**HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN**

**(HGMP)**

**Hatchery Program:**

**Species or**

**Hatchery Stock:**

**Agency/Operator:**

**Watershed and Region:**

**Date Submitted:**

**Date Last Updated:**

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

1.  **Name of hatchery or program**.

# Carson National fish Hatchery

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

Spring Chinook Salmon (*Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*)

**1.3) Responsible organization and individuals**

*Indicate lead contact and on-site operations staff* *lead*.

**Name (and title):** Rich Johnson, Fish and Wildlife Administrator

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

**Address:** 911 NE 11^th^ Ave., Portland, OR 97232

**Telephone:** 503-872-2766

**Fax:** 503-231-2062

**Email:** rich_r_johnson@r1.fws.gov

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

**Name (and title):** William Thorson, Hatchery Manager

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

**Address:** 14041 Wind River Highway, Carson, WA 98610

**Telephone:** 509-427-5905

**Fax:** 509-427-4238

> **Email:** bill_thorson@r1.fws.gov

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

![](media/image1.wmf)

![](media/image2.wmf)

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

> Carson National Fish Hatchery (NFH) is located at river kilometer
> (rkm) on the Wind River, Skamania County, Washington within the
> Columbia River basin. The actual position of the hatchery is 4552'05"
> Latitude and 12158'23" Longitude.

**1.6) Type of program.**

# Isolated Harvest; Mitigation

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

> Carson NFH's spring Chinook salmon program was initiated in 1955.
> Carson NFH 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 of the hatchery is to
> successfully rear and release 1,420,000 spring Chinook salmon smolts
> for release on-station. Those releases are to help mitigate for fish
> losses in the Columbia River Basin caused by main stem hydropower
> project construction and operation and other basin development. Fish
> releases contribute to important terminal area tribal ceremonial and
> subsistence fisheries and non-tribal sport fisheries while providing
> for adequate escapement for hatchery production. Hatchery operations
> strive to meet mitigation requirements of the Mitchell Act and the
> Columbia River Fish Management Plan ([U.S. v. Oregon]{.underline}).

**1.8) Justification for the program.**

> Carson NFH was authorized by Special Act 50 Stat. 220, May 28, 1937,
> and placed into operation December 1937 to mitigate for the effects of
> federal water projects, primarily, Bonneville Dam. The hatchery was
> reauthorized by the Mitchell Act (16 USC 755-757; 52 Stat. 345) May
> 11, 1938 and amended on August 8, 1946 (60 Stat. 932) for conservation
> of fishery resources in the Columbia River Basin.

**1.9) List of program "Performance Standards".**

See table in section 1.10.

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

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                          **Benefits**            

  **Performance           **Performance           **Monitoring and
  Standard**              Indicator**             Evaluation**

  Program contributes to  Spawn 1,000 spring      Monitor adult return
  mitigation for          Chinook salmon to       and contribution to
  construction of dams as produce 1.42 million    fisheries and perform
  defined in the Mitchell smolts for release.     best rearing strategies
  Act of 1937.            Produce a run returning to meet spawning and
                          to the hatchery and for production goals.
                          harvest.                

  Successfully maintain a Achieve a minimum 0.1%  Smolt-to-adult survival
  broodstock of spring    smolt-to-adult return   rates are monitored for
  Chinook salmon at       back to the hatchery.   each brood-year
  Carson NFH without the                          release.
  need for out of basin                           
  egg or fish transfers                           
  to the hatchery.                                

  Assure that hatchery    Collect between 1,000   Survival and
  operations support      to 1,400 broodstock to  contribution to
  Columbia River Fish     produce 1.42 million    fisheries will be
  Management Plan ([U.S.  smolts for on-station   estimated for each
  v Oregon]{.underline})  release into the Wind   brood year released.
  production and harvest  River. Contribute to a  Work with co-managers
  objectives.             meaningful harvest for  to manage adult fish
                          sport, tribal, and      returning in excess of
                          commercial fisheries    broodstock need. Work
                          from March through July with states and tribes
                          of each year in the     to establish meaningful
                          Columbia and Wind       fisheries (through [US
                          rivers. Achieve a       v Oregon]{.underline}
                          10-year average of 0.5% forums).
                          smolt-to-adult survival 
                          that includes harvest   
                          plus escapement.        

  Develop outreach to     Increase the visibility Evaluate use and/or
  enhance public          of the Fish and         exposure of program
  understanding,          Wildlife Service        materials and exhibits
  participation, and      facilities in the       as they help support
  support of the U.S.     Columbia River Gorge    goals of the
  Fish and Wildlife       and to provide          information and
  Service and Carson NFH  information about       education program.
  programs.               Service programs to     
                          internal and external   
                          audiences. For example, 
                          local schools and       
                          special interest groups 
                          tour the facility to    
                          better understand       
                          hatchery operations.    
                          Off station efforts     
                          include festivals,      
                          classroom               
                          participation, stream   
                          adoptions, and county   
                          fairs.                  

  Implement measures for  A minimum of 1,000      Annual run timing, age
  broodstock management   adults are collected    and sex composition,
  to maintain integrity   throughout the spawning and return data is
  and genetic diversity   run in proportion to    collected and compared
  of Carson hatchery      age and sex composition to historical data.
  stock.                  at return.              

  Program contributes to  Follow pertinent laws,  Hold an annual
  fulfilling tribal trust agreements, policies,   coordination meeting
  responsibility mandates and executive orders on between the service and
  and treaty rights*.*    consultation and        Yakama Nation to
                          coordination with       identify and report on
                          Native American tribal  issues of interest,
                          governments. Columbia   coordinate management,
                          River tribes support    and review programs.
                          the service program at  
                          Carson NFH. An annual   
                          report on stock         
                          assessment and          
                          contribution to         
                          fisheries will be       
                          developed.              

  Communicate and         Participate in [US v    Develop technical
  coordinate effectively  Oregon]{.underline}     reports for PAC and
  with co-managers in the production advisory     TAC. Hold hatchery
  Columbia River basin.   committee (PAC) and     evaluation team
                          technical advisory      meetings each spring
                          committee (TAC)         and fall to review
                          meetings. Discuss       progress.
                          management issues for   
                          Carson NFH at an annual 
                          coordination meeting    
                          each February between   
                          the Service, WDFW, NOAA 
                          Fisheries, and Yakama   
                          Nation.                 

  Design and implement    Projects are            Monitoring programs
  projects to improve the identified, reviewed,   will be incorporated
  quality of fish         and implemented that    into project designs.
  production at Carson    will increase survival  Examples of projects
  NFH.                    of program fish while   include: diet studies,
                          minimizing impacts on   rearing and release
                          wild populations.       studies, and rearing
                                                  environment projects.

  Release groups are      All fish are adipose    All returning fish are
  sufficiently marked in  fin clipped and 75,000  checked for coded-wire
  manner consistent with  are implanted with      tags by passing them
  information needs and   coded wire tags to      through a tag detection
  protocols to determine  monitor and evaluate    unit.
  impacts to natural and  fish cultural           
  hatchery origin fish in techniques, survival,   
  fisheries.              and fishery             
                          contribution.           
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                          **Risks**               

  **Performance           **Performance           **Monitoring and
  Standard**              Indicator**             Evaluation**

  Minimize impacts to ESA Adult ESA listed        The hatchery ladder is
  listed and other native steelhead are allowed   monitored to document
  species, their habitat, to pass the hatchery    if steelhead are
  and the environment.    volitionally. Hatchery  entering. Juvenile
                          juveniles are raised to passage is monitored in
                          smolt-size (18 fish/lb) the Wind River by WDFW
                          and released from the   to determine the length
                          hatchery to expedite    of time fish spend in
                          migration through the   the river after
                          Wind and Columbia       release. Hatchery
                          rivers. Mass mark all   juveniles are also
                          production fish to      PIT-tagged and passage
                          identify them from      is monitored at
                          naturally produced      Bonneville Dam. USGS
                          fish.                   Columbia River Research
                                                  Laboratory conducts
                                                  Instream evaluations.
                                                  Additional Service
                                                  projects pending
                                                  (straying, risk
                                                  assessment, instream
                                                  evaluations, fish
                                                  health).

  Artificial production   Hatchery goal to        A pathologist from the
  facilities are operated prevent the             Lower Columbia River
  in compliance with all  introduction,           Fish Health Center will
  applicable fish health  amplification, or       examine the fish at
  guidelines and facility spread of certain fish  least once per month to
  operation standards and pathogens that might    ascertain general
  protocols such as those negatively affect the   health. Tests include
  described by IHOT,      health of both hatchery the following
  PNFHPC, the Co-Managers and naturally           examinations: regular,
  of Washington Fish      reproducing stocks and  diagnostic, ponding,
  Health Policy, INAD,    to produce healthy      pre-release, and adult
  and the Service.        smolts that will        certification.
                          contribute to the goals 
                          of Carson NFH.          

  Effluent from           Raceway cleaning        Cleaning and total
  artificial production   effluent is sent to a   discharge (normal
  facility will not       pollution abatement     operation) effluents
  detrimentally affect    pond where solids are   are monitored weekly
  natural populations     removed prior to        for suspended and
                          discharge.              settleable solids.

  Water withdrawals and   Adult steelhead         Number of steelhead
  instream water          volitionally pass the   entering the hatchery
  diversion structures    hatchery ladder to the  and water use is
  for artificial          upper Wind River. The   regularly monitored.
  production facility     primary water source,   
  operation will not      Tyee Creek, is not      
  prevent access to       accessible to           
  natural spawning areas, anadromous fish and the 
  affect spawning         Wind River is used only 
  behavior of natural     as a secondary source.  
  populations, or impact  Hatchery intake meets   
  juvenile rearing        screening criteria.     
  environment.                                    

  Hatchery operations     Hatchery conducts       Identified in HGMP and
  comply with ESA         section 7 consultations Biological Opinion for
  responsibilities.       and completes an HGMP.  hatchery operations.
                          Section 10 permits are  
                          issued when applicable. 

  Harvest of              Harvest is regulated to Harvest is monitored by
  hatchery-produced fish  meet appropriate        state and tribal
  minimizes impact to     biological assessment   agencies to meet
  wild populations.       criteria. Mass mark     biological opinion on
                          juvenile hatchery fish  fisheries.
                          prior to release to     
                          enable state agencies   
                          to implement selective  
                          fisheries.              
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**1.11) Expected size of program.**

> *In responding to the two elements below, take into account the
> potential for increased fish production that may result from increased
> fish survival rates effected by improvements in hatchery rearing
> methods, or in the productivity of fish habitat.*
>
> **1.11.1) Proposed annual broodstock collection level (maximum number
> of adult fish).**
>
> Carson NFH sets a goal of 1,000 adults to be spawned so 1,400 adults
> are retained.
>
> **1.11.2) Proposed annual fish release levels (maximum number) by life
> stage and location.** (*Use standardized life stage definitions by
> species presented in* [Attachment 2]{.underline}).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Life Stage**    **Release Location**       **Annual Release Level**
  ----------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
  **Eyed Eggs**                                

  **Unfed Fry**                                

  **Fry**                                      

  **Fingerling**                               

  **Yearling**      Wind River, 3^rd^ week of  1.42 million
                    April                      
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

> ![](media/image3.wmf)Table 1.12a. Egg-to-juvenile survival and
> recruit-per-spawner data from 1990 for Carson National Fish Hatchery,
> 1990-2001 (CRiS database, Carson CHMP).
>
> Figure 1.12a. Smolt to adult survival of Carson National Fish Hatchery
> spring Chinook salmon, brood years 1980-1996 (2002 Carson CHMP).
>
> ![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in"
> height="4.565277777777778in"}
>
> Table 1.12b. Number of Carson National Fish Hatchery spring Chinook
> salmon by age class counted at the hatchery, 1980-2001 (2002 Carson
> CHMP).
>
> ![](media/image5.wmf)

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

> Carson NFH began operation in 1937 to mitigate for the effects of
> federal water projects.

14. **Expected duration of program.**

> Carson NFH program is ongoing.

**1.15) Watersheds targeted by program.**

> Target watersheds include the Wind River sub-basin within the Columbia
> River basin.

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

No alternative actions are proposed at this time.

**[SECTION 2. PROGRAM EFFECTS ON ESA-LISTED SALMONID
POPULATIONS]{.underline}. (Non-Salmonid Species are addressed in Section
15)**

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

1999 Biological Opinion on Hatcheries (NOAA, Fisheries)

SEE SECTION 15 FOR USFWS TRUST SPECIES

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

> The natural spawning spring Chinook salmon in the Wind River is not a
> targeted population of the Carson program. This hatchery-induced
> population is considered a depressed, non-native, composite production
> (wild and hatchery fish) population by WDFW (WDF et al. 1990). The
> NMFS (Myers et al. 1998) considers this population as not an ESA
> issue, as these fish were not historically present in the watershed.
> The five-year geometric mean natural spawning population size is 162
> fish. The short-term abundance trend (the most recent 7-10 years,
> based on total escapement) is positive, + 0.1 % per year. The
> long-term abundance trend (1970-1996) is negative, - 2.9 % per year
> (Myers et al. 1998). The run of spring Chinook into the Big White
> Salmon River is considered extinct, primarily attributable to dam
> construction and habitat degradation (Myers et al. 1998).
>
> Wind River native steelhead populations are depressed and listed as
> threatened under the ESA. Wind River steelhead are part of the lower
> Columbia River steelhead ESU.
>
> Both native and sea- run cutthroat are known to exist in Wind River,
> but little is known of abundance or range. Sea-run cutthroat are
> probably limited to the lower Wind River and Little Wind River (2.2
> river kilometers from mouth of Wind River) in terms of spawning area
> (Personal communication with Rawding, WDFW, 1999). Since there is a
> breeding population of coastal cutthroat trout in the lower Wind
> River, program fish from Carson NFH could potentially encounter
> out-migrants of the sea-run form of the cutthroat in the Wind River
> and main stem or estuary of the Columbia River. Time of out-migration
> of the sea-run cutthroat in the Columbia River may begin as early as
> March and peaks in mid-May (Trotter 1997) similar in time to the
> release of hatchery smolts. The size of the sea-run cutthroat trout
> smolts, 100mm-260mm (S. Barndt, USFWS, pers. comm.), is very similar
> to the size of the yearling hatchery smolts released from Carson NFH.
> Instances of predation by juvenile hatchery Chinook are thought to be
> low.

No reproducing population of bull trout exists in the Wind River (WDFW,
1997).

**2.2.1) [Description of ESA-listed salmonid population(s) affected by
the program.]{.underline}**

Include information describing: adult age class structure, sex ratio,
size range, migrational timing, spawning range, and spawn timing; and
juvenile life history strategy, including smolt emigration timing.
Emphasize spatial and temporal distribution relative to hatchery fish
release locations and weir sites

> The only anadromous salmonids that historically ascend Shipherd Falls
> are winter and summer steelhead. It is probable that pacific lamprey
> ascend the falls, but there is no data to verify this claim. Both
> steelhead and pacific lamprey are important fisheries to the Yakama
> Nation.
>
> Wind River native steelhead populations are depressed and Federally
> listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This
> stock is part of the lower Columbia River steelhead Ecologically
> Significant Unit (ESU). Although historical estimates are not well
> documented, run size has been estimated at 2,500 fish (WDFW 2000). The
> average number of summer steelhead spawners in the Wind River during
> 1991-96 was 222 fish, 14% of the escapement goal of 1,557 fish (NMFS
> 1999a).

-   **Identify the ESA-listed population(s) that will be
    [directly]{.underline} affected by the program.** *(Includes listed
    fish used in supplementation programs or other programs that involve
    integration of a listed natural population. Identify the natural
    population targeted for integration).*

> The Carson NFH program will directly affect no ESA-listed fish
> population.
>
> **- Identify the ESA-listed population(s) that may be
> [incidentally]{.underline} affected by the program.**
>
> Wind River summer steelhead trout are listed as threatened in the
> lower Columbia River ESU. There is currently no steelhead hatchery
> production in the Wind River.
>
> **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 "critical" and "viable" population thresholds** (*see definitions
    in "Attachment 1\")*.

> The Lower Columbia River summer steelhead run is listed as threatened.

-   **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.**

> The following graphs are taken from the Wind River Subbasin Summary,
> 15 November 2000.
>
> Figure 2.2.2a. Wild steelhead smolt yield in the Wind River, Columbia
> Gorge Province, from 1995-99 (1997 Wind River Subbasin Summary, WDFW).
>
> ![](media/image6.wmf)

-   **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.**

> Figure 2.2.2b. Wild summer steelhead abundance trends for the Wind
> River in the Columbia Gorge Province (1997 Wind River Subbasin
> Summary, WDFW).
>
> ![](media/image7.wmf)

-   **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.**

> Not applicable to Carson NFH.

**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}** *(see "Attachment 1\" for definition of
"take")***.**

> **- 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**.
>
> (*e.g. "Broodstock collection directed at sockeye salmon has a "high"
> potential to take listed spring chinook salmon, through migrational
> delay, capture, handling, and upstream release, during trap operation
> at Tumwater Falls Dam between July 1 and October 15. 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*").
>
> Hatchery Water Intake and Use---The primary water source for the
> Carson NFH is Tyee Creek that is not accessible to anadromous fish.
> During limited periods of the year, water may be drawn from the Wind
> River to adjust water temperatures for rearing and to supplement Tyee
> Creek withdrawals. Intake screening for the Wind River withdrawal pipe
> does not meet current NOAA Fisheries ESA screening standards. However,
> with the reduced production program at Carson NFH, water withdrawal
> from the Wind River for hatchery operations are significantly reduced
> and short-lived when it does occur, which is primarily late in the
> summer. Work is underway to bring this water intake structure into
> NOAA Fisheries ESA compliance. Until the Wind River water intake
> structure is upgraded, withdrawal of Wind River water for hatchery
> operations will be minimized. A temporary screen is utilized when
> withdrawal from the Wind River is necessary. Water withdrawals for
> hatchery operations are not expected to have a significant negative
> impact on natural spawning populations. Entry of listed species into
> the hatchery through the river intake structure has not been observed.
>
> In 1998, the Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Substitute
> House Bill 2496 authorizing the establishment of Water Resource
> Inventory Areas (WRIAs) to catalogue anadromous fish limiting factors
> in Washington streams. The Wind River water diversion and blockage of
> Tyee Creek by hatchery facilities was considered a medium
> impact-limiting factor for salmon and steelhead in the Wind River. The
> Wind River diversion is listed because water withdrawal can exacerbate
> already low summer flows in the Wind River. However, the report
> recognizes that "recent modification to withdrawal methods may have
> improved conditions" in the Wind River. For example, push-up dams are
> no longer used for hatchery water withdrawal. Also, in 1995 the
> numbers of fish produced at the hatchery were reduced significantly,
> cutting back hatchery demand for Wind River water. Tyee Creek is
> listed because hatchery facilities are a total blockage to fish
> passage. There is some question concerning the suitability of Tyee
> Creek for salmon and steelhead spawning prior to hatchery
> construction. Much of Tyee Creek may have been a swampy area with
> little spawning gravel and much of the stream was channeled to
> facilitate water collection.
>
> Hatchery effluents meet established water quality standards and are
> diluted by the flow in the Wind River.
>
> Brood Stock Collection*---*Returning spring Chinook are collected for
> brood stock at the hatchery rack. Hatchery fish volitionally return to
> the hatchery using the hatchery's fish ladder and home to Tyee Creek.
> There is no barrier dam in the Wind River at the hatchery. This is
> significant because the Wind River watershed upstream of the hatchery
> is an important spawning and rearing area for native summer steelhead
> trout (listed).
>
> Natural spawning of spring Chinook occurs in the Wind River drainage
> (Pettit 1999a) but these fish are believed to be Carson NFH fish that
> do not return to the hatchery. Stray hatchery spring Chinook from
> other locations or returns from natural production from other areas
> are not known to occur at Carson NFH, however genetic testing would
> provide better information on the hatchery and natural spring Chinook
> populations in the basin.
>
> Genetic Introgression---Coded-wire tag recoveries show that Carson NFH
> spring Chinook stray into the Little White Salmon NFH and are caught
> in the Drano Lake sport and tribal fisheries. However, the Carson
> spring Chinook stock is also released from Little White Salmon NFH.
> Straying of Carson spring Chinook is not considered a major problem
> for other streams where spring Chinook are listed based on a general
> lack of Carson recoveries in other areas. Therefore, genetic
> introgression of spring Chinook released from Carson NFH with other
> listed spring Chinook stocks is not considered a significant problem.
> The Service is currently analyzing data to quantify the degree of
> straying of fish from our National Fish Hatcheries.
>
> Hatchery Production*---*Carson NFH spring Chinook releases are
> moderate in magnitude relative to other Columbia River spring Chinook
> production programs. Carson NFH releases have been reduced from a
> previous program level of over 2 million smolts to the current 1.42
> million level. Reduced production decreases density dependent effects
> and other potential ecological effects on other natural stocks.
> Juvenile out-migration trapping and PIT tag monitoring at Bonneville
> Dam indicate that Carson spring Chinook exit the Wind River quickly
> after release, further reducing potential density dependent effects.
> The Service will continue to evaluate our release strategies and
> production numbers to minimize any negative effect upon the aquatic
> community, especially on listed species.
>
> \- **Provide information regarding past takes associated with the
> hatchery program, (if known) including numbers taken, and observed
> injury or mortality levels for listed fish**.

\- **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).**

> *Complete the appended "take table" (**Table 1**) for this purpose.
> Provide a range of potential take numbers to account for alternate or
> "worst case" scenarios.*

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

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Listed species affected: \_\_\_\_\_*Summer                                                           
  Steelhead*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                                               
  ESU/Population:\_\_\_\_*Lower Columbia                                                                 
  River*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                                             
  Activity:\_\_\_\_\_*Carson                                                                             
  NFH*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                                                   
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- --------- -----------
  **Location of hatchery activity:\_\_\_\_*Wind                                                          
  River*\_\_\_\_\_\_ 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)**                                                                     **\<5**   

  **Collect for transport b)**                                                                 **\<5**   

  **Capture, handle, and release c)**                                                          **\<5**   

  **Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and                                               **\<5**   
  release d)**                                                                                           

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

  **Intentional lethal take f)**                                                                         

  **Unintentional lethal take g)**                                                             **\<5**   

  **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.

> **- 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 take levels are projected to exceed projections, consultation will
> be re-initiated with NOAA, Fisheries and co-managers.

**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.**

> *(e.g. "The hatchery program will be operated consistent with the
> ESU-wide plan, with the exception of age class at release. Fish will
> be released as yearlings rather than as sub-yearlings as specified in
> the ESU-wide plan, to maximize smolt-to-adult survival rates given
> extremely low run sizes the past four years.")*.

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

> \--Mitchell Act

\--[U.S. v. Oregon]{.underline}-Columbia River Fish Management Plan
(currently under re-negotiation)

\--IHOT Standards and Policies for Columbia Basin anadromous salmonid
hatcheries

\--NPPC Wind River Sub-basin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan

2.  **List all existing cooperative agreements, memoranda of
    understanding, memoranda of agreement, or other management plans or
    court orders under which program operates.** *Indicate whether this
    HGMP is consistent with these plans and commitments, and explain any
    discrepancies.*

The spring Chinook program is consistent with:

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

Mitchell Act

[U.S. v. Oregon]{.underline}-Columbia River Fish Management Plan
(currently under re-negotiation)

IHOT Standards and Policies for Columbia Basin anadromous salmonid
hatcheries

NPPC Wind River Sub-basin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan

NPPC Production Review Document 99-15 and description of mitigation
hatcheries

**3.3) Relationship to harvest objectives.**

> *Explain whether artificial production and harvest management have
> been integrated to provide as many benefits and as few biological
> risks as possible to the listed species.* *Reference any harvest plan
> that describes measures applied to integrate the program with harvest
> management.*
>
> Carson spring Chinook are not part of either the lower Columbia River
> Chinook ESU or the mid-Columbia River spring Chinook ESU, however,
> they do provide important fishery benefits to Columbia River
> fisheries. Upriver spring Chinook comprise a very minor component of
> the ocean fisheries with very few CWTs recovered in ocean fisheries.
> Columbia River main stem fisheries have been highly restricted in
> recent years (5 to 7 percent harvest rate) to address conservation
> needs and NMFS biological opinion jeopardy standards for listed Snake
> River spring/summer Chinook. Therefore, Carson spring Chinook
> contribute primarily to terminal area sport and tribal fisheries at
> the mouth of the Wind River. Providing terminal area fisheries is one
> of the management strategies to allow harvest opportunities while
> minimizing impacts on listed species and other stocks of concern. The
> average terminal area harvest rate for the period 1989-1998 was 0.439
> for years when fisheries occurred (from Pettit 1999b). Average sport
> and tribal catches for this period for years when fisheries occurred
> were 2,615 and 868, respectively. Average tribal distribution of
> surplus fish from the hatchery for this period for years when tribal
> distribution occurred was 2,575 (from Pettit 1999b). Recoveries of
> CWTs from other stocks of concern (e.g., upper Columbia and Snake
> River spring Chinook) are extremely rare. The Wind River mouth
> fisheries provide quality terminal area fishery opportunity for sport
> and tribal fishers with minimal impacts to other stocks of concern.
> Also, all of the Carson NFH spring Chinook releases are mass marked
> for terminal area fisheries management. Main stem Columbia River
> fisheries are managed to achieve the NMFS biological opinion jeopardy
> standards for Snake River spring/summer Chinook of 5 to 7 percent
> harvest rate. So, production levels at Carson NFH are not expected to
> add adverse effects to listed species or other stocks of concern from
> a harvest perspective beyond those currently allowable under
> non-jeopardy biological opinions for harvest.

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.** *Also provide estimated future
    harvest rates on fish propagated by the program, and on listed fish
    that may be taken while harvesting program fish.*

> Data compiled from CRiS database.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.939583333333333in"
height="4.454861111111111in"}

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

> *Describe the major factors affecting natural production (if known).
> Describe any habitat protection efforts, and expected natural
> production benefits over the short- and long-term.* *For Columbia
> Basin programs, use NPPC document 99-15, section II.C. as guidance in
> indicating program linkage with assumptions regarding habitat
> conditions.*
>
> Natural production of spring Chinook salmon in the Wind River is not a
> management objective and Carson NFH is considered the primary source
> of natural spring Chinook production in this watershed.
>
> Carson spring Chinook are produced to mitigate for Columbia River
> hydro-system development, operation and other basin development.
> Habitat degradation within the Wind River basin is primarily from
> forest management practices. Habitat restoration will entail long-term
> actions. If mitigation goals for lost and degraded habitat are to be
> achieved continued hatchery production will be required in the
> interim.

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

Describe salmonid and non-salmonid fishes or other species that could
(1) negatively impact program; (2) be negatively impacted by program;
(3) positively impact program; and (4) be positively impacted by
program. Give most attention to interactions between listed and
"candidate" salmonids and program fish.

> 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 negative impacts on the productivity
> of hatchery Chinook (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 in 1997. The Fish Passage Center (Berggren 1999)
> estimates, from approximately 57,000 PIT tag recoveries on Rice Island
> that about 0.2% of all PIT tagged fish released into the Columbia
> River through 1991 showed up on Rice Island. The 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 may now constitute an additional
> factor on salmonid population declines and may affect recovery of
> depressed populations in some situations.
>
> Co-occurring natural salmon and steelhead populations in local
> tributaries and the Columbia River main stem corridor 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). An additional concern is the Southwestern
> Washington/Columbia River coastal cutthroat trout. See the ecological
> interactions discussion below.
>
> Returning Chinook 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.
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
> Summer steelhead in the Wind River are part of the Lower Columbia
> River LCR steelhead ESU listed by NMFS as threatened under the ESA.
> Although the intra-specific impacts of steelhead hatchery fish on
> natural populations of steelhead within the LCR steelhead ESU have the
> greatest potential for detrimental effects, (NMFS 1999a) other
> inter-species interactions are also of concern. The Carson NFH spring
> Chinook program may adversely affect listed summer steelhead in the
> Wind River basin, but impacts are thought to be substantially below
> the jeopardy threshold (NMFS 1999a). For a more detailed account on
> this subject, the reader is referred to the discussion in those
> documents.
>
> The 1999 Biological Assessment for the Operation of Hatcheries Funded
> by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Columbia River
> Fisheries Development Program (NMFS 1999a) and the 1999 Biological
> Opinion on Artificial Propagation in the Columbia River Basin (NMFS
> 1999b) present a discussion of the potential effects of hatchery
> programs on listed salmon and steelhead populations.
>
> A discussion of ecological interactions relative to the Carson spring
> Chinook program follows:
>
> Genetic introgression- Carson NFH spring Chinook do stray into the
> Little White Salmon NFH and are caught in the Drano Lake sport and
> tribal fisheries based on CWT recoveries. However, the Carson spring
> Chinook stock is also the stock of spring Chinook released from Little
> White Salmon NFH and the Big White Salmon Ponds. Based on a general
> lack of Carson CWT recoveries in other areas, straying of Carson
> spring Chinook is not considered a major problem for other streams
> where they are listed. Therefore, genetic introgression of spring
> Chinook released from Carson NFH with other listed spring Chinook
> stocks is not considered a significant problem.
>
> Hatchery production (density dependent effects)- Carson NFH spring
> Chinook releases are moderate in magnitude relative to other Columbia
> River spring Chinook production programs. Carson NFH releases have
> been reduced from a previous program level of about 2.4 million smolts
> to the current 1.42 million level. This was done to lower densities
> during rearing with the goal of improving fish quality and survival.
> Added benefits would be reduced density dependent effects and other
> potential ecological effects on other natural stocks. Juvenile
> out-migration trapping and PIT tag monitoring at Bonneville Dam
> indicate that Carson spring Chinook exit the Wind River quickly after
> release, further reducing potential density dependent effects. The
> reduced level of production at Carson NFH is not expected to cause
> significant density dependent effects in the Wind or lower Columbia
> rivers.
>
> Disease- Fish managers largely understand the strain, abundance, and
> virulence (epidemiology) of pathogens and parasites in hatchery fish.
> Recent studies suggest that the incidence of some pathogens in
> naturally spawning populations may be higher than in hatchery
> populations (Elliot and Pascho 1994). Indeed, the incidence of high
> ELISA titers for *Renibacterium salmoninarum*, the causative agent of
> Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD), appears, in general, to be
> significantly more prevalent among wild smolts of spring/summer
> Chinook salmon than hatchery smolts (Congleton et al. 1995; Elliot et
> al. 1997). For example, 95% versus 68% of wild and hatchery smolts,
> respectively, at Lower Granite Dam in 1995 had detectable levels of
> *R. salmoninarum* (Congleton et al. 1995). Although pathogens may
> cause significant post-release mortality among hatchery fish, there is
> little evidence that hatchery origin fish routinely infect naturally
> produced salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest (Enhancement
> Planning Team 1986; Steward and Bjornn 1990). Many biologists believe
> disease-related losses often go undetected and that the impact of
> disease on naturally spawning populations may be underestimated (Goede
> 1986; Steward and Bjornn 1990). Nevertheless, we are unaware of any
> studies or documentation in the scientific literature where hatchery
> fish have infected a naturally spawning population of salmon or
> steelhead in the Pacific Northwest (see also Campton 1995).
>
> Carson NFH follows Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT 1995) and
> Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee protocols for
> disease sampling and treatment. The Lower Columbia River Fish Health
> Center is located nearby at Spring Creek NFH so fish health sampling,
> diagnosis, and treatment are readily available as fish health issues
> arise. The fish health goal for Carson NFH is to release healthy fish
> that are physiologically ready to migrate. Carson spring Chinook are
> released directly into the Wind River at the hatchery site and only
> pass one main stem Columbia River dam (Bonneville Dam) en route to the
> ocean. Carson spring Chinook have a much reduced potential for
> transmission of disease to other populations relative to other upriver
> programs that are subjected to the high density impacts and stresses
> of collection for transport and/or diversion through multiple bypass
> systems. Disease transmission may be triggered by increased population
> density and unusual changes in environment such as would occur at
> transport collection facilities and juvenile bypass systems.
>
> Our general conclusion at this time is that Carson NFH, as are all
> federal hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin, takes extensive
> measures to control disease and the release of diseased fish. As a
> consequence, infection of natural fish by hatchery fish does not seem
> to be a problem. However, a concern to fish health personnel is the
> decision to close the hatchery ladder to adult spring Chinook on 1
> August 2001 and 2002. These closures may keep more adults in the river
> and increase potential transmission of the infectious hematopoietic
> necrosis virus to steelhead. Closure of the hatchery ladder should be
> examined closely to determine if the fish health risks outweigh the
> potential natural production benefits.
>
> Competition- 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 Emmelt 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 et al. 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 main stem sections
> (Steward and Bjornn 1990). Although limited information exists,
> available data reveal no significant relationship between level of
> crowding and condition of fish at main stem dams. Consequently,
> survival of natural smolts during passage through the 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 the dams, the general consensus
> is that they 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 the fish
> should quickly migrate from the release site. Carson spring Chinook
> are released into the Wind River at the hatchery site and migrate
> quickly into the main stem Columbia River migration corridor based on
> juvenile out-migrant trapping and PIT tag monitoring at Bonneville
> Dam. Carson spring Chinook releases occur "low" in the Columbia Basin
> system relative to many other upriver programs, reducing opportunity
> for competitive interactions.
>
> Predation- USFWS (1994) presented information that salmonid predators
> are generally thought to prey on fish approximately one-third or less
> their size. 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). A primary concern is the
> potential impact of predation by residualized hatchery steelhead on
> naturally spawning populations.
>
> 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). However, virtually no information exists
> regarding the potential for such interactions in the marine
> environment.
>
> There is little potential for Carson spring Chinook to prey on natural
> steelhead fry or parr in the Wind River. Based on time of spawning,
> steelhead fry would be emerging from the gravel after Carson Chinook
> had exited the river. Primary spawning and early rearing stage (egg to
> parr) habitats for natural populations of Wind River steelhead are
> located in the tributaries and upper basin areas above Carson NFH.
> However, the life history rearing stage for age-1 parr to age-2 smolt
> does occur primarily in the Wind River below the hatchery. Parr move
> into the area as steelhead smolts emigrate. Age-1 parr typically range
> in size from 80-100mm and age-2 smolts from 140-200mm so neither life
> history stage would be at a size susceptible to Carson spring Chinook
> predation. Emigrant sampling conducted by WDFW indicates that
> steelhead smolts/pre-smolts are not drawn out of the Wind River system
> early by release of Carson spring Chinook (Pied Piper effect) (Dan
> Rawding, WDFW, pers. comm.). Available data indicate that Carson
> spring Chinook smolts exit the Wind River very quickly and that
> potential negative impacts on listed steelhead within the basin are
> likely to be negligible. Furthermore, the major reduction in the
> number of Carson smolts released would further reduce any potential
> impacts relative to past practices.
>
> Carson spring Chinook releases may contribute to indirect predation
> effects on listed stocks by attracting predators (birds, fish,
> pinnipeds) and/or by providing a large forage base to sustain predator
> populations. On the other hand, a large mass of hatchery fish moving
> through an area may confuse or distract predators or have a "swamping"
> effect towards predators providing them prey that are more readily
> accessible than wild stocks thereby providing a beneficial effect to
> listed species. Releasing large numbers of hatchery fish may 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 main stem 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
> effect of adding large numbers of hatchery smolts 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.
>
> Residualism- Carson spring Chinook releases are not known to
> residualize in the Wind River where they are released. Available
> emigrant trap and PIT tag monitoring information indicate a rapid exit
> of Carson spring Chinook from the Wind River.
>
> 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
> main stem 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 1999a) and Columbia River emigration occurs primarily
> from April through August. Carson's spring Chinook production is
> typically released in April at the beginning of the normal hatchery
> and natural stock emigration season. The total number of hatchery fish
> released in the Columbia River basin has declined by about 26 percent
> since 1994 (NMFS 1999c) 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 near shore 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
> near shore 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.**

*For integrated programs, identify any differences between hatchery
water and source, and "natal" water used by the naturally spawning
population. Also, describe any methods applied in the hatchery that
affect water temperature regimes or quality. Include information on
water withdrawal permits, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits, and compliance with NMFS screening criteria.*

The primary source of fish culture water used at this facility is Tyee
Springs located approximately 3/8 mile from the hatchery site. Tyee
Springs is an exceptional water source producing 44 second-feet of 44F,
high quality water. A feral brook trout, *Salvelinus fontinalus,*
population is established in Tyee Creek, which supplies the spring-water
to the hatchery. Bacterial kidney disease is present in the brook trout
population at very low levels. Attempts to eradicate the trout have been
unsuccessful. Periodic monitoring is conducted to determine the level of
infection. The presence of the trout, in the water source, has had no
noticeable effect on the hatchery fish in recent years. The other source
of fish culture water is the Wind River. This source is used on an as
needed basis, primarily in the upper earthen pond, in September after
most natural, spawned carcasses have dissipated above the hatchery
intake. While the number of spawners is limited, there is evidence from
fish health records (Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center,
1970-present) that use of this water may contribute to outbreaks of
infectious hematopoeitic necrosis, bacterial kidney disease, and
furunculosis in hatchery fish. The Wind River intake does not meet NMFS
ESA criteria for anadromous salmonids. This structure is antiquated,
unsafe, and needs replacement. Significant funding will be required to
bring the Wind River water intake structure into ESA compliance. Wind
River water withdrawals should be minimized until the screening problem
is corrected. See discussion in Section 2.2.3.

**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.**

> *(e.g. "Hatchery intake screens conform with NMFS screening guidelines
> to minimize the risk of entrainment of juvenile listed fish.").*
>
> The primary water source for the Carson NFH is Tyee Creek and is not
> accessible to anadromous fish. During limited periods of the year,
> water may be drawn from the Wind River to adjust water temperatures
> for rearing and to supplement Tyee Creek withdrawals. Intake screening
> for the Wind River withdrawal pipe does not meet current NOAA
> Fisheries ESA screening standards. However, with the reduced
> production program at Carson NFH, water withdrawal from the Wind River
> for hatchery operations is significantly reduced and short-lived when
> it does occur late in the summer. Work is underway to bring this water
> intake structure into NOAA Fisheries ESA compliance. Until the Wind
> River water intake structure is upgraded, withdrawal of Wind River
> water for hatchery operations will be minimized. A temporary screen is
> utilized when withdrawal from the Wind River is necessary. Water
> withdrawals for hatchery operations are not expected to have a
> significant negative impact on natural spawning populations. Entry of
> listed species into the hatchery through the river intake structure
> has not been observed.

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

*Provide descriptions of the hatchery facilities that are to be included
in this plan (see "Guidelines for Providing Responses" Item E),
including dimensions of trapping, holding incubation, and rearing
facilities. Indicate the fish life stage held or reared in each. Also
describe any instance where operation of the hatchery facilities, or new
construction, results in destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat designated for listed salmonid species.*

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

> Returning spring Chinook are collected for brood stock at the hatchery
> rack. Hatchery fish volitionally return to the hatchery using the
> hatchery's fish ladder, homing into Tyee Creek. There is no barrier
> dam in the Wind River at the hatchery. This is significant because the
> Wind River watershed upstream of the hatchery is an important spawning
> and rearing area for native summer steelhead trout (listed).

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

Not applicable to Carson NFH.

2.  **Broodstock holding and spawning facilities.**

> The 2 adult holding ponds are 140 feet long, 40 feet wide, and 4 feet
> deep.

3.  **Incubation facilities**.

> Eggs are loaded into vertical tray incubators at a rate of 6,000 eggs
> per tray. Egg size varies from 1,050 to 1,350 eggs per pound. During
> incubation, the water is 45-47 F and is saturated with oxygen.
> Formalin treatments (250mg/L for 15 minutes) are performed three times
> per week. Flow in the incubators is 3 gpm for eyed eggs and 5 gpm for
> fry.

4.  **Rearing facilities.**

> Rearing facilities consist of 46, 8' wide by 180' long outside
> raceways, 2 earthen ponds, and 1 adult pond.

5.  **Acclimation/release facilities.**

> Final rearing and acclimation occurs in 28 raceways, 2 earthen ponds,
> and one adult pond.

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

> There have not been any operation difficulties or disasters at Carson
> NFH in the past 6 years.

**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.**

> *(e.g. "The hatchery will be staffed full-time, and equipped with a
> low-water alarm system to help prevent catastrophic fish loss
> resulting from water system failure.").*
>
> The hatchery ladder was closed to returning adult spring Chinook
> adults on 1 August 2001 and 2002 as agreed upon by all agencies
> involved. Prior to 2001, all returning adults were allowed into the
> hatchery through August or the end of the spawning run. Keeping the
> ladder open until the end of the run is recommended to minimize
> ecological interactions and potential disease transmission between
> hatchery fish and steelhead.

**[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.**

**6.1) Source**.

List all historical sources of broodstock for the program. Be specific
(e.g., natural spawners from Bear Creek, fish returning to the Loon
Creek Hatchery trap, etc.).

> See Section 6.2.1

**6.2) Supporting information**.

> **6.2.1) History.**
>
> *Provide a brief narrative history of the broodstock sources. For
> listed natural populations, specify its status relative to critical
> and viable population thresholds (use section 2.2.2 if appropriate).
> For existing hatchery stocks, include information on how and when they
> were founded, sources of broodstock since founding, and any purposeful
> or inadvertent selection applied that changed characteristics of the
> founding broodstock.*
>
> **Production and Management History**---A Washington State operated
> fish hatchery established at the mouth of the Wind River in 1899 was
> closed in 1938 when the hatchery grounds and buildings were flooded by
> the backwaters of Bonneville Dam. The state facility supported a
> significant fall Chinook salmon run taking a high of 20,357,000 eggs
> in 1917. The Service operated this facility for a two-year period
> (1936-37). In 1938, it's final year of operation, 1,907,300 eggs were
> taken. A Special Use Permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service reserved
> 10 acres within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest for the purpose of
> establishing a fish cultural station. Construction of Carson NFH began
> in June 1937 and production was launched in December of that same year
> with the arrival of 3,000,000 fall Chinook salmon eggs from the Little
> White Salmon NFH.
>
> In 1953, protection was provided to the hatchery water supplies when
> approximately 220 acres were "\... withdrawn from all forms of
> appropriation under the public-land laws, including the mining laws
> but not the mineral-leasing laws, and reserved for use by the Fish and
> Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior as the Carson
> Fish-Cultural Station" (Federal Register Volume 18, Number 204
> Saturday, October 17, 1953). The area withdrawn was described in a
> letter from the Chief of Forest Service 05/27/53 as ". . . the
> hatchery site occupying around 20 acres, and the rights-of-way for a
> 3,385 ft and a 2,700 ft pipeline. The balance of the area lies between
> the pipelines and around the development." Primary jurisdiction of the
> withdrawn land, with the exception of the 20 acre developed hatchery
> site, remained with the Forest Service. The Forest Service, providing
> additional protection from some U.S.D.A. Forest Service management
> activities, designated approximately 130 acres surrounding Tyee
> Springs as Wildlife Special.
>
> Hatchery expansion began in 1952 and was nearly complete by the end of
> 1955. Prior to expansion, lack of outdoor facilities limited
> production to indoor rearing troughs. The expansion included the
> construction of 46 raceways, two adult holding ponds, a service
> building with space for an office, cold storage and a feed room, 3
> duplex housing units, and a paint and oil house.
>
> Fall Chinook salmon were the dominant species reared at Carson NFH
> from 1937 to 1964. Rainbow trout, black spotted trout (Yellowstone
> cutthroat), brook trout, steelhead, spring Chinook salmon, coho
> salmon, sockeye salmon (shipped as eyed eggs), and kokanee were raised
> intermittently in large numbers from 1938 through 1981 at which time
> production was switched exclusively to spring Chinook salmon. Nearly
> all of the fall Chinook were released into Tyee Creek or the main stem
> Wind River as were most of the trout. Coho were primarily released in
> the Wind and Columbia Rivers.
>
> Prior to completion of fish passage facilities at Shipherd Falls in
> 1954, Carson NFH had many false starts with Chinook salmon. Spring
> Chinook eggs were transferred from the Clackamas River, Oregon Camas
> Creek, Idaho, and a Willamette River hatchery, Oregon. All attempts to
> get Chinook salmon back to the hatchery to develop a hatchery brood
> stock failed until adequate passage was provided past Shipherd Falls.
>
> The fish ladder around Shipherd Falls is located approximately two
> miles from the mouth of the Wind River and was completed in 1955 as
> part of the Columbia River Fishery Development Program (Mitchell Act).
> Coincident to the construction of the fish ladder, was an extensive
> expansion of the hatchery. The goal of the expansion was to produce
> spring Chinook, fall Chinook, coho, blue-back (sockeye) salmon, and
> steelhead to artificially enhance natural production of the Wind River
> Basin. No more than half the fish of any run were to be artificially
> spawned with the exception of the blue-back (Lower Columbia Fisheries
> Development Program, Wind River Area, 1951). Although the expansion
> was completed, no serious attempts to raise any fish other than spring
> Chinook materialized. A long-range cooperative federal/state program
> was implemented to trap upriver spring Chinook adults at Bonneville
> Dam and transport them to Carson NFH for stock development.
>
> From 1955 thru 1964 approximately 500 spring Chinook salmon were
> trapped annually at Bonneville Dam on the Washington side of Columbia
> River and transported to the holding ponds at Carson National Fish
> Hatchery. Genetic data indicate that the Carson stock was derived from
> a mixture of upper Columbia and Snake River populations passing
> Bonneville Dam (Campton 2000 Draft). The adult fish were held and
> spawned, with their progeny reared and released at Carson. Although
> small numbers of spring Chinook were counted past the newly
> constructed Shipherd Falls fishway on Wind River in 1956,1957, and
> 1958, the first returns to Carson NFH did not occur until 1959 when
> 107 fish entered the hatchery (99 jacks, 2 adult females and 6 adult
> males). This run of spring Chinook has been maintained since then and
> continues to flourish. Annual returns to Carson NFH have averaged
> 3,797 since 1980 with over 10,000 returning in 1990, 2000 and 2001.
> Recent production and run data for spring Chinook salmon returning to
> Carson NFH is summarized and provided in Attachments 13 and 14.
>
> Spring Chinook smolt production was reduced from 2.1 to 1.42 million
> beginning with brood year 1996. Pond density was reduced to the level
> suggested as optimum by Banks (1994) to result in a more "fit" smolt,
> thus increasing post-release survival. In combination with reduced
> densities, culling of eggs from adult fish with high titer Bacterial
> Kidney Disease (BKD) has nearly eliminated fingerling and smolt losses
> to this disease. As a result of these practices, prophylactic
> erythromycin treatments are no longer necessary during juvenile
> rearing.
>
> Carson origin spring Chinook eggs, fry, and fingerlings have been
> transferred to a wide range of localities including Alaska (over 2
> million eggs in the early 1970\'s), Oregon (22.9 million eggs from
> 1957 to 1993), Idaho (15.9 million eggs from 1960 to 1980), and
> several hatcheries in Washington (29.7 million eggs from 1957 to1991).
> The strain has prospered at many locations, for example Leavenworth
> and Little White Salmon NFHs, Washington and Umatilla River, Oregon.
>
> From 1960 to 1997, juvenile hatchery steelhead (Skamania stock) were
> outplanted in the Wind River from a State of Washington hatchery.
> Hatchery outplanting of Skamania stock summer steelhead was terminated
> by WDFW in 1997 because of possible genetic and ecological impacts
> from hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead.
>
> **6.2.2) Annual size.**
>
> *Provide estimates of the proportion of the natural population that
> will be collected for broodstock.* *Specify number of each sex, or
> total number and sex ratio, if known. For broodstocks originating from
> natural populations, explain how their use will affect their
> population status relative to critical and viable thresholds.*
>
> Not applicable to Carson NFH.
>
> **6.2.3) Past and proposed level of natural fish in broodstock**.

If using an existing hatchery stock, include specific information on how
many natural fish were incorporated into the broodstock annually.

> Not applicable to Carson NFH.
>
> **6.2.4) Genetic or ecological differences**.

Describe any known genotypic, phenotypic, or behavioral differences
between current or proposed hatchery stocks and natural stocks in the
target area.

> Genetic or ecological difference between hatchery and "natural" stocks
> is unknown. However, it is likely that little genetic or ecological
> differences exist between the fish returning to Carson NFH and those
> fish spawning naturally in Wind River, as these fish are believed to
> be Carson hatchery fish that did not return to the hatchery rack.

5.  **Reasons for choosing**

> See Section 6.2.1

**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.**

Not applicable to Carson NFH.

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

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

> Adult spawners returning to Carson NFH volitionally enter the holding
> ponds and are held until ripe.

**7.2) Collection or sampling design.**

Include information on the location, time, and method of capture (e.g.
weir trap, beach seine, etc.) Describe capture efficiency and measures
to reduce sources of bias that could lead to a non-representative sample
of the desired broodstock source.

> Adult spring Chinook enter the hatchery holding pond from May to
> August. Spawning occurs in August and early September. Fish are
> collected from throughout the spectrum of the run.

**7.3)** **Identity**

> Voluntary hatchery returns are used in the spawning process. If any
> "natural" spring Chinook voluntarily enter the hatchery, they are
> incorporated into the brood stock. However, because spring Chinook are
> not native to the Wind River, these fish also would be of Carson stock
> origin.

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

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

> Current program needs for Carson NFH is 500 females and 500 males at
> time of spawning. The 1,400 adult escapement goal is to allow for the
> expected male to female ratio of 45% to 55%, respectively, to maintain
> the 1:1 spawning criteria, and to allow for the culling of eggs from
> high titer BKD infected fish. The escapement goal includes any
> pre-spawning mortalities that may occur during the extended holding
> period of adults at the hatchery.
>
> **7.4.2) Broodstock collection levels for the last twelve years (e.g.
> 1988-99), or for most recent years available:**
>
> Table 7.4.2. Numbers of fish spawned at Carson NFH, 1980-2001 (Carson
> CHMP, CRiS database).
>
> ![](media/image9.wmf)

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

### Table 7.5 depicts disposition of hatchery fish from 1987-2000, followed by a description of the term "use" (CRiS database).

![](media/image10.wmf)

**[Use Number]{.underline} [Description]{.underline}**

1.  Unknown

2.  Spawned

3.  Surplus

4.  Passed Upstream

5.  Transferred

6.  Dead in Pond

7.  Bad Fish

8.  Green Female

9.  Jumped Out

10. Poached

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

> *Describe procedures for the transportation (if necessary) and holding
> of fish, especially if captured unripe or as juveniles. Include length
> of time in transit and care before and during transit and holding*,
> *including application of anesthetics, salves, and antibiotics*.
>
> No transportation necessary. Adult fish volitionally swim into
> hatchery.

7.  **Describe fish health maintenance and sanitation procedures
    applied**.

> [**Fish Health Policy**---The Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center
> (FHC) in Underwood, WA provides fish health care for Carson NFH under
> the auspices of the published policy 713 FW in the Fish and Wildlife
> Service Manual (FWM). In addition to this policy, the 1994 annual
> report "Policies and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid
> Hatcheries", by the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT 1995)
> provide further fish health guidelines as approved by northwestern
> state, federal, and tribal entities. The directives of these two
> documents more than meet the requirements of Washington's state and
> tribal fish health entities and follow the directives in the
> Co-Managers' Salmonid Disease Control Policy of 1998.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [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 in
> the [U.S. v Oregon]{.underline} Production Advisory Committee forum
> (Objective 6) and be noted on the State of Washington Brood Document
> for the hatchery. If a fish transfer or release is not on the Brood
> Document, permits from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
> the Service, 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.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [**Fish Health Examinations**---Monthly examination: A pathologist
> from the FHC visits once per month to examine fish at the hatchery.
> From each stock and broodyear 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 a necropsy with an external and internal exam 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. The
> pathologist will also examine fish that are moribund or freshly dead
> to ascertain potential disease problems in the stocks.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [Diagnostic Examination: This is done on an as-needed basis as
> determined by the pathologist or requested by hatchery personnel.
> Moribund, freshly dead, or fish with unusual signs or behavior are
> examined for disease using necropsy and appropriate diagnostic tests.
> A pathologist will normally check symptomatic fish during a monthly
> examination.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [Ponding Examination: The first health exam of newly hatched fish
> occurs when approximately 50% of the animals are beyond the yolk sac
> stage and begin feeding. Sixty fish will be sampled and tested for
> virus.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [Pre-release Examination: At two to four weeks prior to a release or
> transfer from the hatchery, 60 fish from the stock of concern are
> necropsied and tissues taken for testing of listed pathogens. The
> listed pathogens, defined in Service policy 713 FW (Fish and Wildlife
> Service Manual) 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*.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [Adult Certification Examination: At spawning, tissues from adult fish
> are collected to ascertain viral, bacterial, and parasite infections
> and to provide a brood health profile for the progeny. The FHC tests
> for all of the listed pathogens, except *Myxobolus cerebralis*, and
> including *Ceratomyxa shasta*. The minimum number of samples collected
> is defined by 713 FW. At Carson NFH, all brood females are tested for
> *R. salmoninarum* (causative agent of BKD), with an identifying fish
> health number corresponding to each female's eggs so that selective
> culling and/or segregation is possible. This is done to reduce/control
> BKD, a vertically transmitted disease. Progeny from females with high
> levels of BKD are culled (if not needed to make production goals) or
> segregated from progeny at lower risk. The FHC provides results from
> testing within four weeks to allow management decisions.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [**Chemotherapeutant Use**---Erythromycin injections for brood stock
> are critical to the control of bacterial kidney disease that is caused
> by a vertically transmitted bacterium (*Renibacterium salmoninarum*)
> that can reside in the ovarian and seminal fluids. In addition,
> erythromycin injections control the mortality and reduce horizontal
> transmission of BKD between adults in the brood pond. The injection
> schedule is set to maximize the number of adults injected, with a goal
> of two injections for the early arriving adults and one injection for
> the later arrivals. To reduce bacterial numbers in the reproductive
> fluids and to deposit the drug inside the ova, erythromycin must be
> injected at a dosage of 20 mg drug/kg of fish at 30 days prior to
> spawning. At Carson NFH, the first injection is scheduled on about
> June 12^th^ and the second injection on about July 12th. Except for
> fish arriving too close to the time of spawning for safe handling and
> injection, all spring Chinook salmon adults kept for broodstock are
> injected. The injected drug is Erythro-200 or Erythro-100 (200 mg/ml
> or 100 mg/ml, respectively, of active erythromycin base in PEG, ethly
> actate and ethyl alcohol), to be injected in the dorsal sinus at 20 mg
> drug/kg of body weight.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [Since 1998 (brood year 97 juveniles), prophylactic medicated feedings
> to control BKD in juveniles has been deemed unnecessary. The reduced
> levels of BKD in the juveniles is attributed to lowered densities
> ([\<]{.underline} 0.25 density index and \< 1.0 flow index) during
> rearing, regular cleaning and maintenance of individual equipment
> (nets, etc.) for each pond, erythromycin injection of the adults,
> culling/segregation of progeny from highly infected females, and the
> use of Tyee Springs water for rearing. Should prophylactic feeding be
> necessary, as determined by the FHC, juveniles are to be fed at a
> daily dosage of 100 mg/kg of fish for a minimum of 21 days unless
> contraindicated by drug toxicity or needed feeding rate adjustments.
> The time and number of treatments will be dictated by circumstances.
> As of 2001, there is a temporary INAD 4333 that allows feeding of
> Aquamycin 100 (erythromycin thiocyanate in a wheat flour base) and
> prescription by a veterinarian is not required.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [Formalin treatment of adults held for brood stock is used to control
> external pathogens three times per week prior to spawning.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [Salmonid egg hardening and disinfection treatment with a
> polyvinylpyrrolidone iodine compound (approximately 1% iodine) is
> required by 713 FW policy to minimize/prevent transmittance of viral
> and bacterial pathogens. The eggs shall be disinfected in 50 ppm
> iodine in water buffered by sodium bicarbonate (at 0.01%) for 30
> minutes during the water-hardening process. Eggs received at the
> hatchery must be disinfected before they are allowed to come in
> contact with the station's water, rearing units or equipment.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [**Other Fish Health Precautions**---Unless knowledge regarding
> vertical transmittance of BKD proves otherwise, eggs from female brood
> stock with high levels of BKD (a cut-off point selected by the NFH and
> FHC managers based on results from the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent
> Assay or ELISA) will not be used in production unless egg production
> is low. If the number of brood females is low, progeny from highly
> infected females shall be segregated into rearing units apart from the
> rest of the production and absolute fastidiousness maintained as to
> using equipment that is disinfected and/or dedicated to these rearing
> units.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [Where feasible, a yearly draw down, pressure wash, and drying of the
> dirt ponds is recommended to reduce problems induced by fungus,
> bacteria and parasites. If necessary, a formalin treatment may be
> applied to the surface.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [Returning spring Chinook salmon that are allowed to remain in the
> Wind River upstream of the hatchery can serve as a reservoir of
> pathogens for the fish in the hatchery. Because of this, the standard
> practice is to rear juveniles on Tyee Creek water. Returning spring
> Chinook salmon have a relatively high incidence of infectious
> hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), ranging from 41 to 88% and in
> 1988 to 1995 when water from the river was used for rearing, the
> juveniles in the hatchery experienced small to large epizootics of
> IHNV. In addition, the juveniles also succumbed to furunculosis, which
> is found in about 1/3 of dying spring Chinook salmon adults. The risk
> from bacterial kidney disease in the juveniles is also enhanced, with
> evidence from this and other hatcheries that horizontal transmission
> occurs when infected adults are in the water supply. Since 1996 Wind
> River water is no longer used for rearing, there have been no
> isolations of IHNV, no detection of furunculosis, and a reduced
> incidence of BKD in the juveniles. A precautionary consideration might
> be to remove all spring Chinook salmon adults from the Wind River
> prior to spawning to reduce the potential of infecting native
> steelhead that could also serve as a reservoir of infection.]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> [Drugs and chemicals for treating fish are used on an "as needed"
> basis. Formalin treatments for adult brood stock are given to control
> external parasites and as a fungicide]{.mark} on eggs. Studies are
> currently (2001) underway to determine if egg antifungal treatments
> are truly necessary. It is becoming increasingly difficult to comply
> with OSHA, safety and fire codes and regulations. Minimizing chemical
> and drug use will not only reduce impacts on the local environment but
> will make compliance with the various safety regulatory agencies much
> easier, as well as reduce risks to employees. Towards that end, an
> electro-anesthesia system should be in place by the BY 2002 spawning
> season. Use of this device will virtually eliminate the need for the
> anaesthetic MS-222^4^ reducing one more chemical at the hatchery.
>
> Tank trucks and tagging trailers are disinfected before being brought
> onto the station and after use at the hatchery.
>
> Abernathy Fish Technology Center provides quarterly feed quality
> analysis to prevent disease and meet nutritional requirements of fish.
>
> [Sanitation]{.underline}

1.  All eggs brought to the facility are surface-disinfected with
    iodophor as per the USFWS Fish Health Policy.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  All equipment (nets, tanks, rain gear) is disinfected with iodophor
    between different fish/egg lots.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Different fish/egg lots are kept in separate ponds or incubation
    units. Water is not reused.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Tank trucks or tagging trailers are disinfected when brought onto
    the station. Footbaths containing iodophor are strategically located
    on the hatchery grounds (i.e., entrance to hatchery building) to
    prevent spread of pathogens.

> All of the above practices would minimize potential negative effects
> on natural populations of fish by lessening the chance for
> horizontally transmitted diseases.

**7.8) Disposition of carcasses.**

> *Include information for spawned and unspawned carcasses, sale or
> other disposal methods, and use for stream reseeding.*
>
> See Section 7.7

### 

**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.**

> *(e.g. "The risk of fish disease amplification will be minimized by
> following Co-manager Fish Health Policy sanitation and fish health
> maintenance and monitoring guidelines").*
>
> See section 3.5 for discussion on ecological interactions.

**[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.**

Specify how spawners are chosen (e.g. randomly over whole run, randomly
from ripe fish on a certain day, selectively chosen, or prioritized
based on hatchery or natural origin).

> As mentioned in section 7.2, brood stock are collected that represent
> the entire spectrum of the run. Fish are sorted and ripe females
> spawned until 100% of the fish have been checked. Green females are
> passed back to the holding ponds with an adequate number of males to
> assure a 1:1 mating ratio. The eggs collected during a given sort are
> considered an egg "take". Male spawners are randomly selected during
> the sort. Jack males are used in proportions representative of their
> return rate. In years of high jack returns, a larger proportion of
> jacks are used as spawners, up to a five percent maximum. The number
> of jacks to be spawned on a given day is subjectively defined by
> hatchery staff and is determined by jack availability and ripeness.
> After all of the adult fish being held 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.

**8.2) Males.**

Specify expected use of backup males, precocious males (jacks), and
repeat spawners.

> If the hatchery escapement goal is met, then a 1:1 spawning ratio will
> be achieved. This is one of the highest brood stock program goals at
> the hatchery. During low escapement years, males are re-used on an
> as-needed basis to achieve production goals. This practice was
> thoroughly discussed with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service hatchery
> geneticist to assure that the uncommon practice of reusing male fish
> did 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.**

Describe spawning protocols applied, including the fertilization scheme
used (such as equal sex ratios and 1:1 individual matings; equal sex
ratios and pooled gametes; or factorial matings). Explain any fish
health and sanitation procedures used for disease prevention.

> It is important to note that at no time in the recent past has the
> hatchery pooled the eggs of females prior to fertilization. Again, as
> mentioned in section 8.1 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 tricane
> methane sulfonate (MS-222). Anesthetized adults are then sexed and
> checked for ripeness. Ripe adults are killed with a blow to the head.
> Tails of all 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 stainless steel 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 fertilized
> eggs are stirred and allowed to rest for a minimum of thirty seconds,
> then washed and water hardened for one half hour in a 75 mg/L iodophor
> solution. The eggs are then transferred to plastic colanders placed in
> a trough filled with water, inside the hatchery. The eggs are
> incubated using single pass spring water, until the eggs eye-up. Once
> the eggs are eyed-up they are transferred to and held in individual
> Heath incubator trays until hatching occurs. Aseptic procedures are
> followed to assure equipment is disinfected throughout the egg
> handling process.
>
> All spawned adult spring Chinook are assigned an individual
> identification number to assist in sampling and identification of egg
> lots. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) sampling is performed
> on all spawned adults to assist with the culling or segregation of
> progeny having a high likelihood of contracting bacterial kidney
> disease. All eggs from females with medium high or high titer of
> *Renibacterium salmoninarum* (causative agent of bacterial kidney
> disease) are culled. Additional fish health samples are collected to
> determine the incidence of other pathogens.
>
> See also 7.4.2 for numbers of fish spawned from 1980-2001.

**8.4) Cryopreserved gametes**.

If used, describe number of donors, year of collection, number of times
donors were used in the past, and expected and observed viability.

Cryopreservation of gametes is not performed at Carson 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.**

> (*e.g. "A factorial mating scheme will be applied to reduce the risk
> of loss of within population genetic diversity for the small chum
> salmon population that is the subject of this supplementation
> program".*).
>
> Not applicable to Carson NFH.

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

**Specify any management *goals* (e.g. "egg 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.**

Provide data for the most recent twelve years (1988-99), or for years
dependable data are available.

Data for table 9.1.1 provided by CRiS database.

> ![](media/image11.wmf)
>
> **9.1.2) Cause for, and disposition of surplus egg takes.**
>
> *Describe circumstances where extra eggs may be taken (e.g. as a
> safeguard against potential incubation losses), and the disposition of
> surplus fish safely carried through to the eyed eggs or fry stage to
> prevent accedence of programmed levels.*
>
> Not applicable to Carson NFH.

**9.1.3) Loading densities applied during incubation.**

Provide egg size data, standard incubator flows, standard loading per
Heath tray (or other incubation density parameters).

> Eggs are loaded into vertical tray incubators at a rate of 6,000 eggs
> per tray. Egg size varies from 1,050 to 1,350 eggs per pound. Flow in
> the incubators is 3 gpm for eyed eggs and 5 gpm for fry.

**9.1.4) Incubation conditions.**

> *Describe monitoring methods, temperature regimes, minimum dissolved
> oxygen criteria (influent/effluent), and silt management procedures
> (if applicable), and any other parameters monitored.*
>
> During incubation, the water is 45-47 F and is saturated with oxygen.
> Formalin treatments (250mg/L for 15 minutes) are performed three times
> per week.

### 

**9.1.5) Ponding**.

> *Describe degree of button up, cumulative temperature units, and mean
> length and weight (and distribution around the mean) at ponding. State
> dates of ponding, and whether swim up and ponding are volitional or
> forced.*
>
> Fry are ponded into 18, 8' wide by 180' long outside raceways before
> button-up or approximately 1650 temperature units (TUs).

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

> *Describe fungus control methods, disease monitoring and treatment
> procedures, incidence of yolk-sac malformation, and egg mortality
> removal methods.*
>
> A sample of 60 fish from each lot is tested for viruses.
>
> **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.**
>
> (*e.g. "Eggs will be incubated using well water only to minimize the
> risk of catastrophic loss due to siltation.")*
>
> The hatchery backup system includes a phone dial-out notification of
> employees if a water alarm occurs. All raceways, ponds, and incubators
> are connected to the alarm system. A water bypass system is in place
> to deal with any flooding that may occur in Tyee Creek. Back-up
> generators are used to power the trash removal system.

**9.2) [Rearing]{.underline}:**

> **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 9.1.1

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

> *Include density targets (lbs fish/gpm, lbs fish/ft3 rearing volume,
> etc).*
>
> A maximum density index is 0.25. Fish growth is sampled monthly and
> extrapolated to the following month to ensure this level is not
> exceeded.

**9.2.3) Fish rearing conditions**

> *(Describe monitoring methods, temperature regimes, minimum dissolved
> oxygen, carbon dioxide, total gas pressure criteria (influent/effluent
> if available), and standard pond management procedures applied to rear
> fish).*
>
> Fry are placed in half raceways until the density index gets close to
> 0.25 when the center screens are removed to lower densities. Feeding
> frequency ranges from 1 to 8 per day and percent body weight fed
> ranges from 0.6-2-%depending upon fish size and time of year. Flow is
> 380 gpm and oxygen levels are at saturation level during inflow and
> outflow is never lower than 6 ppm. The lower earthen pond is the only
> rearing unit that gets second pass water from the upper earthen pond.
> When both ponds are in use, minimum flow is 4,000 gpm but more
> typically 4,500-5,000 gpm.
>
> **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 9.2.4. Fish growth data from Carson NFH.
>
> ![](media/image12.wmf)
>
> **9.2.5) Indicate monthly fish growth rate and energy reserve data
> (*average program performance*), if available**.
>
> See Table 9.2.4.

6.  **Indicate food type used, daily application schedule, feeding rate
    range (e.g. % B.W./day and lbs/gpm inflow), and estimates of total
    food conversion efficiency during rearing (*average program
    performance*).**

> Table 9.2.6. Lot history production for Brood Year 2000.

  -------- -------- ------------ -------- ------------ ------------ ------- ---------- ------------- ------------ ------ -------
           Fish                           Conversion                                   Temperature                       
           Food                                                                        Units                             

                                                                            Current                                      

           Pounds                                                   Cost    Length                                TUs    TUs per
                                                                    per                                           per    

  Date     per      Cumulative   Cost     Month        Cumulative   Pound   Increase   Monthly       Cumulative   Inch   Inch
           Month                                                    Gain                                          Gain   Month

  Jan-01   264      264          267      0.70         0.70         0.71    0.141      5.6           5.6          39.7   39.7

  Feb-01   1,276    1,540        1,394    0.86         0.82         0.75    0.392      11.9          17.5         32.8   30.3

  Mar-01   1,825    3,365        3,068    0.64         0.71         0.65    0.476      12.0          29.5         29.2   25.2

  Apr-01   2,585    5,950        5,180    0.58         0.65         0.56    0.491      12.5          42.0         28.0   25.4

  May-01   4,635    10,585       8,090    1.20         0.81         0.62    0.357      11.6          53.6         28.8   32.5

  Jun-01   6,915    17,500       11,942   1.39         0.97         0.66    0.338      11.7          65.3         29.7   34.6

  Jul-01   5,400    22,900       14,426   0.86         0.94         0.59    0.349      13.2          78.5         30.8   37.7

  Aug-01   9,389    32,289       18,341   0.68         0.85         0.48    0.605      12.5          91.0         28.9   20.6

  Sep-01   9,336    41,625       22,187   1.45         0.93         0.50    0.234      14.0          105.0        31.0   59.9

  Oct-01   7,208    48,833       25,343   1.66         1.00         0.52    0.146      13.5          118.5        33.5   92.7

  Nov-01   4,356    53,189       27,042   1.56         1.03         0.52    0.089      13.3          131.8        36.4   149.0

  Dec-01   4,312    57,501       28,834   1.47         1.05         0.53    0.090      13.0          144.8        39.0   143.8

  Jan-02   8,295    65,796       32,363   1.30         1.08         0.53    0.185      12.7          157.5        40.4   68.5

  Feb-02   8,425    74,221       35,795   0.93         1.06         0.51    0.244      11.3          168.8        40.8   46.4

  Mar-02   11,772   85,993       40,766   0.97         1.05         0.50    0.295      11.3          180.1        40.6   38.2

  Apr-02   7,360    93,353       43,806   0.78         1.02         0.48    0.210      11.4          191.5        41.2   54.3
  -------- -------- ------------ -------- ------------ ------------ ------- ---------- ------------- ------------ ------ -------

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

Refer to section 7.7

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

> Not available at this time for Carson NFH.

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

> Natural rearing includes the two earthen ponds with natural rock
> substrate and aquatic vegetation for cover. The raceways have a
> polyurethane coating that is pigmented to match the natural colors of
> Wind River substrate.

10. **Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize
    the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to listed
    fish under propagation.** (*e.g. "Fish will be reared to
    sub-yearling smolt size to mimic the natural fish emigration
    strategy and to minimize the risk of domestication effects that may
    be imparted through rearing to yearling size.")*

> Fish are reared to smolt-size and released to minimize the time spent
> in the migratory corridor. This minimizes potential interaction with
> any listed fish in the Wind and Columbia rivers.

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

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

*Specify any management goals (e.g. number, size or age at release,
population uniformity, residualization controls) that the hatchery is
operating under for the hatchery stock in the appropriate sections
below.*

**10.1) Proposed fish release levels.** *(Use standardized life stage
definitions by species presented in **Attachment 2**. "Location" is
watershed planted (e.g. "Elwha River").)*

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Age Class**    **Maximum       **Size        **Release      **Location**
                   Number**        (fpp)**       Date**         
  ---------------- --------------- ------------- -------------- --------------
  **Eggs**                                                      

  **Unfed Fry**                                                 

  **Fry**                                                       

  **Fingerling**                                                

  **Yearling**     1.42 million    18            3^rd^ week of  Wind River
                                                 April          
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

> **Stream, river, or watercourse:** *(include name and watershed code
> (e.g. WRIA) number)*

**Release point:** Fish are released on station.

**Major watershed:** Wind River

**Basin or Region:** Columbia River

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

*For existing programs, provide fish release number and size data for
the past three fish generations, or approximately the past 12 years, if
available. Use standardized life stage definitions by species presented
in **Attachment 2**.* *Cite the data source for this information.*

Fish release data compiled from CRiS database.

![](media/image13.wmf)

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

> *Provide the recent five year release date ranges by life stage
> produced (mo/day/yr).*
>
> *Also indicate the rationale for choosing release dates, how fish are
> released (volitionally, forced, volitionally then forced) and any
> culling procedures applied for non-migrants.*
>
> Table 10.4. Release dates, stage, number of fish, and number per pound
> of Carson National Fish Hatchery spring Chinook salmon, 1980-2002
> (CRiS Database).
>
> ![](media/image14.wmf)

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

> *Describe fish transportation procedures for off-station release.
> Include length of time in transit, fish loading densities, and
> temperature control and oxygenation* methods.
>
> Not applicable to Carson NFH.

6.  **Acclimation procedures (***methods applied and length of
    time***).**

All fish are reared and released on-station.

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

> All fish are adipose clipped prior to release to identify them as
> hatchery fish upon return. Coded-wire tagging 75,000 fish annually, as
> an index group, is conducted as part of the ongoing stock assessment
> evaluation of Carson NFH. A portion of the release is PIT tagged as
> part of a comparative survival study to address main stem Columbia
> River passage issues.

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

> See Table 7.5 for number and disposition of fish not spawned.

9.  **Fish health certification procedures applied pre-release.**

[]{.mark}

> [Pre-release Examination: At two to four weeks prior to a release or
> transfer from the hatchery, 60 fish from the stock of concern are
> necropsied and tissues taken for testing of listed pathogens. The
> listed pathogens, defined in Service policy 713 FW (Fish and Wildlife
> Service Manual) 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*.]{.mark}

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

> Fish will be released directly into the Wind River.

**10.11) 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.**

> (*e.g. "All yearling coho salmon will be released in early June in the
> lower main stem of the Green River to minimize the likelihood for
> interaction, and adverse ecological effects, to listed natural Chinook
> salmon juveniles, which rear in up-river areas and migrate seaward as
> sub-yearling smolts predominately in May").*
>
> Fish are reared to smolt-size and released to minimize the time spent
> in the migratory corridor. This minimizes potential interaction with
> any listed fish in the Wind and Columbia rivers. See section 3.5 for
> ecological interaction discussion.

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

See Section 1.10 for Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance
Indicators.

**11.1) Monitoring and evaluation of "Performance Indicators" presented
in Section 1.10**.

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

2.  **Indicate whether funding, staffing, and other support logistics
    are available or committed to allow implementation of the monitoring
    and evaluation program.**

> USFWS will continue to seek funding for monitoring and evaluation of
> performance indicators.

**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.**

> (*e.g. "The Wenatchee River smolt trap will be continuously monitored,
> and checked every eight hours, to minimize the duration of holding and
> risk of harm to listed spring Chinook and steelhead that may be
> incidentally captured during the sockeye smolt emigration period.)"*
>
> Potential take associated with monitoring and evaluation activities is
> discussed in Section 2.2.3. All monitoring and evaluation activities
> will attempt to minimize adverse effects to listed species.

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

*Provide the following information for any research programs conducted
in **direct association with the hatchery program described in this
HGMP.** **Provide sufficient detail to allow for the independent
assessment of the effects of the research program on listed fish**. If
applicable, correlate with research indicated as needed in any ESU
hatchery plan approved by the co-managers and NMFS. Attach a copy of any
formal research proposal addressing activities covered in this section.
Include estimated take levels for the research program with take levels
provided for the associated hatchery program in **Table 1**.*

**12.1) Objective or purpose.**

> There is currently no research beyond normal monitoring and evaluation
> of the stock using coded wire tags. Research projects in the coming
> years may include evaluation of NATURES rearing raceways. This study
> should have no adverse effect on listed species. Also, little data
> describing the ecological interaction of hatchery Chinook smolts with
> Endangered Species Act listed Wind River summer steelhead are
> available. Funding will be pursued to fill this data gap via the
> fiscal year 2002 FONS submissions. This will be a shared project with
> the Columbia River Fisheries Program Office.

2.  **Cooperating and funding agencies**.

> This program currently has no funding allocated for research.

3.  **Principle investigator or project supervisor and staff.**

> N/A

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

> Not listed.

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

> N/A

6.  **Dates or time period in which research activity occurs.**

> N/A

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

> N/A

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

> N/A

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 "take table" (Table 1).**

> N/A

10. **Alternative methods to achieve project objectives.**

> No alternatives are proposed at this time.

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.**

> (*e.g. "Listed coastal cutthroat trout sampled for the predation study
> will be collected in compliance with NMFS Electrofishing Guidelines to
> minimize the risk of injury or immediate mortality.").*
>
> N/A

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

*Include all references cited in the HGMP. In particular, indicate
hatchery databases used to provide data for each section. Include
electronic links to the hatchery databases used (if feasible), or to the
staff person responsible for maintaining the hatchery database
referenced (indicate email address). Attach or cite (where commonly
available) relevant reports that describe the hatchery operation and
impacts on the listed species or its critical habitat. Include any EISs,
EAs, Biological Assessments, benefit/risk assessments, or other analysis
or plans that provide pertinent background information to facilitate
evaluation of the HGMP*.

## Literature Cited

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.

Campton, D.E. 1995. Genetic effects of hatchery fish on wild populations
of Pacific salmon and steelhead: What do we really know?, p. 337‑353.
*In* H.L.,.Jr. Schramm and R.G. Piper \[ed.\] Uses and Effects of
Cultured Fishes in Aquatic Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society
Symposium 15. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

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.

Columbia River information System (CRiS) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Columbia River Fisheries Program Office, Vancouver, Washington.
Steve Pastor data manager, <Stephen_Pastor@r1.fws.gov>
http://columbiariver.fws.gov

Congleton, J.L., and 10 coauthors. 1995. Evaluation procedures for
collection, bypass, and downstream passage of outmigrating salmonids.
Draft annual report for 1995, MPE-96-10.

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.

Elliott, D.G., and R. Pascho. 1994. Juvenile fish transportation: impact
of bacterial kidney disease on survival of spring/summer Chinook salmon
stocks. 1992. Annual report of the National Biological Survey to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, Washington.

Elliot D.G., R.J. Pascho, L.M. Jackson, G.M. Mathews, and J.R. Harmon.
1997. *Renibacterium* *salmoninarum* in spring-summer Chinook salmon
smolts at dams on the Columbia and Snake River. Aquat. Animal Health 9:
114-126.

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.

Goede, R. 1986. Management considerations in stocking of diseased or
carrier fish. Pages 349-356 *in* R.H. Stroud, editor. Fish Culture in
fisheries management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

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

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.

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.

Muir, W.D., and R.L. Emmett. 1988. Food habits of migrating salmonid
smolts passing Bonnevile 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. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R.
S. Staples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington,
Idaho, Oregon, and California. U. S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Technical Memo.
NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Pettit, R. 1999a. Escapement database for spring chinook in Washington
tributaries between Bonneville and McNary Dams, 1970-1998. Columbia
River Progress Report 99-2. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Vancouver, Washington

Pettit, R. 1999b. Escapement estimates for adult spring Chinook in
Washington tributaries between Bonneville and McNary Dams, 1998.
Columbia River Progress Report 99-3. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 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.

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.

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). 2002. Comprehensive Hatchery
Management Plan for

Carson National Fish Hatchery. USFWS Planning Report: No. 1. 148 pp.

USFWS. 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.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2000. Draft Wind
River Subbasin Summary. Report for the Northwest Power Planning Council.
49 pp.

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.

WDFW and Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation.
1993. Wind River

> subbasin salmon and steelhead production plan. Columbia Basin System
> Planning. Report for the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland ,
> Oregon.

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

"I hereby certify that the information provided is complete, true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."

Name, Title, and Signature of Applicant:

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

**[SECTION 15.]{.underline} [PROGRAM EFFECTS ON OTHER (AQUATIC OR
TERRESTRIAL) ESA-LISTED POPULATIONS.]{.underline}** **(Anadromous
salmonid effects are addressed in Section 2)**

*This section will be the cornerstone for any required consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the ESA.
Accordingly hatcheries that may affect any federally listed/ proposed
**aquatic or terrestrial** species under USFWS jurisdiction need to
complete this section. By fully addressing the topics of this section,
the HGMP will provide the information necessary to initiate formal or
informal consultation under the ESA for species under USFWS
jurisdiction.*

**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}**

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

\--Internal review of bull trout and hatchery operations below McNary
Dam, February 1988.

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

**LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, CRITICAL
HABITAT, CANDIDATE SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF CONCERN THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE
VICINITY OF THE CARSON NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY**

**IN SKAMANIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON**

**(T5N R7E S32)**

**FWS REF: 1-3-02-SP-1530**

**LISTED**

> Wintering bald eagles (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*) may occur in the
> vicinity of the project. Wintering activities occur from October 31
> through March 31.
>
> Bull trout (*Salvelinus confluentus*) may occur in the vicinity of the
> project. The status of bull trout in the Wind River is unknown, but
> they have been observed below Shipherd Falls and are believed to be
> part of an adfluvial population that uses Bonneville pool (Wind River
> Subbasin Summary, WDFW).
>
> Northern spotted owl (*Strix occidentalis caurina*) occur in the
> vicinity of the project. Nesting activities occur from March 1 through
> September 30.

**PROPOSED**

None

**CANDIDATE**

None

**CRITICAL HABITAT**

> Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl has been designated in
> the vicinity of the project.

**SPECIES OF CONCERN**

> The following species of concern have been documented in the county
> where the project is located. These species or their habitat could be
> located on or near the project site. Species in **bold** were specific
> occurrences located on the database within a 1 mile radius of the
> project site. Available information from the Wind River subbasin
> summary prepared by WDFW follows the list.

Band-tailed pigeon (*Columba faciata*)

Black-tailed deer (*Odocoileus hemiomus*)

California wolverine (*Gulo gulo luteus*)

Cascades frog (*Rana cascadae*)

Larch Mountain salamander (*Plethodon larselli*)

Long-eared myotis (*Myotis evotis*)

Long-legged myotis (*Myotis volans*)

**Northern goshawk (*Accipiter gentilis*)**

Northwestern pond turtle (*Clemmys marmorata marmorata*)

Olive-sided flycatcher (*Contopus cooperi*)

Pacific fisher (*Martes pennanti*)

Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (*Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii*)

Pacific lamprey (*Lampetra tridentata*)

> Peregrine falcon (*Falco peregrinus*)

River lamprey (*Lampetra ayresi*)

**Tailed frog (*Ascaphus truei*)**

Western pond turtle (*Clemmys marmorata*)

Western toad (*Bufo boreas*)

*Penstemon barrettiae* (Barrett\'s beardtongue)

*Rorippa columbiae* (Columbia yellow-cress)

*Sisyrinchium sarmentosum* (pale blue-eyed grass)

> **Black-tailed Deer---**The Wind River is considered important habitat
> with the lower drainage wintering area for the deer.

#### Pacific Fisher---The Wind River Subbasin is part of the historical range of the pacific fisher. However, no known population of fisher exists in Washington.

> **Larch Mountain Salamander---**The larch mountain salamander has a
> restricted range that includes the Wind River subbasin.

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

> *Identify potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of
> hatchery program on species and habitat (immediate and future effects,
> including duration and area of effects). Please focus analysis on the
> impact of hatchery program on listed/proposed species reproduction,
> numbers, and distribution.*

Identify potential level of take (past and projected future).

> To comply with ESA, the Service initiated a Biological Assessment for
> the hatchery back in 1993 and subsequently initiated a Hatchery and
> Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) for Carson NFH in 1999 (USFWS 1999).
> This initial draft HGMP followed an older format and was produced
> under consultation with NOAA Fisheries to meet our ESA Section 7
> obligations. The Service and NOAA Fisheries agreed that a more
> thorough HGMP would be completed once NOAA Fisheries and the Service
> finalized the format. The Service is now in the process of completing
> this more detailed HGMP. This document, considered a "phase I draft",
> will describe current operations at the hatchery and will comply with
> ESA obligations, covering both NOAA Fisheries and Service trust
> species. It is anticipated that the phase I drafts for all hatcheries,
> including Carson, will be distributed to the co-managers and other
> interested parties and will serve as the focus for a collaborative,
> phase II part of the process. Collaboration meetings should begin in
> late 2002 and continue through the first half of 2003. Drafts for any
> proposed new project/programs will be developed by appropriate
> proponents and also discussed and reconciled during phase II. This
> process will produce phase II draft plans which will be provided to
> subbasin planning processes and the appropriate technical recovery
> team (TRT) for consideration and interaction with those groups. For
> HGMPs that involve irreconcilable differences, the phase II options
> could create "scenarios" that can be presented to the TRT for
> consideration and advice. The phase II draft plans will be completed
> and set aside (parked) until all HGMPs relevant to an Evolutionarily
> Significant Unit (ESU) are completed, allowing for ESU-wide
> considerations and feedback with the TRT/Recovery Planning processes.
> The HGMP collaborators will incorporate TRT advice as appropriate to
> ensure consistency with broader recovery objectives. This step
> culminates in Phase III drafts, which become final and ready to
> implement after approval by NOAA Fisheries and the Service.

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

> Identify actions taken to minimize potential effects to listed species
> and their habitat.
>
> **Bull Trout**\-\-- The status of bull trout in the Wind River is
> unknown, but they have been observed below Shipherd Falls and are
> believed to be part of an adfluvial population that uses Bonneville
> pool (Wind River Subbasin Summary, WDFW). No reproducing, resident\`
> population of bull trout is known to exist in the Wind River (WDFW,
> 1997). As a benefit, hatchery juveniles may be providing a forage base
> benefit to adfluvial bull trout. The conclusion at this time is that
> hatchery operations will not adversely affect bull trout.

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

SEE SECTION 13 FOR REFERENCES AND CITATIONS