NATIVE FISH SOCIETY P.O. Box 19570 Portland, Oregon 97280 (503) 977-0287Email: bmbakke@teleport.com December 17, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Power Council Members FR: Bill Bakke RE Columbia River Fish Management Plan Salmon Rebuilding Requirements. I. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this memorandum is to identify the requirements in the Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP) for wild salmon and steelhead populations, and, based on the All Species Reviews (1991 and 1996), evaluate whether those requirements were fulfilled. In addition, this memorandum makes recommendations for improving the CRFMP for Council Action when developing amendments to its fish and wildlife program. These recommendations can be found in parts II, III, and IV. Also, the Council should ask staff and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) to conduct a review of the plan requirements for escapement goals, production, and rebuilding of wild salmonids to determine whether the terms of this court ordered agreement were fulfilled, and whether the plan is an adequate management structure to protect and rebuild wild salmonids in the basin. This action is needed because the CRFMP terminates in 1998 and is to be renegotiated. It is important for the Council to determine whether its fish and wildlife program and the CRFMP are compatible regarding native, wild salmonid rebuilding in the Columbia River. The Columbia River Fish Management Plan is the result of a court ordered agreement among state and tribal fishery agencies adopted in November 1987. This agreement is primarily a harvest allocation agreement among the states and tribes, but it also contains direction for rebuilding natural and wild salmon and steelhead runs, production plans, escapement goals, and sub basin plans. It must be remembered that this plan is not a product of a public process, rather it is a negotiated agreement between parties over production and harvest of salmon. This plan addresses only that part of the Columbia River above Bonneville Dam, but it does discuss harvest management in the lower river and in the ocean. The Columbia River Fish Management Plan predates the listing of Snake River spring, summer, and fall chinook and sockeye salmon and the more recent listing of summer steelhead. At the time of the plan development there was considerable concern over the conservation of summer steelhead and the plan reflects that debate. The state of Idaho was the only party to the plan that did not sign the final plan due to the dispute over steelhead. This memorandum is provided to the Council members for the purpose of exploring the many requirements contained in the CRFMP regarding rebuilding natural and wild populations and production planning. In writing this memorandum, I have endeavored to pull out those sections of the 1987 CRFMP that speak to these issues. In addition, I have reviewed the 1991 and 1996 All Species Reviews for the CRFMP compiled by the Parties to determine if the above requirements were carried out by the Parties. I have also contacted the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Department of fish and wildlife for information relating to implementation of these requirements, but, I must admit, that I was not able to obtain specific information that would help in this assessment. The Native Fish Society is very interested in fishery management that supports rebuilding wild, native salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Consequently, we are eager to know whether the CRFMP is serving as a policy framework to accomplish this. We are also interested in a coherent fishery management plan, supported by the best scientific evaluation, that leads the region toward rebuilding native salmon populations, resulting in delisting, and recovery. My review of the CRFMP is conducted from this perspective. So I have paid particular attention to rebuilding, adult escapement goals, and production requirements within the CRFMP.II. SALMON REBUILDING REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE CRFMP: Each of the following requirements found in the CRFMP under species, sub basin and production should be carried out, and treated in this memorandum as recommendations for action. Council staff should determine which requirements of the plan have not been implemented by the fish agencies and tribes. Based on my review, most, if not all, of them have not been completed. In addition, the Council should ask the ISAB to evaluate the plan and these requirements to determine whether the plan is an adequate management framework for rebuilding wild salmonids in the basin. And, if it is not, to provide the Council and the fish agencies and tribes with an improved management framework and plan. Because the CRFMP terminates in 1998 and will be renegotiated, a process that has already begun, this review by the Council would be important to the development of the new plan. The fish agencies and tribes view the CRFMP as a fixed policy, limiting their ability to carry out adaptive management in response to new information and changing policy. Spring Chinook Page 20: דThe interim management goal at Bonneville Dam is 115,000 adult spring chinook. An interim management goal for the run as measured at Lower Granite Dam is 25,000 natural/wild and 10,000 hatchery adult spring chinook. ה Page 20: דIf harvest and escapement goals are not being met, as demonstrated in the...reviews..., the Parties shall determine the cause of the problem and negotiate modifications in management measures to better achieve the goals.ה Summer Chinook Page 22: דThe management goal, as measured at Bonneville Dam, shall be developed...based upon agreed to aggregations of individual escapements described in sub basin plans. ה Page 23: דConsistent with rebuilding schedules developed pursuant to the sub basin plans, the Parties shall develop appropriate escapement levels...הSockeye The CRFMP does not mention Snake River sockeye salmon and no escapement or rebuilding requirements are contained in the plan. Fall Chinook Page 27: דThe goal for the developing Snake River fall chinook program shall be addressed in the Snake River sub basin plan.ה (No fall chinook escapement goal was set for the Snake River in the CRFMP)דThe interim spawner escapement goal shall be 40,000 naturally spawning Columbia River upriver bright adults above McNary Dam.ה (This escapement goal has been revised upward a few times since the plan was adopted.)Summer Steelhead Page 32: דAfter the 1988-1989 run year, the interim management goals, escapements...will be reviewed by the Parties. Based on this review, production and escapement objectives are determined to be inappropriate or are not being met, modification...shall be negotiated. הPage 33: דFor the three year term of this steelhead section, the interim natural/wild summer steelhead goal shall be an aggregation of individual sub basin stocks as measured at Bonneville Dam. The interim management goal consists of 75,500 natural/wild steelhead...which is expected to produce 30,000 natural/wild steelhead over Lower Granite Dam...ה (The 75,500 goal is broken down into two components: A-run goal is 62,200 and the B-run goal is 13,300, and even though this was a three year agreement, it has not changed since the CRFMP was adopted.)Page 34: דEfforts to improve estimates of tributary spawning populations are required. הPage 36: דThe Production Advisory Committee within six months after the effective date of this agreement, conduct a detailed review of present hatchery programs. הPage 37: דThe Parties agree to conduct studies to evaluate the effectiveness of outplanting. הדFor the next three years...the Parties shall conduct studies to determine if the effect of this designation (the management of certain streams such as the John Day River for wild steelhead) on harvest management and to assess the wild stock rebuilding. הArtificial and Natural Production Page 39: דThe intent of the Parties is to...implement...actions to achieve the goal of rebuilding upriver anadromous runs, as determined by indicator stocks within 15 years.ה (by the year 2002)דThe production planning aspect of this Agreement is designed to assure that rebuilding and harvest allocation objectives are achieved concurrent with restoration of the runs. Present and future artificial production programs shall be integrated with natural production...הPage 40: דA Production Based Report shall be prepared by the Production Advisory Committee within six months (May 1988) and at least every five years thereafter (1993 and 1998). This report shall describe the current status of artificial and natural production within the Columbia River Basin. דThe Production Based Report shall indicate for each artificial production facility: (1) basic biological information on stocks and species reared, (2) juvenile and adult fish releases information including time and location of release...(There are seven items in this section of the plan)דThe PBR shall include for each natural/wild production unit: (1) the 5-10 year history of production measured in terms of adults, juveniles or both..., (2) an estimate of maximum production potential under existing, and restored habitat conditions..., and (3) identification of indicator stocks for each species to be used to evaluate rebuilding progress. הPage 41: דBy January 15 of each year, the Production Advisory Committee shall prepare an Annual Brood Planning Report. This report shall coordinate state, federal and tribal artificial and natural/wild fish production actions for each designated sub basin and artificial production facility. This report shall include: (1) status and release plans for juveniles by species and stock including transfers between facilities, and supplementation levels identified for sub basins, (2) recommendations for production evaluation studies...ה (There are five factors included in this report.)Page 42: ד By February 15 of each year, the Production Advisory Committee shall prepare an Annual Brood Planning Report. This report shall coordinated state, federal and tribal artificial and natural/wild fish production actions for each designated sub basin and artificial production facility. This report shall include: (1) total jack and adult returns, (2) age and sex composition, (3) egg-take or potential egg deposition, (4) estimates of total spawn abundance etc....( There are seven factors included in this report and they can be found in the text of the plan.)Sub basin Plans Page 43: דHarvest and production management plans for each sub basin will be developed...הPage 44: דSub basin plans will describe specific strategies to rebuild the resource within 15 years...הדEach sub basin plan will define the level of spawning escapement necessary to produce: (1) present adult returns, (2) maximum total adult returns, and (3) maximum surplus adult returns...הדStrategies for each sub basin will be developed...to evaluate natural/wild stock rebuilding progress. (There are nine factors contained in this section of the plan for sub basins.)Artificial Production Modifications Short and long term modifications of hatchery programs are proposed and the Parties agreed to take the following actions a) דEvaluation of sites suitable for release of hatchery fish at levels compatible with natural propagation and harvest management. הb) דRearing and transfer of biologically appropriate fish from existing hatcheries to release sites in the upper...basin to restore natural spawning populations, and c) דResearch to determine the effectiveness of these programs through improved methods of supplementing naturally spawning stocks with compatible stocks of hatchery fish in the upper Columbia Basin הIII. HAVE ACTIONS CALLED FOR IN THE CRFMP BEEN CARRIED OUT? The CRFMP contains actions that are included in the Agreement among the Parties. This court ordered Agreement is explicit about actions that דshallה be carried out by the Parties. Any evaluation of the CRFMP must determine whether the fish agencies and tribes have in fact lived up to the conditions of this Agreement. An assessment of what has and has not been accomplished should be completed before the CRFMP is re-negotiated in 1998. The Parties to this Agreement have published reports called the All Species Review in 1991 and 1996, but these reports do not identify all the actions called for in the Plan and do not evaluate whether they have been carried out. Also, since the CRFMP predates listing of salmon and steelhead as threatened and endangered species, it lacks specific direction for federal recovery actions. Also, the biological and scientific basis for this Plan should be reviewed. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board should review the CRFMP and provide a scientific evaluation. The following is an assessment of whether the actions called for in this Agreement, the CRFMP, have been achieved. I have based this on a review of the All Species Review for 1996 (ASR- 96). Spring Chinook The CRFMP sets escapement goals at Bonneville Dam of 115,000 adult spring chinook, and at Lower Granite Dam 25,000 wild/natural and 10,000 hatchery spring chinook. The ASR-96 states the Bonneville Dam escapement goal was achieved once since 1986; the wild/natural escapement goal at Lower Granite Dam has never been achieved and the hatchery spring chinook escapement goal has been achieved in seven out of twelve years since 1985. The ASR-96 states: the Bonneville Dam escapement goal דshall be based upon... aggregations of individual escapement goals as described in sub basin plans.ה However, דthe Parties have not completed sub basin plans or otherwise agreed to individual sub basin escapement goals for spring chinookה. According to the ASR-96, the CRFMP called for 26 measures for spring chinook production, but only 11 measures were fully or partially implemented. Since 1986 22 hatcheries release spring chinook . From 1988-1990, the releases averaged 20.3 million and from 1991-1995, they averaged 18.2 million. Evaluation of hatchery programs have not been done and evaluation of hatchery spring chinook impacts on wild spring chinook have not been done. Spring chinook redd counts in the mid and upper Columbia, according to the ASR-96, are declining as are those in the Yakima, Deschutes, and Warm Springs rivers. The John Day spring chinook are stable but at low abundance. The Snake River wild and hatchery spring chinook have a declining trend. On hatchery production the ASR-96 says, דIncreasing hatchery production does not solve the problem, but may provide some surplus spawners and terminal fishery options. Recent increases in hatchery production have increased run size, but have not improved survival rates.הSummer Chinook According to the ASR-96 The Pacific Salmon Commission uses 85,000 as a summer chinook escapement goal for upper Columbia and Snake River returns. However, summer chinook counts at Bonneville Dam have not met this or the informal CRFMP goal since 1969 (28 years). Bosch and Parker (1995) predict a decline of about 1,200 fish every two years with extinction occurring in about 2027 if present rate of decline continues. The PSC has classified the run as דnot rebuilding.ה All technical reports indicate the productivity of Columbia River summer chinook stocks are not increasing, even though all CRFMP harvest provisions have דlargely been met with escapements exceeding 92% of the run every year since 1974. All of the production provisions outlined in the CRFMP have been met except for the construction of the Yakima Hatchery.Sockeye Salmon According to the ASR-96, the CRFMP harvest compliance was achieved for most years, but the Priest Rapids Dam escapement goal was not always achieved (1986 and 1988) when commercial fisheries were allowed. The CRFMP did not identify specific hatchery production goals for sockeye, and there is no rebuilding goal for sockeye. Nearly all sockeye returning to the Columbia River are of natural origin. The Snake River sockeye have no escapement goal under the CRFMP. The management goal is 75,000 sockeye at Bonneville Dam and 65,000 escapement goal at Priest Rapids Dam. The rate of decline has increased during the recent ten year period (1986-1995), culminating in a record low return in 1995. Fall Chinook The goal for Snake River fall chinook shall be addressed in the Snake River sub basin plan according to the CRFMP. The ASR-96 confirms there are no fall chinook natural propagation activities in the plan. It also states there is no formalized adult escapement goal for either the Snake River (wild fall chinook listed as threatened species) or the Deschutes River (wild fall chinook stream). The bulk of the CRFMP is focused on expanding hatchery production on fall chinook above Bonneville dam, harvest allocation, and harvest share. The ASR-96 does not address wild/natural fall chinook rebuilding other than in Hanford Reach where spawner abundance goals have been met most years. The review also does not identify a trend for fall chinook in the Columbia River, except for a suggestion the runs will not improve over existing conditions for the next five years. Summer Steelhead There are many requirements relating to summer steelhead in the CRFMP, but the ASR-96 does not take each of those requirements and evaluate whether they have been achieved. Steelhead escapement goals have not been achieved. The Bonneville Dam escapement goal for A-run and B-run steelhead has been met twice since 1985, and the Lower Granite Dam escapement goal has not been met since 1985. The escapement goal at LGD is 30,000 wild, natural steelhead, but in 1995-1996 the escapement was 8,000. The Priest Rapids Dam escapement goal has not been met. The goal is for 4,500 wild adult steelhead and the escapement for wild steelhead was 1,000 in 1996. The wild B-run steelhead escapement goal for Bonneville Dam is 13,300 and has been met in all years except 1993, 1994, and 1995. However, this has not translated into reaching the escapement goal for Lower Granite Dam which, for B-run wild steelhead (10,000), has never been met. The ASR-96 says ד...it is apparent that the primary goal of enhancing ...the steelhead run is not being achieved. The status of...steelhead, particularly wild fish, has become a serious concern. There has been no progress toward rebuilding...since 1987. Throughout the Columbia River Basin ... wild /natural steelhead abundance is declining. Escapements have reach critically low levels...continued low abundance is likely.ה The ASR-96 also states, דNeither the Bonneville nor the Lower Granite Dam escapement goals appear adequate to seed streams.ה Regarding harvest impacts on rebuilding summer steelhead runs, the ASR-96 says: דFollowing the 1991 All Species Review, the technical advisory committee was asked to conduct an analysis of wild steelhead escapement, but this job was not completed because the Parties could not agree on how to conduct the analysis. Though harvest is not the primary cause of declining...steelhead stocks, and harvest rates have been below guidelines, harvest has further reduced escapements. The Parties should ensure that CRFMP harvest guidelines are sufficiently protective of weak stocks....ה The CRFMP relies on gross aggregate escapement goals by species as adults pass mainstem dams. This management model has failed to achieve required escapement goals and has proven to be an inadequate tool to rebuild the runs. Escapement goals based on large aggregates has failed to protect the runs being managed in the past and should not be repeated in the future. The Oregon coastal coho escapement goal should serve as a insight into this problem. The coho spawner escapement goal was based on an aggregate of over 90 sub basin coho populations rather than upon the achievement of spawner escapement goals by sub basin. This approach failed to maintain the productivity of coho salmon. The larger the aggregate escapement goal, the more insensitive the harvest management program is to escapement problems in specific sub basins. Spawner escapement goals should be tied to sub basin spawner escapement standards and evaluated annually in order for the harvest management program to support conservation and rebuilding of populations.IV. SUMMARY: The CRFMP, a court ordered agreement among states and tribes, is designed to fairly allocate the harvest among the Parties, but it also sets requirements for rebuilding wild salmon and steelhead populations, and sets escapement goals. Since this agreement was signed by the Parties in 1987, harvest allocation agreements have been achieved, however, escapement goals and wild stock rebuilding have not. Most runs and species are continuing to decline and some have been listed as threatened and endangered species since the CRFMP was adopted by the Parties. The failure to protect the productive capacity of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin through the CRFMP now threatens the various fishery interests the Parties hold. The 1987 CRFMP was designed to fix the harvest allocation disputed between the states and tribes, but it was not designed to maintain the biological diversity and productive capacity of salmon and steelhead populations. Even though the CRFMP is primarily focused on expanding hatchery production of salmonids in the basin, the runs continue to decline. The failure to maintain the runs and to rebuild them is reflected in the standards adopted by the parties: (1) the escapement goals were based on aggregations of populations passing dams rather than upon escapement requirements by population per sub basin, (2) a specific wild salmon rebuilding goal was not adopted, (3) the belief that hatchery production could increase or replace wild salmonid production, (4) the commitment of the Parties to not allow sub basin escapement needs for wild salmonids to control harvest management, (5) the lack of commitment to establish sub basin spawner abundance goals, (6) the lack of a commitment to collect data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of CRFMP harvest agreements on sub basin wild populations and their productivity, (7) the insistence that harvesting a per cent of a run regardless of the run strength is adequate conservation management for populations, and (8) the failure to protect the biological diversity and productivity of species by securing protective management for weak stocks. The correction of the problems identified above should be treated as recommendations for updating and improving the CRFMP Even though specific requirements were set in the CRFMP, the Parties did not develop a tracking mechanism to determine whether they had been successful in implementing those agreements in subsequent reviews in 1991 and 1996. As a policy agreement between the states and tribes, the CRFMP is not a comprehensive plan for management or rebuilding of Columbia River salmon and steelhead runs. It is a dressed up harvest allocation dispute resolution made to look like a conservation management agreement, but it was not carried out by the parties and the declining runs, listing of threatened species, and continuing extinction's are testimony to the failure on the part of the states and tribes to effectively manage a common resource. Native Fish Society Columbia River Fish Management Plan Memo12/17/97