4.1  Salmon and Steelhead Goal: Double Salmon and Steelhead Runs Without Loss of Biological Diversity^[1]

In crafting the overall goal of this salmon rebuilding strategy, the Council is faced with the challenge of balancing the need to increase the number of fish in the Columbia, maintain and enhance biological diversity, and preserve wild and naturally spawning populations.

      The production of salmon and steelhead in the basin prior to development has been estimated at 10 million to 16 million fish. Today's total production of salmon and steelhead amounts to fewer than 2.5 million fish. Between 5 million and 11 million fish are estimated to have been lost due to development of the hydroelectric system. Thus, significant change in the system is required. To address the loss due to hydroelectric development, the Council set a numeric target for the 1987 program -- doubling of salmon and steelhead production in the Columbia Basin. In the 1994 amendment process, based on the recommendation of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the Council adopted four systemwide sub-goals based on the Northwest Power Act's call to protect, mitigate and enhance salmon and steelhead affected by the development and operation of the hydropower system:  The first goal is to halt declines in the populations and rebuild populations to a biologically sustainable level by the year 2000. The second goal is to further rebuild populations by 2030 to a level that will support commercial and sport harvest and contribute to the Council's interim goal of doubling the abundance of salmon and steelhead in the basin. The third of these goals is, by 2194, to rebuild populations beyond the level in the previous goals to a level that will protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the operation and development of the Columbia Basin hydroelectric system. The fourth goal is to accomplish these rebuilding efforts without loss of biological diversity.

      While numeric increases in salmon populations are needed, they must be tempered by the understanding that the Council wants increases that can be sustained over the long term. The importance of this was recognized by the Council in the 1987 program. Rebuilding was not to be driven inexorably toward a numeric goal, but was to be tempered by the assessment of genetic impacts, use of a mix of production methods and emphasize the area above Bonneville Dam.

      Concern for biological diversity and preservation of wild and naturally spawning stocks has been heightened by the listing of several Snake River salmon populations as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and the identification of numerous other weak populations. There is increasing concern that preservation of the diversity of populations and biological traits present in the Columbia Basin may be essential to maintain increased fish numbers on a sustained basis.

      Unfortunately, these two resource values -- increased numbers and biological diversity -- often appear to be incompatible. On the one hand, measures to increase population size in the short term can decrease biological diversity. On the other, measures to conserve biological diversity may limit the region's ability to achieve short-term gains in production. Sustainable increases in numbers, however, will require a healthy, biologically diverse resource that can be productive and accommodate environmental variability.

      The Council sees its role as planning for the restoration of a healthy, productive resource throughout the accessible range of habitat in the Columbia Basin. To do this on a sustained basis will require actions directed not only at increasing the number of fish, but also actions to conserve biological diversity and increase the productivity of natural stocks. Increased numbers and the conservation of biological diversity are not incompatible. They are both key to the conservation of the resource and fulfillment of the obligations of the Northwest Power Act. A productive and biologically diverse population is essential to increased production that can be sustained over the long term.

4.1A  Salmon and Steelhead Rebuilding Principles

The Council has adopted as part of its overall goal the doubling of the total number of adult salmon and steelhead in the Columbia Basin as fast as possible without further loss of biological diversity among or within anadromous and resident fish populations.

      The doubling goal applies to the basin as a whole. It may not be possible or desirable to double the populations of all species in all subbasins. Specific means and locations for increasing production will be identified in future planning.

      The time needed to double the runs will depend on a number of factors, including the program policies for mainstem survival, harvest management and fish production, and on further assessment of production opportunities. The Council recognizes that any action has the potential for causing some genetic change in the population. In establishing biodiversity as part of its goal, the Council states its desire to avoid adverse genetic change to the maximum extent practicable, to consider genetic impacts as important criteria for selection of measures, and to monitor changes in genetic and life history diversity as measures are implemented. This does not preclude carefully designed, controlled and monitored supplementation programs.

      Except where human-induced habitat changes have produced increases in some species to the detriment of salmon and steelhead (for example, squawfish), efforts to meet these goals for salmon and steelhead should not occur at the expense of other native species and wildlife. Because most of the loss of salmon and steelhead production as a result of hydroelectric development has occurred above Bonneville Dam, the Council will continue to focus its efforts on this area.

      The Council recognizes that achieving its goal will require actions on all fronts over many life cycles of salmon and steelhead. In the short term, it will require increased attention to the need to conserve biological diversity and halt the decline in many populations. This may occur at the expense of actions that might provide greater short-term increases in numbers, but could possibly jeopardize the biological health of the resource in the long term. It will require increases in mainstem passage survival, improved habitat and production practices, and diligent management of harvest.

      To help focus efforts toward this goal, seven principles should be used to evaluate activities in subregional planning (see Section 3.1D) and other program processes:

1. Priority should be given to activities that aim to rebuild weak upriver populations, including populations listed under the Endangered Species Act.
2. Program activities should pose no appreciable risk to biological diversity among or within fish populations (including resident fish), with the exception of principle number five, below. The best available data and assessment tools should be used to evaluate biological risk before determining whether to proceed, and activities should be followed-up with monitoring and evaluation.
3. The region should approach habitat and production activities from a total-watershed perspective, not as activities that occur in isolation from land and water conditions in watersheds. Special priority should be given to projects that are part of model watersheds or other coordinated watershed programs, especially those with local community involvement.
4. While the bulk of the region's attention is currently focused on threatened and endangered stocks, it is important not to lose sight of this region's obligations to fulfill Indian treaties and provide fish for Indian and non-Indian harvesters. Investments and adjustments should be made to provide harvest opportunities in tributaries or other areas and to facilitate rebuilding weak populations.
5. Consistent with the Council's adaptive management policy, priority should be given to activities that address critical uncertainties and/or test important hypotheses. Activities should be designed as experiments so that the results fill in the region's understanding of salmon and their survival requirements. Even a measure that poses risks for a population may be acceptable if the potential learning benefits are high enough.
6. Because of concerns over the basin's salmon carrying capacity, the effects of hatchery-produced fish on those that spawn in streams, and the cost of hatcheries, new salmon production facilities generally should not be constructed unless it is clear that the need for fish cannot be met with existing facilities, or a new facility would be a better way to achieve the program's goals.
7. Accord high priority to projects that address peer-reviewed biological objectives.

      The subregional process (Section 3.1D) should generate important information on the costs and biological effectiveness of habitat and production measures. This information will contribute to the independent evaluation of program cost-effectiveness by the Independent Scientific Group (Section 3.2B), and be reflected in the annual implementation work plan (Section 3.1B.2).

      All of these principles reflect important concerns, but for at least the next five years, the preponderance of the ratepayers? investment should be directed to rebuilding weak stocks. Both the potential biological value of weak stocks and the requirements of the Endangered Species Act suggest that the path to doubling must begin with weak populations.

      This weak-stock priority includes populations listed under the Endangered Species Act, but is not limited to these populations. The Northwest Power Act calls for a long-term approach to fish and wildlife mitigation, not simply a reaction to immediate problems. Treaties with Indian tribes and with Canada call for the United States? best efforts to rebuild these populations to self-sustaining, harvestable levels. The Council is committed to this cooperative effort. Moreover, there are many weak salmon populations not listed under the Endangered Species Act. It is in the region's interest to take forceful steps to strengthen these populations before it becomes necessary to list them. Limiting ratepayer investments to threatened or endangered species in these circumstances is simply an invitation for new Endangered Species Act petitions.

      While the preponderance of the ratepayers? investments should be directed to weak stocks, weak stocks should not be the exclusive focus of the program. Over the past decades, Indian tribes and other harvesters have given up harvest on species after species, and that disturbing trend appears to be continuing. For tribal fishing rights to have meaning, there must be enough fish in the rivers to allow a reasonable harvest. Upriver fishers are entitled to salmon populations that are more than museum specimens. In the long term, as weak stocks are rebuilt, harvest opportunities may be expanded throughout the basin, consistent with rebuilding targets. In the short term, the region should also make investments and adjustments to provide harvest opportunities in tributaries or other areas where there will be no significant negative effect on weak populations.

4.1B  Basis for the Salmon and Steelhead Goal

The Northwest Power Act directs the Council to develop a Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife ?affected by the development, operation and management? of the hydropower system in the basin. Essential to this definition is an understanding of the extent to which salmon and steelhead have been affected by the hydropower system. In 1985, the Council began gathering information on the extent and causes of the declining numbers of salmon and steelhead in the basin. In 1985 and 1986, the public reviewed and debated the nature and limitations of that information. (The results of the Council's efforts have been published in a separate volume entitled, Compilation of Information on Salmon and Steelhead Losses in the Columbia River Basin, document number 87-15A.)

            After compiling information on salmon and steelhead losses, the Council solicited extensive public comment on the contribution of the hydropower system to declines in run sizes. Based on the losses information and on public comment, the Council identified alternative ways to estimate the portion of total losses that could be attributed to hydropower. (These alternatives are described in a separate volume entitled, Numerical Estimates of Hydropower-Related Losses, document number 87-15B.)

      Following is a summary of the Council's analysis of: 1) losses from all causes, and 2) losses related to development and operation of the hydropower system. (For further analysis, refer to Council documents 87-15A and 87-15B.)

Estimate of losses from all causes

After an intensive review of the available data to make an informed judgment, the Council reached the following broad conclusions regarding salmon and steelhead losses.

      Estimates of the average annual adult salmon and steelhead runs before development in the basin (dating to the mid-19th century) range from about 10 million to 16 million fish. In contrast, the average annual run size now is about 2.5 million adult fish. These estimates indicate a net basinwide decline in run size of about 7 million to 14 million adult fish due to a range of causes including fishing, logging, mining, grazing, agriculture, irrigation, pollution and urban development, as well as hydropower development and operation.

      Salmon and steelhead habitat in the entire basin has decreased from about 14,700 river miles before 1850 to about 10,100 river miles in 1976, a loss of about 30 percent. Salmon and steelhead habitat in the Columbia River Basin above Bonneville Dam has decreased from about 11,700 river miles before 1850 to about 7,600 river miles in 1976, about a 35-percent loss.

      The greatest salmon and steelhead losses occurred in the Columbia and Snake river drainages above Bonneville Dam. The three main factors responsible for these losses are loss of habitat, mortality of adult and juvenile fish passing through mainstem dams and reservoirs, and mixed-stock fisheries. Habitat losses, as described above, have been extensive. Passage mortality has been estimated to average 15 percent to 30 percent of downstream migrants per dam and 5 to 10 percent of upstream migrants per dam. Recent analyses suggest that reservoir mortality in upriver reservoirs and at upriver projects could be lower in some instances. Nonetheless, passage mortality has enormous effects on upriver runs.

      Cumulative juvenile passage mortality for fish migrating downstream past nine dams has been estimated to be 77 percent to 96 percent, depending on the volume and timing of streamflows. Cumulative adult passage mortality for fish passing nine dams upstream to spawning areas has been estimated to be 37 percent to 61 percent.^[2]

      In some mixed-stock fisheries, upriver wild and natural stocks, already weakened by habitat and passage losses, commingle with abundant lower-river hatchery stocks. Because fisheries generally do not distinguish among stocks in mixed-stock fisheries, all stocks present may be harvested at the same rate. In the past, harvest rates in mixed-stock fisheries generally were set to ensure adequate returns of hatchery fish, rather than to protect wild and natural runs.

      Past efforts to mitigate the effects of development have had major implications for the salmon and steelhead fisheries. First, a series of fishing regulations contributed to a shift from inriver fishing to ocean fishing. Ocean fisheries (including those in Canada and Alaska) have accounted for up to 73 percent of the total Columbia River Basin chinook harvested in some years. Second, large-scale hatcheries were constructed. The majority of hatchery fish originally were raised and released in the lower river, supporting the expansion of the lower-river and ocean fisheries and resulting in increased harvest of already depleted wild and upriver stocks.

      Historical records show that Columbia River Basin Indian tribes relied extensively on salmon and steelhead. Because most of the tribes are located in the upper portion of the basin, the decline in numbers of fish, combined with the shift of fish production from the upper to lower basin, had an incalculable impact on tribal economies, cultures and religions.

Estimate of hydropower-related losses

The Council developed several methods for estimating hydropower-related losses. Using these methods, the Council estimated that declines in run size due to hydropower development and operation range from about 5 million to 11 million adult fish. This compares with the total decline from all causes of about 7 million to 14 million adult fish. The Council recognizes that data are limited and that other approaches to calculating losses may be possible, but it anticipates that all reasonable approaches would result in loss estimates in this range.

      Cannery records support the reasonableness of the 5 million to 11 million range. Canneries on the lower Columbia River kept records of the number of salmon and steelhead delivered by fishermen. The maximum catch, according to these records, occurred in the 1880 to 1920 period and was about 8.8 million fish annually. Anthropological information for this period suggests that the Indians caught an additional 0.9 million fish and that non-Indian settlers in the upper portions of the Columbia Basin probably harvested a similar number.

      Thus, one reasonable estimate of the historical maximum catch in the Columbia Basin is about 10.5 million fish. Assuming that four out of every five fish were caught, the total run size can be estimated at about 13 million fish. Given the current run size of 2.5 million fish, this would mean that the salmon and steelhead run size has declined by more than 10 million from all causes. Of that 10 million, about 8 million can be attributed to the hydropower system. That 8 million includes 4 million salmon and steelhead that were produced in the areas blocked by Chief Joseph and Hells Canyon dams. Losses caused by mainstem hydropower operation (assuming that 15 percent of downstream migrants are killed at each mainstem dam) account for the decline of the other 4 million fish. (Documents 87-15A and 87-15B provide additional background information.)

      The present runs of about 2.5 million adult fish would have to be increased by 5 million to reach the low end of the range of estimated hydropower-related losses. Such an increase may not be feasible because biological, socio-economic and other limits on fish production may prevent such rebuilding. Increases in the salmon and steelhead runs will come through specific program measures consistent with system policies and planning. If 5 million more adult fish are produced as a result of this program, the Council may review its analysis of the hydropower ratepayers? share for protecting, mitigating and enhancing salmon and steelhead to judge whether the range can be narrowed.

      The estimated range is stated in terms of a net loss or reduction in run size. It does not take into account the accumulation of hydropower-related losses of salmon and steelhead year by year since hydropower development started. Such cumulative losses would be far greater than 5 million to 11 million adult fish.

4.1C  Doubling Goal Performance Standards

The doubling goal is based on the average number of adult salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin from 1977 to 1981, the five years prior to the Council's adoption of its first Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. That five-year average has been estimated to be 2.5 million salmon. Today's numbers should be obtained by combining the number of adult salmon and steelhead of all species counted at Bonneville Dam, the number of fish spawning below Bonneville Dam and the estimated number of salmon caught in the ocean and in rivers below Bonneville Dam. The program monitoring report (Section 3.2A) should provide an annual accounting of production relative to this performance standard.

4.1D  Biological Diversity Performance Standard

The performance standard will be the existing level of biological diversity. Existing biological diversity will be defined by a list of base-line populations against which populations will be compared annually. The natural processes of extinction and speciation will result in variation around the base line over time. New knowledge also may indicate the need for revision in the base-line list of populations.

Implementing Agencies and Fishery Managers

4.1D.1  To establish the biodiversity base line, the Council calls on participants in the implementation planning process to convene an appropriate group of experts from the fishery agencies, tribes and elsewhere to provide recommendations for the population list. A final recommended list of populations should be submitted to the Council by June 30, 1995. The program monitoring report (Section 3.2A) should provide the annual list of populations and include a qualitative, and if possible, quantitative assessment of status and conditions for each population. The annual review also will include recommendations to modify the population list on the basis of new information.

---

^[1] Biological diversity means the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur.

^[2] These juvenile and adult mortality rates assume downstream mortality rates of 15 percent to 30 percent per dam and upstream mortality rates of 5 percent to 10 percent per dam.  These rates do not include higher survival levels that may be attainable by further improvements in bypass and transportation.

< back  |  ^ top  |  next >