Propagated Fishes other than direct food/fiber production. Several Options. Pacific Northwest

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Propagated Fishes other than direct food/fiber production. Several Options. Pacific Northwest"

Edith Hall
5 years ago
Views:

1 Propagated Fishes other than direct food/fiber production Create fisheries Supplement natural populations Restore populations Several Options Different management options and constraints are involved with all What are they? What are the certainties and uncertainties Pacific Northwest For more than 120 years, hatchery propagation has occurred in the PNW Both sides of the Pacific Ocean 1

Morita et al. 2006 A review of Pacific salmon hatchery programmes on Hokkaido Island, Japan ICES J. Mar. Sci.

2 Morita et al A review of Pacific salmon hatchery programmes on Hokkaido Island, Japan ICES J. Mar. Sci : Map of Hokkaido Island, Japan, showing the major fishing grounds for chum salmon (entire coast), pink salmon (hatched area), and masu salmon (stippled area). 2

3 Number of Hatcheries Currently, there are 16 national three prefecture (provinces) and 117 private hatcheries in Hokkaido 1.2 billion (10 9 ) juveniles released annually along a coastline of ca km- Masu fry-release in the first spring fingerling-release in the late autumn prior to the overwintering period yearling-smolt-release at the time that wild smolts normally migrate to the sea River Development vs Fish Development of dams for river flood control or water supply One of the reasons that artificial propagation was needed. Difficult to preserve the natural stocks. 3

4 Hokkaido Hatchery Programs- as old as in US The hatchery programs began in 1878, and by 1888 Well-developed for the three native Oncorhynchus spp. Most of the released fish were chum salmon, followed by pink and masu salmon In river catches for hatcheries (shaded areas) Number of hatcheryreleased fish originating from natural (thin lines) and captive (bold line) broodstocks Number of rivers used to supply hatcheries (filled circles) and into which hatchery-reared fish were released (open circles) Escapement (hatched areas) Non Native Salmon Releases A total of 6 million chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) fry released between , but the number of returning adults was not sufficient to continue the hatchery programme. 0.9 million coho salmon (O. kisutch) fry were released from , but again, the few returning adults did not justify continuation of the hatchery program 4

Sockeye A total of 14 million sockeye salmon (O. nerka) fry released between 1966 2003, and 21,000 adults were recaptured. Artificial propagation of sockeye salmon continues.

5 Sockeye A total of 14 million sockeye salmon (O. nerka) fry released between , and 21,000 adults were recaptured. Artificial propagation of sockeye salmon continues. Although the anadromous sockeye salmon is not native to Hokkaido, the kokanee, or lacustrine sockeye salmon, is native to two lakes. Annual Releases Annual number of fry released has stabilized at 1billion chum 150 million pink salmon because of hatchery capacity limitations. Captive broodstock, which was established exclusively for masu salmon Long-term changes in coastal (shaded areas) and offshore (hatched areas) catches, the number of coastal stationary traps (filled circles), and offshore catch per unit effort (cpue) of Japanese Research vessels (open circles). For chum salmon, offshore cpue of maturing fish is shown. The type of coastal stationary traps differs among species (chum = chum salmon stationary traps along the entire coast around Hokkaido; pink = small stationary traps on the coast of the Okhotsk Sea). Offshore cpue of chum, pink, and masu salmon are from the Bering Sea (55 59 N, 175 W E175 E) between late June and mid-july, northwestern Pacific Ocean (44 48 N E) between late June and mid-july, and Japan Sea between March and May, respectively. 5

Long-term changes in total salmon catches (solid line) and yields (filled circles) on Hokkaido Quantity of imported salmon (dashed line = total; shaded area = Norway and Chile), Production of farmed

6 Long-term changes in total salmon catches (solid line) and yields (filled circles) on Hokkaido Quantity of imported salmon (dashed line = total; shaded area = Norway and Chile), Production of farmed coho salmon (dotted line) in Japan. The relationship between total salmon catches and price in Hokkaido (open squares = , filled squares = ). River Restorations Long-term changes in biological oxygen demand (bold lines = annual mean, thin grey lines = raw data) in the Kushiro River (Shinkawa bridge) and Tokachi River (Tokachi-oh bridge). The dashed lines indicate the critical value capable of supporting salmon culture 6

7 Long-term changes in the total chum salmon catch (open circles) and total chum salmon catch plus escapement (solid line) in Russia. Bottom: Coastal pink salmon catch on Hokkaido Island (open circles) and coastal pink salmon catch on Kunashiri Island (solid line) Russian Hatcheries In 2005, Russian Far East hatcheries released 677 million juvenile salmon. chum (56%) and pink (41%) salmon. sockeye (1.4%), coho (1.0%), masu (0.5%), and Chinook (0.1%) salmon were also released. More than 84% of all the releases occurred in the Sakhalin-Kurile Islands region. Commercial fisheries in the Sakhalin-Kurile region harvested 135,000 t of pink salmon in 2005, with an estimated 18% of the catch coming from hatcheries. Chum salmon harvest in this region was 10,755 t in 2005, with an estimated 66% of the catch coming from local hatcheries 7

8 Alaska Hatcheries 8

9 Columbia River Hatcheries What is current status and history of this tool? HSRG Hatchery Scientific Review Group Established in early 2000s 1. Well defined goals 2. Scientific defensibility 3. Informed decision making Goals Conserve indigenous salmonid genetic resources Assist with the recovery of naturally spawning salmonid populations; Provide sustainable fisheries Improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of hatchery programs 9

10 Review Started in Puget Sound, expansion to Columbia River In 2005, Congress directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration- Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) to replicate the Puget Sound and Coastal Washington Hatchery Reform Project in the Columbia River Basin. Origin- and Expansion Initially envisioned as a one year review, with emphasis on the Lower Columbia River hatchery programs. Columbia River Basin viewed as an interconnected ecosystem in order for the review to be useful. The project scope was expanded to include the entire Basin Funding for a second year provided by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Ecosystem Approach Harvest goals are sustainable only if they are compatible with conservation goals Look upstream and downstream at influence of hatcheries 10

11 Composition 14 members, 9 affiliated with agencies and tribes in the Columbia River Basin. Five members were independent biologists. The Chair and Vice Chair positions were filled by unaffiliated members. HSRG needed scientific independence and impartiality, while at the same time assuring that it contained thorough knowledge of salmonid populations and hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin. Overlap with Puget Sound Group The nine members of the HSRG selected for the Puget Sound and Coastal Washington review were chosen from a pool of candidates nominated by the American Fisheries Society. Seven of the original HSRG members continued as members of the Columbia River panel. Members Agency /Tribal Dr. Donald Campton US Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. Mike Delarm NOAA Fisheries Dr. David Fast Yakama Nation Mr. Tom Flagg (Dr. Des Maynard, alternate) NOAA Fisheries Dr. Jeffrey Gislason Bonneville Power Administration Mr. Paul Kline Idaho Department of Fish and Game Mr. George Nandor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Dr. Peter Paquet Northwest Power and Conservation Council Mr. Andy Appleby/Mr. Paul Seidel (until May 2008) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Mr. Stephen H. Smith Stephen H. Smith Fisheries Consulting, Inc 11

12 Independent Members Mr. John Barr - Consultant Mr. H. Lee Blankenship Northwest Marine Technology Dr. Trevor Evelyn Fisheries and Oceans Canada (retired) Dr. Lars Mobrand - Mobrand/Jones and Stokes Literature Review and Site Review Examples of scientific literature showing negative effects Hatchery influences Unintended consequences Recommendations Manage Hatchery Broodstocks to Achieve Proper Genetic Integration with, or Segregation from, Natural Populations 12

13 Promote Local Adaptation of Natural and Hatchery Populations Minimize Adverse Ecological Interactions between Hatchery- and Natural-Origin Fish Hatchery Operations Minimize Effects of Hatchery Facilities on the Ecosystem Maximize Survival of Hatchery Fish Develop Clear, Specific, Quantifiable Harvest and Conservation Goals for Natural and Hatchery Populations Viability goals should be expressed in terms of population productivity and abundance Viability goals should also take into account spatial structure and diversity 13

14 Identify Populations Primary: populations must achieve at least high viability Contributing: populations must achieve at least medium viability Stabilizing: populations must maintain at least current viability Design and Operate Hatchery Programs in a Scientifically Defensible Manner Deliberation stage, to determine whether a hatchery should be built and/or a specific hatchery program initiated; Planning and design stage for a hatchery or hatchery program; and During the operations stage. K. Kostow Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating strategies 14

15 Map showing the locations of the outplanting sites at Shitike Creek, along with those of the original intake dam, local fish hatcheries, and the juvenile trap site. The positions of the outplanting sites are as follows: (1) rkm 6.5, (2) rkm 9.2, (3) rkm 12.7, (4) rkm 16.6, and (5) rkm Fig. 1 (a) Intrinsic productivity and habitat carrying capacity can be estimated for a population from stock-recruit functions, as demonstrated by models fit to 48 years of wild coho salmon spawner and smolt abundance data from North Fork Dam on the Clackamas River, Oregon. This wild population had little hatchery influence over the years of this data set. The productivity and carrying capacity parameters calculated from these functions are: (A) Beverton-Holt function where a = 125 smolts/spawner and R max = 122,334 smolts; (B) Hockey-stick function where a = 77 smolts/spawner, R max = 83,950 smolts and S max = 1,096 spawners; and (C) Ricker function where a = 86 smolts/spawner, R max = 100,520 smolts and S max = 3,190 spawners. Observed average population parameters over the 48 year data set are R/S = 60 smolts/spawner, R = 75,317 smolts and S = 1,745 spawners. The approximate fresh water carrying capacity for smolt production based on these functions is graphically indicated by the shaded area in the figure, which is bounded by the model parameters. (b) Two Ricker functions fit to 44 years of wild winter steelhead spawner and smolt abundance data from the Clackamas River, Oregon, where the Ricker models included a species interaction parameter based on the number of summer steelhead hatchery adults that were passed into the natural production area. The figure demonstrates how the production of wild smolts decreased as the number of hatchery adults increased. Curve A is the Ricker curve for a condition of zero hatchery adults on the spawning grounds, while curve B is the Ricker curve for a condition of 5,000 hatchery adults on the spawning grounds. The highest number of hatchery adults observed in this time period was 9,403 fish. Black triangles are years when the hatchery fraction on the spawning grounds was low (0 12% hatchery fish), while the grey squares are years when the hatchery fraction on the spawning ground was high (31 92% hatchery fish). Adapted from Fig. 2a in Kostow and Zhou (2006) Conclusions While females outplanted in 2002 and 2003 were equally successful in finding mates and reproducing, males were not Outplanting hatchery fish into areas where wild populations are still present, however, could lead to serious deleterious demographic and genetic interactions for the wild population Where the desire is to maintain the genetic and demographic characteristics of a wild population, outplanting of hatchery adults should be approached with caution so as not to lose the unique alleles inherent in the wild population. 15

16 Outplanting If hatchery fish larger, is there a problem What about run timing? Entrance to ocean Diseases and parasites Agression Predator swamping or attracting HITOSHI ARAKI* **, WILLIAM R. ARDREN* **, ERIK OLSEN, BECKY COOPER*, and MICHAEL S. BLOUIN* *Department of Zoology, 3029 Cordley Hall, Oregon State University, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Reproductive Success of Captive- Bred Steelhead Trout in the Wild: Evaluation of Three Hatchery Programs in the Hood River Hatchery Programs in the Hood River The Hood River has been stocked for many years with winter-run and summer-run fish from traditional hatchery programs by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Brood stock of the traditional hatchery program in the Hood River for winter run is called Big Creek stock, whereas the summer-run brood stock is called Skamania stock. 16

17 Parentage Analysis Relative Reproductive Success 17

Strategies for mitigating ecological effects of hatchery programs

Strategies for mitigating ecological effects of hatchery programs Some case studies from the Pacific Northwest Kathryn Kostow Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Ecological risks occur when the presence