ISAB APR REPORT NO. 2

Consistency of the Council’s Artificial Production

Policies and Implementation Strategies with

Multi-Species Framework Principles and

Scientific Review Team Guidelines

Independent Scientific Advisory Board

Northwest Power Planning Council

National Marine Fisheries Service

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, OR 97204

Peter A. Bisson

Charles C. Coutant

Daniel Goodman

Robert Gramling

James Lichatowich

Eric Loudenslager

William Liss

Lyman McDonald

David Philipp

Brian Riddell

July 14, 2000

ISAB 2000-3
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

i

Consistency of the Council’s Artificial Production Policies and

Implementation Strategies with Multi-Species Framework Principles and

Scientific Review Team Guidelines

Contents

Background .................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of Report .......................................................................................................................... 4

Synopsis of recommendations ....................................................................................................... 4

Relationship of the Scientific Principles in the Multi-Species Framework to Artificial

Production....................................................................................................................................... 6

Council Policies for Artificial Propagation.................................................................................... 8

ISAB Comments on Implementing the APR’s Artificial Production Policies Consistent with the

Scientific Principles in the Multi-species Framework and the SRT Guidelines....................... 10

Appendix 1: SRT Suggested Guidelines on Hatchery Practices, Ecological Integration and

Genetics........................................................................................................................................ 18

Literature Cited............................................................................................................................ 21
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

1

ISAB APR REPORT NO. 2

 CONSISTENCY OF THE COUNCIL’S ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION POLICIES AND

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES WITH MULTI-SPECIES FRAMEWORK

PRINCIPLES AND SCIENTIFIC REVIEW TEAM GUIDELINES

Background

In July 1997, Congress directed the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) to review federally

funded fish hatchery programs in the Columbia River basin, with the assistance of the Independent

Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) and the cooperation of the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS), the States, and the tribes. The purpose of the review, submitted to Congress in November

1999, was to provide a coordinated set of policies for hatchery operations within the Columbia River

basin and recommendations for implementing the policy.

Artificial propagation of salmonid fishes has been one of the predominant features of salmon

management in the Columbia basin for the past 120 years. Initially used to try to avoid implementing

harvest regulations, artificial propagation has been used for the last 60 years to attempt to mitigate for

habitat lost to hydroelectric system development and to augment harvest. As recently as 1991

approximately 40% of the expenditures invested in salmon restoration in the Columbia basin were used

for artificial propagation (GAO 1992, cited in Return to the River, ISG 1996). By the late 1980's, adult

fish produced in hatcheries comprised about 50% of the fall chinook, 70 to 80%of the spring/summer

chinook, 70% of the steelhead, and 95% of the coho salmon in the Columbia basin (NMFS 1999).

Releases of hatchery produced salmon and steelhead exceeded 200 million smolts in some years, with

recent releases of approximately 140 million juveniles.

In the basin, juvenile salmonids are produced in over a hundred hatcheries operated by federal, state,

tribal, or private organizations. Funding for hatchery operations comes from federal sources (Lower

Columbia River Fishery Development Program, Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project, MidColumbia mitigation, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, John Day Dam mitigation, Dworshak

Dam mitigation, and the Northwest Power Act/Council's Fish and Wildlife Program), FERC-licensed

hydropower projects (Idaho Power Company, PacificCorp, Portland General Electric Company,

Washington Water Power, Douglas County PUD, Chelan County PUD, Grant County PUD, City of

Portland, Cowlitz County PUD, and Tacoma Public Utilities), as well as state fish and wildlife agencies.

Although it is arguably the predominant fishery management activity in the basin, the value of artificial

propagation remains controversial (ISAB 1999). While acknowledging this year’s prodigious hatchery

runs, over the last decade even with increasing smolt production from hatcheries, harvest and return of

adult fish to spawning grounds has continued to decline. Questions have arisen as to the efficacy of

artificial propagation and the management paradigm that lost habitat could mitigated by releasing fish

reared in hatcheries. There is general consensus that existing data sets involving artificially propagated
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

2

fish are inadequate to evaluate and monitor individual hatcheries or the artificial propagation program

within the basin as a whole. Over the last decade, twelve stocks of salmon and steelhead within the

Columbia basin have been listed as threatened or endangered under the federal endangered species act

(ESA). Ecological, genetic, and disease interactions between artificially propagated and increasingly

rare wild fish are implicated as potential causes for endangerment of those wild stocks. Harvest

designed to target hatchery production is an additional source of risk to wild stocks. Three reviews by

national panels: the National Research Council's Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific

Northwest (NRC 1996), the US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Fish Hatchery Review (NFHRP

1994), and the Council's Return to the River (ISG 1996) concur that the artificial propagation program

is not fulfilling its mitigation goals and at the same time is adding risk of extinction to wild stocks. These

reviews urge that artificial propagation be integrated with natural production.

Beyond questions of programmatic efficacy and expense, there has been no coordinated set of policies

within the basin among the federal, state, and tribal agencies undertaking artificial propagation. This

deficiency in coordination was recognized by the Council in its 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program. Section

7, Coordinated Salmon Production and Habitat, addressed the need for coordination:

In Sections 7.0 through 7.5, the Council calls for immediate efforts to gather data on wild

and naturally spawning stocks, review impacts of the existing hatchery system and

coordinate supplementation activities. ... In the Council’s view, this work will greatly

assist the region's decision-making processes. In the absence of this work, the Council

believes that implementation of habitat and production measures will continue to suffer

from inadequate information, disjointed policies, uncertainty and delay. The region

should begin this work promptly, to overcome these obstacles and allow recovery efforts

to proceed expeditiously.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Bonneville Power

Administration jointly developed a draft programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) on artificial

production within the Columbia basin, which the Council anticipated would fulfill the need for a

coordinated artificial production policy. Released in late 1996, this draft programmatic EIS received

significant criticism, and the congressional directive to the Council to review hatchery operations and

develop basin policy soon followed (NWPPC 1999, 99-2)

The Council appointed a Production Review Committee (PRC) to coordinate the Artificial Production

Review (APR) and to assist the Council in developing artificial production policies. The Council also

established a seven member Scientific Review Team (SRT) to provide independent assessment of

Columbia River basin artificial production programs.

The Production Review Committee was composed of approximately 25 individuals with expertise and

interest in fish production, who met once a month beginning in January 1998. Input and comment was

received from hatchery managers, tribes, environmental groups, and recreational fishers. The Council

also conducted two public workshops and numerous public meetings to discuss artificial production,

and explain progress on the review.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

3

The Artificial Production Review (NWPPC 1999, 99-15) is a bundled series of reports, attachments

and appendices. It assesses hatchery operation goals and principles, produces a formal

recommendation for a coordinated set of policies for future hatchery operations, and recommends steps

to implement those policies. Included in the APR was a set of draft performance standards and

indicators designed to serve as the basis for evaluating individual hatcheries and artificial production in

general. These evaluations would then serve to provide needed information for making decisions, e.g.,

how many hatcheries are needed or appropriate in the basin, how many fish should be produced using

artificial production, and how hatcheries should be operated to provide the best fish for the ecosystem.

In a letter dated November 15, 1999, the 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

Report (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 MultiSpecies Framework Scientific Principles and the Scientific Review Team Guidelines.

3. Development of an Appropriate Data System.

This is the second of these reports, addressing the consistency of artificial production policies and

implementation strategies with Framework principles and Scientific Review Team guidelines. In

developing this report, members of the ISAB reviewed background materials from the APR website,

including the Council’s scoping document, meeting summaries of the Production Review Committee

(PRC), the facilitator’s report, and drafts of the Artificial Production Review. We include in this report:

(1) our understanding of how the scientific principles in the Multi-Species Framework relates to artificial

production; and (2) our comments on implementing the ten artificial production policies presented in the

APR. Our first report on the appropriateness of the draft performance standards and indicators (ISAB

2000) concluded that a great deal of work was still needed to develop both an acceptable set of
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

4

performance standards and indicators and an acceptable procedure for their use in hatchery evaluation.

Since the standards and indicators will be revised, the ISAB will not compare the consistency between

policies, implementation guidelines and the original standards. Instead we make recommendations that

should help develop a new set of standards.

Purpose of Report

In the artificial production review the Council reaffirmed its commitment to making artificial production

decisions consistent with current understanding of scientific principles underlying ecosystem dynamics.

Consequently, there should be clear connections between the implementation steps, the performance

standards and indicators, artificial production policies, and the framework principles.

Council organized a 25 person Production Review Committee of hatchery/fishery managers, tribes,

environmental groups, and fishers to coordinate the review and assist in developing the policies. This

collegial approach is understandably desirable. Agencies and tribes within the basin are more likely to

embrace the policies if they share in their development. This process, however, tends to modify

proposed policies to accommodate specific extenuating conditions faced by production managers.

Under these circumstances, policies, and the objectives they support can become ambiguous or even

conflict with one another.

Using artificially propagated fish for harvest or recovery is controversial among basin constituencies. On

the one hand, the act of rearing and releasing fish provides an opportunity to do something for recovery.

On the other hand, continued declines in salmon abundance suggest that mitigation objectives cannot be

reached using artificial propagation, even though most of the basin's harvested fish originate from

hatcheries. The review points out that artificial production policy has been in transition within the basin

for at least a decade, and that more than new policy, clear leadership is needed in using the evolving

policy to determine how artificial production could be used within subbasins to reach Fish and Wildlife

Program recovery objectives.

Given the polarized opinions concerning the use of artificially propagated fish and the difficulty the basin

faces in establishing consensus on objectives, policies, and practices for using artificial production, the

ISAB believed it prudent to review the policies, assist in identifying any conflicts, and to provide

suggestions for implementing these constructive efforts.

Synopsis of recommendations

Establishing the policies presented in the artificial production review was an important and encouraging

step in establishing a process to evaluate the merits of artificial production and to decide how and where

to use it within the Columbia River basin. The proposed implementation process as outlined in the

APR, however is inadequate. The following is a synopsis of the ISAB's recommendations.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

5

1. A comprehensive basin-wide tagging program for artificially propagated fish, sufficient to evaluate

their survival through the migration corridor, contribution to fisheries, ecological and genetic effects

on naturally reproducing populations, and fish husbandry practices is required.

2. For the basin to coordinate production across hydrographic and political boundaries, clear program

objectives, in the form of desired adult returns (catch plus escapement), are needed for the basin as

a whole, as well as provinces, and subbasins. Program objectives for the basin, provinces, and

subbasins must form the basis for the evaluation of the efficacy of current artificial production

programs and to plan for future production activities. Production goals established in subbasin

planning during the mid-1980's need to be revised to be consistent with the framework process.

3. A prerequisite to establishing realistic program objectives for artificial production is using the data

from the tagging program to determine reasonable numbers of smolt releases from hatcheries, by

province and subbasin.

4. To implement APR policy 4, subbasin planing needs to include an inventory of life history diversity

within and among salmonid species, artificial propagation breeding plans that use broodstock

spanning the range of life histories, and monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of artificial

production on life history diversity.

5. “Hatchery reform” potentially can increase survival of artificially propagated smolts released into the

Columbia River basin ecosystem. Whether increased smolt to adult survival will increase total

abundance is unknown. Available data suggest lower smolt to adult survival of hatchery fish

compared to wild fish. Improving hatchery practices might reduce that difference. Both wild stocks

and hatchery fish are believed to have reduced return rates compared with the recent past, perhaps

indicating that environmental conditions outside of the hatchery are limiting total abundance. If this is

the case, increased production from hatcheries may displace wild production. An expanded

hatchery program could actually yield fewer fish because of density dependent effects.

6. Although hatchery reform was a prominent feature in the report, no examples of practices that

needed reforming were given, and no decision path to evaluate fish culture practices was articulated.

Policies addressing fish culture practices tended to have sufficient qualifiers in the accompanying

narrative to permit the full suite of current activities. We suspect that a thorough analysis would

indicate various practices that could profitably be abandoned. Reform can only be accomplished if

the specific practices that need reform are identified.

7. The lack of specificity as to the practices that need reform is at least partially the result of inadequate

monitoring. Correcting this problem should be a priority.

8. Deviating from APR policy 5, use of naturally selected populations as the model for artificially

propagated populations, should explicitly require documentation and careful evaluation. Description

of non-normative practices (ISG 1999), their justification, and evaluation should receive "section"

level presentation in the NMFS Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans. This would make
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

6

transparent all non-normative practices within the basin facilitating oversight by stakeholders,

managers, and scientists.

9. When implementing APR policy 6, identification of the purpose of artificial production, an explicit

description of the biological premises and limiting factors, including a summary of the evidence in

support of those assumptions, should be required to guide development of a project.

10. For implementation to have a reasonable chance of success, it will be necessary to provide

additional detailed guidance to regional managers on designing adaptive management experiments

(APR policy 2), integrating artificial production into subbasin planning (APR policy 7), conducting

risk analysis (APR policy 8), and developing harvest plans (APR policy 9).

11. To meet the intent of APR policy 9, production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of

artificial production, the region should establish escapement targets for naturally spawning

populations in major subbasins such as the Salmon, John Day, Deschutes, Yakima, Umatilla, and

Imnaha rivers, and develop management mechanisms that ensure the targets are met. Because of the

chronic inability to meet escapement targets, the Council should also adopt the use of minimum

sustainable escapement (MSE) as recommended by the National Research Council (NRC 1996).

Unlike the escapement targets, the MSE is not a goal. It is a minimum and actual escapements

should always remain above the MSE in order to prevent numbers from being reduced to such low

levels that recovery becomes impossible, as is apparently the case for some whale populations

(Gerber 2000). It should be recognized that MSE's are thresholds below which there is significant

risk to populations and their ecosystems. As such MSE’s are often different from escapement

targets, which may include provisions for harvest and other human uses. Subbasin escapement

targets need to include provisions for variability in abundance expected as a result of naturally

occurring fluctuations in climate or ocean productivity regimes. A monitoring program should be

designed to determine compliance with the escapement targets.

Relationship of the Scientific Principles in the Multi-Species Framework to Artificial

Production

Reviews of Columbia River basin activities conclude that fish and wildlife restoration efforts designed

using fundamental ecological principles, with the river treated as a system of interacting biological and

physical components, have the greatest probability of being successful (ISG 1996, NRC 1996). From

these reviews, the Multi-Species Framework Process has extracted an explicit foundation composed of

eight scientific principles:

1. The abundance and productivity of fish and wildlife reflect the conditions they

experience in their ecosystem over the course of their life cycle.

2. Natural ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, and resilient.

3. Ecosystems are structured hierarchically.

4. Ecosystems are defined relative to specific communities of plant and animal species.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

7

5. Biological diversity accommodates environmental variation.

6. Ecosystem conditions develop primarily through natural processes.

7. Ecological management is adaptive and experimental.

8. Human actions can be key factors structuring ecosystems.

The Council policies presented in the APR are intended to be consistent with these principles. Five of

the principles are particularly relevant to decision making with regard to artificial propagation:

1. The abundance and productivity of fish and wildlife reflect the conditions they experience

in their ecosystem over the course of their life cycle.

Artificial propagation has been used to compensate for lost spawning areas or degraded incubation and

stream rearing habitat for early life stages. The release of artificially propagated fish from the hatchery is

designed to circumvent these degraded habitats. If habitat constraints limit juvenile carrying capacity

throughout the river or estuary (e.g., thermal constraints, dam passage mortality, predation, and

nutritional deprivation in the mainstem migration corridor, the estuary, or the ocean), releasing artificially

propagated fishes probably will not increase production. Because fish released from hatcheries require

the same high quality habitats and connectivity among habitats as naturally produced fish, those limiting

factors decreasing the survival of naturally produced fish will most likely also decrease the survival of

artificially propagated fish. Artificially produced juveniles cannot circumvent carrying capacity limits in

lower reaches of major tributaries, the estuary, or the ocean. In fact, by increasing the numbers of

salmonids in the system through artificial propagation, the limiting effects of these factors are likely to be

exacerbated. As a result, because spatial and nutritional requirements of salmonids determine the upper

limits of their population biomass, the introduction of artificially propagated fish should not be attempted

unless evidence is presented that there is excess space and resources (through all of their life history) to

support them.

 2. Natural ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, and resilient.

Natural ecosystems vary in both space and time, creating a complex and dynamic set of environments

within which salmon must complete their life cycle. Variations in the freshwater environment such as

inter-annual changes in water flows and water temperatures affect salmon survival. It is also well

documented that changing ocean conditions affect salmon survival too, and that concept has begun to be

integrated into harvest management programs. Artificial production practices should accommodate both

spatial and temporal variation in the salmon's ecosystem. For example, a prudent strategy during periods

of poor ocean or freshwater conditions may be to reduce releases of artificially produced fish to prevent

excessive competition between artificially produced and naturally spawned salmon. In short, artificial

production practices should be dynamic and adaptive, allowing them to remain concordant with changes

in the salmon's ecosystem.

5. Biological diversity accommodates environmental variation.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

8

Genetic diversity coupled with a complex and dynamic habitat have given rise to a remarkable diversity

of life histories that has allowed salmon to adapt to both spatial and temporal changes in their

environment. Maintaining the adaptive capacity of both artificially produced and naturally spawning

salmon is of paramount importance for long-term survival of these diverse stocks. Artificial production

should attempt not only to maintain genetic and life history diversity of propagated stocks, but also to

minimize genetic introgression with naturally spawning fish, which could erode their adaptive capacity or

compromise their genetic integrity. The resilience of ecosystems depends upon the variation inherent in

the component communities that define them, including the genetic variation within and among

populations of each of the different organisms present. Artificial propagation needs to take all possible

actions to guard against the loss of that variation, not only within populations (e.g., by using adequate

numbers of adult spawners, sampling of adults across the full range of life histories, equalizing family size,

etc.) but also among them (e.g., by avoiding direct stock transfers, minimizing straying, etc.). Any

evaluation of the impact (positive or negative) of artificial propagation needs to assess the long-term

effects on genetic structure of the remaining wild populations.

7. Ecological management is adaptive and experimental.

Many of the scientific principles in the Multi-Species Framework and guidelines in the SRT review are

conceptual, drawn from accepted ecological theory. Only for a limited set of guidelines do we have

supportive evidence from actual data sets. For example, within the Deschutes River, the smolt to adult

ratio is higher in spring chinook reared relatively naturally in the Pelton fish ladder than in spring chinook

reared more traditionally at the Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery (Beckman, et al. 1999). This

observation supports rearing fish at reduced densities and manipulating growth rates to mimic patterns

observed in wild stocks. Uncertainty of future ecosystem conditions owing to both anthropogenic

alterations and natural variation limits predicting the success of artificial production as a management

tool. Consequently, artificial production is experimental and continual monitoring sufficient to identify

inevitable surprises is necessary.

8. Human actions can be key factors structuring ecosystems.

Fish propagation activity in the Columbia River can influence the ecosystem through the direct effects of

releasing artificially produced fish and the indirect effects that result from management actions (Campton

1995). For example, direct effects of hatchery fish include genetic and ecological interactions with

naturally spawning fish, while indirect managerial effects include excessive harvest in mixed stock

fisheries and an expectation that hatcheries can substitute for prudent habitat management. Through

both these direct and managerial effects artificial production activities could compromise achieving basin

fish and wildlife program goals for naturally produced fish.

Council Policies for Artificial Propagation
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

9

The Council used the scientific principles and the guidelines contained in the SRT report to formulate ten

policies governing the use of artificial propagation in the Columbia Basin:

1. The manner of use and the value of artificial production must be considered in the context of the

environment in which it is used.

2. Artificial production must be implemented within an experimental, adaptive management design

that includes an aggressive program to evaluate benefits and address scientific uncertainties.

3. Hatcheries must be operated in a manner that recognizes that they exist within ecological

systems whose behavior is constrained by larger-scale basin, regional and global factors.

4. A diversity of life history types and species needs to be maintained in order to sustain a system

of populations in the face of environmental variation.

5. Naturally selected populations should provide the model for successful artificially reared

populations, in regard to population structure, mating protocol, behavior, growth, morphology,

nutrient cycling, and other biological characteristics.

6. The entities authorizing or managing an artificial production facility or program should explicitly

identify whether the artificial propagation product is intended for the purpose of augmentation,

mitigation, restoration, preservation, research, or some combination of those purposes for each

population of fish addressed.

7. Decisions on the use of the artificial production tool need to be made in the context of deciding

on fish and wildlife goals, objectives and strategies at the subbasin and province levels.

8. Appropriate risk management needs to be maintained in using the tool of artificial propagation.

9. Production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of artificial production, but to

minimize adverse impacts on natural populations associated with harvest management of

artificially produced populations, harvest rates and practices must be dictated by the

requirements to sustain naturally spawning populations.

10. Federal and other legal mandates and obligations for fish protection, mitigation, and

enhancement must be fully addressed.

The intent of the policies, together with the recommended plan for implementation, is twofold. First it is

to prompt immediate changes in hatchery operations where they are inconsistent with current conceptual

hypotheses concerning fish and wildlife populations within the multi-species framework. Second, it is to

provide a mechanism to monitor and evaluate artificial propagation so the following questions can be

assessed on an ongoing basis:

ß Can artificial propagation be revised to spread harvest opportunities to greater areas

of the basin?

ß What artificial propagation activities adversely affect wild fish to a significant degree

and thus undermine efforts to protect and rebuild wild runs?

ß Can artificial propagation be used to assist in the preservation and rebuilding of

naturally spawning populations?
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

10

ISAB Comments on Implementing the APR’s Artificial Production Policies

Consistent with the Scientific Principles in the Multi-Species Framework and the

SRT Guidelines

The ISAB was asked to evaluate the performance standards and indicators attachment to the APR.

We determined that adequate review of any set of performance standards and indicators required a full

examination of their consistency with artificial production goals, policies, implementation strategies, and

the scientific principles they are intended to support. We provide our findings below and, to the extent

practical, format our response to answer the three questions we were asked regarding the adequacy of

the performance standards and indicators. In the Council's APR, individual policies and implementation

steps are followed by a narrative explanation. We employ the same format, following each policy

statement is the consensus ISAB view on the underlying science principles, implementation strategies,

and possible relationship to a revised set of performance standards and indicators.

1. The manner of use and the value of artificial production must be considered in the context

of the environment in which it is used.

To survive and grow following release, salmon and steelhead smolts need high quality environmental

conditions. The numbers of adult fish produced through artificial production is constrained by the

environment into which smolts are released. A prerequisite to establishing realistic program objectives

for artificial production is evaluating the basin carrying capacity and limiting factors. Artificial production

programs, especially those designed to mitigate for habitat loss above a dam, need to consider the

carrying capacity of the environment below the dam when establishing release numbers.

In the Council's 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program, section 7.1A. Evaluation of Carrying Capacity, called

for evaluating salmon survival in the Columbia River, its estuary, and the near-shore ocean. It was

anticipated this study would yield information on the carrying capacity of the system and on the factors

that limit salmon survival under current conditions. This information is imperative if managers are to

reach consensus on numbers of propagated fish to be released and their locations. The 1994 Fish and

Wildlife Program also called for hatchery release numbers to be consistent with basin carrying capacity:

(7.1G. Adjust total number of hatchery fish released to stay within basin carrying capacity).

In 1996 workshops were convened and reports prepared on an evaluation of carrying capacity in

regard to section 7.1A. One of the reports concluded, "The approach inherent in 7.1A will not

increase understanding of ecology, carrying capacity or limiting factors that influence salmon under

current conditions." Further, "To pursue the capacity parameter, that is, a single number or set of

numbers that quantify how many salmon the basin or any part of the basin can support, is meaningless

by itself and will not provide useful information." Based on this workshop and the report, management

of artificial production in the context of capacity was largely dropped.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

11

The challenge of recommending future actions remains. There are several unresolved problems: one is

the difficulty of estimating carrying capacity, a second is that carrying capacity will vary in time, and a

third is a well founded belief that carrying capacity (density dependence) will effect the survival of both

natural and hatchery juveniles. Unfortunately that still leaves the basin with the upper bounds for

appropriate release numbers unresolved. Just because an answer to the carrying capacity question is

not easily amenable to investigation does not mean that density dependent effects will not influence

salmon abundance and should be ignored.

Experiments could be undertaken, not to estimate basin carrying capacity, but to evaluate release

numbers. Over a period of many years, acceptable release numbers may emerge. Given the changes in

the river (dams/reservoirs) and degradation in the estuary, we should estimate an upper limit to the

density of hatchery and wild fish in the migration corridor and estuary. Basin managers simply cannot

continue to propose more and more hatchery releases during the short migration window without

initiating long-term experiments to determine if there are density constraints. We acknowledge, however

that it will be difficult to design the experiments from which appropriate estimates can be derived.

2. Artificial production must be implemented within an experimental, adaptive management

design that includes an aggressive program to evaluate benefits and address scientific

uncertainties.

As conceived by its proponents (Holling 1978, Walters 1986), adaptive management is more

sophisticated than a simple trial and error learning approach or program implementation through sets of

unrelated experiments intended to improve individual hatchery facilities. It would use the artificial

production program as a vehicle to test explicit uncertainties regarding policy options for the use of

artificial production to achieve basin objectives.

Staff trained in experimental design and statistical analysis, together with regional coordination of project

planning and implementation will be required to use this approach. Coordinating agencies should have

independent scientists design a long-term management experiment in which all artificial production

facilities participate to receive funding and/or NMFS permits under the ESA. The duration of this

experiment is likely to be decades not years, i.e., long enough to adequately resolve the important

questions surrounding the use of artificial propagation. The previously identified problem of determining

basin carrying capacity and/or upper limits for hatchery smolt releases is one of the questions that might

be answered in this way.

3. Hatcheries must be operated in a manner that recognizes that they exist within ecological

systems whose behavior is constrained by larger-scale basin, regional and global factors.

Natural ecosystems fluctuate, producing considerable variation in survival and growth of salmon.

Salmon harvests have historically been highly variable. Increasing yields and stabilizing them have been

motivations for using artificial production, but recent analysis argues that these attempts have not been
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

12

successful (Hilborn and Eggers 2000). Consequently, artificial production practices should

accommodate variation in the salmon's ecosystem. For example, a prudent strategy during periods of

poor ocean or freshwater conditions may be to reduce releases of artificially produced fish to prevent

excessive competition with each other and with naturally spawned salmon. The numbers of released fish

might parallel the numbers of naturally produced smolts rather than attempting to make up perceived

deficits. Performance standards and indicators need to be flexible in ways that recognize changing

environmental conditions and natural salmon producing capacity.

4. A diversity of life history types and species needs to be maintained in order to sustain a

system of populations in the face of environmental variation.

Part of the subbasin planning process should include the creation of an inventory of the life history

diversity within and among the salmonid species as they pass through different regulatory jurisdictions,

including current and historical, in so far as possible. To avoid unintentional selection that might

compromise the ability of the resulting offspring to survive environmental changes, egg take from wild

individuals or returning hatchery adults needs to span the entire range of life histories such as run times

and spawning locations. Part of the subbasin level set of performance standards and indicators should

address the need to evaluate the impacts of artificial propagation on that diversity within each subbasin.

The hypothesis that subbasins with higher levels of diversity, both within and among species, produce

more fish should be tested. Collecting and analyzing this type of data will require new institutional

organization and cooperation. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has been conducting

this type of research in the Yakima basin (the species interactions group) and this model should be

expanded.

5. Naturally selected populations should provide the model for successful artificially reared

populations, in regard to population structure, mating protocol, behavior, growth,

morphology, nutrient cycling, and other biological characteristics.

This policy addresses a variety of hatchery production and release practices: broodstock selection,

broodstock collection, mating designs, incubation conditions, water sources, rearing densities and

conditions, growth programs, and release strategies. Experience gained in the Columbia River basin

and elsewhere in the Pacific northwest provides evidentiary support for the concept that populations

drawn from the wild and reared under conditions as natural as possible tend to perform better after

release than populations that experienced directed selection or were cultured for many generations.

One example is the superior performance of spring chinook reared in and volitionally released from the

Pelton fish ladder compared with those reared and released from Warm Springs National and Round

Butte hatcheries (Beckman et al. 1999). A second example is the generally poor performance in the

Kalama River of Washougal summer steelhead of hatchery origin compared with native steelhead of

wild origin (Chilcote et al. 1986). Both practitioners and managers need to be mindful that specific

recommendations for hatchery protocols will undoubtedly change through time as new information

becomes available. SRT guidelines 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 apply to this policy.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

13

There is qualifying language accompanying the policy that appears to accommodate fish culture

practices that are inconsistent with the policy. As an example, not mimicking natural release size or

migration times is asserted to increase survival of the fish under certain situations, although no evidence

is presented or cited. Even though the assertion may be true, the practice would alter the selection

regimes that the population experiences and likely would be inconsistent with efforts to conserve

normative behavior in the fish.

Also mentioned is a counter-hypothesis proposing that, "at least in some situations, it is best for artificial

production managers to avoid mimicking the release times, places, and conditions of natural populations

to avoid harmful competition, predation, and other adverse interactions" (APR, Policy 5, page 19). We

can appreciate that managers may wish to design programs that release hatchery smolts at times

designed to avoid interaction with outmigrating naturally produced fish. In fact, there are programs

intentionally selecting for run times and spawning times that avoid interacting with wild fish. In the case

of steelhead and cutthroat trout in the lower Columbia basin, these programs generally are intended to

provide fish for recreational harvest. The intent is to provide sport-angling opportunities/harvest without

impacting wild fish. Within this program natural and hatchery spawners are not supposed to overlap in

breeding time (and possibly breeding location), and the early timing of hatchery spawning in the wild is

supposed to ensure poor survival of those offspring. Of course, a lack of complete reproductive

isolation could create the worst case scenario, wild fish interbreeding with directionally selected,

artificially propagated fish. Although we lack appropriate confirmation, anecdotal reports from a coastal

example of this type of program revealed more overlap in return time than planned, as well as the fact

that adults produced in the directed selection program in the hatchery were mating in the wild with

naturally produced fish.

Accompanying text suggests that this policy applies primarily to programs attempting to improve survival

of artificially produced fish, to avoid adverse impacts on natural populations, or to use artificial

production to try to restore naturally spawning populations. This suggestion implies, therefore, that the

large lower river programs providing fish for harvest in the ocean and lower river do not need to

consider these policies. Prudence would apply this policy to all programs.

There are other programs with components that seem inconsistent with this policy. Once again, in this

review we are not evaluating data, so no judgments of efficacy are being made or implied, just

observations of operational protocols. For example, portions of the Lower Snake River Compensation

hatchery system collect steelhead eggs from the Salmon river and then incubate, hatch, and rear smolts

using 15 C isothermal water at Magic Valley and Niagara Springs hatcheries in the Hagermann Valley

region of Idaho, between Boise and Twin Falls. Smolts are trucked to Salmon River tributaries/lower

Snake River for release without acclimation (Hutchison 1992). These programs are clearly not

consistent with normative concepts. Whether their smolt-to-adult ratio is better or worse than artificial

production programs using ambient water supplies, and/or acclimation should be of interest to program

managers.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

14

In applying this policy the APR recommends that decisions to deviate from the biological characteristics

of the naturally spawning population require documentation and careful evaluation. Description of nonnormative practices, their justification, and evaluation should receive "section" level presentation in the

NMFS Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans. This would make transparent all non-normative

practices within the basin, facilitating a more appropriate level of oversight by stakeholders, managers,

and scientists.

6. The entities authorizing or managing an artificial production facility or program should

explicitly identify whether the artificial propagation product is intended for the purpose of

augmentation, mitigation, restoration, preservation, research, or some combination of

those purposes for each population of fish addressed.

Selecting a purpose for an artificial propagation project from a designed list is likely insufficient for its

integration into the basin wide program. Successful programs complement the life history of the

propagated species by using hatchery culture to address the portion of the life cycle limiting production

(Brannon et al. 1999). Identifying a purpose for each project guides its conceptual framework and

forms the basis for evaluation. An explicit description of the biological premises and limiting factors,

including a summary of the evidence in support of those assumptions, should be required to guide

development of a project. In addition, the purpose articulated for each hatchery should be explicitly

required in basin, province and subbasin level planning efforts.

7. Decisions on the use of the artificial production tool need to be made in the context of

deciding on fish and wildlife goals, objectives and strategies at the subbasin and province

levels.

Although hatcheries are localized actions, they represent responses to much larger scale problems such

as the loss of harvest opportunity or large-scale habitat loss. This concept is reflected in the program

framework and the scientific principles. The impacts of hatcheries, both positive and negative, extend

far beyond the location, watershed and subbasin in which they are located. However, because

hatcheries represent complex localized engineering and biological problems, the focus often becomes

localized. The connection to the larger scale problem for which the hatchery was a response is often

lost. Decisions to utilize hatcheries at a subbasin level need to reflect these larger scale considerations.

In a like manner, evaluation of hatcheries needs to distinguish the strategic question, that is often

addressed at province or basin scales from the tactical evaluation of individual facilities at local scales.

Hatcheries are usually evaluated at the local level in regard to performance or compliance with

underlying criteria (pounds of fish released, for example). Strategic questions regarding the efficacy of

artificial production to mitigate for loss of natural ecological function, for example have rarely been

addressed.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

15

8. Appropriate risk management needs to be maintained in using the tool of artificial

propagation.

Using technological tools, such as artificial production, to solve problems, such as mitigation for effects

of dams, carries with it uncertainty as to the outcome. This uncertainty, or risk, is common in situations

that involve the use of technology. In the fields of medicine, finance, and manufacturing, there are

established management systems to forecast unintended events. With environmental problems,

particularly toxicology and biotechnology, treatment of "risk" is commonplace (Cothern, 1992). In

fisheries management there is conceptual interest in using risk management, but consensus on tools and

methods is only beginning to emerge (Lane and Stephenson 1998, Francis and Shotton 1997). Given

the lack of consensus on how to treat risk in fisheries management, policies calling for its maintenance

can be confusing. The ISAB endorses developing risk management/assessment strategies for artificial

production and consistent application of these strategies throughout the basin. Developing and using an

accepted risk management strategy would be an appropriate performance standard.

There are very different types of uncertainty associated with artificial production within the Columbia

River basin. There is uncertainty whether or not artificial production can in fact achieve program

objectives: mitigate spawning and rearing habitat loss due to dams; supplement wild stocks to rebuild

populations; captively maintain broodstock of populations near extinction. There is also the

uncertainty of unintended detrimental genetic and ecological impacts from collecting wild broodstock

and releasing juvenile salmonids into rivers, streams, and lakes. Different risk evaluation procedures are

needed to address these uncertainties, and different risk management strategies are needed to reduce

them (Currens and Busack 1995). Although not yet widely implemented, approaches for assessing

detrimental genetic (Busack and Currens 1995, Currens and Busack 1995) and ecological

consequences (Pearsons and Hopley 1999) of using artificially propagated fish within the Columbia

basin have been proposed. To our knowledge there is no formal risk management program in place or

underway to address the uncertainty associated with artificial production.

Tools developed for managing risk in toxicology and biotechnology are not likely to be appropriate for

artificial production of salmon (Currens 1993). In the case of toxic substances and biotechnology,

management concentrates on procedures to contain materials or control exposure. Since artificially

produced salmon are released into the environment where they interact with other species, containment

is clearly not the issue. With artificial production there is a need to identify when unintended detrimental

outcomes from interaction with other species occur, and have in place procedures to respond to these

failures. Currens and Busack (1995) stress that hazards associated with artificial production can be

managed by taking steps to reduce the likelihood of unintended adverse outcomes and by quickly

responding to correct mistakes. They believe efforts have tended to focus on technological solutions to

reducing the likelihood of a hazard occurring. Because the history of success in using technological

solutions is not very good they conclude that greater attention should be given to identifying and

responding to failures. Adaptive management and monitoring to identify failures and a salmon reserve

system together with normative ecosystem conditions could be components of this type of risk

management strategy (Currens 1993, ISG 1996).
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

16

9. Production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of artificial production, but to

minimize adverse impacts on natural populations associated with harvest management of

artificially produced populations, harvest rates and practices must be dictated by the

requirements to sustain naturally spawning populations.

Harvest and hatchery programs are tightly linked under the broad umbrella of salmon management.

Direct augmentation of harvest is one of the purposes of artificial propagation listed in the APR, and

hatchery programs designed for other purposes (mitigation and restoration) are usually expected to

contribute to the fisheries. In watersheds like the Columbia with severe habitat degradation and long

histories of over harvest, hatchery programs may provide the majority of fishing opportunity. For

example, in 1994, 81% of the commercial salmon landings below Bonneville Dam were attributed to the

Youngs Bay terminal fishery. This fishery primarily harvests hatchery coho and fall chinook (ODFW and

WDFW 1995).

Policy 9 is related to six of the original performance standards listed in the APR. The number of

performance standards related to harvest emphasizes the close relationship between harvest and

artificial propagation of salmon. Policy 9 suggests that protection of naturally spawning populations is

the priority in the harvest regulation of mixed stock fisheries.

Proper harvest management is critical when the hatchery fish are mixed with returning wild salmon in the

fishing areas. The near extirpation of wild coho salmon in the lower Columbia River tributaries was

attributed in part to over harvest in mixed stock fisheries (Flagg et al. 1995). Policy 9 clearly attempts

to avoid a repeat of this problem. Inconsistencies between the policy and the expectations implied in the

performance standards, however, leave doubts as to whether the intent of policy 9 can be met.

Language in the APR suggesting that hatcheries will provide "predictable, stable and increased harvest

opportunity" appears to establish expectations that are biologically impossible to meet and may

compromise the intent of policy 9 unless clear priorities are established. Harvest management has to

recognize the existence of natural environmental fluctuations that influence the abundance of salmon of

both hatchery and natural origin. Harvest regimes should be organized so they can effectively respond

to those fluctuations. Maintaining the expectation of stable harvest can lead to over harvest of naturally

reproducing populations during periods when climatic conditions result in reduced survival and

abundance.

There is a need to meet legal and policy obligations to the Tribes and to enhance Tribal, local, state, and

national economies by increasing harvest through the use of hatchery fish as expressed in the APR.

Those expectations must recognize natural fluctuations in abundance of salmon and the need to meet the

minimum escapement needs of naturally reproducing populations. It is not clear that the APR recognizes

those biological constraints or gives adequate priority to the protection of naturally spawning

populations. The APR should state the priorities among legal, policy, and economic considerations as

well as biological requirements of wild populations.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

17

To meet the intent of Policy 9, the region should establish escapement targets by major subbasin for

naturally spawning populations such as the Salmon, John Day, Deschutes, Yakima, Umatilla and Imnaha

rivers, and develop management mechanisms that ensure the targets are met. Because of the chronic

inability to meet escapement targets, the Council should also adopt the use of minimum sustainable

escapement (MSE) as recommended by the National Research Council (NRC 1996). Unlike the

escapement targets the MSE is not a goal. It is a minimum and actual escapements should remain above

the MSE. Establishment of a MSE safety net should include consideration of population viability,

genetic integrity, and natural subbasin productivity. Subbasin escapement targets should reflect the

fluctuations in abundance expected as a result of naturally occurring fluctuations in climate or ocean

productivity regimes. A monitoring program should be designed to determine compliance with the

escapement targets.

10. Federal and other legal mandates and obligations for fish protection, mitigation, and

enhancement must be fully addressed.

Obligations for fish mitigation as a consequence of specific legislation, e.g.. Lower Snake Compensation

Plan and Mitchell Act, legal requirements contained within the Endangered Species Act, and the

outcome of litigation such as U.S. v. Oregon create challenges to implementing the monitoring and

adaptive experimentation necessary to evaluate and modify hatchery practices. There may be instances

where legal or legislative goals for escapement targets conflict with the requirements for controls and

replication in the design of adaptive management experiments. In other circumstances, if the loss of

fishing opportunities or reduction in employment in hatcheries is concentrated within only a few political

jurisdictions, these regions are unlikely to cooperate in management experimentation. To fully address

the legal mandates and obligations while conducting the monitoring, experimentation and evaluation will

require developing mechanisms to accommodate variable hatchery production in facilities and

cooperation across political and bioregional boundaries.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

18

Appendix 1: SRT Suggested Guidelines on Hatchery Practices, Ecological

Integration and Genetics

Guideline 1. Technology should be developed and used to more closely resemble natural incubation and

rearing conditions in salmonid hatchery propagation.

In developing hatchery technology, hatchery programs should work toward the goal of providing

environments that resemble natural conditions during artificial propagation.

These may include:

• Incubation in substrate and darkness;

• Incubation at lower densities;

• Rearing at lower densities;

• Rearing with shade cover available;

• Exposure to in-pond, natural-like habitat;

• Rearing in variable, higher velocity habitat;

• Non-demand food distribution during rearing;

• Exposure to predator training;

• Minimize fish-human interaction;

• Acclimation ponds at release sites;

• Volitional emigration from release sites.

Guideline 2. Hatchery facilities need to be designed and engineered to represent natural incubation and

rearing habitat, simulating incubation and rearing experiences complementary with expectations of wild

fish in natural habitat.

Guideline 3. New hatchery technology for improving fish quality and performance needs to have a plan

for implementation and review at all hatchery sites, where appropriate, to assure its application.

Guideline 4. To mimic natural populations, anadromous hatchery production strategy should target

natural population parameters in size and timing among emigrating anadromous juveniles to synchronize

with environmental forces shaping natural population structure.

Guideline 5. To mimic natural populations, resident hatchery production strategy should target

population parameters in size and release timing of hatchery-produced resident juveniles to correspond

with adequate food availability and favorable prey to maximize their post-stocking growth and survival.

Guideline 6. Supplementation hatchery policy should utilize ambient natal stream habitat temperatures to

reinforce genetic compatibility with local environments and provide the linkage between stock and

habitat that is responsible for population structure of stocks from which hatchery fish are generated.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

19

Guideline 7. Salmonid hatchery incubation and rearing experiences should use the natal stream water

source whenever possible to enhance home stream recognition.

Guideline 8. Hatchery release strategies need to follow standards that accommodate reasonable

numerical limits determined by the carrying capacity of the receiving stream to accommodate residence

needs of non-migrating members of the release population.

Guideline 9. Hatchery programs should dedicate significant effort in developing small facilitates designed

for specific stream sites where supplementation and enhancement objectives are sought, using local

stocks and ambient water in the facilities designed around engineered habitat to simulate the natural

stream, whenever possible.

Guideline 10. Genetic and breeding protocols consistent with local stock structure need to be

developed and faithfully adhered to as a mechanism to minimize potential negative hatchery effects on

wild populations and to maximize the positive benefits that hatcheries can contribute to the recovery and

maintenance of salmonids in the Columbia ecosystem.

Guideline 11. Hatchery propagation should use large breeding populations to minimize inbreeding effects

and maintain what genetic diversity is present within the population.

Guideline 12. Hatchery supplementation programs should avoid using strays in breeding operations with

returning fish.

Guideline 13. Restoration of extirpated populations should follow genetic guidelines to maximize the

potential for re-establishing self-sustaining populations. Once initiated, subsequent effort must

concentrate on allowing selection to work by discontinuing introductions.

Guideline 14. Germ plasm repositories should be developed to preserve genetic diversity for application

in future recovery and restoration projects in the basin, and to maintain a gene bank to reinforce

diversity among small-inbred natural populations.

Guideline 15. The physical and genetic status of all natural populations of anadromous and resident

fishes need to be understood and routinely reviewed as the basis of management planning for artificial

production.

Guideline 16. An in-hatchery fish monitoring program needs to be developed on performance of

juveniles under culture, including genetic assessment to ascertain if breeding protocol is maintaining wild

stock genotypic characteristics.

Guideline 17. A hatchery fish monitoring program needs to be developed on performance from release

to return, including information on survival success, interception distribution, behavior, and genotypic

changes experienced from selection between release and return.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

20

Guideline 18. A study is required to determine cost of monitoring hatchery performance and sources of

funding.

Guideline 19. Regular performance audits of artificial production objectives should be undertaken, and

where they are not successful, research should be initiated to resolve the problem.

Guideline 20. The NPPC should appoint an independent peer review panel to develop a basinwide

artificial production program plan to meet the ecological framework goals for hatchery management of

anadromous and resident species.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

21

Literature Cited

Beckman, Brian R. and 10 Coauthors. 1999. Growth, smoltification, and smolt-to-adult return of

spring chinook salmon from hatcheries on the Deschutes River, Oregon. American Fisheries

Society 128:1125-1150.

Brannon, Ernest L and 6 Coauthors. 1999. Review of artificial production of anadromous and resident

fish in the Columbia River basin, Part I. a scientific basis for Columbia River production

program, 139 p. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Busack, C. 1990. Yakima/Klickitat production project genetic risk assessment. Yakima/Klicitat

Production Project Design Report, Appendix A, BP-00245-2. Bonneville Power

Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Busack, C. A. and K. P. Currens. 1995. Genetic risks and hazards in hatchery operations:

fundamental concepts and issues. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15:71-80.

Campton, D. 1995. Genetic effects of hatchery fish on wild populations of Pacific salmon and

steelhead: what do we really know? American Fisheries Society Symposium 15:337-353.

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.

Cothern, R. C. 1992. Comparative environmental risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor,

Michigan.

Currens, K. P. 1993. Genetic vulnerability of the Yakima fishery project: A risk assessment. Oregon

Cooperative Fishery Unit Genetic Laboratory. Report No. 93 (2). Oregon State University,

Corvallis, Oregon.

Currens, K. P. and C. A. Busack. 1995. A framework for assessing genetic vulnerability. Fisheries

20 (12):24-31.

Flagg, T. A., F. W. Waknitz, D. J. Maynard, G. B. Milner and C. V. W. Mahnken. 1995. The effect of

hatcheries on native coho salmon populations in the lower Columbia River. Pages 366-375 in

H. L. Schramm, Jr. and R. G. Piper (eds.) Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic

Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15, Bethesda, MD.

Francis, R. I. C. C., and R. Shotton. 1997. "Risk" in fisheries management: a review. Can. J. Fish.

Aquat. Sci. 54:1699-1715.
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

22

Gerber, L. R., D. P. DeMaster, and S. P. Roberts. 2000. Measuring success in conservation.

American Scientist 88:316-324.

Hilborn, R. and D. Eggers. 2000. A review of the hatchery programs for pink salmon in Prince William

Sound and Kodiak Island, Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:333-

350.

Holling, C. S., editor. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley, New

York, New York.

Hutchison, B. 1992. Operations Plans for anadromous fish production facilities in the Columbia River

Basin, Volume II: Idaho Department of Fish and Game Hatcheries. Bonneville Power

Administration Project Number 92-043. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 1999. Looking for common ground: Comparison of recent

reports pertaining to salmon recovery in the Columbia River basin (ISAB 99-3). Northwest

Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2000. ISAB review of the performance standards and

indicators for artificial production in the Council’s Artificial Production Review (ISAB 2000-2).

Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. www.nwppc.org/isab2002.pdf

Independent Scientific Group. 1996. Return to the river. Northwest Power Planning Council,

Portland, Oregon. www.nwppc.org/ftpfish.htm - I2

Independent Scientific Group. 1999. Return to the river: scientific issues in the restoration of salmonid

fishes in the Columbia River. Fisheries 24(3):10-19.

Lane, D. E., and R. L. Stephenson. 1998. A framework for risk analysis in fisheries decision-making.

ICES J. Mar. Sci. 55:1-13.

National Fish Hatchery Review Panel (NFHRP). 1994. Report of the National Fish Hatchery Review

Panel. The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virginia.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Biological opinion on artificial propagation in the Columbia

River Basin. NMFS, Columbia River Fisheries Development Office, Portland, Oregon.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest.

Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids,

National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1999. Facilitator’s Report on the Columbia River Basin Artificial

Production Workshop. Report 99-2. NWPPC, Portland, Oregon. www.nwppc.org/99-2_rep.htm
ISAB 2000-3: APR Report No. 2

23

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1999. Artificial Production Review. Report 99-15. NWPPC,

Portland, Oregon. www.nwppc.org/99-15.htm

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Status

report: Columbia River fish runs and fisheries, 1938-1994, Olympia, WA.

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

associated with fish stocking programs. Fisheries 24 (9):16-23.

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. McMillan, New York, New

York.

________________________________________

w:\em\ww\isab\1 isab final reports\isab 2000-3 apr basis.doc