Hatcheries - Yes/No?

[Sandlance]

The controversy over the continued existence of salmon and steelhead hatcheries in the Puget Sound region has reached a boiling point, with one side (lead by the Wild Fish Conservancy – WFC) clearly trying to eliminate them as quickly as possible to promote wild fish only and the other side trying to preserve a system that supports a popular sport fishery valued in the millions of dollars that provides huge recreational opportunities enjoyed by a vast and diverse number of people. The sport fishery also has an extensive multi-million dollar economic importance to businesses that support the salmon and steelhead fisheries.

The WFC has been successful, through a lawsuit, in abruptly eliminating the release of winter steelhead smolts (the outward migrating juveniles that feed and grow in the Pacific Ocean for several years and return as adults) from five Puget Sound hatcheries in 2014 and 2015, thus eliminating adult returns from those years. There is a possibility that they will be successful in eliminating the 2016 releases, which will eliminate the sport fisheries in those streams, likely permanently because no brood stock will be available to renew those runs and once closed, funds will likely not be available to re-start those runs. The WFC is also trying similar efforts on the Leavenworth Salmon Hatchery on the Icicle River, which is part of the Columbia River system.

Due to many factors, some salmon and steelhead populations in Washington have declined over the years where many (including some populations in Puget Sound) have been listed under the Endangered Species Act. One of the purposes of the ESA is to develop plans that lead to the recovery of those listed species so that they can be delisted.

According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the first salmon hatchery in Washington began operation in 1895 on the Kalama River. The hatchery system has expanded significantly since then. It is interesting what WDFW says about hatcheries in Washington state and the role they play in salmon and steelhead recovery efforts (from the WDFW Conservation website):

“The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) now operates 83 hatchery facilities, of which 75-80% are dedicated to producing salmon and/or steelhead and another 20-25% rear trout and other gamefish. Fifty-one tribal hatcheries (45 NWIFC facilities, three Colville Confederated Tribes and three Yakama Nation) and 12 federal hatcheries also contribute to the statewide salmon harvest, which contributed over $1-billion to the state's economy according to estimates by the U. S. Department of Commerce.

In recent years, state hatcheries also have taken on an equally important role in helping to recover and conserve the state's naturally-spawning salmon populations. Nearly all the hatcheries in the Columbia River and a number of hatcheries in Puget Sound play a role in wild fish rebuilding programs, whether by rearing juveniles prior to release or holding fish through their lifespan to ensure the survival of depressed stocks. This renewed focus on wild stock recovery represents a major realignment in hatchery operations, as WDFW, the tribes, federal government and independent scientists worked to develop a comprehensive operations strategy for hatcheries in Washington.”

The question then arises: do hatcheries play a role in the recovery efforts, as noted by WDFW in the above quote?. This is no small question – it has involved the efforts of hundreds of biologists, researchers, and the public, with billions of dollars spent on the recovery efforts.

One initial question is: are hatcheries needed for all salmon species?. The answer is no. Most would agree that pink salmon (not listed under ESA) in Puget Sound are so plentiful that a hatchery for them would not be a logical pursuit at this time. However, Chinook, steelhead, and coho (and a few chum salmon) hatcheries are needed to support the recreational, commercial, and tribal fishing efforts.

The Columbia River system currently is boasting record runs of salmon/steelhead runs and appears to have a successful approach for recovery efforts. These efforts were the result of long and often contentious planning which now are more collaborative than contentious. Early in the planning, habitat, hatcheries, harvest, and hydro (commonly referred to as the 4-H’s) were defined as areas to focus recovery efforts. This led to many discussions about ways to improve hatchery operations but the discussions were not focused on abruptly eliminating them, as is the approach promoted by WFC. Instead, a transition was recognized where hatchery operations would be reviewed and improved where needed and that hatcheries would be used to supplement harvest until habitat and hydro issues could be resolved in favor of wild fish. If the planners had taken the approach promoted by WFC (i.e., abruptly eliminate the hatcheries in the Columbia River system), this would have had huge economic impacts and could have eliminated recovery efforts.

A prime example of the possible abrupt elimination of hatcheries and the effect it would have had on recovery efforts is the case of the Redfish Lake sockeye salmon. This run of fish that historically migrated from Redfish Lake, high in the Sawtooth Mountain Range of Idaho, to the Pacific Ocean and back dwindled to a run of one adult male fish (called “Lonesome Larry”) that returned in 1992 to spawn in Redfish Lake – thus, representing a dire situation. Through massive efforts, based almost solely on hatchery operations, this run has recovered to numbers in the thousands. Other efforts involving hydro operations, harvest, and habitat have also supported these recovery efforts. Without the hatchery operations, however, the Redfish Lake sockeye would likely be extinct. This is only one example of many efforts where hatcheries are a positive tool in maintaining and recovering ESA-listed salmon or steelhead.

How does this apply to Puget Sound and the current abrupt (i.e., no transition) hatchery closure issue? First, habitat in Puget Sound that supports ESA-listed salmon and steelhead is not favorable for recovery in many instances and will take additional massive efforts to achieve a level that supports some of these runs. Habitat has been lost through urbanization, land development (e.g., farming, industry) and other challenges such as pollution. It will take a long time for habitat recovery efforts to take hold and support sustainable wild fish populations. Hydro operations are continually being reassessed with adjustments made to stream flows, hatchery support and other means. Harvest has been severely curtailed both by regulatory approaches (e.g., lowered limits and fishing techniques such as barbless hooks) and total closures (e.g., Areas 9 and 10 have been severely affected this year).

The winter steelhead situation is currently under review in a draft Environmental Impact Statement process led by the WDFW and the Puget Sound treaty tribes. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through a concurrent process, is evaluating Puget Sound hatcheries as they apply to ESA-listed winter steelhead. (See NOAA website to submit comments). The alternatives considered range from closure of hatcheries to incorporation of them into a recovery plan. However, a spokesperson (Rob Jones) for NOAA, in a recent interview with King 5 TV of Seattle, is quoted as: “"Hatchery fish are less fit than wild fish and can adversely affect the survival of wild fish when they interbreed with them,” Jones oversees the West Coast hatcheries for NOAA. This statement clearly indicates the position that NOAA likely has regarding the hatchery fish issue in the Pacific Northwest, and particularly for Puget Sound.

Bottomline: on the Columbia River system, hatcheries (through review of operations and any necessary changes) have been shown to dramatically help support returns of salmon/steelhead to this system. This is accomplished through other efforts involving habitat, harvest, and hydro operations. It is recognized that this transition will take many years, but appears to be successful as evidenced by many runs returning in record numbers. A huge amount effort both in time and effort have been expended on this system and much can be learned from the collaboration and approaches used to return large numbers of fish and assist in the ESA recovery efforts.

On Puget Sound, the current trend (advocated by WFC) is to abruptly eliminate hatchery releases with no planned transition for keeping them operating until other factors can be returned to productive levels, particularly habitat, which may never recover. The elimination of hatcheries also presents a great risk because these hatcheries provide a back-up for recovery in case the wild fish populations completely collapse, such as the case was with the Redfish Lake sockeye.

[Nelly]

Thanks for your excellent post Sandlance!
The anti-hatchery groups only real goal is to keep bringing lawsuits against state and federal agencies so they can keep feeding their annual payroll which is in excess of one million dollars.
That's a big number for a non-profit group and once NOAA gets its HGMP act together, it's going to be tougher for this misguided group to pervert the public process for their own personal gain.