pacific herring DPS (Carls et al. 

2008) and DPSs of Pacific hake and Pacific herring in Georgia Basin (Puget Sound and the 

straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca) were established as separate from coastal hake and herring 

(Gustafson et al. 2000, Stout et al. 2001a) (Figure 13). Three DPSs each of copper and quillback 

71
rockfish (Puget Sound Proper DPS, Northern Puget Sound DPS, and Coastal DPS) and two of 

brown rockfish (Puget Sound Proper DPS and Coastal DPS) have also been delineated (Stout et 

al. 2001b). Many of these marine fish DPSs include a number of identifiable subpopulations 

with numerous isolated spawning locations and a substantial level of life history and ecological 

diversity (Gustafson et al. 2000, 2006, Stout et al. 2001a, Carls et al. 2008). 

Evaluation of Discreteness and Significance for Eulachon 

In past evaluations of distinct population boundaries for marine fish (Gustafson et al. 

2000, 2006, Stout et al. 2001a), spawn timing, spawning distribution, tagging, biogeography, 

ecological factors, seasonal migration patterns, parasite incidence, genetic population structure, 

morphometrics, meristics, and demographic data (growth rate, fecundity, etc.) have been 

evaluated for evidence of DPS discreteness and significance. The BRT examined similar 

evidence for eulachon and found evidence that was informative included genetic data, 

differences in spawning temperatures and length-at-maturity and weight-at-maturity of eulachon 

between northern and southern rivers, ecological features of both the oceanic and terrestrial 

environments occupied by eulachon, and biogeography. 

Figure 13. Major stocks of Pacific herring in the Northeast Pacific in relation to the Georgia Basin Pacific 

herring DPS (Stout et al. 2001a, Gustafson et al. 2006) and the Southeast Alaska Pacific herring 

DPS (Carls et al. 2008). 

72
To allow for expressions of the level of uncertainty in identifying the boundaries of a 

discrete and significant eulachon population, the BRT adopted a likelihood point method, often 

referred to as the FEMAT method, because it is a variation of a method used by scientific teams 

evaluating options under the Forest Plan (Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, 

Economic, and Social Assessment Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment 

Team, or FEMAT) (FEMAT 1993). This method was previously used in the DPS decisions for 

Southern Resident killer whales (Krahn et al. 2004) and Pacific herring (Gustafson et al. 2006). 

In this approach, each BRT member distributes 10 “likelihood” points among a number of 

proposed DPSs, reflecting their opinion of how likely that proposal correctly reflects the true 

DPS boundary. Thus if a member were certain that the DPS that contains eulachon from 

California, Oregon, and Washington included all spawning aggregations from the Fraser to the 

south, he or she could assign all 10 points to that proposal. A member with less certainty about 

DPS boundaries could split the points among two, three, or even more DPS proposals (Table 1). 

The BRT ultimately considered six possible DPS configurations or scenarios that might 

conceivably incorporate eulachon that spawn in Washington, Oregon, and California rivers. 

Each BRT member distributed his or her 10 likelihood points amongst these six scenarios. Other 

possible geographic configurations that incorporated the petitioned unit were contemplated but 

not seriously considered by the BRT. The BRT did not attempt to divide the entire species into 

DPSs, but rather focused on evaluating whether a DPS could be identified that contains eulachon 

that spawn in Washington, Oregon, and California. The geographic boundaries (Figure 14) of 

possible DPSs considered in this evaluation were: 

1. The entire biological species is the ESA species (i.e., there is no apparent DPS 

structure) 

2. One DPS inclusive of eulachon in Southeast Alaska to northern California 

3. One DPS south of the Nass River/Dixon Entrance 

4. One DPS inclusive of eulachon in the Fraser River to California 

5. One DPS south of the Fraser River (i.e., one DPS in Washington, Oregon, and 

California) 

6. Multiple DPSs of eulachon in Washington, Oregon, and California 

The distribution of likelihood points among these six scenarios is presented in Table 1. 

Scenario 1 (no DPS structure) received about 12% of the total likelihood points. Scenarios 2 

(one DPS inclusive of eulachon in Southeast Alaska to northern California) and 5 (one DPS 

south of the Fraser River) received no support on the BRT. There was also very little support on 

the BRT for multiple DPSs of eulachon in the conterminous United States; only about 4% of the 

likelihood points were placed in scenario 6 (multiple DPSs of eulachon in Washington, Oregon, 

and California). 

All remaining likelihood points (84%) were distributed among scenarios supporting a 

DPS at a level larger than the petitioned unit of Washington, Oregon, and California. Scenario 3 

(one DPS south of the Nass River/Dixon Entrance) received about 57% of the total likelihood 

points and all but one BRT member placed between 5 and 10 points in this DPS scenario. 

Scenario 4 (one DPS inclusive of eulachon in the Fraser River to California) received significant 

73
Table 1. Worksheet for evaluating potential of DPS or DPSs of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) that 

incorporate spawning populations in California, Oregon, and Washington using the “likelihood 

point” method (FEMAT 1993). 

Likelihood points 

Scenario Numbera Percentageb

1) Entire species (no DPS structure) 11 12.2 

2) One DPS south of Yakutat Forelands — — 

3) One DPS south of Nass River and Dixon Entrance 51 56.7 

4) One DPS, Fraser River and south 24 26.7 

5) One DPS south of Fraser River — — 

6) Multiple DPSs in Washington, Oregon, and California 4 4.4 a

Each BRT member distributes 10 likelihood points among the 6 DPS scenarios. Placement of all 10 points in a 

given scenario reflects 100% certainty that this is the DPS configuration that incorporates eulachon from 

Washington, Oregon, and California. Distributing points between scenarios reflects uncertainty in whether a given 

scenario reflects the true DPS delineation. 

b

Nine of 10 BRT members in attendance. 

Northeast Pacific Ocean

50°N

40°N

30°N

170°W 160°W 150°W 140°W 130°W

1

2

3

4

5 - WA, OR, and CA

6 - Multiple DPSs in conterminous USA

Figure 14. Geographic boundaries of possible eulachon DPSs considered by the BRT: 1) the entire 

biological species is one DPS, 2) one DPS south of the Yakutat Forelands (Southeast Alaska to 

northern California), 3) one DPS south of the Nass River (i.e., south of Dixon Entrance), 4) one 

DPS that includes the Fraser River and south, 5) one DPS south of the Fraser River (i.e., one DPS 

in Washington, Oregon, and California), and 6) multiple DPSs of eulachon in Washington, 

Oregon, and California. 

74
support with about 27% of all points placed in this scenario and all but two members placed from 

2 to 5 of their likelihood points in this DPS scenario. In discussing the evidence for these 

alternative scenarios, the BRT focused on the following factors. 

In considering the discreteness and significance criteria (USFWS-NMFS 1996), the BRT 

concluded that the weight of the available evidence indicated that there are multiple discrete 

populations of eulachon. In particular, the most comprehensive genetic study of eulachon that 

has been published to date (Beacham et al. 2005) found reasonably strong evidence of a genetic 

break between eulachon spawning in the Fraser and Columbia rivers compared to those 

spawning in rivers further north in British Columbia and Alaska, and also found that nearly all 

sampled populations were differentiated statistically from each other. Earlier genetic studies 

(McLean et al. 1999, McLean and Taylor 2001) also found some evidence of population 

structure, although the evidence was less compelling than that reported by Beacham et al. (2005). 

However, these earlier studies were characterized by fewer loci and smaller sample sizes than the 

later study and therefore likely had less power to detect population structure. Overall, the BRT 

believed the results to be largely consistent among the studies, when differences in sample size 

and power are taken into account. The BRT did note, however, that there was some uncertainty 

about the genetic population structure due to the small number of temporally replicated samples 

in all of the studies, and this uncertainty is reflected in the proportion of the likelihood points that 

were placed in the no DPS structure category (Table 1). 

In addition to the genetic data, the BRT considered the strong ecological and 

environmental break that occurs between the California Current and Alaska Current oceanic 

domains as contributing evidence for discreteness, a factor that was also important for 

identifying DPS structure in Pacific cod (Gustafson et al. 2000), killer whales (Krahn et al. 

2004), and Southeast Alaska Pacific herring (Carls et al. 2008). The BRT also considered, but 

did not weigh heavily, the latitudinal differences in spawn timing, body size, and vertebral 

counts among samples from different rivers. Similar latitudinal patterns in life history characters 

were considered but did not weigh heavily in DPS decisions for Pacific cod, walleye pollock 

(Gustafson et al. 2000), and Pacific herring (Stout et al. 2001a). Overall, the BRT believed the 

genetic and ecological data provided strong evidence that eulachon south of the Nass River were 

discrete from those in the Nass River and northward, but that there was also evidence (from the 

genetic data) suggesting that Fraser and Columbia River groups may be discrete from more 

northern groups. 

In evaluating the significance criteria, the BRT focused primarily on criteria 1 (ecological 

setting), criteria 2 (evidence that loss would result in a significant gap in the range of the 

species), and criteria 4 (markedly differs in genetic characteristics). After carefully discussing 

all of the available data, the BRT concluded that there was evidence supporting the significance 

criteria under either scenario 3 (one DPS south of the Nass River/Dixon Entrance) or scenario 4 

(one DPS inclusive of eulachon in the Fraser River to California). In particular, there is evidence 

under either scenario for a significant break in ecological setting, and loss of a putative DPS 

defined by either boundary would without question result in a significant gap (or reduction) in 

the range of the overall species. The BRT also considered whether the available genetic data 

provided any evidence for “markedly different” populations, but concluded that although the 

genetic data provides evidence for discreteness (lack of gene flow) there was little evidence to 

75
support the existence of deep intraspecific phylogenetic breaks that the BRT believed were 

necessary to be considered “marked.” 

In summary, the BRT believed the evidence most strongly supported scenario 3, but that 

there was also some evidence for scenarios 4 and 1. The factors supporting each of the top three 

scenarios are summarized below. 

Scenario 3 

This scenario designated one DPS south of the Nass River/Dixon Entrance (57% 

support). Supporting factors were: 

1. Beacham et al. (2005) found strong evidence that populations of eulachon in different 

rivers are genetically differentiated from each other at statistically significant levels and 

the authors suggested that the pattern of eulachon differentiation was similar to that 

typically found in studies of marine fish but less than that observed in most Pacific 

salmon species. 

2. A major ecological break occurs in the coastal ocean biome between the Coastal 

Downwelling Province (Ware and McFarlane 1989, Longhurst 2006) to the north and the 

California Current Province (Ware and McFarlane 1989, Longhurst 2006) to the south. 

The northern boundary of the transition zone that separates these provinces occurs in the 

vicinity of the Dixon Entrance at the northern end of the Queen Charlotte Islands. The 

coastal distribution of eulachon south of the Dixon Entrance occupies an ecologically 

discrete area that is a combination of this transition zone and the northern California 

Current Province (Longhurst 2006). 

3. Dixon Entrance is also the approximate northern boundary that separates two major 

marine zoogeographic provinces (Oregonian and Aleutian Provinces) (Briggs 1974), 

further supporting the ecological discreteness of marine waters south of Dixon Entrance. 

4. Stocks of eulachon from the Columbia River to the Klinaklini River in British Columbia 

experienced a nearly simultaneous collapse in 1994 (Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 2002), 

stayed at low levels throughout the 1990s, experienced a rebound in 2001–2003, and 

subsequently declined to near record low levels of abundance (Hay 2002, JCRMS 2007). 

The nearly synchronous demographic responses of all eulachon stocks south of the Nass 

River to what are likely coast-wide changes in ocean condition, strongly suggest that 

these stocks occupy a common ocean rearing environment. Stocks of eulachon from the 

Nass River and north remained relatively healthy throughout this period of decline of 

more southern stocks. Not until 2003 did eulachon stocks in southern Southeast Alaska 

begin to show serious declines. These demographic patterns are similar to those seen in 

Pacific salmon stock abundance that fluctuates in opposite directions in the Alaska and 

California Current domains (Hare et al. 1999), which has been correlated with the Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Mantua and Hare 2002). 

5. A major break in terrestrial ecoregions also occurs along the north coast of British 

Columbia in the vicinity of the Nass River, with both the Nass and Skeena rivers draining 

the interior Nass Basin Ecoregion (Environment Canada 2008). Evidence of a natural 

biological boundary coinciding with the international boundary separating Southeast 

Alaska and British Columbia (Dixon Entrance/Nass River) also supported delineation of 

76
• Different biological zones are apparent along the coast, probably a result of both 

thermal (north-south) and salinity (east-west) gradients. 

• A thermal gradient is clearly evident through British Columbia and Southeast Alaska. 

o Temperatures in Southeast Alaska are colder than in British Columbia. 

o Southeast Alaska has tidewater glaciers, British Columbia does not, chilling the 

water and increasing turbidity and possibly nutrients. 

o Southeast Alaska mainland topography is heavily influenced by snowfields and 

glaciers; this is less prevalent in British Columbia. 

6. Eulachon spawning in rivers on the north coast of British Columbia (e.g., Nass River) 

experience significantly colder temperatures at spawning (often spawning under ice) than 

eulachon spawning to the south, particularly in the Klinaklini, Fraser, and Columbia 

rivers (Hay and McCarter 2000) (Table A-11). Hochachka and Somero (2002, p. 292, 

317) emphasized that habitat temperature plays a “strong and frequently dominant role ... 

in governing the distribution patterns of organisms” and that “temperature differences of 

a few degrees Celsius have sufficient effects on proteins to favor adaptive change.” The 

dominant role that temperature plays on ectothermic organisms, affecting “essentially 

every aspect of an organism’s physiology” (Hochachka and Somero 2002, p. 290), 

suggests that these 2–4°C temperature differences experienced by adult eulachon and 

their gametes during spawning (Table A-11) are a strong indicator of potential 

physiological differences between eulachon south of the Nass River and those in the Nass 

River and northward. 

Items 2–5 above support a discrete and significant eulachon population south of the Nass 

River/Dixon Entrance on the basis of being “markedly separated on the basis of ecological 

features” and Item 6 supports a discrete eulachon population south of the Nass River/Dixon 

Entrance on the basis of being “markedly separated on the basis of physiological features.” 

Scenario 4 

This scenario designated one DPS inclusive of eulachon in the Fraser River to California 

(27% support). Supporting factors were: 

1. The available genetic data indicate that a substantial genetic break occurs between 

eulachon populations from the Fraser River and those from rivers further to the 

north (see Genetic Differentiation subsection, p. 61). In particular, the largest 

genetic discontinuity appears to be in southern British Columbia rather than 

northern British Columbia. 

2. In contrast to systems to the north of the Fraser River, the Columbia, Fraser, and 

Klamath rivers have many physiographic and habitat features in common; all 

three are large rivers with wide valleys, drain extensive interior basins, are fed by 

spring snow melt, and do not drain off extensive ice sheets. 

Average length-at-maturity and weight-at-maturity in eulachon from the Columbia and 

Fraser rivers and southern rivers in general are smaller than eulachon from more northern rivers 

(Figure 8). However, this pattern is typical in many vertebrate poikilotherms (ectotherms), 

77
where higher temperatures lead to reduced size at a given stage of development (Atkinson 1994, 

Lindsey 1966), so the BRT did not weight this evidence very heavily. 

Scenario 1 

This scenario designated no DPS structure (12% support). Supporting factors were: 

1. There was a lack of apparent discrete differences in many eulachon life history traits 

(Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay and Beacham 2005); however, similar uniformity in life 

history characters over large geographic distances was evident in previous marine fish 

reviews of Pacific cod, walleye pollock (Gustafson et al. 2000), and Pacific herring (Stout 

et al. 2001a). 

2. Another reason BRT members put some support in this scenario was uncertainty about 

how strongly to weight the genetic study of Beacham et al. (2005). In particular, 

although the BRT concluded that the study as a whole clearly supported the existence of 

discrete genetic populations of eulachon, the BRT was also somewhat concerned about 

the limited temporal replication in the study. 

Given the previous DPS structure established for marine fishes, such as Pacific herring, 

Pacific cod, Pacific hake, and walleye pollock (Gustafson et al. 2000, 2006, Stout et al. 2001a), it 

seems unlikely that there would be an absence of DPS structure across the more than 2,800 km 

range of eulachon, an anadromous species with similar among-population genetic differentiation, 

as these purely marine fishes. Pacific herring, which exhibit genetic variation similar to 

eulachon when compared over the same geographic range (Beacham et al. 2002, 2005, Small et 

al. 2005), have had DPSs delineated at the geographic level of the Georgia Basin (Stout et al. 

2001a) and Southeast Alaska (Carls et al. 2008), based to a large degree on marked differences in 

ecological features of their habitats. For example, the estimated mean FST value for Pacific 

herring over 13 microsatellite DNA loci and 83 sampling sites ranging from California to 

Southeast Alaska was 0.0032 (Beacham et al. 2002), whereas a similar estimated mean FST value 

over 14 loci and 9 eulachon sampling sites ranging from the Columbia River to Southcentral 

Alaska was 0.0046 (Beacham et al. 2005). 

Although nowhere near the same quantity or quality of data exists for eulachon as for the 

economically more valuable Pacific herring, it is likely that if data comparable to that for Pacific 

herring were available, an even finer DPS structure for the anadromous eulachon might become 

apparent. In addition, the biological heterogeneity of eulachon as seen in “the geographical 

discontinuity of different spawning runs, different spawning times, and the apparent homing of 

each run to individual rivers” (Hay and McCarter 2000, p. 36) strongly argues against the lack of 

DPS structure. 

BRT DPS Determination 

In conclusion, it was the majority opinion of the BRT that eulachon from Washington, 

Oregon, and California are part of a DPS that extends beyond the conterminous United States 

and that the northern boundary of the DPS occurs in northern British Columbia south of the Nass 

River (most likely) or in southern British Columbia north of the Fraser River (less likely). The 

BRT proposes that this DPS be termed the southern DPS of eulachon. Although it was not the 

78
79

BRT’s objective to subdivide the entire biological species of eulachon into DPSs throughout 

their range, the identification of a southern DPS of eulachon indicates that at least one, and 

possibly more than one, additional DPS or DPSs of eulachon occur north of the Skeena River on 

the north coast of British Columbia and in Alaska. 

Although the BRT could not with any certainty identify multiple populations or DPSs of 

eulachon within the region south of Dixon Entrance/Nass River, it acknowledged the possibility 

that significant stock structuring does exist within this region and that a finer DPS structure 

might be revealed by further information on the behavior, ecology, and genetic population 

structure of eulachon. The BRT also recognized that the DPS that includes eulachon from 

California, Oregon, and Washington may represent fish that are uniquely adapted to survive at 

the southern end of the species’ range. 
The Extinction Risk Question 

Information considered in evaluating the status of a DPS can generally be grouped into 

two categories: 1) demographic information reflecting the past and present condition of 

subpopulations (e.g., data on population abundance or density, population trends and growth 

rates, number and distribution of populations, exchange rates of individuals among populations, 

and ecological, life history, or genetic diversity among populations) and 2) information on past 

factors for decline as well as threats faced by the DPS (e.g., habitat loss and degradation, 

overutilization, disease, climate change). The demographic risk data reviewed by the BRT are 

summarized in this document. This document also contains a narrative summary of threats faced 

by the DPS. 

Evaluating extinction risk of a species includes considering the available information 

concerning the abundance, growth rate and productivity, spatial structure and connectivity, and 

diversity of a species and assessing whether these demographic criteria indicate that it is at high 

risk of extinction, at moderate risk, or neither. A species at very low levels of abundance and 

with few populations will be less tolerant to environmental variation, catastrophic events, genetic 

processes, demographic stochasticity, ecological interactions, and other processes (e.g., Gilpin 

and Soulé 1986, Meffe and Carroll 1994, Caughley and Gunn 1996). A rate of productivity that 

is unstable or declining over a long period of time may reflect a variety of causes, but indicates 

poor resiliency to future environmental variability or change (e.g., Lande 1993, Foley 1997, 

Middleton and Nisbet 1997). 

For species at low levels of abundance, in particular, declining or highly variable 

productivity confers a high level of extinction risk. A species that is not widely distributed 

across a variety of well-connected habitats will have a diminished capacity for recolonizing 

locally extirpated populations and is at increased risk of extinction due to environmental 

perturbations and catastrophic events (Schlosser and Angermeier 1995, Hanski and Gilpin 1997, 

Tilman and Lehman 1997, Cooper and Mangel 1999). A species that has lost locally adapted 

genetic and life history diversity may lack the characteristics necessary to endure short-term and 

long-term environmental changes (e.g., Hilborn et al. 2003, Wood et al. 2008). 

The demographic risk criteria described above are evaluated based on the present species 

status in the context of historical information, if available. However, there may be threats or 

other relevant biological factors that might alter the determination of the species’ overall level of 

extinction risk. These threats or other risk factors are not yet reflected in the available 

demographic data because of the time lags involved, but are nonetheless critical considerations in 

evaluating a species’ extinction risk (Wainwright and Kope 1999). 

Forecasting the effects of threats and other risk factors into the foreseeable future is rarely 

straightforward, and usually necessitates qualitative evaluations and the application of informed 

professional judgment. This evaluation highlights those factors that may exacerbate or 

80
ameliorate demographic risks so that all relevant information may be integrated into the 

determination of overall extinction risk for the species. Examples of such threats or other 

relevant factors may include climatic regime shifts that portend favorable temperature and 

marine productivity conditions, an El Niño event that is anticipated to result in reduced food 

quantity or quality, or recent or anticipated increases in the range or abundance of predator 

populations. 

In considering the status of eulachon, we evaluated both qualitative and quantitative 

information. Qualitative evaluations included aspects of several of the risk considerations 

outlined above, as well as recent, published assessments of the status of eulachon populations by 

agencies, reviewed below. Additional information presented by the petitioners was considered, 

as discussed under the Introduction: Summary of Information Presented by the Petitioner section 

above. 

Abundance and Carrying Capacity 

Absolute Numbers 

The absolute number of individuals in a population is important in assessing two aspects 

of extinction risk. For small populations that are stable or increasing, population size can be an 

indicator of whether the population can sustain itself into the future in the face of environmental 

fluctuations and small-population stochasticity; this aspect is related to the concept of minimum 

viable populations (MVP) (Gilpin and Soulé 1986, Thompson 1991). For a declining population, 

present abundance is an indicator of the expected time until the population reaches critically low 

numbers; this aspect is related to the concept of “driven extinction” (Caughley 1994). In 

addition to total numbers, the spatial and temporal distribution of adults is important in assessing 

risk to a species or DPS. 

Several aspects of eulachon biology indicate that large aggregations of adult eulachon are 

necessary for maintenance of normal reproductive output. Eulachon are a short-lived, highfecundity, high-mortality forage fish, and such species typically have extremely large population 

sizes. Research from other marine fishes (Sadovy 2001) suggests that there is likely a biological 

requirement for a critical threshold density of eulachon during spawning to ensure adequate 

synchronization of spawning, mate choice, gonadal sterol levels, and fertilization success. Since 

eulachon sperm may remain viable for only a short time, perhaps only minutes, sexes must 

synchronize spawning activities closely, unlike other fish such as Pacific herring (Hay and 

McCarter 2000, Willson et al. 2006). 

In most samples of spawning eulachon, males greatly outnumber females (although many 

factors may contribute to these observations) (Willson et al. 2006), and in some instances 

congregations of males have been observed simultaneously spawning upstream of females that 

laid eggs as milt drifted downstream (Langer et al. 1977). Sadovy (2001, p. 100) noted that “the 

idea that, if a population drops below some critical density, the intrinsic rate of population 

increase may not be realized because breeding activity may cease, cannot be readily dismissed 

and a number of possible Allee effects have been noted” in marine fishes. Sadovy (2001, p. 101) 

further noted that “aggregating behaviour presumably reflects some biological imperative for 

sociality during the reproductive season.” 

81
In addition, the genetically effective population size of eulachon may be much lower than 

the census size. Although eulachon exhibit high fecundity (7,000–60,000 eggs; mean ≈30,000), 

survival from egg to larva may vary widely (3–5% in the Kemano River to approximately 1% in 

the Wahoo River [Willson et al. 2006]) and may be less than 1% in large egg masses. Larvae are 

small (4–8 mm long), are rapidly carried by currents to the sea, and rear in the pelagic zone 

similarly to many marine pelagic fish larvae where the extent of mortality during the transition 

phase from larva to juvenile is high. In marine species, under conditions of high fecundity and 

high mortality associated with pelagic larval development, local environmental conditions may 

lead to random “sweepstake recruitment” events where only a small minority of spawning 

individuals contribute to subsequent generations (Hedgecock 1994). Hauser and Carvalho 

(2008) report that “data available so far suggest that the scope for sweepstake recruitment may 

be higher in larger populations, as the Ne/N [ratio of effective size to census size] is lower in 

larger populations.” 

Large spawning aggregations of adult eulachon may also be necessary to withstand 

predation pressure associated with large congregations of predators that target returning adults, 

and to produce enough eggs and pelagic larvae to swamp out predation in the ocean (Bailey and 

Houde 1989). Multiple species of predators (sea lions, harbor seals, gulls, bald eagles, ducks, 

sturgeon, porpoises, killer whales, etc.) commonly congregate at eulachon spawning runs and 

“local observers often judge arrival of fish by the conspicuous arrival of many predators” 

(Willson et al. 2006). 

Historical Abundance and Carrying Capacity 

Knowing the relationship of present abundance to present carrying capacity is important 

for evaluating the health of populations, but the fact that a population is near its current capacity 

does not necessarily signify full health. A population near capacity implies that short-term 

management may not be able to increase fish abundance. 

The relationship of current abundance and habitat capacity to historical levels is an 

important consideration in evaluating risk. Knowledge of historical population conditions 

provides a perspective for understanding the conditions under which present populations 

evolved. Historical abundance also provides the basis for scaling long-term trends in 

populations. Comparison of present and past habitat capacity can also indicate long-term 

population trends and problems of population fragmentation. For eulachon, current and 

historical abundance data and information was available in the form of spawner biomass (pounds 

or metric tons) or total spawner counts (numbers of adult fish), offshore juvenile eulachon 

biomass estimates (metric tons), mean eulachon larval density, CPUE, commercial-recreationalsubsistence fisheries landings, ethnographic studies, and anecdotal qualitative information. 

Trends in Abundance 

Short-term and long-term trends in abundance are primary indicators of risk. Trends may 

be calculated from a variety of quantitative data, which are discussed in detail in specific 

subsections below. Interpretation of trends in terms of population sustainability is difficult for 

several reasons. First, eulachon are harvested in fisheries and shifting harvest goals or market 

82
conditions directly affect trends in spawning abundance and catch. Second, environmental 

fluctuations on short timescales affect trend estimates, especially for shorter trends. 

Recent Events 

A variety of factors, both natural and human-induced, affect the degree of risk facing 

eulachon populations. Because of time lags in these effects and variability in populations, recent 

changes in any of these factors may affect current risk without any apparent change in available 

population statistics. Thus consideration of these effects must go beyond examination of recent 

abundance and trends, but forecasting future effects is rarely straightforward and usually 

involves qualitative evaluations based on informed professional judgment. Events affecting 

populations may include natural changes in the environment or human-induced changes, either 

beneficial or detrimental. Possible future effects of recent or proposed conservation measures 

have not been taken into account in this analysis, but we have considered documented changes in 

the natural environment. A key question regarding the role of recent events is: Given our 

uncertainty regarding the future, how do we evaluate the risk that a population may not persist? 

It is generally accepted that important shifts in ocean-atmosphere conditions occurred 

about 1977 and again in 1998 that affected North Pacific marine ecosystems. Several studies 

have described decadal-scale oscillations in North Pacific climatic and oceanic conditions 

(Mantua and Hare 2002). These changes have been associated with recruitment patterns of 

several groundfish species and Pacific herring (McFarlane et al. 2000). As discussed in this 

report, increases in eulachon in the Columbia, Fraser, and Klinaklini rivers in 2001–2002 may be 

largely a result of the more favorable ocean conditions for eulachon survival during the transition 

from larvae to juvenile when these broods entered the ocean in 1998–2000. 

One indicator of the ocean-atmosphere variation for the North Pacific is the PDO index; 

Figure 15 shows that from fall 2007 to mid-summer 2009 (time period E on the graph) monthly 

PDO values were negative, whereas PDO values were mostly positive in time period D from 

2002 to fall of 2007 and during most of the previous two decades (time period B). One 

exception is time period C, which corresponds with 1998–2000 when good ocean conditions for 

survival of larval eulachon led to the increased run strength noted in 2001–2002. PDO values 

were generally negative for a long period from the 1950s to the late 1980s (time period A). 

Recently negative PDO values are associated with relatively cool ocean temperatures off the 

Pacific Northwest and positive values are associated with warmer, less productive conditions 

(Mantua and Hare 2002). 

Coupled changes in climate and ocean conditions have occurred on several different time 

scales and have influenced the geographical distributions, and hence local abundance, of marine 

fishes. On time scales of hundreds of millennia, periodic cooling produced several glaciations in 

the Pleistocene Epoch (Imbrie et al. 1984, Bond et al. 1993). Since the end of this major period 

of cooling, several population oscillations of pelagic fishes, such as anchovies (Engraulis 

mordax) and sardines (Sardinops sagax), have been noted on the west coast of North America 

(Baumgartner et al. 1992). These oscillations, with periods of about 100 years, have presumably 

occurred in response to climatic variability. On decadal time scales, climatic variability in the 

North Pacific and North Atlantic oceans has influenced the abundances and distributions of 

widespread species, including several species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) (Francis et 

83
-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Y

A

B

C

D

E

PDO Index

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Figure 15. Monthly values for the PDO index, which is based on sea surface temperatures in the North 

Pacific Ocean, poleward of 20o N. A through E are time periods discussed in the text. Data 

source: online at http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest. 

al. 1998, Mantua et al. 1997) in the North Pacific, and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) 

(Alheit and Hagen 1997) and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) (Swain 1999) in the North Atlantic. 

At this time, we do not know whether recent shifts in climate and ocean conditions represent a 

long-term shift in conditions that will continue affecting stocks into the future or short-term 

environmental fluctuations that can be expected to be reversed in the near future. Although 

recent conditions appear to be within the range of historic conditions under which eulachon 

populations have evolved, the risks associated with poor climate conditions may be exacerbated 

by human influence on these populations (Lawson 1993). 

None of the elements of risk outlined above are easy to evaluate, particularly in light of 

the great variety in quantity and quality of information available for various populations. Two 

major types of information were considered: previous assessments that provided integrated 

reviews of the status of eulachon in our region and data regarding individual elements of 

population status, such as abundance, trend, and habitat conditions. 

A major problem in evaluations of risk for eulachon is combining information on a 

variety of risk factors into a single overall assessment of risk facing a population. Conducting an 

overall assessment of extinction risk involves the consideration of a wide variety of qualitative 

and quantitative information concerning the threats and demographic risks affecting a species’ 

persistence. Moreover, the type and spatial-temporal coverage of the information available often 

varies within and among populations. This presents a substantial challenge of integrating 

disparate types of information into an assessment of a species’ overall level of extinction risk. 

Usually such assessments necessitate qualitative evaluations based on informed professional 

judgment. In this review, we have used a risk-matrix approach through which the BRT members 

84
applied their best scientific judgment to combine qualitative and quantitative evidence regarding 

multiple risks into an overall assessment. 

Status Assessments 

Official Status in California, Oregon, and Washington 

In California eulachon are classified on the Fish Species of Special Concern List as a 

Class 3 Watch List species (see http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/fish.html). This list 

was most recently updated in 1995. Class 3 Watch List species are defined as: 

taxa occupying much of their native range, but were formerly more widespread or 

abundant within that range. ... The populations of such species need to be 

assessed periodically (i.e., every 5 years) and included in long-term plans for 

protected waterways (e.g., ADMAs [aquatic diversity management areas]). 

In Oregon, eulachon are not listed as a state threatened, endangered, or candidate species, 

nor are they on the state sensitive species list. However, eulachon are on the list of Strategy 

Species in Oregon’s Nearshore Strategy (ODFW 2006, p. 26). These species are defined in the 

following manner: 

Strategy species are nearshore species that were identified by the Nearshore 

Team to be in greatest need of management attention. Identification as a strategy 

species does not necessarily mean the species is in trouble. Rather, those 

identified as a strategy species have some significant nearshore 

management/conservation issue connected to that species that is of interest to 

managers. 

ODFW (2006, p. 28) further refers to eulachon under the category of Notes on Conservation 

Needs as:

Forage fish. Vulnerable freshwater spawning and nursery grounds. Columbia 

River population has declined. Other distinct population segments (DPS) may 

have experienced similar declines. 

In Washington, eulachon are classified by the WDFW (online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/ 

wlm/diversty/soc/candidat.htm) as a State Candidate Species, which are defined as: 

fish and wildlife species that the department will review for possible listing as 

State Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive. A species will be considered for 

designation as a State Candidate if sufficient evidence suggests that its status may 

meet the listing criteria defined for State Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive. 

Status in Canada 

The Province of British Columbia examined the conservation status of eulachon in 2000 

and again in 2004 and in both instances assigned eulachon to its blue list. According to the 

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (2008, online at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/ 

red-blue.html) the blue list: 

85
Includes any indigenous species or subspecies considered to be of Special 

Concern (formerly Vulnerable) in British Columbia. Taxa of Special Concern 

have characteristics that make them particularly sensitive or vulnerable to human 

activities or natural events. Blue-listed taxa are at risk, but are not Extirpated, 

Endangered, or Threatened. 

Eulachon are also considered a Group 1 high priority candidate species for review in 

British Columbia by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

(COSEWIC). According to the COSEWIC Web site (http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/ 

assessment_process_e.cfm), “Group 1 contains species of highest priority for COSEWIC 

assessment. Wildlife species suspected to be extirpated from Canada would also be included in 

this group.” A recent bid to conduct a COSEWIC review has been awarded in Canada and a 

final product is due in November 2010 (see information online at http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/ 

eng/sct2/sct2_4_e.cfm). 

Pickard and Marmorek (2007) reported out the results of a DFO workshop whose 

purpose was to determine research priorities and recovery strategies for eulachon in the wake of 

the recent coastwide decline. They stated that: 

Recent information indicates that eulachon are declining in many parts of the west 

coast of North America, though the reasons for this decline and possible remedies 

are not well understood. In 1994 the Columbia, Fraser, and Klinaklini rivers 

suffered sudden drastic declines (Hay 1996). Since then First Nations have 

reported that fish are absent or at very low levels in many other British Columbia 

eulachon spawning rivers including: the Kemano, Kitimat, Wannock, Bella 

Coola, Nass, Skeena, Chilcoot, Unuk, Kitlope, and Stikine (Moody 2007, Hay 

2007). 

According to Schweigert et al. (2007, p. 13): 

In recent years, particularly since 1994, eulachon abundance has declined 

synchronously in many rivers and virtually disappeared in California. This 

decrease has been noticeable in the PNCIMA [Pacific North Coast Integrated 

Management Area] region, with very poor runs in Douglas Channel, Gardner 

Canal, Dean/Burke channels, and Rivers Inlet areas in the past 5 years. It is 

suspected that these declines may be related to large-scale climate change. 

Recent studies suggest rivers that normally experience spring freshet events may 

gradually be changing to summer and fall freshets that may impair eulachon 

spawning runs. 

Other Status Assessments 

Musick et al. (2000, p. 11) assessed the status of eulachon following American Fisheries 

Society criteria to define extinction risk in marine fishes (Musick 1999), and classified eulachon 

in the Columbia River as threatened based on “commercial landings [that] have declined from 

average of 2.1 million lb annually from 1938 to 1989 to 5,000 lb in 1999, a decline > 0.99.” In 

addition, Musick et al. (2000, p. 11) stated that “other DPSs from British Columbia to northern 

California may have declines similar to that observed in the Columbia River.” 

86
Hay and McCarter (2000) conducted a review of the status of eulachon for the Canadian 

Stock Assessment Secretariat of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and concluded at that time that 

“the widespread decline in the southern part of the range warrants a COSEWIC classification of 

‘threatened’ in Canadian waters.” This conclusion was based on: 

Available evidence [which] suggests that several rivers in the central coast of 

British Columbia may be extirpated, while others have declined severely. Only 

the Nass maintains normal or near-normal runs, although the Fraser, while 

markedly lower in recent decades and especially since 1994, still has regular, but 

diminished runs. The Columbia River, with the world’s largest eulachon run, 

declined sharply in 1993, and has remained low since. Apparently all runs in 

California have declined and several runs that once were large have not been seen 

in more than 20 years. 

General Demographic Indicators 

Within the range of the DPS, the BRT examined abundance related information in the 

published literature; data provided by DFO, WDFW, and ODFW; analyses of available 

abundance data both past and present summarized in Moody (2008); and information and 

presentations provided by eulachon experts from DFO, WDFW, ODFW, the Cowlitz Indian 

Tribe, and the Yurok Indian Tribe assembled during a scientific technical meeting at the NWFSC 

in June 2008. Information on eulachon abundance fell into the general categories of 1) fisheriesindependent scientific surveys of adults, offshore juveniles, and outmigrant larvae; 2) 

commercial fisheries-dependent landings; 3) recreational fisheries-dependent landings; 4) First 

Nations subsistence fisheries landings; 5) ethnographic studies; 6) anecdotal qualitative 

information; and 7) traditional ecological knowledge. 

In addition, the BRT reviewed the results of a fuzzy logic expert system developed by 

Moody (2008) to estimate a past and present relative abundance status index for eulachon in 

several areas of the southern DPS of eulachon. Moody’s (2008) expert system uses catch data to 

determine the exploitation status of a fishery and combines this with other data sources such as 

spawning stock biomass estimates, CPUE data, test fishery catches, larval survey data, or 

anecdotal comments on run size to estimate the relative abundance status index. This index was 

produced using designed heuristic rules and by adjusting weighting parameters (Moody 2008). 

Although humans have exploited eulachon populations for centuries, the perceived 

abundance of the resource and its low commercial value has resulted in limited regulation of past 

commercial and recreational fisheries, limited recording of past catches, and until recently a lack of 

assessment surveys of spawning abundance. The BRT recognized that the lack of direct estimates 

of eulachon abundance based on fishery-independent surveys (spawning stock biomass estimates 

or escapement counts) prior to 1993 makes it very difficult to quantify trends in eulachon 

abundance. Since the mid-1990s, monitoring of this resource has improved and a handful of data 

sets are now available that track eulachon spawning stock abundance and offshore juvenile 

abundance or provide an indication of run strength in several subareas of the DPS. 

87
Data Availability 

Fisheries-independent scientific surveys 

There are few direct estimates of spawning biomass of eulachon from rivers within the 

DPS, although all of these data sets began to be collected after the perceived decline in run sizes 

occurred in the early 1990s. Spawner biomass (pounds or metric tons) or total spawner counts 

(numbers of adult fish) are available for the Fraser River (1996–2009), Klinaklini River (1995), 

Kingcome River (1997), Wannock/Kilbella rivers (2005–2006), Bella Coola River (2001–2004), 

Kitimat River (1993–1996, 1998–2005), and Skeena River (1997). Even though the results of 

most of these studies are only available in gray literature reports, they were regarded by the BRT 

as constituting the best scientific and commercial data available for recent eulachon abundance 

in the DPS and were heavily weighted in the BRT’s risk analysis. The BRT was cognizant of the 

fact that abundance estimates always contain observational error. These factors were taken into 

account when evaluating the data sets. 

Offshore juvenile eulachon biomass estimates were available for Queen Charlotte Sound 

(1998–2009), West Coast Vancouver Island (1973, 1975–1983, 1985, 1987–2009), and the U.S. 

West Coast (1995, 1998, 2001). Data for Queen Charlotte Sound and West Coast Vancouver 

Island were collected by DFO as part of offshore shrimp biomass assessments. Eulachon 

juvenile biomass data for the U.S. West Coast were available from AFSC triennial groundfish 

bottom trawl surveys on the continental shelf (55–500 m) in 1995 (Wilkins 1998), 1998 (Wilkins 

and Shaw 2000), and 2001 (Wilkins and Weinberg 2002). 

CPUE data for eulachon were also available off the U.S. West Coast in AFSC triennial 

groundfish bottom trawl surveys over the continental shelf in depths of 55–366 m (1989, 1992) 

or 55–500 m (1995, 1998, 2001) and in certain INPFC statistical areas in AFSC groundfish 

bottom trawl surveys over the continental slope in depths of 183–1,280 m (1989–1999). 

However, as mentioned previously, these groundfish surveys were designed to sample bottom 

dwelling species and capture only a small and erratic portion of the pelagic distribution of 

eulachon. 

Mean eulachon larval density data were available in the mainstem Columbia River 

(1996–2009), Cowlitz River (1986, 1994–2004, 2006–2009), Grays River (1998–2001, 2004–

2006, 2008, 2009), Elochoman River (1997–2001, 2003, 2008), Kalama River (1995–2002), 

Lewis River (1997–2003, 2007–2009), and Sandy River (1998–2000, 2003). 

Data from a Fraser River test fishery were available for the years 1995–1998 and 2000–

2005 and are reported as number of fish caught. CPUE data were available from the Columbia 

River (1988–2008), Kemano River (1988–2006), and Kitimat River (1994–2006). 

Commercial fisheries–dependent landings 

Commercial fisheries landings in pounds or metric tons of eulachon were available for 

the Klamath River (1963), Umpqua River (1967), Columbia River (1888–1892, 1894–1913, 

1915–2009), Fraser River (1881–1996), Kitimat River (1969–1971), and Skeena River (1900–

1916, 1919, 1924, 1926–1927, 1929–1932, 1935, 1941). 

88
In some areas of the southern DPS of eulachon where escapement counts or estimates of 

spawning stock biomass are unavailable, catch statistics provide the only available quantitative 

data source that defines the relative abundance of eulachon occurrence that may be otherwise 

evident only by simple run-strength observation. However, inferring population status or even 

trends from yearly changes in catch statistics requires assumptions that are seldom met, including 

similar fishing effort and efficiency, assumptions about the relationship of the harvested portion 

to the total portion of the stock, and statistical assumptions such as random sampling. 

First Nations and Indian tribal subsistence fisheries landings 

First Nations subsistence fisheries landings in pounds or metric tons of eulachon were 

available for a number of rivers in British Columbia including the Fraser River (1975–1987, 

1991), Klinaklini River (1947, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1959–1973, 1977), Kingcome River (1950, 

1957, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1966), Wannock River (1967, 1968, 1971), Bella Coola River (1945, 

1946, 1948–1989, 1995, 1998), Kemano River (1969–1973, 1988–2006), and Kitimat River 

(1969–1972). 

Recreational fisheries–dependent landings 

Recreational fisheries for eulachon are even more poorly documented that those for 

commercial and subsistence purposes. A popular recreational dip net fishery for eulachon has a 

long history on the Columbia River, particularly in tributary rivers such as the Cowlitz and on 

occasion the Sandy River. Catch records are not maintained for this fishery, although it has been 

estimated at times to equal the commercial catch (WDFW and ODFW 2001). A similar 

recreational dip net fishery occurred in the past on the Fraser River, and landings data exist for a 

portion of this fishery in the vicinity of Mission, British Columbia, for the years 1956, 1963–

1967, and 1970–1980 (Moody 2008, p. 49, her Figure 2.22). 

Ethnographic studies 

Numerous ethnographic studies emphasize the nutritional and cultural importance of 

eulachon to coastal mainland Indian tribes and First Nations. The BRT examined ethnographic 

sources that describe historical distributions and relative abundance of eulachon fisheries within 

the boundaries of the DPS. Many of the statements in these sources as to the historical 

distribution and abundance of eulachon consisted of traditional ecological knowledge or were 

anecdotal in nature.

Anecdotal qualitative information 

Anecdotal information is defined in the present context as information based on personal 

observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific 

evaluation. This category includes memoirs of pioneers, fur trappers, and explorers; newspaper 

articles; and interviews with local fishers. 

The BRT examined a variety of primary sources (e.g., accounts of early explorers, 

surveyors, fur trappers, and settlers and newspaper articles) and secondary sourced (e.g., agency 

fisheries reports and journal articles that cite personal communications) that describe historical 

distributions and relative abundance of eulachon within the boundaries of the DPS. The BRT 

89
also examined documents (e.g., Larson and Belchik 1998, Hay and McCarter 2000, Moody 

2008) that cited interviews with local fishers or personal communications from local fisheries 

managers in their attempt to qualitatively characterize eulachon run strength. Many statements 

in these sources as to the historical distribution of eulachon were largely anecdotal in nature. 

Traditional ecological knowledge 

Although there is a largely untapped store of knowledge on eulachon residing in the 

culture and traditions of Native American Indian Tribes and First Nations in Canada, the BRT 

did not separately consider traditional ecological knowledge sources in its deliberations; 

however, the BRT did examine secondary sources that presented information on eulachon 

presence and run size that was gathered from interviews with traditional local fishers. 

Summary of Regional Demographic Data 

To facilitate evaluation of eulachon distribution and abundance, the BRT analyzed the 

available demographic information on a subpopulation basis, arranged geographically into 

separate major estuaries, which have been postulated to be the smallest area that likely supports a 

biological stock (McCarter and Hay 1999, Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 2002). These major 

areas are 1) Klamath River, 2) Columbia River (Cowlitz, Grays, Lewis, Kalama, Sandy rivers, 

etc.) in the United States, 3) Fraser River, 4) Knight Inlet (Klinaklini River), 5) Kingcome Inlet 

(Kingcome River), 6) Rivers Inlet (Wannock and Kilbella/Chuckwalla rivers), 7) Dean Channel 

(Bella Coola and Kimsquit rivers), 8) Gardner Canal (Kemano, Kowesas, and Kitlope rivers), 9) 

Douglas Channel (Kitimat and Kildala rivers), and 10) Skeena River in British Columbia. 

Eulachon are periodically noted in small numbers in several rivers and creeks on the 

Washington and Oregon coast. Documentation of these irregular occurrences of eulachon is 

usually anecdotal and it is uncertain how these fish are related demographically to eulachon in 

rivers such as the Fraser and Columbia where consistent annual runs occur. Occasionally large 

runs are noticed, usually by the abundance of predatory birds and marine mammals that 

accompany these runs, in coastal rivers such as the Queets and Quinault. Usually these large run 

events are separated in time by periods greater than the generation time of eulachon. We do not 

know enough about the biology of eulachon to know if these eulachon run events represent selfsustaining populations or are simply stray individuals from larger eulachon systems. It is 

possible that these populations may exist at levels of abundance that would not be detected by 

the casual observer, only to become noticed in years of high abundance. Further research on the 

source and sustainability of eulachon that occasionally appear in these coastal creeks and rivers 

is needed to fully assess the status of these eulachon aggregations. 

Offshore juvenile abundance estimates 

Four fisheries-independent indices of juvenile offshore biomass are available that indicate 

status of stock mixtures: 1) a West Coast Vancouver Island eulachon biomass index (Figure 16); 

2) a Queen Charlotte Sound eulachon biomass index (Figure 17); 3) estimates of CPUE, 

biomass, or number of eulachon reported in a series of groundfish bottom trawl surveys 

conducted on the continental shelf and slope of the U.S. West Coast by NMFS’s NWAFC and 

90
Year

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Biomass index (mt)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Area 23IN, 23OFF, 21OFF 

Area 124OFF 

Area 125OFF 

Figure 16. West coast Vancouver Island offshore eulachon biomass index. See Figure 21 for geographic 

locations of DFO shrimp management areas 23IN, 23OFF, 21OFF, 124OFF, and 125OFF. Data 

from Hay et al. (2003) and DFO west coast Vancouver Island shrimp survey bulletins (2000–

2009), online at http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/Shellfish/shrimp/surveys/ 

surveys.htm? 

AFSC and more recently by NWFSC (Table 2 through Table 5, Figure 18, and Figure 19); and 4) 

the AFSC Gulf of Alaska bottom trawl biomass estimates for eulachon (Figure 20). The latter 

two groundfish surveys were designed to sample bottom-dwelling species and capture only a 

small and erratic portion of the pelagic distribution of eulachon. In addition, none of these four 

indices provides information on spawning stock biomass and each incorporates juvenile biomass 

derived from 2 to 4 broodyears; however, these indices are useful predictors for potential future 

run sizes. 

DFO (2008a, p. 11) describes the west coast Vancouver Island eulachon biomass index as 

follows (Figure 16): 

The offshore biomass index is based on an annual trawl survey conducted in late 

April or early May by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Science Branch. The survey 

initially was designed to index shrimp abundance but since eulachon also are 

caught by this survey, a eulachon index is possible. It is important to note that 

this is a biomass index and not a biomass estimate and that eulachon caught in 

this survey include stocks from both the Fraser River, and the Columbia River, 

and possibly other areas. This survey has been conducted since 1973 and 

provides an annual index of offshore abundance for the lower west coast 

Vancouver Island (areas 121, 23, 123, 124, and 125) [Figure 21]. 

91
Year

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Biomass index (mt)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Figure 17. Queen Charlotte Sound offshore eulachon biomass index. Data from DFO Queen Charlotte 

Sound shrimp survey bulletins (2000–2009), online at http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ 

xnet/content/Shellfish/shrimp/surveys/surveys.htm? 

DFO (2009a, p. 3) stated that “the eulachon biomass indices for 2009 increased in all 

SMAs [shrimp management areas] surveyed [off west coast Vancouver Island] compared to 

2008 indices” (Figure 16). Biomass increased “from 353.7 t in 2008 to 720.8 t in 2009” in 

SMAs 23OFF+21OFF, “from 697.8 t in 2008 to 1810.1 t in 2009” in SMA 124OFF, and “from 

184.9 t in 2008 to 520.0 t in 2009” in SMA 125OFF (DFO 2009a, p. 3) (Figure 21). 

In a similar manner, a Queen Charlotte Sound eulachon biomass index (Figure 17) is 

derived from eulachon caught in the fishery-independent shrimp survey that is conducted in May 

of each year in SMA Queen Charlotte Sound. Data indicate that “the 2008 estimate of 451.5 t is 

a significant increase from the record low 137.1 t in 2007” (DFO 2008b, p. 2); however, 

“eulachon biomass on the shrimp grounds decreased slightly to 394.8 t in 2009 from 451.5 t in 

2008” (DFO 2009b, p. 2). As reported in DFO (2009b, p. 3) “the shrimp trawl fishery in SMA 

Queen Charlotte Sound will remain closed due to eulachon conservation concerns in central 

British Columbia rivers” (Figure 21). 

The history and location of groundfish trawl surveys conducted by the NWAFC, AFSC, 

and NWFSC in Alaska and off the U.S. West Coast were described in the above Marine 

Distribution subsection. Mean CPUE (kg/ha) data for eulachon in select INPFC statistical areas 

(Table 2) were published in various AFSC groundfish bottom trawl surveys conducted between 

92
Table 2. Mean CPUE (kg/ha) of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas (Figure 4) as reported in AFSC groundfish bottom traw

continental slope in depths of 183 to 1,280 m. ND (for no data) indicates that no survey occurred in a certain area 

survey occurred but no eulachon were reported. 

Year 

Canadian 

Vancouver 

U.S. 

Vancouver 

Total 

Vancouver Columbia Eureka Monterey Conception U.S. t

1989a ND ND ND 2.296 ND ND ND ND 1990a ND ND ND ND 0.487 ND ND ND 

1991a ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 

1992a

(183–366 m) 

ND 0.003 ND 0.032 ND ND ND ND 

1992a

(367–549) 

ND 0.004 ND 0.002 ND ND ND ND 

1993a

(183–366 m) 

ND ND ND 0.001 ND ND ND ND 

1993a

(367–549 m) 

ND ND ND 0.001 ND ND ND ND 

1996b

(183–366 m) 

ND — ND — ND ND ND ND 

1996b

(367–549 m) 

ND — ND 0.002 ND ND ND ND 

1997c

(183–366 m) 

ND — ND 0.002 — — — 0.00

1997c

(367–549 m) 

ND — ND 0.003 — — — 0.00

1999d

(183–366 m) 

ND — ND 0.006 0.007 — — 0.00

93

a Lauth et al. 1997 b Lauth 1997b c Lauth 1999

d Lauth 2000 
94

Table 3. Mean CPUE (kg/ha) of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas (Figure 4) as reported in AFSC triennial groundfish bo

the continental slope in depths of 55 to 366 m (1989 and 1992) or 55 to 500 m (1995–2001). A dash indicates a sueulachon were reported. 

Year 

Canadian 

Vancouver 

U.S. 

Vancouver 

Total 

Vancouver Columbia Eureka Monterey Conception U.S. tot

1989a 0.723 0.259 0.557 0.438 0.458 0.014 0.169 0.295 1992b 3.115 0.010 1.933 0.188 0.226 — — 0.114 

1995c 1.118 0.094 0.761 0.027 0.001 — — 0.019 

1998d 0.127 0.007 0.077 0.009 Trace — — 0.004 

2001e 13.251 0.362 6.888 0.253 0.013 — — 0.135 

a Weinberg et al. 1994, b Zimmerman 1994, c Wilkins 1998, d Wilkins and Shaw 2000, e Wilkins and Weinberg 2002 Table 4. Estimated biomass (mt) of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas (Figure 4) as reported in AFSC triennial groundfish 

on the continental slope in depths of 55 to 500 m. A dash indicates a survey occurred but no eulachon were reporte

Year 

Canadian 

Vancouver 

U.S. 

Vancouver 

Total 

Vancouver Columbia Eureka Monterey Conception U.S. tot

1995a 1,137 85 1,221 59 1 — — 145 1998b 123 9 132 20 — — — 30 

2001c 12,186 717 12,903 558 9 — — 1,284 

a Wilkins 1998, b Wilkins and Shaw 2000, c Wilkins and Weinberg 2002 Table 5. Estimated number of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas (Figure 4) as reported in AFSC triennial groundfish bott

continental slope in depths of 55 to 500 m. A dash indicates a survey occurred but no eulachon were reported. 

Year 

Canadian 

Vancouver 

U.S. 

Vancouver 

Total 

Vancouver Columbia Eureka Monterey Conception U.S. tot

1995a 39,912,489 2,475,680 42,579,382 1,552,718 16,787 — — 4,045,11998b 7,811,913 595,554 8,407,466 1,150,452 5,297 — — 1,751,3

2001c 340,794,386 22,481,691 363,276,077 22,146,832 808,073 — — 45,436,5

a Wilkins 1998, b Wilkins and Shaw 2000, c Wilkins and Weinberg 2002 
Year

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

CPUE (kg/ha)

0

2

4

12

14

Canadian Vancouver 

U.S. Vancouver 

Columbia 

Eureka 

Monterey 

Conception 

Figure 18. Mean CPUE (kg/ha) of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas (Figure 4) off the U.S. West Coast, 

as reported in AFSC triennial groundfish bottom trawl surveys on the continental shelf in depths 

of 55–366 m (1989 and 1992) or 55–500 m (1995–2001) in 1989 (Weinberg et al. 1994), 1992 

(Zimmermann 1994), 1995 (Wilkins 1998), 1998 (Wilkins and Shaw 2000), and 2001 (Wilkins 

and Weinberg 2002). 

1989 and 1999 on the U.S. West Coast continental slope between depths of 183 and 1,280 m 

(Lauth et al. 1997, Lauth 1997b, 1999, 2000). 

As mentioned previously, this depth range is deeper than preferred by eulachon and it is 

likely that these continental slope surveys missed the vast majority of eulachon in the area. The 

1977 triennial groundfish survey recorded eulachon in six of nine assemblages on the continental 

shelf off the Washington and Oregon coasts, being most abundant within the Nestucca 

Intermediate Assemblage (90–145 m), where they constituted 3.5% of the total biomass and had 

a mean CPUE of 28.6 lb/haul (13 kg/haul) (Gabriel and Tyler 1980). In 1980 eulachon were 

recorded as the 15th most common fish encountered (0.69 kg/ km trawled) in the shallow stratum 

(55–183 m) in the INPFC Eureka area, but were not recorded within the top 20 species 

encountered in the INPFC Vancouver, Columbia, or Monterey areas (Coleman 1986). Triennial 

surveys conducted in 1989–2001 provided mean CPUE (kg/ha) data for eulachon (Table 3, 

Figure 18) in INPFC statistical areas off the U.S. West Coast (Weinberg et al. 1994b, 

Zimmermann 1994, Wilkins 1998, Wilkins and Shaw 2000, Wilkins and Weinberg 2002). 

Biomass and total number of fish (Table 5) estimates for eulachon were published for 

surveys conducted in 1995 (Wilkins 1998), 1998 (Wilkins and Shaw 2000), and 2001 (Wilkins 

95
Year

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Biomass (mt)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Canadian Vancouver 

US Vancouver 

Columbia 

Eureka 

Figure 19. Estimated biomass (mt) of eulachon in INPFC statistical areas (Figure 4) off the U.S. West 

Coast as reported in AFSC triennial groundfish bottom trawl surveys on the continental shelf in 

depths of 55–500 m in 1995 (Wilkins 1998), 1998 (Wilkins and Shaw 2000), and 2001 (Wilkins 

and Weinberg 2002). 

and Weinberg 2002). Between 80% and 90% of the eulachon biomass in these surveys occurred 

in the Canadian portion of the Vancouver INPFC area (Table 4, Figure 19). As stated 

previously, these groundfish surveys were designed to sample bottom-dwelling species and only 

capture a small and erratic portion of the pelagic distribution of eulachon. 

Although unlikely to include eulachon from the southern DPS, the AFSC Gulf of Alaska 

bottom trawl estimates for eulachon (Figure 20) are a useful indicator of fluctuations in 

abundance in the Alaska Current for comparison with conditions in the California Current. 

Oregon marine recreational fisheries survey data 

ODFW (Williams 2009) (Table 6) provided a: 

summary for catches of eulachon in the marine sport fishery. The Oregon 

Recreational Boat Survey (ORBS) is our ocean boat sampling project. The 

survey is responsible for sampling sport catches from boats, focusing on ocean 

catches. Estimates of harvest are produced based on this sampling and are used 

for in-season management of quota species. Sampling takes place at a lesser 

extent in estuaries and that information is catalogued, but not used routinely. The 

96
Year

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

Biomass (mt)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Bycatch (mt)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Western GOA 

Central GOA 

Eastern GOA 

Eulachon bycatch 

Figure 20. AFSC bottom trawl survey biomass estimates for eulachon and fishery incidental catch 

(bycatch) of eulachon in the Gulf of Alaska. Data from Ormseth and Vollenweider (2007) and 

Ormseth et al. (2008). 

Marine Recreational Finfish Statistical Survey (MRFSS) was formed by NMFS 

and operated by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. This survey 

was conducted at all saltwater access points including beaches, estuaries, manmade structures (e.g., jetties), and docks. It was a comprehensive survey that was 

intended to produce harvest trends over a number of years. ... Beginning in 1994, 

ORBS estimates for ocean boats superseded those generated by the old MRFSS 

program because ORBS methodology generates more accurate estimates. In 

particular, MRFSS is weak in capturing pulse, or short-term, fisheries like smelt 

(the PSE [proportional statistical error] for the annual eulachon estimates range 

from 73 to 100). Hence, the summary is best regarded as an indicator of eulachon 

presence in the sport fishery, not absolute numbers. 

Northern California 

There has been no long-term monitoring program for eulachon in California, making the 

assessment of historical abundance and abundance trends difficult. Within California, large 

spawning aggregations of eulachon were reported to have once regularly occurred in the 

Klamath River (Fry 1979, Moyle et al. 1995, Larson and Belchik 1998, Moyle 2002, Hamilton et 

al. 2005) and on occasion in the Mad River (Moyle et al. 1995, Moyle 2002) and Redwood 

Creek (Moyle et al. 1995) (Table A-1, Figure 2). In addition, Moyle et al. (1995) and Moyle 

(2002) stated that small numbers of eulachon have been reported from the Smith River 

97
Figure 21. Map of major shrimp management areas on the coast of British Columbia. Map modified 

from DFO (2009c). 

98
Table 6. Marine Recreational Finfish Statistical Survey (MRFSS) and Shore and Estuary Boat Survey (SEBS) eulachon ca

Williams (2009) for Oregon between 1980 and June 2005. All eulachon were caught from piers or docks in bays. per fisher interviewed. 

South Beach Winchester Bay Bandon 

No. fish No. fishers CPUE No. fish No. fishers CPUE No. fish No. fishers CPUE 

1983 1987 

1993 53 11 4.8 8 4 2.0 

1994 

1995 18 1 18.0 

1999 66 6 11.0 

Total 53 11 4.8 26 5 5.2 66 6 11.0 

Table 6 continued horizontally. MRFSS and SEBS eulachon catch data provided by Williams (2009) for Oregon between 

All eulachon were caught from piers or docks in bays. CPUE is fish caught per fisher interviewed. 

99 Charleston Brookings Total 

No. fish No. fishers CPUE No. fish No. fishers CPUE No. fish No. fishers CPUE

1983 1 2 0.5 1 2 0.5 1987 2 3 0.7 2 3 0.7 

1993 61 15 4.1 

1994 4 2 2.0 4 2 2.0 

1995 18 1 18.0 

1999 66 6 11.0 

Total 3 5 0.6 4 2 2.0 152 29 5.5 
(Table A-1). CDFG’s Status Report on Living Marine Resources (Sweetnam et al. 2001, p. 477–

478) stated that “The principal spawning run [of eulachon] in California is in the Klamath River, 

but runs have also been recorded in the Mad and Smith rivers and Redwood Creek.” Allen et al. 

(2006) indicated that eulachon usually spawn no further south than the lower Klamath River and 

Humboldt Bay tributaries. 

Eulachon were of great cultural and subsistence importance to the Yurok Tribe on the 

lower Klamath River (Trihey and Associates 1996) and the Yurok people consider eulachon to 

be a Tribal Trust Species along with spring and fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, 

Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) , and green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) (Trihey and 

Associates 1996, Larson and Belchik 1998). Eulachon once supported popular recreational 

fisheries in northern California rivers, but were never commercially important in California. The 

only reported commercial catch of eulachon in northern California occurred in 1963 when a 

combined total of 56,000 lb (25 mt) was landed from the Klamath River, the Mad River, and 

Redwood Creek. According to Larson and Belchik (1998, p. 4): 

Literature regarding ... [eulachon] specific to the Klamath River Basin is limited 

to accounts of mere presence and qualitative descriptions of the species. Though 

integral components of Yurok culture, eulachon ... have not been of commercial 

importance in the Klamath and are ... totally unstudied as to their run strengths. 

Larson and Belchik (1998, p. 6) also reported that according to accounts of Yurok tribal elders: 

The last noticeable runs of eulachon were observed [in the Klamath River] in 

1988 and 1989 by tribal fishers. Most fishers interviewed perceived a decline in 

the mid to late 1970s, while about a fifth thought it was in the 1980s. A minority 

of those interviewed noticed declines in the 1950s and 1960s. 

Larson and Belchik (1998, p. 7) further stated that: 

In December 1988 and May 1989, a total of 44 eulachon were identified in 

outmigrant salmonid seining operations in and above the Klamath River estuary 

(CDFG unpublished seining data). Though only selected sites are seined and 

salmonids are the targeted species, no eulachon have been positively identified 

since at least 1991 (M. Wallace, CDFG, pers. commun.). 

As detailed in Larson and Belchik (1998), the Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program spent more 

than 119 hours of staff time from February 5 to May 6, 1996, sampling for eulachon in the lower 

Klamath River at 5 different sites where eulachon had been noted in the past without 

encountering a single eulachon. However, one eulachon was captured by a Yurok tribal member 

near the mouth of the Klamath River in 1996 (Larson and Belchik 1998). Sweetnam et al. (2001, 

p. 478), in the CDFG Status Report on Living Marine Resources, stated that “In recent years, 

eulachon numbers seem to have declined drastically, so they are now rare or absent from the 

Mad River and Redwood Creek and scarce in the Klamath River.” CDFG (Sweetnam et al. 

2001, p. 478) also stated that “the eulachon and its fishery have been largely ignored in the past” 

in California, and perhaps the perceived lack of eulachon in the Klamath River, currently and in 

100
the recent past, represent a low point in a natural cycle. In January 2007 six eulachon were 

reportedly caught by tribal fishermen on the Klamath River.12

The BRT was concerned that there are almost no scientifically obtained abundance data 

available for eulachon in the Klamath River or any other basin in northern California. 

Ethnographic studies, pioneer diaries, interviews with local fishers, personal communications 

from managers, and newspaper accounts are therefore the best information available that provide 

documentation of eulachon occurrence in the Klamath River and other rivers on the northern 

California coast. 

The BRT discussed several possible interpretations of the available information. In 

particular, the BRT discussed the possibility that historically runs of eulachon in the Klamath 

River were episodic and perhaps only occasionally large enough to be noticed. The BRT also 

considered the possibility that eulachon still occur in low but viable numbers in northern 

California rivers but are not frequently observed because of the absence of a formal monitoring 

program. The BRT also discussed the possibility that some eulachon may spawn in estuarine 

environments and are not observed in the riverine environment. 

The BRT concluded, however, that explanations that posit the absence of sustained 

Klamath River eulachon runs historically are less consistent with the available information than 

the hypothesis that Klamath River eulachon runs used to be regular and large enough to be 

readily noticeable and now are at most small and sporadic. In particular, various accounts 

written by CDFG personnel (Fry 1979, Sweetnam et al. 2001, CDFG 2008), Yurok Tribal 

Fisheries Department personnel (Larson and Belchik 1998), the National Resource Council’s 

Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin (NRC 2004), or 

available academic literature (Moyle et al. 1995, Moyle 2002, Hamilton et al. 2005) universally 

describe accounts of the past occurrence of eulachon in the Klamath River and their subsequent 

decline. Based on the available information, the BRT was therefore unable to estimate the 

historical abundance of eulachon in northern California, but the BRT found no reason to discount 

the veracity of these anecdotal sources, which span a period of approximately 100 years and are 

nearly universal in their description of noticeable runs of eulachon having once ascended the 

Klamath River. 

Likewise, although the BRT was concerned about the absence of a contemporary 

monitoring program for eulachon, the information available strongly indicated that noticeable 

runs of eulachon are not currently spawning in Klamath River or other northern California rivers. 

In particular, the BRT thought it likely that if eulachon were returning in any substantial 

numbers, it would be reported by residents or those engaged in recreation, research, or 

management on rivers in northern California. The BRT noted that large eulachon runs tend to 

attract the attention of fishermen, and the previous runs on the Klamath River were readily 

noticeable (e.g., “the fish moved up in huge swarms, followed by large flocks of feeding 

seabirds” [Moyle 2002, p. 240]). The BRT therefore concluded that the available information 

was most readily interpreted as indicating that noticeable, regularly returning runs of eulachon 

used to be present in the Klamath River, but have been rare or sporadic for a period of several 

decades. 

 

12 D. Hillemeier, Yurok Tribal Fisheries Department, Klamath, CA. Pers. commun., 23 June 2008. 

101
102

Although the BRT was reasonably confident that eulachon have declined substantially in 

northern California, it is also clear that they have not been totally absent from this area in recent 

years. In particular, recent reports from Yurok tribal fisheries biologists of a few eulachon being 

caught incidentally in other fisheries on the Klamath in 2007 indicates eulachon still on occasion 

enter the Klamath River in low numbers. 

Columbia River 

The Columbia River and its tributaries support the largest eulachon run in the world (Hay 

et al. 2002). Despite its size and the importance of the fishery (Appendix B and Appendix D), 

estimates of adult spawning stock abundance are unavailable and the primary information 

sources on trends in Columbia River eulachon abundance are catch records. In addition to 

regular returns to mainstem spawning locations in the Columbia River and on the Cowlitz River 

(most years), eulachon are known to spawn in the following lower Columbia River tributaries: 

Grays River (common use), Skamokawa Creek (infrequent use), Elochoman River (periodic 

use), Kalama River (common use), Lewis River (common use), and Sandy River (common use 

in large run years) (Table A-1, Figure 2) (WDFW and ODFW 2008). 

Commercial fishery records begin in 1888 (Table 7 through Table 9, Figure 22) and local 

newspapers record catches in the Columbia River as early as 1867 (see Appendix B). A large 

recreational dip net fishery for which catch records are unavailable has existed in concert with 

commercial fisheries, and the importance of the eulachon run to local Indian tribes was 

documented as early as the Lewis and Clark Expedition (Burroughs 1961, WDFW and ODFW 

2001). The Joint Columbia River Management Staff (JCRMS 2007) stated that “limited past 

creel census information suggest that the recreational catch may equal the commercial landings 

in some years when smelt are abundant for a long period of time.” 

The BRT did not have confidence in the fishery landings, particularly prior to 2001 in the 

Columbia River as an accurate index of the actual abundance of the species. Landings are 

influenced by market conditions, fishing effort, weather, and many other factors other than actual 

fish abundance (WDFW and ODFW 2008). After implementation in 2000 of the interim Joint 

State Eulachon Management Plan (WDFW and ODFW 2001), the commercial fishery landings 

have become a relatively accurate index of the trend in the run size of eulachon returning to the 

Columbia River. For instance, eulachon returns increased during 2001–2003, dropped slightly in 

2004, then dropped dramatically in 2005, which is reflected in both the commercial landings and 

CPUE data collected during 2001–2007. This pattern was also essentially identical to that seen 

in offshore eulachon abundance indices (Figure 16 and Figure 17) and in abundance and catch 

records in several other rivers (e.g., Fraser and Klinaklini rivers) in the DPS. JCRMS (2007) has 

concluded that recent commercial landings “do provide a useful measure of the relative annual 

run strength.” In particular, state fisheries managers of Columbia River eulachon use 

commercial landings to judge whether population trends are upward, neutral, or downward 

(JCRMS 2007). 

Although not useful for estimating an accurate trend, the long-term landings data do 

indicate that commercial catch levels were consistently high (>500 mt and often >1,000 mt) for 

the three-quarters of a century period from about 1915 to 1992 (Table 9, Figure 22). Catches 
Table 7. Eulachon (aka Columbia River smelt) landings (pounds) from the Columbia River and tributary commercial fishe

were commonly reported by state; after that time data were reported by river basin, but not by individual state. 

Year 

Columbia 

River 

Grays 

River 

Cowlitz 

River 

Kalama 

River 

Lewis 

River 

Sandy 

River 

Oregon 

onlya

Washington 

only Total 

1888 150,000 150,000 Collins 1892 1889 60,000 60,000 Reed et al. 11890 1,000 1,000 Crawford 18

1891 150,000 150,000 Reed et al. 1

1892 125,000 500,000 625,000 Reed et al. 1

1892 (p. 9–1

1893 Unknownb

1894 300,000c 300,000 Crawford 18

1895 31,125 20,625 230,500 282,250 Wilcox 1898 

1896 338,675 338,675 677,350 McGuire 189

(p. 9) 

1897 677,480 344,000 1,021,480 McGuire 189

88) 

1898 450,000 287,000 737,000 McGuire 189

15) 

1899 280,500 280,420 560,920 Reed 1900 (p

1900 260,200 227,400 487,600 Reed 1900 (p

1901 265,380 265,380 Van Dusen 1

1902 122,454 450,000 572,454 Van Dusen 1

1902 (p. 82) 

1903 102,000 300,000 402,000 Van Dusen 1

1904 (p. 81) 

1904 15,138 425,322 440,460 Wilcox 1907 

1905 143,015 340,000 483,015 Van Dusen 1

1907 (p. 81) 

1906 163,000 340,000 503,000 Van Dusen 1

1907 (p. 56) 

1907 169,804 169,804 Van Dusen a

110) 

1908 262,022 340,000 602,022 Van Dusen a

150), Riselan

1909 209,608 340,000 549,608 Van Dusen a

36), Riseland 

103
Table 7 continued. Eulachon (aka Columbia River smelt) landings (pounds) from the Columbia River and tributary comme

1936, data were commonly reported by state; after that time data were reported by river basin, but not by individua

Year 

Columbia 

River 

Grays 

River 

Cowlitz 

River 

Kalama 

River 

Lewis 

River 

Sandy 

River 

Oregon 

onlya

Washington 

only Total 

1910 272,478 350,000 622,478 McCallister 

Riseland 19

1911 174,639 175,000 349,639 Clanton 191

(p. 58) 

1912 320,336 175,000 495,336 Clanton 191

(p. 48) 

1913 200,000 200,000 Riseland 19

1914 Unknownb

1915 1,609,500 1,609,500 Radcliffe 19

1916 641,595 641,595 Darwin 1917 1917 2,806,129 2,806,129 Darwin 1917 1918 1,633,700 1,633,700 Darwin 1920 1919 2,405,360 2,405,360 Darwin 1920 1920 977,084 977,084 Darwin 1920 1921 1,051,283 1,051,283 Darwin 1921922 215,000 1,156,180 1,371,180 Sette 1926 (p

100) 

1923 277,195 752,223 1,029,418 Sette 1926 (p

1936 (p. 100

1924 226,800 779,422 1,006,222 Sette 1928 (p

44) 

1925 308,676 1,092,028 1,400,704 Sette 1928 (p

97) 

1926 72,900 1,194,314 1,267,214 Sette and Fie

Pollock 192

1927 411,732 881,314 1,293,046 Fiedler 1930 

(p. 168) 

1928 19,148 1,149,670 1,168,818 Maybury 19

(p. 80) 

1929 50,061 1,158,419 1,208,480 Maybury 19

(p. 80) 

1930 194,172 1,260,314 1,454,486 Pollock 1932 

1951 (p. 80) 

1931 435,306 1,521,966 1,957,272 Pollock 1932 

1951 (p. 80) 

104
Table 7 continued. Eulachon (aka Columbia River smelt) landings (pounds) from the Columbia River and tributary comme

1936, data were commonly reported by state; after that time data were reported by river basin, but not by individua

Year 

Columbia 

River 

Grays 

River 

Cowlitz 

River 

Kalama 

River 

Lewis 

River 

Sandy 

River 

Oregon 

onlya

Washington 

only Total 

1932 233,993 1,349,955 1,583,948 Brennan 193

(p. 80) 

1933 520,418 872,172 1,392,590 Brennan 193

(p. 80) 

1934 536,036 957,120 1,520,156 Brennan 193

(p. 80) 

1935 132,773 2,199,185 2,331,958 Brennan 193

(p. 80) 

1936 194,705 27,200 

3

2,583,525 0 144,325

0

134,102

0

3,083,857 Cleaver 195

1 937 06 ,030 0 4 

947 300 ,600 0 0 9 

955 500 ,60 0 1 

958 300 ,100 0 0 4 

960 700 7 ,80 0 0 2 

961 400 ,900 0 0 0 3 

962 300 ,300 0 0 0 6 

432, 7, 350 1,999 2,438, 43 Cleaver 195

1938 866,700 2,100 33,100 76,600 63,100 0 1,041,600 WDFW and 1939 721,600 35,700 996,400 0 1,342,700 0 3,096,400 WDFW and 

1940 820,200 53,700 736,800 3,000 1,341,300 127,500 3,082,500 WDFW and 

1941 193,200 0 1,793,000 0 377,000 168,600 2,531,800 WDFW and 

1942 318,600 51,800 1,555,300 0 0 760,300 2,686,000 WDFW and 

1943 643,000 3,700 2,972,500 0 273,200 84,900 3,977,300 WDFW and 1944 572,700 10,900 1,126,400 44,300 514,200 0 2,268,500 WDFW and 

1945 633,300 59,200 2,048,400 32,500 1,552,800 1,393,100 5,719,300 WDFW and 

1946 253,200 300 2,674,000 0 0 348,500

0

3,276,000 WDFW and 

1 352, 0 1,192 1,544, 00 WDFW and 

1948 1,015,800 0 2,197,800 0 547,600 212,900 3,974,100 WDFW and 

1949 919,100 300 800 0 1,940,900 472,500 3,333,600 WDFW and 

1950 912,700 11,600 0 1,000 557,200 0 1,482,500 WDFW and 1951 1,337,600 0 0 0 0 179,300 1,516,900 WDFW and 

1952 867,100 0 380,600 17,800 8,100 1,300 1,274,900 WDFW and 1953 439,300 15,600 795,400 2,800 0 457,900 1,711,000 WDFW and 

1954 673,900 0 792,900 16,200

0

360,900

0

40,400

0

1,884,300 WDFW and 

1 887, 0 1,349 2,237, 00 WDFW and 1956 877,400 0 575,100 32,600 0 198,800 1,683,900 WDFW and 1957 377,500 2,200 987,800 0 0 211,500

0

1,579,000 WDFW and 

1 373, 0 2,243 2,616, 00 WDFW and 1959 760,000 0 62,300 44,100

0

889,700

0

0 1,756,100 WDFW and 

1 185, 00 985 1,172, 00 WDFW and 1 466, 0 585 1,052, 00 WDFW and 1 690, 0 783 1,473, 00 WDFW and 

105
Table 7 continued. Eulachon (aka Columbia River smelt) landings (pounds) from the Columbia River and tributary comme

1936, data were commonly reported by state; after that time data were reported by river basin, but not by individua

Year 

Columbia 

River 

Grays 

River 

Cowlitz 

River 

Kalama 

River 

Lewis 

River 

Sandy 

River 

Oregon 

onlya

Washington 

only Total 

1963 3 3 ,5 222, 00 21, 00 833 00 0 0 0 1,077, 100 WDFW and 1 964 90 ,900 0 0 0 8 

966 200 ,100 0 0 3 

967 10 2 ,500 0 0 0 8 

968 30 2 ,000 0 0 0 5 

969 70 8 ,200 0 0 0 7 

972 100 ,400 0 0 5 

973 000 ,400 0 0 0 4 

975 300 ,300 0 0 6 

984 400 ,600 0 0 0 

989 200 ,600 0 0 8 

991 800 ,600 0 0 4 00992 800 ,000 0 0 0 8 00994 200 ,20 0 0 0 4 00996 100 ,000 0 0 0 1 00997 100 ,500 0 0 0 6 00

452, 0 0 388 841, 00 WDFW and 

1965 828,700 0 0 0 82,000

0

0 910,700 WDFW and 

1 712, 0 316 1,028, 00 WDFW and 1 357, 0 23, 

0

00 620 1,000, 00 WDFW and 

1 133, 1, 00 813 947, 00 WDFW and 

1 113, 0 52, 00 917 1,083, 00 WDFW and 1970 238,200 4,500 559,700 55,900 325,600 0 1,183,900 WDFW and 1971 364,500 0 509,400 0 902,800

0

0 1,776,700 WDFW and 

1 304, 0 1,339 1,643, 00 WDFW and 1 132, 0 2,302 2,434, 00 WDFW and 1974 868,400 6,200 1,474,700 0 500 12,000

0

2,361,800 WDFW and 

1 28, 0 2,049 2,077, 00 WDFW and 1976 9,400 0 3,055,300 0 0 10,400 3,075,100 WDFW and 1977 662,700 0 0 326,200 0 764,100 1,753,000 WDFW and 

1978 16,600 0 2,642,700 0 21,000 0 2,680,300 WDFW and 1979 313,600 0 18,200 0 233,300 591,600 1,156,700 WDFW and 

1980 160,100 8,800 116,500 700 2,651,600 273,800 3,211,500 WDFW and 

1981 158,200 0 932,500 0 567,100 14,500 1,672,300 WDFW and 

1982 304,200 0 1,343,200 8,200 554,400 0 2,210,000 WDFW and 1983 58,700 0 1,307,300 0 1,364,400

0

0 2,730,400 WDFW and 

1 120, 0 377 498, 00 WDFW and 

1985 537,800 34,900 1,160,800 0 0 304,500 2,038,000 WDFW and 

1986 53,000 0 3,736,100 0 49,700 0 3,838,800 WDFW and 1987 73,600 0 1,321,000 700 500,400 0 1,895,700 WDFW and 1988 72,800 0 2,244,300 0 549,600

0

1,000 2,867,700 WDFW and 

1 65, 0 3,001 3,066, 00 WDFW and 1990 6,400 0 2,756,200 0 21,600

0

0 2,784,200 JCRMS 200

1 5, 0 2,944 2,950, 00 JCRMS 2 

1 0 3,673 3,673, 00 JCRMS 2 

1993 33,200 0 413,900

0

66,800

0

0 0 513,900 JCRMS 200

1 43 43, 00 JCRMS 2 

1995 7,700 0 431,400

0

900 0 0 440,000 JCRMS 200

1 7, 2 9, 00 JCRMS 2 

1 37, 0 21 58, 00 JCRMS 2 

106
107

Table 7 continued. Eulachon (aka Columbia River smelt) landings (pounds) from the Columbia River and tributary comme

1936, data were commonly reported by state; after that time data were reported by river basin, but not by individua

Year 

Columbia 

River 

Grays 

River 

Cowlitz 

River 

Kalama 

River 

Lewis 

River 

Sandy 

River 

Oregon 

onlya

Washington 

only Total 

1998 11,900 0 200 0 0 0 12,100 JCRMS 2001999 20,900 0 0 0 0 0 20,900 JCRMS 200

2000 31,000 0 0 0 0 0 31,000 JCRMS 200

2001 158,800 0 154,300 0 0 0 313,100 JCRMS 200

2002 58,000 0 169,600 0 493,600 0 721,200 JCRMS 2002003 66,900 0 464,400 0 529,100 23,000 1,083,400 JCRMS 200

2004 15,400 0 216,200 0 0 0 231,600 JCRMS 2002005 100 0 100 0 0 0 200 JCRMS 2002006 13,100 0 0 0 0 0 13,100 JCRMS 200

2007 7,100 0 1,200 0 0 0 8,300 JCRMS 200

2008 11,400 0 5,900 0 0 0 17,300 JCRMS 200

2009 5,551 0 12,093 0 0 0 17,644 WDFW 200

aSome Oregon commercial smelt catch values may be statewide smelt catch and may include an unknown number of noneulachon sme

streams. 

bOfficial landings data were not located for 1893 and 1914; however, newspapers (Appendix B) and local periodicals (Appendix D) rec

eulachon landings did occur in the Columbia River basin in those years. 

cCrawford (1894, p. 5) reported landings that equated to a monetary value of $3,000. At an average of one cent per pound, this equates 

pounds of eulachon. 
Table 8. Eulachon landings from the Columbia River and tributary commercial fishery and total numbers 

of fish in the catch, assuming a range of 10.8 to 12.3 eulachon per pound, based on the mean 

reported weight of eulachon in the Columbia River of 37 to 42 g. Landings data from sources 

listed in Table 7. 

Year 

Total landings 

(pounds) 

Number of fish at 

10.8 per pound 

Number of fish at 

12.3 per pound 

1888 150,000 1,620,000 1,845,000 

1889 60,000 648,000 738,000 

1890 1,000 10,800 12,300 

1891 150,000 1,620,000 1,845,000 

1892 625,000 6,750,000 7,687,500 

1893 Unknown* — — 

1894 300,000 3,240,000 3,690,000 

1895 313,375 3,384,450 3,854,513 

1896 677,350 7,315,380 8,331,405 

1897 1,021,480 11,031,984 12,564,204 

1898 737,000 7,959,600 9,065,100 

1899 560,920 6,057,936 6,899,316 

1900 487,600 5,266,080 5,997,480 

1901 265,380 2,866,104 3,264,174 

1902 572,454 6,182,503 7,041,184 

1903 402,000 4,341,600 4,944,600 

1904 440,460 4,756,968 5,417,658 

1905 483,015 5,216,562 5,941,085 

1906 503,000 5,432,400 6,186,900 

1907 169,804 1,833,883 2,088,589 

1908 602,022 6,501,838 7,404,871 

1909 549,608 5,935,766 6,760,178 

1910 622,478 6,722,762 7,656,479 

1911 349,639 3,776,101 4,300,560 

1912 495,336 5,349,629 6,092,633 

1913 200,000 2,160,000 2,460,000 

1914 Unknown* — — 

1915 1,609,500 17,382,600 19,796,850 

1916 641,595 6,929,226 7,891,619 

1917 2,806,129 30,306,193 34,515,387 

1918 1,633,700 17,643,960 20,094,510 

1919 2,405,360 25,977,888 29,585,928 

1920 977,084 10,552,507 12,018,133 

1921 1,051,283 11,353,856 12,930,781 

1922 1,371,180 14,808,744 16,865,514 

1923 1,029,418 11,117,714 12,661,841 

1924 1,006,222 10,867,198 12,376,531 

1925 1,400,704 15,127,603 17,228,659 

1926 1,267,214 13,685,911 15,586,732 

1927 1,293,046 13,964,897 15,904,466 

1928 1,168,818 12,623,234 14,376,461 

1929 1,208,480 13,051,584 14,864,304 

1930 1,454,486 15,708,449 17,890,178 

108
Table 8 continued. Eulachon landings from the Columbia River and tributary commercial fishery and 

total numbers of fish in the catch, assuming a range of 10.8 to 12.3 eulachon per pound, based on 

the mean reported weight of eulachon in the Columbia River of 37 to 42 g. Landings data from 

sources listed in Table 7. 

Year 

Total landings 

(pounds) 

Number of fish at 

10.8 per pound 

Number of fish at 

12.3 per pound 

1931 1,957,272 21,138,538 24,074,446 

1932 1,583,948 17,106,638 19,482,560 

1933 1,392,590 15,039,972 17,128,857 

1934 1,520,156 16,417,685 18,697,919 

1935 2,331,958 25,185,146 28,683,083 

1936 3,083,857 33,305,656 37,931,441 

1937 2,438,443 26,335,184 29,992,849 

1938 1,041,600 11,249,280 12,811,680 

1939 3,096,400 33,441,120 38,085,720 

1940 3,082,500 33,291,000 37,914,750 

1941 2,531,800 27,343,440 31,141,140 

1942 2,686,000 29,008,800 33,037,800 

1943 3,977,300 42,954,840 48,920,790 

1944 2,268,500 24,499,800 27,902,550 

1945 5,719,300 61,768,440 70,347,390 

1946 3,276,000 35,380,800 40,294,800 

1947 1,544,900 16,684,920 19,002,270 

1948 3,974,100 42,920,280 48,881,430 

1949 3,333,600 36,002,880 41,003,280 

1950 1,482,500 16,011,000 18,234,750 

1951 1,516,900 16,382,520 18,657,870 

1952 1,274,900 13,768,920 15,681,270 

1953 1,711,000 18,478,800 21,045,300 

1954 1,884,300 20,350,440 23,176,890 

1955 2,237,100 24,160,680 27,516,330 

1956 1,683,900 18,186,120 20,711,970 

1957 1,579,000 17,053,200 19,421,700 

1958 2,616,400 28,257,120 32,181,720 

1959 1,756,100 18,965,880 21,600,030 

1960 1,172,200 12,659,760 14,418,060 

1961 1,052,300 11,364,840 12,943,290 

1962 1,473,600 15,914,880 18,125,280 

1963 1,077,100 11,632,680 13,248,330 

1964 841,800 9,091,440 10,354,140 

1965 910,700 9,835,560 11,201,610 

1966 1,028,300 11,105,640 12,648,090 

1967 1,000,800 10,808,640 12,309,840 

1968 947,500 10,233,000 11,654,250 

1969 1,083,700 11,703,960 13,329,510 

1970 1,183,900 12,786,120 14,561,970 

1971 1,776,700 19,188,360 21,853,410 

1972 1,643,500 17,749,800 20,215,050 

1973 2,434,400 26,291,520 29,943,120 

109
Table 8 continued. Eulachon landings from the Columbia River and tributary commercial fishery and 

total numbers of fish in the catch, assuming a range of 10.8 to 12.3 eulachon per pound, based on 

the mean reported weight of eulachon in the Columbia River of 37 to 42 g. Landings data from 

sources listed in Table 7. 

Year 

Total landings 

(pounds) 

Number of fish at 

10.8 per pound 

Number of fish at 

12.3 per pound 

1974 2,361,800 25,507,440 29,050,140 

1975 2,077,600 22,438,080 25,554,480 

1976 3,075,100 33,211,080 37,823,730 

1977 1,753,000 18,932,400 21,561,900 

1978 2,680,300 28,947,240 32,967,690 

1979 1,156,700 12,492,360 14,227,410 

1980 3,211,500 34,684,200 39,501,450 

1981 1,672,300 18,060,840 20,569,290 

1982 2,210,000 23,868,000 27,183,000 

1983 2,730,400 29,488,320 33,583,920 

1984 498,000 5,378,400 6,125,400 

1985 2,038,000 22,010,400 25,067,400 

1986 3,838,800 41,459,040 47,217,240 

1987 1,895,700 20,473,560 23,317,110 

1988 2,867,700 30,971,160 35,272,710 

1989 3,066,800 33,121,440 37,721,640 

1990 2,784,200 30,069,360 34,245,660 

1991 2,950,400 31,864,320 36,289,920 

1992 3,673,800 39,677,040 45,187,740 

1993 513,900 5,550,120 6,320,970 

1994 43,400 468,720 533,820 

1995 440,000 4,752,000 5,412,000 

1996 9,100 98,280 111,930 

1997 58,600 632,880 720,780 

1998 12,100 130,680 148,830 

1999 20,900 225,720 257,070 

2000 31,000 334,800 381,300 

2001 313,100 3,381,480 3,851,130 

2002 721,200 7,788,960 8,870,760 

2003 1,083,400 11,700,720 13,325,820 

2004 231,600 2,501,280 2,848,680 

2005 200 2,160 2,460 

2006 13,100 141,480 161,130 

2007 8,310 89,748 102,213 

2008 17,300 186,840 212,790 

2009 17,644 190,555 217,021 

*Official landings data were not located for 1893 and 1914; however, newspapers (Appendix B) and local 

periodicals (Appendix D) recorded that substantial eulachon landings did occur in the Columbia River 

basin in those years.

110
Table 9. Estimated eulachon fishery landings (mt) for available subsets of the southern DPS. Data from 

sources listed in Table 7, Hay (2002), Lewis et al. (2002), Moody (2008), Parliament of Canada 

(1900–1916), and Canadian Bureau of Statistics (1917–1941). Fraser and Skeena river data 

reported in cwt (hundredweight) were assumed to be short hundredweight and were converted 

using 100 lb = 1 cwt, the conversion currently used by Statistics Canada. 

Year 

Columbia 

River 

Fraser 

River 

Knight Inlet 

(Klinaklini 

River) 

Bella Coola 

River 

Kemano 

River 

Skeena 

River 

1888 68.04 

1889 27.22 

1890 0.45 

1891 68.04 

1892 283.50 

1893 Unknowna

1894 136.08 

1895 142.14 

1896 307.24 

1897 463.34 

1898 334.30 

1899 254.43 

1900 221.17 113.40 27.2 

1901 120.37 108.86 27.2 

1902 259.66 90.72 22.7 

1903 182.34 128.97 22.7 

1904 199.79 129.27 18.1 

1905 219.09 22.68 4.5 

1906 228.16 13.61 5.4 

1907 77.02 6.80 4.5 

1908 273.07 10.21 4.1 

1909 249.30 31.75 4.5 

1910 282.35 42.50 136.1 

1911 158.59 32.66 113.4 

1912 224.68 36.29 90.7 

1913 90.72 10.52 68.0 

1914 Unknowna 6.44 54.4 

1915 730.06 12.34 45.4 

1916 291.02 12.52 45.4 

1917 1,272.84 17.28 

1918 741.03 15.20 

1919 1,091.05 5.94 1.9 

1920 443.20 5.22 

1921 476.85 8.53 

1922 621.96 7.98 

1923 466.94 19.87 

1924 456.41 36.51 15.4 

1925 635.35 16.19 

111
Table 9 continued. Estimated eulachon fishery landings (mt) for available subsets of the southern DPS. 

Data from sources listed in Table 7, Hay (2002), Lewis et al. (2002), Moody (2008), Parliament 

of Canada (1900–1916), and Canadian Bureau of Statistics (1917–1941). Fraser and Skeena river 

data reported in cwt (hundredweight) were assumed to be short hundredweight and were 

converted using 100 lb = 1 cwt, the conversion currently used by Statistics Canada. 

Year 

Columbia 

River 

Fraser 

River 

Knight Inlet 

(Klinaklini 

River) 

Bella Coola 

River 

Kemano 

River 

Skeena 

River 

1926 574.80 17.24 1.1 

1927 586.52 12.97 9.1 

1928 530.17 18.73 

1929 548.16 9.71 6.6 

1930 659.74 35.33 5.4 

1931 887.80 6.30 2.7 

1932 718.47 5.03 3.3 

1933 631.67 6.94 

1934 689.53 10.25 

1935 1,057.76 15.47 0.9 

1936 1,398.81 10.07 

1937 1,106.06 4.08 

1938 472.46 7.67 

1939 1,404.50 20.59 

1940 1,398.20 34.16 

1941 1,148.41 50.1 1.0 

1942 1,218.35 152.7 

1943 1,804.07 154.8 

1944 1,028.97 65.7 Unknownb

1945 2,594.23 73.87 8.0 

1946 1,485.97 115.7 10.0 

1947 700.75 231.1 135.0 Unknownb

1948 1,802.62 112.8 20.0 

1949 1,512.10 102.7 70.0 8.5 

1950 672.45 36.2 100.0 44.0 

1951 688.05 189.3 20.0 10.0 

1952 578.28 421.0 27.5 12.3 

1953 776.10 158.6 41.7 

1954 854.70 151.6 69.4 

1955 1,014.73 238.8 7.6 

1956 763.80 235.5 6.2 

1957 716.22 33.2 5.6 

1958 1,186.78 92.1 8.4 

1959 796.55 132.0 45.0 7.0 

1960 531.70 84.0 60.0 0.3 

1961 477.32 216.9 2.0 

1962 668.41 178.2 70.0 2.8 

1963 488.56 159.3 8.4 

1964 381.83 105.5 22.4 

112
Table 9 continued. Estimated eulachon fishery landings (mt) for available subsets of the southern DPS. 

Data from sources listed in Table 7, Hay (2002), Lewis et al. (2002), Moody (2008), Parliament 

of Canada (1900–1916), and Canadian Bureau of Statistics (1917–1941). Fraser and Skeena river 

data reported in cwt (hundredweight) were assumed to be short hundredweight and were 

converted using 100 lb = 1 cwt, the conversion currently used by Statistics Canada. 

Year 

Columbia 

River 

Fraser 

River 

Knight Inlet 

(Klinaklini 

River) 

Bella Coola 

River 

Kemano 

River 

Skeena 

River 

1965 413.09 87.8 100.0 11.8 

1966 466.43 101.9 9.2 

1967 453.96 86.8 100.0 11.5 

1968 429.78 46.0 100.0 10.6 

1969 491.56 29.8 80.0 7.8 

1970 537.01 71.7 40.0 9.2 

1971 805.90 34.5 20.0 16.8 

1972 745.48 53.2 50.0 6.7 

1973 1,104.23 53.1 40.0 12.3 

1974 1,071.29 75.3 10.6 

1975 942.38 27.7 12.0 

1976 1,394.84 36.7 50.0 

1977 795.15 32.2 50.0 35.0 

1978 1,215.76 38.6 25.0 

1979 524.67 22.3 19.8 

1980 1,456.71 24.4 33.0 

1981 758.54 21.2 38.5 

1982 1,002.44 13.7 22.0 

1983 1,238.49 10.8 30.5 

1984 225.89 11.8 30.0 

1985 924.42 29.2 Unknownb

1986 1,741.25 49.6 Unknownb

1987 859.88 19.3 Unknownb

1988 1,300.77 39.5 Unknownb 43.2 

1989 1,391.08 18.7 Unknownb 50.2 

1990 1,262.89 19.9 Unknownb 44.1 

1991 1,338.28 12.3 Unknownb 57.2 

1992 1,666.41 19.6 Unknownb 65.4 

1993 233.10 8.7 Unknownb 93.0 

1994 19.69 6.1 20.0 20.6 

1995 199.58 15.5 22.0 69.2 

1996 4.13 63.2 Unknownb 81.0 

1997 26.58 Closed Unknownb 41.9 

1998 5.49 Closed Unknownb 61.7 

1999 9.48 Closed 0.0 

2000 14.06 Closed 0.0 

2001 142.02 Closed 

2002 327.13 5.8 

2003 491.42 Closed 

113
114

Table 9 continued. Estimated eulachon fishery landings (mt) for available subsets of the southern DPS. 

Data from sources listed in Table 7, Hay (2002), Lewis et al. (2002), Moody (2008), Parliament 

of Canada (1900–1916), and Canadian Bureau of Statistics (1917–1941). Fraser and Skeena river 

data reported in cwt (hundredweight) were assumed to be short hundredweight and were 

converted using 100 lb = 1 cwt, the conversion currently used by Statistics Canada. 

Year 

Columbia 

River 

Fraser 

River 

Knight Inlet 

(Klinaklini 

River) 

Bella Coola 

River 

Kemano 

River 

Skeena 

River 

2004 105.05 0.4 

2005 0.09 Closed 

2006 5.94 Closed 

2007 3.77 Closed 

2008 7.85 Closed 

2009 8.00 Closed a

Official landings data were not located for 1893 and 1914; however, newspapers (Appendix B) and local 

periodicals (Appendix D) recorded that substantial eulachon landings did occur in the Columbia River basin in those 

years. 

b

Landings of unknown size occurred but data were not recorded (Hay 2002).

declined greatly to 233 mt in 1993 and to an average of less than 40 mt between 1994 and 2000. 

From 2001 to 2004, the catches increased to an average of 266 mt, before falling to less than 5 

mt from 2005 to 2008. Fishing restrictions were instituted in 1995, so the low catches after that 

time are in part due to these restrictions (Figure 23 and Figure 24). Nonetheless, the steep 

decline in 1993 and subsequent low abundance as indexed by the fishery is generally accepted by 

fishery managers as indicating a marked decline in the abundance of the stock (Bargmann et al. 

2005). The WDFW and ODFW Joint Columbia River Management Staff (JCRMS 2007) 

concluded that “run sizes [of Columbia River eulachon], as indexed by commercial landings, 

remained relatively stable for several decades until landings dropped suddenly in 1993 and 

remained low for several years thereafter.” Following this period of time, “Due to reduced 

seasons during 1995–2000, landings are not completely comparable with previous years; 

however, it is apparent that the abundance of smelt in the Columbia River Basin was much 

reduced during 1993–2000” (JCRMS 2005) (Table 7, Figure 22 through Figure 25). 

A previous petition (Wright 1999) and NMFS finding on this petition (NMFS 1999) 

mentioned years where zero catches were reported for eulachon in the Columbia River. The 

present status review uncovered additional published Columbia River commercial fishery 

landings data in annual reports of state and federal fisheries agencies that fill in most of these 

gaps in the catch record (Table 7, Figure 22), with the exception of 1893 and 1914. In both 

cases, a survey of periodicals (Appendix D) and available online digital newspaper resources 

(see Appendix B) found articles describing the presence of eulachon in the Columbia River in 

those years. 

The Columbia River eulachon commercial fishery has been managed according to the 

Joint State Eulachon Management Plan since 2001 (with an interim plan in effect in 2000), 

which provides for three levels of fishing based on parental run strength, juvenile production, 

and ocean productivity (WDFW and ODFW 2001, Bargmann et al. 2005). Effort in this fishery 
Year

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 199

Landings (mt)

0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,000

Columbia River Grays River Cowlitz River Kalama River Lewis River Sandy River Oregon totalWashington total

115

Figure 22. Commercial eulachon fishery landings in the Columbia River and tributaries from 1888 to 2009. Landings occu

Grays and Kalama rivers in many years; however, values are too small to be evident on the graph. Landings occur

based on newspaper and periodical sources (see Appendix B and Appendix D), but official records have not been llisted in Table 7. 
Year

1935

194019451950

1955

1960

196519701975198019851990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Landings (mt)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Days 

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Landings (mt) 

Days open 

Figure 23. Commercial landings of eulachon and estimated total number of days the fishery was open in 

the Columbia River from 1935 to 2009. 

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Landings (mt)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Days 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Landings (mt)

Days open 

Figure 24. Commercial landings of eulachon and estimated total number of days the fishery was open in 

the Cowlitz River from 1960 to 2009. 

116
Year

1986198819901992199419961998

200020022004200620082010

CPUE (pounds per delivery)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Mainstem landings (mt) weeks 1-8

0

20

40

60

80

CPUE

Landings

Figure 25. Columbia River commercial eulachon landings (season total may include landings during the 

previous December) and CPUE as pounds per delivery. Data from JCRMS (2009, their Table 

17). 

typically involves fewer than 10 vessels. WDFW and ODFW (2008) described these three levels 

of fishing: 1) Level One fisheries are the most conservative (commercial and recreational 

openings of 12–24 hours per week for Columbia and Cowlitz rivers) and are designed to act as a 

test fishery when there are indications of a poor return or great uncertainty in potential run 

strength, 2) Level Two fisheries (commercial and recreational openings of 2–3 days per week 

and potential of expansion to other tributaries) are indicated when fishery data suggest a 

moderate or strong run size, and 3) Level Three fisheries (commercial openings up to 4 days per 

week in all areas and all tributaries open to recreational fishing 4–7 days per week) may occur 

when abundance and productivity indicators are very strong. 

The Columbia River eulachon fishery operated as a Level One test fishery in 2001; began 

as a Level Two fishery in 2002, switching to Level Three on February 1; operated at Level Three 

in 2003; started off as Level Three in 2004, with some later tributary commercial fishery 

restrictions; operated at Level Two in 2005 until February 23 when it was reduced to a Level 

One fishery; and has operated as a Level One test fishery in 2006 through 2009 (JCRMS 2005, 

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). The ability to adjust in-season fishery levels based on observed returns 

to the fishery, and its accurate tracking of past fluctuations in run strength, illustrates the utility 

of the Columbia River eulachon fishery statistics as an index of relative annual abundance 

(JCRMS 2007) (Figure 23 and Figure 24). 

117
There is some information indicating that there have been periods of relatively low 

eulachon abundance in the past in the Columbia River. In particular, several anecdotal sources 

reported on a decline in the 1830s to 1860s (Suckley 1860, Lord 1866, Anderson 1872, 1877, 

Crawford 1878, Huntington 1963, Hinrichsen 1998, Martin 2008). Eulachon were once again 

seen in large numbers in the early to mid 1860s (Anderson 1872, 1877, Huntington 1963, 

Summers 1982, Urrutia 1998, Hinrichsen 1998, Martin 2008). Based on the available 

information, the BRT concluded that this information was probably accurate and likely indicated 

that a true and severe decline in eulachon returns and subsequent recovery occurred during that 

time period. 

Subsequent to the decline in 1993, state and tribal fishery agencies have instituted 

additional monitoring efforts for Columbia River eulachon. For example, Figure 26 presents 

data from a larval sampling program that measures larval densities (averaged across stations and 

depths at selected index sites) that was initiated in 1994 for the Cowlitz River and expanded to 

include the Kalama River in 1995, the mainstem Columbia River in 1996, Elochoman and Lewis 

rivers in 1997, and Grays and Sandy rivers in 1998 (JCRMS 2005). Interannual comparison of 

larval densities prior to about 2003 is unreliable because “larval sampling techniques ... did not 

include repeat sampling of the same area over the duration of the out migration period” (JCRMS 

2007, p. 23), but since that time multiple surveys have been conducted each season at mainstem 

Columbia River sites that sample downstream of all the potential spawning locations, with the 

exception of Grays River. Notably, the larval densities show a peak in 2001–2002 that 

corresponds to a similar peak in catches (Figure 22) and offshore juvenile abundance (Figure 16 

and Figure 17). Although spawning stock abundance has not been estimated using these larval 

surveys, the combination of data from the larval density survey and commercial and recreational 

landings “provides an indication of the relative run strength of eulachon in the Columbia River” 

(JCRMS 2007, p. 23). 

The BRT had concerns about the absence of fishery-independent abundance data for 

Columbia River eulachon prior to the mid-1990s. The BRT agreed with state fishery managers, 

however, that the available catch and effort information indicate an abrupt decline in abundance 

in the early 1990s, and there is no evidence that the population has returned to its former level. 

The decline in the early 1990s appeared to coincide with a decline of eulachon in British 

Columbia, suggesting that a common cause, such as changing ocean conditions, was responsible 

for declines in both areas. 

Fraser River 

Eulachon return on a regular basis to the Fraser River and on an irregular basis to the 

Squamish River in Howe Sound to the north (Table A-1, Figure 3) (Hay and McCarter 2000, 

Moody 2008). Eulachon usually begin to ascend the Fraser River at the end of March and 

spawning occurs in April until the middle of May. Eulachon are no longer seen spawning in 

some areas of the Fraser River where they used to occur. Historically, spawning occurred 

“primarily between Chilliwack and Mission in areas of coarse sand but also in localized areas of 

the North and South Arms as well as in the vicinity of the Pitt and Alouette rivers” (Higgins et al. 

1987). Currently spawning is confined to areas downstream of Mission. 

118
Year

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Larvae per cubic meter

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Mainstem Columbia

Cowlitz River 

Grays River 

Elochoman River 

Kalama River 

Lewis River 

Sandy River 

Figure 26. Columbia River larval eulachon sampling. Interannual comparisons are problematic due to 

inconsistent effort and methods from year to year. Larvae were encountered in the Sandy River 

in 1998–2000 and 2003; however, values are too small (0.1 per cubic meter) to be evident on the 

graph. Data from JCRMS (2008, 2009, its Table 18). 

In the past, Fraser River eulachon runs supported First Nations subsistence fisheries and 

large commercial and recreational fisheries. Between 1941 and 1996, commercial landings 

averaged about 83 mt (Table 9, Table 10, and Figure 27). For much of this period, the 

commercial fishery landings are not a good indicator of relative abundance, since landings were 

largely driven by market demand (Moody 2008). In 1997 the commercial eulachon fishery was 

closed and commercial landings have occurred in only 2 of the last 10 years; 2002 and 2004, 

when 5.76 and 0.44 mt were landed, respectively (Table 9, Figure 27) (DFO 2006a). Hay et al. 

(2003) estimated that First Nations and recreational fisheries historically landed about 10 mt 

annually. Estimates of recreational fishery landings were presented in graphical form in Moody 

(2008, her Figure 2.22) for a portion of the Fraser River (1956, 1963–1967, 1970–1980, closed 

since 2005). 

Moody (2008) stated that the First Nation catch amounted to 2.57 mt in 2003. However, 

by 2005 all First Nation, commercial, and recreational fisheries were closed due to conservation 

concerns (DFO 2006a). A eulachon test fishery operated on the Fraser River near New 

Westminster from 1995 to 2005 (with the exception of 1999) (Figure 27); however, this fishery 

has not operated since 2005 (DFO 2008a). This test fishery was meant to be an in-season 

119
Table 10. Estimated eulachon spawner biomass (mt) in the north arm and south arm of the Fraser River 

and total number of eulachon, assuming a range of 9.9 to 13.3 eulachon per pound, based on the 

mean reported weight of eulachon in the Fraser River of 34 to 46 g. Biomass data online at 

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/herring/herspawn/pages/river1_e.htm. 

Year 

South 

arm 

North 

arm 

Total 

biomass (mt) 

Total biomass 

(pounds) 

Number of fish at 

9.9 per pound 

Number of fish 

at 13.3 per pound

1995 258 44 302 665,796 6,591,381 8,855,087 

1996 1,582 329 1,911 4,213,034 41,709,035 56,033,350 

1997 57 17 74 163,142 1,615,107 2,169,790 

1998 107 29 136 299,829 2,968,304 3,987,721 

1999 392 26 418 921,532 9,123,169 12,256,379 

2000 76 54 130 286,601 2,837,349 3,811,793 

2001 422 187 609 1,342,615 13,291,890 17,856,782 

2002 354 140 494 1,089,084 10,781,927 14,484,812 

2003 200 66 266 586,430 5,805,653 7,799,514 

2004 24 9 33 72,753 720,250 967,609 

2005 14 2 16 35,274 349,212 469,144 

2006 24 5 29 63,934 632,947 850,323 

2007 34 7 41 90,390 894,856 1,202,181 

2008 8 2 10 22,046 218,258 293,215 

2009 12 2 14 30,865 305,561 410,501 

Year

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Landings (mt)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Test fishery catch (number of fish)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Landings (mt) 

Test fishery (total fish) 

Figure 27. Eulachon landings in Fraser River commercial fishery (1940–2009) and total fish caught in 

Fraser River test fishery (1995–2005). Commercial fishery was closed in 1997–2001, 2003, and 

2005–2009. Data from Hay (2002) and DFO (2008a). 

120
121

measure of eulachon run strength and resulting data consisted of the total number of eulachon 

caught daily at the same site, with the same gear, over the same time period, and at similar tidal 

conditions (Therriault and McCarter 2005, DFO 2008a). When in operation, a catch of less than 

5,000 in this test fishery was considered a conservation concern (DFO 2006a). 

Table 10, Table 11, and Figure 28 present spawning stock biomass data (DFO 2008a, 

p. 11) that is derived from: 

an intensive sampling process [that] takes place in the Fraser River during the 

seven to eight weeks following spawning (April/May). This survey uses towed, 

small mesh nets to gather samples of eulachon eggs and larvae. The number of 

eggs and larvae gathered in each tow are hand counted at the Pacific Biological 

Station. The egg and larval count is then combined with data on the daily Fraser 

River discharge and historical data on eulachon fecundity (eggs produced per 

female) to generate an estimate of spawning stock biomass. 

DFO (2008a, p. 11) stated that: 

A low spawning stock biomass for one year is cause for caution and a low 

spawning stock biomass for two consecutive years indicates a conservation 

concern. A low spawning stock biomass has been defined as less than 150 mt. 

A recent population assessment of Fraser River eulachon by DFO (2007a, p. 3) stated that: 

Despite limited directed fisheries in recent years, the Fraser River eulachon stock 

remains at a precariously low level. This stock has failed to recover from its 

collapse. SSB [spawning stock biomass] estimated from the egg and larval 

survey conducted in 2006 was 29 tonnes. The framework documents suggest that 

a low SSB (<150 tonnes) for one year is cause for concern and a restriction on 

removals should be activated, while a low SSB for two (or more) consecutive 

years is more cause for alarm and should signal a halt to all removals (Hay et al. 

2003, 2005). Since 2007 is the fourth consecutive year where Fraser River 

eulachon SSB has been below 150 tonnes, unprecedented in this short time series, 

no removals should be allowed in 2008. 

Subsequent to this statement, spawner biomass for the 2008 and 2009 eulachon run in the 

Fraser River has been estimated at 10 and 14 mt, respectively (data online at http://www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/sci/herring/herspawn/pages/river1_e.htm). Figure 29 presents the Fraser River 

eulachon spawner abundance trend over the time period of the available data (1995–2009). A 

trend of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.67–0.88) for Fraser River eulachon was calculated from these data. 

Over the three-generation time of approximately 10 years, the overall biomass of the Fraser 

River eulachon population has undergone a 96.6% decline (1999, 418 mt; 2009, 14 mt). Under 

the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) decline criteria (A1), a reduction 

in population size of this magnitude, “where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased or 

may not be understood or may not be reversible” (IUCN 2006), would place Fraser River 

eulachon in the IUCN critically endangered category (IUCN 2001, 2006). 

The methodology on the Fraser River of utilizing mean egg and larval plankton density 

and river discharge rates (gathered throughout a seven-week outmigrant period at five locations) 

in combination with known relative fecundity (egg production per gram of female) and sex ratio 
Table 11. Available estimated eulachon spawner biomass (mt) or estimated total number of spawners in British Columbia 

Year 

Fraser 

River (mt)a

Klinaklini 

River (mt)b

Kingcome 

River (mt)b

Wannock/Kilbella 

rivers (no. of fish)c

Bella Coola 

River (mt)c

Kitimat River 

(no. of fish)d

Skeen

(m

1993 — 514,000 1994 — 527,000 

1995 302 40 

1996 1,911 440,000 

1997 74 14.4 3

1998 136 

1999 418 

2000 130 

2001 609 0.039 

2002 494 ≈0.050 

2003 266 0.016 

2004 33 0.007 

2005 16 2,700 

2006 29 23,000 <1,000 

2007 41 

2008 10 

2009 14 

122

aData online at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/herring/herspawn/pages/river1_e.htm. bBerry and Jacob 1998 (as cited in Moody 2008). cMoody 2008. dPederson et al. 1995 and Ecometrix 2006 (as cited in Moody 2008). eLewis 1997. 
Year

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Estimated biomass (mt)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

South Arm biomass

North Arm biomass 

Combined biomass

Figure 28. Fraser River eulachon spawning stock biomass from 1995 to 2009 (estimated from egg and 

larval surveys). Data online at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/herring/herspawn/pages/ 

river1_e.htm. 

to estimate spawning stock biomass has passed rigorous scientific review in Canada (Hay et al. 

2002, 2003, 2005, McCarter and Hay 2003, Therriault and McCarter 2005). This methodology 

is similar to methods used since the early 1970s by many fisheries agencies (WDFW, DFO, 

CDFG, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game) to calculate Pacific herring spawning stock 

abundance based on estimates of intertidal and subtidal egg deposition and relative fecundity. 

The BRT therefore was confident that observed trends in the Fraser River spawning stock 

abundance data represented a true picture of the status of Fraser River eulachon. 

According to Therriault and McCarter (2005), the Fraser River test fishery data did not 

correspond well with the spawning stock estimates that were based on the egg and larval survey 

and this may have resulted from variation in the catchability of adults. Eulachon abundance can 

be inflated when they form dense schools, which can lead to an overestimate of abundance. On 

the other hand, eulachon may avoid the test fishery gear, leading to an underestimate of the run 

size. Due to these and other problems with the test fishery methodology (Therriault and 

McCarter 2005), the BRT did not put a lot of confidence in these data. 

The BRT did not formally analyze commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishery 

landings between 1881 and the present in the Fraser River, as it is believed that for much of this 

period the commercial fishery landings were largely driven by market demand (Hay et al. 2002, 

123
y = -0.2697x + 544.55

R2

 = 0.5812

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Year

Log transformed biomass (mt)

Figure 29. Trend of Fraser River eulachon spawner abundance (mt) from 1995 to 2009. Trend calculated 

from data in Figure 28. 

Moody 2008). However, these data do indicate that eulachon were generally present at 

harvestable abundance levels in the Fraser River during this time period. 

Knight Inlet 

Hay and McCarter (2000) reported that an annual run of eulachon return on a regular 

basis to the Klinaklini River at the head of Knight Inlet on the British Columbia coast (Table 

A-1, Figure 3). Irregular eulachon runs in the Johnstone Strait Region include the Kakweiken 

River, Homathko River (Bute Inlet), and Stafford and Apple rivers (Loughborough Inlet). Peak 

spawn timing in the area occurs about the middle of April (Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 2002, 

Moody 2008). 

There is only a single year’s estimate of spawning stock biomass for the Klinaklini River 

(1995) (Table 11). Records of a commercial fishery are available for 1943–1945 and 1947. First 

Nations fisheries landings on the Klinaklini River are available for 1947, 1949–1950, 1952, 

1959–1973, and 1977 (Table 9); however, after 1977 there is very limited documentation of run 

sizes of eulachon on the Klinaklini River and these are all anecdotal in nature. These anecdotal 

qualitative run size comments are listed in Table 12 and indicate an improvement in recent run 

size estimates. 

Prior to 1943 when fisheries-dependent catch records begin, our information for run size 

of the Klinaklini River is either anecdotal or comes from ethnographic studies. Numerous 

ethnographic studies describe a large First Nations eulachon fishery on the Klinaklini River that 

124
Table 12. Qualitative assessments of eulachon run strength for rivers north of the Fraser River, 1991–2007. 

125

Year Klinaklini River Kingcome River Bella Coola River Rivers Inlet Kemano River Kitimat River 1991 Last strong runa1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 ≈15% of the 

historic run sizea

1996 Last large runa

1997 

1998 Average runa Nonexistentb 

1999 No runa 

Small runb

No runb

Run faileda 

Negligibleb Nonexistentb 

2000 None or poorb 

Very lowc

No runb No runc No runb Kowesas–lowb 

Kemano–lowb Kitlope–lowb 

Very low in 2000

2001 Improved runa No catcha Low catcha

2002 Good runa No catcha Low catcha2003 Poor runa No catcha Goodc

2004 Low returnsa Poor runa Run virtually 

gonec

No catcha Good spawning 

successd

2005 Low returnsa Average runa Run size of 2,700a Almost no 

eulachon returnede

2006 Run absenta Run virtually 

gonec

Run size of 23,000a

No significant eulachon returnsf

Lowest on record<1,000 spawners

2007 Very good runa Small returnsa In estuary but did 

not ascend the rivera

Small run of shodurationg

aMoody 2008 bHay and McCarter 2000 cAppendix C in Pickard and Marmorek 2007 dAlcan 2005 eAlcan 2006 fAlcan 2007 gKitamaat Village Council 2007 
126

attracted up to 2,000 Kwakiutl First Nation members in the late nineteenth century (Macnair 

1971), some from as far as 250 miles away by canoe (Codere 1990). 

There were commercial eulachon fisheries in Knight Inlet in the 1940s that primarily 

supplied food for the fur farm industry. Combined commercial and First Nations subsistence 

fisheries landed between 18 and 90 mt annually from 1943 and 1977 in Knight Inlet (Moody 

2008), although landings reported by Hay and McCarter (2000) and reported in Table 9 were 

somewhat higher. At times, eulachon landings from Kingcome and Knight Inlet may have been 

reported as Knight Inlet landings, which may explain some of this discrepancy (Moody 2008). 

Berry and Jacob (1998, as cited in Moody 2008) “estimated spawning biomass at approximately 

40 mt in the Klinaklini River in 1995” with a larval-based assessment (Hay and McCarter 2000). 

This value was “thought to be approximately 15% of the historic run size” (Berry and Jacob 

1998, as cited in Moody 2008). Based on anecdotal information, Moody (2008) stated that 

eulachon returns to the Klinaklini River were said to be low “during the 2004 and 2005 seasons 

... but in 2007, the Klinaklini returns improved and, overall, it appeared to be a very good run” 

(Table 12). 

The BRT was concerned that there are few scientifically obtained abundance data 

available for eulachon in Knight Inlet, about the absence of a contemporary monitoring program 

for eulachon, and about the anecdotal nature of the available information. However, the BRT 

concluded that available catch records, the extensive ethnographic literature, and anecdotal 

information indicates that Klinaklini River eulachon were probably present in larger annual runs 

in the past and that current run sizes of eulachon appear inconsistent with the historic level of 

grease production extensively documented in the ethnographic literature (summaries in Macnair 

1971, Codere 1990). However, anecdotal information indicates that recent returns of eulachon to 

the Klinaklini River have improved from a low point in 2004–2005, so the status of this 

population is not entirely clear. 

Kingcome Inlet 

Hay and McCarter (2000) reported that an annual run of eulachon return on a regular 

basis to the Kingcome River at the head of Kingcome Inlet on the British Columbia central coast 

(Table A-1, Figure 3). Peak spawn timing in the area occurs about the middle of April (Moody 

2008). Berry and Jacob (1998, p. 4) reported that “there were at least four waves of spawning 

with peaks on April 2, April 15, April 21, and May 2, 1997, with the largest occurring around 

April 15” in the Kingcome River. Berry and Jacob (1998) also reported that there was a spawn 

in the Kingcome River prior to March 16 and again in early June as indicated by the presence of 

eggs in the water column. 

There is only a single year’s estimate of spawning stock biomass for the Kingcome River 

(1997) (Table 11). First Nations fisheries landings on the Kingcome River are available for 

1950, 1957, 1960, 1961, 1963, and 1966 (Moody 2008, her Figure 2.20); however, after 1977 

there is very limited documentation of run sizes of eulachon on the Kingcome River and these 

are all anecdotal in nature. These qualitative run-size comments are listed in Table 12 and 

indicate a decline in recent run-size estimates. 
127

When Kingcome Inlet First Nation fisheries landings have been reported separately from 

Knight Inlet, the estimates have averaged around an annual catch of 9 mt (Moody 2008). Moody 

(2008) reported that the eulachon run in the Kingcome River in 1971 was very small and light 

catches were reported in 1972. Berry and Jacob (1998) stated that a minimum estimated 14.35 

mt of eulachon spawned in the Kingcome River from March 16 to June 3, 1997. Based on 

anecdotal information, Moody (2008) reported that “In 2001 the Kingcome run improved and 

was considered good in 2002, with approximately 330 gallons of grease produced.” The 

eulachon run to the Kingcome River was considered to be poor in 2003 and 2004 and of average 

size in 2005 (Moody 2008). However, eulachon were reportedly absent from the Kingcome 

River in 2006 “and only small returns were seen in 2007” (Table 12) (Moody 2008). 

The BRT was concerned that there are few scientifically obtained abundance data 

available for eulachon in Kingcome Inlet, about the absence of a contemporary monitoring 

program for eulachon, and about the anecdotal nature of the evidence. However, the BRT 

believed that available catch records and anecdotal information indicates that Kingcome River 

eulachon were probably present in larger annual runs in the past. 

Rivers Inlet 

Hay and McCarter (2000) reported that an annual run of eulachon return on a regular 

basis to the Wannock, Chuckwalla, and Kilbella rivers in Rivers Inlet on the central coast of 

British Columbia (Table A-1, Figure 3). The spawning stock biomass of eulachon in Rivers Inlet 

was estimated using scientific survey methods in 2005 and 2006. First Nations fisheries landings 

on the Wannock River are available for 1967, 1968, and 1971; however, after 1971 there is very 

limited documentation of run sizes of eulachon in Rivers Inlet and (with the exception of the 

information available for 2005 and 2006) these are anecdotal in nature. These anecdotal 

qualitative run-size comments are listed in Table 12 and indicate a decline in recent run-size 

estimates. 

First Nation fishery landings data for the Wannock River were limited to the years 1967, 

1968, and 1971 when catches were 1.81, 2.27, and 4.54 mt, respectively (Moody 2008). Moody 

(2008) stated that eulachon in “the Wannock River had been gradually declining since the 

1970s” and that no eulachon have been caught in First Nations fisheries in the Rivers Inlet area 

since 1997, when about 150 kg of eulachon were landed from the Kilbella and Chuckwalla rivers 

(Berry and Jacob 1998). Berry and Jacob (1998, p. 3–4) further reported that “Virtually no 

eulachon eggs or larvae were found in any of the 376 samples from the Wannock River in 1997” 

and “this observation is consistent with in-field observations of eulachon entering the river 

mouth only to exit and possibly go to the nearby Chukwalla or Kilbella rivers to spawn.” In 

2005 an estimated 2,700 adults returned to the Wannock River, based on the capture of only 11 

adults during spawner abundance surveys (Moody 2008) (Table 11). An additional three adult 

eulachon were taken on the Kilbella River in 2005 (Moody 2008). Moody (2008) stated that this 

adult spawner survey was repeated in 2006 and although “no adults [were] captured ... an 

estimate of 23,000 adult spawners was calculated” (Table 11 and Table 12). 

The BRT was concerned that there are few scientifically obtained abundance data 

available for eulachon in Rivers Inlet, about the absence of a contemporary monitoring program 
128

for eulachon, and about the anecdotal nature of the evidence. The BRT was also concerned that 

the incomplete record of eulachon catch and spawn biomass in Rivers Inlet does not establish 

whether eulachon returned on an annual basis to this system in the past. However, the BRT 

believed that available recent estimates of spawning stock abundance, catch records, 

ethnographic literature (Hilton 1990), and anecdotal information indicates that Rivers Inlet 

eulachon were present in larger annual runs in the past. The BRT also believed that the recent 

spawning stock estimates of 2,700 to 23,000 individual spawners is cause for concern, as these 

numbers indicate that this subpopulation may be at risk from small population concerns, such as 

Allee effects and random genetic and demographic effects. 

Dean Channel 

Hay and McCarter (2000) reported that an annual run of eulachon return on a regular 

basis to the Bella Coola, Dean, and Kimsquit rivers in Dean Channel (Table A-1, Figure 3). 

Kennedy and Bouchard (1990, p. 325) summarized ethnographic studies on the Nuxalk (Bella 

Coola) First Nation and stated that “because of their abundance and their value as a trade item, 

eulachons (particularly when rendered into highly valued grease) were second only to salmon in 

importance to the Bella Coola.” Moody (2008) indicated that historically, peak run timing of 

eulachon in the Bella Coola River occurred in late March or early April (Table A-9). Moody 

(2007) also reported that recent run timing of eulachon to the Bella Coola River occurs earlier in 

the season than it did historically. 

Spawning stock biomass data for the Bella Coola River were available for 2001–2004 

(Table 11). Records of the Nuxalk First Nation eulachon fishery on the Bella Coola River are 

available for 1945 and 1946, 1948–1989, 1995, and 1998 (Moody 2008, her Figure 3.13). 

Moody (2008) also provided estimated First Nations eulachon catch based on a model of 

eulachon grease production from 1980 to 1998. Anecdotal qualitative run-size comments are 

listed in Table 12. 

Moody (2007) reports relative abundance estimates, based on egg and larval surveys 

similar to those used on the Fraser River, for the Bella Coola River in 2001 (0.039 mt), 2002 

(0.045–0.050 mt), 2003 (0.016 mt), and 2004 (0.0072 mt) (Table 11). Nuxalk First Nation 

subsistence fishery landings of eulachon from the Bella Coola River show an average catch of 18 

mt between 1948 and 1984 (Table 9, Figure 30), with a low of 0.3 mt in 1960 and a high of 

nearly 70 mt in 1954, based on data available in Hay (2002). These data suggest that recent 

(2001–2004) spawner biomass in the Bella Coola River is approximately two orders of 

magnitude less than the average First Nations eulachon landings were between 1948 and 1984. 

According to Moody (2007), it has been 9 years since the last First Nations fishery occurred on 

the Bella Coola River. 

Anecdotal information indicated that only a very few eulachon are currently found in 

other rivers in Dean Channel such as the Kimsquit River and the Taleomy, Assek, and Noeick 

rivers in South Bentnick Arm off Dean Channel (Moody 2008). Moody (2007, 2008) also stated 

that “it appears that 1996 was the last large run of eulachon to the Bella Coola River” and 

noticeable runs have not returned to the Dean Channel/Bella Coola area since 1999 (Table 12). 
Year

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Landings (mt)

0

20

40

60

Figure 30. Estimated eulachon First Nations fishery landings on the Bella Coola River (data from Hay 

2002). Landings of unknown size occurred from 1985 to 1993 and from 1996 to 1998 (Hay 

2002). No fishery has occurred on the Bella Coola River since 1999. 

The BRT believed that available spawning stock biomass data collected since 2001, catch 

records, extensive ethnographic literature, and anecdotal information indicate that Bella Coola 

River and Dean Channel eulachon in general were present in much larger annual runs in the past. 

The present run sizes of eulachon appear inconsistent with the historic level of grease production 

that is extensively documented in the ethnographic literature on the Nuxalk First Nations Peoples 

(Kennedy and Bouchard 1990, Moody 2008). The BRT was concerned that this information and 

available data indicate that eulachon in Dean Channel may be at risk from small population 

concerns, such as Allee effects and random genetic and demographic effects. 

Gardner Canal 

Hay and McCarter (2000) reported that an annual run of eulachon return on a regular 

basis to the Kemano, Kowesas, and Kitlope rivers in Gardner Canal (Table A-1, Figure 3). 

Eulachon spawn in late March and early April on the Kemano River, which is unusual in that it 

is a clear, nonturbid system in a region that is dominated by glacially turbid rivers (Moody 

2008). 

First Nations fisheries landings on the Kemano River are available for 1969–1973 and 

1988–2007. CPUE data in this fishery from 1988–2007 (reported as metric tons caught per set) 

129
130

were presented in graphical form in Moody (2008, her Figure 2.16). A summary of ethnographic 

studies of the Haisla First Nation indicates that “eulachon were especially important with runs in 

the ... Kemano and Kitlope rivers ... in such numbers that they were an important export” 

(Hamori-Torok 1990, p. 306). Anecdotal qualitative run-size comments on Kemano River 

eulachon are listed in Table 12 and indicate a decline in recent run-size estimates. 

First Nation fisheries landings on the Kemano River ranged from 18.1 to 81.7 mt from 

1969 to 1973 (average of 44.3 mt) (Moody 2008, her Figure 2.16). Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. operates 

a hydroelectric generation facility on the Kemano River and, as part of an environmental 

management plan, has funded monitoring of eulachon since 1988 (Lewis et al. 2002). From 

1988 to 1998, landings ranged from 20.6 to 93.0 mt (average of 57 mt) (Lewis et al. 2002, 

Moody 2008) (Table 9). However, according to Moody (2008), no run occurred in 1999. 

First Nations landings in the Kemano River were low from 2000 to 2002, but improved to 

between 60 and 80 mt in 2003 and 2004 (Alcan 2005, Moody 2008, her Figure 2.16); however, 

anecdotal information indicated that eulachon returns were not detected in the Kemano River in 

2005 and 2006 (Table 12) (Alcan 2006, 2007, EcoMetrix 2006, as cited in Moody 2008). Based 

on anecdotal information, Moody (2008) reported that “eulachon were seen in the Kemano 

estuary in 2007. However, they did not ascend the river.” CPUE data showed similar trends to 

First Nation fishery landings, with a sharp drop from about 2.5 mt per set in 1998 to less than 0.5 

mt per set from 1999 to 2002, a rebound to between 0.5 and 1 mt per set in 2003–2004, and no 

fish caught in 2005–2007 (Lewis et al. 2002, Moody 2008, her Figure 2.16). 

It was the BRT’s best professional judgment that available CPUE data collected since 

1988, First Nations catch records, extensive ethnographic literature, and anecdotal information 

indicate that Kemano River, and Gardner Canal eulachon in general, were present in larger 

annual runs in the past and that present run sizes of eulachon appear inconsistent with the historic 

level of grease production that is well documented for this region in the ethnographic literature 

(Hamori-Torok 1990). 

In addition, the BRT believed that the inability to detect eulachon in the Kemano River 

since 2004 using the same monitoring methods that have been in place since 1988 (Lewis et al. 

2002, Moody 2008, her Figure 2.16) and anecdotal information from Rio Tinto Alcan biological 

surveys that eulachon have failed to return to the Kemano River in 2005–2007 (Alcan 2005, 

2006, 2007) is cause for concern, as this information indicates that this subpopulation may be at 

risk from small population concerns, such as Allee effects and random genetic and demographic 

effects. 

Douglas Channel 

Hay and McCarter (2000) reported that an annual run of eulachon return on a regular 

basis to the Kitimat and Kildala rivers in Douglas Channel (Table A-1, Figure 3). Spawning in 

the Kitimat River reportedly peaks in mid to late March (Moody 2008). 

The spawning stock biomass of eulachon in the Kitimat River was estimated using 

scientific survey methods in 1993 (Table 11). First Nations fisheries landings on the Kitimat 
131

River are available for 1969 to 1972. CPUE in this fishery, reported as number of fish caught in 

a 24-hour period, and estimated spawner abundance are available for 1994–1996 and 1998–2007. 

A summary of ethnographic studies of the Haisla First Nation indicates that “eulachon were 

especially important with runs in the Kitimat [and] Kildala ... rivers in such numbers that they 

were an important export” (Hamori-Torok 1990, p. 308). Anecdotal qualitative run-size 

comments on Kitimat River eulachon are listed in Table 12 and indicate a decline in recent runsize estimates. 

Between 1969 and 1972, Kitimat River First Nations fisheries landings of eulachon 

ranged from 27.2 to 81.6 mt (Moody 2008, her Figure 2.14). The Kitimat River First Nations 

eulachon fishery reportedly came to an end in 1972 as pollution by industrial (pulp mill) and 

municipal effluent discharges made the eulachon unpalatable (Pederson et al. 1995, Moody 

2008). Pederson et al. (1995) estimated a total spawning biomass in the Kitimat River of 22.6 mt 

or about 514,000 individual eulachon in 1993. According to Moody (2008, p. 34), CPUE of 

eulachon on the Kitimat River, as presented in EcoMetrix (2006), declined from 50–60 fish per 

24-hour gill net set in 1994–1996 to less than 2 eulachon per gill net set since 1998. According 

to EcoMetrix (2006, as cited in Moody 2008), abundance of eulachon from 1994 to 1996 ranged 

between 527,000 and 440,000 individual spawners and from 1998 to 2005 ranged between 

13,600 and less than 1,000 (Table 11). Based on anecdotal information, Moody (2008, p. 34) 

stated that “the last strong run returned to the Kitimat River in 1991 and runs from 1992 to 1996 

were estimated at half the size of 1991” (Table 12). 

The BRT believed that the available spawning stock biomass data available for 1993, 

CPUE data since 1994, First Nations landing records, extensive ethnographic literature, and 

anecdotal information indicate that Kitimat River and Douglas Channel eulachon in general were 

present in larger annual runs in the past and that present run-size estimates of eulachon appear 

inconsistent with the historic level of grease production extensively documented in the 

ethnographic literature (Hamori-Torok 1990). The BRT believed that the decline in estimated 

spawning stock on the Kitimat River from an annual run size of more than 500,000 eulachon in 

the mid-1990s to levels of less than 1,000 individual eulachon in 2005 (EcoMetrix 2006, Moody 

2008) is cause for concern, as these numbers indicate that this subpopulation may be at risk from 

small population concerns, such as Allee effects and random genetic and demographic effects. 

Skeena River 

Hay and McCarter (2000) and Moody (2008) reported that an annual run of eulachon 

return on a regular basis to the Skeena River and its tributaries (particularly the Ecstall and 

Khyex rivers) (Table A-1, Figure 3). The Skeena River run was reportedly small, of short 

duration, and difficult to harvest because of the large size of the mainstem Skeena River (Stoffels 

2001, Moody 2008). Based on anecdotal information, eulachon historically returned to the 

Skeena River around the first week of March, but in the past decade returns have occasionally 

returned as early as mid-February (Moody 2008). 

The spawning stock biomass of eulachon in the Skeena River was estimated using 

scientific survey methods in 1997 (Table 11). Combined commercial and First Nations fisheries 

landings on the Skeena River are available for 1900–1916, 1919, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1929–1932, 
132

1935, and 1941 (Table 9). Qualitative run-size comments on Kitimat River eulachon are listed in 

Table 12 and indicate a decline in recent run-size estimates. 

Lewis (1997) estimated the total spawning stock abundance of the Skeena River eulachon 

at only 3.0 mt in 1997. A small commercial eulachon fishery operated between 1924 and 1946 

(landings ranged from 15.4 mt in 1924 to 0.9 mt in 1935) (Moody 2008). However, total 

landings records were as high as 100 mt at one time and averaged 27.5 mt from 1900 to 1941 

(Table 9). It is likely that local market demands have driven subsistence and past commercial 

fisheries statistics on the Skeena River and the BRT did not believe that these data were a good 

index of abundance. Moody (2008) reported anecdotal information indicating that very few 

Skeena River eulachon were observed between 1997 and 1999, a good run occurred in 2005, and 

virtually no eulachon were observed in 2006 (Table 12). 

The BRT was concerned that there are few scientifically obtained abundance data 

available for eulachon in the Skeena River, about the absence of a contemporary monitoring 

program for eulachon, and about the anecdotal nature of the evidence. However, the BRT 

believed that available catch records and anecdotal information indicate that Skeena River 

eulachon were present in larger annual runs in the past that at one time supported a large fishery. 

Although the current status of this subpopulation is unknown, the BRT believed that anecdotal 

information indicates declines in abundance have occurred. 

Assessment of Demographic Risk and the Risk Matrix Approach 

In previous NMFS status reviews, BRTs have used a risk matrix as a method to organize 

and summarize the professional judgment of a panel of knowledgeable scientists. This approach 

is described in detail by Wainright and Kope (1999) and has been used for more than 10 years in 

Pacific salmonid status reviews (e.g., Good et al. 2005, Hard et al. 2007), as well as in reviews of 

Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific cod (Gustafson et al. 2000), Puget Sound rockfishes (Stout 

et al. 2001b), Pacific herring (Stout et al. 2001a, Gustafson et al. 2006), and black abalone 

(Haliotis cracherodi) (VanBlaricom et al. 2009). In this risk matrix approach, the collective 

condition of individual populations is summarized at the DPS level according to four 

demographic risk criteria: abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, 

and diversity (Table 13). These viability criteria, outlined in McElhany et al. (2000), reflect 

concepts that are well founded in conservation biology and generally applicable to a wide variety 

of species. These criteria describe demographic risks that individually and collectively provide 

strong indicators of extinction risk. The summary of demographic risks and other pertinent 

information obtained by this approach is then considered by the BRT in determining the species’ 

overall level of extinction risk. 

After reviewing all relevant biological information for the species, each BRT member 

assigns a risk score (see below) to each of the four demographic criteria. The scores are tallied 

(means, modes, and range of scores), reviewed, and the range of perspectives discussed by the 

BRT before making its overall risk determination (see Table 13 for a summary of demographic 

risk scores). Although this process helps to integrate and summarize a large amount of diverse 

information, there is no simple way to translate the risk matrix scores directly into a 

determination of overall extinction risk. For example, a DPS with a single extant subpopulation 
133

Table 13. Template for the risk matrix used in BRT deliberations. The matrix is divided into five 

sections that correspond to the four viable salmonid population parameters (McElhany et al. 

2000) plus a recent events category. 

Risk category 

Mean (± SD) and 

modal score 

Abundancea

Comments: 

4.3 (±0.48) 

4 

Growth rate/productivitya

Comments: 

3.0 (±1.05) 

2 

Spatial structure and connectivitya

Comments: 

3.7 (±0.67) 

4 

Diversitya

Comments: 

2.6 (±0.52) 

3 

Recent eventsb

a

Rate overall risk to the DPS on 5-point scale (1–very low risk, 2–low risk, 3–moderate risk, 4–high risk, 5–very 

high risk). 

b

Rate recent events from double plus (++) strong benefit to double minus (– –) strong detriment. 

might be at a high level of extinction risk because of high risk to spatial structure/connectivity, 

even if it exhibited low risk for the other demographic criteria. Another species might be at risk 

of extinction because of moderate risks to several demographic criteria. 

For scoring population viability criteria, risks for each demographic criterion are ranked 

on a scale of 1 (very low risk) to 5 (very high risk): 

1. Very low risk. Unlikely that this factor contributes significantly to risk of extinction, either by 

itself or in combination with other factors. 
134

2. Low risk. Unlikely that this factor contributes significantly to risk of extinction by itself, but 

some concern that it may, in combination with other factors. 

3. Moderate risk. This factor contributes significantly to long-term risk of extinction, but does 

not in itself constitute a danger of extinction in the near future. 

4. High risk. This factor contributes significantly to long-term risk of extinction and is likely to 

contribute to short-term risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. 

5. Very high risk. This factor by itself indicates danger of extinction in the near future. 

Recent events: The recent events category considers events that have predictable 

consequences for DPS status in the foreseeable future but have occurred too recently to be 

reflected in the demographic data. Examples include a climatic regime shift or El Niño that may 

be anticipated to result in increased or decreased predation in subsequent years. This category is 

scored as follows: 

++ expect a strong improvement in status of the DPS, 

+ expect some improvement in status, 

0 neutral effect on status, 

– expect some decline in status, and 

– – expect strong decline in status. 

Threats Analysis 

According to Section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce or the Interior shall 

determine whether a species is threatened or endangered as a result of any (or a combination) of 

the following factors: 1) destruction or modification of habitat; 2) overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 3) disease or predation; 4) inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or 5) other natural or human factors. Collectively, these are 

often referred to as factors for decline. Herein we examine four of these five factors for their 

historical, current, or potential impact on eulachon. The consideration of the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms (section 4(a)(1)(D)) will be conducted by the regional office or 

offices in concert with the evaluation of efforts being made to protect the species. Current and 

potential threats, along with current species distribution and abundance, help determine the 

species’ present vulnerability to extinction. We include information regarding historic threats to 

assist in interpretation of population trends. The relationship between historic threats and 

population trends also provides insights that may help project future population changes in 

response to current and potential threats. 

Destruction or Modification of Habitat 

Dams and water diversions 

Dams and water diversions can change downstream flow intensity and flow timing, 

reduce transport of fine sediments, and cut off the source of larger sediments like sand and gravel 

for downstream habitats. Reduced peak flows as a result of upstream dams can also lead to less 

scouring of the streambed, less erosion, and less deposition of sediments. The streambed 
135

downstream of dams may become progressively coarser and become dominated by cobbles and 

large gravels as smaller gravels and sand are transported downstream without being replaced by 

transport from upstream sources. 

Klamath River—There are six hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River (Link River, 

Keno, J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate) (NRC 2008). The impact of these dams, 

and others on the tributary Trinity River (Lewiston and Trinity dams), as well as associated 

irrigation withdrawals in the upper Klamath River basin, have shifted the spring peak flow of the 

lower Klamath River from its historical peak in April to its current peak in March, one full 

month earlier (NRC 2004). 

Columbia River—Operation of 28 mainstem and about 300 tributary dams and water 

withdrawals for irrigation have significantly altered the natural hydrologic pattern of the 

Columbia River (Sherwood et al. 1990, Bottom et al. 2005). According to Bottom et al. (2005, 

p. xxix): 

the magnitude of maximum spring freshet flow [in the Columbia River] has 

decreased more than 40% from the predevelopment period (1859–1899) to the 

present. Flow regulation is responsible for approximately 75% of this loss, 

irrigation withdrawal for approximately 20%, and climate change for 

approximately 5% ... The timing of maximum spring freshet flow also has 

changed, primarily because of hydropower and irrigation development upriver, 

resulting in an approximate two-week shift earlier in the year (mean 

predevelopment date of 12 June compared to modern mean date of 29 May). 

Bottom et al. (2005, p. xx) also stated that: 

Riverine sediment transport to the estuary, an important process affecting the 

quantity and quality of estuarine habitat for salmon [and other fishes], is 

correlated with peak river flows ... [It] is estimated that the ... change in annual 

average sediment transport (at Vancouver, Washington) for 1945–1999 flows has 

been about 50–60% of the nineteenth century (1858–1899) virgin sediment 

transport. The reduction in sands and gravels is higher (>70% of 

predevelopment) than for silts and clays. 

Bonneville Dam on the mainstem Columbia at RKM 235 also impedes migration of 

eulachon to historical spawning habitat above the dam in the Hood River and possibly the 

Klickitat River (Smith and Saalfeld 1955, WDFW and ODFW 2008). Eulachon reportedly are 

unable to ascend fish ladders designed for Pacific salmon (LCFRB 2004a). 

Columbia River tributaries—In the mid 2000s, Sandy River Basin Partners (2005, p. 2-

30) stated that: 

Natural discharge patterns in the Sandy River Basin are primarily altered by 1) 

storage and diversion of water on the Sandy River (Marmot Dam at RM 30 [RKM 

48.3]) and Little Sandy River (Little Sandy Diversion Dam at RM 1.7 [RKM 

2.7]), 2) storage and diversion of water from the Bull Run River since 1891 to 

supply the City of Portland’s municipal water needs (the Headworks Dam at RM 
136

6 [RKM 9.6]), and 3) diversion of water from the Sandy Hatchery weir on Cedar 

Creek at RM 0.05 (RKM 0.8), as well as withdrawal of water from Alder Creek to 

partially supply the City of Sandy’s municipal requirements. 

Subsequently, Marmot Dam was removed in 2007 and the Little Sandy Dam was taken 

down in 2008, which should restore much of the river’s natural hydrology and result in 

significant sediment transport into the lower Sandy River where eulachon have spawned in the 

past. 

There are two major dams on the mainstem Cowlitz River: Mayfield Dam at RKM 83.7 

forms Mayfield Lake and Mossyrock Dam at RKM 104.6 forms Riffe Lake (Wade 2000b). 

These dams and other run-of-river dams in the hydropower system largely control flow in the 

mainstem Cowlitz River. Following the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, the USACE 

constructed an SRS on the North Fork Toutle “to prevent the continuation of severe downstream 

sedimentation of stream channels, which created flood conveyance, transportation, and habitat 

degradation concerns” (LCFRB 2004a, p. E-374). The SRS was constructed in 1989 about 49 

km above the confluence of the Toutle and Cowlitz rivers, is approximately 50 m in height, and 

extends 600 m across the valley of the North Fork Toutle River. The SRS continues to be a 

source of fine sediment to the lower Cowlitz River (LCFRB 2004a). Anderson (2009, p. 5) 

stated that: 

The SRS [on the Toutle River], constructed by the USACE, has become 

ineffective at trapping sediments. Lower Cowlitz River eulachon spawning 

habitat is considered degraded while the Toutle River is assumed absent of 

spawning habitat due to this fine sediment inundation. ... WDFW considers past 

and continued fine sediment deposition in the Toutle and Cowlitz rivers as a 

moderate to high risk for eulachon. 

There are three major dams on the mainstem Lewis River, also known as the North Fork 

Lewis River: Merwin Dam (aka Ariel Dam) at RKM 31.4, built in 1931, forms Lake Merwin; 

Yale Dam at RKM 55, built in 1953, forms Yale Lake; and Swift Dam at RKM 77.1, built in 

1958, forms Swift Creek Reservoir (Wade 2000a). The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 

(LCFRB 2004a, p. G-35) stated that: 

Hydropower regulation has altered the hydrograph of the lower mainstem [of the 

Lewis River].... Predam data reveals peaks due to fall/winter rains, winter rainon-snow, and spring snowmelt. Postdam data shows less overall flow variation, 

with a general increase in winter flows due to power needs. Postdam data shows 

a decrease in spring snowmelt flows due to reservoir filling in preparation for dry 

summer conditions.... The risk of extreme winter peaks has also been reduced, 

with the trade-off being the reduction of potentially beneficial large magnitude 

channel-forming flows. ... The long-term effects on channel morphology and 

sediment supply have not been thoroughly investigated. 

British Columbia—In the mid-1980s there were an estimated 802 licensed dams in the 

Fraser River basin, mostly for irrigation purposes in the dryer areas above Hope (Birtwell et al. 

1988). The impact on eulachon of water withdrawals associated with reservoirs in the Fraser 
137

River has not been studied. The other eulachon river in British Columbia where hydrology has 

been significantly altered by water diversions is the Kemano River. A hydroelectric plant began 

operating on the Kemano River in 1954 (Lewis et al. 2002, p. 1), that is powered by: 

water from the Nechako Reservoir [in the Fraser River basin] [that] passes 

through a 16-km-long diversion tunnel, past the turbines at the Kemano 

Powerhouse, and into the Kemano River, dropping a total of 850 m. ... The 

powerhouse outflow combines with the natural flow of the Kemano River and 

tributaries and flows 16 km to saltwater at Kemano Bay on Gardner Canal. 

Lewis et al. (2002, p. 22) further stated that: 

Flow at the Kemano/Wahoo confluence is composed of Kemano Powerhouse 

discharge and the natural flow from the Kemano River and tributaries. On 

average, the Kemano powerhouse contributes 57% of the flow at the 

Kemano/Wahoo confluence. Within the period of eulachon spawning, when 

natural flows are near the seasonal minimum, discharge from the powerhouse 

accounts for 80% of the flow at the Kemano/Wahoo confluence. The relative 

contribution of powerhouse discharge declines to 64% during eulachon incubation 

and later, during larval migration, to 38% as natural discharges increase. 

According to DFO and Transport Canada (2008): 

Kleana Power Corporation proposes to develop a run-of-river hydroelectric power 

project on the Klinaklini River. ... The project consists of: head pond, diversion 

weir and intake, 18 km penstock/tunnel, powerhouse, tailrace, waste rock 

disposal, upgrading of the existing logging roads and new road extension where 

necessary, upgrade to the existing barge landing facility, construction camp, 

concrete batch plant, and a 180 km twinned aerial transmission line from the 

powerhouse to Campbell River. 

Sediment dredging 

Potential dredging impacts on eulachon consist of direct effects of entrainment of adults 

and eggs and potential for smothering of eggs with sediment (Howell and Uusitalo 2000, Howell 

et al. 2001). Indirect effects may consist of altering the freshwater spawning habitat and 

estuarine nursery habitat. Larson and Moehl (1990) documented direct entrainment of small 

amounts of eulachon by hopper dredge at the mouth of the Columbia River during May-October 

1985–1988. Johnston (1981, p. 427) reviewed dredging activities in estuarine environments and 

listed “increased turbidity; altered tidal exchange, mixing, and circulation; reduced nutrient 

outflow from marshes and swamps; increased saltwater intrusion; and creation of an environment 

highly susceptible to recurrent low dissolved oxygen levels” as negative impacts. In addition, 

dredging can resuspend harmful contaminants contained in sediments where they may be more 

available to estuarine biota in the water column. Lasalle (1990, p. 1) also reviewed the potential 

physical effects of dredging and listed mobilization of sediment-associated chemical compounds 

and increased turbidity, as well as the potential “reduction in dissolved oxygen (resulting from 

the oxidation of anoxic sediment compounds)” as generally expected alterations. 
138

Hay and McCarter (2000) indicated that dredging during the eulachon spawning season 

in the Fraser River continued until the late 1990s. Tutty and Morrison (1976) estimated about 

0.9 mt of adult eulachon were directly entrained during hopper dredging activities between 

March 15 and June 4, 1976, on the lower Fraser River. Hay and McCarter (2000, p. 38) stated 

that “the direct loss of about 1 tonne of eulachons may have been small relative to potential 

deleterious impacts on survival of eulachons eggs—either from the direct effect of entrainment 

of spawned eggs, or the silt-induced smothering of eggs deposition [sic] in waters downstream of 

the dredging operations.” Hay and McCarter (2000) suggested dredging should be confined to 

periods outside of the spawning season to minimize impacts on eulachon and that the effects of 

sediment removal on eulachon spawning habitats should be a topic of research. 

FREMP (2007) estimated that from 0.76 to 3.22 million cubic meters of sediment were 

dredged annually from the lower Fraser River during the years 1997–2007 to prevent grounding 

of commercial shipping. Increases in vessel size have required deepening of the shipping 

channel in recent years (FREMP 2007). As mentioned in Pickard and Marmorek (2007), suction 

dredging is currently restricted to months when eulachon are not spawning in the Fraser and 

Kitimat rivers. According to FREMP (2006, p. 40), “hydraulic suction dredging and large-scale 

clamshell dredging undertaken in the Fraser River estuary is restricted so that there is no 

dredging conducted from March 1 to June 15 of any given year.” 

It has been suggested that eulachon spawning distribution in the Fraser River has changed 

in response to dredging and channelization and that dredging, even outside of the spawning 

period, affects eulachon by destabilization of substrates (Pickard and Marmorek 2007). Pickard 

and Marmorek (2007, p. 8) reported in their summary of findings of a DFO workshop to 

determine research priorities for eulachon that “there is consensus that dredging is not the cause 

of the coastwide decline in eulachon, but there is disagreement about the importance of dredging 

impacts on eulachon resilience in rivers where it occurs.” 

The Cowlitz Indian Tribe (2007, p. 15–16) observed that: 

the Cowlitz River and in particular the Toutle River has been greatly impacted by 

the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 and the resulting SRS built by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. Releases of fine sediment from behind the SRS during 

the spring, when normally the river is clear, have been negatively correlated with 

Cowlitz River eulachon returns 3 to 4 years later (Lou Reebs, personal 

communication). 

USACE (2007) stated that: 

as much as 414 million cubic yards (mcy) of material will erode from the Mount 

St. Helens sediment avalanche through year 2035. In addition, it was estimated 

that over the period from 2000 to 2035 as much as 27 mcy of this material would 

be deposited in the lower Cowlitz River and will need to be removed in order to 

maintain flood protection levels in Kelso, Longview, Castle Rock, and Lexington. 

... This trend is a result of increased sedimentation from the Toutle River 

watershed from sediments being passed through the SRS in greater amounts. The 

ability of the SRS to trap sand has decreased since 1998 when the sediment 

reservoir behind the dam filled in. All flow now passes through the spillway as 
139

designed, carrying sediment downstream. ... Significant sand deposition ... 

continues to occur at the mouth of the Cowlitz River, which has severely reduced 

the capacity of the river channel to transport sand. ... Channel capacity and the 

authorized levels of flood protection for Kelso, Longview, Lexington, and Castle 

Rock have been reduced below authorized levels due to sediment deposition in 

the lower Cowlitz River. ... In addition to the initial dredging effort, annual 

follow-on dredging from the transition area to Cowlitz RM 2.5 [RKM 4.0] to 

maintain the dredged channel depths and bottom widths will be needed to 

maintain flood protection levels for the next 5 years. The Corps is also 

investigating long-term dredging and nondredging alternatives that would 

maintain the authorized levels of flood protection for the communities on the 

lower Cowlitz River through the year 2035. 

Furthermore, USACE’s environmental assessment of interim dredging activities on the Cowlitz 

River (USACE 2007, p. 33) indicated that: 

The proposed ... dredging action may affect spawning adults, outmigrating 

juveniles, and larvae [of eulachon] in the water column by entrainment. Eggs 

may be affected by removing substrate needed to allow egg adhesion for 

incubation and by covering of incubating eggs by increasing suspended sediment. 

Sherwood et al. (1990) provided a detailed analysis of historical dredging activities in the 

Columbia River estuary through the 1980s. They estimated that about 300 million cubic meters 

of largely sand-sized material were removed from the estuary and river channels between 1909, 

when substantial dredging started, and 1982. Currently, USACE routinely dredges the mainstem 

Columbia River shipping channel. The Washington and Oregon Eulachon Management Plan 

(WDFW and ODFW 2001, p. 25) stated that this “Dredging should not be conducted in winter 

and early spring to avoid entrainment of eulachon adults or larvae.” Romano et al. (2002) 

suggested that the dynamic nature of sand sediments in areas proposed for channel deepening in 

the Columbia River were unlikely to support eulachon egg incubation and that direct effects of 

dredging in these areas on eulachon would be minimal. However, “[eulachon] eggs incubating 

in near-shore areas in the proximity of dredging activities might be affected if these activities 

alter flow patterns or increase sedimentation” (Romano et al. 2002, p. 8). 

In response to an earlier draft of the present status review document, Anderson (2009, p. 

4–5) stated that: 

Risks dependent on timing, location, and life history stage in relation to dredging 

and in-water dredge material disposal pose a low to moderate threat for adult 

eulachon and a high risk for incubating eggs. ... WDFW considers dredging 

effects on adult eulachon as a low risk in the mainstem Columbia River and a low 

to moderate risk in the tributaries. ... The risk to larval eulachon from mainstem 

Columbia River dredging activities is low and in the tributaries is moderate. ... 

Dredging activities can affect egg survival through direct entrainment and from 

suffocation through burial. The risk to eulachon eggs from dredging and in-water 

dredge material disposal in eulachon spawning habitat is high. 
140

Shoreline construction 

Columbia River—Estuarine habitat in the Columbia River has been modified through 

“shoreline armoring and construction of structures over water, channel dredging and removal of 

large woody debris, channelization by pile dikes, and other structures” (Bottom et al. 2005, p. 

18). Thomas (1983) estimated that estuarine acreage at the time of his study was only about 76% 

of the acreage of the estuary in 1870. This reduction was largely the result of dike and levee 

construction. Approximately 43% of tidal marshes and 77% of tidal swamps in the Columbia 

River estuary were estimated to have been lost since 1870 (Thomas 1983). Sherwood et al. 

(1990, p. 299) also reviewed historical changes in the Columbia River estuary and found that 

“large changes in the morphology of the estuary have been caused by navigational improvements 

(jetties, dredged channels, and pile dikes) and by the diking and filling of much of the wetland 

area.” Sherwood et al. (1990) suggested that the greatest cause of change in the morphology of 

the Columbia River estuary was due to construction of permeable pile dikes and jetties, 

particularly jetties at the mouth of the river. LCFRB (2004a, p. A-157) reported that: 

Artificial channel confinement has altered river discharge and hydrology, as well 

as disconnected the [Columbia] river from much of its floodplain. ... 

Additionally, channel manipulations for transportation or development have also 

had substantial influence on river discharge and hydrologic processes in the river. 

Bottom et al. (2005, p. xxii) provided a chronology of changes in the Columbia River 

estuary and stated that: 

The productive capacity of the estuary has likely declined over the past 

century through the combined effects of diking and filling of shallow-water 

habitats.... Loss of approximately 65% of the tidal marshes and swamps that 

existed in the estuary prior to 1870, combined with the loss of 12% of deepwater 

area, has contributed to a 12–20% reduction in the estuary’s tidal prism. 

Columbia River tributaries—The LCFRB (2004a, p. E-89) observed that “the 

mainstem Cowlitz below Mayfield Dam has been heavily altered due to adjacent land uses 

including agriculture, rural residential development, transportation corridors, urbanization, and 

industry.” The LCFRB (2004a, p. E-30) also reported that “the lower 20 miles of the Cowlitz 

has experienced severe loss of floodplain connectivity due to dikes, riprap, or deposited dredge 

spoils originating from the Mount St. Helens eruption” (see also Wade 2000b). Major 

population centers in the lower Cowlitz River basin with their associated industrial and 

residential development include the towns of Castle Rock, Longview, and Kelso (LCFRB 

2004a). 

The only urban area in the Kalama River basin is the City of Kalama, located near the 

river’s mouth where dikes have been constructed in the historical floodplain to protect nearby 

roads and industrial developments (Wade 2000a, LCFRB 2004a). Future development is likely 

to be concentrated along the lower mainstem Kalama River, where increasing residential 

development has also occurred in recent years (LCFRB 2004a). 
141

Much of the lower mainstem Lewis River is also “disconnected from its floodplain by 

dikes and levees” (LCFRB 2004a, p. G-55) and “the largest urban population center, the City of 

Woodland, lies near the mouth of the river” (Wade 2000a, p. 23). According to (LCFRB 2004a, 

p. G-87), “the mainstem Lewis below Merwin Dam has been heavily altered due to adjacent land 

uses including agriculture, residential development, transportation corridors, and industry.” 

British Columbia—Pickard and Marmorek (2007) reported that results of a DFO 

workshop to determine research priorities for eulachon indicated that shoreline construction in 

the form of roads, bridges, dikes, piers, wharfs, and so forth may have an impact on eulachon in 

the Skeena, Kitimat, Kemano, Fraser, and Columbia rivers. According to Pickard and Marmorek 

(2007, p. 14): 

There is evidence of change in the habitat in developed rivers such as the Fraser 

and Kitimat. These changes include the loss of side channels, loss of habitat 

complexity/diversity, and increase in velocity. These habitat changes are thought 

to affect eulachon, however the magnitude of the effect is not clear. 

Pickard and Marmorek (2007) also suggested that an increase in river velocities likely would 

result in eggs and larvae being rapidly washed downstream, where they may encounter high 

salinities at an early age. The fate of eggs and larvae that may be prematurely washed out to sea 

is unknown. 

The largest city in British Columbia, Vancouver, together with all of its associated 

industrial and urban development, abuts the Fraser River estuary (Birtwell et al. 1988). Moody 

(2008) indicated that an extensive system of dikes was constructed in the lower Fraser River 

following the 1948 flood. According to Plate (2009, p. 3 and p. iii), recent plans to construct “a 

new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge [over the Fraser River] represents a major addition to shoreline 

and in-river construction on the lower Fraser River” and is of concern because “eulachon spawn 

directly beneath the [current] Port Mann Bridge pillars and in the close upstream vicinity of the 

bridge, and as expected eulachon use all channels under the bridge for migration to upstream 

areas.” 

Climate change impacts on freshwater habitat 

Analyses of temperature trends for the U.S. Pacific Northwest (Mote et al. 1999); the 

maritime portions of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (Mote 2003a); and the Puget 

Sound–Georgia Basin region (Mote 2003b) have shown that air temperature increased 0.8°C, 

0.9°C, and 1.5°C in these respective regions during the twentieth century. Warming in each of 

these areas was substantially greater than the global average of 0.76 ± 0.19°C (IPCC 2007). 

During the next century, warming in the Pacific Northwest is predicted to range from 0.1°C to 

0.6°C per decade with a mean estimate of 0.3°C per decade, compared to an approximate 0.1°C 

per decade warming that occurred during the twentieth century (Mote et al. 2005b). Although 

fluctuations in climate related indices like the PDO and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) 

may explain about a third of this temperature rise, “the widespread and fairly monotonic 

increases in temperature exceed what can be explained by Pacific climate variability and are 

consistent with the global pattern of anthropogenic temperature increases” (Mote et al. 2005a, p. 

47). Results from 10 different climate model simulations that assume two different greenhouse 
142

gas emission scenarios predict a 1oC to 6oC increase in air temperature for the Pacific Northwest 

by 2100 (ISAB 2007). 

These higher temperatures have led to declines in snowpack, measured as springtime 

snow water equivalent, in much of the North American west, with the Oregon (Mote et al. 

2005a) and Washington (Mote 2006) Cascade Mountains having the largest losses in snow water 

equivalent. Projected milder wintertime temperatures in much of the North American west 

suggest that “losses in snowpack observed to date will continue and even accelerate” (Mote et al. 

2005a, p. 48). Additional hydrological changes that have occurred in the North American west 

over the past 50–70 years include more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow (Knowles et 

al. 2006) and an earlier onset of snowmelt (Groisman et al. 2004, Knowles et al. 2006), resulting 

in “increased fractions of annual flow occurring earlier in the water year by 1–4 weeks” relative 

to conditions during the 1950s to 1970s (Stewart et al. 2005, p. 1,136). Trends toward earlier 

flows “are strongest for midelevation gauges in the interior Northwest, western Canada, and 

coastal Alaska” (Stewart et al. 2005, p. 1,152). 

It is expected that snowmelt dominated systems at low to moderate elevations (Regonda 

et al. 2005, Knowles et al. 2006) and near-coastal mountains in the Pacific Northwest and 

California (Hamlet et al. 2005, p. 4,560) will be particularly impacted by declines in the fraction 

of precipitation falling as snow and thus may experience the greatest changes in river hydrology. 

Some systems are expected to change from a pattern of steady snow accumulation to a pattern of 

repeated snow accumulation and loss during the winter season. The Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board (ISAB 2007, p. iii) summarized projected changes associated with climate 

change in the Columbia Basin and stated that “Warmer temperatures will result in more 

precipitation falling as rain rather than snow; snow pack will diminish, and stream flow timing 

will be altered; and peak river flows will likely increase.” 

Pickard and Marmorek (2007) summarized similar findings, reported by participants at a 

DFO workshop to determine research priorities for eulachon, relative to climate-driven changes 

in freshwater hydrology that are occurring in coastal British Columbia. This report presented 

evidence that “snowpack accumulations have been declining in many watersheds (e.g., Kitimat, 

Fraser)” (Pickard and Marmorek 2007, p. 20). Spring freshets throughout British Columbia are 

also reported to be occurring earlier in the year and more precipitation at lower elevations is 

reported to be coming as rain than in snow (Pickard and Marmorek 2007, p. 20). Glaciers in 

British Columbia are also reported to be melting at a faster rate, although “overall runoff from 

B.C. glaciers is declining due to their reduced size” (Pickard and Marmorek 2007, p. 20). 

Foreman et al. (2001) and Morrison et al. (2002) examined historical temperatures and 

flows in the Fraser River over the past 100 years. Foreman et al. (2001) found that the date at 

which one-half of the Fraser River yearly discharge is reached occurred at a rate of 0.09 days 

earlier each year between 1913 and 2000, and that average summer temperatures at Hell’s Gate 

on the Fraser River increased at a rate of 0.022°C per year (0.2°C per decade) from 1953 to 

1998. Morrison et al. (2002) developed a flow model based on these trends and predicted that by 

2070–2090 spring freshets in the Fraser River would occur on average 24 days earlier in the year 

and mean summer water temperatures would likely increase by 1.9°C. DFO (2008d) also 
143

 

predicted that peak flows will come earlier in the year and peak flows will be lower over the 

coming century in the Fraser River. 

Meier et al. (2003) and Barry (2006) summarized data on the worldwide status of 

glaciers, which shows that pervasive glacial retreat has occurred over the past 100 years and 

suggests that glacial wastage has accelerated in the last several decades. Meier et al. (2003, p. 

133) stated that “the retreats of the last century exceed any seen in the last several millennia and 

are out of the range of normal climate variability for this time period.” ISAB (2007, p. 12), in 

reference to the Pacific Northwest stated that: 

Most glaciers in the region reached their recent maximum extent in the mid1800s and since that time have been in rapid retreat. Recent studies indicate that 

the retreat of the past approximately 150 years has now brought many Northwest 

glaciers back to levels last seen approximately 6,000 years ago. 

Since the majority of eulachon rivers are fed by extensive snowmelt or glacial runoff, 

elevated temperatures, changes in snow pack, and changes in the timing and intensity of stream 

flows will likely have impacts on eulachon. In most rivers, eulachon typically spawn well before 

the spring freshet, near the seasonal flow minimum, and this strategy typically results in egg 

hatch coinciding with peak spring river discharge. The expected alteration in stream flow timing 

may cause eulachon to spawn earlier or be flushed out of spawning rivers at an earlier date. 

Early emigration, together with the anticipated delay in the onset of coastal upwelling (see 

Climate Change Impacts on Ocean Conditions subsection below), may result in a mismatch 

between entry of larval eulachon into the ocean and coastal upwelling, which could have a 

negative impact on marine survival of eulachon during this critical transition period. 

There are already indications, perhaps in response to warming conditions or altered 

stream flow timing, that adult eulachon are returning earlier in the season to several rivers within 

the southern DPS (Moody 2008). Based on accounts in Portland, Oregon, newspapers between 

1867 and 1923, the mean date of initial appearance of eulachon in the Columbia River during 

that time was February 12 (Figure 6, Appendix B). Documented initial landings in the Columbia 

River commercial eulachon fishery for the years 1949 to 2008 were more than a month earlier, 

averaging around January 8, based on data supplied by WDFW.13 Similarly, Lewis et al. (2002, 

p. 68) noticed a trend for the eulachon run in the Kemano River, British Columbia, to begin and 

end earlier over the 11-year period from 1988 to 1998. Pickard and Marmorek (2007, p. 20) also 

reported that “run timing has been getting earlier since 1988–2003 in [the] Kemano [River].” 

Climate change impacts on ocean conditions 

Evidence has accumulated over the last decade to demonstrate that there are natural 

decadal-scale oscillations in North Pacific climatic and oceanic conditions (Mantua et al. 1997, 

Zhang et al. 1997). One indicator of the ocean-atmosphere variation for the North Pacific is the 

PDO index whose opposite regimes, characterized by a positive and negative PDO, typically last 

for 20–30 years (Mantua and Hare 2002) (Figure 15). Negative PDO values are associated with 

relatively cool ocean temperatures off the Pacific Northwest, and positive values are associated 

13 B. James, Statewide Eulachon Landings database, WDFW, Vancouver, WA. Pers. commun., 20 June 2008. 
144

with warmer, less productive conditions. Warmer, less productive conditions off the Pacific 

Northwest are also associated with the ENSO, which is unrelated to the PDO and occurs on 

average every 2 to 7 years and may last from 6 to 18 months. 

Changes in regional patterns of the PDO and ENSO have been associated with variation 

in the abundance of Pacific salmon, forage fish, and species such as Pacific hake in the ocean off 

the Pacific Northwest (McFarlane et al. 2000, ISAB 2007). ISAB (2007, p. 57–58) suggested 

that conditions that occur during a positive PDO or an El Niño period may represent possible 

analogs for future impacts of global warming in the North Pacific and Pacific Northwest. 

However, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its fourth 

assessment report (IPCC 2007, p. 399), “Long-term trends [in temperature] are rather difficult to 

discern in the upper Pacific Ocean because of the strong interannual and decadal variability 

(ENSO and the PDO) and the relatively short length of the observational records.” 

According to ISAB (2007, p. v): 

Scientific evidence strongly suggests that global climate change is already altering 

marine ecosystems from the tropics to polar seas. Physical changes associated 

with warming include increases in ocean temperature, increased stratification of 

the water column, and changes in the intensity and timing of coastal upwelling. 

These changes will alter primary and secondary productivity ... [and] the 

structure of marine communities. 

Warmer ocean temperatures—Levitus et al. (2000, 2005) documented warming of the 

world’s oceans that corresponds to a mean temperature increase of 0.037°C from 1955 to 1998 

(Levitus et al. 2005, p. 1). Most of this warming has occurred in the upper 700 m of the ocean 

over the past 50 years (Levitus et al. 2005). Relatively smaller temperature increases in the 

world ocean over the past 50 years, compared to the mean worldwide terrestrial air temperature 

increase of 0.76 ± 0.19°C (IPCC 2007) over the past 100 years, illustrates the ocean’s enormous 

heat capacity compared to the atmosphere (Levitus et al. 2005). According to the IPCC (2007, 

p. 387): 

The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature 

has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. ... Relative to 1961 to 

2003, the period 1993 to 2003 has high rates of warming but since 2003 there has 

been some cooling. 

The ISAB (2007, p. 65) reported that “In the subarctic Northeast Pacific, sea surface 

temperatures show a warming trend and salinities a decreasing trend, over the last half century.” 

Sea surface temperatures compiled from lighthouse records in the Canadian portion of the Strait 

of Georgia show an increase from 1915 to 2004 of 1.0°C (Beamish et al. 2008). However, longterm temperature increase in the ocean off the Pacific Northwest is not occurring in a linear 

fashion. Crawford et al. (2007, p. 176) reported that the long-term temperature records along 

Line P, which extends out more than 1,400 km from the North American west coast into the mid 

Gulf of Alaska, show an increase in temperature by 0.9°C from 1958 to 2005 between depths of 

10 and 50 m. But Line P temperature records showed no significant increase prior to 1972 or 

after 1981 and most of the long-term temperature trend was likely driven by the PDO increase 
145

associated with the 1977 regime shift (Crawford et al. 2007, IPCC 2007). Water temperatures 

off British Columbia were reportedly warmer in 2004 and 2005 than the previous 50 years (DFO 

2006b); however, in 2008 water temperatures “off the Pacific coast of Canada were the coldest in 

50 years of observations, and the cooling extended far into the Pacific Ocean and south along the 

American coast” (DFO 2009e, p. 4). 

Changes in intensity and timing of upwelling—Primary productivity in the northern 

California Current ecosystem is fueled by wind-driven upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich, deep 

waters to the surface. Along the coasts of British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, ocean 

upwelling is dependent on strong coastal northerly or equator-ward winds which drive warm 

surface waters offshore and induce upwelling of the deep waters (Bakun 1990, Ware and 

Thomson 1991, ISAB 2007). Upwelling-favorable winds are more frequent in the spring and 

summer, but do not occur uniformly even at those times. Ocean upwelling off California is 

much more consistent, less seasonal, and stronger on average than in areas farther north. 

Coastal, upwelling-favorable winds are generated by the “pressure gradient between a 

thermal low-pressure cell that develops over the heated land mass and the higher barometric 

pressure over the cooler ocean” (Bakun 1990, p. 198). Bakun (1990) hypothesized that climate 

warming will intensify these thermal land-sea differences, since land areas are predicted to warm 

twice as fast as the oceans, and should lead to more intense coastal upwelling in the California 

Current Province. These land-sea pressure gradients may be further enhanced, leading to even 

more intense upwelling, if warming leads to less terrestrial vegetation and thus even higher landsea thermal differences (Diffenbaugh et al. 2004). More intense upwelling should lead to 

increased primary productivity in the California Current, but the peak upwelling season might 

occur up to one month later, and primarily from June to September in the northern portion of the 

California Current (Snyder et al. 2003, Barth et al. 2007, ISAB 2007). Barth et al. (2007, p. 

3719) stated that “Delayed early season upwelling and stronger late season upwelling are 

consistent with predictions of the influence of global warming on coastal upwelling regions.” In 

addition, warming conditions are likely to increase the density of surface waters, resulting in 

strong water column stratification, which may impede wind-driven upwelling and reduce the 

availability of nutrients at the ocean surface (ISAB 2007). 

Ocean acidification—Global increases in atmospheric CO2 have caused an increase in 

the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans. According to the IPCC (2007, p. 387): 

Ocean biogeochemistry is changing. The total inorganic carbon content of the 

oceans has increased by 118 ± 19 GtC [gigatons carbon] between the end of the 

preindustrial period (about 1750) and 1994 and continues to increase. ... The 

increase in total inorganic carbon caused a decrease in the depth at which calcium 

carbonate dissolves, and also caused a decrease in surface ocean pH by an average 

of 0.1 units since 1750. Direct observations of pH at available time series stations 

for the last 20 years also show trends of decreasing pH at a rate of 0.02 pH units 

per decade. 

Decreased pH of ocean waters “decreases the availability of carbonate ions and lowers the 

saturation state of major shell-forming carbonates in marine animals” and is expected to severely 

impact the abundance and distribution of calcareous organisms such as corals, shelled mollusks, 
146

foraminifera, coccolithophores, and pelagic pteropods (ISAB 2007, p. 71). These changes will 

have unknown consequences for pelagic communities. 

Expected impact on eulachon—The ISAB functions to provide independent scientific 

advice to NMFS, the Columbia River Indian Tribes, and the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council. In its document Climate Change Impacts on Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife, 

the ISAB (2007, p. 72) stated that: 

Global climate change in the Pacific Northwest is predicted to result in 

changes in coastal ecosystems ... that may be similar or potentially even more 

severe than those experienced during past periods of strong El Niño events and 

warm phases of the PDO, with warmer upper ocean temperatures, increased 

stratification and decreased productivity along the coast. However, a lack of 

certainty in future wind and weather patterns yields large uncertainties for future 

changes. ...if upwelling winds remain unchanged from those of the past century, 

coastal upwelling may become less effective at pumping cold, nutrient-rich 

[water] to the upper ocean because of increased stability in the upper ocean 

caused by surface warming. Or, as some modeling studies and hypotheses 

suggest, upwelling winds may become more intense, and perhaps the timing for 

the upwelling season will change because of timing shifts in upwelling wind 

patterns. With warmer ocean temperatures we can expect shifts in the size and 

species composition of zooplankton to smaller lipid-replete zooplankton instead 

of large, lipid-rich, cool-water species. Because of food chain effects and warm 

ocean waters, forage fishes will decline and warm-water predators will increase. 

All the above predicted changes will likely influence the growth, productivity, survival, 

and migration of eulachon. Pacific hake undergo seasonal migrations from their winter 

spawning grounds off southern California to their northern feeding grounds off the west coast of 

Vancouver Island in summer (Ware and McFarlane 1995, Benson et al. 2002). Large adult 

Pacific hake are known to prey on eulachon, and the dominant prey of both small Pacific hake 

and eulachon are euphuasiids (Rexstad and Pikitch 1986, Buckley and Livingston 1997). 

Beamish et al. (2008, p. 34) stated that “The projected long-term increase in temperatures may 

result in more offshore hake moving into the Canadian zone, and in the spawning and rearing 

area off California moving north.” Thus projected ocean warming is likely to result in an altered 

distribution of both predators on eulachon and competitors for food resources. 

Initial eulachon survival during the critical transition period between larval and juvenile 

stages is likely linked to the intensity and timing of upwelling in the northern California Current 

Province. However, the potential shift of peak upwelling to one month later than normal may 

result in a temporal trophic match-mismatch between eulachon larval entry into the ocean and 

presence of preferred prey organisms whose productivity is dependent on the early initiation of 

upwelling conditions. These conditions would likely have significant negative impacts on 

marine survival rates of eulachon and recent recruitment failure of eulachon may be traced to 

mortality during this critical period. Larval and juvenile eulachon are planktivorous and are 

adapted to feed on a northern or boreal suite of copepods during the critical larval/juvenile 

transition. 
147

There are two main suites or assemblages of copepod species over the continental shelf 

off the west coast of North America: a boreal shelf assemblage (e.g., Calanus marshallae, 

Pseudocalanus mimus, and Acartia longiremis) that normally occurs from central Oregon to the 

Bering Sea and a southern assemblage (e.g., Paracalanus parvus, Mesocalanus tenuicornis, 

Clausocalanus spp., and Ctenocalanus vanus) that is most abundant along the California coast 

(Mackas et al. 2001, 2007). Changes in the relative abundance and distribution of these copepod 

assemblages covary with oceanographic conditions (Roemmich and McGowan 1995, Mackas et 

al. 2001, 2007, Peterson and Keister 2003, Zamon and Welch 2005, Hooff and Peterson 2006). 

When warm conditions prevail, as during an El Niño year or when the PDO is positive, the 

distribution of zooplankton communities can shift to the north and the southern assemblage of 

copepods can become dominant off southern Vancouver Island (Mackas et al. 2007). For 

example, abundance of boreal shelf copepods was much lower than normal and southern species 

dominated off southern Vancouver Island during the warm years between 1992 and 1998 

(Mackas et al. 2007). Thus warmer ocean conditions may be expected to contribute to a 

mismatch between eulachon life history and preferred prey species. 

Ocean conditions off the Pacific Northwest in 2005 were similar to what may be expected 

if climate change predictions for the next 100 years are accurate. According to Barth et al. 

(2007, p. 3,719), there was a “1-month delay in the 2005 spring transition to upwelling-favorable 

wind stress in the northern California Current,” and during May to July, upwelling-favorable 

winds were at their lowest levels in 20 years and “nearshore surface waters averaged 2°C warmer 

than normal.” Eulachon returns to spawning rivers in the southern DPS were poor during this 

period of unfavorable ocean conditions from 2004 to 2008 (JCRMS 2008) and may portend how 

eulachon will respond to warming ocean conditions. 

Water quality 

General contaminants—The high lipid content of eulachon suggests they are 

susceptible to absorption of lipophilic organic contaminants (Higgins et al. 1987, Pickard and 

Marmorek 2007). Contaminants considered of most concern include: 1) synthetic chlorinated 

organic chemicals, such as hexachlorobenzene, DDTs, and the polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs); 2) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from petroleum and creosoted pilings; 3) 

dioxins and a host of other organic compounds; 4) metals such as mercury, arsenic, and lead; and 

5) endocrine-disrupting compounds and new toxics like PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ether, 

flame retardants). 

No rigorous toxicological studies of the effects of environmental contaminants on 

eulachon were found. In the Washington Department of Fisheries Annual Report for 1953, 

Schoettler (1953, p. 54) stated that: 

The effects of the industrial waste products discharged directly into the Columbia 

River near the mouth of the Cowlitz are under study by the Fisheries Department 

in cooperation with the State Pollution Commission. In 1951 shipments of 

artificially fertilized smelt eggs were taken to the Deception Pass Marine 

laboratory. After hatching, the fry were subjected to various intensities of waste 

sulfite liquor. Results indicate that the liquors were harmful to young smelt. ... 

Of equal importance were preliminary pollution studies on adult smelt. Effluents 
148

from three industrial plants at Longview were used. The smelt were placed in a 

partitioned trough which held pure river water on one side and river water mixed 

with certain dilutions of effluent on the other. The number of fish emerging from 

either side of the trough were carefully enumerated. Under these circumstances 

smelt showed an aversion to the effluents in dilutions approximating 1 part to 800. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2002) examined contaminants in fish, 

including whole eulachon, from the Columbia River in 1996–1998. In general EPA (2002, p. 9-

204) stated that whole body analysis revealed that: 

While eulachon ... had a high lipid content, they had some of the lowest levels of 

organic chemicals of all the species tested. Aroclors [a mixture of PCBs] and 

chlordane were not detected in the eulachon. Eulachon had the highest average 

concentration of arsenic and lead. 

Contamination levels in three combined whole body samples of eulachon in the Columbia River 

collected at RKM 63–66 ranged 860–930 μg/kg arsenic, 9–10 μg/kg cadmium, 920–990 μg/kg 

copper, 370–680 μg/kg lead, less than 35 μg/kg mercury, 270–300 μg/kg selenium, 10–11 μg/kg 

p,p’-DDE, less than 4 μg/kg p,p’-DDT, less than 37 μg/kg Aroclor 1254, less than 37 μg/kg 

Aroclor 1260, less than 0.00005–0.0001 μg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD [a chlorinated dioxin], and 

0.00058–0.00078 μg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDF [a chlorinated furan] (EPA 2002). In addition, EPA 

(2002, p. E-4) stated that: 

DDE [a metabolite of DDT], the most commonly found pesticide in fish tissue 

from our study ... [was found at] 11 ppb [parts per billion] in whole body 

eulachon. ... Aroclors [a PCB mixture] [were] ... nondetectable in eulachon ... 

[and] concentrations of arsenic ... [were] 890 ppb in whole body eulachon. 

Mercury ... [was at] nondetectable levels in ... whole body eulachon. 

Rogers et al. (1990, p. 713) examined tissues and whole eulachon from the Fraser River 

for organochlorine contaminants and found that: 

[eulachon] tissue samples contained chlorophenols from wood preservation 

operations and chloroguaiacols from pulp bleaching. Whole fish also contained 

DDE and DDD [metabolites of DDT], while PCBs were present in some fish 

gonads in 1986, but not in 1988. With the exception of whole body 

concentrations of 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (TeCP), concentrations of 

pentachlorophenol (PCP), 3,4,5- trichloroguaiacol (3,4,5-TCG), 

tetrachloroguaiacol (TtiCG), DDE, and DDD in whole bodies, livers and gonads 

revealed an increasing trend with distance of the eulachon capture site upstream 

from the Fraser River mouth. 

Chan et al. (1996, p. 32) examined eulachon collected from the Nass, Kitimat, and Bella 

Coola rivers and from Kingcome and Knight inlets for levels of persistent organic pollutants 

including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorohexanes, dieldrin, 

chlordane, mirex, and PCBs and found that “levels of chlorinated pesticides and PCB increased 

from the north to the south, with the lowest from Nass River and highest from Knight Inlet.” 

However, contaminant levels in eulachon “were at least an order of magnitude lower than the 
149

maximum residual limit established by Health Canada or the action level established by the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration” (Chan et al. 1996, p. 40). Since eulachon do not feed during 

their freshwater spawning run, “the uptake of toxic chemicals must occur directly from the 

environment” (Rogers et al. 1990, p. 725). 

There are innumerable publications analyzing chemical contaminants and their sources in 

the lower Columbia River basin and only a select number of large-scale reviews are mentioned 

herein. Rosetta and Borys (1996) estimated that approximately 48% of the volume of 

contaminant discharges to the lower Columbia River came from industrial sources (5% from 

chemical and allied products, 3% from primary metal, and 39% from paper and other product 

manufacturers) and 52% from sewage treatment plants. Fifty-seven facilities in the lower 

Columbia River were identified as having the potential to release chlorinated dioxins and furans 

and “55 environmental cleanup sites in the State of Oregon, and 13 sites in the State of 

Washington [were found to] contain PCB contamination in either groundwater, sediment, or soil 

which may have the potential to impact the lower Columbia River” (Rosetta and Borys 1996, p. 

E-7). 

Further breakdown of contaminant sources for the lower Columbia River are presented in 

Tetra Tech (1996). Hinck et al. (2004, 2006) examined contaminant levels throughout the 

Columbia River Basin, primarily in three resident nonanadromous target species: common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio), bass (Micropterus sp.), and largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus). 

Fish were exposed to a variety of chemical and elemental contaminants throughout the Columbia 

River (Hinck et al. 2004). Temporal trend analyses indicated that PCBs were decreasing in 

concentration in sites with historical data; however, concentrations of the organochlorine 

contaminants PCBs and total p,p′-DDE were higher in the lower and middle Columbia River 

than in the upper Columbia River (Hinck et al. 2004, 2006). 

Hall (1976, p. 45) reviewed water quality and sources of pollution in the lower Fraser 

River and stated that: 

There appear to be two main water quality problems in the lower Fraser, both 

apparently attributable to the urban-industrial complex of metropolitan 

Vancouver, namely pathogens and trace metals. ... Potential problems are 

apparent regarding toxic substances such as trace metals. Concentrations are not 

high enough to be acutely toxic to fish but the sporadic occurrence of higher 

concentrations of trace metals such as lead, mercury, and zinc in the lower 

reaches of the river and accumulations in sediments give some cause for concern, 

especially since these substances are not biodegradable and bioamplification 

through food chain concentration or direct absorption by the organism cannot be 

ignored in the sensitive estuarine areas of the lower Fraser. 

Types and sources of contaminants in the lower Fraser River consist of insecticides and 

herbicides used in agricultural production; wood preservatives associated with the lumber 

industry (e.g., chromium, copper, arsenic, chlorinated phenols, dioxins, polynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbons, phenolics, and creosote); leachates from landfills; a wide range of contaminants in 

stormwater discharge; industrial effluents associated with metal, cement, forest products, and 

food industries; and municipal effluents (Birtwell et al. 1988). 
150

Although the central and north coast regions of British Columbia possess relatively 

pristine environments compared to areas to the south, even this area has marine environmental 

quality concerns. Haggerty et al. (2003) identified a number of contaminant sources in British 

Columbia’s central coast, which extends from northern Vancouver Island to just south of the 

Queen Charlotte Islands, including: salmon aquaculture, oil pollution, wastewater, pollution from 

cruise ships, shipping and boating, forestry and forest products, mining, and atmospheric and 

oceanic transport of chemical contaminants. 

Similarly, Johannessen et al. (2007a) identified the 10 main contaminant sources in the 

north coast regions of British Columbia, which includes eulachon spawning rivers from the 

Klinaklini to the Nass rivers, to be: vessel traffic, ports, forestry, pulp and paper mills, mining 

and smelting, aquaculture, Coast Guard and military sites, global pollutants, offshore oil and gas, 

and ocean dumping. In a larger context, incorporating both the central and north coasts of 

British Columbia (aka Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area [PNCIMA]), 

Johannessen et al. (2007b) listed the main sources of chemical contaminants as: aquaculture, 

vessel traffic, ports/harbors/marinas, forestry, pulp and paper, mining and smelting, ocean 

dumping, Coast Guard and military sites, oil and gas, and global pollutants. Detailed analyses of 

these contaminant sources are found in the relevant publications (Haggerty et al. 2003, 

Johannessen et al. 2007a, 2007b) and only a selected few major contaminant sources are 

mentioned below. 

Johannessen et al. (2007b) indicates that 78 finfish and 24 shellfish farms operate in the 

PNCIMA. Many of these are located in the Queen Charlotte Strait near Knight and Kingcome 

inlets and pose a source of organic waste materials and of “pesticides and other persistent 

pollutants in fish used in the production of feed” (Johannessen et al. 2007b, p. ix). An average of 

more than 400,000 vessels of all types transit the PNCIMA annually. About 56% of these 

vessels are passenger ferries and cruise ships that transport about 1.5 million passengers yearly 

through the PNCIMA (Johannessen et al. 2007b). According to Johannessen et al. (2007b, p. 

12), “Contaminant issues associated with marine traffic include the discharge of sewage, grey 

water, oily bilge water, shipboard solid wastes, and release of antifouling compounds from 

ablative coatings.” 

Prince Rupert and Kitimat, the two main industrial ports in the PNCIMA, are expanding 

and increasing their capacity for large industrial shipping. The industrial port of Kitimat 

currently serves the Alcan aluminum smelter, the Eurocan paper mill, and the Methanex 

methanol plant (Johannessen et al. 2007b). A new Kitimat liquefied natural gas terminal is to 

begin construction in 2010, and there are plans for a new Kitimat Marine Terminal and pipeline 

to transport petroleum from near Edmonton, Alberta, to Kitimat and condensate from Kitimat to 

near Edmonton, together with numerous other industrial terminal projects (Port of Kitimat 2009). 

Johannessen et al. (2007b, p. ix) stated that: 

Four [pulp] mills exist in the area [PNCIMA], though two of them have operated 

intermittently. All Canadian pulp mills underwent significant effluent treatment 

upgrades in the 1990s such that discharge of solids, discharge of oxygen demand, 

and chlorinated compounds such as dioxins and furans are now significantly 

reduced.
151

Johannessen et al. (2007b, p. 25–26) indicated that within the PNCIMA, “12 [mine] sites are a 

risk to produce acid rock drainage and heavy metal leachate” and that the only active smelter in 

the PNCIMA is the aluminum smelter at Kitimat, where “several studies have detected elevated 

PAH concentrations in both marine biota and sediments in the Kitimat Arm area.” Johnson et al. 

(2009) detected elevated concentrations of PAHs in sediments of Kitimat Arm, that are similar to 

PAHs originating from the Alcan smelter, and in salmon and flatfish collected in Kitimat arm. 

However, Johnson et al. (2009, p. xv) concluded that: 

The process changes introduced by Alcan appear to be effective at reducing inputs 

of PAHs into the environment and biota of Kitimat Arm, as PAH concentrations 

in sediments and fish and fish disease prevalences have remained stable or 

declined over the past 5 years of sampling. 

Kime (1995, p. 67–68) reviewed the literature on the effects of contaminants on fish 

reproduction prior to fertilization, showed that these effects can occur throughout the 

reproductive system, and stated that: 

They may cause lesions, haemorrhage, or malformations in the gonads, pituitary, 

liver, and the brain. Production and secretion of hormones of the hypothalamus, 

pituitary, and gonads is usually inhibited and their metabolism by the liver can be 

altered. ... Gametes have been shown to be particularly sensitive to pollutants, 

both in their development, particularly the production and growth of oocytes 

involving vitellogenin synthesis, and in their fertility. Sperm motility, in 

particular, has special potential as a rapid and sensitive indicator of pollutant 

activity. 

Analyses of these reproductive biomarkers (quantifiable parameters of an organism’s 

biological state) go beyond the traditional toxicological test of establishing the dose of a 

contaminant causing death in 50% of the test organisms (LD50) and are an example of the 

problems researchers have in assessing the effects of chronic low-level exposure of contaminants 

or mixtures of contaminants on fish and fish populations (Eggen et al. 2004, Carvan et al. 2008). 

As pointed out by Carvan et al. (2008, p. 1,023), most of the problems facing modern 

ecotoxicology are much more subtle and require development of a suite of biomarkers and the 

use of controlled laboratory experiments on sentinel fish species, such as zebrafish (Danio rerio) 

(much as laboratory rats are used to assess risk of toxicant exposure to higher mammals), to 

assess risk to closely related fish species. 

Temperature—Smith and Saalfeld (1955) reported that eulachon are present in the 

Columbia River when water temperatures are between 2°C and 10°C and delay migration into 

spawning tributaries until temperatures are above about 4.4°C (WDFW and ODFW 2001). 

When river temperatures vary above or below normal, eulachon may fail to spawn in normal 

areas, delay spawning, or migrate into other tributaries (Smith and Saalfeld 1955, WDFW and 

ODFW 2001). 

Snyder (1970) reported on studies in 1968 and 1969 that examined the temperature 

tolerance of adult eulachon and eggs taken from the Columbia and Cowlitz rivers and found that 

eggs were more tolerant to temperature increases than were adults. Increases of 2.8°C and 5.6°C 
152

killed 50% and 100% of adult smelt, respectively, within 8 days. Even when exposed to 

temperatures elevated by 9°C for a single hour, 50% of adult eulachon were dead after 32 hours. 

When placed in water 3.9°C above river temperatures, females failed to deposit eggs (Snyder 

1970). Slightly different results were reported by Blahm and McConnell (1971) on effects of 

increased temperature on eulachon collected from the Cowlitz River in 1968 and 1969. They 

reported that the incipient lethal temperature for eulachon acclimated to 5°C was 11°C. All 

eulachon exposed to 11°C were dead after 8 days exposure. When eulachon had been acclimated 

to 10°C, a sudden exposure to 18°C for one hour followed by return to 10°C resulted in at least 

50% mortality within 50 hours (Blahm and McConnell 1971). All female fish exposed to 

elevated temperatures failed to deposit eggs within 50 hours, in contrast to female eulachon in 

control conditions that successfully deposited eggs (Snyder and Blahm 1971). 

When evaluating temperature criteria for Washington’s water quality standards, Hicks 

(2000, p. 99) stated that: 

The studies on smelt indicate they have a lower lethal temperature limit than do 

the salmonids and a lower optimum temperature preferendum. ... Given that 

adult spawners and outgoing juveniles may be in fresh waters as late as March to 

mid-April, and their temperature requirements may be more strict than most 

salmonids, the protection of smelt is an important consideration in setting water 

quality standards. In waters supporting smelt, it is recommended that the 7-day 

average of the daily maximum temperatures not exceed 12–14°C prior to May 1, 

with no single daily maximum temperature greater than 16°C. 

Catastrophic events 

Larson and Belchik (1998, p. 7) reported that “The eruption of Mount St. Helens severely 

impacted Cowlitz River spawning success in 1980 and the consequent return of adults in 1984.” 

Emmett et al. (1990) documented the effects of the dramatic increase in turbidity in the 

Columbia River on fishes in the estuary following the 18 May 1980 eruption of Mount St. 

Helens, which resulted in introduction of large quantities of volcanic ash and sediment into the 

Columbia River estuary. Although hampered by the absence of long-term pre-eruption data, 

Emmett et al. (1990) showed that densities of benthic invertebrates, particularly amphipods, were 

significantly reduced and feeding habits and distribution of estuarine fishes were altered 

following the eruption. 

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes 

Commercial harvest 

Landing records of eulachon in commercial fisheries in the Fraser and Columbia rivers 

were discussed in the above Summary of Regional Demographic Data subsection. Eulachon 

have been commercially harvested in the Columbia River since the late 1860s and commercial 

landing records begin in 1888 (Table 7, Figure 22). Smith and Saalfeld (1955), the Washington 

and Oregon Eulachon Management Plan (WDFW and ODFW 2001), and Bargmann et al. (2005) 

describe gear types and fishery regulations pertaining to the modern era of the Columbia River 
153

commercial eulachon fishery. As described in the Summary of Regional Demographic Data 

subsection, the Columbia River eulachon commercial fishery has been managed according to the 

Joint State Eulachon Management Plan since 2001, which provides for three levels of fishing 

intensity based on an in-season estimate of parental run strength and preseason estimates of 

juvenile production and ocean productivity (WDFW and ODFW 2001, Bargmann et al. 2005). 

More recently, JCRMS (2009, p. 26–27) stated that: 

For January 1–March 31, 2009, the mainstem Columbia River commercial fishery 

was open from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Mondays and Thursdays. ... The Cowlitz River 

was open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturdays. The Sandy River was open yearround, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, per permanent regulations. ... Pounds 

landed in the mainstem Columbia River commercial fisheries [amounted to] 5,600 

pounds. No commercial landings were made in Oregon tributaries (i.e., Sandy 

River) during 2009. Pounds landed in the Cowlitz River commercial fishery 

[amounted to] 12,100 pounds. ... All other Washington tributaries were closed to 

commercial fishing during 2009. 

DFO (2008c) provides a brief history of the Fraser River commercial eulachon fishery, 

which began in the 1870s and, besides the Nass River fishery which ended in the 1940s, has been 

the only commercial eulachon fishery operating in British Columbia. DFO (2008c) reported 

that: 

From 1903 to 1912, the Fraser River eulachon fishery was the fifth largest 

commercial fishery in BC. ... Historically, anyone with a Category C licence or a 

limited entry vessel-based category of licence was eligible to fish eulachon. ... Up 

to 1995, the fishery was passively managed with an open time from March 15 to 

May 31 for commercial drift gill nets with a one day per week closure. In 1995 

... the fishery was restricted to three days per week in an attempt to provide a 

“spawning window” which would allow some fish to swim unimpeded by nets to 

their spawning areas. ... The commercial eulachon fishery was closed in 1997 due 

to the inability to control effort and participation and to ensure conservation 

objectives were met. ... The commercial eulachon fishery sells to the fresh fish 

market for food. Some of the catch is sold as bait for recreational sturgeon 

fishing. Based on fish slip records for the period 1980 to 1995, the number of 

active vessels ranged between 8 and 45. 

The Fraser River commercial fishery for eulachon has essentially been closed since 1997, 

only opening briefly in 2002 and 2004, when 5.76 and 0.44 mt were landed, respectively (Table 

9, Figure 27) (DFO 2006a). 

Recreational harvest 

Fry (1979, p. 90) reported that in California, in the past, there were “relatively minor 

[eulachon] sport fisheries near river mouths, the Klamath fishery being the largest. Dip nets are 

used.” Numerous anecdotal digital newspaper sources were found that indicate substantial 
154

recreational fisheries existed in the Klamath River and in other northern California rivers, as well 

as in the Umpqua River during the 1960s to the 1980s (see Appendix B). 

A large recreational dipnet fishery that occurs almost exclusively in Columbia River 

tributaries, and for which catch records are unavailable, has existed in concert with commercial 

fisheries (Bargmann et al. 2005). JCRMS (2008) stated that: 

Prior to 1997, the recreational fishery in Washington tributaries was open 7 days 

per week the entire year. ... Smelt dippers in Washington were allowed 20 pounds 

[9.1 kg] per person each day, but beginning in late 1998 the limit has sometimes 

been 10 pounds [4.5 kg] per person. In Oregon the daily limit remains 25 pounds 

[11.4 kg] per person with the season open throughout the year. The recreational 

dip net fishery is very popular, drawing thousands of participants. Smelt are used 

for human consumption and are also in great demand for sturgeon bait. Annual 

recreational catch estimates are not available; however, limited past creel census 

information suggests that the recreational catch may equal the commercial 

landings in some years when smelt are abundant for a long period of time. 

USACE (1952, p. 2,873) reported that: 

During the smelt run literally thousands of people line the banks of the streams, 

utilizing all sorts of gear to make a catch of this delectable fish. Data are lacking 

to show the magnitude of this catch, but during the 1948 smelt run to the Sandy 

River, 32,422 noncommercial licenses were issued to persons engaged in dipping 

this fish. 

In reference to the 2009 recreational fishery season, JCRMS (2009, p. 27) stated that: 

The mainstem Columbia River was open to both Washington and Oregon 

recreational fishers 7 days per week on a 24-hour basis, with a bag limit of 25 

pounds per person under Level One restrictions. The Washington tributary season 

was restricted to the Cowlitz River from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturdays with a bag 

limit of 10 pounds per person. All Oregon tributaries were open to recreational 

dipping 7 days per week the entire year as per permanent regulations. 

Recreational fishing was poor due to low abundance. 

Currently, recreational fishing for eulachon with dip nets, gill nets, minnow nets, or cast 

nets is prohibited in all freshwater systems of British Columbia (DFO Web site at http://www

.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/opportunities-possibilites/fin-nageoire-eng.htm. In saltwater, 

recreational fishing for eulachon is prohibited due to conservation concerns in Areas 6 to 10 

(central coast of British Columbia) and 28 and 29 (near the mouth of the Fraser River). In Areas 

1 to 5 (north coast of British Columbia) and 11 to 27 (Queen Charlotte Strait, Strait of Georgia, 

and west coast Vancouver Island), a year round daily limit of 20 kg of eulachon can be 

recreationally harvested with dip net or gill net, although this harvest is likely minor since 

eulachon are only accessible to the recreational fishery when they return to spawn in the spring 

and are close enough to the surface and shore to be caught (DFO 2009f). 
155

Tribal and First Nations fisheries 

The importance of the eulachon run to local Indian tribes in the lower Columbia River 

was documented as early as the Lewis and Clark Expedition (Burroughs 1961, WDFW and 

ODFW 2001). JCRMS (2009, p. 26) stated that currently: 

Tribal harvest is essentially nonexistent. ... However, the Yakama Nation has 

taken a few pounds of smelt from the Cowlitz River annually, for ceremonial and 

subsistence purposes. 

Available landing records of eulachon in First Nations subsistence fisheries in British 

Columbia south of the Nass River were discussed in the above Summary of Regional 

Demographic Data subsection. Rivers where some data were available included the Fraser, 

Klinaklini, Kingcome, Wannock, Bella Coola, Kemano, and Kitimat. DFO (2008c) stated that: 

Aboriginal communal licences specify the locations and method permitted for use 

by First Nations for food, social, and ceremonial harvests. Eulachons are 

harvested when they return to freshwater to spawn. ... Fishing methods will vary 

by First Nations and river system, but may include beach seine, gill net, conical 

nets, and dip nets. ... Limited information is available on the extent of First 

Nations’ harvest of eulachons for food, social, and ceremonial purposes. 

Pickard and Marmorek (2007, p. 40) reported in their summary of findings of a DFO 

workshop to determine research priorities for eulachon that “it seems unlikely that overfishing is 

the cause of the recent sharp declines in eulachon abundance; however, it is important to 

understand how harvesting severely depressed populations may affect the recovery of 

populations.” 

Predation and Disease 

Predation 

WDFW and ODFW (2001, p. 5) stated that “impressive numbers of predators and 

scavengers accompany large runs of smelt from the time they first enter the Columbia through 

completion of spawning.” Beach et al. (1981, 1985) and Jeffries (1984) observed that harbor 

seals, California sea lions, and Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) move into the Columbia 

River to feed on eulachon runs in the winter. Jeffries (1984, p. 20) observed that “harbor seals 

were frequently reported in the area where the Cowlitz River enters the Columbia” and “these 

population increases ... were apparently due to the migration of eulachon into spawning 

tributaries.” Many harbor seals migrate from Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay to the Columbia 

River in the winter (Beach et al. 1985). Between 1,000 and 1,500 harbor seals have been 

observed using haul out sites as far as 45 miles upriver on the Columbia River at this time of 

year and “are frequently seen as far upriver as Longview, Washington (RM 55 [RKM 88.5]), 

apparently following eulachon runs into this area” (Beach et al. 1981, p. 73). NMFS (1997, p. 

29) stated that the highest counts of seals in the river coincide with the winter spawning of 

eulachon. 
156

Based on the presence of otoliths in harbor seal scat collected from the Columbia River 

during 1981–1982, Jeffries (1984) reported that eulachon were eaten by 50%, 87%, 44%, and 

12% of the harbor seals present in January, February, March, and April, respectively. Brown et 

al. (1989) determined that 98% of the prey eaten by harbor seals in the Columbia River during 

the winters of 1986 to 1988 were eulachon, and that 100% of harbor seal stomachs examined 

contained eulachon (Brown et al. 1989, NMFS 1997). Brown et al. (1989) also estimated that 

the more than 2,000 harbor seals present during mid winter 1987 in the Columbia River 

consumed from 2.5 to 10.2 million eulachon or from 105 to 428 mt (assuming an average weight 

of 42 g per eulachon), which is equal to 12% to 50% of the Columbia River commercial fishery 

landings of eulachon for that year. 

Although accounting for only 0.4% of the diet, Olesiuk (1993) estimated that the 12,000–

15,000 harbor seals present in the Strait of Georgia during 1988 consumed an average of 

approximately 40 mt of eulachon. Harbor seals were known to concentrate and feed on eulachon 

in the Klinaklini River estuary at the head of Knight Inlet during the eulachon spawning 

migration in March (Spalding 1964). Eulachon also congregate in the Skeena River off Point 

Lambert during the eulachon spawning migration in that river (Fisher 1947) and likely follow the 

eulachon up the tributary Ecstall River (Fisher 1952). Both Imler and Sarber (1947) and Pitcher 

(1980) indicate that eulachon were the dominant prey of harbor seals from late May to mid-July 

during eulachon spawning migrations on the Copper River Delta in Alaska. Based on stomach 

content analyses, harbor seals also prey on eulachon in Prince William Sound (Pitcher 1980, 

Lowry et al. 2001), lower Cook Inlet, and off Kodiak Island (Pitcher 1980). Nearly 5% of 269 

harbor seal stomachs examined in all areas of the Gulf of Alaska by Pitcher (1980) contained 

eulachon remains. 

Eulachon are also a primary prey species of California sea lions in the Columbia River in 

January to June (Beach et al. 1985, Brown et al. 1995, NMFS 1997), and California sea lions 

have been observed near Longview at the time of the eulachon run (Beach et al. 1981). Jeffries 

(1984, p. 17) observed that peak numbers of California sea lions (200–250) in the Columbia 

River occurred during the months of February and March and they were believed to “move 

upriver following and feeding on the annual eulachon smelt runs.” Maximum numbers of Steller 

sea lions (80–100) in the Columbia River also occurred during this time of year when they “have 

been observed feeding upriver on eulachon” (Jeffries 1984, p. 19). Seals and sea lions have also 

been observed above New Westminster in the Fraser River during the eulachon spawning 

migration (Hay and McCarter 2000). 

Bigg (1988) noted that about 60 individual Steller sea lions congregated each year 

between 1978 and 1982 near the mouth of the Fraser River at Sand Heads in mid-March to early 

May to feed on eulachon that spawn in the Fraser at that time. Steller sea lions were similarly 

reported by fishery officers to enter numerous inlets on the mainland coast of British Columbia 

to feed on returning eulachon during February to April (Bigg 1988). Although Pitcher (1981) 

reported that eulachon were not a part of the diet of Steller sea lions in the Gulf of Alaska, 

numerous other studies (Womble 2003, Sigler et al. 2004, Womble and Sigler 2006, Womble et 

al. 2005, 2009) have emphasized the seasonal importance of eulachon to Steller sea lions in 

Southeast Alaska. Steller sea lions are attracted in large numbers to spawning eulachon runs in 

April and May in various locations in northern Southeast Alaska, especially the Yakutat 
157

forelands and Lynn Canal (Sigler et al. 2004, Womble et al. 2005, 2009). Eulachon provide a 

predictable energy-rich prey item for Steller sea lions during the spring gestation and pupping 

season (Womble 2003, Sigler et al. 2004). Sigler et al. (2004) estimated that about 10% of the 

population of Southeast Alaska Steller sea lions were in Berners Bay on Lynn Canal during the 

2002 eulachon run and that many other Steller sea lions were likely aggregated in the vicinity of 

one of the 32 other documented eulachon spawning runs in Southeast Alaska. Large 

aggregations of Steller sea lions have also been found in the vicinity of the mouth of the Alsek 

River and Taku, Lutak, and Taiya inlets during eulachon runs (Womble 2003). 

Northern fur seals consume eulachon in the California Current (Antonelis and Fiscus 

1980) and particularly offshore of Oregon and Washington (Antonelis and Perez 1984). Peak 

numbers of northern fur seals appear off Oregon and Washington in April (Antonelis and Perez 

1984). Based on fur seal diet analyses, Antonelis and Perez (1984) calculated that fur seals 

consumed a yearly average of 600 mt of eulachon in this offshore region between 1958 and 

1974. By comparison, the Columbia River commercial fishery landed an average yearly catch of 

650 mt of eulachon over this same time period (Table 9). Spalding (1964) reported that about 

100 yearling fur seals congregated at the head of Knight Inlet in March 1961 and that four of 

these fur seals had been feeding exclusively on eulachon in the Klinaklini River estuary, while 

another 60 fur seals in the middle of the inlet were feeding on squid. Clemens et al. (1936, p. 6) 

reported on an analysis of stomach contents of 593 northern fur seals sampled from late March to 

late June off the west coast of Vancouver Island and stated that: 

Eulachon proved to be the third most important organism in the food of the fur 

seals [after herring and salmon]. It was found to occur in some 20% of the full 

stomachs but as a rule in rather small quantities. It comprised about 3% of the 

total food. 

Moore et al. (2000) reported that feeding behavior of beluga whales appears to coincide 

with the timing and pattern of eulachon runs in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Belugas congregate near the 

Susitna River Delta at the time of early summer eulachon runs and eulachon have been identified 

in beluga stomachs (Moore et al. 2000). 

Marston et al. (2002) documented 34 separate bird species feeding on eulachon returning 

to spawn in rivers draining into Berners Bay, Alaska, amounting to more than 46,000 avian 

predators in 1996 and more than 36,500 in 1997. Thousands of gulls and some of the hundreds 

of eagles were observed feeding heavily on eulachon during the upriver migration, while 

shorebirds, waterfowl, corvids, and many eagles fed on spawned-out, dying fish (Marston et al. 

2002). WDFW and ODFW (2001, p. 5) stated that “gull counts in the mid-1980s along the lower 

Cowlitz River during the peak of eulachon abundance exceeded 10,000 birds of 8 species” and 

that during the 1980s “peak counts of bald eagles in conjunction with eulachon upstream 

migration and spawning were as high as 50 in areas of the lower mainstem Columbia, along the 

Cowlitz, and along the Lewis” (Table A-10). 

According to Fry (1979, p. 15) “Green sturgeon take advantage of spawning eulachon in 

the Klamath River, but (like eagles and gulls) probably do more scavenging than actual preying.” 

Analysis of stomach contents revealed that eulachon eggs were a seasonally important prey item 
158

for juvenile white sturgeon in May and June 1988 in the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam 

at RKM 153 (2–12 % of the diet) and RKM 211 (25–50% of the diet) (McCabe et al. 1993). 

Eulachon occurred in 100% of 229 spiny dogfish stomachs containing food taken in the 

Fraser River in May 1953, and in 23% and 92% of stomachs analyzed outside the river’s mouth 

in May 1950 and 1953, respectively (Chatwin and Forrester 1953). According to Chatwin and 

Forrester (1953, p. 38), “The dogfish which support the fishery in the Fraser River in mid-May 

are clearly dependent upon the appearance of the eulachon.” Analyses of more than 14,000 

spiny dogfish stomachs in British Columbia waters over a 30-year period ending in 1977 

revealed that eulachon represented approximately 5.5% of the annual dogfish diet, and 

represented a greater percentage of food types consumed for young (13.4%) and immature 

(10.2%) dogfish than for adults (1.6%) (Jones and Geen 1977). 

Eulachon occurred at low frequency (<1%) in 416 Pacific cod stomachs examined in 

British Columbia (Hart 1949). Eulachon are also eaten by large Pacific hake, which become 

increasingly piscivirous as they age, with euphausiids being the dominant prey of small Pacific 

hake (Rexstad and Pikitch 1986, Buckley and Livingston 1997). Livingston (1983, p. 630) 

determined that eulachon off Oregon in the spring of 1980 “comprised 22% by weight of the diet 

of 450–549 mm Pacific whiting [hake] and 79.6% by weight of the diet of 550+ mm fish.” The 

offshore Pacific hake stock migrates northward from winter spawning grounds to feed off the 

coast of the Pacific Northwest in the summer. This stock represents 61% of the offshore pelagic 

biomass in the California Current system (Ware and McFarlane 1995), and recent evidence 

(Benson et al. 2002, Cooke et al. 2006, Phillips et al. 2007) indicates that the feeding migration 

of Pacific hake may be extending further north within the northern California Current system. 

Although only about 5% of Pacific hake stomachs examined by Outram and Haegele (1972) off 

the west coast of Vancouver Island in 1970 contained eulachon, the large biomass of Pacific 

hake in this region in summer may have a significant impact on eulachon biomass in the area 

(Hay and McCarter 2000). 

Yang and Nelson (2000, p. 159–160) stated that “eulachon [in the Gulf of Alaska in 

1990, 1993, and 1996] were consumed by the main piscivorous species (arrowtooth flounder, 

Pacific halibut, sablefish, Pacific cod, and pollock) but ... comprised no more than 5% of the 

stomach content weight of each of the predator species in every year.” These predator species 

consumed eulachon whose mean standard length ranged from 100 to 150 mm (Yang and Nelson 

2000). In 1990 and 2001, eulachon comprised about 5.5% and 2.5% by weight, respectively, of 

the total sablefish stomach contents examined in the Gulf of Alaska (Yang 1993, Yang et al. 

2006). In the Gulf of Alaska, “sablefish less than 55 cm FL only consumed smaller eulachon 

(<100 mm SL), whereas larger sablefish (>55 cm FL) also consumed some larger eulachon 

(about 150 mm SL)” (Yang 1993, p. 97). Eulachon were prey items in about 4% of 753 

arrowtooth flounder stomachs examined (70% of stomachs contained no food) off the west coast 

of Vancouver Island in 1968 and 1969 (Kabata and Forrester 1974). Similarly, eulachon were 

found in about 5% of 341 arrowtooth flounder stomachs examined (about 49% of stomachs were 

empty) in the summer of 1989 off the coast north of Cape Blanco, Oregon (Buckley et al. 1999). 

Barraclough (1967) reported on the stomach contents of surface trawl–caught fish in the 

Strait of Georgia near the mouth of the Fraser River during 6–8 June 1966, when eulachon larvae 
159

(4.5–16 mm FL) and postlarvae/juveniles (24–49 mm FL) were in the water column. Species 

and the range of fork lengths of fish consuming eulachon larvae included Pacific herring (33–182 

mm FL), surf smelt (70–133 mm FL), Pacific sand lance (35–73 mm FL), and Chinook (67–148 

mm FL), sockeye (88–140 mm FL), and chum (37.5 mm FL) salmon. Numbers of eulachon 

larvae consumed by individual fish ranged from 3–14 for Pacific herring, 1–4 for surf smelt, 1–8 

for Pacific sand lance, 9–137 for Chinook, 4–12 for sockeye, and 100 for chum salmon 

(Barraclough 1967). Similarly, Robinson et al. (1968b) reported on the stomach contents of 

surface trawl–caught fish in the Strait of Georgia near the mouth of the Fraser River during 5–9 

June 1967, when large numbers of eulachon larvae (5–12 mm FL) were in the water column. 

Species and the range of fork lengths of fish consuming eulachon larvae included Pacific herring 

(37–258 mm FL), surf smelt (75 mm FL), Pacific sand lance (44–106 mm FL), kelp greenling 

(63–67 mm FL), threespine stickleback (68 mm FL), steelhead (150 mm FL), and Chinook (100 

mm FL), sockeye (98 mm FL), and chum (63–86 mm FL) salmon. Numbers of eulachon larvae 

consumed by individual fish ranged 1–300 for Pacific herring, 1 for surf smelt, 3–16 for Pacific 

sand lance, 1–19 for kelp greenling, 12 for threespine stickleback, 1 for steelhead, and 4 for 

Chinook, 3 for sockeye, and 2–60 for chum salmon (Robinson et al. 1968b). 

Barraclough and Fulton (1967) reported on larval/postlarval eulachon (16–26 mm FL) in 

the stomach contents of surface trawl–caught fish in the Strait of Georgia near the mouth of the 

Fraser River during 4–8 July 1966. Species and the range of fork lengths of fish consuming 

eulachon larvae and postlarvae included coho (160 mm FL), sockeye (117 mm FL), chum (95–

112 mm FL), and pink (88–135 mm FL) salmon. Numbers of eulachon larvae and postlarvae 

consumed by individual fish ranged 7 for coho, 13 for sockeye, 2–20 for chum, and 2–118 for 

pink salmon (Barraclough and Fulton 1967). Moffitt et al. (2002, p. 4) indicated that coho 

salmon parr and adult Dolly Varden feed on eulachon eggs and larvae in rivers in Southeast 

Alaska and “returning adult sockeye salmon in the Copper River delta have been found with 

adult eulachon in their stomachs.” Similarly, adult spring-run Chinook salmon have been found 

with upwards of a dozen eulachon in their stomachs on the Cowlitz River during the spring 

spawning migration of the two species (Rich 1921). These instances of returning adult salmon 

feeding on eulachon are highly unusual as “it is well known that the habit of adult salmon, 

entering streams for the purpose of spawning, is to cease feeding at least as soon as the 

freshwater is entered” (Rich 1921, p. 7). 

Ecosystem impacts of the recent and ongoing expansion of large numbers of jumbo (aka 

Humboldt) squid (Dosidicus gigas) into waters off Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia 

are uncertain (Zeidberg and Robison 2007, Holmes et al. 2008). An analysis of the contents of 

503 jumbo squid stomachs collected in the northern California Current, including 40 collected 

off Oregon and Washington, failed to record the presence of eulachon or other osmerid smelts in 

the jumbo squid diet (Field et al. 2007). Jumbo squid, however, were shown to prey heavily on 

Pacific hake in the size range of 15–45 cm and adult Pacific hake are known predators on 

eulachon. The absence of eulachon in the diet of jumbo squid analyzed by Field et al. (2007) 

may be due to a combination of low eulachon abundance in the study area and a lack of 

significant overlap in the two species’ depth range; eulachon are commonly found between 20 

and 150 m deep (Hay and McCarter 2000) and are seldom encountered below 200 m and jumbo 

squid in the Field et al. (2007) study were mostly collected below this depth. Further diet studies 

of jumbo squid collected off Oregon in 2009 are ongoing; however, a further 400 squid stomachs 
160

 

examined since the publication of Field et al. (2007) has yet to yield eulachon or any osmerids in 

the diet of jumbo squid.14 Rapid digestion of small pelagic fish may also limit the ability to 

detect eulachon in jumbo squid stomachs. 

Disease 

Very little information was found relative to impacts of diseases on eulachon. Hedrick et 

al. (2003) isolated viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) for the first time from adult 

eulachon collected in March 2001 in Oregon’s Sandy River. Six of 15 pooled samples, each 

consisting of 5 fish, tested positive for VHSV. The overall impact of this virus on eulachon is 

difficult to assess. This virus has been isolated from a wide range of marine fish hosts and given 

the right conditions may “cause significant disease associated with morbidity and mortality in 

populations of marine fish” (Hedrick et al. 2003, p. 212). 

Other Natural or Man-made Factors 

Competition 

Euphausiids (principally Thysanoessa spiniferia and Euphausia pacifica) are a primary 

prey item of eulachon in the open ocean and are also eaten by many other competing species. 

Tanasichuk et al. (1991) showed that euphausiids were the most important prey for both spiny 

dogfish and Pacific hake off the lower west coast of Vancouver Island. Livingston (1983) 

determined that euphausiids constituted 72% and 90% of the diet by weight of Pacific hake 

examined off Oregon and Washington, respectively, in 1967, and 97% of the diet by weight of 

Pacific hake 350–449 mm long off Oregon in 1980. Similarly, Outram and Haegele (1972) 

indicated that euphausiids were the most numerous prey item of Pacific hake off the British 

Columbia coast in 1970, occurring in 94% of Pacific hake stomachs analyzed. Rexstad and 

Pikitch (1986, p. 955) stated that “euphausiids constitute the primary source of food for Pacific 

hake in the North Pacific.” The offshore Pacific hake stock migrates northward from winter 

spawning grounds to feed off the coast of the Pacific Northwest in the summer. This stock 

represents the largest component of the offshore pelagic fish biomass in the California Current 

system (Ware and McFarlane 1995). Recent evidence (Benson et al. 2002, Cooke et al. 2006, 

Phillips et al. 2007) indicates that Pacific hake spawning may be shifting further north within the 

northern California Current system. This places more young of the year Pacific hake in that 

ecosystem (Phillips et al. 2007) in direct competition with eulachon for their preferred prey, 

euphausiids. 

Several studies (Suchman and Brodeur 2005, Ruzicka et al. 2007, Brodeur et al. 2008, 

Suchman et al. 2008) have suggested that seasonal predation by large jellyfish can have a 

substantial impact on zooplankton populations in the California Current and these jellyfish may 

represent significant competitors with pelagic fishes for zooplankton resources. Brodeur et al. 

(2008, p. 649) examined spatial and dietary overlap of large jellyfish with a number of pelagic 

fishes in the California Current and stated that: 

14 J. Field, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA. Pers. commun., 15 October 2009. 
161

isotope and diet analyses suggest that jellyfish occupy a trophic level similar to 

that of small pelagic fishes such as herring, sardines, and northern anchovy. Thus 

jellyfish have the potential, given their substantial biomass, of competing with 

these species. 

Although eulachon were not specifically examined in this study, a large percentage of the diets 

of the two large jellyfish examined (Chrysaora fuscescens and Aurelia labiata) consisted of 

copepods and various euphausiid life history forms from eggs to adults (Brodeur et al. 2008) that 

are also significant components of the eulachon diet. 

Euphausiid fisheries 

A commercial fishery for euphausiids (also known as krill) occurs in the British 

Columbia portion of the Strait of Georgia (DFO 2007b). According to DFO (2007b, p. 6), 

euphausiid biomass in British Columbia waters “is dominated by five [species]: Euphausia 

pacifica, Thysanoessa spinifera, T. inspinata, T. longipes and T. raschii,” and E. pacifica

accounts for 70–100% of the biomass in the Strait of Georgia. The Integrated Fisheries 

Management Plan for euphausiids limits annual total allowable catch (TAC) of euphausiids in 

the Strait of Georgia to 500 mt (DFO 2007b). DFO (2007b, p. 3 of its Appendix A) stated that 

this level of harvest is considered to “be conservative and sustainable” within the Strait of 

Georgia. Eulachon originating from rivers draining into the Strait of Georgia likely leave the 

strait for waters over the continental shelf prior to reaching a size where they would begin 

consuming euphausiids, and thus the impact of this euphausiid fishery on eulachon is expected to 

be minor. 

Although no directed commercial fishery for euphausiids has occurred in U.S. waters off 

the West Coast, recognition of the importance of krill in the diet of many species influenced the 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council to propose a ban on commercial harvest of all species of 

krill (euphausiids) in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the U.S. West Coast, which includes 

California, Oregon, and Washington (PFMC and NMFS 2008). This krill harvest ban was 

formally implemented as Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management 

Plan in July 2009 (NMFS 2009). 

Eulachon bycatch 

Eulachon occur as bycatch in shrimp trawl fisheries off the coasts of Washington, 

Oregon, California, and British Columbia (Hay et al. 1999a, 1999b, Olsen et al. 2000, NWFSC 

2008, Hannah and Jones 2009). Offshore trawl fisheries for ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) 

occur from the west coast of Vancouver Island to the U.S. West Coast off Cape Mendocino, 

California (Hannah and Jones 2003) (Figure 31). Pandalus jordani is known as the ocean pink 

shrimp or smooth pink shrimp in Washington, pink shrimp in Oregon, and Pacific ocean shrimp 

in California. Herein we use the common name ocean shrimp in reference to P. jordani as 

suggested by the American Fisheries Society (McLaughlin et al. 2005). Similar trawl fisheries 

operate in British Columbia, which mainly target ocean shrimp (aka smooth pink shrimp in 

Canada), northern pink shrimp (P. borealis eous), and sidestripe shrimp (Pandalopsis dispar) 

(Hay et al. 1999a, 1999b, Olsen et al. 2000, Hannah and Jones 2007, NWFSC 2008, DFO 

2009c). Information on ocean shrimp fisheries can be found for Washington online at 
Year

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Landings (mt)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Oregon 

Washington 

California 

WCVI Total 

Figure 31. Commercial landings in ocean shrimp trawl fisheries off the U.S. West Coast and in British 

Columbia, Canada, off the west coast of Vancouver Island. Data for Washington from tables 

online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/shrimp/comm/index.html, for Oregon from Rien15 and 

Hannah and Jones (2009), for California from tables online at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/fmd/ 

bill/landings.htm, and for the west coast of Vancouver Island from DFO (2009a). 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/shrimp/comm/index.html, for Oregon online at http://www.dfw 

.state.or.us/MRP/shellfish/commercial/shrimp_landings.asp#about, for California in Frimodig et 

al. (2007), and for British Columbia online at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/shellfish/ 

shrimp/Default_e.htm. 

Prior to the mandated use of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) in the ocean shrimp 

fishery, 32–61% of the total catch in the ocean shrimp fishery consisted of nonshrimp biomass, 

made up mostly of Pacific hake, various species of smelt, yellowtail rockfish, sablefish, and 

lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) (Hannah and Jones 2007). Reducing bycatch in this fishery has 

long been an active field of research (Hannah et al. 1996, 2003, Hannah and Jones 2007, 2009, 

Frimodig 2008) and great progress has been made in reducing bycatch, particularly of largerbodied fishes. As of 2005, following required implementation of BRDs, the total bycatch by 

weight had been reduced to about 7.5% of the total catch and osmerid smelt bycatch was reduced 

to an estimated average of 0.73% of the total catch across all BRD types (Hannah and Jones 

2007). 

 

162

15 T. Rein, ODFW, Clackamas, OR. Pers. commun., 24 June 2008. 
163

 

Beginning in 2000 in British Columbia and 2003 in Washington, Oregon, and California, 

mandated use of of BRDs in offshore shrimp trawl fisheries has substantially reduced bycatch of 

fin fish in these fisheries (Hannah and Jones 2007, Frimodig 2008). The nearly 97% use of 

rigid-grate BRDs and increasing use of grates with bar spacing of one inch or less in the Oregon 

shrimp trawl fishery (Hannah and Jones 2009), and the required use of rigid-grate BRDs with a 

grid space no greater than 44.5 mm (1.75 inches) and the recommendation to use a 25 mm (1 

inch) space between the grid bars when targeting pink shrimp in the British Columbia shrimp 

trawl fisheries (DFO 2009c) are likely to reduce bycatch rates of small-bodied fishes even 

further. 

Following recognition that large numbers of eulachon were occurring as bycatch in 

Queen Charlotte Sound shrimp fisheries (Hay and McCarter 2000, Olsen et al. 2000) and of a 

concurrent decline in central coast British Columbia eulachon stocks, DFO closed the Queen 

Charlotte Sound shrimp trawl fishery in 1999, which has remained closed “because of concerns 

for central coast eulachon stocks” (DFO 2009c, p. 11). Concerns over eulachon bycatch in 

offshore west coast Vancouver Island shrimp trawl fisheries also led DFO to set eulachon 

bycatch action levels for west coast Vancouver Island (DFO 2009c, 2009d). This action level is 

set at 1% of the west coast Vancouver Island eulachon abundance index, which is based on 

biomass estimates of eulachon derived from the annual shrimp abundance survey (DFO 2009c, 

p. 11). If estimated eulachon bycatch exceeds this 1% level, additional “management actions 

could include: closure of the shrimp trawl fishery, closure of certain areas to shrimp trawling, or 

restricting trawling to beam trawlers which have been found to have a lower impact on eulachon 

than otter trawlers” (DFO 2009d, p. 15). Similar action levels are not in place off the U.S. West 

Coast. 

Although ocean shrimp fisheries operate in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, 

NMFS’s West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) only observes vessels in Oregon 

and California, since Washington State has not yet issued a ruling allowing federal observer 

coverage of its state-managed fisheries (NWFSC 2008, p. 1). The BRT has recently received 

revised data collected by NMFS’s WCGOP that update previous estimates of bycatch ratios of 

eulachon in the Oregon ocean shrimp fishery. Eulachon bycatch in the Oregon ocean shrimp 

trawl fishery in the years 2004, 2005, and 2007 was estimated at 0.0005, 0.0007, and 0.0008, 

respectively (WCGOP16). Based on these bycatch ratios, the estimated biomass of eulachon 

taken as bycatch in the Oregon ocean shrimp fishery was calculated at about 2.9 mt in 2004, 5.0 

mt in 2005, and 7.7 mt in 2007—assuming total ocean shrimp catches of 5,534 mt (12.2 million 

lb), 7,167 mt (15.8 million lb), and 9,117 mt (20.1 million lb) in 2004, 2005, and 2007, 

respectively (Figure 31). Similar eulachon bycatch ratio and total biomass data for California 

ocean shrimp fisheries were only available for 2004; the eulachon bycatch ratio for that year was 

0.0002 (WCGOP17) and the biomass of eulachon bycatch was estimated at 0.20 mt—based on a 

total ocean shrimp catch of 992 mt (2.2 million lb). These data were calculated by applying the 

yearly observed bycatch ratio of eulachon (observed biomass of eulachon/observed ocean shrimp 

biomass) to the total yearly Oregon or California ocean shrimp fishery landings (Figure 31). 

16 J. Majewski, unpublished data, NWFSC West Coast Groundfish Observer Program. Pers. commun., 14 October 

2009. 

17 See footnote 16. 
164

Unfortunately, no data are available on the level of eulachon bycatch that may be 

occurring in the Washington State ocean shrimp trawl fishery. In addition, due to sampling 

conditions and time constraints, not all smelt were identified to the species level in the Oregon 

and California ocean shrimp trawl fishery observer database and thus a portion of the bycatch in 

these fisheries was recorded as unidentified smelt. Estimated average biomass of unidentified 

smelt occurring as bycatch in the Oregon ocean shrimp trawl fishery was reported as 5.6 mt 

across the 3 years with observer data: 2004, 2005, and 2007 (NWFSC 2008, its Table 3). 

Based on the portion of the smelt bycatch biomass identified to species in the Oregon 

ocean shrimp fishery by the WCGOP (NWFSC 2008), the unidentified smelt biomass was likely 

about 60% eulachon. NWFSC (2008, p. 24) calculated a eulachon bycatch rate of 0.0004 

(±0.0030 SE) in the 2007 ocean shrimp trawl fishery north of 40°10′N latitude. Bellman et al. 

(2008, p. 38) used the ratio from NWFSC (2008) and total fleet landings of pink shrimp (mt, 

based on fish tickets) to calculate a bycatch of 4.7 mt of eulachon in the pink shrimp fishery 

north of 40°10′N latitude in 2007 including northern California, Oregon, and Washington. The 

depressed abundance of the southern DPS of eulachon may also be contributing to the above 

estimated levels of eulachon bycatch. 

Presumably, most eulachon caught as bycatch in offshore ocean shrimp trawl fisheries off 

Oregon and California originate in the Columbia River, as apparent abundance of populations 

spawning to the south of the Columbia River have suffered severe declines. However, eulachon 

off California, Oregon, and Washington represent only a portion of the Columbia River eulachon 

subpopulation. Triennial groundfish trawl surveys conducted off the U.S. West Coast in 1995 

(Wilkins 1998), 1998 (Wilkins and Shaw 2000), and 2001 (Wilkins and Weinberg 2002) indicate 

that 80 to 90% of all the eulachon biomass in these surveys occurred in the Canadian portion of 

the Vancouver INPFC area (Table 4, Figure 4, and Figure 19), where eulachon are believed to be 

largely a mixture of Columbia River and Fraser River subpopulations (Beacham et al. 2005, 

DFO 2009d). 

Genetic analyses of this stock mixture “indicated that there are continued stock 

proportions of approximately 60:40 Columbia:Fraser in these areas” (DFO 2009d, p. 14). The 

genetic composition of eulachon off northern California, Oregon, and Washington has not been 

studied, and it is not known whether eulachon ocean migratory patterns may be specific to 

certain genetically differentiated stocks, as has been shown for certain Chinook (Myers et al. 

1998, Weitkamp 2010) and coho (Weitkamp and Neely 2002) salmon ESUs. Why some 

eulachon juveniles turn north and some turn south as they exit the Columbia River mouth is 

unknown, but if there is a genetic or stock specific component to this behavior, then threats to the 

smaller segment of the subpopulation that occurs south of the Columbia River would be of even 

greater concern. 

As shown above, it is likely that the majority of eulachon originating in the Columbia 

River are subject to bycatch in the West Coast Vancouver Island shrimp trawl fishery. Offshore 

of west coast Vancouver Island, most eulachon occur in SMAs 23OFF, 21OFF, 124OFF, and 

125OFF (Figure 21). According to DFO (2009c, p. 8) recent effort and shrimp catch are down, 

due to low demand for pink shrimp since “no machine peelers were operating in BC.” Thus in 

SMAs 124OFF and 125OFF offshore of west coast Vancouver Island, where encounters with 
165

eulachon are high, “no shrimp trawl fishing occurred in ... 2004 and very little effort has 

occurred in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008” (DFO 2009c, p. 11). The combination of reduced 

effort and required BRD use may be partly why the 1% eulachon action level has not been 

reached since the year 2000. The current 1% eulachon action level is 20 mt for SMAs 124OFF 

and 125OFF and 7.5 mt for the combination of SMAs 23OFF, 21OFF, and 23IN (DFO 2009a, 

p. 10) (Figure 21). 

A recent workshop to determine research priorities for eulachon in Canada examined 

many hypotheses concerning threats to eulachon in British Columbia and concluded that 

eulachon bycatch in shrimp trawl fisheries was “potentially an important contributing factor in 

reducing recovery, along with temperature/food/hake, other harvest, but of uncertain or unknown 

magnitude” (Pickard and Marmorek 2007, p. 36). Hay and McCarter (2000) stated that 

“Although the shrimp trawl industry probably has not caused the recent decline in eulachons, we 

cannot rule out the possibility that it could be a factor in limiting the recovery of certain stocks.” 

Collateral BRD mortality 

Although data on survivability of BRDs by small pelagic fishes such as eulachon are 

scarce, many studies on other fishes indicate that “among some species groups, such as smallsized pelagic fish, mortality may be high” and “the smallest escapees often appear the most 

vulnerable” (Suuronen 2005, p. 13–14). Results of several studies have shown a direct 

relationship between length and survival of fish escaping trawl nets, either with or without 

deflecting grids (Sangster et al. 1996, Suuronen et al. 1996, Ingólfsson et al. 2007), indicating 

that smaller fish with their poorer swimming ability and endurance may be more likely to suffer 

greater injury and stress during their escape from trawl gear than larger fish (Broadhurst et al. 

2006, Ingólfsson et al. 2007). A recent workshop (Pickard and Marmorek 2007, p. 31–33) to 

determine research priorities for eulachon in Canada recommended the need to research the 

effectiveness of BRDs and the need to estimate mortality, not just bycatch. It is difficult to 

evaluate the true effectiveness of BRDs in a fishery without knowing the survival rate of fish that 

are deflected by the BRD and escape the trawl net (Broadhurst 2000, Suuronen 2005, Broadhurst 

et al. 2006). 

Nonindigenous species 

Potential impacts and risks of nonindigenous aquatic species to native fish species 

include increased predation, increased competition for habitats and food, alteration of food webs, 

and transmission of new diseases and parasites (ISAB 2008). The negative impact of 

nonindigenous species is recognized as one of the leading factors causing imperilment of native 

North American freshwater aquatic species (Lassuy 1995, ISAB 2008) and was listed as a factor 

leading to the extinction of 40 North America fish species and subspecies, representing a full 

68% of those lost over the past 100 years (Miller et al. 1989). NRC (2004) reported that 17 

nonindigenous fish species inhabit the lower Klamath River basin, but their impact on eulachon 

has not been studied. Schade and Bonar (2005) estimated that the percent of total fish species 

that are nonnative in streams in California, Oregon and Washington, were 39.6%, 24.5%, and 

18.4%, respectively. 
166

Systma et al. (2004, p. 50) surveyed the lower Columbia River for nonindigenous species 

at 134 stations between 2001 and 2004 and found that: 

Of the 269 species identified, 54 (21%) were introduced, 92 (34%) were native, 

and 123 (45%) were cryptogenic [origin unknown]. ... Over the past 10 years, a 

new [nonindigenous] invertebrate species was discovered about every 5 months 

[in the lower Columbia River]. 

By contrast, the rate of discovery of nonindigenous fish species in the lower Columbia River 

peaked in the 1950s (Systma et al. 2004). The Systma et al. (2004) survey identified 33 

nonindigenous fish species in the lower Columbia River. Similarly, Pickard and Marmorek 

(2007, p. 41) stated that “Invasive, nonnative fish (carp, largemouth bass, crappie, catfish) have 

been increasing in the lower Fraser River.” ISAB (2008) and Sanderson et al. (2009) recently 

documented the risks posed by nonindigenous species to native salmonids in the Columbia River 

basin and the Pacific Northwest, respectively. There is evidence that nonnative striped bass 

(Morone saxatilis) ate substantial numbers of adult eulachon in the Umpqua River when 

eulachon were abundant in that river in the late 1960s to early 1980s (see Umpqua River 

newspaper articles in Appendix B). 

Bottom et al. (2005, p. xxii) examined the potential impacts of three prominent 

nonindigenous species on the lower Columbia River and stated that: 

Significant changes in the modern estuarine community through species 

introductions have not been assessed. However, the Asian clam, Corbicula 

fluminea, has expanded far into the lower mainstem reservoirs and tributary 

basins since its introduction into the estuary in 1938. Pseudodiaptomus inopinus, 

a calanoid copepod also introduced from Asia, has appeared prominently in the 

estuary since 1980, and American shad (Alosa sapidissima) has grown to a 

substantial population in the Columbia River since its introduction in 1885–1886. 

Fifteen other nonindigenous fishes are now common in the estuary. The specific 

impacts on the estuarine ecosystem ... from any of these populations are 

speculative. However, given the tremendous abundance of C. fluminea and 

American shad (peak Bonneville Dam passage counts of 3 × 106

), it is not 

unreasonable to expect that their consumption rates may have significantly 

modified the estuarine food web. 

Cordell et al. (2008) documented the presence of several additional Asian copepods in the lower 

Columbia River and found that the calanoid copepod P. inopinus has largely been replaced by 

other Asian species, particularly P. forbesi. How these ongoing invasions of nonindigenous 

zooplanketers, mediated by ballast water exchange of large ships, will affect the estuarine food 

web is unknown, although the lower Columbia River may eventually come to resemble the San 

Francisco estuary, which “now has an East Asian copepod fauna” (Cordell et al. 2008). 

Qualitative Threats Assessment 

Although the question of how a DPS came to be at risk is important, a population or DPS 

that has been reduced to low abundance will continue to be at risk for demographic and genetic 

reasons until it reaches a larger size, regardless of the reasons for its initial decline. Furthermore, 
167

in some cases, a factor that was important in causing the original declines may no longer be an 

impediment to recovery. Unlike some ESA-listed species that face a single primary threat, 

eulachon face numerous potential threats throughout every stage of their life cycle. It is 

therefore relatively easy to simply list current and past potential threats to eulachon populations, 

but it is much more difficult to evaluate the relative importance of a wide range of interacting 

factors. The BRT also recognized that evaluating the degree to which factors for decline will 

continue to pose a threat generally requires consideration of issues that are more in the realm of 

social science than biological science—such as whether proposed changes will be funded, and, if 

funded, will be implemented effectively. 

Nevertheless, the potential role that various threats have played in the decline of the 

southern DPS of eulachon was examined by the BRT in light of the question posed by the 

Northwest Region’s Draft BRT Eulachon Instructions, articulated as follows: 

In [your] evaluation of extinction risk, please include a consideration of the 

threats facing the species/DPS that may or may not be manifested in the current 

demographic status of populations. Please document your consideration of these 

threats according to the statutory listing factors (ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)–(C), and 

(E)): the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; disease or predation; and other natural or man-made factors 

affecting its continued existence. In describing the threats facing the 

species/DPS, please distinguish between threats (e.g., human actions or natural 

events) and limiting factors (e.g., the physical, biological, or chemical processes 

that result in demographic risks to the species/DPS), and qualitatively rank, if 

possible, the severity of identified threats to the species’ persistence. 

The potential roles that 16 current threats may play in the decline of the southern DPS of 

eulachon were ranked according to severity in the Klamath, Columbia, and Fraser rivers and in 

that portion of the DPS along the mainland coast of British Columbia (Table 14 through Table 

18). Also noted is the ESA factor for decline within which each threat falls (Table 14). The 

results of the BRT’s analysis of the severity of threats to eulachon are presented in Table 15 

through Table 18 in rank order from most severe to least severe for each geographical subset as 

determined by the mean BRT threat scores. Also presented in these tables are the standard 

deviation about the mean threat scores, the modal score, the range of scores, and the number of 

BRT members scoring the threat. 

The BRT ranked climate change impacts on ocean conditions as the most serious threat to 

persistence of eulachon in all four subareas of the DPS: Klamath River, Columbia River, Fraser 

River, and British Columbia coastal rivers south of the Nass River. Climate change impacts on 

freshwater habitat and eulachon bycatch in offshore shrimp fisheries were also ranked in the top 

four threats in all subareas of the DPS. Dams and water diversions in the Klamath and Columbia 

rivers and predation in the Fraser and British Columbia coastal rivers filled out the last of the top 

four threats. In most categories, some portion of the BRT felt that insufficient data were 

available to score the threat severity (thereby marking the threat severity as unknown) as 

indicated by the number of BRT members voting (column N) in Table 15 through Table 18. 
168

Table 14. Example worksheet for analysis of the severity of current threats to the southern DPS of eulachon. Threats were 

2–low, 3–moderate, 4–high, and 5–very high. Insufficient data to score the threat severity is indicated by “u” for u

are not applicable to the area are indicated by NA. Threats are grouped within the four statutory listing factors: 1) threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 2) overutilization for commercial, recreaeducational purposes; 3) disease or predation; and 4) other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued exis

River basin 

Dams/water diversions 

Dredging 

Shoreline construction 

Climate change impacts on 

ocean conditions 

Climate change impacts on 

freshwater habitat 

Water quality 

Catastrophic events 

Commercial harvest 

Recreational harvest 

Tribal/First Nations fisheries 

Scientific monitoring 

Disease 

Predation 

Ctiti

Klamath River NA N A N AColumbia River 

Fraser River 

British Columbia coast 

N A

Listing factor 1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range 

Listing factor 2) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes 

Listing factor 3) Disease or predation 

LiOtma
Table 15. Results of qualitative ranking by the eulachon BRT of severity of threats for Klamath River 

eulachon. Threats were scored as: 1–very low, 2–low, 3–moderate, 4–high, and 5–very high. 

N = number of BRT members voting; members not voting marked severity of threat as either 

unknown or not applicable. 

Threat Mean SD Mode Range N 

Climate change impacts on ocean conditions 4.2 0.6 4 3–5 10 

Dams/water diversions 3.4 0.9 3 2–5 8 

Eulachon bycatch 3.3 0.7 3 2–4 9 

Climate change impacts on freshwater habitat 3.3 0.7 3 2–4 10 

Predation 2.7 0.9 3 1–4 9 

Water quality 2.5 1.1 3 1–4 10 

Catastrophic events 2.3 1.8 1 1–5 8 

Disease 2.3 1.9 1 1–5 4 

Competition 2.0 0.8 2 1–3 7 

Shoreline construction 1.9 1.1 1 1–4 9 

Tribal/First Nations fisheries 1.7 0.8 1 1–3 10 

Nonindigenous species 1.7 0.8 1 1–3 6 

Recreational harvest 1.4 0.9 1 1–3 9 

Table 16. Results of qualitative ranking by the eulachon BRT of severity of threats for Columbia River 

eulachon. Threats were scored as: 1–very low, 2–low, 3–moderate, 4–high, and 5–very high. 

N = number of BRT members voting; members not voting marked severity of threat as either 

unknown or not applicable. 

Threat Mean SD Mode Range N 

Climate change impacts on ocean conditions 4.3 0.7 4 3–5 10 

Eulachon bycatch 3.8 0.7 4 3–5 9 

Climate change impacts on freshwater habitat 3.4 0.5 3 3–4 10 

Dams/water diversions 3.3 1.1 3 2–5 9 

Water quality 3.0 0.7 3 2–4 10 

Dredging 2.9 0.6 3 2–4 9 

Predation 2.9 0.8 3 1–4 9 

Catastrophic events 2.8 1.5 2 1–5 8 

Commercial harvest 2.5 1.0 2 1–4 10 

Shoreline construction 2.4 1.0 3 1–4 9 

Disease 2.3 1.9 1 1–5 4 

Competition 2.0 0.8 2 1–3 7 

Recreational harvest 1.8 0.8 2 1–3 10 

Tribal/First Nations fisheries 1.7 0.8 1 1–3 10 

Nonindigenous species 1.7 0.8 1 1–3 6 

Scientific monitoring 1.2 0.4 1 1–2 10 

169
Table 17. Results of qualitative ranking by the eulachon BRT of severity of threats for Fraser River 

eulachon. Threats were scored as: 1–very low, 2–low, 3–moderate, 4–high, and 5–very high. 

N = number of BRT members voting; members not voting marked severity of threat as either 

unknown or not applicable. 

Threat Mean SD Mode Range N 

Climate change impacts on ocean conditions 4.1 0.6 4 3–5 9 

Eulachon bycatch 3.7 0.7 3 3–5 9 

Predation 3.1 0.4 3 3–4 8 

Climate change impacts on freshwater habitat 3.1 0.6 3 2–4 9 

Water quality 2.7 0.7 3 2–4 9 

Commercial harvest 2.7 0.9 2 2–4 9 

Dredging 2.6 0.7 2 2–4 8 

Dams/water diversions 2.5 1.6 1 1–5 6 

Shoreline construction 2.3 1.0 3 1–4 9 

Catastrophic events 2.3 1.8 1 1–5 8 

Disease 2.3 1.9 1 1–5 4 

Competition 2.0 0.8 2 1–3 7 

Tribal/First Nations fisheries 1.8 0.8 1 1–3 9 

Recreational harvest 1.7 0.9 1 1–3 9 

Nonindigenous species 1.7 0.8 1 1–3 6 

Scientific monitoring 1.2 0.4 1 1–2 9 

Table 18. Results of qualitative ranking by the eulachon BRT of severity of threats for eulachon in 

mainland British Columbia Rivers south of the Nass River. Threats were scored as: 1–very low, 

2–low, 3–moderate, 4–high, and 5–very high. N = number of BRT members voting; members 

not voting marked severity of threat as either unknown or not applicable. 

Threat Mean SD Mode Range N 

Climate change impacts on ocean conditions 4.1 0.6 4 3–5 9 

Eulachon bycatch 3.6 0.9 4 2–5 9 

Predation 3.1 0.4 3 3–4 8 

Climate change impacts on freshwater habitat 2.9 1.2 3 1–4 9 

Catastrophic events 2.4 1.7 2 1–5 8 

Shoreline construction 2.3 0.9 2 1–4 8 

Disease 2.3 1.9 1 1–5 4 

Water quality 2.1 1.0 2 1–4 8 

Competition 2.0 0.8 2 1–3 7 

Tribal First Nations fisheries 1.9 0.8 2 1–3 9 

Dam/water diversions 1.8 1.2 1 1–4 6 

Dredging 1.7 1.0 1 1–4 9 

Nonindigenous species 1.5 0.8 1 1–3 6 

Recreational harvest 1.4 0.9 1 1–3 9 

Scientific monitoring 1.2 0.4 1 1–2 9 

170
Overall Risk Determination 

The BRT’s determination of overall risk to the species used these categories: at high risk 

of extinction, at moderate risk of extinction, or not at risk of extinction. Table 19 describes these 

qualitative reference levels of extinction risk. Quantitative and qualitative conservation 

assessments for other species have often used a 100-year time frame in their extinction risk 

evaluations (Morris et al. 1999, McElhany et al. 2000), and the BRT adopted this time scale as 

the period over which it had confidence in evaluating risk. The overall extinction risk 

determination reflected informed professional judgment by each BRT member. This assessment 

was guided by the results of the risk matrix analysis, integrating information about demographic 

risks with expectations about likely interactions with threats and other factors. 

To allow individuals to express uncertainty in determining the overall level of extinction 

risk facing the species, the BRT adopted the likelihood point method, often referred to as the 

FEMAT method because it is a variation of a method used by scientific teams evaluating options 

under the Northwest Forest Plan (FEMAT 1993). Table 20 is an example worksheet and results. 

In this approach, each BRT member distributes 10 likelihood points among the 3 species 

extinction risk categories, reflecting their opinion of how likely that category correctly reflects 

the true species status. Thus if a member were certain that the species was in the not at risk 

category, he or she could assign all 10 points to that category. A reviewer with less certainty 

about the species’ status could split the points among two or even three categories. This method 

has been used in all status review updates for anadromous Pacific salmonids since 1999, as well 

as in reviews of Puget Sound rockfishes (Stout et al. 2001b), Pacific herring (Stout et al. 2001a, 

Gustafson et al. 2006), Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific cod (Gustafson et al. 2000), and 

black abalone (VanBlaricom et al. 2009). 

Summary of Risk Conclusions for the Southern DPS of Eulachon 

The BRT’s scores for overall risk to the southern DPS of eulachon, throughout all of its 

range, were heavily weighted to moderate risk with this category receiving 60% of the likelihood 

points. High risk received 32% of the likelihood points and not at risk received 8% of the points. 

The BRT was concerned that, although eulachon are a relatively poorly monitored species, most 

of the available information indicates that the southern DPS of eulachon has experienced an 

abrupt decline in abundance throughout its range. The BRT was particularly concerned that two 

large spawning populations—in the Columbia and Fraser rivers—have declined to what appear 

to be historically low levels in the Fraser River and nearly so in the Columbia River. Overall 

risk scores for abundance ranged from 4 to 5 (see Table 13). 

The BRT was concerned that there is very little monitoring data available for northern 

California eulachon, but determined that the available information suggests that eulachon in 

northern California experienced an abrupt decline several decades ago. The BRT was also 

concerned that recent attempts to estimate actual spawner abundance in some rivers in British 

Columbia that are known to have supported significant First Nations fisheries in the past have 

resulted in very low estimates of spawning stock. The BRT was also concerned that the current 

sizes of central and north coast British Columbia eulachon populations appear inconsistent with 

171
Table 19. Description of reference levels for the BRT’s assessment of the species’ or DPS extinction risk. 

Qualitative reference levels of relative extinction risk 

1). Moderate risk: A species or DPS is at moderate risk of extinction if it 

exhibits a trajectory indicating that it is more likely than not to be at a high 

level of extinction risk (see description of high risk below). A species/DPS 

may be at moderate risk of extinction due to projected threats or declining 

trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. The 

appropriate time horizon for evaluating whether a species or DPS is more 

likely than not to be at high risk depends on various case-specific and 

species-specific factors. For example, the time horizon may reflect certain 

life history characteristics (e.g., long generation time or late age-at-maturity) 

and may also reflect the time frame or rate over which identified threats are 

likely to impact the biological status of the species or DPS (e.g., the rate of 

disease spread). The appropriate time horizon is not limited to the period 

that status can be quantitatively modeled or predicted within predetermined 

limits of statistical confidence. Please explain the time scale over which the 

BRT has confidence in evaluating moderate risk. 

2. High risk: A species or DPS with a high risk of extinction is at or near a 

level of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity that place its 

persistence in question. The demographics of a species/DPS at such a high 

level of risk may be highly uncertain and strongly influenced by stochastic or 

depensatory processes. Similarly, a species/DPS may be at high risk of 

extinction if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., confinement to a small 

geographic area; imminent destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat; or disease epidemic) that are likely to create such imminent 

demographic risks. 

Extinct A species or DPS is extinct when there is no longer a living representative. 

Continuum of 

decreasing 

relative risk of 

extinction 

the ethnographic literature that describes an extensive grease trading network based on eulachon 

catch (discussed by Hay, 2002, p. 103). 

In addition, the BRT was concerned that the current abundance of the many individual 

populations within the DPS may be sufficiently low to be an additional risk factor, even for 

populations (such as the Columbia and Fraser) where the absolute population size seems large 

compared to many other at-risk fish populations. Indeed, the BRT considered a central question 

in this status review to be whether a DPS or subpopulation may be at risk of extinction when 

there may be hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of individuals remaining in the 

population. In evaluating this issue, the BRT concluded that eulachon (and other similar forage 

fishes) (see Dulvy et al. 2004) may be at significant risk at population sizes that are a fraction of 

their historical levels but are still large compared to what would be considered normal for other 

ESA listed species (see above discussion in the Absolute Numbers subsection). 

Of relevance to this issue are recent reviews of extinction risk in marine fishes illustrating 

that forage fish are not immune to risk of extirpation at the population scale (Dulvy et al. 2003, 

Reynolds et al. 2005). Hutchings (2000, 2001a, 2001b) and others (Dulvy et al. 2003, Mace and 

172
Table 20. Example worksheet and results of the evaluation of the overall level of extinction risk for the 

southern DPS of eulachon using the likelihood point method (FEMAT 1993). 

Overall extinction risk categorya

Not at risk Moderate risk High risk 

Number of 

likelihood pointsb

8 60 32 

Comments: 

a

These evaluations do not consider protective efforts, and therefore are not recommendations regarding ESA listing 

status. 

b

Each BRT member distributes 10 likelihood points among the 3 overall extinction risk categories. Placement of all 

10 points in a given risk category reflect 100% certainty that level of risk reflects the true level of extinction risk for 

the species. Distributing points between risk categories reflects uncertainty in whether a given category reflects the 

true species status. 

Hudson 1999, Hutchings and Reynolds 2004) cite empirical analyses indicating that marine 

fishes likely have similar extinction probabilities to those of nonmarine taxa. A number of 

inshore populations of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) 

have either been extirpated or have not shown signs of recovery from depletions that are 

unprecedented in the historic record (Smedbol and Stevenson 2001). An example involves the 

disappearance of the Icelandic spring-spawning population of Atlantic herring (Beverton 1990), 

whose last known census population size in 1972 was 700,000 (Dulvy et al. 2004). 

The BRT believes that high eulachon MVP sizes are necessary 1) to ensure that a critical 

threshold density of adult eulachon are available during breeding events for maintenance of 

normal reproductive processes, 2) to produce enough offspring to counteract high in-river egg 

and larval mortality and planktonic larval mortality in the ocean, and 3) to produce enough 

offspring to buffer against the action of local environmental conditions which may lead to 

random sweepstake recruitment events, where only a small minority of spawning individuals 

contribute to subsequent generations. In species with this life history pattern, the genetically 

effective population size can be several orders of magnitude lower than the census size 

(Hedgecock 1994, ICES 2004), and minimum viable census sizes may therefore be on the order 

of 50,000 to 500,000 (Dulvy et al. 2004). The BRT was concerned that in a number of subareas 

173
of the DPS (Klamath, Fraser, and Bella Coola rivers, Rivers Inlet, etc.), population sizes of 

eulachon are below what would be considered MVP sizes for highly fecund species. 

The BRT noted that variable year-class strength in marine fishes with pelagic larvae is 

dependent on survival of larvae prior to recruitment and is driven by match-mismatch of larvae 

and their planktonic food supply (Hjort 1914, Lasker 1975, Sinclair and Tremblay 1984), 

oceanographic transport mechanisms (Parrish et al. 1981), variable environmental ocean 

conditions (Shepherd et al. 1984, McFarlane et al. 2000), and predation (Bailey and Houde 

1989). The operation of these dynamic ocean conditions and their impacts on eulachon 

recruitment were amply illustrated in the Columbia River population where high larval densities 

were observed in 2000–2003, followed by lower than average adult returns in 2004, 2005, and 

2006 (JCRMS 2007). 

Failure to time spawning activity with river conditions conducive to successful 

fertilization and egg survival, and to the appearance of larval prey species in the oceanic 

environment, also contribute to high rates of environmentally driven egg and larval mortality. 

The BRT was concerned that there is evidence that climate change is leading to relatively rapid 

changes in both oceanic and freshwater environmental conditions that eulachon are unable to 

tolerate. Eulachon are basically a cold-water species adapted to feed on a northern suite of 

copepods in the ocean during the critical transition period from larvae to juvenile and much of 

their recent recruitment failure may be traced to mortality during this critical period. However, 

there have been recent shifts in the suite of copepod species available to eulachon that favor a 

more southerly species assemblage (Mackas et al. 2001, 2007, Hooff and Peterson 2006) and the 

BRT was concerned that climate change may be contributing to a mismatch between eulachon 

life history and prey species. It is also likely that pelagic fish with their shorter life cycles may 

be less resilient to long-term climatic changes than longer-lived demersal species. 

However, the ability of the Columbia River eulachon stock to respond rapidly to the good 

ocean conditions of the late 1999–early 2002 period illustrates the species’ resiliency, and the 

BRT viewed this resiliency as providing the species with a buffer against future environmental 

perturbations. The productivity potential or intrinsic rate of increase of eulachon (Musick et al. 

2000) as indicated by life history characteristics such as low age-at-maturity, small body size, 

and planktonic larvae was recognized by the BRT as likely conferring eulachon with some 

resilience to extinction as they retain the ability to rapidly respond to favorable ocean conditions. 

However, the BRT was concerned that there is no empirical or theoretical grounds to conclude 

that high fecundity as a life history character confers resilience on a fish species in comparison to 

a species with lower fecundity (Sadovy 2001, Reynolds et al. 2005). 

Overall, the BRT’s risk scores for growth rate and productivity of the DPS ranged from 2 

to 5 with a mean score of 3 (Table 13). Recent ocean conditions in the California Current 

Province in the fall of 2007 and spring-summer of 2008 were considered favorable for eulachon 

(PDO data online at http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ and http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/ 

divisions/fed/oeip/b-latest-updates.cfm), and the BRT postulated that this may indicate elevated 

eulachon returns may be expected starting with the 2011 run year. However, the BRT was 

concerned that these changes in the ocean, favorable to eulachon larval survival, may be of shortterm duration, similar to the late 1998-early 2002 period. 

174
In terms of threats related to diversity, the BRT was concerned that not only are eulachon 

semelparous (spawn once and die) but if recent estimates of age structure in eulachon are correct 

(Clarke et al. 2007), then spawning adults—particularly in southern areas such as the Columbia 

and Fraser rivers—may be limited to a single age class, which likely increases their vulnerability 

to perturbations and provides less of a buffer against year-class failure than species such as 

herring that spawn repeatedly and have variable ages at maturity. 

The BRT was also concerned about the apparently very low abundance of the Klamath 

River subpopulation, which might be expected to have unique adaptations to conditions at the 

southernmost extent of the range, and about the potential loss of biocomplexity in Fraser River 

eulachon due to contraction of spawning locations, as documented by Higgins et al. (1987). The 

BRT noted some positive signs including observations that eulachon continue to display 

variation in spawn timing, age-at-maturity, and spawning locations and a high degree of 

biocomplexity (i.e., many spawning locations and spawn-timing variation) in Columbia River 

eulachon, which may buffer this stock from freshwater environmental perturbations. Overall, the 

BRT risk scores for diversity of the DPS ranged from 2 to 3 with a mean score of 2.6 (Table 13). 

The BRT also had concerns about risks related to spatial structure and distribution. In 

particular, because the major spawning populations within the DPS appear to have declined 

substantially, the BRT was concerned that if some formerly significant populations, such as in 

the Klamath River, become extirpated, there will be less opportunity for successful 

recolonization. In addition, the apparent decline of populations in northern California may result 

in contraction of the southern portion of the DPS’s range. The BRT also noted that several 

populations that used to support significant First Nations fisheries on the British Columbia coast 

have declined to very low levels (e.g., Bella Coola and Wannock rivers). Positive signs for 

spatial structure and connectivity noted by the BRT include considerations that eulachon appear 

to have the potential to recolonize given their apparent ability to stray from the natal spawning 

area, at least within rivers sharing the same estuary. In addition, the perceived historical spatial 

structure of the DPS, with the possible exception of the Klamath River, remains intact. Overall, 

the BRT scores for spatial structure and connectivity of the DPS ranged from 3 to 5 with a mean 

score of 3.7 (Table 13). 

The BRT noted several recent events that appear likely to impact eulachon. Global 

patterns suggest the long-term trend is for a warmer, less-productive ocean regime in the 

California Current and the Transitional Pacific. The recent decline in abundance or relative 

abundance of eulachon in many systems coupled with the probable disruption of metapopulation 

structure may make it more difficult for eulachon to adapt to warming ocean conditions. In 

addition, warming conditions have allowed both Pacific hake (Phillips et al. 2007) and Pacific 

sardine (Emmett et al. 2005) to expand their distributions to the north, increasing predation on 

eulachon by Pacific hake and competition for food resources by both species. The recent and 

ongoing expansion of large numbers of jumbo squid into waters off Oregon, Washington, and 

British Columbia are also likely to have a significant impact on eulachon; however, ecosystem 

impacts of jumbo squid are uncertain (Zeidberg and Robison 2007, Holmes et al. 2008). Recent 

invasions of Asian copepods into the Columbia River estuary (Cordell et al. 2008) may have a 

negative influence on the Columbia River population. However, cold ocean conditions in spring 

2008 suggest that this may have been a good year for eulachon recruitment. The effects of these 

175
recent positive and negative events are difficult to estimate; most members indicated that the net 

effect is likely to be negative. 

Significant Portion of Its Range Question 

The BRT concluded that the southern DPS of eulachon is at moderate risk of extinction 

throughout all of its range and in effect answered the question in the affirmative as to whether 

the southern DPS of eulachon is at risk throughout a significant portion of its range. 

176
Glossary 

adipose fin. A fin without a bone or cartilage, located behind the dorsal fin. 

ADFG. For Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Department that manages certain fisheries 

in the State of Alaska.

AFSC. For Alaska Fisheries Science Center. One of six regional research centers of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Allee effect. The circumstance of reduced population growth occurring at low population size. 

This can result from the impact of low spawner density on fertilization success or some other 

vital reproductive function. 

allele. An alternative form of a gene that can occur at the same location (locus) on homologous 

(paired) chromosomes. A population can have many alleles for a particular locus, but an 

individual can carry no more than two alleles at a diploid locus. 

anadromous. Species that spend their adult lives in the ocean but move into freshwater streams 

to reproduce or spawn (e.g., salmon). 

anthropogenic. Caused or produced by human action. 

ATU. For accumulated thermal unit. An ATU is a measurement that describes the 

accumulation of heat over time. One ATU is equal to one degree Celsius for one day. In 

water of 10°C, an organism would accumulate 10 ATUs per day. 

BRD. For bycatch reduction device. 

BRT. For Biological Review Team. The team of scientists who evaluates scientific information 

considered in a National Marine Fisheries Service status review. 

bycatch. Animals caught by fishing that were not the intended target of the fishing activity. 

Such unwanted catch is often wasted. Both discarded and retained species can be considered 

bycatch. 

CDFG. For California Department of Fish and Game. Department that comanages certain 

fisheries in the State of California. 

comanagers. Federal, state, and tribal agencies that cooperatively manage fish in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

177
CPUE. For catch per unit effort. A measure of the density or population size of an animal that 

is targeted by fishing. Large CPUEs indicate large populations, since many individuals are 

caught for every unit of fishing effort. 

DFO. For Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Department that manages fisheries in 

Canada. 

DDT. For dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and its metabolites, including p,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDE, 

p,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, and o,p'-DDT. These are banned organochlorine pesticides 

that were used to control insects that harm crops, as well as malaria-carrying mosquitoes. 

DDTs are still used in some parts of the world to control mosquitoes. 

DPS. For distinct population segment. A DPS is a vertebrate population or group of populations 

that is discrete from other populations of the species and significant in relation to the entire 

species. The Endangered Species Act provides for listing species, subspecies, or distinct 

population segments of vertebrate species. 

DNA. For deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA is a complex molecule that carries an organism’s 

heritable information. DNA consists of a polysugar-phosphate backbone from which the 

bases (nucleotides) project. DNA forms a double helix that is held together by hydrogen 

bonds between specific base pairs (thymine to adenine, guanine to cytosine). Each strand in 

the double helix is complementary to its partner strand in terms of its base sequence. The 

two types of DNA commonly used to examine genetic variation are mitochondrial DNA

(mtDNA), a circular molecule that is maternally inherited, and microsatellite (nuclear) DNA, 

which is organized into a set of chromosomes. See also allele, microsatellite DNA, 

mitochondrial DNA. 

endangered species. A species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, with respect to the Endangered Species Act. See also ESA, threatened species. 

effective population size (Ne). The number of reproducing individuals in an ideal population 

that would lose genetic variation due to genetic drift or inbreeding at the same rate as the 

number of reproducing adults in the real population under consideration. Typically, Ne is 

less than either a population’s total number of sexually mature adults present or the total 

number of adults that reproduced. Effective population can be defined in terms of the 

amount of increase in homozygosity (inbreeding effective number) or the amount of allele 

frequency drift (variance effective number). 

ENSO. For El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Pattern of climate variability most clearly defined by 

year-to-year variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical equatorial Pacific Ocean in 

the zone extending from the South American coast to slightly west of the international date 

line. 

ESA. For U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Passed by Congress, it provides a means 

whereby the ecosystem on which threatened and endangered species depend may be 

conserved. 

178
estuary. A semienclosed body of water having connections to the ocean at the downstream end 

and freshwater streams at the upstream end. Water in estuaries thus tends to be at an 

intermediate and variable salinity and temperature. 

ESU. For evolutionarily significant unit. An ESU represents a distinct population segment of 

Pacific salmon under the Endangered Species Act that 1) is substantially reproductively 

isolated from nonspecific populations, and 2) represents an important component of the 

evolutionary legacy of the species. 

fecundity. The potential reproductive capacity of an organism or population, measured by the 

number of gametes (eggs). 

FEMAT. For Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 

FL. For fork length. Length in millimeters from the tip of the snout to the center of the fork in 

the tail or caudal fin. Compare SL and TL.

genetic distance. A quantitative measure of genetic difference between a pair of samples. 

haplotype. The collective genotype of a number of closely linked loci; the constellation of 

alleles present at a particular region of genomic or mitochondrial DNA. 

INPFC. For International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. 

ISAB. For Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 

IUCN. For International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The full, legal name of the 

organization is the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 

Online at http://www.iucn.org. 

iteroparous. Said of an organism that reproduces several or many times during a lifetime. 

Compare semelparous.

JCRMS. For Joint Columbia River Management Staff. A joint undertaking of the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

LC50. The lethal concentration of a chemical or substance that kills 50% of the test organisms in 

a given time period, normally 96 hours for aquatic organisms. 

LCFRB. For Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 

meristic trait. A discretely varying and countable trait (e.g., number of fin rays or basibranchial 

teeth). 

metapopulation. An assembly of closely related subpopulations (usually spatially fragmented) 

that were established by colonists, survive for a while, send out migrants, and eventually 

disappear. The persistence of a subpopulation depends on the rate of colonization 

successfully balancing the local extinction rate. 

179
microsatellite DNA. A class of repetitive DNA. Microsatellites are simple sequence repeats 

one to eight nucleotides in length. For example, the repeat unit can be simply “CA” and 

might exist in a tandem array (CACACACACA) 50 or more repeat units in length. The 

number of repeats in an array can be highly polymorphic. See also DNA. 

mitochondrial DNA. The DNA genome contained within mitochondria and encoding a small 

subset of mitochondrial functions; mtDNA is typically circular and 15–20 kilobases in size, 

containing little noncoding information between genes. See also DNA. 

morphometric trait. A discretely varying trait related to the size and shape of landmarks from 

whole organs or organisms analyzed by appropriately invariant biometric methods in order to 

answer biological questions. 

MVP. For minimum viable population. 

NMFS. For National Marine Fisheries Service. Also known as NOAA Fisheries Service 

NWFSC. For Northwest Fisheries Science Center. One of six regional research centers of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

ODFW. For Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Department that comanages certain 

fisheries in the State of Oregon. 

otolith. Crystalline calcium carbonate structure within the inner ear of fish. These structures 

have distinctive shapes, sizes, and internal and surface features that can be used for age 

determination and species identification. 

ppb. For parts per billion. A unit of chemical concentration. 

ppm. For parts per million. A unit of chemical concentration. 

ppt. For parts per thousand. A unit of chemical concentration. 

PDO. For Pacific Interdecadal Oscillation. A long-term pattern of North Pacific climate 

variability. PDO events persist for 20–30 years, while typical El Niño events persist for 6 to 

18 months. The climatic indicators of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific region. 

phenotypic. Pertaining to the appearance (or other measurable characteristic) of an organism 

that results from interaction of the genotype and environment. 

PCB. For polychlorinated biphenyl. Persistent contaminants of aquatic sediments and biota that 

are very widespread. Commercial formulations of PCBs are mixtures of individual 

chlorinated biphenyls (congeners) varying according to the numbers of chlorines and their 

ring positions on the biphenyl. Prior to the 1975 congressional ban on PCB manufacture, 

various mixtures of some 209 individual PCBs were used extensively in electrical 

transformers, capacitors, paints, waxes, inks, dust control agents, paper, and pesticides. 

180
PAH. For polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. PAHs are widely distributed throughout the 

marine environment and commonly occur in sediments in urban coastal and estuarine areas. 

Sources include crude oil, petroleum products, and residues from combustion of fossil fuels. 

They are composed of fused benzene rings, with or without alkyl substituents (e.g., methyl 

groups). 

population. A group of individuals of a species living in a certain area that maintain some 

degree of reproductive isolation. 

Puget Sound. A coastal fjord-like estuarine inlet of the Pacific Ocean located in northwest 

Washington State between the Cascade and Olympic mountains and covering an area of 

more than 9,000 km2 including 3,700 km of coastline. 

semelparous. Said of an organism that reproduces but once during its lifetime. Compare 

iteroparous.

SL. For standard length. Length in millimeters from the tip of the snout to the base of the 

caudal peduncle. Compare FL and TL. 

SMA. For shrimp management area. 

SWFSC. For Southwest Fisheries Science Center. One of six regional research centers of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

species. Biological: A small group of organisms formally recognized by the scientific 

community as distinct from other groups. Legal: Refers to joint policy of the USFWS and 

NMFS that considers a species as defined by the ESA to include biological species, 

subspecies, and DPSs. 

SRS. For sediment retention structure. 

Strait of Georgia. A strait between Vancouver Island and the mainland Pacific coast of British 

Columbia. It is approximately 220 km long, averages 35 km wide, and has a surface area of 

approximately 6,900 km2

. Archipelagos and narrow channels mark each end of the Strait of 

Georgia, including the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands in the south and the Discovery 

Islands in the north. The main channels to the south are Haro Strait and Rosario Strait, which 

connect the Strait of Georgia to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In the north, Discovery Passage is 

the main channel connecting the Strait of Georgia to Johnstone Strait. 

SWFSC. For Southwest Fisheries Science Center. One of six regional research centers of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

threatened species. A species not presently in danger of extinction but likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future, with respect to the Endangered Species Act. See also endangered 

species, ESA. 

TL. For total length. Length in millimeters from the tip of the snout to the tip of the farthest 

lobe of the tail or caudal fin. Compare FL and SL. 

181
trophic. Pertaining to nutrition. A trophic migration would be a movement of fish to a feeding 

area. 

USACE. For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

USFWS. For U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

viable salmonid population. An independent population of any Pacific salmonid (genus 

Oncorhynchus) that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic 

variation, local environmental variation, and genetic diversity changes over a long time frame 

(McElhany et al. 2000). 

WDFW. For Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Department that comanages certain 

fisheries in Washington State. The agency was formed in the early 1990s by combining the 

Washington Department of Fisheries and Washington Department of Wildlife. 

182
References 

Acuna, E., P. Goddard, and S. Kotwicki (compilers). 2003. 2002 bottom trawl survey of the Eastern 

Bering Sea continental shelf. AFSC Processed Rep. 2003-01. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa

.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/PR%202003-01.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Acuna, E., and S. Kotwicki (compilers). 2004. 2003 bottom trawl survey of the Eastern Bering Sea 

continental shelf. AFSC Processed Rep. 2004-02. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ 

Publications/ProcRpt/PR%202004-02.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Acuna, E., and S. Kotwicki (compilers). 2006. 2004 bottom trawl survey of the Eastern Bering Sea 

continental shelf. AFSC Processed Rep. 2006-09. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ 

Publications/ProcRpt/PR%202006-09.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Acuna, E., and R. R. Lauth. 2008. Results of the 2007 Eastern Bering Sea continental shelf bottom trawl 

survey of groundfish and invertebrate resources. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-AFSC-181. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TMAFSC-181.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

ADFG (Alaska Dept. Fish and Game). 1972. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters 

of the lower Susitna River and central Cook Inlet drainages. Alaska Dept. Fish Game 13:53–54, 

66–71 [as cited in Spangler et al. 2003]. 

ADFG (Alaska Dept. Fish and Game). 1973. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters 

of the lower Susitna River and central Cook Inlet drainages. Alaska Dept. Fish Game 14:53–54, 

66–71 [as cited in Spangler et al. 2003]. 

ADFG (Alaska Dept. Fish and Game). 1974. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters 

of the lower Susitna River and central Cook Inlet drainages. Alaska Dept. Fish Game 15:161–

162, 170–172 [as cited in Spangler et al. 2003]. 

Alcan. 2005. Alcan Primary Metal–British Columbia Environmental Annual Report 2004. Online at 

http://www.riotintoalcaninbc.com/environmental-reports/2004/index.html [accessed 23 February 

2010]. 

Alcan. 2006. Alcan Primary Metal–British Columbia Environmental Annual Report 2005. Online at 

http://www.riotintoalcaninbc.com/media/reports/2005%20Alcan%20EAR.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

Alcan. 2007. Alcan Primary Metal–British Columbia Annual Environmental Report 2006. Online at 

http://www.riotintoalcaninbc.com/media/reports/2006%20AER%205.1.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

Alheit, J., and E. Hagen. 1997. Long-term climate forcing of European herring and sardine populations. 

Fish. Oceanogr. 6:130–139.

183
Allen, L. G., M. M. Yoklavich, G. M. Cailliet, and M. H. Horn. 2006. Bays and estuaries. In L. G. 

Allen, D. J. Pondella, and M. H. Horn (eds.), The ecology of marine fishes: California and 

adjacent waters, p. 119–148. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Allen, M. J., and G. B. Smith. 1988. Atlas and zoogeography of common fishes in the Bering Sea and 

Northeastern Pacific. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 66. 

Alton, M. S., and M. O. Nelson. 1970. Food of Pacific hake, Merluccius productus, in Washington and 

northern Oregon coastal waters. In Pacific hake, p. 35–42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circ. 

332. 

Anchor Environmental. 2003. Fish periodicity in WRIA 1. Anchor Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. 

Online at http://whatcomsalmon.whatcomcounty.org/pdf/fishperiodicity_january2003.pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Anderson, A. C. 1872. The dominion at the west: A brief description of the province of British 

Columbia, its climate, and resources. The government prize essay, 1872. Richard Wolfenden, 

Government Printer, Victoria, BC. 

Anderson, A. C. 1877. Report of the Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia for the year of 1876. 

Appendix No. 21. In Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for the year ending 31st December 

1876, p. 339–347. MacLean, Roger & Co., Ottawa, ON. 

Anderson, P. 2009. Letter from P. Anderson (Interim Director, Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife) to 

G. Griffin (Protected Resources Division, NMFS Northwest Region) dated 12 May 2009. 

(Available from NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, 

Portland, OR 97232.) 

Anthony, J. A., D. D. Roby, and K. R. Turco. 2000. Lipid content and energy density of forage fishes 

from the northern Gulf of Alaska. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 248:53–78. 

Antonelis Jr., G. A., and C. H. Fiscus. 1980. The pinnipeds of the California Current. Calif. Coop. 

Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 21:68–78. 

Antonelis Jr., G. A., and M. A. Perez. 1984. Estimated annual food consumption by northern fur seals in 

the California Current. Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 25:135–145. 

Arai, H. P. 1967. A preliminary report on a study of the parasites of marine fishes of Burke Channel, 

British Columbia. Fish. Res. Board Can. Manuscr. Rep. Ser. 925. 

Arai, H. P. 1969. Preliminary report on the parasites of certain marine fishes of British Columbia. Bull. 

Fish. Res. Board Can. 26:2319–2337. 

Armstrong, R. H., and M. Hermans. 2007. Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). Coastal forests and 

mountains ecoregions of Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest: A conservation 

assessment and resource synthesis–Chapter 8.9. Online at conserveonline.org/workspaces/ 

akcfm/pdfs/8.9_Eulachon.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Atkinson, D. 1994. Temperature and organism size—A biological law for ectotherms? Adv. Ecol. Res. 

25:1–58. 

Auth, T. B., and R. D. Brodeur. 2006. Distribution and community structure of ichthyoplankton off the 

coast of Oregon, USA, in 2000 and 2002. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 319:199–213. 

184
Avise, J. C., J. Arnold, R. M. Ball, E. Bermingham, T. Lamb, J. E. Neigel, C. A. Reeb, and N. C. 

Saunders. 1987. Intraspecific phylogeography: The mitochondrial DNA bridge between 

population genetics and systematics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18:489–522. 

Babcock, J. P. 1927. The food value of some British Columbia fish. In Report of the Commissioner of 

Fisheries for the year ended December 31st, 1926, with appendices, p. E72–E75. Charles F, 

Banfield, Printer to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, Victoria, BC. 

Bailey, B. E. 1952. Marine oils, with special reference to those of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 

89. 

Bailey, K. M., and E. D. Houde. 1989. Predation on eggs and larvae of marine fishes and the recruitment 

problem. Adv. Mar. Bio. 25:1–83. 

Bakun, A. 1990. Global climate change and intensification of coastal upwelling. Science 247:198–201. 

Bargmann, G., J. DeVore, and B. Tweit. 2005. Risk-averse management of eulachon in the Columbia 

River system. Fisheries assessment and management in data-limited situations, p. 21–29. Rep. 

AK-SG-05-02. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Fairbanks. 

Barnhart, R. A., M. J. Boyd, and J. E. Pequegnat. 1992. The ecology of Humboldt Bay, California: An 

estuarine profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. No. 1. 

Barraclough, W. E. 1964. Contribution to the marine life history of the eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus. 

Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 21:1333–1337. 

Barraclough, W. E. 1967. Data record. Number, size composition, and food of larval and juvenile fish 

caught with a two-boat surface trawl in the Strait of Georgia, June 6–8, 1966. Bull. Fish. Res. 

Board Can. Manuscr. Rep. Ser. 928. 

Barraclough, W. E., and J. D. Fulton. 1967. Data record. Number, size composition, and food of larval 

and juvenile fish caught with a two-boat surface trawl in the Strait of Georgia, July 4–8, 1966. 

Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. Manuscr. Rep. Ser. 940. 

Barrett, B. M., F. M. Thompson, and S. N. Wick. 1984. Adult anadromous investigations: May-October 

1983. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies., Rep. No. 1, Alaska Power 

Authority document 1450 [excerpts published in Willson et al. 2006, p. 63–66]. 

Barry, R. G. 2006. The status of research on glaciers and global glacier recession: A review. Prog. Phys. 

Geog. 30:285–306. 

Barth, J. A., B. A. Menge, J. Lubchenco, F. Chan, J. M. Bane, A. R. Kirincich, M. A. McManus, K. J. 

Nielsen, S. D. Pierce, and L. Washburn. 2007. Delayed upwelling alters nearshore coastal ocean 

ecosystems in the northern California Current. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 194:3719–3724. 

Bath, G. E., S. R. Thorrold, C. M. Jones, S. E. Campana, J. W. McLaren, and J. H. W. Lam. 2000. 

Strontium and barium uptake in aragonitic otoliths of marine fish. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 

64:1705–1714. 

Baumgartner, T. R., A. Soutar, and V. Ferreira-Bartrina. 1992. Reconstruction of the history of Pacific 

sardine and northern anchovy populations over the past two millennia from sediments of the 

Santa Barbara Basin, California. Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 33:24-40. 

BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. 2002. British Columbia marine ecological 

classification: Marine ecosections and ecounits, Version 2.0. Province of British Columbia, 

185
Resources Information Standards Committee. Online at http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/ 

coastal/marine/version%202/bcmec_version_2.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Beach, R. J., A. C. Geiger, S. J. Jeffries, and S. D. Treacy. 1981. Marine mammal-fishery interactions on 

the Columbia River and adjacent waters, 1981. NWAFC Processed Rep. 82-04. NWAFC, 

Seattle, WA. 

Beach, R. J., A. C. Geiger, S. J. Jeffries, S. D. Treacy, and B. L. Troutman. 1985. Marine mammals and 

their interactions with fisheries of the Columbia River and adjacent waters, 1980–82. NWAFC 

Processed Rep. 85-04. Seattle, WA 

Beacham, T. D., D. E. Hay, and K. D. Le. 2005. Population structure and stock identification of 

eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), an anadromous smelt, in the Pacific Northwest. Mar. 

Biotechnol. 7:363–372. 

Beacham, T. D., J. F. Schweigert, C. MacConnachie, K. D. Le, K. Labaree, and K. M. Miller. 2002. 

Population structure of herring (Clupea pallassi) in British Columbia determined by 

microsatellites, with comparisons to Southeast Alaska and California. Dept. Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research Document 2002/109. Online 

at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2002/2002_109_e.htm 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Beamish, R. J., J. R. King, and G. A. McFarlane. 2008. Country reports, Canada. In R. J. Beamish, 

(ed.), Impacts of climate and climate change on the key species in the fisheries in the North 

Pacific, p. 15–51. PICES Working Group on Climate Change Shifts in Fish Production and 

Fisheries Management. PICES Scientific Report No. 35. Online at http://www.pices.int/ 

publications/scientific_reports/Report35/Rep_35_default.aspx [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Beamish, R. J., and G. A. McFarlane. 1983. The forgotten requirement for age validation in fisheries 

biology. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 112:735–743. 

Begg, G. A., J. A. Hare, and D. D. Sheehan. 1999. The role of life history parameters as indicators of 

stock structure. Fish. Res. 43:141–163. 

Bellman, M., E. Heery, and J. Hastie. 2008. Estimated discard and total catch of selected groundfish 

species in the 2007 U. S. West Coast fisheries. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division, Seattle, 

WA. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/datareport/docs/ 

totalmortality2007.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Benson, A. J., G. A. McFarlane, S. E. Allen, and J. F. Dower. 2002. Changes in Pacific hake 

(Merluccius productus) migration patterns and juvenile growth related to the 1989 regime shift. 

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:1969–1979. 

Berry, M. D., and W. Jacob. 1998. 1997 eulachon research on the Kingcome and Wannock rivers–Final 

rep. Final rep. to Science Council of British Columbia (SCBC #96/97-715). Online at http:// 

www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FRBC1997/FRBC1997MR206.PDF [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Betts, M. F. 1994. The subsistence hooligan fishery of the Chilkat and Chilkoot rivers. Tech. Paper No. 

213. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau. 

Beverton, R. J. H. 1990. Small pelagic fish and the threat of fishing; are they endangered? J. Fish Biol. 

37(Suppl. A):5–16. 

186
Bigg, M. A. 1988. Status of the Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus, in Canada. Can. Field Nat. 

102:315–336. 

Birtwell, I. K., C. D. Levings, J. S. Macdonald, and I. H. Rogers. 1988. A review of fish habitat issues in 

the Fraser River system. Water Pollut. Res. J. Can. 23:1–30. 

Blahm, T. H., and McConnell, R. J. 1971. Mortality of adult eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) subjected 

to sudden increases in water temperature. Northwest Sci. 45:178–82. 

Blaylock, R. B., L. Margolis, and J. C. Holmes. 1998. Zoogeography of the parasites of Pacific halibut 

(Hippoglossus stenolepis) in the northeast Pacific. Can. J. Zool. 76:2262–2273. 

Bond, G., W. Broecker, S. Johnson, J. McManus, L. Labeyrie, J. Jouzel, and G. Bonani. 1993. 

Correlation between climate records from North Atlantic sediments and Greenland ice. Nature 

365: 143-147. 

Borgerson, L. A., N. E. Stewart, K. K. Jones, and S. R. Mamoyac. 1991. Yaquina River Basin 

Management Plan. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Salem. 

Bottom, D. L., C. A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A. M. Baptista, D. A. Jay, K. K. Jones, E. Casillas, and M. H. 

Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at river’s end: The role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of 

Columbia River salmon. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-68. 

Bowlby, C. E. 1981. Feeding behavior of pinnipeds in the Klamath River, northern California. Master’s 

thesis. Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA. 

Boyd, R. T., and Y. P. Hajda. 1987. Seasonal population movement along the lower Columbia River: 

The social and ecological context. Am. Ethnol. 14:309–326. 

Brennan, B. M. 1936. Forty-second to forty-fifth annual reports of the State Department of Fisheries for 

the period from April 1, 1931 to March 31, 1935, fiscal years of 1931 to 1934, inclusive. 

Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

Briggs, J. C. 1974. Marine zoogeography. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. 2008. BC species and ecosystems explorer. BC Ministry of 

Environment, Victoria. Online at http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Broadhurst, M. K. 2000. Modifications to reduce bycatch in prawn trawls: A review and framework for 

development. Revs. Fish Biol. Fish. 10:27–60. 

Broadhurst, M. K., P. Suuronen, and A. Hulme. 2006. Estimating collateral mortality from towed fishing 

gear. Fish Fish. 7:180–218. 

Brocklesby, H. N. 1941. The chemistry and technology of marine animal oils with particular reference to 

those of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 59. 

Brocklesby, H. N., and O. F. Denstedt. 1933. The industrial chemistry of fish oils with special reference 

to those of British Columbia. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 37. 

Brodeur, R. D., C. L. Suchman, D. C. Reese, T. W. Miller, and E. A. Daly. 2008. Spatial overlap and 

trophic interactions between pelagic fish and large jellyfish in the northern California Current. 

Mar. Biol. 154:649–659. 

Brown, R. F., S. J. Jeffries, and J. T. Harvey. 1989. Seasonal abundance and winter feeding ecology of 

harbor seals in the Columbia River. In Abstracts 8th biennial conference on the biology of 

187
marine mammals, Pacific Grove, CA, 7–11 December 1989, p. 9, Society for Marine 

Mammalogy. The society’s Web site is http://marinemammalscience.org/ [accessed 10 May 

2010]. 

Brown, R. F., S. D. Riemer, and S. J. Jeffries. 1995. Food of pinnipeds collected during the Columbia 

River area salmon gillnet observation program, 1991–1994. Wildlife Diversity Program Tech. 

Rep. 95-6-01. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Salem. 

BRT (Biological Review Team). 2008. Summary of scientific conclusions of the review of the status of 

eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. December 15 draft. 

NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. Online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 

Other-Marine-Species/upload/Eulachon-Review.pdf [accessed 18 March 2009]. 

Buchheister, A., and M. T. Wilson. 2005. Shrinkage correction and length conversion equations for 

Theragra chalcogramma, Mallotus villosus, and Thaleichthys pacificus. J. Fish Biol. 67:541–

548. 

Buckley, T. W., and P. A. Livingston. 1997. Geographic variation in the diet of Pacific hake, with a note 

on cannibalism. Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 38:53–62. 

Buckley, T. W., G. E. Tyler, D. M. Smith, and P. A. Livingston. 1999. Food habits of some 

commercially important groundfish off the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, and British 

Columbia. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-102. Online at http://www. 

afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-102.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Builder Ramsey, T., T. A. Turk, E. L. Fruh, J. R. Wallace, B. H. Horness, A. J. Cook, K. L. Bosley, D. J. 

Kamikawa, L. C. Hufnagle Jr., and K. Piner. 2002. The 1999 Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Pacific West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of groundfish resources off Washington, 

Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-55. Online 

at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/4277_06162004_130254_tm55.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

Burroughs, R. D. 1961. The natural history of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Michigan State 

University Press, Lansing. 

Byram, S., and D. G. Lewis. 2001. Ourigan: Wealth of the Northwest Coast. Ore. Hist. Quart. 102:127–

157. 

Cambria Gordon Ltd. 2006. Eulachon of the Pacific Northwest: A life history. Living Landscapes 

Program, Royal BC Museum. Online at http://www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca/northwest/eulachon/ 

resources/lifehisreport.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Canadian Bureau of Statistics. 1941. Fisheries Statistics of Canada, 1917–1941. Canada Dept. Trade 

and Commerce, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries Statistics Branch. Printer to the King’s 

Most Excellent Majesty, Ottawa, ON. 

Carls, M. G., S. W. Johnson, M. R. Lindeberg, A. D. Neff, P. M. Harris, and R. Waples. 2008. Status 

review of Lynn Canal herring (Clupea pallasii). Online at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ 

protectedresources/herring/statusrev0308.pdf [accessed 22 February 2010]. 

Carvan III, M. J., J. P. Incardona, and M. L. Rise. 2008. Meeting the challenges of aquatic vertebrate 

ecotoxicology. Bioscience 58:1015–1025. 

Caughley, G. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. J. Anim. Ecol. 63:215–244. 

188
Caughley, G., and A. Gunn. 1996. Conservation biology in theory and practice. Blackwell Science, 

Cambridge, MA. 

CDFG (California Dept. Fish and Game). 2008. Letter dated 13 June 2008 to Peter B. Adams, Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, from Steve Cannata, California Dept. Fish and Game. Subject: 

Eulachon data search. (Available from NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd 

Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.) 

Chan, H. M., M. El Khoury, M. Sedgemore, S. Sedgemore, and H. V. Kuhnlein. 1996. Organochlorine 

pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in ooligan grease: A traditional food fat of 

British Columbia First Nations. J. Food Compos. Anal. 9:32–42. 

Chatwin, B. M., and C. R. Forrester. 1953. Feeding habits of dogfish (Squalus suckleyi (Girard)). Fish. 

Res. Board Can., Progress Reports of the Pacific Coast Stations 95:35–38. 

Chen, L. 1971. Systematics, variation, distribution, and biology of rockfishes of the subgenus 

Sebastomus (Pisces, Scorpaenidae, Sebastes). Bull. Scripps Inst. Oceanogr. Univ. Calif. 18:1–

107. 

Clanton, R. E. 1913. Biennial report of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon to the 

Twenty-seventh Legislative Assembly, regular session, 1913. Oregon Dept. Fisheries, Willis S. 

Duniway, state printer, Salem. 

Clark, E. D., and R. W. Clough. 1926. Chemical composition of fish and shellfish. Bureau of Fisheries 

document No. 1000. In H. R. Beard (ed.), Nutritive value of fish and shellfish, p. 502–526. 

Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1925, Appendix X. 

Clarke, A. D., A. Lewis, and K. H. Telmer. 2007. Life history and age at maturity of an anadromous 

smelt, the eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus (Richardson). J. Fish Biol. 71:1479–1493. 

Cleaver, F. C. 1951. Fisheries statistics of Oregon. Oregon Fish Commission contribution No. 16. 

Oregon Fish Commission, Portland. 

Clemens, W. A., J. L. Hart, and G. V. Wilby. 1936. Analysis of stomach contents of fur seals taken off 

the west coast of Vancouver Island in April and May, 1935. Stud. Sta. Biol. Bd. Can. 160. DFO, 

Ottawa, ON. 

Clemens, W. A., and G. V. Wilby. 1946. Fishes of the Pacific Coast of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Board 

Can. 68. 

Clemens, W. A., and G. V. Wilby. 1967. Fishes of the Pacific coast of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Board 

Can. 68 (2nd printing of 2nd edition). 

Codere, H. 1990. Kwakiutl: Traditional culture. In W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North American 

Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, p. 359–377. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

Coleman, B. A. 1986. The 1980 Pacific West Coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish resources: 

Estimates of distribution, abundance, length, and age composition. U. S. Dept. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-100. Online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/nwc/nwc100.pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Coleman, B. A. 1988. The 1986 Pacific West Coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish resources: 

Estimates of distribution, abundance, length and age composition. U. S. Dept. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-152. Online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/nwc/nwc152.pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

189
Collins, J. W. 1892. Report on the fisheries of the Pacific coast of the United States. Rep. U.S. Comm. 

Fish and Fisheries XVI, Appendix 1:3–269. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Collison, H. A. 1941. The oolichan fishery. B.C. Hist. Q. 5(1):25–31. 

Cooke, K. D., J. Holmes, G. W. Fleischer, R. E. Thomas, and P. H. Ressler. 2006. Distributional 

changes observed in the geographic range of Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) in association 

with ocean conditions off the Pacific coast of Canada and the United States. ICES 2005 Annual 

Science Conference Products. Online at http://www.ices.dk/asc2006/Abstracts/Blist.pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Cooper, A. B., and M. S. Mangel. 1999. The dangers of undetected metapopulation structure for the 

conservation of salmonids. Fish. Bull. 97:213–226. 

Cordell, J. R., S. M. Bollens, R. Draheim, and M. Sytsma. 2008. Asian copepods on the move: Recent 

invasions in the Columbia-Snake River system, USA. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65:753–758. 

Cowlitz Indian Tribe. 2007. Petition to list the southern eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) distinct 

population segment as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act, 9 

November 2007. Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Longview, WA. Online at http://www.nwr.noaa

.gov/Other-Marine-Species/upload/Smelt_Petition_11_07.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Craig, J. A. 1947. Letter dated 11 August 1947 from Joe A. Craig, acting director, Washington Dept. 

Fisheries, to Gordon M. Quarnstrom, editor, Longview Daily News, Longview, WA. (Available 

from NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 

97232.) 

Craig, J. A., and R. L. Hacker. 1940. The history and development of the fisheries of the Columbia 

River. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 49:132–216. 

Craig, J. A., and A. J. Suomela. 1940. A survey of the Sandy River and its tributaries, 1940, with 

reference to fish management. Special Scientific Rep. No. 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, DC. 

Crawford, J. 1890. First report of the State Fish Commissioner, State of Washington. O. C. White, State 

Printer, Olympia. 

Crawford, J. 1892. Third annual report of the State Fish Commissioner of the State of Washington. O. 

C. White, State Printer, Olympia. 

Crawford, J. 1894. Fifth annual report of the State Fish Commissioner of the State of Washington. O. C. 

White, State Printer, Olympia. 

Crawford, J. 1896. Seventh annual report of the State Fish Commissioner of the State of Washington. 

O. C. White, State Printer, Olympia. 

Crawford, P. W. 1878 (unpubl. manuscr.). Narrative of the overland journey to Oregon. Microfilm A92, 

Univ. Washington, Suzzalo Library, Seattle (original in Bancroft Library, Univ. California 

Berkeley). 

Crawford, W., J. Galbraith, and J. N. Bolingbroke. 2007. Line P ocean temperature and salinity, 1956–

2005. Progr. Oceanogr.75:161–178. 

190
Cummings, E., and E. Schwartz. 1971. Fish in Coos Bay, Oregon, with comments on distribution, 

temperature, and salinity of the estuary. Coastal Rivers Investigation Information Rep. 70-11. 

Fish Commission of Oregon, Research Division, Corvallis. 

Curtis, E. S. 1915. The North American Indian, Vol. 10. Johnson Reprint Corp., New York. Online at 

http://curtis.library.northwestern.edu/ [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Dammers, W. 1988. Columbia River smelt commercial harvest, age, and larval sampling. Memo from 

Wolf Dammers to Don McIsaac ,Washington Dept. Fisheries, 28 January 1988. (Available from 

NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.) 

Darwin, L. H. 1917. Twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh annual reports of State Fish Commissioner to the 

Governor of the State of Washington, 1 April 1915, to 31 March 1917. Washington Dept. Fish 

and Game, Olympia. 

Darwin, L. H. 1920. Twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth annual reports of State Fish Commissioner to the 

Governor of the State of Washington, 1 April 1917, to 31 March 1919. Washington Dept. Fish 

and Game, Olympia. 

Darwin, L. H. 1921. Thirtieth and thirty-first annual reports of State Fish Commissioner to the Governor 

of the State of Washington, 1 April 1919, to 31 March 1921. Washington Dept. Fish and Game, 

Olympia. 

DeLacy, A. C., and B. S. Batts. 1963. Possible population heterogeneity in the Columbia River smelt. 

Fisheries Research Institute Circular No. 198. Univ. Washington, College of Fisheries, Seattle. 

DeLacy, A. C., B. S. Miller, and S. F. Borton. 1972. Checklist of Puget Sound Fishes. WSG 72-3. 

Univ. Washington, Washington Sea Grant, Division of Marine Resources, Seattle. 

Deschamps, G., S. G. Wright, and R. E. Watson. 1970. Fish migration and distribution in the lower 

Chehalis River and upper Grays Harbor. In Grays Harbor cooperative water quality study 1964–

1966, p. 1–55. Tech. Rep. No.7. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2006a. Fraser River eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus): 2006 

population assessment and harvest recommendations for 2007. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. 

Advis. Rep. 2006/039. Online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2006/SARAS2006_039_E.pdf [accessed 10 May 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2006b. State of the Pacific Ocean 2005. Ocean Status Rep. 

2006/001. DFO Canada, Pacific Region. Online at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/psarcceesp/osrs/StateofOceans2005fnl.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007a. Fraser River eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus): 2007 

population assessment and harvest recommendations for 2008. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. 

Advis. Rep. 2007/048. Online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2007/SAR-AS2007 

_048_e.pdf [accessed 10 May 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007b. Integrated fisheries management plan euphausiids, 1 

January 2007 to 31 December 2012. DFO Canada, Pacific Region. Online at http://www-ops2

.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/mplans/plans07/Krill07-12.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2008a. Eulachon integrated fisheries management plan, 1 

April 2008 to 31 March 2009. DFO Canada, Pacific Region. Online at http://www-ops2.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/xnet/content/mplans/plans08/2008_IFMP-Eulachon.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

191
DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2008b. Shrimp survey bulletin 08-02, July 2008. Online at 

http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/shellfish/shrimp/Surveys/0802.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2008c. Overview of the eulachon fishery. Pelagics & Minor 

Finfish-Pacific Region. Online at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/commercial/pelagicpelagique/eulachon-eulakane/overview-apercu-eng.htm [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2008d. Predicting the temperature of the Fraser River, 

climate change conditions. Online at http://www-sci.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/osap/projects/fraser/ 

climate_e.htm [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2009a. Shrimp survey bulletin 09-01, July 2009. Online at 

http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/shellfish/shrimp/Surveys/0802.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2009b. Shrimp survey bulletin 09-02, July 2009. Online at 

http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/shellfish/shrimp/Surveys/0802.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2009c. Integrated fisheries management plan shrimp trawl, 1 

April 2009 to 31 March 2010. DFO Canada, Pacific Region. Online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc

.ca/Library/336240.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2009d. Eulachon integrated fisheries management plan, 1 

April 2009 to 31 March 2010. DFO Canada, Pacific Region. Online at http://www-ops2.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/xnet/content/mplans/plans09/IFMP_Eulachon_2009.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2009e. State of the Pacific Ocean 2008. Canadian Science 

Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Rep. 2009/030. DFO Canada, Pacific Region. Online at 

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/Publications/SAR-AS/2009/2009_030_e.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

DFO (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2009f. 2009-2011 British Columbia tidal waters sport 

fishing guide. Online at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/SFG-GPS/SFGtidalGPSmaree-eng.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

DFO and Transport Canada. 2008. Comprehensive study scoping document pursuant to Section 21(1) of 

the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Klinaklini River Hydroelectric Project 

proposed by Kleana Power Corporation in south-central coast of British Columbia. CEA 

Registry Reference No.: 07-03-36321. Online at http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/ 

p289/1210953739414_8e248a8d30d90ddfeb0b46a94c6ea47bd9c755f2db90.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

Diffenbaugh, N. S., M. A. Snyder, and L. C. Sloan. 2004. Could CO2-induced land-cover feedbacks alter 

near-shore upwelling regimes? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sc. USA 101:27–32. 

Dodimead, A. J., F. Favorite, and T. Hirano. 1963. Salmon of the North Pacific Ocean–Part II. Review 

of oceanography of the subarctic Pacific region. Int. North Pac. Fish. Comm. Bull. 13. 

Doyle, M. J., K. L. Mier, M. S. Busby, and R. D. Brodeur. 2002. Regional variation in springtime 

ichthyoplankton assemblages in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Prog. Oceanogr. 53:247–281. 

192
Duff, W. 1952. The upper Stalo Indians: An introductory ethnography. Master’s thesis. Univ. 

Washington, Seattle. 

Dulvy, N. K., J. R. Ellis, N. B. Goodwin, A. Grant, J. D. Reynolds, and S. Jennings. 2004. Methods of 

assessing extinction risk in marine fishes. Fish Fish. 5:255–276. 

Dulvy, N. K., Y. Sadovy, and J. D. Reynolds. 2003. Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish 

Fish. 4:25–64. 

EcoMetrix (EcoMetrix Inc.). 2006. Summary of 2006 eulachon study results and 2007 study design. 

Report prepared for Eurocan Pulp and Paper Co., Kitimat, BC. EcoMetrix Inc., Brampton, ON. 

Eggen, R. I., R. Behra, P. Burkhardt-Holm, B. I. Escher, and N. Schweigert. 2004. Challenges in 

ecotoxicology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:58A–64A. 

Ekman, S. 1953. Zoogeography of the sea. Sidgwick and Jackson Ltd., London. 

Eldridge, M. B., and C. F. Bryan. 1972. Larval fish survey of Humboldt Bay, California. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS-SSRF-665. 

Eller, A., and N. Hillgruber. 2005. Eulachon larvae (Thaleichthys pacificus) retention in the surface 

waters of Berners Bay, Alaska [abstract]. American Fisheries Society, 135th Annual Meeting, 

Anchorage, AK, Sept. 2005. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Emmett, R. L., P. J. Bentley, and G. K. Krutzikowsky. 2001. Ecology of marine predatory and prey 

fishes off the Columbia River, 1998 and 1999. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-51. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/4015_06162004_141153

_tm51.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Emmett R. L., R. D. Brodeur, T. W. Miller, S. S. Pool, G. K. Krutzikowsky, P. J. Bentley, and J. McCrae. 

2005. Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) abundance, distribution, and ecological relationships in 

the Pacific Northwest. Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 46:122–143. 

Emmett, R. L., S. A. Hinton, S. L. Stone, and M. E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes 

and invertebrates in West Coast estuaries, Vol. II: Species life history summaries. ELMR Rep. 8. 

U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA, National Ocean Service, Strategic Assessment Branch, Silver 

Spring, MD. 

Emmett, R. L., G. T. McCabe Jr., and W. D. Muir. 1990. Effects of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption 

on Columbia River estuarine fishes: Implications for dredging in Northwest estuaries. In C. A. 

Simenstad (ed.), Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, p. 74–91. Workshop 

proceedings, Sept. 8–9, 1988. Univ. Washington, Sea Grant Program, Seattle. 

Environment Canada. 2008. A national ecological framework for Canada. Online at http://sis.agr.gc.ca/ 

cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/intro.html [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Columbia River basin fish contaminant survey 

1996–1998. EPA 910-R-02-006. EPA, Region 10, Seattle, WA. Online at http://yosemite.epa 

.gov/r10/oea.nsf/0703bc6b0c5525b088256bdc0076fc44/c3a9164ed269353788256c09005d36b7/$

FILE/Fish%20Study.PDF [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An 

ecological, economic, and social assessment. U.S. Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, NOAA, EPA, 

and National Park Service, Portland, OR. 

193
Fiedler, R. H. 1930. Fishery industries of the United States, 1928. Bureau of Fisheries document No. 

1067. Appendix IX (p. 401–625) in Rep. U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 

1929 with appendixes. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Fiedler, R. H. 1939. Fishery industries of the United States, 1936. Administrative Rep. No. 27. 

Appendix I (p. 1–276) in Rep. U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1937 with 

appendixes. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Fiedler, R. H. 1941. Fishery industries of the United States, 1938. Administrative Rep. No. 37. 

Appendix III (p. 169–554) in Rep. U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1939 with 

appendixes. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Field, J. C., K. Baltz, A. J. Phillips, and W. A. Walker. 2007. Range expansion and trophic interactions 

of the jumbo squid, Dosidicus gigas, in the California Current. Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. 

Investig. Rep. 48:131–146. 

Fisher, H. D. 1947. The harbour seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) on the Skeena River, B.C. Fish. Res. 

Board Can. Progress Reports of the Pacific Coast Stations 72:36–40. 

Fisher, H. D. 1952. The status of the harbour seal in British Columbia, with particular reference to the 

Skeena River. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 93. 

Fleischer, G. W., K. D. Cooke, P. H. Ressler, R. E. Thomas, S. K. de Blois, L. C. Hufnagle, A. R. 

Kronlund, J. A. Holmes, and C. D. Wilson. 2005. The 2003 integrated acoustic and trawl survey 

of Pacific hake, Merluccius productus, in U.S. and Canadian waters off the Pacific coast. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-65. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa

.gov/assets/25/6233_06272005_114457_haketm65final.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Fleischer, G. W., K. D. Cooke, P. H. Ressler, R. E. Thomas, S. K. de Blois, and L. C. Hufnagle. 2008. 

The 2005 integrated acoustic and trawl survey of Pacific hake, Merluccius productus, in U.S. and 

Canadian waters off the Pacific coast. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-94. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6835_11062008_165201 

_Hake2005SurveyTM94Final.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Flory, E. 2008a. Biological assessment/biological evaluation threatened, endangered, and Forest Service 

sensitive listed wildlife species. Cascade Point, Berners Bay Barge Ramp Permit Application, 

Supplemental Information, Attachment 8. Aquatic Science Inc., Juneau, AK. Online at http:// 

www.juneau.org/plancomm/documents/Attachment8.PDF [accessed 22 February 2010]. 

Flory, E. 2008b. Eulachon distribution in the Taku River, Juneau, Alaska, 2008. Aquatic Science Inc., 

Juneau. Online at http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/largemine/tulsequah/pdf2/eulachon2tuls.pdf 

[accessed 22 February 2010]. 

Foley, P. 1997. Extinction models for local populations. In: I. Hanski and M. E. Gilpin (eds.), 

Metapopulation biology, p. 215–246. Academic Press, New York. 

Foreman, M. G. G., D. K. Lee, J. Morrison, S. Macdonald, D. Barnes, and I. V. Williams. 2001. 

Simulations and retrospective analyses of Fraser watershed flows and temperatures. Atmos. 

Ocean 39:89–105. 

Franchère, G. 1967. Adventure at Astoria, 1810–1814 [edited and translated by H. C. Franchère]. 

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

194
Franchère, G. 1968. A voyage to the northwest coast of America, M. M. Quaife (ed.). The Citadel Press, 

New York. 

Franchère, G. 1969. The Journal of Gabriel Franchère, 1811–1814. The Champlain Society, Toronto, 

ON. 

Francis, R. C., S. R. Hare, A. B. Hollowed, and W. S. Wooster. 1998. Effects of interdecadal climate 

variability on the oceanic ecosystems of the NE Pacific. Fish. Oceanogr. 7:1–21.

Franzel, J., and K. A. Nelson. 1981. Stikine River eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). U.S. Forest 

Service, Petersburg Ranger District, Petersburg, AK. Abstract reprinted in Willson et al. 2006, 

AFSC Processed Report 2006-12, p. 100–101. 

FREMP (Fraser River Estuary Management Program). 2006. Environmental management strategy for 

dredging in the Fraser River estuary. Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program and Fraser 

River Estuary Management Program. Online at http://bieapfremp.org/fremp/pdf_files/ 

Environmental%20Management%20Strategy%20for%20Dredging%20FINAL%20FINAL.pdf

[accessed 22 February 2010]. 

FREMP (Fraser River Estuary Management Program). 2007. Sediment budget and dredging activities 

annual report for the fiscal year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. Fraser River Estuary 

Management Program. Online at http://bieapfremp.org/fremp/pdf_files/Dredging%20AR 

%202006-2007%20FINAL%20Jan%2008.pdf [accessed 19 February 2010]. 

Frimodig, A. 2008. Informational report: Bycatch reduction devices used in the pink shrimp trawl 

fishery. Rep. to California Fish and Game Commission. California Dept. Fish and Game, Marine 

Region, State Fisheries Evaluation Project. Online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/pdfs/ 

brd_report.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Frimodig, A., M. Horeczko, T. Mason, B. Owens, M. Prall, and S. Wertz. 2007. Information concerning 

the pink shrimp trawl fishery off northern California. Rep. to California Fish and Game 

Commission, California Dept. Fish and Game, Marine Region, State Fisheries Evaluation Project. 

Online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/pdfs/pinkshrimp.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Fry Jr., D. H. 1979. Anadromous fishes of California, California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento. 

Online at http://cdm15024.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/ 

p178601ccp2&CISOPTR=103 [accessed 19 February 2010]. 

Gabriel, W. L., and A. V. Tyler. 1980. Preliminary analysis of Pacific coast demersal fish assemblages. 

Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(3–4):83–88. 

Gallant, A. L., E. F. Binnian, J. W. Omernik, and M. B. Shasby. 1995. Ecoregions of Alaska. U.S. 

Geological Survey Prof. Pap. 1567. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 

Garrison, K. J., and B. S. Miller. 1982. Review of the early life history of Puget Sound fishes. FRI-UW8216. Univ. Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle. 

Gass, P. 1807. A journal of the voyages and travels of a Corps of Discovery, under the command of 

Capt. Lewis and Capt. Clark of the Army of the United States, from the mouth of the River 

Missouri through the interior parts of North America to the Pacific Ocean, during the years 1804, 

1805, and 1806. D. McKeehan, Pittsburgh. Reprinted in 1996 as The definitive journals of 

Lewis and Clark, Patrick Gass. G. E. Moulton (ed.), Vol. 9 of the Nebraska edition. University 

of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, and in 1997 as The journals of Patrick Gass: Member of the Lewis 

195
and Clark Expedition, edited and annotated by Carol Lynn MacGregor. Mountain Press, 

Missoula, MT.] 

Gaumer, T., D. Demory, and L. Osis. 1973. 1971 Coquille River estuary resource use study. Fish 

Commission of Oregon, Division of Management and Research. (Available from Oregon Dept. 

Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division, 3406 Cherry Ave. NE, Salem 97303.) 

Gestring, K. B. 1991. Stomach contents of striped bass × white bass hybrids in the Tenmile Lake 

system. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife Fish Division information report No. 91-1. 

Gibson, D. I. 1996. Guide to the parasites of fishes of Canada, Part IV, Trematoda. Can. Spec. Publ. 

Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 124. 

Gilpin, M. E., and M. E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: Process of species extinctions. In

M. E. Soule (ed.), Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity, p. 19–34. Sinauer, 

Sunderland, MA. 

Girard, G. 1858. General report upon the zoology of the several Pacific Railroad routes. Fishes. In

Reports of explorations and surveys, to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a 

railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, Pacific Railroad Rep. 10 (Pt. IV), p. 1–

400. 

Good, T. P., R. S. Waples, and P. Adams (eds.). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West 

Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66. 

Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6226_08302005_132955 

_brttechmemo66final2.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Gotshall, D. W., G. H. Allen, and R. A. Barnhart. 1980. An annotated checklist of fishes from Humboldt 

Bay, California. Calif. Fish Game 66:220–232. 

Gough, B. M. (ed.). 1992. The journal of Alexander Henry the Younger 1799–1814. Vol. II, The 

Saskatchewan and Columbia rivers. The Champlain Society, Toronto, ON. 

Green, A. 1891. The economic fishes of British Columbia. Papers and communications read before the 

Natural History Society of British Columbia 1(1):20–33. 

Groisman, P. Y., R. W. Knight, T. R. Karl, D. R. Easterling, B. Sun, and J. H. Lawrimore. 2004. 

Contemporary changes of the hydrological cycle over the contiguous United States: Trends 

derived from in situ observations. J. Hydrometerol. 5:64–85. 

Gustafson, R. G., J. Drake, M. J. Ford, J. M. Myers, E. E. Holmes, and R. S. Waples. 2006. Status 

review of Cherry Point Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) and updated status review of the Georgia 

Basin Pacific herring distinct population segment under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-76. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ 

assets/25/6539_08072006_141228_HerringTM76Final.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Gustafson R. G., W. H. Lenarz, B. B. McCain, C. C. Schmitt, W. S. Grant, T. L. Builder, and R. D. 

Methot. 2000. Status review of Pacific hake, Pacific cod, and walleye pollock from Puget 

Sound, Washington. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-44. Online at 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm44/tm44.htm [accessed 23 February 

2010]. 

Guttormsen, M. A., and P. T. Yasenak. 2007. Results of the 2003 and 2005 echo integration-trawl 

surveys in the Gulf of Alaska during summer, cruises MF2003-09 and OD2005-01. AFSC 

196
Processed Rep. 2007-04. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/PR2007-

04.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Haggerty, D. R., B. McCorquodale, D. I. Johannessen, C. D. Levings, and P. S. Ross. 2003. Marine 

environmental quality in the central coast of British Columbia, Canada: A review of contaminant 

sources, types and risks. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2507. DFO, Sidney, BC. 

Hall, K. J. 1976. The quality of water in the lower Fraser River and sources of pollution. In A. H. J. 

Dorcey (ed.), The uncertain future of the lower Fraser, p. 21–46. Westwater Research Centre, 

University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 

Halpin, M. M., and M. Seguin. 1990. Tsimshian, peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, 

Nishga, and Gitskan. In W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, 

Northwest Coast, p. 267–284. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

Hamilton, J. B., G. L. Curtis, S. M. Snedaker, and D. K. White. 2005. Distribution of anadromous fishes 

in the upper Klamath River watershed prior to hydropower dams—A synthesis of the historical 

evidence. Fisheries 30(4):10–20. 

Hamlet, A. F., P. W. Mote, M. P. Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Effects of temperature and 

precipitation variability on snowpack trends in the western United States. J. Climate 18:4545–

4561. 

Hamori-Torok, C. 1990. Haisla. In W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, 

Northwest Coast, p. 306–311. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

Hannah, R. W., and S. A. Jones. 2003. Measuring the height of the fishing line and its effect on shrimp 

catch and bycatch in an ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) trawl. Fish. Res. 60:427–438. 

Hannah, R. W., and S. A. Jones. 2007. Effectiveness of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) in the ocean 

shrimp (Pandalus jordani) trawl fishery. Fish. Res. 85:217–225. 

Hannah, R., and S. Jones. 2009. 20th annual pink shrimp review. Oregon Dept. Fish Wildlife, Marine 

Resources Program, Newport. Online at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/publications/shrimp

_newsletter2009.pdf [accessed 22 February 2010]. 

Hannah, R. W., S. A. Jones, and V. Hoover. 1996. Evaluation of fish excluder technology to reduce 

finfish bycatch in the ocean shrimp trawl fishery. ODFW Information Rep. 96-4. Oregon Dept. 

Fish and Wildlife, Marine Region, Newport. 

Hannah, R. W., S. A. Jones, and K. M. Matteson. 2003. Observations of fish and shrimp behavior in 

ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) trawls. ODFW Information Rep. 2003-03. Oregon Dept. fish 

and Wildlife, Marine Resources Program, Newport. 

Hanski, I. A., and M. E. Gilpin (eds.). 1997. Metapopulation biology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Hard, J. J., J. M. Myers, M. J. Ford, R. G. Cope, G. R. Pess, R. S. Waples, G. A. Winans, B. A. 

Berejikian, F. W. Waknitz, P. B. Adams. P. A. Bisson, D. E. Campton, and R. R. Reisenbichler. 

2007. Status review of Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-81. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/ 

25/6649_07312007_160715_SRSteelheadTM81Final.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Hare, S. R., N. J. Mantua, and R. C. Francis. 1999. Inverse production regimes: Alaskan and west coast 

salmon. Fisheries 24:6–14. 

197
Hart, J. L. 1943. Comparison of eulachon catch statistics for three years. J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 

Progress Reports of the Pacific Coast Stations 56:6. 

Hart, J. L. 1949. Food of fish of the cod family. J. Fish. Res. Board Can., Progress Reports of the 

Pacific Coast Stations 79: 35–36. 

Hart, J. L. 1973. Pacific fishes of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 180. 

Hart, J. L., and J. L. McHugh. 1944. The smelts (Osmeridae) of British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Board 

Can. 64. 

Hauser, L., and G. R. Carvalho. 2008. Paradigm shifts in marine fisheries genetics: Ugly hypotheses 

slain by beautiful facts. Fish Fish. 9:333–362. 

Hawthorn, H. B., Belshaw, C. S., and S. M. Jamieson. 1960. The Indians of British Columbia. A study 

of contemporary social adjustment. University of Toronto Press, ON. 

Hay, D. E. 1996. Coastal pelagics—Herring and eulachon. In Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2108, 

Proceedings, Marine Ecosystem Monitoring Network—1995 March, p. 33–36. DFO, Nanaimo, 

BC. 

Hay, D. 2002. The eulachon in Northern British Columbia. In T. Pitcher, M. Vasconcellos, S. Heymans, 

C. Brignall, and N. Haggan (eds.), Information supporting past and present ecosystem models of 

Northern British Columbia and the Newfoundland Shelf, p. 98–107. Fisheries Centre Research 

Reports, Vol. 10 No. 1. Univ. British Columbia, Fisheries Centre, Vancouver. 

Hay, D. 2007. Eulachons-biological review. Presentation at the Feb. 2007 Workshop to Determine 

Research Priorities for Eulachon. Online at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/herring/hertags/ 

2007eulawkshp_ch.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Hay, D. E., and T. D. Beacham. 2005. Stock identification of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), an 

anadromous smelt in the eastern Pacific. Paper presented at ICES 2005 Annual Science 

Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. Online at http://www.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/2005/ 

K/K1405.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Hay, D. E., R. Harbo, J. Boutillier, E. Wylie, L. Convey, and P. B. McCarter. 1999a. Assessment of 

bycatch in the 1997 and 1998 shrimp trawl fisheries in British Columbia, with emphasis on 

eulachons. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat research document 1999/179. DFO, Ottawa, 

ON. 

Hay, D. E., R. Harbo, K. Southey, J. E. Clarke, G. Parker, and P. B. McCarter. 1999b. Catch 

composition of British Columbia shrimp trawls and preliminary estimation of bycatch, with 

emphasis on eulachons. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat research document 99/26. DFO, 

Ottawa, ON. 

Hay, D. E., and McCarter, P. B. 1997. Larval distribution, abundance, and stock structure of British 

Columbia herring. J. Fish Biol. 51(suppl. A):155–175. 

Hay, D. E., and McCarter, P. B. 2000. Status of the eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus in Canada. 

Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat research document 2000-145. DFO, Ottawa, ON. Online 

at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/csas/DocREC/2000/PDF/2000_145e.pdf [accessed 23 February 

2010]. 

198
Hay, D. E., P. B. McCarter, R. Joy, M. Thompson, and K. West. 2002. Fraser River eulachon biomass 

assessments and spawning distribution: 1995–2002. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 

research document 2002/117. DFO, Nanaimo, BC. 

Hay, D. E., K. C. West, and A. D. Anderson. 2003. Indicators and “response” points for management of 

Fraser River eulachon: A comparison and discussion with recommendations. Canadian Science 

Advisory Secretariat research document 2003/051. DFO, Nanaimo, BC. Online at http://www

.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/DocREC/2003/RES2003_051_E.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Hay, D. E., K. West, A. D. Anderson, and D. Rutherford. 2005. Indicators and “response” points for 

management of Fraser River eulachon: Protocols for managing a data-limited fishery. Fisheries 

Assessment and Management in Data-Limited Situations. Rep. AK-SG-05-02. Alaska Sea Grant 

College Program, Fairbanks. 

Hedgecock, D. 1994. Does variance in reproductive success limit effective population sizes of marine 

organisms? In A. R. Beaumont (ed.), Genetics and evolution of aquatic organisms, p. 122–134. 

Chapman & Hall, London. 

Hedgpeth, J. W. 1957. Marine biogeography. In J. W. Hedgpeth (ed.), Treatise on marine ecology and 

paleoecology, p. 359–382. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO. 

Hedrick, R. P., W. N. Batts, S. Yun, G. S. Traxler, J. Kaufman, and J. R. Winton. 2003. Host and 

geographic range extensions of the North American strain of viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus. 

Dis. Aquat. Organ. 55:211–220. 

Hicks, M. 2000. Evaluating standards for protecting aquatic life in Washington’s surface water quality 

standards: Temperature criteria (preliminary review draft discussion paper). Washington Dept. 

Ecology, Water Quality Program, Watershed Management Section, Olympia. 

Higgins, P. S., I. K. Birtwell, B. T. Atagi, D. Chilton, M. Gang, G. M. Kruzynski, H. Mahood, G. E. 

Piercey, B. A. Raymond, I. H. Rogers, and S. Spohn. 1987. Some characteristics of the eulachon 

(Thaleichthys pacificus) captured in the Fraser River estuary, B.C., April 1986. Can. Manuscr. 

Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1913. 

Hilborn, R., T. P. Quinn, D. E. Schindler, and D. E. Rogers. 2003. Biocomplexity and fisheries 

sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:6564–6568. 

Hilton, S. F. 1990. Haihais, Bella Bella, and Oowekeeno. In W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North 

American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, p. 312–322. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

DC. 

Hinck, J. E., C. J. Schmitt, T. M. Bartish, N. D. Denslow, V. S. Blazer, P. A. Anderson, J. J. Coyle, G. M. 

Dethloff, and D. E. Tillitt. 2004. Biomonitoring of environmental status and trends (BEST) 

program: Environmental contaminants and their effects on fish in the Columbia River basin. U.S. 

Geological Survey scientific investigations Rep. 2004-5154. USGS, Columbia, MO. Online at 

http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/center/pdfDocs/BEST-Columbia_River.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

Hinck, J. E., C. J. Schmitt, V. S. Blazer, N. D. Denslow, T. M. Bartish, P. J. Anderson, J. J. Coyle, G. M. 

Dethloff, and D. E. Tillitt. 2006. Environmental contaminants and biomarker responses in fish 

from the Columbia River and its tributaries: Spatial and temporal trends. Sci. Total Environ. 

366:549–578. 

Hinrichsen, R. A. 1998. The ghost run of the Cowlitz. Cowlitz Hist. Q. 40(2):5–21. 

199
Hirch, M. 2003. Trading across time and space: Culture along the North American “grease trails” from a 

European perspective. Canadian Studies International Interdisciplinary Conference: Across time 

& space visions of Canada from abroad, Univ. College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC, 12–14 

September 2003. Online at http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/pdf/Oolichan%20Paper%20(Mirjam).pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Hjort, J. 1914. Fluctuations in the great fisheries of Northern Europe. Cons. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer 

Rapp. P.-V. Reun. 20:1–228. 

Hochachka, P. W., and G. N. Somero. 2002. Biochemical adaptation: Mechanism and process in 

physiological evolution. Oxford University Press, New York. 

Holmes, J., K. Cooke, and G. Kronkite. 2008. Interactions between jumbo squid (Dosidicus gigas) and 

Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) in the northern California Current in 2007. Calif. Coop. 

Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 49:129–141. 

Hooff, R. C., and W. T. Peterson. 2006. Copepod biodiversity as an indicator of changes in ocean and 

climate conditions of the northern California Current ecosystem. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51:2607–

2620. 

Hoskins, G. E., G. R. Bell, and T. P. T. Evelyn. 1976. The occurrence, distribution, and significance of 

infectious diseases and of neoplasms observed in fish in the Pacific Region up to the end of 1974. 

Fisheries and Marine Service, Tech. Rep. 609. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. 

Hostick, G. A. 1975. Numbers of fish captured in beach seine hauls in Coos River estuary, Oregon, June 

through September 1970. Coastal Rivers Investigation Information Rep. 74-11. Fish 

Commission of Oregon, Division of Management and Research, Salem. 

Howell, M. D. 2001. Characterization of development in Columbia River prolarval eulachon, 

Thaleichthys pacificus, using selected morphometric characters. Washington Dept. Fish and 

Wildlife, Vancouver. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/creel/smelt/USACE-20larval20development.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Howell, M. D., M. D. Romano, and T. A. Rien. 2001. Outmigration timing and distribution of larval 

eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus, in the lower Columbia River, spring 2001. Washington Dept. 

Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, and Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Clackamas. 

Howell, M. D., and N. Uusitalo. 2000. Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) studies related to lower 

Columbia River channel deepening operations. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, 

and Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Clackamas. 

Hubbs, C. L. 1925. A revision of the osmerid fishes of the North Pacific. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 38:49–

56. 

Huntington, E. 1963. Reminiscences of Cowlitz County. Cowlitz County Hist. Q. 5(3):1–9. 

Hutchings, J. A. 2000. Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature 406:882–885. 

Hutchings, J. A. 2001a. Conservation biology of marine fishes: Perceptions and caveats regarding 

assignment of extinction risk. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:108–121. 

Hutchings, J. A. 2001b. Influence of population decline, fishing, and spawner variability on the recovery 

of marine fishes. J. Fish Biol. 59(Suppl. A):306–322. 

200
Hutchings, J. A., and J. D. Reynolds. 2004. Marine fish population collapses: Consequences for 

recovery and extinction risk. Bioscience 54:297–309. 

Hutchinson, J. M. 1979. Seasonal distribution of fishes in Siuslaw Bay. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, 

Corvallis (as cited in Monaco et al. 1990). 

ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Seas). 2004. Report of the working group on the 

application of genetics in fisheries and mariculture. ICES CM No. 2004/F:04. ICES, 

Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Imbrie, J., J. D. Hays, D. G. Martinson, A. McIntyre, A. C. Mix, J. J. Morley, N. G. Pisias, W. L. Prell, 

and N. J. Shackleton. 1984. The orbital theory of Pleistocene climate: Support from a revised 

chronology of the marine δ18O record. In A. L. Berger, (ed.), Milankovitch and climate, Part 1, p. 

269–305. D. Reidel, Norwell, MA. 

Imler, R. H., and H. R. Sarber. 1947. Harbor seals and sea lions in Alaska. Spe. Sci. Rep. No. 28. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

Ingólfsson, O. A., A. V. Soldal, I. Huse, and M. Breen. 2007. Escape mortality of cod, saithe, and 

haddock in a Barents Sea trawl fishery. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64:1836–1844. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science 

basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment rep. of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York. Online 

at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report

_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Irving, W. 1868. Astoria, or, anecdotes of an enterprise beyond the Rocky Mountains. G. P. Putnam and 

Sons, New York. 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River basin 

fish and wildlife. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian 

Tribes, National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, OR. Online at http://www.nwcouncil.org/ 

library/isab/ISAB%202007-2%20Climate%20Change.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2008. Nonnative species impacts on native salmonids in 

the Columbia River Basin, including recommendations for evaluating the use of non-native fish 

species in resident fish substitution projects. ISAB nonnative species rep., ISAB 2008-4. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, NMFS, 

Portland, OR. Online at http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2008-4.htm [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and 

Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and 

Cambridge, UK. Online at http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-andcriteria [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2006. Guidelines for using the IUCN Red 

List categories and criteria. Version 6.2. Prepared by Standards and Petitions Working Group of 

the IUCN SSC Biodiversity Assessments Subcommittee in December 2006. Online at http:// 

intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

201
Iverson, S. J., K. J. Frost, and S. L. C. Lang. 2002. Fat content and fatty acid composition of forage fish 

and invertebrates in Prince William Sound, Alaska: Factors contributing to, among, and within 

species variability. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 241:161–181. 

JCRMS (Joint Columbia River Management Staff). 2005. Joint staff report concerning commercial 

seasons for sturgeon and smelt in 2006. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife and Washington Dept. 

Fish and Wildlife. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/crc/dec0605jointstaff.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

JCRMS (Joint Columbia River Management Staff). 2006. 2007 joint staff report: Stock status and 

fisheries for sturgeon and smelt. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife and Washington Dept. Fish and 

Wildlife. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/crc/sturgeon_smelt07.pdf [accessed 23 February 

2010]. 

JCRMS (Joint Columbia River Management Staff). 2007. 2008 joint staff report concerning stock status 

and fisheries for sturgeon and smelt. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife and Washington Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/crc/crc2008_sturgeon_smelt_js_rpt.pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

JCRMS (Joint Columbia River Management Staff). 2008. 2009 joint staff report concerning stock status 

and fisheries for sturgeon and smelt. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife and Washington Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/crc/crc2009_sturgeon_smelt_js_rpt.pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

JCRMS (Joint Columbia River Management Staff). 2009. 2010 joint staff report concerning stock status 

and fisheries for sturgeon and smelt. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife and Washington Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/crc/2010_sturgeon_smelt.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

Jeffries, S. J. 1984. Marine mammals of the Columbia River Estuary. Final rep. on the Marine 

Mammals Work Unit of the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, Washington 

Department of Game, Olympia. Online at http://www.lcrep.org/pdfs/17%20MARINE

%20MAMMALS%20OF%20THE%20COLUMBIA%20RIVER%20ESTUARY.pdf [accessed 

23 February 2010]. 

Jennings, M. R. 1996. Past occurrence of eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus, in streams tributary to 

Humboldt Bay, California. Calif. Fish Game 82(6):147–148. 

Johannessen, D. I., J. S. Macdonald, K. A. Harris, and P. S. Ross. 2007a. Marine environmental quality 

in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), British Columbia: A 

summary of contaminant sources, types and risks. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2716. 

Johannessen, D. I., K. A. Harris, J. S. Macdonald, and P. S. Ross. 2007b. Marine environmental quality 

in the north coast and Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, Canada: A review of 

contaminant sources, types, and risks. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2717. 

Johnson, J. A., D. P. Liscia, and D. M. Anderson. 1986. The seasonal occurrence and distribution of fish 

in the Umpqua estuary, April 1977 through January 1986. Information Rep. 86-6. Oregon Dept. 

Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis. 

Johnson, L. L., G. M. Ylitalo, M. S. Myers, B. F. Anulacion, J. Buzitis, W. L. Reichert, and T. K. Collier. 

2009. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fish health indicators in the marine ecosystem in 

Kitimat, British Columbia. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-98. 

202
Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6917_05122009_141859_PAHsKitimat

TM98WebFinal.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Johnston Jr., S. A. 1981. Estuarine dredge and fill activities: A review of impacts. Environ. Manag. 

5:427–440. 

Jones, B. C., and G. H. Geen. 1977. Food and feeding of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in British 

Columbia waters. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:2067–2078. 

Jordan, D. S., and C. H. Gilbert. 1899. The fishes of Bering Sea. In D. S. Jordan (ed.), The fur seals and 

fur-seal islands of the North Pacific Ocean, Part 3, p. 433–492. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC. 

Jordan, D. S., and E. C. Starks. 1895. The fishes of Puget Sound. Contributions to biology from the 

Hopkins Laboratory of Biology No. 3. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. Ser. 2 5:785–855. 

Joyce, T. L., M. B. Lambert, and S. Moffitt. 2004. Eulachon subsistence harvest opportunities. Final 

Rep. No. FIS02-075-1. USFWS Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Resource 

Monitoring Program, Anchorage, AK. 

Kabata, Z. 1988. Copepoda and Branchiura. In L. Margolis and Z. Kabata (eds.). Guide to the parasites 

of fishes of Canada, Part II–Crustacea, p. 3–127. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 101. 

Kabata, Z., and C. R. Forrester. 1974. Atheresthes stomias (Jordan and Gilbert 1880) (Pisces: 

Pleuronectiformes) and its eye parasite Phrixocephalus cincinnatus Wilson 1908 (Copepoda: 

Lernaeoceridae) in Canadian Pacific waters. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31:1589–1595. 

Kajimura, H., C. H. Fiscus, and R. K. Stroud. 1980. Food of the Pacific white-sided dolphin, 

Lagenorhynchus obliquidens, Dall’s porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli, and northern fur seal, 

Callorhinus ursinus, off California and Washington: With appendices on size and food of Dall’s 

porpoise from Alaskan waters. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NWC 2. 

Kaukinen, K. H., K. J. Supernault, and K. M. Miller. 2004. Development of microsatellite loci in 

eulachon fish (Thaleichthys pacificus). Mol. Ecol. Notes 4:632–634. 

Keller, A. A., T. L. Wick, E. L. Fruh, K. L. Bosley, D. J. Kamikawa, J. R. Wallace, and B. H. Horness. 

2005. The 2000 U.S. West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of groundfish resources 

off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length 

composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-70. Online at 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6459_03102006_131701_Slope2000FinalV2SA.pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Keller, A. A., E. L. Fruh, K. L. Bosley, D. J. Kamikawa, J. R. Wallace, B. H. Horness, V. H. Simon, and 

V. J. Tuttle. 2006a. The 2001 U.S. West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of 

groundfish resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of distribution, 

abundance, and length composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC72. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6460_03202007_121309_ 

Slope2001TechMemo.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Keller, A. A., B. H. Horness, V. J. Tuttle, J. R. Wallace, V. H. Simon, E. L. Fruh, K. L. Bosley, and D. J. 

Kamikawa. 2006b. The 2002 U.S. West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of 

groundfish resources off Washington, Oregon and California: Estimates of distribution, 

abundance, and length composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC203
75. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6493_04062006_150352_ 

Slope2002TM75Final.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Keller, A. A., V. H. Simon, B. H. Horness, J. R. Wallace, V. J. Tuttle, E. L. Fruh, K. L. Bosley, D. J. 

Kamikawa, and J. C. Buchanan. 2007a. The 2003 U.S. West Coast bottom trawl survey of 

groundfish resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of distribution, 

abundance, and length composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC86. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6719_01082008_151554_ 

GroundfishSurvey2003TM86FinalSA.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Keller, A. A., B. H. Horness, V. H. Simon, V. J. Tuttle, J. R. Wallace, E. L. Fruh, K. L. Bosley, D. J. 

Kamikawa, and J. C. Buchanan. 2007b. The 2004 U.S. West Coast bottom trawl survey of 

groundfish resources off Washington, Oregon and California: Estimates of distribution, 

abundance, and length composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC87. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6656_01152008_153323_ 

GroundfishSurvey2004TM87FinalSA.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Keller, A. A., B. H. Horness, E. L. Fruh, V. H. Simon, V. J. Tuttle, K. L. Bosley, J. C. Buchanan, D. J. 

Kamikawa, and J. R. Wallace. 2008. The 2005 U.S. West Coast bottom trawl survey of 

groundfish resources off Washington, Oregon and California: Estimates of distribution, 

abundance, and length composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC93. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6802_08122008_165005_ 

GroundfishSurveyTM93Final.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Kelson, J. 1996. Kitamaat River 1995 oolichan (Thaleicthys pacificus) study. Report prepared by 

Kitamaat Village Council for British Columbia Ministry of Forests (as cited in Moody 2008). 

Kelson, J. 1997. Kitamaat River 1997 oolichan (Thaleicthys paclficus) study progress report (May-July, 

1997). Final report to Science Council of British Columbia (SCBC No. 96/97-025). Online at 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/frbc1997/frbc1997mr215.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Kennedy, D. I. D., and R. T. Bouchard. 1990. Bella Coola. In W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North 

American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, p. 323–339. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

DC. 

Kershaw, T. R. 1902. Thirteenth annual report of the State Fish Commissioner to the Governor of the 

State of Washington. Metropolitan Press, Seattle. 

Kershaw, T. R. 1904. 14th and 15th annual reports of the State Fish Commissioner to the Governor of 

the State of Washington. Metropolitan Press, Seattle. 

Kime, D. E. 1995. The effects of pollution on reproduction in fish. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 5:52–96. 

Kitamaat Village Council. 2007. Haisla Dootilh. Haisla Community Newsletter, Vol. 1, Issue 1. 

Kitamaat Village Council, Kitamaat Village, BC. Online at http://www.haisla.ca/files/ 

May%202007.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Knowles, N., M. D. Dettinger, and D. R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western 

United States. J. Climate 19:4545–4559. 

Krahn, M. M., M. J. Ford, W. F. Perrin, P. R. Wade, R. P. Angliss, M. B. Hanson, B. L. Taylor, G. M. 

Ylitalo, M. E. Dahlheim, J. E. Stein, R. S. Waples. 2004. 2004 Status Review of Southern 

Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-62. 

204
Krause, A. 1885. Die Tlinkit-Indianer. Ergebnisse einer Reise nach der Nordwestküste von Amerika 

und der Beringstrasse. H. Costenoble, Jena. Published in 1956 [Translated by E. Gunther] as 

The Tlingit Indians: Results of a trip to the northwest coast of America and the Bering Straits. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Kreag, R. A. 1979. Natural resources of Coquille Estuary. Estuary Inventory Rep. Vol. 2, No. 7. 

Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Research and Development Section, Portland. 

Kubik, S. W., and R. Wadman. 1977. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters of the 

lower Susitna River and Cook Inlet drainages. Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, Annual 

Performance Rep. 1976–1977, Project F-9-9(18)G-I-H. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Sport Fish 

Division, Juneau. 

Kubik, S. W., and R. Wadman. 1978. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters of 

western Prince William Sound, lower Susitna and central Cook Inlet drainages. Federal Aid in 

Fish Restoration, Annual Performance Rept. 1977–1978, Project F-9-10(19)G-I-H. Alaska Dept. 

Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, Juneau. 

Kuhnlein, H. V., A. C. Chan, J. N. Thompson, and S. Nakai. 1982. Ooligan grease: A nutritious fat used 

by native people of coastal British Columbia. J. Ethnobiol. 2:154–161. 

Kuhnlein, H. V., F. Yeboah, M. Sedgemore, S. Sedgemore, and H. M. Chan. 1996. Nutritional qualities 

of ooligan grease: A traditional food fat of British Columbia First Nations. J. Food Compos. 

Anal. 9:18–31. 

Lande, R. 1993. Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and 

random catastrophes. Am. Nat. 142:911–927. 

Langer, O. E., B. G. Shepherd, and P. R. Vroom. 1977. Biology of the Nass River eulachon 

(Thaleichthys pacificus). Canadian Fisheries and Marine Service Tech. Rep. 77-10. 

Larson, K. W., and C. E. Moehl. 1990. Entrainment of anadromous fish by hopper dredge at the mouth 

of the Columbia River. In C. A. Simenstad (ed.), Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific 

coast fishes, workshop proceedings, 8–9 September 1988, p. 102–112. Univ. Washington, Sea 

Grant Program, Seattle. 

Larson, Z. S., and M. R. Belchik. 1998. A preliminary status review of eulachon and Pacific lamprey in 

the Klamath River Basin. Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program, Klamath, CA. 

Lasalle, M. W. 1990. Physical and chemical alterations associated with dredging: An overview. In C. A. 

Simenstad (ed.), Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific Coast fishes. Workshop proceedings, 

8–9 September 1988, p. 1–12. Univ. Washington, Sea Grant Program, Seattle. 

Lasker, R. 1975. Field criteria for survival of anchovy larvae: The relation between inshore chlorophyll 

maximum layers and successful first feeding. Fish. Bull. 73:453–462. 

Lassuy, D. 1995. Introduced species as a factor in extinction and endangerment of native fish species. 

Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 15:391–396. 

Lauth, R. R. 1997a. The 1995 Pacific West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of groundfish 

resources off southern Oregon and northern California: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and 

length composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-80. Online at 

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-80.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

205
Lauth, R. R. 1997b. The 1996 Pacific West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of groundfish 

resources off Washington and Oregon: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length 

composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-81. Online at 

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-81.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

Lauth, R. R. 1999. The 1997 Pacific West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of groundfish 

resources off Washington, Oregon and California: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and 

composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-98. Online at 

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-98/Text%20from

%20NOAA-TM-AFSC-98.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Lauth , R. R. 2000. The 1999 Pacific West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of groundfish 

resources off Washington , Oregon and California: Estimates of distribution , abundance, and 

length composition. U. S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-115. Online at 

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-115/Text%20from

%20NOAA-TM-AFSC-115%20.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Lauth, R, and E. Acuna (compilers). 2007a. 2005 bottom trawl survey of the eastern Bering Sea 

continental shelf. AFSC Processed Rep. 2007-1. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ 

Publications/ProcRpt/PR2007-01.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Lauth, R. R., and E. Acuna. 2007b. Results of the 2006 Eastern Bering Sea continental shelf bottom 

trawl survey of groundfish and invertebrate resources. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-AFSC-176. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAATM-AFSC-176.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Lauth, R. R., M. E. Wilkins, and P. A. Raymore Jr. 1997. Results of trawl surveys of groundfish 

resources of the West Coast upper continental slope from 1989 to 1993. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-79. 

Lawson, P. W. 1993. Cycles in ocean productivity, trends in habitat quality, and the restoration of 

salmon runs in Oregon. Fisheries 18(8):6–10. 

LCFRB (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board). 2004a. Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & 

Wildlife Subbasin Plan. Online at http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/ 

lowerColumbia/plan/ [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

LCFRB (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board). 2004b. Eulachon. Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery 

and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan, Appendix B, Ch. 15. Online at http://www.nwcouncil.org/ 

fw/subbasinplanning/lowerColumbia/plan/AppendixB_OtherSpecies.pdf [accessed 10 May 

2010]. 

Levitus, S., J. I. Antonov, and T. P. Boyer. 2005. Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003. Geophys. 

Res. Lett. 32: L02604. Online at http://dx.doi.org/ [DOI name 10.1029/2004GL021592, accessed 

23 February 2010]. 

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, and C. Stephens. 2000. Warming of the world ocean. Science 

287:2225–2229. 

Lewis, A. F. J. 1997. Skeena eulachon study 1997. Report prepared by Triton Environmental 

Consultants Ltd., Terrace, BC, and the Tsimshian Tribal Council, Prince Rupert, BC, for Forest 

Renewal BC. Final rep. to Science Council of British Columbia (SCBC #96/97-123). Online at 

206
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FRBC1997/FRBC1997MR216.PDF [accessed 23 February 

2010]. 

Lewis, A. F. J., M. D. McGurk, and M. G. Galesloot. 2002. Alcan’s Kemano River eulachon 

(Thaleichthys pacificus) monitoring program 1988–1998. Consultant’s report prepared by 

Ecofish Research Ltd. for Alcan Primary Metal Ltd., Kitimat, BC. 

Lindsey, C. C. 1966. Body sizes of poikilotherm vertebrates at different latitudes. Evolution 20:456–

465. 

Little, A. C. 1898. Ninth annual report of the state fish commissioner to the governor of the State of 

Washington. Gwin Hicks, state printer, Olympia. 

Little, A. C. 1901. Tenth and eleventh annual reports of the state fish commissioner to the governor of 

the State of Washington, 1899–1900. Gwin Hicks, state printer, Olympia. 

Livingston, P. 1983. Food habits of Pacific whiting, Merluccius productus, off the west coast of North 

America, 1967 and 1980. Fish. Bull. 81:629–636. 

Longhurst, A. R. 2006. Ecological geography of the sea, 2nd edition. Elsevier Academic Press, 

Amsterdam. 

Lord, J. K. 1866. The naturalist in Vancouver Island and British Columbia, Vol. 1. Richard Bentley, 

London. Republished by Elibron Classics, New York. 

Lowry, L. F., K. J. Frost, J. M. Ver Hoef, and R. A. DeLong. 2001. Movements of satellite tagged 

subadult and adult harbor seals in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar. Mam. Sci. 17:835–861. 

Mace, G. M., and E. J. Hudson. 1999. Attitudes toward sustainability and extinction. Conserv. Biol. 

13:242–246. 

MacFie, M. 1865. Vancouver Island and British Columbia: Their history, resources, and prospects. 

Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, London. 

Mackas, D. L., S. Batten, and M. Trudel. 2007. Effects on zooplankton of a warmer ocean: Recent 

evidence from the Northeast Pacific. Prog. Oceanogr. 75:223–252. 

Mackas, D. L., R. E. Thomson, and M. Galbraith. 2001. Changes in the zooplankton community of the 

British Columbia continental margin, 1985–1999, and their covariation with oceanographic 

conditions. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:685–702. 

Mackie, R. S. 1997. Trading beyond the mountains: The British fur trade on the Pacific, 1793–1843. 

University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 

MacLachlan, M. (ed.). 1998. The Fort Langley Journals, 1827–1830. University of British Columbia 

Press, Vancouver. 

Macnair, P. L. 1971. Descriptive notes on the Kwakiutl manufacture of eulachon oil. Syesis 4:169–177. 

Maggiulli, N., Reeves, G. H., and R. A. Schmitz. 2006 eulachon spawning migration dynamics and 

associated avian feeding aggregation characteristics on the Copper River delta, Alaska [abstract]. 

In 2006 Annual Meeting of the Oregon Chapter of The Wildlife Society, p. 26. 14–17 February 

2006, Agate Beach, OR. Oregon Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Corvallis, OR. 

Mantua, N. J., and S. R. Hare. 2002. The Pacific decadal oscillation. J. Oceanogr. 58:35–44. 

207
Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis. 1997. Pacific interdecadal climate 

oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 78:1069–1079. 

Margolis, L., and J. R. Arthur. 1979. Synopsis of the parasites of fishes of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. 

Board Can. 199. 

Marston, B. H., M. F. Willson, and S. M. Gende. 2002. Predator aggregations during eulachon 

Thaleichthys pacificus spawning runs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 231:229–236. 

Martin, I. 2008. Notes on historical smelt migrations in the Columbia and Cowlitz rivers, Exhibit AA. 

Attachment to letter to Chief NMFS, Protected Resources Division, from T. V. Dulcich; 

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Attorneys at Law, re. Code No. RIN0648-XF87-Comment on 

request for information regarding proposed listing of Pacific eulachon as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, 12 May 2008. (Available from NMFS, 

Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.) Online at 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648098f309 

&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Martin, I. 2009. Letter from Irene Martin (Skamokawa, WA) to Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources 

Division, dated 11 May 2009. Eulachon Status Review Response, May 2009, by Irene Martin, 11 

p. + 5 attachments. (Available from NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., 

Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.) 

Martin, M. H., and D. M. Clausen. 1995. Data Report: 1993 Gulf of Alaska bottom trawl survey. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-59. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ 

Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-59.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Martindale, A. R. C. 2003. A hunter-gatherer paramount chiefdom: Tsimshian developments through the 

contact period. In R. G. Matson, G. Coupland, and Q. Mackie (eds.), Emerging from the mist: 

Studies in Northwest Coast culture history, p. 12–49. University of British Columbia Press, 

Vancouver. 

Maybury, C. R. 1930. Thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth annual reports of the State Department of Fisheries 

and Game, Division of Fisheries, for the period from April 1, 1927, to March 31, 1929, fiscal 

years of 1927 and 1928. Washington Dept. Fisheries and Game, Jay Thomas, public printer, 

Olympia. 

McAllister, D. E. 1963. A revision of the smelt family, Osmeridae. Nat. Mus. Can., Biol. Ser. 71, Bull. 

191:1–53. 

McCabe Jr., G. T., R. L. Emmett, and S. A. Hinton. 1993. Feeding ecology of juvenile white sturgeon 

(Acipenser transmontanus) in the lower Columbia River. Northwest Sci. 67:170–180. 

McCallister, H. C., and R. E. Clanton. 1911. Biennial report of the Department of Fisheries of the State 

of Oregon to the twenty-sixth legislative assembly 1911. Oregon Dept. Fisheries, Willis S. 

Duniway, state printer, Salem. 

McCarter, P. B., and D. E. Hay. 1999. Distribution of spawning eulachon stocks in the central coast of 

British Columbia as indicated by larval surveys. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat research 

document 99/177. DFO, Ottawa, ON. 

McCarter, P. B., and D. Hay. 2003. Eulachon embryonic egg and larval outdrift sampling manual for 

ocean and river surveys. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2451. 

208
McDonald, T. E., and L. Margolis. 1995. Synopsis of the parasites of fishes of Canada: Supplement 

(1978–1993). Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 122. 

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U. S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/ 

25/5561_06162004_143739_tm42.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

McFarlane, G. A., and R. J. Beamish. 1985. Biology and fishery of Pacific whiting, Merluccius 

productus, in the Strait of Georgia. Mar. Fish. Rev. 47:23–34. 

McFarlane, G. A., J. R. King, and R. J. Beamish. 2000. Have there been recent changes in climate? Ask 

the fish. Progr. Oceanogr. 47:147–169. 

McGuire, H. D. 1896. Third and fourth annual reports of the Fish and Game Protector of the State of 

Oregon, 1895–1896. W. H. Leeds, state printer, Salem. 

McGuire, H. D. 1898. Fifth and sixth annual reports of the Fish and Game Protector of the State of 

Oregon, 1897–1898. W. H. Leeds, state printer, Salem. 

McHugh, J. L. 1939. The eulachon. Progress report of the Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., 

and Pacific Fisheries Experimental Station, Prince Rupert, BC 40:17–22. 

McHugh, J. L. 1940. Where does the eulachon spawn? Progress Rep. of the Pacific Biological Station, 

Nanaimo, BC, and Pacific Fisheries Experimental Station, Prince Rupert, BC 44:18–19. 

McHugh, J. L. 1954. Geographic variation in the Pacific herring. Copeia 1954:139–154. 

McLaughlin, P. A., D. K. Camp, M. V. Angel, E. L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R. C. Brusca, D. Cadien, A. C. 

Cohen, K. Conlan, L. G. Eldredge, D. L. Felder, J. W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R. W. Heard, E. 

A. Hendrycks, H. H. Hobbs III, J. R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D. R. Laubitz, S. E. LeCroy, R. 

Lemaitre, R. F. Maddocks, J. W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W. A. Newman, R. M. 

Overstreet, W. J. Poly, W. W. Price, J. W. Reid, A. Robertson, D. C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. 

Schotte, F. R. Schram, C. T. Shih, L. Watling, G. D. F. Wilson, and D. D. Turgeon. 2005. 

Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: 

Crustaceans. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

McLean, J. E. 1999. Marine population structure in an anadromous fish: Life history influences patterns 

of neutral molecular variation in the eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus. Master’s thesis. Univ. 

British Columbia, Vancouver. 

McLean, J. E., D. E. Hay, and E. B. Taylor. 1999. Marine population structure in an anadromous fish: 

Life history influences patterns of mitochondrial DNA variation in the eulachon, Thaleichthys 

pacificus. Mol. Ecol. 8:S143–S158. 

McLean, J. E., and Taylor, E. B. 2001. Resolution of population structure in a species with high gene 

flow: Microsatellite variation in the eulachon (Osmeridae: Thaleichthys pacificus). Mar. Biol. 

139:411–420. 

McPhail, J. D., and C. C. Lindsey. 1970. Freshwater fishes of Northwestern Canada and Alaska. Bull. 

Fish. Res. Board Can. 173. 

Mecklenburg, C. W., T. A. Mecklenburg, and L. K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of Alaska. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

209
Meffe, G., and R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates Inc., 

Sunderland, MA. 

Meier, M. F., M. B. Dyurgerov, and G. J. McCabe. 2003. The health of glaciers: Recent changes in 

glacier regime. Clim. Change 59:123–135. 

Middleton, D. A. J., and R. M. Nisbet. 1997. Population persistence time: Estimates, models, 

mechanisms. Ecol. Appl. 7:107–117. 

Miller, B. S., and S. F. Borton. 1980. Geographical distribution of Puget Sound fishes: Maps and data 

source sheets. Vol. 1. Family Petromysontidae (lampreys) through family Syngnathidae 

(Pipefishes). Univ. Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle. 

Miller, D. J., and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. Calif. Dept. Fish 

Game Fish Bull. 157. 

Miller, D. J., and R. N. Lea. 1976. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California, addendum added 

1976. Calif. Dept. Fish Game Fish Bull. 157. 2nd edition. 

Miller, J. A., and A. L. Shanks. 2005. Abundance and distribution of larval and juvenile fish in Coos 

Bay, Oregon: Time-series analysis based on light-trap collections. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 

305:177–191. 

Miller R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the 

past century. Fisheries 14(6):22–38. 

Mills, D. D. 1982. Historical and contemporary fishing for salmon and eulachon at Klukwan: An interim 

report. ADFG Tech. Paper 69. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau. 

Minckley, W. L., D. A. Hendrickson, and C. E. Bond. 1986. Geography of western North American 

freshwater fishes: Description and relationship to intracontinental tectonism. In C. H. Hocutt and 

E. O. Wiley (eds.), The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes, p. 519–613. John 

Wiley and Sons, New York. 

Mitchell, D. H. 1983. Seasonal settlements, village aggregations, and political autonomy on the central 

Northwest Coast. In E. Tooker (ed.), The development of political organization in native North 

America, p. 97–107. American Ethnological Society, Washington, DC. 

Moffitt, S., B. Marston, and M. Miller. 2002. Summary of eulachon research in the Copper River Delta, 

1998–2002. Regional information rep. 2A02-34. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Anchorage. 

Monaco, M. E., R. L. Emmett, S. A. Hinton, and D. M. Nelson. 1990. Distribution and abundance of 

fishes and invertebrates in West Coast estuaries. Vol. I: Data summaries. ELMR Rep. 4. U.S. 

Dept. Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Strategic Assessment Branch, Silver Spring, 

MD. 

Moody, M. 2007. The Bella Coola eulachon fishery, its importance and its past and current status. 

Presentation at the February 2007 workshop to determine research priorities for eulachon. Online 

at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/herring/hertags/2007eulawkshp_ch.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

Moody, M. F. 2008. Eulachon past and present. Master’s thesis. Univ. British Columbia, Vancouver. 

Online at https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/2429/676/1/ubc_2008_spring_moody_megan.pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

210
Moore, S. E., K. E. W. Shelden, L. K. Litzky, B. A. Mahoney, and D. J. Rugh. 2000. Beluga, 

Delphinapterus leucas, habitat associations in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Mar. Fish. Rev. 62(3):60–80. 

Moring, J. R. 1996. Fish discoveries by the Lewis and Clark and Red River expeditions. Fisheries 

21(7):6–12. 

Morris, W., D. Doak, M. Groom, P. Kareiva, J. Fieberg, L. Gerber, P. Murphy, and D. Thomson. 1999. 

A practical handbook for population viability analysis. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, 

DC. 

Morrison, J., M. Quick, and M. G. G. Foreman. 2002. Climate change in the Fraser River watershed: 

Flow and temperature predictions. J. Hydrol. 263:230–244. 

Morstad, S. 1998. Eulachon—1998 season summary. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Anchorage (as cited 

in Spangler et al. 2003). 

Morton, A. 2000. Occurrence, photo-identification and prey of white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhyncus 

obliquidens) in the Broughton Archipelago, Canada, 1984–1998. Mar. Mam. Sci. 16: 80–93. 

Mote, P. W. 2003a. Trends in temperature and precipitation in the Pacific Northwest during the 

twentieth century. Northwest Sci. 77:271–282. 

Mote, P. W. 2003b. Twentieth-century fluctuations and trends in temperature, precipitation, and 

mountain snowpack in the Georgia Basin-Puget Sound region. Can. Water Res. J. 28:567–586. 

Mote, P. W. 2006. Climate-driven variability and trends in mountain snowpack in western North 

America. J. Climate 19:6209–6220. 

Mote, P. W., D. J. Canning, D. L. Fluharty, R. C. Francis, J. F. Franklin, A. F. Hamlet, M. Hershman, M. 

Holmberg, K. N. Ideker, W. S. Keeton, D. P. Lettenmaier, L. R. Leung, N. J. Mantua, E. L. 

Miles, B. Noble, H. Parandvash, D. W. Peterson, A. K. Snover, and S. R. Willard. 1999. Impacts 

of climate variability and change in the Pacific Northwest. NOAA, Office of Global Programs, 

and JISAO/SMA Climate Impacts Group, Seattle, WA. Online at http://cses.washington.edu/db/ 

pdf/moteetalgreenbook96.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Mote, P. W., A. F. Hamlet, M. Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005a. Declining mountain snowpack in 

western North America. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 86:39–49. 

Mote, P.M., E. Salathé, and C. Peacock. 2005b. Scenarios of future climate for the Pacific Northwest. 

Univ. Washington Climate Impacts Group, Tech. Rep., October 2005. Online at http://cses

.washington.edu/db/pdf/kc05scenarios462.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Moulton, G. E. (ed.). 1990. The definitive journals of Lewis and Clark, Down the Columbia to Fort 

Clatsop. Vol. 6 of the Nebraska edition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Moulton, G. E. (ed.). 1991. The definitive journals of Lewis and Clark, From the Pacific to the Rockies. 

Vol. 7 of the Nebraska edition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Moulton, G. E. (ed.). 1995. The definitive journals of Lewis and Clark, John Ordway and Charles Floyd. 

Vol. 9 of the Nebraska edition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Moulton, G. E. (ed.). 1997. The definitive journals of Lewis and Clark, Joseph Whitehouse. Vol. 11 of 

the Nebraska edition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

211
Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, 

Berkeley and Los Angeles. 

Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Eulachon. In Fish 

species of special concern in California, 2nd edition, p. 123–127. California Dept. Fish and 

Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova. 

Mueter, F. J., and B. L. Norcross. 2002. Spatial and temporal patterns in the demersal fish community on 

the shelf and upper slope regions of the Gulf of Alaska. Fish. Bull. 100:559–581. 

Mullen, R. 1977. The occurrence and distribution of fish in the Umpqua River estuary, June through 

October 1972. Information Rep. 77-3. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Research Section, 

Salem. 

Musick, J. A. 1999. Criteria to define extinction risk in marine fishes. Fisheries 24:6–14. 

Musick, J. A., M. M. Harbin, S. A. Berkeley, G. H. Burgess, A. M. Eklund, L. Findley, R. G. Gilmore, J. 

T. Golden, D. S. Ha, G. R. Huntsman, J. C. McGovern, G. R. Sedberry, S. J. Parker, S. G. Poss, 

E. Sala, T. W. Schmidt, H. Weeks, and S. G. Wright. 2000. Marine, estuarine, and diadromous 

fish stocks at risk of extinction in North America (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). Fisheries 

25(11): 6–30. 

Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. 

Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon 

from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-35. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/4234_06172004_115524 

_chinook.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Nebenzahl, D. (compiler). 2001. 2001 bottom trawl survey of the eastern Bering Sea continental shelf. 

AFSC Processed Rep. 2001-08. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/ 

PR%202001-08.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. 

Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and 

Mexico, sixth edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Niblack, A. P. 1890. The coast Indians of southern Alaska and northern British Columbia. Based on the 

collections in the U.S. National Museum, and on the personal observation of the writer [a U.S. 

Navy Ensign] in connection with the survey of Alaska in the seasons of 1885, 1886, and 1887. In

Report of the U.S. National Museum, 1888, p. 225–386. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

DC. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. Investigation of scientific information on the impacts 

of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of 

Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-28. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-

day finding for a petition to list Columbia River eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) as endangered 

or threatened. Federal Register (Docket No. 991116306-9306-01; 29 November 1999) 

64(228):66601–66603. 

212
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Endangered and threatened species: Puget Sound 

populations of Pacific hake, Pacific cod, and walleye pollock. Federal Register (Docket No. 

001103310-0310-01; 24 November 2000) 65(227):70514–70521. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2001. Endangered and threatened species: Puget Sound 

populations of copper rockfish, quillback rockfish, brown rockfish, and Pacific herring. Federal 

Register (Docket No. 010312061-1061-01; 3 April 2001) 66(64):17659–17668. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-

month finding on a petition to list bocaccio as threatened. Federal Register (50 CFR Parts 223 

and 224; 19 November 2002) 67(223):69704–69708. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. Endangered and threatened species; Final endangered 

status for a distinct population segment of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) in the United 

States. Federal Register (Docket No. 000303059-3034-03; 1 April 2003) 68(62):15674–15680. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Listing endangered and threatened species and 

designating critical habitat: 12-month finding on petition to list the Cherry Point stock of Pacific 

herring as an endangered or threatened species. Federal Register (Docket No. 040511147-5142-

02; I.D. 042804B; 7 June 2005) 70(108):33116–33122. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008a. Listing endangered and threatened species: 

Notification of finding on a petition to list Pacific eulachon as an endangered or threatened 

species under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register (Docket No. 080229343-8368-01; 

21 March 2008) 73(49):13185–13189. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008b. Endangered and threatened species; Notice of 

finding on a petition to list the Lynn Canal population of Pacific herring as a threatened or 

endangered species. Federal Register (Docket No. 070727423-8495-02; 11 April 2008) 

73(71):19824–19825. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Fisheries off West Coast states; Coastal pelagic 

species fishery; Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan, final 

rule. Federal Register (Docket No. 071106669-81372-03; 31 July 2009) 74(132):33372–33373. 

NRC (National Research Council). 2004. Endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath River basin: 

Causes of decline and strategies for recovery. Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes 

in the Klamath River Basin, National Research Council. The National Academies Press, 

Washington, DC. 

NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Hydrology, ecology, and fishes of the Klamath River basin. 

Committee on Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River, National Research Council. 

The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 

NWFSC (Northwest Fisheries Science Center). 2008. Data report and summary analyses of the 

California and Oregon pink shrimp fisheries, December 2008. NWFSC, Fishery Resource 

Analysis and Monitoring Division, West Coast Groundfish Observer Program, Seattle, WA. 

Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/datareport/docs/ 

pink_shrimp_report_final.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

NWIFC (Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission). 1998. Quinaults welcome rare visit by candlefish. 

Northwest Indian Fish. Comm. News 18(1):11. 

213
Odemar, M. W. 1964. Southern range extension of the eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus. Calif. Fish 

Game 50:305–307. 

ODFW (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 1991. Tenmile Basin Fish Management Plan. Oregon Dept. 

Fish and Wildlife, Citizen Advisory Committee, and Public Agency Cooperators. (Available 

from National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., 

Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.) 

ODFW (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2006. The Oregon nearshore strategy. Online at 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/nearshore/strategy/Strategy.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

ODFW and WDF (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife and Washington Dept. Fisheries). 1987. Status 

report: Columbia River fish runs and fisheries 1960–1986. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, 

Portland, and Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

OFC (Oregon Fish Commission). 1953. Columbia River Progress Report 1953. Fish Commission of 

Oregon, Portland. 

OFC (Oregon Fish Commission). 1970. Pelagic fisheries and coastal rivers investigation. Progress 

Report-Coastal Rivers Section, July 1, 1966–June 30, 1967. Fish Commission of Oregon, 

Research Division, Portland. 

Olesiuk, P. F. 1993. Annual prey consumption by harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Strait of Georgia, 

British Columbia. Fish. Bull. 91:491–515. 

Olsen, N., J. A. Boutillier, and L. Convey. 2000. Estimated bycatch in the British Columbia shrimp trawl 

fishery. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat research document 2000/168. Online at http:// 

www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/DocREC/2000/PDF/2000_168e.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Olson, R. L. 1936. The Quinault Indians. Univ. Wash. Publ. Anthropol. 6(1). 

Olson, W. M., and L. T. Hubbard Jr. 1984. Fishing: The key to Tlingit culture. In B. Gunda (ed.), The 

fishing culture of the world: Studies in ethnology, cultural ecology, and folklore, Vol. 2, p. 917–

938. Akademiai Kiado, Hungary. 

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 77:118–

125. 

Omernik, J. M., and A. L. Gallant. 1986. Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Rep. EA/600/3-86/033. 

Ormseth, O. A., L. Conners, M. Guttormsen, and J. Vollenweider. 2008. Appendix 2: Forage fishes in 

the Gulf of Alaska. In Stock assessment and fishery evaluation report for the groundfish 

resources of the Gulf of Alaska, p. 657–702. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Anchorage. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2008/GOAforage.pdf [accessed 23 

February 2010]. 

Ormseth, O. A., and J. Vollenweider. 2007. Appendix 2: Forage fishes in the Gulf of Alaska. In Stock 

assessment and fishery evaluation report for the groundfish resources of the Gulf of Alaska, p. 

1021–1023. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage. Online at http://www.afsc

.noaa.gov/REFM/docs/2007/GOAforage.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Outram, D. N., and C. Haegele. 1972. Food of Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) on an offshore bank 

southwest of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29:1792–1795. 

214
Parente, W. D., and G. R. Snyder. 1970. A pictorial record of the hatching and early development of the 

eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). Northwest Sci. 44:50–57. 

Parks, N. B., F. R. Shaw, and R. L Henry. 1993. Results of a 1988 trawl survey of groundfish resources 

of the upper continental slope off Oregon. U. S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSAFSC-23. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC23.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Parliament of Canada. 1900–1916. Annual report on the fisheries of British Columbia (1900–1916). In 

Sessional papers of the Dominion of Canada, Canadian Department of Marine Fisheries, Annual 

reports of the Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia, 1900–1916. 

Parnell, M. M., R. L. Emmett, and R. D. Brodeur. 2008. Ichthyoplankton community in the Columbia 

River plume off Oregon: Effects of fluctuating oceanographic conditions. Fish Bull. 106:161–

173. 

Parrish, R. H., C. S. Nelson, and A. Bakun. 1981. Transport mechanisms and reproductive success of 

fishes in the California Current. Biol. Oceanogr. 1(2):175–203. 

Payne, S. A., B. A. Johnson, and R. S. Otto. 1997. Proximate composition of some northeastern Pacific 

forage species. In Forage fishes in marine ecosystems, p. 721–724. Proceedings of the 

International Symposium on the Role of Forage Fishes in Marine Ecosystems. Alaska Sea Grant 

College Program Rep. 97-01. Univ. Alaska Fairbanks. 

Payne, S. A., B. A. Johnson, and R. S. Otto. 1999. Proximate composition of some northeastern Pacific 

forage fish species. Fish. Oceanogr. 8:159–177. 

Pearsall, C. E. 1928. Autobiography of Clarence E. Pearsall. In C. E. Pearsall (ed.), History and 

genealogy of the Pearsall family in England and America, p. 1483–1757. H. S. Crocker Co., San 

Francisco. 

Peden, A. E., and D. E. Wilson. 1976. Distribution of intertidal and subtidal fishes of northern British 

Columbia and southeastern Alaska. Syesis 9:221–248. 

Pederson, R. V. K., U. N. Orr, and D. E. Hay. 1995. Distribution and preliminary stock assessment 

(1993) of the eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus in the lower Kitimat River, British Columbia. Can. 

Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2330. Online at http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2007/dfompo/Fs97-4-2330E.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Penttila, D. 2007. Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Rep. 2007-

03. Published by Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA. Online at http://www

.pugetsoundnearshore.org/technical_papers/marine_fish.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Perez, M. A. 1994. Calorimetry measurements of energy value of some Alaskan fishes and squid. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-32. 

Petersen, R. S. 2006. The role of traditional ecological knowledge in understanding a species and river 

system at risk: Pacific lamprey in the lower Klamath Basin. Master’s thesis. Oregon State Univ., 

Corvallis. 

Peterson, W. T., and J. E. Keister. 2003. Interannual variability in copepod community composition at a 

coastal station in the northern California Current: A multivariate approach. Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II 

Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 50:2499–2517. 

215
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2008. Status of the Pacific Coast coastal pelagic species 

fishery and recommended acceptable biological catches. Stock assessment and fishery 

evaluation—2008. Online at http://www.pcouncil.org/bb/2008/0608/G1a_ATT1_0608.pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. 

Management of krill as an essential component of the California Current ecosystem, Amendment 

12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Prepared by NMFS Southwest 

Region and Pacific Fishery Management Council. Online at http://www.pcouncil.org/ 

wp-content/uploads/CPS_Am12_Krill_DraftEA.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Phillips, A. J., S. Ralston, R. D. Brodeur, T. D. Auth, R. L. Emmett, C. Johnson, and V. G. Wespestad. 

2007. Recent pre-recruit Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) occurrences in the northern 

California Current suggest a northward expansion of their spawning area. Calif. Coop. Ocean. 

Fish. Investig. Rep. 48:215–229. 

Pickard, D., and D. R. Marmorek. 2007. A workshop to determine research priorities for eulachon, 

workshop report. Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC, for Dept. Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada. Online at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/herring/hertags/2007eulawkshp.pdf 

[accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Pilling, A. R. 1978. Yurok. In R. F. Heizer (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, 

California, p. 137–154. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

Pitcher, K. W. 1980. Food of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina Richards, in the Gulf of Alaska. Fish. Bull. 

78: 544–549. 

Pitcher, K. W. 1981. Prey of the Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus, in the Gulf of Alaska. Fish. Bull.. 

79: 467–472. 

Plate, E. M. 2009. Fraser River, Port Mann Bridge-Douglas Island eulachon study, 2009. LGL Limited, 

Environmental Research Associates, Sidney, BC, and Terra Remote Sensing Inc., Sidney, BC. 

Online at http://www.watershed-watch.org/publications/files/FraserEulachonReport-July15_2009

.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Pollock, C. R. 1925. Thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth annual reports of the state supervisor of fisheries for 

the period from April 1, 1923, to March 31, 1925. Washington Dept. Fisheries and Game, Jay 

Thomas, public printer, Olympia. 

Pollock, C. R. 1928. Thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh annual reports of the State Department of Fisheries 

and Game, Division of Fisheries, for the period from April 1, 1925, to March 31, 1927. 

Washington Dept. Fisheries and Game, Jay Thomas, public printer, Olympia. 

Pollock, C. R. 1932. Fortieth and forty-first annual reports of the State Department of Fisheries and 

Game, Division of Fisheries, for the period from April 1, 1929, to March 31, 1931. Washington 

Dept. Fisheries and Game, Jay Thomas, public printer, Olympia. 

Port of Kitimat. 2009. Investment summary, 2005–2015, from the Office of the Mayor: Joanne 

Monaghan. Online at http://www.kitimat.ca/assets/Business/PDFs/port-of-kitimat-investmentsummary.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Radcliffe, L. 1920. Fishery industries of the United States. Report of the Division of Statistics and 

Methods of the fisheries for 1918. Appendix X in Report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries 

for the fiscal year 1918, with appendixes. 

216
Ratti, F. 1979a. Natural resources of Umpqua estuary. Estuary inventory report, Vol. 2, No. 5. Oregon 

Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Research and Development Section, Portland. 

Ratti, F. 1979b. Natural resources of Rogue estuary. Estuary inventory report, Vol. 2, No. 8. Oregon 

Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Research and Development Section, Portland. 

Ray, C. 1960. The application of Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules to the poikilotherms. J. Morphol.

106:85–108. 

Raymore Jr., P. A., and K. L. Weinberg. 1990. 1984 spring and autumn surveys of Pacific West Coast 

upper continental slope groundfish resources. U. S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-F/NWC-179. 

Reed, F. C. 1900. Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon to the 

Legislative Assembly, twenty-first regular session, 1901. Oregon Dept. Fisheries, W. H. Leeds, 

state printer, Salem. 

Reed, F. C., E. P. Thompson, and R. C. Campbell. 1891. Third and fourth annual reports of the State 

Board of Fish Commissioners to the Governor of Oregon, sixteenth regular session legislative 

assembly, 1889–1890. F. C. Baker, state printer, Salem. 

Reed, F. C., E. P. Thompson, and G. T. Myers. 1892. Fifth and sixth annual reports of the State Board of 

Fish Commissioners to the Governor of Oregon, 1891–1892. F. C. Baker, state printer, Salem. 

Regonda, S. K., B. Rajagopalan, M. Clark, and J. Pitlick. 2005. Seasonal cycle shifts in 

hydroclimatology over the western United States. J. Clim. 18:373–384. 

Reimers, P. E., and K. J. Baxter. 1976. Fishes of Sixes River, Oregon. Information Rep. 76-4. Oregon 

Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Research Section, Salem. 

Rexstad, E. A., and E. K. Pikitch. 1986. Stomach contents and food consumption estimates of Pacific 

hake, Merluccius productus. Fish. Bull. 84:947–956. 

Reynolds, J. D., N. K. Dulvy, N. B. Goodwin, and J. A. Hutchings. 2005. Biology of extinction risk in 

marine fishes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 272:2337–2344. 

Rich, W. H. 1921. An instance of adult, sea-run Chinook salmon found feeding in freshwater. Calif. 

Fish Game 7:7–8. 

Richardson, J. 1836. Salmo (Mallotus?) pacificus (Richardson) North-west Capelin. In Fauna BorealiAmericana; or the zoology of the northern parts of British America. Part third, the fish, p. 226–

228. R. Bentley, London. (Reprint published 1974–1978 by Arno Press, New York). 

Richardson, S. L., and W. G. Pearcy 1977. Coastal and oceanic fish larvae in an area of upwelling off 

Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Fish. Bull. 75:125–145. 

Ricker, W. E., D. F. Manzer, and E. A. Neave. 1954. The Fraser River eulachon fishery, 1941–1953. 

Fish. Res. Board Can. Manuscr. Rep. 583. 

Ridenhour, R. L., and T. D. Hofstra. 1994. Fishery resources of the Redwood Creek basin (California). 

Online at http://coastalwatersheds.ca.gov/Watersheds/NorthCoast/RedwoodCreek/ 

RedwoodCreekBasin/RedwoodCreekAssessmentComponents/AnadromousSalmonidFisheryReso

urces/tabid/193/Default.aspx [accessed 9 February 2010]. 

217
Riseland, J. L. 1907. Sixteenth and seventeenth annual reports of the state fish commissioner and game 

warden to the governor of the State of Washington. C. W. Corham, public printer, Olympia. 

Riseland, J. L. 1909. Eighteenth and nineteenth annual reports of the state fish commissioner and exofficio game warden to the governor of the State of Washington, 1907–1908. E. L. Boardman, 

public printer, Olympia. 

Riseland, J. L. 1911. Twentieth and twenty-first annual reports of the state fish commissioner and exofficio game warden to the governor of the State of Washington 1909–1910. E. L. Boardman, 

public printer, Olympia. 

Riseland, J. L. 1913. Twenty-second and twenty-third annual reports of the state fish commissioner and 

ex-officio game warden to the governor of the State of Washington. Dept. Fisheries and Game, 

Frank Lamborn, public printer, Olympia. 

Robinson, D. G., W. E. Barraclough, and J. D. Fulton. 1968a. Data record. Number, size composition, 

weight, and food of larval and juvenile fish caught with a two-boat surface trawl in the Strait of 

Georgia, May 1–4, 1967. Fish. Res. Board Can. Manuscr. Rep. Ser. 964. 

Robinson, D. G., W. E. Barraclough, and J. D. Fulton. 1968b. Data record. Number, size composition, 

weight, and food of larval and juvenile fish caught with a two-boat surface trawl in the Strait of 

Georgia, June 5–9, 1967. Fish. Res. Board Can. Manuscr. Rep. Ser. 972. 

Roemmich, D., and J. McGowan. 1995. Climatic warming and the decline of zooplankton in the 

California Current. Science 267:1324–1326. 

Roffe, T., and B. Mate. 1984. Abundance and feeding habits of pinnipeds in the Rogue River, OR. J. 

Wildl. Manag. 48:1262–1274. 

Rogers, B. J., M. E. Wangerin, K. J. Garrison, and D. E. Rogers. 1980. Epipelagic meroplankton, 

juvenile fish, and forage fish: Distribution and relative abundance in coastal waters near Yakutat. 

Interim report to Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program. Univ. 

Washington, College of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle. 

Rogers, I. H., I. K. Birtwell, and G. M. Kruzynski. 1990. The Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) 

as a pollution indicator organism in the Fraser River estuary, Vancouver, British Columbia. Sci. 

Total Environ. 97(98):713–727. 

Rohner, R. P. 1967. The people of the Gilford: A contemporary Kwakiutl village. Natl. Mus. Canada 

Bull. 225, Anthropol. Ser. 83. 

Rollins, P. A. (ed.). 1995. The discovery of the Oregon Trail: Robert Stuart’s narratives of his overland 

trip eastward from Astoria in 1812–13. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. (Originally 

published in 1935 by Edward Eberstadt & Sons, New York). 

Romano, M. D., M. D. Howell, and T. A. Rien. 2002. Use of an artificial substrate to capture eulachon 

eggs in the lower Columbia River. In Report C: Eulachon studies related to lower Columbia 

River channel deepening operations. Contract no. W66QKZ13237198. Final rep. by Oregon 

Dept. Fish and Wildlife to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland. 

Rosetta, T., and D. Borys. 1996. Identification of sources of pollutants to the lower Columbia River 

basin. Oregon Dept. Environmental Quality, prepared for the Lower Columbia River Bi-state 

Program. Online at http://www.lcrep.org/pdfs/58.%2002750.pdf [accessed 23 February 2010]. 

218
Ross, A. 1849. Adventures of the first settlers on the Oregon or Columbia River &c. Alexander Ross, 

London. Reprinted in 1986 as Adventures of the first settlers on the Oregon or Columbia River, 

1810–1813. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Roye, C. 1979. Natural resources of Coos Bay estuary. Estuary inventory rep., Vol. 2, No. 6. Oregon 

Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis. 

Rugh, D. J., K. E. W. Shelden, and B. A. Mahoney. 2000. Distribution of belugas in Cook Inlet during 

June, July 1993–2000. Mar. Fish. Rev. 62(3):6. 

Ruzicka, J. J., R. D. Brodeur, and T. J. Wainwright. 2007. Seasonal food web models for the Oregon 

inner-shelf ecosystem: Investigating the role of large jellyfish. Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. 

Investig. Rep. 48:106–128. 

Sadovy, Y. 2001. The threat of fishing to highly fecund fishes. J. Fish Biol. 59(Suppl. A):90–108. 

Samis, S. C. 1977. Sampling eulachon eggs in the Fraser River using a submersible pump. Tech. Rep. 

PAC/T-77-18. Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Pacific Region, Water Quality 

Division Habitat Protection Directorate, Vancouver, BC. 

Sanderson, B. L., K. A. Barnas, and A. M. W. Rub. 2009. Nonindigenous species of the Pacific 

Northwest: An overlooked risk to endangered salmon? Bioscience 59:245–256. 

Sandy River Basin Partners. 2005. Sandy River basin characterization report. Online at http://www 

.sandyriverpartners.org/pdfs/SRBCR7-20-05.pdf (accessed 23 February 2010]. 

Sangster, G. I., K. M. Lehmann, and M. Breen. 1996. Commercial fishing experiments to assess the 

survival of haddock and whiting after escape from four sizes of diamond mesh codends. Fish. 

Res. 25:323–345. 

Schade, C. B., and S. A. Bonar. 2005. Distribution and abundance of nonnative fishes in streams of the 

western United States. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 25:1386–1394. 

Schlosser, I. J., and P. L. Angermeier. 1995. Spatial variation in demographic processes of lotic fishes: 

Conceptual models, empirical evidence, and implications for conservation. In J. L. Nielsen (ed.), 

Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: Defining unique units in population conservation, p. 392–

401. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 17, Bethesda, MD. 

Schoettler, R. J. 1953. Washington Department of Fisheries 62nd annual report. Washington Dept. 

Fisheries, Olympia. 

Schultz, L. P., and A. C. DeLacy. 1935. Fishes of the American Northwest. J. Pan-Pacific Res. Inst. 

10:365–380. 

Schweigert, J., B. McCarter, T. Therriault, L. Flostrand, C. Hrabok, P. Winchell, and D. Johannessen. 

2007. Ecosystem overview: Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), 

Appendix H: Pelagic fishes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2667. Online at http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/library/328842%20Appendix%20H.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 184. 

Sette, O. E. 1926. Fishery industries of the United States. In Report of the U.S. Commissioner of 

Fisheries for the fiscal year 1925, and appendixes, p. 209–408. Bureau of Fisheries document 

997. Appendix VII. 

219
Sette, O. E. 1928. Fishery industries of the United States, 1926. In Report of the U.S. Commissioner of 

Fisheries for the fiscal year 1927, with appendixes, p. 337–483. Bureau of Fisheries document 

1025. 

Sette, O. E., and R. H. Fiedler. 1929. Fishery industries of the United States, 1927. In Report of the U.S. 

Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1928, with appendixes, p. 401–547. Bureau of 

Fisheries document 1050. 

Shaffer, J. A., D. Penttila, M. McHenry, and D. Vilella. 2007. Observations of eulachon, Thaleichthys 

pacificus, in the Elwha River, Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Northwest Sci. 81:76–81. 

Shaw, F. R., M. E. Wilkins, K. L. Weinberg, M. Zimmermann, and R. R. Lauth. 2000. The 1998 Pacific 

west coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and 

length and age composition. U. S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-114. 

Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-114/NOAA-TMAFSC-114.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Shepherd, J. G., J. G. Pope, and R. D. Cousens. 1984. Variations in fish stocks and hypotheses 

concerning their links with climate. Cons. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer Rapp. P.-V. Reun. 185:255–

267. 

Sherwood, C. R., D. A. Jay, R. B. Harvey, P. Hamilton, and C. A. Simenstad. 1990. Historical changes 

in the Columbia River estuary. Prog. Oceanogr. 25:299–352. 

Sidwell, V. D. 1981. Chemical and nutritional composition of finfishes, whales, crustaceans, mollusks, 

and their products. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SEC-11. 

Sigler, M. F., J. N. Womble, and J. J. Vollenweider. 2004. Availability to Steller sea lions (Eumetopias 

jubatus) of a seasonal prey resource: A prespawning aggregation of eulachon (Thaleichthys 

pacificus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61:1475–1484. 

Simenstad, C. A., A. J. Wick, J. R. Cordell, R. M. Thom, and G. D. Williams. 2001. Decadal 

development of a created slough in the Chehalis River estuary: Year 2000 results. Report to U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, SAFS-UW-0110. Univ. Washington, School of 

Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Seattle. 

Sinclair, M., and M. J. Tremblay. 1984. Timing of spawning of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus 

harengus) populations and the match-mismatch theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41:1055–1065. 

Small, M., J. Loxterman, A. Frye, J. Von Bargen, C. Bowman, and S. Young. 2005. Temporal and 

spatial genetic structure among some Pacific herring population in Puget Sound and the southern 

Strait of Georgia. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 134:1329–1341. 

Smedbol, R., and R. Stephenson. 2001. The importance of managing within-species diversity in cod and 

herring fisheries of the northwestern Atlantic. J. Fish Biol. 59(Suppl. A):109–128. 

Smith, R. T. 1941 (unpubl. manuscr.). Notes on 1941 Nemah River (Washington) smelt run. 

Typewritten manuscript. (Available from NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd 

Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

Smith, W. E., and R. W. Saalfeld. 1955. Studies on Columbia River smelt Thaleichthys pacificus

(Richardson). Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. Fish. Res. Pap. 1(3):3–26. 

220
Smith, W. E., R. W. Saalfeld, E. H. LeMier, J. M. Smith, E. L. Preston, and C. O. Junge. 1953. 1953 

smelt investigations, January through April. In Columbia River progress report, January through 

April 1953, p. 3–15. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

Snyder, G. R. 1970. Thermal pollution of Columbia River might threaten smelt. Commer. Fish. Rev. 

32(12):58–64. 

Snyder, G. R., and T. H. Blahm. 1971. Effects of increased temperature on cold-water organisms. J. 

Water Poll. Control Fed. 43:890–899. 

Snyder, M. A., L. C. Sloan, N. S. Diffenbaugh, and J. L. Bell. 2003. Future climate change and 

upwelling in the California Current. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30 (15):1823. Online at http:// 

dx.doi.org/ [DOI name 10.1029/2003GL017647, accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Spalding, D. J. 1964. Comparative feeding habits of the fur seal, sea lion, and harbour seal on the British 

Columbia coast. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 146. 

Spangler, E. A. K. 2002. The ecology of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Twentymile River, Alaska. 

Master’s thesis. Univ. Alaska Fairbanks. 

Spangler, E., R. Spangler, and B. Norcross. 2003. Eulachon subsistence use and ecology investigations 

of Cook Inlet, 2000–2002. Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program, Final Rep. 00-041. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management, Anchorage, AK. 

Speckman, S. G., and J. F. Piatt. 2000. Historic and current use of Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, by belugas, 

Delphinapterus leucas. Mar. Fish. Rev. 62(3):22–26. 

Stables, T. B., C. J. Perrin, and M. L. Rosenau. 2005. Acoustic and trawl surveys to locate eulachon 

aggregations in the lower Fraser River, British Columbia. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 25:675–688. 

Stacey, D. A. 1995. Eulachon: An historical overview. Common resources fishery research, report 

prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 

Stansby, M. E. 1976. Chemical characteristics of fish caught in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Mar. Fish. 

Rev. 38(9):1–11. 

Stark, J. W., and D. M. Clausen. 1995. Data report: 1990 Gulf of Alaska bottom trawl survey. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-49. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ 

Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-49.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Starlund. G. C. 1960. 1960 annual report. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

Stewart, F. L. 1975. The seasonal availability of fish species used by the coast Tsimshians of northern 

British Columbia. Syesis 8:375–388. 

Stewart, H. 1977. Indian fishing: Early methods on the Northwest Coast. University of Washington 

Press, Seattle. 

Stewart, I. T., D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes towards earlier streamflow timing 

across western North America. J. Clim. 18:1136–1155. 

Stockley. C. 1981. Smelt deadline in Cowlitz River. Memorandum. Washington Dept. Fisheries, 

Vancouver. 

221
Stockley, C. E., and I. E. Ellis. 1970. Otter trawl trials for Columbia River smelt with associated notes 

and recommendations. Columbia River investigations supplemental progress report. Washington 

Dept. Fisheries, Management and Research Division, Olympia. 

Stoffels, D. 2001. Background report: Eulachon in the north coast. Royal British Columbia Museum, 

Living Landscapes Outreach Program, Victoria, BC. Online at http://www.livinglandscapes

.bc.ca/northwest/eulachon/resources/NCeulachon.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Stout, H. A., R. G. Gustafson, W. H. Lenarz, B. B. McCain, D. M. Van Doornik, T. L. Builder, and R. D. 

Methot. 2001a. Status review of Pacific herring in Puget Sound, Washington. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-45. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/ 

publications/techmemos/tm45/tm45.htm [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Stout, H. A., B. B. McCain, R. D. Vetter, T. L. Builder, W. H. Lenarz, L. L. Johnson, and R. D. Methot. 

2001b. Status review of copper rockfish, quillback rockfish, and brown rockfish in Puget Sound, 

Washington. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-46. Online at http:// 

www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm46/tm46.htm [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Stroud, R. K., C. H. Fiscus, and H. Kajimura. 1981. Food of the Pacific white-sided dolphin, 

Lagenorhynchus obliquidens, Dall’s porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli, and northern fur seal, 

Callorhinus ursinus, off California and Washington. Fish. Bull. 78:951–959. 

Suchman, C. L., and R. D. Brodeur. 2005. Abundance and distribution of large medusae in surface 

waters of the northern California Current. Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 52:51–72. 

Suchman, C. L., E. A. Daly, J. E. Keister, W. T. Peterson, and R. D. Brodeur. 2008. Feeding patterns 

and predation potential of scyphomedusae in a highly productive upwelling region. Mar. Ecol. 

Progr. Ser. 358:161–172. 

Suckley, G. 1860. Report on the fishes collected on the survey. Chapter I. Report upon the Salmonidae. 

In Reports of explorations and surveys: To ascertain the most practicable and economical route 

for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, p. 307–368. Pacific Railroad Rep. 

12 (Pt. III), No. 5. 

Suckley, G., and J. G. Cooper. 1860. The natural history of Washington Territory and Oregon with much 

relating to Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, and California, between the thirty-sixth and fortyninth parallels of latitude, being those parts of the final reports on the survey of the Northern 

Pacific Railroad route, relating to the natural history of the regions explored, with full catalogues 

and descriptions of the plants and animals collected from 1853 to 1860. Baillière Brothers, New 

York. 

Summers, C. G. 1982. About Kelso, an historical gem, Cowlitz County, Washington. Speedy Litho 

Press, Longview. 

Sutherland, R. 2001. Oolichan fishery of northern British Columbia. B. C. Hist. News 34:8–13. 

Suuronen, P. 2005. Mortality of fish escaping trawl gears. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 478. FAO Rome. 

Suuronen, P., J. A. Perez-Comas, E. Lehtonen,, and V. Tschernij. 1996. Size-related mortality of herring 

(Clupea harengus L.) escaping through a rigid sorting grid and trawl codend meshes. ICES J. 

Mar. Sci. 53:691–700. 

222
Swain, D. P. 1999. Changes in the distribution of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the southern Gulf of 

St. Lawrence–Effects of environmental change or change in environmental preferences? Fish. 

Oceanogr. 8:1–17. 

Swan, J. G. 1881. The eulachon or candle-fish of the Northwest Coast. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. (1880) 

3:257–264. 

Sweetnam, D. A., R. D. Baxter, and P. B. Moyle. 2001. True smelts. In W. S. Leet, C. M. Dewees, R. 

Klingbeil, and E. J. Larson (eds.), California’s living marine resources: A status report, p. 472–

479. California. Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento. 

Sytsma, M. D., J. R. Cordell, J. W. Chapman, and R. C. Draheim. 2004. Lower Columbia River aquatic 

nonindigenous species survey 2001–2004. Final Tech. Rep. October + appendices. Prepared for 

the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Online at http://www.clr.pdx.edu/ 

docs/LCRANSFinalReport.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Tanasichuk, R. W., D. M. Ware, W. Shaw, and G. A. McFarlane. 1991. Variations in diet, daily ration, 

and feeding periodicity of Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) and spiny dogfish (Squalus 

acanthias) off the lower west coast of Vancouver Island. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:2118–2128. 

Tetra Tech. 1996. Lower Columbia River bi-state program: The health of the river 1990–1996. Tetra 

Tech integrated Tech. Rep. 0253-01. Redmond, WA. Online at http://www.lcrep.org/pdfs/ 

59.%2002939.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Therriault, T. W., and P. B. McCarter. 2005. Using an eulachon indicator framework to provide advice 

on Fraser River harvest opportunities for 2006. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat research 

document 2005/077. 

Thomas, D. W. 1983. Changes in Columbia River estuary habitat types over the past century. Columbia 

River Estuary Data Development Program (CREDDP), Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce, 

Astoria, OR. 

Thompson, G. G. 1991. Determining minimum viable populations under the Endangered Species Act. 

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NWC-198. Online at http://www.nwfsc

.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm198/index.html [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Thomson, R. E. 1981. Oceanography of the British Columbia coast. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish Aquat. Sci. 

56. 

Tilman, D., and C. L. Lehman. 1997. Habitat destruction and species extinctions. In D. Tilman and P. 

Kareiva (eds.), Spatial ecology: The role of space in population dynamics and interspecific 

interactions, p. 233–249. Princeton University Press, NJ. 

Trihey and Associates. 1996. Instream flow requirements for tribal trust species in the Klamath River. 

Prepared for the Yurok Tribe, Eureka, CA, by Trihey and Associates Inc., Concord, CA. 

Tutty, B. D., and J. A. Morrison. 1976. Dredge monitoring capture data and entrainment estimates 

during the 1976 juvenile salmonid migration in the lower Fraser River. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 

PAC/T-76-21. Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service, Pacific Region, Habitat 

Protection Directorate. 

Urrutia, V. 1998. They came to six rivers: The story of Cowlitz County. Cowlitz County Historical 

Society, Kelso, WA. 

223
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1952. Columbia River and tributaries, northwestern United 

States: Letter from the secretary of the army transmitting a letter from the chief of engineers, 

United States Army, dated June 28, 1949, submitting a report, together with accompanying 

papers and illustrations, on a review of reports on, and preliminary examinations and surveys of, 

the Columbia River and tributaries, northwestern United States, made pursuant to several 

congressional authorizations listed in the report. In eight volumes, Volume VII. House 

Document No. 531, 81st Congress, 2nd session. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash., DC. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2007. Mount St. Helens project lower Cowlitz River interim 

dredging environmental assessment. Draft 13 June 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Portland District, OR. 

USFWS-NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 1996. Policy 

regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Endangered 

Species Act. Federal Register, 7 February 1996, 61(26):4722–4725. 

Valentine, J. W. 1966. Numerical analysis of marine molluscan ranges on the extratropical northeastern 

Pacific shelf. Limnol. Oceanogr. 11:198–211. 

VanBlaricom, G., M. Neuman, J. Butler, A. DeVogelaere, R. Gustafson, C. Mobley, D. Richards, S. 

Rumsey, and B. Taylor. 2009. Status review report for black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii 

Leach, 1814). Online at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/bfrp/BASR_Report_Final_8_Jan_2009-

ver4.pdf [accessed February 2009]. 

Van Dusen, H. G. 1903. Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon to the 

Legislative Assembly, twenty-second regular session, 1903. Oregon Dept. Fisheries, W. H. 

Leeds, state printer, Salem. 

Van Dusen, H. G. 1904. Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon for the 

years 1903 and 1904 to the twenty-third Legislative Assembly (regular session), 1905. Oregon 

Dept. Fisheries, J. R. Whitney, state printer, Salem. 

Van Dusen, H. G. 1907. Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon to the 

Legislative Assembly, twenty-fourth regular session, 1909. Oregon Dept. Fisheries, Willis S. 

Duniway, state printer, Salem. 

Van Dusen, H. G., and H. C. McCallister. 1908. Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries of the 

State of Oregon for the years 1907–1908 to the twenty-fifth Legislative Assembly, regular 

session, 1909. Oregon Dept. Fisheries, Willis S. Duniway, state printer, Salem. 

Vincent-Lang, D. S., and I. Queral. 1984. In C. C. Estes and D. Vincent-Lang (eds.), Eulachon spawning 

habitat in the lower Susitna River. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies Report No. 3, Chapter 5, 

Aquatic habitat and instream flow investigations, May-October 1983. Alaska Power Authority 

Doc. No. 1934. 

Vincik, R. F., and R. G. Titus. 2007. Occurrence of a eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus, in the Lower 

Sacramento River, California. Calif. Fish Game 93:161–165. 

von Szalay, P. G., M. E. Wilkins, and M. M. Martin. 2008. Data report: 2007 Gulf of Alaska bottom 

trawl survey. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-189. Online at 

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-189.pdf [accessed 24 

February 2010]. 

224
Wade, G. 2000a. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors: Water Resource Inventory Area 27. 

WRIA 27 final report. Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia. 

Wade, G. 2000b. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors: Water Resource Inventory Area 26. 

WRIA 26 final report. Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia. 

Wagoner, L. J., K. K. Jones, R. E. Bender, J. A. Butler, D. E. Demory, T. F. Gaumer, J. A. Hurtado, W. 

G. Mullarkey, P. E. Reimers, N. T. Richmond, and T. J. Rumreich. 1990. Coos River basin fish 

management plan. Online at https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/ 

6771/coos+river+basin.pdf;jsessionid=72F413C7D0DCF1D47062D792892BF9C8?sequence=1 

[accessed 18 March 2010]. 

Wagoner, L. J., K. K. Jones, R. E. Bender, J. A. Butler, D. E. Demory, T. F. Gaumer, W. G. Mullarkey, 

N. T. Richmond, and T. J. Rumreich. 1988. Coos Bay Fish Management Plan. Draft No.3. 

Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis (as cited in Monaco et al. 1990). 

Wainwright, T. C., and R. G. Kope. 1999. Short communication: Methods of extinction risk assessment 

developed for U.S. West Coast salmon. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56:444–448. 

Waldman, J. R. 2005. Meristics. In S. X. Cadrin, K. D. Friedland, and J. R. Waldman (eds.), Stock 

identification methods applications in fishery science, p. 197–207. Elsevier Academic Press, 

Amsterdam. 

Waldron, K. D. 1972. Fish larvae collected from the northeastern Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound during 

April and May 1967. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS-SSRF-663. 

Ward, D., R. Robison, G. Nye, and D. Reed. 1971. 1970 fisheries statistical report. Washington Dept. 

Fisheries, Olympia. 

Ware, D. M., and G. A. McFarlane. 1989. Fisheries production domains in the northeast Pacific Ocean. 

In R. J. Beamish, and G. A. McFarlane (eds.), Effects of ocean variability on recruitment and an 

evaluation of parameters used in stock assessment models. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 

108:359–379. 

Ware, D. M., and G. A. McFarlane. 1995. Climate-induced changes in Pacific hake (Merluccius 

productus) abundance and pelagic community interactions in the Vancouver Island upwelling 

system. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 121:509–521. 

Ware, D. M., and R. E. Thomson. 1991. Link between long-term variability in upwelling and fish 

production in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:2296–2306. 

WDFHMD (Washington Dept. Fisheries Habitat Management Division). 1992. Salmon, marine fish and 

shellfish resources, and associated fisheries in Washington’s coastal and inland marine waters. 

Tech. Rep. 79. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2009. Final season smelt update, Tuesday–March 31, 

2009. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/creel/smelt/2009/mar3109.pdf [accessed 24 February 

2010]. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife) and ODFW (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2001. 

Washington and Oregon Eulachon Management Plan. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, and Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Salem. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/ 

creel/smelt/wa-ore_eulachonmgmt.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

225
WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife) and ODFW (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2002. 

Status report Columbia River fish runs and fisheries 1938–2000. Washington Dept. Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, and Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Salem. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife) and ODFW (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2008. 

Summary of questions and requested information. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

and Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Salem. 

Weinberg, K. L., M. E. Wilkins, and T. A. Dark. 1984. The 1983 Pacific West Coast bottom trawl 

survey of groundfish resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length and age 

composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NWC-70. 

Weinberg, K. L., M. E. Wilkins, R. R. Lauth, and P. A. Raymore Jr. 1994a. The 1989 Pacific West 

Coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and 

length and age composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-33. 

Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-33.pdf [accessed 

24 February 2010]. 

Weinberg, K. L., M. Zimmermann and R. R. Lauth. 1994b. Appendices to the 1989 Pacific West Coast 

bottom trawl survey of groundfish resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length and 

age composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-33. 

Weinberg, K. L., M. E. Wilkins, F. R. Shaw, and M. Zimmermann. 2002. The 2001 Pacific west coast 

bottom trawl survey of groundfish resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length and 

age composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-128. Online at 

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-128.pdf [accessed 24 

February 2010]. 

Weitkamp, L. 2010. Marine distributions of Chinook salmon from the West Coast of North America 

determined by coded wire tag recoveries. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 139:147–170. 

Weitkamp, L., and K. Neely. 2002. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ocean migration patterns: 

Insight from marine coded-wire tag recoveries. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:1100–1115. 

Wendler, H. O., and G. Nye. 1962. Columbia River investigations progress report, January through 

December, 1959. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Research Division, Olympia. 

Wilcox, W. A. 1898. Notes on the fisheries of the Pacific coast in 1895. Report of the U.S. 

Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for the year ending June 30, 1896, XXII:575–659. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Wilcox, W. A. 1907. The commercial fisheries of the Pacific coast states in 1904. Bureau of Fisheries 

document 612. In Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1905 and special 

papers. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Wilkins, M. E. 1998. Appendices to the 1995 Pacific West Coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish 

resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length and age composition. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-89. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ 

Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-89a.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Wilkins, M. E., and F. R. Shaw. 2000. Appendices to the 1998 Pacific West Coast bottom trawl survey 

of groundfish resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length and age composition. 

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-114. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa 

226
.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-114/Appendices%20to%20NOAA-TM-AFSC114.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Wilkins, M. E., and K. L. Weinberg. 2002. Appendices to the 2001 Pacific West Coast bottom trawl 

survey of groundfish resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length and age 

composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-128. Online at http:// 

www.afsc.noaa.gov/race/media/publications/archives/pubs2002/techmemo128_append.pdf 

[accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Wilkins, M. E., M. Zimmermann, and K. L. Weinberg. 1998. The 1995 Pacific West Coast bottom trawl 

survey of groundfish resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length and age 

composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-89. Online at http:// 

www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-89.pdf [accessed 24 February 

2010]. 

Williams, S. 2009. Letter from S. Williams (Assistant Fish Division Administrator, Oregon Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife) to G. Griffin (Protected Resources Division, NMFS Northwest Region) 12 May 

2009, re: Comments on federal proposed rule to list Pacific eulachon as threatened. (Available 

from NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 

97232.) 

Willoughby, C. 1889. Indians of the Quinaielt [sic] Agency, Washington Territory. In Annual report of 

the Smithsonian Institution, year ending June 30, 1886, Part 1, p. 267–282. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, DC. 

Willson, M. F., R. H. Armstrong, M. C. Hermans, and K Koski. 2006. Eulachon: A review of biology 

and an annotated bibliography. Alaska Fisheries Science Center Processed Rep. 2006-12. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., AFSC, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ 

publications/ProcRpt/PR%202006-12.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Willson, M. F., and B. F. Marston. 2002. Fishing success of gulls at a Southeast Alaskan smelt run. J. 

Field Ornithol. 73:91–96. 

Witteveen, B. H., R. J. Foy, and K. M. Wynne. 2004. The effect of predation (current and historical) by 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) on fish abundance near Kodiak Island, Alaska. 

Fish. Bull. 104:10–20. 

Womble, J. N. 2003. Seasonal distribution of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in relation to highquality ephemeral prey species in southeastern Alaska. Master’s thesis. Univ. Alaska Fairbanks. 

Womble, J. N., and M. F. Sigler. 2006. Seasonal availability of abundant, energy-rich prey influences 

the abundance and diet of a marine predator, the Steller sea lion Eumetopias juhatus. Mar. Ecol. 

Progr. Ser. 325:281–293. 

Womble, J. N., M. F. Sigler, and M. F. Willson. 2009. Linking seasonal distribution patterns with prey 

availability in a central-place forager, the Steller sea lion. J. Biogeogr. 36:439–451. 

Womble, J. N., M. F. Willson, M. F. Sigler, B. P. Kelly, and G. R. VanBlaricom. 2005. Distribution of 

Steller sea lions Eumetopias jubatus in relation to spring-spawning fish in Southeast Alaska. 

Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 294:271–282. 

Wood, C. C., J. W. Bickham, J. Nelson, C. J. Foote, and J. C. Patton. 2008. Recurrent evolution of life 

history ecotypes in sockeye salmon: Implications for conservation and future evolution. Evol. 

Appl. 1:207–221. 

227
Workman, L. J. 1997. Land of trees: Scannings from Quinault Country, the Grays Harbor Region, and 

beyond 1774–1997. Quinault Indian Nation, Taholah, WA. 

Wright, S. 1999. Petition to list eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act. Online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/upload/ 

Smelt_Petition_7_99.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington, second edition, revised and 

expanded. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Yang, M. S. 1993. Food habits of the commercially important groundfishes in the Gulf of Alaska in 

1990. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-22. Online at http://www.afsc

.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-22.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Yang, M. S., K. Dodd, R. Hibpshman, and A. Whitehouse. 2006. Food habits of groundfishes in the 

Gulf of Alaska in 1999 and 2001. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-164. 

Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-164.pdf 

[accessed 24 February 2010. 

Yang, M. S., and M. W. Nelson. 2000. Food habits of the commercially important groundfishes in the 

Gulf of Alaska in 1990, 1993, and 1996. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSAFSC-112. Online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC112.pdf [accessed 24 February 2010]. 

Young, J. S. 1984. Identification of larval smelt (Osteichthyes: Salmoniformes: Osmeridae) from 

northern California. Master’s thesis. Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA. 

Zamon, J. E., and D. W. Welch. 2005. Rapid shift in zooplankton community composition on the 

northeast Pacific shelf during the 1998–1999 El Niño-La Niña event. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 

62:133–144. 

Zeidberg, L. D., and B. H. Robison. 2007. Invasive range expansion by the Humboldt squid, Dosidicus 

gigas, in the eastern North Pacific. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:12948–12950. 

Zhang, Y., J. M. Wallace, and D. S. Battisti. 1997. ENSO-like interdecadal variability. J. Clim. 

10:1004–1020. 

Zimmermann, M. 1994. Appendices to the 1992 Pacific west coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish 

resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length composition. U. S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-42. 

Zimmermann, M., M. E. Wilkins, R. R. Lauth, and K. L. Weinberg. 1994. The 1992 Pacific west coast 

bottom trawl survey of groundfish resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length 

composition. U. S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-42. 

228
229

Appendix A: Life History Tables 

This appendix contains the following tables: 

Table A-1. Known and possible eulachon spawning areas and estuarine areas. 

Table A-2. Eulachon distribution information in U.S. West Coast estuaries. 

Table A-3. Documented occurrence of eulachon in northern California rivers. 

Table A-4. Distribution of eulachon in U.S. West Coast bottom trawl surveys. 

Table A-5. Distribution of eulachon in Alaskan bottom trawl surveys. 

Table A-6. Age distribution of selected adult eulachon populations as determined from otoliths. 

Table A-7. Mean length of adult eulachon for selected river basins. 

Table A-8. Mean weight of adult eulachon for all available river basins. 

Table A-9. Range and peak timing of documented river entry or spawn timing for eulachon. 

Table A-10. Documented avian predators on spawning runs of eulachon. 

Table A-11. Temperatures at time of river entry and spawning for eulachon in river systems. 
Table A-1. List and classification of known and possible eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) spawning areas and estuarine a

and McCarter (2000), Hay (2002), Willson et al. (2006), and Moody (2008). Spawning regularity categories are de

within the cited references and should not be considered as endorsed by NMFS or the biological review team (BRT

Eulachon spawning areas 

Spawning 

regularity Estuary Reference 

California 

Sacramento River Single fish Vincik and Titus 2007 

Gualala River Anecdotal Fry 1979 Jacoby and Jolly Giant creeks Rare Humboldt Bay Jennings 1996 Mad River Irregular Moyle et al. 1995, Moyle 2002 Redwood Creek Irregular Moyle et al. 1995, Moyle 2002 

Klamath River Regular Moyle et al. 1995, Moyle 2002 Smith River Rare Moyle et al. 1995, Moyle 2002 

Oregon 

Winchuk River Unknown Willson et al. 2006 Chetco River Chetco Estuary WDFW and ODFW 2008 

Pistol River Unknown Willson et al. 2006 Hunter Creek Unknown Willson et al. 2006 Rogue River Unknown Roffe and Mate 1984 

Euchre Creek Unknown Willson et al. 2006 

Elk River Unknown Willson et al. 2006 Sixes River Unknown Sixes Estuary Reimers and Baxter 1976 Coquille River Unknown Gaumer et al. 1973, Kreag 1979 

Coos Bay/ River Unknown Coos Bay Cummings and Schwartz 1971 Umpqua River Unknown Umpqua Estuary OFC 1970, Johnson et al. 1986 

Tenmile Creek (drains lake system) Unknown Willson et al. 2006 

Siuslaw River Unknown Willson et al. 2006 

Tenmile Creek Irregular WDFW and ODFW 2008 Yaquina River Unknown Borgerson et al. 1991, Willson eClatskanie River One-time Columbia River Williams 2009 Sandy River Irregular Columbia River WDFW and ODFW 2008 Tanner Creek One-time Columbia River WDFW and ODFW 2008 

Hood River Anecdotal Columbia River Smith and Saalfeld 1955 

Washington 

Columbia River mainstem Regular Columbia River Smith and Saalfeld 1955, WDFW 

2008 

Grays River Regular Columbia River WDFW and ODFW 2001, 2008 

Skamokawa Creek Irregular Columbia River WDFW and ODFW 2001, 2008 

230
Table A-1 continued. List and classification of known and possible eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) spawning areas and 

in Hay and McCarter (2000), Hay (2002), Willson et al. (2006), and Moody (2008). Spawning regularity categorie

comments within the cited references and should not be considered as endorsed by NMFS or the biological review 

Eulachon spawning areas 

Spawning 

regularity Estuary Reference 

Washington, continued 

Elochoman River Irregular Columbia River WDFW and ODFW 2001, 2008 Cowlitz River Regular Columbia River Smith and Saalfeld 1955, WDFW 

2008 

Toutle River Occasional Columbia River WDFW and ODFW 2008 

Kalama River Regular Columbia River WDFW and ODFW 2001, 2008 

Lewis River Regular Columbia River WDFW and ODFW 2001, 2008 

Washougal River Unknown Columbia River WDFW and ODFW 2008 

Klickitat River Anecdotal Columbia River Smith and Saalfeld 1955 Bear River Occasional Willapa Bay WDFW and ODFW 2001, 2008 

Naselle River Occasional Willapa Bay WDFW and ODFW 2001, 2008 

Nemah River Unknown Willapa Bay Smith 1941, WDFW and ODFW Wynoochie River Unknown WDFW and ODFW 2001, 2008 

Quinault River Occasional WDFW and ODFW 2001, 2008 Queets River Occasional WDFW and ODFW 2001, 2008 Quillayute River Unknown WDFW and ODFW 2008 

Elwha River Occasional Shaffer et al. 2007 

Puyallup River Unknown Miller and Borton 1980 

British Columbia 

Fraser River Regular Fraser Estuary Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Squamish River Irregular Howe Sound Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Homathko River Irregular Bute Inlet-Johnstone Strait Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Stafford/Apple rivers Unknown Loughborough Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Port Neville Unknown Johnstone Strait Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Franklin River Unknown Knight Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Klinaklini River Regular Knight Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Kakweiken River Unknown Thompson Sound-Johnstone 

Strait 

Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Kingcome River Regular Kingcome Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Nekite River Unknown Smith Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Hardy Inlet Unknown Rivers Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Clyak River Unknown Moses Inlet-Rivers Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Wannock River Regular Rivers Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

231
Table A-1 continued. List and classification of known and possible eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) spawning areas and 

in Hay and McCarter (2000), Hay (2002), Willson et al. (2006), and Moody (2008). Spawning regularity categorie

comments within the cited references and should not be considered as endorsed by NMFS or the biological review 

Eulachon spawning areas 

Spawning 

regularity Estuary Reference 

British Columbia, continued 

Chuckwalla/Kilbella rivers Regular Rivers Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Kwatna River Unknown Burke Channel-Kwatna Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Quatlena River Unknown Burke Channel-Kwatna Inlet Moody 2008 

Cascade Inlet Unknown Dean Channel Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Skowquiltz River Unknown Dean Channel Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Taleomy River Unknown Dean Channel-South 

Bentinck Arm 

Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Noeick River Unknown Dean Channel-South 

Bentinck Arm 

Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Aseek River Unknown Dean Channel-South 

Bentinck Arm 

Moody 2008 

Kimsquit River Regular Dean Channel Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Dean River Regular Dean Channel Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Necleetsconay River/Paisla Creek Regular Dean Channel-North Bentick 

Arm 

Moody 2008 

Bella Coola River Regular Dean Channel-North Bentick 

Arm 

Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Kainet or Lard Creek Unknown Kynoch Inlet-Mathieson 

Channel 

Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Aaltanhash River Unknown Princess Royal ChannelAaltanhash Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Khutze River Unknown Princess Royal ChannelKhutze Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Kemano/Wahoo rivers Regular Gardner Canal-Kemano Bay Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Kowesas River Regular Gardner Canal-Chief 

Matthew’s Bay 

Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Kitlope River Regular Gardner Canal Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Foch Lagoon Irregular Douglas Channel Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20Giltoyees Inlet Irregular Douglas Channel Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

Kildala River Regular Douglas Channel-Kitimat 

Arm 

Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 20

232
Table A-1 continued. List and classification of known and possible eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) spawning areas and 

in Hay and McCarter (2000), Hay (2002), Willson et al. (2006), and Moody (2008). Spawning regularity categorie

comments within the cited references and should not be considered as endorsed by NMFS or the biological review 

Eulachon spawning areas 

Spawning 

regularity Estuary Reference 

British Columbia, continued 

Kitimat River Regular Douglas Channel-Kitimat 

Arm 

Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 2

Skeena River Regular Chatham Sound Hay and McCarter 2000, Stoffe

Ecstall River Unknown Stoffels 2001, Moody 2008 

Khyex River Unknown Stoffels 2001, Moody 2008 

Scotia Creek Unknown Stoffels 2001 Khtada Creek Unknown Stoffels 2001 

Kasiks River Unknown Stoffels 2001 

Gitnadoix River Unknown Stoffels 2001 

Nass River Regular Portland Inlet Hay and McCarter 2000, Hay 2

Southeast Alaska 

Wilson / Blossom rivers Smeaton Bay Willson et al. 2006 Chickamin River Willson et al. 2006 

Unuk/Klahini/Eulachon rivers Regular Burroughs Bay Willson et al. 2006 

Stikine River Womble 2003,Willson et al. 200

Hulakon River, Grant Creek Bradfield Canal Willson et al. 2006 

Bradfield River Willson et al. 2006 Speel/Whiting rivers Port Snettisham Womble 2003,Willson et al. 200

Taku River Womble 2003,Willson et al. 200Mendenhall River Willson et al. 2006 Eagle River Willson et al. 2006 Berners/Lace/Antler rivers Regular Berners Bay Womble 2003, 

Willson et al. 20

Katzehin River Chilkoot Inlet Womble 2003, Willson et al. 20

Skagway River Chilkoot Inlet Willson et al. 2006 

Taiya River Chilkoot Inlet Womble 2003, Willson et al. 20

Chilkoot/Ferebee rivers Regular Chilkoot Inlet Womble 2003, Willson et al. 20Chilkat River Regular Chilkat Inlet Womble 2003, Willson et al. 20Endicott River Womble 2003, Willson et al. 20Excursion River Womble 2003, Willson et al. 20Adams Inlet Glacier Bay Womble 2003, Willson et al. 20

Yakutat area, Alaska 

Dixon River Womble 2003, Willson et al. 20

233
Table A-1 continued. List and classification of known and possible eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) spawning areas and 

in Hay and McCarter (2000), Hay (2002), Willson et al. (2006), and Moody (2008). Spawning regularity categorie

comments within the cited references and should not be considered as endorsed by NMFS or the biological review 

Eulachon spawning areas 

Spawning 

regularity Estuary Reference 

Yakutat area, Alaska, continued 

Fairweather Slough Willson et al. 2006 Sea Otter Cr. Willson et al. 2006 

Doame R. Willson et al. 2006 

Alsek R., Clear Cr. Dry Bay Womble 2003, Willson et al. 20Dangerous/Italio/Akwe rivers Willson et al. 2006 

Situk/Ahrnklin rivers/Tawah Cr. Willson et al. 2006 

Lost R. Willson et al. 2006 

Southcentral Alaska 

Pillar Cr., Kalsin R. (Kodiak Island) Willson et al. 2006 

Martin R., Alaganik Slough, Ibeck Slough, Eyak R., Scott R., Copper R. (Copper River Delta) 

Willson et al. 2006 

Resurrection R. Resurrection Bay Willson et al. 2006 

Twentymile R., Portage Cr., Placer R., Chickaloon R., Virgin Cr. 

Turnagain Arm Willson et al. 2006 

Susitna R., Yentna R., Beluga R., Kenai R. Cook Inlet Willson et al. 2006 

Western Alaska 

Kametolook R. Unknown Gulf of Alaska Willson et al. 2006 Three Star R. Unknown Gulf of Alaska Willson et al. 2006 

King Salmon R. Unknown Bristol Bay Willson et al. 2006 

Meshik R. Unknown Bristol Bay Moffitt et al. 2002, Willson et a

Sandy R. Unknown Bristol Bay Moffitt et al. 2002, Willson et a

Bear R./Milky R. Unknown Bristol Bay Moffitt et al. 2002, Willson et a

Unnamed river on Unimak Island Unknown Bristol Bay Moffitt et al. 2002, Willson et aKing Salmon R. Unknown Bristol Bay Willson et al. 2006 

Nushagak R. Unknown Bristol Bay Willson et al. 2006 

234
Table A-2. Eulachon distribution information in U.S. West Coast estuaries as compiled in Monaco et al. (1990). 

Estuary 

Reference no. and 

occurrence Personal communication Reference sourc

Skagit Bay 260 rare D. Penttila, Washington Dept. 

Fisheries, Seattle 

260. Miller, B. S., and S. F. Borto

Geographical distribution of PugMaps and data source sheets. 3 Washington Sea Grant Program State Dept. Ecology, Seattle. 

Hood Canal 260 not found D. Penttila, Washington Dept. 

Fisheries, Seattle 

260. Miller and Borton 1980 (Complete listing above.) 

Puget Sound 260, 452 rare 260. Miller and Borton 1980 

(Complete listing above) 452. Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. W

Inland fishes of Washington, UnWashington Press, Seattle. 

Grays Harbor 96 R. Brix, Washington Dept. 

Fisheries, Montesano 

96. Deschamps, G., S. G. Wright, 

1971. Fish migration and distribChehalis River and upper Grays Harbor cooperative water quality p. 1–55. Tech. Rep. No. 7. WasFisheries, Olympia. 

Willapa Bay R. Brix, Washington Dept. 

Fisheries, Montesano 

Columbia River 118, 269 R. McConnell, NMFS, 

Hammond, OR 

118. EPA (U.S. Environmental Pr

1971. Columbia River thermal e1: Biological effects studies. EPEnergy Commission, and NationFisheries Service. 

269. Misitano, D. A. 1977. Spec

and relative abundance of larval fishes in the Columbia River estuBull. 75(1):218–222. 

Nehalem Bay Not found G. Cailliet, Moss Landing Marine 

Laboratories, Moss Landing, CA 

235
Table A-2 Continued. Eulachon distribution information in U.S. West Coast estuaries as compiled in Monaco et al. (1990)

Estuary 

Reference no. and 

occurrence Personal communication Reference sourc

Tillamook Bay 39, 131 not found 39. Bottom, D. L., and B. Forsber

fishes of Tillamook Bay. FederaRep., Fish. Oregon Dept. Fish aCorvallis. 

131. Forsberg, B. O., J. A. Johnso

1977. Identification, distributionfood habits of fish and shellfish Oregon. Federal Aid Progress RDept. Fish and Wildlife, Corvall

Netarts Bay 399 not found A. Chung, Oregon State Univ., 

Corvallis 

399. Stout, H. (ed.). 1976. The n

and human utilization of Netarts Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 

Siletz River 384 not found G. Stewart, Oregon Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife, Newport 

384. Starr, R. 1979. Natural reso

estuary. Oregon Dept. Fish and Corvallis. 

Yaquina Bay Not found J. Butler, Oregon Dept. Fish and 

Wildlife, Newport 

W. DeBen, U.S. EPA, Newport, 

OR 

G, Stewart, Oregon Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife, Newport 

Alsea River Not found J. Butler, Oregon Dept. Fish and 

Wildlife, Newport 

G. Stewart, Oregon Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife, Newport 

Siuslaw River 197 rare J. McCleod, Oregon Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife, Florence 

197. Hutchinson, J. M. 1979. Sea

of fishes in Siuslaw Bay. OregoWildlife, Corvallis. 

236
Table A-2 Continued. Eulachon distribution information in U.S. West Coast estuaries as compiled in Monaco et al. (1990)

Estuary 

Reference no. and 

occurrence Personal communication Reference sourc

Umpqua River 200, 277, 323 J. Johnson, Oregon Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife, Reedsport 

200. Johnson, J., D. P. Liscia, and 

1986. The seasonal occurrence afish in the Umpqua estuary ApriJanuary 1986. Information Rep. Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Corvall

277. Mullen, R. 1977. The occur

distribution of fish in the UmpquJune through October 1972. Info3. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildl

323. Ratti, F. 1979b. Natural res

estuary. Estuary Inventory Rep. Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Corvall

Coos Bay 91, 193, 337, 429 rare W. Mullarkey, Oregon Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife, Charleston 

91. Cummings, E, and E. Schwart

Coos Bay, Oregon, with commetemperature, and salinity of the eInformation Rep. 70-11. Fish COregon, Portland. 

193. Hostick, G. A. 1975. Numb

captured in beach seine hauls in estuary, Oregon, June through SInformation Rep. 74-11, Fish CoOregon, Portland. 

337. Roye, C. 1979. Natural reso

estuary. Oregon Dept. Fish and Corvallis. 

429. Wagoner, L. J., K. K. Jones, 

Butler, D. E. Demory, T. F. GauMullarkey, N. T. Richmond, and 1988. Coos Bay fish manageme3, Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildli

Rogue River 322 rare A. Riikula, Oregon Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife, Gold Beach 

322. Ratti, F. 1979a. Natural reso

Estuary. Estuary Inventory RepDept. Fish and Wildlife, Corvall

237
Table A-2 Continued. Eulachon distribution information in U.S. West Coast estuaries as compiled in Monaco et al. (1990)

Estuary 

Reference no. and 

occurrence Personal communication Reference sourc

Klamath River 138 T. Kisanuki, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arcata, CA 

M. Orcutt, Hoopa Valley Tribe, 

Hoopa, CA. 

M. Pisano, California Dept. Fish 

and Game, Arcata 

R. Warner, California Dept. Fish 

and Game, Eureka 

138. Fry Jr., D. H. 1979. Anadro

California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Sacramento. 

Humboldt Bay 165, 454 rare R. Barnhart, U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Coop. Fish. Research Unit, Arcata, CA 

C. Toole, Univ. California 

Cooperative Extension, Eureka 

R. Warner, California Dept. Fish 

and Game, Eureka 

165. Gotshall, D. W., G. H. Allen

Barnhart. 1980. An annotated cfrom Humboldt Bay, California. 66(4):220–232. 

454. Young, J. S. 1984. Identific

smelt (Osteichthes: Salmoniformfrom northern California. MasteHumboldt State Univ., Arcata, C

Eel River 270, 313 not found 270. Monroe, G. W., F. Reynolds

and J. W. Speth. 1974. Natural Eel River delta. Coastal WetlanCalifornia Dept. Fish and Game, 

313. Puckett, L. K. 1977. The Ee

observations on morphometry, fiquality, and invertebrates. MemDept. Fish and Game, Sacramen

238
Table A-2 Continued. Eulachon distribution information in U.S. West Coast estuaries as compiled in Monaco et al. (1990)

Estuary 

Reference no. and 

occurrence Personal communication Reference sourc

Tomales Bay 22, 264, 292 not 

found 

22. Bane, G. W., and A. W. Bane

of northern California with emphBodega Tomales Bay area. MarHampton Bays, NY. 

264. Miller, D. J.,and R. N. Lea. 

the coastal marine fishes of CaliDept. Fish Game. Fish Bull. 157

292. Odemar, M. W. 1964. South

extension of the eulachon, Thale

Calif. Fish Game 50(4):305–307

Central San Francisco/ Suisun/San Pablo bays 

264, 292 not found 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 292. Odemar 1964 (Complete listing above.) 

South San Francisco Bay 

Not found, 292, 294 292. Odemar 1964 

(Complete listing above.) 294. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildl

Washington Dept. Fisheries. 19Columbia River fish runs and fisODFW, Portland, and WDF, Oly

Elkhorn Slough Not found, 264, 292 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 292. Odemar 1964 (Complete listing above.) 

Morro Bay Not found, 264, 292 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 292. Odemar 1964 (Complete listing above.) 

Santa Monica Bay Not found, 264 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 

239
Table A-2 Continued. Eulachon distribution information in U.S. West Coast estuaries as compiled in Monaco et al. (1990)

Estuary 

Reference no. and 

occurrence Personal communication Reference sourc

San Pedro Bay Not found, 264 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 

Alamitos Bay Not found, 264 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 

Anaheim Bay Not found, 264 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 

Newport Bay Not found, 264 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 

Mission Bay Not found, 264 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 

San Diego Bay Not found, 264 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 

Tijuana Bay Not found, 264 264. Miller and Lea 1972 

(Complete listing above.) 

240
Table A-3. Documented occurrence of eulachon in northern California rivers (see Appendix B for transcription of cited ne

Run year Month 

Klamath 

River 

Redwood 

Creek 

Mad 

River 

Humboldt Bay 

tributaries Source 

1908 April-May X San Francisco Call, San Francisco1916 February X Calif. Academy of Sciences ichth1919 February X San Jose Mercury Herald, San Jo1947 March X Calif. Academy of Sciences ichth

1952 February X Humboldt Standard, Eureka, CA 1955 February X Calif. Academy of Sciences ichth

1963 March X Calif. Academy of Sciences ichth

April X X X Humboldt Standard, Eureka, CA; 

1965 April X Humboldt Standard, Eureka, CA 

1967 April X The Times-Standard, 14 March 1

1968 March X The Times-Standard, Eureka, CA 

1969 April X The Times-Standard, Eureka, CA 1971 March X Humboldt Standard, Eureka, CA 

1972 — X Humboldt Standard, Eureka, CA 1976 April X X X Humboldt Standard, Eureka, CA 1977 May X Jennings 1996 

1978 April X X Young 1984 1979 March 

April 

X X 

Young 1984 

1980 March 

April 

X X 

Young 1984 

1988 December X Larson and Belchik 1998 

1989 May X Larson and Belchik 1998 

241
242

Table A-4. Latitudinal and depth distribution of eulachon in fishery-independent upper continental slope and continental sh

surveys of groundfish on the U.S. West Coast. 

Depth (m) 

Latitudinal range 

(dd) 

Year 

Total 

no. of 

hauls 

No. hauls 

with 

eulachon 

Eulachon 

frequency 

in hauls 

Survey 

depth range 

(m) 

Survey 

latitudinal 

range 

(dd.mm) Mean Min Max South North 

Upper continental slope 

1989–1993 401 25 0.06 183–1,280 38.20–48.10 330 194 589 40.40 47.51 L

1995 106 None — 183–1,280 40.30–43.00 — — — — — L

1996 203 2 0.01 183–1,280 43.00–48.10 377 366 387 44.56 46.17 L

1997 182 2 0.01 183–1,280 34.30–48.10 319 259 379 46.17 47.11 L

1999 199 2 0.01 183–1,280 34.30–48.10 291 242 339 42.07 46.17 L

2000 330 10 0.03 183–1,280 35.00–48.10 291 186 608 41.82 45.81 K

2001 334 1 <0.01 183–1,280 34.15–48.10 214 214 214 45.03 45.03 K

2002 427 9 0.02 183–1,280 32.30–48.10 250 189 390 44.69 46.28 K

Continental shelf triennial survey 

1989 539 222 0.41 55–366 34.30–49.40 141 60 333 34.36 49.35 W

1992 501 196 0.39 55–366 34.30–49.40 139 59 348 40.44 49.25 Z

1995 522 88 0.17 55–500 34.30–49.40 137 66 328 41.24 49.34 W1998 527 45 0.08 55–500 34.30–49.40 147 79 322 42.24 49.14 S

2001 506 130 0.26 55–500 34.30–49.40 147 62 466 42.25 49.05 W

Continental slope and shelf 2003 574 29 0.05 55–1,280 32.30–48.10 126 51 237 33.97 48.40 K

2004 508 40 0.08 55–1,280 32.30–48.10 119 55 220 34.51 48.23 K

2005 675 19 0.03 55–1,280 32.30–48.10 130 96 169 42.00 47.90 K
Table A-5. Latitudinal, longitudinal, and depth distribution of eulachon in AFSC fishery-independent 

bottom trawl surveys of groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska, eastern Bering Sea, and Aleutian 

Islands. Data available online at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/RACE/groundfish/survey_data/ 

default.htm. 

Depth (m) 

Latitudinal range 

(dd.mm) 

Longitudinal range 

(dd.mm) 

Year 

No. hauls 

with 

eulachon Mean Min. Max. South North East West 

Gulf of Alaska 

1984 178 188 27 393 54.40 60.28 134.23 162.40 

1987 226 170 26 402 54.42 60.25 132.94 162.65 

1990 284 184 20 432 54.49 60.27 133.07 162.96 

1993 294 181 20 351 54.35 60.32 133.33 162.60 

1996 272 165 28 474 53.80 60.19 132.90 166.39 

1999 277 172 16 409 53.54 60.20 132.82 166.63 

2001 117 174 62 297 52.64 59.87 146.97 165.43 

2003 230 173 31 566 52.77 60.30 132.89 169.00 

2005 259 169 23 548 53.66 60.21 132.88 164.78 

2007 237 165 32 516 54.24 60.30 132.83 162.10 

Eastern Bering Sea 

1982 29 103 40 159 55.00 56.68 159.76 168.20 

1983 43 91 29 159 55.00 59.65 158.42 176.56 

1984 30 108 49 163 54.98 57.34 159.67 170.07 

1985 19 126 101 157 55.00 56.83 166.31 170.49 

1986 38 106 49 155 54.99 57.01 160.37 170.07 

1987 27 114 33 155 55.00 57.98 159.76 168.20 

1988 17 95 31 155 55.01 58.09 158.42 167.04 

1989 21 114 49 159 54.82 58.00 162.79 172.20 

1990 25 102 18 159 55.01 60.32 158.32 170.07 

1991 23 119 49 155 55.00 57.69 162.82 167.64 

1992 27 109 27 155 55.00 60.36 161.00 170.07 

1993 20 95 22 148 55.32 59.68 159.06 171.52 

1994 40 92 16 154 54.99 60.00 159.09 171.53 

1995 38 97 29 143 54.99 57.01 159.08 172.66 

1996 38 104 35 155 54.99 57.98 158.32 172.63 

1997 38 100 39 157 55.01 57.68 159.76 168.87 

1998 56 94 34 154 54.99 57.99 158.97 170.49 

1999 39 106 53 155 55.01 57.01 162.80 168.26 

2000 46 98 37 153 55.00 60.34 159.07 171.41 

2001 62 90 46 153 54.99 58.00 159.02 168.90 

2002 44 91 32 153 55.00 58.67 158.40 168.30 

2003 36 103 32 156 55.00 60.00 158.42 175.27 

2004 39 102 25 156 54.99 59.32 158.35 174.46 

2005 36 101 24 154 55.00 61.00 159.12 176.24 

2006 37 98 36 146 55.33 58.02 158.97 170.70 

2007 48 96 21 155 55.00 59.00 160.36 172.86 

2008 37 100 44 156 54.99 61.32 160.37 174.89 

Aleutian Islands 

1986-1997 13 170 62 404 51.90 53.76 166.96 176.46 

2000-2006 12 164 89 197 53.58 53.78 166.77 167.37 

243
Table A-6. Age distribution of selected adult eulachon populations as determined by reading otolith increments. NR = dat

N = number aged, proportions in bold indicate the mode for that year. 

Proportion of fish in each age class 

Year Sex N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Columbia River 1984 NR 104 <0.11 0.50 0.27 0.08 <0.05 Dam

1985 NR 100 0.02 0.25 0.48 0.20 0.03 0.02 Dam

1986 NR 144 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.10 0.01 <0.01 Dam1992 NR NR 0.26 0.49 0.25 WDF

1993 NR NR 0.39 0.39 0.22 WDF

1994 NR NR 0.66 0.28 0.006 WDF

1995 NR NR 0.41 0.46 0.13 WDF

1996 NR NR 0.56 0.39 0.05 WDF

1997 NR NR 0.60 0.33 0.07 WDF

1998 NR NR 0.56 0.37 0.07 Frazier River 

1986 NR 20 0.40 0.45 0.10 0.05 Higg

Kemano River 

1988 M 76 0.24 0.45 0.29 0.03 Lewi

1989 M 101 0.01 0.15 0.29 0.43 0.13 Lewi1990 M 143 0.15 0.48 0.33 0.03 Lewi1992 M 158 0.28 0.37 0.33 0.02 Lewi1993 M 213 0.31 0.37 0.31 0.01 Lewi1994 M 152 0.41 0.40 0.19 Lewi

1995 M 124 0.13 0.39 0.32 0.15 0.01 Lewi1996 M 135 0.21 0.45 0.23 0.10 Lewi1997 M 171 0.05 0.55 0.28 0.11 0.01 Lewi

1998 M 86 0.26 0.31 0.43 Lewi

1988 F 120 0.16 0.42 0.39 0.03 Lewi

1989 F 111 0.09 0.26 0.32 0.28 0.05 Lewi

1990 F 144 0.17 0.41 0.34 0.08 Lewi

1992 F 96 0.47 0.39 0.14 0.01 Lewi

1993 F 192 0.45 0.38 0.18 Lewi

1994 F 175 0.51 0.36 0.13 Lewi

244
Table A-6 continued. Age distribution of selected adult eulachon populations as determined by reading otolith increments. 

recorded, N = number aged, proportions in bold indicate the mode for that year. 

Proportion of fish in each age class 

Year Sex N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1995 F 118 0.14 0.37 0.36 0.12 Lewi1996 F 140 0.17 0.52 0.24 0.06 Lewi

1998 F 91 0.01 0.19 0.54 0.26 Lewi

Kitimat River 

1993 F 59 0.75 0.20 0.02 0.03 Pede

Nass River 

1969 NR 53 0.15 0.83 0.02 Lang

1970 NR 256 0.38 0.56 0.06 Lang

1971 NR 378 0.04 0.68 0.24 0.04 Lang

Copper River delta 

Eyak R iver

2002 NR 445 0.01 0.97 0.02 Moff

Alaganik Slough 

1998 NR 460 0.01 0.08 0.91 Moff

2000 NR 99 0.73 0.27 Moff

Ibeck Creek 2001 NR 1,215 0.04 0.96 <0.01 <0.01 Moff

Copper River 

Flag Point Channel 

1998 NR 2,591 <0.01 0.09 0.90 <0.01 Moff2000 NR 1,338 <0.01 0.48 0.48 0.40 <0.01 Moff

2001 NR 1,699 <0.01 0.56 0.43 0.01 Moff

2002 NR 1,290 0.01 0.98 0.01 Moff

60-km Bridge 

2002 NR 812 0.01 0.98 0.01 Moff

Twentymile River 

2000 M 235 0.09 0.51 0.36 0.04 Span

2001 M 585 0.06 0.83 0.01 Span

2000 F 49 0.02 0.23 0.57 0.14 0.04 Span

2001 F 425 0.08 0.88 0.04 Span

245
Table A-7. Mean length of adult eulachon for selected river basins for individual years, sex, and age. Dashes indicate data 

SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, NR = not recorded, NS = not sexed, FL = fork length, SL = standard applicable. 

Location Male length (mm) Female (river basin) Date Age Method Mean SD SE Range No. Mean SD 

Alaska Susitna River 1982a — NR, NS 213.0 — — — — — — 

1983a — NR, NS 206.0 — — — — — — 

Twentymile River 1976b — NR 228.0 — — 209–249 22 224 — 

1977c — NR 228.0 — — 162–270 — 223 — 

2000d — FL 215.0 — 0.9 166–242 222 202 — 3

2001d — FL 209.0 — 0.5 100–241 585 203 — 0

Copper River delta 

Eyak River 2002e 3 SL 180.0 — 4 — 4 — — 

4 SL 187.0 — 0 — 430 187 — 

5 SL 192.0 — 3 — 9 — — 

Ibeck Creek 2001e 3 SL 180.0 — 2 — 40 164 — 

4 SL 177.0 

246

— 0 — 1,089 171 — 

5 SL 186.0 — 3 — 5 — — 

6 SL 182.0 — 3 — 4 — — 

2003f — SL 179.0 — 10 138–207 1,249 173 — 

Alaganik Slough 1998e 3 SL 179.0 — 3 — 6 — — 

4 SL 175.0 — 2 — 35 172 — 

5 SL 179.0 — 0 — 377 175 — 

2000e 3 SL 160.0 — 1 — 47 160 — 

4 SL 174.0 — 3 — 21 173 — 

Copper River 

Flag Point Channel 1998e 3 SL 179.0 — 3 — 7 181 — 

4 SL 182.0 — 1 — 151 175 — 

5 SL 183.0 — 0 — 1,848 177 — 6 SL 176.0 — 2 — 7 186 — 

2000e 2 SL 182.0 — NA — 1 — — 

3 SL 174.0 — 0 — 534 168 — 

4 SL 176.0 — 0 — 547 172 — 
Table A-7 continued. Mean length of adult eulachon for selected river basins for individual years, sex, and age. Dashes in

unavailable. SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, NS = not sexed, FL = fork length, SL = standard length

Location Male length (mm) Female (river basin) Date Age Method Mean SD SE Range No. Mean SD 

Flag Point Channel 5 SL 183.0 

— 2 — 43 164 

— 

(continued) 6 SL 192.0 

— NA — 1 — 

— 

2001e 2 SL — 

— — — 

— 154 

— N

3 SL 174.0 

— 0 — 643 167 

— 

4 SL 180.0 

— 0 — 571 172 

— 

5 SL 179.0 

— 2 — 21 166 

— 

2002e 3 SL 178.0 

— 3 — 16 185 

— 

4 SL 183.0 

— 0 — 1,081 178 

— 

5 SL 188.0 

— 3 — 15 190 

— 

60-km Bridge 2002e 3 SL 181.0 

— 8 — 3 176 

— 

4 SL 186.0 

— 0 — 575 181 

— 

5 SL 191.0 

— 3 — 

9 — 

— 

Southeast Alaska 

Stikine Riverg 1979 2 FL 180.0 

— — 141–197 

— — 

— 

3 FL 190.0 

— — 165–210 

— — 

— 

4 FL 194.0 

— — 173–211 

— — 

— 

1980 2 FL 172.0 

— — 155–179 

— — 

— 

3 FL 186.0 

— — 162–208 

— — 

— 

4 FL 201.0 

— — 195–208 

— — 

— 

British Columbia 

Nass Riverh 1970 3 SL 173.0 11.3 — — 87 171 16.2 

4 SL 179.0 11.2 — — 123 181 11.8 

5 SL 188.0 6.1 — — 12 192 3.5 

1971 2 SL 155.0 10.9 — — 5 144 6.9 

3 SL 167.0 52.3 — — 74 157 16.2 

4 SL 174.0 10.2 — — 33 171 10.3 

5 SL 188.0 19.8 — — 

7 183 11.3 

Skeena River 2003i — FL, NS 189.0 

— 2 — 52

Kitimat River 1993j 3 SL — 

— — — 

— 169 

— 

4 SL — 

— — — 

— 175 

— 

247
Table A-7 continued. Mean length of adult eulachon for selected river basins for individual years, sex, and age. Dashes in

unavailable. SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, FL = fork length, SL = standard length, NA = not appli

Location Male length (mm) Female (river basin) Date Age Method Mean SD SE Range No. Mean SD 

Kitimat River (cont.) 5 SL — 

— — — 

— 184 

— 

6 SL — 

— — — 

— 170 

— 

1997k 2 SL 173.0 9.9 — — 

2 162 0.0 

3 SL 176.0 14.4 — — 28 180 9.9 

4 SL 175.0 12.9 — — 16 174 11.6 

5 SL 184.0 15.6 — — 13 183 12.7 

6 SL 182.0 0.0 — — 1 178 17.7 

Kemano River 1988l 3 FL 168.0 

— — — 

— 165 

— 

4 FL 175.0 

— — — 

— 174 

— 

5 FL 187.0 

— — — 

— 186 

— 

6 FL 195.0 

— — — 

— 196 

— 

1989l 2 FL 190.0 

— — — 

— 181 

— 

3 FL 188.0 

— — — 

— 181 

— 

4 FL 189.0 

— — — 

— 184 

— 

5 FL 189.0 

— — — 

— 181 

— 

6 FL 183.0 

— — — 

— 176 

— 

1990l 3 FL 177.0 

— — — 

— 182 

— 

4 FL 188.0 

— — — 

— 187 

— 

5 FL 196.0 

— — — 

— 194 

— 

6 FL 206.0 

— — — 

— 194 

— 

1992l 3 FL 177.0 

— — — 

— 173 

— 

4 FL 187.0 

— — — 

— 182 

— 

5 FL 196.0 

— — — 

— 198 

— 

6 FL 207.0 

— — — 

— 214 

— 

1993l 3 FL 176.0 

— — — 

— 170 

— 

4 FL 187.0 

— — — 

— 186 

— 

5 FL 198.0 

— — — 

— 195 

— 

6 FL 207.0 

— — — 

— — 

— 

1994l 3 FL 169.0 

— — — 

— 166 

— 

4 FL 182.0 

— — — 

— 181 

— 

248
Table A-7 continued. Mean length of adult eulachon for selected river basins for individual years, sex, and age. Dashes in

unavailable. SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, NS = not sexed, FL = fork length, SL = standard length

Location Male length (mm) Female (river basin) Date Age Method Mean SD SE Range No. Mean SD 

Kemano River (cont.) 5 FL 186.0 

— — — 

— 186 

— 

1995l 3 FL 171.0 

— — — 

— 174 

— 

4 FL 181.0 

— — — 

— 182 

— 

5 FL 183.0 

— — — 

— 181 

— 

6 FL 190.0 

— — — 

— 195 

— 

7 FL 201.0 

— — — 

— — 

— 

1996l 3 FL 188.0 

— — — 

— 185 

— 

4 FL 192.0 

— — — 

— 185 

— 

5 FL 195.0 

— — — 

— 186 

— 

6 FL 193.0 

— — — 

— 195 

— 

1998l 2 FL — 

— — — 

— 175 

— 

3 FL 177.0 

— — — 

— 172 

— 

4 FL 174.0 

— — — 

— 172 

— 

5 FL 181.0 

— — — 

— 174 

— 

2003i — FL, NS 196.0 

— 3 — 36 — 

— 

Fraser River 1986

m

— FL 182.0 13.3 — 129–212 325 164 21.6 

1995n — SL 158.0 11.0 — — 311 158 10.4 

1996n — SL 156.0 10.4 — — 241 155 10.7 1997n — SL 161.0 12.0 — — 254 158 10.4 

1998n — SL 158.0 12.6 — — 260 158 15.6 

2000n — SL 162.0 10.4 — — 108 163 9.3 

2001n — SL 160.0 6.4 — — 50 156 5.3 

4/25/2001o — FL, NS 171.0 7.2 — 117–186 138 — 

— 

5/2/2001o — FL, NS 171.0 7.4 — 154–195 47 — 

— 

5/3/2002o — FL, NS 181.0 22.0 — 116–206 20 — 

— 

2003i — FL, NS 183.0 

— 3 — 45 — 

— 

2009p — — 192.0 

— — — 77 180 

— 

Washington 

Columbia River 3/2/1962q — FL 155.0 

— — 132–180 99

1968 — FL 153.0 

— — — 

— — 

— 

249
Table A-7 continued. Mean length of adult eulachon for selected river basins for individual years, sex, and age. Dashes in

unavailable. SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, FL = fork length, NS = not sexed, NA = not applicable

Location Male length (mm) Female (river basin) Date Age Method Mean SD SE Range No. Mean SD 

Columbia River (cont.) 1969 — FL, NS 161.0 

— — — 

— — 

— 

1978r — FL 183.0 13.1 — 142–250 674 178 12.9 

1984s 3 FL, NS 134–158 11 — 

— 

4 FL, NS — 

— — 125–167 52 — 

— 

5 FL, NS — 

— — 115–185 28 — 

— 

6 FL, NS — 

— — 156–189 8 — 

— 

7 FL, NS — 

— — 148–191 5 — 

— 

1985s 3 FL, NS — 

— — 148–150 

2 — 

— 

4 FL, NS — 

— — 153–183 25 — 

— 

5 FL, NS — 

— — 156–196 48 — 

— 

6 FL, NS — 

— — 170–204 20 — 

— 

7 FL, NS — 

— — 178–188 3 — 

— 

8 FL, NS — 

— — 192–203 

2 — 

— 

1986s 2 FL, NS — 

— — 134–145 5 — 

— 

3 FL, NS — 

— — 133–198 50 — 

— 

4 FL, NS — 

— — 125–201 50 — 

— 

5 FL, NS — 

— — 165–211 22 — 

— 

6 FL, NS — 

— — 182–220 14 — 

— 

7 FL, NS — 

— — 201–209 

2 — 

— 

8 FL, NS 217.0 

— — NA 1 — 

— 

1992t 3 FL, NS 169.4 

— — — 

— — 

— 

4 FL, NS 189.3 

— — — 

— — 

— 

5 FL, NS 190.8 

— — — 

— — 

— 

1993t 3 FL, NS 164.4 

— — — 

— — 

— 

4 FL, NS 159.4 

— — — 

— — 

— 

5 FL, NS 149.0 

— — — 

— — 

— 

1994t 3 FL, NS 178.7 

— — — 

— — 

— 

4 FL, NS 177.4 

— — — 

— — 

— 

5 FL, NS 164.8 

— — — 

— — 

— 

1994r 2 FL 181.0 16.8 — 151–201 12 — 

— 

250
Table A-7 continued. Mean length of adult eulachon for selected river basins for individual years, sex, and age. Dashes in

unavailable. SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, FL = fork length, NS = not sexed, TL = total length, NA 

Location Male length (mm) Female (river basin) Date Age Method Mean SD SE Range No. Mean SD 

Columbia River (cont.) 3 FL 181.0 11.6 — 163–205 25 179 13.2 

4 FL 179.0 15.8 — 156–209 16 168 10.6 

5 FL 168.0 7.5 — 160–178 5 150 NA 

1995t 3 FL, NS 171.3 

— — — 

— — 

— 

4 FL, NS 181.0 

— — — 

— — 

— 

5 FL, NS 197.5 

— — — 

— — 

— 

1996t 3 FL, NS 168.5 

— — — 

— — 

— 

4 FL, NS 179.4 

— — — 

— — 

— 

5 FL, NS 170.2 

— — — 

— — 

— 

1997t 3 FL, NS 165.4 

— — — 

— — 

— 

4 FL, NS 170.5 

— — — 

— — 

— 

5 FL, NS 162.8 

— — — 

— — 

— 

1998t 3 FL, NS 173.5 

— — — 

— — 

— 

4 FL, NS 181.5 

— — — 

— — 

— 

5 FL, NS 175.9 

— — — 

— — 

— 

251

2003i — FL, NS 175.0 

— 3 — 25 — 

— 

Cowlitz River 2/21/1962q — FL 162.0 

— — 138–195 100 — 

— 

3/17/1962q — FL 157.0 

— — 133–191 100 — 

— 

3/19/1962q — FL 159.0 

— — 143–185 50 163 

— 

3/31/1962q — FL 164.0 

— — 134–196 99 160 

— 

4/5/1962q — FL 153.0 

— — 128–180 100 150 

— 

4/7/1962q — FL 161.0 

— — 134–193 97 — 

— 

Elochoman River 3/28/1962q — FL 153.0 

— — 126–190 96 159 

— 

Elwha Riveru 2005 — TL 180.0 10.1 — 171–195 

7 166 28.5 

Oregon 

Tenmile Creekv 1992 — FL, NS 189.0 

— — — 24 — 

— 

1993 — FL, NS 170.0 

— — — 

6 — 

— 

1994 — FL, NS 155.0 

— — — 1 — 

— 

2001 — FL, NS 177.0 

— — — 23 — 

— 

2003 — FL, NS 208.0 

— — — 3 — 

— 
Table A-7 continued. Mean length of adult eulachon for selected river basins for individual years, sex, and age. Dashes in

unavailable. SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, FL = fork length, NS = not sexed. 

Location Male length (mm) Female (river basin) Date Age Method Mean SD SE Range No. Mean SD 

Tenmile Creek (cont.) 2005 — FL, NS 165.0 

— — — 

7 — 

— 

2007 — FL, NS 170.0 

— — — 1 — 

— 

2008 — FL, NS 182.0 

— — — 1 — 

— 

aBarrett et al. 1984 (as reprinted in Willson et al. 2006) bKubik and Wadman 1977 cKubik and Wadman 1978 dSpangler 2002 eMoffit et al. 2002 fJoyce et al. 2004 gFranzel and Nelson 1981 (in Willson et al. 2006, their Table 2b) hLanger et al. 1977 iClarke et al. 2007 jPedersen et al. 1995 kKelson 1997 lLewis et al. 2002 

252

mHiggins et al. 1987 nHay et al. 2002 (their Table 3) oStables et al. 2005 pPlate 2009 qDeLacy and Batts 1963 rData provided by Brad James, WDFW, Vancouver, WA, 2008 sDammers 1988 tWDFW and ODFW 2001 uShaffer et al. 2007 vWDFW and ODFW 2008 
Table A-8. Mean weight of adult eulachon for all available river basins for individual years, sex, and age. Dashes indicate 

SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, No. = number measured, NA = not applicable. 

Location Male weight (g) Female w(river basin) Year Age Mean SD SE Range No. Mean SD SE 

Alaska Susitna River 1982a — 72.0 — — — — — 

—

— 

Not sexed 

1983a — 64.0 — — — — — 

—

— 

Not sexed 

Twentymile River 1976b — 66.0 — — 41–91 200 68.0 

—

— 

1977c — 90.7 — — 45.4–127 — 86.2 

—

— 

2000d — 69.9 — 1.0 26.5–104 222 60.0 

— 2.8 

2001d — 65.8 — 0.5 6-106 585 60.1 

— 0.5 

Copper River delta 

Eyak River 2002e 3 43.0 — 2.0 — 4 — 

—

— 

4 55.0 — 0.0 — 430 50.0 

— 10.0 

5 58.0 — 2.0 — 9 — 

—

— 

Ibeck Creek 2001e 3 53.0 — 2.0 — 40 38.0 

— 2.0 

4 50.0 — 0.0 — 1,089 46.0 

— 1.0 

5 60.0 — 5.0 — 5 — 

—

— 

6 52.0 — 4.0 — 4 — 

—

— 

2003f — 56.0 10.0 23–89 1,249 47.0 

— 9.0 

Alaganik Slough 1998e 3 53.0 — 4.0 — 6 — 

—

— 

4 44.0 — 1.0 — 35 34.5 

— 1.0 

5 48.0 — 0.0 — 377 39.9 

— 1.0 

2000e 3 37.0 — 1.0 — 47 35.0 

— 2.0 

4 48.0 — 3.0 — 21 43.0 

— 6.0 

Copper River 

Flag Point channel 1998e 3 52.0 — 2.0 — 7 56.0 

— 8.0 

4 57.0 — 1.0 — 151 49.6 

— 1.0 

5 55.0 — 0.0 — 1,848 51.1 

— 0.0 

6 52.0 — 3.0 — 7 67.0 

— 14.0 

2000f 2 55.0 — NA — 1 — 

—

— 

3 47.0 — 0.0 — 534 43.0 

— 1.0 

4 47.0 — 0.0 — 547 47.0 

— 1.0 

253
Table A-8 continued. Mean weight of adult eulachon for all available river basins for individual years, sex, and age. Dash

unavailable. SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, No. = number measured, NA = not applicable. 

Location Male weight (g) Female w(river basin) Year Age Mean SD SE Range No. Mean SD SE 

Flag Point Channel 5 53 — 2.0 — 43 39.0 — 3.0 (cont.) 6 60 — NA — 1 — — — 

2001f 2 — — — — — 37.0 — NA 

3 48 — 0.0 — 643 45.0 — 1.0 

4 52 — 0.0 — 571 48.0 — 1.0 

5 52 — 2.0 — 21 47.0 — 3.0 

2002f 3 53 — 3.0 — 16 47.0 — 2.0 

4 57 — 0.0 — 1,081 52.0 — 1.0 

5 62 — 3.0 — 15 66.0 — NA 

60-km Bridge 2002f 3 57 — 7.0 — 3 51.0 — 3.0 

4 62 — 0.0 — 575 58.0 — 1.0 

5 68 — 3.0 — 9 — — — 

Southeast Alaska 

Stikine Riverg 1979 2 38 — — 18–50 — — — — 

3 46 — — 28–60 — — — — 

4 52 — — 34–58 — — — — 

1980 2 35 — — 30–42 — — — — 

3 46 — — 32–60 — — — — 

4 58 — — 52–64 — — — — 

British Columbia — Skeena River 2003h — 48.7 — 1.7 — 52 — — — 

Not sexed 

Kitimat River 1993i 3 — — — — — 43.0 — 1.5 

4 — — — — — 50.5 — 2.0 

5 — — — — — 52.0 — NA 

6 — — — — — 40.2 — 7.8 

1997j 2 42.4 5.9 — — 2 33.8 NA — 

3 46.2 11.3 — — 28 44.9 10.5 — 

4 45.6 11.0 — — 16 41.9 9.1 — 

5 55.0 16.6 — — 13 48.6 12.6 — 

6 50.4 N/A — — 1 47.2 19.7 — 

254
Table A-8 continued. Mean weight of adult eulachon for all available river basins for individual years, sex, and age. Dash

unavailable. SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error, No. = number measured. 

Location Male weight (g) Female w(river basin) Year Age Mean SD SE Range No. Mean SD SE 

Kemano River 1988–1998k — 47.5 10.9 — — 1,110 44.2 10.7 — 

2003h — 57.5 — 2.3 — 36 — — — 

Not sexed 

Fraser River 1986l — 46.3 10.7 — 13.8–81 325 34.7 14.5 — 

1995m — 42.8 10.9 — — 311 44.3 9.6 — 

1996m — 40.8 9.5 — — 241 42.8 9.9 — 

1997m — 38.1 9.1 — — 254 38.0 7.1 — 1998m — 36.7 8.6 — — 260 37.0 9.9 — 2000m — 43.2 9.0 — — 108 46.2 8.4 — 2001m — 36.7 5.0 — — 50 37.4 3.5 — 

2003h — 47.2 — 1.6 — 45 — — — 

Not sexed 

2009n — 59.0 — — — 77 51.0 — — 

Washington 

Columbia River 1978o — 42.0 9.9 — 20–76.1 674 39.6 10.6 — 

2003h — 37.3 — 1.8 — 25 — — — 

Not sexed 

Elwha Riverp 2005 — 40.3 5.8 — 36–49 7 28.9 12.2 — 

255

aBarret et al. 1984 (as reprinted in Willson et al. 2006) iPederson et al. 1995 bKubic and Wadman 1977 jKelson 1997 cKubic and Wadman 1978 kLewis et al. 2002 dSpangler 2002 lHiggins et al. 1987 eMoffit et al. 2002 mHay et al. 2002, their Table 3 fJoyce et al. 2004 nPlate 2009 gFranzel and Nelson 1981 (in Willson et al. 2006, their Table 2b) oData provided by Brad James, WDFW, Vancouver, WA, hClarke et al. 2007 pShaffer et al. 2007 
Table A-9. Range (gray) and peak (black) timing of documented river entry or spawn timing for eulachon. 

Basin December January February March April May 

California Mad Rivera

Redwood CreekaKlamath Rivera

Oregon 

Tenmile Creekb

Columbia Basin 

Columbia Riverc

Cowlitz Riverc

Sandy Riverb

Washington 

Elwha Riverd

British Columbia 

Fraser Rivere

Kingcome Riverf

Kemano Riverg

Bella Coola RiverhKitimat Riveri

Skeena Riverj

Nass Riverk

Alaska 

Stikine Riverl

Taku River

m

Berners Rivern

Chilkat Riverf, oChilkoot Rivero

Copper Riverp, q

Alaganik Riverp, q

Eyak Riverp

Ibeck Creekp, q

Twentymile Riverr

Susitna Rivers

256
257

aReferences in Table A-3. bWDFW and ODFW 2008 cWDFW and ODFW 2001 dShaffer et al. 2007 eRicker et al. 1954, Hart 1943, Hart and McHugh 1944 fMills 1982 gLewis et al. 2002 hMoody 2008 iPedersen et al. 1995, Kelson 1996 (cited in Moody 2008). jLewis 1997 kLanger et al. 1977 lFranzel and Nelson 1981 mFlory 2008b, Berry and Jacob 1998 nMarston et al. 2002, Eller and Hillgruber 2005 oBetts 1994 pJoyce et al. 2004 qMoffitt et al. 2002 rKubik and Wadman 1977, 1978, Spangler et al. 2003 sBarrett et al. 1984 (cited in Spangler et al. 2003). 
Table A-10. Documented avian predators on spawning runs of eulachon. 

River system 

Avian predator 

Twentymile 

Rivera

Copper River 

deltab

Berner’s 

Bayc, d

Columbia 

Rivere

Gulls (Larus spp.) X

Herring gull (Larus argentatus) X X X 

Thayer’s gull (L. thayeri) X X 

Glaucous-winged gull (L. glaucescens) X X X 

Glaucus gull (L. hyperboreus ) X 

Mew gull (L. canus) X X 

Western gull (L. occidentalis) X 

California gull (L. californicus) X 

Bonaparte’s gull (L. philadelphia) X X X 

Ring-billed gull (L. delawarensis) X 

Terns (Sterna spp.) X 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) X X X X 

Marbled murrelet (Branchyrhamphus 

marmoratus) X 

Cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.) X 

Mergansers (Mergus spp.) X X 

Grebes (Podiceps spp.) X 

Scoters (Melanitta spp.) X 

Loons (Gavia spp.) X 

Corvids X 

Common raven (Corvus corax) X 

Northwestern crow (C. caurinus) X 

Black-billed magpie (Pica hudsonia) X a

Spangler 2002 

b

Maggiulli et al. 2006 

c

Willson and Marston 2002 

d

Marston et al. 2002 

e

WDFW and ODFW 2001 

Table A-11. Temperatures at the time of river entry and spawning for eulachon in different river systems. 

Location Temperature Incubation time Reference 

Columbia River 6.5°–9.0°C ≈ 21 days Parente and Snyder 1970 

Cowlitz River 4.5°–7.0°C 30–49 days Smith and Saalfeld 1955 

Fraser River 4.0°–5.0°C ≈ 28 days Hay and McCarter 2000 

Fraser River 4.4°–7.2°C 30–40 days Hart 1973 

Kemano River 1.1°–6.5°C 50 days Lewis et al. 2002 

Kitimat River 4.0°–7.0°C ≈ 42 days Willson et al. 2006, their Table 4 

Nass River 0.0°–2.0°C Unknown Langer et al. 1977 

258
Appendix B: Selected Accounts of Eulachon in 

Local Newspapers 

[Editor’s note: Minimal silent correction has been applied to these excerpts, such as changing 

the initial letter of a word to a capital or lowercase letter, correcting obvious typographical 

errors without inserting a comment or the word sic in brackets, or minor modification of 

punctuation. Idiosyncracies of spelling and phrasing in the older works are generally preserved. 

Some of the excerpts are market ads.] 

259
260

Table B-1. Available newspaper indices and records in online digital and microfilm format searched for reference to the pr

on eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) spawning runs in Washington, Oregon, and California. 

Newspaper City, state 

Keywords 

searched Start date End date Database and online URL 

Oregon Spectator Oregon City, 

Oregon Territory 

Smelt, eulachon 2-5-1846 3-1855 Oregon Spectator Index, 1846

Oregonian Portland, Oregon 

Territory 

Smelt, eulachon 12-4-1850 1-28-1850 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database

Morning Oregonian Portland, OR Smelt, eulachon 8-19-1861 4-23-1890 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database

Weekly Oregonian Portland, OR Smelt, eulachon 2-4-1854 11-15-1862 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database

Daily Oregonian Portland, OR Smelt, eulachon 7-19-1869 

8-11-1869 8-19-1869 8-23-1869 10-2-1875 

Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. http://www.kcls.org/database

Oregonian Portland, OR Smelt, eulachon 2-4-1861 12-31-1922 America’s Genealogy Bank, H

http://www.spl.org/default.as

Democratic Standard Portland, Oregon 

Territory 

Smelt, eulachon 8-30-1854 2-16-1859 America’s Genealogy Bank, H

http://www.spl.org/default.as

Eugene Register-Guard Eugene, OR Umpqua smelt 1912 2007 Online at news.google.com 

Vancouver Register Vancouver, 

Wash. Territory 

Visual search for smelt 

10-7-1865 9-14-1867 Historic Newspapers in Wash

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/ h

2-15-1868 3-7-1868 

6-6-1868 0-9-1869 

Olympia Record Olympia, WA Smelt, eulachon 5-13-1902 1-3-1923 America’s Genealogy Bank, H

http://www.spl.org/default.as

Morning Olympian Olympia, WA Smelt, eulachon 3-15-1891 12-31-1922 America’s Genealogy Bank, H

http://www.spl.org/default.as

Tacoma Daily News Tacoma, WA Smelt, eulachon 8-25-1890 12-31-1898 America’s Genealogy Bank, H

http://www.spl.org/default.as

Bellingham Herald Bellingham, WA Smelt, eulachon, 

hooligan, candlefish 

10-2-1903 12-30-1922 America’s Genealogy Bank, H

http://www.spl.org/default.as

Centralia Chronicle Centralia, WA Smelt, eulachon 8-1-1889 6-26-1890 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database

2-7-1902 6-13-1902 
261

Table B-1 continued. Available newspaper indices and records in online digital and microfilm format searched for referenc

information on eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) spawning runs in Washington, Oregon, and California. 

Newspaper City, state 

Keywords 

searched Start date End date Database and online URL 

Centralia Daily Chronicle Centralia, WA Smelt, eulachon 5-1-1908 1-11-1913 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database

9-2-1918 2-28-1920 

7-14-1928 12-31-1937 

Centralia Daily ChronicleExaminer Centralia, WA Smelt, eulachon 1-13-1913 12-31-1913 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. http://www.kcls.org/database

7-1-1914 12-31-1915 

Centralia News-Examiner Centralia, WA Smelt, eulachon 9-23-1904 2-23-1910 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database

12-28-1911 

10-3-1912 

10-21-1912 12-29-1912 12-11-1913 

4-11-1916 05-18-1916 

Centralia Weekly Chronicle Centralia, WA Smelt, eulachon 11-9-1910 10-2-1912 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database

Chehalis Bee-Nugget Chehalis, WA Smelt, eulachon 10-28-1921 5-24-1938 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database

Chehalis Bee Chehalis, WA Smelt, eulachon 5-21-1897 

7-16-1897 7-23-1897 

Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. http://www.kcls.org/database

Kalama Beacon Kalama, Wash. 

Territory 

Visual search 5-19-1871 2-10-1874 Univ. Washington Library, M

Eureka Humboldt Standard Eureka, CA Smelt, candlefish, 

candle fish, eulachon 

1-1-1958 05-31-1967 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database

Humboldt Standard Eureka, CA Smelt, candlefish, 

candle fish, eulachon 

1-1-1952 12-31-1957 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database

Times-Standard Eureka, CA Smelt, candlefish, 

candle fish, eulachon 

6-1-1967 12-31-1977 Newspaper ARCHIVE.com. 

http://www.kcls.org/database
262

Table B-1 continued. Available newspaper indices and records in online digital and microfilm format searched for referenc

information on eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) spawning runs in Washington, Oregon, and California. 

Newspaper City, state 

Keywords 

searched Start date End date Database and online URL 

San Francisco Call San Francisco, 

CA 

Smelt, candlefish, candle fish, eulachon 

1895 1910 California Digital Newspaper 

http://cbsr.tabbec.com/ 

San Francisco Bulletin San Francisco, 

CA 

Smelt, candlefish, candle fish, eulachon 

10-8-1855 12-31-1891 America’s Genealogy Bank, 

http://www.spl.org/default.as

San Jose Mercury News San Jose, CA Smelt, candlefish, 

candle fish, eulachon 

11-5-1861 12-31-1922 America’s Genealogy Bank, 

http://www.spl.org/default.as
Oregon (Columbia River) 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 6 April 1867, p. 4, col. 2 

 Smelt—Holman & Co. of the Union Fish Market have just received a fine lot 

of smelt, halibut, etc. They keep on hand the best and freshest fish of the season. 

Call on them on Washington Street near Second. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 9 April 1868, p. 4, col. 6 

Fish! Fish! 

At the Franklin Fish Market! 

134 First St., Portland 

Just Received Fresh from the Fisheries, Smelt by the Million 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 15 January 1869, p. 2, col. 4 

New To-Day, Oak Point Smelt! 

At the Franklin Fish Market, 134 First Street. 

Just Received by the Str. Ranger—large supply. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 21 January 1869, p. 2, col. 4 

Fresh Oak Point Smelt at the Franklin Fish Market by the Steamer “Okanagan” 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 25 January 1870, p. 2, col. 4 

New Today, Fresh Smelt, Three Pounds for 25 Cents 

Arrived last night at the “Union Fish Market,” Washington Street between First and Second 

Hotels and Restaurants Supplied Cheap—J. Quinn. 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 28 January 1871, p. 2, col. 3 

New To-Day, Fresh Smelt 

A Fresh Lot Arrived Last Night for Sale at Quinn’s Union Fish Market on Waddington Street. 

Hotels and Restaurants Supplied at Low Rates. 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 1 February 1871, p. 4, col. 1 

Local Brevities 

 Six tons of smelt arrived from down the river on Monday night, and the 

market may be said to be full and terms in favor of the buyer. 

263
Daily Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 20 January 1872, p. 3, col. 2 

Local Brevities 

 The first smelt of the season appeared in the market last evening. 

 The First Smelt at Quinn’s—Quinn, of the Union Market, Washington Street, 

is, as usual, the first on hand with the delicacies of the season. This time he has 

the first catch of smelt. Call early, if you would make sure of a mess. 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 16 February 1872, p. 3, col. 3 

 Smelt—Quinn, of the Union Fish Market, has sufficient quantity of smelt now 

to supply all demands. The prices are so low that everybody can eat ‘em. ... 

Don’t go home without a mess of smelt. 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 8 December 1874, p. 2, col. 2 

First Smelt! 

The First Lot of Smelt of the Season! 

At Quinn’s, 3 lbs for 25 Cents 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 17 March 1875, p. 3, col. 3 

 Smelt—the first of the season—from the Columbia River in large quantities at 

Malarkey’s, Second Street, between Stark and Washington. Get a mess. 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 22 February 1876, p. 2, col. 5 

Columbia River Smelt! 

First of the Season of 1876 

At C. A. Malarkey’s New York Market, S.E. Cor. Stark and Second streets 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 25 February 1876, p. 3, col. 3 

1,000 Pounds Fresh Columbia River Smelt, for Sale Wholesale and Retail by C. A. Malarkey, 

S.E. Corner Stark and Second streets. 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 1 March 1876, p. 2, col. 4 

Fresh Columbia River Smelt. I received last night the largest lot that has come to market this 

season. 3 lbs for 25 cts. C. A. Malarkey New York Market, S. E. Cor. Stark and Second streets. 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 4 March 1876, p. 2, col. 3 

Caution. 

 Fresh Columbia River Smelt. The public are cautioned against buying Puget 

Sound Smelt for Columbia River Smelt. Come to headquarters for the latter. 

264
Large lot received again last night. C. A. Malarkey, New York Market, S. E. Cor. 

Stark and Second. 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 2 February 1878, p. 2, col. 3 

Columbia River Smelt! 

First of the Season of 1878! 

Wholesale and Retail at Chas. A. Malarkey’s New York Market 

S.E. Cor. Stark and Second sts., Portland 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 2 February 1878, p. 2, col. 3 

Hurra! Hurra! 

First Columbia River Smelt of the Season 

Smelt! Smelt! Smelt! 

At 5 Cents per Pound 

Wholesale and Retail at Dougherty & Browne’s Washington Market 

Corner Fourth and Washington streets 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 22 January 1880, p. 2, col. 3 

Smelt, Smelt, Columbia River Smelt 

First of the season 1880 

At C. A. Malarkey’s New York Market, Stark Street between First and Second 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 5 February 1880, p. 1, col. 4 

 Smelt fishermen are making good wages on the river now. Some make $40 a 

night with dip nets. Hapgood Cannery at Waterford has put up 8,000 pounds. 

There is a big run. 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 12 February 1880, p. 3, col. 1 

Dead Smelt—A gentlemen who came up the river from Astoria yesterday, 

informs us that millions of smelt are dying from some unknown cause in the 

Columbia and floating ashore. In the vicinity of Pillar Rock the bank is lined with 

these little fish for some distance, and hundreds of voracious sea gulls are 

constantly devouring them. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 8 January 1881, p. 2, col. 3 

Smelt, Columbia River Smelt, Season 1881 

A Fine Lot just Received by C. A. Malarkey, New York Market 

N.E. Corner Oak and Second Street 

Country Orders Promptly Filled 

265
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 27 February 1882, p. 3, col. 1 

C. A. Malarkey, Second and Oak, Will Receive this Morning a Choice Lot of Columbia River 

Smelt. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 6 March 1883, p. 2, col. 4 

New To-Day, Smelt, First of the Season 

At Williams & Sons General Market 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 13 March 1883, p. 3, col. 7 

Smelt! Smelt! Columbia River Smelt! 

These Most Delicious Fish Are Now Being Received by C. A. Malarkey Daily 

Orders from the Country Will Be Filled Promptly. 

C. A. Malarkey, New York Market, N.E. Corner Oak and Second St. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 25 February 1884, p. 1, col. 8 

Smelt, Smelt, Columbia River Smelt! 

First of the season of 1884 have now arrived 

Send your orders to Chas. A. Malarkey, N.W. Corner Fourth and Morrison streets 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 4 March 1884, p. 2, col. 4 

Smelt, Smelt, Columbia River Smelt! 

The Most Delicious of All Fish are Now Coming to Market 

Country Customers Will Find It to their Advantage to Order from C. A. Malarkey, Fourth and 

Morrison sts 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 13 February 1885, p. 3, col. 1 

Columbia River Smelt 

 These delicious little fish have made their appearance at Astoria, and C. A. 

Malarkey corner of Fourth and Morrison has made arrangements to receive a full 

supply during the season. He expects the first lot to-day. Call early and leave 

your order. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 13 February 1885, p. 3, col. 3 

Local and General 

 The Little Fish Coming—Polish up your frying pan, for Malarkey says he is 

going to have Columbia River smelt to-day. These little fish have become of 

considerable importance to fishermen and several boats have been kept on the 

lookout for their advent for the past two weeks. The advance guard of the 

immigration came up the river a little way some days since, but smelling the snow 

266
in eastern Oregon, took a wheel back. The ones behind are shoving on the ones 

before, and countless millions of smelt are crossing in over the bar, anxious to 

reach the Cowlitz or the Sandy. 

Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 25 February 1885, p. 3, col. 1 

Brief Mention 

 Considerable anxiety has been expressed about the Columbia River smelt fleet 

now overdue here and anxiously awaited by all good citizens. It is now stated that 

the smelt are hovering off the bar waiting for a pilot. 

Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 27 February 1885, p. 3, col. 2 

 Fish In Supply. ... The first box of Columbia River smelt, so long looked for, 

was received by J. W. and V. Cook last evening. It contained about 20 pounds—

the result of a night’s fishing by five men. There will be plenty in a few days, 

sure. 

Daily Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 13 March 1885, p. 3, col. 2 

Local and General 

 No Hope For Smelts—Fishermen generally have about given up hope of a 

smelt harvest this year. In speaking of the matter yesterday, a pioneer, who 

resided for many years on the lower Columbia, says that there were no smelt or 

oolachan, as they were called by Indians, in the Columbia from the time he came 

here till in 1863, when they appeared in vast numbers about the middle of 

February, and have been plentiful every season since. In Irving’s “Astoria” 

mention is made of the great quantities of smelt in the Columbia in 1826. Shortly 

after they forsook the river entirely and did not return till 1863, having been 

absent nearly 40 years. It would be interesting to know why the smelt deserted 

the river and in what ocean wilderness they wandered all these 40 years. If they 

have gone again to stay 40 years, most of us may as well say good-bye to them for 

we’ll eat no more Columbia River smelt unless the doctrine of transmogrification 

is true, in which case if a fellow is changed into a seal or a sturgeon he may have 

a chance at them once more. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Sunday, 31 January 1886, p. 5, col. 1 

 There is a great rivalry just now among the fish dealers. The first smelt are 

now in the market. Malarkey went down the river yesterday, met the steamer as 

she was coming up and secured all the smelt, which were piled up last night 

triumphantly on his tables. 

267
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 2 February 1886, p. 3, col. 1 

 Wm. McGuire & Co., corner Third and Morrison streets, corralled all of the 

smelt that came to town yesterday, consequently they have the only fresh smelt in 

the city. They received 25 large boxes—over 4,000 pounds—and are prepared to 

furnish everybody at reasonable prices. They are prepared to fill all orders from 

the country at lowest rates and guarantee perfect satisfaction. Send in your 

orders. Telephone 371. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Sunday, 7 February 1886, p. 5, col. 6 

Columbia River Smelt 

 Wm. McGuire & Co., Third and Morrison, have made arrangements to 

receive large supplies of fresh smelt daily and are prepared to fill all orders from 

the country at lowest rates. Send in your orders early. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 10 February 1886, p. 2, col. 4 

Smelt And Salmon 

 Columbia River smelt and genuine Chinook salmon received daily and for 

sale in any quantity from one pound to one ton by C. A. Malarkey, corner of 

Fourth and Morrison streets. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 11 December 1886, p. 5, col. 1 

 The first Columbia River smelt of the season came up yesterday to George 

Ginstin, of the Baltimore Market, No. 290 First. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 19 January 1887, p. 3, col. 2 

Local and General 

 A Few Good Fish— ... Vin Cook says they had a mess of Columbia River 

smelt down at Clifton the other day, but have not been able to catch any since. It 

will not be long till these delicious little fish are here. 

Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 28 January 1887, p. 3, col. 2 

Local and General 

 Fish In Demand— ... while [another fisherman] proudly exhibited a sample 

of genuine Columbia River smelt. Vin Cook has a party on the lookout for the 

arrival of these anxiously awaited little fish, and they yesterday sent him up 

several pounds. The advance of the main school of smelt may be expected any 

day now. It was about this time last year that the first shipment came up. 

268
Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 24 February 1887, p. 5, col. 2 

Local and General 

 Fishing For Smelt—No doubt many people once in a while give a thought to 

the Columbia River smelt, which would have been in market before now but for 

the cool spell, but probably very few have any idea of the number who are 

keeping a sharp lookout along the Columbia for the advent of these little fish. 

Although the Columbia from the mouth of the Willamette for a long way up has 

been frozen for some time and there has been snow all along down the river, not a 

day has passed for the last three weeks but what seines have been put out and dip 

nets plied at various points in vain search for the smelt. At Oak Point two men in 

the employ of a fish dealer here have been going out twice every day for the past 

three weeks and probing the Columbia with dip nets, but nary a smelt have they 

caught. As the ice is now going out the fish may be expected any day. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 1 March 1887, p. 3, col. 4 

 Fish dealers were all on hand when the [steamer ship] Telephone arrived 

yesterday, expecting to see a shipment of Columbia River smelt. They were 

disappointed, but the little fish will be here soon or not at all. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 5 March 1887, p. 3, col. 3 

Brief Mention 

The prospect is that we are to have no Columbia River smelt this season. 

Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 9 March 1887, p. 3, col. 3 

Local and General 

 Coming Up on the Rise—People had about given up all idea of seeing any 

Columbia River smelt this season, but it appears that they have not deserted us but 

were only lying off the mouth of the river waiting for the water to become 

decently warm in order to swarm to their spawning place in the Cowlitz and 

Sandy. Deep sea fishermen at Astoria report that the cod and groupers caught by 

them of late have been literally filled with smelt and they predict a large run. The 

late heavy warm rains have put the schools a motion and in a few days it will 

perhaps be possible to walk across the Sandy on the backs of the smelt. ... 

 Smelt at Last—Late last night McGuire & Co., fish dealers, corner o’ Third 

and Morrison streets, received a telegram from down the river stating that several 

boxes of Columbia River smelt would arrive on the [steamer ship] Telephone 

today for them. These will be the first smelt of the season and as the steamer will 

arrive about 2:30 everybody can have smelt for dinner by leaving orders early 

today. 

269
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 10 March 1887, p. 5, col. 3 

Local and General 

 The Smelt Here—The first lot of smelt of the season arrived on the [steamer 

ship] Telephone yesterday, and very fine they were, being much larger and 

plumper than the first to arrive usually are. A number of them were evidently 

caught by Indians in the old-fashioned way by sweeping a stick armed with sharp 

pointed nails through the water and impaling the smelts thereon. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 11 March 1887, p. 3, col. 3 

 And now the smelt come in earnest. C. A. Malarkey came up the river last 

evening having secured the entire catch of these delicious fish along the Columbia 

for the day some two tons in all. He is prepared to furnish all both great and 

small, and as he has the only smelt in the city orders should be left early this 

forenoon. 

Sunday Oregonian (Portland), 26 February 1888, p. 5, col. 3 

Fish and Fishing 

 ... The smelt season is about over apparently. They have not come above the 

Cowlitz as yet, and are not likely to visit the Sandy this season. They have gone 

so far up the Cowlitz now that there is trouble to get them and boxes of them 

which a few days ago could be bought for 50 cents have jumped to $3. 

Sunday Oregonian (Portland), 11 March 1888, p. 5, col. 2 

In and About Portland 

 Large quantities of smelt still continue to be sent up from the Cowlitz. 

Nothing has been heard of them reaching the Sandy yet. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 13 December 1888, p. 8, col. 1 

Picked Up About the Town 

 The First, Lone Smelt—Mr. Calper, who has a salmon fishery on Lewis River, 

a day or two since caught a fine large Columbia River smelt, which in some 

manner became entangled in his net. This is the first smelt of the season, and it 

comes to hand unusually early, as they generally put in an appearance some time 

in February. It is also a little strange that the first smelt heard from should be 

taken in Lewis River, as for the three past seasons the shoals of these fish have 

not come any farther up than the Cowlitz. It will hardly be worth while for our 

epicures to make up their mouths for smelt yet awhile. One swallow does not 

make it summer, nor does one smelt make it spring, and in all probability we shall 

have a cold snap before we shall see smelt in the market. 

270
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 27 December 1888, p. 5, col. 2 

Portland and Vicinity 

 Smelt for Christmas Dinner—Last evening a gentleman marched into the 

reporter’s room of The Oregonian office and left a parcel with the compliments of 

Vin Cook. On opening the package it was found to be a cigar box filled with 

genuine Columbia River smelt, which glistened in the lamplight like silver. A 

short time since a notice was published in The Oregonian of a single smelt having 

been caught by Mr. Calper in his salmon seine in Lewis River. Mr. Cook, who is 

at Clifton, seeing this, sent out a boat to drift for smelt and enough was caught to 

make a course for the Christmas dinner for all hands at Clifton and some left to 

send to The Oregonian. It is hardly probable that any one in this region ever had 

Columbia River smelt for dinner on Christmas before. The smelt usually arrive in 

February and what they mean by coming so much earlier than usual this year it is 

impossible to say. They have some queer ways, as only a few years since they 

forgot to come up entirely. It may be that they have had some premonition that 

there would be no winter this time and if so the chances are ten to one that they 

will find themselves fooled. If the weather should “come off” warm with rain it is 

not unlikely that there will be smelt in the market very soon. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 12 January 1889; p. 8, col. 1 

Gathered by Reporters 

First Shipment for the Season of Columbia River 

Smelt Quickly Disposed Of 

 Nothing Too Rich For Us—The first shipment of Columbia River smelt of 

this season arrived here yesterday. There were only 35 pounds of them, and they 

were all disposed of by McGuire & Co. before they arrived for 50 cents per 

pound, that being the price fixed by the fishermen, who have been out drifting for 

several nights in hopes of making a haul. The price made no difference, and 

many more could have been sold. Wealthy people at the East think nothing of 

paying a dollar a pound or more for the first salmon or trout of the season, and our 

wealthy people are not going to be left on the first Columbia River smelt, no 

matter what the price is. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 21 February 1889, p. 5, col. 1 

 Columbia River Smelt—Columbia River smelt are coming in plentiful and 

Malarkey & Co., corner of Fourth and Morrison streets, have enough to supply 

everybody at cheaper prices than ever before. The run will not last long and if 

you want a mess of these delicious little fish now is the time to get them. This 

firm makes a specialty of shipping these fish and orders from the country for any 

quantity will be promptly filled. 

271
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 22 February 1889, p. 4, col. 3 

Smelt, Smelt 

 Columbia River Smelt are now growing plentiful and cheap. Parties wishing 

to procure smelt for salting down can buy them by the box at a low price. 

Remember that the run lasts but a short time. Malarkey & Co., Fourth and 

Morrison streets. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 18 December 1889, p. 6, col. 7 

The Very First of the Season 

A Small Lot of Smelt Have Put in an Appearance in the City 

 A small lot of genuine Columbia River smelt were displayed at C. A. 

Malarkey & Co.’s market yesterday. They were, it is needless to say, the first of 

the season, and as the fisherman who sent them up wrote, “they are the earliest 

smelt that ever went into Portland market.” J. B. Johnson captured them near 

Quinn’s Landing, and the 25 pounds represent three night’s work out in the cold. 

He has got ahead of Vin Cook this year, and broken the record, for no living man 

has ever seen Columbia River smelt here so early before. They generally arrive 

about the 1st of January, and when they come it is considered that winter is over. 

Many who saw the smelt yesterday, said “well winter is over,” but it is more 

probable that the smelt have made a mistake. Many things have been mentioned 

as tending to indicate that we are to have a hard winter, but the arrival of these 

smelt is the first thing which seems to indicate that winter is over, and we might 

as well cling to the hope till it is dispelled. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 23 December 1889, p. 5, col. 1 

 Something about Early Smelt—Mr. James Quinn, formerly a well-known 

resident of this city, but for years a resident at Quinn’s Landing on the lower 

Columbia, demurs to the statement published in these columns a few days since, 

to the effect that some Columbia River smelt received here on that day were, as 

the man who caught them claimed, the earliest smelt ever seen in the Portland 

market. Mr. Quinn says he had fresh Columbia River smelt in his market on 

Washington Street, on the 8th of December, 1869. From this it appears that Mr. 

Johnson in 1889 was 10 days behind Mr. Quinn in 1869 in getting smelt to this 

market. It is the belief of many fishermen that smelt and Chinook salmon both 

are in the river all winter, and could be taken if fished for, but the game would 

hardly be worth the candle. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 22 January 1892, p. 5, col. 2 

 The Smelt as a Weather Prophet—The shoals of smelt which have been in the 

Columbia River for the past month or six weeks have struck into the Cowlitz. 

Over a ton of these fish were sent up from the Cowlitz Wednesday evening, and it 

was supposed that they would continue to be plentiful, but the next day only a 

272
small lot arrived, and it is feared that the shoals will soon go up the river out of 

reach, and the smelt season will be over. The fact that the smelt have started up 

for their spawning grounds is considered by many to indicate that winter is over. 

It is scarcely probable that there will be any ice or snow this winter. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 28 November 1892, p. 6, col. 2 

Columbia Smelt. An Unusually Early Catch of the Dainty Little Fish 

 A lot of Columbia River smelt were received in this city Saturday, and very 

fine ones they were. This is the earliest time of year that smelt have ever been 

caught. They were taken by J. B. Johnson, near Eagle Cliff, and the first sales 

were made at 75 cents per pound, which is the highest price ever paid for the 

delicious little pan fish. 

 The Columbia River smelt did not put in an appearance formerly, as a general 

thing, till about the 1st of February, and if there happened to be a cold winter and 

ice in the Columbia, they did not materialize until after the ice had gone out, when 

they arrived in the Cowlitz in immense shoals, and shortly after in the Sandy in 

like numbers. For several years past fishermen have been using dip nets in the 

Columbia, searching for smelt, and last year and the year before at Christmastime 

they caught small lots right along. The first man who got a shipment into market 

received a high price, as every market man was anxious to have the first lot, 

which he had no trouble in disposing of at 50 cents per pound. The price would 

soon drop to 25 cents, then to a bit, and when the shoals of fish got into the 

Cowlitz they would sell for 5 cents. Soon they would be shipped all over the 

country, and then there would be many more smelt than could be got rid of at any 

price. 

 The fact that the smelt were to be found in the river in December led some to 

imagine that they were there all winter, staying in deep water. If such is the case, 

Mr. Johnson, who made this early catch and broke the record, has probably found 

one of their haunts. Some people think that the freshet in the Columbia—if a rise 

of five feet at Vancouver can be called a freshet—has brought the fish up the 

river. There is no probability, however, of their going up the Cowlitz to their 

spawning grounds till the snow is gone out of the mountains at the headwaters of 

that stream. 

 The Columbia River smelt is what is called farther north the oolihan, or 

candlefish, and is esteemed as one of the most delicious little fish caught. Salmon 

and trout have no superiors in their season, but the smelt comes at a season when 

other fish are scarce, and so is most esteemed. If it is going to come at this season 

and mix itself up with Sound smelt and all the other fish in the market, its good 

qualities will have to submit to the test of comparison. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 1 January 1893, p. 5, col. 1 

 Smelt Have Returned—The Columbia River smelt, which arrived earlier this 

season than ever before so far as known, and were well along on their way up the 

273
Cowlitz River to their spawning grounds when the snow storm came on and drove 

them back, have re-entered the Cowlitz and will for a time be plentiful in the local 

market. They re-entered the Cowlitz last Friday, and a man who happened to be 

loafing along the bank of the river saw them pouring up the stream in a solid 

column about two feet in width. He hastily secured a dip net, worked with a will 

for two hours, caught the boat coming to this city and sold his catch for $25. He 

was much elated with his success, and expressed his intention of devoting the 

remainder of his life to fishing. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 2 January 1895, p. 9, col. 1–2 

Great Quantities of Smelt 

 The Columbia River smelt, the most delicious of panfish, during the past year 

commenced coming to market in October, more than a month earlier than ever 

known before. Small quantities have been received almost daily ever since, but 

within the past week the shoals have entered the Cowlitz River, on their way to 

their spawning grounds, and they have been taken in large quantities. The change 

in the weather has been so slight as hardly to check them, although ice or snow 

might send them back into the deep waters of the Columbia. With the first rains, 

the immense shoals of these fish will swarm the Cowlitz and tons of them will be 

coming to market, and they will be shipped to all parts of the country. No method 

has yet been discovered of preserving the delicate flavor of these fish, which are 

so fat as to be known to the Indians as the candle fish. Large quantities might be 

put up yearly if any process could be discovered which would preserve their good 

qualities. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 28 March 1895, p. 8, col. 3–4 

The Big Run of Smelt 

 The enormous run of smelt in the Sandy River is attracting wide attention. If 

all the statements of those who have been out there are true, and they seem to be 

verified by the wagonloads of smelt taken, the run is the biggest that has been 

seen in the Sandy for the past 15 years. When the O. R. & N. railroad was in 

course of construction, and there was a large encampment on the river, the water 

suddenly came alive with the fish, and the railroad employees feasted on smelt for 

several days. Great wagonloads were taken. The next run occurred six years ago, 

it is claimed by those who know, but the run was comparatively small, and was 

soon over. There are now hundreds of people catching smelt by the tons. A 

wagon may be filled in half an hour. The wagon is driven into the shallow water, 

and the fish are scooped into the wagon by means of a small scoop net. It is 

stated some of the farmers are catching the fish in wagonloads and distributing 

them over their farms for fertilizing purposes, where some are smoking them, and 

many are being packed in salt. The fish move along close to the shore. The 

females come with the first run, and the males afterward. One can put his hands 

in the water and feel the fish bumping against them. Mr. Joseph Paquet was down 

274
the river several days ago and saw indications that the fish were going up the 

river. They were followed by droves of seagulls, watching, apparently, to catch 

the fish which happen to come near the surface. They were on the way to 

spawning-ground. The habits of the smelt are rather peculiar. They have usually 

appeared in the Cowlitz River, and not in the Lewis River, but this year they have 

entered the Lewis and very few in the Cowlitz. The run went on past the 

Willamette and entered the turbid and always discolored waters of the Sandy 

River. W. F. Allen, who was on the Sandy in all the smelt runs for the past 30 

years, will go out today and see how the present run sizes up with what he saw in 

the long ago. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 1 April 1895, p. 5, col. 4–5 

All Fished for Smelt 

Large Number of Portlanders Visit the Sandy to Enjoy the Sport 

 The banks of the Sandy River for many miles were the scene of great activity 

all day yesterday, made so by the presence of hundreds of pleasure seekers, bent 

upon catching smelt or watching others catch them. A gentleman who has made a 

careful estimate, from personal observation, states that the catch during the week 

has fully averaged 100 tons per day. It is thought that this run is the greatest that 

has occurred for over 30 years, and of the longest duration. The runs do not 

usually last over five or six days, but the fish were still running very thick 

yesterday, the eighth day. It is thought the run will now dwindle down, as all fish 

now going up are males. The females go up to the spawning grounds first and 

they are followed by the males. It is inferred that the run is almost over, as the 

males have already been running since the middle of the week. As far as could be 

ascertained yesterday no females were caught, all being males, very firm and 

plump. A few of the fish gave evidence of some hard knocks during their trip up 

the river. If the gentleman who estimated the catch at 100 tons a day is right the 

entire catch during the run will foot up a 1,000 tons. 

 All yesterday vehicles of every sort, loaded with families, well supplied with 

boxes and sacks and dip nets, prepared to catch smelt, poured to the banks of the 

Sandy. The favorite place was at the county bridge. The river has here cut a deep 

channel through the slightly wooded uplands, and winds its sinuous ways like a 

thread of silver to blend with the majestic Columbia, a few miles below. Where 

the bridge spans the river there is a sort of open space, and to the southeast the 

river makes a gentle curve, sweeping around a gravel and sandbar of about five 

acres in extent. A full view of the bridge and surroundings may be had from the 

county road to the westward, just before it plunges down a winding grade to the 

bridge. The gravel was covered with fishermen and women, both great and small. 

With long poles, on which were suspended dip nets made of most anything that 

will allow the water to run off, they were constantly dipping out the sluggish 

smelt. Toward the point of the gravel bank, which the water sweeps around 

swiftly, a dozen or more of wagons had been backed into the stream up to the hub, 

and these were being filled by means of nets of larger size. It was an interesting 

275
sight to see these wagons fill up and others take the place. The men swung the 

nets with monotonous regularity, and rarely ever failed to bring up from a dozen 

to half a dozen wriggling fish. The smelt seemed to run around this point in more 

condensed bunches than below, along the margin of the gravel bank. The 

experienced fisherman was provided with a sort of metal funnel, well perforated 

with holes, on the end of a light pole, about eight feet long. But it was 

comparatively an easy matter to catch in a few minutes all anyone would care to 

take of them. 

 From a sportsman’s point of view the taking of fish in this manner cannot be 

regarded as very exhilarating exercise, still it is a sort of change. One good thing 

about it is that no one went home without a fine string, or rather sack of fish. The 

smelt caught in the Sandy were very plump and firm. At this time of year the 

river is very clear and cold. Evidence of prodigality and waste was apparent from 

the piles of half-dried fish near the bridge. And yet, with all the millions which 

were taken from the river, millions went on to the spawning ground. On their 

return trip they keep well in the center of the river and move faster than when on 

the way up. 

 A large number of people went out from the city in carriages and on bicycles 

merely to see the fishing. It was a day that will not soon be forgotten in the 

interior of the county, and if there is a family within 10 miles of the Sandy that 

has not had a feast of fish last week, it has not been because they could not be had 

in unlimited quantities. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 4 December 1895, p. 12, col. 3 

First Smelt Arrive 

But They’re Mighty Dear—Wait, and They’ll Soon Be Cheaper. 

 Among the various species of fish which form the great harvest of the mighty 

Columbia, none is more eagerly looked for or more highly appreciated than the 

smelt, the Columbia River smelt, or “candle-fish,” being considered by many 

people of this section the prince of all pan fish. Ten or a dozen years ago, they 

did not appear in this market as a general thing till after the cold weather was past, 

in February or March, or as soon as the main school began crowding up the 

Cowlitz and other tributaries of the Columbia to their breeding grounds. Of late 

years fishermen have taken to fishing for them with seines in the Columbia, and it 

has been found that they are in the river nearly all winter, and year after year they 

have been coming earlier and earlier to market, the fishermen who gets in the first 

lot reaping a rich reward for his trouble. The first lots have sold for 50 cents per 

pound, and, as they become more plentiful, the price goes down to 25 cents, then 

to 15 cents, and finally to 5 cents, when they come in by scores of bushels at a 

time, till finally they are so plentiful that there is no sale for them. 

 Last year the smelt arrived just before Christmas, and the run lasted a long 

time, the quantity of little fish disposed of here being probably much greater than 

in any previous year and yielding a handsome return to the fishermen. This was 

the earliest the smelt ever came to market; but the record has been beaten this 

276
season, as a small lot, just a few pounds, were received here yesterday. This is 

positively the earliest arrival of smelt known, and unless freezing weather comes 

on and drives them back, or to the bottom, it may be expected that the fish will 

soon arrive in quantities. They were held at 75 cents per pound, as they were 

looked upon more as a curiosity than as an article of merchandise. 

 The sturgeon, which, until within the past year or two, thronged the Columbia 

and devoured enormous quantities of smelt, are now very scarce, and this will 

probably result in an increase in the shoals of smelt, which, however, have always 

been immense. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 29 December 1896, p. 9, col. 4 

The Story of Smelt 

How It Is Mentioned by an Early Visitor to Oregon 

 A gentleman of this city, who has a copy of “Francheve’s Narrative,” which is 

the diary of Gilbert Francheve [Franchère], of Montreal, who was a clerk in the 

trading company of John Jacob Astor, and who visited the Columbia in 1811, is of 

the opinion that Francheve makes the first mention of the Columbia River smelt. 

He says: 

 “February brings a small fish about the size of a sardine. It has an exquisite 

flavor, and is taken in immense quantities by means of a scoop net, which the 

Indians, seated in canoes, plunge into the schools, but the season is short, not even 

lasting two weeks.” 

 The season for smelt has grown much longer within the past few years, since 

fishermen have made it a business of going out hunting for the advance guards of 

the schools. Some years since, they were seldom seen in market until February, 

when the great schools began pushing their way up the Cowlitz and Sandy to their 

spawning grounds, and in a short time the run was over, or the fish had become 

soft and not fit for food. Last year the first smelt caught in the Columbia in drift 

nets came to market in December, and the season lasted nearly three months, the 

fish being good all the time till after they were well on their way to the spawning 

grounds. 

 It is probable that mention has been made of the vast schools of smelt entering 

the Columbia before Francheve [Franchère] wrote his diary, as the smelt were 

always here, and the earliest residents along the river have described how the 

Indians caught them by means of a long rod, through which nails had been driven, 

forming a sort of comb, or rake, which they moved swiftly through the schools of 

smelt, bringing up many impaled upon these nails. Smelt fishing now brings in 

considerable money to the fishermen, owing to the greater length of the season. 

Late in the season the price gets very low, but then the only limit to the catch is 

the amount that can be disposed of. Many are salted by farmers along the river, 

and some are smoked, but the fish is best in a fresh state, and for the pan has no 

superior on the coast. 

277
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 7 December 1907, p. 12, col. 1–2 

Good Things in Portland Markets, by Lilian Tingle 

 Columbia River smelt cost 50 cents [per pound]. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 14 December 1907, p. 12, col. 1–2 

Good Things in Portland Markets, by Lilian Tingle 

 Columbia River smelt ... are 20 to 25 cents per pound. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 29 February 1908, p. 5, col. 1–2 

Good Things in Markets, by Lilian Tingle 

 I saw even more varieties of fish in the market than there were last week. 

Columbia River smelt were 121⁄2 cents a pound, and scarce at that, when I 

inquired about it, but more may be in today. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 7 March 1908, p. 12, col. 1–2 

Good Things in Markets, by Lilian Tingle 

 Columbia River smelt was selling at two pounds for 25 cents .... 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 19 December 1908, p. 10, col. 2 

What the Markets Offer, by Lilian Tingle 

 Columbia River smelt are more plentiful and are to be had at a reasonable 

price. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 24 December 1908, p. 15, col. 2 

What the Markets Offer, by Lilian Tingle 

 The cold weather has kept the price of Columbia River smelt up to 30 and 35 

cents a pound. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 9 January 1909, p. 8, col. 2 

Good Things in Markets 

 Columbia River smelt was about 10 cents a pound yesterday, but the supply is 

of course affected by the weather. 

278
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 2 February 1909, p. 9, col. 2 

 The Run Is On—Fresh Columbia River smelt, 5 cents a pound. Maces 

Market, 151 Fourth Street. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 13 February 1909, p. 12, col. 4 

Good Things in Markets 

 Columbia River smelt was selling at 4 and 5 cents a pound earlier in the week, 

but cost 7 to 10 cents when I inquired; and no man would risk a statement as to 

whether it was likely to be down again today or up higher. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 24 December 1909, p. 10, col. 2 

Good Things in Markets 

 The fish market is exceedingly well supplied with the sea dainties for which 

Portland is famous ... Columbia River smelt, 40 to 50 cents [per pound]. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 12 February 1910, p. 12, col. 2 

Good Things in Portland Markets, by Lilian Tingle 

 Columbia River smelt may be considered the most interesting feature of the 

market this week, of interest alike to epicure and economist. At 5 cents a pound, 

or six pounds for a quarter, this dainty fish is within the reach of everyone. Many 

thrifty housekeepers take advantage of the season of plenty, and buying smelt by 

the box at about 3 cents a pound. Proceed to secure inexpensive future breakfast 

or luncheon dishes by salting, smoking, pickling or canning this “violet of the 

waters.” 

Sunday Oregonian (Portland), 13 February 1910, p. 9, col. 4–5 

Smelt Cannery Offered 

Kelso Owners Seek Someone to Operate Plant 

Heavy Catches Are Accompanied by No Diminution of Supply—Cowlitz Yields Well 

 Owners of an idle canning plant in Kelso are seeking someone who will 

engage in the packing of Columbia River smelt in that city. 

 F. L. Stewart, a banker of Kelso, who is in Portland, expresses the conviction 

that the opportunities are good for using the plant for smelt canning in winter and 

fruit and vegetable canning in the spring and summer. The cannery was started as 

a cooperative venture, but has been idle about two years. 

 Although the smelt, now so generously in the Portland markets, bear the name 

“Columbia River,” the great preponderance of them is taken in the vicinity of 

Kelso from the Cowlitz River. Kelso this season has shipped out approximately 

279
15,000 boxes. Each box contains 50 pounds and the fish average eight to the 

pound. The catch, so far, therefore represents approximately 6,000,000 fish. 

 In spite of the heavy catches there is apparently no diminution in the yearly 

runs of fish and at the height of the season they get down to a low figure. 

 At the beginning of the present season fishermen got $3 a box for the first run, 

but the price, as the run increased, dropped rapidly until now the fishermen realize 

about 25 cents a box. Last year the price went as low as 15 cents. The largest 

catch reported this season was 45 boxes, taken between 7 and 11 a.m., by two 

men in one boat. 

 Some of the residents of Kelso smoke the fish as they would herring and find 

that smoked smelt are a delicacy. The cannery plan, however, would be to put 

them up in form similar to sardines. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 17 February 1910, p. 8, col. 4 

Cowlitz Full of Smelt 

Big Run May Presage Prosperous Salmon Season Later On 

 Astoria, Ore., Feb. 16—The largest run of smelt for years in the Cowlitz River 

is now in progress. The river has never been known to contain so many smelt in 

the memory of the oldest fisherman. 

 This may bode good for the coming fishing season in the Columbia, as it is 

said that a good run of smelt has always been followed by a good run of salmon. 

Sunday Oregonian (Portland), 27 February 1910, Section 5, p. 8 

Smelt Fishing on the Cowlitz 

How an Army of Men Catch the Biggest Run Known in the Last 20 Years 

By R. G. Callvert 

 A hobo the other day wandered along the fringe of the riverbank that lies 

between the floating docks and the railroad track at Kelso, picking up discarded 

smelt for an easy meal. 

 “Here, drop those rotten fish and come down and get some fresh ones,” 

shouted a fisherman from a float where smelt were being packed into boxes for 

shipment. 

 Discarded fish may look good to a tramp in most countries, but in Kelso 

during the smelt run only a stranger with a most aggravated antipathy to exertion 

need go without the freshest product of the Cowlitz River. 

 Had the tramp known it and been inclined toward the effort, an old can tied at 

the end of a stick plunged into the water from a nearby log boom would have 

brought him up in one sweep all the smelt he could eat in a day. Or by lying on 

the log boom he could have pulled out enough fish with his bare hands for a 

square meal. 

280
 There is not much romance connected with the taking of the smelt that are so 

plentiful in the markets of Portland and the Northwest during four or five months 

of each winter. There is no battling with waves and storms such as are 

encountered by the hardy herring fishermen of the Atlantic. For the sportsman, 

smelt fishing would be just about as exciting as clam digging and the amount of 

skill required about the same. Smelt fishing furnishes tales, however, that are 

novelties among fish stories in that while almost unbelievable they are 

nevertheless true. 

 During the smelt runs fish are so plentiful that even the voracious seagull 

becomes almost sated. When the gulls are at all hungry the fishermen sometimes 

find amusement tossing smelt into the air, which the birds catch before they reach 

the water. A seagull on the wing will seize a fish perhaps by the tail and reverse it 

with a toss in the air and gulp it head first in the twinkling of an eye. 

 So plentifully do the smelt run that frequently children bail them out of the 

water with tin cans securing half fish and half water. When the water is shallow 

enough the smelt can be taken with the bare hands, for the skin of the fish is not 

slimy when in the water. 

 While the Cowlitz River is the only known spawning ground for smelt where 

the fish may be taken year by year, they have been known to run up the Lewis 

River and also up the Sandy. At the time the smelt ran up the Lewis River, 14 

years ago, there was only a small run of male smelt in the Cowlitz and the 

fishermen transferred their operations to the Lewis. When smelt run in numbers 

up the river it is apparently independently of the Cowlitz run and it is said to 

occur in the Sandy about once in eight years. It is truthfully related that at the 

time of the last run up the Sandy a party of Portland young men went out with dip 

nets on a fishing expedition. One man lost his dip net, but luckily found an old, 

rusty, discarded birdcage. This he attached to the end of a pole and successfully 

kept pace with his more fortunate companions. This is the only record in fishing 

annals of successful fishing with a birdcage, although if the novelty of the 

experiment invites one it can undoubtedly be successfully duplicated in the 

Cowlitz River any day between now and April 1. 

 During the last big smelt run in the Sandy farmers drove their wagons to 

stream, filled them with dip nets and used the fish for fertilizing fruit trees. An 

unusually large quantity of pork with a fishy taste sold in the markets some 

months afterwards revealed the fact that some of the farmers had utilized the fish 

surplus in feeding their hogs. 

 This season the Cowlitz River is the spawning ground of the greatest run of 

smelt ever known by fishermen who have been engaged in the business for 20 

years. It is now estimated that by the close of the season the river will have 

yielded 300,000 boxes of smelt, each box weighing 50 pounds. This will 

represent an output of 10,000,000 pounds or 5,000 tons and a smelt average about 

eight fish to the pound means the marketing of 80,000,000 fish. 

 The smelt has peculiarities of his own, as pronounced as those of the salmon. 

What is known commercially as the “Columbia River smelt” is caught in paying 

281
quantities regularly year by year only in Cowlitz River, which is a tributary of the 

Columbia River rising in the State of Washington. 

 The main fishing grounds of the river extend over an area during the season of 

not more than eight or 10 miles as a rule. Like those of the salmon the smelt runs 

come in from the sea through the mouth of the Columbia River. In the earliest 

catches, when smelt bring from $3.50 to $3 per box, the fish are taken in limited 

numbers in the Columbia. 

 In the Columbia some fish are caught in the early season by gillnetters, but 

when the season is well along the gillnetter cannot compete with the regular smelt 

fisherman, for the former has to pick the fish out one by one from the meshes of 

his net. The latter uses a dip net attached to a long pole, and after locating a 

school of fish simply bails them out of the river and into his boat, sometimes 

getting as many fish as he can lift out of the water. 

 The smelt lie in schools close to the bottom of the river and are therefore 

found at varying depths. The fisherman prospects for the schools with the reverse 

end of his pole, and if the end of the pole is plunged into an accumulated number 

of fish, the wriggles of the small bodies that results is communicated to the hands 

of the fisherman. 

 Most of the fishing is done at night, for the light of day seems to scatter the 

fish, yet even in daylight hours the fishermen are able to pursue their occupation 

with good results. 

 Before Kelso accumulated a variety of industries along its waterfront, one of 

the best fishing points was opposite the Northern Pacific depot, from where one 

can toss a stone into the water. The driving of piles, however, seems to have 

driven the fish farther up the stream, and this season they have been found most 

plentifully about one and one-half miles above the town. Between the small 

floating docks and the fishing grounds boats are continually plying, going 

upstream empty and returning ladened with fish. Fully 500 boats are utilized in 

the industry and of these about 75 are powerboats. 

 As a rule there are two men to each boat and the crafts are filled in almost an 

incredibly short space of time. Last Tuesday night J. A. Sprague, one of the 

principal shippers of Kelso, and one companion loaded his launch to its capacity 

in 45 minutes. This represents a catch of 45 boxes, or one 50-pound box a 

minute. Last year a catch of 125 boxes for two men held the record for a night’s 

fishing. This year there have been frequent occasions when two men brought in 

200 boxes to represent a day’s work. 

 To the ordinary fisherman who has no regular market to supply, a catch of 200 

boxes of smelt in the height of the season is worth about $50. On the Cowlitz 

River; however, there are a number of men who ship direct to retail markets, 

maintain boats of their own and buy from other fishermen. Portland wholesalers 

have buyers at Kelso and probably the greater portion of the retail trade is 

supplied through Portland. At Kelso, however, smelt have been shipped direct as 

far East as Wisconsin. 

282
 The output of the river, say the fishermen, could be greatly increased if the 

market demands were sufficient to justify more men engaging in the industry. 

Kelso has no facilities for shipping fish in cold storage. A cold storage plant is 

one of the enterprises the town wants, for it is believed that the market can be 

broadened and a demand created in the Far Eastern states. Canning in the form of 

sardines is also suggested, and in Kelso there is a cannery that was utilized as a 

cooperative plant by fruit and vegetable growers until last year, that will be turned 

over to any experienced man who will engage in the business. 

 Kelso has a group of enterprising citizens who have done much to build up the 

town to its present population of 2,800. Practically the same group of 

businessmen established the electric light plant and city waterworks, built a 

$15,000 opera house, erected a drawbridge across the Cowlitz River, which they 

afterwards sold to the county, established a newspaper office, invested in the 

cooperative cannery mentioned and have aided and encouraged several other 

enterprises. 

 They are now seeking to put the smelt fishing on a basis where it will pay 

better returns to the fishermen and increase the number of men engaged in the 

industry. This effort is apparently justified, for though the output of smelt is 

slowly growing year by year, the increasing inroads upon the schools of fish do 

not seem to diminish their number. 

 Cowlitz River fishermen are now advocating the licensing of persons engaged 

in commercial smelt fishing. Frequently, during the season, schoolboys will go 

out, load up a few boats with fish and become easy marks for the buyers. The 

result is a demoralizing market, the boys being content with enough money to buy 

candy or a few toys. Often too, groups of Greeks or Italians will come up the 

Cowlitz in boats, remain at the fishing grounds for a few days and sell their 

catches for whatever they can get, again upsetting the prices paid the regular 

fishermen. The men who are regularly engaged in the industry want the 

protection of a reasonable license, which, they believe, will cut out the itinerant 

fisherman. 

 It is a saying among fishermen that a big run of smelt presages a big run of 

salmon. If this is true, the salmon fisheries of the Columbia should have a 

prosperous season this year, for the smelt run is unprecedented in volume. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 8 December 1910, p. 21, col. 6 

Smelt in the River 

Good Hauls Looked For in about 10 Days 

 Astoria, Ore., Dec. 7— ... Two days ago a few smelt were seen at the mouth 

of Grays River, showing that they are beginning to come in, and good hauls of 

this class of fish may be looked for in about 10 days or two weeks. 

283
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 5 January 1911, p. 21, col. 1 

Run of Smelt is Small 

 Astoria, Ore., Jan 4.—(Special)—Quite a few smelt have been caught during 

the last few days in the vicinity of Clifton, but none has been taken as yet in the 

Grays River. It is said the water in that stream is too low and a freshet must come 

before the smelt will be attracted that way. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 7 January 1911, p. 12, col. 4 

Good Things in Markets 

 Columbia River smelt, though less costly than on its first appearance, sold 

yesterday at 25 cents a pound, but will probably soon reach the lower prices we 

are accustomed to. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 11 February 1911, p. 8, col. 4 

Good Things in Markets 

 The day of very cheap Columbia River smelt is not yet, though any market 

man will tell you it may be expected at any time now. Smelt were selling 

yesterday at 10 to 121⁄2 cents a pound, and were quite scarce at that, though earlier 

in the week they were to be had at three pounds for 25 cents. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 18 February 1911, p. 10, col. 3 

Good Things in the Market 

 The smelt are here! The run is sufficiently strong to reduce the price to 5 

cents a pound, and at every dealer’s the fish are on hand in boxfuls. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 22 February 1911, p. 18, col. 2 

Marine Notes 

 First of the season’s catch of smelt in the Cowlitz River, amounting to 35 tons 

was brought to Portland on the steamer Lurline. Another consignment was 

transported by the steamer Joseph Kellogg. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 25 February 1911, p. 12, col. 2 

Good Things in Markets, by Lilian Tingle 

 The heavy run of Columbia River smelt has come in earnest this week. The 

delicious little fish are selling at three pounds for a dime, 10 pounds for a quarter, 

or one dollar a box, and there is enough for every one. 

284
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 2 December 1911, p. 11, col. 2 

First Columbia River Smelt of the Season at Mace’s Market 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 27 January 1912, p. 4, col. 3 

Good Things in Markets 

 Columbia River smelt is not really plentiful, but is to be had at 6 to 8 cents a 

pound. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 10 February 1912, p. 12, col. 4 

Good Things in Markets, by Lilian Tingle 

 Columbia River smelt are still the leading feature in the fish markets, and are 

selling at about 8 cents a pound. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 2 April 1912, p. 7, col. 3 

Smelt Run Now On 

Millions of Small Fish Enter the Sandy River 

Sunday Crowds Active 

 Troutdale, Ore., April 1—(Special)—This thriving little city should have been 

named Smeltdale, as there isn’t a trout anywhere near it. But the dainty little 

smelt is just now the attraction that has made the town the Mecca of thousands 

who are all returning home laden down with all the fish they care to take away 

with them. 

 The great run of smelt from the Columbia River began on Thursday last and 

was at its greatest yesterday. An ideal day and the prospect of unlimited catches, 

together with the exciting sport of taking them, brought people from every 

direction. The banks were lined with teams from all over the county and 

automobiles from the city, and the entire day was spent in a vain effort to deplete 

the Sandy River of its finny denizens. 

Millions Will Die [subhead] 

 Thousands were caught but millions got away, only to swim against the strong 

current for a few days longer and then float back dead, dying or exhausted, when 

the greatest run known will all be over. 

 Nine years ago there was a similar run of smelt in the Sandy. This is the only 

river, excepting the Cowlitz that is ever entered by them from the Columbia. No 

one can ever predict when they are coming. It is only when the water is seen to 

be fairly alive with them that the word goes out and for a few days all other 

business is suspended while the people from far and near lay in a big supply. 

Birdcages Used as Nets [subhead] 

285
 Yesterday’s sport was exciting enough. It was attended with many 

involuntary baths and much mirth. The fishing appliances consisted of nets tied 

to long poles and every scoop into the water brought up fish. 

 In place of the regulation net there were to be seen improvised scoops made of 

wire gauze, coal oil cans and even birdcages. A motion picture outfit made films 

and every sort of a water craft did a rushing business all day long. 

 The great run will cease as suddenly as it began. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 23 November 1912, p. 16, col. 4 

Smelt Are Running Early 

Fish Caught Close to Ocean Bring Fancy Prices 

 ASTORIA, Ore., Nov. 22—(Special)—Smelt are entering the river earlier this 

year than ever before. Last night one man who was fishing for herring in the 

lower river not far from Sand Island caught a pound and a half of smelt in his net, 

and as a result he is going out with a regular smelt net. 

 Columbia River smelt are considered the most toothsome fish found on the 

coast, and when caught close to the ocean are exceptionally fine, those taken early 

in the season often selling as high as a dollar a pound. 

Sunday Oregonian (Portland), 15 December 1912, p. 14, col. 4 

Good Things in Markets 

 Columbia River smelt is the “newest thing” in the fish market and is available, 

in small quantities only, at 25 cents a pound. 

Sunday Oregonian (Portland), 2 February 1913, p. 16, col. 5 

Good Things in Markets 

 Columbia River smelt again is in the market, in generous supply, and can now 

be had at six pounds for 25 cents. 

San Jose Evening News (San Jose, CA), Monday, 14 April 1913, p. 5, col. 4–5 

Unusual Run of Smelt near Portland—Farmers Carry Fish by Wagonloads for Fertilizer 

 Portland, Ore., April 14—A run of smelt which promises to break all records 

has come into the Sandy River, a tributary of the Columbia, 12 miles from 

Portland. 

 An army of farmers and people from the city are busy scooping out the little 

fish in water buckets, dip nets, inverted birdcages and with pitchforks. The 

supply is so far beyond the demands of the markets that farmers are hauling them 

off by the wagonload and distributing them over their plowed lands as fertilizer. 

286
 One cent a pound is the market price for smelt along the Sandy, with but scant 

demand, since people there and in Portland have become surfeited with them. 

 Heavy runs of smelt in the Sandy appear at intervals of several years, but this 

one is denominated a freak. The run is both ahead of time and unusually heavy. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 29 November 1913, p. 12, col. 1 

Good Things in Portland Markets 

 The first Columbia River smelt of the season is on the market this week at $1 

a pound. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 5 December 1913, p. 14, col. 4 

Columbia Smelt on Sale 

Weather Makes Fish Scarce and Retail Price is 25 Cents a Pound 

 Columbia River smelt have appeared in the market. The run, so far, has been 

a small one, and as long as the present kind of weather continues, the fish will not 

be plentiful, but warm rains and higher water in the river will bring them in 

abundance. 

 The big run, which is due later, will be in the Cowlitz River. Smelt are 

retailing in the markets at 25 cents a pound. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 14 January 1914, p. 14, col. 2 

Marine Notes 

 First of the smelt caught this season in the Cowlitz River arrived yesterday on 

the steamer Joseph Kellogg, the shipment consisting of 60 boxes. Owing to high 

water in that stream the catch is regarded as light. 

Sunday Oregonian (Portland), 18 January 1914, p. 6, col. 6 

 Columbia River smelt are so plentiful as to confound the price jugglers. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 5 February 1914, p. 16, col. 6 

Marine Notes 

 It was estimated that the deliveries of smelt from the Cowlitz River and lower 

Columbia district yesterday were between 1,200 and 1,500 boxes. The launch 

Frolic brought 425 cases from the Cowlitz. 

287
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 27 February 1914, p. 14, col. 3–4 

Good Things in Markets 

 Columbia River smelt is still at flood tide and is expected to be abundant [in 

the fish market] until possibly the middle of March. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 31 March 1914, p. 10, col. 6 

Smelt Are Destroyed 

Prosecutions May Follow Use of Fish as Fertilizer 

Mr. Finley Says Law against Wanton Waste of Food Will Be Enforced against Sandy River 

People 

 The smelt running in the Sandy River are attracting many people to that 

locality. Inasmuch as the fish are extremely plentiful, it is no trouble at all to 

catch them in nets or makeshift scoops. The fact that the fish are so abundant has 

led many persons to catch them without limit. 

 “The State Board of Fish and Game Commissioners desire to give public 

notice that the law passed as the last session of the Legislature concerning the 

wanton waste of fish will be strictly enforced,” said William L. Finley. “The 

Columbia River smelt is one of our most valuable commercial fish. The fact that 

it comes in great numbers into Cowlitz, the Sandy and certain other streams at 

about this time of the year, leads some people to believe that the supply is 

inexhaustible. 

 “These fish come in from the sea and go into the rivers to spawn. We have to 

depend upon our future supply from the natural spawning of these fish. At the 

present time many people living in the vicinity of Troutdale are catching far 

greater numbers of these fish than they have any use for; in fact, they are loaded 

into gunny sacks and into wagons and not used in any way except as a fertilizer. 

 “It is an economic waste and an outrage that such a fine pan fish as the smelt 

should be wantonly destroyed and wasted. There is nothing governing the 

amount of these fish that can be caught or the method of catching them, yet there 

is a strict law against the wanton waste of food of this kind. If it is not observed, 

complaints will be sworn out and arrests will follow.” 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 2 January 1915, p. 5, col. 4 

Kelso Prepares for Smelt Run 

 Kelso, Wash., Jan. 1—(Special)—The Columbia River Smelt Company is 

erecting a new dock near the depot at Kelso to facilitate the work of handling and 

shipping the smelt catch during the approaching season. It is now almost time for 

the arrival of the fish and old fishermen expect the run to start as soon as the river 

rises. The fish never start their run until the river is muddied by rains. Plans are 

288
being made to open an Eastern market on a more extensive scale than last year 

when shipments in refrigerator cars were made for the first time. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 9 January 1915, p. 8, col. 6–7 

Good Things in Markets 

 In the fish market: Variety is considerable this week still and the ripple on the 

surface is caused by a run of smelt up the Columbia River. They are in the 

Cowlitz strong and here in Portland are selling at two pounds for 25 cents, with 

every prospect of rapid descent in price. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 15 February 1915, p. 9, col. 6–7 

Cowlitz Has No Smelt 

 Vancouver, Wash., Feb. 14—(Special)—That some person desiring to keep 

the smelt from running up the Cowlitz River at Kelso dumped several barrels of 

lime in the mouth of the river, just as the smelt were beginning to run, is a story 

told at Kelso. 

 It is known that for two or three days the smelt passed the Cowlitz River and 

went into the Kalama River, the first time since 1847. There is not a great deal of 

current at the mouth of the river where it is said the lime was dumped into the 

river. Many persons say, however, that it was just a whim of the smelt themselves 

to select the Kalama River. It is reported that another big run of smelt has started 

in at the mouth of the Columbia River. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 8 March 1915, p. 11, col. 1 

New Run Fresh Columbia River Smelt, 75c for 50-lb Box, Order Shipped Promptly 

Sanitary Fish Co., First and Washington 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 9 March 1915, p. 5, col. 4–5 

Smelt in Lewis on Wane 

Gulls Prey on Third Run that is Wakened by Swift Current 

 Vancouver, Wash., March 8—(Special)—The third run of smelt in the Lewis 

River at Woodland is beginning to wane and the price has dropped. The smelt, 

which are said not to eat after they leave salt water, are dying by thousands, and 

may be seen floating downstream. Many are weak and cannot swim against the 

current. 

 Seagulls by the thousands hover over the Columbia River and follow the smelt 

from the time the smelt enter the mouth of the Columbia River. They refuse to 

eat the dead smelt. So thick are the smelt in the Lewis River that they are dipped 

out in bunches from 50 to 75 pounds. One man made a dip yesterday that 

weighed 68 pounds. 

289
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 31 December 1915, p. 9, col. 4 

Smelt Are Becoming Plentiful 

 Kelso, Wash., Dec. 20—(Special)—Columbia River smelt are being taken in 

increasing numbers in the mouth of the Cowlitz and along the Columbia by the 

gillnetters, and fishermen are expecting a large enough supply of the fish so as to 

permit of dip net fishing at almost any time. Many boxes of smelt are leaving the 

Kelso depot daily, and the fishermen are securing good prices for their catches. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 31 December 1915, p. 12, col. 3–4 

Good Things in the Market 

 The fish market is enlivened by the intelligence that a considerable run of 

Columbia River smelt appeared in the Cowlitz on Wednesday, and consequently 

the price has dropped to 15 cents a pound. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 28 January 1916, p. 11, col. 1–2 

Good Things in the Market 

 The influx of Columbia River smelt has been completely checked by the cold, 

but frozen stock sells at 121⁄2 cents a pound. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 7 March 1916, p. 16, col. 6 

Marine Notes. 

 Smelt shipments delivered here yesterday aboard the launch Beaver, which 

came from the Cowlitz River, numbered 212 boxes. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 21 December 1918, p. 18, col. 7 

 Columbia River Smelt 15c per lb. Single frozen, properly packed to arrive in 

good condition in 5-pound to 15-pound lots, within 150 miles of Portland. Write 

for quotations on larger quantities. Northwest Fish Products Co., 205 Yamhill St., 

Portland, Ore. Phone Main 4760. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 5 February 1919, p. 13, col. 6 

Run of Smelt Begins 

Farmers Join Fishermen in Cowlitz River Catches 

 The annual run of smelt in the Cowlitz River has started, according to reports 

received in Portland yesterday. Farmers and people living in the vicinity of the 

river have joined with the smelt fishermen in catching the fish, which are said to 

be running in large schools. 

290
 As a result of the commencement of the run, prices of Columbia River smelt 

dropped to 4 and 5 cents per pound in Portland. It will be several months before 

the smelt can be expected in the Sandy River, although the fish do not ply through 

this stream every year. However, for the past two years Portland people have 

made large smelt catches in the Sandy. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 17 February 1919, p. 8, col. 6 

Disappearance of Smelt Feared 

Pioneer Cowlitz Fishermen Deplores Lack of Protective Laws 

 KALAMA, Wash., Feb. 13—(To the Editor.)—I have been fishing smelt 

since 1879 and for over 25 years after that date never saw the Cowlitz River 

without a big run of smelt. Some winters they would come as early as January 

and sometimes as late as March. Then they would come so thick that a fish boat 

could be loaded with a small dip net in a few hours. 

 For the last eight years I have noticed the large runs have disappeared; for 

three years, or three winters, the most smelt have been caught in the Kalama, 

Lewis and Sandy rivers, and it looks like the smelt were done for in the Cowlitz 

forever. 

 This winter we got a surprise. A big run of smelt entered the Cowlitz after the 

markets had been well supplied from the smelt caught by gill nets in the lower 

Columbia. As soon as the smelt entered the Cowlitz several hundred launches 

loaded up. My boy caught a ton and one-half in five or six hours and expected to 

make a stake out of it. He went over to Rainier, but the smelt buyers were 

blocked, and also in Kelso. At least 150 fish boatloads at two tons each have been 

dumped overboard inside of three days and a big troller loaded and bound for a 

lower river port with seven tons of smelt got foul of a bootlegger just after being 

loaded and bound out of the Cowlitz, and struck the sandbar in the mouth of the 

Cowlitz. He kept driving ahead and drove her high and dry. The river falling 

about his launch, he was compelled to jettison his cargo overboard, as nobody 

wanted his smelt for nothing. 

 The whole thing is a disgrace. Every fisherman and cannery man knows that 

the smelt is the natural food for the Chinook salmon. The young salmon, after 

leaving the spawning ground and hatcheries, feed on the young smelt, and the 

large salmon fatten on the grown smelt. This run of smelt, most likely the last big 

run ever to come into the Cowlitz, will be followed up by launches to the very 

spawning grounds. My boy was offered a contract by one of our big smelt 

merchants at $8 per boatload of 21⁄3 tons, a trifle over 1⁄8 of a cent per pound. 

 There is no law against dumping a few hundred tons of these fine fish 

overboard, but we should have a law to protect the smelt, as well as the salmon. 

Our lawmakers in Salem and Olympia are not all to blame, but the fish law 

agitators in both houses, who fight all kinds of battles between themselves on how 

to protect the salmon, let the salmon starve and don’t think of feeding this royal 

fish. I am sure that in less than 15 years from now smelt will be as scarce as the 

291
elk in the mountains. These plentiful launches with the big scoop nets will soon 

finish the smelt business. I am able to see it. It is my trade and business. The 

smelt-buying merchants about Kelso and Kalama consist of about a dozen, and 

get discharged sailors and soldiers to dip the smelt at from $3 to $5 a ton. They 

get fat on the destruction of the smelt. Whatever can be dumped fresh on the 

market at 75 cents to $1 a box goes. Several hundred tons may go into cold 

storage and be retailed later from 10 to 121⁄2 cents per pound. It would be wise 

and easy to draft a law that would be of benefit to the salmon, the fishermen and 

the children. —Charles Wood 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 1 April 1919, p. 10, col. 5 

Those Who Come and Go 

 Run of smelt in the Sandy River attracted scores of guests from the hotels 

yesterday. To the easterners and people from California the sight was wonderful. 

“About everyone in the hotels has gone out to the Sandy River,” said Clerk J. J. 

O’Brien, at the Hotel Portland. “Those who went yesterday came back so excited 

and talked so much about the fish that they caused others to go out today. One 

easterner declared there was more fish than water in the river.” 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 1 January 1920, p. 1, col. 2 

Smelt on Market Here 

First Shipments of Cowlitz River Run Are Received 

 Portland markets yesterday were selling the first of the new run of Columbia 

River smelt, the fish having been shipped from Cowlitz River, where the run is 

said to be quite heavy. The fish are what is known as the “widow” run, being the 

forerunners of the main run, which starts generally in February. About 20 boxes 

of the fish were received yesterday from the Cowlitz by the Portland Fish 

Company, which reports that they will continue to receive consignments daily 

until the run ceases. Heavy catches generally reduce the “widow” run within a 

short time, it is stated, and smelt are off the market until the main run starts. 

 The wholesale price for the smelt yesterday was 13 cents a pound, and the 

retail price at most of the markets was 20 cents. When the main run begins the 

fish are caught in such quantities that the price generally drops much lower. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 27 April 1920, p. 10, col. 6 

Those Who Come and Go 

 When A. N. Ward gets back to the Hot Stove Club at Malden, Mass., [he] will 

have a fish story to tell that his fellow townsmen will probably not believe and 

will stamp it as a traveler’s tale. When Mr. Ward recounts that he saw a river so 

filled with fish that the stream was virtually one solid mass of fish for miles, and 

contained millions of smelt, the Maldenites will sniff with suspicion. When he 

292
says that in five minutes he, or anyone, could gather enough fish from the Sandy 

River with his coat, or auto robe, or any old thing, to fill a car to overflowing, 

they’ll be certain that he is drawing the long bow. And yet, those were the things 

which Mr. Ward saw when he toured the Columbia River highway yesterday. He 

saw the great smelt run and saw miles upon miles of parked cars, while their 

drivers were filling gunny sacks, cans, buckets, tubs, boxes and any container they 

could secure, with smelt. At home Mr. Ward is an undertaker, and with his wife 

he is at the Multnomah, returning from the profiteer belt of California. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 28 April 1920, p. 15, col. 4–5 

Smelt Run Biggest Ever 

Prow of Boat Turns Up Hundreds All Night Long 

 “My observation is that this is the biggest smelt run that has ever come up the 

Columbia River,” was the statement made yesterday by State Game Warden Carl 

D. Shoemaker after he spent Monday night on the river in a motorboat. “We 

found early this morning that the seagulls are following the smelt all the way from 

Vancouver Bridge to the mouth of Sandy and that a solid wave of smelt is coming 

upstream between these points, or a distance of about 10 miles. The prow of our 

boat turned up hundreds of them all night long.” 

 Mr. Shoemaker says there are no indications of the run slacking and that tons 

of fish are being shipped to Oregon and Washington points and many are going 

into local cold-storage plants. It is found that female smelt predominate over 

males in the present run, indicative of another heavy one next year. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 3 May 1920, p. 4, col. 2 

Smelt Run Nears End 

School in Sandy Keeps over Spawning Beds 

Within Next Few Days Dipnetters Will Be Hard Put to Get a Meal from Waters 

 The record run of smelt, so far as the Sandy River is concerned, is all but over. 

Within the next few days the gulls and the dipnetters will be hard put to find a 

meal in the deeps and shallows that aforetime held smelt by the billion. But few 

fish were obtained yesterday and the disappointments were in keeping—for not 

more than 50 fishermen were congregated at the Troutdale Bridge at any one time 

during the day. 

 Most of the dipnetters, however, managed to get a sack or so, by watching for 

the stray fringes of the now depleted and rapidly vanishing school. The main 

body of the run held well to the center of the stream, over the spawning beds, and 

only the commercial fishermen, with improvised piers and rowboats, were able to 

reach the profitable coigns of vantage. 

 The Sandy River smelt run, more than a month overdue by comparison with 

previous seasons, began 10 days ago and within half a week had attained unheard 

of proportions. Launches in the Columbia River outside, near the mouth of the 

293
Sandy, ploughed through pools of smelt so dense that the curving wave at the bow 

was a cascade of shining fish. The smelt even drove far past the Sandy and as far 

up the river as Bonneville. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 5 May 1920, p. 10, col. 2 

Like the Sands of the Sea 

 Take all the hyperbolic similes expressive of vastitude of numbers, stir them 

well together, segregate the triple-extracted essence and confine it in a humdinger 

of extravagant comparison, and one will but have paid tribute to the fringes of the 

Columbia River smelt run. Naught save deity could give it census, for the count 

would worst mortal mathematics as that science is ordinarily employed. These 

observations are by way of preface to the statement that a Portland resident has 

been arrested on the count of wasting food fish, because he sought to fertilize his 

fruit trees with passé smelt. 

 There are those who will charge the game department with mulish 

conformance to law, asserting that the statute invoked was never intended to deal 

with billions upon billions of silver “hooligans,” swimming up the Columbia just 

as they did on the morning Captain Gray’s visit, ever and ever so long ago. To 

chirk up a cherry tree or two with half a peck from that seemingly inexhaustible 

measure, the sea, would to many commend itself not only as a trifling tithe on 

nature’s largess but as a most sensible procedure. 

When the grandfathers of the present were the boys of yesterday, back in 

Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York, along the entire Atlantic 

coast and well into the middle-west, the flight of passenger pigeons was an annual 

event comparable to the smelt run of the Columbia. On sunny days, with the 

spring mornings all golden and green, when those epochal pilgrimages were on 

the wing, it is recorded that the face of the sky was darkened as by a heavy 

cloud—a living veil of plumage that swept on and on, and endured till dusk. And 

thus for many days. They narrate, those same grandsires, that one might feed a 

bullet to the muzzle-loading squirrel rifle and fire at random upward, through the 

hurtling avalanche of pigeons. Not one but several birds would fall to that hazard, 

it is recounted. Yet the passenger pigeon is gone, and wealth would reward the 

man who could prove the existence of a single flock, a single bird. The species is 

with the great auk and the dodo, and while it may have perished in some stormy 

passage between the northern and southern continents, there is abundant evidence 

against the market hunter and the game assassin. 

 Natural history is replete with tragedies in which man plays the role of villain. 

Ethically and economically—and merely, for an additional reason, because all 

waste is wicked—the game department is fortified in its enforcement of the law 

with respect to the smelt run. 

294
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 7 May 1920, p. 10, col. 7 

Habits of Smelt Little Known 

Study Made of Fish which Authorities Know under Several Names 

 Portland, May 6—(To the Editor)—Please publish the following information, 

and any other interesting facts, about the smelt. How long until they hatch, and 

how long do they stay in fresh water after hatching? How long before they come 

back to spawn? Do all that come up the river die, and what becomes of them 

when dead? What is their correct name? Are there such fish other places than the 

Columbia River? —A Subscriber 

 The scientific name of the Columbia River smelt is Thaleichthys pacificus. It 

is described in encyclopedias and dictionaries under “candlefish.” The Indians 

called it “oolachan,” sometimes spelled “eulachon,” which has been corrupted by 

whites into “hooligan.” It is common in Alaska and British Columbia streams, as 

well as in the Columbia. 

 R. E. Clanton, master fish warden, is authority for the statement that the 

longevity and habits of the Columbia River smelt have never been made the 

subject of exhaustive study, and that this season is the first in which trained 

observation has been directed. 

 The present attempt includes a study of the reproductive organs of the female 

smelt, to discover whether nature has provided for a second spawning. It is not 

known at present whether smelt return to the ocean or perish in the rivers—as 

does the salmon after visiting the spawning beds. 

 If the billions of smelt in an ordinary run were to die in freshwater, it is 

contended, the evidence of such demise would be prevalent, even to the point of 

pollution, of so mighty a stream as the Columbia. On the other hand, the return of 

the smelt run to salt water, if it does return, never has been observed. Fish 

commission officials, including Master Warden Clanton and Secretary Carl 

Shoemaker, of the fish commission, expect to make tests this week toward solving 

the riddle. 

 The journey of the smelt fry to the ocean is another phase of the life cycle that 

is darkness. None has seen, so far as the records show, the migration of the infant 

fish from the birthplace river to salt water. Their numbers must be uncounted 

myriads, and even if the fry were even an inch in length the passage of the infant 

smelt would be plainly discernible. It is conjectured that the fry run to sea when 

extremely small. 

 But all this is guesswork. An attempt is now launched to learn more of the 

actual life history of the Columbia River smelt. Specimens now held at 

Bonneville hatchery will be kept under observation to determine whether they are 

subject to demise after spawning, while an attempt will also be made, with nets, to 

discover whether any portion of the recent heavy run has retraced its course to the 

Pacific. 

295
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 20 January 1921, p. 4, col. 2 

Smelt Enter Cowlitz River 

 Kelso, Wash., Jan. 19—(Special)—For the first time this season smelt were 

dipped in the Cowlitz River today. A few smelt had been gillnetted in the Cowlitz 

earlier this winter before the freshet, and for the last two weeks the Columbia 

River gillnetters have been getting smelt on the lower Columbia. It is thought that 

the present run is what is known as the early winter run and that the main run of 

the little fish will not be here for several weeks more. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 18 February 1921, p. 11, col. 1 

Lewis River Rises 

 Woodland, Wash., Feb. 17—(Special)—Warm winds and melting snow in the 

mountains have caused a decided rise in the Lewis River. The water has already 

reached within a foot of the high-water record. Muddy water is driving the run of 

smelt out of the river into the Columbia. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 19 February 1921, p. 13, col. 1–2 

Many Fruits in Season 

 Columbia River smelt retailed at two pounds for 15 cents yesterday. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 19 March 1921, p. 13, col. 2 

Fish for Lent Plenty 

 Prices will cover all the stages between 5 cents a pound for Columbia River 

smelt to 50 cents a pound for lobster shipped from the Atlantic seaboard. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 24 December 1921, p. 12, col. 1 

Smelt Put in Appearance 

 Columbia River smelt have appeared for the holiday season in large 

quantities. They are being dipped up with nets and selling retail here at 15 cents a 

pound, in comparison with 25 cents a pound, which was the price until yesterday. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 14 January 1922, p. 10, col. 2–3 

Did the Smelt Neglect their Tryst? 

 If nature forgot us for a single season, in all her bounties, we should be like so 

many children squalling in the dark. Quite helpless, very hungry and probably 

petulant. Occasionally the good dame does forget, neglecting some customary 

gift, and men puzzle themselves to discover the reason. They do not always find 

296
an answer. Why was it, as was recorded 25 years ago, that there had been noted 

long periods during which the smelt run deserted the Columbia River? For 20 

years, so these observers asserted, the pleasing little eulachon was—to put it 

tritely—conspicuous by his absence. 

 The drying racks of the Indians were not laden, and the residents along the 

great river and its tributaries scanned the streams vainly for the return of their 

favorite fish, who was wont to be as punctual as April. There is no record of the 

year in which the run reappeared, nor is there more than the testimony of a few 

individuals, as preserved in news reports, to substantiate the disappearance. 

Undoubtedly it was the ancient and continuous custom of the smelt to frequent the 

Columbia as spawning time. Captain Robert Gray, whose good ship lent its name 

to the river, found them plentiful in 1792, and did not neglect to pay his 

compliments. It is to be regretted that the record of their truancy is not more 

specific, better verified, for instances in which anadromous fish fail to keep their 

natural appointments are more than rare. 

 Regarded across a third of a century, the claim is doubtful, and one cannot but 

incline to an opinion that the smelt were punctual, but unobserved. It might have 

been that the run, lengthy as it is, passed the specific points of observation at 

periods of high and murky water, to spawn far upstream. The weakness of this 

theory, which is otherwise entirely tenable, is that such conditions would scarcely 

be repeated annually over a long period of years. An instance that proves how 

easy it is to overlook the presence of the run is that of the appearance of the smelt 

in the Sandy River last spring. Unusually high water prevailed at the time the run 

was expected, and all observers were confident that the hordes of smelt had not 

entered the stream. Later they revised their opinion, for schools of infant smelt 

were noticed in early summer, and it became apparent that the fish had arrived 

and fulfilled their destiny without a single person glimpsing the millions of adult 

fish in the muddy current. Yet, as has been said, it is a bit far-fetched to fancy 

that such conditions could be indefinitely repeated. 

 The habits of anadromous fish are definite and precise. They return from the 

sea at well established seasons to the waters of their own birth to deposit their 

eggs. In this impulse the smelt are one with the salmon, whose cousins they are, 

and the confirmed belief is that such runs do not fail until the run itself is 

obliterated. With salmon this has repeatedly been proved. It is logical to assume 

that the multitudinous smelt conform to the same law, and that those early 

observers confused loose report and limited observation with fact until they had 

for themselves established a tradition. This may not be true, but if it is not true 

one of ocean’s mysteries remains unsolved, and it is to be regretted that the record 

is so imperfectly preserved. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 6 February 1922, p. 6, col. 2 

Smelt Run in Cowlitz Small 

 Kelso, Wash., Feb. 5—(Special)—A small run of Columbia River smelt is in 

the Cowlitz River and the fishermen are making small catches of the little fish, 

297
which are a great table delicacy throughout the northwest. Boats can get but three 

or four boxes a night. It may be several weeks before a heavier run arrives, say 

those familiar with smelt fishing operations, as few fish have been caught by the 

Columbia River gillnetters. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 11 February 1922, p. 12, col. 1 

 A large supply of Columbia River smelt is available at 15 cents a pound, and 

in some places at two pounds for 25 cents. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 21 February 1922, p. 7, col. 6 

Smelt Run Again Enters Cowlitz 

 Kelso, Wash., Feb. 20—(Special)—What is thought to be the main run of 

Columbia River smelt entered the Cowlitz River last night and large catches of 

smelt were made by the fishermen. Later, however, the run decreased, and there 

is some doubt whether or not this is the main run. The fish have been late in 

coming up the river this year, although there have been small runs in the Cowlitz 

several times during the winter. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 25 February 1922, p. 12, col. 1 

Columbia Smelt Price Is Reduced, Fresh Seafood Sells Three Pounds for 25 Cents 

Large Supply on Hand, Smelt Prices Cut 

 The price of a popular seafood that is recognized in Portland as a real delicacy 

was cut almost in two when dealers reduced prices of Columbia River smelt. 

These tasty, silvery fish are now available at three pounds for 25 cents. The price 

a week ago was 15 cents a pound. Dealers report a good supply on hand to supply 

a brisk popular demand. The smelt are fresh from the Columbia River. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Saturday, 4 March 1922, p. 15, col. 1 

Smelt Also Take Fall 

 Another popular product that has dropped in price is Columbia River smelt. 

These tasty little fish may be had at two pounds for 15 cents or four pounds for a 

quarter. In some stores the price is three pounds for 15 cents. These prices are 

the lowest of the season so far and caused a heavy demand. 

298
Morning Oregonian (Portland), Wednesday, 12 April 1922, p. 13, col. 3 

Smelt Reported Running in Sandy 

Fish Keeping to Middle of Stream, It Is Said 

Licenses Not Needed 

 Nets, sieves, baskets and dippers of various kinds will be at a premium for a 

few days, and many thousand gallons will be consumed along the Columbia River 

highway route between Portland and the Sandy River, for the smelt are running 

again. 

 A silvery phalanx 15 feet wide and six inches deep is flowing upstream in the 

Sandy for the first time in two years, the dainty little fish completely ignoring the 

stream last year. By the millions, the tiny smelt are seeking the headwaters, a 

phenomenon which will attract thousands to the river banks and flood Portland 

homes with the toothsome little delicacy for many days. 

 For the true fisherman there is no sport in catching smelt during a run, for it 

requires no more effort than the dipping of a net into the water and removing it 

filled to the brim with flopping, silver fish, but the run has a great attraction for 

the fireside fisherman who desires great results from a minimum of effort. 

Length of Run Uncertain [subhead] 

 How long will the run last? This is a question which cannot be answered with 

any degree of certainty. Runs have been known to last from two days to 24 days. 

A good deal depends on the weather. Should conditions moderate and a heavy, 

warm rain develop, high water in the Sandy will prove too great an obstacle for 

the small fish to negotiate. They have traveled a long distance by the time they 

arrive in the Sandy and are tired. 

 On the other hand, should the weather continue cool, with little rain, a long 

run can be anticipated. Indications are that there still will be a considerable run 

next Sunday to accommodate the holiday flow of autoists. 

 Though the smelt have been known to ignore the Sandy for as high as eight 

consecutive years, of late the runs have been quite constant, the failure of the fish 

to appear last year being quite out of the ordinary. A late spring usually presages 

a heavy smelt run, according to Lou Karlow, deputy county clerk, whose home is 

on the banks of the river and whose wife telephoned to Portland the first news of 

the run yesterday morning. 

Run Appears Big [subhead] 

 The run looks like a big one, similar to that of two years ago, according to 

Carl Shoemaker, master fish warden, although he said yesterday the fish were 

keeping to the middle of the stream. However, he expected the run would reach 

such proportions, probably by today, that the merest tyro fisherman can stand on 

the bank of the stream and dip up all he wants. 

 No fishing license will be required, said Mr. Shoemaker, for persons who 

desire only to take smelt for their own use. Those who operate commercially, 

299
however, and sell their catch, must provide themselves with a dip net or dragnet 

license. No waste will be tolerated, said Mr. Shoemaker. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 13 April 1922, p. 8, col. 2 

Smelt Thick in Sandy 

Autoists Congest Highway in Rush for Fish 

Calls for Assistance Cause Sheriff to Dispatch Entire Motorcycle Squad to District 

 Smelt scouts up the Sandy River evidently reported favorably concerning that 

stream as a spawning ground, for millions of the silvery little fish reached from 

bank to bank yesterday by the time autoists in any number began to gather in the 

vicinity of Troutdale. 

 More than 2,000 automobiles congested the Columbia River highway near the 

Sandy before noon and calls for assistance caused Sheriff Hurlburt to dispatch his 

entire motorcycle squad of six men and machines to the district to direct traffic 

and break the jam which had ensued. 

 Birdcages, lace curtains and many other substitutes for fish nets made their 

appearance and only a few minutes in the stream sufficed to supply any family 

with enough smelt for a reunion. All indications are that the run will last for a 

week or more and it is expected that the traffic will attain proportions by next 

Sunday which may make it necessary to employ traffic officers in addition to the 

sheriff’s complement. 

 It is not necessary to have a fishing license if the smelt are dipped out of the 

river for the use of oneself and family. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Thursday, 13 April 1922, p. 10, col. 7 

Those Who Come and Go 

Tales of Folks at the Hotels 

 Smelt in the Sandy River, out near Troutdale, are as interesting to tourists at 

the hotels as they are to the householders of Portland. News of the annual run of 

smelt in the Sandy was received at the hotels yesterday and many persons 

chartered automobiles to go out and see this famous run. To the easterner who is 

not familiar with a run of fish and particularly to people who live in the interior, 

the smelt are a wonderful attraction. The march of millions of these silver fish 

swarming up the confines of the glacial waters of the Sandy River toward their 

spawning grounds never fails to evoke exclamations of astonishment. Hotel 

clerks have learned that they can recommend a real attraction to visitors by 

sending them out the highway to see the run of smelt. Tourists yesterday were so 

notified and they were also advised to equip themselves with nets or buckets or 

something with which to scoop up the fish, for no one can stand on the bank of 

the stream and see the myriad of fish passing them without a wild desire to go 

fishing on the spot. The trouble with catching smelt is that the fisher gets more 

than he needs or can use, so he brings back a gunnysack or two with the fish and 

300
inflicts them on everyone who can be induced to accept them. Smelt are as fine 

eating fish as can be found when scooped from the Sandy waters, but a person 

cannot eat more than several dozen. 

Sunday Oregonian (Portland), 16 April 1922, p. 3, col. 2 

Smelt Season Ends at Kelso 

 Kelso, Wash., April 15—(Special)—Final shipment of smelt was made by 

Kelso fishermen this week, and they will be busy the rest of this month getting 

their salmon fishing equipment ready for the spring season and moving their 

outfits to drifts along the Columbia River. This has been a very good smelt 

season, the prolonged cold weather being a benefit to the industry. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 18 April 1922, p. 1, col. 2 

Locks Block Smelt Run 

Millions of Tiny Fish Caught at Cascades of Columbia 

 Hood River, Ore., April 17—(Special)—The run of smelt has reached the 

Cascades of the Columbia, where they are blocked. Millions of the fish are trying 

to get to the headwaters by way of the government locks. Deputy Sheriff Meyers 

today telephoned to Sheriff Johnson that residents of Cascade Locks, utilizing as 

various an assortment of improvised nets as one sees at the Sandy, are taking fish 

by the boxfuls at the lower end of the locks. 

 Schools of smelt appeared at Eagle Creek Saturday. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 1 May 1922, p. 4, col. 2 

Pantries Stocked with Smelt 

 Hood River, Ore., April 30—(Special)—Residents of Cascade Locks and 

Stevenson, Wash., made the most of the recent smelt run up the Columbia to the 

foot of the rapids below the Cascades, and many pantries have been stocked with 

dried and salted fish. A. J. Pratt, a Stevenson, Wash. man, who captured 1,600 

pounds of smelt, salted and smoked them. His shrinkage, he reports was 66 

percent, as he now has left 575 pounds of kippered smelt. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Monday, 1 May 1922, p. 8, col. 3 

Marvel of the Smelt 

 The Eugene Register has printed what we think is a timely warning 

concerning smelt. It predicts that unless there is some curb on the taking of this 

variety of fish, smelt will go the way of the passenger pigeon and the buffalo. 

 Probably the fact made impressive by these early tragedies that wild life 

cannot long maintain itself against man’s unrestrained rapacity, will cause us to 

301
take heed before the smelt have disappeared. But why not for once depart from 

the usual custom of delaying regulation until scarcity is upon us? 

 Smelt fishing in the Sandy River is an asset to Portland whose importance is 

hardly realized. The incidents of the spring run have no counterpart anywhere. 

The Sandy is not the only stream in which smelt appear in vast numbers, but it is 

the one stream in which they swarm that is readily accessible from a populous 

community. 

 Sandy River is a stream worth visiting for its scenic beauty alone. The point 

where the Columbia highway crosses it is within less than an hour’s automobile 

ride from Portland over a paved road. It happens that the reaches of the stream 

directly above and below the highway bridge are the smelt fishing grounds. 

 There, in beautiful surroundings and without license, hindrance, or limit, the 

Portland citizen, one hour’s journey from home, may with the crudest of homemade appliance dip out and take away as many delectable food fishes as the 

novelty of the occasion impels him to take. It is as the Eugene paper remarks—

the rule is to take more than one can possibly use or give away. Smelt taking in 

the Sandy, in which thousands of persons—rich and poor—participate annually, is 

one of the spectacles, one of the marvels, of the northwest and of the Columbia 

highway. 

 The habits of the smelt, or candlefish as it is properly called, are little 

understood. Presumably they return to the stream in which they were spawned. If 

that be true, whatever protection given them elsewhere will not restock Sandy 

River if it is once fished out. As an important contribution to the food supply and 

as an advertisement for this community, smelt runs are worthy of scientific study 

and of protection, if need be, from greed and waste. 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Tuesday, 9 May 1922, p. 10, col. 8 

How Indians Once Took Smelt 

Nails in Canoe Paddles Impaled Fish, Recalls Captain Gray 

 Pasco, Wash., May 7—(To the Editor)—The Oregonian’s editorial “Marvel of 

the Smelt” reminds me of the first runs of smelt in the Cowlitz River. The Indians 

drove sharp pointed nails through thin paddles, and as they forced their canoes 

upstream through the school, or rather stream of smelt, would soon fill their 

canoes by shaking the smelt from the nails in their paddles. 

 I have not been on the Cowlitz for many years, but understand that the smelt 

runs on that river do not compare with the runs of the ’60s, when steamboats did 

not run above Monticello or Freeport—they now run to Kelso. Did steamboats on 

the Columbia or log booms at its mouth check its smelt run? If so your Sandy 

River runs are safe, as steamboats cannot disturb them. 

 We used to know when the smelt were in the Columbia by the number of 

seagulls that followed the schools. 

302
 Another thought: Is there not a danger of “overpopulation” of smelt if their 

taking is restricted? Hundreds of millions of eggs are deposited every year. Will 

the few thousands of fish captured relieve a congestion that would drive the smelt 

to some other stream? You are in error in saying the smelt is properly called a 

candle fish. The candle fish is only taken in salt waters like Puget Sound, and 

takes its name from the fact that when it is dried its mouth opens wide and makes 

a base to support the greasy bones that stand upright. A lighted match touched to 

the tail of the dried fish makes a perfect candle. The flesh of the candle fish is far 

inferior to the smelt. 

 The Columbia seems to be the only river that has the two distinct varieties of 

the best of fish, salmon and smelt. 

 The Yukon River salmon is larger and compares in flavor with our Columbia 

River variety, but there are no smelt to compare with the genuine Columbia River 

variety, which seek the Cowlitz, Kalama, Sandy and other small streams every 

spring to spawn. —W. P. Gray 

Morning Oregonian (Portland), Friday, 29 December 1922, p. 12, col. 5 

New Today in the Markets 

 A few smelt made their appearance on the Portland market yesterday, bringing 

the price, which was formerly about 35 cents, down to 30 cents. Marketmen state 

that fishermen have discovered a school of the fish making their way up the 

Columbia River. 

Oregon (Umpqua River) 

Eugene Register-Guard, Friday, 21 February 1969, p. C1 

Streams Back in Shape, Fishing Slow, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Smelt dippers at Scottsburg Park, downstream from the highway bridge across 

the Umpqua, hadn’t netted much since early in the week, reported Hugh Smith at 

the Tackle Box in Reedsport. But, judging from past years, the migration up to 

spawning grounds somewhere above Elkton is expected to continue at least 

another two weeks and a new batch of smelt could show at any time. 

 Lots of 25-pound limits were collected among the mob of dippers at the park 

last weekend, he said. Nearly all of the silvery fish were males, which usually are 

the first to show. Dipping was best along the bank and at night on the ebb tide. 

[Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SGkRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3321,4455711&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt

&hl=en] 

303
Eugene Register-Guard, Friday, 28 February 1969, p. 5B 

Long-handle Nets Ambush Smelt Migrating Close to Banks of Umpqua River [lead-in head], 

Action Slow on Steelhead, Smelt Run, by Pete Cornacchia 

 The lower Umpqua has produced a few sturgeon recently in the Gardiner area 

but has been offering only a trickle of smelt to dippers up at Scottsburg Park. 

Regardless of reports in the Portland papers, Umpqua smelt dippers aren’t getting 

their 25-pound limits. 

 Smelt traffic has been light ever since the opening surge two weeks ago and 

hopes of another buildup in the run are dwindling. Oldtimers point out that 

swarms of gulls always follow the smelt up the river but there is no great number 

of birds on the river now. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id= 

T2kRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=B-gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5316,6039358&dq=site: 

news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Sunday, 22 March 1970, p. 2C 

It’s Striper Time, by Pete Cornacchia 

 ... About a month ago several Mapleton fishermen started catching big 

stripers which apparently had followed a previously unheard-of smelt run into 

upper tidewater on the Siuslaw. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id

=IcIUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8eADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5240,5619960&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Friday, 5 February 1971, p. 3C 

Umpqua Yielding Variety: Steelhead, Smelt, Sturgeon, by Pete Cornacchia 

 And if you’ve had enough steelhead and/or hang-ups for one winter, Umpqua 

tidewater offers a good but sporadic run of smelt for dippers in the Scottsburg 

vicinity and increasing white sturgeon activity down in the bay. ... 

 The Umpqua appears to have a good smelt run, though they’re coming 

through in spurts. Success for dippers on the banks at the state park below 

Scottsburg has varied from day to day. [Online at http://news.google.com/ 

newspapers?id=9gwRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EeEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3712,778489 

&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Friday, 26 February 1971, p. 2B 

Outlook Poor for Anglers, Good for Dippers, Diggers, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Get that dip net out again, for those sneaky smelt are back again. Bigger than 

ever. 

 But if you’re less than thrilled with the chase and taste of the eulachon ... 

tides are good ... for dredging bay clams. ... 

304
 After most of the smelting fraternity on the lower Umpqua had put their nets 

away for the year, these unpredictable fish suddenly showed again last weekend. 

Dippers at Scottsburg State Park have done quite well every night this week, 

reported Jim DiBala at Echo Resort. More smelt than before and they’re larger 

than usual. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id= 

Cw0RAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EeEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4477,5470935&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Tuesday, 8 February 1972, p. 3B 

On the Outside [column head], Passing the Word, by Pete Cornacchia 

 When the smelt come up the Umpqua to spawn, usually about this time of 

year, I forget the steelhead and head for tidewater. Not to dip for smelt with all 

the others at Scottsburg State Park below the Highway 38 bridge, but to prey on 

the great white sturgeon and the striped bass which prey on the smelt as they 

move up the river. 

 Sure enough, smelt are beginning to show in the lower Umpqua. Just a trickle 

as yet, however. Several persons have told recently of seeing stripers feeding on 

smelt at the surface, but dippers at the park haven’t been collecting much in their 

long-handled nets. 

 “Commercial netters have been getting a few from time to time,” said Jim 

DiBala at Echo Resort. “But dipping has hardly been worth the effort. I fished 

about an hour yesterday and got three smelt, which is about how it’s been. 

 “They should be here any time now, though. Could be on the next tide.” 

 As in other streams, the smelt run in the Umpqua is a very unpredictable thing 

which has been quite strong in some years and very weak in others. Sometimes 

the fish go through when the river is too high and muddy to get at them. 

 Water conditions have been good for the past week, but the Umpqua was 

rising again Monday and probably will continue to climb if the thaw continues in 

the upper reaches. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id

=Q8kTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JuEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3531,1895262&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Friday, 25 February 1972, p. 1B 

Smelt Run Picking Up in Umpqua, by Pete Cornacchia 

 The smelt run in the Umpqua, which for several weeks had been a slow walk 

rather than a run, came on strong Wednesday afternoon to spur hopes of both 

dippers and striped bass fishermen. 

 “Dipnetters took several limits last night and were still taking smelt this 

morning,” Mrs. Jim DiBala reported Thursday from Echo Resort. She was 

referring to the dippers at the state park below the Highway 38 bridge at 

Scottsburg. For personal use, daily limit on smelt is 25 pounds. 

305
 How long the run would remain strong was anybody’s guess. [Online at 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=UskTAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=JuEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3871,6403187&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Sunday, 27 February 1972, p. 3D 

Smelt Run Draws Many to Umpqua, by Pete Cornacchia 

 It had started raining again and the cold wind which had been whipping up 

whitecaps on the flats along the lower Umpqua had an awfully mean bite for a 

southwester. 

 But the men, women, kids and dogs strung along the silty beach above and 

below the boat ramp at Scottsburg State Park didn’t seem to mind. In shiny wet 

rain gear or soggy wool jackets, some huddled by the spitting and sputtering fires 

while others knee-deep at the edge of the high and muddy river swung longhandle nets out into the chocolate flow. 

 When they lifted the nets from the water after a long sweep downstream, 

usually a handful of silvery fish flashed in the bottom of the cords. The fish were 

dumped into a bucket or plastic container, then the dipper waded back into the 

water to make another sweep. 

 The smelt were running strong at last and some of the dippers were getting 

their 25-pound limits, as had others the previous afternoon and night. The run had 

been light up to this last week of February, as it had been on other streams in 

Oregon and Washington. 

 But now lots of the little fish were moving upstream to spawn and the dippers 

were there to get their share, no matter how raw the weather or how muddy the 

river. The strong run might continue for several more days, or it could be back to 

a sporadic trickle by tomorrow. 

 Like the swarms of gulls which follow the smelt up the river and tell of their 

presence, the dippers can’t count on tomorrows. 

 For a host of anglers, the arrival of smelt raises hope not so much for a tasty 

meal as for the oncoming of voracious striped bass which also prey on the little 

fish as they travel upstream. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id= 

VMkTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JuEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4273,6843290&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Friday, 3 March 1972, p. 5B 

High, Muddy Streams Ruin Angling Hopes. 

 Lower Umpqua: ... Smelt still in river; few limits. [Online at http://news

.google.com/newspapers?id=4mkRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DuEDAAAAIBAJ&pg 

=6514,720966&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

306
Eugene Register-Guard, Friday, 21 April 1972, p. 3B 

Fish Prospects Better as Streams Improve, by Pete Cornacchia 

 ... Discovery of the very late smelt run brought the dipnetters back to 

Scottsburg Park, where several quick 25-pound limits were collected early in the 

week. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6cQUAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=SOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6493,5070734&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Tuesday, 25 April 1972, p. 3B 

On the Outside [column head], High Lakes, by Pete Cornacchia 

 ... weather was great but catches fell off sharply. 

 So did smelt dipping on the Umpqua. ... 

 The Chinook in the Umpqua apparently haven’t done much reading and aren’t 

aware that salmon don’t eat much after moving into freshwater on their spawning 

runs, [the Game Commission’s Dave Anderson] noted. Many of the fish which 

he has checked recently were packed with smelt, just like the stripers. 

 Dipnetters weren’t doing quite that well on smelt, though Dave did check a 

25-pound limit for one patient and persistent soul near Scottsburg Park. The man 

got his quota with about one smelt on each dip. At a few ounces per fish, that 

took a few dips. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id= 

7cQUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6535,6170162&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Sunday, 4 February 1973, p. B1 

Arrival of Smelt Draws Gulls, Stripers, Sturgeon, Anglers to Lower Umpqua [lead-in head], 

Smelt: Tiny, Tasty, Unpredictable, by Pete Cornacchia 

 “They were getting quite a few smelt here last weekend,” remarked a man 

standing beside a fire. “Some came close to getting their 25 pounds, too. 

 “Not much since then, though. We had a big crowd here last night, but 

nobody did much.” 

 But the unpredictable smelt might suddenly start showing again any time, he 

said. 

 “Last year, the run faded out for several weeks and we figured that was it,” he 

went on. “Then a lot of smelt came through in the middle of April. Wife and I 

caught two Chinook and a 30-pound striper that were stuffed with them. ...” 

 For many anglers, the arrival of smelt in the Umpqua raises hope not so much 

for a tasty meal of them as for the oncoming of sturgeon and striped bass. Like 

the gulls and the dippers, sturgeon and stripers also come running when the smelt 

307
are running. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id= 

o2oRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4621,691873&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Friday, 9 February 1973, p. 3D 

Lower Umpqua Promising; Angling Slow on Steelhead, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Smelt keep coming up Umpqua tidewater in spurts .... 

 The Umpqua has lost its winter tan and in turning green has cleared enough 

that most of the smelt are traveling well out in the middle of the river. At 

Scottsburg State Park, dippers in boats have been doing better than those on the 

banks. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id= 

qGoRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4830,2011247&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Friday, 16 February 1973, p. 3D 

From Smelt to Sturgeon, Prospects Best on Umpqua, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Smelt are still running in the lower Umpqua but they’re staying well out in the 

middle of the relatively clear flow and dipnetters on the bank at Scottsburg State 

Park haven’t been doing much. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id

=r2oRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4286,3686790&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Tuesday, 20 February 1973, p. 3B 

On the Outside [column head], Wary Bass, by Pete Cornacchia 

 In checking angling pressure and catch on the lower Umpqua from February 

into fall last year, Game Commission biologist Dave Anderson also did a lot of 

stomach content analysis on stripers. 

 ... In the spring, from the middle of March through the middle of May, 46.7 

percent of the stomachs examined in the river above Reedsport had nothing in 

them. 

 In that stretch and during that period, smelt were found in 50.7 percent of the 

stomachs and made up 91 percent of the springtime diet. ... 

 In mid-April, when anglers in the Scottsburg area were catching both spring 

Chinook and stripers, a late and large run of smelt suddenly showed up. Salmon 

or striper, most of the fish caught in the next couple weeks were stuffed with 

smelt. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=smoRAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=JOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5421,4513119&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

308
Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 31 January 1974, p. 3B 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Rivers Rising; Smelt Arrive, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Arrival of smelt in the lower Umpqua has made dippers happy, but there’s 

little good news to precede the bad for steelhead anglers. 

 Swarming gulls pointed to the first waves of the Umpqua’s smelt run the latter 

part of last week and dipnetters have been taking fish each day since then, 

according to Dave Anderson, State Wildlife Commission fisheries biologist at 

Reedsport. 

 He said dippers along the banks at Scottsburg State Park below the highway 

38 bridge have had varying success from day to day, with some 25-pound limits 

for the harder workers. The Umpqua like most coast streams remains muddy and 

rather high. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id

=jLoUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6688,6779760&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 7 February 1974, p. 3B 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Hopes Better for Anglers, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Dipnetters are still taking smelt from the Umpqua below Scottsburg, with 

success varying from day to day. Best hauls have come at low tide. [Online at 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tQUTAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=A9gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6348,1409295&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Sunday, 17 February 1974, p. 5B 

Monsters lurk in Umpqua, by Pete Cornacchia 

 ... we had seen no sign of the big white sturgeon which usually follow close 

behind the smelt at this time of year. The smelt had been running for nearly three 

weeks and the dippers were still taking a few up at Scottsburg. [Online at http:// 

news.google.com/newspapers?id=vgUTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=A9gDAAAAIBAJ 

&pg=4770,3459056&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Tuesday, 26 March 1974, p. B1 

On the Outside [column head], Sun Out, Fish In, by Pete Cornacchia 

 The poor water conditions and long spell of foul weather didn’t keep 

dipnetters from converging on a strong smelt run at Scottsburg. [Online at 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ABMRAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=NOADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6255,5535261&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

309
Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 29 January 1976, p. 2D 

On the Outside [column head], Sturgeon Following Smelt into Umpqua Fishing Holes, by Pete 

Cornacchia 

 [White sturgeon are] gathering in the murky depths near Gardiner and above 

Reedsport to feed on spawned-out smelt. ... 

 As for the smelt, the run has shriveled to a trickle and dipnetters at Scottsburg 

have had to work hard for the few fish they’ve panned this week. [Online at 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=knkRAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=PeADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6627,7406766&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Sunday, 8 February 1976, p. 3B 

Like the Gulls, the Great White Sturgeon Comes Running when Smelt Are Running [lead-in 

head], Waiting for the Big Ones, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Like the gulls that were cruising back and forth, the several people who were 

standing knee-deep near the bank weren’t finding much in the green waters of the 

lower Umpqua. 

 Like the white and grey birds winging along or resting in the eddies, they had 

gathered where the river rolls past Scottsburg State Park in hopes of scooping up 

smelt. But not since the arrival of a good run three weeks ago had there been 

much sign of the silvery little fish. 

 Time after time, the men dipped their long-handled nets into the water, lifted, 

and dipped again. Neither was there much reward for the efforts of the two men 

who were dipping from a boat anchored in the middle of the river. 

 Still, the dippers knew, the smelt could suddenly show again at any time. 

 For many anglers, however, the arrival of smelt in the Umpqua raises hope not 

so much for a tasty fried meal as the oncoming of the great white sturgeon. Like 

the gulls and the people, these huge fish come running when the smelt are 

running. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id

=CxMRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=2919,1791554&dq 

=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 26 February 1976, p. 2B 

On the Outside [column head], Conditions Remain Lousy for Anglers, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Smelt are running again in the lower Umpqua. ... 

 Smelt were back in the Umpqua at Scottsburg early in the week but they were 

running deep and in the middle of the river. Dippers in boats took some 25-pound 

limits on the evening low tides. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers

310
?id=HRMRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6253,6671366&dq=site: 

news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Tuesday, 25 January 1977, p. B1 

Steelies in Mind, Smelt in Net, by Pete Cornacchia 

 And that’s where we finally came upon a gathering of fish [on the Siuslaw 

River]. 

 Scattered over the sand and gravel along the shallow edges, like purplish 

noodles, were rafts of smelt. 

 O’Neal grabbed the big landing net and went splashing and slashing through 

the shallows like an Alaskan brown bear ankle-deep in sockeyes. But the mesh, 

of course, was too wide for dipping fish six to seven inches long. So he folded 

the cords over in a wad and tied them so that the net looked more like King 

Kong’s fly swatter. 

 Then he stood in one spot while I circled around and drove the scurrying 

groups of smelt past him, where he flipped them onto the bank in quick scoops. 

Before the little devils finally tired of all this nonsense and departed, we managed 

to gather enough for a meal or two. ... 

 For either steelhead or smelt, however, the much larger Umpqua should offer 

better prospects than the Siuslaw in the next month. While the unpredictable 

smelt usually are beginning to arrive in both streams about this time, the Umpqua 

normally draws a much greater run over a longer period. [Online at http://news

.google.com/newspapers?id=KYoQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KuADAAAAIBAJ&pg 

=3816,6033795&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 3 February 1977, p. 2B 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Prospects Remain Poor for Anglers, by Pete Cornacchia 

 No smelt are evident yet in the Scottsburg vicinity on the Umpqua, reports 

Ben Carlson at Greenacres. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id

=UXwRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mtkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4244,542469&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 24 March 1977, p. 3B 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Chinook Caught in Lower Rivers, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Still no sign of smelt in the Scottsburg area. ... 

 At midweek, state police reported that the heavy smelt run in the Sandy 

[River] was on the decline but dippers were still doing fairly well at Troutdale. 

The fish have been staying in the deepest water during the day and running close 

to the banks only at night. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id

311
=2XkRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JOADAAAAIBAJ&pg=4351,5873279&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 2 February 1978, p. 2B 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Lower Umpqua Good for Smelt, Sturgeon, by Pete 

Cornacchia 

 Smelt dippers are still doing well around Scottsburg State Park, according to 

Ben Carlson in Ben’s Bait and Tackle Shop at Green Acres. He reported that 25-

pound limits have been rare but dippers have been taking fish consistently at night 

and at low tide. Daytime dipping has been better from boats in midstream than 

from the bank. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id

=cHARAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7uEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6680,369906&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 23 February 1978, p. 6B 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Bay Catches Better, But Streams Stingy, by Pete Cornacchia 

 ... The Umpqua ... has been slow ... for smelt at Scottsburg. [Online at 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hXARAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=7uEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6645,6113567&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, Feb 15, 1979, p. 2C 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Smelt Make their Move, But Not the Steelhead, by Pete 

Cornacchia 

 The slowly receding waters have brought a new batch of smelt to the lower 

Umpqua but no great upswing in catches for steelhead anglers on most other 

streams. 

 The Umpqua was high and muddy Wednesday after rising five feet from the 

previous day, but smelt dippers on the bank and in boats were doing well at 

Scottsburg Park, reported John Johnson, state fisheries biologist at Reedsport. 

[Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=724RAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=_uEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6561,4446377&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 7 February 1980, p. 2D 

On the Outside [lead-in head], Siuslaw Good Steelhead Bet, by Pete Cornacchia 

... Increasing sturgeon activity at Gardiner on the lower Umpqua points to the 

arrival of smelt, though dippers have not found much sign of the latter up at 

Scottsburg. ... 

312
 Lower Umpqua and Smith rivers: ... Some smelt are showing. The run is not 

large enough to dip. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id

=uBoRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1OEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6685,1874436&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 28 February 1980, p. 4B 

On the Outside [lead-in head], Streams Are High, Fish Are Dark, by Pete Cornacchia 

 The lower Umpqua remains slow ... and smelt dippers at Scottsburg no longer 

have much hope of getting a run this winter. [Online at http://news.google.com/ 

newspapers?id=xRoRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1OEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4258,7969800 

&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 19 February 1981, p. 2B 

Brood Rainbows Planted in Ponds, by Pete Cornacchia 

 ... smelt could be pleasing dippers near the head of tidewater at Scottsburg 

before long. A big rise often will bring a rush of these unpredictable fish, which 

may arrive any time from January into spring and sometimes never show. 

Dippers on the bank usually will do better when the river is up and colored, rather 

than low and clear, for the smelt frequently will be running along the edge of the 

water instead of deep in midstream. [Online at http://news.google.com/ 

newspapers?id=EHERAAAAIBAJ&sjid=S-IDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6662,5105936 

&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 5 March 1981, p. 7B 

Cold Water Hasn’t Helped Fishing Prospects, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Lower Umpqua: ... No smelt showing. [Online at http://news.google.com/ 

newspapers?id=_EkVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SuIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6624,1285997 

&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 11 February 1982, p. 2C 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], It Depends on the Weather, by Pete Cornacchia 

 ... Smelt dippers are still waiting for another batch to show near the head of 

tidewater at Scottsburg [on the Umpqua River], where a small run faded soon 

after appearing about two weeks ago. [Online at http://news.google.com/ 

newspapers?id=wnERAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XOIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3596,2269070

&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

313
Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 17 February 1983, p. 2C 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Steelhead There, But Fishing Isn’t, by Pete Cornacchia 

 ... Little sign of smelt has been reported in the Scottsburg area. [Online at 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=k3ERAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=WeIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6567,3925333&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Tuesday, 15 March 1983, p. D1 

Spring Fever, by Pete Cornacchia 

 The only smelt seen in the Umpqua this winter have come from the market, 

which may be the chief reason for the generally poor response from sturgeon. 

[Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0soTAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=QOIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6221,3529041&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 23 February 1984, p. 6C 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Lake Creek Fishing Good, by Pete Cornacchia 

 The high water has brought no sign of smelt in the lower Umpqua or in the 

Sandy on the Columbia. [Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id

=uGoVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=juEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6505,5503108&dq=site:news 

.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 14 February 1985, p. 2C 

The Coastal Streams Too Full to Fish, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Very little sign of smelt in the Columbia, Sandy and Umpqua. [Online at 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=McUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=i-EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6681,3015823&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 7 March 1985, p. 2B 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], State’s Angling Action is Better on the Coast, by Pete 

Cornacchia 

 Despite a lack of smelt as attractive forage, the lower Umpqua has been 

yielding a fair number of sturgeon ... . [Online at http://news.google.com/ 

newspapers?id=j2oVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6658,1567378 

&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

314
Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 14 March 1985, p. 2B 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Trout Plants Spice Action, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Apparently this will be another year in which smelt dippers will not be taking 

very many fish from the Sandy or Umpqua. Smelt entered the Sandy last week 

but have remained below the Interstate 84 bridge, where state police report 

dipping has not been worth the effort. [Online at http://news.google.com/ 

newspapers?id=lWoVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6742,3370082 

&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 30 January 1986, p. 3C 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Steelheading Good on Upper Siuslaw, by Pete Cornacchia 

 ... No smelt have been reported [on the Umpqua River]. [Online at http:// 

news.google.com/newspapers?id=12AVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BeEDAAAAIBAJ 

&pg=4531,6382367&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 27 February 1986, p. 2B 

Outlook for Outside, Fishing 

 Lower Umpqua: ... No smelt reported. [Online at http://news.google.com/ 

newspapers?id=JsUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3330,6304140 

&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 19 February 1987, p. 2B 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Coast Rivers Improve But Not Fishing, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Lower Umpqua: ... No smelt have shown so far. [Online at http://news

.google.com/newspapers?id=Z2kVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fOEDAAAAIBAJ&pg 

=5540,4244267&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 21 January 1988, p. 2D 

Outlook for Outside [lead-in head], Conditions Improve for Steelhead Anglers, by Pete 

Cornacchia 

 Lower Umpqua [under subhead Angling]: ... No smelt have shown. 

[Online at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5msVAAAAIBAJ&sjid

=n-EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2617,4250273&dq=site:news.google.com+Umpqua 

+smelt&hl=en] 

315
Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday 11 February 1988, p. 1D-2D 

Cowlitz Smelt a Quick Catch for Dipnetters, by Pete Cornacchia 

 Smelt also used to make frequent January-April appearances in Oregon’s 

Umpqua but have forsaken this river in recent years. [Online at http://news

.google.com/newspapers?id=FmwVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=p-EDAAAAIBAJ&pg 

=5029,2166079&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 2 March 1989, p. 2D 

Outlook for Outside, Angling 

 Lower Umpqua: ... No smelt have shown yet. [Online at http://news

.google.com/newspapers?id=0W0VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=seEDAAAAIBAJ 

&pg=4949,391197&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Eugene Register-Guard, Thursday, 23 March 1989, p. 2D 

Outlook for Outside, Angling 

 Lower Umpqua: ... no harvestable numbers of smelt. [Online at http://news 

.google.com/newspapers?id=420VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=seEDAAAAIBAJ&pg 

=2299,6102792&dq=site:news.google.com+umpqua+smelt&hl=en] 

Washington 

Vancouver Register (Washington Territory), Wednesday, 6 April 1867, p. 3, col. 1 

 Smelt—This delicate fish, which has never before been known to come up 

higher than Lewis River, has made its appearance off this city in large numbers. 

They can be caught by hand—evening, just after dark is the best time. 

Kalama Beacon (Washington Territory), Friday, 1 March 1872, p. 1, col. 1 

 A Piscatorial Exploit—A few days ago, at Camp Enterprise on the Cowlitz, 

Johnny McGrath, who “runs” things there, performed a feat at smelt catching that 

places him in the van of fishers. With a little dip net of only 16 inches diameter 

across the open end, he stood on the river bank and caught by scooping two 

barrels of fish within half an hour! In the lower Columbia River tributaries this 

species of herring are now running in schools of myriads, and literally fill the 

Cowlitz in shoals that occupy the entire space of the stream; and what is singular, 

although apparently moving forward up the river, there is at present no diminution 

of their volume. 

316
Kalama Beacon, (Washington Territory), Friday, 22 March 1872, p. 1, col. 1 

 The Smelts—These piscatory phenomenon seemed to pass the rear of their 

column up the Cowlitz and tributaries last week. There seems to be no return of 

any portion of them downstream; and whither they are tending, and where can 

such myriads find room at the head of the Cowlitz, is something that would not be 

an inappropriate study for an Agassiz, or some other piscatorial student. 

Kalama Beacon, (Washington Territory), Saturday, 8 February 1873, p. 1, col. 2 

 A Piscatory Advent—The annual return to the Cowlitz River of that delicious 

little fish called the smelt commenced a couple of weeks ago, and the river is 

literally alive with them. With a scoop net of about 15 to 20 inches in diameter, it 

is practicable to stand anywhere on the bank and scoop a barrel full in 10 or 15 

minutes. The run will last about a month longer, but toward the latter end of the 

season they are pronounced inferior and the catch is abandoned. A few days ago, 

the steamer Rescue transported seven tons of these fish at once to fill orders from 

Portland. 

Kalama Beacon, (Washington Territory), Tuesday, 10 February 1874, p. 1, col. 1 

 The Smelt Run—That delicious little fish is playing truant this season, so far. 

According to the period of their annual visits heretofore, they have been due in 

the Cowlitz for two or three weeks past; but they have not yet put in an 

appearance, and may fail altogether, as they do sometimes in streams frequented 

by them. 

Daily Olympian, Monday, 16 March 1896, p. 3, col. 4 

Fresh Supply of Fish 

 The Columbia Market today received a fresh supply of ... Columbia River 

smelt ... All fresh and nice. Columbia foot of Sixth. 

Daily Olympian, Wednesday, 2 February 1898, p. 3, col. 1 

Brevities of the Day 

 M. Giles of the Main Street Market has just received an invoice of fine 

Columbia River smelt. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Wednesday, 3 February 1909, p. 3, col. 1 

Fresh Columbia River Smelts, 5 c per Pound at Kent’s Fish Market, Tower Avenue 

Phone 613 and Your Order Will Be Promptly Delivered 

317
Centralia Daily Chronicle, Tuesday, 16 March 1909, p. 3, col. 2 

The Last Run of Fresh Smelts Is On and Will Last Only a Few Days Longer 

A Good Supply at Kent’s Fish Market on Tower Avenue, 5 Cents per Pound, Phone 613 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Tuesday, 8 February 1910, p. 3, col. 2 

The Columbia River Smelt Are Now In. Get Them at the Main Street Fish Market 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Thursday, 23 February 1911, p. 3, col. 1 

Columbia River Smelt Can Be Had at the Main St. Fish Market and the Centralia Fish Market on 

North Tower Ave, 5 Cents per Pound 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Thursday, 1 February 1912, p. 3, col. 5 

Centralia Fish Market 

Columbia River Smelts, Per lb 5c 

Centralia Daily Chronicle-Examiner, Thursday, 16 January 1913, p. 6, col. 6 

Columbia River Smelts, 5c per Pound, City Fish Market, Carsten Building 

Centralia Daily Chronicle-Examiner, Friday, 17 January 1913, p. 6, col. 2 

Smelt Run Is On in Earnest 

 Kelso, Jan. 17—Columbia River smelt, or Cowlitz River smelt, as they should 

be called, have come into the Cowlitz in ever increasing numbers since the fag 

end of last week, and fishermen now report that the run is a satisfactory one, 

although not extremely large. Monday saw the first large catch, more than one 

thousand boxes of 50 pounds each, or 50,000 pounds, being caught and shipped 

from Kelso. The gill nets have been discarded for the nets of the dip variety, and 

a force of a score or more of boats has been busy in midstream. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Friday, 31 January 1913, p. 3, col. 6 

We are Now Well Supplied with Choice Columbia River Smelt, Shipments Daily, 5 Cents a 

Pound, City Fish Market, Carstens Building 

Centralia Daily Chronicle-Examiner, Monday, 10 February 1913, p. 6, col. 6 

 1,200,000 smelt were caught in the Cowlitz River last Sunday. 

318
Olympia Daily Recorder, Wednesday, 14 January 1914, p. 2, col. 7 

Run of Smelt Largest Ever in the Columbia 

 Portland, Ore., Jan. 14—The greatest run of smelt ever in the Columbia River 

is now being harvested. Fresh offerings of Columbia River smelt were quoted at 

5 cents a pound today by the wholesale fish trade and there were indications that 

even this low price would be cut. The market is glutted. 

 Such heavy catches by gillnetters of the lower Columbia River were never 

before seen in this market. As a rule the gillnetters catch only limited supplies 

before the fish enter the Cowlitz, when they are caught in abundance with dip 

nets. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle-Examiner, Tuesday, 23 February 1915, p. 3, col. 3 

Heavy Smelt Run in Lewis 

 Kelso, Feb. 23—That the heavy run of smelt have passed up the Cowlitz 

River for this season seems certain from the enormous numbers of the tiny fish 

which have poured up the Lewis River during the past few days. Not satisfied 

with the Kalama River, which they first entered, the main run of the fish went into 

the Lewis River, and at the present time that stream looks like the Cowlitz at this 

season of other years. Smelt everywhere in the waters, filling it from bank to 

bank and all the way from the mouth far above Woodland. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Wednesday, 17 March 1915, p. 3, col. 4 

Big Smelt Run 

 Woodland, Wash., March 17—The great run of smelt in the Lewis River 

during the past month and which seemed to be decreasing last week has been 

increased by another run which started yesterday, and the fish coming now are of 

as good quality as have ever been caught here, but the price has ruled so low that 

there are not many fishermen taking them. Seagulls and other fish-eating birds 

are doing their best to clean them up. The gulls are on the river by the hundreds 

of thousands, their flight being almost solid at times, and the sand bars when 

covered by them look like a snow bank. Immense numbers of the little fish are 

lying dead in the river and a good rain, with a rise in the river, would be a great 

help, as it would wash the dead fish out. This is the first season in seven years the 

fish have come in here. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle-Examiner, Wednesday, 31 March 1915, p. 1, col. 3 

Smelt Come Too Late 

 Kelso, March 31—Too late to do the fishermen of the Cowlitz River any 

good, because the market is already loaded up and the price down, large numbers 

319
of smelt came into the river some time last week. For some unknown reason the 

smelt this year wandered everywhere except into the Cowlitz, which in seasons 

past has been their regular abode. This is the first run of smelt of any size in the 

Cowlitz this year. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle-Examiner, Friday, 17 December 1915, p. 2, col. 2 

Smelt Coming In 

 Kelso, Dec. 17—Smelt are coming into the Cowlitz River in increasing 

numbers, as shown by growing catches of the gillnetters. Gillnetting for smelt at 

this season of the year is profitable, as the fish bring 20 cents a pound. Later on 

the fishermen will be lucky to get that much a box. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle-Examiner, Friday, 31 December 1915, p. 7, col. 5 

Many Smelt Caught 

 Kelso, Dec. 31—Since the drop in the Cowlitz River smelt have been plentiful 

in the stream and gillnetting for them has been going on merrily. Many boxes of 

fish are being caught daily in this manner and the fishermen are getting good 

prices for them. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Wednesday, 12 February 1920, p. 8, col. 4 

Wait for Smelt 

 Kelso, Feb. 12—A few smelt have been caught in the Cowlitz River the past 

two years and fishermen are hopeful that a heavy run of the fish will soon appear 

in the stream. Smelt in large numbers were reported to be nearing the mouth of 

the Cowlitz just before the recent cold weather and fishermen think that they may 

soon be in the stream now that the ice is gone. Last year was the only one in the 

last three years that the smelt came into the Cowlitz, the main run going up the 

Lewis River in 1927 and 1928. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Friday, 25 January 1929, p. 2, col. 5-6 

Smelt Running 

 Longview, Jan. 25—The annual horde of smelt is coming up the Columbia 

River. The run is at present in the vicinity of Cathlamet, about 40 miles west of 

here, according to local fishermen. There is considerable conjecture here as to 

whether the shining silvery millions of little fish will journey up the Cowlitz or 

the Lewis rivers. The Cowlitz was the usual habitat until two years ago when 

they selected the Lewis, 30 miles further up stream. It was thought to be an “off 

year,” which occurred once in about seven years previous. But last season the 

smelt passed by the Cowlitz and went up the Lewis again. Fishermen are 

scratching their heads and wondering which stream will be selected this year. 

320
Centralia Daily Chronicle, Saturday, 23 February 1929, p. 4, col. 4 

Smelt Overdue 

 Kelso, Feb. 23—The main run of Columbia River smelt into the Cowlitz or 

Lewis rivers is considerably past due and fishermen are waiting for the run to 

enter one of the streams. The run has gone up the Lewis River for the past two 

years. The fish have been caught by gillnetters in large quantities in the Columbia 

River near Rainier, Ore., recently. It is believed the cold spell and the low stage 

of water in the streams has held up the migration. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Tuesday, 5 March 1929, p. 8, col. 5 

Smelt Shipped 

 Kelso, March 5—Shipments of Columbia River smelt from Kelso have 

averaged 150 boxes a day during the past week, according to express company 

representatives. The fish are taken by gillnetters operating in the Columbia River, 

the run not having entered either the Cowlitz or Lewis rivers to date this year. 

Ordinarily the run enters one of the streams late in January or early in February 

and it has never been known to be as late as it has been this year. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Saturday, 8 March 1930, p. 4, col. 1 

 Smelt Are Running—Stories of “smelt catches” are running rampant about 

town this week. The silvery fish entered the Cowlitz several days ago and are 

now reported to be working their way upstream between Ostrander and Castle 

Rock. A net on the end of a long pole, a little deftness in its use and one’s smelt 

order is soon filled. 

Chehalis Bee Nugget, Friday, 21 March 1930, p. 5, col. 2 

Smelt at Toledo 

 For the past week the Cowlitz River bank has been crowded with people who 

are busy dipping smelt from the river. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Wednesday, 31 December 1930, p. 8, col. 3 

Smelt Are Running 

 Kelso, Dec. 31—A few Columbia River smelt, are being dipped from the 

Cowlitz River each night, but the run of fish this winter is lighter than the usual 

small midwinter run and the fish will be gone within a few days. The main run of 

smelt does not come into the Cowlitz until late in February ordinarily. Smelt are 

now selling at about 15 cents a pound. 

321
Centralia Daily Chronicle, Thursday, 29 January 1931, p. 4, col. 4 

Smelt Run Begins 

 Longview, Jan. 29—(AP)—The smelt run is on! Innumerable thousands of 

the little fish are wriggling their way up the Cowlitz River today after meandering 

for several weeks in the Columbia below here. Several score boxes were packed 

from last night’s dipping by eager commercial fishermen and heavy shipments to 

outside points have begun. The fish sell locally at four pounds for 25 cents. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Saturday, 21 February 1931, p. 5, col. 3 

Smelt Still Run 

 Kelso, Feb. 21—Heavy rains the past few days, which brought the Cowlitz 

River up several feet, have not interfered with the run of smelt that came into the 

river early this month, and heavy catches of fish were made the past two days. A 

new run of fish came into the Cowlitz this week. The demand for the fish is 

holding firm and heavy shipments are going out by rail, truck and boat daily. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Thursday, 12 March 1931, p. 2, col. 2 

Smelt Still Run 

 Kelso, Mar. 12—Another heavy run of smelt came in the Cowlitz River 

Sunday. They are of fine quality and fishermen are catching great quantities of 

them. The markets are holding up well this year and heavy shipments continue by 

rail, mail and truck. Distribution of smelt by truck has been developing on a large 

scale, and trucks now carry the smelt to points as far distant as Idaho and northern 

California. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Tuesday, 22 December 1931, p. 3, col. 5 

First Smelt of Season Show Up 

 Kelso, Dec. 22—(AP)—Mother Nature presented Cowlitz County a Christmas 

present today when the first smelt of the season appeared in the Cowlitz River. 

Johnny Wannassay, veteran Indian smelt fisherman, dipped the first catch. It ran 

about 200 pounds. For several years Wannassay has beaten other fishermen to 

this honor. 

 This first run [of] smelt is small. In fishing parlance it is called the scout run 

and precedes a major or larger run. The smelt come into the Cowlitz in large 

schools between December and May. When smelt fishing is at its height 

approximately 200 men find employment in dipping, packing and processing the 

fish, which are shipped to all parts of the world in one form or another. 

322
Centralia Daily Chronicle, Wednesday, 6 January 1932, p. 8, col. 6 

Quality of Smelt Unusually Good 

 Portland, Jan. 6—(AP)—“The smelt are running.” This was the call today 

from many Columbia River and Cowlitz River points as hordes of the small fish 

piled up stream in silvery waves. Reports from the two streams said the run is 

one of the earliest large invasions on record, and it was taken by many to presage 

an early spring. 

 Dealers here report the quality of the fish this year is unusually good. The 

present showing is regarded as rather spectacular and wholly unexpected. Many 

unemployed persons are working with dip nets on the two rivers. Fancy smelt are 

selling in Portland markets as low as three pounds for 25 cents. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Monday, 1 February 1932, p. 2, col. 8 

May Plant Smelt 

 Kelso, Feb. 1—Another attempt will probably be made this year by the state 

fisheries department to transplant Columbia River smelt to streams flowing into 

Puget Sound. Attempts have been made in the past and a large number of smelt 

were planted in the Nisqually River several years ago. Floyd [Lloyd] Royal of the 

state biological department is making a study of the matter here, and it is probable 

that smelt spawn will be hatched in the state hatchery on the Kalama River and 

the young smelt planted in both the Snohomish and Skagit rivers if the attempt to 

hatch them proves successful. The smelt are believed to have a four-year cycle, 

returning to their native stream after four years, to spawn. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Monday, 4 April 1932, p. 4, col. 7 

Smelt Run Ends 

 Kelso, April 4—(AP)—The annual smelt run in the Cowlitz River appears to 

be over and from other points comes word that catches in the Lewis River and in 

the Sandy River near Portland are also practically nil. Shipments from Kelso last 

Friday, when catches made before the closed period beginning Friday morning 

were sent to market, were very light and yesterday several fishing boats that went 

as far upstream as the regulations permit, found no smelt worth dipping in the 

Cowlitz River. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Wednesday, 4 January 1933, p. 6, col. 5 

Smelt Running 

 Longview, Jan. 4—(AP)—The annual winter run of smelt, forerunner of a 

spring run to come a month or two later, is hovering in the mouth of the Cowlitz 

River this week. The run has been proceeding slowly up the Columbia River for 

323
the past several weeks. Gillnetters in the Columbia are making most of the 

catches while a few commercial fishermen with dip nets are operating in the 

Cowlitz. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Monday, 7 April 1933, p. 3, col. 2 

 Fish Notes—Smelt fishing in the Cowlitz River ended several days ago, but 

the seagulls remained to do their own fishing. Now, according to fishermen 

returning from the river, each day sees fewer gulls hovering over the water. This 

is taken as a sure indication that the smelt run is just about over. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Wednesday, 28 February 1934, p. 6, col. 2 

 Smelt Season—Smelt are in the Cowlitz River but in “straggly” quantities, 

according to fishermen who have been after them with nets. Welfare people here 

received smelt yesterday that were collected at Castle Rock by fish inspectors, 

who took them from persons having in their possession more than the legal limit 

of 20 pounds. The Cowlitz is closed from 8 a. m. Friday to 8 p. m. Saturday to 

both individual and commercial fishermen. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Friday, 1 February 1935, p. 8, col. 2 

Shipping Smelt 

 Kelso, Feb. 1—The largest shipments of Columbia River smelt of the year 

have been made from here the past few days. Approximately 400 boxes, or more 

than 10 tons of the fish have been shipped daily by express to the more distant 

points and by truck to Portland and Puget Sound. 

 The heaviest shippers are the Columbia River Smelt Company and the Central 

Smelt Company. The latter is an organization of gill-net operators. 

Centralia Daily Chronicle, Thursday, 5 December 1935, p. 14, col. 3 

Smelt Running 

 Longview, Dec. 5—(AP)—The first smelt run of the 1935–36 season was 

reported off Clatskanie, in the lower Columbia River, today. A small shipment 

was made from that point to Portland markets yesterday, and two boxes were 

shipped from Kelso. 

 Smelt takes so far are males, indicating them to be the advance, or scout run. 

The female schools are due later. 

324
California 

Daily Evening Bulletin (San Francisco), Friday, 5 December 1879, p. 1, col. 1 

 Candle Fish of the Klamath—A very odd fish is found in large numbers in the 

Klamath, near its mouth. They are called candle fish. When grown, they are only 

six or eight inches long. They are very full of oil, which seems to be distributed 

all through their bodies. Dry them thoroughly and light either end and they will 

burn with as bright a light as a candle, and for about as long a time. Hence their 

name. They can be caught abundantly with seines. In their dry state they are 

quite pleasant to eat, the oil in them not having an odor or disagreeable flavor. 

San Francisco Call, Saturday, 2 May 1908, p. 12, col. 5 

 Redwood City, May 1—The local Izaak Waltons, who have been pressed for 

time, have been enjoying good fishing within the city limits. Redwood Creek, 

especially, near the works of the Alaska Codfish Company, is teeming with smelt, 

some of those recently caught running over a foot in length. 

San Jose Mercury Herald, Saturday, 15 February 1919, p. 5, col. 4 

Candle Fish Run Opens in the North 

 Eureka, Cal., Feb. 14—The yearly run of candle fish has begun in the 

Klamath River and fishermen state that it exceeds in volume anything heretofore 

recorded. It is said that if any means could be found of canning this fish a new 

product of high food value could find its way to the market. The candle fish is 

particularly rich in valuable oils. 

Humboldt Standard (Eureka), Thursday, 21 February 1952, p. 9, col. 7–8 

Around Our Town, by Scoop Bean 

 Scattered Notes—Candle fish are running in the Klamath River—they are 

caught at night with dip nets—the fish are said to have received their present 

name from early white settlers who sometimes inserted a wick in the smoked fish 

for a source of candlelight. 

Humboldt Standard (Eureka), Friday, 1 April 1955, p. 10, col. 3–5 

How’re They Biting? by Chet Schwarzkopf 

 ... Jack Morris, maestro at Blue Creek Lodge on the Klamath, ... says ... “I 

guess you know we also have a big run of candlefish each spring that affords the 

people here lots of fun as well as good eating.” 

325
Humboldt Standard (Eureka), Wednesday, 10 April 1963, p. 10, col. 3 

Heavy Candlefish Run in Klamath 

 Klamath—Meat market sales showed a sharp decline around Klamath over the 

weekend and Monday. Almost everyone was eating crisp-fried candlefish. 

Awaited by the old-timers, as a heavy run of candlefish seems to herald a good 

salmon and steelhead fishing season to come, word spread fast, when the “run” 

started, a little late this year. Most popular “dipping” area was near the public 

boat ramp in the Klamath Glen area, perhaps due to easy accessibility. 

 Owners of the large nets needed to dip for these small fish reported a “turnover” practically every hour, as each one borrowing it returned the net within a 

very short time. A few dips netted each one their limit in pounds, and more than 

enough to feed their families. 

Humboldt Standard (Eureka), Monday, 15 April 1963, p. 13 

Thousands of Candlefish in Heavy Redwood Creek Run 

[Photo caption 1:] Joe January of Sacramento dips up a net load of candlefish at 

the mouth of Redwood Creek near Orick. Thousands of the silvery fish, called 

Columbia River smelt in most waters, are running in the creek and the Klamath 

River, heading upstream to spawn. According to local Fish and Game authorities, 

this is the first time candlefish have run up Redwood Creek in large numbers. 

Normally the fish are found only in the Klamath River and a few other northern 

rivers. 

[Photo caption 2:] Commercial fishermen net candlefish in the ocean at the mouth 

of Redwood Creek. Left to right are Fred Shipman, Stanley Dombek and 

Lawrence Lazio. Commercial catches must be made in salt water. 

[Photo caption 3:] A herd of sea lions enjoys a feast of candlefish as the silvery 

smelt run by the thousands at Redwood Creek. Fish derive their local name from 

the fact Indians dried them and used them for candles. 

[Photo caption 4:] Silvery candlefish measure five to six inches in length, with a 

few up to nine inches. Thousands of the small smelt are running up Redwood 

Creek and the Klamath River to spawn. 

[Photo caption 5:] Lawrence Lazio of Eureka demonstrates the density of the 

current candlefish runs by catching them with his hands. Many people lacking 

nets did just that and caught enough fish for a large fish fry. 

[Photo caption 6:] Fred Shipman, left, and Stanley Dombeck deliver a large 

commercial catch of candlefish to a local fish company. The smelt will be sent to 

the Bay Area and Los Angeles. 

326
Humboldt Standard (Eureka), Tuesday, 16 April 1963, p. 7 

Candlefish Running in Mad River 

[Photo captions:] Local fishermen use nets for an unusual run of silvery 

candlefish in the Mad River. In top photo, two unidentified men watch as Bill 

Damgaard, left, and Bob Hoffman, both of McKinleyville, wade into the water to 

net the fish. Mrs. Sarah Gillman, below, of McKinleyville, empties her net laden 

with candlefish into a bucket. Heavy runs of the fish, also known as Columbia 

River smelt, also are reported in Redwood Creek and the Klamath River. 

Humboldt Standard (Eureka), Tuesday, 23 April 1963, p. 20 

Surf Netters Catch Candlefish near Redwood Creek 

[Photo caption:] Countless candlefish are still running at Redwood Creek, this 

time in the Pacific surf. Scores of fishermen took advantage of Sunday’s spring 

weather to enjoy the sport and prepare for a fish fry. The silvery fish, commonly 

called Columbia River smelt, derived their local name from the fact Indians used 

them as candles. The fish normally run only in the Klamath River and other 

northern streams but recently heavy runs have been reported in Redwood Creek 

and Mad River and now in the surf. 

Humboldt Standard (Eureka), Friday, 9April 1965, p. 13, col. 1 

Sideline Slants[column head], Candlefish Run Top Weekend Prospect, by Don Terbush 

 The annual spawning run of candlefish is on in the Klamath River and the oily 

rascals are said to be numerous. Big runs are usually followed by large runs of 

salmon, according to veteran anglers along the river. 

 Don’t forget—a valid fishing license is required. 

Times-Standard (Eureka), Thursday, 14 March 1968, p. 19, col. 1

Anglin’ Around, by Ray Peart 

 Candlefish at Klamath—It has started. The small fish called candlefish or 

eulachon are making their spawning run up the Klamath and should be found in 

Redwood Creek and Mad River soon. 

 Eulachon normally die after spawning, but Marine Resources biologists tell 

me they have recovered a few spawned-out fish in the ocean while conducting 

shrimp sampling cruises. 

 The eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) was first recorded from British 

Columbia waters in 1866 by A. Gunther on the basis of four specimens eight to 

nine inches in length, collected near Vancouver Island by C. B. Wood, surgeon on 

HMS Plumper, and presented to the British Museum. The fish is common along 

the whole coast of British Columbia, and enters large rivers during March, April 

327
and May to spawn. It matures at two to three years of age and usually dies after 

spawning. The average female spawns 25,000 eggs which hatch in two to three 

weeks. The young are then carried by the current to the sea where they mature. 

 In the old days, eulachon were used extensively by Indians for food and 

production of oil for cooking. Previous to the advent of manufactured candles 

and other lighting devices, these fish were dried, fitted with wicks and used as 

candles, hence the frequently used name, candlefish. 

 Most people now smoke the fish, and some of the oil is worked out this way. 

They are very rich. Others pickle them. A gourmet treat is the roe from females 

mixed with salami and eggs, made into patties and fried. 

 Last year there was a huge run of candlefish in Redwood Creek. For eight 

days, these small dry-feeling fish swam up past Orick in a continuous school from 

bank to bank. That was around the first week in April. 

 It’s fun to net these fish. Take the family for a day at the beach. The limit is 

25 pounds and you do need a license. Check the 1968 Sport Fishing Regulations 

for new rules concerning netting candlefish in Redwood Creek and Mad River. 

Times-Standard (Eureka), Wednesday, 16 April 1969, p. 21, col. 5

Candlefish Run Again in Klamath 

 Klamath—Large catches of candlefish have been taken from the Klamath 

River this past week, and were still running heavily Sunday evening. 

 Quite a number of fish are brought up each dip of the large nets used. The 

heavy run is late this year, as usually the month of March is the time of most of 

the run. A number of the local people smoke large quantities of the fish, as well 

as those who enjoy them just fried very crisp. 

 Candlefish are similar to the Columbia River smelt. A heavy concentration of 

seagulls and large groups of sea lions accompany the run. Several days last week, 

the sand spit at the mouth of the river was covered with the sea lions, as they 

sunned themselves, after dining on the fish, no doubt. 

Times-Standard (Eureka), Friday, 19 March 1971, p. 11, col. 1 

Sideline Slants [column head], Candlefish Running, by Steve Terbush 

 “Candlefish are running at the mouth of the Klamath River,” was Bill 

Dimmick’s comment from Orick. “I’ve seen a lot of nets heading that way.” 

Times-Standard (Eureka), Friday, 5 May 1972, p. 19, col. 1 

Sideline Slants, by Steve Terbush 

 Mrs. Paul observes from Klamath that “this has been a wonderful candlefish 

year and that usually means a good salmon year on the Klamath River.” 

328
Times-Standard (Eureka), Friday, 16 April 1976, p. 13, col. 1 

Sideline Slants, by Steve Terbush 

 Humboldt County Fish hatchery chief Steve Sanders ... noted that “they are 

still picking up candlefish at Redwood Creek. The catches are light although 

some limits are being taken.” 

Times-Standard (Eureka), Friday, 23 April 1976, p. 9, col. 1 

Sideline Slants, by Steve Terbush 

 Candlefish in the Klamath, Redwood Creek and Mad River ... are the major 

items of interest to North coast sports anglers this weekend. 

 “There are lots of candlefish in the Mad River,” reports hatchery 

superintendent Bob Will. “Last weekend it was hot. They are higher up than I’ve 

ever seen them—clear up to Blue Lake which is unusual. Of course, the fishing 

area is only open to the railroad bridge at Essex. 

 “About every third year there are always a few,” Bob added. “This year it 

seems there is an extraordinary amount.” 

 “They are still picking up candlefish in Redwood Creek, said Humboldt 

County Fish Hatchery chief Steve Sanders. “And I would recommend Stone 

Lagoon for fishing. There’s not much pressure and I’m sure there are fish in 

there. If they (anglers) have a boat all the better.” 

329
330
331

Appendix C: Selected Accounts of Eulachon in 

Early Historical References 

[Editor’s note: Minimal silent correction has been applied to these excerpts, such as changing 

the initial letter of a word to a capital or lowercase letter, correcting minor misspellings without 

inserting a comment or the word sic in brackets, or minor modification of punctuation. 

Idiosyncrasies of spelling and phrasing in these older works are generally preserved.] 
Klamath River 

Autobiography of Clarence E. Pearsall (Pearsall 1928, p. 1614) 

Early 1890s 

At other times, with a single haul of their dip nets they [the Yurok fishers] caught 

fifteen or twenty pounds of quah-rah [candlefish], a small fish that when 

thoroughly dried burns like a candle. 

Columbia River 

Journal of Patrick Gass [Sergeant on the Lewis and Clark Expedition] (Gass 1807, p. 194–

197 in Moulton’s 1996 reprint edition) 

25 February 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

Tuesday 25. The rain continued and the weather was stormy. About 10 o’clock 

the Natives went away, though it continued to rain very fast. They brought us 

yesterday a number of small fish [eulachon], of a very excellent kind, resembling 

a herring, and about half the size. 

26 February 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

Wednesday 26. We had a fair morning; some of the hunters went out, as our store 

of provisions was getting small, and three men went in search of these small fish, 

which we had found very good eating. 

2 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

Sunday 2. This day was also wet. The fishing party returned at night, and 

brought with them some thousands of the same kind of small fish, we got from the 

Natives a few days ago, and also some sturgeons. 

6 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

Thursday 6. Our stock of provisions being nearly exhausted, six men were sent 

out in different directions to hunt, and three more were sent to endeavor to 

procure some fish, as the Natives take a great number of the small fish about 20 

miles distant from the fort by water. 

9 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

In the afternoon some of the Natives came to visit us, and brought some of the 

small fish, which they call ulken. 

332
11 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

At noon our fishermen returned with some ulken and sturgeon.

The Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark, Down the Columbia to Fort Clatsop (Moulton 

1990) 

24 February 1806 (p. 342–344) 

This evening we were visited by Comowooll the Clatsop Chief and 12 men 

women & children of his nation. ... The chief and his party had brought for sail 

... a species of small fish which now begin to run, and are taken in great 

quantities in the Columbia R. about 40 miles above us by means of skiming or 

scooping nets. On this page I have drawn the likeness of them as large as life; it 

is as perfect as I can make it with my pen and will serve to give a general idea of 

the fish. The rays of the fins are boney but not sharp tho’ somewhat pointed. The 

small fin on the back next to the tail has no rays of bone being a thin membranous 

pellicle. The fins next to the gills have eleven rays each. Those of the abdomen 

have eight each, those of the pinna-ani [anal fin] are 20 and 2 half formed in front. 

That of the back has eleven rays. All the fins are of a white colour. The back is 

of a bluish duskey colour and that of the lower part of the sides and belley is of a 

silvery white. No spots on any part. The first bone of the gills next behind the 

eye is of a bluis cast, and the second of a light goald colour nearly white. The 

puple of the eye is black and the iris of a silver white. The underjaw exceeds the 

upper; and the mouth opens to great extent, folding like that of the herring. It has 

no teeth. The abdomen is obtuse and smooth; in this differing from the herring, 

shad anchovey &c of the Malacopterygious Order & Class Clupea, to which 

however I think it more nearly allyed than to any other, altho’ it has not their 

accute and serrate abdomen and the underjaw exceeding the upper. The scales of 

this little fish are so small and thin that without minute inspection you would 

suppose they had none. They are filled with roes of a pure white colour and have 

scarcely any perceptable alimentary duct. I find them best when cooked in Indian 

stile, which is by roasting a number of them together on a wooden spit without 

any previous preparation whatever. They are so fat they require no additional 

sauce, and I think them superior to any fish I ever tasted, even more delicate and 

lussious than the white fish of the lakes which have heretofore formed my 

standart of excellence among the fishes. I have heard the fresh anchovey much 

extolled but I hope I shall be pardoned for believing this quite as good. The bones 

are so soft and fine that they form no obstruction in eating this fish. We 

purchased all the articles which these people brought us .... The sturgeon which 

they brought us was also good of it’s kind. We determine to send a party up the 

river to procure some of those fish. 

333
2 March 1806 (p. 368) 

... late this evening Drewyer arrived with a most acceptable supply of fat 

sturgeon, fresh anchovies [eulachon] and a bag containing about a bushel of 

wappetoe. We feasted on anchovies and wappetoe. 

4 March 1806 (p. 378) 

The anchovey [eulachon] is so delicate that they soon become tainted unless 

pickled or smoked. The Natives run a small stick through their gills and hang 

them in the smoke of their lodges, or kindle a small fire under them for the 

purpose of drying them. They need no previous preparation of guting &c and will 

cure in 24 hours. 

The Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark, From the Pacific to the Rockies (Moulton 

1991) 

16 [March 1806] (p. 44) 

The anchovey [eulachon] had ceased to run; the white salmon trout [steelhead] 

have succeeded them. 

25 March 1806 (p. 12) 

... at noon we halted and dined. Here some Clatsops came to us in a canoe loaded 

with dryed anchovies [eulachon], which they call olthen [Chinookan ú-lxan, 

meaning dried eulachon], wappetoe and sturgeon. 

29 March 1806 (Sauvies Island) (p. 27) 

They had large quantities of dryed anchovies [eulachon] strung on small sticks by 

the gills and others which had been first dryed in this manner were now arranged 

in large sheets with strings of bark and hung suspended by poles in the roofs of 

their houses. 

The Journals of John Ordway [Member of the Lewis and Clark Expedition] May 14, 1804–

September 23, 1906, (Moulton 1995, p. 275–278) 

2 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

... in the evening the three men returned from the village with a considerable 

quantity of the little fish [eulachon] resembling herren [sic] only a size smaller—

and some sturgeon and a few wapatoes, which they purchased from them. The 

Natives catch a vast quantity of fish. 

334
9 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

Several of the Clatsop Indians came to the fort with some small fish [eulachon] ... 

to trade to us. 

11 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

Sergt. Pryor returned with a considerable quantity of small fish and sturgeon. 

21 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

... a number of Natives visited us with some dryed small fish to trade which they 

call in their language oll-can [dried eulachon]. 

The Journals of Joseph Whitehouse [Sergeant on the Lewis and Clark Expedition], May 

14, 1804–April 2, 1806 (Moulton 1997, p. 423–430) 

26 February 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

... 2 of our men went in a canoe in order to go to the Clatsop & Cathlameht 

Village in order to purchase some fish from the Natives. We found the fish that 

we had purchased from them 2 days past, to be well tasted & fat, especially the 

small fish [eulachon], which had the resemblance of a herring but much better 

tasted. 

2 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

In the evening, three of our men returned who had been trading at the Clatsop 

Village. They brought with them a considerable quantity of those small kind of 

fish, which we purchased from the Natives some days past; these fish were a size 

smaller than the herring. ... The Natives gave them some fish without any 

recompence being made to them. These Indians catch great quantities of different 

kinds of fish in a creek lying a small distance above their village. 

5 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

... a number of the Natives came in canoes to the fort. They brought with them 

some sturgeon & some small fish [eulachon] to trade with us. Our officers 

purchased the whole of them. 

17 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

... purchased from the Natives ... a few small fish [eulachon], the small fish not 

unlike a herring getting scarce among the Natives. 

21 March 1806 (Fort Clatsop) 

The Natives came to the fort & brought some dried fish, which the Indians called 

all-can [dried eulachon], we purchased some of these fish from them. 

335
The Discovery of the Oregon Trail: Robert Stuart’s Narratives of his Overland Trip 

Eastward from Astoria in 1812–13 (Rollins 1995) 

1812 (p. 8) 

... the dreary months of January and February, after which sturgeon and uth-lechan [eulachon] may be taken in great numbers, the former sometimes by the 

spear, but more generally by the hook and line; and the latter by the scoop net. 

The uthlechan is about six inches long and somewhat similar to our smelt, is a 

very delicious little fish, and so fat as to burn like a candle, and are often used for 

that purpose by the Natives. 

1 July 1812 (p. 30) 

Here are the best and almost only fisheries of uthulhuns [eulachon] and 

sturgeon—the former they take in immense numbers by the operation of the scoop 

net from the middle of March till the middle of April, and the latter [principally] 

by the hook and line during the spring and fall seasons—the uthulhuns are a kind 

of smelt, and when dried for preservation, are much similar to smoked herrings. 

Wilson Price Hunt’s Diary of his Overland Trip Westward to Astoria in 1811–12 (Rollins 

1995, p. 308) 

15 February 1812 

On the 15th, we passed several large islands. The land on the left bank was 

covered with oaks and ash trees, but all was inundated. I stopped at some Indian 

huts where I found four of our fellow countrymen who were bartering for 

sturgeon and were fishing for excellent small fish, which were about six inches 

long. The Indians call them othlecan [eulachon], and catch many of them in the 

springtime. 

A Voyage to the Northwest Coast of America (Franchère 1968, p. 180) 

February brings a small fish about the size of a sardine. It has an exquisite flavor 

and is taken in immense quantities by means of a scoop net which the Indians, 

seated in canoes, plunge into the schools: but the season is short, not even lasting 

two weeks. 

Adventure at Astoria, 1810–1814 (Franchère 1967, p. 108) 

February brings a little fish, somewhat longer and broader than the sardine, that 

we took at first to be a smelt [eulachon]. It has a delicate flavor and is abundant, 

but the season for catching it lasts only a short time. 

336
The Journal of Gabriel Franchère, 1811–1814 (Franchère 1969, p. 110–111) 

At the beginning of February [1812] the Indians brought us large quantities of a 

small fish [eulachon] six or seven inches long, which we found excellent. ... 

The Natives continued to supply us with small fish until the 20th, when the season 

was over. This fish, which is very abundant, is caught by means of a scoop or 

rake, which is simply a long pole to one end of which they have fastened sharply 

pointed pegs; by pulling it back and forth through the water they catch the fish on 

the pegs and soon have a canoe full. The women dry these fish, which furnish 

their principal food supply during the months of April, May, and June, threading 

them when dry in a double row on cords which are six feet long. They even trade 

in them with the Natives of the upper river, for these fish are not caught further up 

than the territory of the Chreluits [Chinook Indians], about 15 leagues from the 

mouth of the Columbia. 

The Journal of Alexander Henry the Younger 1799–1814 (Gough 1992) 

6 January 1814 (p. 635) 

This evening a canoe arrived from above which brought us four large sturgeon 

and a few smelt [eulachon]. These are the first of these small fish we have seen 

here this season. They generally make their appearance here in February, but the 

gentlemen who arrived today from above tell us the Indians take them at present 

in great abundance about the entrance of the Willamette River. 

7 January 1814 (p. 637) 

The great smoke which now rises from the three Chinook villages denotes the 

return of these people to their winter quarters, which is usually at this period. 

They will contrive to augment in numbers daily, as the smelt [eulachon] fishing is 

approaching fast and then the sturgeon fishing follows, and, as the spring draws 

near, the salmon fishing approaches, the Natives from the northward will also 

bend their course here also. 

11 January 1814 (p. 642) 

Passed Mount Coffin on the north side. ... We saw ... many of the Natives fishing 

smelt [eulachon] with a scoop net along the shores.

27 January 1814 (p. 665) 

The insides of these Indians houses are crowded with smelt [eulachon] drying, 

suspended by the heads to poles, the roofs are lined everywhere excepting the fire 

place is full, all hanging tail downwards. Several canoes were also full laying off 

at anchor. ... We passed several fishing parties, tented on the beach, who had ... 

canoes loaded with smelt. .... At 9 o’clock we passed Mount Coffin, and at 11 

o’clock we passed Oak Point. We saw several sea lions. ... The number of gulls 

337
and other birds that feed on fish are surprisingly numerous here at present, much 

more so than last fall. The cause I presume is they are attracted by the numerous 

shoals of smelt which are going up the river at this season of the year. Seals are 

very numerous also. 

8 February 1814 (between Mount Coffin and Oak Point on the Columbia River, p. 676) 

We observed on the beach and floating on the surface of the water great numbers 

of smelt [eulachon] dead and dying, the same fate which attends the salmon, and 

seems to attack the small fish in the river. They all die apparently for want of 

food, there being not the least particle of any substance in their gut, which 

consists of only one very small green filament. Gulls, shell drakes, and other 

waterfowl that feed on fish are uncommonly numerous, also eagles both baldhead 

and grey. Herons are very common along the shore and perched on the trees. 

26 February 1814 (Fort George, aka FortAstoria, p. 683) 

Two Indian canoes came over, on their way up to catch sturgeon and smelt 

[eulachon]. I saw a kind of pole about 10 feet long and 2 inches broad, one side 

was fixed a range of small bones, about a 1⁄4 of an inch asunder, and about one 

inch in length, and very sharp; the range of teeth extending about six feet up the 

blade, this I understand is used in the smelt fisheries. 

6 March 1814 (Fort George, aka Fort Astoria, p. 695) 

Several canoes deeply loaded with smelt [eulachon] and sturgeon arrived from 

above and proceeded to the Calpoh’s Village, having sold some of the smelt to us 

and passed on. 

19 March 1814 (Fort George, aka Fort Astoria, p. 701) 

The sturgeon continue to be plenty, and the smelt [eulachon] few; they do not all 

die as soon as I had imagined when I was last above in the beginning of February, 

as Mr McKay tells me they are now in the same state as they were then, a few 

found dead along the beach, and others dead and dying in the water.

3 April 1814 (p. 708) 

We now have sufficient of their dried smelt [eulachon] which has been purchased 

mostly from the Chinooks and Clatsop, who buy the fish above themselves, and 

before it is brought down and strung up to dry it is spoiled. The dried smelt from 

above is much better by being dried on the spot. I now desired them to be traded 

at 1 fathom of small blue Canton beads for 5 fathoms of smelt. Yesterday we had 

traded at 4 fathoms. 

338
Adventures of the First Settlers on the Oregon or Columbia River &c (Ross 1849, p. 94–95) 

There is a small fish resembling the smelt or herring, known by the name of 

ulichan, which enters the [Columbia] river in immense shoals, in the spring of the 

year. The ulichans are generally an article of trade with the distant tribes, as they 

are caught only at the entrance of large rivers. To prepare them for a distant 

market, they are laid side to side, head and tail alternately, and then a thread run 

through both extremities links them together, in which state they are dried, 

smoked, and sold by the fathom, hence they have obtained the name of fathomfish. 

Trading Beyond the Mountains: The British Fur Trade on the Pacific, 1793–1843 (Mackie 

1997, p. 30) 

In April 1821, James Keith of Fort George [at Astoria, Oregon] wrote to his 

supplier, Perkins and Company, about the difficulties of obtaining a provision 

supply in this extremely remote region. Keith was dependent on the Chinook 

people of the lower Columbia for salmon, sturgeon, and wildfowl. “The winter 

has been unusually severe both as to the degree of cold & quality & duration of 

the snow,” he wrote. “The fishery of the smelt [eulachon] being lately over, the 

Natives begin to bring us a chance sturgeon & wild fowl, which when more 

abundant will be gratifying to people from a long sea voyage....” 

Salmo (Mallotus?) pacificus (Richardson) North-west Capelin (Richardson 1836, p. 226–

227) 

The Indian name of this fish is oulachan. It comes annually in immense shoals 

into the Columbia about the 23rd of February, but ascends no higher than the 

Katpootl [Lewis River], a tributary which joins it about 60 miles from its mouth. 

It keeps close to the bottom of the stream in the day, and is caught only in the 

night. The instrument used in its capture by the Natives is a long stick armed with 

sharp points, which is plunged into the midst of the shoal, and several are 

generally transfixed by each stroke. It is the favourite food of the sturgeon, which 

enters the river at the same time, and never has a better flavour than when it preys 

on this fish. The oulachan spawns in the different small streams which fall into 

the lower part of the Columbia. It is much prized as an article of food by the 

Natives and arrives opportunely in the interval between the expenditure of their 

winter stock of dry salmon and the first appearance of the quinnat [Chinook 

salmon] in May. 

Report on the Fishes Collected on the Survey (Suckley 1860, p. 348–349) 

They [eulachon] formerly entered the Columbia River in great numbers, and were 

equally abundant in Puget Sound. At present, although sparingly found in the 

waters named, they cannot be considered as occurring in large numbers south or 

east of the southern end of Vancouver’s Island. In the latter locality they are very 

abundant in certain seasons, but nearly always a season of abundance is followed 

339
by three or four years of scarcity. Further northward they are constantly 

abundant. The Haida, Stickene, and Chumtseyan Indians, living along the coasts 

of British and Russian America, bring vast quantities of these fish with them 

when visiting the white settlements on Puget Sound. The fish thus brought are for 

the consumption of the strangers during their stay, and have been simply dried, 

without salt, and for convenience in drying or transportation have been strung on 

sharp, pliable sticks which are passed through the heads. 

In July 1856, Dr. William Fraser Tolmie, chief factor of the Hon. Hudson Bay 

Company, a gentleman well known to naturalists for his interest in science, 

presented me with a bunch of dried eulachon, which he had obtained from some 

of the “Northern” Indians. Dr. Tolmie also gave me the following memoranda: 

“These fish were caught at the mouth of Nass River, which empties into salt water 

near latitude 54°40′ north. The Indian name of the species is almost unspellable. 

Formerly they were quite abundant between the 46th and 49th parallels of north 

latitude. They are now but seldom caught south of latitude 50° north in any great 

number. North of that point they are still taken by the savages in vast quantities, 

and are smoked and dried for trade and home consumption. When eaten after 

being thus prepared they should be either steamed or broiled.” 

The Naturalist in Vancouver Island and British Columbia, Vol. 1 (Lord 1866, p. 96) 

Some 50 years ago, vast shoals of eulachon used regularly to enter the Columbia; 

but the silent stroke of the Indian paddle has now given place to the splashing 

wheels of great steamers, and the Indian and the candle-fish have vanished 

together. From the same causes the eulachon has also disappeared from Puget’s 

Sound, and is now seldom caught south of latitude 50°N. 

The Dominion at the West: A Brief Description of the Province of British Columbia, its 

Climate and Resources (Anderson 1872, p. 30–32) 

A very valuable fish entering Fraser River to spawn in early spring, is the 

Thaleichthys (or preferably Osmerus) Richardsonii—locally known as the oolâhan.* It appears in immense shoals, and is caught either with the scoop net, or, 

like the herring on the seaboard, with the rake. This simple device is merely a 

long light pole, flattened in one direction so as to pass readily through the water, 

and with the edge set towards the lower extremity with a row of sharply pointed 

teeth. The fisherman, entering the shoal, passes the implement repeatedly through 

the water, with a rapid stroke, each time transfixing several fish. Thus a copious 

supply is soon secured. The oolâhan is, in the estimation of most people, one of 

the most delicious products of the sea. Smaller than the herring, it is of a far more 

delicate flavor; and so rich that, when dried, it is inflammable.† This fish is not 

confined to Fraser River, but frequents likewise the Nass, a large stream issuing 

on the frontier between British Columbia and Alaska; another stream debouching 

into Gardner’s Canal; and probably other rivers along the coast. Those caught at 

the mouth of the Nass are of a qua1ity even richer than those of Fraser River. The 

Natives, who assemble there in great numbers in spring to prosecute the fishery, 

besides drying them in large quantities, extract from the surplus a fine oil, which 

340
is highly prized by them as a luxury, and forms a staple article of barter with the 

interior tribes. 

* I was long under the impression that this fish was a variety of Pilchard (Clupanodon thrissa)

peculiar to the Pacific; and am indebted to Dr. Robert Brown, of Edinburgh, formerly in command 

of the Vancouver Island Exploring Expedition, for the correction adopted above. 

† So much so, indeed, that, in Alaska, where it is likewise found, it is I believe called the “candlefish.” It is mentioned by Franchère, in his account of the Columbia River, under the name of 

outhelekane, from which its present designation is modified; and, from the circumstance of its 

being strung on cords by the Natives to dry, was called by the voyageurs poisson à la brasse, or 

fathom-fish. They were formerly very abundant in spring on the lower Columbia; but suddenly, 

about the year 1835, they ceased to appear, and thence forward up at least to 1858, none 

frequented the river. I have been informed, however, that they have since reappeared, and that 

there is now a regular supply as formerly. 

Reminiscences of Cowlitz County (Huntington 1963, p. 5) 

Not within the memory of the oldest white inhabitant had there been any smelt in 

the Cowlitz River until some time in the early sixties. I am not certain what year I 

first saw them, but there was a heavy run and nobody paid much attention to 

them—not even the Indians. The Indians and white people at times caught a few 

with a stick with a sharp nail in it. After the second or third year of their return, 

people began to sit up and take notice. In 1865, a young lady school teacher, 

Miss Baker (afterward my wife), having learned how to make hair nets, conceived 

the idea of making dip nets in which to catch them and soon everybody had nets 

and were catching them by the ton and shipping them to Portland. The Indians 

had a tradition that there had been smelt here many many years before, but to 

punish them for some offense the Sahely Tyee had taken them away and it must 

have been a good many years as the oldest of them did not seem to know much 

about tradition. 

Narrative of the Overland Journey to Oregon (Crawford 1878, unpublished manuscript, 

p. 369) 

Events of 1865 

Appearance of Smelts on Cowlitz 

In Feby and March 1865, there appeared a strange little fish unknown to the early 

settlers of Cowlitz or lower Columbia River. Although the Indians declared that 

those little finny swarming beings of the deep had frequented the waters of the 

Cowlitz River before but had absented themselves for 17 years, during which 

period no Indian had seen a school. They always go along in close trains from 

one foot wide to two or three feet wide, falling in close concert. The early settlers 

on the lower Cowlitz remember having a few such little fellows in small numbers. 

341
Report of the Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia for the Year of 1876 (Anderson 

1877, p. 345) 

The oolá-han, called also in Alaska, the candle-fish, (Thale-chthys or Osmerus 

Richardson) although it may occur low down in the list of marine and 

anadromous fishes which I undertake at present only partially to furnish, is not 

therefore to be regarded as in my estimation the least important. I again venture 

to refer to certain notes which I have already made public; and I now repeat my 

increased conviction that the value of this fish for diverse economical purposes 

has not yet been fully understood. Formerly resorting in enormous shoals to the 

estuary of the Columbia River, it disappeared suddenly about the year 1837, and 

continued to absent itself for many years, until recently, when it suddenly 

reappeared in shoals as numerous as of yore. In Fraser River these fish are found, 

and resort thither regularly in heavy shoals; but little advantage is taken of their 

advent, beyond what are caught and consumed as a luxurious adjunct to the table 

while fresh, and a few casks hastily salted for sale and consumption at home, 

chiefly in fulfilment of private orders. At the Squawmish River, discharging at 

the head of Howe Sound, I found, on enquiry, that these fish enter the river, as 

elsewhere, early in the spring, and ascend as high as the head or the Island of 

Stââ-mis, forming the delta; thence, after spawning, returning to the sea. Several 

other rivers along the coast are known to be frequented by these fish; and there 

are doubtless others of which we are not, so far, cognizant. The Nass River, 

however, discharging into Observatory Inlet, close to the Alaskan boundary, 

stands preeminent as an oolá-han fishery, as well for the enormous supply it 

yields, as for the superior quality of its fish. 

Astoria, or, Anecdotes of an Enterprise beyond the Rocky Mountains (Irving 1868, p. 404) 

About the beginning of February, a small kind of fish, about six inches long, 

called by the Natives the uthlecan, and resembling the smelt, made its appearance 

at the mouth of the river. It is said to be of delicious flavor, and so fat as to burn 

like a candle, for which it is often used by the Natives. It enters the river in 

immense shoals, like solid columns, often extending to the depth of five or more 

feet, and is scooped up by the Natives with small nets at the end of poles. In this 

way they will soon fill a canoe, or form a great heap upon the riverbanks. These 

fish constitute a principal article of their food; the women drying them and 

stringing them on cords. As the uthlecan is only found in the lower part of the 

river, the arrival of it soon brought back the Natives to the coast; who again 

resorted to the factory to trade, and from that time furnished plentiful supplies of 

fish. 

The Eulachon or Candle-fish of the Northwest Coast (Swan 1881, p. 258) 

The eulachon are found in limited numbers at certain seasons in the Columbia 

River, Shoalwater Bay [Willapa Bay], Gray’s Harbor, and at the mouth of the 

various small streams of the coast, and also in the waters of Puget Sound, where 

they are taken in seines and nets with smelt and other varieties of small fish, but 

342
they are thin and poor, and not to be compared to the same varieties further north. 

Even those taken in Fraser’s River near the boundary line between Washington 

Territory and British Columbia are superior to those taken further south, and are 

sold in the Victoria market, where their excellence is highly prized. The few 

secured on Puget Sound are sold by the fishermen as smelts. The best kinds are 

caught further north, and great quantities are salted by the Hudson’s Bay 

Company, at their trading post at Fort Simpson, British Columbia, and either sold 

in the Victoria market or shipped direct to London in tierces, barrels, and kits. 

As an article of food and for the grease or fat contained in them, the eulachon are 

highly prized by the Indians of northern British Columbia and southern Alaska, 

where they abound; particularly at the Nass River, British Columbia, where they 

are annually taken in enormous quantities, and where they seem to attain their 

very finest condition. 

Fraser River, British Columbia 

The Fort Langley [a Hudson’s Bay Company post on the lower Fraser] Journals, 1827–

1830 (MacLachlan 1998) 

28 April 1828 (p. 60) 

The little fishes which the Chinooks call ullachun [eulachon] begin to make their 

appearance here, and are joyfully hailed by the Indians of the river. 

29 April 1828 (p. 60) 

We made a trial to take some of the little fish Chinook fashion [with the rake], 

and proved very successful as enough were taken to give a prog [?] to all hands. 

14 April 1829 (p. 109) 

The small fish in the Columbia called ulluchans [eulachons] is also within the 

river, but not yet this high. 

4 May 1830 (p. 147) 

The small fish called ulachans [eulachons] are arrived. 

Other British Columbia Waters 

The Economic Fishes of British Columbia (Green 1891, p. 30) 

The oolachan (Thaleichthys pacificus), an anadromous fish of about 9 inches in 

length, makes its appearance in the tidal waters of the Fraser about the middle of 

April, and in the Nass about the 23rd of March. When fresh is a delicious little 

fish, but it deteriorates with carriage, and is never seen to perfection in the 

343
Victoria market. Numbers of oolachans are put up in pickle in small kits, and 

some are cured and smoked like bloaters. 

Oolachan grease is an article much used and appreciated by the Indians. A large 

trade is done in this commodity between the Indians of the Nass River and those 

of the interior, in exchange for furs. In appearance and consistency it resembles 

lard, and is used on dried salmon or halibut, much in the same manner as we use 

butter on bread. A short account of its manufacture on the northern rivers may be 

of interest to you. As I before stated the oolachans arrive in March when the ice 

is still on the river. All the Indians who have any right to fish in the river, and this 

priviledge is jealously guarded, come from far and near to the fishery, and erect 

temporary dwellings along the banks or on the ice. The firewood for drying out 

the oil has to be brought from a distance, all that in the immediate vicinity of the 

fishery having been used long ago. The fish are taken under the ice with purse 

nets, and are left in heaps until they are, to say the least of it, high; partial 

decomposition assisting the extraction of the oil. They are then boiled in troughs 

which are about 5 feet long by 2 feet wide, and the fat is skimmed off, and put 

into square cedar boxes about the size and shape of a coal oil tin. Originally the 

grease was extracted by filling a wooden trough with water, and heating it with 

red-hot stones; this mode is now obsolete, the troughs having a sheet iron bottom 

built over a long and narrow furnace. 

The oolachan has more than its fair share of enemies; sturgeon, salmon and 

porpoises follow it into the rivers, while bears and the settler’s pigs gorge 

themselves with the exhausted shotten [sic] fish. At Port Hammond I once saw 

two pigs standing up to their backs in the water, and diving for oolachans; they 

seldom failed to bring one up. 

Vancouver Island and British Columbia: Their History, Resources, and Prospects (MacFie 

1865, p. 163–165) 

Hoolakans ascend the streams in April in dense shoals. Their approach is 

indicated by the presence of seagulls swooping down to devour them, and causing 

the banks of the river to echo with their screeching. This species are about the 

size of a small herring, and are so fat as to baffle ordinary methods of cooking to 

prepare them for the table. Oil is pressed from them by the Indians on the coast, 

and disposed of to tribes in the interior. ... 

When dried, the hoolakan is often used by the Natives as a torch, and, when 

lighted, it emits a brilliant light. The Indians catch this species of fish by 

impaling them on rows of nails at the end of a stick, about four feet long, and so 

thickly do they swarm, that every time this rude implement is waved in the water, 

two or three of them adhere to it. 

The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia (Niblack 1890, p. 

276 and p. 299) 

Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), the so-called “candle-fish,” a kind of smelt, 

run in March and April at the mouth of the Skeena, Nass, and Stikeen rivers. 

344
These have the greatest proportion of fatty matter known in any fish. In frying 

they melt almost completely into oil, and need only the insertion of some kind of 

a wick to serve as a candle. ... 

Eulachon or “candle-fish” run only in the mouths of rivers, particularly the 

Skeena, Nass, and Stikine in this region. They are considered great delicacies, 

and are dried and traded up and down the coast by the Indians who are fortunate 

enough to control the season’s catch. 

345
346
Appendix D: Selected Accounts of Eulachon in 

an Early Periodical 

[Editor’s note: Minimal silent correction has been applied to these excerpts, such as changing 

the initial letter of a word to a capital or lowercase letter, correcting minor misspellings without 

inserting a comment or the word sic in brackets, or minor modification of punctuation. 

Idiosyncrasies of spelling are generally preserved.] 

347
Pacific Fisherman, March 1905, vol. 3(3), p. 19 

Big Catch of Smelt 

 C. R. Gatchet, a Portland fish dealer, reports that 150 tons of smelt were taken 

from the Cowlitz River between February 1 and 7. All were caught between 

Kelso and the mouth of the river. Mr. Gatchet kept a close account of the output. 

Allowing five smelt to the pound, the catch represents 1,500,000 fish. At the 

market price of five cents a pound they are worth $15,000. 

Pacific Fisherman, April 1905, vol. 3(4), p. 11 

Kelso Smelt Industry 

 Kelso, in Cowlitz County, Washington, with 1,200 population, is the center of 

the smelt industry. No other point visited by the myriad schools of fish can rival 

it. The season lasts several months, that just closed having commenced 

November 19, and ended March 15. During this period Kelso records show that 

400 tons of smelt were sent from there to the world. This tonnage represents 

16,000 boxes of smelt, each box weighing 50 pounds. 

 The fact that you can dip smelt from the Cowlitz River with a pitch fork, drive 

a wagon into the stream and load the bed in a short time, or annually ship to the 

hungry world 400 tons of this diminutive fish is a matter of pride at Kelso, for this 

community takes first honors in the smelt industry. 

 Catching smelt on the Cowlitz is an interesting process. The fleet of small 

boats stand out in the stream, one man to each craft, armed with dip net having a 

15-foot handle. The ring at the end of the pole has a spread of 18 inches, while 

the net behind it is of sufficient capacity to carry many pounds of fish. The 

schools of fish, which surge up the river, are soon located, when the fishermen 

commence dipping down stream. Each stroke is richly rewarded, for, after a 

school is located, there are few water hauls. Lee Galloway, one of the best 

fishermen of the stream, has last season’s record, catching 96 boxes in one night, 

each box weighing 50 pounds. This record means that with one of these poles he 

lifted from the stream 4,800 pounds of fish, or about two and a half tons. 

—Charles R. Gatchet 

Pacific Fisherman, April 1906, vol. 4(4), p. 16 

 Smelt Cease Running—The run of smelt on the Cowlitz River has ceased after 

a very successful season. The season’s catch was the largest ever taken from the 

Cowlitz River. Over 700 tons were shipped, the amount being double that 

handled last year. 

348
Pacific Fisherman, April 1907, vol. 5(4), p. 8 

Kelso’s Important Smelt Fishing Industry, by G. E. Kellogg 

 There are places, hundreds of them, which are noted for the production of 

some staple or marketable article, and of all the thus noted towns in Western 

Washington, Kelso has the distinction of being the best known on account of the 

smelt industry. 

 The little fish which tickles the palates of thousands of people each winter are 

the mainstay of the fishing people of this vicinity and not only put thousands of 

dollars in their pockets each year, but they add a great deal to the prosperity of 

Kelso and vicinity. 

 The smelt are a peculiar fish. Hatched in the headwaters of the Cowlitz or 

Sandy they return to the open sea in the spring. Returning in the fall and winter 

they unfailingly enter the Cowlitz, seeking the old spawning grounds beyond the 

reach of fishermen’s nets. They travel in schools, or rather strings, the first run 

arriving at or near Kelso about the Holidays. The run of fish is most uncertain. 

Sometimes they last until the middle of March and sometimes they stop short in 

January. 

 So far this season there have been upwards of 3,000 boxes shipped from 

Kelso, a total of 37,350 pounds, going by express in the month of January alone. 

Carload shipments have been made in years when smelt were plentiful and cheap, 

but lately the demand has kept up so steadily that the fish are shipped almost as 

fast as they can be taken from the water. 

 Smelt have always been so plentiful that they never needed protection by law 

other than licensing fishermen, and there has never been any thought or fear of 

their extinction entertained by anyone who knew their habits. 

 Thus we have an industry which might be called perpetual, as there is no 

doubt of its continuance for many years to come. 

 We are enabled to produce the accompanying engravings showing smelt 

fishing scenes in the vicinity of Kelso by the courtesy of the Kelso Journal. 

Pacific Fisherman, April 1907, vol. 5(4) 

 Smelt in the upper Columbia River—For the first time in many years smelt 

are running up the Columbia River above Kalama. Large schools have been 

passing Vancouver, Wash., and fishermen have reaped a rich harvest. The few 

smelt which have hitherto gone further up the river have been of poor quality, but 

these have been of the best. Just what turned the smelt aside from their favorite 

haunts up past Kelso has not yet been determined. 

349
Pacific Fisherman, January 1910, vol. 8(1), p. 19 

Columbia River 

 ... Smelt have arrived in the river for the first time this winter and are being 

caught in the vicinity of Kathlamet. They are a luxury on the breakfast table as 

the fishermen are wholesaling them at 25 cents per pound, but at the same time 

their flesh is so firm and high flavored that they are well worth the price for an 

epicure. 

Pacific Fisherman, March 1910, vol. 8(3), p. 14 

Columbia River 

 The largest run of smelt for years in the Cowlitz River is now in progress. 

The river has never been known to contain so many smelt in the memory of the 

oldest fishermen. This may bode good for the coming fishing season in the 

Columbia, as it is said that a good run of smelt has always been followed by a 

good run of salmon. The increased run found the trade unprepared to handle it 

successfully and this accounts for the breaking of values to 10c and even lower. 

... Although the smelt, now so generously in the Portland markets, bear the name 

“Columbia River,” the great preponderance of them is taken in the vicinity of 

Kelso from the Cowlitz River. Kelso this season has shipped out approximately 

15,000 boxes. Each box contains 50 pounds and the fish average eight to the 

pound. The catch, so far, therefore represents approximately 6,000,000 fish. 

Pacific Fisherman, April 1913, vol. 11(4) 

Donate Carload of Smelt to Sufferers 

 The citizens of Kelso, Wash., donated a carload of Columbia River or Cowlitz 

River smelt, 20,000 pounds in all, to the Ohio flood sufferers. The Kelso 

fishermen donated 400 boxes of fish, the businessmen paid for the boxes and 

labor and an express company and the railroad furnished the transportation free. 

Pacific Fisherman, February 1914, vol. 12(2), p. 20 

Heavy Run of Smelts in Columbia River Valley 

 An unusually heavy run of smelts appeared in the Columbia River in January 

and large catches are now being made in that river and its numerous tributaries, 

more particularly in the Cowlitz River, where the annual run of this delicious 

species forms the basis of a considerable commercial industry. This year, in 

addition to being shipped fresh on ice, large numbers are being dried at the Kelso 

plant of the Northwestern DeAquating Company, thus making it possible to 

almost indefinitely extend the market for Cowlitz smelts. 

350
Pacific Fisherman, February 1915, vol. 13(2), p. 29 

Smelt in the Kalama River 

 Early in February smelt entered the Kalama River in large numbers and the 

fishermen reaped a harvest for a time. It is a rare thing for the smelt to enter this 

river in any numbers. In the Cowlitz River, where the smelt usually run in 

immense numbers, few have been seen this season. Considerable catches have 

been made in the Columbia River proper. 

Pacific Fisherman, March 1918, vol. 16(3), p. 51 

Eulachon Run Late 

 Great preparations were made this year for handling large shipments of 

eulachon from the Columbia River, as the fish has become well established in 

several Eastern markets and interest has been greatly stimulated by the Bureau of 

Fisheries exploitation work. The run, however, has so far been very 

disappointing. Up to the first of March the usual run in the Cowlitz River has not 

appeared, and a fair run that started in the Kalama River was of short duration. 

 During the second week of March the eulachon appeared in large numbers in 

the Lewis River, and large catches have been made, with the fish in unusually 

good condition. The handling of the catch is somewhat more difficult than if the 

fish had run in the usual direction, but a heavy shipping movement to the East has 

been started, and it is expected that the shipments in that direction will reach 

important figures before the run is over. There was a fairly large movement last 

year, and the fish were well liked wherever they appeared, a large quantity having 

been placed on the New York market at a time of acute food shortage. 

Pacific Fisherman, May 1920, vol. 18(5), p. 48 

Oregon Smelt Running 

 The annual run of smelt in the Sandy River, an Oregon tributary of the 

Columbia, started April 24. 

Pacific Fisherman, March 1924, vol. 23(3), p. 35 

Shipping Smelt 

 For several weeks during February, shipments of smelt from Kelso, Wash., 

amounted to about 2,000 fifty-pound boxes daily, according to W. A. Mabie, 

manager of the Columbia River Smelt Company. Most of the shipments went to 

Portland, Ore., for distribution to consuming markets. 

351
Pacific Fisherman, February 1926, vol. 24(3), p. 30 

Columbia River Activities 

 Up to the last of January, the run of smelt in the Columbia River, which 

usually starts about January 15, had not appeared. About the middle of the month 

there was a small run, but few went up as high as the Cowlitz River or any of the 

other small streams which empty into the Columbia, except for about one day 

Grays River on the Washington side opposite Astoria fishermen secured 

considerable poundage. The run is still looked for by experienced men. 

Pacific Fisherman, March 1926, vol. 24(4), p. 44 

Good Oulachan Pack 

 The Candle Fish Company, Kelso, Wash., engaged in dry salting oulachans, 

or Cowlitz River smelts, for the Chinese market, reports that owing to the 

unusually good run this year little difficulty is anticipated in filling their contracts. 

More than 80 tons of salted oulachans were in the company’s vats on the Kelso 

dock Feb. 15. Profiting by this year’s experience the company is planning on 

improvements that will more than double their production next year. 

 Most of the catches during February were made at Sandy Bend between Kelso 

and Castle Rock. Fishermen and individual shippers of fresh smelts have been 

reaping a harvest from their catches, the Columbia River Smelt Company 

shipping on an average of 500 boxes daily. 

Pacific Fisherman, Annual Statistical Volume, January 1930, vol. 28(2), p. 189 

 The run of Columbia River smelt appeared in the Cowlitz River again in 1929 

in volume reported to exceed that of any previous season. The two preceding 

years had been complete failures and had given rise to the fear that pollution had 

destroyed the Cowlitz smelt, a supposition adequately disproved by the 

experience in 1929. 

Pacific Fisherman, Annual Statistical Volume, January 1933, vol. 31(2), p. 167 

Cowlitz Smelt 

 At the opening of the year production of fresh fish in the Pacific Northwest 

centered to a large degree on the Columbia River, where the winter salmon season 

yielded in a normal way, while the smelt run supplied another item of fresh fish. 

Before the smelt entered the Cowlitz the fishermen were able to hold the price to 

them at 2c per lb or above by the simple expedient of suspending their operations 

whenever the price went below that figure. 

When the smelt run struck the Cowlitz the price dropped off sharply, as has been 

mentioned. The Washington smelt catch was one of the largest on record, being 

1,476,939 lbs, surpassed in the previous seven years only by 1931. 

352
Appendix E: Substantive Scientific 

Comments from Peer Review 

We received comments from five peer reviewers of the summary of the eulachon 

(Thaleichthys pacificus) status review completed in December 2008 (BRT 2008) and respond to 

them here. Reviewers were asked to assess the scientific validity of the status review, including 

any assumptions, methods, results, and conclusions. Reviewers were asked to focus on the 

quality of the data collected or used for the assessment, appropriateness of the analyses, validity 

of the results and conclusions, and appropriateness of the scope of the assessment (e.g., whether 

all relevant data and information were considered). We have summarized and organized the 

reviewers’ comments into categories relevant to issues raised by the Eulachon Biological Review 

Team (BRT), composed of 10 federal scientists from 3 agencies: National Marine Fisheries 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service. The peer reviewers are 

identified by number in order to preserve their anonymity. 

In general, four of the five reviewers supported the conclusions of the Eulachon BRT. 

One reviewer did not agree with the delineation of the southern DPS of eulachon and argued that 

genetic and demographic evidence supports a much finer distinct population segment (DPS) 

structure for eulachon in this region. This same reviewer also pointed out a lack of information 

on eulachon marine distributions off the U.S. West Coast. 

Delineation of a Distinct Population Segment 

Review 

Reviewer 1 stated that the discreteness and significance decisions were “well considered 

and defensible” and agreed that “the proposed DPS is discrete and significant and that its 

northern boundary is most defensibly delineated by Nass River, British Columbia.” Reviewer 2 

commented extensively on the proposed DPS scenario, and a summary of this reviewer’s 

comments and our responses are presented below. Reviewer 3 stated that “the possibility exists 

that the Klamath River population (and associated populations to the south) is or was distinct.” 

Reviewer 4 stated that the “conclusion that multiple discrete populations of eulachon exist 

appears well supported by the available evidence” and that “designation of a DPS encompassing 

all areas south of the Nass River/Dixon Entrance ... appears to be the most strongly supported by 

the weight of available evidence, although other configurations of DPS(s) cannot be ruled out.” 

Reviewer 5 did not address the appropriateness of the proposed southern DPS of eulachon, but 

requested clarification on one item, which we respond to below. 

353
Response 

No response is required to comments by reviewers 1 and 4. With regard to the comment 

of Reviewer 3, the BRT was also cognizant of the possibility that the eulachon population in the 

Klamath River and in other steams of California may represent fish that have unique 

characteristics; however, the best available information is insufficient at present to identify what 

these characteristics are or were and whether they may have risen to the level of identifying 

eulachon in California as being “markedly separated” from populations to the north. 

Reviewer 2, Item 1 

Reviewer 2 felt that it was not clear “why there were only six [DPS] scenarios when 

many more might have been proposed” and found “it puzzling that the BRT did not consider the 

option that the Columbia River was a DPS.” Furthermore, Reviewer 2 suggested that “the 

scenario that each river system represents a DPS ... would have an approximate conceptual 

model of a river-based or stream-based salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) stock structure as a 

precedent.” 

Response 

As described in the “Evaluation of Discreteness and Significance for Eulachon” 

subsection of the BRT report, “other possible geographic configurations [of a DPS] that 

incorporated the petitioned unit were contemplated, but were not seriously considered by the 

BRT” (BRT 2008, p. 26) The BRT did discuss during its deliberations whether the Columbia 

River was a DPS, and after examining the available data and applying the discreteness and 

significance criteria for delineation of a DPS, no member of the BRT advocated for including 

this scenario in the final list that was voted on. The inclusion of scenario 6 (Multiple DPSs of 

eulachon in Washington, Oregon, and California) in the final voting process allowed BRT 

members to place some “likelihood points” in this scenario, which was representative of a 

scenario where every river is a DPS (including the Columbia River). Only 4% of all members’ 

likelihood points were cast for scenario 6. 

We agree that, conceptually, it is reasonable to view stock structure of eulachon in a 

similar manner to Pacific salmon, and believe we have applied the DPS policies with regard to 

eulachon in a manner consistent with how previous BRTs have applied this policy to Pacific 

salmon. With regard to most Pacific salmon that have been examined under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act, DPSs (which in the case of Chinook [O. tshawytscha], coho [O. 

kisutch], sockeye [O. nerka], chum [O. keta], and pink salmon [O. gorbuscha] are statutorily 

defined as Evolutionarily Significant Units [ESUs]) of these species consist of numerous 

demographically independent populations occupying a large number of individual drainages 

spread over large geographic areas. In only a few instances (e.g., some sockeye salmon ESUs) 

have Pacific salmon ESUs been designated on the basis of a single river basin. Pacific salmon 

DPS structure is thus conceptually consistent with the structure of the proposed southern DPS of 

eulachon, which may be composed of multiple subpopulations or stocks. 

354
Reviewer 2, Item 2 

Reviewer 2 stated that “it is difficult to reconcile the conclusion of the BRT that there is 

one major DPS with the assertion that the BRT also acknowledges that finer population structure 

may exist.” Reviewer 2 felt that spawn timing and genetic differences represent compelling 

evidence “that finer structure does exist between the Fraser and Columbia rivers.” 

Response 

The ESA requires the best available scientific and commercial information be used in 

determining the listing status of a species. However, the best available scientific information for 

eulachon is at present inadequate to define a particular DPS with 100% certainty, as reflected in 

the percentage distribution of likelihood points among four of six proposed DPS scenarios (see 

Table 1). Thus the BRT acknowledges that additional scientific research might result in 

evidence supporting either subdivision or expansion of the current DPS boundaries. 

It is also important to acknowledge that the discreteness and significance criteria 

(USFWS-NMFS 1996) define a DPS, which is likely to be composed of many stocks or 

subpopulations. Previously designated DPSs of several marine fish include a number of 

identifiable subpopulations with numerous isolated spawning locations and a substantial level of 

life history, genetic, and ecological diversity (Gustafson et al. 2000, 2006, Stout et al. 2001a, 

Carls et al. 2008). Similarly, application of NMFS’s ESU policy to Pacific salmon in the 

contiguous United States has resulted in designation of 52 ESUs, each of which is commonly 

composed of numerous populations that are often genetically and demographically differentiated 

one from another. In practical terms, if all genetically differentiated populations were to receive 

ESU status, there could conceivably be thousands of Pacific salmon ESUs. 

The BRT did not believe that the available genetic or demographic data provide evidence 

that eulachon in the Fraser and Columbia rivers were “markedly separated” populations, as 

required by the DPS policy. With regard to the genetic microsatellite DNA study of Beacham et 

al. (2005), the BRT was concerned that this study compared samples between the Fraser and 

Columbia rivers taken in a single year, and thus the temporal stability of the genetic variation 

observed between these two rivers could not be adequately assessed. The BRT concerns with 

regard to temporal stability derive from the realization that reported year-to-year genetic 

variation within three British Columbia coastal river systems (Nass, Kemano, and Bella Coola 

rivers) in that study was as great as the variation among the rivers (Beacham et al. 2005). This 

temporal genetic variation indicates that additional research is needed to identify appropriate 

sampling and data collection strategies to fully characterize genetic relationships among 

eulachon populations. 

Reviewer 2, Item 3 

Reviewer 2 invoked “significant genetic differences” between the Columbia and Fraser 

rivers described in Beacham et al. (2005) as evidence supporting a finer DPS structure, but at the 

same time described the statistically “significant differences in genetic composition between a 

sample taken in the Cowlitz River and one taken in the main stem of the Columbia” as 

“puzzling” in light of the assumption that the “basis for a [eulachon] population would be an 

355
estuary, perhaps formed by the confluence of a number of rivers.” Reviewer 2 felt that “clearly 

some additional genetic analyses focusing on examination of potential differences within the 

Columbia River system would be very revealing.” 

Response 

Genetic samples described in Beacham et al. (2005) were taken in the Cowlitz and 

Columbia rivers in different years, which may partly explain the statistical differences in genetic 

composition between these two samples from the Columbia River drainage. Comparison of 

multiple year samples in the Kemano, Bella Coola (2 years of sampling each), and Nass (3 years 

of samples) rivers also showed statistically significant differences among samples from the same 

river across years. Beacham et al. (2005, p. 367) stated that “differentiation among sampling 

years within populations was similar to the level of differentiation among populations for these 

three putative populations.” Thus it is uncertain whether some of the observed genetic 

differences described in Beacham et al. (2005) are temporally stable. We agree with the 

reviewer that further genetic studies of eulachon within the Columbia River and elsewhere are 

necessary to resolve these questions. 

Reviewer 5, Item 1 

In reference to the third item in our list of evidence supportive of DPS scenario 4 (one 

DPS from Fraser River to California), Reviewer 5 stated that: 

... you argue that the pattern [of increasing length and weight with an increase in 

latitude] is found in many other vertebrate poikilotherms, so you tended to 

discount this evidence. However, in other places in the document, you seem to 

use parallels found in other fishes to support your findings. I found this 

somewhat contradictory, so perhaps a little more explanation would be useful. 

Response 

Many quantifiable marine fish life history characters—such as body size-at-age, 

maximum age, and fecundity—increase with increasing latitude and the associated decline in 

rearing temperatures. Although some of these traits may have a broad genetic basis and may 

reflect local adaptations of evolutionary importance, they are usually strongly influenced by 

environmental factors over the lifetime of an individual or over a few generations. Differences 

can arise among populations in response to environmental variability among areas and they can 

sometimes be used to infer the degree of independence among populations. However, 

differences in phenotypic and life history traits among populations do not provide definitive 

information on reproductive isolation between populations, because the genetic basis of many 

phenotypic and life history traits is weak or unknown. 

At decreasing rearing temperatures, which can be expected in the northern portion of a 

species range in the northern hemisphere, a near universal relationship ensues among 

poikilotherms (i.e., cold-blooded organisms) where rates of growth are slower and size at a given 

age is larger (Ray 1960, Atkinson 1994). As most vertebrate poikilotherms exhibit similar 

latitudinal clines in these life history characters, their presence in eulachon offers at best weak 

356
evidence that eulachon in the southern and northern portion of their range are “markedly 

separated” from one another. 

In both DPS scenario 4 (one DPS from Fraser River and south) and DPS scenario 1 (no 

DPS structure), where latitudinal differences in quantifiable life history characters or lack of 

differences other than those associated with latitude were mentioned as a supportive factor, 

parallel patterns with other fish species were pointed out to illustrate the apparent weakness of 

this evidence. We considered these geographic patterns in life history characters similarly in 

considering both DPS scenarios. Latitudinal variation in life history characters offered little 

support for either scenario (although other evidence may be more supportive), a fact which is 

reflected in the BRT’s assignment of likelihood points to these two DPS scenarios (about 27% to 

scenario 4 and about 12% to scenario 1). 

Appropriateness of the Scope of the Assessment 

Review 

Reviewer 1 stated that “it is my opinion that the best available data on eulachon spawning 

from California north to Alaska have been detailed and analyzed as part of the review” and the 

BRT “has made appropriate and exhaustive use of the best available scientific data that bear 

upon the questions at hand.” Reviewer 2 commented that “the thoroughness of the literature 

review is impressive and ... all facets of life history, historical use, habitat, commercial fisheries 

and traditional uses are described.” However, Reviewer 2 questioned whether the BRT 

examined all available databases relevant to marine distribution of eulachon in offshore waters of 

Washington, Oregon, and California. Reviewer 3 commented that the “Summary of the 

Scientific Conclusions” was an “excellent review of the literature.” Reviewer 4 stated that the 

“status review is very thorough” and “it appears that the BRT has based its conclusions on the 

best available information.” Reviewer 4 also stated that inclusion “of historical anecdotal 

records (e.g., old newspaper reports) and aboriginal traditional knowledge ... were important in 

filling out the gaps in scientific data, and were influential in developing a qualitative ‘weight of 

evidence’ of eulachon status.” Reviewer 5 stated that “it seems to me you have been very 

thorough.” 

Response 

No response is required to comments by reviewers 1, 3, 4, and 5. Although known 

marine distribution and abundance of eulachon was thoroughly discussed during the BRT’s 

deliberations, we agree that the summary of the status review (BRT 2008) failed to present or 

summarize all available information on marine distribution of eulachon off the U.S. West Coast 

and we attempt to rectify that oversight in this technical memorandum (see the Marine 

Distribution subsection in the Historical and Current Distribution subsection). 

357
Status of the Southern DPS of Eulachon 

Reviewers 2 and 4 

Reviewer 2 did not address the appropriateness of the status assessment of the southern 

DPS of eulachon. Reviewer 4 stated that the BRT’s conclusion that the southern DPS of 

eulachon is at moderate risk of extinction throughout all of its range “appears to be strongly 

supported by the available information, which indicates severe declines in abundance and 

historically low population levels throughout most of the species range.” Comments of the other 

reviewers are addressed below. 

Reviewer 1 

Reviewer 1 stated that the “BRT has appropriately weighed the various degrees to which 

age and size at maturity and fecundity can influence rate of population recovery.” Furthermore 

Reviewer 1 felt that the BRT “note[d] correctly (in my opinion) the high probability that 

eulachon require comparatively high minimum viable population sizes to persist throughout the 

DPS.” Reviewer 1 also believed that the BRT’s application of the risk matrix approach “is not 

unreasonable when assessing extinction risk.” However, in light of the demographic risks 

outlined by the BRT, Reviewer 1 “was somewhat surprised by the conclusion that the DPS is at 

moderate, rather than high, risk of extinction” and “might have expected a greater percentage of 

the available points to have been in the high risk category.” In addition, although Reviewer 1 

acknowledged that “the BRT has concluded that the DPS is at moderate risk of extinction 

throughout all of its range,” the reviewer felt that “an explicit statement as to whether the BRT 

considers the southern eulachon DPS to be at high risk of extinction in a significant part of its 

range would be useful.”

Response 

The BRT also noted and discussed the apparent discrepancy between its high concern for 

individual demographic risks (abundance, productivity, spatial connectivity, and diversity) and 

the placement of the majority of likelihood points in the “moderate” rather than “high risk” 

category. It was apparent that some BRT members placed substantial emphasis on the innate 

productivity and demonstrated resilience of eulachon to ameliorate concerns they may have had 

in the categories of abundance, spatial connectivity, and diversity, and that factor weighed 

heavily on their overall consideration of the DPS’s relative risk of extinction. This divergence of 

opinion on the productivity category is also reflected in the risk matrix scores for that 

demographic criterion compared to abundance, spatial connectivity, and diversity. For instance, 

BRT scores for abundance of the DPS ranged from 4 (“high risk”) to 5 (“very high risk”) with a 

modal score of 4, whereas BRT scores for growth rate and productivity of the DPS ranged from 

2 (“low risk”) to 5 (“very high risk”) with a modal score of 2. This divergence of opinion on the 

ability of the species’ innate productivity potential to buffer its extinction risk is also likely 

reflected in the final risk vote; although all BRT members put the preponderance of their points 

in the moderate or high risk category, only 3 of 10 members put the majority of their points in 

the high risk category. 

358
In the memo from the NMFS Northwest Region Office to the Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center requesting the formation of a BRT to review the status of eulachon, the BRT was 

instructed as follows: 

If the BRT determines that the species or delineated DPS is at neither moderate 

nor high risk throughout all of its range, please consider whether it is at moderate 

or high risk throughout a significant portion of its range. In determining whether 

a portion of the species’ or DPS’ range is “significant,” please follow the 

guidance articulated in Waples et al. 2007 (Waples, R. S., P. B. Adams, J. 

Bohnsack, and B. Taylor. 2007. A biological framework for evaluating whether 

a species is threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range. 

Conserv. Biol. 21(4):964–974). 

Once the BRT had concluded that the southern DPS of eulachon was at “moderate risk” 

of extinction throughout all of its range, the BRT did begin to discuss the implications of 

whether the DPS may be at “high risk” of extinction in a significant portion of its range, but 

determined that its instructions from the region did not require a formal analysis of this question. 

Thus the BRT believes that providing “an explicit statement as to whether the BRT considers the 

southern eulachon DPS to be at high risk of extinction in a significant part of its range” involves 

legal and policy issues that are currently beyond the scope of its mandate. The BRT was also 

cognizant of the fact that previous BRTs involved in ESA status reviews, which had resulted in 

equivalent conclusions of moderate risk (“likely to become at risk of extinction”) throughout a 

species’ range, had not felt compelled to formally pursue the question of whether the species was 

then at high risk (“at risk of extinction”) in a significant portion of its range (Good et al. 2005, 

Hard et al. 2007). 

Reviewer 3 

Reviewer 3 agreed with the BRT’s “conclusion that the southern DPS of eulachon, as 

defined in the report, is at moderate risk of extinction throughout its range.” However, Reviewer 

3 stated the evidence also “suggests that eulachon ... are on the verge of extinction” in 

California. 

Response 

The BRT had similar concerns about eulachon in northern California. As presented in 

the summary of the status review (BRT 2008, p. 63), with the exception of abundance, the BRT 

had most concerns about demographic risks related to spatial structure and connectivity of the 

southern DPS of eulachon (see Table 13); and the BRT was particularly concerned about the 

potential for extirpation of the northern California subpopulation. Overall, the BRT scores for 

spatial structure and connectivity of the DPS ranged from 3 to 5 with a mean score of 3.7 and a 

modal score of 4, indicating that risks to the spatial structure of the southern DPS of eulachon 

were rated as high risk by the BRT (see Table 13). 

Reviewer 5 

In reference to Table 9 through Table 13 in the summary of the status review (BRT 2008, 

Table 15 through Table 19 in the present document), which summarized the results of the BRT’s 

359
360

attempt to qualitatively rank the severity of threats to eulachon, Reviewer 5 was “troubled by the 

statement that an opinion of not applicable for a particular threat criterion was rated the same as 

unknown (i.e., equivalent to not voting on that criterion)” and the reviewer stated that, “If a 

factor is not applicable to a given river system, then it seems to me that this would mean a rating 

of 1; (low threat)—or even better a zero (if that were possible). I have to wonder if this would 

change the rankings of factors in these lists.” 

Response 

In practical terms, 2 members of the BRT voted a total of 5 times that a threat was “not 

applicable” out a total of 600 individual votes on the various threat categories and subareas of the 

DPS. Nearly all members voted “unknown” at least once, for a total of 100 times. If these 5 

“not applicable” votes are scored as 1 or very low threat, the rankings of threats in the Klamath 

and Columbia River subpopulations are unaffected. “Dams/water diversions” in the Fraser River 

subpopulation drops from 8th place to 11th place and “dams/water diversions” in the mainland 

British Columbia subpopulation drops from 11th place to 12th place, based on rankings of the 

mean scores. Modal scores are unaffected. These readjustments would have no impact on the 

BRT’s identification of the severity of the top four identified threats in each subarea of the DPS. 

Use of Political Boundaries for Defining a DPS 

Review 

Reviewer 2 commented extensively on the petitioner’s argument (see Cowlitz Indian 

Tribe 2007) that, under the DPS policy, eulachon populations in Washington, Oregon, and 

California are collectively “discrete” from more northerly populations because they are delimited 

by an international governmental boundary (i.e., the U.S.-Canada border between Washington 

and British Columbia) across which there is a significant difference in exploitation control, 

habitat management, or conservation status. After providing comments on differences in 

management of eulachon between the U.S. and Canada, Reviewer 2 stated that “the delineation 

of DPSs on the basis of political boundaries is probably mistaken, both on biological and 

operational grounds.” 

Response 

We agree. Although the joint USFWS-NMFS policy (USFWS-NMFS 1996) states that 

international boundaries within the geographical range of the species may be used to delimit a 

DPS in the United States, in past assessments of DPSs of marine fish and ESUs of Pacific 

salmon, NMFS has placed the emphasis on biological information in defining DPSs and ESUs 

and has considered political boundaries only at the implementation of ESA listings. Therefore, 

the BRT focused only on biological and ecological information in identifying whether DPSs of 

eulachon could be delineated.
Most NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS-NWFSC are available online at the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov).

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC104 Horne, P.J., I.C. Kaplan, K.N. Marshall, P.S. Levin, C.J. Harvey, A.J. Hermann, and E.A. Fulton. 2010. 

Design and parameterization of a spatially explicit ecosystem model of the central California Current. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-104, 140 p. NTIS number pending.

103 Dufault, A.M., K. Marshall, and I.C. Kaplan. 2009. A synthesis of diets and trophic overlap of marine species in the California Current. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-103, 81 p. NTIS 

number pending. 

102 Reppond, K.D. 2009. Biochemistry of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) from different locations in 

Alaskan waters. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-102, 16 p. NTIS number pending.

101 Sands, N.J., K. Rawson, K.P. Currens, W.H. Graeber, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.R. Fuerstenberg, and J.B. 

Scott. 2009. Determination of independent populations and viability criteria for the Hood Canal summer chum 

salmon evolutionarily significant unit. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-101, 58 p. 

NTIS number pending. 

100 Linbo, T.L. 2009. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) husbandry and colony maintenance at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-100, 62 p. NTIS number PB2009-

113299.

 99 Rawson, K., N.J. Sands, K.P. Currens, W.H. Graeber, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.R. Fuerstenberg, and J.B. 

Scott. 2009. Viability criteria for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon evolutionarily significant unit. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-99, 38 p. NTIS number PB2009-113298. 

 98 Johnson, L.L., G.M. Ylitalo, M.S. Myers, B.F. Anulacion, J. Buzitis, W.L. Reichert, and T.K. Collier. 

2009. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fish health indicators in the marine ecosystem in Kitimat, 

British Columbia. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-98, 123 p. NTIS number 

PB2009-110295. 

 97 Roegner, G.C., H.L. Diefenderfer, A.B. Borde, R.M. Thom, E.M. Dawley, A.H. Whiting, S.A. 

Zimmerman, and G.E. Johnson. 2009. Protocols for monitoring habitat restoration projects in the lower

Columbia River and estuary. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-97, 63 p. NTIS

number PB2009-113671. 

Recent NOAA Technical Memorandums

published by the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center