Who called for California hatcheries to be reviewed?
The review was called for by the US Congress.
This followed similar reviews completed by other agencies in Puget Sound and coastal Washington (2004), and in the Columbia River Basin (2005).
What was the purpose of the hatchery review?
Who conducted the hatchery review?
The hatchery review was completed by the California Hatchery Scientific Review Group (CA HSRG).
CA HSRG was composed of 11 members, six of whom are affiliated with agencies in California and five of whom were previously affiliated with resource agencies or who are university faculty. They were assisted by independent contractors that assembled data and facilitated meetings and field trips.
CA HSRG members provided substantial expertise and historical experience in hatchery operations, genetics, fishery management, monitoring, population dynamics, and fish health.
What basic principles helped guide the review?
How was the hatchery review conducted?
What major hatchery problems or issues were identified?
Several steelhead programs have seriously underperformed.
Adults returning from “yearling” releases of hatchery fall Chinook salmon should be excluded from broodstock.
True “1:1 matings” and associated incubation protocols need to be adopted by California steelhead and salmon hatcheries.
Effective methods are needed to ensure maintenance of distinct runs of Chinook salmon reared at the same facility.
What type of standards and guidelines for operating hatchery programs were developed?
What are the expected outcomes from implementing these standards and guidelines?
What targets were recommended for the proportion of natural-origin fish in hatchery broodstock (pNOB) and for the allowable proportions of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas (pHOS)?
In natural spawning areas outside the integrated hatchery program population boundary, the proportion of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas (pHOS) must be < 5%. For example, non-Merced River hatchery-origin fall Chinook spawning in the Merced River should be less than 5%.
What are Segregated vs. Integrated hatchery programs?
What is the purpose of an Integrated Hatchery Program?
Why should hatchery fish be marked and tagged?
There are a variety of reasons to mark or tag fish. In general, marking with external fin clip or similar mark allows for easy, visual determination of the origin of a fish, either natural or hatchery, at hatchery facilities, in fisheries, in spawning areas, etc. Tagging by insertion of coded wire tags, acoustic tags, or other external tags provides a means of gathering additional information, such as hatchery of origin, release site, release type, study group, run-type, age, etc. As opposed to visual marks, tags are not normally able to be detected or read without additional handling or special equipment. The CA HSRG’s recommendations regarding marking and tagging focus on the need to identify hatchery-origin fish at hatchery facilities.
What marking/tagging programs were proposed?
What are the marking/tagging programs designed to achieve?
Will the proposed marking/tagging programs support mark-selective fisheries?
Chinook: No (same as for the existing program). The CA HSRG was not charged with making recommendations regarding the establishment of mark-selective fisheries, nor were members of the CA HSRG able to reach consensus regarding mark-selective fisheries in California. The proposed marking programs are not intended to promote mark-selective fisheries.
Why is it recommended that hatchery fish no longer be released off-site?
A hatchery-origin fish that does not return to its hatchery of origin (or nearby natural spawning area) is termed a “stray”. Evidence from the Central Valley shows fish released off-site have demonstrably higher stray rates than fish released on-site or near the hatchery, and stray hatchery fish are now present in all Central Valley tributaries. Increased straying of hatchery fish and the resultant interbreeding with natural fish can reduce the fitness of both hatchery and natural populations, resulting in decreased population productivity, abundance, and diversity.
How can the hatchery recommendations be successfully implemented?
Implement regular programmatic performance reviews of each hatchery program.
Follow the CA HSRG recommendations regarding the preparation and review of Hatchery Genetic Management Plans, and provide the necessary resources for monitoring and evaluation.
Hatchery program funding agencies should adopt the HSRG standards and guidelines as a basis for future funding and accountability of the program.
Staff with specific highly technical expertise (e.g., fish health specialists) should be tasked with addressing specific highly technical issues in California hatcheries.
Develop standardized, statewide monitoring and evaluation protocols based on the CA HSRG standards and guidelines.
Extend the review to include California coastal basin hatcheries (Warm Springs and Mad River).
Develop publicly accessible website to house the CA HSRG reports.
What additional research is needed to better manage California hatcheries?