Amazing New ODFW Broodstock Memo

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

The following is an ODFW memorandum from Mark Chilcote to various people though out ODFW. It shows with incredible candor the degree of introspect many of the biologists at ODFW have when assessing a programs success. This document does contain some graphs that do not display on this forum. Anyone wishing a full copy may send me an e-mail expressing his or her desire to obtain the original and I will comply. *** Clerk

This document last saved by “Peter Dratch” / ODFW / Peter.Dratch@state.or.us

MEMORANDUM
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife


Date: February 1, 2002
To: Bob Hooton, Ray Temple, Steve Williams, Ed Bowles

From: Mark Chilcote

Subject: Revised Survival Estimates for Clackamas Coho Wild Broodstock Program

Last month I circulated a draft of a memo concerning the smolt to adult survival of fish from the Clackamas wild broodstock rescue program. I was working with preliminary numbers at the time and there was concern that these numbers were not representative. The return of coho to the Clackamas is now 90%+ complete. Therefore, I have updated this memo with the new numbers and make some preliminary conclusions about the results. The details follow, however main points are:
1. The smolt to adult survival of "wild-type" hatchery fish was nearly 1/10 of the survival rate for wild smolts (97 and 98 brood year production).
2. Averaging the results of 5 brood years, the total return to the basin was not increased by using wild fish for hatchery broodstock. Just as many total fish would have been produced if there had been no hatchery program at all.
3. All the hard effort involved in collecting and raising these fish didn't pay off. These results have very serious implications for the use of hatchery programs to help restore lower Columbia River coho.
4. We need to find out why this occurred (if we can). If there is no corrective solution, then our tools to help restore LCR coho have been significantly reduced. We need to respond accordingly.

Assessment Details
As you are aware the returns of both wild and regular production hatchery coho to the Clackamas and Sandy basins this year have been very encouraging. However, lost in the good news is a very disappointing return for hatchery smolts derived from wild broodstock that were released into the Clackamas basin as part of the "rescue/recovery" program implemented in 1996.

This rescue program was instated in response to the extremely depressed returns observed during the late 1990s. Wild coho were obtained for hatchery broodstock in significant numbers for the 1997 to 1998 brood years. Smolts were raised and released into the Clackamas basin upstream of the smolt counting facilities in 1999 and 2000. Subsequently, the number of both hatchery and wild coho smolts that emigrated past NF Dam were estimated. Dividing the number of returning adult coho counted at NF Dam in 2000 and by these smolt estimates (1999 and 2000, respectively), it was possible to calculate and compare smolt to adult survivals for hatchery "rescue" fish and wild fish.

To my surprise, there was a very large difference between the two groups of fish. The survival rates for the hatchery "rescue" smolts were low; 0.7% for 1999 smolts and 2.2% for 2000 smolts. In contrast, survival rates for wild smolts in the same years were 6.6% and 15.3% (Table 1). Although, hatchery smolts normally do not survive quite as well as do wild smolts, the difference is generally much less. Indeed, for the "regular" hatchery coho smolts released into the Clackamas basin during these same years (from Eagle Creek Hatchery) the survival rates appear to have been in the range of 7% (very rough estimate).

In addition to these most recent years, during the 1980s, 3 brood years of hatchery coho smolts were released into the Clackamas basin that were also 100% offspring of wild parents. When I looked at the survival rate for these fish and compared them to the wild smolt survival during the same period, the survival for wild smolts was again much higher than for these hatchery smolts originating from wild parents. The survival rate for wild smolts during these 3 years ranged from 1.8% to 0.7%, whereas for these "wild-type" hatchery fish it ranged from 0.40 to 0.10 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Because fish from the most recent wild broodstock program (97 and 98 brood years) were intended to assist the rebuilding of the wild population, the fact that their survival rates were nearly 1/10 of the level observed for wild smolts is troubling. In particular, these differences are so great that they may cancel out any gains that accrue due to the egg to smolt survival rates in the hatchery environment which are normally 10 to 20 times greater than they are in the wild environment.

To evaluate this question further, I compared the average number of adult progeny produced per parent under the two production systems (hatchery and wild). Among the 5 brood years evaluated, the number of wild fish used as parents for the hatchery program ranged from 46 to 140 fish (Table 2). For wild fish the parental population ranged from 235 to 4,277. Across all brood years the hatchery program yielded an average of 3.85 progeny per parent whereas the wild program averaged 3.93 progeny per parent. On the face of these numbers, it appears that the wild system performed about the same as the hatchery. In other words, removing wild fish and running them through the hatchery system yielded no more adult offspring than if they had been left in the river.

However, a closer look at these data demonstrate that this generalization has its weakness. The average progeny to parent ratios are strongly effected by the results for the last brood year (1998). When annual progenyarent ratios are compared, wild production is superior to hatchery production in only 2 of the 5 years. Moreover, in these two years there appear to have been

Table 2.

specific problems that effected egg to migrant smolt survival of hatchery coho. For the 1989 brood year, I understand there was an outbreak of IHN at the hatchery and this greatly reduced egg to smolt survival. For the 1998 brood year, although over 123,000 smolts were released, only 53,661 emigrated past NF Dam (Table 1). The fate of these missing smolts is unknown, but we know that they did not contribute to the adult return.

Examining this question further, I computed the number of smolts produced per spawner for the hatchery and wild environments. As expected, the hatchery environment was much more efficient in converting spawners to migrant smolts (although the poor results for the 1989 and 1998 brood years are evident in these data) (Table 2). But what I want to draw your attention to are the smolts per spawner estimates for the wild environment. Note that the highest value (107 smolts per spawner) occurred for the brood year that had the fewest spawners (235). This demonstrates that at lower spawner densities the egg to smolt survival was quite high - exactly what classic spawner-recruit models would predict. In fact, if one plots smolts per spawner in the wild environment versus total wild spawners (Figure 1), a logarithmic equation describes the relationship pretty well (R2 of 0.67). Obviously, no one should get overly excited about a

Figure 1.

recruitment relationship based upon 5 data points - but I believe it illustrates a very important point. When the spawner density begins to fall into the range that we might be concerned about the persistence of the population, we should expect egg to smolt survival to be at its highest (i.e., not many mouths to feed and essentially an unlimited habitat). Under such conditions, there will be little benefit to bringing some of the wild fish into the hatchery environment if the resulting hatchery smolts will have ocean survival rates that are 1/10 of those for wild smolts.

At the other extreme, the highest progenyarent ratios hatchery fish relative to those for wild fish were obtained for the 1988 brood year, which was one of the highest wild escapements (4,277 fish) in recent times. Therefore, it would appear that the hatchery "rescue" concept works in the years you don't need it and fails in years that you potentially do.

As if this was not enough reason to be pretty skeptical about these type of hatchery programs, all indications are that hatchery fish, even from wild broodstocks, are not as successful as wild fish in producing viable offspring under natural conditions - at least based upon the recent analyses I have completed on steelhead populations as well as other sources.

In light of the information presented here, I have drafted some possible lines of questioning to determine if these results are reliable and have been correctly inferred from the available data. I also suggest some possible explanations for these results. In both instances I need help from people more familiar with these basins and hatchery programs. Therefore, it is my hope that the main function of this memo is to generate comment and discussion about the issue. These results have a significant bearing on the use of wild fish in hatchery programs for conservation purposes. I suggest a proactive response to search for solutions now, rather waiting until the next crisis occurs. In addition, these results may influence how we implement the hatchery supplementation portion of the LCR recovery plan.

Data Quality/Problems

Some of the sources of potential error that need scrutiny include: reliability of detecting wire in returning adult fish with present technique (wanding of un-anesthetized fish), errors in estimating smolt migrants because of temporal variations in spill at NF dam and the associated reduction in gear efficiency, and wild adult recruitment from smolt production in areas other than above NF dam. I am sure there are other estimating problem areas; hopefully with the help of others we can complete and critique a full list of them.

Cause of Reduced Survival

Assuming this problem is real and not an artifact of poor data or analyses, what can be the possible explanations and how might we correct them? Again, I provide some possible ideas with the hope that a longer list can be generated. What do we know about the timing of the smolt release? The Clackamas wild fish go in May and June - I assume the hatchery fish went earlier. Also what about other smolt quality questions such as size, disease exposure, and condition factors - are there any patterns? Is there some feature of predation that would effect these fish differently than regular production releases from Eagle Creek Hatchery or the wild fish? Is there anything about the size, sex ratio, or other measurable trait that suggests that the rescue fish have developed differently than the wild fish?

CC
King
Kostow
McPherson
Stickell
Otto
Bourne
Muck
Frazier
Doug Cramer (PGE)
Doug Olson (USFWS)
Doug Dysart (USFWS)
Page 5

Fish Division
PO Box 59, 2501 SW First Avenue
Portland, OR 97207
Phone (503) 872-5252 Fax (503) 872-5632

[Straydog]

Please email me this at your convenience.....

Thanks!

Dog

[STGRule]

Here is some more interesting reading: Captive Breeding and Genetic Fitness of Natural Populations You'll need acrobat reader.

[fishhead5]

What I read was a bunch of bureucratic (sp) gobelty **** . There are so many if's, and's or but's.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming this problem is real and not an artifact of poor data or analyses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of it could be taken for fact. Get the "facts" and then work on a soultion.

Fishhead5

[David Johnson]

Also this is concernig coho so it could have no berring on the steelhead brood stock programs.

[Brine]

this could be the result of to few numbers with to many variables. Or operator error. Or tha simple answer Because they're coho. Or maybe we can't boost numbers with smolt in a system where the population is at a reasonable "wild" level. It also be good news for the unfed fry program. I am having a tough time deciphering what i've just read three times through.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

STGRule

Thank you for the link. I see this report has been newly added to the Natural Resource web page.
It is important to note that the information you alluded to discusses mathematical modeling and the long-term genetic fitness of wild salmonids and gene flow between wild and hatchery populations. What this memo discusses is the actual production (or lack of production) of this program. No modeling or genetic risks, just does it work to make more fish?

“Averaging the results of 5 brood years, the total return to the basin was not increased by using wild fish for hatchery broodstock. Just as many total fish would have been produced if there had been no hatchery program at all.”

No hatchery program at all… wow plain English

David Johnson

I do not remember anyone saying anything about Steelhead? Do you think this may have some impact on Steelhead Broodstock Programs in Oregon? Huh, I guess I didn’t think of it that way…must have been a Freudian thing on my part, or was it on yours…

You are very correct that it “could” turn out that this Coho data may not correlate to steelhead broodstock programs. Then again it just “might”. Then what do we do?
So I will ask you now, can you produce data that suggests that hatchery steelhead programs produce more total fish than wild production alone would in Oregon’s Coastal streams? Not the river systems that have large hydroelectric operations on them but the smaller coastal streams.

Brine

Thank you for making this your very first post.
I am familiar with some un-fed fry data from the 80’s and 90’s. They did not work well because they used excess hatchery eggs and placed the fry in streams that were not spawner limited. Turned out that this actually reduced total-returning adults by introducing temporal limitations embedded in the hatchery population.
I think Hatch-Box programs could be used to introduce salmonid runs to areas that lost them from habitat problems but there is no evidence they could ever increase wild populations in the long term.
If you have data that says otherwise I would love to see it. Post it here or e-mail it.

Thanks

*** Clerk

[Straydog]

Fishhead5,

Gathering the facts with data is exactly what this study is doing.

Writing off that which they do not understand as nothing more than "gobbildy **** " is a very large part of the reason it takes so long for us to make positive change. Folks hear or read that which is over their heads and put the blinders on and say "come back when you have the facts..." Problem is, it takes years of studies just as the one described to get the "facts." Rome was not built in a day, the natural world took even longer to build.

Should I tend to believe a biologist that presents well documented facts that leads TOWARDS some conclusions or should I believe a forum poster that presents zero evidence, just calls the work of the scientists "gobbildy **** " and writes it off??

[Phish_on]

Let me attempt a simple translation:

"Hey, Boss -

I checked out this broodstock coho thingy.

Doesn't look like it worked too well.

You might want to think about maybe trying something else."

[Lured In]

Before people start getting their hackles up, read the article for what it is, which Phish On summerized nicely.

I have a degree in market analysis (4 semesters of advanced statistics) and as such have a better than average understanding of statistical analysis and logic. The author explicitly states several times that the "apparent" data is in itself, inaccurate. This makes any conclusions, even if statistically correct according to the data, inaccurate.

That is not to say that the conclusions are wrong, they are inaccurate, meaning they should not be the basis for decision making. As *** Clerk points out, this article shows a great example of a biologist taking an honest look at what is going on. The author makes no statements as to what should be done. He only summarizes findings, draws some conclusions based on his findings, and points out the weaknesses and "holes" in the data. He even calls for his peers to add the number of possible reasons for the data being inaccurate! I am so encouraged to see someone with such a strong desire for statistical accuracy, before making any hard conclusions about the data.

What I get from this is not that brood stock or hatchery programs are ineffective, (although they might be), but rather that the biologist do not have the tools necessary to accurately assess what is taking place. River basins are complex ecosystems that do not necessarily easily lend themselves to scientific study. More often than not these study's are under funded and often not designed for statistical accuracy.

IMHO the most important note to take from this is that we have knowledgable fish biologists who don't have all the tools they need to effectively and accurately make recommendations on the current state and future state of our fish stocks.

Something that does scare me is that in the hands of someone with less than a strong desire for truth and accuracy with no statistical background, this memo reads like a silver bullet for closing hatcheries and shutting down brood stock programs. My hope is that, like this biologist, his peers and supervisors, share the same passion for accurate information before making any decisions.

*** Thanks for a great article. Lots to think about.

[Hoosier Daddy]

ding ding ding.....

The real catch to this is that it doesn't fit so many people's idea that science should be able to provide absolute numbers and decisions. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way when you are "science-ing" on nature. No way, no how.
It would be nice if we could say "If this happens, this will always be the result...." for every issue out there. But that ain't going to happen. That's why the prevailing ideas in fisheries and ecology in the NW have changed so much in recent years. Scientists are just now getting away from the arrogance that previously prompted them to make blanket statements about pretty much anything they wanted to. Natural resource scientists are just beginning to realize that there is no way they will ever be able to totally understand nature.
Which is the number one reason so many of them are advocating trying to leave things as natural as possible. Its a whole lot safer in general to let nature make the decisions. Hell, she's been doing it for millions of years. Humans have been doing it for a couple hundred. I'm not a tree or bunny hugger. I am for managing our resources, not just letting them sit, in general. But we need to realize that there are some things we don't understand, and it's not for lack of effort or desire to do what's best for all. Sometimes it just IS. We can work on getting CLOSER to answers, but we need to accept that any decisions we make are going to have varying levels of uncertainty and risk associated with them. The trick is determining whether those levels are acceptable or not.

[hustlerrjim]

This is a perfect example of an odfw"study"--DAZZLE THEM WITH NOS.AND THEN CONFUSE THEM WITH BULL____

[Lured In]

Chnookie, I agree that nature in general does not lend itself to accuracies, after all many scientist can't seem to decide if global warming is real or not. (It makes you wonder if 15,000 years ago the Native Americans living in North America during the end of the ice age were concerned that burning Mamoth fat was warming the planet and causing the ice to melt?)

On the other hand we can get closer accurate data, not the conclusion, but the data. The data itself will change from year to year and decade to decade. After all who could have predicted 3 or 4 years ago that we would have such a banner year for salmon and steelhead in 2001?

As you state, "If this happens, this will always be the result...". This is not where I was going. I was trying to emphasize that what is inlcuded in that memo is admission that we don't even know what "is happening", much less what will happen.

Managing the uncertainty and risk is important and that is all statistics provide. They do not give answers, it only gives relationships and the associated strength and probability of those relationships. What we do with that is up to us.

Using the best data possible, and we agree there are natural limitations, is the only way to get the type of information that will enable us to manage uncertainty and risk more effectively. If ODFW or whoever, is making this effort to get the best data possible with the most data points possible, that is all we can ask. This memo; however, shows that not everything is being done to get the best data and it certainly doesn't have enough data points. It does raise my eyebrows, though.

[TheRogue]

And sadly enough, more budget cuts coming, and less dollars to continue the research. This is just one stream, over a very short time period. Ideally, this would be multiple streams over a longer period, encompassing drought and flood periods, as well as El nino and La nina ocean conditions.

Yup, Mother Nature always knows best, there's no doubt. But when man sticks his dams and fertilizers and culverts into the equation, Mother Nature may need a helping hand.

Thank you, ***, for posting the data, keep it coming. While I don't agree with much of what you and STGRule post, it's great to see people backing up their opinions with data.

Of course, what's the old saying?? There's lies, damned lies, and data??

kyle

[KilgoreTrout]

I think those that don't agree with the data are quick to point out the flaws and dismiss it entirely. I don't believe the numerical differences can be explained by change. The author said the R2 (relative degree of fit) of the data was .67. This is not a great correlation, but considering the less than exact means the biologists have to get data - it is not too bad. Taken at face value I would make the following conclusions:

1. Broodstock raised in the hatchery environment have excellent survival rates until they leave the hatchery. Hatchery feeding practices leave them at a disadvantage when they have to forage in the wild.

2. Many of the hatchery raised progeny would never have made it in the wild and they subsequently have a lower chance of survival when released as smolts.

3. Any ecosystem can only support X number of smolts. X changes with changing weather conditions. Perhaps there was a scarcity of food and the wild fish were more adept at eating it than there semi-wild cousins.

4. The best use of the wild broodstock might be to spawn them in the wild on streams that have lost their salmon runs. Let nature take its course from there.

I'm no biologist, although I can read an analyze data with the best of them.

Dave

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

I would like to thank everyone for the informative and insightful replies on this topic.
It is important to note that when I first read this memo my initial thought was not that this document makes clear the problems with hatchery mitigation programs but how impressed I was with the open and scientific manner these biologists were approaching this data. I have dealt for some time with the policy makers at ODFW and have never seen this type of introspect.

I agree that this data does not indicate why this hatchery mitigation failed only that it did fail. I for one would support further research into the exact causes of this or other hatchery failures but it is important for each person to realize that at this moment there are more studies that point to hatchery problems than hatchery successes. The type of data discussed in this memo is basic as to total number of adults produced, although it would seem ODFW would always calculate this parameter, historically they have not.
We spend a tremendous amount of money each year on the operation of these programs, it is not asking too much for us to ask how well these programs work and what science is used to support these or any programs.
After 100 years I believe we deserve these answers…

Phish_on… very, very good interpretation

Lured In … better data is out there, we just have to pay for it or steal it.

Chinookie … passionate as always, thanks for chiming in on this one.

TheRogue … I try to always back up my opinions with data, I just wish others here would make the effort to do the same.

KilgoreTrout … I am no biologist either, but your analysis of the data looks good to me.

*** Clerk

[Hoosier Daddy]

perfect example of an odfw "study".....

"MEMORANDUM
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife"

hmmm....seems like this is a poor example of an odfw "study", since its not a study at all, but a memo asking questions......

[fishhead5]

Straydog, anyone can make a statement. "There were 5,000 summer run came back to the cowlitz this year, there should have been 25,00"

Assuming this problem is real and not an artifact of poor data or analyses

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">They are studying something that might not even be true according to their own statement. What I read in that memo was that broodstocking coho doesn't work.

what can be the possible explanations and how might we correct them?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You have to figure out if all of the data is correct before you can come up with a correction don't you?

Fishhead5

Also I wonder what the censor thought **** was?

[Brine]

Just another thought. As there is apparent success elsewhere with wild-broodstock programs, it tends to make one believe that an unknown factor has led to the poor returns in this one study group. But, perhaps after 100 years of natural or rather unnatural selection we have developed a sub-species of fish that survive hathery rearing and subsequent release better than "wild" fish. I find it very difficult to believe that we cannot have reasonable results with hatchery mitigation of "wild" stocks. Study the case, figure out where it went wrong, and learn from the mistakes.

[garyk]

*** Clerk,

Good post there, it shows a very typical real-world situation of data collection and analysis. Science is very seldom black/white, cause - effect. Seldom do you ever have enough data to to make bold pronouncements. You tend to have trends, hints and indicators.

And, if you wait until you have every last piece of corroborating data you'll find yourself in "analysis paralysis" -- decisions are stalled and nothing gets done. This, by the way, was part of the strategy effectively used by the tobacco industry for so many years to stall efforts to rein them in.

I am taken aback by some of the critical comments, are they indicative of just how poorly our schools teach science?

Finally, it's very helpful to understand that research is vastly underfunded. And yes, I fully agree that with the huge expenditures made on hatcheries annually, it's worth scrutinizing just what our return on this investment is.

Again, a good post.

[DanS]

Just a couple thoughts......

"the fact that their survival rates were nearly 1/10 of the level observed for wild smolts is troubling. In particular, these differences are so great that they may cancel out any gains that accrue due to the egg to smolt survival rates in the hatchery environment which are normally 10 to 20 times greater than they are in the wild environment."

The trouble with that statement, statistically speaking is that (we assume the data used were accurate), we know the broodstock survival rates are 1/10th wild rates. Then he says egg to smolt production is 10 to 20 times greater in the hatchery. Well, 10-20 is a heck of a difference isn't it? If it's 10 some years and 20 some years, then it averages 15......yes? So the broodstock program isn't a net loss of outgoing smolts in that respect.

Assuming this problem is real and not an artifact of poor data or analyses

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's a heck of an assumption to make. Poor data give meaningless results. I understand the limitations faced by those that gather these data and the limited technology they use, but that is why you have to be skeptical of these numbers.

The author said the R2 (relative degree of fit) of the data was .67. This is not a great correlation, but considering the less than exact means the biologists have to get data - it is not too bad. Taken at face value I would make the following conclusions

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">KT, you obviously know enough about statistics to know that if the means of gathering data, and therefore the data themselves, are less than exact, that you shouldn't take the conclusions at face value. I'm not saying the conclusions are invalid, I'm saying they need to look at the data again very carefully before a decision on whether to continue these programs is made. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Good reading on this thread...........thanks for the feedback and keep us posted on further development.

[ssteelheadsteve]

When I look at the numbers of broodstock fish released and the number caught I can see no problem with the asumptions made by the author.Argue all you want. I am out there and the broodstock fish are not.Very unscientific observation from............