DOCSLIB.ORG

Oxbow Fall Chinook Hatchery Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oxbow Fall Chinook Hatchery Program Oxbow Fall Chinook Hatchery Program Stuart Rosenberger Lyons Ferry Hatchery • Source of Eyed eggs for IPC Fall Chinook Program Oxbow Hatchery Lyons Ferry Hatchery Flow Clearwater Irrigon and Washington 8 6 4 River 9 Umatilla Hatcheries Columbia 7 5 3 River 10 2 14 11 13 12 Oregon 1 Hells Canyon Dam Grande Imnaha Salmon Ronde River River River N Idaho Snake River 0 Oxbow Hatchery 50 50 Flow Approximate o o Latitude 45-47 Longitude 116-118 Connor et al. 2004 Oxbow Hatchery 1910 Oxbow Hatchery Built in 1961 as an “experimental hatchery facility” 1964 Oxbow Hatchery 1) Spring Chinook Broodstock Facility 2) Steelhead Broodstock and Incubation Facility 3) Subyearling Fall Chinook Incubation and Rearing Facility 200,000 subyearling capacity 100% Funded by Idaho Power Company Operated by Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Umatilla/Irrigon Hatcheries 800,000 Subyearlings to meet 1 Million Mitigation Goal Irrigon Hatchery; BY2010 to Present Umatilla Hatchery; BY2002 to BY2009 Program Goals • Mitigation Goal: 1,000,000 smolts • No In-hatchery or Post-release Performance Goals • No Adult Return Goals Fish Box: Oxbow Trap (October 1958) M&E Objectives • Evaluate rearing and release strategies to increase juvenile survival and adult returns • Participate in regional efforts (run reconstruction, coordination meetings, etc.) to evaluate Snake River fall Chinook Hatchery Production and Survival Data • Broodstock Performance • In-Hatchery Survival • Juvenile Releases and Survival • Adult Production and Productivity Hatchery Production and Survival Data In-Hatchery Survival 120.0% Oxbow Umatilla/Irrigon 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% Eyed Egg to Release Survival to Release Egg Eyed 20.0% 0.0% Brood Year Hatchery Production and Survival Data Eyed Eggs Requested/Received 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 Eyed Eggs Received Eggs Eyed 200,000 0 Brood Year Hatchery Production and Survival Data Juvenile Releases 1,200,000 Oxbow Umatilla/Irrigon 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 Number of Fish Released Fish of Number 200,000 0 Brood Year Hatchery Production and Survival Data Juvenile Survival to LGR 100.0% Oxbow Umatilla/Irrigon 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% Percent Survival 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Brood Year Disease and Pathology • No disease issues encountered (2000 – 2012) • Coagulated yolk in BY 2012 at Irrigon; resulted in a lower than normal eyed egg to smolt survival (avg. 93%, BY2012 83%) Program Summary • Consistent high survival during hatchery culture • High variability in the number of eggs received • Relatively high post-release survival • Met mitigation goal 2 out of 13 brood years M&E Outlook • Continued monitoring of hatchery production and productivity measures • PIT tagging – Migration timing and Survival – In-stream PIT Arrays • Parental Based Tagging (PBT) – Stock Identification – ????? Moving Forward • Continue to mitigate for lost sport and tribal fishing opportunity • Expanded coordination between state, tribal, and federal biologists and managers • Program direction incorporates current and emerging science – HSRG review – Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) 2 Recurring Questions 1) Where did IPC’s Fall Chinook Mitigation goal come from? 1) Where did IPC’s Fall Chinook Mitigation goal come from? 2) Why is it Only 1 Million Fish? 1980 Hells Canyon Settlement Agreement • 5 Petitioners: 1977 National Marine Fisheries Service Idaho Department of Fish and Game Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Fisheries Washington Department of Game Mitigation • 1. Loss Above Oxbow Dam (Highest Counts @ Oxbow Fish Trap (1957-1977)) – Fall Chinook (17,800) – Spring/Summer Chinook (2,700) – Steelhead (5,000) • 2. Loss Between Hells Canyon an Oxbow Dams (Difference between Oxbow 1964 and HC 1967) – Fall Chinook (6,600) – Spring/Summer Chinook (1,400) – Steelhead (5,000) Mitigation • Total Loss – Chinook : 28,500 / .71% SAR = 4 Million Chinook – Steelhead: 10,000 / .32% SAR = 3.2Million Steelhead Mitigation • Total Loss – Chinook: 28,500 / .71% SAR = 4 Million Chinook • 3 million Spring Chinook @ Rapid River • 1 million Summer Chinook @ Pahsimeroi Mitigation • Total Loss – Chinook 28,500 / .71% SAR = 4 Million Chinook • 3 million Spring Chinook @ Rapid River • 1 million Summer Chinook @ Pahsimeroi – Steelhead 10,000 / .32% SAR = 3.2Million Steelhead (400,000 lbs) • 400,000 lbs @ Niagara Springs ( 1.8 million) ῀ Mitigation • What about Fall Chinook???? Oxbow Hatchery 1964 Mitigation • 1. Loss Above Oxbow Dam (Highest Counts @ Oxbow Fish Trap (1957-1977)) – Fall Chinook (17,800) – Spring/Summer Chinook (2,700) – Steelhead (5,000) 86% • 2. Loss Between Hells Canyon an Oxbow Dams (Difference between Oxbow 1964 and HC 1967) – Fall Chinook (6,600) – Spring/Summer Chinook (1,400) – Steelhead (5,000) Mitigation • Total Loss – Chinook 28,500 * .71% SAR = 4 Million Chinook • 3 million Spring Chinook @ Rapid River • 1 million Summer Chinook @ Pahsimeroi – Steelhead 10,000 * .32% SAR = 3.2Million Steelhead (400,000 lbs) • 400,000 lbs @ Niagara Springs ( 1.8 million) ῀ Fall Chinook Mitigation • 1958: 32,000 FACH estimated in Snake R. – 17,800 counted @ Oxbow Fish Trap – 5,000 expected to spawn in future ACOE projects = 9,200 expected to spawn from Lewiston to HCD Fall Chinook Mitigation • 1958: 32,000 FACH estimated in Snake R. – 17,800 counted @ Oxbow Fish Trap – 5,000 expected to spawn in future ACOE projects = 9,200 expected to spawn from Lewiston to HCD 1:1 Male/Female = 4,600 redds Fall Chinook Mitigation • 1958: 32,000 FACH estimated in Snake R. – 17,800 counted @ Oxbow Fish Trap – 5,000 expected to spawn in future ACOE projects = 9,200 expected to spawn from Lewiston to HCD 1:1 Male/Female = 4,600 redds Estimated a maximum of 20% of redds dewatered = 920 redds lost Fall Chinook Mitigation • 1958: 32,000 FACH estimated in Snake R. – 17,800 counted @ Oxbow Fish Trap – 5,000 expected to spawn in future ACOE projects = 9,200 expected to spawn from Lewiston to HCD 1:1 Male/Female = 4,600 redds Estimated a maximum of 20% of redds dewatered = 920 redds lost 5,000 eggs/redd and 10% egg to smolt survival = 460,000 smolts lost Fall Chinook Mitigation • 1958: 32,000 FACH estimated in Snake R. – 17,800 counted @ Oxbow Fish Trap – 5,000 expected to spawn in future ACOE projects = 9,200 expected to spawn from Lewiston to HCD 1:1 Male/Female = 4,600 redds Estimated a maximum of 20% of redds dewatered = 920 redds lost 5,000 eggs/redd and 10% egg to smolt survival = 460,000 smolts lost 460,000 * 2 (unaccounted loss) = 920,000 smolts lost Current mitigation for operational losses = 1 million smolts IPC USACE Agreement • “Licensee will contract with appropriate state and federal agencies or otherwise provide for the trapping of sufficient fall Chinook salmon and the fertilizing and eyeing up of sufficient eggs to permit up to 1,000,000 fall Chinook smolts” 1980 HCSA • 1961-1970 > 50% prespawn mortality at Oxbow Hatchery IPC USACE Agreement • 1984 IPC/USACE Agreement • “Corps agrees to design, construct, and make operational sufficient capacity in its Lyons Ferry Hatchery to accommodate the annual trapping, holding, and spawning of an adequate number of adult Snake River fall Chinook to reasonably produce 1,300,000 eyed eggs” (for IPC) • Eggs made available to IPC after 80% of egg quota is met • IPC - $224,000 toward construction costs at Lyons Ferry Hatchery for fall Chinook eggs to meet mitigation obligation US V OR Agreement (2008-2017) Hatchery Production and Survival Data Juvenile Releases 1,200,000 Oxbow Umatilla/Irrigon 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 Number of Fish Released Fish of Number 200,000 0 Brood Year Questions??? Initial Trapping/Spawning Brood Number Number PrespawnFemales Males Eggs Number Percent Eggs Eggs Fry Year Trapped Received Mortality Spawned Spawned Collected Fecundity Eyed Eye-up DistributedReceived Released 1961 6,659 63.0% 397 206 1,668,900 4,204 1,466,752 87.89% 329,552 0 601,636 1962 2,402 819 31.4% 424 205 2,015,000 4,752 1,911,500 94.86% 477,000 0 1,100,119 1963 945 614 54.6% 202 89 774,000 3,832 558,100 72.11% 0 0 495,540 1964 1,503 504 27.3% 163 79 779,000 4,779 716,900 92.03% 0 24,408 650,460 1965 1,584 1,576 63.8% 119 ? 545,200 4,582 497,000 91.16% 0 0 214,720 1966 3,612 3,557 38.9% 409 ? 1,691,126 4,135 1,582,670 93.59% 0 0 1,473,590 1967 1,249 1,235 64.7% 217 ? 821,890 3,788 798,900 97.20% 0 0 202,350 1968 412 403 22.5% 75 ? 274,030 3,654 266,871 97.39% 0 0 255,536 1969 50 50 ? 11 ? 54,990 4,999 50,591 92.00% 0 500,000 497,298 1970 48 12 100.0% 0 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 1971 4 4 100.0% 0 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 1972 7 2 100.0% 0 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 1973 1 1 100.0% 0 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 1974 15 15 0.0% 0 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 1975 13 13 0.0% 0 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 1976 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 1977 4 4 0.0% 0 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 1978 1 1 0.0% 0 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 1979 8 0 0.0% 0 0 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Idaho Power Company's Fall Chinook Salmon Hatchery
    IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S FALL CHINOOK SALMON HATCHERY PROGRAM Stuart Rosenberger, Paul Abbott, James Chandler 1221 W. Idaho St., Boise, Idaho Background The current Idaho Power Company (IPC) fall Chinook salmon program was established to provide mitigation for losses associated with the construction and operation of Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon dams which together form the Hells Canyon Complex. IPC’s current mitigation goal is to produce 1 million fall Chinook salmon smolts annually (see Origination of Idaho Power Company’s Hatchery Mitigation Program section for more details). Oxbow Hatchery, funded by IPC and operated by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, is responsible for the incubation and rearing of up to 200,000 subyearling fall Chinook salmon. The hatchery is located on the Snake River downstream of Oxbow Dam near the IPC village known as Oxbow, Oregon (Figure 1). IPC also contracts with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for the production of an additional 800,000 subyearling fall Chinook salmon that were originally reared at ODFW’s Umatilla Hatchery and are now reared at ODFWs’ Irrigon Hatchery, both of which are located near the town of Irrigon, Oregon. Fish reared at both Oxbow and Umatilla/Irrigon hatcheries are released into the Snake River directly below Hells Canyon Dam with the exception of brood years 2003 to 2005 in which some of the production was released at the Nez Perce Tribe’s Pittsburg Landing acclimation facility. Similar to other fall Chinook salmon programs in the Snake Basin, Oxbow and Umatilla/Irrigon hatcheries receive eyed eggs from Lyons Ferry Hatchery, as it is one of only two broodstock holding and spawning facilities for fall Chinook salmon in the Snake Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Hells Canyon Complex (FERC Project Number 1971)
    Evaluation and Findings Report: Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Hells Canyon Complex (FERC Project Number 1971) May 2019 Northwest Region 700 NE Multnomah St. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232 Phone: 503-229-5696 800-452-4011 Fax: 503-229-5850 www.oregon.gov/DEQ DEQ is a leader in restoring, maintaining and enhancing the quality of Oregon’s air, land and water. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 401 Water Quality Certification Hells Canyon Complex (FERC Project Number 1971) This report prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah St Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232 1-800-452-4011 www.oregon.gov/deq Contact: Marilyn Fonseca 503-229-6804 Documents can be provided upon request in an alternate format for individuals with disabilities or in a language other than English for people with limited English skills. To request a document in another format or language, call DEQ in Portland at 503-229-5696, or toll-free in Oregon at 1-800-452-4011, ext. 5696; or email [email protected]. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ii 401 Water Quality Certification Hells Canyon Complex (FERC Project Number 1971) Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Requirements for Certification ............................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Applicable Federal and State Law ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dams and Hydroelectricity in the Columbia
    COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: DAMS AND HYDROELECTRICITY The power of falling water can be converted to hydroelectricity A Powerful River Major mountain ranges and large volumes of river flows into the Pacific—make the Columbia precipitation are the foundation for the Columbia one of the most powerful rivers in North America. River Basin. The large volumes of annual runoff, The entire Columbia River on both sides of combined with changes in elevation—from the the border is one of the most hydroelectrically river’s headwaters at Canal Flats in BC’s Rocky developed river systems in the world, with more Mountain Trench, to Astoria, Oregon, where the than 470 dams on the main stem and tributaries. Two Countries: One River Changing Water Levels Most dams on the Columbia River system were built between Deciding how to release and store water in the Canadian the 1940s and 1980s. They are part of a coordinated water Columbia River system is a complex process. Decision-makers management system guided by the 1964 Columbia River Treaty must balance obligations under the CRT (flood control and (CRT) between Canada and the United States. The CRT: power generation) with regional and provincial concerns such as ecosystems, recreation and cultural values. 1. coordinates flood control 2. optimizes hydroelectricity generation on both sides of the STORING AND RELEASING WATER border. The ability to store water in reservoirs behind dams means water can be released when it’s needed for fisheries, flood control, hydroelectricity, irrigation, recreation and transportation. Managing the River Releasing water to meet these needs influences water levels throughout the year and explains why water levels The Columbia River system includes creeks, glaciers, lakes, change frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hells Canyon Dam Controversy
    N 1956, AT THE TENDER AGE OF THIRTY-TWO, Frank Church made a bold bid for the United States Senate. After squeak- I ing out a victory in the hotly contested Idaho Democratic pri- mary, Church faced down incumbent Senator Herman Welker, re- ceiving nearly percent of the vote. One issue that loomed over the campaign was an emerging dis- pute over building dams in the Snake River’s Hells Canyon. While Church and other Democrats supported the construction of a high federal dam in the Idaho gorge, their Republican opponents favored developing the resource through private utility companies. Idaho EVOLUTION voters split on the issue, and so, seeking to avoid a divisive debate, Church downplayed his position during the general election “be- of an cause it was not a winning issue, politically.”1 Senator Frank Church Although Church won the election, he could not escape the is- sue. Indeed, his victory and subsequent assignment to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs put him at the center of a growing controversy about damming Hells Canyon. Over the next eighteen years, Church wrestled with balancing Idaho’s demand for economic growth and his own pro-development beliefs with an emerging environmental movement’s demand for preservation of nature—in Idaho and across the nation. As he grappled with these competing interests, Church under- went a significant transformation. While Church often supported development early in his Senate career, he, like few others of his time, began to see the value of wild places and to believe that rivers offered more than power production opportunities and irrigation water.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Fall Chinook a Primer: 1900-1975
    Snake River Fall Chinook A Primer: 1900-1975 Mark Schuck – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Acknowledgements and note to the reader. The majority of the structure of the presentation was developed by Dr. Billy Connor (USFWS) and through extensive history research by Jim Chandler (Idaho Power Company). Additional insights and historical perspective were provided by several persons from numerous agencies involved with fall Chinook management {Stuart Rosenberger, IPC - GIS Division, Jay Hesse (NPT), Pete Hassemer (IDFG), and several other biologist and researchers that indirectly provided data for slides}. It was my privilege to assemble that information into this presentation. While some of the content from slides in the original presentation provided to the ISRP and attendees on August 6, 2013 will be included in this narrative and slide references are provided in the text that follows, I suggest the best approach to reviewing the history is to read this in concert with the slide presentation, available on the LSRCP website at: http://www.fws.gov/lsnakecomplan/ The purposes of this overview are: • Provide a history of the near demise of Snake Fall Chinook • Review the actions that resulted in the need for, and authorization of, the LSRCP in 1975 • Put everyone on the same plane so that they better understand fall Chinook history • Provide context to better evaluate the success or failure of the LSRCP fall Chinook program, because: We can’t know where we are going if we don’t know where we’ve been. Introduction Chinook are a cultural icon of the Pacific Northwest. King, Tyee or Chinook, the terms convey the aura of big hard fighting fish of the most splendid flavor.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Flow Augmentation Impact Analysis Appendix
    SNAKE RIVER FLOW AUGMENTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District’s Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho February 1999 Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) 1427i A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with large drawdown of Reclamation reservoirs. 1427r A scenario in this analysis that provides up to 1,427,000 acre-feet of flow augmentation with reservoir elevations maintained near current levels. BA Biological assessment BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) BETTER Box Exchange Transport Temperature Ecology Reservoir (a water quality model) BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BID Burley Irrigation District BIOP Biological opinion BLM Bureau of Land Management B.P. Before present BPA Bonneville Power Administration CES Conservation Extension Service cfs Cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRFMP Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CWA Clean Water Act DO Dissolved Oxygen Acronyms and Abbreviations (Includes some common acronyms and abbreviations that may not appear in this document) DREW Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane EIS Environmental Impact Statement EP Effective Precipitation EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ETAW Evapotranspiration of Applied Water FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRE Finance, investment, and real estate HCNRA Hells Canyon National Recreation Area HUC Hydrologic unit code I.C.
    [Show full text]
  • PASSAGE ·OF ADULT FALL-RUN CHINOOK SALMON (Oncorhynchus T�Hawytscha) THROUGH a LARGE IMPOUNDMENT
    \� PASSAGE ·OF ADULT FALL-RUN CHINOOK SALMON (Oncorhynchus t�hawytscha) THROUGH A LARGE IMPOUNDMENT by Parker s. Trefethen and Doyle F. Sutherland July 1964 FISH-PASSAGE RESEARCH PROGRAM· - Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Seattle, Washington INTRODUCTION One of the basic considerations in planning for--fish passage at high dams is the effect of a large, deep impoundment on the upstream migration of adult salmon. If anadromous fish can pass through a large impoundment and successfully spawn, they may be passed directly over the dam into the forebay to continue their natural migration. If passage in the reservoir is impaired, it may be necessary to transport the fish around the reservoir-­ an operation that may be complicated by the need for separating subpopulations in the event that several tributary streams are involved. The effect of a large impoundment on the passage of adult salmon was examined in Bro�nlee Reservoir on the Snake River (fig. 1). This 57�-mile-long impoundment, created in 1958, presented a potential barrier to chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri} on their upstream migration to spawning areas above the reservoir. Except during extreme drawdown and high river discharges, virtually no water currents ex.1st in the impoundment, and high temperatures & low oxygen concentrations are prevalent--especially during summer and fall - months. Since the filling of Brownlee Reservoir, the number of adult salmon returning to the area has declined. There may be many factors responsible for this decline, but at the outset of these studies it was recognized that adult fish might experience difficulty in migrating through the large impoundment to spawning areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Spawning Areas and Abundance of Chinook Salmon {Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha} in the Columbia River Basin--Past and Present By
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR u.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES Spawning Areas and Abundance of Chinook Salmon {Oncorhynchus tshawytscha} in The Columbia River Basin--Past and Present By LEONARD A. FULTON United States Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report- - Fisheries No. 571 Washington, D.C. October 1968 CONTENTS Page Introduction........................ Spring- and summer-run chinook salmon. .. 3 Spawning areas . .. 3 Abundance of spring- and summer- run chinook salmon. 4 Fall-run chinook salmon. 16 Spawning areas . 16 Abundance of fall- run chinook salmon 20 Summary and conclusions 22 Acknowledgments. 23 Literature cited .. 24 Maps .............. .See Map Appendix iii Spawning Areas and Abundance of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in The Columbia River Basin--Past and Present By LEONARD A. FULTON, Fishery Biologist Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 'Biological Laboratory Seattle, Washington 98102 ABSTRACT Chinook salmon, the most abundant species of salmon in the Columbia Basin, formerly spawned in nearly a11 tributaries ofthe Columbia River and in many areas of the main river. Over the past 60 years, the construction of dams has inundated, impeded, or blocke.d acces!, to spawning areas. Despite these heavy losses, large areas of spawning grounds in the middle and lower portions of the drainage are sti11 available to chinook salmon. Stream im­ provements by State and Federal fishery agencies have rehabilitated some areas and have brought others into production for the first time. Important spawning areas are listed and charted in this report according to their past use (before 1965) and present use (1966). Estimates of recent spawning populations in major tributaries and in segments of the main stem are also given.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act 1972 1855 Treaties U.S. and Nez Perce
    Harvest Pacific Salmon Treaty (Pacific Salmon Hydro/Habitat Commission - PSC) Federal Columbia River Power System Magnuson Act (Pacific Fishery Biological Opinion Management Council – PFMC) • Dworshak Dam Endangered SpeciesSnake/Columbia Act 1972 summer spill U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • Idaho Power Complex Snake River Synergy is the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that Fall Chinook is greater than the sum of the individual Salmon elements Hatchery Idaho Power Company/Hells Canyon Settlement Agreement Lower1855 Snake River Treaties Compensation U.S. Plan – Publicand Law Nez 94-587, Perce, 99-662, 103-316 NorthwestUmatilla,Yakama Power Act & Warm Springs U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement Columbia Basin Treaty Tribes Accords Snake River Falls SEA K 14% PFMC 34% CA NA DA 52% Pacific Salmon Treaty (Pacific Salmon Commission - PSC) Magnuson Act (Pacific Fishery Management Council – PFMC) U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement Columbia River Treaty Tribe Harvest Hydro/Habitat Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • Idaho Power Complex Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion & Litigation • Snake/Columbia summer spill Snake River • Juvenile Transportation • Predation Fall Chinook • Estuary Salmon Bonneville Dam 1938 BrownleeIce Harbor Dam 1961 1958 LowerTheOxbow DallesMonumental Dam Dam 1961 1957 Dam 1969 John Day Dam 1971 HellsLittle Canyon Goose DamDam 19671970 Lower Granite Dam 1975 McNary Dam 1954 Warner W. Gardner, Assistant Secretary of the
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Fall Chinook a Primer:1900-1975
    Snake River Fall Chinook A Primer:1900-1975 Mark Schuck Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Acknowledgements • Staff from many agencies contributed to this presentation – without which it would not exist! • A few notable contributors: – Billy Connor, Jim Chandler, Stuart Rosenberger, IPC - GIS Division, Jay Hesse, Pete Hassemer • Our funding Entities – Purpose of this Presentation • History of the near demise of Snake Fall Chinook • Review the actions that resulted in the need for and authorization of the LSRCP in 1975 • Put everyone on the same plane so that they better understand fall Chinook history • Can’t know where we are going if we don’t know where we’ve been “Chinook” • Cultural Icon – King, Tyee • Legendary size and Columbia R. abundance • Staple food of native peoples • Adaptive – Spring, summer, fall runs • Upriver Bright falls for Snake – big mainstem spawners. • Snake – historically large producer of Chinook Maladies for Decline • Anthropogenic – Over harvest – Habitat loss • Irrigated Agriculture (water removal + sediments) • Logging • Gold Dredging • Dam construction – Hatchery efforts w/ questionable old methods • Natural – Drought – Ocean Productivity Possible historic distribution of habitat utilized by fall Chinook salmon Typical Pre-development Snake Habitat Thousand Springs region of Snake R. (1902). Eastern Snake Aquifer had significant effect on thermal regime of the Snake River in historical fall Chinook core spawning area. Collectively springs contributed 4,000 to 5,000 cfs of 58 Degree F. inflow. (USGS Survey library) Typical Pre-development Snake Habitat Photo of Millett Island (1902), just below Upper Salmon Falls. Historic monitoring site for fall Chinook spawning. Described in Everman, c. 1894. (USGS Survey library) Typical Pre-development Snake Habitat Photo of Lower Salmon Falls (1902).
    [Show full text]
  • (E.3.1-2) (Executive Summary) Feasibility of Reintroduction of Anadromous Fish Above Or Within the Hells Canyon Complex
    Feasibility of Reintroduction of Anadromous Fish Above or Within the Hells Canyon Complex James A. Chandler Editor Technical Report Appendix E.3.1-2 December 2001 Hells Canyon Complex FERC No. 1971 Copyright © 2003 by Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company Feasibility of Reintroduction of Anadromous Fish Executive Summary The feasibility of reintroducing anadromous fish above Hells Canyon Dam has been discussed in numerous forums. In the late 1980s during a workshop initiated by Senator James McClure, the workshop participants concluded that reintroduction was possible if three prerequisites could be met: 1) smolt passage problems at existing lower Snake and Columbia river dams were solved, 2) flows in the lower Snake River reservoirs were improved to enable successful smolt passage, and 3) a reintroduction program were not developed at the expense of existing fisheries programs in the Snake and Columbia rivers. In the final recommendations to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Snake River Salmon Recovery Team recommended that the issue of reintroduction for fall chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) be examined again in the future, especially if smolt collectors that were harmless to the fish could be developed. The issue of the feasibility of reintroducing anadromous fish was also identified by regional interests represented in the Aquatic Resources Work Group as part of the relicensing process of the Hells Canyon Complex (HCC). In addition, the issues of anadromous fish passage and habitat availability continually arise in discussions relating to other Idaho Power Company (IPC) projects along the mainstem Snake River above the HCC that are also involved in the process of relicensing.
    [Show full text]
  • Mgt-Graban1964 Evaluation of Fish Facilities at Brownlee and Oxbow Dams
    STATE OF IDAHO FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT John R. Woodworth, Director EVALUATION OF FISH FACILITIES BROWNLEE AND OXBOW DAMS By James R. Graban Fishery Biologist May, 1964 EVALUATION OF FISH FACILITIES AT BROWNLEE AND OXBOW DAMS INTRODUCTION On August 4, 1955, the Idaho Power Company was licensed, through Federal Power Commission Project 1971, to construct a three-dam complex, consisting of Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon hydroelectric dams on the middle Snake River. On November 17, 1960, the F.P.C. issued an order to Idaho Power Company to consult and cooperate with the Department of Interior and the fisheries agencies of the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, to determine a mutually-satisfactory program for the purpose of testing and evaluating the fish facilities at the Brownlee and Oxbow projects. The costs of which program shall be born by the licensee. In February, 1961, the Idaho Fish and Game Department signed an agreement with Idaho Power Company to begin the fish facility evaluation study at Brownlee and Oxbow Dams on the Middle Snake River. The evaluation study was conducted under the general supervision of a steering committee, consisting of representatives of the fish and game agencies of the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, the Idaho Power Company, and the Department of Interior. Field supervision was provided by the Idaho Fish and Game Department. The study spanned a period of three years and is concerned with evaluating the upstream and downstream facilities for passing migratory game fish past the two dams, to determine if the fish-passage facilities function at designed, and to recommend changes in fish passage conditions or request other passage facilities.
    [Show full text]