The World's biggest fish story : the Columbia River's salmon

-^. ^_: ,/ - -^ ,4.-^^ . O

333.9516

U25wbfs

1987

kqrounder

Bonneville

U ^L Y 1 9 8 7 POWER ADMINISTRATION

The World's Biggest Fish Story:
The Columbia River's Salmon

''-■•s

IM WMKufi ftmsntu

• o. ■ ■ . . .

0

mSPmMSGKi

/

I
I

^

«

Indian people
living along
the river were
dependent on
salmon for
their way of
life.

Netting salmon on
the Columbid

(Oroiilon HisloficilSodplvl

It's been called the most ambitious effort to
rebuild a biological resource on the planet.
Thousands of people who live along the
Columbia are laboring to bring back one of
the river's most precious resources — the
Columbia River salmon.

Salmon are a vital part of life in the Pacific
Northwest. This delectable fish has been
enjoyed by royalty and has been called "king".
The salmon has been revered and worshipped
by generations of the original Americans.

And for generations, those who use the fish
and those who use the water vital to the Sal-
omon's existence for other purposes have been
locked in conflict.

Water has been used to irrigate crops and
develop cities and industries. Using water to
produce power pulled the Pacific Northwest
out of the Depression and helped it to prosper.

Not that fish were completely ignored.

Since the first Federal hydro dam — Bonne-
ville — was built in 1937, those who used its
electricity — the Pacific Northwest electric
ratepayers — have been working to protect
fish.

They invested half a billion dollars to build
fish ladders and a network of hatcheries to
replace lost habitat. Ratepayers have spent up
to $20 million a year just to operate and main-
tain these structures. More recently, power
managers have diverted springtime riverflows
away from turbines to help millions of fish

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

3 0864 0015 7113 5

migrate to the ocean — at a additional cost of
over $30 million a year.

But it hasn't been enough. By 1973, when
the Columbia's last Federal dam was built, the
Columbia salmon catch was down nearly 80
percent from the harvests prior to the comple-
tion of Bonneville Dam.

Growing concern forced Congress to act. In
1980, it placed increased attention on salmon
and other wildlife. With the passage of the
Northwest Power Act, it created a regional
body, the Northwest Power Planning Council
to pull together Pacific Northwest concerns for
fish and wildlife.

The Council developed a fish and wildlife
program for the entire Columbia River Basin.
This program is a blueprint, an overall guide
for hundreds of individual projects carried out
by the region's state and Federal agencies,
including the Bonneville Power Administra-
tion. Bonneville and its ratepayers are respon-
sible for implementing over half of the
program. ^

Crews repairing fish habitat — barges carry-
ing young salmon and steelhead past the dams
— computer-sensitive fish tags — fish disease
research — support for harvest controls —
renovated fish ladders — better water flows in
the reservoirs for migrating fish. All are part of
the program. The goal? To repair the damage
to the fish runs caused by hydroelectric dams
on the Columbia River.

Backgrounder

In total, efforts to protect and increase fish
and wildlife — both through and outside of
the Program — now cost the Pacific Northwest
over $300 million each year. About a third of
that comes from ratepayers through
Bonneville.

Some 33 state and federal agencies, Indian
tribes and fish management organizations, plus
several fishing and environmental groups are
all working to promote the best way to bring
back the numbers of salmon.

But salmon are not easily managed. Salmon
cannot be confined, making it impossible for
any one group, state or nation to effectively
control the fish. Protecting and allocating sal-
mon requires international cooperation.

Yet it is important to make the effort. There
would be tremendous losses, economic as well
as social, if we did not rebuild salmon and
steelhead runs.

At the same time, the challenge remains
enormously complex. While the aim is lofty
and the benefits great, there is still a healthy
share of uncertainty. How many fish? What
kind? Who pays? How much? Ail are points of
legitimate contention. The key is to use dollars
wisely as an investment in rebuilding one of
the region's most valuable resources.

The past 100 years of the Columbia River
salmon has been a story of decline and despair,
punctuated by renewed effort and hope. But
the last few years have shown that the region

July 1987

can work together toward a long-term benefit
for the salmon and for themselves.

What follows is a comprehensive view of the
efforts and money dedicated to bringing back
the Columbia's salmon.

History

**. . .These Magnificent Hordes
Thinned to a Few Stragglers**^

The earliest written accounts of salmon and
steelhead runs in the Columbia carry a sense of
awe at the number and size of fish returning
from the sea to their upriver spawning sites.
Oldtimers swapped tales of the days they could
walk across a river on the backs of migrating
fish.

Indian people living along the rivers were
dependent on salmon for their sustenance and
way of life. To some, the annually resurrected
fish were worshipped as supernatural beings.

But early settlers saw incredible natural
wealth among the apparently self-replenishing
stocks. Millions of fish would arrive in the river
each season, there for the easy taking. And
take them they did. Great fish wheels, like half-
submerged Ferris wheels, scooped up more
than a million pounds of fish a year by 1906,
and 55 canneries operated in Oregon alone.
New machinery to vacuum fill and seal cans

1 Senator Richard L. Neuberger, 1959

Great fish
wheels, like
half-
submerged
Ferris wheels,
scooped up
more than a
million

pounds of fish
a year by
1906.

I ish wheels at
Beacon Rock

(Oregon Historical Society)

E DUE

.mi

w^

TED IN U S A

increased production to 2,000 cases a day at
each cannery.

After the fish wheels came gill nets, purse
seines and trollers. Bigger boats and better
techniques extended the commercial fishery
into the Pacific Ocean. Salmon were speared
and hooked, netted and trapped, occasionally
even dynamited.

Within three generations, the numbers of
returning salmon had dwindled dramatically.
As early as 1894, an Oregon Fish and Game
magazine predicted, "It is only a matter of a
few years under present conditions when the
Chinook of the Columbia will be as scarce as
the beaver that once was so plentiful in our
streams. [They are quickly] disappearing and
threatened with annihilation."

The impact of overharvest was compounded
by the construction of dams along the Colum-
bia and its tributaries. The first dams were built
in the early 1900s to control floods and provide
water for irrigation. But the Federal Power Act
of the 1920s and the New Deal Era of the 1930s
held a vision of hydropower development that

/'

would change the Columbia River forever.

Hardly any major stream of the 260,000-
square-mile Columbia River watershed was left
untouched. The 1,214-mile "raging river"
known by the early Indians and settlers has
practically become a back-to-back series of
reservoirs from the Canadian border to Bon-
neville Dam near Portland, Oregon. Less than
200 miles of the United States portion of the
Columbia River remain free-flowing.

Fifty-five — including 30 federal — dams
were built to supply cheap electricity, irriga-
tion water and provide flood control. By the
time they were all in place in the late 1970s, the
situation had become critical for some salmon
and steelhead runs — and too late for others.
Some stocks disappeared completely.

Fish ladders were built at most of the federal
dams to provide passage for adult salmon
returning to upstream spawning grounds. But
engineers thought Grand Coulee Dam on the
upper Columbia was too high for fish ladders.
Hell's Canyon Dam stopped salmon and steel-
head from traditional spawning grounds on the

Dams & Lost Salmon Habitat on the Columbia River

Backgrounder

Columbia's major tributary, the Snake River.
These two dams blocked migratory fish from
more than 1,100 river miles of habitat. All along
the river, reservoirs flooded miles of what had
been salmon spawning and rearing grounds for
thousands of years.

Agriculture also contributed to declining
fish runs as farm animals grazed on streamside
vegetation and irrigators impounded streams
and returned the water laden with sediment,
pesticides and herbicides. Careless logging
altered watershed runoff, removed shade trees
and scoured the gravel streambeds that salmon
and steelhead need to spawn. Dredge mining,
industrial waste and the toxic drainage from
cities and roads polluted the river environment
for fish.

The Public Outcry

The drastic decline in fish runs brought a
great deal of money and attention to the fish
problem through the years. Numerous groups
rose to fight for what they considered their fair
share of the dwindling resource.

The cacophony of voices in conflict created
even more difficulties for the numerous agen-
cies involved in managing salmon and steel-
head. In the first place, it was sometimes hard
to determine just who had the right to manage
the fish.

Often jurisdictional boundaries for state,
federal and tribal fish managers overlapped.
And through the years, additional regional and
international groups have been created to
manage the fish.

Because of their differing values, competi-
tive harvest objectives and sometimes sover-
eign status, the fish management agencies and
Indian tribes were not guided by any single
vision or program. While individual groups
benefited, overall, the Columbia River's fish
suffered.

Who, some observers wondered, would get
the last fish?

The Act, the Council and the Program

The fish situation was so dire that Congress,
in 1980, stepped in and added special language
to the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Plan-
ning and Conservation Act (the Act). The Act
demanded mitigation, protection, and en-
hancement for fish and wildlife harmed by
federal hydro development on the Columbia.

Not that dams are the only factor in declin-
ing fish runs, but they are the most obvious.
The inescapable logic that moved Congress to
actions was this: users of electricity, who
benefit from cheap power produced at the

Columbia River Salmon
and Steelhead Runs^

Chinook

Spring

Summer

Fall

Coho

Sockeye

Steelhead

1939^

Average
1976-85

1986

76,708

85,556

186,100

23,477

36,994

31,041

186,051

217,723

416,802

14,383

38,274

130,835

73,382

69,089

58,099

121,922

158,954

379,429

' Source: Corps of Engineers

- The year after Bonneville dam was built. The first full

year of fish counting.

federal dams, should help pay for the damage
those dams have inflicted on fish.

The Act created a Northwest Power Planning
Council (the Council) whose first charge was to
come up with a comprehensive "Program"; a
list of measures to increase the numbers of fish
and wildlife. The Council, in turn, issued its
first Program in 1982.

It is too early to assign specific results to the
Council's Program. But, fish biologists are
encouraged by salmon and steelhead runs in
1984, 1985 and 1986 that far exceeded those of
other recent years on the Columbia. Although
a number of factors have led to the improve-
ment, everyone agrees the efforts taken so far
to implement the Program are a step in the
right direction.

The Players

With such a varied collection of govern-
ments, agencies, tribes and others involved in
the Program, it is no surprise that their respec-
tive roles are still being refined and sorted out.
Each organization has its own strong ideas
about fishery priorities and how they should
be fulfilled.

However, a common theme echoes clear:
Save the fish. The Act outlines roles for many
of the players and a structure for their
interaction.

The Council

Congress created the Council — composed
of representatives appointed by the governors
of Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon
— to set in motion a plan to "protect, mitigate,
and enhance" fish and wildlife on the Colum-
bia and its tributaries. A key provision in the
Act directed the Council to look at the

July 1987

Columbia River Basin and the dams as a whole
system. The Act also directs the Council to ask
for recommendations from all directly-affected
groups: the fish and wildlife agencies, Indian
tribes, Bonneville, dam operators and utilities.

The Council designates responsibility for the
projects that are part of its Program, but does
not carry them out. The Council's scope is
limited to projects that address the impacts the
Columbia River's hydro dams have had on fish
and wildlife.

And its Program must be developed "while
assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate,
efficient, economical and reliable power
supply."

The Council issued its first Program in 1982.
The Program has since been amended, in 1984
and in 1987.

Bonneville and the Ratepayers

Bonneville was created to sell power from
the Columbia's federal hydroelectric dams.
The dams now have a capacity of some 20,000
megawatts. They can supply enough energy to
power 20 cities the size of Seattle. Bonneville
built over 14,000 miles of transmission lines to
transmit that power.

The Act gave Bonneville additional respon-
sibilities. Bonneville must fund efforts to pro-
tect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife to
the extent they were affected by federal hydro-
electric dams and in a manner consistent with
the Council's Program.

Bonneville moves Program measures from
ideas to reality, asking the utilities, tribes, and
fish and wildlife agencies to help flesh out the
ideas. Once a project has been created, Bon-
neville pays others — agencies, tribes, universi-
ties and private business — to do the actual
project work.

Bonneville is wholly financed by Pacific
Northwest ratepayers. It receives no appropria-
tions — tax dollars — from Congress. Bonne-
ville has no income other than what it gains
from marketing electricity. Thus, Bonneville
customers — mostly public and private utilities
and aluminum companies — and their custo-
mers — ratepayers — fund the protection and
improvement of fish and wildlife.

Responsibility for using hard-headed cost
analyses and emphasizing "high-payoff" pro-
jects rests on all the groups involved in the
effort. Ratepayers want assurance that their
money is being spent wisely and well. Bonne-
ville, as the steward of that money, has the
legal responsibility to provide that assurance.

Their dollars repay the federal Treasury for
many of the large hatcheries and fish ladders

that have been built on the Columbia River
over the years. As funders, in large part, of the
overall Program, ratepayers play an important
role in the public review process that is built
into the Program

Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Fish and wildlife agencies in the states of
Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana,
along with two federal agencies, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service manage fish and wildlife
resources. They also police commercial and
sport fish harvest.

Pacific Northwest fish and wildlife agencies
are central players in the Program. They
recommend new ideas and provide technical
advice on the feasibility of each other's ideas.
Fish and wildlife agencies carry out most of the
work on Bonneville-funded fish projects.

Indian Tribes

The Council's Program must be consistent
with the legal rights of Indian tribes in the
Columbia River Basin. Several tribes have been
very active in offering recommendations for
the Program. In many cases, the tribes have
been on the contracting end of the process,
too, using ratepayer dollars to build hatcheries,
conduct research and improve fish habitat. The
tribes are also responsible for managing fish
and wildlife and setting fishing limits and sea-
sons in areas under their control.

Federal Dam Operators

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, responsi-
ble for building and operating most of the
Columbia's federal dams has another duty: to
help fish migrate past the dams.

The Corps had already built fish ladders for
upstream passage of adult fish. Under the Pro-
gram, the Corps is building screens and bypass
systems as well to guide young salmon and
steelhead away from turbines as they migrate
downstream. The Corps must consider the
Program whenever it makes decisions that
affect fish. Eventually, ratepayers repay the
federal Treasury for dollars borrowed to make
any major fish expenditures by the Corps.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation also builds
and operates federal dams. It was created
primarily to irrigate land and make it arable for
people. Now it must be concerned as well with
fish. Dams, canals and ditches that have made
valleys bloom have had a disastrous effect on
migrating fish.

Backgrounder

The Council
has estimated
that Columbia
River fish runs
once ranged
between 11
and 16 million
fish each year.

Salmon It-dps a
ladder In eastern
Washington

(I Orsborni

The Bureau, in accordance with the Pro-
gram, has repaired fish ladders and installed
barriers to keep fish out of dead-end canals. In
other areas, the Bureau has altered dam opera-
tions to improve fish survival.

Non-Federal Dam Operators and FERC

Private and publicly-owned utilities that
have designed and built their own dams on the
Columbia system also have responsibilities for
fish and wildlife. For the most part, they must
pay for fish projects taking place at their own
dams. In some cases, they share the costs of
building new fish ladders and hatcheries with
Bonneville. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, too, has new duties under the
Act. FERC had its beginnings in the 1920 Fed-
eral Water Power Act. It was created to issue
licenses for non-Federal hydroelectric projects.
It now must consult with fish and wildlife
agencies and tribes and coordinate its actions
with other federal operating and regulating
agencies. And it must take the Program into
account when making decisions on hydrop-
ower activities.

Federal and State Land Managers

Because many of the Program's measures,
such as habitat improvements, are destined to

u ontiniR'd on p-i^'" 1-'

July 1987

Fish screens
are designed
to guide fish
away from
dam turbines.

Installing Irdvolling
screens at
Bonneville Dam

(Corps of Engineers)

Fish ladders at
one of the
eight federal
dams salmon
must pass to
reach Idaho
spawning
grounds.

Lower Monumen-
tal Dam

(Bonneville Power
Adminrsrratron)

A.

Ratepayer-Supported Dams & Hatcheries on the Columbia River

Backgrounder

Hatcheries
play an
important
role in
sustaining
salmon runs.

McCall Ndtiondl
Fish Hatchery

(U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service)

For The Dams

Columbia Basin Fish Facilities Supported by Pacific Northwest Ratepayers Through Repayments
to the Federal Treasury

In-Service

Name

Location

Type

Date

Bonneville Dam

Oregon-Washi

ngton

Ladders/Screens

1938

Bonneville Hatchery

Oregon

Hatchery

1909

Clearwater (planned)

Idaho

Hatchery

1987

Dworshak

Idaho

Hatchery

1982

Entiat

Washington

Hatchery

1941

Hagerman

Idaho

Hatchery

1984

Ice Harbor

Washington

Ladder

1961

Irrigon

Oregon

Hatchery

1985

John Day Dam

Oregon-Wash

ngton

Ladders/Screens

1968

Leaburg

Oregon

Hatchery

1953

Leavenworth

Washington

Hatchery

1940

Little Goose Dam

Washington

Ladder/Screens

1970

Looking Glass

Idaho

Hatchery

1982

Lost Creek

Oregon

Hatchery

1973

Lower Granite Dam

Columbia R.

Ladder/Screens

1975

Lower Monumental Dam

Washington

Ladder

1969

Lyons Ferry

Washington

Hatchery

1983

Magic Valley

Idaho

Hatchery

1986

Marion Forks

Oregon

Hatchery

1950

McCall

Idaho

Hatchery

1981

McKenzie

Oregon

Hatchery

1902

McNary Dam

Oregon-Wash

ngton

Ladders/Screens

1953

Oakridge

Oregon

Hatchery

1955

Sawtooth

Idaho

Hatchery

1984

South Santiam

Oregon

Hatchery

1923

Spring Creek

Oregon

Hatchery

1901

The Dalles Dam

Oregon-Wash

ngton

Ladders

1957

Winthrop

Washington

Hatchery

1940

Managing
Agency

Corps of Engineers
Oregon Fish & Wildlife
Idaho Fish & Game
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Corps of Engineers
Oregon Fish & Wildlife
Corps of Engineers
Oregon Fish & Wildlife
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Corps of Engineers
Idaho Fish & Game
Oregon Fish & Wildlife
Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers
Wash. Dept. Fish
Idaho Fish & Game
Oregon Fish & Wildlife
Idaho Fish & Game
Oregon Fish & Wildlife
Corps of Engineers
Oregon Fish & Wildlife
Idaho Fish & Game
Oregon Fish & Wildlife
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish & Wildlife

July 1987

In The Field

The Program includes some 250 measures to
rebuild fish and wildlife populations. Those
measures, grouped into broad categories,
address the following:

• Downstream migration of young salmon and
steeihead past the dams, including -

• manipulating the river flows to provide
more water during peak migration
months of April, May and June

• constructing fish screens and other bypass
facilities to keep young fish away from
turbines

» using barges and trucks to carry young
fish past the dams and release them
downstream

• Upstream migration of mature salmon and
steeihead toward their spawning sites.

• Propagation of hatchery-bred salmon and
steeihead, and how they interact with wild
fish.

• Non-migratory game fish, and how their
lives near the reservoirs are affected by the
operation of dams.

• Wildlife, and how to compensate for habitat
altered or flooded by dam reservoirs.

The projects funded by Bonneville — and the
ratepayers — are based on these measures.

Fish and Wildlife Expenditures
in the Pacific Northwest

Fiscal Year 1985 '

Bonneville Power Administration $117.5 M ^

Bureau of Land Management 2.3

Bureau of Reclamation 4.3

Corps of Engineers 44.5
Idaho Department of Fish and Game 14.3
Montana Department of Fish,

Wildlife & Parks 14.4

National Marine Fisheries Service 10.7
Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife 22.8

Tribes 10.3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 16.4

U.S. Forest Service 7.9
Washington Department

of Fisheries 20.9

Washington Department of Game 18.7

Total $305.0 M

' per each agency's records. State agency dollars shown do

not include funds from federal agencies, such as

Bonneville.

' an average. Bonneville dollars come from rates. Dollars

shown for all other groups come solely from taxes or fees.

Creating new
places for
salmon to
spawn, Mount
Hood
National
Forest,
Oregon.

Log weir
construction

(N (hn^rmasl

10

Backgrounder

♦^^r?

Building new
hatcheries to
boost the
number of
upriver game
fish

Kokanee salmon
eggs, Cabinet
Gorge Hatchery,
Sandpoint, Idaho

fD lohnson]

Where the Ratepayers'
Money Goes

Item

Average

Annual Cost

(in millions)

$35-50

Repayments to the U.S.
Treasury.

Since 1937, ratepayers — through Bonneville
— have been paying back the federal Treasury
a growing amount — now nearly half a billion
dollars — spent to build some 20 fish ladders,
screens and hatcheries at several Columbia
River dams. Repayments include about $20 mil-
lion each year for the money the Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spend to operate
and maintain those facilities.

Power Losses.

$40-60

Bonneville also foregoes power revenues to
spill water at dams or to increase flows through
the reservoirs for young fish. This figure varies
according to how much water is available and
how much hydroelectric power is worth.

The Program. $25

In addition, Bonneville is responsible for
more than half the Program. Empowered
under the Act to help fish and wildlife, Bonne-
ville has spent more than $83 million over the
past five years on 253 fish and wildlife projects.
In 1986 alone, some $25 million was spent on
112 specific efforts.

Total

$100-135

In total, fish and wildlife is costing ratepay-
ers an average of $117.5 million a year or about
4 percent of Bonneville's total operating
revenues.

July 1987

11

/-

How Much The Program
Cost Bonneville In 1986

Fish and Wildlife
Projects

33 projects to find new or
improve existing spawning
and rearing habitat for
wild fish

21 projects to improve
hatchery production or build
new hatcheries

14 projects to help young
fish migrating downstream

19 projects to move adult
fish upstream to spawning
sites

12 projects to investigate
hydro impacts on upriver
game fish

13 projects to improve
wildlife habitat

Total

Cost
(in millions)

$9.0

Who How Much

(SMillions)

Fish and Wildlife

Agencies i $10.5M

Indian Tribes $ 2.8

Bureau of Reclamation $ 3.2

U.S. Forest Service $ 1.8

U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers $ 2.0

Universities: Oregon

State University,

University of Idaho,

University of Washington,

Washington State

University $ 1.1

Private Consultants $ 0.7

Others (e.g. Public

Utilities $ 2.9

Total

4.6

4.6
3.1

2.6

1.1
$25.0

Who Got the Money
to Do the Work

Per
Cent

42%

11%

13%

7%

8%

4%
3%

12%

$25.0M 100%

' Breakdown by individual fish and wildlife agencies:

National Marine Fisheries Service

Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Idaho Fish & Game

Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission

Washington Depts. Fish & Game

$10.5M

$ 2.2M

2.6

1.6

1.5

1.2

0.9

0.5

((onlinued trom p.i^r 71

be carried out on federal land, the appropriate
land-management agencies become involved.
The Bureau of Land Management, the National
Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service each
administers large sectors of the Columbia River
Basin. In some cases, they directly or indirectly
manage fish and wildlife. In each instance
these agencies play a consulting and coordinat-
ing role in the Program. Occasionally, projects
take place on lands governed by state agencies
such as the Washington Department of Natural
Resources.

Issues

Complex problems seldom lend themselves to
easy solutions. No single approach can solve
the problem of dwindling salmon and steel-
head populations in the Columbia River Basin.
Increasing fish production, providing safe pas-
sage during migration and managing harvest
effectively are all needed. It is essential that
these three approaches be integrated if they
are to be most effective, and even, in some
cases if they are to avoid doing more harm
than good.

While all parties will agree on what needs to
be done, it's the how and who that sometimes
gets in the way of progress. What we have is a
wide range of jurisdictions and interest groups
and multiple species of salmon. What we don't
have is easy answers. Many issues are still unre-
solved.

How Much are the Ratepayers Able
and Willing to Pay?

Dams were built for many purposes. For
example, water behind a dam can be used to
produce electricity or to irrigate crops. How
many fish are lost when water is held to keep
boat ramps afloat? How many are lost when
spring flows are held back to control floods?
What about managing the river for barge traf-
fic? Ratepayers are not supposed to pay for fish
losses caused by all these other uses of hydroe-
lectric dams.

Some fish biologists believe that the Colum-
bia cannot tolerate a continuing decline in fish
runs at any price. Yet when it comes to increas-
ing fish runs, and how far to go, there are
financial limits.

The Program represents "the largest effort at
biological restoration in the world in terms of
annual dollar inputs."^ The Council estimates
that the Program could end up costing as
much as $1 billion.

-Kai Lee, Northwest Power Planning Council member, 1985

12

Backgrounder

Currently fish and wildlife costs each man,
woman and child in the region between $15
and $20 per year. According to the Council,
this represents about 4 percent of an average
electric bill.

Bonneville must balance its fish and wildlife
duties with its other duties to provide ade-i
quate and economical electricity and still be
able to meet its obligations to the U.S. Treasury.

Revenue shortfalls related to declining oil
and gas prices and a slump in the Northwest's
economy in recent years have brought a new
reality to decisions about how much Bonne-
ville ratepayers can be expected to contribute
in the future and at what pace.

Bonneville — Balancing Interests

Bonneville must balance eager proposals
from the fish and wildlife agencies and the
tribes, on one hand, and Northwest ratepayers,
on the other hand, who must foot the bill. In
this role, Bonneville has been described as
something like an investor, with an eye toward
a fair return — in terms of fish.

As the Program has grown, so has the need
for hard evidence that each measure that the
Council passes on to Bonneville relates to a
specific biological goal and represents the
most effective way to reach that goal.

According to the Act, Bonneville ratepayers
should shoulder the financial burden only for
damage caused by Federal hydro development
in the Columbia River Basin. Not for overhar-
vest. Not for industrial or agricultural
pollution.

It's true Bonneville does fund a number of
projects not directly connected to dams, for a
few simple reasons. Bonneville cannot disman-
tle dams or drain reservoirs that have flooded
spawning sites. It can, however, offset damage
done by federal dams by, for example, improv-
ing spawning grounds elsewhere.

But the Act says that the Program is to add
to, not replace, funding for fish projects that
are the responsibility of other groups. Other
groups cannot pass on their expenses to rate-
payers.

How Do We Rebuild Fish Runs?

How should we rebuild fish runs? Should we
release more hatchery fish or concentrate on
boosting the numbers of wild fish?

Those living in the upper reaches of the
Columbia River applaud the idea of rebuilding
wild runs. Several towns in eastern Washington
and Idaho have built their economy around a

July 1987

.-«,

^

I I

rthC

fifArmritrrEFFirn

healthy sport fishery. Indian tribes who live in
those areas have complained of the loss of
their treaty rights to salmon.

Putting More Fish in the Rivers. Bonneville is
now working to open up or rehabilitate 1,000
miles of stream to increase natural production
of salmon and steelhead and to put one-ninth
of the Basin's habitat back into production.
The Council estimates that this could increase
the numbers of adult salmon and steelhead by
about 500,000 a year.

But rebuilding habitat can be risky, consider-
ing all the manmade and natural hazards that
lie between the outmigrating fingerling and
the adult fish returning upstream. And the pro-
jected life span of habitat projects tends to be
relatively short. They are subject to destructive
floods every 20 years or so.

Producing More at the Hatcheries. Some
argue, "Why not replace wild fish with
hatchery fish?"

Since the first hatchery was built in 1877,
many fish managers have thought building
hatcheries near the mouth of the Columbia
was the best way to maintain salmon numbers:
More fish could be produced. They could be
more easily managed. And there would be
fewer hazards.

As a result, the Columbia now holds 54 hat-
cheries and 40 satellite rearing facilities for
salmon and steelhead. Altogether, they pro-
duce an estimated 80 percent of the 2.5 million
salmon and steelhead that return to the
Columbia River each year.

Ratepayers
should
shoulder the
financial
burden only
for fish
harmed by
hydro
development.

Steelhead In the
reservoir below
McNary Dam

(Washmmon Public Power
Supply System)

13

Yet some scientists fear that hatchery fish are
not nearly as adept at survival as wild fish. In
the wild, only the fittest survive. Wild fish pass
on their proven resilience by breeding with
other well-adapted individuals. For any species,
its ability to adapt determines whether it will
survive whatever nature — or man — throws at
it.

Biologists are also concerned about timing
hatchery releases with wild runs. When a par-
ticular stock of fish is ready to migrate, the
hatchery will release all of them — several
thousand — in a matter of a few hours. This
sudden influx of hungry mouths can destroy
the natural balance existing in the river. The
hatchery fish compete with wild fish for food
and can overwhelm them through sheer
numbers.

Separating Fish Stocks. Fish managers have
another concern. One estimate shows that
more than half of the Columbia's naturally
spawning chinook are caught by commercial
fishermen off the Pacific coast between Alaska
and northern California. When vessels troll for
fish, they do not discriminate between the few
wild fish and the plentiful hatchery stocks.
Harvest levels are based in part on the number
of hatchery fish available. As a result, naturally
spawning salmon have been overharvested.

Some biologists call for limiting catches.
Others are looking for ways to separate wild
from hatchery fish.

Despite the problems, hatcheries have
become indispensable to the Columbia River
fishery. While wild salmon were losing habitat,
more hatcheries were being built and more

Studying
salmon
diseases to
increase the
number of
hatchery fish.

Newly hatched

sdlmon,

Leavenworth

National Fish

Hatchery,

Washington

(tl.S, Fish & Wildlile
Service)

hatchery fish were being released. And biolo-
gists often depend on using hatchery fish to
stock reopened habitat until a new run can
establish itself.

However, investments in steel and concrete
must be balanced with investments in research.
The simple fact remains that sturdier stocks,
relatively free of disease, will mean a greater
number of adult fish coming back up the river.

Under the Program, new hatcheries will
have master plans. The plans offer an organ-
ized way to make sure dollars invested in hat-
cheries will be a good investment in fish.

The plans show that we now know that
increasing the numbers of hatchery — and
wild — fish is not enough. We have to get fish
past the dams. And we have to regulate harvest
more wisely.

How Do We Get The Fish Out To Sea?

Since salmon and steelhead migrate from
shallow streams to the ocean and back to
complete their life cycle, much of Program's
emphasis is on getting fish safely past the dams.
Improving fish ladders for adult salmon is not
especially controversial. But getting young fish
past the dams and out to sea is another matter.

One way is to increase water flow through
the reservoirs when the fish need it most. Each
spring, from April 15 to June 15, some 60 mil-
lion young salmon and steelhead migrate out
to sea. Reservoirs are deep and slow, quite
unlike the fast-running river of old. Fishery
managers use a "water budget" to move fish
down the river more quickly.

Water that might have been used to gener-
ate power at other times of the year — when it
could get a better price — is stored and
released in the spring to speed young fish
toward the ocean. In dry years, Bonneville
could lose as much as $60 million dollars to
meet the needs of fish. In years of heavy
snowpack and bountiful runoff the water
budget will cost much less.

The Program has called on the Corps of
Engineers to install new fish screens and bypass
systems to steer young fish away from the
potentially deadly turbines at the dams. Until
screens are installed, the Program has directed
operators of unscreened dams to spill water
when a substantial number of fish reach the
dam.

There is another way to help young salmon
past the dams: collect them upstream and
physically transport them, by truck or barge, to
release points below Bonneville Dam.

14

Backgrounder

what method works best? Again, opinions
vary on this important question. In the mean-
time, the Program includes a combination of
water budget, spill, transportation and dam-
site construction as the relative merits of these
projects get tested and sorted out.

Splitting Up The Salmon Runs: Who
Gets How Much?

Salmon spawned in one state often are cap-
tured in the rivers of another state or in the
ocean waters of another country. One study
showed that almost three out of four of the
Columbia's upriver chinook are caught by
Canadian and Alaskan fishermen. Likewise,
salmon from British Columbia's Fraser River
often end up in the nets of U.S. fishermen.

The U.S. and Canadian governments signed
a Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1985 that begins to
address that particular slice of the harvest
issue. Fish management groups such as the
Northern Pacific Fishery Management Council
and Pacific Fishery Management Council have
tried to allocate ocean catches. But the funda-
mental problem remains.

Why should one group invest in fish
enhancement projects that end up enriching
another group? Indian fishermen, commercial
fishermen and sport fishermen are each anx-
ious to preserve and enhance their share of the
wealth.

According to one business news letter, the
commercial salmon fishing industry pumps
upwards of $700 million into the Northwest
economy each year, and sport fishermen con-
tribute even more. Fishing is big business.

Over the years, tribes have filed many law-
suits to preserve their treaty rights to take fish
"at all the usual and accustomed places" on the
Columbia and its tributaries. In one major case,
called U.S. vs. Oregon (as with a separate case
in Washington), the court awarded the tribes
up to 50 percent of the Columbia salmon and
steelhead harvest. The lawsuit participants are
now working on a new five-year plan to man-
age Columbia river fish. But questions remain.

Toward A Brighter Future

How can we ensure the salmon's survival
and allow a fair share of fish for ail? Most
would agree that restrictions on harvest are
necessary, but who will be the first to give up
part of their share? Will the fish saved by one
group only end up in the nets of another?

In spite of the problems, Bonneville, the
Council and the other players are firmly com-

july 1987

^

>.-

A

WL

In the end it
will be all
citizens of the
region who
decide how
much they
are willing to
sacrifice for
the future of
fish.

Brook trout wait in
a pool below a
barrier

(Montana Departmeni ot
Fr^h, Wildlife & Parks)

mitted to rebuilding fish populations in the
Columbia River. In addition to the salmon and
steelhead runs under discussion here, upriver
stocks of non-migratory fish are influenced by
the operation of dams, as are birds and game
animals whose habitat has been changed. The
Program has an effect on their future. And it
will have effects as well on human habitat and
what it means to live in the Northwest.

The Act in its first few years has brought var-
ious interest groups together and provided, at
its best, a kind of synergistic momentum
toward improving fish runs. It is important to
maintain this momentum, to resolve the big
issues and to prevent the renewed effort for
fish from lapsing toward inertia and bureau-
cratic squabbling.

Bonneville and others in the power business
are now cast in the role of advocates of fish,
still searching for the best way to carry out
their duties under the Act.

Their dollars have laid a new foundation.
The first cornerstone projects are underway.
The recent returns of salmon have given us a
hopeful signal of what tomorrow may bring.

But tough questions remain. In the end it
will be all citizens of the region who decide
how hard they are willing to work to build a
future for the Columbia's fish.

For More Information

Other brochures. For more information on
how plans are made and where the money
goes, ask for:

Enhancing our Fish and Wildlife Resources.

15

An o'^erview of ov?r 100 Bonneville projects-
designed to protect salmon, steelhead and
other game fish and improve habitat through-
out the Columbia Basin. 16 pages.

Fish and Wildlife Annual Project Summary.

Individual summaries of each of the fish and
wildlife projects Bonneville has funded each
year with a map showing the location of those
projects. 60 pages.

For a copy of either document, call Bonr\p-
ville's toll-free document request line: •» • '.
800-841-5867 in Oregon, 800-624-9495 in'other
western states. You will reach a recording.
Give your name, address and the name of the
document(s) you want.

For a Presentation. Bonneville has speakers
available to talk to your organization about
Bonneville's fish and wildlife effort. To arrange
a presentation, conitact the Division of Ftsh and
Wildlife or your nearest Bonneville Area or
District office.

Other information. For general questions
contact your nearest Bonneville Area or Dis-
trict Office, the Bonneville Division of Fish and
Wildlife, or the Bonneville Public Involvement
Office. Bonneville maintains a mailing list of
people who want to keep abreast of the agen-
cy's fish and wildlife activities. If you want to
be on that list, contact the Bonneville Division
of Fish and Wildlife at the number li§ted.

i

■A

Bonneville Division of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 3621 • „

Portland, Oregon 97208
(503) 230-4981

Bonneville Public Involvement Office

P,0. Box 12999

Portland, Oregon 97212

(503) 230-3478

800-452-8429 (toll free in Oregon)

800-547j:6048 (toll free in other western states)

Bonneville Area and District Offices:

Portland (503) 230-4552

Eugene (503) 687-6952

Seattle (206) 442-4130

Spokane (509) 456-2515

Missoula (406) 329-3060

Wenatchee (509) 662-4377

Walla Walla (509) 522-6226

Idaho Falls (208) 523-2706

Boise (208) 334-9137 • ^ • ■

Washington^ D.C. (202) 252-5640 ■

Council information. For more information
Q)n the Northwest Power Planning Council or a
copy of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program, contact:

Northwest Power Planning Council *

850 SW Broadway, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97205

(503) 222-5161

1-800-452-2324 (toll free in Oregon)

1-800-222-3355 (toll free in Idaho, Mon'^ana and

Washington) doe/bp^b?

luly 1987
20M

■%^(

■/