APR April 2, 1998 meeting

Handout for April 2, 1998 meeting - Questions Identified for Consideration in the Artificial Production Review

Section II: Description and Historical Overview of Columbia River Hatchery Programs and Policy

What are the current release guidelines for each stock and species by hatchery? By State? By operating agency? (A & B)

What clearly defined goals, objectives, strategies and performance criteria for artificial propagation programs are in place in the Columbia River Basin? (A & B)

What are the various policies and priorities that govern the use of artificial production in the Columbia River Basin? To what extent do these reflect the goals of current restoration programs? (A & B)

Identify the mitigation agreements, the specific production objectives incorporated within them and the production programs developed to address those obligations within the Columbia Basin. (A & B)

Summarize major trends in the use of artificial production within the Columbia River Basin over the last 10-15 years. (A & B)

What current programs are in place to ensure interagency cooperation and information is being utilized to maintain cooperative fish management decision? (A & B)

What state or federal legislation enables current artificial production programs? (A & B)

Section IV: Results: Compilation of Information Regarding Historical Record of Artificial Production Mitigation in the Columbia River Basin

What are the current costs of anadromous fish hatchery operations and who is paying for these costs? (A & B)

How do existing hatchery programs contribute to recent harvests compared to past years? (A & B)

Are there hatcheries that produce more pounds of juvenile production than they do in adults that contribute to fisheries and return to hatchery release sites? If so, should these hatchery programs continue to be funded? (A & B)

What is the allocation of funding for hatchery production relative to funding for wild native salmonid conservation and management in the basin?
(A & B)

Section V: Discussion: Performance Review of Columbia River Hatchery Programs

What are the economic benefits and impacts of hatchery production programs to the regional economy? (A & B)

What is the historic relationship between natural production and harvest? (A & B)

What cost benefit is being realized by current hatchery operations? (A & B)

What are the human caused factors (i.e., darns, harvest methods, irrigation, enhancement or predator opportunities, etc.) affecting hatchery fish survival? What percentage of mortality can be attributed to each factor specifically? (A & B)

Summarize the factors associated with chronic failures to meet mitigation objectives where artificial production is being employed as a tool. (A & B)

Identify and describe any specific chronic conservation problems associated with artificial production activities within the Columbia Basin. (A & B)

Is there evidence for an optimum smelt size and time of release? Is there consistency among operating agencies? Among hatcheries? Would consistency increase smelt to adult survival? (A & B)

Has the federal government kept up its obligations to fund hatchery mitigation programs? Would better federal funding have led to modernization and technological advancements for state of the art hatchery facilities? (A & B)

To what extent are artificial propagation programs fulfilling the initial intent and language of legislative and legal mandates (e.g., U.S. v Oregon)?
(A & B)

Can hatchery rearing practices and environment be changed to increase hatchery effectiveness? If so, what changes could be made? (A & B)

Identify hatchery programs causing 1) excessive straying of non-indigenous fish with natural populations? 2) Require the "mining" of natural populations of broodstock? or 3) Homogenization of basin stock structure? (A & B)

How many salmon and steelhead would be returning to the Columbia River if hatchery programs have never been implemented? (A & B)

How does artificial production affect harvest regimes and vice versa? What has been the affect of this relationship on natural production? (A & B)

How effective has artificial production been relative to stated objectives in the Columbia River? (A & B)

What is the record of effectiveness of artificial production to mitigate for the effects of mainstem dams and other habitat changes for lost natural production? How effective has artificial production been relative to stated objectives in the Columbia River over a historic period, and over a range of ocean conditions? (A & B)

To what extent do our current policies and priorities comply with existing goals of current restoration programs? (A & B)

Given the existing hatchery program in the Columbia River, what are the funding requirements needed to meet production goals and satisfy operation and maintenance needs? (A & B)

If the hatchery program is changed to reduce or contain genetic and ecological risks to both hatchery and wild populations so that long-term fitness and productivity is maintained, what is the expected funding support that will be needed? Compare the funding needs in questions one and two. (Needs further clarification) (4 A, B, C & D)

Do the purposes for which Congress and FERC authorized hatchery programs reflect current science? Current environmental conditions? And current conservation needs? (C & D)

To what extent has policy decisions affected the effectiveness of hatchery production programs? (C & D)

What policies are being applied by managers within the Columbia Basin to address potential problems and uncertainties regarding the use of artificial production? Are there common themes among those policies? Are there important gaps? (C & D)

How effectively has artificial production been in meeting mitigation goals for the Columbia River Basin? (C & D)

What are the hatchery protocols needed to prevent a hatchery population from diverging from the wild donor population? (C & D)

Are hatchery salmonids less fit for survival in the natural freshwater and ocean environments? If they are, then what are the changes that must be made in the hatchery operation to make fish as fit as wild fish? (C & D)

If hatchery fish are not as fit as wild fish, should hatchery fish be counted as equal to wild spawners in spawner escapement surveys? Should hatchery salmonids be counted in the spawner escapement along with wild, native salmonids? (C & D)

Do hatchery programs exist in the Columbia Basin or the region that have been shown to do a good job supporting biological diversity, genetic and life history attributes, fitness and productivity of the wild, native population they interact with? Can these hatcheries serve as a model for the basin and region? (C & D)

Have mitigation hatcheries been successful in replacing numerical losses in the basin? Have they been successful in replacing the biological diversity and fitness of the wild, native runs that were lost? (C & D)

What options have been identified as viable alternatives to increased artificial production? List the system configuration alternatives of mainstem hydroelectric dam operations that will benefit both natural and artificial production. (C & D)

Section VII: Policy Analysis and Recommendations

Are there hatcheries that produce more pounds of juvenile production than they do in adults that contribute to fisheries and return to hatchery release sites? If so, should these hatchery programs continue to be funded? (A & B)

Is there a harvestable surplus of salmonids in the Columbia River? Is this surplus composed primarily of hatchery fish? Does harvest management aimed at harvesting surplus hatchery fish create biological and policy problems for the rebuilding and conservation of wild salmonids in the basin? (A & B)

Must hatchery purposes now be revised, when needed, to reflect the conservation needs and requirements of the ESA? (A & B)

If Columbia Basin hatcheries were operated based on each performance to achieve desired results, what should be the performance indicators for conservation programs? Treaty Trust? Recreational fisheries? Commercial fisheries? Administration efficiencies? (A & B)

If the goal is to maintain biological diversity of salmonids, is this allocation of funds appropriate and is it adequate? (A & B)

Should benefactors of Columbia River development, other than electricity ratepayers and Federal taxpayers, (e.g., navigation, irrigation, ports, etc.) provide mitigation funding for hatchery programs? (A & B)

Should hatchery programs be managed to be results-oriented and performance-based per the Government Performance and Results Act, with funding decisions made based on the performance of each program in achieving results as expressed in terms of adult fish or human activity associated with adult fish? (A & B)

What is and what should be the overall role of artificial production in the Columbia River? (A & B)

How can artificial production be used to meet the needs of society for sustainable populations of fish that support harvest, as well as other competing resources? (How much artificial production is needed to meet societies needs and what risks are society willing to take in regards to artificial production?) (A & B)

What institutional structures are needed to meet the needs of society for sustainable populations of fish that support harvest? (Are the current laws, mitigation agreements, funding mechanisms, management approaches, bureaucracies, infrastructure, and other aspects of Columbia Basin artificial production appropriate?) (A & B)

Some natural resource regulation agencies open their doors for outside performance audits from the scientific community. EPA is an example of this. Would it improve the fish agencies if independent scientists gave them a performance audit before getting federal funding? With regard to the hatchery program, which is primarily paid for by federal dollars, would you recommend a performance audit design and schedule? (A & B)

What is the conceptual framework and desired institutional organization needed to protect and maintain biological diversity and productivity of the basin's wild, native salmonids? (A & B)

There is no technical group in the basin, representing the fish agencies and tribes, working on wild salmonid issues, research, program and project development. Should there be such a group created, and what would be their charge? (A & B)

Should a coordinated wild, native salmonid management policy be developed for the basin? (A & B)

Should subbasin protocols be established for management and conservation of hatchery and wild, native salmonids? Should these local goals be coordinated on a regional scale for the purpose of monitoring and oversight? (A & B)

How does artificial production combine with natural production to fit into our overall goals? (A & B)

Fish management agencies have been known to adopt administrative rules to regulate their hatchery and wild fish management programs following a public hearing process, yet lack the funding to carry out those rules and in some cases rules are not carried out for other reasons than the lack of funding. What can the agencies do to provide the public feedback on the implementation of rules? This goes to the question of accountability. (A & B)

Do the tribal fish management agencies have a legal responsibility to involve the public in their decision-making processes, to take public comment and to revise decisions based on public input? Do the tribes have a legal responsibility to follow federal and state regulations? For example, do the Tribes have the legal responsibility to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act or, at the state level, to comply with the Oregon Wild Fish Policy or the Washington Wild Salmonid Policy? Is the non-Indian public interest protected by tribal processes and decision making? (A & B)

In a subbasin where hatchery and wild, native fish of the same species are found, should the hatchery fish or the wild fish drive the hatchery program and the management program? For example, the Warm Springs Hatchery is regulated to meet wild spawner abundance goals above the hatchery and no hatchery fish are allowed upstream to spawn with wild native spring chinook. This is different from other hatchery programs where the production goals of the hatchery are the primary management focus. (A & B)

Section III (A & B) and Section V (A, B, C & D). The following questions should be addressed in both sections III and V.

What are the positive and negative biological/ecological contributions/impacts of artificial production in the Columbia River?
(2 A & B; 4 A, B, C & D)

Section V and Section VII. The following questions should be addressed in both sections V and VII.

In each agency what is the funding allocation for artificial production and for wild, native salmonid production? Is this funding allocation appropriate given the problems associated with wild, native salmon decline? Does this funding allocation represent an institutional barrier to conservation of wild, native populations? How can this barrier be corrected within each agency and by each agency in the Columbia Basin? (4 A &B; 5 A & B)

Should a system of accountability be established for each hatchery program based upon meeting: (i) mitigation agreements, (2) contribution to fisheries, (3) meeting biological standards related to wild, native salmon risk criteria, (4) cost and benefit standards, (5) survival standards? If a system of hatchery accountability is established, should standards be adopted to bring the hatchery into compliance? If the hatchery fails to comply with accountability standards, should the hatchery be terminated? What would the criteria for hatchery termination be? (4 A, B, C & D; 5 A & B)

How should artificial propagation programs be changed to meet conservation, mitigation/compensation and restoration needs? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

What should define "success" for artificial propagation programs in the Columbia River Basin? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using artificial propagation to support put-and-take or terminal fisheries? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

Should non-indigenous stocks be used in artificial propagation programs to create and support new fisheries? Do the risks outweigh the benefits? (4 C & D; 5 A & B) How should changes in populations that result from environmental conditions (e.g., ocean conditions, good/bad water years, etc...) be managed? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

As the proportion of hatchery fish increases and harvests are targeted on them a mixed stock harvest problem is created where the wild, native population is exposed to high harvest rates. In this way the hatchery program fuels the harvest management program and wild fish are overharvested. What are your recommendations for reducing or terminating this problem? Can hatchery fish be used as a buffer to protect wild fish or is this a rationalization to justify not making changes in fishery management? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

If habitat and passage problems are corrected in the basin can wild native salmonids be rebuilt if' the hatchery program remains unchanged? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

Can these wild native populations be recovered using supplementation where wild brood stock are used in the hatchery program? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

Can hatcheries be used to double the runs and, at the same time, maintain the biological diversity, fitness and productivity of the individual subbasin populations or is there a conflict between these two goals set forth by the fish agencies and tribes through the Power Council? What are your recommendations for resolving this conflict, if it exists? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

Mitigation has been carried out in such a way that the effect is the replacement of wild, native salmonids with hatchery fish. Is this effective mitigation? Have the mitigation agreements and goals been met in each relevant case in the Columbia? If hatchery mitigation is not working what should it be replaced with that would protect wild populations? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

Can hatchery and wild salmonids be integrated so that they function as single reproductive unit within a subbasin or should the two be kept separate, including the separation of spawning time to reduce crossbreeding between hatchery and wild fish? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

Should a coordinated gene flow management policy be developed to control stray hatchery fish in the basin? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

How do we mitigate fisheries with the least impact on wild fish? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

If harvest rates are constrained by natural production, then how can we alter hatcheries to meet compensation goals? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

Given that hatcheries are a necessary tool to mitigate for lost natural production, where does is make most sense, (i.e., most effective in production and cost) to locate production facilities? (4 C & D; 5 A & B) What clearly defined goals, objectives, strategies and performance criteria are needed for guiding artificial propagation programs in the Columbia River Basin? What forum should be used to evaluate existing and new programs and to ensure that such criteria are applied throughout the basin? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

How does artificial production fit, or might be altered to fit, into the Columbia Basin ecosystem? (What are the biological risks attendant to the use of different magnitudes of, and different approaches to, artificial production?) (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

Do the various policies and priorities that govern the use of artificial production in the Columbia River Basin represent a coherent and consistent approach? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

What are the institutional barriers among the fish agencies and tribes to securing protection of biological diversity and productivity of wild, native salmonids? Is this a policy question these agencies should address openly with public participation and scientific review? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

How do we coordinate these different policies and priorities to represent a coherent and consistent approach to the use of artificial production in the Columbia River? (4 C & D; 5 A & B)

Following are questions that could not be classified by task for the reasons identified in bold print.

Current hatchery reformation efforts must be the baseline for all artificial production discussions. Define that baseline. (Needs further clarification)

Why was the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team concept scrapped at a critical time in it's progression to answering the Power Planning Councils questions regarding hatchery operations and development of a basin wide hatchery policies and procedures? (Question is outside of context of Artificial Production Review)

Are spawner abundance goals defined for wild, native salmonids in the basin? Are numerical and ecological spawning escapement goals related? And, what are the ecological functions that should be delivered by spawner escapement goals? (Needs further clarification)

What are the negative biological/ecological impacts of artificial production in the Columbia River? (Combined with a similar question under Tasks 2 and 4)

^ top