Review of Artificial Production of Anadromous and Resident Fish In

Review of Artificial Production of Anadromous and Resident Fish in the Columbia River Basin Part I: A Scientific Basis for Columbia River Production Programs April 1999 Scientific Review Team Independent Scientific Advisory Board Ernest L. Brannon James A. Lichatowich Kenneth P. Currens Brian E. Riddell Daniel Goodman Richard N. Williams Willis E. McConnaha, Chair Program Evaluation and Analysis Section Northwest Power Planning Council 851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204 Council Document 99-4 Cite as: Brannon, Ernest L., et. al., (Currens, Kenneth P.; Goodman, Daniel; Lichatowich, James A.; McConnaha, Willis E.; Riddell, Brian E.; Williams, Richard N.). 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, Northwest Power Planning Council, 139 pp. Scientific Review Team Independent Scientific Advisory Board April 22, 1999 Mr. Todd Maddock, Chair Northwest Power Planning Council 851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Dear Mr. Maddock: I am pleased to transmit to you the first phase of the Scientific Review Team's (SRT) report on hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin. This version updates our December version and adds considerations of resident fish artificial production. The report includes an historical overview of artificial production within the basin, a review of the state of the science with respect to effectiveness of artificial production as a means to augment harvest, a review of the state of the science with respect to ecological and genetic effects of artificial production on wild spawning populations, and a set of recommendations in the form of guidelines that might guide policy on artificial production so as to be consistent with a sound scientific foundation. The proposed guidelines at this point are based on our review of the published science, which completes this phase of our task in the Review of Artificial Production. In the next phase we will determine whether analysis of existing monitoring data resolves any of these hypotheses more conclusively, in the specific context of the Columbia Basin. The Artificial Production Review is consistent with other recent scientific reviews that considered this topic (the Northwest Power Planning Council's Independent Scientific Group (ISG), 1996; the National Research Council (NRC), 1996; and the National Fish Hatchery Review Panel (NFHRP), 1994). There is considerable consensus among the three previous scientific reviews and our own, regarding the status of the science associated with artificial production. We understand very well that the priorities of fisheries management have changed significantly in recent years, so the needs that hatcheries should serve are also changing. The ecosystem based management approach places artificial production in the basin in a very different role than employed in the recent past. In particular, the reality of increasing numbers of Endangered Species Act listings of anadromous and resident fish puts a much higher emphasis on wild stocks and naturally spawning stocks. This increases the concern over the potential for artificial production to cause genetic and ecological harm to such stocks. But it also raises the possibility that hatcheries may serve some more positive role in this era of new priorities. The historical track record does not reassure us that hatchery programs can respond to changing realities and changing scientific knowledge. We hope that ways will be found to ensure that in the i future this important component of the fisheries management system will evolve more rapidly and constructively. Even by the standards of the old objective of simply augmenting harvest to mitigate for lost and impaired habitat, artificial production of anadromous salmonids in the Columbia basin would need careful re-evaluation because of the perceived less-than-effective return of adults. However, under the new ecosystem management paradigm, performance assessment of hatchery programs in light of the potential impacts on native fish becomes most critical. Other major factors besides hatcheries, including some factors that are beyond human control, surely are playing some role in the salmon decline. And some hatcheries have performed considerably better than average, contributing substantially to harvest, and maintaining runs of the hatchery stock. One hope in undertaking the SRT evaluation is to identify causes for the differences in performance between hatcheries, in order to develop recommendations for improving average hatchery performance, as well as to add to our understanding of how hatcheries should fit into the new ecosystem management concept. There has not been adequate monitoring and evaluation of Columbia Basin salmon stocks. Monitoring and analysis to date has been sufficient to document rather disappointing numbers. But the monitoring and analysis has not been sufficient to pin down the causes of the poor performance, nor has it been sufficient to determine why some hatcheries perform better and some perform worse. The challenge in the concept of ecosystem management is how to reconcile local objectives of providing harvest opportunities, sometimes with exotic species, with larger ecosystem objectives. Ecological and genetic science does provide plausible hypotheses about what some of the avoidable causes of poor performance might be among the anadromous salmonid hatchery fish. These include: inbreeding, domestication, inappropriate life history timing, inappropriate physiological and behavioral conditioning, over-reliance on too small a number of life history types, and exceeding carrying capacity in some key portions of the natural environment. Our report reviewing the science explains how these plausible ecological and genetic mechanisms could be operating in hatchery stocks. Given the new management emphasis on wild stocks, it is especially distressing to learn that these mechanisms that might account for poor performance of hatchery fish could also have very negative effects on naturally spawning fish that interact ecologically and genetically with the hatchery product. Our report reviewing the science explains plausible mechanisms of interaction between the hatchery products and wild spawning fish. Ecological and genetic science suggests that artificial production must be carefully integrated into the functioning of the entire ecosystem. Both the ecosystem and artificial production need to be managed to some normative standard, in order for artificial production to be effective in meeting the basin's goals. Our report reviewing the science offers recommendations on how this integration and management might be accomplished. Uncertainty places a premium on experimental management to better diagnose the causes of the problems, and to refine the solutions. The effectiveness of experimental management depends critically on a comprehensive program of monitoring and analysis to detect responses to experiments, and to alter management according to what is learned. The programs of monitoring and analysis now in place in the Columbia Basin may not be equal to this task. The region, through the Council, needs to implement a scientifically valid, comprehensive monitoring and evaluation ii program to assess hatchery procedures, production, impact on natural populations, and achievement of goals. We note, finally, our analysis under the new concept of ecosystem management in the basin must place hatcheries in the experimental framework, and most certainly in the perspective of ecosystem function we conclude that the outcomes of these experiments are not yet known. Yet artificial production has been implemented on a scale that will continue to commit a large percentage of the region's restoration resources, a large percentage of the available watersheds, and a large percentage of the remaining stocks to a single, unproven technology. There may be merit to reconsidering these priorities. The SRT will continue its review of hatchery programs, compilation of available data, and analysis of those data. We expect to finalize our review and recommendations by June 30, 1999. Sincerely yours, Willis E. McConnaha, Chair Scientific Review Team iii Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 A. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW .......................................................................................................................3 B. DEFINITION OF ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION..........................................................................................4 C. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONAL MULTI-SPECIES FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................................5 D. DEFINITION OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM ..........................................................................6 II. HATCHERY MANAGEMENT AND THE SALMON CRISIS ..................................................8 III. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION............................................11 A. GROWTH OF THE ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION PROGRAM...................................................................11 B. COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF HABITAT ...........................................................................................17 IV. SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION.....................................................................................................23

Load more