**HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN**

**(HGMP)**

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.5in" height="0.16666666666666666in"}

**Hatchery Program:**

**Species or**

**Hatchery Stock:**

**Agency/Operator:**

**Watershed and Region:**

**Date Submitted:**

**Date Last Updated:**

**[SECTION 1. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION]{.underline}**

**1.1) Name of hatchery or program**.

Coho Salmon Program - Little White Salmon/Willard NFH Complex.

**1.2) Species and population (or stock) under propagation, and ESA
status**.

> Coho Salmon (*Oncorhynchus kisutch*). This population is not listed
> under the Endangered Species Act.

**1.3) Responsible organization and individuals**

**Name (and title):** Lee Hillwig (Fish and Wildlife Administrator)

> **Agency or Tribe:** U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

**Address:** 911 N.E. 11^th^ Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232

**Telephone:** (503) 872) 2766

**Fax:** (503) 231-2062

**Email:** [lee_hillwig@fws.gov]{.underline}

**Name (and title):** Speros Doulos (Complex Manager)

> **Agency or Tribe:** Little White Salmon/Willard NFH Complex

**Address:** 56961 S.R. 14, Cook, WA 98605

**Telephone:** (509)538-2755

**Fax:** (509)538-2880

**Email:** [speros_doulos@fws.gov]{.underline}

> **Other agencies, Tribes, co-operators, or organizations involved,
> including contractors, and extent of involvement in the program:**

-   National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) - funding agency via
    Mitchell Act..

-   Yakama Indian Nation receives production for tribal restoration
    program.

-   [U.S. *v* Oregon]{.underline} parties - co-managers of fisheries.

**1.4) Funding source, staffing level, and annual hatchery program
operational costs.**

Funding for the program is from Mitchell Act funds administered by NMFS.
The complex has thirteen full time employees and an annual operating
budget of \$1.14 million in Fiscal Year 2002 for all programs. The coho
salmon program had an operating budget of \$296,828 from Mitchell Act
funds in Fiscal Year 2002.

**1.5) Location(s) of hatchery and associated facilities**

Little White Salmon NFH is located on the Little White Salmon River at
river kilometer 2, approximately 19 kilometers east of Stevenson,
Washington. The hatchery is situated just above Drano Lake, a water body
where the Little White Salmon River joins the Columbia River at river
kilometer 261. This position is approximately 45° 42\' 30\" North
Latitude and 121° 37\' 30\" West Longitude (pers. comm. Steve Vigg,
NMFS). Site elevation is about 27 meters above sea level. Willard NFH is
located on the Little White Salmon River approximately 6.5 kilometers
upstream from the Little White Salmon NFH and an elevation of
approximately 245 meters above sea level. These two hatcheries are
operated as the Little White Salmon/Willard NFH Complex (Complex).

**1.6) Type of program.**

> Isolated harvest

**1.7) Purpose (Goal) of program.**

Little White Salmon River Program:

> Willard NFH was authorized by the Mitchell Act in 1946 and constructed
> in 1952. The Complex currently operates as part of the Columbia River
> Fisheries Development Program under [U.S. *v* Oregon]{.underline} and
> is funded through the Mitchell Act- a program to provide for the
> conservation of Columbia River fishery resources. The purpose is to
> successfully rear and release 1,000,000 locally adapted yearling coho
> salmon smolts for release on-station to help mitigate (production for
> fisheries) for fish losses in the Columbia River Basin caused by
> mainstem hydro-power project construction and other development. The
> program contributes to tribal commercial, ceremonial, and subsistence
> fisheries and non-tribal commercial and sport fisheries, while
> providing adequate escapement for hatchery production. Hatchery
> operations strive to meet mitigation requirements of the Mitchell Act
> and the Columbia River Fish Management Plan goals ([U.S. *v*
> Oregon]{.underline}). The Columbia River Fish Management Plan is
> currently under renegotiation, however, current production goals are
> generally consistent with the production goals in the expired plan.

Yakima Program:

> The purpose is to rear and mark coho salmon for eventual release into
> natural habitat of the Yakima River to help restore this species to
> historic levels and evaluate the success of this restoration effort. A
> total of 1/2 million coho salmon are reared at the Little White
> Salmon/Willard National Fish Hatchery Complex using Mitchell Act
> funds. Juvenile fish are transferred to the Yakama Nation (YN) in
> March. The fish are acclimated and released into the Yakima and Naches
> River Basins, located on the Yakama Indian Reservation, as part of a
> tribal restoration and research effort. These fish are 100% marked
> with coded wire tags using Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
> funds. Unique tag codes are used to evaluate the success of this
> restoration effort at three tribal acclimation sites located in the
> Yakima Basin. The first releases were made into these three areas from
> the Little White Salmon/Willard National Fish Hatchery Complex during
> February and March 2000 to initiate the development of locally
> adapted, naturally spawning populations of fish. The interim goal is
> to develop a locally adapted brood stock from the Yakima River system
> that would be used for rearing at the Complex for the Yakama tribal
> program. The Yakima program is not evaluated in this HGMP. It will be
> covered under a separate HGMP for the BPA funded Yakama tribal
> program.

Leavenworth/ Winthrop Program:

> The purpose of this cooperative program (Yakama Nation biologists
> funded by Mitchell Act and BPA funds) is to assist with the
> development of locally adapted, naturally spawning populations of fish
> in the Wenatchee River system. A total of 200,000 coho salmon derived
> from a locally adapted stock returning to and spawned on the Wenatchee
> River, WA along with 300,000 Little White Salmon stock (500,000 total)
> are reared at the Willard NFH. As juveniles, these fish are then
> transferred to the Wenatchee River watershed for release. This
> program, which started with Brood Year 2001 fish, is not evaluated in
> this HGMP. It will be covered under a separate HGMP.

**1.8) Justification for the program.**

> Little White Salmon River Program:
>
> The Little White Salmon/Willard NFH Complex (Complex) currently
> operates as part of the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program
> and is funded through the Mitchell Act - a program to provide for the
> conservation of Columbia River fishery resources. This program is a
> part of the mitigation for habitat loss resulting from flooding,
> siltation, and fluctuating water levels caused by Bonneville Dam. The
> Columbia River Fish Management Plan is currently under renegotiation,
> however, current production goals are generally consistent with the
> production goals in the expired plan.

**1.9) List of program APerformance Standards@.**

The following objectives are adapted from IHOT (1995).

Objective 1: Hatchery Production

Produce 1 million coho smolts for on-station release.

Produce 1 million coho pre-smolts for transfer.

Objective 2: Minimize interactions with other fish populations through
proper rearing and release strategies.

Objective 3: Maintain stock integrity and genetic diversity of each
unique stock through proper management of genetic resources.

Objective 4: Maximize survival at all life stages using disease control
and disease prevention techniques. Prevent introduction, spread or
amplification of fish pathogens.

Objective 5: Conduct environmental monitoring to ensure that hatchery
operations comply with water quality standards and to assist in managing
fish health.

Objective 6: Communicate effectively with other salmon producers and
managers in the Columbia River Basin.

**1.10) List of program APerformance Indicators@, designated by
\"benefits\" and \"risks.\"**

+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| **BENEFITS**        | *Performance        | *Monitoring and          |
|                     | Indicators*         | Evaluation*              |
| *Performance        |                     |                          |
| standards*          |                     |                          |
+=====================+=====================+==========================+
| 1\. Provide         | Adult survival and  | Continued analysis of    |
| predictable,        | annual contribution | CWT returns through CRiS |
| stable, and         | to recreational,    | and PSMFC database (see  |
| increased           | commercial and      | Table A).                |
| opportunity for     | tribal fisheries.   |                          |
| harvest.            |                     |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 2\. Achieve genetic | Isolation of        | Separation by species    |
| and life history    | species from other  | (see section 7.6).       |
| conservation.       | returning at the    |                          |
|                     | same time. Annual   | Annual monitoring of:    |
|                     | evaluation of life  | juvenile preparedness    |
|                     | history             | for seawater entry,      |
|                     | characteristics     | fecundity, body size,    |
|                     |                     | sex ratio, distribution  |
|                     | See section 3.5.4.3 | and straying (through    |
|                     | on genetic effects  | CRiS)                    |
|                     | on other species.   |                          |
|                     |                     |                          |
|                     | *NA for mitigation  |                          |
|                     | hatcheries (APR     |                          |
|                     | 1999).*             |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 3\. Enhance local,  | Contribution to all | No economic evaluation   |
| tribal, state,      | fisheries           | is conducted on a local  |
| regional and        | established.        | level.                   |
| national economies. |                     |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 4\. Fulfill         | Legal and policy    | Annual evaluation of     |
| legal/policy        | goals established   | fish counted in the      |
| obligations.        | by US v Oregon and  | fishery.                 |
|                     | John Day Dam        |                          |
|                     | Mitigation policies | Production goals are met |
|                     | are met (note:      | annually.                |
|                     | there are no policy |                          |
|                     | goals for numbers   |                          |
|                     | to the fishery,     |                          |
|                     | only for production |                          |
|                     | goals).             |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 5\. Contribution of | Hatchery Research   | Carcasses are not        |
| fish carcasses to   | Monitoring and      | outplanted due to        |
| ecosystem function  | Evaluation (RM & E) | disease concerns (See    |
| by subbasin and by  | plans in IHOT.      | sections 3.5.4 and 7.8). |
| hatchery.           |                     |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 6\. Provide fish to | See sections 2.2.1  | There are no other       |
| satisfy legally     | and 2.2.2. and      | affected stocks in the   |
| mandated harvest.   | [U.S. v             | watershed.               |
|                     | Oregon]{.underline} |                          |
|                     | Fall Season         |                          |
|                     | Management          |                          |
|                     | Agreement           |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 7\. Will achieve    | IHOT standards      | IHOT standards are met   |
| within-hatchery     |                     |                          |
| performance         |                     | See sections 1.8, 1.9,   |
| standards.          |                     | 1.12, 3.2, 4.1, 5.8,     |
|                     |                     | 7.7, 7.9, 8.3, 10.11.    |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 8\. Restore and     | No spawning habitat | NA                       |
| create viable       | available.          |                          |
| naturally spawning  |                     |                          |
| populations.        |                     |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 9\. Plan and        | Developed release   | Releases annually        |
| provide fish with   | protocols.          | determined to coincide   |
| coordinated         |                     | with expected maximum    |
| mainstem passage    | *NA for mitigation  | river flows (see section |
| and habitat         | hatcheries (APR     | 10.4)**.**               |
| research.           | 1999).*             |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 10\. Conduct        | Research on         | Onsite evaluation of     |
| within- hatchery    | performance         | physiological condition  |
| research, improve   | indicators          | of released fish to      |
| performance or cost |                     | reduce ecological        |
| effectiveness of    | *NA for mitigation  | interactions (more in    |
| artificial          | hatcheries (APR     | section 9.2.8)           |
| production          | 1999).*             |                          |
| hatcheries to       |                     | Also see sections 9.2.9  |
| address the other   |                     | and 12.                  |
| four purposes       |                     |                          |
| (augmentation,      |                     |                          |
| mitigation,         |                     |                          |
| restoration and     |                     |                          |
| conservation).      |                     |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 11\. Minimize       | IHOT audits         | IHOT audits as scheduled |
| management,         | conducted on a      | and results integrated   |
| administrative, and | regular schedule.   | (see sections 1.8, 1.9,  |
| overhead costs.     |                     | 3.2, 3.5, 4.1, 5.8, 7.7, |
|                     | *NA for mitigation  | 7.9, 8.3, 10.11).        |
|                     | hatcheries (APR     |                          |
|                     | 1999).*             |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 12\. Improve        | Adaptive            | Continuous adaptive      |
| performance         | management.         | management: e.g.         |
| indicators to       |                     | implementation of        |
| better measure      | *NA for mitigation  | naturally colored        |
| performance         | hatcheries (APR     | raceways (section 9.2.9) |
| standards.          | 1999).*             | and annual monitoring of |
|                     |                     | seawater tolerance (see  |
|                     |                     | section 9.2.8).          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **RISKS**            | *Performance          | *Monitoring and       |
|                      | Indicators*           | Evaluation*           |
| *Performance         |                       |                       |
| standards*           |                       |                       |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 1\. Develop harvest  | This is an isolated   | Performance of coho   |
| management plan to   | harvest program.      | are monitored for     |
| protect weak         | Little if any         | distribution and      |
| populations where    | interaction with      | straying (via CWT     |
| mixed population     | other populations are | collections). Genetic |
| fisheries exist.     | expected. Harvest is  | introgression with    |
|                      | consistent with NMFS  | other stocks is       |
|                      | Biological Opinions.  | unlikely (see section |
|                      |                       | 3.5). Co-managers     |
|                      |                       | develop Biological    |
|                      |                       | Assessments for fall  |
|                      |                       | season fisheries.     |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2\. Do not exceed    | RM & E plans          | No research has been  |
| the carrying         | established.          | conducted on this     |
| capacity of fluvial, |                       | topic previously or   |
| lacustrine,          |                       | currently.            |
| estuarine, and ocean |                       |                       |
| habitats.            |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 3\. Assess           | Evaluation of stray   | Continuous evaluation |
| detrimental genetic  | rates.                | with CWT collections  |
| impacts among        |                       | of the subsample of   |
| hatchery vs. wild    |                       | juveniles released    |
| where interactions   |                       | with CWTs.            |
| exist.               |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 4\. Unpredictable    | Implement annual      | Achieve percent egg   |
| egg supply leading   | evaluation of adult   | take goal in 4 out of |
| to poor programming  | returns.              | 5 years (See sections |
| of hatchery          |                       | 6.2.1 and 7.4.2).     |
| production.          |                       |                       |
|                      |                       | IHOT disease          |
|                      |                       | protocols implemented |
|                      |                       | (See sections 7.7 and |
|                      |                       | 7.9).                 |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 5\. Production cost  | Evaluate trends in    | Montgomery Watson     |
| of program outweighs | juvenile production   | 1997 Hatchery         |
| the benefit.         | cost.                 | Evaluation report     |
|                      |                       | (part of IHOT         |
|                      |                       | evaluation).          |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 6\. Cost             | Social/economic       | This has not been and |
| effectiveness of     | effectiveness.        | is not being          |
| hatchery ranked      |                       | evaluated.            |
| lower than other     |                       |                       |
| actions in subregion |                       |                       |
| or subbasin.         |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 7\. Will not achieve | Comparative           | IHOT standards are    |
| within-hatchery      | evaluation of         | met annually.         |
| performance          | within-hatchery       |                       |
| standards.           | standards             |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 8\. Evaluate habitat | No habitat available  | NA                    |
| use and potential    | within the watershed  |                       |
| detrimental          | adjacent to the       |                       |
| ecological           | hatchery.             |                       |
| interactions.        |                       |                       |
|                      | For impacts in other  |                       |
|                      | watersheds see        |                       |
|                      | section 3.5.          |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 9\. Avoid disease    | Comply with IHOT      | See sections 3.5,     |
| transfer from        | standards and USFWS   | 4.1, 5.4, 5.8, 7.8,   |
| hatchery to wild     | policy.               | 7.9, 9.2.7, 10.11     |
| fish and visa versa. |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 10\. Evaluate        | Track trends of life  | Annual evaluation of: |
| impacts on life      | history               |                       |
| history traits of    | characteristics of    | Adult age             |
| wild and hatchery    | hatchery fish (no     | distribution,         |
| fish from harvest    | wild fish in this     | fecundity, body size, |
| and spawning         | system).              | sex ratio, juvenile   |
| escapement.          |                       | size (e.g. data in    |
|                      |                       | section 9.2),         |
|                      |                       | distribution and      |
|                      |                       | straying (annual      |
|                      |                       | compilation of CWT    |
|                      |                       | data from the CRB).   |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 11\. Assess survival | *NA for mitigation    |                       |
| of captive           | hatcheries (APR       |                       |
| broodstock progeny   | 1999).*               |                       |
| vs. wild cohorts.    |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 12\. Depleting       | *NA for mitigation    |                       |
| existing population  | hatcheries (APR       |                       |
| spawning in the wild | 1999).*               |                       |
| through broodstock   |                       |                       |
| collection.          |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**1.11) Expected size of program.**

> **1.11.1) Proposed annual broodstock collection level (maximum number
> of adult fish).**
>
> A total of 2,500 adult fish are required for full production.
>
> **1.11.2) Proposed annual fish release levels (maximum number) by life
> stage and location.**

+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Life Stage**  | **Release Location**     | **Annual Release Level** |
+=================+==========================+==========================+
| **Eyed Egg**    | N/A                      | N/A                      |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Unfed Fry**   | N/A                      | N/A                      |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Fry**         | N/A                      | ###### N/A               |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Fingerling**  | N/A                      | N/A                      |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Yearling**    | Little White Salmon R.   | 1,000,000                |
|                 |                          |                          |
|                 | Transfer to Wenatchee    | 500,000                  |
|                 | River                    |                          |
|                 |                          | 500,000                  |
|                 | Transfer to Yakima River |                          |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+

**1.12) Current program performance, including estimated smolt-to-adult
survival rates, adult production levels, and escapement levels. Indicate
the source of these data.**

The following is a program summary adapted from IHOT (1996) and updated
for this document.

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Measur         | [Hatchery       | [5-Year         | [Ran            |
| es]{.underline} | Go              | Avera           | ge]{.underline} |
|                 | al]{.underline} | ge]{.underline} |                 |
+=================+=================+=================+=================+
| Adult           | 2,500           | 8,143           | 1,564 -- 17,092 |
| Capture^3^      |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Fish            | 1,000,000       | 1,519,697       | 0.97-2.10M      |
| Releases^1^     |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Egg             | 0               | 0               | 0               |
| Transfers^1^    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Fish            | 1,000,000       | 1,110,020       | 0.48 -- 1.63 M  |
| Transfers^1^    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Adults Passed   | 0               | 0               | 0               |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| Upstream^1^     |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Percent         | 0.2%            | .13%            | 0.10 -- 0.24%   |
| Survival,       |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| Juvenile to     |                 |                 |                 |
| Adult^2^        |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Smolt Size at   | 16              | 16.74           | 15.3-19.0       |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| Release         |                 |                 |                 |
| (fish/lb)^1^    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

^1^ Five year average and range from calendar years1998-2002

^2^ Five year average and range from completed brood years1990 - 1994

^3^ Five Year average and range from calendar years 1997-2001

**1.13) Date program started (years in operation), or is expected to
start.**

The program began in 1960.

**1.14) Expected duration of program.**

Ongoing.

**1.15) Watersheds targeted by program.**

> Little White Salmon River Program:
>
> The Little White Salmon River below Little White Salmon NFH (i.e.
> Drano Lake) is the target watershed. The Water Resource Inventory
> Number (WRIA) number is 29.0131.

**1.16) Indicate alternative actions considered for attaining program
goals, and reasons why those actions are not being proposed.**

> Mainstem Columbia River and Snake River Dam removal to restore habitat
> has been considered but is not currently regarded as a realistic
> alternative. Refer to the NMFS Hydrosystem Biological Opinion on the
> subject.

**[SECTION 2. PROGRAM EFFECTS ON ESA-LISTED SALMONID
POPULATIONS]{.underline}.**

**2.1) List all ESA permits or authorizations in hand for the hatchery
program.**

> The hatchery has authorization under the NMFS Biological Opinion on
> Artificial Propagation in the Columbia River Basin 1999. Section 7
> permits were obtained for construction projects from NMFS (WSB-00-360
> dated 06/28/2000 good through 09/30/2001) and from an Internal Section
> 7 Consultation (permit number 1-3-00-FW-1914, 1915) from the USFWS
> Western Washington Office in Lacey, Washington.

**2.2) Provide descriptions, status, and projected take actions and
levels for ESA-listed natural populations in the target area.**

> **2.2.1) [Description of ESA-listed salmonid population(s) affected by
> the program.]{.underline}**
>
> There are no ESA listed salmonids that will be directly affected by
> the program in the target watershed. Refer to section 3.5 of this
> document for a detailed description of possible interactions
> throughout the migration corridor.
>
> **- Identify the ESA-listed population(s) that will be
> [directly]{.underline} affected by the program.** There are no ESA
> listed salmonids that will be directly affected by the program in the
> target watershed. Refer to section 3.5 of this document for a detailed
> description of possible interactions throughout the migration
> corridor.
>
> **- Identify the ESA-listed population(s) that may be
> [incidentally]{.underline} affected by the program.**
>
> There are no ESA listed salmonids that are anticipated to be affected
> by the program in the target watershed. Refer to section 3.5 of this
> document for a detailed description of possible interactions
> throughout the migration corridor.
>
> **2.2.2) [Status of ESA-listed salmonid population(s) affected by the
> program.]{.underline}**
>
> \- **Describe the status of the listed natural population(s) relative
> to Acritical@ and Aviable@ population thresholds**.

There are no known listed natural origin salmonids on natural spawning
grounds in the Little White Salmon River.

> **- Provide the most recent 12 year (e.g. 1988-present)
> progeny-to-parent ratios, survival data by life-stage, or other
> measures of productivity for the listed population. Indicate the
> source of these data.**
>
> There are no known listed natural populations in the Little White
> Salmon River.
>
> **- Provide the most recent 12 year (e.g. 1988-1999) annual spawning
> abundance estimates, or any other abundance information. Indicate the
> source of these data.** There are no known listed natural populations
> in the Little White Salmon River.
>
> **- Provide the most recent 12 year (e.g. 1988-1999) estimates of
> annual proportions of direct hatchery-origin and listed natural-origin
> fish on natural spawning grounds, if known.**
>
> This data is not available. There are no known listed natural
> populations in the Little White Salmon River.
>
> **2.2.3) [Describe hatchery activities, including associated
> monitoring and evaluation and research programs, that may lead to the
> take of listed fish in the target area, and provide estimated annual
> levels of take.]{.underline}**
>
> **- Describe hatchery activities that may lead to the take of listed
> salmonid populations in the target area, including how, where, and
> when the takes may occur, the risk potential for their occurrence, and
> the likely effects of the take**.
>
> In the event that listed species entered the facility during
> broodstock collection of adult coho, there is potential to take listed
> species through observation, migrational delay, capture, and handling
> during ladder operation at the Little White Salmon NFH between
> mid-September and early November. Trapping and handling devices and
> methods may lead to injury to listed fish through descaling, delayed
> migration and spawning, or delayed mortality as a result of injury or
> increased susceptibility to predation.
>
> \- **Provide information regarding past takes associated with the
> hatchery program, (if known) including numbers taken, and observed
> injury or mortality levels for listed fish**.
>
> No listed species have been recorded entering the hatchery facility
> during coho operations.
>
> \-**Provide projected annual take levels for listed fish by life stage
> (juvenile and adult) quantified (to the extent feasible) by the type
> of take resulting from the hatchery program (e.g. capture, handling,
> tagging, injury, or lethal take).**

No take of listed species is anticipated.

> **- Indicate contingency plans for addressing situations where take
> levels within a given year have exceeded, or are projected to exceed,
> take levels described in this plan for the program.**
>
> If any listed species are identified entering the hatchery, they will
> immediately be returned to the river via a return tube that empties
> below the fish ladder entrance.

**SECTION 3. RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM TO OTHER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES**

**3.1) Describe alignment of the hatchery program with any ESU-wide
hatchery plan (e.g. *Hood Canal Summer Chum Conservation Initiative*) or
other regionally accepted policies (e.g. the NPPC *Annual Production
Review* Report and Recommendations - NPPC document 99-15). Explain any
proposed deviations from the plan or policies.**

The hatchery program will be operated consistent with ESU-wide plans as
listed in section 3.2.

**3.2) List all existing cooperative agreements, memoranda of
understanding, memoranda of agreement, or other management plans or
court orders under which program operates.**

The coho salmon program is consistent with:

-   NMFS 1999 Biological Opinion on Artificial Propagation in the
    Columbia River Basin.

-   U.S. *v* Oregon Columbia River Fish Management Plan (currently under
    re-negotiation)

-   Mitchell Act.

-   NPPC Little White Salmon River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead
    Production Plan - hatchery production strategy.

-   IHOT Policies and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid
    Hatcheries.

This HGMP is consistent with these plans and commitments.

**3.3) Relationship to harvest objectives.**

> Harvest management decisions are made by the states of Oregon and
> Washington along with Columbia River treaty tribes in consultation
> with NMFS and USFWS.
>
> **3.3.1) Describe fisheries benefiting from the program, and indicate
> harvest levels and rates for program-origin fish for the last twelve
> years (1988-99), if available.**

Table A. Coded-wire tag recoveries from brood years 1990-1997 coho. For
further details see Pastor (2001).

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #######     | Harvest \#  | Hatchery    | Total       | Harvest     |
|  Brood Year | of Adults   | Return      | Return      | Rate        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1990        | 1,337       | 385         | 1,722       | 77.6%       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1991        | 550         | 1,657       | 2,207       | 24.9%       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1992        | 521         | 1,486       | 2007        | 26.0%       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1993        | 127         | 734         | 861         | 14.8%       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1994        | 826         | 3,605       | 4,431       | 18.6%       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1995        | 2,846       | 8,652       | 11,498      | 24.7%       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1996        | 454         | 1,158       | 1,612       | 28.2%       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1997        | 165         | 16,343      | 16,508      | 1.0%        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Graph A. Adult Harvest of Little White Salmon NFH Coho Salmon. (Pastor,
2001). Analysis of tag recoveries from Brood Years 1980 to 1995.

![](media/image2.png){width="6.497222222222222in"
height="4.719444444444444in"}

**3.4) Relationship to habitat protection and recovery strategies.**

> This program is an ongoing mitigation program identified in Table 1 of
> Section IIC of the Artificial Production Review (NWPPC, 1999) and is
> consistent with the [U.S. *v* Oregon]{.underline} Management Plan.

**3.5)** **Ecological interactions.**

Salmonid and non-salmonid fishes or other species that could:

1\) negatively impact program;

> A variety of freshwater and marine predators such as northern
> pikeminnows, Caspian terns, and pinnipeds, can significantly reduce
> overall survival rates of program fish. Predation by northern
> pikeminnow poses a high risk of significant negative impacts on the
> productivity of hatchery coho (SWIG 1984). Based on PIT tags recovered
> at a large Caspian tern nesting colony on Rice Island, a dredge
> material disposal island in the Columbia River estuary, 6-25 million
> of the estimated 100 million out-migrating juvenile salmonids reaching
> the estuary were consumed by the terns in 1997 (Roby, et al. 1997).
> The Fish Passage Center (Berggren 1999) estimates, from about 57,000
> PIT tag recoveries from Rice Island, that through 1991, about 0.2% of
> all PIT tagged fish released into the Columbia River showed up on Rice
> Island. That percentage had increased by a factor of ten by the 1997
> and 1998 juvenile salmonid out-migrations, with hatchery and wild
> steelhead having been the most effected by the increased predation. A
> NMFS Working Group (NMFS 1997) determined that California sea lion and
> Pacific harbor seal populations in the three west coast states have
> risen by 5-7% annually since the mid-1970s. Their predation on
> salmonids may now constitute an additional factor on salmonid
> population declines and can affect recovery of depressed populations
> in some situations. See the ecological interactions discussion below.

2\) be negatively impacted by program;

> Co-occurring natural salmon and steelhead populations in local
> tributary areas and the Columbia River mainstem corridor areas could
> be negatively impacted by program fish. Of primary concern are the ESA
> listed endangered and threatened salmonids: Snake River fall-run
> Chinook salmon ESU (threatened); Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook
> salmon ESU (threatened); Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU
> (threatened); Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon ESU (threatened);
> Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (endangered);
> Columbia River chum salmon ESU (threatened); Snake River sockeye
> salmon ESU (endangered); Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU
> (endangered); Snake River Basin steelhead ESU (threatened); Lower
> Columbia River steelhead ESU (threatened); Upper Willamette River
> steelhead ESU (threatened); Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU
> (threatened); and the Columbia River distinct population segment of
> bull trout (threatened). See the ecological interactions discussion
> below.

3\) positively impact program;

> Returning coho and other salmonid species that naturally spawn in the
> target stream and surrounding production areas may positively impact
> program fish. Decaying carcasses may contribute nutrients that
> increase productivity of the overall system.

4\) be positively impacted by program;

> A host of freshwater and marine species that depend on salmonids as a
> nutrient and food base may be positively impacted by program fish. The
> hatchery program may be filling an ecological niche in the freshwater
> and marine ecosystem. A large number of species are known to utilize
> juvenile and adult salmon as a nutrient and food base (Groot and
> Margolis 1991; and McNeil and Himsworth 1980). Pacific salmon
> carcasses are also important for nutrient input back to freshwater
> streams (Cederholm et al. 1999). Reductions and extinctions of wild
> populations of salmon could reduce overall ecosystem productivity.
> Because of this, hatchery production has the potential for playing an
> important role in population dynamics of predator-prey relationships
> and community ecology. The Service speculates that these relationships
> may be particularly important (as either ecological risks or benefits)
> in years of low productivity and shifting climactic cycles.
>
> In addition, wild co-occurring salmonid populations might be benefited
> as schools of hatchery fish migrate through an area. The migrating
> hatchery fish may overwhelm predator populations, providing a
> protective effect to the co-occurring wild populations. See the
> ecological interactions discussion below.

The 1999 Biological Assessment for the Operation of Hatcheries Funded by
the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Columbia River Fisheries
Development Program (NMFS 1999b) and the 1999 Biological Opinion on
Artificial Propagation in the Columbia River Basin (NMFS 1999c) present
a discussion of the potential effects of hatchery programs on listed
salmon and steelhead populations. The reader is referred to the
discussion in those documents.

Nine generalized types of effects that artificial propagation programs
can have on listed salmon and steelhead populations were identified.
These effects include: 1. Hatchery operation, 2. Brood stock collection,
3. Genetic introgression, 4. Hatchery production (density-dependent), 5.
Disease, 6. Competition, 7. Predation, 8. Residualism, and 9. Migration
corridor/ocean. Potential effects in these categories may apply to all
hatchery programs to one degree or another depending on the particular
program design.

*A discussion of ecological interactions relative to the Complex's coho
on-station release program follows*:

1\. Hatchery operation- The water source for the Willard NFH is
withdrawal from the Little White Salmon River. An impassable falls
immediately upstream from the Little White Salmon NFH site in the lower
Little White Salmon River precludes anadromous fish passage into the
upper basin. Water withdrawals for hatchery operation do not impact
listed anadromous species because there is essentially no natural
spawning or rearing habitat accessible to anadromous species in the
basin. Hatchery effluents meet established NPDES release standards
criteria and are diluted by the flow in Little White Salmon River,
reducing potential negative impacts to natural stocks.

2\. Brood stock collection- Returning early stock coho are collected for
brood stock at the Little White Salmon NFH rack near the mouth of the
Little White Salmon River. Stray hatchery coho from other locations or
returns from natural production are not known to occur at Little White
Salmon NFH. Any unmarked fish returning to the facility are likely from
Willard stock that escaped marking during the juvenile fin-clipping
operation. Columbia River coho are currently not listed but natural
populations continue to be a candidate species.

3\. Genetic introgression- Willard NFH coho are not known to contribute
to a significant straying problem outside of the local area. There is
essentially very little, if any, productive spawning habitat below
Little White Salmon NFH at the mouth of the Little White Salmon River
(Drano Lake). Historical coho habitat was inundated by Bonneville Pool
when Bonneville Dam was constructed in 1938 (Bryant 1949).

4\. Hatchery production (density dependent effects)- Willard NFH coho
releases from the facility are moderate in magnitude (typically about
1.0 to 2.0 million coho smolts) relative to other Columbia River coho
production programs. This level of release is not expected to cause
serious density dependent effects in the mainstem Columbia River. All
coho released on-station are marked (adipose clipped) to promote
selective harvest while providing protection for wild stocks.

5\. Disease- Under the guidance of the USFWS Lower Columbia River Fish
Health Center (LCRFHC), the Complex follows the US Fish and Wildlife
Service's fish health policy (713 FW in the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual) and Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT 1995) protocols to
produce healthy fish and prevent disease transmission (see sections
9.1.6 and 9.2.7). Most pathogens enter hatcheries through returning
adult fish, surface water supplies, and other mechanisms involving
direct contact with naturally spawning fish. Procedures used at the
hatchery and the LCRFHC reduce pathogen transmission from these sources.
The fish health goal for Willard coho is to release healthy fish that
are physiologically ready to migrate. At the time of release, the coho
are relatively disease-free. Outbreaks of bacterial coldwater disease,
more commonly seen in coho compared to other species of Pacific salmon,
are routinely treated with antibiotics and have resolved well before the
time of release. In addition, these coho pass only one dam (Bonneville
Dam) en route to the ocean, and therefore have a reduced potential for
transmission of disease to other populations relative to upriver
programs which are subjected to the high density impacts and stresses of
collection for transport and/or diversion through multiple bypass
systems. The Complex takes appropriate measures to control disease and
the release of diseased fish. As a consequence, infection of natural
fish by hatchery fish would not appear to be a problem.

6\. Competition- The impacts from competition are assumed to be greatest
in the spawning and nursery areas at points of highest density (release
areas) and diminish as hatchery smolts disperse (USFWS 1994). Salmon and
steelhead smolts actively feed during their downstream migration (Becker
1973; Muir and Emmett 1988; Sager and Glova 1988). Competition in
reservoirs could occur where food supplies are inadequate for migrating
salmon and steelhead. However, the degree to which smolt performance and
survival are affected by insufficient food supplies is unknown (Muir and
Coley 1994). On the other hand, the available data are more consistent
with the alternative hypothesis that hatchery-produced smolts are at a
competitive disadvantage relative to naturally produced fish in
tributaries and free-flowing mainstem sections (Steward and Bjornn
1990). Although limited information exists, available data reveal no
significant relationship between level of crowding and condition of fish
at mainstem dams. Consequently, survival of natural smolts during
passage at mainstem dams does not appear to be affected directly by the
number - or density - of hatchery smolts passing through the system at
present population levels. While smolts may be delayed at mainstem dams,
the general consensus is that smolts do not normally compete for space
when swimming through the bypass facilities (Enhancement Planning Team
1986). The main factor causing mortality during bypass appears to be
confinement and handling in the bypass facilities, not the number of
fish being bypassed.

Juvenile salmon and steelhead, of both natural and hatchery origin, rear
for varying lengths of time in the Columbia River estuary and
pre-estuary before moving out to sea. The intensity and magnitude of
competition in the area depends on location and duration of estuarine
residence for the various species of fish. Research suggests, for some
species, a negative correlation between size of fish and residence time
in the estuary (Simenstad et al. 1982).

While competition may occur between natural and hatchery juvenile
salmonids in - or immediately above - the Columbia River estuary, few
studies have been conducted to evaluate the extent of this potential
problem (Dawley et al. 1986). The general conclusion is that competition
may occur between natural and hatchery salmonid juveniles in the
Columbia River estuary, particularly in years when ocean productivity is
low. Competition may affect survival and growth of juveniles and thus
affect subsequent abundance of returning adults. However, these are
postulated effects that have not been quantified or well documented.

The release of hatchery smolts that are physiologically ready to migrate
is expected to minimize competitive interactions, as they should quickly
migrate from the release site. These coho are released into the Little
White Salmon River at the Willard NFH site and it is assumed that they
migrate quickly into the mainstem Columbia River migration corridor en
route to the ocean reducing the potential for competitive interactions
with listed stocks. Snorkel surveys, juvenile out-migrant traps, and/or
PIT tagging would provide valuable information on the timing of
emigration and level of residualism, but would require additional
funding. There have been no mortalities recorded during saltwater
challenges conducted during the last three brood years of Willard coho
at the Complex. Released fish have been fully smolted and begin their
downstream migration immediately following release. Because Willard coho
releases occur "low" in the Columbia Basin system relative to many other
upriver programs, there is reduced opportunity for competitive
interactions.

Other observations leading to conclusions regarding the behavior of
released smolts included physiological and survival data collected
during recent NATURES rearing studies conducted for coho salmon at
Willard NFH. For several brood years, researchers from the (now)
Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey collected
data to evaluate the use of cover (simulating natural riparian cover)
during hatchery rearing to improve the post-release survival of
hatchery-reared coho salmon and to alter their behavior to more closely
match wild (naturally produced) fish. Preliminary physiological and
survival data collected to date indicate that, although there were no
differences detected among treatment groups when compared to control
groups, the behavior of hatchery-produced fish from the Complex appears
to be normal when compared to naturally produced fish.

There are no natural fish populations that spawn in the target area.
Fish headed further up the Columbia River may dip into Drano Lake and
hold in the favorable water conditions. Characteristic of steelhead,
this species holds in Drano Lake during periods of low Columbia River
flow and high water temperature, preferring the cooler Little White
Salmon River water during the period of July through August. This period
is sooner than the return migration of coho entering the adult holding
ponds at the Complex. It is doubtful that there is any negative
interaction between program fish and any natural fish.

7\. Predation- The Complex's releases of coho occur in the upper Little
White Salmon River at Willard NFH where other anadromous stocks do not
have access. Predation effects would therefore be limited to the
migration corridor where effects are likely to be reduced relative to
spawning and nursery areas. Depending on species and population,
hatchery smolts are often released at a size that is greater than their
naturally produced counterparts. In addition, for species that typically
smolt at one year of age or older (e.g. steelhead, spring Chinook
salmon), hatchery-origin smolts may displace younger year classes of
naturally produced fish from their territorial feeding areas. Both
factors could lead to predation by hatchery fish on naturally produced
fish, but these effects have not been extensively documented, nor are
the effects consistent (Steward and Bjornn 1990). The USFWS (1994)
presented information that salmonid predators are generally thought to
prey on fish approximately one-third or less their size.

In general, the extent to which salmon and steelhead smolts of hatchery
origin prey on fry from naturally reproducing populations is not known,
particularly in the Columbia River basin. The available information -
while limited - is consistent with the hypothesis that predation by
hatchery-origin fish is, most likely, not a major source of mortality to
naturally reproducing populations, at least in freshwater environments
of the Columbia River basin (Enhancement Planning Team 1986). For
example, peak emergence of listed chum salmon at Ives Island, a natural
production area below Bonneville Dam, was estimated to occur during the
latter half of March in 1999 (2/19/99 fax to Donna Allard (USFWS) from
Wayne Vander Naald, ODFW). Out-migrant sampling conducted by the USFWS
in 1998 and 1999 in Hardy Creek, which is adjacent to the mainstem
Pierce/Ives Island natural production area, indicated that peak
emigration of chum fry from this tributary occurred during the first two
weeks of March (unpublished data). Based on life history traits, it is
expected that most of the chum fry would have emigrated from the natural
production area before the mid-April release of larger hatchery coho
occurs at the Complex. The potential for the Complex smolts to prey on
emerging chum fry would not be significant. However, virtually no
information exists regarding the potential for such interactions in the
marine environment.

The presence of large numbers of hatchery fish may also alter the listed
species behavioral patterns, which may influence vulnerability and prey
susceptibility (USFWS 1994). Releasing large numbers of hatchery fish
may also lead to a shift in the density or behavior of non-salmonid
predators, thus increasing predation on naturally reproducing
populations. Conversely, large numbers of hatchery fish may mask or
buffer the presence of naturally produced fish, thus providing
sufficient distraction to allow natural juveniles to escape (Park 1993).
Prey densities at which consumption rates are highest, such as northern
pikeminnow in the tailraces of mainstem dams (Beamesderfer et al. 1996;
Isaak and Bjornn 1996), have the greatest potential for adversely
affecting the viability of naturally reproducing populations, similar to
the effects of mixed fisheries on hatchery and wild fish. However,
hatchery fish may be substantially more susceptible to predation than
naturally produced fish, particularly at the juvenile and smolt stages
(Piggins and Mills 1985; Olla et al. 1993).

Predation by birds and marine mammals (e.g. seals and sea lions) may
also be significant source of mortality to juvenile salmonid fishes, but
functional relationships between the abundance of smolts and rates of
predation have not been demonstrated. Nevertheless, shorebirds, marine
fish, and marine mammals can be significant predators of hatchery fish
immediately below dams and in estuaries (Bayer 1986; Ruggerone 1986;
Beamish et al. 1992; Park 1993). Unfortunately, the degree to which
adding large numbers of hatchery smolts affects predation on naturally
produced fish in the Columbia River estuary and marine environments is
unknown, although many of the caveats associated with predation by
northern pikeminnow in freshwater are true also for marine predators in
saltwater.

8\. Residualism- Willard coho releases are not known to residualize in
the Little White Salmon River. Even if Willard coho do residualize there
would be no effect on listed anadromous species because there is no
access to anadromous species in this area. Snorkel surveys, out-migrant
traps, and/or PIT tagging would help to provide a definitive answer to
hatchery out-migration questions. This would require additional funding.

9\. Migration corridor/ocean- The hatchery production ceiling called for
in the Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon of approximately
197.4 million fish (1994 release levels) has been incorporated by NMFS
into their recent hatchery biological opinions to address potential
mainstem corridor and ocean effects as well as other potential
ecological effects from hatchery fish. Although hatchery releases occur
throughout the year, approximately 80 percent occur from April to June
(NMFS 1999b) and Columbia River out-migration occurs primarily from
April through August. The Complex's coho production is typically
released in April, at the beginning of the general out-migration season
for other hatchery and natural populations. The total number of hatchery
fish released in the Columbia River basin has declined by about 26
percent since 1994 (NMFS 1999a) reducing potential ecological
interactions throughout the basin.

Ocean rearing conditions are dynamic. Consequently, fish culture
programs might cause density-dependent effects during years of low ocean
productivity, especially in nearshore areas affected by upwelling
(Chapman and Witty 1993). To date, research has not demonstrated that
hatchery and naturally produced salmonids compete directly in the ocean,
or that the survival and return rates of naturally produced and hatchery
origin fish are inversely related to the number of hatchery origin
smolts entering the ocean (Enhancement Planning Team 1986). If
competition occurs, it most likely occurs in nearshore areas when (a)
upwelling is suppressed due to warm ocean temperatures and/or (b) when
the abundance or concentration of smolts entering the ocean is
relatively high. However, we are only beginning to understand the
food-chain effects of cyclic, warm ocean conditions in the eastern north
Pacific Ocean and associated impacts on salmon survival and productivity
(Beamish 1995; Mantua et al. 1997). Consequently, the potential for
competition effects in the ocean cannot be discounted (Emlen et al.
1990).

**[SECTION 4. WATER SOURCE]{.underline}**

**4.1)** **Provide a quantitative and narrative description of the water
source (spring, well, surface), water quality profile, and natural
limitations to production attributable to the water source.**

Coho eggs are incubated at Little White Salmon NFH until eye-up, then
transferred to Willard NFH for early rearing through release. Water
rights for the Little White Salmon NFH total 33,868 gpm from the Little
White Salmon River, a small well and springs. Water use for fish
production ranges from 11,221 gpm to 28,232 gpm. The river supplies most
of this water flow. The water intake structure was rebuilt in 1994 and
modified in 2001. A water re-use system was constructed in 1967 for egg
incubation, but has not been operated for several years. The re-use
system was originally used to supplement water supplies for incubation
in low water years, but has not been needed since the well was upgraded.
Use of the reused water is avoided whenever possible due to disease
transmission concerns.

An independent hatchery audit (Montgomery Watson 1997) measuring
hatchery operations against IHOT standards (IHOT 1995) reported a
remedial action was needed to provide disease-free water for incubation
and early rearing (4,700 gpm). The estimated cost was \$2.7 million.
Such a system would also benefit the incubation of fall Chinook and
spring Chinook salmon.

The water supply for the Willard NFH comes from the Little White Salmon
River with a water right of 22,440 gallons per minute (gpm) and a pair
of wells rated at 500 gpm and 1,000 gpm. Incubation and early rearing
are done primarily with well water. Outside rearing uses river water.

> The Complex=s water intake structures were examined during the
> independent audit (Montgomery Watson 1997). The structures were in
> compliance when measured against NMFS=s screening criteria for
> approach velocity and screen openings. The hatchery monitors water
> discharges and is in compliance with the NPDES permit.

**4.2) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize
the likelihood for the take of listed natural fish as a result of
hatchery water withdrawal, screening, or effluent discharge.**

> As stated above in section 4.1, the hatchery intake structure is above
> an impassable barrier dam which prevents listed anadromous species
> from having access to the main water supply. The hatchery=s effluent
> discharge is well within it=s NPDES permit and is further diluted by
> the Little White Salmon river further reducing any possible negative
> impacts.

**[SECTION 5. FACILITIES]{.underline}**

**5.1) Broodstock collection** **facilities (or methods)**.

> Fish enter the spawning facility volitionally via a fish ladder that
> opens immediately below the hatchery barrier dam. Once inside the
> trap, the fish are held in a 30\' X 90\' X 6' holding pond.

**5.2) Fish transportation equipment (description of pen, tank truck, or
container used).**

> Adult fish are moved from pond to pond and into the anesthetic tank
> using hydraulically operated mechanical crowders.

**5.3) Broodstock holding and spawning facilities.**

> Brood holding facilities include two 30\' X 90\' X 6\' holding ponds.
> Spawning facilities include a transfer tower to move fish from the
> holding ponds into the anesthetic tank where fish are sorted. Fish not
> ready to spawn (green fish) are returned to the holding ponds via
> return tubes. Ripe fish are handled on a stainless steel spawning
> table.

**5.4) Incubation facilities**.

> Initial incubation is done in the Little White Salmon nursery building
> about 0.5 km from the spawning facility, using up to 36 of 132 stacks
> of vertical incubators with flows set initially to 3 gpm and raised to
> 5 gpm at hatching. Water for incubation is primarily from springs and
> a well, with screened river water available if needed. While at the
> Little White Salmon facility, the eggs are treated between three and
> five times a week with 1,667 ppm formalin for fifteen minutes to
> control fungus. The formalin is delivered using a newly constructed
> delivery system which ensures proper dilutions and timing. The
> installation of egg isolation units has been proposed to prevent
> potential disease transmission from eggs transported from outside the
> facility to Little White Salmon stocks. After the eggs reach the eyed
> egg stage, they are loaded into 36-quart coolers filled with water and
> transferred to the Willard NFH facility where there are 28 stacks of
> incubators available for use. Water for these stacks comes primarily
> from two wells on the hatchery with screened river water available if
> higher flows than the wells can supply are needed. Eggs are not
> treated with formalin at the Willard NFH facility (see Section 9.1.6).

**5.5) Rearing facilities.**

> Initial rearing is performed in Willard's 52 nursery tanks starting in
> January and February using a mix of well and river water. Fish are fed
> using automatic feeders until early May. At this point the fish are
> transferred to Willard's fifty 8' x 80' raceways, using screened river
> water, where they are hand fed.

**5.6) Acclimation/release facilities.**

> Fish are released directly from the raceways into the Little White
> Salmon River. About two days prior to release the screens on the
> raceways are removed and the fish are allowed to leave volitionally.
> On the day of release, all remaining fish are forced out by removal of
> the damboards.

**5.7)** **Describe operational difficulties or disasters that led to
significant fish mortality.**

There has been one event in the last ten years which led to significant
fish mortality (LCRFHC fish health reports). Due to low returns in 1993,
Speelyai coho from a Washington State facility on the Toutle River were
transferred into Willard NFH. These fish subsequently developed
epizootic levels of bacterial kidney disease (BKD), with monthly
mortalities up to 3.4% in January and February, 1995 before the
scheduled April, 1995 release. The disease could not be controlled by
reducing densities, treatment with antibiotics was not an option, and
mortalities remained at epizootic levels. Therefore, this lot of fish (a
total of 180,000) was destroyed rather than released to prevent possible
transmission of the disease. The Willard strain of coho from that same
brood year also had elevated levels of BKD, however, the disease in this
strain had resolved by the time of release. This same stock of fish had
been transferred to Willard about 15 years prior to this event. These
fish transmitted BKD to the Willard coho resulting in several years of
losses due to BKD at Willard NFH. Therefore, LCRFHC has recommended
against transferring this stock of fish into Willard NFH in the future.
Levels of BKD in the Willard coho have been very low in recent years,
and have not resulted in significant losses of fish.

**5.8) Indicate available back-up systems, and risk aversion measures
that will be applied, that minimize the likelihood for the take of
listed natural fish that may result from equipment failure, water loss,
flooding, disease transmission, or other events that could lead to
injury or mortality.**

> The hatchery has low water alarm probes positioned in several
> locations to prevent fish losses due to water system failures. The
> alarm system is equipped with radio pagers and an automatic phone
> dialer in case of emergency. Fish disease transmission is managed in
> accordance with the US Fish and Wildlife Service=s fish health policy
> and IHOT recommendations.

**[SECTION 6. BROODSTOCK ORIGIN AND IDENTITY]{.underline}**

**Describe the origin and identity of broodstock used in the program,
its ESA-listing status, annual collection goals, and relationship to
wild fish of the same species/population.**

1.  **Source**.

On-station releases into the Little White Salmon River:

-   Adult coho salmon returning to the Little White Salmon River.

> Any AEarly Run@ coho is an acceptable sources of eggs or fish if
> shortfalls in adult returns occur.

**6.2) Supporting information**.

**6.2.1) History.**

> Initial attempts to rear coho salmon with the native, late running
> stock were made in 1919 and 1922 (Nelson and Bodle 1990). Attempts
> during the period 1930-1950 included the use of early run stock from
> the Quinault, Quilcene, Dungeness and Toutle Rivers. The Toutle River
> stock was considered responsible for establishing a successful run in
> 1956. By 1965, a dependable run of Toutle River coho had been
> established.
>
> The following list contains facilities (brood source) that provided
> early-run coho eggs and/or fish for rearing at Willard NFH during the
> last 5 brood years. All stocks were selected because of their
> availability:

-   Lower Kalama Hatchery, WA

-   Cascade Hatchery, OR

-   Bonneville Hatchery, OR

-   Speelyai Hatchery, WA

-   Eagle Creek NFH, OR

> **6.2.2) Annual size.**
>
> The annual escapement goal is 2,500 adults returning to the hatchery
> (see Section 1.11.1 and Section 7.4.2). Over the last twelve years
> total returns to the hatchery have ranged from 735 to 17,092 fish per
> year, with an average of 5,851 fish returned. (Source: Spawning and
> Run Summaries BY1990 to BY2001 in the CRiS database.)
>
> **6.2.3) Past and proposed level of natural fish in broodstock**.
>
> As stated in Bryant (1949), the backwater from Bonneville Dam covers
> all of the area that was originally suitable for salmon spawning. In
> addition, a natural waterfall located about 0.8 kilometers above the
> Little White Salmon hatchery barrier dam (built in 1974) had
> historically blocked access to spawning habitat located above the
> hatchery. Fluctuations in the level of the Bonneville Pool are seen
> immediately below the barrier dam. Historical literature reviews
> indicate that the only original native stock were the tule fall
> Chinook and late-run coho (Nelson and Bodle 1990). Both are extinct
> from the watershed and there are no naturally spawning populations.
> Remnants of the original Tule stock were transferred to Spring Creek
> NFH during the mid-1980\'s. There has been no past or proposed future
> level of natural fish used as brood stock for the coho currently
> produced at the Little White Salmon/Willard NFH Complex.
>
> **6.2.4) Genetic or ecological differences**.
>
> As stated in section 2.2.2 above, there are no natural stocks in the
> Little White Salmon River.
>
> **6.2.5) Reasons for choosing.**
>
> All stocks of coho were chosen due to their availability. Refer to
> Section 6.2.1 of this document for further details.

**6.3) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize
the likelihood for adverse genetic or ecological effects to listed
natural fish that may occur as a result of broodstock selection
practices.**

> No adverse genetic effects to listed species are expected from the
> coho salmon broodstock selection process. See Section 3.5 of this
> document for a detailed discussion on this topic.

**[SECTION 7. BROODSTOCK COLLECTION]{.underline}**

**7.1) Life-history stage to be collected (adults, eggs, or
juveniles)**.

Adults.

**7.2) Collection or sampling design.**

The collection of coho salmon occurs concurrently with the collection of
upriver bright fall Chinook salmon. Ladder operations begin during the
third week of September. Historical records indicate that coho are the
first fish collected and that an earlier ladder opening results in the
collection of stray tule fall Chinook from Spring Creek NFH. Coho salmon
begin their upstream migration into the Little White Salmon River before
the upriver bright fall Chinook with the first fish collected soon after
opening the ladder. The hatchery ladder is operated until maximum
densities in the ponds are achieved. If this occurs, the ladder is
closed until excess fish are randomly removed from the ponds or fish are
removed during spawning. The ladder is then reopened to continue
collecting adults from the full spectrum of the return run. Generally,
the hatchery ladder is closed by mid-November.

**7.3) Identity.**

Coho salmon released into the Little White Salmon River are mass marked
using adipose fin clips to distinguish them from protected wild fish in
the various fisheries. A portion of each year's release is tagged with
coded wire to facilitate evaluation of the stock. In addition, a number
of fish are tagged with coded wire but not fin clipped as a control in
the evaluation of the stock. As a result, all coho salmon returning to
the hatchery must be screened for the presence of a coded wire tag using
a tube type wire tag detector. Tag code recoveries are reported to the
Pacific States Marine Fish Commission (PSMFC) following the spawning
season.

**7.4) Proposed number to be collected:**

**7.4.1) Program goal (assuming 1:1 sex ratio for adults):**

2,500 adult coho are needed for full production.

> **7.4.2) Broodstock collection levels for the last twelve years (e.g.
> 1988-99), or for most recent years available:**

The following table shows total number of fish spawned. Total number of
returns to the hatchery may be higher (see Section 6.2.2). Data source:
Spawning and Run Summaries from the CRiS database.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Year**   **Adults**                         **Eggs**      **Juveniles**
  ---------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ------------- ---------------
             Females      Males      Jacks                    

  **1990**   868          902        0          **-**         **-**

  **1991**   2,985        2,550      0          **-**         **-**

  **1992**   1,584        1,328      0          **-**         **-**

  **1993**   319          315        4          **-**         **-**

  **1994**   802          713        0          **-**         **-**

  **1995**   523          552        29         **-**         **-**

  **1996**   240          227        5          **-**         **-**

  **1997**   1,353        1,199      48         **-**         **-**

  **1998**   1,464        1,449      10         **-**         **-**

  **1999**   372          372        0          **-**         **-**

  **2000**   1,168        1,077      25         **-**         **-**

  **2001**   1,365        1,365      0          **-**         **-**
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

**7.5) Disposition of hatchery-origin fish collected in surplus of
broodstock needs.**

Excess adult coho are culled at random through the spawning season to
keep the hatchery within program goals. See Section 7.8 for discussion
of carcass disposal.

**7.6) Fish transportation and holding methods.**

It is generally not required to transport adult coho. The holding period
for coho salmon is very short (about one month). An aluminum bar-grader
is installed between the two adult holding ponds to allow segregation by
size of the large fall Chinook from the smaller coho salmon. The common
crowding of these fish normally results in injury to the smaller coho,
being most evident by increases in broken eggs. The Complex goal for all
species is to achieve a 2.5% or less pre-spawning mortality rate during
the holding period.

**7.7) Describe fish health maintenance and sanitation procedures
applied**.

> At spawning, tissues from adult fish are collected to ascertain viral,
> bacterial, and parasitic infections and to provide a brood health
> profile. Personnel from the Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center
> test for the parasite *Ceratomyxa shasta* and all of the listed
> pathogens: infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), infectious
> pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus
> (VHSV), *Renibacterium salmoninarum, Aeromonas salmonicida, Yersinia
> ruckeri*; except for *Myxobolus cerebralis*. The minimum number of
> samples collected (150 females and 60 males) is defined by USFWS
> policy 713 FW (Fish and Wildlife Service Manual). Sanitation
> procedures meet or exceed the minimum guidelines set forth in the IHOT
> report (1995) and are described in detail in section 8.3.

**7.8) Disposition of carcasses.**

Coho salmon are not chemically treated during spawning, and are
anesthetized with carbon dioxide. These fish are fit for human
consumption. First priority for excess and spawned carcasses is provided
to the Yakama Nation ceremonial and subsistence program. All other
excess carcasses are processed by contractors for the U.S. Department of
Justice, Federal Prisons Program.

Carcass outplanting for nutrient enhancement is not currently a goal of
this program. However, if current policies change to include nutrient
enhancement, outplanting will be done as per LCRFHC recommendations to
minimize potential disease transmission to resident and anadromous fish.
These recommendations include outplanting carcasses with no gross signs
of disease, heat-treating or eviscerating adult carcasses and removing
heads before outplanting, and placing carcasses downstream of the
hatchery intake.

**7.9) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize
the likelihood for adverse genetic or ecological effects to listed
natural fish resulting from the broodstock collection program.**

> There are no known listed natural fish in the target watershed. The
> risk of disease transmission will be minimized by following IHOT
> sanitation and fish health maintenance and monitoring guidelines.

**[SECTION 8. MATING]{.underline}**

**Describe fish mating procedures that will be used, including those
applied to meet performance indicators identified previously**.

**8.1) Selection method.**

> Broodstock are collected to represent the full spectrum of the run.
> Fish are sorted over a one to two day period with ripe females being
> spawned and green females sent back to the ponds until 100% of the
> fish have been checked. Enough male fish are sent back to the pond
> with the green females to ensure a 1:1 spawning ratio. The eggs
> collected during this sorting process are considered a "take". Male
> spawners are randomly selected during the take with up to five percent
> of males used being jacks. The number of jacks spawned on a given day
> is subjectively defined by hatchery staff up to the five percent
> maximum and is dependent on availability and ripeness. After all fish
> have been sorted once and ripe females spawned, a maximum one week
> period is allowed to pass before the fish are re-sorted and newly
> ripened females spawned. The objective is to achieve maximum
> fertilization by spawning fish soon after ovulation and yet avoid the
> needless handling of green females. The re-sorting process continues
> until all fish are spawned. Since there are no naturally spawning coho
> in the watershed, differentiating spawners based on natural stock
> origin from within the watershed is not a criteria.
>
> **8.2) Males.**
>
> If the hatchery escapement goal is met, then a 1:1 spawning ratio will
> be achieved. Achieving this spawning ratio is one of the highest brood
> stock program goals at the Complex. During low escapement years, males
> have been re-used on an as-needed basis to maximize the total number
> of females available to spawn. In low escapement years, it is better
> to spawn the available females (and not lose that genetic material),
> than discard them. Under these conditions, reusing male fish does not
> compromise the genetic diversity of the hatchery stocks. It was
> determined that, in all instances, a minimum escapement need had been
> met to maintain genetic diversity, although some male fish had to be
> reused to achieve production goals.

**8.3) Fertilization.**

> It is important to note that at no time in the recent past has the
> Complex pooled the eggs of females prior to fertilization. Again, as
> mentioned in section 8.2 above, an intense effort is made to achieve a
> 1:1 spawning ratio. The following is a detailed description of the
> spawning protocol.

Adults are crowded from holding ponds and anesthetized using carbon
dioxide. Anesthetized adults are then sexed and checked for ripeness.
Ripe adults are selected and euthanized. Tails of all ripe females
spawned are cut to allow bleeding for approximately 3-5 minutes. Eggs
are then removed using a Wyoming knife and collected in
iodophor-disinfected colanders to drain ovarian fluid. The eggs are then
transferred to iodophor-disinfected plastic buckets and sperm is added
directly to the eggs. A 1:1 random spawning ratio is maintained and male
jacks are used proportionally to their percentage of the run. The
buckets containing eggs and sperm of individual (paired) fish are then
transferred to the Little White Salmon hatchery nursery building (0.5
kilometers away) where water is added to activate the sperm. This
process takes from 5-10 minutes. The fertilized eggs are stirred and
allowed to rest for a minimum of thirty seconds, then the eggs of four
females are combined, washed and water hardened for one half hour in a
75 ppm active iodine solution in individual Heath incubator trays. The
eggs are incubated using single pass spring or well water.

> Aseptic procedures are followed to assure the disinfection of
> equipment throughout the egg handling process. Tissue samples are
> collected by fish health specialists to determine the incidence of
> *Ceratomyxa shasta*, and all of the listed pathogens except *Myxobolus
> cerebralis,* according to procedures and guidelines in 713 FW and
> IHOT. Refer to sections 9.1.6 and 9.2.7 for more fish health details.

**8.4) Cryopreserved gametes**.

> Gametes are not cryopreserved at the Little White Salmon NFH.

**8.5) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize
the likelihood for adverse genetic or ecological effects to listed
natural fish resulting from the mating scheme.**

> There are no known listed natural fish that will be adversely affected
> by the above described mating scheme.

**[SECTION 9. INCUBATION AND REARING]{.underline}** -

**Specify any management *goals* (e.g. Aegg to smolt survival@) that the
hatchery is currently operating under for the hatchery stock in the
appropriate sections below. Provide data on the success of meeting the
desired hatchery goals.**

**9.1) Incubation:**

**9.1.1) Number of eggs taken and survival rates to eye-up** **and/or
ponding.**

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **BROOD    **EGGS        **% SURVIVAL **% SURVIVAL    **% SURVIVAL POND
  YEAR**     TAKEN**       TO EYE**     GREEN TO POND** TO RELEASE**
  ---------- ------------- ------------ --------------- ------------------
  1994       2,499,034     86.2         86.2            87.9

  1995       1,520,315     86.1         84.8            83.7

  1996       653,713       81.2         80.6            96.0

  1997       3,459,191     80.2         78.5            95.0

  1998       4,074,779     82.3         79.8            89.4

  1999       1,101,735     81.9         81.0            93.1

  2000       3,721,023     83.6         78.2            96.1

  2001       4,060,283     77.9         77.9            N/A

  Average    2,636,259     82.43        80.88           91.60
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

**9.1.2) Cause for, and disposition of surplus egg takes.**

> Extra eggs may be taken to safeguard against potential incubation
> losses. Excess eggs are buried on-station.
>
> **9.1.3) Loading densities applied during incubation.**

Eggs are placed into incubation trays at a rate of four females
(approximately 8000 eggs) per incubation tray. At eye-up, dead eggs are
removed and the remaining eggs are transferred to the Willard NFH,
enumerated, then placed into incubation trays at a rate of 5,000 eggs
per tray. Initial water flows are set at 3 gpm and increased to 5 gpm at
hatch.

> **9.1.4) Incubation conditions.**
>
> Water temperature is monitored using temperature loggers taking
> readings every 30 minutes. Temperatures during incubation range from
> 43°F to 50°F with typical temperatures around 47°F. Dissolved oxygen
> levels are not regularly monitored, but have been tested and found to
> be at, or near saturation. All water for incubation at the Little
> White facility is passed through a 70 micron drumscreen to filter out
> solids. After the eggs have developed to the eyed egg stage, they are
> shocked and picked to remove dead eggs. They are then transported up
> to the Willard NFH facility where they are disinfected with 75 ppm
> active iodine solution and placed in vertical incubation trays at a
> rate of 5,000 eggs per tray. Water for incubation is primarily from
> the wells with screened river water available if needed.
>
> **9.1.5) Ponding**.

Once the fry have buttoned up and are ready to start feeding, they are
moved into the 52 concrete nursery tanks in Willard's nursery (i.e. swim
up and ponding are forced). They are fed using automatic feeders until
mid-May when they are moved out to the 50 raceways. Average length at
ponding is 33 mm.

> **9.1.6) Fish health maintenance and monitoring.**

To prevent the growth of fungus during incubation, eggs are treated with
1,667 ppm formalin for 15 minutes three to five times a week. Formalin
treatments are administered at the Little White Salmon facility only. At
the Willard hatchery, the egg trays are opened at regular intervals and
dead eggs are removed. The first health exam of newly hatched fish
occurs when approximately 50% are beyond the yolk sac stage and begin
feeding. Sixty fish are sampled and tested for virus. Regular fish
health checks are done on a monthly basis by the fish health specialist
from the Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center as per the fish health
policy in 713 FW.

> **9.1.7) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to
> minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to
> listed fish during incubation.**
>
> There are no known listed fish that will be affected by incubation
> procedures. There are no listed fish under propagation at these
> facilities at this time.

**9.2) Rearing:**

> **9.2.1) Provide survival rate data (*average program performance*) by
> hatchery life stage (fry to fingerling; fingerling to smolt) for the
> most recent twelve years (1988-99), or for years dependable data are
> available.**
>
> Refer to table in Section 9.1.1 of this document.

**9.2.2) Density and loading** **criteria** **(goals and actual
levels).**

> Current production goals are to have a final density index at or below
> 0.25 and a flow index of no higher than 1.5 (ref. Fish Hatchery
> Management, Piper et.al., 1982). Maximum density and loading criteria
> are for maximum loadings of 4.5 lbs/gpm or 0.87 lbs/ft^3^.

**9.2.3) Fish rearing conditions**

> Temperature readings are taken using data loggers taking readings
> every 30 minutes. Temperatures in the raceways range from 38°F to 50°F
> through the year. Mortalities are removed daily and the raceways are
> cleaned with a broom while effluent water is drained to a pollution
> control structure. Cleaning is performed as needed but no less than
> once a week. Dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide and total gas pressure
> have never been problems and are not recorded on a regular basis. Fish
> are reared on river water for the duration of raceway rearing.
>
> **9.2.4) Indicate biweekly or monthly fish growth information
> (*average program performance*), including length, weight, and
> condition factor data collected during rearing, if available.**

Table B: End of Month Growth Parameters for LWS NFH coho Brood Year
1999.

Data from Lot History, Production for Brood Year 1999 coho salmon.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Month        Length     #/lb     Condition   Conversion   Density    Flow Index
               (inches)            Factor C    For Month    Index      
  ------------ ---------- -------- ----------- ------------ ---------- ----------
  February,    1.364      1194     \-                       0.34       1.07
  2000                                                                 

  March        1.833      492      \-          0.84         0.62       1.91

  April        2.086      334      \-          1.08         0.79       2.44

  May          2.487      197      \-          1.14         0.09       0.29

  June         2.813      126      \-          0.90         0.10       0.34

  July         3.468      72.6     \-          0.96         0.14       0.46

  August       4.042      45.9     \-          1.08         0.19       0.63

  September    4.429      34.9     \-          1.42         0.23       0.75

  October      4.660      29.9     \-          1.15         0.25       0.89

  November     4.789      27.6     \-          0.96         0.27       0.94

  December     4.854      26.5     \-          1.10         0.27       0.97

  January,     4.923      25.4     \-          1.14         0.28       1.00
  2001                                                                 

  February     5.169      21.9     \-          0.46         0.31       1.10

  March        5.326      20.1     \-          1.60         0.33       1.17

  April\*      5.510      18.1     0.00034     0.66         0.35       1.25
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\*Fish released 04/19/2001

> **9.2.5) Indicate monthly fish growth rate and energy reserve data
> (*average program performance*), if available**.
>
> Energy reserve information is not available. Refer to table in Section
> 9.2.4 for growth data.
>
> **9.2.6) Indicate food type used, daily application schedule, feeding
> rate range (e.g. % B.W./day and lbs/g.p.m. inflow), and estimates of
> total food conversion efficiency during rearing (*average program
> performance*).**
>
> The fish are fed BioMoist starter, grower and feed following
> manufacturer recommendations (generally between 3.5% and 0.5% of body
> weight per day). They are fed between two and nine times daily
> depending on fish size. Overall conversions are around 1.1.

**9.2.7) Fish health monitoring, disease treatment, and sanitation
procedures**.

> The Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center (LCRFHC) in Underwood, WA
> provides fish health care for the Little White Salmon NFH as described
> in the published policy 713 FW in the Fish and Wildlife Service
> Manual. In addition to this policy, the 1995 annual report "Policies
> and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries",
> chapter 5, by the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team provides further
> fish health guidelines as approved by state, federal, and tribal
> agencies. The directives of these two documents exceed the
> requirements of the Washington State and Tribal fish health agencies
> which follow the directives in the Washington Co-Managers Salmonid
> Disease Control Policy of 1998.
>
> The documents mentioned above provide guidance for preventing or
> minimizing diseases within and outside of the hatchery. In general,
> movements of live fish into or out of the hatchery must be approved by
> the Production Advisory Committee (PAC) and be noted on the Brood
> Document for the hatchery. If a fish transfer or release is not on the
> Brood Document, permits from the Washington Department of Fish &
> Wildlife, the USFWS, and any other states through which the fish
> travel must be obtained and approved by co-managers. Fish health exam
> and certification must be done prior to any releases or transfers from
> the hatchery to minimize risks from possible disease transmittance.
>
> A pathologist from the LCRFHC visits at least once per month to
> examine fish at the hatchery. From each stock of juveniles, fish are
> randomly sampled to ascertain general health. Based on pathological
> signs, age of fish, concerns of hatchery personnel, and the history of
> the facility, the examining pathologist determines the appropriate
> tests. This usually includes an external and internal examination of
> skin, gills, and internal organs. Kidneys (and other tissues, if
> necessary) will be checked for the common bacterial pathogens by
> culture and by a specific test for bacterial kidney disease (BKD).
> Blood is checked for signs of anemia or other infections, including
> viral anemia. Additional tests for virus or parasites are done if
> warranted.
>
> A diagnostic exam is done on an as-needed basis determined by the
> pathologist or requested by hatchery personnel. Sick, dying, and/or
> fish with unusual behavior are examined for disease with appropriate
> diagnostic tests. A pathologist will normally check symptomatic fish
> during a monthly examination.
>
> At two to four weeks prior to a release or transfer from the hatchery,
> 60 fish from the stock of concern are tested for the presence of
> listed pathogens. These pathogens, defined in USFWS policy 713 FW
> include infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), infectious
> pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus
> (VHSV), *Renibacterium salmoninarum, Aeromonas salmonicida, Yersinia
> ruckeri*, and *Myxobolus cerebralis*.
>
> Disease outbreaks in the Willard coho have included bacterial kidney
> disease (BKD), bacterial coldwater disease (BCWD) and sunburn
> (steatitis). BKD and BCWD can be controlled with antibiotics and/or
> fish culture changes and have not resulted in losses significant
> enough to affect hatchery production goals, except for the Speelyai
> strain of coho in 1995 as discussed in section 5.7. Although the
> sunburn is not an infectious disease, it can be exacerbated by BCWD,
> or conversely, BCWD can predispose the fish to sunburn. Cultural
> changes (adding covers to the raceways) has resulted in a significant
> decrease in the incidence of sunburn. Should these or additional
> disease outbreaks occur in the future, the appropriate strategy for
> control (chemotherapy or cultural changes) will be recommended by the
> fish pathologist from the Fish Health Center.

**9.2.8) Smolt development indices (e.g. gill ATPase activity), if
applicable.**

> Fish are given a 24 hour saltwater challenge before release and
> observed for survival and outward signs of smoltification, i.e. loss
> of parr marks, etc. Survival is typically at or near 100%.

**9.2.9) Indicate the use of \"natural\" rearing methods as applied in
the program.**

There is 50% shade cloth running the length of the raceways at the
Willard NFH. This cloth shades about half of the water in the raceways.
The cloth helps prevent the incidence of sunburn in the fish as well as
simulating an overhanging bank similar to what they would see in the
wild.

> **9.2.10)** **Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to
> minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to
> listed fish under propagation.**
>
> These fish are not listed. There are no listed fish under propagation
> at this facility at this time.

**[SECTION 10. RELEASE]{.underline}**

**Describe fish release levels, and release practices applied through
the hatchery program***.*

**10.1) Proposed fish release levels.**

+-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Age       | **Maximum    | **Size     | **Release   | *           |
| Class**     | Number**     | (fpp)**    | Date**      | *Location** |
+=============+==============+============+=============+=============+
| **Eggs**    | 0            | \-         | \-          | \-          |
+-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Unfed     | 0            | \-         | \-          | \-          |
| Fry**       |              |            |             |             |
+-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Fry**     | 0            | \-         | \-          | \-          |
+-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| **F         | 0            | \-         | \-          | \-          |
| ingerling** |              |            |             |             |
+-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| *           | 1,000,000    | 16         | mid-April   | Little      |
| *Yearling** |              |            |             | White       |
|             | 500,000      | 17         | mid-March   | Salmon      |
|             |              |            |             | River       |
|             | 500,000      | 17         | mid-March   |             |
|             |              |            |             | Transfer to |
|             |              |            |             | Wenatchee   |
|             |              |            |             | River       |
|             |              |            |             |             |
|             |              |            |             | Transfer to |
|             |              |            |             | Yakima      |
|             |              |            |             | River       |
+-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-------------+

**10.2) Specific location(s) of proposed release(s).**

> **Stream, river, or watercourse:** Little White Salmon River at the
> Willard NFH.
>
> **Release point:** River kilometer 8.5 on the Little White Salmon
> River, entering the Columbia River at river kilometer 261,
> approximately 45° 42\' 30\" North Latitude and 121° 37\' 30\" West
> Longitude (pers. comm. Steve Vigg, NMFS)
>
> **Major watershed:** Little White Salmon River
>
> **Basin or Region:** Columbia River

**10.3) Actual numbers and sizes of fish released by age class through
the program.**

Source: LWS NFH Annual Reports, 1990 to 2001.

+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **R | **E    | *    | *   | *    | **     | *    | **Year | **Avg |
| ele | ggs/** | *Avg | *Fr | *Avg | Finger | *Avg | ling** | s     |
| ase |        | si   | y** | si   | ling** | si   |        | ize** |
| yea | *      | ze** |     | ze** |        | ze** |        |       |
| r** | *Unfed |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
|     | Fry**  |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+=====+========+======+=====+======+========+======+========+=======+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 2,5    | 14    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 73,323 | .6/lb |
| 1** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,5    | 14    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 69,059 | .0/lb |
| 2** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 3,0    | 16    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 63,615 | .8/lb |
| 3** |        |      |     |      | \-     |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,9    | 15    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 92,332 | .7/lb |
| 4** |        |      |     |      | \-     |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 7      | 15    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 06,032 | .3/lb |
| 5** |        |      |     |      | \-     |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 2,3    | 16    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 54,413 | .3/lb |
| 6** |        |      |     |      | \-     |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,1    | 15    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 05,121 | .8/lb |
| 7** |        |      |     |      | \-     |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,7    | 19    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 97,749 | .7/lb |
| 8** |        |      |     |      | \-     |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 2,0    | 15    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 95,530 | .7/lb |
| 9** |        |      |     |      | \-     |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 9      | 15    |
| 200 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 98,146 | .3/lb |
| 0** |        |      |     |      | \-     |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,1    | 19    |
| 200 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 89,708 | .0/lb |
| 1** |        |      |     |      | \-     |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 9      | 17    |
| 200 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 69,412 | .7/lb |
| 2** |        |      |     |      | \-     |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,7    | 16.   |
| Ave |        |      |     |      |        |      | 01,203 | 33/lb |
| rag |        |      | \-  |      |        |      |        |       |
| e** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+

Data source: LWS NFH annual reports, 1990-2001

**10.4) Actual dates of release and description of release protocols.**

> Releases of coho salmon occur between April 12 and April 22 each year.
> This is to coincide with anticipated high flows in the Columbia River.

**10.5) Fish transportation procedures, if applicable.**

> The fish covered in this HGMP are not transported off-station.

**10.6) Acclimation procedures**

The coho are raised on river water for the duration of their raceway
rearing and are fully acclimated to the Little White Salmon River.

**10.7) Marks applied, and proportions of the total hatchery population
marked, to identify hatchery adults.**

> Approximately 10% of the coho released from Willard NFH are coded wire
> tagged and 100% are adipose fin clipped.

**10.8) Disposition plans for fish identified at the time of release as
surplus to programmed or approved levels.**

> Any fish identified as excess to program needs are destroyed. This has
> not occurred since the inception of the program.

**10.9) Fish health certification procedures applied pre-release.**

> At two to four weeks prior to a release or transfer from the hatchery,
> 60 fish from the stock of concern are tested for the presence of the
> listed pathogens. These pathogens, defined in USFWS policy 713 FW
> include infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), infectious
> pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus
> (VHSV), *Renibacterium salmoninarum, Aeromonas salmonicida, Yersinia
> ruckeri*, and *Myxobolus cerebralis*.

**10.10) Emergency release procedures in response to flooding or water
system failure.**

> Every effort will be made to avoid emergency releases. Emergency
> releases, if necessary, would be accomplished by removal of outlet
> screens and damboards at the lower end of the raceways. This is the
> same method used for final scheduled releases into the Little White
> Salmon River.

11. **Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize
    the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to listed
    fish resulting from fish releases.** Fish health procedures outlined
    in this document and listed in the Fish and Wildlife Service=s fish
    health policy as well as the IHOT document, minimize potential
    negative effects on natural populations of fish by lessening the
    chance for horizontally transmitted diseases when encountering
    Willard coho in the migration corridor or in the ocean. See section
    3.5 of this document for a detailed discussion of potential
    ecological interactions.

**[SECTION 11. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS]{.underline}**

**11.1) Monitoring and evaluation of APerformance Indicators@ presented
in Section 1.10**.

> **11.1.1) Describe plans and methods proposed to collect data
> necessary to respond to each APerformance Indicator@ identified for
> the program.**

Refer to Section 1.10 of this document for information on the
Performance Indicators.

> **11.1.2) Indicate whether funding, staffing, and other support
> logistics are available or committed to allow implementation of the
> monitoring and evaluation program.**
>
> The existing monitoring and evaluation work for the coho program has
> been in place since the inception of the program, continuously funded
> by NMFS as provided under the Mitchell Act.

**11.2) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize
the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to listed fish
resulting from monitoring and evaluation activities.**

> Design and implementation of all research activities associated with
> monitoring and evaluation of the coho salmon program operations follow
> peer review by internal (USFWS) staff as well as external interested
> parties including NMFS, WDFW, and ODFW and various academic entities.

**[SECTION 12. RESEARCH]{.underline}**

**12.1) Objective or purpose.**

> There is currently no research beyond normal monitoring and evaluation
> of the stock using CWT tags. Any future studies should have no effect
> on listed species.

**12.2) Cooperating and funding agencies**.

> This program currently has no funding allocated for research.

**12.3) Principle investigator or project supervisor and staff.**

> Speros Doulos (Complex Manager), Jim Rockowski (Deputy Complex
> Manager), Peter Long (Fishery Biologist), Mary Stad (Fishery
> Biologist)

**12.4) Status of stock, particularly the group affected by project, if
different than the stock(s) described in Section 2.**

> Not listed.

**12.5) Techniques: include capture methods, drugs, samples collected,
tags applied**.

N/A

**12.6) Dates or time period in which research activity occurs.**

N/A

**12.7) Care and maintenance of live fish or eggs, holding duration,
transport methods.**

N/A

**12.8)** **Expected type and effects of take and potential for injury
or mortality.**

N/A

**12.9) Level of take of listed fish: number or range of fish handled,
injured, or killed by sex, age, or size, if not already indicated in
Section 2 and the attached Atake table@ (Table 1).**

N/A

**12.10) Alternative methods to achieve project objectives.**

N/A

**12.11) List species similar or related to the threatened species;
provide number and causes of mortality related to this research
project.**

N/A

**12.12)** **Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to
minimize the likelihood for adverse ecological effects, injury, or
mortality to listed fish as a result of the proposed research
activities.**

N/A

**[SECTION 13. ATTACHMENTS AND CITATIONS]{.underline}**

Bayer, R.D. 1986. Seabirds near an Oregon estuarine salmon hatchery in
1982 and during the 1983 El Nino. Fish. Bull. 84: 279‑286.

Beamesderfer, R.C.P., D.L. Ward, and A.A. Nigro. 1996. Evaluation of the
biological basis for a predator control program on northern squawfish
(*Ptychocheilus oregonensis*) in the Columbia and Snake rivers. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 2898‑2908.

Beamish, R.J. (ed.). 1995. Climate Change and Northern Fish Populations.
National Research Council of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

Beamish, R.J., B.L. Thomson, and G.A. Mcfarlane. 1992. Spiny Dogfish
Predation on Chinook and Coho Salmon and the Potential Effects on
Hatchery‑Produced Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
121: 444‑455.

Becker, C.D. 1973. Food and growth parameters of juvenile Chinook
salmon, *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*, in central Columbia River. Fish.
Bull. 71: 387‑400.

Berggren, T. 1999. Updated analysis of PIT tags detected in bird guano
on Rice Island. Memo to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish Passage
Center, Portland, Oregon.

Bryant, F.G. 1949. A survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries
with special reference to its fishery resources; Washington streams from
the mouth of the Columbia River to and including the Klickitat River
(Area I). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Cederholm, C.J. et al. 1999. Pacific salmon carcasses: Essential
contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. Fisheries 24 (10): 6-15.

Chapman, D., and K. Witty. 1993. Habitat of weak salmon stocks in the
Snake River basin and feasible recovery measures. Report to the
Bonneville Power Administration, DOE/BP-99654-1, Portland, Oregon.

CRiS (Columbia River Information System). Steve Pastor, USFWS database.
09/2002.

CTC (Chinook Technical Committee). 1994. Pacific Salmon Commission,
Report TCCHINOOK (94)-1. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Dawley, E.M., R.D. Ledgerwood, T.H. Blahm, C.W. Sims, J.T. Durkin, R.A.
Kirn, A.E. Rankis, G.E. Monan, and F.J. Ossiander. 1986. Migrational
characteristics, biological observations, and relative survival of
juvenile salmonids entering the Columbia River estuary, 1966-1983. 1985
Final Report. Bonneville Power Administration and National Marine
Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.

Emlen, J.M., R.R. Reisenbichler, A.M. McGie, and T.E. Nickelson. 1990.
Density‑dependence at sea for coho salmon (*Oncorhynchus kisutch*). Can.
J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 1765‑1772.

Enhancement Planning Team. 1986. Salmon and steelhead enhancement plan
for the Washington and Columbia River conservation area. Vol. 1.
Preliminary review draft.

Groot, C. and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC
Press, University of British Columbia, Vancouver B.C.

Harlan, K. 1999. Washington Columbia River and tributary stream survey
sampling results, 1998. Columbia River Progress Report 99-15. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, Washington

IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1995. Policy and procedures
for Columbia Basin anadromous salmonid hatcheries. Annual report 1994 to
the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland Oregon. Project \# 92-043.

IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1996. Operation plans for
anadromous fish production facilities in the Columbia River Basin,
Volume III-Washington. Annual report 1995 to the Bonneville Power
Administration, Portland, Oregon. Project 92-043.

Isaak, D.J., and T.C. Bjornn. 1996. Movement of northern squawfish in
the tailrace of a lower Snake River dam relative to the migration of
juvenile anadromous salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 125: 780‑793.

Mantua, N.J., S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis. 1997.
A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon
production. Bull. Am. Meterol. Soc. 78: 1069‑ 1079.

McNeil, W.J. and D.C. Himsworth. 1980. Salmonid ecosystems of the North
Pacific. Oregon State University Press and Oregon State University Sea
Grant College Program, Corvallis, Oregon.

Montgomery Watson. 1997. Hatchery evaluation report. Little White Salmon
NFH - urb fall Chinook. Report to the Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland Oregon. Project \# 95-2. Montgomery Watson, Bellevue,
Washington.

Muir, W.D., and R.L. Emmett. 1988. Food habits of migrating salmonid
smolts passing Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River, 1984. Regulated
River 2: 1‑10.

Muir, W.D., A.E. Giorgi, and T.C. Coley. 1994. Behavioral and
Physiological Changes in Yearling Chinook Salmon During Hatchery
Residence and Downstream Migration. Aquaculture 127: 69‑82.

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C.
Wainwright, W.S. Grand, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S.
Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS‑NWFSC‑35, 443 p.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. Investigation of
Scientific Information on the Impacts of California Sea Lions and
Pacific Harbor Seals on Salmonids and on the Coastal Ecosystems of
Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS‑NWFSC‑28, 172 p.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999a. Biological Opinion on
Harvest in the Columbia River Basin, Endangered Species Act - Section 7
Consultation.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999b. Biological Assessment
for Mitchell Act Hatchery Operations. Hatcheries and Inland Fisheries
Branch, Portland, Oregon.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999c. Biological Opinion on
Artificial Propagation in the Columbia River Basin, Endangered Species
Act - Section 7 Consultation.

NWPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1999. Artificial Production
Review, Council Document 99-15. Portland, Oregon.

Nelson, W.R. and J. Bodle. 1990. Ninety years of salmon culture at
Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C.

Olla, B.L., M.W. Davis and C.H. Ryer. 1993. Behavioral deficits of
hatchery‑reared Pacific salmon: potential effects on survival following
release, p. 19. *In* D.S. Danielssen and E. Moksness \[ed.\] Proc. Int.
Symp. on Sea Ranching of Cod and Other Marine Animals, held in Bergen,
Norway, June 15‑18, 1993. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway.

Park, D.L. 1993. Effects of marine mammals on Columbia River salmon
listed under the Endangered Species Act, DOE/BP‑99654‑3. Bonneville
Power Administration. Portland, Oregon.

Pastor, S.M. 1999. Annual coded wire program. Annual report 1998 to the
Bonneville Power Administration, project 89-065, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Vancouver, Washington.

Pastor, S.M. 2001. Annual Report 2000. Annual Stock Assessment CWT
(USFWS), Project No. 89-065, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver,
Washington.

Piggins, D.J., and C.P.R. Mills. 1985. Comparative aspects of the
biology of naturally‑produced and hatchery‑reared Atlantic salmon smolts
*Salmo salar*. Aquaculture 45: 321‑334.

Roby, D. et al. 1997. Avian predation on juvenile salmonids in the lower
Columbia River. 1997 Annual Report submitted to Bonneville Power
Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Ruggerone, G.T. 1986. Consumption of migrating juvenile salmonids by
gull foraging below a Columbia River dam. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115:
736‑742.

Sager, P.M., and G.J. Glova. 1988. Diet feeding periodictiy, daily
ration and prey selection of a riverine population of juvenile Chinook
salmon, *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*. J. Fish Biol. 33: 643‑653.

Salonius, K., and G.K. Iwama. 1993. Effects of Early Rearing Environment
on Stress Response, Immune Function, and Disease Resistance in Juvenile
Coho (*Oncorhynchus kisutch*) and Chinook Salmon (*O. tshawytscha*).
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 759‑766.

Schreck, C.B., A.G. Maule and S.L. Kaattari. 1993. Stress and disease
resistance, p. 170‑175. *In* J.F. Muir and R.J. Roberts \[ed.\] Recent
Advances in Aquaculture, Vol. 4. Blackwell Scientific Publications,
Oxford, UK.

Simenstad, C., K. Fresh, and E. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and
Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific Salmon: an
unappreciated function. Pages 343-364 *in* V. Kennedy, editor. Estuarine
comparisons. Academic Press, New York.

Steward, R., and T. Bjornn. 1990. Supplementation of salmon and
steelhead stocks with hatchery fish: a synthesis of published
literature. Tech. Report 90-1. Part 2 *in* W.H. Miller, editor. Analysis
of Salmon and Steelhead Supplementation. Bonneville Power
Administration, Portland, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Dworshak
Fisheries Assistance Office, Idaho.

SWIG (Species Interaction Work Group). 1984. Evaluation of potential
interaction effects in the planning and selection of salmonid
enhancement projects. J. Rensel chairman and K. Fresh editor. Report
prepared for the Enhancement Planning Team for implementation of the
Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act of 1980.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Olympia, Washington. 80pp.

Trotter, P.C. 1997. Sea-run cutthroat trout: life history profile. Pages
7-15 *in* J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson, and R.E. Gresswell, editors. Sea-run
cutthroat trout: biology, management, and future conservation. Oregon
Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Corvalis, Oregon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Biological Assessments for
operation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service operated or funded
hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin in 1995-1998. Submitted to
National Marine Fisheries Service under cover letter, dated August 2,
1994, from Bill Shake Acting USFWS Regional Director to Brian Brown,
NMFS.

USFWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). 1987. Station development plan:
Little White Salmon/Willard National Fish Hatchery Complex Little White
Salmon/Willard NFH Complex. Division of Engineering, Portland, OR.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) and Confederated
Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation. 1990. Little White Salmon
subbasin salmon and steelhead production plan. Columbia Basin System
Planning. Report for the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland,
Oregon.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1997. Washington
State salmonid stock inventory: appendix bull trout and dolly varden.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Olympia, Washington.

**[SECTION 14. CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE AND SIGNATURE OF RESPONSIBLE
PARTY]{.underline}**

AI hereby certify that the foregoing information is complete, true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. @

Name, Title, and Signature of Applicant:

Certified by\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Date:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**ADDENDUM A[. PROGRAM EFFECTS ON OTHER (AQUATIC OR TERRESTRIAL)
ESA-LISTED POPULATIONS.]{.underline}** **(Anadromous salmonid effects
are addressed in Section 2)**

**15.1) [List all ESA permits or authorizations for USFWS ESA-listed,
proposed, and candidate salmonid and non-salmonid species associated
with the hatchery program.]{.underline}**

Section 7 permits were obtained for construction projects from NMFS
(WSB-00-360 dated 06/28/2000 good through 09/30/2001) and from an
Internal Section 7 Consultation (permit number 1-3-00-FW-1914, 1915)
from the USFWS Western Washington Office in Lacey, Washington.

**15.2) [Describe USFWS ESA-listed, proposed, and candidate salmonid and
non-salmonid species and habitat that may be affected by hatchery
program.]{.underline}**

**[Species]{.underline} [Status]{.underline} [Projected
take]{.underline}**

1\) **Bald Eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*)** Listed None

2\) Northern spotted owl (*Strix occidentalis caurina)* Listed None

3\) Bull trout (*Salvelinus confluentus*) Listed None

4\) California wolverine (*Gulo gulo luteus*) Concern None

5\) Cascades frog (*Rana cascadae*) Concern None

6\) **Larch Mtn salamander (*Plethodon larselli*)** Concern None

7\) Long-eared myotis bat (*Myotis evotis*) Concern None

8\) Long-legged myotis bat (*Myotis volans*) Concern None

9\) Northern goshawk (*Accipiter gentilis*) Concern None

10\) Northwestern pond turtle (*Clemmys marmorata marmorata*)

Concern None

11\) Olive sided flycatcher (*Cantopus cooperi*) Concern None

12\) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (*Corynorhynus townsendii
townsendii)*

Concern None

13\) Pacific lamprey (*Lampetra tridentata*) Concern None

14\) River lamprey (*Lampetra ayresi*) Concern None

15\) **Tailed frog (*Ascaphus truei*)** Concern None

16\) Western toad (*Bufo boreas*) Concern None

17\) *Penstemon barrettiae* (Barrett's beardtongue) Concern None

18\) *Rorippa columbiae* (Columbia yellow-cress) Concern None

19\) *Sisyrinchium sarmentosum* (pale blue-eyed grass) Concern None

Species in **bold** were specific occurrences located on the database
within a one mile radius of the project site.

**15.3) [Analyze effects.]{.underline}**

> None of the above listed species is likely to be adversely affected by
> this program. Bald eagles benefit from the program as they are
> regularly seen feeding on salmon carcasses in the river below the
> hatchery throughout the fall and winter months. See section 3.5 of
> this document for detailed information on program effects on aquatic
> species.

**15.4** **[Actions taken to minimize potential effects.]{.underline}**

**15.5 [References]{.underline}**

Table 1. Estimated listed salmonid take levels of by hatchery activity.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Listed species affected: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                        
  ESU/Population:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                      
  Activity:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                                                                    
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- --------- ----------
  **Location of hatchery activity:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Dates                                                     
  of activity:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Hatchery program                                                                  
  operator:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                                                                          

  **Type of Take**                                                                    **Annual Take of Listed                            
                                                                                      Fish By Life Stage**                               
                                                                                      *(**[Number of                                     
                                                                                      Fish]{.underline}**)*                              

                                                                                      Egg/Fry                 Juvenile/Smolt   Adult     Carcass

  **Observe or harass a)**                                                                                                               

  **Collect for transport b)**                                                                                                           

  **Capture, handle, and release c)**                                                                                                    

  **Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and released)**                                                                             

  **Removal (e.g. broodstock) e)**                                                                                                       

  **Intentional lethal take f)**                                                                                                         

  **Unintentional lethal take g)**                                                                                                       

  **Other Take (specify) h)**                                                                                                            
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a\. Contact with listed fish through stream surveys, carcass and mark
recovery projects, or migrational delay at weirs.

b\. Take associated with weir or trapping operations where listed fish
are captured and transported for release.

c\. Take associated with weir or trapping operations where listed fish
are captured, handled and released upstream or downstream.

d\. Take occurring due to tagging and/or bio-sampling of fish collected
through trapping operations prior to upstream or downstream release, or
through carcass recovery programs.

e\. Listed fish removed from the wild and collected for use as
broodstock.

f\. Intentional mortality of listed fish, usually as a result of
spawning as broodstock.

g\. Unintentional mortality of listed fish, including loss of fish
during transport or holding prior to spawning or prior to release into
the wild, or, for integrated programs, mortalities during incubation and
rearing.

h\. Other takes not identified above as a category.

***[Instructions]{.underline}:***

*1. An entry for a fish to be taken should be in the take category that
describes the greatest impact.*

*2. Each take to be entered in the table should be in one take category
only (there should not be more than one entry for the same sampling
event).*

*3. If an individual fish is to be taken more than once on separate
occasions, each take must be entered in the take table.*