1. Where are we going? Regional monitoring and evaluation of hatchery/supplementation programs

2. CSMEP = Collaborative System-wide Monitoring and Evaluation Project –BPA funded –CBFWA lead AHSWG = Ad Hoc Supplementation Work Group –“Ad Hoc” –NPCC established based on recommendation of ISRP/AB supplementation report –NOAA and CRITFC lead

3. Common Ground (Givens) Quantifying the impacts and/or benefits of hatchery programs has been identified as major critical uncertainty with lofty calls for robust evaluation at both the project and regional scales. Evaluations should be done under the premise of the RASP definition of supplementation and the full range of VSP parameters. Existing suite of hatchery evaluation programs do have adequate study designs to address management assumptions/performance standards.

4. Common Ground (Givens) Not all hatchery programs can be intensively monitored. Primary sampling unit is a population. Sampling unit includes hatchery and naturally produced fish, but the primary response/impact is focused on the naturally-produced component of a population. Regional evaluations should look at impacts/benefits effects on both (1) abundance and (2) fitness.

5. Not So Common Ground (Hurdles) Project specific evaluation vs Regional Evaluation Balance not defined. Needs description of “O&M” type evaluations. Common definition and proxy for Fitness and experimental performance measures to build methods around. Scope of program evaluations for hatcheries (robustness and cost). Current cost is probability ok but no more.

6. Not So Common Ground (Hurdles) Common set of Standardized Performance Measures. Minimal control/reference streams currently have adequate data collection. Designed supplementation programs vs modified harvest hatcheries. Established group to guide regional hatchery evaluation and analysis with required authority.

7. Hatchery Subgroup Background Tasked with constructing designs to quantitatively evaluate the “effectiveness” of hatcheries: “Supplementation is the use of artificial propagation in an attempt to maintain or increase natural production, while maintaining the long-term fitness of the target population and keeping the ecological and genetic impacts on non-target populations within specified biological limits.” -Problem: existing (e.g., RASP 1992) definitions of hatchery effectiveness are not quantitative. -Hatcheries must fulfill: legal mandates, societal needs, and conservation needs Hatchery Subgroup

8. Hatchery Subgroup Background CSMEP definition of effectiveness: -Effectiveness = “net benefit:” -increased abundance in target populations (supplementation) increased harvest (augmentation) AND -no decrease in productivity in target or non- target populations OR benefit must outweigh impact. Hatchery Subgroup

9. Hatchery Subgroup Background Scale of evaluations: -Benefits can generally be evaluated at the scale of individual projects, but this may be inefficient. -Impacts are likely cumulative, requiring designs at a larger scale. -We view hatchery programs as a “population.” Hatchery Subgroup

10. Hatchery Subgroup Question Our question becomes: “What is the distribution and relative reproductive success of hatchery origin adults in target and non- target interior Columbia River Basin stream-type Chinook salmon populations?” Hatchery Subgroup

11. Hatchery Subgroup Design Designs must return two types of information: Straying: What is the ratio of stray hatchery origin adults in target and non-target populations? Relative Reproductive Success (RRS): What is the RRS of hatchery origin adults in target and non-target populations? Hatchery Subgroup

12. Hatchery Subgroup Design Design challenges: -Although the two types of information are employed to address a single question, a single design cannot be employed -Cannot sample all populations all the time Hatchery Subgroup

13. Stray Ratio Design What we learned about the status quo: Stray rates/ratios are currently calculated primarily using CWT recoveries in non-random locations; CWT recovery methods are inconsistent, generally poorly documented, and in many cases do not provide sufficient information; and Even given consistent collection, accurate reporting, and 100% marking precision of stray ratios is poor (CV ≈ 13% - 81%). Hatchery Subgroup

14. Stray Ratio Design Alternative: Improve distribution of tag recovery effort; Standardize methods and improve reporting; and Employ statistical methods to estimate stray ratios for un-sampled populations and improve estimates in sampled populations Hatchery Subgroup

15. Stray Ratio Design Alternative: Distribute improved recovery effort using a rotating panel: –sample a subset of populations annually –sample remainder periodically Employ experimental (bi-directional) weirs in a subset of sampled locations to evaluate precision and bias Hatchery Subgroup

16. Stray Ratio Design Alternative levels of effort: Low - annual standardized carcass survey in one population per MPG, remaining populations within each MPG sampled via rotating panel every third year. Medium – low + increased effort (two year rotating panel) and deployment of three experimental weirs. High – medium effort but one experimental weir per MPG. Hatchery Subgroup

17. Stray Ratio Design Hatchery Subgroup

18. Relative Reproductive Success Design What we learned about the status quo: Distribution of effort is opportunistic –unlikely to represent range of management policies methods vary widely –adult: juvenile –adult:adult –duration Few programs start at inception Many projects preclude escapement of strays Hatchery Subgroup

19. Relative Reproductive Success Design Alternative: Categorize hatchery programs by common management strategies using PNI Hatchery Subgroup pNOB = proportion of natural origin adults in broodstock pHOS = proportion of naturally spawning adults of hatchery origin

20. Relative Reproductive Success Design Alternative: Distribute effort using a systematic random design across range of PNI values Standardize methods Either allow escapement of some fraction of strays or distribute some RRS effort to populations that receive de facto supplementation of differing magnitude Hatchery Subgroup

21. Relative Reproductive Success Design Alternative levels of effort: Low - six supplemented populations, RRS from A:J, PIT tags for A:A Medium – six supplemented populations, RRS from A:J and A:A High – six supplemented and six un-supplemented populations, RRS from A:J and A:A Duration of three brood years for all designs. Hatchery Subgroup

22. Relative Reproductive Success Design Hatchery Subgroup

23. Consensus Design Recommendations Stray Ratio Design: Medium – provides estimates for all populations and enables evaluation of precision and bias Relative Reproductive Success Design: Medium – represents range of hatchery management and yields information on RRS of strays with some assumptions, sufficient for CSMEP question Hatchery Subgroup

24. Conclusions Identification of priority question was difficult –information generated by CSMEP designs still coarse –short-term with long-term potential Few “experts,” high demand for their time Consensus takes time CSMEP design alternatives enable statistical inference Hatchery Subgroup

25. Conclusions CSMEP design alternatives enable statistical inference CSMEP consensus designs specifically address the CSMEP priority question CSEMP designs utilized to form core of AHSWG recommendations General agreement within CSMEP and AHSWG that high RRS design alternative is necessary to address other regional questions Hatchery Subgroup

26. Conclusions Implementation of CSMEP designs will require oversight Much work left to integrate designs across CSMEP groups CSMEP designs can be leveraged to efficiently provide much additional information Need remains for a collaborative regional workgroup Hatchery Subgroup

28. Three tiers: A.baseline Implementation & Compliance Monitoring of Viable Salmon Population (VSP) parameters – abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity B.Effectiveness Monitoring C.Uncertainties Research Monitoring Provide complementary information at increasing levels of intensity of M&E 1.M&E organized within a regional, multi-tiered Framework using standardized protocols AHSWG Recommendation

29. Continue ongoing and initiate new RRS studies 6 (minimum) for spring Chinook (CSMEP 2007) 6 (minimum) for steelhead 3 (minimum) for reintroduced populations (How quickly does fitness recover?) Continue Snake River fall Chinook study Measure RRS at both smolt and adult stages Incorporate designs to isolate genetic from environmental influences (e.g., Hood River steelhead study) 2. A.Continue and expand Relative Reproductive Success (RRS) studies AHSWG Recommendation

30. Populations for RRS studies should represent: wide range of mean PNI values geographic range across basin New studies require a minimum 10 years to obtain R/S data for 3 successive broodyears Another 10 years will yield data over 3 successive Chinook/steelhead generations Review of RRS studies will provide information for management guidance over a short time frame relative to population trend analyses 2. A.Continue and expand Relative Reproductive Success (RRS) studies AHSWG Recommendation

31. Monitor basic VSP parameters in “all” salmon/steelhead populations in Columbia basin (CSMEP 2007) using standardized methodologies - annually for some populations, and on a rotating basis for others Statistically analyze data to evaluate long term effects on population trends: Before-During-After comparisons within streams Treatment-Reference comparisons between streams Comparisons across a gradient of levels of treatment 2. B.Continue, expand and coordinate ongoing monitoring of VSP parameters AHSWG Recommendation

32. Measurement of long-term effects requires analysis of long- term (20+ year) data sets Currently, data sets are limited in length and/or number – monitoring (of varying intensity) currently performed in most supplemented, and in many unsupplemented reference populations Need to identify additional reference populations and initiate M&E Continue and expand analyses as data accumulates over time Update analyses at annual Workshop 2. B.Continue, expand and coordinate ongoing monitoring of VSP parameters AHSWG Recommendation

33. Intensive population and habitat monitoring required in a limited number of programs, to perform uncertainties research – to elucidate mechanisms behind observed effects Ongoing/proposed projects include: ISEMP, YKFP, NEOH, ISS, Johnson Creek, Wenatchee River supplementation project, Mid-Upper Columbia hatchery programs 3.Support ongoing and proposed monitoring projects to perform fine scale uncertainties research. AHSWG Recommendation

34. Working Group would provide a forum to coordinate data collection and analysis Working Group would submit an annual report to NPCC, NOAA, CBFWA on status of supplementation efforts in the basin 4.Maintain momentum from current CSMEP and AHSWG efforts, through formation and funding of an interagency technical working group AHSWG Recommendation

35. AHSWG report with draft recommendations currently being finalized; will to be submitted to Workshop participants, with copies to NPCC, ISRP and ISAB Review of report by participants in a third Supplementation Monitoring and Evaluation Workshop, second quarter of 2008 (NMFS funding is available) Next Steps