Columbia River Workshop Chris Kern Tucker Jones John North Jeff - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Columbia River Workshop

Chris Kern Tucker Jones John North Jeff Whisler

Introduction

• Salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon fisheries in the Columbia River are

among the most intensively managed fisheries in the world.

• Columbia River fisheries are managed to updated in‐season catch,

stock abundance, and stock composition data.

• Typically governed not by harvested catch, but by percentage limits
• n total fishery mortality.
• ‘Columbia River’ = mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers from mouth

to Lower Granite Dam (Snake R) and Priest Rapids Dam (Columbia R).

• Will be focusing on non‐Treaty fisheries.

2

3

• Must consider all of the factors affecting salmon

populations.

• “All‐H”

approach: Hydro, Habitat, Harvest, Hatcheries.

• Fishery impact rates have been actively reduced over

time to reduce total mortality.

Conservation

Conservation

• States and Tribes work with NMFS/USFWS to describe how fisheries will be

managed and what their impacts on ESA‐listed and other species are expected to be.

• NMFS/USFWS review, consult recovery plans, and determine whether the

proposed actions provide the necessary conservation for ESA‐listed species.

• Biological Opinion on fisheries issued.
• Determine if actions are likely to jeopardize the populations
• Outline any terms and conditions necessary to comply with ESA
• Authorization issued as an incidental take statement (ITS).
• Fisheries also consistent with the US v Oregon Management Agreement to

protect reserved rights of the Columbia River Treaty Tribes.

4

5

• Fisheries BiOp recognizes that abundance‐based frameworks are

precautionary in response to climate change because they scale harvest

• pportunities in response to abundances, which are affected by climate

conditions.

• Fisheries all have some form of explicitly defined management limit.
• ESA‐impacts
• Escapement
• In‐season management to adapt to changes (status, run size, timing,

fishery performance).

• Conservation objectives are explicitly defined and understood before

fishing occurs.

Conservation

6

Example

7

8

Concurrency and Co‐management

• Enforcement officers do not have jurisdiction to

enforce the other state’s rules if not concurrent.

• Non‐concurrence on basic policy principles can

cause other difficulties in management.

• Participation is complicated if regulations differ.

9

Columbia River Compact

• 1915 interstate agreement between OR and WA, ratified by

Congress

• Primary and public venue to coordinate management
• ORS requires Compacts be held in OR or WA within 25 miles of

the Columbia River where commercial fishing is permitted.

• ‘Columbia River Compact/Joint State Hearing’.
• NOT a rule‐making entity: each state must enact via state

processes.

10

Com Compact/ act/Join Joint St State Hearings Hearings

Average Number of Hearings Per Year

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 10 18 Spring Summer Fall 1 3 18 Winter 11

12

US v Oregon Management Agreement (MA)

• Describes how fisheries will be managed to:
• Protect Treaty reserved rights.
• Protect and recover ESA‐listed stocks.
• Manage for sustainable fisheries.
• Basic component of NMFS/USFWS Biological Opinion.
• NMFS/USFWS also federal trustees for Treaty tribes to

ensure protection of reserved rights.

13

US v Oregon Management Agreement

• Treaty: fisheries conducted by the Columbia Treaty tribes
• non‐Treaty: fisheries managed by other entities
• States
• Fisheries conducted by tribes other than the four Treaty Tribes (i.e.,

Colville, Wanapum)

• Does not address effects of fisheries on stocks destined to remain

downstream of Bonneville Dam.

• For lower river ESA stocks the states seek ESA‐compliance outside of

this MA

14

15

Management Objectives

• Primary objective: ensure fisheries meet conservation needs
• ESA‐listed stocks: ensure fisheries contribute to, and do not

impair, recovery.

• Consistent with “All H” approach.
• Long‐term goal is broad sense recovery.
• Non‐listed stocks; ensure sustainable management over the

long term

• Compliance with the 2018‐2027 US v Oregon MA

16

Management Approaches

• Ensure impact rates remain below those specified in

the MA (or other venues)

• Conservation
• Sharing of catch and conservation responsibilities Tr/NT
• Two basic forms of ESA impact limit:
• Harvest rate (%)
• Exploitation rate (%)

17

Total Mortality (catch plus dead released)

Stock Abundance

Take home message:

• Inseason management can change both numerator and denominator
• Can alter the allowable impact limit (%)
• “Multiple dimensions” of change occur

18

THE HARVEST MANAGEMENT CYCLE

FORECAST THE RUN DETERMINE HARVESTABLE NUMBERS PREPARE FISHING PLANS SET FISHERIES MONITOR RUN SIZE AND HARVESTS; ADJUST FISHERY AS NEEDED RUN RECONSTRUCTION

End Season/Post‐Season Begin Season In‐season Management

19

20

North of Falcon

• Integrates management of ocean fisheries between Cape

Falcon and Canadian border, including summer/fall fisheries in the Columbia

• Coordination and shaping of fisheries to ensure that fish

conservation objectives are met across all areas

• Particularly important in distributing impacts for specific

driver stocks among ocean and in‐river fisheries

21

22

Washington Oregon

Select Area Fisheries

23

Select Area Fisheries

• Program raises a mix of stocks:
• lower Columbia spring Chinook
• lower Columbia coho
• bright stock fall Chinook (“Select Area Bright”, SAB)
• tule fall Chinook (Mitchell Act) also located in the area
• Constraining stocks, such as ESA‐listed stocks are the same as

those outlined for seasonal fisheries below

• Encountered at far lower rates due to location

24

25

Hydro

• Highly regulated system
• Salmon and steelhead impacted

hydroelectric development.

• Oregon and ODFW involved in

efforts to improve outcomes.

• Hydro and fish regionally beneficial.
• “Spill” provides fish benefits.

26

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015

Mi Migr gration ation Ye Year

Historical and Present Water Travel Time

Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers (Lewiston to Bonneville)

~2 days ~20 days dam construction Wa Water Tr Travel Tim Time (d (days) 27

28

Snake River vs. John Day River Chinook Survival

29

What is Spill?

Flow

• ver

spill way Power house flow

John Day Dam 30

Sur Surviv ival al Spill Spill

‐3.0 ‐2.5 ‐2.0 ‐1.5 ‐1.0 ‐0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

KCFS @ Lower Granite Dam Smolt Migration Year Survival (median ln(S/S))

Snak Snake Riv River Wild ild Spring Spring/Sum /Summer Chinook Chinook

31

Comparative Survival Study (CSS)

32

• Ongoing decades long study
• Collaboration among state,

tribal and federal scientists

• Independent review
• Empirically based
• Take home:
• Higher SAR with lower

powerhouse encounters

• Spill best way to avoid

powerhouse (except breach)

• Spill to 125% optimizes

SAR and GBT risk

33

Projected SARS associated with operations

SARs < 1% associated with serious population declines SARs > 2% associated with population increases (also NPCC minimum SAR goal)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Power BiOp BiOp2 Flex 125% Breach 120% Breach 125% Probability of SARs < 1% Chinook Steelhead 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Power BiOp BiOp2 Flex 125% Breach 120% Breach 125% Probability of SARs > 2% Chinook Steelhead

36‐39% of SARs < 1% 8‐15% of SARs < 1%

Balancing Fish and Power Moving Forward

• Spill is good for fish, but not power
• Changing power markets and a surge of renewables (e.g.,

solar) provided a unique opportunity to increase spill for fish conservation w/o increasing power costs while the CRSO EIS was completed

• Flexible spill alone inadequate to recover salmon.
• NEPA CRSO FEIS and NMFS Biological Opinions release that IDs

a Flexible Spill operation as Preferred Alternative/Proposed Action

• Intensive review in coming weeks as Oregon weighs options

34

35

36

Seasonal Fishery Descriptions

• History
• Stocks and Constraints
• ESA‐limits
• Management Approaches and Annual Process

Management Periods

• Jan 1 – Jun 15 = “Spring” (includes “Winter”)
• Jun 16 – Jul 31 = “Summer”
• Aug 1 – Dec 31 = “Fall”

37

Spring, History

• Spring Season, Jan 1 – Jun 15
• Prior to 2000, mainstem spring Chinook fisheries were very

limited.

• Jan‐Mar, downstream of I‐5 Bridge only
• Focus on lower river stocks
• Improved runs and mark‐selective fisheries increased

access to April‐May, and upstream of I‐5 (incl. above Bonneville)

38

Spring, Stocks and Constraints

• Focused on hatchery‐produced spring Chinook
• Managed to the weakest stock
• Key constraining stocks: ESA‐listed UC spring Chinook,

SR spring/summer Chinook

• Willamette or LCR Washington stocks in some years

39

Spring, Forecast Buffer

40

• MA requires run‐size buffer ≥30% prior to in‐season

update.

• At 218,000 run X 70% = rate will be based on 152,600.
• Drops to next ESA impact tier (≤1.9%)
• Instead of 2.0% at 218,000, managers will plan for

1.9% at 152,600 prior to update.

Spring, Catch Balancing

41

• MA requires non‐Treaty catch cannot > Treaty
• Requirement to remain under ESA limitation remains.
• Example:
• Run size of 218,000 fish, allowable Treaty is 10% =

21,800 fish

• Non‐Treaty constrained to 21,800 or ESA limit of 2%,

whichever reached first.

Spring, Process

42

• TAC forecasts in December
• ODFW/WDFW provide season structure options, meet with advisory groups
• Refine proposals, present at a late‐winter Compact/JS hearing
• ODFW/WDFW representatives decide on season
• States implement rules to enact seasons
• The Commission will generally see first rules at March meeting, and will

see multiple changes through June and July meetings

43

Summer, History

• Summer Season, Jun 16‐Jul 31
• From 1965‐2002, targeted fisheries for summer Chinook

were closed

• Following significant rebuilding efforts and increased

hatchery production

• Limited recreational began 2002.
• In 2005, non‐Treaty commercial had first summer Chinook season

since 1964

• From 2005‐2016, non‐Treaty fisheries included mainstem

commercial and mainstem recreational

44

Summer, Stocks and Constraints

• Focused on hatchery‐produced UC Summer Chinook and

hatchery summer steelhead (recreational)

• Managed to weakest stock
• Chinook harvest structured to achieve combined wild and

hatchery escapement goals

• Key ESA‐stocks present during management period are

summer steelhead and Snake River sockeye

45

Summer, Management Approach

46

• Allowable catch of UC Summer Chinook based on harvestable

surplus over escapement needs

• Harvest in non‐Treaty PFMC subtracted from allowable non‐Treaty
• Balance allocated between areas upstream/downstream of Priest

Rapids Dam according to WDFW/Colville Tribe allocation agreement

• Downstream of PRD allocated recreational/commercial by FWC

Policy

Summer, Annual Process

47

• TAC forecasts in December
• Coordination and planning done in conjunction with NOF.
• ODFW/WDFW provide season structure options
• Public meetings via NOF process to review and get input
• Oregon implements by emergency rule
• Commission will generally see the first of these rules in the late spring,

may see changes through August meeting.

48

Fall, History

• Fall Season, Aug 1 – Dec 31
• The fall season fisheries have historically been the largest annual

contributors to Columbia River fisheries.

• Stocks of fall run fish from the Columbia Basin are a significant

part of catches in areas outside direct domestic jurisdiction

• Significant role in Interjurisdictional forums like Pacific Salmon

Commission (PSC) and PFMC

49

Fall, Stocks and Constraints

• Most complex and dynamic season – many Compact/JSH’s

and rule changes

• Managed to weakest stock
• Focused on: healthy wild Chinook; hatchery‐produced

Chinook, coho, and steelhead (recreational)

• Chinook are broken into several stock aggregates
• Multiple management objectives
• Multiple ESA‐listed species/stocks

50

Fall, Management Approach and Annual Process

51

• TAC forecasts in February.
• Coordination and planning done in conjunction with NOF.
• ODFW/WDFW provide season structure options
• Public meetings via NOF process to review and get input
• Oregon implements by emergency rule
• Commission will generally see the first of these rules at the June or

July meeting, will see additional rule changes through the October meeting.

• Inseason rule changes very (very) frequent.

52

53

White Sturgeon

Lower Columbia

• LCR/OR Coast White Sturgeon Conservation Plan (WCP) adopted by OFWC in

2011

• Population estimates conducted annually; goals and objectives developed

from these surveys; strategies and actions to address limiting factors/threats identified

• Recommended target annual harvest rate ≤16%
• Substantially lower than prior rates
• CR Fishery Management Workgroup (2012) recommended holding 10% of

resulting harvest guidelines as a conservation buffer (managers have targeted rates well below this level).

54

Mid Columbia

• Sturgeon Management Task Force (SMTF), defined in U.S. v

Oregon ‐ ODFW, WDFW, Treaty tribes

• SMTF reviews status and management and sets reservoir‐

specific harvest guidelines

• Abundance in each pool estimated by ODFW, WDFW, and

Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission with mark‐ recapture every 3 years (1 pool / year)

• Trends in cohort strength have varied with water year
• High flow years = more recruits, low flow years = less

55

56

Fisheries Monitoring

• Managers intensively monitor fisheries to assess impacts to

ESA‐listed and other stocks

• Estimate total landed catch as well as mortality of non‐retained

fish as needed

• Must be able to estimate mortality of specific stocks, including

ESA‐listed stocks

• Fisheries covered by the MA are reviewed by the US v Oregon

TAC and Policy Committee

57

Fisheries Monitoring

• Recreational fisheries: creel survey is used to estimate effort and catch

(LCR and Z6)

• Commercial fisheries: landed catches derived from mandatory fish

tickets

• Both fisheries: biological and CWT sampling to provide age and stock ID

in the catch

• Estimated numbers of fish released are multiplied by estimated post‐

release mortality rates to calculate the total mortalities

• Post‐release mortality rates reviewed and approved by the TAC

58

59

Commission Authorities

• Some Oregon regulations are statutory; majority remain under

authority of the Commission

• Commission delegation of authority to the Director to implement

emergency rules is critical for Columbia fisheries

• To meet conservation and fishery objectives, decisions must be made more

rapidly than the timescales required for Commission rule making allow

• Clear Commission policy and guidance allows staff to implement

fisheries consistent with Commission objectives

• Allocations in the Columbia River are usually allocation of impacts, not

catch

• Allocation of a percentage of impacts will generally not = same

percentage of catch

60

61