Review of Artificial Production of Anadromous and Resident Fish in the
Columbia River Basin
December 1998 | document 98-33
Links:
Scientific Review Team
Independent Scientific Advisory Board
Ernie Brannon
James Lichatowich
Ken Currens
Brian Riddell
Dan Goodman
Richard Williams
Chip McConnaha, Chair
Program Evaluation and Analysis Section
Northwest Power Planning Council
851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100
Portland, Oregon 97204
Scientific Review Team Independent Scientific Advisory Board
December 9, 1998
Mr. John Etchart, Chair
Northwest Power Planning Council
851 SW 6th Ave., Suite
1100 Portland, OR 97204
Dear Mr. Etchart:
I am pleased to transmit to you the Scientific Review Team's (SRT)
first report on the review of hatchery programs in the Columbia River
Basin. This version of the report corrects some typographically errors in
our November report but is not substantively different. The report
includes an historical overview of artificial production within the Basin;
a scientific foundation derived from this overview, a review of science
and impacts related to artificial production of salmonids, and our
recommendations on appropriate measures to take when artificial production
is used in the Basin. These recommendations, taken with the results of the
analysis phase of this assignment, will constitute our contribution to the
development of policy to guide the use of federally funded hatcheries in
the future.
Our review is, however, only one of four recent scientific reviews on
this topic. Comparing those reviews (NFHRP 1994, ISG 1996, NRC 1996) shows
consensus on ten conclusions, of which we also agreed on seven:
- Hatcheries have generally failed to meet their objectives.
- Hatcheries have imparted adverse effects on natural populations.
- Managers have failed to evaluate hatchery programs.
- Rationale justifying hatchery production was based on untested
assumptions.
- Supplementation should be linked with habitat improvements.
- Genetic considerations have to be included in hatchery programs.
- More research and experimental approaches are required.
Those reviews also recommend discontinuing stock transfers and
introduction of non-native species, a new role for artificial production
in fisheries management, and that hatcheries should be used as temporary
refuges rather than for long-term production. In general these are also
appropriate for consideration in the Columbia River basin, but
realistically some variation may need to occur in specific instances. For
example, stock transfers will be used where the endemic stock has been
extirpated. Finally, the reviews expressed the conviction that hatcheries
can only succeed if the region makes significant changes in hatchery
programs. Based on past evidence, such expectation is bereft of proof and
will have to be carefully assessed.
In summary, our report concludes that:
- Hatcheries have failed to mitigate for the effects of habitat loss
and damage in the Columbia River Basin.
- Past hatcheries practices have failed to take into account the
biological diversity of salmonids and the role of environmental
factors in their life history.
- Hatcheries will likely continue to have a role in the development
and conservation of salmonids in the Columbia River basin, but a
radically different production model (objectives and rearing
strategies) is needed. Hatcheries should be considered experimental
and carefully monitored to minimize impacts on natural populations and
for effective management.
- Future hatchery practices need to recognize the importance of the
genetic structure and diversity in salmonids, the importance of
maintaining adaptability to future environmental changes, and how to
integrate this production within the emerging ecological framework
that is to guide management of resources in the Columbia River.
- Hatcheries must be considered in the context of functioning
ecosystems. Production from hatcheries can not be considered
independent of natural systems. The success of a hatchery program will
depend on the fitness of the stock, the quality and constraints of the
natural habitat, and how well the hatchery production is integrated
with the natural ecosystem.
- The region, through the Council, needs to implement a scientifically
valid monitoring program for assessment of hatchery procedures,
production, impact on natural populations, and achievement of goals.
Given the extensive annual investment in hatchery programs within this
basin, and the reliance implied on these programs to conserve and
enhance salmonid production, we must recommend more quantitative
evaluations of production and studies of interactions with natural
populations.
The SRT will continue its analysis of hatchery programs and database
for the Basin, and expects to finalize our review and recommendations by
June 30, 1999.
Sincerely yours,
Chip McConnaha, Chair
Scientific Review Team
(References to the References Cited section in the report)
Contents
I. Introduction
A. Scope of the review
B. Artificial production as defined and applied in this review
C. Relationship between this review and development of the Regional
Multi-Species Framework
II Historical Overview of Artificial Production
A. Growth of the Program
B. Compensation for Loss of Habitat
III. Scientific Foundation
A. The early conceptual foundation of hatcheries
B. Basic derivations in the hatchery framework
C. The conceptual foundation as an adaptive process
IV. Organization and classification of
artificial production
A. Harvest Augmentation
B. Mitigation
C. Determents of Performance
V. Synthesis of recent reviews of artificial
production
A. Early Hatchery Evaluations
B. Recent Review Summaries of Independent Panels
C. Relevance of Past Assessments to the Present Task
VI. Impacts Associated with Artificial
Production
A. Management Impacts on Artificial Production Effectiveness
B. Genetic Impacts of Artificial Production
C. Ecological Effects of Artificial Production
D. Populations and Production Trends Over time
E. Management Response to Impacts of Artificial Production
VII. Concluding Recommendations
A. Scientific Framework
B. Recommendations
Literature Cited
Appendix
Figures and Tables
FIGURES:
1 The number of juveniles of all salmon species released from
hatcheries in the Columbia River (1877-1928)
2 Harvest of chinook salmon and the release of chinook salmon fry and
fingerlings from hatcheries in the Columbia Basin (1877-1927)
3 Five-year average of chinook harvest in the Columbia River (1866-1992)
4 Comparison of the seasonal distribution of the chinook harvest in the
Columbia River in 1878 (A-daily catch per gill net boat) and 1919
(B-weekly catch of 16 gill net boats and 22 traps)
5 Columbia River Basin state, tribal and federal hatchery locations
6 Relationship between mean incubation temperature and adult return time
for chinook salmon 7 Relationship between temperature (oC) and number of
days of incubation to alevin yolk absorption
8 Directional preference of post-emergent fry from Chilko and Fraser
lakes, in British Columbia, when tested in orientation arena in the
absence of velocity
9 Annual run size of pink salmon returning to hatchery and natural
production streams in Prince William Sound, Alaska
10 Percent survival of pink salmon fry released from Armin F. Koernig
hatchery in Prince William Sound, Alaska
11 Annual run size of sockeye salmon returning to Weaver Creek in British
Columbia
12 Chinook salmon annual return to Sooes River, Washington, from hatchery
and natural production
13 A comparison of Hood Canal chum salmon releases and subsequent run size
14 A comparison of hatchery releases of Puget Sound 1+ coho with
subsequent run size
15 Five-year running average of the total coho salmon harvest in the
Oregon Production Index area
16 Dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers
17 Hatchery contribution to Columbia Basin juvenile salmonid emigration
18 The trend in returning anadromous salmonid populations counted over
Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River
19 The trend in total return production of returning anadromous salmonid
populations to the Columbia River plus commercial landings
20 Chinook salmon returns to the Snake River related to the years when
Lower Snake dams were built
TABLES:
1 Major hatcheries that are part of the Columbia River fisheries
development program (Mitchell Act Hatcheries)
2 Major hatcheries that are part of the Lower Snake River Compensation
Plan
3 Major hatcheries that are part of the Willamette mitigation program
4 Rheotactic response of emerging sockeye fry and hybrid crosses from
Chilko and Stellako river incubation areas under laboratory conditions
5 Organization and classification of artificial production
Suggested Citation:
Brannon, E, K Currens, D. Goodman, J. Lichatowich, C. McConnaha, B.
Riddell, and R. Williams 1998. Review of salmonid artificial production in
the Columbia River Basin. Part I: A scientific basis for Columbia River
production programs. Northwest Power Planning Council Report 98-33.
Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR.
Part I: A Scientific Basis for Columbia River
Production Programs.
I Introduction In July of 1997, the U.S. Senate directed the Northwest
Power Planning Council, with the assistance of the Independent Scientific
Advisory Board (ISAB), to "conduct a thorough review of all federally
funded hatchery programs operating in the Columbia River basin?"
with the intent to ensure that Federal dollars are spent
"wisely" and "in a cost-effective manner that maximizes the
benefits to the fish resource." The Council is to assess the
"operation goals and principles of State, tribal and Federal
hatcheries..." with regard to the effectiveness of their role in the
broader context of fisheries management. The Council is to recommend to
Congress a set of policies that would guide the use of Columbia River
hatcheries.
In response to the Congressional directive, the Council consulted with
the ISAB and appointed a Scientific Review Team (SRT) to provide an
independent assessment of the Basin's artificial production program. The
SRT includes four members of the ISAB, two additional independent
scientists, and a scientist from the Council staff, as chair of the team.
The SRT, in turn, will review hatchery programs in the Basin, analyze
their effectiveness in meeting mitigation responsibilities, assess their
success in enhancing salmonid production, and evaluate their role in
supplementation of natural salmon and steelhead runs. The SRT analysis
will provide the biological basis for the Council's recommendations to
Congress.
In consultation with the Council and regional fishery managers the SRT
elected to conduct the analysis as three tasks, the first two of which
would occur concurrently, to provide the background and to establish the
database pertinent to the analysis. The third step will be the analysis of
the hatchery programs and database, and finalizing the report on the
results of the study. Each task will be summarized in separate reports to
the Council, and integrated into a final report on the conclusions
resulting from the analysis. The conclusions emanating from the study will
be articulated as recommendations in a proposed conceptual foundation,
detailing what the SRT ascertains as the appropriate role for hatcheries
in the Basin. Whether or not this conceptual foundation is adopted as the
basis for regional hatchery policy, it is imperative that a scientifically
based foundation be established as the basis for regional policies
regarding artificial production.
The historical background and the final analysis of artificial
production are tasks assumed by the SRT. Development of the database to
include all past and current records on artificial production in the Basin
is a task provided by a separate contractor. This paper represents the
results of the first task of the assessment. It provides the SRT's
analysis of the history of artificial production, and hatchery evaluations
in the Columbia Basin. Hatcheries have been used in the Columbia Basin for
specific purposes, including mitigation for habitat destruction by
development activities, more recently to supplement natural production,
and for salmon conservation using captive broodstock programs. These roles
of hatcheries are defined and discussed in this report, and the state of
our knowledge on the genetic and ecological effects of hatcheries is
presented. The report concludes with a set of recommendations to guide the
development of hatchery policy in the Basin.
A. Scope of the Review Artificial production has been used in the
Columbia River Basin for many purposes over this century. Although several
Basin hatcheries have produced resident species, such as sturgeon and
rainbow trout, the primary concern associated with hatchery production
addresses almost exclusively anadromous salmonids. Coho and chinook
salmon, and steelhead trout, have been the focus of Basin hatchery
production, and have been the central species in sport and commercial
fisheries management, as well as the objects of recovery measures
undertaken in the Basin. Understandably, therefore, the issue facing the
Council in developing policy recommendations must address anadromous
salmonids as the species of primary importance. However, the results of
the analysis will have application to a much broader spectrum of species.
Most, if not all, of the scientific information relating to the
performance and ecological impacts of anadromous salmonid hatcheries
applies equally to the use of hatcheries to produce resident fish,
including resident trout, sturgeon, and bull trout. Therefore, in that
context, resident fish hatchery policy must also be governed by the same
principles in the conceptual foundation that SRT will recommend to the
Council for anadromous salmonids. In fact, because resident species do not
have the distribution range of salmon and steelhead, and thus are not
exposed to the same risks facing anadromous salmonids over their migratory
corridor, it is expected that resident species will be very responsive to
the principles guiding policy in anadromous salmonid management. The scope
of the review, however, will concentrate on artificial production of
anadromous salmonids in the Columbia Basin, but with reference to resident
species as well where the same technology is applied.
B. Artificial Production as Defined and Applied in This Review
Artificial production and hatcheries are generally viewed as synonymous
terms in that both refer to the same range of fish culture technologies,
encompassing everything from releases of unfed, substrate incubated fry
all the way to captive rearing of migrant juvenile salmonids on formulated
diets in concrete raceways. Hatcheries are as simple as gravel incubation
boxes in which artificially spawned eggs are incubated to enhance
production of salmon or trout in tributary streams. Hatcheries are
engineered spawning channels in which salmon enter to spawn naturally on
graded substrate and controlled flow to enhance egg to fry survival.
Likewise, hatcheries include earthen acclimation ponds in which
fingerlings are fed before volitionally dispersed into the natural stream
for rearing or migration. Hatcheries are also the tray incubator and
concrete rearing raceway systems that provide the entire freshwater feed
and residence requirements before the fingerlings are released to migrate
seaward. It is this latter incubation and rearing hatchery system that is
considered the "standard" public hatchery design, and it is this
"standard" system being addressed in this review of artificial
production in the Columbia Basin.
Columbia River hatcheries were designed around variations of the
"standard" incubation and rearing system that has characterized
most chinook and coho salmon hatcheries over this century. They generally
control the entire freshwater juvenile life cycle, except the migratory
passage. Adults are intercepted and spawned artificially, based on a
breeding plan that varies from simply multiple females crossed with a
composite of two or more males, to a breeding matrix that maximizes
maintenance of the variability present. Eggs are usually incubated in
trays until hatching or to the point of emergence when yolk stores are
nearly exhausted. Some form of substrate is often included in the
incubation compartment to reduce alevin activity and prioritize stored
energy for growth. At or before the emergence phase, the young fry are
placed in troughs or tanks for swim-up and early rearing, and then
transferred to raceways for production rearing until they are distributed
for release as smolts or presmolts to natural waters. Formulated diets are
used throughout rearing, based on nutritional requirements, and fed as
mash or graded pellets to accommodate the size of the fish as they grow.
The system is well defined in a program to maximize efficiency of
operations.
Assessment of performance of these hatcheries understandably is limited
within the rather narrow definition of variables in facility design and
operations that is common among such facilities. Assessment of the
Columbia River hatchery system, therefore, with the more standardized
technology among facilities, will expose differences in performance
related to management practices as well as that particular technology
itself. Such things as the source of fish, release strategies, relative
size and condition of smolts, water supplies, location of the facilities,
and location on the migratory corridor over the length of the river, will
be contributing factors associated with performance. The context of the
present evaluation, therefore, will be the relative performance of a
particular class of hatcheries within the confines of river conditions in
the Columbia Basin, under agency management responsibility. The assessment
will thus be an assessment of the policy and location as much as the
technology involved.
C. Relationship Between This Review and Development of the Regional
Multi-Species Framework As this review is being undertaken, the region is
embarking on an ambitious exercise aimed at developing a set of
scientifically supportable alternatives for the future of the Columbia
River especially as it relates to management of fish and wildlife
resources . These alternatives are to be analyzed for their ecological
impacts, again based on an explicit conceptual foundation. The conceptual
foundation includes a set of scientific principles that define the
scientific context for the analysis .
Our examination of the scientific basis for artificial production and
its potential ecological impacts are central to development of the
regional framework. The conceptual foundation for artificial production
that is developed in this review should be consistent with the set of
scientific principles that are being used to guide the framework. In this
sense, a conceptual foundation for artificial production is a refinement
of the more general framework, and serves to focus the principles
specifically on how artificial production should be used. It is our belief
that a scientifically supportable foundation, such as that suggested by
the framework and potentially refined by our assessment, should be the
basis for development of policies in the broader context of fisheries
management. To that end, the scientific basis and rationale associated
with artificial production in the Basin will form an alternative template
on which future options in management can be integrated in the ecological
framework. Variations in the template consistent with the scientific
principles, are primarily matters of how and to what degree the options
will be applied in the framework. The products forthcoming as the
scientific rationale for integration with the ecological framework are the
SRT recommendations that represent the conceptual foundation for future
artificial production in the Basin.
II Historical Overview of Artificial Production
A. Growth of the Program
Spencer Baird, the U. S. Fish Commissioner, set the stage for the
arrival of artificial propagation in the Columbia Basin. In a report he
completed in 1875, Baird listed the threats to the continued productivity
of Pacific salmon in the Columbia Basin -- dams, habitat change and over
harvest -- and he recommended artificial propagation as the solution to
those problems. According to Baird, an investment of 15 to 20 thousand
dollars in artificial propagation would make salmon so abundant that there
would be no need for restrictive regulations (Baird 1875). Given his
scientific background, Baird's endorsement of hatcheries in 1875 is
puzzling.
The first hatchery for Pacific salmon had been opened in the Sacramento
River just three years earlier in 1872, so the first brood of artificially
propagated chinook salmon had not yet returned as adults. Baird had no
credible scientific information upon which to base his recommendation.
However, the concept of maintaining and increasing the abundance of salmon
through artificial propagation was consistent with the prevailing
ideology. For example, the belief that hatcheries could eliminate the need
for restrictive regulations supported the laissez-faire access to natural
resources which was a policy the public supported and the government
encouraged. It's clear Baird's endorsement had social and political roots
rather than scientific. From this rather inauspicious start, hatcheries
quickly became the preferred approach toward maintaining salmon
production.
The first hatchery in the Columbia Basin was a joint venture composed
of private capital, largely from cannery operators, and expertise supplied
by the U. S. Fish Commission. In 1877, Baird sent Livingston Stone to
Astoria to meet with the board of directors of the Oregon and Washington
Fish Propagating Company (OWFPC). The company had raised $31,000 to build
and operate a hatchery and Stone was one of the few individuals on the
West Coast with experience in artificial propagation. (Stone 1879; Hayden
1930). Stone selected a site on the Clackamas River, built the hatchery
building, racked the stream, and supervised its initial operation. OWFPC
closed the hatchery in 1882. In 1888, it was leased to the State of Oregon
and reopened (OSBFC 1888; Cobb 1930). After 1888, there would never be
another year in which the reproduction of salmon in the Columbia Basin was
entirely natural.
By 1928, 15 hatcheries were operating in the Basin and a total of 2
billion artificially propagated fry and fingerlings had been released into
the river (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The number of juveniles of all salmon species released from
hatcheries in the Columbia River (1877-1928). (Cobb 1930)
Because chinook salmon, especially the spring and summer races, made
the highest quality canned product and brought the highest prices,
fishermen targeted that species in the early fishery (Craig and Hacker
1940). The early hatchery program also focused exclusively on the chinook
salmon (Figure 2); however, when the abundance and harvest of chinook
salmon began to decline, the fishery switched to other species and that
switch was mimicked by the hatchery program. Coho salmon and steelhead
were propagated in hatcheries beginning about 1900; chum and sockeye
salmon were propagated about a decade later (Cobb 1930).
The chinook harvest appeared to enjoy a period of relative stability
from 1889 to 1920 (Figure 3). However, later analysis clearly demonstrated
that the apparent stability was an artifact of significant qualitative
shifts in the fishery (Figure 4). In fact, the prime spring and summer
runs were in decline and to maintain the catch, the fishery had shifted to
fall chinook (Thompson 1951). Following 1920, the decline in all races of
chinook salmon was obvious.
Figure 2. Harvest of chinook salmon and the release of chinook salmon fry
and fingerlings from hatcheries in the Columbia Basin (1877-1927). (Beiningen
1976; Cobb 1930)
Figure 3. Five year average of chinook harvest in the Columbia River
(1866-1992). (Beiningen 1976; ODFW & WDF 1993)
In their contemporary analysis of salmon harvests, competent biologists
like Willis rich were deceived by the aggregated catch statistics:
"the chinook salmon has held up remarkably well..." in spite of
an intense fishery, "but the record since 1920 is one of constantly
decreasing catches" (Rich 1948). He attributed the resiliency of
chinook salmon and the apparent stable harvest to hatchery programs. Rich
admitted that he had no evidence that hatcheries were in fact
supplementing the production of chinook salmon. However, he believed it
was "quite possible that there is a causal relationship that we do
not understand between intensive artificial propagation and the resistance
to exploitation that the species [chinook salmon] has shown" (Rich
1941).
Rich's positive speculation regarding benefits of hatcheries like
Spencer Baird's earlier recommendation is curious because he had completed
the only study of the effectiveness of artificial propagation in the
Columbia Basin. In that study Rich concluded, "that there is no
evidence obtainable from a study of the statistics of the pack and
hatchery output that artificial propagation has been an effective agent in
conserving the supply of salmon. The writer wishes again to emphasize the
fact that the data here presented do not prove that artificial propagation
may not be an efficient measure in salmon conservation. These data prove
only that the popular conception, that the maintenance of the pack on the
Columbia River is due to hatchery operations, is not justified by the
available science" (Rich 1922).
During the 1930s and 1940s, questions about the efficacy of artificial
propagation combined with budget problems during the depression resulted
in many hatchery closures. Given their poor prior performance, hatcheries
would not have played a big a role in salmon management in the Columbia
River, following World War II (CBFWA 1990), except for the fact that rapid
construction of mainstem dams required a mechanism to address the impact
anticipated on fisheries. Artificial propagation was once again chosen to
compensate for development even though scientific support for that
decision was lacking.
Figure 4. Comparison of the seasonal distribution of the chinook harvest
in the Columbia River in 1878 (A daily catch per gill net boat) and 1919
(B weekly catch of 16 gill net boats and 22 traps). (Source: Thompson
1951)
Prior to 1960, hatcheries in the Columbia River contributed little to
the overall salmon production (CBFWA 1990). After that date, with the
development of better disease treatment, more nutritious feeds and better
hatchery practices, survival from smolt to adult improved dramatically.
However, the ability to produce large numbers of hatchery adults created a
new set of management problems. Those problems and the performance of the
hatchery program after 1960 are the subject of the analyses carried out in
Sections V and VI of the overall report.
B. Compensation for Loss of Habitat
Most of the hatcheries built during this century were intended to
mitigate for the impact of human activities (National Research Council
(NRC) 1996). Since the construction of Grand Coulee Dam, most of the
growth in the hatchery program in the Columbia River has been tied to
mitigation for the construction of the Basin's hydropower system. Many of
the mitigation hatcheries are part of specific programs including:
Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project - The first major
hatchery program designed to compensate for hydroelectric development in
the Columbia Basin was the Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project.
Construction of Grand Coulee Dam blocked access to 1400 miles of salmon
habitat (Fish and Hanavan 1948). Salmon production above the dam has been
estimated to have been 21,000 to 25,000 thousand fish (Calkins et al.
1939). This included some of the largest chinook in the Columbia River,
the so-called "June Hogs".
With a height of 500 feet, Grand Coulee Dam was too high to
successfully pass salmon via a ladder or elevator. Salmon managers
considered the construction of a hatchery immediately below the dam, but
engineering problems made an alternative necessary. The final plan had
three key elements: 1) adult salmon and steelhead were trapped in the
ladders of Rock Island Dam from 1939 to 1943 and the fish taken to holding
areas; 2) some adults were released into tributaries below Grand Coulee
Dam and allowed to spawn naturally; and 3) the remaining fish were held
and spawned at Leavenworth hatchery. The streams that received the
transplanted fish were Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow and Okanogan rivers and
Lake Osoyoos (Fish and Hanavan 1948).
The results of the fish maintenance program were evaluated by comparing
the contribution of relocated stocks to the Columbia River escapement
above Bonneville Dam before and after the Grand Coulee cut off salmon
migration. Counts at Rock Island Dam were used as estimates of the
escapement of relocated stocks. Based on this analysis, Fish and Hanavan
(1948) regarded the Grand Coulee Salmon Salvage Program a success.
However, twenty-four years later Ricker (1972) gave a more pessimistic
appraisal of the program and concluded that it salvaged nothing. More
recently, Mullan et al. (1992) concluded that the fish maintenance program
conserved the genetic diversity of the salmon stocks in the area.
An examination of the historical record combined with an analysis of
allelic variation in the chinook salmon led to the conclusion that the
large-scale capture, mixing and relocation of chinook salmon stocks above
Rock Island Dam permanently altered the population structure and was the
genesis of the present stock structure of salmon in the mid-Columbia
(Utter et al. 1995). Grand Coulee mitigation is implemented through Entiat,
Methow, and Leavenworth hatcheries.
Lower Columbia River Fishery Development Program - The
initial Lower Columbia River Fishery Development Program (LCRFDP), was
strongly influenced by the concepts and design of the Grand Coulee Fish
Maintenance Project. Originally, LCRFDP had an implementation life of 10
years, however, the program, with some modifications has continued to the
present. The program is closely associated with the Mitchell Act, the
enabling legislation that permitted federal cost sharing at state
hatcheries. As the title suggests, the program's initial objective was to
concentrate salmon production in the lower Columbia River below McNary
Dam. At the time, it was believed that the construction of McNary Dam and
the other proposed dams in the upper Columbia and Snake rivers would
eventually eliminate salmon in the upper basin. In 1956, Congress changed
the purpose of the LCRFDP by adding fishery restoration above McNary Dam
and the word "Lower" was dropped from the program title (Delarm
et al., 1987).
The original LCRFDP had six principal parts:
1) Remove migratory obstructions in the tributaries to the lower
Columbia River. This part of the program included stream clearance work
that removed large woody debris and probably reduced habitat quality in
some streams;
2) Clean up pollution in major tributaries like the Willamette River;
3) Screen water diversions to prevent the loss of juveniles in irrigation
ditches, and construct fishways over impassable barriers in the
tributaries of the lower Columbia River;
4) Transplant salmon stocks from above McNary Dam to the lower river;
5) Expand the hatchery program by rebuilding existing hatcheries or new
facilities; and
6) Create salmon refuges by setting aside the lower river tributaries
exclusively for the maintenance of salmon and steelhead runs (Laythe
1948).
Stream clearance was consistent with management understandings and
attitudes at the time, (e.g., WDF 1953), but it is no longer practiced
unless the obstruction presents a complete unnatural block to migration.
The relocation of stocks from the upper to the lower river followed the
approach used in the Grand Coulee program. Artificial propagation was one
of six parts of the program, but within a few years it became the dominant
part (Lichatowich et al. 1996). In 1986, 79% of the program budget was
expended on the hatchery program and about 10% on habitat improvement and
screening of irrigation ditches. Today 20 hatcheries are supported through
Mitchell Act Funds (Table 1). The original goal of the LCRFDP was to
maintain a harvest of about 32 million pounds of anadromous salmonids from
the Columbia River (Laythe 1948). However, it was conceded that this might
not be possible.
Table 1. Major hatcheries that are part of the Columbia River fisheries
development program (Mitchell Act Hatcheries). (Neitzel 1998, personal
communication Steve Smith NMFS and Rich Berry ODFW)
Facility Name |
Agency |
First Year Operated |
Beaver Creek Hatchery
Big Creek Hatchery
Bonneville Hatchery
Cascade Hatchery
Clackamas Hatchery
Eagle Creek NFH
Elokomin Salmon Hatchery
Fallert Creek Hatchery
Grays River Salmon Hat.
Kalama Hatchery
Klaskanine Hatchery
Klickitat Salmon Hatchery
Little White Salmon NFH
North Toutle Salmon Hat
Oxbow Hatchery
Ringold Springs Hatchery
Sandy Hatchery
Skamania Hatchery
Spring Creek NFH
Washougal Salmon Hat. |
WDFW
ODFW
ODFW
ODFW
ODFW
USFWS
WDFW
WDFW
WDFW
WDFW
ODFW
WDFW
USFWS
WDFW
ODFW
WDFW
ODFW
WDFW
USFWS
WDFW |
1957
1941
1909
1959
1979
1956
1954
1895
1961
1958
1911
1949
1989
1951
1913
1963
1951
1956
1901
1959 |
Mid-Columbia Mitigation - Construction of the five
mid-Columbia projects (Priest Rapids, Wanapum, Rock Island, Rocky Reach
and Wells) eliminated 149 miles of mainstem habitat from Chief Joseph Dam
to the Hanford Reach below Priest Rapids Dam. Spawning and rearing habitat
was lost from the production of several thousand fall and summer chinook
in this reach (NPPC 1986) with additional impacts to the survival of
downstream migrating salmon produced in tributaries above Priest Rapids.
Mitigation programs in the mid-Columbia evolved in three phases. The
first phase was the Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project described above.
From 1961 to 1967, four hatcheries and a satellite facility were
constructed to mitigate for mainstem habitat inundated by five PUD
projects. This second phase, originally consisted of three spawning
channels (Priest Rapids, Turtle Rock and Wells) and two conventional
hatcheries (Rocky Reach and Chelan). The spawning channels were later
converted to conventional hatcheries. Implementation of the third phase
began in 1989 and is composed of the Methow hatchery and two satellite
ponds, the Eastbank Hatchery with five satellites, and Cassimer Bar
Hatchery. This phase is intended to mitigate for juveniles produced in the
tributaries that are lost in passage past Wells and Rock Island Dams.
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan - The Lower Snake
River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) was developed to mitigate for the loss of
fish and wildlife resources resulting from the construction of Ice Harbor,
Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite dams. Construction of
these dams eliminated 137 miles of mainstem fall and summer chinook
habitat and the annual production from that reach. The dams also impacted
survival of downstream and upstream migrating salmon produced upstream
from Ice Harbor.
The Lower Snake River dams were completed between 1961 and 1969 (Lavier
1976). Planning for the program began in 1966, Congress gave its approval
in 1976, and the first hatchery (McCall) was completed in 1979. Over the
next eight years, several other hatcheries and satellite facilities were
constructed. Presently, there are nine hatcheries funded under the LSRCP
(Table 2). The LSRCP hatcheries were originally designed as conventional
hatcheries, however in some cases, conventional hatchery operations have
evolved into supplementation programs (e.g., Messmer et al. 1992).
The Lower Snake River Compensation Program did not include production
objectives for Snake River coho salmon or Snake River sockeye salmon. Few
resources were devoted to Snake River fall chinook with only one hatchery
being devoted to this race at Lyons Ferry. Coho salmon populations are
presently extirpated from the Snake River Basin, sockeye salmon are nearly
extinct, and under the Endangered Species Act fall chinook are listed as
endangered. The adult return goals for the Lower Snake River Compensation
Program include: 18,300 fall chinook, 58,700 spring/summer chinook, and
55,100 summer steelhead (Herrig 1998).
Table 2. Major hatcheries that are part of the Lower Snake River
Compensation Plan. (Neitzel 1998, Herrig 1998)
Facility Name |
Agency |
First Year Operated |
Clearwater Hatchery
Hagerman NFH
Irrigon Hatchery
Lookingglass Hatchery
Lyons Ferry Salmon Hatchery
Magic Valley Hatchery
McCall Hatchery
Sawtooth Hatchery
Wallowa Hatchery |
IDFG
USFWS
ODFW
ODFW
WDFW
IDFG
IDFG
IDFG
ODFW |
1992
1933
1984
1982
1984
1987
1979
1985
1920 |
Other Mitigation Programs - Other mitigation programs include the
Willamette Basin, Native American hatcheries, and private industry. Five
hatcheries mitigate for dams constructed in the tributaries of the
Willamette Basin (Table 3). The program is funded by the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Native American hatcheries also operate in the Basin. The
Nez Perce Tribe has a spring water fed hatchery developed on Sweetwater
Creek near Lewiston, Idaho, and the Yakama Tribe has a large
state-of-the-art hatchery located on the Yakima River at Cle Elum,
Washington.
Table 3. Major hatcheries that are part of the Willamette miti-gation
program. (Neitzel 1998)
Facility Name |
Agency |
First Year Operated |
Leaburg Hatchery
Marion Forks Hatchery
McKenzie River Hatchery
South Santiam Hatchery
Willamette Hatchery |
COE
COE
COE
ODFW
COE |
1953
1951
1975
1968
1911 |
Several hatcheries have been financed by private industry to mitigate
for loss of salmon and steelhead habitat by the construction of dams. Some
of the main projects are listed below:
- The effects of dams constructed in Hells Canyon by the Idaho Power
Company are mitigated through four hatcheries operated by Idaho
Department of Fish and Game.
- On the Deschutes River, Round Butte Hatchery mitigates for the
construction of Pelton and Round Butte Dams by Portland General
Electric Company.
- Two hatcheries on the Cowlitz River mitigate for dams constructed by
Tacoma City Light.
- Two hatcheries on the Lewis River are funded by PacifiCorp to
mitigate for hydroelectric development on the Lewis River.
As demonstrated by the history of artificial production in the Columbia
River system, there has been extensive variation in how hatcheries have
been applied to address needs of fisheries management. In the earlier
years, the basis on which hatcheries were developed was opinion and
adherence to a popular concept for increasing the magnitude of salmon
runs. As hatchery programs developed better technology over the years,
there were concomitant changes in what constituted hatchery management
policy, and changes in the extent to which biological rationale influenced
that policy. There have been differences in the quality of hatchery fish,
and improvements in the survival performance of fish released from
hatcheries, but also a performance that has been highly variable among
hatcheries. It is instructive, therefore, to look at the evolution in the
role of science as the hatchery concept has developed, concurrently with
the history of hatcheries on the Columbia.
^ top |