The Lower Snake River Compensation Program is a hatchery program
consisting of 23 fish-rearing facilities and satellite stations
designed to mitigate for the loss of salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.),
steelhead, and rainbow trout (O. mykiss) caused by the construction
of four dams on the lower 250 km of the Snake River. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers and funds the program,
and state and tribal agencies operate the hatcheries and conduct
hatchery evaluations. The first facility, the McCall Hatchery
in Idaho, began operating in 1980, and the Lookingglass Hatchery
in Oregon (Fig. 1) began in 1982, so in terms of salmon generation
times (about 4-5 years for chinook salmon), the program has been
in operation a short time. I would like to focus on the Lookingglass
Fish Hatchery Spring Chinook Salmon Mitigation Program, and Richard
Carmichael will talk about the Lyons Ferry Fall Chinook Salmon
Mitigation Program. The activities of these programs led, in
part, to this workshop on the effects of straying.
The Lookingglass Fish Hatchery Program was designed to produce
about 1.4 million spring-run chinook salmon smolts to return about
9,070 spring-run chinook salmon adults to the Grande Ronde and
the Imnaha Rivers. The hatchery is operated by the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife and uses two stocks of fish: a non-native
Rapid River stock, and a native stock from the Imnaha River.
Fish from the Rapid River stock are currently released from the
hatchery into Lookingglass Creek in the Grande Ronde Basin, whereas
the Imnaha stock is released into the Imnaha River after acclimation
at the facility on the Imnaha River. In previous years, portions
of the Rapid River stock and Carson River stock maintained in
the Lookingglass Hatchery were released into the Upper Grande
Ronde River, Wallowa River, Catherine River, and into Lookingglass
Creek itself.
The release of Rapid River stock as well as Carson River stock
has resulted in an extremely high incidence of straying in the
Grande Ronde Basin. In some years and at some localities, stray
hatchery fish represented 35-100% of the fish found in a particular
area. Most recent spawning-ground surveys revealed a considerable
amount of straying, as summarized for 1990-93 in Table 1. Estimates
of escapement are also shown. For example, in 1990, stray hatchery
fish constituted an estimated 46.2% of the spawners in the Minam
River, 77.8% in the Wenaha River, 40% in the Lostine River, 100%
in Catherine Creek, and 50% in the Grande Ronde River. In 1992,
the amount of straying was particularly high, probably because
of low water levels that may have prevented access to some spawning
areas. In 1993, straying was somewhat lower, but still over 45%
in all populations.
Because of the concern over these high rates of straying into
local natural populations, we plan to end the use of the Rapid
River and Lookingglass Creek hatchery strains when local endemic
stocks become available through a captive broodstock program.
Such a reduction, however, seriously affects our responsibilities
to tribal and governmental recovery programs for the Grande Ronde
Basin. We are caught between two judicial directives: the Lower
Snake River Compensation Plan and the Endangered Species Act,
on the one hand, which call for fish production to mitigate losses
caused by hydropower development, and on the other the influence
of these programs on endangered populations of spring-run chinook
salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act. The USFWS, as
well as other agencies, recognizes the responsibility to protect
wild and endemic populations of salmon. The regional office of
the USFWS wrote a vision document in 1991 to assess the status
of natural populations of salmon throughout the region and to
improve the information base for wild salmon populations. As
a result of this effort, we are assessing the effects of hatcheries
and their potential effects on naturally spawning populations.
Table 1. Estimated percentage of carcasses identified as hatchery fish in the Grande Ronde River Basin, 1990-93 (based on coded wire tags, physical marks, and scales analysis).
| Carcasses examined | |||||
| Estimated | Percentage | ||||
| Tributary | Year | escapement | Hatchery | Natural | hatchery |
| Minam R. | 1990 | 161 | 6 | 7 | 46.2 |
| 1991 | 120 | 5 | 8 | 38.5 | |
| 1992 | 266 | 39 | 3 | 92.9 | |
| 1993 | 264 | 17 | 20 | 45.9 | |
| Wenaha R. | 1990 | 199 | 7 | 2 | 77.8 |
| 1991 | 149 | 10 | 5 | 66.7 | |
| 1992 | 461 | 41 | 4 | 91.1 | |
| 1993 | 250 | 14 | 13 | 51.9 | |
| Lostine R. | 1990 | 65 | 4 | 6 | 40.0 |
| 1991 | 70 | 7 | 13 | 35.0 | |
| 1992 | 86 | 17 | 7 | 70.8 | |
| 1993 | 245 | 26 | 25 | 51.0 | |
| Catherine R. | 1990 | 93 | 8 | 0 | 100.0 |
| 1991 | 48 | 9 | 2 | 81.8 | |
| 1992 | 118 | 6 | 2 | 75.0 | |
| 1993 | 202 | 12 | 8 | 60.0 | |
| Grande Ronde R. | 1990 | 76 | 6 | 6 | 50.0 |
| 1991 | 24 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |
| 1992 | 55 | 55 | 13 | 80.9 | |
| 1993 | 247 | 27 | 8 | 77.1 | |
We are now developing plans to establish captive brood stocks
and captive rearing of local fish, but have several unanswered
questions. What are the appropriate populations to use in a captive
program? Could we use, for example, Lostine River fish, which
would most likely stray into the nearby Minam and Wenaha Rivers?
Is it necessary to develop several different captive broodstocks
for release into specific rivers? How should broodstocks be chosen
and how long should they be used? What are acceptable short-
and long-term straying rates? Since straying will likely always
occur, can we infuse genes from the Minam and Wenaha salmon populations
into hatchery populations to insure against adverse effects of
one-way gene flow? Many natural populations may be lost in the
near future, and we need guidelines for our programs.
Although the problem of straying is important, the low escapement
into some of these rivers is cause for more immediate concern.
Many marginal populations may go to extinction in the next few
years, and for many of us the problem of straying is not the highest
item on a list of priorities. Over the short term, we are looking
for guidelines to prevent the loss of these valuable, but imperiled,
populations.
Discussion
Question: Bill Bakke (Washington Trout): You stated that you
have a conflict in terms of your mitigation programs. Could you
explain why you used non-native stocks in the Lower Snake River
Conservation River Program, at least for the Grande Ronde?
Answer: Ed Crateau: At the time we began our program, few endemic stocks were available to us. It was an emergency, and we thought we could not get a program started with the few wild fish that remained. We wanted to jump-start the program, so we chose Rapid River fish to start the program. We now realize this may have been a mistake, but at the time our primary responsibility was for mitigation, to increase the number of returning adults. Preservation of wild populations was not a high priority at the time. We used Rapid River fish in 1980 and again in 1987. We used Carson River fish in 1982 and again in 1986, but we also tried to use adults that returned to Lookingglass Creek in years they were available. The Lookingglass stock, itself, is a mixture of local fish and returns from Rapid River releases. The Lookingglass/Carson stock is a mixture of fish from those two sources.