II. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO MEASURING PROGRESS 



Ideally, a measure of progress should not only determine progress, but should also provide 

 information to increase our understanding, decrease uncertainty, and permit the program to be refined 

 over time. The choice of a measure of progress largely depends on the question asked. If the question 

 is "Have the number of salmon and steelhead produced in the Columbia Basin increased since the 

 inception of the fish and wildlife program?" then a simple accounting of the adult production will 

 suffice. However, little knowledge will be gained by such a method and it will not be possible to 

 attribute positive or negative trends in production to the fish and wildlife program. A more complicated 

 but useful question would be "Have the number of salmon and steelhead produced in the Columbia 

 Basin increased as a result of the fish and wildlife program?" This requires the ability to separate 

 out program effects from non-program effects such as changes in harvest rates or natural ocean 

 survival rates. This presents considerable technical difficulties because of the numerous conflicting 

 factors that determine the number of fish produced from the river. This question addresses the 

 accountability for ratepayer expenditures in the whole program, but does not provide information that 

 could be used to improve the program. A final refinement of the question might be "What types of 

 measures in the fish and wildlife program are effective and which are not?" The answer to this provides 

 a measure of progress, as well as information to refine the program over time. 



MEG reviewed a number of options for a measure of progress and categorized them as 

 observational or analytical in nature. The former refers to methods that rely on direct counts of fish, 

 while the latter combines a host of monitoring and research data into mathematical expressions that 

 attempt to explain trends in observational indices. 



1. Observational Methods 



Observational methods of measuring program progress would consist of enumerating the fish 

 population at any of several points in the salmonid life cycle. These types of measurements have the 

 advantage of being conceptually simple and could, in many cases, be derived using existing data 

 sources. 



While fish could be counted at any point in the life cycle, those in the following list would be likely 

 observation points: 



a. Smolts at the mouth of the Columbia River. 



b. Adult returns to the mouth of the Columbia plus prior harvest. 



c. Adult equivalent total production (explained below). 



d. Adult returns to the mouth of the Columbia River. 



e. Adults crossing Bonneville Dam. 



Each of these points of measurement have various advantages and disadvantages relating to 

 logistics involved in measurement, and their relevancy to the Council goal. 



Juvenile Counts . The number of smolts from the Columbia system that reach the ocean has the 

 appeal of being a direct measurement of the effects of many fish and wildlife program actions. 

 Because the Council's jurisdiction is limited to actions relating to production and mainstem passage, 

 and not ocean or river harvest rates, it could be said that the Council's obligation is simply to double 

 the number of smolts reaching the ocean. The subsequent fate of the fish in regard to human 

 intervention would be the responsibility of the state, federal, and tribal harvest managers. 



Juvenile counts would provide a rapid index of the effect of program actions. The number of 

 smolts would generally provide a measure of production and juvenile passage improvement within a 



