*Note: we will provide this response as a .pdf file if requested, it appears that the "Image Uploader" tool did not do a very good job of uploading our Tables and Figures.
The Select Area Fisheries Enhancement project cooperators appreciate the feedback from the ISRP and the opportunity to respond. We intend to produce project reports every three years, per our BPA contract deliverable, and in addition to elements we have reported on in the past will include data, analyses, and discussion relevant to the key questions raised by the ISRP.
Originally, during the development of harvest opportunities in off-channel areas of the lower Columbia River (LCR), the focus was on limiting encounters with, and impacts to, non-local stocks. However, we do understand that the project has a responsibility to adapt to new information and evolving priorities regarding wild salmon recovery. The primary uncertainty has been the status and/or existence of naturally-sustaining local populations. Spring Chinook are not endemic to tributaries of the LCR estuary. Naturally-producing populations of coho, fall Chinook, and chum in tributaries of the LCR proximate to the Select Area project sites have been either extirpated or exist at very low, non-viable levels (McElhany 2007). Recently, low levels of natural spawning activity of fall run salmon have been detected, with high proportions of these fish believed to be hatchery-origin fish or progeny of hatchery-origin fish (see Recovery Plans: LCFRB 2010 and ODFW 2010 ). Mass-marking of hatchery-origin salmon released in the lower Columbia River (SAFE and non-SAFE) has been initiated relatively recently. In the absence of mass fin-marking, positive identification of hatchery-origin fish in escapement areas is difficult. Both states have developed Recovery/Conservation Plans for LCR ESUs which include information and guidance on how the Select Area fisheries and production fit into overall recovery and conservation strategies.
Given the development of regional priorities and strategies, newly funded monitoring programs, and new tools for identifying hatchery-origin fish, SAFE project staff agree with the ISRP that monitoring of project effects on locally-produced populations should now become a higher priority. In fact, as our proposal indicates, we have already reallocated resources within the project to investigate the issues identified by the ISRP’s four “key questions”. Essentially, the project will not use SAFE BPA funds for on-the-ground data collection (i.e. fisheries monitoring and escapement monitoring field work). We have reallocated SAFE BPA funds from field staff to project biologists tasked with coordinating data compilation and to assist with analysis and reporting. We feel this is a more efficient use of limited resources which will provide for better monitoring of project goals because it will allow for efficient integration with other regional programs to provide all the information needed at a fraction of the total cost. Funds available through the BPA SAFE project are not adequate to conduct field data collection efforts at levels necessary to provide robust data and meet other project tasks associated with hatchery production. Such data collection would also be duplicative of programs already underway. Instead, the project will rely on data collected and made available by the myriad regional programs already collecting such data. Examples are fisheries monitoring programs collecting CWTs and catch data from CA to AK and new/expanded escapement area sampling programs within ODFW and WDFW. Appendix J of Oregon’s Conservation and Recovery Plan provides a good list of current monitoring programs in the LCR (ODFW 2010). These programs are in existence, funded, and collecting data necessary to address the key questions identified by ISRP and the SAFE project.
As a first step, we have conducted a gap analysis to identify data needs, data sources, availability of data, and areas where we expect the quality of data to improve over the next several years (see response to Request for Available Information on the Four Key Questions). Where data was already available and analyzed, we have provided summary tables related to the key questions, as requested. The next steps will include increasing communication and coordination with other projects to close the gaps and refining data analyses.
Request for Methodology
Related to this shift in project monitoring strategy, and in response to the ISRP request that project sponsors describe the methodology used for fishery sampling and stream escapement sampling, we must reiterate that these are not activities conducted by the SAFE project (with the exception of Deep River commercial fishery sampling). The SAFE project relies on data collected and made available by the various sampling programs and agencies throughout the region. Links to available sources of sampling methods are included in the References and Associated Documents section at the end of our response. Our primary focus as it relates to project monitoring and evaluation and resource management is to obtain the best available data from several sources, synthesize and analyze these data, and engage and provide expert technical input to fishery managers and recovery and conservation efforts. Our task in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is that of project implementation/compliance monitoring; our intent is to synthesize and summarize data related to the key questions posed by the ISRP and provide this information to resource managers and in project reports. Additionally, we continue to advocate for project goals and objectives within the existing management structure.
A. Fishery sampling
For monitoring the Select Area fisheries in Oregon, the fishery sampling is conducted by Columbia River Management (CRM) program staff funded by the BPA CWT Recovery project (which received a favorable review by the ISRP) and state dollars. This program also samples the mainstem commercial fishery. Methods used in that sampling were described in the SAFE 2007-08 annual report (Whisler et al. 2009), pages 41-42 plus associated tables. Minimum target mark sampling rates are 20% of the landed catch by species, area, and season; however, sampling rates are usually significantly higher. Twenty percent is the minimum needed to determine stock composition in fisheries (PSC 2008). During 2001 - 2007, over 146,000 (31%) of all salmon harvested in Select Area fisheries were examined for fin marks (see Table 3.1 in Whisler et al. (2009) for season and year specific mark sampling rates). Coded-wire tag data is used primarily to determine survival rates and stock composition of the landed catch and not to estimate numbers of harvested fish. Average bio-sampling rates during 2003 – 2007 exceeded 25% for Select Area winter, spring, and summer fisheries but tend to be lower for fall fisheries due to higher volume of fish landed (TAC 2008). It is important to note that biological sampling rates associated with Select Area fisheries are generally higher than mainstem Columbia fisheries.
For the Select Area fishery monitoring in Washington, where there is only one fishery to monitor each spring and fall season, the Deep River fisheries are sampled directly by WDFW SAFE staff. For the spring fishery, seasons in Deep River (initiated in 2003) are still considered experimental and fishers are required to present all of their catch for biological sampling before harvested fish may be transported out of the fishing area. This results in a sample rate of nearly 100% on the spring Chinook caught in Deep River and maximizes the opportunity to collect coded wire tags from which to estimate stock composition of the harvest. Sampling is conducted each morning following a night of fishing, which is typically two nights per week. In both 2009 and 2010, 100% of the landings were mark-sampled, in which sex, and presence or absence of adipose fin and coded wire were recorded (length data and the snout are also collected if a CWT was present). In-season monitoring of upriver vs. lower river stock composition in the catch is determined first by visual observation of “black face” (upriver origin) or “whiteface” (lower river origin) head coloration. Though subjective by nature, this visual stock identification (VSI) technique is considered to be quite reliable for experienced samplers, and is later verified by coded wire tag data as the tags are read during the season and a correction factor is applied as appropriate. VSI calls were made on 100% of the Deep River landings (N=122) in 2009 and 93% (385 of 415) in 2010. Additional biological data (length, weight, scales) are collected from a subsample of the fish that are mark-sampled: typically all of the fish if numbers are low and a systematic fraction (1 in 5, 1 in 10, etc.) as the numbers available increase. Biological sample rates of 50 fish per sample week are usually adequate to characterize the size and age structure of the catch over time. However, it may be less adequate for estimates of the percent of upriver fish in the catch based on VSI calls because of the sample variability associated with binomial sampling. For example, a point estimate of 8% from a sample size of 50 has a 95% confidence limit that spans from 2% to 19%. If applied to a catch of 1000 fish, those different percentages equate to upriver impacts of 20 fish or 80 fish or 190 fish. The SAFE project has engaged fishery and sampling managers with regard to this issue, as variance in estimates, such as percent stock composition, are an important consideration in fishery decisions. If fishery sampling defaults to getting VSI calls only from the biologically sampled fish, there may be more uncertainty around the point estimate than might be desirable.
For the fall fishery in Deep River, fishing is typically four nights a week, and sampling is usually done on two mornings a week. The fall catches of coho are an order of magnitude higher than for Chinook in the spring. Consequently, sampling frequency can usually be much lower to achieve an acceptable sample size (for example 1 in 20 for biological sampling). In 2010 there were 19,188 coho landed in 10 weeks of fishing, with peak catches of 4000-6000 over a three week period. A total of 8952 coho (47%) were mark-sampled, simply because the logistics required handling every fish and wanding for CWT presence takes very little extra time. Even at 1 in 20 sampling for four of the sample weeks, 685 biological samples and 290 snouts were collected, which should result in a robust stock composition assessment. Fall Chinook landed in the Deep River 2010 fall fishery were 1008, of which 475 (47%) were mark sampled, 439 (44%) were biologically sampled, and 25 snouts were collected.
Methods for fishery sampling and CWT collection by other agencies (e.g. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Department of Fisheries and Oceans – Canada) are likely variable. We intend to collect documentation of methods where available to provide a better understanding of the assumptions with run reconstruction based on CWT recovery. Within our agencies, methodology may be easier to obtain; see Schindler et al. 2008 for an example.
B. Stream escapement sampling
Stock status monitoring of LCR coho and fall Chinook populations is the responsibility of projects within ODFW and WDFW separate from the SAFE project. Monitoring of coho index sites have been conducted by ODFW annually since 1949; however, ODFW began robust coho assessments, including population estimates, in 2002. Methodology for monitoring Oregon-side coho populations is documented in Lewis et al. (2010) and Suring et al. (2006); specifically, they describe methods of determining rearing origin of naturally-spawning fish, geographic scale, sampling frame, field sampling protocol, and data analysis. They use a stratified random sample survey design (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) sampling design) and area-under-the-curve estimation to develop population size estimates and hatchery fraction. As described in Lewis et al. (2010), surveys are generally not conducted in spawning areas above in-stream weirs (including hatchery weirs). Unmarked, and presumably natural origin, fish are enumerated and passed above the weirs; counts are assumed to be a census. Links to these documents are provided in the list of references at the end of this response. Beginning in 2009, this same program began a monitoring program for fall Chinook in the lower Columbia River. Communication with personnel from this program indicate that methods for the monitoring of Oregon-side fall Chinook populations are in development but are consistent with those used for coho.
Monitoring of coho index sites have been done by WFDW SAFE staff since 1999 to determine stray rates of SAFE-produced coho by recovering CWTs on the spawning grounds. However, these surveys were limited in scope and had their limitations. A robust coho monitoring program, similar to the Oregon program described above, was implemented on the Washington-side in the fall of 2010. The methods for this project are outlined in the proposal titled “Expansion of Washington’s Tag Recovery Program in the Lower Columbia Region to Improve Fisheries and Viable Salmonid Population Monitoring” (Project Number 2010-036-00) which was reviewed by the ISRP in March 2010. This project funnels data to two standardized Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) databases. The spawning ground survey (SGS) database stores counts and locations of live fish, carcasses, and redds. The age and scales (A&S) database stores biological information such as sex, length, egg retention, fins clip, scale sample number, age, genetic sample number, fish condition, etc. The comprehensive data collected from this project will be used by SAFE staff to determine the impact of SAFE-produced coho on local spawning populations in Washington tributaries of the LCR.
Surveys of fall Chinook spawning index sites have been conducted by ODFW since 1948 (see Takata 2008 for methods and results). Results do provide some information on spawning escapement trends, and CWT and fin-mark recoveries from these surveys provide some data on presence of SAFE-origin fall Chinook in natural spawn areas of the LCR. The newly initiated survey program, in combination with recent mass-marking of hatchery-origin tule stock fall Chinook, will provide a more robust suite of data which will allow us to more effectively monitor effects of SAFE releases on local populations.
Similar to ODFW, WDFW has been conducting spawner surveys of Chinook index sites on many Washington tributaries of the LCR since the late 1940s. Over the last five years, more extensive Chinook monitoring programs have been implemented on most of the LCR streams. In 2005, Abernathy, Mill, and Germany Creeks were established as Intensively Monitored Watersheds (IMW). The sampling frame design and methodologies for the IMW streams can be found at (http://www.nwcouncil.org/media/2010fasttrack/1651/201003600_Chapter3_Chinook_Monitoring.doc ). Also in 2005, Chinook monitoring in the Grays River was changed to a more intensive monitoring program modeled after the IMW design. In 2008, a resistance board weir was installed and operated in the lower Grays River for management purposes. This was followed the transition of the lower Elochoman River weir from a broodstock collection tool for Elochoman Hatchery to fish management tool. The weirs on the Grays and Elochoman Rivers have two objectives: 1) to complement existing adult salmonid monitoring efforts in developing accurate and precise estimates of total abundance, and 2) to promote recovery of the fall Chinook salmon populations through removal of non-local Chinook salmon (hatchery strays) to increase productivity and inter-population diversity. Both weirs are operated done in conjunction with weekly spawning ground surveys to determine weir efficiency. Sampling protocols and methodologies associated with the operation of the Grays River weir can be found in ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit 13537.
SAFE project staff obtains data on populations of interest from the monitoring programs including population estimates by rearing origin with associated error and recovered coded-wire tags. We are able to use this data to evaluate the effect of project releases on naturally-spawning populations. Since these monitoring programs are the standard used throughout Oregon for monitoring associated with population assessment and recovery planning we are comfortable with the data produced by these efforts.
The quality and scope of data is improving quickly, primarily due to increased mass-marking of hatchery origin fish and the expansion of the population monitoring programs. Hatchery origin fish are identified by the presence of a fin-mark; hatchery fish likely to return to these areas have been mass-marked since the 2006 brood of tule fall Chinook and the 1995 brood coho, prior to this it was not possible to differentiate between hatchery and natural-origin adults. SAB fall Chinook, with the exception of 1989 and 1990, have always been mass-marked. If mass marking continues, the uncertainty surrounding the presence of naturally-produced, sustainable populations and proportion of hatchery-origin spawners will decrease. Currently, the hatchery fraction is not sub-divided into smaller components (i.e. hatchery of origin). This is a gap which we intend to address through collaboration with the monitoring programs.
C. Adaptive management
The goal of Select Area fisheries management is to provide stable and meaningful fisheries, maximizing harvest opportunity without exceeding allowable impacts to listed stocks and exploitation rates described in management plans/agreements. The specific constraints are year and season specific. Figure 1 illustrates the processes involved with season structure development, in-season harvest monitoring, and season adoption/modification and shows how information derived in- and post-season feed back into the decision making process.
Generally, fisheries that impact spring Chinook require considerable in-season management because accuracy of pre-season upriver spring Chinook run size predictions is variable and allowable impact rates are low. In total, non-Treaty commercial and recreational fisheries (of which Select Area fisheries are a component) are allowed to impact approximately 2.0% of the spring Chinook destined for areas above Bonneville Dam (specific rates are run size dependant and are described in the 2008-2017 U.S. v Oregon Management Agreement and related Biological Opinion). Although non-Treaty fisheries are managed as a unit, Select Area commercial fisheries are allocated 0.15% total impacts regardless of run size to maintain stability. Abundance of upriver origin spring Chinook in the non-Treaty catch (including Select Area fisheries) is estimated at least weekly and compared with expectations based on the current upriver run size forecast. When emergency action is necessary to modify fishing periods in the Select Areas it is normally a result of uncertainty in the upriver run size and accrued impacts in mainstem Columbia River commercial and recreational fisheries. Incidental impact of wild Willamette River spring Chinook is limited to 15% of the return; allocation of the allowable impact is shared by commercial and recreational fisheries according to a run-size based matrix. Unless it is anticipated pre-season that Willamette wilds will be a limiting factor, accounting for impacts is completed post-season and tracked for compliance over time. Management of fisheries impacting Willamette spring Chinook are managed consistent with the Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan finalized by ODFW and NOAA Fisheries in early 2001 (ODFW 2001).
Select Area fall fisheries rarely require in-season management action to remain within management guidelines since non-local stocks constitute a small portion of the Select Area harvest. For example, from 1993-2005 a range of 0–980 upriver bright (URB) stock fall Chinook were harvested in Select Area commercial fall fisheries from runs of 103,000 – 373,000 (0.00% - 0.35% of the run). Any URBs harvested in Select Area fisheries are included in the fall Chinook management harvest model that Columbia River fishery co-mangers use to track fisheries to maintain consistency with pre-season agreements and the 2008-2017 U.S. v Oregon Management Agreement. Harvest of lower Columbia River natural (LCN) stock tule fall Chinook are the other limiting fall Chinook stock. For management purposes, harvest of this stock is assumed to be zero in Select Area fisheries due to the spatial separation of the harvest areas. Lower Columbia River natural (LCN) coho harvest in the Select Area fisheries is estimated by fishery managers and catch of unmarked, non-SAFE coho is included in the coho impact tracking model used for fisheries management. Also lending an element of stability to the seasons is the consideration that pre-season forecasting of Columbia River fall runs is fairly accurate and allowable impact/exploitation rates are larger than those on spring/summer runs. On occasion, Select Area fisheries may be constrained by broodstock escapement needs for Big Creek Hatchery tule fall Chinook and/or Select Area Bright fall Chinook.
Request for Deliverables linked to Objectives
Regarding the issue of deliverables and objectives as described in the proposal document, we believe some confusion has arisen as an artifact of the proposal format and directions provided to project sponsors during the proposal development. Direction on the structure and design of proposals was provided by Section 2 of what was referred to as Exciting Handout, version 1.0 and instructions given by coordination staff during the training session we attended. The instructions differentiated between Project Deliverables (focus of the proposal) and contract level deliverables (identified during the contracting phase and statement of work development). The proposal asked for one or more Project Deliverables and the identification of several Objectives designed to support the Deliverable. Therefore, the objectives were designed to be specific to the Project Deliverable, not the other way around (as described in the instructions, the Project Deliverable is the “hub” and the Objectives stem from it). Therefore, we developed one overarching theme of the project (i.e. Project Deliverable) with five Project Objectives which we intend to achieve in support of the Deliverable. The proposal output did not seem to reflect this structure as the Objectives have been formatted as the primary tier with the Project Deliverable listed subordinate to the Objective. The Taurus program input interface was not set up this way – Deliverables and Objectives were entered in different places in the process. We were somewhat confused by the output but since the formatting was hardcoded into the system, and we followed the directions as provided, we left it as it appears.
If we understand the ISRP’s comments correctly, they refer to contract level deliverables which we will use to achieve and measure progress towards the five Project Objectives we identified in the proposal. Metrics used are indicated throughout this response, and in detail in our project reports; also, we intend to expand on current deliverables by incorporating issues identified by the ISRP in this review. The ISRP’s key questions relate to Project Objectives 1-3. Our response to Request for Available Information on the Four Key Questions includes a data gap analysis which identifies data elements needed to answer those questions.
To evaluate adherence to the project’s harvest-related intent of objectives 1 and 2, the SAFE project primarily uses estimates of harvest and stock composition produced by the fishery management bodies with support from SAFE project staff. These estimates are used for in-season management and post-season analysis of fisheries.
For production-related objectives 1 and 3, artificial production facilities and programs associated with the project monitor environmental variables such as water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, total suspended solids in effluent, and benthic macro invertebrate populations in the mixing zone near the Youngs Bay net pens. All artificial programs within Oregon are consistent with ODFW’s Fish Hatchery Management Policy (ODFW 2003). The other component of objective 3 is impact of hatchery fish with natural populations; for this the project uses data available from monitoring programs within ODFW and WDFW as described elsewhere in this response. Improvement in this area is expected through program coordination with monitoring programs and implementation of conservation and recovery actions.
Run reconstruction based on regional coded-wire tag recoveries reported in RMIS (methods described in Whisler et al. (2009)) provide the basics necessary to measure contribution to other fisheries (objective 4) and provide supplemental data for objective 3. It is not possible to report confidence intervals associated with the proportions derived from recoveries reported on RMIS since other programs do not describe error associated with CWT recovery estimates.
The fifth objective is to provide an outlet for reprogramming other basin hatchery releases when requested and as appropriate. Due to the existence of project rearing facilities, both hatcheries and netpen complexes, and the ability to prosecute intensive fisheries on returning adult salmon, the Select Area project has been identified as a useful tool for balancing the regional goals of recovery for listed stocks and meaningful harvest opportunities. When coordinating requests and/or developing options for reprogramming other hatchery-reared salmon for release in the Select Areas, project staff consider the environmental effects of increase production and evaluate the potential within the parameters of existing permits and policy.
One of the comments in the ISRP’s review asked what was meant by the term “efficient harvest” as used in our Project Deliverable. Efficient is a relative term and we use it in context of other Columbia River hatchery and harvest programs. Specifically, we have compared the return to harvest (or conversely, escapement) of Select Area project salmon to comparable basin hatchery programs (see Chapter 4 in Whisler et al. (2009) for discussion). On average, 91% of Select Area spring Chinook are harvested, compared to 39% of comparison hatchery program fish; hatchery coho are similar, 99% of Select Area harvestable fish are caught in fisheries compared to 31% for comparable hatchery programs. This comparison illustrates that a larger proportion of harvestable fish from the Select Area Fisheries project are, in fact, harvested which we interpret as a more efficient use of hatchery fish produced for harvest. Another way to measure efficiency is to compare how successful a harvest program is at harvesting target fish and reducing impacts to non-target fish. In our proposal we describe the “Index of Selective Efficiency” which is an index of a fishing sector’s ability to leverage allowable impacts (as defined by NOAA-Fisheries and management agreements) into harvested fish. Our comparison of Select Area commercial fisheries to mainstem Columbia River mark-selective recreational and commercial fisheries indicate that the Select Area concept is much more successful in extracting hatchery fish per wild fish killed (i.e. efficiency).
Request for Available Information on the Four Key Questions
For questions 1-3 we broke each question into its component parts in order to assess the availability of current information and then assess where data gaps existed. The resulting gap analysis is provided in Table 1. Data elements necessary to answer the questions are listed along one side of the table and an assessment of status provided alongside. Available data and summaries are presented in Tables 2 – 14.
When attempting to address the three key questions it was clear that an outline of data needed to answer each question was needed. Included in this data gap analysis are whether the data was available, not available, in need of development or not applicable, and the location of current available data sources. The data gap analysis is structured to follow the key questions as presented and provide insight for parts of the first three questions not addressed with the following tables. Generally, gaps result when the information needed to address the key questions calls for a greater level of detail than is typically required to set and otherwise manage the fisheries. Each of the species and needs outlined require specific analysis and involve several monitoring and evaluation projects and multiple data sources. The data source provided generally indicates which document or project was used to develop the tables or where a majority of the relevant information was collected. Comments are included when there is an additional document available to provide data. Where gaps occur adjacent to data sources, we can generally assume that if the data were available it should be included in the listed document. Several data needs for spring Chinook and chum salmon are labeled N/A to illustrate that local spawning and natural-origin populations either are not know to exist (spring Chinook) or don’t contain a hatchery component (chum) and are therefore not relevant in answering the key questions.
The tables provided below are included to specifically answer key questions 1-3 if data was available. Generally, there will be one table for each of the three main stocks of fish produced and harvested in the Select Areas. Tables will be organized to correspond in order with each key question, question component, and stock.
1. Number and percentage of non-local populations impacted by harvest, stock composition of non-local harvest.
See Tables 2 - 10.
2. Number of local, natural-origin salmon harvested
As outlined in Table 1 the inability to identify local natural origin fish in harvest provides significant challenges when attempting to estimate the number of local natural origin fish harvested. Relatively small sample sizes of unmarked fish on local spawning grounds (ODFW 2008) further confound our efforts to accurately estimate local natural origin harvest rates.
We have provided table adapted from an internal white paper document (Table 11) that includes analysis specific to the Select Area coho fisheries and their impact on local natural origin fish. The paper describes the extensive analysis and assumptions required to arrive at specific harvest rate estimates. As this was the only currently available analysis of Select Area coho fisheries it is also the only information that we can include in response to the request. There are no similar documents currently available for fall Chinook. The need for additional information on this subject is clear and will be pursued for future reporting requirements using similar analysis, as outlined in the document, in order to estimate harvest rates on local natural origin fish.
3. Percent of local spawning escapement represented by Select Area project fish.
The challenge we encountered when we attempted to account for the proportion of SAFE fish on local spawning grounds was identifying and differentiating those fish from other spawning hatchery fish. For coho and spring Chinook we use coded wire tags to determine the origin of any Select Area hatchery releases but cannot rely on recovery information without proper expansion information and project specific labels for each recovery. With the Select Area Bright (SAB) stock of fall Chinook we use a unique left ventral fin-clip to differentiate SABs from other Chinook. Provided below are tables for fall Chinook (Table 12 and 13) and coho (Table 14 and 15). Geographical stratification in the tables is consistent with the lower Columbia River recovery planning documents. We were not able to estimate total spawning escapement represented by Select Area fish in either case because the various projects collecting relevant biodata (fin clips) and recovering coded wire tags generally do not report key expansion information along with their escapement estimates. We’ve determined that to fulfill future reporting requirements for escapement related information we must increase coordination with participating projects and request key expansion information be included with recoveries alongside escapement estimates. Information for Table 12 was provided by ODFW’s Columbia River Management Program (CRM) and outlines the total number of fish examined, number of fish identified as a SABs and the subsequent proportion of SABs. Escapement estimates provided by CRM are index estimates and do not attempt to include non-surveyed area nor total spawning escapement to the basin. The fin clip recoveries and proportion information only represents observed spawning escapement. Information for coho escapement was provided by ODFW’s Oregon Adult Salmonid Inventory and Sampling Project (OASIS). While the OASIS project does provide escapement estimates for each basin, including non-surveyed sites, we were still unable to correlate and expand coded wire tag recoveries properly without more detailed expansion information. In lieu of total SAFE origin escapement for coho we have provided total escapement estimates by basin and coded wire tag recoveries in attempt to characterize the coho escapement in the local areas.
4. Relationship of the SAFE project with recovery efforts.
The State of Oregon recently adopted a Conservation and Recovery Plan for the Oregon components of lower Columbia River (LCR) ESUs of Chinook, coho, steelhead, and chum. SAFE project staff was involved during the development of this Plan. The State of Washington has also developed a Recovery Plan for the Washington populations of the LCR ESUs. See ODFW 2010 and LCFRB 2010 for details on the Plans including the development process, stakeholder input, stock status, viability analyses, recovery strategies, etc. Currently the States are working with NOAA Fisheries to roll these plans up into an umbrella recovery plan for the populations within the listed LCR ESUs. All activities conducted by the Select Area Fisheries project will be consistent with Actions detailed in these recovery plans. Project staff will continue to synthesize and analyze monitoring data and coordinate with recovery plan implementation staff.
Implementation of strategies and actions identified in the Oregon Conservation and Recovery Plan is just beginning but general direction for the role of the Select Area fishery project is clear. The Recovery and Conservation Plan to strikes a balance between the important harvest opportunities and the persistence of local naturally existing populations while achieving recovery of the ESUs. The plan allows for the economic and social importance of harvest opportunities in the Select Areas and accepts higher hatchery risk on local populations in order to maintain the fisheries. It does entail a potential reduction of stray rates to target levels (which are identical to the assumed current levels for coho (86% pHOS) and fall Chinook (90% pHOS)) and a need to maintain and/or create wild fish only areas (e.g. above hatchery weirs). Essentially, the analyses supported the idea that the existence of the Select Area project will not hinder recovery of the ESUs. Obviously, monitoring of harvest mortality rates and hatchery stray rates needs to continue to verify the assumptions used in the analysis. SAFE project staff will remain engaged in these efforts and will be prepared to make modifications if necessary. Habitat improvements in the Youngs Bay in Big Creek population areas are necessary to achieve the delisting desired status and timing differences between periods of intensive harvest and return of naturally-produced fish mean the habitat can be utilized.
The best available data on current harvest rates, escapement information, pHOS estimates for populations adjacent to, and subject to influence from, SAFE project production and fisheries was used in the viability analyses and development of recovery strategies. Tables 6-36 – 6-38 in the Recovery Plan document (ODFW 2010) summarize current status and delisting scenarios, harvest and stray rate input, and quantified improvements needed.
The SAFE project will not only co-exist with recovery efforts but will directly assist in recovery by providing an outlet for reprogramming releases in order to maintain hatchery fish for harvest and reduce deleterious interactions between hatchery- and natural-origin fish. This strategy has begun to be implemented; for example one third of Big Creek Hatchery’s fall Chinook production has been reprogrammed for acclimation and release at Klaskanine Hatchery in Youngs Bay in order to reduce escapement of returning adults to the Clatskanie and Scappoose Rivers which contain primary fall Chinook populations.
Recovery planning in Washington is guided by overarching recovery plans that were completed by the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board in 2004 (LCFRB - 2004 Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan) and accepted by NOAA Fisheries as the interim recovery plan. In 2010 those plans were revised and updated to consider additional information and describe changes in designations of primary, contributing and stabilizing populations for recovery (LCFRB - 2010 Revised Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan). The Grays River, which enters Grays Bay and the Columbia estuary adjacent to the mouth of Deep River, is an important stream in recovery planning as stated in the 2010 Grays Subbasin Plan: “The Grays River is particularly important to regional recovery of salmon and steelhead because it is one of two major basins in the coastal portion of the ESU. Grays River chum, coho, and winter steelhead will need to be restored to a high level of viability to meet regional recovery objectives. Fall Chinook will need to be restored to a medium level of viability to meet recovery objectives. This means that the populations are productive, abundant, exhibit multiple life history strategies, and utilize significant portions of the subbasin.”
Part of the WDFW response on fish management on the Grays River is to fund the operation of a temporary resistance board weir in the lower Grays to restrict the passage of non-local origin stocks above the weir site. Only unmarked fall Chinook are intentionally passed upstream of the weir when it is in place. WDFW continues to plan and implement changes in design and methodology to make the weir as effective of a barrier as it can be.
Regarding coho, the Grays River Hatchery (majority funding source is BPA-SAFE) has discontinued production and release of early stock coho into the Grays River. An integrated production program using late stock coho is in the early stages of implementation using Mitchell Act funding. Regarding chum, release strategies from the net pens in Deep River have been designed to avoid outmigrant chum fry from the Grays River. The current approach is to tow the pens out to the actively flowing Columbia at the downstream outer edge of Grays Bay at Rocky Point before they are released from the nets.
In response to recovery concerns identified in the LCSRP and to recommendations from the HSRG, WDFW is working on the finalization of the WDFW’s Conservation and Sustainable Fisheries Plan, which now has in draft form a suite of actions that WDFW is implementing to promote stronger protection of local wild stocks (including those mentioned above regarding changes to Grays River management and hatchery production)
With regard to the Select Area fisheries in Deep River, timing of the season, gear restrictions (primarily net mesh size) and monitoring of the fishery and natural escapement are designed to provide in-season estimates for fishery catch composition and annual escapement estimate information for the streams to inform adaptive management. As already noted above, Deep River gillnet fisheries are sampled at a high rate: targets of 100% for Spring Chinook and 20-50% for coho.
In addition to the guidelines and actions identified in the Recovery Plans, the SAFE project cooperators have been engaged in on-the-ground efforts to benefit natural populations. Clatsop County Fisheries led the South Fork Klaskanine River dam removal and restoration project completed in 2007. This was a collaborative effort to provide wild salmon, trout, and lamprey with upstream access to spawning and rearing habitats. The project removed a channel-spanning concrete hatchery diversion dam, replacing it with a low- head diversion that allows the Clatsop County South Fork hatchery to obtain its water right while providing fish with unimpeded upstream migration. In addition, the project provided a fish screen, stabilized the streambed against a headcut by re-building channel features, and provided instream habitat complexity. A total of 3.1 miles of spawning and rearing habitat on the South Fork and another low gradient tributary was made accessible for fish.
The Hatchery Scientific Review Group produced their final report on Columbia River basin hatchery programs in 2007. They were supportive of the Select Area fisheries concept as a means to utilize hatchery production in an efficient manner by concentrating adult returns in terminal areas where they can be subject to high harvest rates thereby maximizing fishery benefits and minimizing escapement to spawning areas. In fact they single out the Select Area Fisheries project as a solution to their system-wide recommendation 9 (manage the harvest to achieve full use of hatchery-origin fish). They also recommend that the Select Area fisheries be an exception to their recommendation 10 (ensure all hatchery programs have self-sustaining broodstock) since the project intent is to harvest all returning adults. In the population-specific recommendations, the HSRG concluded that all SAFE hatchery/net-pen programs should at least continue as currently operated while stating that the spring Chinook program could be increased with minimal biological risk and specifically recommending that early-stock coho production be reprogrammed from facilities upriver for release in the Select Areas.
Figure 1. Flowchart of Select Area Fishery managment decistion-making processes and feedback loops.
References and Associated Documents
(web links provided when available, other documents available upon request)
HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group) Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-Wide Report. 2009. http://www.hatcheryreform.us
Jenkins, K. 2006. Washington Columbia River and tributary stream survey sampling results, 2003. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Vancouver, WA.
Kinsel, C., P. Hanratty, M. Zimmerman, B. Glaser, S. Gray, T. Hillson, D. Rawding, and S. VanderPloeg. 2009. Intensively Monitored Watersheds: 2008 Fish Population Studies in the Hood Canal and Lower Columbia Stream Complexes. FPA 09-12, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. http://www.nwcouncil.org/media/2010fasttrack/1651/201003600_Chapter3_Chinook_Monitoring.doc
Lewis, M., E. Brown, B. Sounhein, M. Weeber, E. Suring, and H. Truemper. 2009. Status of Oregon stocks of coho salmon, 2004 through 2008. Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW- 2009-3, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ODFW/spawn/pdf%20files/reports/04-08_Coho%20Report_Final.pdf
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB). 2010. Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan. http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/Recovery%20Plans/March%202010%20review%20draft%20RP/RP%20Frontpage.htm
McElhany, P., M. Chilcote, J. Myers, R. Beamesderfer. 2007. Viability Status of Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Populations in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins. Prepared for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service. http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/wlc/trt_wlc_psr2007.cfm
NMFS. 2008. Section 7 Consultation of Issuance of section 10(a)(1)(A) permit 13537 to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Installation and Operation of a Weir in Grays River, WA. The Salmon Recovery Division, Northwest Region. NMFS Consultation Number 2008/05610
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2001. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION PLAN Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook in Freshwater Fisheries of the Willamette Basin and Lower Columbia River Mainstem. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/State-Tribal-Management/upload/FMEP-U-Will-Chinook.pdf
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003. Fish Hatchery Management Policy. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/nfcp/rogue_river/docs/hatchery_mgmt.pdf
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2009. Procedures Manual for Sampling the Columbia and Willamette River Sport Fisheries. Protocol manual developed by Columbia River Management Program.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2010. Lower Columbia River Conservation & Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmon & Steelhead. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.asp
Pacific Salmon Commission CWT Workgroup. 2008. An Action Plan in Response to Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Expert Panel Recommendations, PSC Technical Report #25. http://www.rmpc.org/files/psctr25_CWT_Expert_Panel_Report.pdf
Roler, R. 2009. Washinton Columbia River and tribuatary stream survey sampling results, 2008. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Vancouver, WA.
Schindler, E., Bodenmiller, D., Freeman M., and Wright B. 2008. Sampling Design of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Ocean Recreational Boat Survey (ORBS). http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/salmon/docs/ORBS_Design.pdf
Suring, E.J., E.T. Brown, and K.M.S. Moore. 2006. Lower Columbia River Coho Status Report 2002 – 2004: Population abundance, distribution, run timing, and hatchery influence; Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2006-6, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ODFW/spawn/pdf%20files/reports/LCReport02-04.pdf
Takata, Tanna T. 2008. Oregon lower Columbia River Fall and Winter Chinook Spawning Ground Surveys, 1952-2008, Focus on 2008 prepared for Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Columbia River Management.
TAC (US v Oregon Technical Advisory Committee). 2008. Biological Assessment of Incidental Impacts on Salmon Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act in the 2008-2017 Non-Indian and Treaty Indian Fisheries in the Columbia River Basin.
Whisler, G., G. Gale, P. Hulett, J. Wilson, S. Meshke, A. Dietrichs, and T. Miethe. 2009. Select Area Fishery Enhancement Project. 2007-2008 Annual Report, project # 199306000 prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 103 pp. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/reports/08_reports/SAFE_07_08AnnRept.pdf
Help
Mitigation work
Reporting
Funding
Search
Log in