salmon hatcheries in alaska—plans, permits, and policies

317

American Fisheries Society Symposium 44:317–331, 2004© 2004 by the American Fisheries Society

Salmon Hatcheries in Alaska—Plans, Permits,and Policies Designed to Provide Protection for

Wild Stocks

STEVEN G. MCGEE

Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish and GamePost Office Box 25526, Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526, USA

Abstract.—The hatchery program in Alaska was initiated in the 1970s to rehabilitate depletedsalmon fisheries. It was predicated on protecting wild salmon stocks through development ofrigorous permitting processes that include genetics, pathology, and management reviews, policiesthat require hatcheries to be located away from significant wild stocks, use of local brood sources,laws that give priority to wild stocks in fisheries, requirements for marking hatchery fish, andrequirements for special studies on hatchery/wild stock interactions. The program is comprised ofstate, federal and private nonprofit (PNP) hatcheries. Currently, 16 of 26 operating hatcheries arerun by PNP aquaculture associations. In 2002, hatcheries accounted for 23% of the salmon har-vested commercially. Hatcheries produce approximately 1.5 billion juvenile fish annually, the major-ity of which are pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha and chum salmon O. keta. Whether hatcheryproduction adversely impacts wild stocks is debated in Alaska. Interactions between hatchery-produced and relatively smaller populations of wild salmon are unavoidable. However, obvious,adverse impacts from hatcheries on wild salmon are not evident. The success of the Alaska hatcheryprogram can be attributed to the development of laws, plans, and policies that require continuedprotection of wild stocks and to favorable environmental conditions in the North Pacific Ocean.

Introduction

The hatchery program in Alaska was initiated in theearly 1970s to contribute to the rehabilitation of thestate’s depleted and depressed salmon fisheries. It wasintended to supplement, not supplant, wild stock pro-duction. For this reason, numerous policies and regu-lations were promulgated to guide hatchery develop-ment and operations and to serve as safeguards for themaintenance of wild stocks. As evidenced by the dra-matic increases in commercial harvests of wild salmonafter the inception of the salmon enhancement pro-gram in 1971 (Figure 1), the salmon enhancementprogram does not appear to have significantly im-pacted the abundance of Alaska’s wild salmon stocks.

Alaska has not repeated mistakes made in the Pa-cific Northwest, where habitat destruction, hydro-power development, and use of hatcheries to replacedamaged wild stock production have resulted in seri-ous depletion of most salmon resources (Heard 1996,1998; Beechie and Bolton 1999). The hatchery pro-gram in Alaska was predicated on the protection ofwild stocks, and many of the formal policies and regu-

lations that constitute the basis of this program weredeveloped before most hatcheries were built. In Alaska,protection of wild salmon stocks is accomplishedthrough (1) a rigorous hatchery permitting processthat includes genetics, pathology, and fishery man-agement reviews; (2) policies that require hatcheries tobe located away from significant wild stocks; (3) use oflocal brood sources; (4) legal mandates that requirewild stocks to be given priority in fishery manage-ment; (5) requirements for tagging/marking of hatch-ery fish; and (6) as necessary, requirements for specialstudies on hatchery/wild stock interactions.

These policies and procedures were crafted spe-cifically to avoid the kinds of direct and indirect ge-netic effects from interbreeding, disease transfer, fishingmortality, and competition described by Campton(1995). Many of the same requirements put in placefor the development of the hatchery program in Alaskaare also being used by the Hatchery Scientific ReviewGroup (HSRG 2003) in a hatchery reform project forthe state of Washington. This group made the follow-ing recommendations: (1) take a regional approach to

318 MCGEE

hatchery programs; (2) measure success in terms of con-tributions of adult fish to fisheries rather than produc-tion of juveniles; (3) require regular monitoringprograms; (4) use locally adapted brood stocks; (5) takeeggs throughout the run to maintain return timing; (6)develop specific spawning protocols; and (7) take intoaccount both fresh and marine carrying capacities indetermining production goals. These procedures havebeen in place in Alaska for more than 20 years.

History of the Hatchery Program

Alaska’s current hatchery program has evolved in threephases. Initially, the state legislature authorized con-struction of state-owned and operated hatcheries aswell as research projects related to fisheries enhance-ment. Initial funding for hatchery construction wasprovided by the legislature in 1968. In 1971, thelegislature authorized creation of the Division of Fish-eries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Developmentwithin the Alaska Department of Fish and Game(ADF&G) to be responsible for developing the state’ssalmon hatchery system; at its peak in 1983, 20 statehatcheries were operating (Figure 2). Additionally, thefederal government has operated two research hatch-eries in southeast Alaska for more than 50 years; since1980, it has also funded the operation of a tribal hatch-ery at Metlakatla.

The second phase of contemporary hatchery de-velopment in Alaska began in 1974 with passage ofthe Private Nonprofit Hatchery Act. This legislation,

which was developed and refined over several legisla-tive sessions, was intended to allow private-sector, non-profit aquaculture corporations to construct andoperate salmon hatcheries. Privately operated hatcher-ies were considered by some legislators to be morefiscally efficient than those operated by the govern-ment. The intent of the act was . . . “to authorize theprivate ownership of salmon hatcheries by qualifiednonprofit corporations for the purpose of contribut-ing, by artificial means, to the rehabilitation of thestate’s depleted and depressed salmon fisheries. Theprogram shall be operated without adversely affectingnatural stocks of fish in the state and under a policy ofmanagement which allows reasonable segregation ofreturning hatchery-reared salmon from naturally oc-curring stocks” (Section 1 Chapter 111 Session Lawsof Alaska 1974). The nonprofit hatchery corporationshad the advantage of being allowed to harvest and sella portion of the returning fish to pay for the costs ofbuilding and operating hatchery facilities. Two cat-egories of private nonprofit (PNP) hatchery corpora-tions were authorized by the state legislature: (1) thoserepresenting all user groups, especially all commercialfishermen, in a designated geographic area and recog-nized by ADF&G as a regional aquaculture associa-tion, and (2) those formed by unaffiliated groups ofindividuals to construct and operate hatcheries for thebenefit of all users. This second category is generallyreferred to as the nonregional hatchery corporations.By 1987, permits had been issued for the operation of24 PNP salmon hatcheries (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Commercial fishery harvest of wild and enhanced salmon in Alaska, 1878–2002.

319SALMON HATCHERIES IN ALASKA

The third phase in the evolution of Alaskanhatcheries began in 1988 with authorization from thestate legislature to contract state hatchery operationsto PNP hatchery corporations. The number of state-operated facilities declined substantially over the next10 years (Figure 2) as they were either contracted orclosed. The state now operates only 2 of its remaining13 hatcheries; the other 11 are operated by PNP cor-porations. Aquaculture associations manage 16 of the26 PNP hatcheries operating in Alaska in 2003, in-cluding nine state-owned facilities.

Policy Development

Beginning with the inception of Alaska’s hatchery pro-gram, various policies, statutes, and regulations wereinstituted by ADF&G, the legislature, and the AlaskaBoard of Fisheries to control hatchery developmentand, at the same time, protect wild stocks. Rigorousgenetics and fish health policies were developed toguide the program. As evidenced by the fact that sincethe inception of the hatchery program Alaska’s wildsalmon harvests have been at all-time high levels (Fig-ure 3), the development of the salmon enhancementprogram has been generally successful in supplement-ing, not supplanting, wild stock production.

Following legislative approval of the PNP hatch-ery program, ADF&G’s Genetic Policy was initiallyformalized in 1975 to provide guidance for the state’senhancement program and to minimize adverse im-pacts on wild stocks; it was revised in 1978. The cur-

rent revision (Davis et al. 1985) was developed by ateam of scientists from ADF&G, PNP corporations,the University of Alaska, and the National MarineFisheries Service who reviewed and updated the ge-netic guidelines presented in the earlier policy. Thepolicy prohibited importation of live salmonids intoAlaska, prohibited transplantation of stocks betweenmajor geographic regions of the state, provided criteriafor evaluation of intraregional transplants that mini-mized the risk of interactions between hatchery andwild stocks, including provisions for establishing wildstock genetic sanctuaries, and required maintenanceof genetic diversity by restricting use of a single donorstock to no more than three hatcheries and by requir-ing minimum effective population sizes for broodstockdevelopment at hatcheries. The policy represented aconsensus of opinion at the time, and it was intendedto be reviewed periodically to ensure that consistencywith current scientific knowledge was maintained.Protection of wild stocks remains the principal objec-tive of the policy. The Background of the Genetic Policyof the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Davis andBurkett 1989) was completed in 1989 to discuss thebasis for the policy and to demonstrate that the policy’sobjectives had been achieved.

The publication Regulation Changes, Policies, andGuidelines for Fish and Shellfish Health and DiseaseControl (Meyers et al. 1988) was compiled by theState Pathology Review Committee. This multi-agencygroup worked from 1985 through 1987 to developchanges in state regulations, new fish disease policies,

Figure 2. Number of salmon hatcheries in Alaska, 1970–2002.

320 MCGEE

and recommendations for maintaining finfish andshellfish health in Alaska. Its goal was to prevent dis-semination of infectious diseases in fish and shellfishwithin and from outside the state without creatingimpractical constraints for aquaculture and other fish-eries enhancement or rehabilitation projects. This docu-ment includes the department’s sockeye salmonOncorhynchus nerka culture policy, which was updatedand published under separate cover (McDaniel et al.1994). Meyers (2003) revised the 1988 policy tobetter reflect the current fish health program in Alaska.

The Salmon Escapement Goal Policy (Rosier 1992)provides the mechanisms for establishing biologicalescapement goals for wild salmon stocks to allow man-agement of fisheries on scientifically based spawningstock levels that produce the maximum number ofharvestable fish. The policy further supports Alaska’sconstitutional mandate to manage fishery resourceson a maximum sustained yield basis. The department’spolicy to manage fisheries with a priority for protect-ing wild stocks was placed in statute (AS 16.05.730)by the legislature in 1992. The Alaska Board of Fish-eries also incorporated this statute into its Policy for theManagement of Mixed Stock Salmon Fisheries (5 AAC39.220), making the conservation of wild stocks oneof its highest priorities (along with sustained yield) forthe allocation of salmon resources. The Policy for theManagement of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries (5 AAC39.222) was adopted by the Alaska Board of Fisheriesin 2000 to provide guidelines for protecting wild

salmon populations and the spawning, incubating,rearing, and migratory habitats they require. Guide-lines for evaluation of salmon rehabilitation and en-hancement projects are also included in this regulation.

The Policy and Requirements for Fish Resource Per-mits (Rosier 1994) was approved to replace an out-moded 1983 policy for issuing ADF&G scientificcollecting and educational permits. This policy wasdeveloped by a departmental committee to provide amore detailed explanation to the public of the require-ments for obtaining permits for the collection and/ortransportation of live fish in any life stage to be usedfor scientific, educational, propagative, or exhibitionpurposes.

In Alaska specific statues and regulations weredeveloped to govern the permitting and operating ofthe state’s enhancement program. For example, regu-lations governing the transportation, possession, andrelease of live fish (5 AAC 41.001–41.100) estab-lished a permit system and requirements for inspec-tions of fish, implemented reporting and controlrequirements for specific fish diseases, and prohibitedimportation of live fish for purposes of stocking orrearing in the waters of the state.

The Alaska salmon enhancement program hasalways concentrated on providing additional fish forharvest, rather than on wild stock restoration. Restora-tion has generally been unnecessary because wildsalmon have not been endangered; however, if neces-sary, hatchery production could be used in the follow-

Figure 3. Commercial fishery harvests of wild and enhanced salmon in Alaska, 1979–2002.


ing ways to assist in the restoration of naturally spawn-ing salmon stocks: (1) to supplement the productionof naturally spawning stocks of fish, (2) as a manage-ment tool to divert fishing pressure from wild stocks,(3) as a subject of research designed to understandboth the effects of environmental parameters and theactivities of humans on the survival of fish, and (4) inextreme cases, to prevent the immediate extinction ofunique wild stocks.

Planning and Permitting

The following sections describe (1) the approach takenby Alaska to plan its salmon enhancement program,particularly the involvement of the private sector inthe program; (2) the current magnitude of hatcheryprograms in the state; and (3) regulatory mechanismsnow in place to guide and control development ofAlaska’s salmon enhancement program.

Regional Planning

The PNP hatchery program was initiated with re-quirements for the development of long-term regionalcomprehensive salmon plans to guide fisheries en-hancement in Alaska (see Figure 4). The responsibilityfor these plans rests with the commissioner of ADF&Gthrough regional planning teams (RPTs) composed of

personnel from the department’s fisheries divisions andrepresentatives from fishermen’s organizations (i.e., re-gional aquaculture associations). In regions where noaquaculture association has been formed, planning coregroups representing ADF&G, fishermen, and otherlocal governmental agencies were established to de-velop the plans.

Regional comprehensive planning in Alaskaprogresses in stages. Phase I sets the long-term goals,objectives, and strategies for the region. Phase II iden-tifies potential projects and establishes criteria for evalu-ating the enhancement and rehabilitation potentialsfor the salmon resources in that region. In some re-gions, a Phase III in planning has been instituted toincorporate Alaska Board of Fisheries approved alloca-tion and fisheries management plans with hatcheryproduction plans. Salmon planning regions have beenestablished for most of Alaska’s coastline, as well as forthe Yukon River drainage (Figure 5).

In addition to the development of comprehen-sive salmon plans, the RPTs also review all PNP hatch-ery applications, proposed alterations of existingpermits, annual management plans for each hatcheryoperating in the region, and statutorily mandated an-nual reports from each permitted hatchery in the re-gion. Each RPT develops criteria for project reviewand hatchery performance evaluation through its com-prehensive salmon plan.

Figure 4. Regional comprehensive salmon planning process.

322 MCGEE

Hatchery Production

Hatcheries have played a major role in the enhance-ment and development of fisheries in Alaska. Hatch-ery contributions of adult salmon to commercialfisheries in Alaska grew from a few thousand fish inthe mid-1970s to a high of more than 42 million in1999. Hatchery production in 2002 accounted for23.1% of the total salmon harvested in common prop-erty commercial fisheries (Farrington 2003). Hatcher-ies work well as a salmon enhancement tool; however,there are inherent concerns with, as well as documentedbenefits from, the hatchery program. Alaska’s salmonenhancement program, particularly the use of hatch-eries, has been closely monitored through its initial 30years of success in producing fish. Hatchery produc-tion in terms of the numbers of salmonid eggs takenand juvenile fish released since 1975 is shown in Fig-ure 6. Hatchery production peaked in 1995–1996and has leveled out with annual production of ap-proximately 1.5 billion juvenile fish. The percentageof eggs of each species incubated in Alaskan hatcheriesin 2002 is shown in Figure 7.

The majority of Alaska’s hatchery production ispink salmon O. gorbuscha and chum salmon O. keta.Species that generally require rearing in freshwater fora full year to the smolt stage (i.e., coho salmon, Chi-nook salmon O. tshawytscha, and sockeye salmon) make

up 8% of total number of eggs taken. The numbers offish that returned to hatcheries from 1975 to 2002are shown in Figure 8. The total number of returningadults, including all types of harvests and escapements,peaked in 1999 at 71.2 million fish. With releasesnow relatively stable, the smaller return numbers forthe last 3 years are most likely attributable to the in-herent variability in marine survival of Pacific salmonOncorhynchus spp. Marine survival of hatchery-pro-duced salmon ranges from less than 1% to greaterthan 20%, depending on the species and year. TheADF&G uses the following planning assumptions forsurvival: 2% for pink and chum salmon, 3% for Chi-nook salmon, and 10% for coho and sockeye salmon.

Historic contributions of enhanced salmon tocommon property fisheries are shown in Figures 1and 3. On a statewide basis, the overall percentage ofenhanced salmon rarely has exceeded 25% of the totalharvest (McNair 2001); however, for some species insome areas (e.g., pink salmon in Prince William Soundand chum salmon in southeast Alaska), enhanced fishnow make up a majority of the harvest (see Figures 9and 10). In such situations, ADF&G has requiredextensive marking of hatchery releases to enable in-season evaluation of the mix of wild and hatchery-produced fish in the commercial fisheries. Oceancarrying capacity studies initiated in 1995 to examineoceanic and biological factors responsible for marine

Figure 5. Map of Alaska with designated comprehensive salmon planning regions.


growth and survival of salmon were facilitated by ther-mal marks placed on the otoliths of hatchery-pro-duced salmon (Orsi et al. 2000). Thermally markedsalmon from hatcheries now provide information onthe distribution and migration of salmon in bothcoastal and offshore areas of the North Pacific Ocean(Carlson et al. 2000; Farley and Carlson 2000). Stud-ies on interactions between wild and hatchery-pro-duced salmon through recovery of thermally markedotoliths are ongoing in Alaska.

Whether the current magnitude of hatchery pro-

duction in Alaska is impacting wild stock productionin the regions where it originates has been debated inAlaska, especially in relation to pink salmon produc-tion in Prince William Sound (Hilborn and Eggers2000; Wertheimer et al. 2001, 2004). The most re-cent analysis by Wertheimer et al. (2004) suggeststhat variable conditions in the marine environmentover time, rather than the number of hatchery fry,best explain the changes in wild stock production ofpink salmon in Prince William Sound. Similar conclu-sions for the causes of salmon run failures in other

Figure 6. Numbers of eggs taken and juvenile fish releases from Alaskan salmon hatcheries, 1975–2002.

Figure 7. Percentage of eggs of each species of salmon taken for incubation in Alaskan hatcheries in 2002.

324 MCGEE

Figure 8. Numbers of adult salmon that returned to Alaskan hatcheries, 1975–2002.

Figure 9. Commercial fishery harvests of wild and enhanced pink salmon in Prince William Sound, Alaska, 1969–2002.


parts of Alaska were reached by Kruse (1998).Interactions between hatchery-produced salmon

and relatively smaller populations of wild salmon areunavoidable, especially in areas such as Prince WilliamSound where hatcheries produce most of the pinksalmon harvested in commercial fisheries. In the im-mediate vicinity of these hatcheries, hatchery-pro-duced pink salmon do stray into and spawn in wildstock streams. However, the hatcheries are not locatednear significant wild stocks; therefore, the observedstraying of hatchery-produced fish into nearby smallstreams will not have a significant impact on the totalpink salmon population. Such straying occurs moreoften in years when abundance of hatchery fish ishigh. In some years, returning hatchery salmon wereso abundant that local fish-processing facilities wereslow to handle the volume and flesh quality began todegrade. On at least two occasions when the supplywas greater than the demand, carcasses of pink salmonthat were surplus to the processing capacity in PrinceWilliam Sound were killed and disposed of in deepwater. Although undesirable, this practice does removesurplus salmon from the spawning population beforethey stray into streams in the area of the hatcheries.

In southeast Alaska, fisheries for chum salmon areconcentrated in terminal areas on hatchery produc-tion. Release sites for hatchery chum salmon are iso-lated from significant wild populations. Wild chumsalmon production has generally increased during the

growth of hatchery production and is generally stable(Baker et al. 1996). Heard et al. (1995) reported asimilar lack of impacts from hatchery stocks on wildstocks of Chinook salmon in southeast Alaska.

This is not to say hatchery production in Alaskadoes not have some effect on wild stocks. Waples(1999) suggested some level of genetic change inhatchery populations relative to wild populations isunavoidable. A similar conclusion was reached byWithler et al. (2000) regarding the effect of strayingof nonnative hatchery fish into natural populations;however, by design the hatchery program in Alaskahas attempted to minimize genetic interactions be-tween wild and hatchery stocks by intentionally locat-ing hatcheries away from rivers and streams withsignificant wild populations of salmon and by requir-ing the use of local broodstocks

Nonhatchery Project Production

In addition to hatcheries, the Alaska salmon enhance-ment program utilizes many other techniques to pro-duce fish for a variety of user groups. Alaska employsfishpass construction, lake enrichment, stream and lakehabitat rehabilitation projects, instream incubation,and spawning channels to enhance production of fishin several areas of the state.

Lake enrichment involves the addition of nutri-ents to lakes to increase their ability to produce food

Figure 10. Commercial fishery harvests of wild and enhanced chum salmon in southeast Alaska, 1979–2002.

326 MCGEE

organisms for fish. Such fertilization projects have beensuccessfully carried out for more than 23 years byADF&G, often in conjunction with other agencies aswell as PNP salmon producers.

Stream and lake rehabilitation, instream incuba-tion, and spawning channels are also used in Alaska.Major emphasis on stream and lake rehabilitationprojects is centered in southeast Alaska and the An-chorage area, where the majority of the human popu-lation resides. Spawning channel development isongoing near Haines and Hyder. Instream incubationboxes have been used at several locations in southeastAlaska, near Nome in Norton Sound, and for a majorproject for sockeye salmon on the Gulkana River nearPaxon.

The ADF&G also participates in the develop-ment of fish passes throughout the state. All of thiswork is done in conjunction with other governmen-tal agencies (e.g., the U.S. Forest Service) or the pri-vate sector. All of these projects are subjected torigorous review and permitting requirements throughADF&G.

Regulation of Hatcheries

Alaska Statutes 16.10.400–16.10.480 address theapplication process for a PNP hatchery permit. Thisprocess is also explained in detail in 5 AAC 40.100–40.990. The application process is shown in Figure11.

Alaska Statute 16.10.400 states that the com-missioner of ADF&G may issue a permit, subject torestrictions imposed by statute or regulation, to a non-profit hatchery corporation for the construction andoperation of a salmon hatchery after the permit appli-cation has been reviewed by the appropriate regionalplanning team. A hatchery permit is nontransferable.A public hearing is required at least 30 d before theissuance of a permit. The hearing must be held in acentral location in the vicinity of the proposed facility.

The commissioner always places conditions on aPNP permit. These include a provision that donor-stock eggs must be from the department or a sourceapproved by the department. This action is supportedby Alaska Board of Fisheries regulations 5 AAC

Figure 11. PNP hatchery permit application process.


41.001–41.100 for the fish transport permit process(Figure 12); 5 AAC 41.005 states that no person maytransport, possess, export from the state, or release intothe waters of the state any live fish unless that personholds a fish transport permit issued by the commis-sioner and is in compliance with all conditions of thepermit and the provisions of the rest of the regulationsin that chapter. Chapter 41.030 of Title 5 of the AlaskaAdministrative Code states that the commissioner willonly issue a fish transport permit if it is the department’sdetermination that the proposed transport, possession,or release of fish will not adversely affect the contin-ued health and perpetuation of native, wild, or hatch-ery stocks of fish. All fish transport permit applicationsare reviewed and signed (recommending either ap-proval or denial) by the department’s principal pa-thologist and principal geneticist, regional supervisorsfor the fisheries divisions, and the commissioner. Thepotential for disease and genetic impacts to wild andhatchery stocks are the primary considerations in thisreview process.

Standard PNP permit conditions also include (1)no placement of salmon eggs or resulting fry into wa-ters of the state except as designated in the permit; (2)restrictions on the sale of eggs or resulting fry either tothe state or another approved PNP hatchery corpora-tion; (3) no release of salmon before departmental in-spection and approval; (4) destruction of diseasedsalmon; (5) departmental control over where salmonare harvested by hatchery operators; and (6) the hatch-ery must be located in an area where reasonable segre-gation from natural stocks occurs but, when feasible,in an area where returning hatchery fish pass throughtraditional salmon fisheries. In many cases, isolatedterminal fisheries are established at hatchery releasesites to allow harvest of returning fish without impactto wild stocks.

The commissioner may alter, suspend, or revokea PNP hatchery permit if the operator fails to complywith the terms and conditions of the permit within areasonable period of time after notification. The com-missioner may also alter the permit or initiate a termi-

Figure 12. Fish transport permit process.

328 MCGEE

nation of the operation if it is found not to be in thebest interest of the public. Since the inception of theprogram, 13 PNP hatchery permits have been revoked,most when they ceased operations voluntarily or be-cause the facilities were not constructed within a rea-sonable period of time after issuance of the permit.

Regulation of Harvest

Fish released by hatchery operators are available tothe people for common use in the same way as natu-ral stocks until they return to the location establishedby ADF&G for harvest by hatchery operators (seeFigure 13). According to AS 16.10.440 (b), theAlaska Board of Fisheries may, after a permit has beenissued, amend by regulation the terms of the permitrelating to the source and number of eggs, the har-vest by hatchery operators, and the locations desig-nated by the department for such harvests (i.e., specialharvest area). In addition, AS 16.05.730 requiresfisheries to be managed consistent with sustainedyield of wild fish stocks. With approval by the AlaskaBoard of Fisheries, salmon fisheries may also be man-aged for sustained yield of enhanced fish. Conserva-tion of wild salmon stocks consistent with sustainedyield is accorded the highest priority among compet-

ing uses in the Alaska Board of Fisheries’ policies forthe management of mixed-stock salmon fisheries (5AAC 39.220) and sustainable salmon fisheries (5AAC 39.222).

Regulation of Brood Stock

The ADF&G is required by statute to provide assis-tance before and after permit issuance, within the lim-its of staff time and resources. Alaska Statute 16.10.445requires department approval of the source and num-ber of salmon eggs used by hatchery operators. Salmoneggs must first be taken from stocks native to the areain which the hatchery is located. The sale of salmonand salmon eggs by operators is addressed in AS16.10.450. After the operator uses funds from suchsales for debt service and reasonable operating costs,any remaining funds must be expended on other fish-eries activities of the qualified regional aquaculture as-sociation for the area. Also, fish returning to hatcheriesand sold for human consumption must be of compa-rable quality to fish harvested by commercial fisheriesin the area and must be sold at prices commensuratewith the local market.

The department may inspect a hatchery facilityat any time it is operating. Each facility is inspected at

Figure 13. Management of hatchery returns.


least every other year, and each broodstock is exam-ined for disease prior to its use in a hatchery. Thedisease history of each stock must be kept current, andsamples of fish must be sent to the department’s pa-thology section for analysis any time there is an inci-dence of disease. An annual report containinginformation on hatchery returns, numbers of eggstaken, and numbers of fry or smolt released by speciesand stock must be filed with ADF&G by December15 of each year.

PNP Permit Process

The permit application procedures for a PNP hatch-ery, the regional comprehensive salmon planning pro-cess, and general provisions for the permitting andoperation of PNP hatcheries are described in regula-tions 5 AAC 40.100–40.990. Permit applicationprocedures include (1) preapplication assistance, (2)a management feasibility analysis, (3) the permit ap-plication form and fees, (4) determination of accep-tance by the department for formal review, (5)regional planning team review, (6) a provision forrequesting additional information, (7) completenessdetermination by the commissioner that includes sixmajor criteria, and (8) a provision for reconsidera-tion. The departmental review of all PNP hatcherypermit applications includes review by the fisheriesdivisions (including habitat considerations), the prin-cipal pathologist, and the principal geneticist. A pub-lic hearing and full review by other state and federalagencies through a coastal zone review process is alsorequired.

Regulations 5 AAC 40.800–40.990 address (1)nontransferability of permits, (2) preference rightsto potential hatchery locations for the regional aquac-ulture associations, (3) basic management plans foreach hatchery, (4) hatchery inspection requirements,(5) annual management plan requirements, (6) no-tice and review of permit alteration requests, (7) pro-visions for performance review by the departmentand the regional planning team, (8) requirements forreporting of mortalities, (9) details on what may bedone with surplus salmon eggs, (10) requirementsfor report coordination with the Department ofCommunity and Economic Development, and (11)definitions of terms.

Hatchery Management Plans

A basic management plan (BMP) for each hatchery isdeveloped as a part of the PNP hatchery permit. The

BMP includes a complete description of the facility,including the special harvest area, broodstock devel-opment schedules, and descriptions of broodstock andhatchery stock management. Where necessary for fish-ery management, marking and evaluation programsfor hatchery-produced fish are required in the hatch-ery permit and BMP. Such programs have been op-tional, unless department fisheries managers specifiedthe need for special in-season management capabilityduring the permit or permit alteration process; how-ever, more recently, marking of all hatchery releases isbeing required to facilitate studies on wild and hatch-ery stock interactions such as Orsi et al. (2000). Repre-sentative numbers of some species are routinelycoded-wire-tagged and other mass marking techniques(e.g., otolith) have also been implemented at mostfacilities.

When a permitted hatchery becomes operational,an annual management plan (AMP) is developed foreach year of operation (Figure 14). Specific plans foregg takes, cost- recovery harvests, fry and smolt re-leases, marking and recovery, and other operations areincluded and approved in the plan by the commis-sioner. Annual management plans are developed bythe department in conjunction with the operator andare reviewed by the fisheries divisions and the regionalplanning team before approval by the commissioner.The PNP permitting process is rigorous and thoroughand usually takes 1–2 years to complete.

Conclusion

Alaska’s current hatchery program has been in placefor more than 30 years, arguably without widespread,adverse impacts on wild salmon, which are at all-time-high levels of production. Both Alaska’s wild stockproduction and its hatchery production have ben-efited from favorable environmental conditions overthe past 30 years, particularly conditions in the NorthPacific Ocean that result in high marine survival. Wildsalmon in Alaska also benefit from generally intactspawning and rearing habitats, and both wild andhatchery-produced salmon benefit from an outstand-ing, escapement-based state fishery management pro-gram. The success of the hatchery program in havingminimal impact on wild stocks can be attributed tothe development of state statutes, regulations, poli-cies, procedures, and plans that require hatcheries tobe located away from significant wild stocks, the useof local broodstocks, priorities in fisheries managementthat provide protection for wild stocks, and constantvigilance on the part of ADF&G and hatchery opera-

330 MCGEE

tors to improve the program through ongoing analysisof hatchery performance.

Acknowledgments

This paper is contribution PP-236 of the Alaska De-partment of Fish and Game, Division of CommercialFisheries, Juneau.

References

Baker, T., A. Wertheimer, R. Burkett, R. Dunlap, D.Eggers, E. Fritts, A. Gharrett, R. Holmes, and R.Wilmot. 1996. Status of Pacific salmon and steel-head escapements in southeastern Alaska. Fisheries21(10):6–18.

Beechie, T., and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to restor-ing salmonid habitat forming processes in PacificNorthwest watersheds. Fisheries 24(4):6–15.

Campton, D. 1995. Genetic effects of hatchery fish onwild populations of Pacific salmon and steelhead:what do we really know? Pages 337–353 in H. L.Schramm, Jr. and R. G. Piper, editor. Uses and ef-fects of cultured fishes in aquatic ecosystems. Ameri-

can Fisheries Society, Symposium 15, Bethesda,Maryland.

Carlson, H., E. Farley, and K. Myers. 2000. The use ofthermal otolith marks to determine stock-specificocean distribution and migration patterns of Alas-kan pink and chum salmon in the North Pacific Ocean1996–1999. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Com-mission Bulletin 2:291–300.

Davis, B., B. Allee, D. Amend, B. Bachen, B. Davidson,T. Gharrett, S. Marshall, and A. Wertheimer. 1985.Alaska Department of Fish and Game genetic policy.Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division ofFisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Devel-opment, Special report, Juneau.

Davis, B., and B. Burkett. 1989. Background of thegenetic policy of the Alaska Department of Fish andGame. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divi-sion of Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement andDevelopment, FRED Report No. 95, Juneau.

Farley, E., and H. Carlson. 2000. Spatial variations inearly marine growth and condition of thermallymarked juvenile pink and chum salmon in the coastalwaters of the Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific Anadro-mous Fish Commission Bulletin 2:317–323.

Figure 14. Regulation process for PNP hatcheries.


Farrington, C. 2003. Alaska salmon enhancement pro-gram 2002 annual report. Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisher-ies, Regional Information Report No. 5J03–05,Juneau.

HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group): Mobrand,L. (Chair), J. Barr, L. Blankenship, D. Campton, T.Evelyn, C. Mahnken, P. Seidel, L. Seeb, and W.Smoker. Hatchery reform recommendations for thePuget Sound and coastal Washington hatchery re-form project. Long Live the Kings, 1305 FourthAvenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, USA. Avail-able at: www.lltk.org/hatcheryreform.html

Heard, W., R. Burkett, F. Thrower, and S. McGee. 1995.A review of chinook salmon resources in southeastAlaska and development of an enhancement pro-gram designed for minimal hatchery-wildstock in-teraction. Pages 21–37 in H. L. Schramm, Jr. and R.G. Piper, editor. Uses and effects of cultured fishesin aquatic ecosystems. American Fisheries Society,Symposium 15, Bethesda, Maryland.

Heard, W. 1996. Ocean ranching: an assessment. Pages833–869 in W. Pennell and B. Barton, editors. Prin-ciples of salmonid culture. Elsevier, New York.

Heard, W. 1998. Do hatchery salmon affect the NorthPacific Ocean ecosystem? North Pacific Anadro-mous Fish Commission Bulletin 1:405–411.

Hilborn, R., and D. Eggers. 2000. A review of the hatch-ery programs for pink salmon in Prince WilliamSound and Kodiak Island, Alaska. Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society 129:333–350.

Kruse, G. 1998. Salmon run failures in 1997–1998: alink to anomalous ocean conditions? Alaska Fisher-ies Research Bulletin 5(1):55–63.

McDaniel, T. R., K. M. Pratt, T. R. Meyers, T. D. Ellison,J. Follett, and J. A. Burke. 1994. Alaska sockeyesalmon culture manual. Alaska Department of Fishand Game, Commercial Fisheries Management andDevelopment Division, Special Publication No. 6,Juneau.

McNair, M. 2001. Alaska salmon enhancement program2002 annual report. Alaska Department of Fish andGame, Commercial Fisheries Division, RegionalInformation Report No. 5J01–01, Juneau.

Meyers, T., P. Krasnowski, D. Amend, B. Bachen, J.Cochran, K. Hauck, K. Rawson and R. Saft. 1988.Regulation changes, policies and guidelines forAlaska fish and shellfish health and disease control.Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division ofFisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Devel-opment, Special report, Juneau.

Meyers, T. 2003. Regulation changes, policies and guide-lines for Alaska fish and shellfish health and dis-ease control. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Commercial Fisheries Division, Regional Informa-tion Report No. 5J03–07, Juneau.

Orsi, J., M. Sturdevant, J. Murphy, D. Mortensen, andB. Wing. 2000. Seasonal habitat use and early ma-rine ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon in south-eastern Alaska. North Pacific Anadromous FishCommission Bulletin 2:111–122.

Rosier, C. 1992. Salmon escapement goal policy. AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game, Commissioner’sOffice, Juneau.

Rosier, C. 1994. Policy and requirements for fish re-source permits. Alaska Department of Fish andGame, Commissioner’s Office, Juneau.

Waples, R. 1999. Dispelling some myths about hatcher-ies. Fisheries 24(2):12–21.

Wertheimer, A., W. Smoker, T. Joyce, and W. Heard.2001. Comment: a review of the hatchery programsfor pink salmon in Prince William Sound andKodiak Island, Alaska. Transactions of the Ameri-can Fisheries Society 130:712–720.

Wertheimer, A. C., W. R. Heard, and W. W. Smoker.2004. Effects of hatchery releases and environmen-tal variation on wild stock productivity: conse-quences for sea ranching of pink salmon in PrinceWilliam Sound, Alaska. Pages 307–326 in K. M.Leber, S. Kitada, T. Svasand, and H. L. Blankenship,editors. Stock enhancement and sea ranching 2.Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.

Withler, R., C. Busack, R. Carmichael, K. Currens, T.Gharrett, M. Gilpin, S. Grant, M. Lynch, T. Quinn,N. Ryman, D. Schluter, and E. Taylor. 2000. Ge-netic effects of straying of nonnative hatchery fishinto natural populations. NOAA Technical Memo-randum NMFS NWFSC-30, Seattle.

salmon hatcheries in alaska—plans, permits, and policies

Documents