Feb 7
Bright hatchery fish
Unable to name a single player on the Packers or Steelers (I’m impressed I even knew who was playing), I decided to get on the water yesterday afternoon. In theory, pressure should be light on Super Bowl Sunday, but it always seems to turn out that every other fisherman has the same theory.
After fishing through some crowded water at a County Park and never quite feeling like I was fishing, I decided to head upstream in search of new some water. No cars at the pullout, and after a 10 minute hike I came upon the river. Beautiful, looking more like a remote BC stream than something a few minutes from Portland. The water looked perfect, just the right color and speed and surely holding some fish.
The fish hit like a freight train smolt, a dull tap, a few clicks from the reel, and another tap. It felt like 10 seconds went by before I really felt some weight and set the hook. Makes me realize that some of those unknown grabs that I attribute to cutthroat could actually be steelhead.
A nice and tasty 8lb hatchery fish.
Feb 4
Smolt trap on Scappoose Creek.
The Sandy River originates on the flanks of Mount Hood and flows for 55 miles before reaching the Columbia. Along the way, it is joined by the Bull Run, Little Sandy, Zig Zag, and Salmon rivers. The watershed encompasses an area of 508 square miles. Every year it receives over 1,250,000 hatchery salmon and steelhead, and decade after decade the runs of fish continue to decline. Last year, 674 wild winter steelhead spawned in the Sandy. ODFW’s abundance goal for wild winter steelhead is 1,519 fish (down from a 1997 upper basin goal of 4,900 fish).
The habitat on the Sandy River is good, with minimal logging occurring in the past few decades and over $75 million spent on habitat restoration since the year 2000. Two dams were removed in 2007. Despite habitat improving year after year, wild runs of anadromous salmonids continue to decline.
Just north of Portland lies another stream, Scappoose Creek, which is much smaller and less well-known than the Sandy. The basin encompasses 127 square miles, just a quarter of the size of the Sandy, and 70% of the basin consists of industrial forest lands that are owned or leased by private logging companies. Little money has gone towards habitat improvement on Scappoose Creek, and the ODFW does not put hatchery fish into the basin.
Last year’s wild winter steelhead abundance on Scappoose Creek, according to ODFW, was 3,245 steelhead. ODFW’s abundance goal for Scappoose Creek is 5,169 winter steelhead.
How is it that a small creek 20 miles north of Portland has a steelhead population that is five times greater than a large river 20 miles east of Portland? Both populations are subject to the same Columbia gillnet fisheries, habitat degradation, and those dreaded sea lions. On top of this, ODFW’s abundance goal for Scappoose Creek is 5,169 steelhead while the Sandy River goal is only 1,519 fish.
The Sandy River receives 1,250,000 hatchery salmon and steelhead every spring and it’s wild population is dwindling. Scappoose Creek receives no hatchery fish and it’s wild population is thriving. Draw your own conclusions.
2/6/2011 Update: WFCJ reader Thomas writes in that “While I don’t deny the likely negative impacts of the hatchery programs on the Sandy, there appear to be a few inaccuracies in your post in term of how good things are in Scappoose Creek.” I looked into some of the data Thomas provided, and I think he’s correct (at 423 pages in length, the Lower Columbia plan is difficult to wade through).
I was referencing Table 6-3 (p. 159) of the Lower Columbia Recovery Plan, which lists current Scappoose Creek abundance at 3,245 fish and Sandy abundance at 674 fish. On page 71 of this plan, these numbers are listed as “modeled abundance,” which is a 100 year model projection. Why they also list these same numbers as “current abundance”, I’m not sure.
On page 73, “Recent Wild Abundance” on Scappoose Creek is 1,200 winter steelhead whereas the Sandy is 1,040 fish. This number represents the “average number of wild spawners observed in each population from 1990 to 2004.”
Either way, the Scappoose basin is much smaller than the Sandy basin, yet receives more wild winter steelhead.
And even more concerning is that the ODFW’s goal for winter steelhead on Scappoose Creek is 5,169 fish while the Sandy is just 1,519 fish. In the 1997 Sandy River Fish Management Plan ODFW bioligists said, “A reasonable average annual escapement goal for native winter steelhead at Marmot Dam needed to seed the available habitat above the dam is 4,900 fish.” 13 years later and they’re managing for a basin wide goal of 1,519 fish.
Feb 2
February 2, 2011
Ed Bowles
Fish Division Director
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
3406 Cherry Ave. NE
Salem, OR 97303
Dear Mr. Bowles,
On January 12th ODFW sent a memo to over 300 citizens who had expressed concern over the management of the Sandy River’s native salmonids. The letter made clear that the agency is doing its best to help restore these fish, and has taken steps that reduce winter steelhead stray rates as well as hatchery coho plants.
While I’m very pleased that the winter steelhead stray rate above Marmot Dam has been reduced, it’s unclear what the lower basin stray rate is. In December I was told by Mr. Alsbury that 30% of the Sandy River steelhead spawning habitat is in the lower basin. With thousands of hatchery steelhead still occupying this habitat, it appears that there is still the potential for a large hatchery stray rate problem. Has ODFW taken steps to quantify the lower basin hatchery steelhead stray rate and reduce it if necessary?
In the 1998 Sandy Basin Plan, an upper basin escapement goal of 4,900 wild winter steelhead was set. As the upper basin contains ~70% of the spawning habitat, this translates into a basin-wide goal of ~7,000 wild winter steelhead. In the recent Lower Columbia Conservation and Recovery Plan, a new escapement goal of 1,515 wild winter steelhead was set. I find it concerning that this goal has been reduced so drastically in just 10 years. Was there a scientific basis for reducing the winter steelhead escapement goal by 79%?
Having spoken with people involved in this recovery plan, it is my understanding that the BLM, US Forest Service, NMFS and PGE all advocated for the Sandy to be managed as a wild fish sanctuary. The recommendations of these stakeholder groups do not appear to have been recognized, as the Sandy still receives over 1,250,000 hatchery salmonids annually. What is ODFW’s process for handling stakeholder recommendations on recovery plans? Who is responsible for accepting and denying stakeholder recommendations?
The purpose of the Native Fish Conservation Policy is to “ensure the conservation and recovery of native fish … naturally produced native fish are the primary basis for ESA delisting decisions and the foundation for long term sustainability. (OAR 635-007-0502)” The goals of this policy include “preventing the serious depletion of any native fish species by protecting natural ecological communities, conserving genetic resources, managing consumptive and nonconsumptive fisheries, and using hatcheries responsibly so that naturally produced fish are sustainable. (OAR 635-007-0503)” The ODFW is in large part funded by fishing license sales, and I am concerned that any recommendations that would reduce harvest opportunity are being wholly disregarded. This appears to have taken place with the portions of the Lower Columbia Conservation and Recovery Plan concerning the Sandy River. Numerous stakeholder recommendations promoting conservation appear to have been disregarded, and despite four ESA listings, little has changed regarding hatchery plants. How does the ODFW ensure that conservation doesn’t take a backseat to harvest opportunity in future recovery plans?
In the aforementioned Sandy River memo, Mr. McIntosh stated that hatchery coho plants have been reduced. In my research, I have found otherwise, and am hoping for clarification of his statement. According to the Sandy River Coho Hatchery Genetic Management Plan and ODFW’s Annual Fish Propagation Reports, coho plantings on the Sandy have actually increased since the 1990s. Between 1990 and 1999, approximately 6.22 million hatchery coho were planted in the Sandy, which increased to 7.77 million hatchery coho between 2000 and 2009. The Sandy River Coho HGMP calls for a release of 700,000 coho annually, yet since 2005 (when coho were listed under the ESA) an average of 782,500 coho have been released annually. Why does the agency routinely stock beyond what is called for in the HGMP, and why hasn’t the agency actually reduced coho plants since the fish were ESA listed in 2005?
Under the Lower Columbia Conservation and Recovery Plan, coho must achieve an abundance of 5,685 fish for delisting. The current abundance is 1,622 fish.
In a 2009 study, “Using an unplanned experiment to evaluate the effects of hatcheries and environmental variation on threatened populations of wild salmon”, Buhle from NMFS found that hatchery coho can cause large productivity declines in wild fish. Some of the findings include:
“Our analyses also indicated that productivity declined as increasing numbers of hatchery smolts were released into a river basin.
“Productivity, expressed as the per capita growth rate in the absence of harvest, improved with reductions in the density of hatchery origin fish spawning in the wild and the numbers of hatchery smolts released into rivers
“Density-dependence driven by spawner abundance had an overriding influence, but hatchery-origin spawners had much stronger negative per capita effects than wild-origin spawners. One implication is that a population of adults containing a large fraction of hatchery fish will produce fewer recruits than an all-wild population at any given density.
“Hatchery smolt releases also impacted wild coho productivity, although not as strongly as hatchery-origin adults. Since most hatchery coho smolts migrate downstream soon after release, interactions with wild fish might be expected to occur primarily in the estuary and nearshore environment.
“There is, however, evidence that hatchery smolt releases can impact marine survival of other salmonid species (Hilborn and Eggers, 2000; Levin et al., 2001; Levin and Williams, 2002; Nickelson, 2003).
“Hatchery-reared juvenile salmonids may also attract predators (Beamish et al., 1992), leading to apparent competition with wild juveniles.
Despite science demonstrating that hatchery coho impede the recovery of wild coho, no reductions have been made to coho releases since the ESA listing. What steps does the agency plan to take in the future to help ensure a recovery of wild coho? Does the agency feel an average annual release of 782,500 coho will help foster a recovery of wild fish?
Sandy River spring chinook were listed as threatened under the ESA in 1998, and need to reach an abundance of 1,230 fish to be delisted. The current abundance is 714 fish. The US Forest Service has conducted spring chinook carcass counts in the Upper Sandy basin, and the hatchery stray rate has skyrocketed since the removal of Marmot Dam in 2007. In 2009 and 2010, hatchery strays made up 60% and 76% of the spawning fish, respectively. As you’re aware, the Oregon Native Fish Conservation Policy states that no more than 10% of spawning fish may be of hatchery origin. How does the ODFW plan to address this stray rate problem?
As previously stated, I am very concerned that the ODFW faces a conflict of interest in trying to support a large hatchery harvest program while simultaneously recovering ESA listed salmonids. The Sandy supports one of the largest hatchery programs in the state, yet is also home to four species of salmonids listed under the ESA, all of which are primary contributors for delisting. Countless studies have been published over the past 30 years showing that hatchery fish impede the productivity of wild fish, but as far as I can tell, little has been done to help recover wild Sandy River salmonids. 2009’s hatchery coho and steelhead plants are virtually indistinguishable from those of 1998 and 1999, the year both stocks were listed under the ESA.
There is a strong constituency of people in Oregon, myself included, that want to see wild salmonids recovered and rivers like the Sandy managed for wild fish. It is my hope that the ODFW will consider opening a dialogue with this constituency and take our recommendations into consideration. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing responses to the previous questions.
Regards,
Spencer Miles
CC:
Bruce McIntosh, ODFW
Todd Alsbury, ODFW
William Stelle, NMFS
Rob Jones, NMFS
Governor John Kitzhaber
Jan 25
You’ve probably heard by now that all the rivers of Puget Sound are closing to angling again this year on Feb 1. Rivers like the Stillaguamish that once hosted 80,000 winter steelhead are now down to the triple digits. The Osprey has a good writeup of the situation that is well worth reading.
All this is a painful reminder that without healthy wild runs there is no possibility of even catch and release angling opportunity. WDFW has been extremely aggressive in closing rivers which are failing to meet escapement goals. Their concern over catch and release on these fragile returns may be valid however the fact remains, Puget Sound steelhead are not in peril because of catch and release angling. In fact catch and release is likely at the bottom of the list of factors that may be contributing to declining steelhead returns and it is unfortunate that WDFW does not place equal emphasis on curtailing other impacts such as the ecological and evolutionary threat posed by hatchery programs or the long term effects of habitat degradation. Each year 58 million dollars are spent on hatchery programs around the state, why not divert some of that money to expanded monitoring and research on Puget Sound systems? Because, until wild fish recover all of the iconic rivers of the Puget Sound will remain closed.
Jan 25
If you read this blog much, you’ve probably realized that I’m not the biggest fan of hatcheries. While hatcheries can be managed to minimize impacts on wild fish, this frequently is not the case as such management is often costly and can reduce “angler opportunity.”
Unless you’ve taken the time to read through any number of published research papers on the impacts of hatcheries, you may not be clear on how exactly hatchery fish reduce wild fish productivity. As these papers are long and tedious, I’ve gone through a handful of recent studies and highlighted a number of the key findings.
Kostow, Kathryn and Zhou, Shijie. 2006. The Effect of an Introduced Summer Steelhead Hatchery Stock on the Productivity of a Wild Winter Steelhead Population. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 135: 825-841.
Kostow is a Fisheries Biologist at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Read the full study: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1234/FishStudies/Kostow2006.pdf
“We … demonstrate that when high numbers of hatchery summer steelhead adults were present the production of wild winter steelhead smolts and adults was significantly decreased. We found that large releases of hatchery smolts also contributed to the decrease in wild adult productivity. Averaged over the results of our models, a 50% decline in the productivity parameter (the number of recruits per spawner at low densities) and a 22% decline in the maximum number of recruits produced in the basin were observed when high numbers of hatchery fish were present.
“We concluded that over the duration of the hatchery program, the number of hatchery steelhead in the upper Clackamas River basin regularly caused the total number of steelhead to exceed carrying capacity, triggering density-dependent mechanisms that impacted the wild population. The number of smolts and adults in the wild winter steelhead population declined until critically low levels were reached in the 1990s. Hatchery fish were removed from the system in 2000, and early results indicate that the declining trends have reversed (emphasis added).
“Levin and Williams (2002) demonstrated a relationship between large smolt releases of hatchery steelhead O. mykiss into the Snake River (Columbia River basin) and decreased smolt-to-adult survival rates in wild Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha.
“Adult hatchery fish that stray into wild populations may also cause ecological impacts, especially when they are abundant. The adults may compete for spawning habitats, and their naturally produced off-spring may compete for rearing habitats.
“Most steelhead streams have a finite capacity to produce steelhead smolts (Allen 1969). Even though the introduced summer steelhead in the Clackamas River had relatively poor reproductive success (Kostow et al. 2003), they and their offspring may have occupied substantial amounts of spawning and rearing habitats when they were present in large numbers. Hatchery summer steelhead adults often outnumbered the wild winter steelhead in the upper Clackamas River basin. The productivity of the wild winter steelhead population may have been depressed by the presence of the hatchery summer steelhead, which may have contributed to the observed decline in the wild population.
“Trends for winter steelhead adults and smolts began to increase after the removal of the summer steelhead hatchery fish in 2000.
“An increase in the number of [hatchery] summer steelhead adults that passed the dam had a negative effect on the number of winter steelhead recruits produced per spawner at low densities, as indicated by the negative c values in seven models, including all of the smolt productivity models (Table 4).
“The number of summer steelhead hatchery smolts released during the year of wild parr rearing also had a negative effect on winter steelhead production in six of the adult productivity models, as indicated by negative d1 values (Table 4).
“The number of winter steelhead adult recruits per spawner declined as the number of adult summer steelhead passing the dam increased from 0 to 9,000 and as the number of hatchery smolts released above the dam during the year of parr rearing increased from 0 to 180,000 (emphasis added) (Table 6). Both increases in hatchery fish numbers were within the ranges we observed. According to the Ricker model, adult productivity declined by 67% from 8.24 to 2.74 recruits/spawner. This decrease was also demonstrated by fitted Ricker recruitment curves with different numbers of hatchery adults and smolts (Figure 2b). According to the Beverton–Holt model, adult productivity declined from 44.55 to 25.61 recruits/spawner, which translates to a 43% decrease.
“Our analysis demonstrated that the productivity of the wild winter steelhead population in the upper Clackamas River basin was depressed when large numbers of hatchery summer steelhead were present above North Fork Dam (emphasis added). In 23 years from the mid- 1970s through the 1990s, 50% or more of the adult steelhead that passed the dam were hatchery summer steelhead; the highest proportion of hatchery summer steelhead was 92% (Figure 1a). We estimate that these hatchery adults may have spawned up to half of the naturally produced steelhead smolts that out-migrated from the upper Clackamas River in some years, in addition to the release of hatchery smolts above the dam (Figure 1b). We found that when large numbers of hatchery summer steelhead were present, winter steelhead production measured as recruits per spawner was reduced by 50%, while the maximum number of wild recruits produced was reduced by 22%, averaged across our various models (Tables 3, 5, and 6; Figure 2).
“We found that hatchery adults passing the dam exerted a consistent negative effect on smolt and adult production, while hatchery smolts released above the dam affected only adult production. However, we conclude that both elements of the hatchery program probably depressed wild winter steelhead productivity.
“Steelhead have a long freshwater residency before they out-migrate. In the Clackamas River, most juvenile steelhead rear for 2–3 years in freshwater before smolting. The implications of competitive interactions between hatchery and wild fish may be particularly serious for steelhead because the freshwater environment probably limits production (Slaney et al. 1985).
“One difference between adults is that hatchery summer steelhead typically spawn earlier than do wild winter steelhead (Leider et al. 1984). As a result, summer steelhead offspring emerge earlier, which may give them an advantage in occupying choice feeding territories prior to the emergence of winter steelhead (Chandler and Bjornn 1988). The impacts of hatchery adults and their offspring may have been particularly severe during emergence and early rearing, a time when some authors believe that density-dependent mortality is especially strong (Cushing 1973). If so, a substantial impact could have occurred even if many of the naturally produced summer steelhead eventually died, as was indicated by their relatively low survival to smolt and adult offspring stages (Kostow et al. 2003)
“A depression of recruits per spawner at low wild fish abundance due to competitive interactions with hatchery fish could have dire consequences for a population that has declined because of such factors as decreased marine survival. Under the same marine conditions, wild fish abundance may decline more rapidly than hatchery adult returns because of underlying differences in smolt productivity (Noakes et al. 2000).
“Although the system we evaluated was unique, we do not believe the impacts we detected are restricted to the Clackamas River basin (emphasis added). Similar density-dependent ecological effects could occur in any hatchery program that causes basin carrying capacity to be exceeded, whether or not interbreeding effects also occur. Hatchery programs are implemented in response to depressed wild abundance, which is often due to decreased carrying capacity caused by degraded or inaccessible habitat (ODFW and USFWS 1996; Lichatowich 1999). The addition of large numbers of hatchery fish to a wild population that has declined due to degraded habitat, regardless of the intention of managers, would further depress the productivity of the wild population by introducing greater density-dependent effects (emphasis added).
“In 2000, ODFW stopped the passage of summer steelhead above North Fork Dam in response to the early results of this study. The production of smolts by brood years 2000 and 2001 were the highest observed since 1984 (Figure 1b). The adult return in 2004, which included the 4-year-old adult offspring from brood year 2000, was the highest since 1971 (Figure 1a).
Read More
Jan 21
Photo by The Oregonian
You probably saw the video. Here’s an aerial aftermath shot and article on the cleanup.
Jan 19
From their executive chef:
Dear Spencer,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. We are no longer serving Steelhead. We will continue to work hard to find truly sustainable sources for our products and appreciate your comments at any time. Thank you for your time and passion on this very important issue.
Kudos to them on making the right decision.
Jan 19
From The Oregonian:
Over the past decade countless organizations — including Portland General Electric, the city of Portland, Western Rivers Conservancy and The Freshwater Trust — have spent more than $75 million on Sandy River habitat restoration with a long-term goal of recovering wild fish. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, on the other hand, continues to show more interest in protecting its harmful hatchery programs than in protecting our native fish. The results have been catastrophic.
Read the rest.
Jan 18
Flooding on the Sandy. 50’ trees being swallowed up is a nice touch. If only mother nature took out the hatchery instead of that poor guy’s house…
Jan 17
This same issue came up last year with Seattle’s Pike Place Fish Market. Within just a few days of hitting forums and blogs, Pikes Place removed steelhead from their menu.
Now Ray’s Boathouse, also in Seattle, is serving ESA listed wild steelhead. You know the drill…
Email rays@rays.com and let them no that there’s no place for wild steelhead on their menu.
