Oct 1
Please take 2 minutes to send a letter off to BPA, calling on them to reject the new Klickitat hatchery being proposed in the “Klickitat Hatchery Complex DEIS.”
Sign the Petition!
The plan, as written, would seriously harm already fragile runs of wild summer and winter steelhead and spring Chinook.
Public comment period ends on October 12th, so it’s imperative that you get your comments in now. Don’t procrastinate, take two minutes and help protect the native fish in this beautiful river.
Aug 9
The Bonneville Power Administration is planning for a massive increase in hatchery production on Washington’s Klickitat River. This would include the construction of a new hatchery at Wachkiacus (river mile 16) and an acclimation facility at RM 70.
This is deplorable.
The Klickitat is one of few undammed rivers in the Columbia Basin, and still supports decent runs of wild fish. Doubling the hatchery production on this river is the exact wrong approach, and will impose serious harm to the ESA listed steelhead and chinook.
The BPA is hosting a meeting in Lyle (65 miles from Portland) on Wednesday, August 10th from 5:30pm to 8:30pm. Myself and some others from the NFS will be attending and voicing our concerns. If you can, please show up, and voice your support for the wild fish in this amazing river. I plan to be leaving Portland at 4:45 pm if you’d like to hitch a ride, just leave a comment and I’ll get in touch.
If you can’t attend, at least write the BPA in opposition to this horrible plan. COMMENT! You can learn more at the Osprey.
Doing nothing will ensure that this new hatchery is built, and that the Klick as we know it will be placed in great danger.
Jul 13
Will Atlas, Kurt Beardslee and Rich Simms have penned an OpEd in the Seattle Times on the forthcoming shitmess stemming from the Elwha Dam removal.
Each year, Washington state releases hundreds of millions of juvenile salmon and steelhead from hatcheries to supplement sport and commercial fisheries. These releases are known to be harmful to wild stocks: interbreeding with wild fish, altering their genetic makeup and reducing the survival of their offspring; competing for space and resources; introducing disease; attracting predators; encouraging overfishing, to cite just a few deleterious impacts. Countless researchers have confirmed that hatchery programs are incompatible with healthy, abundant wild salmon and steelhead.
The stated goal of the Elwha River dam removal is to restore healthy populations of wild salmon and steelhead to the watershed. Yet despite an overwhelming body of evidence confirming the harmful impacts of hatcheries, state, federal and tribal governments have agreed upon a plan that relies heavily on hatchery supplementation. Faced with the single greatest opportunity to restore wild salmon, they’ve opted for business as usual, perpetuating a failing paradigm of replacing native fish with a man-made alternative.
We’ve seen this same thing play out here in Oregon on the Sandy River, however the situation is even more galling on the Elwha. Unlike the Sandy, fish have been unable to pass the Elwha dam in a century, and have been isolated to the bottom 10 or so miles. Moreover, the habitat above the Elwha dam is encompassed by the Olympic National Park, and is some of the finest - if not the finest - salmon and steelhead spawning habitat in the Lower 48. It has been untouched by logging, agriculture, and development for 100 years, and it will soon be teeming with hatchery fish.
We have an opportunity to rebuild an amazing river, but for the WDFW it’s just business as usual - cater to commercial, sport, and tribal fishing interests with the well-being of our fish riding in the backseat.
Appalling.
Jun 10
WDFW is taking public comments on the future of their Snider Creek hatchery, which produces winter steelhead for the Sol Duc. Take five seconds, and call on them to discontinue this hatchery program.
Sign the Petition
Apr 21
The Sandy River hatchery program appears to be headed to court, as the Native Fish Society and the Pacific Rivers Council have filed a 60 day notice against the ODFW and NOAA Fisheries over numerous violations of the Endangered Species Act. Before a lawsuit can be filed under the ESA, the plaintiffs are required to issue a “60 day notice,” essentially giving the defendants two months to comply with the law.
The clock is now ticking.
The Oregonian covered this last Friday, and if you’re particularly curious, you can read the entire 60 day notice, which is really quite interesting.
It’s unfortunate that it has to come to this, but it is very apparent that without legal action, the ODFW will continue to resist making any reductions in hatchery releases on the Sandy. As far back as 2000, the Sandy Basin Partners (a watershed group) were calling on the ODFW to remove hatchery fish from the basin. More recently, under the Lower Columbia conservation planning process, groups such as the BLM and US Forest Service made the same requests.
The ODFW has ignored these requests, and the ODFW is currently operating the Sandy River hatchery without regard for the law.
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person, business, or government agency from taking a listed species. The ODFW is currently taking wild spring chinook and wild winter steelhead in order to operate a broodstock hatchery program. In 2000, nearly 15% of the wild winter steelhead run was harvested to start this broodstock program, and in recent years, roughly 5% of the run is harvested. The ODFW currently has no take permit, and is illegally running its chinook and steelhead hatchery program.
In addition to directly taking a listed species, Section 9 also covers indirect take, which is where a listed species is harmed, killed, or harassed through habitat degradation. By annually releasing 1,350,000 hatchery reared salmonid smolts into the Sandy, the ODFW is violating the indirect take portions of Section 9 of the ESA. It is well established among fisheries scientists - many of whom work for ODFW - that hatchery fish impede the recovery of wild fish, yet the ODFW continues to flood the Sandy with hatchery smolts, further impeding a recovery of listed fish.
The ODFW has been running an experiment with hatchery fish on the Sandy for half a century, and the results have been catastrophic to native fish. It is time to try a new experiment, and remove the hatchery fish from the Sandy. Only time will tell if this will help recovery the Sandy’s wild salmon and steelhead. We don’t know for sure, but the best available science leads me to believe that this is the right path, and we owe it to the fish to try.
Apr 7
In today’s Oregonian, seven Sandy River fishing guides have authored an Op-Ed in support of wild fish on the Sandy. Read it.
If ODFW does not give these wild fish the same chance to recover, as our larger community has already initiated, Oregonians are headed for the kind of widespread fishery closures that would devastate the businesses that sustain our Northwest communities and families. To save our industry, our fishery and these wild fish, join with us to oppose the continued excessive hatchery programs on the Sandy River.
Feb 23
One of the most comprehensive studies ever conducted on the impacts of hatchery salmonids was published today, and the results should give pause to everyone who advocates on the behalf of hatchery programs.
The paper, “Reduced recruitment performance in natural populations of anadromous salmonids associated with hatchery-reared fish,” was written by Mark Chilcote of NOAA Fisheries and Kevin Goodson and Matt Falcy of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The scientists did advanced statistical modeling on 89 populations of steelhead, coho and Chinook salmon from rivers across Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
While it is no surprise to those in the fish conservation community that hatchery fish impede the recovery and productivity of wild fish, some of the results are still somewhat surprising. Foremost among these findings is that newer broodstock programs are just as harmful as domesticated hatchery programs:
The impact of hatchery fish from ‘‘wild type’’ hatchery brood- stocks was no less adverse than hatchery fish from traditional, domesticated broodstocks. We also found no support for the hypothesis that a population’s reproductive performance was affected by the length of exposure to hatchery fish. In most cases, measures that minimize the interactions between wild and hatchery fish will be the best long-term conservation strategy for wild populations.
Over the past decade, a number of hatchery programs, including those on the Wilson, Trask, Nestucca, Siletz and Sandy, have been converted to “wild” broodstock programs. The theory is that by propagating hatchery fish from wild fish, the hatchery progeny will have better reproductive success and be less harmful to wild fish. Chilcote, et. al., have thoroughly debunked this theory, and the question remains - why is taxpayer money going towards the harvest of wild fish in order to convert their eggs into reproductively unfit hatchery fish?
Another interesting finding is that all three species - coho, steelhead and Chinook - experience identical productivity declines when the percentage of hatchery fish increases. When a basin is composed of 100% hatchery fish, the number of recruits per spawner are just 12.8% of what the wild population could produce. This curve holds true for any percentage of hatchery fish, so a river with 50% hatchery fish will produce just 56.4% of the wild fish as a river without hatchery fish.
The conclusion says it all:
While using hatchery fish in the short-term to reduce ex- tinction risk and temporarily boost depressed wild popula- tions to re-establish normative biological function are laudable conservation roles, such actions come at a cost in terms of reductions in per capita recruitment performance. Therefore, we conclude, as did Chilcote (2003) and Nickel- son (2003), that under most circumstances the long-term conservation of wild populations is best served by the imple- mentation of measures that minimize the interactions be- tween wild and hatchery fish.
If you’re interested, you can read the entire study here.
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
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
