NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-60 

Population Genetics 

of Entiat River 

Spring Chinook Salmon 

May 2004 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 
NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS Series 

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not 

appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Documents published in this series may be referenced in the 

scientific and technical literature. 

The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of 

the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the 

NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the 

Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which 

has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum 

series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center. 

Reference throughout this document to trade names 

does not imply endorsement by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, NOAA. 

This document should be cited as follows: 

Ford, M.J., T.A. Lundrigan, and P.C. Moran. 2004. 

Population genetics of Entiat River spring Chinook 

salmon. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-60, 45 p. 
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-60 

Population Genetics 

of Entiat River 

Spring Chinook Salmon 

Michael J. Ford,


Tricia A. Lundrigan*,


and Paul C. Moran


Northwest Fisheries Science Center


Conservation Biology Division


2725 Montlake Boulevard East


Seattle, Washington 98112


*University of Washington 

School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences 

Seattle, Washington 98195 

May 2004 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Donald L. Evans, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. USN (Ret), Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
Most NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS-NWFSC 

are available online at the Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov) 

Copies are also available from: 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone orders (1-800-553-6847) 

e-mail orders (orders@ntis.fedworld.gov) 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

List of Figures...............................................................................................................................................v

List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................................vii

Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................ix

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................xi

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1

Materials and Methods..................................................................................................................................2

Samples ....................................................................................................................................................2

DNA Extraction........................................................................................................................................2

PCR Amplification and Electrophoresis...................................................................................................2

Genotyping ...............................................................................................................................................2

Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................................................................3

Results...........................................................................................................................................................6

Descriptive Statistics and Tests for Hardy-Weinburg Equilibrium..........................................................6

Population Differentiation and F-statistics...............................................................................................6

Discussion and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................11

Citations......................................................................................................................................................13

Appendix A: Data Tables Used in Analysis ...............................................................................................15

iii 
iv 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Raw allele size distribution at the ogo-4 locus.. ...........................................................................5

Figure 2. Unrooted neighbor joining tree illustrating the patterns of genetic relatedness among the 

samples based on pairwise θ estimates......................................................................................9

v 
vi 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Population samples used for this study were collected from the Entiat River, Entiat and 

Winthrop NFHs, and other areas of the Columbia River Basin. ...............................................4

Table 2. List of microsatellite loci used in the study. ..................................................................................4

Table 3. Summary of variation in each population......................................................................................7

Table 4. Pairwise estimates of θ among all samples....................................................................................8

Table A-1. Data for Deschutes 1998 samples............................................................................................16

Table A-2. Data for Winthrop 2001 samples.............................................................................................18

Table A-3. Data for Entiat NFH 2001 samples..........................................................................................20

Table A-4. Data for Chiwawa H94DA samples.........................................................................................22

Table A-5. Data for Hanford 1998 KH samples. .......................................................................................24

Table A-6. Data for Entiat River juveniles 2002 samples. ........................................................................26

Table A-7. Data for Carson H 1995 samples. ............................................................................................28

Table A-8. Data for Entiat NFH 1997 samples..........................................................................................30

Table A-9. Data for Entiat River 2001 samples.........................................................................................32

Table A-10. Data for John Day River 2000 samples. ................................................................................35

Table A-11. Genetic collections, Entiat River redd survey, 2001..............................................................37

Table A-12. Genetic collections, Entiat NFH, 2001. .................................................................................40

Table A-13. Genetic collections, Winthrop NFH, 2001. ...........................................................................43

vii 
viii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The purpose of this study was to assess the genetic relationship between natural and 

hatchery-origin fish in the Entiat River watershed. The Entiat National Fish Hatchery (NFH) 

propagates Carson stock spring-run Chinook salmon. Carson stock originated from collections 

of spring Chinook salmon at Bonneville Dam in the 1950s, which presumably contained a 

mixture of fish migrating to various tributaries above the point of collection, and has not been 

considered part of the Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon ESU. We examined 

genetic variation at eight DNA microsatellite loci in population samples of hatchery and natural 

spring Chinook salmon from the Entiat River. Prior to this study, few genetic samples from

natural-origin Entiat River spring Chinook salmon have been available. Also, the relationship 

between the Entiat NFH stock and the natural spawners in the Entiat River has not been well 

understood. 

The Entiat River samples were provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

consisted of Entiat NFH adults sampled in 1997 and 2001, spawned-out carcasses from the 

Entiat River sampled in 2001, and natural-origin Chinook salmon smolts sampled from the Entiat 

River in 2002 (brood year 2000). In addition to the Entiat River samples, we included six 

population samples from other parts of the Columbia River Basin in our analysis in order to 

provide additional context. 

Population Run type

Entiat NFH adults 1997 spring 

Entiat NFH adults 2001 spring 

Entiat River carcasses 2001 spring 

Entiat River smolts (yearlings) 2002 spring (based on age) 

Winthrop NFH adults 2001 spring 

Chiwawa River juveniles 1994 spring 

Carson NFH juveniles 1995 spring 

John Day River juveniles 2000 spring (based on age) 

Hanford Reach adults 1998 fall 

Deschutes River juveniles 1998 fall (based on age) 

The Chiwawa River sample is representative of the natural populations in the Upper Columbia 

River spring Chinook salmon ESU, and the Carson NFH and Winthrop NFH samples are (like 

the Entiat NFH) representative of the widely dispersed Carson spring Chinook hatchery stock. 

The microsatellite loci were highly variable within each of the population samples. The 

largest degree of genetic differentiation among samples was between all of the spring-run 

samples and the two fall-run samples (Hanford Reach and John Day River). The level of 

differentiation among the spring-run samples alone was roughly tenfold less than the spring/fall 

difference. Within the spring-run groups, the samples from the John Day and Chiwawa rivers 

were the most genetically differentiated from all the other spring-run samples. 

The Entiat River carcass samples from 2001 and the Entiat River smolt samples from

2002 were both genetically more similar to the Entiat NFH and Winthrop NFH samples than 

they were to the 1994 Chiwawa River sample. The Entiat and Winthrop NFH stocks are 

ix 
primarily of Carson-stock origin, whereas the Chiwawa River stock is representative of the 

natural Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon natural populations. 

The similarity of the Entiat River natural samples and the Entiat NFH samples suggests 

that Entiat NFH salmon have successfully spawned and introgressed into or replaced the natural 

Entiat River population. This could have occurred gradually since their introduction in 1974, or 

perhaps was a result of the crash of the natural population in 1995–2000. It is important to note 

that the 2002 smolt sample originated from a brood year (2000) in which 69% of the natural 

spawners were of hatchery origin. It would therefore be prudent to confirm the results presented 

here by obtaining additional samples of natural and hatchery-origin spawners from the Entiat 

River. It would also be informative to include additional contemporary samples of natural-origin 

spring Chinook salmon from the Wenatchee and Methow rivers. 

x 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife kindly provided many of the nonEntiat River samples used in this report. 

This was a collaborative study with the Mid-Columbia River Fishery Resource Office of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whose staff collected the Entiat River and Entiat NFH 

samples and associated biological data. David Carie, Matt Cooper, Charles Hamstreet, and Don 

Campton, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Anne Marshal, Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife; Chris Beasley; and Robin Waples, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, provided 

valuable comments on an earlier version of this document. 

xi 
xii 
INTRODUCTION 

The Entiat River drains an eastern portion of the Washington Cascades and joins the 

Columbia River at the town of Entiat. A natural population of typically several hundred spring 

Chinook salmon has spawned in the Entiat River since at least 1962 (Hamstreet and Carie 2002). 

The history of this population is uncertain, but it was presumably founded in large part by the 

Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project (GCFMP), which trapped all upstream migrating salmon 

at Rock Island Dam from 1939 to 1943 and released the adult fish or their progeny in the 

Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow rivers (Chapman et al. 1995, Mullan et al. 1992, Myers et al. 

1998). The Entiat National Fish Hatchery (NFH) released fish from the GCFMP for 2 years in 

the early 1940s, but then ceased propagating spring Chinook until 1974 (Cooper et al. 2002). 

From 1974 to 1981, the hatchery released spring Chinook using eggs obtained from a variety of 

non-local sources, primarily originating from the Carson NFH. Since 1982, the hatchery has 

primarily used returning adults caught in the hatchery trap for its broodstock (Cooper et al. 

2002). The Carson stock originated from collections of spring Chinook salmon at Bonneville 

Dam in the 1950s, which presumably contained a mixture of fish migrating to various tributaries 

above the point of collection (primarily Snake River, Upper Columbia River tributaries, John 

Day River, Deschutes River, and Yakima River) (Myers et al. 1998). Leavenworth and 

Winthrop NFHs (on the Wenatchee and Methow rivers, respectively) also have propagated 

Carson stock spring Chinook since the mid–1970s (Mullan et al. 1992). 

Previous population genetic studies of Upper Columbia River spring Chinook have found 

that some naturally spawning populations are genetically differentiated from the Carson-origin 

stocks propagated at Leavenworth, Entiat, and Winthrop NFHs. In particular, allozyme allele 

frequencies in population samples from the White, Twisp, Chiwawa, and Chewuch rivers have 

been detectably different from the NFH stocks, with the populations from the White and Twisp 

rivers the most distinct (Campton 2000, Matthews and Waples 1991, Utter et al. 1995). Samples 

from the three Upper Columbia River NFHs are generally more similar to samples from Carson 

NFH than they are to the samples from most naturally spawning populations (Campton 2000). 

The presumably mixed origin of the three NFH broodstocks and their genetic differentiation 

from most natural Upper Columbia River spring Chinook populations led the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) to conclude that the hatchery broodstocks were not in the same 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as the natural populations, and should not be used for 

conservation purposes (NMFS 1999). As a result of this conclusion, the Winthrop NFH is 

phasing out propagation of its Carson-origin stock and replacing it with a stock derived in large 

part from natural-origin Methow River and Chewuch River spring Chinook salmon (Cooper et 

al. 2002). 

In order to develop future conservation plans for the Entiat River, it would be useful to 

know the genetic relationship between the natural Entiat River population and the Entiat NFH 

population. Samples from the Entiat NFH and from natural Entiat spawners were included in 

previous datasets, but the sample size of the natural spawners was too small to draw strong 

conclusions. This report describes an analysis of microsatellite DNA variation in larger samples 

from the Entiat River and Entiat NFH collected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

and provided to the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) in October 2001 and May 

2002. 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Samples 

The USFWS provided six groups of samples taken from adult returns to Entiat and 

Winthrop NFHs, carcasses from fish that spawned naturally in the Entiat River, and natural and 

hatchery-origin smolts from the Entiat River (Table 1). All samples were provided as fin tissue 

stored in ethanol. We analyzed 48 fish from each sample group, except for the Entiat NFH 

juveniles, which were not analyzed, and the Entiat River natural spawners, for which 96 fish 

were analyzed. In addition to the Entiat and Winthrop samples, samples from the Chiwawa 

River, Carson NFH, and the Hanford Reach, Washington; and the Deschutes River and John Day 

River, Oregon, were included to provide additional context for the analysis. All of the samples 

are part of a larger ongoing study of microsatellite variation in the Columbia River Basin. 

DNA Extraction

DNA from a small piece of each fin clip was extracted using DNeasy 96 Tissue Kits 

(QIAGEN GmbH, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturer’s standard protocol. 

PCR Amplification and Electrophoresis 

Purified DNA was used as starting material for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) 

amplification of 8 microsatellite loci using fluorescently labeled primers (Table 2). PCR 

conditions are available upon request. Amplified DNA was electrophoresed through an ABI 

3100 automated Genotyper and fragment sizes were estimated using ABI GeneScan software 

(Applied Biosystems, Foster City, California). 

Genotyping

The estimated raw allele sizes for each individual at each locus were determined using 

ABI Genotyper software. The size distributions for each locus were also plotted. Generally, 

allele sizes fell into size distributions that were closely clustered either two or four base pairs 

apart, depending on whether the locus in question was a di- or tetra-nucleotide repeat (Figure 1). 

One locus, ots 104, had a complicated distribution that was consistent with variation at both diand tetra-nucleotide repeats. Bins were constructed by eye, such that each distinct cluster of 

sizes fell into a unique bin. Bins were labeled sequentially, with the smallest observed allele 

cluster placed in Bin 5. Bins with no observed alleles were inferred and numbered accordingly 

based on the pattern of size distributions. The bins were then entered into the Genotyper to 

genotype all individuals. Each genotype was then checked by eye, and a genotype was only 

recorded for an individual at a locus if the individual has either one or two clearly defined peaks 

at that locus.

2 
Statistical Analysis 

All statistical analysis was performed using the Genetic Data Analysis (Lewis and Zaykin 

2001) and Genepop (Raymond and Rousset 1995) software packages and is described in the 

results section. 

3 
Table 1. Population samples used for this study were collected from the Entiat River, Entiat and 

Winthrop NFHs, and other areas of the Columbia River Basin. (The short names are used in 

subsequent tables.) 

NMFS sample 

group number Description Short name 

Number

analyzed c

32857 Entiat NFH spring-run adults collected 1997 Entiat H 97 48 

32861 Entiat River spring-run carcasses, summer 2001 Entiat R 01 96 

32860 Entiat NFH spring-run adults collected summer 2001 Entiat H 01 48 

32934 Entiat River smolts collected spring 2002 (BY 2000) Entiat R 02 48 

32859 Winthrop NFH spring-run adults collected 2001 Winthrop H 01 48 

32863 (94DA)

a Chiwawa River juveniles collected 1994 Chiwawa R 94 48 

32127 Carson NFH juveniles collected 1995 Carson H 95 48 

32865 (98KH)

a Hanford Reach fall Chinook collected 1998 Hanford 98 48 

32767 (98KN)

b Deschutes River fall Chinook juveniles collected 1998 Deschutes 98 48 

32973,-74,-75 John Day River juveniles collected 2000 John Day 98 48 

a Samples provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, sample group number is included. 

b Samples provided by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. c Number of samples processed in the laboratory; genotypes were not necessarily scored for all samples. 

Table 2. List of microsatellite loci used in the study.

Microsatellite loci Source 

ots-3 Banks et al. 1999 

ots-2m Banks et al. 1999 

ssa-408 Cairney et al. 2000 

ogo-4 Olsen et al. 1998 

ots-d9 Naish unpublished data 

oke-4 Buchholz et al. unpublished data 

ots-10m Banks et al. 1999 

ots-104 Nelson and Beacham 1999 

4 
200 400 600 800

100

120

140

160

Figure 1. Raw allele size distribution at the ogo-4 locus. Each individual in the study is aligned along the 

x-axis, and the estimated sizes (in base pairs) of each individual’s ogo-4 alleles are plotted on the 

y-axis.

5 
RESULTS 

The genotypes of each individual in the study, along with additional sampling 

information provided by the USFWS, are provided in Appendix A. In general, most samples 

amplified well and produced scored genotypes. One exception was the Entiat River redd survey 

sample. Many of the fish in this sample failed to amplify at most loci, and DNA concentrations 

in this sample were extremely low for many individuals. After an initial screening of 48 

individuals produced only ≈ 20 with scored genotypes, DNA extractions were repeated for the 

original 48 samples plus an additional 48 samples in order provide a larger number of scored 

genotypes. The low quantity of DNA in this sample group was presumably due to degradation 

of many carcasses prior to sampling. 

Descriptive Statistics and Tests for Hardy-Weinburg Equilibrium 

The number of scored individuals in each population, number of alleles per locus, and 

expected and observed heterozygosity for each population averaged across loci are provided in 

Table 3. Averaged across loci, the Entiat River carcass sample and Entiat River wild smolt 

sample deviated significantly from Hardy-Weinburg expectations. In the carcass samples the 

deviations were not consistent among loci, and may be due to difficulties in obtaining accurate 

genotypes from these samples. The deviations in the Entiat River smolt sample were 

consistently in the direction of too few heterozygotes, and may reflect admixture between two 

different population groups. When averaged across populations, several loci consistently 

deviated significantly from the Hardy-Weinburg Equilibrium (HWE). Ssa-408 and ots-104 

tended to have positive inbreeding coefficients (f) in several populations. This pattern is 

indicative of one or more rare null alleles segregating in the populations, and is commonly 

observed at highly polymorphic loci. 

Population Differentiation and F-statistics 

We estimated the degree of genetic differentiation among populations using Weir and 

Cocherhams’ θ statistic (Weir 1996). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for θ were 

estimated by bootstrapping over loci 1,000 times. Several subsets of the data were analyzed, 

focusing on the degree of differentiation between the Entiat River samples and the Entiat NFH 

samples. Genetic differentiation among populations was also visualized by neighbor joining 

trees of the population samples, using θ as a genetic distance. 

The largest degree of genetic differentiation (θ ≈ 0.10) occurred between ocean-type 

fall/summer Chinook (Hanford Reach and Deschutes River fall Chinook) and stream-type spring 

Chinook (Table 4, Figure 2). The relatively high level of genetic divergence between those two 

life-history groups is consistent with previous studies (Ford 1998, Myers et al. 1998, Utter et al. 

1995). 

6 
Table 3. Summary of variation in each population. Averaged across loci, the Entiat River carcass sample

and Entiat River wild smolt sample deviated significantly from Hardy-Weinburg expectations. 

Samplea nb Apc Hed Hoe f f

Deschutes 98 41 12 0.80 0.82 -0.03 

Winthrop H 01 43 10 0.73 0.73 -0.01 

Entiat H 01 48 10 0.72 0.72 -0.01 

Chiwawa R 94 46 10 0.70 0.65 0.07 

Hanford 98 48 12 0.80 0.79 0.01 

Entiat R 02 47 11 0.73 0.68 0.07 

Carson H 95 46 10 0.71 0.71 0.00 

Entiat H 97 39 10 0.72 0.75 -0.03 

Entiat R 01 59 11 0.72 0.76 -0.05 

John Day 98 47 10 0.71 0.67 0.06 

Mean 46 10 0.73 0.73 0.01

a See Table 1 for sample references. 

b n = average number of individuals in sample with scored data. c Ap = average number of alleles per locus. d He = average expected heterozygosity. e Ho = average observed heterozygosity. f f = inbreeding coefficient (proportion heterozygote deficiency or excess). 

7 
Table 4. Pairwise estimates of θ among all samples. The largest degree of genetic differentiation (θ ≈ 0.10) occurred betw

fall/summer Chinook and stream-type spring Chinook.* The first row and the first column in the table contain the samples (see Table 1 for additional sample information). 

Deschutes 

98 

Winthrop 

H 01 

Entiat H 

01 

Chiwawa 

R 94 

Hanford 

98 

Entiat R 

02 

Carson H 

95 

Entiat H 

97 

En

Deschutes 98 – Winthrop H 01 0.099 –Entiat H 01 0.096 0.007 –

Chiwawa R 94 0.104 0.025 0.021 –

Hanford 98 0.011 0.088 0.086 0.096 –Entiat R 02 0.086 0.004 0.004 0.013 0.078 –

Carson H 95 0.099 0.005 0.006 0.010 0.090 0.003 –

Entiat H 97 0.096 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.084 0.008 0.011 –

Entiat R 01 0.094 0.003 0.005 0.015 0.084 0.001 0.000 0.007 

John Day 00 0.109 0.013 0.008 0.039 0.100 0.012 0.024 0.007 0

* Estimates in bold have a 95% confidence interval, which does not include zero. 

8 
0.01

Entiat R 02

Deschutes 98

Hanford 98

Entiat R 01

Chiwawa R 94

Carson H 95

Winthrop H 01

Entiat H 01

Entiat H 97

John Day 00

Figure 2. Unrooted neighbor joining tree illustrating the patterns of genetic relatedness among the 

samples based on pairwise θ estimates (scale at bottom left from statistics in Table 4). 

9 
Levels of differentiation among the stream-type populations were much lower than the 

ocean/stream-type divergence (θ = 0.01; 95% CI 0.0055–0.018). All samples from the Entiat 

River, both natural and hatchery, were similar to each other and to the Winthrop and Carson 

NFH samples. In addition, 95% confidence intervals for pairwise θ estimates include zero for 

most comparisons among these groups (Table 4). Of the 96 Entiat River carcass samples 

included in the analysis, 22 were hatchery-origin fish based on scale or coded-wire tag (CWT) 

analysis (Appendix A). The removal of these fish from the carcass samples had essentially no 

effect on the results (data not shown). The Chiwawa and John Day River samples were the most 

genetically distinctive within the group of stream-type samples, with θ significantly greater than

zero for all comparisons except John Day/Entiat NFH 2001 comparison (Table 4). 

In addition to estimating θ, we also directly tested the hypothesis that pairs of samples 

were drawn from the same allele frequency distribution using the Monte Carlo permutation test 

implemented in the program Genepop (Raymond and Rousset 1995). Summed across loci, the 

hypothesis of identical allele frequency distributions was rejected (p-values vary, but are 

generally << 0.001) for all pairs of populations except for the two Entiat River NFH samples, 

indicating that even pairs of populations with very low θ values are not completely panmictic. 

This result is consistent with generally lower proportions of hatchery-origin fish on the spawning 

grounds than in the Entiat NFH broodstock. According to a preliminary USFWS analysis (M. 

Cooper and C. Hamstreet1

), approximately 69%, 32%, and 23% of the total Entiat River 

spawning population was of hatchery origin in the years 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively. In 

the Entiat NFH stock for the same years, the proportions of Carson-lineage hatchery fish were 

estimated to be 77%, 93%, and 56%. 

 

1

 M. Cooper and C. Hamstreet, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mid-Columbia River Fishery Resource Office, 7501 

Icicle Road, Leavenworth, WA 98826. Pers. commun., 14 November 2002.

10 
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Entiat River natural carcass samples from 2001 and the Entiat River smolt samples 

from 2002 were both genetically more similar to Entiat and Winthrop NFH samples than they 

were to the 1994 Chiwawa River sample. The Entiat and Winthrop NFH stocks are primarily of 

Carson-stock origin (see Introduction), whereas the Chiwawa River stock is presumably more 

representative of post-GCFMP Upper Columbia River natural populations (Utter et al. 1995). 

The similarity of the Entiat River natural samples and the Entiat NFH samples suggests 

that Entiat NFH salmon have successfully spawned and introgressed into or replaced the natural 

Entiat River population. This could have occurred gradually since their introduction in 1974, or 

perhaps was a result of the crash of the natural population in 1995–2000 (Hamstreet and Carie 

2002). Conceptually, other possible explanations for the high degree of similarity of the Entiat 

NFH and Entiat natural samples include either a lack of statistical power to detect genetic 

differentiation or the possibility that the natural Entiat River population coincidentally has allele 

frequencies that are essentially the same as the Carson-origin stocks. The former alternative 

seems unlikely, because the level of differentiation among the other samples (the ocean-type 

samples and the John Day River and Chiwawa River samples) is similar to what has been 

observed previously. The latter alternative also seems unlikely, although it cannot be ruled out 

entirely without collecting data at additional loci. It is also worth noting that the 2002 smolt 

sample originated from a brood year (2000) in which 69% of the natural spawners were of 

hatchery origin (see Results section) and that the 2001 carcass sample was somewhat 

compromised by poor sample quality. It would therefore be prudent to confirm the results 

presented here by obtaining additional samples of natural and hatchery-origin spawners from the 

Entiat River. It would also be informative to include additional contemporary samples of 

natural-origin spring Chinook salmon from the Wenatchee and Methow rivers. 

11 
12 
CITATIONS 

Banks, M. A., M. S. Blouin, and B. A. Baldwin. 1999. Isolation and inheritance of novel microsatellites 

in Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha). J. Heredity 90:281–288. 

Buchholz, W. G., S. J. Miller, and B. J. Spearman. 2000. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite 

loci from chum salmon and cross-species amplification. DNA sequence data. Online at 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/ [accession number AF330221, accessed 22 April 2004]. 

Cairney M., J. B. Taggart, and B. Hoyheim. 2000. Characterization of microsatellite and minisatellite 

loci in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and cross-species amplification in other salmonids. Mol. 

Ecol. 9:2175–2178. 

Campton, D. E. 2000. Genetic comparisons among hatchery and wild populations of spring Chinook

salmon in the Methow River Basin: ESA controversies in the Columbia River Basin. Unpubl. 

manuscr., 55 p. (Available from Donald E. Campton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Abernathy

Fish Technology Center, 1440 Abernathy Creek Road, Longview, WA 98632.) 

Chapman, D., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, and F. Utter. 1995. Status of Spring Chinook Salmon in 

the Mid-Columbia Region, 477 p. (Available from Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., 3653

Rickenbacker, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83705). 

Cooper, M., D. Carie, and C. Hamstreet. 2002. Adult salmonid returns to Leavenworth, Entiat, and 

Winthrop National Fish Hatcheries in 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, WA, 

62 p. 

Ford, M. J. 1998. Testing models of migration and isolation among populations of Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tschawytscha). Evolution 52:539–557.

Hamstreet, C. O., and D. G. Carie. 2002. Spring and summer Chinook salmon spawning ground surveys on 

the Entiat River, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, WA, 18 p. 

Lewis, P. O., and D. Zaykin. 2001. Genetic Data Analysis: Computer program for the analysis of allelic 

data. Version 1.0 (d16c). (Available at http://lewis.eeb.uconn.edu/lewishome/software.html.) 

Matthews, G. M., and R. S. Waples. 1991. Status review for Snake River spring and summer Chinook

salmon. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NWC-200, 75 p. 

Mullan, J. W., K. R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T. W. Hillman, and J. D. McIntryre. 1992. Production and 

habitat of salmonids in Mid-Columbia River tributary streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Leavenworth, WA, 489 p. 

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.

Naish, K. No date. Unpublished microsatellite primer sequences. (Available from Kerry Naish, School 

of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle.) 

13 
Nelson, R. J., and T. D. Beacham. 1999. Isolation and cross-species amplification of microsatellite loci 

useful for study of Pacific salmon. Anim. Genet. 30:228–229. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Endangered and threatened species: Threatened status 

for three Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant units in Washington and Oregon, and 

endangered status of one Chinook salmon ESU in Washington; Final rule. Federal Register 

[Docket No. 990303060-9071-02, 24 March 1999] 64(56):14307–14328. 

Olsen, J. B., P. Bentzen, and J. S. Seeb. 1998. Characterization of seven microsatellite loci derived from

pink salmon. Mol. Ecol. 7:1087–1089. 

Raymond, M., and F. Rousset. 1995. Genepop (Version 1.2). Population genetics software for exact 

tests and ecumenicism. J. Heredity 86:248–249. 

Utter, F. M., D. W. Chapman, and A. R. Marshal. 1995. Genetic population structure and history of 

Chinook salmon of the Upper Columbia River. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 17:149–168. 

Weir, B. S. 1996. Genetic Data Analysis II. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MA, 445 p.

14 
APPENDIX A: DATA TABLES USED IN ANALYSIS 

This appendix contains the raw genetic data used in this report (Table A-1 through A-10), 

as well as sample information provided by the USFWS (Tables A-11 through A-13). Individual 

sample numbers for the 2001 Entiat National Fish Hatchery (NFH), 2001 Winthrop NFH, and 

2001 Entiat River genetic samples correspond to the numbers provided by the USFWS (see 

Tables A-11 through A-13). A Microsoft Excel file of the data is available at 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm60/tm60EntiatSpringChinookData.xls

15 
Table A-1. Data for Deschutes 1998 samples. 

Genotype 

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Deschutes 98 32767-0011 32 38 ?* ? 37 43 12 12 12 17 14 15 Deschutes 98 32767-004 29 31 6 8 17 37 10 12 12 19 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-006 32 38 6 6 17 41 10 12 10 15 14 14 Deschutes 98 32767-009 29 42 ? ? 41 67 10 12 17 18 15 15 Deschutes 98 32767-017 29 31 ? ? 39 39 11 12 12 25 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-020 31 31 ? ? 33 41 10 10 12 17 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-021 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Deschutes 98 32767-025 29 31 ? ? 25 39 10 12 13 25 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-028 29 34 5 6 31 37 12 12 12 26 15 16 Deschutes 98 32767-043 31 32 8 8 31 35 10 12 12 24 15 16 Deschutes 98 32767-045 29 31 5 6 9 43 10 11 12 16 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-053 5 5 8 8 31 37 10 12 10 10 9 12 Deschutes 98 32767-055 31 32 ? ? 29 33 10 12 10 25 12 16 Deschutes 98 32767-060 31 31 ? ? 29 35 10 10 10 17 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-068 34 40 ? ? 33 37 4 12 12 18 14 15 Deschutes 98 32767-072 29 31 ? ? 27 65 10 10 12 14 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-073 29 32 6 6 29 35 11 11 17 17 12 16 Deschutes 98 32767-083 29 44 6 8 39 67 12 12 17 27 14 17 Deschutes 98 32767-085 29 29 5 9 31 33 11 12 12 20 15 16 Deschutes 98 32767-086 31 42 6 9 25 41 12 12 12 24 15 16 Deschutes 98 32767-092 31 31 ? ? 37 43 12 12 25 25 14 18 Deschutes 98 32767-096 29 38 ? ? 15 31 12 12 10 12 14 15 Deschutes 98 32767-100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Deschutes 98 32767-112 29 31 ? ? 27 35 11 12 18 19 14 14 Deschutes 98 32767-117 31 44 5 8 35 45 10 12 10 18 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-122 29 31 6 6 37 39 10 12 10 19 14 14 Deschutes 98 32767-128 31 42 6 8 37 45 12 12 17 25 15 15 Deschutes 98 32767-131 31 32 5 6 43 45 2 10 17 25 14 15 Deschutes 98 32767-134 31 40 6 8 35 37 10 12 12 19 15 17 Deschutes 98 32767-148 32 42 8 9 13 37 11 11 10 17 14 18 

16 
Table A-1 continued. Data for Deschutes 1998 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Deschutes 98 32767-149 41 44 ? ? 45 53 11 11 12 25 15 15 Deschutes 98 32767-151 29 32 ? ? 25 33 12 12 12 17 14 14 Deschutes 98 32767-164 38 38 5 7 33 51 10 10 12 25 14 17 Deschutes 98 32767-170 29 32 ? ? 19 43 10 10 10 23 10 17 Deschutes 98 32767-174 29 31 ? ? 37 43 10 11 10 25 14 14 Deschutes 98 32767-180 31 31 ? ? 29 45 10 12 12 26 14 17 Deschutes 98 32767-187 29 31 6 9 17 31 10 11 7 12 14 15 Deschutes 98 32767-189 31 42 6 6 39 41 11 12 10 12 12 13 Deschutes 98 32767-193 29 31 ? ? 35 37 10 12 10 10 12 13 Deschutes 98 32767-195 31 32 ? ? 39 47 10 12 18 25 16 17 Deschutes 98 32767-196 29 38 6 8 33 45 10 12 12 25 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-201 31 32 5 6 31 37 12 12 12 18 15 15 Deschutes 98 32767-205 29 31 6 8 37 39 12 12 12 18 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-208 29 29 6 8 53 53 10 12 12 23 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-215 ? ? ? ? 45 65 10 12 10 12 16 16 Deschutes 98 32767-217 31 32 ? ? 27 45 11 12 14 19 14 16 Deschutes 98 32767-219 31 42 ? ? 35 39 12 12 15 26 15 17 Deschutes 98 32767-220 32 34 ? ? 25 45 10 12 12 12 14 15 * Indicates missing data. 

17 
Table A-2. Data for Winthrop 2001 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Winthrop H 01 32859-001 37 41 ?* ? 36 57 11 12 12 25 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-003 37 40 5 8 49 63 11 11 10 12 15 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-004 44 45 5 8 45 47 11 11 12 12 11 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-005 40 44 5 5 37 51 12 12 10 12 15 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-006 37 42 5 6 55 67 12 12 10 12 14 17 Winthrop H 01 32859-007 37 41 5 6 29 61 10 12 10 12 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-009 39 45 ? ? 19 53 11 12 10 12 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-011 37 42 ? ? 37 51 11 12 10 12 15 17 Winthrop H 01 32859-013 41 42 5 6 31 47 11 11 12 12 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-015 37 42 5 5 37 55 12 12 10 12 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-016 ? ? 5 8 57 65 11 12 12 12 9 9 Winthrop H 01 32859-018 41 42 5 5 45 45 11 12 10 10 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-019 40 42 5 8 27 34 10 12 12 25 15 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-020 41 44 ? ? 21 67 11 11 12 25 13 14 Winthrop H 01 32859-022 40 41 ? ? 53 63 11 11 12 25 14 14 Winthrop H 01 32859-023 40 41 ? ? 28 65 11 11 10 12 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-024 40 41 6 13 29 33 11 11 12 12 13 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-025 42 45 6 6 21 63 11 12 10 25 15 16 Winthrop H 01 32859-026 40 41 5 13 47 73 12 12 10 12 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-027 40 41 ? ? 57 77 11 11 10 10 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-031 37 43 ? ? 19 45 4 11 12 12 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-032 37 44 5 5 29 44 10 11 10 12 15 16 Winthrop H 01 32859-033 39 40 ? ? 31 69 12 12 10 10 14 14 Winthrop H 01 32859-034 40 42 ? ? 49 51 11 12 10 10 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-037 37 37 5 13 28 38 11 12 10 12 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-038 37 45 9 13 25 45 11 11 10 17 15 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-050 37 44 6 6 27 51 11 11 10 12 14 14 Winthrop H 01 32859-051 41 43 ? ? 37 44 11 11 10 12 15 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-052 41 41 ? ? 51 81 11 12 12 12 15 16 Winthrop H 01 32859-053 37 42 ? ? 27 33 11 12 10 10 15 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-054 40 44 ? ? 45 51 11 12 10 12 9 12 

18 
Table A-2 continued. Data for Winthrop 2001 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Winthrop H 01 32859-056 37 41 ? ? 47 59 11 12 12 12 15 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-057 37 44 5 13 38 67 12 12 12 12 14 14 Winthrop H 01 32859-060 41 41 6 9 47 57 11 11 10 25 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-063 40 44 6 9 51 77 11 11 10 10 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-071 37 40 5 6 37 51 11 12 12 25 15 17 Winthrop H 01 32859-075 40 40 5 5 41 61 10 12 10 10 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-077 37 40 ? ? 51 61 11 12 10 12 13 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-079 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 11 12 25 15 17 Winthrop H 01 32859-081 40 41 ? ? 43 67 11 12 12 12 14 14 Winthrop H 01 32859-084 37 42 6 8 57 63 11 12 12 25 15 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-085 37 42 5 5 47 53 11 12 10 25 12 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-087 41 42 5 6 45 65 11 12 12 12 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-090 37 45 5 7 25 47 11 12 10 12 13 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-092 37 44 ? ? 29 44 11 11 10 10 15 16 Winthrop H 01 32859-094 37 40 5 6 34 37 11 12 12 25 14 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-097 40 43 ? ? 57 57 11 11 12 12 15 15 Winthrop H 01 32859-099 37 40 ? ? 41 61 10 12 10 10 13 15 * Indicates missing data. 

19 
Table A-3. Data for Entiat NFH 2001 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Entiat H 01 32860-002 41 42 5 7 21 45 ?* ? 12 25 12 15 Entiat H 01 32860-005 41 42 6 6 45 47 11 11 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-007 40 44 6 8 61 65 11 12 10 10 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-008 42 45 5 5 63 63 11 12 10 12 15 16 Entiat H 01 32860-010 41 41 5 5 51 67 11 11 10 12 14 14 Entiat H 01 32860-012 41 43 5 6 59 61 11 11 10 10 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-013 40 41 5 6 59 85 10 11 10 10 14 14 Entiat H 01 32860-014 37 42 6 8 25 36 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 01 32860-017 40 41 6 8 59 59 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-021 37 42 5 8 21 59 11 12 10 12 13 15 Entiat H 01 32860-031 40 42 5 6 38 65 10 10 10 12 13 14 Entiat H 01 32860-033 37 44 5 5 44 49 10 11 10 10 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-034 40 41 5 5 51 57 10 11 10 12 13 13 Entiat H 01 32860-038 41 45 5 5 5 63 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-040 37 44 5 5 45 51 11 11 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 01 32860-043 40 41 5 7 49 63 11 12 10 10 13 16 Entiat H 01 32860-044 40 41 8 8 25 29 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-045 37 40 6 6 57 85 11 11 10 10 15 15 Entiat H 01 32860-048 40 42 6 8 27 39 12 12 12 12 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-052 37 37 5 6 21 59 11 11 10 10 13 14 Entiat H 01 32860-053 37 40 5 5 ? ? 12 12 10 12 14 14 Entiat H 01 32860-054 41 41 5 6 5 59 11 11 10 12 15 16 Entiat H 01 32860-055 37 37 6 8 38 61 12 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-056 40 43 5 5 29 57 11 11 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 01 32860-058 40 41 5 6 29 61 11 12 10 25 5 14 Entiat H 01 32860-060 40 46 5 7 59 59 11 11 10 10 14 14 Entiat H 01 32860-062 41 41 5 6 44 63 11 11 12 25 15 16 Entiat H 01 32860-064 40 40 6 8 59 61 11 12 10 12 14 14 Entiat H 01 32860-065 31 41 6 6 27 59 10 12 10 10 15 15 Entiat H 01 32860-066 37 37 8 9 53 67 11 12 12 12 14 15 

20 
Table A-3 continued. Data for Entiat NFH 2001 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Entiat H 01 32860-069 42 45 6 9 61 67 10 12 12 12 15 16 Entiat H 01 32860-072 37 42 5 5 45 51 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-073 41 42 5 5 29 37 11 12 12 25 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-074 41 45 6 13 45 65 11 11 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-075 40 46 5 7 59 59 11 12 10 10 13 15 Entiat H 01 32860-077 41 42 5 6 ? ? 12 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 01 32860-079 31 41 5 8 29 69 11 12 10 12 10 15 Entiat H 01 32860-080 42 45 5 6 45 73 11 12 10 17 15 15 Entiat H 01 32860-081 31 41 6 8 51 59 12 12 10 10 15 16 Entiat H 01 32860-083 42 42 5 6 57 67 11 12 10 10 14 16 Entiat H 01 32860-085 40 42 5 5 45 47 11 11 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-087 37 37 5 6 19 45 12 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-090 37 41 6 8 47 73 11 11 12 12 13 14 Entiat H 01 32860-093 31 42 5 5 27 55 11 11 12 12 15 16 Entiat H 01 32860-094 41 43 5 5 5 45 10 12 10 10 14 15 Entiat H 01 32860-095 41 42 6 9 37 49 11 12 10 10 15 15 Entiat H 01 32860-097 31 37 5 6 29 59 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 01 32860-100 41 42 5 6 36 49 11 11 10 10 15 15 * Indicates missing data. 

21 
Table A-4. Data for Chiwawa H94DA samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Chiwawa R 94 32863-009 41 44 5 6 49 61 11 11 10 12 10 14 Chiwawa R 94 32863-010 40 45 5 6 27 55 11 12 12 12 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-011 41 44 ?* ? 29 47 12 12 12 12 13 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-012 41 42 6 6 59 63 11 12 12 12 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-013 41 42 5 5 49 49 11 11 12 12 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-014 42 42 5 6 51 67 11 12 10 15 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-015 40 40 5 6 30 45 11 12 10 10 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-016 31 40 5 6 24 24 11 11 12 15 13 14 Chiwawa R 94 32863-017 40 45 5 6 45 61 11 12 10 10 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-018 40 41 5 5 24 71 12 12 12 12 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-019 ? ? 5 5 36 67 11 11 12 12 9 12 Chiwawa R 94 32863-020 40 41 5 6 49 51 10 12 10 12 10 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-021 41 42 5 6 43 51 12 12 10 12 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-022 40 43 5 6 51 67 11 12 12 12 5 14 Chiwawa R 94 32863-023 37 40 6 6 45 51 11 12 10 12 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-024 40 41 5 5 51 51 11 11 12 12 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-025 40 42 9 9 24 31 12 12 10 10 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-026 42 44 5 5 31 65 12 12 10 10 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-027 41 42 5 5 33 49 12 12 12 15 13 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-028 40 40 5 5 45 63 12 12 12 12 13 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-029 39 40 6 8 23 47 12 12 10 10 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-030 37 45 6 6 49 51 11 12 12 12 13 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-031 41 41 6 9 47 49 12 12 10 12 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-032 37 41 6 6 51 75 10 11 12 12 14 14 Chiwawa R 94 32863-033 42 44 5 6 43 85 11 12 12 12 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-034 42 44 ? ? 23 39 12 13 10 12 10 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-035 41 42 5 5 36 53 12 12 10 12 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-036 40 44 5 6 45 55 12 12 10 12 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-037 41 43 5 5 31 61 12 12 12 12 5 10 Chiwawa R 94 32863-038 42 45 5 5 36 57 11 12 12 12 14 15 

22 
Table A-4 continued. Data for Chiwawa H94DA samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Chiwawa R 94 32863-039 40 41 5 6 43 45 12 12 10 10 11 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-040 40 40 5 6 45 85 11 11 10 13 13 14 Chiwawa R 94 32863-041 41 42 5 9 49 63 11 12 15 15 5 13 Chiwawa R 94 32863-042 40 41 5 6 41 61 12 12 10 12 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-043 40 41 5 6 51 61 11 11 10 10 5 13 Chiwawa R 94 32863-044 ? ? ? ? ? ? 10 11 ? ? ? ? Chiwawa R 94 32863-045 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Chiwawa R 94 32863-046 40 42 6 6 31 53 11 11 10 10 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-047 39 41 5 6 31 45 12 12 10 12 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-048 ? ? ? ? 47 59 11 11 10 10 9 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-049 41 43 5 5 31 61 11 12 10 10 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-050 40 40 5 6 27 31 11 11 10 12 5 13 Chiwawa R 94 32863-051 41 42 5 5 36 47 11 12 10 12 15 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-052 37 40 5 6 27 51 11 12 12 12 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-053 41 41 5 5 41 79 11 12 12 12 10 14 Chiwawa R 94 32863-054 41 41 5 6 27 31 11 11 10 12 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-055 40 40 5 5 27 53 11 12 10 10 14 15 Chiwawa R 94 32863-056 40 41 5 6 38 47 11 11 10 12 15 15 * Indicates missing data. 

23 
Table A-5. Data for Hanford 1998 KH samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Hanford 98 32865-001 31 32 8 9 17 39 11 12 12 12 14 17 Hanford 98 32865-002 31 31 ?* ? 29 55 10 12 10 20 14 16 Hanford 98 32865-003 32 33 8 9 13 33 9 10 10 12 15 17 Hanford 98

10 23 14 17 

32865-004 29 29 ? ? 35 53 11 12 12 12 12 13 

Hanford 98 32865-005 29 31 8 9 29 41 11 11 10 10 13 14 Hanford 98 32865-006 29 32 8 8 31 43 12 12 10 23 14 15 Hanford 98 32865-007 31 42 6 8 43 51 11 11 12 17 14 14 Hanford 98 32865-008 29 32 6 6 13 21 10 12 10 12 14 14 Hanford 98 32865-009 29 38 7 7 37 37 11 12 10 23 15 16 Hanford 98 32865-010 29 31 9 9 33 35 12 12 10 12 15 18 Hanford 98 32865-011 29 31 8 8 17 35 12 12 12 18 14 15 Hanford 98 32865-012 29 44 5 8 37 51 10 11 12 12 12 17 Hanford 98 32865-013 29 29 6 8 23 29 10 11 12 23 14 14 Hanford 98 32865-014 29 31 6 6 23 35 11 12 10 17 15 17 Hanford 98 32865-015 31 44 6 8 31 47 10 10 12 12 14 15 Hanford 98 32865-016 29 42 6 8 31 45 10 10 12 12 15 16 Hanford 98 32865-017 29 29 6 8 39 41 10 11 10 15 10 15 Hanford 98 32865-018 29 35 6 6 19 27 12 12 10 12 14 15 Hanford 98 32865-019 29 43 6 8 13 33 10 11 11 12 14 16 Hanford 98 32865-020 31 42 8 9 33 51 10 12 12 20 16 17 Hanford 98 32865-021 31 31 6 8 35 41 10 12 10 25 13 15 Hanford 98 32865-022 31 32 9 9 33 37 11 12 12 25 14 17 Hanford 98 32865-023 31 31 6 8 33 47 11 12 17 19 15 17 Hanford 98 32865-024 31 42 6 7 33 35 10 11 12 23 13 14 Hanford 98 32865-025 29 42 6 6 31 55 11 12 10 12 14 17 Hanford 98 32865-026 29 41 6 8 13 65 12 12 10 10 17 18 Hanford 98 32865-027 29 31 6 6 15 31 10 12 10 10 14 16 Hanford 98 32865-028 31 31 5 6 39 69 11 12 10 10 14 18 Hanford 98 32865-029 29 31 8 9 33 37 12 12 12 12 16 17 Hanford 98 32865-030 31 44 8 9 33 37 11 12

24 
Table A-5 continued. Data for Hanford 1998 KH samples. 

Genotype

Population

O

Sample no. 9

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

Hanford 98 32865-031 29 31 5 8 29 33 10 11 10 25 16 16 Hanford 98 32865-032 31 31 5 8 31 43 10 12 12 23 14 14 Hanford 98 32865-033 29 32 6 8 41 43 10 10 12 25 13 13 Hanford 98 32865-034 29 29 8 8 41 75 10 11 10 12 15 17 Hanford 98 32865-035 29 29 7 9 25 35 10 12 12 15 12 17 Hanford 98 32865-036 29 29 6 8 31 65 10 11 12 23 14 18 Hanford 98 32865-037 31 35 5 6 23 55 10 11 23 25 13 14 Hanford 98 32865-038 38 44 6 8 31 33 11 12 10 18 13 17 Hanford 98 32865-039 29 31 5 8 31 39 11 12 10 10 13 15 Hanford 98 32865-040 31 44 8 9 27 43 11 11 10 23 15 15 Hanford 98 32865-041 29 31 6 9 25 33 11 12 10 12 14 17 Hanford 98 32865-042 21 21 5 6 47 47 10 12 10 23 13 15 Hanford 98 32865-043 31 31 6 8 15 39 10 12 10 10 14 16 Hanford 98 32865-044 29 31 6 6 35 39 10 11 18 25 13 18 Hanford 98 32865-045 21 21 8 9 35 41 10 12 12 12 14 14 Hanford 98 32865-046 29 31 5 6 35 43 11 11 10 12 15 15 Hanford 98 32865-047 31 32 5 8 15 31 10 12 12 25 15 16 Hanford 98 32865-048 29 31 5 6 45 49 10 10 12 19 14 14 * Indicates missing data. 

25 
Table A-6. Data for Entiat River juveniles 2002 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Entiat R 02 32934-002 40 42 5 8 61 65 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-004 41 42 6 13 65 67 12 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-006 41 41 5 5 63 79 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-007 40 42 5 6 59 67 12 12 12 12 14 14 Entiat R 02 32934-008 31 40 5 6 49 67 12 12 12 12 14 14 Entiat R 02 32934-010 29 40 5 5 47 49 12 12 12 12 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-012 37 42 5 13 49 59 11 12 10 12 13 14 Entiat R 02 32934-013 40 41 6 9 49 71 12 12 10 17 14 17 Entiat R 02 32934-015 37 37 6 6 31 59 11 12 12 12 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-019 41 42 5 5 59 63 11 12 12 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-020 40 42 5 8 59 85 10 11 12 25 15 16 Entiat R 02 32934-021 41 42 ?* ? 63 65 11 12 12 18 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-022 29 31 6 6 31 43 12 12 12 12 13 15 Entiat R 02 32934-023 39 42 5 5 51 63 11 12 10 10 13 15 Entiat R 02 32934-024 41 45 5 6 29 31 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-026 41 43 5 13 27 71 11 12 10 10 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-027 40 40 6 13 27 71 11 11 10 10 15 17 Entiat R 02 32934-030 40 45 6 9 38 59 11 11 10 25 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-031 42 42 6 8 51 53 10 11 10 12 14 17 Entiat R 02 32934-033 40 42 5 5 21 77 11 12 12 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-035 37 40 6 6 53 87 11 11 10 10 10 14 Entiat R 02 32934-036 37 41 5 7 45 45 12 12 12 12 13 15 Entiat R 02 32934-037 37 41 6 8 34 45 11 12 10 10 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-038 40 42 5 5 32 49 11 11 12 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-039 29 29 5 6 35 45 12 12 23 25 12 15 Entiat R 02 32934-041 40 41 5 5 27 59 11 12 10 10 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-043 37 37 5 8 43 67 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-044 37 40 5 5 27 47 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-046 40 41 5 13 27 27 11 11 10 12 14 17 Entiat R 02 32934-048 41 42 5 5 59 63 11 11 10 10 13 15 

26 
Table A-6 continued. Data for Entiat River juveniles 2002 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Entiat R 02 32934-050 40 44 5 7 34 63 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-051 40 41 5 5 59 85 11 11 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-053 40 42 5 5 27 59 11 12 10 10 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-054 29 29 6 6 29 65 10 12 17 23 14 14 Entiat R 02 32934-056 40 40 5 6 40 55 11 12 12 12 13 14 Entiat R 02 32934-057 31 42 5 9 59 65 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-058 31 43 5 6 57 67 11 12 10 25 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-060 37 37 5 5 43 47 12 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-061 40 41 6 6 27 27 12 12 10 10 14 14 Entiat R 02 32934-066 41 43 5 5 27 47 11 11 10 10 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-068 37 41 5 13 49 77 11 11 10 12 15 17 Entiat R 02 32934-069 29 29 6 8 31 43 10 12 10 25 12 17 Entiat R 02 32934-074 40 45 6 6 53 61 12 12 12 25 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-075 37 40 5 8 41 49 10 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-076 41 45 6 6 29 45 10 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 02 32934-077 41 43 5 5 27 47 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 02 32934-079 29 38 5 9 23 55 10 12 10 10 12 13 Entiat R 02 32934-081 40 45 5 5 51 63 12 13 12 12 14 15 * Indicates missing data. 

27 
Table A-7. Data for Carson H 1995 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Carson H 95 32127-001 40 41 5 5 27 61 11 12 10 12 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-002 40 44 5 6 53 53 10 12 10 10 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-003 ?* ? ? ? ? ? 5 12 ? ? 5 15 Carson H 95 32127-004 31 41 5 5 61 65 11 12 12 25 5 15 Carson H 95 32127-005 37 40 ? ? 49 49 11 12 10 10 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-006 37 37 6 6 51 55 11 12 12 12 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-007 41 42 5 6 38 59 12 12 10 12 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-008 37 40 5 6 59 61 12 12 10 25 15 16 Carson H 95 32127-009 ? ? 5 10 21 21 

67 

11 11 12 12 15 15 

Carson H 95 32127-010 42 42 5 8 49 12 12 10 12 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-011 40 44 5 5 29 65 12 12 12 25 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-012 40 41 6 8 55 57 10 11 10 12 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-013 37 40 5 6 31 34 11 11 12 12 13 15 Carson H 95 32127-014 31 40 6 8 59 63 11 12 12 18 14 14 Carson H 95 32127-015 37 41 6 6 51 55 11 12 10 12 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-016 41 43 5 6 39 63 11 12 10 25 14 14 Carson H 95 32127-017 37 42 5 13 31 69 10 11 10 10 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-018 40 40 5 6 43 45 11 11 12 12 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-019 37 40 5 6 57 57 11 12 10 25 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-020 37 41 6 9 28 59 11 11 10 10 14 14 Carson H 95 32127-021 37 40 5 5 34 67 11 12 12 25 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-022 40 44 5 7 31 59 11 11 10 25 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-023 37 40 8 8 25 33 11 12 12 18 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-024 37 41 5 5 37 53 11 12 10 10 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-025 41 42 5 8 25 51 11 12 10 12 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-026 41 42 5 10 63 65 11 11 12 13 13 15 Carson H 95 32127-027 40 41 5 5 49 59 11 11 10 10 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-028 40 41 5 6 47 59 11 11 10 10 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-029 40 41 5 6 27 53 12 12 10 12 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-030 31 40 6 7 44 51 10 10 12 12 5 15 

28 
Table A-7 continued. Data for Carson H 1995 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Carson H 95 32127-031 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Carson H 95 32127-032 37 41 6 6 21 63 11 11 10 12 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-033 37 37 5 6 51 63 10 11 10 12 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-034 40 41 5 5 33 67 11 12 10 12 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-035 40 41 6 8 27 51 11 12 12 12 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-036 37 41 5 6 61 65 11 12 12 12 5 15 Carson H 95 32127-037 41 41 5 6 44 49 12 12 12 25 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-038 37 41 5 6 59 63 10 11 10 10 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-039 41 42 6 6 31 49 11 11 10 10 15 16 Carson H 95 32127-040 42 42 6 6 38 59 11 12 12 12 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-041 37 43 5 6 45 51 12 12 10 12 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-042 37 42 5 13 31 69 10 11 10 12 13 15 Carson H 95 32127-043 41 43 5 13 44 67 11 11 12 12 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-044 40 41 5 8 25 63 11 11 12 18 15 15 Carson H 95 32127-045 37 43 5 5 21 29 11 12 12 12 5 15 Carson H 95 32127-046 31 40 5 5 41 51 11 12 12 12 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-047 37 41 5 6 49 59 11 12 10 10 14 15 Carson H 95 32127-048 37 44 6 8 53 57 12 12 10 12 14 15 * Indicates missing data. 

29 
Table A-8. Data for Entiat NFH 1997 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Entiat H 97 32857-008 ?* ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 14 14 Entiat H 97 32857-013 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Entiat H 97 32857-015 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 10 10 ? ? Entiat H 97 32857-023 40 41 ? ? 45 49 11 12 10 12 13 14 Entiat H 97 32857-028 ? ? ? ? 43 61 ? ? ? ? ? ? Entiat H 97 32857-030 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Entiat H 97 32857-031 41 42 5 8 59 73 12 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-035 41 45 5 6 59 69 11 12 10 10 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-036 37 41 ? ? ? ? 

73 

11 12 10 12 15 15 

Entiat H 97 32857-037 40 41 ? ? 33 12 12 10 12 13 15 Entiat H 97 32857-039 ? ? ? ? 55 55 11 11 10 12 ? ? Entiat H 97 32857-040 41 44 5 5 44 53 10 12 10 25 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-041 41 41 5 9 21 67 11 12 12 12 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-045 37 40 8 9 59 65 10 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-047 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 10 10 ? ? Entiat H 97 32857-048 41 42 6 8 27 53 11 12 12 12 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-049 37 42 ? ? 19 19 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-050 37 45 6 9 51 51 11 12 12 25 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-052 40 40 6 8 67 85 11 11 10 25 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-055 40 40 5 6 59 65 12 12 10 12 15 16 Entiat H 97 32857-056 42 43 6 7 44 47 11 11 10 12 13 15 Entiat H 97 32857-061 37 37 5 5 65 67 10 11 10 12 12 14 Entiat H 97 32857-062 37 40 5 5 49 51 11 11 10 10 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-068 41 41 5 6 47 59 11 11 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-072 40 41 8 8 61 83 11 11 10 10 10 14 Entiat H 97 32857-074 41 42 6 9 31 65 11 11 12 12 13 14 Entiat H 97 32857-075 41 42 ? ? 57 61 10 12 12 12 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-081 37 41 5 8 51 69 12 12 12 18 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-082 42 45 5 6 5 59 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-083 42 44 5 9 37 59 12 12 12 17 15 17 

30 
Table A-8 continued. Data for Entiat NFH 1997 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Entiat H 97 32857-086 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Entiat H 97 32857-087 31 37 6 6 32 63 11 12 10 10 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-091 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-092 40 41 5 6 25 57 10 10 10 12 13 14 Entiat H 97 32857-097 41 45 5 6 57 65 11 11 10 10 13 15 Entiat H 97 32857-098 41 45 5 6 57 65 11 11 10 10 13 15 Entiat H 97 32857-101 41 42 ? ? 45 59 12 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-102 41 42 6 8 53 59 12 12 10 10 13 14 Entiat H 97 32857-105 41 42 6 8 57 59 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-107 39 42 7 8 36 59 12 12 10 10 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-111 41 45 5 6 55 57 11 11 10 12 13 15 Entiat H 97 32857-129 41 45 5 6 51 59 11 12 10 12 13 15 Entiat H 97 32857-134 41 44 5 6 44 51 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-144 ? ? 6 6 ? ? 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat H 97 32857-149 40 41 6 8 59 65 12 12 10 10 13 14 Entiat H 97 32857-151 37 42 6 8 61 81 11 11 10 12 15 17 Entiat H 97 32857-154 40 42 7 8 21 65 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat H 97 32857-159 41 44 5 8 53 59 11 11 10 12 14 15 * Indicates missing data. 

31 
Table A-9. Data for Entiat River 2001 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 – 1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Entiat R 01 32861-001 40 44 7 8 33 51 12 12 12 15 10 11 Entiat R 01 32861-002 42 43 5 6 59 59 11 12 10 12 15 16 Entiat R 01 32861-003 40 41 5 8 39 49 10 11 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-004 41 41 6 6 49 77 11 12 10 10 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-005 ?* ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 ? ? ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-006 23 31 ? ? 41 63 11 12 ? ? 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-007 37 41 5 8 51 55 10 11 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-008 40 40 ? ? 41 55 11 11 10 25 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-009 40 44 5 5 51 67 11 12 12 25 15 17 Entiat R 01 32861-010 37 40 5 6 27 27 12 12 10 12 ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-011 ? ? ? ? ? ? 12 12 ? ? ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-012 ? ? ? ? 39 49 10 11 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-013 37 40 ? ? 27 65 11 11 12 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-014 40 41 ? ? 39 49 10 11 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-015 28 28 ? ? 45 49 ? ? 12 12 ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-016 37 40 ? ? 45 67 12 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-017 37 37 ? ? ? ? 10 11 12 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-018 37 85 6 8 53 65 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-019 ? ? ? ? ? ? 10 11 ? ? 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-020 ? ? ? ? ? ? 12 12 ? ? 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-021 37 44 ? ? 57 63 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-022 ? ? ? ? 55 77 10 11 10 12 ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-023 37 45 5 5 57 67 11 11 10 25 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-025 41 43 5 6 31 73 11 12 10 10 15 16 Entiat R 01 32861-026 40 44 ? ? 49 85 11 12 10 25 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-027 37 42 ? ? 51 59 11 11 10 12 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-028 37 42 ? ? 29 63 11 12 10 12 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-029 37 40 ? ? 45 51 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-030 ? ? ? ? 47 51 11 12 ? ? 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-031 37 43 ? ? 31 73 11 12 10 10 15 15 

32 
Table A-9 continued. Data for Entiat River 2001 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Entiat R 01 32861-032 40 41 ? ? 47 61 11 11 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-033 ? ? 5 6 ? ? 11 12 ? ? ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-034 41 42 6 8 29 65 12 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-036 ? ? ? ? 43 67 11 12 12 12 ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-038 37 37 ? ? 33 49 11 12 10 10 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-039 39 41 5 6 31 47 12 12 12 25 14 14 Entiat R 01 32861-041 31 37 ? ? 53 59 10 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-043 41 

? 

41 ? ? 45 53 11 12 10 10 5 14 

Entiat R 01 32861-044 ? 8 8 29 47 ? ? 10 10 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-045 37 42 ? ? 29 65 11 11 10 12 14 16 Entiat R 01 32861-046 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-047 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 10 12 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-048 ? ? ? ? 85 85 11 12 10 12 ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-049 40 42 ? ? 57 71 11 12 10 25 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-051 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-054 37 42 ? ? 33 55 ? ? 12 12 ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-055 42 44 5 7 28 63 11 12 10 12 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-056 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 10 12 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-058 31 45 6 8 49 49 11 11 12 12 10 15 Entiat R 01 32861-059 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 ? ? ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-060 40 40 ? ? 43 83 12 12 10 25 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-061 ? ? ? ? 43 83 11 12 ? ? 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-062 ? ? ? ? 33 47 11 12 ? ? 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-063 37 40 ? ? 47 57 11 12 10 10 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-064 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 ? ? 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-065 37 37 ? ? 33 59 ? ? 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-066 44 44 5 6 25 63 11 11 12 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-067 ? ? 5 6 ? ? 11 12 ? ? ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-068 37 41 ? ? 45 49 11 12 12 25 5 15 Entiat R 01 32861-069 29 42 5 5 31 59 10 12 10 12 15 15 

33 
Table A-9 continued. Data for Entiat River 2001 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

Entiat R 01 32861-070 41 41 5 5 27 49 11 11 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-071 40 40 ? ? 32 38 10 12 12 12 14 15 Entiat R 01Entiat R 01 ? ? ? ? 47 67 11 12 ? ? 14 15 Entiat R 01 

32861-072 41 44 ? ? 31 83 11 12 10 25 5 13 

Entiat R 01 32861-075 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 ? ? ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-076 ? ? ? ? 45 51 11 12 ? ? 10 14 Entiat R 01 32861-077 40 44 6 8 30 44 12 12 10 10 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-078 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-079 ? ? 5 5 53 55 11 12 10 12 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-080 40 44 6 6 47 49 11 12 10 25 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-081 37 43 ? ? 47 85 11 12 12 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-082 ? ? ? ? 28 51 11 12 ? ? 13 14 Entiat R 01 32861-083 ? ? 5 5 25 45 10 11 ? ? 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-084 37 44 5 7 79 85 11 12 10 10 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-085 31 42 ? ? 31 45 10 11 12 12 14 14 Entiat R 01 32861-086 ? ? 6 8 25 30 11 11 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-087 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 10 12 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-088 37 43 ? ? 63 69 11 12 12 25 10 13 

32861-091 

32861-092 ? ? ? ? 33 45 12 12 ? ? ? ? 

Entiat R 01 32861-093 40 42 ? ? ? ? 11 12 10 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-095 21 41 5 7 39 47 11 12 12 12 15 15 Entiat R 01 32861-096 40 41 5 6 53 67 11 12 10 10 13 15 Entiat R 01 32861-097 42 42 5 6 21 45 11 12 10 12 14 15 Entiat R 01 32861-098 ? ? ? ? 25 31 11 12 ? ? 5 14 Entiat R 01 32861-099 ? ? ? ? ? ? 11 12 ? ? ? ? Entiat R 01 32861-100 ? ? ? ? 45 51 12 12 ? ? 15 15 * Indicates missing data. 

34 
Table A-10. Data for John Day River 2000 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

John Day R 00 32973-001 42 45 5 6 47 55 10 12 10 12 14 14 John Day R 00 32973-002 41 42 5 5 47 74 12 12 10 13 13 14 John Day R 00 32973-003 41 41 5 5 49 51 11 11 10 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32973-004 42 45 5 5 27 27 11 11 10 10 15 15 John Day R 00 32973-005 41 41 5 6 55 67 ?* ? 10 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32973-006 42 45 5 6 53 57 12 12 10 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32973-007 32 42 6 6 45 45 10 12 10 10 14 16 John Day R 00 32973-008 40 40 ? ? 51 59 11 11 10 17 14 15 John Day R 00 32973-009 35 41 6 8 59 67 10 11 10 10 14 15 John Day R 00 32973-010 40 40 5 9 57 61 10 10 10 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32973-011 37 44 5 6 34 71 11 11 10 12 10 15 John Day R 00 32973-012 42 42 5 5 67 73 10 11 12 25 14 15 John Day R 00 32973-013 41 42 6 8 21 57 10 11 10 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32973-014 41 42 6 9 59 81 12 12 10 12 14 16 John Day R 00 32973-015 37 40 5 6 47 49 12 12 10 12 10 15 John Day R 00 32973-016 41 42 6 6 61 71 11 11 10 10 15 15 John Day R 00 32973-017 40 42 5 5 53 55 12 12 10 25 14 16 John Day R 00 32973-018 40 42 5 6 47 53 11 12 10 10 14 15 John Day R 00 32973-019 42 42 ? ? 53 67 11 12 ? ? 13 14 John Day R 00 32973-020 41 43 5 5 53 53 11 11 10 10 14 15 John Day R 00 32974-001 40 40 5 6 47 51 11 11 10 17 14 15 John Day R 00 32974-002 37 41 5 6 51 65 11 11 10 10 13 16 John Day R 00 32974-003 37 44 5 6 63 75 10 11 10 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32974-004 40 40 5 6 41 53 12 12 10 10 10 15 John Day R 00 32974-005 41 41 5 6 43 45 12 12 12 12 15 16 John Day R 00 32974-006 41 43 5 9 25 63 12 12 12 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32974-007 31 41 5 8 45 65 11 12 10 12 14 15 John Day R 00 32974-008 41 42 5 5 53 61 11 11 10 10 14 14 John Day R 00 32974-009 43 44 5 5 53 55 11 12 10 12 14 16 John Day R 00 32974-010 40 44 6 9 51 73 11 12 10 17 15 15 John Day R 00 32974-011 41 42 5 5 21 34 11 12 10 10 14 15 

35 
Table A-10 continued. Data for John Day River 2000 samples. 

Genotype

Population Sample no.

Ogo4 - 1 

Ogo - 2 

Oke 4 -1 

Oke4 -2 

Ots104 - 1 

Ots104 - 2 

Ots10m -1 

Ots10m - 2 

Ots2m - 1 

Ots2m - 2 

Ots3 -1 

Ots3- 2 

O9

John Day R 00 32974-012 40 41 5 8 59 75 11 11 10 10 14 15 John Day R 00 32974-013 37 37 9 9 23 34 11 11 10 12 10 13 John Day R 00 32974-014 40 44 5 9 53 57 11 11 10 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32974-015 40 40 ? ? 43 51 11 12 10 10 15 15 John Day R 00 32974-016 32 41 5 5 53 55 10 11 10 10 14 15 John Day R 00 32974-017 37 45 5 6 23 67 10 11 10 17 15 15 John Day R 00 32974-018 41 42 8 8 27 63 11 12 10 10 13 15 John Day R 00 32974-019 40 41 8 8 47 59 10 12 10 10 15 15 John Day R 00 32974-020 42 43 5 6 63 63 11 12 10 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32975-001 32 42 6 8 27 51 10 11 10 10 14 15 John Day R 00 32975-002 42 44 5 6 27 49 11 12 10 17 14 15 John Day R 00 32975-003 41 42 5 5 38 67 11 11 12 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32975-004 40 42 6 8 51 59 11 12 10 12 15 15 John Day R 00 32975-005 41 45 5 5 5 53 11 12 10 25 14 15 John Day R 00 32975-006 40 42 5 8 27 38 11 11 12 12 14 15 John Day R 00 32975-007 40 45 5 6 45 61 11 12 10 25 15 15 John Day R 00 32975-008 41 42 7 7 34 53 10 11 10 10 14 15 * Indicates missing data. 

36 
Table A-11. Genetic collections, Entiat River redd survey, 2001. 

Vial 

number Sex 

Fork length 

(cm) 

Date 

taken 

ID 

number 

Origin (from 

CWT) Age (t:f)a

1 F 75 8/23/2001 Wild 4.2

2 M 96 " Hatchery 5.2

3 F 90 " Wild 5.2

4 F 78 " Wild 4.2

5 F 72 " Wild 4.2

6 M 81 " 9813 No tag Rb

7 F 69 " Hatchery 4.2

8 M 90 " Wild 5.2

9 M 81 " 9814 Met SFHc

 97d 4.2 

10 F 75 " Wild 4.2

11 F 69 " Wild 4.2

12 M 78 " Hatchery 4.2

13 M 78 " 9815 No tag 4.2

14 M 75 " Wild 4.2

15 F 75 9/7/2001 Wild 4.2

16 F 75 9/4/2001 Mad R. Wild 4.2

17 F 93 9/7/2001 Wild 5.2

18 F 72 " Hatchery 4.2

19 M 102 " Wild 5.2

20 F 75 " Unknown R

21 F 78 " Hatchery 4.2

22 F 75 " Wild 4.2

23 F 72 9/4/2001 4732 ENFHe 97 4.2 

24 M 78 " 4752 ENFH 97 4.2

25 F 75 " Wild 4.2

26 F 75 " Unknown R

27 M 81 " Hatchery 4.2

28 F 75 " Hatchery 4.2

29 F 72 9/7/2001 Hatchery 4.2

30 F 72 " Wild 4.2

31 F 75 9/6/2001 Wild 4.2

32 M 81 9/4/2001 Unknown R

33 F 72 " Wild 4.2

34 F 78 " Wild 4.2

35 M 78 9/6/2001 Wild 4.2

36 M 72 " Unknown NS

37 M 81 " Wild 4.2

38 M 72 " Unknown R

39 F 72 " 4702 WNFHf 97 4.2 

40 M 81 " Wild 4.2

41 M 60 " Unknown R

42 F 66 " Wild 4.2

43 M 99 " Wild 5.2

44 F 75 " Wild 4.2

45 M 84 " Hatchery 4.2

46 M 84 " Wild 4.2

37 
Table A-11 continued. Genetic collections, Entiat River redd survey, 2001. 

Vial 

number Sex

Fork length 

(cm) Date taken ID number

Origin (from 

CWT) Age (t:f)

47 M 93 9/7/2001 Unknown R

48 M 81 " Wild 4.2

49 F 72 " Wild 4.2

50 F 84 " Wild 4.2

51 F 72 9/7/2001 Hatchery 4.2

52 M 81 " Wild 4.2

53 F 93 " Unknown R

54 F 75 " Unknown R

55 F 90 " Wild 5.2

56 F 72 " Wild 4.2

57 M 84 " Wild 4.2

58 F 75 " Wild 4.2

59 F 96 " Wild 5.2

60 M 78 " Wild 4.2

61 M 72 " Wild 4.2

62 M 81 " Wild 4.2

63 F 78 " Wild 4.2

64 F 78 " Wild 4.2

65 M 78 " Unknown R

66 M 87 " Wild 4.2

67 F 81 " Hatchery 4.2

68 M 78 " Unknown R

69 F 90 " Unknown R

70 F 87 " Wild 5.2

71 F 75 " Wild 4.2

72 F 72 " Wild 4.2

73 M 81 " 4733 ENFH 97 4.2

74 F 81 " Wild 4.2

75 M 75 " Wild 4.2

76 F 93 " Wild 5.2

77 F 72 9/10/2001 Wild 4.2

78 M 99 " Wild 5.2

79 M 87 " 4720 No tag R

80 F 72 " Wild 4.2

81 F 78 " 4715 ENFH 97 4.2

82 F 90 " Wild 5.2

83 F 69 " Wild 4.2

84 F 75 " Wild 4.2

85 F 72 " 4722 WNFH 97 4.2

86 F 75 " Wild 4.2

87 F 78 " Unknown R

88 F 75 9/13/2001 Wild 4.2

89 M 105 " Wild 5.2

90 M 78 " Wild 4.2

91 M 84 " Wild 4.2

92 M 84 " Wild 4.2

38 
Table A-11 continued. Genetic collections, Entiat River redd survey, 2001. 

Vial 

number Sex

Fork length 

(cm) Date taken ID number

Origin (from 

CWT) Age (t:f)

93 M 72 " Wild 4.2

94 F 72 " Wild 4.2

95 M 69 " Hatchery 4.2

96 F 75 " Wild 4.2

97 F 75 " Wild 4.2

98 F 69 " Wild 4.2

99 F 72 9/14/2001 Wild 4.2

100 M 81 " Wild 4.2

Summary statistics 

Females 59 Wild 65 74.7% ENFH 97 4 Age 4.2 72 85%

Males 41 Hatchery 22 25.3% WNFH 97 2 Age 5.2 13 15%

Avg. length all 78.9 cm Met SFH 97 1 R 14

Avg. length F 76.8 cm Avg. length

wild 

79.5 No tag 3 NSg 1

Avg. length M 82.0 cm Avg. length

hatchery

76.9 Unknown 13 Total

H + W 

87

Total aged 85

a t:f = total:freshwater. b R = Regenerated scale. c Met SFH = Methow State Fish Hatchery. d 97 Denotes brood year. e ENFH = Entiat National Fish Hatchery. f WNFH = Winthrop National Fish Hatchery. g NS = No scale. Specific hatchery origins determined by coded wire tag (CWT) recovery and analysis. Non-specific 

hatchery or wild origin and age (total and freshwater, t:f) determined by scale analysis.

39 
Table A-12. Genetic collections, Entiat NFH, 2001. 

Vial 

number Sex 

Fork length 

(cm) 

Date 

taken 

ID 

number 

Origin 

(from CWT)

1 F 74 8/25/2001 AD Presa

2 M 82 " AD Pres

3 F 78 " AD Pres

4 M 86 " AD Pres

5 F 74 " AD Pres

6 F 70 " AD Pres

7 F 74 " AD Pres

8 M 81 " AD Pres

9 M 79 " AD Pres

10 F 76 " AD Pres

11 M 84 " AD Pres

12 F 76 " 700 ENFHb

 97c

13 F 75 " AD Pres

14 M 79 " AD Pres

15 F 68 " AD Pres

16 M 100 " 739 ENFH 96c

17 F 78 " AD Pres

18 M 81 " AD Pres

19 F 72 " 740 ENFH 97

20 F 74 " AD Pres

21 F 78 " AD Pres

22 M 83 " 744 ENFH 97

23 M 76 " AD Pres

24 F 75 " 746 ENFH 97

25 M 82 " 748 ENFH 97

26 F 73 8/30/2001 750 ENFH 97

27 F 77 " AD Pres

28 F 71 " AD Pres

29 F 81 " AD Pres

30 M 81 " AD Pres

31 M 92 " AD Pres

32 M 95 " AD Pres

33 M 84 " AD Pres

34 F 76 " AD Pres

35 F 78 " AD Pres

36 F 80 " AD Pres

37 F 76 " AD Pres

38 M 85 " AD Pres

39 M 81 " AD Pres

40 M 60 " AD Pres

41 M 85 " AD Pres

42 F 76 " AD Pres

43 F 75 " AD Pres

44 F 72 " AD Pres

45 F 81 " AD Pres

46 M 87 " AD Pres

40 
Table A-12 continued. Genetic collections, Entiat NFH, 2001. 

Vial 

number Sex

Fork length 

(cm) 

Date 

taken 

ID 

number 

Origin 

(from CWT)

47 M 80 " AD Pres

48 M 60 " AD Pres

49 M 77 " AD Pres

50 F 75 " AD Pres

51 F 77 8/30/2001 AD Pres

52 F 72 " AD Pres

53 F 74 " AD Pres

54 F 73 " AD Pres

55 M 57 " AD Pres

56 M 85 " AD Pres

57 M 83 " AD Pres

58 M 84 " AD Pres

59 F 72 " AD Pres

60 M 82 " AD Pres

61 F 73 " AD Pres

62 F 71 " AD Pres

63 F 68 " 771 ENFH 97

64 F 78 " 773 ENFH 97

65 M 80 " AD Pres

66 M 72 " AD Pres

67 M 88 " 774 No tag

68 M 84 " AD Pres

69 F 73 " 777 ENFH 97

70 F 79 " AD Pres

71 F 71 " AD Pres

72 F 74 " AD Pres

73 F 82 " AD Pres

74 M 81 " AD Pres

75 M 65 " AD Pres

76 M 78 " 780 ENFH 97

77 M 81 " AD Pres

78 F 76 " AD Pres

79 F 75 " AD Pres

80 F 74 " AD Pres

81 F 78 " AD Pres

82 F 71 " AD Pres

83 M 72 " AD Pres

84 M 86 " 781 ENFH 97

85 M 77 " AD Pres

86 M 55 " AD Pres

87 F 92 " AD Pres

89 F 

92

88 F 71 " 783 ENFH 97

72 " AD Pres

90 F 72 " AD Pres

91 F 74 " 785 ENFH 97

M 92 " AD Pres

41 
Table A-12 continued. Genetic collections, Entiat NFH, 2001. 

Vial 

number Sex

Fork length 

(cm) 

Date 

taken 

ID 

number 

Origin 

(from CWT)

93 M 80 " AD Pres

94 M 89 " AD Pres

95 M 82 " AD Pres

96 M 55 " AD Pres

97 F 88 " 787 ENFH 96

98 F 78 " AD Pres

99 M 81 " AD Pres

100 M 80 " AD Pres

Summary statistics 

Females 53 AD Pres 84

Males 47 ENFH 97 13

Ave length F 75.3 cm ENFH 96 2

Ave length M 79.8 cm No tag 1

Ave length all 77.4 cm

a AD Pres = Adipose present fish (no CWT present). b ENFH = Entiat National Fish Hatchery. c 96 and 97 denote brood year.

42 
Table A-13. Genetic collections, Winthrop NFH, 2001.

Vial 

number Sex 

Fork length 

(cm) 

Date 

 taken 

ID 

number 

Origin 

(from CWT)

1 F 77 8/15/2001 2 Metha 97b

2 F 76 " 1 Meth 97

3 F 73 " 3 Twisp 97

4 F 75 " 4 Meth 97

5 F 75 " 5 Meth 97

6 F 74 " 6 Meth 97

7 F 74 " 7 Meth 97

8 F 75 " 8 Meth 97

9 F 72 " 9 Meth 97

10 F 74 " 10 Meth 97

11 F 79 " 11 Meth 97

12 F 77 " 12 Meth 97

13 F 76 " 13 Chewuchc

 97

14 F 77 " 14 Meth 97

15 F 74 " 15 No tag

16 F 77 " 16 Twispd 97

17 M 83 " 301 WNFHe 97

18 M 83 " 302 WNFH 97

19 M 81 " 304 WNFH 97

20 M 80 " 303 Meth 97

21 M 78 " 306 WNFH 97

22 M 83 " 307 WNFH 97

23 M 79 " 309 No tag

24 M 58 " 308 Metcompf

 98b

25 M 81 " 310 Meth 97

26 M 85 " 312 WNFH 97

27 M 75 " 311 Meth 97

28 M 80 8/22/2001 Mort Pond mort.

29 M 83 " Mort Pond mort.

30 F 78 " 26 Meth 97

31 F 79 " 27 No tag

32 F 77 " 28 WNFH 97

33 F 80 " 29 Meth 97

34 F 78 " 31 Meth 97

35 F 72 " 30 Meth 97

36 F 75 " 32 Meth 97

37 F 71 " 33 Meth 97

38 F 80 " 34 AD Pres ENT (H) 

39 F 72 " 35 WNFH 97

40 F 75 " 36 Meth 97

41 F 82 " 37 WNFH 97

42 F 73 " 38 WNFH 97

43 F 75 " 39 Meth 97

44 F 69 " 40 Meth 97

45 F 76 " 41 Meth 97

46 F 77 " 42 WNFH 97

43 
Table A-13 continued. Genetic collections, Winthrop NFH, 2001.

Vial 

number Sex

Fork length 

(cm) 

Date 

 taken 

ID 

number 

Origin 

(from CWT)

47 F 74 " 43 WNFH 97

48 F 81 " 44 WNFH/Methg 97

49 F 75 " 45 Meth 97

50 F 77 " 46 WNFH 97

51 F 77 8/22/2001 47 WNFH 97

52 F 77 " 48 WNFH 97

53 F 70 " 49 WNFH 97

54 F 73 " 50 WNFH/Meth 97

55 F 78 " 51 Meth 97

56 F 79 " 52 Meth 97

57 F 77 " 53 Meth 97

58 F 72 " 54 Meth 97

59 F 78 " 55 WNFH 97

60 F 79 " 56 WNFH 97

61 F 78 " 57 WNFH/Meth 97

62 F 77 " 58 Meth 97

63 F 68 " 59 No tag

64 F 75 " 60 WNFH 97

65 F 73 " 61 Chewuch 97

66 F 77 " 62 Meth 97

67 F 74 " 63 Meth 97

68 F 71 " 64 Meth 97

69 F 73 " 65 WNFH 97

70 F 76 " 66 Meth 97

71 F 78 " 67 Meth 97

72 F 75 " 68 WNFH 97

73 F 73 " 69 Meth 97

74 F 75 " 70 WNFH 97

75 F 76 " 71 Meth 97

76 F 72 " 72 WNFH 97

77 F 73 " 73 Meth 97

78 F 75 " 74 Meth 97

79 M 83 " 322 Meth 97

80 M 72 " 323 WNFH 97

81 M 78 " 324 Meth 97

82 M 85 " 325 Meth 97

83 M 56 " 326 WNFH/Metcompg 98

84 M 79 " 327 Meth 97

85 M 54 " 328 Metcomp 98

86 M 84 " 329 Meth 97

87 M 74 " 330 WNFH 97

88 M 67 " 331 WNFH 97

89 F 69 8/29/2001 95 Meth 97

90 F 79 " 96 WNFH/Meth 97

91 F 75 " 97 WNFH 97

92 F 73 " 98 WNFH 97

44 
Table A-13 continued. Genetic collections, Winthrop NFH, 2001.

Vial 

number Sex

Fork length 

(cm) 

Date 

 taken 

ID 

number 

Origin 

(from CWT)

93 F 78 " 100 WNFH/Meth 97

94 F 68 " 101 WNFH 97

95 F 74 " 102 WNFH 97

96 M 82 " 362 WNFH/Meth 97

97 M 72 " 363 Meth 97

98 M 81 " 364 Meth 97

99 M 82 " 365 Lost tag

100 M 72 " 366 WNFH 97

Summary statistics 

Females 72 WNFH 97 31 Chewuch 97 2 

Males 28 Meth 97 48 No tag 4 

Ave length F 75.2 cm Metcomp 98 2 Lost tag 1 

Ave length M 76.8 cm WNFH/Metcomp 98 1 AD Pres ENT 1 

Ave length all 75.7 cm WNFH/Meth 97 6 Pond mort. 2 

Twisp 97 2

a Meth = Fish of Methow River origin. b 97 and 98 denote brood year. c Chewuch = Fish of Chewuch River origin. d Twisp = Fish of Twisp River origin. e WNFH = Winthrop National Fish Hatchery (fish of Carson National Fish Hatchery origin). f Metcomp = Methow Composite (fish of Combined Chewuch and Methow River origin). g WNFH/Metcomp and WNFH/Meth = Describe fish crossed with the aforementioned origins.

45 

Recent NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS 

published by the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

NOAA Tech. Memo.


NMFS-NWFSC-


59 Sloan, C.A., D.W. Brown, R.W. Pearce, R.H. Boyer, J.L. Bolton, D.G. Burrows, D.P. Herman, and


M.M. Krahn. 2004. Extraction, cleanup, and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis of 

sediments and tissues for organic contaminants. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-59, 47 p. NTIS number pending. 

58	 Beechie, T.J., E.A. Steel, P. Roni, and E. Quimby (editors). 2003. Ecosystem recovery planning for 

listed salmon: an integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-58, 183 p. NTIS number pending. 

57	 Rogers, J.B. 2003. Species allocation of Sebastes and Sebastolobus sp. caught by foreign 

countries from 1965 through 1976 off Washington, Oregon, and California, USA. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-57, 117 p. NTIS number pending. 

56	 MacCall, A.D., and T.C. Wainwright (editors). 2003. Assessing extinction risk for West Coast salmon. 

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-56, 198 p. NTIS PB2003-104642. 

55	 Builder Ramsey, T., et al. 2002. The 1999 Northwest Fisheries Science Center Pacific West Coast upper 

continental slope trawl survey of groundfish resources off Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-55, 143 p. NTIS PB2003-104641. 

54	 Krahn, M.M., et al. 2002. Status review of southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the 

Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-54, 133 p. NTIS 

PB2003-104520. 

53	 Waknitz, F.W., T.J. Tynan, C.E. Nash, R.N. Iwamoto, and L.G. Rutter. 2002. Review of potential 

impacts of Atlantic salmon culture on Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum 

salmon evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-53, 

83 p. 	NTIS PB2002-108143. 

52	 Meador, J.P., T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein. 2001. Determination of a tissue and sediment threshold for 

tributyltin (TBT) to protect prey species of juvenile salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-52, 21 p. NTIS PB2002-103161. 

51	 Emmett, R.L., P.J. Bentley, and G.K. Krutzikowsky. 2001. Ecology of marine predatory and prey 

fishes off the Columbia River, 1998 and 1999. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC51, 108 p. NTIS PB2002-101699. 

Most NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS-NWFSC are available online at the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov).