ISAB Artificial Production Review Report 3

Recommendations for the Design of Hatchery Monitoring 

Programs and the Organization of Data Systems

Independent Scientific Advisory Board

Northwest Power Planning Council

National Marine Fisheries Service

851 S.W. 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, OR 97204

Peter A. Bisson

Charles C. Coutant

Daniel Goodman

Robert Gramling

James Lichatowich 

William Liss

Dennis Lettenmaier

Eric Loudenslager

Lyman McDonald

David Philipp

Brian Riddell

October 3, 2000

ISAB 2000-4
i

ISAB Artificial Production Review Report 3: Recommendations for the 

Design of Hatchery Monitoring Programs and the Organization of Data 

Systems

Contents: 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................ii

Recommendations for the Design of Hatchery Monitoring Programs and the Organization 

of Data Systems.............................................................................................................. 1

Elements of Monitoring Systems for Evaluating Artificial Production Programs............. 2

Types of Information ................................................................................................... 2

Monitoring for Type 1 Information - Details of Fish Culture Practices Inside the 

Hatchery...................................................................................................................... 3

Monitoring Type 2 Information - Survival and Contribution to Harvest of Hatchery 

Fish after Release......................................................................................................... 6

Monitoring Type 3 Information - The Effects of Released Hatchery Fish on the 

Ecosystem ................................................................................................................... 7

Establishing a Data System for Determining if Hatcheries are Meeting Performance 

Standards..................................................................................................................... 8

Literature Cited............................................................................................................. 11
ii

Executive Summary

The ISAB recommends the development of a monitoring program to assess the 

effectiveness of the Columbia River basin hatchery system. Initially, monitoring data are 

required to establish criteria for the performance standards and indicators proposed to be 

used to evaluate when, where, and how artificial propagation may be used within the 

basin. Once criteria for performance standards and indicators are established, ongoing 

monitoring will be necessary to assure compliance with standards and provide a scientific 

basis for judging and proposing reforms in fish husbandry practices. 

To analyze and understand the performance of fish produced by the hatchery system 

following their release into the natural environment we need to gather three types of 

information:

1. Specific details of fish culture practices inside the hatchery. 

2. What happens to the hatchery produced fish after release.

3. What effect the hatchery-produced fish have on wild and other hatchery fish 

outside the hatchery. 

Assessing how fish culture practices inside the hatchery (information type 1) affect what 

happens to hatchery produced fish after release (information type 2) is required to 

evaluate alternative fish rearing/release strategies and guide hatchery reform. Assessing 

the effects of hatchery produced fish on wild and other hatchery fish outside the hatchery 

is required to evaluate the success of supplementation and evaluate possible detrimental 

effects of mitigation and augmentation.

Sampling and tagging programs at all facilities need to be sufficient to estimate the SAR 

for each stock produced at each release location.

No organization has yet taken responsibility for comprehensive experimental design or 

data collection in the basin. This omission needs to be addressed at an institutional level. 

Monitoring will be required at hatcheries throughout the basin, as well as at sites in each 

subbasin, the migration corridor, the estuary, and the ocean. Standardizing data 

collection and reporting is necessary for the proposed monitoring effort to be most 

informative. Monitoring hatchery-produced fish outside of the hatchery is necessary not 

only to evaluate alternative culture practices, but also to evaluate the recovery of ESA 

listed stocks. Additional staffing assigned to this task will undoubtedly be needed.

Experimental research should begin to take advantage of the recent developments in 

"DNA fingerprinting" technology to evaluate supplementation and the effects of wild fish 

interbreeding with strays from mitigation and augmentation programs.

Once monitoring begins, there is no need to centralize the entire data storage and retrieval 

system. Internet technology allows for a very effective system to be developed by web 

links between modular sites that take responsibility for various functions, such as data 
iii

archiving or data access, and that specialize in particular types of data or particular types 

of analyses. Modularization and specialization among the various sites participating in 

the networked system should encourage efficiencies and allow for sound fiscal 

management. The data archiving function should be modularized so that there is one data 

archiving center for each class of data. At the moment, there are not enough such 

archiving centers, and important classes of data are not being compiled and archived in 

an accessible form. This shortcoming needs to be addressed. The delivery of data in a 

form suitable for archiving, on a specified timetable, should be a contracting requirement 

for all projects that generate such data. This requirement would represent a cultural shift 

that may not be eagerly embraced by some groups of data generators, but that shift is 

important and needs to be implemented. The data access function should be modularized 

to serve specified data access needs. The network of modularized data access sites 

should evolve with changing needs for analysis. The articulation of need should arise 

from the community of data users. Funding for data archiving and data access should be 

managed on a project basis, where each project serves a narrowly identified function (i.e., 

to archive a particular class of data, or to provide data access for a particular kind of 

analysis).
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

1

ISAB Artificial Production Review Report 3

Recommendations for the Design of Hatchery Monitoring Programs 

and the Organization of Data Systems

October 3, 2000

The Northwest Power Planning Council, following a 1997 request from Congress, 

reviewed federally funded fish hatchery programs within the Columbia River basin 

(Artificial Production Review, Council document 99-15). The review produced a formal 

recommendation for coordinated artificial production policy within the basin, steps to 

implement the policies, and draft performance standards and indicators to measure 

progress toward achieving programmatic goals for artificial production. 

In a letter dated November 15, 1999 Council requested the ISAB review those 

performance standards and indicators, focusing on three questions:

1. Are the draft performance standards and associated indicators the appropriate 

tools to periodically evaluate the effects of individual artificial production 

programs for the purpose of determining whether the principles, policies, and 

purposes in the Artificial Production Review (APR) are being fulfilled?

2. Are the draft performance standards and associated indicators the appropriate 

tools to adequately evaluate the effects of the artificial production activities in 

the basin?

3. If a performance standard, indicator or other means of measurement is not the 

most appropriate tool for this purpose, what other standard or indicator would 

you recommend? 

The ISAB responded to that letter of request by proposing to prepare three reports dealing 

with the following topics:

1. Appropriateness of the Performance Standards and Indicators.

2. Consistency of Artificial Production Policies and Implementation Strategies 

with the Multi-Species Framework Scientific Principles and the Scientific 

Review Team Guidelines.

3. Development of an Appropriate Data System.

This is the third of these reports, suggesting elements to be included in the design of 

hatchery monitoring programs and the organization of data systems. 
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

2

A variety of methods are used to culture salmon and steelhead within the Columbia River 

basin, and there are different purposes for culturing these fish. Information on the 

success of these hatchery programs is required to decide when, where, and how artificial 

propagation may be used within the basin to provide fishing opportunities, support 

endangered populations through captive rearing, and possibly contribute to rebuilding 

wild populations using supplementation. Judging the efficacy of alternative husbandry 

practices (hatchery reform) and the value of proposals for additional programs/facilities 

should be based on analysis of data obtained through comprehensive monitoring 

programs coordinated throughout the basin.

Elements of Monitoring Systems for Evaluating Artificial 

Production Programs 

Types of Information

There are three types of information needed to evaluate the hatchery system.

1. Specific details of fish culture practices inside the hatchery. 

2. Survival and harvest contribution of the hatchery produced fish following release.

3. Short and long term effects of hatchery produced fish on wild populations and other 

hatchery fish. 

Routinely, hatchery personnel collect data on much of the activity that goes on inside the 

hatchery, both for their own internal management needs and to meet compliance with 

agency requirements. Because there is little expectation that the data might be used 

outside the individual hatchery, there is little standardization and long-term record 

keeping. Historically, however, there has been a modest level of monitoring aimed at 

addressing Type 2 information (the disposition of hatchery fish outside the hatchery), 

including the use of fin clip marking, occasional branding, coded wire tagging (CWT's) 

to identify harvested fish by batch, and at least some passive integrated transponder (PIT) 

tagging to identify individual fish as they pass detectors. A further strength of this 

information component is that most of the recovery data, both for PIT tags and for CWT's 

is archived in genuine (though imperfect) databases.

The most glaring weakness with respect to Type 2 information (survival and harvest 

contributions) has been difficulty linking the recovery data to specific fish culture 

practices (Type 1 information). There is no common data base for recording what goes 

on inside each of the many hatcheries involved. The masses of tag recovery data, which 

can provide estimates of Smolt to Adult Ratios (SAR's) and passage survival rates, 

cannot readily be correlated with the biological characteristics and husbandry practices 

experienced by the fish that exhibited those survival rates - a key information need. A 

first step in understanding how various hatchery practices impact these important 

performance characteristics is to improve monitoring in the hatchery system by 

institutionalizing and standardizing data collection and data handling for Type 1 
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

3

information (e.g., stock origin and rearing conditions). Furthermore, it is important to 

coordinate this effort with the data collection and data handling efforts implemented for 

Type 2 information (e.g., analysis of CWT and PIT tag recoveries).

Type 3 information, monitoring the effects of hatchery fish on wild populations is 

tremendously important, but rarely done. Because monitoring of (and perhaps 

experimentation on) wild fish outside the hatchery does not generally fall under the 

purview of the hatchery operators or even the hatchery system as a whole, developing 

this aspect of monitoring requires institutional reform and cooperation at different levels 

within an organization. Furthermore, even though some monitoring of wild fish does 

take place, we are not sure there is consensus on a practical paradigm for obtaining data 

that answer the critical questions, much less consensus on what the critical questions are. 

For these reasons, collection of Type 3 information is a longer-term agenda item, but 

thoughtful recommendations for its development and implementation are needed. 

Monitoring for Type 1 Information - Details of Fish Culture Practices Inside 

the Hatchery 

The following types of data/metadata1 should be collected each year for every "batch" of 

fish:

Stock Origin, Breeding Design, and Rearing and Release Conditions for cultured 

fishes

1. Species

2. Stock name, source and history

3. Parentage of the brood: hatchery origin versus naturally spawned parents; if both are 

involved, these should be treated as separate batches from those produced entirely 

from hatchery or naturally produced parents

4. Number of female parents

5. Size of female parents: with some sampling statistics defining how this was 

estimated, and providing confidence intervals

6. Age of female parents: with some sampling statistics defining how this was 

estimated, and providing confidence intervals

7. Dates of arrival of brood stock and water temperature at the hatchery or weir

8. Holding periods and temperatures of brood stock

9. Number of male parents

10. Size of male parents: with some sampling statistics defining how this was estimated, 

and providing confidence intervals

11. Age of male parents: with some sampling statistics defining how this was estimated, 

and providing confidence intervals

12. Mating design

13. Number of eggs per female: with some sampling statistics defining how this was 

 

1

 Metadata are the documentation of objectives, measurement methods, sampling design, and association of 

primary data with a time and place (ISRP 2000-3: Review of Databases Funded through the Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, NWPPC, Portland, Oregon) 
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

4

estimated, and providing confidence intervals

14. Mean egg size: with some sampling statistics defining how this was estimated, and 

providing confidence intervals

15. Date of sperm collection/history of sperm treatment

16. Date(s) of egg stripping

17. Date(s) of fertilization

18. Fertilization success

19. Incubation conditions (temperature fluctuations - recorded with temperature loggers, 

not just averages, water source, substrate, jar, heath tray, etc) 

20. Number of eggs fertilized: with some sampling statistics defining how this was 

estimated, and providing confidence intervals

21. Number of eyed eggs: with some sampling statistics defining how this was estimated, 

and providing confidence intervals

22. Egg to fry survival rate: with some sampling statistics defining how this was 

estimated, and providing confidence intervals

23. Hatching date(s)

24. Numbers of fry ponded: with some sampling statistics defining how this was 

estimated, and providing confidence intervals

25. Rearing history

• translocation among facilities (dates and places)

• ration

• temperature

• density

• flow regime

• cover and substrate

• growth curve (size against time)

• antibiotic/theraputant treatments

• noteworthy events (disease outbreaks, pump or temperature control failures)

26. Fry to release survival rate (parr or smolt): with some sampling statistics defining 

how this was estimated, and providing confidence intervals

27. Release status (for each release batch)

• Number and stage (fry, parr, smolt): with some sampling statistics defining 

how this was estimated, and providing confidence intervals

• acclimation treatment

• nature of release (volitional or not)

• date(s) of release

• length and weight at release: with some sampling statistics defining how this 

was estimated, and providing confidence intervals

• location of release

• ambient conditions at time of release (temperature, flow)

• total numbers in each release batch

• number CWT tagged in each release batch (and list tag codes)

• number PIT tagged in each release batch (and list tag codes)

• other marks (fin clip, temperature, or chemical signatures) for the release 

batch
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

5

Adults Returning to Hatcheries or Weirs, but not necessarily used for Breeding

By species and stock:

1. Dates and water temperature of arrival of brood stock at the hatchery or weir

2. Numbers of females

3. Size of females: with some sampling statistics defining how this was estimated, and 

providing confidence intervals

4. Age of females: with some sampling statistics defining how this was estimated, and 

providing confidence intervals

5. Number of males

6. Size of males: with some sampling statistics defining how this was estimated, and 

providing confidence intervals

7. Age of males: with some sampling statistics defining how this was estimated, and 

providing confidence intervals

8. Tags or marks on individual fish associated with the above data

9. Monitor the genetic composition of the returning population by estimating allele 

frequencies at allozyme (for retrospective analysis with previous baseline data) and 

microsatellite loci. This genetic monitoring should be conducted at least every three 

to four years.

Data Collection

To evaluate the efficacy of different culture methods across locations in subbasin or basin 

wide analyses, data collection at each facility must be standardized and uniform. 

Responsibility for developing the standardization, including quality assurance and quality 

control (QA/QC) measures, should be assumed by a region wide authority, for example 

the Council, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or the Columbia Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Authority (CBFWA), (ISRP 2000-3). Given the presumption that hatchery 

staffs are fully occupied with fish husbandry responsibilities, it is likely that additional 

staff will be required to organize and supervise collection of the data. The ISAB 

recommends considering a coordinated staffing effort with each facility having an 

individual assigned solely to the monitoring project and supervised through a regional 

monitoring effort.

Data Organization

The fundamental unit of data organization for Type 1 information should be the "batch," 

which in general is defined as each group of fish that has a common type of parentage 

(stock, stock history, and broodstock collection location), breeding design, common 

spawning and rearing experience and history, and common release time, location, and 

strategy. Once specific monitoring is designed, temporal and spatial boundaries need to 

be established for "batches" based on the requirements of the analytical framework. For 

example, individual families, or their subdivisions, reared and released using common 

conditions within a facility would be very fine scale batches. In contrast, pooling multiple 

stocks of a species, for example spring and fall run chinook, even when reared and 

released using common conditions at a single facility, would be a very course scale batch. 

Using individual families as batches would certainly constrain operational flexibility 
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

6

within a hatchery, and depending on the monitoring design might not contribute 

increased precision to identifying trends. Using pooled stocks as batches reduces the 

likelihood of identifying those fish culture practices that produce increased returns.

Reporting Requirements and Format

Once data are collected they must be assembled and stored in manner to be available for 

analysis. A fixed format should be adopted for recording this information in machinereadable form, and delivery of the machine-readable data by a specified time should be 

an annual reporting requirement. Compliance with reporting requirements should be a 

necessary condition for continued funding.

Monitoring Type 2 Information - Survival and Contribution to Harvest of 

Hatchery Fish after Release 

To make informed decisions on the efficacy of alternative culture practices, after 

artificially produced fish are released from hatchery facilities, managers and decision 

makers need to know how these fish survive through the migration corridor, contribute to 

ocean and in-river fisheries, and return to the basin to be spawned in a hatchery or spawn 

in the wild. To accomplish these tasks, all or an adequate sample from each batch of 

released smolts must be marked. In addition, different marking technologies lend 

themselves to providing different kinds of information. As an example, coded wire tags 

(CWT's) are of limited value in monitoring passage survival for individual hatcheries, 

except in the case of designed experiments (Burnham et al., 1987), but if there is good 

quantification of the sampling fraction, do provide estimates of harvest mortality. In 

contrast, passive integrated transponder tags (PIT tags) provide important information on 

survival through the migration corridor, and if sufficient tagging is performed has the 

potential to resolve questions concerning the effects of barge transport and in-river 

migration through dam by-pass systems. To resolve questions relevant to specific 

hatchery operations, to the basin-wide artificial production program, and to the effects of 

the hydrosystem and natural environmental variation, will require coordinating all 

facilities within the basin in a systematic marking program.

For each batch of fish produced, the numbers tagged, together with the types of tags used 

and the procedure for selection of the fish for tagging, constitute a "design" whether 

deliberate or not. It is important to have basin wide directives on these designs, e.g., to 

insure that fish tagged are representative of the batch. As a result, individual hatchery 

operation plans should state the number of fish to be tagged for each batch, how the fish 

were systematically selected for tagging (e.g., procedures for systematically dipping fish 

from each raceway), and should indicate how this marking fits into subbasin, province, 

and basin monitoring. The basin needs to develop a comprehensive monitoring plan 

demonstrating that the expected confidence limits on expected tag recovery information 

are sufficient for estimating important parameters including SAR, passage survival, 

composition of harvest, and straying rates. The monitoring plan should state the 

questions of interest (e.g., comparing various rearing regimes, stock sources, or 

hatcheries, or verifying that production for a particular stock is above replacement). The 
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

7

monitoring plan should explain why the expected confidence limits for the results are 

deemed adequate to resolve those questions of interest. Because policy makers will 

ultimately decide whether to expand, terminate, or make changes in the hatchery 

programs, they should be consulted as to the level of certainty they require. In this way, 

the precision of the analysis of the monitoring program can be designed to meet their 

expectations.

There is existing controversy over the suggestion to mark all hatchery smolts. One 

concern is that marking all smolts would invite selective fisheries for fish of hatchery 

origin, with the potential for unacceptable mortality to by-captured and released wild fish. 

Another concern is that fish produced in supplementation programs are needed to spawn 

in restored habitats, and these fish would be removed by a harvest strategy that targets 

hatchery fish. If CWT and PIT tagging sufficient for harvest and migration corridor 

monitoring are insufficient for determining straying rates or other evaluations where 

delayed detection marks would be acceptable, a solution to this acknowledged dilemma 

might be to use elemental marks, DNA "fingerprinting" or thermal banding of otoliths or 

other hard parts.

Each batch of salmon and steelhead at each facility needs to be tagged in numbers that 

are sufficient to estimate a SAR for each stock at each release location.

Monitoring Type 3 Information - The Effects of Released Hatchery Fish on 

the Ecosystem 

Monitoring Hatchery Fish Spawning in the Wild

Artificially propagated fish used in supplementation programs are intended to spawn in 

the wild and become incorporated into the natural population. A measure of success of 

supplementation is that hatchery fish spawning in the wild produce progeny who then 

contribute to recovery by increasing lambda, the average population growth rate 

(McClure, et al., 2000, McElhaney et al., 2000), in wild populations the following 

generation. In the case of supplementation, therefore, we wish to know if hatchery fish 

successfully spawn and what effects interbreeding between hatchery and wild fish may 

have on the fitness of the wild population. 

Artificially propagated fish used in mitigation and augmentation programs may stray into 

naturally spawning populations. In the case of mitigation and augmentation, therefore, 

we wish to know how much straying and interbreeding take place between hatchery 

origin fish and wild fish, and whether or not that interbreeding leads to unacceptable 

changes in the fitness of the wild population.

Demonstrating that artificially propagated salmon and steelhead spawned successfully in 

the natural environment can be demonstrated conveniently using genetic markers passed 

from parent to offspring. Genetic markers have been used in limited settings to compare 

the performance of hatchery and wild fish (Reisenbichler and McIntyre, 1977) and 

confirm that hatchery fish have spawned successfully in the wild (Chilcote et al., 1986). 
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

8

Unfortunately, assessments of the effects of interbreeding between hatchery and wild fish 

on the wild population are lacking.

Recent developments in "DNA fingerprinting" permits us to address many of these 

questions. Determining the parentage and relatedness of individuals is possible using 

genotypic data from multiple single-locus nuclear markers. Confirmation of breeding, 

assessment of inbreeding and outbreeding depression, and quantification of relative 

fitness can now be investigated. Because these techniques determine individual 

genotypes via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, only small fin clips or scale 

samples are required as a tissue source. Using these approaches to evaluate 

supplementation and the effects of wild fish interbreeding with strays from mitigation and 

augmentation programs has tremendous potential to provide uniquely valuable 

information to basin planners. We recommend that experimental research designed to 

take advantage of this powerful technology begin in earnest.

Monitoring the Ecological Effects of Hatchery Releases

As a consequence of direct releases, and potentially through the production of offspring, 

hatchery salmon and steelhead interact with other species in the natural environment 

(Pearsons and Hopley 1999). These interactions may be harmful (competition, predation, 

pathogen introduction) or beneficial (provide increased prey base, increase nutrients from 

adult carcasses, etc.). Assessing the magnitude of these effects is necessary to properly 

evaluate the consequences of releasing nearly 150 million smolts into the Columbia basin 

ecosystem. This assessment could contribute to determining appropriate release numbers 

for individual subbasins and provinces.

Establishing a Data System for Determining If Hatcheries are Meeting 

Performance Standards 

Background

Beyond the context of hatchery evaluation, there is concern within the basin on how best 

to configure information systems to ensure access to data so that analyses needed to 

inform decision making are available. The Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) 

recently reviewed the organization of databases funded through the Council's Fish and 

Wildlife Program (ISRP 2000-3). Most of the conclusions of this review are relevant to 

integrating data and analyses from a comprehensive monitoring of the entire artificial 

production program. The following is abstracted from that report. The data system needs 

to provide three functions:

1. Data collection; 

2. Data archiving; and

3. Data access. 

With current technologies it is feasible, and probably desirable, to separate these 

functions among multiple sites, in a "modular" fashion. As a result, it is important to 

investigate whether these data system functions are well served with the present 

configuration of data management activities in the basin, and to consider what changes 

might enhance them.
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

9

Data Collection

In an ideal situation, there would be some grand assessment of what data are needed to 

provide the information to support management decisions. Following that, some 

organization would have responsibility for designing a monitoring and experimentation 

program that could efficiently deliver those data. Finally, some organization would have 

the responsibility for implementing that design. Unfortunately, current reality is such that 

at the level of the big picture, none of these components of data collection are in place. 

No grand assessment of specific data needs has been done, not even a systematic 

inventory of data. No organization has taken responsibility for data collection program 

design, and no organization has taken responsibility for its implementation. Indeed, it is 

not even clear whether any existing organization has broad enough authority to take 

command of implementation, so implementation might well require a new cooperative 

venture among several organizations. The ISAB and ISRP have voiced concerns over 

this apparent omission. The recently completed ISRP review of data systems should help 

in the development of a strategy for an assessment (ISRP 2000-3).

Data Archiving

Data archiving is the compilation of data and associated metadata under a QA/QC 

(Quality Control/Quality Assurance) process, with some provisions for maintaining data 

integrity in a central facility. There must be consensus among all parties that generate 

data that this archive is "the" archive for a given "class" of data.

At the moment the ISAB is aware of two such archives for two different classes of data, 

the Coded Wire Tag (CWT) database maintained at StreamNet and the Passive Integrated 

Transponder Tag (PIT tag) database maintained at PTAGIS. The ISAB also believes that 

the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has an archive of dam operations data and that the 

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment expert system used by Council in the Framework 

process has assembled a compilation of habitat data, presumably from primary sites that 

serve as archives of those data. Other important classes of data seem to have no 

designated archival location, most notably, data sets on hatchery operations, harvest 

effort data, radio tagging data, and experimental results for studies on various 

hatchery/wild populations. Those data are thought to be in the hands of individual 

investigators, projects, or agencies, and are not readily accessible or inventoried. An 

inventory of these data classes and their status would be an appropriate first step in 

implementing this function.

Data Access

Data access involves providing reasonably convenient and effective means to search, 

sort, collate, and cross-reference data--possibly from multiple data archives--for purposes 

of analysis. The ISAB impression at the moment is that StreamNet and the Fish Passage 

Center provide limited menus of such functions, where as DART provides a different 

(and richer) menu. We do not yet know, however, about the data access functions of 

other data centers. The measure of adequacy of a data access system is a moving target, 

i.e., the perceived adequacy of a data access system is evaluated relative to the current 

needs of data users. When new kinds of analyses are undertaken, new data access needs 
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

10

are created that may not be well served by existing query systems. This implies that 

multiple data access centers might evolve around different data analysis paradigms and 

the needs of different data user groups.

Needs for Centralization

The new Internet technology allows the option of very effective networking of a 

"distributed" system. It creates opportunities for considerable efficiencies, provided there 

is an underlying logic that identifies which kinds of functions still need to be centralized, 

and which can be networked-- provided, of course, that all the needed functions are 

represented by modules somewhere in the network. For each "class" of data there needs 

to be a single archive, to guarantee data integrity and to preclude ambiguities. There can 

still be many archives, however, as long as each respective data class is housed in only 

one. There are in fact advantages to having multiple archive sites, each specializing in 

one data class. That specialization allows the staff of the archive site to have better 

understanding of the nature of their data, and of the activities that generate their data, 

both of which should encourage better QA/QC and better communication with the data 

providers and users. Note in particular that communication between the data archiving 

center and the data providers is essential to ensure completeness of the compilation. 

Finally, specialization among the archive sites will allow for more transparent book 

keeping that could provide an opportunity to contain the costs of the archiving function. 

It would make good management sense to separate the funding for "data input" from the 

funding for maintaining the archive site. The data input activity should be budgeted into 

the respective data generating projects. Delivery of the data, in an appropriate form, and 

on a specified timetable, should be a contracting requirement for each project that 

generates data. The contracting requirement and separation of the funding should 

facilitate establishing new data archiving sites that are needed to accomplish the data 

archiving function for the important data classes that, at the moment, are orphans. To 

ensure that the data in each archiving site can be accessed by a common query system, 

there should be a minimal level of standardization required in the query system of each 

data archiving site. Such standards are now common knowledge within the information 

technology community, and should not constitute an undue burden to any archiving site. 

With the current technology, there is no need for centralization of data access sites. We 

take it for granted that data access sites will generally need to link to more than one data 

archive site, so there is no need for a data access site to be housed within any particular 

data archive site. The ease of establishing links on the web also extends to links between 

data access sites. For this reason there is no intrinsic motivation for duplication of actual 

function among access sites, since each can readily link to another for a query function 

that has already been developed. 

The only reason to invest in implementation of a particular query function within any 

data access site, is to address a need that is not yet met anywhere in the system. This 

incremental evaluation of the need to implement a new query would seem to lend itself to 

an RFP process whereby identified data access needs are described in detail from the 
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

11

perspective of the data user group and put out for bid. The bids may come from existing 

data access sites or from proposed new ones. This process should prove more efficient 

than attempting to create a single highly centralized one-size-fits-all data access site, 

where the connection between features and actual user needs could get lost and where the 

accounting for the cost of serving each user group would be harder to track. Just as 

specialization of data archiving centers could provide a benefit by encouraging a tighter 

bond between data generators and the data archive sites, specialization of data access 

sites could provide a benefit by encouraging a tighter bond between data users and the 

data access sites. The system as a whole should be managed through the project funding 

process, treating each data archiving site or data access site as a distinct project identified 

with serving a specified needed function.

Literature Cited

Burnham, K. P., D. R. Anderson, G. C. White, C. Brownie, and K. H. Pollock. 1987. 

Design and analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on releaserecapture. American Fisheries Society, Monograph 5, Bethesda, Maryland.

Chilcote, M. W., S. A. Leider, and J. J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive success of 

hatchery and wild summer-run steelhead under natural conditions. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 115:726-735.

Independent Scientific Review Panel. 2000. Review of Databases Funded through the

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power Planning Council.

ISRP 2000-3. www.nwppc.org/isrp/isrp_2000-3.pdf

McClure, M., B. Sanderson, E. Holmes, C. Jordan, P. Kareiva, and P. Levin. 2000. A 

standardized quantitative analysis of the risks faced by salmonids in the Columbia 

River basin. Draft Report dated April 7, 2000. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Cumulative Risk Initiative, Seattle, 

Washington. 125 pp + appendices.

McElhaney, P., M. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. Wainwright, and E. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionary significant units. 

Draft report dated January 6, 2000. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. 170 p.

Pearsons, T. N. and C. W. Hopley. 1999. A practical approach for assessing ecological 

risks associated with fish stocking programs. Fisheries 24:16-23.

Reisenbichler, R. R., and J. D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and 

survival of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout. Journal of the Fisheries 

Research Board of Canada 34:123-128.

________________________________________
ISAB 2000-4 APR Report 3. 

12

w:\em\ww\isab\1 isab final reports\isab 2000-4 apr data.doc