**HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN**

**(HGMP)**

**Hatchery Program:**

**Species or**

**Hatchery Stock:**

**Agency/Operator:**

**Watershed and Region:**

**Date Submitted:**

**Date Last Updated:**

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

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

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery

Tule fall Chinook production program

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

> Tule fall Chinook (*Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*) are the propagation
> species. The Lower Columbia Fall Chinook have a Threatened Status
> under the ESA. The hatchery component of Columbia Fall Chinook is
> considered part of the ESU but is not essential for recovery.

**1.3) Responsible organization and individuals**

**Name (and title):** Rich Johnson, Asst. Fisheries Supervisor

> **Agency or Tribe:** U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
>
> **Address:** Region 1 Fishery Resources Office
>
> Eastside Federal Complex
>
> 911 NE 11^th^ Ave.
>
> Portland, OR 97232-4181

**Telephone:** (503) 872-2763

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

**Email:** Rich_Johnson@fws.gov

> **Name (and title):** Larry Marchant, Hatchery Manager
>
> **Agency or Tribe:** U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
>
> **Address:** Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery
>
> 61552 State Route 14
>
> Underwood, WA 98651
>
> **Telephone:** (509) 493-1730
>
> **Fax:** (509) 493-2989
>
> **Email:** larry_marchant@fws.gov
>
> **Other agencies, Tribes, co-operators, or organizations involved,
> including contractors, and extent of involvement in the program:**
>
> National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries funding and ESA) and
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide funding for Spring Creek National
> Fish Hatchery and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
> and the Yakama Nation are co-managers.

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

> Funding for the project is provided through the Mitchell Act
> (administered by National Marine Fisheries Service) and the Flood
> Control Act of 1950 (administered by U.S. Army Corp of Engineers). At
> full staffing level, the hatchery has 13 full time employees, and
> operates on an annual budget of approximately \$800,000 (excluding
> overhead costs).

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

> Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery is located in Skamania County,
> near the communities of Underwood and White Salmon, WA. The hatchery
> is bordered by the Columbia River (WRIA 29) at river kilometer 269.

6.  **Type of program.**

# Isolated Harvest Program: Mitigation

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

> The purpose of the tule fall Chinook program at Spring Creek National
> Fish Hatchery (SCNFH) is to [mitigate]{.underline} for lost and
> degraded habitat and fish populations caused by the construction and
> operation of the Columbia River hydrosystem by producing locally
> adapted broodstock for sport, commercial, tribal, and international
> harvest. SCNFH was remodeled in 1955 under Mitchell Act authorization
> as part of the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program. In 1970,
> the Army Corps of Engineers razed and remodeled most of the facility
> to mitigate for fishery losses caused by construction of the John Day
> Dam. The Spring Creek tule fall Chinook brood stock originated from
> the White Salmon River, a mile from the location of the hatchery, and
> is the stock of choice for reintroduction in the White Salmon River
> pending Condit Dam removal scheduled in 2006.

**1.8) Justification for the program.**

Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery will provide fish for harvest by
continued mitigative production of tule fall Chinook while maintaining
fish cultural practices outlined in later sections of this document and
in Spring Creek NFH Five-Year Production Plan Goals and Standards
(2000). Spring Creek NFH fish cultural practices reflect the importance
of monitoring fish health and eliminating fish stress while minimizing
adverse effects on listed species. Tule fall Chinook will be propagated
with appropriate fish culture methods that are consistent with the U.S.
Fish Health Policy and Implementation, 713 FW (US Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1995) and the "Policy and Procedures for Columbia Basin
Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries" (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team,
1995).

Two distinct factors contribute to SCNFH minimizing adverse effects on
listed fish species; present fishery harvest design and the release of
hatchery smolts that are physiologically ready to migrate. The lower
Columbia River Chinook ESU escapes significant mainstem harvest rate
impacts in the lower river due to the current design of the fishery. A
small population of the naturally spawning lower Columbia River Chinook
ESU occurs above Bonneville Dam. This population presumably experiences
a higher harvest rate in tribal fisheries than the populations below
Bonneville Dam. The potential for higher harvest rates on a couple of
the small tributary populations above Bonneville Dam, believed to be
largely supported by locally spawning Spring Creek NFH tule fall
Chinook, is not expected to have a significant impact on the overall
ESU. Because harvest rate jeopardy standards for Snake River fall
Chinook dictate the management of both ocean and in-river fisheries
under a weak-stock management approach, harvest of Spring Creek fall
Chinook program fish is not expected to have a significant impact on
listed species. The 1999 fall-season harvest biological opinion
determined that fisheries did not jeopardize any listed species (NMFS
1999c).

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. Spring Creek fish are released directly
into the mainstem Columbia River migration corridor rather than into
tributary spawning or rearing areas. Based on Bonneville Dam sampling of
juveniles, Spring Creek fish appear to emigrate rapidly, reducing the
potential for competitive interaction with listed fish. Because Spring
Creek NFH releases occur "low" in the system relative to many other
upriver programs, and the emigration through the migration corridor
appears to be rapid, there is reduced opportunity for competitive
interactions. In addition, the three-release strategy also should reduce
potential competitive interactions (see section 10.4 and 10.10).

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

See Section 1.10

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

+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| # **Benefits**     | **Performance           | **Monitoring and      |
|                    | Indicators**            | Evaluation**          |
| **Performance      |                         |                       |
| Standards**        |                         |                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 1\) Program        | Broodstock goal: Total  | Compare annual tule   |
| contributes to     | 7,000, female return    | adult Chinook returns |
| mitigation         | 4,000                   | with hatchery goal.   |
| requirements       |                         | See sections 1.12 and |
|                    |                         | 7.4.2 for detailed    |
|                    |                         | recent annual adult   |
|                    |                         | return numbers.       |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Hatchery release goal:  | Compare annual tule   |
|                    | 15.1 million as         | Chinook smolt         |
|                    | outlined in NMFS        | hatchery releases     |
|                    | Biological Opinion      | with hatchery goals.  |
|                    | 1999-                   | See section 1.12 for  |
|                    |                         | detailed recent       |
|                    | 7.6 million ≤ 125/lb    | annual smolt release  |
|                    | size                    | numbers.              |
|                    |                         |                       |
|                    | 4.2 million ≤ 90/lb     |                       |
|                    | size                    |                       |
|                    |                         |                       |
|                    | 3.3 million ≤ 60/lb     |                       |
|                    | size                    |                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Smolt release to adult  | Compare annual tule   |
|                    | return                  | Chinook survival      |
|                    |                         | rates with hatchery   |
|                    | Goal ≥ 0.5%             | goal.                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 2\) Implement      | Escapement goal:        | During spawning,      |
| spawning and       | \>7,000 adults of which | adults are counted 16 |
| rearing practices  | 4,000 are female.       | hrs. a day by         |
| to achieve         |                         | hatchery staff as an  |
| production goal.   |                         | estimation, and total |
|                    |                         | number of returning   |
|                    |                         | and spawned adults is |
|                    |                         | accurately attained   |
|                    |                         | though surplus and    |
|                    |                         | spawning operations.  |
|                    |                         | Return data is        |
|                    |                         | entered into the      |
|                    |                         | Columbia River        |
|                    |                         | Information System or |
|                    |                         | CRiS (Stephen M.      |
|                    |                         | Pastor, August 2002)  |
|                    |                         | and can be found on   |
|                    |                         | the annual run        |
|                    |                         | summary and spawning  |
|                    |                         | report.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Adult pre-spawning      | Ponds are checked a   |
|                    | survival                | minim of once daily,  |
|                    |                         | for DIPs and the      |
|                    | goal ≥ 90%.             | number is recorded    |
|                    |                         | and stored in CRiS.   |
|                    | Pre-spawning mortality  | Total number of DIPs  |
|                    | (dead-in-ponds or DIPs) | is presented in the   |
|                    | ≤ 5.0% of annual run    | annual run and        |
|                    |                         | spawning report.      |
|                    | Female DIPs ≤ 2.0% of   |                       |
|                    | annual run.             |                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Egg-take goal ≥ 17.8    | Number is enumerated  |
|                    | million, 20.8 million   | during the salting    |
|                    | for years with unfed    | and shocking process  |
|                    | fry release.            | and is based on       |
|                    |                         | weighted samples and  |
|                    |                         | extrapolated out to   |
|                    |                         | the weight of all     |
|                    |                         | eggs collected.       |
|                    |                         | Egg-take data is      |
|                    |                         | calculated and input  |
|                    |                         | into CRiS and can be  |
|                    |                         | found in annual       |
|                    |                         | summary and spawning  |
|                    |                         | report.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Release 15.1 million    | Enumerate fish        |
|                    | tule fall Chinook       | releases and attain   |
|                    | smolts.                 | sufficient size at    |
|                    |                         | release so            |
|                    |                         | smoltification occurs |
|                    |                         | through entire        |
|                    |                         | hatchery population   |
|                    |                         | (see section 1.11.1,  |
|                    |                         | 10.4, 10.10 for       |
|                    |                         | description).         |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| # **Benefits**     | **Performance           | **Monitoring and      |
|                    | Indicators**            | Evaluation**          |
| **Performance      |                         |                       |
| Standards**        |                         |                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 2\) Implement      | Percent Survival        | Survival percentages  |
| spawning and       | Hatchery Goals:         | from egg to eye-up,   |
| rearing practices  |                         | egg to fry, and fry   |
| to achieve         | ≥ 95% egg to eye-up     | to smolt survival are |
| production goal    |                         | conducted by Spring   |
| (continued).       | ≥ 90% egg to fry        | Creek NFH staff       |
|                    | survival                | during rearing and    |
|                    |                         | prior to release      |
|                    | ≥ 97% fry to smolt      | using sample counts   |
|                    | survival                | and standard          |
|                    |                         | measuring techniques. |
|                    | ≥ 0.5% total survival   | Total survival of     |
|                    | (return to hatchery and | tule Chinook in       |
|                    | caught in fishery)      | addition to numbers   |
|                    |                         | of fish caught by     |
|                    |                         | fishery are estimated |
|                    |                         | by personnel within   |
|                    |                         | the Columbia River    |
|                    |                         | Fisheries Program     |
|                    |                         | Office using tag      |
|                    |                         | return data from the  |
|                    |                         | Regional Mark         |
|                    |                         | Information System    |
|                    |                         | and information       |
|                    |                         | within CRiS.          |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 3\) Maintain stock | Collection of adults    | Systematic random     |
| integrity and      | throughout entire run   | sampling of returning |
| genetic diversity  |                         | adults throughout     |
| of each unique     |                         | egg-take dates will   |
| stock through      |                         | insure spawning is    |
| proper management  |                         | representative of     |
| of genetic         |                         | run.                  |
| resources.         |                         |                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Spawning population     | Number of spawned     |
|                    | \>500                   | fish will be          |
|                    |                         | monitored.            |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Male: Female spawning   | Sex and number of     |
|                    | ratio. Goal: ≤ 2:1,     | spawned fish will be  |
|                    | whenever possible 1:1.  | enumerated.           |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | ≥ 2.0% of males used in | Number of adult tule  |
|                    | spawning process are    | Chinook classified as |
|                    | jacks (age 2)           | jacks will be         |
|                    |                         | enumerated.           |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 4\) Communicate    | Check hatchery records  | Hatchery record       |
| effectively with   | for completeness        | keeping data will be  |
| other salmon       |                         | forwarded to CRiS., a |
| producers and      |                         | searchable database   |
| co-managers.       |                         | system of pertinent   |
|                    |                         | hatchery information, |
|                    |                         | for analysis.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Develop and review      |                       |
|                    | past, current, and      |                       |
|                    | future Equilibrium      |                       |
|                    | Brood Documents         |                       |
|                    | (Washington Department  |                       |
|                    | of Fish and Wildlife    |                       |
|                    | requirement)            |                       |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Hatchery Evaluation     | As outlined in        |
|                    | Team (HET) quarterly    | summary of U.S. v.    |
|                    | meetings.               | Oregon and Columbia   |
|                    |                         | River Fish management |
|                    |                         | Plan (1988) and by    |
|                    |                         | Production Advisory   |
|                    |                         | Committee to          |
|                    |                         | coordinate production |
|                    |                         | through [U.S. v.      |
|                    |                         | Oregon]{.underline}   |
|                    |                         | forums.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+

+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| # **Benefits**     | **Performance          | **Monitoring and      |
|                    | Indicators**           | Evaluation**          |
| **Performance      |                        |                       |
| Standards**        |                        |                       |
+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 5\) Program        | Number of fish         | Annual estimates of   |
| contributes to     | harvested in tribal    | harvest are produced  |
| fulfilling tribal  | fisheries targeting    | from data compiled in |
| trust              | this program.          | CRiS. In addition,    |
| responsibility     |                        | the Joint Staff       |
| mandates and       | Hatchery goal:         | Report Concerning the |
| treaty rights, as  | "sufficient number of  | Fall In-River         |
| described in U.S.  | BPH fall Chinook pass  | Commercial Harvest of |
| v. Oregon.         | Bonneville Dam to meet | Columbia river Fall   |
|                    | hatchery needs without | Chinook Salmon,       |
|                    | disturbing traditional | summer Steelhead,     |
|                    | treaty Indian fish     | Coho Salmon, Chum     |
|                    | patterns in Bonneville | Salmon, and Sturgeon  |
|                    | Pool" (Summary U.S. v. | produced by the Joint |
|                    | Oregon and the         | Columbia River        |
|                    | Columbia River Fish    | Management Staff      |
|                    | Management Plan 1988)  | annually details past |
|                    |                        | and future harvest of |
|                    |                        | Spring Creek NFH tule |
|                    |                        | Fall Chinook,         |
|                    |                        | referred to as        |
|                    |                        | Bonneville Pool       |
|                    |                        | Hatchery (BPH).       |
+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Proportion of          | Information of        |
|                    | harvestable return     | specific Tribal       |
|                    | taken in tribal        | harvest by fishery is |
|                    | fisheries, by fishery. | not immediately       |
|                    |                        | available through     |
|                    |                        | USFWS tag recovery    |
|                    |                        | information. Overall  |
|                    |                        | tribal harvest is     |
|                    |                        | grouped into the      |
|                    |                        | category "Columbia    |
|                    |                        | River Gillnet"        |
|                    |                        | presented in section  |
|                    |                        | 3.3.1. The adult      |
|                    |                        | escapement goal for   |
|                    |                        | Spring Creek NFH was  |
|                    |                        | achieved annually     |
|                    |                        | from 1970-84,         |
|                    |                        | 1991-92, 1994-1997,   |
|                    |                        | and 1999, which would |
|                    |                        | have fulfilled U.S.   |
|                    |                        | v. Oregon             |
|                    |                        | requirements for      |
|                    |                        | tribal fisheries.     |
+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 6\) Fish produced  | Annual number of fish  | From annual coded     |
| for harvest are    | produced by this       | wire tag recoveries   |
| produced in a      | program caught in all  | and information       |
| manner enabling    | fisheries, including   | provided to CRiS,     |
| effective harvest, | estimates of fish      | annual reports are    |
| as described in    | released.              | produced on number of |
| all applicable     |                        | tule fall Chinook     |
| fisheries          |                        | harvested by brood    |
| management plans.  |                        | year. Reports of      |
|                    |                        | annual estimated      |
|                    |                        | harvest by fishery    |
|                    |                        | are attached in       |
|                    |                        | section 13 for brood  |
|                    |                        | years 1980-1995 and   |
|                    |                        | are also presented in |
|                    |                        | a table format in     |
|                    |                        | section 3.3.1.        |
+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+

+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| # **Benefits**     | **Performance          | **Monitoring and      |
|                    | Indicators**           | Evaluation**          |
| **Performance      |                        |                       |
| Standards**        |                        |                       |
+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 7\) Fish collected | Temporal distribution  | Spring Creek NFH      |
| for broodstock are | of broodstock          | protocol is to select |
| taken throughout   | collection.            | brood fish randomly   |
| the return in      |                        | throughout the        |
| proportions        |                        | spawning run (late    |
| approximating the  |                        | August through early  |
| timing and age     |                        | October). During      |
| distribution of    |                        | spawning, adults are  |
| the population     |                        | counted 16 hours a    |
| from which         |                        | day by hatchery staff |
| broodstock is      |                        | as an estimation, and |
| taken.             |                        | total number of       |
|                    |                        | returning and spawned |
|                    |                        | adults is accurately  |
|                    |                        | attained though       |
|                    |                        | surplus and spawning  |
|                    |                        | operations. Return    |
|                    |                        | data is entered into  |
|                    |                        | CRiS and can be found |
|                    |                        | on a an annual run    |
|                    |                        | summary and spawning  |
|                    |                        | report.               |
+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
|                    | Age composition of     | Through coded wire    |
|                    | broodstock collected.  | tag recoveries        |
|                    |                        | collected from        |
|                    |                        | hatchery and USFWS    |
|                    |                        | personnel,            |
|                    |                        | proportions of each   |
|                    |                        | age class of          |
|                    |                        | returning adult tule  |
|                    |                        | Chinook is documented |
|                    |                        | and input into CRiS   |
|                    |                        | data management.      |
|                    |                        | Broodstock age        |
|                    |                        | collection is random  |
|                    |                        | and representative of |
|                    |                        | adult fish returning  |
|                    |                        | to hatchery.          |
+--------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+

+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| # **Risks**         | **Performance          | **Monitoring and      |
|                     | Indicators**           | Evaluation**          |
| **Performance       |                        |                       |
| Standards**         |                        |                       |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 1\. Minimize        | Smolt size at release  | Size is monitored     |
| interactions with   | goals:                 | with using sample     |
| other fish          |                        | counts, which are     |
| populations through | March ≤ 125 fish/lb.   | performed bi-monthly. |
| proper rearing and  |                        | During March release, |
| release strategies. | April ≤ 90 fish/lb.    | and coinciding with   |
|                     |                        | an approval of        |
|                     | May ≤ 60 fish/lb.      | increased spill at    |
|                     |                        | Bonneville Dam,       |
|                     |                        | physical monitoring   |
|                     |                        | of total dissolved    |
|                     |                        | gas (TDG) at several  |
|                     |                        | sites below           |
|                     |                        | Bonneville Dam and in |
|                     |                        | the mainstem Columbia |
|                     |                        | River, in addition to |
|                     |                        | physical examinations |
|                     |                        | of fish below         |
|                     |                        | Bonneville Dam, will  |
|                     |                        | be conducted to       |
|                     |                        | provide information   |
|                     |                        | and real-time         |
|                     |                        | modifications to the  |
|                     |                        | proposed operation if |
|                     |                        | the requested         |
|                     |                        | variance in criteria  |
|                     |                        | is exceeded. See      |
|                     |                        | section 10.4 for more |
|                     |                        | information on        |
|                     |                        | increased spill at    |
|                     |                        | Bonneville Dam during |
|                     |                        | March releases.       |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 2\. Maximize        | Necropsies of fish to  | Healthy and moribund  |
| survival at all     | assess health,         | juvenile fish are     |
| life stages using   | nutritional status,    | examined at least     |
| disease control and | and culture            | monthly by fish       |
| disease prevention  | conditions.            | health specialists    |
| techniques. Prevent |                        | from the Lower        |
| introduction,       |                        | Columbia River Fish   |
| spread or           |                        | Health Center         |
| amplification of    |                        | (LCRFHC). Fish health |
| fish pathogens.\    |                        | specialists examine   |
| Follow USFWS Fish   |                        | affected fish, make a |
| Health Policy and   |                        | diagnosis and         |
| Implementation      |                        | recommend the         |
| guidelines, the     |                        | appropriate remedial  |
| Integrated Hatchery |                        | or preventative       |
| Operation Team      |                        | measures. Therapeutic |
| (IHOT) policy and   |                        | and prophylactic      |
| the Salmon Disease  |                        | treatments are        |
| Control Policy of   |                        | administered as       |
| the Fisheries       |                        | necessary.            |
| Co-Managers of      |                        |                       |
| Washington State.   |                        |                       |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
|                     | Release and/or         | Three to 6 weeks      |
|                     | transfer exams.        | prior to transfer or  |
|                     |                        | release, 60 fish per  |
|                     |                        | lot are examined in   |
|                     |                        | accordance to the     |
|                     |                        | USFWS and co-managers |
|                     |                        | policies.             |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
|                     | Inspection of adult    | At spawning, a        |
|                     | broodstock.            | minimum of 150 female |
|                     |                        | and 60 male           |
|                     |                        | broodstock are        |
|                     |                        | examined for          |
|                     |                        | pathogens.            |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
|                     | Inspection of          | Control of specific   |
|                     | off-station fish/eggs  | fish pathogens        |
|                     | prior to transfer to   | through eggs/fish     |
|                     | hatchery.              | movements is          |
|                     |                        | conducted in          |
|                     |                        | accordance to the     |
|                     |                        | USFWS and co-managers |
|                     |                        | policies.             |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
|                     | Applied research on    | Evaluate new and      |
|                     | new and existing       | existing procedures   |
|                     | techniques.            | for effects on        |
|                     |                        | health, disease       |
|                     |                        | control and           |
|                     |                        | prevention.           |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+

+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| # **Risks**         | **Performance          | **Monitoring and      |
|                     | Indicators**           | Evaluation**          |
| **Performance       |                        |                       |
| Standards**         |                        |                       |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 2\. Maximize        | Use sanitation         | Formalin (37%         |
| survival at all     | procedures which       | formaldehyde) is      |
| life stages using   | prevent introduction   | dispensed into water  |
| disease control and | of pathogens within a  | for the control of    |
| disease prevention  | facility.              | fungus on eggs and    |
| techniques. Prevent |                        | the control of        |
| introduction,       |                        | parasites on          |
| spread or           |                        | juveniles and adult   |
| amplification of    |                        | salmon. Treatment     |
| fish pathogens      |                        | dosage and time of    |
| (continued).        |                        | exposure depends on   |
|                     |                        | life-stage and        |
|                     |                        | condition being       |
|                     |                        | treated. All eggs     |
|                     |                        | brought to the        |
|                     |                        | facility are          |
|                     |                        | surface-disinfected   |
|                     |                        | with iodophor between |
|                     |                        | different fish/egg    |
|                     |                        | lots. Tank trucks or  |
|                     |                        | tagging trailers are  |
|                     |                        | disinfected when      |
|                     |                        | brought onto the      |
|                     |                        | station. Footbaths    |
|                     |                        | containing iodophor   |
|                     |                        | are strategically     |
|                     |                        | located on the        |
|                     |                        | hatchery grounds      |
|                     |                        | (i.e., entrance to    |
|                     |                        | hatchery building) to |
|                     |                        | prevent spread of     |
|                     |                        | pathogens. At         |
|                     |                        | spawning, a minimum   |
|                     |                        | of 60 ovarian fluids  |
|                     |                        | and 60 kidney/spleens |
|                     |                        | are examined for      |
|                     |                        | viral pathogens from  |
|                     |                        | each species.         |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
|                     | Utilize pond           | Density index data    |
|                     | management strategies  | can be found on all   |
|                     | (e.g., Density Index   | inventory sheets and  |
|                     | and Flow Index) to     | is used to calculate  |
|                     | help optimize the      | feed and mortality    |
|                     | quality of the aquatic | levels. The highest   |
|                     | environment and        | density index is      |
|                     | minimize fish stress,  | observed just before  |
|                     | which can induce       | the March release and |
|                     | infectious and         | split of the April    |
|                     | noninfectious          | and May release fish. |
|                     | diseases.              | Density index is      |
|                     |                        | calculated as (lbs.   |
|                     | Hatchery Density Index | of fish) / (ft^3^     |
|                     | Goal: ≤0.3             | rearing space) x      |
|                     |                        | (fish length in       |
|                     | Hatchery Flow Index    | inches). Density      |
|                     | Goal: ≤1.5             | index is catalogued   |
|                     |                        | during two-week       |
|                     |                        | intervals coinciding  |
|                     |                        | with feeding periods. |
|                     |                        |                       |
|                     |                        | Flow index is         |
|                     |                        | calculated as (lbs    |
|                     |                        | fish in pond) /       |
|                     |                        | (length of fish in    |
|                     |                        | inches) x (water flow |
|                     |                        | in gallons per        |
|                     |                        | minute). This index   |
|                     |                        | is also catalogued    |
|                     |                        | during two-week       |
|                     |                        | intervals coinciding  |
|                     |                        | with feeding period.  |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+

+---------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| # **Risks**         | **Performance          | **Monitoring and     |
|                     | Indicators**           | Evaluation**         |
| **Performance       |                        |                      |
| Standards**         |                        |                      |
+---------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| 3\. Conduct         | Meet requirements of   | Total Suspended      |
| environmental       | National Pollution     | Solids (TSS) 1 to 2  |
| monitoring to       | Discharge Elimination  | times per month on   |
| ensure that         | (NPDE) permit          | composte effluent,   |
| hatchery operations | specifically,          | maximum effluent and |
| comply with water   |                        | influent samples.    |
| quality standards   | Total Suspended Solids | Once per month on    |
| and to assist in    |                        | pollution abatement  |
| managing fish       | Settleable Solids      | pond influent and    |
| health.             |                        | effluent samples.    |
|                     | Water Temperature      |                      |
|                     | (Hatchery)             | Settleable Solids    |
|                     |                        | (SS)-1 to 2 times    |
|                     | Dissolved Oxygen       | per month on         |
|                     | (Hatchery).            | effluent and         |
|                     |                        | influent samples.    |
|                     |                        | Once per week on     |
|                     |                        | pollution abatement  |
|                     |                        | pond influent and    |
|                     |                        | effluent samples.    |
|                     |                        |                      |
|                     |                        | In-hatchery Water    |
|                     |                        | Temperatures-maximum |
|                     |                        | and minimum daily.   |
|                     |                        |                      |
|                     |                        | In hatchery          |
|                     |                        | Dissolved Oxygen- as |
|                     |                        | required by stream   |
|                     |                        | flow or weather      |
|                     |                        | conditions.          |
+---------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| 4\. Hatchery        | ESA consultations      | HGMP drafts have     |
| program addresses   | under Section 7 have   | been submitted       |
| ESA responsibility  | been completed,        | during 1999 and 2002 |
|                     | Section 10 permits     | (this document) to   |
|                     | have been issued, or   | assess hatchery      |
|                     | HGMP has been          | program ESA          |
|                     | determined sufficient  | responsibilities. In |
|                     | under Section 4(d) as  | addition, a formal   |
|                     | applicable, and        | biological           |
|                     | avoiding overharvest   | assessment was       |
|                     | of non-target species  | conducted during     |
|                     | has been addressed.    | 1994 by USFWS (USFWS |
|                     |                        | 1994), mandated by   |
|                     |                        | NMFS, for possible   |
|                     |                        | effects of Spring    |
|                     |                        | Creek NFH on listed  |
|                     |                        | Snake River sockeye  |
|                     |                        | salmon (Oncorhynchus |
|                     |                        | nerka) and listed    |
|                     |                        | wild Snake River     |
|                     |                        | spring/summer and    |
|                     |                        | fall Chinook. Spring |
|                     |                        | Creek NFH also       |
|                     |                        | fulfilled            |
|                     |                        | requirements set     |
|                     |                        | forth by USFWS       |
|                     |                        | concerning section 7 |
|                     |                        | of the ESA when      |
|                     |                        | recently performing  |
|                     |                        | a hatchery           |
|                     |                        | construction project |
|                     |                        | (see Addendum A).    |
+---------------------+------------------------+----------------------+

+---------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| # **Risks**         | **Performance          | **Monitoring and     |
|                     | Indicators**           | Evaluation**         |
| **Performance       |                        |                      |
| Standards**         |                        |                      |
+---------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| 5\. Release groups  | A proportion of each   | Tagged proportions   |
| are sufficiently    | release group is       | of smolt and unfed   |
| marked in a manner  | marked with a coded    | fry releases         |
| consistent with     | wire tag and adipose   | adequately provide   |
| information needs   | clip.                  | USFWS personnel and  |
| and protocols to    |                        | Columbia River       |
| enable              | Hatchery goal: ≥ 3.0%  | fisheries managers   |
| determination of    |                        | of harvest and       |
| impacts to natural- | Unfed fry released are | return rates of tule |
| and hatchery-origin | otolith marked (100%   | fall Chinook adults  |
| fish in fisheries.  | marking rate) by       | by brood year. For   |
|                     | thermal manipulation.  | brood years 1980-94, |
|                     |                        | an average of 4.38%  |
|                     |                        | of tule Chinook      |
|                     |                        | smolts were coded    |
|                     |                        | wire tagged. All     |
|                     |                        | unfed fry releases   |
|                     |                        | have been, and will  |
|                     |                        | continue to be,      |
|                     |                        | thermally marked.    |
+---------------------+------------------------+----------------------+

**1.11) Expected size of program.**

> **1.11.1) Proposed annual broodstock collection level (maximum number
> of adult fish).**

The hatchery has the capacity to rear 60,000,000 eggs, which equates to
about 24,000 adults collected. To meet the current production goal of
20,000,000 eggs, a minimum of 7,000 adults (4,000 females) is required.
Typical hatchery practices have been to collect 11,000-12,000 adults,
which equates to around 23,000,000 eggs. This allows collection of the
full spectrum of the adult migration, with a measure of insurance in
case of any unforeseen drops in the latter part of the run.

1.11.2) Proposed annual fish release levels (maximum number) by life
stage and location.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Life Stage**    **Release Location**       **Annual Release Level**
  ----------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
  **Eyed Eggs**     White Salmon River         1,500 - 5,000^1^

  **Unfed Fry**     On-Site (Columbia          
                    River)^2^                  

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

  **Fingerling**    On-Site (Columbia River)   15,100,000

  **Yearling**      \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--      0
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

^1^ -- These fish are distributed to Whitson elementary school (White
Salmon, WA) as eyed eggs and are released at the fingerling stage as
part of an environmental education program.

^2^- up to three million unfed fry were experimentally released for
three brood years 1999, 2001, and 2002. Results will be evaluated prior
to considering this release again.

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 table indicates brood year escapement to Spring Creek
National Fish Hatchery and to the mouth of the Columbia River. In
addition, the total adult production number from each brood year is
given, which includes all estimated sport, tribal, commercial, and
international harvest of tule adult Chinook from Spring Creek NFH. Tule
Chinook smolt to adult survival rate is also given for each brood year.
Data presented in this table is calculated from the Columbia River
Information System or CRiS (Stephen M. Pastor, April 2004,
CRiS\\SMP\\Cohort.prg).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brood Year     Escapement              Total Adult  Number of     Smolt to Adult
                                         Production   Fish Released Survival Rate
                                         Number^1^    as            (Hatchery Goal ≥
                                                      Fingerlings   0.5%)
                                                      (millions)    
  -------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------- -----------------
                 Hatchery     Columbia                              
                              River                                 

  1980           6036         13469.0    30490        16.825        0.181

  1981           9443         25281.0    48628        12.751        0.381

  1982           5658         71279.0    130207       14.594        0.892

  1983           461          9099.0     15535        11.055        0.141

  1984           664          3071.0     6601         13.905        0.047

  1985           1515         6845.0     14438        10.594        0.136

  1986           6067         23891.0    46305        10.640        0.435

  1987           7314         14702.0    29396        8.850         0.332

  1988           16419        46967.0    81190        15.307        0.530

  1989           10891        22537.0    49316        10.233        0.482

  1990           7350         12367.0    20933        14.348        0.146

  1991           10232        20257.0    29195        19.072        0.153

  1992           8396         20535.0    24113        14.310        0.169

  1993           11947        31446.0    36813        15.607        0.236

  1994           6887         13146.0    17576        15.990        0.110

  1995           5459         9045.0     10866        16.440        0.066

  Mean           7171         21496      36975        13.783        0.277
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^1^Includes adult fish captured in tribal, sport and commercial harvest
in freshwater or saltwater and escapement to Spring Creek NFH.

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

> Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery was founded and began rearing tule
> fall Chinook in 1901.

**1.14) Expected duration of program.**

One of the main purposes of this program is to mitigate for spawning
habitat lost by the creation of dams in the main stem of the Columbia
River. Given that much of this habitat is irretrievably lost (unless
several major dams are removed) this production program is expected to
continue for the foreseeable future.

**1.15) Watersheds targeted by program.**

All fish reared in this program are released and expected to return to
the Bonneville pool of the Columbia River (WRIA 29).

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

    1.  **Brief Overview of Key Issues**

> **Mitigation.** Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery is authorized by
> laws and agreements to mitigate for salmon and steelhead losses at
> Federal dams and from other Federal actions (John Day Dam Mitigation
> and Mitchell Act).
>
> **Marking.** Presently, Spring Creek NFH coded-wire tags and fin clips
> 450,000 fish (150,000 for the March, April, and May release groups,
> respectively) prior to release from the hatchery. Mass marking (100%
> adipose fin clipped) of hatchery fish is being implemented for
> steelhead trout and coho salmon, and most recently, for spring Chinook
> salmon. Under new Congressional legislation, all federally funded
> hatchery fish will be mass marked, except for special conservation
> purposes. Depending on sufficient funding and equipment availability,
> mass marking the entire hatchery production (15.3 million smolts) of
> fall Chinook salmon at Spring Creek NFH is scheduled for 2005.
>
> Tribal managers generally disagree with the management strategy for
> mass marking and selective fisheries.
>
> **Release.** Fish are normally released as fingerlings in three groups
> (March, April, and May) with the release numbers being dependent upon
> loading densities, river conditions, growth, health and development of
> the fish. There may be a situation that warrants early or emergency
> releases caused by factors such as mechanical problems creating
> disruption of water flow, natural disasters or fish health concerns.
> The decision to make an early or emergency release will be based on
> the guidelines that are located in the hatchery's operational plan.
> Notification procedures will be followed to ensure all management
> agencies affected by a release are notified in a timely manner and are
> aware of the circumstances that initiated the decision for releases
> outside the normal release periods. In cases of extreme mechanical
> failure, contacts will be notified as soon as logistically possible.
>
> **Ladder Management.** The ladder typically remains open until all
> fish have entered the hatchery. Fish other than tule fall Chinook that
> enter the ladder during hatchery brood stock collection and surplus
> activities are returned to the river to continue their migration.
> These fish may include ESA-listed species.

In 2003 with the permission of NOAA-Fisheries, WDFW, and Yakama Nation,
an alternative to the current ladder operation was tested on two
separate occasions, during which ladder operation was open and closed
periodically, or pulsed, for brood stock collection. During the pulsing
of the ladder, the fish surplus to brood stock collection were left in
the river for nutrient enhancement, natural spawning, and additional
fishing opportunities. Ladder pulsing will be evaluated again in 2004
(refer to Research - Section 12 of this HGMP.

> **Surplus Adult Salmon Distribution**. In most years, more fish return
> to the hatchery than are needed for brood stock. Most of these surplus
> fish are in good condition upon entry into the hatchery and are
> distributed either to the Yakama Nation or other tribes as requested.
> The Federal Prison inmate food program can receive any fish beyond
> tribal requests. Fish not suitable for food are typically rendered.
>
> **Insufficient Operations and Maintenance Funding Through the Mitchell
> Act.** Increased demands on hatchery programs, including those
> required by ESA Biological Opinions, have strained hatchery budgets.
> Without increases in Mitchell Act funding, reductions in production
> programs may need to be made. Reducing hatchery production may allow
> the hatchery, and the Service, to meet some ESA requirements, but may
> not uphold mitigation and tribal trust responsibility. The Service is
> working with NOAA-Fisheries and other co-managers to address current
> budget shortfalls.

2.  **Potential Alternatives to the Current Program**

> **Dam Removal.** 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 Federal Columbia River Power
> System Biological Opinion on the subject.
>
> Removal of Condit Dam on the Big White Salmon River is under
> negotiation. Use of Spring Creek NFH production for tule fall Chinook
> salmon supplementation efforts after dam removal is likely since the
> Big White Salmon River was the original seed stock for the hatchery.
> Further planning is needed.
>
> The use of the Big White Ponds on the White Salmon River could also
> play a role in reestablishing salmon runs through supplementation and
> acclimation programs. This facility has the capacity for 100,000
> smolts. However, this facility cannot currently be used for fish
> production or adult trapping until the water intake structure is
> modified to meet proper screening requirements. The facility also
> requires raceway rehabilitation and installation of flood protection
> measures.
>
> **Marking.** Under new Congressional legislation, all federally funded
> hatchery fish will be mass marked, except for special conservation
> purposes. Depending on sufficient funding and equipment availability,
> mass marking the entire hatchery production (15.3 million smolts) of
> fall Chinook salmon at Spring Creek NFH is scheduled for 2005.
>
> The Service will continue to coordinate marking and production actions
> with the states and tribes through U.S. v Oregon and NOAA Fisheries to
> comply with ESA actions and coordinate with the Pacific States Marine
> Fisheries Commission mark committee. In addition, federal agencies are
> beginning discussion of a comprehensive marking strategy for the
> Columbia River Basin as identified by Action 174-1in the Federal
> Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion. Federal agencies
> (NOAA-Fisheries lead) are meeting with the states and tribes to begin
> this effort.
>
> This comprehensive marking plan should:

-   Improve our ability to assess and monitor the status of
    naturally-producing (especially (ESA listed) populations.

-   Monitor and evaluate hatchery programs, including hatchery reforms
    and stray rates.

-   Maintain critical harvest management and stock assessment
    information.

-   Monitor mark-selective fishery regimes established by the states.

-   Improve regional and watershed based marking decisions.

-   Be consistent with recovery plan goals.

-   Be coordinated through U.S. v Oregon, PSMFC, and U.S. - Canada
    forums.

> **Re-Programming Juvenile Salmon Distribution and Production
> Numbers.** In early 2003, the U.S. v Oregon parties suggested the
> following production change for tule and upriver bright fall Chinook
> salmon: Reduce tule fall Chinook salmon hatchery production at Spring
> Creek National Fish Hatchery, make-up this reduced tule production at
> a lower river hatchery below Bonneville Dam, and increase upriver
> bright fall Chinook production upstream of Bonneville Dam. The impacts
> and feasibility of changing tule and upriver bright fall Chinook
> production are still being discussed. The discussed issues involve
> Bonneville Dam spill in March to benefit Spring Creek NFH, the impact
> on ESA listed fall Chinook salmon, the impact of potentially reduced
> tule production on U.S. -- Canada (Pacific Salmon Treaty)
> negotiations, and the cost for increased hatchery infrastructure for
> both tule and upriver bright program changes.
>
> **Surplus Salmon Distribution and Hatchery Ladder Management.**
> Planning is needed to determine the number of fish from Spring Creek
> NFH, if any, suitable for natural production and stream enrichment via
> pulsing the ladder, carcass distribution, or production of nutrient
> enrichment pellets. Future plans will be developed and ecological
> risks and benefits to natural production and ESA-listed salmon will be
> evaluated.
>
> Radio-tagging and tracking surplus fish that are either returned to
> the river or left in the river because of ladder closures would
> provide additional information on final destination of the carcass and
> would help in assessing ecological impact of hatchery operations.
> Funding for this monitoring has been provided by the U.S. Army Corps
> of Engineers in 2004 and is described in Section 12 -- Research of
> this HGMP.
>
> It would also be advantageous to begin collecting genetic samples for
> comparison of the Spring Creek tule and Little White Salmon upriver
> bright fall Chinook salmon to the naturally spawning populations of
> fall Chinook salmon and other natural populations in the lower
> Columbia River to determine and monitor the genetic stock structure of
> the various populations. This monitoring will be initiated in 2004
> (described in Section 12 -- Research of this HGMP), with genetic
> analysis requiring additional funding.

1.  **Potential Reforms and Investments**[^1]

-   Big White Pond Rehab \$\$\$\$

-   Supplementation & Evaluation \$\$\$ (X 5 years)

> (post-Condit Dam removal)

-   Current Marking \$\$\$ (annually)

-   Mass Marking \$\$\$ (annually)

-   Re-Programming \$\$\$\$ (annually)

-   Re-Programming Infrastructure \$\$\$\$

-   Ecological Interaction Study \$\$ (X 5 years)

-   Sufficient Funding for Hatchery Operations \$\$\$\$ (annually)

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

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

> Biological Assessment for Mitchell Act Hatchery Operations. Hatcheries
> and Inland Fisheries Branch, Portland, Oregon (NMFS 1999a)
>
> Biological Opinion on Artificial Propagation in the Columbia River
> Basin (NMFS 1999b).

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

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

> **- Identify the ESA-listed population(s) that will be
> [directly]{.underline} affected by the program.**

The Spring Creek NFH stock is part of the lower Columbia River Chinook
ESU listed as Threatened but the hatchery component of this ESU is not
listed. Spring Creek NFH uses tule fall Chinook broodstock of hatchery
origin and no listed species are expected to be directly affected by the
Spring Creek NFH program.

> **- Identify the ESA-listed population(s) that may be
> [incidentally]{.underline} affected by the program.**
>
> ESA-listed populations that may be incidentally affected by the Spring
> Creek NFH program in broodstock collection areas include:

Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon ESU (Threatened)

Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon ESU (Threatened)

Snake River sockeye salmon ESU (Endangered)

Snake River Basin steelhead ESU (Threatened)

Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (Endangered)

Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU (Endangered)

Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU (Threatened)

Lower Columbia River steelhead ESU (Threatened)

Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU (Threatened)

> Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU (Candidate)

Columbia River chum salmon ESU (Threatened)

Columbia River Bull Trout (Threatened)

> Cutthroat Trout (Candidacy reviewed but not warranted 7/2002)
>
> **2.2.2) [Status of ESA-listed salmonid population(s) affected by the
> program.]{.underline}**
>
> \- **Describe the status of the listed natural population(s) relative
> to "critical" and "viable" population thresholds.**

Natural spawning fall Chinook salmon in the Wind and White Salmon rivers
are not negatively impacted by the Spring Creek tule fall Chinook
program. The natural fall Chinook population in the Wind River is
considered extinct by Nehlsen et al. (1991). NMFS gives a long-term
abundance trend (1960-1984) as negative, - 0.5 % per year based on peak
or index counts (Myers et al. 1998) for natural fall Chinook in the Wind
River. The White Salmon River population of natural fall Chinook is
considered possibly extinct by Nehlsen et al. (1991). NMFS gives a
long-term abundance trend (1965-1984) as negative, - 4.1 % per year
based on peak or index counts (Myers et al. 1998) for natural fall
Chinook in the White Salmon River. Furthermore, Washington Department of
Fisheries (WDF et al. 1993) considers these two naturally spawning
populations as depressed stocks of mixed origin with composite
production (wild and hatchery fish). In the Wind River, NMFS lists a
five-year geometric mean natural spawning population size of 30 fish.
The short term abundance trend (the most recent 7-10 years, based on
total escapement) is negative, - 31.3 % per year. The long term
abundance trend (1967-1996) is also negative, - 7.2 % per year (Myers et
al. 1998). In the White Salmon River, NMFS lists a five-year geometric
mean natural spawning population size of 127 fish. The short term
abundance trend (the most recent 7-10 years, based on total escapement)
is negative, - 9.7 % per year. The long-term abundance trend (1965-1996)
is also negative, - 9.2 % per year (Myers et al. 1998).

> Natural spawning fall Chinook in the Hood River are supported by the
> Spring Creek tule fall Chinook program. Hood River fall Chinook are
> very depressed with escapements over Powerdale Dam (RM 4.5) from 1992
> to 1999 averaging 24 adults. It is thought that most of the natural
> spawning occurs below Powerdale Dam. An examination of scales sampled
> from returning fall Chinook adults at Powerdale Dam show that 19% are
> of hatchery origin (presumably from Spring Creek NFH) (ODFW 2001).
>
> Due to the construction of Bonneville Dam in 1938, mainstem spawning
> areas for natural populations of tule fall Chinook were inundated and
> mainstem spawning, in the target area, no longer occurs. Very limited
> spawning areas in local tributaries, such as the Wind and White Salmon
> Rivers, support small populations of tule fall Chinook, but these
> naturally spawning fish are thought to be largely supported by Spring
> Creek NFH strays (NMFS 1999c).
>
> Since 1986, the Klickitat River in south-central Washington has also
> supported a "natural" tule fall Chinook run with an average escapement
> of 675 adults from 1995-1999 (Sharp et al. 2000). This population,
> which is primarily composed of hatchery strays, has included stocks
> from Cowlitz, Toutle, Kalama, Washougal, Bonneville, Cascade, Ringold
> and Spring Creek hatcheries (Sharp et al. 2000). Artificial
> propagation of Tule fall Chinook stopped in 1985 due to an
> insufficient number of eggs being transferred from Spring Creek NFH.
>
> Threatened Mid-Columbia River steelhead are present in the White
> Salmon and Klickitat Rivers the nearest tributaries to SCNFH. Natural
> steelhead production in the White Salmon River is limited to the 3.3
> miles of river below Condit Dam. WDW et al. (1990) estimated that the
> natural winter steelhead run size is 50 adults annually. Native
> naturally produced summer steelhead are not believed to be distinct
> from hatchery produced Skamania stock summer steelhead that have been
> released into the White Salmon River since 1982. The Klickitat River
> contains both naturally produced winter and summer steelhead
> populations. Accurate estimates of abundance for the winter and summer
> steelhead populations are very difficult to obtain for steelhead in
> general and for Klickitat River populations in particular because of
> high spring flows. Redd count estimates from 1996-2000 indicated an
> average escapement of 260 fish. This is undoubtedly an under estimate
> because historical harvests have shown catches averaging over 4,000
> natural summer steelhead from 1981-1986 (WDF et al. 1990). State and
> tribal fisheries managers are currently remodeling passage facilities
> at Lyle Falls (RM 2.2) to provide escapement estimates of winter and
> summer steelhead.
>
> **- 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.**
>
> Recent spawning abundance is not available for the Wind, White Salmon
> and Hood Rivers only the trend data provided in Myers et al. (1998).
>
> **- 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.**
>
> Annual proportions of hatchery and natural fall Chinook in the Wind,
> White Salmon and Klickitat Rivers are not available, but the naturally
> spawning populations of tule fall Chinook are thought to be largely
> supported by Spring Creek Hatchery fish (see above sections).

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**.
>
> Broodstock collection activities by Spring Creek NFH could potentially
> lead to the accidental take of listed species entering the hatchery.

Returning adults enter the hatchery by swimming up a ladder that flows
from the adult holding ponds to the Columbia River. Adult fish typically
begin to return to the hatchery in late August and are collected until
the migration to the hatchery stops in late September. The table below
identifies years when non-target species entered Spring Creek NFH or
were identified within holding ponds, the number that entered, and the
outcome of entrance. Data is presented from CRiS (Stephen M. Pastor
August 2002) database from 1987-2000 broodstock collection years.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Year**   **Species Number                 
             Outcome**                        
  ---------- ----------------------- -------- ------------------------------
  **1994**   Upriver Bright Fall     60       Returned to Columbia River
             Chinook                          

  **1995**   Upriver Bright Fall     35       Returned to Columbia River
             Chinook                          

  **1996**   Spring Chinook Salmon   2        Dead in adult holding pond

             Upriver Bright Fall     1        Dead in adult holding pond
             Chinook                          

             Upriver Bright Fall     35       Returned to Columbia River
             Chinook                          

  **1997**   Upriver Bright Fall     1        Dead in adult holding pond
             Chinook                          

             Upriver Bright Fall     33       Returned to Columbia River
             Chinook                          

  **1998**   Coho Salmon             1        Surplus

             Coho Salmon             5        Returned to Columbia River

             Upriver Bright Fall     1        Surplus
             Chinook                          

             Upriver Bright Fall     2        Dead in adult holding pond
             Chinook                          

             Upriver Bright Fall     112      Returned to Columbia River
             Chinook                          

             Winter Steelhead        4        Returned to Columbia River

  **1999**   Upriver Bright Fall     5        Dead in adult holding pond
             Chinook                          

             Upriver Bright Fall     39       Returned to Columbia River
             Chinook                          

  **2000**   Coho Salmon             2        Returned to Columbia River

             Summer Steelhead        1        Returned to Columbia River

             Upriver Bright Fall     10       Dead in adult holding pond
             Chinook                          

             Upriver Bright Fall     34       Dead in adult holding pond
             Chinook                          
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Spring Creek is the only hatchery above Bonneville Dam that rears
tule fall Chinook and the ease of identification due to their
coloration, the likelihood of collecting a non-Spring Creek tule is
minimized. However, some naturally produced tule fall Chinook from the
White Salmon, Wind, Hood and possibly the Klickitat rivers volunteer
into the hatchery, but numbers would be extremely low and there is no
way to distinguish between hatchery fish and their natural counterparts.
Other fall Chinook stocks and species are easily by-passed at the
facility based on visual identification.

**-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).**

> The following tables (two following pages) list take levels of listed
> adult fish resulting from Spring Creek NFH program operations.

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

+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Listed species affected:   |         |         |         |         |
| Coho Salmon ESU/Population:  |         |         |         |         |
| Lower Columbia ESU Activity: |         |         |         |         |
| Broodstock Collection**      |         |         |         |         |
+==============================+=========+=========+=========+=========+
| **Location of hatchery       |         |         |         |         |
| activity: Spring Creek       |         |         |         |         |
| National Fish Hatchery Dates |         |         |         |         |
| of activity: Late August --  |         |         |         |         |
| Early September Hatchery     |         |         |         |         |
| program operator: USFWS      |         |         |         |         |
| Hatchery and Non-Hatchery    |         |         |         |         |
| Staff**                      |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ####                         | *       |         |         |         |
|                              | *Annual |         |         |         |
|                              | Take of |         |         |         |
|                              | Listed  |         |         |         |
|                              | Fish By |         |         |         |
|                              | Life    |         |         |         |
|                              | Stage** |         |         |         |
|                              | *(**    |         |         |         |
|                              | [Number |         |         |         |
|                              | of      |         |         |         |
|                              | Fish]{. |         |         |         |
|                              | underli |         |         |         |
|                              | ne}**)* |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                              | Egg/Fry | Juvenil | Adult   | Carcass |
|                              |         | e/Smolt |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| #### Type of Take            |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Observe or harass a)       |         |         | \<7     |         |
| Hatchery Fish Ladder or      |         |         |         |         |
| Broodstock Collection        |         |         |         |         |
| Ponds**                      |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Collect for transport b)** |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Capture, handle, and       |         |         | \<7     |         |
| release c)**                 |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Capture, handle,           |         |         |         |         |
| tag/mark/tissue sample, and  |         |         |         |         |
| release d)**                 |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Removal (e.g. broodstock)  |         |         |         |         |
| e)**                         |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Intentional lethal take    |         |         |         |         |
| f)**                         |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Unintentional lethal take  |         |         | 1       |         |
| 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.*

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

+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Listed species affected:   |         |         |         |         |
| Steelhead (Winter or Summer  |         |         |         |         |
| run) ESU/Population: Lower   |         |         |         |         |
| Columbia, and MCR ESUs       |         |         |         |         |
| Activity: Broodstock         |         |         |         |         |
| Collection**                 |         |         |         |         |
+==============================+=========+=========+=========+=========+
| **Location of hatchery       |         |         |         |         |
| activity: Spring Creek       |         |         |         |         |
| National Fish Hatchery Dates |         |         |         |         |
| of activity: Late August --  |         |         |         |         |
| Early September Hatchery     |         |         |         |         |
| program operator: USFWS      |         |         |         |         |
| Hatchery and Non-Hatchery    |         |         |         |         |
| Staff**                      |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| ####                         | *       |         |         |         |
|                              | *Annual |         |         |         |
|                              | Take of |         |         |         |
|                              | Listed  |         |         |         |
|                              | Fish By |         |         |         |
|                              | Life    |         |         |         |
|                              | Stage** |         |         |         |
|                              | *(**    |         |         |         |
|                              | [Number |         |         |         |
|                              | of      |         |         |         |
|                              | Fish]{. |         |         |         |
|                              | underli |         |         |         |
|                              | ne}**)* |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                              | Egg/Fry | Juvenil | Adult   | Carcass |
|                              |         | e/Smolt |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| #### Type of Take            |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Observe or harass a)       |         |         | \<5     |         |
| Hatchery Fish Ladder or      |         |         |         |         |
| Broodstock Collection        |         |         |         |         |
| Ponds**                      |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Collect for transport b)** |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Capture, handle, and       |         |         | \<5     |         |
| release c)**                 |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Capture, handle,           |         |         |         |         |
| tag/mark/tissue sample, and  |         |         |         |         |
| release d)**                 |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Removal (e.g. broodstock)  |         |         |         |         |
| e)**                         |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Intentional lethal take    |         |         |         |         |
| f)**                         |         |         |         |         |
+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **Unintentional lethal take  |         |         | 1       |         |
| 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.*

> **- 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.**
>
> Hatchery broodstock collection activities will be evaluated,
> discussion among USFWS personnel will be initiated, notification to
> NMFS parties will occur, and immediate actions for decreasing or
> eliminating take levels will be instituted.

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

**3.1) Describe alignment of the hatchery program with any ESU-wide
hatchery plan or other regionally accepted policies. Explain any
proposed deviations from the plan or policies.**

> Spring Creek NFH operates in compliance with the 1999 NMFS Biological
> Opinion on Columbia River Hatcheries and with the Northwest Power
> Planning Council Annual Production Review (document 99-15) description
> of mitigation hatcheries.

**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 tule fall 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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   2002 Management Agreement for Upper Columbia River Fall Chinook,
    Steelhead, and Coho.

-   Mitchell Act

-   John Day Dam mitigation agreement with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

-   U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty (Spring Creek tule stock is one of
    the tagged exploitation rate indicator stocks).

-   IHOT policies and Procedures for anadromous Salmon hatcheries.

**3.3) Relationship to harvest objectives.**

Currently, west coast ocean fisheries are managed to achieve the NMFS
biological opinion jeopardy standards, which requires an overall
coast-wide 30% reduction in the harvest rate of Snake River wild fall
Chinook for the 1988-1993 base period for in-river fisheries. For
Columbia River fisheries, treaty allocation requirements dictate that
most of the allowable impacts on Snake River Chinook and other
concurrently migrating harvestable fall Chinook, including Spring Creek
tule fall Chinook, occur above Bonneville Dam.

> The Spring Creek stock is part of the lower Columbia River Chinook ESU
> but the hatchery component is not listed. The lower Columbia River
> Chinook ESU escapes significant mainstem harvest rate impacts in the
> lower river as a result of the current design of the fishery. A small
> population of the naturally spawning lower Columbia River Chinook ESU
> occurs above Bonneville Dam. This population presumably experiences a
> higher harvest rate in tribal fisheries than the populations below
> Bonneville Dam. The potential for higher harvest rates on a couple of
> the small tributary populations above Bonneville Dam, believed to be
> largely supported by locally spawning Spring Creek NFH tule fall
> Chinook, is not expected to have a significant impact on the overall
> ESU. Because harvest rate jeopardy standards for Snake River fall
> Chinook dictate the management of both ocean and in-river fisheries
> under a weak-stock management approach, the Spring Creek fall Chinook
> program fish are not expected to have a significant impact on listed
> species. The 1999 fall-season harvest biological opinion determined
> that fisheries did not jeopardize any listed species (NMFS 1999c).
>
> **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.**
>
> Production from Spring Creek NFH contributes significant harvest to
> important ocean (including Canadian) and in-river commercial, sport,
> and tribal fisheries (Graph 3.3.1). Average exploitation for brood
> years 1982-1989 was 0.800 (CTC 1994). Exploitation rate declined
> somewhat as greater fishery restrictions were imposed during the
> latter portion of that period resulting in a 1987-1989 brood year
> average exploitation rate of 0.753. In Table A-1 of Preseason Report
> III, the Salmon Technical Team reported that current total
> exploitation rate on the Spring Creek (Bonneville Pool) hatchery stock
> is about 0.670, with nearly half of the impacts occurring in-river
> primarily in the Zone 6 area above Bonneville Dam (STT 1999).
>
> Graph 3.3.1. Mean percent (%) coded wire tag recoveries by fishery for
> Spring Creek NFH tule fall Chinook. Data presented is from 1980-1994
> (CRiS, Stephen M. Pastor August 2002).
>
> ![](media/image1.wmf)

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

The major factor inhibiting natural production of tule fall Chinook
salmon is the inundation of available natural spawning areas in the
mainstem Columbia River as a result of the construction of Bonneville
Dam in 1938. If mitigation goals are to be achieved, continued hatchery
production will be necessary to replace lost habitat.

**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.

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). An additional concern is the Southwestern
> Washington/Columbia River coastal cutthroat trout ESU. 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. Broodstock
> 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 Spring Creek
> tule fall Chinook program follows:
>
> 1\. Hatchery operation- the water source for the Spring Creek NFH is
> from springs and a well and the hatchery operates under a 90% water
> reuse system. Water withdrawals for hatchery operation do not affect
> natural spawning anadromous salmonid populations. Hatchery effluents
> meet established NPDEP release standards criteria and are quickly
> diluted by the flow in the mainstem Columbia River reducing any
> potential negative impacts to natural stocks.
>
> 2\. Brood stock collection- tule fall Chinook are collected for brood
> stock at the hatchery rack on the mainstem Columbia River. Tule fall
> Chinook are distinguished from the incidental return of bright fall
> Chinook by skin color and other prespawning maturation
> characteristics. Incidental bright fall Chinook returns to Spring
> Creek are few and these fish are released back into the Columbia River
> when possible. Recovery of non-Spring Creek CWT\'s at Spring Creek NFH
> is rare. It is believed that the majority of any incidental bright
> fall Chinook returning to Spring Creek NFH are likely strays from
> Little White Salmon NFH and Bonneville SFH bright fall Chinook
> production programs.
>
> 3\. Genetic introgression- Spring Creek NFH tule fall Chinook are a
> part of the lower Columbia River Chinook ESU although the hatchery
> fish are not listed. The total number of Spring Creek fish released is
> large relative to other Columbia River production programs so even a
> small stray rate can contribute significant numbers of hatchery fish
> to local naturally spawning populations. It is believed that natural
> spawning populations of tule fall Chinook in the Wind and White Salmon
> rivers may be largely supported by Spring Creek hatchery fish (NMFS
> 1999c). Spring Creek CWT's have been recovered during annual spawning
> ground surveys in these tributaries (Harlan 1999). Scale analysis of
> tule fall Chinook at Powerdale Dam on the Hood River has identified
> that approximately 20% of the fish are of hatchery origin (ODFW 2001).
> Genetic sampling of the naturally spawning populations in these local
> tributaries should be conducted and comparisons made to the Spring
> Creek stock to determine the level of stock similarity. However, even
> if genetic introgression has occurred in the Wind and White Salmon
> rivers, these naturally spawning populations are a small component of
> the overall lower Columbia River Chinook ESU. Available fall Chinook
> spawning area in the Wind and White Salmon rivers is limited because
> of inundation by Bonneville Pool when Bonneville Dam was constructed
> in 1938, and because of blockage by Condit Dam in the White Salmon
> River.
>
> The native White Salmon River tule fall Chinook population was the
> founding source for Spring Creek tule fall Chinook. The Spring Creek
> stock is the stock of choice for reintroduction into the White Salmon
> River if and when Condit Dam is removed. Condit Dam removal is
> expected in 2006. Although Spring Creek hatchery fish may be largely
> supporting the Wind and White Salmon tule fall Chinook naturally
> spawning populations, genetic introgression of Spring Creek fish for
> the ESU as a whole is not considered a significant problem because the
> vast majority of the natural production for this ESU occurs below
> Bonneville Dam where there is not a documented history of significant
> straying of Spring Creek fish into natural production areas (Spring
> Creek CWT recoveries are rare). Furthermore, Spring Creek tule fall
> Chinook may be the stock of choice for future supplementation programs
> for individual tule populations within the ESU if this action is
> deemed necessary/appropriate. Compared to other hatchery populations
> of tule fall Chinook, the Spring Creek stock has likely retained many
> of the genetic and life-history characteristics of the original lower
> Columbia River tule Chinook population. This is because of Spring
> Creek's large annual spawning population and relative lack of
> historical brood stock transfers from outside sources into Spring
> Creek NFH compared to other lower river tule fall Chinook facilities.
>
> 4\. Hatchery production (density dependent effects)- Spring Creek NFH
> has a large production program (15.3 million smolt release) relative
> to other Columbia River production programs. The Spring Creek facility
> is operated under a strategy that releases smolts during three time
> periods: March, April, and May. This release strategy maximizes
> production from available rearing space. The three-release strategy
> also likely reduces potential density dependent effects, as well as
> other potential ecological effects, at least in the mainstem corridor
> and estuary, relative to a single large release. Approximately
> one-half of the total production is typically released in March, with
> the remaining production split approximately equally between April and
> May releases. The March release occurs before the general
> out-migration of most other natural and hatchery stocks begins,
> reducing potential density dependent effects as well as other
> potential ecological effects such as competition, predation, and
> disease transmission. Splitting the April and May releases reduces the
> potential for significant interactions on a particular component of
> the natural out-migration that may be emigrating from the Columbia
> River system at the same time as Spring Creek releases.

5\. Disease-The Spring Creek tule fall Chinook salmon are healthy with
low to no incidence of the regulated and reportable pathogens that
plague other hatcheries (Fish Health Inspection Reports, 1982 to
present, Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center). Adults return with a
minor incidence of virus and bacteria so there is little or no vertical
transmission of these pathogens to their offspring. Juvenile fish can be
affected by pathogens carried by animals coming into the hatchery from
the Columbia River or in the spring water source so their infections
generally evolve from environmental pathogens external to the hatchery.
Because Spring Creek juveniles are released directly into the mainstem
Columbia River and pass only one dam (Bonneville Dam) en route to the
ocean, there is reduced potential for transmission of pathogens to other
populations. In comparison, other upriver programs are subjected to the
high density impacts and stresses of collection for transport and/or
diversion through multiple bypass systems which can trigger disease
transmission. As a consequence, direct infection of natural fish by
Spring Creek fish appears to be minimal.

> 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 Emmelt 1988; Sager and
> Glova 1988). Competition in reservoirs could occur where food supplies
> are inadequate for migrating salmon and steelhead. 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, at current populations levels the 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. 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.
>
> 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. Spring Creek fish are
> released directly into the mainstem Columbia River migration corridor
> rather than into tributary spawning or rearing areas. Based on
> Bonneville Dam sampling of juveniles, Spring Creek fish appear to
> emigrate rapidly, reducing the potential for competitive interactions
> with listed fish. Because Spring Creek releases occur "low" in the
> system relative to many other upriver programs, and emigration through
> the migration corridor appears to be rapid, there is reduced
> opportunity for competitive interactions. In addition, the
> three-release strategy also should reduce potential competitive
> interactions. (See hatchery production discussion above.)
>
> 7\. Predation- depending on species and population, hatchery smolts
> are often released at a size that is greater than their naturally
> produced counterparts. In addition, for species that typically smolt
> at one year of age or older (e.g. steelhead, spring Chinook salmon),
> hatchery-origin smolts may displace younger year classes of naturally
> produced fish from their territorial feeding areas. Both factors could
> lead to predation by hatchery fish on naturally produced fish, but
> these effects have not been extensively documented, nor are the
> effects consistent (Steward and Bjornn 1990). A primary concern is the
> potential impact of predation by residualized hatchery steelhead on
> naturally spawning populations.
>
> In general, the extent to which salmon and steelhead smolts of
> hatchery origin prey on fry from naturally reproducing populations is
> not known, particularly in the Columbia River basin. The available
> information - while limited - is consistent with the hypothesis that
> predation by hatchery-origin fish is not a major source of mortality
> to naturally reproducing populations in freshwater environments of the
> Columbia River basin (Enhancement Planning Team 1986). No information
> exists regarding the potential for such interactions in the marine
> environment.
>
> The USFWS (1994) presented information that salmonid predators are
> generally thought to prey on fish approximately one-third or less
> their size. Spring Creek releases are of sub-yearling fish and are
> generally smaller than other yearling sized releases in the Columbia
> River. Therefore, it is likely that Spring Creek fish have reduced
> predatory impacts on natural stocks relative to other yearling
> releases. Because Spring Creek releases occur "low" in the system
> relative to many other upriver programs there is reduced opportunity
> for predatory interactions. In addition, the March release, (typically
> one-half of the total production) occurs before the start of the
> normal out-migration season for most other stocks, further reducing
> potential impacts on listed stocks.
>
> Spring Creek tule fall Chinook released in March may have the
> potential to prey on listed chum salmon that would be emerging from
> the gravel in natural production areas below Bonneville Dam during
> that time frame. Peak emergence of chum at Ives Island was estimated
> to occur during the latter half of March in 1999 (2/19/99 fax to Donna
> Allard USFWS from Wayne Vander Naald, ODFW). It is believed that chum
> fry exit the nursery area shortly after emergence. Length samples for
> chum fry collected in the Ives and Pierce Island juvenile sampling
> area with stick seines in 1999 ranged from 32 to 42mm (4/1/99 fax from
> Fish Passage Center to Salmon Managers). Significant impacts on the
> listed chum population in the natural production area immediately
> below Bonneville Dam are not expected because juvenile sampling at
> Bonneville Dam and in the natural production area below Bonneville Dam
> indicates that Spring Creek smolts released in March move rapidly
> through the area. In addition, the emerging chum fry are generally
> larger than would be preyed upon by Spring Creek smolts released in
> March, which are generally about two times the length of the chum fry
> rather than three times their length. It is expected that most of the
> chum fry would have emigrated from the natural production area before
> the April release of larger Spring Creek tule fall Chinook occurs,
> further reducing the potential for impacts. 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 occurred during the first
> two weeks of March (unpublished data). Interactions of program fish
> and chum in the estuary and ocean are unknown.
>
> Spring Creek releases may contribute to indirect predation effects on
> listed stocks by attracting predators (birds, fish, pinnipeds) and/or
> by providing a large forage base to sustain predator populations. On
> the other hand, a large mass of hatchery fish moving through an area
> may confuse or distract predators or have a "swamping" effect towards
> predators providing them prey that are more readily accessible than
> wild stocks, thereby providing a beneficial effect to listed species.
> Releasing large numbers of hatchery fish may lead to a shift in the
> density or behavior of non-salmonid predators, thus increasing
> predation on naturally reproducing populations. Conversely, large
> numbers of hatchery fish may mask or buffer the presence of naturally
> produced fish, thus providing sufficient distraction to allow natural
> juveniles to escape (Park 1993). Prey densities at which consumption
> rates are highest, such as northern pikeminnow in the tailraces of
> 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 the northern pikeminnow in freshwater are
> true also for marine predators in saltwater.
>
> 8\. Residualism- Spring Creek releases are not known to residualize in
> the mainstem Columbia River corridor where they are released. Juvenile
> sampling at Bonneville Dam indicates that Spring Creek fish rapidly
> emigrate from the release site.
>
> 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). Approximately one-half of Spring
> Creek's production is typically released in March before the general
> out-migration for other hatchery and natural populations gets
> underway. 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) up-welling 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}**

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.**

Hatchery rearing water is primarily derived from several springs
emerging from a bluff located on hatchery property. A warm water well is
also located on hatchery property and is mixed with spring water to
increase water temperature thereby allowing manipulation of growth and
developmental rates.

Hatchery spring water is supplied by gravity to a distribution box on
station. This water is pumped to a de-aeration tower and packed coke
ring column to remove excess nitrogen. Well water is mixed with spring
water in the de-aeration pit to manipulate incubation temperatures.
Production water (water exiting from rearing ponds) is recirculated
through the biological filters to the aeration chamber and back to the
rearing ponds. Approximately 2,000 - 3,000 GPM of de-aerated fresh
spring water is being added constantly to the reuse system. The present
reuse water system wastes away 10% of the total available water to the
wastewater lagoon (½ mile away) \-\-- a series of two settling ponds
that eventually drain into the Columbia River. During incubation and
early rearing, water temperature is increased to 50 °F by mixing spring
(47 °F) and well water (66 °F).

> The hatchery has been issued the following permits: Spring water \-\--
> Permit No. 6716 11/04/53 - 12.0 sec. ft. and Permit No. 12045 dated
> 11/04/53, Well Water \-\-- Permit No. G 228217, and NPDES Permit No.
> \-\-- WA-000022-1.

2.  **Indicate the 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, of effluent
    discharge.**

Screening criteria do not apply because there are no fish in the springs
where hatchery water is withdrawn. Prior to entering the Columbia River,
hatchery effluent passes through a water treatment lagoon consisting of
settling and aeration ponds. Hatchery effluent is within all state and
federal regulations, and water quality is monitored on a monthly basis
by hatchery staff (when fish are present) and reported quarterly to the
US Environmental Protection Agency.

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

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

> Adult spawners are collected as they return to the hatchery in late
> August, and September. To enter the hatchery, adult fish must swim up
> a fish ladder that flows between the rearing (and adult holding) ponds
> and the Columbia River. Once at the top of the ladder, adult fish are
> enumerated and directed into appropriate holding ponds by hatchery
> staff. During the migration season, hatchery personnel are on duty 16
> hrs daily (1^st^ and 2^nd^ shifts) to enumerate and direct returning
> fish. During the night (3^rd^ shift), a night watchman is on hand, but
> a gate at the top of the ladder is closed to prevent uncounted fish
> from entering the holding ponds.

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

Fish transport is rarely, if ever, used. If fish transport is required,
tank trucks can be borrowed from other service or state hatcheries.

3.  **Broodstock holding and spawning facilities.**

Adult fish come into the hatchery by swimming up a fish ladder, which
drains directly into the Columbia River. From the top of the ladder,
adults are directed into the rearing ponds (see sec 5.5 for description)
that serve to hold broodstock during the spawning season. Holding ponds
are provided with 750 gpm of hatchery spring / reuse water. To prevent
fish from jumping between and out of ponds, 2' high jump boards are
installed along the edge of each pond.

4.  **Incubation facilities**.

> The hatchery rears eggs and yolk sac fry in vertical (Heath type)
> incubators supplied with 3-7 gpm of de-aerated spring / well water.
> On-site 288 vertical units (16 trays ea, total of 4,432 trays) are
> housed in a 9,994 ft^2^ incubation building. Also housed in the
> incubation building are 30 fiberglass troughs (16' x 14" x 14") for
> washing, shocking, and inventorying of eggs.

5.  **Rearing facilities.**

> Fry rearing is done in 44 concrete Burroughs ponds (17'W x 75'L x 4'D;
> 5100 ft^3^, rearing space is 3300 ft^3^ at 3' water depth). The
> incoming flow rate varies from 450 -- 750 gpm (flow is increased with
> increasing fish size) of mixed spring / reuse water.

6.  **Acclimation/release facilities.**

Off-site acclimation facilities are not used; fish are released directly
from the rearing ponds.

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

In 1970, the hatchery was remodeled into a 90% reuse system. Water used
in the system is recirculated by means of several pumps, in the case of
power outages, pumps can be operated by means of a 500 KW diesel
generator. In the 30 years of operation, the hatchery has experienced
many power outages, none of which resulted in a major system failure.

In 1985, the addition of a second species to Spring Creek NFH (Upriver
Bright fall Chinook) initiated the onset of bacterial gill disease that
killed millions of fish. A report by Talo (1999) summarizes operational
errors that led to this event. In short, an increase in fish density,
incompatible growth patterns for the two species, semi-functional filter
beds and partial utilization of the reuse system facilities led to an
estimated loss of up to 50% of the fish. A number of actions were
immediately taken to insure that a similar situation would not occur.

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.**

To avoid fish losses due to water system failure, the hatchery has a
centralized monitoring and alarm system with flow and water level alarms
located throughout the system. This alarm system is connected to a radio
dialer with pagers as well as a telephone dialer. During the culture
season, an "on-call" schedule ensures that someone is monitoring the
alarm system at all times.

Fish health and disease transmission is handled according to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Fish Health Policy, the "Policy and
Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries" (IHOT
1995), and the Salmon Disease Control Policy of the Fisheries
Co-Managers of Washington State as directed by the Lower Columbia River
Fish Health Center. The tule fall Chinook salmon juveniles are fairly
disease resistant and remain free of the reportable pathogens that
plague some other stocks. Any health problems are managed promptly by
fish health personnel to limit mortality and reduce disease transmission
within the hatchery. If an immediate on-station release is the best
course of action due to compromised health of hatchery fish, USFWS
personnel will notify cooperating federal agencies and co-mangers of the
intended action.

**[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**.

> Adult tule fall Chinook collected from the White Salmon and Little
> White Salmon rivers provided the original source of eggs for the
> hatchery. Eggs were collected from the White Salmon starting in 1901
> and continued uninterrupted until 1964. Eggs were also collected from
> the White Salmon in 1986 and 1987.
>
> In 1972, 12 million eggs from the Toutle River State Hatchery
> (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) were brought into Spring
> Creek. The Toutle River stock originated from Spring Creek. Toutle
> River State Hatchery eggs were fertilized with Spring Creek NFH males
> and egg loss exceeded 50%. Less than 5 million smolts were released
> from this group.
>
> In 1986, 1.1 million eggs were transferred from Little White Salmon
> National Fish Hatchery. These adults were strays from Spring Creek
> that entered the Little White Salmon River.
>
> In 1987 and 1988 adult females were transferred from Bonneville State
> Hatchery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). These eggs were
> fertilized with Spring Creek NFH males. In 1987 and 1988, 6.1 and 13.1
> million eggs were collected, reared and released at Spring Creek NFH.
> To minimize the effect on future brood year genetics, a spawning
> protocol was devised to minimize any genetic impairment (see section
> 8.3) and followed as closely as possible by Spring Creek NFH
> personnel.

**6.2) Supporting information**.

> **6.2.1) History.**

The tule fall Chinook program started in 1901 when fall Chinook eggs
were collected from both the White Salmon and the Little White Salmon
rivers. Some of these eggs were incubated in spring water coming out of
the basalt cliffs about a mile west of the confluence of the White
Salmon and Columbia rivers. Within a few years adult salmon started
returning to this spring water and eggs were collected.

> From about 1925 through 1983, Spring Creek egg collections were large
> enough to supply egg needs to any hatchery that requested eggs. As a
> result of program changes there is not another hatchery program that
> rears Spring Creek tule fall Chinook.
>
> During the mid 80's through the mid 90's Spring Creek experienced some
> major shortfalls in adult survival. To ensure that program goals were
> met, eggs were imported (see sec 6.1) from several other hatcheries.
> These facilities were heavily influenced (all stocks imported were
> founded from Spring Creek stock) by the Spring Creek stock and any
> potential impacts on genetics of the Spring Creek stock were
> minimized.
>
> **6.2.2) Annual size.**

Spring Creek's minimum escapement goal is 7,000 adults of which 4,000
need to be females. There are still small numbers of tule fall Chinook
spawning naturally in the White Salmon, Wind, and possibly Klickitat
rivers (see section 2.2.2 for discussion). It is thought that these
populations are influenced greatly by the hatchery stock. Some natural
fish may stray into the hatchery, but the numbers are extremely low and
there is no way to distinguish between hatchery fish and their natural
counterparts. The natural spawning fish are considered part of the same
ESU as the hatchery stock, but unlike the hatchery stock are listed for
protection.

> **6.2.3) Past and proposed level of natural fish in broodstock**.

Presently there are no plans to incorporate natural spawning fish into
the hatchery brood stock. The hatchery possesses the capability to
collect natural spawning fish with an adult trapping facility located on
the White Salmon River. The hatchery has a long history of using native
fish. Further, although natural fish are not currently a part of Spring
Creek's broodstock program, the effective population size of the
hatchery's spawning population is quite large (\>5,000), and it is felt
that the genetic integrity of the stock is intact.

4.  **Genetic or ecological differences**.

It is assumed that the genetic and phenotypic characteristics of the
present hatchery population is quite similar to the original natural
stock from the White Salmon River. There is little if any recent data
concerning this subject.

> **6.2.5) Reasons for choosing.**

Spring Creek Hatchery was originally founded in the early 1900's in an
effort to support the declining commercial fisheries in the Columbia
basin. Tule fall Chinook from the White Salmon river were utilized
because of their great abundance and the relative ease of collection
(logistically speaking).

**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.**

> Presently broodstock selection consists only of returning tule fall
> Chinook to the hatchery. Tule fall Chinook are easily identified by
> the darkened color of their skin and general declining appearance of
> health by hatchery staff. Selection of any other salmonids for
> spawning is highly unlikely.

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

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

Adult spawners are collected as they return to the hatchery site. In
years of low adult return, spawners have also been collected from
Bonneville Dam's north-shore trapping facility.

**7.2) Collection or sampling design.**

Broodstock are collected as they return to the hatchery. Returning
adults enter the hatchery by swimming up a ladder that flows from the
adult holding ponds to the Columbia River. As they exit the top of the
ladder hatchery personnel enumerate and visually determine the putative
sex of individual fish. Hatchery staff then direct individual fish to
the adult holding ponds. This system allows the hatchery to track
escapement goals, and prevents individual ponds from becoming
overcrowded. Adult fish typically begin to return to the hatchery in
late August and are collected until the migration to the hatchery stops
in late September.

**7.3) Identity.**

Tule fall Chinook are easily distinguished from other fall Chinook
stocks and salmonid species based on coloration. All tules returning to
the hatchery are assumed to be of hatchery origin \-\-- all other fish
are returned directly to the Columbia River.

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

> **7.4.1) Program goal (assuming 1:1 sex ratio for adults):**
>
> A minimum broodstock collection of 7,000 adults (4,000 females) is
> required. The hatchery strives for an effective population size ≥
> 5,000.
>
> **7.4.2) Broodstock collection levels for the last twelve years (e.g.
> 1988-99), or for most recent years available:**

+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **Year**     | **Adults**  |             |           | **Eggs**      |
|              |             |             |           |               |
|              | **Females   |             |           | *             |
|              | Males       |             |           | *(millions)** |
|              | Jacks**     |             |           |               |
+==============+=============+=============+===========+===============+
| **1987^a^**  | 2476        | 495         | 0         | 20.5          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1988^a^**  | 4076        | 696         | 125       | 39.7          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1989^a^**  | 2433        | 993         | 68        | 24.4          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1990**     | 3880        | 1166        | 0         | 20.7          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1991**     | 6435        | 3764        | 373       | 33.3          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1992**     | 4701        | 2705        | 0         | 24.1          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1993**     | 4257        | 2827        | 72        | 20.5          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1994**     | 5435        | 3886        | 134       | 26.2          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1995**     | 4924        | 2482        | 74        | 23.3          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1996**     | 3647        | 2266        | 91        | 16.2          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1997**     | 5267        | 2803        | 79        | 24.3          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1998**     | 2807        | 1700        | 106       | 11.9          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **1999**     | 6095        | 3050        | 55        | 27.3          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **2000**     | 2401        | 1551        | 75        | 11.8          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **2001**     | 6265        | 4005        | 140       | 30.9          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
| **Mean**     | 4340        | 2293        | 93        | 23.7          |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-----------+---------------+

^a^Adult fish include fish captured in adult traps below and above
Bonneville Dam and returning to Spring Creek NFH

Data source: CRiS (Stephen M. Pastor August 2002) database

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

Adult fish arriving on station that are in excess of production
requirements are given to the federal prisons food system, and to any
treaty obligated tribes if requested.

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

Adults typically begin to return to the hatchery in late August and
continue to arrive on site until the end of September. Adult holding
ponds are provided with 750 gpm of hatchery spring / reuse water. Ponds
are checked daily for any moribund or dieing fish. All fish are held on
site until ripe. The start of the spawning season begins in mid
September and proceeds for about three weeks.

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

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

8.  **Disposition of carcasses.**

Any spawned or unspawned fish that are treated with anesthetic (MS-222)
are disposed of as carcasses. These carcasses are disposed of off site
by a commercial animal rendering service.

Beginning in 2001, Spring Creek tule carcasses have been used as the
source for "carcass analog" pellets (BioOregon Company) which are being
produced as a convenient disease-free fish product to enhance watershed
productivity through nutrient enhancement. In the future, whole,
untreated carcasses may be used for nutrient enhancement of nearby
watersheds. Whole Number range CHAPTERcarcass 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 Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center recommendations to
minimize potential disease transmission to resident and anadromous fish.

**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.**

Natural spawning Tule fall Chinook salmon in the Wind, White Salmon, and
Klickitat Rivers are not targeted populations of the Spring Creek tule
fall Chinook broodstock program, although the potential collection of
these naturally reared fall Chinook does remotely exist. See section
2.2.2 of this document for a detailed account of naturally occurring
populations of tule fall Chinook. The tule fall Chinook stock at Spring
Creek NFH is a relatively pathogen-free stock so the risk of disease
transmission to other fish is low.

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

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

**8.1) Selection method.**

All ripe females on a given day are spawned, any killed but judged to
have green or bad eggs are discarded. Any excess adults that are
surplused are done in such a manner that the excess fish are taken
uniformly throughout the migration period.

**8.2) Males.**

The hatchery goal is the use 1 male to 1 female when possible but due to
the selection of fish for spawning (see section 8.3) this does not
consistently occur. Approximately 2 -- 4% of the spawned males are
jacks.

**8.3) Fertilization.**

> On a given spawning day, fish are transferred to the spawning
> building, one pond at a time. Fish are crowded out of the pond and
> into the channel with manual crowders. Mechanical crowders are used to
> move the fish from the channel into a mechanical lift. While in the
> lift, fish are anaesthetized with MS-222, and then transferred onto
> the sorting table. While on the sorting table, ripe fish are
> segregated, and unripe fish returned to the holding ponds. All fish
> judged to be ripe are sent down the table where they are killed, and
> separated by sex. The females are bled by severing the caudal vein.
> Eggs are then removed by cutting the abdomen open with a Wyoming
> knife. Ovarian fluid is removed by draining the eggs in a colander.
> Eggs from a single female are placed in a bowl and fertilized with a
> single male (1:1 spawning ratio). Immediately after milt is added,
> saline solution is added and eggs mixed gently, this is to increase
> the distribution of sperm around the eggs and increase fertilization.
> Fertilized eggs are transferred to the incubation building where the
> milt is washed from the eggs, and water-hardening occurs. Fertilized
> eggs are placed into vertical incubators (Heath type) at a density of
> 7500 eggs / tray. All equipment used is routinely disinfected with an
> iodine solution. Any vessels used to hold eggs or sperm are
> disinfected between individual fish.

**8.4) Cryopreserved gametes.**

Not applicable.

**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.**

> As mentioned in section 8.2, a male to female spawning ratio of 1:1
> will be used to the best ability of hatchery staff and available
> brood. See section 7.9 for the potential collection of listed
> naturally rearing fall Chinook above Bonneville Dam.

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

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

**9.1) [Incubation]{.underline}:**

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

# Hatchery Goals as presented in Section 1.10, Performance standard #2

> ≥ 95% egg to eye up
>
> ≥ 90% egg to fry (ponding)
>
> ≥ 97% fry to smolt (ponding to release)

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Brood**   | **Eggs      | **Survival  | **Survival  | **Survival  |
|             | Taken**     | Egg to      | Egg to Pond | Pond to     |
| **Year**    |             | Eye-up      | (%)**       | Release     |
|             | **(         | (%)**       |             | (%)**       |
|             | millions)** |             | **Hatchery  |             |
|             |             | **Hatchery  | goal        | **Hatchery  |
|             | **Hatchery  | goal        | \>90%**     | goal        |
|             | goal \>     | \>95%**     |             | \>97%**     |
|             | 17.8        |             |             |             |
|             | million**   |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1988 ^a^    | 21.72 ^b^   | 80.2        | 77.9        | 90.5        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1989 ^a^    | 12.2 ^b^    | 93.0        | 86.5        | 96.9        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1990        | 20.72       | 91.7        | 85.8        | 97.7        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1991        | 33.3        | 95.5        | 90.1        | 95.5        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1992        | 24.14       | 96.3        | 93.3        | 96.3        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1993        | 20.45       | 96.1        | 87.0        | 97.2        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1994        | 26.2        | 95.4        | 91.1        | 98.8        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1995        | 23.31       | 93.1        |             | 97.5        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1996        | 16.22       | 93.2        | 90.5        | 98.0        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1997        | 24.25       | 96.6        | 94.3        | 98.1        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1998        | 11.89       | 95.7        | 92.6        | 96.3        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1999        | 27.25       | 97.4        | 94.8        | 97.2        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 2000        | 11.76       | 94.4        | 92.4        | 97.3        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 2001        | 30.98       | 91.9        | 87.5        | 97.9        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Mean ± SD   | 21.7 ± 6.8  | 93.6 ± 4.3  | 89.5 ± 4.6  | 96.8 ± 2.0  |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

> ^a^Survival rates for this year are for eggs taken from Spring Creek
> NFH and from trap sites located above and below Bonneville Dam.
>
> ^b^Eggs taken from fish returning to hatchery only. For complete
> number of eggs taken during this year from trap sites and hatchery see
> Table 7.4.2.

2.  **Cause for, and disposition of surplus egg takes.**

Eggs in excess of program goals are routinely taken in years of high
adult returns. This is to ensure that fish from the entire spectrum of
the migration period are used in the spawning population. If these
excess eggs are not required by other production facilities / programs
they are discarded (by burying on-site). A representative portion from
each of the egg takes (spawning days) is maintained and additional eggs
culled from the population. The decision about which egg baskets (within
an egg take) to discard is largely determined on the base of egg quality
and eye-up rate. All excess eggs discarded are at the eyed stage.

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

> Fertilized eggs are put down at a density of 1.5 females / tray
> (average 7500 eggs /tray). At eye-up eggs are shocked, salted,
> enumerated, and returned to the trays at a density of 4000 eggs /
> tray. Prior to eye-up eggs are provided with 3 gpm of de-aerated
> spring / well water. Following eye-up, flows are increased to 5-6 gpm.

**9.1.4) Incubation conditions.**

To manipulate growth and development of the eggs, well water (66 ºF) is
added to the spring water (47 ºF) to maintain a temperature of 50 ºF.
This mixing occurs prior to entering the de-aeration tower where culture
water passes through a packed column of coke rings. Dissolved oxygen has
never been an issue and is not routinely monitored.

**9.1.5) Ponding**.

Fry are ponded at 1500 -- 1550 cumulative temperature units, which
correspond to about 85% button-up. Swim-up and ponding are forced during
mid to late December. The average size at ponding for the latest brood
year was 1209 ± 6.7 fish / lb (± SE).

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

> Loss of eggs from fungal infestation has not been a problem, and
> disease treatments for the control of fungus are not routinely used.
> Eggs are treated regularly (3 time / week) with a low level of
> Iodophor (10 -- 15 ppm) to control losses due to soft -- shell. Yolk
> sac malformations are generally less than 0.2%. Egg mortality is on
> average less than 5%; the majority of dead / unfertilized eggs are
> removed during the shocking and salting process (at eye -- up). Losses
> incurred during and after hatching are typically less than 3%, and are
> removed manually by hatchery staff. At ponding, a fish health exam is
> done on a 60 fish sample collected by the Fish Health Center.
>
> **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.**
>
> The hatchery component of the Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook ESU
> are not listed.

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

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

See Section 9.1.1 for pertinent data.

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

Current hatchery rearing practices stipulate a density-index goal of no
higher then 0.28, and a flow-index goal of no higher then 1.50 (see
section 1.10 for computation of density and flow indices). Values for
these two metrics rarely exceed the targeted goals, however
density-index is generally higher than the target for the week or two
prior to the March release. Fish left after the March release, are split
into the empty ponds and the density index remains below target for the
rest of the rearing season. Initial ponding is at a density of about
350,000 fish / pond (113 fish / ft^3^), this density is maintained until
the fish are split after the March release, when fish density decreases
to around 210,000 / pond (68 fish / ft^3^).

**9.2.3) Fish rearing conditions**

> Water quality (O~2~, NH~3~, NO~2~, NO~3~, pH; before and after the
> filter beds) is measured weekly. Water temperature is monitored daily.
> Pond screens (drains) are cleaned as needed, at least weekly. Pond
> bottoms are cleaned with a brush as needed (weekly to monthly). The
> filter beds are backwashed on a biweekly basis at the beginning of the
> rearing period, and then on a weekly basis as the level of feed
> applied increases. For the first month to month and a half after
> ponding, well water (66 ºF) is mixed with spring water (47 ºF). This
> allows the hatchery to maintain a water temperature of 48-50 ºF,
> depending on weather conditions. The well is generally turned off by
> the first of February and water temperature is dependent on ambient
> conditions (47-49 ºF range).
>
> **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.**

Overall fish size and culture conditions at the end of each month for
all release groups from brood year 2001.

+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| *        | **Fork | **W     | **Co    | **      | **Flow | **Feed  |
| *Month** | Le     | eight** | ndition | Density | Inde   | Con     |
|          | ngth** |         | F       | Index   | x^2^** | version |
|          |        | **(     | actor** | (lbs    |        | to      |
|          | **     | #/lb)** |         | fish /  |        | date**  |
|          | (in)** |         | *       | f       |        |         |
|          |        |         | *(C\*10 | t^3^)** |        |         |
|          |        |         | ^-7^)** |         |        |         |
+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| Dec.     | 1.7    | 729     | 2790    | 0.09    | 0.40   | 0.94    |
| 2001     |        |         |         |         |        |         |
+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| Jan.     | 2.2    | 324     | 2900    | 0.16    | 0.75   | 0.75    |
| 2002     |        |         |         |         |        |         |
+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| Feb.     | 2.8    | 154     | 2960    | 0.26    | 1.23   | 0.69    |
| 2002     |        |         |         |         |        |         |
+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| March    | 3.4    | 85      | 2990    | 0.15    | 0.73   | 0.74    |
| 2002     |        |         |         |         |        |         |
+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| April    | 4.1    | 48      | 3020    | 0.22    | 1.05   | 0.74    |
| 2002     |        |         |         |         |        |         |
+----------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+---------+

> ^2^- Flow index is calculated as lbs fish / (length of fish in
> inches)(gallons per minute inflow).

Please note that this data is provided to demonstrate general fish
growth and culture characteristics of tule fall Chinook Salmon reared at
Spring Creek NFH. This data combines values from three distinct release
groups (March, April, and May) that are managed for different target
release sizes and may be grown at considerably different overall rates
(see section 9.2.6 for details).

> **9.2.5) Indicate monthly fish growth rate and energy reserve data
> (*average program performance*), if available**.

# 

# See section 9.2.4 for available data.

> **9.2.6) Indicate food type used, daily application schedule, feeding
> rate range (e.g. % B.W./day and lbs/gpm inflow), and estimates of
> total food conversion efficiency during rearing (*average program
> performance*).**
>
> All fish are fed (7 days/ week) by hand by hatchery staff. Feed size
> and type as well as feeding frequency are given below.

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Fish Feed     | Number of Feeds Per Day                              |
| Size and      |                                                      |
| FPP\*         | 8 7 6 5 4                                            |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Biodiet       | X                                                    |
|               |                                                      |
| #2 Starter    | X                                                    |
|               |                                                      |
| 1100-800      | X                                                    |
|               |                                                      |
| Biodiet       | X X                                                  |
|               |                                                      |
| #3 Starter    | X X                                                  |
|               |                                                      |
| 800-550       | X X                                                  |
|               |                                                      |
| Biomoist      |                                                      |
|               |                                                      |
| 1.0 mm        |                                                      |
|               |                                                      |
| 550-400       |                                                      |
|               |                                                      |
| Abernathy     |                                                      |
| 3/64          |                                                      |
|               |                                                      |
| 400-200       |                                                      |
|               |                                                      |
| Abernathy     |                                                      |
|               |                                                      |
| 4/64          |                                                      |
|               |                                                      |
| 200-75        |                                                      |
|               |                                                      |
| Abernathy     |                                                      |
|               |                                                      |
| 6/64          |                                                      |
|               |                                                      |
| 75-           |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

> FPP = Fish Per Pound, these figures are the feed company\'s
> recommended feed sizes for the number of fish per pound.

For the first three weeks of culture, ponded fry are fed at a targeted
rate of 0.016 inches / day. This rate is increased to 0.016 -- 0.018
inches / day, and kept there until the March release. If water
temperature drops (due to unusually cold weather) the targeted growth
rate is reduced to 0.014 - 0.015 inches / day. After the March release
growth rate is increased to 0.02 inches / day. A feed conversion factor
of 0.85 -- 0.9 (lb feed / lb growth) is maintained throughout the
rearing period. During the two weeks prior to release, the feeding rate
is increased by 10 %. After the initial month of culture, fish growth is
assessed bi-weekly and condition factor determined monthly.

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

> Number range CHAPTERThe Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center
> (LCRFHC) in Underwood, WA provides fish health care for the Spring
> Creek NFH as described in the published policy 713 FW in the U.S. 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
> meet the requirements of the Washington State and Tribal fish health
> agencies that follow the directives in the Washington Co-Managers'
> Salmonid Disease Control Policy of 1998.
>
> 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 as requested by hatchery personnel. Fish that are sick,
> dying, and/or exhibiting unusual behavior are examined for disease
> with appropriate diagnostic tests. A pathologist will normally check
> symptomatic fish during a monthly examination. As needed, appropriate
> remedial or chemotherapeutant treatments will be prescribed to control
> or prevent disease outbreaks.

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

> The day before release, a sub-sample of the release group is exposed
> to a saltwater challenge and mortality and change in condition factor
> is recorded.

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

> None currently employed.

10. **Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize
    the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to listed
    fish under propagation.**

> The hatchery component of the Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook ESU is
> not listed.

**[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 (fpp)**    **Release Date**  **Location**
                   Number**                                              
  ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Eggs**         \-\-\-\-\-\-\--   \-\-\-\-\-\-\--   \-\-\-\-\-\-\--   \-\-\-\-\-\-\--

  **Unfed Fry**    3,000,000         1200              Jan.              Columbia River

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

  **Fingerling**   15,100,000        45 - 125          Mar., Apr., May   Columbia River

  **Yearling**     \-\-\-\-\-\-\--   \-\-\-\-\-\-\--   \-\-\-\-\-\-\--   \-\-\-\-\-\-\--
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

> **Stream, river, or watercourse:** Columbia River, WRIA 29

**Release point:** river kilometer 269

**Major watershed:** Columbia River

**Basin or Region:** Columbia River basin

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

Tule fall Chinook release date and number at release are presented
below. Data presented in this table is from the CRiS (Stephen M. Pastor
August 2002) database and is presented in the Annual Stock Assessment --
CWT Bonneville Project 198906500, Annual Report 2000 (Stephen M. Pastor
2000).

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th rowspan="2">Release year</th>
<th colspan="3">December</th>
<th colspan="4">March</th>
<th colspan="3">April</th>
<th colspan="4">May</th>
<th>March, April, May Combined</th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th><p>Unfed Fry</p>
<p>(millions)</p></th>
<th colspan="2">Avg size (number per pound)</th>
<th colspan="2"><p>Fingerling</p>
<p>(millions)</p></th>
<th colspan="2">Avg size (number per pound)</th>
<th><p>Fingerling</p>
<p>(millions)</p></th>
<th colspan="2">Avg size (number per pound)</th>
<th colspan="2"><p>Fingerling</p>
<p>(millions)</p></th>
<th colspan="2">Avg size (number per pound)</th>
<th><p>Fingerling</p>
<p>(millions)</p></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1989</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">7.55</td>
<td colspan="2">116.3</td>
<td colspan="2">3.78</td>
<td>67.6</td>
<td colspan="2">3.96</td>
<td colspan="2">36.9</td>
<td colspan="2">15.29</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1990</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">2.70</td>
<td colspan="2">109.3</td>
<td colspan="2">4.11</td>
<td>63.3</td>
<td colspan="2">3.42</td>
<td colspan="2">36.9</td>
<td colspan="2">10.23</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1991</td>
<td>3.29</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">6.86</td>
<td colspan="2">123.3</td>
<td colspan="2">4.09</td>
<td>67.81</td>
<td colspan="2">3.39</td>
<td colspan="2">41.6</td>
<td colspan="2">14.34</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1992</td>
<td>7.66</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">12.58</td>
<td colspan="2">121.2</td>
<td colspan="2">3.54</td>
<td>53.44</td>
<td colspan="2">2.94</td>
<td colspan="2">36.0</td>
<td colspan="2">19.07</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1993</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">6.85</td>
<td colspan="2">137.9</td>
<td colspan="2">3.97</td>
<td>89.5</td>
<td colspan="2">3.47</td>
<td colspan="2">45.8</td>
<td colspan="2">14.29</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1994</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">7.84</td>
<td colspan="2">120.1</td>
<td colspan="2">4.14</td>
<td>81.7</td>
<td colspan="2">3.6</td>
<td colspan="2">41.8</td>
<td colspan="2">15.58</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1995</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">7.94</td>
<td colspan="2">111.7</td>
<td colspan="2">4.26</td>
<td>77.5</td>
<td colspan="2">3.79</td>
<td colspan="2">44.9</td>
<td colspan="2">15.99</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1996</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">8.02</td>
<td colspan="2">124.1</td>
<td colspan="2">4.48</td>
<td>75.6</td>
<td colspan="2">3.94</td>
<td colspan="2">45.3</td>
<td colspan="2">16.44</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1997</td>
<td>6.92</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">7.17</td>
<td colspan="2">120.0</td>
<td colspan="2">3.92</td>
<td>67.2</td>
<td colspan="2">3.46</td>
<td colspan="2">40.9</td>
<td colspan="2">14.55</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1998</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">7.73</td>
<td colspan="2">111.2</td>
<td colspan="2">4.22</td>
<td>61.6</td>
<td colspan="2">3.67</td>
<td colspan="2">39.1</td>
<td colspan="2">15.62</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1999</td>
<td>3.11</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">4.07</td>
<td colspan="2">116.5</td>
<td colspan="2">3.53</td>
<td>74.6</td>
<td colspan="2">2.99</td>
<td colspan="2">60.1</td>
<td colspan="2">10.59</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2000</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">8.18</td>
<td colspan="2">121.9</td>
<td colspan="2">4.31</td>
<td>67.7</td>
<td colspan="2">3.6</td>
<td colspan="2">38.6</td>
<td colspan="2">16.09</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2001</td>
<td>3.04</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">5.31</td>
<td colspan="2">117.6</td>
<td colspan="2">5.26</td>
<td>60.0</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">10.57</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Mean</td>
<td>4.81</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">7.14</td>
<td colspan="2">119.3</td>
<td colspan="2">4.12</td>
<td>69.8</td>
<td colspan="2">3.52</td>
<td colspan="2">42.3</td>
<td colspan="2">14.47</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

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

Fish are released as fingerlings (smolts) and unfed fry. One unfed fry
release occurs at ponding (range of release dates: 12/11 -- 12/16), and
three separate fingerling releases occur in March (5 yr range of dates:
3/8 -- 3/13), April (5 yr range of dates: 3/28 -- 4/22), and May (5 yr
range of dates: 4/30 -- 5/19). The unfed fry release date is dependent
on water temperature and developmental rate of the eggs. The date of the
March release is largely dictated by loading densities at the hatchery
and coincide with an approved spill request to the Corps of Engineers, a
total dissolved gas waiver from Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ), and an adjusted dissolved gas standard from Washington
Department of Ecology (WDEQ) for increased spill at Bonneville Dam for a
ten day period (see brief discussion below). April and May release dates
are more flexible and can be changed on the basis of river conditions,
growth, health and development of the fish. Fish are forcibly released
on a per pond basis. Although the hatchery would prefer to adopt a
volitional release strategy, available facilities prevent this strategy
from being used.

> As mentioned previously, an approved spill at Bonneville Dam spillway
> has been routinely requested by USFWS since 1985 for the March release
> of juvenile tule fall Chinook (USFWS 2001). The purpose of this
> release is to increase the number of juvenile tule fall Chinook that
> survive passage at Bonneville Dam. This increased spill at Bonneville
> Dam increases the total dissolved gas (TDG) criterion above the state
> of Oregon standard of 110% below Bonneville Dam and to 115% TDG at the
> Camas-Washougal monitoring site, or an equivalent 120% TDG level in
> the Bonneville Dam Tailrace. Increase in Bonneville Dam spill has
> coincided with the March release of juvenile tule fall Chinook every
> year since 1985 except during 1995, which was in part due to lack of
> USFWS biological monitoring in the spill request proposal, and in
> 1998, when the basis for denying the spill request was unclear. Past
> monitoring by NMFS staff has shown migratory salmonids, resident fish,
> and invertebrates have not been significantly affected by TDG levels
> expected during the proposed spill (Toner and Dawley 1995, Dawley and
> Schrank 1995, DeHart 1995). In addition, the completed 2001 Gas
> Supersaturation Monitoring Report for Spill Below Bonneville Dam
> (USFWS 2001) found that only 3 of the 214 fish examined were positive
> for gas bubble trauma (GBT). The GBT exhibited by these fish also was
> the lowest level indicator, a single bubble in an observed area.

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

# 

# Not applicable.

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

> None used, all releases occur on station, fish are acclimated only to
> the hatchery water source.

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

# A proportion of each release group (roughly 3% or 150,000 per release group) is marked with a coded wire tag and adipose clip. Unfed fry released are otolith marked (100% marking rate) by thermal manipulation.

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

Reared fish in surplus of 15.1 million smolts (Spring Creek NFH goal for
release) are released during the standard release periods of March,
April, and May or during the unfed fry release. See Table 10.3 for years
of unfed fry and surplus releases.

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*. In addition, the LCRFHC provides
> another special exam (Goede's exam, Goede and Barton, 1990) of 10
> randomly selected fish/raceway a few days prior to each release. This
> information is used by hatchery personnel to ascertain general health
> of the population in relation to their survival and return as adults.
>
> Disease outbreaks from the listed pathogens are uncommon in the tule
> fall Chinook salmon. However, should a disease outbreak occur, the
> appropriate strategy for control (chemotherapy or cultural changes)
> will be recommended by the fish pathologist. Because Spring Creek is a
> facility where 90% of the water is re-circulated through bio-filter
> beds that are sensitive to some chemotherapeutants, it may be
> necessary to protect fish health by reducing densities in an approved
> early release. All early releases are done in accordance with the fish
> health policies of the USFWS, Washington and Oregon Co-Managers with
> notification to NOAA Fisheries prior to release.

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

Fish will be released on station in case of emergency.

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

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. Spring Creek fish are released directly
into the mainstem Columbia River migration corridor rather than into
tributary spawning or rearing areas. Based on Bonneville Dam sampling of
juveniles, Spring Creek fish appear to emigrate rapidly, reducing the
potential for competitive interaction with listed fish. Because Spring
Creek releases occur "low" in the system relative to many other upriver
programs, and the emigration through the migration corridor appears to
be rapid, there is reduced opportunity for competitive interactions. In
addition, the three-release strategy (March, April, and May) also should
reduce potential competitive interactions by reducing potential density
dependent effects in the mainstem migration corridor and estuary.
Approximately one-half of the total production is typically released in
March, with the remaining production split approximately equally between
April and May releases. The March release occurs before the general
outmigration of most other natural and hatchery stocks begins, reducing
potential density dependent effects as well as other potential
ecological effects such as competition, predation, and disease
transmission. Splitting the April and May releases reduces the potential
for significant interactions on a particular component of the natural
out-migration that may be emigrating from the Columbia River system at
the same time as Spring Creek releases.

> A Biological Assessment conducted by USFWS during 1994 (USFWS 1994)
> states that interaction resulting from competition for food and space
> between salmon released from SCNFH and Snake River listed salmon
> stocks is assumed to be minimal in the mainstem Columbia River. Spring
> Creek tule fall Chinook smolts released from Spring Creek NFH averaged
> 11.2 days (range 5.4 -- 23.8) migration time to the Columbia River
> Estuary and residence time in the estuary was 3-4 days in 1968-1970
> (Dawley et al. 1986). This provides further evidence of that there is
> a short amount of time for potential interactions with wild, listed
> fish.
>
> Potential adverse ecological effects to listed and unlisted species
> are addressed annually within ODEQ Total Dissolved Gas (Criteria
> Modification) Petition (Attachment I.). In addition, the Gas
> Supersaturation Monitoring Report for Spill Below Bonneville Dam
> (USFWS 2001) also addresses these concerns and presents the most
> recent findings regarding USFWS monitoring of the requested March
> spill increases.

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

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

> **11.1.1) Describe plans and methods proposed to collect data
> necessary to respond to each "Performance Indicator" identified for
> the program.**
>
> Refer to Section 1.10 for a discussion of how each "Performance
> Indicator" will be monitored and measured.
>
> **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 USFWS expects to continue funding monitoring and evaluation
> programs associated with Spring Creek NFH as the monitoring and
> evaluation programs are currently designed and funded by NMFS,
> Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps. Of Engineers and
> USFWS. Further monitoring and evaluation programs could be initiated
> in the future.

**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.**

Ecological interactions between Spring Creek fish and other stocks of
fish, in the mainstem corridor of the target area, are presumed to be
minimal. Present monitoring and evaluation as detailed in Section
1.10-1.12 occur on hatchery therefore, would not affect listed
salmonids. More attention needs to be devoted to the development of
ecological interaction studies in the local tributaries with funding
provided to complete specific studies. Ecological interaction studies
should compliment projects under Section 12 of this document.

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

**12.1a) Objective or purpose.**

> *Indicate why the research is needed, its benefit or effect on listed
> natural fish populations, and broad significance of the proposed
> project.*
>
> **Unfed fry release and evaluation**
>
> Since its inception in 1901, the SCNFH tule fall Chinook salmon
> production program has reared unfed fry (surplus eggs that are hatched
> and incubated through swim-up in the hatchery and released directly
> into the Columbia River). Unfed fry releases were discontinued during
> the early 1970's after which followed a marked decrease in Spring
> Creek NFH adult returns and continuing unfed fry releases. In 1991,
> adult returns increased slightly to allow Spring Creek NFH to meet
> production goals and use excess production to again perform unfed fry
> releases. Unpublished research conducted by USFWS during the late
> 1950's and early 60's suggested that Spring Creek NFH unfed fry did
> survive and returned to the hatchery at a rate of 0.0022%, a lower
> survival rate than expected, possibly due to pectoral and adipose fin
> clip marking . Potentially, the unfed fry release program may enhance
> the Columbia River tule fall Chinook salmon fisheries and hatchery
> escapement in addition to maintaining genetic diversity and stock
> vitality in Spring Creek NFH tule fall Chinook.
>
> Two major changes to the unfed fry releases at Spring Creek NFH
> presented an opportunity to assess the modern day survival of fry to
> adult returns; otolithography (thermal marking of otoliths) and a
> December release date. Otolithography, a process involving the
> formation of dense bands on an otolith through water temperature
> manipulation during egg incubation, is a cost effective
> distinguishable mark for unfed fry and may result in less delayed
> mortality and less hampered swimming performance compared to fin
> clipping. Each brood year of the study (1999 -- 2001) has/will have a
> unique mark pattern (LaMotte et al. 1999). Otoliths were removed from
> returning jacks during 2001 and a proportion of otoliths from return
> adults during 2002-2006. Unfed fry releases during previous years have
> only occurred during February. With the ability of Spring Creek NFH to
> artificially warm water to accelerate egg development, unfed fry are
> now released during mid-December. The effect of this change in release
> timing is unknown but potentially poor because of low productivity
> during this time in the Columbia River for salmon forage species.
>
> The objectives of the study are:
>
> 1). Mark up to three million unfed fry (100% of release) and verify
> the mark from 1999 through 2001.
>
> 2). Monitor adult returns to the hatchery for the presence of otolith
> marks -- 2001 through 2006.
>
> 3). Write Final Report 2006-2007.

**12.2a) Cooperating and funding agencies**.

Corps of Engineers (funding)

National Marine Fisheries Service (funding)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (cooperating)

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (cooperating)

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

Project Supervisor: Larry Marchant

Staff: Spring Creek Hatchery Personnel, Columbia River Fisheries Program
Office Personnel.

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

See Section 2.

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

> Broodstock of unfed fry releases are captured as adults swim into
> hatchery (see Section 7 of this document). Dense brands on otoliths of
> juvenile tule fall Chinook fry are added by performing cyclical
> temperature shifts of 5ºF. As eyed eggs/alvins incubate in 52ºF water,
> periodic cold events of 47ºF spring water will be passed through the
> incubator stacks for eight hour time periods.

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

> Late August through early October adults will be collected for
> broodstock and otoliths will be removed from a proportion of
> surplus/spawned tule fall Chinook salmon. Otolith marking will occur
> in November and release will occur in mid-December.

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

> See Sections 7, 8, 9, and 12 of this document for Broodstock
> collection, mating, incubation and rearing, and duration of study.

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

> Unfed fry are raised identically as Spring Creek NFH production tule
> fall Chinook except for water temperature changes associated with
> otolith marking. There are no expected types or effects of take and no
> potential for injury or mortality beyond standard rearing and release
> practices mentioned in Section 9 and 10 of this document.

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

No listed species are used for this research.

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

Presently, there are no other methods considered for meeting project
objectives.

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

Not applicable.

**12.12a)** **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.**

> The hatchery component of the Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook ESU
> are not listed therefore, listed fish will not be adversely affected
> during the on-hatchery facets of this study.

**12.1b) Objective or purpose.**

> *Indicate why the research is needed, its benefit or effect on listed
> natural fish populations, and broad significance of the proposed
> project.*

Assessment of Alternative Ladder Operations at Spring Creek NFH and
Effects on Hatchery Brood Stock Collection and Straying.

> In the last three years (2001-2003), Spring Creek NFH has averaged
> 60,714 (se=6567) adult tule fall Chinook salmon returning to the
> hatchery. Large numbers of fish are surplused to the Yakama Nation,
> when requested, and to fish surplus companies. The ladder at Spring
> Creek NFH has remained open traditionally from late August throughout
> the tule fall Chinook salmon run and until daily returns are zero,
> usually during early October. An alternative approach to ladder
> operations at Spring Creek NFH was attempted in 2003 to increase
> fishing opportunities and harvest for sport and tribal fisherman and
> to decrease the workload of hatchery personnel during spawning
> operations.
>
> Permission was provided by co-managers and NOAA-Fisheries to evaluate
> fish ladder management during the 2003 Tule fall Chinook salmon run.
> The Service proposed the ladder at the hatchery be closed for small
> time periods near the end of the tule fall Chinook run to reduce the
> number of fish handled at the hatchery. Ladder operation at the
> hatchery began on August 25^th^ and ended for the run on October
> 3^rd^, 2003. The ladder was not in operation during the following
> times during the hatchery Tule fall Chinook salmon run;
>
> September 23^rd^ AM -- September 24^th^ AM
>
> September 26^th^ PM -- September 28^th^ PM
>
> September 29^th^ AM (due to Bonneville pool water level fluctuations)
>
> To assess straying of Spring Creek Tule fall Chinook salmon during
> ladder closure, 50 Tule fall Chinook salmon from adult holding ponds
> (23 male and 27 female) were jaw tagged and released back into the
> Columbia River. An additional 13 Tule fall Chinook salmon (6 male, 6
> female, 1 unknown) were also released with affixed radio transmitters.
> Radio and jaw tagged Tule fall Chinook salmon were released over two
> days; September 23^rd^ and September 24^th^. Fish that entered the
> hatchery after September 24^th^ were visually checked for radio
> transmitters or jaw tags during surplus and spawning operations.
> Columbia River Fisheries Program Office staff tracked radio-tagged
> Tule fall Chinook salmon outside of the hatchery area until the final
> ladder closure on October 3^rd^
>
> Only 4 of the 50 jaw tagged Tule fall Chinook with jaw tags were
> recovered. All jaw tags were recovered by hatchery staff and there
> were no recoveries reported off hatchery property by tribal or sport
> fisherman. Only 2 tags were reported as being physically removed from
> fish by hatchery staff, the other 2 tags were recovered after ladder
> closure during cleaning and draining activities.
>
> A total of 12 of the 13 Tule fall Chinook salmon with radio
> transmitters were accounted for with either signal reception during
> mobile radio tracking or tag recovery at the hatchery from September
> 24^th^ to October 3^rd^. Of the 13 fish released with radio
> transmitters, 7 (4 females, 2 males, 1 unknown) entered the hatchery
> again after being released. Actual time of hatchery entry was not
> determined but radio transmitters were recovered on September 25^th^
> (1), 26^th^ (3), 29^th^ (1), 30^th^ (1), and October 2^nd^ (1) when
> fish were either being surplused or spawned from selected holding
> ponds.
>
> Of the 6 Tule fall Chinook salmon with radio transmitters that did not
> enter the hatchery, 3 (2 males, 1 female) were detected at least one
> mile upstream the White Salmon River on September 30^th^. Washington
> Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recovered one of the radio
> transmitters off a Tule fall Chinook salmon (male, 109 cm) during boat
> assisted spawning surveys after final closure of the hatchery ladder.
> The two remaining transmitters in the White Salmon River were not
> recovered.
>
> Early in 2004, the Army Corps of Engineers provided funding to
> continue the assessment of how alternative ladder operations may
> affect brood stock collection and straying at Spring Creek and Little
> White NFH for fall Chinook. A study design similar to 2003 hatchery
> run of tule fall Chinook is being developed for 2004.

**12.2b) Cooperating and funding agencies**.

Corps of Engineers (funding)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (cooperating)

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (cooperating)

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

Project Supervisor: Doug Olson and Larry Marchant - USFWS

Staff: Spring Creek Hatchery Personnel, Columbia River Fisheries Program
Office Personnel, cooperation from Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife

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

See Section 2.

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

> Adult tule fall Chinook will be removed from hatchery holding ponds
> and near the entrance of the adult ladder by dip net and placed into a
> separate holding pond. Fish will be anesthetized using CO~2~ and fork
> length and sex will be recorded. Approximately 50 radio tags
> (approximately 40 g in weight) and 150 Peterson disc tags (1 inch
> diameter, 3 colors with office address) will be affixed to tule fall
> Chinook dorsally with 3 inch nickel pins. Accepted antiseptic
> protocols will be used for tagging operations and fish will be placed
> within a recovery tank for approximately 4-8 minutes before release.
> Fish will be released into the Columbia River from a hatchery release
> tube located on hatchery property. Tagging operations will coincide
> with approximately 3 ladder closures (1 early run, 1 during the peak,
> 1 late in the run) each lasting 2-3 days at Spring Creek NFH.

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

> This research will occur during the 2004 tule fall Chinook salmon run
> to the Spring Creek NFH from mid-August until early October. Mobile
> radio tracking activities of Columbia River Fisheries Program Office
> staff could last into late October, 2004.

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

> See Sections 7 of this document for brood stock collection and normal
> adult handling.
>
> Fish dip netted from the adult ladder and from other brood stock
> holding ponds will be held in another holding pond isolated from the
> hatchery brood stock. From the time of fish capture at the adult
> ladder, to the time of tagging and eventual release to the Columbia
> River, will be less than 24 hours. Transportation of tagged fish from
> the holding ponds to the hatchery release tube will be conducted using
> a flatbed truck with a 400 gallon fish transportation container. The
> total distance from the holding pond to the hatchery release tube is
> less than 100 yards and only 3-5 fish will be transported at one time.

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

> There is no expected take or mortality to happen from tagging or
> capture operations. A small gauge needle is used to affix the tag and
> thread nickel pins through the dorsal flesh of the fish, this does
> cause a small amount of injury but does not impair the swimming
> ability of fish or result in mortality.

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

No listed species are used for this research.

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

Presently, there are no other methods considered for meeting project
objectives.

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

Not applicable.

**12.12b)** **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.**

> The hatchery component of the Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook ESU
> are not listed therefore, listed fish will not be adversely affected
> during the on-hatchery facets of this study.

**12.1c) Objective or purpose.**

**Spring Creek 2004 March Release and Bonneville-2 Corner Collector
Evaluations**

> Approximately 7.3 million smolts were released from Spring Creek
> National Fish Hatchery during March 2004. In past years, Service staff
> from the Columbia River Fisheries Program Office in Vancouver, WA
> requested spill from Bonneville Dam during the March hatchery release.
> Spillway passage is recognized as having the highest survival rate
> among all passage routes for juvenile smolts*.* In 2004, the new B2
> Corner Collector became operational at Bonneville Dam. The Corner
> Collector was designed to have high fish passage survival but without
> information on efficiency and survival rates, abandoning requested
> spillway passage for Spring Creek NFH production fish would be
> premature. An assessment of the newly operational Corner Collector was
> proposed to the Army Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power
> Administration. A version of that proposal was eventually accepted by
> all parties.

**12.2c) Cooperating and funding agencies**.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

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

Project Supervisor: David Wills, Larry Marchant FWS

Staff: Spring Creek NFH Personnel, Columbia River Fisheries Program
Office, COE, BPA, WDFW, and ODFW staff.

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

See Section 2.

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

> []{.mark}
>
> During routine coded wire tagging operations at Spring Creek NFH, two
> separate tag codes were used to identify the juvenile tule Chinook
> released for the Corner Collector assessment; one code for March 1
> release and spillway passage over Bonneville Dam and another code for
> March 10 release and Corner Collector passage over Bonneville Dam.
>
> Spring Creek NFH released 3.68 million fish during the March 1, 2004
> release. The Army COE and BPA provided 50 kcfs spill for the March 1
> release group starting on March 2 at 8:00 P.M. and ended spill on
> March 6 at 8:00 P.M. (96 hours of continuous operation). Total
> dissolved gas levels did not exceed water quality standards during
> this time (Fish Passage Center Weekly Report #04-01, www.fpc.org). The
> remaining March release of 3.65 million was released on March 10, 2004
> and Corner Collector operation started on March 11 and ended on March
> 15, 2004 (96 hours of continuous operation).
>
> The Army COE used hydroacoustic sampling gear to assess fish passage
> at Bonneville Dam for these two release groups. Data is not available
> for presentation at this time.

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

> Spring Creek NFH hatchery releases occurred during March 1 and March
> 10. BPA and the Army COE provided spill and corner collector
> operations March 2-6, and March 11-15, respectively.

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

> Not applicable.

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

> There are no expected types or effects of take and no potential for
> injury or mortality beyond standard rearing and release practices
> mentioned in Section 9 and 10 of this document. Spillway passage is
> recognized as having the highest survival rate among all passage
> routes for juvenile smolts. The Corner Collector was designed to
> increase fish passage survival when compared to passage during
> Bonneville Dam power operation.

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

No listed species are used for this research.

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

Presently, there are no other methods considered for meeting project
objectives.

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

Not applicable.

**12.12c)** **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.**

> The hatchery component of the Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook ESU
> are not listed therefore, listed fish will not be adversely affected
> during the hatchery participation of this study.
>
> During spillway passage of Spring Creek NFH fish, FWS personnel from
> the Columbia River Fisheries Program Office conducted gas-bubble
> trauma inspections of smolts passed during spill passage at 50 kcfs.
> Over 100 fish were examined, including smolts passing from Spring
> Creek NFH, and naturally spawned 0-age Chinook and chum salmon
> originating below Bonneville Dam. Fish were collected by beach seine
> by personnel from WDFW and ODFW during their regular sampling program
> for emergence of chum and Chinook salmon. No sign of gas bubble-trauma
> was detected in any fish. Total dissolved gas (TDG) levels did not
> exceed 107% during this spill period.

**12.1d) Objective or purpose.**

> *Indicate why the research is needed, its benefit or effect on listed
> natural fish populations, and broad significance of the proposed
> project.*

Comparative Genetic Assessment of Spring Creek NFH Brood Stock and White
Salmon Tule Fall Chinook

> A genetic assessment of brood stock at Spring Creek NFH and White
> Salmon River tule fall Chinook salmon adults is currently being
> discussed and drafted by Service staff (May 2004). In addition to
> determining genetic relatedness of tule fall Chinook salmon at Spring
> Creek NFH and a potentially naturally spawning White Salmon River
> stock, a genetic tissue collection of outmigrating Chinook smolts is
> being proposed. Smolt tissue collection and genetic analysis would
> determine if juvenile production from the White Salmon River can
> attributed to naturally spawning tule fall Chinook salmon or upriver
> bright fall Chinook salmon.
>
> Results of this assessment may lead to changes in future brood stock
> management at Spring Creek NFH and the hatchery's role in
> reintroduction of tule fall Chinook salmon into the White Salmon basin
> after removal of Condit Dam (tentatively October 2006). These changes
> would lead to improvements in hatchery brood stock management and
> reduce impact to ESA listed species.

**12.2d) Cooperating and funding agencies**.

> Agencies listed below have either expressed interest or will be asked
> for their cooperation in assessment planning and completion.

Corps of Engineers

USGS -- Biological Resources Division

PacifiCorp

NOAA-Fisheries

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

White Salmon Steelheaders

US Forest Service

Yakama Nation

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

Project Supervisor: Don Campton and Larry Marchant FWS

Staff: Spring Creek NFH Personnel, Columbia River Fisheries Program
Office, COE, USFS, Yakama Nation, USGS, PacifiCorp, and WDFW.

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

See Section 2.

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

> Tissue collection from adult tule fall Chinook would consist of a
> small (1 mm) fin clip and collected by USFWS personnel during hatchery
> spawning operations and during WDFW carcass surveys conducted on two
> separate occasions during the White Salmon River adult return
> (September and early October). Approximately 150 adults at Spring
> Creek NFH and 300 carcasses from the White Salmon River would be
> sampled for tissue collection
>
> Tissue collection from juvenile Chinook salmon would occur from
> mid-April to mid-May 2005 and would be non-lethal in nature. Juvenile
> Chinook salmon would be captured by beach seine with some assistance
> of a small boat in the lower section White Salmon River. Three seine
> sites will be selected below Condit Dam. All captured juvenile fish
> would be enumerated and a minimum of 25 (maximum 100) juvenile Chinook
> salmon, 45 mm or greater, transferred to a small, perforated holding
> container within the river water for immediate processing. All other
> fish species, and potential ESA listed species, would be immediately
> released. Fish will be anaesthetized using MS-222 and a small piece of
> tissue removed from their dorsal fin. Fish will be allowed to recover
> in holding container (minimum 15 minutes) and released in the area of
> capture. Total holding duration of juvenile Chinook salmon should not
> exceed 1 hour. A total of 300 juvenile Chinook salmon will be sampled
> for tissue collection.

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

See 12.5d (above).

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

See 12.5 (above).

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

> There are no expected types or effects of take and no potential for
> injury or mortality beyond standard fish seining and tissue collection
> activities.

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

> The lower Columbia River Chinook ESU is listed as threatened and
> potentially naturally spawning tule fall Chinook salmon may exist in
> the White Salmon River. The hatchery component of the lower Columbia
> River Chinook ESU is not currently listed. The tule fall Chinook
> salmon population within the White Salmon River is believed to be
> heavily influenced by Spring Creek NFH adults straying from the
> hatchery (see section 2.2.2 of this document for further information).
> For this assessment, all juvenile Chinook salmon sampled for genetic
> tissue collection will be considered not influenced by hatchery
> straying. Approximately 1000 juvenile Chinook salmon and juvenile
> steelhead (listed as Threatened in lower Columbia River ESU) may be
> captured during seining activities in the White Salmon River, of which
> 300 juvenile Chinook salmon will have a fin clip removed. No
> mortalities are expected from fish seining or tissue collection
> activities.

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

Presently, there are no other methods considered for meeting project
objectives.

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

Not applicable.

**12.12d)** **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.**

> Presently, there are no additional risk aversion measures for impacts
> on listed fish than previously mentioned.

**[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.

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..

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.

Dawley, E.M., and B.P. Schrank. 1995. Evaluation of the effects of
dissolved gas supersaturation of fish and invertebrates in river reaches
near Bonneville, Ice Harbor, and Preist Rapids Dams, 1995. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Coastal
Zone and Estuarine Studies Division. Report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland District, Delivery Order E969940029.

DeHart, M. 1995. Summary of the 19995 spirng and summer juvenile passage
season Memorandum dated October 9,1995, to Members Liaison Group and
Fish Passage Advisory Committee. 32 pp.

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.

Goede, R.W. and Barton, B.A. 1990. Organismic indices and an
autopsy-based assessment as indicators of health and condition of fish.
American Fisheries Society Symposium. 8:93-108.

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

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

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

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.

LaMotte, E., D. Tiffan, D. Wills, and W. Talo. 1999. Spring Creek
National Fish Hatchery unfed fry evaluation study proposal. US Fish and
Wildlife Service Columbia River Fisheries Program Office, Vancouver, WA.
6pp.

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

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

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

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

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

Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific Salmon at
the Crossroads: Stocks at Risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and
Washinton. Fisheries. Vol.16, No. 2:4-21.

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

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

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

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

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

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Fisheries
Management and Evaluation Plan, Lower Columbia River Chinook in Oregon
Freshwater Fisheries of the Lower Columbia River Mainstem and
Tributaries between the Pacific Ocean and Hood River.
<http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1fmep/fmepsbmt.htm>

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. 2000. Annual coded wire program. Annual report 2000 to the
Bonneville Power Administration, project 89-065, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Vancouver, Washington.

Pastor, Stephen M. August 2002. Columbia River Information System (CRiS)
Database Manager. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia River Fisheries
Program Office 9317 Hwy 99, Suite I, Vancouver, WA 98665.
stephen_pastor@fws.gov

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 periodicity, daily
ration and prey selection of a riverine population of juvenile chinook
salmon, *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*. J. Fish Biol. 33: 643‑653.

Salmon Disease Control Policy of the Fisheries Co-Managers of Washington
State. March 17, 1998. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Sharp, B., D. Anderson, G. King, J. Feen, S. McCorqudale, J. Byrne, D.
Johnson, T. Strong, J. Hubble, B. Watson, and W. Conley. 2000. Klickitat
Subbasin Summary -- Draft. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority,
87 pp.

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.

STT (Salmon Technical Team). 1999. Preseason report III. Analyses of
council adopted management measures for 1999 ocean salmon fisheries.
Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

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.

Talo, Wayne. 1999. An overview of the recent history of the Spring Creek
National Fish Hatchery. In files at Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery
and at Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center.

Toner, M.A. and E.M. Dawley. 1995. Evaluation of the effects of
dissolved gas supersaturation of fish and invertebrates downstream from
Bonneville Dam, 1993. National Marine Fisheries Sevice, Northwest
fisheries Science Center, Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division.
Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract E96930036. 33pp. plus
appendix.

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 Fish Health Policy and Implementation, 713 FW. February 15, 1995.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USFWS. 2001. Gas Supersaturation Monitoring Report for Spill Below
Bonneville Dam. Columbia River Fisheries Program Office Vancouver, WA.
12 pp.

Volk E.C., S.L. Schroder and K.L. Fresh. 1990. Inducement of Unique
Otolith Banding Patterns as a Practical Means To Mass-Mark Juvenile
Pacific Salmon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 7:203-215.

WDW (Washington Department of Wildlife), Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the Yakima Indian Nation and Washington Department of Fisheries.
1990. White Salmon River Subbasin. Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan.
Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

**Attachment I.**

######### State of Oregon

**Department of Environmental Quality**

*Total Dissolved Gas (Criteria Modification) Petition Contents*

**1. Definition of Agency Requesting Modification.**

> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is an agency of the Federal
> Government responsible for the conservation of the nation's natural
> resources. The Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery (NFH) is charged
> with producing fish as mitigation for man caused losses due to federal
> water projects as called for in the Mitchell Act (52 Stat. 345) as
> amended (60 Stat. 932). Specifically, Spring Creek NFH is responsible
> for producing 50 percent of the fish required to mitigate the losses
> of anadromous fish caused by the construction and operation of The
> Dalles and John Day dams and reservoirs (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
> (COE), 1969).

**2. Proposed Total Dissolved Gas (TDG) criterion.**

> The present TDG criterion for the Columbia River downstream of
> Bonneville Dam is 110% saturation. The FWS proposes that the water
> quality criterion for TDG be modified to allow for 115% TDG at the
> Camas-Washougal monitoring site which would be equivalent to a 120%
> TDG level in the Bonneville Dam Tailrace in March of 2002. This will
> allow for a spill operation at Bonneville Dam to provide improved
> passage conditions for the release of 7.5 million juvenile fall
> chinook salmon from Spring Creek NFH. Physical monitoring at several
> sites below Bonneville Dam in the mainstem Columbia River will be
> conducted to provide information and real-time modifications to the
> proposed operation if the requested variance in criteria is exceeded.
> This proposed TDG criterion modification is consistent with the TDG
> level specified by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for
> the Camas-Washougal site in its March 2, 1995, Endangered Species Act
> (ESA) Section 7 consultation biological opinion for the operation of
> the Federal Columbia River Power System (National Marine Fisheries
> Service, 1995). Justification for that modification of the TDG
> standard is provided in the National Marine Fisheries Service's
> biological opinion.
>
> Fisheries agencies have requested spill at Bonneville Dam for Spring
> Creek NFH releases since 1985. Spill was first requested because of
> the low fish guidance efficiency at the Bonneville Dam Second
> Powerhouse. Until 1995, spill was usually provided at Bonneville Dam
> for the March release of chinook salmon. In 1995, the requested total
> dissolved gas criteria waiver for the Spring Creek NFH fish spill was
> denied. In part, this request was denied because no biological
> monitoring was included in the proposal. In 1996 and 1997, the
> biological monitoring program was included and the dissolved gas
> waiver request was approved. In 1998 the request for spill waiver was
> again made, which included biological monitoring, as was in the case
> in the previous two years. However, the 1998 waiver request was
> denied. The basis for this denial is unclear, due to the fact that all
> criteria were met in regards to the TDG spill waiver request. In 1999,
> 2000, and 2001 the request for spill was proposed and approved. The
> FWS wants to take this opportunity to again point out the importance
> of the Spring Creek stock of chinook salmon to the economic benefit to
> the fishery and the conservation of this stock for future generations.
>
> Past monitoring by National Marine Fisheries Service staff has shown
> that migratory salmonids, resident fish, and invertebrates have not
> been significantly affected by TDG levels that are expected during the
> proposed spill. (Toner and Dawley, 1995; Dawley and Schrank, 1995;
> DeHart, 1995).

**3. Location and timing for application of proposed criterion.**

> The proposed spill at Bonneville Dam will coincide with the release of
> the fish from Spring Creek NFH, currently targeted for March 14, 2002.
> The spill would be scheduled to start at 8:00 p.m. on a day between
> March 7, 2002 to March 15, 2002 and continue for 10 days (through 8:00
> p.m. on March 17 to March 25). The reason for asking for a range of
> dates at this time is due the early submission of this request and the
> possibility of an earlier release date due to better growing
> conditions for the fish. If necessary, spill will be managed during
> the daytime hours not to exceed a 75 thousand cubic feet per second
> (kcfs) spill cap. This cap has been used to limit migration delay and
> fall back of adult salmonids. Nighttime spill levels should attempt to
> achieve an 80% Fish Passage Efficiency (FPE). According to the NMFS
> spill calculations, spill levels to achieve 80% FPE at river flows of
> 200 kcfs would require 10 to 60 kcfs spill above the upper range of
> spill levels the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has indicated
> would result in 115% to 120% TDG, respectively, in the tailrace
> (USACE, Waterways Experimental Station (WES) under DGAS study in
> 1996-1997). New criteria are being developed by USACE and will be
> available for future survival calculations.

**4. Statement of need for the proposed criterion.**

> It is very important that we do all we can to provide protection at
> Bonneville Dam for these fish. Although Spring Creek NFH chinook
> salmon are not listed under the ESA, the 7.5 million fish that are to
> be released make up a large portion of the fish to be caught under
> United States/Canada treaty allocations. These fish are also very
> important to near shore fisheries off the Washington and northern
> Oregon coast and local fisheries in the Columbia River. The FWS
> estimates that the adult contribution from this early release has
> historically been 1.1 percent which when applied to the number to be
> released, translates into a potential contribution of 82,500 adult
> fish.
>
> Spring Creek NFH stock provides protection to the listed Snake River
> populations and other stocks of chinook salmon, because the Canadian
> ocean fisheries are managed under harvest quota, time, and area
> regulations. Both Spring Creek NFH and endangered Snake River stocks
> of salmon occur off the west coast of Vancouver Island. Greater
> numbers of Spring Creek NFH fish in the total number of fish in the
> United States/Canada treaty fishery area would result in fewer Snake
> River fish being caught. Other chinook salmon stocks, including listed
> Snake River fish will be exposed to higher harvest rates in Canadian
> fisheries if the productivity of Spring Creek NFH stock is reduced.
> Historically, Spring Creek NFH fish contributed to 9% of the catch in
> the fishery off the west coast of Vancouver Island and 27% of the
> catch off of the Washington and northern Oregon coasts. Spring Creek
> NFH has contributed as many as 65,600 fish to treaty Indian fisheries
> and 41,500 fish to non-treaty commercial fisheries in the Columbia
> River in the past (PFMC, 1995). In the 2001 fall season treaty Indian
> fisheries above Bonneville Dam, catch of Spring Creek NFH origin fall
> chinook was over 52,000 (preliminary numbers).
>
> The fish hatchery program for the Columbia River has been reduced due
> to a Congressional reduction in Mitchell Act funding. These funding
> cuts have resulted in reduced production of chinook salmon at both
> state and federal fish hatcheries and have caused the closure of some
> facilities. Spring Creek NFH, which will be the only facility
> producing tule fall chinook above Bonneville Dam, will remain open and
> continue to produce fish at its present levels. The state of Oregon
> has drastically reduced its production of tule fall chinook salmon in
> the Columbia River system. These reductions and closures at other
> hatcheries make production at Spring Creek NFH even more important for
> maintaining and improving fisheries in the Pacific Ocean and Columbia
> River.
>
> The Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Assessment for 1995
> Hatchery Operations (USFWS, 1995) includes Spring Creek NFH and
> includes the same operations as in past Biological Opinions that
> provided improved passage for this release.

**5. Rationale for the derivation of proposed criteria.**

> Past TDG monitoring data indicate that an 80% fish passage efficiency
> (FPE) level is not achievable through spill at Bonneville Dam without
> exceeding the Water Quality Agencies' 110% total dissolved gas (TDG)
> standard in the tailrace. In an attempt to maximize passage survival
> while minimizing the risk of potential adverse effects of TDG, we
> recommend spill levels that result in an average 115% TDG calculated
> from the 12 highest hourly measurements at the Camas-Washougal
> monitoring site. The Camas-Washougal monitoring site has previously
> been used as a primary location for monitoring TDG downstream from
> Bonneville Dam. A 115% TDG level at the Camas-Washougal site would be
> equivalent to a 120% TDG level in the Bonneville Dam tailrace. This
> cap should assure that maximum TDG levels in the Bonneville Dam spill
> basin are at or below 125% TDG. This recommendation is based on the
> scientific information available which indicates that spill is by far
> the safest route of passage (Holmes 1952; Ledgerwood et al. 1990;
> Shoeneman et al. 1961; Iwamoto, et al. 1994) and that these fish will
> have a limited exposure time to elevated gas conditions downstream
> from Bonneville Dam.
>
> Table 1 displays a possible flow scenario with different volumes of
> spill, associated total dissolved gas levels in the Bonneville Dam
> tailrace, fish passage efficiency, and increase in fish survival
> compared to the "no spill" condition with 7.5 million fish released
> from Spring Creek NFH. The Bonneville Dam forebay TDG was assumed to
> be 100%.

Table 1. Bonneville Dam Spillway Flows, Total Dissolved Gas Levels in
Tailrace, Fish Passage Efficiency, and Increase in Fish Survival Past
Bonneville Dam.

  ----------------------- ----- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  Total River Flow (kcfs) 200   200       200       200       200       200

  Spill (kcfs)            0     45        80        100       120       150

  Tailrace Gas Level (%)  100   110       114       116       117       120

  Fish Passage Efficiency 33    48        59        63        66        71
  (%)                                                                   

  Increase in Fish        0     133,500   229,500   258,750   288,750   333,000
  Survival Compared to No                                               
  Spill Condition                                                       
  ----------------------- ----- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

> Spill that produces 120% saturation in the tailrace would increase
> survival by approximately 4.9% or about 333,000 fish over the no spill
> condition during passage at Bonneville Dam. In 1993 and 1994 the
> National Marine Fisheries Service examined resident and migratory
> species present in the river below Bonneville Dam when moderate spill
> was occurring. In 1993, GBD signs were noted in 0.1% (2 of 1,657)
> juvenile chinook salmon examined (Toner and Dawley, 1995). The few
> signs that were observed occurred when TDG levels exceeded 120% at the
> sampling site 15 miles below the dam. Maximum levels reached 125% at
> that time. In 1994, signs of GBD were noted in 0.2% (3 of 1227)
> juvenile chinook salmon examined (Toner, et al., 1995). Nearly all
> these occurred when one day TDG levels were up to 117% in the study
> area (TDG levels were as high on other days with no signs noted).
>
> Information obtained from the 1995 gas bubble trauma sampling program
> indicates that migrating juvenile salmon did not experience exposure
> to TDG levels that caused significant mortality to these fish (McCann,
> 1995). Less than 1% of all migrating salmon that were sampled during
> the 1995 migration period of April 15 to July 1 showed signs of GBD.
> Of those fish that exhibited signs of GBD, none showed above the
> lowest severity ranking criterion and most fish showing signs had only
> a few bubbles in a single fin.
>
> Biological monitoring conducted during the March 13 to 23, 1997, TDG
> waiver period showed that none of the 990 juvenile chinook salmon that
> were examined exhibited external signs of GBD. It should be noted that
> TDG levels were higher than the 115% TDG allowed by the waiver during
> this time because of high river flow and forced spill conditions.
> Monitoring conducted during the TDG waiver period in 1998, 1999 and
> 2000 also showed no signs of GBD in any of the samples examined.
>
> In 2001, 3 of the sample fish (two hatchery fall chinook and one
> northern pikeminnow) showed the lowest detectable level of GBD, one
> small bubble in the lateral line or a fin. These fish represented 1.4%
> of the sample, far below the 15% limit in the 2001 waiver. A low level
> of incidence can be found in non-spill situations. The low incidence
> found in 2001 does not suggest a significant level of GBD in the
> population at large (J. McCann, Fish Passage Center, personal
> communication).
>
> Loss to the effects of dissolved gas would also be expected to be
> quite low because of limited exposure time. Exposure to the higher TDG
> levels is limited primarily by the travel time of these fish from
> Bonneville Dam downstream to the confluence of the Columbia River with
> the Willamette River. Blahm (1974) measured an approximate 10%
> decrease in dissolved gas between the Bonneville Dam spillway (river
> mile 141) and the Willamette confluence (river mile 101-103). From
> Dawley et al. (1984) we know that the median travel time for a March
> release of fish at Spring Creek NFH to Jones Beach is about 17 days,
> for a travel rate of about seven miles per day. If this travel rate is
> applied to the 40 miles between Bonneville and the Willamette River,
> outmigrating tule fall chinook salmon released from Spring Creek NFH
> will be exposed to elevated TDG for about six days. Blahm (1974) found
> that subyearling (70mm) chinook salmon held in 2.5-meter-deep tanks
> for prolonged exposure (50 days) to 120% TDG experienced very low
> mortality (three out of 112 fish). Many other past research projects
> support this finding (CBFWA 1995). We anticipate that these early
> Spring Creek NFH migrants will be traveling in water at least as deep
> as these tanks.
>
> Based on these studies and additional information that indicates that
> each meter of depth provides pressure compensation equal to a 10%
> reduction in TDG, that juvenile salmon tend to spend most of their
> time at or below 1 meter of depth, and that deep tank tests showed
> that salmonids exposed to 115% did not experience significant
> mortality until exposure time exceeded 60 days, the National Marine
> Fisheries Service concluded that it was appropriate to seek an
> operation that would result in exceeding 110% TDG saturation (NMFS,
> 1995a).
>
> While sublethal effects of TDG are possible, we have no evidence
> leading us to believe that these effects would cause significant
> mortality of chinook salmon from this hatchery release or of other
> species, particularly given the short duration of spill and the
> relatively low level of resultant gas supersaturation. The Spill and
> 1995 Risk Management document (CBFWA, 1995) discussed past research on
> sublethal effects of high TDG levels and indicated that swimming
> performance, growth and blood chemistry are affected, but that sources
> of indirect mortality have never been formally documented. Transition
> from freshwater to saltwater was found not to be affected in juvenile
> salmonids that survived tests at high TDG levels. Smolts exhibiting
> symptoms of gas bubble disease were also reported to be no more
> vulnerable to predation by northern squawfish than smolts that were
> not exposed to higher levels of TDG.
>
> Based on observations from 1993 through 2001, it appears that resident
> fish and invertebrates can tolerate moderately high levels of TDG for
> several weeks. Impacts on resident fish and invertebrates are
> discussed in greater detail under Item 6 of this petition. The
> operation will last only for 10 days and will end. Water quality
> criteria will then revert to the state standards of 110% TDG.

[Alternative Actions Considered]{.underline}

> The FWS has considered alternatives to spill to increase the number of
> Spring Creek NFH fish that pass Bonneville Dam. These alternatives
> include transporting juvenile fall chinook salmon and releasing more
> fish.

[Transporting Juvenile Fish]{.underline}

> The alternative of physically transporting juvenile fish from Spring
> Creek NFH and releasing them downstream from Bonneville Dam has been
> considered. This alternative offers the potential to reduce the
> mortality associated with passage at Bonneville Dam caused by
> turbines, fish bypass devices, sluiceways, and predation in powerhouse
> tailraces. Transporting fall chinook salmon directly from Spring Creek
> NFH by barge to a release site below Bonneville Dam has been studied
> (Slatick et al. 1984). A very high percentage of the adult returns
> from the barged groups strayed to other hatcheries. In addition,
> return rates to Spring Creek NFH were significantly lower for the
> barge test groups than for the control group released at the hatchery.
>
> A return of 7,000 adult fish to Spring Creek NFH is the goal to
> provide enough fish for spawning purposes. Straying of fish to
> locations other than Spring Creek NFH may result in failure to meet
> this return goal.
>
> Historically, Spring Creek NFH has been the major producer of tule
> fall chinook salmon in the Columbia River (Washington Department of
> Fisheries, 1986). The Spring Creek NFH stock originated from native
> brood stock collected from the Big White Salmon River and has
> developed over many generations without major transfers of other
> stocks of fish into its program. The Washington Department of
> Fisheries, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Columbia River
> Inter-tribal Fish Commission, and the Fish and Wildlife Service
> reached consensus in 1985 that Spring Creek fall chinook salmon are a
> unique group of fish and that transfers of fish from other lower
> Columbia River hatcheries would jeopardize their genetic integrity.
>
> The unique qualities exhibited by Spring Creek chinook salmon are
> displayed in their age at maturity, ocean distribution, and survival.
> Spring Creek NFH fish usually mature at an earlier age than other
> lower Columbia River stocks; 66% of the fish returning to Spring Creek
> are 3-year-old fish compared to 45% 3-year-olds for other hatcheries.
> Overall survival and contribution to fisheries has generally been
> higher for Spring Creek fish compared to other hatcheries. Although it
> might be possible to use surplus fish from other nearby hatcheries for
> spawning purposes, we would not know if fish from other hatcheries
> would actually be of Spring Creek NFH origin. The unknown origin of
> fish that would return to other hatcheries would make use of those
> fish an uncertain proposition. It is also possible that other
> hatcheries would not have surplus fish available to Spring Creek NFH
> for spawning purposes. The FWS does not believe that it would be
> advisable to transfer fish from other hatcheries in the event that
> adult fish returns are insufficient because of the desire to protect
> the genetic integrity of this stock. As a result of the Slatick et al.
> (1984) study and similar studies of direct transport from hatcheries
> and the desire to protect the genetic integrity of Spring Creek NFH
> stock, we do not support direct transport of fish from Spring Creek
> NFH as an alternative to providing good passage conditions at
> Bonneville Dam.

[Releasing Additional Fish]{.underline}

> The FWS evaluated the possibility of raising and releasing additional
> fish to make up for those that would be lost to turbines or other
> causes during passage at Bonneville Dam in the absence of spill.
> Spring Creek normally produces the maximum number of fish possible
> under existing hatchery capacity. Fish are released in March, April,
> and May under a schedule that produces the maximum number of fish for
> the available rearing capacity of the hatchery. Under this release
> schedule, some of the hatchery's fish are released in March and
> normally the remaining fish grow to occupy the rearing space that
> becomes available. Fish that remain after the April release likewise
> grow to occupy rearing space until their release. It would not be
> possible to raise additional fish because rearing space, water supply,
> and waste treatment capability are limited. It would also not be
> feasible to release fish at a later date because of limited hatchery
> capacity since these fish would continue to grow and exceed hatchery
> space capacity.
>
> At present Spring Creek NFH is expecting a normal return of 7,000
> adults and to be at one hundred percent (100%) production in 2002.
> Historically, the March release of juvenile fish has produced the most
> returning adults because more fish have been released. The percent
> returns from the three releases have been comparable, although the
> month which produces the highest percent return has varied from year
> to year. The FWS has scheduled releases of juvenile fall chinook in
> March, April, and May to reduce the risk of a lower return from a
> single month's release.

[Competition between Spring Creek NFH Fish and Snake River
Salmon]{.underline}

> Competition between fish released from Spring Creek NFH in March and
> listed stocks of Snake River salmon is expected to be minimal in both
> the Columbia River and Pacific Ocean. The distance between Spring
> Creek NFH and the ocean is relatively short and fish releases either
> completely miss or only slightly overlap the migrations of Snake River
> fish (USFWS, 1995). Spring Creek NFH fish are also physiologically
> ready to migrate and should quickly move out of rearing areas in the
> lower Columbia River. It is possible that Spring Creek NFH fish could
> compete with Snake River listed stocks for food and space in the
> ocean. Coded wire tag recoveries of Spring Creek NFH tule fall chinook
> salmon and Snake River Lyons Ferry Hatchery fall chinook salmon
> indicate that both stocks of fish migrate north after leaving the
> Columbia River. However, the FWS has concluded that the size of the
> ocean environment and the fact that billions of salmonid smolts
> migrate to the ocean throughout the range of anadromous fish make it
> seem that direct interaction between Spring Creek NFH fall chinook and
> Snake River listed salmon stocks would be a remote possibility (USFWS,
> 1995).

5.  **Documentation of findings (I) through (IV)**

> The Environmental Quality Commission must make four findings as
> identified in the following rules I through IV as listed below. These
> are:
>
> I\) Failure to act would result in greater harm to salmonid stock
> survival through in-river migration than would occur by increased
> spill;
>
> II\) the modified total dissolved gas criteria associated with the
> increased spill provides a reasonable balance of risk of impairment
> due to elevated total dissolved gas to both resident biological
> communities and to migrating adult and juvenile salmonids, and to
> other migrating fish when compared to other options or in-river
> migration of salmon;
>
> III\) adequate data will exist to determine compliance with the
> standards; and
>
> IV\) biological monitoring is occurring to document that the migratory
> salmonid and resident biological communities are being protected.
>
> The FWS addresses the required findings in the following discussion.
>
> I\) The FWS believes that greater harm would result to Spring Creek
> NFH stock through in-river migration than would occur by increased
> spill because more fish would pass through turbine units at Bonneville
> Dam. Passage through turbine units at Bonneville Dam is known to cause
> greater mortality to downstream migrating juvenile salmonids than
> passage via spill. Holmes, 1952, found that turbine mortality at the
> Bonneville Dam first powerhouse ranged between 11 and 15%. Holmes
> estimated spill mortality to be considerably lower at about 2%.
> Schoneman et al., 1961, found similar mortality percentages at low
> head Kaplan turbines. Ledgerwood et al., 1990, found that fish passing
> Bonneville Dam via the spillway had a significantly higher recovery
> percentage at Jones Beach (head of the Columbia River Estuary) than
> fish which passed through the Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse
> turbines or the fish bypass system. Additional studies have shown
> turbine mortalities between 8 and 32% compared to 0 to 4% for spillway
> passage (CBFWA, 1995). Elimination or reduction of spill would subject
> downstream migrants to higher mortality in the turbines, bypass
> systems, or tailrace areas.
>
> Failure to adopt the proposed TDG criteria will result in greater harm
> to salmon survival because more fish would pass through turbine units
> at Bonneville Dam. This would result in greater mortality as described
> in section 5 above.
>
> II\) The FWS believes that the modified total dissolved gas criteria
> associated with the increased spill will reasonably balance the risk
> of impairment due to elevated total dissolved gas to both resident
> biological communities and to migrating adult and juvenile salmonids,
> as well as to other migrating fish when compared to other options for
> in-river migration of salmon.

[Impacts to Resident Fish and Invertebrates]{.underline}

> The TDG levels resulting from the requested spill are not expected to
> have a great impact on resident fish or macro invertebrates in the
> Columbia River downstream from Bonneville Dam. The National Marine
> Fisheries Service monitored resident fishes and aquatic invertebrates
> in the Columbia River downstream from Bonneville Dam for signs of gas
> bubble trauma in 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. Organisms sampled
> included squawfish, bass, perch, catfish, crappie, sturgeon, shad,
> suckers, chub, sculpins, sticklebacks, minnows, crayfish and other
> crustaceans, clams, snails, and insects. Sampling in 1993 revealed a
> very low incidence of GBD in prickly sculpin (0.6%; 1 of 174 fish);
> peamouth chub, (0.4%; 1 of 238 fish); and threespine stickleback
> (0.2%; 2 of 906 fish). No signs of GBD were seen in the three species
> of invertebrates (crayfish, Asian clam, and dragonfly larvae) that
> were examined (Toner and Dawley, 1995). In 1994, no signs of GBD were
> observed in any of the 4,955 resident fish or 3,928 invertebrates that
> were examined (Toner, et al., 1995). During 1995, signs of GBD were
> noted in 5 species of resident fish, but never exceeded 1% of those
> fish examined (Dawley and Schrank, 1995).
>
> In 1997, resident fish were collected and examined for the TDG
> monitoring program. Fish that were examined included peamouth,
> largescale sucker, mountain whitefish, northern squawfish,
> stickleback, redside shiner, sculpin, sandroller, pumpkinseed, and
> carp. A total of 214 individual fish of these resident species were
> examined for external signs of GBD. No signs of GBD were seen on any
> of those fish.
>
> In 1998, only largescale suckers and mountain whitefish were examined.
> No signs of GBD were observed in these fish. In 1999, largescale
> sucker, northern pike minnow, stickleback and sculpin were examined.
> Again, no signs of GBD were observed.
>
> In addition, many of these resident species occupy shallow near shore
> areas that are out of the main current of the Columbia River. Such
> areas typically have lower total dissolved gas concentrations than
> those in the main current. Toner et al., 1995, indicated that the
> lower TDG levels in the shallow backwater and shoreline areas may be
> due to the lack of exchange with higher TDG water in the main river.
> Faster dissipation of gas from shallow water was also thought to occur
> because of its higher surface area to volume ratio.

[Impacts to Migrating Adult Salmon]{.underline}

> Possible impacts to adult salmon include delay of upstream migration,
> fallback of fish that have passed Bonneville Dam, and gas bubble
> disease effects. Spilling would occur for a relatively short period of
> time when comparatively few adult salmonids are migrating upstream
> past Bonneville Dam. Cumulative counts of spring chinook passage at
> Bonneville Dam for March of 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001
> were 73, 289, 336, 149, 1,436, and 8,529 fish, respectively. The
> 10-year average is 592. The 2001 spring chinook return was a record
> high since the construction of Bonneville Dam. The average total run
> of spring chinook salmon for the past 10 years is 70,780 fish. While
> it is possible that some of the spring chinook salmon passing
> Bonneville Dam during this period may be bound for the Snake River
> system, these fish may be destined for any of the Columbia River or
> Snake River tributaries. Horton and Wallace, 1966, found no difference
> in the timing of spring chinook salmon destined for middle Columbia
> River tributaries. They also found no distinct, chronological pattern
> of movement past Bonneville Dam for Snake River spring chinook.
>
> The main period of adult passage at Bonneville Dam is during the day.
> If necessary, a daytime spill limitation of 75 kcfs can be in effect
> during the requested waiver period. This spill cap has been put into
> effect during previous spills at Bonneville Dam to reduce fallback of
> fish and to ensure that upstream migrating adult salmon are not
> delayed. Use of the cap can be decided at the time of spill depending
> on the passage indices of adults.
>
> Adult salmonids were monitored for signs of GBD through the 1999 spill
> season. Few signs of GBD were observed at the same TDG levels that are
> proposed for this waiver. Additionally, juveniles are more susceptible
> to GBD, and if they are being monitored adequately the adults will
> also be protected (L. Marsh, Oregon Department of Environmental
> Quality, memorandum to the Environmental Quality Commission, March 27,
> 2000). Physical handling of adults adds extra stress.

[Impacts to Juvenile Salmonids]{.underline}

> Spring Creek NFH fish will be released when very few juveniles from
> other stocks of anadromous fish are migrating. As an example, the
> average daily passage index counts at Bonneville Dam for yearling
> chinook, coho, sockeye, and steelhead during the period of the 1995
> Spring Creek NFH spill were: yearling chinook, 508 fish; coho, 123
> fish; sockeye, 6 fish; and steelhead, 106 fish. Index counts for
> Spring Creek NFH fish during this time averaged 64,454 fish. Daily
> index counts at Bonneville Dam during mid-May, a major migration
> period, in 1995 were: 44,835 yearling chinook; 38,751 coho; 13,110
> sockeye; and 18,170 steelhead.
>
> Survival of juvenile salmonids that pass Bonneville Dam via spill
> compared to those which pass the dam through the powerhouses or fish
> bypasses is discussed in Item I.
>
> III\) The Army Corps of Engineers will be monitoring total dissolved
> gas levels in the Columbia River at four sites during the proposed
> spill. These sites will be at the Bonneville Dam forebay, Warrendale,
> Skamania, and Camas-Washougal. Details of the physical monitoring
> program will be in the forthcoming Corps of Engineers Plan of Action
> for Dissolved Gas Monitoring in 2002. That plan will be similar to the
> Corps of Engineers Plan of Action for Dissolved Gas Monitoring in 2001
> (Corps of Engineers, 2001). According to the plan of action, data
> collection and transmission will start before the release of fish from
> Spring Creek NFH. Total dissolved gas pressure, water temperature,
> barometric pressure, dissolved oxygen pressure, and nitrogen + argon
> pressure data will be collected hourly.
>
> IV\) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff will conduct biological
> monitoring downstream from Bonneville Dam during the proposed spill
> period. All fish sampled will be examined for GBD. Details of the
> biological monitoring program are described under Item 9, "Description
> of biological monitoring." Biological monitoring will include both
> external and internal examinations of fish. Past monitoring by
> National Marine Fisheries staff has shown that migratory salmonids,
> resident fish, and invertebrates have not been significantly affected
> by TDG levels that are expected during the proposed spill. (Toner and
> Dawley, 1995; Dawley and Schrank, 1995; DeHart, 1995). It is the
> opinion of the FWS that the biological monitoring to be conducted will
> be adequate to protect migratory fish, and invertebrates in the spill
> affected river reach.
>
> V\) Fall chinook and chum salmon have spawned near Ives Island, which
> is located about two miles downstream from Bonneville Dam. To protect
> chinook and chum eggs and fry, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff
> will monitor total dissolved gas and water depth over salmon redds,
> calculate embryo development, and sample for fry that may have emerged
> from the gravel. Embryo development will be calculated because eggs
> are more resistant to high total dissolved gas levels than sac fry.
> Water depth and total dissolved gas will be monitored on a real time
> basis. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will contact the Corps of
> Engineers to reduce spill if biological sampling, water depth
> readings, or total dissolved gas data indicate that salmon eggs or fry
> could be adversely affected.

6.  **Supporting material**

> [Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority's "Spill and 1995 Risk
> Management"]{.underline}.
>
> The technical staff of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
> Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and
> Game, and Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission have prepared a
> report entitled "Spill and 1995 Risk Management." This report
> discusses the benefits and risks of spill at hydroelectric projects on
> the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers. This report concludes that
> controlled spill at the mainstem hydroelectric projects is integral to
> protecting salmon resources in the Columbia and Snake rivers. It
> recommends that water quality criteria for TDG be modified to allow
> maximum gas concentrations in a range of 120% to 125% based on 12 hour
> averages.
>
> [Fish Passage Survival Estimates]{.underline}
>
> Fish passage survival estimates were derived from a National Marine
> Fisheries Service "SIMPAS" model for fish passage at Columbia and
> Snake river dams. The SIMPAS model was developed by National Marine
> Fisheries Service technical staff and is based on information obtained
> from numerous fish passage studies at Columbia and Snake river
> hydroelectric projects.

[Fish Harvest Estimates]{.underline}

> Chinook salmon harvest was determined by using the Pacific Salmon
> Council Chinook Technical Committee's Bilateral Chinook Model. This
> model was developed by the Chinook Technical Committee for use in
> evaluating the effect of ocean fishing regimes on the rebuilding of
> chinook salmon stocks. In river harvest estimates are compiled by the
> Technical Advisory Team.

7.  **Description of physical monitoring of TDG.**

> Physical monitoring of TDG will be conducted by staff from the U.S.
> Geological Survey (USGS) under contract with the Portland District,
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The USGS is scheduled to begin
> collecting TDG and other water quality data before the release of fish
> from Spring Creek NFH. Other water quality data to be collected
> include water temperature, barometric pressure, dissolved oxygen
> pressure, and nitrogen + argon pressure. Data will be collected every
> hour. The proposed monitoring sites will be at Warrendale, Skamania,
> Camas/Washougal, and the Bonneville Dam forebay. Monitoring will be
> conducted according to USACE procedures as described in the
> forthcoming Corps of Engineers Plan of Action for Dissolved Gas
> Monitoring in 2002. Hourly water quality data will be available on the
> Corps of Engineers' Internet World Wide Web pages for total dissolved
> gas. Information available will include the date and time of
> tensionometer probe readings, water temperature, total dissolved gas
> pressure, calculated TDG saturation, project hourly spill, project
> total hourly outflow, and number of spillway gates open. The percent
> TDG will be calculated from the barometric and TDG gas pressures.

8.  **Description of biological monitoring of TDG.**

> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will conduct the biological
> monitoring of fish collected in 2002. Field crews from the Washington
> Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Department of Fish and
> Wildlife will use seines to collect fish samples. Sample fish will be
> examined for signs of GBD for two days during the proposed waiver
> period. In light of the overwhelming evidence of past years
> monitoring, little or no deleterious effects are expected during the
> proposed waiver period.
>
> In 1995, National Biological Service researchers studied various
> indicators of GBD to determine their sensitivity and consistency.
> These included examinations of paired and unpaired fins, lateral
> lines, and gill lamellae. Examinations were conducted after exposure
> of fish to TDG levels of 112, 120, and 130%. Results of these tests
> showed that the caudal fin (tail) was the best indicator of prevalence
> of GBD at all TDG levels tested and that fins showed the progressive
> change in severity of GBD. The lateral line showed the progressive
> change of GBD, especially at higher TDG levels, showed low variability
> between individual fish, and was a commonly seen sign of GBD. Gill
> examinations produced highly variable results, showed little
> progressive change, and were moderately prevalent in occurrence (Mesa,
> 1995). As a result of these tests the overall fish monitoring program
> for 2001 will not include examinations of gill lamellae at all
> sampling stations, but will include more limited numbers of gill
> examinations on an experimental basis for comparison with those from
> standard external examinations. Another consideration is the potential
> increase in mortality or injury to fish that would be subjected to
> additional handling involved in gill examinations. The Fish Passage
> Center estimates that gill examinations would require 2 to 3 minutes
> to conduct and would double the handling time required for a total
> examination of each fish (McCann, 1995). For these reasons, the FWS
> does not propose that gill lamellae examinations be included in the
> biological monitoring program for the Spring Creek NFH spill at
> Bonneville Dam.

[Adult Salmonids]{.underline}

> Adult salmonids were monitored for signs of GBD through the 1999 spill
> season. Few signs of GBD were observed at the same TDG levels that are
> proposed for this waiver. Additionally, juveniles are more susceptible
> to GBD, and if they are being monitored adequately the adults will
> also be protected (L. Marsh, Oregon Department of Environmental
> Quality, memorandum to the Environmental Quality Commission, March 27,
> 2000). The FWS does not propose that adult salmonids be collected and
> examined because of the stress involved in handling these fish,
> because of the endangered status of some of the fish that might be
> collected, and because of past monitoring that found a very low
> incidence of GBD in adult fish.

9.  **Availability of Documents.**

> Documents cited in this petition are available at the Fish and
> Wildlife Service's Columbia River Fisheries Program Office at 9317
> Highway 99, Suite I, Vancouver, Washington 98665.

Blahm, T.H. 1974. Report to COE Gas Supersaturation Research Prescott
Facility 1974 NMFS

> CZES report, 20 p. plus appendices.

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 1995. Spill and 1995 Risk
Management. Report by

> the Fish Passage Advisory Committee.

Columbia River Compact. 1995. Joint Staff/TAC report, fall fact sheet
number 7, October 6,

1995\.

> Corps of Engineers. 2001. Corps of Engineers Plan of Action for
> Dissolved Gas Monitoring in 2001. 12p.

DeHart, M. 1995. Summary of the 1995 spring and summer juvenile passage
season.

> Memorandum dated October 9, 1995, to Members Liaison Group and Fish
> Passage Advisory Committee. 32 p.

Dawley, E.M., R.D. Ledgerwood, T.H. Blahm, R.A. Kirn, A.E. Rankis, and
F.J. Ossiander. 1984.

> Migrational characteristics and survival of juvenile salmonids
> entering the Columbia River estuary during 1982. Report to the
> Bonneville Power Administration, Contract DE-AI79-82BP30578. 49 p.
> plus appendices.

Dawley, E.M., and B.P. Schrank. 1995. Evaluation of the effects of
dissolved gas supersaturation

> on fish and invertebrates in river reaches near Bonneville, Ice
> Harbor, and Priest Rapids Dams, 1995. National Marine Fisheries
> Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Coastal Zone and
> Estuarine Studies Division. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
> Portland District, Delivery Order E969940029 (Abstract only).

Holmes, H.B. 1952. Loss of fingerlings in passing Bonneville Dam as
determined by marking

> experiments. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Unpublished Manuscript.
> 62 p.

Horton, H.F., and R.L. Wallace. 1966. Tagged salmon and the Indian
fishery, December, 1966.

> Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University,
> Corvallis, Oregon. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Commercial
> Fisheries and Bureau of Indian Affairs contract no. 14-17-0001-1413.
> 112 p.

Iwamoto, R.N., W.D. Muir, B.P. Sandford, K.W. McIntyre, D.A. Frost, J.G.
Williams, S.G.

> Smith, and J.R. Skalski. 1994. Survival estimates for the passage of
> juvenile chinook salmon through Snake River dams and reservoirs, 1993.
> Annual report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Contract
> DE-AI79-93BP10891, Project 93-29. 126 p. plus appendices.

Ledgerwood, D.L., E.M. Dawley, L.G. Gilbreath, P.J. Bentley, B.P.
Sandford, and M.H.

> Schiewe. 1990. Relative survival of subyearling chinook salmon which
> have passed Bonneville Dam via the spillway or the second powerhouse
> turbines or bypass system in 1989, with comparisons to 1987 and 1988.
> Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract E85890097, 62 p.
> plus appendices.McCann, J. 1995. Results of 1995 GBT juvenile salmon
> monitoring program and 1996
>
> monitoring protocol. October 18, 1995, memorandum of Gas Bubble Trauma
> Technical Work Group. 11 p.

Mesa, M. 1995. Presentation to Gas Bubble Disease Technical Work Group,
September 14,

1995\.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Endangered Species Act Section
7 consultation

> biological opinion. Reinitiation of consultation on 1994-1998
> operation of the federal Columbia River power system and juvenile
> transportation program in 1995 and future years. National Marine
> Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. 166 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Gas bubble disease monitoring
plan. 6 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Fish handling and gas bubble
disease assessment

> protocols. For: Evaluation of the effects of dissolved gas
> supersaturation on fish and invertebrates in the mainstem Columbia and
> Snake rivers. National Marine Fisheries Service, January 11, 1996. 4
> p.

Schoneman, D.E., R.T. Pressey, and C.O. Junge, Jr. 1961. Mortalities of
downstream migrant

> salmon at McNary Dam. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
> 90(1): 58-72.

Slatick, E., L.G. Gilbreath, J.R. Harmon, C.S. McCutcheon, T.C. Bjornn
and R. Ringo. 1984.

> Imprinting salmon and steelhead trout for homing. National Marine
> Fisheries Service Report to Bonneville Power Administration, September
> 1984 (Contract DE-AI79-82BP39646). 66 p. plus appendices.

Tanovan, B. 1994. Spill discharge calculations. Memorandum for PE-ER
(Turner/Athearn),

> dated December 7, 1994.

Tanovan, B. 1995. Personal communication. December 4, 1995, telephone
conversation with M.

> Yoshinaka.

Toner, M.A. and E.M. Dawley. 1995. Evaluation of the effects of
dissolved gas supersaturation

> on fish and invertebrates downstream from Bonneville Dam, 1993.
> National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center,
> Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division. Report to U.S. Army Corps
> of Engineers, Contract E96930036. 33 p. plus appendix.

Toner, M.A., B. Ryan, and E.M. Dawley. 1995. Evaluation of the effects
of dissolved gas

> supersaturation on fish and invertebrates downstream from Bonneville,
> Ice Harbor and Priest Rapids Dams, 1994. National Marine Fisheries
> Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Coastal Zone and
> Estuarine Studies Division. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
> North Pacific Division, Contract E96940029. 38 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District. 1969. John Day
Design Memorandum

> number 46. Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland and Walla Walla Districts. 1994.
Dissolved Gas

> Abatement Interim Letter Report. 28 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Dissolved gas monitoring plan of
action. 10 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Biological assessment for
operations covering 1995-1999,

> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery,
> Skamania County, Washington. 19 p.

Washington Department of Fisheries. 1986. A Perspective on Spring Creek
Hatchery's Tule Fall

> Chinook Production. March 10, 1986. 8 p.

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

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

Name, Title, and Signature of Applicant:

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

**ADDENDUM ANumber range CHAPTER[. 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 biological opinions, Section 10 permits, 4(d) rules, etc.

Currently, Spring Creek NFH is not required to obtain any ESA permits or
authorizations for USFWS trust species regarding current projects or
operations. In 1997, Spring Creek NFH did consult with US Fish and
Wildlife Service personnel regarding a construction project for
maintenance and improvements to the hatchery (FWS Reference
1-2-98-SP-0416 and File Name 98ta007.wpd).

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

Bald Eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*) Listed None

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

Peregrine Falcon (*Falco peregrinus*) Listed None

Bull trout (*Salvelinus confluentus*) Listed None

California wolverine (*Gulo gulo luteus*) Concern None

Cascades frog (*Rana cascadae*) Concern None

Larch Mtn salamander (*Plethodon larselli*) Concern None

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

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

Northern goshawk (*Accipiter gentilis*) Concern None

Northwestern pond turtle (*Clemmys marmorata marmorata*)

Concern None

Olive sided flycatcher (*Cantopus cooperi*) Concern None

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

Concern None

Pacific lamprey (*Lampetra tridentata*) Concern None

River lamprey (*Lampetra ayresi*) Concern None

Tailed frog (*Ascaphus truei*) Concern None

Western toad (*Bufo boreas*) Concern None

###### Oregon Spotted Frog (*Rana pretiosa*) Candidate None

####### Northern Red-legged frog (Rana aurora aurora) Concern None

Larch Mountain salamanders (Plethodon larselli) Concern None

California Mountain Kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata) Concern None

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

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

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

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

None of the above listed species are likely to be adversely affected by
this program. Mitigative management actions were taken during 1997/98
construction improvement for northern red-legged frogs, Larch Mountain
salamanders and California mountain kingsnakes. See section 3.5 of this
document for detailed information on program effects on aquatic species
under NMFS jurisdiction.

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

Spring Creek NFH construction improvements carried out during 1997/98
were mitigated by performing the recommendations of USFWS -- Oregon
State Office (FWS Reference 1-2-98-SP-0416 and File Name 98ta007.wpd,
Todd 1997).

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

Todd, Laura. 1997. Management plan fro northern red-legged frogs (Rana
aurora aurora), Larch Mountain salamanders (Plethodon larselli), and
California mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata) at Spring Creek
National Fish Hatchery Underwood, Washington. Fax transmission from,
Garry S. Miller, Acting State Supervisor US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Oregon State Office to Ed Lamotte, Hatchery Manager, Spring Creek
National Fish Hatchery, November 13, 1997. 6 pp.

[^1]: For reference:

    \$\$ \$50,000 to \< \$100,000

    \$\$\$ \$100,000 to \< \$500,000

    \$\$\$\$ \$500,000 to \< \$1,000,000