Tracking the Results of Salmon Habitat Restoration

Reader Comments
Back to article

We have spent millions and millions of tax payer dollars on habitat restoration with very little results to salmon recovery. The facts are evident even from the WDFW. Fish escapement goals are seldom met by WDFW and the public needs to know the facts. Even though we restore and expand watersheds the amount of salmon and steelhead raised by WDFW does not increase to accomadate these watersheds expansions. Case in point: The WDFW has only met there escapement goal twice in eleven years on the Chehalis Basin for chinook salmon. This is the Departments own statistic. If left on there own we will see more salmon extinction in the future. The writing is on the wall and our citizens need to be concerned when we hear from the Bonneville Power Administration that salmon recovery is going well. Wild stocks of salmon and steelhead are in trouble. Once again California and Oregon have no commercial season. We are also harvesting fish faster than we can grow them.

Gary Johnson of WA 6:30PM April 23, 2009

Thanks to reporter Erik Robinson for his April 14 article on the importance of evaluating fish and wildlife projects. I would like to clarify a couple of points for the record.
First, to correct a common misconception, wild Columbia River salmon and steelhead are no longer declining “to the point of extinction;” evidence is that they are climbing toward recovery. Since 2001, wild salmon and steelhead have been returning to Columbia River tributaries in numbers unimaginable in the 1990s. Good ocean conditions get some credit, but so do the massive efforts to make the Columbia Basin more fish friendly. These include structural changes at the dams, hydro operations to facilitate fish migration and habitat improvements.
Young salmon and steelhead now migrate down the Snake and Columbia rivers through much-updated hydroelectric dams, and more than 90 percent now make it past each dam unharmed.
Second, while there may be a national shortage of research, there is no shortage of research, monitoring and evaluation on Columbia Basin fish and wildlife projects funded by the Bonneville Power Administration. Last year alone, BPA funded over $50 million in research, monitoring and evaluation projects, or about 35 percent of our spending on fish and wildlife projects in 2008. The challenge for the Northwest is to evaluate the hundreds of fish and wildlife projects consistently and in a well-coordinated manner, so that we use our fish assistance dollars effectively.
Under the direction of federal Judge James Redden, agencies, tribes and states that once were foes have assembled a salmon protection plan backed by the best and most comprehensive science around. The plan is known as the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion. All habitat and other fish protection projects funded under this plan undergo rigorous review by independent scientists and have extensive monitoring and evaluation components.
Similarly, as Northwest Power and Conservation Council member Tom Karier said in your article, the Council is working toward establishing standard metrics and protocols to track project accomplishments in its Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program. BPA applauds this effort and is working closely with the Council.
Salmon protection on the Columbia River has been such a significant issue for so long that it’s easy to miss changes when they occur. The good news is that, today, salmon returns are increasing and juvenile salmon survival through the revamped hydro system is as good as or better than it was in the 1960s. What’s more, the region is working together for salmon recovery, regional partnerships are protecting and restoring more habitat faster than ever, and these efforts undergo extensive monitoring and evaluation.
Greg Delwiche
Vice President, Environment, Fish and Wildlife
Bonneville Power Administration

Greg of OR 12:43PM April 17, 2009