California Hatchery Review Project. Appendix VIII. Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program Report

Transcription

1 California Hatchery Review Project Appendix VIII Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program Report June 2012

2 Introductory Statement from the California HSRG This program report was developed by contractor staff tasked with providing background information to the California HSRG on hatchery programs, natural population status and fisheries goals in California. The resulting report is one of many sources of information used by the California HSRG in their review process. Information provided in this program report was developed through interviews with hatchery staff, regional, state and tribal biologists working in the basins and a review and summarization of the pertinent scientific literature. The draft program report was then provided to interview participants for review and comment on multiple occasions. Comments received were incorporated into the report and the report finalized. Because of the review process, it is believed the report represents an accurate snapshot in time of hatchery operations, natural salmon population status and fisheries goals in California as of This program report may or may not be consistent with the consensus positions of the California HSRG expressed in the main report, as their primary involvement was in the preparation of Section 4.3, Programmatic Strategies, which compares existing program practices to the statewide Standards and Guidelines developed by the California HSRG.

3 Table of Contents 1 Description of Current Hatchery Program Programmatic Components Operational Components Facilities Broodstock Spawning Incubation Rearing Release Fish Health Populations Affected by the Hatchery Program Current Conditions of Affected Natural Populations Feather River Spring and Fall Chinook Population Long term Goals for Natural Populations Fisheries Affected by the Hatchery Program Current Status of Fisheries Long-term Goals for Affected Fisheries Programmatic and Operational Strategies to Address Issues Affecting Achievement of Goals Issues Affecting Achievement of Goals Natural Production Issues Ecological Interaction Issues Operational Issues Programmatic Strategies Broodstock Program Size and Release Strategies Incubation, Rearing and Fish Health Monitoring and Evaluation Direct Effects of Hatchery Operations on Local Habitats, Aquatic or Terrestrial Organisms Literature Cited...37 List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Estimated total recoveries per 1 million FRH spring Chinook juveniles released (summed over recovery years ) for brood years in different recovery areas for in-river and bay releases....7 Percent of total survival of Feather River fall Chinook fingerlings to various fisheries ( brood years ) Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012 i

4 List of Tables Table 1. Numbers of ad-clipped and non-ad clipped Chinook carcasses recovered and CWT rates of natural-origin Chinook in two sections of the Feather River, Table 2. Populations in the Central Valley fall and late-fall Chinook ESU, ordered from north to south (unlisted ESU) Table 3. Populations in the Central Valley spring Chinook ESU, ordered from north to south (ESA listed threatened) Table 4. Chinook salmon escapement in the Feather River basin ( )...14 Table 5. Total percent survival (catch plus escapement) and exploitation rates for FRH Table 6. fall Chinook, brood years Total percent survival of fall Chinook reared at FRH by release location (catch plus escapement), brood years Table 7. Broodstock Source Table 8. Broodstock Collection Table 9. Broodstock Composition Table 10. Mating Protocols Table 11. Program Size Table 12. Release Strategy Table 13. Fish Health Policy Table 14. Hatchery Monitoring by Fish Health Specialists Table 15. Facility Requirements Table 16. Fish Health Management Plans Table 17. Water Quality Table 18. Best Management Practices Table 19. Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans Table 20. Hatchery Evaluation Programs Table 21. Hatchery Coordination Teams Table 22. In-Hatchery Monitoring and Record Keeping Table 23. Marking and Tagging Programs Table 24. Post-Release Emigration Monitoring Table 25. Adult Monitoring Programs Table 26. Evaluation Programs Table 27. Direct Effects of Hatchery Operations Appendices Appendix A-1 Hatchery Program Review Questions Appendix A-2 Feather Fall Chinook Program Data Tables Appendix A-3 Hatchery Program Review Analysis Benefit-Risk Statements Appendix B Natural Populations Potentially Affected by the Hatchery Program Page ii Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012

5 Red Bluff Diversion Dam Black Butte Dam Thomes Creek XW Stony Creek Sacramento River Mi State Hwy 99 Thermalito Annex Rearing Facility (CDFG) Deer Creek # Chico Butte Creek Big Chico Creek State Hwy 99 ") ") XW XW Honcut Creek Feather River Fish Hatchery (CDFG) Oroville Dam Feather River Hatchery Dam uba River I - 80 Feather River Bear River Putah Diversion Dam Vallejo # I - 5 Putah Creek XW I - 80 Mare Shipyard Sacramento River Sacramento River Sacramento Wickland Oil Storage Site # Coon Creek Dry Creek Auburn Ravine XW # # ") XW American River Lodi Stockton Cosumnes River ") XW Nimbus Fish Hatchery (CDFG) Nimbus Dam Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery (CDFG) Woodbridge Dam Calaveras River Mokelumne River Camanche Dam US Hwy 50 Stanislaus River Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program # Cities Lakes and Other Waterbodies Rivers Roads ") Hatcheries Juvenile Release Sites Adult Collection Sites XW Dams San Joaquin River # Modesto t 1 in = 20 miles Miles Tuolumne River Turlock Merced River Croc Merce C:\04GISData\ProjectData\CaliHSRG\MapProjects\CentralValley2\ProgramByProgram\FeatherFChinook.mxd Published Date : 12/8/2011

6

7 1 Description of Current Hatchery Program In 1960, California voters authorized the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to construct and operate the State Water Project. Oroville Dam and reservoir on the Feather River were essential project components providing water storage, hydroelectric power, flood control, and recreational benefits. The dam is located 5 miles east of the City of Oroville. The Feather River Hatchery (FRH) is a component of the Oroville Project that was constructed in the mid-1960s downstream of Oroville Dam and about 66 miles upstream from the confluence of the Feather and Sacramento rivers. An additional facility, the FRH Annex, is located downstream, adjacent to the Thermalito Afterbay near Interstate Highway 99. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) operates and maintains FRH under contract with the DWR. Although there are no other agencies, tribes, or cooperators directly involved in operating FRH, one advisory group provides guidance. The Feather River Technical Team advises FRH personnel to help integrate the hatchery operations into management of the salmonid fisheries below Oroville Dam. 1.1 Programmatic Components The FRH was constructed to mitigate for Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning habitat blocked by Oroville Dam. The program traps and spawns fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from the Feather River for rearing and release as juveniles. There are no specific goals for the number of adult Chinook salmon annually trapped or artificially spawned; however, the production goal is to release 6 million fall-run Chinook salmon smolts that are 60 per pound or larger. Up to 2 million additional fish may be reared as part of an enhancement program. As of 2009, the size goal for enhancement fish is 45 per pound or larger. Hatchery and natural-origin Feather River fall-run Chinook salmon were listed as a Species of Concern under the federal Endangered Species Act in The FRH also propagates springrun Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead (O. mykiss), both listed as threatened species. 1.2 Operational Components Facilities The main Feather River Hatchery consists of an office and maintenance building, fish ladder, gathering tank, spawning building, main hatchery building, four adult holding and twelve rearing ponds (ten raceways and two rearing channels), ultraviolet water treatment building, and hatchery buildings. Water from eight of the ten rearing raceways, the rearing channel, and the hatchery buildings is collected in a main sump and pumped directly into two settling basins. All upstream migrating fish are stopped at the Fish Barrier Dam at Feather River Mile (RM) 66 about 0.5 miles below the Thermalito Diversion Dam (RM 66.5) and immediately upstream of the FRH. The 91-foot-high concrete Fish Barrier Dam releases water to maintain fish habitat in the reach downstream to the Thermalito Afterbay Outlet. The Fish Barrier Dam diverts fish into a 1/3-mile-long gated fish ladder that leads to the FRH. The ladder gates are generally open from about September 15 through the following June to ensure that spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead have an opportunity to enter the hatchery. The fish ladder consists of a series of steps and pools. Pool length ranges from 8 to Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012 Page 1

8 1,000 feet, with a minimum width of 6 feet and a minimum water depth of 2 feet. Flow velocities range from 2 to 5 feet per second (fps); the maximum drop between pools is 1 foot. An enlarged section of the fish ladder at its upstream terminus functions as a gathering tank, entrapping fish ascending the ladder. A mechanical sweep (crowder) gathers the fish and deposits them into the abutting spawning building. Four concrete circular tanks hold the fish until they are ready to spawn. Fall Chinook returning to the hatchery during the early part of the trapping season may be returned to the river in an effort to identify and remove co-mingled spring Chinook. A secondary hatchery facility, the FRH Annex, is located at RM 55, and includes an office, maintenance building, and four rearing raceways. An on-site well supplies about 12 cubic feet per second (cfs) to this facility. Water is supplied to FRH from Lake Oroville and is diverted by gravity flow into an aeration tower downstream at the Thermalito Diversion Dam. From the aeration tower, water is distributed to the hatchery buildings and fish rearing areas. Up to 110 cfs can be diverted to the hatchery, although only 74 cfs is used at full operation. Currently, more water is diverted to the aeration tower than is used at the hatchery in order to maintain sufficient water pressure. When the minimum discharge through the hatchery is less than 74 cfs, the surplus water is released directly into the Feather River through an overflow pipe at the aeration tower. Between 40 and 74 cfs of flow-through wastewater discharges to two settling basins (approximately 300 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 15 feet deep) located near an embankment on the Feather River. The two settling basins are constructed with overflow pipes that are capable of discharging directly to the Feather River; however, no direct discharges have occurred from these ponds since their completion in Water from eight of the ten rearing raceways, the rearing channel, and the hatchery buildings is collected in a main sump and pumped directly into two settling basins. Wastewater from the two newer raceways is discharged directly to one of the settling basins. If the main sump pumps are overwhelmed or fail, this wastewater can be discharge to the Feather River via the sump overflow pipe. Wastewater from the holding tanks adjacent to the main hatchery building also discharges directly to the sump overflow pipe. The FRH also has several raw water discharge points - the aerator overflow pipe, the fish ladder and gathering tank, the four holding tanks adjacent to the main hatchery building, and a fish return pipe in the spawning room of the main hatchery building. When the fish ladder is in use during broodstock and spawning periods, water from the fish ladder, a gathering tank, and four holding tanks is discharged directly to the Feather River. These direct discharges contain minimal quantities of fecal material, but no chemicals or unconsumed fish food is present, since fish are not fed or treated in these locations Broodstock Chinook salmon runs historically occurred in the Sacramento River. The original and present broodstock for the fall-run Chinook salmon program are from fish that volitionally enter the Feather River Hatchery ladder. To achieve juvenile release goals, the hatchery needs to collect up to 12 million fall Chinook eggs from approximately 3,500 females and a commensurate number of males. The FRH personnel maintain records of the number of eggs taken annually and fish reared and released from those Page 2 Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012

9 eggs. Efforts are made to take eggs that are representative of the entire run and in sufficient numbers to meet mitigation and enhancement goals. In order to accomplish these goals, excess eggs may be taken in some years and the number of eggs or fry may be purposefully reduced. Because all females are spawned, total egg take may be three times the needed number. Excess eggs are culled from the lots in an effort to ensure representation of the entire run. Early spawned fall Chinook may not be well represented after culling if it becomes evident that hybridization has occurred with coded-wire tagged (CWT) spring Chinook; in such case entire lots are culled. Additional culling is done in proportion to the number of eggs taken, so the same proportion of all egg lots is retained. Eggs may be culled the day of collection or at a later date to achieve the 10.5 million green egg goal. From 1997 through 2007, FRH personnel obtained almost 244 million fall-run Chinook salmon eggs. Of these, about 150 million eggs (61%) were retained for incubation. During the same 10 years, FRH personnel reared and released 82.6 million fingerling and advanced fingerling size fish for a release rate of approximately 55% of the total eggs incubated Spawning No effort is made to select fish for spawning from the gathering tank except for those characteristics that identify sexually mature fish and fish that meet the minimum size criteria. Spawning is conducted by including the eggs of two females and the sperm from two males into a single spawning pan (2:2 mating). Up to 5% of the males used are grilse (jacks) to ensure representation in the broodstock. Adult males comprise 53% (range 33.3 to 57.7%) of the total adult fish trapped. A saline solution is added to the pan to improve fertilization. A sufficient amount of the solution is added to the empty pan to fully cover the eggs. After eggs are fertilized, they are washed in fresh water and drained in a colander. The eggs are placed in a bucket and water-hardened in iodophor for at least 20 minutes. All eggs taken and fertilized on a single day are identified as an egg lot and assigned a lot number. An attempt is made to retain representative egg lots to mimic the natural spawning period of fall-run Chinook salmon from the Feather River Incubation The incubation period or average hatching time of eggs is not fixed (Leitritz and Lewis 1976). Chinook salmon eggs are incubated in vertical stacked tray incubators for about 50 days at a water temperature of 50 Fahrenheit (F). Individual families are not kept separate during incubation. All eggs remain in the vertical tray incubators until nearly all the alevins have buttoned-up. When the majority have hatched, all the remaining eggs and alevins are carefully poured into the deep tanks or directly into rearing ponds. Fresh water is circulated through the incubators at a rate of 3 to 10 gallons per minute at a temperature of approximately 50 to 51 F Rearing Juvenile fall Chinook salmon are transferred from the deep tanks to the ponds once they have reached the fry stage, at approximately 1,200 per pound. The volume and flow rate in the raceways can be adjusted up to 4 cfs. Raceways are approximately 600 feet by 10 feet by an average of 2 feet deep. At maximum area and flow, each raceway is capable of holding approximately 1 million Chinook salmon at a size of 60 per pound. Fish density is adjusted to reduce disease and pathogen issues, and ensure adequate growth. Once the fry are actively feeding, flow is increased as they grow. Additional pond space is provided at the discretion of Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012 Page 3

10 the hatchery manager. At the time of release, rearing loadings have a flow index (FI) of 2.6 and a density index (DI) of Juveniles remain in the concrete raceways until they are released. During their rearing phase, information on lengths or condition factor is not routinely collected. They are fed a semi-moist food for the entirety of this period. oung fry are fed up to 12 times per day. Juveniles in the hatchery buildings are hand-fed, while those in the raceways are fed using a blower-mounted feeder that is driven past the raceway. The amount of food fed through the rearing period depends on body weight and appetite, that is, they are given as much as they will eat without wasting food. Food conversion rates are not calculated Release The FRH mitigation requirements are to annually release 6 million fall Chinook salmon smolts at 60 per pound or larger. Up to 2 million additional fish may be reared as part of an enhancement program. As of 2009, the size goal for enhancement fish was 45 per pound or larger. During recent years, juvenile Chinook salmon produced at FRH have been released in the Carquinez Straits, downstream from the Carquinez Bridge (San Pablo Bay at Mare Island or Crockett). The first priority release site is near the City of Crockett, using an offshore net pen release system. The second priority site is the ConocoPhillips deepwater pier in the Carquinez Straits. Access to both sites is controlled by ConocoPhillips and if permission cannot be obtained, fish are released directly into the straits from the hauling tank at the first priority release site. Actual release dates vary annually depending on fish size. Generally, fish are released from April through June. No specific release protocols are in place at FRH; however, transfers of anadromous fish outside the drainage of origin require the prior approval of the CDFG Chief of Fisheries. In past years, fingerling, advanced fingerling, and yearling-size fish have been released. Juvenile Chinook salmon are transported to the release site in 2,800-gallon fish tanks filled with fresh water from the FRH water system. Up to 1,000 pounds of ice is added to the tank with a maximum of 2,300 pounds of fish per load. Since 1996, efforts have been made to release as many juvenile Chinook salmon as possible into net pens at the release site. The purpose is to reduce predation by allowing the transported fish to acclimate prior to release. Fish are transferred from the fish-hauling tank into one of three net pens that are hung from a floating framework. The floating framework and nets are towed towards the center of the straits. Once the net reaches mid-channel, it is opened and the fish are allowed to escape. Various fin and dye marks have been applied to juvenile fall-run Chinook salmon reared and released from FRH since operations began in Since 1985, CWTs have been applied to juvenile fall Chinook salmon from FRH. Starting with production from brood year (B) 2006, 25% of all juvenile fall Chinook salmon produced at FRH have been adipose fin-clipped and coded-wire tagged (CWT) as part of CDFG s constant fractional marking program (B 2006 fish were marked and tagged in spring 2007). Hatchery personnel attempt not to produce fish surplus to the goals of the program; however, if surplus fish are produced and if approved by the CDFG Fisheries Branch Chief, they may be Page 4 Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012

11 stocked in waters where they do not and will not conflict with existing management goals or policies. In the past, these locations have included anadromous and inland waters Fish Health The primary disease concern at the FRH is infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) and the transfer of disease between fish reared in the hatchery and fish released above the hatchery (as part of the Lake Oroville inland fisheries program). During serious outbreaks, FRH has experienced juvenile mortalities as high as 80% in infected raceways. Before 1998, IHNV was not a significant problem at FRH. Epizootics in juvenile hatchery Chinook salmon then occurred in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002, with significant fish losses. These outbreaks occurred when large numbers of juvenile fall Chinook salmon were planted in Lake Oroville as part of recreational fishery management. The release of Chinook salmon into Lake Oroville was discontinued and only IHNV resistant species such as coho salmon are now stocked. Fish health is monitored by the CDFG Fish Health Laboratory during times of increased fish mortality. Diagnostic procedures for pathogen detection follow American Fisheries Society professional standards as described in Thoesen (1994). Appropriate treatments are recommended or prescribed by a CDFG fish pathologist/veterinarian as appropriate, and follow-up examinations are performed as needed. Health inspection data for IHNV and the bacteria Renibacterium salmoninarum is collected from ovarian fluid of returning adult females annually during artificial spawning. 2 Populations Affected by the Hatchery Program This section presents information about natural populations that could be affected to some extent by the Feather River fall-run Chinook salmon program. It begins with an identification of major issues of concern, then follows with a description of the Feather River spring- and fall-run Chinook populations (Section 2.1), and concludes with a summary of natural production goals (Section 2.2). Appendix B contains descriptions of the other populations potentially affected by this program. Portions of the sections that follow apply equally to both Feather River Chinook runs and they are considered together, where appropriate. It bears noting that spring- and fall-run Chinook in the Feather River are sometimes not distinguished as being separate races, due to their close resemblance genetically and behaviorally, in which case they are simply called fall Chinook (USDI 2010). Both runs are overlapped spatially and temporally on the natural spawning grounds. The spring-run is sometimes referred to as nominal spring Chinook, because it is likely that the existing early-timed run in the Feather River is actually an admixture of the fall-run and the historic spring-run (Brown et al. 2004; Garza et al. 2008). It should be recognized that the FRH supports the only spring Chinook hatchery program currently in Central Valley. None of the Central Valley spring Chinook populations that are still considered to be pure spring-run are hatchery propagated. The potential effects of the Central Valley Chinook hatchery programs, including the FRH Chinook programs, on natural salmon populations in the Central Valley have been reviewed by a number of authors in recent years. The following summarizes the major programmatic issues identified in these reviews, with emphasis on the FRH fall-run Chinook program where relevant information is available. In their review of the factors associated with the recent collapse of the Sacramento fall Chinook salmon, Lindley et al. (2009) concluded that anthropogenic effects, including hatchery Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012 Page 5

12 production, likely played a significant role in increasing the susceptibility of this run to collapse during the recent period of unfavorable ocean conditions. They hypothesize that the historical loss and simplification of habitat in combination with the increasing dominance of hatchery fish have substantially reduced the life history diversity that once buffered the stock from the effects of environmental variation. These factors may explain the lack of significant genetic variation among Central Valley fall Chinook stocks, which is atypical for a basin of this size (Garza et al. 2008; Banks et al. 2000; Williamson and May 2005). Lindley et al. (2009) suggested two plausible explanations. One is that Central Valley fall Chinook never had significant geographical structuring because of frequent migration among populations in response to highly variable hydrological conditions. The other is that extensive straying and interbreeding of hatchery fish has genetically homogenized the evolutionarily significant unit (ESU). Historic losses and degradation of habitat as a result of mining, dams, altered hydrology, levee construction, agricultural conversion, and other land uses may have also contributed to the loss of genetic diversity (Moyle et al. 2010; oshiyama et al. 1998, 2001; Williams 2006, Lindley et al. 2009). Concerns regarding the effects of hatchery fish on natural populations focus largely on the loss of genetic diversity and fitness of naturally spawning fish. For Central Valley fall and spring Chinook hatchery stocks, the practice of releasing large numbers of juveniles into the bay or delta region and associated high straying rates is a major concern (CDFG and NMFS 2001). Hatchery fish have been transported downstream to either the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta or west of there to the bay for many years to improve survival and contribute to fisheries. Survival has generally been enhanced significantly by releasing fish either downstream of the delta or within the delta (CDFG and NMFS 2001; Lindley et al. 2009; personal communications, Alice Low, CDFG, April 2011). Garza et al. (2008) stated that the lack of genetic structure of fall-run Central Valley Chinook is likely at least partly due to these practices and the consequent migration pattern (straying) upon return, thereby increasing gene flow between stocks. Annual releases of hatchery fall and spring Chinook generally exceed 30 million, and over half of these fish are released at locations downstream from their natal hatchery (mostly in San Francisco and San Pablo Bay). The Joint Hatchery Review Committee examined the level of straying of hatchery fish in the Central Valley and found that off-site releases result in straying indices as high as 90%, with higher indices as the distance from release point to hatchery increases (CDFG and NMFS 2001). On-site releases typically resulted in straying indices of 5 to 10%. This general pattern was also evident from a recent analysis of CWT recovery data associated with different hatcheries and release locations (ICF Jones & Stokes 2010). These patterns of juvenile releases occur for FRH Chinook, but it is uncertain whether stray rates are as high as those observed for some other Central Valley hatchery programs. Much, if not all, of the hatchery Chinook production from FRH has been trucked for release into the bay for an extended period of years. Beginning in 2002, FRH altered its release strategy so that half of the spring Chinook production was released into the bay, with the other half being released into Feather River (Cavallo et al. 2009) this pattern continues to the current time. Early analysis of CWT recoveries of FRH Chinook shows greater straying by bay-released fish, but not as high as seen at some facilities. For example, cohort analysis for 1998 brood year FRH fall and spring Chinook concluded that about 90% of the adults produced by bay releases that survived back to the Sacramento system returned to the Feather River (including the FRH) and about 10% strayed outside the Feather River basin. By comparison, about 6% of the in-basin releases strayed to streams other than the Feather River (Palmer-Zwahlen et al as cited in Brown et al. 2004). Brown et al. (2004) noted, however, that it is quite likely that the 1998 cohort analysis Page 6 Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012

13 significantly underestimated the straying rate, mainly due to a lack of consistent tag recovery efforts on the major Chinook salmon spawning streams. A more recent analysis comparing in-basin Feather River releases to bay releases of spring-run Chinook suggests higher stray rates than those reported earlier (DWR 2011). This analysis is based on returns for brood years 2004 through It should be noted that the target marking/tagging percentage of the releases in those years was 100%. Preliminary results for CWT recoveries through 2009 (expressed as the number recovered per 1 million tags released) are illustrated in Figure 1 (four brood years combined). The total recovery rate was 31% greater for bay released fish than in-river releases for fisheries, hatchery, and in-basin spawning grounds combined, presumably reflecting improved survival. In contrast, the recovery rate of fish that strayed to spawning areas outside the Feather River was over 12 times as great for bay-released fish as in-basin released fish, indicating much higher stray rates. The majority of the bay released strays were found in the Sacramento River (68.4%), followed by uba River (14.8%), and American River (13.5%). Incomplete recoveries in 2010 (not incorporated into Figure 1) also demonstrated a much higher stray rate for bay releases than for in-river releases. No in-river released fish were recovered out of basin in 2010 (not all data have been reported for all streams), while over 600 bay releases were recovered in Battle Creek (both upstream and downstream of the hatchery weir), Clear Creek (upstream of the weir) and the Sacramento River. Particularly alarming was that DWR (2011) estimated that 24% of the spring Chinook spawning escapement upstream of the Coleman hatchery weir in Battle Creek was comprised of Feather River nominal spring-run strays. # Recovered/Million Released In River Release Bay Release Commercial Hatchery Spawning Ground Sport Strayed Fish Source: DWR 2011 Figure 1. Estimated total recoveries per 1 million FRH spring Chinook juveniles released (summed over recovery years ) for brood years in different recovery areas for in-river and bay releases. In general, hatchery fall Chinook that spawn in the wild appear to be a large and increasing fraction of the spawning escapement in the Central Valley (Barnett-Johnson et al. 2007), but evaluation of the contributions of natural-origin fish to naturally spawning populations has been limited by the lack of an adequate marking and recovery program. Otoliths of salmon captured in the California coastal fishery in 2005 indicated that natural-origin fish comprised only 10% (plus or minus 6%) of the catch (Barnett Johnson et al. 2007). Assuming roughly equivalent survival of California Hatchery Review Project Appendix VIII Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012 Page 7

14 hatchery- and natural-origin fish from the fishery to the spawning grounds, these results imply that currently about 90% of the return could consist of hatchery fish. However, this study was based on a small sample size in a single year of harvest, so results may not be representative of hatchery composition in all years. As a component of current federal and state monitoring and evaluation programs, a constant fractional marking program has recently been implemented for fall Chinook to improve the estimation of hatchery contributions to ocean and inland harvest, inriver spawning escapement, and hatchery returns (personal communication, Alice Low, CDFG, April 2011). As noted above, the target for marking FRH spring-run Chinook is 100%. Preliminary estimates of the composition of the naturally spawning Chinook in the Feather River for 2010 are reported in Hartwigsen (2011). The year 2010 was the first year when all of the fallrun hatchery fish in Feather River would have been represented by marking under the constant fractional marking program, except for 5-year old fish, which are relatively few. Spring-run hatchery fish have been marked at a 100% rate for a period of years. The results presented by Hartwigsen suggest that essentially 100% of the Chinook spawning in the low flow channel (see Table 1) were hatchery-origin fish (including both spring-run and fall-run fish). In the high flow channel located downstream, the results suggest that upwards of 60% of the naturally spawning Chinook were hatchery-origin fish. Nearly all natural spawning by Feather River Chinook occurs in these two river sections. These estimates are made by simply expanding the number of adipose fin-clipped fish observed by a factor of 4, since the constant fractional marking program involves ad-clipping every fourth fish released. These preliminary results seem to suggest that fry produced by naturally spawning Chinook in Feather River do not survive well to adulthood, since estimates of natural fry in the low flow channel alone are often between 2.5 to 10 million fish (Bilski and Kindopp 2009). The disparity between the spawning composition and fry production estimates warrants closer attention, which cannot be provided here. Sampling for marks and tags on the natural spawning grounds in Feather River in the past several years shows a low percentage of strays from outside this river. Hartwigsen (2010, 2011) estimated that in both 2009 and 2010, 98.7% of the tagged fish that spawned either in the river or in the hatchery were comprised of Feather River-origin fish. Table 1. River Section Low Flow Channel High Flow Channel Numbers of ad-clipped and non-ad clipped Chinook carcasses recovered and CWT rates of natural-origin Chinook in two sections of the Feather River, Location Thermalito Afterbay outlet to Fish Barrier Dam Gridley Bridge to Thermalito Afterbay outlet River Miles Number Clipped Number Nonclipped CWT Rate 59 to 68 1,413 1, % 51 to % Combined 1,438 1, % Source: Hartwigsen 2011 The effects of large numbers of hatchery-origin Chinook spawning naturally in the Feather River appear to be clearly evident in genetic analysis reported by Banks et al. (2000), Williamson and May (2005), and Garza et al. (2008). All of these studies showed pervasive population homogeneity for fall Chinook throughout the Central Valley. These results, as well as others pertinent to the Feather River spring-run, are particularly relevant to this report the observations and views of Garza et al. (2008) are summarized below: Page 8 Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012

15 The widespread homogeneity within the fall populations indicates substantial recent gene flow between all sampled fall-run populations throughout the Central Valley. Concordant with previous studies, the nominal spring run in the Feather River is genetically fall-run, despite exhibiting a difference in run timing compared to the fall run. The genetic characteristics of the spring-run samples support the hypothesis that this run, while nearly indistinguishable genetically from fall fish, is a remnant of the ancestral Feather River springrun population that migrated upstream of the dam that now blocks upstream passage, but that has been heavily introgressed with fall-run genes. 1 The homogeneity of the fall runs in the Central Valley is likely at least partly due to the prevalent practice of trucking and releasing fish into the bay and delta, as noted earlier in this section. In contrast to the genetic characteristics of the Feather River spring run, the data show that the three primary naturally spawning spring Chinook populations in the Sacramento system not supported by hatchery propagation (Butte Creek and Deer/Mill creeks) are genetically distinct and monophyletic (meaning that they all arose from a common spring-run ancestor). This finding shows that strays from the Feather River have not affected the genetic characteristics of these runs. It remains unclear how the spring and fall runs in the Feather River maintain differences in run timing, while they are essentially genetically indistinguishable, based on genetic microsatellite data. There appears to be very significant overlap in when the runs spawn and where they spawn naturally in the river (e.g., Hartwigsen 2011). O Malley et al. (2007), while confirming that the runs were indistinguishable using neutral microsatellites, reported genetic differentiation at candidate loci linked to migration timing (so-called Clock gene), which they suggested mediates migration traits in the Feather River. Hence, there is evidence that the Feather River runs are able to maintain some differentiation despite pressures against it. This fact is important for conservation purposes; therefore the DWR plans to install a separation weir in the upper part of the low flow channel to help ensure genetic separation. The spring run would be allowed upstream of the weir while the fall run would not, based presumably on some characteristics of run timing. A note made by Garza et al. (2008) regarding the potential for conserving the Feather River spring-run genetic material is relevant here: it may be possible to preserve some additional components of the ancestral Central Valley spring-run genomic variation through careful management of this stock (Feather River spring-run) that can contribute to the recovery of the ESA-listed Central Valley spring-run ESU, although it will not be possible to reconstitute a pure spring-run stock from these fish. Ecological interactions between hatchery and naturally produced fish have also been identified as a concern regarding potential effects of hatchery programs, and such interactions may be magnified by straying and the limited capacity and diversity of habitats currently available to natural Central Valley stocks. Competition is probably most significant in streams with hatcheries (Battle Creek and the Feather, American, Mokelumne, and Merced rivers) where relatively large numbers of hatchery-origin fish may compete with naturally produced fish for spawning or rearing habitat (CDFG and NMFS 2001). 1 It should be noted that the spring-run population spawns in the river relatively close to the hatchery, probably within the upper mile of the low flow channel, where fall run Chinook also spawn. Thus, the runs are overlapped both spatially and temporally. Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012 Page 9

16 The potential outcome of these interactions could be reduced survival and productivity of natural stocks. The current practice of releasing most hatchery fall Chinook smolts in the estuary avoids potential competition or predation between hatchery and naturally produced juveniles in upstream rearing areas. The tradeoff with this strategy is the potential for greater adverse interactions in the estuary and possibly coastal marine areas. Field observations in the Sacramento River indicate that hatchery Chinook salmon released as smolts do not compete with naturally produced juveniles for freshwater rearing habitat because of their strong migratory behavior (Weber and Fausch 2003). Although these hatchery releases substantially increase the densities of smolts migrating through the estuary, the potential for competition (for estuarine food resources) may be low because of relatively rapid migration rates and limited dependence on the estuary for rearing (MacFarlane and Norton 2002). However, concerns remain regarding the potential density dependent effects of hatchery releases on the survival and growth of naturally produced juveniles during their first year at sea, especially in years of low marine productivity (Williams 2006). 2.1 Current Conditions of Affected Natural Populations Four seasonal runs of Chinook salmon occur in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system, and each can potentially be affected by the Feather River Chinook hatchery programs. Each run is defined by a combination of adult migration timing, spawning period, and juvenile residency and smolt migration periods. The runs are named after the season of adult upstream migration: winter, spring, fall and late-fall. The fall and late-fall runs spawn soon after entering the natal streams, while the spring and winter runs typically remain in their streams for up to several months before spawning. Formerly, the runs also could be differentiated to various degrees on the basis of their typical spawning habitats: spring-fed headwaters for the winter run, the higherelevation streams for the spring run, mainstem rivers for the late-fall run, and lower-elevation rivers and tributaries for the fall run (oshiyama et al. 2001). The Central Valley fall/late fall Chinook salmon ESU was classified as a federal Species of Concern on April 15, 2004 due to specific risk factors. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of fall run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins and their tributaries, east of Carquinez Strait. The Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU was listed as a threatened species on September 16, 1999; threatened status was reaffirmed on June 28, The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries in California, including the Feather River, as well as the FRH spring run Chinook program. The Sacramento River winter Chinook salmon ESU was listed as endangered on January 4, 1994; endangered status was reaffirmed on June 28, The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of winter run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries in California, as well as two artificial propagation programs: winter run Chinook from the Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH), and winter run Chinook in a captive broodstock program maintained at Livingston Stone NFH and the University of California Bodega Marine Laboratory. The fall run is currently the most abundant Chinook run in the Central Valley, and was probably the most abundant Chinook run historically, as well (Moyle 2002, Williams 2006). Moyle (2002) observed that the fall run life history strategy makes it ideal for hatchery production, almost to the exclusion of other runs. Page 10 Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012

17 Historically, the other seasonal runs were also large (oshiyama et al. 2001), testifying to the tremendous diversity of habitats and life histories that supported the pre-disturbance Central Valley Chinook populations (Lindley et al. 2009). The spring-run is considered to have been the dominant run in the San Joaquin system, where the natural flow regime would have favored these fish (Moyle 2002; Fisher 1994 cited in Lindley et al. 2009). The spring runs dwindled in the Sacramento system over the decades, so that they now consist of few remnant populations; the San Joaquin spring runs are extinct (Lindley et al. 2004). The extensive system of dams in the Central Valley affected these runs much more than the fall run because the dams blocked much access to cold water habitats (Lindley et al. 2009). Under existing conditions, fall Chinook are raised at five major Central Valley hatcheries (Coleman NFH, Feather River, Nimbus, Mokelumne River, and Merced), which together release more than 32 million smolts each year. As a result, they are currently the most abundant of the Central Valley races, contributing to large commercial and recreational fisheries in the ocean and popular sport fisheries in the freshwater streams. While the fall run is the most abundant run in the Central Valley, the aggregate population has declined during the last several years from an average of 450,000 ( ), to less than 200,000 fish in 2006 and to about 90,000 spawners in The population includes both natural- and hatchery origin fish, but the proportion of hatchery fish can be as high as 90%, depending on location, year, and surveyor bias (Barnett Johnson et al. 2007, as cited in Moyle et al. 2008). Central Valley fall Chinook migrate upstream as adults from July through December and spawn from early October through late December. Run timing varies from stream to stream. Late fallrun Chinook migrate into the rivers from mid-october through December and spawn from January through mid-april. In general, San Joaquin River populations tend to mature earlier and spawn later in the year than Sacramento River populations. These differences could have been phenotypic responses to the generally warmer temperature and lower flow conditions found in the San Joaquin River Basin relative to the Sacramento River Basin. The majority of young salmon of these races migrate to the ocean during the first few months following emergence, although some may remain in freshwater and migrate as yearlings. Adult Central Valley spring run Chinook salmon leave the ocean to begin their upstream migration in late January and early February (CDFG 1998, as cited in NMFS 2009), and enter the Sacramento River between March and September, primarily in May and June (oshiyama et al. 1998). Spring Chinook salmon generally enter rivers as sexually immature fish and must hold in freshwater for up to several months before spawning (Moyle 2002). While maturing, adults hold in deep pools with cold water. Spawning normally occurs between mid August and early October, peaking in September (Moyle 2002, as cited in NMFS 2009). Spring run fry emerge from the gravel from November to March (Moyle 2002). Juveniles may reside in freshwater for 12 to 16 months, but some migrate to the ocean as young of the-year in the winter or spring months within 8 months of hatching (CALFED 2000, as cited in NMFS 2009). Winter Chinook salmon are unique because they spawn during summer months when air temperatures approach their yearly maximum. As a result, they require reaches with cold water sources to protect embryos and juveniles. Winter Chinook are primarily restricted to the mainstem Sacramento River. Adult immigration and holding (upstream spawning migration) through the delta and into the lower Sacramento River occurs from December through July, with a peak from January through April (USFWS 1995, as cited in NMFS 2009 Recovery Plan). Winter run Chinook salmon are sexually immature when upstream migration begins and they Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012 Page 11

18 must hold for several months in suitable habitat prior to spawning. Primary spawning areas are in the mainstem Sacramento River between Keswick Dam (RM 302) and Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) (RM 243). Spawning occurs between late April and mid August, with a peak generally in June. Fry rear in the upper Sacramento River, exhibiting peak abundance in September, with fry and juvenile emigration past RBDD from July through March (although NMFS 1993 and1997 reports juvenile rearing and outmigration extending from June through April). Except for Central Valley winter Chinook, which are largely restricted to the mainstem Sacramento River between Keswick Dam and RBDD, the existing Central Valley fall Chinook population is unique among North American Chinook ESUs in having little or no detectable geographically structured genetic variation (Williamson and May 2005, Banks et al. 2000). The degree of this diversity in the historical population is unknown, although it was almost certainly much greater than at present (Lindley et al. 2009). Central Valley late fall Chinook are genetically distinguishable from fall Chinook, yet they are closely related and have been included in the same ESU (Myers et al. 1998). For this review, existing Central Valley fall and late-fall Chinook populations were defined based on populations described in the CDFG Grand Tab worksheet. Populations included in the analysis were those reported in the last 5 years to have fall or late-fall Chinook and are consistent with those described in IFC Jones & Stokes (2010) (Table 2). Table 2. Populations in the Central Valley fall and late-fall Chinook ESU, ordered from north to south (unlisted ESU). Population Location Sacramento River Fall Chinook (natural) Sacramento River Clear Creek Fall Chinook (natural) Sacramento River Cow Creek Fall Chinook (natural) Sacramento River Cottonwood Creek Fall Chinook (natural) Sacramento River Battle Creek Fall Chinook Sacramento River Battle Creek Late-Fall Chinook Sacramento River Mill Creek Fall Chinook (natural) Sacramento River Deer Creek Fall Chinook (natural) Sacramento River Butte Creek Fall Chinook (natural) Sacramento River Feather River Fall Chinook Sacramento River uba River Fall Chinook (natural) Sacramento River American River Fall Chinook Sacramento River Mokelumne River Fall Chinook San Joaquin River Stanislaus River Fall Chinook (natural) San Joaquin River Tuolumne River Fall Chinook (natural) San Joaquin River Merced River Fall Chinook San Joaquin River Historically, there were 19 independent populations and eight dependent populations of spring Chinook salmon in the Central Valley (Lindley et al. 2004). Currently, there are three independent (Butte, Mill, and Deer) and seven dependent (Antelope, Battle, Big Chico, Clear, Thomes, Cottonwood/Beegum, and Stony) populations remaining, along with one other hatchery natural integrated population in the Feather River and one other population in the Page 12 Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012

19 Sacramento River below Keswick Dam (Table 3). Currently, the Sacramento River winter run Chinook salmon ESU consists of a single (independent) population in the mainstem Sacramento between Keswick Dam and Red Bluff Diversion Dam. The current conditions of each of the populations that could be affected by the Feather River Chinook Hatchery programs are described in Appendix B. The Feather River spring and fall Chinook runs are described below. Table 3. Populations in the Central Valley spring Chinook ESU, ordered from north to south (ESA listed threatened). Population Classification Clear Creek Spring Chinook (natural) Dependent Beegum-Cottonwood Spring Chinook (natural) Dependent Battle Creek Spring Chinook (natural) Dependent Other Sacramento River Spring Chinook Other (natural production above Red Bluff Diversion Dam) Antelope Spring Chinook (natural) Dependent Mill Creek Spring Chinook (natural) Independent Thomes Spring Chinook (natural)** Dependent Deer Creek Spring Chinook (natural) Independent Stony Creek Spring Chinook (natural)* Dependent Big Chico Spring Chinook (natural) Dependent Butte Creek Spring Chinook (natural) Independent Feather River Spring Chinook (integrated) Other * Because there are no data available for Stony Creek spring-run Chinook in CDFG s GrandTab database, this population is not included in our description of affected natural populations. ** Thomes Creek was excluded from our description of affected natural populations because only two spring Chinook have been documented here in the past 10 years Feather River Spring and Fall Chinook Population The Upper Feather River watershed includes all tributaries to the Feather River from the headwaters in the Sierra Nevada crest downstream to Lake Oroville. The Upper Feather is a major source of the state s water supply and provides virtually all the water delivered by the California State Water Project. Most of the watershed lies in Plumas County and is roughly 65% publicly owned, primarily by the US Forest Service. The lower Feather River watershed, downstream of Lake Oroville (a fish migration barrier), encompasses about 803 square miles. The river flows approximately 60 miles north to south before entering the Sacramento River at Verona. There are approximately 190 miles of major creeks and rivers, 695 miles of minor streams, and 1,266 miles of agricultural water delivery canals in the lower Feather River watershed. Flows are regulated for water supply and flood control through releases at Oroville Dam. The river is almost entirely contained within a series of levees as it flows through the agricultural lands of the Sacramento Valley. Significant management issues include concerns over growth (farmland conversion to urban uses), demands on water supply, preservation of water quality and aquatic habitat, and potential risks from fire and floods. Historically, the Feather River supported both spring and fall Chinook salmon and was renowned as one of the major salmon-producing streams of the Sacramento Valley (oshiyama et al. 2001). Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012 Page 13

20 The major spawning areas extended from the river s mouth to Oroville (oshiyama et al. 2001), a distance of over 60 miles, with important spawning areas continuing upstream. Fry (1961 as cited in oshiyama et al. 2001) reported annual fall Chinook runs of 10,000 to 86,000 fish from 1940 to1959, and about 1,000 to 4,000 spring Chinook. The fall run spawned largely in the mainstem, while most of the spring run spawned in the Middle Fork, with a few spring run entering the North Fork, South Fork and West Branch. Just before the completion of Oroville Dam (in 1967), a small naturally-spawning spring Chinook population still existed in the Feather River, but the Oroville project blocked access to the majority of its habitat. Currently, the fall run extends to Oroville Dam (RM 68) and spawns from there downstream to a point about 2 miles above the Gridley Road crossing (RM 51). There is also a hatchery-sustained population of spring-run fish that has been genetically mixed with the fall run and that spawns in the 0.5-mile reach below the Oroville fish barrier. The hybrid springrun fish hold over the summer in deep pools in the low-flow section of the river between Thermalito Diversion Dam (5 miles below Oroville Dam) and the downstream Thermalito Afterbay Outlet. They are spawned artificially in the Feather River Hatchery and also spawn naturally in the river during late September to late October. The spring run thus overlaps temporally as well as spatially with the fall run, which is the cause of the hybridization between the runs (oshiyama et al. 2001). The FRH, located at the town of Oroville, was completed in 1967 by the DWR to mitigate for the loss of upstream spawning habitat of salmon and steelhead due to the building of Oroville Dam. The FRH is the only source of eggs from spring-run Chinook salmon in the Central Valley and is viewed as a key component in plans to restore spring Chinook populations (oshiyama et al. 2001). In recent decades, the majority of Chinook salmon production in the Feather River has been heavily supported by hatchery production. Since 2001, both spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon escapement to the FRH has averaged approximately 16,000 fish (Table 4). During this same period, river returns (natural spawners) averaged approximately 79,000 fish. Approximately two-thirds of natural fall Chinook spawning occurs between the Fish Barrier Dam and the Thermalito Afterbay Outlet (RM 67 - RM 59), and one-third of the spawning occurs between the Thermalito Afterbay Outlet and Honcut Creek (RM 59 - RM 44). IFC Jones & Stokes (2010) concluded that approximately 82% of the natural fall-run Chinook spawners and 91% of the natural spring-run Chinook spawners in the Feather River basin are considered to be hatchery-origin fish. Table 4. Chinook salmon escapement in the Feather River basin ( ). Feather River 1 ear Feather River Hatchery In-River Total Percent In-River (Feather) , , , % , , , % ,976 89, , % ,297 54,171 75, % ,405 49,160 71, % ,034 76,414 90, % ,341 21,886 27, % ,082 5,939 11, % ,963 4,847 14, % Page 14 Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012

21 Feather River 1 ear Feather River Hatchery In-River Total Percent In-River (Feather) ,972 44,914 64, % Average 15,845 63,109 78, % Source: 1 Note: Feather River survey data does not provide separate estimates for fall and spring escapement. Spring-run estimates are included with fall-run estimates. 2.2 Long term Goals for Natural Populations The USFWS Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan (AFRP) states that the natural production of anadromous fish in Central Valley rivers and streams will be sustainable on a long term basis at levels not less than twice the average attained from 1967 to 1991 (USFWS 2001). The AFRP defines natural production and other key terms used to interpret and measure whether the goal has been achieved as follows: Natural Production: Fish produced to adulthood without direct human intervention in the spawning, rearing, or migration processes. Natural production should be self-sustaining. The program should not depend on hatchery-produced fish to sustain populations of naturally spawning fish. Sustainable: Is defined as capable of being maintained at target levels without direct human intervention in the spawning, rearing or migration processes. Direct Human Intervention: Hatchery and artificial propagation, including supplementation and out-planting of eggs or any other life-stage, requires handling of fish by humans during the spawning and rearing processes and therefore are forms of direct intervention. Title 34 (Central Valley Project Improvement Act) clearly states that fish produced with direct human intervention should not be included in counts of natural production. Counting: All naturally produced adult fish shall be counted, including those that are harvested prior to spawning. The AFRP production target for all Central Valley fall Chinook populations was set at 750,000 adults. The fall Chinook production target for Feather River is 170,000 (harvest plus spawning escapement). NMFS has classified Feather River spring Chinook as a Core 2 population. A Core 2 population must meet the following moderate risk extinction criteria: Census population size is 250 to 2,500 adults, or the effective population size is 50 to 500 adults. Productivity: Run size may have dropped below 500, but is stable. No catastrophic events have occurred or are apparent within the past 10 years. Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012 Page 15

22 3 Fisheries Affected by the Hatchery Program 3.1 Current Status of Fisheries For brood years , total survival (catch in all fisheries plus escapement) ranged from 0.36 to 0.83% for fingerling releases from the FRH based on coded-wire tag recoveries (Table 5). The simple average of total survival across brood years and release locations was 0.59% (average of values in Table 5). Average weighted survival based on numbers of tagged fish by release group (total number of CWTs recovered/total number released) was 1.04% for brood years The average total exploitation rate was 65% for these brood years ( Table 5. Total percent survival (catch plus escapement) and exploitation rates for FRH fall Chinook, brood years Brood ear Smolts Average Total Exploitation Rate (adults and jacks) 65.0% 1 Includes all age classes of recoveries, un-weighted average Source: Total smolt-to-adult survival rates for fall Chinook brood years released from FRH at different release sites from 2000 to 2003 are presented in Table 6. Survival varies significantly by release location and size at release. In the 2000 brood year, the range of SARs for fingerlings was 0.03% for fish released from Mokelumne River at Lighthouse Bar to 2.72% for fish released at 57 fpp from Wickland Oil net pens. Table 6. Total percent survival of fall Chinook reared at FRH by release location (catch plus escapement), brood years Release Location Brood ear Feather at Live Oak Sacramento at Isleton Mokelumne River at Lighthouse Mar olo Bypass olo Bypass Elkhorn 0.08 Sacramento River Elkhorn Boat Ramp Wickland Oil Net Pens Port Chicago Sacramento River at West Sacramento Sacramento River at Hyde Koket 0.57 Mokelumne River at Georgianna Slough 0.14 Sacramento River at Vierra s 0.43 Crockett 0.76 San Pablo Bay 0.95 Page 16 Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012

23 Figure 2 depicts the distribution of coded-wire tag expanded recoveries in fisheries and in Feather River fall Chinook spawning areas for brood years (averages shown). Among fisheries, the largest percentage of CWT recoveries occurred in the California ocean troll fisheries (28%), followed by Oregon troll (15%) and California ocean sport (14%). An estimated 24% of total recoveries occurred on natural spawning grounds and 7% returned to hatchery facilities. Small numbers of recoveries (less than 1% in each fishery) were also reported in Washington state fisheries (treaty Indian troll, non-treaty ocean troll, and ocean sport). The percentage of 2- year-old recoveries (all fisheries plus escapement) averaged 12% of the total recoveries. ODFW 10 Ocean Troll 15% All Jacks 12% CDFG 10 Ocean Troll 28% CDWR 54 Spawning Ground 9% CDFG 40 Ocean Sport 14% CDFG 54 Spawning Ground 15% CDFG 50 Hatchery Escapement 7% Figure 2. Percent of total survival of Feather River fall Chinook fingerlings to various fisheries ( brood years ). 3.2 Long-term Goals for Affected Fisheries Long-term harvest goals for the fisheries affected by this program have not been established. 4 Programmatic and Operational Strategies to Address Issues Affecting Achievement of Goals This section describes programmatic and operational hatchery strategies that can be used in the Feather River Hatchery to address issues that potentially affect achieving the goals for the fish populations. Issues to be considered in evaluating hatchery strategies are first identified, followed by brief descriptions of how possible strategies relate to those issues. 4.1 Issues Affecting Achievement of Goals A host of issues exist that might affect fishery, fish production, and conservation goals for the Sacramento Basin. Many of these issues are habitat-related and are outside the control of what can be done in the hatcheries. Patterns and magnitude of flow releases from dams or water diversions, for example, are beyond the control of hatchery management. But some issues can be addressed by specific programmatic and operational strategies employed at the hatcheries. A list of issues that can be addressed, at least in part, by the hatchery programs and their operations is given below. Important questions associated with the issues are also identified. Feather River Hatchery Fall Chinook Program / June 2012 Page 17