Salmon and society:Lessons from the Pacific Northwest
Robin Waples
Northwest Fisheries Science Center
National Marine Fisheries Service
N.O.A.A
Seattle, WA USA
Subtext:
Tell us how you #@&%ed it updown there so we will feel better
[and, perhaps,can avoid the same problems]
Numberof stocks
Special Concern 54 Moderate Extinction Risk 58High Extinction Risk 101Extinct <100
Pacific salmon stocks at riskNehlsen et al. 1991
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
Millions of fish
Calif
Oregon
Wash
Total
Coho salmon landings
ocean troll & sport fisheries
Status review scorecard Not
Species E T C Listed
Chinook 2 7 1 7Chum - 2 - 2Coho - 3 2 1Cutthroat - (1) 1 4Pink - - - 2Sockeye 1 1 - 5Steelhead 2 8 2 3
Totals 5 22 6 24
Cultural, economic, spiritual reasons
Loss of population diversity limits evolutionary potential of the species
Life history diversity • Promotes efficient use of natural resources
• Buffers productivity
Keystone species in terrestrial (and marine) ecosystems
Why is salmon conservation important?
Upstream: National ResearchCouncil 1996
General conclusion:“The long-term survival of salmon depends crucially on a diverse and rich store of genetic variation.”
There are plenty of salmon in Alaska
Salmon are colonizing species
Salmon have plastic life-history features
Common counterarguments
"singularly unsuccessful in producing new anadromous stocks”
Stock transfers of Pacific salmon:
Withler 1982
Stock transfers of O. nerka:
Percent successful
Kokanee 90
Sockeye <5
Wood 1995
Risk/recovery factors for Pacific salmon
• Habitat• Harvest• Hatcheries• Hydropower
• Misc (e.g., invasive species; natural variability)
214 Pacific salmon stocks at riskNehlsen et al. 1991
Primary factors for decline:
Habitat loss/degradation 92%
Overharvest 49%
Hatchery interactions 49%
Habitat requirements for Pacific salmon
• Ample, high quality water
• Aerated spawning gravels
• Juvenile rearing areas
• Unimpeded migration routes
Skagit River Basin
Historical habitat
Percent change
Sloughs Side channel DistributaryTributaries Hydromodified Nonhydromodified Above culverts Above damsMain stemLakes
860,100 m2
431,200 m2
283,500 m2
463,600 m2
124,200 m2
43,400 m2
632.4 km735 ha
-45%-64%
-15%-23%
-100%-100%
-7%+404%
Habitattype
Beechie et al. 1994
Historical changes in habitat of Puget Sound estuaries
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Acres
NooksackLummiSamishSkagitStillaguamishSnohomishDuwamishPuyallupNisquallySkokomishDungeness
Historical
Present
40
30
20
10
00 60302010 40 50
Biotic integrityCoho/Cutthroat Ratio
Bio
tic
Inte
gri
ty
Watershed urbanization (%TIA)
Horner and May 1998
2
4
6
Mean number of years between 5-year flood events
Pristine 5
Urbanized 1.1
Booth 1991
Human Population Growth in Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties, 1860-1990
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
186018701880 189019001910 192019301940 1950196019701980 1990
King
Pierce
Snohomish
Some dam impacts
are obvious
0
5000
10000
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Number of redds
Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon redds
Snake RiverDam construction
Others only appear to be obvious
-2.000
-1.500
-1.000
-0.500
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
19651968197119741977198019831986198919921995
Stanardized anomaly
Ocean conditions (PDO) have shifted
Good Poor
Hydropower system completed
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 980.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Outmigration Year
Juve
nile
Sur
viva
l in
Hyd
rosy
stem
from Raymond 1988
Williams et al. 2001
•No data•Fish passage improvements
Other impacts are less clear
Snake River spring/summer chinook smolts
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990S
alm
on
lan
din
gs
(mill
ion
s o
f p
ou
nd
s)
1935 Fishwheelsprohibited
1950 Seines,traps, set nets prohibited
1965 LastSummerseason
1977 Lastspringseason
1988 Last sockeyeseason
Columbia RiverSalmon harvest
Recruits
Spawners
MSY
Replacement
Spawners
Snake River Steelhead
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
1960 1970 1980 1990
Ad
ult
Ru
n S
ize
Total
Natural
Long-term sustainability unproven• Catastrophic failure
• Political and funding uncertainties
• Erosion of ecological/genetic/life history diversity
• Loss of fitness and productivity
Hatcheries don’t promote functioning natural ecosystems
Why is it important to conserve wild salmonids--what about hatcheries?
Hatchery vs. wild environments
Similarities Water
Differences Food Substrate Density Temperature Flow regime Competitors Predators
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
-0.400 25 50 75 100
Oregon steelhead
LocalNon-LocalExpected
From Chilcote 1998
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Percent hatchery 25
10 20 30 40 5010 20 30 40 50-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Sur
viva
l wild
chi
nook
(lo
g)
Number of hatchery spring chinook released (millions)
r2 = 0.06 r2 = 0.73
Average Ocean Productivity Poor Ocean Productivity
Levin et al. 2001
Risks
Benefits
Types of benefits to be considered
• Natural pops
• Harvest
• Mitigation
• Treaty obligations
• Public education
• Natural pops
Conservation General
Supplementation review
Was it met?Objective Y N ?
Broodstock collection (representative) Age 11 3 8Run timing 10 2 10Integrity 17 5 -
Hatchery survivalPrespawning (90%) 12 6 4Egg-smolt (70%) 19 2 1Adult-adult (2x) 12 4 6
Population increase (20%) 8 11 3Natural spawning (comparable) 1 2 19Sustainable - 2 20
Waples et al. in press
How insulated are wilderness areas from external impacts?
A by-product of the life cycle
• Most biomass of salmon is acquired at sea
• Results in a transfer of marine nutrients to terrestrial systems
Adult spawners Directly consumed by cohort of 2000
Could indirectly affect salmon by fueling 1o and 2o production in streams
Native rangeIntroduced
Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis
Brook trout absent
0 500 1000 1500
Juvenile chinook density
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Ch
ino
ok
surv
ival
0 500 1000 1500
Brook trout present
Achord et al. 2003
Percent Extinct
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
PinkChum
Sock
Coho
ChinSteel
Pink
Chum
Sock
Coho
Chin Steel
PinkChum
Sock
Coho
Chin Steel
Pink
Chum
SockCoho
ChinSteel
Ecology LifeHistoryGenetics ESUs
Gustafson et al. in prep
c: Population Size
b: Ocean Environment
a: Freshwater Habitat Quality
=
+
DCB
A
Time
Escapement0 Lawson 1993
Oregon coast coho
0
2
4
6
8
10
1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996
Sm
olt
-ad
ult
su
rviv
al (
%)
Year
Oregon coast coho -- Rivers
10000
100000
1000000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Abundance
Pre-Harvest RecruitsSpawners
Vertical slides here
Percent Extinct
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
PinkChum
Sock
Coho
ChinSteel
Pink
Chum
Sock
Coho
Chin Steel
PinkChum
Sock
Coho
Chin Steel
Pink
Chum
SockCoho
ChinSteel
Ecology LifeHistoryGenetics ESUs
Gustafson et al. in prep
1) Puget Sound 32) Willamette/LCR 5 3) Interior Columbia 74) Oregon Coast 15) S. Oregon/N. CA 16) North-central CA 37) South-central CA 28) Central Valley 3
Total 25
Listed ESUsDomain
A B C
Which ESUs are viable?
X
X
X
X
X X
XX XX
Risk
High Medium Low
Total 3 5 11
North 2 3 7South 1 2 4
Summer 2 2 0 Winter 1 3 11
Wild 3 3 2Hatchery 0 2 9
Diversity
Conclusions• Causes of salmon declines can be complex
–FW habitat most pervasive threat–Habitat problems are caused by people–Habitat that appears pristine may not be
• Salmon populations generally are not replaceable on ecological time scales• Long-term effects of hatcheries on natural populations are uncertain but
may be profound• In PNW much has been lost, but much remains. Region is at a pivotal point• Fluctuating ocean cycles + declining FW productivity = trouble for salmon