Columbia River Workshop Chris Kern Tucker Jones John North Jeff Whisler 1
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 on 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
Conservation • 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. 3
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
Conservation • Fisheries BiOp recognizes that abundance ‐ based frameworks are precautionary in response to climate change because they scale harvest opportunities 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. 5
Example 6
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 3 1 18 10 18 Spring Summer Fall 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 End Season/Post ‐ Season Begin Season RUN FORECAST RECONSTRUCTION THE RUN MONITOR RUN SIZE DETERMINE AND HARVESTS; HARVESTABLE ADJUST FISHERY AS NUMBERS NEEDED In ‐ season Management PREPARE SET FISHING FISHERIES PLANS 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
Select Area Fisheries Washington Oregon 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
Historical and Present Water Travel Time Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers (Lewiston to Bonneville) ~20 days 40 35 dam construction Wa Water 30 Travel Tr 25 Tim Time (d (days) 20 15 10 ~2 days 5 0 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 Mi Migr gration ation Ye Year 27
28
Snake River vs. John Day River Chinook Survival 29
What is Spill? Flow Power over house spill flow way John Day Dam 30
Snake Riv Snak River Wild ild Spring Spring/Sum /Summer Chinook Chinook 80 2.0 Sur Surviv ival al 1.5 70 KCFS @ Lower Granite Dam Survival (median ln(S/S)) 1.0 60 0.5 50 0.0 40 ‐ 0.5 ‐ 1.0 30 ‐ 1.5 20 ‐ 2.0 Spill Spill 10 ‐ 2.5 0 ‐ 3.0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 Smolt Migration Year 31
Comparative Survival Study (CSS) • 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 32
Projected SARS associated with operations 1.0 Chinook Probability of SARs < 1% Steelhead 0.8 0.6 36 ‐ 39% of SARs < 1% SARs < 1% associated with 0.4 8 ‐ 15% of SARs < 1% serious population declines 0.2 0.0 Power BiOp BiOp2 Flex 125% Breach Breach 120% 125% SARs > 2% associated with 1.0 Chinook population increases (also Probability of SARs > 2% Steelhead 0.8 NPCC minimum SAR goal) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Power BiOp BiOp2 Flex 125% Breach Breach 120% 125% 33
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
Seasonal Fishery Descriptions • History • Stocks and Constraints • ESA ‐ limits • Management Approaches and Annual Process 36
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
Recommend
More recommend
