LC Summary 08 17 07

Slide1: 

Oregon’s Lower Columbia ESA Recovery Plan Summary and Key Issues Oregon Lower Columbia River Stakeholder Team August 17, 2007

Summary and Key Issues: 

Summary and Key Issues Status of Draft Plan Overview of Key Findings by ESU and Basin Climate Change Key Issues to be Addressed

Slide3: 

Current Status of Plan

Lower Columbia Summary: Key Findings: 

Lower Columbia Summary: Key Findings Most Oregon populations are rated at high or very high risk of extinction 4 populations at low risk all were in the Clackamas and Sandy Chum were at the highest risk, followed by coho, Chinook, and steelhead Among the strata, the Coast stratum was at the highest risk, followed by the Gorge and Cascade strata’s

Risk Defined (TRT): 

Risk Defined (TRT) 0 = functionally extinct (<40% persistence) 1 = high risk (40-75% persistence) 2 = moderate risk (75-95% persistence) 3 = low risk (95-99% persistence) 4 = low risk (>99% persistence)

Current Status of ESUs: 

Current Status of ESUs

Lower Columbia Coho: 

Lower Columbia Coho High Risk of Extinction Key Threats Harvest/hatchery management in many pop’s Land management across ESU Plan Focus Manage harvest/hatchery risk Focused habitat restoration

Lower Columbia Chinook: 

Lower Columbia Chinook High Risk of Extinction Key Threats Harvest/hatchery management Estuary management Land management Plan Focus New vision for harvest/hatchery management move towards selective fisheries (how?) Estuary actions Focused habitat restoration

Lower Columbia Chum: 

Lower Columbia Chum Functionally Extinct Key Threats Land management Small population size Estuary management Plan Focus Protecting and building on existing populations Estuary actions Reintroduction plan Focused habitat restoration

Lower Columbia Steelhead: 

Lower Columbia Steelhead High Risk of Extinction Key Threats Land management Plan Focus Focused habitat restoration

Key Threats by ESU: 

Key Threats by ESU

Key Threats by Basin: 

Key Threats by Basin

Addressing Climate Change?: 

Addressing Climate Change? While from Oregon’s perspective, the threat is real, no clear policy direction……..yet. Guidance to date: Independent Scientific Advisory Board Climate Change Report (May 2007) Explicitly included as an option in the Gap Analysis

ISAB Key Findings Examples of what to expect: 

ISAB Key Findings Examples of what to expect Impacts on snow pack, streamflows, water quality in Columbia basin More wildfire, predation, ecological changes, etc. Difficulty in predicting effects at management scales Loss of 20 – 40% of salmon habitat by 2090 Hydro-system operation magnifies climate change Adverse impacts on fish passage & migration Degraded estuary & ocean conditions Climate change has been poorly addressed in planning, improving planning is difficult

ISAB RecommendationsExamples of potential actions: 

ISAB Recommendations Examples of potential actions Technical assistance to planners Habitat reserves Minimize water temp. increases and augment flow Construct cool-water storage-reservoirs Structural alterations at dam forebays and fish ladders Transport juveniles and adults through Columbia R. More harvest of introduced fish species Change hydro-system flow regimes Reduce number of hatchery fish released Reduce allowable harvest in fisheries

Oregon’s Response to ISAB Report: 

Oregon’s Response to ISAB Report Consider recommendations Many recommendations are consistent with management actions in current draft recovery Plan for LCR Incorporate additional recommendations in next draft of LCR plan

Key Issues for Stakeholder Team to Address: 

Key Issues for Stakeholder Team to Address Does the information in the draft adequately characterize the problem? Can you “connect the dots” among the pieces at hand? Do the strategies and actions as proposed capture the range of things that could be done?