SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL

A SPECIAL REPORT ON THE 

NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY SYSTEM 

BY THE SPORT FISHING AND BOATING

PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 2000
A note about the cover: The 20 squares on the front depict the 20 recommendations 

contained in the report, while the intersecting circles, with the fish at the nexus, represent

the consensus reached by the wide variety of stakeholders involved in the project.
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL

CONTENTS

Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council 2

SFBPC Members 3

SFBPC National Fish Hatchery Project Steering Committee 4

Membership and Representation

Executive Summary 7

Introduction 11

Evaluation 13

Roles, Responsibilities, and Operation of the National Fish Hatchery System 15

Recommendations 16

Summary 26

National Fish Hatchery System Map 28–29 

Attachments 1–7 30–52

1
2 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

THE SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL (SFBPC)

serves as a unique adviser to the Secretary of the Interior and the Director 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Council, formed in January 1993, 

represents the interests of the public and private sectors of the sport fishing

and boating communities and is organized to enhance partnerships among

industry, constituency groups and government. 

The Council is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Its 

membership of up to 18 people includes the director of the Fish and Wildlife

Service and the president of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies, who both serve in ex officio capacities. Other Council members are

directors from state agencies responsible for managing recreational fish and

wildlife resources and individuals who represent the interests of saltwater and

freshwater recreational fishing, recreational boating, the recreational fishing

and boating industries, recreational fisheries resources conservation, aquatic

resource outreach and education, and tourism.

More information about the SFBPC can be found on the Internet at

http://sfbpc.fws.gov or by contacting the Council’s offices at 703/358 1711.
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 3

SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL (SFBPC) MEMBERS

COUNCIL CHAIR

Helen Sevier

Chief Executive Officer

Bass Anglers Sportsman Society 

(B.A.S.S. Inc.)

James Anderson

Executive Director

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Tom Bedell

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Pure Fishing

Jamie Clark (ex officio)

Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Doug Hansen

Director

Division of Wildlife

South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks 

Paul Hansen

Executive Director

Izaak Walton League of America

Charles Harter III

Board of Directors

Coastal Conservation Association

Mike Hough

President

States Organization for Boating Access 

Jim Kalkofen

Executive Director

Professional Walleye Trail

Barbara Knuth

Associate Professor

Natural Resource Policy and Management

Cornell University

Ryck Lydecker

Associate Director for State Affairs

BOAT/U.S.

Robert McDowell

Director

New Jersey Division of Fish, Game 

and Wildlife

Alfred Russo

Business Unit Manager/Director

Stren Fishing Lines Division

Remington Arms Co. Inc.

Eddie Smith

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Grady-White Boats Inc.

William Taylor

Vice Provost and Dean

Michigan State University

College of Agriculture and 

Natural Resources

David Waller (ex officio)

President

International Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies

Director

Wildlife Resources Division

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Carl Wilgus

Administrator 

Division of Tourism

Idaho Department of Commerce
4 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

SFBPC NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY PROJECT 

STEERING COMMITTEE 

MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION

The National Fish Hatchery Project Steering Committee was assembled by the

Technical Working Group of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council

in the latter months of 1999 and the early months of 2000. 

Each person on the steering committee served in his capacity as an individual 

fisheries professional. It is important to note that these individuals have 

served the fisheries community for a number of years and have represented

many fisheries interest groups during their careers. Their breadth and depth of

knowledge of a diverse array of fisheries management issues and constituents’

perspectives were extremely beneficial to this project. 

The following list contains the name of each steering committee participant, 

accompanied by the name of the participant’s employer or the interest group

with which the participant is affiliated. The listing of these organizations does

not imply endorsement of this report by these groups. Rather, these organizations are listed to provide context for the report by illustrating the diversity of

experience and philosophies that came into play during the report’s creation. 

It should be noted that the organizations on this list recognized the importance

of this report by essentially donating the time each steering committee 

member invested in this process.

SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 4

STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

Norville Prosser 

Vice President

American Sportfishing Association

Robert Behnke

Professor

Colorado State University (retired)

Scientific Adviser

Trout Unlimited

Arthur Blazer

President

Native American Fish and 

Wildlife Society

Jesse Chappell

Past President

National Aquaculture Association

Doug Dompier

Senior Tribal Policy Analyst

Columbia River Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission

Richard M. “Mike” Gennings

Chief

Fisheries Management

Wildlife Resources Division

Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources

Delano Graff

Director

Bureau of Fisheries

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

Reginal Harrell

Past President

American Fisheries Society 

Fish Culture Section

Mark Hudy

National Fisheries Program Leader

U.S. Forest Service

Phil Hulbert

Superintendent of Fish Culture

Division of Fish, Wildlife and 

Marine Resources

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation

John Kimball

Director

Division of Wildlife Resources 

Utah State Department of Natural

Resources 

Representative

International Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies 

William Knapp

Deputy Assistant Director 

Fisheries and Habitat Conservation 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Robin Knox

President

Fisheries Administrators Section

American Fisheries Society

Ron Lukens 

Assistant Director

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

Jim Martin

Conservation Director

Pure Fishing

Joe McGurrin

Director of Resources

Trout Unlimited

SFBPC NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Gary Myers

Executive Director

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Representative

International Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies 

Jim Range

Representative

American Fly Fishing Trade Association

Bruce Shupp 

National Conservation Director

Bass Anglers Sportsman Society 

(B.A.S.S. Inc.)

Stephen Smith

National Marine Fisheries Service (retired) 

Bruce Suzumoto

Manager

Special Projects

Northwest Power Planning Council

Whitney Tilt

Director of Conservation

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

6 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

Robert Wiley

Section Manager

Fisheries Management

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY 

PROJECT MANAGER

Noreen Clough

President

NKC Environmental Consulting Inc. 

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING FACILITATORS

Barb Springer Beck

President

Beck Consulting

John Mundinger

Proprietor

Consulting for Creative Solutions

SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP

COUNCIL COORDINATOR

Laury Parramore
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For more than a century, the National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) has 

played a valuable role in providing cultured fish to benefit Americans. 

The Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

manages the system, consisting of 66 national fish hatcheries, seven fish 

technology centers, and nine fish health centers.

Unfortunately, the NFHS has serious problems that have developed over several

decades. Funding for hatchery operations and maintenance has declined by

about 15 percent since 1992. NFHS facilities are old and outmoded. As a whole,

the system suffers from a maintenance backlog of approximately $300 million.

Twenty-five percent of hatchery personnel positions are vacant. To a troubling

degree, these problems reflect an erosion of congressional and public support.

In March 1999, U.S. Representative George Miller, of the House Committee on

Resources, asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a review to

evaluate the NFHS and to gauge the need for changes to refine and clarify the

system’s legal mandates. In May 1999, 10 members of Congress requested that

the FWS begin a process to determine the role and mission of the NFHS. In

August 1999, the FWS asked the federally chartered Sport Fishing and Boating

Partnership Council (SFBPC) to undertake that review. Following the FWS

request, the SFBPC convened a special National Fish Hatchery Project Steering

Committee to review the NFHS and develop recommendations regarding the

system’s roles, responsibilities and strategic funding policies.

Overall, the steering committee believes the NFHS is uniquely positioned to

influence and benefit state and tribal fishery programs, fulfill tribal trust

responsibilities, and provide technical assistance to private aquaculture.

Although the intent of the steering committee’s report is to provide recommendations for future management of the NFHS, the steering committee concluded that without a national vision to define regional goals and objectives

designed to fulfill overall FWS Fisheries Program strategies, the national

hatchery system will continue to drift and will be in peril. It is essential that the

FWS move aggressively to ensure that the NFHS and the products it produces 

fit within a publicly reviewed national strategy developed with state and tribal

partners and stakeholders. The FWS must commit to implementing the plan it

produces, and the FWS, the administration and Congress must be prepared to

fund adequately the activities outlined by this plan. 

7

“Forty million anglers 

will be watching to see 

if Congress and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service will respond 

to these consensus 

recommendations.”

—JIM MARTIN, CONSERVATION

DIRECTOR, PURE FISHING
8 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

In addition to its observation regarding the need for a Fisheries Program

national strategy, the steering committee’s review resulted in 20 consensusbased recommendations, presented without priority, in the programmatic 

categories of Scientific Excellence and Accountability, Mitigation, Recreation

and Other Cooperative Programs, Threatened and Endangered Species

Recovery, and Native Species Restoration.

The steering committee’s recommendations acknowledge the NFHS’ vital 

roles in meeting federal mitigation obligations, restoring and maintaining

native fisheries, and participating in the recovery of threatened and endangered aquatic species. The recommendations also urge the FWS and the 

NFHS to strengthen cooperative efforts with states, tribes and partners and

improve accountability with Congress, stakeholders and the general public.

A repeated theme in the report is the requirement to produce and use cultured 

products from the NFHS in conformance with the best possible science-based 

management principles and practices. The recommendations emphasize the

crucial role fish technology centers, fish health centers and the national broodstock programs play in ensuring these principles and practices are followed. 

The report acknowledges the NFHS’ role in providing fish to mitigate the

impact of federal development activities and asks for legislative clarification 

of that responsibility and authority for full cost recovery for mitigation-related

expenses from the parties responsible for development projects. The report

also recommends that Congress clarify the role the NFHS should play in 

supporting recreational fishing objectives beyond the current benefits 

provided by mitigation and restoration activities.

“ This report represents 

the type of consensusbuilding that will be 

necessary not only to

maintain the National

Fish Hatchery System as 

a management tool but

to keep any tools in our

fisheries management 

toolbox.”

—RICHARD M. “MIKE” GENNINGS, 

CHIEF, FISHERIES MANAGEMENT,

WILDLIFE RESOURCES DIVISION 

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 9

Work on national fish hatcheries in support of threatened and endangered

species recovery is affirmed by the steering committee as an appropriate and

important use. However, the steering committee recommends that in the

future this work be funded by threatened and endangered species program

appropriations.

The long-term stability of the NFHS will be solidified further by implementing

the steering committee’s recommendations that acknowledge the system’s 

significant role in the restoration of native fisheries.

Finally, the steering committee recommends the FWS work closely with 

affected tribes to ensure that the responsibilities of the NFHS, with regard to

tribal trust and treaty agreements, are clarified and properly implemented.

As a result of the review, the steering committee concluded that it is imperative

that the FWS position its Fisheries Program and the NFHS to provide federal

leadership in development and application of the best possible fish culture

and fisheries management practices. The steering committee based its review

on what it believes are overriding considerations for fisheries conservation and

management: the maintenance of healthy wild fish populations through habitat

conservation and improved harvest management, maintenance of genetic

diversity, and the proper use of hatchery stocks in achieving fishery management objectives.

When implemented, the steering committee’s recommendations will clarify 

the role of and expectations for the NFHS and will result in substantial changes

to its direction and management.
10 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 11

INTRODUCTION

For more than a century, the National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) has played

a valuable role in providing a variety of cultured fish to benefit the American

people. The Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

manages the system, which presently consists of 82 facilities—66 national fish

hatcheries, seven fish technology centers, and nine fish health centers.

Unfortunately, the NFHS has serious problems. Due to the increasing diversity

and complexity of their responsibilities, these facilities do not operate as a 

true system. The role of national fish hatcheries in aquatic resource management programs is unclear and controversial. Funding deficits are legend. 

The U.S. Congress, the FWS, other federal and state agencies, tribes and 

stakeholders, including conservation organizations and members of the

angling community, agree that fundamental changes are needed if the NFHS

is to be effective in the 21st century. This report provides resource managers

and decision-makers with a series of recommendations that will refocus and

revitalize the NFHS and enable it to realize its fullest potential as a tool in

aquatic resource management.

The NFHS’ problems developed over several decades. Internal and external

pressures led to differing opinions and confusion about the system’s primary

objectives and the principal products it should provide. Increased pressure on

fisheries resources, increased knowledge of fisheries management, growth in

the capabilities of state and tribal partners, and criticism of hatcheries for 

past practices all are factors causing the system’s role to become unclear. The 

FWS’ priorities for its hatcheries also have shifted in recent years away from

the traditional role of stocking fish to meet recreational angling demand to a

greater role in native fish recovery and restoration. These rapidly changing 

priorities, failure to implement past FWS Fishery Program plans, and insufficient communication with partners and stakeholders have further affected the 

system. In turn, congressional and public support for the system has eroded.

This erosion of support is evidenced by declining funding and support from

Congress and the administration. Although the FWS’ overall budget rose 35

percent since 1992 (in constant 1999 dollars), funding for hatchery operations

and maintenance declined by about 15 percent, forcing the FWS to narrow

hatchery objectives and reduce hatchery system planning, monitoring and

evaluation. NFHS facilities now average 55 years in age, and much of the 

infrastructure is outmoded. There is an estimated $300 million maintenance

backlog. Twenty-five percent of hatchery personnel positions are vacant. 

“Hatcheries are an 

important tool for natural

resource managers when

properly selected and 

used in support of habitat

protection and fisheries

management. We need 

to keep this tool sharp,

focused and effective.”

—WHITNEY TILT, DIRECTOR OF

CONSERVATION, NATIONAL FISH 

AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
12 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

On March 18, 1999, U.S. Representative George Miller, of the House

Committee on Resources, asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a review to serve as a baseline for evaluating the NFHS and for gauging the

need for changes in existing law to refine and clarify the system’s legal mandates (Attachment 1). On May 26, 1999, 10 members of Congress requested

that FWS begin an open, inclusive and participatory process to determine the

role and overall mission of the NFHS (Attachment 2). In August 1999, the FWS

asked the federally chartered Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council

(SFBPC) to undertake the review (Attachments 3 and 4).

Following the FWS’ request, the SFBPC convened a special National Fish

Hatchery Project Steering Committee. The steering committee’s mission was to

conduct a broad and balanced review of the NFHS and from that review develop

consensus-based positions and recommendations about the roles, responsibilities and strategic funding policies for the system, within the broader fisheries

management role of the FWS.
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 13

EVALUATION

Members of the SFBPC National Fish Hatchery Project Steering Committee

represent federal, state and tribal fishery resource managers and fish culturists, academia, aquaculture and members of the conservation and sport fishing

communities. Members initially were chosen from or by the SFBPC’s Technical

Working Group, which consists of state, federal, tribal, conservation organization and industry representatives. The steering committee then was supplemented with other individuals to ensure a wide diversity of viewpoints.

Despite the participation of tribal representatives, the steering committee was

forced to conclude that it did not have sufficient background or expertise to

adequately define the NFHS’ role with regard to tribal trust obligations.

Although references to tribal trust responsibilities occur throughout this

report, the steering committee believes these references may not adequately

address the NFHS’ complete trust responsibility. 

However, it is clear from the steering committee’s investigations that the tribes

would like the FWS to take a more holistic view of the NFHS’ role in aquatic

resource management. The tribes believe national fish hatcheries should provide fish to enhance tribal fisheries programs and to help tribes conserve and

rebuild stocks and mitigate for past activities that have damaged naturally

occurring populations. 

The products of the FWS’ National Fish Hatchery Tribal Working Group hopefully will help the NFHS define its tribal trust responsibilities. The FWS also

has a Native American policy to provide additional context. Further, important

trust responsibilities are articulated in the Secretarial Order on American

Indian Tribal Rights and the Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the

Endangered Species Act.

The steering committee began by examining the congressional directives 

calling for this review, identifying steering committee members’ concerns,

evaluating the current state of the NFHS, and gathering and analyzing information available in a variety of reports. The latter include the October 1999 GAO

report “National Fish Hatcheries—Classification of the Distribution of Fish and

Fish Eggs Needs Refinement” and the June 2000 GAO report “National Fish

Hatcheries: Authority Needed to Better Align Operations With Priorities.” The

steering committee also consulted actively with the FWS and reviewed the FWS

Hatchery System Alignment report.

“It was truly inspiring 

to watch seasoned 

professionals from across

the spectrum of opinion

on the roles and 

appropriate uses of 

cultured fish reach 

consensus around a set 

of forward-looking 

recommendations to 

stabilize and reform 

the National Fish

Hatchery System.”

—NORVILLE PROSSER, STEERING

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, 

VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION
Throughout the years, the NFHS has been the subject of numerous other 

studies, reports and recommendations from conservation groups, committees

appointed by the FWS, and a variety of task forces. Attachment 5 provides a

brief summary of four major reports and a compilation of their recommendations, which the steering committee considered as important references. 

In addition, the steering committee identified new ideas, issues and changing 

scientific perspectives about the production and use of hatchery fish that 

have emerged since the previous reports were published. 

The steering committee believes the NFHS is uniquely positioned to 

influence and benefit state and tribal fisheries programs, fulfill tribal trust

responsibilities, and provide technical assistance to private aquaculture.

However, these expectations have not been achieved to date because the 

FWS has not developed and implemented a clearly understood and publicly

accepted strategy for its Fisheries Program. A vision for the NFHS must fall

within such a strategy that outlines the NFHS’ role in fisheries management,

including genetics and brood-stock management, scientific advances in fish

production, fish health and fish technology development, and post-production

and post-stocking monitoring. 

Although the intent of this document is to provide recommendations for future

management of the NFHS, the steering committee concluded that without a

national vision to define regional goals and objectives designed to fulfill 

overall Fisheries Program strategies, the national hatchery system will continue

to drift and will be in peril. It is essential that the FWS move aggressively 

to ensure that the NFHS and the products it produces fit within a publicly

reviewed, national strategy developed with state and tribal partners and 

stakeholders, using a process similar to the development of the FWS’ “Action

Plan for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.” Unlike the action plan, however, 

the FWS must commit to implementing the plan it produces, and the FWS, 

the administration and Congress must be prepared to fund adequately the

activities outlined by this plan. 

Nevertheless, the recommendations presented below must be implemented

regardless of the existence of a national vision for the FWS Fisheries Program.

The steering committee believes it would be beneficial for the FWS to adopt

and implement these recommendations as soon as possible to begin the

process of reversing the downward slide of the NFHS. Implementation cannot

await completion of national visions or strategic plans; rather, those visions

and plans should reflect and embody the steering committee’s recommendations to the maximum extent possible.

14 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

“Finally, after a decade 

of mixed messages, the 

sport fishing and fishery

science communities 

have evolved unified 

recommendations to 

decision-makers on the

future of the National Fish

Hatchery System. Let us

hope this report results 

in restoring facilities,

increasing U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service hatchery

staffing, and defining 

a clear fisheries 

management and fish

production mission for 

the hatchery system.”

—BRUCE SHUPP, NATIONAL

CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, BASS

ANGLERS SPORTSMAN SOCIETY
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL

ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND OPERATION OF

THE NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY SYSTEM

It is imperative that the FWS position its Fisheries Program and the NFHS 

to provide federal leadership in the development and application of the best

possible fish culture and fisheries management practices. In advancing these

ideals, the steering committee believes the overriding considerations for 

fisheries conservation and management are maintaining healthy wild 

populations through habitat conservation and improved harvest management,

maintaining genetic diversity, and properly using hatchery stocks to achieve

fishery objectives. Decisions to stock cultured fish should derive from a 

broad need, based on ecologically, economically and socially responsible

aquatic resource management. Current fisheries management theory and 

science recognize that hatchery fish are only part of the solution to declining

fishery resources. 

The steering committee’s recommendations are arranged in the following 

categories and are numbered sequentially. The numbering of the 

recommendations does not indicate a priority order. In keeping with 

the guidelines established at the steering committee’s first meeting in

December 1999, the recommendations are consensus-based and presented 

by programmatic categories, without priority.

Scientific Excellence and Accountability

Mitigation

Recreation and Other Cooperative Programs

Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery

Native Species Restoration

When implemented, the steering committee’s findings and recommendations

will result in substantial changes to the direction of the NFHS and the way it is

managed by the FWS.

15
SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

RECOMMENDATIONS

SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

1 The FWS and its cooperators must develop and adhere to resource-specific, 

scientifically based fishery management plans. Plans must relate to national and

regional fisheries goals and objectives calling for use of NFHS fish in programs for

restoration, recovery, mitigation, tribal trust responsibilities or recreation on federal

lands. Requests for NFHS fish will result from needs as described in these plans. 

Fish from the NFHS must be used in ways defined in and guided by 

management plans that identify goals and objectives for stocked fish and 

post-stocking criteria to measure their success. The steering committee 

was unaware of any overall guidance document or strategic plan that matches

national fish hatchery production objectives with a series of national, 

regional and local management plans and production requests. Fish will not 

be made available if no such plan exists. 

The steering committee knows the FWS is waiting for this report before 

beginning a strategic planning process for the NFHS. However, planning for

the NFHS must not be done in isolation but must be predicated on a national

strategy and regional goals and objectives for the FWS’ overall Fisheries

Program—one developed with stakeholders and one that balances habitat 

conservation, restoration and fisheries management with a strategy for use of

hatchery-produced fish. The steering committee expects the FWS to use the

recommendations in this report as an important component of the planning

process for the NFHS.

16
2 NFHS facilities (including fish technology centers, fish health centers and 

brood-stock hatcheries) must develop and adhere to operational work plans describing the purpose and function of each unit. Work plans must relate to national and 

regional fisheries goals and objectives and be updated every two years. At the end 

of each fiscal year, a performance report must be prepared, detailing how the 

operational work plans are being implemented. These reports will be submitted by 

the regions to FWS headquarters, which will subsequently forward a compilation of 

highlights to appropriate congressional committees, state and tribal managers, 

and other stakeholders. 

Operational plans should be scientifically based with production objectives 

tied to specific, approved management or recovery plans. Plans should address

operational and genetic protocols, fish health hazards and risks, on-site 

product performance, and post-production and post-stocking monitoring. 

3 To enhance program understanding and ensure program integrity and accountability, FWS must report to Congress biennially on the status of the activities of the 

NFHS and how they relate to national and regional fisheries goals and objectives.

Reports will include the complete costs of producing fish, as well as the numbers 

and performance of fish produced, the program for which they were produced 

(e.g. mitigation, recreation, restoration or recovery) and their overall contribution 

to fisheries and aquatic ecosystem recovery and/or conservation. Draft reports will 

be made available to the SFBPC and to partners and stakeholders for review and 

comment, and a final report incorporating partner/stakeholder review presented to

Congress, the Council, and the public. The first draft report should be available not

later than July 1, 2002, and every other year thereafter.

Reporting is at the very heart of accountability and is essential to rebuilding

congressional confidence in the NFHS. Biennial reports that are reviewed by

partners and stakeholders and then presented to Congress and the public 

provide an important programmatic audit now missing for the NFHS.

Currently, the difference between actual production costs and administrative

costs is not known. Consequently, this reporting also may be important in

determining the cost-effectiveness of FWS activities as compared to activities

undertaken by partners. 

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 17

“This report, done by

extremely qualified 

and very committed 

professionals, is an 

excellent guideline to be

followed in saving and

even enhancing the very

important National 

Fish Hatchery System.”

—EDDIE SMITH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, GRADY-WHITE BOATS
4 FWS must develop jointly with tribes a separate, clearly defined strategy outlining 

how the NFHS will meet its tribal trust responsibilities. 

As a result of the steering committee’s deliberations, it became abundantly

clear that few, if any, individuals within or outside the FWS precisely 

understand the agency’s tribal trust responsibilities as they relate to the goals,

objectives and operations of the NFHS. The FWS National Fish Hatchery Tribal

Working Group is developing a report that should help inform this process.

5 FWS and its partners should consider and use as appropriate the 1995 American

Fisheries Society publication “Use and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic

Ecosystems” in preparing management and operational plans.

This publication provides a number of valuable considerations for fisheries 

managers who are preparing to use captively propagated aquatic species to

achieve fishery (or other aquatic wildlife) management objectives.

6 Post-stocking evaluations must be conducted and documented regularly to 

determine the quality of the fish stocked, impacts on natural populations, and how

well they achieve the specific goals and objectives for which they were stocked, 

as defined in a fishery management or recovery plan. 

Requirements for monitoring and evaluation should be developed cooperatively by the FWS and state, tribal and other federal fisheries managers to ensure

evaluations are useful for measuring fishery goals while also being timely and

fiscally efficient. As a part of the need for accountability, the evaluations 

should be documented and be available to partners and interested parties 

upon request. 

18 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

“My hope is that ‘Saving 

A System in Peril’ 

materially shortens 

the lag time to bring the

National Fish Hatchery

System into conformance

and alignment with the

prevailing views of nature

and natural resource

management in the 

new millennium.”

—ROBERT BEHNKE, PROFESSOR,

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

(RETIRED), SCIENTIFIC ADVISER,

TROUT UNLIMITED
7 Activities and products of the NFHS’ fish technology and fish health centers and 

national brood-stock program facilities should be defined by recommendations 

resulting from a needs assessment involving partners and stakeholders. Operational

work plans described in Recommendation 2 will be designed to meet these needs.

Likewise, the FWS must focus funding for operations and maintenance of these 

facilities based on the needs identified.

Fish health centers, fish technology centers and the national brood-stock 

program must be recognized as a high priority for the FWS and must be 

funded accordingly. These facilities are important contributors to maintaining

healthy fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, as described in Attachment 6. 

The importance of fish health and fish technology centers and the brood-stock

program and the demand for their services and for the improved quality

(genetics and health) of hatchery-reared fish far exceed current funding 

and staffing.

The steering committee is concerned that these facilities are not fulfilling the 

integral role they play in the NFHS. These facilities also are not realizing their 

potential to provide the best science possible to national fish hatcheries, 

state and tribal partners, and private aquaculture in the areas of freshwater, 

estuarine and marine fish genetics, fish culture and fish health. Stakeholders,

scientific review groups and numerous FWS internal documents affirm the

importance of these facilities. However, this emphasis is not reflected by the

FWS in its funding or in its establishment of priorities. Fish health centers and

fish technology centers presently lack the focus and cohesiveness that provide

integrated conceptual foundations for the array of scientific endeavors these

facilities conduct or could conduct. Failure to fund adequately the national

brood-stock program compromises its ability to ensure product quality and

integrity by assisting states and tribes to obtain viable, genetically appropriate 

and disease-free eggs. Adequate funding and other incentives also should be

put in place to allow the fish technology and fish health centers to work more

closely with universities that conduct similar activities.

8 FWS must maintain and enhance training for hatchery managers and other 

hatchery personnel to ensure that only the best science is used and that new science

is transferred as quickly as possible to all units. 

To help achieve this goal, training curricula should be enhanced at the FWS

National Conservation Training Center to ensure that technical and scientific

skills are improved and knowledge of proper facility and personnel management throughout the NFHS is continually updated and enhanced.

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 19
MITIGATION

9 Legislation is necessary to clarify various existing legislative mandates and 

FWS policies regarding mitigation. New legislation must articulate clearly the role 

of the NFHS in mitigating for federal water and other development projects and how

these mitigation activities are to be funded. Costs for the entire range of activities

associated with hatchery production and stocking for mitigation must be fully 

reimbursed by the party or parties responsible for the development project. However,

until this legislation is enacted, the FWS must continue to fund the current mitigation

responsibilities of the NFHS. 

Congress has given FWS multiple legislative mandates, and the FWS has implemented conflicting policies regarding priorities for national fish hatcheries.

One result is that national fish hatcheries that are required to mitigate for 

federally sponsored development projects also have been simultaneously

charged by the FWS to engage in threatened and endangered species recovery.

The FWS has a series of mitigation responsibilities that are poorly defined, 

lack funding mechanisms, and often direct a national fish hatchery to produce

mitigation fish that may compete with native fish. New legislation must provide

direction to specific hatcheries to explain why the mitigation activity is taking

place, what fish are to be produced, for whom, how the production is to be

incorporated into appropriate regional fishery management planning, and 

how the mitigation activity is to be funded. 

In FY 1999, production from 38 national fish hatcheries (nearly 50 percent 

of the NFHS) totally or partially provided fish to mitigate for federally funded

development projects. Of these, 13 provide fish for mitigation specifically

identified in an act authorizing a dam (statutory mitigation), and 25 provide

fish for mitigation not specifically identified in dam authorizations (de-facto

mitigation). Costs are recovered or reimbursed, in whole or in part, for about

one-third of these hatcheries, as defined by legislative directives or memoranda of agreement (Attachment 7). Remaining costs are paid directly from FWS

Fisheries Program appropriations. However, because of funding shortfalls,

hatcheries funded through regular appropriations are augmented by a variety 

of reciprocal arrangements with the states. 

20 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL
Six mitigation hatcheries in the Southeast provide an example of funding

needs, having annual operations and maintenance costs of about $2.3 million.

FWS estimates that $4.5 million annually is necessary to fully recover costs

from project beneficiaries in the Southeast, not including a $5.8 million 

maintenance backlog. Information from the FWS’ Southeast Region, based 

in part on the American Sportfishing Association’s publication “The Economic

Importance of Sport Fishing,” indicates an annual economic benefit of more

than $400 million from those six hatcheries.

The steering committee considered other options for meeting federal fishery

mitigation responsibilities, including state or tribal assumption of fish 

production with full reimbursement. However, the steering committee could

not recommend this alternative due to the complexities of federal law and 

state and tribal authorities as well as many other political, social and administrative barriers and variables. Nevertheless, if situations arose in which certain

states or tribes were willing to assume these responsibilities on a reimbursable

basis, such production programs would be required to adhere to the same 

principles of science and accountability governing national fish hatcheries.

Furthermore, responsibility for these production programs would need to be

mutually agreed to by the state or tribe, the FWS and the federal development

sponsor. Such an arrangement would need to be described in a cooperative

agreement subject to public review and comment.

10 Until legislation is enacted to require reimbursement, current funding for 

NFHS mitigation operations must be maintained and must not be redirected for 

any other purpose. 

Currently, by internal FWS practice, the costs of rearing threatened or 

endangered species are borne by the NFHS budget. The result is that the FWS 

is attempting to meet the critical need for hatchery involvement in threatened

and endangered species recovery by redirecting already-limited funds from

other hatchery programs, such as mitigation. The spiral of decreasing FWS

budgets for hatchery operations further compounds the strain on funding for

mitigation operations, although mitigation is a primary and often statutory

mandate for many national fish hatcheries. This situation is exacerbated 

further when state and tribal cooperators are increasingly asked or required by

FWS to purchase fish food, distribute fish and offset other production costs,

often without prior consultation.

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 21

“The importance of this

focused report cannot 

be overlooked. We must

initiate a long-term plan

to enhance and protect

our National Fish

Hatchery System.”

—CHARLES HARTER III, DIRECTOR,

COASTAL CONSERVATION

ASSOCIATION
RECREATION AND OTHER COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS

11 Legislation must be enacted to provide the FWS with specific mandates that 

clarify the role of the NFHS in supporting and enhancing recreational fishing, in the

context of the June 1995 Executive Order #12962 for Recreational Fisheries. 

The steering committee agrees that the nation’s fisheries are best served by

using a holistic approach to fisheries management that includes restoring 

habitat and rebuilding fish populations. Current priorities in the FWS’

Fisheries Program and the NFHS support this by focusing on restoration and

recovery. However, the FWS retains certain responsibilities for providing

recreational fishing opportunities in the United States.

Some of these responsibilities are legislatively or administratively mandated 

by statutes and executive orders, such as the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956,

Executive Order #12962, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997, tribal treaties, and other authorities, including the Sikes Act for 

support of recreational fishing on military and other federal lands. However,

FWS presently fails to acknowledge recreational fishing as one of the priorities

of the NFHS, and the national fish hatcheries’ role in recreational fishing

remains ambiguous. Although the FWS believes it provides recreational fishing

opportunities as a result of its activities supporting mitigation, native fish

restoration, and threatened and endangered species recovery, in the absence of

clear policy guidance, decisions either to expand or reduce hatchery support for

recreational fisheries have been arbitrary and politicized. 

12 FWS should recover 100 percent of costs for production, stocking and any 

evaluation when providing fish to support purely recreational fishing programs 

(e.g. not as part of mitigation or restoration). Exceptions include meeting tribal trust

responsibilities, stocking on national wildlife refuges, and providing fish for small,

cooperative community service projects with education and outreach benefits, 

such as National Fishing Week events and scouting jamborees.

States and tribes have the predominant role in managing recreational 

fisheries within state and tribal boundaries. The Sikes Act requires FWS 

participation in fish and wildlife management planning on military lands, 

to include fish stocking, which occurs as a reimbursable activity. Although

there is also an opportunity for national fish hatcheries to help support 

recreational fishing as defined above, it is not a federal responsibility.

Therefore, the steering committee believes that these national fish hatchery

expenses should be reimbursed. 

22 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL
13 Cooperative arrangements and exchanges between the FWS and states or tribes

should continue as long as they are properly coordinated and planned. When fish 

are requested either by or from the FWS, the need must be defined in objectives 

in fishery management plans (Recommendation #1). Memoranda of agreement or

other cooperative agreements between the FWS and its partners must define the 

general conditions for each exchange. 

There are numerous existing exchange arrangements. Some are written into

memoranda of understanding, some are contract cost agreements, and some

are secured only by handshakes. All are considered partnerships and most 

represent good business practices and cooperation among partners. As 

indicated in the FWS’ August 2000 Hatchery System Alignment report, many 

of these conservation exchanges and reimbursed activities are critical to the

success of the FWS’ partnerships with states, tribes, conservation organizations

and universities. Other such exchanges also support the wise conservation of

aquatic resources and ecosystems. 

Cooperative exchanges also are often a cost-effective way of doing business. 

In managing fisheries resources to meet a variety of goals, sharing staff, 

equipment and hatchery-produced fish benefits the resource and resource

users. Cooperative partnerships provide fisheries benefits such as exchanges 

of services, fish eggs, brood stock, fish health services, field work or fish 

transportation. However, when these exchanges are informal, random and

uncoordinated, they can compromise sound business management and fiscal

accountability. In some cases, there are no specific guidelines or sideboards

defining this practice either at the regional or national level of the FWS. In a

few cases, these arrangements have confused partners about the legitimate

roles and responsibilities of the NFHS. These activities must be integrated 

into operational work plans (Recommendation #2) and reported in the 

system’s annual performance report. The steering committee is optimistic 

that FWS work group products will help establish procedures to better manage

these conservation partnerships.

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 23

“I am deeply proud of the

perseverance and vision

the Council's hatchery

project steering committee demonstrated

throughout the entire

process. Steering committee members and

their employers donated

many days of diligent

work to cultivate the

remarkable consensus

achieved by the group.

These experienced and

committed fisheries

leaders embraced the

objective of instigating

meaningful change for

the National Fish

Hatchery System.”

—HELEN SEVIER, CHAIR, SPORT

FISHING AND BOATING

PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL, BASS

ANGLERS SPORTSMAN SOCIETY

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY

14 The FWS must review threatened and endangered species recovery plan activities

calling for the use of national fish hatcheries to assess the appropriateness of using a

national fish hatchery for refugia or for using hatchery production for recovery and to

determine the costs of doing so. 

The steering committee recognizes threatened and endangered species 

recovery as an important and appropriate use of NFHS facilities. However, 

the FWS role in providing refugia and/or culturing threatened or endangered

aquatic species in national fish hatcheries must be better defined and 

managed. Factors to be routinely considered must include the appropriateness

and genetic implications of using culture as a recovery tool, the condition and

capability of the habitat in sustaining recovery, the physical capabilities of a

specific hatchery’s facilities, and the scientific and technical capabilities of 

the hatchery’s staff. 

15 Fish production is no different from any other activity defined and funded as

threatened and endangered species recovery. Therefore, endangered aquatic species

recovery and refugia activities on national fish hatcheries must be funded by the 

FWS Endangered Species Program appropriation, consistent with other threatened

and endangered species recovery activities conducted by the FWS. 

The FWS, with assistance from state agencies, tribes and the recreational 

fishing and boating community, must seek appropriations to support 

hatchery-related activities for the conservation of threatened and endangered

species in a way that does not divert dollars from other appropriate NFHS

activities. The steering committee understands the need for the FWS to have

funding discretion; however, it should not occur in a way that compromises

other legislatively mandated activities of the NFHS. 

16 The FWS, in consultation with recovery cooperators, must determine if state, 

tribal or private expertise can more effectively and economically provide necessary

refugia or captive propagation for threatened or endangered species.

Culture of threatened and endangered species for recovery should not be 

confined to national fish hatcheries when other scientifically and technically

capable facilities are available to meet production and recovery objectives 

with greater cost effectiveness. Although the FWS has a lead federal role in

threatened and endangered species recovery, it does not automatically follow

that the NFHS must have the only role in culture and refugia for these species.

24

“Tribes view properly 

operated hatcheries as

essential tools to 

successful salmon 

recovery in the Pacific

Northwest. This report

should establish that

direction for the

National Fish Hatchery

System.”

—JAMES ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST INDIAN

FISHERIES COMMISSION
NATIVE SPECIES RESTORATION

17 The NFHS must continue its role in restoration of interjurisdictional native 

fish species regardless of the availability of partnering funds. When national fish

hatcheries cooperate in restoration of native species that are non-interjurisdictional

but are of national significance, they must do the work under a cooperative 

agreement with the state or tribe. 

There is an important role for the NFHS in restoration of native game and 

nongame fish in their aquatic habitats, and restoration should become an

increasingly higher priority for the NFHS. However, restoration plans also

must address physical, chemical, biological and harvest factors that impact

species or communities. Artificial propagation and distribution is only one

possible strategy in restoration planning. National fish hatchery programs

should support watershed-based management, and these programs should 

be fully coordinated with state, tribal and other restoration efforts. The most

cost-effective and ecologically and biologically effective approach to restoring

imperiled species is to begin work before they become listed as threatened 

or endangered. The need to proactively manage and restore aquatic 

communities will only intensify as human populations continue to consume

limited land and water resources.

FWS traditionally has focused its federal responsibility in cooperative 

restoration programs in interjurisdictional waters. Through its Fisheries

Management Assistance Program and the NFHS, the FWS has made important

contributions to restoring native fish species and aquatic communities. 

For non-interjurisdictional species restoration, national fish hatcheries 

should work cooperatively, at the request of states, tribes or other partners. 

In these cases, the lead agency should be the host state or tribe, not the FWS.

18 The NFHS should produce and stock fish to restore fisheries on national wildlife

refuges, as outlined in restoration plans endorsed by regional management councils

and/or interstate commissions, and to meet tribal trust or other obligations, 

regardless of the availability of partnership funds. 

19 NFHS production should be reimbursed fully if it is directed at restoring a species

within a single jurisdiction (non-interjurisdictional), that is not of national significance

(i.e. not a potential candidate species or species of special concern), or does not 

fulfill a restoration plan endorsed by multiple state or tribal entities or commissions.

Costs should include all aspects of fish production, stocking, and post-stocking 

evaluation and monitoring.

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 25
20 The FWS, in conjunction with states, tribes, interstate commissions, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, and other partners, should develop the NFHS’

potential role in the restoration and management of inter-jurisdictional estuarine 

and marine fisheries.

FWS currently has the authority to cooperate and participate in coastal 

estuarine and marine fisheries management activities. There is an opportunity

for exploring potential uses of the NFHS in an expanding role in coastal 

and marine fisheries management. FWS should consult its partners, as 

opportunities and needs for restoration production in coastal and marine 

environments escalate, to help prioritize production from national fish 

hatcheries. In cases where more definition has been needed to engage the

NFHS, Congress has provided clear authority for the FWS in nationally 

significant species restoration programs, such as the Emergency Striped 

Bass Act. This program has worked well, and it is likely that similar efforts 

will be needed in the future.

SUMMARY

The steering committee’s recommendations chart a significant new course 

for the NFHS. This new course recognizes the system’s vital roles in fulfilling

mitigation obligations; restoring and maintaining native fisheries; giving 

priority to recreational fisheries; strengthening cooperation with states, tribes

and partners; and improving accountability with Congress, NFHS stakeholders

and the general public.

A repeated theme throughout the report is the essential requirement to 

produce and use cultured products from the NFHS in a way that uses the 

best possible science-based management principles and practices. The 

recommendations emphasize the crucial role the fish technology centers, 

fish health centers, and the national brood-stock programs play. The steering

committee believes these services are vital to improving the science of fish 

culture and fisheries management programs that use cultured products and

encourages the FWS to increase attention and funding for these programs.

Report recommendations acknowledge the NFHS’ role in mitigation but ask for

legislative clarification of that responsibility, as well as authority to assure full

cost recovery for mitigation-related expenses from the parties responsible for

development projects.

26 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

“This report, prepared 

by a cadre of dedicated

fishery professionals,

provides a clear basis 

on which decisions

regarding funding of the

federal fish hatcheries

can be based. For a 

new administration,

this report can be a

springboard for a 

bipartisan effort to 

rescue the important

federal fish production

system.”

—ROBIN KNOX, IMMEDIATE PAST

PRESIDENT, FISHERIES

ADMINISTRATORS SECTION,

AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY
Federally funded implementation of threatened and endangered species 

recovery plans is noted as an appropriate and important use of the NFHS. 

It is recommended that in the future the important role the system plays in 

the recovery of threatened and endangered aquatic species be funded from

threatened and endangered species program appropriations.

The long-term stability of the NFHS will be further solidified by implementing

the steering committee’s recommendations that acknowledge the significant

role the system has and should have in restoration of native fisheries. It is 

also recommended that Congress clarify the role the NFHS should play in 

supporting recreational fishing objectives.

With regard to tribal trust responsibilities, the steering committee 

recommends that the FWS work closely with affected tribes to ensure that the

responsibilities of the NFHS, with regard to tribal trust and treaty agreements,

is clarified and properly implemented.

Finally, the steering committee believes that outreach and accountability 

are critical to the success and future of the NFHS. The FWS must manage 

the system in a way that promotes cooperation and communication with 

stakeholders and partners in reporting on the system’s needs and achievements and in identifying the priorities, goals and objectives for the system.

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 27

“This report is extremely 

important to the states.

However, of even 

greater importance is

Congress’ willingness 

to support the report’s

recommendations 

legislatively and give

clear direction to the

Fish and Wildlife 

Service regarding the

roles, responsibilities

and operation of the

National Fish 

Hatchery System.”

—GARY MYERS, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, TENNESSEE 

WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY

REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND 

WILDLIFE AGENCIES
28 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

65

7

14

33

3

34 55

60

11

35

5

64

31

46

28

54

24

32

39

38 9

25

53

57

56

42

43 37

20

41

18

26 58

16

17

1

21

27

13

30

10

5

3

2

1

6

50

36

51

8

4

1

3

6

2

7

LA

IL

AR

TX

MO

IA

MN

NE

SD

ND

KS

CO

AZ NM

UT

CA

NV

ID

OR

WA

WY

MT

OK

WI

M
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 29

NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY 

SYSTEM MAP

● NATIONAL FISH 

HATCHERIES

1 Alchesay-Williams Creek

NFH, AZ

2 Allegheny NFH, PA

3 Carson NFH, WA

4 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH, GA

5 Coleman NFH, CA

6 Craig Brook NFH, ME

7 Creston NFH, MT

8 Dale Hollow NFH, TN

9 Dexter NFH, NM

10 Dworshak NFH, ID

11 Eagle Creek NFH, OR

12 Edenton NFH, NC

13 Ennis NFH, MT

14 Entiat NFH, WA

15 Erwin NFH, TN

16 Garrison Dam NFH, ND

17 Gavins Point NFH, SD

18 Genoa NFH, WI

19 Green Lake NFH, ME

20 Greers Ferry NFH, AR

21 Hagerman NFH, ID

22 Harrison Lake NFH, VA

23 Hiawatha Forest NFH, MI

24 Hotchkiss NFH, CO

25 Inks Dam NFH, TX

26 Iron River NFH, WI

27 Jackson NFH, WY

28 Jones Hole NFH, UT

29 Jordan River NFH, MI

30 Kooskia NFH, ID

31 Lahontan NFH, NV

32 Leadville NFH, CO

33 Leavenworth NFH, WA

34 Little White 

Salmon NFH, WA

35 Livingston Stone NFH, CA

36 Makah NFH, WA

37 Mammoth Spring NFH, AR

38 Mescalero NFH, NM

39 Mora NFH, NM

40 Nashua NFH, NH

41 Natchitoches NFH, LA

42 Neosho NFH, MO

43 Norfork NFH, AR

44 North Attleboro NFH, MA

45 Orangeburg NFH, SC

46 Ouray NFH, UT

47 Pendills Creek NFH, MI

48 Pittsford NFH, VT

49 Private John Allen NFH, MS

50 Quilcene NFH, WA

51 Quinault NFH, WA

52 Richard Cronin NSS, MA

53 San Marcos NFH, TX

54 Saratoga NFH, WY

55 Spring Creek NFH, WA

56 Tishomingo NFH, OK

57 Uvalde NFH, TX

58 Valley City NFH, ND

59 Warm Springs NFH, GA

60 Warm Springs NFH, OR

61 Welaka NFH, FL

62 White River NFH, VT

63 White Sulphur 

Springs NFH, WV

64 Willow Beach NFH, AZ

65 Winthrop NFH, WA

66 Wolf Creek NFH, KY

■ FISH TECHNOLOGY

CENTERS

1 Abernathy FTC, WA

2 Bozeman FTC, MT

3 Dexter FTC, NM

4 Lamar FTC, PA

5 Mora FTC, NM

6 San Marcos FTC, TX

7 Warm Springs FTC, GA

◆ FISH HEALTH CENTERS

1 Bozeman FHC, MT

2 California-Nevada FHC, CA

3 Idaho FHC, ID

4 La Crosse FHC, WI

5 Lamar FTC, PA

6 Lower Columbia 

River FHC, WA

7 Olympia FHC, WA

8 Pinetop FHC, AZ

9 Warm Springs FHC, GA

49

59

4

45

61

15

66

8

63

12

22

47

23

29

2

6248

40

6

19

44

52

4

7 9

5

ME

NH

CT RI

NY

PA

NJ

DE

MD

VA

WV

OH

NC

SC

GA

FL

IN

MI

MS AL

TN

KY

VT

MA
30 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT 1
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 31

ATTACHMENT 1
32 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT 2
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 33

ATTACHMENT 2
34 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT 3
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 35

ATTACHMENT 3
36 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

Sept. 2, 1999

Dr. John G. Rogers

Acting Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1849 C St., N.W., MS 3012

Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear John,

Thank you very much for your August 17 letter.

The Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council stands ready, as requested in 

your letter, to facilitate an open, inclusive national process to provide 

recommendations regarding the future of the National Fish Hatchery System.

To this process, the Council will bring its financial, staff and volunteer resources,

as well as its demonstrated ability to conductsuccessful national, facilitated 

discussions and to offer recommendations about issues related to aquatic 

resource conservation policy.

The Council recognizes that this process is necessary to address the long-term 

needs and purposes of the National Fish Hatchery System.The Council believes 

that creating a new, comprehensive, consensus-based blueprint for the hatchery 

system and developing a method to move the system from its current state 

toward a new strategic plan will be at the heart of this process.This process 

will build on previous years’ research, relevant Service and other documents,

recommendations and input from stakeholders, the “three As”evaluation and the 

General Accounting Office review. In addition, the Council is looking forward to 

interacting frequently with the Service’s Fisheries Program’s work groups tasked 

with assembling data and other information about the National Fish Hatchery System.

The Council is now developing a work plan to carry out this task in a way that will 

conform to your request for a full report and final recommendations to the Secretary 

of the Interior by August 2000, with an interim report available by March 1, 2000.

Once it is completed, the work plan will be shared with you and members of your staff.

The Council is eager to begin work on this important topic and will provide you 

with regular updates as we embark on this project.

Sincerely,

Helen Sevier

Chair, SFBPC

ATTACHMENT 4
SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 37

ATTACHMENT 5

Summary of Previous Reports and Recommendations 

Regarding the National Fish Hatchery System

A myriad of studies, reports and recommendations from outside groups and from Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) appointed committees and task forces have been undertaken in an attempt to help guide the FWS and

the National Fish Hatchery System. The most prominent of those reports are discussed here, briefly. A comprehensive compilation of recommendations from the principal reports review by the steering committee

follows this discussion.

Calhoun Report: In January 1974, a task force of five individuals was formed representing the American

Fisheries Society, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, state fish and wildlife agencies, and the Sport Fishing Institute. Fisheries consultant Alex Calhoun chaired the task force. The group was

asked to “...examine the national program for fish culture and directly related activities...to review state and

federal roles and responsibilities and to recommend any changes needed to achieve maximum efficiency

through a coordinated national program whose state and federal components supplement each other fully

while avoiding duplication of effort.” 

The report concluded that longstanding policy assigning top priority for distribution of National Fish

Hatchery System fish to waters under federal jurisdiction was poorly implemented and needed to be

“...reviewed and revised to provide more substantial and meaningful program goals....” The report made 31

recommendations to better define federal/state roles.

Responsibilities and Roles: In 1985, in the face of declining budgets, the FWS reviewed its Fishery

Resources Program, with a goal of assuring its responsibilities and role were properly “scoped and focused.”

The result was identification of responsibilities that would “henceforth be the focus of the Service’s reoriented Fishery Resources Program”:

• Facilitate restoration of depleted, nationally significant fishery resources.

• Seek mitigation for fishery resource impairment due to federal water-related development. 

• Assist with management of fishery resources of federal (primarily FWS) and tribal lands. 

• Maintain federal leadership in scientific management of national fishery resources.

These standards continue to guide the FWS Fisheries Program. Although the document contained little discussion of the role of national fish hatcheries, it recognized their role in fish health and technology development as part of FWS leadership in scientifically based management. 
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

38 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

Action Plan for Fishery Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems: In May 1994, the FWS once again examined its

Fisheries Program to redirect activities toward an “ecosystem approach” based on healthy aquatic habitats.

The action plan delineated program elements for the National Fish Hatchery System, some of which are 

followed today: “...an innovative propagation program that supports native species restoration; endangered

species recovery; Federal mitigation responsibilities; subsistence, commercial, and recreational fishing;

monitoring and assessment programs; and National Wildlife Refuge and Tribal needs.” One of the highest

priorities was “maintaining healthy wild populations through genetic diversity, harvest management, habitat

improvements, and judicious use of hatchery stocks.” 

Components 4 and 5 in the Fishery Management Support section of the action plan provided priorities for

the National Fish Hatchery System. What is implicit in these was affirmation that national fish hatcheries

should support fishery and aquatic resource management. Only species, stocks, strains, races and numbers

of fish deemed compatible with and identified in ecosystem management plans would be produced.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Report: That same year, the FWS director also asked the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation to convene a review panel to do an “outside objective evaluation” of the

National Fish Hatchery System and make recommendations for its future role in ecosystem management.

The report concluded that “...it is clear the national fish hatchery program needs a new edict. That edict must

recognize the need for fundamental redirection of programs, personnel, and facilities toward supporting

ecosystem management whether it relates to restoring depleted populations of anadromous fishes or the

recovery of threatened and endangered species.” This report focused on outside reactions as to what national

fish hatcheries were doing and illustrated that there is a lack of understanding of how national fish hatcheries fit into a fishery management program.

The foundation’s report concluded that despite the existence of program management documents, vision

statements, policy statements and generic management plans, a “...well-defined national fisheries 

program with definite goals, objectives, implementation and evaluation strategies does not appear to exist.” 

This statement accurately characterizes the FWS program, of which national fish hatcheries are only the 

production component.

Compilation of Recommendations and Conclusions from Previous Reports

Regarding the National Fish Hatchery System

Documents reviewed to compile this comparison included:

1974 Report of National Task Force for Public Fish Hatchery Policy (Calhoun) 

1985 FWS Statement of Responsibilities and Role (R&R)

1991 Department of Interior Inspector General Audit on Recovery of Mitigation Costs for Bureau of

Reclamation Projects (IG)

1994 Action Plan for Fishery Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems (AP)
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 39

1994 Report of the National Fish Hatchery Review Panel (NFWF)

1996-97 Recommendations from FWS Stakeholders Meetings (SM) 

1999 General Accounting Office Report on Distribution of Fish and Fish Eggs Needs (GAO)

The compilation is arranged by category to facilitate use by steering committee work groups: Introduction;

Scientific Leadership and Stocking Protocols; Mitigation and Recreation; Threatened, Endangered and

Native Species; and Funding Considerations. Recommendations are duplicated where they may apply to

more than one category. When they didn’t seem to fit existing categories, they were put into the Introduction

section. Recommendations are paraphrased.

INTRODUCTION (and miscellaneous):

• FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in concert with states, define problems associated

with inadequate intercommunications in the national program for fish culture and formulate solutions.

(Calhoun)

• A position/policy statement should be made by the FWS declaring that the primary mission of hatcheries

into the next century will be to provide fish for support of ecosystem management and habitat restoration.

(NFWF)

• Hatcheries not needed to meet current or redirected program needs should be considered candidates 

for closure or transfer to states. (NFWF)

• Changes in FWS policies and provision of hatchery fish should be done with discussion and negotiations

with affected states and other partners. Proposed changes should be time-phased to accommodate needs

of states or tribes. (NFWF)

• Changes in policies regarding providing or using federally produced fish by states should be implemented

only after states have been fully informed well in advance. Adequate lead time should be allowed for states

to assume any new responsibilities. If the change involves transfer of a facility to a state, a negotiated

phase-in should be part of the changeover from full federal support through shared cost to full state

takeover. (NFWF)

• Lead federal responsibility for assisting private aquaculture should be in U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA). (NFWF)

• A new public outreach and education approach is needed to emphasize the role of federal hatcheries as

vital support to resource managers in aquatic ecosystem stewardship, not just as fish-raising and stocking

stations. (NFWF)

• Stakeholders strongly suggest others taking the lead in providing general aquatic education. (SM)

• The FWS will develop a process to ensure timely and effective stakeholder input into FWS decisions on a

continuing basis. (SM)
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

40 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

• Establish partnerships with the private aquaculture community to ensure industry development that is

economically viable and compatible with protection of native and wild fish populations. (AP)

• Establish environmental awareness and outreach programs to develop an informed and involved citizenry

that supports aquatic ecosystem conservation and fishery stewardship. (AP)

• Legislative authorities for fishery responsibilities are vague. Stakeholders offered to work with the FWS 

to establish clear authorities and pursue legislation where appropriate. The FWS said it was receptive to

pursuing clarifying legislative authority and would support the effort of others to develop and submit 

legislation to establish specific authorities for fishery activities, particularly those not covered by the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. (SM)

• Deciding what course of action to take in the face of declining operations and maintenance appropriations

requires, among other things, a clear understanding of the role and responsibilities of federal hatcheries.

However, information on how federal hatcheries have been supporting the FWS’ programs through the

distribution of fish and fish eggs has not been reliable and does not provide a clear picture of the unique

role that federal hatcheries are supposed to fill. To provide the Congress with the information needed to

evaluate the appropriate role of the National Fish Hatchery System, we recommend that the Secretary of

the Interior direct the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to take steps to refine the classification

system for fish and fish egg distribution and help ensure that hatchery managers appropriately classify 

all fish and fish egg distribution by its principal purpose. (GAO)

Scientific Leadership and Stocking Protocols

• Explore, in concert with states, various ways in which the federal level can assist in coordinating fish 

culture programs that interlock many states. (Calhoun)

• FWS and NMFS increase emphasis on research and development related to culture of Pacific salmon and

steelhead; encourage and participate in state-federal review of existing and proposed projects in this field;

encourage and participate in development of a state-federal system for jointly assigning priorities and

responsibilities for research and development. (Calhoun)

• That the federal government, in concert with states, strengthen its role in research and development 

relating to fish culture; further, that the state and federal agencies concerned look to the advantages of

geographical and problem coordination of their research and development efforts. (Calhoun) 

• FWS review goals and operations of its developmental program for fish culture to determine whether it 

will function better under regional or central leadership. (Calhoun)

• FWS, with NMFS, assign a much higher priority to development of procedures for culturing larvae of

striped bass and midrange species using artificial diets. (Calhoun)

• Each state or federal agency assume responsibility for routine disease control in its own hatchery system.

(Calhoun)
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 41

• FWS, with NMFS and in concert with states and private sector, set up a problem-solving team of 

individuals knowledgeable about technical, social, and political aspects of national fish disease problems,

directing this team to develop plans for an action program, including any corrective legislation that may 

be necessary to control the spread of the more serious diseases. (Calhoun)

• FWS, in concert with states, continue to develop and strengthen national system for disease appraisal 

and certification of salmonid eggs. (Calhoun)

• FWS continue important role of maintaining disease-free brood stocks and providing states with 

disease-free eggs to start their own brood stocks, but FWS not attempt to become a routine source of 

supply for disease-free eggs or fingerlings for production purposes. (Calhoun)

• States and FWS assume responsibility for training their respective employees; FWS continue to provide

opportunities for nonfederal workers to participate in its training sessions related to fish culture and 

disease control. (Calhoun)

• Work more closely with other governmental agencies and private organizations to restore habitat of 

depleted native stocks, rather than rely on hatchery fish to compensate for habitat losses. (NFWF)

• Maintain and make available the full range of expertise required to protect and manage fishery resources,

including that in fish culture and fishery resource management; maintain the well-established scientific

institution it now represents, with core capability in all the disciplines required, to effectively contribute

to protecting the productivity and maximizing the potential of fishery resources. (R&R)

• Maintain brood stocks representing all major species for use in special management situations, giving

development of different strains or modification of genetic character major consideration. (R&R)

• Develop new concepts and improved technology in fishery resource management and fish propagation

(stock assessment, allocation options, chemical/drug registration). (R&R)

• Provide leadership in technology of fish disease diagnosis and fish health practice, for application in 

cooperation with other entities to control spread of diseases, including certification of fish disease 

inspectors. (R&R)

• Develop policies to address introduction and control of exotic species, uniform practices in fish health,

and standardization of fishery statistics. (R&R)

• Make technical assistance available to other natural resource agencies and organizations, transfer technical information through advanced training in fishery management and fish culture through the fisheries

academy. (R&R)

• Stocking fish on federal lands should be consistent with an approved aquatic ecosystem management plan,

precluding deleterious competitive and genetic effects of stocked fish on native species. Fish from wild

populations should be used as brood stock to maintain genetic diversity. When species or stocks are

brought into captivity, fish health personnel should be involved so vital data on disease status, habitat

requirements, behavior and spawning habits will be available when needed. (NFWF)
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

42 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

• Develop a comprehensive fisheries program that defines the numbers and stocks of fish needed to support

an ecosystem management concept and define how to better integrate hatchery products and fish hatchery

expertise into the ecosystem management program. (NFWF)

• Integrate and implement the Action Plan for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources into the new ecosystem

management concept immediately. (NFWF)

• Regional ecosystem management teams should evaluate each hatchery in a region and determine if the unit

and its products are compatible with resource and ecosystem needs. Any unit that fails to meet these tests

should be considered as potentially excess to the FWS. (NFWF)

• Evaluate hatcheries to determine if production could be consolidated to increase efficiency without loss 

in quality, no net loss in production needs, and no loss in genetic diversity of species, stocks, or strains.

(NFWF)

• As part of reprogramming funds and divesting facilities, hatcheries not needed to meet specific program

needs or to assist in prevention of further stock decline or to propagate threatened and endangered species

should be evaluated for possible use as research sites for development of culture methods for nontraditional aquatic organisms, as study sites, or as centers for habitat evaluation and restoration. Realignment

of facility uses should be tied to technology development center programs. (NFWF).

• Fisheries resources in the regional offices should determine the numbers, species, stocks, strains, races,

etc., needed to support and achieve goals and objectives of ecosystem management in the regions. (NFWF)

• Using native populations for brood fish requires knowledge of the health status of the wild fish. Fish

Disease Control Center personnel should be involved in health evaluations and selection of potential

brood fish to ensure hatcheries produce fish free of introduced diseases and parasites. (NFWF)

• After-stocking evaluations should be conducted to evaluate how well hatchery-produced fish achieve 

program goals. (NFWF)

• Do not discontinue fish health services to nonfederal clients until state or private capabilities are in place.

Once they are, fish health centers should decline to provide further assistance. (NFWF)

• Private aquaculture should be given greater access to disease-free stocks and strains maintained in the

federal brood-stock registry and to other stocks in national fish hatcheries to help control spread of 

specific pathogens to native populations and ecosystems. (NFWF)

• Establish an interagency group with U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure goals and activities 

of private aquaculture include consideration and prevention of potential impacts from accidental 

establishment of feral populations on native populations. (NFWF)

• Encourage and increase efforts to share federal hatchery expertise with others through publications in

journals, newsletters, workshops, etc. Strategic outreach for dissemination of scientific and public 

education materials should be developed. (NFWF)
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 43

• Hatchery managers and employees must be kept informed as to their roles in the FWS’ ecosystem

approach. Hatcheries have the capability to reprogram and are ready to become an integral part of 

ecosystem management. (NFWF)

• Ensure that FWS’ hatchery and management programs are based on approved management plans and are

compatible with preservation of native and wild populations. (AP)

• Ensure production of hatchery fish and associated management are based on integrated principles of 

conservation genetics and ecology. (AP)

• Develop and implement monitoring, sampling, and reporting systems to evaluate effectiveness of 

(1) fishery restoration, mitigation and enhancement programs and (2) hatchery programs in achieving

specific management objectives, especially in conserving wild stocks, maintaining the diversity of native

fish communities, and contributing to stable, productive fisheries. (AP)

• Develop and implement a FWS conservation genetics policy to ensure that management and hatchery 

programs contribute to: (1) national fishery objectives, (2) fishery objectives for specific ecosystems, 

and (3) preservation of genetic diversity and integrity. (AP)

• Develop and use captive propagation techniques for fishes and other aquatic species listed as threatened,

endangered, or candidate under the Endangered Species Act, when specifically prescribed in recovery

plans. Other techniques that are in accordance with conservation genetic principles and in conjunction

with habitat restoration may be approved by the FWS director. (AP)

• Support investigations in genetics, threatened and endangered fish, drug and chemical management,

water and effluent management, wild and cultured fish interactions, hatchery product evaluation, and

non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species management. (AP)

• Design and implement innovative fishery technology development activities to support conservation and

restoration of aquatic ecosystems. (AP)

• Establish fish health programs and protocols to protect wild and hatchery populations from diseases.

Develop technologies and procedures to minimize risk of pathogen transfer to avoid or minimize 

epizootic outbreaks. (AP)

• Develop predictive capabilities to determine the cumulative effects of habitat degradation and alteration

on fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems. (AP)

• Develop assessment and predictive capabilities to determine methods of preventing introductions of 

and controlling or eliminating nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species as well as determining their 

effects on aquatic resources. (AP)

• Develop and implement protocols to ensure that fish, fish pathogens, and fish products from private 

aquaculture operations do not pose unacceptable risks to natural ecosystems. (AP)

• Provide fish culture information, fish containment techniques, results of fish health research, technical

training, and technical assistance to private aquaculture consistent with FWS fishery stewardship 

objectives. (AP)
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

44 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

• Tribal leaders want the FWS to emphasize training in natural resource management to enable tribes to become

self-sufficient in managing their own resources. (SM)

• Fish health support from the FWS is highly valued by states, private aquaculture, and others, with emphasis on

wild fish in rivers and coastal areas and cultured fish. Because alternative sources for fish health inspections

currently exist, the FWS does not see providing inspections to states and private aquaculture as a high-priority

responsibility. However, the FWS will continue to provide diagnostic support and virology inspections as

resources permit until alternate sources are available. (SM)

• Identify, in conjunction with stakeholders, future needs for technology, technical assistance, data management,

and research for fishery resources and identify alternative ways of meeting those needs. (SM)

Mitigation and Recreation

• States assume full management and financial responsibility for stocking inland public fishing waters within

their boundaries except for special situations that justify assistance from federal or local government or private

utilities or other appropriate sources. (Calhoun)

• Public fishing waters on federal lands be treated like any other public waters for purposes of fishery management, and states assume full responsibility for stocking them, except for large federally developed reservoirs or

situations where such action is precluded by statute; further, that responsibilities be shifted in a manner that

does not abruptly burden any state financially. (Calhoun)

• States assume full responsibility for managing fisheries in federal reservoirs within their boundaries, but FWS

assist with stocking programs as required to develop and maintain optimal recreational potential of such waters.

However, in line with the heavy state responsibility, federal contribution should not exceed the state contribution. All cooperative stocking programs for federal reservoirs should be formalized by interagency agreements

defining justification and the kinds and amounts of fish to be provided by the state and the FWS. (Calhoun)

• States be responsible for stocking public fishing waters on state boundaries, which should be treated like other

public fishing waters. However, the FWS should stand ready to coordinate stocking programs involving a 

number of states, when asked. (Calhoun)

• States assume responsibility for providing fish for initial stocking of warmwater fishes on military reservations

with restricted public access; further, the users assume financial responsibility for stocking such waters with

trout and other fish that need to be planted repeatedly. (Calhoun)

• When national policy dictates that fish reared at public expense be stocked on tribal lands, federal hatcheries

provide such fish in situations where the state desires them to do so, but only in accordance with a sound, 

predeveloped fishery management plan. (Calhoun)

• Existing federal stocking programs for tribal lands be evaluated from economic and fishery management 

standpoints. (Calhoun)

• Decisions concerning stocking responsibilities on national parks and monuments be made by federal 

and state agencies concerned with them on the basis of local circumstances. (Calhoun)
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 45

• FWS continue to implement decision to remove federal responsibility for stocking farm ponds, in a 

manner that does not abruptly burden any state financially. (Calhoun)

• FWS adopt a policy prohibiting stocking federal fish in private waters lacking public access. (Calhoun)

• FWS not provide fish for put-and-take programs, except in large federal reservoirs under heavy fishing

pressure when the state cannot develop optimal recreational potential without assistance; FWS should 

not provide more than half the fish. (Calhoun)

• FWS not provide fish for put-and-take stocking in urban areas or for urban recreational programs.

(Calhoun)

• Federal and state governments continue to share responsibility for culture of Pacific salmon and 

steelhead. (Calhoun)

• Federal and state governments continue to share responsibility for producing Atlantic salmon smolts

needed to restore runs in Northeastern watersheds. (Calhoun)

• The two federal fisheries services, in concert with the New England states, develop a comprehensive 

state-federal-international Atlantic salmon plan for New England, giving careful attention to evaluation

and restoration of river environments, hatchery production and smolt distribution. (Calhoun)

• Service participation in rebuilding certain major, economically valuable fishery resources to full, selfsustainable productivity. Emphasis on anadromous and Great Lakes resources represented by indigenous,

or native, species within their original ranges. Re-creation of harvestable surpluses produced by selfreplenishing fish stocks. Irreversible habitat loss will proscribe restoration of some stocks to former 

productivity, necessitating augmentation by mitigation stocking, in perpetuity. (R&R)

• Establish cooperative restoration goals and targets for depleted fishery resources and determine the level

of FWS contribution. The FWS does not view as a federal obligation “enhancement” by artificial means 

of fishery resources in whose restoration it participated. Costs related to providing hatchery fish for 

augmentation, creation, and nonmitigation maintenance of fishery resources are properly borne by 

beneficiaries through the states and tribes. (R&R)

• FWS restoration responsibilities for depleted, interjurisdictional resources are: (R&R)

-Pacific salmons and steelhead trout.

-Great Lakes lake trout and contemporary species.

-Anadromous Atlantic salmon.

-Anadromous nonsalmonid Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fishes (e.g. striped bass, shads, 

herrings, sturgeons).

-Transboundary intercoastal and estuarine fishes (e.g. red drum, weakfish, and other sciaenids).

• FWS involvement, underwritten by the development agency, must continue for as long as mitigation

requirements have to be satisfied, entailing a perpetual need to stock hatchery–produced fish where

anadromous runs have been blocked by high dams. There is a corresponding need for continuous evaluation of the performance of both the mitigation product and that of the fisheries that it benefits. (R&R)
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

46 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

• In the specific case of existing de facto mitigation facilities, it is the Department of the Interior and FWS

intent to pursue cost-sharing arrangements for their future operation and maintenance with the agencies

representing project beneficiaries...with full state and tribal participation, as appropriate. (R&R)

• Assistance is provided through participating tribes and states for maintenance and enhancement of fishery

resources in waters on federal land when the FWS is requested to do so and is funded by the respective

land management agency. (R&R)

• Defer to states and others the operation of new fish propagation facilities serving mitigation purposes.

(R&R)

• Artificial propagation should not be used as a substitute for an aggressive program of habitat restoration 

or habitat protection. (NFWF)

• The obligation to stock federal fish should end as soon as self-sustaining populations are achieved or it 

is determined such populations are not possible. The use of non-FWS funding sources and organizations

should be considered for covering the costs of annual stocking, if it is to continue. (NFWF)

• Stocking propagated fish in ecosystem management, in restoration of depleted stocks, or for threatened

and endangered species should only be done in areas determined to have suitable habitat, adequate food

base, and appropriate spawning areas and based on specific analyses and implementation plans, such 

as endangered species recovery plans. Appropriate inland and marine harvest regimes should be an

agreed-upon element of an ecosystem management plan. (NFWF)

• Mitigation hatcheries should be reviewed to determine if original goal is being achieved. If not, determine

why and take appropriate corrective action in concert with affected state/tribe. (NFWF)

• No private waters should be stocked with federally produced fish for recreational fishing. (NFWF) 

• Enhancement of fish populations beyond natural production levels in order to provide greater recreational

opportunities (put-and-take) is not a federal responsibility. Requests for federal hatchery fish to enhance

recreational fishing should be accompanied by a willingness to assume the cost of production. (This was

not a consensus recommendation.) (NFWF)

• The FWS will aggressively pursue implementation of the Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan 

and subsequent FWS plan developed under Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries. (SM)

• Where FWS hatchery production is the agreed-upon tool for mitigating impacts, the FWS will continue

production until a better tool becomes available, or there is no longer a need to mitigate. (SM)

• The FWS will work with partners, including pursuit of new legislation, to establish adequate and stable

funding sources that minimize reliance on public funds appropriated to the FWS for past, present and

future mitigation projects. (SM)

• Stakeholders view fish culture support for restoring and/or managing interjurisdictional species as an

important FWS role and recommend the FWS provide cultured fish where needed for interjurisdictional

fishery restoration and/or management programs. (SM)
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 47

• Stakeholders do not place high value on the FWS for urban fishing programs off FWS lands and 

recommend that urban fishing programs be primarily state and local responsibilities. (SM)

• Beyond FWS activities identified as high priority, the FWS will provide assistance for fish and wildlife

management and stock cultured fish on non-FWS federal lands and waters only where requested and

reimbursed. However, whether reimbursed or not, such activities will not be considered a priority if 

they would detract from high-priority FWS activities. (SM) 

Threatened, Endangered and Native Species

• Substantial fish cultural operations involving endangered species that are found to be necessary be 

carried on in new facilities built and operated for that purpose. (Calhoun).

• FWS and NMFS increase emphasis on research and development related to culture of Pacific salmon and

steelhead; encourage and participate in state-federal review of existing and proposed projects in this field;

encourage and participate in development of a state-federal system for jointly assigning priorities and

responsibilities for research and development. (Calhoun)

• The custody of gene pool remnants of fishes with no hope of reestablishment in the wild be assigned to

special facilities established for that purpose rather than to hatcheries geared to routine production of

game fish. (Calhoun)

• Federal and state governments continue to share responsibility for culture of Pacific salmon and steelhead.

(Calhoun) 

• Stocking propagated fish in ecosystem management, in restoration of depleted stocks, or for threatened

and endangered species should only be done in areas determined to have suitable habitat, adequate food

base, and appropriate spawning areas and based on specific analyses and implementation plans, such as

endangered species recovery plans. Appropriate inland and marine harvest regimes should be an 

agreed-upon element of an ecosystem management plan (NFWF)

• Federally produced threatened and endangered species may be stocked in private waters if part of a 

recovery plan and agreed to by private landowners of waters in question. (NFWF)

• Develop a planning process for captive protection of threatened and endangered species for possible

future propagation before a species is listed to assure adequate population numbers are available to maintain heterozygosity in future brood stock (should a decision be made that propagation is needed). (NFWF)

• Develop and use captive propagation techniques for fishes and other aquatic species listed as threatened,

endangered, or candidate under the Endangered Species Act, when specifically prescribed in recovery

plans. Other techniques that are in accordance with conservation genetic principles and in conjunction

with habitat restoration may be approved by the FWS director. (AP)

• All future funding for endangered species work conducted by the FWS Fisheries Program will be requested 

discretely and not displace funding for work with nonlisted fishes. (SM)
ATTACHMENT 5: CONT’D

48 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

Funding Considerations

• National fish hatchery operations should become a more defined part of the regional FWS budgets.

(NFWF)

• Efforts should be made to revisit all mitigation mandates with the intent of having the developing agency

underwrite all operational costs, needed maintenance, plus any expenses to correct failed mitigation

efforts. (NFWF)

• Following a Department of the Interior Inspector General (IG) review of FWS attempts to recover costs for

hatchery operations at national fish hatcheries used to mitigate Bureau of Reclamation projects, 

the IG recommended: 

-Amending a memorandum of agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to establish procedures to 

ensure project beneficiaries are required to pay for reimbursable mitigation costs attributable to the 

Central Valley Project. (IG)

-Getting a solicitor’s opinion concerning recoverability of expenditures at Coleman Hatchery from 

1950-1989, under the present agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation. If recoverable, coordinate 

with the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure all reimbursable costs are identified and assessed to project 

beneficiaries. (IG)

-Obtaining authority to allow the federal government to recover costs in operating the Leavenworth 

hatcheries complex. Negotiate a new agreement to establish procedures to ensure project beneficiaries 

are assessed the reimbursable portion of mitigation costs attributable to the Columbia Basin Project. 

(IG)

• All future funding for endangered species work conducted by the FWS Fisheries Program will be requested

discretely and not displace funding for work with nonlisted fishes. (SM)
ATTACHMENT 6

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 49

Discussion of the Roles of and Need for the National Fish Hatchery System’s Fish

Technology Centers, Fish Health Centers, and the National Brood-Stock Program

Fish Technology Centers

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) seven fish technology centers were established in 1965 to develop and

improve fish culture techniques and to provide assistance and advice about fish culture to national fish

hatcheries and to other federal and state agencies, tribes, private aquaculture and, occasionally, other countries. Over time, responsibilities have grown, and areas of specialty have expanded to include technical support for interjurisdictional fisheries, estuarine and riverine fisheries, nonindigenous aquatic nuisance

species, threatened and endangered aquatic species, and other high-priority aquatic resource issues.

Today, these fish technology centers provide support to the National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) with

emphasis on assessing the quality, genetic diversity, and post-release survival of captive-reared fish; 

identifying and reducing detrimental effects of hatchery releases on wild fish; assisting in the restoration of

naturally spawning stocks; developing technologies to reduce water consumption and pollution in hatcheries;

assembling a data base of genetic fingerprints of many wild fish stocks; developing cryopreservation

techniques to safeguard DNA of threatened or endangered species; and developing and improving diets to

meet the nutritional needs of captive-reared fish.

The steering committee believes fish technology centers can and should work to refine existing protocols and

develop new ones for post-release evaluation, evaluation of the effects of intra- and interstate movement of

hatchery-raised fish on wild native species, and the effects and control of exotic diseases, exotic fish and

nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species.

Fish Health Centers

The FWS’ nine fish health centers work cooperatively with federal, state and tribal fishery managers to

detect, identify, document, and control fish pathogens and diseases in hatchery-reared and wild stocks.

These centers provide core diagnostics, monitoring, and technical assistance services essential to maintaining healthy fish populations and reducing impacts of fish diseases. They also are developing nonlethal, 

innovative methods of sampling for disease so that the health of rare, threatened and endangered species can

be monitored without sacrificing individual fish. Data from the National Wild Fish Health Survey, prepared

by the fish health centers, provide support that is useful in all fish conservation activities.

Brood-Stock Hatcheries

The 13 national fish hatcheries affiliated with the national brood-stock program provide a source of

pathogen-free eggs from a variety of distinct strains that are managed to maintain the highest degree of

genetic variability. Eggs from the national brood-stock program help fill the needs of FWS, state and tribal

fishery management biologists in meeting resource management and fishery objectives. Many of the 

partners use the products of the FWS brood-stock program for recreational programs to relieve pressure 

on native stocks.
ATTACHMENT 6: CONT’D

50 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

In exchange, states and tribes often assist the FWS in working on high-priority restoration and recovery programs. All FWS inland trout brood-stock facilities have brood-stock management plans outlining accepted

methods and procedures for rearing, spawning, feeding, handling and maintaining genetic variation in

brood stocks. The national brood-stock program also cooperates in the national fish strain registry. This

venture with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Wellsboro Laboratory provides fishery mangers with valuable 

information about brood-stock performance, genetics, fish health and fish availability for trout, paddlefish,

sturgeon and catfish. Work on coolwater fishes and sunfish is underway.

The national brood-stock program is positioned to greatly reduce the potential for diseased or genetically

inappropriate fish being released into the nation’s most important waters, and that position should be 

maintained and strengthened.
ATTACHMENT 7

SAVING A SYSTEM IN PERIL 51

Discussion of National Fish Hatcheries—Mitigation Funding

A principal issue for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) appears to be one of continuing to adequately fund

national fish hatcheries responsible for producing fish for mitigation, while at the same time increasing

emphasis on using hatcheries for endangered species recovery and native stock restoration. This was more

fully explored in the General Accounting Office Report of June 2000, “National Fish Hatcheries: Authority

Needed to Better Align Operations With Priorities.”

Thirty-eight national fish hatcheries are currently involved either totally or partially in mitigation as a 

result of federally funded dams and other developments. Thirteen provide fish as mitigation as specifically

identified in an act authorizing a dam (statutory mitigation). Twenty-five provide mitigation fish for 

developments that did not specifically specify the use of hatcheries in the authorizations (de-facto 

mitigation). Costs for approximately one-third of these 38 hatcheries are recovered or reimbursed in a 

variety of ways, as discussed below. 

In 1985, the FWS Statement of Responsibilities and Role identified the need to have dam beneficiaries (power

consumers, water users) pay for the cost of operation and maintenance of mitigation hatcheries. In 1991, 

the Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General performed an audit of FWS cost recovery and

determined that the FWS was not following up on the cost-recovery goal identified in the Statement of

Responsibilities and Role. 

Subsequently, FWS negotiated an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to have the bureau be 

responsible for funding costs for Coleman National Fish Hatchery in California, and Leavenworth, Entiat,

and Winthrop national fish hatcheries in Washington. The bureau recovers these costs from project 

beneficiaries. 

The Mitchell Act of 1938, as amended, provided for hatcheries in the Lower Columbia River. The act brought

the states and FWS into partnership through the Lower Columbia River Fishery Development Program. 

The program provides federal funding through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to Oregon,

Washington, and Idaho and to FWS to support hatchery operations related to water development projects on

the lower Columbia River. Four national fish hatcheries receive Mitchell Act funds: Little White Salmon,

Willard, Carson and Spring Creek, appropriated through the Department of Commerce. However, funding

over the last several years has not been adequate, with maintenance being deferred. 

The Water Resource Development Act of 1976 authorized the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP)

to compensate for losses due to federal dams. Twenty-seven hatcheries resulted in the Lower Snake. The

LSRCP gives FWS responsibility for operating Dworshak and Hagerman national fish hatcheries in Idaho.

Costs to FWS are reimbursed annually through the U.S. Treasury by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

BPA recovers costs through ratepayer revenues.

The Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act directed Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana 

to balance use of the Columbia River for power with fish and wildlife. It directed BPA to pay for fisheries 

offsets from construction of Hungry Horse, Kerr and Big Fork dams and to recover those costs from 

electric ratepayers. The Creston National Fish Hatchery in Montana provides fish production to mitigate 

for Kerr Dam. 
ATTACHMENT 7: CONT’D

52 SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

GRAPHIC DESIGN BY ALLEGRO DESIGN

The Colorado River Storage Act of 1956 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to plan, construct, operate

and maintain facilities to mitigate losses due to over 20 water storage projects on the Colorado River. 

Jones Hole National Fish Hatchery in Utah and Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery in Colorado receive direct

funding as a result.

The remaining hatcheries involved with fishery mitigation are funded through regular hatchery appropriations. This funding is augmented by a variety of trade-off and sharing arrangements with the states. Six of the

17 hatcheries are in the Southeast, with annual costs of about $2.3 million. FWS estimates that $4.5 million

annually would be necessary to fully recover costs from project beneficiaries, not including the $5.8 million

maintenance backlog. Information from the FWS’ Southeast Region, based in part on the American

Sportfishing Association’s publication “The Economic Importance of Sport Fishing,” indicates an annual

economic benefit of over $400 million from those six hatcheries.

The 1995 “SFBPC Report to FWS on Cost-Saving Recommendations for the FY 1997 Fisheries Program” 

reaffirmed that the cost of mitigation should be borne by federal project beneficiaries and recommended

FWS seek congressional authorization for fee collection through user-pay.

As part of the FWS 1996-97 stakeholder process, stakeholders indicated that they were willing to work in

partnership with FWS to strengthen the role of the Fisheries Program, including national fish hatcheries.

The FWS summary of these national stakeholder meetings states “...stakeholders highly value Service

responsibilities for mitigation,” and feel strongly that when national fish hatchery fish are the agreed-upon

mitigation action, FWS should not attempt to abrogate that responsibility. Stakeholders encouraged the 

FWS and states to undertake an effort to obtain reimbursement from project beneficiaries or development

agencies to establish adequate and stable funding sources. This included the suggestion that, in some cases,

an entity other than the FWS might assume the mitigation responsibility.
All photos except the stock images on page 9 and the inside back cover were provided 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These photos represent the work of George Gentry,

Ashton Graham, John and Karen Hollingsworth, Robert Pos, Duane Raver, Craig Springer

and others.
SPORT FISHING AND BOATING PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

4040 N. FAIRFAX DR., SUITE 132A

ARLINGTON, VA 22203

PHONE 703/358 1711

FAX 703/358 2548

http://sfbpc.fws.gov