FISHERI ES MANAGEMENT-PERSPECTIVE

SnakeRiver Spring and SummerChinook Salmon-TheChoice for Recovery

By Douglas J. Nemeth and Russell B. Kiefer

ABSTRACT The was once the most productive tributary of one of the greatest salmon producing river systems in the world, the . Four dams completed on the lower Columbia River and Snake River from 1938 to 7967 resulted in decreased,but still robust adult returns of spring and summer chinook salmon (Onchorhynchustshawytscha) to the Snake River basin. Four additional dams completed from 1968 to 1975 resulted in a systematic decreasein smolt-to-adult return rate that has yet to be reversed. Snake River spring and summer chinook salmon were list- ed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered SpeciesAct in 1992.Recovery efforts to date have been based on a mechanistic foundation (i.e., based on engineering and technology) and have failed to achieve recovery. Comprehensive investigations into the plight of Snake River spring and summer chinook salmon concluded that restoring some level of pre-dam ecosystem function, rather than continuing to rely on mechanistic actions, has a high probability of achieving recovery. The choice to restore some level of pre-dam ecosystem function will require a significant change in management of the Columbia and Snake rivers.

he Columbia River basin through which SnakeRiver spring The premise was to improve sur- was once one of the great- and summer chinook salmon vival by avoiding direct mortality est salmon producers in migrated to reach the PacificOcean. causedby the dams and their asso- the world (Schalk1986). As As a result, adult retums of Snake ciated reservoirs. Researcherscon- Meriwether Lewis traveled through River spring and summer chinook cluded that the program was a viable the basin in 1805,he wrote, "The salmon began a decline that has not recovery tool (Park 1985).However, multitude of this fish (salmon) are yet been reversed. independent reviews of smolt trans- almost inconceivable" (Lewis The decline of adult returns was portation researchindicated serious 7814:426).Within the Columbia a manifestation of decreasedsmolt- experimental design flaws affecting basin, the SnakeRiver drainage was to-adultreturn rates(SARs; e.9., the the verity of the conclusions(Mundy once the most significant in terms total number of adults returning et aL.1994;Ward et al.1997;F. Olney, of salmon production. After com- from a given brood divided by the Anadromous Fish Review Technical pletion of Bonneville Dam (1938), number of emigrating smolts pro- Committee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife McNary Dam (1953),The Dalles duced by that brood). Methods ap- Service,Region 1, pers. comm.). Dam (1957),and Ice Harbor Dam plied to reverse the decline in smolt- Recovery efforts to date not only (1961)(Figure 1), spring and sum- to-adult survival were mechanistic have failed to recover SnakeRiver mer chinook salmon returns to the in nature (i.e.,based on engineering spring and summer chinooksalmon, SnakeRiver basin declined but still and technology) and addressed they have not even halted the decline. supported extensive sport and trib- direct mortality causedby turbines, Examination of potential causesof al fisheries(Keating 1969;Keating predators, etc. (Park 1985).The pri- mortality beyond the dams in the et aL 1971,;WDFW and ODFW mary tool used to achievesalmon Columbia and Snakerivers, and 7997).The addition of Lower Mon- recovery was smolt transportation. comparisons between Snake River umental Dam (1969),Little Goose Smolt transportation entailed col- stocks and similar stocks occurring Dam (1970),and Lower Granite lecting smolts at various dams, below the SnakeRiver dams, indi- Dam (1975\ on the lower Snake loading them onto trucks or barges, cate that the system of dams on the River, and the fohn Day Dam (1968) and transporting them down the lower Snake and Columbia rivers on the Columbia River (Figure 1), Columbia River for releasebelow continues to be the primary factor dramatically altered the ecosystem the lower-most dam (Park 1985). limiting SARs and recovery (Schalleret al. 1999). Douglas I. Nemeth is principal fisheries researchbiologist and Russell The foundation used to restore B. Kiefer is seniorfisheries researchbiologist for the ldaho Department of salmon in the Columbia and Snake Fish and Game,1414 East LocustLane, Nampa, lD 83686;208/465-8404; River basins has been based on the [email protected] ate.id. us ; rkiefer@idfg. state. id.us. use of mechanistic solutions (ISG

I5 * Fisheries Vol.24,No. l0 FISHERI ES MANAGEMENT_PERSPECTIVE

7999).Tw o comprehensive reviews 40"/" of the spring-run and 45% of 1800sas a cheaper alternative to the of Snake River spring and summer the summer-run chinook salmon railroads (Petersen1995), but the chinook salmon have indicated that (Oncorhynchustshazuy tscha) return- cost incurred by the govemment for a foundation for salmon recovery ing to the entire Columbia River suchan undertakingwas not justified based on restoring some level of basin (CBFWA 1996). by the benefits to private industry pre-dam ecosystemfunction in the From 1962to 7967,the five years (Schley1938). Apparently, Congress lower SnakeRiver and Columbia immedia tely following completion did not authorize construction of River is most likely to succeed of the first lower SnakeRiver dams the lower Snake River dams until (Marmorek et at.7998;ISG 1999). (Ice Harbor), approximately 45,000 political tensionsduring the Cold The choiceto adopt this foundation adult spring and summer chinook War in 1945created concem about for recovery will require a funda- salmon entered the SnakeRiver providing cheap electricity to the mental change in management of basin (WDFW and ODFW 1997), now-decommissionedHanford the Snakeand Columbia rivers. and SARs averaged4"/. (Raymond Nuclear Plant (Petersen1995). This paper aims to distill the 1988).Recreational and tribal fish- As these dams came nearer to issuespertinent to the demise of eries for chinook salmon occurred becoming a reality, stateand federal SnakeRiver spring and summer throughout the SnakeRiver basin, agenciesbecame more vocal regard- chinook salmon, recovery measures allowing fishing opportunities ing possible impacts to fisheriesre- taken to date, and new analyses ranging from urban to wilderness sources.As noted by the U.S. Fish that prescriberecovery actions.The (Keating 1969;Keating et al.1.977). and Wildlife Service(USFWS), "The paper proceedschronologically, From the mid-1950sthrough the Lower SnakeRiver dams collective- beginning with past resourcesof 7960s,an average16,000 wild chi- ly present the greatestthreat to the the SnakeRiver basin, the conse- nook salmon were harvested annu- maintenanceof the Columbia River quencesof additional dam building ally in Idaho (Keating1969;Keating salmon populations of any project on salmon returns and survival, et al.1971). heretoforeconstructed or autho- mitigation efforts and their effec- However, there was interest in rized" (USFWS7952:2,909), but con- tiveness,and needed actions to using the Columbia and Snake struction proceedednonetheless. achieve recovery. We focus on rivers for more than salmon pro- SnakeRiver spring and summer duction. Farmersand businesspro- Consequences chinook salmon. However, in some fessionalshad been interestedin After the dams on the lower instancesit was not possible,or water navigation to transport goods SnakeRiver and the Dam appropriate, to separateother from Lewiston, ldaho, to western on the Columbia River were com- SnakeRiver anadromous fish spe- and Washington since the pleted (1961to 7975),600miles of cies or the Snake River from the Columbia River when providing historic perspectiveor information. We bring this to the reader's atten- tion in all such cases.

Pastresources Wiloerness WASHINGTON ."* :3ff The Columbia River is the Monumenlol t Colurrbio l?ivcr ond ftlD!4odes fourth largest river in North Ameri- IheDorl.s ca, draining more than 260,000 ^\U Dro noge lJour)ajoiy square miles, including land in Llom wjlh yeoi E= o, (lonshuciDn sevenU.S. statesand one Canadian "l J*rtrF;-"-'-I'i S'i';r:H "ll:r province (CBFWA 7996; Figure 7). *f i. .,,,1'r' During the 1800s,at least 16 mil- lion salmon and steelhead(Oncor- hynchus mykiss) retumed to the basin arurually, making it one of the most productive salmon rivers in the world (Schalk1986). The Snake River basin drains approximately 40% of the Columbia basin and historically has produced more salmon and steelhead than any other tributary (Schmitten et al. 1995). Within this basin, the Salmon River Figure l. A map of the ColumbiaRiver and SnakeRiver basin showing dams and datesof com- once contributed approximately oletion.

OctoberI999 Fisheries* l7 FISHERI ES MANAGEMENT_PERSPECTIVE free-flowing river from Lewiston, transportation was at the core of the salmon in far greater numbers than Idaho, to the mouth of the Columbia plan to recover wild SnakeRiver existedbefore" (Ebel 1977:39). River changedto slack water (Schmit- spring and summer chinook salmon. However, some scientists eventual- ten et al. 1995).The effect on Snake Smolt transportation researchbegan ly raised concernsabout the design of River anadromousfish was dramatic, in the SnakeRiver basin in 1968.Re- the experimentsused to evaluate immediate, and noticed. In 1974,even searcherssought to determine the fea- smolt transportation and the veracity before Lower Granite Dam was oper- sibility of eliminating direct mortality of the conclusions drawn by the re- ational, the LewistonMorning Tribune due to turbines, predators, gas super- searchers (Mundy et al. 7994;Ward et wrote in a 3 Octobereditorial about the saturation, and migration delay caused al \997; F. Olney,Anadromous Fish diminishedreturns of salmon:"It seems by the four lower SnakeRiver dams Review TechnicalCommittee. USFWS. to us another caseof pushing a plan (Park 1985).Research centered primar- Region 1, pers. comm.). One of the for economicgain without finding out ily on two aspects:(1) the relative sur- most troubling problems related to first how much it was going to cost. vival of known transported smolts(the the control group The control group Togetherwith most of our fellow citi- treatment) to the control group and should have representeda migrant zens,we now fear that those lower (2) the ability of fish transported as that traveled under its own volition SnakeRiver dams for which we cam- smolts to successfullyreturn as adults through the dams and reservoirs paigned so hard have cost us too to the uppermost dam (Park 1985). without experiencingany of the pro- much." During the five years immedi- To compare the relative survival of ceduresundergone by the transported ately after completion of Lower Gran- transported smolts to the control group such as collection,marking, or ite Dam in1975, the return of wild group, a transport:controlratio (T:C) transportation. Instead,all control spring and summer chinook salmon was used. To arrive at this ratio, groups were collectedand marked, adults declined to approximately smolts were collectedar one or more and some were even eventually trans- 27,000 fish annually, a 40% decrease of the following dams-Lower Cran- ported by truck or barge.The efficacy from 1962-7966averages (WDFW and ite, Little Coose,Lower Monumental, of smolt transportation then was mea- ODFW 1997). and McNary (Figure 1)-and split sured by the ratio of adults returning Smolt-to-adultreturn rate decreased into two groups. Fish destined for from the transported group versus the systematicallywith the construction barging receivedone mark, while the control group, even though the ratio of eachnew dam. After completion of control group receiveda different did not reflect survival of a true con- Lower Monumental Dam in 7969,the mark and was eventually returned to trol-a never-collected,never-han- SAR decreasedfrom 4'k to 3.5"/,,(Ebel the reservoir,although sometimes dled, and untransported migrant \977).In 1970,when Little Goose after being trucked upstream When Rather,the ratio comparedsurvival of Dam was completed,SAR declined to the adults returned, the fish with each collected,marked, and transportedindi- 3.2"/u,andby 1972the SAR dropped mark were tallied, and the T:C ratio viduals to a group that was always to 0.8% (EbeI1977),and Lower Gran- was calculatedand tested for a signif- collectedand marked, and sometimes ite Dam was not yet completed. icant difference.From 1968through also transported.Additionally, 1980,transported spring chinook whether one of thesegroups outper- Mitigation salmon returned in significantly high- formed the other was not necessarily Sincethe fear expressedby the er numbers in only 8 of 18 tests relevant to the question regarding the LewistonMorning Tribunewas shared (returnsof transportedsteelhead smolts utility of smolt transportation to among agencies,fishers, and others, were markedly better) (Park 1985). recover SnakeRiver spring and sum- scientistsand engineersbegan to Researchersalso concluded that chi- mer chinook salmon. Under condi- searchfor ways to mitigate the effects nook salmon homing ability was not tions of extremelylow survival, extinc- of thesenew dams. Juvenile bypass significantly impaired (Park 1985). tion could occureven though a positive systemswere retrofitted to the dams, National Marine FisheriesService and significant T:C ratio was achieved but the design of the dams limited the (NMFS) researchersbelieved the smolt (Mundy et aI. 1994).The relevant benefits to fish. Flow augmentation to transportation program could be a question was how to improve absolute help speedmigrants to the seawas viable enhancement tool for restoring survival,measured to the spawning planned but rarely implemented Columbia River salmon and steelhead grounds (Mundy et al.1994). (CBFWA 1996).Although spillway (Park 1985),and in 1981,mass trans- flow deflectors were installed to de- portation of smolts, which began in Results creasethe extent of nitrogen satura- 7976, becamean "operational program" Snake River spring and suqtmer tion, spill was not regularly used to (Park 1985).The anticipated success chinook salmon were listed as threat- directly benefit fish because it meant of the transportation program, togeth- ened under the federal Endangered production of electricity was not er with other engineering changes SpeciesActin1992 (NMFS 1992).The being maximized (Blumm and Sim- and hatchery production, was so high escapementgoal of 25,000wild or nat- rin1991.;Lee 1993).When taken, that one researcherproclaimed, "...it ural adult spring chinook salmon over these actions likely improved smolt seemspossible that we can establish Lower Granite Dam and into the Snake survival to some degree,but smolt adult runs of both steelheadtrout and River basin has not been met for 19 l8 e Fisheries Vol.24,No. 10 FISHERI ES MANACEMENT_PERSPECTIVE consecutiveyears, and the 1995retum 7 0"/" year was the lowest in history (WDFW q) and ODFW 1997).Theminimum escapementgoal for summer chinook -l salmon over Bonneville Dam has not = c u-/o (J: been met in29 years (WDFW and 4ooh ODFW 7997). =t Recoverygoal range Ei Smolt-to-adult return rateshave 'i:30% not rebounded with implementation Y' of the smolt transportationprogram -giPi Smoltdetections. n zov. Adult detedions.n (Figure 2) and are generally within Ei tJ1 2,705 18,4855 the same range of those predicted by 100 1,825 1,762 12,987 50 6 12 s 2.079 7,s6j NMFS without the alleged benefit of .l 20 Itl24 a I'T1 the smolt transportation program o o"k (Collins et al.1975).The median SAR 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 to recoverSnake River spring and Smoltmigratory year summer chinook salmon (4'l') (Mar- morek and Peters7996) is about 17 Figure2. Smolt-to-adultsurvival rates (1989-1995), mean and 900/oconfidence interval, rela- times higher than the mean SAR tive to recoverygoal range. achievedby collection and transporta- tion during the 1989-1995smolt emi- occurring below the SnakeRiver dams River and PacificOcean likely were gration years (mean 0.23;range: to SnakeRiver basin spring and sum- not responsiblefor the collapseof Snake 0.05-0.44)(Figure 2; Appendix). mer chinook salmon. Their ;rnalyses River spring and summer chinook demonstrated that Snake River stocks salmon or their failure to recover. had declined far more than lower Potential lower Columbia River Havethe LowerSnake River Columbia River stocksand that fac- and oceanimpacts also can be viewed and ColumbiaRiver dams tors occurring in the lower Columbia by comparing SnakeRiver spring and beenmitigated for? Some people (primarily those in APPENDIX-SAR Calculation political and public forums) have claimed that the smolt transportation Since1988, passive integrated transponder (PlT) tags have been implanted into wild SnakeRiver basin spring juveniles program, together with other dam andsummer chinook capturedin rearing areasin up to 20 streamsand near the headof LowerGranite pool as part of vari- designmodifications, have mitigated ousresearch projects conducted by state,tribal, and federal entities in the Snake the effect of the system of dams on Riverbasin. Each PIT tag contains a uniquealphanumeric code allowing the identi- the lower SnakeRiver and Columbia ficationof individuals(Prentice et al. l99o). As PIT-taggedSnake River chinook River on SnakeRiver spring and sum- salmonsmolts migrate downstream, they are detected in P|T-tag-detectorfacilities mer chinooksalmon SARs. If this is locatedin LowerCranite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and McNary dams. true, becausetransported smolts are Dependingon how eachindividual dam is beingoperated, at least900/o of the releasedbelow Bonneville Dam, any emigratingsmolts are detected. The fish ladder at LowerCranite Dam contains a factor limiting SnakeRiver spring and detectorthat all returningadults must pass.All detectionsare incorporatedinto the summer chinook salmon SARs must PITTag lnformation System (PTAGIS) database, managed by the PacificStates be exerting its influence between the MarineFisheries Commission, Portland, Oregon. This database can be accessed usingpre-formatted queries provided by PTAGIS. time the smolts are releasedfrom the We searchedthe PTAGISdatabase for detectionsof wild springand summerchi- bargesin the lower Columbia River nooksmolts from LowerGranite, Liftle Goose, Lower Monumental, and McNarydams and the time they return as adults. thatwere tagged in the SnakeRiver basin and had migrated during 1989-1996. A Potential factors include some suite of comparisonof anivaltimes at LowerCranite dam of P|T-taggedsmolts with arrival parametersacting in the estuarineand timesof the entirespring emigration revealed a verysimilar pattern. marine environment (e.g.,predators, Oncea smoltwas detected at one of thesedams, any further downstream disease,competition, etc.) or harvest detectionswere omitted.The PTAGIS database also was searchedfor adultdetec- in oceanor Columbia River fisheries. tionsat the LowerGranite Dam PIT-tagdetector for run years1990-1998. Only Schalleret al. (1999)considered im- detectedadults that were detected as smolts were used in the calculation.The pacts on SnakeRiver spring and sum- resultsof thesesearches were usedto calculatesmolt-to-odult return rote (number of returningadult detections in returnyears x+2 andx+3, by mer chinook salmon from lower divided the number of smoltsdetected in smoltmigration year x). We usedthe binomialdistribution of Columbia River and Pacific Oceancon- theseproportions to calculatethe meanand 9oo/oconfidence interval for each ditions by comparingstock:recruitment smolt migrationyear (Zar 1974). Survival was not correctedfor harvest,which we patterns between spring and summer deemedinsignificant for purposesof the calculation(TAC 1997; Petrosky and chinook salmon with similar life his- Schaller1998). tory characteristics from populations

October1999 Fisheriest l9 FISHERI ES MANAGEMENT_PERSPECTIVE

completion of dams on the lower SnakeRiver but began exerting its in- E 180 o) fluence after they were completed. E1@ + UPPerBig Creek Second,the causeoccurs in the lower o) + Loon Creek Stua + JohnsonCreek Columbia River or PacificOcean. o ---r- South Fork Salmon Third, among Columbia basin 'fig 1n River anadromous stocks,the causeis spe- oo, + UpperYankee Fork E',i 1m SalmonRiver cific to SnakeRiver fish alone.There 80 + JohnDay River is no compelling reasonto believe any iE such causeexists. Rathet we concur o60 with Schalleret al. (1999)that efforts E to date have not mitigated the 840 effects o^^ of the lower SnakeRiver and Colum- o-zv bia River dams on SnakeRiver spring 0 and summer chinook salmon.

,n* .-.1t ^.1o af dd' Thechoice for recovery \til \cil-"C ^'9" ^s""""" P.' "tr' "** The Northwest Power Planning SYearAwrage Council's (NPPC) Independent Scien- tific Croup examined the scientific Figure5. Escapementof springand summerchinook salmon into indexstreams of the Sal- basis for the Columbia Basin Fish and mon Riverbasin and escapementof wild springchinook salmon into the JohnDay River Wildlife Program (which directs sal- basin.Upper Big Creek-wild spring chinook, wilderness watershed; Loon Creek-wild summer mon restoration in the Columbia chinook,wilderness watershed; Johnson Creek-natural summer chinook, managed water- shed;South Fork Salmon River-hatchery-influenced summer chinook, managed watershed; basin) and concluded that the pro- UpperYankee Fork Salmon River-hatchery-influenced spring chinook, managed watershed. gram was based primarily on the use of mechanisticsolutions (ISC 1999). This recovery effort has been the summer chinook salmon escapements those of SnakeRiver spring and sum- largestand most expensivefish restora- to those of John Day River wild mer chinook salmon,are generally tion effort in the world (Lee 1993). spring chinook salmon. John Day above the averageof escapements Indeed, there has been no larger scale River spring chinook salmon smolts exhibited during the 1957-1965run test of the utility of a mechirnistic are similar in life history and emigra- years(Figure 3). forrrrdationto clicit speciesrecovery tion timing to SnakeRiver spring and Harvestalso is low on SnakeRiver than has occurred in the Columbia summer chinook salmon smolts (Ray- spring and summer chinook salmon. and Snake'river basins After more mond 1979;Lindsay et al 1986).John Average harvest rates in the main- than 25 years, the mechanisticsolu- Day spring chinook salmon also over- stem Columbia River for spring and tions applied to recoverSnake River lap in time and spacewith Snake summer chinook salmonhave spring and summer chinooksalmon River spring and summer chinook declined steadily since the 1960s,and have not only failed to recover the salmon (Schalleret al. 1999)during the averageharvest rate during fish, but they have nclt even stemrned the period of initial estuarineand 1990-1997was approximately 7"1' the decline.The choice of mechanistic oceanentrance when year-class (TAC199n Irrformation from ocean solutions to mitigate the effectsof strength is determined (Pearcy1992; fisheriesindicates that the harvestrate dysfunctional ecosystemsto avoid Petermanet al. 1998). As such, John on Snake River spring and summer employing more scientificallysound, Day spring chinook salmon are chinooksalmon is lessthan 1'1,(J. Berk- but politically controversialsolutions exoosedto the same lower Columbia son, ColumbiaRiver Inter-tribalFisher- (e.g.,restoring ecosystemfunctions), River and PacificOcean conditions as ies Commission, pers. comm.). None is not uncommon (Black 1994;Regier SnakeRiver salmon.John Day River of theseharvest rates is sufficient to 7997).Unfortunately, when this spring chinook migrate past the same prevent recovery of SnakeRiver occllrs, environmental policy becomes three dams on the Columbia River spring and summer chinook salmon. both "self-frustrating" (Black 1994) that SnakeRiver spring and summer In light of this information, to con- and expensive(Black 1994;Bottom chinook salmon do. However,Snake clude that the effectsof the Snakeand 1997), and the situation in the Colum- River salmon also must migrate past Columbia River dams on SnakeRiver bia River basin has been no exception. the lower four Snake River dams and spring and summer chinook salmon The NMFS (1995)has committed to McNary Dam, or be transported.A SARs have been mitigated for re- choosing a strategy to recoverSnake comparison of adult escapementrela- quires a belief in the following three River spring and summer chinook tive to Ihe 7957-1965average reveals points. First, the causeof the demise salmon in 1999.Options under con- that escapementsof John Day River of SnakeRiver spring and summer sideration generally involve combina- spring chinook, in stark contrast to chinook salmon did not exist prior to tions of smolt transportation and

20 * Fisheries Vol.24,No. l0 FISHERI ES MANAGEMENT_PERSPECTIVE other engineeringfeatures, flow aug- spring and summer chinook salmon Bottom, D. L.7997 To till the water-a mentation, and breaching of the four as well as other anadromous fish. history of ideasin fisheriesconservation. in D Stouder,P. A lower SnakeRiver dams. Of these Analyses indicate that from a concep- Pages569-597 J Bisson,and R. Naiman, eds. Pacific options only dam breach is consistent tual basis (ISG 1999)and an empirical J salmon and their ecosystems:status with abandoning a mechanisticfoun- basis (Marmorek et al. 1998),that and future options. Chapman and Hall, hope will not be fulfilled. Any gen- dation to achieverecovery. After com- New York. prehensivereview, the NPPC's Inde- uine attempt to recover thesefish Cairns, I. 1993.Ecological restoration: pendent ScientificGroup concluded must be associatedwith restoring some replenishing our national and giobal that salmon restorationin the basin level of pre-dam ecosystemfunction ecological capital. P ages 193-208 irt would require some level of restoring to the lower Snakeand/or Columbia D Saunders, R. Hobbs, and P Ehrlich, natural river functions to the main- rivers by providing a more-natural, eds. Nature cclnservation3: reconstruc- stem Snakeand/or Columbia rivers free-flowing river. However, the tion of fragmented ecosystemsSurrey (ISG 1999).ln a separateprocess prospect of breaching the lower Snake Beatty & Sons,Sydney, Australia. designedto respond to the federal River dams has been characterizedby Collins, G. 8., W. J. Ebel, G. E. Monan, H. L. Raymond, and G. K. Tanonaka. biological opinion regarding Snake some as unthinkable. Conversely,ren- 1975.The SnakeRiver salmon and River salmon, the Plan for Analyzing dering the salmon runs of the Snake steelheadcrisis: its relation to dams Hypotheses(PATH) group/ River functionally extinct in less than and Testing and the national energy crisis.North- is unthinkableto oth- composed of scientistsfrom state,fed- 30 years equally west FisheriesCenter, National Marine eral, tribal, university, and private ers. Ultimately then, how our society FisheriesService, Seattle, Washington. entities,was formed to provide the and culture assignimportance to its CBFWA (Columbia Basin Fish and Wild- best available analysessupporting sal- responsibilitiestcl future generations, life Authority). 1996.Draft Program- mon recovery.These scientists engaged short-termand long-termecotromies, matic Environmental Impact Statement: in a comprehensiveand empirically and cultural heritageand socialneeds impacts of artificial salmon and steel- rigorous process,and their analyses will determineif SnakeRiver spring head production strategiesin the demonstratedthat natural river and summer chinook salmon are Columbia River basin.Portland, Oregon. River salmon and actionsproduced higher survival ben- recovered The foundation to achieve Ebel, W. 7977.Columbia steelhead.Pages 33-39 in E Schwiebert, efits to spring and summer chinook recovery has been identified; recovery ed Columbia River salmon and steel- (and alsofall chinook salmon will depend on whether that fclunda- salmon head. Proc.Sym. 5-6 March 1976.Spec. tiorr is ihosen. )O and steelheadtrout) than smolt trans- Publ. No 10.Am. Fish.Soc., Bethesda, portation-basedactions, and best met Maryland. EndangeredSpecies Act recovery Acknowledgments ISG (IndependentScientific Group). standards.The PATH processalso We thank ReedBurkholder, Kent 1999.Return to the river: scientific explicitlyand quantitativelyincorpo- Laverty,Tim Unterwegner,and the issuesin the restorationof salmonid rated uncertainty into model parame- IdahoState Library for providing his- fishesin the Columbia River.Fisheries ters and found that natural river-based torial information. Paul Bunn, Liz (24):10-19. solutions were relatively insensitive Mamer, and Eric Stansburyprovided Keating,I.F.1969. The harvestof salmon to key uncertaintiesrelative to the valuabletechnical expertise. Editorial and steelheadas determined fronr sal- mon and steelheadpermits. Annual mechanistic-basedsolutions rnodeled. commentswere provided by Alan completion report. StatewideFishing Across all uncertainties,natural river- Byrne,Jeff Dillon, Junefohnson, Keith Harvest Survey,Federal Aid in Sport highest Johnson,Paul Kline, Gregg Mauser, based solutions produced the ProjectF-18-R-14. ScottNemeth, StevePettit, Dan Schill, Fish Restoration. probabilities of recovery,with the Boise,Idaho. and two anonymousreviewers. Special leastrisk for failure, within 24 years Keating, F.,Reingold, M. D. Corley, thanks are extendedto David Burns, J. (Marmoreket al. 1998) and T. Welsh. 1971.Annual survey of PeteHassemer, Linda Nemeth, and Cairns (1993:201)sta ted, "Science the salmon and steelheadsport fishery for their many valued can determine if restoration is pos- Charlie Petrosky harvest in ldaho, checkstation surveil- and suggestions.This work sible; society must determine how comments lance of chinook salmon fisheries, funded through the Bonneville much is desirable."The time for that was check station surveillanceof steelhead Power Administration. determination has arrived for Snake trout fisheries.Annual completion Harvest Sur- River spring and summer chinook report. StatewideFishing References vey, Federal Aid in Sport Fish and salmon. To date, salmon restoration Black, M. 1994.Recounting a century of Wildlife Restoration.Proiect F-18-R-17. efforts in the Columbia basin have failed fishery policy toward Califor- Boise,Idaho. "worked around the edges" of power nia's SacramentoRiver salmon and Lee, K. N. 1993.Compass and gyroscope: (Volkman generation and navigation steelhead.Conserv Biol 8:892-894. integrating scienceand politics for the 1997).This was due to the hope that Blumm, M. C., and A. Simrin. 1991 The environment. Island Press,Washington, the Northwest could have the conve- unraveling of the parity promise: DC. nience offered by the eight dams hydropower, salmon, and endangered Lewis, M. 1814.The Lewis and Clark occurring between Lewiston, Idaho, speciesin the Columbia basin. Environ- expedition The 1814edition, unabridged and the PacificOcean, and also have mental Law 21.(3\ :657-7 44. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia,

October1999 Fisheries* 2l FISHERI ES MANAGEMENT_PERSPECTIVE

Pennsylvania peer review Final report. U.S. Fish and Alaskan sockeyesalmon (Oncorhynchus Lewiston Morning Tribune. 1974.Edltori- Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. nerka) stocks. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. al,3 October.Blame the dams. Lewis- NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Ser- 55:2,503-2,577. ton, Idaho. vice). 7992.Endangered and threatened Petersen,K. C. 1995.River of life, channel Lindsay, R. 8., W. f. Knox, M. W. Flesher, species;threatened status for Snake of death: fish and dams on the lower B. J. Smith, E. A. Olsen, and L. S. Lutz. River spring/summer chinook salmon, Snake Confluence Press.Lewiston. 1986.Study of wild spring chinook threatened status for Snake River fall Idaho. salmon in the |ohn Day River system chinook salmon FederalRegister Petrosky, C., and H. Schaller.1998. Smolt- Final report. Bonneville Power Admin- [Docket No. 910647-2043,22Aprll to-adult return rate estimates of Snake istration Project 79-4. Oregon Depart- 1992157 (7 0 :7a,653-14,662. River aggregate wild spring and sum- ment of Fish and Wildlife, Portland. 1995.Reinitiation of consultation mer chinook. Submission10. D. Mor- Marmorek, D., and C. Peters,eds., and 24 on1994-7998 operation of the federal morek and C. Peters, eds. PATH sub- coauthors. 7996.PATH (PIan for Ana- Columbia Riverpower systemand missions to weight of evidencereport. lyzing and TestingHypotheses). Con- juvenile transportation program rn 7995 21 August 1998 ESSATechnologies Ltd., clusions of Fiscal Year 1996 retrospec- and future years.Portland, Oregon. Vancouver,British Columbia, Canada tive analyses. ESSA Technologies Ltd , Park, D. 1.985A review of smolt trans- Prentice, E., T. Flagg, C. McCutcheon, and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada portation to bypass dams on the Snake D. Braistow. 1990.Feasibility of using Marmorek, D., C. Peters,and I. Parnell, and Columbia rivers. Comprehensive implantable passive integrated trans- eds, and 32 contributors. 1998.PATH. report of juvenile salmonid transporta- ponder (PIT) tags in salmonids.Pages Final report for fiscal year 1998.ESSA tion. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 377-322 in N Parker, A Giorgi, R. Hei- TechnologiesLtd., Vancouver, British Walla Walla District, Portland, OR. dinger, D. festerJr., E. Prince,and G. Columbia, Canada. Pearcy,W. G.1992. Ocean ecology of Winans, eds. Fish marking techniques. Mundy, P. R., D. Neeley, C. R. Steward, north Pacific salmonids. Washington Am Fish Soc Symp. 7, Bethesda, T. P. Quinn, B. A. Barton, R. N. SeaGrant Program. University of Maryland. Williams, D. Goodman, R. R. Whit- Washington Press,Seattle Raymond, H. L.7979. Effectsof dams and ney, M. W' Erho, and L. W. Botsford. Peterman,R. M., B. f. Pyper, M. F. La- impoundments on migration of juve- 1994.Ttansportation of juvenile salmo- Pointe, M. D. Adkison, and C. J. Wal- nile chinook salmon and steelhead nids from hydroelectric projectsin the ters. 1998.Patterns of covariation in from the Snake River, 7966to 1975. Columbia River basin, an independent survival ratesof British Columbian and Trans.Am. Fish Soc 108:505-528.

22 & Fisheries vol.24,No. l0 FISHERIES MANACEMENT_PERSPECTIVE

1988.Effects of hydroelectric devel- Schmitten, R., W. Stelle, Jr.,and R. P. Ward, D. L., R. R. Boyce, F. R. Young. and opmentand fisheriesenhancement on |ones, fr. 1995.Proposed recovery plan F. E. Olney. 7997 A rcvicw and assess- spring and summer chinook salmon for SnakeRiver salmon. U.S Depart- ment of transportationstudies for juve- and steelheadin the Columbia River ment of Commerce,National Oceanic nile cl-rinooksalmon in thc SnakeRiver basin. N. Am J. Fish Manage 8:1-24 and Atmospheric Administration, Port- N Am J Fish Mantrgc 17:6526(t2. Regier,H. A. 7997.Old traditions that led land, Oregon WDFW (Washington Department of Fish to abusesof salmon and their ecosys- TAC (TechnicalAdvisory Committee), and Wildlife) and ODFW (Oregon tems. Pages17-28 in D. J. Sbuder, United Statesversus Oregon. 1997. Departmentof Fish and Wildlife). P.A. Bisson.and R J Naiman, eds Updated tables and appendicesfor the 1997 Statusreport, Colurnbia River Pacificsalmon and their ecosystems: biological assessmentof the impacts of fish runs and fisheric's(1938-96) statusand future options. Chapman anticipated 1996-7998winter, sprinp;, Clackamas,Oregon and Hall, New York and summer sealsonColumbia River Zar,l. 1971.Biostatistrcal analysis Pren- Schalk, R. F. 1986 Estimating salmon and mainstem arrd tributary fisherieson tice-Hall,lnc , ErrglcwooclCliffs, Ncrv steelheadusage in the Columbia Basirr listed SnakeRiver salmon species Jcrsey before 1850:the anthropologicalper- under the EndangeredSpecies Act. spective Northwest Environ 2:1-29 Washington Department of Fish and I This article is the opinion of the Schaller,H. A., C. E. Petrosky,ar.rtl O. P. Wildlife, Vancouver. authors and does not necessarily Langness.1999 Contrasting patterr-rsof USFWS (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service). reflect the posifion of the American productivityand survival ratcsfor 1952 Columbia River arrdtributaries, Fisheries Society (AFS). Readers strL'am-typL'chinook sahnor-t(O t rco r- northwestern United StatesVolume' Vll, with alternative perspectives are It t1 rt cl t t rs tsltnurl tsclrn) popr-rlations of tlre Appendix P ,Lrletter frorn the Se'crc- encouraged to submit thern for Snakeand ColumbiaRivers. Can J tary of the Army. tllst Congress, Fish Acluat.Sci. 56:1,031-1,045 House Document No 531 Washing- consideration. Currently, AFS is Schley,J. 1938.Letter from Schley,U S ton, DC drafting a position statement about Arrny Corps of Engineers,to Harry Volkman,l. Nl. 1997A rivcr in c()mmon: dam removal in general. For infor- Woodring,the secretaryof war 26 May the Colr.rnrbiaRivcr, thc salmonecosys- mation about getting involved, 1938 Pages1-2.75th Congrcss, Housc tem, and watcr polrcy.Department of contact Christine M. Mofjitt, of Representatives,Document No 704 the Interior,Burcau of Reclamation, [email protected]. Washington,DC Portland, Orcgorr.

NOTEfrom the authors:

In 1999,the ldaho Chapterand WesternDivision (composed of : Alaska,Arizona, British Columbia,California, Colorado, Hawaii, ldaho, Mexico, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Western Pacific islands and trust territories, Yukon) of the American Fisheries Society passeda resolution statingthat:

1. Basedon the bestscientific information available, ...the four lower SnakeRiver damsare a significant threatto the continuedexistence of remainingSnake River salmonand steelheadstocks; and

t lf society-at-largedetermines that SnakeRiver salmonand steelheadare to be restoredo-r reco',rered in their native ecosystem,then one biologically requiredaction is to eliminate or greatlyreduce impacts to salmon and steelheadfrom the four lower SnakeRiver dams by removing,breaching, or bypassingthe dams,or otherwiseallowing the lower SnakeRiver to flow freeely,without impoundment;and

3. In conjunctionwith actionto allow the lower SnakeRiver to flow freely, without impoundment,actions to addressdetrimental impacts to habitat,from harvest,or from hatcherieslikely will be requiredto further increasethe likelihood of recoverinsSnake River salmonand steelheadstocks.

October1999 Fisheries& 23