851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Steve Crow 503-222-5161 

Portland, Oregon 97204-1348 Executive Director 800-452-5161 

www.nwcouncil.org Fax: 503-820-2370

Melinda S. Eden 

Chair 

Oregon

Jim Kempton 

Vice-Chair 

Idaho

Joan M. Dukes 

Oregon 

Frank L. Cassidy Jr. 

“Larry” 

Washington 

Tom Karier 

Washington 

Judi Danielson 

Idaho 

Bruce A. Measure 

Montana 

Rhonda Whiting 

Montana

July 25, 2005 

Dear Member of Congress: 

 On behalf of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council I am pleased to submit the 

Council’s recommendations for policies to guide the future use of artificial production of fish in 

the Columbia River Basin. The Council’s recommendations respond to direction in Senate 

Report 105-44 accompanying the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Bill (S-1004). 

 The Artificial Production Review and Evaluation (APRE) Report (Council document 

2004-17), which includes our recommendations, resulted from the Council’s 1999 Artificial 

Production Review (Council document 99-15) report to Congress. The 1999 report established 

priorities to guide the use of artificial production and recommended a thorough review of all 

hatchery programs in the Columbia basin. The APRE Report comprises that review. The APRE 

Report is available on the Council’s website at this address: 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2004/2004-17.htm 

 The Council looks forward to the opportunity to work with you to incorporate our 

recommendations in future policy and funding decisions. We also plan to report to you annually 

regarding accomplishments toward improving hatchery operations in the basin. 

 Sincerely, 

ß®©TM

 Stephen L. Crow 

 Executive Director 
The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 

Artificial Production Review and Evaluation 

Report to Congress

June 16, 2005

Council Document 2005-11
1

I. Background

In 1997, Congress requested that the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council (at the time the Northwest Power Planning Council) review all federally funded hatchery programs in 

the Columbia River Basin and recommend a set of coordinated 

policies to guide the future use of artificial production.1 Congress perceived a multitude of problems and suspected that the 

artificial production system was not fulfilling its purposes. The 

nature and extent of the problems needed to be determined so 

that they could be addressed.

In response to the Congressional request the Council formed 

a scientific review team and initiated the Artificial Production 

Review (APR) and later the Artificial Production Review and 

Evaluation (APRE). The 1999 APR report to Congress (Council 

Document 99-15) 2 established policies to guide the use of 

artificial production and recommended that a review of hatchery 

operations be initiated for the Columbia Basin. Using policies 

and recommendations from the APR report, the APRE process 

completed a comprehensive review of hatchery program purposes, operations and performance. The findings of the review 

are summarized in the 2004 APRE Basin-Level Report (Council 

Document 2004-17).

3

 In all, the Council’s efforts resulted in an 

in-depth review of existing hatchery programs, identification of 

hatchery program changes, definition of the future role of hatcheries in the basin, and recommendations for policies to coordinate hatchery programs with other salmonid restoration efforts.

II. Summary of Recommendations

 As part of a comprehensive effort to improve artificial 

production in the Columbia Basin, the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council recommends that federal fish and wildlife 

agencies work with the Council, the Bonneville Power Administration, state fish and wildlife agencies and tribes to accomplish 

the following tasks:

• Consistent with basinwide goals and priorities, establish longterm management objectives for hatchery and wild stocks that 

describe measurable contributions to harvest and conservation

• Identify hatchery programs as either being integrated with wild 

stocks or segregated from wild stocks and articulate how each 

program will contribute to long-term management objectives

• Implement essential hatchery reforms that align with the 

basinwide goals and management objectives, prioritized in 

a manner that considers potential biological benefits and 

cost-effectiveness

• In a publicly transparent fashion, monitor, review and report 

progress toward accomplishing long-term management 

objectives for each hatchery and wild stock. The Council 

should annually report to Congress on progress toward 

hatchery reform in the Columbia Basin.

III. Current Status of Hatcheries: 

The Artificial Production Review 

and Evaluation

The Council began with the APR. With the help of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), the APR conducted a 

scientific review of the state of artificial production within the 

basin and produced a set of guidelines for hatchery practices, 

ecological interactions and genetics (Council Document 99-4). 4

The APR also engaged regional stakeholders and hatchery 

1 Senate Report 105-44, accompanying the FY 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, S. 1004, pp. 117-118

2 Artificial Production Review, Northwest Power and Conservation Council Document 99-17.

3 Artificial Production Review and Evaluation Final Basin-Level Report, Northwest Power and Conservation Council Document 2004-17.

4 Review of Artificial Production of Anadromous and Resident Fish in the Columbia Basin, A Scientific Basis for Columbia River Production Programs, Northwest Power and

 Conservation Council Document 99-4

Artificial Production Review and Evaluation Report to Congress
2

operators in a series of workshops where hatchery reform 

recommendations and policies were discussed and developed. 

At the end of the process, the APR concluded that guidance 

was needed to determine whether and where to use artificial 

production in each subbasin. The decisions should be implemented as a part of a “broader strategy to meet regional fish 

recovery goals,” according to the review.

While the APR concluded that an updated and comprehensive hatchery policy framework was needed, it also recognized 

that significant changes would be possible only after a deliberate 

and thorough examination of the artificial production system. 

This evaluation was completed in the second phase of the Council’s response to Congress: the APRE. The APRE examined 227 

salmonid hatchery programs within the United States portion 

of the basin. The yearlong process was the most comprehensive 

effort ever undertaken to assemble basic data and information 

about all hatchery programs releasing fish into the Columbia 

River Basin. The APRE reviewed each program’s stated purpose, 

evaluated how well the program met its intended objectives, and 

outlined potential risks in operating the program. The information then was compiled into provincial and basinwide overviews 

of artificial production.

In order to assure that the value of the work was preserved, 

the APRE developed an interactive, web-accessible database 

(http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/apre). The database is flexible 

and to allows easy review and updates as new information 

becomes available or as hatchery programs change. It is expected that the database will save time and money in the future. 

Hatchery information is now organized in a consistent, accessible 

format and has been used in a collaborative development of 

Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMP). A link to HGMP 

reports can be found on the APRE website. 

The website contains data for more than 500 fish stocks in 

the basin. The database captures some of the most essential 

elements of artificial production programs and allows individual 

programs to be evaluated with respect to their objectives. The 

arrangement by subbasin allows for a greater understanding of 

interactions between hatchery and wild fish within watersheds. 

The APRE database is easily accessible so that managers can correct, update, and document information in a secure format.

The APRE arrived at several broad conclusions:

• Hatcheries are limited in what they can accomplish.

• The social, economic, and ecological purposes on which the 

current hatchery programs were established have changed 

and will continue to change.

• Hatcheries will continue to play a part in recovery and management of fish in the Columbia River and elsewhere.

• Hatcheries require reform to align their policies and practices with current social priorities and scientific knowledge, to determine hatchery performance and to operate 

in a cost-effective fashion. 5

The APR and APRE demonstrated that artificial production 

programs need to be viewed in a new way. Many of the basin’s 

hatchery programs were developed decades ago under a different set of needs, social conditions and mandates. For example, 

most of today’s hatchery production remains focused on producing fish for out-of-basin and mainstem harvest. While these 

remain legitimate goals, they need to be better balanced with 

current priorities. More recently, conservation of the environment, ecosystems and species has become an important national 

and local priority. 

In recent years many efforts have been made by hatchery 

operators to improve and update their programs to meet 

current conservation objectives. These efforts have included 

implementing a variety of operational changes and facility 

modifications. While this work should be applauded, much 

more needs to be done. Again, one of the greatest challenges 

to artificial production reform is that most hatchery programs 

were created under mandates and policies that stress different 

priorities than exist today. In many cases this has produced 

a conflict of objectives and ineffective attempts to solve the 

problems that arise. 

5 From Artificial Production Review and Evaluation Final Basin-Level Report, Northwest Power and Conservation Council Document 2004-17.
3

IV. Council Recommendations

A. New paradigm for hatchery operations

Consistent with the APR and APRE, the Council believes that 

a new paradigm for hatcheries must be established, a paradigm 

in which the diversity of species and populations is emphasized 

and local needs are considered. In this paradigm, salmonid 

populations would be returned as closely as possible to their historic range, distribution and diversity through a variety of means 

including habitat protection, restoration and the appropriate use 

of hatcheries. Also in this paradigm, hatcheries would have a role 

in the future as part of an integrated strategy to meet conservation and harvest goals on a sustainable basis.

Salmonid populations can be aided through a variety of 

strategies including restoration of habitat, adjustments to the 

operation of the hydroelectric system, and changes in harvest 

limits, methods and seasons. While each of these strategies can 

improve the diversity, range and sustainability of salmonids, all 

are limited pragmatically in what they can accomplish. The difference between what these strategies could accomplish and the 

restoration goal will need to be made up by compatible artificial 

production programs. It should be noted, however, that all 

positive changes made in the areas of habitat, hydropower, and 

harvest will benefit hatchery fish as well as wild fish. Hatchery 

fish, like wild fish, need suitable habitat when released into the 

wild and need to be able to return to the basin in sufficient numbers to sustain the populations. Therefore, hatcheries cannot be 

viewed as a substitute for degraded habitat, for inappropriate 

harvest or for continued fish passage problems. 

Hatchery plans must be part of and consistent with subbasin 

plans, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) plans and requirements. Hatchery 

plans must be appropriate at all geographic levels within the 

basin: subbasin, province, evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) 

and the basin as a whole. In addition, the plans must be part of a 

comprehensive fish and wildlife program that identifies strategies and timeframes for meeting goals and expectations for 

stock recovery and harvest.

By their nature, hatcheries are compromises. The benefits 

accrued from artificial production must be balanced with 

risks to wild stocks and the environment when compared to 

alternative means of achieving the same or similar goals. In 

order to minimize risks, hatcheries must be consistent with 

ecological and genetic principles. Finally, hatchery programs 

must be flexible, responding in a timely fashion to changes in 

social, cultural and ecological needs as well as to changes in 

scientific knowledge.

B. Recommendations for improving artificial production in 

the Columbia Basin

The Council currently is helping to clarify measurable 

goals and objectives for fish and wildlife in the Columbia 

basin. Basinwide goals and measurable objectives for fish 

conservation and harvest must be articulated clearly to help 

determine the proper role of artificial production. Hatcheries 

then can be incorporated into strategies to reach conservation and harvest goals. The Council’s 2000 Columbia River 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program calls for hatchery programs 

to be consistent with its vision (Council Document 2000-19) 6

and NOAA Fisheries’ recovery goals. 

An important finding of the APRE was that most basin 

hatchery programs lacked measurable objectives for two of 

their primary purposes — providing for harvest and contributing to natural escapement. Most programs had a variety of 

Recommendation: Consistent with basinwide goals and 

priorities, establish long-term management objectives for 

hatchery and wild stocks that describe measurable contributions to harvest and conservation.

6 The vision statement reads: The vision for this program is a Columbia River ecosystem that sustains an abundant, productive and diverse community of fish and

 wildlife, mitigating across the basin for the adverse effects to fish and wildlife caused by the development and operation of the hydrosystem and providing 

 benefits from fish and wildlife valued by the people of the region. This ecosystem provides abundant opportunities for tribal trust and treaty right harvest and

 for non-tribal harvest and the conditions that allow for the recovery of the fish and wildlife affected by the operation of the hydrosystem and listed under the

 Endangered Species Act.
4

operational goals such as numbers of fish released, number 

of eggs taken or in-hatchery survival objectives, but many 

did not state how many returning adults were designated 

for harvest or how many adults were intended to spawn 

naturally. Without this information it is difficult to assess how 

well a particular program is performing or meeting its stated 

purpose. Columbia basin hatchery programs must establish 

measurable long-term management objectives for the stocks 

they produce and describe how they will contribute to the 

harvest and conservation of fish populations.

Hatchery programs should be designed and operated in a 

manner consistent with goals for natural stocks. This will require 

that each hatchery program, depending upon its intended 

purpose, be designated as either integrated with or segregated 

from naturally spawning populations. All operations and facilities must be compatible with the needs of the type of program 

selected to achieve the goals and objectives.

Segregated and integrated programs are operated very 

differently and are used to obtain quite different results. A 

segregated program is used when the “intent is for the hatchery 

population to represent a distinct population that is reproductively isolated from naturally spawning populations.”7

 The 

purpose of this type of program is to minimize interaction 

between hatchery and wild populations and to create a “new, 

hatchery-adapted population to meet goals for harvest or other 

purposes” such as research or education. A segregated hatchery 

population is intended to have little or no genetic influence on 

wild fish populations.

Integrated programs, on the other hand, are intended to produce fish whose adaptation and fitness are driven by the natural 

environment. 8 The goal of an integrated program is to “manage 

the hatchery population as an integral, benign component” of 

a population containing both hatchery and natural fish and to 

demographically increase the abundance of the fish within the 

natural population. An integrated program obtains fish from a 

specified natural population, limiting its genetic material to that 

population. Few hatchery programs at this time are operating 

under the management guidelines for integrated programs, 

though it appears that integrated programs have great potential 

for producing fish with which to restore depleted populations 

within the basin.

Many fish and wildlife agencies and tribes are now emphasizing the need to operate hatchery programs in a manner consistent with the goals for natural stocks. NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

and the Yakama and Colville Tribes have been leaders in supporting a process to clarify objectives and better integrate hatchery 

programs with wild stocks. This process needs to continue and 

expand to all hatchery programs in the basin.

Once management objectives for hatchery programs are 

clearly established, hatchery reforms must be promptly implemented. An action plan must be developed, and short- and longterm priorities identified. The action plan and priorities must 

balance achievement of harvest and conservation goals and the 

reduction of risk to natural populations. The implementation 

phase should encourage hatchery operators to take actions that 

are consistent with the Council’s fish and wildlife program, are 

aligned with subbasin plans, and that contribute to the recovery 

goals established by NOAA Fisheries for threatened and endangered species. 

Prioritizing hatchery reforms should be tied closely to achieving management objectives, cost-effectiveness, certainty of bio7 From the HSRG/WDFW/NWIFC Technical Discussion Paper #2: Segregated Hatchery Programs, June 3, 2004

8 From the HSRG/WDFW/NWIFC Technical Discussion Paper #1: Integrated Hatchery Programs, June 3, 2004

Recommendation: Identify hatchery programs as either 

being integrated with wild stocks or segregated from wild 

stocks and articulate how each program will contribute to 

long-term management objectives.

Recommendation: Implement essential hatchery reforms 

that align with the basinwide goals and management 

objectives, prioritized in a manner that considers potential 

biological benefits and cost-effectiveness.
5

logical benefits, and which populations are in the greatest need. 

Initial actions could emphasize improving hatchery broodstocks 

and their relationship to natural spawning populations. A logical first step may be to target immediate hatchery reforms that 

could affect the most at-risk natural populations. 

It will be very important to this effort to develop a protocol 

to allow communication between fish and wildlife managers and 

subbasin planning groups. With such a protocol in place, subbasin planning groups would be able to communicate their goals 

and objectives to hatchery co-managers and, in return, would 

learn how hatcheries can be integrated into subbasin plans to 

achieve subbasin goals.

A results-oriented, performance-based management system 

must be established to evaluate hatchery operations and their 

results in comparison with established goals and objectives. 

As part of this system, periodic hatchery reviews should be 

conducted to evaluate progress toward meeting management 

objectives as well as to assess operational risks to natural populations. These reviews will help identify where program changes 

are needed and how they can be implemented.

A review panel could be established to aid the evaluation 

and re-alignment efforts for each hatchery. The panel could include scientists, hatchery managers, agency and tribal representatives and funding entities. Representatives of the panel would 

attend the periodic reviews to provide advice, contribute to the 

applicable reports, identify research needs and ensure review 

consistency across the basin. 

An Internet-based system should be developed to aid 

in evaluating goals and objectives and determining needed 

changes in hatchery programs. The system should be designed 

to efficiently and effectively disseminate data and information 

needed for the review process and to generate reports, including 

HGMPs. Data and information must be available to all interested 

parties and linked to existing regional databases. The system 

would result in more efficient record keeping and would assure 

that data and information is current, timely and accessible. Planners and managers could communicate with one another as well 

as with the public, contributing to transparency and encouraging 

public involvement.

The findings of these hatchery assessments will help inform 

future project implementation decisions for projects paid for by 

the Bonneville Power Administration and other funding sources. 

As part of the implementation and reform effort, the Council 

should annually report to Congress on accomplishments toward 

improvement of hatchery operations in the Columbia Basin.

V. The Council’s Current Activities on Hatchery Reform

As noted above, the first step in integrating hatcheries into 

a basinwide comprehensive plan is to define regional goals and 

measurable objectives for conservation, harvest and the role of 

artificial production. In collaboration with other regional entities, 

the Council is initiating a process that will help clarify salmon 

and steelhead population objectives at the subbasin, provincial 

and basinwide levels. This effort will integrate the effects of 

artificial production, habitat, harvest and hydropower, and derive 

how far current and proposed activities can go toward meeting 

regional objectives. The exercise will rely on the APRE report, 

subbasin plans and other sources as the basis for estimating current and future results. The primary products of the exercise will 

be numerical estimates of how many and what type of salmon 

and steelhead adults will escape to the spawning grounds, be 

harvested and return to hatcheries. 

The Council will use the results of the process to help 

develop biological objectives at the provincial and basinwide 

levels. Following an amendment process, the Council will adopt 

the biological objectives into its fish and wildlife program. Once 

adopted, measurable biological objectives will assist in determining when and how hatchery programs will be implemented.

The Council is developing an Internet-based information 

system to facilitate communication, disseminate information 

and promote accountability. The system will receive input from 

hatchery, habitat, harvest and hydropower data sets to inform 

how actions will assist in meeting regional objectives. The inforRecommendation: In a publicly transparent fashion, 

monitor, review and report progress toward accomplishing 

long-term management objectives for each hatchery and 

wild stock. The Council should annually report to Congress 

on progress toward hatchery reform in the Columbia Basin.
6

mation system will promote transparency of hatchery activities 

and help monitor hatchery reforms as they are implemented. In 

addition to the information system, the Council is helping to develop decision support tools that will utilize the system to assist 

policy and technical discussions. 

The Council’s current activities aim to support future 

hatchery reform activities. Using the clarified objectives 

for hatcheries and the integrated information system as a 

starting point, the Council will work with the federal agencies, fish and wildlife co-managers and regional stakeholders to implement report recommendations.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council Members (2005)

Idaho

450 West State

Boise, Idaho 83720-0062

Telephone: 208-334-6970

Council Members:

Judi Danielson

Jim Kempton, Council vice chair

Montana

1301 Lockey 

Helena, Montana 59620-0805

Telephone: 406-444-3952

Council Members:

Bruce Measure

Rhonda Whiting

Oregon

Milton-Freewater:

410 N. Main

P.O. Box 645

Milton-Freewater OR 97862-0645

Telephone: 541-938-5333

Council Member:

Melinda S. Eden, Council chair

Portland:

851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1020

Portland, Oregon 97204-1347

Telephone: 503-229-5171

Council Member:

Joan Dukes

Washington

Vancouver:

110 “Y” Street 

Vancouver, Washington 98661 

Telephone: 360-693-6951 

Council Member: 

Frank L. Cassidy Jr. “Larry”

Spokane:

W. 705 First Avenue, MS-1

Spokane, Washington 99201-3909

Telephone: 509-623-4386

Council Member: 

Tom Karier