· Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish i Table of Contents Volume 1 Executive Summary 1 Introduction 11 Background 12 Processes for Change-Recovery Planning 14 Recovery Planning

Conservation ofColumbia Basin FishFinal Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy

Volume 1A Publication of the Federal Caucus � December 2000

Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

Conservation ofColumbia Basin Fish

Final Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy

Volume 1

December 2000

Prepared by:

The Federal Caucus

Army Corps of EngineersBonneville Power Administration

Bureau of Indian AffairsBureau of Land Management

Bureau of ReclamationEnvironmental Protection Agency

Fish and Wildlife ServiceForest Service

National Marine Fisheries Service

Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

For More Information

This document, as well as supporting documents, are available on the Federal Caucus Web site:www.salmonrecovery.gov.

You may also request paper copies or a compact disc (CD) of these documents by calling1-888-921-4886, or by writing to:

Federal Caucusc/o BPA - P

P.O. Box 3621Portland, OR 97208

Conservation of Columbia Basin Fishi

Table of Contents

Volume 1Executive Summary 1

Introduction 11

Background 12Processes for Change-Recovery Planning 14

Recovery Planning 16Salmon and Steelhead 16

Species Status 17

Institutional and Regulatory Context 17Consultations and Discussions with Basin Tribes 17Public Involvement 19

1. Supporting Analysis 21

1.1 Scientific Principles 21

1.2 Scientific Tools 211.2.1 Population-based Tools 211.2.2 Habitat-based Tools 221.2.3 Other Tools 23

1.3 Rationale 231.3.1 Will the Strategy Recover Listed Salmon and Steelhead ESUs? 251.3.2 Conclusions 29

2. Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy 33

2.1 Goals and Objectives 33

2.2 Implementation 342.2.1 Continue the Federal Caucus 342.2.2 Federal Agency Memorandum of Understanding 342.2.3 Continue the Regional Forum as the Hydropower Team 352.2.4 Establish a Habitat Team 352.2.5 Coordinate Harvest and Hatchery Activities with Habitat and Hydropower Activities 362.2.6 Regional Coordination 362.2.7 Science Collaboration 372.2.8 Initiate Recovery Planning 382.2.9 Performance Standards 382.2.10 Funding 432.2.11 Monitoring and Evaluation 432.2.12 Progress Reports 45

3. Specific Actions and Benefits for Each H 47

3.1 Habitat Actions 473.1.1 Performance Standards 48

Conservation of Columbia Basin Fishi i

3.1.2 Immediate Actions 48

3.2 Benefits from Habitat Actions 48

3.3 Harvest Actions 533.3.1 Performance Standards 55

3.4 Benefits from Harvest Actions 56

3.5 Hatchery Actions 563.5.1 Performance Standards 583.5.2 Immediate Actions 58

3.6 Benefits from Hatchery Actions 59

3.7 Hydropower Actions 593.7.1 Performance Standards 593.7.2 Immediate Actions 62

3.8 Benefits from Hydropower Actions 64

4. Glossary and Acronyms 65

5. References 79

List of Tables

Table 1 Minimum Risk Estimates at the ESU Level 26

Table 2 Expected Benefits from Actions by ESU 30

Table 3 Tier 3 Performance Measures and Standards 40

Table 4 Outline of Proposed Monitoring and Evaluation Sampling Design 44

Table 5 List of Habitat Actions 50

Table 6 List of Harvest Actions 54

Table 7 List of Hatcheries Actions 57

Table 8 List of Hydropower Actions 60

List of Figures

Figure 1 Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy 5

List of Maps

Map 1 Columbia Basin ESUs 13

Map 2 Actions by ESU 32

Map 3 Land Management 49

Map 4 Dams in the Columbia River Basin 61

Conservation of Columbia Basin Fishiii

Volume 2: Technical Information

The following information is found in Volume 2, which is bound separately:

� Habitat Element of the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy� Harvest Element of the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy� Hatchery Element of the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy� Hydropower Element of the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy� Biological Background and Recovery Planning� Monitoring and Evaluation� Implementation

Volume 3: Regional Coordination and Public Involvement

The following information is found in Volume 3, which is bound separately:

� State and Tribal Discussions� Public Involvement Summary and Responses to Comments

1Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

IntroductionMany salmon and steelhead populations

in the Columbia River Basin will be extinct ornearly so by the end of this century, unless theregion makes major changes to improve theirsurvival. Federal agencies have a fundamentalresponsibility under the Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA) to prevent extinction and fosterrecovery of listed species. This paper presentsthe federal government’s recommendations foractions needed to recover threatened andendangered salmon and steelhead in theColumbia River Basin. It is designed tocomplement the recovery plans for residentfish and other aquatic species, and builds onactions already taking place to recover thesespecies. Columbia Basin fish and wildlife willthrive again only if the people and govern-ments of the basin work together; this paperproposes the federal government’s role fordoing its part to conserve a precious nationalresource.

In 1994, a federal court rejected the 1993Columbia River hydropower biological opin-ion, saying the “system was crying out for amajor overhaul.” These were the strongestwords yet heard from the courts about theurgency of restoring salmon and steelheadruns to the Snake River. They served as awake-up call for federal agencies, states, andother followers of Columbia Basin recoveryefforts. The following year, the federal govern-ment initiated that overhaul in a new biologi-cal opinion that fundamentally altered the waythe federal power system is operated. Thatopinion placed the needs of fish on equalfooting with power generation, flood control,navigation, and irrigation. In the process, itbrought changes to the power system thathave significantly improved juvenile and adultfish survival.

The intervening 5 years have brought newinformation and changed circumstances to theissue. Nine more populations of salmon and

steelhead have been listed under the Endan-gered Species Act. Notably, these listingsincluded chinook and steelhead speciesinhabiting the Upper Columbia, Mid-Columbia,and Lower Columbia regions. The strategies inthe 1995 decision focused on the options forrebuilding Snake River stocks alone. Theadditional listings have broadened the recoverychallenge beyond the Snake River to encom-pass the entire basin.

In addition, new research and analyseshave focused increased attention on humanimpacts on listed fish outside the hydropowersystem, exposing the extent to which land use,tributary water management, hatchery policiesand harvest practices have contributed to thedeclines. While science generally points to theneed to continue improving conditions in thehydropower system for fish, this new researchsuggests that the greatest opportunities forsurvival improvements may lie outside thescope of the hydropower corridor. It furthersuggests that recovery may hinge on efforts torestore health to the tributaries and estuarywhere these populations spawn and rear.

The federal overhaul begun in 1995 is notyet complete and it must be broader in scopethan earlier thought. As a new millenniumbegins, native salmon and steelhead, and manyresident fish species, remain in a state ofperilous decline throughout the ColumbiaRiver Basin concurrent with rapidly increasinghuman population growth and even greaterpressure on existing natural resources. ThisBasinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy calls forchanges needed to recover salmon and steel-head, including additional improvements tothe hydropower system, but also those neededto address human impacts to fish in all lifestages. It also tries to account for naturalcycles of environmental variation.

Federal agencies can implement much ofthe Strategy using existing authorities andcapabilities. Some recommendations will

Conservation of Columbia Basin FishFinal Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy

Executive Summary

Words in boldare defined inthe glossary.


require new authorizations and congressionalsupport or action by state, tribal and localgovernments. The federal agencies cannotsolve this problem alone, or by acting unilater-ally. Strong action by state and tribal govern-ments, local authorities, and other participantsmust occur for recovery to succeed. Allparties must coordinate efforts to fully realizebenefits to species in decline.

The Federal Caucus Strategy placespriority on actions with the best chance ofbeing implemented, the best chance of provid-ing solid and predictable biological benefits,and the best chance of benefiting the broadestrange of fish species. It calls for a contribu-tion from governments and individuals at alllevels, yet it also recognizes and complementsthe strong efforts already underway through-out the region.

It is important to recognize resources arelimited. Congress and the region are mostlikely to commit resources to actions withimmediate, predictable and broad benefits.Recovery efforts will be most effective – andresources most efficiently used – if all of thefederal agencies coordinate their respectiveprograms, and if they collectively coordinatewith state and tribal programs.

The actions recommended are presentedas a Strategy, not a menu. Improving condi-tions in many life stages – freshwater spawn-ing and rearing, juvenile migration, oceantransition, and upstream migration – is themost risk averse approach to achieve recoveryof threatened and endangered salmon andsteelhead. The Strategy includes immediateactions aimed at all life stages to preventextinction, and long-term actions to fosterrecovery. It is based on a thorough review ofthe best available scientific information aboutthe anadromous fish life cycle, from spawn-ing and rearing, to river migration and over-wintering, to hatchery interactions, to preda-tion and ocean conditions. Actions taken torecover anadromous species are also intendedto benefit resident fish and other aquaticspecies.

There are gaps and unavoidable uncer-tainties associated with the science. There-fore, the Strategy calls for a comprehensiveresearch monitoring and evaluation program toreduce those uncertainties that are critical tofuture decisions regarding salmon and steel-head recovery, while providing information for

needed adjustments to future strategies. Thefederal agencies will measure progress in thelife stages against performance standards foreach stage. Performance standards are centralto the program because they provide clearobjectives, measurable results and account-ability.

At the core of the Strategy are actionsfederal agencies can take now to stabilizepopulations and show immediate resultsacross all life stages. Habitat actions willprotect and restore tributary habitat to im-prove survival during spawning and rearing.Actions include removing passage barriers,screening diversions, purchasing in-streamflow rights, restoring water quality and acquir-ing high-quality habitat.

The estuary is an important habitat usedby all salmon and steelhead in the basin.Actions in the estuary include the restorationof tidal wetlands, rearing channels and floodplains. Actions in other sectors will helpprevent extinction in the near term. Theseinclude improving passage through the dams,constraining harvest, reforming existinghatcheries, and intervening with conservationhatcheries on an emergency basis wherepopulations are at risk of imminent extinction.

The Strategy also calls for coordinatedsubbasin assessments, plans, and actions asproposed by the Northwest Power PlanningCouncil. Plans and actions will be organizedaround subbasins and watersheds, and will bedeveloped with states, local governments,tribes, private parties and federal agencies.This effort will require a solid commitment toaction and coordination by all parties.

Much of the regional debate has focusedon removal of Snake River dams. There islittle doubt dam removal would benefit SnakeRiver salmon and steelhead. The NationalMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is not recom-mending it at this time, however, for severalreasons. There is scientific uncertainty aboutwhether breaching dams is necessary toachieve recovery and whether breaching alonecan lead to recovery. Only Snake River fishshow a benefit from breaching, with no benefitto the other eight listed populations that donot originate in the Snake River Basin. Damremoval is not within the existing authority ofthe federal agencies, and cannot be imple-mented in a short time frame. And its highcost could preclude other actions needed


throughout the basin. In short, the option ofSnake River drawdown ranks as a lowerpriority than other available options becauseof narrow benefits, high uncertainties and highcosts, and on balance does not appear to bewarranted at this time.

The aggressive Strategy is designed toprovide immediate benefits and lead to salmonand steelhead recovery. This approach leavesbreaching four lower Snake River dams on thetable as a future option, but challenges hydro-power system operators now to meet rigoroussurvival goals over a discreet period, usingcontinued improvements in flow and spill

management and structural improvements atdams. System performance will be evaluatedagainst science-based, peer-reviewed perfor-mance standards at 3-, 5-, and 8-year intervals.The dam removal question will again be joinedif progress is inadequate or the Snake Riverpopulations decline, but not prior to testingthe actions contained in the overall Strategy.The Strategy also commits the federal hydro-power system to fund habitat, harvest andhatchery actions to mitigate for unavoidablemortality in the federal hydropower system.

BackgroundThe decline of the Columbia’s once-

numerous fish runs is well documented.Human activities that have caused changes inhabitat, and created harvest, hatcheries, andhydropower (the Hs) have caused the declineof these fish. In December 1999, the nineagencies that make up the Federal Caucusreleased a draft Conceptual Recovery Planoutlining the difficult choices the region facesin recovering listed species. A revised draftwas submitted to states and tribes on July 27,2000 for technical review and comment.

In 15 public hearings, the Federal Caucusheard from more than 9,000 Northwest citi-zens. Over 60,000 written comments werereceived on the Plan and the Army Corps ofEngineers’ Lower Snake River Juvenile SalmonMigration Feasibility Study and Draft Environ-mental Impact Statement. The Federal Caucusalso met with the region’s Indian tribes andstate officials. The tribes have a specialinterest in the natural and cultural resources ofthe basin, especially its fish and wildlife.Many tribes also have treaty-guaranteed accessto fish and wildlife. The messages are clear.

The people and governments of the region willmake sacrifices to save the fish, but they wantthe burden to be shared, actions that willwork, and respect for cultural resources.

This Strategy reflects those commentsand updated scientific information. Federalagencies will use this Strategy as a blueprint toguide federal actions and interactions withstate and local governments and tribes. TheNational Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will use itto guide their decision-making through biologi-cal opinions issued under the EndangeredSpecies Act. The Bureau of Indian Affairs(BIA) will work to ensure that harvest reduc-tions do not unfairly restrict treaty harvest.

Program GoalsThe Federal Caucus has seven goals for

this Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy:

� Conserve Species. Avoid extinction andfoster long-term survival and recovery ofColumbia Basin salmon and steelhead andother aquatic species.

� Conserve Ecosystems. Conserve theecosystems upon which salmon andsteelhead depend, including watershedhealth.

� Assure Tribal Fishing Rights and Provide

Non-Tribal Fishing Opportunities. Restoresalmon and steelhead populations over timeto a level that provides a sustainableharvest sufficient to allow for themeaningful exercise of tribal fishing rightsand, where possible, provide non-tribalfishing opportunities.

� Balance the Needs of Other Species. Ensurethat salmon and steelhead conservationmeasures are balanced with the needs ofother native fish and wildlife species and donot unduly impact upriver interests.

� Minimize Adverse Effects on Humans.

Implement salmon and steelheadconservation measures in ways thatminimize their adverse socio-economic andother human effects.

� Protect Historic Properties. Consistentwith the requirements of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act (NHPA) and otherapplicable law, assure that effects ofrecovery measures on historic properties are


to avert risk, and the areas where improvedperformance are likely to have the greatesteffect. The results are sobering. Generally,fish from the upper Columbia and Snake rivershave the furthest to go to reach recovery.Spring chinook in particular have an extremelyhigh extinction risk in both the upper Colum-bia and Snake rivers.

The analyses also looked at those lifestages where survival improvements wouldprovide the greatest benefit. Generally, theseare the life stages where the fish suffer thegreatest mortality. The analysis shows that thehighest mortality occurs in the first year of lifeand in the transition from freshwater tosaltwater. Although mortality from dampassage is high for ESUs in the upper Colum-bia and Snake rivers, improving downstreamsurvival, by itself, is unlikely to recover any ofthe upper basin species. For all ESUs, theanalysis concluded that improvements in morethan one life stage give the best chance forrecovery.

There will always be a high degree ofuncertainty about the science, given the sheernumber of variables that affect salmon andsteelhead performance. However, the agenciesare prepared to take some actions in the faceof uncertainty, based upon current knowledge.Ongoing uncertainties simply emphasize theimportance of accountability, monitoring, andevaluation. It is critical to maintain the abilityto adapt the strategy to reflect the latestinformation as the science evolves.

Basinwide Salmon Recovery StrategyThe Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy

identifies immediate actions to prevent extinc-tion and foster recovery by improving survivalacross all life stages. It emphasizes actionsthat are currently authorized, that have pre-dictable benefits, and that benefit a broadrange of species. It contains strategies andspecific actions that will make federal, stateand local actions more aggressive and moreeffective (see Figure 1). For the longer term, itidentifies steps to develop recovery plans. Itssuccess is premised on securing contributionsto recovery from all governments within theregion.

Fixing salmon and steelhead habitat isparticularly challenging. These fish rangethrough federal and nonfederal land, forests,farms and cities. A vast number of human

identified and addressed in consultationwith all interested and affected parties.

� In implementing recovery measures, seek topreserve resources important to maintainingthe traditional culture of basin tribes.

The Strategy includes a combination ofactions most likely to meet these goals. Theactions reflect the best scientific understand-ing of what is necessary to conserve thespecies and their ecosystems. The Strategycontemplates maintaining tribal fishing oppor-tunities in the near term, and expanding themover time. The Strategy recognizes the needsof other at-risk fish, wildlife and plant specieswithin the basin. The Strategy seeks to pro-vide a measure of social and economic cer-tainty by seeking maximum benefit from theavailable resources, with clearly establishedimplementation and monitoring processes.

Biological ConsiderationsThe scientific analyses examined the risks

and opportunities facing all salmon andsteelhead population groups (known as Evolu-

tionarily Significant Units, or ESUs) listedunder the ESA. In addition to assessingextinction risks, the analyses looked at howmuch improvement is needed to achievesurvival and recovery. In short, the analysesgive a sense of how the fish are performingnow, the level at which they need to perform

Recovery Strategies:

• Habitat: Take immediate actions to restorestreamflow, remove passage barriers, protecthigh quality habitat and screen diversions.

• Habitat: Complete subbasin assessments andplans to prioritize longer-term actions.

• Hydropower: Maximize survival in thehydropower system through flow, spill,passage, and water quality measures andmaintain dam breaching as a future optiondepending on progress in fish recovery.

• Hatcheries: Prevent extinction with safetynet projects.

• Hatcheries: Reform hatchery practices toreduce risks to wild fish and contribute torecovery goals.

• Harvest: Constrain harvest levels.

• Harvest: Expand fishing fishing opportunitieswhere possible, including selective fishprograms.


activities affect their habitat. In addition, veryfew studies have been done that quantitativelylink management actions with habitat quality,and habitat quality with fish production. Yetthere is no doubt fixing habitat is central toany recovery plan. Survival improvements arelikely to have the biggest effect in the firstyear of life (when most of the fish are in thetributaries) and during the transition to saltwater (when the fish are in the estuary).Fixing tributary and estuary habitat is key to

Figure 1 Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy

Habitat Plan:

• Immediate Actions – Improve in-stream flows,restore water quality, screen diversions,remove passage barriers, secure high qualityhabitat.

• Manage federal lands to protect fish.

• Protect and improve estuary habitat.

• Protect and improve tributary habitat.

• Improve mainstem habitat.

* Conserve species* Conserve ecosystems* Balance the needs of other species* Protect historic properties

* Assure tribal fishing rights and non-tribal fishing opportunities* Minimize other adverse effects on humans* Consider and respect resources of cultural importance to tribes

Objectives

Habitat* Protect* Restore* Increase complexty

Harvest* Prevent overharvest* Sustainable fisheries

Hatcheries* Artificial Production Review reforms* Conservation hatcheries

Hydropower* Improve survival* Improve conditions

Actions

Strategies

GoalsMeasured over time and across all Hs* Survival >= 1* Number of returning adult fish

H-specific (Tier 3)Improve survival and

avoid harming wild fish

Habitat* Measure improvement in habitat conditions

Harvest* Measure escapement rates

Hatcheries* Measure egg to smolt productivity* Measure progress in reforms

Hydropower* Measure cumulative & project passage survival

Results

Strategy Framework Performance Standards

* Biological* Ecological* Water Quality* Socio-Economic

* Priorities* Immediate* Long Term

Population Level (Tier 1)

Life Stage or H-specific (Tier 2)* Habitat = X%* Hydro = X%* Harvest = X%* Hatcheries = X%

* Monitor and evaluate* Adaptive management


recovering the fish and is the centerpiece ofthe Strategy. Actions in the Strategy focus ontributary habitats, both federal and nonfederal;mainstem habitat, estuary habitat, and imple-mentation.

For tributary habitats on nonfederallands, the federal agencies will first fundactions that will have immediate benefits.These include actions aimed at removingpassage barriers, screening diversions, increas-ing in-stream flow, restoring water quality, andprotecting high quality habitats through thepurchase of land or conservation easementsacross all lines of land ownership.

For long-term actions, the BasinwideSalmon Recovery Strategy endorses the North-west Power Planning Council strategy ofconducting subbasin assessments and develop-ing subbasin plans. This strategy is reflectedin the Council’s recent program amendmentsand will be included in the Action Agencies’

1- and 5-year implementation plans. TheCaucus agencies worked with the Council todevelop an assessment template and a workplan to have a team of professionals completethe assessments. Once the assessments arecomplete in 2001 and 2002, the federal agen-cies will participate with state agencies, localgovernments, tribes and stakeholders todevelop subbasin plans. As a complement tosubbasin assessments and plans, NMFS hasalso begun a recovery planning effort that willestablish population and ESU goals for abun-dance, productivity, distribution and diversity.The subbasin and recovery plans will thencreate the priorities for federal actions andfunding.

For tributary habitats on federal land, thefederal land managers will protect existinghigh quality habitat and accelerate restorationin high priority subbasins. In the short term,federal land will be managed under currentprograms that protect important aquatichabitats. Those programs will be augmentedin important subbasins by a targeted restora-tion effort. After a Record of Decision (ROD)is signed, federal land on the east side of theCascades will be managed under the InteriorColumbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementProject (ICBEMP), which will rely on subbasinreview and watershed assessments, and plansto target further habitat work. On the westside of the Cascades, federal lands are man-aged under the Northwest Forest Plan.

Federal agencies will assess mainstemhabitat and implement experimental programsto create more natural habitat areas along oursystem of reservoirs. They will also establish amanagement plan to protect the HanfordReach, home to a healthy core population offall chinook.

For the estuary, the Lower ColumbiaRiver Estuary Program, a partnership betweenEPA, the Corps, and state and local govern-ments and citizens, will be the foundation ofthe recovery effort. As part of this Strategy,federal agencies will work with state, local,tribal, and private partners to acquire orrestore thousands of acres of estuary habitatover the next 5-10 years, creating a LowerColumbia River Greenway to benefit migratingfish. Predator control and improved riverflows will be prominent features of efforts toimprove the estuary.

The salmon’s vast geographic range spansliterally hundreds of different jurisdictions.Lack of coordination among these jurisdic-tions can undermine the best-laid habitatprotection plans. The Basinwide SalmonRecovery Strategy emphasizes coordinationamong federal agencies, and between thefederal agencies and others. Coordination willoccur through a federal Habitat Team, whichwill also provide a basin-level focus and one-stop shopping for states, local governments,tribes and others working to protect andrestore habitat. In addition to coordinatingfederal funding with the subbasin plansadopted by the Council, the team will providetechnical assistance, information on ESA andClean Water Act compliance, and coordinatefederal funding.

Another important aspect of implementa-tion is monitoring and evaluation. The federalagencies have identified critical uncertaintiesthat must be answered to establish an effec-tive habitat program. The Strategy proposes acomprehensive, basinwide monitoring effortthat will address these critical uncertainties.

The Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategyproposes to constrain harvest to no more thanrecently-established current levels (expressedas harvest rates); seeks opportunities to reduceharvest impacts on listed fish where necessaryand effective; and seeks additional fishingopportunities in fisheries that reduce effectson wild fish, with particular emphasis on thefurther development and deployment of


appropriate selective fisheries.Cutting harvest immediately increases

spawning escapement and can reduce near-

term risks of extinction. However, reductionsin harvest rates on natural stocks have beenthe first response to declining production andESA listing, and now harvest rates are so lowfor most stocks that further reductions willnot yield major benefits. Most of the harvestimpacts remaining on listed fish occur intreaty-protected fisheries, which have beenespecially hard-hit in recent years.

Although further reductions in the al-ready-reduced harvest might provide smalladditional benefits for listed fish, the Strategyrecommends against such action because ofthe high standing importance of the treatyfishing right and the federal trust obligation.

Federal agencies will, however, seek toreduce impacts from harvest on listed fishwhere such additional cutbacks are necessaryand effective at aiding recovery. They willenable more selective fishing opportunitiesby marking most unlisted hatchery fish,developing and promoting selective fishingtechniques and locations to open up or restoreopportunities for increased tribal and non-tribal fishing while still protecting the listedstocks, and providing resources to improvemanagement capabilities needed by increasedreliance on selective fisheries. They will alsoprovide funds to buy back state-issued com-mercial fishing licenses when doing so wouldbe effective at reducing fishing.

The Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategycontains two primary hatchery initiatives.The first is to reform all existing productionand mitigation hatcheries to eliminate orminimize their harm to wild fish. The secondis to implement “safety net” projects usingvarious artificial production techniques such

as supplementation and captive broodstock

programs on an interim basis to avoid extinc-tion while other recovery actions take effect.

Protecting and managing for speciesdiversity is a key objective for reforminghatchery operations. Diversity is reflected inthe wild fish that are genetically adapted tothe areas they inhabit. To protect this diver-sity, it is critical that hatcheries produce fishthat are biologically appropriate for the areaswhere they interact with natural fish. TheStrategy requires that any agency operating ahatchery develop a Hatchery and GeneticManagement Plan (HGMP) to govern produc-tion. These plans will ensure that hatcheriesare operated to manage risks to wild fish andto improve the survival rates of the hatcherystocks themselves.

The second part of the hatchery plan is touse conservation techniques at least on aninterim basis, to prevent extinction by stabiliz-ing or increasing numbers of listed fish. Thiswill be done by a variety of techniques andprojects tailored to the particular circum-stances. Some will involve collecting eggs andmilt from wild fish, raising the young fish for aperiod of time in a hatchery or semi-naturalenvironment, then releasing them in naturalproduction areas. The intent is to increase theabundance of natural spawners. Otherprojects may use captive-brood techniques,where the juvenile fish are raised for an entiregeneration or two before they are releasedback in the wild. Still others will employ moreconventional supplementation techniques.

Another key element of the hatchery planwill be to establish a research program de-

Harvest Plan:

• In the short term, constrain harvest atcurrently reduced rates.

• Increase selectivity of harvest and reducetake of listed fish further.

• Provide opportunities for increased harvest

Hatchery Plan:

• Reform production facilities to minimizeharm to wild fish and maximize potentialbenefits for recovery.

• Use “safety net” projects to avoid extinction.

• Conduct an aggressive research, monitoring,and evaluation program to better determinehatchery impacts, positive and negative, overtime.

• Transfer operation of certain hatcheryproduction programs or ownership of certainhatcheries to tribes, subject to approvedHGMPs, to facilitate co-management andtribal fisheries.


signed to clarify wild-hatchery fish interactionsand quantify the effects of these interactionson wild fish.

Another element of the hatchery planinvolves using hatcheries to continue toprovide fishing opportunities to fulfill mitiga-tion responsibilities. Mitigation programsneed to be operated in such a way as to poselittle or no risk to listed fish. A variety oftechniques exist to do this, such as producingfish for harvest in terminal areas and/or otherforms of selective fisheries. This is particu-larly important to assist tribal fisheries. Anexample of a terminal area program is theongoing restoration efforts in the UmatillaBasin, which has resulted in fish returning tothe river and both tribal and non-tribal fishingopportunities. Because of this program,fishers do not have to fish where incidental

take might otherwise occur. In some cases,existing hatcheries will be transferred to orhatchery production programs operated by thetribes for these purposes.

All salmon and steelhead in the basin areaffected to some extent by the hydropower

system. The Basinwide Salmon RecoveryStrategy calls for an aggressive program ofimprovements at existing dams, building onthe survival improvements from currentefforts. The Strategy does not recommendremoval of Snake River dams at this time.Instead, it establishes performance standardsfor survival of juvenile and adult fish, and aschedule for meeting those standards. Perfor-mance standards are to be met through anaggressive program of improvements thatincludes more flow, more spill, and continuedimprovements in the dams themselves to passmore fish safely.

The hydropower plan adds an elementthat was not in the draft Strategy – off-site

mitigation. The federal agencies responsiblefor the hydropower system will use appropri-ated and ratepayer funds primarily to fixhabitat, harvest and hatcheries. Part of theultimate decision on dam removal will dependon the ability of the hydropower system tocompensate for fish losses by improving fishsurvival through off-site mitigation measures.

The hydropower element includes perfor-mance evaluations after 3, 5, and 8 years todetermine whether the combination of hydro-power improvements and off-site mitigation ismeeting performance standards. Failure tomeet standards could trigger additional consul-tations under ESA, more aggressive measureswithin the hydropower system, such as dambreaching, and/or more aggressive off-sitemitigation measures. After 10 years, NMFSwill determine whether the hydropower systemperformance has been sufficient to achieverecovery in combination with other measures,and, if not, whether breaching or other actionswill be necessary. NMFS would seek review ofthese determinations by the IndependentScientific Advisory Board.

ImplementationThe success of the Basinwide Salmon

Recovery Strategy hinges on active and effec-tive leadership and significantly improvedcoordination among federal, state, tribal, andlocal agencies. Meeting these challengessuccessfully will require a renewed level ofcommitment and discipline for the govern-ments of the Pacific Northwest. Successfullyimplementing actions in the habitat, harvestand hatchery sectors will be necessary forsalmon recovery, regardless of the ultimatedecisions by Congress on the subject of remov-ing or reconfiguring federal dams.

A number of specific actions will makefederal implementation of salmon conserva-

Hydropower Plan:

• Improve flows.

• Improve spill and passage at dams.

• Improve water quality.

• Reduce fish trucking.

• Implement measures to protect resident fish.

• Conduct analysis of economic and culturalimplications of dam breaching.

• Improve nonfederal hydropower dams.

• Consult with tribes on reservoir operationsimpacts to cultural resources.

Implementation:

• Coordinated federal funding and priorities

• Establishment of priorities

• Three, five- and eight-year reviews

• Use of performance standards


tion measures more effective. Most importantis securing a level of funds to implement theBasinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy. Alsoimportant is coordinated funding and priori-ties. Federal agencies will continue to partici-pate in the Federal Caucus, which will overseeimplementation by federal agencies. Thefederal agencies will also establish mecha-nisms to coordinate federal actions in each H.For hydropower, the agencies will workthrough an improved Regional Forum processlike the one that has existed for several years.Habitat actions will be coordinated throughthe federal Habitat Team described in thehabitat section of this document. Harvest willcontinue to be coordinated through the exist-ing forums in U.S. v. Oregon and the PacificSalmon Commission. Hatchery actions will becoordinated with the Council’s Fish andWildlife Program funding process. NMFS andUSFWS will also ensure coordinated andconsistent implementation in all of the Hsthrough future biological opinions.

The federal government will use thesemechanisms to coordinate and engage withgovernments within the region to take maxi-mum advantage of available resources andauthorities. Significant initiatives are alreadyunderway within the region, including theCouncil program, tribal programs, state plans,and community-level watershed efforts andrecovery plans. The federal governmentintends its activities to complement andencourage such efforts, not hinder them withadditional and redundant mandates.

The Strategy provides a disciplinedstructure for salmon and steelhead recovery,with specific goals and objectives. A funda-mental part of this approach is establishingbiologically-based performance standards forlisted species for freshwater habitat, thehydropower corridor, and for estuary and earlyocean survival. These performance standardswill serve as the yardsticks to measureprogress and judge whether damreconfigurations and other actions must occurto rebuild populations and meet treaty obliga-tions.

Research, Monitoring and EvaluationProperly designed monitoring programs

will provide data for resolving uncertaintiescritical to future decisions, such as determin-ing population status, establishing causalrelationships between habitat (or other)attributes and population response, andassessing the effectiveness of managementactions. By resolving critical uncertainties, themonitoring programs will be a cornerstone inidentifying alternative actions and refiningrecovery efforts. The monitoring and evalua-tion program is therefore not only an integralpart of the management actions, but also acritical component of a recovery plan oradaptive management and will afford man-agers the information to maintain or changestrategies as necessary.

A complete monitoring program willaddress the following four major groupings ofquestions:

� What is the status of salmonid populations;does that status change through time?

� What are the conditions in areas of differentsalmonid abundance; and, are theresystematic patterns suggesting that specificnatural or anthropogenic factors affectsalmon population dynamics?

� Is there a cause and effect relationshipbetween salmonid population responsesand changes in conditions locally or acrossthe landscape?

� Have management actions beenimplemented; have they been implementedappropriately and in their entirety?

Conducting monitoring and evaluationeffectively will require that both data collec-tion and the implementation of managementactions be highly coordinated. Collecting datato address any of these questions will requireattention to issues of experimental design,including distribution of monitoring sites,appropriate replication and scale. Manage-ment actions must be conducted in the con-text of an experimental framework that willoffer the greatest opportunities for detectingbiological responses in the shortest amount oftime. Similarly, data collection will be con-ducted using standardized protocols, and the

1 0Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish

data recorded and managed in a regionaldatabase. Failure to maintain a scientificallyrigorous, coordinated monitoring effort willhinder the ability of agencies to make in-formed decisions and learn from the results ofmanagement actions.

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center,in collaboration with other regional sciencecenters and other federal, state, tribal andlocal agencies, will develop a monitoring andevaluation program that addresses these majorareas. The Federal Caucus will report annuallyon federal agency progress in carrying outrecovery actions, including the availability ofresources and the agencies’ ability to carry outthe Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy.These reports would also be geared to supportlong-term biological monitoring to assess thecontribution of improvements in each H toimprovements in population growth rates orother biological indicators.

Working with the RegionThrough a comprehensive effort that

combines separate yet interrelated actions, abetter future for the basin can be charted. It istime for citizens, governments and specialinterests in the Columbia River Basin to

collectively take immediate and sustainableactions to rebuild the health of the basin. Thefederal agencies tender this proposal todecisionmakers, the Northwest Delegation,and state and tribal governments as a launch-ing point for an aggressive, feasible, scientifi-cally-based, balanced path toward basinrecovery and rebuilding. Through consultationand collaboration, we hope to refine thisproposal so that in its final form, it can serveas a comprehensive, long-term strategic direc-tion for future actions in the basin.

For More InformationVisit: The Federal Caucus Web site:www.salmonrecovery.gov.

To request paper copies of documents oran electronic copy of this document andappendices on compact disc (CD):

Call 1-888-921-4886 or Write toFederal Caucusc/o BPA-PPO Box 3621Portland, Or. 97208


In December 1999, the nine agencies thatmake up the Federal Caucus released a draftConceptual Recovery Plan that outlined thedifficult choices the Pacific Northwest mustmake to recover listed salmon, resident fishand other aquatic species. The Federal Caucuspresented the most current science aboutlisted species and offered options and inte-grated alternatives for the region to considerfor recovery of these species. After discus-sions and consultations with states and feder-ally-recognized tribes of the Columbia RiverBasin, and an extensive public commentperiod, the Federal Caucus has updated thescientific information, considered the com-ments from the tribes, states and the publicabout the options and integrated alternatives,and has prepared this Basinwide SalmonRecovery Strategy. The Federal Caucus willuse this Strategy, in concert with efforts fromtribes, states and local governments and manyorganizations and individuals, to recover thesespecies.

The comprehensive approach will beimplemented directly through biologicalopinions issued by NMFS and USFWS on theFederal Columbia River Power System(FCRPS) , and through other recovery pro-cesses in the region. In the third, fifth, andeighth years following implementation of theStrategy, NMFS will assess whether the ActionAgencies have implemented the program ofhydropower, habitat and hatchery improve-ments, and the research, monitoring andevaluation necessary for continuing assess-ment described in here and in the FederalColumbia River Power System 2000 BiologicalOpinion. Programmatic performance stan-dards include the actions and the scheduledefined in the biological opinion and theannual planning process. Performance ismeasured by the Action Agencies’ success inimplementing the actions defined in theannual plans. Critical actions to be evaluated

Introduction

at the 3-, 5- and 8-year reviews are furtherdescribed in Section 9.5 of the biologicalopinion. Evaluating progress against thesestandards will formally occur in NMFS’ reviewof the annual progress reports prepared by the

The Agencies of the Federal Caucus

and their Responsibilities *

The nine federal agencies in theFederal Caucus that developed this paperhave differing authorities and jurisdictionsfor salmon recovery:

• National Marine Fisheries Service –Endangered Species Act (ESA) jurisdictionover anadromous fish and activities thataffect listed fish. It also has a role inregulating certain fisheries.

• US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – ESAjurisdiction over plants, wildlife and residentfish and also operates and administershatchery programs and national wildliferefuges.

• Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) –markets electricity from federal dams; it alsohas a key role funding fish and wildlifemitigation.

• The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) –operates federal dams and locks for multipleuses.

• US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) –operates federal dams for multiple uses.

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) –implements and enforces the Clean WaterAct.

• US Forest Service (USFS) – manages thenational forest system.

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM) –manages public forests and rangeland.

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) – trustee fortribal and individual Indian lands andresources held in trust.

* All federal agencies bear certainresponsibilities as trustees of tribal resources,as determined by treaties, statutes, andexecutive orders.


Action Agencies, the annual NMFS findingsletter, and comprehensive 3-, 5- and 8-yearevaluations.

The federal agencies cannot solve thisproblem alone, or by acting unilaterally.Strong action by state governments, localauthorities and other participants must alsooccur for recovery to succeed.

This Strategy will build on successfulactions already taken. After a federal courtrejected the 1993 Columbia River hydropowerbiological opinion, a new biological opinionwith options for operating and configuring thefederal hydropower system brought majorchanges to the system to benefit fish. Waterflows were increased in the mainstems duringfish migration periods, improvements weremade to provide multiple passage opportuni-ties for fish at each dam, and more water wasspilled over the top of each dam to help fishavoid turbines.

In addition to these changes, an in-seasonmanagement team was established to tailorsystem operations to the needs of fish on aweekly basis. This has brought more precisionto the agencies’ efforts to improve fish sur-vival, particularly for juvenile salmon.

Over the course of the past decade, otheractivities have been undertaken to benefit at-risk fish species. Salmon and steelheadharvest has been reduced steadily in the oceanand in the rivers. A major effort has beenundertaken within the region to reform hatch-ery practices. Federal forests are managedmuch more conservatively than in previousdecades, particularly to protect rivers andstreams. Dozens of community level initia-tives have been started throughout the regionto improve the quality and quantity of avail-able habitat.

The science of salmon recovery has alsoimproved. In 1996, the Independent ScientificAdvisory Board was established to providescrutiny of fish management decisions at alllevels of government, without prejudice.While the existence of the board itself is nottied to salmon management, its presence likelyhas improved the quality of research, monitor-ing, and evaluation efforts, as well as agencydecision-making in general.

Recent salmon and steelhead returns haveincreased, possibly as a result of these im-provements. While improving climate condi-tions have undoubtedly benefited migrating

salmon, it is also likely that the combinedefforts of the region to date has prevented theextinction of some populations, and reducedextinction risks faced by others.

While much progress has been made, todate there has been no discernable trendtoward recovery of listed salmon, steelhead, orresident aquatic species. Together, the actionsdescribed above provide a foundation forlaunching a more aggressive regionwide effortto achieve salmon recovery. The strategy has areasonable chance of being implemented andcan reasonably be expected to result in theconservation and survival of the listed stocksin the basin.

Volume 1 of this document presents asummary of the Basinwide Salmon RecoveryStrategy. Volume 2 contains a more detaileddescription of the actions’ expected benefitsand other technical information. Volume 3contains summaries of state and tribal discus-sions and consultations, a summary of publiccomments received during the public commentperiod, and general responses to the commentsreceived.

BackgroundThe Columbia River Basin covers about

250,000 square miles in seven western statesand British Columbia and is defined by uniquegeologic and water features. The states in thePacific Northwest follow, in the most part, thebasin’s geographic features. An enormousvariety of plants and animals occupy the widearray of physical habitats in the ColumbiaRiver Basin.

Native salmon and steelhead, and manyresident fish and other aquatic species are indecline throughout the Columbia River Basin.All Columbia River Basin salmon stocks are ina state of perilous decline, especially UpperColumbia spring chinook and steelheadthroughout its range (see map). Withoutsubstantial intervention, there is a greater than50:50 chance that most of these stocks will beextinct by the next century, some muchsooner.

The deterioration of the Columbia’s once-numerous fish runs can be traced to theeconomic development of the basin. Humanactivities have caused the decline of these fish.Forestry, agriculture, mining, and urbanizationhave altered or destroyed tributary habitat.

Map 1 Columbia Basin ESUs (on page 13) is available in separate document


Fishing, or harvest, has reduced the number ofadult fish that return to spawn. Some hatcher-

ies have introduced inbreeding and competi-tion, may have been a source of disease forwild fish, and have in some cases inducedfisheries to harvest at rates too high for naturalstocks. And hydropower dams on the Colum-bia and Snake rivers have blocked and inun-dated mainstem habitat, altered natural flows,impeded passage of migrating fish, and createda series of pools where fish predators reside.Such land use practices and landscape alter-

ations have also affected tribal cultures andthe traditional use of resources. These fourareas of human activity are the Hs of thisStrategy.

Natural factors, such as ocean conditionsand natural predation, also influence thesurvival of salmon. Ocean conditions varywith climatic conditions on both long andshort-term scales. When conditions are cooler,the ocean is generally more hospitable towardmigrating salmon. Cool water temperaturesare associated with high nutrient levels andfood supplies. The reverse is also true;warmer conditions are associated with lowerlevels of resources. These are not the onlycharacteristics of variant ocean conditions, butthey are the primary indicators affecting theability of salmon and steelhead to thrive oncethey leave the rivers. In general, ocean condi-

tions have been below average over the past20 years. From the early 1980s through themid-1990s, conditions were relatively warm.In contrast, throughout the 1960s and 1970s,conditions were cooler. These trends generallycorrespond to fluctuations in adult salmon andsteelhead returns. Though ocean conditionsare not stable, the general trend has beentoward warmer conditions.

Predation of migrating salmon is anotherimportant factor affecting the productivity ofsalmon and steelhead. Migrating juvenilesalmon are a targeted food source of manyspecies, including other aquatic species suchas northern pikeminnows, bird species such asCaspian terns, pelicans, and cormorants, andmarine mammals such as harbor seals and sealions. There is some evidence to suggest thatocean conditions off the coasts of Washingtonand Oregon may influence predator abundancethere, with warmer temperatures potentiallymore conducive to marine fish predators.Returning adult salmon are targeted primarilyby marine mammals. Many juveniles andadults are taken by predators, but exactnumbers for listed species are unknown.Predation is part of a properly functioningecosystem, but given the decline of certainpopulations and the loss of numbers caused byother factors, predation is a factor to considerin the recovery of these species.

Processes for Change-Recovery Planning

Major changes must be made in a widerange of activities that cause harm to listedspecies if recovery of these species is to besuccessful. Critical federal and nonfederaldecisions affecting Columbia and Snake Riverbasins will be made soon that will determinethe kind and magnitude of actions taken in theregion. For example, states are developingClean Water Act compliance measures, tribalgovernments are developing habitat, supple-mentation and harvest strategies, the North-west Power Planning Council has amended itsFish and Wildlife Program, and federal agen-cies are making decisions about land uses,operational and structural changes at dams,and harvest changes (see box). Making thesedecisions and implementing them so thatlisted species recover will require consultationand collaboration from every agency and tribe,and the support of the people of the PacificNorthwest. The federal agencies offer this

Populations, Stocks and Evolutionarily

Significant Units

Populations are generally defined as agroup of fish that interbreed when mature,and do not interbreed to a significant degreewith other groups of fish. Evolutionarily

Significant Units (ESUs) are groups ofpopulations designated by NMFS for pur-poses of implementing the EndangeredSpecies Act. ESUs are distinct groups ofpopulations that typically occupy similarhabitats, are genetically similar, and thatrepresent an important component of theevolutionary legacy of the species. Stocks offish are designated by managers generallyfor purposes of managing fisheries. In somecases, units identified by managers as“stocks” will be similar to populations. In afew cases, a unit identified as a “stock” willalso coincide with a unit identified by NMFSas an ESU.


Other Related Processes for Species Recovery in the Region

� Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program. The Pacific Northwest Electric PowerPower Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 directs the Northwest Power Planning Council to develop aprogram to “protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife, included related spawning grounds andhabitat, on the Columbia River and its tributaries…affected by the development, operation andmanagement of [hydroelectric projects]….” BPA funds the Council’s Fish and Wildlife program. In itsrecent amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Program, the Council committed to developing subbasin plansas context for actions. These subbasin plans will be a crucial program for implementing BPA’s EndangeredSpecies Act responsibilities in its funding decisions. The Council’s amended Fish and Wildlife Program isincluded as a key vehicle for implementation of the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy.

� U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Lower Snake River Feasibility Study. In December 1999, the Corpsreleased a Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement that reviewed options forimproving juvenile salmon migration in the lower Snake River. Breaching the four lower Snake dams isone of the options studied. The public was invited to comment on the draft report and EIS.Decisionmakers will have an opportunity to consider the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy whenmaking decisions about juvenile migration in the lower Snake River.

� U.S. Army Corps of Engineers John Day Drawdown Phase I Study. The study analyzed John Day Damdrawdowns to spillway crest and natural river levels for improved salmon survival. The Corpsrecommends no further study because of high economic cost and marginal biological benefits. The publiccomment period ended May 1, 2000.

� Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). The Bureau of Land Managementand the Forest Service released a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the ICBEMPProject in March 2000. The ICBEMP is a massive federal land-use plan that covers 63 million acres of fed-eral lands in Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Montana. The EIS focuses on the critical broad-scale issuesrelated to: landscape health; aquatic and terrestrial habitats; human needs; and products and services.The aquatic programs outlined in the ICBEMP EIS display the federal habitat contribution available in thebasin. The Final EIS was released December 14, 2000. A Record of Decision is expected in early 2001.

� Draft Biological Assessment on Operation and Configuration of the Federal Columbia River Power

System (FCRPS). The Biological Assessment jointly prepared by the Corps, Bureau of Reclamation, andBPA was submitted to NMFS on December 21, 1999. It is part of the consultation process, required by theEndangered Species Act, between NMFS and the three federal agencies that operate the FCRPS. The BAprovides information regarding the impact of operation of the FCRPS on threatened or endangeredspecies. NMFS will consider this information in the preparation of its Biological Opinion on the effects ofthe operation of the FCRPS on all listed salmon and steelhead in the basin. NMFS will also use theBasinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy as an overall guide for the Biological Opinion.

� Columbia River Basin Forum. Formerly called The Three Sovereigns, the Columbia River Basin Forum isdesigned to improve the management of fish and wildlife resources in the Columbia River Basin. Theprocess is an effort to create a new forum where the federal government, Northwest states and tribescould better coordinate, discuss and resolve basinwide fish and wildlife issues under the authority ofexisting laws. The Forum is included as a vehicle for implementation of the Basinwide Salmon RecoveryStrategy.

� Clean Water Act. Over the next 10 to 12 years, EPA, the states, tribal governments, other federal agencies,and private landowners are investing millions of dollars in watershed and tributary improvements to meetClean Water Act requirements. Restoration strategies called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) arebeing developed for the Columbia River mainstem and tributaries, based on court orders and negotiatedagreements through Clean Water Act litigation. In addition, the federal government has committed to theClean Water Action Plan, which is a federal partnership to promote and enhance locally based watershedimprovements. Millions of dollars will be directed at the watershed level through the Clean Water ActionPlan to improve water quality, restore habitat and recover threatened and endangered species.

• U.S. v. Oregon is a federal court case addressing treaty fishing rights in the Columbia River Basin. Theparties to the case are the United States of America acting through the Department of the Interior and theDepartment of Commerce; the Nez Perce Tribe; the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla IndianReservation; the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation; the Confederated Tribes andBands of the Yakama Indian Nation; the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe (subject to certain limitations); and thestates of Oregon, Idaho and Washington.

• Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan Environmental Impact Statement. BPA is drafting an EIS toexamine the impacts that may arise from implementing one of the fish and wildlife directions considered inthe other regional processes.

• Lower Columbia River Estuary Program. Part of EPA’s National Estuary Program; Washington and Oregonreleased a management plan in 1999.


Another technical task is to identifyfactors limiting recovery. These factors arelikely to differ among ESUs (for example,upper Columbia River ESUs will be moreaffected by hydropower operations than lowerColumbia River ESUs). They may even differamong populations within an ESU (for ex-ample, a dam may block access to habitat forone population in an ESU, while urban devel-opment may be limiting the recovery of an-other). Technical experts can also assesshabitat characteristics throughout the range ofan ESU and identify those habitats that repre-sent productive strongholds and those thatcould be strongholds if restored.

In its formal recovery planning process inthe upper Willamette and lower Columbiaregion, NMFS has appointed a TechnicalRecovery Team (TRT) and charged it withcompleting these technical tasks. NMFSexpects the first three tasks (identify thepopulations, describe characteristics of aviable population, construct different sce-narios for recovery) to be completed in 2001for these ESUs. In the upper Columbia, aNMFS-led science team worked with the mid-Columbia Public Utility Districts to begin thefirst two recovery tasks (identifying popula-tions and abundance recovery goals for them).The Northwest Power Planning Council iscommitted to conduct subbasin assessmentsthroughout the basin that would accomplishthe technical tasks of assessing habitat andcharacterizing biological and ecological condi-tions in subbasins. In the likely event thatsubbasin assessments and plans precede TRTdeterminations, NMFS hopes that the TRTswill rely and build on the subbasin assess-ments.

With these processes in place, the taskwill still remain to set biological recovery goalsfor ESUs in the Snake River and for steelheadin the mid-Columbia region. NMFS is workingwith the federal agencies, the Council andothers to determine how best to accomplishthis task.

Completion of these technical tasks forthe basin ESUs will provide much of theinformation needed to develop plans that willlead to recovery. NMFS and the Caucusagencies recognize there are already a numberof state and local processes in place workingon local recovery plans. As it moves forward

Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy as astarting place for a scientifically-based, bal-anced path toward recovery and eventualrebuilding of these species.

Recovery PlanningSalmon and Steelhead

The Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategycovers all ESUs of salmon and steelhead in thebasin. It provides an overview of the issuesand actions individual recovery plans are likelyto specifically address, and will inform theplanning process accordingly.

Under the Endangered Species Act, NMFSis responsible for developing detailed recoveryplans for each ESU. NMFS intends to carryout this task in cooperation with other federalagencies, states, tribes and stakeholders.NMFS’ formal recovery planning for the upperWillamette and lower Columbia ESUs is wellunderway and NMFS is initiating formalrecovery planning for interior Columbia BasinESUs as one of the next steps for implement-ing the Federal Columbia River Power Systembiological opinion.

Recovery plans set biological recoverygoals (or de-listing criteria) and the specificactions needed to achieve those goals. TheESA also requires that recovery plans includean estimate of the cost of needed actions.NMFS has focused its efforts first on thetechnical tasks involved in recovery planningfor salmon and steelhead. Completion ofthese tasks will aid planners in identifying andprioritizing actions that will provide thegreatest returns and lead to recovery.

The first technical task is to identify thepopulations that make up the ESU and de-scribe the characteristics that would allow usto conclude the populations are viable. Thecharacteristics include abundance, spatialstructure and diversity within the population,and minimum trends and productivity. Oncepopulations are identified and described inthis way, it is possible to construct differentscenarios for recovery of the ESU in terms ofnumber of populations, in what distributionand what level of abundance and productivity.It is likely that some populations will beidentified as core populations, important topreserve regardless of the scenario chosen,while others may be a lower priority forimmediate protection.


to develop recovery plans using this technicalinformation, NMFS intends to rely on existingprocesses and institutions. The subbasinassessment and planning process proposed bythe Council will include fisheries managers aswell as state and local governments andwatershed councils. This process may wellprovide the organization and include thestakeholders in the interior Columbia Basinthat would enable NMFS to rely on this pro-cess to develop recovery plans. Subbasinplans would need to be “aggregated” to ensurethey will provide for the recovery of the entireESU. NMFS will continue to discuss theseissues with all of the affected entities in thebasin.

Species StatusThe Columbia River Basin historically

supported many anadromous species, includ-ing hundreds of populations of chinook,sockeye, coho, chum and pink salmon, as wellas steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, whiteand green sturgeon, eulachon, and Pacificlamprey. Fifty-two fishes, both anadromousand resident, are native to the Columbia RiverBasin, including 13 endemic species (McPhailand Lindsey 1986). Changes in the physical,chemical and biological condition of land andwater bodies throughout the basin havedramatically affected the status of many ofthese fish. Dam development blocked, inun-dated and segmented habitat for anadro-mous and resident fish, and human develop-ment and activities have altered or destroyedmuch of the habitat that remains.

In the late 1970s, concern about theprotection of fish species led to considerationof Snake River salmon stocks for listing underthe ESA. In 1980 Congress passed the North-west Electric Power Planning and Conserva-tion Act, which created the Northwest PowerPlanning Council and charged it with develop-ing a fish and wildlife program. Passage ofthat Act and creation of the Council led NMFSto withhold listing. In 1991, NMFS listedSnake River sockeye as endangered, followedclosely by listings of Snake River spring/summer and fall chinook. NMFS has listed 12Columbia River Basin salmon and steelheadEvolutionarily Significant Units (ESU) asthreatened or endangered under the Endan-gered Species Act. USFWS has listed two

resident fish and five other aquatic species asthreatened or endangered. Volume 2 of thisdocument includes a brief review of the statusof the anadromous and resident fish popula-tions remaining in the basin.

Institutional and Regulatory ContextMany laws, treaties and regulations affect

anadromous fish and their habitats in theColumbia Basin, governing everything fromreclamation projects to artificial propagation.The United States and Canada, nine federalagencies, five states (Oregon, Washington,Idaho, Montana and Alaska) and federally-recognized Indian tribes have different au-

thorities over fish or fish habitat. Treatiesbetween the United States and Indian tribesguarantee the region’s treaty tribes a right tomeaningful fisheries.

Fish habitat extends from small headwa-ter tributaries to the Columbia River estuary,covering federal, state, private and tribal lands.Countless programs exist to maintain currentuses of the river, change current uses of theriver, exploit natural resources and conservenatural resources. Institutions range fromlocal watershed councils and water districts tobasinwide organizations such as the NorthwestPower Planning Council and Columbia BasinFish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). Somehave observed that the lack of a unifiedrestoration plan and coordination amongefforts in the basin is one of the factors pre-venting the recovery of anadromous fish(Bevan, et al. 1994). The purpose of thisdocument is to help the region develop arecovery plan that results in better regionalcoordination and a unified regional direction.

Consultations and Discussions with Basin Tribes

There is a unique and long-standingrelationship between the U.S. government andfederally-recognized Indian tribes (hereafterreferred to as “tribes”). The U.S. governmenthas a trust responsibility to protect thosetribes’ trust resources and treaty rights, torespect the sovereignty of tribal governments,and to act consistently with the statutes andthe missions of respective agencies.

Throughout development of this Strategy,the Federal Caucus met with the federally-recognized tribes of the Columbia Basin. Asummary of these discussions is in Volume 3.


In general, the tribes raised the followingconcerns:

� Trust and Treaty Responsibility of theFederal Government

� Historic Properties� Resources of Cultural Importance to Tribes

(“culturally important resources”)� Water Quality� Resident Fish� Blocked Areas� Hydropower Operations and Flood Control� Salmon Rebuilding and Recovery Goals� Treaty Fisheries� Hatcheries� Habitat Measures

Because the Federal Caucus receivedmany written and verbal comments from tribesabout cultural resources and treaty fisheries, ashort discussion of these concerns follows.Other significant concerns identified by thetribes and listed above are described in moredetail in Volume 3.

The federal agencies recognize thatnatural resources, including anadromous andresident fish, are important to maintaining thetraditional culture of the tribes of the Colum-bia River Basin (hereafter called culturally

important resources). The federal agenciesrecognize that some of these culturally impor-tant resources may fall outside the scope ofthe narrower definitions of historic proper-

ties as defined in the National Historic Preser-vation Act (NHPA). The federal agencies willconsider these culturally important resourcesalong with identified historic properties andwill integrate the consideration into theplanning and implementation of recoveryprograms and projects.

In response to this challenge, the fullarray of federal authorities conveyed by lawalong with other guidance such as executiveorders and agency policy, will be considered inaddressing the effects of fish recovery optionson other culturally important resources thatare not otherwise protected by treaty or underthe NHPA. Examples include but are notlimited to the Native American Grave Protec-tion and Repatriation Act, ArchaeologicalResources Protection Act, American IndianReligious Freedom Act, and guidance providedin Executive Order 13007 “Indian Sacred Sites.”

Agencies will consider the impacts of under-takings on these resources and seek meansthrough established agency programs toaddress impacts to culturally important re-sources, consistent with the agencies’ authori-ties and constraints of law.

Full compliance with Section 106 ofNHPA will occur in association with implemen-tation of commitments made in the Records ofDecision (RODs). Agencies will coordinatewith tribal staff and consult with tribal govern-ment representatives as early as possible whenplanning specific implementation actions. Thegoal is to assure the potential effects of imple-mentation actions on historic properties andon culturally important resources are identi-fied early in the process of planning fishrecovery program actions before selecting apreferred action.

For the hydropower elements of the 2000FCRPS Biological Opinion, the implementingagencies intend to use the existing reservoircultural resource management cooperatinggroups as the forum to identify issues and planprocesses. For the remaining three Hs (habi-tat, hatcheries, and harvest), issue identifica-tion and planning processes and forumsremain to be identified. However, the imple-menting agencies commit to ensuring thattribes are involved in a manner that will allowidentification and consideration of culturallyimportant resources.

Any plan or policies affecting salmon andtheir harvest must address the issue of tribalfishing. All fisheries, including treaty fisheries,have been severely reduced in the last severalyears. A significant portion – in some casesthe majority of the remaining harvest of listed-fish – now occurs in treaty fisheries. Cappingor further reducing harvest rates seriouslyaffects the exercise of treaty fishing rights.Protecting those rights is a constitutionally-based national legal obligation overlying allactions affecting the fishery resource in theColumbia Basin. The federal government’strust obligation to uphold treaties requires thatthe Strategy directly address this issue.

It will no doubt be the focus of ongoinggovernment-to-government discussions be-tween the tribes and the federal government tosort out whether the approach described heresuccessfully reconciles the near-term recom-mendation for continued harvest restrictionswith the federal obligation to conserve the


fish. Those discussions will require difficultdecisions by all affected parties. Most impor-tantly, they will require a great deal of addi-tional patience and forbearance by the basin’stribes. The extent to which they are willing tooffer more will depend in large part on howthey perceive the region’s commitment torestore the salmon resource, its efforts toprovide fair and meaningful tribal fishingopportunities during the recovery period, andhow the conservation burden is allocated.

Early and throughout the implementationplanning and development processes for futurefish recovery programs, the federal agenciesare committed to the following:

� Meet with tribal technical staff and consultwith tribal government representatives.

� Meet with tribal governments and programrepresentatives to address applicableresponsibilities regarding trust and treatyresources and meeting federal trustresponsibilities.

Public Involvement

The Federal Caucus developed a publicinvolvement program to provide opportunitiesfor the public to comment on the draft Con-ceptual Recovery Plan released in Decem-ber 1999. A complete description of the publicinvolvement program, as well as a summary ofcomments received and federal responses tothe comments, is in Volume 3 and on thesalmon recovery Web site(www.salmonrecovery.gov).

The formal public comment period on thedraft Plan began December 17, 1999 andcontinued through March 17, 2000. TheFederal Caucus hosted a series of 15 publicmeetings across five states in February andMarch 2000. The Federal Caucus received over60,000 individual comments during the com-ment period. The comments came in the formof letters, postcards, e-mails, and oral testi-mony and taped messages at the public meet-

ings. All comments were logged into a data-base.

Comments and Responses – The Fed-eral Caucus categorized the public commentsaccording to topic. In all, there were 17categories (see box) with nearly 150 distinctissues raised during the comment period. Thecomments covered the range of issues ad-dressed in the draft Plan and a number ofother topics related to Columbia River Basineconomics and ecology. There were manycompliments and criticisms of the FederalCaucus and its process. To the extent practi-cal, this document has been changed to reflectthe comments received during the commentperiod.

Comment Categories

� Life Cycle Approach

� Conservation Goals, Objectives, PerformanceMeasures and Monitoring and Evaluation

� Hydropower

� Habitat

� Hatcheries

� Harvest

� Science

� Range of Alternatives

� Economics

� Institutional and Regulatory Issues

� Relationship to Corps EIS, John Day Study,BPA EIS, ICBEMP

� Biological Opinions

� Public Involvement Process

� Native American Issues

� Implementation Issues

� Issues not fully considered

� Other issues

Page left intentionally blank for printing purposes


1.1 Scientific PrinciplesThe Federal Caucus developed these

principles from various scientific reviews andrecovery planning documents that have beendeveloped for fish and wildlife recovery in theColumbia Basin. These principles were usedto shape the Basinwide Salmon RecoveryStrategy and will be used for implementationof recommended actions.

� Conservation of Columbia Basin fish andaquatic species must address all aspects ofthe ecosystem and the species’ lifecycle.

� Conservation requires a network of diverse,high quality, interconnected habitats andhigh water quality. Natural systemsfunctioning properly are necessary torestore salmon and steelhead.

� Conservation requires preservation of lifehistory diversity, genetic diversity andmetapopulation organization. Thesecharacteristics affect the response ofanadromous and resident fish populationsto both demographic variation and variationin climate and environment.

� Conservation requires re-establishment ofthe nutrient cycle provided by decaying fishcarcasses to effectively cycle nutrients fromocean to freshwater.

� Because human activity, development andpopulation growth will continue,conservation depends on managing humanimpacts to achieve suitable ecosystemconditions.

� Technology and research can be used tocomplement natural functions but cannotreplace them.

� Viability (or status) of salmon andsteelhead populations can be evaluatedbased on abundance, productivity,population structure and genetic diversity.

1.2 Scientific ToolsSeveral ongoing technical efforts are

currently assessing the impact of human-induced factors on declining salmonid popula-tions, the conditions necessary for recovery,and potential effects of recovery efforts onthose populations. The Strategy is based oninformation from these and other studies toassess the risk of extinction for salmon andother species, and to determine the potentialbeneficial and adverse impacts of proposedchanges in each of the Hs. These efforts areconducted at different scales, and addressdifferent types of questions; these differencesbetween the analytical efforts must be consid-ered when interpreting (and applying) theirresults.

1.2.1 Population-based ToolsThe Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI),

an ongoing effort of the NMFS’ NorthwestFisheries Science Center, assesses populationtrends and the impact of various actions onthose trends. The CRI approach has been toestimate population growth rates, and use thismeasure to assess the risk of extinction or ofserious decrease in abundance. These esti-mates allow the determination of neededimprovements to mitigate those risks. Forspecies with sufficient data, CRI has con-structed population computer models usingthe most current estimates of survival rates foreach life-stage of a species. These models canidentify the times or stages at which changingsurvival rates will yield the largest impact onpopulation growth rates, and can be used toassess the impact of changes in survival at aparticular life stage on overall populationgrowth rate. Follow-up work entails examin-ing whether such changes in survival arebiologically feasible and what managementoptions will yield the best results. Finally, asconservation actions are implemented, NMFS,

1. Supporting Analysis


in collaboration with other regional scientists,will be engaging in ecological experiments totest hypotheses about the relationships be-tween management actions in the Hs andsalmon populations.

The Strategy relies heavily on the CRI’sestimates of population growth rates andprojections of the risk that an ESU will reachextinction within 24 and 100 years. (Extinc-tion is defined as one fish or fewer in a genera-tion.) This is a useful tool for assessing therisk of not acting quickly to improve survivals,but this type of projection comes with somecaveats:

� The extinction threshold may not besufficiently conservative.

� The projections become less certain thefarther out in time they go. Projections ofextinction risk over 100 years are highlyuncertain.

The Strategy also relies on the CRI’sanalysis of how much survival improvementsin different life stages might contribute topopulation growth rate. This is a useful toolfor focusing regional efforts on managementactions most likely to yield significant ben-efits, as well as the magnitude of changeneeded at each life stage. However, at thisstage the CRI has only performed numericalexperiments based on theoretical survivalimprovements. Some actions are more certainto lead to survival improvements than others(for example, harvest reductions versus hatch-ery reforms). More work needs to be done todetermine whether it is biologically feasible toachieve some of these theoretical improve-ments. The CRI has estimated the risk ofextinction of over 100 stocks within 11 of the12 listed salmon and steelhead ESUs in theColumbia Basin, as well as the risk of seriousdecline in both the short and long term.(Snake River sockeye cannot be analyzedbecause they are currently maintained in acaptive broodstock program.)

The Plan for Analyzing and Testing

Hypotheses (PATH) is a joint effort of severalfederal, state and tribal agencies designed topredict future salmon populations under avariety of hydropower system and othermanagement actions. This model simulatessalmon population trajectories under a widerange of “assumption sets.” These assump-

tions correspond to a rate, or a parameter inthe model, for which there are differenthypotheses concerning the effect that a varietyof factors have on survival. Evaluating thelikely effects of management actions onsalmon populations entails running 240 to1,920 different sets of assumptions. Thelikelihood of a particular management actionachieving survival or recovery standards isthen evaluated. PATH analyses show whichactions are most robust (least risky) due touncertainties in the model.

The Viable Salmonid Population (VSP)effort is another ongoing project of the North-west Fisheries Science Center. This workdefines characteristics of salmonid popula-tions that can be considered viable, orself-sustaining over the long-term (at least100 years). It provides guidelines for definingpopulations as well as qualitative and quantita-tive rules of thumb for identifying thosepopulations that can be considered viable.Finally, it offers guidelines for the number anddistribution of populations within an ESUnecessary for an ESU to be considered viable.These rules of thumb consider genetic and lifehistory diversity, spatial structure, as well aspopulation size and trends in productivity. Theguidelines and rules of thumb provided forviability will be used by Technical RecoveryTeams in establishing recovery goals for listedESUs.

The Quantitative Analytical Report

(QAR) is a report NMFS and other federalagencies, state fisheries agencies, tribes, andthe Mid-Columbia Public Utility Districtsagreed to develop to analyze the effects of aproposed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)on upper Columbia spring chinook and steel-head. The effort includes a workgroup that issetting recovery goals, and another that isanalyzing present risks of extinction and thelikelihood of achieving recovery goals underthe actions proposed in the plan. Theworkgroup is conducting extinction analysesusing different population models. It will usethe same models to project the likelihood thatpopulations will reach the recovery goal.

1.2.2 Habitat-based ToolsThe Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treat-

ment (EDT) analysis is an expert system,

developed by the Northwest Power Planning


Council’s Framework process, that organizesavailable information concerning the impact ofhabitat attributes on salmonid populations.With this approach, small, hydrologically-defined areas are described using habitatattributes. Knowledgeable experts, usingavailable information, define rules describingthe effect of each of these attributes onsalmonid survival at all life stages. Using theserules, the EDT analysis defines the productiv-ity and capacity of a landscape. Analyzingmanagement scenarios involves changing theappropriate habitat attributes in the appropri-ate areas, and engaging the expert-definedrules to assess the predicted productivity andcapacity of the changed landscape.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosys-

tem Management Project (ICBEMP) has alsoconstructed an expert system. ICBEMP usesspatially-explicit habitat and population statusdatabases to evaluate spatially-explicit pre-dicted status of a population, elements andcapacity of aquatic habitat, and the biological

potential of a population. Predictions in-clude influences on population dynamics

that are not a direct effect of the habitat, suchas genetic factors or migration rates fromother populations. Computer models havebeen used to project habitat capacity andpopulation status across the interior ColumbiaBasin from various habitat managementscenarios. The models are specifically de-signed to inform decisions about risks tohabitat, options for managing risks to habitat,and spatial priorities for habitat restorationefforts. The models do not predict populationsize. ICBEMP analyses will be a primary toolfor evaluating management actions on federallands in the Columbia River Basin.

Finally, the Watershed Processes

Program of the Northwest Fisheries ScienceCenter is conducting analyses designed toassociate habitat characteristics at the water-shed or subwatershed level with salmonidproductivity (these analyses are also known asSWAM – Salmonid Watershed AssessmentModel). This effort examines physical at-tributes of subwatersheds, such as topography,geology, and distribution of channel types, aswell as land use characteristics, such as theproportion of the area that is forested orurbanized, or the condition of riparian zones.These habitat characteristics are then associ-ated with salmonid production information to

identify the characteristics of habitats that aremost productive. The SWAM analyses can beused both to identify subwatersheds that arecurrently important in maintaining currentpopulations (and therefore may have a highpriority for conservation), and to identifythose subwatersheds for which restorationefforts may have the greatest potential to yieldlarge results.

1.2.3 Other ToolsSeveral analytical methods with a smaller

scope than those outlined above have alsobeen used to address particular risks salmo-nids face during their life cycle. In particular,SIMPASS was used to model the effects ofdifferent hydropower system configurations

on downstream survival. SIMPASS assumes nodelayed mortality occurs as a result of trans-porting fish past dams. In addition, severalmodels for evaluating the effects of harvest,including those devised by the TechnicalAdvisory Committee to the U.S. v. Oregon

process, and a number of models developed orused by Pacific Salmon Commission technicalcommittees were used to identify the impactof levels of harvest on different stocks.

In the near term, qualitative evaluationswill be the primary tool used to evaluateimpacts and expected outcomes of proposedactions for listed resident fish and aquaticspecies. Quantitative data are limited forthese species and models have not beendeveloped to evaluate impacts and assessoutcomes of actions.

1.3 RationaleThis Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy

recommends a program that places priority onactions that can be implemented quickly, thatare likely to provide solid and predictablebiological benefits, and that will benefit thebroadest range of species. The Strategy isbuilt on biological objectives, and seeks toestablish priorities based on sound scientificprinciples, while recognizing that there is alimit to the resources available for the job andto the authority of federal agencies. Theimportant questions to ask of the recoveryplan are: does this plan as a whole have areasonable chance of being implemented, andif so, can it reasonably be expected to result inthe conservation and survival of the listed


stocks in the basin as a whole? NMFS con-cludes that the answer to both questions isyes. This conclusion is based on the biologicalrequirements of the species, the substantiveelements of the Strategy itself, and the bestscience available for evaluating the effects ofthis Strategy. It is also based on the imple-mentation measures provided and the robustmonitoring and evaluation commitments, bothof which will enable agencies to make neededadjustments in the effort over time to stay oncourse for recovery.

The Cumulative Risk Initiative (Kareiva,September 2000), shows the status of eachlisted species is poor, and likely to get worseunless conditions improve. Long-term extinc-tion risks for most Columbia Basin popula-tions are unacceptably high. Risk of a 90percent decline in abundance, even in the next24 years, is also high throughout the basin,especially for steelhead. In general, SnakeRiver spring/summer chinook, upper ColumbiaRiver spring chinook, and steelhead through-out the basin have the greatest overall risk andrequire the greatest productivity improvementsto avoid extinction and achieve recovery.

Given the near-term biological risks, theStrategy places a premium on actions that canbe taken immediately and that will yieldbenefits to these species quickly. The Strategyemphasizes actions within the authority of thefederal agencies and about which there isconsiderable regional agreement, such asconservation hatchery interventions, produc-tion hatchery reforms, harvest constraints,improvements on federal lands, and improvingpassage at dams and reservoirs. It also empha-sizes and embraces actions that state and localgovernments are planning or already undertak-ing, such as the Northwest Power PlanningCouncil subbasin planning proposal, achievingwater quality compliance for surface watersacross the region, and increasing the produc-tivity of the Columbia River estuary. In thehabitat arena, where some actions can takedecades to show benefits, the Strategy empha-sizes those measures that can be taken quickly,with longer term actions to be taken laterbased on subbasin assessments and plans.

The Caucus agencies also recognize that,even while the region has devoted consider-able resources to restoring Columbia Basinfish, there are limits to those resources. Thecombination of near-term biological risks and

resource limitations led the agencies to focuson actions that give the greatest “bang for thebuck” – that have predictable benefits and thatwill benefit the greatest number of species.Getting the biggest bang for the buck canmean focusing on those life stages whereimprovements will yield the biggest survivalincrease, or on those actions that are morecertain to result in improvements, regardlessof the life stage. For example, CRI analysissuggests that improving survivals during thefirst 2 years of life, when the greatest mortalityoccurs, will give the greatest benefit. Becausethere are limits to improving survival at anylife stage, it is likely that improvements in alllife stages will have a greater effect on overallESU productivity than focusing improvementson just one life stage. Getting the biggest bangfor the buck can also mean focusing on ac-tions that benefit a large number of ESUs. Forexample, improvements in dam passage in thelower Columbia River would benefit all upriverESUs, and improvements in the estuary benefitall 12 ESUs to varying degrees.

Federal agencies also considered tribaltreaty and trust responsibilities in developingthis package. For some ESUs, such as SnakeRiver fall chinook, eliminating harvest wouldsubstantially reduce the risks of extinction.Dramatically reducing hatchery productionbasinwide might also benefit nearly all ESUsto some degree, although it is impossible toquantify the benefit at this time. The Strategydoes not recommend these actions, however,because of the importance of maintainingsome level of tribal harvest and improving itover time. The appropriate Caucus agencieswill discuss with tribes the use of more selec-tive harvest techniques and consult if war-ranted.

Much of the regional debate has focusedon removal of Snake River dams. There islittle doubt dam removal would benefit SnakeRiver salmon and steelhead. NMFS is notrecommending it at this time, however, forseveral reasons. There is continuing significantscientific uncertainty about whether breachingdams is necessary to achieve recovery andwhether breaching alone can lead to recovery.Snake River fish would receive most of thebenefits from breaching; other listed popula-tions may receive some long-term benefitsfrom improvements in water quality in thelower Columbia River. Dam removal would


require explicit congressional authorization,and, once authorized, cannot be implementedon a short time frame. And its high cost couldpreclude other actions needed throughout thebasin. The option of Snake River drawdownranks as a lower priority than other availableoptions because of the likely long time toimplement, narrow benefits, biological uncer-tainties and high costs.

The Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategyis designed to provide immediate benefits and,in combination with nonfederal actionsthroughout the basin, lead to salmon andsteelhead recovery. This approach leavesbreaching on the table as a future option, butchallenges hydropower system operators nowto meet rigorous survival goals over a discreteperiod, using continued improvements in flowand spill management and structural improve-ments at dams. System performance will beevaluated against scientifically grounded, peerreviewed performance standards at 3-, 5-, 8-,and 10-year intervals. Dam removal is reservedas a contingency in the event progress towardthese goals is inadequate, or if shown to benecessary by new scientific information aboutthe Snake River stocks.

The Strategy also commits the agenciesresponsible for the federal hydropower systemto fund habitat, harvest and hatchery actionsto mitigate for unavoidable mortality in thehydropower system, and to an aggressivemonitoring and evaluation program to testassumptions, measure performance and reduceuncertainties over time.

1.3.1 Will the Strategy Recover Listed Salmonand Steelhead ESUs?

This section describes the basis uponwhich the agencies have concluded that ifimplemented, this Strategy is likely to allowfor the long-term conservation and recovery oflisted salmonids and other fish and wildliferesources of the Columbia and Snake basins.Issues of implementation are addressed inSection 2.2.

The CRI analyzed the sensitivity of someof the ESUs to improvements in different lifestages (Kareiva, September 2000). In general,the survival of analyzed ESUs is most sensitiveto changes in the first and second years of life,where most of the mortality occurs. Survivalin these life stages is affected by several

human activities including hatchery opera-tions, habitat degradation, and hydropowerdevelopment. For most ESUs, the first year oflife is spent in the tributaries. The period oftransition from fresh water to salt water alsorepresents a period of high mortality for mostESUs. Harvest mortality occurs in the adultlife stage. Despite recent reductions for alarge number of the listed stocks, ocean andriver harvests remain a significant source ofmortality for Snake River fall chinook. In-riverfisheries also impose some level of harvestmortality on most steelhead ESUs. Becauseimprovements in the first year of life andduring ocean transition provide the greatestoverall benefit, the Strategy emphasizeshabitat and hatchery actions – those actionsaimed at improving survival in the tributariesand estuary. Notwithstanding this emphasis,all of these stocks are at a high risk of extinc-tion, therefore improvements across all lifestages are necessary and important for theirconservation and survival.

Table 1, based on CRI modeling, showsthe level of survival improvement needed forColumbia Basin ESUs to survive and recover.NMFS believes implementation of the overallStrategy across all life stages will move listedpopulations to recovery levels over the longterm. The best available science indicates thatthe particular mix of actions called for by thisStrategy are ones that will most likely achieverecovery.

The CRI models project risks of extinc-tion if all factors remain the same as they

were for fish returning in 1980-99. NMFSrecognizes that many actions have been takento improve the survival of these ESUs evensince 1994, and also recognizes that the baseperiod arguably represents a particularly badtime for ocean survival of some ESUs. NMFShas taken into account the survival improve-ments that have resulted from hydropowermeasures and harvest reductions since 1994, aswell as the potential benefits from improvedocean conditions of the past few years. Thisanalysis, explained in detail in the December2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion, estimatesadditional improvements in population growthrates needed to achieve a 5 percent or lowerlikelihood of extinction in 24 and 100 yearsand at least a 50 percent chance of reaching anumerical abundance goal in 48 and 100 years,under best and worst case assumptions. Best


and worst case assumptions include assump-tions about the reproductive effectiveness ofhatchery fish spawning in the wild, and aboutfuture conditions in the hydropower system.

The uncertainties inherent in that sciencealso make research, monitoring and evaluationnecessary to ensure that this Strategy stays oncourse to achieve its objectives. Accordingly,adaptive management is important to theStrategy. The federal agencies believe thatimmediate actions structured as managementexperiments have a high probability of bothimproving population performance and identi-fying and quantifying the causal relationshipsbetween human activities and salmon survivaland productivity, particularly in salmon spawn-ing and rearing habitat.

Survival improvements in spawning andrearing habitat in the tributaries and in estuaryhabitat are a centerpiece of this Strategybecause the science indicates that the greatestopportunity for achieving significant survivalimprovements is in these habitat types. Al-though very few studies have been done thatquantitatively link management actions with

habitat quality, and habitat quality with fishproduction, the available information tends toconfirm the expectation that an effectivehabitat program could significantly improvetributary habitat productivity over the longterm for all ESUs except Snake River fallchinook.

The Northwest Power Planning Council’ssubbasin planning data developed in the late1980s offers an example of information thatprovides guidance on where productive – orpotentially productive – habitat exists. Theanalysis of the subbasin planning data showsthat potential tributary habitat capacity in thebasin could provide for population increaseswithin the range of what would be necessaryto support recovery of listed ESUs, providedthe habitat strategy is implemented and thereare sufficient adults to spawn. This data willbe updated during the subbasin assessmentprocess. The Habitat Element section ofVolume 2 of this Strategy shows how manage-ment actions can affect salmon and steelheadabundance. This analysis shows, for example,that the presence of water diversions and

Table 1 Minimum Risk Estimates at the ESU Level

ESU Annual Rate Probability of Needed Percent

of Population a 90% Decline Improvement in

Change in Abundance Annual Rate of

in 100 years Population Change

(percent) to Prevent

Severe Decline

Lower Columbia River Chinook 0.96 72 12

Upper Columbia River Chinook 0.85 100 21

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook 0.91 100 11

Snake River Fall Chinook 0.92 100 11.5

Upper Willamette Chinook 0.82 100 31

Columbia River Chum 1.04 0 0

Lower Columbia River Steelhead 0.91 100 8

Middle Columbia Steelhead 0.84 100 17

Upper Columbia River Steelhead 0.83 100 21.5

Snake River A+B Runs Steelhead 0.83 100 18.5

Upper Willamette Steelhead 0.92 99 11.5

Note: An annual rate of change less than one indicates that the ESU is declining; greater than one indicates that it is

increasing. All estimates assume that hatchery fish on the spawning grounds have a reproductive success one-fifth (20

percent) that of wild spawners. If hatchery fish have greater reproductive success, the annual population growth rate of

the wild population will be lower than that presented here and the risk of decline correspondingly higher. Annual popula-

tion growth rate, risk of decline and needed changes will all vary between populations within an ESU. The full range of

risk estimates are described in the 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion.


grazing activities correspond to lower fishabundance in the Salmon River Basin, tribu-tary to the Snake River. The Salmon Riverdata, in particular, illustrates how productivehabitat strategies can be identified.

Although direct estimates of increasedsalmon productivity in response to increase in-stream flows are not well developed, small-scale studies suggest that addressing impairedstream flows can increase salmonid popula-tions. For example, Andrews, et al. (1987)calculated an anticipated increase in annualsmolt production of 120,000 smolts if in-stream flow conflicts in Alturas Creek wereresolved. Increases in summer base streamflows of 50 percent have been estimated toincrease effective pool and riffle area by 30percent with a corresponding increase in fishproduction, particularly in coho, steelhead,and resident trout (Koning and Keeley, 1997).Where increased flows resulted in an increasein spawning gravel per unit area of stream,Keeley, et al. (1996) predicted an average 8.5-fold increase in chum, pink, and sockeyesalmon production. Together, this informationprovides the basis for the habitat program,enabling the agencies to prioritize actions andlocations to achieve the greatest effects.

The federal agencies believe the habitatelement of the Basinwide Salmon RecoveryStrategy will have significant measurablebenefits for listed anadromous and residentfish in the tributaries by protecting existinghigh quality habitat and restoring degradedhabitat on a priority basis. The Strategyprioritizes tributary subbasins for short-termhabitat work based on potential for improve-ment in habitat capacity, degree of federalownership (an anchor for restoration efforts),and number of water diversions (where ad-dressing flow, passage and screening problemscould produce short-term benefits). (SeeKratz, July 18, 2000.) When implemented asexpected, the Strategy should result in improv-ing habitat conditions in priority subbasinsover the course of 10 years. In addition, otherimmediate measures should improve tributaryflows, water quality and riparian conditions ina broader range of subbasins with a mix offederal and nonfederal ownership. Accordingto the available habitat analysis, the effects ofthis action would increase salmon and steel-head abundance to levels that are within the

range of what would be necessary to supportrecovery.

A critical aspect of this conclusion is theemphasis the Strategy places on the NorthwestPower Planning Council subbasin assessmentand planning process, which should lay thefoundation for formal recovery planning forthe Columbia and Snake rivers ESUs. Everysubbasin in the Columbia-Snake system will beassessed over the next 2 years using a templatejointly developed by members of the ColumbiaBasin Fish and Wildlife Authority. The Counciladopted the template in October 2000 as partof its amended Fish and Wildlife Program(NPPC, November 9, 2000). The assessmentswill form the analytical foundation for tailor-ing subbasin plans and for developing formalrecovery plans to meet the needs of each ESU.Ultimately, subbasin plans and recovery planswill be based on the data and analyses, andshould be fully linked. In turn, these planswill form linkages between state and localefforts already underway or being planned toaddress habitat issues on a localized basis.

The Columbia River Estuary is also anarea of focus for this Strategy. That habitatplays an important role in the life cycle of alllisted anadromous stocks of the basin each ofwhich pass through the estuary on their way toand from the ocean. As discussed inVolume 2, Habitat Element, studies indicatethat the estuary has the potential to providesignificant survival improvements for each ofthe listed stocks. One study looked at thevalue of improvements in the estuary for theSkagit River in Washington (Beamer, et al.1999). The Skagit analysis suggests thatestuarine habitat is an important bottleneck inthe productive capacity of the Skagit systemas a whole. There, for every hectare of high-quality estuarine habitat that may be restored,there is a projected increase of 22,000 smoltsin the system’s production overall – a signifi-cant increase in survival.

The Strategy recommends that harvest onlisted fish be constrained to current levels(subject to U.S. v. Oregon processes) in theocean and in freshwater, including tribal,commercial, and recreational fisheries. Theproductivity rates identified by CRI as neces-sary to achieve survival and recovery accountfor harvest impacts at current levels. Strongsteps have already been taken over the past


20 years to end chronic overfishing practices.Mixed stock fisheries are now generally man-aged for abundance, and the needs of naturalfish are given priority over hatchery fish whendetermining appropriate harvest rates. Sincethe listing of many species under the ESA,harvest has been reduced even further in allfisheries affecting listed stocks. Given thatthese reductions have already occurred, it isunlikely that further reductions are going toyield significant additional benefits to listedspecies. However, continuing constraints onharvest at or near these now-reduced levelswill remain an important part of the recoveryeffort during the rebuilding period. TheHarvest Element, Volume 2, discusses manage-ment actions taken over the past few years toreduce – and in most cases eliminate – theeffects of harvest on listed populations.Nevertheless, the Strategy contemplatesfurther negotiated reductions in harvestimpacts based on increasing selectivity infishing practices, but these potential futurereductions are not assumed in the analysis. Ifthey were achieved, they would benefit pro-ductivity and further reduce extinction risksfor affected ESUs, thus enhancing the overallrecovery effort.

NMFS and the other Caucus agencies areconfident of the potential to reduce risks andimprove survivals associated with ongoing andnew hatchery efforts, and therefore propose anextensive program of hatchery reforms. Theability to quantify those improvements, how-ever, is limited, further dictating the need foraggressive monitoring of these reforms. TheStrategy recommends major and extensivereforms at existing mitigation hatcheries thatare designed to eliminate or minimize theadverse effects of past propagation practices.As discussed further in the Hatchery Element,Volume 2, adverse effects include decreasedfitness as a result of hatchery fish interbreed-ing with naturally-spawning fish, anddecreased survival as a result of hatchery fishcompeting with naturally-spawning fish forspace and food. The effects of some practicescan be substantial, although few definitivestudies have been done that quantify theharmful effects of hatcheries on naturally-spawning populations. It is neverthelesspossible to examine qualitatively the potentialbenefits of hatchery reforms.

For example, the fitness of certainindigenous, listed populations may be substan-tially improved over time by eliminating orsubstantially reducing the risks mentionedabove. The studies cited in Volume 2, Hatch-ery Element, suggest that the productivity ofhatchery fish (spawner-to-spawner) can be 20-90 percent less than the productivity of natu-rally-spawned fish. Where hatchery fishinterbreed to a significant extent with natu-rally-spawned fish, and assuming the offspringsurvive at a rate no greater than hatchery fish,eliminating harmful interbreeding couldimprove the survival of the natural fish anequivalent amount. No studies currently existthat confirm the potential range of benefitsfrom reduced interbreeding. For populationsless significantly affected by poor hatcherypractices, the improvement would be lessmarked. The program would stop the practiceof using non-indigenous broodstock in thebasin, except in a very few instances where itcan be demonstrated that straying does notoccur.

Adverse ecological effects from hatcheryfish are also being addressed in the hatcheryreforms. Hatchery programs have been docu-mented as limiting natural populationsthrough predation and competition for foodand space between hatchery and natural-originfish. Although it is impossible to quantify thepotential benefits from these reforms, a tablein the Hatchery Element, Volume 2, provides aqualitative estimate of the degree of benefitlikely to accrue from hatchery reforms foreach ESU.

The Strategy anticipates that supplemen-tation of natural populations with hatcheryfish will be used under certain controlledcircumstances, subject to the development ofhatchery and genetic management plans, toreduce the risks of extinction, protect geneticdiversity, and contribute to recovery. Thisapproach is referred to as “safety net supple-mentation” for these reasons.

Supplementation research to date hasdemonstrated that high egg-to-smolt survivalscan be achieved using artificial propagation,generally resulting in adult-to-adult replace-ment rates in excess of 1.0 – replacement ratescurrently greater than those of naturally-spawning fish. Supplementation is therefore areasonably reliable strategy to enhance the


abundance of listed fish, keeping their effec-tive population size above critical levels.When applied to a sufficient number of indi-vidual populations within a listed ESU, it canalso improve the prospects for overall diversityand stock structure within an ESU. Increasingabundance and stock structure within aseriously depressed ESU can therefore reducethe short-term probability of extinction.

The Strategy expects a combination ofaggressive improvements to increase survivalfor salmonids migrating through the hydro-power corridor plus an off-site mitigationprogram of actions taken by the hydropoweroperators outside the hydropower corridor tofurther improve survivals for listed stocks.The FCRPS Biological Opinion(December 2000) describes a set of specific,aggressive hydropower actions that NMFS hasdetermined, on the basis of available scientificinformation and professional judgment, willachieve the FCRPS hydropower performancestandards. Most of the measures are aimed atimproving passage survival through FCRPSdams and reservoirs through changes inproject operations and improvements inproject configuration. NMFS’ best estimate ofthe additional improvement in adult andjuvenile survival levels associated with thesemeasures is modest and accrues primarily toin-river migrants and primarily in the LowerColumbia River.

The off-site mitigation program spon-sored and funded by the hydropower ActionAgencies will consist of habitat, hatchery andharvest measures that would not reasonably becertain to otherwise occur. In particular, thehydropower action agencies will emphasizenon-hydropower actions likely to have immedi-ate survival benefits for listed stocks. Thisprogram will be adaptively managed to takeadvantage of a targeted research, monitoringand evaluation component designed to verifyand quantify the survival benefits that areexpected to result from the program.Progress will be formally evaluated after 3, 5and 8 years to determine whether performancestandards are being achieved. The FCRPSBiological Opinion prescribes contingencies tofollow in the event they are not.

For nonfederal dams on the mainstemColumbia, the Strategy expects the implemen-tation of the provisions and performancestandards of the Mid-Columbia Habitat Conser-

vation Plan to address additional improvementin juvenile and adult survival. The HCP, alsosubject to ESA Section 7(a)(2), must assure ahigh likelihood of survival and a moderate-to-high likelihood of recovery over time, takinginto account actions in the other Hs.

Finally, with respect to other federalactions affecting the listed stocks, this Strat-egy expects that applying the jeopardy stan-dard of ESA Section 7(a)(2) will ensure that allsuch actions will provide additional survivalprotections and improvements that willcomplement the actions specifically identifiedhere.

1.3.2 ConclusionsThe Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy

presents a suite of actions that can be imple-mented immediately and in the long term thatwill have significant benefits for a broad rangeof species (see Table 2 and Map 2). Because ofthe limits in the available data, it is impossibleto quantify with precision the potential cumu-lative overall benefit that will result fromimplementing the Strategy. Nevertheless, it ispossible to predict the benefits likely to resultfrom this Strategy based on data and informa-tion currently available. On this basis, NMFSconcludes that the Strategy will lead to thelong-term conservation and recovery of thelisted salmonid stocks throughout the Colum-bia and Snake basins. While this conclusion ismade in the face of considerable uncertainty,NMFS has relied on the best available informa-tion in making this assessment. This includesa combination of quantitative data and analy-ses; best professional judgment based uponavailable data; and reasonable hypotheses,recognizing that adequate data is not yetavailable to provide greater certainty. Theother federal agencies of the Caucus supportand will participate in the implementation ofthe actions identified in the Strategy.

As described in Table 1, substantialincreases in fish survival are necessary. Evenafter full implementation of expected hydro-power improvements, substantial improvementneeds remain. NMFS has concluded thatjeopardy can be avoided through the imple-mentation of the hydropower measures in theFCRPS Biological Opinion, the off-site mitiga-tion program and the implementation offeasible measures identified in the BasinwideSalmon Recovery Strategy.


The off-site mitigation portion of thebiological opinion assures that many measuresidentified in the Strategy will be implementedby or with the support of the BPA, Corps, andUSBR. NMFS has concluded measures ex-pected to be implemented by other agenciesand parties, combined with the off- site mea-sures in the biological opinion, are reasonablycalculated to meet survival improvement needsidentified in Table 1.

Because uncertainties about the scienceremain, the Federal Caucus planned for thepossibility that these conclusions will need tobe reconsidered and revised. The entireStrategy is based upon a rigorous monitoringand evaluation system that will continually

assess species status and measure the resultsof management actions. In addition, theCaucus agencies will provide a conservationhatchery safety net to prevent extinction ofthe most at-risk native populations on aninterim basis. The Strategy provides regularprocedural checkpoints in 3, 5, 8 and 10 yearsto determine whether prescribed actions arebeing implemented, and if they are generatingthe anticipated results. These tools providethe agencies with the flexibility necessary torespond if the populations of listed speciescontinue to decline. Finally, the Strategycontemplates rigorous independent peerreview of its scientific foundation and itsmonitoring and evaluation activities.

Table 2 Expected Benefits from Actions by ESU

Lower Columbia Snake River Mid-Columbia Upper Columbia

ESUs ESUs ESU ESUs

Chum, Steelhead Spring/summer Steelhead Spring

& Chinook Chinook, Chinook

Upper Willamette Steelhead, & Steelhead

Steelhead Fall Chinook

& Chinook & Sockeye

HYDROPOWER

Operational Improvements

Additional Canadian flows X X X X

Additional Snake flows X X X X

Flood control review Most likely benefit would be changes to estuary flow, particularly

in years of moderate runoff; would have little effect in years of

low or high flow

Elimination of trucking n/a X Dependent on resumption of

spring transportation from McNary

Improved spill passage n/a X X X

Resolution of delayed mortality n/a X Dependent on resumption of

spring transportation from McNary

Water quality improvements X X X X

Capital Improvements at Dams

Aggressive passage measures n/a X X X

Water quality improvements X X X

Economic mitigation for breach Multi-faceted mitigation for various impacts of dam breaching

on river users, regional infrastructure, etc.

Nonfederal

Mid-Columbia HCP n/a n/a n/a X

IPC relicensing, incl. SRWRA Projects block migration; benefit to Snake River ESUs primarily result

of water management; benefit to other ESUs limited to potential water

management effects in estuary

Other relicencing Projects generally block passage or are in blocked areas; benefit would

be primarily to listed resident fish and potential benefits of improved

water management or habitat improvements


Lower Columbia Snake River Mid-Columbia Upper Columbia

ESUs ESUs ESU ESUs

Chum, Steelhead Spring/summer Steelhead Spring

& Chinook Chinook, Chinook

Upper Willamette Steelhead, & Steelhead

Steelhead Fall Chinook

& Chinook & Sockeye

HATCHERIES

Safety net and conservation

ESA captive broodstock Last resort, most intrusive form of intervention to prevent loss of

genetics of wild fish; currently in place for Snake River Sockeye and

several spring/summer Chinook populations

Conservation hatchery actions Varying levels and types of artificial production intervention

(e.g., supplementation) to protect severely depressed stocks

and/or aid recovery

Aggressive R, M, & E Aggressive research, monitoring and evaluation to reduce critical

uncertainties relating to interaction between artificially produced

fish and wild fish

General Reform

Hatchery Genetic Management Plans Comprehensive review, program by program, facility by facility,

(HGMPs); Implementation of HGMP plans to clarify goals and objectives, reform of hatchery practices to reduce

risk of adverse impacts to wild stocks and maximize potential benefits

of artificial production. Implementation of operational, facility (including

capital), and program changes necessary to implement HGMPs

Marking of hatchery production Necessary to better determine status of natural populations; useful

for enabling certain selective fisheries

HABITAT

Federal

Northwest Forest Plan X n/a X X

ICBEMP n/a X X X

Off-site Mitigation, Nonfederal Lands X X X X

Council Plan (BPA-funded) X X X X

Mainstem & estuary X X X X

Nonfederal

State/city/local plans X X X X

TMDL/water quality plans X X X X

HARVEST

Constrain harvest to recently-established, X X X X

lowered rates

Weak stock management X X X X

Selective fisheries (potential) X X X X

Ocean fishery easements only for some only for n/a n/a

(potential for benefit) chinook Snake River

fall chinook

Enhanced opportunity

Terminal fisheries Site and circumstance - specific

Value-added Enhanced value products to increase economic value of harvested fish;

potential for all species

IMPLEMENTATION & ACCOUNTABILITY Formal, comprehensive coordination among federal agencies, state fish

& wildlife agencies, Tribes, Columbia Basin Forum, Northwest Power

Planning Council (and others) to ensure adequate staffing, budgets,

consistency, and execution with comprehensive M&E to assess progress

and to make necessary adjustments in implementation

Map 2 Actions by ESU (on page 32) is available in separate document


2.1 Goals and ObjectivesThe Federal Caucus used these goals and

objectives, modified based on comments fromtribal governments and the public, to developthe Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy.

Goals� Conserve Species. Avoid extinction and

foster long-term survival and recovery ofColumbia Basin salmon and steelhead andother aquatic species.

� Conserve Ecosystems. Conserve theecosystems upon which salmon andsteelhead depend, including watershedhealth.

� Assure Tribal Fishing Rights and Provide

Non-Tribal Fishing Opportunities. Restoresalmon and steelhead populations over timeto a level that provides a sustainableharvest sufficient to provide for themeaningful exercise of tribal fishing rightsand, where possible, provide non-tribalfishing opportunities.

� Balance the Needs of Other Species. Ensurethat salmon and steelhead conservationmeasures are balanced with the needs ofother native fish and wildlife species.

� Minimize Adverse Effects on Humans.

Implement salmon and steelheadconservation measures in ways thatminimize their adverse socio-economic andother human effects.

� Protect Historic Properties. Consistentwith the requirements of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act and otherapplicable law, assure that effects ofrecovery measures on historic properties areidentified and addressed in consultationwith all interested and affected parties.

� Consider Resources of Cultural Importance

to Tribes. In implementing recoverymeasures, seek to preserve resources

important to maintaining the traditionalculture of basin tribes.

Biological Objectives

� Maintain and improve upon the currentdistribution of fish and aquatic species, andhalt declining population trends within5-10 years.

� Establish increasing trends in naturally-sustained fish populations in eachsubregion accessible to the fish and foreach ESU within 25 years.

� Restore distribution of fish and otheraquatic species within their native rangewithin 25 years (where feasible).

� Conserve genetic diversity and allow naturalpatterns of genetic exchange to persist.

Ecological Objectives

� Prevent further degradation of tributary,mainstem and estuary habitat conditionsand water quality.

� Protect existing high quality habitats.� Restore habitats on a priority basis.

Water Quality Objective

� In the long term, attain state and tribalwater quality standards in all critical

habitats in the Columbia River and SnakeRiver basins.

Socio-Economic Objectives

� Select actions to restore and enhance fishand their habitat that achieve the biologicaland ecological objectives at the least cost.

� Mitigate for significant social and economicimpacts and explore creative alternativesfor achieving these objectives.

2. Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy


River Basin formed a Federal Caucus to pre-pare for a long-term decision on operation andconfiguration of the Federal Columbia RiverPower System. The agencies participating inthe Caucus are listed at the front of thisdocument. The Federal Caucus is comprisedof senior policy staff representatives from eachof the nine agencies. A federal MOU commitsthe original nine agencies to continue coordi-nating through the Federal Caucus. Otherfederal agencies may also join and sign theMOU later.

Each of the Caucus agencies has a keyrole to play in implementing and fundingprograms and applying regulations in theColumbia Basin that are the subject of theStrategy. The Federal Caucus provides aneffective structure to harmonize agency poli-cies and coordinate implementation of theStrategy. Maintaining the Federal Caucus willalso allow the federal agencies to coordinatemore effectively with regional forums such asthe Council and the Columbia River BasinForum. To further enhance regional coordina-tion and participation, the Federal Caucus willregularly hold meetings that are open to thepublic.

The federal executives of the Caucusagencies provide policy guidance to andresolve disagreements within the Caucus. Thefederal agencies are accountable for achievingperformance standards across the Hs andmeasuring the effectiveness of the Strategy.

2.2.2 Federal Agency Memorandum ofUnderstanding

The federal agencies have entered into anMOU to formalize their commitment to coordi-nate their implementation, funding and moni-toring of the Strategy and to ensure commonapproaches and priorities for the recovery oflisted fish. (See Implementation, Volume 2.)Specifically the MOU commits federal agenciesto:

� Establish an expanded Federal Caucus;� Establish a Habitat Team;� Consistent application of ESA, CWA, other

relevant statutes and tribal trust and treatyresponsibilities as they relate to theconservation of Columbia Basin fish;

� Establish priorities for implementation;

� Seek adequate funding and implementationfor strategies and actions.

� Coordinate restoration efforts to avoidinefficiency and unnecessary costs.

� Restore salmon and steelhead to populationlevels that will support treaty and non-treaty harvest.

� Select actions that consider or take intoaccount tribal socio-economic or culturalconcerns.

The agencies believe their recommenda-tions are the combinations most likely to meetthese goals and objectives. The actions reflectthe best scientific understanding of what isnecessary to conserve the species and theirecosystems. The Strategy contemplatesmaintaining tribal fishing opportunities in thenear term, and expanding them over time. TheStrategy recognizes the needs of other at-riskfish, wildlife and plant species within thebasin. The Strategy seeks to provide a mea-sure of social and economic certainty byseeking maximum benefit from the availableresources, with clearly established implemen-tation and monitoring processes.

2.2 ImplementationTo be successful, this recovery Strategy

requires federal agencies to coordinate theirrespective programs with one another and withstate, tribal and local programs. This sectiondescribes how the federal agencies intend toaccomplish that coordination.

� Continue the Federal Caucus.� Establish a Memorandum of Understanding

Among Federal Agencies.� Continue the Regional Forum.� Establish a Habitat Team.� Coordinate Harvest and Hatchery Activities

with Habitat and Hydropower Activities.� Coordinate with other Regional Entities.� Collaborate with Others on Science.� Initiate Recovery Planning.� Use Performance Standards.� Coordinate Federal Budgets.� Monitor and Evaluate Progress.

2.2.1 Continue the Federal CaucusIn December 1998, nine federal agencies

with fish and wildlife management and imple-mentation responsibilities in the Columbia


� Coordinate budget development andexpenditures;

� Coordinate with related efforts of state,tribal and local governments;

� Work with the states, tribes and theNorthwest Power Planning Council todevelop a comprehensive basinwidemonitoring program.

2.2.3 Continue the Regional Forum as theHydropower Team

The federal agencies will continue tocoordinate operation and configuration of theFCRPS through a Hydropower Team (begun in1995 and known as the NMFS Regional Imple-mentation Team). Federal agencies participat-ing in the Hydropower Team will include theOperating Agencies (Corps, USBR and BPA),NMFS, USFWS and EPA. As with the NMFSForum, participation in the Hydropower Team,and all subgroups operating under the Team’sguidance, will be open to representatives fromthe states, tribes, and federal agencies.

The Hydropower Team will developannual and 5-year plans to implement theoperational and structural measures outlinedin the biological opinions issued by NMFS andUSFWS on operation and configuration of theFCRPS. The operating agencies will coordi-nate annual implementation, prioritization ofactions, review, and modification of measuresoutlined in the biological opinions through theTeam.

Technical groups working under thedirection of the Hydropower Team will addressspecific areas of hydropower implementation.These groups include the Technical Manage-ment Team (TMT); the System ConfigurationTeam (SCT); and the teams addressing waterquality, resident fish, and research, monitoringand evaluation.

The TMT will meet regularly to advise theOperating Agencies on the status of salmonmigrations, and to consider dam and reservoiroperations to optimize passage conditions forjuvenile and adult anadromous fish, and tomeet the needs of other listed aquatic species.The SCT will meet regularly to consider theresults of scientific and engineering studiesand to develop and recommend any necessaryFCRPS facility improvements, including theirpriority, implementation schedule, and budgetneeds.

All meetings of the Hydropower Team areprofessionally facilitated and are open to thepublic. Minutes of the meeting are taken andavailable to participants and members of thepublic.

A Water Quality Improvement Team(WQIT) will be formed to implement the WaterQuality Plan for the FCRPS to better link CWAand ESA requirements. The intent would be tolink and integrate actions undertaken withinthe annual planning process and the ColumbiaRiver Basin Forum, through input and updateson Water Quality Plan implementation, includ-ing consideration of the traditional TMDLdevelopment and implementation processes toefforts to improve water quality on themainstem Columbia River.

2.2.4 Establish a Habitat TeamSeveral Caucus agencies have land man-

agement responsibilities or habitat programs,including the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, BPA,NMFS, USFWS, EPA, Corps and USBR. Theseagencies will dedicate staff to a federal HabitatTeam whose job will be to coordinate amongfederal programs, and between federal andstate and tribal programs. Other federalagencies with land management responsibili-ties, such as the Natural Resource Conserva-tion Service and the Farm Services Administra-tion, may also be invited to participate on thefederal Habitat Team.

The Habitat Team will perform thefollowing coordination and managementfunctions.

Among federal agency habitat pro-

grams – The Habitat Team will improvecoordination among federal habitat programsin several ways:

� Policy coordination: Coordinate federalagency policies and guidance consistentwith this Strategy.

� Budget coordination: Coordinate agencybudgets to ensure efficiency, eliminateoverlap, and focus resources where they canbest achieve the goals of this Strategy.

� Technical Coordination: Ensure federalagencies use and support complementarywatershed and subbasin assessment andplanning protocols.

� Recovery Planning Coordination: EnsureNMFS’ and USFWS’ recovery planningprocesses are supported by the federal


agencies and are well-connected to otherfederal programs and actions.

Between federal agencies and others –Important salmon habitat is on nonfederalland. Recovery of the fish will only be suc-cessful if states, tribes, local governments andprivate parties address key water quantity,water quality, riparian, and other issues. Thefederal agencies will encourage voluntary andincentive-based efforts, using federal funds toleverage local resources and efforts. TheHabitat Team will improve linkages betweenfederal and nonfederal initiatives in severalways:

� Support local watershed efforts: Work withstates and regional organizations to assistlocal watershed groups in obtaining fundingand technical support from appropriatefederal programs and agencies.

� Support common habitat assessment tools:Work with states, tribes, the Council andothers to develop, support and use commonwatershed and subbasin assessmentprotocols.

� Support data quality control and datasharing: Work with states, tribes, theCouncil and others to develop andimplement a basinwide monitoring strategythat includes a comprehensive monitoringplan, standardized data collection, andstandardized data reporting.

� Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation:The Federal Caucus will report annually onfederal agency progress in carrying outhabitat initiatives and coordinate with stateand tribal governments. Reports will relateto the performance standards for habitat inthe Strategy.

2.2.5 Coordinate Harvest and HatcheryActivities with Habitat and HydropowerActivities

Management of in-river harvest occursunder the auspices of the federal court in U.S.

v. Oregon. Regulation of ocean harvest occurspursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens FisheriesManagement and Conservation Act and thePacific Salmon Treaty. In addition, any har-vest of ESA-listed fish must be authorized byNMFS or USFWS through ESA processes.

NMFS and USFWS will use the Federal Caucusto keep other federal agencies apprised ofharvest regulations and issues and to assurethat harvest and hatchery activities arecomplementary and consistent with the overallrecovery effort.

The Federal Caucus will coordinate plansfor implementation, budget development andschedule for those hatcheries receiving federalfunding from BPA, Corps, USBR, Lower SnakeRiver Compensation Program, the Mitchell Actand other sources consistent with existingprograms and responsibilities. The primarytool for achieving such coordination will beHatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs).HGMPs will improve budget planning forhatcheries, help set budget priorities (such asfunding and construction schedules for up-grading hatcheries to meet necessary hatcheryreforms), improve the level of certainty associ-ated with planning and funding hatcheries,and ensure the proper data collection, moni-toring, and evaluation procedures are in place.Coordinated planning should produce a moreresponsive, methodical, and cost-effectiveapproach to urgently needed programs forspecies recovery and for meeting fisheriesneeds. Close coordination with the Councilwill be critical to assuring that the region has aunified approach to the use and managementof hatcheries within the basin.

2.2.6 Regional CoordinationCoordination of federal decision-making

and funding with that of states, tribes andlocal governments is essential to the successof federal recovery efforts in the ColumbiaRiver Basin. One opportunity for coordinationis through the Columbia River Basin Forum,which was formed in 1998 and has beenchartered by the states of Idaho, Washington,Oregon and Montana, the federal governmentand several of the region’s tribal governments.Four representatives each from tribal, stateand federal governments form the Forum. TheForum is designed to improve the managementof fish and wildlife resources in the ColumbiaRiver Basin without changes to existing laws.It provides a valuable forum for coordinationand discussion of decisions being made byeach of the government entities that affect fishand wildlife in the basin. Meetings of theForum are open to the public. Representatives


of agencies in the Federal Caucus intend tocontinue participating in the Forum.

Coordination with the Northwest PowerPlanning Council will play a crucial role inguiding the recovery of fish and wildliferesources in the Columbia River Basin. TheCouncil is a product of the Northwest PowerPlanning and Conservation Act of 1980 and ischarged with developing a Fish and WildlifeProgram to protect, mitigate and enhance fishand wildlife in the Columbia Basin. TheCouncil makes final funding recommendationson fish and wildlife measures to BPA afterextensive input from fish and wildlife manag-ers, independent scientists and the public. TheCouncil recently amended the Fish and Wild-life Program with a framework concept, whichthe amendment states, “is intended to bringtogether as closely as possible, EndangeredSpecies Act requirements, the broader require-ments of the Northwest Power Act and thepolicies of the states and Indian tribes of theColumbia River Basin into a comprehensiveprogram that has a solid scientific founda-tion…” BPA intends to rely on the Council’sprogram as its primary implementation tool forthe 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion off-sitemitigation requirements.

The federal agencies have a legal respon-sibility to consult and confer with IndianTribes. This communication takes placethrough various regional forums (such as theColumbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authorityand the Columbia River Basin Forum) andthrough government-to-government consulta-tions.

Coordination with the states and tribeson Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) imple-mentation is critical. A TMDL is a strategy forbringing a polluted river, lake or bay in compli-ance with water quality standards to supportfish, drinking and swimming. The statesworking with EPA and the tribes are develop-ing thousands of TMDLs for the ColumbiaBasin over the next 10 years and this work willbe coordinated with recovery efforts.

2.2.7 Science CollaborationCritical uncertainties remain about

several aspects of the salmon life cycle, includ-ing the role of ocean conditions, the magni-tude of delayed mortality, hatchery-wild fishinteractions, genetic adaptability, and the

timeframe over which habitat improvementswill lead to population growth. Everyoneinvolved in or affected by the policies thatguide salmon and steelhead recovery wants toknow what works, what doesn’t work, what isbeing accomplished for the investment ofpublic funds, and how to narrow the uncer-tainty of achieving recovery.

Comprehensive monitoring and evalua-tion focused on uncertainties that are criticalto future recovery decisions will be applied todetermine whether underlying assumptions areaccurate, whether the Strategy is working andto identify needed adjustments. Data must begathered, processed and reported in a stan-dardized and timely way, and must be readilyavailable to all involved in salmon recovery.

A major opportunity for science collabo-ration could occur via the recovery planningprocess. NMFS will establish a TechnicalRecovery Team to develop the science founda-tion for recovery plans for ESA-listed speciesof salmon and steelhead in the Columbia RiverBasin. The process NMFS has initiated todevelop these plans involves two phases, withthe involvement of regional technical andpolicy expertise in each of the relevant phases.To summarize, the first phase is largely ascientific exercise culminating in the establish-ment of delisting criteria goals, developmentof potential scenarios or options for recovery,and identification of potential early actions forrecovery. The second phase is a policy exer-cise in which the options for recovery wouldbe carefully weighed and a final suite ofactions would be identified on an ESU-specificbasis. Both the technical phase and policyphase would involve qualified individuals fromregional agencies, states, tribes, academia andinterest groups. The goal would be to bringtogether a broadly representative group of thebest scientific minds in the region, and per-haps nationally, to tackle these issues.

The TRT for interior Columbia BasinESUs could include three sub-groups, one eachfocusing on Mid-Columbia, Snake River, andUpper Columbia ESUs. This process hasalready begun in Puget Sound and the lowerColumbia and Willamette rivers. It will takeplace in the open, subject to review by all, andwill lead to publication and scrutiny of thefinal products in recognized scientific journals.NMFS, in consultation with other federalagencies, intends to initiate recovery planning


in the interior Columbia River Basin beginningin January 2001. Before formally establishinga TRT for the interior Columbia Basin, NMFSwould work in advance to ensure that allinterested parties within the region have anopportunity to understand the role of a TRTand the options for participation. The TRTconcept was described to states and tribesduring technical and policy discussions.

2.2.8 Initiate Recovery PlanningThis Strategy provides goals, objectives

and actions at the scale of the entire basin.More specific recovery goals and measuresneed to be determined at smaller scales,applying local data and expertise and address-ing local ecological and social issues. NMFShas initiated recovery planning for salmon andsteelhead ESUs in the Upper Willamette andLower Columbia rivers and expects to initiaterecovery planning promptly for ESUs in theinterior Columbia Basin. USFWS has initiatedrecovery planning for Columbia River bulltrout and conceptual plans for Kootenai Riverwhite sturgeon and Snake River snails. Theagencies expect these recovery plans to pro-vide specific numeric and qualitative criteriafor de-listing, and to provide for site-specificactions to achieve the de-listing criteria.

A related effort is the Council’s subbasinplanning process that will be implementedthrough the Northwest Power Act. The Coun-cil organizes the Columbia Basin into 53subbasins, all with unique ecological andsocial issues. The Council is calling for thedevelopment of goals, objectives and manage-ment measures that will comprise a subbasinplan for each of the subbasins. Like recoveryplanning, the Council expects subbasin plansto provide numeric and qualitative goals andobjectives and specific management measures.The purpose of these subbasin plans is toprovide context and scientific foundation forimplementing the Columbia Basin Fish andWildlife Program (described in Volume 2). TheCouncil has expressed its commitment tointegrating the Fish and Wildlife Program withother federal, state and tribal subbasin andwatershed programs.

The NMFS and USFWS will strive tointegrate recovery planning with the Council’ssubbasin planning and other state and tribal

recovery initiatives. This integration is criticalto ensure that the collective efforts in a geo-graphic area such as a subbasin or recoveryplan unit can be added up for their progress inachieving de-listing criteria. This integrationwill happen first through shared scienceassessment processes and then through fully-coordinated planning forums. The federalagencies will support, facilitate and helpintegrate these planning efforts to the greatestextent practicable.

2.2.9 Performance StandardsPerformance standards are population,

life stage, environmental, or implementation“measures of success.” The following sum-mary presents the agencies’ current thinkingabout performance standards at various levels– population level, allocation among the lifestages, and specific metrics for each H. Theseare only preliminary in nature, and will beupdated over time as knowledge of actualperformance becomes more refined throughthe monitoring and evaluation program.

Performance standards are central to thisStrategy (see box). They are the means forestablishing the level of survival improvementin each stage of the salmon and steelheadlifecycle that are necessary for survival andrecovery. Performance standards create clearobjectives and provide flexibility to define themost efficient means of achieving the objec-tives.

The performance standards are dividedinto three tiers, which are described below.Over time, compliance with these standardswill be assessed through monitoring andevaluation. If progress toward meeting perfor-mance standards is insufficient, adjustmentswill be made, either in the actions imple-mented or in the allocation of survival im-provements across the Hs.

Tier 1: Population Level Performance

Standards

Tier 1 performance standards are in-tended to provide long-term measures ofsuccess. They are measured over time, andacross all Hs. The Tier 1 standards are:

� Survival Rates of Better than 1 to 1� Numbers of Returning Adult Fish


The ultimate performance standards forthe hydropower system and other humanactivities, taken together, are based on im-provements in generational survivals. From

one generation to the next, adult-to-adult

survival of better than 1 to 1 must be achieved

to avoid extinction. The agencies will use CRIto provide this assessment of progress in all Hs– hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and habitat– on an ongoing basis.

Another overall measure of success at thepopulation level is numbers of returningadults. Over time, the numbers of returning

adults for each listed population must be

increasing toward recovery levels. Likesurvival rates, this performance standard mustbe met by all Hs, taken together, not by hydro-power alone.

Tier 2: Life Stage or H-Specific Performance

Standards

Tier 2 performance standards are simplythe allocation of Tier 1 standards across thelife stages (some Hs affect more than one lifestage). They are actually met through themore specific performance standards in Tier 3.The estimated benefits of improvements ineach life stage will vary depending on ESU.

For tributary and estuary habitat, theagencies will estimate the survival improve-ments likely to result from protecting andrestoring habitat characteristics described inSection 3. Recent analyses indicate thatreducing mortality at early life stages holdsgreat potential for increasing salmonid popula-tion growth rates; maintaining and restoringtributary and estuarine habitat is one approachto reducing that mortality – case studiessuggest that substantial improvements arefeasible.

For hatcheries, the agencies’ estimates ofsurvival improvements will be based on ex-pected benefits from reduction of adversehatchery-wild fish interaction, hatchery re-forms, and use of supplementation as a conser-vation measure for weak populations.

For harvest, no additional improvementin survival relative to that already achieved asa result of recently-developed harvest con-straints is assumed, although harvest rates oncertain upriver steelhead ESUs may needfurther reductions as a result of additionalanalyses. However, survival improvementsthat may be achieved through programs thatlead to more selective fisheries will be incor-porated as appropriate.

Performance Measures and Standards

Performance measures and standardshave been developed for each H. A perfor-

mance measure describes a population, life-history stage specific, or human activity-specific biological condition. A perfor-

mance standard is a value of a performancemeasure that has been identified as amanagement goal. For example, the partiesto the proposed Mid-Columbia HabitatConservation Plan have suggested the“survival of smolts passing a dam” as auseful and informative performance measureand have set an associated standard of95 percent. The Mid-Columbia public utilitydistricts, which operate these projects, haveproposed to implement a suite of actions thatthey believe will improve dam-passagesurvival up to the level of the performancestandard within a short time frame. Thesuccess of these activities will be gaugedthrough monitoring and evaluation.

Performance measures have beendivided into three tiers. The first tier is thepopulation/ESU level. Here, measures andstandards (goals) can be stated in terms ofspawner abundance, diversity of life-historytypes, the number and geographic distribu-tion of spawning populations, or secondarily-derived statistics such as population growthrate and the probability of recovery orextinction. Population-level performancemeasures and their associated standardsreflect the cumulative effects of survivalthroughout the life cycle, and managementactions often affect survival or fish conditionat the level of a specific life-history stage.

The second tier is life-stage specific.There are nine life-history stages (e.g.,spawning to emergence, emergence to parr,parr to smolt, etc.). Within each life-historystage, management actions can affect fishsurvival or condition in each of the Hs.

The third tier is H specific. If only onesource of human-caused mortality affects aparticular life stage, the third tier perfor-mance measure for that life stage should beequal to the second tier performance mea-sure.

Over time, compliance with thesestandards can be assessed through monitor-ing and evaluation. If progress towardmeeting performance standards is notsufficient, adjustments can be made – eitherin the actions implemented or in the alloca-tion of survival improvements across the Hs.


For hydropower, improvements in sur-vival through the federal hydropower systemwill be estimated for juveniles and adults.Additional survival increases can be expectedfrom flow and passage improvements made atthe many nonfederal dams in the basin.

For more information on these estimates,see the analyses of each Tier 2 life stagestrategy included in Volume 2.

Tier 3: Performance Standards for each H

Tier 3 performance standards are specific,measurable goals for each H. Some are imme-diate or short term in nature, while some are

long term. They vary by each H, depending onthe features that are relevant and measurable.

Tier 3 performance standards shouldtarget improved survival and reduction ofharm to wild salmon and steelhead runs.Through the combination of these standards,real improvements throughout the fishes’lifecycle are possible. Responsibility forsalmon and steelhead recovery is allocatedamong all Hs in an equitable manner, so thateach sector does its fair share.

For ease in understanding, programobjectives and performance standards for eachH are summarized below. This information isalso displayed in Table 3.

Table 3 Performance Standards and Measures

Hydrosystem• improve survival through the hydrosystem• improve instream and reservoir environ-

mental conditions

Habitat• prevent habitat degradation• restore high quality habitat• restore/increase habitat complexity

Harvest• prevent overharvest• provide sustainable fishery

Hatchery• reduce hatchery operations potentially

harmful to wild fish• conservation hatchery actions

• Increased stream miles meeting water qualitystandards (temperature and sediments)

• Increased stream miles with adequate instreamflows

• Increased stream miles opened to fish access• Increased number of diversion areas screened• Increased acres and/or stream miles of habitat

protected or restored

• Constrain harvest rates of listed fish• Increase escapement rates

• Improve egg-to-smolt survival• Increase number of biologically-appropriate

naturally-spawning adults• Improve fish health and fitness• Improve hatchery facilities, operation, and

management and reduce potential harm to listedfish

Performance Standards• improve survival rate• eliminate practices harmful to wild fish

Performance Measures

• Juvenile survival rate of X% at each project• Cumulative juvenile in-river system survival rate

of X%• Adult survival rate of X% per project and X%

systemwide• Cumulative system adult and juvenile survival

rate of X%


Strategies for Habitat:

� Protection: To prevent further degradationof habitat conditions and water quality forall life stages.

� Restoration: To increase the amount ofhigh quality habitat and high water qualityfor spawning, rearing, and migration.

� Complexity: To restore the complexity andrange of habitat conditions for all lifestages.

Performance Standards for Habitat:

� Estimated Benefits:� Use Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment

Methodology and subbasin assessments� Overall Productivity Standards:

� Egg-to-smolt productivity improvement� Fish fitness (size and weight)

� Ecological Standards:� Water Quality: Increase in areas where

water quality standards met: temperature(summer high temperature) andsediment.

� Instream Flows: Increase in areas whereinstream flow needs are met (summerlow flow).

� Fish Access: Increase in areas where fishaccess is restored.

� Screening: Increase in areas wherediversions are screened.

� Protection: Numbers of acres/streammiles of habitat protected or restored.

The ultimate performance standard togauge habitat improvements is salmon produc-tivity, a measure of how many salmon aparticular river is capable of producing. Thebest long-term indicator of habitat productiv-ity at this time is egg-to-smolt survival. Thisinformation, as well as its relationship tohabitat characteristics, will have to be devel-oped over a period of years. Egg-to-smoltproductivity in representative habitat areaswill be an essential part of our ongoing moni-toring and evaluation program to provide thisbase. Nevertheless, this information will notbe useful to guide decisionmaking in the shortterm.

For the short term, the agencies propose(1) to estimate potential benefits from habitataction using the Ecosystem Diagnosis and

Treatment model and subbasin planning, incollaboration with the Northwest PowerPlanning Council; and (2) to gauge successwith habitat improvements using a scientifi-cally rigorous and focused monitoring andevaluation program. Based on availablescience, the agencies believe that there is adirect relationship between survival and theamount of habitat that is improved in thebasin, and will test this hypothesis with thefocused monitoring and evaluation program.

The proposed ecological criteria would beassessed at the basin and subbasin level, andover time, at the watershed and/or streamlevel. Subbasin assessments will define thelevel of habitat changes required based on thebest available information on recovery/extinc-tion thresholds for each ESU. In addition,actual implementation of related managementactions to meet the ecological standards willbe tracked. The Strategy emphasizes rehabili-tation of ecological processes and functions,not artificial creation of habitat.

Strategies for Harvest:

� Fishery Management: Manage fisheries in amanner that prevents overharvest, does notthwart recovery efforts, and contributes tomeeting federal obligations to providemeaningful treaty harvest.

� Sustainable Fisheries: To providesustainable fisheries for the meaningfulexercise of tribal fishing rights and non-tribal fishing opportunities consistent withthe recovery effort.

Performance Standards for Harvest:

� Estimated Benefits:� Maintain minimum escapement rates� Provide time for other recovery efforts to

take effect� Adult Fish Improvement Criteria:

� Maintenance or reductions in harvestrates of listed species.

� Resultant stabilization and/or increasesin escapement.


Rationale for Harvest Performance Standards

Measurement of harvest rates and escape-ment are straightforward, and are well devel-oped by the parties involved in harvest man-agement in the river and in the ocean. How-ever, a mechanism must also be provided forattributing survival benefits to specific ele-ments of voluntary or funded harvest reduc-tions provided through greater selectivity offisheries. That mechanism should explicitlyrecognize that greater selectivity in a givenfishery can be used in part for either or both oftwo objectives: reduce take on listed stockswhile sustaining current harvest, or increasingharvest. The agencies propose to measurethese improvements based on reductions ofharvest impacts on listed fish and resultingincreases in escapement of fish to spawn.

Strategies for Hatcheries

� Hatchery Reform: Reduce potentiallyharmful hatchery practices.

� Conservation Hatchery Actions: Use safetynet program on an interim basis to avoidextinction while other recovery actions takeplace; use hatcheries in a variety of waysand places to aid recovery.

Performance Standards for Hatcheries:

� Estimated Benefits:� Reduce or eliminate adverse hatchery

effects; achieve correspondingproductivity improvements in wild fish;preserve genetic diversity.

� Fish Improvements:� egg-to-smolt survival benefits� increase in number of biologically-

appropriate naturally-spawning adults� improved fish health and fitness� improvements in hatchery facilities,

operation, and management and reducedpotential harm to listed fish.

Temporary conservation hatchery

programs designed to contribute towardsrecovery of ESA-listed populations currently atcritically low levels can yield immediatebenefits for early life-history stages by dramati-cally increasing egg-to-smolt survival. Mea-surement of success can be documented at a

minimum through the number and quality ofsmolts produced for each population, eventu-ally manifest in the number of returningadults.

Strategies for Hydropower:

� Improve Survival: To provide adequatesurvival and maintain healthy adult andjuvenile fish migrating through thehydropower system.

� Improve Conditions: To provide instreamand reservoir environmental conditionsnecessary to produce recruits and provideadequate survival of resident fish and otheraquatic species.

Performance Standards for Hydropower:

� Biological:� Migrating Adults� Juveniles: transported and in-river

migrants� System: cumulative survival, including

direct and indirect mortality

For direct actions taken in thehydrosystem, such as improvements for adultor juvenile passage, benefits can best bemeasured and documented based on changesto juvenile or adult survival. Both non-hydrosystem effects that are manifested withinthe hydrosystem as well as hydrosystemeffects manifested outside the hydrosystem(i.e., indirect mortality) are also considered toprovide an adequate basis for actions that cancontribute to improvements.

A system survival standard would be themain measure of juvenile fish survival. Systemsurvival may be broken down into minimumsurvival levels per project, but these would notbe considered hard limits. Rather, project-specific actions will be contemplated based onthe relative “priority” of needed improvementsin relation to its contribution to system sur-vival, the ESU stocks affected, and alternativeactions at other projects that may be moreeffective. Through this approach, investmentchoices will be made to ensure the greatestbiological benefits for the various ESUs andtheir individual requirements.


� Programmatic:Programmatic performance standards are

the actions and the schedule for those actionsthat are defined in the annual planning pro-cess, the Biological Opinion, and this Strategy.In essence, the measure of performance is thesuccess of the Action Agencies in implementa-tion of actions defined in the Annual Plan.Evaluation of progress relative to this standardwill be formalized through NMFS’ review ofannual progress reports prepared by the ActionAgencies, the annual NMFS findings letter, andthe 3-, 5- and 8-year mid-point evaluations.

� Physical:Physical performance standards supple-

ment and, in some cases, serve as surrogatesfor biological performance standards. In thecase of hydropower actions, for example,there are some physical targets or objectivesdirected at measures such as mainstem flowobjectives and water quality that are intendedto guide water management decisions.

2.2.10 FundingFunding for staff and other resources is

needed to implement this Strategy. TheFederal Caucus does not expect that resourceswill be available to do everything simulta-neously, even if such an effort could otherwisebe organized and staffed. With this in mind,the Caucus agencies will coordinate fundingrequirements and proposals that will be sub-mitted and determined through normal federalbudget and appropriations processes, andreport on the availability of resources andimplications for the agencies’ ability to carryout this strategy.

Coordinating the budget proposals willensure efficiency, eliminate overlap andomissions, and focus resources where they canbest achieve targets. The Federal Caucus willsubmit the coordinated plan and budget to theRegional Executives for approval. It will thenbe the responsibility of each agency to includeits share of the Strategy and related fundingrequirements in its budget submission.

2.2.11 Monitoring and EvaluationMonitoring and evaluation is not merely

the periodic collection of data. Rather, prop-erly designed monitoring programs will pro-vide data for resolving a wide range of uncer-

tainties that are critical to future decisions,such as determining population status, estab-lishing causal relationships between habitat(or other) attributes and population response,and assessing the effectiveness of managementactions. The information gained throughmonitoring programs will be a cornerstone inidentifying alternative actions and refiningrecovery efforts. The focused monitoring andevaluation programs will be an integral part ofany management action, and a critical compo-nent of a recovery plan or adaptive manage-ment, and will afford managers the informa-tion to maintain or change strategies as neces-sary.

A complete monitoring program willaddress the following four major groupings ofquestions for listed salmonids:

� Compliance monitoring. Have

management actions been implemented;

have they been implemented

appropriately and in their entirety? Thiscomponent of a monitoring program is veryimportant for two reasons. Scientifically, itis important to know that the managementaction has been put in place whenevaluating its effects (particularly if theeffects are measured in part away from themanagement activity, as the effects ofhydrosystem or estuarine improvements arelikely to be). From a regulatoryperspective, this monitoring aspect willensure that agencies and individualsresponsible for mitigation or restorationactivities in fact complete theirresponsibilities. In addition, the monitoringprogram should be used to assess andimprove the quality of regional databases,particularly those that describe habitatattributes throughout the Columbia RiverBasin.

� Population Status Monitoring. What is

the status of salmonid populations; does

that status change through time? Aprimary concern will be determining thelevel of risk populations face, including thecurrent range, trends and abundance ofpopulations, and whether those trendschange.

� Environmental Status Monitoring.

What are environmental conditions in

areas of different salmonid abundance

or trend; and, are there systematic


patterns suggesting that specific

natural or anthropogenic factors affect

salmon population dynamics? This set ofquestions is primarily aimed at determiningthe status of factors thought to affectsalmon populations, and using thatassessment to suggest appropriatemanagement actions and experiments.

· Effectiveness monitoring. Is there a

cause and effect relationship between

management actions and salmonid

population responses locally or across

the landscape? In many cases this will bea multi-tiered set of questions: did amanagement action cause the anticipatedchange in a condition (habitat attribute, orabundance of hatchery fish, for instance)?Then, did the change in conditions cause aresponse in salmonid populations? Howlarge was the response?

The core of the monitoring program toaddress these issues for anadromous salmonidswill be a hierarchical sampling scheme(Table 4). Specifically, data will be collectedat three tiers of increasing detail. Tier 1 is themost general level. The data collected atTier 1 sites will establish the current range ofanadromous fish (and future changes to thatrange). It will also provide the broadestpicture of environmental conditions. Datacollected during Tier 2 sampling will allow amore detailed picture of both salmon popula-tion status (abundance and trend) and environ-mental conditions. Tier 3 sampling is the mostdetailed, and is designed primarily to deter-mine the effectiveness of management actions.Other Tier 3 sites will be used to determine thereproductive success of naturally-spawninghatchery fish (this information is extremely

Table 4 Outline of Proposed Monitoring and Evaluation Sampling Design

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Landscape Compliance

imagery logbook

Sampling Once every Annually Frequency Once every Once every

frequency 3-4 years dependent upon three years 6 months

study; minimum (action agency);

annually arbitrarily to monthly

(regulatory agency)

Relevant to 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 3,5 2 5

monitoring types*

Goals# A, B B, C C, D B

Number of sites To cover all To be determined Minimum 3 per Entire Columbia All management

potentially used by power ESU; minimum Basin actions

areas in a analyses 2 for each major

population management

action

Data type — Presence Counts of juveniles Dependent on None None

salmonid /absence and spawners management

population action; Hatchery

spawner reprod-

uctive success

Data type — General, Qualitative and Quantitative, Landscape- None

habitat qualitative quantitative dependent on level attributes

management

action

*Relevant to monitoring types: 1 = population status monitoring, 2 = environmental status monitoring, 3 = effectiveness

monitoring, 4 = quality of regional databases, 5 = compliance (implementation) monitoring

# Goals: a = establish fish habitat use or range; b = establish associations between environmental characteristics and

population status; c = estimate population growth rates or stage-specific survival rates; d = establish mechanistic links

between management actions and salmon population response.


important to determining the status of wildstocks).

In addition to this hierarchical system,two additional components will be necessaryfor a complete monitoring program. First, acompliance monitoring program will be devel-oped by the federal Habitat Team. Second, aregular program of landscape-level assessment(e.g., aerial or satellite imagery) to documentcurrent and changing land use/land coverpatterns will be an important component ofassessing patterns between environmentalcharacteristics and salmonid populationstatus. Further details of this program areprovided in Volume 2.

Monitoring and evaluation will also beimportant for resident fish and other aquaticspecies. It will provide critical information onbull trout population trends, distribution,timing and usage of FCRPS fish ladders, fishbypass, and smolt monitoring facilities andreservoir systems, and assess entrainment ofbull trout through FCRPS dams. For KootenaiRiver white sturgeon, current levels of moni-toring and evaluation will be maintained thatare associated with all life stages of naturalrecruitment, and the preservation stockingprogram.

Conducting monitoring and evaluationeffectively will require that both data collec-tion and the implementation of managementactions be highly coordinated. Collecting datato address any of these questions for any listedspecies will require attention to issues ofexperimental design, including distribution ofmonitoring sites, appropriate replication andscale. Management actions must be con-ducted in the context of an experimentalframework that will offer the greatest opportu-nities for detecting responses in the shortestamount of time. Similarly, it will be impera-tive that data collection be conducted in astandardized manner and that data is reportedand managed in a regional database. Failureto maintain a scientifically rigorous, coordi-nated effort will not only render any monitor-ing program useless, but will also undercut theimportance of the management actions them-selves, since they will no longer contribute toour understanding of salmonid populationresponses.

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center,in collaboration with regional scientists andother federal, state, tribal and local agencies,will develop a monitoring and evaluationprogram that addresses these major areas.Specifically, by September 2001, the followingwill be completed:

� A comprehensive framework for amonitoring and evaluation plan. Theframework will refine the monitoringscheme proposed here, evaluate formallythe necessary temporal and spatialreplication, and identify specific localitiesat which the monitoring program will takeplace.

� Standards for collecting, synthesizing andreporting data;

� A mechanism for reporting data.

The federal agencies anticipate that manyof these elements could ultimately be incorpo-rated in the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Pro-gram. NMFS’ Biological Opinion on operationand configuration of the FCRPS, which accom-panies this Strategy, identifies key researchand monitoring that must be done to validatethe assumptions in the Reasonable and

Prudent Alternative. To the extent practi-cable, the Caucus agencies will work withstates, tribes and the Council to ensure theserequired activities are well integrated into themore broadly-based regional program.

2.2.12 Progress ReportsThe Federal Caucus will report on agency

progress in carrying out recovery actions,including the availability of resources and theagencies’ ability to carry out the Strategy.These reports would also be geared to supportlong-term biological monitoring to assess thecontribution of improvements in each H toimprovements in population growth rates orother biological indicators. In addition, theFederal Caucus will work with the states,tribes, Council and others to develop:

� A process for ensuring the scientificcredibility of the monitoring frameworkthat includes review by the IndependentScience Advisory Board;

� A prioritized budget for research andmonitoring to resolve critical uncertainties.


In 2003, 2005, and 2008, the Caucus willreport on overall progress to date in imple-menting the federal actions, as modified andor updated, presented in Section 3 as actionchecklists for each H.


3. Specific Actions and Benefits for Each H

complement to subbasin assessments andplans, NMFS has also begun a recovery plan-ning effort that will establish population andESU goals for abundance, productivity, distri-bution and diversity. The subbasin and recov-ery plans will then create the priorities forfederal actions and funding.

For tributary habitats on federal land, thefederal land managers will protect existinghigh quality habitat and accelerate restorationin high priority subbasins. In the short term,federal land will be managed under currentprograms that protect important aquatichabitats. That program will be augmented inimportant subbasins by a targeted restorationeffort. In the longer term, federal land on theeast side of the Cascades will be managedunder the Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project (ICBEMP) preferredalternative, which will rely on subbasin andwatershed assessments and plans to targetfurther habitat work. These assessments willintegrate information and findings from theNorthwest Power Planning Council’s program.If for some reason ICBEMP is not finalized ascurrently planned, the interim guidelines,PACFISH and INFISH, will remain in effect,ensuring adequate protection on federal landsfor listed fish. On the west side of the Cas-cades, federal lands are managed under theNorthwest Forest Plan.

Federal agencies will assess mainstemhabitat and implement experimental programsto create more natural habitat areas along thesystem of reservoirs. They will also establish amanagement plan to protect the HanfordReach, home to a healthy core population offall chinook.

For the estuary, the Lower ColumbiaRiver Estuary Program, a partnership betweenEPA, the Corps, and state and local govern-ments, will be the foundation of the recoveryeffort. As part of this program, federal agen-cies will work with state, local, tribal, and

3.1 Habitat ActionsFixing salmon and steelhead habitat is

particularly challenging. These fish rangethrough federal and nonfederal land, forests,farms and cities. A vast number of humanactivities affect their habitat. In addition, veryfew studies have been done that quantitativelylink management actions with habitat quality,and habitat quality with fish production. Yetthere is no doubt fixing habitat is central toany recovery plan. Survival improvements arelikely to have the biggest effect in the firstyear of life (when most of the fish are in thetributaries) and during the transition to saltwater (when the fish are in the estuary).Fixing tributary and estuary habitat is key torecovering the fish and is the centerpiece ofthe Strategy. Actions in the Strategy focus ontributary habitats, both federal and nonfederal;mainstem habitat, estuary habitat, and imple-mentation.

For tributary habitats on nonfederal landsin priority subbasins, the federal agencies willimplement, as available funds permit, actionsthat will have immediate benefits. Theseinclude actions aimed at removing passagebarriers, screening diversions, increasing in-stream flow, restoring water quality andprotecting high quality habitats through thepurchase of land or conservation easementsacross all lines of land ownership.

For long-term actions, the Strategyendorses the Northwest Power PlanningCouncil strategy of conducting subbasinassessments and developing subbasin plansand prioritizing actions based on those plans.The federal agencies have worked with theCouncil to develop an assessment templateand a work plan to have a team of profession-als complete the assessments. Once theassessments are complete sometime in 2001,the federal agencies will participate with stateagencies, local governments, tribes and stake-holders to develop subbasin plans. As a


private partners to acquire or restore thou-sands of acres of estuary habitat over the next5-10 years, creating a Lower Columbia RiverGreenway to benefit migrating fish. Predatorcontrol and improved river flows will beprominent features of efforts to improve theestuary.

The salmon’s vast geographic range spansliterally hundreds of different jurisdictions (seeMap 3). Lack of coordination among thesejurisdictions can undermine the best-laidhabitat protection plans. The BasinwideSalmon Recovery Strategy emphasizes coordi-nation among federal agencies, and betweenthe federal agencies and others. Coordinationwill occur through a federal Habitat Team,which will also provide a basin-level focus andone-stop shopping for states, local govern-ments, tribes and others working to protectand restore habitat. In addition to coordinat-ing federal funding with the subbasin plansadopted by the Council, the team will providetechnical assistance, information on ESA andClean Water Act compliance, and coordinatefederal funding.

Another important aspect of implementa-tion is monitoring and evaluation. The federalagencies have identified critical uncertaintiesthat must be answered to establish an effec-tive habitat program. The Strategy proposes acomprehensive, basinwide monitoring effortthat will address these critical uncertainties.More detail about the recommended actions isin Table 5.

One key to achieving these benefits iscollaboration, which is intrinsic to the pro-posed strategy. The Federal Caucus believesthe Council’s subbasin initiative provides thebest opportunity for multiple jurisdictions toreach agreement on implementing the actions.If collaboration fails, and the recommendedactions do not take place, federal agencieshave authority to pursue the necessary survivalimprovements as suggested by Option 3 of thedraft Plan.

3.1.1 Performance StandardsThe ultimate performance standard for

habitat is fish productivity. However, this willbe difficult to establish for habitat becausesalmon survival improvements from habitatactions cannot be measured in the short term.Even in the long term, measuring progress

toward a biologically-based standard will bechallenging and expensive. Based on ourcurrent understanding of the associationsbetween ecosystem processes and salmonidpopulations, four habitat factors will influenceperformance measures throughout the basin:

� In-stream flows;� amount and timing of sediment inputs to

streams;� riparian conditions that determine water

temperature, bank integrity, wood input,and maintain channel complexity; and

� habitat access.

The federal agencies will develop aninitial set of performance measures based onthese four factors for use in midpoint evalua-tions in 2003, 2005, and 2008.

3.1.2 Immediate ActionsAlthough some of the recommended

actions will take three or more years to put inplace, the Federal Caucus also supports fast-track habitat actions in high-prioritysubbasins, gauged to maximize benefit in theshort term. The Strategy also establishescriteria for other immediate actions. A keycriterion for determining what constitutes anappropriate immediate action will be whetherit results in an immediate benefit to listedspecies. Federal agencies are working withthe Council, tribes, and states to develop andimplement high-priority habitat improvementsof this kind.

3.2 Benefits from Habitat ActionsBy protecting existing high quality

habitat and restoring degraded habitat on apriority basis, the Caucus agencies believe thehabitat element of the Basinwide SalmonRecovery Strategy will have significant measur-able benefits for listed anadromous andresident fish. For each ESU, the Strategyprioritizes subbasins for short-term habitatwork based on potential for improvement inhabitat capacity, degree of federal ownership(an anchor for restoration efforts), and numberof water diversions (where addressing flow,passage and screening problems could produceshort-term benefits). If implemented, theStrategy should result in improving habitatconditions in priority subbasins over the

Map 3 Land Management (on page 49) is available in separate document


Table 5 List of Habitat Actions

Goal Habitat Actions to Meet Goal* Timeframe

■ = Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy Action Year 1 Years 2-5 Years 6-10

● = RPA Action

❖ = Conservation Recommendation

Federal

Develop Recovery Plans Establish recovery objectives, de-listing criteria ■ ■

and recovery measures for the Upper Willamette,

Lower Columbia, and Interior Columbia. (NMFS)

Manage Federal Lands Through ICBEMP’s and the Northwest Forest ■ ■ ■

to Protect Fish Plan’s aquatic strategies, provide a base for

habitat protection (USFS, BLM).

Implement seven watershed restoration initiatives ■ ■

targeting core populations most at risk (USFS, BLM).

Implement multiple-scale assessments and data ■ ■ ■

management systems (USFS, BLM)

Accelerate land acquisition, using LWCF funds ■ ■ ■

prioritizing fish habitat (USFS, BLM).

Protect existing high quality habitat and accelerate ■ ■ ■

restoration in high priority subbasins

Restore Estuary Habitat Facilitate Lower Columbia River Estuary Program ● ■ ● ■ ● ■

implementation (LCREP, EPA).

Improve predator control (including developing a ■ ■

sea bird management plan) (COE, NMFS, FWS).

Secure additional Columbia and Snake ● ■ ● ■

flows (BPA, USBR).

Conduct habitat mapping inventory in early ● ■

2001; develop and implement modeling and

restoration criteria beginning early 2001

(BPA, Corps, LCREP)

Prioritize habitats for protection and ● ■

restoration (2001)(LCREP).

Seek authorization for Lower Columbia River ● ■

Greenway Program (DOI/DOA); Establish

Greenway Habitat Protection Fund to protect

10,000 acres of wetlands; 3,000 acres of upland.

Authorize and fund expanded Corps of ● ■ ● ■

Engineers Restoration Program.

Implement monitoring and evaluation program. ● ■ ● ■ ● ■

Develop conceptual model of estuary ● ■

conditions and fish population structure

and resilience.

Authorize and fund FEMA buybacks of ■ ■ ■

floodplain structures in priority habitats.




● = RPA Action


Restore Tributary Work with states to secure and protect minimum ■ ■ ■

Habitat flows w/federal nexus (FS, BLM).

With the Northwest Power Planning Council, develop ● ■ ● ■ ● ■

subbasin and watershed assessments and plans;

ensure that assessments and plans are coordinated

across nonfederal and federal ownerships

and programs.

Fund technical support for 2001-2006 plan ● ● ●

implementation; identify in annual and 5-year

implementation plan appropriate habitat actions and

implement them.

Fix flow, screening and passage problems in priority ● ■ ● ■ ● ■

subbasins, beginning in 2001 in the Methow, Upper

John Day and Lemhi.

Fund and evaluate innovative approaches to flow ● ■ ● ■

restoration (BPA).

Provide technical assistance to state instream flow ■ ■

work (USGS, USBR).

Support TMDL development and implementation ■ ■

(BPA).

Fund land acquisitions and conservation easements ● ■ ● ■ ● ■

(BPA).

Provide permanent protection for riparian areas in ● ● ●

agricultural areas by supplementing agricultural

incentive programs (BPA, with FSA and NRCS).

Improve Mainstem Assess opportunities for mainstem habitat ● ■

Habitat improvements (BPA).

Implement restoration programs (BPA) ● ■ ● ■

Evaluate opportunities to improve spawning habitat ● ■

in the Ives Island area.

Protect Hanford Reach (FWS, DOE). ■

Provide adequate spawning and rearing flows under ■ ■

Vernita Bar Agreement (FERC)

Comprehensive Implement a comprehensive basinwide ■ ■ ■

Monitoring and monitoring effort that addresses critical

Evaluation uncertainties.

States

Protect & Restore Develop and implement TMDLs for ■ ■

Tributary Habitat anadromous fish tributaries within five years.

Establish in-stream flows for anadromous fish ■ ■

tributaries within five years.

Continue IPC flows for fall chinook chum spawning ■ ■ ■

(COE, USBR).

Support water acquisitions using federal funding. ■ ■ ■

Coordinate TMDL and Water Quantity planning ■ ■ ■

assessments with NPPC program.


course of 10 years. In addition, other immedi-ate measures should improve tributary flows,water quality and riparian conditions in abroader range of subbasins. According to thehabitat analysis, the effects of this actionwould increase salmon and steelhead abun-dance to levels that are within the range ofwhat would be necessary to support recovery.Short-term gains are expected through thefollowing actions:

� Restoring tributary flows. Sufficient flowsallow streams to recover productivity, andmay reconnect important spawning andrearing habitats. Compared to habitatactions such as riparian revegetation orupland restoration, which may take decadesto have significant effects, restoring flowscan quickly improve stream ecology andwater quality. It can also reasonably beexpected to provide juvenile and adult



● = RPA Action


Reform and enforce land use statutes governing ■ ■

growth management, forestry practices, and

agricultural practices (WA Forest & Fish model).

Establish programs to screen all pumps and restore ■ ■

passage at problematic diversions and obstructions.

Restore estuary habitat Facilitate implementation of Lower Columbia River ■ ■

Estuary Program.

Congress

Estuary Habitat Immediately authorize expanded predator controls ■

(MMPA)

Strengthen Lower Columbia River Estuary ■

Program authority.

Estuarine Program support (EPA). ■ ■ ■

Implement the Lower Columbia Greenway Project ■ ■

- Habitat mapping and priorities for protection or

restoration

- Habitat acquisition/protection

- COE habitat restoration

- Monitoring

- Public education and outreach

Immediately authorize expanded COE estuarine ■

restoration project

Tributary Habitat FS/BLM restoration initiatives. ■ ■ ■

Funding

Implementation of ICBEMP, Nortwest Forest Plan ■ ■ ■

or interim guidelines.

Comprehensive flow, passage and diversion ■ ■

(COE, DOI, BPA)

Clean Water Act/Endangered Species Act ■ ■ ■

compliance (EPA).

TMDL technical assistance to states. ■ ■ ■

Non-governmental participation in planning and ■ ■ ■

implementation of watershed solutions

(Federal Habitat Team, NRCS).

Expand on agricultural incentive programs. ● ●

Support Federal Habitat Team (NMFS) ● ■ ● ■ ● ■

Tribes To be determined

*Note: Most recommended actions will require consultation with USFWS and NMFS; these agencies are not listed

separately under individual actions.


passage, as well as juvenile rearing habitat,for listed anadromous and resident fish.

� Screening water diversions. All fish thatenter unscreened diversions are likely to diedue to stranding, predation, impingement, oradverse water quality. About a third of alllegally authorized water diversions in theColumbia River Basin are unscreened; abouttwo-thirds are screened in some fashion; andfewer than 20 percent are screened to NMFScriteria. Screening to NMFS criteria isthought to reduce mortality almost to zero.Screening can therefore immediately reducemortality of listed populations.

� Addressing passage obstructions. On themainstem, thermal blocks, sediment, andlow flows at the confluence sometimesblock tributary access. In the estuary, siltedchannels, dikes, and high culverts preventaccess to spawning, rearing, feeding, andrefugia habitats. In the tributaries,temporary berms, unladdered waterdiversion structures, low road crossings,bridge footings, and culverts can impedemigrating fish. Temporary berms are aparticular problem because they destroyriverbed armor, make stream channels morelikely to degrade, and compoundsedimentation problems. There isimmediate benefit from making habitatmore accessible.

� Protecting currently productive habitat andrestoring outward. The federal agencies puthigh priority on protecting habitat that iscurrently productive, especially if at risk ofbeing degraded. These habitats should serveas anchor points for restoring degradedhabitat and reconnecting spawning andrearing areas systematically.

� Increasing the amount of habitat. Mitigatingactions such as securing additional riparian,wetland, floodplain, inter-tidal, or shallowwater habitats provide immediate benefitsby reducing the predicted decline in thequality of nonfederal habitat. Securinghabitat ensures critical habitats exist forcore ESU populations.

� Improve water quality. Improved waterquality is a key in species recovery. Thereare thousands of impaired streamsthroughout the Columbia Basin. Improvingthe water quality of these streams will becritical in this recovery strategy.

3.3 Harvest ActionsThe Strategy continues the already-tight

restrictions on fishing that have evolved overthe last decade and which now are incorpo-rated in the most recently approved ocean andin-river fishery plans and, where necessaryand effective, reduce harvest impacts further.This includes full implementation of the 1999Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement and manage-ment of all fisheries, ocean and freshwater, tocomply with harvest rate constraints outlinedin the most recent NMFS biological opinions.Additionally, the Caucus proposes an aggres-sive program to further develop selectivefisheries strategies to achieve the twin objec-tives of enabling the harvest of strong stocksand reducing impacts on listed ESUs.

The Federal Caucus recommends thefollowing actions for harvest:

� Constrain fishery harvest rates on listedspecies in the short term, subject to U.S. v.

Oregon processes, at already-reduced levelsfor most ESUs, and pursue opportunities toreduce them further. Manage fisheriesbased on annual abundance and the statusof natural stocks affected by the fisheries.

� Fairly allocate the overall ESA conservationburden being borne by treaty fisheries.

� Expand, develop and/or apply alternative,more selective fishery techniques to reduceimpacts on listed fish and providealternative harvest opportunities,consistent with court-ordered allocation ofharvestable salmon surpluses.

� Develop or restore terminal area fishingopportunities where harvest can occur withminimal or no impact on listed species.

� Develop a menu of options for reducingharvest impacts on listed fish even further,either permanently or temporarily by usingconcepts such as conservation easements,license buyouts, or alternative fishing geardeployment, test the feasibility andeffectiveness of the options, andimplement them where appropriate.

More detail about the recommendedactions is in Table 6.

The objectives of the harvest strategy areto buy time for other recovery programs andmeasures to take effect; preserve at leastsome fishing, particularly for tribal fisheries,


provided that doing so does not undermine theoverall recovery effort; fully implement the1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement; anddevelop a sustainable fishing strategy for thelong term, with particular emphasis on selec-tive fisheries. The biological analyses confirmthat harvest has ongoing effects on the perfor-mance of listed species, in varying amountsdepending on the particular ESU. It alsoconfirms that additional harvest reductions ormoratoria are unlikely, by themselves, to resultin recovery for most ESUs, since harvestimpacts already have been greatly reduced tovery low levels. Conservative harvest manage-

Table 6 List of Harvest Actions

Goal Harvest Actions to Meet Goal* Timeframe


● = RPA Action


Federal

Limit harvest impacts Constrain harvest impacts on listed ESUs to no ■ ■ ■

more than recently established current levels.

Manage mixed stock fisheries on the natural stocks ■ ■ ■

and/or stock groups affected by the fishery (not on

hatchery stocks). (NMFS)

Seek opportunities to further reduce fishing impacts ● ■ ● ■

on listed fish where necessary and effective by

helping the states and tribes develop alternative

fishing techniques and/or locations and by enabling

more selective fisheries and helping to develop the

necessary institutional mechanisms and analytical

capabilities to support management of selective

fisheries (BPA/NMFS/USFWS)

Seek opportunities to increase harvest in ways ● ■ ● ■

that do not harm listed ESUs (NMFS/USFWS)

States

Reduce Harvest Impacts Pursue conservative harvest policies ■ ■

(weak stock management)

Discourage non-selective fisheries and pursue ■ ■

selective fisheries (support mass marking and

other tools and take a lead role in developing

the necessary analytical capabilities to support

management of selective fisheries)

Congress

Funding Provide sufficient funding for managing fisheries ● ● ●

and contributing to the transition to selective

fisheries, and for the 1999 Pacific Salmon

Treaty Agreement.


ment policies, however, are essential for aninterim period while other programs to im-prove survival are put into effect. Over thelong run, harvest constraints cannot be reliedon to solve the fundamental problems thatcause natural salmon productivity to decline.

Strong steps have been taken over thepast 20 years to end chronic overfishingpractices. Mixed stock fisheries are nowgenerally managed for abundance, and theneeds of natural fish are given priority overhatchery fish when determining appropriateharvest rates. Since the listing of many spe-cies under the ESA, harvest has been reduced


even further in all fisheries affecting listedstocks. Given that these reductions havealready occurred, it is unlikely that furtherreductions are going to yield significant addi-tional benefits to listed species. However,continuing constraints on harvest at or nearthese now-reduced levels will remain animportant part of the recovery effort duringthe rebuilding period.

Therefore, the Federal Caucus recom-mends constraining harvest rates on listedsalmon and steelhead at or, if necessary andeffective for survival and recovery, below theircurrently reduced rates for 10 years or until thestatus of listed fish can support harvest in-creases. In addition, for those ESUs whereharvest remains a significant source of mortal-ity, further reductions of incidental take oflisted species will be pursued through addi-tional measures, possibly including but notlimited to such measures as license buy-backs,gear changes, additional time and area restric-tions, and selective fishing. To offset theeconomic consequences of capping harvestrates and securing additional reductions, theFederal Caucus recommends fishery managersdevelop alternative fishing opportunities inplaces and manners that are benign to listedfish.

The Strategy attempts to balance theconservation of at-risk fish with the federalgovernment’s trust obligation to providemeaningful treaty harvest, both today and inthe future. Where tribal fishing is involved, werecommend accepting a level of risk that isgreater than the biology might strictly imply.Specifically, some populations are at suchcritically low levels that biological analysissupports a strong argument that all harvestshould be eliminated (e.g., Snake River spring/summer chinook; upper Columbia springchinook). Nevertheless, the Strategy recom-mends an acknowledgment that there is an“irreducible core” of tribal harvest that is sovital to the treaty obligation that the federalgovernment will not eliminate it. For otherpopulations, the biological analysis shows theycan withstand some level of harvest. Whentribal fishing is involved in those cases, theStrategy again recommends allowing a level oftribal harvest that respects the trust obligation,even though it means accepting some addi-tional risk and slowing the pace of recovery.

Finally, the Strategy also recognizes thepriority legal standing of the tribal fishingright; this is reflected in fishing regimes thatresult in tribal fishery impacts on listed fishbeing higher than in non-tribal fisheries. TheStrategy also emphasizes that in some situa-tions, tribal catch could be substantiallyincreased if the tribes were to expand their useof selective fishing methods. It also recog-nizes that if the implementation of combinedactions addressing all life stages produces afavorable response in salmon productivity,treaty fishing in general could increase in thefuture.

3.3.1 Performance StandardsThe specific harvest constraints and

specific compliance with the fishery plans asdescribed in Volume 2 for each fishery group(ocean and freshwater) comprise the perfor-mance measures for harvest. For some listedESUs, a specific harvest rate target, schedule,or constraint is identified for a particular set offisheries. For example:

� U.S. fisheries south of Canada must complywith the Magnuson-Stevens FisheriesManagement and Conservation Act and theadopted Fishery Management Plan coveringsalmon fisheries off Washington, Oregonand California, as well as with biologicalopinions issued by NMFS that cap impactson Snake River fall chinook.

� Similarly, biological opinions issued byNMFS cap the in-river fall season fisheriesthat incidentally harvest Snake River fallchinook and intermingled listed steelhead.

� Fisheries affecting chinook salmon must bemanaged in compliance with the newPacific Salmon Treaty regime, whichincludes a set of calculable harvestconstraints that will be routinely monitoredover time.

� For both ocean and in-river fisheries, theexisting fishery management institutionsannually provide reports that contain theharvest metrics necessary to assessperformance over time relative to therecommendations contained herein.


3.4 Benefits from Harvest ActionsThe Strategy recommends that harvest

impacts on listed fish be constrained at orbelow current levels in the ocean and infreshwater, including tribal, commercial, andrecreational fisheries. The changes in growthrates identified by CRI as necessary to achievesurvival and recovery assume that harvestimpacts will continue at current levels. TheStrategy contemplates further negotiatedreductions, subject to U.S. v. Oregon pre-cesses, in harvest impacts based on increasingselectivity in fishing practices, but thesepotential future reductions are not assumed inthe analysis. If they were achieved, theywould benefit productivity immediately andlikely reduce extinction risks for affectedESUs, thus enhancing the overall recoveryeffort.

3.5 Hatchery ActionsAlthough there is considerable debate

regarding the extent and nature of the effectsthat hatchery fish have on natural populations,and thus the appropriate role of hatcheries, itis clear that recovery cannot be achievedsimply by releasing more hatchery-producedfish in natural production areas, regardless oftheir ancestry or how they are produced.Hatcheries cannot provide the productiveconditions necessary to restore self-sustainingpopulations in their natural habitats. Althoughmuch progress has been achieved in recentyears in reducing the negative effects ofhatcheries, some artificial programs andfacilities still need substantial reforms toreduce unwanted effects.

The overarching goal of hatchery reformsis to reduce or eliminate adverse genetic,ecological, and management effects of artifi-cial production on natural production whileretaining and enhancing the potential ofhatcheries to contribute to basinwide objec-tives for conservation and recovery. The goalstill includes providing fishery benefits toachieve mitigation mandates, but now mustalso include an increased emphasis on conser-vation and recovery, a mission for which manyolder hatchery programs were not designed.Reforms of existing hatchery programs andfacilities that began several years ago must beaccelerated and broadened to encompass avariety of new and improved artificial produc-

tion techniques that include supplementation,captive broodstock, and other strategiesdesigned to minimize the risk of artificialproduction and/or maximize its mitigation andconservation benefits.

These reforms require substantial andcostly changes in existing programs andfacilities, beginning with a rigorous review oftheir goals and objectives. An implicit butfundamental premise of the approach calledfor here is that artificial production programscan be operated consistent with and comple-mentary to the goals of the ESA while stillachieving fishery mitigation objectives. Be-cause there exists a range of scientific andpolicy opinions regarding the purpose andappropriate application of artificial productionin specific circumstances, a variety of strate-gies, coupled with an adaptive managementapproach is warranted.

The Federal Caucus recommends thefollowing actions for hatcheries:

� Develop NMFS-approved Hatchery andGenetic Management Plans for allhatcheries within the first 3 years.

� Using funding from BPA, congressionalappropriations, and other sources asappropriate, implement needed reforms tohatchery programs, operations, andfacilities identified by the HGMP planningprocess as necessary to reduce deleteriousimpacts on listed fish, maximize positivebenefits for recovery, and fulfill mitigationresponsibilities.

� Use conservation hatchery practices andsafety net facilities on a selective andtemporary basis to augment weakpopulations and prevent extinctions whileother recovery efforts take effect.

� Transfer operation of certain hatcheryproduction programs or ownership ofcertain hatcheries to tribes, subject toapproved HGMPs, to facilitate co-management and tribal objectives.

More detail about the recommendedactions is in Table 7.

The hatchery option recommended by theFederal Caucus has two primary components.First is the reduction and/or elimination of thenegative impacts caused by traditional produc-tion hatcheries on wild stocks. Second is theselective use of conservation hatcheries, using


genetically appropriate broodstock, to stabilizeand/or bolster weak populations. Using conser-vation hatcheries to support weak stocks willprovide a hedge against extinction risks in thenear term and also may provide recoverybenefits to listed populations.

Such reforms will be pursued in thecontext of Hatchery and Genetic ManagementPlans. The HGMP is a tool for defining goalsand objectives of a particular hatchery, and itsrelationship to prioritized basin objectives,including harvest opportunities and wild stockperformance. Specifically, each HGMP should

ensure that genetic broodstock selected isappropriate, that it minimizes the potential foradverse ecological effects on wild populations,and that it is integrated into basinwide strate-gies to meet objectives of all Hs. Perhapsmost importantly, each HGMP will include arigorous monitoring and evaluation componentto ensure facility goals and objectives arebeing met.

Minimizing adverse genetic and ecologicaleffects of production hatcheries will likelyyield a measurable biological benefit to wildstocks, although it will be difficult to demon-

Table 7 List of Hatchery Actions

Goal Hatchery Actions to Meet Goal* Timeframe


● = RPA Action


Federal

Reform Production Develop approved HGMPs for all hatchery ● ■ ● ■

Facilities facilities in the Columbia Basin.

Implement HGMPs at federal, state and tribal ● ● ●

facilities by making necessary operational

improvements and capital changes in programs

and facilities.

Protect weak stocks Expand the safety net program for the most ● ● ●

(listed populations) at-risk populations; use a variety of conservation

hatchery techniques to aid the recovery effort.

(NMFS/BPA/USFWS)

Reduce uncertainties; Implement aggressive M&E programs to reduce ■ ■ ■

assess performance uncertainties, e.g., hatchery/wild fish interactions,

the effectiveness of hatchery spawners, etc.,

and assess performance of conservation efforts.

Increase tribal Implement transfers of facilities or ■ ■

co-management. responsibility for operation of certain production

programs subject to approved HGMPs for up to

four hatcheries.

States

Reduce Hatchery Prepare and implement HGMPs for state-run ■ ■

Impacts hatcheries.

Support safety net activities. ■ ■ ■

Congress

Reform Hatchery Fund reforms of Mitchell Act and Lower Snake ■ ■

Programs Hatchery programs.

Provide safety net Fund aggressive safety net program. ■ ■ ■

Fund aggressive monitoring and evaluation of ■ ■

artificial production effects.



strate the relationship in the near term. Byusing adaptive management techniques, it willbe possible to measure the benefits accruingto wild stocks through reform of productionfacilities over time.

Subject to approved HGMP’s, supplemen-tation of natural populations with hatcheryfish will be used under certain controlledcircumstances to prevent extinction andcontribute to recovery. It is one of severaltechniques that will be used in the safety netprogram. In this respect, it will be preferredover captive broodstock programs, whichshould be used only for the most at-riskpopulations because of their very high costsand uncertain effectiveness. Supplementationcan also be appropriate for re-establishingpopulations in streams where the indigenousfish were extirpated, or where there are nolisted stocks and the goal is to enhance treatyand non-treaty fishing opportunities.

Certain hatcheries now operated byothers will be transferred to tribal manage-ment or co-managed with tribes and will beoperated under new supplementation proto-cols, combined with local habitat efforts.Over time, fishing opportunities provided bythese programs, in combination with selectiveharvest techniques, could take pressure offmixed stock mainstem fisheries.

3.5.1 Performance StandardsPerformance standards will be estab-

lished for hatcheries and will be incorporatedin approved HGMPs. Standards will be devel-oped in the following areas and measured overtime for results:

� Genetic Introgression: Local, within-ESUbroodstock is used in all propagationprograms within critical habitat, unlessassociated with an isolated program.Hatchery broodstock used insupplementation programs represent thegenetic and life-history characteristics ofthe natural population(s) they are intendedto supplement. Non-isolated hatcheryprograms regularly infuse natural-origin fishinto the broodstock as described in anapproved HGMP.

� Hatchery-Origin Fish Straying: For naturally-spawning populations in critical habitats,

non-ESU hatchery-origin fish do not exceed5 percent; ESU hatchery-origin fish do notexceed 5–30 percent, unless specified in anHGMP for a conservation propagationprogram.

� Marking: Hatchery populations are properlymarked so as not to mask the status of thenatural-origin populations or the capacityand proper functioning of critical habitat.

� Viable and Critical Population Thresholds:Hatchery operations do not appreciablyslow a listed population from attaining itsviable population abundance. Hatcheryoperations do not reduce listed populationsthat are at, or below, critical populationabundance.

� Harvest Effects: Federal hatchery mitigationfish produced for harvest do not causesubsequent overharvest of listed stockssuch that their recovery is appreciablyslowed. Harvesting reforms areimplemented to maintain and enhanceharvest of mitigation fish in considerationof the constrained productivity of listedstocks caused by the FCRPS and otherdevelopment.

� Hatchery Planning: Hatchery goals andobjectives, operational protocols,monitoring and evaluation, anticipatedeffects, and relationship to other criticalmanagement and planning processes arefully described in approved HGMPs.

� Research: Scientific knowledge is increasingon the effects of hatchery supplementationand captive broodstock programs on thesurvival and recovery of natural-originpopulations. The quality and survival ofhatchery supplementation fish is increasing.

3.5.2 Immediate ActionsCertain hatchery reforms and conserva-

tion actions must proceed on a priority basis.The Federal Caucus will work with the states,tribes, the Northwest Power Planning Council,the FCRPS Action Agencies, the Office ofManagement and Budget, and the Congress toprioritize and accelerate funding and imple-mentation of the reform measures identified inhatchery biological opinions and HGMPs toensure these actions are implemented asexpeditiously as possible.


3.6 Benefits from Hatchery ActionsWhile the actual benefits of hatchery

reforms and safety net hatchery actions canonly be quantified over time through rigorousmonitoring and evaluation, the Caucus agen-cies are confident that they will contributesignificantly to the overall recovery effort.Short-term benefits would include:

� Preserving the genetic legacy of the most at-risk populations by taking advantage of thehatcheries’ ability to increase numbers offish while other factors limitingproductivity are addressed.

� Limiting the adverse effects of hatcherypractices on ESA-listed populations byinstituting prioritized hatchery reforms.

� Reducing critical uncertainties aboutinteractions between hatchery-raised fishand wild fish, status of natural populations,and the effectiveness of hatchery-originspawners.

� Enabling greater use of selective fisheries toreduce fishery impacts on listed fish whileachieving fishery objectives.

3.7 Hydropower ActionsThe Federal Caucus recommends the

following actions in the hydropower system(see Table 8 and Map 4):

� Improved passage: Implement biologicalopinion passage improvements, includingmore effective spill programs and specificpassage upgrades for adult and juvenile fishat individual dams.

� Improved Flows: Implement biologicalopinion flow operations to provide waterconditions beneficial to migrating juvenileand adults fish. Potential improvements inCanadian flows with up to 2 million acrefeet (MAF) over time. Potentialimprovements from the Snake Rivercontingent upon ongoing discussions.Flood control study to allow further flowimprovements. Implementation of floodcontrol adjustments to further minimizerisks to listed resident fish from salmonflows.

� Fish transportation: Continue spread therisk approach; significantly reduce trucking;continue to study delayed mortality issue.

� Water Quality: Measures to improve waterquality while meeting fish passageobjectives, and development of a long-termWater Quality Improvement Plan fordissolved gas and temperature.

� Formally evaluate progress 3, 5, and 8 yearsafter implementation begins.

More detail about the recommendationsis in Table 8.

3.7.1 Performance StandardsThe ultimate performance standard for

the federal hydropower system is survival ofjuvenile and adult fish through the migrationcorridor. A survival performance standardmust also take into account indirect mortalityfish may suffer after leaving the migrationcorridor as a result of their passage experi-ence. The Strategy establishes survival stan-dards through the hydropower system that theCaucus agencies believe are achievable withthe present system in place. Because not allmortality associated with the system can beeliminated, the Strategy also establishesexpectations for off-site mitigation. The off-site mitigation goals are described more fullyin NMFS’ biological opinion on operation andconfiguration of the system, and are includedin Volume 2 of this document. By fundingprograms and actions that achieve these goals,the federal agencies that operate and marketpower from the hydropower system willsubstantially contribute to the actions thatneed to be taken in the other sectors.

� Achieve system performance survivalstandards for each ESU in accordance withthe 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion.

� Carry out or fund off-site actions sufficientto mitigate for mortality caused by thehydropower system, or sufficient to achievesurvival and recovery of the ESUs, togetherwith the other actions in this Strategy.

With such standards in place, the perfor-mance of FCRPS projects will be measured forprogress in 2003, 2005, and 2008. If the stan-dards are met, then such projects shouldcontinue to operate with the establishedparameters. If, however, the standards are notmet, either through system survival rates or incombination with off-site mitigation, then it


Table 8 List of Hydropower Actions

Goal Hydropower Actions to Meet Goal* Timeframe


● = RPA Action


Federal

Additional Capital Implement biological opinion passage improve- ● ■ ● ■

Improvements at dams ments, including specific passage upgrades for

(COE/BPA, EPA) juvenile fish at individual dams. Improvements

vary by location, including relocation of bypass

outfalls, refined screens and bypass facilities,

development of surface bypass, spillway modifi-

cations and more effective spill, improved turbine

operations and design, predator management,

mainstem and estuarine habitat.

Conduct advance planning for possible future ● ●

actions, including dam breaching.

Improve operations for Improved Flows: improved flow operations to ● ●

fish (BPA, COE, USBR) provide water conditions beneficial to migrating

juvenile and adult fish. Improvements in Canadian

flows with a potential of up to 2 MAF over time.

Flood control study to allow further flow

improvements. Implementation of flood control

adjustments to reduce risks to listed resident fish

from salmon flows.

Fish transportation: Continue “spread the risk” ● ●

approach; reduce trucking; continue to study

delayed mortality issue.

Water Quality: Measures to improve water quality ● ●

while meeting fish passage objectives, and

development of a Water Quality Improvement Plan

for dissolved gas and temperature.

Improve Nonfederal Complete HCP for Mid-Columbia Dams. ■

Hydro (NMFS, FERC)

Use relicensing and ESA consultation to improve ■ ■ ■

flows, passage, etc. at nonfederal dams on the

Deschutes, Lewis, Cowlitz, and other basins

(FERC).

Apply anadromous fish priorities to re-licensing ■ ■ ■

for other nonfederal dams.

Settlement of Snake River adjudication. ■

Improve existing habitat and fully evaluate passage ■ ■

opportunities through relicensing and Section 7

consultation for Idaho Power Company dams.

Performance Reviews Conduct 5- and 10-year review of performance ● ■ ● ■ ● ■

standards and implementation progress.

Congress

Reduce Hydropower Fund full COE capital and O&M programs. ■ ■ ■

Impacts

Authorize systemwide flood control review. ■

Support BPA off-site mitigation strategy. ■ ■ ■

Fund NMFS comprehensive monitoring and ■ ■ ■

evaluation program


Map 4 Dams in the Columbia River Basin (on page 61) is available in separate document


will be clear the projects in question cannotoperate without jeopardizing and preventingrecovery of listed ESUs. In this case, theproject operator will have to consult onadditional actions that could include projectreconfiguration.

For purposes of the 5- and 8-year reviews,the biological opinion establishes three sepa-rate tests related to the annual populationgrowth rate, and a fourth test related toabundance.

The first test is whether the annualpopulation growth rate for listed ESUs isgreater in 2005 and in 2008 than the “baseperiod” value today. This test will compareproductivity currently with the same value in2005, and again in 2008. In each case, the testis “passed” if productivity has increased. If thenewer value were lower, then additionalreviews and actions would be triggered asdescribed in Section 9.5 of the FCRPS Biologi-cal Opinion.

The second test is whether in 2005 and2008, the annual population growth rate isgreater than or equal to the projected growthrate based on actions taken in the 1995 bio-logical opinion, reductions in harvest thatoccurred after the base period, and the sur-vival standards in the Mid-Columbia HabitatConservation Plan. This tests whether thepositive results assumed in the current biologi-cal opinion have been realized. This test willcompare “estimated current” species produc-tivity in 2005 and 2008 with actual productiv-ity. If the actual measure is greater, the test ispassed. If it is smaller, then additional reviewsand actions would be triggered as described inSection 9.5 of the biological opinion.

The third test will compare populationgrowth rates in 2005 and 2008 against the ratesneeded to achieve the recovery. The projec-tions must meet or exceed the levels necessaryto achieve the 48-year recovery criteria. If not,additional review, and possibly additionalactions, would be triggered as described inSection 9.5 of the biological opinion.

The fourth test, a true safety net test, willinclude a simple comparison of stock size(“abundance”) against current levels. Specifi-cally, the test will compare the annual adultreturns of wild fish for each ESU and popula-tion against the present 5-year mean. Twoconsecutive annual returns below this level

will trigger a concern that a critical populationthreshold may have been crossed. Recoveryplanning and other scientific informationavailable at the time of the 5-year evaluationwill provide a basis for additional reviews andactions as described in Section 9.5 of thebiological opinion.

3.7.2 Immediate ActionsColumbia River Measures – To achieve

a more normative river, significant amounts ofadditional water targeted to enhance flowsduring fish migration are needed. Workingcooperatively with Canadian officials to findmutually-beneficial arrangements is key. Near-term arrangements could result in additionalwater to boost summer flows and enhanceestuarine conditions. Mid-term (5-year) ar-rangements are targeted at additional summerflow augmentation, which could not onlyenhance water quality but could also signifi-cantly boost the ability to meet July andAugust flow targets.

Additionally, significant changes will bemade to improve in-stream fish passage andwater quality by modifying federal dam struc-tures and operations. These changes will varyby project, but may include improvements inboth juvenile and adult fish passage facilities,surface bypass, flow deflectors, enhanced spillmanagement, and reduction of adult fallback.

A mainstem habitat program will also beinitiated. Using techniques based on water-shed assessment and planning, experimentalprojects to improve reservoir habitat condi-tions and riverine function will be developedand implemented in the next few years.

Integral to the planning and developmentof such proposed changes is the need toidentify and take into consideration culturallyimportant resources at the affected dams andreservoirs.

Recognizing that additional monitoringand evaluation may point to the need forfurther changes, further evaluation of configu-ration modifications at John Day and McNarydams may be necessary if the ESUs do notrespond to the Strategy. Because this wouldrequire congressional concurrence, NMFSwould propose working in advance with thestates, tribes, and the Northwest delegation toidentify specific performance criteria andprotocols to guide the studies.


A review of systemwide flood controlrequirements will also be conducted to deter-mine whether more flexibility can be securedin managing flow augmentation. A shift inflood control at federal projects, includingLibby and Hungry Horse, is proposed. TheFederal Caucus agencies will be consultingwith tribes and states on these shifts, as wellas with Canada.

Finally, while these actions will generallybenefit all fish and wildlife species on theColumbia River by enhancing flows, riverinefunction, water quality and estuarine condi-tions, careful consideration of reservoir opera-tions is needed. The intent of such an analysiswould be to ensure that salmon measures donot disproportionately harm ESA-listed (bulltrout, white sturgeon), and non-listed residentspecies and historic properties.

Flow Augmentation – Since 1993, theUSBR has annually supplied 427 kaf of waterfrom its reservoir and other sources to aug-ment streamflows in the Snake and Columbiarivers during the juvenile fall chinook salmonmigration season. Through ongoing negotia-tions with stakeholders in Idaho, the USBR isseeking to increase the supplies of wateravailable for this purpose. Such water sourceswould increase the probability of being able todeliver 427 kaf each year and could provideadditional water, when available from willingsellers. The exact amounts that could beavailable from these sources for flow augmen-tation will vary annually with water supply andthe level of access that might be acquiredthrough these negotiations. Any future deci-sion to seek congressional authorization tobreach the four major federal dams on thelower Snake River will be guided by scientifi-cally-focused performance standards for fishpassage and survival. The performance stan-dards and accompanying protocols will guidedecisions for interim dam operations andmodifications.

Although the Strategy does not includebreaching the four lower Snake River dams atthis time, the Caucus agencies will prepare forthe possibility that breaching could become anecessary contingency. The Departments ofCommerce and the Interior will develop, andsubmit for independent review, an economicand cultural mitigation plan for implementa-tion of the Strategy and possible additionalactions to avoid jeopardizing the continued

existence of threatened and endangeredsalmon. In developing this mitigation plan,the Departments of Commerce and Interiormay adopt BPA’s Fish and Wildlife Implementa-tion Plan EIS to aid their development of thespecific social and economic analyses. Usingthe BPA programmatic EIS process to themaximum extent practicable, the mitigationplan will be developed in coordination withthe Action Agencies (including the Corpsproject management plan to reevaluate moreaggressive hydropower-related actions), theNPPC, and relevant federal, state and tribalagencies and the interested public.

These actions will reduce the timeneeded to seek congressional authorization forbreach, and thus reduce the time needed forpossible implementation, thereby avoidingrisks of delay should breach later become apreferred approach. Finally, the federalagencies will continue to evaluate the fishtransportation program in order to determinethe significance of delayed mortality.

Nonfederal Hydropower – The FederalCaucus recommends the following actions inthe nonfederal hydropower system:

� Nonfederal mainstem Columbia River dams:complete habitat conservation plans underdevelopment for Chelan and Douglas, andexecute collaborative process with GrantCounty to lay groundwork for re-licensingof mid-Columbia projects.

� Nonfederal mainstem Snake River dams:pursue collaborative process to prepare forre-licensing of Idaho Power projects.

� Nonfederal tributary hydropower projects:address the needs of listed species (e.g.,flows, passage, survival improvements,hatchery reforms) on coordinated basisthrough customary FERC process and ESAconsultation.

For nonfederal dams on the mainstemColumbia, the Federal Caucus proposes toimplement the provisions and performancestandards of the Mid-Columbia Habitat Conser-vation Plan to address additional improvementin juvenile and adult survival. The standardsmust assure a high likelihood of survival and amoderate to high likelihood of recovery overtime, taking into account actions in the otherHs. Ideally, meeting standards in all Hs wouldreduce human-caused hydropower impacts to


the point at which listed ESUs face less than a5 percent risk of extinction over 100 years.

With respect to the Idaho Power dams onthe Snake River, which are currently up forrelicensing, a specific mitigation program,which will be subject to ESA consultation, isstill under study and development. In additionto these, there is a substantial number ofminor nonfederal hydropower projects in thebasin that influence the survival and recoveryof salmon and steelhead and other aquaticspecies. Performance improvements for theseprojects will be sought through ESA consulta-tion on each project’s relicensing process.These performance improvements will bebased on the nonfederal hydropower project’sportion of the population growth rate neces-sary to achieve survival and recovery. Thestandards may range from aggressive improve-ments over the status quo, to levels that reflectthe best estimate of survival rates if hydro-power impacts were completely eliminated.

If a nonfederal hydropower project orsystem cannot meet its performance standards,flexibility will be provided for the operator toprovide additional mitigation off-site to makeup the difference. If the standards are notmet, either through direct project survivalrates or in combination with off-site mitiga-tion, then it will be clear the projects inquestion cannot operate without jeopardizingand preventing recovery of listed ESUs. In thiscase, the project operator will have to consulton additional actions that could includeproject reconfiguration.

3.8 Benefits from Hydropower ActionsThe federal hydropower system will be

operated under a set of specific, aggressivehydropower actions that NMFS has deter-mined, on the basis of available scientificinformation and professional judgment, willachieve hydropower performance standards.Most of the measures are aimed at improvingpassage survival through federal dams andreservoirs through changes in project opera-tions and improvements in project configura-tion. NMFS’ best estimate of the additionalimprovement in adult and juvenile survival

levels associated with these measures ismodest and accrues primarily to in-rivermigrants and primarily in the lower ColumbiaRiver. These benefits are described on anumerical basis in Volume 2.

In general, immediate benefits are ex-pected through improved flows, improvedpassage, enhanced spill, steadily increasing theproportion of barged versus trucked summerjuvenile migrants, and mainstem habitatimprovements. For the long term, the programfocuses on understanding and addressing thefactors contributing to mortality within thehydropower system.

� Improved flows. In particular, summerflows are lower than desired, and flowtargets are not met in many runoffconditions. Near-terms actions, such asadditional flows from select reservoirs(Canadian reservoirs and draft of BanksLake), contribute to greater probability ofmeeting summer flow objectives.

� Improved spill. Additional spill andrefinements to spill patterns provide near-term opportunity to increase juvenile fishsurvival at some dams. Additional spillprovides relief from turbine-relatedmortality while other actions are developed.

� Transportation. For spring migrants,preliminary data suggests that the in-riversurvival may be similar to that oftransportation during the early spring. Ifthis trend persists, more fish should be leftto migrate in-river during April, postponingthe start of transportation to May. Forsummer migrants, most transported juvenilemigrants are trucked as opposed to barged.To reduce any uncertainties about potentialadverse effects of trucking, greater relianceon barging can be initiated immediately.

� Mainstem habitat improvements. Themainstem migration corridor may haveuntapped potential for developing morefunctional habitat attributes associated withfish survival. Further reductions inpredation by birds and fishes can beachieved through focused habitatmodifications and changes to in-riverstructures.


4. Glossary and Acronyms

Assessment TeamFERC Federal Energy Regulatory

CommissionFGE Fish Guidance EfficiencyFSA Farm Services AdministrationFOTG Fish Operations Technical GroupFPE Fish Passage EfficiencyFWP Columbia River Basin Fish and

Wildlife ProgramHCP Habitat Conservation PlanHGMP Hatchery Genetic Management

PlanHMU Habitat Management UnitsHUC Hydrologic Unit CodeH-VSP Habitat conditions to support

viable salmon populationsICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management ProjectIHOT Integrated Hatchery Operations

TeamINFISH USFS interim strategies for

managing fish-producingwatersheds in eastern Oregon andWashington, Idaho, and portions ofNevada.

IPCo Idaho Power CompanyIRC Integrated Rule CurveISAB Independent Scientific Advisory

BoardISG Independent Scientific Group

(formerly Scientific Review Group)ISRP Independent Science Review PanelJBS Juvenile Bypass Systemkaf 1000 acre feetKcfs 1000 cubic feet per secondLSRFS Lower Snake River Feasibility

StudyMAF Million acre feetMOA Memorandum of AgreementMOU Memorandum of UnderstandingMPI Matrix of Pathways and IndicatorsM&E Monitoring and EvaluationNATURES Natural Rearing StrategiesNEPA National Environmental Policy Act

AcronymsA-FISH Anadromous Fish AppendixAPR Artificial Production ReviewBA Biological AssessmentBGS Behavioral Guidance SystemBIA Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.

Department of InteriorBLM Bureau of Land Management, U.S.

Department of InteriorBMP Best Management PracticesBO Biological OpinionBPA Bonneville Power AdministrationCBFWA Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife

AuthorityCD Compact discCOE Corps of EngineersCREP Conservation Reserve

Enhancement ProgramCRFMP Columbia River Fish Management

PlanCRI Cumulative Risk InitiativeCRISP Columbia River Salmon Passage

(Model)CRITFC Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

CommissionCWT Coded Wire TagD Differential Delayed Transport

MortalityDOI U.S. Department of InteriorDREW Drawdown Regional Economic

WorkgroupEDT Ecosystem Diagnosis and

TreatmentEIS Environmental Impact StatementEPA Environmental Protection AgencyESA Endangered Species ActESBS Extended Length Submersible

Barrier ScreenESU Evolutionarily Significant UnitFCRPS Federal Columbia River Power

SystemFEMA Federal Emergency Management

AgencyFEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management


NHPA National Historic Preservation ActNMFS National Marine Fisheries ServiceNPPC Northwest Power Planning CouncilNRC National Research CouncilNRCS Natural Resources Conservation

ServicePAC Provincial Advisory CouncilPACFISH USFS and BLM interim strategies

for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in easternOregon and Washington, Idaho, andportions of California.

PATH Plan for Analyzing and TestingHypotheses

PFC Properly Functioning (Habitat)Conditions

PFMC Pacific Fisheries ManagementCouncil

PIT Passive Induced TransponderPST Pacific Salmon TreatyPUD Public Utility DistrictQAR Quantitative Analysis ReportRAC Regional Advisory CouncilROD Record of DecisionRPA Reasonable and Prudent

AlternativeSAR Smolt-to-Adult ReturnSASSI Salmon and Steelhead Stock

InventorySBC Surface Bypass and CollectionSCT System Configuration TeamSDEIS Supplemental Draft EISSIMPAS2 NMFS Spreadsheet ModelSOR System Operation ReviewSPS Significant Population SegmentSRBA Snake River Basin AdjudicationSTS Submersible Traveling ScreenSWAM Salmonid Watershed Assessment

ModelTMDL Total Maximum Daily LoadTMT Technical Management TeamTRT Technical Recovery TeamTSP Turbine Survival ProgramUSBR U.S. Bureau of ReclamationUSDA U.S. Department of AgricultureUSDI U.S. Department of InteriorUSFS U.S. Forest ServiceUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife

ServiceVAR Q Variable QVBS Vertical Barrier ScreenVSP Viable Salmonid PopulationWDF Washington Department of

FisheriesWQIT Water Quality Improvement TeamWSC Watershed Council

Technical TermsAction Agencies – The federal agencies thatoperate or market power from the FederalColumbia River Power System, namely BPA,Corps and USBR.

Adaptive management - Feedback based onknowledge or data generated by monitoringand evaluation actions, of the effects or resultsof an implemented action. The informationand data are purposefully collected and usedimprove future management plans and actions.

Adfluvial - Possessing a life history trait ofmigrating between lakes or rivers and streams.

Adult fallback - Adult salmonids that swim ordrift back downstream through thepowerhouse or spillway of a dam after passingupstream of the facilities and must pass thedam a second time in order to successfullycomplete their migration.

Alevin - The developmental life stage ofyoung salmonids and trout that are betweenthe egg and fry stage. The alevin has not

absorbed its yolk sac and has not emergedfrom the spawning gravels.

Allocation percentage - Division of the fishresource among harvesters and needs forreproduction.

Anadromous Fish - Fish that hatch and rearin fresh water, migrate to the ocean (saltwater) to grow and mature, and migrate backto fresh water to spawn and reproduce.

Anthropogenic – Of, relating to, or resultingfrom the influence of human beings on nature.

Artificial production - Spawning, incubating,hatching or rearing fish in a hatchery or otherfacility constructed for fish production.

Artificial Production Review (APR) - TheNorthwest Power Planning document thatrecommends how to use of fish hatcheries inthe Columbia River Basin.

Artificial propagation - Any assistanceprovided by man in the reproduction of Pacificsalmon. This assistance includes, but is notlimited to, spawning and rearing in hatcheries,


stock transfers, creation of spawning habitat,egg bank programs, captive broodstockprograms, and cryopreservation of gametes.

Artificial selection - Assistance provided byman in the determination and selection of thegenetic fitness of an individual of a speciesfor artificial fish production.

At-risk Fish Stocks - Stocks of anadromoussalmon and trout that have been identified byprofessional societies, fish managementagencies, and in the scientific literature asbeing in need of special managementconsideration because of low or decliningpopulations.

At-risk Populations - Fish, wildlife, andplant populations that have been identified byprofessional societies, fish managementagencies, and in the scientific literature asbeing in need of special managementconsideration because of low or decliningpopulations.

Augmentation - The practice of rearing andreleasing artificially propagated salmon andsteelhead to enhance natural populationlevels.

Augmentation (of stream flow) - Increasingstream flow under normal conditions, byreleasing storage water from reservoirs.

Authorities (tribal government) - The rightand power which an officer has in the exerciseof a public function to compel obedience tohis lawful commands.

Bank configuration – The contour and thefunctional arrangement of the vegetative andsoil materials that form and delimit the streamchannel from the surrounding land.

Bank integrity - This generally refers to thestructural integrity of a bank or how well aparticular bank resists erosion.

Base stream flow(s) - The flow resultingprecipitation that percolates to the groundwater and slowly moves through the substrateto a channel. In contrast, stormflow isprecipitation that reached the channel over ashort time frame by surface or undergroundroutes.

Biological Community - A naturallyoccurring, distinctive group of differentorganisms which inhabit a commonenvironment, interact with each other, and arerelatively independent of other groups.

Biological Potential - The ability fordepressed stocks of fish to experienceproduction levels consistent with its availablehabitat and within the natural variations insurvival for the stock.

Broodstock, captive breeding - Adult fishmaintained in captivity, used to propagate thesubsequent generation of hatchery fish.

Broodstock, wild - Adult fish harvested fromindigenous populations used to propagate thesubsequent generation of hatchery fish.

Bypass systems - Juvenile salmonid bypasssystems consist of screens lowered intoturbine intakes to divert fish away fromturbines at hydroelectric dams. Bypassed fishare either returned directly to the river belowthe dam or into barges and trucks for transportto a release site downstream from BonnevilleDam. PIT-tag detectors identify all PIT-taggedfish passing through the bypass systems. Inaddition, the systems are equipped withsubsampling capabilities that allow hands-onenumeration and examination of a portion ofthe collection for coded-wire tags (CWT),brands, species composition, injuries, etc.Recovery information at bypass systems isused to develop survival estimates, travel timeestimates, and run timing; to identify problemareas within the bypass system; and as part ofthe basis for flow management decisionsduring the juvenile migrations.

Capacity (landscape) – The upper limit inthe number of organisms that an environmentcan support due to finite amounts of space,food, and other needed resources. Capacityregulates population responses that aredependent of the density of organisms (MB).

Captive-breeding program - A form ofartificial propagation involving the collectionof individuals (or gametes) from a naturalpopulation and the rearing of these individualsto maturity in captivity. For listed species, acaptive broodstock is considered part of theevolutionarily significant unit (ESU) fromwhich it is taken.

Carrying Capacity - The maximum numberand type of species which a particular habitator environment can support withoutdetrimental effects.

Channel complexity - The number ofphysical features (e.g., pool-riffle ratios, sizeand 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 agiven length (e.g., two meander lengths) thegreater the complexity.

Channel modification - Any change, naturalor induced, in the character of a channel.

Channel simplification - Reducing channelcomplexity by any natural or induced means.

Channel widening - Increasing the width of achannel by natural or induced means.

Cobble (nests) - Substrate particles thatrange from 2 to 10 inches in diameter at itslargest ordinate.

Cohort - Individuals all resulting from thesame birth-pulse, and thus all of the same age.

Compliance (monitoring) - Adhering to theprotocols of a monitoring and evaluation plan.

Configuration (FCRPS) - Significantstructural components or facilities of theFCRPS (also see FCRPS).

Conservation Crisis Levels - Conservationcrisis levels are defined as levels similar to the1999 harvest rates for listed spring/summerchinook (5 to 7 percent), and comparableconservation crisis levels for listed Snake Riverfall chinook and listed steelhead.

Conservation easement - Acquiring, throughlease, purchase, or donation, the right toprotect, improve, or maintain habitats or aparticular habitat conditions.

Conservation hatchery program - A programthat uses artificial propagation to recoverPacific salmon by maintaining the listedspecies’ genetic and ecological integrity

Conservation Status - The relative health ofa salmonid population, in particular whether itwarrants listing as threatened or endangeredunder the Endangered Species Act.

Conservation Strategy - A management planfor a species, group of species, or ecosystemthat prescribes standards and guidelines that ifimplemented provide a high likelihood thatthe species, groups of species, or ecosystem,with its full complement of species andprocesses, will continue to exist well-distributed throughout a planning area, i.e., aviable population.

Cost-share projects - Projects that are fundedby two or more different agencies, groups, orindividuals.

Critical habitat - The geographic areaoccupied by or essential to the species.

Critical (stock) - A stock of fish experiencingproduction levels that are so low thatpermanent damage to the stock is likely or hasalready occurred.

Cultural Resource - A term for which themeaning is largely derived from and limited byFederal law, regulation, and Executive Orders,and Departmental or agency standards orpolicies. Cultural resources are specific placesthat may be or are important in the history ofthe nation and its peoples. These resourcesinclude prehistoric or historic periodarcheological sites; buildings or structures ofarchitectural, engineering, or historicalassociative value; places of importance inhistory or tradition; and traditional culturalproperties, which are resources important inmaintaining the traditional lifeways of acommunity. Within the broad range of culturalresources are those that have recognized“historical significance.” Locations orbuildings that retain physical integrity andmeet the criteria for listing on the NationalRegister of Historic Places specifically are“historic properties” (see below). A fishingground or site may be an example of a“cultural resource” (and may even be a historicproperty if it meets the National Registereligibility criteria).

Culturally Important Resource - Culturallydefined sets of relationships exist between agroup of people, their culture, and their world.These relationships define and are defined bythe values, uses, meanings, and relevancepeople hold for their natural, cultural, andspiritual world. Some natural or otherresources are essential for maintenance of aculture and can be considered “culturallyimportant resources”. Culturally importantresources must be defined, understood, andtreated within the context of the culture thatidentifies and values them. The fish that aretaken at the above fishing site would be anexample of a “culturally important resource”,as might be special plants used to build ormaintain the site and its appurtenances.


Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRI) -Scientific analysis developed by the NorthwestFisheries Science Center of NMFS, to modelquasi-extinction projections for salmon andsteelhead ESUs. The CRI also examines wherein the salmon life cycle opportunities exist toimprove survivals and reduce the risk ofextinction.

Declining (stock) - A stock experiencing adecline in production levels.

Default Indicator Criteria - indicators ofecosystem condition that are to be used untilthey are replace with more accurate criteriabased on a more site specific analysis. Theindicator criteria has been provided todescribe the conditions in upland, riparian,and instream areas that function to maintainproductive populations of salmonids (NMFS).Also see: properly functioning conditions.

Degradation - This term typically refers to theloss or reduction in one or morecharacteristics of an environment. It may beas simple as the changes due to erosion or ascomplex as the loss or reduction of one ormore ecosystem functions.

De-listing - Removal of a species or ESU fromendangered or threatened status under theESA.

Density-dependence - A process, such asfecundity, whose value depends on the numberof animals in the population per unit area.

Depressed (stock) - The report “1992Washington State Salmon and Steelhead StockInventory” (WDF et al., 1993) defines“depressed” as a stock of fish whoseproduction is below expected levels based onavailable habitat and natural variations insurvival rates, but above the level wherepermanent damage to the stock is likely.

Descaling - Physical injury to a fish thatresults in the removal of scales and protectivemucus layers.

Dewatering - Removing all the water from anartificial or natural container or channel.Typically refers to the immediate downstreamhabitat effects associated with a waterwithdrawal action that diverts the entire flowof a stream or river to another location.

Discharge (into estuary) – The quantity orrate of water entering the Columbia Riverestuary.

Dissolved gas - The amount of a particulargas or of all gasses dissolved in water. Usuallymeasured in parts per million.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) - The amount ofoxygen that is dissolved in particular volumeof water. The amount of DO can be animportant indicator of the condition of a waterbody.

Diversion structures - Typically refers tostructures that diverts of withdraws waterfrom a stream or river to another locationusually for irrigation purposes.

Domestication - The intentional orunintentional process by which wild plant andanimals adapted to cultivation, tamed, or losesits ability to survive in the wild.

Drafting (reservoir) - Lowering of theelevation of a reservoir, which would includepassing both in-flow and stored water.

Dredge and fill (permits) - Permits requiredby Section 404 of the Clean Water Act toremove substrate material from a water bodyor to place or disposed of any material (sand,gravel, rocks, pilings etc) in a body of water.

Ecosystem - The biotic and abioticcharacteristics of given area. An ecosystem canbe as small as a wetland or as large as a biome(e.g. Great Basin Shrub-steppe Deserts,Tropical Rain Forests of the Lower AmazonBasin, The Columbia River Estuary). They aretypically defined by some major habitatcharacteristic. Each has a unique set ofphysical, chemical, and climatic characteristicsto which the plant and animal life haveadapted.

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment

(EDT) - An expert opinion and empiricalmodeling approach to stream and watershedassessments.

Egg Incubation - Egg development of theembryo, influenced by temperature and otherenvironmental factors.

Emergence - The process during which fryleave their gravel spawning nest and enter thewater column.

Emigration - Referring to the movement oforganisms out of an area.

Endangered (ESA) - A species of plant oranimal in danger of extinction throughout allor a significant portion of its range.


Endangered Species Act (ESA) - An actpassed by Congress in 1973 intended to protectspecies and subspecies of plants and animalsthat are of “aesthetic, ecological, educational,historical, recreational and scientific value.” Itmay also protect the listed species’ criticalhabitat, the geographic area occupied by oressential to the species. The U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) and the NationalMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS) shareauthority to list endangered species, determinecritical habitat and develop recovery plans forlisted species.

Endemic (species) - Native to or limited to aspecific region.

Environmental baseline condition - This issome pre-project environmental condition. Itis the environmental standard that projecteffects are measured against.

Escapement - The number of salmon andsteelhead that return to a specified measuringlocation after all natural mortality and harvesthave occurred. Spawning escapement consistof those fish that survive to spawn.

Estuary, estuarine - The area where the freshwater of a river meets and mixes with the saltwater of the ocean.

ESU (evolutionarily significant unit) - Asalmon population or group of populationsthat are substantially reproductively isolatedfrom other conspecific population units, andcontributes substantially to ecological/geneticdiversity of the biological species as a whole.

Evolutionary response - The adaptations ofa species accrued in response toenvironmental changes over a long period oftime.

Exploitation rate - The proportion of apopulation at the beginning of a given timeperiod that is caught during that time period(usually expressed on a yearly basis). Forexample, if 720,000 fish were caught duringthe year from a population of 1 million fishalive at the beginning of the year, the annualexploitation rate would be 0.72.

Extant (populations) - describes types orspecies of animals that are currently living.Not extinct.

Extinction risk - A component to modelingscenarios involving stocks becoming extinct.

Extirpate - To destroy or remove completely,as a species from a particular area, region, orhabitat.

Extra Mortality - Numerous suites ofconditions corresponding to a deterioratingsituation for the listed species, crucial to theassessment of how well different managementoptions will perform.

Fecundity - The total number of eggsproduced by a female fish.

Fisheries (in-river) - Harvest occurring withinfreshwater areas.

Fisheries (known-stock) – Harvest targeting aspecific stock(s).

Fisheries (marine or ocean) - Harvestoccurring in marine areas.

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

Fishery (non-Indian) - Fisheries conducted bynon-tribal members.

Fishery (mixed-stock) - Harvest occurring atsuch a time or location as to potentially catchfish from multiple stock(s).

Fishery (subsistence) - See “Tribal FishingRights.”

Fishery, ceremonial - See “Tribal FishingRights.”

Fishing pressure - The impact of fishing onfish populations.

Flood plains - The area along a stream or riverthat is subject to flooding.

Flow Augmentation - Increasing river flowsduring the juvenile out-migration by reducingwinter drafts at FCRPS storage reservoirs toprovide higher spring flows and a higherprobability of reservoir refill; by draftingreservoirs during the out-migration season(April through August); and by acquisition ofwater from nonfederal sources.

Flow Requirements - Quantity of flow for agiven stream reach necessary for fish survival.These requirements may vary by species andlife stage.

Flow timing – A water release scheduleassociated with hydropower facilities ornatural 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 transportcharacteristics and geomorphic conditions thatcontribute to these conditions.

Fry (emergence) - The first free-swimminglife stage of a salmonid.

Gas Bubble Disease - Conditions causedwhen dissolved gas in supersaturated watercomes out of solution and equilibrates withatmospheric conditions, forming bubbleswithin the tissues of aquatic organisms. Thiscondition can kill or harm fish.

Gas Supersaturation - The overabundance ofgases in turbulent water, such as at the base ofa dam spillway. Can cause fatal condition infish similar to the bends.

Geneflow - The incorporation of migrantgenes into a receiving population.

Genetic Diversity - The array of genetictraits that exists within a population, due to alarge number of slightly dissimilar ancestors,which enables it to adapt to changingconditions.

Genetic Exchange - The transfer of genesamong individual organisms within apopulation.

Genetic Fitness - The relative reproductivesuccess of a population (genotype) asmeasured by fecundity, survival, and other lifehistory parameters.

Genetic Interactions - Outbreeding betweengenetically differentiated populations.Straying of genetically divergent hatcheryproduced salmon into a native population.

Genetic Variability - Differences in thefrequency of genes and traits among individualorganisms within a population.

Geographically Localized (populations,

stocks) - Populations restricted to a welldefined area set by systems and processesinvolved in the world’s weather, mountains,seas, lakes, etc.

Habitat complexity - The extent and varietyof water, soil, geomorphic features and plantspecies of a given area. The more features themore complex a habitat.

Habitat condition indicator - Some standard(e.g. one pool and one riffle per meanderlength of a river) that is used to index thesuitability of a habitat for some species (e.g.trout).

Habitat conservation plan - Plans to protect,improve, or maintain the status or condition ofa given habitat.

Habitat diversity - The number anddistribution of physical, chemical and typicallyplant material in an area. The greater thenumber of features, the greater the diversity.

Harvest (flat rate) – Harvest occurring at afixed rate.

Harvest (in-river schedule) - Designatedharvest dates and times for in-river fisheries.

Harvest (selective) - Harvest targeted tospecific fish or fish runs.

Harvest (sustainable) - A degree of fishharvest that does not deplete fish populationsbelow replacement levels.

Harvest (tribal allocation) - See “TribalFishing Rights.”

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

Harvest management - The process ofsetting regulations for the commercial,recreational and tribal fish harvest to achieve aspecified goal within the fishery.

Harvest pressures - The degree and mannerin which harvest efforts (commercial,recreational, and tribal) affect fishpopulations.

Harvest rate - The proportion of a returningrun or total population of salmonids that istaken by fisheries, usually expressed as a catchto escapement ratio.

Harvest selectivity - A harvest strategy thattargets a specific species.

Hatchery – A facility where fish are collected,spawned, reared, and (typically) released (seeartificial propagation).

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan

(HGMP) - A document detailing the continuedoperation of an artificial propagation program.

Hatchery intervention – The use of artificialpropagation to enhance, conserve, and recoversalmonid populations.

Hatchery release - Artificially propagated fishreleased into the wild for the purpose ofmitigating, supplementing, augmenting, andrestoring a fish population or a fishery.

Healthy (stock) - A stock of fishexperiencing production levels consistent with


its available habitat and within the naturalvariations in survival for the stock.

Heavy metals - Metallic elements with highatomic weights, e.g., mercury, chromium,cadmium, arsenic, and lead. They can damageliving things at low concentrations and tend toaccumulate in the food chain.

Historic property or historic resource - Asdefined in the National Historic PreservationAct, Title III, Section 301 (16 U.S.C. 470w)(5),“any prehistoric or historic district, site,building, structure, or object included in, oreligible for inclusion on the National Register,including artifacts, records, and materialremains related to such a property orresource.” The criteria defining eligibility tothe National Register are provided inregulations (36 CFR 60.4).

Homing - The ability of a salmon or steelheadto correctly identify and return to their natalstream, following maturation at sea.

Hydraulics - The principles governingmechanical properties of static and movingwater (provisions of optimum passage at damsdepend on knowledge of fish behavioralresponse to hydraulics at dams).

Hydroacoustics - The use of sound toestimate the number of fish using a specificpassage route.

Hydrograph (river) - A graphic representationof stage, flow, velocity, or other characteristicsof water at any given point.

Hydrologic function - The effects of water onthe earth’s surface, soil and rocks.

Hydropower – Electrical power generationproduced by dams.

Impoundment – Any human-made structurefor retaining natural flows (e.g., reservoirs).

Inbreeding – The mating of relatedindividuals.

Incidental take – Take of a threatened orendangered species that is incidental to, andnot the directed purpose of, the carrying outof an otherwise lawful activity.

Indigenous - Existing, growing, or producednaturally in a region.

Infrastructure - An underlying base orfoundation.

Institutional barrier - Impediment orobstruction to achieving institutional goalsbased on current policies and mandatesenacted by other institutions.

Instream flows - The amount of waterpassing a particular point in a stream or river,usually expressed in cubic-feet per second(cfs). Typically concerned with the minimumflow in a stream needed to protect andmaintain aquatic life.

Integrated Rule Curves (IRC) - A set ofreservoir operating criteria designed to meetmultiple objectives (e.g. flood control,irrigation, recreation, and fish habitat.)

Inter-tidal (marsh) - Marshes located in thezone (usually in an estuary) between meanhigh tide and mean low tide.

Isolated Program – A program intended tosupport a terminal fishery where there is littleor no possibility of co-mingling with listedwild fish.

Jeopardy - An action places a listed species injeopardy if the action would bring that species’continued existence into question. If aproposed actions plales a species in jeopardy,it means that species is at risk of no longerbeing in existence. So, the jeopardy standardis measured in terms of the odds of avoidingjeopardy. It is not defined in statute.

Juvenile Bypass Outfall - The structure andlocation of the juvenile bypass systemdischarge.

Lacustrine - Of or pertaining to a lake (e.g., alake ecosystem).

Landscape-level characteristics - Thosecharacteristics associated with aheterogeneous land area with interactingecosystems.

Life history strategies/types – Traits andcharacteristics of a stock that reflectadaptations to a unique environment (e.g.,spawn timing).

Life stage - An organisms period ofdevelopment to adulthood.

Listed fish, species - Species determined tobe threatened (any species in danger ofbecoming endangered in the foreseeablefuture) or endangered (a species in danger of


extinction throughout all or a significantportion of it’s range) as allowed under theESA.

Local adaptations – Specializedcharacteristics or traits expressed bygeographically distinct populations.

Low-gradient (tributary habitats) - astream or river with a slope of less than 0.02percent.

Mainstem - The principle channel of adrainage system into which other smallerstreams or rivers flow.

Management prescription – Themanagement practices and intensity selectedand scheduled for application to a specificarea.

Mark-selective fisheries - A fishery managedto selectively harvest distinctively marked fish.

Mechanical bypass system – See “bypasssystem.”

Metapopulation - A population comprisinglocal populations that are linked by migrants,allowing for recolonization of unoccupiedhabitat patches after local extinction events.

Migrant blockages – Any of a number ofobstructions that prevent movement of fishesup- and down stream.

Minimum Gap Runners (MGR) - Turbineblades 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 - Artificiallyproduced fish that are propagated tocompensate for loss or reduction of a specificfish population.

Morphology - The structure, form andappearance of an organism.

Multi-scale – A series of graduated spatialgeographic areas or temporal periods.

Multi-Species Framework Project – Acollaborative project of the Northwest PowerPlanning Council, the Columbia River Basin’sIndian Tribes and the United StateGovernment to create a handful ofscientifically based, agreed upon alternativesfor determining how best to achieve fish andwildlife recovery in the Columbia River Basin.

Natal (stream) - Stream of birth.

Natural fish - A fish that is produced byparents spawning in a stream or lake bed, asopposed to a controlled environment such as ahatchery.

Natural regenerative processes –Restoration of ecosystem condition based on aseries of related physical or biologicalactivities existing in nature.

Naturally spawning fish/populations -Populations of fish that have completed theirentire life cycle in the natural environmentwithout human intervention.

Non-endemic stocks - Not native to orlimited to a specific region.

Non-indigenous stocks - Not existingnaturally in a region, state, country, etc.

Non-point source pollution (program) –Section 319 of the Clean Water Act establishesa Nonpoint Sources Management program.States, Territories, and Indian Tribes receivegrant money which supports a wide variety ofactivities including technical assistance,financial assistance, education, training,technology transfer, and monitoring to assessthe success of specific nonpoint sourceimplementation projects.

Nutrient cycling - Circulation or exchange ofelements such as nitrogen and carbon betweennonliving and living portions of theenvironment.

Off-channel (areas) – Any relatively calmportion of a stream outside of the main flow.

Off-Channel Water Storage Capacity - Waterstorage in areas outside the mainstemColumbia.

Off-site Mitigation - Off-site mitigation is anaction taken to addresss human-causedmortality of listed species outside the actionarea (hydrosystem) that would mitigate, inpart, for the effects of unavoidable mortalityinside the action area. It is credited towardthe action agencies because it would nototherwise occur without the directinvolvement of the action agencies. This isnot defined in statute.

Operating Agencies – The federal agenciesthat operate federal dams in the FederalColumbia River Power System, namely, theCorps of Engineers and the Bureau ofReclamation.


Operations (FCRPS) - Management of theFCRPS projects as set forth in the 1995 FCRPSand 1998 Steelhead Supplemental BiologicalOpinions. Along with establishing certain hardconstraints at storage reservoirs, the biologicalopinions established the Regional Forum,which as one of its responsibilities has someflexibility to recommend real-time (i.e., inseason) management decision for flowaugmentation, spill, and transportationdecisions in order to best achieve passagestrategies for migrating salmon.

Outbreeding - The interbreeding of distantlyrelated or unrelated individuals.

Outbreeding depression - The loss of localadaptations as a result of interbreeding wildand hatchery fish.

Out-of-stream water use – Any use of streamwater that occurs outside the stream channel,such as irrigation.

Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) - A long-termand comprehensive management plan,negotiated between the United States andCanada, that would govern salmon fisheries inSoutheast Alaska, British Columbia, and thePacific Northwest.

Passive integrated transponder (PIT)

tagging - Passive Integrated Transponder tagsare used for identifying individual salmon formonitoring and research purposes. Thisminiaturized tag consists of an integratedmicrochip that is programmed to includespecific fish information. The tag is insertedinto the body cavity of the fish and decoded atselected monitoring sites.

Performance measures - Define thecontribution that is needed at each life-historystage to achieve the overall biological goalsand objectives, and which do so in contextwith the contributions from other life stages.

Performance-based management - Measuresor actions that seek to reach establishedrecovery objectives, and which can beadjusted over time in response to their degreeof success in achieving those objectives.

pH - The negative logarithm of the molarconcentration of hydrogen ion. It refers moresimply 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 toanalyze hypotheses for salmon decline andexamine the outcome of different managementoptions, including drawdown andtransportation.

Plume – A downstream or offshoreconveyance of water and suspended sediments(e.g., the Columbia River plume extends milesinto the Pacific Ocean).

Point source discharges - Pollutantsdischarged from any identifiable point,including pipes, ditches, channels, sewers,tunnels, and containers of various types.

Polluted – (1) An area that has beencontaminated, especially by a waste materialthat contaminates air, soil, or water. (2) Anysolute or cause of change in physicalproperties that renders water unfit for a givenuse.

Population(s) - A group of individuals of thesame species occupying a defined localityduring a given time that exhibit reproductivecontinuity from generation to generation.

Population dynamic - The aggregate ofchanges that occur during the life of apopulation.

Population identification - The process ofdetermining that a set of individuals belong ina population grouping.

Productive capacity - The capacity of a waterbody or production facility to produce fish.

Progeny - Offspring.

Properly functioning conditions (PFC) –Properly functioning condition is the sustainedpresence of natural habitat-forming processesin a watershed (e.g., riparian communitysuccession, bedload transport, precipitationrunoff pattern, channel migration) that arenecessary for the long-term survival of thespecies through the full range ofenvironmental variation. PFC, then,constitutes the habitat component of aspecies’ biological requirements (Also see:NMFS 1996).

Province – A large geographic area that hassimilar set of biophysical characteristics andprocesses due to effects of climate andgeology. Provinces are roughly equal to groupsof 4th field USGS hydrologic unit codes(averages 1,000,000 hectares).


Push-up dam – An instream water diversioncreated by pushing streambed or othermaterial into a mound which diverts part ofthe stream flow out of the channel.

Ramping Rates - The rate of change ofdischarge from a project, often limited by aspecified rate of downstream water surfaceelevation change.

Reach - A section of stream between twodefined points.

Rear - To feed and grow in a natural orartificial environment.

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative –Reasonable and prudent alternatives refer toalternative actions identified during formalconsultation that can be implemented in amanner consistent with the intended purposeof the action, that can be implementedconsistent with the scope of the federalagency’s legal authority and jurisdiction, that iseconomically and technologically feasible, andthat would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizingthe continued existence of listed species orresulting in the destruction or adversemodification of critical habitat.

Rebuilding flows – Process of returningwater to a stream to approximate historic flowpatterns.

Reclamation Project(s) - Projectsconstructed under the Reclamation Act andoperated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,which administers some parts of the federalprogram for water resource development anduse in western states. The Bureau ofReclamation owns and operates a number ofdams in the Columbia River Basin, includingGrand Coulee Dam.

Recovery - Defined as the point at which alisted species has improved to such an extentthat it no longer requires the protection of theESA.

Recovery goal - The reestablishment of athreatened or endangered species to a self-sustaining level in its natural ecosystem (i.e.,to the point where the protective measures ofthe Endangered Species Act are no longernecessary).

Recovery planning areas - Any geographicarea that regulatory agency uses to set theboundaries of a regional recovery plan forsalmon it is usually a river basin or subbasin.

Redd - A nest of fish eggs covered with gravel.

Refugia – Locations and habitats that supportpopulations of organisms that are limited tosmall fragments of their previous geographicrange.

Resident fish - Occupying headwater reaches;may disperse locally, but generally considerednon-migratory.

Restoration – Reestablishment of pre-disturbance aquatic functions and relatedphysical, chemical, and biologicalcharacteristics.

Riparian (zones) - Those terrestrial areaswhere the vegetation complex andmicroclimate conditions are products of thecombined presence and influence of perennialand /or intermittent water, associated withhigh water tables, and soils that exhibit somewetness characteristics.

Riprap - Refers to rocks or concrete structuresused to stabilize stream or riverbanks fromerosion.

River of origin - The river system in which agiven salmonid was hatched (see natalstream).

Road treatments – Any of a number ofrestorative activities conducted to improvedrainage, erosion, or stability of a road, suchas, ripping and seeding the road surface,planting cut-slopes, removing the road fromthe landscape by reestablishing the originalland contour.

Run (fish) - A group of fish of the samespecies that migrate together up a stream tospawn, usually associated with the seasons,e.g., fall, spring, summer, and winter runs.Members of a run interbreed, and may begenetically distinguishable from otherindividuals of the same species.

Run timing - The time of year that the fishreturn to their rivers of origin to spawn.

Runoff - Water that flows over the ground andreaches a stream as a result of rainfall orsnowmelt.

Salinity concentrations - The concentrationof salt in a body of water. The salinity of asaltwater wetland changes wheneverfreshwater is added when it rains, and eachtime the saltwater is added or removed whentide rises and falls.


Salmonids - Fish of the family Salmonidae,that includes salmon and steelhead.

Scientific protocols - A set of conventionsgoverning data treatment and analysisprocedures.

Scour of redds – Dig or remove gravels andeggs from redds by a powerful current ofwater.

Screens/ladders (fish) - Wire mesh screensplaced at the point where water is divertedfrom a stream, river, and through a turbine at adam to help keep fish from entering thediversion or passageway. Fish ladders aredevices made up of a series of stepped pools,similar to a staircase, that enable adult fish tomigrate upstream past dams.

Seasonal Flow Patterns – Natural changesand fluctuations in stream flows occurringover the course of a year.

Secure (habitat) – Reducing or eliminatingproblems caused by past human activities toprevent further degradation to remaininghealthy areas (Doppelt et al. 1993).

Sediment regime(s) (input, storage,transport) - The distribution of sediment input,transport, and storage in a river systemthrough time.

Segmented habitat – Habitat that is cutofffrom other portions of the habitat. Refers tohabitat wherein free movement of individualsfrom portion of the habitat to other portions isrestricted.

Selective fishery strategy - A fisherymanagement tool that allows selectiveretention of certain identifiable salmonidstocks (identified by marking, time, area, orgear methods) in order to minimize impacts onlisted species.

Selective fishing gear - Fishing gear that,while targeting the intended species and sizegroups, allows non-target species to bereleased with little or no mortality.

Sensitive species - Those species that (1)have appeared in the Federal Register asproposed for classification and are underconsideration for official listing as endangeredor threatened species or (2) are on an officialstate list or (3) are recognized by the U.S.Forest Service or other management agency asneeding special management to prevent theirbeing placed on federal or state lists.

Sensitivity (population) - The susceptibilityof a population to positive or negative inputs.

Sensitivity Analysis (PATH) - In addition tothe uncertainties that are explicitlyincorporated into the calculation ofprobabilities of meeting standards, thedetailed results presented in the PATH FY98Report also explored the effects of otherassumptions on the overall results. Theylooked specifically at the sensitivity of resultsto the four factors: habitat, harvest, birdpredation in the Columbia River estuary, andupstream survival rates. (Also see PATH.)

Sluiceway Outfall - The structure andlocation of the discharge of the surface damoutlet designed to collect and dispose ofdebris collected at the dam face.

Smolt - Refers to the salmonid or troutdevelopmental life stage between parr andadult, when the juvenile is at least one yearold and has adapted to the marineenvironment.

Smolt Travel Time - The time required forsmolt transit a stream reach duringdownstream migration.

Smoltification - Refers to the physiologicalchanges anadromous salmonids and troutundergo in freshwater while migrating towardsaltwater that allow them to live in the ocean.

Spatial and temporal scales - The size/rangeof place and time used in modeling or dataanalysis.

Spawn - The act of reproduction of fishes. Themixing of the sperm of a male fish and theeggs of a female fish.

Spawning gravel – Streambed materials inwhich salmon lay their eggs, usually gravelsfree of fine sediments.

Species of concern - An unofficial status for aspecies whose abundance is at low levels.

Spill – Releasing water over a dam’s spillwaysrather than channeling it through thepowerhouse.

Spillway flow deflectors (flip lips) -Structures that limit the plunge depth of waterover the dam spillway, producing a lessforceful, more horizontal spill. Thesestructures reduce the amount of dissolved gastrapped in the spilled water.


Stock - A specific population of fish. Whenreferring to salmon, a specific population offish spawning in a particular stream during aparticular season.

Stock structure - The suite of characteristics(in particular genetic attributes) thatdistinguish one stock of salmonids fromanother.

Storage capacity - The active storagecapacity (above the dead pool) of all thereservoirs in the Columbia Basin, includingthose in Canada.

Storage reservoirs - A reservoir primarilyused to actively store and draft water. Thesereservoirs often have a large active storagecapacity.

Stranding – Causing fish to be trapped instream reaches due to insufficient water,especially as a result of water withdrawal.

Straying - A natural phenomena of adultspawners not returning to their natal stream,but entering and spawning in some otherstream.

Stream segments – A portion of a streamchannel.

Subbasin – A watershed area defined by 4th –field USGS hydrologic unit code the sizeaverages 200,000 hectares.

Substrate - The composition of a streambed,including mineral and organic materials.

Subwatersheds - A watershed area defined by6th field USGS hydrologic unit code the sizeranges from 5 to 15,000 hectares.

Supplementation - Artificial propagationintended to reestablish a natural population orincrease its abundance.

Surface Bypass Collection (SBC) - Systemdesigned to divert fish at the surface beforethey have to dive and encounter the existingturbine intake screens. SBC directs thejuvenile fish into the forebay, where they arepassed downstream either through the damspillway or via the juvenile fish transportationsystem of barges and trucks.

Survivorship - A measure of survival tied toeach of a species’ life stages.

Take (legal/illegal) - Under the EndangeredSpecies Act, take means to harass, harm,pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,

or collect an animal, or to attempt to engagein any such conduct.

Terminal area - rivers of origin.

Terminal fishery - Fisheries near freshwater(usually the mouth of rivers or bays or near ahatchery release site) where the targetedspecies is returning to spawn.

Threatened (ESA) - A genetic populationthat is at risk of becoming endangered in theforeseeable future.

TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load is acalculation of the maximum amount of apollutant that a water body can receive andstill meet water quality standards, and anallocation of that amount to the pollutant’ssource (EPA).

Transport (juvenile) - Collection and transportvia barge and truck of out migrating juvenilesalmonids from several FCRPS collectionprojects to a location downstream fromBonneville Dam, the lowermost dam on theColumbia River.

Trash Shear Boom - A floating device alignedwith flow that allows floating debris to beguided to a specific removal point.

Tribal fishing rights - The guaranteed rightfor Native Americans to fish in their usual andaccustomed Places. The right was establishedin a series of treaties dating from the mid-1850s and it applies to a number of tribes andtheir various harvesting practices (i.e.,commercial and ceremonial and subsistence).

Tributary habitats - Fish habitat provided bya stream that flows into another stream, river,or lake.

Trust obligations/responsibility -Governmental obligations to the tribes underthe treaties of 1855.

Turbidity – The cloudiness of water causedby suspended matter that interferes with thepassage of light through the water or in whichvisual depth is restricted.

Value-added commercial enterprises - Anybusiness venture based on taking a productwhether raw or partially processed, andprocessing it further to increase its value tothe consumer.

Viability (population) - A population in astate that maintains its vigor and its potentialfor evolutionary change.


Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) - Anindependent population of any Pacificsalmonid (genus Oncorhynchus) that has anegligible risk of extinction over a 100-yeartime frame.

Water conveyances – Devices used totransfer water from one location to another,usually from a natural water body to the landsurface for irrigation, or for an industrial use.Examples include pipes, lined or unlinedditches, and irrigation canals.

Water quality limited - A water body thatdoes not meet the federally approved statewater quality standard establish under theprovision of the Clean Water Act.

Water table elevation – The elevation atwhich groundwater will enter a well hole andattain a static level. Groundwater below thislevel is held in the intergranular pores on thesoil or rock, or joints or fractures in the rock.Above the water table is a zone in which thepores of the soil or rock are completely filledwith water held up by capillary tension.

Watershed - A watershed area defined by 5th –field USGS hydrologic unit code the sizeranges between 20 to 40,000 hectares.

Watershed analysis – A systematic, science-based procedure for characterizing ecosystemconditions, and the state of ecosystemprocesses and functions.

Watershed assessment – (See watershedanalysis). The term assessment rather thananalysis often implies that a process with lessscientific rigor was used.

Weak (stock) - Listed in the IntegratedSystem Plan’s list of stocks of high or highestconcern; listed in the American FisheriesSociety report as at high or moderate risk ofextinction; or stocks the National MarineFisheries Service has listed. “Weak stock” is anevolving concept; the Council does notpurport to establish a fixed definition. Nordoes the Council imply that any particularchange in management is required because ofthis definition.”

Wetland(s) – Areas that are inundated bysurface water or groundwater with a frequencysufficient to support, and under normalcircumstances do or would support, aprevalence of vegetative or aquatic life thatrequire saturated or seasonally saturated soilcondition for growth and reproduction(Executive Order 1990). Examples of wetlandsinclude swamps, marshes, and bogs.

Wild fish - See “natural fish.”

Woody debris input – Refers to the processesthat move woody vegetation from land areasto the stream environment. Examples ofprocesses include landslides, debris flows,wind throw, and disease.


5. References

management on salmonid fishes andtheir habitats. Special Publication 19.American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,Maryland.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 1993.In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Undated. White Sturgeon: KootenaiRiver Population Acipenser

transmontanus draft recovery plan.132 p.

Bonneville Power Administration and U.S.Bureau of Reclamation. 1993.Columbia River Basin, SystemOperational Review. IrrigationDepletion Estimate. September 10,1993, prepared for Bonneville PowerAdministration by A.G. CrookCompany.

Botsford, L. W. and J. G. Brittnacher. 1998.Viability of Sacramento winter-runchinook salmon. Conservation Biology12: 65-79.

Brannon, E.L., C.L. Melby, and S.D. Brewer.1984. Columbia River white sturgeonenhancement. Final Report toBonneville Power Administration.Contract No. DEAI79-84BP18952;Project No. 83-316. Portland, Oregon.43 pp.

Campton, D.E. 1995. Genetic effects ofhatchery fish on wild populations ofPacific salmon and steelhead: what dowe really know? American Fisheries

Society Symposium,15:337-353.Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, M. Hill, A. Maule, S.

McCutcheon, D. Park, W. Platts, K.Pratt, J. Seeb, L. Seeb, and F. Utter.1991. Status of the Snake RiverChinook salmon. Prepared for thePacific Northwest Utilities ConferenceCommittee. Don ChapmanConsultants, 3180 Airport Way, Boise,ID.

Andrews, J., J. Lloyd, and B. Webster. 1987.Alturas Lake flow augmentation (FinalReport). Project Number 83-415,Bonneville Power Administration,Portland, OR.

Apperson, K.A. and P.J. Anders. 1991. KootenaiRiver white sturgeon investigations andexperimental culture. Annual ProgressReport FY 1990. Idaho Department ofFish and Game and Bonneville PowerAdministration. Contract No. DE-AI79-88BP93497. Project No. 88-65.Portland, Oregon 67 pp.

Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratoryand U.S. Geological Survey WesternFisheries Research Center, Assessment

of the Impacts of Development and

Operation of the Columbia River

Hydroelectric System on Mainstem

Riverine Processes and Salmon

Habitats, July 2000.Beamer, E.M., R.E.McClure, and B.A. Hayman.

1999. Fiscal year 1999 Skagit RiverChinook Restoration Research. SkagitSystem Cooperative, La Conner,Washington, 24 p.

Bell, M.C. 1986. Fisheries handbook ofengineering requirements andbiological criteria. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Office of the Chief ofEngineers, Fish Passage Developmentand Evaluation Program, Portland,Oregon.

Bevan, D., J. Harville, P. Bergman, T. Bjorn, J.Crutchfield, P. Klingeman, and J.Litchfield. 1994. Snake River recoveryteam: final recommendations to theNational Marine Fisheries Service.National Marine Fisheries Service.Portland, Oregon.

Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitatrequirements of salmonids in streams.Pages 83-138 in W.R. Meehan, editor.Influences of forest and rangeland


Chapman, D., et al., Status of Snake River

Chinook Salmon, Report for thePacific Northwest Utilities ConferenceCommittee, Don ChapmanConsultants, Inc., Boise, Idaho, 1991.

Chilcote, M.W., S.L. Leider, and J.J. Loch.1986. Differential reproductive successof hatchery and wild summer-runsteelhead under natural conditions.Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 115:726-735.

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority,Report of the Fish Screen Oversight

Committee, 1999.Columbia River Fish Management Plan

(CRFMP). 1988. Entered into pursuantto 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 Wa-

Kish-Wit: Spirit of the Salmon. TheColumbia River Anadromous FishRestoration Plan of the Nez Perce,Umatilla, Warm Springs and YakamaTribes Columbia River Inter-Tribal FishCommission, Portland, Oregon.

Columbia River System Operation Review,Final Environmental ImpactStatement, Appendix F: Irrigation,Municipal and Industrial/Water Supplypp. 2-1, 2-2 (November 1995).

Dayton, P. K. 1979. Ecology: A science and areligion. In: Ecological Processes in

Coastal and Marine Sciences, (ed.) R.J.Livingston. Plenum Press. pp. 3-18.

DeVore, J.D., B.W. James, and D.R. Gilliland.1999. Effects of mitigative measureson productivity of white sturgeonpopulations in the Columbia Riverdownstream from McNary Dam, anddetermine the status and habitatrequirements of white sturgeonpopulations in the Columbia and Snakerivers upstream from McNary Dam.Annual Progress Report, April, 1997-March, 1998, Report B. Report preparedfor Bonneville Power AdministrationProject 86-50, Contract No. DE-A179-86BP63584. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Vancouver, WA. 38p.

DeVore, J.D., B.W. James, D.R. Gilliland, andB.J. Cady. 1998. Effects of mitigativemeasures on productivity of whitesturgeon populations in the ColumbiaRiver downstream from McNary Dam,

and determine the status and habitatrequirements of white sturgeonpopulations in the Columbia and Snakerivers upstream from McNary Dam.Annual Progress Report, April, 1996-March, 1997, Report B. Report preparedfor Bonneville Power AdministrationProject 86-50, Contract No. DE-A179-86BP63584. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Vancouver, WA. 36p.

Doppelt, B., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J.Karr. 1993. Entering the watershed: anew approach to save America’s riverecosystems. Island Press, WashingtonD.C.

Dunne, T., and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water inEnvironmental Planning. W. H.Freeman and Company. New York.

Emmett, R.L., S.A. Hinton, S.L. Stone, andM.E .Monaco. 1991. Distribution andabundance of fishes and invertebratesin West Coast estuaries, Volume II:species life history summaries.Estuarine Living Marine ResourcesProgram Report No. 8. NOAA/NOSStrategic Environmental AssessmentsDivision, Rockville, Maryland. 329 p.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. EPAWeb 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 fishhabitats in forests of western Oregonand Washington. Publication R6-F&WL-192-1985. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Feist, B.E., E.A. Steel, G.R. Pess, and R.E.Bilby. 2000. A coarse-scale, spatiallyexplicit model for predicting Pacificsalmon (Oncorhynchus spp.)abundance as a function of land coverand land use in the Pacific Northwest,United States. In Prep. To besubmitted to Conservation Biology.

Fisher, J. G.. Downstream Migrant Fish

Screens for Irrigation Ditches, Upper

Salmon River Basin, Idaho, report tothe Sawtooth National RecreationArea, Idaho, 1977.


Flagg, T.A., and C.E. Nash (eds). 1999. Aconceptual framework for conservationhatchery strategies for Pacificsalmonids. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAATech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-38, 46 p.

Fleming, I.A. and M.R. Gross. 1993. BreedingSuccess of Hatchery and Wild CohoSalmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch) inCompetition. Ecological Applications,3(2), pp. 230-245.

Fleming, I.A., Jonsson, B., Gross, M.R. and A.Lamberg. 1996. An experimental studyof the reproductive behavior andsuccess of farmed and wild Atlanticsalmon. J. Applied Ecology 33: 893-903

Forest Ecosystem Management AssessmentTeam. 1993. Forest ecosystemmanagement: an ecological, economicand social assessment. Report of theForest Ecosystem ManagementAssessment Team. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office 1993-793-071. U.S.Government Printing Office for theU.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService; U.S. Department of theInterior, Fish and Wildlife Service,Bureau of Land Management, NationalPark Service; U.S. Department ofCommerce, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration andNational Marine Fisheries Service; andU.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. LifeHistory, ecology and population statusof migratory bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) in the Flathead Lake andRiver System, Montana. NorthwestScience 63(4):133-143.

Francis, R. C. and Hare. S.R. Decadal-scaleregime shifts in the large marineecosystems of the Northeast Pacific: acase for historical science. Fish.Oceanogr. 1994; 3(4):279-291.

Francis, RC; Hare, SR 1994. Decadal-scaleregime shifts in the large marineecosystems of the Northeast Pacific: Acase for historical science. FisheriesOceanography 3(4):279-291

Frissell, C. A. 1993. A new strategy forwatershed restoration and recovery ofPacific salmon in the PacificNorthwest. Prepared for the PacificRivers Council, Eugene, Oregon.

Fulton, L.A. 1968. Spawning areas andabundance of chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in theColumbia River Basin—past andpresent. U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSpecial Scientific Report—Fisheriesno. 571. 26 p.

Fulton, L.A. 1970. Spawning areas andabundance of steelhead trout andcoho, sockeye, and chum salmon inthe Columbia River basin—past andpresent. U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSpecial Scientific Report—Fisheriesno. 618. 37 p.

Gebhards, S. V. The Effects of Irrigation on

the Natural Production of Chinook

Salmon in the Lemhi River, Idaho. M.S. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan,Utah, 1959.

Groot, C., and L. Margolis, editors. 1991.Pacific salmon life histories. Universityof British Columbia Press. Vancouver,British Columbia. 564 p.

Hard, J.J. 1995. Genetic monitoring of life-history characters in salmonsupplementation: problems andopportunities. American Fisheries

Society Symposium, 15:212-225.Hare, S. R.; Mantua, N. J., and Francis, R. J.

1999. Inverse production regimes:Alaska and West Coast Pacific Salmon.Fisheries. 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-successionalforests, fisheries, and watersheds:national east of the Cascade Crest,Oregon and Washington. The WildlifeSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.

Hilborn, R., B.G. Bue, S. Sharr. 1999.Estimating spawning escapementsfrom periodic counts: a comparison ofmethods. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

56:888-896.Hinch, SG; Healey, MC; Diewert, RE; Thomson,

KA; Hourston, R; Henderson, MA;Juanes, F. 1995. Potential effects ofclimate change on marine growth andsurvival of Fraser River sockeyesalmon. CAN. J. FISH. AQUAT. SCI52(12):2651-2659

Howell, P. J. and D. V. Buchanan, eds. 1992.Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain


bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapterof the American Fisheries Society,Corvallis, Oregon.

Huntington, C.W., W. Nehlsen, and J. Bowers.1996. A survey of healthy native stocksof anadromous salmonids in thePacific Northwest and California.Fisheries 21(3):6-14.

Independent Scientific Group (ISG). 1996.Return to the River. Northwest PowerPlanning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Independent Scientific Group, Return to theRiver: Restoration of Salmonid Fishesin the Columbia River Ecosystem(prepublication copy Sept. 10, 1996).

Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT).1994. Policies and Procedures forColumbia Basin Anadromous SalmonidHatcheries. Bonneville PowerAdministration, Portland, Oregon.

Kareiva, Peter. September 5, 2000. TheCumulative Risk Initiative (CRI), AStandardized Quantitative Analysis ofRisks faced by Salmonids in theColumbia River Basin.

Keely, E.R., P.A. Slaney, and D. Zaldokas. 1996.Estimates of production benefits forsalmonid fishes from streamrestoration initiatives. Province ofBritish Columbia, Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands, and Parks, andMinistry of Forests. WatershedRestoration Management Report No. 4.

Knudson, K. 1994. Water quality status report,Kootenay (Kootenai) River BasinBritish Columbia, Montana, and Idaho.Prepared for Kootenai River Network,January, 1994. 57 p.

Koning, C.W., and E.R. Keeley. 1997. Salmonidbiostandards for estimating productionbenefits of fish habitat rehabilitationtechniques. In: Fish HabitatRehabilitation Procedures (P. Slaneyand D. Zaldokas, eds). WatershedRestoration Technical Circular No. 9.Ministry of Environment, Lands andParks. Vancouver, B.C.

Kratz, Kim. July 18, 2000. Columbia Subbasin

Prioritization Model.Lower Columbia River Estuary Program. 1998.

Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Program.Lower Columbia River Estuary Program. 1999.

Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plan. Volume 1: June1999. Lower Columbia River EstuaryProgram, Portland, Oregon. p. 222.

Marcuson, P. 1994. Kootenai River whitesturgeon investigations andexperimental culture. Annual ProgressReport FY 1990. Idaho Department ofFish and Game and Bonneville PowerAdministration. Contract No. DE-AI79-88BP93497. Project No. 88-65.Portland, Oregon 67 pp.

Marmorek, D., Parnell I., Peters, C.N. and C.Alexander (eds). 1999. PATH: Scopingof Candidate Research, Monitoring andExperimental Management Actions:Concurrently Reducing KeyUncertainties and Recovering Stocks.Working Draft. ESSA TechnologiesLtd., Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Marmorek, D.R., Peter, C.N. and Parnell I(eds.). 1998. Plan for Analyzing andtesting hypotheses (PATH) Final Reportfor Fiscal Year 1998. EssaTechnologies Ltd.

May, B.E. and W.L. Somes. 1981. Comparativeeffects of sheep and cattle grazing onthe Marsh Creek drainage. TransactionsBonneville Chapter American FisheriesSociety. 1981:48-62.

McAllister, M.K. and R.M. Peterman. 1992.Experimental design in themanagement of fisheries: A review. N.

Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 12(1):1-18.McElhany, P., M. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T.

Wainwright and E. Bjorkstedt. 2000.Viable salmonid populations and therecovery of Evolutionarily SignificantUnits. NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC Draftdocument. Available at http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/

McPhail, J.D., and C.C. Lindsey. 1986.Zoogeography of the freshwater fishesof Cascadia (the Columbia system andrivers north to the Stikine). Pages 615-637 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley,editors. The Zoogeography of NorthAmerican freshwater fishes. Wiley andSons, New York, New York.

Meehan, W.R., and T.C. Bjornn. 1991.Salmonid distributions and lifehistories. Pages 47-82 in W.R. Meehan,editor. Influences of forest andrangeland management on salmonid


fishes and their habitats. SpecialPublication 19. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.

Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. 1999. Unpublishedreport. The EDT method, August 1999– Draft (Available from MobrandBiometrics, Inc. Washington).

Moyle, P. 1994. The decline of anadromousfishes in California. ConservationBiology. Vol. 8:869-870.

National Fish Hatchery Review Panel, 1994.Report of the National Fish HatcheryReview Panel. The Conservation Fund,Arlington, Virginia.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996.Making Endangered Species Actdeterminations of effect for individualor grouped actions at the watershedscale. Guidance document prepared byNMFS 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 Actdeterminations of effects for individualor grouped actions at the watershedscale. (Available from NMFS, Portland,Oregon).

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997.Description and identification ofessential fish habitat, adverse impactsand recommended conservationmeasures for salmon. Amendment 14to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, DraftAppendix A. January 1999. PacificFisheries Management Council AwardNumber NA87FC008. Portland,Oregon.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997.Genetic effects of straying of non-native hatchery fish into naturalpopulations, Proceedings of theworkshop, June 1-2, 1995, Seattle,Wash. E.S. Grant, editor. NOAATechnical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-30. 130 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. ESASection 7 Consultation: BiologicalOpinion on Artificial Propagation inthe Columbia River Basin. March 29,1999. Portland, Oregon.

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service. 1999. Fed-1 Plan

for Artificial Propagation: ArtificialProduction Proposal for CRFMPNegotiations. January 7, 1999.Portland, Oregon.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999.Interim standards for the use of captivepropagation technology in the recoveryof anadromous salmonids listed underthe Endangered Species Act.Sustainable Fisheries Div., Hatcheryand Inland Fisheries Branch, Portland,OR. Feb. 1999, 18p.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999.Recommended Protocols for the Use ofCaptive Broodstock, NorthwestFisheries Science Center, Seattle,Washington.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999.White Paper: Passage of Juvenile andAdult Salmonids Past Columbia andSnake River Dams.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999.White Paper: Predation on SalmonidsRelative to the Federal Columbia RiverPower System.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999.White Paper: Salmonid Travel Timeand Survival Related to FlowManagement in the Columbia RiverBasin.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999.White Paper: Summary of ResearchRelated to Transportation of JuvenileAnadromous Salmonids Around Snakeand Columbia River Dams.

National Marine Fisheries Service. June 2,1999. Biological Opinion on the OregonConservation Reserve EnhancementProgram.

National Marine Fisheries Service. December16, 1999. Biological Opinion andConference Report. Columbia RiverFederal Navigation Channel Deepening.

National Marine Fisheries Service. December2000. Biological Opinion. Reinitiationof Consultation on Operation of theFederal Columbia River Power System,Including Juvenile TransportationProgram, and 19 Bureau ofReclamation Projects in the ColumbiaBasin.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996.Upstream: Salmon and Society in thePacific Northwest. Committee on


Protection and Management of PacificNorthwest Anadromous Salmonids.National Academy Press, WashingtonD.C.

Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A.Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon atthe crossroads: Stocks at risk fromCalifornia, Oregon, Idaho, andWashington. Fisheries 16(2):4-21.

NOAA. 1993. Interim Policy on ArtificialPropagation of Pacific Salmon Underthe Endangered Species Act. Federal

Register 58(63):17573-6.North, J.A., L.C. Burner, and R.A. Farr. 1999.

Effects of mitigative measures onproductivity of white sturgeonpopulations in the Columbia Riverdownstream from McNary Dam, anddetermine the status and habitatrequirements of white sturgeonpopulations in the Columbia and Snakerivers upstream from McNary Dam.Annual Progress Report, April, 1997-March, 1998, Report B. Report preparedfor Bonneville Power AdministrationProject 86-50, Contract No. DE-A179-86BP63584. Oregon Dept. of Fish andWildlife, 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 WallaDistrict, Walla Walla, Washington.Appendix to the Lower Snake RiverJuvenile Salmon Migration FeasibilityReport/Environmental ImpactStatement. Dated April 14, 1999.

Northwest Power Planning Council. September17, 1992. Information on Water Qualityand Quantity Contained in the Salmonand Steelhead Subbasin Plans (aboveBonneville Dam) (Document 93-8).

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1986.Compilation of Information on Salmonand Steelhead Losses in the ColumbiaRiver Basin. Appendix D of the 1987Columbia River Basin Fish and WildlifeProgram. Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1999.Artificial Production Review. CouncilDocument 99-15. October 13, 1999.Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power Planning Council. November9, 2000. Phase One Amendments

Columbia River Basin Fish and WildlifeProgram, Technical Appendix,November 9, 2000.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW), Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998.Status Report: Columbia River FishRuns and Fisheries, 1938-1997.Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Water Resources Department. 1993.Memorandum from T. Kline and B.Fujii, Oregon Water ResourcesDepartment, to David Moscowitz, et.al., regarding weak stocks and watersupply conflicts (September 17, 1993).

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC).1999a. Draft Final Pacific CoastSalmon Plan. Conservation Objectivesand Management Information.Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC).1999b. Review of 1998 Ocean SalmonFisheries. Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council Salmon(PFMC). 1999c. Preseason Report:Stock Abundance Analysis for 1999Ocean Salmon Fisheries. Portland,Oregon.

Paragamian, V. 1995. Kootenai River fisheriesinvestigation: Stock status of burbotand rainbow trout and fisheriesinventory. Idaho Department of Fishand Game, Annual Progress Report.Report IDFG 96-7 prepared forBonneville Power AdministrationProject No. 88-65, Contract No. DE-B179-88BP93497. 53p.

Parnell, I., D.R. Marmorek, C.N. Peters, andC.A.D. Alexander (compls./eds.). 1999.PATH: Scoping of candidateexperimental management actions.Draft prepared by ESSA TechnologiesLtd., Vancouver, B.C. 108 pp.

Platt, J.R. 1964. Strong Inference. Science

146:347-353.Quigley, T. M., S. J. Arbelbide (technical

editors). 1997. An assessment ofecosystem components in the interiorColumbia River basin and portions ofthe Klamath and Great Basins: Volume3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405.Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station. 4 vol.


(Quigley T. M., tech. ed.: The InteriorColumbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project: ScientificAssessment).

Reisenbichler, R. and J. McIntyre. 1977.Genetic differences in growth andsurvival of juvenile hatchery andwild steelhead trout Salmo gairdneri.J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 34:123-128 pp.

Reisenbichler, R.R. 1997. Genetic factorscontributing to declines of anadromoussalmonids in the Pacific Northwest.pp. 223-244 in Pacific Salmon & TheirEcosystems: Status and FutureOptions, F.J. Stouder, P.A. Bisson, R.J.Naiman, Editors. Chapman & Hall,New York.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993.Demographic and HabitatRequirements for Conservationof Bull Trout. USDA Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-302.

Sharpe, C., P. Hulett, and C. Wagemann. 2000.Studies of hatchery and wild steelheadin the Lower Columbia Region,progress report for fiscal year 1998,WDFW Kalama Research Team. Reportavailable from State of Washington,Depart. of Fish and Wildlife, KalamaResearch Team, 804 Allen St., Ste.3,Kelso, WA 98626. 54p

Simberloff, D. 1983. Competition theory,hypothesis-testing and othercommunity ecological buzzwords.Amer. Nat. 122:626-635.

Solazzi, M. F., T.E. Nickelson, S.L. Johnsonand J.D. Rodgers. Effects of Increasingwinter rearing habitat on abundance ofsalmonids in two coastal OregonStreams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57:906-914.

Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Huges,and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. Anecosystem approach to salmonidconservation. TR-4501-96-6057.ManTech Environmental ResearchCorp., Corvallis, OR. (Available fromNational Marine Fisheries Service,Portland, Oregon.)

Standford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 1992.Management of aquatic resources inlarge catchments: recognizinginteractions between ecosystem

connectivity and environmentaldisturbance. Pages 91-124 in R.J.Naiman, editor. Watershedmanagement: balancing sustainabilityand environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Stober, Q.J. and Nakatami, R., 1992. WaterQuality and Biota of the ColumbiaRiver System, in “Water Quality inNorth America River Systems,” Becker,D. and Neitzel, D., Editors, BattellePress.

Stober, Q.J., M.R. Criben, R.V. Walker, A. L.Setter, I. Nelson, J.C. Gislason, R.W.Tyler, and E.O. Salo. 1979. ColumbiaRiver irrigation withdrawalenvironmental review. Columbia RiverFishery study. Final Report FRI-UW-7919, University of Washington.

Streamnet. December 2, 1999. Glossary ofTerms [glossary online]. Gladstone(OR): URL:<http://www.streamnet.org/ff/Glossary.

Taylor, J. E., Making Salmon: Economy,Culture, and Science in the OregonFisheries, Precontact to 1960 at 72-80,86, 90 (Doctor of Philosophydissertation, University of Washington,1996).

Thomas, Duncan W. October 1981. HistoricalAnalysis of the Columbia River Estuary:An Ecological Approach. Draft Reportto the Columbia River Estuary StudyTaskforce.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau ofReclamation, and Bonneville PowerAdministration. 1999. FederalColumbia River power system projectoperations. Biological assessment foreffects of FCRPS operations onColumbia Basin bull trout andKootenai River white sturgeon. 176 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serviceand U.S. Department of Interior,Bureau of Land Management. 1995.PACFISH: Decision notice/decisionrecord, FONSI, ES, Appendices for theinterim strategies for managinganadromous fish-producing watershedsin eastern Oregon and Washington,Idaho, and portions of California.Washington DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service and U.S.


Department of Interior Bureau of LandManagement.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. 1995. EnvironmentalAssessment for the implementation ofinterim strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in easternOregon and Washington, Idaho, andportions of Nevada (INFISH). U.S.Government Printing Office.Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService; U.S. Department of Interior,Bureau of Land Management. 1994.Northwest Forest Plan. Record ofDecision for Amendments to ForestService and Bureau of LandManagement Planning DocumentsWithin the Range of the NorthernSpotted Owl.

Walters, C.J. and R. Hilborn. 1976. Adaptivecontrol of fish systems. J. Fish Res.

Brd. Canada 33:145-159.Waples, R.S. 1999. Dispelling some myths

about hatcheries. Fisheries, 24 (2):12-21.

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF),Washington Department of Wildlife,and Western Washington Treaty Indian

Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington Statesalmon and steelhead stock inventory.212 p.

Washington Forest Practice Board. 1995. Rules- WAC 222. Board Manual. ForestPractices Act - RCW 76.09. WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources,Forest Practices Division, Olympia,Washington.

Welch, D. W.; Ishida, Y., and Nagasawa, K.Thermal limits and ocean migrations ofsockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus

nerka): long-term consequences ofglobal warming. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 1998; 55:937-948.

Welch, DW; Ishida, Y; Nagasawa, K; Eveson, JP1998. Thermal limits on the oceandistribution of steelhead trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss). North PacificAnadromous Fish Comm., Vancouver,BC [Canada]. Bulletin 1 (1998): 396-404.

Williams, J.G., S.G. Smith, and W.D. Muir.2000. Survival estimates fordownstream migrant yearling juvenilesalmonids through the Snake andColumbia River hydropower system,1966 to 1980 and 1993 to 1999. Inreview: N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage.