**HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN**

**(HGMP)**

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

**Hatchery Program:**

**Species or**

**Hatchery Stock:**

**Agency/Operator:**

**Watershed and Region:**

**Date Submitted:**

**Date Last Updated:**

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

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

######### Spring Chinook Program - Little White Salmon/Willard NFH Complex.

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

> Carson stock Spring Chinook Salmon (*Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*). This
> population is not listed under the Endangered Species Act.

**1.3) Responsible organization and individuals**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-   Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)
    receives production for tribal restoration program.

-   U.S. *v* Oregon parties - co-managers of fisheries.

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

> Funding for the program is from Mitchell Act funds administered by
> NMFS. The Little White Salmon NFH has a staff of thirteen full time
> employees and an annual budget of \$1.14 million in Fiscal Year 2002.
> The budget for the spring Chinook program was \$350,476 from Mitchell
> Act funds.

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

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

**1.6) Type of program.**

> Isolated harvest

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

> Little White Salmon NFH Program:
>
> The purpose is to successfully rear and release 1,000,000 locally
> adapted yearling spring Chinook salmon smolts for release on-station
> to help mitigate (production for fisheries) for fish losses in the
> Columbia River Basin caused by mainstem hydro-power project
> construction and other developments. Fish releases contribute to
> important terminal area tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries,
> and non-tribal sport fisheries, while providing adequate escapement
> for hatchery production. Mainstem commercial fisheries have been
> precluded in recent years because of the very low abundance of
> naturally spawning populations of spring Chinook (principally from the
> Snake River and upper Columbia River basins) that are now listed under
> the ESA. Hatchery operations strive to meet mitigation requirements of
> the Mitchell Act and the Columbia River Fish Management Plan goals
> (U.S. *v* Oregon). The Columbia River Fish Management Plan is
> currently under renegotiation, however, current production goals are
> generally consistent with the production goals in the expired plan.

Umatilla Program:

> The purpose is to rear and transfer locally adapted spring Chinook
> salmon to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
> (CTUIR). Juveniles are released into the Umatilla River, Oregon in
> cooperation with the State of Oregon and the Umatilla Tribe to support
> development of self sustaining, naturally spawning fish. Adults
> returning to the Umatilla River are collected at Threemile Dam. A
> small percentage of fish are collected and spawned. The remaining fish
> are then trucked and released upstream and allowed to spawn naturally
> to continue development of locally adapted, self-sustaining and
> naturally spawning populations. A total of 350,000 juveniles are
> transported to and reared at the Little White Salmon/Willard National
> Fish Hatchery Complex for one and one-half years and transferred to
> acclimation ponds on the Umatilla River operated by the CTUIR. This
> project is funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and is
> a cooperative effort between the CTUIR, the Oregon Department of Fish
> and Wildlife (ODFW), and the Service. The ODFW and CTUIR are
> responsible for the monitoring and evaluation program necessary to
> determine the success of this restoration effort. The Umatilla program
> is not evaluated in this HGMP. It will be covered under a separate
> HGMP for the BPA funded Umatilla tribal program.

**1.8) Justification for the program.**

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

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

The following standards are adapted from IHOT (1995).

1\) Hatchery Production

Produce 1.0 million spring Chinook smolts for on-station release.

Produce 350,000 spring Chinook smolts for transfer.

2\) Minimize interactions with other fish populations through proper
rearing and release strategies.

3\) Maintain stock integrity and genetic diversity of each unique stock
through proper management of genetic resources.

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

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

6\) Communicate effectively with other salmon producers and managers in
the Columbia River Basin.

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

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

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

**1.11) Expected size of program.**

> **1.11.1) Proposed annual broodstock collection level (maximum number
> of adult fish).**
>
> A total of 900 adult fish are required for normal full production. See
> Section 6.2.2 and Section 7.4.2.
>
> **1.11.2) Proposed annual fish release levels (maximum number) by life
> stage and location.**

+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Life Stage**  | **Release Location**     | **Annual Release Level** |
+=================+==========================+==========================+
| **Eyed Egg**    | N/A                      | N/A                      |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Unfed Fry**   | N/A                      | N/A                      |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Fry**         | N/A                      | ###### N/A               |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Fingerling**  | N/A                      | N/A                      |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Yearling**    | Little White Salmon R.   | 1,000,000                |
|                 |                          |                          |
|                 | Transfer to Umatilla     | 350,000                  |
|                 | River                    |                          |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+

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

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

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Measur         | [Hatchery       | [5-Year         | [Ran            |
| es]{.underline} | Go              | Avera           | ge]{.underline} |
|                 | al]{.underline} | ge]{.underline} |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Adult           | []{.mark}       | []{.mark}       | 1,191-8,243     |
| Capture^1^      |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | 900             | 4,485           |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Fish            | []{.mark}       | []{.mark}       | []{.mark}       |
| Releases^1^     |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | 1 Million       | 0.99 M          | 0.68-1.12M      |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| []{.mark}       | 0               | 0               | 0               |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| Egg             |                 |                 |                 |
| Transfers^1^    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Fish            | 350,000^3^      | 375,807         | 350,545 -       |
| Transfers^1^    |                 |                 | 430,457         |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Adults Passed   | 0               | 0               | 0               |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| Upstream^1^     |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Percent         | 0.2%            | 0.24%           | 0.03% - 0.55%   |
| Survival,       |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| Juvenile to     |                 |                 |                 |
| Adult^2^        |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Smolt Size at   | []{.mark}       | []{.mark}       | 14.3-15.9       |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| Release         | 15              | 15.26           |                 |
| (fish/lb)^1^    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

^1^ Five year average and range from calendar years1995-1999

^2^ Five year average and range from completed brood years1991-1995

^3^ Umatilla Program goal (begun in 1997)

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

The on-station program began in 1967.

**1.14) Expected duration of program.**

Ongoing.

**1.15) Watersheds targeted by program.**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Addendum A for non-salmonid species.

> **2.2.1) [Description of ESA-listed salmonid population(s) affected by
> the program.]{.underline}**
>
> There are no ESA listed salmonids that will be directly affected by
> the program in the target watershed. Refer to section 3.5 of this
> document for a detailed description of possible interactions
> throughout the migration corridor.
>
> **- Identify the ESA-listed population(s) that will be
> [directly]{.underline} affected by the program.** There are no ESA
> listed salmonids that will be directly affected by the program in the
> target watershed. Refer to section 3.5 of this document for a detailed
> description of possible interactions throughout the migration
> corridor.
>
> **- Identify the ESA-listed population(s) that may be
> [incidentally]{.underline} affected by the program.**
>
> There are no ESA listed salmonids that are anticipated to be affected
> by the program in the target watershed. Refer to section 3.5 of this
> document for a detailed description of possible interactions
> throughout the migration corridor.
>
> **2.2.2) [Status of ESA-listed salmonid population(s) affected by the
> program.]{.underline}**
>
> \- **Describe the status of the listed natural population(s) relative
> to Acritical@ and Aviable@ population thresholds**.
>
> There are no known listed natural origin salmonids on natural spawning
> grounds in the Little White Salmon River.
>
> **- Provide the most recent 12 year (e.g. 1988-present)
> progeny-to-parent ratios, survival data by life-stage, or other
> measures of productivity for the listed population. Indicate the
> source of these data.**
>
> There are no known listed natural populations in the Little White
> Salmon River.
>
> **- Provide the most recent 12 year (e.g. 1988-1999) annual spawning
> abundance estimates, or any other abundance information. Indicate the
> source of these data.** There are no known listed natural populations
> in the Little White Salmon River.
>
> **- Provide the most recent 12 year (e.g. 1988-1999) estimates of
> annual proportions of direct hatchery-origin and listed natural-origin
> fish on natural spawning grounds, if known.**
>
> This data is not available. There are no known listed natural
> populations in the Little White Salmon River.
>
> **2.2.3) [Describe hatchery activities, including associated
> monitoring and evaluation and research programs, that may lead to the
> take of listed fish in the target area, and provide estimated annual
> levels of take.]{.underline}**
>
> **- Describe hatchery activities that may lead to the take of listed
> salmonid populations in the target area, including how, where, and
> when the takes may occur, the risk potential for their occurrence, and
> the likely effects of the take**.
>
> In the event that listed species enter the facility during broodstock
> collection of adult spring Chinook, there is potential to take listed
> species through observation, migrational delay, capture, and handling
> during ladder operation at the Little White Salmon NFH between mid-May
> and early August. Trapping and handling devices and methods may lead
> to injury to listed fish through descaling, delayed migration and
> spawning, or delayed mortality as a result of injury or increased
> susceptibility to predation.
>
> \- **Provide information regarding past takes associated with the
> hatchery program, (if known) including numbers taken, and observed
> injury or mortality levels for listed fish**.
>
> No listed species have been recorded entering the hatchery facility
> during spring Chinook operations.
>
> \-**Provide projected annual take levels for listed fish by life stage
> (juvenile and adult) quantified (to the extent feasible) by the type
> of take resulting from the hatchery program (e.g. capture, handling,
> tagging, injury, or lethal take).**

No take of listed species is anticipated.

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

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

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

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

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

The spring Chinook program is consistent with:

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

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

-   Mitchell Act

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

-   Umatilla Annual Operation Plan

-   IHOT Policies and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid
    Hatcheries

This HGMP is consistent with these plans and commitments.

**3.3) Relationship to harvest objectives.**

> Harvest management decisions are made by Washington Dept. of Fish &
> Wildlife in consultation with state, tribal, and federal co-managers.
>
> **3.3.1) Describe fisheries benefiting from the program, and indicate
> harvest levels and rates for program-origin fish for the last twelve
> years (1988-99), if available.**
>
> Table A. Coded-wire tag recoveries from brood years 1990-1995 spring
> Chinook salmon. For further details, see Pastor (2001).

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Brood Year     Harvest \# of  Hatchery       Total Return   Harvest Rate
                 Adults         Return                        

  1990           0              260            260            0.0%

  1991           0              232            232            0.0%

  1992           2,531          2,895          5,426          46.6%

  1993           1,055          1,246          2,301          45.8%

  1994           18             352            370            4.9%

  1995           328            2,381          2,709          12.1%
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

Graph A. Adult Harvest of Little White Salmon NFH Spring Chinook Salmon.
(Pastor, 2001). Analysis of tag recoveries from Brood Years 1980 to
1994.

![](media/image2.png){width="6.495138888888889in"
height="4.7131944444444445in"}

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

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

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

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

1\) negatively impact program;

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

2\) be negatively impacted by program;

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

3\) positively impact program;

> Returning 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.

4\) be positively impacted by program;

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

The 1999 Biological Assessment for the Operation of Hatcheries Funded by
the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Columbia River Fisheries
Development Program (NMFS 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. The reader is referred to the
discussion in those documents.

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

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

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

2\. Brood stock collection- Little White Salmon spring Chinook are
Carson stock and are not part of either the lower Columbia River Chinook
ESU, which is listed as threatened, or the mid-Columbia River spring
Chinook ESU which is not listed. Returning spring Chinook are collected
for brood stock at the Little White Salmon NFH rack near the mouth of
the Little White Salmon River. Stray hatchery spring Chinook from other
locations (primarily from Carson NFH and occasionally from upper
Columbia and Snake River facilities) do occur at Little White Salmon
NFH. Incidental collection of listed upper Columbia and Snake River
spring Chinook are believed to be very low based on CWT recoveries and
should not have a significant impact on the listed stocks or the genetic
integrity of the brood stock at the Complex.

3\. Genetic introgression- Little White spring Chinook are not known to
contribute to a significant straying problem outside of the local area.
There is essentially very little, if any, productive spawning habitat
below Little White Salmon NFH at the mouth of the Little White Salmon
River (Drano Lake). Historical spring Chinook habitat was inundated by
Bonneville Pool when Bonneville Dam was constructed in 1938. There is no
indication that the Carson stock of spring Chinook reared and released
at Little White Salmon NFH is negatively impacting other listed stocks
through straying and genetic introgression. The very low numbers of
non-Carson stock strays that occur on occasion in the Little White
Salmon brood stock collection are at a level that should not
significantly alter the genetic structure of the Carson stock used in
Little White's spring Chinook production program.

4\. Hatchery production (density dependent effects)- Complex spring
Chinook releases from the facility are moderate in magnitude (typically
about 1.0 million spring Chinook smolts) relative to other Columbia
River spring Chinook production programs. This level of release is not
expected to cause serious density dependent effects in the mainstem
Columbia River. Complex spring Chinook are assumed to migrate quickly
after release like their Carson NFH counterparts, however, these fish
are not currently PIT tagged to verify out-migration timing.

5\. Disease- Under the guidance of the USFWS Lower Columbia River Fish
Health Center (LCRFHC), Little White Salmon NFH follows the US Fish and
Wildlife Service's fish health policy (713 FW in the Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual) and Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT 1995)
protocols to produce healthy fish and prevent disease transmission (see
sections 9.1.6 and 9.2.7). Most pathogens enter hatcheries through
returning adult fish, surface water supplies, and other mechanisms
involving direct contact with naturally spawning fish. Procedures used
at the hatchery and the LCRFHC reduce pathogen transmission from these
sources. The fish health goal for Little White Salmon NFH spring Chinook
is to release healthy fish that are physiologically ready to migrate.

Hatchery 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).

Number range CHAPTERThe hatchery takes appropriate measures to control
disease and the release of diseased fish, including chemotherapeutant
administration to adults and juveniles (see sections 7.7 and 9.2.7). In
addition, Little White Salmon NFH spring Chinook are released directly
into the Little White Salmon River at the hatchery site near the river
mouth and pass only one mainstem Columbia River dam (Bonneville Dam) en
route to the ocean. Therefore, these spring Chinook have a much reduced
potential for transmission of disease to other populations relative to
other upriver programs which are subjected to the high density impacts
and stresses of collection for transport and/or diversion through
multiple bypass systems. Little White Salmon NFH takes extensive
measures to control disease and the release of diseased fish. As a
consequence, infection of natural fish by hatchery fish would not appear
to be a problem.

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

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

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

The release of hatchery smolts that are physiologically ready to migrate
is expected to minimize competitive interactions as they should quickly
migrate from the release site. The Complex's spring Chinook are released
into the Little White Salmon River at the Little White Salmon NFH site.
It is assumed that they migrate quickly into the mainstem Columbia River
migration corridor en route to the ocean, as does the same stock
released from Carson NFH, thereby reducing the potential for competitive
interactions with listed stocks. There have been no mortalities recorded
during saltwater challenges conducted during the last three brood years
at the Complex. Released fish have been fully smolted and begin their
downstream migration immediately following release. In addition, blood
plasma collected from brood year 1995 spring Chinook was analyzed for
sodium and potassium concentrations. Those results also indicated that
the spring Chinook are functional smolts at time of release. PIT tagging
would provide additional, valuable information on the timing of
emigration, but would require additional funding. Because Complex spring
Chinook releases occur "low" in the Columbia Basin system relative to
many other upriver programs, there is reduced opportunity for
competitive interactions.

Other observations leading to conclusions regarding the behavior of
released smolts included physiological and survival data collected
during recent NATURES rearing studies conducted for spring Chinook at
Little White Salmon NFH. For several brood years, researchers from the
(now) Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey
collected data to evaluate the use of cover (simulating natural riparian
cover) during hatchery rearing to improve the post-release survival of
hatchery-reared salmon and to alter their behavior to more closely match
wild (naturally produced) fish. In addition to this study,
hatchery-reared fish were exposed to predators six months prior to
release in an attempt to "teach" them to avoid predators following
release. As many as six northern pikeminnow were placed in each of three
raceways as part of this predator avoidance study. Preliminary
physiological and survival data collected to date for both studies
indicate that, although there were no differences detected among
treatment groups when compared to control groups, the behavior of
hatchery-produced fish from the Complex appears to be normal when
compared to naturally produced fish.

There are no natural fish populations that spawn in the target area.
Fish headed further up the Columbia River may dip into Drano Lake and
hold in the favorable water conditions. Characteristic of steelhead,
this species holds in Drano Lake during periods of low Columbia River
flow and high water temperature, preferring the cooler Little White
Salmon River water during the period of July through August. Since the
majority of spring Chinook have entered the hatchery, and this period is
sooner than migration of hatchery fall Chinook and coho, it is doubtful
that there is any interaction between program fish and any natural fish.

The natural spawning spring Chinook salmon in the Wind River is not a
targeted population of the Complex's program. That hatchery-induced
population in the Wind River is considered a depressed, non-native,
composite production (wild and hatchery fish) population by WDFW (WDF et
al. 1993). 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 White Salmon River is
considered extinct (Nehlsen 1991), primarily attributable to dam
construction and habitat degradation (Myers et al. 1998).

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

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

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

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

8\. Residualism- Complex spring Chinook releases are not known to
residualize in the Little White Salmon or Columbia rivers. PIT tagging
would help to provide information relative to hatchery out-migration
questions.

9\. Migration corridor/ocean- The hatchery production ceiling called for
in the Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon of approximately
197.4 million fish (1994 release levels) has been incorporated by NMFS
into their recent hatchery biological opinions to address potential
mainstem corridor and ocean effects as well as other potential
ecological effects from hatchery fish. Although hatchery releases occur
throughout the year, approximately 80 percent occur from April to June
(NMFS 1999a) and Columbia River out-migration occurs primarily from
April through August. The Complex's spring Chinook production is
typically released in April, at the beginning of the general
out-migration season for other hatchery and natural populations. The
total number of hatchery fish released in the Columbia River basin has
declined by about 26 percent since 1994 (NMFS 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 nearshore areas affected by upwelling
(Chapman and Witty 1993). To date, research has not demonstrated that
hatchery and naturally produced salmonids compete directly in the ocean,
or that the survival and return rates of naturally produced and hatchery
origin fish are inversely related to the number of hatchery origin
smolts entering the ocean (Enhancement Planning Team 1986). If
competition occurs, it most likely occurs in nearshore areas when (a)
upwelling is suppressed due to warm ocean temperatures and/or (b) when
the abundance or concentration of smolts entering the ocean is
relatively high. However, we are only beginning to understand the
food-chain effects of cyclic, warm ocean conditions in the eastern north
Pacific Ocean and associated impacts on salmon survival and productivity
(Beamish 1995; Mantua et al. 1997). Consequently, the potential for
competition effects in the ocean cannot be discounted (Emlen et al.
1990).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Fish enter the spawning facility volitionally via a fish ladder that
> opens immediately below the hatchery barrier dam. Once inside the
> trap, the fish are held in a 30\' X 90\' X6' holding pond.

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

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

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

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

**5.4) Incubation facilities**.

> Incubation is done in the nursery building about 0.5 km from the
> spawning facility using up to 36 of 132 stacks of vertical incubators
> with flows set initially to 3 gpm and raised to 5 gpm at hatching.
> Water for incubation is primarily from springs and a well, with
> screened river water available if needed. The eggs are treated with
> 1,667 ppm formalin for fifteen minutes between three and five times a
> week to control fungus. The formalin is delivered using a newly
> constructed delivery system which ensures proper dilutions and timing.
> The installation of egg isolation units has been proposed to prevent
> potential disease transmission from eggs transported from outside the
> facility to Little White Salmon stocks.

**5.5) Rearing facilities.**

> Rearing is performed in newly constructed (2001-2002) 10\' X 110\' X
> 3.5\' mocha colored raceways with maximum flows of approximately 800
> gpm, as well as in nine 8' X 80' concrete raceways (flows up to 470
> gpm) and two new 10' X 210' X 3.5' colored concrete raceways (flows up
> to 2,000 gpm). Baffles are being evaluated in the new raceways to
> determine their usefulness with these fish.

**5.6) Acclimation/release facilities.**

> Fish are released directly from the raceways into the Little White
> Salmon River below the barrier dam.

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

There have been no operational difficulties or disasters that have led
to significant fish mortality.

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

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

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

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

**6.1) Source**.

On-station releases into the Little White Salmon River:

-   Adult spring Chinook returning to the Little White Salmon River.

Umatilla program:

-   Adult spring Chinook salmon collected at Three Mile Dam on the
    Umatilla River by CTUIR.

**6.2) Supporting information**.

**6.2.1) History.**

> The spawning of spring Chinook salmon at the Complex first occurred in
> 1967 when fish of unknown origin returned to the Little White Salmon
> River (Nelson and Bodle 1990). These fish could have been strays or
> descendants from previous attempts to rear spring Chinook from the
> McKenzie River (1916 brood), Salmon River (1925 brood), or Carson
> stock reared at Willard during the 1964 brood year. Since that time,
> fish were released into the Little White Salmon River from Willamette
> stock (Eagle Creek NFH), South Santiam State Fish Hatchery, Klickitat
> River stock, Ringold Springs stock, and Carson stock. The present
> stock is considered a derivative of the Carson stock. Part of the 1995
> brood included adult fish trapped on the White Salmon River (progeny
> of Carson stock reared and released at Big White Salmon Ponds). Fish
> originating from White Salmon River adults (released in 1997) were the
> only fish released since 1985 that did not originate from adults
> returning to the Complex.
>
> **6.2.2) Annual size.**
>
> Spring Chinook enter the hatchery holding ponds from mid-April to
> mid-August. Spawning occurs from early August to early September. A
> summary of numbers spawned from 1991 through 2002 is found in Section
> 7.4.2. Total adult returns ranged from 615 to 8,243, averaging 2,982
> per year for this period. The annual escapement goal is 900 adults
> returning to the hatchery (see Section 1.11.1 and Section 7.4.2).
>
> **6.2.3) Past and proposed level of natural fish in broodstock**.
>
> As stated in Bryant (1949), the backwater from Bonneville Dam covers
> all of the area that was originally suitable for salmon spawning. In
> addition, a natural waterfall located about 0.8 kilometers above the
> hatchery barrier dam (built in 1974) had historically blocked access
> to spawning habitat located above the hatchery. Fluctuations in the
> level of the Bonneville Pool are seen immediately below the barrier
> dam. Historical literature reviews indicate that the only original
> native stock were the Tule fall Chinook and late-run coho (Nelson and
> Bodle 1990). Both are extinct from the watershed and there are no
> naturally spawning populations. Remnants of the original Tule stock
> were transferred to Spring Creek NFH during the mid-1980\'s. There has
> been no past or proposed future level of natural fish used as brood
> stock for the spring Chinook currently produced at the Little White
> Salmon/Willard NFH Complex.
>
> **6.2.4) Genetic or ecological differences**.
>
> As stated in section 2.2.2 above, there are no natural stocks in the
> Little White Salmon River.
>
> **6.2.5) Reasons for choosing.**
>
> All stocks of spring Chinook were chosen due to their availability.
> Refer to Section 1.7 of this document for further details.

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

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

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

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

Adults.

**7.2) Collection or sampling design.**

All fish production for the Complex is initiated by adult collection at
Little White Salmon NFH. An impassable natural waterfall, located
approximately 0.8 kilometers upstream of the Little White Salmon
facility prevents adult passage to Willard NFH.

> Returning adult fish migrate through Drano Lake (backwater of the
> Bonneville Pool at the mouth of the Little White Salmon River) and up
> the Little White Salmon River, before entering the hatchery ladder. To
> facilitate and maximize adult collection, further migration is
> prevented by a concrete barrier dam. Constructed in 1974, the fish
> ladder and barrier dam were built in anticipation of new peaking
> levels at Bonneville Dam (USFWS 1987). River water is supplied to two
> 30\' wide X 90\' long X 6\' deep adult holding ponds. Water exiting
> the ponds, in addition to a separate attraction water intake, supplies
> water to the fish ladder. Adult fish migrating up the ladder enter the
> ponds through a finger weir.
>
> The hatchery ladder is opened during the 3rd week of April to begin
> the collection of adult spring Chinook. Historical records show that a
> majority of the fish enter the hatchery during the month of May,
> however, the ladder is operated throughout the spawning period to
> ensure collection of fish from the entire spectrum of the run.
> Spawning historically occurs between August 1 and September 7. The
> hatchery ladder is closed at the end of spawning to prevent the
> possible collection of stray tule fall Chinook from Spring Creek NFH.

During the later part of the spring Chinook return some steelhead may
enter the adult holding ponds. Procedures at the Complex require
unmarked steelhead (presumably wild) to be returned to the river
immediately if they have not been exposed to the anesthetic tricaine
methane sulfonate (MS-222). The steelhead are returned to the river via
a return tube that empties below the entrance to the fish ladder.
Generally, the steelhead are removed from the adult holding ponds as the
Chinook are sorted for spawning. Unmarked steelhead exposed to MS-222
will be returned to the river only if the full 21 days of required
holding for chemical withdrawal is possible. The steelhead are to be
placed into a holding raceway for 21 days and then transported to an
area below the hatchery barrier dam and released. All marked steelhead
(adipose fin clipped hatchery strays) will be retained. Coded-wire tags
will be collected from all adipose/left ventral clipped steelhead to
determine the origin (see section 10.4.5). The expected number of
steelhead entering the adult holding ponds each year is low. The numbers
of steelhead entering the holding ponds from 1991 through 1999 has
ranged from 0 to 14 (1995). The average is less than 4 per year. Records
have been kept of marked versus unmarked steelhead entering the hatchery
since 1998. In 1998 three steelhead entered the hatchery, one of which
was unmarked. No steelhead entered the hatchery in 1999.

**7.3) Identity.**

> Spring Chinook released into the Little White Salmon River are mass
> marked using an adipose fin clip. The mass marking program commenced
> with Brood Year 2000. A portion of the population (approximately 10%)
> also receive a coded wire tag. All spring Chinook must be run through
> a wire tag detector to facilitate tag recovery. Tag code recoveries
> are reported to the Pacific States Marine Fish Commission (PSMFC)
> following the spawning season.

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

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

Approximately 900 adult spring Chinook need to return to the hatchery
for full normal production. The sex ratio of returning adult spring
Chinook is skewed towards females with approximately 65% of the return
being female with 35% of the run male.

> **7.4.2) Broodstock collection levels for the last twelve years (e.g.
> 1988-99), or for most recent years available:**
>
> The following table shows the number of fish spawned. Total number of
> returns to the hatchery may be higher (see Section 6.2.2). Data
> source: Spawning and Run Summary for indicated years as found in the
> CRiS database.

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

  **1991**   731          446        0                        

  **1992**   747          432        0                        

  **1993**   799          736        0                        

  **1994**   302          228        3                        

  **1995**   202          182        21                       

  **1996**   539          508        12                       

  **1997**   401          396        3                        

  **1998**   653          367        14                       

  **1999**   424          368        12                       

  **2000**   419          383        28                       

  **2001**   405          379        12                       

  **2002**   438          424        3                        

  Average    505          404        8                        
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

> It is generally not required to transport adult spring Chinook. The
> holding period for spring Chinook is quite long, up to four months.
> During that time, adult fish that are to be spawned are injected with
> erythromycin to control bacterial kidney disease (BKD). They are also
> treated with formalin at a rate of 167 ppm in a one hour flowthrough
> treatment three to five times a week to control fungus growth. The
> Complex goal for all species is to achieve a 2.5% or less pre-spawning
> mortality rate during the holding period.

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

> All female spring Chinook salmon held for broodstock are injected with
> 10 mg/kg erythromycin to prevent pre-spawning mortality by bacterial
> kidney disease (BKD), and to reduce vertical transmission of its
> causative agent to their progeny. The more commonly administered dose
> of erythromycin (20 mg/kg) has been shown to cause an increase in
> pre-spawning mortality in this stock of fish due to toxicity of the
> drug. The lower dose remains effective in reducing mortalities from
> BKD in the broodstock and reducing vertical transmission to the
> progeny (Haukenes and Moffitt, 1999; Haukenes and Moffitt, 2002).
> Formalin treatments at 167 ppm for one hour, three to five times per
> week control fungus and external parasites during the holding period.
> Sanitation procedures meet or exceed the minimum guidelines set forth
> in the IHOT report (1995) and are described in detail in section 8.3.

At spawning, tissues from adult fish are collected to ascertain viral,
bacterial, and parasitic infections and to provide a brood health
profile. The minimum number of samples collected is defined by USFWS
policy 713 FW (Fish and Wildlife Service Manual). Personnel from the
Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center test for the parasite
*Ceratomyxa shasta* and all of the listed pathogens: infectious
hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), infectious pancreatic necrosis
virus (IPNV), viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV), *Renibacterium
salmoninarum* (BKD)*, Aeromonas salmonicida* (furunculosis)*, Yersinia
ruckeri* (enteric redmouth); except for *Myxobolus cerebralis*. All
female broodstock are tested for BKD by the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent
assay (ELISA). The results of this test allow the hatchery to cull or
segregate eggs from the females with high titers of the antigen,
decreasing the possibility that the vertically transmitted disease (from
mother to progeny) could be transmitted horizontally (from progeny to
progeny). The LCRFHC provides results from this test within 28 days to
allow for management decisions (see section 9.1.3). []{.mark}

**7.8) Disposition of carcasses.**

> During the early part of the run, these fish are not chemically
> treated and are fit for human consumption. First priority for excess
> carcasses is provided to the Yakama Indian Nation ceremonial and
> subsistence program. All other excess carcasses are processed by
> contractors for the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Prisons
> Program. After the erythromycin injections the fish are not fit for
> human consumption and are either sent to a rendering plant or are
> buried on station.
>
> Carcass outplanting for nutrient enhancement is not currently a goal
> of this program. However, if current policies change to include
> nutrient enhancement, outplanting will be done as per LCRFHC
> recommendations to minimize potential disease transmission to resident
> and anadromous fish. These recommendations include outplanting
> carcasses with no gross signs of disease, heat-treating or
> eviscerating adult carcasses and removing heads before outplanting,
> and placing carcasses downstream of the hatchery intake.

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

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

####### SECTION 8. MATING

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

**8.1) Selection method.**

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

**8.3) Fertilization.**

> It is important to note that at no time in the recent past has the
> Complex pooled the eggs of females prior to fertilization. Again, as
> mentioned in section 7.2 above, an intense effort is made to achieve a
> 1:1 spawning ratio. The following is a detailed description of the
> spawning protocol.
>
> Adults are crowded from holding ponds and anesthetized using MS-222.
> Anesthetized adults are then sexed and checked for ripeness. Ripe
> adults are selected and euthanized. Tails of all ripe females spawned
> are cut to allow bleeding for approximately 3-5 minutes. Each female
> is tagged with a numbered tag that is recorded and remains with the
> eggs from that fish until the eggs are eyed up to facilitate tracking
> of the eggs (see Section 9.1.3). Prior to removing the eggs, Fish
> Health Center employees collect samples of ovarian fluid from 150 fish
> to test for the presence of viruses. Eggs are removed using a Wyoming
> knife and collected in iodophor-disinfected colanders to drain ovarian
> fluid. The eggs are then transferred to iodophor-disinfected stainless
> steel 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 to a maximum of 5%. The numbered buckets
> containing eggs and sperm of individual (paired) fish are then
> transferred to the Little White Salmon hatchery nursery building (0.5
> kilometers away) where water is added to activate the sperm. The above
> described process takes from 5-10 minutes. The fertilized eggs are
> gently stirred and allowed to rest for a minimum of thirty seconds,
> then washed and water hardened for one half hour in a 75 ppm active
> iodine solution in individual Heath incubator trays. The eggs are
> incubated using single pass spring and/or well water.
>
> Aseptic procedures are followed to assure the disinfection of
> equipment throughout the egg handling process. Tissue samples are
> collected by fish health specialists to determine the incidence of
> *Ceratomyxa shasta*, and all of the listed pathogens except *Myxobolus
> cerebralis,* according to procedures and guidelines in 713 FW and
> IHOT. Refer to sections 9.1.6 and 9.2.7 for more fish health details.

**8.4) Cryopreserved gametes**.

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

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

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

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

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

**9.1) Incubation:**

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

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **BROOD    **EGGS        **% SURVIVAL **% SURVIVAL    **% SURVIVAL POND
  YEAR**     TAKEN**       TO EYE**     GREEN TO POND** TO RELEASE**
  ---------- ------------- ------------ --------------- ------------------
  1989       4,134,045     90.5         89.9            84.4

  1990       3,493,268     81.7         79.6            78.3

  1991       3,207,155     78.3         73.1            65.1

  1992       2,981,646     96.3         93.1            82.7

  1993       3,718,222     91.3         82.8            89.5

  1994       1,307,102     92.2         89.9            92.1

  1995       900,581       95.9         94.8            95.5

  1996       2,190,460     94.1         93.6            96.0

  1997       1,961,472     93.9         89.7            97.1

  1998       2,419,139     94.2         93.6            97.8

  1999       1,716,264     94.5         92.0            90.0

  2000       1,732,592     95.1         93.9            95.9

  Average    2,480,162     91.50        88.83           88.70
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

> Extra eggs may be taken to safeguard against potential incubation
> losses and to allow culling based on levels of *R. salmoninarum*.
> Excess eggs are buried on-station.
>
> **9.1.3) Loading densities applied during incubation.**
>
> Eggs are placed into incubation trays at a rate of one female
> (approximately 4000 eggs) per incubation tray. Each tray is tagged
> with a number corresponding to the female spawned. When Fish Health
> personnel have completed the tests for BKD, eggs from females with a
> bacterial antigen level (corresponding to the infection level) above a
> set limit are disposed of or segregated from the rest of the
> population. At eye-up, the eggs are shocked, dead eggs are removed,
> the remaining eggs are enumerated and then placed back into incubation
> trays at a rate of 5000 eggs per tray. Initial water flows are set at
> 3 gpm and increased to 5 gpm at hatch.
>
> **9.1.4) Incubation conditions.**
>
> Water temperature is monitored using temperature loggers taking
> readings every 30 minutes. Temperatures during incubation range from
> 43°F to 50°F with typical temperatures around 47°F. Dissolved oxygen
> levels are not regularly monitored, but have been tested and found to
> be at, or near saturation. All water for incubation is passed through
> a 70 micron drumscreen to filter out solids.
>
> **9.1.5) Ponding**.
>
> Fish are transferred to the nursery tanks from egg trays when most
> individuals have absorbed their yolk sac (at around 1,700 Temperature
> Units, TUs). At this time, eggs destined for an individual tank are
> emptied into a transport vessel, moved to the appropriate tank and
> released directly into the tank (i.e. swim up and ponding are forced)
> in December and early January. The fish are held in the tanks and fed
> using automatic feeders until they are large enough to be moved into
> the raceways and/or the next take of fry needs the tank space. At this
> time the fish are loaded by net into a 400 gallon transport tank and
> moved to the 8' X 80' raceways. Average length at initial ponding is
> 33mm.
>
> **9.1.6) Fish health maintenance and monitoring.**
>
> The current treatment to control fungus on the eggs is a 1,667 ppm
> drip of formalin for 15 minutes three to five times a week. The first
> health exam of newly hatched fish occurs when approximately 50% are
> beyond the yolk sac stage and begin feeding. Sixty fish are sampled
> and tested for virus. Regular fish health checks are done on a monthly
> basis by the fish health specialist from the Lower Columbia River Fish
> Health Center as per the fish health policy in 713 FW.
>
> **9.1.7) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to
> minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to
> listed fish during incubation.**
>
> There are no known listed fish that will be affected by incubation
> procedures.

**9.2) Rearing:**

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

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

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

**9.2.3) Fish rearing conditions**

> Fingerling spring Chinook are held in the 8' X 80' raceways until
> mid-May when they are moved to the new colored raceways described in
> Section 5.5 and Section 9.2.9. Temperature readings are monitored
> using data loggers taking readings every 30 minutes. Temperatures in
> the raceways range from 38°F to 49°F during the year. Mortalities are
> removed daily and raceways are cleaned with a broom while effluent
> water is drained to a pollution control structure. Cleaning is
> performed as needed but no less than once a week. Dissolved oxygen,
> carbon dioxide and total gas pressure have never been problems and are
> not recorded on a regular basis. Fish are reared on river water for
> most of their rearing cycle.
>
> **9.2.4) Indicate biweekly or monthly fish growth information
> (*average program performance*), including length, weight, and
> condition factor data collected during rearing, if available.**

Table B: End of Month Growth Parameters for LWS NFH Spring Chinook Brood
Year 2000.

+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| **      | **L     | **#   | **C      | **Co     | **      | **Flow  |
| Month** | ength** | /lb** | ondition | nversion | Density | Index** |
|         |         |       | Factor   | For      | Index** |         |
|         |         |       | C**      | Month**  |         |         |
+=========+=========+=======+==========+==========+=========+=========+
| #       | 1.417   | 976   |          | 1.53     | 0.09    | 0.63    |
| ####### |         |       |          |          |         |         |
|  Decemb |         |       |          |          |         |         |
| er,2000 |         |       |          |          |         |         |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| J       | 1.724   | 542   |          | 1.18     | 0.10    | 0.59    |
| anuary, |         |       |          |          |         |         |
| 2001    |         |       |          |          |         |         |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| F       | 1.977   | 359   |          | 1.65     | 0.13    | 0.89    |
| ebruary |         |       |          |          |         |         |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| March   | 2.414   | 197   |          | 0.97     | 0.20    | 0.90    |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| April   | 2.827   | 123   |          | 1.01     | 0.28    | 0.93    |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| May     | 3.308   | 76.7  |          | 0.83     | 0.30    | 0.98    |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| June    | 3.547   | 62.2  |          | 1.39     | 0.34    | 1.13    |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| July    | 3.949   | 45.1  |          | 1.27     | 0.17    | 0.53    |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| August  | 4.309   | 34.7  |          | 1.22     | 0.20    | 0.64    |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| Se      | 4.746   | 26.0  |          | 1.16     | 0.24    | 0.77    |
| ptember |         |       |          |          |         |         |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| October | 4.822   | 24.8  |          | 3.86     | 0.25    | 0.80    |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| N       | 4.866   | 24.1  |          | 3.26     | 0.20    | 0.95    |
| ovember |         |       |          |          |         |         |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| D       | 4.953   | 22.9  |          | 1.52     | 0.22    | 1.13    |
| ecember |         |       |          |          |         |         |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| J       | 5.043   | 21.7  |          | 1.71     | 0.23    | 1.17    |
| anuary, |         |       |          |          |         |         |
| 2002    |         |       |          |          |         |         |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| F       | 5.154   | 20.3  |          | 1.55     | 0.24    | 1.22    |
| ebruary |         |       |          |          |         |         |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| March   | 5.416   | 17.5  |          | 1.03     | 0.26    | 1.35    |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| April\* | 5.771   | 15.8  | 0.000330 | 0.97     | 0.27    | 1.40    |
+---------+---------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+

Data from Lot History, Production for Brood Year 2000 spring Chinook.

\* Fish released April 18, 2002.

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

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

> The Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center (LCRFHC) in Underwood, WA
> provides fish health care for the Little White Salmon NFH as described
> in the published policy 713 FW in the Fish and Wildlife Service
> Manual. In addition to this policy, the 1995 annual report "Policies
> and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries",
> chapter 5, by the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team provides further
> fish health guidelines as approved by state, federal, and tribal
> agencies. The directives of these two documents exceed the
> requirements of the Washington State and Tribal fish health agencies
> which follow the directives in the Washington Co-Managers Salmonid
> Disease Control Policy of 1998.
>
> The documents mentioned above provide guidance for preventing or
> minimizing diseases within and outside of the hatchery. In general,
> movements of live fish into or out of the hatchery must be approved by
> the Production Advisory Committee (PAC) and be noted on the Brood
> Document for the hatchery. If a fish transfer or release is not on the
> Brood Document, permits from the Washington Department of Fish &
> Wildlife, the USFWS, and any other states through which the fish
> travel must be obtained and approved by co-managers. Fish health exam
> and certification must be done prior to any releases or transfers from
> the hatchery to minimize risks from possible disease transmittance.
>
> A pathologist from the LCRFHC visits at least once per month to
> examine fish at the hatchery. From each stock of juveniles, fish are
> randomly sampled to ascertain general health. Based on pathological
> signs, age of fish, concerns of hatchery personnel, and the history of
> the facility, the examining pathologist determines the appropriate
> tests. This usually includes an external and internal examination of
> skin, gills, and internal organs. Kidneys (and other tissues, if
> necessary) will be checked for the common bacterial pathogens by
> culture and by a specific test for bacterial kidney disease (BKD).
> Blood is checked for signs of anemia or other infections, including
> viral anemia. Additional tests for virus or parasites are done if
> warranted.
>
> A diagnostic exam is done on an as-needed basis determined by the
> pathologist or requested by hatchery personnel. Sick, dying, and/or
> fish with unusual behavior are examined for disease with appropriate
> diagnostic tests. A pathologist will normally check symptomatic fish
> during a monthly examination.
>
> Spring Chinook are given prophylactic medicated feedings once in July
> at a rate of 100 mg erythromycin/kg fish/day for 21 days.
> Administration of erythromycin in mid-summer appears to control
> outbreaks of bacterial kidney disease later in the rearing cycle
> (LCRFHC fish health reports). The dosage and duration can be variable
> depending on that brood year's susceptibility to drug-induced
> toxicity. 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
>
> At two to four weeks prior to a release or transfer from the hatchery,
> 60 fish from the stock of concern are tested for the presence of
> listed pathogens. These pathogens, defined in USFWS policy 713 FW
> include infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), infectious
> pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus
> (VHSV), *Renibacterium salmoninarum, Aeromonas salmonicida, Yersinia
> ruckeri*, and *Myxobolus cerebralis*.

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

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

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

> New raceways are now being used that are made of colored concrete to
> better simulate the river bottom where the fish are released. The new
> raceways are also equipped with baffles to minimize the amount of
> cleaning necessary and to give the fish a variety of conditions within
> the raceway to choose from.
>
> **9.2.10)** **Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to
> minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to
> listed fish under propagation.**
>
> These fish are not listed. There are no listed fish under propagation
> at this facility at this time.

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

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

**10.1) Proposed fish release levels.**

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Age Class**    **Maximum       **Size        **Release      **Location**
                   Number**        (fpp)**       Date**         
  ---------------- --------------- ------------- -------------- --------------
  **Eggs**         0               \-            \-             \-

  **Unfed Fry**    0               \-            \-             \-

  **Fry**          0               \-            \-             \-

  **Fingerling**   0               \-            \-             \-

  **Yearling**     1,000,000       15            mid-April      Little White
                                                                Salmon River
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

> **Stream, river, or watercourse:** Little White Salmon River at the
> Little White Salmon NFH
>
> **Release point:** River kilometer 2 on the Little White Salmon River,
> entering the Columbia River at river kilometer 261, approximately 45
> 42\' 30\" North Latitude and 121 37\' 30\" West Longitude (pers.
> comm. Steve Vigg, NMFS)
>
> **Major watershed:** Little White Salmon River
>
> **Basin or Region:** Columbia River

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

Source: LWS NFH Annual Reports, 1990 to 2001.

+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **R | **E    | *    | *   | *    | **     | *    | **Year | **Avg |
| ele | ggs/** | *Avg | *Fr | *Avg | Finger | *Avg | ling** | s     |
| ase |        | si   | y** | si   | ling** | si   |        | ize** |
| yea | *      | ze** |     | ze** |        | ze** |        |       |
| r** | *Unfed |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
|     | Fry**  |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+=====+========+======+=====+======+========+======+========+=======+
| **  | 1,4    | \-   | \-  | \-   | 1,0    |      | 4      | 15    |
| 199 | 36,415 |      |     |      | 50,126 |      | 61,446 | .0/lb |
| 0** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,0    | 17    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 16,706 | .0/lb |
| 1** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 6      | 16    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 68,782 | .8/lb |
| 2** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 8      | 18    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 09,079 | .1/lb |
| 3** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 9      | 15    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 94,588 | .9/lb |
| 4** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,0    | 15    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 55,864 | .1/lb |
| 5** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 9      | 15    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 86,890 | .3/lb |
| 6** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 6      | 15    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 82,623 | .6/lb |
| 7** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,0    | 15    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 63,453 | .6/lb |
| 8** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,0    | 14    |
| 199 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 74,173 | .3/lb |
| 9** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,1    | 14    |
| 200 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 15,384 | .7/lb |
| 0** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | \-     | \-   | 1,0    | 15    |
| 200 |        |      |     |      |        |      | 16,574 | .9/lb |
| 1** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  |        |      |     |      | \-     | \-   | 9      | 15.   |
| Ave |        |      |     |      |        |      | 12,130 | 78/lb |
| rag |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
| e** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+

Data source: LWS NFH annual reports, 1990-2001

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

> Releases of fingerlings for the most recent five years occurred
> between April 12 and April 22. In normal years, the screens are
> removed from the raceways one or two days before release day to allow
> some fish to migrate volitionally. On the date of release all
> remaining fish are forced out of the raceways.

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

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

**10.6) Acclimation procedures**

> The fish are reared on river water through most of the rearing cycle
> and should be fully imprinted at release.

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

> Approximately 10% of the fish released from Little White Salmon NFH
> are coded wire tagged. One hundred percent of the fish receive an
> adipose fin clip.

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. **Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize
    the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to listed
    fish resulting from fish releases.**

> Fish health procedures outlined in this document and listed in the
> Fish and Wildlife Service's fish health policy as well as the IHOT
> document, minimize potential negative effects on natural populations
> of fish by lessening the chance for horizontally transmitted diseases
> when encountering Little White Salmon spring Chinook in the migration
> corridor or in the ocean. Bacterial kidney disease control measures
> include segregation and/or culling of eggs based on ELISA results and
> prophylactic treatments of erythromycin in juveniles. See sections
> 3.5, 7.7, and 9.2.7 of this document for a detailed discussion of
> potential ecological interactions and fish health procedures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**12.1) Objective or purpose.**

> There is currently no research beyond normal monitoring and evaluation
> of the stock using CWT tags due to the recent construction on the new
> raceways. Research projects in the coming years may include density
> studies, feed trials, and evaluation of baffled vs. unbaffled
> raceways. These studies will be necessary to evaluate performance of
> the spring Chinook in the new, larger, colored, raceways. These
> studies should have no effect on listed species.

**12.2) Cooperating and funding agencies**.

> This program currently has no funding allocated for research.

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

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

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

> Not listed.

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

CRiS (Columbia River Information System). Steve Pastor, database
manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia River Fisheries
Program Office, Vancouver, Washington.

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

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

[]{.mark}

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.

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

Haukenes, A.H., and C.M. Moffitt. 1999. Concentrations of erythromycin
in maturing Chinook salmon after intraperitoneal injection of one of two
drug formulations. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 11:61-67.

Haukenes, A.H., and C.M. Moffitt. 2002. Hatchery evaluation of
erythromycin phosphate injections in prespawning spring Chinook salmon.
N. Amer. J. Aquacult. 64:167-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muir, W.D., and R.L. Emmett. 1988. Food habits of migrating salmonid
smolts passing 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. Grand, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S.
Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS‑NWFSC‑35, 443 p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name, Title, and Signature of Applicant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concern None

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

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

Concern None

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of the above listed species is likely to be adversely affected by
this program. See section 3.5 of this document for detailed information
on program effects on aquatic species.

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                      Egg/Fry                 Juvenile/Smolt   Adult     Carcass

  **Observe or harass a)**                                                                                                               

  **Collect for transport b)**                                                                                                           

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

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

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

  **Intentional lethal take f)**                                                                                                         

  **Unintentional lethal take g)**                                                                                                       

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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