What is it?

The conceptual foundation is composed of the theories, principles, and assumptions that provide the scientific basis for and give direction to salmon management and restoration activities. It determines how information is interpreted, what problems (limitations on production) are identified, and the range of appropriate solutions (Lichatowich et al. 1996). The conceptual foundation is a powerful element in salmon restoration plans (Williams et al. 1996).

All restoration plans are based on such a conceptual foundation, which is the basis for the plan's problem definition, strategies and specific activities. Unfortunately, few plans explicitly describe or present their conceptual foundation. Consequently, the scientific basis for those plans cannot be reviewed, debated, and evaluated. Oregon's 1982 Coho Plan (ODFW 1982) is one of the few restoration programs that did include a conceptual foundation.

With the clarity of 15 years of hindsight, it is possible to see the shortcomings of that first attempt to explicitly define a conceptual foundation for a salmon restoration plan. The 1982 Coho Plan emphasized single species management independent of the ecosystem and its productive processes. Artificial propagation received a strong emphasis. The value of natural production and the need to recognize and conserve the stock structure was a departure from traditional approaches and reflected a shift in thinking that is still in progress.

The 1982 Coho Plan still contained strong remnants of the century-old belief that technology could circumvent natural ecological processes and sustain fisheries. A conceptual foundation that relies on the use of technology, such as hatcheries, as a substitute for healthy ecosystems has two readily identifiable characteristics or outcomes: (1) unfounded optimism, and (2) the impossibility of failure.

Unfounded Optimism

Salmon managers in the Pacific Northwest embraced hatchery technology with great enthusiasm and very little critical evaluation. That pattern has persisted from 1875 to the present, although some hatchery programs are now being evaluated. The following excerpts illustrate the continuous optimism towards artificial propagation:

By the successful system of hatcheries the states of Oregon and Washington now maintain on the Columbia River, the permanency of the fishing industry of this state, in the Columbia River district is assured for all time to come; for it has been fully demonstrated the last two years that the art of artificial propagation has solved the problem of restocking the river with this most important product of our state's commerce. ... I believe that with the system of hatcheries now maintained in the state, not only the present supply of fish can always be maintained, but with each succeeding year will come an increase. (Pacific Coast Fisheries 1903 p. 5)

...this improved method has now passed the experimental stage, and...the Columbia River as a salmon producer has 'come back.' By following the present system, and adding to the capacity of our hatcheries, thereby increasing the output of young fish, there is no reason to doubt but that the annual pack can in time be built up to greater numbers than ever before known in the history of the industry...(OFGC 1919 p. 16).

It is imperative, therefore, that some means be adopted to counteract the depletions arising from this source (habitat degradation); but the most important reason for the artificial propagation is the fact that the natural method is extremely wasteful, which is not true of the artificial method. (Smith 1919)

In my opinion, if the salmon runs of this state are to be maintained and increased, it is going to be necessary to constantly construct new hatcheries. The much greater effectiveness of hatchery operations, as compared with natural propagation, has in my judgment been so effectively proven as to no longer permit discussions among those who are acquainted with the situation. (WSFG 1921)

Hatcheries have played a major role in maintaining and enhancing runs of anadromous salmonids in the lower Columbia River, and can provide the means of rebuilding future runs in the upper Columbia and Snake River systems to the levels that existed before the dams. (Ayerst 1977 p. 84)

We believe that if things proceed as they are now, combining the traveling screens and placing them in operation on schedule, expanding the transportation effort on schedule, and adding the spillway deflectors at the dams to reduce the nitrogen concentrations, we can restore the adult steelhead trout runs to their former levels within two to three years. After the Snake River Mitigation Plan is approved by Congress, it seems possible that we can establish adult runs of both steelhead trout and salmon in far greater numbers than existed before. (Ebel 1977 p. 39)

Impossibility of Failure

Technology, with its enthusiastic supporters, never fails to achieve its mission. If expectations are not realized, the fault is not in the fundamental assumptions or methodology. The lack of success is attributed to a failure to implement enough technology (e.g., to fund enough hatcheries). The escalating costs of salmon restoration in the Columbia River with no signs of improvement is a classic illustration of this phenomena. Mitigation for the hydroelectric system started in 1946 with a budget of $2 million per year. The Northwest Power Planning Council's program alone has reached $450 million annually with no signs of success. The hatchery program in the Columbia Basin has increased three-fold in the last 25 years and is about to undertake another major escalation.

Background

Salmon management and restoration must continually contend with uncertainty associated with our lack of knowledge of the salmon's life history and ecology, natural fluctuations in productivity, and the evolution of ecosystems due to natural and human induced changes. However, there is one aspect of salmon management that is relatively certain: the failure of the status quo to reverse the depletion of salmon and bring about meaningful restoration.

Effective salmon restoration programs have a fundamental requirement: they must work in concert with the salmon's strengths. The failure of half a century of restoration programs, especially those that emphasized artificial propagation, can be traced to practices that worked against the salmon's biological strengths. Salmon restoration has often tried to circumvent or eliminate the need for habitat. Hatcheries were, and still are, perceived as a substitute for healthy watersheds; hatcheries also fostered the idea that rivers need only be channels to the sea for artificially-propagated salmon, rather than complex healthy ecosystems. The mass transfer of salmon from one river to another through hatchery programs weakened the relationship between the salmon and their native habitat, broke down reproductive isolation, and destroyed the salmon's natural economy and productivity. Hatcheries did not destroy habitat or overfish the salmon, but they offered an alternative to protection and regulation. It was an alternative that failed and so must share part of the responsibility for the current crisis.

Forests, rangeland, rivers, and salmon have the internal capacity to recover from major disturbances. They have been doing so for thousands, if not millions, of years. The principal role for people in the recovery of Pacific salmon is to not interfere in the natural recovery process, but to control their own behavior in a way that lets natural recovery take place. In other words, there is a strong need for the practice of stewardship that encourages the natural healing process. There are specific things we can do to assist salmon in their recovery, but what we do must work with the strengths of the salmon.

It is important to recognize that salmon productivity will change over periods of several decades due to natural fluctuations in climate or ocean productivity. Management and restoration programs must recognize those changes in real time and make appropriate adjustments. For example, when ocean productivities enter a period of depression, harvest has to be adjusted quickly to avoid deepening the production trough. During a natural low in productivity, when carrying capacities are reduced, it may be counterproductive to attempt to compensate by increasing the output of hatchery fish.

Habitat is critical. No sustained recovery of salmon is possible without healthy habitat. The recovery of salmon habitat is tied to the recovery of whole watersheds. Site-specific fixes (e.g., log weirs, artificial spawning beds, or other artificial stream reconstructions), which may be useful in the short term, cannot compensate for a failure of watershed-level stewardship.

Salmon stocks are chronically over-harvested. However, current harvest regulations do not consider the number of salmon carcasses needed to maintain the fertility of the stream, nor do they consider the need to conserve the gene pools of individual salmon stocks. Failing to take stream fertility and genetics into account probably means that overharvest has been greater than once believed.

Hatcheries have been the primary tool used by managers to replace natural production lost due to habitat degradation or overharvest. Artificial propagation failed to meet those objectives, and it is now known that hatcheries contributed to the decline of natural production. One important way hatcheries contributed to the decline of wild stocks was the overharvest of wild salmon in fisheries targeting aggregates of hatchery and wild populations. In the future, hatcheries will play an important role in recovery and management programs. However, to identify that role will require a thorough audit and evaluation of the program and a strong commitment to adaptive management.

The Conceptual Foundation

To signal a change from the status quo, the OCSRI Plan has adopted the conceptual foundation described in Williams et al. (1996) with few modifications. That conceptual foundation is composed of three primary elements:

1. Restoration of salmonids in Oregon's coastal rivers must address the entire natural and cultural ecosystem, which encompasses the continuum of freshwater, estuarine, and ocean habitats where salmonid fishes complete their life histories. This consideration includes human development, as well as natural habitats.

2. Sustained salmonid productivity requires a network of complex and interconnected habitats, which are created, altered and maintained by natural physical processes in freshwater, the estuary, and the ocean. These diverse and high-quality habitats, which have been extensively degraded by human activities, are crucial for salmonid spawning, rearing, migration, maintenance of food webs, and predator avoidance. Ocean conditions, which are variable, are important in determining the overall patterns of productivity of salmon populations.

3. Life history diversity, genetic diversity, and metapopulation organization are ways salmonids adapt to their complex and connected habitats. These factors contribute to the ability of salmonids to cope with environmental variation that is typical of freshwater and marine environments.

Adoption of the explicit conceptual foundation is an important first step. The theories, assumptions, and principles need further elaboration; also, their relevance to Oregon's coastal streams has to be described. In addition, the plan's measures will have to be reviewed and revised where necessary to ensure consistency with the conceptual foundation. The last two steps cannot be completed before the deadline for this version of the OCSRI Plan. Those important tasks will be assigned to the independent science team as part of their first annual audit of the program.

References

Ayerst, J. D. 1977. The role of hatcheries in rebuilding steelhead runs of the Columbia River system. Pp. 84-88. In: E. Schwiebert (ed.), Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead, Proceedings of a symposium, March 5-6, 1976, Special Publication No. 10, American Fisheries Society, Washington, DC.

Ebel, W. J. 1977. Panel 2: Fish passage problems and solutions to major passage problems. Pp. 33-39 in E. Schwiebert (ed.), Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead, Proceedings of a symposium, March 5-6, 1976, Special Publication No. 10, American Fisheries Society, Washington, DC.

Lichatowich, J. A., L. E. Mobrand, R. J. Costello and T. S. Vogel. 1996. A history of frameworks used in the management of Columbia River chinook salmon. Report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1982. Comprehensive plan for production and management of Oregon's anadromous salmon and trout. Part I. General Considerations. Part II. Coho Salmon Plan. Portland, OR.

Oregon Fish and Game Commission.1919. Biennial report of the Fish and Game Commission of the State of Oregon to the Governor and the thirtieth legislative assembly, 1919. State of Oregon, Salem, OR.

Pacific Coast Fisheries. 1903. Commissioner Kershaw hopeful. January 20, 1:15, Seattle, WA.

Smith, E. V. 1919. Fish culture methods in the hatcheries of the State of Washington. Washington State Fish Commissioner, Olympia, WA.

Washington State Fish and Game. 1921. Thirtieth and Thirty-first annual reports of the State Fish Commissioner to the Governor of the State of Washington. State of Washington, Olympia, WA.

Williams, R. N., L. D. Calvin, C. C. Coutant, M. W. Erho, Jr., J. A. Lichatowich, W. J. Liss, W. E. McConnaha, P. R. Mundy, J. A. Stanford, and R. R. Whitney. 1996. Return to the river: Restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River ecosystem. Independent Scientific Group, Portland, OR.

Return to top of page.
Go to Table of Contents page.
Go to Home page.

Created April 4, 1997
Web Page Construction: Janet Demaris (503) 378-3397 x 234