Conservation of

Columbia Basin Fish

Building a Conceptual Recovery Plan

A Publication of the Federal Caucus  December 1999

Draft
Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Conservation of

Columbia Basin Fish

Building a Conceptual Recovery Plan

December 1999

Prepared by

The Federal Caucus

Army Corps of Engineers

Bonneville Power Administration

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Environmental Protection Agency

Fish and Wildlife Service

Forest Service

National Marine Fisheries Service

Draft
Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

For more information

Contact

Ms. Jessie Phelps

Bonneville Power Administration

1-888-921-4886

Visit

The Federal Caucus Web site

www.bpa.gov/federalcaucus.

To request copies of documents:

Call 1-509-358-7415 or

Write to

Federal Caucus Comment Record,

c/o BPA-PL

707 W. Main St. Suite 500

Spokane, WA 99201

Comment procedure

By mail

Federal Caucus Comment Record, c/o BPA-PL

707 W. Main St. Suite 500

Spokane, WA 99201

By e-mail:

federalcaucus@bpa.gov
Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Note to Readers

Purpose of the Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish Paper

The Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish Paper outlines the difficult choices

that face the Pacific Northwest if listed salmon, resident fish and aquatic species

are to recover. The final paper, to be produced after a public comment period on

this draft, will provide a conceptual anadromous fish recovery plan that provides

context and linkages for other federal, regional efforts and actions within the four

Hs (habitat, harvest, hatcheries and hydropower). It will also describe opportunities and relationships for restoration and recovery of listed resident fish and

aquatic species.

The Federal Caucus developed this draft paper to stimulate a constructive

dialogue among the governments and the people of the region about species

recovery. We hope it demonstrates that major management decisions by the region

are needed in each H.

The draft paper presents the following:

• Basic options under each of the Hs and a limited number of alternatives that

mix the available options in a way that is useful for discussion purposes.

• This draft provides a preliminary quantitative analysis of the biological effects

of some of the alternatives. These tools should be used with caution because

the biological and feasibility analysis to determine if improvements will work

has not been completed for all ESUs and has not been thoroughly peer

reviewed. However, it does demonstrate that if we are going to prevent

extinction and recover these species, major management decisions will be

necessary in each H.

The draft paper does not present the following:

• A preferred option or alternative; this is not a decision document.

• An individual agency’s position.

• A roadmap of actions to avoid jeopardy for any species.

• A full recovery plan including recovery goals and required management actions.

• Complete scientific analysis. Much work remains to be done on refinement of

quantitative tools to assess extinction risk and recovery potential and the

feasibility of achieving survival improvements through habitat, hatchery and

hydropower actions.

• Address economic, legal or political feasibility of any option or alternative.

We present this draft document and hope that the issues we have identified

will contribute to a constructive dialogue among the governments and the people

of the region. The recovery of the Northwest icon, Pacific salmon, and listed

resident fish and aquatic species depends on it.
Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 11

1. Existing Conditions 13

1.1 Physical Setting 13

1.2 Species Status 14

1.2.1 Anadromous Salmonids 14

1.2.2 Resident Fish and Aquatic Species 16

1.3 Biological Requirements 16

1.3.1 Salmon and Steelhead 16

1.3.2 Resident Fish and Other Aquatic Species 19

1.4 Institutional and Regulatory Context 20

1.5 Tribal Obligations 21

2. Conservations Goals, Objectives and Scientific Principles and Tools 23

2.1 Goals 23

2.1.1 Conserve Species 23

2.1.2 Conserve Ecosystems 23

2.1.3 Assure Tribal Fishing Rights 23

2.1.4 Balance the Needs of Other Species 23

2.1.5 Minimize Adverse Effects on Humans 23

2.2 Objectives 23

2.2.1 Biological Objectives 23

2.2.2 Ecological Objectives 23

2.2.3 Socio-Economic Objectives 24

2.3 Scientific Principles 24

2.4 Scientific Tools 24

2.4.1 Population-based Tools 24

2.4.2 Habitat-based Tools 25

2.4.3 Other Tools 26

3. Range of Options for Each H 27

3.1 Habitat 28

3.1.1 Overview 28

3.1.2 Contributions to Decline 28

3.1.3 Current Management 30

3.1.4 Habitat Program Objectives 31

3.1.5 Habitat Strategies 32

3.1.6 Habitat Options 34

3.1.7 Evaluation of Options 37

3.1.8 Implementation Issues 40
Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish i i

3.1.9 Performance Measures 43

3.1.10 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation 44

3.1.11 Key Uncertainties 44

3.2 Harvest 44

3.2.1 Overview 44

3.2.2 Contributions to Decline 46

3.2.3 Current Management 46

3.2.4 Harvest Program Objectives 48

3.2.5 Harvest Strategies 48

3.2.6 Harvest Options 49

3.2.7 Evaluation of Options 50

3.2.8 Implementation Issues 51

3.2.9 Performance Measures 52

3.2.10 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation 52

3.2.11 Key Uncertainties 52

3.3 Hatcheries 52

3.3.1 Overview 52

3.3.2 Contributions to Decline 58

3.3.3 Current Management 59

3.3.4 Hatcheries Program Objectives 59

3.3.5 Hatcheries Strategies 60

3.3.6 Hatcheries Options 60

3.3.7 Evaluation of Options 62

3.3.8 Implementation Issues 63

3.3.9 Performance Measures 63

3.3.10 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation 64

3.3.11 Key Uncertainties 66

3.4 Hydropower 66

3.4.1 Overview 66

3.4.2 Contributions to Decline 66

3.4.3 Current Management 67

3.4.4 Hydropower Program Objectives 68

3.4.5 Hydropower Strategies 68

3.4.6 Hydropower Options 68

3.4.7 Evaluation of Options 71

3.4.8 Implementation Issues 75

3.4.9 Performance Measures 76

3.4.10 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation 77

3.4.11 Key Uncertainties 77

4. Integrated Alternatives 79

4.1 Biological Considerations 79

4.1.1 Snake River ESUs 79

4.1.2 Upper Columbia River ESUs 81

4.1.3 Other ESUs 82
Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish iii

4.2 Integrated Alternatives 82

4.2.1 Alternative A  Dam Removal 82

4.2.2 Alternative B  Harvest Constraints 84

4.2.3 Alternative C  Aggressive Non-Breach 84

4.2.4 Alternative D  Maximum Protections 84

4.3 Implementation Issues for Integrated Alternatives 84

4.3.1 Implementation of Alternatives 84

5. Science Issues 87

6. Glossary and Acronyms 89

7. References 103

8. Maps 109

Columbia Basin Key Salmonid Anadromous Fish Distribution Map 1

Columbia Basin Key Salmonid Resident Fish Distribution Map 2

Columbia Basin Water Quality Impaired Streams 303(d) and 305 (b) Listed 

 Temperature Map 3

Columbia Basin Water Quality Impaired Streams 303(d) and 305 (b) Listed 

 Sediment Map 4

Columbia Basin Land Ownership Map 5

Columbia Basin Land Cover/Land Use Map 6

Columbia Basin Dams Map 7

List of Tables

Table 1 Summary of Major Habitat Requirements for the Salmons Life Cycle 18

Table 2 Sample Ecological and Managerial Performance Measures/Standards 43

Table 3 Performance Standards Related to Hatchery Benefits 64

Table 4 Performance Standards Related to Hatchery Risks 65

Table 5 Summary of Options 83

List of Figures

Figure 1 Roadmap to Habitat Recovery 40

Figure 2 Commercial Landings of Salmon and Steelhead from the Columbia River in

 Pounds, 1866-1998 45

Figure 3 Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Willamette River 53

Figure 4 Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Lower Columbia River 54

Figure 5 Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Middle Columbia River 55

Figure 6 Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Upper Columbia River 56

Figure 7 Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Snake River 57
1 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Introduction

Native salmon and steelhead, and many

resident fish species are in decline throughout the Columbia River Basin. Recent analyses

indicate that extinction risks for Snake River

salmon and steelhead populations are significant. These analyses confirm that major

changes must be made in a wide range of

activities that cause harm to those stocks if

salmon recovery is to be successful. Analyses

for the remaining salmon and steelhead populations in the basin will be completed in a few

months. Making changes to recover these fish

will require all of the governments and people

of the Pacific Northwest to confront tough

choices. The success of salmon recovery in

the Columbia Basin depends upon the willingness of the region to make those tough

choices.

Certain changes can result in immediate

improvements, while others will require more

time to show results. Some changes can be

implemented using existing authorities and

capabilities, others will require new authorizations and congressional support. Some of

these changes are decisions of federal agencies, others depend largely on state or local

commitments.

This paper presents options for habitat,

harvest, hatcheries and hydropower, and

shows how the options can be combined into

integrated alternatives. Both the options and

alternatives are simplified examples, intended

to represent broad choices. The options are

not intended to capture exact prescriptions of

actions; the integrated alternatives do not

represent the only combinations of options

possible. None should be viewed as preferred,

and there are practical or legal obstacles to

implementing some of the options or integrated alternatives.

The purpose of this paper is to outline

the fundamental choices that face the region if

salmon recovery is to succeed. The objective

is to stimulate an honest and constructive

dialogue among the governments and the

people of the region. That honest dialogue

holds the best hope for a durable set of commitments by which to recover salmon stocks

and the health of the rivers upon which they

depend. This dialogue must take into consideration tribal resources and treaty rights.

Background

Historically, 10-16 million salmon and

steelhead returned each year to spawn, but by

the 1960s, that number had dropped to about

5 million. Today, only about a million fish

return, and most of them originate from

hatcheries, not from the wild. Due to this

steep decline, the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) has listed 12 Columbia River

Basin salmon and steelhead Evolutionarily

Significant Units (ESU) as threatened or

endangered under the Endangered Species

Act (ESA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) has listed bull trout, Kootenai River

White Sturgeon, and five other aquatic species

(Snake River snails) as threatened or endangered.

The deterioration of the Columbia’s oncenumerous fish runs can be traced to the

economic development of the basin. The

human activities that have caused the decline

of these fish – often referred to as the “Four

Hs” – are habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and

hydropower. Forestry, agriculture, mining, and

urbanization have altered or destroyed tributary habitat. Fishing, or harvest, has reduced

the number of adult fish that return to spawn.

Hatcheries have introduced inbreeding and

competition, may have been a source of

disease for wild fish, and have in some cases

induced fisheries to harvest at rates too high

for natural stocks. And hydropower dams on

the Columbia and Snake rivers have blocked

and inundated mainstem habitat, altered

natural flows for fish and aquatic species,

Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Building a Conceptual Recovery Plan

Executive Summary

Words in bold

are defined in

the Section 6,

Glossary and

Acronyms.

Some are also

defined in

sidebars.

An evolutionarily significant

unit is a

population or

group of

populations that

is considered

distinct for

purposes of

conservation

under the ESA.

A threatened

species under

the ESA is a

genetic

population that

is at risk of

becoming

endangered in

the foreseeable

future.

An endangered

species is any

species of plant

or animal in

danger of

extinction

throughout all

or a significant

portion of its

range.
2 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

impeded passage of migrating fish, and created

a series of pools where fish predators reside.

The people of the Pacific Northwest have

made efforts to turn around the salmon and

steelhead decline. Fish managers in the basin

have dramatically reduced harvest. They have

also made substantial progress to address

hatchery practices and established programs to

improve habitat. Although there have been

many improvements at dams and in hydropower operations, the major hydropower dams

on the Snake and Columbia rivers continue to

be a significant source of mortality for some

stocks of migrating fish. Recently, regional

debate has focused on the eight federal dams

on the Snake and Columbia rivers, the role

they have played in fish declines, and whether

some of the dams should be removed. Given

the impacts of extensive hydropower development on the salmon runs of the Columbia

Basin, this focus is entirely understandable

and appropriate. At the same time, however,

maintaining a broad, more comprehensive

focus on other major sources of declines is

equally important if recovery efforts are to

succeed.

Last year, nine federal agencies formed a

Federal Caucus to examine opportunities the

region has in each of the Hs for recovering

listed salmon, steelhead, resident fish and

other aquatic species. Our intent was to

develop a conceptual recovery plan that could

guide future federal actions. This paper

examines several of the basic options for

future management in each of the four Hs.

These options are not intended to be exhaustive. Using these options, the Federal Caucus

developed a set of integrated alternatives, or

packages of options, which mix and match the

various options. These integrated alternatives

are intended to illustrate the type of integrated

strategies that will be required for successful

recovery. They are not presented, however, as

the exclusive set of packages that are possible.

The goal of the paper is to stimulate

discussion of what the region can do to recover salmon and steelhead and other aquatic

species. The Federal Caucus hopes to encourage a constructive debate that is broadly

focused and results in a regionally supported

comprehensive strategy across the four Hs.

The paper emphasizes that salmon

recovery is but one of several environmental

challenges facing the governments of the

Pacific Northwest. Addressing the extensive

loss of water quality throughout the basin is a

complementary objective. Columbia River

streams, both mainstem and tributaries, have

been designated as water quality limited

under the Clean Water Act. The degraded

condition of these streams is directly related

to declining fish populations throughout the

basin.

Goals and Objectives

The Federal Caucus suggests five goals

for a regional fish recovery plan:

· Conserve Species. Avoid extinction and

foster long-term survival and recovery of

Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead and

other aquatic species.

· Conserve Ecosystems. Conserve the

ecosystems upon which salmon and

steelhead depend.

· Assure Tribal Fishing Rights. Restore

salmon and steelhead populations over time

to a level that provides a sustainable

harvest sufficient to allow for the exercise

of meaningful tribal fishing rights.

· Balance the Needs of Other Species. Ensure

that salmon and steelhead conservation

measures are balanced with the needs of

other native fish and wildlife species.

· Minimize Adverse Effects on Humans.

Implement salmon and steelhead

conservation measures in ways that

minimize their adverse human effects.

The Options for Each H

The Federal Caucus considered a range of

options for each H. There were three purposes

in developing these options: to consider

solutions or actions that had not yet been

explored; to test the sensitivity of different

The following options are intended

to represent broad choices in direction

and strategy for each H. They do not

represent exact prescriptions of actions

and measures that would ultimately be

implemented as part of an overall

recovery plan. Specific actions and

measures presented in this paper or in

related documents are for illustration

purposes only.
3 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Anadromous

fish migrate

from fresh to

saltwater when

young, spend

most of their

adult life in the

ocean, and then

return to

freshwater to

spawn.

Salmonids tend

to return to

their stream of

origin.

fish populations at various life stages to

actions in the different Hs; and to stimulate

regional dialogue on the tradeoffs and uncertainties involved in selecting a suite of actions

to recover salmon and steelhead populations.

Habitat Options

The quality and quantity of tributary

freshwater and estuary habitat in much of the

Columbia River Basin has declined dramatically in the last 100 years. Forestry, farming,

grazing, road construction, hydropower development, mining, and urbanization have radically changed the historical habitat conditions

of the Columbia River Basin. The lands and

waters of the basin no longer support the array

of anadromous fish, resident fish, wildlife,

and plant communities that existed prior to

European settlement. Habitat conditions on

federal land are generally better than conditions on nonfederal land. In addition, federal

programs are likely in the long term to improve habitat capacity on most federal land.

Improvement of habitat conditions on

nonfederal land is less certain. Without substantial improvements in land and water

activities, habitat conditions across the basin

will continue to erode and undercut progress

in salmon recovery efforts in the other Hs.

Improvements in habitat for salmon and

steelhead have the additional benefit of

improving conditions for all other aquatic

species, wildlife, and native plant communities

in the watershed as well.

The objectives of the habitat options

under consideration by the Federal Caucus are

to: prevent further degradation of tributary

and estuary habitat conditions and water

quality; protect existing high-quality habitats;

and restore habitats on a priority basis. The

primary difference among the habitat options

is the level of state and local effort and participation, the level of federal support, and the

level of federal regulation. The Federal Caucus does not anticipate that management on

federal lands will vary under these options.

Under all options, federal land management

agencies will continue to pursue their current

programs and consult on those programs under

the ESA. All options call for substantially

increased federal coordination, assessment

and planning, and immediate federal actions.

Option 1:

Coordinate and Prioritize Federal Actions

· Under this option there would be moderate

increases in efforts to protect and restore

habitat, a measurable increase in federal

action and coordination, and increased

habitat assessments and planning efforts

using federal funds. Immediate actions

would reduce imminent risks and

immediately improve survival.

Option 2:

Coordinated Regional Plans

· Under this option, state, tribal, local, and

federal entities would significantly increase

their level of coordination, planning and

habitat implementation. There would also

be an increase in federal funding for habitat

assessments, plans, immediate actions, and

monitoring. Initially, there would be an

increased allocation of federal funds to

assessments and planning that would

precede all but immediate actions.

Immediate actions would reduce imminent

risks and immediately improve survival. One

major mechanism for accomplishing this

would be a substantial and explicit tie

between water quality compliance efforts

(already under court orders in three states)

and salmon recovery.

Option 3:

Increased Federal Role

under Clean Water Act and ESA

· This option has similar components to

Option 2, except it includes increased

regulation by the federal agencies under the

CWA and ESA. This option would be

implemented if the region cannot develop a

coordinated plan with state and local

governments.

Harvest Options

Salmon fishing has been a central feature

of Northwest tribal culture, religion, and

commerce for generations. Tribal harvest may

historically have been as high as 4 to 6 million

fish. With the arrival of European settlers and

the advent of canning technologies in the late

1800s, commercial fishing developed rapidly.

Commercial salmon and steelhead harvest has
4 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

been as high as 2.1 million fish in 1941 to as

low as 68,000 fish in 1995.

To have a sustainable harvest, salmon and

steelhead must produce more adults than are

needed for spawning. This means enough

adults must be allowed to escape to spawn

and perpetuate the run, and the productive

capacity of the habitat must be maintained.

Unfortunately, these prerequisites for sustainable harvest have been regularly violated in the

past. The lack of coordinated management

across jurisdictions, coupled with competitive

economic pressures to increase catches or

sustain them in periods of lower production,

resulted in harvests that were too high, limiting the numbers of adults returning to spawn.

The objectives of the harvest options are

to: manage fisheries to prevent overharvest

and contribute to recovery; and provide fishing

opportunities that comport with trust obligations to the tribes and comply with sustainable fisheries objectives for all citizens. These

options presume that the harvest reforms of

recent years will continue. The reforms, along

with the dramatic decline in productivity, have

already come at great cost to fishing interests

in the Pacific Northwest, especially the tribes.

In the long term it is the United States’

policy to provide harvest opportunities for the

region’s Indian tribes. For this reason, the

hatchery and harvest options are closely

related to provide for increasing the opportunities for harvest where there will be minimal

impacts on depressed stocks of fish.

Option 1:

Fishery Benefits During Recovery

· This option implements the recently

negotiated Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST)

conditions in all ocean fisheries and, as

contemplated in that agreement, further

constrains U.S. fisheries south of Canada in

some years if necessary to comply with the

ESA. It would apply the constraints

currently being developed for upper

Willamette and lower Columbia chinook

salmon. When abundance of listed stocks

is similar to 1999, the in-river fisheries

would be managed to limit impacts on

listed summer chinook to 5 percent or less

and on spring chinook to 7 percent or less.

In-river fall fisheries would be managed so

as not to exceed the 1999 harvest rate

limits for Snake River fall chinook and Brun steelhead. In anticipation of higher

abundance in the future, a schedule would

be developed that allows harvest rates to

increase as abundance increases.

Option 2:

Fixed In-river Harvest Rates (1999 levels)

· This option is the same as Option 1, except

that no stepped in-river harvest rate

schedule would be included. In-river

fisheries would be managed to limit impacts

on listed spring and summer chinook to 7

and 5 percent, respectively, or less, and the

fall season fisheries would be managed so

as not to exceed the 1999 harvest rate limits

for Snake River fall chinook and B-run

steelhead. All of these rates would be

frozen until recovery goals are achieved.

Option 3:

Conservation Fishery Levels

· This option implements the recently

negotiated Pacific Salmon Treaty conditions

for Alaskan and Canadian fisheries, except

that additional voluntary reductions would

be sought in these fisheries. It differs from

Option 2 in that all other harvest impacts on

listed populations would be reduced to

conservation crisis levels for a period of

years, after which it would shift to Option 1

or 2. Conservation crisis levels are defined

as levels similar to the 1999 harvest rates for

listed spring/summer chinook (5 to 7

percent), and comparable conservation

crisis levels for listed Snake River fall

chinook and listed steelhead.

Hatcheries Options

Hatchery fish represent approximately 80

percent of the annual adult salmon and steelhead returning to the Columbia River Basin.

Nearly all hatchery fish programs were intended to compensate for the loss of fish and

fish habitat due to construction of the Federal

Columbia River Power System (FCRPS).

Modern hatchery production peaked in the

early 1990s at over 200 million fish annually.

Today there are about 100 anadromous fish

hatcheries, including satellite facilities in the

Columbia River Basin, and they produce about

150 million fish annually.

Chinook salmon

are the largest

salmon.

Chinook are

long distance

swimmers and

travel to the

farthest reaches

of the Columbia

Basin to spawn.

The fish return

from the ocean

to the Columbia

River in the

spring, summer

and fall and are

differentiated

by the time of

year they

return, and the

age at which

they migrate to

the ocean.

A-run steelhead

return to the

drainage in the

fall and spawn

in small, lower

elevation

streams in the

late winter and

early spring.

The largerbodied B-run

steelhead return

in the fall or the

spring and

spawn in

medium-sized,

higher elevation

streams from

March to June.

A fish run is a

group of fish of

the same

species that

migrate

together up a

stream to

spawn, usually

associated with

the seasons, i.e.,

fall, spring,

summer and

winter runs.
5 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Hatcheries have a long history of providing fish in an efficient manner for harvest and

related social purposes. It is not yet clear,

however, whether hatcheries are effective in

rebuilding self-sustaining, naturally-spawning populations over the long term. A fundamental question is: how can artificial production be applied in a manner that not only

avoids harm, but also assists in the conservation and rebuilding of wild runs?

The four objectives for the hatchery

options are to: minimize the adverse effects of

hatchery production on wild fish; conserve

genetic resources; help rebuild natural populations; and use hatcheries creatively to mitigate for lost fishing opportunities resulting

from losses of habitat or reduced productivity.

Option 1:

Currently Planned Programs

· This option includes currently planned

programs to conserve genetic resources and

currently planned improvements in

mitigation programs.

Option 2:

Increase Conservation Programs

· This option would increase programs to

conserve genetic resources over the

currently planned programs, and have the

same currently planned improvements in

mitigation programs, with corresponding

reductions in overall production.

Option 3:

Increase Conservation Programs and

Significantly Decrease Mitigation Programs

· This option would increase programs to

conserve genetic resources, as described in

Option 2, and significantly decrease

mitigation programs below currently

planned levels.

Hydropower Options

Hydropower development has had profound effects on the basin’s salmon and

steelhead runs, resident fish and other aquatic

species. Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia

River mainstem and the Hells Canyon Complex

on the Snake River blocked passage to over

half of the salmon’s historic upriver spawning

areas. Many smaller dams on the tributaries

have also blocked spawning areas. The hydropower system affects fish in other ways as

well. The storage reservoirs behind dams in

the basin alter natural streamflows and temperature patterns, and the dams themselves

block or delay both upstream and downstream

fish migration. The presence of the dams also

may cause increased dissolved nitrogen gas

from voluntary and involuntary spills and may

alter natural temperature patterns which are

important for fish habitat and migration.

Dam operators have developed several

methods for moving migrating fish past the

dams and reservoirs, including mechanical

bypass systems and transporting juvenile fish

in trucks and barges to release sites below

Bonneville Dam. In addition, a flow augmentation program called for under NMFS’ 1995

and 1998 Biological Opinions aims to restore

more natural flow patterns during the time

juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead are

migrating. These and other changes have

resulted in important survival improvements

for migrating fish.

The hydropower options have two objectives: provide adequate survival and maintain

healthy adult and juvenile anadromous fish

inhabiting and/or migrating through the hydropower system; and provide instream and

reservoir environmental conditions necessary

to provide adequate survival of resident fish

and other aquatic species.

The options represent the major choices

in direction and strategy for the hydropower

system. The goal was to try to determine how

much improvement the region could realistically expect to see with these substantially

different approaches, and how much difference it would make for the fish overall and in

combination with actions in the other Hs. The

Federal Caucus examined the option of removing Snake River dams, but not Columbia River

dams because feasibility work has not been

initiated for these dams.

We did not examine configuration

options for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-licensed projects but recognize that changes at these projects may have

benefits for fish. Opportunities for fish passage improvements at FERC-licensed projects

should be considered during relicensing

processes.

A Biological

Opinion is a

document

stating the

opinion of the

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

or the National

Marine

Fisheries

Service on

whether a

federal action is

likely to

jeopardize the

continued

existence of

listed species,

or result in a

destruction or

adverse

modification of

critical habitat.

The NMFS 1995

and 1998

Biological

Opinions

addressed how

the federal

dams in the

basin should be

operated to

protect fish.
6 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Option 1:

Current Program

· This option would continue on the present

path of ongoing improvements to the

system, with roughly the existing annual

level of investment continuing into the

future.

Option 2:

Aggressive Program

· In this option, we assume the current

program for improved fish passage facilities,

such as surface bypass, will be successful

and will be implemented to increase

passage survival. The primary difference in

configuration measures between this

alternative and the present program is that

the federal agencies would seek increased

funding to pursue more aggressive

implementation of measures to improve

passage survival. Flow augmentation

(especially in the Snake River) and spill will

be increased.

Option 3:

•Breach Lower Snake River Dams

· The final option we considered improves

conditions for Snake River stocks by

removing the dams that block their passage

in the lower Snake River.

Biological Considerations

To construct integrated alternatives, the

Federal Caucus considered the available

scientific analyses. These include the Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI), developed by the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center of NMFS,

and the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH), a collaborative effort of state

fishery agencies, tribes and federal agencies.

NMFS is conducting analyses of upper Columbia ESUs in collaboration with states, tribes

and others in the Quantitative Analytical

Report (QAR). Preliminary analyses for upper

Columbia River ESUs are currently under

review, and analyses for other basin ESUs are

underway. The Northwest Power Planning

Council’s (NPPC) Multi-Species Framework

project is also analyzing biological effects of

different actions, but these analyses are not

yet available.

The CRI has estimated the risk that

salmon and steelhead ESUs in the Snake River

will reach a quasi-extinction threshold,

defined as one fish or fewer returning in any

single year. We have not attempted to lay out

in this report what level of biological risk is

“acceptable” in relation to the CRI results. In

addition to extinction risk, the CRI examines

what opportunities exist to improve survivals

in different life stages and how such improvements might reduce the risk of extinction.

This examination is based on theoretical

survival improvements in different parts of the

fishes’ life cycle. Analyses have not yet been

completed to determine whether such improvements are feasible.

The PATH analyses use life cycle models

to project the likelihood that Snake River

spring/summer chinook and fall chinook will

meet certain survival goals within 24 and

100 years, and recovery goals within 48 years.

The PATH results may be overly optimistic.

PATH models show trends improving regardless of the management actions pursued.

Results of all modeling efforts should be

used with caution as models contain many

assumptions that might be wrong. Moreover,

the farther out the projection, the less certain

the results.

Snake River ESUs

Snake River spring/summer chinook are

listed as threatened. They have a serious risk

of reaching the quasi-extinction threshold in

the short term, as high as 10 percent for some

populations, and require a large improvement

in productivity (about 12 percent, on average)

to reduce that risk to more acceptable levels.

Dam removal by itself is unlikely to achieve

this improvement or lead to recovery of this

ESU, unless there is significant indirect

mortality associated with dam passage and/or

transportation. The best prospects of avoiding

short-term extinction and achieving recovery

for this ESU appear to be combinations of

action in habitat restoration, harvest limits,

predator control, and hydropower

improvements, including dam removal. With

or without dam removal, harvest restrictions

may be needed for many years.

Snake River fall chinook are listed as

threatened. They have less than a 1 percent
7 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

likelihood of reaching the quasi-extinction

threshold in the short term, but a more serious

risk of reaching that threshold over the long

term (6-17 percent). They require a more

modest increase in productivity of about

4 percent to have a more acceptable risk of

reaching the quasi-extinction threshold. Such

an increase might be achieved by removing

dams or by dramatic cuts in harvest. However,

harvest restrictions may need to continue over

the long term, raising serious implications for

exercise of tribal fishing rights and other

harvest. Removal of lower Snake River dams

would have the added benefit of potentially

increasing available spawning habitat by as

much as 70 percent.

Snake River steelhead are listed as

threatened. They have a less than 1 percent

likelihood of reaching the quasi-extinction

threshold in 10 years, but their rate of decline

has been so steep since 1980 that they are

projected to have a greater than 90 percent

likelihood of reaching that threshold in

100 years. To reduce this risk to a more

acceptable level requires about a 10 percent

increase in productivity. A long-term

reduction in harvest rates to 5-10 percent

might be sufficient to achieve this increase.

However, harvest restrictions may need to

continue over the long term, raising serious

implications for exercise of tribal fishing rights

and other harvest. Alternatively, removal of

lower Snake River dams could also prove

sufficient. It may also be possible to improve

survivals through habitat and hatchery

improvements.

Snake River sockeye are listed as

endangered. They cannot be modeled because

there are so few of them. They are now kept

from extinction by a captive broodstock

program.

Upper Columbia River ESUs

Upper Columbia River steelhead are listed

as endangered. They are particularly

complicated to model because they are

maintained primarily through hatchery

production. Steelhead have no significant

likelihood of dropping below quasi-extinction

levels so long as they continue to be sustained

by hatchery production. Projections of future

performance without hatchery production

depend on assumptions about how effective

hatchery fish have been at reproducing in the

wild. QAR analysis indicates that assuming

hatchery fish have been equally as effective as

naturally-spawning fish, this ESU has a

100 percent probability of reaching a quasiextinction level of two fish in one year within

41-72 years. Reducing this risk to 5 percent

requires an improvement in productivity on

the order of 35-42 percent, assuming recent

environmental conditions continue into the

future. Since work is ongoing, it is premature

to draw conclusions about what actions may

be required to recover upper Columbia

steelhead.

Upper Columbia River spring chinook are

listed as endangered. Detailed assessments of

extinction risks are still being developed.

Initial results, using methods similar to those

employed in the CRI analyses, project high

quasi-extinction risks for these runs in the

absence of hatchery supplementation.

Model results indicate that the supplementation programs being implemented to support

these runs could reduce the risk of falling

below quasi-extinction levels to negligible

levels. Based on preliminary results, reducing

the risk of quasi-extinction to below 1 in 100

at 100 years would require a 28-35 percent

improvement in productivity in the absence of

hatchery supplementation. Since work is

ongoing, it is premature to draw conclusions

about which actions may be required to

recover upper Columbia chinook.

Other ESUs

The CRI is continuing model work on

additional ESUs. Modeling should be completed for upper Willamette chinook and

steelhead by early next year.

Integrated Alternatives

There are a number of ways to combine

options from the different Hs to arrive at

integrated alternatives. Those displayed are

certainly not an exhaustive enumeration of all

the possibilities. The alternatives are all

intended to improve survivals of Columbia

Basin salmon and steelhead populations over

the long term, although some have more
8 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

certain benefits than others. It was the intention of the Federal Caucus to display possible

alternatives that have some likelihood of

contributing significantly to recovery of listed

populations.

A fundamental point made by these

alternatives is that the Federal Caucus’ assessment is that current levels of activities in the

four Hs will be inadequate to provide significant confidence in salmon and steelhead

recovery. From that basis, packages of measures have been arrayed to begin the discussion about how best to approach salmon

recovery. The purpose of the alternatives is to

further discussion and debate of these and

other alternative combinations that have

significant potential for contributing to recovery of salmon and steelhead populations.

Alternative A

Dam Removal

Habitat – Option 1

Coordinate and Prioritize Federal Actions

Harvest – Option 1

Fishery Benefits During Recovery

Hatcheries – Option 1

Currently Planned Programs

Hydropower – Option 3

Breach Lower Snake River Dams

Under this alternative, the decision is

made now to breach Snake River dams and the

necessary congressional authorizations are

pursued. The primary reliance for recovering

Snake River fish is on breaching. There is

little increase in effort to improve habitat

conditions on nonfederal land, as resources

would be focused on dam breaching. Because

of the expected benefit in fish productivity

from breaching, harvest is constrained by

weak stocks, but is allowed to increase as

runs increase. Since most conservation

hatchery programs are aimed at Snake River

fish, there is no need to increase the conservation program, and existing resources would be

shifted to the Columbia River ESUs. Similarly,

the expected increase in productivity of wild

Snake River fish means there is less concern

about the possible harmful effects of mitigation hatchery production on wild fish in the

Snake River. This alternative does not improve survivals for fish outside of the Snake

River beyond those improvements that would

result from programs already in place.

Alternative B

Harvest Constraints

Habitat – Option 1

Coordinate and Prioritize Federal Actions

Harvest – Option 3

Conservation Fishery Levels

Hatcheries – Option 3

Increase Conservation Programs and

Significantly Decrease Mitigation

Programs

Hydropower – Option 1

Current Program

Under Alternative B, the Snake River

dams are not breached and the region relies

instead on harvest constraints to recover fish

runs, along with existing improvements in the

hydropower system and improvements on

federal habitat. All fisheries are held to conservation levels for a period of time (e.g.,

10 years) to “jump start” recovery. Since

fisheries are so constrained, it is logical to also

reduce the production of mitigation hatchery

fish. This reduction may provide further

unquantifiable survival benefits to wild fish.

Alternative C

Aggressive Non-Breach

Habitat – Option 2

Coordinated Regional Plans

Harvest – Option 2

Fixed In-river Harvest Rates (1999 levels)

Hatcheries – Option 2

Increase Conservation Programs

Hydropower – Option 2

Aggressive Program

The alternatives describe broad policy

choices for salmon and steelhead recovery,

and are intended to stimulate public

discussion and allow the public early

access to the thinking process within the

Federal Caucus. They do not represent the

only combinations of options that could

provide recovery, nor do they represent

preferred federal alternatives.
9 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Alternative C defers a decision on dambreaching and allows an interim period to

determine whether aggressive action in all of

the Hs (short of breaching) is likely to recover

Snake River fish, and to resolve key scientific

uncertainties. Hydropower actions include

increased flows (especially in the Snake River)

and increased spill. State and local governments contribute significantly to habitat

protection (improved instream flows and water

management; irrigation improvements; riparian protections, etc.) through state regulatory

and voluntary programs. Additional populations are brought into hatchery conservation

programs if necessary to prevent extinctions.

Harvest is held at a flat rate based on 1999

fishing rates until stocks recover.

Alternative D

Maximum Protections

Habitat – Option 2

Coordinate Regional Plans with a default

to Option 3 if increased states’ and local

efforts do not occur

Harvest – Option 3

Conservation Fishery Levels

Hatcheries – Option 3

Increase Conservation Programs and

Significantly Decrease Mitigation

Programs

Hydropower – Option 3

Breach Lower Snake River Dams

Alternative D is the most aggressive

scenario, in which all Hs make dramatic

contributions in an effort to recover listed

stocks throughout the basin. The most riskaverse option within each H is pursued to

maximize efforts to rebuild stocks and improve productivity. In the case of hatcheries,

conservation programs would increase outside

of the Snake River, and mitigation programs

would be reduced basinwide.

Other Considerations

Several important points should be

considered in evaluating the options presented, as well as others that might be possible:

Biological Evaluation

· How certain are we that an action will have

the anticipated biological effect?

· How long will it take to realize the benefits

of the action?

· How many ESUs will be benefited by the

action?

· What is the status of the ESUs that will be

benefited (threatened, endangered,

important to tribal fisheries)?

Social and Economic Effects

· What effect will the action have on tribal

social and cultural values?

· What effect will the action have on

nontribal social and cultural values?

· What are the direct and indirect economic

consequences of the action?

Ecological Effects

· What effect will the action have on the

Columbia Basin ecosystem?

· What effect will the action have on other

aquatic species?

Effects on Tribal Rights

· What effect will the action have on the

tribal right to harvest fish?

Implementation

· Can the action be implemented within

existing authorities, or are new authorities

required?

· What entity (or entities) would implement

the action, and is that entity willing and

able to act?

· How long will it take to implement the

action?

Performance Measures and Standards

Performance measures and standards are

critical underpinnings of any management

framework. They define the contribution that

is needed at each life-history stage to achieve

the overall biological goals and objectives, and

they do so in context with the contributions

from other life stages. A performance standard is the specific level of achievement that is

required in a particular performance measure

or metric. Its purpose is to establish the

performance objective of a measure or action,
1 0 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

achievement of which indicates the action has

been successful.

The following principles should be used

to guide the development of performance

measures and standards:

· Performance measures and standards would

be developed with consideration for

impacts of habitat, harvest, hatchery, and

hydropower actions (the four Hs),

particularly on wild stocks.

· Performance measures and standards would

be defined for all Hs.

· Performance standards for actions in each

H could be based on the relative

contribution to improved survival.

· Performance standards would be adjusted

over time to reflect success or failure in

achieving recovery.

Next Steps

In the months to come, the agencies that

make up the Federal Caucus will be asking for

public comment on the report and the options

it presents. Beginning in January 2000, public

meetings will be held throughout the region.

The Northwest Power Planning Council has

agreed to participate in this public process so

that the Multi-Species Framework alternatives

may be discussed at the same time. In addition, individual federal agencies will invite

comments on other related federal processes

including: the Snake River Feasibility Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Program (ICBEMP) EIS; and NMFS’ ESA

Section 7 consultation on operation and

configuration of the Federal Columbia River

Power System.

For More Information

Contact:

Ms. Jessie Phelps

Bonneville Power Administration

1-888-921-4886

Visit:

The Federal Caucus Web site:

www.bpa.gov/federalcaucus.

To request copies of documents:

Call 1-509-358-7415 or

Write to:

Federal Caucus Comment Record

c/o BPA-PL

707 W. Main St. Suite 500

Spokane, WA 99201

Comment Procedure

By mail:

Federal Caucus Comment Record

c/o BPA-PL

707 W. Main St. Suite 500

Spokane, WA 99201

By e-mail:

federalcaucus@bpa.gov
1 1 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Native salmon and steelhead, and many

resident fish species are in decline throughout

the Columbia River Basin. Recent analyses

indicate that extinction risks for Snake River

salmon and steelhead populations are significant. These analyses confirm that major

changes must be made in a wide range of

activities that cause harm to those stocks if

salmon recovery is to be successful. Analyses

for the remaining salmon and steelhead populations in the basin will be completed in a few

months. Making changes to recover these fish

will require all of the governments and people

of the Pacific Northwest to confront tough

choices. The success of salmon recovery in

the Columbia Basin depends upon the willingness of the region to make those tough

choices.

The deterioration of the Columbia’s oncenumerous fish runs can be traced to the

economic development of the basin. The

human activities that have caused the decline

of these fish – often referred to as the “Four

Hs” – are habitat, harvest, hatcheries, and

hydropower. Forestry, agriculture, mining, and

urbanization have altered or destroyed tributary habitat. Fishing, or harvest, has reduced

the number of adult fish that return to spawn.

Hatcheries have introduced inbreeding and

competition, may have been a source of

disease for wild fish, and have in some cases

induced fisheries to harvest at rates too high

for natural stocks. And hydropower dams on

the Columbia and Snake rivers have blocked

and inundated mainstem habitat, altered

natural flows, impeded passage of migrating

fish, and created a series of pools where fish

predators reside.

Last year, nine federal agencies formed a

Federal Caucus to examine opportunities the

region has in each of the Hs for recovering

listed salmon, steelhead and resident fish. Our

intent was to develop a conceptual recovery

plan that could guide future federal actions.

This paper examines several of the basic

options for future management in each of the

four Hs. These options are not intended to be

exhaustive. Using these options, the Federal

Caucus developed a set of integrated alternatives, or packages of options, which mix and

match the various options. These integrated

alternatives are intended to illustrate the type

of integrated strategies that will be required

for successful recovery. They are not presented, however, as the exclusive set of packages that are possible. None should be viewed

as preferred, and there are practical or legal

obstacles to implementing some of the options, or integrated alternatives.

The purpose of this paper is to outline

the fundamental choices that face the region if

salmon recovery is to succeed. The objective

is to stimulate an honest and constructive

debate among the governments and the people

of the region. That honest debate holds the

best hope for a durable set of commitments by

which to recover salmon stocks and the health

of the rivers upon which they depend.

This document, and the regional dialogue

it may stimulate, will be factored into other

regional discussions scheduled for the near

term (see box on page 12).

Introduction

Populations, Stocks and Evolutionarily

Significant Units

All designations of groups of fish are

somewhat artificial. Populations are generally defined as a group of fish that interbreed

when mature, and do not interbreed to a

significant degree with other groups of fish.

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)

are groups of populations designated by

NMFS for purposes of implementing the

Endangered Species Act. ESUs are distinct

groups of populations that typically occupy

similar habitats, are genetically similar, and

that represent an important component of the

evolutionary legacy of the species. Stocks of

fish are designated by managers generally

for purposes of managing fisheries. In some

cases, units identified by managers as

“stocks” will be similar to populations. In a

few cases, a unit identified as a “stock” will

also coincide with a unit identified by NMFS

as an ESU.
1 2 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Other Related Processes in the Region

· Northwest Power Planning Council and Multi-Species Framework Process. The

Framework seeks to link Columbia Basin fish and wildlife restoration policy to a

basinwide vision, based on a scientific foundation that recognizes that the river and its

species are interrelated parts of a whole. The Framework analyzes seven alternative

visions, their benefits and impacts. The NPPC will base its Fish and Wildlife program

amendments on one of the Framework alternatives. The NPPC rulemaking is expected to

begin December 8, 1999 and be completed in July 2000.

· U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Lower Snake River Feasibility Study. The Corps is

preparing an environmental impact analysis that will review options for improving juvenile

salmon migration in the lower Snake River. Breaching the four lower Snake dams is one

of the options being studied. The product of this effort will be an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) that will provide information for decision-makers who must ultimately

decide on what measures are needed to recover Snake River salmon and steelhead runs.

Many federal and state agencies are participating in this study.

· Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Program (ICBEMP). ICBEMP is a

massive federal land-use plan that covers 144 million acres in Oregon, Idaho, Washington,

Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. Of this amount 72 million acres are currently

under federal control and the other 72 million acres are private property, state, county and

tribal lands. Its goal is to restore this area to a condition that will better support fish and

wildlife.

· Draft Biological Assessment on Operation and Configuration of the Federal Columbia

River Power System (FCRPS). The Biological Assessment is being jointly prepared by the

Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and BPA. It is part of the consultation

process, required by the Endangered Species Act, between NMFS and the three federal

agencies that operate the FCRPS. The BA provides information regarding the impact of

operation of the FCRPS on threatened or endangered species. NMFS will consider this

information in the preparation of its Biological Opinion on the effects of the operation of

the FCRPS on all listed salmon and steelhead in the basin.

· Columbia River Basin Forum. Formerly called The Three Sovereigns, the Columbia River

Basin Forum is designed to improve the management of fish and wildlife resources in the

Columbia River Basin. The process is an effort to create a new forum where the federal

government, Northwest states and tribes could better coordinate, discuss and resolve

basin-wide fish and wildlife issues under the authority of existing laws.
1 3 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

1.1 Physical Setting

The Columbia River Basin covers about

250,000 square miles in seven western states

and British Columbia and is defined by unique

geologic and water features. The states in the

Pacific Northwest follow, in the most part, the

basin’s geographic features. See map below.

An enormous variety of plants and animals

occupy the wide array of physical habitats in

the Columbia River Basin.

1. Existing Conditions

 The Columbia River Basin
1 4 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

1.2 Species Status

The Columbia River Basin historically

supported many anadromous species, including hundreds of populations of chinook,

sockeye, coho, chum and pink salmon, as well

as steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, white

and green sturgeon, eulachon, and Pacific

lamprey. Fifty-two fishes, both anadromous

and resident, are native to the Columbia River

Basin, including 13 endemic species (McPhail

and Lindsey 1986). Changes in the physical,

chemical and biological condition of land and

water bodies throughout the basin have

dramatically affected the status of many of

these fish. Dam development blocked, inundated and segmented habitat for anadromous and resident fish, and human development and activities have altered or destroyed

much of the habitat that remains.

In the late 1970s, concern about the

protection of fish species led to consideration

of Snake River salmon stocks for listing under

the ESA. In 1980 Congress passed the Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, which created the Northwest Power

Planning Council and charged it with developing a fish and wildlife program. Passage of

that Act and creation of the Council led NMFS

to withhold listing. In 1991, NMFS listed

Snake River sockeye as endangered, followed

closely by listings of Snake River spring/

summer and fall chinook. NMFS has listed 12

Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU) as

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) has listed seven resident fish

and other aquatic species as threatened or

endangered. This section briefly reviews the

status of the anadromous and resident fish

populations remaining in the basin.

1.2.1 Anadromous Salmonids

Native salmon and steelhead are in

decline throughout the basin. Some believe

that 40 salmon stocks from Washington have

become extinct during the last 150 years

(Nehlsen, et al. 1991). Historically,

10-16 million salmon and steelhead returned

each year to spawn, but by the 1960s, that

number had dropped to about 5 million.

Today, only about a million fish return, and

most of them originate from hatcheries, not

from the wild. Of the anadromous salmonid

stocks in the Columbia River Basin, about

60 percent are listed as depressed, threatened

or endangered. At least 65 native stocks have

been extirpated.

In many cases, populations that appear

relatively stable or with increasing numbers

exist because they are composed mostly of

hatchery fish. While nearly every subbasin has

a salmon population that is in decline, populations in the uppermost portions of the basin

are generally at higher risk or have suffered the

greatest loss. For example, of the 12 salmonid

ESUs listed under the ESA by NMFS, those

classified as endangered occur in either the

upper Columbia River (steelhead and spring

chinook ESUs) or Snake River (sockeye ESU).

These fish must go through or get around

seven, eight or nine dams (four of them federal

dams) during their upstream and downstream

migrations. Below are brief summaries of the

current state of anadromous salmonids in the

Columbia River Basin. See box for more

detailed information.

Chinook Salmon – Chinook salmon have a

relatively widespread distribution throughout

the basin, however most populations are

seriously depressed. The highest commercial

catches occurred in 1883 when nearly

22,000 tons were harvested Fulton (1968).

While some healthy chinook populations

remain, most are depressed and many have

already been extirpated.

Coho Salmon - Coho were once widespread

and abundant in the Columbia Basin, but are

now considered extinct in upper Columbia and

Snake River drainages, and in serious decline

in the remaining range in the lower Columbia

River. Commercial catches in the 1920s

peaked at greater than 700,000 fish landed

(Fulton 1970).

Chum Salmon - Historically this species may

have spawned as far upstream as the Walla

Walla River, but today chum salmon are found

in a handful of tributaries and stream reaches

downstream of Bonneville Dam. The

spawning areas lost (primarily due to

hydropower development) are not extensive

and represent only a small portion of the

available habitat (Fulton 1970). Historically,

the Columbia River had an abundant chum

Extirpate - To

destroy or

remove

completely, as a

species from a

particular area,

region, or

habitat.

Salmonids

belong to the

family

salmonidae, i.e.,

salmon, trout,

steelhead,

whitefish.
1 5 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Anadromous Species Status in the Basin

Chinook Salmon – Four ESUs are listed as threatened (Snake River fall-run, Snake River spring/

summer run, Lower Columbia, and Upper Willamette River ESUs); one is endangered (Upper

Columbia River spring run ESU). Of the 50 chinook stocks identified by Nehlsen et al. (1991), 3 were

classified as of special concern, 3 at moderate extinction risk, 9 at high extinction risk, 5 possibly

extinct, and 30 as extinct. Huntington et al. (1996) considered only two stocks as healthy - Hanford

Reach fall chinook and Lewis River fall chinook runs. An assessment by Washington Department of

Fisheries et al. (1993) identified 48 Washington chinook stocks, of which 1 was critical, 23 were

declining, and 24 were classified as healthy. Oregon has also classified Snake River fall chinook and

spring/summer chinook as threatened species under the state’s ESA, while Washington has identified

4 populations (i.e., Washington chinook populations in ESUs listed under the federal ESA) as species

of concern under the Washington ESA.

Coho Salmon – NMFS has tentatively identified a coho ESU that includes populations in southwest

Washington and the lower Columbia River. This ESU is a candidate for ESA listing, however, it is

unclear whether native, naturally reproducing coho still occur in the Columbia Basin. Nehlsen et al.

(1991) classified nearly all coho stocks above Bonneville Dam as extinct. They considered the

remaining lower Columbia stocks to be extirpated or at moderate to high risk of extinction. WDF et

al. (1993) characterized all Washington stocks as depressed, and Oregon recently classified

Columbia River coho as an endangered species under the state ESA.

Chum Salmon – NMFS has identified all Columbia River chum populations as a single ESU and

recently listed them as threatened under the ESA. Nehlsen et al. (1991) listed the Umatilla and Walla

Walla River stocks as extinct, and characterized all other Columbia River chum as being at moderate

risk of extinction. WDF et al. (1993) classified two Washington stocks as depressed, and one as

healthy, and the state of Washington has identified lower Columbia River chum as a species of

concern under the state ESA.

Sockeye Salmon – There are at least three sockeye ESUs in the Columbia Basin, and one of these -

the Snake River ESU - has been protected under the ESA since 1991. Washington has identified Snake

River sockeye as a species of concern and Nehlsen et al. (1991) classified 17 stocks as extinct, one

possibly extinct, one at high risk of extinction, and two of special concern. WDF et al. (1993)

identified the Wenatchee and Okanogan stocks as healthy, while Huntington et al. (1996) considered

only the former to be a healthy native stock.

Steelhead – NMFS has listed all five Columbia River ESUs as threatened or endangered under the

ESA. The state of Washington has likewise included the Washington stocks on their list of species of

concern, and of more than 30 stocks assessed by WDF et al. (1993), all but two (Kalama and South

Fork Toutle River stocks) were described as depressed. Nehlsen et al. (1991) reviewed steelhead

stocks throughout the basin and classified 11 stocks as extinct, 1 possibly extinct, 10 at high risk of

extinction, 7 at moderate risk of extinction and 15 of special concern. These authors also considered

all small-tributary stocks above Bonneville Dam to be at high risk of extinction, while small-tributary

stocks below the dam were considered to be at moderate extinction risk. Huntington et al. (1996)

identified five native stocks - all in the John Day River Basin - as healthy.

Cutthroat Trout – NMFS has identified one ESU that includes Columbia Basin populations (a

southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU) and has proposed it for listing as a threatened species

under the ESA. Many of these same Columbia Basin stocks were identified as of special concern or

at moderate to high risk of extinction by Nehlsen et al. (1991). These authors also noted 2 stocks that

have been extirpated in this ESU.

Pink Salmon - Although McPhail and Lindsay (1986) identified this species as native to the lower

Columbia River, pink salmon are rarely encountered in the basin (Emmett et al., 1991). NMFS has

identified two ESUs in the lower 48 states, both in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
1 6 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

population that supported annual harvests

numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Current abundance is probably less than

1 percent of historic levels.

Sockeye Salmon - This species is dependent

on lake spawning habitats principally located

in the Snake and Upper Columbia River Basins.

Historically, commercial catches in the

Columbia River may have reached nearly

1.3 million fish in the 1890s (Fulton 1970), but

current returns are probably in the tens of

thousands of fish. Counts of Snake River

sockeye spawners have not exceeded 8 fish

during the past decade and the ESU is kept

alive only through a captive-breeding

program. Although sockeye salmon in the

Upper Columbia Basin are not listed, their

numbers are depressed.

Steelhead - Like chinook, steelhead spawning

populations are still relatively widespread in

the basin, however they too have undergone

dramatic declines and local extinctions.

Minimum run size estimates for Columbia

Basin steelhead indicate that 150,000-450,000

adults returned during 1938-1967 (Fulton

1970). Current production estimates are in the

tens of thousands, with the bulk of production

coming from tributaries to the middle

Columbia.

Coastal Cutthroat Trout - Commonly

referred to as sea-run cutthroat, this species

has a complex suite of life history types that

include anadromous and resident types, as

well as a freshwater migratory form.

Pink Salmon - Pink salmon are rarely

encountered in the basin (Emmett, et al. 1991).

NMFS has identified two ESUs in the lower

48 states, both in Puget Sound and the Strait

of Juan de Fuca.

1.2.2 Resident Fish and Aquatic Species

Bull Trout – Historically, bull trout were

widely distributed throughout the Columbia

River Basin from the lower river to its

headwaters. Bull trout are estimated to have

once occupied 60 percent of the basin and

now are estimated to occur in about

45 percent of their former range (Quigley and

Arbelbide, 1997). Fluvial and adfluvial forms

of migratory bull trout occur in the area of

federal dams and both forms spawn and rear

in tributary streams. The largest populations of

bull trout in the FCRPS system are at the

Hungry Horse and Libby projects. Bull trout

are also present in Lake Pend Oreille (Albeni

Falls project), in the lower Snake River, Lake

Roosevelt, and in Bonneville pool.

Kootenai River White Sturgeon – The

Kootenai River population of white sturgeon

became isolated from other white sturgeon in

the Columbia River Basin during the last

glacial age (about 10,000 years ago). Once

isolated, the population adapted to the

predevelopment habitat conditions in the

Kootenai River drainage. This white sturgeon

population has been in general decline since

the mid-1960s. In 1997, the population was

estimated to be about 1,468 wild fish with few

individuals less than 25 years of age. The

population was listed as endangered in 1997.

Snake River Aquatic Species – The middle

Snake River from C.J. Strike Reservoir to

American Falls Dam provides habitat for the

five Snake River snails listed as threatened

(the Bliss Rapids snail) or endangered (the

Snake River physa, Banbury Springs lanx, Utah

valvata snail, and Idaho springsnail) under the

Endangered Species Act. With the arrival of

exploration and development, the Snake River

ecosystem has undergone significant

transformation from a primarily free-flowing,

cold-water system to a slower moving and

warmer system. At present, the listed species

occur mainly in the remaining free-flowing

reaches or spring alcove habitats of the Snake

River.

1.3 Biological Requirements

1.3.1 Salmon and Steelhead

NMFS has defined the geographic boundaries of major stock groups or Evolutionarily

Significant Units (ESUs) of Pacific Salmon

throughout the West Coast that are genetically

and demographically distinct from each other.

Nineteen ESUs in the Columbia River Basin

occupy four interconnected regions:

Fluvial fish

migrate to

larger rivers to

overwinter and

feed in spring

and summer;

adfluvial fish

reside in lakes

and reservoirs.

Spawning is the

act of

reproduction in

fishes.
1 7 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

A low-gradient

stream or river

has a slope of

less than 0.02

percent.

(1) Snake River Basin, (2) upper Columbia

River Basin, (3) middle Columbia River Basin,

and (4) lower Columbia River/Willamette River

Basin.

Life-history traits, such as run-timing,

vary among and within ESUs due to selection

imposed by a variety of factors, including

differing times of peak stream flow, seasonal

barriers to passage (e.g., waterfalls), and

differing migration distances. This diversity of

life history traits has been important in maintaining the historic abundance of salmon in

the basin.

Like all organisms, salmon have individual maintenance requirements. In fresh

water, these include adequate water quality

(including temperature and dissolved oxygen

requirements), sufficient water quantity,

adequate food supply, and appropriate spawning and rearing habitat. Different species and

different life-history types vary in their specific

requirements. For example, chum salmon

require low-gradient tributary habitats near

tidal areas in the lower basin for spawning,

while sockeye salmon spawn in beach gravels

in lakes in the interior basin. The degree to

which the biological requirements of individuals are met will affect the viability of the

entire population or ESU, by affecting the size,

stability, spatial structure and diversity of the

population.

Though biological requirements are

different among species, there are essential

features of salmon habitat for sustaining

healthy salmon populations. Table 1 provides

an overview of these features for each life

stage of the salmon’s life cycle. NMFS has

developed a guidance document called the

Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (MPI) that

describes in more detail the freshwater habitat

conditions for salmonids and includes an

analytic methodology to help determine the

environmental effects of various human

actions on these habitat conditions (see box)

(NMFS 1996).

Survival in the ocean also affects salmonid populations. Shifts in ocean conditions,

brought about by shifts in climate, have

produced abrupt differences in salmon survival

in the ocean (Francis and Hare 1994). Although the mechanisms affecting ocean

survival are largely unknown, they are presumed to be the result of annual and decadal

variation in nutrient availability (and thus, in

an upward cascade, algal and zooplankton

production) (e.g., Hare et al. 1999). Recent

modeling suggests that climate changes due to

For More Information:

Species status reviews prepared by

NMFS summarize some of the available

information for West Coast salmon, and

good reviews of the available literature are

contained in Everest et al. (1985), Bell

(1986), Groot and Margolis (1991), Bjornn

and Reiser (1991), Meehan and Bjornn

(1991), and Spence et al. (1996). Many of

the parameters and values described in the

literature must be interpreted with caution;

some are based solely on laboratory

observations while others are based on field

studies that may not be applicable to all

species or locations.

Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (MPI)

MPI helps determine the environmental

effects of various human actions on habitat

conditions. The pathways for determining

the effect of an action are represented as six

conceptual groupings (e.g., water quality,

channel condition, and dynamics) of 18

habitat condition indicators (e.g., temperature, width/depth ratio). Default indicator criteria (mostly numeric, though some

are narrative) are laid out for three levels of

environmental baseline condition:

properly functioning, at risk, and not properly functioning. The effect of the action

upon each indicator is classified by whether

it will restore, maintain, or degrade the

indicator.

The MPI provides a consistent, but

geographically adaptable, framework for

determining the effect of various human

activities on salmon and their habitats. The

pathways and indicators, as well as the

ranges of their associated criteria, are wellgrounded in available scientific literature

yet amenable to alteration through the

process of watershed analysis. The MPI,

and variations on it, are widely used in ESA

section 7 consultations. The MPI is also

used in other venues to determine baseline

conditions, identify properly functioning

condition, and estimate the effect of individual management prescriptions. This

assessment tool was originally developed for

forestry activities, but NMFS is working to

adapt it for other types of land management,

and for larger spatial and temporal scales

such as those found in the Columbia River

Basin.
1 8 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

A smolt is a

salmonid or

trout life stage

between parr

and adult,

when the

juvenile is at

least one year

old and has

adapted to the

marine

environment.

Table 1 - Summary of Major Habitat Requirements for the Salmon’s Life Cycle

• Passage blockage (e.g., culverts, dams)

• Water quality (high temperatures, pollutants)

• Competition with exotic species High flows/

low flows/water diversions

• Channel modification/simplification

• Reduced frequency of holding pools

• Lack of cover, reduced depth of holding pools

• Reduced cold-water refugia

• Increased predation resulting from habitat

modifications

• Availability of spawning gravel of suitable

size

• Siltation of spawning gravels

• Redd scour caused by high flows

• Redd de-watering

• Temperature/water quality problems

• Redd disturbance from trampling (human,

animal).

• Diminished channel complexity, cover

• Temperature/water quality problems

• Blockage of access to habitat (upstream or

down)

• Loss of off-channel areas, wetlands

• Low water flows/high water flows

• Predation caused by habitat simplification or

loss of cover

• Nutrient availability

• Diminished prey/competition for prey

• Stranding due to water level fluctuations

• Competition with exotic species

• Water quality

• Low water flows/high water flows

• Altered timing/quantity of water flows

• Passage blockage/diversion away from

stream

• Increased predation resulting from habitat

simplification or modification

• Stranding due to water level fluctuations

Habitat Requirements

Stream Rearing Habitat

Juvenile salmon may remain in freshwater

streams over a year. They must find adequate

food, shelter, and water quality conditions to

survive, avoid predators, and grow. They must

be able to migrate upstream and downstream

within their stream and into the estuary to find

these conditions and to escape high water or

unfavorable temperature conditions.

Smolt Migration Pathways

Smolts swim and drift through the streams

and rivers, and must reach the estuary or

ocean when there are adequate prey and

water quality conditions and must find

adequate cover to escape predators as they

migrate.

Adult Migration Pathways

Adult salmon leave the ocean, enter estuaries

and rivers, and migrate upstream to spawn in the

stream of their birth.

Habitat Concerns

Spawning and Incubation

Salmon lay their eggs in gravel or cobble nests

called redds. To survive eggs (and the alevins

that hatch and remain in the gravel) must

receive sufficient water and oxygen flow within

the gravel.

• Water quality

• Altered timing/quantity of fresh water in-flow

• Loss of habitat resulting from diking dredging,

filling

• Diminished habitat complexity

• Loss of channels, eel grass beds, woody debris

• Increased predation resulting from habitat

simplification

• Diminished prey/competition for prey

• Reduction/elimination of periodic flooding

• Competition with exotic species

Estuarine Habitat

Estuaries provide a protected and food-rich

environment for juvenile salmon growth and

allow the transition for both juveniles and adults

between the fresh and salt water environments.

Adults also may hold and feed in estuaries before

beginning their upstream migration.

Source: Modified from Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description

and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Portland, OR.
1 9 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

doubled levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide

would significantly alter coastal productivity,

potentially affecting the growth, survival and

distribution of salmon populations (Hinch et

al. 1995, Welch et al. 1998).

In addition to suitable habitat conditions,

salmonids depend on a variety of population

characteristics that contribute to species

persistence. Recently, NMFS has been developing an approach to describe viable salmonid

populations (VSP) with the goal of providing

guidance for determining the conservation

status of populations and ESUs of Pacific

salmonids. The concept and criteria presented

are intended to both aid in the formulation of

recovery plans and serve as interim guidance

until such plans are completed. Initial recommendations for viability criteria are described

as rules of thumb, which mix qualitative

guidelines and quantitative values, depending

on the parameter and the amount of information available. Some general tenets of this

approach include:

· The populations that make up an ESU

should be large enough and well-distributed

enough to (a) survive changes in their

environment similar in magnitude to past

observed changes, and (b) maintain their

genetic diversity over the long term.

· A population should be able to maintain

enough natural productivity to

continuously replace itself without the aid

of hatchery subsidies — even in the face of

poor ocean or freshwater habitat

conditions. In addition, a population

should not exhibit sustained declines or

show a trend that would portend such

declines.

· The spatial structure of the habitat patches

upon which salmon depend (as well as the

patches themselves) should be maintained.

That is, there should be enough patches in

proximity that natural stray rates may

continue and there should be a wide

enough distribution among the patches that

localized catastrophic events have a low

probability of driving an ESU to extinction.

· Human-caused factors such as habitat

changes, harvest pressures, and artificial

propagation should not substantially alter

salmon diversity in terms of traits such as

run timing, size, fecundity, morphology,

behavior, and molecular genetic

characteristics. This diversity and the

genetic and environmental factors that

engender it should be maintained.

There is a great deal of uncertainty about

the best way to evaluate population viability in

terms of salmonid abundance, trends, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. That

uncertainty should be taken into account

whenever viability analyses are being performed. While it is possible to describe in

general what good habitat and population

conditions are, we are still learning how

human activities affect these fish, their habitats and the ecosystems within which they

reside.

1.3.2 Resident Fish and Other Aquatic Species

Resident fish and other aquatic species

in the Columbia River Basin have similar

biological requirements as Pacific salmon (e.g.,

good water quality, access to habitat/cover and

food, and opportunities to breed) and will

benefit from many actions to improve habitat

for salmon. However, specific biological

requirements vary by species.

Bull Trout – Bull trout display a high degree

of sensitivity at all life stages to environmental

disturbances and have more specific habitat

requirements than many other salmonids

(Fraley and Shepard 1989, Howell and

Buchanan 1992, Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Bull trout growth, survival, and long-term

population persistence appear to be

particularly dependent on five habitat

characteristics: 1) cover, 2) channel stability,

3) substrate composition, 4) temperature, and

5) migratory corridors (Rieman and McIntyre

1993). Length and timing of incubation to

emergence (200 days or more during winter

and early spring), the strong association of

juvenile fish with stream channel substrates,

and a fall spawning period make bull trout

particularly vulnerable to altered flow patterns

and associated channel instability. Successful

bull trout spawning and development of

embryos and juveniles requires very cold water

temperatures. Such strict temperature

tolerances predispose bull trout to declines

from any activity occurring in a watershed that

leads to increased stream temperatures.

Resident fish

occupy

headwater

reaches; they

may disperse

locally, but

generally they

are not

considered

migratory.

Emergence -

The process

during which

fry leave their

gravel

spawning nest

and enter the

water column.

Substrate is

the

composition

of a

streambed,

including

mineral and

organic

materials.
2 0 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Extensive migrations are characteristic of the

species and migratory bull trout facilitate the

interchange of genetic material between

populations, ensuring sufficient variability

within populations. The disruption of

migratory corridors, if severe enough, will

result in the loss of migratory life history types

and isolate resident forms from interacting

with the metapopulation.

Kootenai Rive White Sturgeon – White

sturgeon are broadcast spawners, releasing

their eggs and sperm in fast water. Based on

recent studies, Kootenai River white sturgeon

spawn during the period of historical peak

stream flows from May through July (Apperson

and Anders 1991; Marcuson 1994). Spawning

at peak flows with high water velocities

disperses and prevents clumping of the

adhesive eggs. Following fertilization, eggs

adhere to the river substrate and hatch after a

relatively brief incubation period of 8 to

15 days, depending on water temperature

(Brannon et al. 1984). Historically, flows were

often in excess of 60,000 cubic feet per second

in the area below Bonners Ferry where the fish

spawn. These annual flushing events re-sorted

river sediments providing a clean cobble

substrate conducive to insect production and

sturgeon egg incubation. In addition, much of

the Kootenai River has been channelized and

stabilized from Bonners Ferry downstream to

Kootenay Lake, resulting in reduced aquatic

habitat diversity. Modification of the

Kootenai River white sturgeon’s habitat by

human activities has changed the natural

hydrograph of the Kootenai River, altering

white sturgeon spawning, egg incubation, and

rearing habitats. The result has been a

reduction in overall biological productivity of

the population.

Snake River Snails - Ecologically, the five

listed species of Snake River snails share many

characteristics, and in some locations two or

more can be found sharing the same habitat.

Their habitat requirements generally include

cold, clean, well-oxygenated, flowing water of

low turbidity. With the exception of the Utah

valvata and possibly the Idaho springsnail, the

listed snails prefer gravel-to-boulder size

substrate. Despite these affinities, each of the

five species has slightly different habitat

preferences. The Idaho springsnail and Snake

River physa are found only in the free-flowing

mainstem of the Snake River. The Bliss Rapids

snail and Utah valvata occur in both cold

water springs or mainstem habitats, while the

Banbury Springs lanx only occurs in coldwater springs. The fauna dependent on freeflowing reaches of the middle Snake River

have been declining due to fragmentation of

the remaining free-flowing habitats and

deteriorating water quality. Factors that

degrade water quality include reduction in

flow rate, warming due to impoundment, and

increases in the concentration of nutrients,

sediment and other pollutants reaching the

river.

1.4 Institutional and Regulatory Context

Many laws, treaties and regulations affect

anadromous fish and their habitats in the

Columbia Basin, governing everything from

reclamation projects to artificial propagation.

The United States and Canada, nine federal

agencies, five states (Oregon, Washington,

Idaho, Montana and Alaska) and 14 Indian

tribes have different authorities over fish or

fish habitat. Treaties between the United

States and Indian tribes guarantee the region’s

tribes a right to meaningful fisheries.

Fish habitat extends from small headwater tributaries to the Columbia River estuary,

covering federal, state, private and tribal lands.

Countless programs exist to maintain current

uses of the river, change current uses of the

river, exploit natural resources and conserve

natural resources. Institutions range from

local watershed councils and water districts to

basinwide organizations such as the Northwest

Power Planning Council and Columbia Basin

Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). Some

have observed that the lack of a unified

restoration plan and coordination among

efforts in the basin is one of the causes of

decline of anadromous fish (Bevan, et al.

1994). The purpose of this document is to

help the region develop a recovery plan that

results in better regional coordination and a

unified regional direction.

The nine federal agencies in the Federal

Caucus that developed this paper have differing authorities and jurisdictions for salmon

recovery:

A metapopulation is a

population

composed of

local

populations that

are linked by

migrants, which

allows

recolonization of

unoccupied

habitat after

local extinction

events.
2 1 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

· NMFS – ESA jurisdiction over anadromous

fish; it also has a role regulating commercial

and tribal harvests.

· USFWS – ESA jurisdiction over plants,

wildlife and resident fish.

· BPA – markets electricity from federal

dams; it also has a key role funding fish and

wildlife mitigation.

· The Corps – operates federal dams and

locks for multiple uses.

· USBR – operates federal dams for multiple

uses.

· EPA – enforces the Clean Water Act.

· USFS – manage the national forest system/.

· BLM – manages public forests and

rangeland.

· BIA – trustee for tribal and individual

Indian lands and resources held in trust.

1.5 Tribal Obligations

There is a unique and long-standing

relationship between the U.S. government and

the region’s Indian tribes. The United States

holds a trust responsibility to all tribes to

protect tribal trust resources, including natural

resources such as fish, wildlife, timber and

water, and cultural resources such as burial

sites. In treaties between some tribes and the

U.S. government, the tribes reserved certain

rights, including fishing rights, which have

been adjudicated through court proceedings

notably, U.S. v. Oregon. The main trust

resource affected by the options in this report

is salmon and steelhead, and the main tribal

right affected is the right to fish. There are,

however, other important trust resources and

tribal rights that may be affected by some of

the options in the report.

The federal policy with respect to tribal

fishing rights, trust responsibility and the ESA

is set forth in a July 21, 1998 letter from Terry

Garcia of the U.S. Department of Commerce to

Ted Strong of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal

Fish Commission (CRITFC):

It is the federal policy that the recovery of salmonid populations must achieve

two goals:

1) the recovery and delisting of

salmonids listed under the provisions of the

ESA;

2) the restoration of salmonid populations, over time, to a level to provide a

sustainable harvest sufficient to allow for

the meaningful exercise of tribal fishing

rights. Furthermore, the federal agencies

see no conflict between the statutory goals

of the ESA and the federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes. Rather, the two federal

responsibilities complement one another.... Our statement of the twin goals for

salmonid populations listed under the ESA

recognizes that the United States, and all

federal agencies, stand in a trust relationship with all federally recognized Indian

tribes and of the responsibilities that flow

from that relationship. Hence, we understand the importance of the federal

government’s efforts to allocate the

conservation burden for salmonids listed

under the ESA in such a way that, among

other things, it does not discriminate

against tribal fishing rights and is implemented in the least restrictive manner.

Accordingly, the tribes may reasonably

expect, as a matter of policy, that tribal

fishing rights will be given priority over the

interests of other entities, federal and

nonfederal, that do not stand in a trust

relationship with the United States.

In addition, the letter reiterates the

responsibility of all federal agencies to consult

with the Columbia Basin tribes:

The federal agencies will continue to

consult with all affected tribes on a

government to government basis as

provided for in the President’s Memorandum on Government to Government

Relations with Native Americans, April 29,

1994, and Executive Order 13084 on

Consultation and Coordination with Indian

Tribal Governments, May 14, 1998.

Because of the loss of habitat, and

reliance on hatchery fish to sustain upper

basin fish populations and fisheries, decisions

about hatchery fish directly affect treaty

Indian fisheries. The parties to U.S. v. Oregon

are negotiating harvest and hatchery programs

in hopes of developing an integrated fish

management plan that addresses conservation

under the Endangered Species Act while

meeting trust obligations to the tribes. The

Federal Caucus will look to that process to

resolve the details of those production and

harvest decisions. The negotiations in U.S. v.

Oregon are ongoing, and the date for completion of a new plan is uncertain.

U.S. v. Oregon is

a case

addressing

treaty fishing

rights in the

Columbia River

Basin. The

signatories to

the settlement

are the United

States of

America acting

through the

Department of

the Interior and

the Department

of Commerce;

the Nez Perce

Tribe; the

Confederated

Tribes of the

Umatilla Indian

Reservation; the

Confederated

Tribes of the

Warm Springs

Reservation; the

Confederated

Tribes and

Bands of the

Yakama Indian

Nation; and the

states of Oregon

and Washington.
2 2 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish
2 3 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

2. Conservation Goals, Objectives

and Scientific Principles and Tools

of other native fish and wildlife species.

Ensure the long-term persistence of selfsustaining, complex interacting groups of

resident fish and other aquatic and wildlife

species across their native ranges.

2.1.5 Minimize Adverse Effects on Humans

Implement salmon and steelhead conservation measures in ways that minimize their

adverse human effects.

2.2 Objectives

The following objectives will require

further development. Quantitative definitions

of these objectives should be developed

wherever possible. We have three categories

of objectives: Biological, Ecological and

Socio-Economic.

2.2.1 Biological Objectives

· Maintain current distribution of fish and

aquatic species, and halt declining

population trends within 7 years.

· Restore naturally sustained fish populations

and establish stable or increasing trends in

abundance in each subregion accessible to

the fish and for each ESU within 25 years.

· Restore distribution of fish and other

aquatic species in previously occupied areas

within the species’ native range within

25 years (except where fish passage is

infeasible).

· Conserve genetic diversity and allow natural

patterns of genetic exchange to persist.

· Restore salmon and steelhead population

levels that support tribal harvest

opportunities and selected local harvest

opportunities for nontribal fishers.

2.2.2 Ecological Objectives

· Prevent further degradation of tributary,

mainstem and estuary habitat conditions

and water quality.

2.1 Goals

To provide a scientific framework for

salmon and steelhead conservation, we have

developed the following goals for a regional

unified plan for recovery. These goals

were used to derive the objectives and strategies that follow, and to form the options for

each H.

2.1.1 Conserve Species

Avoid extinction and foster long-term

survival and recovery of Columbia Basin

salmon, steelhead, listed resident fish, and

other aquatic species. Protect and restore

abundant, productive, widely distributed and

biologically diverse naturally-spawning populations. Foster recovery to levels that can

withstand reasonable harvest, the impacts of

continuing human activities, and a range of

climatic and ocean conditions.

2.1.2 Conserve Ecosystems

Conserve the ecosystems upon which

salmon, steelhead, resident fish and other

aquatic species depend. Protect and restore

ecosystem processes that create high quality

habitat (tributary, mainstem and estuary) and

protect and restore high water quality for

spawning, rearing and migration.

2.1.3 Assure Tribal Fishing Rights

Restore salmon and steelhead populations, over time, to a level that provides a

sustainable harvest sufficient to allow for the

meaningful exercise of tribal fishing rights.

Until these restoration levels are achieved,

provide tribal fishing opportunities that respect tribal culture and recognize treaty rights.

2.1.4 Balance the Needs of Other Species

Ensure that salmon and steelhead conservation measures are balanced with the needs
2 4 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

· Protect existing high quality habitats.

· Restore habitats on a priority basis.

2.2.3 Socio-Economic Objectives

· Select actions to restore and enhance fish

and their habitat that achieve the biological

and ecological objectives at the least cost.

· Mitigate for significant social and economic

impacts and explore creative alternatives

for achieving these objectives.

· Provide certainty of funding and

implementation for strategies and actions.

· Coordinate restoration efforts to avoid

inefficiency and unnecessary costs.

2.3 Scientific Principles

These principles, derived from various

scientific reviews and recovery planning

documents that have been developed for fish

and wildlife recovery in the Columbia Basin,

will be used to shape conservation and recovery plans and how they are implemented.

· Conservation of Columbia Basin fish and

aquatic species must address all aspects of

the ecosystem and the species’ lifecycle.

· Conservation requires a network of diverse,

high quality, interconnected habitats and

high water quality. Natural systems

functioning properly are necessary to

restore salmon and steelhead.

· Conservation requires preservation of life

history diversity, genetic diversity and

metapopulation organization. These

characteristics affect the response of

anadromous and resident fish populations

to both demographic variation and variation

in climate and environment.

· Conservation requires re-establishment of

the nutrient cycle provided by decaying fish

carcasses, to effectively cycle nutrients

from ocean to freshwater.

· Because human activity, development and

population growth will continue,

conservation depends on managing human

impacts to achieve suitable ecosystem

conditions.

· Technology and research should be used to

achieve natural ecosystem conditions, not

to replace natural functions.

· Salmon and steelhead populations can be

evaluated based on abundance,

productivity, population structure and

genetic diversity.

2.4 Scientific Tools

Several ongoing technical efforts are

currently assessing the impact of humaninduced factors on declining salmonid populations, the conditions necessary for recovery,

and potential effects of recovery efforts on

those populations. This paper uses information from these and other studies to assess the

risk of extinction for salmon and other species, and to determine the potential beneficial

and adverse impacts of proposed changes in

each of the four Hs. These efforts are conducted at different scales, and address different types of questions; these differences

between the analytical efforts must be considered when interpreting (and applying) their

results.

2.4.1 Population-based Tools

The Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI),

is an ongoing effort of the NMFS’ Northwest

Fisheries Science Center, that assesses population trends and the impact of various actions

on those trends. First, the group analyzes data

regarding the four Hs to assess the impact of

these factors on salmonid population growth.

Concurrently, the team assesses the risk of

extinction and constructs population computer models for each species, using current

PATH/CRI estimates of survivorships (survival

numbers) for each life-stage of a species.

These models can identify the times or stages

at which changing survival rates will yield the

largest impact on population growth rates.

Follow-up work entails examining whether

such changes in survival are biologically

feasible and what management options will

yield the best results. Finally, as conservation

actions are implemented, NMFS, in collaboration with other regional scientists, will be

engaging in ecological experiments to test

hypotheses about the relationships between

management actions in the four Hs and salmon

populations.

This paper relies heavily on the CRI’s

projections of the risk that an ESU will reach a

quasi-extinction threshold within 10 and

100 years. The quasi-extinction threshold is

one fish or fewer returning in any one year.

This is a useful tool for assessing the risk of

not acting quickly to improve survivals, but

this type of projection comes with some

caveats:
2 5 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

· The quasi-extinction threshold of one fish

in one year may not be sufficiently

conservative.

· Neither the Federal Caucus nor any of the

federal agencies individually have

concluded that a particular risk of

extinction (for example, 1 in 100) meets a

particular statutory requirement.

· Having a particular risk of reaching the

quasi-extinction threshold does not

necessarily equate to recovery. The CRI’s

extinction projections do not project future

abundance levels, nor have abundance

levels been adopted as recovery levels for

any of the ESUs (although NMFS did

propose recovery levels for Snake River

spring/summer chinook and fall chinook in

its proposed recovery plan). Future work

should include establishing recovery goals

for all listed ESUs, and projecting

abundance levels with current management

actions and with proposed management

actions.

· The projections become less certain the

farther out in time they go. Projections of

extinction risk over 100 years are highly

uncertain.

This paper also relies on the CRI’s analysis of how much survival improvements in

different life stages will contribute to population growth rate. This is a useful tool for

focusing regional efforts on management

actions most likely to yield significant benefits, as well as the magnitude of change

needed at each life stage. However, at this

stage the CRI has only performed numerical

experiments based on theoretical survival

improvements. Some actions are more certain

to lead to survival improvements than others

(for example, harvest reductions versus reductions in hatchery releases). More work

needs to be done to determine whether it is

biologically feasible to achieve some of these

theoretical improvements. The CRI has

estimated the risk of reaching quasi-extinction

thresholds for Snake River salmon and steelhead. Analysis for the remaining ESUs will be

available by the end of this year or the beginning of next year.

The Plan for Analyzing and Testing

Hypotheses (PATH) is a joint effort of several

federal, state and tribal agencies designed to

predict future salmon populations under a

variety of hydropower system and other

management actions. This model simulates

salmon population trajectories under a wide

range of “assumption sets.” These assumptions correspond to a rate, or a parameter in

the model, for which there are different

hypotheses concerning the effect that a variety

of factors have on survival. Evaluating the

likely effects of management actions on

salmon populations entails running 240 to

1,920 different sets of assumptions. The

likelihood of a particular management action

achieving survival or recovery standards is

then evaluated. PATH analyses show which

actions are most robust (least risky) due to

uncertainties in the model.

The Viable Salmonid Population (VSP)

effort is another ongoing project of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. This work

defines characteristics of salmonid populations that can be considered viable, or selfsustaining over the long-term (at least

100 years). It provides guidelines for defining

populations as well as qualitative and quantitative rules of thumb for identifying those

populations that can be considered viable.

Finally, it offers guidelines for the number and

distribution of populations within an ESU

necessary for an ESU to be considered viable.

These rules of thumb consider genetic and life

history diversity, spatial structure, as well as

population size and trends in productivity.

The Quantitative Analytical Report

(QAR) is a report NMFS and other federal

agencies, state fisheries agencies, tribes, and

the mid-Columbia Public Utility Districts

agreed to develop to analyze the effects of a

proposed Habitat Conservation Plan on upper

Columbia spring chinook and steelhead. The

effort includes a workgroup that is setting

recovery goals, and another that is analyzing

present risks of extinction and the likelihood

of achieving recovery goals under the actions

proposed in the plan. The workgroup is

conducting extinction analyses using different

population models. It will use the same

models to project the likelihood that populations will reach the recovery goal.

2.4.2 Habitat-based Tools

The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) analysis is an expert system,

developed by the Northwest Power Planning

A Viable

Salmonid

Population is an

independent

population of

any Pacific

salmonid (genus

Oncorhynchus)

that has a

negligible risk of

extinction over

a 100-year time

frame.
2 6 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Council’s Framework process, that organizes

available information concerning the impact of

habitat attributes on salmonid populations.

With this approach, small, hydrologicallydefined areas are described using habitat

attributes. Knowledgeable experts, using all

available information, define rules describing

the effect of each of these attributes on

salmonid survival at all life stages. Using these

rules, the EDT analysis defines the productivity and capacity of a landscape. Analyzing

management scenarios involves changing the

appropriate habitat attributes in the appropriate areas, and engaging the expert-defined

rules to assess the predicted productivity and

capacity of the changed landscape.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) has also

constructed an expert system. ICBEMP uses

spatially-explicit habitat and population status

databases to evaluate spatially-explicit predicted status of a population, elements and

capacity of aquatic habitat, and the biological

potential of a population. Predictions include influences on population dynamics

that are not a direct effect of the habitat, such

as genetic factors or migration rates from

other populations. Computer models have

been used to project habitat capacity and

population status across the interior Columbia

Basin from various habitat management

scenarios. The models are specifically designed to inform decisions about risks to

habitat, options for managing risks to habitat,

and spatial priorities for habitat restoration

efforts. The models do not predict population

size. ICBEMP analyses will be a primary tool

for evaluating management actions on federal

lands in the Columbia River Basin.

Finally, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center is conducting analyses designed

to associate habitat characteristics at the

watershed or subwatershed level with salmonid productivity. This effort examines physical attributes of subwatersheds, such as

topography, geology, and distribution of

channel types, as well as land use characteristics, such as the proportion of the area that is

forested or urbanized, or the condition of

riparian zones. These habitat characteristics

are then associated with salmonid production

information to identify the characteristics of

habitats that are most productive. These

analyses can be used both to identify

subwatersheds that are currently important in

maintaining current populations (and therefore

may have a high priority for conservation), and

to identify those subwatersheds for which

restoration efforts have the greatest potential

to yield large results.

2.4.3 Other Tools

Several analytical methods with a smaller

scope than those outlined above have also

been used to address particular risks salmonids face during their life cycle. In particular,

SIMPASS was used to model the effects of

different hydropower system configurations on

downstream survival. In addition, several

models of harvest effects, including those

devised by the Technical Advisory Committee

to the U.S. v. Oregon process, were used to

identify the impact of levels of harvest on

different stocks.

In the near term, qualitative evaluations

will be the primary tool used to evaluate

impacts and expected outcomes of proposed

actions for listed resident fish and aquatic

species. Quantitative data are limited for

these species and models have not been

developed to evaluate impacts and assess

outcomes of actions.
2 7 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

In this section we describe the range of

options we considered for each H. We had

three purposes in developing these options:

· Consider solutions or actions that had not

yet been explored,

· Test the sensitivity of different

populations to changes in survival in

different life stages brought about by

actions in the different Hs, using the CRI

approach other analytical methods, and

· Stimulate regional dialogue on the tradeoffs

and uncertainties involved in selecting a

suite of actions to recover the basin’s

salmon and steelhead populations.

For each H we describe briefly how it has

contributed to the decline of listed species in

the basin, what measures have been taken to

mitigate for its effects, and the present status

of those efforts. We describe a range of options and why we believe each is worth considering. Using quantitative and qualitative

information, the report evaluates the options

relative to the goals – to what extent does

each option:

· prevent extinction (biological evaluation)

· and minimize adverse effects on humans

(social and economic evaluation)

· conserve ecosystems and balance the needs

of other species (ecological evaluation)

· assure meaningful tribal fishing rights

(evaluation of harvest opportunities).

We relied on existing information from a

variety of sources to conduct these evaluations, including the CRI, PATH, EDT, Fish and

Wildlife Service Coordination Act Report,

ICBEMP EIS, the Corps of Engineers’ Lower

Snake River Feasibility Study and the MultiSpecies Framework Project. Our review of

impacts other than biological impacts is

cursory. These other impacts will play a

significant part in any options finally chosen.

Inadequate time was available, once the

options were formulated, and many options

are not sufficiently specific, to adequately

analyze their economic, social, and cultural

impacts. Nor did we analyze and recommend

mitigation measures for the various options.

Such information will be necessary to inform

any long-term decision. We also discuss

implementation issues, focusing primarily on

the need to have a coordinated basinwide

approach. We also present performance

measures that would appropriately apply to a

program for that H.

There are options beyond these, some of

which are being examined in the Multi-Species

Framework Project. No measures are proposed in any of the Hs that are less protective

of salmon and steelhead than those currently

in place, although we did test the sensitivity of

some populations to increased impacts in

different life stages. Additional detail on the

options is included in appendices.

3. Range of Options for Each H

The following options are intended

to represent broad choices in direction

and strategy for each H. They do not

represent exact prescriptions of actions

and measures that would ultimately be

implemented as part of an overall

recovery plan. Specific actions and

measures presented in this paper or in

related documents are for illustration

purposes only.

Appendices are available on the

Federal Caucus Web site:

www.bpa.gov/federalcaucus.

You may also request copies of the appendices by calling 1-509-358-7415.
2 8 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

3.1 Habitat

3.1.1 Overview

The quality and quantity of freshwater

habitat in much of the Columbia River Basin

has declined dramatically in the last 150 years.

Forestry, farming, grazing, road construction,

hydropower development, mining and urbanization have radically changed the historical

habitat conditions of the basin (see Maps 1

and 2). With the exception of fall chinook,

which generally spawn and rear in major river

channels, tributaries to the Columbia and

Snake rivers provide habitat for salmon and

steelhead spawning and rearing. Anadromous

fish typically spend from a few months to

three years rearing in freshwater tributaries.

Depending on the population, anadromous fish

spend from a few days to a year or two in the

Columbia River estuary before migrating out to

the ocean. Salmon and steelhead spend one to

four years in the ocean, then return as adults

to spawn in their natal streams. Thirty-two

subbasins in the Columbia River provide

spawning and rearing habitat (see Habitat

Appendix).

This section addresses Columbia Basin

tributary and estuary habitats of salmon and

steelhead and some aspects of mainstem

habitat. Mainstem habitat is primarily addressed in Section 3.4, Hydropower. Although

this section focuses on anadromous species,

the decline of habitat throughout the basin has

affected many other species. Watershed

improvements for salmon and steelhead and

resident fish will benefit other aquatic, wildlife

and plant species as well.

3.1.2 Contributions to Decline

There are many factors contributing to

the habitat decline in the basin. Some of the

more significant factors are described below.

Water quality in streams throughout the

Columbia River Basin has been degraded by

human activities such as dams and diversion

structures, water withdrawals, farming and

grazing, road construction, timber harvest

activities, mining activities and urbanization.

Over 2,500 streams and river segments and

lakes do not meet federally-approved, state

and tribal water quality standards under the

Clean Water Act (CWA), and are now listed as

water quality limited under section 303(d)

(see Maps 3 and 4). Tributary water quality

problems contribute to poor water quality in

the mainstem. Sediment and contaminants

from the tributaries may settle in the

mainstem reaches and the estuary.

Temperature alterations have a major

impact on salmon and steelhead, affecting

metabolism, growth rate, disease resistance

and timing of adult migrations, fry

emergence, and smoltification. In Oregon

and Washington most waterbodies, and in

Idaho many waterbodies, on the 303(d) lists do

not meet water quality standards for

temperature.

There are many causes for high stream

temperatures, but they are primarily related to

land use practices rather than to point source

discharges. Some common actions that

result in high stream temperatures are the

removal of trees or shrubs that directly shade

streams, and excessive withdrawal of water for

irrigation or other purposes combined with

warm irrigation return flows. Loss of wetlands

and increases in groundwater withdrawals

have contributed to lower base stream flows

which in turn contribute to temperature

increases. Channel widening, and land uses

that create shallower streams also cause

temperature increases.

Pollutants degrade water quality. Salmon

require clean gravel for successful spawning,

egg incubation and emergence of fry. Fine

sediments clog the spaces between gravel and

restrict the flow of oxygen-rich water to the

incubating eggs. Excess nutrients, low levels

of dissolved oxygen, heavy metals, and

changes in pH also directly affect the

suitability of waters for salmon and steelhead.

Water quantity problems are also a

significant cause of habitat degradation and

reduced fish production. Millions of acres of

land in the basin are irrigated. Although most

withdrawn water eventually returns to streams

from agricultural runoff or from ground water

recharge, crops consume much of the water.

Withdrawals affect seasonal flow patterns by

removing water from streams in the summer

(mostly May-September) and restoring it to

surface streams and ground water in difficultThe Clean

Water Act

establishes

water quality

standards and

regulates

discharges of

dredged or fill

material into

the waters of

the United

States.

A natal

stream is the

stream of

birth.

Maps 1 and 2

are found in

Section 8,

Maps.

Smoltification

is the

physiological

change

anadromous

salmonids

and trout

undergo in

freshwater

while

migrating

toward

saltwater that

allows them

to live in the

ocean.
2 9 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

to-measure ways. Withdrawing water for

irrigation, urban and other uses can increase

temperatures, smolt travel time, and

sedimentation. Runoff from irrigation can

introduce nutrients and pesticides into streams

and rivers.

On a large scale, human activities have

affected the timing and amount of peak water

runoff from rain and snowmelt. Forest and

range management practices have changed

vegetation types and density on the land,

which can affect timing and duration of

runoff. Many riparian areas, flood plains and

wetlands that once stored water during periods of high runoff have been developed.

Urbanization paves over or compacts soil, and

increases the amount of runoff reaching rivers

and streams.

Many tributaries have been significantly

depleted by water diversions. Fish and wildlife agency, tribal and conservation group

experts estimated in 1993 that 80 percent of

153 Oregon tributaries had low-flow problems

(two-thirds caused at least in part by irrigation

withdrawals) (Oregon Water Resources Department 1993). The Council showed similar

problems in many Idaho, Oregon and Washington tributaries (NPPC 1992).

Blockages that stop the downstream and

upstream migration of fish exist at many

agricultural, hydropower, municipal/industrial,

and flood control dams and barriers. Highway

culverts not designed for fish passage also

block upstream migration. Migrating fish are

diverted into unscreened or inadequately

screened water conveyances or turbines,

resulting in unnecessary mortality. While

many fish passage improvements have been

made in recent years, manmade structures

continue to block migrations or kill fish

throughout the basin.

Land ownership has played a part in habitat

and land use changes (see Maps 5 and 6).

Federal lands, which comprise 50 percent of

the basin, are generally forested and influence

upstream portions of the watersheds. While

there is substantial habitat degradation across

all ownerships, in general, habitat in many

headwater stream sections is in better

condition than in the largely nonfederal lower

portions of tributaries (Doppelt et al. 1993,

Frissell et al. 1993, Henjum et al. 1994; Quigley

and Arbelbide 1997). In the past, valley

bottoms were among the most productive fish

habitats in the basin (Stanford and Ward 1992,

Spence et al. 1996, ISG 1999). Today,

agricultural and urban land development and

water withdrawals have significantly altered

the habitat and how fish and wildlife use these

areas. Streams in these areas typically

experience problems with high water

temperatures, sedimentation, low flows,

simplified stream channels and reduced

riparian vegetation.

Mainstem habitats of the Columbia, Snake

and Willamette rivers have been impacted by

series of impoundments for mainstem and

other multipurpose projects. These

impoundments have inundated large amounts

of spawning and rearing habitat. Historically,

fall chinook salmon spawned in mainstem

reaches from near The Dalles, Oregon,

upstream to the Pend Oreille and Kootenai

rivers in Idaho, to the Snake River downstream

of Shoshone Falls and from the mouth of the

Snake River to Grand Coulee Dam. Current

mainstem production areas for fall chinook are

mainly confined to the Hanford Reach of the

Columbia River and to the Hells Canyon Reach

of the Snake River, with minor spawning in the

mid-Columbia, below the lower Snake River

dams, and below Bonneville Dam. Hanford

Reach is the only known mainstem spawning

area for steelhead. Chum salmon habitat in

the lower Columbia has also been inundated.

The mainstem habitats of Columbia,

Snake and Willamette rivers has been reduced,

for the most part, to a single channel, flood

plains have been reduced, off-channel habitat

features have been lost or disconnected from

the main channel, and the amount of large

woody debris (large snags/log structures) in

rivers has been reduced. Most of the remaining habitats are impacted by flow fluctuations

associated with reservoir management.

The Columbia River estuary has also been

changed by human activities. Historically, the

downstream half of the estuary was a dynamic

environment with multiple channels, extensive

wetlands, sandbars and shallow areas. The

mouth of the Columbia River was about

4 miles wide. Winter and spring floods, low

flows in late summer, large woody debris

floating downstream and a shallow bar at the
3 0 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

mouth of the Columbia River kept the

environment dynamic.

Today, navigation channels have been

dredged, deepened and maintained, jetties and

pile dike fields have been constructed to

stabilize and concentrate the flow in navigation channels, marsh and riparian habitats

have been filled and diked, and causeways

have been constructed across waterways.

These actions have decreased the width of the

mouth of the Columbia River to 2 miles and

increased the depth of the Columbia River

channel at the Bar from less than 20 to more

than 55 feet. Sand deposition has extended

the Oregon coastline, at the mouth, approximately 4 miles seaward and the Washington

coastline, at the mouth, approximately 2 miles

seaward (Thomas October 1981).

More than 50 percent of the original

marshes and spruce swamps in the estuary

have been converted to industrial, transportation, recreation, agricultural or urban uses

(Lower Columbia River Estuary Program 1999).

More than 3,000 acres of inter-tidal marsh

and spruce swamps in the estuary have been

converted to other uses since 1948 (Lower

Columbia River Estuary Program 1999). Many

wetlands along the shore in the upper reaches

of the estuary have been converted to industrial and agricultural lands after levees and

dikes were constructed.

Dam construction and operation upstream of the estuary has changed the seasonal

patterns and volumes of discharge into the

estuary. The peaks of spring-summer floods

have been reduced and the amount of water

discharged in winter has been increased.

3.1.3 Current Management

Federal, state and local governments have

responded to declining salmon runs with a

host of habitat programs. In the long term,

current programs are designed to prevent

degradation of existing habitats and achieve

needed high quality habitat across federal

land.

Federal programs and authorities affect

habitat on both federal and nonfederal lands.

For example, on federal lands, the federal land

management agencies (BLM and Forest

Service) manage timber harvest, grazing, road

construction, mining and recreation. Through

PACFISH, INFISH and the Northwest

Forest Plan they have vastly improved their

land management practices to protect aquatic

habitat by adopting strict standards that

regulate these land management activities.

They have also instituted restoration programs

to fix problems created by past land use

practices and are developing a long-term

ecosystem strategy known as the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project (see Section 2.4.2). ICBEMP will

replace PACFISH and INFISH interim aquatic

conservation strategies with landscape and

watershed level approaches that address broad

ecosystem issues in the basin: the decline of

salmon and other species; poor forest health

leading to catastrophic fires; and the

expansion of noxious weeds on degraded

rangelands.

In the main channel in the estuary, the

Corps dredges and maintains the shipping

channel and is proposing a navigation channeldeepening project. There are potential substantial adverse effects resulting from this

action, for example the creation of dredge

spoils islands where Caspian terns and other

birds nest. These birds prey on juvenile

salmon. NMFS and USFWS are presently in

consultation with the Corps on the navigation

channel dredging. The goal of consultation is

to substantially reduce these impacts immediately.

On nonfederal lands, there are a number

of federal programs that either regulate activities or are aimed at restoring habitat. For

example, the Corps issues dredge and fill

permits and permits for water withdrawal

structures in navigable waterways. The Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) provides technical

assistance to states, tribes, irrigation districts,

and others to consolidate diversions, improve

irrigation efficiencies through water conservation and application and measurement technologies, and improve fish passage and protective facilities including fish screens and ladders. The Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) requires local land use ordinances that regulate or prohibit land use

development in flood plain areas. The Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses nonfederal hydropower development.

All these federal programs are subject to

Section 7 consultation under the ESA, which

provides a means to ensure that any programs
3 1 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

authorized, funded or carried out by federal

agencies are designed to protect listed fish.

The USFWS and NMFS also implement a

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) program

under Section 10 of the ESA that provides

certainty to landowners that their actions will

not cause illegal take of listed species. These

HCPs have amounted to thousands of

nonfederal acres put into long-term conservation plans. A list of HCPs completed and

underway in the Columbia Basin is in the

Habitat Appendix.

There are also federal programs that

provide incentives, particularly funding and

technical assistance, to help land and water

users protect and restore aquatic habitat. The

Habitat Appendix contains a complete description of federal conservation programs in the

Columbia Basin.

State and local regulations and programs

have a pervasive effect on land and water use

in the basin. A wide variety of state and local

governments and agencies authorize and

manage urban development, flood plain

development, building construction,

stormwater runoff, sewage treatment, water

withdrawals, industrial pollution, agricultural

pollution, forest practices, agricultural

practices and rangeland practices. In addition,

the Idaho, Oregon, and Washington water

resources agencies have adopted limited,

temporary moratoria on new water diversion

permits from sensitive salmon streams. The

extent to which state and local regulations and

programs protect fish and their habitats varies

widely from state to state and within states.

There is also considerable variation in the

extent to which state and local governments

enforce existing regulations. Lack of

enforcement may be due to inadequate

funding and staffing or to a lack of political

will where enforcement may be controversial.

(This may also be true of federal programs.)

Nonfederal programs with the mission to

conserve aquatic habitats have flourished in

the last few years. The Nez Perce, Umatilla,

Warm Springs and Yakama Tribes developed

Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit Spirit of the

Salmon; Oregon has developed the Oregon

Plan for Salmon and Watersheds and has

awarded almost 200 grants totaling $10 million

to assist with nonfederal habitat actions. In

1998, Washington enacted the Watershed

Management Act, which provides that

$4.5 million per year can be appropriated to

set up partnerships, conduct assessments and

fund actions that help the state’s water

resources and fish habitat needs. Also, Oregon

and Washington fund jointly with EPA

approximately $600,000 annually for the Lower

Columbia River Estuary Program. Fueled by

state initiatives such as these, literally

hundreds of watershed partnerships have

begun. Montana, Idaho, Washington and

Oregon have developed strategies and plans

for bull trout conservation and restoration.

There is significant effort invested in

incentive-based habitat restoration. Increased

efforts have been made in the last few years to

coordinate state, local, and federal programs

to protect and restore habitat. However, at the

local level where most actions must occur,

many watershed recovery efforts are diminished by a lack of technical assistance in

planning, implementation and monitoring.

Further, there has been insufficient coordination of recovery goals and standards. Lacking

these, it is not possible to track how salmon

and steelhead survival have benefited from

these efforts.

Furthermore, most of the emphasis has

been on restoring degraded habitat, which is

important, but does not carry with it the

weight of enforcement to halt continued

degradation from land and water use. The

human population in the basin will continue

to increase, along with demands on water,

land, and other resources. Habitat conditions

on nonfederal land will continue to degrade

unless there are significant improvements in

land and water use. Without a combination of

effective regulations and policies, voluntary

efforts, and equitable incentives for private

landowners, fish habitat conditions will

continue to decline.

3.1.4 Habitat Program Objectives

There are three Program Objectives for

habitat:

· Prevent further degradation of tributary and

estuary habitat conditions and water

quality.

· Protect existing high quality habitats.

· Restore degraded habitats on a priority

basis.

Under the

Endangered

Species Act,

take means to

harass, harm,

pursue, hunt,

shoot, wound,

kill, trap,

capture, or

collect an

animal, or to

attempt to

engage in any

such conduct.
3 2 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Achieving these objectives would not

result in fully restoring historic quantity and

quality of habitats. However, these objectives

contemplate that no population should go

extinct (ESUs are comprised of multiple

populations). To meet these objectives would

mean substantial changes in land and water

use in major portions of the Columbia Basin

on nonfederal lands. The manner for and

likelihood of meeting these objectives may

vary depending on the status of the salmon,

steelhead, and/or bull trout population and

area.

3.1.5 Habitat Strategies

Strategies are presented for achieving the

objectives.

1. Strategies that prevent further degradation

of tributary and estuary habitat conditions

and water quality include:

· Eliminate imminent risks to aquatic

habitat and fish survival.

Further degradation and loss of aquatic

habitats will increase the declining trend of

imperiled species. Imminent risks to aquatic

habitat and fish survival must be eliminated

through careful identification and implementation of projects that address imminent risks.

For example, avian predation of migrating

juvenile salmonids in the Lower Columbia

River is an imminent risk to salmonid survival.

Another example is a road at risk of failing and

delivering sediment into fish habitat. Other

examples include dry streambeds caused by

water withdrawals, failed culverts, and passage

barriers. See the Habitat Appendix for further

details on identifying projects that eliminate

imminent risks.

· Modify activities that present pervasive

or long-term risks to habitat and water

quality.

Many land and water use activities create

pervasive or long-term risks to aquatic habitat

and water quality. Examples of such activities

include: continued water withdrawal from

streams with inadequate flows for fish,

development in flood plains, increases in

impervious surfaces in watersheds, timber

harvest that reduces proper function of riparian areas, and urban and agricultural practices

in riparian and upland areas that influence

aquatic habitat.

2. Strategies that protect existing high quality

habitat, and restore habitats on a priority

basis include:

· Use multi-scale assessments to guide

and prioritize actions.

Assessments of populations and habitats

at multiple scales are needed to identify

opportunities for and risks to improved species survival. Site-level actions that measurably improve survival need to be determined

within the context of ESUs and watersheds.

Without this multi-scale context provided by

assessment, site-level actions will often yield

questionable results that cannot be related to

improvement of the species survival. This

multi-scale framework allows for broad-scale

coordination while maintaining locally driven

restoration efforts. See the Habitat Appendix

for further details on multi-scale assessment,

planning, and implementation.

· Develop and Implement action plans

that produce measurable benefits

Watershed action plans should be developed and implemented based on multi-scale

assessments. Broad scale objectives should be

used to guide local planning efforts that

determine priority actions for securing and

restoring habitat. Technical assistance provided by state, tribal, local or federal agencies

will be critical in choosing protection and

restoration actions that match the local watershed conditions and produce measurable

benefits for imperiled aquatic species. See the

Habitat appendix for further details on action

plans and prioritization criteria that address

multiple scales.

· Survey and adaptively implement

measures to improve mainstem habitat

diversity, complexity and productivity.

Salmonids use and response to changes in

the mainstem Columbia River are not well

understood. Historically, fall chinook used
3 3 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

large portions of the mainstem for spawning

and rearing, and other salmonids may have

used the mainstem for spawning and rearing as

well. . Restoring potential hot spots of productivity in the mainstem could play an

important role not only in salmon recovery

generally, but in meeting tribal and other

harvest objectives. Very little is known about

what actions should be taken and where

actions should be taken to improve habitat.

Without this knowledge, prioritizing actions is

difficult. To improve mainstem habitat, we

must first survey existing mainstem habitat,

then we can develop an implementation plan

that will test promising approaches to

mainstem habitat improvements, while maximizing opportunities to learn.

Various ways to restore or create the

complex web of channels and other features in

smaller rivers that once were part of the

mainstem habitat have been suggested and

some of these may be applied in the mainstem

habitat implementation plan:

· create shallow-water habitat by excavating

backwater sloughs, alcoves, and side

channels and other measures;

· explore ways to stabilize reservoir levels;

· add large woody debris to these systems;

· re-connect alcoves, sloughs, and side

channels to the main channel;

· establish emergent aquatic plants in shallow

water areas;

· re-establish or enhance historic or existing

wetlands;

· mimic natural hydrographs to the extent

practicable;

· dredge or excavate lateral channels that

have silted in;

· acquire and protect a belt of lands adjacent

to the mainstems.

Site-level actions must be determined at a

watershed scale and may be located in upland

or riparian and aquatic areas, wherever is

needed to address the causes of the problems.

Actions will address one or more of the

following ecological indicators: habitat quality,

habitat quantity, water quality, water quantity,

riparian quality, riparian quantity and

biological communities. The draft NPPC

Multi-Species Framework alternatives (NPPC

1999) identified a number of strategies that

address these ecological indicators. These

strategies are akin to desired ecological

characteristics and will require a variety of

site-level actions, both in the watershed and

along the stream, to achieve. Specific

strategies might include (derived from the

draft NPPC Multi-Species Framework

alternatives):

· Establish riparian and upland area

conditions that provide the full set of

functions needed to maintain water and

habitat quality that will support native

aquatic species, achieved mainly through

natural regenerative processes.

· Establish instream flows in tributaries that

reflect natural seasonal flow patterns.

· Re-connect instream aquatic habitats via the

removal, modification or circumvention of

physical or biological impediments (e.g.,

culverts, diversion structures, highways,

high temperatures) to passage.

· Re-connect stream channels, flood plains,

and wetlands such that inundation and

water table elevation is consistent with

naturally functioning patterns.

· Improve water quality through watershed

habitat improvements and compliance with

federally approved state and tribal water

quality standards.

· Establish sediment regimes (input,

storage, transport) consistent with those

under which the aquatic ecosystem evolved.

· Restore natural patterns of woody debris

recruitment through management of

riparian areas as late successional forests.

· Restore physical stream habitat including

bank configuration, habitat diversity and

complexity that can support native aquatic

communities.

· Restore natural biological communities in

tributary streams such that they exhibit

natural predator/prey relationships.

· Restore estuarine conditions that provide

for adequate prey production, cover and

habitat complexity for both smolts and

returning adults.

· Restore quantity and quality of shallow

water estuarine habitats (e.g., wetlands and

marshes, tidal channels, submerged aquatic

vegetation) to those that will support

natural aquatic communities.

· Restore estuarine flow, sediment, and

nutrient levels to those that support natural

aquatic communities.
3 4 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

· Restore estuarine temperature, turbidity,

bacteria, dissolved oxygen and gas and

salinity concentrations that support

natural aquatic communities.

Protection and restoration of aquatic and

riparian habitats are also a function of having

healthy watersheds and proper upland management on agriculture, forestry and urban lands.

Strategies to ensure these watershed connections would include:

· Soil and water conservation practices that

control erosion and runoff in order to

reduce stream sedimentation, flooding, and

bank erosion and those that help to

maintain or improve base streamflows.

· Nutrient and pest management practices

needed to limit delivery of pollutants that

create eutrophic or toxic conditions for fish

and other aquatic organisms.

· Vegetative practices that provide suitable

cover to control erosion and runoff as well

as provide food and shelter for wildlife.

· Wetland restoration and management

practices that help maintain stream flows,

filter pollutants, and provide flood storage.

There is a vast array of ecological and

social conditions in the Columbia’s watersheds. Site level actions for meeting the

objectives and strategies should, in most

cases, be determined through science assessments and coordinated local planning. Agencies and tribes have prepared several documents that provide extensive guidance for

planning and implementing site-level actions.

These documents are identified in the Habitat

Appendix. The Habitat Appendix also suggests

a framework for assessment and planning that

leads to targeted site level action.

3.1.6 Habitat Options

The habitat options are different from

options in the other Hs in that they do not

identify specific sets of actions, primarily for

two reasons. First, population and habitat

science assessments are needed to determine

the potential value of improving freshwater

habitat and the quantity and distribution of

habitat necessary for species recovery. Second,

absent habitat assessments, it is not possible

to determine all the site-specific actions

needed in the Columbia Basin. Moreover, there

is great variety in ecosystems and resource

across the basin. Decisions on local actions are

more appropriate at the local level, if they are

made in the context of what the species need

and in the context of overarching goals and

objectives for the basin. The options for

habitat provide strategic implementation

choices and focus on the roles and responsibilities of various governments rather than on

specific action items for specific locales.

Three basic options were developed for

habitat. Option 1, Coordinate and Prioritize

Federal Actions, includes moderate increases

in efforts to protect and restore habitat, a

measurable increase in federal action and

coordination, and increased habitat assessments and planning efforts using federal

funds. Option 2, Coordinated Regional Plans,

increases state, tribal, local, and federal

entities coordination, planning and habitat

implementation. Federal funding would

increase for habitat assessments, plans, actions, and monitoring. Option 3, Increased

Federal Role under Clean Water Act and ESA,

has similar components to Option 2, except it

includes increased regulation by the federal

agencies under the CWA and ESA.

The habitat options were developed using

important assumptions about federal lands.

Current federal land management under the

Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH, and INFISH

and future federal land management strategies

developed through ICBEMP should ensure

restoration and recovery of habitat that will

provide a foundation for long-term conservation and recovery of listed salmon, steelhead

and trout. Activities implemented on federal

lands should maintain conditions necessary to

prevent further long-term degradation of

aquatic habitat and water quality. Strategies to

maintain conditions and reduce short-term and

long-term risks to aquatic habitats will be

developed through multi-scale science-based

assessments and planning. Federal land

management strategies are expected to protect

and restore a network of high quality habitats,

including riparian conservation areas essential

to listed species recovery. Future land management strategies will be adjusted, if necessary, to incorporate new information on listed

species. If these assumptions are met, federal

lands are likely to meet the habitat program

objectives.
3 5 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

The habitat options then result in a range

of outcomes on nonfederal land. They are

intended to stimulate regional dialogue on

how much effort different governments,

agencies and stakeholders are willing to apply

to habitat protection and restoration. This

question includes the strength of the commitment of different governments to effectively

regulate activities that degrade habitat; the

degree to which different governmental entities, landowners and stakeholders are willing

and able to participate in coordinated assessments, planning, and priority actions; the level

of funding the region wants to commit to

habitat protection and restoration; and the

strength and scale of voluntary conservation

efforts. These options focus on anadromous

fish but should also be applicable to resident

fish.

The habitat options assume that salmon

populations will benefit from increased effort

to make ecological change in watersheds and

habitats. There are three basic components in

each option that describe intensity of effort to

make ecological change: level of coordination,

level of comprehensive (voluntary and regulatory) effort, and level of funding. All options

assume that in the next 5-7 years, the federal

agencies would allocate funds to programs

that:

· implement immediate actions (as described

in the Habitat Appendix);

· reduce imminent risks to fish and their

habitats;

· secure known important habitats;

· provide immediate (within three years from

implementation) improvements in survival;

· are part of a strategic prioritized plan based

on science assessment; and

· include monitoring.

Where needed, substantial funds over the

next 3-5 years will go to assessments and

planning. After this, most assessments and

plans in the basin should be done and funding

would go mostly to on-the-ground actions

(prioritized through assessments) and monitoring. The bulk of prioritized habitat recovery

actions would be completed in the next

10-15 years.

In developing and implementing these

options, a number of considerations are

important for success. Decisions should be

based on measurable objectives, sound science, and adaptive management to provide

real results over time. Decisionmaking must

be participatory, with an emphasis on local

implementation, innovation, and responsibility. Incentives for compliance and respect for

existing rights should be stressed. In addition,

options must acknowledge existing watershed

efforts and build on their successes.

Coordination with existing watershed

efforts will be particularly important for

streams listed as water quality limited under

section 303(d) of the CWA. Preparation of

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and

TMDL implementation plans for these streams

is already underway in Idaho, Oregon, and

Washington, based on priority lists compiled

by the states. Under all of the habitat options,

preparation of TMDL implementation plans

should be coordinated with watershed assessments and priorities designed to satisfy the

ESA.

Option 1

Coordinate and Prioritize Federal Actions

Under this option, there would be moderate increases in efforts to protect and restore

habitat. The federal agencies would focus on

federal land management, federal immediate

actions and on improved coordination of

federal funding for nonfederal actions. Federal

lands would be managed to meet the assumptions described above. Immediate actions

would reduce imminent risks and immediately

improve survival. Improved coordination

would include increased habitat assessments

and planning that guide priority actions using

federal funds. The rationale for this option is

that increased federal coordination and coordinated assessments and planning prior to all

but immediate actions would lead to increased

measurable success of protecting and restoring

important habitats.

This option does not seek significant new

commitments from state, tribal and local

governments. However, it would build on

existing watershed efforts wherever available.

Level of Coordination

Increased federal coordination: The federal

agencies would agree on basinwide protocols

for population assessments, establishment of

recovery goals, subbasin and watershed

Adaptive

management

- Feedback

based on

knowledge or

data

generated by

monitoring

and

evaluation

actions, of the

effects or

results of an

implemented

action. The

information

and data are

purposefully

collected and

used improve

future

management

plans and

actions.
3 6 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

assessments, planning, coordinated actions,

funding and monitoring. Once priorities for

subbasin and watershed assessments, planning

and actions are established, federal programs

and dollars would be directed at these

priorities.

Level of Comprehensive Effort

Federal land management agencies and

the other federal agencies would participate in

coordinated assessment, planning and priority

actions. Federal land management agencies’

programs and funds would be directed toward

assessment and planning priority actions on

federal lands. Federal land management

agencies would participate in and invite

nonfederal agencies and stakeholders to

participate in assessment and planning. Other

federal programs and funds (BPA, NRCS, EPA,

USDA/FSA) would be directed toward assessments and priority actions on nonfederal lands

that factor in assessments and activities for

federal land. State, tribal and local governments and agencies would continue with

present programs and levels of coordination

and regulatory and voluntary efforts. They

would continue to emphasize state, tribal and

local restoration programs.

Level of Funding

Levels of funding would increase at a low

rate.

Option 2

Coordinate Regional Plans

Under this option, state, tribal, local, and

federal entities would significantly increase

their level of coordination and comprehensive

effort. There would also be an increase in

federal funding for habitat assessments, plans,

actions and monitoring. State, tribal, and

federal entities would participate in coordinated plans and would implement coordinated

priority actions. State and local governments

would ensure effective regulations and programs that avoid further habitat degradation

on nonfederal lands. Since habitat actions

recommended for a particular watershed

would be determined by an assessment that

had local participation, local participants

would be able to see a direct correlation

between the regional habitat recovery plan and

their local efforts.

The rationale for this option is that

science-based assessments and coordination of

priorities across all ownerships will be more

effective at securing and restoring aquatic

habitats. In addition, state and local governments are most likely to be effective in preventing further degradation of habitat because

they have the relevant authorities.

Level of Coordination

A regional coordination mechanism

including states, tribes, and federal agencies

would ensure use of science-based basinwide

protocols for population assessments, establishment of recovery goals, and completion of

subbasin and watershed assessments, action

plans, and monitoring. Once priorities for

assessments, planning, and actions are established, federal, state and local programs and

dollars would be directed at these shared

priorities.

Level of Comprehensive Effort

The federal agencies will pursue two

areas of action for mainstem habitat. First,

the federal water development agencies would

fund and support surveys and studies of

potentially productive mainstem habitat.

Second, federal agencies would implement, in

cooperation with state, local and tribal governments, an adaptive program of mainstem

habitat improvements. This work would

proceed in accordance with a systematic,

experimental management framework.

All necessary agencies, groups and landowners would participate in coordinated

assessment and planning and would take

actions based on shared priorities.

State, local and tribal governments would

ensure that regulation of nonfederal activities

is adequate to arrest downward habitat trends

on nonfederal lands, beginning with water use

and water quality. Where authorities, regulations or implementation are inadequate, state

and local governments would propose means

to fix the problems. Also, state and local

governments would examine their effectiveness at enforcing and implementing existing

rules and regulations. The federal regulatory

agencies would put the present level of effort

toward enforcing the ESA and CWA.
3 7 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Level of Funding

Levels of federal funding would increase

measurably, to complete immediate actions

and coordinated federal/nonfederal assessments and planning within 5-7 years. federal

funding to the states would increase, if possible, to speed up TMDL development and

implementation plans, to enhance participation by the private sector and to bolster the

states regulatory programs.

Option 3

Increased Federal Role under Clean Water Act

and ESA

Option 3 emphasizes regulatory compliance with the requirements of the ESA and the

CWA. Option 3 would be implemented if and

when the region cannot develop the coordinated plan with state and local governments

envisioned in Option 2.

This option has similar components to

Option 2, except it includes increased regulation by the federal agencies under the CWA

and ESA. This would occur if state and local

governments do not ensure adequate programs

to avoid further degradation. In this case, the

federal regulatory agencies would increase

federal regulation of nonfederal activities to

arrest continued degradation of aquatic habitat. This option includes state, tribal, local

and federal participation in coordinated

assessment and planning as provided in

Option 2.

The rationale for this option is that if

state and local governments do not adopt and

implement a recovery plan that includes

adequate regulations, the federal agencies

must exercise ESA and CWA regulation and

enforcement authorities to ensure no further

degradation of aquatic habitat.

This option is likely to be less effective at

arresting continued degradation than Option 2.

Habitat protection, maintenance and improvement objectives would have a lower likelihood

of being met across all land ownerships due to

the lack of participation by state, tribal and

local entities in the development of common

plans.

Level of Coordination

The level of coordination would likely be

similar to levels of coordination under

Option 1.

Level of Comprehensive Effort

The level of comprehensive effort would

likely be similar to levels of coordination

under Option 1.

The federal agencies will pursue two

areas of action for mainstem habitat. First,

the federal water development agencies would

fund and support surveys and studies of

potentially productive mainstem habitat.

Second, federal agencies would implement, in

cooperation with state, local and tribal governments, an adaptive program of mainstem

habitat improvements. This work would

proceed in accordance with a systematic,

experimental management framework. Federal

regulatory efforts would increase to ensure

that nonfederal land and water use would not

continue to degrade fish habitat. This would

occur through a combination of increased ESA

rule development, increased ESA enforcement

and increased CWA enforcement.

Level of Funding

Levels of federal funding would increase

to complete immediate actions and coordinated assessments and planning. Allocation of

federal agency funds to enforcement and

regulation would increase. Levels of federal

funding passed through to the states would

increase, if possible, to speed up TMDL development and implementation plans and to

bolster the states’ regulatory programs.

3.1.7 Evaluation of Options

Biological Evaluation

The habitat options will affect species

survival in freshwater spawning and rearing,

and estuarine rearing life stages. These generally encompass salmonid life-cycle years one

through three, and also the life stages that

include the use of estuaries and near shore

ocean habitat. The evaluation considers

effects on freshwater spawning and rearing but

excludes effects of mainstem migration and

hatchery influences. In the case of resident

fish, the habitat options will affect all life

stages.
3 8 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

The habitat options provide a range of

implementation effort for avoiding further

degradation of and improving habitat capacity.

At the basin scale, we can identify a suite of

premises and make some reasonable conclusions on the likelihood of successfully achieving the habitat objectives under each option.

One premise is that the higher the effort for

meeting the ecological objectives, the higher

the likelihood and feasibility that we can

improve survival of listed species in freshwater

and estuarine life. Another premise is that

coordinated assessment and planning will

result in targeted priority actions that are most

likely to achieve timely benefits.

A more detailed analysis of the role of

habitat recovery and how recovery efforts

should be focused to achieve the habitat

objectives will be conducted during recovery

planning focusing on ESUs. The CRI analysis

is underway for a few ESUs (see box for

species-specific early results).

The feasibility of gaining survival improvements in freshwater habitat will need to

be determined on an ESU-by-ESU basis in two

steps. The first step is to assess landscape

level habitat characteristics associated with

salmonid productivity and then determine the

effect of land uses on those characteristics.

Second, the social and economic potential and

limitations will be important in determining

the feasibility of meeting the objectives. There

is a range of options and distribution for the

level of effort on nonfederal lands, therefore it

is useful to look at the amount and distribution of federal and nonfederal land ownership

in the watershed to evaluate the options’

likelihood of achieving the habitat objectives.

Other Considerations

Social and Economic Effects

It is difficult to evaluate the social and

economic impacts of the different habitat

options because they represent procedural

options rather than action options. Habitat

actions are generally local and site-specific.

The social and economic impacts will accordingly be localized, and will vary depending

upon the specific mix of actions taken and

mitigation available in a specific area. The

Habitat Appendix presents some examples of

costs for habitat restoration projects that have

been undertaken in the basin. Little work has

been done to examine the social effects of

different habitat options. The Northwest

Power Planning Council’s Multi-Species Framework Analysis has identified some costs for

habitat improvements (see box).

In addition to the Northwest Power

Planning Council’s framework analysis cost

estimates, the Federal Caucus developed a

cost estimate related to the implementation of

the Habitat Program Objectives that protect

Early CRI Results

Snake River Steelhead, Spring/Summer

Chinook, Fall Chinook, Sockeye

A first step in prioritizing management

actions is determining when in the salmon

lifecycle there is potential to impact population growth rates, and where in the landscape those efforts might best be directed.

Early results from the CRI analyses indicate

that substantially reducing mortality during

freshwater rearing or in the first year of

estuary/ocean life would have a large impact

on annual population growth rates. However,

since a large portion of the mortality that

occurs at these life stages is natural, an

important next step will be determining the

biological feasibility of achieving reductions

in mortality during these life stages. Preliminary habitat (H-VSP) analyses in the

Salmon River Basin indicate that the

subwatersheds with the high productivity of

spring/summer chinook are in areas with low

water temperature, high quality riparian

habitat and relatively low gradient. This

analysis will be expanded to include the

entire Snake River Basin. Examining the

distribution and ownership of subwatersheds

with these characteristics (or the potential to

have them) will be an important element in

determining where actions should be

targeted as well as the most appropriate

level of coordination for habitat actions in

this basin.

Upper Willamette River Chinook and

Steelhead

Analyses of landscape-level characteristics associated with levels of salmonid

productivity are currently being conducted,

and are scheduled to be complete by May

2000. Determining the distribution and

ownership of areas with the potential for

high productivity will be a critical element

in prioritizing actions and determining

necessary levels of coordination for improving salmon populations trends.
3 9 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Framework Analysis of Habitat Effects

The Northwest Power Planning Council’s Multi-Species Framework Analysis has identified

some possible costs associated with habitat improvements. Habitat strategies aim to improve

conditions for fish and wildlife through land management, restoration of normative stream characteristics, or passage improvements. Many habitat strategies would affect land use, or they have the

potential to affect land uses that rely on water or land adjacent to streams.

The Framework analysis investigated the costs of six types of habitat strategies: 1) Habitat/

water use on agricultural lands; 2) Screening of irrigation diversions; 3) Habitat on forest lands;

4) Riparian/instream habitat; 5) Blockage removal to improve passage; 6) Other habitat actions.

Habitat costs consist of the costs of economic activities impaired or eliminated plus implementation costs. Most habitat costs in the Framework study were not quantified. Costs for some strategies were identified only as scalable unit values, i.e., $/unit of habitat improved. However, in these

cases, the intensity of the strategies was not identified, i.e., the number of units proposed for improvement was not quantified. The Framework process did provide the following estimates of habitat

costs:

Costs associated with changes in agricultural and water uses. Habitat costs resulting from

changes in these uses are mostly unknown, but could be large, depending on intensity of the strategy.

Lease of irrigated land could cost between $100-$300 million annually. An additional $10-$100

million might be spent annually for screens, modified agricultural practices and agricultural land

lease/acquisition. Year 2000 proposals to the NPPC for projects affecting habitat/water use on

agricultural lands call for spending approximately $60 million in this area, and $7 million for

screening of irrigation diversions. Washington State projects spending approximately $1 million in

these two areas.

Costs associated with changes on forest lands. Reductions in timber harvest and increased

costs for restoration and management on federal lands could be $100 million annually in costs and

net revenue losses. Any costs for changes on private lands (unquantified) would be in addition to

these. Year 2000 proposals would spend $1.6 million in 2000 for projects on forest lands.

Costs for riparian/instream habitat restoration. No costs were estimated in the Framework

analysis. Year 2000 proposals to NPPC would spend nearly $10 million on such improvements in the

year 2000. Washington State has proposed $4.5 million for these initiatives.

Costs for blockage removal to improve passage. No costs were estimated in the Framework

analysis. Year 2000 proposals to NPPC would spend over $5 million on this in 2000, with the state of

Washington spending over $3 million.

Costs for other habitat measures. Year 2000 proposals would spend an additional $41 million on

and restore habitat. Costs were estimated or

assigned based on historical data or professional judgment of those working in the

habitat field. Results of this analysis are very

preliminary, and the Federal Caucus seeks

comments on its approach. The approach and

detailed results are included in the Habitat

Appendix.

These preliminary results suggest that, on

average, $3.0 million per year per subbasin

over the near term is a reasonable basinwide

approximation that would contribute to

achieving habitat objectives. Through 2015,

this would result in a total investment of

about $3.0 billion. This total dollar figure

includes $120 million per year to that already

available for ongoing Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program (CREP) funding.

Any estimate of habitat costs should be

viewed with caution. Not all subbasins are the

same and some have greater needs than others.

Actual needs and opportunities can only be

determined after subbasin assessment and

planning. It is likely that several data gaps

have introduced a considerable amount of

uncertainty into both the Federal Caucus and

the NPPC estimates.

Ecological Effects

For the listed salmon, the habitat options

provide a range of implementation effort for

avoiding further degradation of habitat and

improving habitat capacity. Resident fish and
4 0 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

other aquatic species located in the same

watersheds should also benefit from habitat

actions focused on the recovery of the salmon

ESUs, with the greatest benefit occurring

under the options with the higher level of

effort. The amount and scope of the benefit

will depend upon the specific actions implemented in each watershed.

Effects on Tribal Rights

Generally, improvements in habitat will

have a positive effect on tribal fishing and

other natural resources. It is not possible to

quantify the level of benefit to tribes, although

in some cases it could be significant.

3.1.8 Implementation Issues

Widespread aquatic habitat recovery

requires intensive local efforts that are prioritized and coordinated at larger watershed

scales. In many Columbia River watersheds,

ecosystem processes that maintain high quality

conditions have been disrupted, setting in

motion a downward trend in habitat conditions. Uncoordinated, quick fixes aimed at

symptoms rather than causes will not reverse

the downward trend. The following discussion

proposes a coordinated multi-scaled, watershed-based assessment and planning process

that integrates all institutional levels in watershed restoration and recovery. Figure 1 illustrates this roadmap to habitat recovery.

A multi-scaled approach coordinates,

prioritizes, and tailors actions to locations in a

manner that measurably achieves objectives

with the least cost. Assessments and plans

described in this section are already underway

in a number of subbasins and watersheds.

These ongoing efforts, including state-sponsored preparation of TMDL implementation

plans under the CWA, should be used and built

upon. The effectiveness of existing watershed

efforts would be measurably improved through

basinwide use of coordinated procedures.

This approach has the same three components at each scale: 1) immediate actions;

2) assessments using scientific protocols; and

3) action plans.

SCALE

Province

(Groups of 4th field

HUC’s)

ESA Recovery

Assessment and

Plan

•Watersheds classified and prioritized

•Risks to aquatic habitat and opportunities to

reduced risks identified

•Performance measures identified

PRODUCT OUTPUT

Subbasin

(4th field HUCs)

Watershed

(5th field HUCs)

Watershed

Assessment and

Plan

•Subwatersheds targeted for recovery actions

•Actions identified and prioritized.

•Performance measures identified and reported

•Actions implemented

•Criteria to prevent degradation defined

•Funding Plan

•Performance measures reported

Subwatershed and

Reach Assessment

and Plans

PLAYERS

Recovery Plan Teams

Regional Level Federal

and State Agencies,

NPPC, Tribes, private

groups (WSC, RAC,

PAC, etc.)

State and Federal

agencies, Local

Governments, Tribes,

Local groups, Watershed

Councils

Local groups,

Individuals, Tribes, and

Agencies.

Subwatersheds

and Reach

(6th field HUCs)

Basin

(Columbia Basin)

Federal Agencies, NPPC

State Agencies, Tribes,

Columbia River Basin

Forum

Subbasin

Assessment and

Plan

•Basin priorities established

•Immediate actions 

•Coordinated federal funding

•Coordinated research, monitoring and evaluation

All-H Paper and

Framework

Alternatives

•Subbasins categorized and prioritize

•Recovery standards/criteria

•Distribution of currently and potentially productive

habitats identified

Figure 1 - Roadmap to Habitat Recovery
4 1 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Implement Immediate Actions

For the most part, governments should

commit scarce resources only to those projects

that have been identified as important through

an assessment that follows science-based

procedures. Some actions, however, are so

clearly necessary or beneficial they do not

require an in-depth assessment.

State, local and federal governments

should review and enforce existing laws and

regulations to ensure that they are adequate to

prevent further aquatic degradation. States

should ensure full compliance with TMDL

schedules and ensure that TMDL implementation plans also meet habitat requirements for

listed salmonids. State, local and federal

outreach on the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program needs to be coordinated

and improved. Protecting and improving

streamflows is an immediate priority. Existing

state moratoria on new water use should

remain in place. Federal agencies should

ensure that water conveyances and diversions

that they permit do not deplete streams of

flows needed for fish. These actions are

further described in the Habitat Appendix.

Certain categories of site-specific actions

should also proceed immediately. Site-specific

actions would need to meet one of the following criteria: 1) the action is necessary to

reduce imminent risk to the ESU or its habitat;

2) the action will secure high quality or productive habitats; 3) the action will result in

immediate (within 5 years) and certain improvement in fish survival; and/or 4) the action

is part of an already completed plan based on

science assessment of fish habitat priorities.

The Habitat Appendix addresses these criteria

more fully.

Categories of actions that meet the

criteria for immediate action include road

treatments, water purchases and leases to

enhance instream flows, fish screens fixing

passage impediments, culvert and bridge

replacement, water diversion consolidation,

push-up dam removal or replacement, and

removal of low-head dams. Also, ongoing

efforts to protect or improve aquatic habitats

on federal lands by modifying grazing, timber

harvest, mining and other land management

activities will continue. A sample of specific

federal agency actions that meet the criteria is

described in the Habitat Appendix.

Conduct Habitat Assessments using Scientific

Protocols

Habitat assessments are needed at several

scales (i.e., province, subbasin, watershed,

reach).

At the basin scale, an interdisciplinary

science team should lead the development of a

protocol and sequence for mainstem habitat

surveys and studies (for the Columbia, Snake

and Willamette) below migration barrier dams.

There are a number of assessment procedures in use, or under development in the

Columbia River Basin. A common approach to

assessments across the basin is needed, and

could be provided by a set of core elements at

each scale. These common elements would be

incorporated in all assessment procedures. A

framework for developing protocols for the

habitat assessments is in the Habitat Appendix. A key issue is who should be responsible

for developing protocols, reviewing assessments for quality and ensuring a common

database. This is a labor-intensive job and

needs to happen as soon as possible.

Develop Action Plans and Implement Actions

To meet the three habitat objectives,

multi-scaled action plans must use habitat

assessments to:

· establish area goals and objectives;

· establish area priorities;

· identify opportunities for collaboration

among area stakeholders;

· establish guidance for coordinating funding;

· identify and implement assessment or

actions (depending on the scale); and

· establish performance measures and

guidance for coordinated research,

monitoring, and evaluation.

Ideally, the multi-scaled planning process

would begin at the province scale where goals

and objectives would incorporate ESA-listed

species recovery criteria, and be clearly linked

with recovery criteria, actions planned and

implementation at finer watershed scales.

However, many subbasin and watershed plans

are already underway and will be completed

before recovery criteria are established. Once

recovery criteria are established, the assessments and plans should be reviewed, and if

needed, adjusted. The region would establish
4 2 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

recovery goals for all anadromous ESUs within

two years, and the first habitat assessments

and plans would be completed within three

years. A framework for developing action

plans is in the Habitat Appendix.

How federal land management agencies

and others would use subbasin planning needs

to be clarified, but criteria for subbasin and

watershed plans will be an important component of the ICBEMP EIS and Record of Decision. Just how goals, objectives, priorities,

performance measures, etc. would be developed has not been determined. A common

planning process, accessible to state, local and

tribal participants, must be organized and

facilitated by some entity. All plans must also

have a quality review before they are funded

and must meet area priorities. Because there

are not enough resources to go everywhere

immediately, priorities based on logical criteria

are needed. Logical criteria for prioritizing

actions are needed at each scale: the basin,

the province (groups of ESUs), the subbasin,

and watershed (population). Prioritization

criteria should be based on several considerations, including: ESUs that are most at risk,

ESUs that could benefit most from improved

habitat, tribal trust obligations, and habitats

with the most potential for improved fish

production. The status of existing assessment

and plans, including state selected priorities

for establishment of TMDLs, should also be

considered. Examples of program priority

criteria applicable at each scale are presented

in the Habitat Appendix, but who decides the

common prioritization criteria needs to be

determined.

The same interdisciplinary team that

advises the agencies on survey protocols and

sequence should provide an implementation

plan in which to test promising approaches to

mainstem habitat improvements while maximizing opportunities to learn. Actions would

proceed in accordance with a systematic,

experimental management framework.

Additional Implementation Issues

In addition to the key issues described for

the three implementation components, there

are additional pervasive issues that must be

addressed for habitat implementation to

succeed. The Habitat Appendix address the

following issues in more detail:

· Tributary Water Quantity. Instream

flows and water diversions are areas in

which states assert primacy. How would

states propose to establish and enforce

instream flows to satisfy flow

requirements for fish? How could federal

agencies establish policies, standards,

criteria and/or methodologies to guide or

support states in establishing and protecting

adequate flows? Can federal and state

governments establish incentive structures

that will help comply with or avoid the

need for regulation by rebuilding flows?

What infrastructure limitations and

institutional barriers will secure adequate

instream flows?

· Tributary Water Quality: Idaho, Oregon

and Washington are all under court ordered

deadlines to complete TMDLS. Can TMDLs

be completed and implemented in a manner

that also meets recovery objectives for

listed aquatic species? What is the

appropriate role for federal agencies in

water quality programs?

· Agricultural lands. Agriculture and

rangeland use typically is not subjected to

the regulations and ordinances associated

with other land uses. Yet, literature and

many federal and state conservation

programs clearly confirm that agricultural

land use patterns need to be changed for

aquatic habitats to be adequately protected

and restored. What steps can the federal

government take to encourage and support

sustainable agriculture that is

complementary to habitat recovery

objectives? How can agricultural land users

be encouraged to improve soil and water

conservation in a manner that protects and

restores aquatic habitat?

· The need for a habitat policy forum.

Entities working on hydropower issues have

a variety of means to discuss and resolve

implementation issues. Should there be a

similar mechanism for habitat

implementation? If so, under whose

auspices and how should it be structured?

· Coordinated funding. At each planning

scale, a funding strategy should be part of

the plan. At the basin scale, the federal and

state agencies need to coordinate on

program priorities and funding criteria. At

more local scales, funding strategies that

identify and secure funds to implement
4 3 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

actions should be part of subbasin and

watershed plans. Should federal land

management agencies develop a process to

ensure that land management agency

funding is coordinated with other funding

entities?

3.1.9 Performance Measures

Designing performance measures for

habitat is a complex task because to be meaningful, population and habitat goals and

objectives must address multiple scales: Basin,

ESU, subbasin, watershed, subwatershed and

reach. Ecological and managerial performance

measures will be described at these spatial

scales.

At the Columbia River Basin scale,

performance measures will be general and

mainly related to implementation of habitat

goals and objectives outlined in this paper

and to immediate actions. At the watershed

scale, they will be more specific. These

numerical measurements will be meaningful

to listed fish when tied to specific populations and habitats to secure and restore.

Reach scales are very specific and are dictated

by the sensitivity of a site to a planned activity (e.g., riparian conditions sufficient to

protect water temperature, bank integrity,

Assess implementation of mitigation

measures that were described for the

project.

· Assess implementation of

immediate actions

· Recovery plans for all ESUs listed

as endangered fully developed by

2002.

· Recovery plans for all ESUs listed

as threatened fully developed by

2005.

· Meet state schedules for the

implementation of TMDLs to

address CWA, 303(d)-listed

streams.

Basin · Show an improving trend (>10% per decade) in

the number of watersheds with high quality

aquatic habitat as measured by an appropriate

metric by 2005, continue to shift watersheds

toward improved condition until a distribution

consistent with VSP and H-VSP analyses is

achieved.

· Decrease the CWA, 303d water quality limited

stream segments within each State within the

Columbia Basin. The rate of decrease should

be consistent with the States schedules for

TMDL implementation.

· Proportion of subbasins/watersheds where

progress is being made against habitat

performance measures.

Table 2 - Sample Ecological and Managerial Performance Measures/Standards

ESU

(subbasins)

Watersheds

(populations)

Subwatersheds

 Reach

· Identification of the populations within the

ESU that must achieve VSP level for recovery.

· Identification of habitat conditions within the

watersheds identified as critical to support

population levels at VSP.

Number of subbasin assessments and

plans completed.

Assess use of mitigation measures

described during watershed analysis

in planning projects within the

subwatershed.

· Sufficient subwatersheds with high-quality

habitat conditions to maintain VSP

population target.

Number of watershed assessments and

plans completed.

Distribution of reach-level habitat conditions

across the subwatershed appropriate to maintain

high levels of salmon production.

Reach level standards needed to maintain

subwatershed conditions in properly

functioning conditions (PFC) (e.g., water

delivery to channels, sediment generation,

delivery of wood and other organic matter).

Level Ecological Criteria Managerial Criteria
4 4 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

woody debris input, etc.). Basinwide performance measures and approaches for defining

finer scale performance measures are in the

Habitat Appendix. Table 2 summarizes the

ecological and managerial performance measures described more thoroughly in the Habitat

Appendix.

3.1.10 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation

Regardless of the habitat strategies

adopted, a coordinated research and monitoring program will be essential to assess the

impact of management actions. Such an

integrated program has the potential to begin

to resolve several important issues, including:

· Quantifying the relationship between

specific habitat alterations and salmonid

productivity.

· Determining the life stages at which habitat

impacts are realized.

· Determining the time lag between habitat

alterations and changes in fish productivity.

· Assessing the appropriate scale at which

habitat impacts should be managed.

Ideally, habitat restoration efforts and

other alterations should be designed as replicated experiments. Coordination of habitat

actions and analysis will allow researchers to

determine not only the efficacy of a single

action, but also the relative effectiveness of a

variety of different actions. Such coordination

will also provide researchers the means to

assess the scale at which impacts are felt.

Monitoring programs aimed at assessing

the impact of habitat alterations will include

several components. First, management

actions directed at habitat have the potential

to yield a response in physical or biotic characteristics of the landscape as well as in fish

productivity. Therefore, monitoring programs

should include measures of fish productivity

and project-specific habitat parameters (water

temperature and riparian zone quality, for

example). Next, improvements to habitat have

the potential to influence survival at a variety

of life stages (improved freshwater rearing

habitat has the potential to increase the

quality of smolts and therefore estuarine

survivorship, for instance). It will be important to measure productivity at different life

stages (juvenile, smolt, and returning adult) to

identify the variety of impacts habitat actions

might have.

3.1.11 Key Uncertainties

Any options for improving habitat in the

basin must face these key uncertainties:

· What is the relationship between habitat

quality and fish production potential?

· What kinds of restoration actions lead to

long-term recovery of the aquatic

environment?

· What level of coordination is desirable and

achievable?

· What level of enforcement are state and

local governments willing and able to

achieve?

· How can funding sources maximize benefits

through cost sharing?

· What is the best institutional structure for

coordination?

3.2 Harvest

3.2.1 Overview

The history of harvest of Columbia Basin

salmon parallels that of the entire region. For

generations, salmon fishing was a central

feature of Northwest tribal culture, religion

and commerce. Indians from many tribes

participated in seasonal fisheries all along the

rivers and their tributaries. Tribal harvest of

salmon from the Columbia Basin prior to

European contact was about 4.5 to 5.6 million

fish annually, but this estimate may be conservative (NPPC 1986). Many tribal customs

evolved that ensured that harvests stayed in

balance with the productive capacity of the

resource.

With the arrival of European settlers and

the advent of canning technologies in the late

1800s, commercial fishing developed rapidly.

Figure 2 displays an estimate of the commercial landings of salmon and steelhead from the

Columbia River from 1866 to 1997 (ODFW,

WDF 1998). Since 1938, total salmon and

steelhead commercial freshwater landings have

ranged from a high of 2,112,500 fish in 1941 to

The Harvest Section does not address

listed resident fish.
4 5 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50

MILLIONS OF POUNDS

1866 1874 1882 1890 1898 1906 1914 1922 1930 1938 1946 1954 1962 1970 1978 1986 1994

YEAR

1965 Last summer season

1977 Last spring season

1988 Last sockeye season

1950 Seines, traps, set nets prohibited

1935 Fishwheels prohibited

a low of 68,000 fish in 1995 (ODFW, WDF

1998). While freshwater fisheries in the basin

were declining during the first half of this

century, ocean fisheries were growing, particularly after World War II. This trend occurred

up and down the West Coast, as fisheries with

new gear types “leap-frogged” over the others

to gain first access to the migrating salmon

runs. Large mixed stock fisheries in the ocean

gradually supplanted the in-river fisheries,

which were increasingly restricted or eliminated to protect spawning escapements.

Salmon species vary widely in their ocean

migratory patterns and life history characteristics and how harvest affects them. The extent

to which changes in harvest can contribute to

recovery varies widely across species, areas,

and fisheries. For example, some ESUs, such

as Snake River fall chinook, are harvested in

ocean fisheries as far north as Alaska, and as

far south as California. Current information,

largely based on tagging hatchery fish, indicates that other ESUs, such as spring chinook,

steelhead, chum, and Columbia River sockeye

are harvested very little, if at all, in any ocean

fisheries. All species are subject to harvest

within the Columbia River and its tributaries,

but the rate of harvest on each ESU varies.

The Harvest Appendix provides statistics on

run sizes, harvest and escapement trends for

several salmon species and stocks.

Species harvested in the ocean are particularly difficult to manage. They migrate

through multiple jurisdictions where they mix

with fish populations from many geographic

areas. Federal, state, and tribal entities manage harvest while the fish are present in their

respective jurisdictions. Because many Columbia Basin stocks migrate through Canadian

waters, over which the U.S. has no direct

control, international cooperation is critical.

The U.S. has sought to reduce the impacts of

Canadian harvest through the Pacific Salmon

Treaty. Details of the PST agreement are

provided in the Harvest Appendix.

Figure 2 - Commercial Landings of Salmon and Steelhead

from the Columbia River in Pounds

Source: ODFW, WDFW, 1998.
4 6 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

3.2.2 Contributions to Decline

The capacity of salmon and steelhead to

produce more adults than needed for spawning

affords the potential for sustainable harvest.

This potential can be realized only if two basic

management requirements are met: (1) enough

adults are allowed to escape to spawn and

perpetuate the run; and (2) the productive

capacity of the habitat (including mainstem) is

maintained. Catches would fluctuate naturally, due to such variables as ocean productivity cycles, periods of drought, and natural

disturbance events, but as long as the two

management requirements are met, the fisheries could be sustained indefinitely.

Unfortunately, both prerequisites for

sustainable harvest have been routinely violated in the past. The lack of coordinated

management across jurisdictions, coupled with

competitive economic pressures to increase

catches, or sustain them in periods of lower

production, resulted in harvests that were too

high, limiting the numbers of adults escaping

to spawn. At the same time, habitat has been

increasingly degraded, reducing the capacity of

the salmon stocks to produce numbers in

excess of their spawning requirements.

For many years, construction of hatcheries to produce more fish was the response to

lost habitat productivity and declining catches

primarily related to the construction and

operation of the FCRPS. Because hatcheries

require fewer adults to sustain their production, harvest rates in the fisheries were allowed to remain high, or go even higher,

further exacerbating the effects of overfishing

on the natural runs caught in the same fisheries.

Although the heyday of fishing has

passed, with many historic fisheries now

closed or tightly regulated, fishing pressure

continues to be a factor in the decline of

particular fish runs, such as Snake River fall

chinook.

3.2.3 Current Management

There are two broad geographic areas of

fishing relevant to Columbia Basin stocks –

ocean fisheries and in-river fisheries. Ocean

fisheries occur in coastal waters of Southeast

Alaska, Canada, Washington, Oregon and

California. U.S. ocean fisheries are governed

by the PST, and by U.S. regulation. Canadian

fisheries are governed by the PST and Canadian regulations. Fall chinook, including

listed Snake River fall chinook, are harvested

in significant numbers in these ocean fisheries.

The Harvest Appendix describes the various

federal, state and tribal jurisdictions that have

regulatory authority over salmon fisheries.

Ocean fishing seasons are established

annually by the regulatory jurisdictions.

Information regarding fish abundance, escapement trends, and catch allocation among

fisheries is compiled by fishery agency and

tribal technical support committees. The

information is then used in establishing annual

fishing seasons in conformance with the

Pacific Salmon Treaty, Indian treaty rights, and

conservation needs. The Harvest Appendix

provides an example of management objectives and considerations for Columbia River

Basin natural and hatchery salmon stocks that

are of significance to ocean salmon fisheries

(PFMC 1999). Considerations include spawning escapement goals, management targets

such as dam counts, and fishery allocation

requirements. Performance in achieving

management goals is annually assessed by the

involved Canadian, federal, state and tribal

management entities.

Freshwater fisheries (in-river fisheries)

within the Columbia River basin are geographically divided. The commercial fishing area is

located in the mainstem Columbia River from

the estuary to McNary Dam. As runs permit,

the non-treaty commercial fishery is conducted below Bonneville Dam, while the treaty

Indian ceremonial, subsistence and commercial fishery is conducted in the mainstem

reservoirs between Bonneville Dam and

McNary Dam. The other mainstem areas and

tributaries of the basin are managed for nonIndian recreational and treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing (as run sizes

permit). The individual tribes hold rights

reserved by treaty, and by other right, to fish

specific areas of the mainstem and tributaries

within the basin.

The freshwater fisheries presently occur

primarily in the spring and in the fall. Salmon

species and runs overlap in their time of return

to the river and, therefore, the spring fisheries

take a mixture of lower, mid- and upper

Columbia River spring chinook, Snake River

spring/summer chinook, sockeye and some
4 7 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

steelhead. The fall fisheries harvest lower,

mid- and upper Columbia River steelhead,

Snake River steelhead, various lower, mid- and

upper Columbia River fall chinook, and Snake

River fall chinook salmon. The Harvest

Appendix provides information and statistics

on run timing, trends, salmon harvest and fish

counts over mainstem dams.

Many fisheries have been reduced dramatically in recent years as a result of declining runs and subsequent harvest reforms. The

trend of these reforms has been to reduce

harvest rates in mixed stock areas in favor of

harvests in areas closer to the rivers of origin

(terminal areas). This trend is the result of

two major factors:

· federal court rulings requiring that

harvestable fish be available to tribal fishing

areas, which generally are located in or

close to terminal areas; and

· a growing recognition among fishery

managers, reflected in modern management

plans, that harvest rates in mixed stock

fisheries must meet the conservation needs

of natural stocks.

Large mixed stock fisheries once managed to maximize catch are now managed to

reflect the productive capability and conservation needs of naturally-spawning fish present

in those fisheries, and to achieve allocation

objectives to terminal fisheries. The reduction

of the ocean commercial salmon fishing fleet

in Oregon and Washington is illustrative – the

fishery has gone from over 7,000 vessels in the

early 1980s to approximately 1,600 vessels in

the late 1990s (PFMC 1999b).

Total harvest in recent years has declined

due to both reduced harvest rates and decreases in total numbers of fish. The combined effect on fisheries has been dramatic, as

evidenced by the precipitous declines in

catches in nearly every mixed stock salmon

fishery in Washington, Oregon and southern

British Columbia. Nowhere is this more

evident than in Columbia River fisheries,

particularly Indian fisheries in the upper river.

Indian rights to fish pursuant to federal treaties, Executive Orders, and the federal trust

obligation have been seriously constrained to

conserve depleted fish runs.

As a result of declining abundance,

harvest reforms and ESA listings, ocean fishery

harvest rates on Snake River fall chinook have

been reduced by more than one third from the

early 1990s (PFMC 1999c).

In-river fisheries have also been sharply

constrained, in some cases for close to 30

years. Since 1973, there have been no Indian

commercial fisheries for summer chinook, and

none for spring chinook since 1977. Tribal

ceremonial and subsistence fisheries have

averaged less than 6 percent and 3 percent of

the runs, respectively, over the last 5 years.

Non-Indian fisheries in the lower river have

likewise been constrained to very low levels,

with less than a 1 percent harvest rate of upper

river spring and summer chinook. The Snake

River fall chinook harvest rates have been

reduced by 30 percent from the 1988-93 base

period to protect Snake River fall chinook. In

1998 and 1999, the fall season fisheries were

further restricted to protect newly-listed upper

Columbia and Snake River steelhead. In 1999,

the harvest rate for wild Snake River fall

chinook was about 31 percent, compared with

a rate of about 45 percent from 1988 to 1993.

The 1999 tribal harvest rate for B-run wild

Snake River steelhead was less than 15 percent, compared to the former Columbia River

Fish Management Plan (CRFMP) guideline of

32 percent for this stock. (1999 numbers are

preliminary, unpublished data: U.S. v. Oregon

Technical Advisory Committee.)

The U.S. v. Oregon case, originally filed in

1968 by the United States on behalf of four

treaty Indian Tribes, defines harvest sharing

principles for Columbia River salmon fisheries.

There have been two management plans

adopted by the Court since the original case

was litigated. The most recent Columbia River

Fish Management Plan expired in 1998

(CRFMP 1988). The CRFMP plan contained

fish production, conservation and harvest

goals intended to rebuild weak runs to full

productivity while fairly sharing the harvest of

upriver runs between treaty Indian and nonIndian fisheries in the ocean and Columbia

River Basin. For a variety of reasons, the runs

have not been restored as originally envisioned.

In response to ESA listings, the CRFMP

was amended by agreement of the parties in

1996. These amendments imposed even

greater restrictions on harvests. The restrictions that had already eliminated tribal spring

and summer chinook commercial fisheries
4 8 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

years earlier were continued, and the tribal

ceremonial and subsistence fisheries were

constrained to “conservation levels,” meaning

harvest rates below 5-7 percent, for another

three years. The fall season commercial

fishery was constrained to limit impacts on the

listed Snake River fall chinook, which arrive

intermingled with the healthier upriver fall

chinook runs (Hanford reach chinook and

hatchery chinook).

Now, both the 1988 plan and the 1996

amendments have expired. For over two

years, the U.S. v. Oregon parties have been

engaged in difficult negotiations to develop a

new plan, largely without success. Those

negotiations are severely hampered by the

uncertainty associated with many decisions

framed throughout this paper. Meanwhile,

beginning in 1998, the steelhead fisheries have

been managed for increasingly lower harvests

— and only after very contentious negotiations

— triggered by the most recent ESA listings in

August 1997 and March 1999. Because a

substantial portion of the newly-listed upriver

steelhead ESUs also arrive intermingled with

fall chinook, another layer of constraint has

been imposed on the tribes’ fall season

mainstem fishery. These ESA constraints

threaten the economic viability of the tribes’

last remaining commercial fishery in the basin.

3.2.4 Harvest Program Objectives

There are two program objectives for

harvest.

1. To manage fisheries in a manner that

prevents overharvest and contributes to

recovery;

2. To provide fishing opportunities in a

manner that comports with trust obligations

to the tribes and complies with sustainable

fisheries objectives to all citizens.

As noted above, the reduced catches in

many fisheries, particularly mixed stock

fisheries (including the Columbia River

mainstem), are the result of both harvest

management reforms and declines in total

abundance. In the future, fishing in mixed

stock areas will continue to be constrained by

natural stocks present in the fishery and

harvest allocation requirements. Management

techniques such as time, area, and gear management will be used to ensure greater harvest selectivity. New mass marking technologies that make it possible to identify and

selectively harvest hatchery fish, even in

mixed stock areas, will continue to be developed and employed.

Weak stock management reforms are

permanent. Future increases in mixed stock

area fisheries will depend almost entirely on

increased production of weak natural populations and/or greater harvest selectivity. Future harvest depends on these improvements,

whether stocks increase in the future due to

fortuitous changes in environmental conditions, or due to natural populations being

restored to healthy production because of

reforms in the other Hs.

3.2.5 Harvest Strategies

The following strategies will help assure

that the dual objectives of species conservation and harvest allocation are met. The

strategies apply to ocean and freshwater

fisheries.

Review, update, and/or establish

biologically-based spawning escapement

objectives.

These objectives reflect current and

expected habitat carrying capacity and

productivity and may be expressed as numbers

of spawners, target harvest exploitation

rates, or both.

Manage all fisheries to ensure all

biologically-based objectives are

achieved.

Continue to develop, refine, and apply

selective fishery techniques. These include

but are not limited to mark-selective

fisheries, and known-stock fisheries.

Techniques should avoid deleterious effects on

populations, such as changing the size, age

structure and run timing of exploited stocks.

Continue to develop and refine

coordinated fishery harvest and

production plans, especially as it relates

to a successor plan to the now-expired

CRFMP.
4 9 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Replace lost tribal fishing opportunities

on an expedited basis. Examples of this

approach include development of subbasin

fisheries in tributaries such as the Walla Walla,

Clearwater, Umatilla, Klickitat, Deschutes, and

other areas consistent with recovery objectives

and tribal fisheries’ needs. Other opportunities

in the tributaries could also be identified,

consistent with recovery and harvest

objectives, to offset restrictions that have and

will continue to constrain mainstem fisheries.

The need to restore tribal fisheries to viable

levels that comport with treaty and trust

obligations will remain a high priority.

However, there are relatively few opportunities

where this strategy will produce results in the

near term.

3.2.6 Harvest Options

Three basic options for harvest management were developed for consideration in

concert with the other Hs. The following

options presume that the harvest reforms of

recent years will continue. These reforms,

coupled with the dramatic decline in productivity, already have come at great cost to the

fishery sector in the Pacific Northwest, especially for the tribes.

The recent expiration of the CRFMP and

ongoing but unfinished negotiations for a new

plan make it difficult to accurately identify

any one particular option as representing the

“status quo.” Instead, we have included

Option 2, which reflects 1999 harvest management. It incorporates changes flowing from

the recent Pacific Salmon Treaty agreement

and harvest rates applied in 1999 to the various

fisheries subject to the now-expired CRFMP.

From that option, we postulate two additional

options, one that schedules more harvest in

future years (Option 1), and one that contemplates further reductions in ocean and in-river

fisheries (Option 3).

Option 1

Fishery Benefits During Recovery

This option implements the recently

negotiated Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) conditions in all ocean fisheries and, as contemplated in that agreement, further constrains

U.S. fisheries south of Canada in some years if

necessary to comply with the ESA. It would

apply the constraints currently being developed for listed upper Willamette and lower

Columbia chinook.

When abundance of listed stocks is

similar to 1999, the in-river fisheries would be

managed to limit impacts on listed chinook to

conservation levels, e.g., 7 percent or less on

spring chinook, and 5 percent or less on

summer chinook. All in-river fall fisheries

would be managed so as not to exceed the

1999 harvest rate limits for Snake River fall

chinook (preliminary estimate is 31 percent)

and B- run steelhead (preliminary estimate less

than 15 percent). In anticipation of higher

abundance in the future, a schedule would be

developed that allows harvest rates to increase

as abundance increases.

Option 2

Fixed In-River Harvest Rates (1999 levels)

This option is the same as Option 1,

except that no stepped in-river harvest rate

schedule would be included. In-river fisheries

would be managed to limit impacts on listed

spring and summer chinook to 7 and 5 percent,

respectively, or less, and the fall season fisheries would be managed so as not to exceed the

1999 harvest rate limits for Snake River fall

chinook and B-run steelhead. All of these

rates would be frozen until recovery goals are

achieved.

Option 3

Conservation Fishery Levels

This option implements the recently

negotiated Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) conditions for Alaskan and Canadian fisheries,

except that additional voluntary reductions

would be sought in these fisheries. It differs

from Option 2 in that all other harvest impacts

on listed populations would be reduced to

conservation crisis levels for a period of years,

after which it would shift to Option 1 or 2.

Conservation crisis levels are defined as levels

similar to the 1999 harvest rates for listed

spring/summer chinook (5 to 7 percent), and

comparable conservation crisis levels for listed

Snake River fall chinook and steelhead.
5 0 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

3.2.7 Evaluation of Options

Biological Evaluation

Reductions in harvest will produce an

immediate and quantifiable benefit to salmonid populations by increasing the number of

spawning adults. For those ESUs currently

subjected to low harvest rates, further reductions are unlikely to produce substantial

benefits.

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook

Snake River spring/summer chinook are

currently harvested in-river at conservation

levels (5-7 percent), and are not significantly

taken in ocean fisheries. PATH sensitivity

analyses indicate that under current operation

of the hydropower system, the 1995 FCRPS

Biological Opinion survival and recovery

standards would be met or almost met if a

2-3 percent rate of harvest were maintained

indefinitely as stocks rebuild (see Harvest

Appendix). CRI analysis indicates that reductions in harvest rate or a moratorium on inriver harvest would increase the population

growth rate by only about 1 percent. This

increase alone will not substantially reduce

extinction risk for this ESU.

Snake River Fall Chinook

Fall chinook in the Snake River Basin are

subject to substantial harvest, both in the

ocean and the river. PATH analyzed the effect

of continuing current harvest schedules,

reducing ocean harvest alone, and reducing

ocean harvest (15 percent, 50 percent and

75 percent) and in-river harvest (50 percent)

together (see Harvest Appendix). The probability of reaching survival and recovery goals

increased with decreasing harvest. The 1995

Biological Opinion survival standards were met

under all harvest scenarios. Recovery probabilities projected under lower Snake River

drawdown scenarios exceeded the recovery

criteria under each of the harvest scenarios,

including the current harvest schedule. For

those scenarios involving transportation, the

ability to meet the recovery standard was

sensitive to assumptions about indirect mortality (due to transportation) and passage models. The only scenarios with reduced harvest

that did not meet recovery standards included

increased reliance on transportation and

assumptions of high indirect mortality. CRI

analyses also indicate that harvest has a

substantial impact on this ESU. Current

analyses indicate that extinction risk in

100 years for this ESU can be reduced to less

than 1 in 100 by reducing either in-river or

ocean harvest by 75 percent (from 1993-1996

levels) or reducing both by 50 percent. However, harvest reductions may need to continue

over the long term, raising serious implications

for the exercise of tribal fishing rights and

other harvest.

Since 60 percent of the ocean impacts

occur in Canadian fisheries, a 50-75 percent

reduction in ocean impacts would require the

agreement of Canada. Although the recently

negotiated Pacific Salmon Treaty will result in

reductions in Canadian fisheries over those of

the past decade, further reductions would be

needed to achieve the 50-75 percent. Additional significant reductions in tribal harvest

would require negotiations with the tribes.

Snake River Steelhead

Snake River steelhead face significant

pressures from harvest in the river. CRI analyses suggest that reducing harvest rates to

approximately 5-10 percent (the 1999 rate was

less than 15 percent) will reduce the extinction

risk for this ESU to less than 1 in 100 (in

100 years). However, harvest reductions may

need to continue over the long term, raising

serious implications for the exercise of tribal

fishing rights and other harvest.

Other ESUs

The impact of harvest on other ESUs has

not been quantitatively assessed. However,

reducing harvest rates will reduce extinction

risk for any ESU subject to substantial harvest,

by increasing the number of spawners.

Other Considerations

Social and Economic Effects

The Northwest Power Planning Council’s

Multi-Species Framework Analysis has identified some possible costs associated with harvest strategies (see box). The Federal Caucus

did not analyze the social and economic

effects of the harvest options beyond what

was identified in the Framework analysis.
5 1 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Ecological Effects

The harvest options do not have broad

ecological implications. The impact of the

harvest options on resident fish and other

aquatic species is not expected to be significant because few resident fish are harvested in

in-river fisheries.

Effects on Tribal Rights

All of the harvest options have serious

impacts on tribal fisheries. Even current levels

of harvest are well below tribal harvest expectations. Severe limitations on tribal winter

and spring season harvest for the past quartercentury have devastated this important cultural fishery for lower river tribes. . There is

potentially a significant period of time before

habitat and other improvements will take

effect.

To meet tribal obligations in the short

term, additional tributary and other selective

harvest opportunities, particularly for tribes,

should be explored. For some basins, hatcheries can help provide harvest opportunities in

the interim (See Section 3.3, Hatcheries, for

more details). However, it will continue to be

a challenge to identify harvest locations and

methods that are compatible with ESA efforts

during this period. Few areas exist where

hatchery and healthy stocks can be selectively

harvested without affecting listed populations.

Selective fishing gear is a promising tool,

however satisfactory methods have not yet

been developed for all fisheries.

3.2.8 Implementation Issues

There are several key institutional structures with responsibility to coordinate and

implement harvest management decisions for

ocean and freshwater fisheries. Authority to

regulate fisheries is generally held by the

various state, tribal, U.S. federal, and Canadian

fisheries management agencies. The Harvest

Appendix provides descriptions of these

authorities and their roles in harvest management. The recent Pacific Salmon Treaty

agreement attempts to coordinate U.S. and

Canadian fisheries management and rebuild

West Coast salmon stocks. However, the U.S.

has no direct control over Canadian fisheries.

U.S. v. Oregon remains the appropriate forum

for addressing and implementing harvest and

production actions relative to the rights of the

treaty Indian tribes. It is essential that the

parties to U.S. v. Oregon continue their negotiations. The parties are grappling with uncertainties relative to the ESA and management

options under consideration in all four Hs.

This paper is intended to provide the parties

with additional context for those negotiations.

Well-coordinated harvest management is

critical to ensuring that the sum of the impacts

across all fisheries is consistent with recovery

and sustainability of involved species. Implementation of any harvest management option

will require a great deal of coordination among

many players to be effective. Existing U.S.

domestic public processes and the Pacific

Salmon Commission are quite capable of

carrying out measures necessary to implement

Options 1 or 2. Option 3 will be more difficult,

as it depends on implementation of restricConservation

easements

are more

often used for

habitat. They

give the right

to protect,

improve, or

maintain

habitats or

particular

habitat

conditions

and are

acquired

through lease,

purchase, or

donation. A

conservation

easement on a

fishery would

similarly

involve

acquiring the

right to

reduce

harvest.

Framework Analysis of Harvest Effects

Harvest strategies focus on the intentional take of species. Specific strategies

might require selective fisheries, a focus on

sport or commercial and sport fisheries,

harvest based on escapement needs for the

smallest population unit or population

aggregates, management of overall harvest

to meet escapement needs, or the use of

various new harvest techniques, such as fish

wheels or use of fish ladders to select

individual fish for harvest or release.

Costs of harvest management include

implementation costs, enforcement costs,

and lost profits from reduced fishing.

The Framework analysis estimated the

economic value of the Columbia River Basin

salmon and steelhead fishery to be nearly

$25 million annually, given early 1990s

conditions. Any strategy that reduces

harvest would have the direct impact of

reducing this annual value. Actual costs

may be even higher, since economic incentives and value for fisherman may not be

based solely on the value of the catch. In

other words, the value to fishermen of a $25

million harvest might be more than $25

million. These additional costs are

unquantified.

Reduction in harvest levels would

require costs for implementation and

enforcement, in addition to lost value. BPA

has budgeted over $500,000 for such costs in

its Year 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program.

In addition, BPA has budgeted nearly

$5 million for strategies to control predatory

fish, birds or mammals.
5 2 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

tions in ocean fisheries, such as conservation

easements, that go far beyond the recently

negotiated Pacific Salmon Treaty agreements.

If such restrictions were to be implemented

voluntarily, they would have to involve coordinated and complementary actions by Canada.

3.2.9 Performance Measures

Performance measures for harvest primarily involve annual monitoring of stock status,

catch and mortality by stock and fishery, and

escapement enumeration and trends. In

addition, court-mandated harvest allocation

objectives will require monitoring. Measures

will include:

· spawning escapement,

· harvest and exploitation rates,

· distribution of harvest over age, sex, and

run timing,

· harvest allocation percentages, including

tribal harvest allocations.

3.2.10 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation

There are several research, monitoring

and evaluation actions that are essential to

effective harvest management. They typically

relate to Performance Measures, above. Additional key priorities are:

· Continue to refine stock assessment

methods, including accounting for

incidental fishery mortality in all fisheries,

catch monitoring and reporting, escapement

enumeration, and population identification;

· Continue to develop opportunities and

methods of selective harvest, especially for

tribal fisheries.

· Continue to enforce harvest regulations

effectively.

· Develop value-added commercial

enterprises to increase the net economic

value of tribal fishing and fisheries.

· Account for the effects of various harvest

methods, timing, gear, etc., on listed

populations, for example, hooking mortality

associated with selective ocean and in-river

fisheries.

· Evaluate the change in growth rates and

extinction risks in relation to implementing

conservation fisheries.

3.2.11 Key Uncertainties

Any options for harvest in the basin must

face these key uncertainties:

· Whether further reductions in Canadian and

Alaskan harvests of fall chinook are

possible.

· Whether there are opportunities to develop

known-stock fisheries within the basin,

particularly for the tribes, with acceptable

impacts to listed species.

3.3 Hatcheries

3.3.1 Overview

Hatchery fish represent approximately

80 percent of the annual adult salmon and

steelhead returning to the Columbia River

Basin. Nearly all hatchery fish programs in the

basin were intended to compensate for the

loss of fish and fish habitat due to construction and operation of the FCRPS and

nonfederal dams licensed by the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission. Major hatchery programs are authorized under federal

legislation, such as the Mitchell Act (1938) and

the Lower Snake River Compensation Program

(1976). Other hatchery programs are operated

as part of hydroelectric dam licensing agreements under FERC, and under the BPA Fish

and Wildlife Program. Hatchery mitigation

programs produce fish for harvest in the

Columbia Basin and in ocean fisheries that

extend from Alaska to northern California.

Hatcheries are not necessarily located in

the area of habitat loss, nor do all species and

fisheries benefit from hatchery programs. For

example, most early mitigation for upper basin

fish losses was fall chinook and coho hatcheries constructed under the Mitchell Act, with

facilities located primarily in the area below

The Dalles Dam. Increased Mitchell Act

production has been focused above Bonneville

Dam. There was also great uncertainty at the

time whether anadromous fish would be able

to survive in the upper basins once the FCRPS

was fully developed. Tribal fisheries were

especially hard-hit by these decisions because

many fisheries are located farther upstream in

the basin.

Modern hatchery production peaked in

the early 1990s at over 200 million fish annually, declining to about 150 million at present.

There are about 100 anadromous fish hatcher-
5 3 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Figure 3 – Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Willamette River
5 4 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Figure 4 – Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Lower Columbia River
5 5 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Figure 5 – Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Middle Columbia River
5 6 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Figure 6 – Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Upper Columbia River
5 7 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Figure 7 – Anadromous Fish Hatcheries Snake River
5 8 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

hatcheries can be effectively used to help

restore self-sustaining, naturally-spawning

populations over the long term. A fundamental question is: how can artificial production

be applied in a manner that not only avoids

harm, but also assists in the conservation and

rebuilding of wild runs? The issue is further

complicated by the fact that access to freshwater habitat in the Columbia Basin has been

blocked or habitat may be highly degraded,

and hatchery production may be the only

substitute for those fisheries losses. The

parties to U.S. v. Oregon are negotiating an

integrated harvest and production plan, as

described in Section 3.2, Harvest. The challenge inherent in developing a new plan will

be to meet the conservation needs for species

listed under the ESA while meeting treaty and

federal trust obligations and providing sustainable Indian and non-Indian fisheries. The

treaty and trust obligation is described in

additional detail in Section 1.5 of this document. The parties to U.S. v. Oregon hold a

wide range of views about the use of artificial

production to sustain and restore natural

populations and fisheries and are continuing

to work on resolving areas of disagreement. A

draft document called “Fed 1” provides current

federal agency views regarding production in

the various subbasins (see the Hatcheries

Appendix). The Nez Perce, Umatilla, Yakama,

and Warm Springs tribes have also developed a

detailed anadromous fish restoration plan that

provides recommendations on the use of

artificial production, especially supplementation, to assist salmonid restoration (CRITFC

1996).

3.3.2 Contributions to Decline

Hatcheries play a unique role in the

current crisis. They have been identified both

as part of the solution and as one of the

causes. Hatcheries can have negative impacts

on wild populations through ecological and

genetic interactions between hatchery and

wild fish although the magnitude of impacts is

uncertain and unquantifiable. However, they

also provide fish for harvest and are being

used as a last-resort method of preserving

important genetic resources for fish that are at

a high risk of extinction in the wild.

The report Upstream, sponsored by the

National Research Council, provides a thories and satellite facilities located in the Columbia Basin. The basin fish hatcheries are shown

in the following figures.

The goal of most hatcheries has been to

compensate/mitigate for fisheries by releasing

fish directly from the hatchery facility. Upon

reaching maturity, hatchery fish contribute to

the various marine and freshwater fisheries, or

return to the hatchery to spawn. The most

commonly propagated salmonid species are

chinook, steelhead and coho. Most hatchery

programs were not designed with the intent of

having hatchery-produced fish spawn in the

wild.

Hatcheries are also used in resident fish

programs including many intended as mitigation or substitution for losses associated with

the FCRPS. Species commonly propagated

include kokanee, rainbow and cutthroat trout.

Some hatcheries produce listed and sensitive

species. For example, the Kootenai River

white sturgeon are being conserved through a

preservation stocking program involving only

wild broodstock. Bull trout and cutthroat

trout facilities may have some role in reestablishing these species in former occupied

ranges.

Beginning in the 1990s, there has been an

increasing emphasis on preserving natural

populations and several mitigation programs

are currently being managed as conservation

programs. The genetic legacy of some populations, or an entire ESU, is being maintained

with captive broodstock programs that

maintain fish in production facilities throughout their life cycle, such as the Redfish Lake

sockeye program. Other populations are being

maintained with a combination of release

strategies including supplementation, the

practice of augmenting naturally-spawning

populations with juvenile or adult hatchery

fish. Examples of natural populations of

salmon augmented with hatchery-reared local

stocks are Upper Columbia River summer

steelhead, Upper Columbia spring chinook,

Snake River fall chinook (Lyons Ferry Hatchery), Imnaha River chinook, South Fork

Salmon River chinook, Tucannon River

chinook, and Imnaha River steelhead.

Hatcheries have a long history of providing fish in an efficient manner for harvest and

related social purposes. It is not clear whether

Captivebroodstook

program - A

form of

artificial

propagation

involving the

collection of

individuals

(or gametes)

from a natural

population

and the

rearing of

these

individuals to

maturity in

captivity. For

listed species,

a captive

broodstock is

considered

part of the

evolutionarily

significant

unit (ESU)

from which it

is taken.
5 9 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

ough summary of the effects of hatcheries

(NRC 1996). The Upstream report and other

recent scientific studies have identified a

number of risks associated with hatchery

production.

As adults, hatchery fish intermingle with

wild fish in the ocean and when they return to

the river. If harvest rates are based on the

abundance of hatchery fish, weaker stocks of

wild fish may be over-harvested. In recent

years, harvest management has undergone

major changes, and become much more

responsive to weaker-stock components in

mixed-stock fisheries (see Section 3.2, Harvest).

Artificial propagation has the potential to

impact the fitness of wild salmon populations

in several ways. First, many hatchery programs use broodstock that are not native to

the area in which they are released. If these

fish interbreed in substantial numbers with

local wild fish, outbreeding depression or a

loss of local adaptations could potentially

reduce the fitness of the local natural population. Second, even if the hatchery population

is derived from a local natural population, the

fitness of the natural population could be

potentially reduced over time by the domestication that occurs in the hatchery or by poor

hatchery broodstock mating protocols that

increase inbreeding or reduce genetic variability. Many of these effects are theoretical,

though some have been empirically studied in

specific cases. The likely severity of many of

these effects can be difficult to predict in any

particular case.

There are a number of ecological interactions that can take place between hatchery

and wild fish. These interactions are widely

considered harmful to wild fish, although the

effects are not well quantified (NMFS 1995).

These interactions include predation on wild

fish by larger hatchery fish, competition for

space and food, and disease transmission.

There is great uncertainty about the number of

fish that can be supported in freshwater

streams, the estuary or the ocean. Release of

large numbers of hatchery fish may reduce

survival of wild fish by increasing competition

for food or habitat in any of these habitats.

3.3.3 Current Management

A number of steps have already been

taken to begin to address problems associated

with interactions between hatchery and wild

fish. For example, many hatchery programs

no longer use non-indigenous stocks. By

altering the time, location, or size, of released

fish, competition and predation between

hatchery and wild fish may be reduced. Rearing fish in more natural conditions may produce fish that are less domesticated and have

more “wild-like” behaviors and appearance.

Future research is needed to determine

whether these actions result in better survival

of hatchery fish in the wild and in fewer

negative interactions with wild fish.

A number of independent scientific

panels have critically reviewed hatcheries and

have made recommendations to improve

hatchery performance. Their reports include

the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team,

1994; the Independent Scientific Group, 1996;

the National Research Council, 1995; and the

National Fish Hatchery Review Panel, 1994.

These reports provide guidance for making

hatchery programs more compatible with

current conservation biology science.

The most recent effort, the Artificial

Production Review (APR) by the NPPC (1999),

to be submitted to Congress in 1999, builds

upon these efforts. It provides an overview of

hatcheries, recommendations for coordinating

basinwide hatchery policies, recommendations

for improving hatchery performance and an

implementation plan. When completed, the

APR may provide the best vehicle for implementing coordinated policies and actions. A

detailed summary of the APR Report can be

found in the Hatcheries Appendix. Further

guidance can be found in additional publications such as NMFS’ recommended protocols

for the use of captive broodstock (NMFS

1999a), and in the March 1999 Biological

Opinion on Artificial Production (NMFS

1999b). Also see the Hatcheries Appendix for

a description of management tools that are

under development.

3.3.4 Hatcheries Program Objectives

There are four objectives for hatcheries:

1. Minimize the adverse effects of hatchery

production on wild fish,
6 0 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

2. Conserve genetic resources,

3. Help restore natural populations, and

4. Use hatcheries creatively to mitigate for lost

habitat or reduced productivity, providing a

sustainable harvest resource for tribal and

nontribal fisheries.

3.3.5 Hatcheries Strategies

The Draft Artificial Production Review

(NPPC 1999) provides recommendations for

policies to guide future operation of hatcheries, performance standards and recommendations for implementation. That effort is

endorsed here and discussed below. A number

of overall strategies or actions will be taken or

considered regardless of the hatchery option

selected. These are discussed below.

Use artificial propagation when predicted

benefits outweigh risks.

Managers should conduct a detailed risk/

benefit analysis on a subbasin-by-basin level

before using artificial propagation. In those

situations where the benefits of such a program outweigh the risk (e.g., risk of extinction

is high without artificial propagation), appropriate artificial propagation techniques should

be applied. Examples include captive

broodstock and supplementation. Additional

conservation actions will almost always be

necessary to achieve recovery regardless of

whether supplementation is performed, because supplementation does not address the

underlying cause of a natural population’s poor

status.

Base hatchery programs on Hatchery

Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for

each hatchery program.

Hatchery and genetic management

plans should be developed for each hatchery

program. These HGMPs should address

genetic issues, such as the use of local stocks

or the effects of artificial selection. (Specific

strategies and associated actions that could be

implemented under an HGMP are detailed in

the Hatcheries Appendix). The HGMP should

also address the relationship between planned

production and planned harvest. In addition,

such plans should minimize the potential for

adverse ecological effects of hatchery production on natural populations. Finally, all

HGMPs should include a thorough monitoring

and evaluation plan for evaluating risks and

benefits of projects (see Hatcheries Appendix).

Apply well-designed adaptive

management programs to resolve critical

uncertainties.

Hatchery programs and strategies must be

flexible and responsive to changes in the

status of habitat, hydropower and fish productivity. The level of benefit that can be derived

from artificial propagation programs, as well

as the conditions under which those benefits

are realized, is uncertain. Hatchery conservation and mitigation programs should be designed to address some of these uncertainties

and should be part of an adaptive management

program. This will entail designating some

tributaries as “controls,” to be managed without hatchery releases as part of an experimental monitoring effort.

Implement sustainable fishery programs

that enable harvest of salmon consistent

with the objectives set forth in this

document.

Production plans should continue to

explore the use of artificial production to

create known-stock harvest opportunities to

mitigate for lost harvest opportunities for

tribal and nontribal fisheries. Mitigation and

compensation programs should transition to

indigenous stocks where feasible and appropriate. The use of non-endemic stocks for

terminal fisheries may continue where impacts

to wild stocks (straying, outbreeding depression, predation, competition, etc.), can be

minimized. These programs should be closely

monitored and adaptive management applied

as necessary to prevent adverse impacts to

natural populations.

3.3.6 Hatcheries Options

Three basic options were developed for

hatchery production. Option 1 involves a

continuation and expansion of hatchery

reforms now underway, and modifications as

recommended in the NMFS Biological Opinion

on Hatchery Production. Option 2 is an

expansion and acceleration of Option 1 actions in the event that the status of salmon

populations fail to improve in the near term.

Non-endemic

stocks are not

native to a

specific region

where they are

used.
6 1 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Under Option 3, hatchery production is shifted

to hatchery programs that are part of an ESA

conservation strategy or selective fishery

strategy, and there are sharp reductions in

mitigation hatcheries. All of the options

include numerous hatchery reforms already

underway in the basin.

Option 1

Currently Planned Programs

This option includes actions that have

been recently implemented, planned actions

required by Biological Opinions, and changes

that may result from a new U.S. v. Oregon

management plan. These actions are intended

to conserve genetic resources of listed species

and to improve hatchery mitigation programs

in the basin. The details of these programs are

included in the “Fed 1” proposal made by the

federal parties in U.S. v. Oregon negotiations

(see Hatcheries Appendix). Management

strategies to implement the currently planned

programs would continue to be made on a

subbasin-by-subbasin basis for each species.

Hatchery Conservation Programs —

This option is presently being implemented for

populations at high risk of extinction such as

those in the Snake and upper Columbia

regions. Under the Fed 1 proposal, there

would be approximately 20 listed and at-risk

populations maintained in hatcheries until

environmental conditions improve or

improvements can be made in other Hs.

Hatchery Mitigation Programs —

Mitigation hatcheries will continue to produce

fish for harvest at roughly current levels.

Practices at these hatcheries will be improved

as programs continue to convert to local

stocks, and when other actions identified in

Section 3.3.5, Strategies, and in Fed 1 are

implemented. In some cases improvements

will result in decreases in hatchery production.

Programs may also continue to experience

reductions in fish production due to budget

considerations and other priorities.

The main feature of this option is that it

does not seek to change the currently planned

programs for either conservation or mitigation.

The rationale for continuing conservation

programs at this level is to prevent some, but

not all, local extinctions. The rationale for not

increasing conservation programs is that

hatchery intervention to conserve genetic

resources is costly and difficult, conservation

programs are unproven, and the risks of

hatchery interventions to preserve local populations may outweigh the potential benefits to

the population or the ESU. This option would

not preclude subsequent increase in conservation programs if warranted.

The rationale for continuing current

mitigation programs rather than seeking

further reductions is that the harmful effects

of hatchery production are uncertain and not

well-quantified; improvements currently being

implemented will reduce many of the risks

hatcheries pose to wild populations; and

mitigation programs provide an important

benefit to tribal and nontribal fisheries.

Option 2

Increased Conservation Programs

This option would increase the number of

conservation hatchery programs beyond the

currently planned levels, and continue currently planned improvements and other

changes in existing mitigation programs.

Hatchery Conservation Programs —

Additional programs beyond those identified

in Option 1 would be initiated where the

combined actions in the three other Hs are

insufficient to halt the decline in productivity

and survival of listed or at-risk populations.

Actions identified in Option 1 would be

accelerated and expanded. Hatchery programs

would be expanded for populations at risk of

extinction from the present level of about

20 populations, to perhaps as many as

70 populations.

Decisions about which additional populations to conserve would be based on a risk

assessment conducted on a subbasin-bysubbasin basis. The Hatcheries Appendix

describes how such risk assessments would be

conducted.

Hatchery Mitigation Programs —

Same as Option 1.

The main feature of Option 2 is an expansion of hatchery conservation actions. The

rationale is to conserve populations consid-
6 2 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

ered to be at significant risk of extinction.

The assumption is that where populations are

at significant risk of extinction, the potential

benefits of hatchery intervention outweigh the

risks of extinction. Another assumption is

that the risk of local extinctions outweighs the

costs of conservation.

Option 3

Increased Conservation Programs and

Significantly Decreased Mitigation Programs

This option would increase the number of

conservation hatchery programs, as described

in Option 2, while significantly decreasing

mitigation programs below currently planned

levels.

Hatchery Conservation Programs — Same

as Option 2.

Hatchery Mitigation Programs — Mitigation

programs would be significantly reduced under

this option. Reductions would be decided on a

case-by-case basis using criteria such as

genetic and ecological effects, the risk that the

mitigation program poses to natural fish, and

harvestability in selective fisheries. Under this

option, hatchery smolt production might be

reduced as much as 50-80 percent.

The main feature of Option 3 is that it

incorporates the expanded hatchery conservation aspects of Option 2 while requiring a

significant reduction in mitigation programs.

The rationale for increasing conservation

programs is the same as for Option 2. The

rationale for decreasing mitigation programs is

that, although the harmful effects of hatchery

production are uncertain and not well-quantified, all major scientific reviews of hatchery

practices warn of the biological risks associated with hatchery programs.

3.3.7 Evaluation of Options

Biological Evaluation

Biological evaluation of hatchery options

is complicated not only because hatcheries

may have both negative and positive effects,

but also because hatchery production has

increased as natural productivity has decreased. In the absence of experiments

explicitly addressing hatchery effects, it is

difficult to determine the role hatchery practices have played in reducing or maintaining

natural productivity.

CRI Program. The Cumulative Risk Initiative

program being conducted by the Science

Center includes an assessment of the impact

of hatchery fish on wild stocks. CRI is

identifying correlations between spawning

escapement and hatchery releases, using the

PATH index stocks for the Columbia River

Basin, to determine the impact of releases of

different salmonid species at different life

stages (e.g., egg, fry, smolt) on natural

productivity. Future CRI modeling efforts will

explore the risks and benefits of

supplementation from both a genetic and

population dynamic perspective.

PATH. In its retrospective analysis, the PATH

group detected no correlation between

productivity of spring/summer chinook from

streams with and without chinook hatchery

production. Additional analysis will determine

if there is a correlation between hatchery

steelhead releases and spring/summer chinook

productivity.

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment

(EDT) Assessment. The EDT project is

examining the potential impact of each

Framework alternative on various basin

salmon populations using an “expert system”

approach. To what extent that effort will yield

additional quantitative information on the

options presented here is unknown.

Other Considerations

Social and Economic Effects

Reduction in production of fish in mitigation hatcheries may reduce the fish available

for harvest and would affect programs intended to mitigate for lost fisheries resulting

from construction of the FCRPS. Reductions

could also affect commitments to provide fish

under the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty.

Selective sport fisheries that target marked

fish from mitigation hatcheries are likely to be

affected by all of the options. Part of the

qualitative deliberations may include redirecting hatchery mitigation funds to other activities. For example, current hatchery mitigation

Natural fish are

fish produced by

parents

spawning in a

stream or lake

bed, as opposed

to a controlled

environment

such as a

hatchery.
6 3 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

funds may be better spent on activities such as

conservation hatchery production, if it is

decided that such actions produce grater

benefits, with fewer risks to wild salmonids.

Hatchery conservation programs are

costly, as are improvements to mitigation

hatchery programs. Investment in hatcheries

has long-term implications. If salmon populations improve substantially, then the need for

long-term propagation programs and associated costs decline. If, however, salmonid

survival increases only modestly, or continues

to decline, then hatchery intervention becomes essential to prevent further extinctions.

The Hatcheries Appendix provides information

on potential costs for hatcheries under the

three options described. Even Option 1 of the

hatchery options represents an increase in

costs over the recent past. The Framework

Analysis gives the current sources of information about hatchery production and operation

costs (see box).

Ecological Effects

It is difficult to predict the ecological

effects that might result from implementing

the different hatchery options. A reduction in

hatchery production could reduce the number

of salmon and steelhead carcasses that provide

nutrients in basin tributaries. Reductions in

hatchery production could also affect populations of predator species, such as black bear,

river otter, sea lions, Caspian terns, northern

pikeminnow, bald eagle and other fish-eating

birds.

Effect on Tribal Rights

Reductions in hatchery production will

significantly reduce fish available for harvest

in tribal fisheries. The lower river tribes view

hatchery production as an essential strategy

for maintaining important cultural and economic values.

3.3.8 Implementation Issues

Hatcheries will continue to be needed to

achieve species recovery under the ESA and to

meet purposes such as sustainable fisheries

and tribal fishing rights. To satisfy these needs

and to have a more effective hatchery program, an integrated federal effort is needed.

Hatcheries currently represent a large component of Columbia River Basin expenditures,

and there are significant funding implications

related to the options under consideration. As

a priority, the various federal funding mechanisms and authorities involved, such as BPA,

Lower Snake River Compensation Program,

Mitchell Act, FERC and other federal programs, should develop a greater degree of

coordination to maximize the potential benefits of various hatchery programs.

A key implementation goal is to use the

federal funding mechanism to improve budget

planning for hatcheries, to help set budget

priorities (such as funding and construction

schedules for upgrading hatcheries to meet

necessary hatchery reforms), and to improve

the level of certainty associated with planning

and funding hatcheries. Coordinated planning

should produce a more responsive, methodical, and cost-effective approach to urgently

needed programs for species recovery and for

meeting fisheries needs.

3.3.9 Performance Measures

The NPPC’s draft APR report (NPPC 1999)

includes performance standards and indicators, and is a commendable effort to quantify

both the benefits and risks of using hatcheries

as management tools. The APR effort builds

upon a large body of work that includes the

products of the APR Science Review Team, the

Framework Analysis of Hatchery Effects

Little cost information is available for

strategies that would reduce, eliminate or

expand hatchery production. Costs arise in

at least two different ways—the actual costs

for funding hatcheries, which may increase

or decrease as production expands or

contracts, and the economic value produced

by hatchery fish.

The most important sources of information about hatchery production and operation

costs are from current programs funded by

BPA, the states, and other sources. BPA’s

projected budget for hatchery production and

operation programs for the year 2000 is

nearly $70 million. The Framework process

estimated that the average cost for most

hatcheries in the basin is between $1.50 and

$6.00 per pound of fish produced.

The Framework process also estimated

that the economic cost of eliminating

hatchery programs could be up to

$140 million per year.
6 4 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT)

and the Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee. The main criterion identified

for hatchery success is to achieve the identified benefits while managing risks through a

research, monitoring and evaluation program.

The performance standards relative to benefits

and risks are displayed in the following tables.

The APR represents a significant interagency,

tribal and public effort that is designed to set

up accountable, performance-based management of hatchery programs and should help

ResearchePreservation/ConservationdRestorationc

Mitigationb

Augmentationa

1. Provide predictable, stable and increased

opportunity for harvest. • •

2. Achieve genetic and life history conservation. • •

3. Enhance local, tribal, state, regional,

and national economies. ••••

4. Fulfill legal/policy obligations. ••••

5. Contribution of fish carcasses to ecosystem function

by subbasin and by hatchery. • •

6. Provide fish to satisfy legally mandated harvest. •••

7. Will achieve within-hatchery performance standards. ••••

8. Restore and create viable naturally spawning populations. •••

9. Plan and provide fish with coordinated mainstem passage

and habitat research in the Columbia Basin. •

10. Conduct within-hatchery research; improve performance

or cost effectiveness of artificial production hatcheries

to address the other four purposes. •

11. Minimize management, administrative, and overhead costs. •

12. Improve performance indicators to better

measure performance standards. •

 Key:

a. Purpose is to increase harvestable numbers of fish.

b. Purpose is to replace or compensate lost habitat capacity of naturally producing fish with artificially

produced fish (anadromous or resident, native and non-native) for harvest or some other reason.

c. Purpose is to hasten rebuilding or reintroduction of a population to harvestable levels.

d. Conserve genetic resources or fish populations impacted by habitat loss or degradation, including

preservation of populations faced with imminent demise, using methods such as captive propagation

and cryopreservation.

e. Determine how to effectively use artificial production to address the other hatchery purposes.

Table 3 - Performance Standards Related to Hatchery Benefits

streamline implementation of NMFS’ Hatchery

Biological Opinion(s) and other artificial

propagation improvements. A more extensive

summary of the APR report is provided in the

Hatcheries Appendix.

3.3.10 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation

Steps being taken now should improve

hatchery fish survival while reducing harm to

wild populations. Because the impacts of

supplementation on wild populations are not

fully understood, hatchery options must be

Source: NPPC 1999. Artificial Production Review.
6 5 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Table 4 - Performance Standards Related to Hatchery Risks

1. Harvest management plan to protect weak populations

where mixed population fisheries exist. •••

2. Do not exceed the carrying capacity of fluvial, lacustrine,

estuarine, and ocean habitats. •••••

3. Assess detrimental genetic impacts among hatchery

vs. wild where interaction exists. •••••

4. Unpredictable egg supply leading to poor programming

of hatchery production. ••••

5. Production cost of program outweighs the benefit. ••••

6. Cost effectiveness of hatchery ranked lower than

other actions in subregion or subbasin. ••••

7. Will not achieve within-hatchery performance standards. ••••

8. Evaluate habitat use and potential

detrimental ecological interactions. •••••

9. Avoid disease transfer from hatchery to

wild fish and vice versa. ••••

10. Evaluate impact on life history traits of wild and

hatchery fish, from harvest and spawning escapement. ••••

11. Assess survival of captive broodstock progeny

vs. wild cohorts. •

12. Depleting existing population spawning in the

wild through broodstock collection. • •

thoroughly monitored and evaluated to ensure

that management objectives are, in fact, being

achieved. Experimental actions and monitoring at various life stages will improve knowledge and decisionmaking over the long term.

In the interim, adaptive management will be a

necessary ingredient. Monitoring results can

then potentially determine if and where

improvements are occurring at various life

stages, whether criteria are being met and

whether additional management actions are

needed.

Monitoring and evaluation programs

should collect information about artificial

propagation projects necessary for evaluating

the benefits and risks of the projects. Minimal

information that should be collected for all

artificial propagation projects includes:

· Spawning population size of natural

populations in target area.

· Proportion of hatchery-produced spawners

in natural populations in target area.

· Spawning population size in the hatchery. Researche Preservation/ Conservationd Restorationc Mitigationb Augmentationa

Source: NPPC 1999. Artificial Production Review.
6 6 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

· Proportion of wild-produced spawning in

the hatchery.

· Total number, size, life-history stage, and

marking status of all fish released by the

hatchery.

· Location and method of all releases.

· Mean life-time survival and fecundity of

artificially and naturally propagated

populations in target area.

· Age structure of naturally and artificially

propagated fish in the target area.

· Homing or straying rates for artificially

propagated fish.

· Information on the health of the artificially

propagated fish (disease, condition, etc.).

· Information on all animal husbandry

protocols used by the hatchery.

Examples of other information that

should be collected for specific projects

include:

· Fry and/or smolt production of natural

populations in target area.

· Ecological interactions between program

fish and natural fish (same as other species)

in target area.

· Behavior, morphology, reproductive

success, and/or physiology of naturally and

artificially propagated fishes in the target

area.

· Geneflow from program fish into natural

populations.

· Genetic variability in the naturally and

artificially propagated populations in the

target area.

A summary of current BPA-funded supplementation and captive propagation research is

provided in the Hatcheries Appendix.

3.3.11 Key Uncertainties

Some of the key uncertainties for hatcheries are:

· Under what circumstances can artificial

propagation aid in achieving the ESA

objective of self-sustaining, natural

populations?

· Are habitat carrying capacity and the

numbers of hatchery fish being released

limiting wild fish recovery?

· Are natural populations projected to be self

sustaining without intervention?

· Are habitat carrying capacity and the

numbers of hatchery fish being released

limiting wild fish recovery? To what degree

do ecological interactions with hatcheryreleased fish affect the growth and survival

of wild juveniles?

· What is the reproductive success of

naturally spawning hatchery-origin fish? Has

interbreeding between hatchery-origin fish

and wild fish affected the average fitness of

wild populations?

· What is the current distribution of genetic

variation in hatchery and wild stocks?

3.4 Hydropower

3.4.1 Overview

Hydropower development has had profound effects on the basin’s aquatic species.

For salmon and steelhead, much of the impact

occurred when the Grand Coulee and Chief

Joseph dams in the Columbia River and the

Hells Canyon Complex in the Snake River

blocked passage to 55 percent of historic

spawning areas. Many smaller dams on the

tributaries have also blocked salmon spawning

areas and harmed resident fish (see Map 7).

The options examined do not include removal

of these dams or reintroduction of salmon and

steelhead above them. However, in the discussion on overall implementation of a unified

restoration program, we do recommend that

more detailed planning be carried out for each

ESU. In that planning the need for fish passage facilities at – or removal of – blocking

dams should be considered.

3.4.2 Contributions to Decline

Hydropower development in the basin

has affected salmon and steelhead in many

ways. The hydropower system affects all life

stages of these fish, except for their ocean

residence. For instance, the 28 storage reservoirs in the basin reduce flows and alter flow

timing. By 1979, the total storage capacity in

the basin, including Canada, had reached

nearly 40 percent of the Columbia River’s

annual average discharge. Storage of water for

winter hydropower generation and spring flood

control has substantially altered the natural

Morphology is

the structure,

form and

appearance of

an organism.
6 7 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

and rearing habitat; 3) modification of the

range of streamflows and water temperatures;

4) dewatering of the shallow water zone;

5) reduced productivity in reservoirs; and

6) gas supersaturation. Impacts of FCRPS

construction and operation are further detailed

in the Hydropower Appendix. Listed Snake

River snails occur in the Snake River well

above the FCRPS dams, but they may be

affected by some of the hydropower options

considered.

3.4.3 Current Management

Because extensive migration delays and

turbine passage can harm or kill salmon and

steelhead, the Corps has developed several

methods for moving them past the dams and

reservoirs. Mechanical bypass systems route

juvenile fish away from turbines. Water is

spilled at the dams to further reduce the

number of fish that pass through turbines. At

some dams, juvenile fish are collected and

loaded into barges, which carry them around

the remaining dams and release them at sites

below Bonneville Dam.

A flow augmentation program, first called

for by the NPPC and later increased under

NMFS’ 1995 and 1998 Biological Opinions,

aims to restore more natural flow patterns

during the time juvenile and adult salmon and

steelhead are migrating. The 1995 and 1998

Biological Opinions include two flow management strategies: limit the winter and spring

drafts of storage reservoirs to increase spring

flows and the probability of full reservoirs at

the beginning of summer; and draft from

storage reservoirs during the summer to

increase summer flows.

These measures have helped mitigate the

effects of the hydropower system on migrating

juvenile salmon. Other measures, detailed in

the 1995 and 1998 Biological Opinions and in

annual fish operating plans, further reduce

juvenile and adult mortality through the

hydropower corridor. These measures have

succeeded in increasing salmon and steelhead

survival, though the hydropower system

continues to claim large numbers of juvenile

and adult fish. The federal agencies have

developed a sophisticated ability to measure

direct mortality of fish passing through the

system using passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, radio tags, hydroacoustics

Dewatering

is the

removal of all

the water

from an

artificial or

natural

container or

channel. It

typically

refers to the

immediate

downstream

habitat

effects

associated

with a water

withdrawal

action that

diverts the

entire flow of

a stream or

river to

another

location.

Passive

integrated

transponder

(PIT) tags

are used for

identifying

individual

salmon for

monitoring

and research

purposes. This

miniaturized

tag consists of

an integrated

microchip

that is

programmed

to include

specific fish

information.

The tag is

inserted into

the body

cavity of the

fish and

decoded at

selected

monitoring

sites.

runoff pattern by increasing fall and winter

flows and decreasing spring and summer

flows. Changes in the pattern of the runoff

affect flows and temperature in the river

channel as well as the character of the estuary

and freshwater plume. The change in temperature affects the migration timing of adult

and juvenile fall chinook, the survival of

summer-migrating juveniles and adults in the

river, and increases susceptibility to disease.

Voluntary or involuntary spill can create high

levels of dissolved nitrogen gas that can be

lethal to fish.

The reservoirs behind the dams increase

the total width and depth of the river, decreasing river velocity and turbidity. These conditions increase the travel time of juveniles and

adults. Increased travel time exposes juveniles

to predators and alters the timing of their

ocean entry. The reservoirs have also substantially modified the temperature of the river

and provide ideal habitat for salmon predators.

In addition to the effects of impoundment, the dams themselves block or delay

upstream and downstream fish migration.

Many juvenile fish are killed regardless of how

they pass dams. Turbines kill the most juveniles, followed by bypass systems and spill.

Juvenile fish may also suffer indirect mortality from injury or stress caused from dam

passage. The delay in juvenile migration also

has indirect effects, increasing the time it

takes to reach the estuary, increasing exposure

to predators and changing the timing of ocean

entry. Adult fish may fall back through dams

and die passing through turbines, or later from

injury and migration delay.

Hydropower development in the basin

has also affected resident fish and other

aquatic species including the Kootenai River

white sturgeon, bull trout, westslope cutthroat

trout, and burbot. In 1994, the USFWS listed

Kootenai River white sturgeon as endangered

because few juveniles have survived to enter

the population. Seasonal changes to the river,

especially in spring and summer because of

Libby Reservoir refill operations, is a major

factor affecting the survival of Kootenai River

white sturgeon in the Kootenai River and

Kootenay Lake. Water management practices

have also impacted bull trout. The major

impacts associated with the FCRPS include:

1) passage barriers; 2) inundation of spawning
6 8 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

and other methods. There remains, however,

considerable uncertainty and controversy

about the level of indirect mortality of both

juvenile and adult fish passing through the

system, which is difficult to measure and

associate with causes. This is one of the key

uncertainties the region faces in deciding

whether it will try to recover Upper Columbia

and Snake River salmon and steelhead without

removing dams.

Special operations have also been implemented at FCRPS projects to benefit resident

fish. Special flow operations for Kootenai

River white sturgeon are typically in effect at

Libby Dam from April through August. In

1999, temporary flow ramping rates and

stable flows were established for Libby and

Hungry Horse dams to protect bull trout. Other

operations have been implemented at FCRPS

projects to benefit non-listed resident fish

species.

3.4.4 Hydropower Program Objectives

There are two objectives for hydropower:

1. to provide adequate survival and maintain

healthy adult and juvenile anadromous fish

inhabiting and/or migrating through the

hydropower system;

2. to provide instream and reservoir

environmental conditions necessary to

provide adequate survival of resident fish

and other aquatic species.

(Note that survival in these options refers

to survival of individuals or cohorts, within the

context of actions in the other Hs, rather than

the survival and recovery of the ESU under the

ESA).

3.4.5 Hydropower Strategies

Manage flows to facilitate downstream

salmon migration and meet resident fish

needs.

Provide a variety of passage routes for

juvenile salmonids and lamprey at

mainstem dams while protecting life-stage

diversity. This includes spill, mechanical

bypass, and potential surface bypass and fishfriendly turbines for juvenile passage. It also

includes continued and improved passage

through fish ladders for adult fish.

Provide conditions in the mainstem to

provide adequate spawning habitat and a

high rate of survival for juvenile and

adult salmon and other at-risk species.

This includes actions such as limiting flow

fluctuations.

Implement physical measures and operational actions to optimize water quality conditions (temperature and dissolved gas) where

consistent with overall objectives and other

strategies.

3.4.6 Hydropower Options

Three basic options, or sets of measures

and actions, were examined to achieve the

objectives and tested for the sensitivity of

different population dynamics of ESUs to

them. Option 1 continues the current program, leaving the existing system in place and

maintaining the fish passage facilities associated with it. Option 2 is an aggressive program

that goes beyond the current level of investment to improve passage through the existing

system. Option 3 removes the Snake River

dams. We describe each option in terms of the

strategies and actions it includes for the

Columbia and Snake rivers, respectively, and

for system configuration (i.e., physical alterations at dams) and operation (i.e., flow, spill,

transportation, etc.), respectively. See the

Hydropower Appendix for detailed descriptions.

The Federal Caucus did not examine the

option of removing federal Columbia River

dams. The Multi-Species Framework Project

will evaluate alternatives in which John Day

and McNary Dams are removed. They are not

included here because they are not viable

options for the federal agencies for a decision

in 2000. The Corps has done extensive studies

of the feasibility, environmental effects and

benefit of removing Snake River dams, and has

conducted a preliminary assessment of John

Day Dam drawdown.

We also did not examine configuration

options for FERC-licensed projects, but recognize that changes at these projects may benefit

fish. For example, removal of the Hells

Canyon Complex could provide significant

benefits to Snake River stocks. Opportunities

for fish passage improvements at FERClicensed projects should be considered during

relicensing processes. Projects undergoing
6 9 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

relicensing proceedings in the near term

include Pelton and Round Butte Dams, Hells

Canyon Complex and three Mid-Columbia

PUDs (Rocky Reach, Priest Rapids and

Wanapum).

Option 1

Current Program

This option would continue on the

present path of ongoing improvements to the

system, with roughly the existing annual level

of investment continuing into the future. Both

system operations and configurations under

this alternative would continue as they have

been developed under the NMFS 1995 and

1998 Biological Opinions, and USFWS Biological Opinions on resident fish. As such, this

might be termed the status quo option, because it continues the present program. However, this option does not represent a staticstate in terms of measures to improve fish

survival. It focuses on addressing identified

problem areas where potential fixes are relatively well understood. It also anticipates that

evaluations of fish passage measures that are

less well understood will continue to better

inform potential future decisions. In addition,

the current program will ensure that fish

passage facilities are adequately maintained

and operated into the future. This option

leaves open the possibility that dams may be

breached in the future. It corresponds to

Framework Alternative 4. The rationale for

this approach is based on the premise that

further improvements to passage will not

increase fish survival, and that indirect mortality from the hydropower system is not large.

However, this option also provides for additional studies to test this premise. Potential

incremental fish survival improvements that

may be associated with additional measures

and investments would also be studied. This

option does not preclude future decisions on

additional investments in passage measures if

deemed appropriate based on survival evaluations, but it does not plan on them from the

outset except as listed below.

Columbia River Configuration

Measures —

The Corps would continue to evaluate

improvements to fish passage facilities at

McNary, John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville

dams, with total investments at about the

same level or less than in the past 5 years. The

current program will improve adult passage by

adding emergency backups for the auxiliary

water supply at fish ladders, and other

measures to reduce adult fallback or improve

adult passage. Juvenile passage evaluations

and improvements include:

· continued development and testing of a

surface bypass at John Day and Bonneville

dams;

· continued investigation of the effectiveness

of extended length fish screens at John Day

Dam;

· continued investigation of the effectiveness

of extended screens, alterations to the

juvenile bypass outfall, and/or a surface

bypass at Bonneville Dam first and second

powerhouses;

· continued investigation of relocating the

sluiceway outfall at The Dalles Dam;

· continued investigation of installing

additional and/or modified spillway

deflectors at all four dams;

· powerhouse turbine improvements such as

minimum gap runners at Bonneville Dam’s

first powerhouse, if proven effective in

improving turbine passage survival;

· flow deflectors at Chief Joseph Dam.

Columbia River Operational Measures —

Operations for flow, spill and transportation

are essentially the same as those specified in

the 1995 and 1998 Biological Opinions.

Modifications include minimum discharge

requirements for fall chinook and chum

salmon spawning and rearing needs below

Bonneville Dam. In addition, there would be a

reduction in the fluctuation of flows from

Priest Rapids to reduce fry stranding and

stabilize riparian areas. Federal agencies

would continue to use the existing volume of

water for management of flows for the benefit

of various fish stocks and species of concern.

Snake River Configuration Measures —

Fish passage configuration measures include

improving emergency water supplies for adult

passage systems, relocating the bypass outfall

at Lower Monumental Dam, and construction

of a trash shear boom at Little Goose Dam.
7 0 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Snake River Operational Measures —

Operations for flow, spill and transportation

are essentially the same as those specified in

the 1995 and 1998 Biological Opinions. The

federal agencies would continue to use the

existing volume of water for flow

augmentation from the upper Snake River

Basin to benefit summer migrants.

Option 2

Aggressive Program

In this option, we assume that the investments in the current program for improved

fish passage facilities, such as surface bypass,

will be successful and are continued to increase passage survival. The primary difference in configuration measures between this

alternative and the present program is that the

federal agencies would seek increased funding

to pursue more aggressive implementation of

measures to improve passage survival. This

option would also include more aggressive

operational measures for flow and spill. The

federal agencies would seek increased flow

augmentation from Canadian reservoirs and

improved water quantity and quality from the

upper Snake River. Spill at many projects may

be expanded to daylight hours. For purposes

of analysis, this option assumes that aggressive

measures are implemented and limited by

biological criteria only (i.e., measures are

assumed to not be limited by physical constraints such as the transmission system,

dissolved gas supersaturation, etc.). The

feasibility of efforts to eliminate such constraints has not been assessed nor have decisions on implementation of these measures

been made. Similarly, constraints on system

operations should also be evaluated, such as

for flood control. This option corresponds to

Framework Alternative 5.

There are generally three potential reasons why an aggressive approach might be

pursued:

(1) additional improvements in direct survival

are deemed necessary and appropriate

relative to their contribution to population

growth and recovery;

(2) improvements in system configurations or

operations are expected to reduce indirect

hydropower system-related mortality and

such improvements are deemed necessary

to contribute to population growth and

recovery; and/or

(3) improvements in system configuration or

operation are implemented to reduce

economic effects of current conditions

while providing equal or greater protection

from direct and indirect mortality factors

than current conditions.

Opportunities to dramatically improve

direct survival through the system are limited,

about a 5-10 percent increase in the survival of

juveniles migrating in the river. But if juvenile

and adult fish suffer latent mortality because

of their experiences in the hydropower system,

measures under this option may reduce this

indirect mortality by reducing delay and

trauma to fish as they pass through the system.

Columbia River Configuration Measures –

The Corps would continue to improve fish

passage facilities at McNary, John Day, The

Dalles and Bonneville dams. The aggressive

program includes all measures specified for

the current program and, depending on the

results of investigations, may include some or

all of the following measures:

· installation of surface bypass, either at the

spillway or powerhouses, at McNary, John

Day and Bonneville dams;

· installation of extended length screens at

John Day and Bonneville dams;

· relocation of the sluiceway outfall at The

Dalles Dam;

· additional and/or modified spillway

deflectors at all four dams;

· potential powerhouse turbine

improvements such as minimum gap

runners

· flow deflectors or additional turbines at

Libby Dam for dissolved gas abatement.

Columbia River Operational Measures —

Efforts would continue to acquire additional

water from Canadian reservoirs,

implementation of “Variable Q” flood control

operations at Libby and Hungry Horse dams to

protect resident fish, and meet minimum

discharge requirements for fall chinook and

chum salmon spawning and rearing needs in

the Hanford reach and below Bonneville Dam.

In addition, fluctuation of flows from Priest
7 1 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Rapids would be reduced to limit fry stranding

and stabilize riparian areas. Integrated Rule

Curve (IRC) operation at storage dams would

be further evaluated and implemented based

on tradeoffs in benefits to resident fish and

effects on salmon habitat and other system

operation purposes.

Snake River Configuration Measures —

Additional improvements include spillway

deflectors, surface bypass, either at spillways

or powerhouses, modifications to the Lower

Granite Dam juvenile fish facility and two to

five additional transport barges.

Snake River Operational Measures —

Additional spill may be provided at three

projects. Additional water would be sought

for temperature control and flow

augmentation. Details of when and how much

water would be provided and sources for it

have not been identified at this time. USBR

has conducted a study of the impacts of

acquiring additional water in the upper Snake

River; it is available on their Web site at

www.pn.usbr.gov.

Option 3

Breach Lower Snake River Dams

Option 3 improves conditions for Snake

River stocks by removing the dams that block

their passage in the Snake River. All four

salmon and steelhead ESUs in the Snake River

are listed as threatened or endangered, and

represent one-third of the listed ESUs in the

basin. Under this option, which corresponds

to Framework Alternative 3, Snake River dams

are breached as soon as Congressional authorization and appropriation occur. During the

interim period prior to breaching, minimal or

no investments are made to improve the

configuration of Snake River dams. The

rationale for this alternative is that passage

through the hydropower system, whether in

barges or in the river, causes direct and indirect mortality to Snake River juveniles. The

best way to eliminate this mortality is by

removing the dams.

Configuration and operational measures

in the Columbia River would occur at the same

rate as under the present program. In the

Snake River, operational measures would

continue to include flow augmentation from

Dworshak Reservoir as needed to moderate

temperatures in the lower Snake River.

3.4.7 Evaluation of Options

In developing the three hydropower

options, we relied on many existing sources of

information and analysis. Notable sources

included the Multi-Species Framework Project,

the Lower Snake River Juvenile Fish Migration

Feasibility Study, the Corps Columbia River

Fish Mitigation Project, and the work of the

regional System Configuration Team and its

related technical coordination groups. We

worked closely with the Framework Project to

jointly develop specifications of the options

and coordinate evaluation and new analysis

such as biological considerations in the CRI

and EDT, and hydroregulation studies of

storage project Integrated Rule Curves.

Biological Evaluation

To date, the biological analysis reflects

work conducted by PATH and the CRI for

three ESUs in the Snake River. Additional

information is expected as further CRI evaluations of the other Columbia River listed

salmon and Framework EDT analyses are

conducted. A summary of the CRI/PATH

results for the Snake River is reported below.

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook

Option 1: Nearly one-half of PATH

simulations under current hydrosystem

operations met 48-year recovery standards.

CRI analyses indicate that there is substantial

risk of spring/summer chinook populations

meeting quasi-extinction thresholds under

current conditions in both the long (100 years)

and short (10 years) term. The option of

waiting until we learn more about extra

mortality or delayed mortality associated

with transportation thus carries with it

additional risk of extinction for these species.

Option 2: PATH analyses indicate that there

is a slightly lower probability of reaching

recovery standards under scenarios that rely

on increased transportation than under current

operations. (This is due largely to

assumptions about delayed mortality

associated with transportation.) However,
7 2 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

recovery standards were achieved in 45

percent of simulations.

CRI analyses predict that projected

increases in survival of smolts through the

migration corridor, or of adults migrating

upstream from Bonneville Dam, will result in

an increase in population growth rate of only

1 percent each (approximately 2 percent

combined). Since an average population

growth rate increase of 12 percent is necessary

to reduce the risk of extinction for this species

to 1 in 10 in the next 100 years, predicted

passage system improvements alone do not

substantially reduce the risk of extinction for

this species. Even if downstream survival of

outmigrating juveniles were raised to

100 percent (which is the maximum possible

hydropower system improvement with respect

to transportation and bypass options), that

demographic change would be insufficient to

attain high enough annual rates of population

growth to adequately reduce that extinction

risk by itself. However, if alterations of bypass, spill, or transportation systems increase

survival below Bonneville Dam (i.e., reduce

indirect mortality), then larger benefits for

population growth could be realized.

Option 3: One hundred percent of PATH

spring/summer chinook salmon simulations

under dam breaching met 48-year recovery

standards. CRI analyses, however, suggest that

dam breaching alone will be insufficient to

reduce extinction risk for this ESU. Current

projections show that for spring/summer

chinook, dam breaching alone is likely to

result in an increase of population growth rate

of about 5 percent, due to reduced mortality

of migrating smolts and spawners. For this

scenario, the improvements associated with

breaching were assumed to result in a

Bonneville-to-Basin survival of 80 percent, a

downstream survival of 62 percent and an

increase in estuarine survival of 30 percent

(due to reductions in indirect mortality).

However, as with passage systems, if dam

breaching increases survival of fish below

Bonneville Dam, then substantial increases in

population growth rate could be achieved.

For example, dam drawdown could also result

in increases in habitat availability and possible

improvements in survival during freshwater

rearing (there is some evidence that young

may experience elevated mortality when

reared in reservoirs.) Dam breaching could

also alter patterns of nutrient cycling and

replenishment that in turn influence

productivity. There could even be delayed

effects of dam breaching in terms of increased

fitness of fish that would be subtly manifested

throughout the life cycle (as opposed to

discrete improvements in the survival of any

isolated stage).

How effective dam-breaching might be in

recovering Snake River spring/summer chinook

depends to a large extent on whether juvenile

fish suffer indirect mortality as a result of their

experience in the hydropower system. This

mortality is considered “indirect” because it

does not occur immediately in the hydropower

corridor but later, in the estuary or ocean.

Indirect mortality suffered by transported fish

is referred to as “differential delayed mortality”

and is represented in PATH equations as “D.”

In addition, some theorize that both transported and in-river migrants suffer indirect

mortality caused by the Snake River dams.

Indirect mortality suffered by both groups is

referred to in PATH documents as “extra

mortality.”

The PATH projections assume transported

fish suffer high indirect mortality as a result of

the transportation experience. The CRI

projections do not assume significant indirect

mortality for transported fish. This difference

in treatment of indirect mortality is one of the

primary reasons that PATH and CRI analyses

appear to reach different conclusions regarding how effective dam-breaching might be in

recovering Snake River spring/summer

chinook. CRI analyses do not incorporate

assumptions about extra mortality. Rather,

they highlight how much survival in later life

stages (such as the estuary) must be improved

as a result of dam breaching for that action

alone to be effective.

Snake River Fall Chinook

Options 1 and 2: PATH did not explicitly

model current operations because most fall

chinook are currently transported. Therefore,

current operations are assumed to be virtually

identical to the maximum transport options.

PATH analyses indicate that these maximum

transport options meet survival standards in all

cases, and 48-year recovery standards in some

cases. However, recovery standards were not

met in model runs where delayed mortality
7 3 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

due to transportation was assumed to be high.

(Note that very few runs were conducted for

these analyses.

CRI extinction risk analysis indicates that

there is a significant risk of extinction over the

next 100 years if current conditions are maintained (or worsened). An approximately

4 percent increase in population growth rate is

expected to lower the probability of quasiextinction within 100 years to one in a hundred.

Option 3: PATH analyses indicate that dam

breaching has the highest probability of

achieving survival and recovery probabilities

for fall chinook across all assumptions.

Because passage data for fall chinook are

limited, the CRI was limited in its ability to

address the effects of dam breaching.

However, the majority of effects of dam

breaching would likely occur in the first year

of life, which includes both downstream

migration and “post-Bonneville Dam” survival

in the estuarine environment (where latent

effects of dams are likely to accrue.) We

examined the percent increase in population

growth rate expected to result from a broad

range of potential changes in first year survival.

This level of improvement in population

growth rate could be achieved with a less than

20 percent increase in first year survival.

Although the precise effect of removing the

lower Snake River dams on first year survival

is not known, by analogy with spring/summer

chinook, it is not unreasonable to anticipate a

20 percent increase in first year survival could

be achieved. Breaching would also increase

the number of river miles available to fall

chinook for spawning by as much as

70 percent, and may therefore increase the

carrying capacity for this species. Such an

increase may be important for the ultimate

recovery of this species.

Snake River Steelhead

Option 1: PATH did not model steelhead

populations, but assumed that results from

spring/summer chinook would be applicable to

this species. CRI analyses indicate that

steelhead have a very low risk of extinction in

the short-term, due to relatively high current

population levels. However, they appear to

have a very high risk (over 90 percent) in a

100 year time frame of reaching the quasiextinction threshold, indicating that current

operations are inadequate to minimize

extinction risk for this ESU.

Option 2: The impact of system

improvements is much harder to evaluate

because passage survival rates are lacking for

this ESU.

Option 3: Again, the impact of dam breaching

is harder to evaluate due to their complex life

cycle and the lack of passage survival

information. By analogy with other salmonids,

it is not unreasonable to think that survival

could be increased by 20 percent with dam

removal, which would minimize the risk of

reaching quasi-extinction thresholds.

Snake River Sockeye

Snake River Sockeye are currently so

depleted that no analysis can be conducted.

Other Columbia Basin ESUs

Other Columbia Basin ESUs have not yet

been analyzed. Improving passage systems at

the four lower Columbia dams will benefit

mid- and upper-Columbia stocks to an unknown degree. In addition, increased spring

flows may result in unquantifiable benefits to

all stocks, due to changes in estuarine conditions.

Other Considerations

Social and Economic Evaluation

Implementation costs for configuration

measures have been estimated for the three

options. Also, considerable analysis has been

conducted in related studies [the Lower Snake

River Feasibility Study and its Drawdown

Regional Economics Workgroup (DREW)] and

a report on tribal conditions “Tribal Circumstances and Perspective Analysis of Impacts of

the Lower Snake River Project on the Nez

Perce, Yakama, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and

Shoshone Bannock Tribes”) on economic and

social effects of the same alternatives or

alternatives similar to those identified in the

options. Additional analysis is expected in the

Framework Report. A very brief summary of

implementation costs (current price levels)

and economic effects is presented here.
7 4 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

· Current program — Implementation cost

estimates for configuration measures range

from about $185 million, for continued

investigation and implementation of known

improvements, to $800 million if

development and evaluations lead to full

implementation of the identified potential

measures. System operation economic

effects are as currently occurring. Even

currently planned operations have serious

social and economic impacts at Dworshak

reservoir in Idaho and lesser impacts at

reservoirs in Montana, Washington and the

upper Snake River in Idaho.

· Aggressive program — Implementation

cost estimates for configuration measures

range from about $850 million to $1 billion.

System operation related economic effects

have not been evaluated at this time,

including transmission system

reinforcement requirements or effects and

additional upper Snake River water

acquisition costs. Increased flow

augmentation would increase impacts on

upstream reservoirs and upstream water

users.

· Breach Lower Snake River Dams —

Implementation cost estimates for

configuration measures range from about

$1.2 billion, assuming limited additional

passage improvements are made in the

Lower Columbia, to about $1.9 billion if

studies and decisions lead to implementation of major passage measures at the four

lower dams. As compared to the current

program, the average annual cost of this

option is $246 million. Direct implementation expenditures would average

approximately $50 million annually, and

economic costs are as much as $271 million

for power, $24 million for navigation, and

$15 million for irrigation, annually. A

benefit in recreation is estimated at

$82 million annually. This option would

have significant social and economic

impacts on lower river users. These

include, among others, barge operators,

irrigators and recreationalists. Lewiston,

which is now a seaport, would no longer

have barge traffic to and from the Pacific

Ocean. Irrigators in the lower Snake River

reservoirs would no longer have access to

irrigation water without costly pumping.

This option may also result in significant

short-term local job growth during

implementation, as well as long-term

economic benefits derived from increased

tourism, recreation, and fishing. This

option may also result insignificant shortterm job growth during implementation.

Annual benefits to commercial fishing and

avoided costs are $2 million and

$29 million, respectively.

Ecological Effects

Although not specific to the options

considered here, an analysis of the physical

effects of implementing IRCs at Libby and

Hungry Horse projects was conducted. The

IRCs, proposed by the state of Montana, are

intended to benefit resident species. The

analysis, reported in the Hydropower Appendix, indicates on average that there would be

higher reservoir elevations at Libby and Hungry Horse in the fall (4 to 14 feet), and spring

elevations would be generally higher at Libby

and slightly lower at Hungry Horse compared

to existing operations. Flows at McNary

would be slightly higher from November to

May (-4 kcfs to +7 kcfs) and slightly lower the

rest of the year (-10 kcfs in July).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its

Coordination Act Report evaluated the ecological impacts of the different hydropower

options. Under Options 1 and 2, the lower

Snake River would continue to present passage

problems for resident fish such as white

sturgeon, segregating their populations. For

terrestrial species, riparian corridors would

continue to be discontinuous and dominated

with non-native species mainly in artificial

islands maintained with irrigation. Mitigation

for wildlife losses from the construction of the

four dams would continue to remain at about

75 percent of the estimated losses.

Under Option 3, more natural river

conditions would be established, benefiting

ecosystem processes and native resident

aquatic species. The physical condition of the

river should be able to return to a near natural

condition. A major portion of the basin would

become completely unregulated, allowing

natural rhythms of spring runoff to occur. A

more natural flow regime would help maintain

and restore timing, variability, and duration of
7 5 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

flood plain inundations, with associated

benefits for wetlands and other habitats.

Restoration of other ecosystem components,

such as the re-establishment of a network of

complex and interconnected habitats and

processes, would take several years to decades.

In the long term, most native resident fish

species would benefit from returning the lower

Snake River to a free-flowing river since most

are broadcast spawners and depend on flowing

water for successful reproduction. White

sturgeon subpopulations would no longer be

artificially isolated and numbers would increase due to improved spawning and rearing

habitat and increased food abundance. Use of

the area by species that prefer cold water, such

as bull trout, mountain whitefish, and rainbow

trout, would increase as connectivity between

tributaries is improved and water temperatures

are cooler for prolonged periods. Most nonnative species would decrease in abundance

from loss of their preferred habitats. Improved

riparian habitat conditions would result in

positive effects for several groups of wildlife

(e.g., game birds, raptors, other non-game

birds, big game animals, small mammals, and

bats). Improved habitat conditions would also

benefit some species of waterfowl, fur-bearers,

amphibians and reptiles. Most of the existing

wetlands (about 300 acres) would be lost, with

a reduction or elimination of species that rely

on them.

Effect on Tribal Rights

Under Options 1 and 2, which leave

Snake River dams in place, the dams would

continue to affect the fisheries resources of

lower river tribes, as described in the section

on Biological Evaluation. Snake River fall

chinook, in particular, are significantly affected by inundation of spawning areas and

migration blockage. Steelhead are also affected by migration blockage. Depressed

populations of Snake River fall chinook and

steelhead will continue to limit tribal access to

abundant runs of fall chinook returning to the

Hanford Reach, upstream of McNary Dam.

There is debate on the degree to which dam

passage affects Snake River spring/summer

chinook, and the degree to which those effects

can be mitigated by the smolt transportation

program.

Option 2 may also affect tribes with

interests in reservoirs in Washington and

Montana. If increased flow augmentation

came from these upstream reservoirs, it could

affect the productivity of resident fish in the

reservoirs, as well as fish in rivers immediately

below the reservoirs. Increased flow through

Lake Roosevelt, behind Grand Coulee Dam,

might also affect productivity of resident fish

there.

Option 3, which removes Snake River

Dams, would likely significantly increase

productivity of Snake River fall chinook and

steelhead and would also increase productivity

of Snake River spring/summer chinook to an

unknown degree. This option may also affect

tribal cultural resources that were inundated

when the reservoirs were created.

3.4.8 Implementation Issues

The 1995 NMFS Biological Opinion

refined the structure for coordinating the

decisions on configuration and operation of

the FCRPS. That structure includes a group of

program managers, known as the Implementation Team, which meets monthly. The structure contemplated in the BO also included an

Executive Committee that would meet as

needed to resolve disputes from the Implementation Team. That Committee has not met in

over a year and there appears to be little

interest among the state and tribal managers

to participate in such a committee. Under the

Implementation Team are several technical

workgroups established to address different

issues. The Technical Management Team

meets weekly during the migration season to

set hydropower operations. The System

Configuration Team meets weekly and establishes priorities and schedules for capital

improvements at the projects. The Water

Quality Team provides scientific and technical

recommendations on two critical water quality

parameters: dissolved gas and temperature. In

addition to and in conjunction with these

teams, there are existing groups that coordinate technical and programmatic aspects of

regional activities in the hydropower arena.

These include the Corps’ Fish Passage Operation and Maintenance Committee, Fish Facilities Design Review Workgroup, Studies Review

Workgroup, and the workgroup for the Fish

and Wildlife Funding MOA on BPA investments
7 6 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

for fish and wildlife recovery.

Annual flow management plans to manage water releases for Kootenai River white

sturgeon during April through August are

based on coordination among the Corps, BPA,

NMFS, USFWS, USBR and other coordinating

entities such as the state of Montana,

Kootenai-Salish Nation, British Columbia

Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks;

Canada Department of Fisheries, and BC

Hydro. Implementation of annual flow management plans for white sturgeon and the 1999

flows for bull trout have occurred through the

Technical Management Team to ensure that

anadromous and resident fish needs are

addressed in FCRPS operations decisions. The

federal agencies believe this type of intense

coordination within a hierarchical structure is

appropriate and recommend it continue.

There are a number of opportunities for

improvement, including:

· Policy oversight – We recommend using the

newly formed Columbia River Basin Forum

as the policy oversight body to consider

disputes that cannot be resolved at the

Implementation Team level.

· Participation – Consistent participation

would improve decision making and timely

implementation of actions and measures.

Federal/Nonfederal coordination – Presently

there is informal coordination of activities

at FERC-licensed projects, e.g.,

configuration measures at Mid-Columbia

projects, with federal efforts at downstream

dams. Although there is a Mid-Columbia

Coordinating Committee, there could be

better links established to ensure that

coordination of programs and technology

transfer occurs.

· In-season Management – Improved ability

to make decisions (see Hydropower

Appendix).

· Research framework – A multi-year regional

research plan identifying priorities and

responsibilities, and enabling coordination

of programs and budgets, could improve

efficiency and enhance integration of

research results into decision making.

· Performance Monitoring – Better

monitoring to ensure biological and

implementation performance standards are

being met.

· Advance Planning – There should be better

coordination to plan ahead on operations.

3.4.9 Performance Measures

Some performance measures for hydropower are relatively straightforward, while

others are more difficult because of questions

about indirect mortality. Performance measures include the following categories:

Juvenile system survival – the primary

method for measuring the survival of juveniles

through the entire hydropower corridor or

specific reaches is PIT-tags. There is presently

an extensive PIT-tag program to measure

survival of Snake River fish. Because this

method provides such a powerful tool for

learning about fish survival, PIT-tag studies

should be expanded to other parts of the

basin.

Direct juvenile project survival – there are

a number of methods for measuring project

passage and survival, including PIT-tags, radio

tags, and hydroacoustics. By measuring

survival at individual projects, it is possible to

identify adverse conditions and develop

passage improvements. Understanding project

survival may be useful in determining priorities

for action.

Adult project survival – adult movements

can be measured using radio tags, and

eventually PIT-tags in adult passages, but it is

difficult to attribute adult losses to a particular

project. Fish that fall back through a dam

may have wandered past their natal stream and

simply be moving back downstream, or the

fallback may be due to dam hydraulics.

Delay and stress in passing dams may cause

indirect mortality, which is difficult to

measure and attribute to a particular dam or

reach. Performance measures for adult

ladders can be developed for water

temperature in ladders, delay in entering/

ascending ladders and fallback from the

forebay.

Juvenile fitness – This measure may help

understand the indirect mortality effects from

the hydropower system and other factors.

There are a number of measures of juvenile

fitness, though establishing meaningful criteria
7 7 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

is difficult. Juvenile fitness may be the result

of conditions in rearing areas or annual

variations in the migration corridor. It is also

difficult to correlate fitness criteria with

indirect mortality caused by dam passage.

Measures of juvenile fitness include delay at

dams (i.e., set a standard for and measure how

long juvenile fish take to pass the dams); level

of descaling; and signs of gas bubble

disease.

Resident fish survival – Performance

measures related to hydropower for Kootenai

River white sturgeon include: a minimum

number of naturally produced juveniles

sampled at more than one year of age in each

year class; the number of year classes in a 10-

year period that produce the minimum number

of juveniles sampled at more than one year of

age; and demonstration of the repeatability of

in-stream environmental conditions necessary

to produce juveniles at more than one year of

age. Performance measures for bull trout and

other resident fish species would include

measures of survival at various life history

stages.

3.4.10 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation

The current program of monitoring and

researching project and system survival should

be continued and expanded. In particular, the

federal agencies are continuing to explore

research, monitoring and evaluation approaches to address key uncertainties in a

timely manner. These uncertainties can

generally be described as the effects of passage through the FCRPS that might occur

within or as a result of the hydrosystem, but

that are thought to be manifested outside the

system. Four potential effects of passage

should be addressed in a hydropower monitoring and evaluation framework: 1) effects of

multiple bypass passages; 2) effects on adult

reproduction; 3) delayed mortality associated

with transportation; and 4) estuarine and early

ocean survival.

3.4.11 Key Uncertainties

A key priority should be resolving the

uncertainty about indirect mortality – to what

extent it exists, and, if it does, whether it can

be addressed through project improvements

such as surface collectors and spill, or whether

dam removal is the only means to address it.

This uncertainty is important regardless of

whether a decision is made to remove Snake

River dams. Even with Snake River dams

removed, all upriver fish must still migrate

through the four federal dams in the lower

Columbia River. Upper Columbia fish will still

face seven, eight or nine dams on their journey

through the Columbia (four to five public

utility dams, plus the four federal dams).
7 8 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish
7 9 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

4. Integrated Alternatives

very low (5-7 percent). Implementation of

hatchery conservation programs may therefore

be an important strategy in maintaining these

stocks until long-term actions begin to take

effect.

Reducing the risk of reaching the quasiextinction threshold in 100 years to more

acceptable levels requires a 12 percent change

in growth rate on average across populations.

The CRI analysis indicates that removing

Snake River dams by itself would yield little

improvement in growth rate, unless there is

significant delayed mortality associated with

transportation and/or dam passage. Even if

downstream survival were increased to

100 percent, the rate of population

growth would only increase by 4 percent.

Eliminating harvest would change the growth

rate by only about 1 percent.

CRI analyses indicate that there is no

single action that will be sufficient to substantially reduce extinction risk for this ESU,

unless there is substantial indirect mortality

attributable to the hydropower system or

transportation methods. Rather, for Snake

River spring/summer chinook to survive in the

long term a combination of improvements in

all four Hs is required. To begin to determine

the magnitude of improvement in each H

necessary to increase population growth rates

and reduce extinction risk, CRI conducted

several numerical (theoretical) experiments.

(Delayed mortality due to transportation was

assumed to be low in all cases.) First, CRI

analyzed the combined effect of leaving dams

in place, but increasing first year survival by

32 percent, maximizing the proportion of

juveniles transported, increasing survival in the

estuary and near-shore ocean by 10 percent,

and eliminating harvest. Together, these

changes resulted in a 14 percent increase in

population growth rate, which would substantially reduce the risk of extinction for this

ESU. However, the hypothetical increases in

4.1 Biological Considerations

To construct integrated alternatives, the

Federal Caucus considered the available

scientific analyses. These include the Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI), developed by the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center of NMFS,

and the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH), a collaborative effort of the

state fishery agencies, tribes and federal

agencies. The CRI has estimated the risk that

salmon and steelhead ESUs in the Snake River

will reach a quasi-extinction threshold, defined

as one fish or fewer returning in any single

year. Analyses for other basin ESUs are underway. As a result of assumptions in the modeling, the CRI projections may underestimate

the actual risk of extinction. Results of both

modeling efforts should be used with caution.

Models contain many assumptions that might

be wrong. The farther out the projection, the

less certain the results. The 100-year projections should accordingly be viewed as highly

uncertain. The information from these analyses is presented below.

4.1.1 Snake River ESUs

Snake River spring/summer chinook.

There are seven “index” populations of Snake

River spring/summer chinook (of a total of 35-

40 populations). Two have a serious risk (1 in

10) of reaching the quasi-extinction threshold

in 10 years. All populations have a greater

than 30 percent chance of reaching the

threshold within 100 years if the current trend

in the population’s productivity continues. CRI

modeling suggests that to reduce the shortterm risk for these stocks to 1 in 100 would

require a significant change in growth rate

(e.g., 25 percent for the population in the

worst shape). Other populations require a

5-20 percent change in growth rate. There are

few immediate actions that can reduce the

short-term risk since harvest rates are already
8 0 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

survival during early life stages are relatively

large; and actual increases in survival due to

specific management actions affecting freshwater or estuarine survival have not yet been

determined. CRI also analyzed the combined

effect of removing dams, coupled with no

harvest and an increase in estuarine survival of

10 percent. This scenario increased the population growth rate by about 8 percent, indicating that additional improvements would be

necessary to substantially reduce extinction

risk. Again, actual increases in survival due to

specific management actions affecting early

life survival have not yet been determined.

PATH modeling suggests that Snake River

spring/summer chinook come close to reaching

the survival goal, and have some chance of

reaching the recovery goal, if harvest is held to

the present low harvest rate as runs rebuild.

PATH modeling also suggests that removal of

Snake River dams can achieve NMFS’ survival

and recovery goals. PATH models assume a

range of values for delayed mortality associated with transportation and/or dam passage.

The analyses done by the PATH group show no

appreciable benefit from hatchery or habitat

actions. PATH modeling shows increasing

population trends for all future actions analyzed.

The best prospects of avoiding short-term

extinction and achieving recovery of Snake

River spring/summer chinook appear to be

combinations of actions in habitat restoration,

harvest limits, predator control, and hydropower improvements (including dam breaching). With or without dam removal, harvest

restrictions may be needed for many years.

Snake River fall chinook have less than a

1 percent likelihood of reaching the quasiextinction threshold in the short term, but a

higher likelihood of reaching that threshold

over the long term (6-17 percent). CRI

modeling suggests that a modest improvement

in growth rate (around 4 percent) may be

needed to reduce the long-term probability of

extinction to a more acceptable level.

Although the precise effect of removing

the Snake River dams is unknown, by analogy

with spring/summer chinook, this change in

growth rate might be achieved by removing

dams or by improving collection efficiency so

that more smolts are transported (assuming

delayed mortality associated with transportation is not significant). The CRI concluded

there was not enough information to model

the effects of dam removal, but noted that a

20 percent increase in survival during the first

year would be enough to result in a 4 percent

change in growth rate. For fall chinook, this

first year includes freshwater rearing, migration through the hydropower corridor, residence in the estuary and transition to the

ocean. It is not unreasonable to expect a

20 percent increase in first-year survival

could be achieved. In addition, breaching

dams may increase available spawning habitat

below the Hells Canyon dams by as much as

70 percent which may be important given that

90 percent of historical fall chinook spawning

habitat was above the Hells Canyon dams.

The needed change in growth rate could

also be achieved by reducing the combined

ocean and in-river harvest rate by 50 percent,

or by reducing either one by 75 percent.

Combined harvest rates in recent years both in

the ocean and the river have been reduced

significantly from a high in the 1980s of about

80 percent to the present level of about

50 percent. Because fall chinook spawn and

rear in lower tributary streams and the main

river channel, opportunities to improve fall

chinook habitat are limited, short of breaching

lower Snake River or Hells Canyon dams,

although improvements in water quality and

quantity from the upper Snake River could

benefit fall chinook survival. Hatchery fish

straying into the Snake River may have affected fall chinook in the past, but that problem has largely been controlled.

PATH modeling suggests that Snake River

fall chinook reach recovery goals if harvest is

significantly decreased, if dams are removed,

or if transportation is stopped (assuming there

is significant delayed mortality associated with

transportation).

In the long term, either significant improvements in survival in the hydropower

corridor or significant reductions in harvest

rates may be needed to recover this ESU.

Snake River steelhead have a less than

1 percent likelihood of reaching the quasiextinction threshold in 10 years, but their rate

of decline has been so steep since 1980 that

they are projected to have a greater than 90

percent likelihood of reaching that threshold

in 100 years.
8 1 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

CRI modeling suggests that reducing the

probability of reaching that low threshold in

100 years to a more acceptable level, requires a

10 percent change in growth rate. A long-term

reduction in harvest rates to 5-10 percent

would provide a sufficient change in growth

rate to result in a 1 in 100 probability of

reaching the quasi-extinction threshold in

100 years. Harvest rates have been reduced by

about half in recent years (from 32 percent to

16 percent) as a result of ESA concerns. By

analogy with other salmonids, it is not unreasonable to expect that dam removal could

change survival by 20 percent, which would

increase annual rates of population growth

and substantially reduce the risk of reaching

the quasi-extinction threshold. PATH did not

model Snake River steelhead.

There may be opportunities to improve

steelhead habitat, although this would require

further investigation. There is a large amount

of steelhead hatchery production in the Snake

River that may affect naturally produced

steelhead, although there is a great deal of

uncertainty about this.

Unless there are significant benefits that

can be obtained from habitat and hatchery

improvements, either dam removal or longterm reductions in harvest rates may be

needed to recover this ESU.

Snake River sockeye cannot be modeled

because there are so few of them. They are

now kept from extinction by a captive

broodstock program. If at some point in the

future their numbers increase, it may be

possible to analyze them with models.

Because Snake River sockeye have a life

history similar to Snake River spring/summer

chinook, past analyses for chinook have often

been applied to sockeye. If this comparison is

accurate, Snake River sockeye also have

similarly dim prospects of recovery without

dramatic improvements in all stages of their

life cycle.

 4.1.2 Upper Columbia River ESUs

Upper Columbia River steelhead are listed

as endangered. They are particularly

complicated to model because they are

maintained primarily through hatchery

production. Preliminary QAR modeling

suggests steelhead have no significant

likelihood of dropping below quasi-extinction

levels so long as they continue to be sustained

by hatchery production. Projections of future

performance without hatchery production

depend on assumptions about how effective

hatchery fish have been at reproducing in the

wild. QAR analysis indicates that assuming

hatchery fish have been equally as effective as

naturally-spawning fish, this ESU has a

100 percent probability of reaching a quasiextinction level of 2 fish in one year within

41-72 years. Reducing this risk to 5 percent

requires an improvement in productivity on

the order of 35-42 percent, assuming recent

environmental conditions continue into the

future.

The QAR workgroup has not yet analyzed

the likely sensitivity of this ESU to survival

improvements in different life stages. It is

premature to draw conclusions about what

actions will result in the greatest improvements. Given the large measure of improvement needed, however, it is likely there will

need to be significant contributions from all of

the Hs to recover upper Columbia steelhead.

Upper Columbia River spring chinook are

listed as Endangered. Detailed assessments of

extinction risks are still being developed.

Initial results, using methods similar to those

employed in the CRI analyses, project high

quasi-extinction risks for these runs in the

absence of hatchery supplementation. Model

results indicate that the supplementation

programs being implemented to support these

runs could reduce the risk of falling below

quasi-extinction levels to negligible levels.

Based on preliminary results, reducing the risk

of quasi-extinction to below 1 in 100 at

100 years would require a 28-35 percent

improvement in productivity in the absence of

hatchery supplementation.

The QAR workgroup has not yet analyzed

the likely sensitivity of this ESU to survival

improvements in different life stages. It is

premature to draw conclusions about what

actions will result in the greatest improvements. Given the large measure of improvement needed, however, it is likely there will

need to be significant contributions from all of

the Hs to recover upper Columbia spring

chinook.
8 2 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

4.1.3 Other ESUs

The CRI is continuing model work on

additional ESUs. Preliminary modeling should

be completed for upper Columbia chinook and

steelhead by the end of this year and for upper

Willamette chinook and steelhead by the

beginning of next year.

4.2 Integrated Alternatives

There are a number of ways to combine

options from the different Hs to arrive at

integrated alternatives. Those displayed below

are certainly not an exhaustive enumeration of

all the possibilities. The alternatives are all

intended to improve survivals of Columbia

Basin salmon and steelhead populations over

the long term, although some have more

certain benefits than others. It was the intention of the Federal Caucus to display possible

alternatives that have some likelihood of

contributing significantly to recovery of listed

populations.

A fundamental point made by these

alternatives is that the Federal Caucus’ assessment is that current levels of activities in the

four Hs will be inadequate to provide significant confidence in salmon and steelhead

recovery. From that basis, packages of measures have been arrayed to begin the discussion about how best to approach salmon

recovery. The purpose of the alternatives is to

further discussion and debate of these and

other alternative combinations that have

significant potential for contributing to recovery of salmon and steelhead populations.

For reference, the following table summarizes the options presented for each H.

4.2.1 Alternative A

Dam Removal

Habitat – Option 1

Coordinate and Prioritize Federal Actions

Harvest – Option 1

Fishery Benefits During Recovery

Hatcheries – Option 1

Currently Planned Programs

Hydropower – Option 3

Breach Lower Snake River Dams

Under this alternative, the decision is

made now to breach Snake River dams and the

necessary congressional authorizations are

pursued. The primary reliance for recovering

Snake River fish is on breaching. There is

little increase in effort to improve habitat

conditions on nonfederal land, as resources

would be focused on dam breaching. Because

of the expected benefit in fish productivity

from breaching, harvest is constrained by

weak stocks, but is allowed to increase as runs

increase. Since most conservation hatchery

programs are aimed at Snake River fish, there

is no need to increase the conservation program, and existing resources would be shifted

to the Columbia River ESUs. Similarly, the

expected increase in productivity of wild

Snake River fish means there is less concern

about the possible harmful effects of mitigation hatchery production on wild fish in the

Snake River. This alternative does not improve survivals for fish outside of the Snake

River beyond those improvements that would

result from programs already in place.

The alternatives describe broad policy

choices for salmon and steelhead recovery,

and are intended to stimulate public

discussion and allow the public early

access to the thinking process within the

Federal Caucus. They do not represent the

only combinations of options that could

provide recovery, nor do they represent

preferred federal alternatives.
8 3 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Table 5 - Summary of All H Options

Breach Lower Snake

River Dams

· Breach four Snake

River Dams

· Additional funding

Aggressive Program

· Additional flow and

spill

· More aggressive capital

improvement program

· Additional funding

Specific H #1 #2 #3

Current Program

· Continue planned

improvements

· Existing flow

augmentation levels

· Existing funding levels

Increase Conservation

Programs and Significantly Decrease

Mitigation Programs

· Increased conservation

hatchery programs

· Decreased mitigation

hatchery programs (e.g.,

50% reduction in

production)

Increase Conservation

Programs

· Increased conservation

hatchery programs

· Currently planned

Improvements in

mitigation hatchery

programs

Currently Planned

Programs

· Currently planned

conservation hatchery

programs

· Currently planned

Improvements in

mitigation hatchery

programs

Conservation Fishery

Levels

· Reduce ocean

fisheries

· In-river mixed stock at

conservation levels

only

· Seek additional

Canadian restrictions

· After 10 years, allow

increases

Fixed In-river Harvest

Rates (1999 levels)

· Recently negotiated

Pacific Salmon Treaty

· In-river fisheries held at

1999 rates until

recovery goals are met

· Tribal priority

Fishery Benefits

During Recovery

· Recently negotiated

Pacific Salmon Treaty

· Allow some increase in

in-river fisheries as

runs rebuild (e.g.,

sliding scale)

· Tribal priority

Increased Federal

Role under Clean

Water Act and ESA

· Moderate to significant

improvement in habitat

· Additional federal

regulation of nonfederal

actions (re: ESA, CWA)

Coordinate Regional

Plans

· Significantly improve

habitat

· Additional federal

funding

· Increased federalnonfederal coordination

Coordinate and

Prioritize Actions

· Increased federal

coordination

· Some increased habitat

protection

· Emphasis on

assessment and

planning

Hydropower

Habitat

Hatcheries

Harvest
8 4 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

4.2.2 Alternative B

Harvest Constraints

Habitat – Option 1

Coordinate and Prioritize Federal Actions

Harvest – Option 3

Conservation Fishery Levels

Hatcheries – Option 3

Increase Conservation Programs and

Significantly Decrease Mitigation

Programs

Hydropower – Option 1

Current Program

Under Alternative B, the Snake River

dams are not breached and the region relies

instead on harvest constraints to recover fish

runs, along with existing improvements in the

hydropower system and improvements on

federal habitat. All fisheries are held to conservation levels for a period of time (e.g.,

10 years) to “jump start” recovery. Since

fisheries are so constrained, it is logical to also

reduce the production of mitigation hatchery

fish. This reduction may provide further

unquantifiable survival benefits to wild fish.

4.2.3 Alternative C

Aggressive Non-Breach

Habitat – Option 2

Coordinated Regional Plans

Harvest – Option 2

Fixed In-river Harvest Rates (1999 levels)

Hatcheries – Option 2

Increase Conservation Programs

Hydropower – Option 2

Aggressive Program

Alternative C defers a decision on dambreaching and allows an interim period to

determine whether aggressive action in all of

the Hs (short of breaching) is likely to recover

Snake River fish, and to resolve key scientific

uncertainties. Hydropower actions include

increased flows (especially in the Snake River)

and increased spill. State and local governments contribute significantly to habitat

protection (improved instream flows and water

management; irrigation improvements; riparian

protections, etc.) through state regulatory and

voluntary programs. Additional populations

are brought into hatchery conservation programs if necessary to prevent extinctions.

Harvest is held at a flat rate based on 1999

fishing rates until stocks recover.

4.2.4 Alternative D

Maximum Protections

Habitat – Option 2

Coordinate Regional Plans with a default

to Option 3 if increased states’ and local

efforts do not occur.

Harvest – Option 3

Conservation Fishery Levels

Hatcheries – Option 3

Increase Conservation Programs and

Significantly Decrease Mitigation

Programs

Hydropower – Option 3

Breach Lower Snake River Dams

Alternative D is the most aggressive

scenario, in which all Hs make dramatic

contributions in an effort to recover listed

stocks throughout the basin. The most riskaverse option within each H is pursued to

maximize efforts to rebuild stocks and improve productivity. In the case of hatcheries,

conservation programs would increase outside

of the Snake River, and mitigation programs

would be reduced basinwide.

4.3 Implementation Issues for Integrated

Alternatives

4.3.1 Implementation of Alternatives

This draft paper addresses implementation issues specific to the area of focus –

habitat, hatcheries, harvest and hydropower.

There are, however, broader issues related to

implementation of the options ultimately

selected in the final paper that cross all sectors. The following discussion on implementa-
8 5 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

tion is focused on these broader, crosscutting

issues which are raised for regional discussion

and comment.

Each federal agency participating in the

development of the paper is cognizant of the

well-founded criticism that federal funding

and decision-making on fish and wildlife

programs in the Pacific Northwest are not well

coordinated. This lack of coordination results

in Balkanized decision making and lost opportunities to maximize the effectiveness of

federal funding. The federal agencies are

seeking regional input on the alternatives

described below as they consider what degree

of coordination for both decisionmaking and

funding they should strive for in the future.

Current Level of Coordination

There are numerous separate

decisionmaking forums that guide the policy,

funding, and implementation of actions in

each of the Hs. While some coordination

occurs among these forums, it is not consistent. Decisions are generally made without

regard to their impact on activities in other

forums or their possibilities to maximize

potential benefits.

Hydropower operations are largely guided

by NMFS’ Regional Forum process. Through

this process federal, state, tribal and nongovernmental representatives advise on implementation of the Biological Opinions issued by

NMFS and the USFWS on the operation of the

Federal Columbia River Power System. Hydropower operations are also addressed by the

NPPC in its Fish and Wildlife Program pursuant to its authorities under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act.

Hatchery operations are guided by a

number of entities, primarily state fish and

wildlife agencies and the USFWS. In the

U.S. v. Oregon litigation the court has retained

continuing jurisdiction to equitably apportion

harvest in the Columbia River between tribal

and nontribal fisheries and address production

from the hatcheries that support the fisheries.

The NPPC also has a significant role in guiding

the funding and operation of the hatcheries

encompassed in its Fish and Wildlife Program.

Harvest is decided in several forums.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ocean

fisheries in federal waters off the coasts of

Alaska, Washington, and Oregon are set by the

North Pacific Fisheries Management Council

and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council.

Ocean fisheries are also regulated by agreements between the United States and Canada

under the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty

of 1985. Harvest in the Columbia River is

decided in the court-overseen process of

U.S. v. Oregon.

Habitat policy, funding and implementation are even more diffuse than the other Hs.

Habitat policy on federal lands west of the

Cascade Mountains, is generally guided by the

Northwest Forest Plan. East of the Cascades,

the policies of federal land and water management agencies, including the USFS, and BLM,

govern federal land management. The Interior

Columbia Basin Management process is expected to integrate management of these lands

on a landscape scale. State, local, and tribal

policies and regulations guide habitat policy

on nonfederal lands, and the USBR programs

influence nonfederal water use. The NPPC’s

Fish and Wildlife Program addresses habitat on

private lands. Some federal policies and

regulations, such as the Clean Water Act, also

apply on private lands.

This draft paper describes in detail these

decision-making forums and makes suggestions for improvements in their operation.

One alternative for consideration in this draft

is to continue to conduct implementation of

the region’s fish and wildlife programs through

the current forums and at the current level of

coordination. In other words, coordination

would occur inconsistently.

Federal Coordination

One way to provide better coordination

of federal fish and wildlife programs in the

Columbia Basin is for federal agencies to

develop a common set of priorities for funding

and to coordinate decision making on implementation actions within each H. While

federal agencies’ programs are generally guided

by Congressional authorizations and funded by

federal appropriations, improved coordination

of federal decision-making and funding is

feasible. One example of coordinated funding

and decision making is the BPA Fish Budget

Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA). Under

this 1996 MOA, the Army Corps of Engineers,

the USBR, and BPA coordinate development of

budgets for implementing the Biological
8 6 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Opinions issued by NMFS and the USFWS on

the operation of the Federal Columbia River

Power System. In addition, BPA coordinates

its implementation of the Northwest Power

Planning Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program

through the regional prioritization process

memorialized in the MOA.

Another alternative is for the federal

agencies regulating and implementing fish and

wildlife programs in the Columbia Basin to

commit to coordinate the decision making and

funding of their programs through a single

entity. This level of coordination would

require the federal agencies to agree on a

common set of priorities and to coordinate

their planning, funding and implementation

actions. An example of this type of structure is

a key component of the Northwest Forest

Plan, which established a regional federal

executive forum and thirteen provincial

committees for obtaining advice from federal

agencies, states, tribes, counties and other

affected parties on federal forest management

policies within the range of the Northern

spotted owl.

However, the scope of coordination

required in the Columbia River Basin is much

broader than that of the Northwest Forest

Plan since it encompasses decision-making

and funding actions by federal agencies in

each of the Hs in the Columbia Basin, not just

land management west of the Cascades.

Coordination of Federal Agencies with

States, Local Governments and Tribes

Coordination of federal decisionmaking

and funding with that of states, local governments and tribes is another need.

The Columbia Basin Forum is a collaborative policy forum through which 13 Northwest

tribes, the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho

and Montana, and the federal government

operating through the regional federal agencies

are planning to coordinate their

decisionmaking on fish and wildlife issues in

the Columbia Basin. Could the scope of their

responsibilities be expanded to encompass

coordination of implementation of a regional

fish and wildlife program for states, tribes,

local governments, and the federal agencies?

Another possible structure to host a larger

coordination of federal, state, local and tribal

programs is the NPPC. The scope of NPPC

review is its fish and wildlife direct program,

which constitutes programs across the Hs

funded by BPA. In addition, in the last few

years, Congress has asked the NPPC to review

the programs of the Corps, the USBR, and the

USFWS that BPA either funds directly or for

which it provides reimbursement to the

U.S. Treasury. In this process, the NPPC does

not make final funding determinations, but

makes final recommendations to funded

entities, with the benefit of extensive input

from fish and wildlife managers, independent

scientists, and public comment. The NPPC

might be used as a coordination forum for

Columbia Basin fish and wildlife program

implementation for the federal agencies as

well as provide broader regional coordination

through its established processes to seek input

from tribes, states, local governments and

regional stakeholders.

We invite comments on the feasibility and

advisability of each of the alternatives described above and suggestions on the forum

through which such coordination could occur.
8 7 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

5. Science Issues

monitoring program should assess responses to

management actions at multiple geographic

and temporal scales.

At large scales (subbasin or watershed),

population-level measures for fish, and landscape level attributes for management actions

should be monitored. For fish, this would

include abundance and distribution information; other important measures might include

reproductive success and juvenile survival.

Landscape-level attributes will vary by the

management action or pattern being monitored. For instance, habitat monitoring efforts

could include such measures as land-use

patterns, the distribution of water-quality

limited streams, or the frequency and location

of landslides. Monitoring of hatchery actions

would include the quality and abundance of

released fish across the basin, as well as the

distribution, migration patterns and spawning

success of those fish. These types of data will

serve several purposes. They will allow researchers to identify the response of fish

populations to patterns of management actions and to larger-scale, indirect effects of

those actions. They will also be a critical

component of assessing the effect of actions

integrated across the Hs (or recovery plans).

Finally, these types of efforts, conducted

across several subbasins over time, will play an

important role as environmental or background monitoring. Widespread survey efforts

will provide important baseline information,

since changes in conditions outside the areas

directly affected by a recovery plan or management action could mask the benefit (or lack of

benefit) provided by those actions.

In addition to these large-scale measures,

action-specific monitoring should also be

implemented. Such monitoring would serve

two purposes. First, it would ensure that

necessary actions are being completed. Second, it would, when possible, determine

whether discrete, anticipated responses are

A well-designed monitoring and evaluation program is a critical component of any

conservation or restoration activity, and can

play several roles within recovery planning.

First, monitoring of specific projects is vital to

determine whether those specific management

actions have been effective. Second, largescale monitoring and evaluation is important

to assess the success of integrated actions (or

recovery plans) in achieving desired population size, distribution and trends. Finally,

well-coordinated management actions, when

coupled with relevant monitoring and evaluation programs, can reduce uncertainty about

the effect of those actions on salmon productivity. However, in order for monitoring efforts

to be effective, they must have clearly defined

objectives, and they must be designed to

detect responses at the proper scale, both in

space and in time.

Effective monitoring programs, like all

scientific endeavors, must be well designed to

be able to detect significant biological or

physical change. Clearly defined questions,

adequate controls and replication as well as

appropriate sampling techniques must be

included in a monitoring plan. Equally important, however, in designing monitoring programs, is the issue of scale. The scale (e.g.,

basin, subbasin, watershed or reach) at which

a response is sought is critical for two reasons.

Fish populations may respond to patterns seen

at a different scale than that at which many

management actions are implemented. For

instance, riparian management actions typically affect a single reach. However, fish

communities or populations may respond to

the combination of riparian conditions seen

across a watershed. Second, many management actions, by altering the system’s susceptibility to floods, fire, mass wasting, or other

natural disturbance events, affect the natural

system at larger scales than that at which the

action is implemented. For these reasons, a
8 8 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

achieved. (Management actions implemented

to achieve specific changes at particular life

stages, such as passage improvements in the

hydrosystem, lend themselves especially well

to this type of monitoring.) These monitoring

programs must not only be well designed

experimentally, but also address appropriate

life stages.

Management actions, when combined

with monitoring programs at both scales, can

also be used as experiments to address critical

areas of uncertainty. Site-specific monitoring

can provide insight into the physical mechanisms underlying population responses. This

mechanistic information, coupled with management “experiments” across the landscape

and a widespread survey effort has tremendous

potential to increase our understanding of

factors affecting fish populations. A wide

variety of habitat and hatchery actions would

lend themselves to this type of coordinated

effort, as would some actions affecting fish

harvest and conditions in the hydropower

corridor.

Monitoring efforts are vital to ensure that

recovery efforts are successful and have

tremendous potential to increase our understanding of factors affecting salmon populations. Because of this importance, in

March 2000, the Northwest Fisheries Science

Center will convene a panel of academic and

multi-agency scientists at the National Science

Foundation’s National Center for Ecological

Analysis and Synthesis to consider both the

types of questions best addressed through

experimental management and the more

technical issues of scale and sampling.
8 9 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

6. Glossary and Acronyms

Acronyms

A-FISH Anadromous Fish Appendix

APR Artificial Production Review

BA Biological Assessment

BGS Behavioral Guidance System

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.

Department of Interior

BLM Bureau of Land Management, U.S.

Department of Interior

BMP Best Management Practices

BO Biological Opinion

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

CCBF Conservation of Columbia Basin

Fish

CBFWA Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife

Authority

CREP Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program

CRFMP Columbia River Fish Management

Plan

COE Corps of Engineers

CRI Cumulative Risk Initiative

CRISP Columbia River Salmon Passage

(Model)

CRITFC Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission

CWT Coded Wire Tag

D Differential Delayed Transport

Mortality

DOI U.S. Department of Interior

DREW Drawdown Regional Economic

Workgroup

EDT Ecosystem Diagnosis and

Treatment

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit

ESBS Extended Length Submersible

Barrier Screen

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power

System

FEMA Federal Emergency Management

Agency

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

FGE Fish Guidance Efficiency

FSA Farm Services Administration

FOTG Fish Operations Technical Group

FPE Fish Passage Efficiency

FWP Columbia River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Program

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

HMU Habitat Management Units

H-VSP Habitat conditions to support

viable salmon populations

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project

IHOT Integrated Hatchery Operations

Team

INFISH USFS interim strategies for

managing fish-producing

watersheds in eastern Oregon and

Washington, Idaho, and portions of

Nevada.

IPCo Idaho Power Company

IRC Integrated Rule Curve

ISAB Independent Scientific Advisory

Board

ISG Independent Scientific Group

(formerly Scientific Review Group)

ISRP Independent Science Review Panel

JBS Juvenile Bypass System

Kcfs 1000 cubic feet per second

LSRFS Lower Snake River Feasibility

Study

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MPI Matrix of Pathways and Indicators

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

NATURES Natural Rearing Strategies

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPPC Northwest Power Planning Council

NRC National Research Council
9 0 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation

Service

PAC Provincial Advisory Council

PACFISH USFS and BLM interim strategies

for managing anadromous fishproducing watersheds in eastern

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and

portions of California.

PATH Plan for Analyzing and Testing

Hypotheses

PFC Properly Functioning (Habitat)

Conditions

PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management

Council

PIT Passive Induced Transponder

PST Pacific Salmon Treaty

PUD Public Utility District

QAR Quantitative Analysis Report

RAC Regional Advisory Council

ROD Record of Decision

RPA Reasonable and Prudent

Alternatives

SASSI Salmon and Steelhead Stock

Inventory

SAR Smolt-to-Adult Return

SBC Surface Bypass and Collection

SIMPAS2 NMFS Spreadsheet Model

SOR System Operation Review

SPS Significant Population Segment

SRBA Snake River Basin Adjudication

STS Submersible Traveling Screen

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TSP Turbine Survival Program

USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDI U.S. Department of Interior

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife

Service

VAR Q Variable Q

VBS Vertical Barrier Screen

VSP Viable Salmonid Population

WDF Washington Department of

Fisheries

WSC Watershed Council

Technical Terms

Adaptive management - Feedback based on

knowledge or data generated by monitoring

and evaluation actions, of the effects or results

of an implemented action. The information

and data are purposefully collected and used

improve future management plans and actions.

Adfluvial - Possessing a life history trait of

migrating between lakes or rivers and streams.

Adult fallback - Adult salmonids that swim or

drift back downstream through the

powerhouse or spillway of a dam after passing

upstream of the facilities and must pass the

dam a second time in order to successfully

complete their migration.

Alevin - The developmental life stage of

young salmonids and trout that are between

the egg and fry stage. The alevin has not

absorbed its yolk sac and has not emerged

from the spawning gravels.

Allocation percentage - Division of the fish

resource among harvesters and needs for

reproduction.

Anadromous Fish - Fish that hatch and rear

in fresh water, migrate to the ocean (salt

water) to grow and mature, and migrate back

to fresh water to spawn and reproduce.

Artificial production - Spawning, incubating,

hatching or rearing fish in a hatchery or other

facility constructed for fish production.

Artificial Production Review (APR) - The

Northwest Power Planning document that

recommends how to use of fish hatcheries in

the Columbia River Basin.

Artificial propagation - Any assistance

provided by man in the reproduction of Pacific

salmon. This assistance includes, but is not

limited to, spawning and rearing in hatcheries,

stock transfers, creation of spawning habitat,

egg bank programs, captive broodstock

programs, and cryopreservation of gametes.

Artificial selection - Assistance provided by

man in the determination and selection of the

genetic fitness of an individual of a species

for artificial fish production.

At-risk Fish Stocks - Stocks of anadromous

salmon and trout that have been identified by

professional societies, fish management

agencies, and in the scientific literature as

being in need of special management
9 1 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

consideration because of low or declining

populations.

At-risk Populations - Fish, wildlife, and

plant populations that have been identified by

professional societies, fish management

agencies, and in the scientific literature as

being in need of special management

consideration because of low or declining

populations.

Augmentation - The practice of rearing and

releasing artificially propagated salmon and

steelhead to enhance natural population

levels.

Augmentation (of stream flow) - Increasing

stream flow under normal conditions, by

releasing storage water from reservoirs.

Authorities (tribal government) - The right

and power which an officer has in the exercise

of a public function to compel obedience to

his lawful commands.

Bank configuration – The contour and the

functional arrangement of the vegetative and

soil materials that form and delimit the stream

channel from the surrounding land.

Bank integrity - This generally refers to the

structural integrity of a bank or how well a

particular bank resists erosion.

Base stream flow(s) - The flow resulting

precipitation that percolates to the ground

water and slowly moves through the substrate

to a channel. In contrast, stormflow is

precipitation that reached the channel over a

short time frame by surface or underground

routes.

Biological Community - A naturally

occurring, distinctive group of different

organisms which inhabit a common

environment, interact with each other, and are

relatively independent of other groups.

Biological Potential - The ability for

depressed stocks of fish to experience

production levels consistent with its available

habitat and within the natural variations in

survival for the stock.

Broodstock, captive breeding - Adult fish

maintained in captivity, used to propagate the

subsequent generation of hatchery fish.

Broodstock, wild - Adult fish harvested from

indigenous populations used to propagate the

subsequent generation of hatchery fish.

Bypass systems - Juvenile salmonid bypass

systems consist of screens lowered into

turbine intakes to divert fish away from

turbines at hydroelectric dams. Bypassed fish

are either returned directly to the river below

the dam or into barges and trucks for transport

to a release site downstream from Bonneville

Dam. PIT-tag detectors identify all PIT-tagged

fish passing through the bypass systems. In

addition, the systems are equipped with

subsampling capabilities that allow hands-on

enumeration and examination of a portion of

the collection for coded-wire tags (CWT),

brands, species composition, injuries, etc.

Recovery information at bypass systems is

used to develop survival estimates, travel time

estimates, and run timing; to identify problem

areas within the bypass system; and as part of

the basis for flow management decisions

during the juvenile migrations.

Capacity (landscape) – The upper limit in

the number of organisms that an environment

can support due to finite amounts of space,

food, and other needed resources. Capacity

regulates population responses that are

dependent of the density of organisms (MB).

Captive-breeding program - A form of

artificial propagation involving the collection

of individuals (or gametes) from a natural

population and the rearing of these individuals

to maturity in captivity. For listed species, a

captive broodstock is considered part of the

evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) from

which it is taken.

Carrying Capacity - The maximum number

and type of species which a particular habitat

or environment can support without

detrimental effects.

Channel complexity - The number of

physical features (e.g. pool-riffle ratios, size

and classes of substrate particles, amount and

type of woody debris, cannel slope, shape,

sinuosity, and pattern) contained in a channel.

The greater the number of features found in a

given length (e.g. two meander lengths) the

greater the complexity.

Channel modification - Any change, natural

or induced, in the character of a channel.

Channel simplification - Reducing channel

complexity by any natural or induced means.

Channel widening - Increasing the width of a

channel by natural or induced means.
9 2 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Cobble (nests) - Substrate particles that

range from 2 to 10 inches in diameter at its

largest ordinate.

Cohort - Individuals all resulting from the

same birth-pulse, and thus all of the same age.

Compliance (monitoring) - Adhering to the

protocols of a monitoring and evaluation plan.

Configuration (FCRPS) - Significant

structural components or facilities of the

FCRPS (also see FCRPS).

Conservation Crisis Levels - Conservation

crisis levels are defined as levels similar to the

1999 harvest rates for listed spring/summer

chinook (5 to 7 percent), and comparable

conservation crisis levels for listed Snake River

fall chinook and listed steelhead.

Conservation easement - Acquiring, through

lease, purchase, or donation, the right to

protect, improve, or maintain habitats or a

particular habitat conditions.

Conservation hatchery program - A program

that uses artificial propagation to recover

Pacific salmon by maintaining the listed

species’ genetic and ecological integrity

Conservation Status - The relative health of

a salmonid population, in particular whether it

warrants listing as threatened or endangered

under the Endangered Species Act.

Conservation Strategy - A management plan

for a species, group of species, or ecosystem

that prescribes standards and guidelines that if

implemented provide a high likelihood that

the species, groups of species, or ecosystem,

with its full complement of species and

processes, will continue to exist welldistributed throughout a planning area, i.e., a

viable population.

Cost-share projects - Projects that are funded

by two or more different agencies, groups, or

individuals.

Critical habitat - The geographic area

occupied by or essential to the species.

Critical (stock) - A stock of fish experiencing

production levels that are so low that

permanent damage to the stock is likely or has

already occurred.

Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI) -

Scientific analysis developed by the Northwest

Fisheries Science Center of NMFS, to model

quasi-extinction projections for salmon and

steelhead ESUs. The CRI also examines where

in the salmon life cycle opportunities exist to

improve survivals and reduce the risk of

extinction.

Declining (stock) - A stock experiencing a

decline in production levels.

Default Indicator Criteria - indicators of

ecosystem condition that are to be used until

they are replace with more accurate criteria

based on a more site specific analysis. The

indicator criteria has been provided to

describe the conditions in upland, riparian,

and instream areas that function to maintain

productive populations of salmonids (NMFS).

Also see: properly functioning conditions

(below).

Degradation - This term typically refers to the

loss or reduction in one or more

characteristics of an environment. It may be

as simple as the changes due to erosion or as

complex as the loss or reduction of one or

more ecosystem functions.

Delisting - Removal of a species or ESU from

endangered or threatened status under the

ESA.

Density-dependence - A process, such as

fecundity, whose value depends on the number

of animals in the population per unit area.

Depressed (stock) - The report “1992

Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock

Inventory” (WDF et al., 1993) defines

“depressed” as a stock of fish whose

production is below expected levels based on

available habitat and natural variations in

survival rates, but above the level where

permanent damage to the stock is likely.

Descaling - Physical injury to a fish that

results in the removal of scales and protective

mucus layers.

Dewatering - Removing all the water from an

artificial or natural container or channel.

Typically refers to the immediate downstream

habitat effects associated with a water

withdrawal action that diverts the entire flow

of a stream or river to another location.

Discharge (into estuary) – The quantity or

rate of water entering the Columbia River

estuary.

Dissolved gas - The amount of a particular

gas or of all gasses dissolved in water. Usually

measured in parts per million.
9 3 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Dissolved oxygen (DO) - The amount of

oxygen that is dissolved in particular volume

of water. The amount of DO can be an

important indicator of the condition of a water

body.

Diversion structures - Typically refers to

structures that diverts of withdraws water

from a stream or river to another location

usually for irrigation purposes.

Domestication - The intentional or

unintentional process by which wild plant and

animals adapted to cultivation, tamed, or loses

its ability to survive in the wild.

Drafting (reservoir) - Lowering of the

elevation of a reservoir, which would include

passing both in-flow and stored water.

Dredge and fill (permits) - Permits required

by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to

remove substrate material from a water body

or to place or disposed of any material (sand,

gravel, rocks, pilings etc.) in a body of water.

Ecosystem - The biotic and abiotic

characteristics of given area. An ecosystem can

be as small as a wetland or as large as a biome

(e.g. Great Basin Shrub-steppe Deserts,

Tropical Rain Forests of the Lower Amazon

Basin, The Columbia River Estuary). They are

typically defined by some major habitat

characteristic. Each has a unique set of

physical, chemical, and climatic characteristics

to which the plant and animal life have

adapted.

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment

(EDT) - An expert opinion and empirical

modeling approach to stream and watershed

assessments.

Egg Incubation - Egg development of the

embryo, influenced by temperature and other

environmental factors.

Emergence - The process during which fry

leave their gravel spawning nest and enter the

water column.

Emigration - Referring to the movement of

organisms out of an area.

Endangered (ESA) - A species of plant or

animal in danger of extinction throughout all

or a significant portion of its range.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) - An act

passed by Congress in 1973 intended to protect

species and subspecies of plants and animals

that are of “aesthetic, ecological, educational,

historical, recreational and scientific value.” It

may also protect the listed species’ “critical

habitat”, the geographic area occupied by or

essential to the species. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share

authority to list endangered species, determine

critical habitat and develop recovery plans for

listed species.

Endemic (species) - Native to or limited to a

specific region.

Environmental baseline condition - This is

some pre-project environmental condition. It

is the environmental standard that project

effects are measured against.

Escapement - The number of salmon and

steelhead that return to a specified measuring

location after all natural mortality and harvest

have occurred. Spawning escapement consist

of those fish that survive to spawn.

Estuary, estuarine - The area where the fresh

water of a river meets and mixes with the salt

water of the ocean.

ESU (evolutionary significant unit) - A

salmon population or group of populations

that are substantially reproductively isolated

from other conspecific population units, and

contributes substantially to ecological/genetic

diversity of the biological species as a whole.

Evolutionary response - The adaptations of

a species accrued in response to

environmental changes over a long period of

time.

Exploitation rate - The proportion of a

population at the beginning of a given time

period that is caught during that time period

(usually expressed on a yearly basis). For

example, if 720,000 fish were caught during

the year from a population of 1 million fish

alive at the beginning of the year, the annual

exploitation rate would be 0.72.

Extant (populations) - describes types or

species of animals that are currently living.

Not extinct.

Extinction risk - A component to modeling

scenarios involving stocks becoming extinct.

Extirpate - To destroy or remove completely,

as a species from a particular area, region, or

habitat.
9 4 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Extra Mortality - Numerous suites of

conditions corresponding to a deteriorating

situation for the listed species, crucial to the

assessment of how well different management

options will perform.

Fecundity - The total number of eggs

produced by a female fish.

Fisheries (in-river) - Harvest occurring within

freshwater areas.

Fisheries (known-stock) – Harvest targeting a

specific stock(s).

Fisheries (marine or ocean) - Harvest

occurring in marine areas.

Fishery (Indian) - See “Tribal Fishing Rights.”

Fishery (non-Indian) - Fisheries conducted by

nontribal members.

Fishery (mixed-stock) - Harvest occurring at

such a time or location as to potentially catch

fish from multiple stock(s).

Fishery (subsistence) - See “Tribal Fishing

Rights.”

Fishery, ceremonial - See “Tribal Fishing

Rights.”

Fishing pressure - The impact of fishing on

fish populations.

Flood plains - The area along a stream or river

that is subject to flooding.

Flow Augmentation - Increasing river flows

during the juvenile out-migration by reducing

winter drafts at FCRPS storage reservoirs to

provide higher spring flows and a higher

probability of reservoir refill; by drafting

reservoirs during the out-migration season

(April through August); and by acquisition of

water from nonfederal sources.

Flow Requirements - Quantity of flow for a

given stream reach necessary for fish survival.

These requirements may vary by species and

life stage.

Flow timing – A water release schedule

associated with hydropower facilities or

natural flow regime or hydrograph.

Fluvial – Of or pertaining to a river or stream.

This includes the slope, shape, and channel,

its substrate characteristics, its flow

characteristics, its sediment transport

characteristics and geomorphic conditions that

contribute to these conditions.

Fry (emergence) - The first free-swimming

life stage of a salmonid.

Gas Bubble Disease - Conditions caused

when dissolved gas in supersaturated water

comes out of solution and equilibrates with

atmospheric conditions, forming bubbles

within the tissues of aquatic organisms. This

condition can kill or harm fish.

Gas Supersaturation - The overabundance of

gases in turbulent water, such as at the base of

a dam spillway. Can cause fatal condition in

fish similar to the bends.

Geneflow - The incorporation of migrant

genes into a receiving population.

Genetic Diversity - The array of genetic

traits that exists within a population, due to a

large number of slightly dissimilar ancestors,

which enables it to adapt to changing

conditions.

Genetic Exchange - The transfer of genes

among individual organisms within a

population.

Genetic Fitness - The relative reproductive

success of a population (genotype) as

measured by fecundity, survival, and other life

history parameters.

Genetic Interactions - Outbreeding between

genetically differentiated populations.

Straying of genetically divergent hatchery

produced salmon into a native population.

Genetic Variability - Differences in the

frequency of genes and traits among individual

organisms within a population.

Geographically Localized (populations,

stocks) - Populations restricted to a well

defined area set by systems and processes

involved in the world’s weather, mountains,

seas, lakes, etc.

Habitat complexity - The extent and variety

of water, soil, geomorphic features and plant

species of a given area. The more features the

more complex a habitat.

Habitat condition indicator - Some standard

(e.g. one pool and one riffle per meander

length of a river) that is used to index the

suitability of a habitat for some species (e.g.

trout).

Habitat conservation planning - Plans to

protect, improve, or maintain the status or

condition of a given habitat.

Habitat diversity - The number and
9 5 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

distribution of physical, chemical and typically

plant material in an area. The greater the

number of features, the greater the diversity.

Harvest (flat rate) – Harvest occurring at a

fixed rate.

Harvest (in-river schedule) - Designated

harvest dates and times for in-river fisheries.

Harvest (selective) - Harvest targeted to

specific fish or fish runs.

Harvest (sustainable) - A degree of fish

harvest that does not deplete fish populations

below replacement levels.

Harvest (tribal allocation) - See “Tribal

Fishing Rights.”

Harvest (tribal) - See “Tribal Fishing Rights.”

Harvest management - The process of

setting regulations for the commercial,

recreational and tribal fish harvest to achieve a

specified goal within the fishery.

Harvest pressures - The degree and manner

in which harvest efforts (commercial,

recreational, and tribal) affect fish

populations.

Harvest rate - The proportion of a returning

run or total population of salmonids that is

taken by fisheries, usually expressed as a catch

to escapement ratio.

Harvest selectivity - A harvest strategy that

targets a specific species.

Hatchery – A facility where fish are collected,

spawned, reared, and (typically) released (see

Artificial propagation).

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan

(HGMP) - A document detailing the continued

operation of an artificial propagation program.

Hatchery intervention – The use of artificial

propagation to enhance, conserve, and recover

salmonid populations.

Hatchery release - Artificially propagated fish

released into the wild for the purpose of

mitigating, supplementing, augmenting, and

restoring a fish population or a fishery.

Healthy (stock) - A stock of fish

experiencing production levels consistent with

its available habitat and within the natural

variations in survival for the stock.

Heavy metals - Metallic elements with high

atomic weights, e.g., mercury, chromium,

cadmium, arsenic, and lead. They can damage

living things at low concentrations and tend to

accumulate in the food chain.

Homing - The ability of a salmon or steelhead

to correctly identify and return to their natal

stream, following maturation at sea.

Hydraulics - The principles governing

mechanical properties of static and moving

water (provisions of optimum passage at dams

depend on knowledge of fish behavioral

response to hydraulics at dams).

Hydroacoustics - The use of sound to

estimate the number of fish using a specific

passage route.

Hydrograph (river) - A graphic representation

of stage, flow, velocity, or other characteristics

of water at any given point.

Hydrologic function - The effects of water on

the earth’s surface, soil and rocks.

Hydropower – Electrical power generation

produced by dams.

Impoundment – Any human-made structure

for retaining natural flows (e.g., reservoirs).

Inbreeding – The mating of related

individuals.

Indigenous - Existing, growing, or produced

naturally in a region.

Infrastructure - An underlying base or

foundation.

Institutional barrier - Impediment or

obstruction to achieving institutional goals

based on current policies and mandates

enacted by other institutions.

Instream flows - The amount of water

passing a particular point in a stream or river,

usually expressed in cubic-feet per second

(cfs). Typically concerned with the minimum

flow in a stream needed to protect and

maintain aquatic life.

Integrated Rule Curves (IRC) - A set of

reservoir operating criteria designed to meet

multiple objectives (e.g. flood control,

irrigation, recreation, and fish habitat.)

Inter-tidal (marsh) - Marshes located in the

zone (usually in an estuary) between mean

high tide and mean low tide.

Juvenile Bypass Outfall - The structure and

location of the juvenile bypass system

discharge.

Lacustrine - Of or pertaining to a lake (e.g. a
9 6 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

lake ecosystem)

Landscape-level characteristics - Those

characteristics associated with a

heterogeneous land area with interacting

ecosystems.

Life history strategies/types – Traits and

characteristics of a stock that reflect

adaptations to a unique environment (e.g.,

spawn timing).

Life stage - An organisms period of

development to adulthood.

Listed fish, species - Species determined to

be threatened (any species in danger of

becoming endangered in the foreseeable

future) or endangered (a species in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of it’s range) as allowed under the

ESA.

Local adaptations – Specialized

characteristics or traits expressed by

geographically distinct populations.

Low-gradient (tributary habitats) - a

stream or river with a slope of less than 0.02

percent.

Mainstem - The principle channel of a

drainage system into which other smaller

streams or rivers flow (SN).

Management prescription – The

management practices and intensity selected

and scheduled for application to a specific

area. (FEMAT)

Mark-selective fisheries - A fishery managed

to selectively harvest distinctively marked fish.

Mechanical bypass system – See “bypass

system.”

Metapopulation - A population comprising

local populations that are linked by migrants,

allowing for recolonization of unoccupied

habitat patches after local extinction events.

Migrant blockages – Any of a number of

obstructions that prevent movement of fishes

up- and down stream.

Minimum Gap Runners (MGR) - Turbine

blades that maintain extremely close tolerance

(less than 0.25 inches) between the bade, hub,

and encasing draftube walls (discharge ring).

Mitigate - make less severe or more bearable,

Mitigation hatchery fish - Artificially

produced fish that are propagated to

compensate for loss or reduction of a specific

fish population.

Morphology - The structure, form and

appearance of an organism.

Multi-scale – A series of graduated spatial

geographic areas or temporal periods.

Multi-Species Framework Project – a

collaborative project of the Northwest Power

Planning Council, the Columbia River Basin’s

Indian Tribes and the United State

Government to create a handful of

scientifically based, agreed upon alternatives

for determining how best to achieve fish and

wildlife recovery in the Columbia River Basin.

Natal (stream) - Stream of birth.

Natural fish - A fish that is produced by

parents spawning in a stream or lake bed, as

opposed to a controlled environment such as a

hatchery.

Natural regenerative processes –

Restoration of ecosystem condition based on a

series of related physical or biological

activities existing in nature.

Naturally spawning fish/populations -

Populations of fish that have completed their

entire life cycle in the natural environment

without human intervention.

Non-endemic stocks - Not native to or

limited to a specific region.

Non-indigenous stocks - Not existing

naturally in a region, state, country, etc.

Non-point source pollution (program) –

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act establishes

a Nonpoint Sources Management program.

States, Territories, and Indian Tribes receive

grant money which supports a wide variety of

activities including technical assistance,

financial assistance, education, training,

technology transfer, and monitoring to assess

the success of specific nonpoint source

implementation projects.

Nutrient cycling - Circulation or exchange of

elements such as nitrogen and carbon between

nonliving and living portions of the

environment. (SN)

Off-channel (areas) – Any relatively calm

portion of a stream outside of the main flow.

(SN)

Off-Channel Water Storage Capacity - Water

storage in areas outside the mainstem
9 7 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Columbia.

Operations (FCRPS) - Management of the

FCRPS projects as set forth in the 1995 FCRPS

and 1998 Steelhead Supplemental Biological

Opinions. Along with establishing certain hard

constraints at storage reservoirs, the biological

opinions established the Regional Forum,

which as one of its responsibilities has some

flexibility to recommend real-time (i.e. in

season ) management decision for flow

augmentation, spill, and transportation

decisions in order to best achieve passage

strategies for migrating salmon.

Outbreeding - The interbreeding of distantly

related or unrelated individuals.

Outbreeding depression - The loss of local

adaptations as a result of interbreeding wild

and hatchery fish.

Out-of-stream water use – Any use of stream

water that occurs outside the stream channel,

such as irrigation.

Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) - A long-term

and comprehensive management plan,

negotiated between the United States and

Canada, that would govern salmon fisheries in

Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, and the

Pacific Northwest.

Passive integrated transponder (PIT)

tagging - Passive Integrated Transponder tags

are used for identifying individual salmon for

monitoring and research purposes. This

miniaturized tag consists of an integrated

microchip that is programmed to include

specific fish information. The tag is inserted

into the body cavity of the fish and decoded at

selected monitoring sites.

Performance measures - Define the

contribution that is needed at each life-history

stage to achieve the overall biological goals

and objectives, and which do so in context

with the contributions from other life stages.

Performance-based management - Measures

or actions that seek to reach established

recovery objectives, and which can be

adjusted over time in response to their degree

of success in achieving those objectives.

pH - The negative logarithm of the molar

concentration of hydrogen ion. It refers more

simply to the acidity of a solution.

Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses

(PATH) - The PATH process is a multi-agency/

multi-participant effort to allow a wide

community of scientists and managers to

analyze hypotheses for salmon decline and

examine the outcome of different management

options, including drawdown and

transportation.

Plume – A downstream or offshore

conveyance of water and suspended sediments

(e.g., the Columbia River plume extends miles

into the Pacific Ocean).

Point source discharges - Pollutants

discharged from any identifiable point,

including pipes, ditches, channels, sewers,

tunnels, and containers of various types.

Polluted – (1) An area that has been

contaminated, especially by a waste material

that contaminates air, soil, or water. (2) Any

solute or cause of change in physical

properties that renders water unfit for a given

use.

Population(s) - A group of individuals of the

same species occupying a defined locality

during a given time that exhibit reproductive

continuity from generation to generation.

Population dynamic - The aggregate of

changes that occur during the life of a

population.

Population identification - The process of

determining that a set of individuals belong in

a population grouping.

Productive capacity - The capacity of a water

body or production facility to produce fish.

Progeny - Offspring.

Properly functioning conditions (PFC) –

Properly functioning condition is the sustained

presence of natural habitat-forming processes

in a watershed (e.g., riparian community

succession, bedload transport, precipitation

runoff pattern, channel migration) that are

necessary for the long-term survival of the

species through the full range of

environmental variation. PFC, then,

constitutes the habitat component of a

species’ biological requirements (Also see:

NMFS 1996).

Province – A large geographic area that has

similar set of biophysical characteristics and

processes due to effects of climate and

geology. Provinces are roughly equal to groups

of 4th field USGS hydrologic unit codes

(averages 1,000,000 hectares).
9 8 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Push-up dam – An instream water diversion

created by pushing streambed or other

material into a mound which diverts part of

the stream flow out of the channel.

Ramping Rates - The rate of change of

discharge from a project, often limited by a

specified rate of downstream water surface

elevation change.

Reach - A section of stream between two

defined points.

Rear - To feed and grow in a natural or

artificial environment.

Rebuilding flows – Process of returning

water to a stream to approximate historic flow

patterns.

Reclamation Project(s) - Projects

constructed under the Reclamation Act and

operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,

which administers some parts of the federal

program for water resource development and

use in western states. The Bureau of

Reclamation owns and operates a number of

dams in the Columbia River Basin, including

Grand Coulee Dam.

Recovery - Defined as the point at which a

listed species has improved to such an extent

that it no longer requires the protection of the

ESA.

Recovery goal - The reestablishment of a

threatened or endangered species to a selfsustaining level in its natural ecosystem (i.e.,

to the point where the protective measures of

the Endangered Species Act are no longer

necessary).

Recovery planning areas - Any geographic

area that regulatory agency uses to set the

boundaries of a regional recovery plan for

salmon it is usually a river basin or subbasin.

Redd - A nest of fish eggs covered with gravel.

Refugia – Locations and habitats that support

populations of organisms that are limited to

small fragments of their previous geographic

range (FEMAT).

Resident fish - Occupying headwater reaches;

may disperse locally, but generally considered

non-migratory.

Restoration – Reestablishment of predisturbance aquatic functions and related

physical, chemical, and biological

characteristics (NRC).

Riparian (zones) - Those terrestrial areas

where the vegetation complex and

microclimate conditions are products of the

combined presence and influence of perennial

and /or intermittent water, associated with

high water tables, and soils that exhibit some

wetness characteristics (FEMAT).

Riprap - Refers to rocks or concrete structures

used to stabilize stream or riverbanks from

erosion (SN).

River of origin - The river system in which a

given salmonid was hatched (see natal

stream).

Road treatments – Any of a number of

restorative activities conducted to improve

drainage, erosion, or stability of a road, such

as, ripping and seeding the road surface,

planting cut-slopes, removing the road from

the landscape by reestablishing the original

land contour.

Run (fish) - A group of fish of the same

species that migrate together up a stream to

spawn, usually associated with the seasons,

e.g., fall, spring, summer, and winter runs.

Members of a run interbreed, and may be

genetically distinguishable from other

individuals of the same species.

Run timing - The time of year that the fish

return to their rivers of origin to spawn.

Runoff - Water that flows over the ground and

reaches a stream as a result of rainfall or

snowmelt.

Salinity concentrations - The concentration

of salt in a body of water. The salinity of a

saltwater wetland changes whenever

freshwater is added when it rains, and each

time the saltwater is added or removed when

tide rises and falls.

Salmonids - Fish of the family Salmonidae,

that includes salmon and steelhead.

Scientific protocols - A set of conventions

governing data treatment and analysis

procedures.

Scour of redds – Dig or remove gravels and

eggs from redds by a powerful current of

water.

Screens/ladders (fish) - Wire mesh screens

placed at the point where water is diverted

from a stream, river, and through a turbine at a

dam to help keep fish from entering the
9 9 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

diversion or passageway. Fish ladders are

devices made up of a series of stepped pools,

similar to a staircase, that enable adult fish to

migrate upstream past dams.

Seasonal Flow Patterns – Natural changes

and fluctuations in stream flows occurring

over the course of a year.

Secure (habitat) – Reducing or eliminating

problems caused by past human activities to

prevent further degradation to remaining

healthy areas (Doppelt et al. 1993).

Sediment regime(s) (input, storage,

transport) - The distribution of sediment input,

transport, and storage in a river system

through time.

Segmented habitat – Habitat that is cutoff

from other portions of the habitat. Refers to

habitat wherein free movement of individuals

from portion of the habitat to other portions is

restricted.

Selective fishery strategy - A fishery

management tool that allows selective

retention of certain identifiable salmonid

stocks (identified by marking, time, area, or

gear methods) in order to minimize impacts on

listed species.

Selective fishing gear - Fishing gear that,

while targeting the intended species and size

groups, allows non-target species to be

released with little or no mortality.

Sensitive species - Those species that (1)

have appeared in the Federal Register as

proposed for classification and are under

consideration for official listing as endangered

or threatened species or (2) are on an official

state list or (3) are recognized by the U.S.

Forest Service or other management agency as

needing special management to prevent their

being placed on federal or state lists.

Sensitivity (population) - The susceptibility

of a population to positive or negative inputs.

Sensitivity Analysis (PATH) - In addition to

the uncertainties that are explicitly

incorporated into the calculation of

probabilities of meeting standards, the

detailed results presented in the PATH FY98

Report also explored the effects of other

assumptions on the overall results. They

looked specifically at the sensitivity of results

to the four factors: habitat, harvest, bird

predation in the Columbia River estuary, and

upstream survival rates. (Also see PATH.)

Sluiceway Outfall - The structure and

location of the discharge of the surface dam

outlet designed to collect and dispose of

debris collected at the dam face.

Smolt - Refers to the salmonid or trout

developmental life stage between parr and

adult, when the juvenile is at least one year

old and has adapted to the marine

environment.

Smolt Travel Time - The time required for

smolt transit a stream reach during

downstream migration.

Smoltification - Refers to the physiological

changes anadromous salmonids and trout

undergo in freshwater while migrating toward

saltwater that allow them to live in the ocean.

Spatial and temporal scales - The size/range

of place and time used in modeling or data

analysis.

Spawn - The act of reproduction of fishes. The

mixing of the sperm of a male fish and the

eggs of a female fish.

Spawning gravel – Streambed materials in

which salmon lay their eggs, usually gravels

free of fine sediments.

Species of concern - An unofficial status for a

species whose abundance is at low levels.

Spill – Releasing water over a dam’s spillways

rather than channeling it through the

powerhouse.

Spillway flow deflectors (flip lips) -

Structures that limit the plunge depth of water

over the dam spillway, producing a less

forceful, more horizontal spill. These

structures reduce the amount of dissolved gas

trapped in the spilled water.

Stock - A specific population of fish. When

referring to salmon, a specific population of

fish spawning in a particular stream during a

particular season.

Stock structure - The suite of characteristics

(in particular genetic attributes) that

distinguish one stock of salmonids from

another.

Storage capacity - The active storage

capacity (above the dead pool) of all the

reservoirs in the Columbia Basin, including

those in Canada.

Storage reservoirs - A reservoir primarily
100 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

used to actively store and draft water. These

reservoirs often have a large active storage

capacity.

Stranding – Causing fish to be trapped in

stream reaches due to insufficient water,

especially as a result of water withdrawal.

Straying - A natural phenomena of adult

spawners not returning to their natal stream,

but entering and spawning in some other

stream.

Stream segments – A portion of a stream

channel.

Subbasin – A watershed area defined by 4th –

field USGS hydrologic unit code the size

averages 200,000 hectares.

Substrate - The composition of a streambed,

including mineral and organic materials.

Subwatersheds - A watershed area defined by

6th field USGS hydrologic unit code the size

ranges from 5 to 15,000 hectares.

Supplementation - Artificial propagation

intended to reestablish a natural population or

increase its abundance.

Surface Bypass Collection (SBC) - System

designed to divert fish at the surface before

they have to dive and encounter the existing

turbine intake screens. SBC directs the

juvenile fish into the forebay, where they are

passed downstream either through the dam

spillway or via the juvenile fish transportation

system of barges and trucks.

Survivorship - A measure of survival tied to

each of a species’ life stages.

Take (legal/illegal) - Under the Endangered

Species Act, take means to harass, harm,

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,

or collect an animal, or to attempt to engage

in any such conduct.

Terminal area - rivers of origin.

Terminal fishery - Fisheries near freshwater

(usually the mouth of rivers or bays or near a

hatchery release site) where the targeted

species is returning to spawn.

Threatened (ESA) - A genetic population

that is at risk of becoming endangered in the

foreseeable future.

TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load is a

calculation of the maximum amount of a

pollutant that a water body can receive and

still meet water quality standards, and an

allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s

source (EPA).

Transport (juvenile) - Collection and transport

via barge and truck of out migrating juvenile

salmonids from several FCRPS collection

projects to a location downstream from

Bonneville Dam, the lowermost dam on the

Columbia River.

Trash Shear Boom - A floating device aligned

with flow that allows floating debris to be

guided to a specific removal point.

Tribal fishing rights - The guaranteed right

for Native Americans to fish in their usual and

accustomed Places. The right was established

in a series of treaties dating from the mid1850s and it applies to a number of tribes and

their various harvesting practices (i.e.,

commercial and ceremonial and subsistence).

Tributary habitats - Fish habitat provided by

a stream that flows into another stream, river,

or lake.

Trust obligations/responsibility -

Governmental obligations to the tribes under

the treaties of 1855.

Turbidity – The cloudiness of water caused

by suspended matter that interferes with the

passage of light through the water or in which

visual depth is restricted (SN).

Value-added commercial enterprises - Any

business venture based on taking a product

whether raw or partially processed, and

processing it further to increase its value to

the consumer.

Viability (population) - A population in a

state that maintains its vigor and its potential

for evolutionary change.

Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) - An

independent population of any Pacific

salmonid (genus Oncorhynchus) that has a

negligible risk of extinction over a 100-year

time frame.

Water conveyances – Devices used to

transfer water from one location to another,

usually from a natural water body to the land

surface for irrigation, or for an industrial use.

Examples include pipes, lined or unlined

ditches, and irrigation canals.

Water quality limited - A water body that

does not meet the federally approved state
101 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

water quality standard establish under the

provision of the Clean Water Act.

Water table elevation – The elevation at

which groundwater will enter a well hole and

attain a static level. Groundwater below this

level is held in the intergranular pores on the

soil or rock, or joints or fractures in the rock.

Above the water table is a zone in which the

pores of the soil or rock are completely filled

with water held up by capillary tension. (DL).

Watershed - A watershed area defined by 5th –

field USGS hydrologic unit code the size

ranges between 20 to 40,000 hectares.

Watershed analysis – A systematic, sciencebased procedure for characterizing ecosystem

conditions, and the state of ecosystem

processes and functions.

Watershed assessment – (See watershed

analysis). The term assessment rather than

analysis often implies that a process with less

scientific rigor was used.

Weak (stock) - Listed in the Integrated

System Plan’s list of stocks of high or highest

concern; listed in the American Fisheries

Society report as at high or moderate risk of

extinction; or stocks the National Marine

Fisheries Service has listed. “Weak stock” is an

evolving concept; the Council does not

purport to establish a fixed definition. Nor

does the Council imply that any particular

change in management is required because of

this definition.”

Wetland(s) – Areas that are inundated by

surface water or groundwater with a frequency

sufficient to support, and under normal

circumstances do or would support, a

prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that

require saturated or seasonally saturated soil

condition for growth and reproduction

(Executive Order 1990). Examples of wetlands

include swamps, marshes, and bogs (FEMAT).

Wild fish - See “natural fish.”

Woody debris input – Refers to the processes

that move woody vegetation from land areas

to the stream environment. Examples of

processes include landslides, debris flows,

wind throw, and disease.
102 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish
103 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

7. REFERENCES

Brannon, E.L., C.L. Melby, and S.D. Brewer.

1984. Columbia River white sturgeon

enhancement. Final Report to

Bonneville Power Administration.

Contract No. DEAI79-84BP18952;

Project No. 83-316. Portland, Oregon.

43 pp.

Columbia River Fish Management Plan

(CRFMP). 1988. Entered into pursuant

to United States v. Oregon (Civ. 68-513.

Federal District Court of Oregon, 1969)

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

(CRITFC) 1995. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi WaKish-Wit: Spirit of the Salmon. The

Columbia River Anadromous Fish

Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce,

Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama

Tribes Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission, Portland, Oregon.

DeVore, J.D., B.W. James, D.R. Gilliland, and

B.J. Cady. 1998. Effects of mitigative

measures on productivity of white

sturgeon populations in the Columbia

River downstream from McNary Dam,

and determine the status and habitat

requirements of white sturgeon

populations in the Columbia and Snake

rivers upstream from McNary Dam.

Annual Progress Report, April, 1996-

March, 1997, Report B. Report prepared

for Bonneville Power Administration

Project 86-50, Contract No. DE-A179-

86BP63584. Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, WA. 36p.

DeVore, J.D., B.W. James, and D.R. Gilliland.

1999. Effects of mitigative measures

on productivity of white sturgeon

populations in the Columbia River

downstream from McNary Dam, and

determine the status and habitat

requirements of white sturgeon

populations in the Columbia and Snake

rivers upstream from McNary Dam.

Annual Progress Report, April, 1997-

Apperson, K.A. and P.J. Anders. 1991. Kootenai

River white sturgeon investigations and

experimental culture. Annual Progress

Report FY 1990. Idaho Department of

Fish and Game and Bonneville Power

Administration. Contract No. DE-AI79-

88BP93497. Project No. 88-65.

Portland, Oregon 67 pp.

Bell, M.C. 1986. Fisheries handbook of

engineering requirements and

biological criteria. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Office of the Chief of

Engineers, Fish Passage Development

and Evaluation Program, Portland,

Oregon.

Bevan, D., J. Harville, P. Bergman, T. Bjorn, J.

Crutchfield, P. Klingeman, and J.

Litchfield. 1994. Snake River recovery

team: final recommendations to the

National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service.

Portland, Oregon.

Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat

requirements of salmonids in streams.

Pages 83-138 in W.R. Meehan, editor.

Influences of forest and rangeland

management on salmonid fishes and

their habitats. Special Publication 19.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,

Maryland.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 1993.

In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Undated. White Sturgeon: Kootenai

River Population Acipenser

transmontanus draft recovery plan.

132 p.

Bonneville Power Administration and U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation. 1993.

Columbia River Basin, System

Operational Review. Irrigation

Depletion Estimate. September 10,

1993, prepared for Bonneville Power

Administration by A.G. Crook

Company.
104 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

March, 1998, Report B. Report prepared

for Bonneville Power Administration

Project 86-50, Contract No. DE-A179-

86BP63584. Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, WA. 38p.

Doppelt, B., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J.

Karr. 1993. Entering the watershed: a

new approach to save America’s river

ecosystems. Island Press, Washington

D.C.

Dunne, T., and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in

Environmental Planning. W. H.

Freeman and Company. New York.

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, Volume II:

species life history summaries.

Estuarine Living Marine Resources

Program Report No. 8. NOAA/NOS

Strategic Environmental Assessments

Division, Rockville, Maryland. 329 p.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. EPA

Web site: epa.gov/owow/tmdl/

intro.html.

Everest, F.H., N.B. Armantrout, S.M. Keller,

W.D. Parante, J.R. Sedell, T.E.

Nickelson, J.M. Johnston, and G.N.

Haugen. 1985. Salmonids. Pages 199-

230 in E.R. Brown, editor.

Management of wildlife and fish

habitats in forests of western Oregon

and Washington. Publication R6-

F&WL-192-1985. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment

Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem

management: an ecological, economic

and social assessment. Report of the

Forest Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team. U.S. Government

Printing Office 1993-793-071. U.S.

Government Printing Office for the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service; U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Bureau of Land Management, National

Park Service; U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration and

National Marine Fisheries Service; and

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life

History, ecology and population status

of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus

confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and

River System, Montana. Northwest

Science 63(4):133-143.

Francis, R. C. and Hare. S.R. Decadal-scale

regime shifts in the large marine

ecosystems of the Northeast Pacific: a

case for historical science. Fish.

Oceanogr. 1994; 3(4):279-291.

Frissell, C. A. 1993. A new strategy for

watershed restoration and recovery of

Pacific salmon in the Pacific

Northwest. Prepared for the Pacific

Rivers Council, Eugene, Oregon.

Fulton, L.A. 1968. Spawning areas and

abundance of chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the

Columbia River Basin—past and

present. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Special Scientific Report—Fisheries

no. 571. 26 p.

Fulton, L.A. 1970. Spawning areas and

abundance of steelhead trout and

coho, sockeye, and chum salmon in

the Columbia River basin—past and

present. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Special Scientific Report—Fisheries

no. 618. 37 p.

Groot, C., and L. Margolis, editors. 1991.

Pacific salmon life histories. University

of British Columbia Press. Vancouver,

British Columbia. 564 p.

Hare, S. R.; Mantua, N. J., and Francis, R. J.

Inverse production regimes: Alaska

and West Coast Pacific Salmon.

Fisheries. 1999; 24(1):6-15.

Henjum, M. G., J. R. Karr, D. L. Bottom, D. A.

Perry, J. C. Bednarz, S. G. Wright, S. A.

Beckwitt, and E. Beckwitt. 1994.

Interim Protection for late-successional

forests, fisheries, and watersheds:

national east of the Cascade Crest,

Oregon and Washington. The Wildlife

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Hinch, S. G.; Mealey, M. C.; Diewert. R.E.;

Thomson, K. A.; Hourston, R.;

Henerson, M. A., and Juanes, F.

Potential effects of climate change on

marine growth and survival of Fraser

River sockeye salmon. Can J. Fish.

Aquat. Sci. 1995; 52:2651-2659.
105 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Howell, P. J. and D. V. Buchanan, eds. 1992.

Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain

bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter

of the American Fisheries Society,

Corvallis, Oregon.

Huntington, C.W., W. Nehlsen, and J. Bowers.

1996. A survey of healthy native stocks

of anadromous salmonids in the

Pacific Northwest and California.

Fisheries 21(3):6-14.

Independent Scientific Group (ISG). 1996.

Return to the River. Northwest Power

Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT).

1994. Policies and Procedures for

Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid

Hatcheries. Bonneville Power

Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Knudson, K. 1994. Water quality status report,

Kootenay (Kootenai) River Basin

British Columbia, Montana, and Idaho.

Prepared for Kootenai River Network,

January, 1994. 57 p.

Lower Columbia River Estuary Program. 1999.

Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plan. Volume 1: June

1999. Lower Columbia River Estuary

Program, Portland, Oregon. p. 222.

Marcuson, P. 1994. Kootenai River white

sturgeon investigations and

experimental culture. Annual Progress

Report FY 1990. Idaho Department of

Fish and Game and Bonneville Power

Administration. Contract No. DE-AI79-

88BP93497. Project No. 88-65.

Portland, Oregon 67 pp.

Marmorek, D.R., Peter, C.N. and Parnell I

(eds.) 1998. Plan for Analyzing and

testing hypotheses (PATH) Final Report

for Fiscal Year 1998. Essa

Technologies Ltd.

Marmorek, D., Parnell I., Peters, C.N. and C.

Alexander (eds). 1999. PATH: Scoping

of Candidate Research, Monitoring and

Experimental Management Actions:

Concurrently Reducing Key

Uncertainties and Recovering Stocks.

Working Draft. ESSA Technologies

Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

McPhail, J.D., and C.C. Lindsey. 1986.

Zoogeography of the freshwater fishes

of Cascadia (the Columbia system and

rivers north to the Stikine). Pages 615-

637 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley,

editors. The Zoogeography of North

American freshwater fishes. Wiley and

Sons, New York, New York.

Meehan, W.R., and T.C. Bjornn. 1991.

Salmonid distributions and life

histories. Pages 47-82 in W.R. Meehan,

editor. Influences of forest and

rangeland management on salmonid

fishes and their habitats. Special

Publication 19. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. 1999. Unpublished

report. The EDT method, August 1999

– Draft (Available from Mobrand

Biometrics, Inc. Washington).

National Fish Hatchery Review Panel, 1994.

Report of the National Fish Hatchery

Review Panel. The Conservation Fund,

Arlington, Virginia.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996.

Making Endangered Species Act

determinations of effect for individual

or grouped actions at the watershed

scale. Guidance document prepared by

NMFS Habitat Conservation Division,

Portland, Oregon. 31 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996.

Memorandum from William Stelle, Jr.,

to NMFS/NWR staff, September 4,

1996: Making Endangered Species Act

determinations of effects for individual

or grouped actions at the watershed

scale. (Available from NMFS, Portland,

Oregon).

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997.

Description and identification of

essential fish habitat, adverse impacts

and recommended conservation

measures for salmon. Amendment 14

to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, Draft

Appendix A. January 1999. Pacific

Fisheries Management Council Award

Number NA87FC008. Portland,

Oregon.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999a.

Recommended Protocols for the Use of

Captive Broodstock, Northwest

Fisheries Science Center, Seattle,

Washington.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999b. ESA

Section 7 Consultation: Biological

Opinion on Artificial Propagation in

the Columbia River Basin. March 29,

1999. Portland, Oregon.
106 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999c.

White Paper: Passage of Juvenile and

Adult Salmonids Past Columbia and

Snake River Dams.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999d.

White Paper: Predation on Salmonids

Relative to the Federal Columbia River

Power System.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999e.

White Paper: Salmonid Travel Time

and Survival Related to Flow

Management in the Columbia River

Basin.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999f.

White Paper: Summary of Research

Related to Transportation of Juvenile

Anadromous Salmonids Around Snake

and Columbia River Dams.

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fed-1 Plan

for Artificial Propagation: Artificial

Production Proposal for CRFMP

Negotiations. January 7, 1999.

Portland, Oregon.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996.

Upstream: Salmon and Society in the

Pacific Northwest. Committee on

Protection and Management of Pacific

Northwest Anadromous Salmonids.

National Academy Press, Washington

D.C.

Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A.

Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at

the crossroads: Stocks at risk from

California, Oregon, Idaho, and

Washington. Fisheries 16(2):4-21.

North, J.A., L.C. Burner, and R.A. Farr. 1999.

Effects of mitigative measures on

productivity of white sturgeon

populations in the Columbia River

downstream from McNary Dam, and

determine the status and habitat

requirements of white sturgeon

populations in the Columbia and Snake

rivers upstream from McNary Dam.

Annual Progress Report, April, 1997-

March, 1998, Report B. Report prepared

for Bonneville Power Administration

Project 86-50, Contract No. DE-A179-

86BP63584. Oregon Dept. of Fish and

Wildlife, Clackamas, OR. 49p.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC).

1999. Anadromous Fish, Appendix A,

Draft Report. Prepared for the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla

District, Walla Walla, Washington.

Appendix to the Lower Snake River

Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility

Report/Environmental Impact

Statement. Dated April 14, 1999.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1986.

Compilation of Information on Salmon

and Steelhead Losses in the Columbia

River Basin. Appendix D of the 1987

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife

Program. Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power Planning Council. September

17, 1992. Information on Water Quality

and Quantity Contained in the Salmon

and Steelhead Subbasin Plans (above

Bonneville Dam) (Document 93-8).

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1999.

Artificial Production Review. Council

Document 99-15. October 13, 1999.

Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW), Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998.

Status Report: Columbia River Fish

Runs and Fisheries, 1938-1997.

Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Water Resources Department. 1993.

Memorandum from T. Kline and B.

Fujii, Oregon Water Resources

Department, to David Moscowitz, et.

al., regarding weak stocks and water

supply conflicts (September 17, 1993).

Pacific Fishery Management Council

(PFMC).1999a. Draft Final Pacific

Coast Salmon Plan. Conservation

Objectives and Management

Information. Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC).

1999b. Review of 1998 Ocean Salmon

Fisheries. Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council Salmon

(PFMC). 1999c. Preseason Report:

Stock Abundance Analysis for 1999

Ocean Salmon Fisheries. Portland,

Oregon.

Paragamian, V. 1995. Kootenai River fisheries

investigation: Stock status of burbot

and rainbow trout and fisheries

inventory. Idaho Department of Fish

and Game, Annual Progress Report.

Report IDFG 96-7 prepared for

Bonneville Power Administration
107 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Project No. 88-65, Contract No. DEB179-88BP93497. 53p.

Parnell, I., D.R. Marmorek, C.N. Peters, and

C.A.D. Alexander (compls./eds.). 1999.

PATH: Scoping of candidate

experimental management actions.

Draft prepared by ESSA Technologies

Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. 108 pp.

Quigley, T. M., S. J. Arbelbide (technical

editors). 1997. An assessment of

ecosystem components in the interior

Columbia River basin and portions of

the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume

3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405.

Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 4 vol.

(Quigley T. M., tech. ed.: The Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project: Scientific

Assessment).

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993.

Demographic and Habitat

Requirements for Conservation

of Bull Trout. USDA Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station. Gen.

Tech. Rep. INT-302.

Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Huges,

and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An

ecosystem approach to salmonid

conservation. TR-4501-96-6057.

ManTech Environmental Research

Corp., Corvallis, OR. (Available from

National Marine Fisheries Service,

Portland, Oregon.)

Standford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 1992.

Management of aquatic resources in

large catchments: recognizing

interactions between ecosystem

connectivity and environmental

disturbance. Pages 91-124 in R.J.

Naiman, editor. Watershed

management: balancing sustainability

and environmental change. SpringerVerlag, New York.

Stober, Q.J. and Nakatami, R., 1992. Water

Quality and Biota of the Columbia

River System, in “Water Quality in

North America River Systems,” Becker,

D. and Neitzel, D., Editors, Battelle

Press.

Streamnet. December 2, 1999. Glossary of

Terms [glossary online]. Gladstone

(OR): URL:<http://www.streamnet.org/

ff/Glossary.

Thomas, Duncan W. October 1981. Historical

Analysis of the Columbia River Estuary:

An Ecological Approach. Draft Report

to the Columbia River Estuary Study

Taskforce.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation, and Bonneville Power

Administration. 1999. Federal

Columbia River power system project

operations. Biological assessment for

effects of FCRPS operations on

Columbia Basin bull trout and

Kootenai River white sturgeon. 176 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 1995. Environmental

Assessment for the implementation of

interim strategies for managing fishproducing watersheds in eastern

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and

portions of Nevada (INFISH). U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service; U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. 1994.

Northwest Forest Plan. Record of

Decision for Amendments to Forest

Service and Bureau of Land

Management Planning Documents

Within the Range of the Northern

Spotted Owl.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

and U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. 1995.

PACFISH: Decision notice/decision

record, FONSI, ES, Appendices for the

interim strategies for managing

anadromous fish-producing watersheds

in eastern Oregon and Washington,

Idaho, and portions of California.

Washington DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S.

Department of Interior Bureau of Land

Management.

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF),

Washington Department of Wildlife,

and Western Washington Treaty Indian

Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State

salmon and steelhead stock inventory.

212 p.
108 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Washington Forest Practice Board. 1995. Rules

- WAC 222. Board Manual. Forest

Practices Act - RCW 76.09. Washington

Department of Natural Resources,

Forest Practices Division, Olympia,

Washington.

Welch, D. W.; Ishida, Y., and Nagasawa, K.

Thermal limits and ocean migrations of

sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus

nerka): long-term consequences of

global warming. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.

Sci. 1998; 55:937-948.
109 Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

8. MAPS