FINAL 

Basin-Level Report 

 

 Document 2004-17

November 30, 2004
Executive Summary

This report summarizes the results and conclusions of the Artificial Production Review 

and Evaluation (APRE) conducted by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

(Council) in response to a request from Congress to review all federally funded hatchery 

programs in the Columbia River Basin. The goal of the review is to develop coordinated 

policies for the use of artificial production in the Basin. 

Interest in a comprehensive review of artificial production in the Basin stems from

scientific and policy concerns about the success of artificial production programs and how 

they affect other aspects of fisheries management. Despite the fact that artificial production 

has occurred in the Pacific Northwest for over 100 years, a comprehensive evaluation of the 

programs has not been undertaken. The APRE partially addresses this deficiency by 

conducting an in-depth evaluation of 225 individual salmonid hatchery programs within the 

U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin. The results of the review are expected to provide a 

basis for regional fisheries planning efforts by all parties involved in Pacific Northwest 

hatcheries. Discussions of the future of hatcheries and identification of the benefits and risks 

of hatchery practices should also occur as a result of the review and evaluation. 

Hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin were established originally to maintain 

commercially harvestable numbers of salmon. Within the past few decades, however, the 

focus of restoration has turned more toward supplementation of wild populations. The 

passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and changing public perceptions about the 

importance and use of salmon have had great influences on the purpose of hatcheries. 

For each hatchery program in the Basin, APRE identified the program’s purpose, the 

extent to which the program is meeting that purpose (benefit), and considered the potential for 

negative impacts on other purposes and priorities (risk). The review process was based on the 

hatchery review developed by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) in Washington 

State. Questionnaires which collected information on hatchery goals and operations from

hatchery managers and operators were developed and the responses entered into a database 

(www.apre.info). The responses were evaluated against the APRE working hypothesis which 

states that: a) to be successful, a hatchery program must be internally consistent with its own 

stated purpose and externally consistent with the goals and priorities of the environment, 

including other potentially affected fish populations; and b) almost any human intervention to 

manipulate the environment poses some level of risk to the existing environment and species. 

A hatchery program was judged to be successful if it met the following four major conditions: 

1. It must produce a healthy and viable hatchery population. 

2. It must make a sustainable contribution of adult returns to conservation and/or 

harvest. 

3. Its potential effects on wild and native populations and the environment must be 

understood. 

4. It must collect, record, evaluate, and disseminate information pertaining to the first 

three conditions so that decision-makers may be informed about the benefits and risks 

ii
of the program relative to other means of achieving similar conservation and harvest 

goals. 

The information database is intended to form the foundation for continuing consideration 

of artificial production in the Basin. The individual program reports contain a summary of 

facility information including operator, funding sources, and overall performance. The

database is designed to be updated as new information becomes available and hatchery 

reforms are enacted. 

The results of the APRE are examined in 6 major categories: fish stocks, hatchery 

operations, distribution of hatchery releases, hatchery goals and purposes, funding, and 

monitoring and evaluation. 

 Fish Stocks: The study identified 512 fish stocks of which 250 were natural stocks 

and 262 were hatchery stocks. Of the hatchery stocks identified, 174 were 

anadromous salmonid programs, 66 were resident salmonid programs and 23 nonsalmonid programs. The largest portion of stocks was found in the Lower Columbia 

province.

 Hatchery Operation: About half of the anadromous salmonid hatchery programs in 

the Lower Columbia are segregated; most in the upper river are integrated programs.

 Hatchery Practices: Many segregated hatchery programs contribute significantly to 

wild spawning populations, despite the intention to separate hatchery and wild fish. 

The amount of mixing was unknown in a third of segregated programs. In addition, 

31 percent used non-local broodstock and 75 percent transferred in fish from outside 

the basin or released fish outside the stream system. In contrast, 93 percent of 

integrated programs used broodstock derived from within the subbasin and 92 percent 

avoided transfers from outside the basin or avoided releasing fish outside the stream

system.

 Distribution of Hatchery Releases: Hatchery managers reported planned, as opposed 

to actual, releases of 172,162,986 juvenile fish of all species in the U.S. portion of the 

Columbia River Basin. Of these releases, 156,737,635 fish are planned releases of 

anadromous salmonids below the fish passage barriers at the Chief Joseph and Hells 

Canyon dams. The largest proportion (50 percent) occurs in the Lower Columbia 

provinces to provide fish for the ocean and lower river commercial fisheries.

 Goals and Purpose: For anadromous salmonids, harvest remains the primary purpose 

for hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin. 

 Funding: Identification of hatchery funding is a complex issue because most 

programs are funded from a variety of direct and indirect sources. The Lower 

Columbia Province has the most funding because it has the majority of programs.

 Monitoring and Evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation consists primarily of reports of 

typical fish statistics such as number of recruits per spawner, smolt-to-adult survival, 

escapement, and total catch. Even so, many programs did not collect information for 

any of these categories. Information for anadromous salmonid programs regarding the 

number of recruits per spawner collected was available for less than 10 percent of 

programs, smolt-to-adult survival data was available for 53 percent of the programs, 

iii
23 percent of programs had data for escapement and 35 percent of programs had catch 

data.

The APRE was designed to address concerns that the Columbia River Basin hatchery 

system needed to be reformed. The study applied hatchery reform principles developed by 

the HSRG to the information received from the fishery and hatchery managers. These 

principles included the following: 

 Goals for stocks affected by hatcheries must be clearly articulated, expressed in terms of 

resource values, and reflective of current biological, economic, and cultural circumstances. 

 Hatchery programs must be scientifically defensible. 

 Decision-making about hatchery programming and operations must be responsive and wellinformed. 

When these principles were applied, a number of questions arose about artificial 

production within the Basin. These questions explored such issues as whether or not hatchery 

programs can be used more strategically to better accommodate ecological and social goals 

and how many hatchery fish should be released each year. Broad answers to these questions 

were formulated and used to arrive at the general conclusions of the study: 

 Hatcheries are limited in what they can accomplish. 

 The social, economic, and ecological purposes upon 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 business-like 

fashion. 

This document will be the basis for an issues paper which will delineate the Council’s approach to 

hatchery reform. Both the Basin-Level report and the issues paper will contribute to a Report to 

Congress. 

iv
Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... ii 

Chapter I: Purpose of the APRE ................................................................................................ 1 

I.A Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 

I.B Need for Review of Artificial Production ......................................................... 6 

I.C Scope of the APRE............................................................................................ 7 

I.D APRE Process.................................................................................................... 7 

I.E Organization of the APRE Project..................................................................... 8 

I.F Definitions.......................................................................................................... 8 

I.G Next Steps....................................................................................................... 10 

Chapter II: Background........................................................................................................... 11

II.A Legal Framework .......................................................................................... 11 

II.B Regulatory Framework.................................................................................. 14 

II.C Harvest and Economics.................................................................................. 20 

II.D Environmental and Biological Framework ................................................... 21 

Chapter III. Methods................................................................................................................ 23 

III.A Premises........................................................................................................ 23 

III.B Approach....................................................................................................... 24 

Chapter IV. Results................................................................................................................. 28 

IV.A Fish Stocks.................................................................................................... 28 

IV.B. Hatchery operations..................................................................................... 30 

IV.C. Distribution of Hatchery Releases............................................................... 34 

IV.D. Goals and purpose ....................................................................................... 36 

IV.E. Funding ........................................................................................................ 37 

IV.F. Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................................... 39 

Chapter V. Discussion and Conclusions................................................................................. 40 

Hatchery reform principles.................................................................................... 40 

General Conclusions.............................................................................................. 46 

References................................................................................................................................ 49 

Appendices............................................................................................................................... 53 

Appendix A: Scientific Framework....................................................................... 53 

v
Operational Phase .................................................................................................................... 53 

Guidelines ................................................................................................................................ 53 

Appendix B: APRE Questionnaire, Form 1 ........................................................ 64 

Appendix C: APRE Questionnaire, Form 2 ........................................................ 71 

Appendix D: Excerpts from APRE Database..................................................... 112 

Appendix E. Province Reports ............................................................................ 115 

Appendix F: Public and Agency Comments ...................................................... 116 

vi
List of Tables 

Table II-1. Relationships among artificial production programs and the regulatory framework

.......................................................................................................................................... 11 

Table II-2. Relationship between habitat condition and artificial production strategies 

specified in the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program............................................ 16 

Table III-1. Example of APRE web-based evaluation report for a hatchery program (Cowlitz 

Spring Chinook)............................................................................................................... 27 

Table IV-1. Number and production origin for anadromous salmonids, resident salmonids, 

and non-salmonid fish stocks identified by fishery managers in the U.S. portion of the 

Columbia River Basin...................................................................................................... 28 

Table IV-2. Monitoring and evaluation statistics reported for anadromous fish hatchery 

programs in the Columbia River Basin............................................................................ 39 

vii
List of Figures 

Figure I-1. Columbia River Basin.............................................................................................. 3

Figure I-2. Hatcheries within the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin............................ 4 

Figure I-3. Provinces and Subbasins within the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin ..... 9 

Figure III-1. APRE process for evaluation of information provided on harvest and 

conservation goals (Form 1) and hatchery operations (Form 2)...................................... 25 

Figure IV-1. Distribution of fish stocks identified by fishery managers within the U.S. portion 

of the Columbia River Basin............................................................................................ 29 

Figure IV-2. Distribution of planned releases of anadromous salmonids by cultural practice 

(integrated versus segregated), by species, and ecological province ............................... 32 

Figure IV-3. Distribution of planned hatchery releases by species across provinces.............. 35 

Figure IV-4. Distribution of purpose among artificial production programs in the Columbia 

River Basin....................................................................................................................... 36 

Figure IV-5. Funding and support for anadromous fish production programs in the Columbia 

River Basin....................................................................................................................... 38 

viii
Contributors 

Barr, John Results 

Fleming, Ian Genetics 

Harrison, John Congressional Questions and Council Direction 

Hemming, Nancy Report Coordinator, Technical Editor 

Jenkins, Kris Graphics Design 

Huppert, Dan Economic Context 

Lichatowich, Jim History of Artificial Production and Social Role of Artificial 

Production 

Malone, Kevin Results 

Marsh, John Social Context-legal and Regulatory Context-legal 

McConnaha, Chip Senior Report Author 

Mobrand, Lars Senior Report Author 

Norman, Guy Harvest and Harvest Goals 

Sasser, Stephen Graphics Design 

Smith, Stephen NOAA Fisheries Processes 

Suzumoto, Bruce NWPCC Project Manager

 

ix
Acknowledgements 

 This report is the culmination of several years of dedicated effort by many people. These 

persons were involved in designing, planning, and implementing the study, providing the 

information analyzed in the study, and guiding the study to its conclusion. The authors wish 

to thank these people, without whom this effort would not have been possible. Funding for 

this project was received from Pacific Northwest ratepayers through the Bonneville Power 

Administration. 

Northwest Power Conservation Council, Staff and Contractors 

Name Association Role 

Dan Warren NWPCC / D.J. Warren and Associates Inc. Project Coordinator / Manager 

Cari Adamek NWPCC Project Management Assistant 

Bill Hannaford NWPCC Contracts 

Kierstan Myers NWPCC Contracts 

Sharon Ossmann NWPCC Contracts 

Kendra Phillips NWPCC Administrative Support 

Cindy Schulke NWPCC Contracts 

Eric Schrepel NWPCC Web and Data Management 

Jennifer Garrow Mobrand Biometrics Inc. Contractor / Data and Information / 

Workshops / Data Management 

Katie Mobrand Mobrand Biometrics Inc. Contracting / Administration 

Kelley Roberts Mobrand Biometrics Inc. Data and Information / 

Data Management 

Betsy Torrell Mobrand Biometrics Inc. Data and Information / Interviews / 

Workshops 

Ron Costello N.W. Water Resources Inc. Data and Information / Interviews 

Bob House Bioanalystst Data and Information / Interviews 

Mark Miller Bioanalystst Data and Information / Interviews 

Paul Anders S.P. Cramer and Associates Inc. Data and Information / Interviews 

Keith Underwood S.P. Cramer and Associates Inc. Data and Information / Interviews 

Gary Affonso, Server Side Software Data Base Design and Development 

Liz Atteberry, Server Side Software Data Base Design and Development 

Ed Anderson Server Side Software Data Base Design and Development 

Charles Hemphill EverSpeech Data Base Design and Development 

Dr. Don Dilman Washington State University Questionnaire Review and Improvement 

x
Members of the 

Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board NWPCC Review of Specific Process Components 

xi
Agencies, Tribes and Other Organizations 

Name Association 

Peter Lofy Bonneville Power Administration 

Bob Austin Bonneville Power Administration 

John Rowan Bonneville Power Administration 

Eric Anderson WDFW - District 8 

Ted Anderson WDFW 

Andy Appleby WDFW 

Ron Ballard WDFW 

Criag Burley WDFW 

Jim Cummins WDFW 

Wolf Dammers WDFW 

Kent Dimmit WDFW - Elochoman Hatchery

John Easterbrooks WDFW - Region 4 

Mike Erickson WDFW - Chelan Hatchery

Dave Harty WDFW - Ringold Hatchery

Bill Hopley WDFW (Retired) 

Pat Hulett WDFW 

Tim Huwe WDFW - Naches Hatchery

Bob Jateff WDFW 

Chuck Johnson WDFW 

Mark Johnson WDFW - Manager Cowlitz River Complex 

Paul Peterson WDFW - SF Toutle River Hatchery

Larona Lavallie WDFW - Cowlitz River Salmon Hatchery

John Morrison WDFW - Cowlitz Hatchery Complex 

Richard Johnson WDFW -Washougal River Hatchery Complex 

Gary Vaughn WDFW - Skamania Hatchery

Mark Kimbel WDFW 

Mike Lewis WDFW 

Brian Lyon WDFW - Manager Columbia Basin Hatchery

John Loverk WDFW - Ford Hatchery

Glen Mendel WDFW 

Darrell Mills WDFW (Retired) 

Andrew Murdock WDFW 

Rob Nicolay WDFW - Manager Lewis River Complex 

Patrick Philips WDFW - Lewis River Complex 

Aaron Roberts WDFW - Lewis River Complex 

Ron Casaneda WDFW - Kalama River Complex 

Darin Miller WDFW - Elochoman-Grays River Complex 

 Don Peterson WDFW - Complex Mgr Lyons Ferry

Ron Roler WDFW 

Rick Stilwater WDFW - Manager East Bank Hatchery Complex 

John Penny WDFW - East Bank Hatchery Complex 

Mike Tonseth WDFW 

Kirk Truscott WDFW 

Ken Vilante WDFW - Ringold Hatchery

Art Viola WDFW 

John Whalen WDFW 

Paul Seidel WDFW 

Cindy LeFleur WDFW 

xii
Bill Bosch Yakama 

David Fast Yakama 

Bill Fiander Yakama 

Joe Hubble Yakama 

Keely Murdock Yakama 

Todd Newsome Yakama 

Steve Parker Yakama 

Tom Scribner Yakama 

Bill Sharp Yakama 

Joe Blodgett Yakama - Manager Prosser Hatchery

Charles Strom Yakama - Manager Cle Elum Hatchery

Mick Jennings Warm Springs 

Terry Luther Warm Springs 

Joe McCanna Warm Springs 

Bob Spateholts Warm Springs 

Patty O'Toole Warm Springs/NWPCC 

Jim Gidley Warm Springs 

Dave Carie USFWS 

Speros Doulos USFWS 

Lee Hillwig USFWS 

Rich Johnson USFWS 

Joe Krakker USFWS 

Peter Long USFWS 

Doug Olson USFWS 

Steve Pastor USFWS 

Mike Paiya USFWS 

Mark Maskill USFWS 

Dan Davies USFWS - Manager Leavenworth Hatchery Complex 

Bill Edwards USFWS - Manager Entiat NFH 

Chris Pasley USFWS - Manager Winthrop NFH 

John Holmes USFWS - Abernathy Fish Technology Center 

Don Campton USFWS - Abernathy Fish Technology Center 

Gary James Umatilla 

Brian Zimmerman Umatilla 

Gerry Rowan Umatilla 

Tim Peone Spokane 

Mitch Combs Spokane 

Rick Klinge PUD Douglas County

Joe Hymer PSMFC 

Herman Biederbeck ODFW 

Kevin Blakey ODFW 

Jeff Boechler ODFW 

Robert Bradley ODFW 

Dick Caldwell ODFW 

Bruce Eddy ODFW 

Pat Frazier ODFW 

Rod French ODFW 

Bob Hooten ODFW 

Rick Klump ODFW 

Sue Knapp ODFW 

Bill Knox ODFW 

xiii
Clair Kunkle ODFW 

Jim Muck ODFW 

George Nandor ODFW 

Tony Nigro ODFW 

John Noel ODFW 

Bill Otto ODFW 

Scott Patterson ODFW 

Dave Rogers ODFW 

John Thorpe ODFW 

Jeff Zakel ODFW 

Jeff Ziller ODFW 

Steve Hamberger ODFW 

Jim Struck ODFW 

Tim Walters ODFW 

Ray Perkins ODFW 

Lyle Curtis ODFW 

Phil McKee ODFW 

Steve Marx ODFW 

Jack Hurst ODFW - Manager Umatilla Hatchery

Mike Gribble ODFW - Manager Irrigon Hatchery

Herb Pollard NOAA Fisheries 

Bob Foster NOAA Fisheries 

Rob Jones NOAA Fisheries 

Rich Turner NOAA Fisheries 

Chis Nelson NOAA Fisheries 

Joe Oatman Nez Perce 

Mike Key Nez Perce 

Ed Larson Nez Perce 

Dave Johnson Nez Perce 

Sue Ireland Kootenai 

John Arterburn Colville 

Dan Fairbanks Colville 

Joe Maroney Kalispel 

David Nenema Kalispel 

Ronald Peters Coeur d'Alene 

Jeffery Jordan Coeur d'Alene 

Keith Kutchins Shoshone Bannock 

Chad Colter Shoshone Bannock 

Guy Dodson Sr. Shoshone Paiute 

Fred Partridge IDFG 

Sharon Kiefer IDFG 

Paul Kline IDFG 

Tom Rogers IDFG 

Paul Abbott Idaho Power 

Chuck Peven Chelan PUD 

Stuart Hammond Grant PUD 

Gary Bertellotti MFWP 

Brian Marotz MFWP 

Bill Bakke Native Fish Society

Neil Ward CBFWA 

Travis Butcher Stream Net 

xiv
Pacific Marine Fisheries Management Council 

Michele DeHart Fish Passage Center 

Henry Franzoni Fish Passage Center 

Bill Kinney Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 

Stuart Ellis Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

Mike Matylewich Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

Doug Dompier Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

xv
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

APRE Artificial Production Review and Evaluation 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

CRFMP Columbia River Fish Management Plan 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

HGMP Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan 

HSRG Hatchery Scientific Review Group 

IHOT Integrated Hatchery Operations Team 

ISAB Independent Scientific Advisory Board 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRC National Research Council 

NWPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council (formerly NWPPC) 

NWPPC Northwest Power Planning Council (former name of the NWPCC) 

OFWC Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission 

PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council 

PST Pacific Salmon Treaty 

PUD Public Utility District 

SRT Scientific Review Team 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

xvi
Glossary 

Adaptive Management A scientific policy that seeks to improve management of 

biological resources, particularly in areas of scientific 

uncertainty, by viewing program actions as vehicles for 

learning. Projects are designed and implemented as 

experiments so that even if they fail, they provide useful 

information for future actions. Monitoring and evaluation 

are emphasized so that the interaction of the system’s 

various elements are better understood. 

Adipose fin a small, fatty, fin-shaped projection behind the dorsal fin 

of certain fishes, such as trout and salmon, that lacks 

supporting rays 

Anadromous indicates fish which hatch in fresh water, spend part of 

their lives in salt water, and return to fresh water to spawn 

Artificial Production the concept of using artificial habitats to enhance the 

survival of one or more fish life stages with the intent of

increasing the abundance of a fish population. In the case 

of APRE, the fish are species of salmon and trout 

(Oncorhynchus spp.)

Escapement the number of salmon returning to the spawning beds 

Fingerling juvenile salmonids approximately the size of a finger 

(usually less than a year in age) 

Fry newly hatched fish generally less than an inch long 

Hatcheries facilities containing raceways, ponds, and incubators that 

form artificial fish habitats for fish 

Hatchery Program the release of a fish of a particular species or race, e.g., 

spring Chinook salmon, at a location within a subbasin or 

along the mainstem of the Columbia River 

Heritable that which can be inherited 

xvii
Salmonid fish in the family Salmonidae, especially the genera 

Oncorhynchus and Salmo, which include salmon and trout 

Smolt the seaward migrating stage of anadromous salmonids 

Stock a group of fishes, often a population, that is believed to 

constitute a unique genetic fishery resource 

Subbasin a major watershed that is a tributary to the mainstem

Columbia River or the Snake River, e.g., the Yakima

River 

Terminal Fisheries Fisheries which occur off the main river channel, in 

estuaries, or in tributaries and which are designed 

geographically to focus the harvest on those species or 

stocks that originated from the fishing area 

xviii
Chapter I: Purpose of the APRE 

I.A Introduction 

This report summarizes the results and conclusions of the Artificial Production Review and 

Evaluation (APRE) conducted by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. In this 

review, the Council is responding to a Congressional request1

 to review all federally funded 

hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin (Figures I-1 and I-2) and to develop a set of 

coordinated policies for the use of artificial production in the Basin. Congress also requested 

that the operations goals and principles of State, tribal, and federal hatcheries be reviewed. 

It should be noted that, though the APRE was initiated because of concerns that there are 

“problems” with hatcheries within the Columbia River Basin, many hatchery managers and 

operators have been striving in recent years to improve hatchery programs and operations. 

APRE was structured to objectively obtain data which would identify successes as well as 

problem areas. However, as with all human endeavors, the problems always get more attention 

than the programs which have well-defined and appropriate goals and are making progress 

toward achieving those goals. Hatchery program “successes” are invaluable and can serve as 

examples of the environmental, social, and economic benefits that can be achieved by 

hatcheries. 

Reformation of artificial production with the Columbia River Basin is a task that must be 

entered into thoughtfully and deliberately in order to achieve the greatest good in the most cost 

effective manner. Some programs will require very little change, some will require more. 

Tailoring strategies for each program will be the product of continued discussion with agencies, 

owners, managers, and other interested parties. This report represents the first step in 

determining what those changes might be; it is an examination and analysis of hatchery data 

and information received through interviews and questionnaires (Chapter III and Chapter IV). 

Conclusions based on those data are drawn (Chapter V). The next step in the process is to 

define a set of issues related to hatchery reform. An implementation plan setting forth the 

details of the types of changes that may be needed and how those changes can be applied to 

individual programs will follow development of the issues. 

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (formerly known as the Northwest Power 

Planning Council) was established under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and 

Conservation Act of 1980 (Northwest Power Act) to, among other things, create a program to 

“protect, mitigate and enhance” fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin affected by 

development and operation of the Columbia River hydroelectric system. The Council, through 

its Fish and Wildlife Program (Northwest Power Planning Council 2000), recommends funding 

of projects by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) including construction and operation 

of several hatcheries for salmon, trout, and other species. The program lays out Basin-level 

policies for the use of artificial production and establishes an overall role for hatcheries 

consistent with the Council’s vision for restoration of fish populations in the Columbia River. 

In addition, the Council has recognized the influence of artificial production on the success of 

 

1

 U.S. Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill, 1998, Report 105-44. 

1
many aspects of its program and has spearheaded several efforts to coordinate the management 

of artificial production in the Columbia River. 

Congressional and Council interest in a review of artificial production stems from scientific 

and policy concerns about the success of artificial production programs and how artificial 

production may affect other aspects of fisheries management. Artificial production of salmon 

and trout has been used in the Pacific Northwest to enhance fish populations for well over 100 

years (Bottom 1997). Despite the lengthy use of artificial production, the National Research 

Council concluded that hatcheries had not been evaluated over the long term and that 

consequently their success or failure has not been demonstrated (National Research Council 

1996). 

The APRE partially addressed these concerns by conducting an in-depth evaluation of 225 

individual salmonid hatchery programs throughout the U.S. portion of the Columbia River 

Basin. The review was designed to evaluate benefits and risks of hatchery programs based on 

responses to a set of structured questions posed to hatchery operators and managers. APRE 

cannot substitute for the kind of long-term scientific evaluation advocated by the National 

Research Council (NRC) and others; however, the results should provoke thoughtful 

consideration of the future purpose and role of hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin and 

identify hatchery practices that contribute to the benefits and risks of hatcheries. It should also 

provide a basis for regional fisheries planning efforts by the Council and federal, state, and 

tribal management agencies. 

In the July 1998 request from Congress, the Council was directed to recommend a 

coordinated policy for future operation of artificial production programs and to describe a 

process for developing policies in the future. Congress directed the Council to conduct its 

review with the assistance of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), a panel of 11 

scientists who advise the Council and National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationFisheries (NOAA Fisheries) on scientific issues related to fish and wildlife in the Columbia 

River Basin. 

The Council, in coordination with the ISAB, appointed a Scientific Review Team (SRT) of 

experts in artificial production to provide an independent assessment of artificial production in 

the Columbia River Basin. In April 1999, the SRT submitted its review of scientific issues to 

the Council (Brannon et al. 1999). The Council also conducted an extensive public review of 

the team’s conclusions that included input and comment from hatchery managers, tribes, 

environmental groups, recreational fishers, and others. The Council appointed a Production 

Review Committee to coordinate the artificial production review and assist it in developing 

artificial production policies. The Council also conducted public workshops and numerous 

public meetings to discuss artificial production, explain progress on the review, and to receive 

public comment. 

The result of these efforts were collected into the Council’s initial report to Congress 

(Northwest Power Planning Council 1999). In that report, the Council provided Congress with 

a set of artificial production principles and policies intended to “guide decisions on the use of 

artificial production for specifically defined purposes, based on scientific and management 

principles...” The Council included a set of science-based statements that form its policy on the 

2
Figure I-1. Columbia River Basin 

3
Figure I-2. Hatcheries within the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin 

use of artificial production. These policies place artificial production in the context of the 

Columbia River natural-cultural ecosystem and recognize that use of hatcheries represent a 

social policy guided by scientific knowledge. The Council’s artificial production principles and 

policies also provided a framework for organizing the purposes of artificial production 

programs. 

The Council’s report described a process for implementing hatchery reform in the Columbia 

River Basin. This procedure relies on the Council’s fish and wildlife program amendment 

process, including subbasin planning (see below and Section I.E), as the means to define the use 

of future artificial production in the region. To move its proposals forward, the Council 

recommended to Congress the following six actions for implementing hatchery reform: 

1. Identify the purposes for all artificial production facilities and programs and 

review these purposes relative to the Council’s artificial production principles 

and policies 

4
2. Evaluate the purposes of artificial production facilities and programs through 

fish and wildlife planning processes such as the Council’s subbasin planning 

process 

3. Use existing processes to implement artificial production reforms based on the 

Council’s artificial production principles and policies 

4. Ensure that funding is available to implement the Council’s artificial production 

principles and policies 

5. Form an ad hoc team to oversee the implementation of hatchery reforms 

consistent with the Council’s artificial production principles and policies 

6. Assess the success of the recommended reforms after five years. 

APRE was the next step in the Council’s artificial production review process and was 

prepared in response to the first of the Council’s implementation recommendations. It 

identified the goals for each hatchery program and evaluated the benefits and risks of current 

operations compared to existing criteria derived from other regional artificial production 

reviews. The programs were reviewed in terms of their contribution to these purposes and their 

potential to adversely affect other priorities identified in the Council’s goals and principles. 

Evaluation of the appropriateness of the purpose for each program was left to planning 

processes such as subbasin planning. 

Subbasin plans will be developed as part of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. These 

plans are being developed for each of the 62 subbasins in the U.S. portion of the Columbia 

River Basin. They will be used as recommendations to the Council for funding priorities within 

the subbasins. 

 Recovery plans will be developed by the federal agencies responsible for fish populations 

listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Recovery plans for anadromous salmonids 

will be developed by NOAA Fisheries while those for resident salmonids and sturgeon will be 

developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These plans, which are being developed 

concurrently with the subbasin plans, will delineate the relationship between ESA-listed 

populations and hatchery programs through Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans

(HGMPs). All hatchery programs will eventually have an HGMP. The HGMPs will prescribe 

how individual hatchery operations will be conducted to minimize impacts on ESA-listed 

populations and/or contribute to their conservation and recovery. The Council and the federal 

managers are working together to coordinate activities and avoid duplicative planning 

processes. For this reason, the APRE was structured to also provide the basis for development 

of HGMPs. APRE will produce partial draft HGMPs that will be revised through the federal 

process. Note that USFWS has chosen not to use APRE to develop its HGMPs. 

The Council’s APRE has benefited from other reviews of artificial production, particularly 

the ongoing review in Washington State. That Congressionally mandated review has evaluated 

hatcheries in Puget Sound and on the Washington coast. The Washington review has been led 

by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG), which is composed of independent scientists 

familiar with artificial production issues. The HSRG developed guidelines for hatchery reform

and has successfully used them to evaluate a variety of hatchery programs in Puget Sound and 

on the Washington coast. The Columbia River APRE built on the work of the Washington 

5
State HSRG and has employed the HSRG guidelines to evaluate hatchery practices in the 

Columbia River (Section III.B). 

In addition, APRE drew on the work of the Council’s Integrated Hatchery Operations Team

(IHOT) in the Columbia River Basin. IHOT developed and implemented hatchery review 

procedures to audit most hatcheries in the Basin. 

I.B Need for Review of Artificial Production 

Artificial production of anadromous and resident salmonids is a fisheries management

technique that has been used throughout the Columbia River Basin and the Pacific Northwest 

for over 100 years (Chapter II.) Hatcheries were initially used as a means to produce fish for 

harvest and avoid restrictive harvest regulations. Later, hatcheries were constructed in the hope 

that abundance and harvest rates could be maintained even as dams and other activities 

degraded and eliminated freshwater habitat (Bottom 1997). Hatcheries have proliferated 

throughout the Basin and returns of adult fish to hatcheries and fisheries in the Columbia River 

now greatly exceed the return of naturally spawning fish. Arguably, hatcheries have allowed 

continuation of commercial and sport harvest of salmon and trout in the face of widespread 

environmental degradation. 

Now, however, the use of hatcheries is being reassessed. Over the past several years, 

reviews of Columbia River hatcheries have questioned the scientific basis for current programs 

and uniformly concluded that change is needed, e.g. National Research Council 1996, Brannon 

et al. 1999, and Independent Scientific Group 2000. Many hatchery programs were developed 

under an agricultural conceptual foundation in which hatcheries selected for domesticated traits 

and isolated fish from the perceived inefficiencies of the natural world (Bottom 1997). This 

view is inconsistent with prevailing scientific concepts of ecosystems and species functions, and 

many scientific reviewers have called for a new conceptual foundation for fisheries 

management (Brannon et al.1999, Independent Scientific Group 2000). The National Research 

Council (1996) noted that the scientific basis for artificial production is not clear and that 

adverse impacts from artificial production can occur. They went on to say that “Most artificial 

production programs have not undertaken long-term evaluation and documentation of the extent 

to which intended goals were reached (e.g., increase the catch for a given population, prevent 

extinction of populations whose spawning grounds were destroyed by dams) and unintended 

risks were imposed (e.g., adverse genetic or ecological impacts on naturally reproducing fish).” 

There is great concern about whether or not artificially produced fish adversely affect naturally 

spawning populations of fish (National Research Council 1996, Flagg et al. 2000). 

In addition, the economics of fishing, as well as societal views on the value of natural 

resources, have shifted since the mid-20th century when many existing hatchery programs were 

conceived. The role of hatcheries is less certain today (Bottom 1997). The commercial salmon 

fishing industry is undergoing rapid change, while recreational fishing is assuming a greater 

priority for fishery managers. Society now attaches intrinsic value to salmon in addition to their 

commercial value. These considerations dictate the need for a thorough review of artificial 

production. This is especially important because of the efforts by the Council (through subbasin 

planning) and the federal agencies (through Endangered Species Act recovery planning) to 

develop long-term, strategic plans for fisheries management in the Columbia River Basin. 

6
I.C Scope of the APRE 

The purpose of the APRE was to evaluate the benefits and risks of current hatchery 

programs in the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin as a foundation for regional planning 

efforts by the Council, federal managers, and others. A fundamental premise of the APRE was 

to use information freely provided by the fishery managers. On the basis of such information, 

the project identified the purposes for hatchery programs and looked at how current hatchery 

programs are contributing to these purposes. Although information was provided for a variety 

of native and non-native fish species, the most complete information was provided on 

anadromous salmonid programs. Because of this, the summary provided in this report focuses 

on anadromous salmonid programs; however, it is emphasized that information on additional 

programs is available in the APRE database. 

 The APRE focused on programs in the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin for 

hatcheries supported by federal, state, tribal, and private funds and which are producing 

anadromous salmonids. For each hatchery program, the extent to which the program was 

meeting its stated purpose (benefit) was evaluated along with the extent to which the program

may be negatively impacting other populations and priorities (risk). This implies that each 

hatchery program has a clearly stated purpose, an assumption that was not always valid and 

which itself forms an important aspect of the evaluation. The evaluation addressed only 

generally the appropriateness of the purposes of hatchery programs in the present economic, 

social, and scientific context. These are more properly addressed through the Council’s 

process, including subbasin planning, and through other state, federal and tribal policy 

processes. 

Information on each program was collected through a series of regional workshops using a 

standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire collected descriptive information on each 

program, summarized what the managers stated to be the purpose of the program, and described 

the program’s relationship to activities and fish populations within the subbasin. Information 

has been compiled on a web-based system that provides access to hatchery information 

providing a resource for hatchery management in the Columbia River Basin. The information 

base is far from complete due to a lack of basic information about many programs. As 

information is collected in the future, it can be added to the information base to form a more 

complete description of ongoing hatchery practices. 

I.D APRE Process 

The APRE review process was based on the hatchery review developed by HSRG in 

Washington State and the IHOT process in the Columbia River Basin (Section III.B). This 

allowed the APRE to build on the extensive scientific and public review process developed in 

Washington and to use products that had a record of successful use in reviewing similar 

hatchery programs. The APRE process evaluated information on current hatchery goals and 

operations in the Columbia River against the HSRG/IHOT criteria that were used to define the 

APRE working hypothesis. 

To establish its review criteria, the HSRG identified requirements which must be met for 

hatcheries to successfully contribute to harvest and conservation goals. These requirements and 

their scientific bases were reviewed by more than 200 scientists and stakeholders and ultimately 

led to the development of guidelines that reflected current scientific knowledge and fish 

7
husbandry practices (HSRG 2002, www.hatcheryreform.org). Based on these guidelines, the 

HSRG developed a set of questions for its review of Puget Sound and Washington coastal 

hatcheries. The HSRG review questions, as well as questions from the federal HGMP template 

and the IHOT review, were used to develop the APRE hatchery questionnaire. The 

questionnaire collected information on hatchery goals and operations from the hatchery 

managers and operators. Responses to the questionnaire were collected in a web-accessible 

database containing the basic evaluation data for the APRE (www.apre.info) and evaluated 

against the APRE premises (Section III.A). 

I.E Organization of the APRE Project 

The results of the APRE project have been organized using the ecological framework 

presented in the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program (Northwest Power Planning Council 

2000). This is a hierarchical structure for organizing fish restoration efforts intended to reflect 

underlying ecological patterns across the Columbia River Basin. The Council’s framework 

organized the Columbia River Basin into ecological provinces and subbasins. Provinces are 

groups of subbasins, e.g. the Columbia Plateau, sharing similar climate, geology, and 

biogeography, i.e. similar plant and animal groups. The Council has defined 11 Ecological 

Provinces within the Columbia River Basin (Figure I-3). These provinces contain 62 individual 

subbasins. A subbasin is a major watershed that is a tributary to the mainstem Columbia River 

or Snake River, e.g. the Yakima River. Hatcheries are located within subbasins and hatchery 

programs (see below) represent releases of fish at a specific location within a subbasin. 

This Basin level report contains a synthesis of the APRE conclusions. The Basin level 

report looks at trends in artificial production across the Council’s ecological provinces. It 

includes results, discussion, and general conclusions from the APRE review to date. 

Recommendations will be formulated following a public review of the Basin level report. 

Attached to the Basin level report is a series of Ecological Province reports. These province 

reports are structured similarly to the Basin level report, but report results across subbasins 

within each province. Attached to the subbasin reports will be the individual program reports 

for the hatchery programs in each province. The individual program reports identify the stated 

purpose for each program and the contribution of the program to these purposes. They also 

provide an assessment of the current operations of the hatchery contributing to the program

relative to prevailing fish cultural practices. These individual program reports, which are 

intended to be a resource for hatchery managers, are generated from the web-based APRE 

information system and can be reviewed and updated into the future. They allow comparison of 

artificial production across subbasins to identify provincial level purposes and highlight 

similarities and differences between subbasin artificial production programs. 

I.F Definitions 

The terms defined here are essential to understanding the APRE approach, results, and 

conclusions. Definitions of additional terms may be found in the Glossary which appears on 

page xii. 

The APRE defines a hatchery program as production of a “like” group of fish which spends 

some portion of its life cycle in a hatchery environment and is released at a location within a 

subbasin or along the mainstem Columbia River. A hatchery program was identified by species, 

8
Figure I-3. Provinces and Subbasins within the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin 

stock, and release location. A hatchery facility may contribute to several hatchery programs and

a hatchery program may involve more than one hatchery for different rearing phases. 

A group of fish delineated by the fishery managers on the basis of management purpose is 

se of the management implications in this definition, fish are often 

and natural stocks. A population is a group of fish delineated on the basis 

of g

r the

s

cupy

istinct habitat patches.

wo types of programs, integrated and segregated, were recognized in the APRE based on 

the intended amount of genetic connection to naturally spawning fish. Integrated hatchery 

programs are “open” systems designed to combine hatchery and natural components into a 

termed a stock. Becau

divided into hatchery 

enetic affinity. A population may include both hatchery and natural components if the fish

are believed to represent a common evolutionary legacy and have a close genetic relationship. 

A group of related populations is termed an Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) unde

Endangered Species Act (Waples 1995). An ESU is a legal and management notion that draw

on the scientific concept of a metapopulation, which is a group of local breeding populations 

which are genetically connected by patterns of migration and straying and which oc

d

T

9
single stock or population. Integrated prog

hatchery population from its natural counte

rams attempt to minimize the divergence of the 

rpart. In an integrated program, the hatchery is

viewed as an artificial extension of the natural environment. Brood stock includes progeny 

from natural and hatchery spawners and the intent is to minimize genetic divergence of the 

combined natural-hatchery population from the original natural population. Integrated 

programs are often referred under the general heading supplementation. This term was avoided 

in the APRE because it was considered to be a less precise term for designating hatchery 

programs which are integrated with natural populations. 

Segregated programs are “closed” systems in which the hatchery is a distinct stock which 

has

Basin-Level

eport will be used to formulate issues which must be addressed in hatchery reform. The paper 

w and comment. The final issues paper will lead to an 

define the ways in which the issues will be addressed by the 

Cou m the 

minimal interaction with natural population components. Segregated hatchery programs are

designed to minimize the genetic interaction of the hatchery population with natural 

populations. Brood stock in a segregated program typically consist of progeny from adults of

the same hatchery. Genetic divergence from natural populations may be allowed and, in some

cases, encouraged through selection for traits and behavior. 

I.G Next Steps 

The hatchery reformation effort will not end with this document. The APRE

R

will be released for public revie

implementation plan which will

ncil and cooperating groups. Concurrently, the APRE report and issues paper will for

basis for a Report to Congress delineating progress to this point and future actions. 

10
Ch ckg

 Pacific salmon began in 1875 with construction of the McCloud 

Ri ornia. The in the C er Bas lt two

ye amas River. The earliest hatcherie ilt to produce salmon for the 

lu g industry avoid a ad tlantic

salm ast of the United States. Pacific salmon stocks were showing signs of 

depletion due to high harvest rates and habitat loss. 

The 1930s saw the beginning of the construction of series of large hydroelectric projects in 

th in. Hatcheri uilt to produ an a for 

habitat loss caused by development and operation of the w

ries has servatio o lly

ut are pr creation se rcial 

harve grams to conserve genetic resources have also been instituted. As science 

and technology have advanced, cu es have c

order to reduce risks and maximize atural h pula

ies in

Table II-1. Relationships among artificial production programs and the regulatory 

fra

apter II: Ba round

Artificial propagation of

ver Hatchery in Calif first hatchery olumbia Riv in was bui

ars later on the Clack s were bu

crative salmon cannin

on on the east co

in an effort to collapse as h occurred with A

e Columbia River Bas es were b ce fish in ttempt to mitigate

hydroelectric dams. In the past fe

decades, the role of hatche

o

shifted to con n of natural p pulations. Artificia

propagated salmon and tr

st. Captive pro

ovided for re al and tribal u as well as comme

lture techniqu evolved, and ontinue to evolve, in

benefits to n abitats and po tions.

II.A Legal Framework 

Hatcheries are managed by a complex array of treaties, laws, and policies. The legal

requirement for artificial production addresses the need to replace or mitigate losses of fish 

caused by degradation or elimination of habitat as well as to uphold obligations under 

international and tribal treaties and the Endangered Species Act. Table II-1 summarizes the 

various mitigation settlements that have resulted in construction and operation of hatcher

the Columbia River Basin. 

mework 

Artificial Production 

Program 

Establishing Mechanism Type of

Program 

Responsible Entity 

Columbia River Fishery 

Development Program

Mitchell Act of 1938 federal dam

mitigation 

NOAA Fisheries 

Lower Snake River 

Compensation Plan 

Water Resources Development

Act of 1976

federal dam

mitigation 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Grand Coulee Dam

Mitigation

Mitchell Act of 1938 federal dam

mitigation 

U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation 

Dworshak Dam Mitigation Flood Control Act of 1962 federal dam

mitigation 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Jo

s

hn Day Dam Mitigation Agreement between COE, 

Oregon and Washington

federal dam

mitigation 

Mitigation provided at 

Mitchell Act Facilitie

Willamette River Basin Dams

Mitigation

River and Harbor Flood 

Control Act of May 17, 1950

federal dam

mitigation 

U.S Army Corps of

Engineers 

Cle Elum, Umatilla, Pacific Northwest Electric Columbia Various tribes, states 

Northeast Oregon, Walla

Walla River, Nez Perce

Tribal artificial production 

Power Planning and 

Conservation Act of 1980

River Basin 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

and federal agencies 

11
programs Program

Hells Canyon Project 

Mitigation

Hells Canyon Settlement

Agreement of February 14, 

1980

FERC license Idaho Power Company 

North Fork Lewis River 

Mitigation

FERC licenses FERC license PacifiCorp 

Condit Dam Mitigation voluntary voluntary PacifiCorp

Bull Run and North Fork

Projects Mitigation

FERC licenses FERC license Portland General 

Electric Company and 

City of Portland

Deschutes River Mitigation FERC license FERC license Portland General 

Electric Company 

Cabinet Gorge Kokanee 

Hatchery

voluntary voluntary Avista Corporation

Wells Dam Mitigation FERC license FERC license Douglas County PUD 

Rocky Reach Dam Mitigation FERC license FERC license Chelan County PUD 

Priest Rapids and Wanapum

Dams Mitigation 

FERC license FERC license Grant County PUD 

Swift II Project Mitigation FERC license FERC license Cowlitz County PUD 

Mayfield and Mossyrock FERC license FERC license Tacoma Public

Project Mitigation Utilities 

Since the beginning of the dam construction era in the 1930s, artificial production in the 

Columbia River Basin has been tied primarily to mitigation for habitat loss, especially due

the construction of the hydropower system. Large portions of the Columbia River were 

eliminated from salmon and steelhead production by Grand Coulee (mainstem Columbia R

and Hells Canyon (mainstem Snake River) dams. Other dams have led to the loss of nearly a

mainstem spawning habitat in the Columbia River above Bonneville Dam with the exception of

the Hanford Reach. Hydropower dams in tributaries such as the Deschutes, Clearwater, 

Okanogan, White Salmon, Lewis, Cowlitz, and Willamette subbasins also blocked access to

important habitat. In an attempt to mitigate for these habitat losses and maintain fish 

abundance, numerous hatchery programs have been developed.

to

iver)

ll

now

n.

itigation hatcheries as well. Idaho Power Company funds the 

construction and operation of hatcheries in Idaho to compensate for construction of Hells 

The first legally mandated artificial production program in the Basin was initiated under the 

Mitchell Act of 1938. This act provided funding for efforts to address the general decline of 

harvest and fish populations in the Columbia River Basin resulting from impacts of water

diversions, mainstem dams, deforestation, and pollution. It did not, however, tie project 

funding to fish losses attributable to any specific locations or activities, or to obligations to 

address the importance of the fish loss to any particular human population. The Mitchell Act 

(amended) paid for construction of the large production facilities in the Lower Columbia River

such as Little White Salmon, Willard, Carson, and Spring Creek hatcheries. The program

provides federal funding for hatcheries through the Department of Commerce to the states of

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Lower Snake River Compensation Program provides compensation for habitat lost to 

construction of the four lower Snake River hydroelectric projects. The program, which 

originally was funded through Congressionally appropriated funds reimbursed by BPA, is

funded by BPA directly and operates 27 hatchery facilities in Idaho, Oregon, and Washingto

Private firms provide m

12
Can and

ashington, and in the lower Columbia 

Riv eries

ss of

ay

nomic 

s for whom salmon were completely denied and who received no benefit 

from s

eloped

ment decisions led to court decisions that have radically changed 

fish

ver

tric projects, agriculture, and other

development have severely eroded the natural capability to support these rights and the tribal 

 programs to support their treaty rights and 

al harvests. Several tribally managed hatchery programs 

 under the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program as 

bes have become leaders in the development of hatchery 

yon Dam Complex. Public Utility Districts (PUDs) operate dams in the mid-Columbia

in several tributaries and fund mitigation hatcheries which are usually operated under 

agreements negotiated with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

One effect of artificial production mitigation activities has been to change the location of 

fish production in the Columbia River Basin. To compensate for dams that completely block 

access, it is not possible to provide in-place mitigation. Consequently, salmon mitigation 

hatcheries have often been located in other areas of the Basin where migration has not been 

blocked. Many of the largest mitigation hatcheries were constructed when the primary goal was 

to support the commercial fishing industry off Oregon, W

er. Therefore, it made little sense to mid-20th century hatchery planners to locate hatch

upriver where the fish produced would be subjected to mortalities imposed by the dams. 

Consequently, many federally funded hatcheries whose purpose was to mitigate for the lo

upriver fish habitat were constructed downstream of Bonneville Dam or in other areas aw

from where the production was lost. Tribal and non-tribal communities in areas no longer 

accessible to fish are deprived of resources that were used for religious, cultural, and eco

purposes. 

This problem is particularly acute for the non-Treaty tribes in the upper Basin near or above 

the impassible dam

 downriver mitigation hatcheries. The four Treaty Tribes below the impassible dam

(Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Nez Perce) were provided some mitigation from

facilities such as the Leavenworth Complex, but for many years, the practice of placing 

mitigation hatcheries in the lower river limited mitigation benefits to the Treaty Tribes and 

other upriver interests. To address this issue, a significant number of fish produced at downriver hatcheries are now transported upriver and released. The fish management plan dev

as a result of the U.S. v Oregon court case was the impetus for the transport of artificially 

produced fish to upriver release locations. This practice has been on-going since 1980, but is

increasingly questioned on biological grounds. With the exception of coho transport, few 

programs now engage in stock transfers. 

The loss of fishing opportunity for the Treaty Indian Tribes in the Columbia River due to 

habitat loss and manage

ery management throughout the Pacific Northwest. In 1969, a federal court determined in 

U.S. v Oregon that the Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Nez Perce tribes retained fishing 

and hunting rights under their treaties and that the states had limited management authority o

tribal fishing. The treaties were interpreted to guarantee the tribes 50 percent of the harvest of 

fish destined for tribal fishing areas and the right of the tribes to the management of their own

natural resources. However, mainstem hydroelec

fisheries. The tribes have pursued hatchery

subsistence, ceremonial, and commerci

have been developed above Bonneville Dam

hydropower mitigation. The tri

programs that attempt to be compatible with current scientific information on genetics and 

ecological processes. 

13
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was established by Congress with the purpose of

providing “a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened

n

or endangered. An

gers

“nory

stantially impacted by the legal 

the ESA, the potential impact of 

GMPs developed for each hatchery

w these

ese programs allow artificial 

produc e.

Regard

recover ut

into ha s

Hatche ies

are use

nd,

de

II.B.1 Council Guidance 

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program addresses fish and wildlife aspects of hydroelectric system operation, artificial 

production, restoration of habitat, and acquisition and protection of habitat for fish and wildlife 

species depend may be conserved [and], to provide a program for the conservation of such 

endangered species and threatened species...” Threatened and endangered species under the 

Act have been interpreted to include significant population segments that, for salmonids, have 

been defined as Evolutionarily Significant Units (Waples 1995). An ESU is a fish populatio

or group of populations that “(1) is substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific

[fish of the same species] population units, and (2) represents an important component in the 

evolutionary legacy of the species.” 

There are now 12 Columbia River Basin ESUs listed as threatened

additional ESU (lower Columbia/SW Washington coho) was designated as a candidate species

in July 1995. In addition, numerous other listed or candidate ESUs along the California, 

Oregon, and Washington coasts affect ocean fisheries that may harvest Columbia River 

salmonids. Because of the ESA status of many Columbia River salmonids, harvest mana

must consult annually with NOAA Fisheries to assure fishers are regulated to meet

jeopardy” standards established for ESA-listed species. NOAA Fisheries issues incidental take

permits to regulatory agencies and tribes for fisheries which have satisfied ESA regulato

requirements. 

Current management of artificial production is sub

obligations under the Endangered Species Act. In response to

hatcheries on listed populations must be evaluated through H

operation. The use of artificial production in recovery of listed fish populations and ho

practices comply with the legal mandates of ESA are being debated in the legal and scientific

community. While the statutes and agreements that fund th

tion for this purpose, the ESA is not clear under what circumstances it is appropriat

less, artificial production practices have been modified in some instances to assist in 

y of listed populations. In addition, some listed populations have been captured and p

tcheries in order to boost survival and avoid potential extirpation. The NOAA Fisherie

ry Policy, which is currently under development, is expected to influence how hatcher

d in the future.

The legal basis for artificial production of fish populations is straightforward; it is based on 

the replacement of lost fish for purposes related to religious, cultural, and harvest concerns a

increasingly, conservation. Implementation is often compromised, however, by conflicting 

mandates and the complexity of legal debate. The social and legal questions that remain inclu

the geographic location of mitigation programs and the use of artificial production to address 

the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. 

II.B Regulatory Framework 

14
(Section I.A). As a result of the Council’s program, BPA has funded significant hatchery 

programs at several locations throughout the Columbia River Basin.

 Several versions of the fish and wildlife program have been developed since 1981 and reflect 

an evolution of thinking about hatcheries in t River Basin. The earliest versions of 

the Council’s program constr he rily

commercial harvest by treaty Ind ishers. B e, th ad

large facilities that segregated the hatchery fro d populations toward more integrated 

programs. Subsequ uncil’ am sh velopm

supp tion (in se of a erve depleted natural 

populations, and an increasing focus on estorat aquati

The latest editi nd Wildlife Pro we

Council 2000) is a ous programs an e re

ab g wil ative effects on h obli

fish populations listed under the Endangered Sp ct. T ogra

comprehensive, ec ork for fish and torat

management. Dev asure t to s nnin

f des a r the program as we lize

objectives. It also describes the Council’s assum s, gui po n

strategies includin duction.

Artificial Production in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program

he Columbia

uction of hatc

y this tim

m the wil

were aimed at

ian f

ries prima

e region h

to support

moved away from

ent versions of the Co

tegrated programs), u

r

s progr

rtificial production to cons

ow the de ent of 

lementa

ion of c habitat.

on of the Council’s Fish a

departure from the previ

d fish populations, neg

gram (North

d reflects th

st Power Planning

gion’s concerns

out declinin abitats, and gatio tore

he 2000 Pr

ns to res

m lays out a

ion a

ecies A

ologically based framew

elopment of specific me

n overall vision fo

wildlife res

ubbasin pla

nd

g. The Council’s

d biological

s is lef

ramework inclu ll as genera

ption delines, and licies for restoratio

g the use of artificial pro

The Council’s 200 fe Progra ves a rge se

production hatcheries toward inte and habitat restoration. For 

al

The Council did, however,

0 Fish and Wildli

gration of artificial production 

m mo way from la gregated

example, a planning assumption set by the Council states: 

“This is a habitat-based program, rebuilding healthy, naturally producing fish and 

wildlife populations by protecting, mitigating and restoring habitat and the biologic

systems within them, including anadromous fish and migration corridors. Artificial 

production and other non-natural interventions should be consistent with the central 

effort to protect and restore habitat and avoid adverse impacts to native fish and 

wildlife species.” (emphasis added) 

 In this, the Council firmly placed artificial production into the context of functioning 

ecosystems and productive habitat. The program also provided ecologically based scientific 

principles to guide the use of recovery strategies including artificial production. As regional

policy guiding major funding and operation of hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin, these

principles represent a significant departure from past policies where artificial production was

used in an attempt to replace natural habitat and ecosystems.

recognize that, where habitat has been permanently eliminated (for example, as a result of 

construction of dams without adult fish passage), artificial production may be the best 

alternative to replace lost capacity and productivity (Table II-2). 

15
Table II-2. Relationship between habitat condition and artificial production strategies 

specified in the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program 

Criteria Examples of Strategies 

Habitat 

Condition Description potential of 

target 

species 

Habitat 

strategy 

Possible artificial 

production strate

Biological 

gy

High Preserve No artificial 

production Intact

Ecological functions 

and habitat structure 

largely intact Low Preserve Limited 

supplementation 

High Restore to 

intact

Interim

supplementation Restorable 

Potentially restorable to 

intact status through 

conventional 

approaches Low Restore to 

intact

Limited 

supplementation

High Moderate 

restore 

Limited 

supplementation Compromised

Ecological functions or 

habitat structure 

substantially

diminished Low Moderate 

restore Supplementation 

High Substitute Replacement 

hatchery Eliminated 

Habitat fundamentally 

altered or blocked 

without feasible 

recovery option Low Substitute Replacement 

hatchery 

 The Council’s program also acknowledges the experimental nature of hatcheries and the 

need for continuing research and evaluation. The experimental aspect of hatcheries is seen in 

the context of an adaptive management strategy that recognizes that scientific knowledge 

regarding artificial production and ecosystem functions will continue to be refined while the 

societal role of hatcheries within the context of natural resource management will continue to

evolve. The program calls for each hatchery to develop a plan describing its purpose, method

of operation, and its relationship to the vision, biological objectives, and strategies of the

f

y of

ely

or

(integra thin the context of

habitat restoration. Finally, in

hatchery co

principles and ry would have

appropriate subbasin plan. 

 Specific strategies for the use of artificial production are to be developed locally as part o

subbasin plans. However, the Council does provide significant guidance reflecting its polic

using hatcheries in conjunction with development of functional habitat. In Table II-2, the 

Council links the use of artificial production to the condition of the habitat, its potential for 

restoration, and the biological potential of the target species. 

 The Council recommends against use of artificial production in cases where habitat is larg

intact and the species has a high biological potential. These areas are to remain as refuges f

wild production. As the condition of the habitat declines, the use of supplementation

ted hatchery programs) increases, although it always remains wi

 instances where habitat has been completely eliminated, a 

uld be proposed to partially mitigate for lost habitat. In keeping with other 

goals in the Council’s program, however, the replacement hatche

16
to operate t

population r

II.B.2 NO A

During ic salmon and

steelhead and petitions to lis

review of a W

Act. NOA F

ed

nservation goals of the ESA (Hard et al. 1992). 

tion

ndangered Species

ations do affect

e, the operations must be assessed and authorized 

l Take

fecting

River Basin. The rule provides needed

protections for threatened salmon and steelhead while loosening take prohibitions for approved 

hatchery programs and providing them with ESA regulatory approval. NOAA Fisheries can 

also authorize a hatchery program by approving a Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan 

submitted by the program manager. The advantages of the HGMP approach are long-term

management planning, more public involvement, and less government paperwork. 

The 4(d) Rule specifies that HGMPs must, among other things: 

• have clearly stated goals, performance objectives, and performance indicators 

against which the program’s success or failure can be measured 

• provide as the primary purpose the conservation of that species 

qui e differently from past hatcheries and must ensure minimal impacts on natural 

s o other resource goals.

A Fisheries Guidance 

the 1990s, as a result of widespread declines in the abundance of Pacif

t populations under ESA, NOAA Fisheries conducted a status 

ll est Coast salmon and steelhead populations pursuant to the Endangered Species 

A isheries identified 52 Evolutionarily Significant Units along the West Coast. Of

the 52 ESUs, 26 were subsequently listed as threatened or endangered. The Columbia River 

Basin contains 12 of the listed ESUs. 

 Pursuant to the ESA, NOAA Fisheries regulates federal and non-federal actions that might 

incidentally or directly take listed salmon and steelhead. Fish hatchery programs have been 

identified as actions that might incidentally take listed species or require direct take of list

species. NOAA Fisheries, in conducting its regulatory responsibilities, has described the 

potential risks and benefits of hatchery programs that should be considered relative to the 

species co

 NOAA Fisheries must analyze the effects of a hatchery’s propagation actions (facility 

operations, adult fish collection, juvenile fish releases and related monitoring and evalua

activities) to determine whether listed fish might be taken and whether the continued existence 

of listed fish is jeopardized. The steps in this analysis are described in the E

Act Consultation Handbook (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries

Service 1998). 

 If a hatchery propagates non-listed fish that do not subsequently affect listed species, no 

regulatory authorization from NOAA Fisheries is necessary. If hatchery oper

listed species and an incidental take is possibl

via an ESA Section 7 consultation for federal facilities or an ESA Section 10 Incidenta

Permit for non-federal facilities. Any hatchery program that propagates a listed species must be 

authorized through a Section 10 Scientific Research/Enhancement Permit. These regulatory 

processes require the hatchery program manager to submit a biological assessment or permit 

application that fully describes the program’s action and likely effects. 

 Recently, NOAA Fisheries adopted the 4(d) Rule (NOAA 2000a) which provides an 

alternative means (other than Section 7 or 10) for authorizing hatchery operations af

threatened species. The 4(d) Rule, however, applies only to 14 ESUs of listed salmon and 

steelhead of which seven are located in the Columbia

17
• account for the program’s genetic and ecological effects on natural populations 

limitation on the take prohibition to accommodate a resource 

s

d

 include hatchery programs. 

heries’

• describe relationships between artificial propagation and harvest management

• include measures to avoid hatchery-influenced selection or domestication 

• include monitoring and evaluation on program benefits and risks 

• provide for adaptive management based on evaluations 

• be consistent with plans and conditions established for tribal harvest allocations 

 The 4(d) Rule also includes a

management plan developed jointly by the states and tribes under the jurisdiction of U.S v. 

Oregon. Such a joint plan could include harvest management and artificial propagation actions.

In approving a joint plan developed under the framework of U.S. v. Oregon, NOAA Fisheries 

must determine that the plan would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and

recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. In making such a determination, NOAA Fisherie

must take public comment on how any HGMP included in the joint plan addresses the above 

criteria. 

 Simultaneously with adoption of the 4(d) Rule, NOAA Fisheries adopted a separate Tribal 

4(d) Rule that limits take prohibitions for tribal resource management plans that do not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of threatened salmon and steelhea

(NOAA 2000b). These tribal plans can also

 The HGMP is now used in consideration of artificial propagation programs by NOAA 

Fisheries regardless of the approval mechanism, i.e. sections 7, 10, or 4(d). NOAA Fis

approval of an HGMP constitutes compliance with the substantive requirements of the ESA.

The template for an HGMP can be viewed on NOAA Fisheries’ web page at 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/1hgmp/hgmptmpl.htm. 

 With respect to artificial propagation programs, NOAA Fisheries’ ESA regulatory 

authorities have objectives similar to those of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e. to increase the social benefits of artifi

propagation programs while minimizing risks to naturally spawning populations. The HGM

template was developed in c

’s

cial

P

oncert with Council efforts to improve the cost-effectiveness of 

e long-term fisheries planning in subbasins throughout the 

Fisheries and the Council were looking for a single 

ildlife 

hatchery programs and improv

Columbia River Basin. NOAA

informational template that would efficiently satisfy both ESA regulatory and Fish and W

Program processes for hatchery review and reform. 

18
II.B.3 Fisheries Management 

 Pacific salmon and steelhead are exposed to commercial fisheries along most of the west

coast o

govern

within

Fish M

negotia

Pac

 Management of Pacific salmon has long been a matter of common concern to the United 

ry patterns, salmon originating in one country are often 

the other country. After many years of negotiation, the 

acific Salmon Treaty was signed in 1985. The PST set long-term goals for salmon 

that

ountry. The countries negotiate specific fishery regimes for each species (or geographical area) 

onsible for implementing via its domestic management processes. A 

of new multi-year fishery regimes was negotiated and agreed to in 1999. 

an fisheries off the coasts of

California, Oregon, and Washington; Chinook and coho salmon are the main salmon species 

anagement goals. 

easons and

on-treaty harvest within the Columbia River.

 U.S. v Oregon 

urt ruled in 1968 that, under existing treaties, Columbia River treaty 

Court

f North America. Because they cross national and state boundaries, their management is 

ed by a number of organizations. All fisheries of the Columbia River are established 

the guidelines and constraints of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST), the Columbia River 

anagement Plan (CRFMP), the Endangered Species Act, management agreements 

ted between the parties to U.S. v Oregon, and state fishery regulatory processes. 

ific Salmon Commission

States and Canada. Due to their migrato

harvested (“intercepted”) in fisheries of

P

management for both countries and is advisory in nature. The principal goals of the treaty are 

to enable both countries, through better conservation and enhancement, to increase production 

of salmon and ensure that the benefits resulting from each country’s efforts accrue to

c

that each country is resp

comprehensive set

 Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

 The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) is one of eight regional fishery 

management councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976. The PFMC is responsible for all oce

managed through PFMC’s Salmon Fishery Management Plan. 

 The plan sets annual spawner escapement goals for the major salmon stocks and allocates 

harvest among commercial, recreational, and tribal users in ocean, estuarine, and inland 

fisheries. PFMC also uses season length, quotas, bag limits, and gear restrictions to achieve 

fishery m

 Columbia River Compact 

 The Columbia River Compact, ratified by Congress in 1918, established concurrent 

jurisdiction by the states of Oregon and Washington over Columbia River fisheries. The 

responsible entities are the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Commission

and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC). The Compact sets harvest s

regulations for treaty and n

The U.S. District Co

Indians were entitled to an equitable share of upper Columbia River fish returns. Later court

rulings interpreted treaties as providing the treaty tribes the opportunity to take 50 percent of the 

harvestable surplus of upper Columbia River salmon. After 20 years of legal tests and 

negotiations, a ten-year Columbia River Fish Management Plan was adopted by District

19
order in 1988. Parties to the agreement were the United States; the states of Oregon, 

Washington, and Idaho; and the four treaty Indian tribes (Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla, 

and Nez Perce). The purpose of the CRFMP as defined by the court was to 

“. . . provide a framework within which the Parties may exercise their sovereign powers 

in a coordinated and systematic manner in order to protect, rebuild, and enhance upper 

Columbia River fish runs while providing harvests for both treaty Indian and non-Indian

Parties intend to use habitat 

uction techniques, and harvest 

r

is

iver Indians used salmon for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived. 

l

d have

e

water,

te

n

al

ate and tribal 

manage ent agreements. 

fisheries off Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska. Today, the 

fisheries. In order to achieve the goals of the CRFMP, the

protection authorities, enhancement efforts, artificial prod

management to ensure that Columbia River fish runs continue to provide a broad range 

of benefits in perpetuity.” 

II.C Harvest and Economics 

 Commercial and recreational harvest of salmon has long been an important economic facto

in the Pacific Northwest. While this document is not focused on the economics of harvest, it

important to acknowledge that salmonids have both economic and intrinsic values. 

II.C.1 Harvest 

 Columbia R

Europeans began using salmon about 1830 and, by 1861, commercial fisheries became

significant. In 1866, salmon canning began in the Northwest, and the non-Indian commercia

fishery grew rapidly. Salmon and steelhead landings exceeded 40 million pounds annually

several times between 1883 and 1925 (WDFW-ODFW 2002). 

 Since the early 1940s, Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhea

declined, reflecting declines in salmonid abundance. Treaty Indian commercial landings becam

a larger portion of the total Columbia River commercial landings following the 1969 U.S. v 

Oregon federal court ruling which confirmed Treaty Indian rights to an equitable share of the 

harvest. 

 In the early part of the 20th century, nearly all commercial fisheries operated in fresh

where only mature salmon were harvested. Ocean fisheries became more important in the la

1950s as more restrictions were imposed on freshwater and coastal estuary fisheries. Ocea

harvest of salmon peaked in the 1970s and 1980s. In recent years, ocean commercial and 

recreational (sport) harvests of salmon have generally been reduced as a result of internation

treaties, fisheries conservation acts, regional conservation goals, and st

m

II.C.2 Economics 

 Many of the hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin were developed during the 

mid-20th century for the purpose of supporting commercial fishing in the face of dwindling wild

fish stocks. For several decades, Columbia River hatcheries sustained commercial and sport 

20
economics of the Pacific salmon fishery are changing. The market for commercially harvested 

salmon is affected by the growing supply of farmed salmon. Though sport fishing remains an 

important economic factor, participation has varied over recent years. In addition, economists 

r

atchery

uccess of fish stocks. The insight that ocean and freshwater conditions greatly 

l

,

ore ecologically grounded conceptual foundation in recent years. (Independent Scientific 

Group 2000). 

 Part of the current conceptual foundation is the recognition of the role of environmental 

change and cycles in determining the abundance of salmon in both the short and long term

(Lawson 1993, Hare and Francis 1995). Ocean, freshwater, and terrestrial environments 

apparently fluctuate significantly over 10 year or longer time periods (Hare and Francis 1995) 

and global climate change may result in fundamental shifts in environmental conditions. 

Although almost all management focus is on their freshwater life stages, salmon are a 

predominantly marine species. The success of any restoration action in freshwater, especially 

when viewed over short time periods, is strongly affected by ocean conditions. Actions may 

appear beneficial if taken during periods of favorable ocean conditions while beneficial actions 

may be viewed as having little, or even a negative effect, if evaluated during periods of poor 

ocean conditions. The apparent success of hatchery programs during the 1960s which led to a 

massive expansion of programs was in part due to its coincidence with favorable ocean 

conditions (Pearcy 1992). Likewise the collapse of these same programs in the 1970s was 

marked by a reversal of ocean conditions leading to poor returns from hatchery and wild 

populations alike (Pearcy 1992). The impact of climate change resulting from human or natural 

causes is likely to have fundamental impacts on salmon populations (Mote et al. 1999) and 

should be considered in the use and operation of artificial production. 

 The presence of hatchery fish (juveniles and adults) in the environment affect the 

performance and abundance of other species and wild fish of the same species. The nature of 

these effects is increasingly the subject of numerous studies. The salmonid environment 

encompasses an immense area including freshwater streams, rivers, estuaries, and vast areas of 

the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Interactions of hatchery fish with wild fish of the same species are 

known as intra-species effects; interactions with other species of fish including non-salmonids 

have increasingly recognized that salmon are valued broadly for their less tangible, but no less 

important, “existence values.” These values demonstrate that people still value the existence of

salmon even if they personally will never catch or eat salmon. 

II.D Environmental and Biological Framework 

 Hatcheries culture salmonids for only a portion of their freshwater existence; the remainde

of their lives are spent in the ocean and in freshwater habitats outside of the hatchery. 

Management of hatcheries as well as conditions experienced by the fish outside of the h

can affect the s

affect the survival of hatchery stocks is a surprisingly recent contribution to the conceptua

foundation for artificial production (Independent Scientific Group 2000). Prior to the 1970s,

hatcheries were viewed as separate from the natural ecosystem and somehow immune to the 

natural ecological principles and cycles of productivity that govern the natural world. However

the continued declines in salmon populations despite massive infusions of juvenile fish from

hatchery programs has led to a re-examination of the precepts of artificial production and a 

m

21
are inter-species effects. Recent studie

those interactions on the environment

s indicate that it is important to understand the effects of 

and fish habitat.

e

s

sed into the environment can affect natural populations in terms of 

Many traits, such as behavior, morphology, and physiology, of salmon can be shaped by th

rearing environment. Traditional hatchery practices (where fish are maintained at high densitie

in flow-through tanks with ample food) show little resemblance to the natural rearing 

environment. In fact, by design, traditional hatcheries deliberately remove most of the 

complexity and “dangers” of the natural environment to increase efficiency and maximize the

survival rate. Hatcheries represent unique environments with regard to feeding regimes, density,

substrate, exposure to predators, and interactions with other fish. These differences can have 

substantial impacts on the resulting traits of hatchery fish (reviewed in Einum and Fleming 

2001) with the potential for ecological impacts when they are released into the natural 

environment. 

Hatchery fish relea

competition, disease, and genetics. In many cases, the exact extent and nature of the effects 

have not been fully defined. However, hatcheries can have positive or negative impacts on the

interaction between salmon and their environment. Hatchery management must continually 

take into consideration these myriad effects, striving to minimize risk and maximize benefits.

22
Chapter III: Methods 

The Artificial Production Review and Evaluation examined 225 Columbia River salm

and trout hatchery programs to determine if current hatchery operations were consistent with 

harvest and conservation goals identified for each program. This chapter describes the APRE 

approach to data gathering, evaluation, and reporting/accountabil

on

ity. APRE resulted in the 

 that allows information to be updated in the future. The webly produces two reports: the APRE benefit-risk profile and the HGMP for 

a se t,

em

wn

the

, if

es

variety of risks that must be evaluated by decision-makers in an informed manner. The 

AP se

to be successful if it met the following conditions: 

or

creation of a web-based system

based system current

lected hatchery program. The review and report should not be viewed as an end produc

but rather as an on-going effort to reform hatcheries. It is envisioned that the web-based syst

will be expanded in the future through links to other existing datasets and that this expansion 

will lead to the development of other types of reports. 

III.A Premises 

The APRE approach was based on two premises for determining the success of a hatchery

program. First, to be successful, a hatchery program must be internally consistent with its o

stated purpose and externally consistent with the goals and priorities for the environment, 

including other potentially affected fish populations. For example, if the purpose of a hatchery

program is to contribute to a particular harvest, its benefits were judged by its contribution to 

that fishery (internal consistency) and the degree to which it posed an acceptable level of 

potential risk to conservation, genetic, and other goals for nearby populations (external 

consistency). 

The second premise of the APRE was that almost any human intervention to manipulate

environment poses some level of risk to the existing environment and species. There are few

any, “no risk” strategies for fisheries restoration and management. Instead, different strategi

present a

RE evaluated the risk associated with each hatchery program relative to its intended purpo

and its potential impact on other goals. 

A hatchery program was judged

1. It must produce a healthy and viable hatchery population. 

2. It must make a sustainable contribution of adult returns to conservation and/

harvest. 

3. Its potential effects on wild and native populations and the environment must be 

understood. 

4. It must collect, record, evaluate and disseminate information pertaining to 

conditions 1 – 3 so that decision makers may be informed about the benefits and 

risks of the program relative to other means for achieving similar conservation and

harvest goals 

Conditions 1 and 2 dealt with the potential benefits of a hatchery program. Condition

and 4 dealt with the potential risks

s 3

. Note that Condition 3 does not imply that a successful 

hatchery program will pose no risk; rather it calls for the risk to be clearly identified and 

accepted relative to the risk of alternative strategies to achieve resource goals. It is important to 

23
recognize that all strategies, including hatcheries, have potential benefits and risks. Potential 

risks imposed by hatcheries must be compared to the risks of alternatives (including no action)

and weighed through informed decision-making. The underlying working hypothesis must then

be carefully monitored and evaluated within a framework of adaptive management. The 

determination of whether the benefits associated with a hatchery program outweigh the risks

a policy judgment that should take into account the relative

is

benefits and risks associated with 

alte

expert in censuses and 

que

provided by the m

e audits on all hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin. A set 

ols and guidelines was developed by IHOT for that purpose. The 

f all 225 artificial production programs identified in the Columbia 

Riv

e

evaluation, and reporting/accountability. 

Step 1. Information gathering 

The first step was to gather information on currently identified fish stocks and existing 

hatchery programs. The fish stock list was compiled from information provided by the 

management agencies and included salmonid and non-salmonid species with natural and 

hatchery components (Chapter IV). The APRE process identified 262 hatchery and 250 natural 

fish populations throughout the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin. While the stock list 

includes several non-salmonid fish stocks, development of goals by the fishery managers has 

focused largely on salmonid stocks. Through a structured questionnaire termed “Form 1”, 

managers were asked to describe the current status of each stock as well as short term (less than 

15 years) and long term (more than 15 years) goals in regard to harvest (type and location) and 

conservation (biological significance, genetic viability, and habitat status). 

ribed by the fishery

anagers in terms of biological significance, genetic viability, and habitat status. Biological 

significance is a measure of the importance of the population to the long-term persistence of its 

ESU and is a function of its stock origin, the uniqueness of its biological attributes (life history, 

rnative strategies to meet the same or similar resource goals. 

III.B Approach 

The APRE was based on information collected from federal, state, and tribal hatchery 

managers and operators through a structured interview process. Interviews with fishery and 

hatchery managers used a questionnaire designed in consultation with an

stionnaires to facilitate collection of unbiased responses from the managers. Managers were

not required to document the basis for their responses to the APRE questions. At several points

in the process, review opportunities were provided to the managers to ensure that the 

information accurately reflected their knowledge of the facilities and current operations. The

potential benefits and risks of each program were evaluated by comparing the information

anagers to criteria developed from the Scientific Framework and Hatchery 

Review Program (HSRG 2002) prepared by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group and by the

Council’s Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT 1995). The IHOT was established by

the Council to conduct performanc

of hatchery review protoc

results of the evaluation o

er Basin are summarized in individual program reports maintained within a web-based

system developed for the APRE. Managers were provided the opportunity to review and 

comment on the information and conclusions before the program reports were posted to th

system. 

The APRE process can be broken down into three general steps: information gathering, 

Conservation status and goals for each salmonid stock were desc

m

24
physiology, morphology, behavior, etc.), and metapopulation structure (number of spawning 

aggregations). Genetic viability is a measure of the ability of a population to survive over ti

in the natural environment as a function of effective population size, productivity (recruits per 

spawner), and composition of spawning population (natural vs. hatchery). Habitat status

describes the ability of the environment to support the population over time as a function of 

quantity and quality of habitat available to the population. 

Information on each hatchery program was also collected from the hatchery managers. 

me

scribed the procedures and practices used to 

pro o

ld a set of statements 

des

Programmatic and operational information on each program was provided through the Form 2 

questionnaire. Programmatic information described the nature, i.e. broodstock source, number 

released, life stage, and location, of the releases comprising the program. The HSRG framework 

that formed the basis for these questions is presented in Appendix A. 

Operational information collected in Form 2 de

duce the fish in a hatchery program. This information was grouped into sections relating t

1) the health and viability of the hatchery population 2) the effect of the hatchery on natural 

populations and the environment, 3) the hatchery’s contribution to harvest and conservation, 

and 4) the measures employed for accountability and monitoring of hatchery operations. 

Information provided by the managers in Form 1 and Form 2 was compiled in a webaccessible database. Prior to the evaluation step, hatchery managers were able to review and 

refine information in the data set. 

Step 2. Evaluation 

 The second step in the APRE process was to evaluate the responses provided by the 

managers relative to the criteria for hatchery success developed by the HSRG (2002). The 

information provided by the managers on stock goals (Form 1) and on hatchery program

operations (Form 2) was evaluated against the HSRG guidelines to yie

cribing benefits and risk (Figure III-1). Forms 1 and 2 are presented in appendices B and C.

Harvest and

conservation

goals (Form 1)

Hatchery operations

(Form 2)

Are the hatchery

operations consistent

with the goal?

Risk statement

No or unknown

Benefit statement

Yes

HSRG/IHOT

guidelines

Figure III-1. APRE process for evaluation of information provided on harvest and 

conservation goals (Form 1) and hatchery operations (Form 2) 

25
26

The evalu process determined if the current operations at each hatchery, as described by 

the managers, were consistent with the goals using the 

criteria established by H e questions in Forms 1 and 2 

were matched to criteria that wer pro a nservation) and to the 

of hatch ogram (integrated or segregated). The result was a series of benefit and risk 

ents indicating areas where current operations are consistent with the goals based on the 

 with the guidelines and could be improved. 

e the evaluation prior to the results 

g RE web s em. tunity to refine the 

t reliminary results. 

Report and Accountability 

mple of an APRE benefit and risk re

I-1. Additional ex pts from the APRE database are show in 

ary of findings by province is presented in Appendix E. Each hatchery 

 contains similar tables. In addition to the 

I-1, the hatchery program reports include programmatic 

ram s well as inform s, harvest, and survival rates 

.

-1, the columns are evaluation criteria for the target stock (Cowlitz spring 

d fo er stocks in the Cowlitz River. The rows are categories of hatchery 

he cell contents, e.g. 2/0/0, are the nu eria guidelines met for 

et, and the number of guidelines for 

ation is m a cell is hyperlinked to benefit and risk 

s on th b which explain the evaluation conclusions. 

rk “ a t Stock” shows the numbers 2/0/0. This 

or the harve anagers for the Cowlitz spring 

wo guid nes were m t ( 0/0), indicating a benefit. For choice of 

ds k ll lines were met (no guidelines were not met) (2/0/0), indicating no risk, and 

2/0/0

the effect of smolt 

ribed for the Cowlitz s hino program indicates that nine 

re m 9/7/1), but seven guidelines were not met (risks) (9/7/1), and 

on was pr d o s ( sk)(9/7/1). 

fter the rep fo c a

ase, managers we ble to review and comment on the reports prior to the reports being 

 The individual program reports are intended as a resource for 

anagers and subbasin planners. Because the reports contain many of the elements of 

t an (HGMP) required by the federal managers under 

 APRE web site to reformat the 

to a for anagers 

tate a a a n o e these drafts into final HGMPs for 

each hatchery program.

ation

ery pr

identified for the hatchery program

te t

SRG/IHOT. The responses provided to th

e ap pri o the goal (harvest or co

type

statem

guidelines or where operations were inconsistent

 Hatchery m

bein

data and ex

Step

An exa

program

Appendix D; a summ

program

evaluation shown in Table II

inform

provided by the m

In Table III

Chinook) an

practices. T

each hatchery practice category, the 

which inform

statem

The upper left box m

shows that f

Chinook program

broo

no inform

Target Stock-Survival colum

release practices des

guidelines w

inform

A

datab

made available to the pu

hatchery m

the Hatchery and Genetics Managem

the Endangered Species Act, the option is availabl

results in

will work with the s

anagers were asked to review 

ted on the AP

amine he p

th

is re

results of

pos view provided another oppor

3.

 is shown on Table II

 report in the web-based APRE system

ation for each pro

ent

toc

ati

yst Th

ing

port for the Cowlitz spring Chinook hatchery 

cer

g a ation on return

anagers for each program

r oth

e we

mber of evaluation crit

number that were not m

issing. Each numbe

site

r in

a

st goal p

ed

eli

Har

rovided on Form 1 by the m

vest” un

e

der

2/

“T rge

, t

, a

ation on broodstock choice was m

e

guide

c

t (a benefit) (

issi

prin

ng (

 Practices

g C

), also indicating no risk. Under the 

-Release row, 

ok

n and the Hatchery

e

not

orts

ovi

r ea

ed t

h h

add

tche

res

ry p

on

rog

e gu

ram

ide

 were developed through the APRE web 

line a ri

re a

blic. 

n

en

tch

Pl

ery

e with

age

in the

refin

m that can serve as a draft HGMP. It is anticipated that the federal m

d trib l h ma rs t
27 

Table III-1. Example of APRE web-based evaluation report for a hatchery program (Cowlitz Spring C

Criteria for Successful Outcomes

(Table entries are: Guidelines met / Guidelines NOT met/Insufficient Information) 

Target Stock Other Stocks

Hatchery 

Practices 

Harvest Biological Significance Survival Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions Harvest Interactions 

Environme

(Fish

passage

NPDES

Discharg

Broodstock Choice 2 / 0 / 0 3 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 0 1 / 1 / 0 1 / 0 / 0 1 / 0 / 0 Broodstock Collection 11 / 1 / 0 4 / 0 / 0 15 / 1 / 0 7 / 0 / 0 5 / 0 / 0 Adult Holding 3 / 0 / 0 3 / 5 / 0 1 / 0 / 0 Spawning 5 / 0 / 0 6 / 1 / 0 1 / 0 / 0 Incubation 13 / 3 / 0 0 / 3 / 0 20 / 4 / 0 2 / 1 / 0 0 / 1 / 0 Rearing 18 / 10 / 0 2 / 3 / 0 19 / 15 / 0 5 / 6 / 0 1 / 2 / 0 Release 9 / 8 / 1 2 / 3 / 1 9 / 7 / 1 5 / 6 / 1 3 / 2 / 0 4 / 1 / 0 2 / 0 / 0 Facilities 3 / 0 / 0 3 / 0 / 0 3 / 2 / 0 EffectivenessMonitoring 1 / 0 / 0 2 / 2 / 0 3 / 3 / 0 
Chapter IV: Results 

 The primary product from the APRE is the database which contains the responses 

from the fishery and hatchery managers for individual hatchery programs within the 

Columbia River Basin. The results presented in this chapter are a summary of the 

information contained in the database. The database, which is accessible through the

APRE website at www.apre.info, contains reports for each of the reviewed hatchery 

programs as well as links to this Basin level report and the federal HGMP process. 

The APRE database is intended to form the foundation for continuing consideration 

of artificial production in the Columbia River Basin. The individual program reports in 

the

updated as hatchery reforms are enacted. 

 results of the APRE into the categories of fish stocks, 

hatc

;

e

salm e U.S. 

Salmonids 

database contain a summary of facility information including operator, funding 

sources, and overall performance, as well as recommendations for each hatchery based on 

the HSRG and IHOT guidelines. In addition, the reports provide a basis for other 

regional review efforts including the Council’s subbasin planning effort and development

of federal HGMPs. The database, which hatchery managers and other interested persons 

are encouraged to use, is designed to be 

This chapter summarizes

hery operations, distribution of hatchery releases, hatchery goals and purposes, 

funding, and monitoring and evaluation. 

IV.A Fish Stocks 

Fishery managers identified a total of 512 fish stocks within the U.S. portion of the 

Columbia River Basin. Of these 512 stocks, 262 were identified as hatchery programs

and 225 of these programs were reviewed within the APRE (Table IV-1) while 37 wer

not reviewed because of inadequate information. The numbers of hatchery programs 

reviewed within the APRE are shown on Table IV-1 in parentheses. 

Table IV-1. Number and production origin for anadromous salmonids, resident 

onids, and non-salmonid fish stocks identified by fishery managers in th

portion of the Columbia River Basin 

Anadromous Resident 

Other 

Species Total 

Natural Stocks 88 100 62 250

Integrated Stocks 105 (105) 10 (9) 3 (2) 118 (116) 

Segregated Hatchery Stocks 68 (68) 57 (36) 19 (5) 144 (109) 

Total 261 167 84 512 

28
It is important to note that there are no common criteria for defining stocks either 

within or between management agencies; stocks are simply groups of fish for which the 

managers have identified a management goal or interest. There are species, primarily 

non-salmonid species, for which stocks were not identified, whereas salmonid species

usually were divided into many stocks with varying management goals. Identified stocks

do not necessarily have a genetic basis; however anadromous salmonid stocks appear to

be associated with identified genetic populations. Natural stocks are defined more 

bro

l

jority of stocks were found in the Lower 

rge number of hatchery programs in this region 

adly than hatchery stocks which are related to specific hatcheries and programs. 

Despite these inconsistencies, the distribution of stocks has some basis in the biologica

organization of fish populations within the Columbia River Basin and reveals a great deal

about management agency emphasis. 

Anadromous salmonid stocks accounted for 51 percent (261) of stocks identified by

managers, 33 percent (161) were non-anadromous (resident) salmonid stocks, and 16 

percent (84) were non-salmonid stocks. The ma

Columbia region, which reflects the la

(Figure IV-1). 

The smallest number of stocks are found in the Upper Snake province. There are no 

anadromous stocks above the blockages to anadromous passage at Hells Canyon Dam on 

the Snake River and Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River. However, resident 

salmonid stocks were identified both above and below the limit to anadromous fish 

passage. The greatest numbers of resident salmonid stocks were in the Intermountain and 

Mountain Columbia provinces. These provinces also had the greatest number of nonFigure IV-1. Distribution of fish stocks identified by fishery managers within the 

U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin 

Note: Vertical line represents the limit to anadromous fish passage. 

0

20

40

60

Columbia

Estuary

Lower

Columbia

Columbia

Gorge

Columbia

Plateau

Columbia

Cascade

Blue

Mountain

Mountain

Snake

Intermountain Mountain

Columbia

Middle

Snake

Upper Snake

N

80

100

120

ocks o. St

Non-salmonids

Resident salmonids

Anadromous salmonids

29
30

salmonid stocks in the Basin. Non-salmonid stocks represented a wide variety of fish

species including non-native species such as crappie, bullheads, channel catfish, tiger 

muskie, and largem

a

. 

h 

orge, the 

hatchery stocks represent a few very larg

jority of resident salmonid populations 

st 

cks in 

e no 

f no manag ply 

Ty e

h s e manag n 

A 

g 

s an open production cycle in which 

e hatchery population is combined with the wild population to form a single aggregate 

opulation. Controlled genetic exchange is encouraged between hatchery and the wild 

components of the population. The proportion of hatchery and wild spawners in either 

population component is limited to minimize genetic and behavioral divergence between 

hatchery and wild components. The intent of an integrated program is to minimize 

genetic drift within the combined population and to produce hatchery fish which are 

equivalent in fitness and behavior to the fish produced by natural spawners in the same 

system. The ideal integrated hatchery program contributes to the abundance of its 

naturally spawning counterpart without significantly altering the genetic or behavioral 

characteristics of the wild population. 

outh and smallmouth bass, as well as native species such as burbot, 

sturgeon nd lamprey. Of the total number of stocks identified, 26 percent were part of 

populations that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Of these listed stocks, 52 

percent have a hatchery component, although the hatchery component may not be listed

Fish stocks identified by the managers represented both hatchery and natural 

production (Table IV-1). About half the stocks were natural fish. However, the majority 

of anadromous salmonid populations derived from hatchery programs. The Columbia 

Cascade province had the highest proportion of hatchery populations of anadromous fis

and the Columbia Gorge the lowest. However, in the Columbia Cascade, the hatchery 

stocks represent several relatively small programs while in the Columbia G

e programs. The greatest number of natural 

populations was in the Lower Columbia province while the smallest number was in the 

Columbia Cascade province. 

Except for the Middle Snake province, the ma

represented naturally spawning fish. The largest numbers of resident salmonid stocks 

were described for the Mountain Columbia (47) and Intermountain (42) provinces; mo

of these were natural populations. The fact that there were no resident salmonid sto

the Columbia Cascade or Mountain Snake provinces does not mean that there ar

resident salmonids in these areas or that they are o ement interest; it sim

means that the managers did not identify any. 

IV.B. Hatchery operations 

p of operation. 

T e tocks discussed above were placed by th ers into one of three productio

categories: (1) natural stocks, (2) integrated stocks, and (3) segregated hatchery stocks. 

natural stock is intended to have minimal influence from artificial production and to 

survive through its own productivity and the capacity of the environment. Likewise, a 

segregated hatchery stock is intended to have minimal influence from and on surroundin

wild stocks. This type of program minimizes interbreeding of hatchery fish with wild 

populations. Segregated programs typically release large numbers of juvenile fish. 

An integrated hatchery program, in contrast, use

th

p
The results indicate that the majority of programs in the lower portion of the river 

(Es

al

a

eloped with the intent of producing integrated hatchery/wild 

pop

,

release. Most coho in the 

Co he

nd

tuary, Lower Columbia, and Columbia Gorge provinces) are segregated programs 

(Figure IV-2A), while a greater proportion of programs in the upper part of the Basin are 

integrated (Figure IV-2B). More than 95 percent of the programs in the Columbia Gorge 

are categorized as segregated. This is the result of a few very large, older facilities, such 

as Bonneville and Spring Creek hatcheries, which, like many programs in the lower river,

release large numbers of fall Chinook and coho to supply lower river and ocean fisheries.

(The USFWS notes that Spring Creek Hatchery was also established as a conservation 

hatchery and has been instrumental in helping preserve an original Columbia River 

stocks.) 

Because of the earlier practice of locating most mitigation hatcheries in the lower 

river, those in the upper river are usually the newest facilities constructed since the 1970s.

Many of these programs were either designed as integrated programs or have been 

recently modified to operate under the new conservation approach aimed at rebuilding

wild populations. Almost 95 percent of the programs in the Columbia Plateau, just 

upstream from the Columbia Gorge, are classified as integrated (Figure IV-2). Artifici

production programs in the Columbia Plateau include those in the Yakima and Umatill

provinces which were dev

ulations. Priest Rapids Hatchery is also an integrated program, combining hatchery

fish with the large native fish population spawning in the Hanford Reach. 

The differences in fish culture practices between and among provinces can be 

identified using the APRE information. For example, most fall Chinook in the Columbia

River Basin are released from segregated programs at large production facilities in the 

Lower Columbia and Columbia Gorge provinces (Figure IV-2A). These facilities were

for the most part, constructed to support the ocean fishery off Oregon and Washington. 

Because fall Chinook migrate to the ocean as sub-yearlings (only a few months after 

emergence), they are relatively inexpensive and easy to rear in hatcheries in large 

numbers. Spring Chinook, on the other hand, migrate as yearlings and must be 

maintained in hatchery facilities for a full year prior to

lumbia River Basin, like fall Chinook, are released from segregated programs in t

lower river. Segregated programs also account for most summer steelhead in the Basin. 

The majority of steelhead programs are located in the Mountain Snake province of Idaho.

Most spring Chinook in the Columbia River Basin are released through integrated 

programs (Figure IV-2B). Integrated programs for spring Chinook are located 

throughout the Basin with the majority in the Lower Columbia, Columbia Plateau, a

Mountain Snake provinces. Large numbers of coho are released from integrated 

programs in the Washington tributaries in the Lower Columbia province (Lewis, Cowlitz, 

Washougal rivers) and are expected to contribute to natural populations. Fall Chinook 

are released through integrated programs mainly in the Lower Columbia and Columbia 

Plateau provinces. The fall Chinook released within the Columbia Plateau are primarily 

from Priest Rapids Hatchery which integrates production with integrated with natural 

populations of fall Chinook in the Hanford Reach. 

31
32

Figure IV-2. Distribution of planned releases of anadromous salmonids by 

cultural practice (integrated versus segregated), by species, and ecological 

province 

-

10

20

30

Columbia Lower Colum

Planned releas 40

50

60

s in million

Estuary Columbia

bia

Gorge

Columbia

Plateau

Columbia

Cascade

Blue

Mountain

Mountain

Snake

e s

Winter Steelhead

Summer Steelhead

Coho

Summer Chinook

Spring Chinook

Fall Chinook

B) Integrated 

-

10

20

Columbia Lower Columbia

Planned

30

Columbia Columbia Blue Mountain

40

50

60

ses in million

Estuary Columbia Gorge Plateau Cascade Mountain Snake

 relea s

Winter Steelhead

Summer Steelhead

Coho

Summer Chinook

Spring Chinook

Fall Chinook

A) Segregated 

A) Planned releases in segregated programs, B) planned releases in integrated programs
Evaluation of Hatchery Practices. 

As stated earlier, segregated hatchery programs are intended to have minimal genetic 

exchange with wild populations and integrated programs are intended to have a 

controlled mixing to minimize genetic divergence of the hatchery and wild components. 

Therefore, it is appropriate to ask if the programs are achieving their intended levels of 

segregation or integration. A rigorous genetic study to answer these questions is beyond 

the scope of the APRE; however, the managers’ responses to questions regarding 

broodstock choice, hatchery practices, and movement of fish between hatchery and wild 

components can give some insight into the question. 

It appears that many segregated programs contribute significantly to wild spawning 

populations and, therefore, may allow gene flow from the hatchery to the wild 

population. For example, managers indicated that 28 percent of the segregated programs

contributed more than 30 percent of the spawners in associated wild populations. Only in 

18 percent of the segregated anadromous programs was there a contribution of less than 5 

percent of naturally spawning hatchery fish to neighboring wild stocks. In addition, 

managers reported they did not know the level of contribution to wild spawners in 24 

percent of the programs. 

The controlled mixing of wild and hatchery components in integrated programs is 

more difficult to assess. There are no generally accepted standards defining the proper 

amount of mixing. However, HSRG has established guidelines that can at least serve as a 

atchery broodstock and if no more than 30 percent of the wild spawning escapement 

con ed

or 22

y

tention to the genetic aspects of population fitness and the importance of 

loc

k

itably occurs, the use of

non-local broodstock can result in genetic impacts on associated wild populations. 

point of comparison for current hatchery practices (HSRG 2002). The HSRG guidelines 

state that a program is well integrated if it incorporates at least 10 percent wild fish in the

h

sists of hatchery fish. These criteria were met by only 17 percent of the integrat

anadromous programs. About 53 percent of the integrated programs allowed more than 

30 percent hatchery fish to mix with the wild component. Managers reported that, f

percent of the programs, they did not know the contribution of wild fish to the hatcher

or how hatchery fish contribute to natural spawning. 

The source of fish used in hatchery programs is also a measure of the degree of 

segregation and integration. For much of the last century, hatcheries were not managed 

with sufficient at

al adaptation. Fish were freely moved between streams and hatcheries at all life 

stages. If a hatchery did not receive its full broodstock needs from returns, broodstoc

might be imported from another hatchery with a surplus. Central hatchery facilities 

distributed juvenile fish from a single broodstock to many different streams. More 

recently, however, managers are recognizing the need to facilitate local adaptation of fish

and to conserve locally adapted populations. Integrated programs in particular emphasize 

the use of local broodstock and attempt to minimize transfer of fish between facilities and

streams. From a genetics standpoint, these practices may not be as important for a 

segregated program, but they may affect ultimate performance of the hatchery. Because

some mixing of wild and segregated hatchery population inev

33
As part of the APRE, managers were asked to describe the source of broodstock use

in each hatchery program and to describe practices relating to transfer of fish between

facilities at various life stages. Of the 105 integrated stock programs, 93 percent (98 

program

d

s) use broodstock derived from fish native to the subbasin where program fish

s) avoid transferring fish into the watershed from

fish from outside the subbasin. Of the 68 segregated 

pro 1

from this figure due to changes in hatchery operations, 

management priorities, or availability of brood stock. The planned releases, however, are 

an indication of the fishery managers’ intentions and provide a basis for comparison 

between species, areas, and programs. 

Of the total number of juvenile fish released from hatcheries in the Columbia River 

Basin (156,737,635) are planned releases of anadromous salmonids below the 

ana d

spe

Colum has been shaped by social and economic priorities 

(Fig es

inces.

of all

nly in

are released and 91 percent (96 program

another program or avoid releasing

grams, 31 percent (21 programs) used non-local broodstock and 75 percent (5

programs) transferred or released fish from outside the stream basin. 

IV.C. Distribution of Hatchery Releases 

Hatchery managers reported planned releases of 172,162,986 juvenile fish of all 

species from all hatchery programs in the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin.

Actual releases in any year vary

dromous passage barriers at Chief Joseph and Hells Canyon dams. The spatial an

cies distribution of anadromous salmonid releases clearly demonstrates how the 

bia River Basin hatchery system

ure IV-3). The largest proportion (38 percent) of anadromous salmonid releas

comes from hatchery programs in the Lower Columbia and Columbia Estuary prov

If releases from the Columbia Gorge province are included, most of which come from a 

few very large programs located just below and above Bonneville Dam, 59 percent

anadromous salmonid releases come from the lower portion of the Columbia River. 

This distribution reflects previous policies of using hatcheries primarily to support 

commercial fisheries in the lower Columbia River and ocean fisheries off Oregon and 

Washington. About 48 percent of all anadromous salmonid planned releases in the

Columbia River are fall Chinook (Figure IV-3) because fall Chinook are large 

contributors to the ocean troll fisheries. Spring Chinook, in contrast, are caught o

small numbers in the ocean commercial fisheries, although they are highly valued by the 

in-river and tribal ceremonial fisheries. In addition, as stated above, fall Chinook are 

released as fingerlings (sub-yearlings) which means that large numbers can be reared a

lower cost than spring Chinook. 

34
0

10

20

30

Columbia Lower Columbia Columbia Colum

Planned r

40

50

60

70

eases i

n millio

Estuary Columbia Gorge Plateau Cascade Mountain Snake

bia Blue Mountain

el n

Winter Steelhead

Summer Steelhead

Coho

Summer Chinook

Spring Chinook

Fall Chinook

Figure IV-3. Distribution of planned hatchery releases by species across provinces

Although the number of fish released in each province varies considerably, the 

number of programs releasing fish is relatively constant between provinces (Figure IVThe relationship between the number of programs and the number of fish re3).

leased

indicates that, in general, the lower river is dominated by a few very large programs, 

whereas the upper river has many smaller programs. Programs in the upper river areas 

are generally newer and many have been designed as integrated programs to raise a 

variety of species as opposed to the large segregated fall Chinook and coho programs in 

the lower river. 

Almost all coho hatchery releases are from the lower Columbia River (Figure IV-3). 

The Estuary, Lower Columbia, and Columbia Gorge provinces account for about 85 

percent of all coho releases in the Columbia River. Historically, coho were distributed 

throughout most of the accessible parts of the Columbia River Basin although they 

apparently were concentrated toward the mouth of the river (Mullen 1984). In addition, 

coho are major contributors to the commercial troll fisheries off Oregon and Washington. 

Hatcheries were developed in the lower river to support these fisheries. The result was a 

vigorous ocean fishery for coho with harvest rates of around 90 percent during the 1970s 

(Figure II-1). Naturally spawning populations could not sustain these high harvest rates 

and have now been largely extirpated (Johnson et al. 1991). 

The largest proportion (37 percent) of anadromous salmonids released above the 

Columbia Gorge province comes from the Mountain Snake province (Figure IV-3). Most 

35
36

of these are spring Chinook and summer steelhead. Many of the hatchery programs in 

the Mountain Snake province represent mitigation programs for habitat lost to Hells 

Canyon Dam, the lower Snake River projects, and Dworshak Dam on the Clearwater 

River. 

IV.D. Goals and purpose 

Hatchery managers were asked to characterize the purpose of each artificial 

production program in terms of whether the program was intended to provide fish for 

harvest, contribute to conservation, or provide scientific research and educational 

opportunities. An individual program may serve all three purposes. For example, a 

program might be intended to contribute to rebuilding a wild population which eventually 

will provide a harvest opportunity. The program may also be used to educate school 

children about aquatic ecology. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Proportion of

progr

70%

90%

100%

80%

ams

Columbia

Estuary

Lower

Columbia

Columbia

Gorge

Columbia

Plateau

Columbia

Cascade

Blue

Mountain

Mountain

Snake

Harvest

Conservation

Research/Education

Figure IV-4. Distribution of purpose among artificial production programs 

in the Columbia River Basin 

Figure IV-4 shows that harvest remains the predominant purpose of hatchery 

programs in the Columbia River Basin. The majority of programs in all provinces 

identified Harvest as a purpose. In the upper Basin provinces, Conservation was nearly

as important as Harvest. Research/Education was also identified as a purpose in a 

greater proportion of programs in the upper Basin, especially for Snake River hatcheries

(Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain). These results are consistent with the original 

purposes for which hatcheries in the lower and upper rivers were constructed. As stated 

Bars represent the distribution of identified purpose within a province. 

Programs often have multiple purposes and add to more than 100 percent. 
earl

lations while

ough integrated programs is relatively new, 

hatc

e, making tracking funding of artificial 

production program

e

the scope

e

nclusions about how much 

ds on which programs, on which species, and in which areas. 

unding” gation hatchery funding by city utilities. 

For ma pr ng for hatcheries in the Cowlitz River as 

mitigation for hydroelectric dams op acoma PUD. The City of Portland 

provides partial support for hatcheri ndy River to mitigate for Bull Run 

 the city’s water. “Private contributors” are private 

tilities such as Idaho Power Company, PacifiCorp, and PUDs operating in various 

counties, e.g. Grant, Douglas, and Chelan counties in Washington. These entities also 

fund hatcheries which mitigate for hydroelectric dams. 

Funding for Columbia River Basin hatcheries derives from a variety of federal 

sources. Funds through the Mitchell Act (Section II.B) continue to support much of the 

hatchery production in the Basin, especially in the lower river. The Mitchell Act has 

funded hatcheries in the Columbia River since the 1940s. Mitchell Act hatcheries often 

are those that produce large numbers of fall Chinook and coho for harvest. 

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) directly provides partial or complete 

funding for hatchery programs throughout the Basin through the Council’s 

ier, hatcheries in the lower river are generally older and were built to contribute to 

commercial harvests in the lower river and ocean. The upper river hatcheries are 

generally newer and built primarily to contribute to rebuilding natural popu

providing a harvest benefit, especially for tribal and sport fisheries. Because the 

contribution of hatcheries to conservation thr

hery programs in the Basin above the Columbia Gorge are more likely to be viewed 

as experiments and to be associated with monitoring and research efforts than are the

older, segregated programs in the lower Basin. 

IV.E. Funding 

Few hatcheries are funded from a single sourc

s in the Columbia River Basin difficult. Hatcheries often receive 

funds from several sources contributing to specific programs. In addition, funds may b

appropriated by one entity and administered by another. Other funds derive from the 

Bonneville Power Administration but are routed through reimbursements to other 

agencies. For example, the Lower Snake River Compensation Program supports 

numerous hatcheries on the Snake River, many of which are operated by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service through reimbursable funding from BPA. Finally, some sources 

contribute personnel and services while others provide capital and operating funds.

The APRE did not attempt to trace all hatchery funding as this was beyond

of the project; however, through the questionnaires, managers were asked to characteriz

the major funding for each hatchery program. This information is most useful in 

identifying the number of programs funded by various groups. The results of the data 

gathering did not produce sufficient information to allow co

money each agency spen

Nevertheless, the managers’ responses still tell much about the distribution of funding 

sources in the Columbia River Basin. 

In Figure IV-5, “city f refers to miti

example, the City of Taco ovides fundi

erated by T

es on the Sa

reservoir which supplies much of

u

37
38

Support includes contributed personnel in addition to funding.

0

10

20

30

40

u

mber

50

60

70

80

 of programs 90

N

100

Tribal

City

Private

State

Other Federal

USFWS

Mitchell Act

Columbia

Estuary

Lower

Columbia

Columbia

Gorge

Columbia

Plateau

Columbia

Cascade

Blue

Mountain

Mountain

Snake

BPA

Fis

ns that, in most 

cas signed to augment natural production and support tribal 

fishers. BPA, through a direct funding agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation, funds 

the , BPA

Springs

National Fish Hatchery on the Deschutes River (Columbia Plateau province). USFWS 

also ion

The category of “Other Federal” in Figure IV-5 refers to “other” Corps of Engineers 

fun w .

For exa

Corps-funded te

that fun

funding agreem

Figure IV-5. Funding and support for anadromous fish production programs in the

h and Wildlife Program. BPA programs in the Estuary province provide terminal area 

commercial harvest opportunities in the lower river. In the Columbia Plateau and 

Mountain Snake provinces, BPA programs are largely tribal operatio

es, are integrated programs de

Leavenworth Hatchery Complex in the Columbia Cascade Province. In addition

funds hatcheries through various indirect routes such as the Lower Snake River 

Compensation Program described above. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service directly funds facilities such as the Warm

funds hatcheries, as noted above, through the Lower Snake River Compensat

Program. USFWS uses funds from the Army Corps of Engineers to support several

programs in the Columbia Plateau, Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake provinces 

(Figure IV-5). 

Columbia River Basin

ds hich support hatcheries mitigating for hydroelectric and flood control projects

mple, the “Other Federal” funding in the Lower Columbia province represents 

facilities in the Willamette River operated by the State of Oregon. (No

ding for the Willamette River hatcheries is provided by BPA through a direct 

ent with the Corps.) 
“St ns of

staff an akama Indian Nation has 

con

IV.F.

The e

Columb

APRE

each pr

which c d

accoun

Tab ur types of

fisherie

Total C ich

is th ra

con b

their contribution to fisheries and spawning. The Smolt-to-Adult Survival measures the 

survival from t

associa

the life

Escape

manage ms. 

Total C tributes to all fisheries. This 

stat ic

Table IV-2. M

hatche

Rec

ate and Tribal” funding can include monetary as well as “in kind” contributio

d supplies to operate facilities. For example, the Y

tributed staff to operate Yakima River facilities built with BPA funds. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

APRE did not attempt to catalog or assess ongoing research and evaluation in th

ia River Basin associated with artificial production. However, as part of the 

survey, managers were asked to supply information relating to the performance of

ogram. This information consisted of commonly reported fisheries statistics 

ould be used by hatchery operators to determine the success of their programs an

t for their contribution to regional goals. 

le IV-2 summarizes information provided by the managers using fo

s statistics: Recruits per Spawner, Smolt-to-Adult Survival, Escapement, and 

atch. Less than 10 percent of the programs reported Recruits per Spawner, wh

e tio between the number of fish spawning and the number of fish estimated to 

tri ute to fisheries and escapement. It is valuable as a measure of fish survival and 

he smolt stage to adult return and is a function of mortality factors 

ted with the hatchery as well as natural and artificial conditions encountered over

cycle. This was the most common statistic reported by the managers. 

ment is the number of fish returning to spawn naturally or in the hatchery. The 

rs reported measuring Escapement for only about 23 percent of the progra

atch is the number of fish the hatchery program con

ist was reported for about 35 percent of the programs. 

onitoring and evaluation statistics reported for anadromous fish 

ry programs in the Columbia River Basin

ruits per Spawner 9.6 percent 

Smolt-to-Adult Survival 53 percent 

Escapement 23 percent 

Total Catch 35 percent 

39
Chapter V: Discussion and Conclusions 

The

Conser

growin

APRE

Basin. ts

the gen

Hatchery reform principles 

The APRE based its approach to analysis and evaluation on that of the Hatchery 

Scientif

Congressional request for hatchery review and the Northwest Power and 

vation Council’s subsequent instigation of the APRE was stimulated by the 

g realization of the need for hatchery reform (Section I.A). The results of the 

indicate that reform is essential for the hatchery system within the Columbia River

The following discussion outlines the principles of hatchery reform and presen

eral conclusions of the APRE project team. 

ic Review Group (www.hatcheryreform.org) in Washington State, which had be

ed in response to a similar Congressional request. After four years of in-depth revie

hery programs in the Puget Sound and coastal areas of Washington, the HSRG 

ed that, for hatcheries to be successful, 3 principles must be adhered to: 

goals for stocks affected by hatcheries must be clearly articulated, expressed in

terms of resource values, and reflective of current biological, economic, and 

cultural circumstances 

hatchery programs must be scientifically defensible 

decision-making about hatchery programming and operations must be resp

en

institut w

of hatc

conclud

• 

• 

• onsive

The applic h

were an

the acc

(1)

In t

possibl

clear, h

often v

exist ar

To

prioriti

judgme consistent and

rele n goal setting for Basin 

hatcheries. Th

• 

and well-informed 

ation of these principles to the APRE produced a series of questions whic

swered through analysis of the information collected through forms 1 and 2 and 

ompanying interviews with fishery and hatchery managers. 

Establishment of Goals 

he APRE, goals for existing hatchery programs were identified and, where 

e, the extent to which the goals were being achieved was evaluated. It became

owever, that hatcheries are often managed without clearly stated goals. Goals are

ague or may conflict, negatively affecting success. In some cases, the goals that 

e not necessarily consistent with current social or conservation priorities. 

be successful, hatcheries must have clear and measurable goals reflecting 

es established by scientific thought, legislation, treaty agreements, and legal 

nts. Goals must be periodically reviewed to make sure they are still

va t. The APRE review raised specific questions about

ese include: 

Are the current goals for fish stocks in the Columbia consistent with the 

current biological, economic, and cultural values and legal requirements? 

The APRE analysis indicates that many programs are achieving their 

original objectives and goals. However, until the region clearly defines the role 

40
and future goals of hatcheries, it is difficult to determine how each program 

should be altered to best meet the updated goals. 

Can anadromous fish production be better balanced to provide greater 

access to fish for communities up

• 

river?

e

constru

• t

conservation, harvest, and educational objectives. Many 

of the Lower Columbia River programs are being managed primarily for harvest 

despite the presence of ESA-listed populations within their area. The NOAA 4 

e primary purpose of hatcheries affecting listed 

ms produce fish which are currently under utilized 

ility

ically to better accommodate

ing in the fall of each year. Hatcheries could be used to 

enhance biodiversity by producing a wider variety of salmonid species and life 

histories. Greater species and life history diversity makes sense ecologically and 

could provide greater harvest opportunities by enhancing adult returns over a 

longer time period. 

Many lower river hatchery programs are operated as mitigation for th

ction of the Columbia River hydrosystem and provide fish to coastal and

lower river communities. A sizeable majority of Columbia River Basin hatchery 

production takes place in the lower three provinces. Unfortunately, the 

communities most affected by the construction of the dams do not share equally 

in this production. Communities farther inland normally have less access to 

returning adults because of their geographic location. Columbia River Basin 

hatchery programs have exacerbated this situation by producing a 

disproportionate number of fish in the lower Columbia River. Attention should 

be given to the questions of whether and how to balance hatchery production. 

Should more emphasis be placed on conservation relative to harvest for mos

stocks? 

Managers need to ensure that the goals for their programs are consistent

with currently required

(d) guidelines state that th

populations should be conservation (Section II.E). 

• Should less emphasis be placed on stocks produced primarily for commercial 

harvest?

Many hatchery progra

because it is not economically viable to catch them. This creates surpluses of 

adult fish at hatcheries and increases the risk of hatchery fish straying into 

unintended areas. Hatcheries may be able to shift emphasis away from

production of stocks targeted for commercial harvest to stocks for sustainab

which will, in the future, benefit all users, including the commercial industry. 

• Can hatchery programs be used more strateg

ecological and social goals? 

Hatchery fall Chinook production is large relative to other hatchery 

programs in the Columbia River Basin. This production adds to the already large 

peak of Chinook return

41
• Are ha

ited the number of hatchery fish 

• 

s

ishing goals of hatcheries and individual programs.

,

actices also impact 

the num

idelines, resulting in more risk to wild fish. In low productivity years, 

insufficient numbers of returning wild fish may not maintain the genetic mix 

ather

than reduce production, generally to meet the primary goal of achieving harvest 

benefits. For programs where conservation becomes the primary concern, it may 

be necessary to reduce hatchery production. The HSRG guidelines propose a 

self-limiting approach to hatchery production based on the composition of the run 

returning to the Basin. The HSRG calls for strict adherence to the number of 

tchery programs planned and operated consistent with the goals for 

all stocks of interest? 

The data developed by the APRE show that, in some cases, little attention 

is paid to the cumulative effects of hatchery programs on native stocks both 

within and outside each subbasin or province. For example, 78 percent of the 

programs evaluated indicated that the carrying capacity of the area where fish are 

released is considered in sizing the program. Therefore, 21 percent of programs 

still do not consider the carrying capacity. Additionally, only a few programs 

listed any legal or other restrictions that lim

released on a given year.

Should hatchery operators emphasize quality over quantity? 

Many lower river hatcheries designed to support ocean fisheries release 

massive numbers of juvenile fish to achieve harvestable numbers of adult fish. 

The impacts on native populations and hatchery performance of a large number of 

juvenile hatchery fish entering the relatively small Columbia River estuary ha

not been considered. Mitigation agreements dictate that hatcheries release 

prescribed numbers or even poundage of juvenile fish regardless of success in 

production of adult returns. Conservation hatcheries are increasingly emphasizing

release of smaller numbers of juveniles more closely resembling their natural 

counterparts in morphology, behavior, and run timing. Balancing biological 

requirements of the fish with scientific constraints and legal mandates must be 

addressed when establ

• How many hatchery fish should be released each year? 

Hatchery releases should be sized to achieve identified goals consistent 

with the ecological context of the hatchery program. In practice, this is difficult to

define as changing freshwater and ocean conditions dramatically influence 

resulting adult production. As a result, goals are likely to be met in some years

but not in others. In addition, changing harvest management pr

ber of fish caught in fisheries and the number returning to the Basin. 

Variable hatchery returns to the Basin can be problematic for wild fish. In large 

return years, the number of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds may exceed 

HSRG gu

required for a properly integrated hatchery program. Hatchery production levels

need to take into consideration both high and low production conditions in order

to accommodate the risks posed to conservation and harvest goals. 

• When should hatchery production be reduced? 

The data show that, historically, hatcheries have sought to increase r

42
hatchery fish allowed to spawn with wild fish and the number of wild fish used as 

ounts of risk 

cil has

s to

cks

t of each program, goals need to be 

explicitly stated, and the expected benefits and risks clearly defined in order to 

ral resource science acts within the context of continually changing social 

prio

tion

hatchery broodstock. If the guidelines cannot be met, hatchery production must

be reduced to a level where they can. The values are not an average, but are limits

that must be achieved each year. 

• Should more hatchery programs be integrated rather than segregated?

This question involves the goals to be achieved and the am

managers are willing to accept to achieve them. The HSRG guidelines allow for 

the use of both approaches, but put different restrictions on each. The Coun

identified areas where habitat is fundamentally altered or blocked, with no 

possibility of recovery, as potential choices for locating replacement hatcherie

provide harvest and conservation benefits (Table II-2). These areas may be the 

best choice for locating segregated programs designed to provide harvest benefits 

primarily. Additionally, NOAA has stated that hatcheries affecting listed sto

must have as their primary purpose the conservation of that species. This would

seem to indicate that many of the segregated programs in the Lower Columbia 

need to be converted to integrated programs. A scientifically credible rationale 

needs to be established for the managemen

answer this question. 

(2) Scientific Defensibility 

Current scientific knowledge should determine and guide the use of hatcheries. 

Given that natu

rities, the scientific foundation for strategies such as artificial production is best 

viewed as a “working hypothesis.”1

 

The HSRG developed a scientific framework for hatchery reform that can serve as a 

basis for working hypotheses for hatchery use (HSRG 2002). The framework includes 

guidelines for operating hatcheries to meet goals for the target stock while minimizing 

adverse genetic and ecological interactions on natural populations. Guidelines are 

matched to the purpose of hatchery programs (harvest, conservation, education, etc) and 

type (integrated vs. segregated) of hatchery program. 

Key HSRG guidelines include: 

• Programs should facilitate local adaptation by hatchery and natural popula

components. 

 1

 A working hypothesis is a depiction of the scientific logic behind an action and 

which is constructed in a manner facilitating scientific testing and refinement over ti

It does not represent certainty and may, in fact, i

me. 

ncorporate considerable uncertainty 

regarding future conditions and existing knowledge. Nonetheless, a working hypothesis 

represents a logic trail that provides scientific accountability for actions. 

43
All artificial production programs should strive to operate in a manner that 

n

cent of anadromous hatchery programs imported broodstock 

also be avoided; 41 percent of

• 

promotes local adaptation. This means that broodstock native to, or likely to adapt 

to, the watershed where they will be released should be chosen so that the 

program perpetuates only adults returning to the same watershed. No importatio

of broodstock from outside a stream basin should be allowed. The APRE 

indicated that 21 per

from out of subbasin. Out-of-basin rearing should

the anadromous programs relied to some extent on rearing facilities outside the 

stream basin where the fish were released. 

Integrated programs are intended to directly benefit a natural stock (through 

supplementation) and/or increase its abundance without adversely affecting the

natural stock 

Integrated hatchery programs should meet minimum criteria for wild fish

ution

of

anadrom

es

• ograms is to minimize all 

contribution to the hatchery broodstock and maximum criteria for the contrib

of hatchery fish to the natural spawning escapement. Less than half

ous programs included 10 percent or more wild fish in the hatchery 

broodstock and less than half of those programs limited hatchery contribution to 

30 percent or less of the wild escapement. Hatchery practices employed for 

integrated programs should also attempt to minimize the effects of domestication.

For example, less than half of the anadromous programs rear fish under natural 

temperature regimes and no more than 10 percent produce fish with growth rat

similar to wild fish. 

The management intent for segregated hatchery pr

interaction with wild stocks.

 Straying of hatchery returns should be minimized. Only 18 percent o

segregated anadromous programs were reported to contribute less than 5 percent 

of the spawning escapement of any wild stock. Less than half of the program

indicated that they had a goal for hatchery-wild composition. 

One way to reduce the potential for competition and predation a

life stages is to assure that hatchery fish are “

f the

s 

t juvenile 

migration ready.” Less than half of 

the pro

The

by the H

program

measur

Adopti

hatcher ects of negative interactions with wild stocks. 

grams practiced volitional releases during the natural outmigration time 

period. 

APRE found that few hatchery programs adhere to all key guidelines identified 

SRG, suggesting ample room for improvement in the performance of hatchery

s. Significant improvements in long-term survival can be achieved through such 

es as avoidance of stock transfers and culture practices that reduce domestication. 

ng and adhering to stricter guidelines for proper integration and segregation of 

y stock can minimize the eff

44
(3) Informed decision-making: 

cheries reflect a considerable investment in public funds and have implication

extend far into the future. Fo

Hat s

that can r these reasons, hatcheries need to be operated in a 

acc chery programs must be thoroughly examined on a 

regular basis fr

For ms

in a tim

Gatheri

hatcher

frequen

impact o

answer

hatcher performance is often poorly evaluated 

hile a majority of the hatchery programs listed harvest 

as a primary

provide

Wh

hatcher ove analysis and distribution of

existing data to all personnel involved in

programs.

numbers of fis f the number of adults eventually produced from

those releases. 

Indicat a be defined

and so

o,

.

mputed 

uction goals interfered with good fish

cult , but on

manner in which successes and failures are observed and responded to by managers 

ountable for their success. All hat

om both within and outside the responsible organization. 

decision-makers to be successful, they must be informed about potential proble

ely manner and must act on the basis of factual and complete information. 

ng and disseminating information and a commitment to continued monitoring of

y programs are essential. One of the most notable results of the APRE is the 

cy of the “Do not know” response to key questions regarding performance and the

of hatcheries on surrounding stocks (Table IV-2). Managers often are not able t

the most basic questions regarding the success or potential harm caused by 

y programs. Information about hatchery

and inaccessible. For example, w

 goal, only 1/3 provided data on the number of fish harvested and fewer still 

d total Recruit per Spawner information. 

ile there is a critical need for more monitoring both from within and outside the 

y, there is an even more urgent need to impr

 management and operation of hatchery 

Success of hatchery operations is still too frequently measured in terms of 

h released regardless o

ors nd standards that directly or indirectly relate to success need to

measured regularly. The results must be evaluated and effectively communicated

that informed and responsive decisions can be made at all levels of management and 

operations. The APRE information revealed that programming and operational decisions 

for most hatchery programs were reported to be based on “adaptive management.” Als

most programs reported that standards for in-culture performance were specified and met

Most programs reported that goals for Smolt-to-Adult Survival, Recruits per Spawner, 

and other post-release performance standards were specified, but few programs co

these indicators each year. 

In reviewing the programs throughout the Basin, it was found that the majority of 

hatchery operators were eager to share their knowledge and provide constructive 

suggestions for the improvement of hatchery operations. A frequent complaint heard 

from hatchery staff was that the drive to meet prod

ure practices. At times, fish are released on a schedule based not on biology

the need to free-up space for another species or life-stage. The decision to emphasize 

quantity over quality poses risks that need to be better documented and monitored. There 

appears to be a need for better communication between the managers designing the 

programs and the operators producing the fish.

45
General Conclusions 

The Artificial Production Review and Evaluation process is the most comprehensive 

review of hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin to date. In addition to the 

conclusions related to the HSRG key guidelines stated above, four general conclusions 

emerged from this review: 

1) Hatcheries are limited in what they can accomplish. 

Hatcheries, by their nature, cannot single-handedly accomplish the 

restoration of fish populations within the Columbia River Basin. They must be 

used together with other strategies such as habitat restoration and in-stream flow 

to achieve the goals of restoration programs. Used properly, hatcheries can 

continue to be one of the most useful tools in the restoration tool kit; they cannot, 

however, be expected to be the panacea for diminished stocks in the Basin. 

2) The social, ecological, and economic purposes upon which the current hatchery 

programs were established have changed and will continue to change. 

 Hatcheries have been used to achieve social, legal and economic goals. 

Until relatively recently, hatchery programs were intended almost solely to 

support non-Indian commercial fisheries in the ocean and lower river. Existence 

values, spiritual values, and conservation were rarely considered in placement or 

development of hatchery programs. Mitigation was a matter of balancing the 

equation between the potential loss of fish to fisheries and the pounds of fish 

biomass released from hatcheries. This approach is the foundation of most of the 

hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin. 

The latter part of the 20th century, however, saw a philosophical shift in 

the basis for hatcheries. Conservation of the environment, ecosystems, and 

species became important national and local priorities. The importance of Indian 

spiritual and cultural values was legally recognized. At the same time, the 

commercial salmon fishing industry began to decline due to rising costs, conflicts 

with conservation concerns, and competing sources of salmon, such as 

aquaculture. This decline continues today. 

Judged on current priorities, hatcheries are often found lacking and have 

been subject to criticism from many quarters. In fact, it can be concluded from

the results presented in this report that, for the most part, Columbia River 

hatchery programs continue to be operated under an outdated paradigm. Although 

changes have been made in recent years, most hatchery releases still originate 

from lower river facilities which release large numbers of fall Chinook and coho 

intended for commercial fisheries. Likewise, past hatchery practices (such as the 

use of non-local broodstock) continue to be employed in some facilities in order 

to meet production goals. 

As stated in the first conclusion (above), hatcheries cannot be expected to 

solve problems of diminishing salmon stocks on their own. Instead, a 

conscientious and systematic review of the goals and practices of hatchery 

programs is required in order to improve the alignment between the use of 

hatcheries as a tool and current social and environmental priorities. Existing legal 

46
mandates, agree

allow the flexib

ments, and legislation may need to be reviewed and changed to 

ility to use hatcheries in ways which reflect current scientific 

) Hatcheries will continue to play a part in recovery and management of fish in the 

thinking and social priorities. 

3

Columbia River and elsewhere. 

At present, producing fish in hatcheries appears to be the only way to 

mitigate for stocks whose habitats have been lost to development and to honor 

treaty obligations while retaining the benefits of hydroelectricity, agricultural 

. 

till offer the only way to mitigate for fish habitat lost to 

dams without fish passage facilities. In addition, hatcheries may offer the only 

) Hat

irrigation, transportation, and flood control. Therefore, hatcheries appear to be

part of the solution to maintaining viable fish runs in the Columbia River system

For example, hatcheries s

means of providing sufficiently productive stocks to allow the continuation of 

tribal fisheries above Bonneville Dam. 

4 cheries require reform. 

Finally, it is concluded that these considerations and the results of the APRE

review point to the need for hatchery program reform. While reform of the 

system may result in closure of some hatcheries, hatchery elimination per se is not

advocated. Hatchery reform is needed to: 

operate hatcheries in an accountable and cost-effective manner 

of

approp nce and 

its impa mined for a given hatchery. What 

ould be routine monitoring and data collection is often sacrificed to budget priorities 

at 

it is im ance of hatchery programs or to distinguish 

 As important, and also frequently inadequate, is the evaluation and communication 

ery

program

their co

Ref that hatcheries operate in a “business-like” manner that is 

ata an

• align hatchery policies and practices with current social priorities and 

scientific knowledge 

• determine hatchery performance 

• 

As discussed above, determination of hatchery performance requires collection

riate information. It appears that most hatcheries do not do this. Performa

ct on other priorities often cannot be deter

sh

because of the perceived need to maintain production numbers. The result of this is th

possible to assess the perform

successful from unsuccessful programs. 

of monitoring results. The lack of good monitoring and timely evaluation makes hatch

s vulnerable to possible elimination due to the lack of careful consideration of 

ntributions to conservation or other goals. 

orm requires

accountable and cost-effective. As discussed above, hatcheries must be operated so that

successes and failures are observed and responded to by managers who are accountable.

D d information must be available to all hatchery management and operations 

personnel and communications among and between entities involved in hatchery 

management and operations must be complete and uninterrupted. After application of

47
business principles, hatcheries that are successful should be retained, while those that are 

not should be eliminated. 

48
References 

Baird, S. 1875, March 3. The salmon fisheries of Oregon. The Oregonian, Portland, OR

eamsderfer, R., and B. Rieman. 1991. Abundance and distribution of northern 

er.

isbal, The influence of ocean conditions on the 

nt

n Hall, New York, NY. 

mon 

Chamb

Chapm

n

n a

ramer, S. P., A. G. Maule, and D. Chapm on in the 

lower Columbia River. Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, 

Portland, OR. 

B

squawfish, walleye, and smallmouth bass in John Day Reservoir, Columbia Riv

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:439-447. 

B G. A., and W. E. McConnaha. 1998. 

management of Pacific Salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 55:2178-2186.

Bohlin, T., S. L. F, J. I. Johnsson, J. Hojesjo, and J. Pettersson. 2002. Density-depende

growth in brown trout: effects of introducing wild and hatchery fish. Journal of 

Animal Ecology 71:683-692.

Bottom, D. 1997. To till the water--A history of ideas in fisheries conservation. Pages

569-597 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon 

and their ecosystems: Status and future options. Chapma

Brannon, E. L., K. P. Currens, D. Goodman, J. A. Lichatowich, W. E. McConnaha, B. E.

Riddell, and R. N. Williams. 1999. Review of artificial production of anadromous 

and resident fish in the Columbia River Basin, Part I: A scientific basis for 

Columbia River Production programs. Northwest Power Planning Council, 

Portland, OR. 

Cederholm, C. J., M. D. Kunze, T. Murota, and A. Sibatani. 1999. Pacific sal

carcasses: Essential contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems. Fisheries 24:6-15. 

erlin, F.M. 1903. Artificial propagation. Pacific Fisherman 1(1): 10. Seattle, 

WA. 

an, D. W. 1966. Food and space as regulators of salmonid populations in streams. 

American Naturalist 100:345-357. 

Collins, D., R. Beaty, and B. Crain. 1995. Changes in catch rate and diet of norther

squawfish associated with the release of hatchery-reared juvenile salmonids i

Columbia River reservoir. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

15:346-357. 

Cramer, D. P., and S. P. Cramer. 1994. Status and population dynamics of coho salmon 

in the Clackamas River. Portland General Electric Company, Portland, OR. 

C an. 1991. The status of coho salm

49
Everest, F. H., and D. W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by

juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. Journal of the 

Fausch, K. D. 1988. Tests of competition between native and introduced salmonids in 

streams: what have we learned? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

ausch, K.D. and R.J. White. 1986. Competition among juveniles of coho salmon, brook 

Lakes 

erican Fisheries Society 115: 363-381. 

Strom, R. N. Iwamoto, and V. W. Mahnken. 2000. Ecological and 

behavioral impacts of artificial production strategies on the abundance of wild 

0.

n.

l. Soc. 267(1452): 1517-1523. 

tems: status and future options. Chapman 

Hall, New York. 

Hanski nceptual

n to conservation. Pages 5-26 in I. Hanski and M. E. Gilpin, 

editors. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic

Hare, S ction in the

northeast Pacific Ocean. Pages 357-372 in R. J. Beamish, editor. Climate change 

Hayes, D. B., C. P. Ferreri, and W. W. Taylor. 1996. Linking fish habitat to their 

population dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:383-

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:91-100. 

Sciences 45:2238-2246. 

F

trout, and brown trout in a laboratory stream, and implications for Great

tributaries. Transactions of the Am

Flagg, T. A., B. A. Berjikian, J. E. Colt, W. W. Dickoff, L. W. Harrell, D J, C. E. Nash, 

M. S.

salmon populations. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-NMFS-NMFSC 

TM-41, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 

 

Fleming, I. A., and M. R. Gross. 1989. Evolution of adult female life history and 

morphology in Pacific salmon (coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch). Evolution 43:141-

157. 

Fleming, I.A., K. Hindar, I.B. Mjølnerød, B. Jonsson, T. Balstad, and A. Lamberg. 200

Lifetime success and interactions of farm salmon invading a native populatio

Proceedings of the Royal London Bio

Fresh, K. 1997. The role of competition and predation in the decline of Pacific Salmon 

and Steelhead. Pages 245-275 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, 

editors. Pacific salmon and their ecosys

, I., and D. Simberloff. 1997. The metapopulation approach, its history, co

domain and applicatio

Press, San Diego, CA. 

. R., and R. C. Francis. 1995. Climate change and salmon produ

and northern fish populations. 

390. 

50
HSRG. 2002. Scientific Framework and Hatchery Review Program. Hatchery Scientific 

Review Group, Seattle, WA www.lltk.org/hatcheryreform.html. 

ia River Basin anadromous salmonid 

tion, Portland, OR.

re

98:289-302. 

. Milner, akni

lmon ari

Lawson, P. W. 1993. Cycles in ocean productivity, trends in habitat quality, and the 

restoration of salmon runs in Oregon. Fisheries 18:6-10. 

Levin, P. S., and J. G. Williams. 2002. Interspecific effects of artificially propagated fish: 

an additional conservation risk for salmon. Conservation Biology 1

illiams. 2001. The

good intentio eries with threatened salmon. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268:1153-1158. 

Lichatowich, J. 1999 Press, Washington, DC. 

Mote, P., D. Cannin lin, A. Hamlet, M. Hershman, 

M. Holmber enmaier, R. Leung, N. Mantua, E. 

o terson, A v

c o hw st J A i ut o

715, JISAO/ sity of Washington, Seattle, 

WA. 

4. d c

(Oncorhynch er. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Naiman, R. J., R. E. elfield. 2002. Pacific salmon, 

nutrients, an parian ecosystems. Ecosystems 5. 

and ty n

ton, C

 

IHOT. 1995. Policies and procedures for Columb

hatcheries. Bonneville Power Administra

Independent Scientific Group. 2000. Return to the River 2000: restoration of salmonid 

fishes in the Columbia River Ecosystem. NPPC 2000-12, Northwest Power 

Planning Council, Portland, OR. 

Johnsen, B. O., and A. J. Jensen. 1991. The Gyrodactylus story in Norway. Aquacultu

Johnson, O. W., T. A. Flagg, D. J. Maynard, G. B

Status review of lower Columbia River coho sa

Service, Seattle, WA. 

and F. W. W

. National M

tz. 1991.

ne Fisheries

6:1

is

58

pa

1-

ved

1587.

Levin, P. S., R. W. Zabel, and J. G. W road to extinction with

ns: negative association of fish hatch

. Salmon without rivers. Island

g, D. Fluharty, R. Francis, J. F. Frank

g, K. Ideker, W. Keeton, D. Lett

Miles, B. N ble, H. Parandvash, D. P. Pe

Impacts of

. S

N

no

rt

er,

e

an

.

d S

IS

. W

O

il

C

lar

on

d.

tr

19

b

99

i

.

limate variability and change: Pacific n

SMA Climate Impacts Group, Univer

 

Mullen, J. W. 198 Overview of artificial and natural pro

us kisutch) on the mid-Columbia Riv

u tion of coho salmon 

Service. 

 

Bilby, D. E. Schindler, and J. M. H

d the dynamics of freshwater and ri

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon

Northwest. N

so

D

cie

.

i the Pacific

ational Academy Press, Washing

51
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1999. Artificial Production Review. Council 

document 99-15, Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 2000. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program. Council Document 2000-19, Northwest Power Planning Council, 

Portland, OR. 

 

Olsen, D., J. Richards, and R. Scott. 1991. Existence and sport values for doubling the

size of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 2:44-56.

Pearcy, W. G. 1992. Ocean Ecology of North Pacific Salmonids. University of

Washington Press, Seattle, 

Pianka, E. R. 1994. s College Publishers, New York,

NY. 

Reimers, P. E. 1973 fall Chinook salmon in Sixes

River, Orego Commission of Oregon, Portland, OR. 

Rhodes, J. S., and T g the outcome of territorial contests 

between hatc o salmon parr in the laboratory. Journal 

of Fish Biolo

Rich, W. 1922. A s icial propagation of chinook

salmon. Unp d Alaska Fisheries Science

Center, NOA

Schindler, D. E., M. Gende, T. B. Francis, and W. J. 

Palen. 2003. Pacific salmon and the ecology of coastal ecosystems. Frountiers in 

Ecology and

Waples, R. S. 1995. d the conservation of biological

a F

Symposium

. Beckman, and G. A. Sw 9 S f

Snake River hnical Memorandum NMFS 

F/NWC-201 e, Seattle, WA. 

 

WDFW-ODFW. 20 s and Fisheries, 1938-2000. Washington 

Department epartment of Fish and 

 

Willson, M. F., and K. C. Halupka. 1995. Anadromous fish as keystone species in 

vertebrate co 9:489-497. 

WA. 

Evolutionary Ecology. Harper Collin

. The length of residence of juvenile

n. Research Report 4(2), Fish

. P. Quinn. 1998. Factors affectin

hery and naturally reared coh

gy 53:1220-1230. 

tatistical analysis of the results of artif

ublished manuscript. Northwest an

A-Fisheries, Seattle, W

D. Scheuerell, J. W. Moore, S. M.

the Environment 1:31-37. 

Evolutionarily significant units an

diversity under the Endangered Species Act. Americ n isheries Society

17:8-27. 

Waples, R. S., R. P. Jones, B. R an. 19 1. tatus review o

fall Chinook salmon. NOAA Tec

, National Marine Fisheries Servic

02. Columbia River Fish Run

of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon D

Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

mmunities. Conservation Biology

52
Appendices 

Appendix A: Scientific Framework 

The scientific framework and the hatchery review approach used in the APRE process is

based on the work products of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG). These

work products and the background on the HSRG project are available on the internet at

www.hatcheryreform.org . Table A-1 shows the operational guidelines as they were

adapted to the APRE review of individual hatchery programs in the Columbia River.

TABLE A-1. Oper r

E review 

(adapted from Hat

ational guidelines and thei

applicability as used in the APR

chery Scientific Review Group) 

Applicable 

Programs 

Affected 

Outcomes

Operational Phase 

Integrated Segregated Education 

es on 2032)

Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability)

cological Interactions

Genetic Interactions 

Guidelines 

(YEEnvironment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient nhancement)

E

M & E 

Broodstock Choice X X X X 

Wild fish should make up less than 

5% of the broodstock for this 

program. 

Broodstock Choice 

e

X X X X X X X X X

The broodstock chosen should 

represent natural populations nativ

or adapted to the watersheds in 

which hatchery fish will be 

released. 

Broodstock Choice

The broodstock chosen should have

a pathogen history that indicates no

threat to other populations in the 

watershed. X X X 

Broodstock Choice X X X X

The broodstock chosen should have

the desired life history traits to meet

harvest goals. 

Broodstock Collection 

e

X X X X X X

Sufficient broodstock should be 

collected to maintain an effectiv

population size of 1000 fish per

generation. 

Broodstock Collection 

T) and Pacific 

Integrated Hatchery Operations 

Team (IHO

Northwest Fish Health Protection X X X X X X X X

53
TABLE A-1. Operational guidelines and their 

applicability as used in the APRE review 

(adapted from Hatchery Scientific Review Group) 

Applicable 

Programs 

Affected 

Outcomes 

Operational Phase Guidelines 

Integrated Segregated Education (Yes on 2032)Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability) Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions Environment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient

Enhancement)

M & E 

Committee (PNFHPC) standards

should be followed for broodstock

fish health inspection. 

Broodstock Collection 

in

X X X X X X 

The broodstock should be collected

and held in a manner that results

less than 10% prespawning 

mortality. 

Broodstock Collection 

ions

X X X X X X X X

Integrated Hatchery Operat

Team (IHOT) adult holding 

standards should be followed for

loading. 

Broodstock Collection 

ould

ock

Sufficient numbers of donors sh

be collected from the natural st

to minimize founder effects when a 

program is initiated. X X X X X 

Broodstock Collection 

her

s.

Representative samples of natural 

and hatchery population 

components should be collected 

with respect to size, age, sex ratio,

run and spawn timing, and ot

traits important to long-term fitnes X X X X X X X X X

Broodstock Collection X X X X X X

10% or more of the broodstock 

should be derived from wild fish 

each year. 

Broodstock Collection 

y

ntire 

X X X 

The proportion of the spawners

brought into the hatchery should 

follow a “spread-the-risk” strateg

that attempts to improve the 

probability of survival for the e

population. 

Broodstock Collection 

n has 150 fish

ulation.

If the wild populatio

or more, collection of wild 

broodstock should be limited to 

30% of the pop X X X X

54
TABLE A-1. Operational guidelines and their 

applicability as used in the APRE review 

(adapted from Hatchery Scientific Review Group) 

Applicable 

Programs 

Affected 

Outcomes 

Operational Phase Guidelines 

Integrated Segregated Education (Yes on 2032)Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability) Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions Environment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient

Enhancement)

M & E 

Broodstock Collection 

e

 X X X X X

The program should avoid the us

of stocks from outside the 

watershed. 

Adult Holding

g for the 

ly 

perations

e

X X X X X X

Hatchery intake screenin

adult holding supply should comp

with Integrated Hatchery O

Team (IHOT) and National Marin

Fisheries Service facility standards.

Adult Holding

lding

chery

r

. X X X X X X X

The water used for adult ho

should meet or exceed the 

recommended Integrated Hat

Operations Team (IHOT) wate

quality standards for temperature

Adult Holding

d/or

rms at the holding 

X X X 

The water supply for adult holding

should be protected by flow an

pond level ala

pond. 

Adult Holding

be

s. X X 

Water for adult holding should

available from multiple source

Spawning 

be

X X X X X X 

Males and females available for

spawning on a given day should

randomly mated. 

Spawning 

ior

X X X X X X 

Gametes should not be pooled pr

to fertilization. 

Spawning

Precocious males (mini-jacks and 

jacks) should be used for spawni

as a set percentage or in prop

to their contribution to the a

ng

ortion

dult run. X X X X X X 

Spawning 

en

of fish

X X X X X X 

Disinfection procedures during 

adult spawning should be 

implemented that prevent pathog

transmission between stocks

on site. 

Spawning Back-up males should be used in X X X X 

55
TABLE A-1. Operational guidelines and their 

applicability as used in the APRE review 

(adapted from Hatchery Scientific Review Group) 

Applicable 

Programs 

Affected 

Outcomes 

Operational Phase Guidelines 

Integrated Segregated Education (Yes on 2032)Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability) Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions Environment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient

Enhancement)

M & E 

the spawning protocol. 

Incubation 

ry

X X X X X X X

The water used for incubation 

should meet or exceed the 

recommended Integrated Hatche

Operations Team (IHOT) water 

quality standards for temperature.

Incubation

The water used for incubation 

should meet or exceed the 

recommended Integrated Hatchery 

Operations Team (IHOT) water 

quality standards for the following 

compounds: ammonia, carbon 

dioxide, chlorine, pH, copper, 

dissolved oxygen, hydrogen sulfide,

dissolved nitrogen, iron, and zinc. X X X X X X X

Incubation X X X X X X X

IHOT species-specific incubatio

recommendations should be 

followed for water temperature.

n

Incubation 

n

X X X X X X X

IHOT species-specific incubatio

recommendations should be 

followed for density parameters. 

Incubation X X X X X X X

Disinfection procedures should be 

implemented during incubation that 

prevent pathogen transmission 

between stocks of fish on site. 

Incubation X X X X X X

Hatchery intake screening for the

incubation water supply should 

comply with Integrated Hatchery

Operations Team (IHOT) and

National Marine Fisheries Service 

facility standards. 

Incubation

If eggs are culled, culling should be

done randomly over all segments of

the egg-take. X X X X X X

56
TABLE A-1. Operational guidelines and their 

applicability as used in the APRE review 

(adapted from Hatchery Scientific Review Group) 

Applicable 

Programs 

Affected 

Outcomes 

Operational Phase Guidelines 

Integrated Segregated Education (Yes on 2032)Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability) Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions Environment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient

Enhancement)

M & E 

Incubation 

ubated under

conditions that result in equal 

X X X X X 

Eggs should be inc

survival of all segments of the 

population to ponding. 

Incubation X X X 

The water source for incubation

should be pathogen-free. 

Incubation

ms

The water supply for incubation

should be protected by flow alar

at the incubation unit(s). X X X 

Incubation 

tion

X X X X X

IHOT species-specific incuba

recommendations should be 

followed for using substrate. 

Incubation 

ould be

X X 

Water for incubation sh

available from multiple sources. 

Incubation

Families should be incubated 

individually. X X X X 

Rearing 

vide adequate

X X X X X X X X

Rearing water should have a 

chemical profile significantly 

different from natural stream

conditions to pro

imprinting of hatchery fish and 

minimize the attraction of naturally

produced fish into the hatchery. 

Rearing 

The water used for rearing should 

meet or exceed the recommended 

Integrated Hatchery Operations 

Team (IHOT) water quality 

standards for temperature. X X X X X X X

Rearing 

The water used for rearing should

meet or exceed the recommended

Integrated Hatchery Operations 

Team (IHOT) water quality 

standards for the following

compounds: ammonia, carbon X X X X X X X

57
TABLE A-1. Operational guidelines and their 

applicability as used in the APRE review 

(adapted from Hatchery Scientific Review Group) 

Applicable 

Programs 

Affected 

Outcomes 

Operational Phase Guidelines 

Integrated Segregated Education (Yes on 2032)Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability) Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions Environment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient

Enhancement)

M & E 

dioxide, chlorine, pH, copper,

dissolved oxygen, hydrogen sulfide,

dissolved nitrogen, iron, and zinc. 

Rearing 

hould be provided to achieve

r the

X X X X X X X 

The correct amount and type of 

food s

the desired growth rate fo

species and life stage being reared. 

Rearing 

The correct amount and type of 

food should be provided to ach

the desired condition factor for the

species and life

ieve

stage being reared. X X X X X X X 

Rearing on-site. X X X X X X X

Juvenile rearing density and loading

guidelines used at the facility should

be based on life-stage specific 

survival studies conducted

Rearing 

ies of all 

X X X X X

The hatchery should operate to 

allow all migrating spec

ages to by-pass or pass through 

hatchery related structures. 

Rearing 

Hatchery intake screening for the 

mply 

arine

facility standards. 

rearing water supply should co

with Integrated Hatchery Operations

Team (IHOT) and National M

Fisheries Service X X X X X X

Rearing X X X X X X

IHOT fish health guidelines should 

be followed to prevent pathogen

transmission between lots or stocks 

of fish on site or transmission or

amplification to or within the

watershed. 

Rearing 

The water used for rearing sho

provide natural water temp

profiles that

uld

erature

result in fish similar in 

size to naturally produced fish of X X X X X X X X

58
TABLE A-1. Operational guidelines and their 

applicability as used in the APRE review 

(adapted from Hatchery Scientific Review Group) 

Applicable 

Programs 

Affected 

Outcomes 

Operational Phase Guidelines 

Integrated Segregated Education (Yes on 2032)Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability) Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions Environment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient

Enhancement)

M & E 

the same species. 

Rearing 

If juveniles are culled, culling 

should be done randomly over all 

segments of the population. X X X X X X

Rearing 

by rearing under

X X X X X X X X

The program should attempt to 

better mimic the natural stream

environment

natural water temperature profiles.

Rearing 

e

X X X X X 

Fish should be reared under 

conditions that result in equal 

survival of all segments of th

population to release. 

Rearing

The program should use a diet and

growth regime that mimics natural

seasonal growth patterns. X X X X X X X

Rearing 

ral or

X X X X X X 

The program should attempt to 

better mimic the natural stream

environment by providing natu

artificial cover. 

Rearing X X X 

The water source for rearing should

be specific-pathogen free.

Rearing

The water supply for rearing should

be protected by flow alarms at the 

rearing unit(s). X X X 

Rearing X X X X X

IHOT juvenile rearing standards 

should be followed for alarm

systems. 

Rearing 

IHOT juvenile rearing standards 

should be followed for predator 

control measures to provide the 

necessary security for the cultured 

stock. X X X X X

Rearing Rearing water should be available X X 

59
TABLE A-1. Operational guidelines and their 

applicability as used in the APRE review 

(adapted from Hatchery Scientific Review Group) 

Applicable 

Programs 

Affected 

Outcomes 

Operational Phase Guidelines 

Integrated Segregated Education (Yes on 2032)Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability) Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions Environment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient

Enhancement)

M & E 

from multiple sources. 

Rearing 

le

stems 

phic

X X X 

Fish should be reared in multip

facilities or with redundant sy

to reduce the risk of catastro

loss. 

Release X X X X X X X X X

Fish produced should be 

qualitatively similar to natural fish

in growth rate. 

Release 

tified with

X X X X X X X

Fish should be iden

nonlethal detectable identification

marks or tags. 

Release 

ues should

X X X X X X X

Marking/tagging techniq

be used to distinguish between the

hatchery and natural populations.

Release X X X X X X X X

Fish produced should be 

qualitatively similar to natural fish 

in physiological status. 

Release 

Volitional releases during natura

out-migration timing should be

practiced. 

l 

X X X X X X X X

Release 

been

X X X X X X X

Fish should be released at an 

optimum time and size that has

determined by a site-specific

survival study. 

Release 

ing

X X X X X X X X

Fish should be released in numbers 

that do not exceed the carry

capacity for the natural population. 

Release 

me

X X X X X X

Fish should be released in sa

drainage as rearing facility.

Release 

uld

X X X X X

Marking/tagging techniques sho

be used to distinguish among

segments of the hatchery 

population. 

Release Fish produced should be X X X X X X X X

60
TABLE A-1. Operational guidelines and their 

applicability as used in the APRE review 

(adapted from Hatchery Scientific Review Group) 

Applicable 

Programs 

Affected 

Outcomes 

Operational Phase Guidelines 

Integrated Segregated Education (Yes on 2032)Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability) Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions Environment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient

Enhancement)

M & E 

qualitatively similar to natural f

in size. 

ish 

Release 

s and

of

s. X X X X X X X X

Fish should be released at size

life history stages similar to those

natural fish of the same specie

Release 

imilar to natural fish 

X X X X X X X X

Fish produced should be 

qualitatively s

in behavior. 

Facilities 

thin

ions established in 

X X X X X X

The facility should operate wi

the limitat

National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System permit. 

M&E 

Accurate fish inventory data that

g stress.

reflects pond populations within 

10% should be maintained with a 

minimum of handlin X X X X X X X

M&E 

s can be

X X X X X

Goals for the program should be 

documented so that result

adequately evaluated. 

M&E 

valuation

ented so 

hould

X X X X X

Results of program e

should be reported/docum

that they can be taken into 

consideration when determining 

whether hatchery operations s

be changed. 

Effectiveness

m this program should not 

the subbasin.

Adults fro

make up more than 30% of the 

natural spawning escapement (for 

the species/race) in X X X X X X

Accountability 

All new relevant information from

research or other sources should be 

made available to hatchery staff and

others and used for attaining goals. X X X X 

61
TABLE A-1. O

pplicability as used in the APRE review Affected perational guidelines and their Applicable a

(adapted from Hatchery Scientific Review Group) Programs Outcomes

Operational Phase Guidelines 

grated 

egated

InteSegrEducation (Yes on 2032)Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability) Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions Environment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient

Enhancement)

M & E 

Acc

The most recent information 

production cycle, including 

performance indicators and progress 

whether hatchery operations should 

be changed or not. X X X X 

obtained from monitoring and 

evaluation programs for the 

toward goals, should be taken into 

consideration when determining 

ountability 

Acc fish and their offspring. X X X X 

Standards should be specified for 

in-culture performance of hatchery 

ountability 

Acc

post release performance of 

ountability hatchery fish and their offspring. X X X X 

Standards should be specified for 

Edu

The hatchery facility should be open 

 X 

to the public during hours of 

cation operation. 

Education 

Hatchery operations should be 

visible to facility visitors. X 

Edu

incubation, rearing) should be 

demonstrated to the public. X 

Hatchery operations (egg take, 

cation 

Education 

 The facility should have a fish 

ladder and/or adult holding facilities 

that are open to the public. X 

Education 

 The hatchery should have signage 

describing the facility, fish 

production goals, ties to 

management goals, ecosystem

function. X 

Education 

 There should be a visible link to 

riparian zone such as viewing 

boardwalk or bridge. X 

62
TABLE A-1. Operational guidelines and their Applicable Affected 

app as used in the APRE review 

(adapted from Hatchery Scientific Review Group) Programs Outcomes licability

Op t

Integrated Segregated Education (Yes on 2032)Harvest Conservation Harvest Biological Significance Survival (Viability) Ecological Interactions Genetic Interactions 

era ional Phase Guidelines 

Environment (Passage, NPD

ES

Discharge Nutrient

Enhancement)

M & E 

Education 

 The hatchery should regularly 

schedule tours for groups. X 

Education opportunities for student interns. X 

The program should provide 

 

Edu

 The program should provide 

en volunteer

cation involvement. X 

opportunities for citiz

Education program. X 

The agency should maintain a web 

page describing the hatchery 

 A pamphlet or brochure describing 

the agen

Education 

cy or hatchery programs 

should be available. X 

Education 

Hatchery staff should be involved in 

community/volunteer meetings or 

outreach programs. X 

Educatio

Hatchery staff should regularly give 

n classroom presentations. X 

Education resentations/seminars. X 

 Hatchery staff should participate in 

formal professional 

p

 Where appropriate and beneficial, 

the facility should be used and staff 

should participate in agency, 

university, or other re

Education 

search

projects? X 

Education X 

Data and information pertaining to 

the program should be accessible to 

interested parties. 

63
Appendix B: APRE Questionnaire, Form 1

M 12: CURRENT STATUS and GOALS for Stocks and Habitat 

is a list of the questions in form 1, the actual form as used in the survey 

an be viewed on APRE on-line questionnaire.) 

1. s a hatchery program associated with this stock?

ted3 program?

a. yes 

3. [ of the program to provide harvest? 

4. [ rpose of the program to contribute to conservation/ recovery? 

. [#2032] Is the purpose of the program to contribute to research and/or education? 

b. no 

6. [

7. habitat loss? 

APRE FOR

(The following

c

Name of STOCK: ______________________________ 

[#2028] I

a. yes

b. no 

2. [#2029] If the answer to Question 1 was yes, is this an integra

b. no 

#2030] Is the purpose

a. yes 

b. no 

#2031] Is the pu

a. yes

b. no 

5

a. yes 

#2033] Is the program mitigation for hydro impacts? 

a. yes 

b. no 

[#2034] Is the program mitigation for 

a. yes

b. no 

 

2 Dr. Don A. Dillman, Washington State University, provided invaluable help in structuring this form to

assure accurate and complete responses to the questions. 

p c 3 A rin ipal goal of an integrated hatchery programs is to minimize genetic divergence of the hatchery 

broo turally spawning population. In an idealized integrated program, naturalorig thin a particular watershed simply represent two genetically equal

com gene pool, where habitat conditions experienced by the natural component drive 

the lo e stock.

In contrast, a segregated hatchery program is one in which the goal is to allow the hatchery population to

evolve along its own trajectory while minimizing genetic interactions

dstock/population from a na

in and hatchery-origin fish wi

ponents of a common

cal adaptation of th

with natural populations. As a 

consequence, segregated broodstocks can change genetically over time via domestication effects and 

hatchery management practices (e.g. selective breeding for run timing). 

64
8. [#2035] Is the program mitigation for impacts other than hydro and habitat loss? 

b. no 

a. yes 

The following questions pertain to the Biological Significance4

 of the stock:

9. [ the ESA status for this stock?

d

te

isted and not a candidate for listing

ata Source:

#3] What is

a. Endangere

b. Threatened

c. Candida

d. Not l

Comment: 

D

10. [#4] Which of the following best describes the origin for this stock? 

a. Native 

b. Admixture: > 50% native genes

c. Admixture: < 50% native genes 

d. Reintroduced: species occurred historically in watershed, was extirpated, but 

ly absent from watershed/habitat but introduced 

for harvest purposes 

n

c. Population is common: key phenotypic attributes are shared with other stocks 

within and outside the province. 

Comment: 

Data Source:

12. [#6] How egations are within this 

stock?

stock transfers re-established species in watershed

e. Introduced: species was historically absent from watershed/habitat 

f. Harvest: species was historical

Comment: 

Data Source:

11. [#5] Which of the following best describes the population characteristics of this 

stock?

a. Population has unique, irreplaceable phenotypic attributes (e.g. fish size, ru

timing, age structure, etc.) that are not shared with other stocks within or outside 

the province. 

b. Population is common within the province: it shares phenotypic attributes with 

other stocks within the province, but not outside the province. 

many distinct spatially-separated spawning aggr

4

 The Biological S stock is a measure of its evolutionary importance in the context of its 

SU. It is a function of stock origin, uniqueness (of phenotypic characteristics), and population structure 

(within the stock and within the ESU). 

ignificance of a

E

65
a. < 5 

b. > 5

Comment:

13. of the same species/race) are there within the province 

or a

a

Data Source:

[#7] How many total stocks (

djacent provinces? 

. < 3 

b. > 3 

Com

Data Source: 

The

ment:

following questions pertain to the Viability5

 of the stock: 

14. tion size of this stock? (May be approximated by 

census data.)

. N <

[#8] What is the effective popula

a e 100 

b. 100 < Ne < 500 

c. 500 < Ne < 2,50

d. 2,

0

500 < Ne < 5,

e. Ne > 5,000

Comment: 

Sou o

15. ] W nt f p ulation owth (R/S at low densities)?

(**NOTE is w rded dif rently on the eb form

P and sustains high harvest levels (R/S > 5) 

b. Population ta (3 < R/S <

000

rce

[#9

a.

f data/information: 

hat is the i rinsic rate o op gr

: Question o fe w **) 

opulation is highly productive

is s ble while supporting a moderate harvest 5) 

c. Population is clearly stable (2 < R/S < 3) 

d. Population appears to be replacing itself (1 < R/S < 2

e. Population de S < )

Comment:

rmation: 

6. [#10] For a natural stock or integrated hatchery stock, what proportion of the natural 

)

is clining (R/ 1

Source of data/info

1

spawners for this stock are hatchery-origin returns (HoR)? 

a. HoR < 1%

b. 1% < HoR < 5 % 

c. 5% < HoR < 30% 

d. HoR >30% 

 

5

 The viability of a stock is a measure of its genetic fitness, i.e. its ability to persist within the natural 

environment (for natural or integrated hatchery populations) or in the combined hatchery and receiving 

natural habitat (for segregated hatchery populations).

66
Comment: 

ource of data/information: 

17. [#2027] For segregated hatchery populations, what proportion of eggs, fry or adults 

are d fish or another hatchery?

a. <

S

from wil

 1% 

Com

The next set of questions deal with GOALS

b. 1% - 5 % 

c. 5% - 30% 

d. >30%

ment:

Source of data/information: 

 for stock status, habitat, and harvest. 

 and long-term 

ck with respect to the

following definitions: 

g to

stoc es and population subdivisions, with the stock defined as being of 

eith w, m

Pop so determined by considering a number of specific factors such as age 

ass structure, spawner escapement and proportion of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning, 

g refers to

segregated

the stock’s 

abil in itself in the culture environment). 

enough for the population to 

sustain itself at a low level terminal harvest) or healthy (High) (productivity of the stock is high 

and ation is capable of growth and supporting significant terminal harvest). 

Biological 

significance 

Viability Habitat 

18. [#11] Assign a rating of “High,” “Medium,” or “Low” to short-term

goals for biological significance, viability, and habitat for this sto

Biological significance is determined by considering a number of specific factors relatin

k origin, biological attribut

er lo edium or high significance. 

ulation viability is al

cl

with the stock’s viability defined as being either critical, at risk or healthy. This ratin

the stock’s ability to sustain itself in the natural environment (except in the case of a

harvest program, in which case the ratings are low, medium and high and refer to

ity to susta

Habitat: The stock’s spawning, freshwater, migration and estuarine habitat is rated as either 

inadequate (Low) (target stock is unproductive and the population will go extinct, even without

terminal harvest), limiting (Medium) (target stock is productive

the popul

Present Status 

Short-term goal 

(10-15 yrs) 

 

Long-term goal 

(30-50 yrs) 

 

67
Comment: 

Source of data/information: 

19-23. [#12, 121, 122, 123, and 124] 

Ass L, or N for each type of fishery (targeted and consumptive 

fish ock for: 

s) goal

initions:

High (harvest opportunity each year, spread over seasons)

ost years, for some seasons)

ow (occasional opportunity, single run)

N = No harvest opportunity 

ign a rating of H, M,

eries) for this st

 Present (current status) 

 Short-term (10-15 year

 Long-term (30-50 years) goal 

Using the def

 H =

 M = Medium (opportunity m

 L = L

 

 Location of Fishery 

Marine L Columbia Zone 6 U. Columbia Subbasin 

Present 

Commercial Short-term 

Long-term 

Present

Ceremonial Short-term 

Long-term

Present

Subsistence Short-term 

Long-term 

Present 

Short-term Recreational 

Long-term Harvest 

Present 

Short-term 

T

y

pe of Fis

Recreational 

Release6 Long-term 

hery

Catch& 

Comment: 

Source of data/informat n:

The questions that follow deal address potential impacts of hatchery programs on

the target stock 

Do you have a numerical goal for total catch in all fisheries?

 

io

24. [#2036]

a. yes 

6

 A recreational catch and release fishery is one where the purpose of the fishery is to catch and release the 

target stock. It does not refer to the incidental catch of the stock in fisheries that are targeting marked fish 

or fish of a different species. 

68
b. no 

25. [#2037] Do you have a goal for spawning escapement composition (hatchery vs. 

OGRAMS ONLY

7. [#2039] Do you have a goal for smolt-to-adult return survival? APPLIES TO 

a.

periodically (at least once every five years) 

c. seldom

d. never 

nted? (Indicate source of 

documentation below.) APPLIES TO HATCH Y 

a. yes 

b. no 

04 lts tion /do d? u

below.) APPLIES TO HATCHERY PROGRAMS ONLY 

a. yes 

o

natural) in the hatchery? APPLIES TO HATCHERY PR

a. yes 

b. no 

26. [#2038] Do you have a goal for spawning escapement composition (hatchery vs. 

natural) in the wild? 

a. yes 

b. no 

2

HATCHERY PROGRAMS ONLY 

a. yes 

b. no 

28. [#2040] Do you have goals for recruits per spawner (R/S)?

a. yes 

b. no 

29. [#2041] How often do you compute the recruits per spawner for this stock?

every year 

b. 

30. [#2042] Are the goals to this program docume

ERY PROGRAMS ONL

31. [#2 3] Are resu of program evalua reported cumente (Indicate so rce

b. n

69
32. [#14] For natural stocks, how is the stock potentially (directly or indirectly) affected 

a. directed supplementation 

h. not affected 

t

omments:

by hatchery programs in the subbasin? Through: 

b. unintended straying 

c. competition

d. predation 

e. hatchery structures or water quality/quantity 

f. broodstock collection 

g. monitoring and research activities 

i. harves

C

Data Source:

33. [#13] C e lefthand table and survival infor ost 

rece e shaded, first row of each

table. En . 

atch and Escapement. Enter catch and escapement information in th

mation in the right-hand table for this stock for the m

nt 12 years for which data is available. Enter goals in th

ter NA if Not Applicable and M if information is Missing

Escapement 

Return To

( HoR’s

Brood 

Year 

Adult 

Return 

Survival 

(%)

Recruits 

per 

Spawner 

Smolt to 

Year all ages) Spawning Hatchery

tal Catch NoR’s NoR’s to 

Goal 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment: 

Source of data/information: 

70
Appendix C: APRE Questionnaire, Form 2

27

: Hatchery Program Description 

(The foll

parts: Parts A covers hatchery program description, Part B consists of the 

questions derived from the APRE framework (conditions for success), Part C covers the 

nagement Plan items related to threatened and endangered species 

esponse to most of the HGMP items will be provided though the answers to Part B 

The questions that follow all pertain to the following hatchery program

_____________________________(NAME OF PROGRAM)

_____________________________(SUBBASIN –of release) 

_____________________________(PROVINCE –of release) 

___________(SPECIES/RACE)

_____________________________(DATE) 

Part A: Program Description 

rogram.

or the program. 

APRE FORM

owing is a list of the questions in form 1, the actual form as used in the survey 

can be viewed on APRE on-line questionnaire.) 

Form 2 has four

Hatchery Genetics Ma

(r

questions), and Part D covers the supporting data. 

__________________

The first set of questions deal with a general description of the hatchery 

p

Question 1: [1121] Using the table provide the planned release numbers, size data, 

release date and release location f

 Location

Age Class

Maximum 

Number Size (fpp)

Release 

Date Stream 

Release 

Point 

(RKm) 

Major 

Watershed

Ecoprovince 

Eggs 

Unfed Fry 

Fry 

Fingerling 

Yearling 

Data Source 

 

7 Dr. Don A. Dillman, Washington State University, provided invaluable help in structuring this form to

assure accurate and complete responses to the questions. 

71
Question 2: [#2053] 

ing items: 

__________________________________________

Broods

Adult h

Spawning l KM, subbasin):________________________

Incubat

earing location (Facility name, stream, RKM, subbasin):______________ 

Comme

Source

Question 3 ]

ify the agency or organization that operates this hatchery 

Nex contact person for the program is: 

Nam ____

Add ________________

_____

Phone: ___________________________ 

Fax: _______________________ 

.

5. ___________________________ 

________ 6. ___________________________ 

Briefly describe the hatchery program including the follow

Broodstock source: ___

tock collection location (Stream, RKM, subbasin):_______________ 

olding location (Stream, RKM, subbasin):_____________________ 

ocation (Stream, R

ion location (Facility name, stream, RKM, subbasin):____________ 

R

nts:

:

: [#1003

First, ident

program: ______________________(name of agency) 

t, the name and address of the

e: ___________________

ress: ____________________

_______________________________

Email: _______________________

Question 4: [#1004] 

Name any co-operators (other agencies, tribes, or organizations involved—including contractors) involved with this program: 

1. _______________________ 4. ___________________________ 

2. _______________________ 

3. _______________

For each cooperator briefly describe their involvement in the program: 

1. 

2. 

etc. 

72
The next three questions deal with program funding and costs. Note that these 

or c

s for the individual program is not available, indicate the 

this

Qu

First, what are the funding sources for the program?

_________

Qu

hat are the annual operating costs? ________[enter approximate dollar amount] 

uestion 7: [#1020] 

What was the first year of operation for this hatchery program? (This is the first year fish 

ere released for this program.) 

_____

Question 8

web form***) 

Hatchery p

Is your ____(Yes or No)

(If 

costs/funds pertain to the specific program costs- NOT to those of the entire facility

omplex.

(If cost estimate

total cost for the facility and the proportion of the total poundage attributable to

program.)

estion 5: [#1005] 

 List sources: 

_______________

________________________ 

 

estion 6: [#2005] 

a. Next, what is the number of full time equivalent staff?___________[enter number] 

 

b. W

Q

w

________ [enter year here]?

: [#1007] (Note: this question is worded as a multiple choice question on the

rograms are typically classified as either integrated or segregated. 

program integrated. _

No we can assume that it is segregated) 

73
Next we will t

Question 9

a. Is i

b. Is i

___

c. Is the purpose of the program research and/or education. _____(Yes or No)

Question 10:

a) 

b) Is t abitat loss? _____ (Yes or No)

c) _ (Yes 

or N

The following es followed by your program. 

Question 11: [#2054] 

List the fis

a) ___

b) ___

c) ______State guidelines 

e) ______Federal guidelines 

f) ______Other guidelines (please specify) 

ar es and Operations

involved with 

y hatch the water 

so ces us holding

alk about the purpose of your program.

: [#1008] 

t the purpose of the program to provide harvest?. _____(Yes or No) 

t the purpose of the program to contribute to conservation/recovery? 

__(Yes or No)

[#1009]

Is this program mitigation for hydro impacts? _____ (Yes or No)

his program mitigation for h

Is this program mitigation for impacts other than hydro or habitat? ____

o)

question pertains to the guidelin

h culture guidelines followed for this program (check all that apply) 

___IHOT

___PNFHPC

d) ______Tribal guidelines 

P t B: Faciliti

Next we would like to talk about the facilities and operations

our ery program. First we have several questions that deal with

ur ed for adult holding, incubation and rearing. We start with adult . 

(I andar

Q s

a)

b

c) s

d s

e) Is

f) s

g) Is

h) Is

o

f st ds other than IHOT are followed, specify in comments section.) 

ue tion 12: [#1033] 

For adult holding: 

Is the water source [for adult holding] gravity flow? _______(Yes or No) 

) Is the water source [for adult holding] pumped? _______(Yes or No)

I the water source [for adult holding] pathogen-free? _______(Yes or No)

) I the water source [for adult holding] specific-pathogen free? _______(Yes or No)

the water source [for adult holding] fish free? _______(Yes or No)

I the water source [for adult holding] accessible to anadromous fish? _______(Yes or 

No)

water [for adult holding] available from multiple sources? _______(Yes or No)

water [for adult holding] from the natal stream for the cultured stock? _______(Yes

r No)

74
i)

th _(Yes or No)

j) oes th

H

_______(Yes or No)

k

H

co carbon dioxide, chlorine, pH, copper, dissolved oxygen, 

l) Is ?

_

m) Is ox?

n) Is the water supply [for adult holding] protected by flow and/or pond level alarms at 

o) Is the water supply [for adult holding] protected by back-up power generation?

p) Do naturally produced fish have access to intake screens? _______(Yes or No)

q o hat

(IHOT) and National Marine Fisheries Service facility standards? _______(Yes or 

)

Next

Does the water used [for adult holding] result in natural water temperature profiles 

at provide optimum maturation and gamete development? ______

D e water used [for adult holding] meet or exceed the recommended Integrated

atchery Operations Team (IHOT) water quality standards for temperature?

) Does the water used [for adult holding] meet or exceed the recommended Integrated 

atchery Operations Team (IHOT) water quality standards for the following 

mpounds: ammonia,

hydrogen sulfide, dissolved nitrogen, iron, and zinc? _______(Yes or No)

the water supply [for adult holding] protected by flow alarms at the intake(s)

______(Yes or No)

the water supply [for adult holding] protected by flow alarms at the head b

_______(Yes or No) 

the holding pond(s) ? _______(Yes or No)

_______(Yes or No)

) D chery intake screening comply with Integrated Hatchery Operations Team

No

we go to water source questions for incubation. 

For incubation: 

a. Is the water source [for incubation] gravity flow? _______(Yes or No)

b. 

c. 

d. ater source [for incubation] specific-pathogen free? _______(Yes 

e. 

f. 

. Is water [for incubation] available from multiple sources? _______(Yes or 

No)

ltured stock?

_______(Yes or No)

Does the water used [for incubation] provide natural water temperature 

at result in hatching/emergence timing similar to that of the 

naturally produced stock? _______(Yes or No)

tion water [for incubation] be heated or chilled to approximate 

Question 13. [#1035] 

Is the water source [for incubation] pumped? _______(Yes or No)

Is the water source [for incubation] pathogen-free? _______(Yes or No)

Is the w

or No)

Is the water source [for incubation] fish free? _______(Yes or No)

Is the water source [for incubation] accessible to anadromous fish? 

_______(Yes or No)

g

h. Is water [for incubation] from the natal stream for the cu

i.

profiles th

j. Can incuba

natural water temperature profiles? _______(Yes or No)

75
k. Does the water used [for incubation] meet or exceed the recommended 

s for 

mmended 

dards for 

compounds: ammonia, carbon dioxide, chlorine, pH, copper, 

, and zinc?

m. Is the water supply [for incubation] protected by flow alarms at the 

n. Is the water supply [for incubation] protected by flow alarms at the head 

___(Yes or No)

p. Is the water supply [for incubation] protected by back-up power 

n? _______(Yes or No)

r. Does hatchery intake screening comply with Integrated Hatchery 

s Team (IHOT) and National Marine Fisheries Service facility

ext a similar set of questions for the rearing water supply

Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) water quality standard

temperature? _______(Yes or No)

l. Does the water used [for incubation] meet or exceed the reco

Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) water quality stan

the following

dissolved oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, dissolved nitrogen, iron

_______(Yes or No)

intake(s) ? _______(Yes or No)

box ? ____

o. Is the water supply [for incubation] protected by flow alarms at the 

incubation unit(s) ? _______(Yes or No)

generatio

q. Do naturally produced fish have access to intake screens? _______(Yes or

No)

Operation

standards? _______(Yes or No)

N . 

Question 14. [#1037] 

For rearing: 

a. Is the water source [for rearing] gravity flow

b. Is the water s

? _______(Yes or No)

_(Yes or No)

[for rearing] fish free? _______(Yes or No)

f. Is the water source [for rearing] accessible to anadromous fish? _______(Yes 

or

ter [for rearing] available from multiple sources? _______(Yes or No)

h. Is water [for rearing] from the natal stream for the cultured stock? 

)

water [for rearing] have a chemical profile significantly different 

d

ource [for rearing] pumped? _______(Yes or No)

c. Is the water source [for rearing] pathogen-free? _______(Yes or No)

d. Is the water source [for rearing] specific-pathogen free? ______

e. Is the water source

No)

g. Is wa

_______(Yes or No

i. Does the water used [for rearing] provide natural water temperature profiles

that result in fish similar in size to naturally produced fish of the same species?

_______(Yes or No)

j. Does rearing

from natural stream conditions to provide adequate imprinting of hatchery fish an

minimize the attraction of naturally produced fish into the hatchery? _______(Yes 

or No)

76
k. Does the hatchery operate to allow all migrating species of all ages to by-pass 

or pass through hatchery related structures? _______(Yes or No)

l. Are adequate flows maintained to provide unimpeded passage of ad

juveniles in the by-pass reach created by hatchery water withdrawals? ____

or No)

ults and

___(Yes

m. Does the water used [for rearing] meet or exceed the recommended Integrated 

Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) water quality standards for temperature?

)

copper, dissolved oxygen,

hydrogen sulfide, dissolved nitrogen, iron, and zinc? _______(Yes or No)

o. Is the water supply [for rearing] protected by flow alarms at the intake(s) ?

_______(Yes or No)

upply protected [for rearing] by flow alarms at the head box ?

otected by flow alarms at the rearing unit(s) 

? _______(Yes or No)

r. Is the water supply [for rearing] protected by back-up power generation?

)

Team (IHOT) and National Marine Fisheries Service facility standards?

_______(Yes or No)

he hatchery discharge. 

uestion 15. [#1039] 

Does the facility operate within the limitations established in its National 

rom this facility falls below the minimum production 

requirement for an NPDES permit, does the facility operate in compliance 

with state or federal regulations for discharge? _______(Yes or No)

The next set of questions deal with broodstock collection. 

:

s or

b. is broodstock collected at another facility? _______(Yes or No)

_______(Yes or No

n. Does the water used [for rearing] meet or exceed the recommended Integrated 

Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) water quality standards for the following 

compounds: ammonia, carbon dioxide, chlorine, pH,

p. Is the water s

_______(Yes or No)

q. Is the water supply [for rearing] pr

_______(Yes or No

s. Do naturally produced fish have access to intake screens? _______(Yes or No)

t. Do hatchery intake screening comply with Integrated Hatchery Operations 

Next we take a look at t

Q

a. 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit? _______(Yes 

or No)

b. If the production f

c. Does the facility have a discharge permit? _______(Yes or No)

Question 16: [#1246] 

In this hatchery program

a. is broodstock collected by volitional return to adult capture pond? _______(Ye

No)

77
c. is broodstock collected from wild by weir? _______(Yes or No)

lected from wild by net? _______(Yes or No)

e.

f. is

g. is oned above?

h. d vered facility? _______(Yes or No)

i. 

The following questions pertain to CHOICE of broodstock 

heds in

(Yes or No)

stock has been extirpated, is the broodstock chosen likely to adapt to the system based 

o)

Does

natural p

Question #1263]

Does

_______ o)

Question 21. [#1264] 

istory traits to meet harvest goals?

.g. timing and migration patterns that result in full recruitment to target 

r No)

information request and questions pertain to COLLECTION 

f broodstock

f donors collected from the natural stock to minimize founder 

d. is broodstock col

is broodstock collected from wild by hook and line? _______(Yes or No)

broodstock collected from wild by gaffing? _______(Yes or No)

broodstock collected by methods other than those menti

_______(Yes or No)

oes spawning take place in co

does spawning takes place at remote location? _______(Yes or No)

Question 17: [#1260]

Does the broodstock chosen represent natural populations native to the waters

which hatchery fish will be released? _______

Question 18: [#1261] 

If

on life history and evolutionary history? _______(Yes or N

Question 19: [#1262]

the broodstock chosen display morphological and life history traits similar to the

opulation? _______(Yes or No)

20: [

the broodstock chosen have a history of pathogens NOT endemic to the watershed?

(Yes or N

Does the broodstock chosen have the desired life h

(e

fisheries)_______(Yes o

The following

o

Question 22: [#1051] 

Are sufficient numbers o

effects? _______(Yes or No) 

Question 23: [#1052] 

Is intentional artificial selection of broodstock practiced with respect to size, age, sex 

ratio, run or spawn timing or other trait? _______(Yes or No) 

Question 24: [#1053] 

78
Are representative samples of natural and hatchery population components collected with 

atio, run and spawn timing, and other traits important to longuld only consider the hatchery

omponent.) _______(Yes or No)

”

tire population 

atchery and natural components)? _______(Yes or No) 

Question 27: [#1056] 

)

uestion 28: [#1057] 

he following questions pertain to hatchery fish spawning in the wild 

Do you have guidelines for acceptable contribution of hatchery origin fish to natural 

spawni ____(Yes or No) 

uestion 30: [#1272] 

y

s or No)

ocumentation to support this answer. 

ext set of questions deal with fish health standards for broodstock handling.

cription of the transfers in the comments box. 

respect to size, age, sex r

term fitness? (For integrated populations, consider both natural and hatchery 

components; for segregated populations, you sho

c

Question 25: [#1054] 

Does the proportion of the spawners brought into the hatchery follow a “spread-the-risk

strategy that attempts to improve the probability of survival for the en

(h

Question 26. [#1055] 

If the wild population has 150 fish or more, is collection of wild broodstock limited to 

30% of the population? _______(Yes or No) 

Are sufficient broodstock collected to maintain an effective population size of 1000 fish 

per generation? (More than 500 successful spawners of each sex.) _______(Yes or No

Q

Is more than 10% of the broodstock derived from wild fish each year?______(Yes or No)

T

Question 29: [#1271] 

ng? ___

Q

Are guidelines for hatchery contribution to natural spawning met for all affected naturall

spawning populations? _______(Ye

Please provide relevant d

The n

Question 31: [#1062] 

Does the program avoid stock transfers and subsequent releases of eggs or fish from

outside the watershed? _______(Yes or No)

If no, provide a brief des

79
Question 32: [#1063] 

a. Are Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT), Pacific Northwest Fish 

Health Protection Committee (PNFHPC), state or tribal guidelines followed for 

broodstock fish health inspection? _______(Yes or No)

HPC, state or tribal guidelines followed for transfer of eggs or 

c. Are IHOT, PNFHPC, state or tribal guidelines followed for broodstock holding 

carcasses? _______(Yes or No) 

uestion 33: [#1064] 

Is the bro

ortality? _______(Yes or No) 

clude capture and holding up to spawning. 

Next we ad

Question 3

a. A

fo

b. A ) 

c. A or

N

d. A s

or No

e. Are IHOT adult holding guidelines followed for predator control measures to 

ssary security for the broodstock? _______(Yes or No)

vailable for spawning on a given day randomly mated?

r to fertilization? _______(Yes or No) 

.g. mini-jacks and jacks) used for spawning as a set percentage or 

run? (note whether mini-jacks are used in 

the comment box.)_______(Yes or No) 

b. Are IHOT, PNF

adults? _______(Yes or No)

and disposal of

Q

odstock collected and held in a manner that results in less than 10% 

prespawning m

The calculation should in

dress health standards for adult holding... 

4: [#1066] 

re Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) adult holding guidelines 

llowed for loading? _______(Yes or No) 

re IHOT adult holding guidelines followed for density? _______(Yes or No

re IHOT adult holding guidelines followed for water quality? _______(Yes

o)

re IHOT adult holding guidelines followed for alarm systems? _______(Ye

) 

provide the nece

The following questions pertain to spawning... 

Question 35: [#1070] 

Are males and females a

_______(Yes or No) 

Question 36: [#1071] 

Are gametes pooled prio

Question 37: [#1072] 

Are back-up males used in the spawning protocol? _______(Yes or No) 

Question 38: [#1073] 

Are precocious males (e

in proportion to their contribution to the adult 

80
Questi

Are fish allowed to select their own mates and go through all normal spawning behavior 

in a t

Questi

Are

transm ds,

equipm etc.) _______(Yes or No) 

ocols then list the document in the data source box.)

charge to receiving water? (e.g. Is 

arian fluid and blood from spawning activities disinfected or simply discharged into 

harged, the answer is no) _______(Yes or No) 

ival

eggs derive a

advantage from incubation procedures? If yes, then mark NO in 

uestion 44: [New Question #2055] For each brood, how many times are eggs culled 

ct best answer) 

uestion 45: [#2044] If eggs are culled, is culling done randomly over all segments of 

es or No)

uestion 46: [#1083] 

r

uestion 47: [#1097] 

ning groups mixed randomly at ponding so that unintentional 

uestion 48: [#1084] 

on 39: [#1076] 

na ural environment? _______(Yes or No) 

on 40: [#1077] 

disinfection procedures during adult spawning implemented that prevent pathogen 

ission between stocks of fish on site? (i.e. no leakage into other holding pon

ent is disinfected, no water reuse,

(If you have written prot

Question 41: [#1078] 

Is spawning waste collected and disinfected prior to dis

ov

receiving waters? If disc

Next we will talk about incubation and rearing operations of the program... 

Question 42: [#1081] Are eggs incubated under conditions that result in equal surv

of all segments of the population to ponding? (Does any portion of the

survival advantage or dis

above box.)_______(Yes or No) 

Question 43: [#1082] Are incubation conditions manipulated as to synchronize ponding 

of fry? _______(Yes or No) 

Q

for this program? (Sele

a) 0 

b) 1 

c) 2 

d) >2

Q

the egg-take? _______(Y

Q

Are eggs incubated in a manner that allows volitional ponding of fry? _______(Yes o

No) 

Q

Are families within spaw

rearing differences affect families equally? _______(Yes or No) 

Q

81
Are families incubated individually? (Includes both eying and 

atching.)_______(Yes/No)

uestion 50: [#1086] 

oes the program use water sources that result in hatching/emergence timing similar to

uced population? _______(Yes or No) 

uestion 51: [#1088] 

species-specific incubation recommendations followed for 

y? _______(Yes or No) 

r

_______(Yes or No) 

s or No)

e. Are IHOT species-specific incubation recommendations followed for 

? _______(Yes or No)

 Question 52:

Are disinfectio cubation that prevent pathogen

transmissio

describe in the

Question 53:

Are eggs monitored when needed to determine fertilization efficiency and embryonic 

uestion 54: [#1091] 

are eggs inventoried, and dead or undeveloped eggs removed 

h

Question 49: [#1085]

Does incubation take place in home stream water? _______(Yes or No) 

Q

D

that of the naturally prod

The next several questions deal with IHOT recommendations for 

incubation... 

Q

a. Are IHOT

water qualit

b. Are IHOT species-specific incubation recommendations followed fo

flows? _______(Yes or No) 

c. Are IHOT species-specific incubation recommendations followed for 

temperature? 

d. Are IHOT species-specific incubation recommendations followed for 

substrate? _______(Ye

incubator capacities

[#1089]

n procedures implemented during in

n between stocks of fish on site? (Do you have written protocols? If so, 

data source box.) _______(Yes or No)

[#1090]

development? (Defines proper time to shock.) _______(Yes or No)

Q

Following eye-up stage,

and disposed of as described in the disease control guidelines? _______(Yes or No)

Next we will talk about how you determine when fry will be ponded... 

Question 55: [#1093] 

82
a. Are fry removed from incubation units when 80-90% of observed fry have yolknb. Are fry ponded based on visual inspection of the amount of yolk remaining?

ing a specified number of accumulated 

temperature units? _______(Yes or No) 

ry ponded based on the recommendations of the facility’s fish health 

specialist? _______(Yes or No) 

[#1094]

Are eggs (d

the receiving w

(Provide prot ite data source) 

 

Question 5

Are fish re

population

(In other w

disadvanta f

Question 5

For Segreg d

improve su

(For exam

eelhead is ac idelines.)

uestion 59: [#2056] 

n are juveniles culled in this program? (Select the best answer) 

b)

c) 2 

d)

Question 6

If juveniles are randomly over all segments of the population? 

(Check the Do niles are not culled. Otherwise, make sure to 

capture (in

also, the dispo

Question 61:

When requ

minimize fami

sac material that is 80-90% utilized and contained within body cavity (“butto

up”)? _______(Yes or No) 

_______(Yes or No) 

c. Are fry ponded based on a reach

d. Are fry ponded based on a measured maximum wet weight? _______(Yes or No)

e. Are f

Question 56:

ead or culled) discarded in a manner that prevents pathogen transmission to 

atershed? _______(Yes or No) 

ocols in comment or c

7: [#1095]

ared under conditions that result in equal survival of all segments of the 

to release? _______(Yes or No) 

ords, does any portion of the population derive a survival advantage or 

ge rom rearing procedures? If yes, then mark NO in box.)

8: [#1096]

ate Harvest programs, are all fish reared under environmental conditions to 

rvival of all segments of the population? _______(Yes or No)

ple, the answer to this question would be No, if growth of later returning 

st celerate to meet juvenile release size gu

Q

For each brood, how ofte

a) 0 

1

>2

0: [#1098]

culled, is culling done

es not apply box if juve

the comments box) the number culled, and the rational for culling. Include 

sition of juveniles)

[#1099]

ired to maintain effective population size, are larger families culled to 

ly size variation? _______(Yes or No) 

83
Next we have two questions about fish health... 

uestion 62: [#1100] 

idelines followed to prevent pathogen transmission between lots 

f other standards/guidelines are used note in comments...get copy of guidelines.) 

Whenever ?

_______(Y

The next set o

Question 6

Does the opera

or

c. ibed in IHOT guidelines?

_(Yes or No) 

Is the corre

apply) 

ired

___(Yes

l measurements (Length and weight). 

Questi 6

Does the p natural seasonal growth

pattern

Note: For most programs this is rapid growth in spring, maintenance condition 

ote in the comment box how this is determined. 

Q

Are IHOT fish health gu

or stocks of fish on site or transmission or amplification to or within the watershed?

_______(Yes or No) 

(I

Question 63. [#1103]

possible, are vaccines used to minimize the use of antimicrobial compounds

es or No) 

f questions deal with Feeding 

4: [#1105]

tor follow: 

a. Are proper feeding rates followed so that fish size is within 10% of

program goal each year? _______(Yes or No) 

b. Does the operator conduct periodic feed quality analysis? _______(Yes

No) 

Is feed stored under proper conditions as descr

______

Question 65. [#1106] 

ct amount and type of food provided to achieve the desired: (Check all that 

a. Is the correct amount and type of food provided to achieve the desired 

growth rate? _______(Yes or No) 

b. Is the correct amount and type of food provided to achieve the desired 

body composition? _______(Yes or No) 

c. Is the correct amount and type of food provided to achieve the des

condition factors for the species and life stage being reared? ____

or No)

Note: Body composition (b) determined by internal measurements (lipids etc.) while 

Condition factor (c) is based on physica

on 6: [#1109] 

rogram use a diet and growth regime that mimics

s? If not, describe the differences in the comment field. _______(Yes or No) 

during winter. If yes, n

84
Question 67: [#1110] 

Are settleable solids, unused feed and feces periodically removed to ensure proper

leanliness of rearing container? _______(Yes or No) 

the comments field note what the procedure is and cite if there is a document that 

pports a yes answer to the question. 

ext we will talk about whether the program is attempting to mimic natural rearing 

m

ic the natural stream environment 

y or other guidelines?

Yes or No) 

attempting to better mimic the natural stream environment 

am environment 

by providing a range of hydraulic characteristics? _______(Yes or No) 

gram attempting to better mimic the natural stream environment 

) 

pting to better mimic the natural stream environment 

by predator avoidance training? _______(Yes or No) 

the natural stream environment 

by providing natural or artificial cover? 

...

uestion 69: [#1112] 

produced qualitatively similar to natural fish in size (fpp and 

length)? _______(Yes or No) 

sh produced qualitatively similar to natural fish in morphology?

sh produced qualitatively similar to natural fish in growth rate? 

_______(Yes or No) 

g. Are the fish produced qualitatively similar to natural fish in other 

characteristics?__________________(explain) 

c

 

In

su

N

conditions 

Question 68: [#1111] Is the program attempting to better mimic the natural strea

environment?

a. Is the program attempting to better mim

by reducing rearing density below agenc

_______(

b. Is the program attempting to better mimic the natural stream environment 

by rearing under natural water temperature? _______(Yes or No) 

c. Is the program

by actively simulating photoperiod? _______(Yes or No) 

d. Is the program attempting to better mimic the natural stre

e. Is the pro

by subsurface feeding conditions? _______(Yes or No

f. Is the program attem

g. Is the program attempting to better mimic

The next set of questions deal with the quality of fish produced from the program

Q

Are the fish produced similar to natural fish: 

a. Are the fish

b. Are the fi

_______(Yes or No) 

c. Are the fish produced qualitatively similar to natural fish in behavior?

_______(Yes or No) 

d. Are the fi

_______(Yes or No) 

e. Are the fish produced qualitatively similar to natural fish in physiological 

status? 

f. Are the fish produced qualitatively similar to natural fish in health? 

_______(Yes or No) 

85
Next we talk about guidelines for juvenile rearing...

standardized agency guidelines? _______(Yes or No)

y

loading guidelines used at the facility 

ival studies conducted at other facilities? 

d at the facility 

staff experience (e.g. trial and error)? _______(Yes or No)

uestion 72: [1114] 

a. _____Are IHOT juvenile rearing standards followed for water quality? (Yes 

tandards followed for predator control 

rovide the necessary security for the cultured stock? (Yes or No) 

he nex

Question 70: [#1113] 

Are fish reared in multiple facilities or with redundant systems to reduce the risk of

catastrophic loss? _______(Yes or No) 

Question 71: [#2045] What is the basis for the juvenile rearing density and loading 

guidelines used at the facility? 

a. Are juvenile rearing density and loading guidelines used at the facility

based on

b. Are juvenile rearing density and loading guidelines used at the facilit

based on life-stage specific survival studies conducted on-site?

_______(Yes or No)

c. Are juvenile rearing density and

based on life-stage specific surv

_______(Yes or No)

d. Are juvenile rearing density and loading guidelines use

based on 

e. Are juvenile rearing density and loading guidelines used at the facility 

based on other criteria? _______(Yes or No)

Q

 Are IHOT rearing guidelines followed? 

or No) 

b. _____Are IHOT juvenile rearing standards followed for alarm systems? 

(Yes or No) 

c. _____Are IHOT juvenile rearing s

measures to p

d. _____Are IHOT juvenile rearing standards followed for loading?

e. _____Are IHOT juvenile rearing standards followed for density? 

T t few questions apply to captive broodstock programs only. These question

should be skipped if they do not apply. 

s

uestion 73: [#1115] 

roodstocks, are fish maintained on a natural photoperiod to 

b. For captive broodstocks, are fish maintained at 120

C to minimize disease? 

Question 7

Q

a. For captive b

ensure normal maturation? _______(Yes or No)

_______(Yes or No) 

4: [#1116]

86
For captive o e

gametes and re of fish? _______(Yes or No) 

If yes, describ w this objective is achieved. 

Question 7

For captive ro dividually to maintain pedigrees?

______(Y 

ase provide the data to support the answer. 

m (e.g. HATPRO) used at this facility 

_____________________ [text]

uestion 78: [#1255] 

to minimize the risk of catastrophic fish loss from flooding?

g incidences and their

everity at the hatchery. 

facility through the use of alarms, 

s? _______(Yes or No) 

at someone either lives on-site or the facility is staffed 24-

br odstocks, are diets and growth regimes selected that produce potent, fertil

duce excessive early maturation

e in the comments ho

5: [#1117]

b odstocks, are families reared in

_ es or No)

The next two questions deal with record keeping... 

Question 76: [#1118] 

Does the fish inventory data accurately reflect pond or rearing vessel populations within

10%?._______(Yes or No)

In the comment box ple

Question 77: [#1119] 

Identify the inventory progra

._

Next we turn to questions about hatchery security... 

Q

Is the facility sited so as

_______(Yes or No) 

In the comments box capture relevant data regarding floodin

s

Question 79: [#1256] 

Is staff notified of emergency situations at the

autodialer, and pager

Question 80: [#1257] 

Is the facility continuously staffed to ensure the security of fish stocks on-site?

_______(Yes or No) 

A yes answer means th

hours. 

87
Now we will address the potential environmental impacts of the program... 

Has a fac

ter management provisions?

______(Yes or No)

(Yes or 

te to allow all migrating species of all ages to pass through 

ocument life-stages released in comment field. 

als

ver multiple-days to weeks. At least 

e

Question 81: [#1258] 

ility riparian management plan been implemented that incorporates vegetation 

management, herbicide and pesticide use, and surface wa

_

Question 82: [#1259] 

Has an on or off-site facility habitat mitigation plan been implemented? _______

No) 

The plan would have been designed to mitigate for hatchery facilities or operations. 

Question 83: [#1120] 

Does the hatchery opera

hatchery related structures to maximize use of natural habitat? _______(Yes or No)

Provide rational for answer in comments box 

The next set of questions deal release operations of the program. 

Question 84: [#1125] 

Are fish released at sizes and life history stages similar to those of natural fish of the 

same species? _______(Yes or No) 

D

Question 85: [#1126] 

Are fish released at a time, size, location, and in a manner that achieves the harvest go

established for the stock? _______(Yes or No) 

Question 86: [#1127] 

Are volitional releases during natural out-migration timing practiced? _______(Yes or 

No) 

For a yes answer, releases should occur o

90% of the fish exit rearing facility voluntarily. 

Question 87: [#2046] 

How is the migratory status of the release population determined?

a. Is the migratory status of the release population determined by ATPas

testing (or other physiological tests)? _______(Yes or No) 

b. Is the migratory status of the release population determined by salt-water 

challenge? _______(Yes or No)

88
c. Is the migratory status of the release population determined by volitio

release? _______(Yes or No) 

nal

ior? 

e. Is the migratory status of the release population determined by condition 

No) 

f. Is the migratory status of the release population determined by physical 

e? _______(Yes or No) 

s or No) 

Qu

Are fish al migratory patterns?

___

Releas ing each season. (But does

ot have to be volitional)

at has been determined by a site-specific 

surv

Cite

Qu

re h ptimum time and size that has been determined by survival 

ty? _______(Yes or No) 

Are h

pro

ro e

Question 92: [#1132] 

Are fish

____(Yes or No) 

Des e

Qu

Has the carrying capacity of the subbasin been taken into consideration in sizing this 

pro rmining the number of fish released? _______(Yes or No)

Qu

Are fish released in stream reaches within the historic range of that stock? _______(Yes 

or No) 

d. Is the migratory status of the release population determined by behav

_______(Yes or No) 

factor? _______(Yes or

appearanc

g. Is the migratory status of the release population determined by other 

criteria? _______(Ye

estion 88: [#1128] 

released in a manner that simulates natural season

____(Yes or No)

es should occur over multiple-days to weeks dur

n

Question 89: [#1129] 

Are fish released at an optimum time and size th

ival study? _______(Yes or No) 

study in Data Source Field

estion 90: [#1130] 

A fis released at an o

studies from another facili

Question 91: [#1131] 

fis released at a specific time and size specified in an established juvenile 

duction goal? _______(Yes or No) 

P vid data in comments if not already entered previously.

released at a specific time and size based on favorable environmental conditions 

in the receiving habitat? ___

crib in comments

estion 93: [#1265] 

gram in regards to dete

estion 94: [#1135] 

89
Question

t times of the year and sizes to allow adoption of multiple life history 

_(Yes or No) 

The answer to this question is Yes, if hatchery is releasing multiple life-stages, 

(over many weeks or months).

etermine if fish (juveniles) are transported into the subbasin. 

n 98: [#1140] 

e subbasin

95: [#1136] 

Are fish released a

strategies? ______

on different release dates

Question 96: [#1138] 

Are fish released in the same subbasin as rearing facility? _______(Yes or No) 

This question is trying to d

The next couple of questions deal with health and inspection issues 

Question 97: [#1139] 

Are all fish examined for presence of “reportable pathogens” as defined in the PNFHPC 

disease control guidelines, no less than 3 weeks prior to release? _______(Yes or No) 

Questio

Are fish transfers into th inspected and accompanied by appropriate 

o) 

hery Operations Team (IHOT) guidelines 

tions about fish marking... 

s of the hatchery 

or subyearlings)? _______(Yes or No) 

re hatchery adults (carcasses or live fish) distributed by staff within the subbasin?

adults distributed (by staff) within the subbasin to provide 

notifications as described in IHOT or PNFHPC guidelines? _______(Yes or N

Question 99: [#1141] Are Integrated Hatc

followed for fish transport? _______(Yes or No) 

If no, list other guidelines followed in comment box. 

Next we have three ques

Question 100: [#1142] 

Are marking/tagging techniques used to distinguish among segment

population (e.g. yearlings

Question 101: [#1266] 

Are 100% of the hatchery fish marked so that they can be distinguished from the natural 

populations? _______(Yes or No) 

Note that marking can be internal or external.

Question 102: [#1143] 

Can marked fish be identified using non-lethal means? _______(Yes or No) 

Question 103: [#1145] 

A

a. Are hatchery

ecological benefits (marine nutrients, wildlife food etc.)? _______(Yes or No)

90
b. Are hatchery adults distributed (by staff) within the subbasin to provide 

tunity? _______(Yes or No)

bbasin to provide

(Yes or No)

s or live fish

]

hat percent of the naturally spawning population in the subbasin consists of adults from

st answer!

al spawning 

escapement (for the species/race) in the subbasin. 

rogram make up between 5 and 30% of the natural spawning 

the subbasin.

he percent of hatchery fish spawning in the wild each year is estimated by: (Check all 

b) Escapement data from a weir or dam

e) Is not estimated 

at percent of the broodstock for this program?

a. Wild fish make up less than 5% of the broodstock for this program. 

between 5 and 30% of the broodstock for this program 

Question 107: [#2058] 

sed

fishing oppor

c. Are hatchery adults distributed (by staff) within the su

natural production? _______

Note: Could be carcasse

Question 104: [#2047

W

this program? Check be

a. Adults from this program make up less than 5% of the natur

b. Adults from this p

escapement (for the species/race) in the subbasin. 

c. Adults from this program make up more than 30% of the natural spawning 

escapement (for the species/race) in

Question105: [#2057] 

T

that apply) 

a) Annual stream surveys (e.g. carcasses) 

c) Staff experience 

d) Harvest records, creel surveys 

Question 106: [#2048] 

Wild fish make up wh

b. Wild fish make up

c. Wild fish make up more than 30% of the broodstock for this program. 

The percent of wild fish used as broodstock for this program is estimated ba

on: (Check all that apply) 

a) External marks (e.g. fin clips) 

b) Internal marks (CWT, Pit tags) 

c) Staff experience 

d) Is not estimated 

91
Next we move to a different topic ...the following questions pertain to 

tion, harvest and other purposes? _______(Yes or No) 

tion 109: [#1150] 

to assure that funds are expended as intended for the hatchery 

1]

re key staff aware of the funding available for carrying out the various activities in the 

 can be done in the most cost effective manner? _______(Yes 

tion 111: [#2049] 

g and operational decisions based on an Adaptive 

nual report produced describing hatchery operations, results of 

etc? If a written plan does not exist then the answer is No.) 

rch or other sources made available to hatchery 

ls? _______(Yes or No) 

ms for the 

ding performance indicators and progress toward goals, taken into 

onsideration when determining whether hatchery operations should be changed or not?

nts box if available. 

ems

le on a “real-time” basis and that changes warranted by that 

formation are implemented? _______(Yes or No) (“Real-time” is within a year.)

re standards specified for in-culture performance of hatchery fish? _______(Yes or No)

source box

accountability... 

Question 108: [#1149] 

Are key hatchery personnel aware of the goals for the hatchery with respect to 

conserva

In the comment box describe how they are made aware of goals (written report?) 

Ques

Are expenditures tracked

program? _______(Yes or No) 

Question 110: [#115

A

production cycle so that it

or No) 

Ques

Are hatchery programmin

Management Plan? _______(Yes or No)

(For example, is an an

studies, program changes

Question 112: [#1152] 

Is all new relevant information from resea

staff and others and used for attaining goa

Question 113: [#1153] 

Is the most recent information obtained from monitoring and evaluation progra

production cycle, inclu

c

_______(Yes or No) 

Provide examples in the comme

Question 114: [#1154] 

Is there a management program in place that assures that information pertaining to it

#1150-1153 is availab

in

Question 115: [#1155] 

A

Provide documentation in

92
Questi 1

Are inProvide do

Question 1

Are sta

_______(Y

Questi 1

re post-release performance standards met? _______(Yes or No)

Are there state or federal laws or policies that constrain the program by

objectives, such as numbers and size of fish pro ____(Yes or t

mea

Nex que tions...

Qu

Is t c during hours of operation? _______(Yes or No) 

Question 121: [#1158] 

Are ility vi ? _______(Yes or No) 

Qu

Are hatchery operations (egg take, incubation, rearing) demonstrated to the public?

__

_______(Yes or No) 

alk or bri

___ r No) 

Qu

Is the facility used by other fish and wildlife programs? _______(Yes or No) 

Qu

oe _______(Yes or No) 

on 16: [#2050] 

culture performance standards met? _______(Yes or No)

cumentation in source box.

17: [#2051] 

ndards specified for post release performance of hatchery fish and their offspring?

es or No) 

on 18: [#2052] 

A

Question 119: [#1156] 

specifying

duced? ___ No) (Does no

n the NMFS estuary release numbers.)

t we will talk about education related s

estion 120: [#1157] 

he hatchery facility open to the publi

the hatchery operations visible to fac sitors

estion 122: [#1159] 

_ ____(Yes or No) 

Question 123: [#1160] 

Does the facility have a fish ladder and/or adult holding facilities that are open to the 

public? _______(Yes or No) 

Question 124: [#1161] 

Does the hatchery have signage describing the facility, fish production goals, ties to 

management goals, and ecosystem function?

Question 125: [#1162] 

Is there a visible link to the riparian zone such as viewing boardw dge?

____(Yes o

estion 126: [#1163] 

estion 127: [#1164] 

D s the hatchery schedule tours for groups?

93
Question 128: [#1165] 

Does the program provide opportunities for student interns? _______(Yes or No) 

es for citizen volunteer involvement? _______(Yes 

r No) 

Does the agency maintain a web page describing the hatchery program? _______(Yes or 

No) 

Qu

Is a let or brochure describing agency or hatchery programs available?

___

Qu

Are eggs or fish provided to volunteer groups and educational groups? _______(Yes or 

No)

Qu

Is h ntee eetings or outreach programs?

___

ue

al professional presentations/seminars?

______(Yes or No) 

the facility used or does staff participate in agency, university, or other research 

projects? _______(Yes or No) 

Qu

Are e program accessible to interested parties?

___

Par

Question 138 : [#1011] 

Question 129: [#1166] 

Does the program provide opportuniti

o

Question 130: [#1167] 

estion 131: [#1168] 

pamph

____(Yes or No) 

estion 132: [#1169] 

 

estion 133: [#1170] 

atchery staff involved in community/volu

____(Yes or No) 

stion 134: [#1171] 

r m

Q

Does hatchery staff regularly give classroom presentations? _______(Yes or No) 

At least yearly in order to answer yes. 

Question 135: [#1172] 

Does hatchery staff participate in form

_

Question 136: [#1173] 

Is

estion 137: [#1174] 

data and information pertaining to th

____(Yes or No) 

t C: HGMP Questions

94
Wh eck ll that apply) 

essible to fisheries 

because the fish produced are temporarily 

rated from weaker stocks 

ish accessible to fisheries because the fish produced are 

differentially marked to enable selective harvest 

t the harvest goals)

e. It is unknown if hatchery fish are accessible to fisheries 

Identify the performance indicators for harvest benefits. 

Standard monitored 

ich of the following statements apply? (Ch

a. Hatchery fish are not acc

a

b. Hatchery fish accessible to fisheries

and/or spatially sepa

c. Hatchery f

d. Hatchery fish accessible to fisheries because the fish produced are available in

sufficient number to the fisheries (location, time, gear) that are intended to 

benefit from the program (i.e. to mee

Question 139: [#1012] 

Indicator 

Performance Indicator is 

Spa

fish. 

wner to spawner survival of hatchery

Con

fisherie

tribution of hatchery fish to target

s.

Ang

day

ler success (hatchery fish per angler

) in target recreational fisheries 

Con

needs 

tribution of hatchery fish to cultural

Selective harvest success (expected 

benefits of mass marking) 

Value of harvest (lbs) 

Quality of hatchery fish harvested 

In the Performance Standard box enter the performance standard for all that apply.

can use a number, provide a brief text description, and use NA for No Applicable, or U 

for unknown, and

You 

No if no standard is defined.

ed box; enter Y if the standard is monitored, N if it is not, NA

uestion 140: [#1013] 

s.

Performance 

Standard 

Indicator is 

monitored 

In the Indicator is monitor

if not Applicable, or U for unknown.

Q

Identify the performance indicators for harvest risk

Indicator 

Harvest impacts on co-mingled stocks 

Bias in run size estimation of natural stocks 

due to masking effect

Lack of harvest access (under harvest due 

e.g. to co-mingling with weaker stocks) 

 

95
In t

can use a number, provide a brief text description, and use NA for No Applicable, or U 

ed box; enter Y if the standard is monitored, N if it is not, NA

Ind t

Indicator is 

he Performance Standard box enter the performance standard for all that apply. You

for unknown, and No if no standard is defined. 

In the Indicator is monitor

if not Applicable, or U for unknown. 

Question 141: [#1014]

Identify the performance indicators for conservation benefits. 

ica or Standard monitored 

Performance 

Genetic

tim

and life history diversity (over

e)

Spawne ess

of h

r to spawner reproductive succ 

atchery fish

Reprod e receiving

(supplemented) naturally spawning 

uctive success of th 

population 

Contribution to the abundance of the 

naturally spawning population

Time and location of spawning 

Contribution to ecosystem function (e.g.

cement, food web 

 

through nutrient enhan

effects, etc.) 

In the Performance Standard box enter the performance standard for all that apply. You 

can use a number, provide a brief text description, and use NA for No Applicable, or U 

for unknown, and No if no standard is defined. 

In the Indicator is monitored box; enter Y if the standard is monitored, N if it is not, N

if not Applicable, or U for unknown. 

A

Indicator 

ator is

Question 142: [#1015] 

Identify the performance indicators for conservation risks. 

Performance Indic

Standard monitored 

Un

nat

intended contribution of hatchery f

ural spawning (through straying) 

ish to

Loss of genetic and life history diversity

Loss of reproductive success

Ecological interactions through

f

 

competition with natural stocks (by li e

stage) 

96
Ecological interactions through predation 

on natural stocks (by life stage) 

Adverse effects of hatchery operations and 

facilities on fish migration 

Disease transfers 

In the Performance Standard box enter the erformance standard for all that apply. You 

rovide a brief text des

A

hich 

and methods proposed to collect data necessary to respond to each 

to allow

text fie

eve

p

can use a number, p cription, and use NA for Not Applicable, or U 

for unknown, and No if no standard is defined. 

In the Indicator is monitored box; enter Y if the standard is monitored, N if it is not, N

if not Applicable, or U for unknown. 

Question 143: [#1016] Identify the performance indicators for information gain. W

of the following statements are true? 

a. Hatchery program contributes to research to improve performance and cost 

effectiveness 

b. New information affects change to the hatchery program through a structured 

adaptive decision making process 

c. Hatchery program participates in basin wide-coordinated research efforts 

d. Hatchery program actively contributes to public education 

e. Funding for monitoring of performance indicators is adequate 

Question 144: [#1017] 

Describe plans

“Performance Indicator” identified for the program.

[text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 145: [# 15] 

Identify ESA-listed populations that may incidentally be affected by the program

(includes ESA-listed fish in target hatchery fish releases, adult returns, and broodstock

collection areas)

Question 146: [#1018] 

Indicate whether funding, staffing, and other support logistics are available or committed

implementation of the monitoring and evaluation program.

[ ld to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 147: [#1019] 

Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize the likelihood for 

adverse genetic and ecological effects to listed fish resulting from monitoring and

evaluation activities. 

(e.g. “The Wenatchee River smolt trap will be continuously monitored, and checked 

ry eight hours, to minimize the duration of holding and risk of harm to listed 

97
spr e

smo

uestion 149: [#1022] 

date) is undetermined, which 

of the f

c. The eans not 

requiring artificial production 

Questi

List all

more): 

a. Section

b. 4D rule 

e. None 

Que jected annual take levels for listed 

fish the extent feasible) by the type of take 

resulting from the hatchery program (e.g. capture, handling, tagging, injury, or lethal 

take). 

Table 1. Estimated listed salmonid take levels of by hatchery activity. 

ing chinook and steelhead that may be incidentally captured during the sockey

lt emigration period.)”

[text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 148: [#1021] 

What will be the final year of hatchery program? Enter “U” if that is “Undetermined. 

Q

If the answer to the previous question (hatchery termination

ollowing statements are true?

a. The program is on-going with no planned termination 

b. The program meets goals that cannot be accomplished in any other manner 

and is expected to continue indefinitely 

program is expected to end when goals can be met by other m

d. The program will be terminated when it is determined that the program will 

not meet its goals 

on 150: [#1025] 

ESA permits or authorizations in hand for the hatchery program (select one or

7 or Section 10 permit 

c. 401 certification 

d. Other (Specify) 

stion 151-153. [#1273, 1026, 2026] Provide pro

by life stage (juvenile and adult) quantified (to

Listed species affected: __________________________ 

ESU/Population:_________________________________ Activity:____________________

Location of hatchery activity:______________________ Dates of 

activity:____________________ Hatchery program operator:_________________

Annual Take of Listed Fish By Life Stage

(Number of Fish)

Type of Take Egg/Fry Juvenile/Smolt Adult Carcass 

Observe or harass a) 

Collect for transport b) 

Capture, handle, and release c) 

Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and

release d) 

Removal (e.g. broodstock) e) 

98
Listed species affected: __________________________

ESU/Population:_________________________________ Activity:____________________

Location of hatchery activity:______________________ Dates of

activity:____________________ Hatchery program operator:_________________

Intentional lethal take f) 

 Unintentional lethal take g) 

Other Take (specify) h) 

a. Contact am surveys, carcass and mark recovery projects, or 

igration delay at weirs. 

ted fish are captured and 

sh collected through trapping 

perations prior to upstream or downstream release, or through carcass recovery 

loss of fish during transport or holding

ior to spawning or prior to release into the wild, or, for integrated programs, mortalities 

s a category.

structions

with listed fish through stre

m

b. Take associated with weir or trapping operations where lis

transported for release. 

c. Take associated with weir or trapping operations where listed fish are captured, 

handled and released upstream or downstream. 

d. Take occurring due to tagging and/or bio-sampling of fi

o

programs. 

e. Listed fish removed from the wild and collected for use as broodstock. 

f. Intentional mortality of listed fish, usually as a result of spawning as broodstock.

g. Unintentional mortality of listed fish, including

pr

during incubation and rearing. 

h. Other takes not identified above a

In :

ntered in the table should be in one take category only (there should 

ot be more than one entry for the same sampling event). 

for addressing situations where take 

vels within a given year have exceeded, or are projected to exceed, take levels 

apped at Priest Rapids Dam will 

fish is projected inseason to exceed

the 1988-99 maximum observed level of 100 fish.”) 

hatchery program with any ESU-wide 

atchery plan (e.g. Hood Canal Summer Chum Conservation Initiative) or other 

Annual Production Review Report and 

cument 99-15). Explain any proposed deviations from the 

1. An entry for a fish to be taken should be in the take category that describes the 

greatest impact. 

2. Each take to be e

n

3. If an individual fish is to be taken more than once on separate occasions, each take

must be entered in the take table. 

Question 154. [#1027] Indicate contingency plans

le

described in this plan for the program. 

(e.g. “The number of days that steelhead are tr

be reduced if the total mortality of handled

[text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 155. [#1028] Describe alignment of the

h

regionally accepted policies (e.g. the NPPC 

Recommendations - NPPC do

plan or policies.

(e.g. “The hatchery program will be operated consistent with the ESU-wide plan, 

with the exception of age class at release. Fish will be released as yearlings 

99
rather than as sub-yearlings as specified in the ESU-wide plan, to maximize 

smolt-to-adult survival rates given extremely low run sizes the past four years.”). 

[text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 156. [#1029] List all existing cooperative agreements, memoranda of 

understanding, memoranda of agreement, or other management plans or court orders 

ment have been

iological risks as possible to

describes measures applied to 

ny

tural production benefits over the 

document 99-

ssumptions

cies co-occur to a significant degree 

arine life stages. 

under which program operates. 

Question 157. [#1030] Relationship to harvest objectives. 

Explain whether artificial production and harvest manage

integrated to provide as many benefits and as few b

the listed species. Reference any harvest plan that

integrate the program with harvest management. 

[text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 158. [#1031] Relationship to habitat protection and recovery strategies. 

Describe the major factors affecting natural production (if known). Describe a

habitat protection efforts, and expected na

short- and long-term. For Columbia Basin programs, use NPPC

15, section II.C. as guidance in indicating program linkage with a

regarding habitat conditions. 

[text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 159. [#1032] Which of the following spe

with the program fish in either freshwater or early m

Significant co-occurrence between program

fish and this species (check all that apply) 

 Steelhead 

 Pink 

 Chum

Sockeye

 Coho 

 Chinook 

 Bull Trout 

Question 160. [#1251] Describe operational difficulties or disa

si

sters that have led to

gnificant fish mortality.

res in place that maintain broodstock collection 

[text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 161. [#1067] Are procedu

within programmed levels?

If the answer is yes, describe that procedure: 

100
Check all that apply 

A collection plan for natural origin adults is in place that prevents collectio

fish 

n of surplus

All fish returning to the hatchery are needed to maintain the programmed hatchery 

level 

Excess adults are used for seeding available habitat in accordance with genetic

guidelines 

Excess adults are culled at random and sold, buried, or donated to food banks 

depending on their quality 

ns 162. [#1074] Are cryopreserved gam s us

describe the number of donors, y llec , number s don

past, and expected and observed viability. 

anager/operator] 

ces where extra eggs may be taken (e.g as a 

l incubation losses), and the disposition of surplus fish safely 

-egg or fry stage to prevent exceeding programmed levels. 

leted by manager/operator] 

1] For the facility, provide a five year disease history of pathogens 

they

se procedures in response to flooding 

for any research programs conducted in direct 

association with the hatchery program described in this HGMP. Provide sufficient detail 

Questio

If used

ete

ear of co

ed?

tion of time ors

were used in the

[text field to be completed by m

Question 163. [#1080] Describe circumst

safe

an

guard against potentia

carried through to the eyed

 [text field to be comp

 

Question 164. [#110

that significantly affect fish health. 

[text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 165. [#1102] Have hatchery specific performance standards for carrying 

capacity that consider fish health and post-release survival been developed and are

followed? (yes/no) 

Question 166. [#1133] For off-station releases, describe fish acclimation procedures 

including methods applied and length of time. 

[text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 167. [#1134] Describe disposition plans for fish identified at the time of 

release as surplus to programmed or approved levels. 

 [text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Question 168. [#1148] Describe emergency relea

or water system failure. 

[text field to be completed by manager/operator] 

Research Information 

Provide the following information

101
to allow for the independent assessment of the effects of the research program on listed 

arch indicated as needed in any ESU hatchery plan 

pproved by the co-managers and NMFS. Attach a copy of any formal research proposal 

mpleted by manager/op

entify cooperating and

by manager/operator] 

ntify principal investig supervisor and staff.

y manager/operator] 

uestion 172. [#1178] Identify stocks affected by the research project. 

ext field to be completed by manager/operator]

uestion 173. [#1179] Identify techniques used: nclude capture methods, drugs, 

mples collected, tags applied. 

ext field to be completed by manager/operator]

uestion 174. [#1180] Identify dates or time period in which research activity occurs. 

ext field to be completed by manager/operator]

uestion 175. [#1181] Describe the care and ma tenance of live fish or eggs, holding 

uration, transport methods. 

uestion 176. [#1182] Describe the expected type and effects of take and potential for 

injury or mortality. 

Question 177. [#1184] Identify alternative methods to achieve project objectives. 

Question 178. [#1185] List species similar or related to the threatened species; provide 

number and causes of mortality related to this research project. 

Question 179. [#1186] Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize 

the likelihood for adverse ecological effects, injury, or mortality to listed fish as a result 

of the proposed research activities.

(e.g. “Listed coastal cutthroat trout sampled for the predation study will be collected in 

compliance with NMFS Electrofishing Guidelines to minimize the risk of injury or 

immediate mortality.”).

fish. If applicable, correlate with rese

a

addressing activities covered in this section. Include estimated take levels for the 

research program with take levels provided for the associated hatchery program.

Question 169. [#1175] What is the objective or purpose of the research program?

Indicate why the research is needed, its benefit or effect on listed natural fish

populations, and broad significance of the proposed project. 

[text field to be co erator] 

Question 170. [#1176] Id

text field to be completed

funding agencies.

[

Question 171. [#1177] Ide

text field to be completed b

ator or project

[

Q

[t

Q i

sa

[t

Q

[t

Q in

d

Q

102
Questions 180-182. [#1274, 1269, 1270] For research projects describe the level of take 

of listed fish: number or range of fish handled, injured, or killed by sex, age, or size 

(Table 1) if not already indicated above. 

Table 1. Estimated listed salmonid take levels of by hatchery activity. 

Listed species affected: __________________________

ESU/Population:_________________________________ Activity:____________________

Location of hatchery activity:______________________ Dates of activity:____________________ 

Hatchery program operator:_________________

Annual Take of Listed Fish By Life Stage (Number of Fish)

Type of Take Egg/Fry

Juvenile/Sm

olt Adult Carcass 

Observe or harass a) 

Collect for transport b) 

Capture, handle, and release c) 

Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and 

release d) 

Removal (e.g. broodstock) e) 

Intentional lethal take f) 

 Unintentional lethal take g) 

Other Take (specify) h) 

a. Contact w d rou am s ss rk y ts,

nal w

b. Take associated with weir or trapping operations where listed fish are captured and 

transported for releas

asso iated wi weir or rapping peration where l ted fish are captured, 

d and eleased pstream r downs eam. 

e occu ring due o tagging and/or bio-samp ng of fis collecte throug trapping

s p or to up ream or downstream release, or thro gh carcass recovery 

s. 

. Listed fish removed from the wild and collected for use as broodstock. 

Intentional mortality of listed fish, usually as a result of spawning as broodstock.

. Unintentional mortality of listed fish, including loss of fish during transport or holding 

s, mortalities 

r take en abo c

ions

ith liste

delay at

fish th gh stre survey , carca and ma recover projec or

migratio eirs.

e.

c. Take c th t o s is

handle

d. Tak

r

r

u

t

o tr

li h d h

operation

program

ri st u

e

f.

g

prior to spawning or prior to release into the wild, or, for integrated program

during incub d .

h. Othe

ation an

s not id

rearing

tified ve as a ategory.

Instruct :

1. An entry for a fish to be taken should the categ that d s

take o be ent ed in th table sh uld be i one take category only (th e should

more an one try for t e same sampling event). 

 than once on separate occasions, each take 

nte d in the ke tabl

be in take ory escribe the

greatest impact. 

2. Each t er e o n er

not be th en h

3. If an individual fish is to be taken more

must be e re ta e.

103
Part D: Supporting Data Tables

 [#1010] Provide information on the broodstock source that has been used 

the hatchery program in the last 12 years. Indicate where the broodstock source is 

om natural origin or hatchery origin fish 

,

Question 183.

in

fr

e.g. Natural origin returns from Howling Creek used 1980 – 1985, hatchery origin 

returns from returns to the Howling Creek hatchery 1986 – 1987 and 1991 – 2001

and hatchery origin returns from Silver Creek hatchery 1988 – 1990, e.g.: 

Broodstock Source Used Year(s) Used

Howling Creek Natural 1980 – 1985

Silver Creek Hatchery 1988 - 1990

Howling Creek Hatchery 1986 - 1987,1991 - 2001

Broodstock Source Used Year(s) Used

104
Question 184. [#1034] Fill out the tables below choosing the source(s) of water 

vailable. Provide available information on flow and temperature means and ranges. 

:

a

For adult holding

Water 

Source

Mean 

Flow 

(gpm)

Min. 

Flow

(gpm) 

Max.

Flow 

(gpm) 

Mean

Temp. 

o

F 

Min.

Temp.

o

F 

Max.

Temp. 

o

F 

Mean

D.O.

(ppm) 

Min.

D.O.

(ppm) 

Max. 

D.O. 

(ppm) 

Spring

Well

Surface

Water

Brackish

Water

Saltwater 

Question 185. [#1036] Same for incubation. 

Water 

Source

Mean 

Flow 

(gpm) 

Min. 

Flow 

(gpm) 

Max. 

Flow 

(gpm) 

Mean 

Temp. 

o

F 

Min. 

Temp. 

o

F 

Max. 

Temp. 

o

F 

Mean 

D.O. 

(ppm) 

Min. 

D.O. 

(ppm) 

Max.

D.O. 

(ppm) 

Spring 

Well 

Surface

Water

 

Question 186. [#1038] Same for rearing. 

Water

Source

Mean 

Flow

(gpm) 

Min. 

Flow 

(gpm) 

Max. 

Flow 

(gpm) 

Mean 

Temp. 

o

F 

Min. 

Temp. 

o

F 

Max. 

Temp. 

o

F 

Mean 

D.O. 

(ppm) 

Min. 

D.O. 

(ppm) 

Max. 

D.O. 

(ppm) 

Spring 

Well 

Surface 

Water 

105
Brackish 

Water 

Saltwater 

Question 187. [#1047] Using the table below, indicate the type of fish transportation 

ipment used, the length of time in tran t, and any ch mical treatment and dosage 

lied duri g transport.

equ si e

app n

Equipment

Type

Capacity 

(gallons)

Supplemental 

Oxygen (Y/N)

Normal 

Transit 

Time 

Chemical(s) 

Used 

Dosage 

(ppm) 

Tank

Other 

Equipment 

 

Data Sourc

estion 1 . [#1048] Using the following table, describe the type (concrete, asphalt, 

vel, etc), ond volume, imensions (if applicable) and flow for each broodstock 

ding pon .

e

Qu

gra

88

p d

hol d

# of 

Ponds 

Pond Type Volume 

(cu. ft.)

Length 

(ft.)

Width 

(ft.)

Depth 

(ft.)

Available 

Flow (gpm)

 

 

 

 

 

Data Source 

106
Question 189. [#1049] Using the following table fill in the number of each type of

incubator, the water flow used, and volume (if applicable) and loading of incubation 

units. 

Incubator Type Number 

of Units 

Flow 

(gpm)

Volume (if 

applicable)

Loading –

Eyeing 

(eggs/unit)

Loading – 

Hatching 

(eggs/unit) 

Pull down list and 

other 

 

 

Data S urce

ti n 190. [#1050] Using the following table, describe the type (concrete, asphalt, 

l, tc), pond volume, dim nsions (if applicable) and flow fo each rearing

ation, and release pond. 

o

Ques o

grave

acclim

e e r ,

# of

Units

Pond Type Volume

(cu. ft.)

Length 

(ft.)

Width 

(ft.)

Depth 

(ft.)

Flow 

(gpm)

Maximum

Flow 

Index 

Maximum

Density 

Index 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data Source 

107
Question 191. [#1065] Using the following table, enter the planned and past broodstock

collection levels for the last 12 years, or for most recent years available. 

Year

Adults 

 Females Males Jacks Eggs Juveniles

Planned 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

Data Source

108
Question 192. [#1079] Using the following table, enter the program egg take, egg

survival to eye-up and/or ponding, fry to fingerling survival, and fingerling to smolt

survival for the last 12 years, or for most recent years available. Also provide an

performance sta

y

ndards for incubation and rearing survival that the hatchery is operating 

under.

Year Egg Take 

GreenEyed 

Survival

(%) 

EyedPonding

Survival

(%)

Egg Survival 

Performance 

Standard 

Fry – 

Fingerling 

Survival

(%)

Rearing 

Survival

Performance 

Standard 

Fingerling – 

Smolt 

Survival (%)

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

Data Source 

109
110

Question 193. of the vaccines used at this facility 

V ine 

 [#1104] Provide a list 

acc Species 

Question 194. [#1107] Using the table below, provide biweekly or monthly growth 

inf ation , including length, weight, condition factor, 

growth weight, and if available, hepatosomatic index (liver weight/body weight) and body 

moisture content as an estim c u

orm (average program performance)

ate of body fat oncentration data collected d ring rearing. 

Rearing 

Period 

Length 

(m m)

Weight 

(fpp or 

gms) 

Condition 

Factor 

Growth 

Rate 

Hepatosomatic 

Index 

Body 

Moisture 

Content 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data Source 
111

 [#1108] Using the table below, indicate the food type used, daily 

(e.g. % B.W./day and lbs/gpm inflow, and 

ates of total food conversio iency durin rearing (average program 

Question 195.

application schedule, feeding rate range 

est

pe

im

rfor

n effic g 

mance).

Rearing 

Period 

Food Type Application 

Schedule (# 

feedings/day)

Feeding Rate 

Range 

(% B.W./day) 

Lbs. fed per 

gpm of 

inflow 

Food 

Conversion 

During Period 

 

 

 

Da

Question 196.

ta Source 

 [#1122] For existing programs, provide fish release number and size data 

for the past three fish generations, or approximately the past 12 years, if available. 

Release

year

Eggs/

Unfed 

Fry

Release 

Date Avg size

(fpp) Fry

Release 

Date Avg size

(fpp) Fingerling

Release 

Date Avg size 

(fpp) Yearling

Release 

Date Avg size

(fpp)

1991 

1992

1993

1994

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

Average 

Data Source 
Appendix D: Excerpts from APRE Database 

summary of the statistics used in this report. This only a sm o s c 

www.APRE.INFO

Table D-1 shows a all subset of the ver 200 question o

complete set of answers are contained in the APRE data base ( ) 

. Summary responses to a subset of the questions in the APRE data All Programs grated grams 

Table D-1 base Inte Pro 

Operational Questions # Yes Answers # Yes Answers Identify the program type (integrated or segregated) 106Has a final year of operation for this program been specified? 8 77 term fitness? Explain. Are representative samples of natural and hatcrespect to size, age, sex ratio, run and spawn ti

hery population components collected with

ming, and other traits important to long- 144 91 

Are sufficient broodstock collected to maintain an effective population size of 1000 fish pergeneration? (More than 500 successful spawners of each sex.) 104 60 Is more than 10% of the broodstock derived from wild fish each year? 49 47 

outside the watershed? Explain. 

Does the program avoid stock transfers and subsequent releases of eggs or fish from 108 82 species?Are fish released at sizes and life history stages similar to those of natural fish of the same 67 46 Are volitional releases during natural out-migration timing practiced? Explain 88 59 Are fish released in the same subbasin as rearing facility? 102 69 Can marked fish be detected using non-lethal means? 163 96 Are standards specified for in-culture performance of hatchery fish? 167 99 Has the carrying capacity of the subbasin beprogram in regards to determining the numb

en taken into consideration in sizing this 

er of fish released? 136 90 

Are 100% of the hatchery fish o c st shed from the naturalpopulations? 148 87 

marked s that they an be di ingui

Do you ep contr on of h ery n fish to natural

spawn

137 87 

have gu ing? idelines for acc table ibuti atch origi

Are guidelines for hatchery contri on to n al spa g me all affected naturally spawning populations? 111 76 

buti atur wnin t for

Is the purpose of the program to provide harvest? 151 83 Is the purpose of the program to contribute to conservation/ recovery? 85 75 Is the purpose of the program to contribute to research and/or education? 64 52 Is the program mitigation for hydro impacts? 159 93 Is the program mitigation for habitat loss? 123 75 Do you have a goal for spawning escapement composition (hatchery vs. natural) in the hatchery? 98 62 

112
113

y responses to a subset of the questions in the APRE data All Programs Integrated Programs 

Operational Questions # Yes Answers # Yes Answers Do you have a goal for spawning escapement composition (hatchery vs. natural) in the wild? 63 31 Do you have a goal for smolt-to-adult return survival? 76 54 Do you have goals for recruits per spawner (R/S)? 73 53 Wild fish make up less than percent of the broodstock for this program? 92 33 Are hatchery programming and operational decisions based on an adaptive management plan? 152 95 Are in-culture performance standards met? 160 96 Are standards specified for post-release performance of hatchery fish and their offspring? 133 82 Are post-release performance standards met? 76 38 

Are natural rearing conditions simulated for: 

reducing rearing density below agency or other guidelines? 45 36 rearing under natural water temperature? 62 43 actively simulating photoperiod? 45 28 providing a range of hydraulic characteristics? 8 4 subsurface feeding conditions? 5 2 predator avoidance training? 8 6 cover? 19 10 

does not apply/answer unknown/not yet answered 75 40 

Table D-1. Summar

base 
114

y responses to a subset of the questions in the APRE data All Programs Integrated Programs 

nal Questions # Yes Answers # Yes Answers 

Are the fish produced qualitatively similar to natural fish in:

size 37 26 morphology 134 86 behavior 67 46 growth rate 13 10 physiological status 122 81 health 135 87 other 16 9 

does not apply/answer unknown/not yet answered 18 4 

If the answe stion is undetermined, which of the following statements

r to the previous que

are true?

Is the program on-going with no planned termination? 140 72 Does the haexpected ly? 1 program meet goals t to continue indefinite t cannot be accomplished in any other manner and is 32 1 Is the pr wartificial 5 ogram expected to end production hen goals can be met by other means not requiring 29 2 

Will the p wgoals? 12 5 

rogram be terminated hen it is determined that the program will not meet its 

Table D ad r programs contribute e naturally spawning e

-2. How many an

the indicated p

population in th

rom

rcen

ir su

ou

ta

bb

s

ge

as

hat

to

in?

che

the

y

0-5% 5-30% >30% unk

All Programs 28 33 76 38

Integrated Programs 16 18 57 15

Segregated Programs 12 15 19 23

Table D-1. Summarbase Operatio
Appendix E. Province Reports 

A summary of findings by province is provided in electronic form on the enclosed CD. 

Attached to each province summary are the reports for all individual programs reviewed

within the province. The Province reports focus on the anadromous hatchery progra

Information about resident programs included in the APRE review are available on the 

APRE database: www.APRE.INFO

ms. 

 . 

115
Appendix F: Public and Agency Comments 

m whom comments were 

ceived.

 Comments on the Draft APRE Basin-Level Report (Document 2003-17) were 

received from various agencies and members of the public. The efforts of agency 

members and the public to respond to the call for comments on the draft report are very 

much appreciated. Indeed, the purpose of sending a document out in draft form for 

review by knowledgeable and interested persons is to receive comments in an effort to 

improve the final version. Table F-1 lists the persons fro

re

Table F-1: Participants in the Public Review

Name Affiliation_________________________________

Kevin Marshall Member of public 

Keith Hansen Member of public 

od Sando Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 

avid L. Ward American Fisheries Society, Oregon Chapter 

e Peone Colville Confederated Tribes 

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

Western Montana Electric Generating & Transmission 

Cooperative, Inc. 

Harry L. Brunsdon Member of public 

Bill M. Bakke Native Fish Society 

Norman Nelson Echo Film Productions 

Steve Pauley Member of public 

Sue Ireland Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Stephen D. Zimmerman Member of public 

George Nandor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Doug Fricke Washington Trollers Association 

Olney Patt, Jr. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

Terry A. Larson Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy 

(No signature) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of Interior 

Allan Vernon Minor Member of public 

D. Noble Member of public 

Lisa and

R

Dale Kelley Alaska Trollers Association 

Joel Kawahara Member of public 

D

Jo

Keith Kutchins 

William K. Drummond 

 The comments can be generally grouped into several categories: 1) comments 

outside the scope of the document, 2) comments about the context within which this 

document exists, 3) comments about the methodology and interpretation of data, 4) 

comments requesting inclusion of examples of hatchery “successes”, 5) comments about 

a perceived anti-hatchery bias, 6) questions about fulfillment of the Congressional 

request, and 7) corrections, clarifications, and updates. 

116
117

 The first two categories are related to one another: the scope and the context of the 

document. It was clear that many reviewers expected this document to “do more” than 

was intended. This document, as stated in the introduction, contains a presentation of an 

in-depth evaluation of over 200 salmonid hatchery programs within the U.S. portion of 

the Columbia River Basin. The document does not purport to cover non-salmonid 

species nor does it cover hatchery programs outside the United States. It does not pretend 

to contain exhaustive analyses of harvest, economic factors, or the effects of hatcheries 

on fish populations (although these subjects will need to be considered during future 

deliberations regarding individual hatchery programs.) It does not present detailed 

“reform recipes” for each hatchery program. It is not the report to Congress. It simply 

presents the methodology and interpretation of data received and draws general 

conclusions from those data. 

 This report cannot be viewed in isolation; rather, it is part of an on-going, deliberate 

effort to produce a plan for hatchery reform that will be cost-effective, logical, fair, and 

environmentally responsible. It will not “sit on a shelf gathering dust” as was feared by 

some reviewers. On the contrary, it has already been used to formulate an issues paper 

which is currently in public review. The issues paper will be used in two ways: it will 

form the basis of a report to Congress and it will be used to formulate an implementation 

approach to hatchery review and reform. Implementation will involve consideration of 

funding sources, continued structure and use of the data base, and periodic reviews of 

hatchery programs. In addition, the database produced by APRE will be a “living” 

document in that it will continue to be updated and used by managers and other interested 

persons into the future. Many of the comments received from reviewers, while not 

applicable to this document, will be helpful in defining both issues and implementation 

strategies. 

 The APRE was designed to produce the most information possible within certain 

budgetary and time constraints. Given those constraints, APRE had to rely upon data 

provided by the managers and operators of the hatchery programs, as well as existing 

data bases and published literature. It was believed that the managers and operators 

could provide the greatest amount of up-to-date information through workshops and 

questionnaires. The methodology was based on a similar effort which had been 

successfully conducted elsewhere. It was assumed, furthermore, that the managers and 

operators were the most knowledgeable about the purposes and goals of the fish stocks in 

the programs for which they are responsible. The managers and operators were not asked 

to make decisions or draw conclusions about the purposes and goals of the programs; 

they were simply asked to report their understanding of them. It was recognized that 

there would be errors in the process, but it was felt that, through the on-line review and 

editing capability, those errors would be detected and corrected over time—as indeed 

they have been. Some errors on individual programs may still exist; however, the 

purpose of the initial exercise was to grasp the “big picture” and this goal has been 

achieved. All of the conclusions reached by the APRE are still valid. The database 

established by APRE is in place and available for use by interested persons. It is 

expected that, over time, the data base will evolve and will become more accurate and 

useful. 
118

 As scientific and technical knowledge has advanced, some hatchery programs have 

instituted changes to make their operations more effective and less environmentally risky. 

These efforts are applauded by the Council. There was no conscious attempt to ignore 

the successes that have occurred and are continuing to occur. However, it was clear that, 

for whatever reason, these efforts are still in the minority within the basin. The ultimate 

goal of the Council’s effort, of which this report is a part, is to increase the benefits of all 

hatchery programs while reducing or eliminating risks. 

 Comments by some reviewers addressed a perceived anti-hatchery bias in the draft 

report. This was certainly not the intention of the Council and the draft has been 

reviewed to ensure that any wording that could be misinterpreted has been removed or 

changed. Reviewers should, however, understand that criticism of hatchery programs in 

an effort to recognize weaknesses and design improvements cannot be viewed as antihatchery bias. 

 Some reviewers did not understand that this document is not the report to Congress. 

That report is still forthcoming and will be based on the Basin-level report and the issues 

paper. 

 Finally, many reviewers submitted corrections, clarifications, and updated 

information. This information has been incorporated into the final version of the report. 

________________________________________ 

p:\kj\admin\projects\apre\041130_finalapre.doc