snake river fall chinook
DESCRIPTION
Snake River Fall Chinook. William Young. Glen Mendel Debbie Milks. Overview. Introduction Legal Mandates Historic & Current hatchery operations Snake River fall Chinook performance Harvest Conclusions What do we know? What do we not know?. Why Start a Hatchery ? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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?