Snake River Fall Chinook

Glen Mendel Debbie Milks

William Young

Overview• Introduction• Legal Mandates• Historic & Current hatchery operations• Snake River fall Chinook performance• Harvest• Conclusions

– What do we know?– What do we not know?

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Pre 40's 40's 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's 00's

Why Start a Hatchery ?Average Fall Chinook Adult Returns

to Snake River Basin by Decade

= Natural/wild Origin

= Hatchery Origin

?

Snake RiverFall Chinook

Map developed by NOAA - Fisheries, June 2004.2725 Montlake Blvd East, Seattle WA 98112

tel. 206.860.3405 fax. 206.860.3400

0 20 40 60 80 Kilometers

0 20 40 60 Miles

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

ÊÚ

#

#

#

$

$ $

$

$

$

Boise

Missoula

OREGON

ver

n

al

WASHINGTON

IDAHO

MONTANA

e

e

y

v

y

e

Wa

t

N

Kennewick

Richland Pasco

Pullman Moscow

La Grande

Pendleton

Walla Walla

Lewiston

Burns

Twin Falls

Caldwell

#

Shoshone Falls

LOWER MONUMENTAL DAM

LITTLE GOOSE DAM

LOWER GRANITE DAM

HELLS CANYON DAM

ICE HARBOR DAM

MCNARY DAM

Fall Chinook ESU

current fall chinook spawning

historic fall chinook spawning

Historic and current distribution

Congressionally mandated mitigation obligations associated with the FCRPS are substantial and are not supplanted by the need to comply with the Endangered Species Act

The hatchery programs in the Columbia Basin are producing fish to mitigate for the development and operation of the hydrosystem. As long as the dams are in place there is a legal obligation to provide fish.

Legal Mandates

Legal MandatesSnake River Fall Chinook Hatchery Production

• Lower Snake River Compensation Plan – Public Law 94-587, 99-662, 103-316

• Idaho Power Company Hells Canyon Settlement Agreement

• Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery - Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning And Conservation Act 16 U.S.C. § 839-839h

• U.S. vs. Oregon 2008-2017 Management Agreement• Columbia Basin Treaty Tribes Accords• ESA/Hatchery Genetic Management Plan

Legal Mandates

• Lower Snake River Compensation Plan• Mitigation based on return goals• 9.16 million subyearling smolts (101,880 lbs)• In-place, in-kind = endemic Snake River Chinook

Adult/jack Goal

Escapement to Project Area 18,300

Commercial/Tribal Harvest 54,900

Recreational Harvest 18,300

Total 91,500

Legal Mandates

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan

1980 Idaho Power Company Hells Canyon Settlement Agreement

(IPC, ID, OR, WA, NMFS)

• Requires IPC to “contract with appropriate state and federal agencies or otherwise provide for the trapping of sufficient fall Chinook salmon and the fertilizing and eyeing up of sufficient eggs to permit raising up to 1,000,000 fall Chinook salmon smolts.” (FERC, 1980).

• Approximately 2,700 adults to the project area

Legal Mandates

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

• “to protect, mitigate and enhance the fish and wildlife, including related spawning grounds and habitat, of the Columbia River and its tributaries, particularly anadromous fish.”

• 1.4 million subyearling smolts

• Adult return goal – 3,750 back to the project area

Legal Mandates

U.S. vs. Oregon Harvest/Production Relationship

• 1995 agreement – Argument over 18 fish. Parties agreed to constrained in-river fisheries harvest rate on natural Snake River fall Chinook (for all fisheries).

• In exchange the agreement provided, for the first time, off-station releases of Snake River fall Chinook above Lower Granite Dam.

Legal Mandates

“…The Action Agencies understand that that Tribes’ willingness to accept spill operations as outlined above is directly related to their expectation that the Lyon’s Ferry production program remains stable and substantially unaltered than as currently designed for the term of this Agreement. Should that fundamental expectation be upset, the Tribes will consider this a material change and grounds for withdrawal from the Agreement, and may, after notice to the Action Agencies, advocate for spill actions that deviate from those contemplated in this Agreement…”

Columbia Basin Treaty Tribes Accords

Legal Mandates

• HGMP completed and submitted collaboratively in 2011

• BiOp & Sec 10 Permit received in Oct 2012

ESA/Hatchery Genetic Management Plan

Legal Mandates

Hatchery Operations Past and Present

Category Past PresentHatchery Facilities

Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry FCAP (acclimation ponds)Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery IrrigonOxbow

Purpose Egg Bank/Mitigation Supplementation/Mitigation

Release Location

Downstream of Lower Granite Dam (limited by broodstock)

Upstream and Downstream of Lower Granite Dam

Broodstock Mostly HxH(limited by high # strays)

HxN (up to 30% natural)

Hatchery operations

Cooperative and Joint Management Effort

Funding Source

Implementers

Hatcheries LSRCPBPA/NPCC

IPC

WDFW, NPT, IPC, CTUIR, ODFW,IDFG

Monitoring and Evaluation

LSRCPBPA/NPCC

BLMIPCCOEPSC

Redd counts (NPT, IPC, USFWS, WDFW)Juvenile behavior and survival (USFWS, NPT, USGS, NOAA)Hatchery performance (WDFW, NPT)Run reconstruction (WDFW, NPT, IPC, NOAA, UI, USvOR-TAC)

Hatchery operations

Current Snake River fall Chinook Salmon Production Goals

Funding Source Production Facility

Production Capacity

1+ 0+

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan

Lyons Ferry Hatchery 900,000 2,200,000

Idaho Power Company Oxbow Hatchery 0 200,000

Idaho Power Company Umatilla Hatchery 0 800,000Columbia Basin Fish

and Wildlife Program

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery 0 1,400,000

Total 900,000 4,600,000

Hatchery operations

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

Lyons Ferry Hatchery

Broodstock Collections(~4,000 adults needed to meet full production)

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

Oxbow Hatchery

Hatchery operations

Hatchery Facilities and Release Locations

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

Oxbow Hatchery

Irrigon and

Umatilla Hatcheries

Captain John Rapids Acclimation Facility

Pittsburg Landing Acclimation Facility

Big Canyon Creek Acclimation Facility

Captain Johns Acclimation Facility

Acclimation Sites

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

Oxbow Hatchery

Irrigon and

Umatilla Hatcheries

Broodstock Collection History

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Snake River Fall Chinook Collected for Broodstock, M&E, and Run Reconstruction by Trapping Site

LGO Egg bank Ice Harbor Lyons Ferry LGR to LFH LGR to NPTNPTH

Return year

Num

bers

of fi

shHatchery operations

Ad Clip Only Ad Clip Plus CWT

CWT Only PIT Tag Only No Mark0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

10%

37%

23%

6%

24%

Hatchery-Origin Fall Chinook Marking Strategy

Hatchery operations

Age at Release

19851987

19891991

19931995

19971999

20012003

20052007

20092011

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Yearlings

Subyearlings

Year

Smol

ts re

leas

edHatchery operations

Release Location in Snake River Basin

19851987

19891991

19931995

19971999

20012003

20052007

20092011

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Downstream of LGR

Upstream of LGR

Year

Tota

l num

ber r

elea

sed

Hatchery operations

Subyearling/yearling comparison

• Subyearling– Older ocean age – higher jack return (< 61 cm)

compared to naturals– Lower average SAR– Reservoir-rearing life history

• Overwinter and emigrate as yearlings, increased survival

• Yearling– Younger ocean age – high proportion of “jacks”

• 1 ocean, > 61 cm– Higher average SAR

Performance

19751977

19791981

19831985

19871989

19911993

19951997

19992001

20032005

20072009

20110

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Hatchery

Natural

Draft Management Escapement Goal (39,110)

Fall Chinook Salmon Escapement to Lower Granite Dam

ICTRT minimum viability threshold = 3,000

14,875

5,160

Performance

Number of Fall Chinook Redds Counted Upstream of Lower Granite Dam

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

'88 '91 '94 '97 '00 '03 '06 '09

Salmon

Imnaha

Grande Ronde

Clearwater

Snake

Performance

Snake (59%)Clearwater (34%)Grande Ronde (4%)Imnaha (2%)Salmon (1%)

5 year average redd distribution

Performance

Year

Re

turn

to C

olu

mb

ia R

iver m

outh

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Harve

st ra

te a

bo

ve B

onne

ville D

am

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Fall Chinook to Columbia River mouth Total Treaty and non-Treaty harvest rate

Snake River wild fall Chinook river mouth run size and total in-river harvest rates

Ave. pre ESAharvest rate56%

Ave. post ESAharvest rate24%

*

*ESA listed

Harvest

Commercial

Sport

Treaty

Natural spawning

Broodstock

Total SR fall Chinook in 2010Includes ocean and freshwaterharvest

107,713

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon 2010 Adult fall Chinook disposition estimates, hatchery + natural

15%

20%

15%

5%

46%

Consumption*50%

Conservation50%

Harvest

*Non-selective fisheries

Goal (A+J) 2010 (Adults)Escapement to Project

Area 18,300 18,858 √Commercial/Tribal

Harvest 54,900 21,726 XRecreational Harvest 18,300 9,872 X

Total 91,500 31,598

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon HarvestLSRCP mitigation goals

•Conclusions• Met project area goal, not harvest goal

Harvest

Goal 2010Escapement to Project

Area undefined 9,755 ?

Commercial/Tribal Harvest undefined 5,484 ?

Recreational Harvest undefined 2,306 ? Total undefined 17,545

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon HarvestIdaho Power Corp. mitigation goals –

• Mitigation goal – 1,000,000 subyearlings

•Conclusions• Undefined adult return goals – significant contribution to

harvest

Harvest

Goal 2010 (Adults)

Escapement to Project Area 3,750 1,631 X

Commercial/Tribal Harvest undefined 2,354 ?

Recreational Harvest undefined 898 ? Total 3,750 4,883

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon HarvestNez Perce Tribal Hatchery mitigation goals

•Conclusions • Return to project goals were not met, significant

contribution to fisheries

*minimum estimate, not expanded

Harvest

Things we now know • Adult abundance has increased significantly

• Getting closer to meeting in and out of basin mitigation goals

• Natural-origin adult abundance near delisting criteria.• However, total abundance is well below historic levels and

current management goals. • Adult distribution via annual aerial redd counts.

• 70/30 rule between Snake and Clearwater.• Large number of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds

• Significant mainstem state and tribal harvest via coded-wire tag recoveries and creel surveys.

Things we now know, and don’t know• Fall Chinook abundance has increased

– changes in management or environmental improvements?• Management effects?

– Hatchery production/Supplementation • Finally met full broodstock objectives• increased number of naturally-spawning hatchery fish• Reduced proportion of out-of-basin strays• Smaller size and age at return

– Decreased ocean and lower Columbia River harvest rates• Allowed for increased adult returns to the Snake River

– Corridor improvements = survival benefits • summer transport/spill

• Environmental effects? (ocean, long-term weather patterns)– Increased SARs/productivity - similar to other stocks/species

Things we don’t know

• The level of contribution to increased adult abundance from supplementation compared to contributions from large increases in total hatchery production & higher SARs

• The contribution/influence of hatchery fish on natural fish productivity

• The productive capacity of remaining habitat• Whether hatchery programs are affecting the life

history structure of the natural population• Long-term viability of an ESU with only a single

extant population spatial structure and diversity

Questions?