DRAFT

Basin-Level Report

 

 Document 2003-17

October 7, 2003
ii

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. The Council subsequently expanded 

the review to include hatcheries supported by non-federal funds as well.

Interest in artificial production 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 look at the success or failure of the programs has not 

been undertaken. The APRE partially addresses this deficiency by conducting an in-depth 

evaluation of 227 individual salmonid hatchery programs within the U.S. portion of the 

Columbia River Basin. The results of the review are expected to provide the 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 has changed to 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 4 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 of the 

program relative to other means of achieving similar conservation and harvest goals.
iii

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 505 fish stocks of which 245 were natural 

stocks, 115 were integrated1 stocks, and 145 were segregated2 hatchery stocks. 

The majority of stocks were found in the Lower Columbia province.

• Hatchery Operation: The majority of hatchery programs in the lower Columbia 

River 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, 41 percent used non-local broodstock and 63 percent transferred or 

released fish from outside the stream system. In contrast, 91 percent of integrated 

programs used broodstock derived from within the subbasin and 81 percent 

avoided transfer or release of fish from outside the subbasin.

• Distribution of Hatchery Releases: Hatchery managers reported planned releases 

of 235,690,000 juvenile fish of all species from hatchery programs in the U.S. 

portion of the Columbia River Basin. Approximately 88 percent or 207,734,500 

fish are planned releases of anadromous salmonids below the fish passage barriers 

at the Chief Joseph and Hells Canyon dams. The largest proportion (42 percent) 

occurs in the Lower Columbia Province, as a result of earlier attempts to provide 

fish for the ocean and lower river commercial fisheries.

• Goals and Purpose: Harvest remains the primary reason for hatchery programs in 

the Columbia River Basin. This is particularly the case in the lower river; the 

purpose of upper river programs appears more evenly divided between harvest 

and conservation.

• 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.

 

1

 An integrated program uses an open production cycle in which the hatchery population is combined with the 

natural population to form a single aggregate population.

2

 A segregated stock is intended to have minimal influence from and on surrounding natural stocks; 

interbreeding between hatchery and wild fish is minimized.
iv

• 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 on the number of recruits per 

spawner was collected for less than 5 percent of programs, smolt-to-adult survival 

figures were available for 35.6 percent of programs, escapement figures were collected 

for 20.7 percent of programs, and about 33 percent of programs had information on 

escapement.

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 

well-informed.

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:

ÿ Hatcheries are limited in what they can accomplish.

ÿ The social, economic, and ecological purposes upon which the current hatchery programs 

were established have changed and will continue to change.

ÿ Hatcheries will continue to play a part in recovery and management of fish in the Columbia 

River and elsewhere.

ÿ 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.
v

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................ II

LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................VII

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................. VIII

CONTRIBUTORS .................................................................... IX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................X

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................XI

GLOSSARY ..........................................................................XIII

Chapter I: Introduction .................................................... ..........1

I.A Purpose of APRE ..............................................................................................1

I.B Background........................................................................................................3

I.C Need for Review of Artificial Production........................................................5

I.D Scope of the APRE............................................................................................6

I.E APRE Process....................................................................................................7

I.F Organization of the APRE Report .....................................................................7

CHAPTER II: CONTEXT OF THE APRE ......................................13

II.A History and Social Context of Artificial Production......................................11

II.B Legal Aspects.................................................................................................13

II.C Economic Context of Hatcheries...................................................................17

Commercial Value .............................................................................................17

Recreational Value ............................................................................................19

Existence Value .................................................................................................19

II.D Harvest ...........................................................................................................20

Columbia River Commercial Harvest History..................................................20

Fisheries Management .......................................................................................20

Pacific Salmon Commission..............................................................................21

Pacific Fisheries Management Council ............................................................21

Columbia River Compact ..................................................................................21

U.S. v Oregon ....................................................................................................21

Fisheries.............................................................................................................22

Impacts of Hatcheries on Fisheries....................................................................24
vi

II.E Regulatory Context for Artificial Production.................................................27

Council Guidance ..............................................................................................27

NOAA Fisheries Guidance ................................................................................29

II.F Biological Context..........................................................................................31

Environmental context.......................................................................................31

Ecological context .............................................................................................31

Genetic Aspects.................................................................................................35

Chapter III. Methods ..............................................................................38

III.A Premises........................................................................................................38

III.B Approach.......................................................................................................39

Step 1. Information gathering...........................................................................39

Step 2. Evaluation.............................................................................................40

Step 3. Reporting and Accountability ..............................................................41

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS .......................................................................43

IV.A Fish Stocks ...................................................................................................43

IV.B. Hatchery operations.....................................................................................45

Type of operation. .............................................................................................45

Evaluation of Hatchery Practices. .....................................................................49

IV.C. Distribution of Hatchery Releases...............................................................50

IV.D. Goals and purpose .......................................................................................52

IV.E. Funding........................................................................................................53

IV.F Monitoring and Evaluation...........................................................................55

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................56

Hatchery reform principles....................................................................................56

REFERENCES .........................................................................................65

APPENDICES ..........................................................................................69

Appendix A. Scientific Framework

Appendix B. APRE Questionnaire, Form 1

Appendix C. APRE Questionnaire, Form 2

Appendix D. Excerpts from APRE Database

Appendix E. Province Reports
vii

List of Tables

Page No.

Table II-1: Relationships among artificial production programs and 14

the regulatory framework

Table II-2: Relationships relationships between habitat condition and 28

artificial production strategies specified in the Council’s

2000 Fish and Wildlife 

Table III-1: Example of APRE web-based evaluation report for a 42

hatchery program (Cowlitz Spring Chinook)

Table IV-1: Number and production origin for anadromous salmonids, 43

resident salmonids, and non-salmonid fish stocks identified

by fishery managers in the U.S. portion of the Columbia

River Basin

Table IV-2: Monitoring and evaluation statistics reported for anadromous 55

fish hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin
viii

List of Figures

Page No.

Figure I-1: Columbia River Basin 2

Figure I-2: Hatcheries with in the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin 3

Figure I-3: Provinces and subbasins within the U.S. portion of the Columbia 9

River Basin

Figure II-1: Aggregate harvest of Pacific salmon, 1950-2000 17

Figure II-2: World salmon aquaculture production and average price, 1984-2001 18

Figure II-3: Statistical zones in the Columbia River 23

Figure II-4: Coho fishery exploitation rates 26

Figure II-5: Spring Chinook fishery exploitation rates 26

Figure III-1: APRE process for evaluation of information provided on harvest 40

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

Figure IV-1: Distribution of fish stocks identified by fishery managers 44

within the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin

Figure IV -2: Distribution of planned releases of anadromous salmonids 48

by cultural practice (integrated versus segregated), by species and

ecological province; A) planned releases in segregated programs, 

B) planned releases in integrated programs

Figure IV-3: Distribution of planned hatchery releases by species across provinces 51

Figure IV-4: Distribution of purpose among artificial production programs 52

in the Columbia River Basin 

Figure IV-5: Funding and support for anadromous fish production programs 54

in the Columbia River Basin
ix

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 Guidance 

Suzumoto, Bruce NWPCC Project Manager
x

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.

(to be added later)
xi

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

HGM Hatchery and Genetic Management Programs

HSRG Hatchery Scientific Review Group

IHOT Integrated Hatchery Oversight 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
xii

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 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
xiii

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
1

Chapter I: Introduction

I.A Purpose of APRE

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. To make the review more 

comprehensive, the Council expanded the Congressional directive to include hatcheries 

supported by non-federal funds.

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’s Fish and 

Wildlife Program (Northwest Power Planning Council 2000) directs 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 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 extensively in the Pacific Northwest to enhance fish populations for 

well over 100 years (Bottom 1997). Despite this long and extensive 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 227 

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

 

1

 U.S. Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill, 1998, Report 105-44.
2

Figure I-1: Columbia River Basin
3

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

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

tribal management agencies.

I.B Background 

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.
4

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 the Council’s 

policy on the 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 also 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.F), as the means to 

develop the purpose for 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

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 
5

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 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). The HGMPs will establish sets of individual hatchery operations to minimize 

impacts on ESA-listed populations. 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.

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 

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.C 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 (Section II.A). Hatcheries were initially used as a means to avoid the need 

for restrictive harvest regulations that were deemed politically infeasible. 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 
6

have allowed continuation of commercial and sport harvest of salmon and trout in the face of 

massive and 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 conc luded 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 indicating a need to realign hatchery purposes with societal needs. These 

considerations dictate the need for a thorough review of the application 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 longterm, strategic plans for fisheries management in the Columbia River Basin.

I.D 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 
7

(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.E 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 

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.F Organization of the APRE Report

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 
8

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.G 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, 

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 

termed a stock. Because of the management implications in this definition, fish are often 

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

of genetic affinity. A population may include both hatchery and natural components 
9

Figure I-3: Provinces and Subbasins within the U.S. portion of the 

Columbia River Basin

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)

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

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

populations occupying distinct habitat patches that are genetically connected by patterns of 

migration and straying (Hanski and Simberloff 1997)

Two 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 

single stock or population. Integrated programs minimize the divergence of the hatchery 

population from its natural counterpart. 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-
10

hatchery population from the original natural population. Integrated programs are often 

referred to under the general heading of 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 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 consists 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.
11

Chapter II: Context of the APRE

Hatcheries have been used as tools to achieve societal objectives. These objectives evolve 

through time in response to changes in cultural and legal priorities, reordering of social mores, 

and improved scientific knowledge. Therefore, in order to effectively manage hatcheries in the 

future, it is necessary to understand hatcheries in the context in which they were conceived 

which may be quite different from the context in which they currently exist.

II.A History and Social Context of Artificial Production

Artificial propagation of Pacific salmon began in 1875 with construction of the McCloud River 

Hatchery in California. Two years later, the first hatchery in the Columbia River Basin was built 

on the Clackamas River. This event marked the beginning of an approach to salmon management 

in the Columbia River Basin that has persisted to the present (Lichatowich 1999).

In 1875, the salmon canning industry in the Columbia River Basin was rapidly becoming an 

important part of the regional economy. Business and political leaders were worried about 

maintaining a supply of salmon; they were well aware of the earlier collapse of the Atlantic 

salmon fishery. Spencer Baird, the newly appointed head of the U.S. Commission on Fish and 

Fisheries correctly identified the threats to the supply of salmon: habitat change, excessive

harvest, and dams or other barriers to migration (Baird 1875). However, he concluded that 

effective regulations could not be enacted or enforced to avoid or reduce these threats, so he 

offered an alternative: fish culture. The alternative was accepted with enthusiasm, because it 

was perceived that habitat alterations and harvests could continue with few regulations or 

restraints.

Baird’s conclusion, however, was offered in the absence of supporting scientific 

information. The McCloud River hatchery and the fledging Columbia River hatchery program 

were begun with no scientific studies indicating their possible success. This did not deter 

hatchery enthusiasts who embraced the concept as being in keeping with two prevailing 19th

century ideologies toward exploitation of natural resources. The first was that there should be 

free access to natural resources. Therefore, if hatcheries produced salmon for commercial 

harvest, that harvest could continue unhindered by concern about the effects of overfishing, 

construction of dams, or other development. The second ideology was the belief that nature 

must be controlled and manipulated for human benefit. Ancillary to this was the belief that 

humans could always improve on natural processes (Bottom 1997). 

Both attitudes excluded the idea of failure. As stated in Lichatowich (1999), technology 

derived from ideology is never allowed to fail. As a result, signs of failure are overlooked until 

problems can no longer be ignored. It appears that this was the case with hatchery evaluation as 

hatcheries were constructed and operated for decades with little or no scrutiny.

Artificial propagation of salmonids in the Columbia River Basin from 1875 to the present 

can be divided into three phases based on hatchery purpose and primary culture technique. 

From the late 19th century to the 1930s, the major purpose of hatcheries was to support 

commercial harvests which had been reduced by high harvest rates and habitat loss. The 

primary culture technique was to release unfed fish fry. By the 1930s and continuing to the 

1970s, the purpose shifted to mitigation for habitat loss caused by development and operation of 

hydroelectric dams. Large production hatcheries were segregated from natural populations and 
12

fish were released at the smolt stage. Since the 1970s, the role of hatcheries has shifted to 

conservation of natural populations. Artificially propagated salmon and trout are provided for 

recreational and tribal use and, to a lesser degree, commercial harvest. Culture techniques have 

been expanded to supplement wild fish populations with hatchery fish. Captive programs to 

conserve genetic resources have also been instituted (Section II.F). 

In the first phase of hatchery development, proponents of salmon culture were slow to 

recognize the need to determine if hatcheries were meeting their goals. As early as 1903, it was 

recognized that fish culturists lacked scientific information about salmon biology, which was 

needed for effective salmon propagation (Chamberlin 1903). However, it was not felt that this 

necessarily reduced the chance of success. Chamberlin (1903) stated that “Until the salmon 

industry or the people choose to pay for careful, expensive investigation, propagation must be 

taken on faith.” 

In 1922, the first study to determine if hatcheries had contributed to the annual returns of 

salmon was conducted. Rich (1922) performed a statistical analysis of hatchery releases and 

adult returns and concluded that he could find no evidence that hatcheries had increased the 

abundance of adult salmon. 

The second phase of hatchery development in the Columbia River began in 1933 with 

construction of the Rock Island Dam, the first dam built in the mainstem Columbia. The U.S. 

Congress authorized the Bonneville Dam that same year; two years later, Grand Coulee was 

given Congressional approval. The problem of getting adult salmon over high mainstem dams 

had not been completely solved, leading to concern over the fate of upriver salmon stocks. 

Artificial propagation was proposed as a solution to impassable dams and as mitigation for lost 

habitat above the dams. This idea, however, had not yet been proven. 

The primary goal of hatchery programs during the second phase was to support the 

commercial salmon fisheries in the lower Columbia River and in the ocean off Oregon and 

Washington. It made little sense, therefore, to fisheries managers to locate hatcheries in the 

upper part of the Columbia River Basin where fish would have to contend with passage 

problems at mainstem hydroelectric projects. In order to mitigate for lost upriver fish habitat, 

hatcheries in this period were built around and below Bonneville Dam. This deprived Indian 

tribes and other upriver fishing interests of compensation for habitat loss and eventually led to 

litigation by the treaty tribes (Sections II.B).

During the second phase of ha tchery development, a few experiments of limited scope were 

carried out (summarized in Brannon et al.1999). The early studies, which generally reported 

favorable results, mainly focused on determining the number of returning adult salmon of 

hatchery origin and/or their contribution to the fisheries. Whether or not hatcheries were 

meeting their goals to maintain historical abundance or to mitigate for specific lost habitats was 

not scrutinized. In addition, the studies did not explore the question of whether the presence of 

hatcheries on a system was detrimental to natural production of fish. Indeed, the idea of the 

intrinsic and environmental value of natural fish was not considered.

Hatcheries began using improved diets and better disease treatments during the late 1950s. 

These, coupled with favorable ocean conditions, resulted in greatly increased production of 

adult salmon. During the 1960s, increasing numbers of fish were released from programs in the 

Columbia River and elsewhere with the expectation of nearly boundless harvest. The dramatic 
13

decline of salmon abundance in the Pacific Northwest in the early 1970s (Pearcy 1992) 

dispelled this idea and led to a re-examination of the purpose of hatcheries, ushering in a new 

phase in hatchery development.

The third (and present) phase of hatchery development in the Columbia River Basin began 

in the late 1970s and has been marked by a new valuation of natural resources resulting from 

the growth of the environmental ethic in the United States. It has also been marked by a 

realization that, despite massive efforts to bolster salmonid populations through artificial 

production, salmon and steelhead abundance continued to decline. This led to a new 

questioning of the role of hatcheries and an effort to give artificial propagation a scientific 

foundation. In addition, the Endangered Species Act highlighted the decline of salmonid 

populations as an issue of national concern. As a result, hatcheries in the Basin are assuming a 

new role in recovery and conservation of imperiled stocks. Many newer hatcheries are 

augmenting depleted salmon and steelhead populations with artificially propagated fish while 

other new hatcheries are employing captive brood technology to rebuild depleted populations. 

Conservation, rather than harvest, is the primary goal of these new hatcheries, although harvest 

most likely will regain importance if the hatcheries prove successful. The newer hatchery 

programs, unlike their predecessors, are being subjected to a higher level of scrutiny.

The fisheries of today’s Columbia River Basin are products of management decisions over the 

past 127 years. Hatcheries have been slow to respond to changes in societal values and to 

scientific insights. Inevitably, they are imperfect solutions to past problems. Yet hatcheries are 

likely to be part of any fisheries management plan for the Columbia River Basin. In the mainstem 

and in many subbasins, salmonid habitat has been lost and is not likely to be recovered under any 

feasible alternative. Populations of salmonids have been negatively affected in a number of ways. 

In addition, the federal government has treaty obligations to Indian tribes to provide harvest 

opportunities in areas where fisheries have been diminished or lost to development activities. In 

these cases, hatcheries may provide the only mitigation option.

II.B Legal Aspects

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 hatcheries in 

the Columbia River Basin. 

Since the beginning of the dam construction era in the Columbia River in the 1930s, 

artificial production in the Columbia River Basin has been tied primarily to mitigation for 

habitat loss, especially due to the construction of the hydropower system. Large portions of the 

Columbia River were eliminated from salmon and steelhead production by Grand Coulee 

(mainstem Columbia River) and Hells Canyon (mainstem Snake River) dams. Other dams have 

led to the loss of nearly all 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 order to mitigate for these habitat losses and 

maintain fish abundance, numerous hatchery programs have been developed.
14

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

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

John Day Dam Mitigation Agreement between COE, 

Oregon and Washington

federal dam 

mitigation

Mitigation provided at 

Mitchell Act Facilities

Willamette River Basin Dams 

Mitigation

River and Harbor Flood 

Control Act of May 17, 1950

federal dam 

mitigation

Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

Cle Elum, Umatilla, 

Northeast Oregon, Walla 

Walla River, Nez Perce 

Tribal artificial production 

programs

Pacific Northwest Electric 

Power Planning and 

Conservation Act of 1980

Columbia 

River Basin 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Program

Various tribes, states 

and federal agencies

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

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 

Project Mitigation

FERC license FERC license Tacoma Public 

Utilities

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

framework
15

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 populations. 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 now funded by 

BPA directly and operates 27 hatchery facilities in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Private firms provide mitigation hatcheries as well. Idaho Power Company funds the 

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

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

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 in the mid-20th century 

when the primary goal was to support the commercial fishing industry off Oregon, Washington 

and in the lower Columbia River. Therefore, it made little sense to mid-20th century hatchery 

planners to locate hatcheries 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 loss of upriver fish habitat were constructed downstream of Bonneville Dam or 

in other areas away 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 economic purposes. 

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

the impassible dams for whom salmon were completely denied and who received no benefit 

from downriver mitigation hatcheries. The four Treaty Tribes below the impassible dams 

(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 developed 

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 is on-going since 1980; however, such 

stock transfers are now considered a questionable practice on biological grounds and they 

remain an imperfect solution to an important socia l and legal issue. 
16

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

habitat loss and management decisions led to court decisions that have radically changed 

fishery 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 over 

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 hydroelectric projects, agriculture, and other 

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

fisheries. The tribes have pursued hatchery programs to support their treaty rights and 

subsistence, ceremonial, and commercial harvests. Several tribally managed hatchery programs 

have been developed above Bonneville Dam under the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program as 

hydropower mitigation. The tribes have become leaders in the development of hatchery 

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

ecological processes. 

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 

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 population 

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 or endangered. An 

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 managers 

must consult annually with NOAA Fisheries to assure fishers are regulated to meet “nojeopardy” standards established for ESA-listed species. NOAA Fisheries issues incidental take 

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

requirements.

Current management of artificial production is substantially impacted by the legal 

obligations under the Endangered Species Act. As discussed Section II.F, hatcheries can have 

negative effects on wild fish populations. In response to the ESA, the potential impact of 

hatcheries on listed populations must be evaluated through HGMPs developed for each hatchery 

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

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

community. While the statutes and agreements that fund these programs allow artificial 

production for this purpose, the ESA is not clear under what circumstances it is appropriate. 

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

recovery of listed populations. In addition, some listed populations have been captured and put 

into hatcheries in order to boost survival and avoid potential extirpation. 
17

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 and, 

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

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

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

the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

II.C Economic Context of Hatcheries

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 

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

economics of commercial fishing are changing. Understanding the role of hatcheries in a 

changing economy requires understanding the economic basis of fisheries.

Commercial Value

For most of the 20th century, salmon produced from the Columbia River supported a vibrant 

ocean fishing industry that extended from Northern California to southeast Alaska. However, 

over the past two decades, the commercial salmon fishery has been greatly affected by the 

burgeoning supply of fresh salmon from the salmon farming industry. As shown in Figure II-1, 

the aggregate harvest of Pacific salmon remained at relative ly high levels (mainly in Alaska), 

while world farmed production grew to exceed the total fishery harvest. 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

1954195919641969197419791984198919941999

Year

metric tons

Farmed

Sockeye

Pink

Coho

Chum

Chinook

Figure II-1: Aggregate harvest of Pacific salmon, 1950-2000
18

One major consequence of this development was a substantial drop in the price paid to 

fishers for salmon. This drop in price affected both farmed salmon and harvests of wild salmon 

and occurred as a result of the rapid technological advances in salmon farming that fostered 

lower production costs and effective marketing techniques. The average market value of farmed 

salmon dropped from roughly $6,000/metric ton to less than $3,000/metric ton between 1987 

and 2001 (Figure II-2). This worldwide trend in price is the major cause of reduced earnings 

and the resulting economic crisis for Columbia River, West Coast, and Alaskan fishing 

communities. 

Harvests in the ocean fishery north of Cape Falcon, Oregon, (the ocean area in which 

Columbia River fish are most frequently caught) fluctuated widely around a declining trend 

until an upturn in catch during the last two years. Between 1987 and 2002, the average price of 

salmon to the fisherman (coho and Chinook combined) dropped from roughly $5.00 per pound 

to just over $1.00 per pound (recent information from the 2003 fishery indicates that the price 

has further declined to less than $1.00 per pound). Similarly, the in-river gillnet commercial 

salmon fishery has suffered a substantial decline in total volume of harvests and price since the 

mid-1980s; current gillnetted coho salmon return about $0.50 per lb to fishermen. The reduced 

harvests during the mid-1990s did not bring a positive price response because the Pacific coast 

salmon are sold into an internationally supplied market that is affected by the increasingly 

important salmon aquaculture industry.

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Year

Metric Tons

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$ US per Metric Ton 

Total Atlantic Salmon

Total Non-Atlantic Salmon

Aver. Market Price

Figure II-2: World salmon aquaculture production and average 

price, 1984-2001. Source: FAO FishStats database, July 2003
19

Rough estimates of the total value of the commercial fisheries in the lower Columbia and 

north of Cape Falcon areas are difficult to obtain. However, the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council has estimated an ex-vessel value for 2002 for the fishery north of Cape Falcon of 

$1,228,000. A commercial value of the fishery in the lower Columbia River non-Indian fishery 

for 2000 was $1,438,000 while the average for 1996-2000 was $641,730. The average over 20 

years (1981-2000) was $4,884,020. All of these figures are stated in inflation adjusted 2002 

dollars. 

The trends in commercial fishing suggest that harvests of Pacific salmon from the Columbia 

River or ocean areas will make declining future contributions to the value of seafood supply and 

to local incomes. Further, any enhancement in run sizes for commercial harvests, whether due 

to hatchery operations or other factors, will make relatively small contributions to the economic 

value of seafood supply.

Recreational Value

The recreational fishery supported by Columbia River salmon includes the ocean fishery 

north of Cape Falcon, the estuary and lower river fishery, and various fisheries farther upstream 

and in tributaries. The ocean and lower river fisheries have been highly variable, both in terms 

of catch and in level of participation (as measured by annual angler trips taken). The ocean 

recreational catch averaged 137,000 fish (coho plus Chinook) during 1986-2002. The catch 

varied between 150,000 and 200,000 in the late 1980s and early 1990s, dropping to zero in 

1994 then recovering to a respectable 232,000 in 2001. The lower river and estuary fishery had 

an average annual catch of 142,000 fish during 1981-2000. Like the ocean fishery, the river 

fishery catch was relatively high in the late 1980s and early 1990s, dropped to a record low in 

1994, and recovered to about half of the earlier high levels in 2000. Recreational catch data for 

the river has not been released yet for 2001 and 2002. 

Economists occasionally conduct economic surveys of recreational salmon fishers to 

determine the net value of recreational fishing, i.e., the value to anglers of fishing trips minus 

the cost of taking those trips. The most relevant study for Columbia River salmon fishing was 

conducted by Olsen, Richards, and Scott in 1991. In that study, the authors determined that the 

average net value per fishing trip in 1989 was $111.46, or $147.63 in 2002 dollars, in the 

Columbia River Basin, and $89.47 ($118.50 in 2002 dollars) in the Oregon-Washington coastal 

fishery. While these values will undoubtedly vary over time (especially as catch rate varies), 

they can be used to roughly gauge the value of the recreational fishery by multiplying angler 

days by this estimated average value. This procedure yields an average annual value of $11 

million for the ocean recreational salmon fishery north of Cape Falcon (using data for 1986-

2002) and an annual value of $27.3 million for the lower river/estuary recreational fishery 

(using recorded trips for 1981-2000). 

Existence Value

Beyond economic values associated with recreational and commercial fishing, salmon are 

valued more broadly for their less tangible, but no less important, “existence values.” Existence 

value is reckoned as the amount that people would be willing to pay to assure the existence of a 

fish stock, or to pay for a specified increase in the fish stock. For example, Olsen, Richards, and 

Scott (1991) found that people who claimed no intention to catch or eat salmon from the 
20

Columbia River were still willing to pay an average $26.52 per year per household ($35.12 in 

2002 dollars) to obtain a doubling of the salmon run size. They estimated a total existence value 

to a doubling of salmon production of $70.2 million/year. Existence values apply to everyone 

who values the fish run, as contrasted with user values which accrue only to those catching fish 

in competition with others. 

II.D Harvest

Until relatively recently, the primary goal of fisheries management in the Columbia River 

was to support and manage commercial harvest in the river and in ocean areas off Oregon and 

Washington. The existing Columbia River hatchery system was built largely to maintain 

commercial harvest in the face of widespread degradation and loss of freshwater habitat 

(Section II.A). In recent years, harvest has been increasingly constrained by conservation goals 

and a changing harvest economy. This section discusses the current harvest management goals 

and structure and their relationship to the Columbia River hatchery system.

Columbia River Commercial Harvest History 

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

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 commercial 

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 steelhead have 

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

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 freshwater, 

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

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

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

recreational harvest of salmon has generally been reduced as a result of international treaties, 

fisheries conservation acts, regional conservation goals, and state and tribal management 

agreements.

Fisheries Management 

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

America. Because they cross national and state boundaries, their management is governed by a 

number of organizations. All fisheries of the Columbia River are established within the 

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

Management Plan (CRFMP), the Endangered Species Act, management agreements negotiated 

between the parties to U.S. v Oregon, and state fishery regulatory processes. The ESA was 

discussed in Section II.B; other significant treaties and agreements are described below.
21

 Pacific Salmon Commission

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

States and Canada. After many years of negotiation, the Pacific Salmon Treaty was signed in 

1985. The PST set long-term goals for salmon 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 that country. 

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 ocean fisheries off the coasts of 

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

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 management goals.

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 seasons and 

regulations for treaty and non-treaty harvest within the Columbia River.

U.S. v Oregon

The U.S. District Court ruled in 1968 that, under existing treaties, Columbia River treaty 

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

rulings interpreted the tribes’ equitable share to represent half the U.S. harvest 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 Court 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 

fisheries. In order to achieve the goals of the CRFMP, the Parties intend to use habitat 

protection authorities, enhancement efforts, artificial production techniques, and harvest 

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

of benefits in perpetuity.”
22

Fisheries

Lower Columbia River salmonids are harvested in commercial and sport fisheries along the 

West Coast of the United States and Canada. Fisheries managers have divided these fisheries 

into the following: Canada/Alaska Pacific Ocean, Washington/Oregon/California Pacific 

Ocean, Lower Columbia River commercial harvest, Lower Columbia River recreational 

harvest, Columbia River Treaty Indian tribal fisheries, and tributary fisheries.

Canada/Alaska Pacific Ocean

Many fisheries in Canada and Southeast Alaska harvest far-north migrating Chinook stocks 

from the lower Columbia River Basin. Some Columbia River coho salmon are also harvested in 

Canadian fisheries. Canadian marine fisheries include commercial troll and net fisheries as well 

as recreational sport fisheries in northern British Columbia, Central British Columbia, West 

Coast of Vancouver Island, Strait of Georgia, and Strait of Juan de Fuca. In southeast Alaska, 

US/Canada Treaty Chinook marine fisheries include commercial troll and net fisheries as well 

as recreational sport fisheries. In recent years, Chinook harvest in terminal fisheries and harvest 

of Alaska hatchery production have increased, although these harvests are not subject to PST 

limitations.

Washington/Oregon/California Pacific Ocean

Numerous treaty Indian and non-Indian commercial troll and recreational marine fisheries 

exist along the West Coast. The U.S. Pacific Ocean fisheries are managed by the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council. Annual regulations recommended by the PFMC are reviewed and signed 

into law by the Secretary of Commerce.

Lower Columbia River Commercial

Lower Columbia River non-Indian commercial fisheries occur below Bonneville Dam in the 

mainstem (statistical Zones 1-5) or in select off-channel fishing areas (Figure II-3) In 1957, 

joint action by Oregon and Washington closed Zone 6 (Bonneville Dam to McNary Dam) to 

non-Indian commercial fishing.
23

Zone 6 Treaty Indian Fishery

Zones 1-5 Drift Gillnet Fishery

140 miles of river open to commercial fishing

140 miles of river open to commercial fishing 1

2

3

4 5

COLUMBIA RIVER

Portland

Astoria

RM 18

RM 53

RM 87

RM 129

RM 146 RM 192

RM 216 RM 292

Bonneville 

 Dam The Dalles

 Dam

John Day

 Dam

McNary

Dam

U

m a t i l l

a R.

De schu te s R.

J o h nDa y R.

P

a

c i f i c

O

c

e

a

n

Washington

Oregon

Cowli t z

Ka l

a ma

L e w i s

Wind

Klickitat

Figure II-3: Statistical Zones in the Columbia River (RM=River Mile)

The number of seasons and fishing days allowed for the commercial mainstem fishery has 

declined dramatically since 1938. Initially, fishing seasons were closed only in March and April 

and from August 25 to September 10. There has been no non-Indian summer fishing season 

since 1964 and negligible spring harvests since 1977. Before 1943, over 270 fishing days were 

allowed annually; since 1977, the total number of annual fishing days allowed on average was 

38, and in the 1990s, 29 average annual fishing days were allowed. In the late 1950s, nonIndian commercial harvest comprised almost 100 percent of the Columbia River commercial 

fisheries landings; the percentage steadily declined to about 25 percent in 1995 and increased 

back to about 50 percent in 1999.

Lower Columbia River Recreational

Before 1975, recreational fisheries in the lower Columbia mainstem primarily focused on 

salmon and steelhead. From 1975 to 1983, fishery closures for spring Chinook and summer 

steelhead severely reduced salmonid angling opportunities. From 1984 to 1993, improved 

upriver summer steelhead, upriver fall Chinook, and lower river spring Chinook runs provided 

increased angling opportunities. However, poor returns in the mid- to late 1990s again limited 

recreational salmon fishing opportunities. Since 2001, improved spring Chinook runs and 

selective fishery implementation have increased angler effort by approximately 100,000 trips, 

for a total of about 250,000 angler trips per year. Lower Columbia sturgeon angler effort has 

ranged from approximately 140,000 to 200,000 trips per year since 1986.
24

Columbia River Treaty Indian

Treaty Indian harvest includes commercial, ceremonial, and subsistence fisheries. As stated 

above, treaty Indian tribes can harvest up to half the total harvest of upper Columbia River fish. 

The four treaty Indian tribes maintain a set net fishery above Bonneville Dam (statistical Zone 

6). The tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries are of highest priority and generally occur 

before tribal commercial fishing. The Columbia River treaty tribes regulate treaty Indian 

ceremonial and subsistence fisheries in Zone 6. 

Despite the treaties and the U.S. v Oregon decision, tribal harvest opportunity in the 

Columbia River has remained low due to conservation concerns for targeted fish. Since 1968, 

when management began under the U.S. v Oregon decision, tribal fishing opportunity peaked at 

120 days in 1976, but has averaged about 60 days since 1990 (WDFW-ODFW 2002). The 

tribal commercial fishery targets fall Chinook, while spring Chinook are the main focus of the 

ceremonial and subsistence fishery. In 2003, increased returns allowed opening of the first 

tribal summer Chinook fishery since 1973.

Impacts of Hatcheries on Fisheries

The Columbia River hatchery system was initiated in the late 19th century to support 

commercial harvest (Section II.A). However, through the 1950s, wild fish remained the 

primary harvest target. The 1960s saw a rapid expansion of the hatchery system due to 

improvements in hatchery technology and declines in fish abundance. During much of the 

latter part of the 20th century, Columbia River hatchery programs supported intense commercial 

and sport fisheries in the ocean and in the river.

Although hatcheries can probably be credited with allowing continuation of commercial 

fisheries despite widespread habitat loss in the Columbia River, the resulting harvest pressures 

added to the declines in wild fish abundance (Lichatowich 1999). Hatchery fish stocks, because 

of their high juvenile survival and large biological capacity, can be harvested at rates far beyond 

what is sustainable by natural stocks. The increased abundance resulting from the expansion of 

the hatchery system in the 1960s encouraged extremely high harvest rates (Figures II-4 and II-5).

Until recently, wild and hatchery fish were intermingled and not differentiated in mixed 

stock ocean and river fisheries. As a result, wild populations were subjected to the same high 

harvest rates as hatchery fish, resulting in further declines in natural populations (Brannon et al. 

1999). For example, coho production from Columbia River hatcheries expanded rapidly in the 

late 1950s, continuing to about 1970. In response to the increased abundance, harvest in the 

ocean and in the Columbia River commercial fisheries also expanded. As a consequence, 

exploitation rates on Columbia River coho exceeded 90 percent during the 1970s and there were 

years between 1970 and 1983 when harvest rates allowed only 10 percent to 20 percent of adult 

coho to escape the fisheries (Cramer, Maule, and Chapman 1991). The result, along with the 

loss of habitat, was the near extirpation of wild coho in the lower Columbia River (Johnson et 

al. 1991).

In recent years, declines in natural populations (leading, in some cases, to populations being 

listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act) have resulted in sharp 

curtailment of harvest. These concerns have prompted fishery managers to develop techniques 

to separate harvest impacts on hatchery and natural populations. Techniques include clipping 
25

the adipose fin of hatchery fish in the Columbia River. This allows the release of harvested 

non-clipped wild fish. In addition, time and area restrictions have been instituted to allow 

targeting hatchery rather than wild fish. The result is that recent exploitation rates on wild fish 

have been reduced while allowing harvest of hatchery stocks. 

Fisheries and hatcheries can also alter fish behavior and morphology. Fisheries may be 

selective for a particular timing or segment of the run, depending on management practices. For 

example, a fishery may disproportionately harvest the early portion of a run because of marketor industry-driven needs. Because run timing is heritable, the fishery removes this early run 

timing trait from the population. Over time, the effect is an altered run timing of the population. 

In the Columbia River, hatchery coho-targeted fisheries, in conjunction with hatchery practices, 

have altered run timing of lower Columbia River coho (Cramer and Cramer 1994). Hatchery 

coho brood stock is often obtained from the early part of the run, which generally results in 

early run timing for hatchery adults. Effort in fisheries targeting hatchery fish is concentrated 

during the time of hatchery fish abundance. Consequently, harvest of wild fish with the early 

run trait also occurs, thereby reducing this early run trait from the spawning population and 

altering run timing of the wild stock.
26

Figure II-4: Coho fishery exploitation rates

Figure II-5: Spring Chinook Fishery exploitation rates

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Hatchery

Wild

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Hatchery

Wild
27

II.E Regulatory Context for Artificial Production

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 

(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 the Columbia River Basin. The earliest 

versions of the Council’s program were aimed at construction of hatcheries primarily to support 

commercial harvest by treaty Indian fishers. By this time, the region had moved away from 

large facilities that segregated the hatchery from the wild populations toward more integrated 

programs (Section II.A). Subsequent versions of the Council’s program show the development 

of supplementation (integrated programs), use of artificial production to conserve depleted 

natural populations, and an increasing focus on restoration of aquatic habitat.

The latest edition of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program (Northwest Power Planning 

Council 2000) is a departure from the previous programs and reflects the region’s concerns 

about declining wild fish populations, negative effects on habitats, and obligations to restore 

fish populations listed under the Endangered Species Act. The 2000 Program lays out a 

comprehensive, ecologically based framework for fish and wildlife restoration and 

management. Development of specific measures is left to subbasin planning. The Council’s 

framework includes an overall vision for the program as well as generalized biological 

objectives. It also describes the Council’s assumptions, guidelines, and policies for restoration 

strategies including the use of artificial production. 

Artificial Production in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program

The Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program moves away from large segregated 

production hatcheries toward integration of artificial production and habitat restoration. For 

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 biological 

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. The Council did, however, 

recognize that, where habitat has been permanently eliminated (for example, as a result of 
28

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

alternative to replace lost capacity and productivity.

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 

appropriate subbasin plan.

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

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

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.

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

Biological 

potential of 

target 

species

Habitat 

strategy

Possible artificial 

production strategy

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
29

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

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

refuges for wild production. As the condition of the habitat declines, the use of 

supplementation (integrated hatchery programs) increases, although it always remains within 

the context of habitat restoration. Finally, in instances where habitat has been completely 

eliminated, a hatchery could be proposed to partially mitigate for lost habitat. In keeping with 

other principles and goals in the Council’s program, however, the replacement hatchery would 

have to operate quite differently from past hatcheries and must ensure minimal impacts on 

natural populations or other resource goals.

NOAA Fisheries Guidance

In 1990, as a result of widespread declines in the abundance of Pacific salmon and 

steelhead, NOAA Fisheries began a status review of all West Coast salmon and steelhead 

populations pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Fisheries 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 listed 

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

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

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

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 Endangered Species 

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 operations do affect 

listed species and an incidental take is possible, the operations must be assessed and authorized 

via an ESA Section 7 consultation for federal facilities or an ESA Section 10 Incidental Take 

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 affecting 

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 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 
30

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

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

• 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 limitation on the take prohibition to accommodate a resource 

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 Fisheries 

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 steelhead 

(NOAA 2000b). These tribal plans can also include hatchery programs. 

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 Fisheries’ 

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’s 

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

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

template was developed in concert with Council efforts to improve the cost-effectiveness of 

hatchery programs and improve long-term fisheries planning in subbasins throughout the 

Columbia River Basin. NOAA Fisheries and the Council were looking for a single 

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

Program processes for hatchery review and reform. 
31

II.F Biological Context

Environmental context

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

success of hatchery programs is ultimately determined by conditions in the freshwater and 

marine environments. This insight is a surprisingly recent contribution to the conceptual 

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

(Section II.A), 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 led to a re-examination of the precepts of artificial 

production and a more ecologically grounded conceptual foundation that is increasingly 

characterizing the third historical phase of artificial production (Section II.A) (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.

Ecological context

Any discussion of ecological considerations regarding artificial production must address 

how 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. Because of the 

anadromous life history of many salmonids, the environment encompasses an immense area 

including freshwater streams, rivers, estuaries, and vast areas of the Northeast Pacific Ocean. 

The following brief summary of the ecological effects of artificial production describes the 

interaction of hatchery fish with wild fish of the same species (intra-species effects), with other 

species of fish including non-salmonids (inter-species effects), and the effects of those 

interactions on the environment and fish habitat.

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

rearing environment. Traditional hatchery practices (where fish are maintained at high densities 
32

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.

Intra-species effects

Individuals within a species group, e.g. a population, can affect each other and change the 

overall performance of the group. For hatchery and wild components of salmonid populations, 

intra-species effects include competition and disease. Competition is defined as negative 

interactions within a species over limited resources (Pianka 1994). Competition for limited 

resources results in a density-dependent survival rate and determines the ability of a particular 

location to support fish of a certain species and life stage (Hayes, Ferreri, and Taylor 1996, 

Bohlin et al. 2002). Competition between hatchery and natural fish has been frequently cited to 

explain declines in natural populations (Fresh 1997, Flagg et al. 2000). In small streams, 

competition for space or territory, including access to food and cover, is often a limiting factor 

(Chapman 1966). In the marine environment, food is considered the most limiting factor (Fresh 

1997). Because capacity fluctuates in response to changes in the quality and quantity of habitat, 

the effect of competition, including competition between wild and hatchery fish, is not constant, 

but varies as a result of environmental changes.

Release of large numbers of hatchery fish into streams has been shown to have a negative 

impact on survival of wild fish (Fresh 1997). Simply through the process of density-dependent 

competition for limited resources, the increase in abundance caused by the infusion of fish from 

a hatchery will decrease the survival of the natural component (Bohlin et al. 2002). Hatchery 

fish, because they are raised in a benign hatchery environment with ample food resources, are 

often larger relative to their wild counterparts at the same age. When released into a stream 

with naturally produced fish, the larger hatchery fish can displace wild fish from their territories 

and decrease survival of the natural component (Rhodes and Quinn 1998). Hatchery fish can 

also be more aggressive than wild fish and disrupt normal foraging behavior (Fresh 1997). 

Many hatcheries release fish at the smolt stage when active downstream migration occurs. 

Under these circumstances, competition may be minimal in streams, but may shift to later life 

stages in the estuary and ocean. An estuary, particularly the Columbia River estuary, represents 

a relatively limited area through which all fish, of all species, both hatchery and wild, must 

pass. Different salmonid species spend different periods of time in the estuary with juvenile 

chum and Chinook salmon spending the most time and apparently being the most dependent on 

estuarine conditions (Pearcy 1992). To safely pass through the estuary, wild salmonids have 

evolved a variety of strategies involving differences in size, timing, and behavior (Reimers 

1973). Hatcheries, on the other hand, can release large numbers of juvenile fish into streams 

over a relatively short time frame and focus production into a smaller estuarine window (Bisbal 

and McConnaha 1998). To the extent that the diet and habitat preferences of hatchery and wild 

fish overlap, this may negatively impact the survival of both (Bisbal and McConnaha 1998, 

Flagg et al. 2000). In the ocean, density dependent competition between hatchery and wild fish 
33

can decrease survival and growth of wild salmonids particularly during periods of reduced 

upwelling and ocean productivity (Mote et al. 1999). The success of hatchery programs can be 

high during periods of high upwelling and ocean productivity but quite low when conditions in 

the ocean decline (Pearcy 1992, Levin, Zabel, and Williams 2001). The mechanisms leading to 

decline in success during periods of low ocean upwelling are not entirely known, but appear to 

be related to increased competition for decreased food supplies as well as increased predation 

(Mote et al. 1999).

Transmission of disease between hatchery and wild components of the same species is 

known to occur, although neither the transmission nor the potential negative effects of 

transmission are consistent or well demonstrated (National Research Council 1996). Most 

pathogenic microorganisms present in hatchery fish existed in wild fish populations and were 

introduced into hatcheries (Flagg et al. 2000), although hatcheries have been known to 

introduce new diseases and parasites into the natural environment with devastating results 

(Johnsen and Jensen 1991). Hatchery fish are reared at higher densities than fish in the wild, so 

naturally occurring diseases can be propagated and spread within hatchery populations. When 

these fish are released into the wild, active disease agents can lead to infection of the entire 

population. However, the clear line of evidence linking hatchery disease incidence with the 

incidence of disease in and overall survival of natural populations is often lacking (National 

Research Council 1996). Instead, based on knowledge of disease transmission within other 

species and documented examples of transmission between hatchery and natural populations 

(Johnsen and Jensen 1991), the inference is made that disease transmission between hatchery 

and wild populations can occur and should be minimized. To this end, hatchery managers have 

developed strict protocols for disease control in hatcheries and for the release and transfer of 

diseased fish from hatcheries (Flagg et al. 2000).

Inter-species effects

Interactions between hatchery fish of one species and natural or hatchery fish of another 

species can be classed as competition when both species compete for similar resources and 

predation when one species actively preys on the other. Competition and predation also occur 

within a species; many of the concepts discussed here can apply to both inter- and intra-specific 

interactions. In theory, organisms evolve to minimize competition between species through 

differences in food, space, or time requirements (Pianka 1994). Nonetheless, some competition 

does occur between closely related species whose life stages overlap in time and space (Pianka 

1994), as is true for many salmonids (Fausch 1988). For example, juvenile steelhead in small 

streams will occupy a range of habitats, whereas pools are the habitat of choice for juvenile 

Chinook salmon. When the two species overlap, steelhead may be pushed out of the pools by 

competition with Chinook (Everest and Chapman 1972). Artificially increasing the number of 

one species of fish through introduction of hatchery fish of various life stages could disrupt 

competitive balances between species. Competition could be increased when hatchery fish are 

introduced into the natural environment (Levin and Williams 2002). Hatchery fish often arrive 

in a stream with markedly different behavior from their natural counterparts (Flagg et al. 2000)

and might not know the “rules” or signals used between and within species to define territories 

and minimize competition.

Flagg et al. (2000) describe three ways in which the presence of hatchery fish can affect 

predation. The first is the direct predation of hatchery fish of one species on wild fish of 
34

another. They conclude that direct predation can occur, although reported rates are generally 

low. For example, studies cited in Flagg et al. (2000) report predation rates by hatchery 

steelhead and Chinook on natural components of either species ranging from 0 to 22 percent in 

Columbia River tributaries.

The second type of hatchery effect on predation suggested by Flagg et al. (2000) involves 

the effect of large numbers and concentrations of hatchery fish on predator behavior and the 

resulting effect on survival of other salmon species and on natural components of the same 

species. Hatchery releases can attract predators such as Northern pikeminnow to hatchery 

release sites. Predators can rapidly shift their behavior to exploit abundant hatchery fish 

(Collins, Beatty, and Crain 1995). Flagg et al. (2000) note that such behavior could have 

negative impacts on fish of the same or other species if the hatchery fish are released on top of 

natural fish, or a positive effect if it serves to divert predators away from areas where other fish 

are abundant. It has been suggested that the release of large numbers of hatchery fish could 

satiate predators and buffer the effect of predation (Flagg et al. 2000). On the other hand, 

Beamsderfer and Rieman (1991) suggest that an increase in the prey base caused by the 

continual release of large numbers of hatchery fish could lead to an increase in the predator 

population. In the end, while it seems likely that an influx of large numbers of hatchery 

juvenile salmonids can affect predator behavior and abundance, evidence for an overall positive 

or negative effect is inconclusive (Flagg et al. 2000).

The third way in which hatcheries can affect predation is through the effect of hatchery 

practices on the vulnerability of hatchery fish to predation (Flagg et al. 2000). As a result of 

their protected environment, hatchery fish appear to be naïve regarding predators (including 

other fish species and birds) and lack the behavior and morphology developed by fish in natural 

environments to avoid predation. Post-release survival of hatchery fish has been shown to 

increase if they are first “trained” or conditioned to recognize and avoid predators. Also, 

hatchery fish are often lighter in color than wild fish and stand out against the dark substrate of 

most streams, making them more vulnerable to predators such as mergansers and other birds. 

Raising fish over a darker or mottled substrate in hatcheries leads to hatchery fish with more 

natural coloration, reducing their vulnerability to predation in the natural world. Flagg et al. 

(2000) also cite instances where release strategies (time of day, volitional versus forced

releases, etc.) made the released fish less attractive to predators.

Hatchery fish and the environment

Salmonids, particularly anadromous salmonids, are key components of stream and river 

ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest (Willson and Halupka 1995). Because the adults of most 

anadromous salmonid species die soon after spawning, salmon and steelhead link marine, 

freshwater and terrestrial environments (Schindler et al. 2003). Most of the body mass of adult 

anadromous salmonids is acquired during their marine residence. When adults return to spawn and 

die, these nutrients are made available to the freshwater environment enhancing stream 

productivity and the survival of subsequent generations of salmon (Cederholm et al. 1999). 

Because bears, birds, and other terrestrial vertebrates consume the carcasses, salmon also 

contribute to terrestrial environments (Naiman et al. 2002). Salmon can also modify stream 

channel dynamics and substrate conditions by digging spawning nests (Schindler et al. 2003).
35

Hatcheries can have positive or negative impacts on the interaction between salmon and 

their environment. Integrated production programs may bolster populations and, because under 

such programs hatchery fish are expected to return and spawn naturally, may add to the number 

of carcasses in a stream, thus increasing the contribution to aquatic and terrestrial environments. 

On the other hand, in the segregated hatchery systems that characterize older or more 

conventional programs, hatchery fish return to the hatchery in a closed loop and their carcasses 

do not contribute to the natural environment. In these cases, the portion of the total abundance 

that otherwise would have contributed to the overall ecological health of aquatic and terrestrial 

systems is diverted to the hatchery where it may ultimately be discarded in a land fill (National 

Research Counc il 1996).

Genetic Aspects

Artificial production involves the controlled mating of fish and subsequent rearing of young 

in a regulated environment. As a result, artificial production, like all forms of animal 

husbandry, can have significant impacts on the genetic makeup of hatchery-bred fish. These 

genetic changes can negatively affect the fitness or biological performance of hatchery fish. In 

addition, because hatchery fish inevitably interact with naturally produced fish, the fitness of 

wild populations can be negatively affected, a particular concern with populations listed under 

the Endangered Species Act. While the following discussion dwells mainly on potential 

negative genetic aspects of hatcheries, it should be recognized that hatchery managers 

increasingly recognize the potential negative effects of husbandry practices and are developing 

techniques to minimize genetic impacts of hatchery production.

Genetic Effects of Hatchery Programs

Genetic differentiation of hatchery from wild fish can occur as a result of the stock choice 

and number and choice of fish used to start a hatchery (founder effect). Although there is 

extensive genetic differentiation among wild populations (reviewed in National Research 

Council 1996), a hatchery strain derived from a non-local river will be different from the 

system’s wild fish because each salmon population evolves its own genetic traits due to local 

adaptation. Even when derived from the same river as a wild population, a hatchery population 

can differ due to founder effects resulting from the small number of broodstock fish used or 

broodstock fish being taken from only a segment of the wild population, e.g. a temporal or 

maturity component (Flagg et al. 2000). 

Genetic changes that can occur due to domestication selection include 1) intentional 

selection by hatchery managers for traits at spawning; 2) non-random collection of broodstock 

from a spawning population, e.g. collection of early-run fish (Flagg et al. 2000); 3) 

unintentional selection in the hatchery due to the artificial conditions that affect survival, social 

behavior, and growth (Flagg et al. 2000); and 4) the release of fish from natural selection 

pressures that would have been imposed on them in the natural environment (Fleming and 

Gross 1989). 

It may be possible to minimize, though not completely avoid, domestication selection by 

establishing more natural rearing conditions and applying more natural practices during rearing 

and at release. The Natural Rearing Enhancement System is one such effort. 
36

Types of genetic effects resulting from artificial production

Concerns about the genetic effects of hatchery fish on wild populations fall into two broad 

categories: 1) direct genetic effects caused by hybridization and introgression, and 2) indirect 

genetic effects of altered natural selection regimes or reductions in population size.

Direct Genetic Effects – Direct effects occur due to hybridization of hatchery fish with wild 

salmon and alteration of the wild gene pool through backcrossing of these hybrids 

(introgression) in subsequent generations. On a broad scale, crosses among fish from multiple 

populations will result in the loss of genetic uniqueness of each individual population 

(population identity). However, such genetic changes will only be important if the extent and 

nature of genetic variability is important for survival and reproduction (fitness) of wild 

populations. In this case, the mixing of distinct populations (wild and non-local hatchery strain) 

would reduce fitness in the combined population. While the degree of fitness loss seems to 

depend on the genetic differentiation between the parents, quantitative data are largely lacking 

on the frequency and severity of this problem (termed “outbreeding depression”) in animals. 

Low amounts of gene flow can counter the inevitable loss of genetic variability in isolated 

populations, without overwhelming local forces of adaptation. Moderate to massive hatchery 

mixing of gene pools, however, is likely to impede or even overwhelm local forces of natural 

selection. 

Fortunately, the potential importance of local adaptations has been increasingly accepted 

and the practice of using non-local fish in hatcheries has decreased. The potential for genetic 

impacts via straying of fish from large-scale hatcheries remain, particularly for small, 

vulnerable, non-target wild populations. Moreover, the establishment of locally based hatchery 

broodstock does not eliminate concerns about domestication selection and the introduction of 

hatchery traits into the supplemented wild population. The constant, year-after-year 

supplementation of wild populations with hatchery fish means that both domestication selection 

on the hatchery-reared component and natural selection on the wild-reared component will 

operate on the combined population. This will disrupt and/or impede local adaptation to the 

wild environment, and consequently, will reduce the ability of the population to respond to 

environmental change. Moreover, if the abundance of hatchery fish is greater than that of the 

wild fish, the population will evolve in response to domestication (hatchery) selection rather 

than natural selection. This would occur despite fish spawning in the wild and annual mixing of 

wild fish into the hatchery broodstock.

Indirect Genetic Effects – Indirect genetic effects are the result of behavioral, e.g. predation 

by larger hatchery fish on smaller wild fish, ecological (density-dependent competition), and 

disease interactions with the wild population. These interactions may reduce the success of wild 

fish, thereby reducing the genetically effective population size of the wild population. This can 

erode genetic variability and increase the chances of inbreeding depression (as discussed 

above). Indirect genetic effects also include the risk of overharvest of less abundant (principally 

wild) populations in a mixed population fishery (Brannon et al. 1999) and shifts in predator 

abundance or behavior in response to the presence of large numbers of hatchery fish (reviewed 

in Waples et al. 1991, Flagg et al. 2000). Hatchery fish may affect different components of 

wild population, e.g. fish of a particular size, life history or geographic location within the wild 

population, and change the pattern of natural selection. For example, the early spawning time 

of hatchery fish could alter competition for mates and nest sites and affect the intensity of 
37

selection on the early breeding component of wild populations. The potential for competition 

among juveniles is also significant, since diet and habitat choice of hatchery fish are likely to 

overlap those of wild fish. Territorial and social dominance behavior in salmonids, as a result of 

interactions between species or between cultured and wild fish, can affect both mortality and 

growth (Fausch and White 1986, Fleming et al. 2000). The intensity and form of competition 

may be altered when salmon from populations that have not developed together interact with 

one another (Fausch 1988).
38

Chapter III. Methods

The Artificial Production Review and Evaluation examined 227 Columbia River salmon

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/accountability. APRE resulted in the 

creation of a web-based system that allows information to be updated in the future. The webbased system currently produces two reports: the APRE benefit-risk profile and the HGMP for 

a selected hatchery program. The review and report should not be viewed in isolation, but 

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

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

will lead to the deve lopment 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 own 

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 the 

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

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

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

APRE evaluated the risk associated with each hatchery program relative to its intended purpose 

and its potential impact on other goals.

A hatchery program was judged to be successful if it met the following 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 

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. Conditions 3 

and 4 dealt with the potential risks. 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 
39

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

potentially significant 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 is a policy judgment that should take into account the relative benefits and 

risks associated with alternative 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 a census and 

questionnaire expert 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 

provided by the managers 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 Oversight Team (IHOT 1995). The IHOT was established by the 

Council to conduct performance audits on all hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin. A set of 

hatchery review protocols and guidelines was developed by IHOT for that purpose. The results 

of the evaluation of all 227 artificial production programs identified in the Columbia River 

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 the system. 

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

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 260 hatchery and 245 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).

Conservation status and goals for each salmonid stock were described by the fishery 

managers 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, 

physiology, morphology, behavior, etc.), and metapopulation structure (number of spawning 
40

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

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. 

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 described the procedures and practices used to 

produce the fish in a hatchery program. This information was grouped into sections relating to 

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 yield a set of statements 

describing benefits and risk (Figure III-1). Forms 1 and 2 are presented in appendices B and C.

The evaluation process determined if the current operations at each hatchery, as 

described by the managers, were consistent with the goals identified for the hatchery program 

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

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

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
41

using the criteria established by HSRG/IHOT. The responses provided to the questions in 

Forms 1 and 2 were matched to criteria that were appropriate to the goal (harvest or 

conservation) and to the type of hatchery program (integrated or segregated). The result was a 

series of benefit and risk statements indicating areas where current operations are consistent 

with the goals based on the guidelines or where operations were inconsistent with the guidelines 

and could be improved.

Hatchery managers were asked to review the results of the evaluation prior to the results 

being posted on the APRE web system. This review provided another opportunity to refine the 

data and examine the preliminary results.

Step 3. Reporting and Accountability 

An example of an APRE benefit and risk report for the Cowlitz spring Chinook hatchery 

program is shown on Table III-1. Additional excerpts from the APRE database are show in 

Appendix D; a summary of findings by province is presented in Appendix E. Each hatchery 

program report in the web-based APRE system contains similar tables. In addition to the 

evaluation shown in Table III-1, the hatchery program reports include programmatic 

information for each program as well as information on returns, harvest, and survival rates 

provided by the managers for each program.

In Table III-1, the columns are evaluation criteria for the target stock (Cowlitz spring 

Chinook) and for other stocks in the Cowlitz River. The rows are categories of hatchery 

practices. The cell contents, e.g. 2/0/0, are the number of evaluation criteria guidelines met for 

each hatchery practice category, the number that were not met, and the number of guidelines for 

which information is missing. Each number in a cell is hyperlinked to benefit and risk 

statements on the web site which explain the evaluation conclusions.

The upper left box marked “Harvest” under “Target Stock” shows the numbers 2/0/0. This 

shows that for the harvest goal provided on Form 1 by the managers for the Cowlitz spring 

Chinook program, two guidelines were met (2/0/0), indicating a benefit. For choice of 

broodstock, all guidelines were met (no guidelines were not met) (2/0/0), indicating no risk, and 

no information on broodstock choice was missing (2/0/0), also indicating no risk. Under the 

Target Stock-Survival column and the Hatchery Practices-Release row, the effect of smolt 

release practices described for the Cowlitz spring Chinook program indicates that nine 

guidelines were met (a benefit) (9/7/1), but seven guidelines were not met (risks) (9/7/1), and 

information was not provided to address one guideline (a risk)(9/7/1). 

After the reports for each hatchery program were developed through the APRE web 

database, managers were able to review and comment on the reports prior to the reports being 

made available to the public. The individual program reports are intended as a resource for 

hatchery managers and subbasin planners. Because the reports contain many of the elements of 

the Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan (HGMP) required by the federal managers under 

the Endangered Species Act, the option is available within the APRE web site to reformat the 

results into a form that can serve as a draft HGMP. It is anticipated that the federal managers 

will work with the state and tribal hatchery managers to refine these drafts into final HGMPs for 

each hatchery program.
42

Criteria for Successful Outcomes

(Table entries are: Guidelines met / Guideslines NOT met/Insufficient Information)

Target Stock Other Stocks

Hatchery

Practices

Harvest Biological 

Significance Survival Ecological Interactions

Genetic 

Interactions

Harvest 

Interactions

Environment 

(Fish 

passage, 

NPDES 

Discharge)

Implementation 

Monitoring

Broodstock Choice 2 / 0 / 0 3 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 0 1 / 1 / 0 1 / 0 / 0 1 / 0 / 0 1 / 0 / 0 

Broodstock 

Collection 11 / 1 / 0 4 / 0 / 0 15 / 1 / 0 7 / 0 / 0 5 / 0 / 0 11 / 1 / 0 

Adult Holding 3 / 0 / 0 3 / 5 / 0 1 / 0 / 0 3 / 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 10 / 2 / 0 

Rearing 18 / 10 / 0 2 / 3 / 0 19 / 15 / 0 5 / 6 / 0 1 / 2 / 0 13 / 6 / 0 

Release 9 / 8 / 1 2 / 3 / 1 9 / 7 / 1 5 / 6 / 1 3 / 2 / 0 4 / 1 / 0 2 / 0 / 0 8 / 7 / 1 

Facilities 3 / 0 / 0 3 / 0 / 0 3 / 2 / 0 1 / 0 / 0 

Effectiveness 

Monitoring

1 / 0 / 0 2 / 2 / 0 3 / 3 / 0 9 / 3 / 0 

Table III-1: Example of APRE web-based evaluation report for a hatchery program (Cowlitz Spring Chinook)
43

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 hatchery programs 

reviewed 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 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 updated as hatchery reforms are enacted. 

This chapter summarizes results of the APRE into the categories of fish stocks, 

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

funding, and monitoring and evaluation.

IV.A Fish Stocks

Fishery managers identified a total of 505 fish stocks within the U.S. portion of the 

Columbia River Basin. Of these 505 stocks, 260 were identified as hatchery programs; 

and 227 of these programs were reviewed within the APRE (Table IV-1) while 33 were 

not reviewed because of inadequate information. The numbers of hatchery programs 

reviewed within the APRE are shown on Table IV-1 in parentheses.

Salmonids

Anadromous Resident

Other 

Species Total

Natural Stocks 89 99 57 245

Integrated Stocks 102 (102) 10 (9) 3 (2) 115 (113)

Segregated Hatchery Stocks 73 (73) 55 (36) 17 (5) 145 (114)

Total 264 164 77 505

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 
44

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 

broadly than hatchery stocks which are related to specific hatcheries and programs. 

Despite these inconsistencies, the distribution of stocks has some basis in the biological 

organization of fish populations within the Columbia River Basin and reveals a great deal 

about management agency emphasis. 

Anadromous salmonid stocks accounted for 53 percent (264) of stocks identified by 

managers, 32 percent (164) were non-anadromous (resident) salmonid stocks, and 15 

percent (77) were non-salmonid stocks. The majority of stocks were found in the Lower 

Columbia province which reflects the large number of hatchery programs in this province 

(Figure IV-1).

Figure IV-1: Distribution of fish stocks identified by fishery managers within 

the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin. Vertical line represents the limit 

to anadromous fish passage.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Columbia

Estuary

Lower

Columbia

Columbia

Gorge

Columbia

Plateau

Columbia

Cascade

Blue

Mountain

Mountain

Snake

Intermountain Mountain

Columbia

Middle

Snake

Upper Snake

No. Stocks

Non-salmonids

Resident salmonids

Anadromous salmonids
45

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 nonsalmonid 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 largemouth and smallmouth bass, as well as native species such as burbot, 

sturgeon and lamprey. Of the total number of stocks identified, 24 percent were part of 

populations that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Of these listed stocks, 53 

percent have a hatchery component.

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 fish 

and the Columbia Gorge the lowest. However, in the Columbia Cascade, the hatchery 

stocks represent several relatively small programs while in the Columbia Gorge, the 

hatchery stocks represent a few very large 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 majority of resident salmonid populations 

represented naturally spawning fish. The largest numbers of resident salmonid stocks 

were described for the Mountain Columbia (37) and Intermountain (31) provinces; most 

of these were natural populations. The fact that there were no resident salmonid stocks in 

the Columbia Cascade or Mountain Snake provinces does not mean that there are no 

resident salmonids in these areas or that they are of no management interest; it simply 

means that the managers did not identify any. 

IV.B. Hatchery operations 

Type of operation. 

The stocks discussed above were placed by the managers into one of three production 

categories: (1) natural stocks, (2) integrated stocks, and (3) segregated hatchery stocks. A 

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 surrounding 

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, uses an open production cycle in which 

the hatchery population is combined with the wild population to form a single aggregate 

population. Controlled genetic exchange is encouraged between hatchery and the wild 

components of the population. The proportion of hatchery and wild spawners in either 
46

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. 

The results indicate that the majority of programs in the lower portion of the river

(Estuary, 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. 

Because of the earlier practice of locating most mitigation hatcheries in the lower 

river (Section II.A), 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). 

Artificial production programs in the Columbia Plateau include those in the Yakima and 

Umatilla provinces which were developed with the intent of producing integrated 

hatchery/wild populations. 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 fa ll 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 release. Most coho in the 

Columbia River Basin, like fall Chinook, are released from segregated programs in the 

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, and 

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 
47

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.
48

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

Columbia

Estuary

Lower

Columbia

Columbia

Gorge

Columbia

Plateau

Columbia

Cascade

Blue

Mountain

Mountain

Snake

Planned releases in millions

Winter Steelhead

Summer Steelhead

Coho

Summer Chinook

Spring Chinook

Fall Chinook

B) Integrated 

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

Columbia

Estuary

Lower

Columbia

Columbia

Gorge

Columbia

Plateau

Columbia

Cascade

Blue

Mountain

Mountain

Snake

Planned releases in millions

Winter Steelhead

Summer Steelhead

Coho

Summer Chinook

Spring Chinook

Fall Chinook

A) Segregated 

Figure IV-2: Distribution of planned releases of anadromous salmonids by 

cultural practice (integrated versus segregated), by species, and ecological 

province; A) Planned releases in segregated programs, B) planned releases in 

integrated programs
49

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 30 percent of the segregated programs 

contributed more than 30 percent of the spawners in associated wild populations. Only in 

20 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 33 

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 

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 

hatchery broodstock and if no more than 30 percent of the wild spawning escapement 

consists of hatchery fish. These criteria were met by only 20 percent of the integrated 

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, for 12 

percent of the programs, they did not know the contribution of wild fish to the hatchery 

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 managed with 

little thought of the genetic aspects of population fitness and the importance of local 

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, broodstock 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 inevitably occurs, the use of 

non-local broodstock can result in genetic impacts on associated wild populations. 
50

As part of the APRE, managers were asked to describe the source of broodstock used 

in each hatchery program and to describe practices relating to transfer of fish between 

facilities at various life stages. Of the 102 integrated stock programs, 91 percent (93 

programs) use broodstock derived from fish native to the subbasin where program fish 

are released and 81 percent (83 programs) avoid transferring and releasing fish from 

outside the subbasin. Of the 73 segregated programs, 41 percent (30 programs) used nonlocal broodstock and 63 percent (43 programs) transferred or released fish from outside 

the stream basin.

IV.C. Distribution of Hatchery Releases

Hatchery managers reported planned releases of 235,690,000 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 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, about 88 percent, or 207,734,500, are planned releases of anadromous salmonids 

below the anadromous passage barriers at Chief Joseph and Hells Canyon dams. The 

spatial and species distribution of anadromous salmonid releases clearly demonstrates 

how the Columbia River Basin hatchery system has been shaped by social and economic 

priorities (Figure IV-3). The largest proportion (42 percent) of anadromous salmonid 

releases comes from hatchery programs in the Lower Columbia province. Slightly less 

than 50 percent of the total planned releases of anadromous salmonids occur below 

Bonneville Dam (Estuary and Lower Columbia provinces combined). 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, 65 percent of all anadromous 

salmonid releases come from the lower portion of the Columbia River.

This distribution reflects the mid-20th century policy of using hatcheries primarily to 

support commercial fisheries in the lower Columbia River and ocean fisheries off Oregon 

and Washington. About 55 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 only in 

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. 
51

Although the number of fish released in each province varies considerably, the 

number of programs releasing fish is relatively constant between provinces (Figure IV-3). 

The relationship between the number of programs and the number of fish released 

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 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Columbia

Estuary

Lower

Columbia

Columbia

Gorge

Columbia

Plateau

Columbia

Cascade

Blue

Mountain

Mountain

Snake

Planned releases in millions

Winter Steelhead

Summer Steelhead

Coho

Summer Chinook

Spring Chinook

Fall Chinook

Figure IV-3: Distribution of planned hatchery releases by species across 

provinces.
52

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.

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 

earlier, 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 

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

the Columbia River Basin. Bars represent the distribution of identified purpose 

within a province. Note that programs often have multiple purposes and add to 

more than 100 percent.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Columbia

Estuary

Lower

Columbia

Columbia

Gorge

Columbia

Plateau

Columbia

Cascade

Blue

Mountain

Mountain

Snake

Proportion of programs

Harvest

Conservation

Research/Education
53

generally newer and built primarily to contribute to rebuilding natural populations while 

providing a harvest benefit, especially for tribal fisheries. Because the contribution of 

hatcheries to conservation through integrated programs is relatively new, hatchery 

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 source, making tracking funding of artificial 

production programs in the Columbia River Basin difficult. Hatcheries often receive 

funds from several sources contributing to specific programs. In addition, funds may be 

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 the scope 

of the project; however, through the questionnaires, managers were asked to characterize 

the major funding for each hatchery program. This information is most useful in 

identifying the number of programs funded by various groups. It is not possible to say 

how much money each agency spends on which programs, on which species, and in 

which areas. Nevertheless, the managers’ responses still tell much about the distribution 

of funding sources in the Columbia River Basin. 

 In Figure IV-5, “city funding” refers to mitigation hatchery funding by city utilities. 

For example, the City of Tacoma provides funding for hatcheries in the Cowlitz River as 

mitigation for hydroelectric dams operated by Tacoma PUD. The City of Portland 

provides partial support for hatcheries on the Sandy River to mitigate for Bull Run 

reservoir which supplies much of the city’s water. “Private contributors” are private 

utilities 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 act also 

funds the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Complex (Leavenworth, Entiat, and 

Winthrop hatcheries) in the Columbia Cascade Province. 

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) directly provides partial or complete 

funding for hatchery programs throughout the Basin through the Council’s 
54

Fish 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 operations that, in most 

cases, are integrated programs designed to augment natural production and support tribal 

fishers. In addition, BPA 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 Springs 

National Fish Hatchery on the Deschutes River (Columbia Plateau province). USFWS 

also funds hatcheries, as noted above, through the Lower Snake River Compensation 

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).

The category of “Other Federal” in Figure IV-5 refers to “other” Corps of Engineers 

funds which support hatcheries mitigating for hydroelectric and flood control projects. 

For example, the “Other Federal” funding in the Lower Columbia province represents 

Corps-funded facilities in the Willamette River operated by the State of Oregon. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Columbia

Estuary

Lower

Columbia

Columbia

Gorge

Columbia

Plateau

Columbia

Cascade

Blue

Mountain

Mountain

Snake

Number of programs

Tribal

City

Private

State

Other Federal

USFWS

Mitchell Act

BPA

Figure IV-5: Funding and support for anadromous fish production programs in 

the Columbia River Basin. Support includes contributed personnel in addition to 

funding.
55

“State and Tribal” funding can include monetary as well as “in kind” contributions of 

staff and supplies to operate facilities. For example, the Yakama Indian Nation has 

contributed staff to operate Yakima River facilities built with BPA funds.

IV.F Monitoring and Evaluation

The APRE did not attempt to catalog or assess ongoing research and evaluation in the 

Columbia River Basin associated with artificial production. However, as part of the 

APRE survey, managers were asked to supply information relating to the performance of 

each program. This information consisted of commonly reported fisheries statistics 

which could be used by hatchery operators to determine the success of their programs and 

account for their contribution to regional goals. 

Table IV-2 summarizes information provided by the managers using four types of 

fisheries statistics: Recruits per Spawner, Smolt-to-Adult Survival, Escapement, and 

Total Catch. Less than 5 percent of the programs reported Recruits per Spawner, which 

is the ratio between the number of fish spawning and the number of fish estimated to 

contribute to fisheries and escapement. It is valuable as a measure of fish survival and 

their contribution to fisheries and spawning. The Smolt-to-Adult Survival measures the 

survival from the smolt stage to adult return and is a function of mortality factors 

associated with the hatchery as well as natural and artificial conditions encountered over 

the life cycle. This was the most common statistic reported by the managers. 

Escapement is the number of fish returning to spawn naturally or in the hatchery. The 

managers reported measuring Escapement for only about 21 percent of the programs. 

Total Catch is the number of fish the hatchery program contributes to all fisheries. This 

statistic was reported for about 33 percent of the programs.

Recruits per Spawner 4.6 percent

Smolt-to-Adult Survival 35.6 percent

Escapement 20.7 percent

Total Catch 33.3 percent

Table IV-2: Monitoring and evaluation statistics reported 

for anadromous fish hatchery programs in the Columbia

RiverBasin
56

Chapter V. Discussion and Conclusions

The Congressional request for hatchery review and the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council’s subsequent instigation of the APRE was stimulated by the 

growing realization of the need for hatchery reform (Section I.A). The results of the 

APRE indicate that reform is essential for the hatchery system within the Columbia River 

Basin. The following discussion outlines the principles of hatchery reform and presents 

the general conclusions of the APRE project team.

Hatchery reform principles

The APRE based its approach to analysis and evaluation on that of the Hatchery 

Scientific Review Group (www.hatcheryreform.org) in Washington State, which had been 

instituted in response to a similar Congressional request. After four years of in-depth review 

of hatchery programs in the Puget Sound and coastal areas of Washington, the HSRG 

concluded 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 responsive 

and well-informed

The application of these principles to the APRE produced a series of questions which 

were answered through analysis of the information collected through forms 1 and 2 and 

the accompanying interviews with fishery and hatchery managers. 

(1) Establishment of Goals

In the APRE, goals for existing hatchery programs were identified and, where 

possible, the extent to which the goals were being achieved was eva luated. It became 

clear, however, that hatcheries are often managed without clearly stated goals. Goals are 

often vague or may conflict, negatively affecting success. In some cases, the goals that 

exist are not necessarily consistent with current social or conservation priorities.

To be successful, hatcheries must have clear and measurable goals reflecting 

priorities established by scientific thought, legislation, treaty agreements, and legal 

judgments. Goals must be periodically reviewed to make sure they are still consistent and 

relevant. The APRE review raised specific questions about goal setting for Basin 

hatcheries. These include:

• Are the current goals for fish stocks in the Columbia consistent with the 

current biological, economic, 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 
57

and future goals of hatcheries, it is difficult to determine how each program 

should be altered to best meet the goals.

• Can anadromous fish production be better balanced to provide greater 

access to fish for communities upriver?

Many lower river hatchery programs are operated as mitigation for the 

construction 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 most 

stocks? 

Managers need to ensure that the goals for their programs are consistent 

with currently required 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 

(d) guidelines state that the primary purpose of hatcheries affecting listed 

populations should be conservation (Section II.E).

• Should less emphasis be placed on stocks produced primarily for commercial 

harvest?

With the rise of the salmon farming industry and the decline in ex-vessel 

prices for commercially harvested salmon (Section II.D), hatchery programs 

could produce fewer fish for commercial harvest. Many hatchery programs 

produce fish which are currently under utilized 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.

• Can hatchery programs be used more strategically to better accommodate 

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 returning 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.
58

• Are hatchery programs planned and operated consistent with the goals for 

all stocks of interest? 

The data developed by the APRE show that little attention is paid to the 

cumulative effects of hatchery programs on native stocks both within and outside 

each subbasin or province. For example, only 60 percent of the programs 

indicated that the carrying capacity of the area where fish are released is 

considered in sizing the program. Additionally, only a few programs listed any 

legal or other restrictions that limited the number of hatchery fish 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 has 

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 establishing goals of hatcheries and individual programs.

• 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 practices also impact 

the number 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 guidelines, resulting in more risk to wild fish. In low productivity years, 

insufficient numbers of wild fish may return to maintain the genetic mix required 

to maintain 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, the hatcheries have sought to increase 

rather 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 hatchery fish allowed to spawn with wild fish and the number of wild 
59

fish used as 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 amounts of risk 

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 Council has 

identified areas where habitat is fundamentally altered or blocked, with no 

possibility of recovery, as potential choices for locating replacement hatcheries to 

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 stocks 

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 management of each program, goals need to be 

explicitly stated, and the expected benefits and risks clearly defined in order to 

answer this question.

(2) Scientific Defensibility 

Current scientific knowledge should determine and guide the use of hatcheries. 

Given that natural resource science acts within the context of continually changing social 

priorities, 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 population 

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 time. 

It does not represent certainty and may, in fact, incorporate considerable uncertainty 

regarding future conditions and existing knowledge. Nonetheless, a working hypothesis 

represents a logic trail that provides scientific accountability for actions.
60

All artificial production programs should strive to operate in a manner that 

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 importation 

of broodstock from outside a stream basin should be allowed. The APRE 

indicated that 38 percent of anadromous hatchery programs imported broodstock 

from out of subbasin. Out-of-basin rearing should also be avoided; 42 percent of 

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 

contribution to the hatchery broodstock and maximum criteria for the contribution 

of hatchery fish to the natural spawning escapement. Less than half of 

anadromous 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 rates 

similar to wild fish. 

• The management intent for segregated hatchery programs is to minimize all 

interaction with wild stocks.

 Straying of hatchery returns should be minimized. Only 16 percent of the 

segregated anadromous programs were reported to contribute less than 5 percent 

of the spawning escapement of any wild stock. Less than half of the programs 

indicated that they had a goal for hatchery-wild composition. 

One way to reduce the potential for competition and predation at juvenile 

life stages is to assure that hatchery fish are “migration ready.” Less than half of 

the programs practiced volitional releases during the natural outmigration time 

period. 

The APRE found that few hatchery programs adhere to all key guidelines identified 

by the HSRG, suggesting ample room for improvement in the performance of hatchery 

programs. Significant improvements in long term survival can be achieved through such 

measures as avoidance of stock transfers and culture practices that reduce domestication. 

Adopting and adhering to stricter guidelines for proper integration and segregation of 

hatchery stock can minimize the effects of negative interactions with wild stocks. 
61

(3) Informed decision-making:

Hatcheries reflect a considerable investment in public funds and have implications 

that can extend far into the future. For these reasons, hatcheries need to be operated in a 

“business-like” way, where successes and failures are observed and responded to by 

managers accountable for their success. A “culture” that discourages outside scrutiny 

cannot be allowed to continue; all hatchery programs must be thoroughly examined

For decision-makers to be successful, they must be informed about potential problems 

in a timely and must act on the basis of factual and complete information. Gathering and 

disseminating information and a commitment to continued monitoring of hatchery 

programs are essential. One of the most alarming results of the APRE is the frequency of 

the “Do not know” response to key questions regarding performance and the impact of 

hatcheries on surrounding stocks (Table IV-2). Managers often are not able to answer the 

most basic questions regarding the success or potential harm caused by hatchery 

programs. Information about hatchery performance is often poorly evaluated and 

inaccessible. For example, while a majority of the hatchery programs listed harvest as a 

primary goal, less than 1/3 provided data on the number of fish harvested and fewer still 

provided total Recruit per Spawner information. 

While there is a critical need for more monitoring both from within and outside the 

hatchery, there is an even more urgent need to improve analysis and distribution of 

existing data to all personnel involved in management and operation of hatchery 

programs. Success of hatchery operations is still too frequently measured in terms of 

numbers of fish released regardless of the number of adults eventually produced from 

those releases.

Indicators and standards that directly or indirectly relate to success need to be defined 

and measured regularly The results must be evaluated and effectively communicated so 

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.” Also, 

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 computed 

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 production goals interfered with good fish 

culture practices. At times, fish are released on a schedule based not on biology, but on 

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.
62

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 were once seen as a panacea that would allow unrestrained 

fishing and development in the Columbia River Basin. Hatcheries promised to 

make up for the loss of fish abundance that resulted from construction and 

operation of the Columbia River hydroelectric system and other development 

activities. Clearly, this result has not been achieved. Despite massive hatchery 

programs, current adult returns to the Columbia River Basin fall far below 

historical estimates. However, because the present relatively modest returns of 

anadromous salmonids to the Columbia River Basin are made up in large part of 

hatchery fish, it is arguable that the current abundance of fish would not exist 

without hatchery production. Nonetheless, the disparity between current and 

historical abundance, despite the significant infusion of hatchery fish, clearly 

indicates that hatcheries are, at best, an incomplete solution to the problems of 

habitat loss and over-harvest. In fact, hatchery fish, like wild fish, require 

healthy receiving habitat in order to be successful. Most importantly, integrated 

conservation programs are based on the premise that habitat conditions will 

improve over time.

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. In the 1960s and 1970s, thriving 

commercial fisheries existed in the lower Columbia River and in the oceans off 

Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska. These fisheries 

were supported to a large degree by Columbia River hatchery programs. The fact 

that wild runs declined in large part due to over-harvest, in addition to the loss of 

habitat, was not viewed as a crisis but rather as a demonstration of the 

inefficiency of nature compared to that of hatcheries. 

The latter part of the 20th century, however, saw a shift in the underlying 

social basis for hatcheries. Conservation of the environment, ecosystems, and 

species became important na tional 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. 
63

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 the Columbia River 

hatchery program for the most part continues to be operated under the social 

paradigm of the mid 20th century. 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. 

It is perhaps to be expected that hatcheries will continue to be imperfect 

solutions to past problems. Nonetheless, 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 social/environmental 

priorities. Existing legal mandates, agreements, and legislation may need to be 

reviewed and changed to allow the flexibility to use hatcheries in ways which 

reflect current scientific thinking and social priorities.

3) Hatcheries will continue to play a part in recovery and management of fish in the 

Columbia River and elsewhere.

 Hatcheries present a myriad of problems (Section II.F), yet critics of 

hatcheries rarely provide viable alternatives. Hatcheries appear to be the only 

alternative in order to mitigate for habitat lost to development and to honor treaty 

obligations while retaining the benefits of hydroelectricity, agricultural 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 still offer the only way to mitigate for fish habitat lost to 

construction of a dam without fish passage facilities. In addition, hatcheries may 

offer the only means of providing sufficiently productive stocks to allow the 

continuation of tribal fisheries above Bonneville Dam. 

4) Hatcheries 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:

• align hatchery policies and practices with current social priorities and 

scientific knowledge

• determine hatchery performance 

• operate hatcheries in a business-like fashion

As discussed above, determination of hatchery performance requires collection of 

appropriate information. It appears that most hatcheries do not do this. Performance and 

its impact on other priorities often cannot be determined for a given hatchery. What 

should be routine monitoring and data collection is often sacrificed to budget priorities 

because of the perceived need to maintain production numbers. The result of this is that 
64

it is impossible to assess the performance of hatchery programs or to distinguish 

successful from unsuccessful programs.

 As important, and also frequently inadequate, is the evaluation and communication 

of monitoring results. The lack of good monitoring and timely evaluation makes hatchery 

programs vulnerable to possible elimination due to the lack of careful consideration of 

their contributions to conservation or other goals.

Reform requires that hatcheries operate in a business-like manner. As discussed 

above, hatcheries must be operated so that successes and failures are observed and 

responded to by managers who are accountable. Data and information must be available 

to all hatchery management and operations personne l and communications among and 

between entities involved in hatchery management and operations must be complete and 

uninterrupted. After application of business principles, hatcheries that are successful 

should be retained, while those that are not should be eliminated.
65

References 

Baird, S. 1875, March 3. The salmon fisheries of Oregon. The Oregonian, Portland, OR 

Beamsderfer, R., and B. Rieman. 1991. Abundance and distribution of northern 

squawfish, walleye, and smallmouth bass in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:439-447.

Bisbal, G. A., and W. E. McConnaha. 1998. The influence of ocean conditions on the 

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-dependent 

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. Chapman Hall, New York, NY.

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 salmon 

carcasses: Essential contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems. Fisheries 24:6-15.

Chamberlin, F.M. 1903. Artificial propagation. Pacific Fisherman 1(1): 10. Seattle, 

WA.

Chapman, 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 die t of northern 

squawfish associated with the release of hatchery-reared juvenile salmonids in a 

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.

Cramer, S. P., A. G. Maule, and D. Chapman. 1991. The status of coho salmon in the 

lower Columbia River. Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, 

Portland, OR.
66

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 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:91-100.

Fausch, K. D. 1988. Tests of competition between native and introduced salmonids in 

streams: what have we learned? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 45:2238-2246.

Fausch, K.D. and R.J. White. 1986. Competition among juveniles of coho salmon, brook 

trout, and brown trout in a laboratory stream, and implications for Great Lakes 

tributaries. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 363-381.

Flagg, T. A., B. A. Berjikian, J. E. Colt, W. W. Dickoff, L. W. Harrell, D J, C. E. Nash, 

M. S. Strom, R. N. Iwamoto, and V. W. Mahnken. 2000. Ecological and 

behavioral impacts of artificial production strategies on the abundance of wild 

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. 2000. 

Lifetime success and interactions of farm salmon invading a native population. 

Proceedings of the Royal London Biol. Soc. 267(1452): 1517-1523.

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 ecosystems: status and future options. Chapman 

Hall, New York.

Hanski, I., and D. Simberloff. 1997. The metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual 

domain and application to conservation. Pages 5-26 in I. Hanski and M. E. Gilpin, 

editors. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic 

Press, San Diego, CA.

Hare, S. R., and R. C. Francis. 1995. Climate change and salmon production in the 

northeast Pacific Ocean. Pages 357-372 in R. J. Beamish, editor. Climate change 

and northern fish populations.

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-

390.
67

HSRG. 2002. Scientific Framework and Hatchery Review Program. Hatchery Scientific 

Review Group, Seattle, WA www.lltk.org/hatcheryreform.html.

IHOT. 1995. Policies and procedures for Columbia River Basin anadromous salmonid 

hatcheries. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

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. Aquaculture 

98:289-302.

Johnson, O. W., T. A. Flagg, D. J. Maynard, G. B. Milner, and F. W. Waknitz. 1991. 

Status review of lower Columbia River coho salmon. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Seattle, WA.

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 16:1581-1587.

Levin, P. S., R. W. Zabel, and J. G. Williams. 2001. The road to extinction is paved with 

good intentions: negative association of fish hatcheries with threatened salmon. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268:1153-1158.

Lichatowich, J. 1999. Salmon without rivers. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Mote, P., D. Canning, D. Fluharty, R. Francis, J. F. Franklin, A. Hamlet, M. Hershman, 

M. Holmberg, K. Ideker, W. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, R. Leung, N. Mantua, E. 

Miles, B. Noble, H. Parandvash, D. P. Peterson, A. Snover, and S. Willard. 1999. 

Impacts of climate variability and change: Pacific Northwest. JISAO Contribution 

715, JISAO/SMA Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, 

WA.

Mullen, J. W. 1984. Overview of artificial and natural production of coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the mid-Columbia River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Naiman, R. J., R. E. Bilby, D. E. Schindler, and J. M. Helfield. 2002. Pacific salmon, 

nutrients, and the dynamics of freshwater and riparian ecosystems. Ecosystems 5.

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific 

Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
68

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, WA.

Pianka, E. R. 1994. Evolutionary Ecology. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York, 

NY.

Reimers, P. E. 1973. The length of residence of juvenile fall Chinook salmon in Sixes 

River, Oregon. Research Report 4(2), Fish Commission of Oregon, Portland, OR. 

Rhodes, J. S., and T. P. Quinn. 1998. Factors affecting the outcome of territorial contests 

between hatchery and naturally reared coho salmon parr in the laboratory. Journal 

of Fish Biology 53:1220-1230.

Rich, W. 1922. A statistical analysis of the results of artificial propagation of chinook 

salmon. Unpublished manuscript. Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, NOAA-Fisheries, Seattle, W

Schindler, D. E., M. D. Scheuerell, J. W. Moore, S. M. Gende, T. B. Francis, and W. J. 

Palen. 2003. Pacific salmon and the ecology of coastal ecosystems. Frountiers in 

Ecology and the Environment 1:31-37.

Waples, R. S. 1995. Evolutionarily significant units and the conservation of biological 

diversity under the Endangered Species Act. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 17:8-27.

Waples, R. S., R. P. Jones, B. R. Beckman, and G. A. Swan. 1991. Status review of 

Snake River fall Chinook salmon. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS 

F/NWC-201, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.

WDFW-ODFW. 2002. Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries, 1938-2000. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Willson, M. F., and K. C. Halupka. 1995. Anadromous fish as keystone species in 

vertebrate communities. Conservation Biology 9:489-497.