Pacific NW and California Hatchery Reviews Similarities and Differences

1. Pacific NW and California Hatchery Reviews Similarities and Differences

2. PNW and CA Hatchery ReviewsSimilarities Both efforts were initiated and funded through Congressional actions with similar justification and expectations. Both groups developed a set of principles and standards as a basis for recommended changes to hatchery operations.

3. PNW and CA Hatchery ReviewsSimilarities, cont. Both groups concluded that the influence of hatchery fish on naturally spawning populations is a major concern. Both groups emphasized the importance of local adaptation as a requirement for sustainability.

4. PNW and CA Hatchery ReviewsSimilarities, cont. Both groups developed preliminary standards for hatchery influence (pHOS and PNI). While standards differ in specificity, they are in general agreement that pHOS should be less than 5 percent for out-of-population strays (Pacific NW HSRG standards allow 10 percent pHOS for certain populations) and PNI should be greater than 0.5 (Pacific NW HSRG standards are more restrictive for certain populations).

5. PNW and CA Hatchery ReviewsDifferences The first and most obvious difference between the California and the Pacific NW reviews is one of perspective:

6. PNW and CA Hatchery ReviewsDifferences, cont. The Pacific NW HSRG looked at the role of hatcheries from a population/meta-population perspective, asking for each population, what, if any, should be the role of hatchery programs in meeting population-specific conservation and harvest goals. The Pacific NW review benefited from a better defined population structure (e.g., over 300 populations were identified and their spawning boundaries defined). Also, for many populations, the biological significance of each population within its ESU was either agreed upon or provisionally available.

7. PNW and CA Hatchery ReviewsDifferences, cont. The Columbia River HSRG report (HSRG 2009) makes recommendations by population about if/how hatcheries might be used as a tool to meet goals for harvest and conservation. It includes a section organized hierarchically by species, ESU, and population with detailed observations and suggested solutions for each population. The Pacific NW HSRG developed an analytical procedure for this specific purpose (AHA, the All H Analyzer). These elements were lacking in the California hatchery Review.

8. PNW and CA Hatchery ReviewsDifferences, cont. The California HSRG viewed the assignment from the perspective of existing hatchery programs, asking how these programs might be better operated to be consistent with the three fundamental principles and best available science. Their review was constrained by less reliable information about population structure and less well-defined goals in terms of harvest and conservation.

9. PNW and CA Hatchery ReviewsDifferences, cont. The California HSRG recommended that all hatchery programs be integrated. They were “unsupportive” of segregated hatchery programs, where the hatchery fish have no intended genetic continuity with a natural population. The acceptance of segregated hatchery programs for Columbia River and other WA populations provided a tool supporting harvest that would not be available under the California HSRG recommendations.

10. PNW and CA Hatchery ReviewsDifferences, cont. The Pacific NW HSRG viewed mitigation obligations largely as funding responsibilities, not as valid biological objectives for hatcheries. The Pacific NW HSRG did not consider legal or policy constraints, taking the view that their advice would be more useful if it represented a scientific point of view. The California HSRG was less explicit in its view of mitigation, perhaps viewing it and other agreements as constraints within which hatcheries may be operated.

11. Thank you