Within any part of this is the fact that it lacks details. This one is an example:

Reduce or eliminate production that contributes to
recreational fishing opportunities which have an annual
economic value of $61.2M.

Also just what any particular cut in production accomplishes vs another. Chinook & Chum have short term rearing times and the value in production reduction is about 25% vs Coho & Steelhead. Chum low rate of dollar value in adults, Chinook high value ( but vast majority of value is taken in AK & BC ) and Summerrun Steelhead are expensive but have the best cost benefit ratio be mostly all recreational. The fish that cost the most with the least cost benefit ratio is Coho.

Not being involved with hatcheries for a bit, unless things have changed communities ( or similar entity ) or tribes can assume operation of a facility that is closed. Closed does not mean moth balled but permanently closed. I was once present when a debate between two staffers erupted as to if the enabling legislation meant say a hatchery is at 20% capacity could another entity assume partial operation of the unused space. It will be interesting as this all walks forward.