|
VI. Evaluating the Effects to Listed Snake River Salmon The purpose of this consultation is to determine whether the PFMC ocean salmon FMP is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. The magnitude of the effects of the proposed action are important. However, the jeopardy determination must be done in the context of the environmental baseline, biological requirements of the species and anticipated effects of other actions that are likely to occur both now and in future years. Attachment 1 provides the context for the more comprehensive impact analysis. The status of the listed species is such that survival and recovery can be achieved only through application of a comprehensive and long term strategy designed to improve survival of each life stage as it is affected by each action such that the biological requirements of the species are met and the species can rebuild to the point of recovery. The necessary comprehensive strategy is laid out in the NMFS Proposed Recovery Plan (NMFS 1995b). Discussions of the biological requirements for the listed Snake River salmon species and the relevance of the environmental baseline to the species' current status are contained in Attachment 1 and the current biological opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System (NMFS 1995c). To complete the analysis of the FMP, it is necessary to quantify the magnitude of impacts associated with the proposed action, consider whether the proposed action is consistent with the Proposed Recovery Plan, and finally, whether the Proposed Recovery Plan itself meets the biological requirements of the species. The first step in the method NMFS uses for applying the ESA standards of õ7(a)(2) to listed salmon is to define the species'biological requirements that are most relevant to each consultation. For this consultation, NMFS finds that these biological requirements are best expressed as trends in population size and variability. This information is summarized in Attachment 1. The current range-wide status of the listed species under the environmental baseline is described in Attachment 1. The biological requirements of the listed species are currently not being met under the environmental baseline. Their status is such that there must be a significant improvement in the environmental conditions of the critical habitat (over those currently available under the environmental baseline). Any further degradation of these conditions would have a significant impact due to the amount of risk the listed salmon presently face under the environmental baseline. C. Effects of the Proposed Action There is no information to suggest that Columbia River sockeye in general, or Snake River sockeye in particular, are harvested in the PFMC ocean management area (November 20, 1991, 56 FR 58619). Few sockeye are harvested by PFMC ocean salmon fisheries. One reason for the low catch is that PFMC ocean salmon fisheries employ hook-and-line gear and fishing strategies to target primarily chinook and coho salmon which are different from those that would be used to target sockeye salmon. Troll catches of sockeye off the Washington coast have not exceeded 100 fish during any year since 1985. There are no CWT data or other information that can be used to determine the distribution of Snake River sockeye. However, the likelihood that any of the few sockeye taken in PFMC fisheries are from the Snake River is extremely remote based on relative magnitude of the runs originating in the Fraser River, Puget Sound and Columbia River basin. The number of Snake River sockeye in the ocean that may return to the Columbia River is likely quite small (probably in the tens of fish at most, based on recent escapement estimates) compared to millions of fish in other sockeye salmon stocks known to enter the PFMC management area and primarily pass through to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and to the Fraser River. The Salmon Technical Team (STT) concluded in their biological assessment that the possibility of harvest of Snake River sockeye by PFMC ocean salmon fisheries is almost nil (PFMC 1995). 2. Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Spring Chinook: Although the available information is limited, there are three lines of evidence related to timing, CWT andgenetic stock identification (GSI) studies that suggest that mature Snake River spring chinook are not likely to be affected significantly by ocean salmon fisheries in the PFMC area. Upriver spring chinook begin entering the Columbia River in late February and early March, and reach peak abundance in the lower river below Bonneville Dam in April and early May (ODFW/WDF 1991). The majority of the PFMC's ocean fisheries occur within the May 1 to October 31 time period. As a result, most mature spring chinook have entered the river prior to the start of fishing. The survival rates for the tagged hatchery release groups that are used to represent the distribution of the spring chinook have been very low. As a result, very few tags have been recovered. This greatly limits our ability to assess impacts. Even less is known about the distribution and impacts on immature fish since sub-legals caught in the fisheries cannot be retained and thus are not sampled. However, the relative number of tags recovered suggests that PFMC area fisheries do not significantly impact spring chinook. Approximately 2.8 million Snake River spring chinook have been tagged from the 1976 to 1987 brood releases at the Rapid River and Sawtooth hatcheries. There are only 4 observed tag recoveries in ocean fisheries compared to the 622 observed recoveries from in-river fisheries and escapement (PFMC 1992). Berkson (1991) reviewed the tag recovery information from these same facilities and reported what appear to be different results. However, the differences are due primarily to the fact that Berkson reported estimated rather than observed recoveries and expanded the tag recoveries observed in the escapement to account for estimates of inter-dam loss. Berkson estimated that the total ocean exploitation rates for the spring stocks were less than 1% but did not draw any specific conclusions regarding the relative distribution of impacts in the various ocean fisheries. GSI techniques have also been used to estimate the stock composition of chinook salmon in fisheries off the Washington coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca in recent years. Sampling efforts did not extend further south. Results of the analysis indicate that Snake River spring chinook are not caught in Washington area marine fisheries. However, the STT concluded that there is substantial uncertainty regarding the reliability and high potential for bias when GSI procedures are employed to estimate contributions of stocks that comprise a small proportion of the total catch, as is the case for Snake River spring chinook. The larger stock aggregate of upper Columbia River spring chinook, which includes those from the Snake River, is still subject to concerns related to bias associated with small stocks. However, the available information for all Washington areafisheries indicates that less than 1 percent of the catch were upriver spring chinook. The proportion of the upriver stock aggregate that originate as naturally spawned fish from the Snake River is on the order of 10 percent based on estimates of relative run size at the river mouth (TAC 1996). This line of evidence suggests that some small fraction of less than 1 percent of the catch in Washington area fisheries may be naturally spawned spring chinook from the Snake River. These results are consistent with the timing and CWT analyses. It is not possible to determine the numerical impact of PFMC fisheries, but based on a review of the available information, the STT concluded that Snake River spring chinook are highly unlikely to be significantly impacted by ocean salmon fisheries in the PFMC area (PFMC 1995). Summer Chinook: Similar data sources were reviewed in an effort to assess the likely magnitude of impacts on Snake River summer chinook. Recovery data from CWT releases involving the 1976 through 1986 broods of summer chinook from the McCall Hatchery were examined. The reservations concerning low survival rates of tag release groups and the inability to assess the impacts on sub-legals discussed earlier apply here as well. Nevertheless, the estimated number of recoveries from all release groups combined were only 12 by Washington ocean fisheries, 8 by Oregon ocean fisheries and 7 by Canadian ocean fisheries. There were no recoveries in California or Alaska fisheries. A total of 195 were reported by in-river fisheries and escapement (PFMC 1992). Berkson (1991) considered the same CWT data but again expanded the in-river recoveries to account for inter-dam loss. He estimated that the exploitation rate for all ocean fisheries was less than 1% but again did not draw any specific conclusions regarding the relative distribution of impacts in the various ocean fisheries. The limited CWT data suggest that Snake River summer chinook may be harvested by PFMC area fisheries. However, the data are not sufficient to determine the ocean distribution of Snake River summer chinook. Total impacts of the PFMC's ocean fisheries on this stock cannot be estimated without better information on patterns of ocean distribution. Results of the GSI analysis are similar to those presented for Snake River spring chinook. Marshall (1991) estimated that no Snake River summer chinook were taken in Washington coastal or Strait of Juan de Fuca fisheries. However, because of the low abundance of the stock, these results may be biased. The weighted average composition (1987 through 1990) of the upper Columbia River stock aggregate that includes Snake River fish, was less than 1% of the total in all but one of the Washington area fisheries (Scott 1991; the weighted stock composition in the Juan de Fuca sport fishery was 1.3%). The proportion of theupper Columbia River stock aggregate that is natural Snake River origin is on the order of 4%, based on an estimate of the relative composition of the terminal area run size (TAC 1996). These results are consistent with the limited information available from the CWT analysis and suggest that the impacts from PFMC area fisheries are probably quite small. The STT was unable to determine the magnitude of the catch or incidental mortality of Snake River summer chinook caused by PFMC area salmon fisheries because of insufficient data. However, the STT concluded that it is unlikely that PFMC salmon fisheries significantly impact Snake River summer chinook (PFMC 1995). 3. Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon The PFMC fisheries have been constrained in recent years and will likely continue to be constrained for the next few years because of concerns for both chinook and coho stocks. Coho stocks remain severely depressed relative to historic levels particularly off Oregon and California. Reduced coho fisheries will result in fewer incidental impacts to chinook. Potential impacts to listed fall chinook therefore depend, in part, on the future status of coho stocks. The status of chinook stocks from California and Oregon are improved relative to recent years. But natural and hatchery stocks from the lower Columbia River in particular remain extremely depressed. Chinook fisheries in the area north of Cape Falcon will be restricted in 1996 and likely beyond because of concerns for chinook stocks from the Columbia River. Chinook fisheries off central Oregon and California will continue to be constrained because of concerns for winter-run chinook from the Sacramento River. It is therefore evident that anticipated impacts in PFMC fisheries to listed fall chinook in 1996 and beyond also depend substantially on the status of other chinook stocks. Snake River fall chinook are broadly distributed and caught in ocean fisheries from southern California to Alaska (PFMC 1995). There is substantial uncertainty regarding the abundance of Snake River fall chinook in the ocean. Absent reliable estimates of ocean abundance it is difficult to quantify how many listed fish will be killed as a result of the proposed action. NMFS has provided various estimates of total mortality by fishery in past years (see for example NMFS 1995d). For 1995, NMFS estimated that the total mortality of listed fall chinook in the PFMC fisheries was 125 and 28 using different assumptions. These disparate estimates emphasize the degree of uncertainty regarding numerical impacts to listed fall chinook. The above referenced estimates of total harvest mortality were derived using the PFMC chinook model assuming either the averagebase period ocean abundance or an ocean abundance scaled to the expected age-specific ocean escapement in 1995 (i.e., 601). These or similar estimates of catch should not be taken out of context or be compared without appropriate qualification to mortality estimates for harvest or other actions derived using different assumptions or models (see PFMC 1995 and NMFS 1993a for more detailed discussion). Because of the uncertainty related to the estimates of actual catch of listed fish, the STT quantified the magnitude of impacts in terms of a change in exploitation rate relative to a 1988 -1993 base period (PFMC 1995). Comparative base period analyses such as the one used here are common in fishery management providing a point of reference for measuring change. Selection of a particular base period depends on the point of reference that is of interest and available information. In this case, NMFS is interested in evaluating the degree to which harvest impacts are changing relative to recent years. The 1988 - 1993 base period is a recent series of years with available CWT recovery and catch information. The series begins in 1988 which is the first year where direct information from CWT sampling is available for the listed fall chinook. Fingerling releases from the Lyons Ferry hatchery are used as the indicator stock for listed fall chinook. Releases began with the 1984 brood year. The 1984 brood was first present in the fisheries as 4-year-old fish in 1988. All age classes, including 5-year-old fish were first present in the fishery beginning in 1989. The base period analysis of the PFMC ocean fisheries on listed fall chinook salmon has been conducted in the past using the PFMC chinook model. For a more detailed discussion of the model and its application for the base period analysis see the Appendix A in the PFMC Preseason Report III for 1995 (PFMC 1995) or the 1993 biological opinion regarding ocean and fall season inriver fisheries (NMFS 1993a). There are technical complications associated with estimating the exploitation rate of listed fall chinook, particularly when combining impacts from ocean and inriver fisheries (see for example Morishima 1994). The NMFS has previously recommended that a standardized methodology for characterizing harvest impacts be developed. Pending completion of that task, NMFS has used here available information to characterize the magnitude and distribution of harvest mortality. Ocean fishery impacts can be approximated using an age-four, total adult equivalent exploitation rate estimate. Inriver fishery impacts are presented here as a terminal harvest rate (catch/terminal run size) as calculated by the Columbia River Fish Management Plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The ocean and inriver estimates can be combined to approximate the total adult equivalent harvest mortality for each return year. The age four, total adult equivalent ocean exploitation rate on listed fall chinook averaged 0.43 during the 1988-1993 base period (McIssac 1994). Total ocean harvest mortality was distributed proportionally across the ocean fisheries during the base period as follows (PFMC 1995): Alaska 12% Canada 62% PFMC 26% The inriver harvest rate of Snake River fall chinook averaged approximately 0.37 during the 1988-1993 base period (TAC 1995). Harvest mortality for ocean and inriver fisheries combined has therefore averaged 0.64 over the base years with 67% of the combined impacts occurring in ocean fisheries and 33% inriver. The PFMC fisheries accounted for 17% of the total harvest mortality. Calculation Example: Ocean Abundance: 1,000 Ocean Catch (43%): 430 Terminal Run: 570 River Catch (37%): 211 Total Catch: 641 Harvest Mortality: 64% Cumulative effects are defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as "those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation." No such effects are anticipated. For purposes of this analysis, the action area includes ocean fishing areas off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California. The PFMC regulates fishing in the area outside of the three mile limit while the states have jurisdiction over fisheries inside the three mile limit and in estuary and freshwater areas. However, PFMC and state fisheries are analyzed jointly during the PFMC preseason planning process to ensure that all impacts are considered and implemented through coordinated regulations. Groundfish fisheries in the PFMC and NPFMC areas were considered in previous biological opinions (NMFS 1992a, NMFS 1994a). Ocean fisheries to the north of the U.S./Canada border will be considered during separate section 7 consultation processes. Fall season fisheries in the Columbia River managed under the CRFMP will also be subject to consultation in the near future. These actions are not considered cumulative to the proposed action. The designated critical habitat of listed Snake River salmon does not include the open ocean where PFMC fisheries occur. As a result, PFMC fisheries are not likely to adversely affect the critical habitat of listed salmon from the Snake River. Consideration of critical habitat impacts for PFMC fisheries will therefore not affect the conclusions regarding the jeopardy analysis. F.Consistency of Proposed Action with Proposed Recovery Plan The available information suggests that Snake River sockeye salmon are not adversely affected by ocean fisheries. The Proposed Recovery Plan therefore concluded that management constraints in ocean fisheries for the protection of listed sockeye salmon were unnecessary. 2. Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon The available information suggests that the impacts to listed spring/summer chinook from ocean fisheries are insignificant. As a result, no management constraints to ocean fisheries for the protection of listed spring/summer chinook were proposed in the Proposed Recovery Plan. 3. Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon The Proposed Recovery Plan is less specific than it needs to be with respect to the management of ocean fisheries including those of the PFMC. The Proposed Recovery Plan calls for implementation of a management strategy for Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) fisheries that is responsive to an array of natural-origin chinook stocks and consistent with PSC's stated objective to attain naturally spawning chinook escapement goals by 1998 based on a rebuilding program that was established in 1984. This approach takes a broad view of stock protection and focuses on the coast-wide status of chinook stocks including those from Puget Sound, the Washington and Oregon coasts and the Columbia River (including Snake River stocks), all of which are under review for listing under the ESA. Given recent information on stock status, it is clear that achieving the rebuilding objectives referenced in alternative 1 above by 1998 is now not likely to occur. Meeting immediate conservation concerns is now the appropriate priority and it will be necessary to achieve rebuilding in the long term. The intent of the first objective articulated in the Proposed Recovery Plan was to encourage implementation of a management strategy by the parties to the PST that is responsive to an array of natural-origin chinooks stocks affected by PST fisheries. The NMFS would consider an agreement among the PST parties regarding fisheries in 1996 and beyond which meets the conservation needs of stocks subject to the rebuilding program to be consistent with the objective of the first alternative. NMFS has chosen to rely on the PSC rebuilding program as the preferred alternative, because from a practical point of view, it provided the best prospect for achieving the necessary reductions in ocean fisheries. Nearly two-thirds of the ocean harvest impacts on Snake River fall chinook occurred in Canadian fisheries during the base period. As a result, substantial ocean impact reductions which are necessary to protect the listed salmon can be achieved only with the cooperative involvement of Canada. Canada's cooperation can best be achieved by focusing on the general coast-wide status of wild chinook stocks that have been the concern of the bilateral chinook rebuilding program (and a key element of the Pacific Salmon Treaty) since 1985. Given the current status of stocks coast-wide, ocean harvest reductions, accomplished within the context of the bilateral chinook rebuilding program, would achieve the desired benefit of reducing impacts on Snake River fall chinook. The NMFS has expressed concern about the ability of the PSC to meet its obligations under the Pacific Salmon Treaty to manage chinook fisheries consistent with rebuilding objectives. The PSC has failed since 1993 to reach agreement on management regimes for chinook fisheries. At the time that the Proposed Recovery Plan was being finalized, discussions regarding the 1995 fisheries were ongoing, but at a sensitive stage. There was concern that release of more specific provisions regarding considerations that would be used for consultation in absence of a PSC agreement could compromise the U.S. negotiating position with Canada. The Proposed Recovery Plan refers to the need to resolve issues related to chinook management necessary for the protection of listed fall chinook if an adequate agreement with the PSC is not achieved. Although additional measures for the management of ocean fisheries are not specified in the Proposed Recovery Plan, a discussion of alternative measures was included in earlier drafts and was described to U.S. fishery managers during the preseason planning processes both within the PSC and PFMC management forums (see for example CTC 1995 and Stelle 1995). Two alternatives to the preferred option of managing within the context of the PSC rebuilding program were described. The first option was to achieve a 30% reduction in the total adult equivalent exploitation rate of Snake River fall chinook relative to the 1988 - 1993 base period for all ocean fisheries combined. This would result in substantially reduced impacts on listed fish and allow U.S. fisheries to benefit from reductions that might be achieved in Canadian fisheries if done outside the PSC context. The second option was to achieve a 50% reduction in the Snake River fall chinook exploitation rate for all U.S. ocean fisheries combined. This option would require the U.S. fisheries to provide the necessary protection for listed fall chinook if reductions in the combined ocean fisheries fail to meet the obligations specified in the other options. This was the least preferred alternative because it reflected a failure to secure adequate reductions in Canadian fisheries where impacts to listed fish are greatest. However, failure to reach agreement with Canada would not diminish the need to reduce harvest impacts to listed fall chinook to the degree possible in those fisheries that are within the jurisdiction of the U.S. NMFS anticipated that fulfillment of any one of the proposed alternatives would be sufficient for consistency with the Proposed Recovery Plan. The three alternatives for managing ocean fisheries were designed to encourage agreement among PSC managers to manage fisheries to meet conservation and rebuilding objectives of wild chinook stocks coast-wide and thereby achieve reductions in Canadian fisheries that account for nearly two-thirds of ocean harvest impacts. If a suitable agreement is not reached regarding the management of PSC fisheries, ocean fisheries including those under the jurisdiction of the PFMC must be managed to achieve either a 30% reduction in the exploitation rate for Snake River fall chinook for all ocean fisheries combined, or a 50% reduction in the exploitation rate for U.S. ocean fisheries combined. The NMFS is now in the process of reviewing comments to the Proposed Recovery Plan in preparation for finalizing the plan. However, until alternative criteria are developed, NMFS intends to continue to rely on guidance provided in the Proposed Recovery Plan for evaluating proposed actions. Once the Proposed Recovery Plan is finalized and if the criteria change, the NMFS would, if necessary, reinitiate any affected long-term consultations. Since 1992 Section 7 consultations regarding impacts of PFMC fisheries to listed Snake River fall chinook have been based on annual regulations rather than the framework plan itself. Because of concerns for both coho and unlisted chinook stocks, PFMC fisheries have been reduced substantially compared to those of recent years and have been sufficient to meet annual consultation objectives for fall chinook. However, because Snake River fall chinook are not included among the stocks in the framework plan with escapement goals or other management objectives, the FMP does not provide specific protection for listed fall chinook. If and when the status of unlisted stocks improves, allowable catch in the PFMC fisheries and other ocean fisheries could increase to the point that the objectives in the Proposed Recovery Plan for reducing the exploitation rate of listed fall chinook fish would not be met. The Pacific ocean salmon FMP is therefore deficient in providing the necessary protection for listed fall chinook and is not consistent with the provisions of the Proposed Recovery Plan. NMFS analyzed in the current FCRPS biological opinion (NMFS 1995c) the proposed action under consideration in this biological opinion in the broader context of the environmental baseline and measures for survival and recovery specific to other life stages that are summarized in the Proposed Recovery Plan. NMFS concluded that the biological requirements are likely to be met for both listed sockeye, spring/summer and fall chinook salmon under the reasonable and prudent alternative for the FCRPS and within the broader context of the environmental baseline and actions affecting other life stages. The analysis was consistent with the expectation of long term survival and recovery of the species.
|
|
