Download:
pdf |
pdfF/NWR-Dygert
UNITEO STATES OEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Silver Spring. Maryland 20910
DEC 15
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
/,.... 1·,('\
.. ~<:J'j
Gary C. Matlock
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries
II.-.J,,\
Donald R. Knowles
(\~ ~
Director, Office of Protected ResourcesY
ESA Section 7 Consultation on Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington
Groundfish Fishery
The attached biological opinion addresses the potential effects of Pacific Coast groundfish
Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington groundfish fishery under
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act on threatened and endangered
species pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This
opinion concludes that the proposed groundfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat. The biological
opinion includes an Incidental Take Statement that provides the fishery with an exemption to the
take prohibitions established in section 9 of the ESA.
The data available on the effects of the groundfish fishery on threatened and endangered species
was limited. The Biological Opinion also states that if and when it becomes apparent, based on
analyses by either NMFS or PFMC, that management measures cannot adequately reduce the
bycatch rate to prescribed levels, the amount or extent of incidental take will have been exceeded
and section 7 consultation must be reinitiated.
For further infonnation, please contact Christopher Wright at (206) 526-4323 or Craig Johnson at
(301) 713-1401.
Attachment
Endangered Species Act - Reinitiated Section 7 Consultation
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
Fishing Conducted under the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
for the California, Oregon, and Washington
Groundfish Fishery
Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest and Southwest Regional
Sustainable Fisheries Divisions
Consultation Conducted by
National Marine Fisheries Service
Protected Resources Division
Date Issued:
---i.............,'---1f---JL..-...JL...---
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
1
1
CONSULTATION HISTORY
4
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
I. Description of the Proposed Action
A. Proposed Action
B. Conservation Measures Included in the Proposed Action
C. Action Area
II. Status of the Species and Critical Habitat
A. Analysis of Species Likely to be Affected
B. Species and Critical Habitat Description
C. Life History
D. Population Dynamics and Distribution
III. Environmental Baseline
A. Status of the Species and Critical Habitat within the Action Area
B. Factors Affecting Species Environment Within the Action Area
C. Factors Affecting Chinook Outside the Action Area
D. Factors Affecting the Species Outside the Action Area - Other Human Activities
E. Natural Factors Causing Variability in Population Abundance
IV. Effects of the Action
A. Mid-water Trawl - Whiting Fishery
B. Bottom Trawl Fishery
C. Species Specific Affects of the Bycatch
V. Cumulative Effects
VI. Conclusion
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
10
11
24
24
25
26
38
39
40
41
44
45
50
50
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
I. Amount or Extent of Incidental Take
II. Effect of the Take
III. Reasonable and Prudent Measures
IV. Terms and Conditions
54
54
55
55
56
;
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
57
REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION
57
REFERENCES
58
INTRODUCTION
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reinitiated consultation under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7(a)(2) on the fishing conducted under the Pacific Fishery
Management Council's (PFMC) Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for
the California, Oregon, and Washington groundfish fishery. Consultation was reinitiated to
consider the effect of the FMP on 22 new Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of salmonids
that have been added to the list of threatened and endangered species since the last consultation
on May 14, 1996 (Table 1).
The groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Washington, Oregon, and
California are managed under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Annual management recommendations are
developed according the FMP of the PFMC. The PFMC provides its management
recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce, who implements the measures in the EEZ if
they are found to be consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
Because the Secretary, acting through NMFS, has the ultimate authority for the FMP as modified
by Amendment 11 and its implementation, NMFS is both the action agency and the consulting
agency in this consultation.
A. Background
The Pacific coast groundfish fishery is a year-round, multi-species fishery that takes place off the
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Most of the Pacific coast non-tribal, commercial
groundfish harvest is taken by the limited entry fleet. The groundfish limited entry program was
established in 1994 for trawl, longline, and trap (or pot) gears. There are als.o several open
access fisheries that take groundfish incidentally or in small amounts; participants in those
fisheries may use, but are not limited to longline, vertical hook-and-line, pot, setnet, trammel net,
shrimp and prawn trawl, California halibut trawl, and sea cucumber trawl. In addition to these
non-tribal commercial fisheries, members of the Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault tribes
participate in commercial, and ceremonial and subsistence fisheries for groundfish off the
Washington coast. Participants in the tribal commercial fishery use similar gear to non-tribal
fishers who operate off Washington. Groundfish caught in the tribal commercial fishery is sold
through the same markets as non-tribal commercial groundfish catch.
One of the primary goals of the Pacific coast groundfish FMP is to keep the fishery open
throughout the entire year. Harvest rates in the limited entry fishery are constrained by annual
harvest guidelines, two-month cumulative period landings limits, individual trip limits, size
limits, species-to-species ratio restrictions, and other measures, all designed to control effort so
that the allowable catch is taken at a slow rate that will stretch the season out to a full year. The
two-month cumulative landings limits approach allows each vessel to catch up to a specific
amount of different groundfish species over a two-month period, with not more than 60 percent
of the cumulative period total to be taken in either month of the period. Cumulative period catch
limits are set by comparing current or previous landings rates with the year's total available catch.
1
Landing limits have been used to slow the pace of the fishery and stretch the fishing season out
Table 1. Summary of salmon species listed and proposed for listing under the ESA.
Species
Present Status
Evolutionarily Significant Unit
Federal Register Notice
Chinook Salmon
(0. tshawytscha)
Sacramento River Winter
Snake River Fall
Snake River Spring/Summer
Central Valley Spring
California Coastal
Puget Sound
Lower Columbia River
Upper Willamette River
Upper Columbia River Spring
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
54
57
57
64
64
64
64
64
64
FR 32085
FR 14653
FR 14653
FR 50394
FR 50394
FR 14308
FR 14308
FR 14308
FR 14308
8/1 /89
4/22/92
4/22/92
9/16/99
9/16/99
3/24/99
3/24/99
3/24/99
3/24/99
Chum Salmon
(0. keta)
Hood Canal Summer-Run
Columbia River
Threatened
Threatened
64 FR 14508
64 FR 14508
3/25/99
3/25/99
Coho Salmon
(0. kisutch)
Central California Coastal
S. Oregon/ N. California Coastal
Oregon Coastal
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
61 FR56138
62 FR 24588
63 FR 42587
10/31/96
5/6/97
8/1 0/98
Sockeye Salmon
(0. nerka)
Snake River
Ozette Lake
Endangered
Threatened
56 FR 58619
64 FR 14528
11/20/91
3/25/98
Steelhead
(0. mykiss)
Southern California
South-Central California
Central California Coast
Upper Columbia River
Snake River Basin
Lower Columbia River
California Central Valley
Upper Willamette River
Middle Columbia River
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
62
62
62
62
62
63
63
64
64
8/18/97
8/18/97
8/18/97
8/18/97
8118/97
3/19/98
3/19/98
3/25/99
3/25/99
Cutthroat Trout
(0. clarki clarki)
Umpqua River
Southwest Washington/Columbia
Endangered
Proposed Threatened
61 FR 41514
64 FR 16397
FR 43937
FR43937
FR43937
FR43937
FR 43937
FR 13347
FR 13347
FR 14517
FR 14517
8/9/96
over as many months as possible, so that the overall harvest target is not reached until the end of
the year. Open access fisheries that land groundfish are more commonly targeting non
gtoundfish species (e.g., shrimp, prawns, albacore, California halibut, sea cucumbers, etc.) with
some incidental groundfish landings. Open access fishery limits are primarily set as monthly
cumulative limits that may not exceed 50% of the 2-month limited entry limit for that same
specIes.
There are about 500 vessels with Pacific coast groundfish limited entry pennits, of which
approximately 55% are trawl vessels, 40% are longline vessels, and 5% are trap vessels. Each
pennit is endorsed for a particular gear type and that gear endorsement cannot be changed, so the
2
distnbution of pennits between gear types is fairly stable. The number of total pennits will only
change if multiple pern1its are combined to create a new pennit with a longer length
endorsement. Limited entry pennits can be sold and leased out by their owners, so the
distribution of pern1its between the three states often shifts. At the beginning of 1998, roughly
40% of the limited entry pennits were assigned to vessels making landings in California, 35% to
vessels making landings in Oregon, and 25% to vessels making landings in Washington.
Because open access groundfish landings vary according to which non-groundfish fisheries are
landing groundfish as bycatch, the number of open access boats that land groundfish accordingly
varies with the changes in those non-groundfish fisheries. In recent years, however, there have
been approximately 2,000 vessels per year that have been making small groundfish landings
against open access allocations. Of these vessels, about 1350 land their catch in California, about
500 land their catch in Oregon, and about 150 land their catch in Washington.
Limited entry fishers who use bottom trawl, longline, and pot gears target on many different
species, with the largest landings by volume (other than Pacific whiting) froin these species:
Dover sole, sablefish, thornyheads, widow rockfish, and yellowtail rockfish. There are 55
rockfish species managed by the Pacific coast groundfish FMP and, taken as a whole, rockfish
landings represent the highest volume of non-whiting landings in the Pacific coast commercial
groundfish fishery (PFMC 1999a). This is a high technology, highly skilled fleet, and it is
reasonable to expect that, except where ocean conditions and geologic fonnations make fishing
impossible, commercial fishers have found ways to target concentrations of the target species.
In addition to these mixed-species fisheries, there is a distinct mid-water trawl fishery that targets
Pacific whiting (Merluccius productus). Pacific whiting landings are significantly higher in
volume than any other Pacific coast groundfish species. In 1998, whiting accounted for
approximately 66% of all Pacific coast commercial groundfish landings by weight. The Pacific
whiting fleet includes catcher boats that deliver to shore-based processing plants and to at-sea
processor ships, as well as catcher-processor ships. Whiting is a high volume species, but it
commands a relatively low price per pound, so it accounts for only about 21 % of all Pacific coast
commercial groundfish landings by value (PFMC 1999a).
With the exception of the portion of Pacific whiting catch that is processed at sea, all other
Pacific coast groundfish catch is processed in shore-based processing plants along the Pacific
coast. By weight, commercial groundfish landings are distributed amongst the three states as
follows: Washington, 15%; Oregon, 66%; California, 19%. By value,commercial groundfish
landings are distributed amongst the three states as follows: Washington, 17%; Oregon, 42%;
California, 41 %. The discrepancies between the Oregon and California port10ns of the landings
are expected because Oregon processors handle a relatively high percent of the shore-based
whiting landings, a high volume, low value fishery. Conversely, California fishers land more of
the low volume, high value species as a proportion of the total state-wide catch than Oregon
fishers.
Catcher vessel owners and captains employ a variety of strategies to fill out a year of fishing.
Fishers from the northern ports may fish in waters off of Alaska, as well as in the West Coast
3
groundfish fishery. Others may change their operations throughout the year, targeting on
salmon, shrimp, crab, or albacore, in addition to various high-value groundfish species, so as to
spend more time in waters close to their communities. Factory trawlers and motherships fishing
for or processing Pacific whiting off of the West Coast usually also participate in the Alaska
pollock seasons, allowing the vessels and crews to spend more time at sea. Commercial fisheries
landings for species other than groundfish vary along the length of the coast. Dungeness crab
landings are particularly high in Washington state, squid, anchovies, and other coastal pelagics
figure heavily in California commercial landings, with salmon, shrimp, and highly migratory
species like albacore more widely distributed, and varying from year to year.
Whiting has been processed into surimi, sold in headed and gutted form, filleted, and converted
to meal and oil. Other, higher quality fish like Dover sole are dressed and rushed to fresh, local
markets as quickly as possible, while most sablefish is frozen and sent to foreign markets. The
quantity of groundfish caught off of the West Coast is just a small percent of the amount of
groundfish caught in federal waters off Alaska, so West Coast groundfish moves through many
of the same markets as Alaska groundfish, taking prices set by the northern fleet.
CONSULTATION HISTORY
NMFS has considered the impacts to salmon species listed under the ESA resulting from PFMC
groundfish fisheries in several biological opinions (Table 2).
On August 10, 1990, NMFS issued a biological opinion that considered the effects that
Amendment 4 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Management Plan may have on threatened and
endangered populations off California, Oregon, and Washington. The opinion reviewed impacts
on marine mammals, sea turtles, and Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon (SRWR), and
concluded that the FMP, as amended, would not jeopardize the continued existence of any of the
species considered.
A November 26, 1991, biological opinion considered the impact of the whiting fishery, a mid
water trawl gear, on SRWR chinook salmon in more detail than the 1990 opinion, and also
briefly addressed the effects on Snake River sockeye salmon, which was newly listed (November
20, 1991) just as the opinion was being finalized.
An August 28, 1992, biological opinion considered the effects on Pacific salmon species listed
under the ESA from fisheries conducted under the PFMC's Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. The
listed species considered in that biological opinion included SRWR chinook salmon, Snake
River sockeye salmon, Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon, and Snake River fall (SRF).
chinook salmon. The biological opinion concluded that impacts of fishing conducted under the
groundfish FMP on SRWR chinook, Snake River sockeye, and Snake River spring/summer
chinook salmon were negligible. This opinion further concluded that the estimated bycatch of
SRF chinook salmon was low, most likely on the order of a few tens of fish per year. Based on
the available information, NMFS concluded that operation of the fishery under the groundfish
FMP was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species.
4
Since the August 1992 biological opinion was issued, section 7 consultation was reinitiated
twice: September 27,1993, and May 14, 1996. The September 1993 reinitiation was caused by
an unexpectedly high bycatch of pink salmon which, when incorporated into the aggregated
bycatch, exceeded the incidental bycatch limit of 0.05 salmon/mt whiting specified in the
opinion. Since the bycatch limits specified in the August 1992 opinion were designed to protect
chinook salmon, the September 27, 1993 opinion was amended to clarify that the 0.05 salmon/mt
of whiting bycatch rate limit would in the future be expressed in terms of chinook salmon with
the expectation that the total bycatch of chinook in the whiting fishery would not exceed 11,000
"chinook" salmon per year or 0.05 "chinook" salmon/mt whiting. The May 1996 opinion was
n~initiated because the bycatch in the 1995 fishery was estimated at the time to be 14,557
chinook salmon (0.08 chinook/mt whiting) and exceeded the limits designated in the August
1992 and September 1993 opinions. The May 1996 opinion concluded that, although the
chinook limit was exceeded, it was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed
salmon species because impacts to listed species remained low and within the numerical range
anticipated during the original analysis. Because critical habitat for these species did not include
open ocean areas, the activities considered by NMFS in previous consultations determined that
they were not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Table 2. NMFS biological opinions on PFMC ground fish fisheries implemented under the FMP.
ESU covered
Date
August 10, 1990
Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon
November 26, 1991
Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon and Snake River sockeye salmon
August 28, 1992
Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon, Snake River
spring/summer chinook salmon, and Snake River fall chinook salmon
September 27, 1993
Snake River fall chinook salmon
May 14, 1996
Snake River fall chinook salmon
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
I. Description of the Proposed Action
A.
Proposed Action
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to
continue and promulgate ocean groundfish fishing regulations developed in accordance with the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Plan as amended by Amendment 11.
Amendment 11 was submitted by the PFMC to make the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act by: amending the FMP framework that defines
"optimum yield" for setting annual groundfish harvest limits; setting framework control rules on
defining rates of "overfishing" and levels at which managed stocks are considered "overfished";
5
defining Pacific Coast groundfish essential fish habitat; setting a bycatch management objective
and a framework for bycatch reduction measures; establishing a management objective to take
the importance of fisheries to fishing communities into account when setting groundfish
management measures; providing authority within the FMP for the PFMC to require groundfish
use permits for all groundfish users; authorizing the use of fish for compensation for private
vessels conducting NMFS-approved resource surveys; removing jack mackerel from the fishery
management unit; and updating FMP objectives, definitions and industry descriptions.
The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP provides a framework for certain PFMC actions without
requiring cumbersome amendment procedures for those actions. Portions of this amendment that
are designed to meet several of the new Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements will change the
way that the PFMC manages the groundfish fishery without changing the regulations that
implement the FMP. A new definition of optimum yield, specific overfishing and overfished
levels, and accounting for the needs of fishing communities in setting fishery management
measures will become part of the guidelines the PFMC uses to set its annual specifications and
management measures. Amendment 11 provides a framework to implement fishery management
measures to protect groundfish essential fish habitat, which the PFMC will use to, among other
things, investigate implementing marine research reserves.
The primary purpose of Amendment 11 was to incorporate the more conservative management
requirements resulting from the Magnuson-Stevens Act into the existing FMP. Because of the
more conservative nature of the Act, Amendment 11 will lead to less fishing than would have
occurred under the previous FMP. This is immediately apparent from the preseason planning for
the 2000 fisheries which were developed under provisions of Amendment 11. Several
groundfish stocks were designated as overfished which led to greatly restricted fishing in 2000
and, likely, for the foreseeable future. After evaluating Amendment 11, NMFS concluded that
the Amendment was not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species or designated
critical habitat because the Amendment would have reduced the effects of the fishery on listed
species to a level below the effects that supported NMFS' previous "no jeopardy" conclusion.
Instead, this consultation focuses on the effect of Amendment 11 of the groundfish FMP on the
ESUs that were listed since consultation was last completed in 1996 (NMFS 1996a).
The groundfish fishery off the west coast of Washington, Oregon, and California is prosecuted
by three major gear types including trawl, pots, and hook-and-line gear with small amounts of
additional catch taken by other miscellaneous gear types. The gear types that take the largest
percentage of groundfish are trawls, principally mid-water, bottom, and shrimp trawls.
NMFS' August 28, 1992, biological opinion on the FMP concluded that shrimp trawls, pot gear,
hook-and-line, and the other miscellaneous gear types in the groundfish fishery catch few if any
salmonids. There have been no recent reports of salmon bycatch in these gears since the 1992
opinion, hence it is reasonable to conclude that they will continue to have a negligible impact on
salmon. The two gear types that have a record of salmon bycatch are the mid-water and bottom
trawls.
The Pacific whiting fishery is the only mid-water trawl groundfish fishery of significance in the
6
PFMC. The fishery is prosecuted by a combination of sectors including shore-based, and catcher
processor and mothership operators (which includes tribal) occurring roughly during April
through November period (Dorn et al. 1999). Dorn (1998) described the spatial distribution of
the whiting fishery from the 1992 NMFS west coast acoustic survey as an area north to south of
approximately 600 km, from Vancouver Island to Central California, and at widths ranging from
10-30 km running through the shelfbreak region at bottom depths ranging from 150-600 m. The
highest whiting densities where in three areas, Heceta Bank off central Oregon, Willapa and
Guide canyons off southwest Washington, and Juan de Fuca Canyon off Cape Flattery.
The bottom trawl fishery off the west coast harvests a mixture of species that include flatfishes,
rockfishes, and roundfishes (Erickson and Pikitch1994). These fisheries operate at depths
ranging from 10m to 1,200 m with various seasons overlapping for the various species and
stocks throughout the year. The chinook salmon that are encountered most frequently and in
greatest numbers with this gear type are typically caught in the 100-482 m depths during winter,
and in summer chinook are not frequently caught and are usually encountered at depths less than
220 m (Erickson and Pikitch 1994). The areas where chinook are encountered most frequently
appear to vary, but the data is quite limited.
B. Conservation Measures Included in the Proposed Action
As a result of the previous consultations, the whiting fishery is already subject to several
conservation related constraints designed to minimize the bycatch of chinook salmon in
particular. The targeted harvest of whiting inside of 100 fathoms in the Eureka catch area is
prohibited. The start of the whiting fishery north of 42 000' north latitude is delayed annually
until at least May 15. Finally, bycatch of chinook salmon in the whiting fishery is monitored in
each sector of the fishery and limited to a bycatch rate of 0.05 chinook/mt whiting and a total
bycatch of 11,000 chinook annually.
C.
Action Area
NMFS establishes fishery management measures for ocean groundfish fisheries occurring in the
EEZ (3-200 nautical miles off shore). Annual management recommendations are developed
according the "Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan" of the PFMC. The PFMC
provides its management recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce, who implements the
measures in the EEZ if they are found to be consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable law. In the case where a state's actions substantially and adversely affect the carrying
out of the FMP, the Secretary may, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, assume responsibility for
the regulation of ocean fishing in state marine waters; however that authority does not extend to a
state's internal waters. For the purposes of this opinion, the action area is the EEZ, which is
directly affected by the federal action, as well as the marine waters (other than internal) off the
States of Washington, Oregon and California, which may be indirectly affected by the federal
action.
II.
Status of the Species and Critical Habitat
7
A.
Analysis of Species Likely to be Affected
A preliminary analysis of the available data for the ongoing consultation indicates that the
steelhead, sockeye, and cutthroat trout are rarely, if ever, encountered in the groundfish fishery.
Coho and chum are caught in relatively low numbers in the whiting fishery with average catch
per year coastwide on the order of tens to a few hundred fish (See IV.A. and Table 14), and in the
bottom trawl fishery on the order of tens offish per year (See IV.B. and NMFS 1992). NMFS
therefore concludes that there is little or no affect to the steelhead, sockeye, cutthroat trout, coho,
or chum salmon ESUs listed in Table 1 as a result of the groundfish FMP. Relevant information
supporting this conclusion is reviewed briefly in section IV, but is not the focus of this opinion.
Substantial numbers of chinook salmon are caught in some of the whiting and bottom trawl
fisheries. This opinion therefore focuses on the effect ofthe groundfish FMP on the newly listed
chinook ESUs, and reconsiders conclusions related to SRF chinook and the other previously
listed ESUs.
B.
Species and Critical Habitat Description
Snake River Fall Chinook
The SRF chinook ESU includes all natural-origin populations of fall chinook in the mainstem
Snake River and several tributaries including the Tucannon, Grande Ronde, Salmon, and
Clearwater rivers. Fall chinook from the Lyons Ferry Hatchery are included in the ESU but are
not listed.
Critical habitat was designated for SRF chinook salmon on December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543).
The essential features of the critical habitat include four components: (1) spawning and juvenile
rearing areas, (2) juvenile migration corridors, (3) areas of growth and development to adulthood,
and (4) adult migration corridors. Marine areas including those within the action area, are not
included as part of the designated critical habitat.
Puget Sound (PS) Chinook
The PS chinook ESU includes all runs of chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region from the
North Fork Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula. Chinook salmon in
this area all exhibit an ocean-type life history although there are several populations with an adult
spring run timing and ocean distribution. Although some spring-run chinook salmon populations
in the PS ESU have a high proportion of yearling smolt emigrants, the proportion varies
substantially from year to year and appears to be environmentally mediated rather than
genetically determined. Several hatchery populations are also listed including spring run
chinook from Kendall Creek, the North Fork Stillaguamish River, White River, and Dungeness
River, and fall run fish from the Elwha River.
Lower Columbia River (LRC) Chinook
8
The LCR ESU includes all native populations from the mouth of the Columbia River to the crest
of the Cascade Range, excluding populations above Willamette Falls. Celilo Falls, which
corresponds to the edge of the drier Columbia Basin Ecosystem and historically may have
presented a migrational barrier to chinook salmon at certain times of the year, is the eastern
boundary for this ESU. Not included in this ESU are "stream-type" spring-run chinook salmon
found in the Klickitat River (which are considered part of the Mid-Columbia River Spring-Run
ESU) or the introduced Carson spring-chinook salmon strain. "Tule" fall chinook salmon in the
Wind and Little White Salmon Rivers are included in this ESU, but not introduced "upriver
bright" fall-chinook salmon populations in the Wind, White Salmon, and Klickitat Rivers. For
this ESU, the Cowlitz, Kalama, Lewis, White Salmon, and Klickitat Rivers are the major river
systems on the Washington side, and the Willamette and Sandy Rivers are foremost on the
Oregon side. The majority of this ESU is represented by fall-run fish and includes both north
migrating tule-type stocks and far-north migrating bright stocks. There are also several spring
stocks that are considered part of the ESU. None of the hatchery populations in the Lower
Columbia River are listed.
Upper Willamette River (UWR) Chinook
The UWR chinook ESU occupies the Willamette River and tributaries upstream of Willamette
Falls. Historically, access above Willamette Falls was restricted to the spring when flows were
high. In autumn low flows prevented fish from ascending past the falls. The Upper Willamette
spring chinook are one of the most genetically distinct chinook groups in the Columbia River
Basin. Fall chinook salmon spawn in the Upper Willamette but are not considered part of the
ESU because they are not native. None of the hatchery populations in the Willamette River is
listed, although the spring-run hatchery stocks were included in the ESU.
Upper Columbia River Spring (UCRS) Chinook
The UCRS chinook ESU includes stream-type chinook salmon spawning above Rock Island
Dam including the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow River basins. All chinook in the Okanogan
River are apparently ocean-type and are considered part of the Upper Columbia River Summer
and Fall-run ESU. The Wenatchee and Entiat rivers are in the Northern Cascades Physiographic
Province and the Methow River is in the Okanogan Highlands Physiographi.c Province. Several
hatchery populations are also listed including those from the Chiwawa, Methow, Twisp,
Chewuch, and White rivers, and Nason Creek.
Central Valley Spring (CVS) Chinook
Central Valley spring chinook exhibit a characteristic run timing and other adaptive features
which allow them to enter the upper reaches of river systems prior to the onset of the low flows
and high water temperatures that inhibit access to these areas during the falL The run appears in
the Sacramento River and its tributaries from February to July and spawning occurs from late
August through early October, with a peak in September. Their higher fat reserves, smaller body
size and entry into fresh water with undeveloped gonads facilitate the accent to higher streams
(up to 1,500 m elevation) (Yoshiyama et al. 1996). Spring chinook in the Sacramento River
9
exhibit an ocean-type life history, emigrating as fry, sub-yearlings, and yearlings.
California Coastal (CC) Chinook
This ESU includes all naturally spawned coastal spring and fall chinook salr:non spawning from
the Eel River to the Russian River. Chinook salmon spawn in several small tributaries to San
Francisco Bay, however it is uncertain whether these small populations are part of this ESU, or
strays from Central Valley chinook salmon ESUs.
C.
Life History
Chinook Salmon
Chinook salmon is the largest of the Pacific salmon. The species' distribution historically ranged
from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope, Alaska in North America, and in
northeastern Asia from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia (Healey 1991).
Additionally, chinook salmon have been reported in the Mackenzie River area of northern
Canada (McPhail and Lindsey 1970). Of the Pacific salmon, chinook salmon exhibit arguably
the most diverse and complex life history strategies. Healey (1986) described 16 age categories
for chinook salmon, 7 total ages with 3 possible freshwater ages. This leveLof complexity is
roughly comparable to sockeye salmon, although sockeye salmon have a more extended
freshwater residence period and utilize different freshwater habitats (Miller and Brannon 1982,
Burgner 1991). Two generalized freshwater life-history types were initially described by Gilbert
(1912): "stream-type" chinook salmon reside in freshwater for a year or more following
emergence, whereas "ocean-type" chinook salmon migrate to the ocean within their first year.
Healey (1983, 1991) has promoted the use of broader definitions for "ocean-type" and "stream
type" to describe two distinct races of chinook salmon. This racial approach incorporates life
history traits, geographic distribution, and genetic differentiation and provid"es a valuable frame
of reference for comparisons of chinook salmon populations. For the purposes of this Opinion,
those chinook salmon (spring and summer runs) that spawn upriver from the Cascade crest are
generally "stream-type"; those which spawn down river of the Cascade Crest (including in the
Willamette River) are generally "ocean-type".
The generalized life history of Pacific salmon involves incubation, hatching, and emergence in
freshwater, migration to the ocean, and subsequent initiation of maturation and return to
freshwater for completion of maturation and spawning. Juvenile rearing in freshwater can be
minimal or extended. Additionally, some male chinook salmon mature in freshwater, thereby
foregoing emigration to the ocean. The timing and duration of each of these stages is related to
genetic and environmental determinants and their interactions to varying degrees. Salmon
exhibit a high degree of variability in life-history traits; however, there is considerable debate as
to what degree this variability is the result oflocal adaptation or the general plasticity of the
salmonid genome (Ricker 1972, Healey 1991, Taylor 1991). More detailed descriptions of the
key features of chinook salmon life history can be found in Myers, et al. (1998) and Healey
(1991).
10
D.
Population Dynamics and Distribution
Snake River Fall Chinook
The spawning grounds between Huntington (RM 328) and Auger Falls (RM 607) were
historically the most important for this species. Only limited spawning activity was reported
downstream from RM 273 (Waples, et al. 1991), about one mile upstream of Oxbow Dam. Since
then, irrigation and hydropower projects on the mainstem Snake River have blocked access to or
inundated much of this habitat--causing the fish to seek out less-preferable spawning grounds
wherever they are available. Natural fall chinook salmon spawning now occurs primarily in the
Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam and the lower reaches of the Clearwater, Grand Ronde,
Salmon, and Tucannon Rivers.
Adult SRF chinook salmon enter the Columbia River in July and migrate into the Snake River
from August through October. Fall chinook salmon generally spawn from October through
November and fry emerge from March through April. Downstream migration generally begins
within several weeks of emergence (Becker 1970, Allen and Meekin 1973), and juveniles rear in
backwaters and shallow water areas through mid-summer prior to smolting and migrating to the
ocean-thus they exhibit an "ocean" type juvenile history. Once in the ocean, they spend one to
four years (though usually, three) before beginning their spawning migration. Fall returns in the
Snake River system are typically dominated by four-year-old fish. For detailed information on
the SRF chinook salmon, see NMFS (1991) and June 27,1991,56 FR 29542.
No reliable estimates of historical abundance are available, but because of their dependence on
mainstem habitat for spawning, fall chinook have probably been impacted to a greater extent by
the development of irrigation and hydroelectric projects than any other species of salmon. It has
been estimated that the mean number of adult SRF chinook salmon declined from 72,000 in the
1930s and 1940s to 29,000 during the 1950s. In spite of this, the Snake River remained the most
important natural production area for fall chinook in the entire Columbia River basin through the
1950s. The number of adults counted at the uppermost Snake River mainstem dams averaged
12,720 total spawners from 1964 to 1968,3,416 spawners from 1969 to 1974, and 610 spawners
from 1975 to 1980 (Waples, et al. 1991).
Counts of adult fish of natural-origin continued to decline through the 1980s reaching a low of
78 individuals in 1990 (Table 3). Since then the return of natural-origin fish to Lower Granite
Dam (LGD) has been variable, but generally increasing reaching a recent year high of 797 in
1997. The 1998 return declined to 306. This was not anticipated and is of particular concern
because it is close to the low threshold escapement level of 300 that is indicative of increased
risk (BRWG 1994). It has been suggested that the low return in 1998 was due to severe flooding
in 1995 that affected the primary contributing brood year. The expected return of natural-origin
adults to LGD in 1999 given the anticipated ocean and in-river fisheries is 518.
Unlike many of the listed salmonid ESUs, SRF chinook is probably represented by only a single
population that spawns in the parts of the mainstem that remain accessible and the lower reaches
of the associated tributaries. The more complex population structure that likely existed
11
historically was eliminated by the upstream dams.
The recovery standard identified in the 1995 Proposed Recovery Plan (NMFS 1995a) for SRF
chinook was a population of at least 2,500 naturally produced spawners (to be calculated as an
eight year geometric mean) in the lower Snake River and its tributaries. The LGD counts can not
be compared directly to the natural spawner escapement objective since it is also necessary to
account for adults which may fall back below the dam after counting and pre-spawning
mortality. A preliminary estimate suggested that a LGD count of 4,300 would be necessary to
meet the 2,500 fish escapement goal (NMFS 1995a). For comparison, the geometric mean of the
LGD counts of natural-origin fall chinook over the last eight years is 481.
A further consideration regarding the status of SRF chinook is the existence ofthe Lyons Ferry
Hatchery stock which is considered part of the ESU. There have been several hundred adults
returning to the Lyons Ferry Hatchery in recent years (Table 3). More recently, supplementation
efforts designed to accelerate rebuilding were initiated beginning with smolt outplants from the
1995 brood year. The existence of the Lyons Ferry program has been an important consideration
in evaluating the status of the ESU since it reduces the short-term risk of extinction by providing
a reserve of fish from the ESU. Without the hatchery program the risk of extinction would have
to be considered high since the ESU would otherwise be comprised of a few hundred individuals
from a single population, in marginal habitat, with a demonstrated record of low productivity.
Although the supplementation program likely contributes future natural origin spawners, it does
little to change the productivity of the system upon which a naturally spawning population must
rely. Supplementation is, therefore, not a long-term substitute for recovery. [See NMFS (199ge)
for further discussion on the SRF chinook supplementation program.]
Recent analyses conducted through the PATH process (Plan for Analyzing and Testing
Hypotheses) considered the prospects for survival and recovery given several future management
options for the hydro system and other mortality sectors (Marmorek et al. 1998, Peters et al.
1999). That analysis indicated that the prospects of survival for SRF chinook were good, but that
full recovery was relatively unlikely except under a very limited range of assumptions, or unless
draw down was implemented for at least the four lower Snake River dams operated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Consideration of the draw down options led to a high likelihood that
both survival and recovery objectives could be achieved.
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NFSC) has recently considered the extinction risk for
SRF chinook as part of their Cumulative Risk Initiative (CRr). The results indicate that the
probability of extinction for SRF chinook over the next ten years is near zero while the risk of
extinction over 100 years is between 6-17% (depending on whether 1980 is included in the
baseline analysis).
12
Table 3. Escapement and Stock Composition of Fall Chinook at Lower Granite Dam 1
Year
L. Granite
Count
Marked
Fish to
Lyons Ferry
Hatch.
L. Granite
Dam
Escapement
Stock Compo of L. Granite Escapement
Hatchery Origin
Wild
Snake R.
Non-Snake R.
1975
1000
1000
1000
1976
470
470
470
1977
600
600
600
1978
640
640
640
1979
500
500
500
1980
450
450
450
1981
340
340
340
1982
720
720
720
1983
540
540
428
112
1984
640
640
324
310
6
1985
691
691
438
241
12
1986
784
784
449
325
10
1987
951
951
253
644
54
1988
627
627
368
201
58
1989
706
706
295
206
205
1990
385
50
335
78
174
83
1991
630
40
590
318
202
70
1992
855
187
668
549
100
19
1993
1170
218
952
742
43
167
1994
791
185
606
406
20
180
1995
1067
430
637
350
1996
1308
389
919
639
74
206
1997
1451
444
1007
797
20
190
1998
1909
947
962
306
479
177
286
Information taken from Revised Tables for the Biological Assessment ofImpacts of Anticipated 1996-1998 Fall
Season Columbia River Mainstem and Tributary Fisheries on Snake River Salmon Species Listed Under the
ESA, prepared by the U.S. v. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee.
I
Puget Sound Chinook
This ESU encompasses all runs of chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region from the North
Fork Nooksack River in the east to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula. Chinook salmon
in this area all exhibit an ocean-type life history. Although some spring-run chinook salmon
13
populations in the PS ESU have a high proportion of yearling smolt emigrants, the proportion
varies substantially from year to year and appears to be environmentally mediated rather than
genetically determined. Puget Sound stocks all tend to mature at ages 3 and 4 and exhibit
similar, coastally-oriented, ocean migration patterns.
The peak recorded harvest landed in Puget Sound occurred in 1908, when 95,210 cases of canned
chinook salmon were packed. This corresponds to a run-size of approximately 690,000 chinook
salmon at a time when both ocean harvest and hatchery production were negligible. [This
estimate, as with other historical estimates, needs to be viewed cautiously; Puget Sound cannery
pack probably included a portion of fish landed at Puget Sound ports but originating in adjacent
areas, and the estimates of exploitation rates (ER) used in run-size expansions are not based on
precise data.] Recent mean spawning escapements totaling 71,000 correspond to a run entering
Puget Sound of approximately 160,000 fish. Based on an exploitation rate of one-third in
intercepting ocean fisheries, the recent average potential run-size would be 240,000 chinook
salmon (Pacific Salmon Commission 1994).
The 5-year geometric mean of spawning escapement of natural chinook salmon runs in North
Puget Sound for 1992-96 is approximately 13,000. Both long and short-term trends for these
runs were negative, with few exceptions. In South Puget Sound, spawning escapement of the
natural runs has averaged 11,000 spawners. In this area, both long and shori-term trends are
predominantly positive.
Puget Sound chinook are the largest and most complex ESU that is considered in detail in this
opinion. WDF et al. (1993) identified 28 stocks that were distributed among five geographic
regions and 12 management units or basins (Table 4). [The Hoko River stock was included in
WDF's initial inventory, but was subsequently assigned to the neighboring ESU.] NMFS is
currently engaged in delineating the population structure ofPS chinook and other ESUs as an
initial step in a formal recovery planning effort that is now underway. These determinations
have not been finalized at this time, but it is clear that these 28 stocks represent the greatest level
of potential stratification and that some further aggregation of these stocks is likely (Myers, J.
NWFSCINMFS, pers. com. P. Dygert, NMFS, Sept. 2, 1999). By considering the status of the
stocks as described by WDF, NMFS can be reasonably certain that we are not overlooking
population structures that may be important to the ESU.
14
Table 4. Distribution of stocks identified in WDF (1993) by recovery category. Stock timing
designations are spring (SP), summer (S), fall (F), and summer/fall (SF).
Region of
Origin
Management Unit
Stock/Timing
Recovery
Category
Strait of Juan de
Fuca
Strait of Juan de Fuca
Elwha/Morse Cr./SF
Dungeness/SP
1
1
Hood Canal
Hood Canal
Hood Canal/SF
2&3
North Sound
Nooksack/Samish
NF Nooksack/SP
SF Nooksack/SP
Nooksack/F
1
1
2
Skagit Spring
Upper Sauk/SP
Suiattle/SP
Cascade/SP
1
1
1
Skagit Summer/Fall
Upper Skagit/S
Lower Skagit/F
Lower Sauk/S
1
1
1
Stillaguamish
Stillaguamish/S
StillaguamishIF
1
1
Snohomish
Snohomish/S
Wallace/SF
Snohomish/F
Bridal Veil Cr/F
1
1
1
1
Lake Washington
Issaquah/SF
N Lake WA Tribs/SF
Cedar/SF
2
2
1
Duwamish/Green
Duwamish/Green/SF
Newaukum Cr/SF
1
1
Puyallup
White River/SP
White River/SF
Puyallup River /SF
1
2
2
Nisqually
Nisqually River/SF
2
South Sound Tribs
South Sound Tribs/SF
3
Mid-Sound
South Sound
15
Puget Sound includes areas where the habitat still supports self-sustaining natural production of
chinook, areas where habitat for natural production has been irrevocably lost, and areas where
chinook salmon were never self-sustaining. In addition, the Puget Sound contains areas where
indigenous local stocks persist and areas where local stocks are a composite of indigenous stocks
and introduced hatchery fish that mayor may not be of local origin. In some areas where natural
production has been lost, hatchery production has been used to mitigate for lost natural
production.
The status of each of the identified stocks is discussed in more detail in a recent biological
opinion concerning the effects of the Pacific Salmon Treaty on listed salmonids (NMFS 1999f).
That discussion is incorporated here by reference. However, the analysis in this opinion requires
less detail and just focuses on the aggregates of spring and summer/fall type chinook stocks. The
spring stocks as a group are the most depressed component of the ESU. The status of the fall
stocks varies with some being at or near spawning escapement objectives and other being quite
depressed.
Lower Columbia River Chinook
The LCR ESU includes spring stocks and fall tule and bright components. Spring-run chinook
salmon on the lower Columbia River, like those from coastal stocks, enter freshwater in March
and April well in advance of spawning in August and September. Historically, fish migrations
were synchronized with periods of high rainfall or snowmelt to provide access to upper reaches
of most tributaries where spring stocks would hold until spawning (Fulton 1968, Olsen et al.
1992, WDF et al. 1993).
Fall chinook predominate the Lower Columbia River salmon runs. Fall chinook return to the
river in mid-August and spawn within a few weeks (WDF et al. 1993, Kostow 1995). The
majority of fall-run chinook salmon emigrate to the marine environment as sub-yearlings
(Reimers and Loeffel 1967, Howell et al. 1985, WDF et al. 1993). A portion of returning adults
whose scales indicate a yearling smolt migration may be the result of extended hatchery-rearing
programs rather than of natural, volitional yearling emigration. It is also possible that
modifications in the river environment may have altered the duration of freshwater residence.
Adults return to tributaries in the Lower Columbia River at 3 and 4 years of age for fall-run fish
and 4 to 5 years of age for spring-run fish. This may be related to the predominance of yearling
smolts among spring-run stocks. Marine coded-wire-tag recoveries for lower Columbia River
stocks tend to occur off the British Columbia and Washington coasts, though a small proportion
of the tags are recovered in Alaskan waters.
There are no reliable estimates of historic abundance for this ESU, but it is generally agreed that
there have been vast reductions in natural production over the last century. Recent abundance of
spawners includes a 5-year geometric mean natural spawning escapement of 29,000 natural
spawners and 37,000 hatchery spawners (1991-95), but according to the accounting ofPFMC
(1996), approximately 68% of the natural spawners are first-generation hatchery strays.
All basins in the region are affected to varying degrees by habitat degradation. Major habitat
16
problems are related primarily to blockages, forest practices, urbanization in the Portland and
Vancouver areas, and agriculture in flood plains and low-gradient tributaries. Substantial
chinook salmon spawning habitat has been blocked (or passage substantially impaired) in the
Cowlitz (Mayfield Dam 1963, RKm 84), Lewis (Merwin Dam 1931, RKm 31), Clackamas
(North Fork Dam 1958, RKm 50), Hood (Powerdale Dam 1929, RKm 7), and Sandy (Marmot
Dam 1912, RKm 48; Bull Run River·dams in the early 1900s) rivers (WDF et al. 1993, Kostow
1995).
Hatchery programs to enhance chinook salmon fisheries in the lower Columbia River began in
the 1870s, expanded rapidly, and have continued throughout this century. Although the majority
of the stocks have come from within this ESU, over 200 million fish from outside the ESU have
been released since 1930. A particular concern noted at the time of listing related to the straying
by Rogue River fall-run chinook salmon, which are released into the lower Columbia River to
augment harvest opportunities. The release strategy has since been modified to minimize .
straying, but it is too early to assess the effect of the change. Available evidence indicates a
pervasive influence of hatchery fish on most natural populations throughout this ESU, including
both spring- and fall-run populations (Howell et al. 1985, Marshall et al. 1995). In addition, the
exchange of eggs between hatcheries in this ESU has led to the extensive genetic
homogenization of hatchery stocks (Utter et al. 1989).
The remaining spring chinook stocks in the LCR ESU are found in the Sandy on the Oregon side
and Lewis, Cowlitz, and Kalama on the Washington side. Spring chinook in the Clackamas
River are considered part of the UWR ESU. Naturally spawning spring chinook in the Sandy
River are included in the LCR ESU despite substantial influence ofWillamette hatchery fish
from past years since they likely contain all that remains of the original genetic legacy for that
system. Recent escapements above Marmot Dam on the Sandy River average 2,800 and have
been increasing (ODFW 1998b). Hatchery-origin spring chinook are no longer released above
Marmot Dam; the proportion of first generation hatchery fish in the escapement is relatively low,
on the order of 10-20% in recent years.
On the Washington side spring chinook were present historically in the Cowlitz, Kalama, and
Lewis rivers. Spawning areas were blocked by dam construction in the Cowlitz and Lewis. The
native Lewis run became extinct soon after completion of Merwin Dam in 1932. Production in
the Kalama was limited by the dams and by 1950 only a remnant population remained. Spring
chinook in the Cowlitz, Kalama, and Lewis are currently all hatchery fish. There is some natural
spawning in the three rivers, but these are believed to be primarily from hatchery strays (ODFW
1998b). The recent averages (1994-1998) for naturally spawning spring chinook in the Cowlitz,
Kalama, and Lewis are 235,224, and 372, respectively. The amount of natural production
resulting from these escapements is unknown, but is presumably small since the remaining
habitat in the lower rivers is not the preferred habitat for spring chinook. The Lewis and Kalama
hatchery stocks have been mixed with out of basin stocks, but are nonetheless included in the
ESU. The Cowlitz stock is largely free of introductions and is considered essential for recovery
although not listed. The number of spring chinook returning to the Cowlitz, Kalama, and Lewis
rivers have declined in recent years, but still number several hundred to a few thousand in each
system (Table 5). Hatchery escapement goals have been consistently met in the Cowlitz and
17
Lewis Rivers. The goal has not been met in all years in the Kalama, but WDFW continues to use
brood stock from the Lewis to meet production goals in the Kalama. Although the status of
hatchery stocks are not always a concern or priority from an ESA perspective, in situations where
the historic spawning habitat is no longer accessible, the status of the hatchery stocks is pertinent.
Table 5. Estimated Lower Columbia River spring chinook tributary returns, 1992-1999.
(Source: Pettit 1998, ODFW/WDFW 1998.)
Year
Sandy R.
- - - - - - -- - - - - -
Cowlitz R.
- - - - --
-
Lewis R.
-------- - - -
KalamaR.
--
------
Total Returns Excluding
the Willamette System
--------------
5,600
2,400
27,200
1992
8,600
10,400
1993
6,400
9,500
6,600
3,000
25,500
1994
3,500
3,100
3,000
1,300
10,900
1995
2,500
2,200
3,700
700
9,100
1996
4,100
1,800
1,700
600
8,200
1997
5,200
1,900
2,200
600
9,900
1998
4,300
1,100
1,600
400
7,400
1,600
1,900
600
1999
There are apparently three self-sustaining natural populations oftule chinook in the Lower
Columbia River (Coweeman, East Fork Lewis, and Clackamas) that are not substantially
influenced by hatchery strays. Returns to the East Fork and Coweeman have been stable and near
interim escapement goals in recent years. Recent 5 and 10 year average escapements to the East
Fork Lewis have been about 300 compared to an interim escapement goal of 300. Recent 5 and
10 year average escapements to the Coweeman are 900 and 700, respectively compared to an
interim natural escapement goal of 1000 (pers. comm., from G. Norman, WDFW to P. Dygert
NMFS, February 22, 1999). Natural escapement on the Clackamas has averaged about 350 in
recent years. There have been no releases of hatchery fall chinook in the Clackamas since 1981
and there are apparently few hatchery strays. The population is considered depressed, but stable
and self-sustaining (ODFW 1998b). There is some natural spawning of tule fall chinook in the
Wind and Little White Salmon Rivers, tributaries above Bonneville Dam (the only component of
the ESU that is affected by tribal fisheries). Although there may be some natural production in
these systems, the spawning results primarily from hatchery-origin strays.
The LCR bright stocks are among the few healthy natural chinook stocks in the Columbia River
Basin. Escapement to the North Fork Lewis River has exceed its escapement goal of 5,700 by a
substantial margin every year since 1980 with a recent five year average escapement of 10,000.
The forecast in 1999 is for an exceptionally low return of about 2,500 and if correct would
18
obviously be under the escapement goal. The low return in 1999 has been attributed to severe
flooding that occurred in 1995 and 1996. Despite this apparent aberration, this population is
considered healthy.
There are two smaller populations ofLCR brights in the Sandy and East Fork Lewis River. Run
sizes in the Sandy have averaged about 1000 and been stable for the last 10-·12 years. The fall
chinook hatchery program in the Sandy was discontinued in 1977, which has certainly reduced
the number of hatchery strays in the system. There is also a late spawning component in the East
Fork Lewis that is comparable in timing to the other bright stocks. The escapement of these fish
is less well documented, but it appears to be stable and largely unaffected by hatchery fish
(ODFW 1998b).
Upper Willamette River Chinook
Upper Willamette River chinook are one of the most genetically distinct groups or chinook in the
Columbia River Basin. This may be related in part to the narrow time window available for
passage above Willamette Falls. Chinook populations in this ESU have a life history pattern that
includes traits from both ocean- and stream-type life histories. Smolt emigrations occur as young
of the year and as age-l fish. Ocean distribution of chinook in this ESU is consistent with an
ocean-type life history with the majority of chinook being caught off the coasts of British
Columbia and Alaska. Spring chinook from the Willamette River have the earliest return timing
of chinook stocks in the Columbia Basin with freshwater entry beginning in February.
Historically, spawning occurred between mid-July and late October. However, the current spawn
timing of hatchery and wild chinook in September and early October likely is due to hatchery
fish introgression.
The abundance of naturally-produced spring chinook in the ESU has declined substantially from
historic levels. Historic escapement levels may have been as high as 200,000 fish per year. The
production capacity of the system has been reduced substantially by extensive dam construction
and habitat degradation. From 1946-50, the geometric mean ofWillamette Falls counts for
spring chinook was 31,000 fish (Myers et al. 1998), which represented primarily naturally
produced fish. The most recent 5 year (1995-1999) geometric mean escapement above the falls
was 27,800 fish, comprised predominantly of hatchery-produced fish (Table 6). Nicholas (1995)
estimated 3,900 natural spawners in 1994 for the ESU, with approximately 1,300 of these
spawners being naturally produced. There has been a gradual increase in naturally spawning fish
in recent years, but it is believed that many of these are first generation hatchery fish. The long
term trend for total spring chinook abundance within the ESU has been approximately stable
although there was a series of higher returns in the late-80s and early-90s that are associated with
years of higher ocean survival. The great majority offish returning to the Willamette River in
recent years have been of hatchery-origin.
Historically, there were five major basins that produced spring chinook including the Clackamas,
North and South Santiam Rivers, McKenzie, and the Middle Fork Willamette. However,
between 1952-1968 dams were built on all of the major tributaries occupied by spring chinook,
blocking over half the most important spawning and rearing habitat. Dam operations have also
19
reduced habitat quality in downstream areas due to thermal and flow effects. Dams on the South
Fork Santiam and Middle Fork Willamette eliminated wild spring chinook in those systems
(ODFW 1997). Although there is still some natural spawning in these systems below the dams,
habitat quality is such that there is probably little resulting production and the spawners are likely
of hatchery origin. Populations in several smaller tributaries that also used to support spring
chinook are believed to be extinct (Nicholas 1995).
The available habitat in the North Fork Santiam and McKenzie rivers was reduced to 1/4 and 2/3,
respectively, of its original capacity. Spring chinook on the Clackamas were extirpated from the
upper watershed after the fish ladder at Faraday Dam washed out in 1917, but recolonized the
system after 1939 when the ladder was repaired. NMFS was unable to determine, based on
available information whether this represents a historical affinity or a recent, human-mediated
expansion into the Clackamas River. Regardless, NMFS included natural-origin spring chinook
as part of the listed populations and considers Clackamas spring chinook as a potentially
important genetic resource for recovery.
The McKenzie, Clackamas, and North Santiam are therefore the primarily basins that continue to
support natural production. Of these the McKenzie is considered the most important. Prior to
construction of major dams on Willamette tributaries, the McKenzie produced 40% of the spring
chinook above Willamette Falls and it may now account for half the production potential in the
Basin. Despite dam construction and other habitat degradations, the McKenzie still supports
substantial production with most of the better quality habitat locate above Leaburg Dam. The
interim escapement objective for the area above the Dam is 3,000-5,000 spawners (ODFW
1998a). Pristine production in that area may have been as high as 10,000, although substantial
habitat improvements would be required to again achieve pristine production levels. Estimates
of the number of natural-origin spring chinook returning to Leaburg Dam are available since
1994 when adults from releases of hatchery reared smolts above the dam were no longer present.
The number of natural-origin fish at the Dam has increased steadily from 786 in 1994 to 1,458 in
1999 (Table 6). Additional spawning in areas below the Dam accounts for about 20% of the
McKenzie return.
The Clackamas River currently accounts for about 20% of the production in the Willamette
Basin. The production comes from one hatchery and natural production areas located primarily
above the North Fork Dam. The interim escapement goal for the area above the Dam is 2,900
adults (ODFW 1998a). This system is heavily influenced by hatchery production so it is difficult
to distinguish natural from hatchery-origin spawners. Most of the natural spawning occurs above
the North Fork Dam with 1,000- 1,500 adults crossing the Dam in recent years. There were 380
redds counted above the dam in 1998 and similar counts in 1997 (Lindsay et. al. 1998). There is
some spawning in the area below the Dam as well although the origin and productivity of these
fish is again uncertain. There were 48 spring chinook redds counted below the North Fork Dam
in 1998.
Over 70% of the production capacity of the North Santiam system was blocked by the Detroit
Dam. There are no passage facilities at the Dam so all of the current natural production potential
remains downstream. The remaining habitat is adversely affected by warm water and flow
20
regulation. The system is again influenced substantially by hatchery production, although the
original genetic resources have been maintained since Marion Forks Hatchery stock has been
derived almost exclusively from North Santiam brood sources (ODFW 1998a). Despite these
limitations there continues to be natural spawning in the lower river. There were 194 redds
counted in the area below Minto Dam (the lower-most dam) in 1998, which was marginally
higher than during the prior two years (Lindsay et. al. 1998). The origin of the spawning adults
or their reproductive success has not been determined.
Mitigation hatcheries were built to offset the substantial habitat losses resulting from dam
construction and, as a result, 85%-95% of the production in the basin is now hatchery origin fish.
On the one hand these hatchery populations represent a risk to the ESU. The genetic diversity of
the ESU has been largely homogenized due to the past practice of broodstock transfers within the
basin. Domestication is also a risk given the predominance of hatchery fish. Nevertheless, the
hatchery populations also represent a genetic resource. All five of the hatchery stocks were
included in the ESU and therefore are available to support recovery efforts. Given the extensive
network of dams in the basin and other pervasive habitat degradations, it is clear that most, ifnot
all, of the remaining populations would have been eliminated had it not been for the hatchery
programs.
NMFS is currently engaged in a consultation to consider the future operation of the hatchery
facilities in the Willamette Basin. This will reduce future risks associated with hatchery
operations. Substantial efforts have already been taken to remedy some of the past hatchery
practices including limiting the proportion of hatchery spawners in some natural production areas
and reincorporating local-origin wild fish into the hatchery broodstock (ODFW 1998a). All
hatchery produced fish in the Basin are now externally marked. Once these fish are fully
recruited, the mass marking will allow implementation of selective fisheries in terminal areas and
thus provide harvest opportunity with limited impacts to natural origin fish. The marking
program will also greatly improve the managers' ability to monitor and control hatchery straying
and production. The fall chinook hatchery production program was also noted as a risk to the
species since fall chinook were not historically present above Willamette Falls. The fall
production program at Stayton Ponds has now been closed with the last release made in 1995. It
is reasonable to expect that the return of fall chinook will diminish rapidly as a result.
21
Table 6. Run size of spring chinook at the mouth of the Willamette River and
counts at Willamette Falls and Leaburg Dam on the McKenzie River (Nicholas
1995; ODFW and WDFW 1998). The Leaburg counts show wild aud hatchery
combined and wild only since 1994.
Return
Year
Estimated number
entering Willamette
River
Leaburg Dam Count
Willamette
Falls Count
- - . _...
Combined
Wild Only
_..._._---
1985
57,100
34,533
825
1986
62,500
39,155
2,061
1987
82,900
54,832
3,455
1988
103,900
70,451
6,753
1989
102,000
69,180
3,976
1990
106,300
71,273
7,115
1991
95,200
52,516
4,359
1992
68,000
42,004
3,816
1993
63,900
31,966
3,617
1994
47,200
26,102
1,526
786
1995
42,600
20,592
1,622
894
1996
34,600
21,605
1,445
1,086
1997
35,000
26,885
1,176
981
1998
45,100
34,461
1,874
1,364
58,000*
40,410
1,458
1,416
1999
*preliminary
Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook
Upper Columbia River Spring chinook have a stream-type life history. Adults return to the
Wenatchee River from late March to early May, and from late March to June in the Entiat and
Methow Rivers. Most adults return after spending two years in the ocean, while 20%-40% return
after three years at sea. Peak spawning for all three populations occurs from August to
September. Smolts typically spend one year in freshwater before migrating downstream. This
ESU has slight genetic differences from other ESUs containing stream-type fish, but more
importantly it has ecological differences in spawning and rearing habitats that were used to
define the ESU boundary (Myers et al. 1998). The Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project
22
(1939-1943) was also a major influence on this ESU because fish from multiple populations were
mixed into one relatively homogenous group and redistributed into streams throughout the Upper
Columbia Region.
The ocean distribution of this ESU is generally to the north and offshore. Upper Columbia River
Spring chinook are similar to Snake River spring/summer chinook in that they are subject to very
little ocean harvest which is confirmed again here in relation to the groundfish fisheries. The
status of UCRS chinook is discussed in more detail in NMFS (1999f) which is incorporated here
by reference.
Central Valley Spring Chinook
Historically, spring chinook were most abundant in the San Joaquin Basin and the dominant run
in both the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems (Clark 1929, Fry 1961). Native
populations in the San Joaquin River have apparently all been extirpated (Campbell and Moyle,
1990). The ESU presently occupies the Sacramento River Basin, occurring consistently in Mill,
Deer and Butte creeks, with intermittent populations in Antelope, Big Chico, and Beegum
creeks. Some spawning may occur in the main stem Sacramento. The long term abundance
trends for the Mill, Deer, and Butte creek populations are negative (Myers et al. 1998), however
since 1991 these populations have been increasing. The mean adult replacement rates for
the1991 - 1996 brood years have been 2.0,1.9 and 3.0 for Mill, Deer and Butte creeks
respectively. The Butte Creek population is genetically distinct from the Deer and Mill Creek
populations, returning earlier and spawning at lower elevations.
"Deer Creek is currently believed to have sufficient habitat to support "sustainable populations"
of 4,000 spring-run (CDFG 1993)." (Yoshiyama et al. 1996). The Deer Creek population has
been increasing since 1993; 1,900 and 1,500 adults returned in 1998 and 1999 respectively.
Artificial Propagation Efforts to enhance runs of Sacramento River spring chinook salmon
through artificial propagation date back over a century. Since 1967, artificial production has
focused on the program at the Feather River Hatchery. The use of a fixed date to distinguish
returning spring- and fall-run fish at the Feather River Hatchery, however, has likely resulted in
considerable hybridization between the two runs. In half of the years between 1987 and 1994
substantial numbers (21-46%) of the progeny of fish spawned as fall run were subsequently
spawned as spring run (CDFG 1998). Genetic analysis revealed that spring:run chinook salmon
from the Feather River Hatchery are genetically intermediate between spring- and fall-run
samples and most similar to the sample of Feather River Hatchery fall-run chinook salmon
(Myers et al. 1999). The Dept ofFish and Game compared CWT recovery rates of Feather River
Hatchery spring run and Central Valley fall run (CDFG 1998). While there were minimal
differences in the spacial ocean distribution of fall- and spring-run fish, they reported that 68% of
the total annual harvest of age-3 Feather River Hatchery spring-run occurred during the months
of February through April, compared to 41 % for the fall run. Because of the hybridization of the
spring and fall runs at the Feather River Hatchery, CDFG questioned whether the Feather River
Hatchery spring run was an appropriate surrogate for the evaluation of the effects of ocean
harvest on wild populations of spring chinook.
23
California Coastal Chinook
Chinook salmon from coastal areas north of the Eel River, from the Central Valley and from
Klamath River Basin upstream from the Trinity River confluence are genetically and
ecologically distinguishable from those in this ESU. Chinook salmon in this ESU exhibit an
ocean-type life-history. No information exists on ocean distribution (based on marine CWT
recoveries). Life-history information on the ESU is extremely limited. Additionally, only
anecdotal or incomplete information exists on abundance of several spring-run populations
including Mad and Eel Rivers.
Allozyme data indicate that this ESU is genetically distinguishable from the Oregon Coast,
Upper Klamath and Trinity River, and Central Valley ESUs. Life history differences also exist
between spring- and fall-run fish in this ESU, but not to the same extent as is observed in larger
inland basins. Ecologically, the majority of the river systems in this ESU are relatively small and
heavily influenced by a maritime climate. Low summer flows and high temperatures in many
rivers result in seasonal physical and thermal barrier bars that block movement by anadromous
fish.
III. Environmental Baseline
Environmental baselines for biological opinions include the past and present impacts of all state,
federal or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of
all proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early
section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with
the consultation in process (50 CFR §402.02).
A.
Status of the Species and Critical Habitat within the Action Area
The assessments of the size, variability and stability of chinook populations, described in the
previous sections, are made in fresh water spawning and migratory environments and closely
reflect the status of chinook populations in the marine environment.
Critical habitat has not been designated for any of the newly listed chinook ESUs considered in
this opinion. Critical habitat has been designated for SRF chinook. Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic
or near shore areas seaward of the mouth of coastal rivers) are clearly vital to the species, and
ocean conditions are believed to have a major influence on chinook salmon survival and
productivity (see review in Pearcy, 1992). To date NMFS has not included marine areas when
designating critical habitat for other salmon ESUs because there has been no apparent need for
special management action to protect offshore areas. NMFS has not included marine areas when
designating critical habitat for SRF chinook, or other salmon ESUs. Inshore marine areas, such
as those in Puget Sound, may be more critical to the species survival. In the event that marine
areas are designated for newly listed chinook salmon, the effect of ocean fisheries on critical
habitat will be reconsidered.
24
B.
Factors Affecting Species Environment Within the Action Area
Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries offthe Coasts of Washington. Oregon. and
California ofthe Pacific Fishery Management Council
Since 1989, NMFS has listed 26 ESUs of salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout (Table 1). As the
listings have occurred, NMFS has initiated formal section 7 consultations and issued biological
opinions (Table 7) which consider the impacts to listed salmonid species, and some proposed
salmonid species, resulting from proposed implementation of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan
(Salmon FMP), or in some cases, from implementation of the annual management measures.
NMFS has also reinitiated consultation on certain ESUs when new information has become
available on the status of the stocks or on the impacts of the Salmon FMP on the stocks.
In the biological opinion dated March 8, 1996, NMFS considered the impacts to salmon species
then listed under the ESA resulting from implementation of the Salmon FMP including
spring/summer chinook, fall chinook, and sockeye salmon from the Snake River and SRWR
chinook. Provisions of the March 8,1996, opinion regarding SRWR chinook were revised in a
reinitiated section 7 biological opinion dated February 18, 1997. Two subsequent biological
opinions dated April 30, 1997 and April 29, 1998 considered the effects of PFMC fisheries on
the growing catalogue of listed species (Table 1). However, these latter two opinions were
specific to the annual regulations adopted pursuant to implementation of the Salmon FMP and
therefore were limited in duration to the year in question. The biological opinion concerning
PFMC salmon fisheries, dated April 28, 1999, considered the effect of implementing
Amendment 13 to the Salmon FMP on three currently listed coho ESUs. Because this opinion
was programmatic in that it considered the amendment itself rather than just the annual
regulations, it provides long-term coverage for PFMC fisheries regarding the three listed coho
ESUs. The most recent biological opinion concerning PFMC salmon fisheries, was dated April
30, 1999, and covered ocean salmon fisheries for the 1999-2000 season.
This consultation history provides a mix oflong and short-term coverage for the various ESUs
with respect to PFMC ocean salmon fisheries. The effects of implementing the FMP on the three
Snake River ESUs, SRWR chinook, and the three coho ESUs are covered by outstanding and
still applicable opinions. The effects ofPFMC fisheries on Umpqua River cutthroat and several
stee1head ESUs have been considered previously, but only in opinions with an annual duration.
Nine additional ESUs of chinook, sockeye, and chum salmon and steelhead were listed on March
24, 1999 (Table 1). The effects of PFMC fisheries on these species had not been previously
considered. This biological opinion therefore considered the effects of the 1999 PFMC fisheries
on the nine newly listed ESUs and the previously listed cutthroat and steelhead ESUs not
currently covered by an existing opinion.
The Salmon FMP is currently being revised and amended primarily to incorporate required
changes resulting from the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This revision, known as Amendment 14,
will also be subject to consultation. Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP and its accompanying
supplemental environmental impact statement (Amendment 14) represent a comprehensive
updating of the Salmon FMP. NMFS is therefore conducting a consultation under section 7 of
25
the ESA on the effects that Amendment 14, as submitted to NMFS, may have on listed salmon
stocks. This consultation considers whether any of the provisions of Amendment 14 will modify
the Salmon FMP in a manner that adversely affects any of the listed species or designated critical
habitat. In general, Amendment 14 will result in more conservative management in response to
the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Table 7. NNIFS biological opinions on ocean salmon fisheries implemented under the PFMC
Salmon FMP and duration of the proposed action covered by each opinion.
Date
ESU covered and effective period
March 1, 1991
Sacramento River winter-run chinook (now superseded)
March 8, 1996
Snake River chinook and sockeye (until reinitiated), Sacramento River
winter-run chinook (5 years)
February 18,
1997
Sacramento River winter-run chinook (4 years)
April 30, 1997
SONCC coho, CCC coho, Umpqua River cutthroat trout, all steelhead
ESUs proposed for listing (1 year) S. Oregon! N. California Coastal coho,
Central California Coastal coho, Umpqua River cutthroat trout, all steelhead
ESUs proposed for listing (1 year)
April 29, 1998
S. Oregon! N. California Coastal coho, Central California Coastal coho,
Umpqua River cutthroat trout, seven listed steelhead ESUs (1 year)
April 28, 1999
Oregon Coastal coho, S. Oregon! N. California Coastal coho, Central
California Coastal coho (until reinitiated)
April 30, 1999
Upper Columbia River Spring chinook, Upper Willamette River chinook,
Lower Columbia River chinook, Puget Sound chinook (1 year)
C.
Factors Affecting Chinook Outside the Action Area
Salmon Fisheries Outside the Action Area - Fishing Activities
NMFS recently completed a series of consultation regarding salmon fisheries that affect the
listed chinook ESUs of concern in this opinion. Consultation on the 1999 ocean salmon fisheries
in Alaska was completed on June 30, 1999 (NMFS 1999a). Consultation regarding fall season
fisheries in the Columbia River Basin was completed on July 30, 1999 (NMFS 199ge). On
November 18, 1999, NMFS signed an opinion covering the recently completed Pacific Salmon
Treaty (PST) agreement (NMFS 1999f). The PST opinion specifically covered salmon fisheries
in Alaska and Canada that are subject to the agreement, but also analyzed and accounted for
impacts that occurred in southern fisheries. This set of opinions provides the most recent review
of harvest related impacts in salmon fisheries. Some of the information from those opinions is
summarized here and is used indirectly in analyzing the species and stock-specific impacts to
26
listed chinook resulting from the groundfish fisheries.
Until recently the exploitation rates on most of the chinook ESUs being considered here have
been too high for many of the component stocks and have contributed to their decline
particularly because of what we now know about the long-term decline in ocean productivity (see
following section). Upper Columbia River spring chinook is an exception. The timing and
distribution of these stocks is such that ocean harvest mortality is near zero. Inriver harvest rates
over the last 15 or 20 years have been 10% or less (ODFW and WDFW 1998). The current
depressed status ofUCRS chinook is therefore largely unrelated to harvest.
The following series of tables, which was first developed for use in the Alaska fishery opinion
(NMFS 1999a), shows the magnitude and distribution of exploitation rates for the chinook ESUs
or components of the ESUs. The tables show the total adult equivalent exploitation rates by
brood year as well as how that exploitation was distributed across the major fisheries. The
estimates are based on coded-wire-tag (CWT) recoveries which provides the most direct
estimates of exploitation rates. The adult equivalent calculation is a procedure that discounts
catch for expect future natural mortality which would occur prior to spawning. The estimates are
reported by brood year. For example, the exploitation rate of the 1992 brood accounts for
harvest mortality that occurred on age 2-5 fish in years 1994-97. The data is complete through
the 1992 brood and 1997 fishery. The 1993 brood is reported, but is incomplete in that the five
year old recoveries from the 1998 fishery are not yet available. There is generally a year-long
time lag in updating the coast-wide CWT data base necessary to provide these estimates.
Exploitation rates can also be calculated using harvest management models by catch year. These
models use the same CWT data to model exploitation rates that occurred in past years. However,
once the models are calibrated, they can also be used for management planning purposes to
estimate exploitation rates that would be associated with a given fishery structure in particular
year. Because the models are projections, they can be used to characterize exploitation rate
trends from past years and how they compare to the most recent years - 1998 and 1999 in this
case - that are not available when using the more direct brood year, CWT estimates. In some
cases, the model estimates are reported as an index calculated as the ratio of current exploitation
rate divided by the 1989-93 average exploitation rate. Model estimates of ER for the 1999
fisheries are also reported.
The PST opinion (NMFS 1999f) used a somewhat different approach, relying primarily on the a
model developed by the Chinook Technical Committee of the Pacific Salmon Commission.
These model-based estimates are not directly comparable to those derived from the CWT data in
part because of assumptions made in the modeling process, and in part because different stock
aggregates are analyzed. For example, the CWT summary uses an aggregate ofPS spring stocks
while the CTC model is specific to Nooksack spring chinook, one of the component stocks. The
data summaries from the Alaska opinion are use in this analysis because they permit comparison
of the catch and resulting exploitation rates in PFMC salmon fisheries and with catches in
groundfish fisheries.
The total brood year exploitation rate ofUWR chinook averaged 0.54 from 1975 through 1990.
27
The average exploitation rate for the more recent 1991-93 broods was 0.35. Upper Willamette
River chinook are a far-north migrating stock (Table 8). The ocean harvest occurs primarily in
the Alaskan and northern Canadian fisheries. Because of their northerly distribution and earlier
return timing, the exploitation rate ofUWR chinook in PFMC fisheries is low, averaging 0.01
both in the past and most recent years (Table 8). The exploitation rate in the river fishery is
higher, averaging 0.35 through 1990. Harvest in the river fisheries has declined substantially in
recent years because of concerns for Snake River spring/summer chinook and other upriver
spring stocks. Commercial harvest in the mainstem have been largely eliminated since 1992.
The lower river sport fishery has been closed since 1995. Sport fisheries in the Willamette River
and the tributaries have been increasingly restrictive as the return of hatchery and wild fish has
declined through the 1990s. The Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW) is now
implementing a mass marking and selective fishery program that is expected to reduce inriver
recreational harvest rates on natural fish by 80% relative to the 1980-96 average once fully
implemented in 2002 (Kruzic 1999).
The Lower Columbia River chinook ESU has three components including spring stocks, tule
stocks, and far-north migrating bright stocks. These components have different distributions and
are subject to different rates of harvest. The time series of ER for the spring component is not
currently available, but the model base period (1979-82) ER for Cowlitz spring chinook in
PFMC fisheries is 12%.
The total brood year exploitation rates on tule stocks have averaged 0.75 through 1990 although
there has been a pattern of decline over that time period (Table 9). Total exploitation rates from
1991-93 averaged 0.39. The distribution of the tule stocks is more southerly with the ocean
harvest concentrated in Canadian and PFMC fisheries. Exploitation rates in the PFMC fishery
averaged 0.25 through 1990 and 0.09 for the 1991-93 brood years. The long-term exploitation
rate in the river fisheries averaged 0.18. The most recent 3 year average is 0.15.
North Fork Lewis River fall chinook are the primary representative of the bright component of
the Lower Columbia River ESU. As noted above this is one of the few healthy wild stocks in the
Lower Columbia River. Total exploitation rates have averaged 0.49 through 1990 and 0.29
between 1991-92. This is a far-north migrating stock so the ocean harvest occurs primarily in
Alaska and Canada. The long term average exploitation rate in PFMC is 0.05. The more recent
average ER is 0.01. Inriver ERs have averaged 0.22 through 1990 and 0.11 in recent years
(Table 10).
The PS chinook ESU includes both spring and fall components. The long-term average ER on
the spring component is 0.71, but averaged 0.52 for the 1991-93 broods (Table 11). Most of the
harvest occurs in Canadian and Puget Sound fisheries. PS spring chinook stocks are subj ect to
little harvest in PFMC fisheries. The long term average ER is 0.01. The estimated ER for the
most recent brood years is 0.00.
The distribution ofPS fall stocks is similar although their timing is such that they are subject to
somewhat higher ERs. The long-term average ER is 0.83. The most recent brood years have
been subject to an ER of 0.57. Harvest ofPS fall chinook again occurs primarily in Canada and
28
Puget Sound. The ER in PFMC fisheries averaged 0.03 through 1990 and 0.01 from 1991-93
(Table 12).
A time series of model estimates of total exploitation rates are also available for the PS spring
and fall chinook stocks. These are reported as an index relative to the 1989-93 average ER. The
estimated total ER indices for spring and fall stocks in 1999 are 0.67 and 0.76, respectively. This
is thus an indicator of the magnitude of ER reductions across all fisheries in 1999. Although the
decline in ER is moderate relative to the 1989-93 base period, Figure 1 indicates that the ER has
declined steadily and more substantially since 1983.
29
Figure 1. Total adult equivalent exploitation rate index for a composite of Puget Sound spring and fall
chinook stocks relative to the 1989-93 average ER.
1.5 - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
><
(1)
"'C
-s::::
(1)
+'
1.25
1
res
~
s::::
o
0.75
+:i
res
·0
0.5
><
0.25
+'
-0
W
I-fflSpring stocks ~all stocks I
O-+--------,--.----=====::;=======:;=====~====-.,-----,--------J
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
Year
1993
1995
1997
1999
i
.~.-
30
Table 8. Summary of total adult equivalent exploitation rates for the Upper Willamette River
chinook ESU.
r-------.-.--- ---- -._---- --------- --- ---- ----.-----.----------_ _
Willamette Spring Hatchery
I
Brood Year :--·T~~lT-SEAK---Ca~;~--PFMCIColu~biaR.i Other
I
I
I!
!
--t-----.-.-.,---.-----~
1971
1972
1973
1974
I
I
II
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
~993
,
I
0.51
0.66
0.38
0.41
0.54
0.44
0.48
0.48
0.73
0.55
0.54
0.61
0.66
0.52
0.61
0.47
0.51
0.26
I
0.29
1975-1990 r,--0-.5-4---1
0.02
0.13
0.06
0.06
0.12
0.05
0.13
0.08
0.16
0.07
0.04
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.12
0.04
0.06
0.02
I
0.09
I
O.~
0.14
0.27
0.12
0.10
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.32
0.22
0.18
0.23
0.26
0.32
0.26
0.33
0.44
0.38
0.43
0.45
0.53
0.37
0.43
0.40
0.44
0.22
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02 _
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.00
-0-.08-j--0-.0-l-I-0.. 35 -+----0.-01
I
I
'1_1_99_ 1~~ 9_9_3_i __
0._35_ _l_ _0_.05__L _._O_.~?_-.l _0.~_1_.~1__0_.27_----" _ _0_.00
I
I
31
Table 9. Summary of total adult equivalent exploitation rates for an aggregate oftu1e stocks
from the Lower Columbia River
chinook ESU.
-
,~------~-----------r--
1
-------
I
I
1- --------
1
Brood Year
I
I
~-----------+--
--------
~ _ . _ - _ . _ - - - - - -
~~-----------------._-- - - - - ~ ~
Tu1e (Spring Creek, Stayton Ponds, Cowlitz, Bonneville)
--J --SE~_
,
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
~ r--¢_~nad_a
__
L__=fF~C
.
__ lC01u~bi~K[
Oth~~
I
I
0.89
0.93
0.86
0.84
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.82
0.73
0.70
0.67
0.76
0.77
0.79
0.65
0.59
0.59
0.69
0.56
0.38
0.45
1972-1990 I
I
i 1991-1993 ,
L.-
Total
---
---.
_~_L
0.34
0.75
1
I
I ..
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
~_
0.01!
0.39_L~~3_1
0.0~_0.18
0.27
0.12
0.25
0.09
32
0.27
0.44
0.33
0.28
0.27
0.34
0.27
0.31
0.15
0.08
0.18
0.15
0.20
0.24
0.26
0.18
0.17
0.34
0.19
0.01
0.24
!
0.27
0.15
0.22
0.32
0.35
0.28
0.32
0.31
0.41
0.42
0.28
0.29
0.25
0.26
0.16
0.22
0.23
0.18
0.17
0.24
0.03
0.10
I
I
0.29
0.28
0.24
0.19
0.16
0".11
0.11
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.27
0.27
0.22
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.09
0.15
0.10
0.16
0.18
0.15
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.01
Table 10. Summary of total adult equivalent exploitation rates for the North Fork Lewis River
bright stock from the Lower Columbia River chinook ESU.
---------,
1----- ----------;-----Bright(L~\\'i.;Ri ver)
------
- - - - ---I-
I
~
I::~~i
- -
I
Brood Year
II
----
,
Total
I
SEAK
--- ----------+-------
,
Canada
I
PFMC
---!-------
I
i
!
------~-- - - -
Columbia
R,
-t--.- t
i
I
Other
i
I
1973
1974
1975
1976
!
1977
0.51
1978
0.56
1979
0.50
1980
1981
0.59
1982
0.67
1983
1984
0.45
1985
0.45
1986
0.41
0.37
1987
1988
0.46
1989
0.43
1990
0.45
1991
0.32
1992
0.27
f--------l--0.49
1977-1990 :
II
'I
I
1~?1-1992*j
0.29
_
0.09
0.15
0.10
0.19
0.14
0.16
0.06
0.09
0.07
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.08
0.13
0.15
0.07
0.16
0.20
0.15
0.12
0.15
0.13
0.16
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.00
0.14
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.31
0.35
0.24
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.21
0.30
0.27
0.11
-T022T
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.11
0.00
0.14
----
--1
0.03
____
I
,
I
I
L
0.01
I
I
!
;
o.i i :
~
_
*Unresolved data uncertainties associated with CWT recoveries of this stock in the 1997 return
year precluded reporting of results for the 1993 brood year.
33
I
I
Table 11. Summary of total adult equivalent exploitation rates for a composite ofPuget Sound
spring chinook stocks.
-----
- - - -
-- ---
Brood Year
Total
I
-_.
-
~
-----
I
I
-----_ _-----_
..
----------
Puget Sound Spring
..
_---,-----
SEAK
----------~--
I
------
Canada
PFMC
i----- ------ - ----------------
1971
I
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
~979-1990
1991-1993
-----
-----.---------,
'--------ITPuget Snd
-t-----------I
I
i
I
i
I
!
II
I
Other
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.90
0.76
0.72
0.81
0.78
0.68
0.72
0.77
0.60
0.61
0.59
0.65
0.55
0.47
0.55
0.71
0.52
i
I
i
--I
I
!,
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
0.02
0.32
0.41
0.42
0.19
0.32
0.20
0.15
0.17
0.29
0.27
0.21
0.00
0.17
0.25
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.41
0.29
0.38
0.59
0.36
0.50
0.60
0.42
0.31
0.31
0.43
0.55
0.29
0.29
I
0.25
0.01
0.45
0.00
0.3~.00
,
i
I
I
I
I
--I
0.00
0.14
-----~-
34
•,
------~----
I
i
I
i
'I
I
i
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
i
!
,
----,
0.00
Table 12. Summary of total adult equivalent exploitation rates for a composite ofPuget Sound
fall chinook stocks.
- - -
I-
---
---
------
-
- ------=J
----
Puget Sound Fall
-- - - - - - - - - - - _ .
Brood Year
Total
SEAK
----------,---._--------
I
r
I
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
i
I
i
!I
1971-1990-1
i}991-1_~?3
0.82
0.89
0.90
0.93
0.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.87
0.95
0.93
0.83
0.79
0.77
0.85
0.76
0.79
0.75
0.79
0.81
0.69
0.58
0.55
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.83
0.57
----------J
-----_.
- - .
Canada
----------
PFMC
----.-
-------~--
_ ----l
Puget Snd
-
-------------+
----
Other
0.29
0.56
0.43
0.49
0.40
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.48
0.32
0.44
0.43
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.36
0.34
0.24
0.32
0.28
0.33
0.25
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.33
0.25
0.20
0.16
I
0.01 -----1--0.19
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.49
0.57
0.58
0.57
0.44
0.46
0.44
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.48
0.40
0.42
0.35
0.36
0.35
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.46
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
,
0.33
0.18
----
- -
35
l
i
•
,
-L____
0.02
0.01
_____
0.03
0.01
---
-----
,_
I
I
I
- ~ . - . - - - - - ~_._----_..
OOOU
0.00
0.00
I
i
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and GulfofAlaska Groundfish Fisheries
Salmon are taken incidentally in the Bering Seas/Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska (GOA)
groundfish fisheries off of the coast of Alaska. NNIFS has conducted section 7 consultations on
the impacts of fishing conducted under the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska
Fishery Management Plans (BSAl/GOA FMP) of the NPFMC on ESA listed species and
concluded that impacts on species listed at that time were low and not likely to jeopardize their
continued existence (NMFS 1994, 1995b). Section 7 consultation on this fishery has been
reinitiated, but a biological opinion has not been issued. However, information from these
previous opinions can be used to characterize the potential catch of these fisheries on the newly
listed ESUs.
The incidental catch of chinook from all stocks in the BSAI groundfish fisheries has averaged
40,150 and 0.01 chinook/metric ton groundfish (range = 0 to 6 chinook/metric ton groundfish)
(1990-1998)(NOAA 1999). The most recent biological opinion on the groundfish fisheries
(NMFS 1995a) concluded that, given a bycatch of approximately this size, the catch of ocean
type fall chinook in the BSAI fishery would be on the order of 2,200 per year. The UWR spring
and LCR brights are both ocean-type stocks that migrate to northern waters. Since the incidental
catch of ocean-type chinook off the Alaskan coast is unlikely to exceed more than a few
thousand fish per year including those from British Columbia, the Washington coast and the
unlisted hatchery components, the catch of listed UWR spring chinook is likely to be only a rare
event. This conclusion is supported by the analysis of exploitation rates (see sections II.D and
IV) in the ocean salmon fishery which are generally low despite a catch that is more than an
order of magnitude higher than that of the groundfish bycatch. However, the northern
distribution of the LCR bright stock and the possibility that the increase in exploitation rate on
the LCR bright stock in the SEAK salmon fishery in the last several years may also be occurring
in the BSAl fisheries warrants consideration of the incidental catch ofLCR chinook in the
groundfish fishery as part of the analysis of the effect of the salmon fishery on the ESU.
The available information is insufficient to estimate impacts in the BSAI fisheries on UCRS
chinook ESU. However, the UCRS and SR spring/summers share similar life history and
presumably ocean distribution patterns. In its 1994 biological opinion, NMFS concluded that the
catch of Snake River spring/summer chinook in the BSAI fisheries was unlikely to average more
than one fish per year. Although PS chinook and LCR tules are caught more frequently than
UCR springs in ocean fisheries, they have a more southerly distribution and are therefore also not
likely to be caught in BSAI fisheries. Although it is possible that UCR spring, PS or LCR tule
chinook are taken in the BSAI fisheries, the lack of or low numbers of coded-wire tag (CWT)
recoveries in the SEAK salmon fisheries which take many more chinook, and the fact that the
majority of chinook caught in the BSAI fisheries are of Alaskan or Asian origin (NMFS 1994)
suggest that the annual catch oflisted fish would be extremely low. A more definitive analysis
of the incidental catch of listed chinook will be made in the re-initiated groundfish opinion.
The incidental catch of chinook from all stocks in the GOA groundfish fisheries has averaged
15,582 annually and 0.04 chinook/metric ton groundfish (range = 0 to I chinook/mt groundfish)
(1990-1998)(NNIFS 1999c). The most recent biological opinion on the groundfish fisheries
36
(NMFS 1995b) concluded that it was difficult to detennine the region of origin or life history
type in the GOA fishery, although it did sunnise that the GOA fishery would include more
stream-type fish than the SEAK fishery, because of the dominance of stream-type fish in the
BSAI fishery which is further north and west. The Upper Willamette spring and Lower
Columbia River brights are both ocean-type, far north migrating stocks. It is reasonable to
assume that these stocks are less impacted in the GOA groundfish fishery th~n in the SEAK
salmon fishery given the probable lower presence of ocean-type fish in the GOA groundfish
fishery. The exploitation rate for UWR chinook in the SEAK salmon fishery averaged 5% over
the 1990-1993 brood years. However, the average catch in the salmon fishery during those years
was approximately 275,000 compared to less than 16,000 in the groundfish fishery. Ifwe
assume that the relative abundance ofUWR chinook in the fisheries was similar, the estimated
ER in the groundfish fishery would be about 0.3%.
A similar analysis was done for the bright component of the LCR ESU. The average 1990-1992
brood year ER in the SEAK salmon fishery is 12%. Given the relative magnitude of catches in
the salmon and groundfish fisheries and assuming a similar relative stock composition, the ER in
the groundfish fishery would be about 0.7%. However, much of the bycatch of the groundfish
fishery is further north and west along the Aleutian Islands. These are therefore likely substantial
overestimates of the actual ERs for UWR chinook and the bright component of the LCR chinook
ESU in the GOA groundfish fishery.
Puget Sound chinook and LCR tules are caught less frequently in the SEAK salmon fisheries
than UWR or LCR brights. The average exploitation rates for PS spring stocks, PS fall stocks,
and LCR tules in the SEAK salmon fisheries are 0, < 1%, and < 2%, respectively. Because of
their more southerly distribution and they are even less likely to be caught in the GOA
groundfish fishery.
There are also groundfish fisheries in Canadian waters that also catch salmo? incidentally.
Canadian groundfish fisheries have not under gone prior consultation. The bycatch in the
Canadian whiting fishery was considered in NMFS original biological opinion concerning the
PFMC groundfish fishery (NMFS 1992). Although that has not been subsequently reviewed or
updated, the assumption at the time was that the annual bycatch of salmon would be no greater
than 14,000 fish per year. Most of these would be chinook so there would likely be some catch
of listed fish. However, the total additional catch of chinook in this fishery is small relative to
that being considered as part of the directed salmon fisheries. For example, the catch of chinook
in the NCBC and WCVI chinook fisheries in Canada in 1998 was about 150,000, a level much
reduced from what would have been allowed under the agreement given the estimated abundance
levels. Bycatch in the whiting fishery is therefore not likely to be a significant additional impact.
We have not reviewed other components of the Canadian groundfish fishery, but NMFS
concluded in reviewing PFMC fisheries that the bycatch from bottom trawl gear was likely the
same magnitude as that in the whiting fishery and that other gear types such as long lines or pots
would have little or no additional catch of salmon.
37
D. Factors Affecting the Species Outside the Action Area - Other Human Activities
All of the listed species are affected, often substantially, by mortality factors related to other
human activities that are commonly referred to as the "Hs". In addition to the harvest H that is
considered in detail in this opinion, the species of concern are affected by impacts related to
habitat degradation, hatchery programs, and hydro-development. The relative effect of each H to
the ESUs, and to each stock within an ESU, differs. However, in general, human development
associated with forestry, farming, grazing, road construction, mining, and urbanization have all
contributed to the decline of the species. The combined effect of multitude of habitat
degradations often poses the greatest risk and greatest challenge to species recovery because they
are often the result of multiple dispersed actions, each of which must be addressed. Additionally,
habitat degradations by their nature can only be remedied over time as the affected systems
slowly recover their properly functioning condition.
Hatcheries have both positive and negative effects. Hatcheries are playing an increasingly
important role in conserving natural populations in areas where the habitat can no longer support
natural production or where the numbers of returning adults are now so low that intervention is
required to reduce the immediate risk of extinction. However, there are also negative
consequences associated with hatchery programs, particularly as they were developed and
managed in the past. There are genetic interactions associated with the interbreeding of hatchery
and wild fish. There are a number of ecological interactions such as predation of wild fish by
larger hatchery fish, competition for food and space, and disease transmission. In addition,
fisheries that target hatchery fish may over harvest less productive wild populations. Hatchery
activities in Puget Sound and the Columbia Basin are currently the subject of ongoing section 7
consultation that are designed to address the adverse effects of ongoing hatchery programs.
Hydro development also has substantially affected or eliminated some populations or even whole
ESUs. In some cases, the effects are direct as the dams block access to spawning and rearing
habitat. In other cases, the effects are less direct, but nonetheless significant as they increase
downstream and upstream passage mortality, change natural flow regimes, dewater or reduce
flow to downstream areas, block the recruitment of spawning gravel, or result in elevated
temperatures.
Although it is not possible to review here the relative importance of each of these factors on
each ESU or stock within the ESUs, it is clear that it is the combined effect of all of the H's that
has lead to the decline and resulting current status of the species of concern. In this opinion,
NMFS focuses on harvest, in the context of the environmental baseline and the current status of
the species. Although harvest can be reduce in response to the species depressed status and the
reduced productivity that results from the degradations related to other human activities, the
recovery of the listed species depends on improving the productivity of the natural populations in
the wild. These improvements can only be made by addressing the factors of decline related to
all of the H's that will be the subject of future opinions and recovery planning efforts.
38
E. Natural Factors Causing Variability in Population Abundance
Changes in the abundance of chinook populations are a result of variations in freshwater and
marine environments. For example, large scale changes in climatic regimes, such as EI Nifio,
likely affect changes in ocean productivity; much of the Pacific coast was subject to a series of
very dry years during the first part of the decade which adversely affected some the stocks. In
more recent years, severe flooding has adversely affected some stocks. For example, the
anticipated low return of Lewis River bright fall chinook in 1999 is attributed to flood events
during both 1995 and 1996.
Salmon are exposed to high rates of natural predation, particularly during freshwater rearing and
migration stages. Ocean predation likely also contributes to significant natural mortality,
although the levels of predation are largely unknown. In general, chinook are prey for pelagic
fishes, birds, and marine mammals, including harbor seals, sea lions, and killer whales. There
have been recent concerns that the rebounding of seal and sea lion populations, following their
protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, has resulted in substantial
mortality for salmonids. In recent years, for example, sea lions have learned to target UWR
spring chinook at Willamette Falls and have gone so far as to climb into the fish ladder where
they can easily pick-off migrating spring chinook.
A key factor that has substantially affected many west coast salmon stocks has been the general
pattern of long-term decline in ocean productivity. The mechanism whereby stocks are affected
is not well understood. The pattern of response to these changing ocean co~ditions has differed
between stocks, presumably due to differences in their timing and distribution. It is presumed
that ocean survival is driven largely by events between ocean entry and recruitment to a sub-adult
life stage.
Recent evidence suggests that marine survival of salmon species fluctuates in response to 20-30
year long periods of either above or below average survival that is driven by long-term cycles of
climatic conditions and ocean productivity (Cramer 1999). This has been referred to as the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). It is apparent that ocean conditions and resulting
productivity affecting many of northwest salmon populations have been in a low phase of the
cycle for some time. Smolt-to-adult return rates provide another measure of survival and the
effect of ocean conditions on salmon stocks. The smolt-to-adult survival rates for PS chinook
stocks, for example, dropped sharply beginning with the 1979 broods to less than half of what
they were during the 1974-1977 brood years (Cramer 1999). The variation in ocean conditions
has been an important contributor to the decline of many stocks. However, the survival and
recovery of these species depends on the ability of these species to persist through periods of low
ocean survival when stocks may depend on better quality freshwater habitat and lower relative
harvest rates.
The natural factors affecting salmon abundance are extremely variable, specific to different life
stages, and have different magnitudes. Where possible, variations in productivity and natural
mortality are incorporated in management models.
39
IV. Effects of the Action
The standards for determining jeopardy are set forth in Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA as defined at
50 CFR §402.02. This section of the biological opinion applies those standards in determining
whether the proposed fisheries are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or more of
the listed ESUs that may be adversely affected by the fisheries. This analysis considers the
direct, indirect, interrelated, and interdependent effects of the proposed fisheries and compares
them against the environmental baseline to determine ifthe proposed fisheries will appreciably
reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery ofthese listed salmon in the wild. The jeopardy
determinations are also based on a consideration of the magnitude of salmon bycatch by species,
the geographic distribution of the bycatch, and the available information indicating the relative
magnitude of impacts to each ESU. Consideration is also given to the proposed management
actions taken to reduce the catch oflisted fish. The jeopardy determinations are largely
qualitative at this time. The ESUs considered here have just recently been listed. Impacts to
these ESUs in the groundfish fisheries have not been previously analyzed and are not tied to
more quantitative analysis that are typically part of salmon fishery management models or more
holistic life cycle or risk assessment analysis. Such analyses will necessarily be developed over
time. In the meantime, NMFS must rely on the best available information in making its
judgement about the risk of the proposed action to the newly listed ESUs.
For many ofthe ESUs considered in the opinion critical habitat has not been designated. As a
result, this section will not determine, for those species, if the proposed fisheries are likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. For those ESUs with designated or proposed critical
habitat, the action area is outside the range of the designated habitat. As a result, the proposed
fisheries are not likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of any ESU.
There are two general pattems of ocean distribution for the listed chinook ESUs. The chinook
ESUs originating in CA (SRWR, CVS, CC chinook) are generally distributed off the Califomia
and southem Oregon coast. The other chinook ESUs from Puget Sound and the Columbia River
basin are either north on far-north migrating stocks that will be found only rarely to the south. It
is therefore useful to first consider both the magnitude and geographic distribution of the
anticipated bycatch of chinook in order to characterize the likely impact on each ESU of concem.
There is insufficient information to characterize the stocks composition of the chinook bycatch in
the groundfish fisheries. It is therefore not possible to estimate directly of the catch mortality by
ESU. More qualitative impact estimates can be derived based on our general understanding of
the distribution and timing of stocks that are derived from analysis of salmon fisheries. For some
of the ESUs or stocks within an ESU the salmon management models can be used to generally
characterize the relative abundance of listed fish in terms of catch per thousand. In other cases, it
is more appropriate to use estimates of the exploitation rates in the salmon fisheries along with
the associated catch to get a general sense ofthe level of impact associated with the groundfish
fisheries occurring in similar areas and times. However, these estimates are best considered as
approximations, as the salmon and groundfish fisheries do not occur in the same time and place,
and therefore catch different stock mixes. We know, for example, that the chinook caught in the
groundfish fishery are generally smaller and younger-aged fish.
40
Infonnation from the salmon fishery models is supplemented in the opinion by an analysis of the
CWT recoveries that are available for the whiting fishery in particular. Reported recoveries for
hatchery or wild salmon stocks from each ESU that are used to represent the distribution of listed
fish contribute to our understanding of the presence or absence and distribution of listed fish in
the groundfish fisheries. For the SRF chinook ESU only sub-yearling release groups were used
to represent the ocean distribution. There were additional releases of yearling smolts from the
Lyons Ferry Hatchery. However, because the yearling releases have a different age at maturity
and different ocean distribution, they are not considered representative of the listed natural origin
fish.
The total annual bycatch of other listed species (coho, chum, sockeye, steelhead, and cutthroat)
are reviewed briefly, but are not analyzed in detail because of the consistently low level of catch.
A. Mid-water Trawl - Whiting Fishery
The whiting catch and associated salmonid bycatch for 1991-99 seasons for at-sea and shoreside
fisheries is summarized in Table 14. Chinook salmon represent the major portion of the salmon
bycatch, with coho, chum, pink and sockeye making up the lessor portion in both the shoreside
and at-sea components of the whiting fisheries. Coho encounters averaged only 292 fish per year
in the combined shoreside and at-sea fisheries. The highest annual catch of coho was 1,379 fish
caught in 1995 in the at-sea fishery compared to 138,000 coho in the ocean salmon fisheries
(PFMC 1999b); the highest annual catch of chum was 215 fish caught in the 1994 season, with
an average of 105 fish per year from 1991-98; and the highest annual catch of sockeye was 116
fish caught in the 1993 season, with an average of 15 fish per year from 1991-98. There is no
reported bycatch of either steelhead or cutthroat trout in whiting fisheries for the eight year
period summarized in Table 14.
Most salmon caught in the whiting fishery are chinook salmon. The estimated coastwide bycatch
of chinook in the whiting fishery has averaged 6,182 annually since 1991 (Table 14). Limits on
chinook bycatch in the whiting fishery were set as result of previous consultation. The bycatch
rate is limited to 0.05 chinook/mt of whiting with an associated total catch of 11,000 chinook.
Reinititiation of the biological opinion is required ifboth the bycatch rate and bycatch limit are
exceeded (NMFS 1996a). This compares to a catch of chinook in the ocean salmon fisheries off
the Oregon and Washington coast that has averaged 167,000 annually during the same 1991 to
1998 time frame (PFMC 1999b). (The salmon fishery catch off the Washington and Oregon
coast is used for comparison because that is where most of the whiting fishery occurs.) Time and
area restrictions that were designed to avoid areas where bycatch rates were generally higher
have been implemented as a result of previous consultations (NMFS 1996a). The start of the
whiting fishery in areas north of 42 000' latitude is now delayed until May 15. Fishing inside of
100 fathoms in the Eureka area is prohibited.
As a result of a combination of factors, the distribution of the chinook bycatch in the whiting
fishery is primarily to the north in the Columbia and Vancouver INPFC catch areas. There is
now very little catch in the Eureka area off southern Oregon and northern California or further
south. This represents a substantial change in the distribution of salmon bycatch from what it
41
was prior to 1992 when, for some years, as much as half of the bycatch came from the Eureka
area (NMFS 1992). Table 13 summarizes the distribution of chinook bycatch from the at-sea
fishery for more recent years. These numbers differ slightly from those provided in Table 14
because the more detailed distributional data shown in Table 13 was taken from older
summaries. Nevertheless, this summary is adequate to make the general points that there is now
little bycatch to the south and that there has been a shift in the distribution of the bycatch to the
more northerly Vancouver catch area in recent years. This is partly due to declining bycatch in
the at-sea fishery in the Columbia area and partly due to higher bycatch associated with the tribal
fishery. The underlying reasons for this shift in bycatch from south to north is not clear. It is
likely due in part to the annual dynamics of the fishery that responds to the distribution of the
target species. The fishery is actively managed to avoid salmon bycatch and those efforts have
become increasingly sophisticated in recent years. The reasons for the generally higher bycatch
and bycatch rate in the tribal fishery are also not well understood, but are likely related in part to
the fact that the tribal fishery is limited geographically which limits their ability to move to areas
with lower bycatch. It is not clear at this time whether salmon abundance is generally higher in
the tribal fishing area or if other factors are involved.
Table 13. Pacific Whiting Fishery - At-Sea Chinook Bycatch By Area.
Vancouver - 670
Non-Tribal(Tribal)*
Columbia - 710
Non-Tribal
Eureka - 720
Non-Tribal
1994
757
2,870
0
1995
705
10,763
111
1996
871 (1,468)
575
0
1997
377 (2,524)
625
396
1998
584 (2,085)
893
0
1999
3,651 (4,491)
740
0
* Tribal whiting fishery started in 1996.
42
.
Table 14" Salmon Bycatch in the Pacific Whiting Fisheries - Summary 1991-99"
At -Sea Fishery (Catcher -processors and vessels delivery to motherships combined)
Year
Whiting (mt)
Chinook
(no)
Chinook rate
(no/mt whiting)
Coho (no)
Coho rate
(no/mt whiting)
Pink
(no)
Pink rate
(no/mt whiting)
Chum
(no)
Sockeye
(no)
Steel head
(no)
Total
Salmon
(no)
Total
Salmon
(rate)
Chinook
CWT
Recoveries
1991-
201,755
6,153
0.031
138
0.0007
24
0.0001
8
0
0
6,323
0031
27
1992-
152,076
4,262
0.028
193
0.0013
0
0
48
0
0
4,503
0.030
13
1993"
93,590
4,968
0.053
17
0.0002
3,397
0.0363
58
116
0
8,556
0.091
14
1994"
176,401
4,024
0.023
65
0.0004
32
0.0002
214
0
0
4,335
0.025
56
1995"
101,858
12,108
0.119
1,379
0.0135
1,575
0.0155
181
6
0
15,249
0.150
104
1996"
128,059
1,676
0013
64
0.0005
0
0
178
0
0
1,918
0015
38
1997-
145,459
4,414
0.030
348
00024
497
0.0034
114
0
0
5,373
0.037
NA
1998--
144,960
3,563
0025
114
0.0008
4
00003
30
0
0
3,681
0.025
NA
1999--
141,105
8,882
117
0.0008
496
.0035
465
0
0
9964
0.071
NA
Source: NMFS Observer Database ("
~
0.063
Updated as of5118/98; --
~
Updated as of 11/29/99).
Shoreside Fishery (Vessels delivering to on-shore processing)
1991
20,359
41
0.002
41
0.002
0
1992
49,092
491
0.010
491
0.010
10
1993
41,926
419
0.010
419
0.010
11
1994
72,367
581
0.008
4
0
0
0
585
0.008
11
1995
73,397
2,954
0.040
2
15
1
0
2,972
0.040
146
1996
84,680
651
0.008
0
0
0
0
651
0.008
23
1997
87,499
1,482
0.0\7
2
0
0
0
1,484
0.017
NA
1998
87,627
1,699
0.019
8
0
5
1
1,713
0.020
NA
1999"
83,350
1,630
0.020
NA
0
Sources: ODFW 1997, Weeks and Hulton 1998. Note :1994-99 shores ide rates based on salmon turned over by processors, 1991-93 salmon numbers based on observed rates (approx. 50% observer coverage).
(- ~ Preliminary).
13
B. Bottom Trawl Fishery
The magnitude and distribution of salmonid bycatch in the bottom trawl fis4ery was last reviewed in the
August 28, 1992 biological opinion. As is the case in the whiting fishery, the salmon bycatch is almost
entirely chinook salmon. The NMFS bottom trawl surveys indicated that 96% ofthe salmon bycatch was
chinook (NMFS 1992). Erickson and Pikitch (1994) evaluated incidental catch of chinook salmon in the
commercial bottom trawl fishery off the west coast during two time periods, 1985-1987 and 1988-1990.
Erickson (Personal communication, 9/17/97) encountered no steelhead or cutthroat trout in these time
periods, and a total of 22 coho salmon for the six overlapping years of study.
In the 1992 opinion the estimates of bycatch were developed by expanding bycatch rates using logbook
estimates of total trawl hours. Estimates of bottom trawl effort in depths less than 300 fathoms by quarter
(Erickson and Pikitch 1994), were then multiplied by estimates of chinook bycatch rates for each quarter
and the PFMC area. The resulting catch of chinook in the bottom trawl fishery coastwide was estimated
to be between 6,000 and 9,000 fish per year. The available information also suggested that the bycatch of
chinook for northern areas is on the order of5,000 to 8,000 off Washington and northern Oregon, with
another 1,000 chinook taken off southern Oregon and California. For 1998 the bycatch rate using
logbook estimates of total trawl hours off Oregon and Washington was 6,398. This is within the range
that was estimated in the 1992 opinion, and indicates that the bycatch of chinook has not increased.
There has been a significant decrease in the bycatch and effort data in recent years suggesting that the
associated bycatch may also be on the decline. Since 1990 the catch in the bottom trawl fishery has
decreased by about half (Figure 2). There has been a coincident decline in effort. The reported trawl
hours, by state and quarter for tows less than 300 fathoms, indicates that the trend in effort off
Washington and Oregon has decreased approximately 63% from 1991 to 1998. Off California from 1991
to 1997 the trend appears to be more constant, with an increase in tow hours only in 1997.
The declining trend is likely to continue in the future. Lingcod, Bocaccio, Canary, Pacific Ocean Perch,
and Cowcod were all recently designated as overfished species. In 2000 the Pacific Coast groundfish
fisheries will be substantially restricted relative to recent years to protect these species. Of these
overfished species, all but Pacific Ocean Perch, occur nearshore, hence the management measures that
reduce the harvest of these stocks and associated species will likely result in reduced chinook
interceptions.
44
Figure 2. Estimated commercial groundfish landings (mts) for the bottom trawl fisheries (Extracted from PacFIN July 29'h,
1999).
ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL GROUNDFISH
LANDINGS FOR THE BOTTOM TRAWL
FISHERY
100000
~,-------------------
90000
.•
-=--------~~~----- _=l
80000
70000
~
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000 -
o.
'----
I
I
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 I
._--~
---
C. Species Specific Affects of the Bycatch
Review of the recent salmon bycatch information suggests that estimates of the magnitude and
distribution of bycatch have not changed substantially from those included in previous biological
opinions. It is apparent that virtually all of the salmon bycatch is chinook and that other species
are little affected by the groundfish fisheries. The chinook bycatch in the whiting fishery
continues to be subject to an 11,000 fish constraint. The chinook bycatch in the whiting fishery
exceeded the 11,000 fish standard only once in 1995, but has otherwise averaged only 6186 from
1991-98. In recent years the bycatch has been distributed somewhat more to the north.
There is relatively little new information regarding salmon bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery.
NMFS therefore continues to rely largely on estimates from the 1992 opinion that suggested a
range of6,000-9,000 salmon per year. This was presumed to include about 1,000 salmon
annually in bottom trawl fisheries in California and southern Oregon. Estimates of bycatch in
the bottom trawl fishery in Oregon and Washington for 1998 are consistent with expectations.
Both catch and effort in the bottom trawl fishery have declined over the last decade and NMFS
45
expects that trend will continue as the recent more restrictive management actions are
implemented.
Previously Listed ESUs
NMFS concluded in its earlier biological opinions associated with this fishery (NMFS 1992,
1993, 1996) that the impacts to listed SR sockeye, SR spring/summer chinook, and SRW
chinook resulting from implementation of the groundfish FMP were negligible and that the
fishery was not likely to jeopardize their continued existence.
NMFS has provided a range of estimates for the expected annual mortality of SRF chinook in the
past depending on the available information. In the 1992 opinion, NMFS concluded that the
impact on naturally spawning SRF chinook is probably on the order of a few tens of fish, and
that it may be less, but is unlikely to be as many as 100. NMFS reviewed its prior estimates and
jeopardy conclusion with respect to SRF chinook in 1993 and 1996 and confirmed that the
proposed fisheries were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the ESU.
For this biological opinion, NMFS again reviewed the available information on CWT recoveries
in the groundfish fisheries, information on the catch and distribution of the chinook bycatch, and
the associated impact to the ESU. CWT data from fingerling, non-transported releases from the
Lyons Ferry Hatchery have been used to represent the SRF chinook ESU. From the analysis of
salmon fishery recoveries it is apparent that SRF chinook are widely distributed and susceptible
to marine fisheries from California to Alaska (NMFS 1992). However, recoveries from south of
central Oregon are relatively rare. The center of distribution of SRF chinook is off the west coast
of Vancouver Island. The relative abundance ofSRF chinook off the Washington and northern
Oregon coasts may be lower, but SRF chinook are still subject to measurable impacts in these
areas. There were five observed recoveries of the Lyons Ferry indicator stock reported in the
recovery data all from the Washington and northern Oregon coast. The catch rate of the listed
SRF chinook in the 1999 ocean salmon fishery in the area off the Washington coast was about 3
listed fish per 1,000. The bycatch of chinook off the Washington and Oregon coasts in the
combined groundfish fisheries has ranged from about 10,000-20,000 chinook per year. This
suggests that the bycatch of listed SRF chinook is in order of 30-60 per year assuming that the
catch rate of SRF chinook is the same in all he groundfish fisheries as it is in the salmon fisheries
off the Washington coast. In fact, the concentration ofSRF chinook decreases to the south. This
estimate is therefore likely biased high. This estimate is consistent with prior expectations,
although NMFS again cautions against comparing these directly to other estimates of catch or
abundance derived using different methods.
Puget Sound Chinook
PS chinook is a complex ESU with many components each of which has a somewhat different
timing and distribution. However, the salmon management models indicate that PS chinook as a
group are subject to relative little harvest offthe Washington coast and virtually none further
south, with most of the catch occurring in Canadian and Puget Sound fisheries (NMFS 1999a).
46
The available information suggest that the exploitation rate on PS spring chinook as a group in
PFMC salmon fisheries was zero for the 1991-1993 brood years, and only 1% in earlier years
when salmon fisheries were generally higher (Table 11). The exploitation rate on PS fall stocks
averaged 1% for the 1991-1993 brood years, again confirming the relative low abundance of PS
stocks off the Washington coast. The average catch off the Washington coast, north of
Leadbetter Point, from 1993-1998, that would have contributed to the 1991-1993 brood year
harvests, was 22,950 chinook per year (PFMC 1999b). Exploitation rates in earlier years
averaged about 3% (Table 12). Catches during the 1980s off the Washington coast, north of
Leadbetter Point, averaged 97,800 chinook per year (PFMC 1999c). This compares to estimates
of chinook bycatch in the groundfish fishery that are 10,000-20,000 fish per year coastwide.
Although some PS chinook are probably caught in the groundfish fishery, the impacts to PS
spring chinook, which are the most depressed component of the ESU, are close to zero. This
qualitative analysis suggests that the exploitation rate to PS fall stocks is likely only a fraction of
1% per year.
There were 52 CWT recoveries from in the groundfish fishery database from the PS ESU. The
distribution of those CWT recoveries in the whiting fishery were off Washington and northern
Oregon. The catch rate of these CWT chinook were distributed evenly in the 1980 to 1997 time
period, with an average of a 3 to 4 CWT observed recoveries per year. The relative paucity of
recoveries confirms the above conclusion that PS chinook are caught only rarely in the
groundfish fishery.
Lower Columbia River Chinook
The LCR chinook ESU is composed of spring run, and fall run tule and bright stocks. There are
three spring stocks, three self-sustaining natural tule stocks, and likewise, three identified bright
stocks that rely primarily on natural production. The population structure of the ESU has not
been determined, but it is intuitively obvious that the spring, tule, and bright life history types
warrant independent review with respect to their status and the effect of the proposed action. The
effects analysis therefore considers each of these life history types independently and, where
possible, also considers the status of and presumed effect on each stock.
The three remaining spring stocks within the ESU include those on the Cowlitz, Kalama, and
Lewis rivers. Although some spring chinook spawn naturally in each of these rivers, the historic
habitat for spring chinook is now largely inaccessible. The remaining spring stocks are therefore
dependent, for the time being, on the associated hatchery production programs. The hatcheries
have met their escapement objectives in recent years thus insuring that what remains of the
genetic legacy is preserved. Harvest constraints for other stocks, including those provided
specifically as a result of the recent PST agreement, will provide additional protection for the
hatchery programs until such time that a more comprehensive recovery plan is implemented.
Information from salmon fishery management models provides some perspective about the
distribution and likely impact to LCR spring chinook from the groundfish fisheries. The salmon
fishery model base period (1979-82) ER for the Cowlitz River spring chinook is 12% for the
PFMC fisheries. The 1999 model estimates are for a PFMC ER of 7.2% and a total ocean
47
fishery ER of 10.6%. This suggests that LCR spring stocks have a more southerly distribution
than the upriver spring stocks which is consistent with the ocean-type juvenile life history that is
characteristic of all LCR chinook. The 7.2% ER estimate in 1999 was associated with expected
chinook mortalities in the salmon fisheries of 80,000 off the Washington coast and an additional
156,000 off the Oregon coast in the area north of Humbug Mountain which is close to the
southern boundary of the Columbia INPFC catch area. This again compares to an anticipated
chinook bycatch in the groundfish fisheries of 10,000-20,000 fish coast-wide.
The LCR is dominated by hatchery-origin tule stocks. The three natural-origin tule stocks in the
ESU include those on the Coweeman, East Fork Lewis, and Clackamas rivers. These are
apparently self-sustaining natural populations without substantial influence from hatchery-origin
fish. These stocks are all relatively small. The interim escapement goals on the Coweeman and
East Fork Lewis are 1,000 and 300, respectively. Escapements have been below these goals 8 of
the past 10 years for the Coweeman, and 5 of the past 10 years for the East Fork Lewis. The 10
year average escapement for the Coweeman is 700 , compared to a recent 5 year average of995
(range 146-2,100). In the East Fork Lewis, the 10 year average escapement is 300, compared to
a recent 5 year average of279. There is currently no escapement goal for the Clackamas where
escapements have averaged about 350 per year.
Until recently tule hatchery production has been prioritized to support ocean and Lower
Columbia River fisheries thus providing the potential for very high ERs. The tule stocks are
north migrating, but are most vulnerable to catch in fisheries off the Washington coast and the
west coast of Vancouver Island and in the lower river.
The total adult equivalent ERs in the PFMC salmon for the tule hatchery stocks averaged 9% for
the 1991-1993 brood years and 19.5% for the decade of the 80s (Table 9). These exploitation
rates were associated with average catches of 22,950 for the associated recent catch years, 1993
98, and 97,500 for the earlier time series. Because of their more southerly distribution, fisheries
off the Oregon coast impact these stocks as well. The catches of chinook off the Oregon coast
during these same time periods were 139,900 and 291,250, respectively. These catches and
associated ERs again provide some perspective about the anticipated impacts associated with the
groundfish fisheries with expected catches coasted-wide of 10,000-20,000 chinook per year.
There are also three remaining natural-origin bright stocks in the LCR ESU. There is a relatively
large and healthy stock on the North Fork Lewis River. The escapement goal for this system is
5,700. That goal has been met, and often exceeded by a substantial margin every year since 1980
with the exception of 1999. In 1999 the return is expected to be substantially below goal because
of severe flooding during the 1995 and 1996 brood years. Nonetheless, the stock is considered
healthy. The Sandy and East Fork Lewis stocks are smaller. Escapements to the Sandy have
been stable and on the order of 1,000 fish per year for the last 10-12 years. Less is known about
the East Fork stock, but it too appears to be stable in abundance.
The LCR bright stocks are far-north migrating stocks and so are less in PFMC fisheries then
other stocks from the ESU. The total adult equivalent brood year ER in the PFMC salmon
fisheries averaged 1% in recent years and about 5% in the past (Table 10) when catches were
48
generally higher. Information from the PFMC salmon fishery models for 1999 suggest that the
catch rate of chinook from the North Fork Lewis in fisheries off the Washington coast was
approximately 2 fish per 1,000, again suggesting that the impact associated with the PFMC
groundfish fisheries are quite limited.
Upper Willamette River Chinook
Because of their far-north migrating distribution and spring timing, UWR chinook are subject to
relatively little harvest in PFMC fishery catch areas. Upper Willamette Spring chinook reside
primarily to the north. They are an early returning spring stock so that adult migrants have
largely exited the ocean by March or early April. The whiting fishery in particular does not start
in areas north of 42° north latitude until May 15.
The average total brood year ER on UWR chinook in PFMC salmon fisheries is estimated to be
about 1% in both the past and near-term time series (Table 8). The traditional start of the salmon
fishing season is May 1 so that the salmon fisheries also miss most of the adult migrants.
Despite their distribution and timing, it is apparent from the CWT data that UWR chinook are
taken occasionally in the whiting fishery. There were 68 observed recoveries of hatchery origin
chinook spring from the Willamette during the 1980-1997 time period with some taken as far
south as central Oregon.
The current limitation on opening the whiting fishery after May 15 did not take affect until 1996.
About one third of the observed recoveries in past years occurred prior to May 1. The fishery
delay my therefore help reduce the likelihood that UWR chinook will be taken in the whiting
fishery in the future.
The available information suggests that UWR chinook are taken occasionally in the PFMC
groundfish fisheries. The estimated ER in the salmon fisheries is 1%, but these are associated
with catches that are substantially larger than the 10,000-20,000 chinook caught coast-wide in
the groundfish fisheries. The catch of salmon of the Washington coast alone averaged 22,950
during the 1993-1998 period and 97,500 during the decade of the 1980s.
Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook
Upper Columbia River Spring chinook have a stream-type life history, and their ocean
distribution generally to the north and offshore. Upper Columbia River Spring chinook are
similar to Snake River spring/summer chinook in that they are subject to very little ocean harvest
which is confirmed again here in relation to the groundfish fisheries. The available in suggests
that the overall ocean exploitation rate on UCRS is quite low in the salmon fisheries, and is
treated a zero in life cycling modeling efforts designed to assess extinction risk and options to
promote recovery (NMFS 1999f). Hence it is reasonable to expect even lower impacts in the
groundfish fisheries. There were no recoveries of UCRS chinook in the groundfish fisheries.
This is consistent with what is known about their life history and distribution. Upper Columbia
River chinook are similar to SR spring/summer chinook which are little affected by ocean
49
salmon fisheries either to the north or in PFMC catch areas and therefore presumably are also not
affected by the PFMC groundfish fisheries.
California Chinook ESUs
Two additional ESUs located in California were recently listed including CVS chinook and CC
chinook. Both are distributed primarily off of California. Of nearly 13,000 CWT recoveries
(estimates expanded for sample size) in the salmon fisheries from the Feather River Hatchery
indicator stock, 88% were taken off of California and 10% off of Oregon. Of nearly 400
estimated recoveries for the Mad River Hatchery indicator stock, 63% were found off of
California with an additional 29% off of the Oregon coast. The remainder were found off of
Washington with few recoveries in Canada. Although the observed recoveries from the
groundfish fisheries are not directly comparable because they are not expanded for sample size,
the counts were low. There were only five observed recoveries representing the CVS chinook
and 11 representing CC chinook in the groundfish recovery data base.
Indicator stocks for these newly listed ESUs are not currently include in salmon management
models so there are no associated estimates of the ER in salmon fisheries. However, the
distribution of the chinook bycatch in the groundfish fisheries is primarily to the north away from
the primary areas of distribution for these fish. The bycatch of chinook in the whiting fishery in
the Eureka area from southern Oregon south has largely been eliminated in recent years (Table
13). Of the 6,000-9,000 chinook that were expected to be caught annually in the bottom trawl
fishery coast-wide, only 1,000 were expected to be taken off of California. This information
suggests that CVS chinook and CC chinook are taken rarely in the groundfish fisheries.
v.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are defined as the "effects of future state or private activities, not involving
federal activities, which are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal
action subject to consultation" (50 CFR 402.02). For the purposes of this analysis, the action
area includes ocean fishing areas off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California. The
production of chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout by state hatchery
programs will likely continue and has the potential to add cumulative impacts to listed
populations in the ocean, through competition and predation. Hatchery salmon production also
provides targeted harvest opportunity in the ocean through increasing chinook and coho salmon
abundance above that which would occur naturally, although harvest mortality associated with
these fisheries is specifically considered salmon harvest opinions. At this time, the extent of
cumulative impacts from hatchery salmon production is not known. Further evaluation is
warranted but this can best be done as part of an overall assessment of species specific hatchery
programs.
Because the action area is limited to offshore marine areas, no additional cumulative effects to
the listed species are anticipated.
50
VI. Integration and Synthesis of Effects
NMFS reinitiated consultation regarding the PFMC groundfish FMP to consider the impacts to
recently listed species that were not subject to previous review. NMFS has reviewed the current
status of each of the newly listed salmonid species shown in Table 1, the environmental baseline
for the action area, the effects of the proposed action both to the newly listed and previously
listed species, and the cumulative effects. Based upon this review, NMFS concludes that
continued implementation of the PFMC groundfish FMP as amended will not jeopardize the
continued existence of any of the salmonid ESUs listed or proposed for listing as threatened or
endangered under section 7 of the ESA. For the currently listed salmonid species, critical habitat
is either not yet designated, or if designated does not include marine areas affected by the
groundfish fisheries. The proposed action is therefore also not likely to destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat for any of the listed salmonid ESUs.
The analysis of the available information indicates that coastal cutthroat tro~t, steelhead, and
sockeye are rarely, if ever, encountered in the groundfish fishery. Coho and chum are caught in
relatively low numbers with an annual catch in the combined whiting and mid-water trawl
fisheries of tens to a few hundred offish coast-wide. The majority of these will be unlisted
natural-origin or hatchery fish. Given the low bycatch, NMFS concludes it is unlikely that the
proposed action will jeopardize the continued existence of any of the currently listed or proposed
listed cutthroat trout, steelhead, sockeye, coho, or chum ESUs listed in Table 1.
The bycatch of chinook salmon in the PFMC groundfish fishery is more sub'stantial and does
result in the taking of chinook for at least some of the listed ESUs. However, the bycatch of
chinook continues to be constrained and within the limits set by previous consultations. Chinook
bycatch in the whiting fishery is closely monitored with on-board observer coverage for the
mothership and at-sea processors and is limited subject to further consultation to a maximum of
11,000 chinook per year coast-wide. The 11,000 chinook limit has been exceeded in only one
year since 1992 (approximately 15,000 in 1995), and, absent 1995, has averaged 6186 from
1991-98 (Table 14).
Substantive management actions have been taken to reduce bycatch in the whiting fishery,
particularly in the south. Beginning in 1996 the start of the whiting fishery in the area north of
42 north latitude was delayed until May 15 because of information suggesting that bycatch was
higher earlier in the year. The whiting fishery is also closed in the Eureka are inside the 100
fathom line. Most of the vessels participating in the shoreside and at-sea fisheries continue to
actively monitor salmon bycatch and use a system of real-time information exchange that allows
them to redirect their effort to minimize bycatch when necessary.
0
There has been one unanticipated change in the pattern of bycatch since the last consultation on
the groundfish fishery in 1996. A tribal fishery directed at whiting began in 1996 using a
mothership and several catch boats. The tribal fishery is constrained geographically to a
relatively small area off the coast south ofNeah Bay in the Vancouver INPFC area. Bycatch
rates of chinook in the tribal fishery have been consistently higher than other mothership or
at-sea operations. Bycatch rates in the tribal fishery have averaged 0.115 chinook/mt whiting
51
compared to 0.019 chinook/mt whiting in the other at-sea components of the fishery for the same
period. It may be that the higher bycatch rate is the result of the geographic limitation of the
fishery. However, further assessment of the monitoring and response program in the tribal
fishery is in order to ensure that chinook bycatch is minimized to the degree possible in the
future.
Although the tribal fishery has resulted in more chinook bycatch to the north, it does not
substantively change NMFS' assessment of impacts to listed fish or prior conclusions with
respect to jeopardy. There is no information to suggest that the concentration of listed chinook in
the tribal catch area is higher than off the Washington coast in general. The total bycatch of
chinook may be higher then it would have been absent the tribal fishery. However, the tribes'
allocation of whiting in recent years has been 14% or less of the total allowable catch which
limits the potential bycatch increase. Even with the higher bycatch rates associated with the
tribal fishery, the whiting fishery as a whole is still constrained by the 11,000 chinook bycatch
limit. Prior assessments with respect to jeopardy were done assuming an annual bycatch of up to
11,000 chinook.
Chinook are also caught incidental to the bottom trawl fishery. Estimates made using available
information at the time of the 1992 opinion suggested an annual bycatch of 6,000-9,000 chinook
per year most of which occur off Oregon and Washington. There is little new direct information
about salmon bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery because of the absence of a bycatch monitoring
program. However, both effort and landings in the bottom trawl fishery have declined by about
half over the last decade suggesting that the bycatch of salmon is likely declining as well.
After considering the available information on the magnitude and distribution of the chinook
bycatch in the whiting and bottom trawl fisheries, NMFS reviewed the information related to
anticipated impacts to each of the newly listed chinook ESUs. NMFS reviewed information on
CWT recoveries from the groundfish fisheries. Although, the CWT data was used largely to
indicate distribution and presence or absence in the fishery. NMFS also used information from
salmon fishery management models to approximate the likely range of impacts given the relative
magnitude of catch in the respective salmon and groundfish fisheries.
There were no recoveries of UCR chinook in the groundfish fisheries. This is consistent with
what is known about their life history and distribution. Upper Columbia River chinook are
similar to SR spring/summer chinook which are little affected by ocean salmon fisheries either to
the north or in PFMC catch areas and therefore presumably are also not affected by the PFMC
groundfish fisheries.
NMFS considered the likely impacts to the spring and summer/fall components of the PS
chinook ESU. NMFS concluded that spring stocks were likely caught only rarely in the
groundfish fisheries. Summer/fall stocks are likely caught off the Washington coast, but the
available information suggests that the ERs are likely a fraction of I % per year.
The spring and tule components of the LCR chinook ESU are also likely taken in groundfish
fisheries off the Oregon and Washington coast. Again, the relative magnitude of catch in salmon
52
and groundfish fisheries in those areas suggests that the exploitation rates on these stocks are
quite low, likely less than 1% per year. The bright component of the LCR ESU has a more
northerly distribution and is therefore subject to relatively little harvest in the PFMC groundfish
fisheries, again likely some small fraction of 1% per year. Estimates for UWR chinook are about
the same as those for LCR brights; some small fraction of 1% per year.
Finally, NMFS reviewed the likely impacts to CVS chinook and CC chinook. The California
ESUs are distributed primarily off of California where there is relatively little bycatch of
chinook. Management actions have been taken that largely preclude the whiting fishery from
areas off of California and southern Oregon. Estimates indicate that the catch of chinook in the
bottom trawl fishery in the south are on the order of 1,000 fish per year. As a result, this
information suggest that CVS chinook and CC chinook are rarely taken in the groundfish
fisheries.
NMFS recently reviewed the effect of the recent PST between the U.S. and Canada on the listed
salmonid ESUs and also focused on the chinook ESUs that were the primarily subject of this
opinion. NMFS considered PFMC groundfish fisheries as part of the Environmental Baseline
section in the PST opinion while noting that consultation on the groundfish fisheries was, at the
time, underway. This opinion now provides more of the specifics in terms of qualitative
estimates of impacts for each ESU and confirms that these impacts are quite low.
Conclusion
After reviewing the current status of listed salmon, the environmental baseline for the action
area, the effects of the continued implementation of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's
groundfish Fishery Management Plan and the cumulative effects, it is NMFS' biological opinion
that the PFMC groundfish FMP, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the listed Pacific salmon. No critical habitat has been designated for this species, therefore,
none will be affected.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the ESA and federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take
of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as
to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage
in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by both FWS and NMFS to include significant
habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is
defined by both FWS and NMFS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of
injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns
which include, but are not limit to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as
take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.
Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(0)(2), taking that is incidental to and not
intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA
53
provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take
statement.
The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the agencies so
that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as
appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(0)(2) to apply. The agencies have a continuing duty
to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the agencies (1) fail to
assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fail to require the applicant to adhere to
the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are
added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(0)(2) may lapse. In
order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the agencies or applicant must report the progress
of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take
statement. [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)]
I. Amount or Extent of Incidental Take
Whiting Fishery
Estimates of the bycatch of listed salmon in the whiting fishery are based on the distribution of
the fishery and the observed bycatch of salmon in recent years. The estimated bycatch of listed
salmon in the whiting fishery in the future assumes that the distribution of catch will not change
substantially, that the bycatch will not exceed 0.05 chinook salmon/mt whiting, and that the total
bycatch of chinook will not exceed 11,000 fish per year.
Because of the substantial differences in the timing, location, and capacity of the shoreside, at
sea, and Tribal components of this fishery, compliance with the 0.05 chinook salmon/mt whiting
bycatch rate will be evaluated separately. Consultation shall be reinitiated if either the shoreside'7
catcher/processor, mothership, or Tribal components of the fishery exceed or are expected to
exceed the bycatch rate of 0.05 chinook salmon/mt whiting and the expected total bycatch of
chinook in the fishery is expected to exceed 11,000 fish.
Bottom Trawl Fishery
It was estimated that 6,000 to 9,000 salmon are taken in the bottom trawl fishery annually, and
that 5,000 to 8,000 of these are likely to be taken in the Vancouver and Columbia catch areas.
However, because there is no bycatch monitoring program, it is not possible to access directly an
incidental take limit that would normally be expressed as some measure of salmon bycatch or
bycatch rate. This estimate of bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery is based on an analysis of
available information from 1985-1990. Because bycatch is not being monitored directly,
expectations of bycatch in the future are based on the assumption that the general character of the
fishery will not change substantially, particularly in times and places where bycatch rates are
assumed to be higher. If the fishery in the future changes substantially in magnitude or character
compared to 1985-1990, and particularly, if there is increased catch in nearshore areas or during
the winter months or in the Eureka or Monterey areas, consultation shall be reinitiated.
54
Miscellaneous Gear
Review of available information regarding salmon bycatch for other groundfish gear types,
including shrimp trawls, pots, hook-and-line gear, and setnets used in PFMC area fisheries
indicates that salmon interactions are unlikely to be more than rare events and that the impacts on
listed species will be negligible. As a result, NMFS concludes that the taking of any of the listed
salmonid species by these gear types is neither anticipated or authorized.
II. Effect of the Take
In the accompanying biological opinion, NMFS determined that the level of anticipated take in
the proposed groundfish fisheries is not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any of the
currently listed or proposed salmonid ESUs shown in Table 1, or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of their critical habitat.
III.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
NMFS included reasonable and prudent measures in the incidental take statement of the August
28, 1992, and May 14,1996, biological opinions, which remain in effect:
Whiting Fishery
The impacts included in the incidental take statement for the whiting fishery are based, in part,
on the assumed bycatch rate of 0.05 chinook salmonJmt whiting. In order to evaluate whether
that assumption is valid for future fisheries, continued monitoring at a level sufficient to define
the bycatch rate of the motherships and at-sea processors, Tribal, and shorebased components is
required to estimate bycatch rates and detect any changing patterns of bycatch.
In addition to collecting bycatch information in the whiting fishery, it is necessary to evaluate, at
least monthly, the projected annual total bycatch rate of the fishery. If at anytime during the
fishery, it is anticipated that the seasonal coastwide bycatch will exceed 11,000 chinook salmon,
NMFS and the PFMC must take action to reduce the bycatch to ensure that the annual authorized
take limit can be met. If and when it becomes apparent, based on analysis by either NMFS or
PFMC that management measures cannot adequately reduce the bycatch rate to the prescribed
level, consultation must be reinitiated.
As specified in the August 1996 biological opinion, the restriction on targeted harvest of whiting
inside of 100 fathoms in the Eureka area continues as a condition of the incidental take
statement. In addition, the delay of the start of the season until May 15 in areas north of 42° 00'
N. latitude will continue.
Bottom Trawl Fishery
The bottom trawl fishery is not being monitored at this time. The incidental. take statement
permits an annual bycatch of9,000 salmon, but assumes that the magnitude and character of the
55
fishery will not increase substantially, particularly in those times and areas where bycatch rates
are assumed to be higher. In order to evaluate this condition, the PFMC must provide an annual
summary that characterizes the bottom trawl fishery and can thus be used to evaluate potential
changing trends in fishing patterns.
IV.
Terms and Conditions
The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are
designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed
action or RPA. In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of sections 9 and 4(d) of the ESA,
NMFS must continue to comply with all of the terms and conditions listed in the August 28,
1992, biological opinion, as amended by the September 27, 1993 and May 14,1996, biological
opinions. In addition, NMFS must comply with the following terms and conditions to
implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above. These terms and conditions
are non-discretionary.
1. NNIFS shall confer with the affected states, Tribes, and PFMC chair to ensure that in-season
management actions taken during the course of the fisheries are consistent with the harvest
objectives established preseason.
2. NMFS, in cooperation with the affected states, Tribes, and PFMC chair, shall monitor the
catch and implementation of other management measures at levels that are sufficient to
ensure compliance with specified management limitations.
3. NMFS, in cooperation with the affected states, Tribes, and PFMC chair, shall sample the
fisheries for stock composition, including the collection of CWTs in all fisheries and other
biological information to allow for a thorough post-season analysis of fishery impacts on
listed species.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the
purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to
minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. NNIFS believes the following
conservation recommendations, in addition to those included in the August 28, 1992, biological
opinion, are consistent with these obligations, and therefore should be implemented by NMFS.
1. Since the tribal whiting fishery was initiated in 1996, the associated bycatch rates of salmon
have exceeded the 0.05 chinook salmon/mt whiting monitoring standard and have been
substantially higher than other components of the fleet. The chinook bycatch rate in the tribal
fishery has averaged 0.115 chinook salmon/mt whiting since 1996 compared to estimates for
the mothership (excluding tribal), catcher/processor, and shoreside fleets of 0.022, 0.016, and
0.016, respectively. It is not clear at this time whether the bycatch rate could be reduced by
56
better monitoring or more active inseason management or if the observed rate is the result of
geographic limitations associated with the tribal fishery or some other factor. To address this
situation, NMFS, in cooperation with the effected tribe or tribes, should !eview the available
information prior to the start of the 2000 fishery and develop an inseason monitoring
program and action plan that is designed to minimize the bycatch of salmon to the maximum
extent practical.
REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION
This concludes formal consultation on the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP as amended by
Amendment 11. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required
where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or
is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take specified in the Incidental
Take Statement is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) the
identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or
critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion; (4) a new species is listed or
critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. In instances where the
amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, the action agency must immediately reinitiate
formal consultation.
In the Reasonable and Prudent Measures of the Incidental Take Statement, NMFS made it clear
that if and when it becomes apparent, based on analyses by either NMFS or PFMC, that
management measures cannot adequately reduce the bycatch rate to prescribed levels, the amount
or extent of incidental take will have been exceeded and section 7 consultation must be
reinitiated.
57
REFERENCES
Allen, R.L., and T.K. Meekin. 1973. An evaluation of the Priest Rapids chinook salmon
spawning channel, 1963-1971. Wash. Dept. Fisheries, Technical Report 11:1-52 p.
Becker, D.C. 1970. Temperature, timing, and seaward migration ofjuvenile chinook salmon
from the central Columbia River. AEC Research and Development Report, Battelle
Northwest Laboratories. Richland, WA. 21 p.
Biological Requirements Work Group (BRWG). 1994. Analytical methods for determining
requirements of listed Snake River salmon relative to survival and recovery. Progress Report,
October 13, 1994. 129 P wi Appendices.
Brown, L. 1998. Memorandum to Cindy LeFleur, WDFW, from Larry Brown, WDFW,
regarding spring chinook redd counts for Wenatchee, Entiat and Methow River basins.
Burgner, R.L. 1991. The life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). In C. Groot and
L. Margolis (eds.), Life history of Pacific salmon. Univ. British Columbia Press; Vancouver,
B.C.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 1993. Restoring Central Valley streams: A
plan for action. Inland Fisheries Division.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 1998. Report to the Fish and Game
Commission: A status review of the spring-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
in the Sacramento River drainage.
Campbell, E.A. and P.B. Moyle. 1990. Historical and recent population sizes of spring-run
chinook salmon in California. In: Proceedings, 1990 Northwest Pacific chinook and coho
salmon workshop, pp. 155-216. American Fisheries Society, Humboldt State University,
Arcata, California.
Chapman, D., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, and F. Utter. 1995. Status of spring chinook
salmon in the Mid-Columbia Region. Don Chapman Consultants Inc. 477 p.
Clark, G.H. 1929. Sacramento-San Joaquin salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, fishery of
California. California Department ofFish and Game Bulletin 17, 73 p.
Cramer, S.P., J. Norris, P. Mundy, G. Grette, K. O'Neal, 1. Hogle, C. Steward, and P. Bahls.
Status of chinook salmon and their habitat in Puget Sound. Volume 2, Final Report. June
1999.
Dorn, M. W. 1998. Fine-scale fishing strategies of factory trawlers in a midwater trawl fishery
for Pacific hake (Merluccius productus). Can. 1. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55:180-198.
58
Dorn, M.W., M.W. Saunders, C.D. Wilson, M.A. Guttorrnsen, K. Cooke, R. Keiser, and M.E.
Wilkins. 1999. Status of the coastal Pacific hake/whiting stock in U.S. and Canada in 1998.
NMFS and CDFO. 89 pp.
Erickson, D.L. and E.K. Pikitch. 1994. Incidental catch of chinook salmon in commercial
bottom trawls off the U.S. west coast. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
14:550-563.
Fry, D.H., Jr. 1961. King salmon spawning stocks of the California Cental Valley, 1940-1959.
California Fish and Game 47: 55-71.
Fulton, L.A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha, in the Columbia River Basin - past and present. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Servo Spec.
Sci. Rep. Fish. 571 :26.
Fish Passage Center (FPC). 1998. Adult salmon passage counts. FPC Internet Website.
http :www.fpc.org/adlthist/prdadult.htm; December 16, 1998.
Gilbert, C.H. 1912. Age at maturity of the Pacific coast salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus.
Fish. Bull., U.S. 32:3-22.
Healey, M.C. 1983. Coastwide distribution and ocean migration patterns of stream- and ocean
type chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Can. Field-Nat. 97:427-433.
Healey, M.C. 1986. Optimum size and age at maturity in Pacific salmon and effects of size
selective fisheries. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 89:39-52.
Healey, M.C. 1991. The life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In C.
Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), Life history of Pacific Salmon. Univ. of British Columbia
Press. Vancouver, B.C.
Howell, P., K. Jones, D. Scarnecchia, L. LaVoy, W. Knedra, and D. Orrrnann. 1985. Stock
assessment of Columbia River anadromous salmonids. Vol. 1. U.S. Dept. of Energy,
Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 83-335. 558p.
Kostow, K. 1995. Biennial report on the status of wild fish in Oregon. Oreg. Dep. Fish Wildl.
Rep., 217p. + app.
Kruzic, L. 1999. Memorandum for the Record from L. Kruzic re Freshwater harvest rates of
Willamette River spring chinook. February 5, 1999. 5 p.
Lindsay, R.B., R.K. Schroeder, and K.R. Kenaston. 1998. Spring chinook salmon in the
Willamette and Sandy rivers. ODFW Annual Progress Report. F-163-R-03. 29 p.
Marrnorek, D.R., C.N. Peters, and 1. Parnell. 1998. Plan for analyzing and testing hypotheses
59
(PATH) - Final report for fiscal year 1998. December 16, 1998. 263 p.
Marshall, A.R., C. Smith, R Brix, W. Dammers, J. Hymer, and L. LaVoy. 1995. Genetic
diversity units and major ancestral lineages for chinook salmon in Washington. In e. Busack
and J. B. Shaklee (eds.), Genetic diversity units and major ancestral lineages ofsalmonid
fishes in Washington, p. 111-173. Wash. Dep. Fish Wildl. Tech. Rep. RAD95-02. (Available
from Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia WA
98501-1091).
McPhail, J.D., and e.e. Lindsey. 1970. Freshwater fishes of Northwestern Canada and Alaska.
Bull. Fish. Res. Board Canada 173: 381.
Miller, R.J., and E.L. Brannon. 1982. The origin and development of life-history patterns in
Pacific salmon. In E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo (eds.), Proceedings of the Salmon and Trout
Migratory Behavior Symposium. Univ. Washington Press; Seattle, Washington.
Myers and 10 co-authors. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. ofComrnerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35.
443p.
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant,
F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and RS. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook
salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. CQmmer., NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35,443 p.
Myers, J.M., RG. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.e. Wainwright, W.S. Grant,
F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and RS. Waples. 1999. Status review update for
deferred ESUs of west coast chinook salmon. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-NWFSC-35.
Nicholas, J. 1995. Status ofWillamette spring-run chinook salmon relative to Federal
Endangered Species Act considerations. Unpublished Report. November 30, 1995. 44 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Factors for decline. A supplement to the
notice of determination for Snake River fall chinook salmon under the Endangered Species
Act. June 1991. 55 p.
NMFS. 1992. Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion: Fishing conducted under the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and
Washington groundfish fishery. Northwest Region, Seattle, W A. August 28, 1992.
53
pp.
NMFS. 1993. Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion: Fishing conducted
under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and
Washington groundfish fishery. Northwest Region, Seattle, WA. Septe~ber 27, 1993. 4 pp.
60
NMFS. 1994. Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion: Groundfish fisheries conducted
under the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island and Gulf of Alaska Fishery Management Plans of
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. January 19, 1994. 74 pp.
NMFS. 1995a. Proposed recovery plan for Snake River salmon. March 1995.
N},IIFS. 1995b. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Reinitiation of Consultation Biological
Opinion: Groundfish fisheries conducted under the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island and Gulf
of Alaska Fishery Management Plans of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
December 7, 1995. 8 pp.
N},IIFS. 1996a. Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion: Fishing conducted
under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the Califomia, Oregon, and
Washington groundfish fishery. Northwest Region, Seattle, WA. May 14, 1996.
9 pp.
NMFS. 1996b. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation - Biological Opinion: The
Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts
of Califomia, Oregon, and Washington of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. N},IIFS,
Protected Resources Division. March 8, 1996. 53 pp.
NMFS. 1997a. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation - Supplemental Biological
Opinion: The Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries
off the Coasts of Califomia, Oregon, and Washington of the Pacific Fishery Management
Council. NMFS, Protected Resources Division. February 18, 1997. pp.
NMFS. 1997b. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation - Supplemental Biological
Opinion: The Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries
off the Coasts of Califomi a, Oregon, and Washington of the Pacific Fishery Management
Council. NMFS, Protected Resources Division. April 30, 1997. 17 pp.
l\JNIFS. 1998. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation - Supplemental Biological
Opinion: The Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries
off the Coasts of Califomia, Oregon, and Washington of the Pacific Fishery Management
Council. NMFS, Protected Resources Division. April 29, 1998. 15 pp.
NMFS. 1998. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation - Managing the Southeast
Alaska salmon fisheries subject to the Fishery Management Plan for Salmon Fisheries off the
Coast of Alaska and the U.S. Letter of Agreement Regarding Chinook Salmon Fisheries in
Alaska. NMFS, Protected Resources Division. June 29,1998. 22 pp.
J\JMFS. 1999a. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation - Managing the Southeast
Alaska salmon fisheries subject to the Fishery Management Plan for Salmon Fisheries off the
Coast of Alaska and the U.S. Letter of Agreement Regarding Chinook Salmon Fisheries in
Alaska. NMFS, Protected Resources Division. June 30, 1999. 48 pp.
61
NMFS. 1999b. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation. Supplemental Biological
Opinion and Incidental Take Statement on the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan and Amendment 13
to the Plan. April 28, 1999. 39 pp. (with appendices).
NMFS. 1999c. Groundfish fisheries bycatch statistics. Alaska Region/Sustainable Fisheries
Division Website. http://www/fakr.noaa.gov/susfish.htm; June 16, 1999.
NMFS. 1999d. An assessment of Lower Snake River hydrosystem alternatives on survival and
recovery of Snake River salmonids. April 14, 1999. 163 pp.
NMFS. 199ge. Endangered Species' Act - Section 7 Consultation. Biological Opinion and
Incidental Take Statement. 1999 Treaty Indian and non-Indian fall season fisheries in the
Columbia River Basin. July 30, 1999. 68 p.
NMFS. 1999f. Endangered Species Act - Reinitiated Section 7 Consultation. Biological
Opinion. Approval of the Pacific Salmon Treaty by the US. Department of State and
Management of the Southeast Alaska salmon fisheries subject to the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
November 18, 1999. 90 pp. (with figures).
Olsen, E., P. Pierce, M. McLean, and K. Hatch. 1992. Stock summary reports for Columbia
River anadromous salmonids Volume 1: Oregon. US. Dep. Energy, Bonneville Power
Administration. Project No. 88-108.
Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1997. Backgrounder - Willamette spring
chinook. February 21,1997. 6 p.
ODFW. 1997. Salmon bycatch in the Pacific whiting fisheries. Oregon Department ofFish and
Wildlife, Newport, OR. March, 1997. 28 pp.
ODFW. 1998a. Spring chinook chapters - Willamette basin fish management plan. Oregon
Department ofFish and Wildlife. March 1998. 39 p.
ODFW. 1998b. Briefing paper - Lower Columbia River chinook ESU October 13, 1998. 7 p.
ODFW/WDFW. 1998. Status Report: Columbia River fish runs and fisheries, 1938-1997.
Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife and Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife.
June 1998.
Pearcy, W.G., 1992. Ocean ecology of North Pacific salmonids. Univ. Washington Press,
Seattle, 179 p.
Peters, C.N., D.R. Marmorek, and 1. Parnell (eds.). 1999. PATH decision analysis report for
Snake River fall chinook. Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC. 332 pp.
Pettit, R. 1998. Escapement estimates for spring chinook in Washington tributaries below
62
Bonneville Dam, 1980-1998. WDFW Columbia River Progress Report 98-13. 3 p. (with
Tables).
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1999a. Status of the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Through 1999 and Recommended Biological Catches from 2000: Stock Assessment
and Fishery Evaluation.
PFMC. 1999b. Review of 1998 Ocean Salmon Fisheries, Portland, OR. February 1998.
PFMC. 1999c. Preseason report III: Analysis of Council-adopted management measures for
1999 ocean salmon fisheries. April 1999. 30 pp. (with appendices).
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 1999. Coded wire tag recovery data.
Regional Mark Information Systems Database, http://www.psmfc.org/rmpc/index.html.
Reimers, P.E., and R.E. Loeffel. 1967. The length of residence ofjuvenile fall chinook salmon
in selected Columbia River tributaries. Fish Comm. Oreg. 13, 5-19 p.
Ricker, W.E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid
populations. In R.C. Simon and P.A. Larkin (eds.), The stock concept in Pacific salmon.
MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. Univ. British Columbia; Vancouver, B.C.
Scott,1. 1999. Proportion of total adult equivalent mortality and escapement by fishery - output
table from PFMC chinook management model. February 22, 1999. 1 p.
Stelle, W.W., and W.T. Hogarth. 1999. Letter to 1. Mallet, Chairman, Pacific Fisheries
Management Council. March 1, 1999. P 5.
Taylor, E.B. 1991. A review oflocal adaptation in Salmonidae, with particular reference to
Pacific and Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 98:185-207.
U.S. v Oregon Technical Advisory Committee. 1997. 1996 All Species Review - Columbia River
Fish Management Plan.
Utter, R., G. Milner, G. Stahl, and D. Teel. 1989. Genetic population structure of chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytsha), in the Pacific Northwest. Fish. Bull. 87:239-264.
Waples, R.S., R.P Jones, Jr., B.R. Beckman, and G.A. Swan. 1991. Status Review for Snake
River fall chinook salmon. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS F/NWC-201. June
1991. 73 p.
Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western
Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock
inventory (SASSI). Wash. Dep. Fish Wildl., Olympia, 212p. + 5 regional volumes.
Weeks, Hand L. Hutton. 1998. 1998 Pacific whiting shoreside observation program. Oregon
63
Department ofFish and Wildlife, Newport, OR. 1998. 27 pp.
Yoshiyama, R.M., E.R. Gerstung, F.W. Fisher, and P.B. Moyle. 1996. Historical and Present
Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the CentralValley Drainage of California Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, voL III, Assessments, Commissioned Reports,
and Background Information, University of California, Davis, Centers for Water and
Wildland Resources, 1996.
64
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2007-11-21 |
| File Created | 2007-11-21 |