|
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT for The Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California as it affects the Sacramento River Winter Chinook Salmon Fisheries Management Division February 23, 1996 INTRODUCTION This assessment will describe the listing history of winter chinook, the management of
the recreational and commercial ocean fisheries for salmon, and the biology of winter
chinook salmon. It will also review winter chinook ocean harvest information obtained
since the issuance of the 1991 Biological Opinion and evaluate what effects the fishery
may be having on the recovery of the species.
Between 1970 and 1989, the number of adult winter chinook salmon returning to spawn in
the Sacramento River declined from 40,000 to 500. The primary cause of the collapse was
the degradation of spawning, rearing and migration habitats in the Sacramento River and
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In 1985, NMFS received a petition to list the species as
threatened under the ESA. Sacramento winter chinook was listed as a threatened species
under the ESA emergency listing procedures by NMFS on August 4, 1989, and was formally
added to the list of threatened and endangered species on November 5, 1990. The species
was reclassified as endangered on January 4, 1994. NMFS has issued over 20 Biological Opinions on winter chinook, addressing a wide range
of activities that impact the species in the river and delta. On March 1, 1991, NMFS
issued a Biological Opinion on the Salmon FMP. The opinion concludes that the fishery as
managed under the FMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of winter
chinook and the accompanying Incidental Take Statement authorizes the take of winter
chinook in the ocean fisheries which occur lawfully under the fishing regulations. The
Biological Opinion referred to throughout this assessment is the ocean harvest Opinion
issued March 1, 1991. LIFE HISTORY OF SACRAMENTO RIVER WINTER CHINOOK Chinook salmon are categorized into separate races or runs according to the time when
adults enter fresh water to begin their spawning migration. Four distinct runs of chinook
exist in the Sacramento: fall, late fall, winter, and spring. It is believed that prior to
the construction of Shasta Dam (completed in 1945), winter chinook spawned in the highest
portions of the headwaters of the Sacramento, in streams fed mainly by the flow of
constant-temperature springs. The completion of Shasta Dam cut off all access to streams
above the dam, but release of cold water from Shasta Reservoir created conditions that
were favorable to winter chinook in the mainstem Sacramento below the dam. Winter chinook
currently spawn in the mainstem of the Sacramento from Redding downstream to Tehama, just
below Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD). The timing of various life history stages of winter chinook is summarized in Figure 1.
Winter chinook begin to enter San Francisco Bay in November and their migration past RBDD
begins in mid December and continues into early August. The majority of the run passes
RBDD between January and May, with the peak in mid-March (Hallock and Fisher 1985).
Spawning occurs from late April to mid August with peak activity in May and June. Winter chinook mature and return to the river to spawn at the beginning of their second
(returning age 2 fish are called grilse or jacks), third, or fourth year of life, as
measured from the time their parents entered the river. Thus, unlike the fall race, which
is vulnerable to the ocean fisheries (primarily the recreational fishery) prior to the
time the grilse enter the river, winter chinook grilse enter the river before any
significant fishery impacts occur. This is due to the fact that at the end of a single
ocean growth season in October they are not large enough to be vulnerable to ocean
fisheries, and the majority of the grilse that are destined to mature enter the river
before the start of the next season in March. Winter chinook maturing at the start of
their third year of life (small adults) have been subjected to one full fishing season,
and those maturing at the start of their fourth year of life (larger adults) have been
subjected to two fishing seasons. Throughout this assessment, winter chinook that do not
mature as grilse will be referred to as age 2+ fish in the ocean fisheries and the
following year's spawning escapement will be called age 3 fish. Those that do not mature
at age 3 as small adults will be called age 3+ fish, all of which are considered to mature
at age 4. The fecundity of winter chinook is low. Hallock and Fisher reported the average number
of eggs taken from 234 females spawned at Coleman National Fish Hatchery to be 3,353
(range from 2,500 to 4,453). This compares with average fecundity reported by Healey and
Heard (1984) for Sacramento chinook (presumably fall chinook) of 7,295 (range from 4,295
to 11,012). The range of mean fecundities for 18 other reported chinook populations was
3,634 to 10,622. Although complex relationships exist among age-specific life history
parameters such as size, fecundity, maturity, mortality, and productivity, such a large
difference in fecundity could put winter chinook at a disadvantage, compared to other
chinook runs, especially with regard to the rate at which winter chinook would be expected
to recover from extremely low population levels. MANAGEMENT OF THE OCEAN FISHERY FOR SALMON Pacific salmon support important commercial and recreational fisheries off the coasts
of California, Oregon, and Washington. Recent chinook salmon harvests are summarized in
Appendix II. The management of the resource is complex, involving many stocks that
originate from various rivers, multiple fishing gear types, and several management
jurisdictions. The ocean fisheries are managed between 3 and 200 miles by the Council
under a framework FMP; within 3 miles they are managed by the states and treaty tribes
under regulations consistent with the FMP. The framework FMP provides the mechanism to
make pre-season and in-season management adjustments to respond to changes in stock
abundance, socio-economic changes and other variations in the fishery. Annual management
specifications may include allowable ocean harvest levels, allocations, management
boundaries and zones, minimum length restrictions, recreational daily bag limits, fishing
gear restrictions, quotas, seasons, and selective fisheries. Management of the ocean fisheries in California seeks to achieve two fall chinook
salmon spawning escapement goals: one for the Klamath-Trinity River system and the other
for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in California's Central Valley (CV). The
indicator stock for the CV is Sacramento River fall chinook, for which the FMP specifies a
spawning escapement goal of between 122,000 and 180,000 combined hatchery and natural
adults. The methodology used by the Council to estimate ocean fishery impacts and spawning
escapement of Sacramento River fall chinook has been generally the same since 1984. An
index of CV chinook abundance (the Central Valley Index, or CVI), is used in projecting
the annual escapement of CV fall chinook. The CVI is the annual sum of ocean fishery
landings south of Point Arena and the spawning escapement of adult CV chinook stocks in
the same year. A harvest rate on CV stocks is approximated by the CV ocean exploitation
index, which is the landings south of Point Arena divided by the CVI. Considerable uncertainty is associated with the pre-season estimates of the CVI and the
CV ocean exploitation index, due primarily to variations in CV chinook stock contributions
to the ocean fisheries south of Point Arena and variable maturity schedules and survival
that are not accounted for in the predictor. In addition, the CVI and the ocean
exploitation index are themselves only crude approximations of actual abundance and
harvest rates of CV chinook; the Council's Salmon Technical Team has emphasized that the
ocean exploitation index does not represent a harvest rate. Table 1 summarizes preseason
and postseason estimates of the index since the issuance of the Biological Opinion. While
the ocean exploitation index has been underestimated for the past three years by
substantial amounts, it has not exceeded the maximum value of 0.79 specified in the
Biological Opinion. Prior to the issuance of the 1991 Biological Opinion, the primary concern of the
Council in developing the seasons off California was achieving the spawning escapement
goals for Sacramento fall chinook and the Klamath fall chinook. The Incidental Take
Statement of the Biological Opinion required that future impact indices not exceed the
ocean exploitation index experienced in 1990, which was a record high 0.79. The ocean
exploitation index is the best available surrogate for a harvest rate on CV chinook stocks
and is the only long term measure of relative impact on winter chinook. Because of their
maturity schedule and run timing, winter chinook experience a harvest rate significantly
less than that which occurs for fall chinook, which comprise roughly 90 percent of the
CVI. Since 1990, harvests of CV chinook have been restrained primarily by low abundances
of Klamath fall chinook, as well as a large increase in the allocation of Klamath chinook
to the in-river Indian harvest; the ocean exploitation index ceiling of 0.79 set by the
Biological Opinion has not been a major factor in shaping seasons. ASSESSMENT OF OCEAN IMPACTS Harvest Rate The impact of ocean harvest on the many races of west coast salmon is generally
estimated from the recovery rates of tagged hatchery produced fish. These estimates assume
similar behavior for hatchery raised salmon and salmon produced by naturally spawning fish
in the same river basin. The more closely the two stocks are genetically related, the more
likely it is that their behavior will coincide. Information on the contribution of winter
chinook to ocean fisheries is available from two data sets. The first, referred to here as
the fin clip data, was produced using wild winter chinook juveniles from the brood years
1969, 1970, and 1971. The fish were seined, fin clipped and released as juveniles;
estimates of age at harvest and harvest rate were made based on the recovery of clipped
fish (Hallock and Reisenbichler 1980, Hallock and Fisher 1985, CDFG 1989). Table 2
summarizes the ocean and in-river recoveries of the two broods with useable data (1969 and
1970); the ratios of catch to catch plus escapement (C/C+E) are 0.47 and 0.56
respectively. The C/C+E ratio is calculated by dividing ocean catches of age 2+ or older
by the sum of ocean catches of age 2+ or older and river returns of age 3 or older. The
fin clip data set was confounded by a duplicate mark used in other California and Oregon
chinook studies. This problem was compensated for by assuming landings of marked fish
south of Point Arena were winter chinook and catches of marked fish north of Point Arena
were from other stocks. Data from the 1971 brood year are not included in the analyses
because ocean fishery sample sizes were low for this year class. The second data set is produced by the recovery of coded-wire tagged (CWT) winter
chinook originating from Coleman National Fish Hatchery. These winter chinook are produced
as part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ongoing enhancement program in which
artificially propagated, CWT marked, winter chinook are released as fry into the upper
Sacramento River. The first juvenile winter chinook from this program, the 1991 brood
year, were released in 1992. During the 1993, 1994 and 1995 ocean salmon fishing seasons,
CWTs from winter chinook were recovered in the ocean in the California Department of Fish
and Game's (CDFG) fishing port monitoring program. Brood stock for the hatchery reared winter chinook is selected only from adults
returning to spawn naturally and in such a way as to maximize genetic diversity; all
released hatchery winter chinook are marked with a CWT. The degree to which the hatchery
reared winter chinook are different from wild winter chinook with regard to ocean
distribution, vulnerability to fishing gear, and run timing is not known. However, in
spite of the care taken in brood stock selection, recent genetic analysis suggests that
Sacramento spring chinook have been misidentified as winter chinook and used for hatchery
propagation at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Coleman National Fish Hatchery
(Hedgecock 1995). The 1993 and 1994 brood year production were estimated to be 27 percent
and 7 percent spring-winter hybrids respectively. The 1991 and 1992 brood years, however,
appear to be pure winter chinook and the ocean and in-river tag recoveries from those
broods would not have been affected by hybridization. There is no evidence that
hybridization between the two runs occurs naturally in the upper Sacramento River. Ocean recoveries of winter chinook CWTs, as reported by the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission Regional Mark Information System, are listed in Table 3 and
summarized in Tables 4 and 5. During 1993, two CWTs originating from the 1991 brood year
release were recovered in the ocean sport fishery. These two recoveries represent an
estimated catch of 12 hatchery produced winter chinook when the sample is expanded for
sampling rate. During 1994, eighteen winter chinook CWTs were recovered in the ocean
salmon fisheries: one from brood year 1991 and seventeen from brood year 1992. When this
sample is expanded for sampling rate, an estimated 107 hatchery produced winter chinook
were caught in the 1994 fishery: 104 from brood year 1992, and three from brood year 1991.
Of the estimated 104 fish from brood year 1992, nearly equal proportions were caught in
the ocean recreational and commercial fisheries (50 in recreational, 54 in commercial).
During 1995, four winter chinook CWTs were recovered in the ocean salmon fisheries, all
from the 1993 brood. When expanded for sampling rate, this represents 22 hatchery produced
winter chinook, all taken in the recreational fishery. The first observations of CWT adult winter chinook returning to the river occurred in
1995, at RBDD and in Battle Creek. It appears that most, if not all, of the 1992 brood
year hatchery reared winter chinook returned to spawn in Battle Creek instead of the
mainstem Sacramento River, apparently having failed to imprint on the Sacramento River as
juveniles. As a result, an escapement estimate was made for Battle Creek alone, based on
observations of videotaped passage counts at the Coleman National Fish Hatchery's barrier
dam on Battle Creek, and supported by stream surveys and carcass recoveries in Battle
Creek (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). The resulting escapement estimate is 88
hatchery-origin winter chinook for 1995, all of which are assumed to belong to the 1992
brood year (a total of 8 tags were actually recovered, all from the 1992 brood year). The C/C+E ratio for the 1992 brood year is estimated at 0.54, assuming none return to
spawn as age 4 adults in 1996. It is important to stress that this estimate is based on
limited data. The release numbers of juvenile winter chinook are small compared to release
numbers typically needed for statistical analyses. For example, CWT releases for Central
Valley hatchery stocks usually need to be 100,000 juveniles per group to evaluate the
distribution and timing of ocean catches with any statistical reliability. By contrast,
Coleman National Fish Hatchery released only 10,866 juveniles from the 1991 winter chinook
brood year, 27,383 from the 1992 brood year, and 17,034 from the 1993 brood year. In
general, existing fishery monitoring levels cannot accurately quantify ocean impacts on a
stock as rare as winter chinook. However, the recovery of tagged winter chinook both
verifies the incidence of harvest, and provides a rough approximation of present ocean
harvest impacts, which can be compared to previous estimates for winter chinook. Recent Trend of Ocean Harvest of Winter Chinook The data in Tables 2 and 4 suggest that the present ocean harvest level of winter
chinook has not changed from catch levels of 20 years ago. The 1991 Biological Opinion
cited an "ocean impact rate" of 0.346. This rate, which was actually a C/C+E
ratio, was calculated using the returns from all three brood years of the fin clip data
published by Hallock and Fisher and it included age 2 returns to the river in
escapement. If age 2 returns are not included in the calculation, the C/C+E ratio becomes
0.48. The Klamath River fall chinook brood escapement rate, which is an E/C+E ratio, and
the CV ocean exploitation index, which approximates a C/C+E ratio for Central Valley
stocks, are both calculated using adult escapement; age two returns to the rivers are not
counted because they are not considered an important biological component of spawning. It
therefore seems inappropriate to include the return of age 2 winter chinook in spawning
escapement, particularly if comparisons are then made with other harvest rates calculated
using adult escapement only. The C/C+E ratios (0.47, 0.56 and 0.54) for 1969, 1970, and
1992 winter chinook brood years compare with a C/C+E ratio of 0.68 for Klamath fall
chinook using the sum of adult catches (ocean and in-river) and spawning escapement for
the years 1985-1994. The average of the CV ocean exploitation index is 0.70 for the same
time period. Because no winter chinook CWTs from the 1991 brood year were recovered in the
river, a C/C+E ratio cannot be computed for that brood. Distribution of Harvest The ocean distribution of winter chinook is thought to be similar to that of other CV
chinook runs, which remain primarily in California coastal waters. Results from the fin
clip data indicated that 77 percent of the winter chinook catch was landed at San
Francisco and Monterey, and about 75 percent of that harvest occurred in the recreational
fishery and 25 percent in the commercial fishery (Hallock and Reisenbichler 1980). Table 5
and Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 show the distribution of tag returns from the fin clip
recoveries and CWT recoveries by month and sector. Winter chinook were caught throughout
the recreational and commercial fishing seasons, although fewer fish were caught in
October and November. Most winter chinook (about 80 percent) were caught at age 2+. The
recent CWT data are not sufficiently robust to statistically evaluate the distribution and
timing of fishery impacts. The data, however, generally parallel results from the fin clip
study: CWT age 2+ winter chinook were recovered south of Point Arena throughout most of
the recreational and commercial fishery seasons (Table 5). Tables 6 and 7 present estimated CWT and fin clip recoveries from the sport and
commercial fisheries and the total annual chinook harvest by each sector in California.
The relative impacts of the two sectors on winter chinook are not as great as the two data
sets would suggest. At the beginning of the sport season, the mean length of age 2+ winter
chinook is just above the minimum recreational size limit of 20 inches (Figure 6). The
troll fishery, like the sport fishery, contacts age 2+ winter chinook throughout the
season. However because of the 26 inch minimum size limit, most age 2+ winter chinook are
released by the troll prior to June or July when they become legal-sized. Consequently,
few, if any, age 2+ CWTs are recovered in the spring troll and all CWT recoveries from the
troll fishery are 26 inches or greater (Figure 7). The troll fishery nevertheless results
in nonlanded mortality of fish 20 to 26 inches not accounted for in the CWT recoveries and
both sectors cause some amount of nonlanded impacts on fish less than 20 inches. The
mortality rate from the catch and release of sublegal-sized chinook is estimated by the
Council to be 26 percent for the commercial fishery and 8 percent in the sport fishery; an
additional 5 percent drop-off mortality is added for fish hooked but not landed. These
rates are applied to the estimated number of sublegal-sized fish encountered in the
fishery. CURRENT STATUS OF WINTER CHINOOK AND REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION The 1991 Biological Opinion's conclusion of "no jeopardy" with
respect to the effect of ocean harvest on the recovery of winter chinook was based
primarily on Hallock and Fisher's analysis of the fin clip data that indicated winter
chinook experience a harvest rate less than that which occurs for the other three races of
Sacramento chinook, due to their maturity schedule and run timing. The Biological Opinion
concluded that because other west coast chinook stocks were managed at harvest rates
greater than that for winter chinook and were not depressed, a harvest rate below these
rates should not prevent the winter chinook population from growing. To ensure that the
ocean harvest rate of winter chinook did not increase, the Biological Opinion required a
two-week closure at the beginning and end of the normal recreational season south of Point
Arena and prohibited the opening of the commercial season south of Point Area prior to May
1. The Biological Opinion acknowledged that the productivity of winter chinook
probably was less than that of other chinook stocks due to winter chinook's low fecundity
and the large number of habitat problems in the Sacramento River that result in poor
survival of eggs and juvenile salmon. Conditions in additional Biological Opinions issued
by NMFS on the operations of State and Federal water projects have resulted in substantial
progress in remedying major habitat problems, such as blockage of upstream migrants at
RBDD, lethal temperatures in reaches of the river during spawning or while eggs are
incubating, and the entrainment of juveniles at various diversions. The continuing critically low spawning population and the new ocean catch
information have provided the basis to reinitiate consultation on the Ocean Salmon FMP.
Following the issuance of the 1991 Biological Opinion, the returning year class of 1991
declined by about 90 percent (from 2,094 to 191 adults). Since then, winter chinook
spawning escapements have remained at extremely low levels, exhibiting little, if any,
increases in size (Figures 8 and 9). Currently the only available method for estimating
spawning abundance is from counts at RBDD during the time the gates are closed and
migrating salmon are forced to use the fish ladder. Since 1986, the RBDD gates have been
open during a substantial part of the run to improve adult fish passage conditions and the
precision of the run estimate has declined significantly. The variance of the current run
size estimate is 1.0; this means that the ratio of estimated to actual values varies
between 0.36 and 2.72 (NMFS 1996). For example, the 1995 run size estimate of 1362 would
have a range of 500 to 3700. The recent CWT data on ocean harvest of winter chinook, limited though they
are, are consistent with the earlier fin clip data with regard to ocean harvest levels and
suggest that the C/C+E ratio has not been affected by the season and area restrictions
imposed by the Biological Opinion. The winter chinook population currently consists of a
single relatively strong year class represented in the 1992 and 1995 returns and two
weaker year classes. Of particular concern is the year class represented by the 1991 and
1994 returns, which consisted of fewer than 100 females. This brood cycle will be impacted
in 1996 ocean fisheries and will return to spawn primarily in 1997. PROVISIONS OF THE FMP TO PROTECT WINTER CHINOOK The FMP contains no provisions which specifically protect winter chinook. There
is no spawning escapement goal for this race nor is it an objective of the FMP to provide
for the recovery of listed populations. The annual process of setting seasons, quotas, and
other ocean fishery management measures has included consideration of the need for
ensuring that the impact of the fisheries on winter chinook does not exceed the maximum
impact specified in the Biological Opinion of 1991. The time and area closures required in
that Biological Opinion have been included each year in the measures adopted in advance of
the fishing season. Specifically, the recreational fishery off central California has been
shortened by approximately four weeks, beginning two weeks later, about March 1, and
ending two weeks earlier, about November 1, compared to the seasons that existed before
the winter chinook listing. In addition, during the month of March, an area outside the
Golden Gate is closed to fishing to protect winter chinook migrating into the San
Francisco Bay. These protective measures have been implemented annually since 1991, but
have not been formally incorporated into the FMP. Among the fishery management tools that currently are available for use under
the FMP are the following: time and area closures, quotas, bag limits, species
restrictions, minimum size limits, and gear restrictions.
Other management measures, such as a winter chinook escapement goal, can be
made available for ocean fisheries management, but probably would require amendment to the
FMP. Such an amendment is a rather lengthy and complex process requiring considerable
public involvement and would not be considered a minor modification of the current action
evaluated in this consultation. An amendment would constitute a separate action. CONCLUSION The FMP does not contain any goals or objectives which address winter chinook
directly or species listed under the ESA in general. Adoption of a spawning escapement
goal for winter chinook would require amendment to the FMP, which is not a minor
modification to the current action subject to consultation. The FMP, however, contains provisions that can be, and have been, used to
reduce the impact of the ocean fisheries on winter chinook. The requirements of the
Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement issued in 1991 have been met through the
measures incorporated in annual setting of the regulations for the fisheries. New
information gathered from the CWT program on winter chinook appears consistent with the
results from earlier work on the 1969 and 1970 brood years. Without further restricting
the ocean fisheries, management under the FMP will result in ocean harvest levels of
approximately 50 percent on each cohort of winter chinook. Current survival to spawning of winter chinook has been allowing a cohort
replacement rate of 1.0 or slightly better for the 1989 to 1992 brood years. This survival
rate is achieved with the ocean fishery operating under the FMP as constrained by the 1991
Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement. Since 1991, however, changes in the
operations of the Federal Central Valley Project and screening of major diversions from
the Sacramento River have improved winter chinook survival during early life stages in the
spawning and rearing areas and during out-migration. The State of California also has
closed recreational fishing in the river to improve the survival of adult winter chinook.
With those changes in freshwater survival, greater gains in the population size of winter
chinook were expected, but not achieved. However, these changes have only been in place a
short time and have been incrementally implemented. Ocean fisheries, as they are currently
managed, are a substantial source of mortality for winter chinook and may be hindering
recovery of the population. References California Department of Fish and Game. 1989. Description of winter chinook
ocean harvest model. California Department of Fish and Game, Ocean Salmon Project.
Hallock, R.J. and F.Fisher. 1985. Status of winter-run chinook salmon,
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in the Sacramento River. California Department of Fish and Game,
Anadromous Fisheries Branch Office Report, January 25, 1985. Hallock, R.J. and R.R. Reisenbichler. 1980. Freshwater and ocean returns of
marked winter-run and late fall-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, from the
Sacramento River. California Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fisheries Branch
Office Report, September 15, 1980. Hedgecock, D. 1995. Letter to Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Regional Director, NMFS,
Southwest Region, regarding hybridization of winter chinook brood stock used at Coleman
National Fish Hatchery. Healey, M.C., W.R. Heard. 1984. Inter- and intra-population variation in the
fecundity of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and its relevance to life history
theory. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Endangered Species Act Section 7
consultation, Biological Opinion - Ocean Salmon Fisheries. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southwest Region. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Draft Sacramento River winter chinook
recovery plan. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. (In prep.) Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1996. Review of 1994 Ocean Salmon
Fisheries. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Portland, OR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Escapement of hatchery-origin winter
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) to the Sacramento River, California in 1995.
Northern Central Valley Fish and Wildlife Office. Red Bluff, CA. Table 1. CVI preseason projections and postseason estimates.
Preseason Postseason
YearCVIExploitation IndexCVI Exploitation Index 1991 466 72 444 72 1992 452 34 323 71 1993 501 65 501 72 1994 503 53 610 74 1995 654 72 1273 a/ 77 a/
a/ Preliminary Data Table 2. Fin clip recoveries from brood years 1969 and 1970 expanded for sample size.
Brood Estimated Recoveries Year Location age 2 age 3 age 4 Total
Sacramento River a/ 333 21 354 1969 Ocean Sport 239 27 0 266 Commercial 14 23 12 49 Total 253 50 12 315
Sacramento River a/ 124 50 174 1970 Ocean Sport 151 0 0 151 Commercial 35 35 0 70 Total 186 35 0 221
a/ Jack returns to the river not included in escapement Data reproduced from CDFG (1989) Tables 9 and 10 Catch/Catch+Escapement for BY 1969 = 0.47 Catch/Catch+Escapement for BY 1970 = 0.56 Table 3. Winter chinook CWT recoveries from 1993, 1994 and 1995 fisheries. . Tag Code Brood Fishery Area Month Yr Observed Estimated FL TL Year Tags Tags mm in
0501010405 1991 Sport FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Jul 1993 1 5 510 22 0501010406 1991 Sport PIGEON PT.-POINT SUR May 1993 1 7 540 23 Total 1993 Recoveries 2 12 0501010406 1991 Troll FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT May 1994 1 3 724 31 0501010703 1992 Troll FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Jul 1994 1 6 644 27 0501010614 1992 Troll FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Jul 1994 1 7 688 29 0501010611 1992 Troll FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Sep 1994 1 11 600 26 0501010614 1992 Troll PIGEON PT.-POINT SUR Jul 1994 1 10 627 27 0501010609 1992 Troll POINT SUR-CA/MEX.BOR Jul 1994 1 10 652 28 0501010705 1992 Troll POINT SUR-CA/MEX.BOR Jul 1994 1 10 595 25 Total 1994 Troll Recoveries 7 57 0501010711 1992 Sport FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Apr 1994 1 5 570 24 0501010611 1992 Sport FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Jul 1994 1 4 650 28 0501010610 1992 Sport FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Mar 1994 1 5 550 24 0501010609 1992 Sport FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Apr 1994 1 5 484 21 0501010609 1992 Sport FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT May 1994 1 4 528 23 0501010713 1992 Sport FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Jun 1994 1 4 494 21 0501010614 1992 Sport PIGEON PT.-POINT SUR Apr 1994 1 4 550 24 0501010711 1992 Sport PIGEON PT.-POINT SUR Apr 1994 1 4 521 22 0501010608 1992 Sport PIGEON PT.-POINT SUR Jun 1994 1 4 549 24 0501010609 1992 Sport PIGEON PT.-POINT SUR Jul 1994 1 4 594 25 0501010702 1992 Sport PIGEON PT.-POINT SUR Mar 1994 1 7 514 22 Total 1994 Sport Recoveries 11 50 0501010902 1993 Sport FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Apr 1995 1 3 514 22 0501010907 1993 Sport FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT Jul 1995 1 5 596 25 0501010810 1993 Sport PIGEON PT.-POINT SUR Jul 1995 1 5 588 25 0501010905 1993 Sport POINT SUR-CA/MEX.BOR May 1995 1 9 543 23 Total 1995 Sport Recoveries 4 22
Table 4. CWT recoveries from brood years 1991, 1992 and 1993 expanded for sample size.
Brood Estimated Recoveries Year Location Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Total
Sacramento River a/ 0 0 0 1991 Ocean Sport 12 0 0 12 Commercial 0 3 0 3 Total 12 3 0 15
Sacramento River a/ 88 b/ 1992 Ocean Sport 50 0 c/ Commercial 54 0 c/ Total 104 0 c/
Sacramento River a/ b/ 1993 Ocean Sport 22 c/ Commercial 0 c/ Total 22 c/
a/ Jack returns to the river not included in escapement b/ Potential returns in 1996 c/ Potential recoveries in 1996 or 1997 Catch/Catch+Escapement for BY 1992 = 0.54 Table 5. Estimated recoveries of CWTs from the 1993, 1994 and 1995 fishing seasons by area, month and fishery.
Area Sport Troll FORT ROSS-PIGEON PT 40 27 PIGEON PT.-POINT SUR 35 10 POINT SUR-CA/MEX.BOR 9 20 Month February March 12 April 21 May 20 3 June 8 July 23 43 August September 11
Table 6. Estimated recoveries of CWTs from sport and commercial fisheries for 1993, 1994 and 1995 fishing seasons and respective California chinook landings.
Year Landings Estimated Fishery (1000 fish) Tag Recoveries
1993 Sport 110.0 12 Commercial 279.6 0 1994 Sport 183.2 52 Commercial 295.6 57 1995 Sport 397.2 22 Commercial 629.3 0 Totals Sport 690.4 86 Commercial 1,204.5 57
Table 7. Estimated recoveries of fin clip from sport and commercial fisheries for 1971 and 1972 fishing seasons with respective California chinook landings.
Year Landings Estimated Fishery (1000 fish) Clip Recoveries
1971 Sport 188.0 239 Commercial 434.0 14 1972 Sport 201.0 178 Commercial 492.0 130 Totals Sport 389.0 417 Commercial 926.0 144
Appendix I Requirements of the 1991 Biological Opinion The Incidental Take Statement of the Biological Opinion set forth certain terms
and conditions for continued implementation of the FMP. 1. The Council shall continue to monitor the impact of the ocean fisheries on
winter-run and report its analysis of ocean impact rates to NMFS prior to the last Council
meeting at which regulatory changes could be considered for the subsequent season, but no
later than December 1, of the year in which the ocean season ended. This requirement has been met only in so far as the Council has provided annual
pre-season and post-season estimates of the CV ocean exploitation index, since no data
were available on the ocean harvest of winter chinook. The recent recoveries of tagged
winter chinook in the ocean fisheries permit the first direct estimates of ocean harvest
impact since those using the fin clip data of the early 1970s. 2. The ocean recreational fishing season should be closed two weeks at the
beginning and end of the normal season south of Point Arena to ensure escapement of mature
fish to the river. The normal recreational season off California was mid-February to mid-November
and that season has been shortened at the beginning and end in every year since the
Biological Opinion was issued. In addition, an area closure off the entrance to the
entrance to the San Francisco Bay has been implemented; no recreational fishing is
permitted within the area prior to April 1. The State of California has closed
recreational fishing in the Sacramento River during the time winter chinook adults are
present. 3. The early opening of the commercial fishery (before May 1) south of Point
Arena should not be allowed. This requirement has also been implemented annually by the Council. Appendix II Recent California Ocean Harvests of Salmon The following tables summarize recent annual harvests of chinook salmon in
California and provide information on the value of the commercial and sport fisheries to
coastal communities. All data were extracted from the Review of 1995 Ocean Salmon
Fisheries (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1996) Table 1. Troll chinook salmon landed in California, estimates of exvessel value and average price (dollars per dressed pound)
Year Nominal Real Nominal Real Value Value a/ Price per Price per (Thousands (Thousands Pound a/ Pound Year Of dollars) Of dollars) (dollars) (dollars)
1979 17,356 34,383 2.53 5.01 1980 12,741 23,058 2.27 4.11 1981 13,417 22,065 2.25 3.70 1982 18,754 29,039 2.55 3.95 1983 4,290 6,384 2.09 3.11 1984 6,875 9,803 2.67 3.81 1985 11,390 15,656 2.56 3.52 1986 14,874 19,917 2.01 2.69 1987 25,130 32,608 2.78 3.61 1988 41,221 51,479 2.86 3.57 1989 13,095 15,661 2.39 2.86 1990 11,434 13,095 2.77 3.17 1991 8,351 9,214 2.58 2.85 1992 4,487 4,816 2.74 2.94 1993 5,707 5,996 2.25 2.36 1994 6,437 6,624 2.07 2.13 1995b/ 10,624 10,624 1.76 1.76
a/ Expressed in 1995 dollars b/ Preliminary Table 2. Estimates of California recreational ocean salmon trips by port area and boat type. Crescent Fort San State Year City Eureka Bragg Francisco Monterey Total
CHARTER TRIPS (thousands)1977 1.0 1.2 1.7 72.0 4.8 80.7 1978 2.4 1.3 0.9 47.3 1.3 53.2 1979 2.2 0.7 3.3 69.6 3.1 79.0 1980 1.4 0.6 2.0 62.4 2.9 69.3 1981 0.6 0.5 1.3 56.1 2.7 61.1 1982 0.5 0.4 2.4 72.2 4.4 79.9 1983 0.5 1.4 1.6 50.8 2.7 56.9 1984 0.5 0.9 1.4 56.8 1.9 61.5 1985 1.6 3.5 2.3 74.6 3.2 85.1 1986 1.1 2.8 2.8 69.6 10.1 86.4 1987 1.5 3.8 4.6 82.9 12.3 105.0 1988 0.9 2.5 5.6 81.1 11.7 101.7 1989 0.6 5.4 4.5 83.5 14.0 108.0 1990 0.8 3.2 2.7 54.3 17.4 78.4 1991 1.0 2.1 5.4 43.7 17.0 69.2 1992 0.1 0.2 1.5 38.6 7.3 47.7 1993 0.4 1.0 2.0 53.2 9.4 66.0 1994/a 0.2 0.2 1.3 63.9 7.2 72.8 PRIVATE TRIPS (thousands) 1977 21.8 25.5 14.0 34.2 5.1 100.7 1978 15.0 19.8 8.5 48.7 5.4 97.5 1979 9.6 17.3 6.5 34.7 6.7 74.8 1980 17.8 22.5 4.4 23.7 6.7 75.1 1981 13.4 15.8 6.8 19.0 5.7 60.8 1982 24.6 22.3 8.0 28.7 7.7 91.4 1983 21.2 21.5 6.8 9.5 6.8 65.8 1984 23.3 17.9 4.6 8.2 11.4 65.5 1985 29.5 31.4 12.6 18.7 14.6 106.8 1986 24.5 26.1 10.4 22.1 26.1 109.2 1987 50.6 42.4 9.4 25.5 35.4 163.3 1988 43.0 30.3 12.2 27.0 28.2 140.7 1989 33.0 37.7 13.0 11.5 41.7 137.0 1990 41.9 35.4 11.9 35.4 49.0 173.7 1991 24.5 25.3 17.2 26.5 33.8 127.4 1992 9.0 8.9 9.7 23.4 29.1 80.2 1993 15.0 17.3 17.4 29.6 29.7 108.9 1994 9.4 6.3 18.1 43.7 39.6 93.6 1995a/11.8 12.1 25.4 62.2 114.2 225.6
a/ Preliminary Table 3. Estimates of California coastal community and state personal income impacts of the troll and recreational ocean salmon fishery for major port areas. Expressed in 1995 dollars.
Crescent Fort San Coastal Comm. State Year City Eureka Bragg Francisco Monterey Total Total
OCEAN TROLL (thousands of dollars) 1976-80 5,361 13,552 13,236 17,364 7,551 57,064 73,267 1981-85 2,604 3,141 7,319 13,825 4,718 31,604 39,351 1986 740 2,060 9,435 15,592 10,004 37,830 47,724 1987 2,194 4,309 18,033 28,192 6,966 59,698 73,466 1988 1,150 3,627 24,954 50,774 14,290 94,800 115,083 1989 594 1,096 6,599 14,931 6,599 29,818 36,619 1990 105 746 3,907 12,587 7,767 25,112 30,577 1991 17 402 2,258 10,576 5,367 18,620 22,533 1992 2 3 95 5,880 3,022 9,003 10,666 1993 7 41 823 6,297 4,153 11,320 13,754 1994 0 25 305 9,551 3,129 13,009 15,384 1995a/ 10 28 259 10,749 9,960 21,005 25,735 RECREATIONAL (thousands of dollars) 1976-80 966 1,121 653 9,808 657 13,205 14,812 1981-85 1,059 1,091 523 8,686 694 12,053 13,566 1986 1,186 1,433 746 9,910 2,125 15,400 17,687 1987 2,374 2,245 879 11,761 2,741 19,999 23,305 1988 1,978 1,585 1,100 11,615 2,374 18,652 21,537 1989 1,510 2,199 1,031 11,087 3,183 19,010 22,129 1990 1,922 1,884 802 8,705 3,839 17,151 20,475 1991 1,184 1,327 1,306 6,900 3,144 13,861 16,537 1992 402 413 581 6,097 1,972 9,464 10,947 1993 700 862 968 8,260 2,209 12,999 15,020 1994 433 297 927 10,360 2,414 14,432 16,388 1995a/ 533 603 1,507 13,279 11,762 27,684 33,212
a/ Preliminary Table 4. California commercial troll chinook salmon landings in thousands of fish by month.
Year Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Season
1976-1980 34.2 200.0 109.4 173.4 67.9 33.8 - 618.6 1981-1985 12.4 124.6 74.7 145.1 82.1 23.7 - 462.7 1986-1990 - 240.1 257.8 195.1 77.3 24.1 0.2 794.7 1986 - 223.6 293.2 215.1 84.5 9.1 - 825.6 1987 - 264.9 301.6 205.4 84.1 20.2 - 876.3 1988 - 390.8 382.8 370.9 111.9 60.8 - 1317.2 1989 - 176.2 137.6 112.5 80.5 23.3 0.9 530.9 1990 - 145.2 174.0 71.7 25.4 7.1 0.1 423.4 1991 - 80.1 87.1 49.7 65.6 12.1 0.4 294.9 1992 - 51.6 19.0 21.1 42.7 29.0 - 163.4 1993 - 111.1 40.4 55.8 48.4 24.0 - 279.6 1994 - 78.8 81.1 89.2 27.4 19.1 - 295.6 1995a/ - 280.3 138.8 182.7 23.3 4.2 - 629.3
a/ Preliminary. Table 5. California ocean recreational salmon landings in thousands of fish by month.
Year Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Season
1976-1980 5.8 8.5 8.7 6.4 13.5 22.0 11.9 7.6 6.7 1.3 92.4 1981-1985 5.9 7.3 7.2 9.4 17.0 27.0 19.6 8.7 5.6 1.4 109.1 1986-1990 5.6 15.3 26.4 11.4 28.4 42.9 22.6 8.3 4.2 1.3 166.4 1986 1.2 16.1 23.5 9.5 24.7 37.4 21.4 5.3 2.0 0.6 141.6 1987 5.5 14.1 19.2 12.4 23.1 51.0 44.1 14.9 7.1 1.1 192.5 1988 6.8 15.9 24.9 20.5 38.2 43.5 12.7 4.0 4.6 0.8 171.4 1989 8.0 12.7 42.6 8.6 27.8 48.7 19.7 12.4 3.7 2.4 186.6 1990 6.7 17.6 21.6 6.1 28.1 34.0 15.2 5.0 3.8 1.7 139.8 1991 - 8.0 13.0 4.8 19.9 25.1 5.7 2.0 2.2 a/ 80.8 1992 0.5 3.4 5.4 6.3 9.5 24.3 10.1 10.3 3.3 0.5 73.6 1993 0.4 9.9 15.0 8.9 7.6 40.4 18.8 5.4 3.6 - 110.0 1994 1.3 7.3 15.7 18.3 38.8 53.3 24.7 14.1 9.7 - 183.2 1995b/ 0.2 27.3 57.9 47.2 80.3 133.7 31.4 17.0 2.1 - 397.2
a/ Less than 50 fish. b/ Preliminary. |
|
