Conservation and Climate Change

As climate change and conservation issues focus on fisheries, a look at past milestones on these issues might be helpful. Conservation is not new to fisheries management. It has been ongoing for many years, to the extent that it is so embedded in various management strategies as to go unnoticed by the casual observer. Salmon are part of the commons that we share and care for. There have been and are many approaches to conservation, recovery and sharing of the salmon commonwealth of the Columbia River.

To combat overfishing, regulation of commercial fisheries on the Columbia River began in the early 1870s in Washington and Oregon. In 1918, Congress ratified the Columbia River Compact, a bi-state agreement still in effect, to ensure congruency of Oregon and Washington Columbia fishing regulations.

Since then, numerous legislative and governmental strategies have been designed to improve conservation as well as permit harvest on salmon as a food source. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, set up in 1946 to conduct research on Pacific fisheries, has a historical timeline of the changes. For example, the Mitchell Act provided funds for establishing hatcheries when salmon runs had declined greatly in the 1940s and 50s due to dam construction on the Columbia River. The 1970s produced significant federal legislation intended to improve conservation, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson Fishery and Conservation Act. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) was also created in 1973.

The Magnuson Act set up the regional fisheries council approach to fisheries management, inviting participation from states. Further conservation legislation included the 1980 Northwest Power Planning Act, which focused on Columbia River fish and wildlife mitigation; the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty, a U.S./Canada agreement; and the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act. In 2007 the Magnuson/Stevens Conservation and Management Act was re-authorized with scientifically based catch limits to prevent overfishing. By 2010, sustainable catch limits for all U.S. fish populations had been developed. Much of the legislation of the past 150 years was introduced and passed with fishermen’s support. The Pacific Fishery Management Council management structure includes numerous fishermen as advisors.

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) and NOAA structure management of coastal and in-river fisheries as a series of meetings throughout the year to identify management and science issues, determine likely abundance among west coast salmonid populations, and develop harvest regimes. Risk analysis, NMFS guidance, including an annual “no jeopardy” opinion as to which fish may or may not be harvested under ESA Guidelines, and tribal co-management and public input are involved in the North of Falcon process. Mandatory 5-year reviews update knowledge of listed species. The PFMC has a Fisheries Ecosystem Plan with staff working on eco-management and habitat concerns. Conservation is already the foundation for salmon management. Harvest levels are established after scientific, conservation and recovery concerns are addressed through pre- and in-season management tools. The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board spent years developing the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Plan, accepted in 2010 by Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, PFMC and NOAA.

Conservation and recovery mean different things in different eras. Each era may require different tools. Some tools may cycle back into favor or be reconfigured as river conditions and societal values change. One generation cannot do it alone; it requires multiple generations of long-term thinkers and long-term commitment. Many involved value the idea of leaving a legacy for future generations. Fisheries agencies, such as WDFW and ODFW, the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, the Northwest Indian Fish Commission all are working on climate change issues and salmon, as is NOAA, non-profits, fishermen’s organizations and others.

The use of Adaptive Management has become standard practice. Agencies balance the variables of climate and resource productivity while endeavoring to recover weak salmon stocks as well as provide harvest opportunity targeting healthy stocks. The WDFW Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy defines Adaptive Management as “a systematic process for continually improving management strategies by monitoring the impacts of previous management actions. An adaptive management approach is particularly important in managing biological resources because of the inherent complexity and dynamism of natural systems and the scientific uncertainty associated with many natural processes.” Adaptive Management provides flexibility to alter a management policy that isn’t producing the expected results. It was the basis for the revisions to the Columbia River Salmon Management Policy C-3620 that were passed by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in September 2020.

Management tools for Columbia River salmonids.

A current harvest management tool based on conservation are the harvest matrices for ESA-listed Columbia River tule fall chinook and coho. To develop these matrices, scientist Ray Beamesderfer was hired to conduct a risk analysis on these two species. Those risk analyses were reviewed and revised, and draft matrices were developed which were reviewed and further revised. The matrices were then vetted by the PFMC’s Salmon Technical Team, Salmon Advisory Subpanel and Habitat Committee, revised again, and then were finally accepted by PFMC and NOAA. Harvest rates were built around a percentage of allowable catch that changes with annual abundance forecasts. In years of low abundance, the harvest rate along the Pacific Coast and inriver is reduced; in years of higher expectations, it is increased, based on pre-set percentages. The matrices are reviewed on a regular schedule to ensure that they are working as intended. This abundance-based management  provides conservation benefits as well. These matrices are provided at the end of this document.  

Conservation Tools in Specific Fisheries: Columbia River Non-tribal Gillnet Fishery

·         Tangle Net Alternative for gillnets in spring chinook and fall coho (October) seasons. The tangle or tooth net, authorized in 2002, has a fairly small mesh designed not to gill fish but entangle them by their teeth for live capture and utilizes shorter soak times. Fin-clipped hatchery fish may be retained; those with an adipose fin are released. If an unmarked fish is lethargic or showing signs of distress, it is put into a live box or recovery box, basically an artificial respiration chamber. The flow of oxygenated water helps resuscitate the fish, which can then be released.  A strip of larger meshes at the top of the tanglenet reduces steelhead handle, another conservation option.

·         Utilization of large mesh (8 Inch) mesh nets in March to avoid steelhead before upriver Chinook are present. Using tanglenets after steelhead were mostly through. Policy 3620 eliminated this conservation technique and a fishery which produced a superior product for the consumer. Test data indicates that this conservation tool works.

·         24 hour “quick-reporting” enables managers to monitor catches after each opening.

·         Sampling 50-70% of the catch at buying stations after an opening is another standard practice.

·         9" nets in August instead of 8” reduce steelhead handle. Gillnet mesh size is critical to both harvest and conservation. Timing of a fishing opening and its location (area), ensures the maximum benefit in terms of catch size is realized, in conjunction with needed conservation measures e.g. fall fishing in Zones 4 and 5 allows maximum retention of chinook, while avoiding listed LCR tules, which spawn in downstream tributaries.

·         A post-ESA conservation measure is fishing in August and after the September run update, thus avoiding peak timing for Lower Columbia River wild tules, an ESA listed run.

·         Test fishing to sample population composition and abundance, e.g. smelt, spring chinook

·         Shorter duration of openings to stay within impact limits (used successfully in late August)

·         Catch limits (fish per boat) in a spring opening to stay within impact limits (used successfully in April tanglenet fisheries).

·         On-board observers for data gathering during the spring chinook and fall coho tanglenet fisheries.

·         Fishery openings used to extend from Sunday to Friday in some years, depending on the run.  Now, we fish one day at a time so harvest can be assessed before we fish again. More than one opening may occur, but they are rarely on consecutive days.

·         24 hour openings used to be common. Now they are usually 10-12 hours at a time. 

·         Openings with large mesh gear in Zones 4&5 that align with small mesh openings in zones 1-3 focus on Chinook in one area and coho in another, to reduce risk.

Conservation underlies much of the fishery regulation, and is essentially “built into the system.” Adaptive management is in place to respond to unforeseen circumstances or unexpected increases or decreases in abundance or changes in run timing. Test fishing in spring is just one example of adaptive management, whereby the mix of hatchery stock and steelhead can be sampled in order to harvest the optimum number of hatchery fish while holding steelhead encounters to a minimum. Determining these relative abundances is a conservation measure that also allows commercial harvest for the public.