Evaluation of Recovery Options for Cheakamus River Steelhead

Josh Korman

Carl Walters

Steve Martell

Eric Taylor

Key Components to Develop a Science-Based Recovery Strategy

• Define Problem– Extent of mortality due to spill– Time to recovery

• Clarify Objectives – Recover population to pre-spill abundance– Wild population, fishery

• Identify Recovery Actions– Habitat enhancement, hatchery supplementation, fishery closures, do nothing

• Analyze and Screen Recovery Actions– Probability of success, risks, costs

• Implement and monitor

The Problem

McCubbing, Melville, Wilson, and Foy, 2006 (Draft)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 3 4 5 6 8

Reach

Fis

h p

er 1

00 m

2 u

nit

(F

PU

)2000

2001

2005

The Problem (con’t)

Re

ach

3 S

ite B

, 0

Re

ach

3 S

ite B

, 0

Re

ach

8 S

ite A

, 0

Re

ach

8 S

ite A

, 0

Re

ach

8 S

ite A

, 0

Re

ach

8 S

ite A

, 0

Re

ach

8 S

ite A

, 0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

14 July2005

18 July2005

25 July2005

2 Aug2005

7 Aug2005

14 Aug2005

21 Aug2005

29 Aug2005

5 Sept2005

12 Sept2005

Date

Fis

h/m

2

Reach 3 Site B

Reach 8 Site A

McCubbing, Melville, Wilson, and Foy, 2006 (Draft)

The Problem (con’t)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Sp

aw

ne

rs

CN Spill2003 Flood

?

?

Pessimistic(35 yrs, 2041)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Sp

aw

ne

rs

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Sp

aw

ne

rsOptimistic(15 yrs, 2021)

Recovery Objectives

• Wild population recovery (don’t count hatchery fish).

• Minimize recovery time to reduce risks to population viability.

Bad Good Natural Recovery

Wood Fertilize Angling Closure

Hatchery

Time to Recovery

slow slow slow fast

Genetic risk low low low low

Population risk due to low abundance

moderate moderate moderate low

Feasibility low low high high

Community Impact

high high high low

CN Cost high low low high

Relative Fitness of Hatchery-Origin Fish Spawning in the Wild

Winter Run Steelhead on Hood River (Blouin 2003)

• Hatchery-born breeders averaged 93% of fitness of pure wild breeders over 3 brood years (one generation).

• Hatchery would have provided major demographic boost as each wild fish taken into hatchery produced 5 to 14-fold more wild-born fish than did a wild fish left to spawn naturally.

Smolts/spawner Marine survival rate

Adult returns per spawner

Adult returns per spawner after fitness adjustment

Wild 45 4% 2 2

Hatchery 1000 1.3% 13 12

http://www.certc.ca/Meeting/CERTCOpenHouseInfoPanels8-Feb-2006.pdf

Conservation Fish Cultureas defined by MoE Policy

• “a specialized and experimental form of hatchery intervention designed to prevent extinction of a population or species…..the primary focus of conservation fish culture is to protect the natural genetic integrity of the population. Such a program requires a carefully designed breeding plan and release strategy to mimic what would happen in the wild. These programs are planned to be “temporary”, usually lasting for one generation.”

Key Elements of Experimental Short-Term Hatchery Supplementation Program

• 30-40 wild spawners taken in both 2006 and 2007 (?)

• Smolts released in 2007 and 2008 (@ 1 yr) producing adult returns in 2009-2011

• Repeat 2-yr cycle with brood from 2011-12 if necessary based on return rate of wild fish and science objectives

• Independent panel to design and evaluate program

• Predetermined ‘hatchery stopping’ rules and criteria to determine when recovery has occurred

Large Woody Debris and Fertilization

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Spawners

Sm

olt

s

No Fertilization (BY 76-94) Best-Fit (BY 76-94)Fertilization (BY 95-01) Best-Fit Slope (BY 95-01)

Replace (@ MS=0.17) Replace (@ MS=0.03)

B. Ward, MoEKeogh River

Arithmetic of Proposed 2-Yr Hatchery Program in 2010

Hatchery Wild (with hatchery)

Wild (without hatchery)

Spawners (2006) 40

Smolts (2007) 40000

Returns (2009/10) 470 40 40

F1 Smolts (2011/13) 6,900 590 1,200

Monitoring Elements of Hatchery Plan• Genotype all fish spawned in hatchery

• Matrix-spawn and ensure representative releases for each cross by sampling juveniles (rear in aggregated groups)

• Continue escapement estimates

• Determine wild:hatchery ratio of returns and obtain DNA samples for natural spawners via coordinated angler program

• Determine reproductive success of natural spawning hatchery-origin fish from outmigrant surveys, and DNA samples

• Radio tag wild and returning adults (spawning behaviour, wild-hatchery interactions, improved escapement estimates)

• Radio/acoustic tag hatchery smolts to evaluate residualization and improve outmigrant estimates for steelhead

Feasibility of Proposed Habitat Improvements for Cheakamus is Very Low

• Likelihood of structures remaining in place

• Scale of habitat additions is too small

• LWD-boating conflict

• River is already productive• Average invertebrate density across all seasons and locations was 31,151animals/m2 in 1996, and 52,959

animals/m2 in 2000. • Densities are very high and are at the top end of values found in other oligotrophic systems receiving some

level of nutrient enrichment (Perrin 2001)

• Nutrient addition? Conflict between proposal and Whistler STP upgrade-Squamish residents

Those that support use of a short-term steelhead hatchery program to speed recovery and/or more

transparent, science-based decision making

Squamish First Nation District of SquamishBC Federation of Drift Fishers CN EnvironmentBC Wildlife Federation Dept. Fisheries and OceansNorth Vancouver Outdoor School Sport Fish Advisory BoardPacific Salmon Foundation Sport Fish InstituteSquamish River Watershed Society Resort Muni. of WhistlerSouth Coast Steelhead Coalition      Squamish Anglers AssociationSquamish StreemkeepersWhistler Angling ClubSquamish Environmental Conservation Society

The Problem (con’t)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

105

115

125

135

145

155

165

175

185

195

Size Range (mm)

% o

f F

ish

McCubbing, Melville, Wilson, and Foy, 2006 (Draft)

Be careful of making an “Apples to Oranges” comparison re. Cheakamus and other evaluations