2020 Kamchatka Steelhead Project Anti-Poaching Report

INTERNATIONAL RUSSIAN-USA PROJECT “KAMCHATKAN STEELHEAD. THE STUDY AND CONSERVATION OF THE RED DATA BOOK SPECIES”, YEAR 2020 The Interim Report on the results of the joint Russian-American combined anti-poaching and scientific expedition of 2020 year fall season

Principal Investigator:

Moscow State University Professor Kirill V. Kuzishchin

Main responsible research personnel:

Moscow State University Senior research scientist Marina A. Gruzdeva

Enforcement personnel:

Authorized Fish Policeman Aleksander A. Korneev Affiliated official Fish Inspectors Aleksander A. Andrukhin Anatoliy A. Turushev Dmitry S. Navrotskiy

CONTENT 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Introduction, main goal and particular tasks of the 2020 season Preliminary activity Transportation and logistics Field anti-poaching activity Main scientific results of 2020 expedition General conclusions, ideas, outcomes

1

1. Introduction: The 2020 season.

COVID forced us to cancel our regular plans for field expeditions to the rivers of northwest Kamchatka to monitor and protect current stocks of wild steelhead, designated as “rare and disappearing,” by the Russian agency charged with protecting endangered species. Ordinarily, we stay on the rivers for a month at a time. Thereafter, our scientists and local authorities remain on the water to look after sections of river critical to the survival of migrating and wintering steelhead. In previous years, this effort dramatically reduced poaching with nets and sein, and since 2005 virtually eliminated the illegal depredation of steelhead. Results of previous field expeditions have been obvious in a Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE) rate substantially higher than when the Kamchatka Steelhead Project began in 1994.

At the same time, accelerating climate change has radically altered the ecosystem of the entire North Pacific Rim. The increase in ocean surface temperatures has dramatically impacted salmon and steelhead stocks on both sides of the Pacific. On the Asian coast in the last decade, we’ve seen particularly abundant increases of commercial species, specifically pink and chum salmon, resulting in a record national annual catch in Russia of about 400,000 tons. That similar data for steelhead stocks in Kamchatka are available only from our Project underscores the necessity of continuing our data collection and sample processing. Only by understanding how steelhead in Kamchatka react to environment change can we sustain local stocks under the pressure of current conditions in the ecosystems of salmonid rivers.

The analysis of population dynamics and long-term trends in the biological attributes of steelhead stocks from Utkholok, Kvachina (KV) and Snotalvayam (SN) rivers demonstrate a complicated mosaic of localized adaptation. We found profound and distinct differences from river to river in the ways steelhead were adjusting to changes in their environment. Observations made among first- and repeat spawners of freshwater and ocean age in growth rate, sex ratio, and other biological attributes reveal that the rate of change from year to year varies much more dramatically in the second decade of this century than it did in earlier periods, from 1994-1999 and from 2000-2010.

This accelerating rate of change is precisely why we need to stay on the rivers and use our model to preserve and protect the world’s greatest concentration of steelhead. The best, and in fact the only, way is to conduct regular annual expeditions that generate data consistently yearon-year. In 2020 our team elaborated a new model of study and protection, necessitated and, at the same time, made more difficult by the COVID pandemic. We had a clear understanding that abandoning our rivers would surely increase the threat to fish stocks and set a terrible precedent for the future. The team, comprising The Conservation Angler (TCA); Moscow State University (MGU), co-directors of the Kamchatka Steelhead Project; and our outfitting partner, Kamchatka Trophy Hunts (KTH), devised an alternative approach to our accustomed stock protection and study program that extended its success despite the fact that pandemic travel restrictions reduced the usual number of participants by more than 85 percent.

The main goal of the 2020 expedition was to provide robust protection for steelhead in all three of our designated rivers in light of an absence of full-scale infrastructure and personnel presence, while collecting samples to evaluate the continuing status of the steelhead populations

2

Principal Anti-Poaching and Scientific Tasks: ➢ To provide precise patrolling of the rivers to detect and stop poaching during the most sensitive period of the steelheads’ riverine life cycle, ➢ To extend enforcement of our anti-poaching efforts from interdiction through arrest, ➢ To collect size, weight and gender distribution data, and to analyze scales to amplify lifehistory variations within the population, ➢ To analyze catch-and-release results as an indicator of stock abundance. ➢ To evaluate tackle and performance relative to river conditions.

2. Preliminary Activity Our plan for the 2020 season derives from years of field activity that include scientific expeditions with the benefit of camp infrastructure and anglers on long sections of each river to limit poaching, usually by means of in-river gill netting. The challenge this year was to provide effective control given modest financial resources and logistic support, plus the all-important fact that the pandemic had eliminated our usual cadre of foreign volunteer anglers. In other words, a short-list team of Russian-only scientists, federal fish inspectors and camp staff would affect a robust enforcement presence and perform all the tasks previously accomplished by seven times as many people.

One of the main problems was how to integrate authorized and armed fish police into our anti-poaching team. Throughout the summer and fall, almost all of them are engaged in full-time combat against organized commercial caviar poaching. Fortunately, the pink salmon run was not late this year, so most police activity had already concluded by the middle of October. We were also lucky in that Kamchatka District Fish Police headquarters provided us with Senior Fish Inspector Aleksander Korneev, vested with all needed authority to prevent steelhead poaching in the area of our three watersheds. In the past, we had been joined by an Inspector of Nature Protection with somewhat limited authority to bring the fight directly to the poachers.

Because of the restrictions under which we were operating, the local Ministry of Natural Resources decided to broaden the mandate of the Fish Police Inspector to include comprehensive steelhead protection. As of the beginning of September 2020, Aleksander Korneev and three affiliated inspectors, Anatoly Turushev, Aleksander Andrukhin and Dmitry Navrotsky (fig. 1) were seconded to our team. A parallel Science team, including Kirill Kuzishchin, Marina Gruzdeva on the Utkholok and staff fish inspector Pavel Kozlov on the Kvachina, were assigned additional scouting, patrol, and reconnaissance duty.

Figure 1. Identification documents for Anatoly Turushev, our partner and director of KTH, our outfitter.

3

Before moving to the rivers, Korneev briefed the team on how to conduct an effective patrol to reveal poaching activity, detect poacher tricks and discern hidden signs of their presence. In addition, the team learned approved methods of anti-poaching action, as well as the intricacies of a new communication system This year, we would each carry a radio communication device with special frequencies to provide secure, effective links within and between watersheds.

Korneev took us to the Bystraya River in the Esso area to brief us on what to expect and to practice a variety of scenarios we might encounter on the rivers. As a result, every member of the team went into the field as a qualified anti-poaching scout. Korneev stressed the importance of personal safety. He emphasized that some aspects of the anti-poaching fight, such as the confiscation of nets and physical engagement with especially aggressive poachers, should remain his exclusive responsibility, because he alone had weaponry and the authority of the law. We clearly understood that this work was potentially dangerous, and that poachers themselves might be armed. In 2004, Sergey Lamzov, a fish inspector affiliated with KSP was murdered by poachers while on an anti-poaching patrol.

Ideally of course the best way to protect steelhead is to deter poachers in the first place. If we could prevent them from coming to the rivers, we wouldn’t have to engage them once they got there. That’s why we publicized our anti-poaching program in the towns of Tigil, Esso, Anavgay and Sedanka before we moved to the river, emphasizing the presence of enforcement personnel with authority to arrest wrongdoers. We also engaged locals to spread the word via non-official channels. By the time we were scheduled to depart for the watersheds almost all potential poachers were thoroughly familiar with the mission of our anti-poaching expedition.

Even the practice sessions on the Bystraya, conducted in full view of the local public, added credence to the seriousness of our intent.

COVID took its toll on the team itself. At some point in our preparations, everyone fell sick, compromising their ability at various times to function at the highest level. Fortunately, only Kirill Kuzishchin’s condition progressed to pneumonia in serious consequence of the disease.

Later, by the time everyone had recovered and tested negative, we concluded that team members must have contracted the virus in town prior to departure rather than in camp. Surprisingly, with various people all sick at different times, not a single day of data collection and patrolling was missed.

3. Transportation and Logistics The anti-poaching expedition officially began in Esso on September 18 (fig. 2), with equipment preparation and loading the ATV. In the evenings we practiced our anti-poaching lessons. We spent two days in the Esso area to cover all needed preliminary work. During this time in Esso, Pavel Kozlov (fig. 3), part of our staff on the Kvachina in 2017-2019, volunteered to take part in the current expedition.

Our initial plan was to base the entire group at the Utkholok River base camp, with a heavy ATV to transport personnel between it and the Kvachina-Snotalvayam (KV-SN) rivers. From the base camp we intended to patrol throughout the Utkholok area and make regular visits to KVSN. However, before we left Esso we opted instead to set up two separate camps, as we had done in the past – on the right bank of Kvachina River and on the left bank of Utkholok River, in our accustomed locations. Utkholok base would be our general headquarters with four or five people in residence at a time; two or three others would stay at Kvachina base.

4

Figure 2. Our expedition on its way to Esso. From left: Anatoly Turushev, Dmitry Navrotsky (Dima), Kirill Kuzishchin, Aleksander Andrukhin, Marina Gruzdeva. Fish Inspector Aleksander Korneev traveled to Esso by air.

The reason for the change was two-fold. First, a permanent scouting team on site would clearly be more effective than one that moves in and out. And, because the KV-SN comprises two rivers and the ride between them is difficult, we decided to patrol the lower parts of both simultaneously and continuously via telescope positioned in the high hills between the two rivers. The deciding factor was that we were able to load a single ATV with enough supplies for both camps, including an additional boat, fuel, internet devices, and kitchen equipment. (fig. 4).

The plan seemed to us more convenient under the given conditions. The rumors we’d circulated about our anti-poaching mission had begun to look more serious to local poachers.

Occupying both camps would provide more effective control over traffic between Tigil and the other village to the south, Ust’-Khairuzovo. Not only would this arrangement put ATVs from any side under our watch, it would also enable us to monitor vehicles entering and leaving the area between Kvachina and Utkholok.

5

Figure 3. Pavel Kozlov, out volunteer, jointed our expedition in Esso.

Figure 4. With its expanded cargo trunk, our ATV could accommodate supplies for both camps.

We started from Esso on the morning of September 21 arriving two days later at our base camp. We crossed the Middle Kamchatkan Ridge (maximum elevation, 1000 meters), the tundra and numerous tributaries of the Tigil River (we counted 11 crossings). We also took on additional cargo (fuel, wood and instruments) in the Sedanka national village (fig. 5), where we again spread the word about our mission, with the goal of discouraging would-be poachers.

Hardly a luxury tour, most of us rode on the roof of the ATV. With nighttime temperatures dropping to around -5℃ (19℉) and a limited number of very warm blankets, several members of 6

the team arrived with colds. Remarkably, we avoided serious mechanical issues with the ATV for the whole of the journey. The minor repair of a wheel barely slowed our pace.

In Sedanka we conferred with locals to get a feel for the general situation in the area. They reported that the summer had been rather warm, but that a cold snap in early autumn brought frosts from the very beginning of September. Through August and first half of September, they said, there had been no hard rains in any of the rivers and streams. As a result, runs of coho were quite late, and locally in the Napana River they were catching ocean-bright salmon. (An obvious boon, except that any change in natural rhythms discomforts the locals, who were complaining bitterly.) No intelligence was forthcoming about salmon and steelhead from Utkholok and KVSN. The only plausible reports were about very low water and easy crossings on ATVs, 4wheelers and even quad-bikes. In the Sedanka Village we got only inconsistent information, as expected. Proving, once again, that the only way to monitor steelhead status and peculiarities of the stock is to be onsite ourselves.

Figure 5. From Esso to the rivers. Clockwise from above left: Crossing the Kopkan River, an upper Tigil tributary; a herd of domesticated reindeer in the mountain area; loading a fuel on the roof of our ATV; wheel repair, which required removing the tracks.

About 80 kilometers from the Sedanka Village, we took a new route to our destination at Kvachina base camp traveling about six hours through open tundra. We crossed the Snotalvayam River at its headwaters and were quite surprised to see it had become a shallow creek, no more than three feet wide. After some time we crossed the Kvachina River approximately 40 kilometers upstream from the base camp. In 2015 during a flood in early October, Kirill Kuzishchin found several steelhead in the pools. Now, five years later, it was hard to believe that a jet boat could even reach this spot. The Kvachina River was also extremely low. What in other years had been sizable riffles were now only two inches deep and pool size had been reduced to five to eight feet in length. Bad news for anglers, but welcome news to our anti-poaching 7

ears. There were few specimens currently in the river, but we could anticipate a good run of steelhead later on when the rains arrived. In other words, we were not late!

We divided up the team, sending Aleksander Andrukhin and Pavel Kozlov to the Kvachina and Anatoly Turushev, Dmitry Navrotsky and Marina Gruzdeva to the Utkholok. Kirill Kuzishchin planned to rotate between the two camps in order to coordinate data collection and help with scouting and anti-poaching. Fish Inspector Korneev would also move between sites.

After the first night, the crew set up camp and outfitted boat for the Kvachina. The remainder of the crew left for the Utkholok to set up their facilities and begin work late that same afternoon.

Early the following morning, September 23, we started our anti-poaching program in earnest.

4. Field Anti-poaching Activity At the beginning of the expedition, Fish Inspector Aleksander Korneev decided he would work two days, three if necessary, in the KV-SN area, where in the past we had encountered a troublesome groups we labeled “complex poachers.” We hoped to discourage these wealthy outdoor enthusiasts, who routinely flew into the area via private helicopter hunting duck, geese, partridge, and sometimes bear, but also netting coho and steelhead. To counter this threat, we needed a strong enforcement presence.

One of our first priorities in KV-SN area was a general assessment, accomplished on the water at KV in the morning and hiking to SV in the afternoon. Low-water levels made the lowest section of the river non-navigable. We observed with certainty that the depth, two inches or less, made it impossible for fish to traverse the required two to three miles through mud- or claybottomed channels. We were most surprised to find a sand and mud bar blocking the mouth of the Snotalvayam River that prevented water from flowing into the estuary. Riffles we’d productively fished in the past had collapsed into little channels only five feet wide and sometimes even narrower. The water appeared motionless and clogged with abundant green algae. Sections of the Kvachina exhibited similar frog water, with no apparent fish life.

No sign of poaching was in evidence, save for some old quad tracks on the ocean shore laid down by a group of tycoons who’d traveled south from Tigil until their passage was blocked at the mountains at the Cape Utkholok Ridge.

On the Utkholok in September. 23-25 we made a series of reconnaissance visits both upstream and down. Low water limited our upstream run to about 16 kilometers from base camp.

We observed large numbers of moving and spawning coho, char and a few rainbows, but saw no steelhead further than two kilometers upstream, implying that the anadromous migration of steelhead was just beginning. The abundance of coho might induce commercial poaching for caviar, but we found no evidence of it anywhere upriver. Although we saw no bears on the riverbanks, there were plenty of paw prints. Downstream, we were able to float to the mouth of the river, studying sections within our angling area for two days without seeing signs of human visitation. Usually we would find remnants of camps, where poachers fished for pinks and chum.

A full thirty kilometers up and down from camp was pristine. And now the rivers were under our control.

We had two drones with us capable of traveling distances of up to four kilometers in about 20 minutes and reaching heights of 295 meters. We actively used both on patrol, but found no indication of moving vessels or vehicles. We continued to use the drones to help us in everyday scouting operations.

The mouth of any river, but especially the Utkholok, is critical for protecting fish stocks. At the Utkholok, the mouth is deep, as much as four feet at low tide, but easily accessible from the 8

ocean shoreline. So poachers who come from Ust’-Khairuzovo or Kovran villages on quadbikes or truck can easily set up five to 10 gill nets here at low tide. A large number of harbors between Tigil and the mouth of the Kvachina is more discouraging to poachers with similar ideas for this watershed.

To prevent poaching at the mouth of Utkholok River we organized several daylight rides from the base camp; first on September 26, again October 1, and then on October 6, 8, and 10.

Once there, the patrolling group accompanied by a fish inspector spent the night in a trapper cabin at the mouth of the river (fig. 6) to make clear that poaching would not be tolerated at any time.

9

Figure 6. Inside the trapper cabin at the mouth of the Utkholok River. From left: Aleksander Korneev, Anatoly Turushev and Dmitry Navrotsky.

During our watch, there was neither netting nor seining on either the Utkholok or KV-SN. Once at the mouth of the Utkholok River our team met two hunters, who arrived on quad-bikes with the requisite licenses for duck hunting but no plans or gear for fishing. It was our only meeting with locals there. Neither did we find fresh ATV tracks or any other indications of human presence in the area. We finished our patrolling the Utkholok river mouth on October12.

Patrolling the mouth area of KV-SN involved boats, telescopes and drones. As on the Utkholok the whole period of the expedition turned up no indications of industrial poaching.

On October 12 a group of illegal anglers arrived on the Utkholok and Kvachina by MI-8 helicopter, landing just upstream from our base camp. Because our patrol group was then returning from the river mouth, we were unable to be present for the landing. We did make our way there two hours later. En route, we heard the helicopter take-off and head north. The KV team subsequently discovered the MI-8 on the banks of Kvachina River and two illegal fly fishers. When they saw Andrukhin and Kozlov heading their way, the two quickly aborted their plans, got into their helicopter and took off. Thus concluded the only incident of attempted illegal angling we encountered during the whole of our 2020 expedition, and we believe this kind of poaching is unlikely to take place in the future, as long as arrest is considered a near certainty and carries the risk of serious jail time.

Low water and reliable weather ended October 13 when a cyclone arrived bringing with it hard rains that so raised the water level in the Utkholok that there was a real danger our ATV would not be able to cross. That very evening, we struck camp and moved to Kvachina base camp. The next few days of rain brought rising floodwaters, the best natural protection 10

for steelhead. We knew from past experience that steelhead move upstream in high water and could easily avoid gill nets and beach seins. Although we felt quite certain that our 2020 season had already discouraged poachers, the group remained at Kvachina base for another five days to be sure that nobody could touch the migrating steelhead. And nobody did. The expedition concluded on October 18, and we arrived back in Esso two days later.

The main result of our anti-poaching field activity is that from September 22 to October 16, there was no serious poaching. We had achieved our primary goal of protecting steelhead stocks from extraction.

5. Principal Scientific Results of 2020 Expedition The main attributes of the upstream migration of steelhead in 2020 differed dramatically from what we’d seen before. When we began this year’s expedition, the water level in all three rivers was lower than we had ever seen before. In the Kvachina River, it was 41 centimeters below average baseflow, with only 5 centimeters of depth in the riffles. Flows in the Snotalvayam were even more depressed, 44 centimeters below normal average flow and 4 centimeters or less in the riffles. The Utkholok was down, but not as badly: 35 centimeters below average baseflow and riffles with 15-20 centimeters of depth, a relatively good sign.

For the first time since we began the KSP, we found the mouth of the Snotalvayam completely blocked by a bar of sandy clay, mud and gravel, which constrained flow forcing it to infiltrate the gravel substrate and the hyporheic layer above the obstruction. Even at high tide the water column at this naturally occurring dam was just 3-4 centimeters, resulting in flows in the lower part of the Snotalvayam River of only about 0.1 meters per second and riffles of just 4 centimeters or less. The observations and test angling done by Andrukhin indicated no fish at all in the Snotalvayam River prior to October 6.

Figure 7. A view of the Utkholok River on September 23. Note the dried gravel bars in the side channel and shallows in the main channel, where depth of less than 10 centimeters made it impassable by boat. No steelhead was hooked here at any time during the 2020 expedition.

11

The Kvachina River retained its stable flow to the ocean, but the run of steelhead was slowed by a long, very shallow section in the estuary. Test angling showed that steelhead prefer to stay in the lowest part of the fishable water (Cabin and Anchor Pools), and perhaps in the frog water. Several times, Andrukhin observed the movement of large shoals of fish. Steelhead selected the deepest holding habitat, we didn’t find any at a depth of less than 50 centimeters.

Thus, none at all were found either in or above the camp before October 7.

We observed a different situation on the Utkholok River. Despite record low water, test angling showed active upstream migration of steelhead throughout the whole expedition period.

On September, 23 and 24 we discovered steelhead below the camp in most of the riffles and gathered evidence of additional fish in pools as much as four kilometer above camp. The abundance of steelhead in the Utkholok River made for very good fishing (details below).

This year, we found conditions in Snotalvayam River catastrophic for the upstream migration of steelhead, and in Kvachina River, the worst since 1994 and possibly decades before we began project sampling. Although we could not say that river conditions in the Utkholok River were very good, it was more likely that they had deteriorated because low water had limited adequate holding habitat for larger fish. In contrast to conditions, we usually encountered in September and early October, this year’s steelhead in the Utkholok River were found singly. We did not see even two fish occupy a single pool, thereby putting the average density of adult steelhead at only one specimen for every 800 meters of river.

On October 7, a rainstorm brought water levels up slightly, but not enough to appreciably change conditions in KV-SN. Even so, the slight increase in water velocity water was enough to create a small channel in the dam at the mouth of Snotalvayam that widened over time. In three days of fishing, Andrukhin found only one solitary steelhead in Meeting Pool. In the Kvachina River after the storm we noticed the beginnings of a steelhead migration, and by October 9 some fish had reached the Lower Bluff. Still, almost nothing changed in the Utkholok River. We concluded that the rainstorm brought water to the coastal area, leaving the upper part of Utkholok without atmospheric moisture.

After the cyclone of October 13, Kvachina and Snotalvayam rivers rose at least 1.5 meters, and the dam at the mouth of Snotalvayam washed into the estuary and ocean giving steelhead an unimpeded route upstream. However, flood conditions, dirty water, and the obliteration of sand bars and riffles made it impossible to coax any of the migrating fish to the fly.

Riverine habitat and steelhead distribution In 2020 we observed an unaccustomed distribution of adult steelhead in the rivers. In the Kvachina steelhead lay in the deepest part of the lower river pools. Where there were undercut banks, fish preferred to hold under cover of overhanging clumps of grass. Improving water clarity made some fish visible. However, they appeared to move not at all, almost to hibernate, though they were easily scared by overflying ducks or rocks thrown into the pool.

In the Utkholok River we also found what we considered unusual site selection by the steelhead. Where we expected to find them, there were none. About 90% of the 60 steelhead we hooked preferred to hold below riffles with the highest velocity, above one meter per second (m/s), where the bottom substrate consisted of rocks larger than 10 centimeters. Not a single fish was found in water flowing slower than 0.8 m/s. By way of comparison, we had previously hooked quite a few steelhead in water flowing at this velocity during the normal water years.

Taking into account the prevailing conditions, we concluded that the Utkholok River presently lacked suitable habitat for adult steelhead. Nevertheless, the unusual distribution did not seem to diminish the eagerness of the fish to take a fly.

12

Catch-per-unit-effort and general angling observation Because of very poor fishing on the Kvachina River, all our CPUE data was obtained on the Utkholok River. There we had total of 3 anglers with fly tackle: Kirill Kuzishchin, Dmitry Navrotsky and Anatoly Turushev. Most of time, however, there was only one angler, Kuzishchin, on the river. Prevailing conditions caused us to modify our accustomed techniques, finding only small-sized flies successful. Most effective were weighted purple, blue and orange flies, while bright pink, yellow, or white dries were singularly unsuccessful. Unlike prior years, black flies generated no hits at all, from any fish, steelhead or otherwise. We have no explanation for this.

We spent our first few days adjusting casting and presentation techniques to the unusual conditions. Initially, the average CPUE was only about one fish per rod per day.

Figure 8. Our first catch of the season, on September 23, a half kilometer below base camp on the Utkholok River, in a deep pool, where a strong current flowed in from a shallow riffle, a spot that, in previous years, we would not have suspected to hold a steelhead.

In two days, our revised techniques began to yield better results, though only one angler was consistently successful, moving relatively quickly along a rather long stretch of river. On average, we hooked 6.3 CPUE and landed 4.1 from September 27 to October 3. After October 5, in six hours of fishing, we averaged 6.9 CPUE hooked and 4.7 landed. Kuzishchin, our primary angler, felt certain that extending the fishing day to eight hours could potentially raise CPUE to 10 fish per rod per day.

While such results look impressive, we should keep in the mind, that they represent a single expert angler moving quickly through approximately eight kilometers of river, reaching all the 13

promising spots. Under normal conditions, with the usual cadre of four anglers, we would expect a lower CPUE. The obvious conclusion is that even under the difficult conditions of the current dry season, the Utholok still provides plenty of opportunities for high-quality steelhead fishing.

Preliminary data of the length-weight attributes A total of 45 fish were taken in the Utkholok River and 27 on the Kvachina River, far fewer than the number we usually collect, a function of river conditions and COVID-imposed limitation on the number of anglers we brought to the river. The average size and weight of adult steelhead differed from the Utkholok to the Kvachina. It is highly likely that such differences were the consequence merely of the small sample size. The biggest steelhead of the season was taken from the Utkholok River (Table 1, fig. 9). In the past, the Snotalvayam River yielded the largest fish.

Table 1. Size and weight of steelhead in the 2020 samples.

River Fork length, mm Kvachina 783.3 (572-900) Utkholok 791.1 (725-920)

Total weight, g 5721 (2833-8859) 5803 (1559-9122)

Figure 9. The biggest steelhead of the 2020 season, 92 centimeter (36.2 inches), male, taken on a floating line on October 5, 6 kilometers downstream from base camp on the Utkholok River.

14

Comparing body size and weight of steelhead in 2020 with earlier years (Table 2) leads us to conclude that the increases in length and body weight we discerned over the last several years is continuing. Data from 2020 is similar to 2019 findings and reflective of an increase in the growth rate during the period of the steelheads’ ocean residence. Thus, the current status of steelhead stocks differs markedly from what it was in 1970-1971. Remarkably, a half-century on, steelhead stocks in our three study rivers are still wild, and the environment remains largely free of anthropogenic influence. Thus, we conclude that the changes we observed reflect the influence of climate change differentials in the North Pacific.

Table 2. The change in average fork length in steelhead over years.

Year River Kvachina Utkholok 1971 760.2 (600-850) 715.7 (580-930) 2002 792.0 (600-927) 802.6 (584-927) 2003 811.2 (590-931) 802.1 (568-907) 2011 795.5 (571-930) 2015 776.5 (533-1000) 2017 771.8 (550-910) 783.4 (540-965) 2018 755.2 (560-927) 766.3 (620-930) 2019 787.5 (640-914) 792.5 (510-900) 2020 783.3 (572-900) 791.1 (725-920) In general, we noted that females tended to predominate. In the Kvachina River there were 20 female and only 7 male adult steelhead. The numbers for the Utkholok River were similar: 38 female and 7 male adult steelhead (fig. 10) -- quite unusual compared to all previous years. We are not able to explain these findings.

Figure 10. Steelhead from the Utkholok River, where females predominate, and most fish were bright, chrome silver.

15

Almost all the steelhead taken were bright chrome in color without pink or red stripes on their sides. We believe this is the result of a rapid migration upriver from the ocean.

In summary, the data we collected reflects that steelhead stocks in the pristine rivers of northwest Kamchatka are of stable, excellent condition. We expect steelhead populations to vary from year to year as a result of local adaptation to dramatic changes in the climate of the North Pacific. But while our data clearly demonstrates the impact of global warming on Kamchatkan steelhead stocks, our sample set is not yet sufficient to fully illuminate the natural processes resulting from these changes. So we must continue to monitor the stocks of Kamchatka.

Affiliated scientific work In the Utkholok River basin in 2020 we continued collecting samples of Dolly Varden – Kundzha crosses. Our three rivers are the only ones in the whole North Pacific region with evidence of widespread of this inter-species hybridization. The adult hybrids appear to be sexually mature and produce viable offspring. This issue has already caused interest among specialists in a so-called “char problem”. That’s why, in conjunction with our steelhead study, we are paying close attention to the char. We were lucky to obtain seven well-defined hybrids, more than we had taken in any previous year (fig. 11, 12). Added to the genetic and morphological data we had previously collected, the data will allow us to prepare a high-quality paper for scientific publication.

Figure 11. A hybrid between Dolly Varden (father) and Kundzha (mother). Utkholok River, September, 27.

16

Figure 12. Kirill and Marina processing chars.

General Conclusions, Ideas, and Outcomes Looking at the main results of the season, we are proud that, despite challenges presented by the COVID pandemic and low-water conditions, we achieved our primary objective: the prevention of steelhead poaching on three of Kamchatka’s most valuable rivers. The model we employed in 2020 demonstrated effectiveness to both protect and monitor wild steelhead. At the same time there remain a number of potential problems that could threaten both steelhead and our Project in the future, to which we must be ready to respond.

First, to be honest, we have no way of knowing whether the COVID pandemic will have run its course by next summer and if flights between Russian and the US will resume. We must be prepared that our objectives for 2021 will need to be met notwithstanding the kinds of strictures presented in 2020.

And second, we have seen evidence that steelhead poachers are becoming more ruthless and innovative in their efforts. The use of multiple quad-bikes instead of the tank-like ATVs, we drive means they can fish, process, salt and bury steelhead during short stints and return in large ATVs to gather the salted flesh in the late fall. Poachers have also begun using drones for reconnaissance. We need to be as well equipped as they are. Our most significant weakness is an absence of adequate ground transport. Our big ATV is utterly useless against the smaller, more nimble and fuel-efficient vehicles the poachers have adopted. We need something faster and quieter to get our fish inspectors to where they are needed quickly.

Fortunately, we have every reason to believe that a single credentialed fish inspector with a crew of affiliated assistants is sufficient to accomplish our goals. We see no pressing need for a 17

larger team. Our work this year showed that advance preparation and publicizing our intent among locals decreases the number of potential poachers. But the addition of a quad-bike or similar light ATV will make our patrols and inspectors more flexible and effective.

Climate change and the unusual drought we saw in 2020 foreshadow problems for our operations going forward. Obviously, the diminished fishing opportunities in 2020 enabled our small group on Kvachina-Snotalvayam camp to accomplish objectives and avoid the disaster we initially feared given the absence of what would ordinarily have been a much larger crew.

Obviously, we can’t say that another dry season like 2020 will not come again. Since hard rains finally showed up in mid-October before we left our rivers, it seems we should continue on the same schedule we have used in the past, rather than extending our project beyond October 15, especially inasmuch as the region frequently experiences cyclones in mid-October.

Kirill Kuzishchin believes that KSP 2020 supports our contention that the steelhead population will continue increasing in the immediate future. We have every reason to hope for continued success from the Kamchatka Steelhead Project in the years to come.

18