FINAL DRAFT
Hatchery Use and Benefits
in the Context of the
FCRPS Biological Opinion Remand
aka
“Hatchery Crediting1 Paper”
Prepared by
Becky Johnson
Dave Johnson
and
Stephen H. Smith2
for the
Remand Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup
October 5, 2006
1
2
Credit as used in this paper is defined as assessing the positive benefit from some type of hatchery action.
Contributor to How Can Hatchery Fish Contribute to Survival and Recovery Section – pages 6-14
FINAL DRAFT
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
Establishing a Context - Hatchery Actions in relation to the FCRPS BiOp ............... 3
Why Do Hatchery Fish Count? ........................................................................................... 4
NOAA Fisheries’ ESU Policy and Hatchery Listing Policy ...................................... 4
NOAA Fisheries’ Final Listing Determinations ......................................................... 5
Hatchery Actions in Relation to VSP Attributes ........................................................ 6
How Can Hatchery Fish Contribute to Survival and Recovery ? ....................................... 7
Biological Benefit Provided by Hatchery Programs ................................................... 8
Integrated Conservation Hatchery Program............................................................ 8
Reformed Integrated Hatchery Program ............................................................... 12
Reformed Segregated Hatchery Program ............................................................. 12
Other Hatchery Actions ............................................................................................ 14
Applying Benefits of Hatchery Actions in the FCRPS Remand ...................................... 14
Coarse Screen Document .......................................................................................... 14
Template for Assessing Effects ................................................................................ 15
Proposed Criteria and Scoring .................................................................................. 17
Consideration of ICTRT Guidance to Hatchery Actions .................................................. 18
Determination of diversity “risk” on a case-by-case basis ....................................... 18
Application of diversity “risk” to proportion of hatchery fish on spawning grounds
and duration of hatchery intervention ....................................................................... 19
Management of breeding protocols and rearing operations of the hatchery
program ................................................................................................................. 19
Management of adult return abundance ................................................................ 20
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 22
Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 23
533558028
2
FINAL DRAFT
Introduction
This paper is being developed for consideration by the Federal Columbia River Power
System (FCRPS) BiOp Remand Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup for two primary purposes:
1. Identify how hatchery actions can provide biological benefits to Columbia River
salmon and steelhead stocks in relation to the FCRPS Proposed Action and BiOp,
and
2. Provide guidance on application of Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team
(ICTRT) recommendations regarding use of artificial propagation in the context
of FCRPS remand.
Establishing a Context - Hatchery Actions in relation to the FCRPS
BiOp
The Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup has been asked to identify hatchery actions that can be
implemented that provide survival and recovery benefits to the listed Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ESU’s) in the Interior Columbia Basin. We are providing this paper to
describe the biological benefits that can be attributed to hatchery actions in the context of
the FCRPS Remand. As such, the paper focuses on the species of concern within the
FCRPS Remand. It takes into consideration the fact that there is an existing hatchery
system within the relevant geographical area and that those hatcheries have authorized
purposes and obligations. To us, it would seem impractical either to recommend future
hatchery operations (or non-operations) that are contrary to mandated mitigation
obligations without providing other in-kind mitigation, or to consider not using the
existing hatchery network as a tool to assist in aiding survival and promoting recovery.
With relation to the FCRPS Remand, the following populations are affected: Upper
Columbia spring Chinook, Snake River spring/summer Chinook, Snake River fall
Chinook, Upper Columbia Steelhead, Mid Columbia Steelhead and Snake River
Steelhead. Although there are many hatcheries operating within the Columbia Basin, this
paper only focuses on those within the geographic boundaries of the affected ESU’s.
This narrowing is intended to present options pertinent to the ongoing Remand process.
Hatchery production in the geographic areas encompassing the ESU’s has been occurring
for over 70 years and, for the most part, was developed as mitigation for development of
the Columbia River hydrosystem. For example, the Leavenworth hatchery complex
(including Leavenworth, Entiat and the Methow National Fish Hatcheries) are Federal
mitigation for Grande Coulee Dam which blocked half of the habitat that produced upper
Columbia River salmon and steelhead. The Lower Snake River Compensation Plan
(LSRCP) is congressionally authorized mitigation for an estimated 50% reduction in
salmon and steelhead production in this basin due to development of the four lower
Snake River dams. It is important to remember that the mitigation purpose and
533558028
3
FINAL DRAFT
authorization for these facilities exists with or without the FCRPS remand and with or
without the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Mitigation ascribed to hatcheries is not solely for fish to the creel. The mitigation, at
least for the LSRCP, is fish “in place, in kind.” This mitigation purpose enables hatchery
production under the existing authorizations, to serve double duty. The hatcheries
produce fish for the creel as well as to help restore the wild runs where and when
possible. Finding the means for hatcheries to do double duty provides benefits and is the
reason for the focus put on their use in this paper.
The harvest benefit provided by hatcheries cannot be ignored. For Tribes and others in
the mid-upper reaches of the Columbia, nearly the only harvest opportunities available in
the past 30 years (with the exception of upriver bright fall Chinook) have been on
hatchery fish. Although the hatchery runs fluctuate with downstream and ocean
conditions, as do the natural runs, they can and do provide a harvest. Continuation of this
benefit must also guide the use of hatcheries within the context of the FCRPS remand.
Why Do Hatchery Fish Count?
For the purpose of understanding how hatchery origin fish can benefit natural origin fish
of the same population it is important to consider the status of hatchery and natural origin
fish in relation to the Evolutionarily Significant Unit in the context of NOAA Fisheries’:

ESU Policy or “Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act” (NOAA 1996),

Final Listing Determinations or “Endangered and Threatened Species: Final
Listing Determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon, and Final 4(d)
Protective Regulations for Threatened Salmonid ESUs (NOAA 2005a), and

Hatchery Listing Policy or “Policy on the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish
in Endangered Species Act Listing Determinations for Pacific Salmon and
Steelhead” (NOAA 2005b).
NOAA Fisheries’ ESU Policy and Hatchery Listing Policy
NOAA Fisheries’ ESU policy determines that a distinct population segment of a Pacific
salmonid species is considered an ESU if it meets two criteria: (a) it must be substantially
reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units; and (b) it must represent
an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species (NOAA 1996). A key
feature of NOAA Fisheries’ ESU concept is the recognition of genetic resources that
represent the ecological and genetic diversity of the species. These genetic resources can
533558028
4
FINAL DRAFT
reside in a fish spawned in a hatchery (hatchery fish) as well as in a fish spawned in the
wild (natural fish).
In delineating an ESU that is to be considered for listing, NOAA Fisheries developed the
“Hatchery Listing Policy” and identified all populations that are part of the ESU;
including populations of natural fish (natural populations), populations of hatchery fish
(isolated hatchery stocks), and populations that include both natural fish and hatchery fish
(integrated populations). In addition to listing issues, the policy also “…provides
direction for considering hatchery fish in extinction risk assessments of ESUs…” and the
relationship of hatchery fish to conservation of natural salmon and steelhead populations
and their ecosystems.
Five principles from NOAA Fisheries’ “Hatchery Listing Policy” are:
1. Genetic resources that represent the ecological and genetic diversity of a species
can reside in a fish spawned in a hatchery (hatchery fish) as well as in a fish
spawned in the wild (natural fish).
2. Hatchery stocks with a level of divergence relative to the local natural
population(s) that is no more than what occurs naturally within the ESU, are
considered to be part of the ESU, will be considered in determining the status of
the ESU, and will be included in any listing of the ESU.
3. Hatchery fish will be included in assessing an ESU’s status in the context of their
contributions to conserving natural self-sustaining populations.
4. The presence of hatchery fish can contribute to increased abundance, productivity,
spatial distribution and genetic diversity of an ESU. Conversely, a hatchery
program managed without consideration of conservation effects can adversely
affect these factors. Long-term monitoring and evaluation of hatchery effects is
an important consideration.
5. Hatchery programs are capable of producing more fish than are immediately
useful in conservation and recovery, and can fulfill an important role in providing
sustainable fisheries.
NOAA Fisheries’ Final Listing Determinations
NOAA Fisheries utilized the “Hatchery Listing Policy” to determine which hatchery
populations are included in the ESUs in the “Endangered and Threatened Species: Final
Listing Determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon, and Final 4(d) Protective
Regulations for Threatened Salmonid ESUs (NOAA 2005a). In making determinations
on ESU listing status, NOAA evaluated the relationship of individual hatchery stocks to
the local natural population(s) on a case-by-case basis considering: Stock origin and the
degree of known or inferred genetic divergence between the hatchery stock and the local
natural population(s); and the similarity of hatchery stocks to natural populations in
ecological and life-history traits. NOAA determined that these artificially propagated
stocks are no more divergent relative to the local natural population(s) than what would
be expected between closely related natural populations within the ESU (NOAA 2005a).
533558028
5
FINAL DRAFT
Appendix A contains the “Final Listing Determination” which identifies each of the listed
ESU’s including natural and hatchery-origin components. In summary, NOAA
Fisheries’ listing determinations for the Interior Columbia were:







Snake River sockeye (including one hatchery stock) were listed as Endangered,
Upper Columbia spring Chinook (including six hatchery stocks) were listed as
Endangered,
Snake River fall Chinook (including four hatchery stocks) were listed as
Threatened,
Snake River spring/summer Chinook (including fifteen hatchery stocks) were
listed as Threatened,
Middle Columbia steelhead (including seven hatchery stocks) were previously
listed as Threatened and the final listing status extended.
Upper Columbia steelhead (including six hatchery stocks) were previously listed
as Endangered with the final listing status extended.
Snake River steelhead (including six hatchery stocks) were previously listed as
Threatened and the final listing status extended.
Hatchery Actions in Relation to VSP Attributes
NOAA’s Hatchery Listing Policy states that, “The effects of hatchery fish on the status of
an ESU will depend on which of the four key attributes are currently limiting the ESU
and how the hatchery fish within the ESU affect each of the attributes” (abundance,
productivity, spatial distribution and genetic diversity) (NOAA 2005b). All four Viable
Salmonid Population (VSP) attributes are important and need to be addressed in order to
achieve population viability in the long term (McElhaney et al. 2000). Improvement in
any of the VSP parameters by implementing a hatchery action should have a positive
effect on population viability. However, the primary criteria for evaluating population
viability are abundance and productivity (Interior Columbia TRT, July 2005) as these
attributes can be measured and quantified for a population and serve as more definitive
metrics for consideration in assessing the FCRPS Proposed Action and the jeopardy
standard (NOAA 2006a, 2006b).
Well designed and implemented hatchery programs have the potential to help improve an
ESU’s viability. The best-documented examples of benefits are in abundance, but
benefits to spatial structure and diversity may also be possible (NOAA 2004). Except in
rare circumstances, hatchery programs cannot be expected to improve the productivity of
natural origin fish. It is important to note that only improvements to the major limiting
factors can ensure sustained productivity improvement, and thus sustained increased
abundance. For most populations in the Columbia River basin, the “hatchery” H is not a
major limiting factor and improvements in the other “H’s” will be required to improve
productivity.
533558028
6
FINAL DRAFT
How Can Hatchery Fish Contribute to Survival and
Recovery ?
The Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations provided that a jeopardy
analysis includes both a survival prong and a recovery prong. For the purpose of
determining effects of a hatchery program in relation to the FCRPS Remand it is
important to understand how hatchery and natural fish count towards both ESU survival
and recovery.
Based on the foregoing section, we recommend the following strategy for assessing the
role of of hatchery-origin fish (HOF) that are part of the ESU:
NOF = adult natural-origin fish (i.e.,
progeny of fish spawning in nature).
F1 HOF = adult hatchery-origin fish listed
as part of the ESU (i.e. progeny of listed
fish spawning in a hatchery).
F2 HOF = adult natural-origin fish (NOF)
with at least 1 F1HOF parent.
Count toward ESU survival and recovery
(delisting) calculations.
Count toward ESU status (threatened or
endangered) and survival (short term risk
reduction) calculations; No credit in ESU
recovery (delisting) calculations3.
Count toward ESU survival and recovery
abundance calculations. Do not count in
recovery productivity calculations - if NOF
R/S >1. F2 HOFs help position the ESU for
recovery by maintaining natural population
until limiting factors are addressed (may be
short or long term).
As an example of how hatchery production can benefit an ESA listed population that is
trending toward extinction, consider the following scenario of a conservation4 hatchery
program:
 Because the hatchery fish are listed under the ESA, first generation (F1) adult
hatchery-origin fish (HOFs) can contribute towards survival by reducing the risk
of extinction: increasing abundance, increasing productivity of the combined or
integrated hatchery/natural population, preserving genetic diversity and reducing
demographic risks to a population. However, because HOF’s originate within the
3
For delisting purposes, NOAA Fisheries has determined that ESA delisting would only occur if the ESU
NOF populations could maintain themselves as self-sustaining populations (NOAA 2005b).
4
Conservation hatchery program is defined as one in which the principle goal is to (a) maintain the genetic
resources of a population that – under current conditions - would go extinct in the absence of artificial
propagation and/or (b) to directly assist with the restoration or recovery of naturally spawning
populations.in which current conditions may allow natural reproduction alone to maintain self-sustaining
populations.. A conservation hatchery program does not preclude harvest as a corollary goal or purpose,
particularly when the number of hatchery-origin adults returning to a watershed exceed conservation
objectives.
533558028
7
FINAL DRAFT
hatchery environment, they do not count towards the abundance thresholds or
productivity calculations used for assessing natural-origin population status and
they do not count towards delisting.

Natural-origin adult progeny of naturally spawning F1 HOFs spawning with each
other or with natural fish (for this paper these progeny are designated as F2 HOF)
contribute towards survival as well as position the natural populations for
recovery. These fish contribute towards survival in the same manner as discussed
for the HOF’s above. Further, because they are on the spawning grounds, their
numbers could bolster and maintain the numbers of naturally spawning fish until
such time that limiting factors are addressed, allowing natural productivity to
sustain the population.

For recovery purposes, population productivity calculations by NOAA Fisheries
are based on natural productivity only. The “gap” that was calculated for each
population by the TRT is a gap in productivity of natural origin fish which can
only be filled by the NOF R/S being greater than 1.0 or replacement.
Biological Benefit Provided by Hatchery Programs
The Interior Columbia Basin TRT developed viability curves (see ESA Overviews or:
Viability Criteria for Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs) using
abundance and productivity information for the natural origin component of each
population in each ESU. This section of the paper describes three major types of
hatchery programs or actions can be used to benefit the abundance and productivity of
ESA listed fish; an integrated conservation hatchery program, a reformed integrated
conservation hatchery program, and a reformed segregated hatchery program. These
benefits are described in relation to the viability graphs.
Integrated Conservation Hatchery Program
A successful integrated5conservation hatchery program can benefit the natural component
of the population by increasing abundance and productivity of the integrated population
(NOFs, F1 HOFs and F2 HOFs). Implementation of this type of program reduces the risk
of extinction by increasing and sustaining population abundance until such time as habitat
improvements or other major limiting factors allow a natural productivity rate greater
than one (1.0) or replacement. The time to achieve recovery for a population can be
lessened. The following figures conceptually demonstrate how effects of an integrated
conservation hatchery program can provide a survival (demographic risk reduction)
benefit to a population.
5
An integrated population is defined by NOAA Fisheries as one in which hatchery fish are genetically no
more than moderately divergent from the natural population in the ESU (NOAA 2005b). An integrated
hatchery program is managed by including natural-origin fish in the hatchery broodstock and hatcheryorigin adults are purposefully allowed to spawn naturally.
533558028
8
FINAL DRAFT
10-year Abundance
B
A
0.5
1.0
1.3
1.5
Productivity or Recruits/Spawner
Figure 1a.
Anticipated Effect, Over Time, of a Successful Conservation Hatchery
Program on the Abundance and Productivity of an Integrated Population of HOFs and
NOFs. – ESA Survival Benefits
A=
B=
initial status of natural population; NOFs only
future status of integrated population w/ supplementation; includes NOFs, F1
HOFs, and F2 HOFs. This represents the population component spawning in the
natural environment and associated component of the population in the hatchery,
aggregated together.
In this example, a conservation hatchery/supplementation program is implemented that
increases the abundance and productivity of the integrated population (NOFs, F1 HOFs
and F2 HOFs) from both the habitat and hatchery environments. Population status is
moved from point A to point B over time depending on the success of the hatchery
program and the amount and quality of habitat. This action reduces the risk of extinction
(survival benefits) by moving the listed, integrated population away from the x-axis (0
abundance or extinction) and increasing the short-term certainty that the population
would not fall to extinction.
Bowles (1995) provides a similar diagram and explanation of how supplementation
provides an increase in naturally spawning and produced fish. A successful conservation
hatchery program is one that produces more F1 HOFs for each parent NOF taken into the
hatchery than if the NOF had been allowed to reproduce in the wild. This is described by
Bowles (1995) as, “To increase the number of naturally produced fish, artificial
propagation must provide a net survival benefit for the target stock as compared with the
purely natural component. In areas with existing natural population, the combined
survival (adult-to-adult) of hatchery and natural fish must exceed the natural survival
533558028
9
FINAL DRAFT
occurring with supplementation. This increase in net survival (hatchery and natural
combined) must not come at the expense of the natural component if sustainable recovery
is desired.” A successful conservation hatchery/supplementation program could also
eventually lead to expanded seeding of the available (or concurrently restored) habitat
(Bowles 1995), therefore increasing abundance and spatial structure and reducing the risk
of extirpation.
Annual monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the supplementation program should assess
the status of the integrated population and the status (abundance and productivity) of the
natural component of the population. Regular evaluations would calculate the abundance
and productivity of the population’s natural-origin component (NOFs + F2 HOFs), e.g.
point B in Figure 1b. It is important for the M&E program to determine when the
productivity of the NOFs in the population exceeds 1.0 or replacement (point C) and the
population is achieving its abundance goals without the continued infusion of hatchery
fish spawning naturally. At that time, the status of the population in relation to variables
required for recovery, and potential delisting should be considered. Figure 1b represents
an integrated (supplemented) population with productivity artificially enhanced by the
hatchery program. Population recovery would only occur if the NOF productivity (point
C) was self-sustained above 1.0 or replacement (i.e., limiting factors were adequately
addressed).
10-year Abundance
B
C
A
0.5
1.0
1.3
1.5
Productivity (Returns per Spawner)
Figure 1b.
Potential Effect of a Successful Conservation Hatchery Program on a
Population Viability Curve over Time – ESA Recovery Benefits.
A=
initial status of natural population; NOFs only
533558028
10
FINAL DRAFT
B=
C=
future status of naturally produced population (NOFs + F2 HOFs)
future status of NOFs (B less F2 HOFs)
A successful conservation hatchery program contributes to increasing natural origin fish
abundance by producing more F2 HOFs for each grandparent NOF taken into the
hatchery than if the NOF had been allowed to reproduce over the two generations in the
wild. Mathematically,
R/S (NOF in hatchery) · R/S (F1 HOF in wild) >> [R/S (NOF in wild)]2
For example,
if R/S(NOF in wild) = 0.9,
R/S(NOF in hatchery) = 3.0, and
R/S(F1 HOF in wild) = 0.5, then
R/S(NOF in hatchery) · R/S(F1 HOF in wild) = 3.0 · 0.5 = 1.5, which is greater
than
R/S(NOF in wild) · R/S(NOF in wild) = 0.81 (1.5 > 0.81).
In this case, abundance of listed NOFs would be expected to initially increase by about
85% (1.5-.81/.81) for that portion of the population used as broodstock in the
conservation hatchery program. However, again, for recovery purposes, productivity
calculations would be based on NOFs as representing progress in addressing the causes
of decline.
Benefits of a successful conservation/supplementation program are therefore:

Providing an immediate survival benefit (risk reduction of extinction) by
elevating abundance of an integrated population, consisting of ESA-listed
hatchery fish and ESA-listed natural fish, away from extinction, and

Providing longer-term recovery benefits by potentially reducing the time to
recovery status of the natural origin fish in the supplemented population as other
limiting factors are addressed.
Once supplementation has served its conservation purpose, termination is an option, but
likely not the best option. It is likely a conservation hatchery program would be
redirected, becoming an integrated harvest program to be operated to achieve tribal and
sustainable fishery benefits, the NPCC’s overall F&W Program goals for salmon and
steelhead, and to maintain beneficial use of a substantial capital investment in the
hatchery facilities.
533558028
11
FINAL DRAFT
Reformed Integrated Hatchery Program
A poorly designed or implemented conservation hatchery or supplementation program,
not using best management practices, can increase extinction risk and negatively effect
recovery. Such a program might actually reduce the abundance of NOFs and F2 HOFs in
the wild, reduce the productivity of the naturally spawning population, homogenize and
reduce the diversity of the population, and/or limit the spatial distribution of the
population. Reforming such an integrated conservation hatchery program can reduce its
adverse effects to population viability, therefore increasing its contribution to reducing
extinction risk and promoting subsequent achievement of recovery objectives.
As indicated above, a conservation hatchery program should achieve more F2 HOFs in
the wild (grandchildren) from the use of an NOF as hatchery broodstock than if that NOF
had been allowed to spawn naturally. Thus:
F2 HOFs / NOF > F2 NOF / NOF
If a reform action can increase the ratio of F2 HOF / NOF then the increase is a direct
survival benefit and further positions the population for recovery.
Additionally, if the reproductive success of F1 HOFs in the wild (as measured by the
production of F2 HOFs) is significantly less relative to the NOFs, then improving the
relative reproductive success of the HOFs provides a direct productivity increase and
benefit for survival and recovery of the integrated population. For example (see
Berejikian and Ford, 2004 on page 13), if F1 HOF steelhead are only 0.3 times as
productive in the wild as NOFs and reform actions allow these F1 HOFs to become 0.9
times as productive in the wild, then there is a 300% increase in productivity (producing
F2 HOFs) of that portion of the naturally spawning population that consists of F1 HOFs.
If the proportion of F1 HOFs in the naturally spawning population is 75%, then one might
hypothesize a .75 x 300% = 225% increase in integrated population productivity. (Note:
likely more complicated than this – depending on proportion of HOFs spawning with
NOFs, productivity of female HOFs vs. male HOFs, and productivity of HOF/NOF
crosses, actual differential productivity rate between F1 HOF’s and NOFs, etc.)
Conservation hatchery/supplementation programs can also be used to better spatially
distribute returning adults throughout the population’s historical habitat via acclimation
procedures or reintroductions into previously unused or formerly blocked habitats.
Reformed Segregated Hatchery Program
A genetically segregated hatchery population can depress productivity of one or more
natural populations due to high stray rates and interbreeding with non-target populations,
and/or mask the status of the natural population unless carefully monitored. It is
important that segregated programs not jeopardize listed ESU survival and recovery.
Credit should be considered for minimizing or eliminating the adverse effects of a
533558028
12
FINAL DRAFT
segregated hatchery program such as by 1) eliminating the offending program and
substituting some other form of mitigation, 2) reducing or eliminating stray rates into
natural populations, 3) converting the segregated program to a properly functioning
integrated program using appropriate locally adapted broodstock Decisions on modifying
existing mitigation hatchery production must be carefully made as in many cases there
are legal obligations (mitigation, treaty, etc.) that must be fulfilled.
Reforming an improperly functioning segregated hatchery program has the potential to
increase natural population productivity, thereby providing survival and recovery
positioning benefits to the population and credits to the FCRPS PA. The reform benefit
depends substantially on the reproductive success of the interbreeding of HOFs and
NOFs. For example, assume a population consists of 40% F1 HOF steelhead from a
segregated program that are only 0.1 times as productive in the wild as NOFs. If the F1
HOF steelhead do not actually spawn with the NOFs due to behavior differences, then
eliminating the hatchery program would likely provide a low biological benefit (reduced
competition, etc). At the other end of this hypothetical scale, if each F1 HOF spawns
with an NOF (maximum introgression), then productivity could be reduced by up to 72%.
Eliminating such introgression could then increase productivity of the natural population
by up to 257%. The actual biological benefit would be an increase in population
productivity of between 5% and 250%. If mating between HOFs and NOFs is random,
then population productivity could be reduced by 51%. Eliminating the introgression
might then increase population productivity by about 105% (see Figure 2).
10-year Abundance
A
D
B
C
0.5
1.0
1.3
1.5
Productivity (Returns per Spawner)
Figure 2.
Potential Benefit from Eliminating Adverse Effects of an Improperly
Functioning Segregated Hatchery Program
533558028
13
FINAL DRAFT
A=
B=
C=
D=
current status of introgressed population; 40% HOFs and 60% NOFs; HOF/NOF
productivity = 0.1
current status of listed NOF population; NOFs only; when spawning with HOFs;
NOFs’ productivity = 0.4
immediate status of NOF population with elimination of improperly functioning
segregated hatchery program; NOFs only; productivity = 0.8
population recovery goal; requires additional 62% increase in productivity, time,
and habitat capacity for population to increase to target level.
Reforming ongoing integrated and/or segregated hatchery programs that are currently not
operated under best management practices could potentially provide significant benefit to
natural populations, depending on the level of negative impact that is currently occurring.
Other Hatchery Actions
There are other types of hatchery type actions proposed by the Hatchery/Harvest
Workgroup which do not involve the actual typical hatchery production and release of
fish associated with the programs above. For example, developing a plan for a safety-net
or conservation type program for a stock at high risk of extirpation or conducting a
hatchery RME project that will provide helpful information for management changes that
would be beneficial to recovery. These actions may be very beneficial to long term
survival and recovery of listed populations but because the planning or RME activity
doesn’t directly improve listed population (natural or hatchery) status or VSP attributes
we were not able to diagram the biological benefit.
Applying Benefits of Hatchery Actions in the FCRPS
Remand
Coarse Screen Document
The Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup has developed a list of hatchery actions or proposals
(some new and some existing programs) that have potential to provide survival and
recovery benefits to the listed salmon ESU’s and steelhead DPS’s. These proposals are
listed in a Coarse Screen document which will be provided to the Policy Work Group
and Action Agencies for consideration of inclusion in the Proposed Action. The hatchery
actions were reviewed by the U.S. vs. Oregon parties and organized in the Coarse Screen
in two groups (Group A and Group B) and four categories (Category 1, 2, 3, and 4).
Groups refer to U.S. vs. Oregon support via current court order or manager agreement
and categories reflect U.S. vs. Oregon assessment of projects.
Group A. Projects that are either identified in the U.S. vs. Oregon interim agreement, or
the parties responsible for management all concur on the proposed project.
533558028
14
FINAL DRAFT
Group B. Projects that currently lack consensus by U.S. vs. Oregon parties, or are
outside of the U.S. vs. Oregon process.
Category 1: Existing or proposed measures for existing programs that are likely to be
required for that program to meet its own ESA obligation. Proposals do not reflect an
official assessment or determination by NOAA Fisheries or the USFWS.
Category 2: Ongoing Measures under existing programs where benefits have not
been realized yet and thus are not reflected in the gap.
Category 3: New measures related to existing programs that have conservation
benefits that are above what is needed to meet the hatchery obligations.
Category 4: Totally new programs that may have conservation benefits.
Template for Assessing Effects
The Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup also developed a template (spreadsheet table) for
assessing the proposed hatchery actions in a qualitative manner with regard to their
biological benefit to the ESU listed population the hatchery action targets. Appendix B.
contains a copy of the template.
The columns in the table include:
1) Population – each population, organized by major population group and ESU are
listed.
2) TRT Report 5/17/06 – Information provided by the TRT regarding the status of
each population is provided for a) minimum abundance threshold, b) abundance –
10 year geometric mean and range, c) productivity – 10 year geometric mean and
standard deviation, d) TRT rating for abundance and productivity risk, e) and 5%
observed survival gap – the empirical estimates of the required change in survival
to meet ICTRT abundance and productivity goals -- or the amount of survival
increase necessary to move the population to a viable level with a 95% chance of
not becoming extinct in 100 years.
3) Proposed Hatchery Action – the proposed hatchery actions listed in the Coarse
Screen document contain a) brief description of the hatchery action, b)
authorization if it’s an existing program – i.e., Lower Snake River Compensation
Plan, c) inclusion in the U.S. vs. Oregon agreement, d) other relevant information,
and e) proposal submittor.
4) Provisional Project Type and U.S. vs. Oregon Categorization - the types of
proposed hatchery actions are:

Safety Net – an integrated (hatchery and natural origin fish) conservation
hatchery program focused primarily at preventing extirpation of a population.
Safety-net projects may be as intensely intrusive as the Stanley Basin sockeye
533558028
15
FINAL DRAFT





captive broodstock program or short-term supplementation interventions for
one or two generations, using appropriate broodstocks6.
Supplementation – an integrated (hatchery and natural origin fish)
conservation program focused at rebuilding of a population. Supplementation
actions would utilize less intrusive methods (i.e., conventional broodstock)
and may be operated for a longer term.
Hatchery Reform – a program or action that is intended to improve or correct
some type of negative impact from an ongoing hatchery program. Reform
could occur to an integrated program or segregated program (see section
above).
Facility Improvement – an action that is intended to improve a hatchery
facility or component for better operation. May improve survival of hatchery
origin fish or improve efficiency, increase safety or save money on hatchery
operations.
Planning – an action to develop plans for future actions, (i.e., plans for
implementation of a safety net program should the trend toward extinction
continue downward).
RME – an action that is focused at providing critical information to make
adaptive management decisions or benefit status of population.
The U.S. vs. Oregon Categorization Groups and Categories used in the template
are described above.
The remaining columns of the spreadsheet are intended to rate how the proposed hatchery
action provides a biological benefit to the listed ESU’s in the context of the FCRPS
Remand.
5) Contribution to maintaining population – ratings in this column are qualitative;
high, medium, low, or none. The rating is a qualitative assessment of the hatchery
action contribution to maintaining the population – decreasing the short term risk
of extinction or increasing survival. The rating for Group A hatchery actions is a
best professional judgement by fisheries managers responsible for the population
the action is targeted at. Ratings for Group B hatchery actions are provided only
by the entity that proposed the action.
6) Natural Origin fish VSP parameters positively effected (term of BiOp) – the VSP
parameters for the natural origin component of the population that are positively
affected by the hatchery action are marked in this column.
7) Benefit accrued to natural population during (D) or after (A) BiOp period – this
column contains information with respect to the timeframe the benefit is
anticipated to accrue. The benefit for some hatchery actions may occur in the 10
6
Definition from 2000 FCRPS BiOp. Safety net projects may have to be implemented for a longer
timeframe than originally envisioned, depending on the status of the population and how quickly the major
limiting factors can be addressed.
533558028
16
FINAL DRAFT
year time period of the BiOp and others may occur post-BiOp due to the life cycle
timeframe for anadromous salmon.
8) Comments – this column contains information regarding whether the hatchery
action is proposed to benefit a listed population and what sort of benefit is
anticipated, i.e., the action will increase abundance of fish spawning naturally.
Proposed Criteria and Scoring
As described above, currently the qualitative ratings for the proposed hatchery actions
contribution to maintaining the population are based on best professional judgment of the
fisheries managers. Due to the short time frame for development of products the
Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup was not able to develop criteria for rating hatchery actions.
In the event that developing criteria becomes necessary, the following criteria are
provided as an example for consideration in determining a qualitative benefit of the
hatchery action at the population level. Using this example, each hatchery action would
be scored on agreed to standards and a high benefit may be a total score >= 20 points.
Criteria
The target population 10 year geometric mean abundance is <25% of the threshold
abundance recommended by the TRT
The target population 10 year geometric mean abundance is 25-50% of the threshold
abundance recommended by the TRT
The target population 10 year geometric mean abundance is 50-75% of the threshold
abundance recommended by the TRT
The target population 10 year geometric mean abundance >75% but <100% of the
threshold abundance recommended by the TRT
The target population 10 year mean productivity is < 0.5.
The target population 10 year mean productivity is >0.5 but < 1.0.
The target population 10 year mean productivity is >1.0 but <2.0.
The target population is designated as a “must have” by the TRT or selected by the
managers as a population of critical importance in the ESU
Project positively effects VSP criteria – 1 pt. for each
Project is on the ground action (i.e., constructs, rears fish) during term of BiOp
Project provides critical information to make adaptive management decisions or benefit
status of population
Project provides hatchery reform to a program that is a major limiting factor
Project provides hatchery reform of to a program that is not a limiting factor but has
negative impacts to the natural origin population
Points
5
4
3
2
5
3
1
5
0-4
5
5
5
3
The Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup did not rate hatchery action benefits at a cumulative
ESU level. For instance, if a hatchery action may provide beneficial outcome to more
than one population that was not identified as a benefit or credit. However, if a hatchery
action benefits two or more populations in the ESU (the more populations the higher the
533558028
17
FINAL DRAFT
credit) it should be considered as providing more benefit under the Remand. The same
would be true of a hatchery action that provided benefits to more than one ESU.
Consideration of ICTRT Guidance to Hatchery Actions
In a December 23, 2005 memo the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT)
provided guidance and clarification on what they believe is acceptable “risk” of hatchery
origin influence to the natural origin component of the population. The following section
contains recommendations for the Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup to consider and provide
to the Policy Workgroup on application of TRT guidance. These recommendations are
specifically for consideration of the use of hatchery programs in the FCRPS collaborative
Remand to reduce extinction risks imposed by the effects of the FCRPS on listed ESUs.
These recommendations would apply to any future hatchery consultations and BiOps as
well.
The primary recommendations are:
1) Determination of “risk” to diversity. The influence of hatchery origin fish on the
natural origin fish should be evaluated on a flexible, case-by-case basis.
2) Consideration of “risk” regarding proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning
grounds and duration of hatchery intervention. This risk factor should be applied
once primary factors for decline are addressed (however long this takes) and
natural fish productivity increases to support a sustained trend toward recovery.
These recommendations are discussed in more detail below.
Determination of diversity “risk” on a case-by-case basis
The TRT developed criteria for evaluating whether the diversity attribute of a population
was at high, moderate, low or very low risk. In that criteria the TRT described hatchery
programs as having greater risk the longer they occurred and the greater the proportion of
hatchery fish on the spawning grounds (ICTRT 2005a, 2005b). Even with “best
management practices” the TRT assigns a “Moderate” to “High” risk rating to the natural
population with hatchery programs extending beyond 2-3 generations and composing
more than 10% of fish on the spawning grounds.
This risk ranking does not take into account the extinction risks, current productivity,
population abundance, survival gap, or length of time required to correct the primary
factors that reduced natural fish productivity, or the Proportion of Natural Influence
(PNI) being achieved by a given hatchery program. Nor does the ranking consider other
factors, such as consideration of the role hatchery programs play in meeting
congressionally mandated mitigation obligations and tribal treaty reserved fisheries,
which might lead policymakers to conclude that continued hatchery supplementation is
necessary in order to achieve diverse interests. The TRT does qualify their
533558028
18
FINAL DRAFT
recommendations by encouraging case-by-case treatment of conditions that may affect
the risk experienced by each population. We concur that a qualification is necessary and
recommend to the Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup that: Determination of “risk” to
diversity attribute of hatchery origin fish influence on the natural origin fish component
of a population should be applied on a flexible, case-by-case basis.
Application of diversity “risk” to proportion of hatchery fish on
spawning grounds and duration of hatchery intervention
As described above, the TRT risk criteria for the diversity attribute does not take into
account the extinction risks, current productivity, population abundance, survival gap, or
length of time required to correct the primary factors that reduced natural fish
productivity for the listed ESU population. These factors may present more risk to the
survival of a population than the amount and duration of hatchery intervention. In the
near term, conservation hatchery/supplementation programs are considered a tool that can
contribute to natural fish abundance and productivity when natural fish productivity and
abundance is low on a sustained basis. In such cases, greater hatchery risks may be
acceptable. Hatchery risks to the diversity attributes of a supplemented population can be
managed with careful attention to hatchery practices and adult return disposition.
Management of breeding protocols and rearing operations of the hatchery program
The diversity of a supplemented population can be influenced by the breeding protocols
and juvenile rearing operations of the hatchery program. Selection within the hatchery
program or juvenile rearing protocols could affect population life history diversity and
phenotypic traits. To manage this risk, some programs incorporate a defined minimum
proportion of natural origin fish in the broodstock derived from the local population when
enhancement of the natural population or conservation of genetic resources and fitness
are goals of the hatchery program. According to Hatchery Scientific Review Group
(Mobrand et al. 2005), the Proportion of Natural fish Influence (PNI) in the hatchery
brood stock should be >0.5 (greater than 50%) if a goal is to produce hatchery-origin fish
with genetic characteristics of a natural population. For populations with high biological
significance or a defined role in recovery, a PNI of >0.7 (>70% or pNOB > 2·pHOS)
would be recommended.
Similarity of HOF traits with NOF traits, natural rates of gene flow, and preserving
genetic resources are important measures of hatchery programs. However, in the
Columbia Basin, these measures should be implemented with caution given the
substantial changes that have been made to fish populations and their habitats. Local
populations may, at this time, not be that well adapted and may, therefore, not be a good
base from which to measure changes in traits and genetic resources.
Many salmon and steelhead populations have been severely manipulated and altered by
early hatchery practices, population relocations, harvest regimes, and habitat alterations.
533558028
19
FINAL DRAFT
Traits of current remaining fish populations may not represent historical diversity and
best adapted traits to historical habitats or existing habitat conditions. Additionally,
features of current habitats to which fish populations must better adapt will continue to be
substantially different than historical conditions (i.e. reservoir v free flowing riverine
conditions, mainstem and tributary water temperature regimes). Rather than focus on
changes in traits and gene flow due to hatchery programs, integrated hatchery programs
might better be guided by ensuring that the Proportion of Natural Influence (PNI) is no
less than 0.5 and greater than 0.7 whenever possible.
Management of adult return abundance
One example of how abundance of hatchery origin fish can be managed to benefit the
natural population is found in a sliding scale management plan for an integrated hatchery
program where the hatchery origin fish were derived from the local natural stock
(Carmichael et al. 1998, ESA Section 10 Permit 1128, LSRCP Imnaha Spring/summer
Chinook Program Hatchery Genetic Management Plan, ODFW 2002). The sliding scale
is premised on the theory that at low population levels the greatest risk to persistence is
demographic risk of extinction and the greatest potential exists for recovery-related
benefits from a high quality hatchery supplementation program. Therefore, at low
population levels fewer constraints are placed on the hatchery program in an attempt to
increase the abundance of individuals of a population quickly using the early freshwater
incubation and rearing survival advantage provided by the hatchery. As the abundance of
natural-origin juveniles and adults increase, demographic risks are of less concern and
greater constraints are placed on the hatchery program to control the genetic risks
associated with the hatchery program. The sliding scale defines the allocation into the
hatchery or natural environment of all natural and hatchery-origin fish trapped at a
collection weir. The sliding scale also assumes, at low levels of abundance, that the
demographic risk of removing natural-origin fish for hatchery rearing or broodstock is
lower than the demographic risk of allowing those fish to remain in the natural
environment.
533558028
20
FINAL DRAFT
Figure 3. Diagram of sliding scale management tool (Carmichael et al.1998).
It should be noted that the benefit concepts from the sliding scale management approach
are not yet proven as this type of management has only recently (last ten years) been
implemented. This management approach has been authorized by NOAA Fisheries for
ESA listed populations through the Section 10 permitting process. Other examples of
managing the abundance of hatchery fish for a conservation hatchery program are being
tested in the Snake River basin.
A number of new studies on the effects of supplementation and hatchery intervention are
in progress that should result in much more information within the next 10 years on the
actual effects of various hatchery actions on natural population viability. Given the
extirpation risks faced by the ESU’s effected by this Remand the Hatchery/Harvest
Workgroup has determined that conservation hatchery/supplementation programs are
considered a tool that can contribute to natural fish abundance and productivity when
natural fish productivity and abundance is low on a sustained basis. In such cases,
greater hatchery risks may be acceptable. Therefore, we recommend to the
Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup that specific generational timelines or numerical thresholds
for hatchery intervention should not be identified, but instead that:
533558028
21
FINAL DRAFT
Application of “risk” regarding proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds
and duration of hatchery intervention would apply once primary factors for decline
are addressed (however long this takes) and natural fish productivity increases to
support a sustained trend toward recovery.
Summary
This paper provides a rationale and method for crediting hatchery actions in relation to
the FCRPS Biological Opinion. We start from NOAA Fisheries’ premise that hatchery
origin fish, in some cases, are listed under the Endangered Species Act. We summarize
NOAA Fisheries’ analysis and findings in the Hatchery Listing Policy which provides the
rationale for listing hatchery origin fish. Based on NOAA Fisheries’ premise, by
contributing to higher numerical returns, hatchery origin fish can and do provide a benefit
by reducing the risk of extinction and thus allowing for survival of the populations.
Further, based on NOAA Fisheries’ premise, neither hatchery origin adults returning and
spawning naturally (F1 fish), nor their progeny (F2 fish), can be credited in the context of
recovery or delisting. It is our conclusion that F1and F2 fish can provide a benefit in
maintaining and bolstering the natural population. This results in better positioning of the
population for recovery when primary limiting factors are addressed.
We describe the Coarse Screen document and the crediting template developed by the
Hatchery/Harvest Workgroup of the Remand process. These products were developed
and submitted for consideration as hatchery actions in the FCRPS proposed action. The
Coarse Screen document puts forth a host of hatchery actions and identifies whether or
not they have consensus of the parties in U.S. v Oregon. For those projects lacking
consensus, the Coarse Screen defines whether the activities are new or ongoing and
whether they are likely to have benefit in relation to FCRPS off-site mitigation actions.
In addition, we provide a proposal for criteria and scoring hatchery actions listed in the
crediting template.
Finally, we describe how this crediting paper comports with the Interior Columbia River
Technical Recovery Team’s risk analysis. It is our conclusion that the risks ascribed by
the TRT to hatchery fish must be considered in context of other, seemingly greater risks
to the populations, primarily those stemming from extreme reduction in population size.
Consequently, although hatchery activities might come with risk, the benefit they can
provide in maintaining populations until limiting factors are addressed can be critical.
Further, our proposal considers the mitigation responsibilities of most hatchery programs
in the upper Columbia River and Snake River as non-discretionary and attempts to
moderate the risks described by the TRT analysis in management of breeding protocols,
rearing operations and numbers of fish on the spawning grounds.
533558028
22
FINAL DRAFT
Literature Cited
Berejikian, B. A., and M. Ford. 2004. A review of the relative fitness of hatchery and
natural salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Draft Processed Report.
NWFSC, Seattle, Washington.
Bowles, E.C. 1995. Supplementation: Panacea or Curse for the Recovery of Declining
Fish Stocks? in American Fisheries Society Symposium 15:277-283.
Carmichael, R.W., S.J. Parker, and T.A. Whitesel. 1998. Status review of the chinook
salmon hatchery program in the Imnaha River Basin, Oregon. In Lower Snake
River Compensation Plan Status Review Symposium, February, 1998. USFWS
LSRCP, Boise, ID.
Hard, J. J., R.P. Jones, Jr., M.R. Delarm, and R.S. Waples. 1992. Pacific salmon and
artificial propagation under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dep. Commer.,
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-2, 56p.
HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2000. Scientific framework for artificial
propagation of salmon and steelhead. Puget Sound and Coastal Washington
Hatchery Scientific Review Group. December 2000. Available on the Internet at:
http://www.lltk.org/hatcheryreform.html#review
Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT). 2005a. Interior Columbia Basin
TRT: Viability Criteria for Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid
ESUs. NOAA Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.
ICTRT. 2005b. December 23, 2005 memo from Tom Cooney, Michelle McClure and
the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery regarding Updates to ESU/Population
Viability Criteria for the Interior Columbia Basin. NOAA Fisheries Science
Center, Seattle, WA.
McElhaney, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt.
2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant
units. U.S. Dept.Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156p.
Mobrand, L., J. Barr, L. Blankenship, D.E. Campton, T. Evelyn, T.A. Flagg, C.V.W.
Mahnken, L.W. Seeb, P. Seidel, and W. Smoker. 2005. Hatchery reform in
Washington State: principles and emerging issues. Fisheries 30:11-23.
NOAA. 1996. Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS ESU Policy. 61FR14722.
February 7, 1996.
533558028
23
FINAL DRAFT
NOAA. 2004. Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop Report. NOAA Fisheries,
Northwest Region, Protected Resources Division. April 21-23, 2004. Available on
the internet at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/SalmonPopulations/Alsea Response/upload/APE-wrkshprpt-2004.pdf
NOAA. 2005a. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for
16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon, and Final 4(d) Protective Regulations for
Threatened Salmonid ESUs. NMFS ESU Listing Determinations. 70FR37160;
June 28, 2005.
NOAA. 2005b. Policy on the consideration of hatchery-origin fish in Endangered
Species Act listing determinations for Pacific salmon and steelhead. NMFS Final
Hatchery Listing Policy. 70 FR 37204; June 28, 2005.
NOAA. 2006a. July 12, 2006, memorandum from Bob Lohn to Policy Work Group
(NWF v. NMFS Remand) regarding NOAA’s Intended Biological Opinion
Standards and Analysis. NOAA Fisheries, Portland, OR.
NOAA. 2006b. September 11, 2006, memorandum from Bob Lohn to Policy Work
Group (NWF v. NMFS Remand) regarding Metrics and Other Information that
NOAA Fisheries Will Consider in Conducting the Jeopardy Analysis. NOAA
Fisheries, Portland, OR.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2002. Imnaha Spring/summer
Chinook Program Hatchery Genetic Management Plan. ODFW, LaGrande, OR.
533558028
24