**HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN**

**(HGMP)**

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

**Hatchery Program:**

**Species or**

**Hatchery Stock:**

**Agency/Operator:**

**Watershed and Region:**

**Date Submitted:**

**Date Last Updated:**

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

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

Upriver Bright Fall Chinook Program - Little White Salmon/Willard NFH
Complex

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

> Upriver Bright Fall Chinook Salmon (*Oncorhynchus tshawytscha*). This
> population is not listed under the Endangered Species Act.

**1.3) Responsible organization and individuals**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-   Yakama Nation receives production for tribal restoration program
    funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

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

-   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for funding

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

> Funding for the program is from Mitchell Act funds administered by
> NMFS with additional funding for off-station rearing and programs from
> the USACE. The complex has thirteen full time employees and an annual
> operating budget in fiscal year 2002 of \$1.14 million for all
> programs. The on-station releases had a budget of \$231,196 from
> Mitchell Act money while the off-station releases had a budget of
> \$54,200 from the USACE.

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

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

**1.6) Type of program.**

> Isolated harvest

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

> The purpose of the program is to successfully rear and release upriver
> bright fall Chinook salmon into the Little White Salmon River to
> provide mitigation (production for fisheries) for federal hydro-power
> construction, and other development, to meet obligations under the
> [U.S. *v* Oregon]{.underline} court agreement and to produce 1.7
> million fry for transfer to the Yakima River basin. A total of 2
> million sub-yearling upriver bright fall Chinook salmon are reared and
> released from Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery as part of
> the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) John Day Dam mitigation
> program (see Yakima Program in Section 1.8 of this document). It also
> provides fish to reaffirm tribal treaty granted fishing rights as
> mandated by [U.S. *v* Oregon]{.underline}.

**1.8) Justification for the program.**

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

Yakima Program:

> The Yakima program is not evaluated in this HGMP. It will be covered
> under a separate HGMP for the BPA funded program. A total of 1.7
> million upriver bright fall Chinook are reared at the Little White
> Salmon/Willard National Fish Hatchery Complex and transferred by
> Service personnel to acclimation ponds on the Yakima River, WA. This
> project is a critical component of the Service\'s obligation under the
> [U.S. *v* Oregon]{.underline} agreement to assist with the development
> of naturally spawning fish stocks on tribal lands in the mid‑Columbia
> River basin. Funding received from the USACE is used to provide feed
> to the tribal fisheries program to assist with the off‑site rearing of
> these fish following transfer and during the acclimation period. USACE
> funds are also used to feed an additional 1.7 million upriver bright
> fall Chinook salmon located at the Priest Rapids Hatchery under
> co‑manager agreement and to meet [U.S. *v* Oregon]{.underline}
> agreement obligations. Adult fish returning to the Yakima River are
> designated for the development of locally adapted, naturally spawning
> populations within the Yakima River Basin.

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

The following standards are adapted from IHOT (1995).

1\) Hatchery Production

Produce 2.0 million subyearling smolts for on-station release.

Produce 1.7 million subyearling fry for transfer to the Yakima River.

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

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

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

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

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

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

+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| **BENEFITS**        | *Performance        | *Monitoring and          |
|                     | Indicators*         | Evaluation*              |
| *Performance        |                     |                          |
| standards*          |                     |                          |
+=====================+=====================+==========================+
| 1\. Provide         | Adult survival and  | Continued analysis of    |
| predictable,        | annual contribution | CWT returns through CRiS |
| stable, and         | to recreational,    | and PSMFC database (see  |
| increased           | commercial and      | Table A).                |
| opportunity for     | tribal fisheries.   |                          |
| harvest.            |                     |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 2\. Achieve genetic | 1860 adults are     | Separation by species    |
| and life history    | spawned (1:1        | (see section 7.6).       |
| conservation.       | male:female sex     |                          |
|                     | ratio) annually.    | Annual evaluation of     |
|                     | Fecundity is        | life history             |
|                     | approximately 5000  | characteristics:         |
|                     | eggs per female.    | juvenile preparedness    |
|                     | Average adult body  | for seawater entry,      |
|                     | size is 96 cm F.L.  | fecundity, body size,    |
|                     |                     | sex ratio, distribution  |
|                     | Isolation of        | and straying (through    |
|                     | species from others | CRiS)See section 3.5.4.3 |
|                     | returning at the    | on genetic effects on    |
|                     | same time.          | other species.           |
|                     |                     |                          |
|                     | *NA for mitigation  |                          |
|                     | hatcheries (APR     |                          |
|                     | 1999).*             |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 3\. Enhance tribal, | Contribution to all | Draft economic analysis  |
| local, state,       | fisheries           | was conducted in 1997    |
| regional and        | established.        | (Montgomery Watson       |
| national economies. |                     | 1997).                   |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 4\. Fulfill         | Legal and policy    | Annual evaluation of     |
| legal/policy        | goals established   | fish counted in the      |
| obligations.        | by US v Oregon and  | fishery by state,        |
|                     | John Day Dam        | tribes, and USFWS.       |
|                     | Mitigation policies |                          |
|                     | are met (note:      | Production goals are     |
|                     | there are currently | monitored and met        |
|                     | no policy goals for | annually.                |
|                     | numbers to the      |                          |
|                     | fishery, only for   |                          |
|                     | production goals).  |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 5\. Contribution of | Hatchery Research   | Carcasses are not        |
| fish carcasses to   | Monitoring and      | outplanted due to        |
| ecosystem function  | Evaluation (RM & E) | disease concerns (See    |
| by subbasin and by  | plans in IHOT.      | sections 3.5.4 and 7.8). |
| hatchery.           |                     |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 6\. Provide fish to | See sections 2.2.1  | There are no other       |
| satisfy legally     | and 2.2.2.          | affected stocks in the   |
| mandated harvest.   |                     | watershed.               |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 7\. Will achieve    | IHOT standards      | IHOT standards are       |
| within-hatchery     |                     | monitored                |
| performance         |                     |                          |
| standards.          |                     | See sections 1.8, 1.9,   |
|                     |                     | 1.12, 3.2, 4.1, 5.8,     |
|                     |                     | 7.7, 7.9, 8.3, 10.11.    |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 8\. Restore and     | No spawning habitat | NA                       |
| create viable       | available.          |                          |
| naturally spawning  |                     |                          |
| populations.        |                     |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 9\. Plan and        | Developed release   | Releases annually        |
| provide fish with   | protocols.          | determined to coincide   |
| coordinated         |                     | with expected maximum    |
| mainstem passage    | *NA for mitigation  | river flows (see section |
| and habitat         | hatcheries (APR     | 10.4)**.**               |
| research.           | 1999).*             |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 10\. Conduct        | Research on         | Onsite evaluation of     |
| within- hatchery    | performance         | physiological condition  |
| research, improve   | indicators          | of released fish to      |
| performance or cost |                     | reduce ecological        |
| effectiveness of    | *NA for mitigation  | interactions (more in    |
| artificial          | hatcheries (APR     | section 9.2.8)           |
| production          | 1999).*             |                          |
| hatcheries to       |                     | Also see sections 9.2.9  |
| address the other   |                     | and 12.                  |
| four purposes       |                     |                          |
| (augmentation,      |                     |                          |
| mitigation,         |                     |                          |
| restoration and     |                     |                          |
| conservation).      |                     |                          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 11\. Minimize       | IHOT and USFWS      | Audits conducted         |
| management,         | audits.             | periodically and results |
| administrative, and |                     | integrated (see sections |
| overhead costs.     | *NA for mitigation  | 1.8, 1.9, 3.2, 3.5, 4.1, |
|                     | hatcheries (APR     | 5.8, 7.7, 7.9, 8.3,      |
|                     | 1999).*             | 10.11).                  |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
| 12\. Improve        | Adaptive            | Continuous adaptive      |
| performance         | management.         | management: e.g.         |
| indicators to       |                     | implementation of        |
| better measure      | *NA for mitigation  | naturally colored        |
| performance         | hatcheries (APR     | raceways (section 9.2.9) |
| standards.          | 1999).*             | and annual monitoring of |
|                     |                     | seawater tolerance (see  |
|                     |                     | section 9.2.8).          |
+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------------+

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

**1.11) Expected size of program.**

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

Hatchery adult URB capture goal is 1,860 fish. The average number
spawned for the years 1997 to 2001 was 2,404 fish with a range of 1,756
to 3,546 fish (see Section 6.2.2 and Section 7.4.2).

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

+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Life Stage**  | **Release Location**     | **Annual Release Level** |
+=================+==========================+==========================+
| **Eyed Egg**    | N/A                      | N/A                      |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Unfed Fry**   | N/A                      | **N/A**                  |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Fry**         | N/A                      | N/A                      |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Fingerling**  | Little White Salmon R.   | 2,000,000                |
|                 |                          |                          |
|                 | Transfer to Yakama       | 1,700,000                |
|                 | Nation                   |                          |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Yearling**    | N/A                      | N/A                      |
+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+

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

> The following is a program summary adapted from IHOT (1996) and
> updated for this document. Adult capture includes all adults entering
> the facility, not just the number spawned (see Section 1.11.1).

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| [Measur         | [Hatchery       | [5-Year         | [Ran            |
| es]{.underline} | Go              | Avera           | ge]{.underline} |
|                 | al]{.underline} | ge]{.underline} |                 |
+=================+=================+=================+=================+
| Adult           | 1,860           | 4,206           | 2,818 - 7,699   |
| Capture^1^      |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Fish            | 2 Million       | 2.0M            | 1.8M - 2.2M     |
| Releases^1^     |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Egg             | 0               | 0               | 0               |
| Transfers^1^    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Fish            | 1.7 Million     | 2.8M            | 2.2M - 3.2M     |
| Transfers^1^    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Adults Passed   | 0               | 0               | 0               |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| Upstream^1^     |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Percent         | 1.0%            | 0.32%           | 0.06% - 0.66%   |
| Survival,       |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| Juvenile to     |                 |                 |                 |
| Adult^2^        |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Smolt Size at   | 100             | 76.8            | 56 - 109        |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| Release         |                 |                 |                 |
| (fish/lb)^1^    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

> ^1^ Five year average and range from calendar years1997 - 2001.
>
> ^2^ Five year average and range from completed brood years1990-1994.
> Information from Pastor (2001)

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

The program began in 1983 with the release of 1982 brood year fish from
the Spring Creek NFH.

**1.14) Expected duration of program.**

Ongoing.

**1.15) Watersheds targeted by program.**

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

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

1.  **Brief Overview of Key Issues**

> **Mitigation.** Little White National Fish Hatchery is authorized by
> laws and agreements to mitigate for salmon and steelhead losses at
> Federal dams and other Federal Actions (John Day Mitigation and
> Mitchell Act).
>
> **Marking.** The states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho are
> implementing selective sport and commercial fisheries (non-tribal) on
> marked hatchery fish. This selective fisheries management strategy
> requires that all hatchery produced fish targeted for harvest be mass
> marked. Mass marking of hatchery fish is being implemented for
> steelhead trout and coho salmon and most recently for spring Chinook
> salmon. Congressional legislation has recently been passed for mass
> marking all federally funded hatchery fish, except for conservation
> purposes. Mass marking fall Chinook salmon at Little White Salmon NFH
> will begin in 2005, depending on equipment availability and funding.
>
> Tribal managers generally disagree with the management strategy for
> mass marking and selective fisheries. Juvenile fish transferred to the
> Tribes are usually tagged with an internal coded-wire tag for
> evaluation purposes but not mass marked solely with an adipose fin
> clip.
>
> **Juvenile Salmon Distribution and Production Numbers.** Juvenile
> salmon are to be released from the hatchery in the spring to promote
> quick downstream migration from the hatchery, through the Columbia
> River to the estuary and ocean. This release strategy is agreed to by
> the WDFW, Service and NOAA Fisheries: Smolts are mass-released
> directly into the Little White Salmon River.
>
> Rearing is performed in newly constructed (2001-2002) 10\' X 110\' X
> 3.5\' mocha colored raceways with maximum flows of approximately 800
> gpm, as well as in nine 8' X 80' concrete raceways (flows up to 470
> gpm) and two new 10' X 210' X 3.5' colored concrete raceways (flows up
> to 2,000 gpm).
>
> **Other Acceptable Stocks**. If brood stock numbers are insufficient
> to meet hatchery production objectives, the hatchery will rear fewer
> fish. In case of a natural or man-made disaster, upriver bright fall
> Chinook from other facilities would be acceptable for use at this
> facility, first passing all fish health clearances.
>
> **Surplus Adult Salmon Distribution**. In most years more fish return
> to the hatchery than are needed for brood stock. During the early part
> of the run, fish are not chemically treated and are fit for human
> consumption. First priority for excess fish is provided to the Yakama
> Nation ceremonial and subsistence program. Excess fish collected in
> holding ponds, not distributed to the Yakama Nation, are returned to
> the stream via a newly constructed river return tube and allowed to
> spawn naturally, promote stream nutrients, and to support local
> populations of wildlife. All other fish are buried.
>
> **Fish Passage and Ladder Management**. The hatchery ladder is
> operated until maximum densities in the ponds are achieved. If this
> occurs, the ladder is closed until excess fish are randomly removed
> from the ponds or fish are removed during spawning. The ladder is then
> reopened to continue collecting adults from the full spectrum of the
> run. Generally, the hatchery ladder is closed by mid-November.
>
> **Stock Transfers to Other Watersheds.** Little White Salmon NFH
> supports important tribal restoration programs, including 1.7 million
> upriver bright fall Chinook juveniles for the Yakama River. The goal
> is to help support the tribal development of locally adapted brood
> stock. Future funding and policy decisions may dictate changes in the
> production program for the tribes.
>
> **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 Little White Salmon NFH production for
> supplementation efforts after dam removal is possible, but currently
> not planned.
>
> **Marking.** Congressional legislation has recently been passed for
> mass marking all federally funded hatchery fish, except for
> conservation purposes. Mass marking fall Chinook salmon at Little
> White Salmon NFH will begin in 2005, depending on equipment
> availability and funding.
>
> The Service will continue to coordinate marking and production actions
> with the states and tribes through [U.S. v Oregon]{.underline} and
> NOAA Fisheries to comply with ESA actions and coordinate with the
> Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission mark committee. In
> addition, the 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. The federal agencies (NOAA Fisheries lead) are
> meeting with the states and tribes to begin this effort.
>
> This comprehensive marking plan should:
>
> a\) improve our ability to assess and monitor the status of
> naturally-producing (especially ESA listed) populations
>
> b\) monitor and evaluate hatchery programs, including hatchery reforms
> and stray rates
>
> c\) maintain critical harvest management and stock assessment
> information
>
> d\) monitor mark-selective fishery regimes established by the states
>
> e\) improve regional and watershed based marking decisions
>
> f\) be consistent with recovery plan goals
>
> g\) be coordinated through [U.S. v Oregon]{.underline}, Pacific States
> Marine Fisheries Commission
>
> and U.S. - Canada forums
>
> **Downstream Migration Timing.** It is assumed that juvenile fish
> migrate quickly into the mainstem Columbia River migration corridor en
> route to the ocean, as do fish released from Spring Creek NFH. PIT
> tagging juvenile fish at Little White NFH would provide additional,
> valuable information on the timing of emigration, but would require
> additional funding.
>
> **Hatchery Rearing Evaluation.** Further investigations of size, time
> at release, and rearing density are needed for the new raceways, but
> would require additional funding.
>
> **Incubation and early rearing.** The installation of egg isolation
> units has been proposed to prevent potential disease transmission from
> eggs transported from outside the facility to Little White Salmon
> stocks. In addition, an independent hatchery audit (Montgomery Watson
> 1997) measuring hatchery operations against IHOT standards (IHOT 1995)
> reported a remedial action was needed to provide disease-free water
> for incubation and early rearing (4,700 gpm). The estimated cost was
> \$2.7 million.
>
> **Surplus Salmon Distribution and Hatchery Ladder Management.** 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. It would
> also be advantageous to begin collecting genetic samples from the
> naturally spawning populations of tules and upriver brights in the two
> tributaries for comparison with samples from Spring Creek tules and
> Little White upriver brights as well as for comparison with samples
> from other natural populations in the lower Columbia River to
> determine and monitor the genetic stock structure of the various
> populations. This monitoring would require additional funding. Partial
> funding for this project has been provided by the U.S. Army Corps of
> Engineers and is described in Section 12 -- Research of this HGMP.

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

-   Current Annual Marking \$\$

-   Mass Marking Fall Chinook Salmon annually \$\$

-   Downstream Migration Timing Study x 3 years \$

-   Hatchery Rearing Evaluation x 3 years \$\$

-   Incubation and Early Rearing \$\$\$\$\$

-   Ecological Interaction Study x 5 years \$\$

-   Sufficient Funding for Hatchery Operations annually **\$\$\$\$**

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

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

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

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

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

There are no ESA listed salmonids that will be directly affected by the
program in the target watershed. Refer to section 3.5 of this document
for a detailed description of possible interactions throughout the
migration corridor.

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

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

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

No take of listed species is anticipated.

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

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

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

> The hatchery program will be operated consistent with ESU-wide plans
> as listed in section3.2.

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

The upriver bright fall Chinook program is consistent with:

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

-   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers John Day Dam Mitigation.

-   Mitchell Act.

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

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

-   1999 Management Agreement for Upper Columbia River Fall Chinook,
    Steelhead and Coho (under [U.S. *v* Oregon]{.underline}).

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

This HGMP is consistent with these plans and commitments.

**3.3) Relationship to harvest objectives.**

> Harvest management decisions are made by the states of Washington and
> Oregon along with Columbia River treaty tribes in consultation with
> NMFS and USFWS.
>
> **3.3.1) Describe fisheries benefitting from the program, and indicate
> harvest levels and rates for program-origin fish for the last twelve
> years (1988-99), if available.**
>
> The upriver fall Chinook program fish have contributed to commercial
> and sport fisheries along the west coast of the U.S. and Canada from
> Alaska to California. Of the fall Chinook from Little White Salmon NFH
> that reach catchable size, commercial fisheries in Alaska, British
> Columbia and gillnet fisheries in the Columbia River each harvest
> greater than 10%. Sport fisheries in B.C. and the Pacific coast states
> account for a much smaller percentage of adult fish caught. More
> detailed information is available in the Stock Assessment Report
> (Pastor, 2001) and in Table 1 and Graph A below.
>
> [Table 1]{.underline}. Coded-wire tag recoveries from brood years
> 1990-1995. For further details see Pastor (2001).

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

  1990           6,174          7,061          13,235         46.6%

  1991           3,376          2,461          5,837          57.8%

  1992           2,871          3,892          6,763          42.5%

  1993           6,897          6,678          13,575         50.8%

  1994           927            708            1,635          56.7%

  1995           2,384          2,624          5,008          47.6%
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

[Graph A. Figure 1]{.underline}. Adult Harvest of Little White Salmon
NFH Upriver Fall Chinook Salmon. (Pastor, 2001). Analysis of tag
recoveries from Brood Years 1980 to
1992.![](media/image2.png){width="6.538888888888889in"
height="5.154861111111111in"}

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

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

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

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

1\) negatively impact program;

> A variety of freshwater and marine predators such as northern
> pikeminnows, Caspian terns, and pinnipeds, can significantly reduce
> overall survival rates of program fish. Predation by northern
> pikeminnow poses a high risk of significant negative impacts on the
> productivity of hatchery Chinook (SWIG 1984). Based on PIT tags
> recovered at a large Caspian tern nesting colony on Rice Island, a
> dredge material disposal island in the Columbia river estuary, 6-25
> million of the estimated 100 million out-migrating juvenile salmonids
> reaching the estuary were consumed by the terns in 1997 (Roby, et al.
> 1997).
>
> A NMFS Working Group (NMFS 1997) determined that California sea lion
> and Pacific harbor seal populations in the three west coast states
> have risen by 5-7% annually since the mid-1970s. Their predation on
> salmonids may now constitute an additional factor on salmonid
> population declines and can affect recovery of depressed populations
> in some situations. See the ecological interactions discussion below.

2\) be negatively impacted by program;

> Co-occurring natural salmon and steelhead populations in local
> tributary areas and the Columbia River mainstem corridor areas could
> be negatively impacted by program fish. Of primary concern are the ESA
> listed endangered and threatened salmonids: Snake River fall-run
> Chinook salmon ESU (threatened); Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook
> salmon ESU (threatened); Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU
> (threatened); Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon ESU (threatened);
> Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (endangered);
> Columbia River chum salmon ESU (threatened); Snake River sockeye
> salmon ESU (endangered); Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU
> (endangered); Snake River Basin steelhead ESU (threatened); Lower
> Columbia River steelhead ESU (threatened); Upper Willamette River
> steelhead ESU (threatened); Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU
> (threatened); and the Columbia River distinct population segment of
> bull trout (threatened). 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
> benefitted as schools of hatchery fish migrate through an area. The
> migrating hatchery fish may overwhelm predator populations, providing
> a protective effect to the co-occurring wild populations. See the
> ecological interactions discussion below.

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

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

*A discussion of ecological interactions relative to the Complex's
upriver bright fall Chinook program follows*:

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

2\. Brood stock collection- Upriver bright fall Chinook are not native
to the Little White Salmon River basin and are not a part of the lower
Columbia River Chinook ESU. This stock was introduced as part of the
John Day Dam mitigation program in the early 1980s. Because upriver
brights are an introduced stock for this area, there is a higher level
of concern regarding potential ecological effects, especially hatchery
introgression effects, if wide spread straying of this stock occurs.
Returning upriver bright fall Chinook are collected for brood stock at
the Little White Salmon NFH rack near the mouth of the river. Stray tule
fall Chinook, presumably from Spring Creek NFH, are also collected but
not spawned unless there is an identified shortfall at Spring Creek NFH,
at which time Little White Salmon NFH may collect tule fall Chinook eggs
and transfer them to Spring Creek NFH. Numbers of tule fall Chinook
returning and spawned for this purpose are generally very low. Temporal
separation of spawning times (tules generally spawn about a month
earlier) as well as differing visual characteristics of the two stocks
assist in avoiding hybridization of the two stocks. Little White Salmon
NFH also receives stray upriver bright fall Chinook from Bonneville
Hatchery releases (same stock) based on coded-wire tag (CWT) recoveries.
CWT recoveries from upper Columbia and Snake River basin upriver bright
fall Chinook are rare.

3\. Genetic introgression- Complex upriver bright fall Chinook are known
to contribute to natural spawning populations in the local tributaries
of the Wind and Big White Salmon rivers. CWT recoveries from Complex
upriver bright fall Chinook have been recovered in annual spawning
ground surveys and upriver bright fall Chinook have been colonizing
these local tributaries since the mid 1980s (Harlan 1999). There is
essentially very little, if any, productive spawning habitat below
Little White Salmon NFH at the mouth of the Little White Salmon River
(Drano Lake). Historical tule fall Chinook habitat was inundated by
Bonneville Pool when Bonneville Dam was constructed in 1938.

Although upriver bright fall Chinook are colonizing the nearby Wind and
Big White Salmon tributaries, the potential for genetic introgression
with the local tule populations is diminished by the temporal separation
in spawn timing of the two stocks, with tules spawning in September and
early October and upriver brights spawning in late October and November.
It is believed that the tule populations in the Wind and Big White
Salmon rivers may be largely supported by Spring Creek NFH strays (NMFS
1999a). Thus, it appears that both the tule and upriver bright naturally
spawning populations of fall Chinook in the Wind and Big White Salmon
rivers may be heavily influenced by hatchery strays. However, the fall
Chinook natural production areas in these tributaries is very limited
and comprise a very minor part of the lower Columbia River Chinook ESU
as a whole. Therefore, the potential negative effect on the ESU as a
whole is likely to be relatively minor. It would be advantageous to
begin collecting genetic samples from the naturally spawning populations
of tules and upriver brights in the two tributaries for comparison with
samples from Spring Creek tules and Complex upriver brights as well as
for comparison with samples from other natural populations in the lower
Columbia River to determine and monitor the genetic stock structure of
the various populations.

4\. Hatchery production (density dependent effects)- Complex upriver
bright fall Chinook releases from the facility are moderate in magnitude
(typically about 2.0 million fall Chinook smolts) relative to other
Columbia River fall Chinook production programs (e.g. Spring Creek NFH
releases over 7 million smolts in March). This level of release is not
expected to cause serious density dependent effects in the mainstem
Columbia River. Complex fall Chinook are assumed to migrate rapidly
after release. PIT tagging would help to test this assumption, but would
require additional funding.

5\. Disease-Under the guidance of the USFWS Lower Columbia River Fish
Health Center (LCRFHC), the Complex follows the US Fish and Wildlife
Service's fish health policy (713 FW in the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual) and Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT 1995) protocols to
produce healthy fish and prevent disease transmission (see sections
9.1.6 and 9.2.7). Most pathogens enter hatcheries through returning
adult fish, surface water supplies, and other mechanisms involving
direct contact with naturally spawning fish. Procedures used at the
hatchery and the LCRFHC reduce pathogen transmission from these sources.
The fish health goal for Complex upriver bright fall Chinook is to
release healthy fish that are physiologically ready to migrate. The
upriver bright fall Chinook are relatively disease-free and have a
reduced potential for transmission of disease to other populations
relative to other upriver programs which are subjected to the high
density impacts and stresses of collection for transport and/or
diversion through multiple bypass systems. The Complex takes appropriate
measures to control disease and the release of diseased fish. As a
consequence, infection of natural fish by hatchery fish would not appear
to be a problem.

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

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

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

The release of hatchery smolts that are physiologically ready to migrate
is expected to minimize competitive interactions as they should quickly
migrate from the release site. The Complex's upriver bright fall Chinook
are released at the Little White Salmon NFH site. It is assumed that
they migrate quickly through Drano Lake and into the mainstem Columbia
River migration corridor en route to the ocean, reducing the potential
for competitive interactions with listed stocks. There have been no
mortalities recorded during saltwater challenges conducted during the
last three brood years. Released fish have been fully smolted and begin
their downstream migration immediately following release. PIT tagging
would also provide valuable confirmation information on the timing and
speed of emigration. This would require additional funding. Because
releases occur "low" in the Columbia River Basin system relative to many
other upriver programs, there is reduced opportunity for competitive
interactions among juveniles. However, competitive interactions between
the Complex's adult upriver and tule fall Chinook may be occurring in
local spawning tributaries.

Coded-wire tag recovery data can be used to document straying rates of
program fish. Data extracted from the Columbia River Information System
(CriS) and Pacific States Marine Fish Commission (PSMFC) databases
(Pastor 1999) can be indicative of straying and homing of program fish.
Analyses are currently underway.

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

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

Water rights for the Little White Salmon NFH total 33,868 gpm from the
Little White Salmon River, a small well and springs. Water use for fish
production ranges from 11,221 gpm to 28,232 gpm. The river supplies most
of this water flow. The water intake structure was rebuilt in 1994 and
modified in 2001. A water re-use system was constructed in 1967 for egg
incubation, but has not been operated for several years. The re-use
system was originally used to supplement water supplies for incubation
in low water years, but has not been needed since the well was upgraded.
Use of the reused water is avoided whenever possible due to disease
transmission concerns. An independent hatchery audit (Montgomery Watson
1997) measuring hatchery operations against IHOT standards (IHOT 1995)
reported a remedial action was needed to provide disease-free water for
incubation and early rearing (4,700 gpm). The estimated cost was \$2.7
million. Such a system would also benefit the incubation and early
rearing of spring Chinook and the incubation of coho.

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

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

> As stated above in section 4.1, the hatchery intake structure is above
> an impassable barrier dam which prevents listed anadromous species
> from having access to the main water supply. The hatchery's effluent
> discharge is well within it's NPDES permit and is further diluted by
> the Little White Salmon river further reducing any possible negative
> impacts.
>
> **[SECTION 5. FACILITIES]{.underline}**

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

> Fish enter the spawning facility volitionally via a fish ladder that
> opens immediately below the hatchery barrier dam. Once inside the
> trap, the fish are crowded up to a grader using mechanical crowders to
> separate out coho salmon that return concurrently with the fall
> Chinook. After grading, the adult Chinook are held in a 30\' X 90\'
> X6\' holding pond.

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

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

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

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

**5.4) Incubation facilities**.

> Incubation is done in the nursery building about 0.5 km from the
> spawning facility using up to 72 of 132 stacks of vertical incubators
> with flows set initially to 3 gpm and raised to 5 gpm at hatching.
> Water for incubation is primarily from springs and a well, with
> screened river water available if needed. The eggs are treated between
> three and five times a week with 1,667 ppm formalin for fifteen
> minutes to control fungus. The formalin is delivered using a newly
> constructed delivery system which ensures proper dilutions and timing.
> The installation of egg isolation units has been proposed to prevent
> potential disease transmission from eggs transported from outside the
> facility to Little White Salmon stocks.

**5.5) Rearing facilities.**

> Rearing is performed in newly constructed (2001-2002) 10\' X 110\' X
> 3.5\' mocha colored raceways with maximum flows of approximately 800
> gpm. Baffles are being evaluated to determine their usefulness with
> these fish.

**5.6) Acclimation/release facilities.**

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

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

> Since the Upriver Bright Fall Chinook program has been at Little White
> Salmon there has been only one significant fish loss. This occurred in
> January, 1998 due to equipment/ operational errors in a new mixing box
> supplying spring water to the nursery. The error unfortunately led to
> the asphyxiation of 3,198,321 fall Chinook sack-fry still in the
> incubators. Operation procedures have been modified and an additional
> alarm probe has been installed to prevent future incidents.

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

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

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

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

**6.1) Source**.

> The original source of this stock is from up-river bright (URB) fall
> Chinook trapped at the Bonneville State Fish Hatchery. The current
> source is from adult URB fall Chinook returning to the Little White
> Salmon River.

**6.2) Supporting information**.

**6.2.1) History.**

> The "mid-Columbia Bright" brood stock was developed in 1977 when
> upriver bright fall Chinook were trapped from the Bonneville Dam fish
> ladder and spawned at Bonneville Hatchery (CRFMP All-Species Review
> 1997). Following an unsuccessful attempt to rear upriver bright fall
> Chinook that started in 1982, along with tule fall Chinook at Spring
> Creek NFH, the John Day Dam upriver bright mitigation program was
> moved to the Little White Salmon/Willard NFH Complex in 1988.
>
> The following lists all the fall Chinook stocks that have been
> transferred to the Little White Salmon/Willard NFH Complex during the
> last 5 brood years. All stocks were received during 1998 to meet
> production shortfalls due to the above mentioned mechanical-caused
> loss of progeny from fish that had returned to the Complex:
>
> 1,213,000 upriver bright fall Chinook (URB) from Klickitat SFH, WA
>
> 13,168 URB from Lyons Ferry SFH, WA
>
> 2,054,000 URB from Bonneville SFH, OR
>
> 600,000 URB from Priest Rapids SFH, WA
>
> 200,000 URB from Umatilla SFH, OR
>
> **6.2.2) Annual size.**
>
> Adult upriver bright fall Chinook enter the hatchery holding ponds
> from mid-October through mid-November. Spawning occurs from late
> October to mid November. Total adult returns ranged from 3,498 to
> 7,860 averaging 5,442 for the period 1997 to 2001. The annual
> escapement goal is 1,860 adults returning to the hatchery (see Section
> 1.11.1 and Section 7.4.2 for number of adults spawned).
>
> **6.2.3) Past and proposed level of natural fish in broodstock**.
>
> As stated in Bryant (1949), the backwater from Bonneville Dam covers
> all of the area that was originally suitable for salmon spawning. In
> addition, a natural waterfall located about 0.8 kilometers above the
> hatchery barrier dam (built in 1974) had historically blocked access
> to spawning habitat located above the hatchery. Fluctuations in the
> level of the Bonneville Pool are seen immediately below the barrier
> dam. Historical literature reviews indicate that the only original
> native stock were the tule fall Chinook and late-run coho (Nelson and
> Bodle 1990). Both are extinct from the watershed and there are no
> naturally spawning populations. Remnants of the original Tule stock
> were transferred to Spring Creek NFH during the mid-1980\'s. There has
> been no past or proposed future level of natural fish used as brood
> stock for the upriver bright fall Chinook currently produced at the
> Little White Salmon/Willard NFH Complex.
>
> **6.2.4) Genetic or ecological differences**.
>
> As stated in section 2.2.2 above, there are no natural stocks in the
> Little White Salmon River.
>
> **6.2.5) Reasons for choosing.**
>
> All stocks of upriver bright fall Chinook were chosen due to their
> availability. Refer to Section 1.7 of this document for further
> details.

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

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

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

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

Adults.

**7.2) Collection or sampling design.**

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

**7.3) Identity.**

> There are no naturally spawning populations of upriver bright fall
> Chinook within the Little White Salmon River watershed. As a result,
> differential marking is not required. An index group of approximately
> ten percent of juveniles released into the Little White Salmon River
> is coded-wire tagged and adipose fin clipped. This clip is used to
> distinguish a tagged hatchery fish at spawning time. The collection of
> an un-marked (non-adipose clipped) salmon does not equate to the
> collection of a "wild" fish. All adult fish that have an adipose clip
> are sampled to retrieve the coded-wire tags for stock assessment
> purposes. Tag code recoveries are reported to the Pacific States
> Marine Fish Commission (PSMFC) following the spawning season.

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

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

1,860 adult fall Chinook are needed for full normal production.

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

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

  **1990**   990          670        0                        

  **1991**   1,090        781        5                        

  **1992**   1,149        747        150                      

  **1993**   1,398        1,354      36                       

  **1994**   1,335        1,281      26                       

  **1995**   1,350        1,312      31                       

  **1996**   1,149        1,117      26                       

  **1997**   960          957        6                        

  **1998**   1,811        1,660      75                       

  **1999**   1,081        1,008      17                       

  **2000**   1,252        1,163      89                       

  **2001**   878          872        6                        
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

**7.8) Disposition of carcasses.**

> Upriver bright fall Chinook salmon are not chemically treated during
> spawning. Carbon dioxide is used to induce anesthesia. These fish are
> fit for human consumption. First priority for excess and spawned
> carcasses is provided to the Yakama Nation ceremonial and subsistence
> program. All other excess carcasses are processed by contractors for
> the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Prisons Program.
>
> Carcass outplanting for nutrient enhancement is not currently a goal
> of this program. However, if current policies change to include
> nutrient enhancement, outplanting will be done as per LCRFHC
> recommendations to minimize potential disease transmission to resident
> and anadromous fish. These recommendations include outplanting
> carcasses with no gross signs of disease, heat-treating or
> eviscerating adult carcasses and removing heads before outplanting,
> and placing carcasses downstream of the hatchery intake.

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

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

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

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

**8.1) Selection method.**

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

**8.3) Fertilization.**

> It is important to note that at no time in the recent past has the
> Complex pooled the eggs of females prior to fertilization. Again, as
> mentioned in section 7.2 above, an intense effort is made to achieve a
> 1:1 spawning ratio. The following is a detailed description of the
> spawning protocol.
>
> Adults are crowded from holding ponds and anesthetized using carbon
> dioxide. Anesthetized adults are then sexed and checked for ripeness.
> Ripe adults are selected and euthanized. Tails of all ripe females
> spawned are cut to allow bleeding for approximately 3-5 minutes. Eggs
> are then removed using a Wyoming knife and collected in
> iodophor-disinfected colanders to drain ovarian fluid. The eggs are
> then transferred to iodophor-disinfected stainless steel buckets and
> sperm is added directly to the eggs. A 1:1 random spawning ratio is
> maintained and male jacks are used proportionally to their percentage
> of the run. The buckets containing eggs and sperm of individual
> (paired) fish are then transferred to the Little White Salmon hatchery
> nursery building (0.5 kilometers away) where water is added to
> activate the sperm. This process takes from 5-10 minutes. The
> fertilized eggs are stirred and allowed to rest for a minimum of
> thirty seconds, then washed and water hardened for one half hour in a
> 75 ppm active iodine solution in individual Heath incubator trays. The
> eggs are incubated using single pass spring or well water.
>
> Aseptic procedures are followed to assure the disinfection of
> equipment throughout the egg handling process. Tissue samples are
> collected by fish health specialists to determine the incidence of
> *Ceratomyxa shasta*, and all of the listed pathogens except *Myxobolus
> cerebralis,* according to procedures and guidelines in 713 FW and
> IHOT. Refer to sections 9.1.6 and 9.2.7 for more fish health details.

**8.4) Cryopreserved gametes**.

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

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

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

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

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

**9.1) Incubation:**

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

Data compiled from LWS NFH lot histories and egg summaries.

  ---------- ------------- ------------ --------------- ------------------
  **BROOD    **EGGS        **% SURVIVAL **% SURVIVAL    **% SURVIVAL POND
  YEAR**     TAKEN**       TO EYE**     GREEN TO POND** TO RELEASE**

  1990       5,295,939     90.6         88.7            93.5

  1991       5,332,182     93.0         91.8            80.8

  1992       5,640,292     93.0         83.0            97.9

  1993       6,675,395     93.0         87.9            99.2

  1994       6,390,236     89.2         85.9            97.3

  1995       6,331,790     92.3         90.2            84.0

  1996       5,352,726     88.7         85.3            97.3

  1997       4,584,966     86.2         13.2^\_^        96.2

  1998       4,461,450\*   88.5         87.9            99.1

  1999       4,931,822     89.3         89.0            98.7

  2000       5,962,075     89.2         88.7            99.1

  2001       4,192,595     90.9         90.6            99.0

  Average    5,429,289     90.33        81.85           95.18
  ---------- ------------- ------------ --------------- ------------------

\*Excludes 4,084,800 green eggs shipped to other facilities*.*

^\_^ Refer to Section 5.7 of this document.

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

> Extra eggs may be taken to safeguard against potential incubation
> losses. Excess eggs are buried on-station.
>
> **9.1.3) Loading densities applied during incubation.**
>
> Eggs are placed into incubation trays at a rate of one female
> (approximately 4,800- 5,000 eggs) per incubation tray. At eye-up, bad
> eggs are removed, the remaining eggs are enumerated, then placed back
> into incubation trays at a rate of 5000 eggs per tray. Initial water
> flows are set at 3 gpm and increased to 5 gpm at hatch.
>
> **9.1.4) Incubation conditions.**
>
> Water temperature is monitored using temperature loggers taking
> readings every 30 minutes. Temperatures during incubation range from
> 43°F to 50°F with typical temperatures around 47°F. Dissolved oxygen
> levels are not regularly monitored, but have been tested and found to
> be at, or near saturation. All water for incubation is passed through
> a 70 micron drumscreen to filter out solids.
>
> **9.1.5) Ponding**.
>
> Fish are transferred to the raceways from egg trays when most
> individuals have absorbed their yolk sac (at around 1750 Temperature
> Units, TUs). At this time eggs destined for an individual raceway are
> emptied into a transport tank, moved to the appropriate raceway and
> released directly into the raceway (i.e. swim up and ponding are
> forced) in late February to mid-March. Average length at ponding is 43
> mm.
>
> **9.1.6) Fish health maintenance and monitoring.**
>
> The current treatment to control fungus on the eggs is a 1,667 ppm
> drip of formalin for 15 minutes three to five times a week. The first
> health exam of newly hatched fish occurs when approximately 50% are
> beyond the yolk sac stage and begin feeding. Sixty fish are sampled
> and tested for virus. Regular fish health checks are done on a monthly
> basis by the fish health specialist from the Lower Columbia River Fish
> Health Center as per the fish health policy in 713 FW.
>
> **9.1.7) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to
> minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to
> listed fish during incubation.**
>
> There are no known listed fish that will be affected by incubation
> procedures.

**9.2) Rearing:**

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

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

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

**9.2.3) Fish rearing conditions**

> Temperature readings are taken using data loggers taking readings
> every 30 minutes. Temperatures in the raceways range from 43°F to 48°F
> for the period that the fall Chinook are being raised. Mortalities are
> removed daily. Raceways are cleaned with a broom while effluent water
> is drained to a pollution control structure. Cleaning is performed as
> needed but no less than once a week. Dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide
> and total gas pressure have never been problems and are not recorded
> on a regular basis. Fish are reared on river water for the final three
> weeks.
>
> **9.2.4) Indicate biweekly or monthly fish growth information
> (*average program performance*), including length, weight, and
> condition factor data collected during rearing, if available.**

Table B: End of Month Growth Parameters for LWS NFH Fall Chinook Brood
Year 2001.

  ------------ ------------ ---------- ------------- -------------- ----------- ----------
  **Month**    **Length     **#/lb**   **Condition   **Conversion   **Density   **Flow
               (inches)**              Factor C**    For Month**    Index**     Index**

  **March**    2.035        491.0      \-            0.87           0.23        2.57

  **April**    2.450        229.9      \-            0.90           0.23        1.55

  **May**      3.082        115.6      \-            0.67           0.22        1.55

  **June\***   3.280        82.2       0.000346      0.85           0.29        2.05
  ------------ ------------ ---------- ------------- -------------- ----------- ----------

Data from Lot History, Production for Brood Year 2001 fall Chinook.

\* Fish released June 20, 2002.

> **9.2.5) Indicate monthly fish growth rate and energy reserve data
> (*average program performance*), if available**.
>
> Energy reserve information is not available. This is not a yearling
> smolt program. Refer to Section 9.2.4 for growth data.
>
> **9.2.6) Indicate food type used, daily application schedule, feeding
> rate range (e.g. % B.W./day and lbs/g.p.m. inflow), and estimates of
> total food conversion efficiency during rearing (*average program
> performance*).**
>
> The fish are fed BioMoist starter, grower and feed following
> manufacturer recommendations (generally between 3.5% and 1.0% of body
> weight per day). They are fed between two and nine times daily
> depending on fish size. Overall conversions are around 1.0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**10.1) Proposed fish release levels.**

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

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

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

  **Fingerling**   2,000,000       90            mid-June       **Little White
                                                                Salmon River**

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

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

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

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

Primary Sources: LWS NFH Annual Reports, 1990 to 2001.

+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **R | **E    | *    | *   | *    | **     | *    | **Year | **Avg |
| ele | ggs/** | *Avg | *Fr | *Avg | Finger | *Avg | ling** | s     |
| ase |        | si   | y** | si   | ling** | si   |        | ize** |
| yea | *      | ze** |     | ze** |        | ze** |        |       |
| r** | *Unfed |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
|     | Fry**  |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+=====+========+======+=====+======+========+======+========+=======+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 1,4    | 11   | \-     | **-** |
| 199 |        |      |     |      | 38,372 | 1/lb |        |       |
| 0** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 4,0    | 10   | \-     | **-** |
| 199 |        |      |     |      | 29,158 | 2/lb |        |       |
| 1** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 4,3    | 8    | \-     | **-** |
| 199 |        |      |     |      | 96,178 | 2/lb |        |       |
| 2** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 1,8    | 10   | \-     | **-** |
| 199 |        |      |     |      | 66,901 | 1/lb |        |       |
| 3** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 2,7    | 15   | \-     | **-** |
| 199 |        |      |     |      | 57,539 | 3/lb |        |       |
| 4** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 1,9    | 9    | \-     | **-** |
| 199 |        |      |     |      | 67,893 | 1/lb |        |       |
| 5** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 2,0    | 9    | \-     | **-** |
| 199 |        |      |     |      | 97,206 | 8/lb |        |       |
| 6** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 2,1    | 8    | \-     | **-** |
| 199 |        |      |     |      | 53,118 | 9/lb |        |       |
| 7** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 1,9    | 7    | \-     | **-** |
| 199 |        |      |     |      | 99,435 | 1/lb |        |       |
| 8** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 2,1    | 5    | \-     | **-** |
| 199 |        |      |     |      | 49,397 | 6/lb |        |       |
| 9** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 1,9    | 6    | \-     | **-** |
| 200 |        |      |     |      | 70,592 | 6/lb |        |       |
| 0** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 1,9    | 10   | \-     | **-** |
| 200 |        |      |     |      | 37,764 | 9/lb |        |       |
| 1** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | **-**  | \-   | \-  | \-   | 2,0    | 8    | \-     | **-** |
| 200 |        |      |     |      | 74,295 | 2/lb |        |       |
| 2** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+
| **  | \-     | \-   | \-  | \-   | 2,3    | 93.1 | \-     | **-** |
| Ave |        |      |     |      | 72,142 | 7/lb |        |       |
| rag |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
| e** |        |      |     |      |        |      |        |       |
+-----+--------+------+-----+------+--------+------+--------+-------+

Data source: LWS NFH annual reports, 1990-2001 and Lot History,
Production for BY 2001 URB.

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

> Releases of fingerlings for the most recent five years occurred
> between June 19 and 25. Mid-June was selected for releases to coincide
> with expected maximum river flows (USFWS, 1990). In normal years the
> screens are removed from the raceways one or two days before release
> day to allow some fish to migrate volitionally. On the date of release
> all remaining fish are forced out of the raceways.

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

> The fish covered in this HGMP are not transported off-station. The
> Yakima River program (1.7 million) will be covered under a separate
> HGMP (Yakama Nation, BPA funded)

**10.6) Acclimation procedures**

> Spring water used for rearing is switched to straight river water in
> late May to properly imprint the fish on the Little White Salmon
> River.

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

> Approximately 10% of the fish released from Little White NFH are coded
> wire tagged and adipose fin clipped.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**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.**

> Fish health procedures outlined in this document and listed in the
> Fish and Wildlife Service's fish health policy as well as the IHOT
> document, minimize potential negative effects on natural populations
> of fish by lessening the chance for horizontally transmitted diseases
> when encountering Little White Salmon upriver brights in the migration
> corridor or in the ocean. See section 3.5 of this document for a
> detailed discussion of potential ecological interactions.

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

**11.1) Monitoring and evaluation of "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 of this document for information on the
Performance Indicators.

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

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

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

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

**12.1) Objective or purpose.**

> **Assessment of Ladder Operations at Little White and Spring Creek NFH
> and Effects on Hatchery Brood Stock Collection and Straying**.
>
> This project is in conjunction with a ladder assessment currently
> proposed at Spring Creek NFH. An experimental design, specific
> activities, and methods have note yet been determined with Little
> White NFH and Columbia River Fisheries Program Office staff. Expected
> completion of experimental design, specific activities, and methods is
> June 2004.

**12.2) Cooperating and funding agencies**.

> US Army Corps of Engineers (funding)
>
> US Fish and Wildlife Service -- Columbia River Fisheries Program
> Office
>
> Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

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

> Little White NFH
>
> Speros Doulos (Complex Manager), Jim Rockowski (Deputy Complex
> Manager), Peter Long (Fishery Biologist), Mary Stad (Fishery
> Biologist)
>
> Columbia River Fisheries Program Office
>
> Doug Olson (Hatchery Assessment Team Leader), Rod Engle (Hatchery
> Assessment Team)

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

> Not listed.

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

> This project is in conjunction with a ladder assessment currently
> proposed at Spring Creek NFH. An experimental design, specific
> activities, and methods have not yet been determined with Little White
> NFH and Columbia River Fisheries Program Office staff.

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

> The assessment would be conducted during the fall Chinook return at
> Little White NFH.

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

Not yet determined.

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

Not yet determined.

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

The fall Chinook stock raised at Little White NFH is not currently
listed therefore, take is not applicable.

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

Not yet applicable.

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

Not yet applicable.

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

> Not yet applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piper, Robert G. et. al. 1982. Fish Hatchery Management. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USFWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). 1990. Ninety Years of Salmon
Culture at Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery. Biological Report
90(17), December 1990.

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

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

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

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

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

Name, Title, and Signature of Applicant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Concern None

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

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

> Concern None

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                      Egg/Fry                 Juvenile/Smolt   Adult     Carcass

  **Observe or harass a)**                                                                                                               

  **Collect for transport b)**                                                                                                           

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

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

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

  **Intentional lethal take f)**                                                                                                         

  **Unintentional lethal take g)**                                                                                                       

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[^1]: For reference:

    \$ \< \$50,000

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

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

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

    \$\$\$\$\$ \$1,000,000 to \< \$5,000,000