University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Graduate School Professional Papers 2018 Policy Analysis: Alaska Salmon Hatcheries Jessica Eller Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Follow this and additional works at:https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Part of theNatural Resources and Conservation Commons, and theNatural Resources Management and Policy Commons Recommended Citation Eller, Jessica, "Policy Analysis: Alaska Salmon Hatcheries" (2018).Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 11231. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11231 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please [email protected]. POLICY ANALYSIS: ALASKA SALMON HATCHERIES BY JESSICA JEAN ELLER Bachelor of Arts, University of Alaska Southeast, Juneau, Alaska, 2011 Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Studies The University of Montana Missoula, MT Spring 2018 Approved by: Scott Whittenburg, Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School Len Broberg, Chair Environmental Studies Shawn Johnson Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy Shoren Brown Environmental Studies Eller, Jessica, Master of Science, Spring 2018 Environmental Studies POLICY ANALYSIS: ALASKA SALMON HATCHERIES Chairperson: Len Broberg Using an adapted Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) - Evaluation, this study analyzes policy regulating Alaska salmon hatcheries to evaluate its effectiveness at sustaining wild salmon runs. When Alaska became a state in 1959, its salmon industry was suffering from years of overfishing. Runs were at an all- time low, prompting constitutional drafters to mandate management of salmon via the sustained yield principle. The hatchery system that operates today and is responsible for a third of the commercial catch each year was put in place in the 1970s to help supplement depressed salmon runs. The effects of hatchery salmon on wild salmon populations are escapement inflation from strays, interbreeding of strays and wild salmon, genetic introgression and loss of fitness of hatchery-wild offspring, the potential spread of disease, and competition for food. Policy was created to mitigate these risks and ensure a sustained wild Alaska salmon population. This policy analysis follows the steps of a traditional ERA– planning process, problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization–and adapts it to evaluate the effectiveness of current policy regulating Alaska salmon hatcheries. Overall, the policy in place does an effective job at minimizing risk and ensuring sustained runs of wild salmon, however, there are critical gaps in enforcement and regulation, the timeliness of the genetic policy, research on straying and other effects of hatchery salmon, and the involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process. Table of Contents Background 1 The Alaskan Salmon Industry from Purchase to Statehood: Boom and Bust 1 Natural Resources in the Alaska Constitution 12 Definition of Sustainability 15 Creation of the Alaskan Salmon Hatchery System 16 Methodology 22 Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) - Evaluation 29 Planning Process 29 Problem Formulation 30 Assessment Endpoints 31 Conceptual Model 31 Plan for Analysis 33 Analysis 39 Exposure Analysis 39 Ecological Response Analysis: Wild Salmon Production and Recruitment 49 Ecological Response Analysis: Wild Salmon Fitness 57 Ecological Response Analysis: Disease-Free Wild Salmon Populations 62 Ecological Response Analysis: North Pacific Ecosystem and Food Web 66 Risk Characterization 71 Risk Estimation 73 i Risk Description 77 Reporting Risks 80 Evaluation 81 Policy Evaluation: Wild Salmon Production and Recruitment 82 Policy Evaluation: Wild Salmon Fitness 88 Policy Evaluation: Disease-Free Wild Salmon Population 90 Policy Evaluation: North Pacific Ecosystem and Food Web 93 Recommendations 95 Genetic Policy Revision 96 State-Sponsored Research on Straying, Escapement, and Disease 99 Regulation and Enforcement of Current Policy 100 Initiate a State-Wide Conversation on Hatchery and Wild Salmon Stocks 103 Bibliography 105 ii List of Figures1 Figure 1. Fish trap 9 Figure 2. Images from Alaska canneries, 1950s 10 Figure 3. Commercial fishery harvests of wild and enhanced salmon, 1975-2002 20 Figure 4. Alaska salmon hatchery locations and fishing regions 21 Figure 5. Ecological risk assessment framework 26 Figure 6. Conceptual model 32 Figure 7. Assessment endpoints, risk hypotheses, and measures 38 Figure 8. Coded wire tag 40 Figure 9. Chum otolith mark 40 Figure 10. Recruitment constrained by carrying capacity, showing survival rate (% egg to recruit) changing with spawning stock 55 Figure 11. Hatchery Releases Canada, Japan, Russia, and United States, 1952-2016 68 Figure 12. Alaska anadromous water atlas 83 Figure 13. Minimum hatchery survival standards 84 List of Tables Table 1. Risk estimation 73 Table 2. Policy pertaining to assessment endpoints 82 Table 3. Recommendations for policy revision 96 1 Figures lacking citation or attribution were created by the author. iii Background The Alaskan Salmon Industry from Purchase to Statehood: Boom and Bust Before Russians or Euro-Americans claimed stake to Alaska, coastal Alaska Natives inhabited the land and used its resources in a variety of ways: food, tool, or cultural icon, to name a few. One of Alaska’s most plentiful resources was and is today salmon. Alaska ethnographer George Emmons wrote of the salmon’s importance to native culture: “The most valuable property of the Tlingit [an Alaska Native tribe in Southeast Alaska] was the fishing ground or salmon stream, which was a family possession, handed down through generations, and never encroached upon by others.”1 Long before the first salmon hatchery, there is evidence they manipulated salmon by burying eggs and moving adult salmon to unpopulated streams to spread the resource.2 When Russians arrived in 1741, their presence on the landscape was limited by Alaska Natives, who, although they were willing to trade fish for other goods, rose in force against their encroaching occupation. Russia’s main focus in the area lie in the waters around Alaska: sea otter pelts. In 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million, roughly 1.7 cents per acre.3 The purchase, orchestrated by Secretary of State William H. Seward, was referred to in public opinion as “Seward’s folly” or “Seward’s ice box.” Republican Congressman Cadwallader C. Washburn said at the time: “The possession of this Russian territory can give us neither honor, wealth nor power, but will always be a source of weakness and expense, without any adequate return.”4 In 1869, two years after the United States’ purchase of Alaska from Russia, entrepreneurs proved those skeptics wrong and tapped into the immense and valuable salmon resource, and the Department of 1 John Sisk, “The Southeastern Alaska Salmon Industry: Historical Overview and Current Status,” in Southeast Alaska Conservation Assessment, eds. John Schoen and Erin Dovichin (Anchorage, 2007): 1. 2 Patricia Roppel, Alaska’s Salmon Hatcheries: 1891-1959 (Anchorage: Alaska Historical Commission Studies in History No. 20, 1982), 5. 3 David Barker, “Was the Alaska Purchase a Good Deal?” University of Iowa, August 10, 2009: 1. http://www.news- releases.uiowa.edu/2009/november/David%20Barker-Alaska.pdf 4 quoted in Barker, 1. 1 Alaska’s5 first salmon saltery was built.6 Salteries processed and packed salmon with salt into wooden barrels for export to Seattle and other markets.7 Although salteries required little capital to start, shipping their product was expensive because of the additional weight of the barrel and salt. In 1878, a little over a decade past purchase, Alaska’s first cannery was built, beginning the large-scale, commercial salmon export industry in the state. Canning provided a solution to mass export salmon in a lighter packing container. The harvest its first year in operation was 56,000 fish.8 Within a few decades, close to 60 canneries were operating, a number that would grow to 160 by 1920. In 1891, with the canning industry booming, the first salmon hatchery was built by cannery operators at the Karluk River on Kodiak Island in an effort to sustain salmon runs near their fish processing facilities. The sockeye hatchery was later closed because owners couldn’t agree on fishing rights. A year later in Southeast, Alaska, the Department of Alaska’s second hatchery was built by private citizen John C. Callbreath.9 Within the next few years, canneries built four more hatcheries across the state at Klawak Lake, Redfish Bay, Hetta Lake, and Karluk River to replace the one that closed. All were meant to rebuild the canneries’ home streams ensuring salmon runs and profitable business into the future. But even with these new hatcheries, salmon runs began to decline as entire populations were prevented from spawning. Canneries barricaded streams with nets or wooden weirs holding schools of salmon downstream of the barricade where they were dipped out and brought to the cannery.10 All returning salmon were caught leaving none to propagate future runs. During this time, Alaska fisheries were managed federally, but management and regulation weren’t growing at quite the same rate as industry. The 1889 Fisheries Act (“An Act to Provide for the 5 Alaska would be called the Department of Alaska until the passage of the Organic Act in 1912 which provided territorial status. 6 John Clark et al., “The Commercial Salmon Fishery in Alaska,” Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 12, no. 1 (2006): 1. 7 Pat Roppel, “Salting Salmon in Taku Inlet,” Alaska Historical Society, January 26, 2013, https://alaskahistoricalsociety.org/tag/saltery/. 8 ADF&G, FRED Reports: A Review of Alaska’s Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Development (FRED) Program 1971-1982, by S.A. Moberly, No. 3, Juneau, October 1983: 2. 9 Roppel, Alaska’s Salmon Hatcheries, 12. 10 Richard A. Cooley, Politics and Conservation: The Decline of Alaska Salmon (New York: Harper & Row, 1963): 72. 2 Protection of the Salmon Fisheries of Alaska”) was the first federal legislation addressing fishing regulation in the Department of Alaska. It prohibited the blocking of streams by dams or other structures to catch salmon but had very little effect on harvest because of the lack of enforcement within Alaska. The same year the Fisheries Act passed, Dr. Tarleton Bean, an ichthyologist with the U.S. Fish Commission, in his Report on the Salmon and Salmon Rivers of Alaska to Congress put down on paper what would eventually become the tale of Alaska’s salmon runs: “The season of prosperity will be followed by a rapid decline in the value and production of these fisheries, and a point will eventually be reached where the salmon canning industry will be no longer profitable.”11 That year, 1889, the season of prosperity was in swing: 719,196 cases of salmon were packed in Alaska compared to the 477,659 cases from California, Oregon, and Washington canners combined.12 Congress wouldn’t fund enforcement of the act until 1892, and even then the addition of one fisheries agent and his assistant patrolling the thousands of miles of coastline within Alaska did little to quell rampant overfishing. In 1894, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Charles S. Hamlin, and the Inspector of Salmon Fisheries Joseph Murray, visited Alaska to take stock of the state of the fishery. Their report predicted an impending fishery disaster if regulation wasn’t revisited, prompting Congress to amend the Fisheries Act in 1896 to further restrict the take of salmon by prohibiting certain gear types and limiting the catch of fish to below the tidewater line in streams and rivers.13,14 Howard Kutchin, Alaska’s sole fisheries agent, wrote in his 1899 annual report: “The uniform conclusion of those who have given investigation and thought to the subject is that the Alaska fisheries are doomed unless swift and thorough measures are put in operation to preserve those which have not yet felt the effect of the destructive practices… and to restore those that are rapidly approaching extinction.”15 With minimal enforcement and a greedy industry 11 qtd in Cooley, 72. 12 Ernest Gruening, The State of Alaska (New York: Random House, 1954): 247. 13 Gruening, The State of Alaska, 247. 14 Clinton E. Atkinson, “Fisheries Management: An Historical Overview,” Marine Fisheries Review 50, no. 4 (1988): 116-117. 15 quoted in Roppel, Alaska’s Salmon Hatcheries, 9. 3 continuing to overharvest the resource, in 1900, the act was again amended making it mandatory that any cannery taking salmon must build a hatchery and produce four times as many sockeye fry as the number of adult salmon harvested.16 Complaints rose against the law from the canning industry, claiming it would crowd out small canners who were unable to afford the cost of both a cannery and hatchery and was unfair for salters who only worked with chum and pink salmon and didn’t want to produce sockeye salmon as the law required. Because there was almost no enforcement, those who complied with the law were in the minority17 and had little knowledge of how to raise sockeye salmon, releasing them directly into saltwater as fry instead of into the brackish environment their physiology requires at that stage of life.18 Kutchin commented on the fish rearing attempts: “the packers are not in the business of raising fish, but that of canning them for market.”19 Although none of the hatcheries came close to the 4x requirement, two of the major hatcheries of Southeast Alaska were built during this time: Fortmann Hatchery and Quadra Hatchery.20 Kutchin thought the solution to the hatchery problem lie in federal control over Alaskan hatcheries, which would provide a more scientific and better executed endeavor.21 While legislators on the other side of the country amended law governing Alaska fisheries, on the ground in Alaska competition over salmon was escalating. In Ketchikan, one of the busiest fishing towns in the early 1900s, competition between established canneries and new business led to fighting on the water and a court case in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1900. The court ruled in favor of new business: no one, not even established canneries, owned the waterways.22 Shortly before 1903, an Alaskan Salmon Commission was appointed to investigate the status of Alaska salmon fisheries. In a report to the Bureau of Fisheries, who now had jurisdiction over the Department of Alaska’s fisheries under the newly 16 Roppel, Alaska’s Salmon Hatcheries, 9. 17 Roppel, Alaska’s Salmon Hatcheries, 9. 18 Atkinson, 117. 19 Roppel, Alaska’s Salmon Hatcheries, 10. 20 Roppel, Alaska’s Salmon Hatcheries, 12. 21 Roppel, Alaska’s Salmon Hatcheries, 13. 22 Dave Kiffer, “Catching a Can in Ketchikan: A History of the ‘Canned Salmon Capital of the World,’” Stories In The News (Ketchikan, AK), September 23, 2009. 4