Rachel C. Johnson Cramer Fish Sciences &

University of California Davis

The road to extinction is paved with good intentions:Can hatchery and natural salmon co-exist?

Salmon of the past

Sabertooth salmon, Oncorhynchus rastrosusTwelve million years ago 400 pounds; 8-10 feet in length

Chinook salmon runs

Extinct

At Risk

Special concern

Low or No Risk

Not Evaluated

California salmon in the present

Evolutionarily Significant Units

J A S O N D J F M A M J

Fall run

Adult Spawn Time

Late Fall run

Winter run

Spring run

Steelhead

Data sources: Vogel and Marine, 1991; Hallock, 1983; CDFG, 1993

Candidate

Candidate

Endangered

Threatened

Threatened

California Chinook salmon trend

1850 1950 2000

Year

Estim

ated

spa

wne

r esc

apem

ent

2,000,000

1,000,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

Dams

Habitat

Harvest

Hatcheries

Courtesy of Joe Merz, Cramer Fish Sciences

Reliance on hatcheries for harvest

90% ± 6%

wild contribution

2002Barnett-Johnson et al., 2007. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Reliance on hatcheries for harvest

Wild (Hatchery)

90% ± 6%

wild contribution

2002Barnett-Johnson et al., 2007. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

2010 2011

52% 55%

Palmer-Zwahlen and Kormos. 2013. Fisheries Branch Administrative Report

Kormos et al., 2012. Fisheries Branch Administrative Report

‘Optimal’ hatchery releases for harvest

reco

verie

s pe

r 100

,000

rele

ased

Coleman National Fish Hatchery 2011 Ocean Recoveries

Brood years

Bay releasesIn-river releases

Data source: Palmer-Zwahlen & Kormos. 2013

‘Non-Optimal’ consequence to natural salmon

Stray

Coleman National Fish Hatchery 2011 Recovery rates

reco

verie

s pe

r 100

,000

rele

ased

Brood years Brood years

Homing

Bay releasesIn-river releases

Data source: Palmer-Zwahlen & Kormos 2013

Araki et al. 2007 Science

Fitness Effects and Domestication selection

40% reduction in fitness per captive generation

Christie et al. 2012 PNAS

Hatchery fish spawning in the wild… Hatchery fish spawning in hatcheries...

Double lifetime reproductive success compared to wild spawned in captivity

Where do the un-harvested hatchery fish return?

Wild (Hatchery)

Battle CreekMill Creek

Deer Creek

Feather

American

Mokelumne

Stanislaus

Tuolumne

Merced

BAT (CNH)

MIL/DEE

AME (NIH)

MOK (MOH)

STA

TUO

MER (MEH)

FRH (FRH)

Wild (Hatchery)

90% ± 6% 52% 55%

2002 2010 2011

~870,000

Data sources: Barnett-Johnson et al. 2007, Kormos et al. 2012, Palmer-Zwahlen and Kormos. 2013, Grandtab 2013

~160,000 ~230,000

Escapement

Hatchery-origin fish return to hatcheries

2010

Fall run Chinook salmon escapement to hatcheries Data source: Kormos et al. 2013, Palmer-Zwahlen & Kormos. 2013

Coleman

Feather

Nimbus

Mokelumne

Merced

Hatchery origin

Natural origin

Hatchery-origin fish return to hatcheries

2010

Fall run Chinook salmon escapement to hatcheries Data source: Kormos et al. 2013, Palmer-Zwahlen & Kormos. 2013

Coleman

Feather

Nimbus

Mokelumne

Merced

Hatchery origin

Natural origin

Nimbus

Feather

Coleman

Mokelumne

Many hatchery fish spawn in rivers

2010

Hatchery origin

Natural origin

Clear Creek

Upper Sacramento

Butte Creek

Feather River

Yuba River

American River

Mokelumne River

Stanislaus River

Merced River

Tuolumne River

2011

0Hatchery origin

Natural origin

Clear Creek

Upper Sacramento

Butte Creek

Feather River

Yuba River

American River

Mokelumne River

Stanislaus River

Merced River

Tuolumne River

Cottonwood Creek60% 70%

Goal Hatchery Scientific Review Group Criteria

Minimize hatchery-origin spawners in the wild (pHOS)

pHOS < 30%

Maximize natural-origin broodstock in hatchery (pNOB)

pNOB > 10%

Maximize proportionate natural influence (PNI).

pNOB/(pHOS+pNOB) > 50%

Integrated Hatchery Guidelines

2010 2011

Hatchery and RiverPNOB > .10

PHOS <.30

PNI > .50

PNOB > .10

PHOS <.30

PNI > .50

CNFH/Upper Sacramento 0.11 0.46 0.19 .11 0.27 0.29Feather River Hatchery/Feather River 0.05 0.78 0.06 .04 0.90 0.04Nimbus Hatchery/American River 0.21 0.32 0.40 .23 0.66 0.25Mokelumne hatchery/Mokelumne River 0.10 0.73 0.12 .12 0.88 0.02Merced Hatchery/Merced River 0.22 0.78 0.21 .11 0.89 0.11Clear Creek 0.04 0.08 Cottonwood Creek 0.58 Butte Creek 0.11 0.07 Yuba River 0.71 0.65 Stanislaus River 0.50 0.83 Tuolumne River 0.49 0.73

Assessment of California’s hatcheries & rivers

2010 2011

Hatchery and RiverPNOB > .10

PHOS <.30

PNI > .50

PNOB > .10

PHOS <.30

PNI > .50

CNFH/Upper Sacramento 0.11 0.46 0.19 .11 0.27 0.29Feather River Hatchery/Feather River 0.05 0.78 0.06 .04 0.90 0.04Nimbus Hatchery/American River 0.21 0.32 0.40 .23 0.66 0.25Mokelumne hatchery/Mokelumne River 0.10 0.73 0.12 .12 0.88 0.02Merced Hatchery/Merced River 0.22 0.78 0.21 .11 0.89 0.11Clear Creek 0.04 0.08 Cottonwood Creek 0.58 Butte Creek 0.11 0.07 Yuba River 0.71 0.65 Stanislaus River 0.50 0.83 Tuolumne River 0.49 0.73

Assessment of California’s hatcheries & rivers

Extinction risk due to hatchery influence

High risk

Moderate risk

Low risk

In Lindley et al. 2007Generations

Strays from within basin

% H

atch

ery

sp

awne

rs

Interior Columbia Basin Tech. Recovery Team 2005

Generation

Majority of salmon spawn in natural areas

In-river spawners

Grandtab 2013

Hatchery spawners

Years

Nu

mb

er

of

fall-

run

Majority of salmon spawn in natural areas

In-river spawners

Grandtab 2013

Hatchery spawners

Years

Nu

mb

er

of

fall-

run

Cohort replacement rates of natural populationsC

ohor

t re

plac

emen

t

Conclusions

• Off-site releases- harvest vs. straying

• Management scenarios

• HSRG criteria currently unmet for hatcheries

• Identification of hatchery fish

• Hatchery strays contribute to ‘high’ risk of extinction

Thanks!

Special thanks to: Brett Kormos & Melodie Palmer-Zwahlen

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Ocean Salmon Project

Hatchery Scientific Review Group’s Issues/Recommendations (14)

Issue: Off-site releases promote unacceptable levels of straying among populations Recommendation: In-river release of juvenile hatchery production

Issue: Marking/tagging programs are needed for real-time identification of all hatchery Chinook salmonRecommendation: Tag 100% of hatchery production with coded-wire-tags and 25% should be adipose fin-clipped

California Hatchery Review Project, June 2012

Issue: Harvest management of fall-run Chinook salmon should account for productivity of naturally spawning adultsRecommendation: Revise harvest rate to explicitly account for the status and productivity of fall Chinook salmon spawning in natural areas

1.

2.

3.

Genetically distinct ‘ecotypes’ in Lake Washington

Deep-bodied beach type Slender river type

Science 2000

Hatchery-origin fish do return to hatcheries

2010 2011

Fall run Chinook salmon escapement to hatcheries Data source: Kormos et al. 2013, Palmer-Zwahlen & Kormos. 2013

Coleman

Feather

Nimbus

Mokelumne

Merced

Hatchery origin

Natural origin

Coleman

Feather

Nimbus

Mokelumne

Merced

Many hatchery fish spawn in rivers

2010

Hatchery origin

Natural origin

Clear Creek

Upper Sacramento

Butte Creek

Feather River

Yuba River

American River

Mokelumne River

Stanislaus River

Merced River

Tuolumne River

California Chinook salmon trend

1850 1950 2000

Year

Estim

ated

spa

wne

r esc

apem

ent

2,000,000

1,000,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

Dams

Habitat

Harvest

Hatcheries

Courtesy of Joe Merz, Cramer Fish Sciences