i

Artificial Production Review

Report and Recommendations of the

Northwest Power Planning Council

Council document 99-15

October 13, 1999
ii

Table of Contents

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

I. Background.................................................................................................................................. 1

A. Artificial Production Programs in the Columbia River Basin................................................. 1

B. The Council’s Artificial Production Review........................................................................... 4

II. Recommended Policies for the Future Role of Artificial Production in the

Columbia River Basin................................................................................................................... 7

A. Scientific Principles Provide Basis For Policy Changes......................................................... 7

B. Management Principles and Legal Mandates.......................................................................... 8

C. The Five Purposes of Artificial Production............................................................................. 9

D. Policies to Guide the Use of Artificial Production................................................................ 16

E. Performance Standards.......................................................................................................... 21

III. Implementing Reform in Artificial Production Policy and Practices.......................................... 22

A. Six Implementation Recommendations................................................................................. 22

B. Evaluating the Purposes for All Artificial Production Facilities and Programs

in the Basin............................................................................................................................ 24

C. Applying the Policies and Performance Standards to Evaluate and Improve

the Operation of Artificial Production Facilities................................................................... 28

D. Establish Transition Fund and Opportunities for Reprogramming of Funding..................... 30

Attachment Proposed Performance Standards and Indicators ........................................................... 31

Appendix 1 Review of Artificial Production of Anadromous and Resident Fish

in the Columbia River Basin............................................................................................................ 55

Appendix 2 Artificial Production Programs and Policy Developments in the

Columbia River Basin..................................................................................................................... 164

Appendix 3 Interim Standards for the Use of Captive Propagation......................................... 207

Appendix 4 Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) Template .............................. 225

Appendix 5 Bibliography............................................................................................................... 237
ii

Executive Summary

I. Introduction

In July 1997, Congress directed the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council), with the

assistance of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (a panel of 11 scientists who advise both the

Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service on scientific issues related to fish and wildlife), to

conduct a thorough review of all federally funded artificial production programs in the Columbia

River Basin. Congress directed the Council to recommend a coordinated policy for future operation

of artificial production programs and to provide recommendations for how to obtain such a policy.

II. The Council's recommendations

A. Implementing artificial production reform policies

The region needs action and leadership to implement new artificial production policies, to

decide whether and where to use artificial production, and to ensure that future artificial production

funding is contingent on reforms being made. These decisions need to be made for each subbasin

and implemented as part of a broader strategy to meet regional fish recovery goals.

The Council is prepared to do its part by amending its Columbia River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Program beginning this winter. The Council also will set in motion the needed subbasin

planning effort. To that end, the Council makes six recommendations for implementing new

artificial production policies:

1. Tribal, state and federal agencies should evaluate the purposes for each artificial production

facility and program in the basin within three years.

2. Program managers should evaluate and improve the operation of artificial production programs

that have agreed-upon purposes, consistent with the proposed policies in this report.

3. Program managers should use existing processes to implement artificial production reforms.

Examples of existing processes include the annual federal agency and Northwest Power Planning

Council funding processes, Endangered Species Act implementation and the Council’s periodic

revisions of its Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

4. Congress and the Bonneville Power Administration need to ensure that money to implement the

reforms is available.

5. The Council should assist in the formation of an interagency team to oversee and evaluate the

reforms.

6. The Council, other regional decision-makers and Congress should assess the success of the

recommended reforms after five years.
iii

B. Elements of a coordinated policy for the future role of artificial production in the

Columbia River Basin

Artificial production is one of many tools for meeting fish recovery objectives. The need for

it, and its effectiveness, must be evaluated as objectives evolve. Artificial production must be used

in a manner consistent with an ecologically based scientific foundation for fish recovery so that fish

can be raised for harvest while minimizing the impact on, or benefiting, fish that spawn naturally.

Based on a scientific foundation for ecologically sound fish and wildlife management

developed as a part of the Multi-Species Framework process, and on a scientific assessment by the

Scientific Review Team of how artificial production might fit within that ecological framework, the

Council recommends 10 policies to guide use of artificial production:

1. The purpose and use of artificial production must be considered in the context of the

environment in which it is used.

2. Artificial production remains experimental. Adaptive management practices that evaluate

benefits and address scientific uncertainties are critical.

3. Artificial production programs must recognize the regional and global environmental factors that

constrain fish survival.

4. Species diversity must be maintained to sustain populations in the face of environmental

variation.

5. Naturally spawning populations should be the model for artificially reared populations.

6. Fish managers must specify the purpose of each artificial production program in the basin.

7. Decisions about artificial production must be based on fish and wildlife goals, objectives and

strategies at the subbasin and basin levels.

8. Because artificial production poses risks, risk management strategies must be implemented.

9. Production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of artificial production. But to

minimize adverse impacts on naturally spawning populations, harvest rates and practices must

be dictated by the need to sustain naturally spawning populations.

10. Federal and other legal mandates and obligations for fish protection, mitigation, and

enhancement must be fully addressed.

III. Purpose of the Review

A. Brief history of Columbia River Basin fish hatcheries

Artificial production of fish has been used in the Columbia River Basin for many purposes

during this century. Hatchery programs have produced both resident fish (those that do not migrate

to the ocean, such as bull trout and rainbow trout) and anadromous (ocean-going) fish, especially

chinook and coho salmon and steelhead. These species have also been the focus of tribal, sport and

commercial fisheries management in the basin.

There are more than 150 hatcheries and associated facilities for anadromous and resident fish

in the basin. Federal and state agencies, Indian tribes and private interests operate them. Many are

intended to mitigate the impact of dams, which have blocked access to about one-third of the salmon

and steelhead habitat that existed historically in the Columbia basin. Dams also affect resident fish
iv

by blocking historic freshwater migration routes, inundating spawning areas and altering the

“natural” ecosystem.

Resident fish hatcheries, like salmon and steelhead hatcheries, mitigate losses caused by the

hydropower system. In some cases, such as in areas blocked by dams, losses of anadromous species

are mitigated through the production of resident species, which may include native and nonnative

species adapted to the altered environment. Because resident and anadromous fish co-exist in the

Columbia River ecosystem, it makes sense to review resident fish artificial production programs

together with salmon and steelhead artificial production programs as components of an integrated

artificial production program for the future.

Most of the artificial production programs in the Columbia River Basin are financed with

federal money in some way. For example, many are financed through annual appropriations by

Congress under the Mitchell Act, a 1938 law that provides money to mitigate the impact of federal

Columbia River dams and other activities. Others, like the Lower Snake River Compensation

Program artificial production programs, which were built to mitigate the impact of federal dams on

the lower Snake River, are paid for with annual congressional appropriations that are repaid by the

Bonneville Power Administration. Additionally, the Northwest Power Planning Council, through its

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, provides money from Bonneville Power

Administration ratepayers to finance artificial production programs that mitigate the losses for Indian

tribes and others in the basin.

B. Why a review of artificial production was needed

Many species of fish in the Columbia River Basin have declined significantly, particularly

ocean-going fish such as salmon and steelhead and certain freshwater species including bull trout

and sturgeon. It is a crisis characterized by depleted fish populations, degraded and blocked

spawning habitat and protection under the Endangered Species Act for 12 separate salmon and

steelhead. Resident fish, including bull trout and sturgeon, are also listed in some areas.

Fish hatcheries play a unique role in the Columbia River Basin. They have been identified as

one of the causes of the current declines, particularly for salmon. At the same time they also are

considered part of the solution. The purpose of many artificial production programs in the basin is

currently unclear. While many artificial production programs were built to mitigate the impact of

dams or to produce fish for harvest, their role today is less certain. There also is concern about

adverse impacts of artificially produced fish on fish that spawn naturally.

Salmon and steelhead artificial production programs historically produced fish for harvest by

tribal, commercial and sport fishers. Artificial production programs are capable of producing

literally millions of fish, vastly beyond the production capability of fish that spawn naturally. Yet

both types of fish — artificially and naturally spawning — are caught in Columbia River fisheries.

The cumulative effect contributed to overfishing the naturally spawning populations, and ultimately

speeded their decline.

As declines continued, fisheries scientists increasingly recognized that traditional fish

hatchery practices needed to be changed. Producing fish for harvest remains a legitimate use for

artificial production programs, but scientists are identifying and articulating a role for artificially

produced fish as functioning components of ecosystems.
v

Artificial production programs might be used to rebuild populations of fish that spawn

naturally and also provide fish for tribal, sport and commercial harvest. In doing so, they should

minimize the adverse impacts from interactions between artificially produced fish and those that

spawn naturally. Interactions can adversely impact the unique genetics of fish that spawn naturally

and, over time, dilute or weaken the unique genetic makeup of those populations.

IV. How the Council conducted the review

The Council, in coordination with the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, appointed a

Scientific Review Team of experts in artificial production to provide an independent assessment of

the basin's artificial production programs. In April 1999, the Team submitted its report (see

Appendix 1), a review of science, to the Council (Council Document 99-4, April 1999).

The Council also conducted an extensive public process that received 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

the Council in developing artificial production policies. The committee was composed of

approximately 25 individuals with expertise and interest in fish production, who met once a month

beginning in January 1998. The Council also conducted two public workshops and numerous public

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

comment.
- i -

Artificial Production Review

Report and Recommendations

of the Northwest Power Planning Council

October 13, 1999
1

I. Background

Congress asked the Northwest Power Planning Council, with the assistance of the

Independent Scientific Advisory Board, to review all federally funded artificial fish production

programs in the Columbia River Basin and report to Congress with “a formal recommendation for a

coordinated policy for the future operation of federally funded hatcheries.” The Congress also asked

for a recommendation for “how to obtain such a coordinated policy.” This is the Council’s report.

The report has three parts:

• This Part I describes the background for the Artificial Production Review.

• Part II contains the Council’s recommendations for the policies that should guide the future

operation of hatcheries in the basin. Attached to the end of this report is a draft set of

performance standards to implement these policies.

• Part III contains the Council’s recommendations for how to implement reform in artificial

production programs consistent with the policies.

The report is followed by a number of appendices that are described in the report.

A. Artificial Production Programs in the Columbia River Basin

Critical Issues and Policy Developments

Artificial production programs produce the majority of salmon and steelhead that annua lly

return to the Columbia River. Development in the Pacific Northwest has degraded the ability of

natural river habitat to sustain naturally spawning fish populations. The region has tried to mitigate

for that loss through hatchery production.

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s recent Biological Opinion on artificial

propagation, 1 adult hatchery produced fish comprise approximately 50 percent of the fall chinook,

70 to 80 percent of the spring/summer chinook, 70 percent of the steelhead, and 95 percent of the

coho salmon. Annual releases of hatchery-reared salmon and steelhead from all federal and nonfederal programs grew at one time to more than 200 million juveniles. Production was reduced in

the mid-1990s by funding reductions and Endangered Species Act considerations. Projected

hatchery releases in 1999 total 142.5 million juveniles, with more than 100 million from the

federally funded hatcheries. The scale and proportion of artificially produced resident trout and

other resident fish to naturally spawning resident fish may be of a similar magnitude.

Appendix 2 to this report contains a description of the major artificial production programs in

the Columbia basin, federally funded programs as well as hatchery programs associated with FERClicensed dams and the state fish and wildlife agencies. That appendix also contains a description of

 

1

 National Marine Fisheries Service, Biological Opinion on Artificial Propagation in the Columbia River, Endangered

Species Act Section 7 Consultations with Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service, and Authorization of Section 10

Incidental Take Permits with Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (March 29, 1999).
2

how the policies concerning artificial production have been in transition for more than a decade, as

the region has learned more about hatcheries.

Providing harvest opportunities in the ocean and in the river has traditionally been the

primary objective of artificial production in the basin. Success at meeting that objective is an open

question, especially the long-term productivity and sustainability of artificial production for these

fisheries. Nevertheless, the critical issues of the last decade have gone beyond the basic question of

how to produce fish for harvest to four concerns:

• Broaden harvest opportunities

Can and should artificial production programs be revised to spread harvest opportunities and

success to greater areas of the basin? For many decades the production policy directed by

Congress and the federal and state agencies largely replaced upriver fish lost to development

with hatchery-produced fish in the lower river. The trend has reversed somewhat — for

example, the number of smolts from lower river artificial production programs that are released

upriver has been increasing since 1980, and resident fish production in the areas blocked by

dams has received increased financial support since 1995. The magnitude and significance of

the shift is in debate.

• Improve survival of artificially produced fish

Is it possible, and economically feasible, to boost the survival of artificially produced fish by

using spawning, rearing and release techniques that more closely mimic natural spawning,

rearing and migration patterns?

• Avoid harming natural populations

Do artificial production activities adversely affect naturally spawning fish to a significant degree

and thus undermine efforts to protect and rebuild naturally spawning populations? If so, can

artificial production be altered to avoid or minimize the harm? Will attempts to improve survival

of artificially produced fish by mimicking natural rearing and release patterns help or hinder the

effort to protect natural populations? The concern for impacts on naturally spawning fish has cut

across the basin and programs since the 1980s, but in the last few years the issue has been

highlighted by Endangered Species Act considerations.2

 

2

 Eleven species (or “evolutionarily significant units” of species) of salmon and steelhead that spawn in the Columbia

River or its tributaries have now been listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act — Snake

River fall chinook, Snake River spring/summer chinook, Snake River sockeye, Snake River steelhead, upper Columbia

River spring chinook, upper Columbia River steelhead, middle Columbia River steelhead, lower Columbia River spring

chinook, lower Columbia River steelhead, upper Willamette River spring chinook, and upper Willamette River

steelhead. (A note on terminology — what the Power Council and most everyone else calls the “mid-Columbia” region

— above the confluence of the Snake River and below Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams — the National Marine

Fisheries Service calls the “upper Columbia,” as this part of the Columbia is now the farthest extent of anadromous fish

migration, which defines the extent of the Fisheries Service’s jurisdiction under the Endangered Species Act.) With

regard to resident fish in the basin, bull trout and the Kootenai River white sturgeon have been listed by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, and it is likely that others types of trout will be listed in the near future.
3

• Protect and rebuild naturally spawning populations

Can artificial production programs be designed to avoid harm and assist in preserving and

rebuilding naturally spawning populations? The basin has seen a proliferation of

“supplementation” and “conservation” initiatives, which encourage many and worry others.

Thus the critical issues that the region faces on artificial production revolve around whether

and how production activities can play a role in providing significant harvest opportunities

throughout the basin while also acting to protect and even rebuild naturally spawning populations.

Congress and the region should be aware that artificial production policies and activities in

the basin are in a state of transition, a rather dramatic transition in some cases. The stereotype of the

hatchery and the production manager pumping out fish for possible harvest opportunities without

awareness of the environmental context of that production or concern for the potential ecological

effects no longer exists. The efficacy of traditional artificial production techniques and the

possibility of adverse effects from artificial production on naturally spawning fish have been centerstage issues in the debates on artificial production in the basin for more than a decade.

Out of that debate has come a myriad of scientific and policy studies urging reform in

artificial production, a series of efforts at policy reformulation, and continuing research into and

theorizing about the many uncertainties in the interaction of artificially produced fish and their

environment. Out of that debate has also come a number of actions and orders that constitute a

partial step toward implementation of reforms in artificial production activities. The most recent

event is the March 1999 Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service under

the Endangered Species Act. That opinion concluded that federally funded artificial production

programs with non-endemic stocks are jeopardizing the continued existence of lower Columbia and

Snake River steelhead listed under the ESA and prescribed changes in operations, in the form of

Biological Opinion's Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, to remedy that situation.

The Council concludes the region is less in need of policy development and more in need of

focused actions and leadership to implement production policy reforms. The basin needs decisions

and agreements at the basin, province3 and subbasin levels on what it wants to accomplish in fish

and wildlife recovery4 as a whole and in each subbasin. The region also needs to determine what

strategies seem most promising for reaching these objectives, and whether and how to use the

artificial production tool in each subbasin as part of these strategies.

Decisions about the future of artificial production need to be based on the best available

scientific knowledge of how river ecosystems function and how fish and wildlife populations survive

and interact. And as these decisions are being made, the region also needs the will and the financial

wherewithal to change artificial production operations to meet the identified needs. We will

cooperate with production managers to meet a rigorous set of performance standards for modern

 

3

 The term “Province” is applied to a group of subbasins that have similar ecological characteristics based on geology,

climate and topography. The framework defines 10 Ecological Provinces in the Columbia River Basin.

4

 The term “Recovery,” as used throughout this document, means to rebuild populations to sustainable and/or

harvestable levels through protection, enhancement, and mitigation as expressed in the Northwest Power Act and the

Council's Fish and Wildlife Program adopted thereunder.
4

artificial production operations. It will be necessary to provide sufficient resources to help managers

meet those standards to bring about the necessary changes desired.

B. The Council’s Artificial Production Review

A Coordinated Response to Regional and Congressional Concerns

The report of the Senate Committee on Appropriations on the FY 1998 Energy and Water

Development Appropriations Act, Senate Report 105-44 (July 10, 1997), included the following

directive to the Council:

Hatchery review report—Due to budgetary constraints it is critical that federally funded

programs, such as the hatchery programs for the Columbia River basin, spend limited Federal

dollars wisely and in a cost-effective manner that maximizes the benefits to the fish resource.

The Committee directs the Northwest Power Planning Council with assistance from its

Independent Scientific Advisory Board to conduct a thorough review of all federally funded

hatchery programs operating in the Columbia River basin, including an assessment of the

hatchery operation goals and principles of State, tribal, and Federal hatcheries, and produce a

formal recommendation for a coordinated policy for the future operation of federally funded

hatcheries in the basin and how to obtain such a coordinated policy. National Marine

Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the States of Oregon, Washington, and

Idaho and Indian tribes in the basin should assist the Council in its review by providing

information necessary to conduct a thorough review of federally funded hatchery programs.

An independent, comprehensive review that examines all federally funded hatcheries and

their roles in fishery restoration is long overdue.

Science Review Team -- Independent Scientific Review Supplies Framework for Reforms

Following Congress’ request, the Council initiated what it has called the Artificial Production

Review (APR). Part of the review involved the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), as

requested by the Senate Committee. With the help of the ISAB, the Council formed a Science

Review Team (SRT), consisting of four ISAB members, two outside experts in artificial production

and one scientist from the Council staff. The Council then asked the Science Review Team to

review the state of the science of artificial production. The SRT produced an initial report in

December 1998 and then revised that into a final report for the Council in April 1999.5 A copy of

the Science Review Team’s report is included as Appendix 1 to this report. The recommendations

of the Science Review Team have been incorporated in the policies and standards discussed in Part

II of this report.

Production Review Committee -- Using Regional Experts and Stakeholders to Propose and

Consider Reforms

Representatives of state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, the basin’s Indian tribes, and

non-governmental entities interested in artificial production worked on this report through an

 

5

 Science Review Team/Independent Scientific Advisory Board, Review of Artificial Production of Anadromous and

Resident Fish in the Columbia River Basin, A Scientific Basis for Columbia River Production Programs, Northwest

Power Planning Council, Document 99-4 (April 1999).
5

advisory committee formed by the Council — the Production Review Committee. The purpose of

this work through 1998 and into 1999 was to collect information on production programs in the

basin and to develop and debate various approaches to production policy. The committee is also

helping develop performance standards that can be used to evaluate artificial production programs

over time, as described in Part II.

Workshops and Draft Reports

Following the Science Review Team’s initial report, the Council held a two-day workshop on

January 19-20, 1999, to discuss production policy. Approximately 75 participants attended,

including policy and technical representatives from tribal, state and federal agencies, members of the

Science Review Team, Council members and staff, hatchery owners and operators, private fishing

interests, conservation group representatives, utility representatives, and others. For purposes of

discussion at the workshop, the Council staff developed a “Strawfish” proposal, a possible statement

of production policy derived largely from the Science Review Team’s initial report and

recommendations, other scientific studies conducted over recent years, and a set of general scientific

principles developed as part of what is known as the Multi-Species Framework process now

underway in the region. Jim Waldo from the Gordon Thomas Honeywell law firm in Tacoma,

Washington, facilitated the workshop. The facilitators produced a report to the Council discussing

what happened at the workshop, recommending certain steps for the further development of the

production policy statement, and recommending a set of actions for implementing reforms in

artificial production policy. 6

One lesson learned from the workshop was that the Science Review Team’s initial science

report and the Council staff’s production policy “Strawfish” did not sufficiently consider the

evolution in production policy and the emergence of ESA and consultation requirements during the

last decade or adequately address resident fish. For this reason, the Council asked the SRT to

reorient and supplement its initial report. While the SRT undertook that task, Council staff, with the

aid of workshop facilitator Jim Waldo and further input from participants in the Production Review

Committee, revised the production policy statement to capture a set of hypotheses, principles and

policies based on developments in artificial production theory and practice embodied in a number of

scientific and policy reports in the 1990s. The Council released the revised policy statement and the

workshop facilitators’ report to the public for review and comment, including a series of public

meetings around the basin in March and April of 1999.

Just before the completion of the final SRT report, the National Marine Fisheries Service

released the hatchery Biological Opinion described above (see footnote 1), including findings of

jeopardy with regard to the effect of some production activities on listed steelhead. The Biological

Opinion further changed, in significant ways, the dynamics of production policy and

implementation, with the promise of even greater changes to come in the year 2000 with a further

revised Biological Opinion to address new ESA listings (also in March 1999) in the basin. The final

SRT report followed soon after. As revised, the SRT report is a scientific document that can be the

basis for further considerations of production policy.

 

6

 Facilitator’s Report on the Columbia River Basin Artificial Production Workshop, January 19 and 20, 1999, prepared

by Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Daheim, P.L.L.C., for the Northwest Power Planning Council

(February 23, 1999). Copies of this report are available upon request from the Council.
6

Following these events, the Council staff produced a draft report to Congress containing a

proposed statement of production policy and recommendations for implementing policy reform. At

its May 1999 meeting in Montana, the Council approved the release of the draft report for public

review and comment. Based on the comments received during the public comment period, on

further work by the Production Review Committee and the facilitation team (especially on

performance standards and implementation recommendations), and on further reflection by staff and

Council members, the Council revised its draft into this report to Congress.
7

II. Recommended Policies for the Future Role of Artificial Production in

the Columbia River Basin

Congress asked the Council for “a formal recommendation for a coordinated policy for the

future operation of federally funded hatcheries in the basin.” Part II of the report provides that

recommendation — a set of policies and performance standards to guide decisions on the use of

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

described below. In developing its policies for artificial production, the Council relied in part on the

written recommendations of the independent Science Review Team, in response to Congress’

legitimate concern that hatchery operations and decisions use the best available science.

A. Scientific Principles Provide Basis For Policy Changes

Best Available Science will Improve Chances of Success

Recent reviews of Columbia basin fish and wildlife activities highlighted the need to base

fish and wildlife restoration efforts on fundamental ecological principles, with the river (and relevant

parts of the Pacific Ocean) understood as a system of interacting biological and physical components

(the ecosystem). These studies7 also point to the elements of an ecologically based scientific

foundation for fish and wildlife recovery. On that basis, the Multi-Species Framework Process

developed an explicit scientific foundation to guide the development of an ecological framework.

The foundation has eight principles:

1. The abundance and productivity of fish and wildlife reflect the conditions they experience in

their ecosystem over the course of their life cycle.

2. Natural ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, and resilient.

3. Ecosystems are structured hierarchically.

4. Ecosystems are defined relative to specific communities of plant and animal species.

5. Biological diversity accommodates environmental variation.

6. Ecosystem conditions develop primarily through natural processes.

7. Ecological management is adaptive and experimental.

8. Human actions can be key factors structuring ecosystems.

These fundamental principles will be the basis, in the Framework process, for the measures

used to characterize the Columbia basin ecosystem and its interrelated parts and to evaluate

ecosystem changes that may result from various strategies and actions. These principles could later

form the scientific foundation for an overarching fish and wildlife plan integrated across all elements

of human interaction with the Columbia basin environment and the fish and wildlife in it, including

evaluating and understanding the role of artificial production. 8

 

7

 The Independent Scientific Group’s Return to the River, the National Research Council’s Upstream, and Wy-KanUsh-Mi Wa-Kish Wit, the fish recovery plan of the Warm Springs, Yakama, Umatilla and Nez Perce tribes.

8

 For more details on the Multi-Species Framework Process, on the ecological analytical basis for that process, and on

the scientific foundation principles and their scientific basis, see in particular two documents from the Framework

process, available on the Framework web site (www.nwframework.org) and from the Northwest Power Planning

Council: An Ecological Framework for the Multi-Species Planning Process (November 3, 1998), and Development of a
8

The Council considers the Artificial Production Review to be consistent with the scientific

foundation of the Multi-Species Framework. The Council’s focus in the production review has been

to explore what these general scientific principles mean for artificial production and to recommend

policies for artificial production consistent with the scientific framework.

To understand how the principles from the Framework specifically relate to artificial

production, the Council, as directed by Congress, turned for advice to its Independent Scientific

Advisory Board. The report of the Scientific Review Team is the result, attached to this report as

Appendix 1. The Council developed the policies that follow in this Part, and its understanding of the

“purposes” of artificial production, consistent with the scientific principles stated in the SRT’s

report.

B. Management Principles and Legal Mandates

Artificial production policies and decisions must be consistent with the array of legal

mandates that relate to fish and wildlife management in the Columbia River Basin. These include,

for example:

• Treaty fishing rights and other rights of Indian tribes such as those in the U.S. v Oregon litigation

• The obligation in the Northwest Power Act to protect, mitigate and enhance the basin’s fish and

wildlife affected by hydropower development

• The requirements of the Endangered Species Act

• Various mitigation obligations in law and agreement, such as the Mitchell Act, or John Day Dam

mitigation, or the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan

• Wild fish policies of the states

Management objectives associated with these mandates — such as for harvest opportunities,

or for in-kind, in-place mitigation, or for protection of specific natural populations — are equally

important. Acting in a manner consistent with all these mandates is not easy — some are regional in

scope and some are local, some objectives overlap, others conflict unless managed carefully. But

they cannot be ignored even when inconvenient.

On this basis, all of the purposes for artificial production described below are considered

legitimate and plausible management choices in the future. The Council understands its task as did

the Scientific Review Team — to describe scientific ecological principles and associated policies

that need to be considered when decisions are made on the use of artificial production. These

principles and policies must be addressed for there to be a reasonable chance of achieving multiple

management objectives that managers will identify out of their legal mandates, such as producing

fish for harvest while protecting naturally spawning populations.

 

Regional Framework for Fish and Wildlife Restoration in the Columbia River Basin: A Proposed Scientific Foundation

for the Restoration of Fish and Wildlife in the Columbia River Basin (July 7, 1998; Council Document No. 98-16).
9

C. The Five Purposes of Artificial Production

Artificial production is a tool used to address specific biological and management problems.

To be able to evaluate whether to use the tool, and how effectively any particular use of the tool is, it

is important to describe clearly the purpose of using artificial production, including the biological

and management goals that it is intended to solve. The purpose of artificial production also guides

the selection and application of production policies and the choice of performance standards. Thus it

is necessary to describe the purposes first, and how the Council understands the purposes in the

context of the broader ecosystem and management principles noted above, before describing the

production policies.

Table 1 defines five purposes for artificial production, which are described further below.

The purposes are based on scientific information summarized by the Scientific Review Team, the

scientific focus of the Framework process, the experience and insights of the fishery managers,

legislative and legal mandates, and the needs of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program.

These purposes are described with respect to the rationale for using artificial production, a

combination of the overarching social and legal motivation to do something about fish and wildlife,

and the biological problems in the way of achieving the objective and that the use of artificial

production will help surmount. The purposes are further described with respect to the implications

of the decision to use artificial production to address the rationale, including a set of assumptions or

conditions and a duration for the use of the tool.

The assumptions and duration are a function of the biological problem. For example, a

motivation for using artificial production might be to hasten rebuilding of a depleted fish population.

For this decision to make sense biologically, it has to include the assumption that the natural habitat

is largely intact or is being restored, and that the main biological problem is that natural productivity

cannot rebuild the population fast enough to satisfy the social or legal motivation. In this case, the

duration of the action should be temporary—the natural system should take over once production

numbers increase and artificial production is no longer needed.

This logic implies a certain type of facility and an investment of limited duration, as well as

certain policies and performance criteria. At the time artificial production is planned and initiated,

and at periodic times after development, the managing entity should explicitly identify the proposed

purpose of the facility, and then be able, based on evaluation data, to make the corresponding

determinations of problem, assumptions or conditions, and duration.
10

Table 1. Purposes of Artificial Production

Rationale Implications

Purpose Biological

Problem

Motivation Duration Assumption or

Condition

Augmentation Limited natural

production

capacity in

freshwater;

capacity of other

habitat areas

supports

increased

production

Increase

harvestable

numbers of fish

Permanent,

but flexible if

changes in

harvest

become

desirable

because of

social, legal,

or biological

reasons

• Freshwater habitat

is operating at

capacity

• Harvest, ocean

capacity, mainstem

habitat does not

limit production,

therefore, there is

excess capacity in

other life stages

• Artificially

produced

population can

coexist with and

not jeopardize

fitness of natural

populations
11

Table 1. Purposes of Artificial Production (cont.)

Rationale Implications

Purpose Biological

Problem

Motivation Duration Assumption or

Condition

Mitigation Habitat has been

permanently

blocked or

altered by human

activities

resulting in a

decline in

survival and/or

capacity, or

elimination of

the fish

population

Replace or

compensate lost

habitat capacity of

naturally produced

fish with artificially

produced fish

(anadromous or

resident) for harvest

or some other

reason. This

includes:

• Artificial

propagation to

increase

production of

the affected

resident or

anadromous

fish population

• 2) Introduce or

increase

production of

another

anadromous

fish species for

the loss of

anadromous

fish or resident

fish species for

the loss of

resident fish;

and,

• 3) Substitution

of a resident

fish species for

the loss of

anadromous

fish in

irrevocably

blocked areas.

Permanent

for the

foreseeable

future, but

changes in

the

environment

may make

mitigation

unnecessary

• No prospect for

restoration of

habitat that is

being replaced by

artificial

production, at least

not in other than

long-term

• Harvest, ocean

capacity, mainstem

habitat does not

limit production,

therefore, there is

excess capacity in

other life stages

• Artificially

produced

population can

coexist with and

not jeopardize

fitness of natural

populations
12

Table 1. Purposes of Artificial Production

Rationale Implications

Purpose Biological

Problem

Motivation Duration Assumption or

Condition

Restoration Low or no natural

production, but

potential for

increase or

reintroduction

exists because

habitat capability

is sufficient as it

exists or due to

restoration

activities

Hasten rebuilding

or reintroduction

of a population to

harvestable levels

Temporary

(recognizes

that duration

may be longterm, but

habitat will

be or is

adequate to

support fish

populations

without

artificial

propagation.)

• Habitat is good or

in the process of

being restored as

artificial

production

program is being

implemented

• Harvest, ocean

capacity, mainstem

habitat does not

limit production,

therefore, there is

excess capacity in

other life stages

• Artificially

produced

population can

coexist with and

does not jeopardize

fitness of target

and other natural

populations.
13

Table 1. Purposes of Artificial Production (cont.)

Rationale Implications

Purpose Biological

Problem

Motivation Duration Assumption or

Condition

Preservation/

Conservation

• Extremely

low

population

abundance

causes

potential for

extinction or

losses of

genetic

diversity

• Correctable

habitat

deterioration

Conserve genetic

resources of fish

populations

impacted by

habitat loss or

degradation,

including

preservation of

populations faced

with imminent

demise using

methods such as

captive

propagation and

cryopreservation.

Temporary

(until causes

of natural

population

decline are

rectified)

• Genetic

characteristics can

be maintained via

artificial

propagation

• Habitat problems

will be corrected in

the immediate or

distant future

Research Critical

uncertainties from

the other

purposes, plus

specific critical

uncertainties with

application of

artificial

propagation

How to

effectively use

artificial

production to

address the other

motivations

Dependent

on study

design,

objectives,

and results

An explicit

experimental design

capable of providing

usable answers to

specific problems.

Augmentation

An augmentation artificial production program provides fish for a specific reason, such as

harvest, in numbers beyond the capability of the natural system. It operates within an intact natural

system that is functioning at or near its natural capacity in the freshwater juvenile life stage, with

excess capacity available at other life stages. It augments natural productivity to address a social

motivation, such as the desire for harvest greater than the existing natural system can sustain.

Because the Columbia River Basin is heavily altered from its natural state, there are few

examples of augmentation facilities in the basin. Examples can be found, however, in southeast

Alaska, where artificial production programs augment the production from largely intact natural

systems for harvest. Possible examples of augmentation programs in the Columbia River might

include some resident fish hatcheries that are used to provide “put and take” fisheries in otherwise

intact natural lake systems.
14

Mitigation

Artificial production programs are frequently used to mitigate for the loss or reduction of

specific fish populations because of destruction or significant degradation of freshwater habitat by

human activities. The artificial production is provided as compensation for the fish capacity lost to

allow development of the habitat for other human uses. The loss of habitat to be mitigated is

essentially permanent. Most artificial production programs in the Columbia River Basin fall into

this category. (Mitigation production programs are sometimes referred to as compensation

programs. This is usually done to avoid the term “mitigation,” which is used in a confusing number

of ways.)

For example, several salmon production programs in Idaho are intended as mitigation for

blockage of the Snake River by Hells Canyon Dam. Similarly, the artificial production programs of

the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan were constructed to compensate for the fish passage loss

and reduction in quality of salmon habitat associated with construction and operation of Ice Harbor,

Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite dams. Some artificial production programs

above blocked areas, such as Hells Canyon and Chief Joseph dams, mitigate for salmon losses with

resident fish species. Production of resident native, and in some instances non-native, species that

are adapted to the existing altered environment may be preferable to species that inhabited the basin

before development.

In theory, a mitigation production program compresses the production potential of the lost

habitat, for one or more life-stages of the population to be propagated, into the artificial habitat of

one or more hatcheries. In anadromous and resident fish mitigation programs, the production from

this habitat still must exist within the remainder of the natural ecosystem. For resident fish

substitution programs9, the habitat available must meet the needs of the substituted species of

resident fish. The degree the artificial production program can compensate for lost habitat will

depend in part on the quality of the habitat outside the hatchery in which the fish will spend the

remainder of its lifecycle, and on the overall biological fitness of the propagated species in the

habitat outside the hatchery.

Restoration

Artificial production has been proposed as a means to speed or “jump-start” recovery of

natural populations, especially in order to achieve a harvestable population size. A restoration

program assumes a population is reduced or eliminated by habitat degradation or other effects (e.g.

overharvest), but that the problem has or is being corrected and the existing biological system is now

or will soon be capable of sustaining natural production. The motivation for the facility is that

society does not wish to wait for natural productivity to rebuild the population. An extreme case of a

restoration production program is where the natural population has been eliminated, and fish are

reintroduced by artificial production when the problem causing the extirpation is removed. A

restoration program is a temporary measure that will be withdrawn once the natural population is

rebuilt or a determination is made that restoration is not possible.

 

9

 Policies and measures for resident fish substitution are in Sections 10.1 and 10.2 of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife

Program. The intent of this policy is to replace losses of anadromous fish in areas now permanently blocked to salmon

and steelhead with resident fish species.
15

For example, suppose chinook were eliminated from a watershed because irrigation

withdrawals effectively dried up parts of the river in late summer. Action was then taken to reduce

withdrawals and re-open the river to passage. With the native population eliminated, a restoration

facility could be used to rear and release a compatible population that would be encouraged to return

and spawn in the habitat. Over time the artificial production program would be phased out as the

natural population rebuilt.

Preservation/Conservation

In recent years, as numerous salmon and resident fish populations declined alarmingly,

artificial production programs have been proposed to preserve the genetic resources of very small

populations pending future rebuilding. This is recognized as an undesirable result of not identifying

and addressing a situation with a population that should have been addressed at an earlier point in its

decline with a less extreme approach for recovery. Populations that require preservation/

conservation face imminent demise or extirpation and, in most cases, are listed under the federal

Endangered Species Act. In these situations, without immediate protection, the population will be

extirpated, and the genetic resource lost. In certain situations, intervention in emergency situations

may be desirable in the absence of a plan. In these situations, a plan for recovery must be developed

and implemented immediately. Appendix 3 contains interim standards for captive propagation that

should provide guidance for certain types of preservation and conservation activities.

A preservation production program, involving the use of techniques such as captive

propagation and cryopreservation, is an emergency, temporary measure. A reasonable assumption is

that the longer a population is reared in the captive environment, the less it will resemble the original

naturally producing population in regard to genetics and behavior. Hence, the duration of the

preservation/conservation purpose should be minimized. Therefore, it requires an explicit recovery

plan with a compressed timeframe for return of the fish to the wild and an effective plan for dealing

with the underlying habitat or management problem. Without such a plan, a preservation hatchery

could become simply a museum to preserve fish with uncertain connections to the natural population

structure, rather than a program of protective custody.

Research10

What initially seemed like a rather straightforward application of engineering and animal

husbandry has proven to be a thorny problem of melding technology with the natural biological

system. The Scientific Review Team and other scientific observers continue to point to a wide range

of biological uncertainties and problems associated with artificial production. This indicates the

need for a concerted research program to investigate specific problems and an aggressive evaluation

program to track progress and identify success and failure.

Because artificial production is an evolving technology, all artificial production programs

have a research and evaluation function. Within an overall plan to evaluate and develop the

technology, individual programs could be used experimentally. But it is not cost-effective or

necessary to undertake research into the difficult and critical uncertainties at every facility. Instead,

some facilities are designed specifically to carefully examine specific questions. The distinguishing

feature of a research program is its operation within a strict experimental design. It likely has

 

10 Among other things, the research purpose addresses SRT guideline number 3 (see Appendix 1).
16

facilities to allow replication and testing. Importantly, a research facility should have an explicit

mechanism to convey its results to the larger community so its techniques can be refined and

replicated where effective.

Combinations of purposes/shifts in purpose

A hatchery facility or program may serve more than one purpose. A particular facility may

contain more than one population and operate for a different purpose for the different populations.

For example, the Bonneville hatchery now serves as a mitigation and a preservation facility for

different populations.

A second situation is where a facility serves dual purposes for one population. For example,

the Umatilla hatchery has a restoration function, intended to help re-seed the natural productive

capacity of the Umatilla River, and a mitigation function, as mitigation for permanent habitat

degradation in the Umatilla and mainstem Columbia. If so, the permanent mitigation aspect of the

hatchery might continue, even as the temporary restoration aspect comes to an end, but with an

appropriate shift in operations. In another example, the production program in the Grande Ronde

River is combining aspects of restoration and preservation. It is legitimate for a hatchery to have a

combination of purposes, but the multiple purposes need to be clearly identified and the implications

addressed.

Because motivations and problems change over time, the purposes for artificial production

will also change. The purpose of some existing hatcheries is now quite different from the purpose

for which they were originally constructed. Production programs that were originally intended as

mitigation for loss of habitat due to dam construction or other development, for example, are now

being evaluated for their use as preservation/conservation facilities. As problems and motivations

change during time, it is important to refine the purpose because policies and performance criteria

for the facility will change accordingly. In a later section of this report, the Council recommends the

re-evaluation of the purposes of each artificial production facility and program over the next three

years.

D. Policies to Guide the Use of Artificial Production

The scientific principles, legal mandates, and purposes provide the backdrop for policies on

the use of artificial production. Decisions to use the tool of artificial production, and how to use it,

need to be made in a scientifically sound manner to achieve management objectives by addressing

specific biological problems. The following policies are intended for that purpose — to be applied

to allow for a detailed understanding and evaluation of artificial production in the basin.

These policies need to be considered in the context of the natural conditions of the Columbia

River Basin as it now exists. In most places, this ecosystem is significantly altered from the time

when Europeans began inhabiting the basin more than 150 years ago. This means that fish

populations adapted to the original “natural” conditions of the Columbia basin may not be the same

as those that are now or could be naturally produced. This does not mean that habitat will not be

improved to be more productive for native fish populations and species, but only that the original

habitat conditions are not achievable in the foreseeable future. Therefore, when these policies speak

of natural conditions, they are referring to current or foreseeable improvements in the existing,
17

altered ecosystem. Production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of artificial

production. However, to minimize the particular adverse impacts on natural populations associated

with harvest management of artificially produced populations, harvest rates and practices must

reflect or be dictated by the requirements to sustain naturally spawning populations.

1. The manner of use and the value of artificial production must be considered in the

context of the environment in which it will be used.

11

Artificial production must be used consistent with an ecologically based scientific foundation

for fish and wildlife recovery. A number of considerations are embedded in this policy, including:

• The success of artificial production depends on the quality of the environment in which the

fish are released, reared, migrate and return.

• Artificial production provides protection for a limited portion of the life cycle of fish that

exist for the rest of their lives in a larger ecological system, albeit altered, that may include

riverine, reservoir, lake, estuarine and marine systems that are subject to environmental

factors and variation that we can only partially understand.

• The success of artificial production must be evaluated with regard to sustained benefits over

the entire life cycle of the produced species in the face of natural environmental conditions,

and not evaluated by the number of juveniles produced.

• Domestication selection is the process whereby an artificially propagated population diverges

in survival traits from the natural population. This divergence is not avoidable entirely, but it

can be limited by careful hatchery protocols such as those required by policies in this report.

• For actions that mitigate for losses in severely altered areas, such as irrevocably blocked

areas where salmon once existed, the production of non-native species may be appropriate in

situations where the altered habitat or species assemblages are inconsistent with feasible

attainment of management objectives using endemic species.

2. Artificial production must be implemented within an experimental, adaptive

management design that includes an aggressive program to evaluate benefits and

address scientific uncertainties.12

The ability of artificial production to provide sustained management and biological benefits

over the entire life cycle and throughout the ecosystem, and to minimize adverse effects to naturally

spawning populations, remains a topic of debate.

3. Hatcheries must be operated in a manner that recognizes that they exist within

ecological systems whose behavior is constrained by larger-scale basin, regional and

global factors.

13

The performance of artificial production programs should mirror the dynamics and behavior

of the larger system. Expectations of constancy in either returns or management are unrealistic.

 

11 This policy should be implemented in a manner that addresses SRT guidelines 1-2 and 4-13 (see Appendix 1).

12 This policy should be implemented in a manner that addresses SRT guidelines 16-19 (see Appendix 1).

13 This policy should be implemented in a manner that addresses SRT guidelines 1-2 and 4-13 (see Appendix 1).
18

• Management of artificial production, and the expectations of that management, should be

flexible to reflect the dynamics of the natural environment. Production and harvest

managers should anticipate large variation in artificial production returns similar to that

in natural production.

• The management and performance of individual facilities cannot be considered in

isolation but must be coordinated at watershed, subbasin, basin and regional levels, and

must be integrated with efforts to improve habitat characteristics and natural production

where appropriate.

4. A diversity of life history types and species needs to be maintained in order to sustain a

system of populations in the face of environmental variation. 14

Recent scientific reviews have indicated that effective restoration of fish populations to the

Columbia River may depend far more on protecting and restoring biological diversity and habitat

than simply increasing abundance. A central management consideration in all artificial production

should be to minimize adverse effects on biological diversity and, to the extent possible, to use the

artificial production tool to help reverse declines in biological diversity.

5. Naturally selected populations should provide the model for successful artificially

reared populations, in regard to population structure, mating protocol, behavior,

growth, morphology, nutrient cycling, and other biological characteristics.

15

Natural selection hones the characteristics of fish populations against the template of the

natural environment. These dynamics shape natural populations so that they collectively have the

characteristics necessary to sustain the species in the face of environmental variation. These

naturally selected populations thus provide a model that should at least guide the efforts to sustain

successful artificially reared populations, even if replicating all natural conditions is not feasible.

The use of locally adapted or compatible broodstocks, and a corresponding reduction in the use of

population transfers and non-endemic populations, is a significant part of this policy.

The implications of this policy may differ somewhat depending on whether the focus is to

improve survival of artificially produced fish, avoid adverse impacts on natural populations, or use

artificial production to try to restore naturally spawning populations. How this policy applies in any

particular situation should be tested using the following three working hypotheses:

• With regard to increasing the survival of the hatchery population itself, the working

hypothesis is that mimicking the incubation, rearing and release conditions of naturally

spawning populations will increase survival rates after release into the natural

environment. Some efforts to mimic natural rearing processes, such as the use of

shading, are generally accepted as appropriate practices. Uncertainty lies in how far

managers should go in mimicking natural rearing conditions in an effort to improve

survival, especially considering the increasing cost, the difficulty of some measures, and

the possibility of declining benefits. In addition, there are certain situations in which the

survival of artificially produced fish appears to be enhanced by not mimicking natural

 

14 This policy should be implemented in a manner that addresses SRT guidelines 1-2 and 4-15 (see Appendix 1).

15 This policy should be implemented in a manner that addresses SRT guidelines 1-2 and 4-13 (see Appendix 1).
19

release size or migration times. Decisions to deviate from the biological characteristics

of the naturally spawning population should be documented through an explicitly stated

biological rationale and carefully evaluated. In addition, the efficacy of programs that

mimic natural populations should continue to be tested to reduce uncertainty.

• With regard to the possibility of adverse impacts of artificial production on naturally

spawning fish, much of the recent literature suggests that using local broodstocks and

mimicking natural rearing conditions will reduce the impacts of artificially produced

populations on naturally spawning populations and the ecosystem. There is a counterhypothesis that, at least in some situations, it is best for artificial production managers to

avoid mimicking the release times, places, and conditions of natural populations to avoid

harmful competition, predation and other adverse interactions. Again, any decisions to

deviate from the biological characteristics of the naturally spawning population should be

documented through an explicitly stated biological rationale and carefully evaluated.

• The final working hypothesis, which applies to artificial production for the restoration

purpose, is that through the use of locally adapted or compatible broodstocks and natural

rearing and release conditions, artificial production can benefit or assist naturally

spawning populations. This is the least established hypothesis of the three, and the one

most in need of experimental treatment and evaluation.

6. The entities authorizing or managing a artificial production facility or program should

explicitly identify whether the artificial propagation product is intended for the purpose

of augmentation, mitigation, restoration, preservation, research, or some combination

of those purposes for each population of fish addressed.

16

Existing determinations of the purpose(s) for all artificial production facilities and programs

should be revisited within the next three years, and periodically thereafter. These evaluations should

take place only in the larger context of decisions on fish and wildlife goals and objectives for the

Basin, provinces and subbasins (see the next part of the report for more detail). Also, a decision to

build or continue artificial production for a specified purpose must include an explicit identification

of the underlying biological problem, an explicit determination that the assumptions or conditions

relating to that artificial production purpose do exist, and an explicit expectation of the duration of

the program:

• A decision identifying an artificial production program as a “permanent” mitigation

program should be accompanied, for example, by an explicit identification of the

permanently lost habitat that it replaces.

• A decision identifying a restoration program should include, for example, an explicit

determination that suitable restored habitat exists or will soon exist for re-seeding. It

should also include a statement of the expected duration of the program, by which it is

expected the natural population will be rebuilt and the facility withdrawn (or continued

with a different identified purpose).

• Similarly, a decision identifying a preservation/conservation program should include, for

example, an explicit determination that the underlying habitat decline or other problem-

 

16 This policy should be implemented in a manner that addresses SRT guidelines 3, 9 and 14 (see Appendix 1).
20

threatening extirpation will be addressed and how. This decision should also include a

statement of the expected duration of the program, the time by which the program will be

evaluated to determine if it is a success (meaning the time by which it is expected that

natural processes can once again sustain the population, and the facility withdrawn or

converted to another identified purpose) or a failure (meaning that it is time to end or

reorient the program).

7. Decisions on the use of the artificial production tool need to be made in the context of

deciding on fish and wildlife goals, objectives and strategies at the subbasin and

province levels.

While decisions on the use of artificial production are best made in the subbasin context,

these decisions also need to be consistent with basinwide and regional considerations and objectives.

The monitoring and evaluation framework for artificial production facilities and programs should

also have a regional/basinwide aspect as well as specific subbasin elements.

8. Appropriate risk management needs to be maintained in using the tool of artificial

propagation. 17

As critically important as monitoring and evaluation are, it is most difficult, and in some

cases still impossible, to monitor and evaluate the effects we most care about, such as complex

ecological interactions, ocean effects and interactions, and the relationship between changes in

artificial production practices and ultimate adult returns. The same is true of other aspects of the

complex biological problem of fish and wildlife recovery, so the risk management strategies applied

to artificial production should be generally consistent with those applied to other stages of the lifecycle and to other factors affecting the status of populations.

9. Production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of artificial production,

but to minimize adverse impacts on natural populations associated with harvest

management of artificially produced populations, harvest rates and practices must be

dictated by the requirements to sustain naturally spawning populations.18

10. Federal and other legal mandates and obligations for fish protection, mitigation, and

enhancement must be fully addressed.

Efforts to address these mandates and obligations have historically been unsuccessful, at least

in large part. The principles, policies and purposes identified here are not intended to diminish or

otherwise affect these mandates and obligations. At the same time, it is recognized that these

mandates and obligations can be, and might be, altered, by the appropriate authorities in response to

this document or other events.

 

17 This policy should be implemented in a manner that addresses SRT guidelines 16-17 (see Appendix 1).

18 This policy should be implemented in a manner that addresses SRT guideline 17 (see Appendix 1).
21

E. Performance Standards 19

Artificial production programs can be evaluated against the set of general policies described

above. But more can be gained by translating the general policies into specific and detailed

performance standards and then evaluating artificial production programs against those standards.

For example, the general policy calling for the biological characteristics of natural populations to be

the model for artificial production can be further developed into a number of more specific

operational standards, such as maintaining sex ratios, migration timing, and age composition.

Over the last few years, a number of agencies, inter-agency teams or scientific panels have

developed partial or comprehensive sets of guidelines and standards to be used to evaluate artificial

production. The guidelines in the Science Review Team’s final report are but one example; the most

comprehensive effort is the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team’s (IHOT) Policies and Procedures

for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries from 1995. All of these efforts have been

sensitive to the modern concerns for minimizing harm to natural populations. At the same time, it is

possible that some of the standards developed even in the recent past are not consistent with the

principles and policy statements that the Council recommends in this report.

For this reason, participants in the Artificial Production Review, working with Council staff

and facilitators, organized an ad hoc workgroup to pull together a set of performance standards that

can be used in a consistent manner to evaluate artificial production operations in the future.

Attached to this report is a draft of the performance standards that the group developed, using the

policies and purposes in this report, the guidelines in the Science Review Team’s report, and the

IHOT policies as a foundation for these draft standards. The performance standards are still in draft

form, as the Council intends to seek peer and public review before making a final recommendation.

 

19 This policy should be implemented in a manner that addresses SRT guideline 18 (see Appendix 1).
22

III. Implementing Reform in Artificial Production Policy and Practices

A. Six Implementation Recommendations

Declaring the best possible set of artificial production policies is not enough. The policies

must be implemented. “Implementation” of the policies for production reform means two different

things. First, some of the policies, purposes and scientific principles described above are intended to

inform decisions on whether, where, why and when to use the artificial production tool to help meet

regional, provincial, and subbasin fish and wildlife goals. The second meaning of “implementation”

has to do with how to operate a production facility once a decision is made to have or continue

having the facility for a specific purpose. The critical issue in this second meaning is how to apply

the policies and performance standards described in this report to help boost the survival of

artificially produced fish while minimizing harm to and possibly benefiting naturally spawning

populations.

What is required now is an intensive effort to integrate and coordinate the region’s resources

over the next few years to achieve the goal of artificial production reform consistent with the policies

recommended in Part II. To be successful, this program will require leadership not only from the

Northwest Power Planning Council, but also from federal and state agencies, Indian tribes, the sport

and commercial fishing communities, wild fish advocates, and the scientific community. As a result

of the Artificial Production Review, which included the active participation of leaders from all of

these communities, the Council is confident that the recommended work plan will succeed in

managing and directing the necessary reforms of artificial production in the Columbia River Basin.

Six basic recommendations form the core of the Council’s vision for implementation of the

policies and standards for artificial production reform:

1. Evaluate the purposes for all artificial production facilities and programs in the basin within

three years, applying the principles, policies and statement of purposes recommended above.

This recommendation is discussed in more detail below, in Part IIIB. The re-evaluation of

artificial production programs should not take place in isolation, but instead in the broader context of

a subbasin planning process that considers and adopts comprehensive fish and wildlife objectives

and strategies for each subbasin, consistent with fish and wildlife objectives at the basinwide and

province levels. Applying the principles, purposes and policies recommended in this report will help

decisionmakers analyze whether and how to use the artificial production tool to meet broader

objectives.

One task discussed in more detail below is the need to further refine, relatively quickly, the

evaluation standards and tools, such as the use of the draft Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan

(HGMP) template currently under development, that will enable the reform initiative to proceed

efficiently (see Appendix 4). A multi-agency group first developed the HGMP concept as a

planning tool to address anadromous fish in the U.S. v Washington litigation. The National Marine

Fisheries Service is in the process of modifying the HGMP template for use in recovery efforts for

listed salmon species under the ESA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering using the
23

HGMP template, modified as necessary, to address the needs for recovery of resident fish species

listed under the ESA. The Council and other participants in the Artificial Production Review are

also reviewing and modifying the draft HGMP template so that it can be used to obtain the kind of

information needed from artificial production programs throughout the Columbia Basin to be able to

implement the production reforms described in this report. The intent is to modify the HGMP

template so that it addresses both resident and anadromous fish and is complementary to the

performance standards and associated indicators.

2. Applying the policies and standards in Part II, take the necessary steps to evaluate and then

improve the operation of artificial production facilities that have an agreed-upon purpose.

This recommendation is discussed in more detail below, in Part IIIC. The main focus in

reforming operations should be to increase the survival of the artificially produced fish while

minimizing adverse effects on and possibly benefiting naturally spawning populations.

3. Use existing processes as much as possible to implement reform policies and standards.

It would be easy if one body were in charge of all Columbia River artificial production

programs, and had the will (or obligation) and the funds for implementation of these

recommendations. That is not the case, not even with all federally-funded artificial production

programs. Like many things in the Columbia River, responsibility for production programs is spread

throughout a number of governmental and non-governmental entities, funding sources differ,

operating agencies are often distinct from authorizing or funding agencies, management authority

and regulatory or planning authority are often separate, and funds are limited or committed in

relatively inflexible ways. All of these factors make coordinating and implementing reform a

challenge. Artificial production reform cannot wait while we debate the need for a super

decisionmaking body.

On the other hand, the region has a number of potentially effective tools for implementing

desired changes in production practices, especially including existing planning processes, project

funding reviews, ESA reviews, and the re-negotiation of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan

in the U.S. v. Oregon litigation. These tools will need to be coordinated and managed effectively.

Each is somewhat limited in its reach. These implementation tools are noted briefly below, and

discussed in more detail as part of the description of the policy landscape in Appendix 2.

Thus the Council recommends at this point the use of existing planning, review and funding

processes for implementing reforms in artificial production policy and practices, but with this

understanding: the decisions in these processes must be made consistent with the principles,

purposes, policies and standards described in this report. Examples of how these existing processes

can be used are discussed below in both Parts IIIB and IIIC. In the next few months, the Council

will coordinate with states, tribes, federal agencies and other interested participants to refine further

how these existing efforts can be better organized and integrated to accelerate needed reforms.

4. Ensure that the funding necessary to implement the reforms called for in this report is

available.

This recommendation is discussed in more detail below, in Part IIID.
24

5. Form an ad hoc oversight team to oversee the implementation of artificial production reform

consistent with the policies recommended in this report.

Responsibilities for artificial production programs and facilities are spread among a number

of agencies and levels of government, yet it is important to implement artificial production reform

across the basin in a consistent, coordinated and efficient manner. A small team of key agency

personnel, independent scientists, and representatives of influential non-governmental organizations

assigned to watch over and coordinate the reform effort would be of benefit. The Council

recommends that such an ad hoc team be formed, and will initiate the discussions to form the team,

evolving from the existing participants in the Artificial Production Review and Multi-Species

Framework process. One early task for the team will be to further define the approach, work plan

and decision points for evaluating the purpose of all the artificial production programs and facilities

over the next three years.

6. In five years, assess the success in using existing processes to implement reforms

The Council believes this is not the time for creation of a single new body and process to

review all artificial production programs in the basin and make definitive decisions on hatchery

reform or closure. That time may come, if the efforts over the next few years do not bear the

expected fruits. After five years, the Council, other regional decisionmakers and Congress should

assess whether existing review, funding and planning processes are successful in implementing

needed reforms in artificial production practices. In the interim, the entities responsible for artificial

production programs should issue annual reports on their progress in achieving the policies and

standards called for in this report. The Council is willing to act as a clearinghouse to obtain,

compile, and distribute these annual reports for review by decisionmakers and the public.

B. Evaluating the Purposes for All Artificial Production Facilities and Programs in the

Basin

The policies, purposes and scientific considerations described above are intended to inform

decisions on the use of the artificial production tool to help meet regional, provincial, and subbasin

fish and wildlife recovery goals. In other words, to help answer the fundamental question, do you

want to use x hatchery (or build y hatchery) and for what purpose? That question is essentially a

policy question, but it is not open-ended — the answers must be consistent with the biological and

policy considerations concerning artificial production described above.

1. Initial evaluation of purposes of artificial production facilities and programs

For existing production programs and facilities, a decision of what the purpose or purposes

are has already been made, if not always on a clear foundation. But our understanding of the

biological and policy framework for fish and wildlife recovery in the basin has changed in the last

decade and will be changing further, as is also true of the biological and policy principles for how

artificial production might fit into the broader fish and wildlife objectives.

For this reason, purposes for existing artificial production facilities and programs need to be

evaluated immediately, based on the template of purposes described in Part II. A reasonably

aggressive schedule for re-evaluation of the purposes of all the artificial production programs in the
25

Columbia basin appears to be three years. The outcomes of these evaluations might be to continue

with existing purposes, change purposes, expand purposes, or shut down the facility. These

purposes need to be evaluated in the context of the environment (at the basin, province and subbasin

levels) and in relation to overall fish and wildlife goals, objectives, strategies, and requirements.

The ultimate goal, described in the next section (IIIB2), is to evaluate the purposes of

artificial production in the context of agreeing-upon new subbasin plans. Regardless, interim

evaluations of the purposes of existing facilities should not wait until the region completes the

upcoming regional planning efforts (such as the completion of the Framework analysis and the

amendment of the Council’s fish and wildlife program) and initiates the subbasin planning process.

Managers must use whatever existing processes that they already face — such as annual funding

reviews — to begin the evaluation of the purposes of their facilities. Until new subbasin

assessments and plans are completed, managers and evaluators should rely on information already

available or soon to be available, including but not limited to:

• the scientific principles, policies and purposes in this report

• the template for Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (currently under development)

• the province-level analysis from the Framework process (currently under development,

and expected by the end of 1999)

• existing subbasin plans

• Independent Hatchery Operations Team guidelines

• the Science Review Team’s report

• U.S. v. Oregon products and agreements

• Biological opinions addressing the Endangered Species Act

• Independent hatchery audits contracted by Bonneville Power Administration

Recommendation: Over the next three years, review and determine the purpose for every artificial

production program and facility in the basin, federal and non-federal, consistent with the

principles, purposes and policies described in Part II of this report. These evaluations should be a

prerequisite for seeking continued funding or approvals in whatever funding and approval

reviews that the facility or program faces in the next few years.

2. Evaluation of purposes of artificial production facilities and programs over time — the

need for subbasin plans

Artificial production is not an end in itself. It is only one of many possible tools for meeting

fish and wildlife objectives, and the need for and effectiveness of the tool must be evaluated as

objectives evolve. It is generally agreed that the region must come together on medium-term to

long-term decisions on fish and wildlife recovery for the Columbia River. More precisely, we

urgently need agreements and decisions at the basin, province, and subbasin levels on what we want

to accomplish in terms of fish and wildlife recovery in the basin and what strategies seem most

promising for rebuilding naturally sustaining populations to healthy, harvestable levels as well as

mitigating for habitat irrevocably altered by the construction and operation of the hydropower

system. These decisions and agreements need to be based on the best available scientific knowledge

of how lake, river, estuarine, and ocean ecosystems function and how fish and wildlife populations

survive and interact. And it is as a part of these larger decisions that decisions need to be made on
26

whether and how to use the artificial production tool in each subbasin, consistent with the policies,

purposes and principles described in Part II.

The planning and decision making process that this implies is precisely what the salmon and

steelhead system and subbasin planning process of the late 1980s was intended to achieve. (See the

discussion in Appendix 2.) That process never came to an ultimate conclusion because of

significantly changing circumstances, including the first Endangered Species Act listings, just as the

planning process was nearing a conclusion. The need still exists, and the time is ripe to return to the

task. Although this planning originally was limited to the area below Chief Joseph and Hells

Canyon dams, it should address the entire Columbia Basin and include not only salmon and

steelhead, but also resident fish species.

There are a number of Columbia basin fish and wildlife planning processes in operation or

about to begin that could be, in whole or in part, a vehicle for this effort to evaluate the purposes of

artificial production in the broader context of basin and subbasin goals and objectives. Precisely

how to proceed, and how to make use of and coordinate the various planning processes, needs

serious thought and discussion among the various entities in the basin. The Artificial Production

Review is not the forum where these discussions should occur, but the initial evaluations of artificial

production purposes called for above (IIIB1) should provide valuable building blocks for anticipated

work on subbasin assessments and plans.

One plausible vehicle for re-initiating this subbasin planning effort is the Council’s Fish and

Wildlife Program amendment process. The 1987 amendments to the Council’s Columbia River Fish

and Wildlife Program led directly to the first effort at salmon and steelhead system/subbasin

planning. The Council will likely begin a Program amendment process later in 1999. An outcome

of that Program amendment process could be a policy and biological framework of recovery goals

and biological objectives for the basin or system as a whole and for at least the ecological province

level; a framework and process for completing the planning process at the subbasin level for

anadromous and resident fish; and decisions (or policies and criteria to guide decisions) on whether,

where, why, when, and how to use the artificial production tool to try to achieve these objectives.

The Council cannot itself make the subbasin planning determinations within the Program

amendment process, for a number of reasons. These determinations are better made in decentralized

processes involving the relevant participants at the subbasin level, at most guided by a broader

policy and scientific framework. Nor can the Council determine conclusively in its Program the

future of all the production programs in the basin, since many of them are authorized and funded

outside of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program.

What the Council’s Program amendment process can do is be a regionally coordinated effort

at developing a policy and biological framework of goals, objectives and policies for the system as a

whole and logical ecological provinces. It will also provide the basis and the framework for a

subsequent subbasin planning process at which the responsible participants decide on the objectives

for each subbasin and the role of the various artificial production programs in meeting those

objectives.

The Council’s late 1980s Program amendment process, and the salmon and steelhead system

and subbasin planning process that came out of it, began with the negotiated agreement of the

Columbia River Fish Management Plan by certain states and tribes and the federal government as
27

part of the U.S. v. Oregon fish harvest litigation. The Management Plan went beyond harvest

management concerns to include a set of rebuilding commitments, production objectives and plans

as part of that commitment, and a recommendation for the subbasin planning process. (see

Appendix 2). The same dynamic is present now — the Columbia River Fish Management Plan

expired at the end of 1998, although the court extended the application of the plan into 1999 while

the federal, state and tribal participants negotiate a revised plan. If completed and appropriately

structured, the product of the Management Plan negotiations could once again be integrated with the

Council Program amendment process.

The dynamics are different than in the mid-1980s, with ever-growing Endangered Species

Act concerns and review requirements, an agreement on the magnitude of funds that will be spent on

the fish and wildlife program annually, greater consideration of the fish and wildlife needs in areas

outside the purview of the U.S. v. Oregon participants, independent science review procedures for

funding implementation of the Fish and Wildlife Program, and especially a growing scientific and

policy emphasis on ecological processes, as opposed to technological processes to rebuild fish and

wildlife populations. The Management Plan renegotiations thus cannot take place in a vacuum and

be simply handed to the Council to place in the Program — the negotiations and the results have to

be sensitive to and coordinated with these other elements. As noted above, the Fish and Wildlife

Program has its own limitations, especially the limited focus on hydropower system mitigation in a

basin with a multi-faceted problem, the fact that a number of the important production programs are

outside the Program, and the Council’s lack of direct implementation authority. The Fish and

Wildlife amendment process and the Management Plan renegotiations, if properly coordinated, can

achieve far more together than either apart, as they can balance each other’s limitations.

Another possible vehicle for initiating review of the use of artificial production could be

multi-species recovery planning for the Columbia River basin under the Endangered Species Act.

The federal agencies are at work on a “4H” paper as a precursor to the recovery plans that will

include consideration of the artificial production needs in a broader context. The Council expects

that the general analysis in the 4H paper will mirror the considerations and policies in this report.

Like the other planning processes, ESA recovery planning has peculiarities and limitations,

including a defined approach to recovery of self-sustaining population numbers that may be far too

low to be relevant to what people want out of fish populations in the basin. ESA recovery planning

and its affects on artificial production in the future needs coordination and shared analysis with the

other planning process.

One vehicle that already exists for linking these planning processes into a shared analytical

and substantive focus is the on-going Multi-Species Framework process. The Council joined with

the other entities in the basin precisely to provide a coordinated and unified biological and socialeconomic analysis that will help decisionmakers define ecological objectives and strategies for fish

and wildlife recovery in the basin as a whole and at finer levels of geographic scale. This analytical

process could eventually include, it is hoped, evaluating the efficacy of artificial production

techniques in helping to meet broader defined recovery goals and objectives. This will allow for

informed decisions on whether and how to incorporate the use of the artificial production tool into

basin and subbasin objectives.

Recommendation: The Council expects that by sometime in 2000, the ultimate conclusion of

various analytical, planning and decision making processes in the region (e.g., the Multispecies

Framework process, the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program amendment process, the federal
28

agencies’ ESA decisions, and Management Plan re-negotiations in U.S. v. Oregon) will be the

initiation of a comprehensive subbasin planning process, guided in part by basin and provincelevel goals and objectives, overarching policies for artificial production based on the policies in

this report, and criteria for subbasin planning. The purpose or purposes of all artificial

production facilities must be re-evaluated in that subbasin planning effort, consistent with the

policies in this report.

C. Applying the Policies and Performance Standards to Evaluate and Improve the

Operation of Artificial Production Facilities

The Council assumes artificial production will continue to be used in the basin as one tool for

achieving fish and wildlife requirements (although how and why it is used may change as the region

revisits its planning assumptions). Thus the second “implementation” issue is how to improve the

operations of a facility that decisionmakers want to build or continue for a specific purpose. The

critical issue here is how to guide the application of the policies and performance standards in this

report to boost the survival of artificially produced fish while minimizing damage to and possibly

benefiting naturally spawning populations. This is also the time to ensure adequate monitoring and

evaluation protocols intended to evaluate both whether production is meeting its defined purpose and

how well its operations improve survival and minimize adverse impacts.

1. General recommendation — immediately implement needed improvements in artificial

production programs and facilities

Program managers and review bodies need to begin reviewing artificial production programs

and facilities immediately for consistency (or deficiencies) with the policies and performance

standards described in this report, and developing plans for upgrading programs and facilities

consistent with these standards. Annual funding reviews and ESA consultation and permit reviews

are examples of vehicles to be used for evaluating facilities against these standards and assessing

whether improvements are needed. One of the reasons the Council recommends allowing

production reform to take place over the next few years within existing processes is the expectation

that recently issued and forthcoming ESA reviews analyzing the effects of artificial production will

be a powerful agent for identifying and requiring changes. But biological opinions and their ESA

cousins carry no funds to allow for change, and do not consider all the issues of concern to managers

and planners, so the ESA reviews and the performance requirements that result need to be integrated

into the funding processes and standards that are a prerequisite for continued funding of an artificial

production program.

These reforms will require significant transition funding, the ability to reprogram resources

and a commitment to a multi-year action program. During this transition period, the region will need

an annual review of the progress, decisions, and actions necessary to achieve these reforms.

Recommendation: All facilities must be evaluated for consistency with the policies and standards

in this report relating to artificial production. Evaluating the facility, developing a workplan to

meet the standards, and showing progress toward meeting the standards should be a pre-requisite

to obtaining continued funding (in whatever funding process the facility sits) or obtaining ESA

approval for continued operations. Transition and re-programming funds need to be available

(see Part IIID) to make this transition a reality.
29

The Council intends to use the funding reviews that it oversees (of the Bonneville direct

fish and wildlife program and Bonneville’s reimbursable programs, such as the Lower Snake

River Compensation Plan facilities) as a vehicle for evaluating and improving the operations of

artificial production facilities measured by the standards in this report. The Council intends to do

this in a cooperative fashion. Existing authorities not funded through Council programs will

continue their own funding and management decisions, but there is much to recommend a single

review process, especially if it can become a “one-stop shop” for a scientifically credible review of

facility operations in the context of review of other actions in the relevant subbasins. The Council

is prepared to host such an effort, not as the ultimate decisionmaker, but as the body that is

already planning to oversee rolling, in-depth reviews of production and other activities provinceby-province and subbasin-by-subbasin throughout the basin, as part of how the Council is redesigning its funding review processes. Programs not already included in those reviews could

integrate information about their facilities for review in the appropriate province review, and take

back the review analysis as information for their funding decisions.

2. How to evaluate for consistency with policies and standards and identification of

deficiencies; use of independent audits; independent scientific review

In order to make decisions in the performance reviews, the managers, scientific panels and

decisionmakers will need information as to whether and how any particular program or facility is

succeeding or deficient in meeting the regional performance standards. Some of that information

already exists, especially in the independent audits of anadromous fish hatchery performance

initiated by the Council, using performance measures developed by Independent Hatchery

Operations Team (IHOT) that are at least partially consistent with the policies and standards

described above. (For more details on IHOT and the audits, see the discussion in Appendix 2.)

Recommendation: Entities seeking funding for artificial production programs should analyze

their programs and facilities against the policies and performance standards described in this

report to identify deficiencies and needed improvements, making use of the existing audit

information where appropriate. These entities should use a combination of self-evaluations and

independent evaluations, using scientific resources to focus on critical areas of uncertainty. The

end result of this self-evaluation process should be a demonstration of consistency with the

policies and standards or an explanation of inconsistencies and a proposal for correction. The

evaluations and conclusions should then be presented to the review bodies, including independent

scientific panels, for review as part of the funding processes. And, until the decisions on use and

purpose are revisited as described in Part IIIB above, the proposals and decisions in the funding

reviews should include an explicit if interim evaluation of the more fundamental questions about

purpose, which would balance the magnitude of needed operational improvements against the

potential for a change in purpose, as part of a judgment on funding priorities.
30

D. Establish Transition Fund and Opportunities for Reprogramming of Funding

1. Transition Funding

Funding this reform effort will be critical to reaching good informed decisions. The initial

requirements will include funding the subbasin planning effort and funding for the initial

modifications of facilities and programs necessary to comply with ESA biological opinions and the

first round of requirements out of the funding reviews. Use of the HGMP’s and existing processes

will continue to determine the initial transitional needs until the subbasin plans are completed. As

the subbasin plans are completed they will define the future purposes for artificial production and

any investments that are required to modify or improve hatchery operations, any costs to close a

facility, and whatever new programs will be undertaken in the subbasins. These actions could all

involve significant one time capital costs. In addition, the participants in the production review have

identified the potential need for a limited number of target research efforts on certain critical topics.

In order to meet the needs of funding for reform activities, transition funds should be

estimated and reserved. These funds need to be large enough to facilitate reform, but should not

lock in long term funding of artificial production activities before the review decisions are made and

reform proceeds. The request for the appropriate size of this fund will need to be developed over the

next several months. It is anticipated that funding for the transition activities will come from

ratepayers, federal taxpayers, and others. Without providing the funds needed for reform, managers

will be reluctant to undertake the work required to evaluate their programs against the standards.

Recommendation: Estimate the magnitude of the transition funding needed and identify criteria

for its use. All relevant funding sources will need to provide transition funding necessary for

artificial production reform.

2. Reprogramming of funding

Congress, the Council and other decisionmakers need to ensure that changes resulting from

this effort do not lead to a diminishment of funding to fulfill mitigation and treaty responsibilities.

One of the key concerns of the participants in the Artificial Production Review is that this reform

effort will be used as a cover for reducing program investments instead of increasing the value of

those region's fish and wildlife efforts. As a result many decisions about the future of certain

facilities or programs might be frozen by agencies, tribes and communities that fear change will

equal a net loss. It is essential that we create a situation in which tough decisions on production

facilities and programs can be made to create the greatest value for fish and wildlife recovery, which

will require some assurances that funding and other resources can be re-prioritized or reprogrammed

to other actions to meet the fish and wildlife objectives.

Recommendation: Authorize reprogramming of funding from existing artificial production

programs or facilities where necessary so that funding can be retained and applied to other

appropriate tools (whether new artificial production or some other strategy) to meet fish and

wildlife responsibilities.
31

Attachment

FINAL DRAFT

Artificial Production Review

Proposed Performance Standards and Indicators

Compiled by an ad hoc work group of the Production Review Committee

to the Artificial Production Review

September 24, 1999
32

I. INTRODUCTION

The performance standards and indicators (PS&I) are an outgrowth of discussions in the

regional Production Review Committee (PRC) of the Northwest Power Planning Council

(NWPPC) Artificial Production Review (APR) process initially and more specifically,

from an adhoc PS&I work group. The PS&I work group met as a committee on a

number of occasions and have developed the document to its present Working Draft #9

format. The working philosophy has been to extend the NWPPC document on Artificial

Production Programs and Policies for Hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin into the

next level of detail incorporating the Science Review Team (SRT) guidelines (see page

xxii), the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) performance standards and

indicators and the Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee (PNWFHPC)

guidelines into the present set of measurable PS&I's. These PS&I's attempt to quantify

both benefits and risks of using artificial production programs and facilities as

management tools within the five purposes of artificial production outlined earlier (Table

1). It was recognized by the PRC that if artificial production programs in the Columbia

River Basin are to be evaluated in a comprehensive manner it must be done by applying a

consistent set of PS&I's uniformly for all purposes and for all individual hatcheries. With

regard to applying these indicators to specific hatcheries it should be understood that the

intent is to provide a menu of Performance Indicators (PI) for regional guidance and that

a greater level of detail will be required at the individual hatchery consistent with the

appropriate subbasin goals, objectives, and strategies. The intention of the ad hoc PS&I

work group was to articulate PI's which were:

1. Measurable

2. Realistic

3. Feasible

4. Clear and understandable

5. Affordable

6. Consistent application in policy and law

In the context of artificial production reform it is critical to ask how are we going to

evaluate artificial production success or how will we know success when we see it? In

the ad hoc PS&I work group, the main criterion for success was to achieve the identified

benefits of artificial production while managing the risks through a research, monitoring,

and evaluation (RM&E) program focusing on performance indicators. Essentially,

estimating success is a complex enterprise, but it has never been as simple as only

documenting juvenile hatchery production. Instead, in order to accurately estimate

artificial production success, for example, as in anadromous salmon, it involves

partitioning survival at key life history stages within the artificial environment, post

hatchery release in freshwater (tributary and mainstem), estuary, nearshore and marine

habitats. Clearly, the true measure of the hatchery product, whether resident or

anadromous, is to contribute adult fish not juveniles to the Tribal Treaty and non-treaty

fisheries, and to optimize spawning ground escapement. Basically, the development of

the PS&I evaluation system is to set up accountable, performance based management of
33

artificial production programs to assure a focus on adults or the appropriate life history

stage for resident fish, for harvest of resident and anadromous fish and for viable

population numbers on the spawning grounds. The development and application of the

proposed PS&I's are not in anyway meant to limit the Tribal Treaty/Executive Order

fishing rights, C&S obligation, Tribal trust responsibilities or any other rights of Indian

Tribes.

In an effort to respond to the permitting needs of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) it is

being proposed that the PS&I's be incorporated into the hatchery and genetic

management plan (HGMP). The HGMP represents an opportunity to standardize the

reporting of data for the ESA purposes and also to incorporate more comprehensive data

useful to evaluate all anadromous or resident artificial production programs from specific

hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin.

Aside from enumerating the Benefits and Risks and their respective performance

standards and indicators, the Benefit and Risk Matrix attempts to preview how specific

benefits and risks are unique and/or common to each artificial production purpose. This

is an important insight because the level of risk is not equal across all artificial production

purposes. However, critical research topics need to be initiated in order to scientifically

evaluate the level of risk associated with specific artificial production programs within a

given purpose. The approach recommended by the ad hoc PS&I working group requires

conducting critical regional research studies by species at a specific hatchery within a

subbasin and extrapolating the results to the rest of the region where appropriate.
34

II. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND INDICATORS

BENEFITS

Performance standards Performance indicators

1. Provide predictable, stable and increased harvest

opportunity

- Treaty/Executive Order and non-treaty

- C&S obligation

- Recreation (consumptive and non-consumptive)

- Apply Scientific Review Team (SRT) Guideline (G)171

1Brannon, E.L., et al. 1999. Review of Artificial Production of

Anadromous and Resident Fish in the Columbia River Basin, Part 1:

A scientific basis for a Columbia River production program,

Northwest Power Planning Council.

Predictable, stable, and increased harvest opportunities met. Managed for

increasing, stable, or decreasing trend line, comparing past trend with

future. Developed RM&E plan by species to measure and collect data.

Evaluated juvenile, smolt to adult survival or contribution to harvest

trends.

1. Anadromous

a. Recreational– Increased number of angler days and harvest

- Catch/unit effort/year

- Catch #’s/harvest/year

- Units of effort/year

- Established baseline at Year One, compare with 5 year

survey or one generation

b. Commercial – Tribal treaty and non-treaty fishery harvest

needs met.

- Deviations from 50% of the ocean and river fishery for fall

chinook and steelhead allocation, and other specific

indicators determined by species

- Report annually on deviation from 50% allocation of all

fisheries, Tribal and Non-Tribal hatcheries above

Bonneville

- Absolute # harvested

(a) all fisheries (ocean, in-river)

(b) Tribal fisheries (ocean, in-river)

- Number of pounds and value (quantity) harvested

2. Resident (native or non-native)
35

BENEFITS

Performance standards Performance indicators

a. Recreational – Tribal Treaty / Executive Order and NonTreaty fishery. Key statistic is increasing number of angler

days to be able to harvest fish with as little effort as possible.

Indicators measured should be population specific by species

- Numbers, length, weight, age, and pounds harvested or

released

- Deviations from 50% harvest allocation

- Area and time of harvest

- Production cost of hatchery fish harvested

- Deviation from sport minimum threshold by species

- Perceived value of fish harvested

- Angler satisfaction determined every 5 years or after one

generation

- Condition factor of fish in creel

- Catch per unit effort goals

3. Complied, where applicable, with HGMP

2. Conservation of genetic and life history diversity

- Establish baseline for hatchery and/or wild 

populations

- similar to wild or

- isolated from wild

- Evaluate at yearly increments depending upon 

- generation time for the selected species

- Make changes to correct for divergence from 

baseline

- Apply SRT – G1-2, 4-17

A. Used number of adults necessary to achieve minimum effective

population size (MEPS). Trend target in 4 out of 5 years + 10%

B. Evaluated whether life history characteristics were maintained by

comparing baseline at year 1 with 5 year survey, or after one

generation. Life history characteristics measured:

1. Age composition

2. Fecundity (#, and size)

3. Body size (size, length, weight, age, and maturity index)

4. Sex ratio

5. Juvenile migration timing

6. Adult run timing
36

BENEFITS

Performance standards Performance indicators

7. Distribution and straying

8. Time and location of spawning

9. Food habits

C. Evaluated broodstock genetically in year 1 and compare after 5 years,

or one generation, in terms of DNA or allozyme profile

D. Captive broodstock

1. Increased number of individuals in captivity to substantially

greater numbers than wild survival standard (% survival standard)

2. Progeny represented full range of life history traits of parent

population in the wild. Surrogate: genetic analysis (DNA or

allozyme frequencies)

3. Implemented RM&E plan to document survival of juveniles and

returning adults

4. Followed NMFS interim standards for captive broodstock

E. Cryopreservation

1. Implemented RM&E plan to represent full range of life history

traits (see Risk A10, 1-9)

2. Equaled or exceeded quality control standard for sperm viability

F. Promoted regional gene bank to preserve existing populations not

under threat of extinction

G. Complied, where applicable, with HGMP

H. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented
37

BENEFITS

Performance standards Performance indicators

3. Enhance tribal, local, state, regional and national

economies

A. Established increasing trend in the value of harvest by documenting:

1. Commercial and sport fisheries value

2. Economic return from ex vessel, wholesale value

3. Opportunity or angler days translated to dollars

4. Cannot value tribal fisheries only in dollar terms for the

commercial and sport fishery

5. Production cost of hatchery fish harvested

B. Developed overall economic impact model to compute direct, indirect 

and induced effects from hatchery production.

4. Fulfill legal/policy obligations A. Legal and policy obligations of the hatchery goal met, in terms of

numbers of hatchery fish to the fishery in 4 out of 5 years + 10%

1. Marine and freshwater fisheries

2. Resident fisheries in pounds of fish harvested

B. Decreased litigation

5. Contribution of hatchery fish carcasses to ecosystem

function by subbasin and by hatchery

-Stream/river nutrification from hatchery carcasses

-Nutrient input for fisheries and wildlife

-Food web impacts

A. Hatcheries developed RM&E plans with stringent disease standards as

identified by PNWFHPC and IHOT protocols for using the carcasses

as a nutrient source

1. Collaborative agency, tribal and university research implemented a

pilot project
38

BENEFITS

Performance standards Performance indicators

6. Provide fish to satisfy legally mandated harvest in a manner

which eliminates impacts on weak hatchery and broodstock wild

populations

- Apply SRT – G17

A. Developed harvest management plan for hatchery fish

B. Computed ratio of wild fish to harvest

1. Evaluated trend analysis of past/present hatchery contributions to

harvest.

2. Defined an upper maximum ratio of wild fish allowed in the

harvest

C. Documented total harvest of hatchery fish

1. Used appropriate techniques of selective harvest and rearing by

separation in time, space, gear and hatchery fish identification,

where appropriate

D. Determined that total harvest of wild populations of concern does not

exceed upper maximum of absolute number of wild fish

E. Established and met natural population escapement goal, where

applicable, in 4 out of 5 years ± 10 %

F. Hatchery broodstock goals and objectives established and met in 4 out

of 5 years ± 10%

G. Complied, where applicable, with HGMP

H. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

7. Will achieve within hatchery performance standards

- Apply SRT – G1-2, 4-13, 16, 19

A. IHOT standards achieved

B. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

C. Complied, where applicable, with HGMP

8. Restore and create viable naturally spawning populations

- Apply SRT – G1-2, G4-16

A. Managed for increasing trend of redd counts as index of natural

spawning

B. Managed for increasing numbers of adult fish

C. Managed for increasing trend in adult resident fish
39

BENEFITS

Performance standards Performance indicators

D. Managed for increasing trend in juvenile anadromous or resident fish

rearing densities in #’s/m2 by habitat

E. Managed for increasing trend in nutrients from adult carcasses in

tributaries

F. Managed for increasing F2 spawners

G. Complied, where applicable, with HGMP

H. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

9. Plan and provide fish with coordinated mainstem passage and

habitat research in the Columbia Basin

- Apply SRT – G17

A. Developed a project with a regional perspective for a multi-year

funded research plan with funding support

B. Described funding umbrella to provide context for individual project

research

C. Developed plan consistent with subbasin goals, objectives and 

strategies, including Mainstem
40

BENEFITS

Performance Standards Performance Indicators

10. Conduct within hatchery research, improve the performance or

cost effectiveness of artificial production hatcheries to address

the other four purposes

- Apply SRT – G1-2, 4-13, 15-17

A. Developed comprehensive regionally coordinated RM&E plan that

includes a website for all hatcheries in the basin

1. Bonneville Power Administration, National Marine Fisheries

Service, United State Geological Survey/Biological Research

Division, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, universities,

private aquaculture industry, utilities, states, tribes, land

management agencies, etc.

B. Developed a research study plan which:

1. Implemented genetic studies of straying, introgression, and

outbreeding depression at a specific hatchery by species

2. Conducted focused carrying capacity study

3. Evaluated potential hatchery/wild competition by ecosystem

4. Evaluated the fate of hatchery population mimicking the wild

population in terms of adult return or yield to the creel

5. Conducted hatchery evaluations on selected hatcheries within ecosystems to estimate post-release survival by tributary, mainstem,

estuary, and ocean in order to accurately evaluate hatchery

performance by species by hatchery

C. Integrated hatchery and programs into subbasin management plan

within 3 years using:

1. Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) as part of the plan

by species

2. RM&E plan

3. Hatchery specific harvest management plan

D. Improved marine survival and yield of adults in the fishery or

spawning grounds

F. Research priorities have been set by evaluating performance indicators

which haven’t been met. Standard is adaptive management
41

BENEFITS

Performance Standards Performance Indicators

11. Minimize management, administrative and overhead costs.

- Reduce process

- Respond to performance indicators

- Conduct annual performance review

- Reduced manpower / overhead rates

- Integrate with other programs

- Apply SRT – G19

A. Managed the process to accomplish declining expenditures for

administrative overhead

B. Achieved annual budgeting based on a results-oriented, performancebased management framework

C. Annual reports addressed

1. Program performance based on indicators

2. Consistency with Columbia River Fish Management Plan

(CRFMP) production reports

D. IHOT audits conducted as scheduled and results integrated into future

funding and program decisions

E. Implementation of IHOT policies and procedures and hatcheries

documented

12. Improve performance indicators to better measure performance

standards

- Apply SRT – G18

A. Evaluated effectiveness of performance indicators using adaptive

management in order to more accurately measure performance

through audit process.

B. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented
42

RISKS

Performance standards Performance indicators

1. Develop harvest management plan to protect weak populations

where mixed fisheries exist

- Apply SRT G17

A. Maximum allowable impact to weak populations not exceeded in

4 out of 5 years ± 10 %

B. Life history characteristics of weak populations monitored for

change from baseline by comparing at year 1 with 5-year survey

or after one generation

C. Maintenance of unique life history characteristics evaluated by

comparing baseline at year 1 with a 5 year survey, or after one

generation. Characteristics measured:

a. Age composition

b. Fecundity (#, and size)

c. Body size (size, length, weight, age, maturity index)

d. Sex ratio

e. Juvenile migration timing

f. Adult run timing

g. Distribution and straying

h. Time and location of spawning

i. Food habits

D. Documented that natural population escapement goal not

adversely affected in 4 out of 5 years ± 10 % for specific species

and populations

E. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

2. Do not exceed carrying capacity of fluvial, lacustrine, estuarine

and ocean habitats

- Apply SRT G1-2, G4-13, G17

A. Developed an appropriate RM&E plan

1. Freshwater

a. Snorkel survey conducted to quantify microhabitat

partitioning
43

RISKS

Performance standards Performance indicators

b. Emigration rate, growth, food habits, condition factor,

and survival rate evaluated

2. Conducted control vs. treatment carrying capacity evaluation

a. estimated #/m 2 by year class by habitat type

C. Reservoir, estuarine, and ocean research, monitoring, and

evaluation plan developed – implemented ISRP recommendation

to define monitoring and evaluation research approach

D. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

3. Assess detrimental genetic impacts among hatchery vs. wild

where interaction exists

- Apply SRT G1-2, 4-18

A. Initially, it is assumed that stray rate is a surrogate for a thorough

and more complex measurement of genetic impact. More

specific measurements to be implemented on a selected basis:

1. Experimental design for evaluating genetic impact

recommended by ISRP.

2. Evaluated hatchery population agains standard stray rate

(<5% non-indigenous populations; <20% indigenous

populations – NMFS standard)

3. Measured introgression by comparing allele frequencies

between hatchery and wild

4. Implemented an appropriate experimental design to

quantitatively measure outbreeding depression

5. Conducted RM&E on selected basis at a specific hatchery

and/or on selected species

6. Experimental design for evaluating genetic impact

recommended by ISRP.

B. Implemented HGMP where appropriate.

C. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

4. Unpredictable egg supply leading to poor programming of A. Achieved percent egg take goal in 4 out of 5 years
44

RISKS

Performance standards Performance indicators

hatchery production to maintain Treaty/Executive Order and

non-treaty fisheries and broodstock escapement

B. Achieved MEPS in 4 out of 5 years ± 10 %

C. Implemented PNWFHPC, IHOT disease protocols, and HGMP,

where appropriate, in terms of egg transfer to the hatchery

5. Production cost of program outweighs the benefit

- Apply SRT G18-19

A. Evaluated trends in the ratio of hatchery juvenile production cost

per cost of juvenile production from habitat projects by subbasin

by hatchery per adult production

1. Hatchery production cost is equal to or less than 1 in 4 out of

5 years ± 10 %

B. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

6. Cost effectiveness of hatchery ranked lower than other actions in

subregion or subbasin

- Apply SRT G19

A. Developed cost effective methods of producing benefits to

recreation fishery such as:

1. Cost per angler day

a. Habitat and fish passage compared to hatchery

b. Self-sustaining population compared to continuing

artificial production

2. Cost per experience (economic model)

3. Cost per fish harvested in the recreational fishery

B. Achieved highest numerical ratio of returning adults or recovery 

to healthy viable resident population levels per cost of action 

(habitat, passage, hatchery)

C. Achieved highest ratio of intrinsic social value (satisfaction 

survey) of returning adults or recovery of healthy viable 

population levels per cost of action

D. Achieved highest ratio of value of harvest per cost of hatchery by

species to the non-treaty commercial fishery

E. Achieved least cost production of behaviorally adapted juveniles 
45

RISKS

Performance standards Performance indicators

complying with NMFS interim standards for captive broodstock

F. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

7. Will not achieve within hatchery performance standards

- Apply SRT G1-2, 4-13, 16, 19

A. Conducted comparative evaluation of actual within hatchery

performance and exceeded or equaled performance standards as

enumerated by IHOT

B. Defined resident fish within hatchery performance standards if

different from IHOT and equaled or exceeded standard

C. Conducted an audit to determine compliance with IHOT

standards
46

RISKS

Performance standards Performance indicators

8. Evaluate habitat use and potential detrimental ecological

interactions

- Apply SRT G4-5, 8, 17-18

A. Selected tributaries by subbasin and hatchery by species

(anadromous and resident) – conducted comparative evaluation

of prestocking population with post stocking after five years or

after one generation by measuring some of these parameters:

1. Evaluated emigration rate

a. Anadromous or resident stocked fish and naturally

reproducing anadromous or resident population

2. Conducted comparative evaluation of rearing densities

(# / m2 ) by habitat before and after stocking hatchery fish vs.

wild fish

3. Computed growth rate, condition factor, and survival of 1a

above

4. Evaluated direct intra- and inter-specific competitive

interaction between stocked anadromous or resident fish and

wild resident fish

5. Conducted snorkel surveys to quantify microhabitat

partitioning by species

6. Computed prey composition in diet of 1a above

7. Determined predation rate

a. Fish, birds, marine mammals

B. Implemented tributary RM&E plan by subbasin by specific

hatchery by species, and extrapolated to other subbasins and

hatcheries in the basin

C. Developed and implemented RM&E plan for reservoir habitat

1. Trophic level disruptions

a. Species and prey population composition before and

after stocking

2. Implemented experimental design for specific research 

applications recommended by ISRP
47

RISKS

Performance standards Performance indicators

D. Developed RM&E plan for estuary and near shore marine habitat

1. Implemented experimental design recommended by ISRP

E. Natural habitat improved to double survival by species by

specific life history stage within 10 years

F. Implemented HGMP where appropriate

G. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

9. Avoid disease transfer from hatchery to wild fish and vice versa

- Apply SRT G17, 19 A. Established comparative annual sampling of disease incidence in

hatchery and wild populations

B. Complied with IHOT standards and PNWFHPC guidelines

C. Applied disease standards to resident fish rearing and stocking

activities, including net pens, acclimation ponds, and direct

releases

D. Evaluated incidence of drug resistant pathogens by comparing to

baseline in year 1 to survey every five years

E. Implemented HGMP where appropriate

F. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

10. Evaluate impacts on life history traits of wild and hatchery fish,

from harvest and spawning escapement

- Apply SRT G1-15, 18

A. Tracked trends to evaluate change by comparing a baseline at

year 1 with a 5-year survey, or after one generation. Specific life

history characteristics measured are:

1. Age distribution

2. Fecundity (#, and size)

3. Body size (length, weight, age, maturity index)

4. Sex ratio

5. Juvenile size and migration timing

6. Adult run timing
48

RISKS

Performance standards Performance indicators

7. Distribution and straying

8. Time and location of spawning

9. Food habits

B. Conducted RM&E program on selected hatchery by species and

extrapolated to others

C. Implemented experimental design recommended by ISRP

D. Implemented HGMP where appropriate

E. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

11. Assess survival of captive broodstock progeny vs. wild cohorts

- Apply SRT G1-10, 13-19

A. Achieved increased survival threshold for captive broodstock

over wild adults – Implemented RM&E plan with appropriate

experimental design to measure:

1. % survival of viable eggs, fry, and offspring

2. % survival to release

3. Pre-release juvenile quality, equal to or exceeded

physiological, morphological, and behavioral threshold

compared to wild population

4. Achieved post-release criteria in terms of survival, growth,

condition factor, and behavioral adaptation

B. Implemented HGMP where appropriate

C. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented

12. Depleting existing population spawning in the wild through

broodstock collection

- Apply SRT G8, 10, 12, 15-17

A. Documented stable or increasing trend of redd counts as index 

of natural spawning

B. Documented stable or increasing numbers of adult fish.

C. Documented stable or increasing trend in adult resident fish.

D. Documented hatchery spawner to recruit ratio equal to or greater 

than 1

E. Relevant APR-SRT guidelines evaluated and implemented
49

RISKS

Performance standards Performance indicators

13. Depleting existing population spawning in the wild through

broodstock collection

- Apply SRT G8, 10, 12, 15-16

A. Documented stable or increasing trend of redd counts as index of

natural spawning.

B. Documented stable or increasing numbers of adult fish.

C. Documented stable or increasing trend in adult resident fish.

D. Documented hatchery spawner to recruit ratio equal to or greater

than 1.

1. Compare broodstock numbers to biological escapement needs

on spawning grounds. Establish egg take schedule

2. Implemented RM&E studies

E. Established that spawning distribution was not adversely affected 

by broodstock collection (weirs).

F. Documented no change in availability of nutrients from deceased 

adults prior to broodstock collection
50

III. BENEFIT AND RISK MATRIX

Benefits and Risks Matrix

Benefits

Augmentation

a

Mitigation

b

Restoration

c

Preservation/Conservation

d

Research

e

1. Provides predictable, stable, and increased opportunity for harvest. 4 4

2. Achieve genetic and life history conservation. 4 4

3. Enhance local, tribal, state, regional, and national economies. 4 4 4 4

4. Fulfill legal/policy obligations. 4 4 4 4

5. Contribution of fish carcasses to ecosystem function by subbasin and by

hatchery.

4 4

6. Provide fish to satisfy legally mandated harvest. 4 4 4

7. Will achieve within-hatchery performance standards. 4 4 4 4

8. Restore and create viable naturally spawning populations. 4 4 4

9. Plan and provide fish with coordinated mainstem passage and habitat research

in the Columbia Basin.

4

10. Conduct within-hatchery research, improve performance or cost effectiveness

of artificial production hatcheries to address the other four purposes.

4

11. Minimize management, administrative, and overhead costs. 4

12. Improve performance indicators to better measure performance standards. 4

a. Purpose is to increase harvestable numbers of fish.

b. Purpose is to replace or compensate lost habitat capacity of naturally-producing fish with artificially-produced fish

(anadromous or resident, native and non-native) for harvest or some other reason.

c. Purpose is to hasten rebuilding or reintroduction of a population to harvestable levels.

d. Conserve genetic resources or fish populations impacted by habitat loss or degradation, including preservation of populations

faced with imminent demise, using methods such as captive propagation and cryopreservation.

e. How to effectively use artificial production to address the other motivations.
51

Risks

AugmentationMitigationRestorationPreservation/ConservationResearch

1. Harvest management plan to protect weak populations where mixed

population fisheries exist.

4 4 4

2. Do not exceed the carrying capacity of fluvial, lacustrine, estuarine, and ocean

habitats.

4 4 4 4 4

3. Assess detrimental genetic impacts among hatchery vs. wild where interaction

exists.

4 4 4 4 4

4. Unpredictable egg supply leading to poor programming of hatchery

production.

4 4 4 4

5. Production cost of program outweighs the benefit. 4 4 4 4

6. Cost effectiveness of hatchery ranked lower than other actions in subregion or

subbasin.

4 4 4 4

7. Will not achieve within-hatchery performance standards. 4 4 4 4

8. Evaluate habitat use and potential detrimental ecological interactions. 4 4 4 4 4

9. Avoid disease transfer from hatchery to wild fish and vice versa. 4 4 4 4

10. Evaluate impact on life history traits of wild and hatchery fish, from harvest

and spawning escapement.

4 4 4 4

11. Assess survival of captive broodstock progeny vs. wild cohorts. 4

12. Depleting existing population spawning in the wild through broodstock

collection.

4 4
- 52 -

IV. SRT Suggested Guidelines on Hatchery Practices, Ecological Integration and Genetics

Guideline 1. Technology should be developed and used to more closely resemble natural incubation and

rearing conditions in salmonid hatchery propagation.

In developing hatchery technology, hatchery programs should work toward the goal of providing

environments that resemble natural conditions during artificial propagation. These may include:

• Incubation in substrate and darkness;

• Incubation at lower densities;

• Rearing at lower densities;

• Rearing with shade cover available;

• Exposure to in-pond, natural-like habitat;

• Rearing in variable, higher velocity habitat;

• Non-demand food distribution during rearing;

• Exposure to predator training;

• Minimize fish-human interaction;

• Acclimation ponds at release sites;

• Volitional emigration from release sites.

Guideline 2. Hatchery facilities need to be designed and engineered to represent natural incubation and

rearing habitat, simulating incubation and rearing experiences complementary with expectations of wild fish

in natural habitat.

Guideline 3. New hatchery technology for improving fish quality and performance needs to have a plan for

implementation and review at all hatchery sites, where appropriate, to assure its application.

Guideline 4. To mimic natural populations, anadromous hatchery production strategy should target natural

population parameters in size and timing among emigrating anadromous juveniles to synchronize with

environmental selective forces shaping natural population structure.

Guideline 5. To mimic natural populations, resident hatchery production strategy should target population

parameters in size and release timing of hatchery-produced resident juveniles to correspond with adequate

food availability and favorable prey to maximize their post-stocking growth and survival.

Guideline 6. Supplementation hatchery policy should utilize ambient natal stream habitat temperatures to

reinforce genetic compatibility with local environments and provide the linkage between stock and habitat

that is responsible for population structure of stocks from which hatchery fish are generated.

Guideline 7. Salmonid hatchery incubation and rearing experiences should use the natal stream water source

whenever possible to enhance homestream recognition.

Guideline 8. Hatchery release strategies need to follow standards that accommodate reasonable numerical

limits determined by the carrying capacity of the receiving stream to accommodate residence needs of nonmigrating members of the release population.

Guideline 9. Hatchery programs should dedicate significant effort in developing small facilitates designed for

specific stream sites where supplementation and enhancement objectives are sought, using local stocks and

ambient water in the facilities designed around engineered habitat to simulate the natural stream, whenever

possible.
53

Guideline 10. Genetic and breeding protocols consistent with local stock structure need to be developed and

faithfully adhered to as a mechanism to minimize potential negative hatchery effects on wild populations and

to maximize the positive benefits that hatcheries can contribute to the recovery and maintenance of salmonids

in the Columbia ecosystem.

Guideline 11. Hatchery propagation should use large breeding populations to minimize inbreeding effects

and maintain what genetic diversity is present within the population.

Guideline 12. Hatchery supplementation programs should avoid using strays in breeding operations with

returning fish.

Guideline 13. Restoration of extirpated populations should follow genetic guidelines to maximize the

potential for re-establishing self-sustaining populations. Once initiated, subsequent effort must concentrate on

allowing selection to work by discontinuing introductions.

Guideline 14. Germ plasm repositories should be developed to preserve genetic diversity for application in

future recovery and restoration projects in the basin, and to maintain a gene bank to reinforce diversity among

small inbred natural populations.

Guideline 15. The physical and genetic status of all natural populations of anadromous and resident fishes

need to be understood and routinely reviewed as the basis of management planning for artificial production.

Guideline 16. An in-hatchery fish monitoring program needs to be developed on performance of juveniles

under culture, including genetic assessment to ascertain if breeding protocol is maintaining wild stock

genotypic characteristics.

Guideline 17. A hatchery fish monitoring program needs to be developed on performance from release to

return, including information on survival success, interception distribution, behavior, and genotypic changes

experienced from selection between release and return.

Guideline 18. A study is required to determine cost of monitoring hatchery performance and sources of

funding.

Guideline 19. Regular performance audits of artificial production objectives should be undertaken, and where

they are not successful, research should be initiated to resolve the problem.

Guideline 20. The NPPC should appoint an independent peer review panel to develop a basinwide artificial

production program plan to meet the ecological framework goals for hatchery management of anadromous

and resident species.
54

V. REFERENCES

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) Template, Working Draft, 7/29/99.

Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT). 1994. Policies and Procedures for Columbia Basin

Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries. Bonneville Power Administration DOE/EP-2432, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee. 1989. The Model Comprehensive Fish Health

Protection Program: Fish Disease Guidelines. PNWFHPC.

Brannon, Ernest L., etal., (Currens, Kenneth P.; Goodman, Daniel; Lichatowich, James A.; McConnaha,

Willis E.; Riddell, Brian E.; Williams, Richard N.). 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, Oregon.
55

Appendix I

Review of Artificial Production of Anadromous and Resident Fish in the

Columbia River Basin

A Scientific Basis

for Columbia River Production Programs

April 1999

Scientific Review Team

Independent Scientific Advisory Board

Ernest L. Brannon James A. Lichatowich

Kenneth P. Currens Brian E. Riddell

Daniel Goodman Richard N. Williams

Willis E. McConnaha, Chair

Program Evaluation and Analysis Section

Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97204

Council Document 99-4
56

Cite as:

Brannon, Ernest L., et. al., (Currens, Kenneth P.; Goodman, Daniel; Lichatowich, James A.;

McConnaha, Willis E.; Riddell, Brian E.; Williams, Richard N.). 1999. Review of Artificial

Production of Anadromous and Resident Fish in the Columbia River Basin, Part I: A Scientific

Basis for Columbia River Production Program, Northwest Power Planning Council, 139 pp.
57

Review of Artificial Production of Anadromous and Resident Fish in

the Columbia River Basin

Part I: A Scientific Basis for Columbia River Production Programs

I. Introduction

In July 1997, the U.S. Senate20 directed the Northwest Power Planning Council, with the

assistance of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB),21 to “conduct a thorough

review of all federally funded hatchery programs operating in the Columbia River Basin...” with

the intent to ensure that federal dollars are spent “wisely” and “in a cost-effective manner that

maximizes the benefits to the fish resource.” The Council is to assess the “operation, goals and

principles of state, tribal and federal hatcheries...” with regard to the effectiveness of their role in

the broader context of fisheries management. The Council is to recommend to Congress a set of

policies that would guide the use of Columbia River hatcheries.

In response to the Congressional directive, the Council consulted with the ISAB and appointed a

Scientific Review Team (SRT) to provide an independent assessment of the basin’s artificial

production program. The SRT includes four members of the ISAB, two additional independent

scientists, and a scientist from the Council staff as chair of the team. The SRT will review

hatchery programs in the basin, analyze their effectiveness in meeting mitigation responsibilities,

assess their success in enhancing salmonid production, and evaluate their role in supplementation

of natural salmon and steelhead runs. The SRT analysis will provide the biological basis for the

Council’s recommendations to Congress.

To provide timely advice for the Council’s report to Congress, the SRT is conducting the

analysis as three sequential tasks:

1. A summarization of current scientific knowledge on artificial production and its

implications for Columbia River programs.

2. A compilation of the data relating to the performance of artificial production in the

Columbia River Basin.

3. An analysis of this information in light of current knowledge to assess the

performance of artificial production in the Columbia River Basin.

This report addresses the first task, which is to provide background information on the state of

the science that relates to artificial production in the basin. The scientific rationale developed in

this report takes the form of guidelines that could form the basis of recommendations regarding

artificial propagation, in the context of ecosystem management. The second task, assembling the

 

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

21 The ISAB was created jointly by the Northwest Power Planning Council and the National Marine Fisheries

Service to provide independent scientific advice regarding fish and wildlife management in the Columbia River

Basin. The ISAB consists of 11 scientists appointed with the assistance of the National Research Council.
58

database of all past and current records on artificial production in the basin, has been assigned to

a contractor. The third task will be the analysis of hatchery programs and the database, and

finalizing the report. Each task will be summarized in separate reports to the Council and then

integrated into a final report.

This paper provides the SRT’s analysis of the history of artificial production and other hatchery

evaluations related to the Columbia basin. Hatcheries initially were used to augment the fishery,

later to mitigate for habitat destruction by development activities, and more recently to

supplement natural production and conserve salmon using captive brood stock techniques.

These roles are defined and discussed in this report, and the state of current knowledge of the

genetic and ecological effects of hatcheries is summarized, as well.

The next phase of the SRT report, where applicable, will use guidelines associated with

uncertainties as a basis to evaluate hatchery performance. The evaluation should identify

production and operational strategies that can assist in development of hatchery policy.

Performance evaluation will use production return criteria and/or fulfillment of mitigation

objectives as the basis of assessment. The two evaluations, with recommendations emanating

from both the scientific analysis and hatchery performance evaluation, will be articulated in a

proposed conceptual foundation for the Columbia River Basin’s artificial production program.

Whether or not this conceptual foundation is adopted as the basis for regional hatchery policy, it

is imperative that policy is based on a scientific foundation and that adaptive management is

pursued using performance criteria.

A. Scope of the Review

Artificial production has been used in the Columbia River Basin for many purposes during this

century. Although basin hatcheries have produced resident species, such as sturgeon and

rainbow trout, hatchery production has focused almost exclusively on anadromous salmonids —

primarily coho and chinook salmon and steelhead trout.

These three species also have been the focus of sport and commercial fisheries management in

the basin and, ironically, recovery measures, as well. Due to the ecological, economic,

recreational and cultural importance of these species, the Council’s policy recommendations

must address anadromous salmonids primarily, but also apply to a much broader spectrum of

species.

In the Columbia River Basin, there are hatcheries for both anadromous and resident fish. 22 Many

resident fish hatcheries in the basin, like many anadromous fish hatcheries, are intended for

mitigation and are located upstream from Grand Coulee and Hells Canyon dams, which are

complete barriers to anadromous fish passage. Netboy (1986) estimated that 40 percent of the

original spawning areas for Columbia Basin salmonids had been lost because of blockage due to

dams. Return to the River estimates a 55-percent loss (45 percent remaining; Page 353). Of the

original salmon and steelhead habitat available in the basin, 55 percent of the watershed area and

 

22

 Newsdata Corp., a Seattle-based news service on fish, wildlife and energy issues, estimates there are 148 fish

hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin, but this number does not include privately financed hatcheries. The

information is online at http://www.newsdata.com/fishweb/.
59

31 percent of stream miles are now inaccessible to anadromous salmon, having been blocked by

dam construction (NRC 1996, pg. 63). Furthermore, much of this inaccessible habitat was

irreplaceable natural spawning habitat, located mainly in headwater regions of the basin. Thus,

successful artificial production of resident fish is a necessary and crucial component to fully

mitigate anadromous fish losses in these blocked areas. In addition, many native resident fish

species are currently federally listed as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered

Species Act, based on their imperiled biological status. As with anadromous salmonids,

numerous at-risk resident fish populations (e.g. bull trout, white sturgeon, and various resident

salmonids) are also the focus of recovery measures.

The scope of our review concentrates on artificial production of anadromous salmonids in the

Columbia Basin. However, most, if not all, of the scientific information relating to ecological

impacts of anadromous salmonid hatcheries applies to the use of hatcheries that currently

produce more than a dozen ecologically and economically valuable species of resident fish.

Therefore, resident fish hatchery policy must be consistent with the principles in the conceptual

foundation that the SRT will recommend to the Council for anadromous salmonids. In fact,

because resident species do not have the distribution range of salmon and steelhead, and thus are

not exposed to the same risks facing anadromous salmonids over their migratory corridor, we

expect that resident species will be very responsive to the principles guiding policy in

anadromous salmonid management. Throughout the review, we make connections between

anadromous and resident fish production with regard to principles and technologies.

B. Definition of Artificial Production

Artificial production and hatcheries are generally viewed as synonymous terms in that both refer

to the same range of fish culture technologies, encompassing everything from releases of unfed,

substrate-incubated fry to captive rearing of migrant juvenile salmonids on formulated diets in

concrete raceways. The most common type of fish hatchery is a cluster of buildings and

concrete raceways located adjacent to a tributary stream. But a hatchery also can be a gravellined incubation box in which artificially spawned eggs are incubated to enhance fish production.

Or, a hatchery can be an engineered spawning channel that salmon enter to spawn naturally on

graded substrate, where water flow is controlled to enhance egg-to-fry survival. Or, a hatchery

even can be an earthen acclimation pond in which fingerlings are fed before dispersing into the

natural stream on their own volition for rearing or migration.

In this report, our focus is on the “standard” public hatchery design — the cluster of buildings

beside a tributary, with tray incubators and concrete raceway rearing systems that provide the

entire freshwater feed and residence requirements before the fingerlings are released to migrate

seaward. Columbia River hatcheries were designed around variations of this “standard”

incubation and rearing system. It is a system that has been used for most chinook and coho

salmon, and steelhead trout, hatcheries over this century.

This type of hatchery generally controls the entire freshwater juvenile life cycle, except the

migratory passage. Adults are intercepted and spawned artificially, based on a breeding plan that

varies from simply crossing multiple females with a composite of two or more males, to a

breeding matrix that maximizes the available genetic variability. Eggs are usually incubated in

trays until hatching or to the point of emergence when yolk stores are nearly exhausted. Some
60

form of substrate is often included in the incubation compartment to reduce alevin activity and

prioritize stored energy for growth. At or before the emergence phase, the young fry are placed

in troughs or tanks for swim-up and early rearing, and then transferred to raceways for

production rearing until they are distributed for release as smolts or presmolts to natural waters.

Formulated diets are used throughout rearing, based on nutritional requirements, and fed as mash

or graded pellets to accommodate the size of the fish as they grow. The system is well defined in

a program to maximize efficiency of operations.

Hatchery performance assessment understandably has been limited within the rather narrow

definition of variables in facility design and operations common to such facilities. Because

Columbia River hatcheries use the standard technology, performance differences have as much

to do with management as with application of the technology itself. Variables such as the source

of fish, release strategies, relative size and condition of smolts, water supplies, location of the

hatchery and its location on the migratory corridor over the length of the river will affect

performance. Therefore, the context of our evaluation is the relative performance of a particular

class of hatcheries within the confines of river conditions in the Columbia Basin, under agency

management responsibility. Consequently, our assessment will be an assessment of the policy

and location as much as the technology involved.

C. Relationship Between this Review and Development of the Regional Multi-Species

Framework

As this review is being undertaken, states, tribes and agencies of the federal government in the

Pacific Northwest are collaborating on a multi-species planning process for fish and wildlife in

the Columbia River Basin. The multi-species planning process is guided by a framework that

links Columbia Basin fish and wildlife policy to a vision that balances the many values provided

by the natural resources of the Columbia River and its tributaries. The multi-species framework

will be based on an ecological, conceptual foundation that recognizes that the river and its

species are interrelated parts of a whole.

The multi-species framework will include principles, goals and objectives that reconcile

seemingly inconsistent and uncoordinated approaches to fish and wildlife policy in the region.

These principles, goals and objectives will be expressed in a set of scientifically supportable

alternatives for the future of the Columbia River — especially as it relates to management of fish

and wildlife resources.23 As they are developed, these alternatives will be analyzed for their

ecological impacts, based on an explicit conceptual foundation. The conceptual foundation

includes a set of scientific principles that define the scientific context for the analysis.24

Once it is developed, the multi-species framework will provide systemwide direction and

specific strategies for fish and wildlife programs, as well as objectives against which results can

be evaluated. The conceptual foundation for artificial production developed in this review should

be consistent with the set of scientific principles guiding development of the multi-species

 

23 Ecological Work Group 1998, “An Ecological Framework for the Multi-species Planning Process.” Available

from the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR., or at the Framework Project website at

www.nwframework.org; click on Ecological Analysis.

24 “Proposed Scientific Foundation for Development of a Regional Multi-Species Framework,” Northwest Power

Planning Council Report 98-16. Portland.
61

framework. In this sense, a conceptual foundation for artificial production is a refinement of the

more general conceptual foundation for the multi-species framework, and serves to focus

scientific principles on decisions about how to use artificial production. We believe that a

scientifically supportable conceptual foundation, such as that guiding development of the multispecies framework and potentially refined by our assessment, should be the basis for developing

future hatchery policies.

D. Definition of the Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Natural and cultural attributes define an ecosystem (ISG, 1999). The modern Columbia River

ecosystem is far different than the ecosystem that existed before the encroachment of modern

civilization — as that ecosystem was different from the one that existed before Native Americans

began exploiting the Columbia River fishery. Man’s actions irrevocably altered the Columbia

River ecosystem, and those impacts define the parameters for ecosystem management today.

As major hydroelectric facilities multiplied in the Columbia River Basin, the free-flowing river

became a series of linked reservoirs. This new environment favored species previously limited

by higher velocities and cooler water temperatures. Predator and competitor species assumed

new levels of abundance in the river system previously dominated by salmonids. For example,

the northern pikeminnow (previously named the northern squawfish), a native salmon predator,

increased in number — and impact on salmonids — as a result of the increased reservoir habitat.

(Zimmer 1953, USFWS 1957, Thompsom 1959, Beamesderfer and Rieman 1991, Poe et al.

1991, Rieman et al. 1991.

Perhaps even a more serious impact in the evolutionary sense, however, were the many exotic

fish brought into the basin by private, state and federal entities, such as American shad, channel

catfish, largemouth and smallmouthbass, blue gill, yellow perch, brown trout, brook trout and

lake trout (Simpson and Wallace 1982). While many of these fish were introduced for

sportfishing diversity before the ecological impacts were fully appreciated, and have now

become an important part of the species selection offered the sportfishing public, they

nevertheless have permanently changed the Columbia River ecosystem. Although most of the

exotic species were introduced half a century ago, interactions among the various non-native and

native fish species are likely to continue to evolve toward a new equilibrium (as yet unknown).

Substantive and even drastic changes in species composition and habitat utilization have

occurred over the last several decades. Preliminary surveys in the lower reaches of the Yakima

River over the last half of 1996, for example, revealed that about two-thirds of the species

encountered were exotics, and smallmouth bass represented over 60 percent of all fish

intercepted (Monk 1997). Sampling gear tended to exclude fish larger than 10 centimeters in

length, but as an index of general abundance, the survey demonstrated how dominant these

species have become in some areas of the Basin. The impact of these newcomers, through

competition or predation on endemic species, is unknown, but the success of exotic species has

come at a cost to native fish.

Major changes in the operation or configuration of the hydrosystem also will affect interactions

among fish species. Changes that increase normative conditions, such as natural river drawdown

in the lower Snake River or a major drawdown of John Day Dam (system configuration
62

alternatives currently being studied by the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers) would promote an equilibrium that favored coldwater native fish species

over warmwater native and non-native fish species.

This dynamic mix of native and non-native species defines the modern Columbia Basin

ecosystem. Where anadromous species have been eliminated by barrier dams, mitigation has

been in the form of replacement resident fisheries, and sometimes those fisheries include exotic

species. Moreover, resident fish hatchery programs often will not be complementary with the

ecosystem management perspective adopted for anadromous hatchery production. Nor can

mitigation in these cases necessarily imply that hatchery production will be temporary until

natural production can sustain the population. In some cases resident fish populations have been

established where none existed before and will be entirely dependent on artificial production.

Thus, in some cases the concept of using supplementation hatcheries to rebuild naturally

reproducing populations does not necessarily apply to resident fish .

Another difference between anadromous and resident fish hatcheries is performance

measurement. Traditionally for anadromous programs, we have measured hatchery production

success in terms of harvest return. This is often an inappropriate statistic in resident fish hatchery

performance. More realistic performance goals for resident fish might include catch and release

only, or simply having fish in the system available for viewing. Thus, for both anadromous and

resident production, performance criteria should be matched with the fisheries management

objective of the specific program or facility and in recognition of the community of fishes that

are now in the basin. What constitutes the Columbia Basin ecosystem, therefore, is basic in how

hatchery production is viewed, and why “normative” is such a key concept that accommodates

the biological realities with the cultural and economic changes that define the present ecosystem.

II. Hatchery Management and the Salmon Crisis

There is no doubt among fisheries managers that there is a crisis of major proportions

confronting anadromous salmon and steelhead runs in the Pacific Northwest. This crisis is

characterized by depleted populations especially in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and California,

massive shrinking of the salmon’s range, collapsed fisheries and large-scale protection under the

federal Endangered Species Act, and nowhere in such proportions as the Columbia River Basin.

Although the salmonid crisis receives a majority of scientific, managerial, and public attention in

the Columbia Basin, inspection of the status of all Columbia Basin fish species reveals a wide

array of resident fish also involved in crisis situations (e.g. bull trout, white sturgeon, and various

native non-anadromous salmonids).

Hatcheries play a unique role in this predicament. They have been identified as one of the causes

of the current crisis, while at the same time they are also considered part of the solution. Many

salmon biologists and culturists recognize this dual role of artificial propagation of anadromous

and resident fish. These biologists and culturists resolve the apparent contradiction by declaring

that the hatchery programs made mistakes in the past, but things are different now.

At the present time, hatcheries consume about 40 percent of the annual budget for the Council’s

Fish and Wildlife Program (ISRP, 1997). If artificial propagation is going to consume such a
63

large proportion of the tens of millions of dollars spent on salmon restoration, it is critical that

there be specific answers to the following questions:

1) What problems did the programs have in the past, and

2) Specifically, how were those problems resolved?

Because of the unique dual role of hatcheries, we have to be sure that the past is really passed,

and that hatchery fish are able to fit in the larger picture of ecosystem function that is being

advocated as the new management paradigm.

Anadromous and resident fish hatchery technology has continuously changed over the past 120

years. Improvements include:

• Better operational design,

• Increased nutritional value of feeds,

• Better disease treatments,

• Development of tagging technology to allow monitoring the contribution and survival of

hatchery-reared fish,

• Increased control over hatchery environments such as water temperature and pathogens, and

• Integration of life history traits and requirements and genetic principles in fish husbandry

practices.

In short, many of the operational problems that plagued hatchery operations in the past have been

resolved. However, the distinction between intrinsic hatchery operations and management of

hatcheries must be addressed separately. Included in management resolution is the effect of

sustained fisheries on adult salmon of hatchery origin (Campton, 1995). It is the latter, Campton

argues, that is the source of most genetic effects of hatcheries on wild stocks. Moreover,

management is the major source of ecological impact of hatchery fish on wild stocks, and the

subject of controversy regarding poor survival of artificially propagated fish. If the manner in

which hatcheries are used is, in fact, contributing to poor performance of hatchery fish, the

negative effects of hatcheries due to poor management decisions can be resolved by changing the

philosophy and priorities of management (Campton, 1995).

To determine if changes in management philosophy and priorities have corrected the past

problems of hatcheries, we have to look beyond the changes in technology that have occurred

over the past century. Changes in philosophy are directly related to changes in fundamental

assumptions that underlie hatchery and fisheries management. To determine if things really are

different, it is critical to identify the fundamental assumptions that guided hatchery management

in the past and compare them to the assumptions that guide hatchery management today. That

can only be done through a historical analysis. Culturists who believe that "things are different

now" often see little value in such analyses, with the result that fishery scientists have produced

few analytical studies of earlier program performance (Smith, 1994). Consequently, the specifics

that would clarify past programs and the assumptions that guided them are not well known.

Information is generally good with regard to hatchery operations. Hatchery population

inventory, health status, feeding levels, condition and outplanting dates are in the archives of

daily logs kept by the agencies. The missing detail is the rationale behind their hatchery
64

programs. Understandably, the objective was increased production for harvest, but what

motivated the approach is primarily anecdotal.

As noted earlier, restoration programs that intend to produce a new future for anadromous and

resident fish populations in the Columbia River Basin must be historically informed, because in a

sense the past is never really abandoned. Programs and their philosophical underpinnings

evolve, and this means “new” programs carry strands of ideas and assumptions that have their

roots in the distant past. We cannot merely assume that hatchery programs today are detached

from their historical roots without a review of those roots and their influence on current

assumptions that drive the program.

III. Historical Overview of Artificial Production

In this section, we explore the history of Columbia River Basin hatcheries to1960. Post-1960

operations will be analyzed in our next report, when reliable data about individual hatcheries will

be available.

A. Growth of the Artificial Propagation Program

Spencer Baird, the U. S. Fish Commissioner, set the stage for the arrival of artificial propagation

in the Columbia basin. In a report he completed in 1875, Baird listed the threats to the continued

productivity of Pacific salmon in the Columbia Basin — dams, habitat change and overharvest

— and he recommended artificial propagation as the solution to those problems. According to

Baird, an investment of $15,000 - $20,000 in artificial propagation would make salmon so

abundant that there would be no need for restrictive regulations (Baird 1875).

Given his scientific background, Baird’s

endorsement of hatcheries in 1875 is

puzzling. The first hatchery for Pacific

salmon had been opened in the

Sacramento River just three years earlier

in 1872, and so the first brood of

artificially propagated chinook salmon

had not yet returned as adults. Baird had

no credible scientific

information upon which to

base his recommendation. However,

the concept of maintaining and

increasing the abundance of

salmon through artificial

propagation was consistent

with the prevailing ideology. For example, Typical turn-of-the-century salmon hatchery.

the belief that hatcheries could eliminate (Dungeness River)

the need for restrictive regulations supported the laissez-faire access to natural resources, a

policy the public supported and the government encouraged. It’s clear Baird’s endorsement had

social and political roots rather than scientific. From this rather inauspicious start, hatcheries

quickly became the preferred approach to maintaining salmon production.
65

The first hatchery in the Columbia Basin was a joint venture composed of private capital, largely

from cannery operators, and expertise supplied by the U. S. Fish Commission. In 1877, Baird

sent Livingston Stone to Astoria to meet with the board of directors of the Oregon and

Washington Fish Propagating Company (OWFPC). The company had raised $31,000 to build

and operate a hatchery, and Stone was one of the few individuals on the West Coast with

experience in artificial propagation. (Stone 1879; Hayden 1930). Stone selected a site on the

Clackamas River, built the hatchery building, raked the stream, and supervised initial operation.

OWFPC closed the hatchery in 1882. In 1888, it was leased to the State of Oregon and reopened

(OSBFC 1888; Cobb 1930). After 1888, there would never be another year in which the

reproduction of salmon in the Columbia basin was entirely natural.

By 1928, 15 hatcheries were operating in the basin and a total of 2 billion artificially propagated

fry and fingerlings had been released into the river (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The number of juveniles of all salmon species released from

hatcheries in the Columbia River (1877-1928). (Cobb 1930)

Because chinook salmon, especially the spring and summer races, made the highest quality

canned product and brought the highest prices, fishermen targeted that species in the early

fishery (Craig and Hacker 1940). The early hatchery program also focused exclusively on the

chinook salmon (Figure 2); however, when the abundance and harvest of chinook salmon began

to decline, the fishery switched to other species, and that switch was mimicked by the hatchery

program. Coho salmon and steelhead were propagated in hatcheries beginning about 1900; chum

and sockeye salmon were propagated beginning about a decade later (Cobb 1930).

The chinook harvest appeared to enjoy a period of relative stability from 1889 to 1920 (Figure

3). However, later analysis clearly demonstrated that the apparent stability was an artifact of

significant qualitative shifts in the fishery (Figure 4). In fact, the prime spring and summer runs

were in decline, and to maintain the catch, the fishery had shifted to fall chinook (Thompson

1951). After 1920, the decline in all races of chinook salmon in the Columbia Basin was

obvious.
66

Figure 2. Harvest of chinook salmon and the release of chinook salmon

fry and fingerlings from hatcheries in the Columbia basin (1877-1927).

(Beiningen 1976; Cobb 1930)

Figure 3. Five year average of chinook harvest in the Columbia River

(1866-1992). (Beiningen 1976; ODFW & WDF 1993)
67

Figure 4. Comparison of the seasonal distribution of the chinook harvest in the

Columbia River in 1878 (A: daily catch per gill net boat) and 1919 (B: weekly catch of

16 gill net boats and 22 traps). (Source: Thompson 1951)

In their contemporary analysis of salmon harvests, competent biologists like Willis Rich were

deceived by the aggregated catch statistics: “the chinook salmon has held up remarkably well...”
68

in spite of an intense fishery, “but the record since 1920 is one of constantly decreasing catches”

(Rich 1948). He attributed the resiliency of chinook salmon and the apparent stable harvest to

hatchery programs. Rich admitted that he had no evidence that hatcheries were in fact

supplementing the production of chinook salmon. However, he believed it was “quite possible

that there is a causal relationship that we do not understand between intensive artificial

propagation and the resistance to exploitation that the species [chinook salmon] has shown”

(Rich 1941).

Rich’s positive speculation regarding benefits of hatcheries, like Spencer Baird’s earlier

recommendation, is curious because he had completed the only study of the effectiveness of

artificial propagation in the Columbia basin. In that study, Rich concluded:

“... that there is no evidence obtainable from a study of the statistics of the pack and

hatchery output that artificial propagation has been an effective agent in conserving the

supply of salmon. The writer wishes to emphasize the fact that the data presented here do

not prove that artificial propagation may not be an efficient measure in salmon

conservation. These data prove only that the popular conception, that the maintenance of

the pack on the Columbia River is due to hatchery operations, is not justified by the

available science.”

(Rich 1922).

During the 1930s and 1940s, questions about the efficacy of artificial propagation, combined

with budget problems during the Depression, resulted in many hatchery closures. Given their

poor prior performance, hatcheries would not have played a big a role in salmon management in

the Columbia River following World War II except for the fact that rapid construction of

mainstem dams required a mechanism to address the impact anticipated on fisheries. Artificial

propagation was once again chosen to compensate for development even though scientific

support for that decision was lacking. (CBFWA 1990)

Prior to 1960, hatcheries in the Columbia River contributed little to the overall salmon

production (CBFWA 1990). After that date, with the development of better disease treatment,

more nutritious feeds and better hatchery practices, survival from smolt to adult improved

dramatically. However, the ability to produce large numbers of hatchery adults created a new set

of management problems. The genetic and ecological effects of hatchery programs are

discussed in Section VI of this report.

B. Compensation for Loss of Habitat

Most of the hatcheries built during this century were intended to mitigate the impact of human

activities (National Research Council (NRC) 1996). Since the construction of Grand Coulee

Dam, most of the growth in the hatchery program in the Columbia River has been tied to

mitigation for the construction of the basin’s hydropower system. Many of the mitigation

hatcheries are part of specific programs including:

Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project: The first major hatchery program designed to

compensate for hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin was the Grand Coulee

Fish Maintenance Project. Construction of Grand Coulee Dam blocked access to 1,400 miles of
69

salmon habitat (Fish and Hanavan, 1948). Salmon production above the dam has been estimated

to have been 21,000 to 25,000 thousand fish (Calkins et al. 1939). This included some of the

largest chinook in the Columbia River, the so-called “June Hogs.”

With a height of 350 feet from the base of the spillway to the top of the dam, Grand Coulee was

too high to successfully pass salmon via a ladder or elevator. Salmon managers considered the

construction of a hatchery immediately below the dam, but engineering problems made an

alternative necessary. The final plan had three key elements: 1) adult salmon and steelhead were

trapped in the ladders of Rock Island Dam from 1939 to 1943 and the fish taken to holding areas;

2) some adults were released into tributaries below Grand Coulee Dam and allowed to spawn

naturally; and 3) the remaining fish were held and spawned at Leavenworth hatchery. The

streams that received the transplanted fish were Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow and Okanogan rivers

and Lake Osoyoos (Fish and Hanavan 1948).

The results of the fish maintenance program were evaluated by comparing the contribution of

relocated stocks to the Columbia River escapement above Bonneville Dam before and after

Grand Coulee cut off salmon migration. Counts at Rock Island Dam were used as estimates of

the escapement of relocated stocks. Based on this analysis, Fish and Hanavan (1948) regarded

the Grand Coulee Salmon Salvage Program a success. However, twenty-four years later Ricker

(1972) gave a more pessimistic appraisal of the program and concluded that it salvaged nothing.

More recently, Mullan et al. (1992) concluded that the fish maintenance program conserved the

genetic diversity of the salmon stocks in the area. An examination of the historical record

combined with an analysis of allelic variation in the chinook salmon led to the conclusion that

the large-scale capture, mixing and relocation of chinook salmon stocks above Rock Island Dam

permanently altered the population structure and was the genesis of the present stock structure of

salmon in the mid-Columbia (Utter et al. 1995). Grand Coulee mitigation is implemented

through Entiat, Methow, and Leavenworth hatcheries.

Lower Columbia River Fishery Development Program: The initial Lower Columbia River

Fishery Development Program (LCRFDP), was strongly influenced by the concepts and design

of the Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project. Originally, LCRFDP had an implementation life

of 10 years; however, the program has continued to the present with some modifications. The

program is closely associated with the Mitchell Act, the enabling legislation that permitted

federal cost sharing at state hatcheries. As the title suggests, the program’s initial objective was

to concentrate salmon production in the lower Columbia River below McNary Dam. At the time,

in the late 1940s, it was believed that the construction of McNary Dam and the other proposed

dams in the upper Columbia and Snake rivers eventually would eliminate salmon in the upper

basin. In 1956, Congress changed the purpose of the LCRFDP by adding fishery restoration

above McNary Dam and the word “Lower” was dropped from the program title (Delarm et al.,

1987).
70

The original LCRFDP had six principal parts:

1. Remove migratory obstructions in the tributaries to the lower Columbia River. This part of

the program included stream clearance work that removed large woody debris and probably

reduced habitat quality in some streams;

2. Clean up pollution in major tributaries like the Willamette River;

3. Screen water diversions to prevent the loss of juveniles in irrigation ditches, and construct

fishways over impassable barriers in the tributaries of the lower Columbia River;

4. Transplant salmon stocks from above McNary Dam to the lower river;

5. Expand the hatchery program by rebuilding existing hatcheries or new facilities; and

6. Create salmon refuges by setting aside the lower river tributaries exclusively for the

maintenance of salmon and steelhead runs (Laythe 1948).

Stream clearance was consistent with management understandings and attitudes at the time, (e.g.,

WDF 1953), but it is no longer practiced unless the obstruction presents a complete unnatural

block to migration. The relocation of stocks from the upper to the lower Columbia followed the

approach used in the Grand Coulee program. Artificial propagation was one of six parts of the

program, but within a few years it became the dominant part (Lichatowich et al. 1996). In 1986,

79 percent of the program budget was expended on the hatchery program and about 10 percent

on habitat improvement and screening of irrigation ditches (the remainder was mainly for

administrative costs). Today 20 hatcheries are supported through Mitchell Act funds (Table 1).

The original goal of the LCRFDP was to maintain a harvest of about 32 million pounds of

anadromous salmonids from the Columbia River (Laythe 1948). However, it was conceded that

this might not be possible.
71

Table 1. Major hatcheries that are part of the Columbia River fisheries

development program (Mitchell Act Hatcheries). (Neitzel 1998, personal

communication Steve Smith NMFS and Rich Berry ODFW)

Facility Name Agency

First Year

Operated

Beaver Creek Hatchery WDFW 1957

Big Creek Hatchery ODFW 1941

Bonneville Hatchery ODFW 1909

Cascade Hatchery ODFW 1959

Clackamas Hatchery ODFW 1979

Eagle Creek NFH USFWS 1956

Elokomin Salmon Hatchery WDFW 1954

Fallert Creek Hatchery WDFW 1895

Grays River Salmon Hat. WDFW 1961

Kalama Hatchery WDFW 1958

Klaskanine Hatchery ODFW 1911

Klickitat Salmon Hatchery WDFW 1949

Little White Salmon NFH USFWS 1989

North Toutle Salmon Hat. WDFW 1951

Oxbow Hatchery ODFW 1913

Ringold Springs Hatchery WDFW 1963

Sandy Hatchery ODFW 1951

Skamania Hatchery WDFW 1956

Spring Creek NFH USFWS 1901

Washougal Salmon Hat. WDFW 1959

Mid-Columbia Mitigation: Construction of the five mid-Columbia projects (Priest Rapids,

Wanapum, Rock Island, Rocky Reach and Wells) eliminated 149 miles of mainstem habitat from

Chief Joseph Dam to the Hanford Reach below Priest Rapids Dam. Spawning and rearing

habitat was lost from the production of several thousand fall and summer chinook in this reach

(NPPC 1986) with additional impacts to the survival of downstream-migrating salmon produced

in tributaries above Priest Rapids Dam.

Mitigation programs in the mid-Columbia evolved in three phases. The first phase was the Grand

Coulee Fish Maintenance Project described above. From 1961 to 1967, four hatcheries and a

satellite facility were constructed to mitigate for mainstem habitat inundated by the five PUD

dams. This second phase originally consisted of three spawning channels (Priest Rapids, Turtle

Rock and Wells) and two conventional hatcheries (Rocky Reach and Chelan). The spawning

channels were later converted to conventional hatcheries. Implementation of the third phase

began in 1989 and is composed of the Methow hatchery and two satellite ponds, the Eastbank

Hatchery with five satellites, and Cassimer Bar Hatchery. This phase is intended to mitigate for

juveniles produced in the tributaries that are lost in passage at Wells and Rock Island dams.

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan: The Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP)

was developed to mitigate the loss of fish and wildlife resources resulting from the construction

of Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite dams. Construction of these
72

dams eliminated 137 miles of mainstem fall and summer chinook habitat and the annual

production from that reach. The dams also impacted survival of downstream- and upstreammigrating salmon produced upstream from Ice Harbor Dam.

The Lower Snake River dams were completed between 1961 and 1975 (Lavier 1976). Planning

for the program began in 1966, Congress gave its approval in 1976, and the first hatchery

(McCall) was completed in 1979. Over the next eight years, several other hatcheries and satellite

facilities were constructed. Currently, there are nine hatcheries funded under the LSRCP (Table

2). The LSRCP hatcheries were originally designed as conventional hatcheries, however in

some cases, conventional hatchery operations have evolved into supplementation programs (e.g.,

Messmer et al. 1992).

The Lower Snake River Compensation Program did not include production objectives for Snake

River coho salmon or Snake River sockeye salmon. Few resources were devoted to Snake River

fall chinook, with only one hatchery being devoted to this race at Lyons Ferry. Coho salmon

populations currently are extirpated from the Snake River Basin, sockeye salmon are nearly

extinct, and under the Endangered Species Act fall chinook are listed as threatened. The adult

return goals for the Lower Snake River Compensation Program include: 18,300 fall chinook,

58,700 spring/summer chinook, and 55,100 summer steelhead (Herrig 1998).

Table 2. Major hatcheries that are part of the Lower Snake River

Compensation Plan. (Neitzel 1998, Herrig 1998)

Facility Name Agency

First Year

Operated

Clearwater Hatchery IDFG 1992

Hagerman NFH USFWS 1933

Irrigon Hatchery ODFW 1984

Lookingglass Hatchery ODFW 1982

Lyons Ferry Salmon

Hatchery

WDFW 1984

Magic Valley Hatchery IDFG 1987

McCall Hatchery IDFG 1979

Sawtooth Hatchery IDFG 1985

Wallowa Hatchery ODFW 1920

Other Mitigation Programs: Other mitigation programs include the Willamette River Basin

hatcheries, and hatcheries operated by Native American tribes and private industry. Five

hatcheries mitigate for dams constructed in the tributaries of the Willamette River Basin (Table

3). The program is funded by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Nez Perce Tribe has a

springwater-fed hatchery developed on Sweetwater Creek near Lewiston, Idaho, and the Yakama

Tribe has a large state-of-the-art hatchery located near the Yakima River at Cle Elum,

Washington. The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho has been operating a hatchery near Bonners Ferry,

Idaho, originally in conjunction with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, to protect the

endangered Kootenai River population of white sturgeon from extinction. This facility was just
73

upgraded to more reliably fulfill its conservation function, and to address the needs of other atrisk populations in the Kootenai River Basin, including native kokanee salmon. Most of the

tribal production facilities are funded by Bonneville Power Administration ratepayers through

the Northwest Power Planning Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

Table 3. Major hatcheries that are part of the Willamette mitigation

program. (Neitzel 1998)

Facility Name Agency

First Year

Operated

Leaburg Hatchery COE 1953

Marion Forks Hatchery COE 1951

McKenzie River Hatchery COE 1975

South Santiam Hatchery ODFW 1968

Willamette Hatchery COE 1911

Several hatcheries have been financed by private industry to mitigate for loss of salmon and

steelhead habitat by the construction of dams. Some of the main projects are listed below:

• The effects of dams constructed in Hells Canyon by the Idaho Power Company are mitigated

through four hatcheries operated by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

• On the Deschutes River, Round Butte Hatchery mitigates for the construction of Pelton and

Round Butte Dams by Portland General Electric Company.

• Two hatcheries on the Cowlitz River mitigate for dams constructed by Tacoma City Light.

• Two hatcheries on the Lewis River are funded by PacifiCorp to mitigate for hydroelectric

development on that river.

As demonstrated by the history of artificial production in the Columbia River system, there has

been extensive variation in how hatcheries have been used to address needs of fisheries

management. In the earlier years, the basis on which hatcheries were developed was opinion and

adherence to a popular concept for increasing the magnitude of salmon runs. As hatchery

programs developed better technology over the years, there were concomitant changes in what

constituted hatchery management policy, and changes in the extent to which biological rationale

influenced that policy. There have been differences in the quality of hatchery fish and

improvements in the survival performance of fish released from hatcheries, but also a

performance that has been highly variable among hatcheries. It is instructive, therefore, to look

simultaneously at the evolution of the role of science as the hatchery concept developed and at

the history of hatcheries on the Columbia.
74

Figure 5. Columbia River Basin state, tribal and federal hatchery locations.

IV. Scientific Foundation

All salmon management programs are derived from a scientific foundation — a set of

assumptions, theories and principles that describe how the salmon ecosystem functions (ISG

1996 The foundation is a powerful part of any management program. It is used to interpret

information, identify problems (impediments to achieving objectives) and select restoration

strategies. Unfortunately the conceptual foundation is rarely explicitly stated or evaluated, and

as a consequence programs can suffer from errors in concept. When limited scientific inquiry

and false assumptions are a part of the process, the program derived from them will have a high

likelihood of failure.

The conceptual foundation of the Columbia River hatchery program has never been specified or

examined in detail. In this section, we describe the set of assumptions we believe were the basis

of the hatchery program. Because it has never been explicitly stated, the conceptual foundation

described here had to be derived from our review of the program — its apparent objectives,

assumptions stated by practitioners and its measures of performance. The conceptual foundation

we present is thus qualified as our interpretation of the historical record, and accounts for the

period ending in the 1960s; the point at which the hatchery assessment (the second phase of our

report) begins.
75

A. The Early Conceptual Foundation of Hatcheries

The early hatchery program was consistent with the overarching assumption that salmonid

production systems could be simplified, controlled, and made more productive. Hatchery

technology not only simplified and controlled production, it circumvented the need for natural

ecological processes and freshwater habitat. This philosophy was also reflected in the

subsequent development of resident fish hatcheries. The program intention was simply to

increase catch by protecting the eggs, maximizing the number of fry released, and harvest fish

returning from the sea. Given the hypothetical fecundity of 3,000 eggs, a spawning pair may

successfully produce something in the neighborhood of 500 fry to emergence under natural

stream conditions. Under the same scenario, artificially spawning and incubating those 3,000

eggs would result in about 2,500 fry to emergence under the hatchery scenario, or a five-fold

increase over natural incubation because of the protection against predation, disease, poor

incubation conditions and scouring floods. So the rationale of the early practitioners was not an

unreasonable expectation of the advantage of hatchery fry production. Moreover, it was a

technique that, when properly employed, had brought substantive results, as demonstrated by an

example we discuss in the next section (B).

The problem in the beginning was one of dimension. Even with a five-fold improvement in egg

survival, the number of females intercepted was insignificant compared to the number spawning

naturally, even when the run was seriously depressed. The primary problem, however, was that

fry were distributed to a variety of streams with little or no information about the suitability of

habitat or risk for young fish. This also was true of the often haphazard stocking of non-native

or exotic fish. In Idaho alone, 30 exotic species of resident fish have been introduced since the

late 1890s. (Simpson and Wallace, 1982).

It was the natural extension of the concept that if protecting the incubating eggs from such harm

would result in a five-fold improvement in fry production, and hence the extrapolation to a fivefold improvement in adult returns, then why not control the rest of freshwater rearing to reduce

losses from predation, disease, starvation, and environmental alterations in the natural stream?

Therefore, taking the simple equation one step farther, of the 500 wild fry emerging naturally, 45

might be expected to reach the smolt stage and enter marine waters, from which two to five

adults would return. However, extrapolating the hatchery survival advantage to the next life

history stage, if the now 2,500 fry successfully incubated from 3,000 eggs in the hatchery were

reared and protected through the succeeding freshwater rearing period, 2,000 fingerlings could

be produced to the smolt stage, equating to a total hatchery production benefit nearly 44 times

greater than natural production of the original 3,000 eggs. Rather than two to five adults

returning per pair of natural spawners, given marine survival equal to natural fry, the hatchery

benefit would equate to over 100 returning adults from the same pair of spawners. The simple

extrapolation of hatchery survival to return success was the presumptive expectation of the

hatchery enthusiasts, and the basis for the expansion of the hatchery building program that has

spanned a half century to the present distribution of artificial production throughout the

Columbia basin (Figure 5).

Experience has demonstrated, however, that successful production of juveniles in hatcheries is

not so simple and that hatchery production by itself cannot guarantee a sustained increase in

catch. However, the point in laboring the expectation that ushered in the development of

hatcheries is that the fundamental premise is very similar to the basic assumption inherent in the
76

subsequent development of Pacific salmon and many resident fish hatcheries throughout the

Pacific Northwest. That presumptive view has not changed substantially, and production

augmentation currently is being undertaken in at least the Columbia River Fishery Development

Program, but with a more conservative expectation of benefit.

Part of the problem is that early salmon managers viewed rivers as agri-ecosystems capable of

being simplified, controlled and through cultivation (artificial propagation) brought to higher

levels of production (Bottom 1997; Lichatowich et al. 1996). The agricultural approach to

management led to an emphasis on single species production objectives that separated the

development of fisheries science from the major developments in ecology for anadromous and

resident species. Fisheries adopted agricultural objectives and supporting science instead of the

holistic approach advocated by early fisheries workers such as Forbes (McIntosh 1985; Bottom

1997). Viewing rivers as farms led to the belief that individual enterprise alone could overcome

any natural limits to production (OSBFC 1890). As late as 1960, the Washington Department of

Fisheries still believed that fish farming was closely linked to farming on land and shared the

same principles and rewards (WDF 1960).

An agricultural model for salmon production was expressed by several early salmon managers.

The following is a sample of their statements:

“Professor Baird often said ‘one acre of water was worth seven acres of land, if properly

cultivated,’ but I am convinced that the Professor erred only in this, that I believe one

acre of the waters of any salmon stream in Oregon, if judiciously cultivated under

favorable circumstances, and if not paralyzed by ignorant vicious legislation, is worth

more as a medium for the product of a food supply than forty acres of the best land in the

State.” (Hume, 1893)

“It has been the habit to cultivate the land and neglect the water.... We have tilled the

ground four thousand years; we have just begun to till the water.... Less care and labor

are needed to raise fish than to raise other animals, or even to raise vegetables.”

(Oregon State Board of Fish Commissioners, 1890)

“Modern incubation equipment for fish propagation compares with greenhouse methods

to increase the survival of plants... As man makes ready the soil for growing of better

crops, so may he improve the water for the growing of fish. The steps to be taken in the

harvest of surplus seed, the surplus crops, the preparation of land or water follows the

same fundamental requirements.” (Washington Department of Fisheries 1960)

Commercial aquaculture, or fish husbandry for commercial markets with other agricultural

commodities in the Pacific Northwest, has demonstrated production capabilities even better than

the original hatchery practitioners envisioned. This is because fish farmers control the entire life

cycle from spawning to adult harvest and realize the equivalent of 1,800 marketable adult-size

fish per spawning pair. However, while the application of agricultural principles has been

beneficial in some aquacultural enterprises, it generally has failed when applied to anadromous

salmonids, which are released to experience more than three-quarters of their life in the natural

environment.
77

In retrospect, when we look back to the era of “farming nature,” in light of the major leaps that

agriculture has made and continues to make in animal husbandry, the assumption that watersheds

could be treated as farms and managed like agricultural enterprises was understandable. This

logic led to the belief that natural limits on production could be ignored and, through fish culture

levels of production greatly increased. Initially production from natural populations was assumed

to be limited by spawning success, and production of the ocean relatively unlimited.

Consequently, it was believed that increased survival of fry and fingerlings in the hatchery

would translate proportionately to increased adult return. This is epitomized in the following

excerpts.

"It is imperative, therefore, that some means be adopted to counteract the depletions

arising from this source (habitat degradation); but the most important reason for the

artificial propagation is the fact that the natural method is extremely wasteful, which is

not true of the artificial method.” (Smith 1919, p. 6)

"In my opinion, if the salmon runs of this state are to be maintained and increased, it is

going to be necessary to constantly construct new hatcheries. The much greater

effectiveness of hatchery operations, as compared with natural propagation, has in my

judgment been so effectively proven as to no longer permit discussions among those who

are acquainted with the situation.” (WDFG 1921, p. 17)

"There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who has studied the question, that the

future prosperity of our salmon fisheries depend largely upon artificial propagation... I

am convinced that not more than 10 percent of the ova spawned in the open streams are

hatched, owing principally to spawn-eating fish that prey on them... while from artificial

propagation 90 percent are successfully hatched. What more need be said in favor of fish

culture?” (Oregon State Fish and Game Protector 1896, p. 33)

“Nature ... produces great quantities of seed that nature does not utilize or need. It looks

like a vast store that has been provided for nature, to hold in reserve against the time

when the increased population of the earth should need it and the sagacity of man should

utilize it. At all events nature has never utilized this reserve, and man finds it already

here to meet his wants.” (Stone 1884, p. 21)

The assumptions that watersheds could be made more productive through agricultural practices

and that natural limits on production could be circumvented were the foundation of the Columbia

Basin hatchery program. Moreover, hatchery production was assumed to be additive to natural

production, with no interaction or impact on natural populations. Given the expected translation

of hatchery survival to adult returns, practitioners also assumed that the principle measure of

success for a production hatchery should be the numbers of juveniles released. Obviously, there

would be an associated expectation that harvest level should also increase, but accounting for

catch over many fisheries and jurisdictions was much more difficult and less practical than

simply monitoring numbers of juveniles produced.

In summary, the fundamental assumptions governing the development of the Columbia River

hatchery program before 1960, and the genesis of the early conceptual foundation of hatchery

production, was centered on five general assertions:
78

• It was not only possible but also desirable to simplify and control production of anadromous

salmonids to increase their abundance.

• Anadromous salmonids could be effectively managed through the application of agricultural

practices and science.

• Production limitations during freshwater life stages could be circumvented by hatcheries, and

the capacity of the ocean was relatively unlimited.

• Artificially propagated fish released to the rivers added to production from natural

populations. There were no negative interactions.

• The probability of success was so high that evaluation of adult returns was not necessary.

B. The hatchery framework as an adaptive process

Development of a conceptual foundation applicable to Columbia basin hatchery programs has to

be consistent with what is known about salmonid life history and ecological processes. Any

fisheries management effort that does not integrate the management criteria around the inherent

life history strategies that have evolved among the specific salmonid and native resident fish

species, including stock-specific differences, will fail. Pacific salmonids have evolved specific

life history patterns and population structures compatible with their native habitat (Brannon, in

press), and ignorance, or disregard, of that compatibility will weigh heavily against any

management attempts to sustain or build wild fish populations. In essence, the conceptual

foundation must be flexible enough to accommodate derivations in life histories among all fish

species, including those differences within the mixture of stocks representing the species.

Natural populations of salmonids are genetically programmed to survive and behave in ways that

maximize long-term fitness in their natural environments. Disconnecting the organismic and

environmental linkages effectively disrupts the timing and reduces fitness back to the level of a

founding population. Survival success returns to the odds of happenstance, and adaptive

evolution must start over again. Typical central hatchery programs that follow such management

plans, and repeatedly distribute fish around the watershed can not effectively address the concept

of ecosystem management. These fish will have little contribution value to natural production,

and by continually or even intermittently spreading stocks around the system, fish will remain

biologically incompetent for those foreign environments.

The challenge in developing the conceptual foundation for hatcheries is to re-prioritize

production and operation goals to address the biological needs of the stock being propagated. In

freshwater, chinook life history strategy is the most complex among the anadromous salmonids

and pink salmon the simplest, with coho, steelhead, sockeye, and chum salmon intermediate.

Stream-dwelling species, such as chinook, coho and steelhead, are limited most often by the

rearing capacity of their stream. Generally, factors associated with spatial and nutritional

requirements of stream-dwelling salmonids determine the upper limit of population biomass that

can be sustained within the stream, and strategies to maximize productivity around those

parameters evolve to define the population. Sockeye, chum, and pink salmon use freshwater

streams only for spawning, with the juveniles immediately migrating to their nursery

environments in lake (sockeye) or marine (chum and pink) waters for rearing. Only the

spawning area of the stream generally limits these species, as the productivity of their nursery

environment most often exceeds the capacity of the spawning grounds available.
79

In developing a conceptual foundation for hatchery programs, the process must allow for

differences inherent in the fish targeted and whether they have adopted anadromous or resident

life histories. It appears that successful applications of the hatchery concept are those cases that

do not deviate significantly from the biological repertoire of the fish, and were successful in

addressing the limiting factors in the natural life history of the species. The Prince William

Sound (PWS) pink salmon hatchery program is a good example (Linley, in press). In the early

1970s the commercial fishery on pink salmon was threatened by the low return of fish into the

sound, and hence it was believed the relatively small numbers of fry naturally produced were

insufficient to rebuild the run. The non-profit hatchery program was started, involving the

artificial spawning and incubation of fry for release into PWS. Fry releases were synchronized

with the beginning of the spring plankton bloom, which was the biological optimum for rapid

growth. Their success was unprecedented (Figure 6). Adult returns improved four-fold over the

previous ten-year average of 5 million adults, and has reached numbers as high as 45 million

returning fish. Percent survival of fry released to achieve those levels of return success ranged

from 0.9 percent to 13.0 percent (Figure 7) at the Armin F. Koernig hatchery (Linley, in press),

far exceeding the survival performance of any fingerling or smolt production hatchery on the

Columbia. The survival variability was attributed to variations in marine productivity,

temperatures, and predation, based on annual monitoring of those conditions in the sound

(Willette 1992). Success in the PWS hatchery program was experienced by working within the

life history definition of the species, and has succeeded for ten generations.

Similar success addressing production restraints from loss of habitat was experienced with

sockeye returning to Weaver Creek on the Fraser River (IPSFC and PSC annual reports).

Logging had caused high variability in flows, and the loss of redds and low returns were

threatening the viability of the run. The Salmon Commission built an artificial spawning channel

on the stream in which flow was controlled and much of the silt and fine material prevented from

infiltrating the graded spawning substrate. Natural spawners used the channel with egg-to-fry

survival rates averaging well over 60 percent, or about 10-fold better than survival in the

adjacent stream. Adult returns showed a marked improvement, amounting to an average of

about 250,000 fish annually (Figure 8).
80

Figure 6. Annual run size of pink salmon returning to hatchery and

natural production streams in Prince William Sound, Alaska.

Figure 7. Percent survival of pink salmon fry released from

Armin F. Koernig hatchery in Prince William Sound, Alaska.
81

Figure 8. Annual run size of sockeye salmon returning to

Weaver Creek in British Columbia (IPSFC/PSC Rept).

The Weaver Creek channel (hatchery) concept succeeded because the operation was

complementary to the biology of the species, and addressed only that portion of the life history

that was limiting the population. In both the PWS pink salmon hatchery program and the

Weaver Creek sockeye salmon spawning channel, the conceptual foundation was consistent with

the species life history and integrated the solution to the production problem effectively.

However, these species present a different kind of challenge than that facing the Columbia basin

hatcheries. Sockeye and pink salmon are normally limited by freshwater spawning area, and the

hatchery approaches used in both cases addressed that limitation with relatively minimal

intrusion in the ecological system. The stream-dwelling species (chinook, coho, and steelhead)

create a different problem when limited rearing habitat is the primary source of population

decline. Hatchery rearing programs have a more difficult task of integrating cultured fish into

the natural system because, unlike artificial incubation programs, under present hatchery rearing

environments the fish are removed from everything that would resemble or prepare them for the

natural stream environment they must compete in once they are released. However, even under

these conditions, hatchery programs have shown success in increasing production. The Makah

Nation Fish Hatchery is a good example.

In the late 1970s, the Makah Indian Nation sought to increase the production of anadromous

salmonids associated with the streams on their reservation in far northwestern Washington state.

The Sooes River chinook population was being seriously threatened by clear-cut logging
82

watershed instability, runoff from log yards, and overfishing by the coastal and Canadian

fisheries. Fewer than 100 fish were reaching the spawning grounds in some years. In

cooperation with the USFWS, the Makah National Fish Hatchery was built on the Sooes River,

entering the Pacific Ocean just south of Cape Flattery. Plans were initiated to introduce chinook

from other hatcheries, but the Makahs insisted that only Sooes chinook be propagated, even if

the hatchery was not fully utilized in the first few years. They felt Sooes River fall chinook were

uniquely adapted to that coastal system, with large eggs and an early migration timing to marine

waters. Therefore, the hatchery program was to enhance the Sooes River chinook population,

and a breeding plan was followed to maintain the diversity present. Fish excess to hatchery

needs were permitted to spawn naturally, and in theory both the hatchery population and the

naturally spawning fish commingled as a single population. Age-3 returns from hatchery

propagation started in 1984, and by 1988 hatchery contributions were a significant share of the

total return (Figure 9). By the late 1990s well over 2,000 fish were returning from both the

hatchery and the natural production.

Figure 9. Chinook salmon annual return to Sooes River,

Washington, from hatchery and natural production.

The Sooes River chinook salmon hatchery program success is attributed in part to the emphasis

on the native stock. The selective advantage of the adaptive traits manifest in the physical and

behavioral characteristics of the Sooes stock were not compromised by introductions of another

stock that would have been incompatible with that coastal system. Also contributing to their

success is the hatchery’s proximity to the marine environment. Naturally produced fish have a

relatively brief period of freshwater residence, and the hatchery fish can be in brackish water

within an hour after release from the hatchery.
83

These examples of pink, sockeye, and chinook hatchery programs that have had good success in

reaching their production objectives demonstrate that the appropriate conceptual framework is

critically important to the development of functional enhancement systems. Admittedly, none

of the above examples is subject to the severely anomalous conditions facing Columbia River

salmon and steelhead. The point in fact, however, is that if Columbia Basin hatcheries are to

have success in enhancing natural production and restoring some of the runs to self-sustaining

populations, the conceptual foundation has to be that much more specific to the task. To meet

the challenge of integrating artificial propagation into the Columbia Basin ecosystem and reach

the commercial, tribal, and public fishery objectives, the model has to be rigorously defined and

the biology of the component species well understood.

Many of the previous requirements for successful anadromous salmonid hatchery programs also

apply directly to resident fish. As with the previous examples of successes with pink, sockeye,

and chinook salmon, resident fish hatcheries also share the success of meeting their goals. It is

important to note that the goals of anadromous and resident fish hatchery programs can differ

considerably due to differences in program application and purpose, as well as differences in life

history strategies and requirements of the species targeted. Nonetheless, the two following

examples of successful resident fish hatchery programs provide substantial recreational fishing

opportunities, increased numbers of angler trips, and very important local economic benefits.

Their success was judged by the contribution of recreational fisheries to the local economies and

the quality of life in the interior Columbia Basin. These two examples involve Sprague Lake in

eastern Washington, and Lake Roosevelt, in northeastern Washington.

Resident hatchery stocks of rainbow trout and Lahontan cutthroat trout were successfully

introduced into Sprague Lake following complete elimination of carp , stunted yellow perch and

additional undesirable non-native fish species through the use of rotenone (Whalen 1989; Willms

1989; Willms et al. 1989). Prior to rotenone treatment, and the introduction of rainbow and

cutthroat trout, the estimated annual angler pressure was believed to be approximately 1,700

angler days (approximately 13,600 angler-hours; Willms et al. 1989). Following rotenone

treatment, removal of undesirable species, and introduction of rainbow and cutthroat trout, the

estimated 13,600 angler-hours rose to over 200,000 in 1987 and 1988 (Figure 10; Willms et al.

1989). One of the goals of this resident trout introduction program was to generate $500,000

annually for the local economy. The program has since provided over $1 million annually to the

local economy — 20 times the original target goal (Willms et al. 1989). These authors also

determined that in 1986, 46.6 percent of all rainbow trout stocked into Sprague Lake were

returned to the creel during the same year. This return is more than forty times that of

documented adult anadromous salmon returns, which illustrates the need for separate and

appropriate evaluation criteria of resident and anadromous fish hatchery programs. In this case,

the newly established resident trout fishery in Sprague Lake illustrates the benefits of resident

hatchery programs, which provided a popular fishery in a previously little-used lake.

The second example of successful resident fish hatchery programs involves Lake Roosevelt, the

Spokane Indian Tribe’s resident fish hatchery, and rainbow trout. The Spokane Tribal Hatchery

program began stocking Lake Roosevelt with rainbow trout and kokanee salmon in 1991 in order

to establish and enhance resident fisheries in the lake as mitigation for anadromous salmon

resources permanently lost due to dam construction. From 1991 through 1994, rainbow trout

catches increased nearly five-fold (Figure 11 ), angler trips nearly tripled ((Figure 12), and
84

estimated annual revenue generated by hatchery-supported resident fisheries increased nearly

four-fold (Figure 13, Cichosz et al. 1996).

Figure 10. Comparison of angler-hours during pre-stocking

(1985) and post-stocking (1987, 1988) periods at Sprague

Lake, Washington (Data from Willms et al. 1989)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Years

1985 1986 1987 1988

Figure 11. Comparison of rainbow trout catch before (1990,1991)

and after stocking (1992-1994) in Lake Roosevelt (Data from Cichosz et

al. 1996).

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Year
85

Figure 12. Comparison of angler-trips on Lake Roosevelt before

(1990) and after rainbow trout stocking (Data from Cichosz et al.)

1996).

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Year

Figure 13. Comparison of economic value (millions of dollars) of

Lake Roosevelt resident fishery before (1990) and after rainbow trout stocking program (Data

from Cichoz et al.1996)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Year

V. Organization and Classification of Artificial Production

We have stated that implicit in the artificial production of salmon, and the fundamental premise

behind development of salmon hatcheries in the basin, was the belief that increases in the

number of juvenile salmon produced and released from hatcheries would result in a proportional

increase of harvestable adults. Although expectations of artificial production have matured to

something more qualified by experience, that basic premise has continued to be a strong impetus
86

behind hatchery substitution for habitat loss and reduced access to historical spawning grounds.

New hatcheries are being constructed in anticipation of markedly increased adult returns

resulting from such operations. How these new hatchery complexes integrate into the basin

ecosystem will be defined by how management applies the conceptual framework to meet the

objectives they have for the fishery.

The application of the hatchery model in the management of salmon fisheries, and hence the

basis on which performance of such hatcheries must be judged, depends entirely on the

objectives or strategies being addressed (Table 5). With the possible exception of hatcheries that

are used solely to restore specific populations nearing extirpation, all anadromous and resident

fish hatcheries are intended to provide fish for harvest. Management strategies fall under two

categories of purpose, one to augment natural production for harvest, and the other to mitigate

for the loss of harvest as a result of the diminution or elimination of salmon-producing habitat,

and excluding their access to that habitat. It is instructive, therefore, to define more precisely the

nature of augmentation and mitigation in the Columbia basin because of their application in

mandates of Congress to enhance production or compensate for its loss as the river has

developed around other societal needs. It is also essential to understand the classification of

hatcheries in this document if assessment of past performance and current status is to provide the

intended framework on which future management decisions and policies will be based.

A. Harvest Augmentation

Early in the development of mid-nineteenth century salmon fisheries, and as commercial

harvests of Columbia River chinook salmon were doubling every season, artificial production

was given serious consideration as a means to augment the harvest of salmon beyond that which

could be sustained by natural production. Freshwater production of young salmon in natural

river systems was correctly assumed to be limited by spawning success and habitat, and

hatcheries were conceived as a means to overcome such constraints on natural production. The

fact that egg-to-fry survival could be increased as much as ten-fold through the process of

artificial spawning and incubation in hatcheries was the general motivation behind construction

of the first Columbia Basin hatchery in 1876, located on the Clackamas River. The expectation

followed that adult returns would materialize from such technological interventions, reminiscent

of philosophical deductions from technological advancements in agriculture and animal

husbandry. This same pervasive philosophy was incorporated into the development and

maintenance of mitigation hatcheries that propagated resident fish species. Overfishing reduced

the abundance of anadromous salmonids so extensively in the basin that augmentation actually

tried to compensate for the fishery and was never able to expand harvests beyond historical

natural production.

Although attempts to assess hatchery contribution to the harvest did not occur until more recent

times, and in spite of divided opinion within the scientific community about hatchery success

(Lythe, 1948), the belief that artificial production contributed to the fishery has been responsible

for development of substantial hatchery effort. There were three fundamental assumptions

associated with the use of hatcheries for the purpose of harvest augmentation. (1) the freshwater

environment limits natural production, (2) ocean carrying capacity exceeds natural production

potential, and (3) hatchery production will not negatively impact natural populations. Belief in

these assumptions still prevails, and they exist as criteria that need to be carefully assessed in
87

applications of harvest augmentation programs to justify use of such technology for that

objective in the Columbia River.

The first and second assumptions have credence, but the lower end of the productivity threshold

in the marine environment is a very powerful limiting force on production, regardless of the

magnitude of production in freshwater. Augmentation of harvest through hatchery production

has been demonstrated most recently with pink salmon in Prince William Sound as seen in

Figure 6, and highly correlated with marine conditions (Willette, 1992). Several hatchery

programs in Alaska demonstrate very positive augmentation success, routinely above 10-percent

survival of fingerling sockeye, and higher than 20 percent among some groups on fingerling

coho (Marianne McNair, ADF&G, personal communication).

Successful augmentation hatchery programs are not rare in Washington and Oregon, either. The

old Washington Department of Fisheries was formed to manage marine fisheries in the state

specifically for commercial harvest, and augmentation was the objective of Washington State

hatcheries. Hood Canal chum salmon hatchery production is a good example (Fuss, 1998). The

size of the chum salmon run in Hood Canal has been directly related to the level of hatchery fry

releases (Figure 14).

Figure 14. A comparison of Hood Canal chum salmon

releases and subsequent run size. (Fuss 1989)

Similarly, coho production in Puget Sound shows a strong relationship between hatchery

production and return run size. Fuss (1998) points out however, that regardless of hatchery

contributions, if the environmental restraints are limiting the carrying capacity, production levels

off or declines to whatever the environment will support (Figure 15).
88

Figure 15. A comparison of hatchery releases of Puget

Sound 1+ coho with subsequent run size. (Fuss 1998)

In the context of ecosystem management, the second and third assumptions listed above create

major problems for attempts to accommodate harvest augmentation objectives. Ecosystem

management and harvest augmentation are basically conflicting strategies that must be resolved

consistent with the long-range goals for the fishery. The real question is not whether hatcheries

are able to successfully produce salmon and steelhead artificially; that has been demonstrated

many times. The deciding issue is whether hatchery production can integrate within the

ecological framework on which future salmon management is proposed to operate. It follows,

therefore, that before resolution can be addressed on the use of augmentation strategy in the

Columbia River, careful assessment of harvest augmentation success through the use of

hatcheries outside the basin, and the measured ecological impacts, should be undertaken.

B. Mitigation

With the development of water resources in the Columbia River, about 40 percent of the

originally accessible river system is now inaccessible to salmon, and much of the remaining

habitat has been significantly compromised for incubation and rearing. These losses were

mitigated through artificial propagation, and major hatchery programs now prevail in the

Columbia River system, and currently represent a significant and continuing investment.

Conceptually, mitigation hatcheries are meant to replace harvest potentially lost as a result of

habitat alteration. These losses, related to dams, water diversions, and habitat degradation, have

been justified or made “socially acceptable” (Christie et al., 1987) by the precept that the

resulting losses in natural production of salmon would be compensated through hatchery

production of anadromous and resident species. Consequently, with the extensive development

of the Columbia River, most of the 93 artificial production facilities (hatcheries, ponds, and

release sites) in the river system are operated for mitigation purposes.
89

There is concern that these major program developments, like augmentation, have progressed

extensively without careful assessment of their effectiveness in meeting their primary objectives.

The problem in making such assessments of mitigation hatcheries on the Columbia, however, is

that their application has been somewhat equivocal, with some taking on a distinct augmentation

role to increase harvest, while others have been applied in supplementation to strengthen the

numerical base of wild populations. With the decline of naturally reproducing stocks of salmon

and resident fish throughout the Columbia River Basin, and the contemplated further use of

hatcheries to overcome these losses, assessment of their effectiveness, limitations, and

application must be made. Mitigation must also be viewed in the broader perspective of its

present use in the Basin, including measures to stem the risk of extinction. Classification of

mitigation hatcheries, therefore, fall within four different categories associated with degrees of

salmon extirpation, including maintenance, recovery, preservation, and restoration. An

additional category of resident fish hatcheries involves resident fish substitution programs, such

as those discussed on pages 34 and 35 of this report and in the Northwest Power Planning

Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. These hatcheries propagate

resident fish for harvest as either on-site or off-site mitigation for lost salmon resources. Here is

a more detailed look at the four classifications of mitigation hatcheries:

(1) Maintenance

Maintenance is consistent with the original objective of mitigation as a mechanism to maintain

those runs of salmon that would otherwise be reduced or extirpated by river developments

resulting from habitat degradation or migratory impasse. For example, with the construction of

dams on the river, especially those without fish passage, the risk of partial or total loss of the run

was mitigated by replacement with hatchery fish. The objective is maintenance of the preexisting run of salmon at or near its previous abundance. Maintenance hatcheries may substitute

or circumvent the need for natural habitat, characterized by attempts to mitigate development of

the hydro-system in the upper Columbia and Snake rivers, or they can supplement the number of

naturally spawning salmon affected by development. Maintenance, in its most basic rendition, is

to maintain contribution of salmon and steelhead approximate to those levels immediately

preceding developments affecting their productivity.

With the present emphasis on sustaining natural runs of salmon, supplementation has taken a

much greater role in maintenance conservation. Conceptually, supplementation is meant to

reinforce populations without loss of the genetic structure. Supplementation, therefore, is

employed to enhance the native stocks of salmon and steelhead by increasing their reproductive

base through artificial propagation, using only the native gene pool in the process.

(2) Recovery

Recovery has become an increasing responsibility of mitigation. Compelled by the decline of

salmon and steelhead in the Columbia system, major efforts are being expended on rebuilding

runs to levels that are considered sustaining under the stress imposed on these populations in the

migratory corridor of the mainstem river, and the condition of their endemic habitat. In the

context of mitigation with emphasis on native populations, supplementation is by definition the

rebuilding of the native population of anadromous salmonids. Application of artificial

propagation in rebuilding populations has been thwarted by the disregard of population genetics

and careful breeding programs (Remain and Ståhl, 1980; Allendorf and Utter, 1979; Cross and
90

King, 1983), as well as poor conditioning of fish while in the hatchery environment (Swain and

Riddell, 1990). Salmonids have evolved to be compatible with their environments, and each

population, therefore, has adapted to the specific characteristics of their respective habitat.

Spawning time, emergence timing, juvenile distribution, marine orientation and distribution are

not random, but occur in specific patterns of time and space for each population (Brannon,

1984). In the technical sense, therefore, enhancement of specific wild salmonids must observe

this compatibility between native stocks and their environments. This perspective is a central

theme of mitigation for recovery for all native anadromous and resident fish species in the basin.

(3) Preservation

Preservation is the most extreme measure used to prevent extinction, and characteristically has

been implemented when numbers have degenerated to such low levels that risks associated with

emigration and marine life phases threaten extinction. Preservation is approached along two

different avenues. The first is to increase the numerical base in captivity through maintenance of

captive brood stock. Maximizing reproductive potential under captive breeding over two

generations can provide the numerical advantage and genetic predisposition necessary for

recovery. Such a preservation approach is meant to be short-term, involving only a limited

number of generations. However, when a major cause of the decline persists, such as the

problems with the migratory corridor on the Snake and Columbia rivers or habitat destruction or

overfishing, for example, then such preservation programs may have to continue until conditions

favor natural recovery.

The second avenue in preservation is to provide repositories of genetic diversity for future

introduction and recovery. Captive brood can be applied in such approaches, but germ plasm

repositories are the most feasible, inexpensive, long-term approach. Rather than the “choice of

last resort,” germ plasm preservation should be proactively included in routine population

recovery measures. Healthy populations need to be the target for gamete cryopreservation to

assure that repositories contain representative genetic diversity, and from which domestication

and inbreeding can be avoided in mitigation hatcheries. Both avenues are meant to preserve

genetic diversity or to keep stocks from demographic extinction, and assist in recovery when

habitat and migratory passage are restored.

(4) Restoration

Restoration is the re-establishment of a salmon or steelhead run in the place of an extirpated

natural population. Understandably, establishing a successfully reproducing run requires

sufficient similarity between the introduced fish and the extirpated population to ensure

compatibility with controlling environmental phenomena. Matching genetic predispositions to

optimize the likelihood of success is key to the restoration strategy. Important among the

environmental factors are winter stream temperatures and length of the freshwater migratory

pathway. These features determine timing and distribution patterns of native stocks. The

optimum strategy is to use these features to select candidates for introduction most like those

demonstrated by the native phenotype.

Restoration mitigation is a difficult task, and necessarily of greater duration to realize functional

re-establishment of a run because of the generation time required for the adaptive evolution or

re-creation of the appropriate form. The critical measure of success is not the number of
91

returning fish to the hatchery. Hatchery environments are secure and forgiving of timing

inconsistencies that can easily be amended by feeding programs that exaggerate size at time of

release. Restoration criteria must target only the naturally reproducing segment of the run, and

hatchery programming should be altered to accommodate the spawning, incubation and

migratory timing patterns evolving among those fish. Differentiation between what is observed

among hatchery contributions and returns from natural reproduction is a difficult and long-term

process, but restoration cannot be accomplished with anything less. To have successful

restoration is to have established a self-perpetuating wild run, free of hatchery dependence.

C. Determinants of Performance

In determining the performance of anadromous salmonid augmentation and mitigation

hatcheries, it is apparent that the objective identifies the determinant criteria. Moreover, the

criteria are only satisfied in terms of the adult return response, as measured in the harvest fishery

or the return destination. Augmentation has the objective of increased harvest, or contribution of

returning adults to the fishery. Mitigation has the objectives associated with maintenance,

recovery, preservation, or restoration measured as contribution of reproductive adults in the

target population. In both augmentation and mitigation hatchery programs, genetic and

demographic concerns must be addressed. In the former, if genetic compatibility is not a

management concern, then isolation of the returning fish from neighboring native stocks must be

at least be assured or the level of straying non-consequential. In the latter, genetic identity and

diversity are basic to the objectives sought in each of the mitigation functions. In this particular

document, the key assessment criteria are listed below, and apply to both augmentation and

mitigation programs.

1) Has the hatchery achieved its objective?

2) Has the hatchery incurred costs to natural production?

3) Are there genetic impacts associated with the hatchery production?

4) Is the benefit greater than the cost?

These criteria are relatively simple and straightforward. However, their resolution has an

uncertain complexity because of the overriding influence of marine conditions, the effects of

mixed stock fisheries, interaction among runs of fish, and the influences of the dynamic

interaction within ecological communities on the ultimate return success of a run. Therefore, in

as much as it is possible, the performance measures involved in the SRT assessment will be

qualified based on relative information on annual variations in marine productivity, temperature

trends and associated predator occurrence, distance up the freshwater migratory corridor, and

other controlling influences unrelated to the actual hatchery variables involved.

Artificial production of resident fish in the Columbia Basin should not be evaluated using

specific Basin anadromous salmonid propagation criteria for several reasons. First, the purposes

of anadromous and resident fish propagation programs may be considerably different. For

example, a resident fish artificial propagation program may represent mitigation for an extinct

salmon run, extirpated by blockage of its spawning habitat by dams. Mitigation using resident

fish programs or exotic fishes represents an acceptance that the natural ecosystem is no longer

sound and intact.. In this case, the resident fish propagation program might raise non-native fish

to provide a warm-water fishing opportunity in the newly created reservoir as mitigation for the
92

extinct salmon run. Thus, evaluation of this resident fish propagation program using an

anadromous fish propagation criterion — such as the degree to which a hatchery stock enhanced

a native run — would be irrelevant because the run is extinct and thus cannot be enhanced.

Secondly, life histories and migratory patterns of anadromous salmonids and resident fish in the

basin can be completely different. For example, an anadromous salmonid propagation

evaluation criterion of percent adult return (i.e. return to the rack) would be an irrelevant

measure of the success of a resident fish program with a goal of establishing a put-and-take

recreational fishery. Rather, in this resident fish example, perhaps a measure of angler

satisfaction, or return to the creel would serve as an appropriate evaluation criteria. It is

extremely important, therefore, that serious consideration is given to developing biologically

meaningful and accurately measurable evaluation criteria to evaluate the success of resident fish

propagation programs throughout the basin with the same rigor as applied to anadromous

salmonid programs.

VI. Synthesis of Artificial Production Reviews

Differing points of view on the value and importance of artificial production are not lacking in

fisheries science. Hatchery production has been the center of controversy as long as hatcheries

have existed on the Pacific Coast. Both the ecological and economic points of view have been

debated without resolution because the conclusions usually reflect the preconceived perspective

of the reviewers. One side of the issue is dominated by practitioners who base their point of

view on the evidence of hatchery returns, but tend to ignore the ecological implications of

hatchery fish on endemic stocks or the larger biological community. The other side is dominated

by scientists who base their point of view on theory and ecological principles, in spite of societal

benefits of a propagated fishery.

Scientists and fish culturists should be concerned about the findings of three independent

scientific panels that concluded hatcheries have generally failed to meet their objectives. The

findings of those panels are discussed in detail later in this report. As general background, it is

informative to examine the reviews on the subject and get a better appreciation of the issues

confronting the use of artificial production. It is important to keep in mind, however, that

artificial production in these assessments is narrowly defined around the standard production

hatchery where tray incubators and concrete raceways provide the artificial incubation and

rearing habitat.

A. Early Hatchery Evaluations

It might seem that use of a major program such as hatchery production to augment and mitigate

for loss of historical fisheries would be evaluated to determine whether it is achieving its

objectives. However, that did not occur in the Columbia River hatchery program. Part of the

explanation for this failure comes from the ideological rather than scientific roots of the

programs (see Historical Overview of Artificial Production). A major shortcoming of ideologydriven technology is that it is not allowed to fail. Its success is assured by ignoring the signs of

failure so by the time the failure is recognized, great damage has usually already occurred

(Dyson 1997). This observation clearly describes the Columbia River hatchery program prior to

1960, and to a lesser extent after 1960 as well.
93

During their first 80 years of hatchery operation, claims of success for the program were based

on short-term correlations; evidence that was weak at best, or on no evidence at all. Extravagant

and undocumented claims of hatchery effectiveness characterized the early history of the

program. For example, in 1883, George Brown Goode of the U.S. Fish Commission told the

International Fisheries Exhibition in London, England, that the Pacific salmon fisheries in the

Sacramento and Columbia rivers were under the complete control of fish culture (Maitland

1884). When Goode made that claim, the only hatchery on the Columbia River had been closed

for two years (Cobb 1930). This again illustrates the disconnect between science and the

hatchery program in its early developmental period.

Perhaps the first serious evaluation of the hatchery program came from Marshall McDonald, who

succeeded Spencer Baird. He concluded:

“. . . we have relied too exclusively upon artificial propagation as a sole and adequate means

for maintenance of our fisheries. The artificial impregnation and hatching of fish ova and the

planting of fry have been conducted on a stupendous scale. We have been disposed to

measure results by quantity rather than quality, to estimate our triumphs by volume rather

than potentiality. We have paid too little attention to the necessary conditions to be fulfilled

in order to give the largest return for a given expenditure of effort and money.” (McDonald,

1894, p.15).

McDonald raised three important concerns regarding the use of hatcheries including:

1) a warning regarding an overdependence on hatchery production as a substitute for

stewardship;

2) a criticism that hatchery performance was based on the quantity of juveniles released

rather than the quality of the adult populations; and

3) a recommendation to evaluate the quality of the receiving waters in watersheds to be

stocked with hatchery fish.

To varying degrees all of these concerns are still valid today.

State salmon managers challenge the assertion that scientific evaluations did not exist in the early

decades of the hatchery program. The managers point specifically to a marking experiment

carried out from 1895-1900 (Dehart 1997). In this experiment, 5,000 chinook salmon eggs were

transferred from the Sacramento River and incubated at the Clackamas Hatchery in the Columbia

basin. The fry were marked by removing the adipose fin and released, and for the next several

years cannery men recorded the appearance of these fish in their facilities. Sex and weight were

determined for some of the fish. However, to label this experiment scientifically valid, the

following would have to be accepted:

1) That 5,000 chinook salmon eggs transferred from the Sacramento River and released as

marked fry in the Clackamas River achieved a minimum 10 percent return as adults just

to the canneries.

2) That the majority of adults returned in their third year, a year earlier than average, and

they were five pounds heavier than the average for the Columbia River — one supposed

three-year old weighed 57 pounds.
94

3) That the cannery operators reliably identified the marked salmon and accurately recorded

their weights. The fish commissioner apparently did not personally inspect the fish that

the cannery operators claimed to be marked.

The validity of the experiment is questionable, and the results were questioned by at least one

contemporary biologist (Gilbert 1913).

Other experiments relied on short-term correlations. The common practice before 1910 was to

release juvenile salmon shortly after hatching and before they started to feed. In 1911, hatchery

managers held a group of chinook salmon and fed them for several months before release. The

catch increased in 1914, the year managers expected the first returns from their experiment. After

five successive years of improved catches in the Columbia River, the Oregon Fish and Game

Commission announced the success of their experiments:

“... this new method has now passed the experimental stage, and ... the Columbia River as

a salmon producer has ‘come back.’ By following the present system, and adding to the

capacity of our hatcheries, thereby increasing the output of young fish, there is no reason

to doubt but that the annual pack can in time be built up to greater numbers than ever

before known in the history of the industry...” (Oregon Fish and Game Commission 1919).

Subsequent review indicated that the claims of hatchery success were premature and the

increased catch was not caused by the new methodology (Johnson 1984) and probably had little

to do with artificial propagation. Instead, the increase in harvest from 1914 to 1920 was

consistent with the pattern of variation in harvest for the previous 20 years (Figure 3) and

probably resulted from favorable environmental conditions. For example, the 1914 chinook

salmon run into the Umatilla River, which had no hatchery, also increased dramatically (Van

Cleve and Ting 1960), supporting the suggestion that the increase in harvest was a response to

natural climatic fluctuations.

In 1914, Willis Rich initiated studies of the life history of chinook salmon that had two practical

purposes: 1) to determine the value of hatchery work; and 2) to understand the differences in

early life history between spring and fall chinook (Rich 1920). Rich also initiated several

marking experiments at hatcheries in the basin to test the efficiency of hatchery practices and the

homing ability of chinook salmon (Rich and Holmes 1929). The marking experiments were a

major improvement over earlier “evaluations,” but they did not come close to the standards of

experimental design used in later evaluations.

Based on his observations on the timing of the migration of juvenile chinook salmon, Rich

(1920) concluded that the release of sack fry should be terminated. He recommended that fry be

held in the hatchery and released during the natural migration. He also recommended that

juveniles be allowed to migrate out of the hatchery ponds on their own volition.

Nationally, by the 1920s biologists were beginning to question the efficacy of fish culture during

its first 50 years. As a result, hatchery programs came under increasing criticism (Wood 1953).

Rich (1922) completed a statistical study of the Columbia River hatchery program discussed in

the previous section, but that study was never published. The lack of rigorous, scientific

evaluation of the hatchery programs for Pacific salmon led Cobb (1930) to conclude that

artificial propagation could become a threat to the Pacific salmon fishery. Cobb was not opposed
95

to artificial propagation, but he believed that managers had to put aside their optimism and stop

relying on hatcheries alone to increase or maintain the fishery.

By the 1940s, individual hatcheries were fin-clipping juvenile salmon in order to evaluate returns

to the hatchery from routine production or to evaluate experimental hatchery practices. Often the

experiments had too few recoveries to be conclusive. Wallis (1964) summarizes the results of

many of those studies.

Extended rearing in the hatcheries prompted research into the nutritional requirements of

juvenile salmon and the prevention and treatment of diseases. Through the 1950s, the

development of new feeds, better prevention and treatment of diseases, and improved hatchery

practices such as the optimal size and time of release (Hagger and Noble 1976) started to

produce tangible results. By the 1960s smolt-to-adult survival had increased significantly.

In the early 1960s, Congress placed a moratorium on new hatcheries until their effectiveness was

evaluated. In response, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conducted a series of

large-scale evaluations of the contribution of chinook and coho salmon from Columbia River

hatcheries to various fisheries in the Northeast Pacific. The 1961 through 1964 broods of

juvenile fall chinook from 13 hatcheries in the Columbia Basin were fin clipped before release so

their contribution to the sport and commercial fisheries could be estimated. Results of the

evaluation were positive. The benefit/cost ratio for all hatcheries combined for each of the brood

years was 1961: 3.7/1; 1962: 2.0/1; 1963: 7.2/1; and 1964: 3.8/1. The potential catch per 1,000

fish released was 1961: 6.7; 1962: 3.1; 1963: 10.0; and 1964: 6.5. Average survival for all

hatcheries combined was 0.7 percent. Overall, an estimated 14 percent of the fall chinook salmon

caught in the sport and commercial fisheries from southeast Alaska to northern California

originated from the Columbia River hatcheries (Wahle and Vreeland, 1978).

The NMFS repeated the fall chinook evaluation with the 1978 to 1982 broods. Total survival for

all four brood years and all facilities was 0.33 percent or about half the survival of the earlier

study, however the benefit/cost ratio was still positive at 5.7/1. The overall contribution to the

fishery was 1.9 adults for each 1,000 juveniles released (Vreeland 1989). The NMFS used a

similar approach to evaluate the contribution made to the West Coast fisheries by the 1965 and

1966 broods of coho salmon. Juvenile coho salmon from 20 hatcheries in the Columbia Basin

were marked for the study. Recoveries were monitored from British Columbia to California.

Coho salmon from Columbia River hatcheries made up about 16 percent of the total catch in the

sampling area (Wahle et al. 1974). These evaluations were well designed and executed, but they

only addressed the first question listed among the four criteria on determents of performance.

B. Recent Review Summaries of Independent Panels

Three independent scientific panels recently reviewed the use of hatcheries in Pacific salmon

management, including the Northwest Power Planning Council’s Independent Scientific Group

(ISG), 1996; the National Research Council (NRC), 1996; and the National Fish Hatchery

Review Panel (NFHRP), 1994. The three panels were in general agreement on three important

points: (1) In spite of some success, hatcheries generally failed to meet their objectives, (2)

hatcheries have contributed to the decline of wild salmon, and (3) the region’s salmon managers

have failed to conduct adequate monitoring and evaluation to determine if the hatchery
96

objectives were achieved. These reviews conclude that over the last century, massive funding

for hatcheries not only failed to achieve objectives, but more importantly the lack of monitoring

and evaluation meant that the region passed up the opportunity to learn adaptively about artificial

propagation of Pacific salmon (NRC 1996).

The individual reviews are summarized below.

ISG – Return to the River :

The ISG concluded that artificial production has been institutionalized in the Columbia River

Basin. Today 80 percent of the salmon and steelhead in the basin are hatched and reared in

hatcheries. From 1981-1991, expenditures on hatcheries accounted for 40 percent of the budget

for salmon restoration. Fifty percent of the increase in salmon production under the NPPC’s

program is expected to come from artificial production. The historical assumption by

management institutions was that artificial production could compensate for habitat destruction,

which led to less emphasis on habitat protection and more emphasis on hatchery construction.

More recently hatchery programs have been intended to augment declining natural production

due in large part to habitat degradation throughout the basin and to maintain a supply of salmon

for the fishing industry.

In the context of the entire history of the hatchery program and salmon management in the

Columbia River Basin, the ISG concluded that artificial production has failed to replace or

mitigate lost natural production of salmonids due to habitat degradation. Since 1960, total

releases from hatcheries have increased substantially, but the number of adult salmon entering

the river has not increased. Furthermore, hatchery-reared fish have become the dominant portion

of the run.

It was determined that artificial production can have adverse effects on wild fish including

increased mortality in mixed stock fisheries, genetic interactions that can cause reduced fitness of

wild populations and loss of genetic variability, spread of disease, and increased competition

with wild fish. The ISG recommended that hatchery populations should be evaluated for

evidence of selection, and changes in fitness or genetic diversity associated with residence in the

hatchery environment.

The ISG felt that new roles for artificial production need to be defined. Artificial production

should likely have a more limited role than at present. The use and role of artificial production

needs to be coordinated with the overall Columbia River Basin restoration goal, as well as with

subbasin-specific goals. Hatcheries may need to serve as temporary refuges for endangered or

critically depressed stocks until factors limiting their abundance can be corrected. Ideally,

supplementation should be viewed as a small-scale and temporary strategy to boost natural

production. New supplementation projects should follow the guidelines developed by the

Regional Assessment of Supplementation Program (RASP). Supplementation should be used in

conjunction with, but not in place of, habitat restoration and modification of downstream

mortality factors. Supplementation should be approached cautiously in an experimental

framework that relies on careful design, rigorous evaluation, and incorporates adaptive

management.
97

The ISG concluded that the role of artificial production in salmon restoration has to be redefined.

Hatcheries should have a more limited role in salmon production and restoration and should be

integrated into strategies that focus on habitat restoration, reduction of human-induced mortality,

and conservation of existing genetic and life history diversity in natural populations. Hatcheries

could have a useful role as temporary refuges for dwindling populations while causes of natural

mortality are alleviated, or a temporary role in rebuilding depressed populations through

supplementation.

A comprehensive evaluation of hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin has never been

conducted. The ISG believes an evaluation should be undertaken and should address the

following questions: 1) Do salmon and steelhead of hatchery origin contribute to the fisheries

and/or escapement and is the economic value of that contribution greater than the cost to produce

it? 2) Is the level of contribution consistent with the purpose or objective of the hatchery? For

example if a hatchery is intended to replace natural production lost due to habitat degradation,

this question asks did the hatchery, in fact, replace the lost production? 3) Do artificially

produced fish add to existing natural production or do they replace it; i.e., does the hatchery

operation generate an impact to natural production through mixed stock fisheries, domestication,

and genetic introgression?

NRC – Upstream:

The national debate on the use of hatcheries has gone on for most of this century, but with the

serious decline of anadromous salmonids across the nation, and hatcheries being proposed as part

of the recovery plan, the NRC launched a review of hatchery performance, and made sweeping

determinations on how hatcheries should be employed.

The NRC concluded that management of hatcheries has had adverse effects on natural salmon

populations. Hatcheries can be useful as part of an integrated, comprehensive approach to

restoring sustainable runs of salmon, but by themselves they are not an effective technical

solution to the salmon problem. Hatcheries are not a proven technology for achieving sustained

increases in adult production. Indeed, their use often has contributed to the damage of wild runs.

In many areas, there is reason to question whether hatcheries can sustain long-term yield because

they can lead to loss of population and genetic diversity. It is unlikely that hatcheries can make

up for declines in abundance caused by fishing, habitat loss, etc., over the long term. Hatcheries

might be useful as short-term aids to a population in immediate trouble while long-term,

sustainable solutions are being developed. Such a new mission for hatcheries – as a temporary

aid in rehabilitating natural populations – could be important in reversing past damage from

hatcheries as well as from other causes.

The NRC proposed that the intent of hatchery operations should be changed from that of making

up for losses of juvenile fish production and for increasing catches of adults. They should be

viewed instead as part of a bioregional plan for protecting or rebuilding salmon populations and

should be used only when they will not cause harm to natural populations. Hatcheries should be

considered an experimental treatment in an integrated, regional rebuilding program, and they

should be evaluated accordingly. Great care should be taken to minimize their known and

potential adverse effects on genetic structure of metapopulations and on the ecological capacities

of streams and the ocean. Special care needs to be taken to avoid transplanting hatchery fish to

regions in which naturally spawning fish are genetically different. The aim of hatcheries should
98

be to assist recovery and opportunity for genetic expression of wild populations, not to maximize

catch in the near term. Only when it is clear that hatchery production does not harm wild fish

should the use of hatcheries be considered for augmenting catches. Hatcheries should be audited

rigorously. Any hatchery that “mines” brood stock from mixed wild and natural escapements

should be a candidate for immediate closure. It is useful for all hatchery fish to be identifiable.

Marking hatchery fish externally is particularly important when fishers and managers need to

distinguish between hatchery and wild fish.

It was concluded that current hatchery practices do not operate within a coherent strategy based

on the genetic structure of salmon populations. A number of hatcheries operate without

appropriate genetic guidance from an explicit conservation policy. Consistency and coordination

of practices across hatcheries that affect the same or interacting demes and metapopulations is

generally lacking. All hatchery programs should adopt a genetic conservation goal of

maintaining genetic diversity among and within both hatchery and naturally spawning

populations. Hatchery practices that affect straying – genetic interaction between local wild fish

and hatchery-produced fish – should be closely examined for consistency with regional efforts.

The NRC recommended that hatcheries should be dismantled, revised, or reprogrammed if they

interfere with a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy designed to rebuild natural populations of

sustainable anadromous salmon. Hatcheries should be tested for their ability to rehabilitate

populations whose natural regenerative potential is constrained severely by both short- and longterm limitations on rehabilitation of freshwater habitats. Hatcheries should be excluded or

phased out from regions where the prognosis for freshwater habitat rehabilitation is much higher.

The NRC also recommended that decision-making about uses of hatcheries should occur within

the larger context of the region where the watersheds are located and should include a focus on

the whole watershed, rather than only on the fish. Coordination should be improved among all

hatcheries – release timing, scale of releases, operating practices, and monitoring and evaluation

of individual and cumulative hatchery effects, including a coast-wide database and wild fish

proportions and numbers. Hatcheries should be part of an experimental treatment within an

adaptively managed program in some regions but not in others.

NFHRP:

The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) asked the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation to conduct a review and assessment of the USFWS federal fish hatchery

program and make recommendations for the future role of the National Fish Hatchery Program

in ecosystem management of fisheries resources. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

(through a contract to the Conservation Fund) convened a panel of 16 fisheries and conservation

authorities (NFHRP) to conduct the review.

The Panel felt the National Fish Hatchery Program needed a fundamental redirection of

programs, personnel and facilities toward supporting ecosystem management whether it relates

to restoring depleted anadromous populations or the recovery of ESA-listed stocks. A welldefined national fisheries program with definite goals, objectives, implementation and evaluation

strategies did not exist.
99

The Panel identified habitat alteration or destruction as the primary causes of decline and noted

that resource managers have responded to declines in returning salmon by requesting hatcheries

to produce more fish for release, with very little assessment or evaluation. The assumption that

more fish would solve the problem of decline had very little evaluation to verify the approach.

Mitigation based solely on hatchery production (involving 38 of the 78 USFWS hatcheries) has

failed to halt population declines; therefore, as a better alternative, habitat protection and

restoration were believed to be the key to survival of native fish stocks.

The Panel concluded its report by proposing a new role for hatcheries and a new approach to

resource management in which hatcheries would serve a support function to managers,

producing only those species, stocks, strains, races and numbers that were compatible with

ecosystem management plans and specifically identified in those plans. Fisheries management

plans should include genetic and ecological assessments of native stocks and strains in any

ecosystem subject to new fishery resource projects for restoration or enhancement or for the

stocking of newly created waters. This should be followed by careful risk assessment.

Restoration of sport fishing in altered or newly created waters should involve the use of

propagated fish of the most similar native stock known to inhabit the same type of habitats.

Before any hatchery fish are planted, a comprehensive assessment, analysis, and a fisheries

management plan should have been completed to address concerns about native stocks.

Similarly, in efforts to restore depleted populations or to re-establish new populations, resource

managers should avoid stocking any non-native strains or species.

It is apparent that considerable attention has been given to evaluation of anadromous hatchery

programs. However, no comprehensive reviews of basinwide resident fish artificial propagation

have been undertaken. The situation is largely due to the fact that resident fish hatcheries are

generally successful in fulfilling their mission to supply fish for management purposes where

migratory success or return performance have not been relevant criteria. However, their absence

from hatchery evaluations, especially when resident fish are applied in such a diversity of

circumstances, leaves a void when addressing the role of resident hatchery fish in ecosystem

management, or even the economic benefit of resident fish hatchery programs. This situation

illustrates the need to include resident fish hatcheries in the overall hatchery evaluation and to

develop appropriate resident fish hatchery evaluation criteria.

State agency and tribal interests in the basin have participated in other reviews or assessments of

artificial production. These have been directed at review, determination of research needs,

production alternatives, program coordination and monitoring of artificial production. These

assessments are based on the experience of practitioners that not only have great confidence in

the potential of artificial production, but have developed standards that are expected to improve

the performance of hatcheries. In many cases these documents provide a substantive foundation

on which such work can proceed. Below we discuss two of these assessments, the Regional

Assessment of Supplementation Project and the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team.

RASP: The Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project

In 1992, the first phase of the Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project (RASP) was

completed. It provided an overview of ongoing and planned activities associated with

supplementation, and development of a model to estimate potential benefits and risks from
100

supplementation. It also was a plan to coordinate research and monitoring on supplementation in

the Basin. It provided guidelines for the use of supplementation aimed at minimizing negative

genetic and ecological interactions between wild and hatchery-produced fish.

At the core of the RASP guidelines are five steps that address planning, implementation and

evaluation of restoration projects. Although specific instructions for carrying out each of the

steps are provided, RASP recommends that within the framework of the five steps, each project

should develop specific details and approaches that are appropriate for the local situation. The

five basic steps contained in RASP are:

1. Objectives:

Project objectives should be clearly stated and contain measurable end points, i.e., criteria for

determining when the project objectives have been achieved. The objective should also include

consideration of resource quality as well as quantity. Resource quantity refers to a target number

of fish — the number of salmon harvested in the sport fishery, the number of salmon escaping to

spawn in a stream, or the number of smolts migrating out of a stream into the ocean. Resource

quality refers to such things as the distribution of the catch by area or fishery, stock selection or

run timing. For example, if the objective were to establish a fishery on the returns from

artificially propagated fish, it may be desirable to specify in the objective an extended run timing

to spread the fishery over a longer time interval. This specification would place conditions on

the quality of the eggs used. They would have to come from all segments of the spawning

migration and from an appropriate stock from the genetic standpoint that exhibited normal run

timing.

2. Analysis of Limiting Factors:

RASP recommended comparing what is known about the character of healthy habitat and salmon

populations in a target stream with current conditions in the stream and the populations to be

enhanced. This comparison is used to identify potential limiting factors, and to identify the

specific problem the project is or should be trying to overcome.

3. Treatment:

This step simply identifies the activity or restoration tool selected to overcome the problem

identified in the previous step. The treatment must be consistent with the objective as well as the

problem. It is important that the right tool be selected to do the job described in steps one and

two. Treatments might include artificial propagation in one or more of its various forms, habitat

improvement, public education, or political activities to change statutes or regulations.

4. Risk Analysis:

All salmon restoration projects contain uncertainties that should be identified during the planning

phase. Uncertainties are like red warning flags — they identify the potential risks that must be

addressed if the project is to achieve success and avoid unintended problems. Risk analysis

helps establish the priorities for monitoring and evaluation.
101

5. Monitoring and Evaluation:

Part of the reason salmon stocks are in trouble today is that past restoration efforts were

approached with so much optimism, especially when hatcheries were involved, that monitoring

and evaluation were considered unnecessary. Many programs that produced little or no benefits

or were detrimental were continued for several years or decades. The region and the salmon can

no longer afford long-term investments in unproductive or counterproductive programs. It is

critical to determine whether specific restoration activities are working and, if not, adjust them to

improve the chances of success.

IHOT: Integrated Hatchery Operations Team

Hatcheries in the Columbia basin are funded, co-managed, and operated by many different

entities for many different purposes. The NPPC’s Strategy for Salmon (NPPC 1992) recognized

the potential for hatcheries to help rebuild salmon production but also the need to improve the

co-ordination and operation of these facilities. To address these latter needs, the Council called

for the development of the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) to develop hatchery

policies for operating within the Basin. The preface of the IHOT report (1994) clearly states the

content and intent of this report:

“The hatchery policies presented in this manual are not intended to establish production

priorities. Rather, the intent is to guide hatchery operations once production numbers are

established. Hatchery operations discussed in this report include broodstock collection,

spawning, incubation of eggs, fish rearing and feeding, fish release, equipment

maintenance and operations, and personnel training. Decisions regarding production

priorities must be provided by fishery managers through a comprehensive plan that

addresses both natural and hatchery fish production.”

The IHOT report presents regional policies for hatchery coordination, performance standards,

fish health, ecological interactions and genetics. The policies and procedures outlined were a

substantive contribution undertaken by the hatchery management agencies to standardize

artificial production operations to maximize production performance and minimize impacts on

naturally producing stocks in the basin. Because records on hatchery production and operations

are maintained by all basin hatcheries under their own state, federal and tribal programs, the

implementation and monitoring of these IHOT parameters (see discussion below) at the different

hatcheries can be initiated within the present management structure, and will be a valuable

contribution to hatchery assessment in the future.

The IHOT report is not a hatchery assessment or review of their technical merit, rather it is an

operations manual. The report is notable for establishing regional policy statements and goals

that members agreed to pursue in operating the region’s hatcheries. The actual procedures and

standards to be used to guide operations were identified, and performance measures described

how compliance would be monitored and evaluated. The report states that it includes

performance standards encompassing all aspects of hatchery facilities and operations that

influence the hatchery’s “final product." The product is defined as “a fish that has minimal

impact on wild stocks and also contributes to harvest opportunities and natural spawning

populations.” (pg. 19). However, whether the “final product” achieves this goal is not assessed.
102

The report further recognizes:

• that many of the facilities in the basin originally were developed to meet management

objectives that are different from objectives today;

• that hatchery production may be established by several existing authorizations and

agreements;

• that production goals for hatcheries have been established through a variety of fish

management, political, and administrative processes; and

• that environmental conditions (e.g., ocean conditions and in-river habitats) outside of

hatcheries have “overriding influences that control production capacity.”

Consequently, IHOT addresses operational guidelines for handling, rearing, and releasing of fish

(i.e., issues within the control of facility managers) and notes that these will change over time in

response to new management objectives.

The report proceeds to provide detailed recommendations on facility environmental conditions,

and general guidelines for hatchery operations, and fish health policies and procedures. Chapters

on ecological interactions and genetic policies are much less like a cookbook than the previous

chapters (indicative of the state of knowledge in these topics), and IHOT defers to the

involvement of experts to assist in these areas. However, the policy statements for these greatly

overstate our knowledge and our capabilities to monitor potential impacts. For example, the

policy on ecological interactions states “that artificial propagation programs will be designed and

implemented to minimize ecological interactions that adversely affect the productivity of aquatic

ecosystems”(emphasis added). The genetic policy states that these programs will “maintain

adequate genetic variation and fitness in populations and protect the biological diversity of wild,

natural, and cultured anadromous salmonid populations” (emphasis added). IHOT provides

some general guidelines expected to be consistent with these policies and to minimize impacts,

but the basin lacks evidence that these controls are effective or adequate. It is a notable

development, however, that the IHOT members acknowledged an increasing need to incorporate

ecological and genetic guidelines in the management and culture of hatchery salmonids.

In reviewing the role of hatcheries in the Columbia Basin, the IHOT report and associated

hatchery audits demonstrates a commitment to consistent operational procedures with an aim to

improving production efficiency. The report is clearly able to draw on extensive research and

experience in fish culture and fish health. However, there is an equally clear need for monitoring

and assessment of the ecological and genetic guidelines.

The IHOT report infers an important message: that hatchery staff should be accountable for the

quality of cultured fish, but policy makers must clearly communicate objectives and resource

managers must advise how to integrate hatchery and natural production. The parties to IHOT

agreed to a policy to coordinate the operation of fish hatchery programs to meet basinwide

resource management needs. The IHOT report does not consider hatcheries at this programmatic

level, nor does it address the adequacy of monitoring and assessment programs to achieve this

integration.

In 1995, the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Impacts of Artificial

Salmon and Steelhead Production Strategies in the Columbia River Basin was prepared for
103

federal hatchery programs by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. This was a

document directed at alternatives for how hatcheries might be used and the effects that

alternative strategies would have on overall production, stock diversity, and social/economic

conditions associated with the basin.

In 1998, a summary of independent audits of salmonid hatcheries based on IHOT performance

measures was compiled for the Northwest Power Planning Council by Sampsel Consulting

Services. Following IHOT guidelines, the summary reviewed 20 Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife hatcheries, seven Idaho Department of Fish and Game hatcheries, 20 Washington

State Department of Fish and Wildlife hatcheries, and 12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

hatcheries. Considerable detail was provided on facility descriptions and protocols for hatchery

operating procedures, with limited production and cost data. Unfortunately and curiously, no

overall assessment of these audits has been conducted.

Assessment of hatchery performance has also been conducted by agencies with regard to certain

hatchery programs over the years that provided valuable insights on hatchery fish behavior after

release to the stream environment. An example of such assessment the annual report of Mitchell

Act Hatcheries in 1996, by Ashbrook, Byrne, and Fuss. Stock characteristics in the hatchery,

migratory behavior of hatchery fish and evaluation of hatchery practices from selective breeding

to hatchery habitat were assessed. The results of this work allowed operations to be altered to

change the quality of the product released.

C. Relevance of Past Assessments to the Present Task

The history and evaluations in the preceding sections are valuable to our understanding of the

origins of artificial production on the Pacific Coast and the Columbia River. It should be clear

that to proceed with artificial production “as usual” would be poorly advised. Even the

assumptions basic to the hatchery program that have carried over from the early years need to be

modified in light of what is known about specific life history requirements of the different

salmonid species that are managed.

The most compelling development point, however, is the change in the general philosophy on

resource management that hatchery programs must now address. The human influence on the

environment is so pervasive and domineering that resources no longer can demonstrate the

resiliency and forgiveness of abuse that was so common in past exploitation. The ecosystem

approach to fisheries management is not so much a new paradigm as it is a necessity for the

preservation of the fisheries resources. Fish species and their component populations cannot

sustain themselves apart from the habitat they evolved with. Ecosystem management is not a

revolutionary approach, it is the exercise of common sense to curb the loss of natural

productivity and to maintain the health of fisheries resources for public use under the concept of

the “normative ecosystem” (Williams et al., in press).

Regarding the three recent independent reviews of hatcheries by the ISG, NRC, and NFHRP, it is

noteworthy that apart from primary agreement among reviews that artificial production had

generally failed to meet its objective, that it imparted adverse effects on natural populations, and

that evaluation of performance was needed, there was further significant consensus on other

issues. There was agreement that:
104

• Supplementation needed to be linked with habitat improvements;

• Genetic considerations needed more emphasis in hatchery programs;

• Stock transfers and introductions of non-native species should be eliminated;

• A new role for artificial production needed to be developed, using more experimental

approaches, and using hatcheries as temporary refuges, rather than in long-term production

management.

These points of view provided insights that need to be considered in hatchery management.

They were comprehensive enough that retracing that ground by the SRT would only be repetitive

and add no further resolution to the problems that were identified. It is important to point out

that the reviews were not a referendum against hatcheries, but rather a very creditable assessment

of hatchery success in reaching their objectives and how programs should change.

We must also recognize that the practitioners’ view was not represented on the three panels, nor

was the view of commercial harvesters or that of the angling public, all of whom are pertinent to

decision-making about hatchery application. University scientists dominated or were well

represented on the review panels. The NRC committee, for example, was made up of 15

participants, of whom 12 were associated with universities. There were no members experienced

in hatchery production or aquaculture on the NRC panel. Even the NFHRP panel, charged to

assess USFWS hatcheries, did not have equitable representation from hatchery production

management. Moreover, the reviews were largely based on ecological theory, biological

principles, and some empirical evidence, but little rigorous analysis of actual data was

undertaken. This is not a criticism of the process, because it is important that the understanding

and implications of hatchery production be grounded in the basic science relevant to the subject.

This is necessary regardless of how successful hatchery programs are or can become. To

adequately manage the resource on a sustained basis, there can be no compromise with the

requirements of biological processes. Whether society decides that other priorities supersede the

need to maintain a specific population or a habitat is another issue, but if fisheries management is

serious about building naturally sustained production, science must be the basis of any approach.

In the agency and tribal hatchery assessments such as RASP and IHOT, the practitioners’

viewpoint and the value of their experience was acknowledged as important to improved

effectiveness of basin hatchery programs. The forthcoming science-based SRT recommendations

serve as an independent confirmation of IHOT’s policies, and show that the SRT is addressing

elements pertinent to the interests of artificial production.

The RASP effort provided an important overview and also a model for evaluating

supplementation in the second phase of the SRT review. The IHOT program primarily was

oriented toward operations, and again is most applicable to the second phase of the phase of the

independent assessment. However, because both the RASP and IHOT efforts did not conduct

actual hatchery performance evaluations, their primary contribution will be the use of their

monitoring protocols. Hatchery compliance with the operating protocol will be one criterion of

the SRT assessment procedure.
105

VII. Impacts Associated with Artificial Production

A. Background

As apparent from the historical overview, Columbia basin hatchery programs have been

motivated by several goals, with the most recent perhaps incompatible with those of previous

years. Attainment of some goals may even be considered detrimental to others, and not merely

because of competition for programmatic resources, but because of conflicting outcomes.

The practical science of hatchery management is more than 100 years old. During that time

hatchery technology has progressed to the point that the success rate of the "hatchery phase" in

the life cycle of salmon and steelhead is very high. In fact, it is expected that a hatchery program

will produce more smolts per spawner than natural production. The magnitude of this relative

advantage is on the order of 10-fold, but this advantage is restricted to the hatchery phase. It is

quite a different story when considering success in the post-release phase of the life cycle.

Hatchery fish experience substantially less survival success in the wild. This is another issue of

concern in the present assessment. In particular, what is the relative survival of the hatcherybred fish, their reproductive ability, their ecological costs, and their genetic impacts on wild fish.

In nearly all cases, when hatchery production rationale is assessed under ecological, genetic and

evolutionary theory, the result is unequivocally negative, but of an unknown magnitude. There

are some limited experimental data, generally from other taxa and in specific situations, that

demonstrates the mechanisms that underlie theory. But relevant empirical information related to

salmonids is generally anecdotal, lacking in adequate controls, and insufficient in quantity to be

conclusive. Thus, while we are confident that such mechanisms can apply to hatchery-produced

salmonids, there is limited empirical evidence on hatchery impacts in the Columbia basin.

Although some are tempted to attribute the decline of wild stocks in the basin to interaction with

hatchery fish, as well as blaming the poor success of hatchery fish on hatchery practices, such

evidence, at best, is indirect and neglectful of the other major environmental impacts in the

system. The task of making linkages is a formidable one, but necessary in the fair resolution of

hatchery assessment.

B. Risk Management

In addressing the various impacts of artificial production, it is worthwhile to first think about the

risks associated with hatchery propagation and conflicting outcomes. To address this problem,

risk management is an option that needs to be considered, but this may prove ineffective unless

the goals are ranked so that priorities can be established to adopt measures that address the

resolution of competing risks.

1. Risks associated with failure and success:

Originally, the goal of anadromous and resident hatchery programs was production for harvest;

so the measure of success was the number of returning harvestable adults of hatchery origin.

However, in actual practice over the years, and perhaps as a matter of convenience, hatcheries

tended to report their performance in terms of numbers of smolts released rather than adults
106

returning, with the assumption that adult return responsiveness was in proportion. The problem

with this criterion is that the rate of adult return for the number of smolts released varies

enormously from hatchery to hatchery and from year to year, leaving smolt production actually

an unreliable indicator of expected harvest. Concentrating on smolt production and not adult

return diverts attention from the central issue and results in the risk of not succeeding in reaching

the harvest goal, or the risk of increasing failure. One component of the present review,

therefore, is to assess the effectiveness of hatcheries in meeting production goals for harvest,

attempting to find patterns that might account for the success of some and the failure of others.

Unfortunately, with the passage of time native runs of Columbia basin salmon have declined to

such low levels that local extinctions have taken place, and many other populations currently are

at risk. In this new era of concern for wild fish, the question naturally arises whether the

operation of hatcheries is a contributing factor in the decline. In addition to the pessimism raised

about even new state-of-the-art production hatcheries, these concerns also apply to

supplementation operations as well as to captive brood stock programs. Ironically, there are

some plausible scenarios in which the greater the success of the hatcheries in producing

harvestable fish under the original set of goals, the greater the damage they would cause to the

affected wild stocks that are the focus of new goals consistent with ecological health. These are

the risks of success. Accordingly, the second component of the present review is to assess the

magnitudes and likelihood of the various negative effects that hatchery operations might have on

wild stocks.

2. Risk Analysis and Risk Management:

Fishery scientists must deal with two major factors in making decisions about how to assess and

manage risks of hatcheries: (1) the uncertainty in predicting success or failure and (2) the

potential conflicts between multiple attributes of success. One major attribute of success is the

increase of fish for harvest; another is the impact on wild stocks.

Depending on how fisheries managers and the public value the probability of success in terms of

producing fish for harvest, the annual investment in the hatchery system might be considered

worthwhile. There is a probability that this investment will deliver a return in harvestable fish,

and a probability that it will not, in which case the odds may justify making the investment.

Evidence demonstrating that hatcheries contribute to harvest continues to stimulate interest in the

use of hatcheries for harvest augmentation and mitigation.

At the same time, it is probable that anadromous and resident hatchery fish may have negative

impacts on wild stocks, which can occur even when hatcheries are managed for supplementation

or recovery of wild stocks. Negative effects could overwhelm the positive effects of increased

survival in the hatchery during the wild phase of the life cycle. Here, the gamble is on wild stock

recovery. Managers must not only assess biological uncertainties but also the trade-offs. In a

recovery program, balancing may involve the probability of decreasing the risk of extinction

during the hatchery phase versus the probability of increasing mortality during the wild phase of

the life cycle. On a broader scale, managers must take into account both the harvest goals and

goals to protect wild stocks. However, from a strictly ecological perspective to preserve and

recover wild fish, there can be no such compromise.
107

The critical uncertainties that dominate decision making are amenable to empirical resolution if

the right things are measured in a controlled, systematic, and powerful experimental design.

Getting the information needed to answer hard questions would mean a major reorganization of

how hatchery programs are conducted, including interim changes and re-prioritization of

hatchery production goals. Hatchery research, focusing on programmed study plans around

appropriate experiments to quantify the effects of hatcheries and hatchery practices, would need

to be the initial priority. The long-term priority would be to return to production goals with

management and technologies reconditioned to maximize the benefits of artificial production in a

manner that complements the ecological health of the system.

C. Management Impacts on Artificial Production Effectiveness

Although controversy about the effectiveness and impact of anadromous fish hatcheries has

existed since hatcheries first appeared on the Columbia River, there needs to be a distinction in

the object and substance of such controversy between those factors associated with hatchery

technology and those associated with hatchery management. Hatchery technology occurs in

many different forms, from juvenile rearing on formulated diets in concrete raceways to unfed

fry releases from incubation in artificial substrate. The chinook hatchery on Sooes River,

Washington; pink salmon hatcheries in Prince William Sound, Alaska; and the Weaver Creek

sockeye spawning channel in British Columbia, are examples of successful hatchery programs

resulting in significant enlargement of their respective salmon populations. In contrast, and yet

with similar technology, sockeye production at the Leavenworth hatchery on Icicle Creek,

Washington; coho and chinook production at Grays River hatchery on the lower Columbia

River; and the Priest Rapids chinook spawning channel in the mid-Columbia, are examples of

hatchery programs that have demonstrated no success, and may have had negative impacts on

returns. The point is that hatchery propagation takes many different forms, and each can

demonstrate highly variable performance, even when the same technology is used. Most

certainly, present technology can be improved, and advancements associated with reduced fish

density, natural-type habitat, and measures to reduce conditioning of fish to circumstances

associated with culture operations offer promise of producing fish more similar in behavior and

performance with that of wild fish.

However, the overriding influence on hatchery performance, and the basis of the long-term

controversy, is related more to hatchery management practices of the fisheries agencies than to

fish culture practices. Variability in hatchery performance is not so much related to technology

as it is to the manner in which that technology has been applied. The consistent oversight in

hatchery propagation is that management has not been careful to provide for the biological needs

of the young salmon after release to the natural environment. Hatcheries are generally managed

from the central office, well displaced from the fish and the streams being stocked, with little

appreciation of the fact that these fish must integrate into a very complex environmental system.

A disregard for stock structure and the compatibility between genetic attributes of populations

and the environment associated with their natal systems has generally characterized hatchery

management policy in the past. Moreover, objectives such as producing the maximum number

of smolts possible with the flow available, and fish release programming based on space needs

among competing species or year classes, contributed significantly to poor quality of fish and

negative impacts on fish in the receiving environment. More recently, concern about these issues

has altered some hatchery operations in an attempt to address problems with fish quality and
108

wild/hatchery fish interaction. The record, however, is dominated by former management

practices, many of which are still represented among Columbia River hatcheries.

The compelling issue in assessing Columbia basin anadromous and resident hatcheries is not so

much technology, such as whether raceways should be covered or the value of training on

artificial diets, but management policy. That is a very different matter. Management policy

dictates the manner in which hatcheries are employed. Management policy affects what genetic

stocks are used, the breeding protocol, and where and in what numbers hatchery fish are planted.

Management policy is what motivates knowing the status of the endemic stock where hatchery

fish are planted, making sure the genetics are complementary, and knowing the carrying capacity

of the target streams. Technology can help meet artificial production objectives, such as

ensuring compatibility with native stocks, but management must assure that it is applied. The

impact of management on the application of artificial production is the overwhelming and

decisive factor that determines the effectiveness of hatchery programs. Good management is the

key to successful integration of hatcheries into a functioning and dynamic ecosystem.

D. Genetic Impacts of Artificial Production

Better understanding of nutrition, disease, stress, and water quality has given aquaculturists

increasing control over the unpredictable nature of raising fish. Only recently, however, have

salmon aquaculturists become aware of genetic concerns. Artificial production can lead to

unwanted or unanticipated genetic changes in wild and hatchery populations. These changes are

a concern because the productivity and resiliency of populations to environmental change depend

on the genetic diversity they contain. Unlike disease or nutritional problems, which can be

controlled nearly immediately, the impacts of unwanted genetic changes can affect productivity

for many years.

In recent years, a variety of authors have cataloged the potential genetic impacts of artificial

production (Hindar et al., 1991; Waples, 1991; Busack and Currens, 1995; Campton ,1995;

Waples, 1995; Allendorf and Waples, 1996). These impacts can be classified into four major

types: (1) extinction, (2) loss of within-population genetic variability, (3) loss of amongpopulation variability, and (4) domestication (Busack and Currens, 1995). The impacts are not

necessarily independent. For example, domestication — or loss of fitness in the wild of a

population adapted to a captive environment — may also be associated with loss of genetic

diversity within that population. This has led to increasing awareness that managing genetic

impacts will require assessing the trade-offs between the major types of impacts or between

using artificial production or not (Hard et al., 1992; Currens and Busack, 1995).

In this subsection, we review the evidence for genetic impacts of artificial production. For each

of the four impacts, we ask two basic questions that are important to decision-makers: (1) What

is the evidence that the impact occurs? and (2) What is the evidence that the effects can be

managed or mitigated?

1. Extinction:

Definition — Extinction is the complete loss of a population and all its genetic information.
109

Theory — Unlike other genetic impacts, extinction is usually associated with three nongenetic

causes of large changes in population abundance (Shaffer, 1981). These include demographic or

random changes in survival and reproductive success, fluctuations in the environment, and

catastrophes. 

Captive environments, such as hatcheries, offer greater control over environmental variation and

the potential for increased reproductive success. These should counter natural risks of

extinction. Consequently, artificial propagation theoretically could reduce the short-term risk of

extinction (Hard et al., 1992).

In certain circumstances, however, hatchery programs can increase the demographic and

catastrophic risks of extinction. Hatchery programs may mine small, natural populations if they

take fish for brood stock but are unable to replace them. For example, hatcheries that take

female salmon with 4,000 eggs would be mining the wild stock if they have much less than 0.05-

percent egg-to-adult survival. Inbreeding, a genetic phenomenon, can theoretically contribute to

irreversible declines in abundance in very small or wild populations (Gilpin 1987). When most

or all of a population is taken into captivity, disease, power failures, predation, and dewatering in

the hatchery could be catastrophic.

Evidence for Extinction — We found evidence of conditions that suggest hatcheries could

contribute to extinction (Flagg et al., 1995a). To date, however, there are no records of

hatcheries directly causing the extinction of stocks. In contrast, artificial propagation has been

used to reduce short-term risk of extinction for sockeye salmon (Flagg et al. 1995b), chinook

salmon (Bugert et al., 1995; Carmichael and Messmer, 1995; Appleby and Keown, 1995; Shiewe

et al., 1997), steelhead (Brown, 1995), white sturgeon (USFWS, 1998), and bull trout (Montana

Bull Trout Scientific Group, 1996) and other resident salmonids (Rinne et. al., 1986; Dwyer and

Rosenlund, 1988).

Ability to Mitigate — Evidence suggests that the probability of extinction caused by artificial

production can be mitigated if the reproductive success of naturally spawning and hatchery

spawning fish is monitored and adequate safeguards are established to prevent catastrophes in

hatcheries. We did not conclude whether the lack of hatchery-caused extinction indicates that

these safeguards are in place or simply a fortuitous turn of events.

2. Loss of Genetic Diversity Within Populations:

Definition — Loss of within-population diversity is the reduction in the quantity, variety, and

combinations of alleles in a population. It is associated with two genetic phenomena: genetic

drift and inbreeding. Both of these are most important in small or declining populations: the

smaller the effective population size, the greater the rate of inbreeding and loss of genetic

information through genetic drift.

Theory — The relationship between small population size, loss of genetic diversity, and

increased inbreeding is one of the cornerstones of theoretical population genetics. Considerable

theory has been developed to explain the generality of this relationship (Wright, 1938; Crow and

Kimura; 1970; Goodnight, 1987; 1988; Caballero, 1994) and its importance for short-term and

long-term survival (Lande, 1988; Mitton, 1993; Burger and Lynch, 1995; Lande and Shannon,

1996; Lynch, 1996). In addition, general population genetic theories have been refined to fit the
110

specific life histories of Pacific salmon (Waples, 1990a 1990b; Waples and Teel, 1990). They

have also been extended to examine the effect of increasing natural population size through

artificial production (Ryman and Laikre, 1991; Ryman et al., 1995).

Evidence for Genetic Drift — Many years of experimental work have demonstrated the

relationship between population size and loss of genetic diversity (reviewed by Wright, 1977,

Rich et al., 1979, Leberg, 1992) in many varieties of laboratory animals.

Support for the theory from natural populations is less available, because fewer opportunities

have existed to measure levels of genetic diversity as population sizes changed. Low levels of

genetic diversity have been measured in animals that have undergone known drastic reductions

in population size. These include elephant seals (Lehman et al., 1993), koalas (Houlden et al.,

1996), prairie chickens (Bouzat et al., 1998a, 1998b), and chinook salmon transplanted to New

Zealand (Quinn et al., 1996). Island populations of many different taxonomic groups, which

were presumably founded and maintained by few individuals, also have lower levels of genetic

variability than mainland counterparts (Frankham, 1997, 1998). Where barrier dams have

fragmented the range of steelhead, rainbow trout that survive above barrier dams have levels of

genetic diversity that are lower than anadromous populations and that are often comparable to

small populations isolated above ancient barriers (Currens, in prep.).

Lower levels of genetic variation in anadromous and resident hatchery stocks compared to their

counterparts in the wild (Allendorf and Phelps, 1980; Ryman and Stahl, 1980; Vuorinen, 1984;

Waples et al., 1990) suggest that genetic variation has been lost under some kinds of artificial

propagation. Conditions necessary for genetic drift exist in many Pacific salmon hatcheries, and

evidence is growing that it occurs (Gharrett and Shirley, 1985; Simon et al., 1986; Withler, 1988;

Waples and Teel, 1990). Salmon aquaculture affects nearly all of the factors that theoretically

influence genetic drift and inbreeding. These include the number and proportion of founders or

brood stock taken from the wild, sex ratios, age-structure, and variation in family size as

measured on adult progeny. Recent increased monitoring of genetic diversity in many hatcheries

will help resolve this question further.

Evidence for Inbreeding and Inbreeding Depression — Considerable experimental evidence

shows that inbreeding can reduce fitness (reviewed in Wright, 1977 Thornhill, 1993, Roff, 1997,

Lynch and Walsh, 1998). Tave (1993) compiled evidence for fish, including trout and salmon,

thus representing anadromous and resident life history forms, showing that they respond to

inbreeding similarly to other organisms.

In natural populations, concerns arise when estimated levels of inbreeding are comparable to

inbreeding that led to depression in experimental environments. For example, estimates of

increased inbreeding have been associated with reduced fitness in certain Sonoran and Mexican

topminnows (Quattro and Vrijenhoek, 1989; Vrijenhoek, 1996), white-footed mice (Jimenez et

al., 1994), butterflies (Saccheri et al., 1998), and the evening primrose (Newman and Pilson,

1997) in natural environments. Frankham (1998) estimated levels of inbreeding in 210 island

populations of birds, mammals, insects and plants and observed that based on inbreeding in

laboratory studies these levels of inbreeding could explain the higher extinction rates on islands.

Evidence for Loss of Fitness from Artificial Propagation — There is little direct evidence of

significant losses of fitness from genetic drift and inbreeding associated with salmon hatcheries,
111

and probably fewer investigations of this phenomenon associated with resident fish hatchery

programs. Theory and observation, however, indicate that the ability to predict or measure the

effects of fitness using existing tools would be limited. Consequently, such losses, if they

occurred, may not have been detectable. First of all, enzyme or DNA markers, which have been

used most often to measure loss of genetic variation, are not the best ones to show the effects on

fitness (Lynch, 1996). No studies of salmon have attempted to document the loss of multilocus,

adaptive genetic variation and its consequences on fitness as have been done for experimental

animals (e.g., Bryant et al., 1986; Bryant and Meffert, 1991). Furthermore, logistical difficulties

of maintaining a powerful, experimental design may prohibit many such studies (Roff, 1997).

Second, changes in fitness in small populations may also reflect the confounding effects of

inbreeding depression or accumulation of deleterious mutations. Leberg (1990), for example,

observed that mosquito fish populations derived from small numbers of related founders grew at

much slower rates than control populations. Similar scrutiny has not been applied to salmon

hatcheries. Using evidence from fruit flies, Lynch (1996) argued that under some kinds of

artificial propagation, the accumulation of deleterious effects and random genetic drift would

interact to reduce fitness even in moderately large populations. This has not been examined in

Pacific salmon.

Theory suggests that managing brood fish number, sex ratios, and age structure can control loss

of genetic diversity and inbreeding in hatchery populations (Falconer and Mckay, 1996). For

integrated programs, where brood stock are taken from the wild and some hatchery fish spawn

naturally, theory suggests that controlling loss of genetic diversity may be much more difficult

(Ryman and Laikre, 1991; Ryman et al., 1995). Logistically, controlling loss of genetic diversity

and inbreeding in captive hatchery programs or integrated programs will be difficult. Monitoring

the genetic parameters affecting loss of genetic diversity is also difficult. Few programs have

attempted to directly monitor the effective breeding size of the population (Hedrick et al., 1995).

Variation in family size, which theory shows as being critical for determining the rate at which

genetic diversity is lost, cannot be directly estimated without a pedigree of all the fish in the

population. These are currently unavailable and unlikely to become available in the future for

most populations.

3. Loss of Genetic Diversity Among Populations

Definition — Loss of among-population genetic diversity is the reduction in differences in the

quantity, variety, and combinations of alleles among populations. In artificial production

situations, it is caused by unusually high levels of gene flow that arise when fish or eggs from

different populations are transferred between hatcheries, when fish are stocked in non-native

waters, or when phenotypic changes in hatchery fish cause them to stray at greater rates or to

different streams than normal.

Theory — The relationship between gene flow and population differentiation is another of the

cornerstones of evolutionary biology (reviewed in Slatkin, 1985). Mathematical models show

that unless gene flow rates are low, differences among populations will be lost (Haldane, 1930;

Wright, 1931 1943; Hanson, 1966; Barton, 1983). Evolutionary theory predicts that loss of

genetic diversity among populations can decrease the evolutionary potential of the species. In

addition, theory indicates that extensive interbreeding of genetically differentiated populations

(outbreeding) may lead to more immediate losses of fitness or outbreeding depression

(Dobzhansky, 1948; Shields, 1982; Templeton, 1986; Lynch, 1991). Documentation of the
112

genetic mechanisms remains elusive (Lynch and Walsh, 1998). At least one model of

outbreeding depression is available for salmon (Emlen, 1991). An important conclusion of basic

theory is that some forms of outbreeding depression will not be predictable. Consequently, the

importance of outbreeding depression may need to be solved empirically (Roff, 1997).

Evidence of Loss of Genetic Diversity — Evidence of loss of genetic diversity among natural

populations from gene flow is extensive. It is especially important in western North America,

where extensive hatchery programs have spread cultured forms of Pacific salmon and resident

trout and other species into watersheds where they have interbred with local populations

(reviewed in Behnke, 1992; Leary et al., 1995; Waples, 1995). Loss of genetic diversity from

interbreeding with introduced fish has been inferred for populations of the same species

(Allendorf et al., 1980; Campton and Johnston, 1985; Gyllensten et al., 1985; Reisenbichler and

Phelps, 1989; Currens et al., 1990, 1997a; Forbes and Allendorf, 1991; Reisenbichler et al.,

1992; Williams et al., 1996, 1997; Currens, 1997) and different species (Busack and Gall, 1981;

Leary et al., 1984; Allendorf and Leary, 1988). Lack of extensive interbreeding in some areas

where hatchery fish have been introduced (Wishard et al., 1984; Currens et al., 1990; Waples,

1991; Currens, 1997) indicates that loss of genetic variation cannot be predicted simply from

knowledge of hatchery stocking rates or migration.

Evidence for Loss of Fitness — Evidence of outbreeding depression from populations in natural

habitats is available from studies of a variety of organisms, including certain marine crustaceans

(Burton, 1987, 1990a, 1990b), plants (reviewed in Waser, 1993), Daphnia (Deng and Lynch,

1996), and fish (Leberg, 1993). Most concern about outbreeding depression in Pacific salmon is

based on evidence that Pacific salmon are locally adapted (reviewed in Ricker, 1972, Taylor,

1991) and theoretical and experimental results from other animals that demonstrate that

interbreeding of different locally adapted populations could result in outbreeding depression.

Limited evidence suggests that outbreeding depression can occur in Pacific salmon, but rigorous

experiments designed to detect outbreeding depression in Pacific salmon are missing from the

scientific literature. Gharrett and Smoker (1991) reported that F2 crosses of pink salmon from

odd and even-year runs had lower survivals and greater morphological asymmetry than F1

crosses, which is consistent with outbreeding depression. Currens et al. (1997) found that a

hybrid swarm of introduced coastal rainbow trout and native inland rainbow trout had lower

levels of resistance to a lethal disease, ceratomyxosis, than native populations. They attributed

that to interbreeding with introduced coastal rainbow trout, which lacked genetic resistance to the

disease.

Ability to Mitigate — Two of the three major sources of loss of genetic diversity — transfer of

fish or eggs from different populations between hatcheries and stocking fish in non-native waters

— can be mitigated by management measures such as developing local brood stocks or building

fish-sorting barriers where marked, non-native returning adults can be removed from a

population. Control of straying that is promoted by hatchery practices is more difficult.

Although increased straying is correlated with a variety of hatchery practices (Quinn, 1993,

1997), modifying these practices may not always be easy or desirable. For example,

transportation of fish to increase post-release survival may also increase straying (McCabe et al.,

1983; Solazzi et al., 1991). Monitoring the potential loss of genetic diversity from straying can

be accomplished with existing genetic techniques. Monitoring potential outbreeding depression

is much more difficult and probably logistically possible for only a few experimental situations.
113

4. Domestication

Definition — Domestication is the adaptation of a captive population to its captive environment.

It reflects the changes in quantity, variety, and combination of alleles within a captive population

or between a captive population and its natural complement. Selection is the primary genetic

mechanism, although it does not occur independently of genetic drift and mutation. We include

both intentional (artificial selection) and unintentional selection (natural selection in a new

environment) as domestication. Others have limited domestication selection to unintentional

selection (Campton, 1995).

Theory — The theoretical and empirical basis for selection is the foundation of biology

(reviewed by Bell, 1997). The main principles were described in the early part of this century

(reviewed in Wright, 1968, 1977). The fundamental theory predicts that organisms will respond

to selection when they have adequate genetic variation for selection to act on (measured as

heritability) and when there is a selection differential. For over 60 years, these principles have

provided the theoretical basis for modern plant and animal breeding programs (Lush, 1937;

Falconer and Mackay, 1996) and our understanding of domestication. Theory has not yet been

refined to answer genetics questions about interbreeding of hatchery salmon and natural

populations

Evidence for Domestication — Even before modern genetics, animal breeders recognized and

promoted domestication. Darwin (1898) considered domestication inevitable for captive

animals. The development of captive populations for experimental genetics in the early 1900s,

however, provided the first documentation of the genetic mechanisms of how organisms adapt to

captive environments (reviewed in Wright, 1977). Concern about domestication in Pacific

salmonids comes from two sources:

First, considerable evidence shows that many behavioral and physiological traits would respond

to selection if selection differentials also existed. Tave (1993) compiled estimated heritabilities

of many traits. A variety of authors have argued that strong selection differentials exist in novel,

captive environments such as hatcheries (Doyle, 1983; Frankham et al., 1986; Kohane and

Parsons, 1988). Together, these would lead to domestication.

Second, evidence of behavioral and physiological changes in hatchery populations compared to

wild populations is increasing. Few data are available, however, to examine the fitness effects

on a natural population interbreeding with hatchery fish that have undergone different levels of

domestication. Early studies of domestication found evidence of behavioral change in captive

brook and brown trout populations (Vincent, 1960; Green, 1964; Moyle, 1969; Bachman, 1984).

More recently, Petersson et al. (1996) documented the change in morphology and life history of

a hatchery strain of Atlantic salmon over 23 years. Likewise, Kallio-Nyberg and Koljonen

(1997) found that growth rate and age of maturation in Atlantic salmon changed over several

generations in a hatchery.

In steelhead, Reisenbichler and McIntyre (1977) found that progeny of hatchery fish only two

generations removed from the wild survived in the wild only 80 survived in the wild only 80 cent

as well as wild fish, but in the hatchery environment hatchery fish survived better. Fleming and

Gross (1989, 1992, 1993, 1994) and Fleming et al. (1996) documented changed behavior and

decreased reproductive success of hatchery Atlantic salmon and coho salmon in artificial
114

spawning channels compared to wild fish. Swain and Riddell (1990) concluded that greater

aggressive behavior of juvenile hatchery coho salmon than wild fish reared under the same

environment was because of domestication selection. Berejikian (1995), however, found that

hatchery steelhead raised in the same controlled environment as their wild counterparts were

more likely to be eaten by a native predator. Compared to naturally spawning wild steelhead in

the same stream, Chilcote et al. (1986) and Leider et al. (1990) found that naturally spawning

hatchery steelhead were about 10-30 percent as successful in producing surviving smolts and

adult progeny as wild fish. The hatchery stock used in this study, however, was not native to the

stream and was of mixed ancestry. Consequently, the reproductive success of this stock reflects

more than domestication effects.

Theory indicates that controlling domestication selection may be very difficult. Busack and

Currens (1995) reviewed domestication and concluded that it is one of the costs of using

hatcheries. The only way to remove domestication selection is to remove the selection

differential. In practical terms this translates to removing the differences between the hatchery

and wild environments. This is currently unimaginable. Hatcheries are successful because they

offer a better environment in which early survival is greater than in the wild. It may be possible

to reduce selection for key traits if we could identify the traits, how they correlate with fitness,

and what environmental conditions led to selection. This knowledge is not currently available.

E. Ecological Effects of Artificial Production:

A healthy ecosystem is often equated with conditions that characterized river basins prior to

encroachment of modern civilization. Ecosystems are dynamic, and any point in time is only a

snapshot in the geophysiographic transition in environmental circumstances over time. In many

cases, return to historical conditions is not possible even if human influences could be

eliminated. Descriptive reconstructions of historical conditions, however, are invaluable in

helping to explain current observations that are the outcome of past processes (Lichatowich et

al., 1995). Contemporary ecological theory recognizes the importance of considering not only

the biology of organisms, but also the biogeochemical processes that control the distribution and

production of biota, and human influences on those processes (Stanford et al, in press). Such

historical reconstructions viewed under the guidelines of ecological theory provide the

descriptive lens through which present population structure can be discerned.

In Return to the River (Williams et al., in press), the ISG developed a conceptual foundation for

restoration of Columbia River salmonids in which the “normative ecosystem” was defined as a

mix of natural and cultural features that typifies modern society. It was implicit, however, and

consistent with ecological theory, that environmental equity in the “normative ecosystem” would

have to be sufficient to sustain all life stages of a diverse mixture of healthy wild anadromous

salmonids, concurrent with cultural and economic development of water resources. The ISG

stated, “Restoration requires detailed understanding of the interactive, biophysical attributes and

processes that control the survival of salmonids rather than a simple accounting of numbers of

fish at various points and time in the ecosystem.” The concept of ecosystem health infers that

whatever changes occur through man-made alterations of the river system that define the

“normative ecosystem,” maximum effort is exerted to maintain existing habitat for the full

exploitation of anadromous salmonids. Restoration, therefore, refers to measures that enhance

the natural production of native salmonids, even to their fullest diversity possible within the

potential of the “normative ecosystem.”
115

The fundamental benefits and risks of artificial production rest in the ability of aquaculturists to

isolate fish from all or part of their natural habitat and ecological processes. Since their

inception, hatcheries have been operated as agricultural enterprises that strived for biological

independence from one or more of the ecological processes that fish face in rivers and streams

(Bottom 1997). Hatcheries were first used to circumvent natural ecological processes, such as

predation and physical damage to eggs, that reduced the potential productivity. Later hatcheries

were used to circumvent entire river reaches whose natural ecology had changed from the

construction of dams or other human activities. Production from hatcheries was often treated as

production from a super tributary without consideration of biological interactions.

Consequently, until recently, the ecological effects of raising and releasing hatchery fish have

had little research attention.

It is instructional to review the evidence for ecological interactions between hatchery fish and

their post-release environments, and in wild fish communities between hatchery and wild fish.

The continuing decline of natural populations and listings under the federal Endangered Species

Act have focused attention on ecological factors of decline that have been previously ignored,

such as predation, competition, disease, and nutrient flows. In addition, the attempt to increase

natural production through hatchery supplementation has also stimulated interest in ecological

effects. As previously mentioned, in Return to the River the ISG developed a “normative

ecosystem” concept for restoration and management of both wild and hatchery salmonids in

Columbia River salmonids (Williams et al., in press).

In salmonid ecosystems, ecological interactions are complex and occur at different levels of

biological organization from the organism to the population to the community. In this

subsection, we focus on five main issues: effects on carrying capacity, competition, predation,

disease, and behavior, while recognizing that these occur and interact at different levels of

biological organization.

1. Effects on carrying capacity

In this subsection, we review evidence that the number of fish released from hatcheries has

exceeded the carrying capacity of the ocean or freshwater environments. Competition, which

can occur among individuals as a consequence of stocking at or near the carrying capacity, is

discussed in another section.

Definition — Carrying capacity is the upper limit on the steady-state population size that an

environment can support. Carrying capacity is a function of both the populations and their

environments.

Theory — A large body of ecological theory postulates that population growth is limited by the

amount of available resources and the relationship between these limits and environmental

variation (Krebs 1985). Under steady state models of population growth, as a population

approaches carrying capacity, its growth rate is reduced to zero (Lotka 1925, Volterra 1926).

This view of population regulation assumes that there is a deterministic relationship between the

abundance of a species and the abundance or condition of the available resources. Abundance of

populations is density dependent because with each additional individual fewer resources are

available. Although the notion of a carrying capacity is conceptually useful, other theorists have
116

suggested that population growth may be largely controlled by unpredictable changes in

environments and resources (Andrewartha and Birch 1954, Strong 1986).

A. Ocean carrying capacity impacts

Evidence — The effects of hatchery releases on ocean carrying capacity have been studied for

coho salmon in the Oregon Production Index (OPI). The Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife first addressed the question of ocean carrying capacity relative to hatchery releases by

analyzing whether ocean mortality of coho salmon was the result of density-dependent or

density-independent factors (ODFW 1982). Density-dependent mortality would indicate that the

capacity had been exceeded; density-independent mortality would indicate otherwise.

The results of this analysis were inconclusive, but it did stimulate other studies (Lichatowich

1993). Seven additional papers addressed the question of whether carrying capacity in the ocean

for coho salmon in the OPI was limiting production. The question, however, remains unresolved.

The studies generally analyzed the same data, but they used different analytical methods and

arrived at different answers to the question. The strength of the conclusions varied. In general,

three studies concluded that the evidence for density dependence was weak or nonexistent (Clark

and McCarl 1983; Nickelson and Lichatowich 1983; Nickelson 1986). Three other studies

concluded there was evidence for density dependence or at least enough evidence for caution

(McCarl and Rettig 1983; McGie 1983; Emlen et al. 1990). One study pointed out statistical

weaknesses in Nickelson (1986) and cautioned managers regarding its conclusion. Studies of

salmon in other ocean production areas, including Japanese and Russian chum (Ishida 1993),

Bristol Bay sockeye (Rogers 1980), and British Columbia and Bristol Bay stocks of sockeye

(Peterman 1984) suggest salmon densities are approaching capacity. As with the studies of

Oregon coho salmon, however, the evidence is not conclusive.

Since work on OPI coho salmon, researchers have identified patterns of changing ocean

productivity (Ware and Thomson 1991; Beamish and Bouillion 1993; Francis and Hare 1994).

This pattern of shifting ocean productivity suggests that the carrying capacity of the ocean,

especially in specific areas, is also changing. If that is the case, then continuing to release large

numbers of hatchery fish during periods of low productivity (reduced capacity) might not be the

appropriate strategy (Beamish and Bouillion 1993).

B. Freshwater carrying capacity impacts

Evidence — Research documenting an effect of hatchery fish on the freshwater carrying

capacity of salmonid streams is largely lacking. Many fishery managers assumed that effects on

carrying capacity depend on the time and age of release. Large releases of fry or presmolts

might have significant ecological effects on carrying capacity because they could use limited

food and cover. In the lower Columbia River, for example, stocking hatchery fry in excess of

carrying capacity was identified as one of the factors leading to the collapse of wild coho

populations (Flagg et al. 1995). The mean density of emergent, wild coho fry in lower Columbia

River tributaries was estimated at three fry per lineal stream meter (fry/m). By comparison,

hatchery fry were stocked in similar sized streams in Oregon at a rate of 16 fry/m and in

Washington at 22 fry/m. This suggests that overstocking streams could have displaced wild fry

in the Lower Columbia River tributaries (Flagg et al. 1995). The use of presmolts to supplement

natural production in underseeded streams (supplementation) also raises the possibility that large
117

release of hatchery fish could exceed the capacity of the stream habitats unless stocking levels

are carefully researched and controlled. Determination of stocking densities for supplementation

projects is complicated by the need to consider the existing abundance of wild fish relative to

carrying capacity (Stewart and Bjornn 1990).

In contrast, in the 1950s and 1960s many hatcheries adopted the practice of holding juveniles

until they smolted. Smolted hatchery fish were expected to use the river only as a conduit to the

sea, which theoretically minimized carrying capacity problems. Even where smolts are released,

however, and expected to migrate immediately to sea, release of too many fish could exceed

capacity of the stream. In his examination of Washington’s hatchery program for steelhead trout,

Royal (1972) speculated on what he called a “density barrier” that could have resulted from a

combination of competition with other species, environmental factors and poor physiological

condition of the hatchery fish. Once the barrier was reached, increasing the number of hatchery

fish produced little or no additional benefit.

An indirect effect of the hatchery-harvest management strategy on freshwater carrying capacity

is the reduction in nutrient recycling to the system from carcasses. With reduced escapement

needs to sustain hatchery programs, harvest has been given a greater share of the return,

generally associated with the management concept of Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY). This

has not only impacted escapements of wild fish in mixed stock fisheries, but it has affected

nutrient recruitment from carcasses that enriched otherwise nutrient-impoverished systems.

Carcasses undoubtedly were an important source of nutrients to freshwater systems that

habitually export nutrients downstream (Bilby, et. al. 1998) The dependence on artificial

production has exaggerated the deficit in nutrient transfer caused by management around MSY

from that historically experienced, because of even further limited escapements required to

sustain hatchery production. Consequently, reduction of carcass contribution to nutrient loads in

salmon spawning streams is an indirect, but significant ecological impact of hatchery

management.

Because managers have complete control over the number of fish released, preventing hatchery

releases from exceeding carrying capacity of freshwater or marine environments is easy if the

carrying capacity can be known. Determining the carrying capacities of dynamic, natural

systems, however, is very difficult. Attempts to adjust hatchery releases to carrying capacities

must take into account changes in climatic patterns, habitat, and communities that can cause

variation in capacity. The Council has had a measure in its fish and wildlife program to

determine the carrying capacity of the Columbia River relative to the basin’s hatchery production

levels (Measure 7.1G NPPC 1994). While work on this measure was undertaken, the measure

has not been fully implemented, and carrying capacity has not been determined.

2. Competition

Definition — Competition is the negative interaction between two or more individuals that

occurs when a necessary resource is in short supply or when demand is greater for higher-quality

resources.

Theory — Competition is one of the fundamental ecological interactions between individuals.

Many ecologists believe that it is the major factor determining the structure and organization of

ecosystems (Cody and Diamond 1975). The theoretical treatment of competition in the
118

ecological literature is extensive and well-developed (see Krebs 1985, or a similar text for an

introduction).

Evidence — Competition is very difficult to demonstrate (Fausch 1988). Conditions for

competition between hatchery and wild fish may occur, however, if the hatchery fish are released

before they are ready to migrate to sea and they residualize or remain in freshwater for an

extended period of time. Conditions may be aggravated by differences in size or behavior

between the wild and hatchery fish. Salmonids often form dominance hierarchies in streams,

where dominant individuals defend the best holding or feeding areas against subordinate fishes

(Fausch 1988).

In experiments using enclosures placed in the Teanaway River, Washington, residual hatchery

steelhead reduced the growth of wild rainbow trout but did not influence the growth of juvenile

chinook salmon (McMichael et al. 1997). When the stocking of catchable-sized hatchery

rainbow trout was terminated in a section of the Madison River, Montana, the biomass and

numbers of the fall population of two-year-old brown trout increased by 160 percent and the

number of wild rainbow trout increased by 868 percent. The impact of stocking may have been

caused by the disruption of the existing social structure in the wild population (Vincent 1987).

In an attempt to supplement underseeded coastal streams in Oregon, ODFW stocked some

streams with coho salmon of hatchery origin. They left some streams unstocked as controls. The

total summer density of juveniles increased by 41 percent in the stocked streams. However, 44

percent of the wild juveniles in those streams were replaced by the hatchery presmolts.

Nickelson et al. (1986) attributed the displacement of wild fish to the larger size of the hatchery

presmolts at the time of stocking.

An important goal of management programs that make use of hatcheries should be to integrate

the natural and artificial production systems (Lichatowich and McIntyre 1987). Hatchery fish

should not replace existing wild fish. Such integration requires knowledge of the natural

production system. Once obtained, it has to be explicitly used to plan and implement the

hatchery program. Follow-up monitoring is critical. This approach is not impossible, but it

would be difficult to implement, and at the present time it is the exception and not the rule in

hatchery management.

3. Predation:

Definition — Predation is an ecological interaction where one individual becomes a food source

for another. Predation is one of the fundamental ecological interactions observed between many

species. The theoretical treatment of predation in the ecological literature is extensive and welldeveloped (see Krebs 1985, or a similar text for an introduction).

Evidence — Under different scenarios, hatchery salmonids can be predators or prey. Predation

of one salmonid on another can be an important source of mortality. Hatchery fish released at a

large size are potential predators on smaller wild salmonids (Stewart and Bjornn 1990). Parker

(1971) observed that predation by coho salmon accounted for a large fraction of early sea

mortality in chum and pink salmon. If a predator such as coho salmon is enhanced through

artificial propagation it could increase predation and cause the decline of other important

salmonid. Johnson (1972) observed that chum salmon returns to hatchery racks was inversely
119

related to hatchery coho production in Puget Sound. Although his study did not show a causeand-effect relationship, Johnson (1972) concluded that managers should be concerned about the

effects of the hatchery coho salmon program on the total production of chum. Stewart and

Bjornn (1990) cited a paper by Sholes and Hallock (1979) that reported heavy predation on wild

steelhead and chinook fry by larger yearling chinook salmon stocked into the Feather River,

California.

Rearing in artificial environments can make hatchery fish more vulnerable to predation than wild

salmonids (Olla et al. 1998). Hatchery fish released at a small size are vulnerable to predation by

other larger salmonids or other non-salmonid fishes. In addition, hatchery fish may lack

appropriate behaviors, perhaps from lack of prior exposure to predation, and may undergo

secondary stresses such as disease (Stewart and Bjornn 1990), which may make them more

vulnerable to predation. White et al. (1995) speculated that this may explain the poor poststocking survival of hatchery fish. For example, feeding salmonids at or near the surface of the

hatchery pond gives them a surface orientation that can make them more vulnerable to avian

predation. Disease infection may also enhance the vulnerability of salmonids to predation (Mesa

et al. 1998).

Habitat modification that removes cover, modifies temperature and obstructs passage may

increase the vulnerability of hatchery fish to predation (Spence et al. 1996). Habitat alteration

may also enhance the predator population and lead to greater mortality. For example, the creation

of Rice Island in the lower Columbia River from the disposal of dredge spoils created habitat for

Caspian terns. The tern colony on Rice Island has grown dramatically and is now the largest in

North America. The terns may be consuming between 5 and 20 million juvenile salmonids

annually (ODFW 1998). The recovery of PIT tags on Rice Island suggests that hatchery fish may

be more vulnerable than wild fish to predation by terns (Roby et al. 1997). The conversion of the

free-flowing Columbia River to a series of reservoirs is another habitat change that has enhanced

predation on salmonids by the northern pike minnow (Rieman et al. 1991). Shively et al. (1996)

observed a rapid shift in the diet of the northern pike minnow from largely non-fish items to a

diet composed mostly of juvenile salmonids following a release from Dworshak National Fish

Hatchery. The shift was observed away from the release site in an area where the river changed

from free-flowing to impounded.

Any manipulation of hatchery practices to reduce predation will require better understanding of

the ecology of the receiving waters than we have today. The size, time and place of release of

hatchery fish might be altered to reduce predation on the wild salmonids or reduce predation on

the artificially propagated salmonids. The importance of predator avoidance behavior has led to

suggestions that salmonids undergo specific training to enhance their recognition of predators,

improve their ability to escape and increase their post-release survival (Maynard et al. 1995).

Predator training in the hatchery is showing some promise in reducing predation on artificially

propagated salmonids, but it is far from being universally implemented. Managers should also

consider the indirect effects of habitat change in enhancing predation, especially if a hatchery is

operating in the watershed.
120

4. Disease:

Definition — Disease is the negative ecological interactions between a host, a pathogen, and the

environment that results in an impairment that interferes with or modifies the performance of

normal functions of the host.

Theory — The theoretical aspects of disease dissemination have been extensively studied in

humans and some animal populations (see Anderson and May 1979, 1982; May and Anderson

1979; Grenfell and Dobson 1995). Theoretical treatment of disease processes in fish, however,

have been only recently been explored for Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus (Patterson 1996);

European flounder, Platichthys flesus (Lorenzenen et al. 1991); guppies, Poecilia reticulata

(Scott and Anderson 1984), and domesticated trout (Bebak 1996). Reno (1998) has reviewed

many of the critical factors involved in constructing models of disease dynamics for fish

populations, but he did not specifically address transmission between hatchery and wild fishes.

Evidence — Diseases and their effects on fish populations result from multifactorial and

interacting causes making cause-and-effect relationships difficult to determine (McVicar 1997).

Detecting and verifying the transmission of disease between hatchery and wild fish is very

difficult. Nevertheless, several examples illustrate the potential. Two examples come from

Norway. In 1985, infected Atlantic salmon smolts transferred from Scotland introduced

frunculosis into Norway. The disease has spread to 20 Norwegian rivers (McVicar 1995). In

1975, the parasite Gyrodactylus salaris from an infested hatchery in Sweden was introduced into

the Lakselva River, Norway. Atlantic salmon parr, (Salmo salar), which were susceptible to the

parasite, were heavily infected and within two years the abundance of parr had collapsed (Sattaur

1989).

A recent example from the United States is the spread of salmonid whirling disease (Mysobolus

cerebralis). The disease was first found in the United States in Pennsylvania in 1956. Since then

it has gradually spread to a least 21 states. The likely cause of the spread of the parasite is the

shipment of infected fish to new areas (Bergersen and Anderson 1997, Modin 1998).

The introduction of new diseases to areas with no previous history of that pathogen is one way

hatcheries can influence the mortality of wild fish. Another way is through the direct

transmission of an endemic disease in a watershed from infected hatchery fish to the wild fish.

This would be difficult to identify, and we could find no documented examples.

Management agencies recognize the importance of this problem and have taken steps through the

IHOT process to prevent the transfer of infected fish (IHOT 1994). The adequacy of the IHOT

policies are discussed elsewhere in this report.

5. Behavior:

Hatcheries may alter the behavior of cultured fish as a consequence of domestication (genetic

change) and as a consequence of acclimation to the hatchery environment without genetic

change. Evidence for behavioral changes due to domestication is presented in the section on

genetic impacts of artificial production.
121

Differences in spawning behavior have been observed in comparative studies of wild coho

salmon and coho salmon that were captured in a stream as emergent fry and reared in a hatchery

environment until mature. Salmon reared in the hatchery from fry to maturity exhibited all the

normal reproductive behaviors and they successfully spawned. However, when mixed with wild

fish their reproductive success was reduced because of a diminished competitive ability

(Berejikian et al. 1997). Wild males dominated access to spawning females in 86 percent of the

spawning events observed. Hatchery-reared females constructed fewer nests and started the

typical spawning behavior later than wild females. Since these differences in behavior were

observed after less than one generation in the hatchery, the observed effects were probably due to

environmental effects on the phenotype (Berejikian et al. 1997). Fleming and Gross (1992 and

1993 cited in Jonsson 1997) observed similar results in their experiments with hatchery and wild

coho salmon. Fifth-generation hatchery Atlantic salmon also showed less aggressive spawning

behavior than wild fish (Jonsson 1997).

The obvious way to reduce the effect of the hatchery on spawning behavior is to minimize the

differences in the hatchery and natural environments. However, which aspects of the hatchery

environment need to be changed and how much change is needed is not known.

F. Populations and Production Trends Over Time

As discussed elsewhere in this document, hatcheries were started in response to the decline of

returns from overfishing. Whether or not early hatchery production made any contribution,

hatcheries were still viewed as the solution to mitigate for the anticipated loss in harvest resulting

from river development. With successive construction of the dams beginning in the 1930s

(Figure 16), habitat was not only totally eliminated upstream from the barriers of Chief

Joseph/Grand Coulee, Dworshak and Hells Canyon dams, but spawning and rearing habitat were

also altered and lost below these dams as the result of the nearly continuous line of reservoirs

that now represent the portions of the mainstem rivers “accessible” to anadromous salmonids.
122

Figure 16. Dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers.

In response to the anticipated reduction in natural production from loss of habitat, hatchery

construction went forward with major facilities designed to replace the anticipated loss in

harvest. Hatchery production responded with a consistent and growing contribution over the

years (Figure 17). Since 1950, the contribution from hatcheries increased from 38 million

juveniles to 150 million by 1979, and has remained around 120 million since that time.
123

Figure 17. Hatchery contribution to Columbia basin juvenile

salmonid emigration. (Mahnken et al, 1997: Fish Passage

Center)

In the meantime, the results of increased hatchery production were equivocal in terms of

influencing the returning numbers of adult salmon and steelhead. Salmonid populations entering

the Columbia River have shown a fluctuating range in escapement from 420,000 to 650,000 fish

from counts over Bonneville Dam (Figure 18). The peak return in recent years was in 1987,

following a weak but general trend with increased hatchery production. However, while

hatchery production surged to an increase of over 100 percent from 1969 to 1980, returning

adults are shown to have simultaneously decreased about 30 percent over the same time period.
124

Figure 18. The trend in returning anadromous salmonid populations

counted over Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River. (SteamNet 1996)

The contrasting trends between artificial production and return over these years makes it

uncertain what portion of the return can be attributed to hatchery production, and underscores the

need to complete the intensive examination of hatchery performance. The loss of habitat from

dam construction reduced the natural production potential, which hatcheries were intended to

replace. Total return of all anadromous salmonids, including commercial landings, has shown a

relatively level trend to the 1990s, and a significant decline after that (Figure 19), while hatchery

production remained the same. It should be noted, however, that salmon abundance already was

depressed by the 1930s — and hatcheries had been operating for 60 years.
125

Figure 19. The trend in total production of returning

anadromous salmonid populations to the Columbia River plus

commercial landings. (SteamNet 1996)

In retrospect, the number of returning adult salmon was relatively level from 1938 through 1990.

The precipitous loss of returning chinook entering the Snake River (Figure 20) accounts for a

major share of the decline that has occurred in total return to the Columbia.

A serious impact on the recent returns to the Columbia River Basin, therefore, appears to have

been from the construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Mitigation has not maintained

adult returns to the Snake River at the level that existed prior to the construction of Ice Harbor

Dam. However, there has been a high mortality of emigrating juveniles while making their

migratory journeys through the altered mainstem corridor. The cumulative effects of the

successive developments along the corridor impacted the hatchery fish as well as the wild fish,

creating a more complex problem as developments expanded than what was probably

anticipated. If there is any hope of reaching the goal of replacement, survival through the lower

Snake River will have to improve before the mitigation objective can be reached.

The ascendancy of ecosystem management in the Columbia has further complicated the problem

of addressing mitigation responsibilities on the river. Mitigation with hatchery production was

not founded on the paradigm of ecosystem management, but simply one of replacing fish for fish

in the harvest. Under the new concept, ecosystem health is a priority of equal importance as

mitigation for lost harvest, which means the original process of satisfying mitigation will have to

change. Hatchery success is no longer measured solely by the number of adults returning. Part

of the problem in the decline of wild fish production is attributed to the impact of the very

hatchery fish meant to mitigate for harvest reduction through overdrafts of wild fish in mixed

stock fisheries. Hatchery fish can sustain higher harvest rates because of lower escapement

needs (less than 10 percent) to supply production requirements. Wild fish, requiring higher

escapements (30 percent to 60 percent) for adequate production, suffer the same rate of

exploitation in mixed stock fisheries targeting hatchery fish. The cumulative effect,

uncontrolled, is to drive natural populations down to eventual extinction. Prior to ecosystem

management, and the pivotal importance of maintaining natural production in the basin, hatchery

fish were viewed as a replacement option for wild fish, and could be used as the rationale for

over-fishing wild fish in mixed stock fisheries. It was with the same justification that hatchery
126

fish could be viewed as mitigation for extirpating the runs above Grande Coulee and Hells

Canyon dams.

Figure 20. Chinook salmon returns to the Snake River related

to the years when lower Snake dams were built.

The ecological impact of hatchery fish is an issue of equal importance to mixed stock fisheries

with regard to the long-term health of natural populations. Although there is little evidence to

support some of the more theoretical concerns about hatchery fish altering the fitness of wild

populations (Campton, 1998), the premise is not disputed, only the direction and degree to which

such effects are manifest.

VIII. Conclusions and Guidelines

To briefly review, hatchery production of Columbia River Basin salmon started before the turn

of the century for the purpose of augmenting harvest of chinook salmon for the commercial

fishery. Science initially had only a small role in the process — primarily the development of

fish husbandry. Over time, the role of science evolved to include formal attention to nutrition,

genetics and pathology. That attention, however, centered primarily on the technology of fish

husbandry, with little attention to concerns about hatchery fish interaction with wild fish, or with

the natural (post-release) environment.

With the new paradigm of ecosystem function, science articulated a refreshed interest in

community balance, food chain dynamics, population structure, and integration of hatchery fish

as a functional component of the ecosystem. Standard hatchery procedures no longer were
127

accepted as a means of addressing augmentation or mitigation, and much greater emphasis is

placed on developing a new conceptual foundation under which artificial propagation should

proceed. The architects of this new conceptual foundation cannot be oblivious to the fact that the

Columbia and Snake rivers are systems substantially altered from the historical conditions in

which anadromous salmonids evolved.

This report is not a commentary establishing the role of artificial production in future Columbia

River fisheries management, or recommending the degree to which hatchery production should

contribute in the basin. That is the responsibility of the state and tribal fisheries managers. This

report concerns the state of the science that relates to artificial production, and in that regard

presents guidelines that we believe should be the foundation of recommendations on the

appropriate use of artificial production in the future. Following the points of general agreement

with the three recent scientific reviews that broadly addressed hatchery operations (ISG, NRC,

NFHRP), the guidelines are presented in two parts. First are guidelines based on our scientific

assessment of artificial production that includes hatchery practices, ecological, and genetic

considerations. Second are guidelines that address what we consider the necessary research to

resolve problems and questions about the technology and management of hatchery programs.

To provide further background for our guidelines, it is appropriate to discuss generally what is

known and not known about hatchery effectiveness and hatchery effects. The level of

knowledge varies considerably for different aspects of the effects of hatchery management and

policy. The three major divisions of this material are knowledge about:

1. Effects of hatchery practices on the egg to smolt phase of the life cycle of hatchery fish;

2. Effects of hatchery practices on the post-release phase of the life cycle of the hatchery

product, and,

3. Effects of the hatchery product on the wild stocks with which they interact ecologically and

genetically.

The amount and certainty of the knowledge in each of these three divisions is so different that we

cannot reasonably attain the same level of conclusiveness about them from our review of the

science.

In order to attune our conclusions with the differing levels of certainty, we offer our advice in the

form of recommendations, guidelines and hypotheses. And we urge our audience to be sensitive

to the distinction and the implications of these guidelines, recommendations and hypotheses.

Basically, the current state of the science can support firm “recommendations” about practices to

enhance the performance of the hatchery product in the egg-to-smolt phase of the life cycle. The

science is less comprehensive and conclusive about the post-release performance of the hatchery

product. For this aspect we can offer tentative “guidelines” for practices that we are reasonably

sure will generally improve post-release performance somewhat, but we can’t be sure how much,

and we can’t offer assurances that these guidelines in themselves will be sufficient for meeting

objectives of the program. The science is even less conclusive about the effects of the hatchery

fish on wild stocks. The science can identify specific genetic and ecological mechanisms that

must be operating in the interaction between hatchery and hatchery fish, but the degree of

quantification and empirical verification in this important aspect of our knowledge is so low, that

for the most part we can only state important, plausible “hypotheses.” The monitoring, analysis,

and experimentation necessary to arrive at conclusions about these hypotheses should be
128

elevated in priority for the future. In the meanwhile, we advise managers and policy makers to

adopt a precautionary approach in the decisions where these hypotheses have a bearing.

The picture is further complicated by the very real possibility of working at cross-purposes by

simultaneously attempting to manage for improved egg-to-smolt performance within the

hatchery, improved smolt-to-adult returns of hatchery fish, enhancement of wild stocks through

supplementation, preservation of wild stocks with captive breeding, and minimization of

potential negative effects of augmentation hatchery operations on wild stocks. Practices that are

good for one objective could be bad for another. A successful overall hatchery policy will have

to be cognizant of these possible effects “between compartments.” We will discuss these tradeoffs in the third, synthesis phase, of our review.

A. Points of General Agreement with Recent Reviews

The three recent independent reviews of fish and wildlife recovery efforts in the Columbia River

Basin addressed hatcheries among other issues — one report addressed hatcheries specifically.

These reviews collectively represent a concerted effort to assess hatchery production from the

scientific perspective. There was consensus among the three panels, which underscores the

importance of their contributions in revising the scientific foundation for hatchery policy. The

ten general conclusions made by the three panels are listed below.

1. Hatcheries generally have failed to meet their objectives.

2. Hatcheries have imparted adverse effects on natural populations.

3. Managers have failed to evaluate hatchery programs.

4. Rationale justifying hatchery production was based on untested assumptions.

5. Supplementation should be linked with habitat improvements.

6. Genetic considerations have to be included in hatchery programs.

7. More research and experimental approaches are required.

8. Stock transfers and introductions of non-native species should be discontinued.

9. Artificial production should have a new role in fisheries management.

10. Hatcheries should be used as temporary refuges, rather than for long-term production.

Given the present degree of uncertainty about hatchery success, the SRT agrees that unified

hatchery management policies should include plausible hypotheses that test some of the

uncertainties inherent in these conclusions.

In particular, with respect to the hypothesis that the future role of hatcheries in fisheries

management will evolve considerably, we note that the priorities of fisheries management have

changed significantly in recent years, so the needs that hatcheries should serve are also changing.

The ongoing reality of increasing numbers of Endangered Species Act listings of anadromous

and resident fish puts a much higher emphasis on wild stocks and naturally spawning stocks.

This increases the concern over the potential for artificial production to cause genetic and

ecological harm to such stocks. But it also raises the possibility that hatcheries may serve some

positive role in this era of new priorities.
129

B. General Considerations of the State of the Science and the Technology

The goals sought by hatchery programs have changed over the years. However, like earlier

hatchery programs, the most recent efforts of augmentation, supplementation and captive brood

stock production may have succeeded in their numerical production objectives with regard to

juvenile releases. The issue is that the effect of that production on increased return has generally

not been demonstrated, and that effects on naturally spawning stocks have not been adequately

investigated. Agencies have evaluated some hatchery procedures, such as the effect of size and

time of release on return success, but there has been a general lack of effort at the programmatic

level. Only recently has natural production in the Columbia basin been given priority.

Previously, the approach of concentrating artificial production of Pacific salmon downstream

from lower Columbia dams was considered a viable mitigation option for providing

the necessary production from the system, based on general trends in hatchery production

returns. However, if evaluations demonstrating the consistent production benefits of hatcheries

have been undertaken, they have not been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Such

publications are required to provide fair analysis of these hatchery programs. Issues of genetics,

stock transfers and limiting effort to avoid overfishing wild stocks mixed with hatchery fish are

symptomatic of the previous philosophy downplaying the role of natural production and the

human alteration of the natural Columbia River Basin ecosystem. Given the present emphasis on

the ecosystem approach, these issues are now important and should be given priority in the

development of the new conceptual foundation for artificial production.

In the past, weak native runs have been replaced with other fish in the development of hatchery

programs, such as the original plan regarding Sooes River fall chinook salmon. Such action

is inconsistent with present values. Diversity is now believed to be one of the keys to the longterm success of salmonid populations, and adaptive traits should never be willfully abandoned.

In situations where a stock has been extirpated, managers need to have the option of introducing

non-native fish to establish the nucleus on which restoration can take place. Even in this

situation, however, the donor stock chosen should not be simply based on egg availability.

Careful analysis is required to assure environmental relationships between donor and target

streams are as compatible as possible for the stock selected. Frequently, appropriate donor

stocks will come from ecologically similar and geographically adjacent streams or watersheds.

Stock transfers and introductions can place serious risk on native fish stocks and should be

discontinued from hatchery programs except when the purpose is to restore an extirpated run or

population. Introductions also might be justified when genetic diversity is so low as to threaten

the persistence of a population.

The primary role of hatcheries in the basin is mitigation for the loss of harvest as a result of

reduction of habitat from economic development of the Columbia and Snake rivers. Given the

present encroachment of habitat modification and degradation into the riparian and adjacent

lands of these river systems, it is unlikely that natural production in a recovered ecosystem would

satisfy commercial, tribal, and sports harvest interests. The options, therefore, are (1) to be

content with lower production from managed natural populations and use hatcheries in a more

temporary role for rehabilitation, or (2) to manage for greater harvest potential from

a combination of natural production and hatcheries mitigating for habitat no longer accessible.

Mitigation hatcheries are a long-term commitment involving significant cost. Although
130

Columbia Basin hatcheries have not satisfied their objective of sustaining production thus far,

nonetheless they now account for the majority of production in the basin.

Changing the manner in which hatcheries address their role is the hope that hatcheries can

succeed. Based on past hatchery performance in the basin, such expectation is bereft of proof.

But abrogation of the concept based only on the past is also imprudent when hatchery

management has made such serious mistakes and the fish still persist. As Reisenbichler (1998)

reasoned after observing fish in the hatchery environment, ".. substantial adaptation to hatchery

conditions [occurs]... and holds promise that modifying hatchery conditions can reduce

deleterious genetic differences between hatchery and wild fish." The hope is that with care given

to appropriate changes in the hatchery environment, the response of hatchery fish can be

compatible and complementary to the natural population structure of the native species. The

normative ecosystem is an equitable mix of natural and cultural features with environmental

equity to sustain all life stages of a diverse mixture of healthy wild anadromous salmonids,

concurrent with cultural and economic development of water resources. Hatcheries can have

a mitigation role in the normative ecosystem. These may become rehabilitation programs that

secure the endurance of native runs. They may also become perpetual programs to supply

commercial or angling opportunities. The challenge is to redevelop the concept of a hatchery to

assure enhanced production to meet both ecological and economic objectives.

C. Relation to an Ecological Framework

It is imperative that priority be given to the development of a set of scientific guidelines that

serve as a conceptual foundation for the Columbia basin hatchery program. These also must

be consistent with the eight elements of the basin-wide ecological framework (NPPC Document

98-6) that is to guide management of the Columbia River as an ecological system. The eight

ecologically based elements are listed below.

• The abundance and productivity of fish and wildlife reflect the conditions they experience in

their ecosystem over the course of their life cycle.

• Natural ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, and resilient.

• Ecosystems are structured hierarchically.

• Ecosystems are defined relative to specific communities of plant and animal species.

• Biological diversity accommodates environmental variation.

• Ecosystem conditions develop primarily through natural processes.

• Ecological management is adaptive and experimental.

• Human actions can be key factors structuring ecosystems.

The set of scientific principles that relate to artificial production, and emphasized by the latter

two elements listed, are meant to minimize unintentional human influences on

ecosystem structure. These principles can be divided along technological and managerial lines,

differentiating between how hatchery fish are produced and how hatchery fish are used.
131

D. Guidelines on Hatchery Practices, Ecological Integration and Genetics.

Management of all hatcheries should be consistent with the life history of the cultured stock and

the environmental conditions of the watershed, especially the annual temperature regime of the

relevant section of native habitat represented in the stock of fish propagated. Life history

strategies demonstrate the optimum course of action in the complexity of selective pressures

exerted on them (Brannon, in press). Proper management, therefore, must include only measures

that are consistent with those life histories, or severe impacts on the native populations should be

expected. Management policy on such conventions as stock introductions (listed above), size and

time of release, magnitude of release, genetic agenda, and recovery strategies are of major

importance to the success of hatchery programs. Details on these issues are in the following

guidelines, but it needs to be understood that in many cases where scientific principles are

advocated, applied evidence is not available to demonstrate the precept. In these cases, it may be

more appropriate to view the guidelines as hypotheses that need to address problems they

exemplify — as safeguards against unforeseen events that could destroy the viability of the

runs managers are attempting to conserve. Some theories are troublesome to practitioners

because their experiences do not support the axiom. Concerns about inbreeding are an example.

Many populations of salmonids are small and inbred by the nature of the environment describing

their habitat. In fact, where certain traits are critical to their survival, such as an innate complex

orientation pattern to reach a destination, specificity rather than diversity defines fitness. This

appears contrary to the theory, but in the broader range of the species, diversity is still the key to

species stability. Measures taken to maintain the diversity present, or to prevent potentially

negative effects of induced inbreeding, even within naturally inbred lines, are precautions that

safeguard against artificially imposing a deleterious artifact of hatchery production on a

population.

Present technology is bringing into application measures that improve the quality of fry at the

time of emergence and at readiness of juveniles to enter the migratory phase. Providing

required nutritional needs in a form available in artificial diets were some of the first

advancements in hatchery technology (Hublou, 1963), and nutritional develops have continued

(Forster and Hardy, 1995).

Substrate and darkness during incubation to maximize energy efficiency for growth are now

employed routinely. These conditions were found to more accurately simulate natural

incubation environments and produce larger fry at emergence than open tray or basket incubators

(Brannon, 1965). Other technologies are also being employed, and their appearance in the list

only reaffirms the importance placed on them.

Guideline 1. Technology should be developed and used to more closely resemble natural

incubation and rearing conditions in salmonid hatchery propagation.

In developing hatchery technology, hatchery programs should work toward the goal of

providing environments that resemble natural conditions during artificial propagation. These

may include:

• Incubation in substrate and darkness;

• Incubation at lower densities;

• Rearing at lower densities;
132

• Rearing with shade cover available;

• Exposure to in-pond, natural-like habitat;

• Rearing in variable, higher velocity habitat;

• Non-demand food distribution during rearing;

• Exposure to predator training;

• Minimize fish-human interaction;

• Acclimation ponds at release sites;

• Volitional emigration from release sites.

Rationale: Lower rearing densities, minimum exposure to humans, and shade cover over

raceways enhances fish quality and maintains a behavior more similar to that of wild fish. Also,

volitional migration when the fish are ready to begin their journey to sea is a

technology practiced at some hatcheries, promoting natural transit behavior and less impact on

the carrying capacity of the receiving stream or other water body. These are positive

advancements in hatchery production operations that are encouraged to continue. Other practices

need research on potential indirect effects. For example, although accelerated rearing can

easily overcome any size deficiency of the fry experienced at the time of emergence, what isn’t

known are the potential impacts accelerated rearing will have on the normal biological

development from embryo to fingerling, or the impact that large hatchery fish have on their wild

counterparts.

Guideline 2. Hatchery facilities need to be designed and engineered to represent natural

incubation and rearing habitat, simulating incubation and rearing experiences

complementary with expectations of wild fish in natural habitat.

Rationale: Hatchery technology in the Columbia basin has relied primarily on standard tray

incubation and concrete raceway technology based on engineering designs that emphasize

efficiency and convenience for fish culture operations. Qualities associated with natural habitat

have not been incorporated in such designs, and fish reared in standard concrete raceways learn

behavior conducive to those situations, and out of harmony with what they will experience when

released into natural conditions. Comparatively poor survival success of hatchery fish is

attributed in part to such experiences atypical of natural conditions. Technology needs to design

facilities that utilize engineered earthen stream channels that represent natural habitat with cover,

glides and pools, woody debris and flow patterns mimicking natural habitat. Incubation and

rearing could take place in the same channel facility, at densities appropriate to encourage

natural feed (supplemented with formulated diets) and provide learning opportunities under

simulated natural conditions. Training would include exposure to size variability among

other species that share the habitat, and limited exposure to predation.

Guideline 3. New hatchery technology for improving fish quality and performance needs to

have a plan for implementation and review at all hatchery sites, where appropriate, to

assure its application.

Rationale: Assuring that technological advances in hatchery propagation are part of

hatchery operational plans is critical to the implementation of changes meant to improve the

quality and performance of hatchery fish in the natural environment. Often such implementation

occurs only among those hatcheries where a willingness to make changes exists, given that
133

information on new technology is even transmitted. It is important that technological

advancements are first verified and the mechanism through which such technology enhances

quality or performance is well understood. Then there needs to be a process for implementing the

technology, with accountability for its installation and review to make it as routine as feed

delivery, assuring its application and evaluation.

Guideline 4. To mimic natural populations, anadromous hatchery production

strategy should target natural population parameters in size and timing among emigrating

anadromous juveniles to synchronize with environmental selective forces shaping natural

population structure.

Rationale: Hatchery programs have tended to concentrate on large-size fish at the time

of release, as well as varying the timing of release, to facilitate higher return success. Although

such rationale is understandable from the standpoint of improving hatchery fish survival, such

practices introduce atypical migrants that create an alteration in the natural continuity of events

around which population strategies have evolved. With the exception of fall chinook that

normally show variation in migratory distribution patterns, such practices with other

anadromous salmonids are believed to have negative effects on fitness of wild fish, and may

perturb population structure to the disadvantage of natural populations. Based on interpretations

of population structure and life history patterns (Brannon, in press), avoiding atypical size and

time at migration among hatchery fish is desirable, even with the immediate disadvantage it may

have on hatchery return success. The point is that hatcheries should focus on mimicking the

natural environmental selective forces within the target watershed so hatchery-produced

emigrating juveniles exhibit the same size distributions as juveniles from the natural population.

Guideline 5. To mimic natural populations, resident hatchery production strategy should

target population parameters in size and release timing of hatchery-produced resident

juveniles to correspond with adequate food availability and favorable prey to maximize

their post-stocking growth and survival.

Rationale: Post-stocking mortality of a wide array of resident fish species could be reduced by

implementing release strategies that match released fry or fingerlings with periods of adequate

production and availability of planktonic and invertebrate food items. Attention to vulnerability

of stocked resident fish fry or fingerlings as prey, and abundance and behaviors of potential

predators in receiving waters can also significantly improve initial post-stocking survival.

Guideline 6. Supplementation hatchery policy should utilize ambient natal stream habitat

temperatures to reinforce genetic compatibility with local environments and provide the

linkage between stock and habitat that is responsible for population structure of stocks

from which hatchery fish are generated.

Rationale: Temperature is a crucial factor affecting adult salmonid return timing and spawning

(Brannon, 1987), and is an important factor affecting the length of time juveniles spend in stream

residence before migrating to sea. This fundamental influence has formed the framework around

the evolution of salmonid population structure. Temperature demonstrates its pivotal effect on

the evolution of life history forms through temporal influences on egg incubation and juvenile

growth as the basis for differentiation of adult timing and juvenile residence behavior,

respectively. It is argued, therefore, that temperature is one of the most critical environmental
134

factors affecting life history forms peculiar to their respective stream system. Temperature is the

environmental parameter motivating the evolution of stock predispositions selectively reinforced

over time to represent genetically distinct units. Temperature regimes during early life history are

typically altered from the natural pattern by hatchery use of ground water for incubation.

Hatchery management policy should adhere to using the ambient temperature regime of their

natal environments to maintain the compatibility of hatchery fish with the natural system and

the effectiveness of hatchery contribution to the natural spawning population. In some cases,

wild fish spawn on spring-fed reaches of streams, and the appropriate incubation temperatures in

those situations would be incubation substrate temperatures. However, when it comes to the

rearing phase where the growth rate is determined by temperature (Brett et al, 1969), it is the

daily ambient mean temperature that is important to follow.

Guideline 7. Salmonid hatchery incubation and rearing experiences should use the natal

stream water source whenever possible to enhance homestream recognition.

Rationale: Another factor associated with the natal habitat and homing accuracy is the

homestream odor profile that provides the fingerprint ultimately identified with the homestream

spawning and incubation site. Hatchery programs not only use ground water for incubation, but

hatcheries are usually away from the natal environment to which local stocks have adapted. The

assumption is that by planting the fish in the proper location, hatchery fish will home to that

stream on return. While this is true, imprinting is sequential (Brannon and Quinn 1990; Quinn et

al. 1990), and the incubation environment is the first odor cue on which alevins imprint and the

ultimate identity sought by returning fish (Brannon 1982). Strays are common in some hatchery

populations and lack of having imprinted during the incubation phase is suggested as

being responsible for higher stray rates. To assure the continuity between hatchery fish genetics

and local stream habitat, the water sources closely linked with the natal environment are most

desirable. This guideline is most difficult to incorporate with present hatcheries because the

capital structure and water system have been established without those priorities. New facilities,

however, should be located on sites with access to appropriate water sources.

Guideline 8. Hatchery release strategies need to follow standards that

accommodate reasonable numerical limits determined by the carrying capacity of the

receiving stream to accommodate residence needs of non-migrating members of the release

population.

Rationale: Standards should include impact considerations on the wild fish residing in the

system, and should be based on life history requirements of the cultured stock. Hatchery releases

of cultured fish into receiving streams occur under the assumption that the river is used primarily

as a migratory conduit to the estuary. This is true for only those fish (smolts) at

emigration readiness. Fish not ready to migrate will take up transitional residence in the stream,

causing the potential negative interactions with wild fish present. Care should be taken to limit

release numbers consistent with the estimated rearing capacity of the system to minimize impacts

on wild fish. Moreover, the practice of releasing fish to make space for other broods should be

discontinued. Release of hatchery fish must fit a schedule consistent with life

history requirements of the natural population from which the brood lot was derived.

Guideline 9. Hatchery programs should dedicate significant effort in developing small

facilitates designed for specific stream sites where supplementation and enhancement
135

objectives are sought, using local stocks and ambient water in the facilities designed around

engineered habitat to simulate the natural stream, whenever possible.

Rationale: Hatcheries are most often developed around the concept of a central facility from

which fish are outplanted to many other streams or acclimation ponds, not always using native

stocks in each instance. The rationale is usually related to the major capital expenditures for

hatcheries under the old hatchery concept. It is much more desirable to locate smaller, streamspecific operations to maintain stock identity with the particular stream targeted. Nothing larger

than a station capacity of 100,000 eggs or 25,000 fingerlings would be required on smaller

tributary systems. This would require no more than a rearing channel to accommodate such small

inventories, but small numbers in natural-like habitat is the ideal for supplementation of

native salmonids. Even fry releases can be a feasible option to consider under these

circumstances associated with the natural habitat, when conditions for supplementation can call

for such limited, and perhaps temporary, artificial application. Again, this hypothesis

is impossible with present facilities located where they are and with capital commitments in

water and concrete. However, with new artificial production facilities, part-time stations of this

nature would address both the biological and ecological requirements that future operations must

satisfy.

Guideline 10. Genetic and breeding protocols consistent with local stock structure need to

be developed and faithfully adhered to as a mechanism to minimize potential negative

hatchery effects on wild populations and to maximize the positive benefits that hatcheries

can contribute to the recovery and maintenance of salmonids in the Columbia ecosystem.

Rationale: As an integral component in a complex ecological system, salmonid stocks have

evolved with their environments. Spawning time, emergence timing, juvenile distribution,

marine orientation and distribution are not random, but rather occur in specific patterns of time

and space for each population (Brannon 1984), and include behavior that evolved under

historical abundance constraints in natural populations. The appropriate seed stock is key to

producing viable, healthy fish for the respective system. Given the ecosystem concept for

management protocol in the Columbia Basin, population genetics and the natural environment

salmonid stocks have evolved under have to become blueprints in hatchery programming.

Differences between the genetics of wild stocks and hatchery fish (Ryman and Sthl,

1980; Allendorf and Utter, 1979) are considered by the SRT as a major source of poor hatchery

fish performance in the wild. Development and adherence to strict genetic guidelines and

breeding protocols consistent with local population structure is essential for effective hatchery

contribution to wild production and maintenance of local genetic diversity.

Guideline 11. Hatchery propagation should use large breeding populations to minimize

inbreeding effects and maintain what genetic diversity is present within the population.

Rationale: One of the potential negative effects of artificial production is that relatively small

breeding populations are involved in hatchery programs. Even when 100,000 fingerlings are

scheduled for supplementation, that number represents a little over 25 females for brood stock,

and a relatively limited representation of the gene pool. In the Idaho captive rearing

project where juveniles are intercepted and reared to maturity as a means to avoid demographic

risks of cohort extinction, only enough parr are captured to provide 20 spawners for each
136

population, which is even a smaller representation of the gene pool. The risks in using

small breeding populations are loss of diversity and magnifying the effect of deleterious genes.

Hatchery survival can increase the contribution of the artificially propagated fish out of

proportion with number, with the result that over time the hatchery population will

become increasingly more represented among the natural spawners. The issue is not just

inbreeding, because many healthy natural populations are very site- specific in unique

environments and represent inbred lines. The risk is that hatchery production can accelerate

the potential harmful effects of inbreeding by involving only a small portion of the returning

adults in the artificial breeding population. To avoid these negative effects of hatchery

production, a large number of spawners should be included in the breeding protocol. When the

run is relatively small, this may require live spawning, and removing only a portion of the eggs

from each female and subsequently releasing the fish to continue spawning naturally.

Guideline 12. Hatchery supplementation programs should avoid using strays in breeding

operations with returning fish.

Rationale: In situations where strays constitute a substantial proportion of hatchery return

populations, care should be taken to avoid inter-stock hybridization because of the loss of

adaptive traits in the resulting progeny. Reisenbichler (1998) demonstrated examples of reduced

fitness from hybridization. Stock hybridization breaks down genetic homeostasis and disrupts coadaptive gene complexes, which lowers the fitness of the local stock. A policy needs to be

developed to minimize the contribution of strays to the local hatchery stock. In the situation

where a hatchery is supplementing a native population, inter-stock hybridization should be

avoided to prevent loss of adaptive fitness.

Guideline 13. Restoration of extirpated populations should follow genetic guidelines to

maximize the potential for re-establishing self-sustaining populations. Once initiated,

subsequent effort must concentrate on allowing selection to work by

discontinuing introductions.

Rationale: When undertaking restoration projects where populations have been extirpated,

restoration strategies need to be given careful consideration and reference to genetic guidelines.

Where neighboring populations represent appropriate characteristics, stock transfer may be the

best strategy. When suitable stocks are not available, or when information is insufficient with

which to match a donor stock, then inter-stock hybridization may be an alternative. Interstock hybridization breaks down co-adapted gene complexes and releases genetic variability on

which selection can work. Restoration can use different genetic-based approaches, depending on

the situation, but the characteristics of the donor stock(s) are critical. The key is to follow

through with the strategy selected and allow sufficient time for the founders to be selectively

established by avoiding continued introductions in the target stream.

Guideline 14. Germ plasm repositories should be developed to preserve genetic diversity

for application in future recovery and restoration projects in the basin, and to maintain a

gene bank to reinforce diversity among small inbred natural populations.

Rationale: One of the most important considerations in the Columbia Basin fisheries

management plan is to preserve the existing genetic diversity. Diversity is inherent to

the stability of the species. The various systems, with their component population networks, are
137

the sanctuaries of variability. Recovery and enhancement of natural production in the basin will

not be a rapid process, and in the meantime further loss of diversity may occur, with some

populations becoming extinct. It is critical, therefore, to launch an immediate program to

preserve germ plasm by collecting and cryopreserving milt from all naturally spawning

populations that can be reached. The technology is available and currently is being employed

with some ESA-listed salmonid stocks. This effort needs to be expanded and given greater

priority. Germ plasm should be collected from each population on more than one broodyear to

develop as complete a repository as possible. The availability of germ plasm for future use in

maintenance of diversity or restoration of extirpated runs will be invaluable in the long-term

ecological framework of the managed river.

Guideline 15. The physical and genetic status of all natural populations of anadromous

and resident fishes need to be understood and routinely reviewed as the basis of

management planning for artificial production.

Rationale: Knowing the status of the endemic stock where hatchery fish are involved is

imperative under the ecological framework of fisheries management. Information should include

life history, population structure and the habitat utilized. This knowledge must include, in

addition to the traditional numerical status of the run, details on its population structure,

distribution patterns, size and timing of migration, and the level of genetic specificity

and diversity within the population. The habitat status associated with the population must also

be known, including the area available, the condition of the habitat, new areas that can be

developed, and the carrying capacity. This information is essential to the management of all

native anadromous and resident species in the Basin, which will require ecological expertise at

the programmatic and hatchery levels.

E. Guidelines on Research and Monitoring

Good management is the key to successful integration of hatcheries into a functioning and

dynamic ecosystem. Research to improve artificial production, the extent of its application, and

its limitations is basic to the effective management of hatcheries in the basin. In this regard,

monitoring is also a critical element in the management process. Knowing what is successful and

what must change is impossible without appropriate monitoring programs.

Guideline 16. An in-hatchery fish monitoring program needs to be developed

on performance of juveniles under culture, including genetic assessment to ascertain if

breeding protocol is maintaining wild stock genotypic characteristics.

Rationale: The NPPC needs to design a scientifically valid monitoring program for the basin

hatcheries. Special attention should be paid to the collection of valid data that applies to

routine assessment of juvenile performance in the hatchery incubation and rearing phase, up to

the point of release. Genetic monitoring of the stock inventory would include descriptive

evaluation at first feeding and at release time to assess if hatchery propagation is

altering genotypes from that of the wild population.

Guideline 17. A hatchery fish monitoring program needs to be developed on performance

from release to return, including information on survival success, interception distribution,

behavior, and genotypic changes experienced from selection between release and return.
138

Rationale: The NPPC needs to design a scientifically valid monitoring program for hatchery

fish performance after release from the culture facilities. In addition to return success, attention

should be paid to relative interception distribution (tag analysis) of hatchery fish to compare

performance parameters with native fish. Special attention should also be given to descriptive

genetic assessment at time of return to determine if genotypes surviving are representative of

genotypes released, and compatible with the native stock. With the advent of the PIT tag system,

opportunities to gather more specific information exists. Significant insights can be gained on

straying, migratory route and timing that are key to honing hatchery programs.

Guideline 18. A study is required to determine cost of monitoring hatchery performance

and sources of funding.

Rationale: A study should be undertaken to consider how much monitoring programs will cost

and what reallocation of effort in the production programs would be required to fund adequate

monitoring efforts where additional funds cannot be secured.

Guideline 19. Regular performance audits of artificial production objectives should be

undertaken, and where they are not successful, research should be initiated to resolve the

problem.

Rationale: Routine audits of hatchery production objectives should be established (for example,

every five years) to determine if they are achieving their objectives. In those cases where

programs or hatcheries are not showing any production benefit, they should be re-prioritized to

research-only until the problems can be resolved. In some cases, research may disclose tha t the

objectives are not attainable. In those situations, emphasis can then be redirected, programs

changed, or discontinued.

Guideline 20. The NPPC should appoint an independent peer review panel to develop

a basinwide artificial production program plan to meet the ecological framework goals for

hatchery management of anadromous and resident species.

Rationale: With the development of the broad ecological framework in the basin placing

emphasis on hatchery management in the arena of conservation fisheries and ecosystem function,

it will be necessary for practitioners and fisheries scientists to work together in developing the

appropriate hatchery program plans to achieve the ecosystem goal. Problems that have prevented

hatcheries from achieving their goals, or insights on what may be impossible to achieve in the

ecosystem approach at the hatchery level, cannot be ascertained without major contribution from

hatchery managers experienced in the system. Also, the inherent conflict between the concept of

ecosystem management and the concept of management for harvest mitigation has to be resolved

within the ecosystem framework. Those resolutions, and the development of the hatchery

program plan addressing specific actions needed to achieve the goal, are essential elements early

in the planning process. The responsibility will require appointment of an independent peer

review panel that can give careful and appropriate consideration, through solicitation of agency,

tribal and public interests, to past management experiences.

Given the new management emphasis on wild stocks, special consideration must be given to the

possibility that some of the maladaptive traits developed by hatchery fish in hatcheries could be
139

expressed even more deleteriously when those fish attempt to spawn naturally (in a

supplementation program) or when they interact genetically (as strays) with natural spawning

populations, or as they interact with natural stocks ecologically throughout the postrelease portion of the life cycle. While these possible risks are in some sense the most alarming,

they are also the most poorly documented, and the quantitative strength of the underlying forces

are not well understood. Therefore, a large research and monitoring effort needs to be directed at

these questions of genetic and ecological effects of hatchery fish on naturally spawning stocks.

The results of these studies are needed to lay to rest some of the fears about worst-case scenarios,

and they are also needed to teach us how to modify hatchery management to achieve the most

positive kinds of interactions with wild stocks.
140

Literature Cited

Allendorf, F. W., and R. F. Leary. 1988. Conservation and distribution of genetic variation in a

polytypic species, the cutthroat trout. Conservation Biology 2:170-184.

Allendorf, F. W., and R. S. Waples. 1996. Conservation and genetics of salmonid fishes. Pages

238-280 in J. C. Avise and J. L. Hamrick, editors. Conservation genetics: case histories

from nature. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Allendorf, F. W., and S. R. Phelps. 1980. Loss of genetic variation in a hatchery stock of

cutthroat trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:537-543.

Allendorf, F. W., D. M. Espeland, D. T. Scow, and S. Phelps. 1980. Coexistence of native and

introduced rainbow trout in the Kootenai River drainage. Proceedings of the Montana

Academy of Sciences 39:28-36.

Allendorf, F. W., and F. M. Utter. 1979. Population genetics. Pages 407-454 in W. F. Hoar and

D. J. Randall, editors. Fish Physiology, volume 8. Academic Press, NY.

Anders, P.J., and D.L Richards. 1996. Implications of ecosystem collapse on white sturgeon

(Acipenser transmontanus) in the Kootenai River, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia.

In: Proceedings of International Congress on the Biology of Fishes. San Francisco State

University, July 14-18, 1996.

Anderson, D. A., G. Cristofferson, R. Beamesdefer, B. Woodard, M. Rowe, and J. Hanson.

1996. StreamNet the Northwest aquatic resource information network: Report on the status

of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin - 1995. Pacific States Marine Fisheries

Commission, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Wildlife,

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and Idaho Department of Fish and Game for Northwest Power

Planning Council and U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Project

number 88-108-04.

Anderson, R. M., and R. M. May. 1979. Population biology of infectious diseases: part I.

Nature (London) 280:361-367.

Anderson, R. M., and R. M. May. 1982. Directly transmitted infectious diseases: control by

vaccination. Nature (London) 297:1053-1060.

Andrewartha, H. G., and L. C. Birch. 1954. The distribution and abundance of animals.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Appleby, A., and K. Keown. 1995. History of White River spring chinook brood stocking and

captive brood stock rearing efforts. Pages 6.1-6.32 in T. A. Flagg and C. V. W. Mahnken,

editors. An assessment of the status of captive brood stock technology for Pacific salmon.

Bonneville Power Administration Report DOE/BP-55064-1.

Bachman, R. A. 1984. Foraging behavior of free-ranging wild and hatchery brown trout in a

stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:1-32.
141

Baird, S. 1875. Salmon fisheries of Oregon. The Oregonian, March 3, 1875, Portland, Oregon.

Barton, N. H. 1983. Multilocus clines. Evolution 37:454-471.

Beamish, R. J., and D. R. Bouillon. 1993. Pacific salmon production trends in relation to climate.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 50: 1002-1016.

Bebak, J. 1996. Infectious diseases of salmonid fish: risk factors and disease dynamics. Ph.D.

dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, College Park.

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society

Monograph 6.

Beiningen, K. T. 1976. Fish runs. Section E. in Investigative Reports of Columbia River

Fisheries Project. Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, Vancouver, Washington.

Berejikian, B. A. 1995. The effects of hatchery and wild ancestry and experience on the relative

ability of steelhead trout fry (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to avoid a benthic predator. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:2476-2482.

Berejikian, B. A., E. P. Tezak, S. L. Schroder, C. M. Knudsen, and J. J. Hard. 1997.

Reproductive behavioral interactions between wild and captively reared coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch). ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 1040-1050.

Bergersen, E. P., and D. E. Anderson. 1997. The distribution and spread of Myxobolus cerebralis

in the United States. Fisheries 22(8): 6-7.

Bilby, R. E., B. R. Fransen, and P. A. Bisson. 1996. Incorporation of nitrogen and carbon from

spawning coho salmon into the trophic system of small streams: evidence from stable

isotopes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53:164-173.

Bilby, R. E., B. R. Fransen, P. A. Bisson, and J. K. Walter. 1998. Response of juvenile coho

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to the addition of

salmon carcasses to two streams in southwestern Washington, U.S.A. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.

Sci. 55:1909-1918.

Bottom, D. L. 1997. To Till the Water: A History of Ideas in Fisheries Conservation. Pages 569-

697 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson and R. J. Naiman (eds.), Pacific Salmon and Their

Ecosystem: Status and Future Options, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.

Bouzat, J. L., H. A. Lewin, and K. N. Paige. 1998a. The ghost of genetic diversity past:

historical DNA analysis of the greater prairie chicken. American Naturalist 152:1-6.

Bouzat, J. L., H. H. Cheng, H. A. Lewin, R. L. Westemeier, J. D. Brown, and K. N. Paige.

1998b. Genetic evaluation of a demographic bottleneck in the greater prairie chicken.

Conservation Biology 12:836-843.
142

Brannon, E. L. 1965. The influence of physical factors on the development and weight of

sockeye salmon embryos and alevins. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission.

Progress Report 12. 26 p.

Brannon, E. L. 1972. Mechanisms controlling migration of sockeye salmon fry. International

Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. Bulletin XXI. 86 p.

Brannon, E. L. 1982. Orientation mechanisms of homing salmonids. Pages 219-227 in E. L.

Brannon and E. O. Salo, editors. Proceedings of salmon and trout migratory behavior

symposium School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Brannon, E. L. 1984. Influence of stock origin on salmon migratory behavior. Pages 103-112

in, J. D. McCleave, G. P. Arnold, J. J. Dodson, and W. H. Neill, editors. Mechanisms of

Migration in Fishes. Plenum Press, New York.

Brannon, E. L. 1987. Mechanisms stabilizing salmonid fry emergence timing. Pages 120-124

in H. D. Smith, L. Margolis, and C. C. Wood, editors. Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus

nerka) populations biology and future management. Canadian Special Publication of

Fisheries Aquatic Sciences 96.

Brannon, E. L., and T. P. Quinn. 1990. Field test of the pheromone hypothesis for homing by

Pacific salmon. Journal of Chemical Ecology 16(2):603-609.

Brett, J. R., J. E. Shelborn, and C. T. Shoop. 1969. Growth rate and body composition of

fingerling sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, in relation to temperature and ration size.

Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 26:2363-2394.

Brown, L. G. 1995. Mid-Columbia River summer steelhead stock assessment: a summary of

the Priest Rapids steelhead sampling project 1986-1994 cycles. Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife Progress Report No. AF95-02.

Bryant, E. H., and L. M. Meffert. 1991. The effects of bottlenecks on genetic variation, fitness,

and quantitative traits in the housefly. Pages 591-601 in E. C. Dudley, editor. The unity of

evolutionary biology, volume 2. Dioscorides Press, Portland, Oregon.

Bryant, E. H., S. A. McCommas, and L. M. Combs. 1986. The effect of an experimental

bottleneck upon quantitative genetic variation in the housefly. Genetics 114:1191-1211.

Bugert, R. M., C. W. Hopley, C. A. Busack, and G. W. Mendel. 1995. Pages 267-276 in H. L.

Schramm, Jr., and R. G. Piper, editors. Uses and effects of cultured fishes in aquatic

ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Burger, R., and M. Lynch. 1995. Evolution and extinction in changing environment: a

quantitative genetic analysis. Evolution 49:151-163.

Burton, R. S. 1987. Differentiation and integration of the genome in populations of Tigriopus

californicus. Evolution 41:504-513.
143

Burton, R. S. 1990a. Hybrid breakdown in physiological response: a mechanistic approach.

Evolution 44:1806-1813.

Burton, R. S. 1990b. Hybrid breakdown in developmental time in copepod Tigriopus

californicus. Evolution 44:1814-1822.

Busack, C. A., and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Introgressive hybridization in populations of Paiute

cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki seleniris). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

38:939-951.

Busack, C. A., and K. P. Currens. 1995. Genetic risks and hazards in hatchery operations:

fundamental concepts and issues. Pages 71-80 in H. L. Schramm, Jr. and R. G. Piper,

editors. Uses and effects of cultured fishes in aquatic ecosystems. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Caballero, A. 1994. Developments in the prediction of effective population size. Heredity

73:657-679.

Calkins, R. , W. Durand, and W. Rich. 1939. Report of the board of consultants on the fish

problems of the upper Columbia River. Stanford University. Stanford, California.

Campton, D. E. 1995. Genetic effects of hatchery fish on wild populations of Pacific salmon

and steelhead: what do we really know? Pages 337-353 in H. L. Schramm, Jr. and R. G.

Piper, editors. Uses and effects of cultured fishes in aquatic ecosystems. American Fisheries

Society 15, Bethesda, Maryland.

Campton, D.E. 1998. Genetic effects of hatcheries on wild populations of Pacific salmon and

steelhead: Overview of fact and speculation. Pages 1-18 in E. Brannon and W. Kinsel,

editors. Proceedings of Columbia River anadromous rehabilitation and passage symposium.

Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho and Mechanical

Engineering, Washington State University, Richland Washington.

Campton, D. E., and J. M. Johnston. 1985. Electrophoretic evidence for a genetic admixture of

native and nonnative rainbow trout in the Yakima River, Washington. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 114:782-793.

Carmichael, R. W., and R. T. Messmer. 1995. Status of supplementing chinook salmon natural

production in the Imnaha River Basin. Pages 284-291 in H. L. Schramm, Jr., and R. G.

Piper, editors. Uses and effects of cultured fishes in aquatic ecosystems. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Chilcote, M. W., S. A. Leider, and J. J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive success of

hatchery and wild summer-run steelhead under natural conditions. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 115:726-735.

Cichosz, T.A., J.P. Shields, and K.D. Underwood. 1996. Lake Roosevelt Fisheries and

Limnological Research. 1996 Annual Report. Prepared for the Bonneville Power
144

Administration. Project No. 94-043. Portland OR.

Clark, J., and B. McCarl. 1983. An investigation of the relationship between Oregon coho

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) hatchery releases and adult production utilizing law of the

minimum regression. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Science 40(4): 516-523.

Cobb, J. N. 1930. Pacific salmon fisheries. Bureau of Fisheries Document, number 1092.

Washington, DC.

Cody, M. L., and J. M. Diamond (editors). 1975. Ecology and evolution of communities.

Belknap Press, Cambridge.

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). 1990. Review of the history,

development, and management of anadromous fish production facilities in the Columbia

River Basin. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, Portland, Oregon.

Craig, J. A., and R. L. Hacker. 1940. The history and development of the fisheries of the

Columbia River. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, number 32, Washington, DC.

Cross, T.S., and J. King. 1983. Genetic effects of hatchery rearing in Atlantic salmon.

Aquaculture 33:33-40.

Crow, J., and M. Kimura. 1970. An introduction to population genetics theory. Harper and

Row, New York, New York.

Currens, K. P. 1997. Evolution and risk in conservation of Pacific salmon. Ph.D. dissertation.

Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Currens, K. P., and C. A. Busack. 1995. A framework for assessing genetic vulnerability.

Fisheries 20(12):24-31.

Currens, K. P., A. R. Hemmingsen, R. A. French, D. V. Buchanan, C. B. Schreck, and H. W. Li.

1997. Introgression and susceptibility to disease in a wild population of rainbow trout.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:1065-1078.

Currens, K. P., C. B. Schreck, and H. W. Li. 1990. Allozyme and morphological divergence of

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) above and below waterfalls in the Deschutes River,

Oregon. Copeia 1990:730-746.

Darwin, C. 1898. The variation of animals and plants under domestication, volume 2.

Appleton, New York, New York.

Dehart, D. A. 1997. Comments on Return to the River. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Delarm, M. R., E. Wold, and R. Z. Smith. 1987. Columbia river fisheries development program

annual report for FY 1986. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWR - 21, Seattle,

Washington.
145

Deng, H. -W., and M. Lynch. 1996. Change of genetic architecture in response to sex. Genetics

143:203-212.

Dobzhansky, T. 1948. Genetics of natural populations. XVIII. Experiments on chromosomes

of Drosophila pseudoobscura from different geographical regions. Genetics 33:588-602.

Doyle, R. W. 1983. An approach to the quantitative analysis of domestication in aquaculture.

Aquaculture 33:167-185.

Dwyer, W. P., and B. D. Rosenlund. 1988. Role of fish culture in the reestablishment of

greenback cutthroat trout. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4:75-80.

Dyson, F. 1997. Imagined worlds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Emlen, J.M., R.R. Reisenbichler, A.M. McGie, and T.E. Nickelson. 1990. Density-dependence at

sea for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada

47: 1765-1772.

Emlen, J. M. 1991. Heterosis and outbreeding depression: a multilocus model and an

application to salmon production. Fisheries Research 12:187-212.

Falconer, D. S., and T. F. C. Mackay. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th edition.

Longman, Harlow, United Kingdom.

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.

Fish, F. F., and M. G. Hanavan. 1948. A Report upon the Grand Coulee fish-maintenance project

1939-1947. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Flagg, T. A., C. V. W. Mahnken, and K. A. Johnson. 1995b. Captive brood stocks for recovery

of Snake River sockeye salmon. Pages 81-90 in H. L Schramm, Jr. and R. G. Piper, editors.

Uses and effects of cultured fishes in aquatic ecosystems. American Fisheries Society

Symposium 15, Bethesda, Maryland

Flagg, T. A., F. W. Waknitz, D. J. Maynard, G. B. Milner, and C. V. W. Mahken. 1995a. The

effect of hatcheries on native coho salmon populations in the lower Columbia River. Pages

366-375 in H. L. Schramm, Jr., and R. G. Piper. Uses and effects of cultured fishes in

aquatic ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15, Bethesda, Maryland.

Fleming, I. A., and M. R. Gross. 1989. Evolution of adult female life history and morphology in

a Pacific salmon coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Evolution 43:141-157.

Fleming, I. A., and M. R. Gross. 1992. Reproductive behavior of hatchery and wild coho

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)— does it differ? Aquaculture 103:101-121.
146

Fleming, I. A., and M. R. Gross. 1993. Breeding success of hatchery and wild coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) in competition. Ecological Applications 3:230-245.

Fleming, I. A., and M .R. Gross. 1994. Breeding competition in a Pacific salmon (coho:

Oncorhynchus kisutch): measures of natural and sexual selection. Evolution 48:637-657.

Fleming, I. A., B. Jonsson, M. R. Gross, and A. Lamberg. 1996. An experimental study of the

reproductive behavior and success of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon. Journal of Applied

Ecology 33:893-905.

Forster, I.P., and R.W. Hardy. 1995. Captive salmon brood stock nutrition literature in review.

Pages 4-1 to 4-38 in T.A. Flagg and C.V. Mahnken, editors. An assessment of the status of

captive brood stock technology for Pacific salmon. Final report, U.S. Department of Energy,

Bonneville Power Administration, Environment, Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Project 93-56.

Forbes, S. H., and F. W. Allendorf. 1991. Associations between mitochondrial and nuclear

genotypes in cutthroat trout hybrid swarms. Evolution 45:1332-1349.

Francis, R. and S. Hare. 1994. Decadal-scale regime shifts in the large marine ecosystems of the

Northeast Pacific: A case for historical science. Fisheries Oceanography, 3(4): 270-291.

Frankham, R. 1997. Do island populations have lower genetic variation than mainland

populations? Heredity 78:311-327.

Frankham, R. 1998. Inbreeding and extinction: island populations. Conservation Biology

12:665-675.

Frankham, R., H. Hemmer, O. A. Ryder, E. G. Cothran, M. E. Soule, N. D. Murrray, and M.

Snyder. 1986. Selection in captive populations. Zoo Biology 5:127-138

Fuss, H.J. 1998. Hatcheries are a tool: They are as food or as bad as the management goals that

guide them. Pages 19-28 in E. Brannon and W. Kinsel, editors. Proceedings of Columbia

River anadromous rehabilitation and passage symposium. Aquaculture Research Institute,

University of Idaho, Moscow, ID and Mechanical Engineering, Washington State University,

Richland, Washington.

Gharrett, A. J., and S. M. Shirley. 1985. A genetic examination of spawning methodology in a

salmon hatchery. Aquaculture 47:245-256.

Gharrett, A. J., and W. W. Smoker. 1991. Two generations of hybrids between even- and oddyear pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha): a test for outbreeding depression? Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:1744-1749.

Gilbert, C. H. 1913. Age at maturity of the Pacific coast salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus.

(1910-1914). Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, volume 32, Washington, DC.
147

Gilpin, M. E. 1987. Spatial structure and population vulnerability. Pages 87-124 in M. E.

Soule, editor. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York,

New York.

Goodnight, C. J. 1987. On the effect of founder events on epistatic genetic variance. Evolution

41:80-91.

Goodnight, C. J. 1988. Epistasis and the effect of founder events on the additive genetic

variance. Evolution 42:441-454.

Green, D. M., Jr. 1964. A comparison of stamina of brook trout from wild and domestic

parents. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 93:96-100.

Grenfell, B. T., and A. P. Dobson (editors). 1995. Ecology of infectious diseases in natural

populations. The Newton Institute, Cambridge, UK.

Gyllensten, U., R. F. Leary, F. W. Allendorf, and A. C. Wilson. 1985. Introgression between

two cutthroat trout subspecies with substantial karyotypic, nuclear, and mitochondrial

genomic divergence. Genetics 111:905-915.

Hagger, R.C., and R.E. Noble. 1976. Relation of size at time of release study. Columbia River

study analysis and documentation completion report. Salmon Culture Division. Washington

Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington

Harden, J. B. S. 1930. A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. Part 4.

Isolation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 26:220-230.

Hanski, I., and M. Gilpin. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: Brief history and conceptual

domain. Biological Journal of Linnean Society 42:3-16.

Hanson, W. D. 1966. Effects of partial isolation (distance), migration, and different fitness

requirements among environmental pockets upon steady state gene frequencies. Biometrics

22:453-468.

Hard, J. J., R. P. Jones, Jr., M. R. Delarm, and R. S. Waples. 1992. Pacific salmon and artificial

propagation under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-2.

Hayden, M. V. 1930. History of the salmon industry of Oregon. Master’s Thesis University of

Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.

Hedrick, P. W., D. Hedgecock, and S. Hamelberg. 1995. Effective population size in winter-run

chinook salmon. Conservation Biology 9:615-624.

Herrig, D. 1998. Lower Snake River compensation Plan Background. Pages 14-20 in Lower

Snake River compensation plan status review symposium. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Boise, Idaho.
148

Hindar, K., N. Ryman, and F. Utter. 1991. Genetic effects of cultured fish on natural fish

populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:945-957.

Houlden, B. A., P. R. England, A. C. Taylor, W. D. Grenville, and W. B. Sherwin. 1996. Low

genetic variability of the koala Phascolarctos cinereus in south-eastern Australia following a

severe population bottleneck. Molecular Ecology 5:269-281.

Hublou, W. F. 1963. Oregon pellets. Progressive Fish Culturist 23:175-180.

Hume, R. D. 1893. Salmon of the Pacific coast. Schmidt Label & Lithographic Co., San

Francisco, California.

Independent Scientific Group. 1996. Return to the river. Northwest Power Planning Council,

Portland, Oregon.

Independent Scientific Group (Richard N. Williams, chair; Peter A. Bisson; Daniel L. Bottom;

Lyle D. Calvin; Charles C. Coutant; Michael W. Erho, Jr.; Christopher A. Frissell; James A.

Lichatowich; William J. Liss; Willis E. McConnaha; Phillip R. Mundy; Jack A. Stanford;

and Richard R. Whitney). 1999. Scientific Issues in the Restoration of Salmonid Fishes in

the Columbia River. Fisheries 24, No. 3, 10-19.

Independent Scientific Group (Richard N. Williams, chair; Peter A. Bisson; Daniel L. Bottom;

Lyle D. Calvin; Charles C. Coutant; Michael W. Erho, Jr.; Christopher A. Frissell; James A.

Lichatowich; William J. Liss; Willis E. McConnaha; Phillip R. Mundy; Jack A. Stanford;

and Richard R. Whitney). 1999. Return to the River: An Ecological Vision for the

Recovery of the Columbia River Salmon. Environmental Law 28, No.3, 503-518.

Independent Scientific Review Panel. 1997. Review of the Columbia River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Program as directed by the 1996 amendment to the Power Act. Report of the

Independent Scientific Review Panel for the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland,

Oregon.

Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT). 1994. Policies and procedures for Columbia

Basin anadromous salmonid hatcheries. Bonneville Power Administration DOE/EP-2432,

Portland, OR.

International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. Annual Reports. New Westminster, British

Columbia, Canada.

Ishida, Y., S. Ito, M. Kaeriyama, S. McKinnell, and K. Nagasawa. 1993. Recent changes in age

and size of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in the North Pacific Ocean and Possible

Causes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 290-295.

Jimenez, J., H. Kimberly, G. Alaks, L. Graham, and R. Lacy. 1994. An experimental

study of inbreeding depression in a natural habitat. Science 266:271-273.

Johnson, S. L. 1984. Freshwater environmental problems and coho production in Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Report 84-11, Corvallis, Oregon.
149

Johnson, R. C. 1972. Potential interspecific problems between hatchery coho smolts and juvenile

pink and chum salmon. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.

Jonsson, B. 1997. A review of ecological and behavioural interactions between cultured and wild

Atlantic salmon. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 1031-1039.

Kallio-Nyberg, I., and M. -L. Koljonen. 1997. The genetic consequences of hatchery-rearing on

life-history traits of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.): a comparative analysis of sea-ranched

salmon with wild and reared parents. Aquaculture 153:207-224.

Kohane, M. J., and P. A. Parsons. 1988. Domestication: evolutionary change under stress.

Evolutionary Biology 23:31-48.

Krebs, C. J. 1985. Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. Harper

and Row, New York.

Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455-1460.

Lande, R., and S. Shannon. 1996. The role of genetic variation in adaptation and population

persistence in a changing environment. Evolution 50:434-437.

Lavier, D. C. 1976. Major dams on Columbia River and tributaries. Investigative Reports of

Columbia River Fisheries Project, Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, Vancouver,

Washington.

Laythe, L. L. 1948. The fishery development program in the Lower Columbia River.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 78th Annual Meeting September 13-15,

1948, Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Leary, R. F., F. W. Allendorf, S. R. Phelps, and K. L. Knudsen. 1984. Introgression between

westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout in the Clark Fork River drainage, Montana.

Proceedings of the Montana Academy of Sciences 43:1-18.

Leary, R. F., F. W. Allendorf, and G. K. Sage. 1995. Hybridization and introgression between

introduced and native fish. Uses and defects of cultured fishes in aquatic ecosystems. Pages

91-101 in H. L. Schramm and R. G. Piper. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15.

Bethesda, Maryland.

Leberg, P. L. 1990. Influence of genetic variability on population growth: implications for

conservation. Journal of Fish Biology 37(Supplement A):193-195.

Leberg, P. L. 1992. Effects of population bottlenecks on genetic diversity as measured by

allozyme electrophoresis. Evolution 46:477-494.

Leberg, P. L. 1993. Strategies for population reintroduction: effects of genetic variability on

population growth and size. Conservation Biology 7:194-199.
150

Lehman, M., R. K. Wayne, and B. S. Stewart. 1993. Comparative levels of genetic variability in

harbour seals and northern elephant seals as determined by genetic fingerprinting.

Symposium of the Zoological Society London 66:49-60.

Leider, S. A., P. L. Hulett, J. J. Loch, and M. W. Chilcote. 1990. Electrophoretic comparison of

the reproductive success of naturally spawning transplanted and wild steelhead trout through

the returning adult stage. Aquaculture 88:239-252.

Lichatowich, J. A., and J. D. McIntyre. 1987. Use of hatcheries in the management of Pacific

anadromous salmonids. American Fisheries Symposium 1: 131-136.

Lichatowich, J. A. 1993. Ocean carrying capacity: Recovery issues for threatened and

endangered Snake River salmon. Bonneville Power Administration, Technical Report 6 of

11, DOE/BP-99654-6, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of

Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Lichatowich, J. A., 1996. A review of Trout Unlimited’s salmon restoration projects in the

southern Puget Sound. DRAFT Report. 40 p.

Lichatowich, J. A., L. E. Mobrand, L. Lestelle, and T. S. Vogel. 1995. An approach to the

diagnosis and treatment of depleted Pacific Salmon populations in Pacific Northwest

watersheds. Fisheries 20:10-18.

Lichatowich, J. A., L. E. Mobrand, R. J. Costello, and T. S. Vogel. 1996. A history of

frameworks used in the management of Columbia River chinook salmon. A report prepared

for Bonneville Power Administration included in Report DOE/BP 33243-1, Portland,

Oregon.

Lorenzen, K., S. A. Des Clers, and K. Anders. 1991. Population dynamics of lymphocystis

disease in estuarine flounder, Platichthys flesus. Journal of Fish Biology 39:577-587.

Lotka, A. J. 1925. Elements of physical biology. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.

Lush, J. L. 1937. Animal breeding plans. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Lynch, M. 1991. The genetic interpretation of inbreeding depression and outbreeding

depression. Evolution 45:622-629.

Lynch, M. 1996. A quantitative-genetic perspective on conservation issues. Page 471-501 in J.

C. Avise and J. L. Hamrick, editor. Conservation genetics: case histories from nature.

Chapman & Hall, New York, New York.

Lynch, M., and B. Walsh. 1998. Genetics and the analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer

Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Mesa, M. G., T. P. Poe, A. G. Maule, and C. B. Schreck. 1998. Vulnerability to predation and

physiological stress responses in juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

experimentally infected with Renibacterium salmoninarum. Canadian Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Sciences 55(7): 1599-1606.
151

Modin, J. 1998. Whirling disease in California: a review of its history, distribution, and

impacts, 1965-1997. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 10:132-142.

Mahnken, C., G. Ruggerone, W. Waknitz, and T. Flagg. In press(1997). A historical

perspective on salmonid production from north rim hatcheries. Proceedings of the NPAFC,

Bulletin Number 1, “Assessment and status of Pacific rim salmonid stocks.”

Maitland, J. R. G. 1884. The culture of salmonidae and the acclimatization of fish. In The

Fisheries Exhibition Literature, International Fisheries Exhibition, London, 1883. William

Clowes and Sons, Limited, London, England.

May, R. M., and R. M. Anderson. 1979. Population biology of infectious diseases: part 2.

Nature (London) 280:455-461.

Maynard, D. J., T. A. Flagg, and C. V. W. Mahnken. 1995. A review of seminatural culture

strategies for enhancing the postrelease survival of anadromous salmonids. Pages 307-314 in

H. L. Schramm and R. G. Piper (eds.), Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic

Ecosystems, American Fisheries Society Symposium 15, Bethesda, MD.

McCabe, G. T., Jr., C. W. Long, and S. L. Leek. 1983. Survival and homing of juvenile coho

salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, transported by barge. Fishery Bulletin 81:412-415.

McCarl, B.A., and R.B. Rettig. 1983. Influence of hatchery smolt releases on adult salmon

production and its variability. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 40: 1880-1886.

McDonald, M. 1894. Address of the Chairman of the General Committee on the World’s

Fisheries Congress. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, volume 13 (1893),

Washington, DC.

McGie, A. M. 1983. Commentary: Short-term climatic variability in the Northeast Pacific

Ocean. Pages 37-49 in W. G. Pearcy (ed.), The Influence of Ocean Conditions on the

Production of Salmonids in the North Pacific, Oregon State University Sea Grant, Corvallis,

Oregon, ORESU-W-83-001.

McIntosh, R. 1985. The background of ecology, concept and theory. Cambridge Studies in

Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.

McMichael, G. A., C. S. Sharpe, and T. N. Pearsons. 1997. Effects of residual hatchery-reared

steelhead on growth of wild rainbow trout and spring chinook salmon. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 126(2): 230-239.

McNeil, W. J. 1991. Sea ranching of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon. Pages 1-

10 in T. Pedersen and E. Kjørsvik, editors. Proceedings from the symposium and workshop

21-23 October, 1990, Bergen, Norway. Norwegian Society for Aquaculture Research and

Institute of Marine Research, Division of Aquaculture, Bergen, Norway.
152

McVicar, A. H. 1997. Disease and parasite implications of the coexistence of wild and cultured

Atlantic salmon populations. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 1093-1103.

Messmer, R. T., R. W. Carmichael, M. W. Flesher, and T. A. Whitesel. 1992. Evaluation of

Lower Snake River compensation plan facilities in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Mitton, J. B. 1993. Theory and data pertinent to the relationship between heterozygosity and

fitness. Pages 17-41 in T. W. Thornhill, editor. The natural history of inbreeding and

outbreeding. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group. The role of stocking in bull trout recovery. 1996.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana.

Moyle, P. B. 1969. Comparative behavior of young brook trout of wild and hatchery origin.

Progressive Fish-Culturist 31:51-56.

Mullan, J. W., K. R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T. W. Hillman, and J. D. McIntyre. 1992. Production

and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia River tributary streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Monograph I, Washington, DC.

National Fish Hatchery Review Panel (NFHRP). 1994. Report of the National Fish Hatchery

Review Panel. The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virginia.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific

Northwest. Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous

Salmonids, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C.

Neitzel, D. 1998. Preliminary IHOT database information. Submitted to the SRT on July 30,

1998. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Netboy, A. 1986. the damming of the Columbia River: The failure of bio-engineering. Pp 33-48

in E. Goldsmith and N. Hilyard, eds. The Social and Environmental Effects of Large DamsVolume 2: Case Studies. Wadebridge Ecological Centre, UK.

Newman, D., and D. Pilson. 1997. Increased probability of extinction due to decreased genetic

effective population size: experimental population of Clarkia pulchella. Evolution 51:354-

362.

Nickelson, T. E. 1986. Influences of upwelling, ocean temperature, and smolt abundance on

marine survival of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Oregon production area.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 43(3): 527-535.

Nickelson, T.E. and J.A. Lichatowich. 1983. The influence of the marine environment on the

interannual variation in coho salmon abundance: An overview. Pages 24-36 in W. G. Pearcy

(ed.), The Influence of Ocean Conditions on the Production of Salmonids in the North

Pacific, Oregon State University Sea Grant, Corvallis, Oregon, ORESU-W-83-001.
153

Nickelson, T. E., M. F. Solazzi, and S. L. Johnson. 1986. Use of hatchery coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) presmolts to rebuild wild populations in Oregon coastal streams.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43(12): 2443-2449

Olla, b. L., M. W. Davis, and C. H. Ryer. 1998. Understanding how hatchery environment

represses or promotes the development of behavioral survival skills Bulletin Marine Science

62: 531-550.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1982. Comprehensive plan for production

and management of Oregon’s anadromous salmon and trout. Part I. General Considerations.

Portland, OR.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Department of Fisheries (ODFW and

WDF). 1993. Status report: Columbia River fish runs and fisheries 1938-92. Portland,

Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 1998. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife draft predation action plan: Avian Species. Portland, OR.

Oregon Fish and Game Commission (OFGC). 1919. Biennial report of the Fish and Game

Commission of the State of Oregon. Salem, Oregon.

Oregon State Board of Fish Commissioners (OSBFC). 1888. First report of the State Board of

Fish Commissioners to the Governor of Oregon. Salem, Oregon.

Oregon State Board of Fish Commissioners (OSBFC). 1890. Fourth annual report of the State

Board of Fish Commissioners for 1890. Salem, Oregon.

Oregon State Fish and Game Protector (OSFGP). 1896. Third and fourth annual reports of the

State Fish and Game Protector of the State of Oregon, 1895-1896. State of Oregon, Salem,

Oregon.

Pacific Salmon Commission. Annual Reports. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Paragamian, V. L. 1994. Kootenai River Fisheries Investigation: Stock status of burbot and

rainbow trout and fisheries inventory. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Annual Progress

report, FY 94, Project No. 88-65, Boise, ID.

Parker, R. P. 1971. Size selective predation among juvenile salmonid fishes in a British

Columbia inlet. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 28: 1503-1510.

Patterson, K. R. 1996. Modelling the impact of disease-induced mortality in an exploited

population: the outbreak of the fungal parasite Ichthyophonus hoferi in the North Sea herring

(Clupea harengus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:2870-2887.

Peterman, R. M. 1984. Density-dependent growth in early ocean life of sockeye salmon

(Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41(12): 1825-

1829.
154

Petersson, E., T. Jarvi, N. G. Steffner, and B. Ragnarsson. 1996. The effect of domestication

selection on some life history traits of sea trout and Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish Biology

48:776-791.

Quattro, J. M., and R. C. Vrijenhoek. 1989. Fitness differences among remnant populations of

the Sonoran topminnow, Poeciliopsis occidentalis. Science 245:976-978.

Quinn, T. P. 1993. A review of homing and straying of wild and hatchery-produced salmon.

Fisheries Research 18:29-44.

Quinn, T. P. 1997. Homing, straying, and colonization. Pages 73-85 in W. S. Grant, editor.

Genetic effects of straying of non-native hatchery fish into natural populations: proceedings

of the workshop. U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSNWFSC-30.

Quinn T. P., E. L. Brannon, and A. H. Dittman. 1990. Spatial aspects of imprinting and homing

in coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 87:769-774.

Quinn, T. P., J. L. Nielsen, C. Gan, M. J. Unwin, R. Wilmot, C. Guthrie, and F. M. Utter. 1996.

Origin and genetic structure of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, transplanted

from California to New Zealand: allozyme and mtDNA evidence. Fishery Bulletin 94:506-

521.

Reno, P. W. 1998. Factors involved in the dissemination of disease in fish populations. Journal

of Aquatic Animal Health 10:160-171.

Rieman, R. E., R. C. Beamesderfer, S. Vigg, and T. P. Poe. 1991. Estimated loss of juvenile

salmonids to predation by northern squawfish, walleyes, and smallmouth bass in John Day

Reservoir, Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 448-458.

Reisenbichler, R. R. 1998. Questions and partial answers about supplementation - genetic

differences between hatchery fish and wild fish. Pages 29-38 in E. Brannon and W. Kinsel

editors. Proceedings of Columbia river Anadromous rehabilitation and Passage Symposium.

Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho and Mechanical

Engineering, Washington State University, Richland, Washington.

Reisenbichler, R. R., and J. D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and survival of

juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of

Canada 34:123-128.

Reisenbichler, R. R., and S. R. Phelps. 1989. Genetic variation in steelhead (Salmo gairdneri)

from the north coast of Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

46:66-73.

Reisenbichler, R. R., J. D. McIntyre, M. F. Solazzi, and S. W. Landino. 1992. Genetic variation

in steelhead of Oregon and Northern California. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 121:158-169.
155

Rich, S. S., A. E. Bell, and S. P. Wilson. 1979. Genetic drift in small populations of Tribolium.

Evolution 33:579-584.

Rich, W. H. 1920. Early history and seaward migration of chinook salmon in the Columbia and

Sacramento Rivers. Bulletin of U. S. Bureau of Fisheries Number 37, Washington, DC.

Rich, W. H. 1922. A statistical analysis of the results of artificial propagation of chinook

salmon. Document located in the manuscript library, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries

Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

Rich, W. H. 1941. The present state of the Columbia River salmon resources. Department of

Research, Fish Commission of the State of Oregon, Contribution Number 3, 425-430, Salem,

Oregon.

Rich, W. H. 1948. A survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries with special reference to

the management of its fishery resources. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific

Report Number 51, Washington, DC.

Rich, W. H., and H. B. Holmes. 1929 . Experiments in marking young chinook salmon on the

Columbia River, 1916 to 1927. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, Document Number 1047,

Washington, DC.

Richey, J. E., M. A. Perkins, and C. R. Goldman. 1975. Effects of kokanee salmon

(Oncorhynchus nerka) decomposition on the ecology of a subalpine stream. J. Fish. Res. Bd.

Can. 32:817-820.

Ricker, W. E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid

populations. Pages 19-160 in R. C. Simon and P. A. Larkin, editors. The stock concept in

Pacific salmon. H. R. McMillan Lectures in Fisheries, University of British Columbia,

Vancouver.

Rinne, J. N., J. E. Johnson, B. L. Jensen, A. W. Ruger, and R. Sorenson. 1986. The role of

hatcheries in the management and recovery of threatened and endangered fishes. In: R. H.

Stroud (editor). Fish culture in fisheries management, p. 271-285. Proceedings of a

symposium on the role of fish culture in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Roby, D. D., D. P. Craig, K. Collis, and S. L. Adamany. 1998. Avian predation on juvenile

salmonids in the lower Columbia River. 1997 Annual Report of Research. Bonneville

Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Portland, Oregon.

Roff, D. A. 1997. Evolutionary quantitative genetics. Chapman and Hall, New York, New

York.

Rogers, D. E. 1980. Density-dependent growth of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon. Pages 267-283 in

W. J. McNeil and D. C. Himsworth (eds.) Salmonid Ecosystems of the North Pacific. Oregon

State University Press, Corvallis, OR.
156

Royal, L. A. 1972. An examination of the anadromous trout program of the Washington State

Game Department. Washington Department of Game, Olympia, WA.

Ryman, N., and G. Stahl. 1980. Genetic changes in hatchery stocks of brown trout (Salmo

trutta). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:82-87.

Ryman, N., and L. Laikre. 1991. Effects of supportive breeding on the genetically effective

population size. Conservation Biology 5:325-329.

Ryman, N., P. E. Jorde, and L. Laikre. 1995. Supportive breeding and variance effective

population size. Conservation Biology 9:1619-1628.

Saccheri, M. K., M. Kuussaari, M. Kankare, P. Vikman, W. Fortelius, and I. Hanski. 1998.

Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392:491-494.

Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum viable population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience

31:131-134.

Sattaur, O. 1989. The threat of the well-bred salmon. New Scientist April 29.

Scientific Review Team (Brannon, E. L., K. P. Currens, D. Goodman, J. A. Lichatowich, W. E.

McConnaha, B. E. Riddell, and R. N. Williams) 1998. 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 Report 98-33.

Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR.

Scott, M. E., and R. M. Anderson. 1984. The population dynamics of Gyrodactylus bullatarudis

(Monogenea) within laboratory populations of the fish host Poecilia reticulata. Parasitology

89:159-194.

Shively, R. S., T. P. Poe, and S. T. Sauter. 1996. Feeding response by northern squawfish to

hatchery release of juvenile salmonids in the Clearwater River, Idaho. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 125(2): 230-236.

Sholes, W. H., and R. J. Hallock. 1979. An evaluation of rearing fall-run chinook salmon,

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, to yearlings at Feather River Hatchery, with a comparison of

returns from hatchery and downstream releases. California Fish and Game 64: 239-255.

Shields, W. M. 1982. Philopatry, inbreeding, and the evolution of sex. State University of New

York Press, Albany, New York.

Shiewe, M. H., T. A. Flagg, and B. A. Berejikian. 1997. The use of captive brood stocks for

gene conservation of salmon in the western United States. Bulletin of Natural Resource

Institute Aquaculture Supplement 3:29-34.

Simon, R. C., J. D. McIntyre, and A. R. Hemmingsen. 1986. Family size and effective

population size in a hatchery stock of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:2434-2442.
157

Slatkin, M. 1985. Gene flow in natural populations. Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics 16:393-430.

Smith, E. V. 1919. Fish culture methods in the hatcheries of the State of Washington.

Washington State Fish Commissioner, Olympia, Washington.

Smith, T. D. 1994. Scaling fisheries: the science of measuring the effects of fishing, 1855-1955.

Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.

Solazzi, M. F., T. E. Nickelson, and S. L. Johnson. 1991. Survival, contribution, and return of

hatchery coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) released into freshwater, estuarine, and marine

environments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:248-253.

Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes, and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem

approach to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research

Services Corp., Corvallis, OR.

Steward, C. R., and T. C. Bjornn 1990. Supplementation of salmon and steelhead stocks with

hatchery fish: A synthesis of published literature. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville

Power Administration Project 88-100. Portland, OR.

Stone, L. 1879. Report of operations at the salmon-hatching station on the Clackamas River,

Oregon, in 1877. Part 11 in Part 5, Report of the Commissioner for 1877. U. S. Commission

of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, DC.

Stone, L. 1884. The artificial propagation of salmon in the Columbia River basin. Transactions

of the American Fish-Cultural Association. 13th annual meeting May 13-14, 1884, New

York, New York.

Strong, D. R. 1986. Density vague population change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 1:39-

42.

Swain, D. P., and B. E. Riddell. 1990. Variation in agonistic behavior between newly emerged

juveniles from hatchery and wild populations of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:566-577.

Tave, D. 1993. Genetics for fish hatchery managers, second edition. AVI, New York, New

York.

Taylor, E. B. 1991. A review of local adaptation in Salmonidae, with particular reference to

Pacific and Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 98:185-207.

Templeton, A. R. 1986. Coadaptation, local adaptation, and outbreeding depression. Pages

105-116 in M. E. Soule, editor. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity.

Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Thompson, W. F. 1951. An outline for salmon research in Alaska. Fisheries Research Institute,

University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
158

Thornhill, N. W. (editor). 1993. The natural history of inbreeding and outbreeding. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. White Sturgeon: Kootenai River

Population. Draft Final Recovery Plan. Prepared by Region 1 USFWS. Portland, OR.

Utter, F. M., D. W. Chapman, and A. R. Marshall. 1995. Genetic population structure and

history of chinook salmon of the Upper Columbia River. American Fisheries Society

Symposium 17:149-165.

Van Cleve, R., and R. Ting. 1960. The condition of salmon stocks in the John Day, Umatilla,

Walla Walla, Grande Ronde, and Imnaha Rivers as reported by various fisheries agencies.

University of Washington, Department of Oceanography, Seattle, Washington.

Vincent, E. R. 1987. Effects of stocking catchable-size hatchery rainbow trout on two wild trout

species in the Madison River and O’Dell Creek, Montana. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 7(1): 91-105.

Vincent, R. E. 1960. Some influences of domestication upon three stocks of brook trout

(Salvelinus fontinalis Mitchell). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 89:35-52.

Volterra, V. 1926. Variazione e fluttuazioni de numero d’individui in specie animali conviventi.

Mem. Acdad. Lincei 2:31-113.

Vreeland, R. R. 1989. Evaluation of the contribution of fall chinook salmon reared at Columbia

River hatcheries to the Pacific salmon fisheries. Bonneville Power Administration, Report

No. DOE/BP-39638-4, Portland, Oregon.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1996. Conservation genetics of North American desert fishes. Pages 367-397

in

J. C. Avise and J. L. Hamrick, editors. Conservation genetics: case histories from nature.

Chapman and Hall, New York, New York.

Vuorinen, J. 1984. Reduction of genetic variability in a hatchery stock of brown trout, Salmo

trutta. Journal of Fish Biology 24:339-348.

Wahle, R.J., and R.R. Vreeland. 1978. Bioeconomic contribution to Columbia River hatchery

fall chinook salmon, 1961 and 1964 broods, to the Pacific salmon fisheries. Fisheries Bulletin

76:179-208.

Wahle, R.J., R.R. Vreeland, and R.H. Lander. 1974. Bioeconomic contribution of Columbia

River hatchery coho salmon, 1965 and 1966 broods, to the Pacific salmon fisheries.

Fisheries Bulletin 72(1):139-169.

Wallis, J. 1964. An evaluation of the Bonneville salmon hatchery. Oregon Fish Commission

Research Laboratory, Clackamas, Oregon.
159

Waples, R. S. 1990a. Conservation genetics of Pacific salmon. II. Effective population size and

rate of loss of genetic variability. Journal of Heredity 81:267-276.

Waples, R. S. 1990b. Conservation genetics of Pacific salmon. III. Estimating effective

population size. Journal of Heredity 81:277-289.

Waples, R. S. 1991. Genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids: lessons from

the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:124-133.

Waples, R. S. 1995. Genetic effects of stock transfers of fish. Pages 51-69 in D. Philipp, editor.

Protection of aquatic biodiversity: Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress, Theme 3.

Oxford and IBH, New Delhi.

Waples, R. S., and D. J. Teel. 1990. Conservation genetics of Pacific salmon. I. Temporal

changes in allele frequency. Conservation Biology 4:144-155.

Waples, R. S., G. A. Winans, F. M. Utter, and C. Mahnken. 1990. Genetic monitoring of

Pacific salmon hatcheries. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 92.

Ware, D. M., and R. E. Thomson 1991. Link between long-term variability in upwelling and fish

production in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science

48: 2296-2306.

Waser, N. M. 1993. Population structure, optimal outcrossing, and assortative mating in

angiosperms. Pages 1-13 in N. W. Thornhill, editor. The natural history of inbreeding and

outbreeding: theoretical and empirical perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

Illinois.

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). 1953. Biannual Report to the Legislature.

Olympia, Washington.

Washington Department of Fisheries and Game (WDFG). 1921. Thirtieth and thirty-first annual

reports of the State Fish Commissioner to the Governor of the State of Washington. Olympia,

Washington.

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). 1960. Fisheries, fish farming, fisheries

management: conservation-propagation-regulation. Olympia, Washington.

Whalen, J.T. 1989. Biological evaluation of rotenone treatment and first year fish restocking

program on Sprague Lake, Adams County, Washington. MS Thesis, Eastern Washington

University. 151 pp.

White, R., J. R. Karr, and W. Nehlsen. 1995. Better roles for fish stocking in aquatic resource

management. Page 527-547 in H. L. Schramm, Jr. and R. G. Piper (eds.), Uses and Effects of

Cultured Fishes in Aquatic Ecosystems, American Fisheries Society Symposium 15,

Bethesda, MD.
160

Willette, M. 1992. Effects of ocean temperatures and zooplankton abundance on the growth and

survival of juvenile pink salmon in Prince William Sound. report to Prince William Sound

Aquaculture Corporation, Alaska Department or Fish and Game, Cordova, Alaska.

Williams, R. N., D. K. Shiozawa, J. E. Carter, and R. F. Leary. 1996. Genetic detection of

putative hybridization between native and introduced rainbow trout populations of the upper

Snake River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:387-401.

Williams, R. N., R. F. Leary, and K. P. Currens. 1997. Localized genetic effects of a long-term

hatchery stocking program on resident rainbow trout in the Metolius River, Oregon, North

American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17:1079-1093.

Willms, R.A. 1989. The assessment of a developing mixed-species fishery in Sprague Lake,

Washington, following restoration with rotenone. MS Thesis, Eastern Washington

University. 283 pp.

Willms, R.A., A.T. Scholz, J. Whalen. 1989. The assessment of a developing mixed-species

fishery in Sprague Lake, Adams and Lincoln Counties, Washington, following restoration

with rotenone. Final report submitted to Washington State Department of Wildlife.

Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA.

Wishard, L. N., J. E. Seeb, F. M. Utter, and D. Stefan. 1984. A genetic investigation of

suspected redband trout populations. Copeia 1984:120-132.

Withler, R. E. 1988. Genetic consequences of fertilizing chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha) eggs with pooled milt. Aquaculture 68:15-25.

Wood, E. M. 1953. A century of American fish culture, 1853-1953. The Progressive Fish

Culturist, 15:(4)147-160.

Wright, S. 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:111-123.

Wright, S. 1938. Size of population and breeding structure in relation to evolution. Science

87:430-431.

Wright, S. 1943. Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114-138.

Wright, S. 1968. Evolution and the genetics of populations. Volume 1. Genetic and biometric

foundations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Wright, S. 1977. Evolution and the genetics of populations. Volume 3. Experimental results

and evolutionary deductions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
161

Appendix

Regional scientific questions on artificial production addressed in this report:

1. What are the ecological impacts of artificial production in the Columbia River Basin?

General o What are the positive biological/ecological contributions of artificial production

in the Columbia River?

o What are the negative biological/ecological impacts of artificial production in the

Columbia River?

o Does it not make sense to alter stock composition in hatcheries based on ocean

conditions?

Fitness o Can hatcheries be used to rebuild wild, native salmonid populations and maintain

their genetic and life history attributes, their fitness and the evolutionary capacity

of the populations?

o Are hatchery salmonids less fit for survival in the natural freshwater and ocean

environments? If they are, what are the changes that must be made in the

hatchery operation to make hatchery fish as fit as wild fish?

o Is there a differential survival between hatchery and wild salmonids throughout

their life cycle stages? Is there a differential survival rate for hatchery and wild

fish as they encounter the human changes in the system? For example, do wild

and hatchery fish survive dam passage, barging and predation at different rates?

If they do, then should the agencies and tribes in their management programs

acknowledge this differential survival rate?

o Where have hatchery stocks caused the decline or extinction of wild stocks?

Where have hatcheries enhanced the restoration of a wild stock?

o Can the biological diversity, fitness and productivity of a wild, native salmonid

population be maintained with a hatchery?

o Do hatchery programs exist in the Columbia Basin or the region that have been

shown to do a good job supporting biological diversity, genetic and life history

attributes, fitness and productivity of the native population they interact with?

Can they serve as a model for the basin and region?

o Should a coordinated gene flow management policy be developed to control stray

hatchery fish in the basin?

Disease o Are hatchery disease treatment programs likely to create resistant pathogens that

could pose a health risk to wild salmonids? What should be done to eliminate or

manage this risk?

2. What is scientific context for the use of artificial production in the Columbia Basin?

o What are the major research questions associated with artificial production?

o How does the existing level of scientific uncertainty affect the use and

management of artificial production?

o What are the priority research questions that need to be answered to integrate

hatchery and wild production so that there is no loss of fitness and productivity in

either the hatchery or wild populations?

o What is the historic relationship between natural production and harvest?
162

3. How has artificial production performed relative to its management goals?

General o How effective has artificial production been relative to stated objectives in the

Columbia River?

Harvest o How does artificial production affect harvest regimes and vice versa? What has

been the affect of this relationship on natural production?

o How do we mitigate fisheries with the least impact on wild fish?

o As the proportion of hatchery fish increases and harvests are targeted on them, a

mixed stock harvest problem is created where the wild, native population is

exposed to high harvest rates. In this way the hatchery program fuels the harvest

management program and wild fish are overharvested. What are your

recommendations for reducing or terminating this problem? Can hatchery fish be

used as a buffer to protect wild fish or is this a rationalization to justify not

making changes in fishery management?

o If harvest rates are constrained by natural production, then how can we alter

hatcheries to meet compensation goals?

Mitigation o Can hatcheries be used to double the runs and, at the same time, maintain the

biological diversity, fitness and productivity of the individual subbasin

populations? Or is there a conflict between these two goals set forth by the fish

agencies and tribes through the Power Planning Council? What are your

recommendations for resolving this conflict, if it exists?

o Mitigation has been carried out in such a way that the effect is the replacement of

wild, native salmonids with hatchery fish. Is this effective mitigation? Have the

mitigation agreements and goals been met in each relevant case in the Columbia?

If hatchery mitigation is not working, what should it be replaced with that would

protect wild populations?

o Given that hatcheries are a necessary tool to mitigate for lost natural production,

where does is make most sense, (i.e. most effective in production and cost) to

locate production facilities?

o Have mitigation hatcheries been successful in replacing numerical losses in the

basin? Have they been successful in replacing the biological diversity and fitness

of the wild, native runs that were lost?

4. What is the scientific basis for the use of supplementation?

o What is the potential, and what are the associated risks, for artificial production to

augment or supplement natural production in a biologically sound and sustainable

manner?

o What are the hatchery protocols needed to prevent a hatchery population from

diverging from the wild donor population?

o Can it be assumed that a hatchery population derived from a wild donor

population will not diverge from the donor population in genetic, life history

traits, and fitness?

o How should a hatchery program be operated when reintroducing a salmonid

population into a stream where the species has gone extinct if the goal is to

promote a healthy, self-reproducing new population?

o Does hatchery supplementation of wild salmonids work? Is there evidence in the

scientific literature that shows hatchery supplementation is able to maintain the

biological diversity, abundance, distribution, productivity and fitness of the
163

original wild, native population? If not, should the region continue to fund new

hatchery supplementation projects?

o Can these wild native populations be recovered using supplementation where wild

brood stocks are used in the hatchery program?

o Can hatchery supplementation increase the numbers of fish while maintaining the

productivity (fitness) of the affected population over time?

o Should hatchery and wild salmonids be integrated so that they function as single

reproductive unit within a subbasin? Or should the two be kept separate,

including the separation of spawning time to reduce crossbreeding between

hatchery and wild fish?

5. What is the application to residence fish?

________________________________________
164

Appendix 2

Artificial Production Programs and Policy Developments in the

Columbia River Basin

This appendix contains a description of the major anadromous and resident fish artificial

production programs in the Columbia basin, not only the federally funded programs but also

separate hatchery programs associated with FERC-licensed dams and state fish and wildlife

agencies. In addition, the appendix includes a description of the extensive scientific and policy

developments concerning artificial production that the basin has seen since the 1980s, as well as

a look forward to the planning and implementation that can be vehicles for further production

policy reform. Following the narrative description is a table listing the major programs and

facilities and certain relevant information about these programs and facilities (Attachment 1).

Federal and non-federal artificial production programs in the Columbia River Basin

The program descriptions are compiled from a number of sources. Another recent (and

relatively comprehensive) compilation of information about production programs and facilities in

the basin is the recent Biological Opinion on artificial production in the Columbia basin

produced by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Biological Assessments produced by

the various agencies in preparation for the Biological Opinion. For a list of relevant documents

concerning artificial production in the Columbia basin, see the bibliography in Appendix 5.

Federally funded anadromous fish production programs

Mitchell Act hatcheries. Twenty-five hatchery facilities funded by Congress under the

Mitchell Act (also known as the Columbia River Fishery Development Program) are the heart of

federally funded artificial production in the basin. Begun in the 1930s and 40s, and pursued ever

since without a change in the basic legal authorization, the Mitchell Act called for the

“conservation of the fishery resources of the Columbia River” through “one or more salmon

cultural stations” and by other means. The majority of the funds spent under the Mitchell Act

have been used to mitigate for the salmon and steelhead losses that occurred throughout the river

by developing hatchery production in the lower Columbia. Mitchell Act facilities are largely

concentrated in the lower Columbia below Bonneville Dam (16 facilities) or in the Bonneville

Dam pool area (7 facilities). Two facilities are located in the mid-Columbia area upstream of the

confluence with the Snake River. The Mitchell Act program is administered by the National

Marine Fisheries Service, although the facilities are primarily managed and operated by

cooperating agencies, primarily the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Releases from Mitchell Act facilities represent a large portion of all smolts released in the

Columbia River Basin — estimated at one time to be approximately three-quarters of the total

numbers produced and more than one-half of the total weight of all Columbia River Basin

hatchery releases. The proportion of Mitchell Act releases to total basin releases is no longer

quite that large, although Mitchell Act production is still far higher than all other programs —
165

proposed release plans for 1999 show Mitchell Act releases of approximately 60 million

anadromous juveniles out of a total of 142.5 million projected for the basin as a whole, or 42

percent. Of those 60 million juveniles, more than half will be fall chinook, with the rest spring

chinook, coho, steelhead, chum and sea-run cutthroat trout. Release of 60 million represent a

reduction over the last decade of Mitchell Act production, which once ranged as high as

approximately 100 million juveniles per year. Cutbacks in Congressional appropriations have

been largely responsible for the reduction in total production.

Production to preserve lower-river and ocean harvest opportunities has been the main

focus of the Mitchell Act program, a source of bitterness to some of the lower river treaty tribes,

whose usual and accustomed fishing sites lie above Bonneville Dam. The effort in the 1980s and

1990s to develop and fund new production programs above Bonneville Dam as part of the

Council’s Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife program has been, in large part, an effort on

the part of the tribes and their state co-managers to address the fact that the Mitchell Act program

provided mitigation in the lower river for impacts that affected people in the upper river as well.

Also, as a result of production agreements negotiated as part of the U.S. v. Oregon harvest

litigation and embodied in the Columbia River Fish Management Plan, the federal, state and

tribal governments have cooperated in recent years in limited movements of Mitchell Act fish

upriver for release, such as the release of fall chinook and coho from Mitchell Act facilities in the

Yakima River.

Mitchell Act funding comes from Congressional appropriations without reimbursement

by Bonneville. Funding for some of the efforts to re-program Mitchell Act releases upriver have

made their way into the fish and wildlife projects funded by Bonneville to implement the

Council’s fish and wildlife program. Mitchell Act facilities abandoned in recent years due to

reductions in Congressional appropriations have also found their way into the Council’s

program, such as the adaptation of the Gnat Creek hatchery by the Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife to produce fish for a terminal fisheries project in Young’s Bay under the Council’s

program.

In the recent Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the

Fisheries Service concluded that hatchery operations in the lower river, including the operations

of Mitchell Act facilities, are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed lower

Columbia River steelhead. The Biological Opinion identified two main problems that led to this

conclusion — releases of hatchery steelhead into natural production areas that result in predation

and competition with listed steelhead juveniles and, especially, the continued use of non-endemic

steelhead stocks in the production facilities in the lower river, which has the potential to affect

listed steelhead through genetic introgression. The Fisheries Service identified a set of

reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy (and additional conservation

recommendations), focused primarily on transitions to locally-adapted stocks, an end to releases

of non-endemic stocks, management of hatchery adult stray rates to less than 5 percent of the

annual natural population size, and restrictions on the size of juvenile releases to minimize

predation and competition.

At the same time the Fisheries Service issued the Biological Opinion, it also decided to

add to the endangered species list lower Columbia chinook and upper Willamette spring chinook

and steelhead. The Fisheries Service will thus have to revise its Biological Opinion on the

production programs to take into account the effects on these newly listed fish.
166

For a more detailed discussion of current Mitchell Act production numbers and plans, see

the Biological Assessment for Mitchell Act Operations, 1999, and Mitchell Act Information

Packet 1999, prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Columbia River Fisheries

Development Program Office, Portland Oregon.

Grand Coulee mitigation — Leavenworth complex. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

completed construction of Grand Coulee Dam in 1941, blocking the migration of salmon beyond

that point on the mainstem of the Columbia River. In mitigation of the losses, the Bureau

implemented a plan developed by the Washington fishery agency to trap adult salmon at Rock

Island Dam on the mid-Columbia and transport them to a hatchery constructed on the Wenatchee

River at Leavenworth for artificial propagation, the smolts to be planted in the Wenatchee,

Methow, Entiat and Okanogan rivers. The Entiat and Winthrop hatchery facilities, on the Entiat

and Methow rivers, are satellite facilities of the Leavenworth Hatchery. The Fish and Wildlife

Service operates the Leavenworth complex, funded through Bureau appropriations and

reimbursed by Bonneville. Production plans in 1999 call for releases of more than 2 million

spring chinook, as well as 100,000 summer steelhead from the Winthrop hatchery.

The Biological Opinion recently released by the National Marine Fisheries Service

analyzed the effects of Leavenworth complex production on listed upper Columbia steelhead.

Chinook and steelhead in the mid-Columbia region are now listed or proposed for listing.

John Day Dam mitigation. Congress authorized construction of the John Day Dam as

part of the Flood Control Act of 1950. Construction and operation of the dam resulted in the loss

of spawning grounds for what was then estimated as 30,000 adult fall chinook salmon.

Mitigation has been provided by the Bonneville Fish Hatchery in Oregon under a cooperative

agreement between the Corps and the State of Oregon, and by the Spring Creek National Fish

Hatchery in Washington. Bonneville Fish Hatchery was originally built in 1909 by the State of

Oregon and has undergone major renovations funded by the Mitchell Act, John Day mitigation

and the State of Oregon. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under John Day mitigation, funds

45 percent of the operation and maintenance of the Bonneville Hatchery and the Mitchell Act

funds 55 percent. The Spring Creek Hatchery, originally a Mitchell Act hatchery, also has been

renovated and modernized. The Corps and the Mitchell Act each fund 50 percent of the

operation and maintenance of the Spring Creek Hatchery.

Spring Creek Hatchery is a huge producer of fall chinook, with a production goal of 15

million tule fall chinook and 1999 projected releases of 10.7 million. The Bonneville Hatchery

produces fall chinook, spring chinook, coho, and winter and summer steelhead for release locally

and in other areas (e.g., fall chinook for the Umatilla River and steelhead for the Clackamas

River program). The Bonneville facility is also used as part of the Grande Ronde River Endemic

Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program, described briefly below.

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan. In the Water Resources Development Act of

1976, Congress authorized funding for a program to mitigate for fish and wildlife losses caused

by construction and operation of the four lower Snake River hydroelectric projects (Lower

Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor dams), known as the Lower Snake

River Compensation Plan (LSRCP). The Corps of Engineers built ten hatcheries and sixteen

satellite facilities for adult trapping and juvenile acclimation facilities between 1980 and 1998 on
167

or for the lower Snake, Salmon, Clearwater, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde, Imnaha, Tucannon,

Touchet and Walla Walla subbasins, at a cost over $170 million via Congressional

appropriations later reimbursed by Bonneville. (Kooskia Hatchery on the Clearwater, which first

began operations in 1969, is not technically part of the LSRCP, but it is operated by the Fish and

Wildlife Service as a satellite of Dworshak Hatchery spring chinook production under the

LSRCP.)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funds and administers the operation, maintenance and

evaluation of LSRCP hatcheries and related facilities, using Congressional appropriations also

reimbursed by Bonneville. Hatcheries and satellite facilities are operated by the Fish and

Wildlife Service and by cooperating agencies, primarily the three state agencies, Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Three recently completed fall chinook facilities on the Snake

and Clearwater rivers (Pittsburg Landing, Big Canyon, Capt. John’s Rapids), although part of the

LSRCP program, have operations and evaluation costs directly funded by Bonneville under the

Council’s fish and wildlife program. All three facilities are operated by the Nez Perce Tribe in

conjunction with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Confederated Tribes of

the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes also participate as cooperators in

operation and management decisions, and all cooperators except the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

receive funds to conduct monitoring and evaluation studies.

The purpose of the LSRCP has been to replace lost salmon, steelhead and trout fishing

opportunities, with management goals focused on replacing the loss of returning adult steelhead

and salmon, rather than on releasing a given number of smolts. The adult return goals have been

based on estimates of salmon and steelhead adult returns to the Snake River Basin in the years

prior to the construction of the four lower Snake River dams — adult returns of 18,300 fall

chinook, 58,700 spring and summer chinook, and 55,100 steelhead to and above the area of the

dams. The production release goals for spring, summer and fall chinook and steelhead (as well

as rainbow trout) are in the range of 10-15 million juveniles per year, although broodstock

collection problems and other factors limit the ability to meet these goals. Production estimates

for 1999 are closer to 10 million juveniles. No sockeye or coho are produced under the LSRCP

authorizing legislation, even though these fish existed in the river and its tributaries prior to

construction of the dams.

With the exception of fall chinook in the lower Snake River mainstem and steelhead in

Idaho, production target have been met. Meanwhile, naturally spawning salmon and steelhead

runs in the Snake have declined to the point of endangered species listings. As an indication of

the decline, one of the key issues for the LSRCP is whether these facilities can be transformed to

be of use in supplementation efforts or even in conservation/captive propagation efforts while

addressing productivity limitations.

In its recent Biological Opinion, the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that

hatchery operations in the Snake, including LSRCP operations, are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of listed Snake spring/summer chinook, fall chinook or sockeye. The

Fisheries Service did conclude, however, the production was likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of listed Snake steelhead and lower Columbia River steelhead. The problems

identified were the same as in the lower Columbia — release strategies for hatchery steelhead

that result in predation and competition with listed steelhead juveniles and, especially, the
168

continued use of non-endemic steelhead stocks in the production facilities, which has the

potential to affect listed steelhead through genetic introgression. The reasonable and prudent

alternatives identified to avoid jeopardy were also similar (as were relevant conservation

recommendations) — transitions to locally adapted stocks, an end to releases of non-endemic

stocks, management of hatchery adult stray rates to less than 5 percent of the annual natural

population size, restrictions on the size of juvenile releases and other strategies to minimize

predation and competition. The same concerns about non-endemic stocks, stray rates and release

strategies were present with regard to impacts on listed spring/summer and fall chinook, but the

Fisheries Service concluded that recent developments to address these concerns made a jeopardy

finding unnecessary. 25

Dworshak Dam mitigation. Separate from the LSRCP is a production program to

mitigate for steelhead and resident trout losses caused by the construction of Dworshak Dam,

blocking the North Fork Clearwater River in Idaho. For this purpose, the Corps of Engineers

funded the construction of the Dworshak National Fish Hatchery and the USFWS receives funds

via the Corps to operate the facility, all reimbursed by Bonneville (the Dworshak hatchery also

produces spring chinook as part of the LSRCP). The primary goal of fishery mitigation at

Dworshak has been to preserve artificially the North Fork steelhead run, as the dam completely

blocked the North Fork, a mitigation goal set at returning 20,000 adult steelhead to the

Clearwater River. Production goals are to release approximately 1.2 million smolts at the

hatchery and another 1.1 million in Clearwater tributaries. Adult steelhead returns to the hatchery

have ranged from 1,988 to 43,942 since 1972, and the goal of 20,000 fish has been attained in

eight of 25 years of operation. Dworshak steelhead operations were included in the Snake River

steelhead production operations that the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded were likely

to jeopardize continued existence of the listed Snake River steelhead. However, the Clearwater

B-steelhead reared at the Dworshak hatchery are included in the steelhead ESU under ESA but

are classified as non-essential for recovery. This classification is because of the North Fork

Clearwater habitat of the B-steelhead is no longer available as a result of the construction of

Dworshak Dam, and the hatchery has maintained an adequate number to maintain gene pool.

Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery. Authorized in 1966 and operational by 1978, the

Warm Springs hatchery is located on the Warm Springs River in Oregon and funded and

operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (This is one of the few federally funded

anadromous production facilities in the basin outside of the Mitchell Act facilities that are not

directly or by reimbursement funded by Bonneville.) The hatchery, projected in 1999 to release

750,000 spring chinook into the Warm Springs River, has suffered from an inadequate water

supply and fish health problems.

Willamette River mitigation. Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to build a

number of dams on tributaries of the Willamette, blocking or causing serious damage to

anadromous and resident fish runs. These include Cougar and Blue River dams on the

McKenzie River, Detroit and Big Cliff dams on the North Santiam River, Green Peter and Foster

Dams on the South Santiam, and Lookout Point and Dexter Dams on the Middle Fork of the

 

25 For details on the status of the LSRCP program, see the publication of the papers from the Lower Snake River

Compensation Plan Status Review Symposium, 1998, hosted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Independent

Scientific Review Panel; Review of the BPA Reimbursable Account Programs in the Columbia River Basin, 1999.
169

Willamette. Anadromous fish mitigation is provided by the Leaburg, McKenzie, Marion Forks,

South Santiam, and Willamette hatcheries, producing over 5 million spring chinook and

steelhead smolts for release at various sites in the Willamette Basin. The Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife operates the hatcheries under a cooperative agreement with the Corps, and the

Corps provides a majority of the funding while the State of Oregon also provides a substantial

portion of the funds. The Corps funded portion is reimbursed by the Bonneville Power

Administration.

The Biological Opinion recently released by the National Marine Fisheries Service did

not implicate these Willamette mitigation hatcheries in the jeopardy conclusion on lower

Columbia steelhead. However, the Fisheries Service just listed the wild spring chinook and

steelhead runs in the Willamette, as well as lower Columbia chinook, and the Biological Opinion

will have to be revised to analyze the effects of hatchery production in the Willamette on these

runs.

Northwest Power Act/Council’s fish and wildlife program. The most recent attempt to

adapt artificial production techniques to the changing needs in the basin has been through the

Council’s fish and wildlife program. The Northwest Power Act requires the Council to develop

a Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program consisting of measures to protect, mitigate

and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the construction, operation and management of

hydroelectric facilities in the basin. The basin’s tribes and state fish and wildlife agencies, often

acting in various combinations of co-managers, have used the Council’s fish and wildlife

program to provide mitigation for hydropower effects in part by developing and obtaining

funding for new artificial production programs in the subbasins above Bonneville Dam, to

increase harvest opportunities and as part of an experimental attempt to supplement naturally

spawning populations. The Council’s fish and wildlife program conceives of this effort as a

coordinated habitat restoration/production program in which artificial production efforts are

supposed to be tied to habitat improvements. The purpose is to increase natural production

capacity by introducing fish from the artificial production facilities. All Council program

projects are funded by Bonneville. These efforts have included the following:

Hood River Production Project: The Hood River production project is a joint program of

the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to rebuild spring chinook

and steelhead populations in the Hood River through hatchery and acclimation facilities on that

river and through use of production facilities already developed in the Deschutes River.

Releases projected for 1999 include 125,000 spring chinook, 30,000 summer steelhead and

60,000 winter steelhead.

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project: This is a Yakama Nation/Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife project whose main goal is to rebuild salmon runs in the Yakima River, which

dropped from historic levels estimated as high as 900,000 adult fish per year to fewer than 5,000,

as well as to increase populations in the Klickitat and other streams important to the Yakama

Nation. The main focus has been the multi-million-dollar Cle Elum Supplementation and

Research Facility and associated acclimation facilities, intended to be a large-scale test of spring

chinook supplementation, with projected releases of spring chinook juveniles of up to 810,000.

The National Marine Fisheries Service produced a Biological Opinion in 1996 on proposed

1997-2001 Cle Elum spring chinook operations. The Yakama Nation has also begun or is

planning fall chinook and coho production in the Yakima, Klickitat and other streams, in part
170

using fish from Mitchell Act hatcheries. Significant funding for habitat work in the Yakima

associated with the supplementation effort has also come from the Council’s program and other

sources.

Umatilla Hatchery complex: Hatchery propagation in the Umatilla River is funded under

the Council’s fish and wildlife program as part of a coordinated habitat restoration/flow

improvement/production effort to restore spring chinook, fall chinook, coho salmon and summer

steelhead populations in the Umatilla subbasin. Salmon runs in the Umatilla have been gone

since as far back as 1920, and the steelhead were at very low numbers when the program began.

The Umatilla hatchery and six satellite facilities provide juvenile acclimation/release and adult

holding/spawning. ODFW operates the hatchery, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla

Indian Reservation operate the satellite facilities. Additional facilities are proposed, including a

juvenile coho and fall chinook acclimation/release facility, and a hatchery on the South Fork

Walla Walla River that would, in part, produce spring chinook smolts for release at satellite

facilities in the Umatilla subbasin. Projected production for 1999 includes 810,000 spring

chinook, 3.162 million fall chinook, 1.5 million coho, and 150,000 steelhead.

Northeast Oregon Production Facilities, Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins: As part of

what is called the Northeast Oregon Hatchery (NEOH) program, the Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife, the Umatilla Tribes, and the Nez Perce Tribes have been planning and

implementing supplementation programs for spring chinook and steelhead in the Grande Ronde

and Imnaha subbasins, also the scene of Lower Snake River Compensation Plan production. The

Grande Ronde spring chinook runs declined so severely that the Grande Ronde production

initiative project has transformed into a captive propagation effort — facilities at the Bonneville

Hatchery and elsewhere have been constructed or adapted so that spring chinook can be reared in

captivity for later release into the Grand Ronde basin. The Grande Ronde has also been a Model

Watershed under the Council’s fish and wildlife program, the scene of significant funding for

watershed planning and rehabilitation activities to accompany natural and artificial production

efforts.

Northeast Oregon Production Facilities, Walla Walla River: Planning is under way to

develop production and acclimation facilities to be used to help restore extirpated spring chinook

and enhance the depressed steelhead populations in the Walla Walla, an effort led by the

Umatilla Tribes, in conjunction with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The project in concept also includes stream

habitat/watershed enhancement, structural fish passage improvement and enhanced instream

flow.

Salmon River Supplementation: The Council’s program funds a number of

supplementation studies and activities by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Nez Perce

Tribe, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate whether

artificial production can be used to boost the rapidly declining, listed spring/summer chinook and

steelhead populations in the Salmon basin. Most of the projects are small-scale research,

monitoring and evaluation efforts. The supplementation efforts in the Salmon overlap with the

LSRCP production, and as the LSRCP facilities and efforts begin to transform in part in the

direction of supplementation and conservation, some of the LSRCP costs and activities are

coming into the Council’s program. And as in the Grande Ronde, in part the effort has

transformed into a conservation/captive propagation program, in which spring chinook are or
171

will be reared in captivity for later release into the Salmon basin. The Salmon is also the basin

where, in the summer of 1991, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Idaho Fish and Game, the

National Marine Fisheries Service and others initiated an emergency captive broodstock program

to try to prevent Snake River sockeye in Redfish Lake from extinction.

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery/Clearwater River: The Council’s fish and wildlife program

calls for the Nez Perce Tribe to develop a number of small-scale production facilities under the

umbrella of a single program for fall and spring chinook supplementation in the Clearwater

River. The multi-million-dollar project is in the final design stage and is nearly ready for review

and approval as to whether it will shift into construction and production. The Nez Perce Tribal

Hatchery as planned will consist of two central incubation and rearing facilities, and six satellite

rearing facilities. Maximum production goals are 768,000 spring chinook and nearly 3 million

fall chinook juveniles, although initial production will be far below the maximum. The National

Marine Fisheries Service completed a Biological Opinion in 1997 for Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

operations in 1998-2002. The Nez Perce Tribe is also working on a project to restore coho to the

Clearwater, with initial funding provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the release of

approximately 1 million coho juveniles, taken from lower Columbia hatcheries and reared at

existing facilities in the Clearwater. The Clearwater River has also been a focus watershed for

habitat improvements under the Council’s program, which links habitat improvements to

artificial production.

Select Area Fisheries Evaluations (SAFE): This is a terminal fisheries project in the

lower Columbia River (Young’s Bay and other sites) included in the Council’s program, funded

by Bonneville and operated by the Clatsop Economic Development Council and the Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife to produce fall chinook, coho and spring chinook. Projected

releases in 1999 total nearly 3 million juveniles. The National Marine Fisheries Service

produced a Biological Opinion on the SAFE program in 1998.

Federally funded resident fish production

Many of the federal programs have significant resident fish production components as

well, including the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, Dworshak hatchery mitigation,

Willamette River mitigation, and especially the Council’s fish and wildlife program. Focused

both on rivers affected by hydropower operations and on the reservoirs created by dam

construction, these programs include the production of various types of trout for the purpose of

supporting fisheries and, in some cases, to try to supplement naturally spawning production;

kokanee production efforts; bass production in some reservoirs; investigations throughout the

basin about using artificial production techniques to help preserve and rebuild white sturgeon

populations, and more. Here too we find questions about the efficacy of this production, such as

raised by the kokanee production efforts in Flathead Lake and Lake Pend Oreille, and significant

concerns about impacts of artificial production and the introduction of non-native species on

native stocks, including listed species such as bull trout.

Examples of these resident fish production programs include:

Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery. The Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery Project involves the

production of 22,679-kg (50,000 lbs.) of resident fish that include brook trout, rainbow trout and

lahontan cutthroat trout. All fish are released into reservation waters, including boundary
172

waters, in an effort to provide a successful subsistence/recreational fishery for Colville Tribal

members as well as a successful non-member sport fishery as partial mitigation for anadromous

fish losses above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams.

Lake Roosevelt Rainbow Trout Net Pens. The Lake Roosevelt Rainbow Trout Net Pens

Project enhances the Lake Roosevelt fishery by rearing up to 500,000 Rainbow Trout annually.

The effort uses up to 42 volunteers to build, maintain and operate 34 net pens on the reservoir.

The goal is to provide up to 190,000 harvested adult rainbow trout annually. This program is

monitored by the Lake Roosevelt monitors and strategies are worked out with the Lake

Roosevelt Hatchery Technical Committee. The Lake Roosevelt Trout Net Pens Project is part of

the Spokane Tribal Hatchery and is operated in conjunction with the Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife’s Sherman Creek Hatchery, and with management recommendations from the

Lake Roosevelt Monitoring/Data Collection Program.

Kootenai River White Sturgeon and Conservation Aquaculture Study. This is an adaptive

management effort to use artificial production techniques to assist the ESA-listed Kootenai

River white sturgeon.

Hatcheries associated with FERC-licensed hydropower projects

In addition to federally funded production programs, privately owned and public electric

utilities produce millions more fish as mitigation for the impacts of their FERC-licensed dams.

While these facilities are funded by the utilities, with minor exceptions they are all operated by

state fish and wildlife agencies. A partial list includes production facilities funded by:

• Idaho Power Company (the Oxbow, Rapid River, Niagara Springs and Pahsimeroi

hatchery complexes in the Snake and its Salmon River tributary, operated by the

Idaho Department of Fish and Game and producing spring and fall chinook and

steelhead, mitigating for the impact of Hells Canyon Complex);

• PacifiCorp (Lewis and Speelyai hatcheries produce spring chinook and coho salmon

and the hatchery below Merwin Dam produces steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout and

rainbow trout, all to mitigate the impact of the dam. The hatcheries are operated by

the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife);

• Portland General Electric (helps fund production of spring chinook and steelhead at

the Clackamas Hatchery in mitigation for the Little Sandy Dam and Clackamas River

projects and spring chinook and steelhead at the Round Butte Hatchery in mitigation

for the Round Butte and Pelton projects on the Deschutes River. The City of

Portland, NMFS and State of Oregon also fund fish production at the Clackamas

Hatchery.)

• Washington Water Power (helped to fund the Cabinet Gorge Kokanee Hatchery,

producing kokanee for Lake Pend Oreille, and funds rainbow trout stocking in the

Spokane River in mitigation for its Spokane project);

• Douglas County PUD (hatchery facility producing steelhead, spring chinook, and

sockeye in the mid-Columbia region and in the Methow tributary, for Wells Dam

mitigation);
173

• Chelan County PUD (hatchery production of coho, yearling chinook and steelhead as

Rocky Reach Dam mitigation, and kokanee production as Lake Chelan project

mitigation);

• Grant County PUD (Priest Rapids Hatchery and spawning channel production of fall

chinook as mitigation for Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams);

• City of Portland (helps fund production of spring chinook and steelhead at the

Clackamas Hatchery to mitigate for its Bull Run projects. The Clackamas Hatchery

is also funded by PGE, NMFS and the State of Oregon.);

• Cowlitz County PUD (sharing the cost of some of the PacifiCorp production, as

mitigation for a power plant it owns at the outlet of Swift Reservoir);

• Tacoma Public Utilities (funding hatchery producing spring and fall chinook, coho,

steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout and resident trout, in mitigation for Mayfield and

Mossyrock dams on the lower Cowlitz River).

Because of the potential these programs have to adversely affect listed fish populations,

the National Marine Fisheries Service analyzed them in its recent Biological Opinion (as part of

the non-federal production activities by the state fish and wildlife agencies), implicated certain of

these programs in the steelhead jeopardy findings, prescribed conditions on incidental take

statements to protect listed steelhead and chinook populations, and suggested additional

conservation recommendations.

Production facilities operated by state fish and wildlife agencies that are not

federally financed or associated with FERC-licensed project mitigation

The state fish and wildlife agencies operate many of the federally financed production

facilities, under all the programs (Mitchell Act, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, Corps’

mitigation hatcheries, Council’s fish and wildlife program). They also operate most of the

production facilities associated with FERC-licensed projects. But the state agencies also operate

hatcheries in the basin that are not federally funded or linked to FERC-licensed projects, projects

funded by the states themselves and developed primarily to address declining fisheries. As with

the FERC-licensed hatcheries, because of the potential these programs have to adversely affect

listed fish populations, the National Marine Fisheries Service analyzed them in its recent

Biological Opinion, implicated some of these programs in the steelhead jeopardy findings,

prescribed conditions on incidental take statements to protect steelhead and chinook populations,

and suggested additional conservation recommendations.

Examples of these types of facilities and programs include three funded by the State of

Oregon and operated by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife:

• Roaring River Hatchery (producing summer steelhead for release into the North

Santiam River);

• Oak Springs Hatchery (steelhead and resident trout production at a facility on the

Deschutes River, producing various stocks for release in the Clackamas, Hood,

Santiam, Sandy and other rivers — a hatchery implicated in the problems associated

with the use of non-endemic steelhead stocks that pass into natural production areas

and with the release of juvenile hatchery steelhead that compete with listed steelhead,
174

but also in the forefront of steelhead production programs that are trying to match

production stocks and techniques to naturally spawning populations in some areas);

• Clatsop Economic Development Council and other lower Columbia production

(Oregon funds coho and fall chinook production activities for Young’s Bay and other

areas in the lower river to supplement the Mitchell Act and Bonneville-funded

programs).

Artificial production policies and activities in transition since the 1980s

As noted in the text, the last decade has seen myriad efforts to review Columbia basin

production policies and activities and to try to reform them. Many of these efforts were initiated

and funded through the Council’s fish and wildlife program. The critical issues in these studies

have included how to improve the survival of hatchery fish, whether and how production

activities can play a role in providing significant and widely spread harvest opportunities

throughout the basin, and whether we can do these things while we also act to protect and rebuild

naturally spawning and wild runs in as many river reaches as possible.

Several factors converged in the mid- to late-1980s to begin the transition in production

policy. These need to be highlighted here, as the same factors will continue to play a significant

role in the continuing transition of artificial production activities and policy. One source for

change came out of the United States v. Oregon harvest litigation in federal court.

State/federal/tribal agreements on production policy within the U.S. v. Oregon framework, in

conjunction with the Council’s fish and wildlife program, became the driving vehicle for two of

the critical issues forcing a change in existing production policy — to widen the harvest

opportunities provided by artificial production and to attempt to use artificial production

techniques to try to rebuild naturally sustaining populations. U.S. v. Oregon began as and

remains primarily a forum for resolving disputes over in-river harvest allocation. But production

activities became part of the considerations as the state, federal and tribal parties recognized that

treaty fishing rights could also be supported by increasing the numbers of fish upriver, above

Bonneville Dam. After a series of yearly and five-year allocation agreements or decisions, in

1988 the parties to the litigation developed, and the court approved, the Columbia River Fish

Management Plan. The goal of the Management Plan was “to rebuild weak runs to full

productivity and fairly share the harvest of upper river runs.” In the area of production, the

Management Plan called for “agreed-to production-oriented actions to achieve the goal of

rebuilding upriver anadromous runs,” so as to “assure that rebuilding and harvest allocation

objectives are achieved concurrent with restoration of the runs.” One part of this commitment

was the hypothesis, favored especially by the tribes over the last decade, that artificial production

could be used to supplement natural production if combined with habitat improvements, and thus

rebuild naturally spawning upriver runs.

The Management Plan contemplated that the main vehicle for this effort was to be the

development by the fish and wildlife managers of subbasin-by-subbasin harvest and production

plans for the tributaries above Bonneville. This led to an extensive subbasin planning effort that

became part of the Council’s 1987 fish and wildlife program amendment process. The comanagers developed draft subbasin plans, but the effort eventually ran afoul of developing

Endangered Species Act concerns, as described below, and never reached the intended

conclusion of subbasin plans formally adopted into the Council’s program. Pending the
175

development of a comprehensive set of subbasin plans, the Management Plan also included a list

of specific production objectives and actions utilizing artificial propagation to be undertaken

during the Plan’s tenure. Many of these production actions were already in master planning as

part of the Council’s fish and wildlife program (e.g., the plans for an experimental

supplementation production program in the Yakima basin). Following the adoption of the

Management Plan, most of the conflicts, disputes and agreements regarding production that have

been part of the U. S. v. Oregon process have involved specific disputes concerning the use of

hatchery fish to supplement natural production. In general, the production agreements under the

Management Plan moved into the Council’s program to become the core of the production

planning and activities now funded under that program.

A third factor forcing change in existing production policy has been concern over the

adverse impact of hatchery production on wild fish. These issues were not absent during the

development of the Management Plan and the Council program’s production initiatives, but the

driving vehicle for forcing this issue squarely into the core of hatchery policy has been the

Endangered Species Act listings. The listings began in the Snake basin at the turn of the decade

and have now spread to the whole basin — now affecting both the lower river home of the main

harvest mitigation production and the upper basin areas that are the site of the reprogramming

and supplementation efforts. ESA consultations have forced hatchery managers to evaluate and

reach conclusions as to whether existing or proposed production programs jeopardize the

continued existence of listed stocks through health impacts, competition and other ecological

interactions, genetic impacts, and other considerations. Thus existing hatchery programs,

especially in the Snake (e.g., the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan activities) came under

this type of review. The review of existing programs began in the Snake basin (e.g., the Lower

Snake River Compensation Plan activities), but has increased and will only increase and broaden

further with the recent additional listings. The LSRCP program staff has worked very closely

with NMFS staffs in developing production criteria and suggested changes to reduce or eliminate

risks of these programs to listed species. Coming under even greater scrutiny have been the

tribal/state proposals to use new artificial production initiatives to try to help rebuild weak

naturally spawning populations. The critical fish population demographics that caused some to

turn to artificial production techniques as part of the rebuilding solution caused others to worry

greatly that new artificial production efforts could fatally undermine the incredibly vulnerable

wild populations.

The wild fish considerations embodied in the ESA listings were the major factor

preventing the subbasin planning process from coming to a conclusion, as the co-managers could

not agree in a number of basins how much risk to accept in planning for new production.

Planning work on specific supplementation proposals also slowed to a crawl, as the agencies and

tribes worked to address the wild fish and ESA concerns, dampen the extent of the risk presented

by each project, and provide greater assurances that artificial production could be a boost and not

a hindrance to natural production.

The logjam partially broke in the mid-1990s, as federal agency ESA review finally

cleared a number of supplementation initiatives to proceed under the Council’s program as highpriority experiments. Ironically, at the same time NMFS and others began to investigate using

the most intrusive of artificial production techniques — captive broodstock — to try to save or

conserve populations on the verge of extinction, including Snake River sockeye and spring

chinook in the Grande Ronde and Salmon river tributaries of the Snake.
176

Policy and operational review and reform through the Council’s fish and wildlife program

All of the federal and non-federal production programs in the basin, including Mitchell

Act and the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan program have, to varying degrees in recent

years tried to come to terms with these four factors — how to reform operations and policies to

improve hatchery fish survival, broaden harvest opportunities, protect wild populations, and if

possible assist in rebuilding naturally spawning populations. But the Council’s Columbia River

Basin fish and wildlife program has attempted to embody all the factors, probably because it is

the most recent and is the result of policy recommendations developed by the agencies and tribes

over the last 15 years while grappling with these very questions. The program’s twin goals are to

“double the runs” (i.e., increase abundance for increased harvest opportunities) while protecting

biological diversity. New artificial production initiatives are one of the key activities identified

in the Council’s program for increasing the numbers for harvest, moving those harvest

opportunities upriver, and, if connected with habitat restoration, rebuilding dwindling or

extirpated naturally spawning populations in the tributaries while being consistent with policies

to protect wild fish — thus, if all goes well, protecting and increasing biological diversity. The

program’s production and habitat provisions represent confidence in the possibility of an

intertwined habitat and production effort that can protect and increase natural production partly

through a wide array of small- and not so small-scale supplementation experiments.

The individual planning efforts that have accompanied the specific, individual production

initiatives in the Council’s program have yielded an extensive body of analysis about the

problems and opportunities presented by the interaction of artificial and natural production. So

has the ESA/wild fish analyses and Biological Opinions that the federal agencies and others have

had to produce, beginning with a genetic review by various federal agencies involved in

production programs and a genetics “team” established under the Council’s program that

produced a set of guidelines for artificial production intended to protect wild populations from

adverse genetic impacts. (Attachment 3 is a list of the major policy and scientific documents

produced in the last ten years.) But given the nature of the Council’s program, in which all of

the specific production initiatives are predicated on a conceptual foundation of experimenting

with artificial production to assist rebuilding of naturally spawning populations, the Council, the

federal and state agencies, and the tribes realized the need in the early 1990s for a more

systematic approach to analyzing these issues. If supplementation proposals under the fish and

wildlife program were to proceed in the face of ESA listings and increasing concerns for impacts

on wild fish, what was needed was a systematic review of the dilemma and a set of guidelines for

proceeding that, in theory at least, could increase to an acceptable level the chance that artificial

production techniques could benefit natural production without undue harm to existing wild

populations.

Out of these considerations came the Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project

(RASP), a multi-year, multi-agency analytical effort called for by the Council’s program and

funded by Bonneville. The final report in 1992, produced by agency personnel and subject to

independent scientific review, provided a background description of the supplementation

concept; a discussion of the elements of supplementation theory and the uncertainties inherent in

the supplementation experiment; model planning guidelines, objectives, actions and performance

standards for supplementation initiatives; and a plan for regional coordination of research,

monitoring and evaluation of supplementation actions. It was partly on the basis of the generally

well received RASP effort, and the revision of individual supplementation initiatives to be
177

consistent with the RASP guidelines, that the National Marine Fisheries Service (and others)

agreed in 1996 that a number of supplementation initiatives in the Council’s program could

proceed to implementation. 26

The RASP guidelines applied only to the new supplementation initiatives, representing

just a tiny fraction of the artificial production activities in the basin. So, the Council’s program

also recognized the need for a broader review of production policies and activities across the

basin, to see whether and how production programs and individual hatcheries could be evaluated

and reformed in a systematic way to deal with the critical factors now at play in the basin. This

was the genesis for the formation of the inter-agency Integrated Hatchery Operations Team

(IHOT), funded by Bonneville under the Council’s program. The Council’s program called on

the fishery managers “and other experts as needed,” “in consultation with appropriate specialists

in genetics,” to develop “basinwide guidelines to minimize genetic and ecological impacts of

hatchery fish on wild and naturally spawning stocks.” In the development of these guidelines,

IHOT was to include “approaches to basinwide coordination of hatchery production” to reduce

impacts, and monitoring and evaluation of hatchery and wild stock interactions. IHOT was to

review existing production policies and then develop and update “regionally integrated policies

for management and operation of all existing and future hatcheries in the basin,” — policies to

“be monitored for consistency with the goal of increasing sustained production while

maintaining genetic resources.”

The program specified that policies developed by IHOT had to include elements

addressing fish health, genetics, ecological interactions, hatchery performance standards, and

regional hatchery coordination, with standards specified in the program for each element.

Moreover, the program called for IHOT to submit a plan to the Council for implementing these

policies and to plan and oversee independent audits of hatchery performance for consistency

with guidelines and policies developed by IHOT. 27 The program’s charge to IHOT strikingly

resembles the Senate committee’s directive to the Council to “conduct a thorough review” of

production programs in the basin, to draw on the assistance of the state and federal agencies and

tribes in conducting this review, and to recommend “a coordinated policy” for the future

operation of hatcheries and “how to obtain such a coordinated policy.”

Pursuant to the program’s charge, by late 1994 IHOT produced Policies and Procedures

for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries, containing policy elements, performance

standards, performance measures, and evaluation guidelines. The policies covered the areas

specified in the program, including policies on regional hatchery coordination, hatchery

performance standards, fish health, ecological interactions and genetics. IHOT also produced

operations plans for anadromous fish production facilities in Idaho, Washington and Oregon, and

set in motion independent audits of most all of the anadromous fish hatcheries in the basin, using

performance measures developed in the policy document. See A Summary of Hatchery

Evaluation Reports (NPPC, July 1998). The audits describe deficiencies in hatchery operations

when measured against the performance standards and recommend improvements to address

these deficiencies. The extent of the improvements recommended is daunting, and the audit

recommendations mostly sit and await further consideration by policymakers. The IHOT

 

26

 See Supplementation in the Columbia Basin, Final Report, Bonneville Project No. 85-62, 1992.

27 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Section 7.2A, 7.2B.
178

policies and audits focused mostly on reforming practices in the hatcheries and in release

techniques, with the aim to improve the survival of the hatchery releases and to try to avoid

harmful immediate interactions. Deciding whether to undertake some of the improvements

recommended will require further consideration of broader interactions, of what we really want

artificial production facilities to do, and what priorities we have for limited funds.

As the new production activities in the Council’s fish and wildlife program moved from

planning into construction and implementation, Bonneville’s direct fish and wildlife

expenditures to implement the program have increased, as has the proportion of that budget spent

on artificial production. Partly out of lingering concern for the possible effects, and the high

costs, of these state and tribal programs, Congress amended the Northwest Power Act in 1996 to

add independent science review, public review, and Council recommendations into Bonneville’s

decisions on fish and wildlife project funding. In the first two years of the new funding review

process, the Independent Scientific Review Panel created by the amendment has deferred

significant recommendations on the artificial production initiatives in the fish and wildlife

program pending the completion of the Artificial Production Review. But the Panel believes

supplementation should be conducted in small-scale experiments and is uneasy with the extent to

which these experiments have grown in number and size under the program. The Panel’s

recommendations for project funding in Fiscal Year 2000 revisited the debates over these newest

production efforts in the basin.

Vehicles for implementing developments in production policy — annual funding reviews

and Endangered Species Act reviews

The funding review process that began with the Council’s fish and wildlife program,

described just above, is and will be one of the two main vehicles for implementing operational

reforms in production policy. Recent conference committee language from Congress has

extended the independent scientific/public/Council review procedure to all of the Bonneville fish

and wildlife budget. The review process thus encompasses all of the federally funded production

programs in the basin except the Mitchell Act programs (and a few stray facilities, such as the

Warm Springs Hatchery). If we have the political will, production programs can be held to a

rigorous set of performance standards as a prerequisite to funding, standards designed to improve

survival, protect wild runs, and help rebuild naturally spawning populations, with compliance

evaluated in part by independent technical panels — while making funds available to assure that

the facilities the region desires can in fact be revised to meet the standards. For the purposes of

providing a coordinated and consistent review of production programs against a set of standards,

Congress and the region should consider incorporating the Mitchell Act programs (and the other

exceptions) into the same funding review process.28

As demonstrated recently, Endangered Species Act review by means of biological

opinions and incidental take reviews is another existing tool for realizing reforms in production

actions, especially for one of the areas of concern — minimizing impacts to wild fish

populations. The ESA reviews apply to all the major production programs in the basin, whether

part of the funding review process described above and whether federal or not, allowing for a

consistent and coordinated application of standards across the basin. And because we now have

listings of different types of anadromous and resident fish in every part of the basin, program

 

28

 See the implementation recommendations in Part III of this report.
179

reviews to evaluate impacts to listed fish are really surrogates for the general issue of impacts to

all naturally spawning populations. Because it is essentially impossible to operate a production

program in the face of a “jeopardy” opinion, or without an incidental take permit, the biological

opinions and permits have real power for implementing needed changes or at least for preventing

likely harmful operations. They carry no funding to make changes happen, but they do provide

leverage and priorities in deciding on funding.

Since 1995 the National Marine Fisheries Service has issued a dozen Biological Opinions

on specific artificial production proposals and on artificial production programs in the aggregate,

culminating in the March 1999 Biological Opinion on Artificial Propagation in the Columbia

River that reviewed all federal and major non-federal salmon and steelhead production programs

for impacts to the six types of fish then listed and that declared a jeopardy situation for the first

time. The nearly simultaneous listing of five more species in the basin will require a further

elaboration of the ESA analysis in a revised Biological Opinion. Moreover, in order to prepare

itself for these biological reviews, the Fisheries Service has had to develop a number of useful

technical memoranda, policy statements, and artificial propagation and genetics guidelines —

another spur to wider policy reform.

Forums for revisiting decisions on whether, when, where and why to use the artificial

production tool — including the Columbia River Fish Management Plan renegotiations,

Council fish and wildlife program amendment process, multi-species recovery planning

under the ESA, and the Multi-Species Framework analytical process.

The annual funding reviews and the ESA reviews of artificial production are and will be

most useful in achieving changes in hatchery practices. They are not the best policymaking

vehicles for deciding whether we want hatcheries to begin with, and where and for what purpose.

As noted in the text, what the region needs are medium-term to long-term decisions and

agreements at the basinwide and the subbasin or subregional (or ecological province) levels on

what we want to accomplish in terms of fish and wildlife recovery in the basin as a whole and in

each subbasin or subregion, and what strategies seem most promising for rebuilding naturally

sustaining populations to healthy, harvestable levels — decisions and agreements based in the

best available scientific knowledge of how river ecosystems function and how fish and wildlife

populations survive and interact. Part of that decisionmaking process will have to include

decisions on whether and how to use the artificial production tool in each subbasin as part of

these strategies. Only when these larger questions are revisited and determined for some period

of time can we definitively decide how best to invest our funds to reform hatchery practices.

The planning process described above is exactly what the system and subbasin planning

process of the late 1980s was intended to achieve. That process foundered because of

significantly changing circumstances (especially the first ESA listings) right as the process and

the draft subbasin plans were nearing completion. The need still exists, and the time may be ripe

to return to the task.

There are three planning processes underway or soon to be initiated that could be vehicles

for making these larger determinations and for how artificial production should fit within a

broader recovery framework. The challenge will be to make sure that these processes do in fact

engage the right questions and that the processes work in concert, not at cross purposes.
180

The first is the renegotiation of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan under the

auspices of the federal district court as part of the U.S. v. Oregon harvest litigation. The

Management Plan expired at the end of 1998, although the court extended the application of the

plan. The federal, state and tribal participants continue to negotiate toward a revised set of

population rebuilding objectives based in part on an understanding of a revised set of production

objectives and expectations.

The first Management Plan agreement led directly to a Council fish and wildlife program

amendment process and the system and subbasin planning process. The renegotiated agreement

could do the same. The Council will begin a program amendment process in December 1999,

following completion of the Multi-Species Framework Project. The amendment rulemaking is

the second possible vehicle for revisiting the basic decisions about the use of hatcheries. A

plausible outcome of that program amendment process could be a policy and biological

framework, for the system as a whole and at least down to the ecological province level, on

recovery goals and objectives, including decisions (or criteria to guide decisions) on whether,

where, why and how to use the artificial production tool to try achieve these objectives. If

completed and appropriately structured, the product of the Management Plan negotiations could

once again feed as a recommendation into the program amendment process. But the dynamics

are different than in the mid-1980s, with ever-growing ESA concerns, a fish and wildlife budget

agreement, independent science review procedures for implementing the program, and especially

a growing scientific and policy emphasis on ecological processes and not technological processes

to rebuild fish and wildlife populations. The Management Plan renegotiations cannot take place

in a vacuum — the negotiations and the results have to be sensitive to and coordinated with these

other elements. The fish and wildlife program has its own limitations, especially the too-narrow

focus on hydropower system mitigation in a basin with a multi-faceted problem, and the

Council’s lack of direct implementation authority. A fish and wildlife program amendment

process that is not well coordinated with the other planning processes risks being irrelevant.

The third possible vehicle for addressing these larger questions about the use of artificial

production could be multi-species recovery planning for the Columbia River Basin under the

Endangered Species Act. The National Marine Fisheries Service is focused at present on

producing Biological Opinions that focus on particular actions that may threaten the existence of

listed fish. But given the magnitude of the ESA problem after the most recent set of listings, the

potential exists for taking a systemwide planning approach to recovery that could integrate a host

of elements, decide on recovery objectives and approaches, and evaluate the use of the artificial

production tool to meet these objectives. Like the other planning processes, ESA recovery

planning has peculiarities and limitations, including a defined approach to recovery of selfsustaining population numbers that may be far too low to be relevant to what people want out of

fish populations in the basin, and a focus on the weakest stocks when real systemwide recovery

may depend on building from protected strong stocks. Thus ESA recovery planning without

coordination and shared analysis with the other planning process is also just as likely to be

largely irrelevant or to get cross-ways with the other planning processes and the identified needs

in the basin.

To bring these planning process into a shared analytical and substantive focus, based on

the best available thinking in ecological science, the Council recommends linking them all to the

Multi-Species Framework process. The Framework process grew out of recent reviews of

Columbia basin fish and wildlife activities that highlighted the need for a fish and wildlife
181

restoration effort based upon a framework of fundamental ecological principles, with the river

(and relevant parts of the Pacific Ocean) understood as a system of interacting biological and

physical components (the ecosystem). The Council joined with the other entities in the basin

precisely to provide a coordinated and unified biological and social-economic analysis that will

help decisionmakers define for more than the short-term a set of goals, ecological objectives and

strategies for fish and wildlife recovery in the basin as a whole and at finer levels of geographic

scale. Part of that analytical process will include, it is hoped, evaluating the efficacy of artificial

production techniques in helping to meet broader defined recovery goals and objectives, which

will in turn allow for informed decisions on whether and how to incorporate the use of the

artificial production tool into basin and sub-basin objectives. The Council considers its final

report on the Artificial Production Review to be consistent with and a contribution to the MultiSpecies Framework process.
182

Attachment 1 (Tables): Artificial Production Programs In the Columbia River Basin

Glossary of Table Data Resident Species Codes

CODE NAME CODE NAME

IDFG Idaho Fish and Game AG Arctic Grayling

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service BG Bluegill Sunfish

IPC Idaho Power Company BLC Bear Lake Cutthroat Trout

BPA Bonneville Power Administration BR Brown Trout

FH Fish Hatchery BRC Bear River Cutthroat Trout

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service BT Brook Trout

COE Corps of Engineers BUT Bull Trout

BR Bureau of Reclamation CC Channel Catfish

CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation CT Cutthroat Trout

NPT Nez Perce Tribe GT Golden Trout

YIN Yakama Indian Nation KK Kokanee Salmon

NFH National Fish Hatchery KT Kamloops Trout

SCTS Salmon Culture Technology Center LB Large Mouth Bass

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife LCT Lahontan Cutthroat Trout

STEP Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program LT Lake Trout

CEDC Clatsop Economic Development Council M Mackinaw

PGE Portland General Electric RB Rainbow Trout

LSRCP Lower Snake River Compensation Plan RBT Redband Trout

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife S Splake

MDFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks SRCT Snake River Cutthroat Trout

SBT Shoshone Bannock Tribe TM Tiger Muskellunge

SPC Shoshone Paiute W Walleye

STOI Spokane Tribe of Indians WCT Westslope Cutthroat Trout

CCT Confederated Colville Tribes WSG White Sturgeon

PUD Public Utility District YCT Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout

WWP Washington Water Power

DJ Dingle-Johnson

PPL Pacific Power and Light

OMSI Oregon Museum of Science and Industry

URB Upriver Brights
183

Idaho Department of Fish and Wildlife

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection

Site

Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Clearwater FH

(Clearwater)

IDFG USFWS Steelhead Dworshak Natl. Fish

Hatchery

Dworshak Natl. Fish

Hatchery

Dworshak/

Clearwater FH

Clearwater FH Clearwater River Drainage

IDFG USFWS Spring

Chinook

Powell, Crooked

River, Red River

Powell, Crooked

River, Red River

Clearwater FH Clearwater FH Clearwater River Drainage

Eagle FH (Boise) IDFG BPA Sockeye Redfish Lake

Creek/Sawtooth FH

Sawtooth FH/Eagle

FH

Eagle FH Sawtooth

FH/Eagle FH

Sawtooth Basin Lakes Research

Hatchery

IDFG BPA Spring

Chinook

Salmon River

Tributaries

None (captive rearing

only)

None (captive

rearing only)

Eagle FH Upper Salmon River

Drainage

Sawtooth FH

(Salmon)

IDFG USFWS Spring

Chinook

Sawtooth FH/East

Fork Satellite

Sawtooth FH/East

Fork Satellite

Sawtooth FH Sawtooth FH Salmon River Drainage

IDFG USFWS Steelhead Sawtooth FH/East

Fork Satellite

Sawtooth FH/East

Fork Satellite

Sawtooth FH Sawtooth FH Salmon River Drainage

IDFG USFWS Steelhead East Fork

Satellite/Squaw

Creek Pond

East Fork Satellite Sawtooth FH Sawtooth FH East Fork Satellite/Squaw

Creek Pond

Magic Valley FH

(Salmon)

IDFG USFWS Steelhead Sawtooth FH/

Pahsimeroi FH

Sawtooth FH/

Pahsimeroi FH

Sawtooth FH Magic Valley FH Salmon River Drainage

McCall FH

(Payette)

IDFG USFWS Summer

Chinook

South Fork Satellite South Fork Satellite McCall FH McCall FH South Fork Salmon River

Drainage

Pahsimeroi FH

(Salmon)

IDFG IPC Steelhead Pahsimeroi FH Pahsimeroi FH Sawtooth FH Magic Valley FH/

Hagerman NFH

Salmon River Drainage

Summer

Chinook

Pahsimeroi FH Pahsimeroi FH Sawtooth FH Sawtooth FH/

Pahsimeroi FH

Pahsimeroi FH

Niagara Springs

FH (Salmon)

IDFG IPC Steelhead Pahsimeroi FH Pahsimeroi Sawtooth FH Niagara Springs

FH

Salmon River Drainage

Oxbow FH (Lower

Snake Mainstem)

IDFG IPC Steelhead Oxbow FH Oxbow FH Oxbow FH Niagara Springs

FH/ Magic Valley

FH

Salmon River Drainage

IDFG IPC Spring

Chinook

Oxbow FH Oxbow FH/ Rapid

River FH

Rapid River FH Rapid River FH Salmon River Drainage/

Clearwater Drainage

Rapid River FH

(Salmon)

IDFG IPC Spring

Chinook

Rapid River FH Rapid River FH Rapid River FH/

Clearwater FH

Rapid River FH/

Clearwater FH

Salmon River, Snake River,

Clearwater River Drainage

IDFG IPC Steelhead Rapid River FH None None None Salmon River Drainage

(adult releases)
184

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Big Creek FH ODFW NMFS Fall

Chinook

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Released at

the hatchery

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek +

STEP

STEP Young's River Transferred

to STEP

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek +

STEP

STEP Clatskanie River,

Scappoose Cr, Johnson Cr.

Transferred

to STEP

Big Creek Big Creek Various Various Young's Bay, Skipanon

River

Transferred

to high

school

programs

Fall

Chinook

Big Creek Big Creek CEDC CEDC Young's Bay Transferred

to CEDC

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Young's Bay Transferred

to CEDC

Young's Bay

Net Pens

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek +

Klaskanine

Klaskanine River Transferred

to

Klaskanine,

2 releases

Coho Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek 2 releases

on Big

Creek

Big Creek Big Creek CEDC CEDC Klaskanine River Transferred

to CEDC

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek +

Abernathy

Abernathy - Research

facility, no

documented

releases

Big Creek Big Creek Various Various Young's Bay, Skipanon

River

Transferred

to high

school

facilities
185

ODFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Winter

Steelhead

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek, Sandy River Released at

the hatchery

in Big

Creek;

direct

release in

the Sandy

R.

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek +

Bonneville

Bonneville Transferred to Bonneville H. Reared at

Bonneville

for

Clackamas

and Sandy

Rivers

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek +

STEP

STEP Fertile Valley Transferred

to STEP

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Gnat Creek Transferred

to Gnat

Creek Accl.

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Klaskanine River Transferred

to

Klaskanine

Accl.

Sandy ODFW NMFS Coho Sandy Sandy Sandy Sandy Sandy River 2 releases

Sandy Sandy Sandy Sandy Young's Bay Transferred

to CEDC

Young's Bay

Net Pens

Farady Dam/

Clackamas

Sandy Sandy Sandy Clackamas River Released

above River

Mill Dam

Bonneville ODFW NMFS,

COE

Fall

Chinook

Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Tanner Creek 2 releases
186

ODFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Young's Bay Transferred

to CEDC

Young's Bay

Net Pens

Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Umatilla Transferred

to

Thornhollow

, released in

March

Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Umatilla Transferred

to

Thornhollow

, released in

April

Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Columbia River, WA Transferred

to Ringold

Acclimation

- WDFW

Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Bonneville Klickitat River, WA Transferred

to Klickitat

H. - WDFW

Spring

Chinook

Clackamas Clackamas Clackamas +

Bonneville

Bonneville Transferred to Clackamas H Final

Rearing at

Clackamas

H.

Summer

Steelhead

South Santiam South Santiam South Santiam +

Bonneville

Bonneville Clackamas River Acclimated

at

Clackamas

H.

Winter

Steelhead

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek +

Bonneville

Bonneville Clackamas River 3 Releases,

3

acclimation

sites
187

ODFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Winter

Steelhead

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek +

Bonneville

Bonneville Sandy River 2 Releases,

2

acclimation

sites

Cascade ODFW NMFS Coho Bonneville Bonneville Cascade Cascade +

Bonneville

Tanner Creek Released at

the hatchery

Bonneville Bonneville Cascade Cascade Umatilla River Transferred

to New Accl.

Site (RM 56)

Bonneville Bonneville Cascade Cascade Yakima River Transferred

to YIN

acclimation

sites

Oxbow ODFW NMFS Coho Bonneville Bonneville Cascade Upper Herman

Creek

Tanner Creek Acclimated at

Bonneville H.

Bonneville Bonneville Cascade Upper Herman

Creek

Young's Bay Transferred

to CEDC

Young's Bay

Net Pens

Bonneville Bonneville Cascade Lower Herman

Cr. Ponds

Umatilla River Transferred

to New Accl.

Site (RM 56)

Bonneville Bonneville Cascade Lower Herman

Cr. Ponds

Young's Bay + Lower

Columbia River

Transferred

to CEDC Net

Pens,

Tongue Pt.,

Blind Sl.,

Young's Bay.

Eagle Creek NFH USFWS NMFS Coho Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek (Clackamas

River)

Released at

the hatchery

Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Yakima River Transferred

to YIN

acclimation

sites
188

ODFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Young's Bay Transferred

to CEDC

Young's Bay

Net Pens, 2

releases

Winter

Steelhead

Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek (Clackamas

River)

Released at

the hatchery

Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Cr. +

Clackamas H.

Clackamas River Transferred

to Clackamas

H.

Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Clackamas River Transferred

to

Clackamette

Cove Accl.

Clackamas ODFW NMFS,

ODFW,

City of

Portland,

PGE

Spring

Chinook

Clackamas Clackamas Clackamas +

Oxbow

Clackamas +

Oxbow

Clackamas River 2 releases in

the

Clackamas

River at the

hatchery

Clackamas Clackamas Clackamas +

Willamette

Clackamas +

Marion Forks

Clackamas River Transferred

to Cassidy

Pond

Acclimation

Clackamas Clackamas Clackamas +

Willamette

Clackamas +

Marion Forks

Sandy River Direct

release

Clackamas Clackamas Clackamas +

Willamette

Clackamas +

Marion Forks

Sandy River Transferred

to Marmot

Accl.

Clackamas Clackamas Clackamas +

Oxbow

Clackamas +

Bonneville

Clackamas Released at

the hatchery

Clackamas Clackamas Clackamas +

STEP

Clackamas River, Sandy

River, Willamette River

Transferred

to STEP
189

ODFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Winter

Steelhead

Farady

Dam/Clackamas

Clackamas Clackamas Clackamas + Oak

Springs

Clackamas River Transferred

to Oak

Springs for

final rearing

Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Creek Eagle Cr. +

Clackamas H.

Clackamas River Transferred

in from Eagle

Cr. NFH

Gnat Creek ODFW BPA Spring

Chinook

N/A N/A Gnat Creek Gnat Creek Columbia River, Young's

Bay

Transferred

to CEDC Net

Pens,

Tongue Pt.,

Blind Sl.,

Young's Bay.

Klaskanine ODFW BPA Fall

Chinook

Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek Big Creek +

Klaskanine

Klaskanine River Released at

the hatchery

Marion Forks ODFW ODFW/

COE

Spring

Chinook

Minto Pond Minto Pond Marion Forks Marion Forks N. Fk. Santiam River Direct

Release

Minto Pond Minto Pond Marion Forks Marion Forks N. Fk. Santiam River Transferred

to Minto

Pond for

Acclimation

Roaring River ODFW ODFW/

USFWS

Summer

Steelhead

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Oak Springs

Oak Springs + S.

Santiam

N. Fk. Santiam River Transferred

to Minto

Pond for

Acclimation

South Santiam ODFW ODFW/

COE

Spring

Chinook

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

STEP

Santiam River Transferred

to STEP

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Willamette

Willamette +

South Santiam

S. Fk. Santiam River Transferred

to Willamette,

South

Santiam, 2

releases
190

ODFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Willamette

Willamette +

South Santiam

S. Fk. Santiam River Transferred

to Willamette,

South

Santiam, 2

releases

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Willamette

Willamette Mollala River Transferred

to Willamette,

2 releases

Summer

Steelhead

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Oak Springs

Oak Springs + S.

Santiam

S. Fk. Santiam River Released at

the hatchery

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Oak Springs

Oak Springs Various programs Transferred

to Oak

Springs,

fulfills various

other

programs

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Bonneville

S. Santiam +

Bonneville

Clackamas River and Sandy

River

Final Rearing

at Bonneville

H.

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Oak Springs

Oak Springs +

S. Santiam

N. Fk. Santiam River Transferred

to Minto

Pond Accl.

McKenzie ODFW ODFW/

COE

Spring

Chinook

McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie Willamette River 2 direct

releases in

Willamette

River

McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie Willamette River Transferred

to Multnomah

Net Pens

McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie Clackamas River 2 direct

releases in

Clackamas

River
191

ODFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie Clackamas River Transferred

to

Clackamette

Cove Net

Pens

McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie River 4 releases at

the hatchery

Mckenzie McKenzie McKenzie +

Willamette

Willamette, Dex,

McKenzie

McKenzie River Transferred

to Willamette,

Dexter,

McKenzie

McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie +

Willamette

Willamette Willamette River Transferred

to OMSI Net

Pens

McKenzie McKenzie McKenzie +

Willamette

Willamette Willamette River Direct

release in

Willamette

River

Leaburg ODFW COE Summer

Steelhead

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Oak Springs

Oak Springs +

Leaburg

McKenzie River Released at

the hatchery

Leaburg South Santiam S. Santiam +

Oak Springs

Oak Springs,

Leaburg, Dex

M. Fk. Willamette River Final Rearing

and release

at Dexter

Willamette ODFW ODFW/

COE

Spring

Chinook

Dexter Ponds Dexter Ponds Willamette Willamette Lookout Pt. Res., Fall Creek Fingerling

releases
192

ODFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Dexter Ponds Dexter Ponds STEP Willamette +

STEP

Willamette River Transferred

to STEP

Dexter Ponds Dexter Ponds Gnat Creek Tongue Pt. Net

Pens

Columbia River Transferred

to Gnat

Creek +

CEDC

Dexter Ponds Dexter Ponds Gnat Creek Young's Bay Columbia River Transferred

to Gnat

Creek +

CEDC

Dexter Ponds Dexter Ponds Gnat Creek Blind Slough Columbia River Transferred

to Gnat

Creek +

CEDC

Dexter Ponds Dexter Ponds Gnat Creek Gnat Creek Columbia River Transferred

to Gnat

Creek +

CEDC

Dexter Ponds Dexter Ponds Willamette Willamette +

Dexter Pds.

M. Fk Willamette River Transferred

to Dexter

Ponds, 3

releases

Dexter Ponds Dexter Ponds Willamette Willamette M. Fk Willamette River Direct

release in

Willamette

River

Summer

Steelhead

Willamette Willamette Willamette Willamette Fall Creek Direct

Release

Oak Springs ODFW ODFW/

BPA

Summer

Steelhead

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Oak Springs

Oak Springs Sandy River, Hood River Direct

Release
193

ODFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

South Santiam South Santiam S. Santiam +

Oak Springs

Oak Springs and

others

Various Transferred

to Roaring

R., S.

Santiam,

Leaburg

hatcheries

Powerdale Fish

Facility

Powerdale Fish

Facility

Oak Springs Oak Springs W. Fk. Hood River Acclimated

at Dry Run

Bridge

Winter

Steelhead

Parkdale Tribal

Hatchery

Parkdale Tribal

Hatchery

Oak Springs Oak Springs M. Fk. and E. Fk.Hood River Acclimated

at Parkdale

and E.Fk.

Irrigation

District

Ponds

Round Butte ODFW PGE/BPA Spring

Chinook

Parkdale Tribal

Hatchery

Parkdale Tribal

Hatchery

Parkdale +

Round Butte

Round Butte M. Fk. Hood River Acclimated

at Parkdale

Parkdale Tribal

Hatchery

Parkdale Tribal

Hatchery

Parkdale +

Round Butte

Round

Butte+Pelton

Ladder

W. Fk. Hood River Acclimated

at Dry Run

Bridge

Pelton Ladder Round Butte Round Butte Round

Butte+Pelton

Ladder

Deschutes River Transferred

to Pelton

Ladder

Summer

Steelhead

Pelton Ladder Round Butte Round Butte Round Butte Deschutes River + Lake

Simtustus

Direct

Releases

Pelton Ladder Round Butte Round Butte Round Butte Jefferson County Sports

and Rec. Catchout

Transfer to

Jefferson

County

Sports and

Rec.

Catchout

Umatilla ODFW BPA Fall

Chinook

Three Mile Dam Three Mile Dam Umatilla Umatilla Umatilla River Acclimated

at

Thornhollow
194

ODFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Spring

Chinook

Three Mile

Dam+Carson

S. Fk. Walla

Walla+Carson NFH

Umatilla +

Carson

Umatilla Umatilla River Acclimated

at Imeques

Summer

Steelhead

Three Mile Dam Minthorn Pond Umatilla Umatilla Umatilla River Acclimated

at Bonifer

and

Minthorn

ponds

Lookingglass ODFW LSRCP Spring

Chinook

Imnaha ponds Lookingglass Lookinglass Lookingglass Imnaha River Acclimated

at Imnaha

Ponds

Lookingglass+

Lookinglass Dam

Lookingglass Lookingglass Lookingglass Lookingglass Creek Released at

the hatchery

Upper Grand Ronde Lookingglass Lookingglass Lookingglass Upper Grand Ronde River Acclimated

at Upper

Grand

Ronde

acclimation

site

Catherine Creek Lookingglass Lookingglass Lookingglass Catherine Creek Acclimated

at Catherine

Creek site

Lostine River Lookingglass Lookingglass Lookingglass Lostine River Acclimated

at Lostine

River site

Wallowa Hatchery ODFW LSRCP Summer

Steelhead

Wallowa + Big

Canyon

Wallowa Wallowa +

Irrigon

Irrigon Wallowa River and Deer

Creek

Acclimated

at Wallowa

and Big

Canyon

Summer

Steelhead

Little Sheep Creek Little Sheep Creek Wallowa +

Irrigon

Irrigon Little Sheep Creek Acclimated

at Little

Sheep Cr.
195

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Beaver Creek

(Elochoman)

WDFW Mitchell Act Searun

Cutthroat

Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek

Winter

Steelhead

Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek

Summer

Steelhead

Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek/Gobar Ponds

Chelan (Upper

Mid. Col.)

WDFW Chelan

PUD

Summer

Steelhead

Wells Wells Eastbank Eastbank/Chelan/

Turtle Rock

Wenatchee River

Cle Elum

(Yakima)

YIN/

WDFW

BPA Spring

Chinook

Roza Cle Elum Cle Elum Cle Elum 3 sites

Cowlitz Salmon

(Cowlitz)

WDFW Tacoma

Public

Utilities

Fall

Chinook

Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River

Coho Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River

Spring

Chinook

Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River

Cowlitz Trout

(Cowlitz)

WDFW Tacoma

Public

Utilities

Searun

Cutthroat

Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River

Summer

Steelhead

Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River

Winter

Steelhead

Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River Cowlitz River

Eastbank (Upper

Mid. Col.)

WDFW Chelan

PUD

Spring

Chinook

Chiwawa Pond Eastbank Eastbank Eastbank Chiwawa

Summer

Chinook

Wells Wells Wells Eastbank Similkameen/Carlton Ponds

Summer

Chinook

Dryden Dam Eastbank Eastbank Eastbank Dryden Pond

Summer

Steelhead

Dryden Dam/Wells Eastbank/Wells Eastbank/Wells Eastbank/Turtle

Rock

Wenatchee River

Sockeye Tumwater Dam Eastbank Eastbank Eastbank Lake Wenatchee Net Pens
196

WDFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Elochoman

(Elochoman)

WDFW Mitchell Act Tule Fall

Chinook

Elochoman Elochoman Elochoman Elochoman Elochoman

Coho Elochoman Elochoman Elochoman Elochoman Elochoman/ Deep River Net

Pens

formerly part

of Kalama

Falls program

Fallert Creek

(Kalama)

WDFW Mitchell Act Spring

Chinook

Kalama Falls Kalama Falls Kalama Falls Fallert Creek Fallert Creek

WA State Coho Fallert Creek Fallert Creek Fallert Creek Fallert Creek Fallert Creek

Grays River

(Grays River)

WDFW Mitchell Act Summer

Steelhead

Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Grays River Gobar Pond/ Grays River/

other tribs

Coho Grays River Grays River Grays River Grays River Deep River Net Pens

Kalama Falls

(Kalama)

WDFW Mitchell Act Fall

Chinook

Kalama Falls Kalama Falls Kalama Falls Kalama Falls Kalama Falls

Spring

Chinook

Kalama Falls Kalama Falls Kalama Falls Fallert Creek Fallert Creek

Coho Kalama Falls Kalama Falls Kalama Falls Kalama Falls Kalama Falls

Summer

Steelhead

Skamania Skamania Skamania Beaver Creek Fallert Creek Development

of local brood

Summer

Steelhead

Kalama River Kalama Falls Fallert Creek Fallert Creek Kalama System/ Fallert

Creek

Winter

Steelhead

Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Fallert Creek/

Beaver Creek

Beaver Creek Gobar Pond Development

of local brood

Winter

Steelhead

Kalama River Kalama Falls Kalama Falls/

Beaver Creek

Fallert Creek Fallert Creek

Klickitat (Klickitat) WDFW Mitchell Act Spring

Chinook

Klickitat Klickitat Klickitat

(Klickitat)

Klickitat Klickitat URB

Marking:

Elochoman,

Washougal,

Bonneville

involved

Fall

Chinook

Priest Rapids Priest Rapids Priest

Rapids/Klickitat

Klickitat Klickitat
197

WDFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Coho Lewis River Lewis River Lewis

River/Klickitat

Klickitat Klickitat

Lewis River

(Lewis)

WDFW PacificCorp Spring

chinook

Lewis River/Merwin

Dam

Speelyai Speelyai Speelyai/Lewis

River

Lewis River

Mitchell Act Coho Lewis River/Merwin

Dam

Lewis River Lewis River Lewis River Lewis River

Lyons Ferry

(Lower Snake)

WDFW LSRCP Spring

Chinook

Tucannon/Ringold Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry Tucannon/Ringold upriver=Pittsb

urg Landing,

Captain

Johns

Rapids, Big

Canyon

Mitchell Act Fall

Chinook

Lyons Ferry/Lower

Granite Dam

Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry/upriver sites

(NPT)

Summer

Steelhead

Lyons Ferry/Ringold Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry/Ringold/other

sites

Merwin (Lewis) WDFW PacificCorp Summer

Steelhead

Merwin Dam Merwin Merwin Merwin Merwin

Methow (Methow) WDFW Douglas

PUD

Spring

Chinook

Wells/trib trap sites Methow Methow Methow Methow/Chewuck/Twisp

North Toutle

(Cowlitz)

WDFW Mitchell Act Spring

Chinook

Cowlitz Salmon Cowlitz Salmon Cowlitz Salmon Cowlitz

Salmon/North

Toutle

North Toutle

Fall

Chinook

North Toutle North Toutle North Toutle North Toutle North Toutle

Summer

Steelhead

Skamania Skamania Skamania/Grays

River

Grays River/North

Toutle

North Toutle

Priest Rapids

(Upper Mid. Col.)

WDFW Grant PUD Fall

Chinook

Priest Rapids Priest Rapids Priest Rapids Priest Rapids Priest Rapids

Ringold Springs

(Upper Mid. Col.)

WDFW Mitchell Act Spring

Chinook

Ringold Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry Lyons

Ferry/Ringold

Ringold

Fall

Chinook

Bonneville/Priest

Rapids

Bonneville/Priest

Rapids

Bonneville Bonneville Ringold
198

WDFW (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Summer

Steelhead

Wells Wells Lyons Ferry Lyons

Ferry/Ringold

Ringold

Rocky Reach

(Upper Mid. Col.)

WDFW Chelan

PUD

Summer

Chinook

Wells Wells Wells Rocky Reach Turtle Rock

Summer

Steelhead

Wells Wells Wells/Rocky

Reach

Rocky Reach Wenatchee R

Skamania

(Washougal)

WDFW Mitchell Act Summer

Steelhead

Skamania Skamania Skamania Skamania Skamania

Winter

Steelhead

Skamania Skamania Skamania Skamania Skamania

Cutthroat

Trout

Skamania Skamania Skamania Skamania Skamania

Speelyai (Lewis) WDFW PacifiCorp Spring

chinook

Lewis R./Merwin Dam Speelyai Speelyai Speelyai Lewis River

Mitchell Act Coho Lewis River Lewis River Speelyai Speelyai Upper Col. Tribs part of

captive brood

program

Tucannon

(Tucannon)

WDFW LSRCP Spring

Chinook

Tucannon Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry Lyons Ferry/Curl Lake

Summer

Steelhead

Tucannon Tucannon Tucannon Tucannon Tucannon

Turtle Rock

(Upper Mid. Col.)

WDFW Chelan

PUD

Summer

Steelhead

Tumwater Dam Eastbank Eastbank Eastbank/Turtle

Rock

Wenatchee

Summer

Chinook

Wells Wells Wells/Eastbank Turtle Rock Turtle Rock

Washougal

(Washougal)

WDFW Mitchell Act Fall

chinook

Washougal Washougal Washougal Washougal Washougal

Coho Washougal Washougal Washougal Washougal Washougal/Klickitat

Wells (Upper Mid.

Col.)

WDFW Douglas

PUD

Summer

Chinook

Wells Wells Wells Wells Wells

Summer

Steelhead

Wells Wells Wells Wells Wells
199

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Abernathy SCTC

(Lwr-Col

Mainstem)

USFWS USFWS various Abernathy SCTC Abernathy SCTC Abernathy SCTC Abernathy SCTC Abernathy SCTC, various

sites according to research

design

Carson NFH

(Wind)

USFWS NMFS Spring

Chinook

Carson NFH Carson NFH Carson NFH Carson NFH Carson NFH (Wind River)

USFWS NMFS Spring

Chinook

Carson NFH Carson NFH Carson NFH Carson NFH Umatilla River Transferred to

CTUIR

USFWS NMFS Spring

Chinook

Carson NFH Carson NFH Carson NFH Big White Salmon

Ponds

Big White Salmon Ponds

Dworshak NFH

(Clearwater)

USFWS USFWS Spring

Chinook

Dworshak NFH Dworshak NFH Dworshak NFH Dworshak NFH Dworshak NFH (Clearwater

River)

USFWS COE Steelhead Dworshak NFH Dworshak NFH Dworshak NFH Dworshak NFH Dworshak NFH (Clearwater

River), S.Fk. Clearwater R.

Eagle Creek NFH

(Willamette)

USFWS NMFS Coho Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek

NFH

Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek NFH (Eagle

Creek)

USFWS NMFS Coho Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek

NFH

Eagle Creek NFH Yakima River Transferred to

YIN

USFWS NMFS Coho Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek

NFH

Eagle Creek NFH Young's Bay Transferred to

CEDC

USFWS NMFS Steelhead Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek

NFH

Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek NFH (Eagle

Creek)

Entiat NFH

(Entiat)

USFWS BR Spring

Chinook

Entiat NFH Entiat NFH Entiat NFH Entiat NFH Entiat NFH (Entiat River)

Hagerman NFH

(Salmon)

USFWS USFWS Steelhead Sawtooth SFH Sawtooth SFH Hagerman NFH Hagerman NFH Sawtooth SFH (Salmon

River), other Salmon R sites

Kooskia NFH

(Clearwater)

USFWS USFWS Spring

Chinook

Kooskia NFH Dworshak NFH Kooskia NFH Kooskia NFH Kooskia NFH (Clear Creek,

M.Fk. Clearwater River)

Leavenworth NFH

(Wenatchee)

USFWS BR Spring

Chinook

Leavenworth NFH Leavenworth NFH Leavenworth

NFH

Leavenworth NFH Leavenworth NFH (Icicle

Creek-Wenatchee River)
200

USFWS (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Little White

Salmon NFH

(Lwr-Mid Col

Mainstem)

USFWS NMFS Spring

Chinook

Little White Salmon

NFH

Little White Salmon

NFH

Little White

Salmon NFH

Little White

Salmon NFH

Little White Salmon NFH

(Little White Salmon River)

USFWS NMFS Spring

Chinook

Umatilla River Umatilla River Little White

Salmon NFH

Little White

Salmon NFH

Umatilla River Transferred to

CTUIR

USFWS NMFS Fall

Chinook

Little White Salmon

NFH

Little White Salmon

NFH

Little White

Salmon NFH

Little White

Salmon NFH

Little White Salmon NFH

(L.W. Salmon R)

USFWS NMFS Fall

Chinook

Little White Salmon

NFH

Little White Salmon

NFH

Little White

Salmon NFH

Little White

Salmon NFH

Yakima River Transferred to

YIN

Spring Creek

NFH (Lwr-Mid Col

Mainstem)

USFWS NMFS,

COE

Fall

Chinook

Spring Creek NFH Spring Creek NFH Spring Creek

NFH

Spring Creek

NFH

Spring Creek NFH

(mainstem Columbia River)

Warm Springs

NFH (Deschutes)

USFWS USFWS Spring

Chinook

Warm Springs NFH Warm Springs NFH Warm Springs

NFH

Warm Springs

NFH

Warm Springs NFH (Warm

Springs River-Deschutes R)

Willard NFH (LwrMid Col

Mainstem)

USFWS NMFS Coho Little White Salmon

NFH

Little White Salmon

NFH

Willard NFH Willard NFH Willard NFH (Little White

Salmon River)

USFWS NMFS Coho Little White Salmon

NFH

Little White Salmon

NFH

Willard NFH Willard NFH Clearwater River subbasin Transferred to

NPT

Winthrop NFH

(Methow)

USFWS BR Spring

Chinook

Wells Dam Methow SFH Winthrop NFH Winthrop NFH Winthrop NFH (Winthrop

River)

USFWS BR Steelhead Wells Dam Wells SFH Winthrop NFH Winthrop NFH Winthrop NFH (Winthrop

River)
201

Resident Fish Production

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Nez Perce Trout

Ponds

(Clearwater)

NPT BPA RT Various Various Clearwater Various

Clearwater

Hatchery

(Clearwater)

IDFG IDFG RT Various Various Clearwater Various

Cabinet Gorge

Hatchery (Clark

Fork)

IDFG BPA;

WPPS

KK Various Various Clark Fork Lake Pend Orielle

Clark Fork

Hatchery (Clark

Fork)

IDFG IDFG WCT; KT;

BT

Various Clark Fork Clark Fork Clark Fork & Various

Kootenai R.

Hatchery

(Kootenai)

Kootenai

Tribe

BPA WS Various Kootenai Kootenai Kootenai

Murray Springs

Hatchery

(Kootenai)

MDFWP MDFWP KK; RT;

CT; KT

Various Kootenai Kootenai Various

Kalispel Tribal

Hatchery (Pend

Orielle)

Kalispel

Tribe

BPA LB Various Pend Orielle Pend Orielle Box Canyon Res

Sandpoint

Hatchery (Pend

Orielle)

IDFG IDFG WCT; RT Various Pend Orielle Pend Orielle Various

Snake River Joint

Cult. Fac (Upper

Snake)

SBT/

SPT

BPA RT; (YCT;

RBT)*

Various Upper Snake Upper Snake Upper Snake + Various

American Falls

Hatchery (Upper

Snake)

IDFG IDFG;

American

Falls

Irrigation

Dist.

RT Various Upper Snake Upper Snake Upper Snake + Various
202

Resident (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Ashton Hatchery

(Upper Snake)

IDFG IDFG;

Teton

River

Hydropower

RT; KK Various Upper Snake Upper Snake Upper Snake + Various

Grace Hatchery

(Upper Snake)

IDFG IDFG BLC;

BRC;

YCT;

SRCT;

BR; M; S;

RT

Various Upper Snake Upper Snake Upper Snake + Various

Hagerman

Hatchery (Upper

Snake)

IDFG IDFG RT; BR;

KK; BT;

LCT; KT

Various Upper Snake Upper Snake Upper Snake + Various

Hayspur Hatchery

(Upper Snake)

IDFG IDFG RT Various Upper Snake Upper Snake Upper Snake + Various

Mackay Hatchery

(Upper Snake)

IDFG IDFG;

Ririe

Reservoir;

DJ

RT;

SRCT;

BT; BR;

KK

Various Upper Snake Upper Snake Upper Snake + Various

Nampa Hatchery

(Upper Snake)

IDFG IDFG RT; BR;

LCT

Various Upper Snake Upper Snake Upper Snake + Various

McCall Hatchery

(Upper Snake)

IDFG IDFG;

LSRCP

WCT; RT Various Upper Snake Upper Snake Upper Snake + Various

Lake Roosevelt

RT Net Pens

(Upper Columbia

Mainstem)

STOI;

others

BPA RT Various Upper Columbia

Mnstm

Upper Columbia

Mnstm

Upper Columbia Mnstm

Sherman Creek

Hatchery (Upper

Columbia

Mainstem)

WDFW BPA KK; RT Lake Roosevelt Upper Columbia

Mnstm

Upper Columbia

Mnstm

Upper Columbia Mnstm
203

Resident (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Spokane Tribal

Hatchery (Upper

Columbia

Mainstem)

STOI BPA KK; RT Lake Roosevelt Upper Columbia

Mnstm

Upper Columbia

Mnstm

Upper Columbia Mnstm

Colville Tribal

Hatchery (Upper

Columbia

Mainstem)

CCT BPA RT; BT;

LCT

Various Upper Columbia

Mnstm

Upper Columbia

Mnstm

Upper Columbia Mnstm

Colville Hatchery

(Upper Columbia

Mainstem)

WDFW WDFW RT; BT;

CT

Various Upper Columbia

Mnstm

Upper Columbia

Mnstm

Upper Columbia Mnstm

Creston Fish

Hatchery

(Flathead)

USFWS BPA BT; WCT;

KK

Various Flathead Flathead Flathead Lake

Leaburg Hatchery

(Willamette)

ODFW COE RT; CT Fish Lake Willamette Willamette Various

Marion Forks

Hatchery

(Willamette)

ODFW COE /

State

RT;CT N/A Willamette Willamette Various

Roaring River

Hatchery

(Willamette)

ODFW ODFW/U

SFWS

RT Roaring River

Hatchery

Willamette Willamette Various

Willamette

Hatchery (Trout)

(Willamette)

ODFW ODFW RT N/A Willamette Willamette Various

Oak Springs

Hatchery

(Deschutes)

ODFW ODFW RT Oak Springs Hatchery Deschutes Deschutes Various

Round Butte

Hatchery

(Deschutes)

ODFW PGE KK Paulina Lakes Deschutes Deschutes Deschutes

Fall River

(Deschutes)

ODFW ODFW/U

SFWS

RT;

BT;CT

Crane Praire Res. Deschutes Deschutes Various
204

Resident (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Wizard Falls

(Deschutes)

ODFW ODFW/

USFWS

RT; BT;

CT; AG;

KK

Wizard Falls Hatchery Deschutes Deschutes Various

Wallowa Hatchery

-Trout (Grande

Ronde)

ODFW ODFW/

USFWS

RT N/A Grande Ronde Grande Ronde Grande Ronde

Cowlitz Trout

Hatchery

(Cowlitz)

WDFW Tacoma

City

Lights

TM; CC Cowlitz Reservoirs Cowlitz Cowlitz Cowlitz Reservoirs

Mossyrock

Hatchery

(Cowlitz)

WDFW Tacoma

City

Lights

TM; CC;

RT; BT;

CT

Mayfield Lake Cowlitz Cowlitz Mayfield Lake

Goldendale

Hatchery

(Klickitat)

WDFW WDFW RT; BR;

BT; CT

Local Klickitat Klickitat Klickitat

Chelan Hatchery

(Lake Chelan)

WDFW;

Chelan

PUD

WDFW;

Chelan

PUD

RT; BT;

CT; BR

various Lake Chelan Lake Chelan Lake Chelan

Eastbank

Hatchery

(Wenatchee)

WDFW Chelan

PUD

KK various Various Wenatchee Various

Lyons Ferry

Hatchery (Lower

Snake Mainstem )

WDFW COE RT various L. Snake

Mainstem

L. Snake

Mainstem

L. Snake Mainstem

Tucannon

Hatchery

(Tucannon)

WDFW COE/WD

FW

RT; BR various Various Tucannon Various

Columbia Basin

Hatchery (Crab

Creek)

WDFW WDFW RT; BR;

BT; TM;

BG; CC;

W

various Crab Creek Various Various
205

Resident (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Naches Hatchery

(Yakima)

WDFW WDFW RT; BR;

BT; CT;

KK

various Yakima Yakima Yakima

Ringold Springs

Hatchery (Lower

Mid Columbia

Mainstem)

WDFW Mitchell

Act/WDF

W

BG; CC;

LB; W

various L. Mid Col.

Mainstem

L. Mid Col.

Mainstem

Various

Ford Hatchery

(Spokane)

WDFW WDFW RT; BR;

BT; LT;

KK; CT

various Spokane Spokane Spokane

Spokane

Hatchery

(Spokane)

WDFW WDFW RT; BR;

BT; W

various Spokane Spokane Various

Vancouver

Hatchery (Lower

Columbia

Mainstem)

WDFW WDFW BR; RT;

CC

various L. Columbia

Mainstem

L. Columbia

Mainstem

L. Columbia Mainstem

Omak Hatchery

(Okanagan)

WDFW WDFW RT; LCT;

BT

various Okanagan Okanagan Various

Wells Hatchery

(Upper Mid

Columbia)

WDFW Douglas

Co. PUD

RT various Various Upper Mid

Columbia

Various

Merwin Hatchery

(Lewis)

WDFW PP&L RT; TM various Lewis Lewis Lewis

Speelyai Hatchery

(Lewis)

WDFW PP&L;

Cowlitz

Co.PUD

KK various Lewis Lewis Lewis

Mullan Hatchery

(Coeur d'Alene)

IDFG IDFG;

Shoshone

Co.;

Shoshone

Co.

Sportsme

ns Assn.

RT various Coeur d'Alene Coeur d'Alene Various
206

Resident (Continued)

Hatchery Agency Funding

Source

Species Adult Collection Site Adult Holding /

Spawning

Incubation Rearing Acclimation / Release Comments

Sawtooth

Hatchery

(Salmon)

IDFG IDFG

(res. Fish)

RT; GT;

CT; AG

various Various Salmon Salmon

Anaconda

Hatchery

(Flathead)

WDFWP WDFWP CT; WCT various Flathead Flathead Various

Arlee Hatchery

(Flathead)

WDFWP WDFWP RT various Flathead Flathead Flathead

* = Plan for

future production
207

Appendix 3

Interim Standards for the Use of Captive Propagation

Interim Standards for the use of Captive Propagation Technology in Recovery of

Anadromous Salmonids Listed under the Endangered Species Act29

Introduction

In response to a request from the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC), the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) developed these interim guidelines for applying captive

propagation technology to recovery actions for anadromous fish listed as threatened or

endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

These interim standards establish protocols for determining when captive propagation could be

used to preserve listed fish populations. The standards also address the circumstances under

which such intervention could be phased out. These interim standards specifically address the

following items:

• A protocol to evaluate the risk of extinction vs. the risk of intervention;

• An explicit linkage between releases from individual captive propagation programs and the

availability of suitable habitat and/or habitat restoration activities;

• A protocol to decide the type of intervention appropriate to different populations;

• A rationale for the initiation and duration of each intervention;

• A mechanism to prioritize intervention efforts.

The NPPC also requested that the interim standards include a prioritized list of likely target

populations and intervention programs to form the basis for programmatic and budgetary

planning. It is not possible at this time to provide such a list, because a comprehensive Columbia

River propagation plan is being developed within U.S. v. Oregon negotiations. However, these

standards will be used to evaluate any proposed captive propagation initiatives that are

developed.

Purpose

The purpose of these interim guidelines is to provide a framework for developing and evaluating

captive propagation proposals. This framework reflects the current state of the science of brood

stock management, but does not contain the amount of detail on fish genetics, fish health, and

 

29 National Marine Fisheries Service, Sustainable Fisheries Division-Hatchery/Inland Fisheries Branch, 525 N. E.

Oregon Street, Portland, OR 98232-2737
208

hatchery management found in other publications. These guidelines provide information on

important issues, decision criteria, and management concerns to agencies that might sponsor

development of new captive propagation proposals. By applying the interim guidelines, agencies

will have a consistent approach to using captive propagation technology in recovering ESA listed

anadromous salmonids.

Captive propagation technology refers to propagation programs that hold fish in captive

facilities through most or all of a life cycle (e.g., captive rearing and captive breeding; see Flagg

and Mahnken 1995). Captive propagation is an experimental measure that shows promise for

recovering listed species when they are under immediate risk of becoming extinct in their natural

habitat. However, it is uncertain at this time whether captive propagation technology can

conserve the genetic integrity and population structure of an Evolutionarily Significant Unit

(ESU) and restore anadromous fish to self-sustaining, naturally-reproducing populations in their

native habitat. Currently there is not enough empirical information available to identify criteria

for maintaining population structure of ESU’s or for establishing critical thresholds indicating

when to initiate or terminate captive propagation measures. However, the theoretical basis for

use of captive propagation to recover listed fish is well documented in the references cited in

these guidelines. One purpose of these interim guidelines is the systematic development and

evaluation of effective captive propagation measures. As the technology evolves, managers will

better understand how best to utilize captive propagation - in combination with other artificial

and natural propagation techniques - in developing comprehensive recovery programs.

These interim guidelines are intended to provide a systematic way for sponsors to identify the

strengths and weaknesses of their projects. Far from being a set of rigid rules, they provide

flexibility to reduce risks and increase benefits of individual projects, and supply a means for

displaying the rationale and justification for captive propagation measures. They reflect the

current understanding of salmon biology and recognize the scientific uncertainty that exists.

These guidelines will be used to evaluate any new captive propagation initiatives proposed to the

NPPC through its Fish and Wildlife Program. The NPPC will only support new captive

propagation programs if they comply with these standards. Additionally, new production

initiatives must satisfy the terms of NPPC’s 3-Step Process. The 3-Step Process is outlined in

the Draft Policy dated October 21, 1997. It includes : (1) Conceptual planning and approval, (2)

preliminary design, cost estimation and environmental review and, (3) final design review. The

guidelines and standards outlined in this document also describe the issues that must be

addressed when applying for ESA Section 10 permits to allow directed take of listed species for

captive propagation program brood stock.

Recovery

The purposes of the ESA are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which listed

species depend may be conserved and to provide a program for conserving listed species so that

they may be brought to the point where protection under the Act is no longer necessary. The

definition of “recovery” under the ESA requires self-sustaining populations of native species,
209

naturally reproducing in their native habitat. Thus, for recovery purposes, captive propagation

must ultimately seek to reestablish self-sustaining, natural populations of currently listed species.

The short-term goals of a captive propagation program are to reduce the risk of extinction,

preserve the genetic material of a stock of fish, or increase the abundance of an at-risk stock.

Longer term recovery goals must address solutions to the factors which have caused the stock to

decline and means by which the naturally producing portion of the stock, living in native habitat,

will be increased. Although these guidelines contain a recommendation that captive propagation

programs last for only one to three generations, in some cases the causes of the decline may take

longer than three generations to resolve. This does not necessarily mean that captive propagation

programs should be precluded, but the program sponsors should be aware of the program’s

limitations regarding recovery as it is defined under the ESA.

Captive propagation on its own will rarely, if ever, constitute a complete recovery program. The

elements of a complete recovery program are outlined in “Working Guidance for Comprehensive

Salmon Restoration Initiatives on the Pacific Coast” (NMFS, 1996). Sponsors of new captive

propagation initiatives must also address the factors of decline that caused the population to

reach the status where captive propagation is necessary. Moreover, they must coordinate

artificial propagation with management in the habitat and fisheries realms.

Coordination

The interim standards described herein have been developed in consultation with regional comanagers - represented by Federal and state agencies and tribes - with the assistance of other

relevant parties to ensure that they address the Endangered Species Act, tribal treaty and trust

responsibilities, and other sustainable fishery management responsibilities. It is expected that

these interim standards will undergo additional scientific and policy analysis through ongoing

processes such as recovery planning under the ESA, the Artificial Production Review being

conducted by NPPC, the U.S. v. Oregon arena, and others. These processes should help finalize

the standards for captive propagation programs across the region. It is expected that these

interim standards will be applied while the other processes proceed. Evaluating results from

current captive brood stock programs will provide data essential for adjusting these standards.

Background

The NMFS policy on the relationship between artificial propagation and recovery of listed

salmonids is described in Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-2, “Pacific Salmon and

Artificial Propagation Under the Endangered Species Act” (Hard et al.1992). It was published

shortly after the first anadromous salmonids were listed in the Columbia Basin. This document

discusses the potential uses of artificial propagation technology in preserving and recovering

anadromous fish populations; it also makes recommendations for selecting appropriate brood

stocks and operating hatcheries in a conservation framework. Protocols for collecting and

mating brood stock, as well as rearing, and release, strategies and monitoring results are further

discussed in Flagg and Mahnken, 1995.
210

Captive Propagation Programs

For several decades, artificial propagation - usually in the form of production hatcheries - has

been a prominent feature of fisheries mitigation and enhancement efforts for Pacific salmon. By

using the potential of artificial propagation to circumvent the high rates of mortality in early life

stages experienced in the wild managers have successfully enhanced harvests. Recently, the

decline of many natural populations has prompted development of a conservation role for

artificial propagation. However, the use of artificial propagation for supplementing and restoring

natural populations is largely unproven and entails certain risks (Miller 1990).

Conventional production hatcheries collect eggs and sperm from natural or hatchery-produced

adults, hatch and rear the resultant offspring to smolt size, and release the smolts to migrate and

rear to adulthood in the ocean. This technology has been successful for some fishery mitigation

and enhancement programs and, with variations, has been applied to conservation as well. In

addition, situations may arise that require increased reliance on artificial propagation to facilitate

the recovery of a threatened or endangered salmon population.

The most conspicuous of these situations occurs when a natural population is dangerously close

to extinction. One option to consider in such a case is a captive propagation program - a special

case of supplementation. A captive propagation program typically involves taking gametes or

fish from the natural population, rearing them to maturity in the hatchery, and either releasing the

adults to breed in the wild (the captive rearing strategy) or breeding the adults in the hatchery

and releasing their progeny into the natural habitat (the captive breeding strategy). A captive

propagation program thus involves rearing fish in captivity for most of the life cycle, rather than

releasing them as fry or smolts as is done in a traditional salmon hatchery. The potentially high

salmon survival found in protective culture affords a unique opportunity to produce large

numbers of juveniles for supplementation in a single generation. If proper precautions are taken

to minimize genetic change during the collection, mating, rearing, and release of fish held in

captive propagation, these programs have the potential to rapidly increase the abundance of

severely depleted stocks.

Sponsors of captive propagation proposals should carefully evaluate the reasons why they

propose to use artificial propagation instead of first solving the problems that caused natural

propagation to fail. Further, they should examine their reasons for choosing captive propagation

instead of more “traditional” hatchery methods as a means of artificial propagation.

The advantages cited for captive propagation include:

• The potentially much greater spawner-to-spawner survival provided by captive propagation

means that a small number of founders can provide a large number of fish for reintroduction

or supplementation within one or two generations.

• It is possible to collect broodstock without substantially affecting the abundance of the

remaining natural population. For example, the upper Columbia River spring chinook
211

programs collect eggs deposited in redds by naturally-spawning, listed fish. This allows the

collection of broodstock without (in theory) any substantial reduction in the number of

natural spawners.

• The ability to collect eggs or juveniles may allow for artificial propagation of populations

from which adults can not be collected.

However, it should be recognized that although captive broodstock programs hold promise for

some species, they are unproven as a conservation measure for Pacific salmon. Therefore, as

with other types of artificial propagation for recovery purposes, captive propagation programs

for conservation of Pacific salmon should be regarded as experimental. Nonetheless, captive

propagation technology may be the preferred option if the imminent risk of extinction is high. If

implemented as part of a recovery plan, a captive propagation program should be integrated with

other measures such as habitat protection and restoration that are intended to address population

viability (Povilitis 1990).

Captive broodstock may be collected from the natural habitat as adults, as deposited eggs, or as

juveniles. The choice of life stage to collect affects how much natural selection occurs in the

broodstock sample before it is established in the hatchery and may also affect the degree to

which the sample is representative. The later the life stage, the greater the opportunity for natural

selection to occur and, consequently, the more closely the resulting broodstock is likely to

resemble the natural spawning population. However, among the potential disadvantages of

collecting older life stages for use as broodstock are difficulties in acclimating older juveniles to

the hatchery environment and, if adults are used, prespawning (holding) mortality. Any losses

that alter the broodstock’s original genetic composition may reduce the efficacy of

supplementation in rebuilding the natural population or increase the risk of adversely affecting

natural populations.

The guidelines for conventional artificial propagation recommended by Hard et al. (1992)

regarding broodstock collection and mating, rearing and release strategies, and monitoring may

be even more critical to the success of a captive propagation program. The thrust of the

guidelines is to avoid selecting for undesirable traits in the hatchery environment and to preserve

characteristics that are suitable for survival in the natural environment. If enough adults are

produced in a captive propagation program, it may be desirable to allow some of the captive

adults to spawn in the wild — thus allowing their offspring to undergo natural selection. In a

captive program, selection pressures can be minimized if mortality during captivity is low. If

selection caused by mortality in captivity is minimized, the main genetic consequences to be

assessed are the consequences associated with broodstock sampling, mating, and progeny release

strategies and the effects of enhancing particular genotypes (Ryman and Laikre 1991). Note that

this latter effect does not occur if the entire population is enhanced through artificial propagation.

Of paramount importance for a threatened or endangered species is protecting the fish in captive

propagation from catastrophic loss or high mortality. This is especially true if all natural

gametes have been removed from the wild to establish a captive propagation program.

Consequently, the broodstock gametes should be divided between at least two independent
212

facilities, if funding allows. Because the normal anadromous fish life cycle includes rearing in

the ocean, at least a portion of the captive population should be reared in saltwater. Broodstock

should be isolated from all other fish and kept under security with safeguards against

environmental perturbation (including equipment failure). Because a release strategy is the

pivotal last element in a recovery attempt involving captive propagation, release timing should

be based on the behavior of any remaining natural fish, or on knowledge of the life-history

characteristics of the natural fish if none are present.

Finally, captive propagation programs must be regarded as temporary conservation measures that

should be placed in the context of an overall recovery plan which addresses all factors causing

population decline. For the purposes of recovery under the ESA, a captive broodstock program

should, if possible, be limited to one complete life cycle, at which time the progeny of these

broodstock would be released into the wild. Whether such a program should be extended beyond

a single generation will depend on the performance of the fish in captivity and the wild, the

viability of the natural component being supplemented, and the success of measures taken to

address other factors of decline.

Initiation of Captive Propagation Programs

Managers who plan to sponsor a captive propagation program should proceed through the

following steps:

1. Consider the alternatives to captive propagation and review the guidelines presented in the

following sections of this document.

2. Evaluate the status of the population targeted for captive propagation and goals of the

proposed program design using the decision issues listed in Table 1.

3. Shape the program proposal using the operational standards outlined in Table 2.

4. Develop a detailed captive propagation plan following the outline in Table 3.

5. Evaluate the proposal against the hazards and benefits listed in Tables 4 and 5.

By completing this process, managers will be able to provide documentation that the proposal is

justified, that it is consistent with the ESA, that risks are manageable, and that success is likely.

This process will also generate documentation to show that the proposal is coordinated with

other management goals and priorities and is feasible in terms of facilities and budgets.

Captive Propagation Guidelines

The use of captive propagation technology is appropriate only when the population’s risk of

extinction (or other substantial harm) is greater than the risks of using artificial propagation.

Key issues are:

• The consequences of not doing anything or of only pursuing other recovery options.

• Size of the project relative to the natural population.
213

• Number and origin of fish collected for broodstock each generation.

• Rearing strategies to produce wild-like fish.

• Release of fish that assures survival and successful integration with the natural component of

the population.

• The criteria for project success.

• Spreading risks by utilizing a variety of recovery strategies when multiple populations within

an ESU are at risk (i.e. all at-risk populations within an ESU should not necessarily be

artificially propagated as part of a recovery effort).

Table 1 summarizes the important decision points that must be considered when proposing the

use of captive propagation technology for recovery of anadromous salmonids listed under the

ESA.

Table 1. Decision Standards for Using Captive Propagation Technology to Recover Listed

Anadromous Salmonids.

Issue Guidelines

Population

Status

1. Population is at a high risk of extinction in the immediate future. For

example:

- Population is at very low abundance (e.g. < 50 fish a year) OR

- Population is at low abundance and declining OR

- Population is at moderate abundance and declining precipitously OR

- Little or no natural production predicted for at least a full generation.

2. Population is of very low abundance relative to available habitat and

production potential, and short-term supplementation is deemed necessary to

accelerate natural recovery.

Importance

of

population

The population targeted for captive propagation is important, relative to other

populations because:

-Unique genetic qualities.

-Unique adaptations to specific habitats (e.g. adaptations in run timing,

migration distance, and behavior).

-Low likelihood of successful natural recolonization from other 

populations in the event of extinction.

-High potential productivity, or unique social, economic or cultural 

value.
214

Scale of

Project

1. Total captive production should be based on the number of fish needed to :

 a. Prevent extinction.

b. Adequately represent genetic variation for life history traits of the 

wild population.

c. Minimize genetic change during captivity.

d. Reestablish the fish in the wild.

2. Duration should be as short as possible (one to three generations)

Measures of

Success

1. Successful programs will:

a. Substantially reduce risk of extinction.

b. Cause minimal genetic change in comparison with the original 

source population.

c. Reintroduce fish that are phenotypically similar to wild fish 

of the same age in development, morphology, physiological state, and 

behavior.

 d. Increase the number of fish reproducing successfully in the wild.

Changing or

Terminating

Program

1. If risk of immediate extinction lessens because causes of decline are

corrected, terminate or phase into a conventional supplementation program.

2. If program increases numbers of successful natural spawners, increase the

proportion allowed to spawn naturally.

3. If substantial progress has not been made toward recovery at the end of

three complete generations and no progress has been made toward correcting

the causes of decline, reevaluate program.

4. If negative effects of captive propagation appear, the program should be

altered or terminated.

If after reviewing the decision standards outlined in Table 1 managers come to the conclusion

that captive propagation is an appropriate technology to apply to recovery, the operational

standards summarized in Table 2 will be applied to proposed captive propagation programs.
215

Table 2. Operational Standards for Using Captive Propagation Technology to Recover of

ESA-Listed Anadromous Salmonids

Issue Guidelines

Choice of

Brood stock

1. If all remaining individuals of the population of wild fish targeted for

recovery are not incorporated in the captive broodstock, develop a broodstock

selection protocol to ensure that the genetic and life history variability of the

target population is reflected in the captive broodstock.

2. Continual infusion of wild fish into successive year classes of the

broodstock may slow domestication of captive propagated fish.

Captive

Brood Stock

Spawning

1. Spawn all available adults.

2. Retrieve all possible eggs from mature females, either by multiple live

spawnings or through careful attention to ripeness and handling.

3. Use spawning protocols that maximize the effective genetic population

size:

a. Factorial or (with greater numbers of parents) single-pair matings.

b. Cryopreserved sperm(Benefits of using cryopreserved sperm should

be weighed against potential for loss of viability, especially when the 

number of eggs is low).

c. Induced spawning.

Rearing of

Fish

1. As much as possible, mimic wild rearing conditions (light, cover, substrate,

flow, temperature, densities) for fish to be released in the wild.

2. Facilities for freshwater rearing should have pathogen- and predator-free

water supplies.

3. Fish being transferred to seawater for rearing or release should be handled

so as not to compromise their ability to adapt to seawater.

4. Seawater-based rearing facilities should minimize the effects of storms,

harmful phytoplankton, predation, poaching, and disease.

5. Managers should consider equalizing the contribution of all parents to the

next generation to maximize effective population size and reduce artificial

selection in the captive environment.
216

Release of

Fish

1. Release fish at a life stage and size where their probability of survival to

adulthood is greatest.

2. Acclimate fish to locations in the watershed where they are intended to

return.

3. Design release strategies to integrate fish from captive propagation

programs with wild fish at the same life history stage, if any remain in the

natural system.

4. When fish are likely to remain in the release area (for example pre-smolts

or residuals), disperse the releases.

5. Use release protocols that minimize stress caused by handling,

transportation, or new surroundings.

6. Minimize negative interactions with other species in the watershed.

Management

of Returning

Adults

1. If the program meets all other guidelines, there is no general restriction on

the proportion of hatchery fish of this stock on the spawning grounds of the

population targeted for recovery for the first three generations. Individual

projects may limit the proportion of hatchery fish spawning naturally

depending on the details specific to the project.

2. Non-ESU hatchery fish from other programs should not exceed natural

levels of straying between the populations in question, or constitute more than

approximately one percent of total abundance if natural rates of straying are

not known.

Other

Disposition

of Fish

If captive propagation programs produce more fish than are needed for future

brood stock or release into the wild, the extra fish will be disposed of in a

manner that is agreeable to the co-managers and that does not jeopardize the

project or other recovery efforts.

Monitoring

and

Evaluation

1. Monitoring and evaluation of fish in captive propagation will include (at a

minimum):

 a. Survival at life history stages up to adulthood.

 b. Viability of gametes produced in captivity.

 c. Behavior, morphology, and viability and reproductive success of 

offspring produced in captivity.

2. Monitoring and evaluation of offspring released to the wild will include:

a. Survival and migration success.

b. Ability to return to hatchery or natural spawning areas.

c. Ability to successfully produce offspring in the wild.
217

Development of a Captive Propagation Program

A proposal to initiate captive propagation measures must have clear goals and objectives

articulated in a Captive Propagation Operation Plan. The plan is expected to address the issues

above and display how risks will be contained and evaluated. Coordination with ecosystem

restoration activities and fisheries management is critical. The process for evaluating goals and

objectives must be tied to proposed project duration. Captive propagation operation plans should

follow the outline provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Outline of a Captive Propagation Operation Plan

Captive

Propagation

Program

Description

1. Name of Program.

2. Stock and species to be propagated.

3. Names of the accountable organization and individuals.

4. Location of program and extent of target area.

5. Program goals.

6. Expected duration of program.

Relationship

of Program

to Other

Management

Objectives

1. Relationship to habitat protection and recovery strategies:

a. Major factors inhibiting natural production.

b. Description of habitat protection and recovery efforts.

c. Expected benefits of and time frame for habitat restoration efforts.

2. Ecological interaction with other species:

a. Consideration of interactions with other wild and hatchery 

salmonids that will affect or be affected by releases from the 

proposed program.

b. Description of the interactions among the proposed program and 

introduced and native non-salmonid species.

3. Relationship to fisheries and harvest objectives for other species:

a. Description of fisheries that might incidentally harvest these fish.

b. Expected harvest impacts.

c. Expected escapements.

Origin and

Identity of

Brood Stock

1. Guidelines for using the stock in the program.

2. Operating protocols to implement guidelines.

3. Data to support protocols:

a. History of brood stock.

b. Annual brood stock size and sex ratio.

c. Genetic and ecological differences between this stock and other 

stocks.

d. Description of special traits or other reasons for choosing this 

stock.

4. Facilities available for isolating and maintaining the captive program.
218

5. Personnel accountable for developing and operating the captive propagation

program.

Brood Stock

Collection

1. Operating protocols:

a. Number of each sex to be collected and maintained in captive 

propagation.

b. Kind of fish collected (life stage, special characteristics).

c. Description of sampling design.

d. Method of identifying target population if more than one stock 

exists.

2. Data to support protocols:

a. Distribution of target population over time and space.

b. Biological information (fecundity, sex ratios).

Mating 1. Operating protocols:

a. Number of each sex to be mated.

b. Method for choosing spawners.

c. Fertilization scheme.

2. Facilities.

Rearing 1. Operating protocols:

a. How will the incubation and rearing environment be different from 

or similar to natural rearing?

b. How will family groups be separated and their contributions 

equalized?

2. Data to support protocols.

3. Facilities.

Release 1. Operating protocols:

a. Number, size and life stage at release.

b. Date, location, and number per location of release.

c. Release technique (direct, acclimation, volitional).

d. Tags and marks.

2. Data to support protocols.

3. Facilities and equipment.

Monitoring

and

Evaluation

1. Biological and propagation parameters monitored:

a. Survival at different life stages.

b. Age at maturity, sex ratios, fecundity, viability of gametes.

c. Genetic, morphological, meristic, and behavioral similarity to donor

population.

d. Survival of progeny in wild.

e. Contribution to natural spawning and success of progeny.

f. Incidental harvest in fisheries.

2. Evaluation and feedback mechanism.

3. Restoring a naturally-reproducing component of the population:
219

a. Progress in habitat restoration.

b. Use of habitat by fish from captive propagation program.

c. Success in natural reproduction.

Benefit-Risk Assessment

The potential benefits of captive propagation technology applied to anadromous salmonids are :

A rapid increase in the total abundance of the target population, preservation of the genetic

material in a population threatened with extinction, and lowering the risk of extinction. With a

recovery target of naturally self-sustaining populations of indigenous fish in natural habitats, the

long-term benefit of captive propagation should be to provide more natural spawners and more

naturally-produced recruits to the population once the ecosystem has recovered.

Sponsors of some captive propagation measures may be motivated by the cultural, social, or

economic benefits of preserving and restoring the target population. This document does not

attempt to evaluate or compare the non-biological values assigned by project sponsors.

However, those values will undoubtedly be assessed by project sponsors and will influence

choices and priorities when proposals are submitted.

A systematic risk-benefit analysis provides a means to consider the unique characteristics of each

proposal and deal with scientific uncertainty in a way that a strictly regulatory approach to

standards would not allow. Table 4 summarizes the benefits expected from captive propagation

technology applied to recovery of listed anadromous salmonids.

Table 4. Summary of Benefits Attributed to Captive Propagation Technology

Benefit Evaluation criteria

Increase Total

Abundance of the

Target

Population

Spawner:Spawner replacement ratio is higher for captive propagation

program than for fish remaining in natural habitat.

Preserve the

Target

Population

Genetic, morphological, meristic, and behavioral characteristics of fish in

captive propagation reflect the natural population.

Increase Number

of Natural-origin

Recruits

The product of the spawner:spawner replacement rate in the captive

program and the relative success of captive-produced fish spawning in

the wild to natural fish exceeds 1.0 and there is sufficient current habitat

capacity to allow the population to increase in abundance.

.
220

The hazards of placing anadromous salmonids in captive propagation programs are primarily

those associated with very small population size compounded by the influence of an artificial

environment. The measures outlined above provide guidelines for avoiding or managing these

hazards. The hazards of applying captive propagation technology to recovering listed

anadromous salmonids are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Summary of Hazards Related to Captive Propagation Technology

Hazard Risk Evaluation

Negative Effects

Associated with

Small Population

Size

Probability of :

1. Inbreeding depression.

2. Loss of within-population genetic variability.

3. Accumulation of deleterious mutations.

Negative Effects

of Propagation in

an Artificial

Environment

1.Domestication: Probability of adaptation to the captive propagation

environment at the expense of adaptation to the natural environment.

2. Catastrophic loss due to disease outbreaks or facility failure.

Loss of Diversity

Among

Populations

Broodstock can be effectively collected from targeted population

without substantial mixing with non-targeted, genetically distinct

populations.

In developing a proposal to use captive propagation for conserving listed anadromous fish,

sponsors must proceed through the decision points outlined in the sections above. In developing

a hatchery operation plan, sponsors must provide documentation showing how each of the issues

can be managed or reduced. More elaborate risk-benefit analysis systems are being developed in

several other anadromous fish forums including the Puget Sound Comprehensive Chinook

Management Plan. Experience gained in risk-benefit analysis will be used to adjust these captive

rearing technology standards.
221

Prioritizing Captive Propagation Proposals

Petitions seeking to list anadromous salmonids in the western United States have identified

hundreds of populations of the seven species of anadromous salmonids under NMFS’ purview

that may be at risk. The NMFS has aggregated those populations into approximately 50

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) based on genetic relationships, life history and

biological similarities, and geographic associations. Approximately 15 of the ESUs have been

listed, 12 are proposed for listing and eight remain candidates for consideration. Of the 17 ESUs

in the Columbia River Basin, two are listed as endangered, five are listed as threatened, and six

are proposed for listing.

Within each listed ESU there are usually many spawning populations. In many cases there is a

wide range in the health and outlook for recovery among these populations. State, Federal, and

tribal management plans identify different populations of anadromous salmonids that are

managed in artificial or natural propagation programs. Documents such as the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife’s “Salmon and Steelhead Stock Identification” (SASSI) can

serve as a basis for identifying stocks. It is recognized that there is considerable uncertainty

regarding the degree to which identified populations are reproductively isolated. Also, it is

uncertain to what degree some actually isolated populations may be identified as single

populations. There are ongoing debates as to the occurrence and the importance of stock

structure in many areas of anadromous fish management. The degree to which populations are

separated or aggregated, and the rationale and justification for any classification will be included

in captive propagation proposals.

There are currently several long-term planning processes underway in the Columbia Basin.

Negotiations are proceeding for a new Columbia River Fishery Management Plan (CRFMP)

which will include artificial propagation goals for each sub-basin in the Columbia River Basin

that the plan addresses. The CRFMP will contain prioritized plans for harvest, as well as

production, that will be negotiated by the state, Federal, and tribal co-managers under the legal

mandates of US v. OR. The list of hatchery programs and stocks, and the coordination of

CRFMP with ESA will provide a prioritized list of potential captive propagation programs in the

area impacted by the court order. This area closely corresponds with the area covered by the

NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program.

REFERENCES

Flag, T. A., and C. V. W. Mahnken (editors). 1995. An assessment of captive broodstock

technology for Pacific salmon. Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract

DE-AI79 93BP55064, 285 p. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725

Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112).
222

Hard, J. J., R. P. Jones, M. R. Delarm, and R. S. Waples. 1992. Pacific salmon and artificial

propagation under the Endangered Species Act. U.S, Dept of Comm. , NOAA Tech

Memo NMFS-NWFSC-2, 56 pp

Miller, William H. 1990. Analysis of Salmon and Steelhead supplementation. U.S. Dept. of

Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 88-100

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Working Guidance for Comprehensive

Salmon Restoration Initiatives on the Pacific Coast. NMFS/Protected Resources

Division, 525 NE Oregon St., Portland, OR 58 pp.

Povolitis, T. 1990. Is captive breeding an appropriate strategy for endangered species

conservation? Endang. Spec. Update 8:20-23

Ryman, N., and L. Laikre 1991. Effects of supportive breeding on the genetically effective

population size. Conserv. Biol. 5:325-329

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1992. Washington State Salmon and

Steelhead Stock Inventory. WDFW, Olympia, WA. June, 1993. 580 pp.

GLOSSARY

Artificial Propagation - Any assistance provided by human technology to animal reproduction.

In the context of Pacific salmon, this assistance may include, but is not limited to, spawning and

rearing in hatcheries, stock transfers, creation of spawning habitat, egg bank programs, captive

broodstock programs and cryopreservation of gametes

Broodstock - Adult fish used to propagate subsequent generations of fish

Captive broodstock program - A form of artificial propagation involving the collection of

individual fish (or gametes) from a population of wild origin and rearing these individuals in

captivity throughout their lives to produce offspring for the purpose of supplementing wild

populations.

Captive Propagation - Artificial propagation programs which hold fish in captive facilities

through most or all of a life cycle.

Captive Rearing - A variation of the Captive broodstock strategy wherein fish of wild origin are

raised to maturity and released to spawn naturally with wild fish.

Cryopreservation - Preservation of gametes at very low temperature (e.g., use of liquid nitrogen

to freeze sperm for later propagative use).
223

Domestication - Selection for traits that favor survival in an artificial environment and reduce

survival in natural environments.

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) - NMFS’ definition of a distinct population segment for

Pacific salmon (the smallest biological unit considered to be a “species” under the Endangered

Species Act). A population will be considered an ESU if : (1) it is substantially reproductively

isolated from other conspecific units, and (2) it represents an important component in the

evolutionary legacy of the species.

Fitness - An individual’s contribution, relative to other individuals, to the breeding population in

the next generation. Measures of an individual’s reproductive success such as its survival,

fertility, and age at reproduction are typically used as measures of fitness. The fitness of a group

of individuals (e.g., a population) may be defined as the group’s ability to maintain itself in its

environment. Fitness is therefore a composite measure of individual reproductive success.

Hatchery - An artificial propagation facility designed to produce fish for harvest or spawning

escapement. A conservation hatchery differs from a production hatchery in that it specifically

seeks to supplement or restore naturally spawning populations.

Hatchery fish - A fish that has spent some of its life cycle in an artificial environment and

whose parents were spawned in an artificial environment.

Hatchery Population - A population of fish that depends on spawning, incubation, hatching, or

rearing in a hatchery or other artificial propagation facility.

Hazard - An undesirable event that an artificial propagation program is attempting to avoid.

Listed species/listed population/listed evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) - For pacific

salmon, any ESU that has been determined to be threatened or endangered under Section 4 of the

Endangered Species Act.

Native population - A population of fish that has not been substantially impacted by genetic

interactions with non-native populations, or by other factors, that persists in all or part of its

original range. In limited cases a native population may also exist outside its original range (e.g.

in a captive broodstock program).

Natural fish - A fish that has spent essentially all of its life-cycle in the wild and whose parents

spawned in the wild.

Population - A group of organisms of the same species that breed in the same place and time

and whose progeny tend to return and breed in approximately the same place and time,

exhibiting reproductive continuity from generation to generation.
224

Recovery/restoration - The reestablishment of a threatened or endangered species to a selfsustaining level in its natural ecosystem (i.e., to the point where the protective measures of the

Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary).

Recovery program - A strategy for conserving and restoring a threatened or endangered species.

An Endangered Species Act recovery plan refers to a plan prepared under section 4(f) of the Act

and approved by the Secretary, including: (1) A description of site-specific management actions

necessary for recovery; (2) objective, measurable criteria that can be used as a basis for removing

the species from threatened or endangered status; and (3) estimates of the time and cost required

to implement recovery. (For Pacific salmon, “Secretary” refers to the Secretary of Commerce.)

Risk - The probability of a hazard occurring.

Self-sustaining population - A population that perpetuates itself, in the absence of (or despite)

human intervention, without chronic decline, in its natural ecosystem. A self-sustaining

population maint0ains itself above the threshold for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

In this document, the terms “self-sustaining” and “viable” are used interchangeably.

Stock transfer - Transfer of fish from one location to another. This includes any fish originating

outside the geographical boundary of an ESU and transferred into it, any fish transferred out of

an ESU’s range or between areas occupied by different ESUs, or any fish transferred into vacant

habitat.

Stray - An individual that breeds in a population other than that of its parents.

Supplementation - The use of artificial propagation to reestablish or increase the abundance of

naturally reproducing populations (c.f. recovery/restoration)

Wild populations - fish that have maintained successful natural reproduction with little or no

supplementation from hatcheries.
225

Appendix 4

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) Template

A multi-agency group first developed the HGMP concept as a planning tool to address

anadromous fish in the U.S. v Washington litigation. The National Marine Fisheries Service is in

the process of modifying the HGMP template for use in recovery efforts for listed salmon

species under the ESA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering using the HGMP

template, modified as necessary, to address the needs for recovery of resident fish species listed

under the ESA. The Council and other participants in the Artificial Production Review are also

reviewing and modifying the draft HGMP template so that it can be used to obtain the kind of

information needed from artificial production programs throughout the Columbia Basin to be

able to implement the production reforms described in this report. The intent is to modify the

HGMP template so that it addresses both resident and anadromous fish and is complementary to

the performance standards and associated indicators.

Following is the current draft of the HGMP (version 4) that was available when this report was

being finalized. As described it will be modified to reflect the needs of the Columbia Basin.
226

WORKING DRAFT

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) Template

The purpose of this hatchery and genetic management plan (HGMP) template is to provide a

single source of hatchery information for comprehensive planning by federal, state, and tribal

managers, and for permitting needs under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The information

should be the best scientific and commercial information available, as it will help determine if

hatchery programs are likely to meet their goals and ESA obligations.

INSTRUCTIONS:

A) If you are a hatchery manager filing out this template, solicit the assistance of staff in your

organization or co-manager staff who are familiar with relevant ESU-wide hatchery plans or

regional strategic plans, citation of which may replace information requested herein. These staff

persons are familiar with the scientific basis for hatchery planning, and can explain why certain

information is requested or not needed, and help provide definitions and answers.

If your ESU has an ESU-wide hatchery plan approved by the co-managers and the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), you will be asked to follow the strategies, standards, and

guidelines in the ESU hatchery plan, and explain and justify any inconsistencies.

B) If this template is being compiled to determine incidental take from propagation of species

not listed under ESA, only certain parts of this template will need to be filled. (See A above)

C) If the population of this template is one which has been transferred from another hatchery, or

will be transferred to another hatchery or facility, list all hatcheries and facilities which will

handle the population from spawning through adult return, and describe the role of each. (See

Section 1.4 below.)

D) Use one template per stock of fish, but avoid duplication by filling out one complete template,

and referring to it where information is the same for another population.

E) When take (under the broad definition of ESA) of a listed species is expected in the hatchery

operation, provide a numerical estimate. Take needs to be quantified under ESA.

F) Attach or cite (where commonly available) relevant reports that describe the hatchery

operation and impacts on the listed species or its critical habitat (See Section 12). Include any

Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, Biological Assessments, or

other analysis or plans that provide pertinent background information to facilitate evaluation of
227

the HGMP. Where appropriate, use these citations to provide additional support of critical

information entered into this HGMP.

G) This template is provided on a computer floppy disk or in an electronic file so the

information can be filled out electronically. The template text is in bold type (Have not done this

yet, but will - DP). To enter information, use non-bold 12 point font size.

SECTION 1. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1.1) Name of Program

1.2) Population (or stock) and species

state common and scientific names

1.3) Responsible organization and individual:

Name(and title):

Organization

Address:

Telephone:

Fax:

Email:

Other organizations involved, and extent of involvement in the program:

1.4) Location(s) of hatchery and associated facilities:

Include state and basin, regional mark processing center code, and sufficient information

for GIS entry. See Instruction C above and use this section to provide information.

1.5) Type of program:

Select one from Integrated Recovery; Integrated Harvest; Isolated Recovery; Isolated

Harvest. See Instruction A. (Note: Will add a page of definitions to template to cover

terms such as these.)

1.6) Purpose (Goal) of program:

This is a one sentence statement of the goal of the program, consistent with your answer

to section 1.5 Example: The goal of this program is to aid in the conservation and

recovery of chinook salmon in Deer Creek.

1.7) Specific performance objective(s) of program

Objectives are designed to achieve the program goal, and are generally measurable,

realistic, and time specific. Example: The goal of this program will be achieved by (1)

using supplementation to increase by five folds the number of natural spawners in Deer

Creek, by year 2012; (2)....; (3)....
228

1.8) List of Performance Indicators designated by "benefits" and "risks"

(Note: This section and section10 (monitoring and evaluation) are being rewritten for

compatibility with current work on performance indicators in the Columbia River basin, and in

the Hood Canal Summer Chum Hatchery Plan.)

Performance indicators determine the degree that program objectives have been

achieved, and provide the specific parameters to be monitored and evaluated.

Separate indicators into two categories of "benefits" and "risks" the hatchery program

will provide to the listed species. Where possible, use indicator list already compiled in

ESU-wide hatchery plan or other strategic plans.

Some indicators examples are (1) adult:adult replacement rates of program fish; (2)

trends in spawning abundance in Deer Creek measured by natural return rates and eggto-smolt survivals; (3) predation on other species by program fish as measured by

stomach content analyses; (4) genetic effects on other populations by program fish as

measured by stray rates; (5) etc.

1.9) Expected size of program

Specify expected releases, adult fish harvested, and escapement goals. For existing

program, provide additional historic data for three generations, or for the number of

years of available and dependable information.

1.10) Date program started or is expected to start:

1.11) Expected duration of program:

1.12) Watersheds targeted by program:

Provide sufficient information for GIS entry.

SECTION 2. RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM TO OTHER MANAGEMENT

OBJECTIVES

2.1) List all existing cooperative agreements, memoranda of understanding, memoranda of

agreement, or other management plans or court orders under which program operates. Indicate

whether this HGMP is consistent with these plans and commitments, and explain any

discrepancies.
229

2.2) Status of natural populations in target area.

For "integrated" programs (i.e., supplementation programs or other programs that involve

close integration with a specific natural population), identify the natural population targeted

for integration.

2.2.1) Geographic and temporal spawning distribution.

2.2.2) Annual spawning abundance for as many years as available.

2.2.3) Progeny-to-parent ratios, survival data by life-stage, or other measures of productivity

for as many brood years as available.

2.2.4) Annual proportions of hatchery and natural fish on natural spawning grounds for as

many years as possible.

2.2.5) Status of natural population relative to critical and viable population thresholds. See

Instruction A.

2.3) Relationship to harvest objectives

Include past harvest rates and expected future harvest rates on fish propagated by the

program and on natural populations in the target area. Explain whether artificial

production and harvest management have been integrated to provide as many benefits and as

few biological risks as possible to the listed species.

2.4) Relationship to habitat protection and recovery strategies.

Describe the major factors inhibiting natural production (if known), such as habitat

protection efforts with expected natural production benefits over the short-term and longterm.

2.5) Ecological interactions

Describe salmonid and non-salmonid fishes or other species that could (1) negatively impact

program; (2) be negatively impacted by program; (3) positively impact program; and (4) be

positively impacted by program. Give careful considerations to the unlisted but listable

indigenous species.
230

SECTION 3. WATER SOURCE

Provide a quantitative and narrative description of the water source (spring, well, surface, etc.),

water quality profile, and any differences between hatchery water and water used by the naturally

spawning population.

SECTION 4. FACILITIES

Provide descriptions of the physical plants listed in this section, and three additional sets of

information.

One, for programs that directly take listed fish for use as brood stock, provide detailed

information on catastrophe management, including safeguards against equipment failure,

water loss, flooding, disease transmission, or other events that could lead to a high mortality

of listed fish.

Two, describe any instance where construction or operation of the physical plant results in

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat designated for the listed species.

Three, describe any inconsistencies with standards and guidelines provided in any ESU-wide

hatchery plan approved by the co-managers and NMFS.

4.1) Brood stock collection

4.2) Spawning

4.3) Incubation

4.4) Rearing

4.5) Acclimation/release

4.6) Other

SECTION 5. ORIGIN AND IDENTITY OF BROOD STOCK

5.1) Source

List all sources of brood stock for the program. Be specific (e.g., natural spawners from

Bear Creek, fish returning to the Loon Creek Hatchery trap, etc.)

5.2) Supporting information

5.2.1) History

Provide a brief narrative history of the brood stock sources. For natural populations, specify

its status relative to critical and viable population thresholds (use section 2.2.5 if
231

appropriate). For existing hatchery stocks, include information on how and when they were

founded, and sources of brood stock since founding. If stock crosses, list stock of each sex.

5.2.2) Annual size

Include past brood stock sizes as well as proposed future sizes. Specify number of each sex,

or total number and sex ratio, if known. For natural population brood stocks, explain how

their use will affect their population status relative to critical and viable thresholds.

5.2.3) Past and proposed level of natural fish in brood stock.

If using an existing hatchery stock, include specific information on how many natural fish

were incorporated into the brood stock annually.

5.2.4) Genetic or ecological differences

Describe any known genotypic, phenotypic, or behavioral differences between proposed

hatchery stocks and natural stocks in the target area.

5.2.5) Reasons for choosing

Describe any special traits or characteristics for which brood stock was selected.

5.3) Unknowns

Identify areas where a lack of data leads to uncertainties about the choice of brood stock.

SECTION 6. BROOD STOCK COLLECTION

Describe any inconsistencies with standards and guidelines provided in any ESU-wide hatchery plan

approved by the co-managers and NMFS.

6.1) Prioritized goals

List in order of priority the general goals for brood stock collection. Refer to sections 1.5

and 1.6.

6.2) Supporting information

6.2.1) Proposed number of each sex.

6.2.2) Life-history stage to be collected (e.g., eggs, adults, etc.)

6.2.3) Collection or sampling design

Include information on the location, time, and method of capture. Describe capture

efficiency and measures to reduce sources of bias that could lead to a non-representative

sample of the desired brood stock source. Also, describe the method of capture (e.g. weir

trap, beach seine, etc.) and quantify as take handling, behavior modification, stress, or

mortality of listed fish.

6.2.4) Identity

Describe method for identifying (a) target population if more than one population may be

present; and (b) hatchery origin fish from naturally spawned fish.
232

6.2.5) Holding

Describe procedures for holding fish, especially if captured unripe or as juveniles. Quantify

as take trapping, holding, stress or mortality of listed fish.

6.2.6) Disposition of carcasses

Include information for spawned and unspawned carcasses, sale or other disposal methods,

and use for stream reseeding.

6.3) Unknowns

Identify any data gaps that lead to uncertainties about brood stock collection.

SECTION 7. MATING

Use standards and guidelines provided in any ESU-wide hatchery plan, or other regionally accepted

protocols (e.g. IHOT) approved by the co-managers and NMFS. Explain and justify any deviations.

7.1) Selection method

Specify how spawners are chosen, e.g. randomly over whole run, randomly from ripe fish on

a certain day, selectively chosen, prioritized based on hatchery or natural origin, etc.

7.2) Males

Specify expected use of backup males and repeat spawners.

7.3) Fertilization

Describe fertilization scheme, such as equal sex ratios and 1:1 individual matings; equal sex

ratios and pooled gametes; or some other. Explain any fish health procedures used for

disease prevention.

7.4) Cryopreserved gametes

If used, describe number of donors, year of collection, number of times donors were used in

the past, and expected and observed fertility.

7.5) Unknowns

Identify any data gaps that lead to uncertainty in mating protocols.

SECTION 8. REARING AND INCUBATION

(Note: The information requested in this section is under evaluation to determine if additional

standardization is needed to assure relevancy and utility.)

Provide current and previous goals and data. Include historic data for three generations or for years

dependable data are available. Use standards and guidelines provided in any ESU-wide hatchery
233

plan, or other regionally accepted protocols (e.g. IHOT) approved by the co-managers and NMFS.

Explain and justify any deviations.

INCUBATION:

8.1) Number of eggs taken and survival objective to ponding

8.2) Loading density

Include description of the incubator(refer to Section 4.4). Also, provide measurement of egg

size.

8.3) Influent and effluent gas concentration

(Dissolved Oxygen, and any other parameters monitored)

8.4) Ponding

Describe degree of button up, cumulative temperature units, and mean length and weight

(and distribution around the mean) at ponding. State dates of ponding, and whether swim up

and ponding are volitional or forced.

8.5) Fish Health monitoring

Describe any diseases, yolk-sac malformation, and mortality.

REARING:

8.6) Number of fish ponded and survival objective to release

8.7) Density and loading.

Include a description of the rearing containers, such as start tanks, circulation, circulating

ponds, flow through, etc. Refer to section 4.4.

8.8) Influent and effluent gas concentrations

(oxygen, carbon dioxide, total gas pressure)

8.9) Length, weight, and condition factor.

8.10) Growth rate, energy reserves

(hepatosomatic index - liver weight/body weight) and body moisture content as an estimate

of body fat concentration.

8.11) Food type and amount fed, and estimates of feed conversion efficiency.

8.12) Health and disease monitoring.

8.13) Smolt development indices, if applicable

(e.g. gill ATPase activity).
234

8.14) Use of "natural" rearing methods.

8.15) Unknowns

Describe data gaps that lead to uncertainty in the incubation and rearing protocols.

SECTION 9. RELEASE

Provide current and previous goals and data. Include historic data for three generations or for years

dependable data are available. Also, describe any inconsistencies with standards and guidelines

provided in any ESU-wide hatchery plan approved by the co-managers and NMFS.

9.1) Life history stage, size, and age at release.

Give averages with distribution.

9.2) Life history stage, size and age of natural fish of same species in release area at time of release.

9.3) Dates of release and release protocols.

Specify whether release is volitional or forced.

9.4) Location(s) or release.

Provide specifications to allow GIS entry.

9.5) Acclimation procedures.

9.6) Number of fish released

9.7) Marks used to identify hatchery adults.

9.8) Unknowns

Describe data gaps that lead to uncertainty in the release protocols.

SECTION 10. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

(Note: This section and Section 1.8 are being rewritten for compatibility with current work on

performance indicators in the Columbia River basin, and in the Hood Canal Summer Chum

Hatchery Plan.)

This section describes how the benefit or risk performance indicators listed in Section 1.8 will be

monitored and evaluated, including whether funding, staffing, and other support logistics are

available or committed to allow full implementation.
235

The items below should be incorporated into the performance indicator list and the attendant

monitoring and evaluation program.

10.1) Marking

Describe types of mark(s) and the proportion of the program releases that will be marked.

Include any marking of wild fish for comparative analysis.

10.2) Genetic data

Provide available and relevant genetic baseline information.

10.3) Survival and fecundity

Provide data on goals and past performances.

10.3.1) Average fecundity

10.3.2) Survival

a) Collection to spawning

b) Green eggs to eyed eggs

c) Eyed eggs to release

d) Release to adult, to include contribution to

(I) harvest

(ii) hatchery brood stock

(iii) natural spawning10.4) Monitoring of performance indicators in Section

1.8

The following are examples.

10.4.1) Proportions of hatchery spawners in natural populations in target area (list all

populations or spawning areas that are monitored).

10.4.2) Ecological interactions between program fish and natural fish (same and other

species) in target area.

10.4.3) Disease control in the hatchery, and potential effects on natural populations.

10.4.4) Behavior (migration, spawning, etc.) of program fish.

10.4.5) Homing or straying rates for program fish.

10.4.6) Gene flow from program fish into natural populations.

10.5) Unknowns or uncertainties identified in Sections 5 through 9

10.6) Other relevant monitoring projects
236

SECTION 11. RESEARCH

(Note: This section is being reviewed against Section 10 requirements and will be edited as needed.)

Provide the following information for any research programs conducted in association with the

HGMP. Correlate with research described in any ESU hatchery plan approved by the co-managers

and NMFS.

11.1) Objective or purpose

Need for data; benefit or effect on wild population; broad significance of project.

11.2) Cooperating and funding agencies

11.3) Principle investigator or project supervisor and staff

11.4) Status of stock, particularly the group affected by project

11.5) Techniques: include capture methods, drugs, samples collected, tags applied

11.6) Dates or time period in which research activity occurs

11.7) Care and maintenance of live fish or eggs, holding duration, transport methods

11.8) Level of take: number or range of fish handled, injured, or killed by sex, age, or size

11.9) Potential for / estimates of injury or mortality, and methods to reduce either

11.10) Alternative methods to achieve project objectives

11.11) List species similar or related to the threatened species; provide number and causes of

mortality related to this research project

SECTION 12. ATTACHMENTS AND CITATIONS

Attach or cite (where commonly available) relevant reports that describe the hatchery operation and

impacts on the listed species or its critical habitat. Include any EISs, EAs, Biological Assessments,

or other analysis or plans that provide pertinent background information to facilitate evaluation of

the HGMP.

________________________________________
237

Appendix 5

Bibliography

Bonneville Power Administration. 1992. Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project: Supplementation

in the Columbia Basin. BPA, Portland, Oregon, 85-62.

Brannon, Ernest L., etal., (Currens, Kenneth P.; Goodman, Daniel; Lichatowich, James A.; McConnaha,

Willis E.; Riddell, Brian E.; Williams, Richard N.). 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, Oregon.

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 1991. Integrated System Plan. CBFWA, Portland, Oregon.

527 pp.

Columbia River Basin Multi-Species Framework. 1998. Development of a Regional Framework for Fish and

Wildlife Restoration in the Columbia River Basin: A proposed Scientific Foundation for the Restoration

of Fish and Wildlife in the Columbia River Basin. Northwest Power Planning Council, 98-16, Portland,

Oregon.

Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson and Daheim, P.L.L.C. 1999. Facilitators Report on the

Columbia River Basin Artificial Production Workshop. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland,

Oregon.

Independent Scientific Group. 1996. Return to the River: Restoration of Salmonid Fishes in the Columbia

River Ecosystem. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Independent Scientific Review Panel. 1999. Review of the BPA Reimbursable Account Programs in the

Columbia River Basin as Requested in the Senate-House Conference Report on FY99 Energy and Water

Development Appropriations Bill. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT). 1994. Policies and Procedures for Columbia Basin

Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries. Bonneville Power Administration DOE/EP-2432, Portland, Oregon.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Mitchell Act Information Packet. NMFS, Columbia River

Fisheries Development Program Office, Portland, Oregon.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Biological Opinion on Artificial Propagation in the Columbia

River Basin. NMFS, Columbia River Fisheries Development Program Office, Portland, Oregon.

Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm

Springs Indian Reservation, and the Confederation of Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation.

1995. Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan: Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi-Wa-Kish-Wit: Spirit of the Salmon.

Volumes I and II. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power Act. 1980. Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, with Index.

BPA, U.S., Dept. of Energy. 40 pp.
238

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. NWPPC,

Portland, Oregon, 94-55.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1998. A Summary of Hatchery Evaluation Reports, Sampsel

Consulting, Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1998. Strawfish proposal. NWPPC, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee. 1989. The Model Comprehensive Fish Health

Protection Program: Fish Disease Guidelines. PNWFHPC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Status Review Symposium.

USFWS, Boise, Idaho.

_____________________

p:\docs\1999\99-15.doc