NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-73 

Historical Population Structure 

of Pacific Salmonids 

in the Willamette River 

and Lower Columbia River Basins 

February 2006 

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: 

Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. Marshall, 

D. Teel, D.M. Van Doornik, and M.T. Maher. 2006. 

Historical population structure of Pacific salmonids 

in the Willamette River and lower Columbia River 

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

NMFS-NWFSC-73, 311 p. 
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-73 

Historical Population Structure 

of Pacific Salmonids 

in the Willamette River 

and Lower Columbia River Basins 

James Myers, Craig Busack1, Dan Rawding2, 

Anne Marshall1, David Teel, Donald M. Van Doornik, 

and Michael T. Maher 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Conservation Biology Division 

2725 Montlake Boulevard East 

Seattle, Washington 98112 

1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

600 Capitol Way North 

Olympia, Washington 98501 

2 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 5 

2108 Grand Boulevard 

Vancouver, Washington 98661 

February 2006 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, 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.............................................................................................................................................vii

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................xiii

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................xv

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................xxiii

Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................................................................xxv

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

Definition of a Population .........................................................................................................................1

Structure above the Population Level....................................................................................................2

Structure below the Population Level....................................................................................................2

Conceptual Approach to Identifying Populations.....................................................................................3

Geography .............................................................................................................................................3

Migration Rates .....................................................................................................................................3

Genetic Attributes..................................................................................................................................3

Patterns of Life History and Phenotypic Characteristics.......................................................................4

Population Dynamics.............................................................................................................................4

Environmental and Habitat Characteristics ...........................................................................................4

Identifying Historical Populations of Salmonids ......................................................................................5

Criteria for Identifying the Distribution of Historical Populations........................................................5

Geographic Template Criteria ...............................................................................................................6

Ecological Information ..........................................................................................................................9

Biological Data ......................................................................................................................................9

Population Boundaries for Fish and Habitat ...........................................................................................13

Chinook Salmon..........................................................................................................................................15

Life History .............................................................................................................................................15

Juvenile Emigration.............................................................................................................................15

Ocean Distribution...............................................................................................................................20

Return Migration .................................................................................................................................20

Age at Maturation................................................................................................................................22

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU Historical Independent Populations..............................23

Coast Range Tributaries ......................................................................................................................23

Western Cascade Range Tributaries....................................................................................................35

Columbia Gorge Tributaries................................................................................................................44

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU Historical Independent Populations.............................47

Steelhead.....................................................................................................................................................59

iii
Life History .............................................................................................................................................59

Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU Historically Independent Populations ......................................62

Western Cascade Range Tributaries....................................................................................................62

Columbia Gorge Tributaries................................................................................................................68

Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU Historical Independent Populations........................................70

Coho Salmon...............................................................................................................................................75

Life History .............................................................................................................................................75

Introduced Populations above Willamette Falls......................................................................................79

Historical Populations above The Dalles ................................................................................................80

Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon Historical Populations ................................................................81

Coast Range Tributaries ......................................................................................................................81

Western Cascade Range Tributaries....................................................................................................85

Columbia Gorge Tributaries................................................................................................................93

Chum Salmon .............................................................................................................................................97

Life History .............................................................................................................................................97

Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU Historical Independent Populations..............................................99

Coast Range Tributaries ......................................................................................................................99

Western Cascade Range and Columbia Gorge Tributaries................................................................100

References.................................................................................................................................................107

Appendix A: Salmonid Hatchery Releases for the Lower Columbia River and Upper 

Willamette River ESUs.............................................................................................................................121

Chinook Salmon....................................................................................................................................121

Steelhead ...............................................................................................................................................135

Coho Salmon.........................................................................................................................................143

Appendix B: Summary of Information Used to Determine Historical Salmonid DIPs 

in Listed Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River ESUs......................................................155

Chinook Salmon....................................................................................................................................156

Steelhead ...............................................................................................................................................157

Coho Salmon.........................................................................................................................................159

Chum Salmon........................................................................................................................................160

Appendix C: Genetic Data Available on Salmonid Populations in the Lower Columbia 

River and Upper Willamette River ESUs.................................................................................................161

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................161

Analyses................................................................................................................................................162

Ordination..........................................................................................................................................162

Tests of Allele-frequency Heterogeneity...........................................................................................163

Results...................................................................................................................................................164

iv
Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU..................................................................................164

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU ................................................................................174

Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU .............................................................................................174

Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU............................................................................................182

Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU .................................................................................................182

Appendix D: Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon Genetics..................................................................193

Appendix E: Historical Accessibility Maps..............................................................................................199

Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook Salmon Historical Accessibility ................................................199

Lower Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon Historical Accessibility............................................221

Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook Salmon Historical Accessibility ..........................................231

Lower Columbia River Summer Steelhead Historical Accessibility ....................................................239

Lower Columbia River Winter Steelhead Historical Accessibility.......................................................246

Upper Willamette River Winter Steelhead Historical Accessibility .....................................................264

Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon Historical Accessibility ............................................................270

Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon Historical Accessibility ...........................................................295

v
vi
List of Figures 

Figure 1. EPA Level III ecoregions for the lower Columbia and upper Willamette rivers. ...................................10 

Figure 2. Lower Columbia River basin. ..........................................................................................................24 

Figure 3. Incidence, as a percentage of all freshwater recoveries, and distance of adult recovery 

to juvenile release location of Chinook salmon returning to the lower Columbia River. .......................................26 

Figure 4. Incidence, as a percentage of all freshwater recoveries, and distance of adult recovery 

to juvenile release location of Chinook salmon returning to the lower Columbia River. .......................................27 

Figure 5. Incidence, as a percentage of all freshwater recoveries, and distance of adult recovery 

to juvenile release location of Chinook salmon returning to the lower Columbia River. .......................................28 

Figure 6. Estimated origin of naturally spawning Chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries 

based on recoveries of adults in spawner surveys..............................................................................................29 

Figure 7. Estimated origin of naturally spawning Chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries 

based on recoveries of adults in spawner surveys..............................................................................................30 

Figure 8. Standardized dendrogram for migration timing and spawning for Lower Columbia River 

and Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU stocks. ...............................................................................32 

Figure 9. UPGMA dendrogram for Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU based on percentage 

overlap in spawner age distributions. ...............................................................................................................33 

Figure 10. Historical fall DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU...........................................34 

Figure 11. Standardized dendrogram of CWT ocean-recovery distributions for hatchery populations 

in the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESUs. ............................................37 

Figure 12. Historical spring DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU.......................................43 

Figure 13. Willamette River basin. .................................................................................................................51 

Figure 14. Historical spring DIPs in the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU. ....................................58 

Figure 15. Historical winter DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU.................................................66 

Figure 16. Historical summer DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU. .............................................67 

Figure 17. Historical winter DIPs in the Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU. ..............................................74 

Figure 18. Distribution of ocean recoveries of CWT coho salmon released from locations in Alaska, 

British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.....................................................................................77 

Figure 19. Length distribution of different age-classes of coho salmon adults sampled near the mouth 

of the Columbia River in 1914. .......................................................................................................................78 

Figure 20. Relative proportion of recoveries and distance from the release site for 23 CWT coho salmon 

groups released from lower Columbia River hatcheries. ....................................................................................80 

Figure 21. Proposed historical DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU........................................82 

Figure 22. Distribution of eggs taken from coho salmon spawned at the Kalama Hatchery, 1929–1935................90 

vii
Figure 23. Distribution of eggs taken from coho salmon spawned at ODF hatcheries in the Sandy River 

and Grande Ronde River basins in 1901...........................................................................................................92 

Figure 24. Commercial landings of chum salmon in the Columbia River, 1886–1993. ........................................99 

Figure 25. Historical DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU. .................................................103 

Figure C-1. UPGMA dendogram of CSE chord distances among 15 Washington populations in the 

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU................................................................................................169 

Figure C-2. Multidimensional scaling analysis for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU 

with minimum spanning tree of CSE chord distances at 30 allozyme loci. ........................................................170 

Figure C-3. Multidimensional scaling analysis for the Lower Columbia River and the Upper Willamette 

River Chinook Salmon ESUs with minimum spanning tree of CSE chord distances at 37 allozyme loci..............171 

Figure C-4. UPGMA dendrogram of Washington Chinook salmon populations, based on CSE 

chord distances.. ..........................................................................................................................................173 

Figure C-5. Cluster analysis UPGMA of genetic distances for WDFW samples from the 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU. .........................................................................................................182 

Figure C-6. UPGMA dendogram of CSE chord distances among 19 collections from the 

Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESUs...............................................................186 

Figure C-7. UPGMA dendrogram of CSE chord distances among 10 collections from the 

Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU. ..................................................................................................190 

Figure D-1. UPGMA tree of CSE chord distances based on 61 allozyme loci between 84 

composite samples of coho salmon from populations extending from Oregon to British Columbia. ....................197 

Figure D-2. Multidimensional scaling and minimum spanning tree of pairwise chord distance 

values among 27 samples of coho salmon from lower Columbia River and southwest Washington coast.............198 

Figure E-1. Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon population areas. ......................................................199 

Figure E-2. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to Big Creek. ........................................................200 

Figure E-3. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Big White Salmon River...............................201 

Figure E-4. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Clackamas River..........................................202 

Figure E-5. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Clatskanie River. .........................................203 

Figure E-6. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Coweeman River. ........................................204 

Figure E-7. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the lower Cowlitz River. ....................................205 

Figure E-8. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the upper Cowlitz River. ....................................206 

Figure E-9. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Elochoman River. ........................................207 

Figure E-10. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries.......208 

Figure E-11. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Columbia River upper Gorge tributaries.......209 

Figure E-12. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Grays and Chinook rivers............................210 

Figure E-13. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Hood River................................................211 

Figure E-14. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Kalama River.............................................212 

Figure E-15. Historical accessibility of fall and late fall Chinook salmon to the Lewis River. ............................213 

Figure E-16. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to Mill, Abernathy, and Germany creeks. ..............214 

viii
Figure E-17. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to Salmon Creek..................................................215 

Figure E-18. Historical accessibility of fall and late fall Chinook salmon to the Sandy River.............................216 

Figure E-19. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Scappose Creek..........................................217 

Figure E-20. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Toutle River. .............................................218 

Figure E-21. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Washougal River........................................219 

Figure E-22. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to Youngs Bay. ...................................................220 

Figure E-23. Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon population areas. ................................................221 

Figure E-24. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Big White Salmon River.........................222 

Figure E-25. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Cispus River..........................................223 

Figure E-26. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the upper Cowlitz River. ..............................224 

Figure E-27. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Hood River............................................225 

Figure E-28. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Kalama River. .......................................226 

Figure E-29. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the North Fork Lewis River..........................227 

Figure E-30. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Sandy River...........................................228 

Figure E-31. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Tilton River...........................................229 

Figure E-32. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Toutle River. .........................................230 

Figure E-33. Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon population areas................................................231 

Figure E-34. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Calapooia River.....................................232 

Figure E-35. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Clakamas River. ....................................233 

Figure E-36. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the McKenzie River.....................................234 

Figure E-37. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Molalla River. .......................................235 

Figure E-38. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the North Fork Santiam River.......................236 

Figure E-39. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the South Fork Santiam River.......................237 

Figure E-40. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Middle Fork Willamette River.................238 

Figure E-41. Summer steelhead population areas. ..........................................................................................239 

Figure E-42. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the Hood River. ..................................................240 

Figure E-43. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the Kalama River. ...............................................241 

Figure E-44. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the East Fork Lewis River....................................242 

Figure E-45. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the North Fork Lewis River..................................243 

Figure E-46. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the Washougal River. ..........................................244 

Figure E-47. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the Wind River. ..................................................245 

Figure E-48. Lower Columbia River winter steelhead population areas. ..........................................................246 

Figure E-49. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Cispus River. ...................................................247 

Figure E-50. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Clackamas River..............................................248 

Figure E-51. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Coweeman River..............................................249 

ix
Figure E-52. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the lower Cowlitz River. ........................................250 

Figure E-53. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the upper Cowlitz River. ........................................251 

Figure E-54. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries.............252 

Figure E-55. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Columbia River upper Gorge tributaries.............253 

Figure E-56. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Hood River......................................................254 

Figure E-57. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Kalama River...................................................255 

Figure E-58. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the East Fork Lewis River. .....................................256 

Figure E-59. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the North Fork Lewis River....................................257 

Figure E-60. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to Salmon Creek........................................................258 

Figure E-61. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Sandy River.....................................................259 

Figure E-62. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Tilton River. ....................................................260 

Figure E-63. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the North Fork Toutle River. ..................................261 

Figure E-64. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the South Fork Toutle River. ..................................262 

Figure E-65. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Washougal River..............................................263 

Figure E-66. Upper Willamette River winter steelhead population areas. .........................................................264 

Figure E-67. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Calapooia River. ..............................................265 

Figure E-68. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Molalla River...................................................266 

Figure E-69. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the North Fork Santiam River.................................267 

Figure E-70. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the South Fork Santiam River.................................268 

Figure E-71. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the west-side tributaries..........................................269 

Figure E-72. Coho salmon population areas. .................................................................................................270 

Figure E-73. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to Big Creek...................................................................271 

Figure E-74. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Washington upper Gorge tributaries 

and Big White Salmon River. .......................................................................................................................272 

Figure E-75. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Cispus River. ........................................................273 

Figure E-76. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Clackamas River. ..................................................274 

Figure E-77. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Clatskanie River....................................................275 

Figure E-78. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Coweeman River...................................................276 

Figure E-79. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the lower Cowlitz River. .............................................277 

Figure E-80. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the upper Cowlitz River. .............................................278 

Figure E-81. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Elochoman River...................................................279 

Figure E-82. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries. .................280 

Figure E-83. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Grays and Chinook rivers.......................................281 

Figure E-84. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Oregon upper Gorge tributaries and Hood River. .....282 

Figure E-85. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Kalama River........................................................283 

x
Figure E-86. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the East Fork Lewis River. ..........................................284 

Figure E-87. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the North Fork Lewis River. ........................................285 

Figure E-88. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Mill, Abernathy, and Germany creeks. ....................286 

Figure E-89. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to Salmon Creek.............................................................287 

Figure E-90. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Sandy River. .........................................................288 

Figure E-91. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Scappose Creek.....................................................289 

Figure E-92. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Tilton River. .........................................................290 

Figure E-93. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the North Fork Toutle River.........................................291 

Figure E-94. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the South Fork Toutle River.........................................292 

Figure E-95. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Washougal River...................................................293 

Figure E-96. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to Youngs Bay. ..............................................................294 

Figure E-97. Chum salmon population areas. ................................................................................................295 

Figure E-98. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to Big Creek..................................................................296 

Figure E-99. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Clatckamas River. ................................................297 

Figure E-100. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Clatskanie River. ................................................298 

Figure E-101. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Cowlitz River.....................................................299 

Figure E-102. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Elochoman River................................................300 

Figure E-103. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries. ..............301 

Figure E-104. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Columbia River upper Gorge tributaries. ..............302 

Figure E-105. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Grays and Chinook rivers....................................303 

Figure E-106. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Kalama River. ....................................................304 

Figure E-107. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Lewis River. ......................................................305 

Figure E-108. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to Mill, Abernathy, and Germany creeks........................306 

Figure E-109. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to Salmon Creek..........................................................307 

Figure E-110. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Sandy River. ......................................................308 

Figure E-111. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Scappose Creek. .................................................309 

Figure E-112. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Washougal River................................................310 

Figure E-113. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to Youngs Bay.............................................................311 

xi
xii
List of Tables 

Table 1. Lower Columbia River ESU tributary basin, distance from mouth of the Columbia River, 

and basin size.................................................................................................................................................................7

Table 2. Chinook, chum, and coho salmon and steelhead historical natural escapement estimates for 

lower Columbia River ESU tributaries........................................................................................................................12

Table 3. Species-specific stream gradient utilization and barrier passability. ............................................................14

Table 4. Age structure for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU..........................................................17

Table 5. Chinook salmon CWT-recovery distribution in ocean fisheries...................................................................18

Table 6. Age structure for spring populations in the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU.......................19

Table 7. Summary of the number and source of juveniles released into selected rivers in the 

Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESUs through 1995......................................31

Table 8. Salmon escapement estimates for Sandy River tributaries. ..........................................................................41

Table 9. Chinook salmon escapement estimates for Willamette River tributaries. ....................................................48

Table 10. Willamette River tributary distance from river mouth and basin size. .......................................................52

Table 11. Primary and secondary age-structure patterns reported for populations in the 

Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESUs........................................................................60

Table 12. Lower Columbia River coho salmon population overview. .......................................................................76

Table A-1. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall runs................................121

Table A-2. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU spring runs. ..........................129

Table A-3. Hatchery releases for the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU.............................................132

Table A-4. Hatchery steelhead releases, listed by ESU............................................................................................135

Table A-5. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. ...........................143

Table B-1. Historical fall populations in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU...................................156

Table B-2. Historical spring populations in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU..............................156

Table B-3. Historical spring populations in the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU. ...........................157

Table B-4. Historical winter populations in the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU. ........................................157

Table B-5. Historical provisional summer populations in the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU....................158

Table B-6. Historical provisional winter populations in the Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU.....................158

Table B-7. Historical winter populations in the Lower Columbia River Coho ESU................................................159

Table B-8. Historical populations in the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU.............................................160

Table C-1. Collections from the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon 

ESUs included in the WDFW and NMFS databases. ................................................................................................165

Table C-2. Chinook salmon loci included in the NMFS and WDFW databases. ....................................................166

Table C-3. Genetic distances among 15 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU populations, 

based on the WDFW database...................................................................................................................................167

xiii
Table C-4. Results of Williams-corrected G tests for allele-frequency heterogeneity on all 

pairwise comparisons of 15 collections from the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU in the WDFW 

database. ....................................................................................................................................................................172

Table C-5. Genetic distances among 15 Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River 

Chinook Salmon ESUs populations, based on the NMFS database. .........................................................................175

Table C-6. Results of Williams-corrected G tests for allele-frequency heterogeneity on all pairwise 

comparisons for 15 collections from the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River 

Chinook Salmon ESUs in the NMFS database..........................................................................................................177

Table C-7. Collections from the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESUs 

included in the WDFW and NMFS databases. ..........................................................................................................178

Table C-8. Loci included in the NMFS and WDFW steelhead databases. ...............................................................179

Table C-9. Genetic distances among 20 Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU collections, 

based on the WDFW database...................................................................................................................................180

Table C-10. Results of Williams-corrected G tests for allele-frequency heterogeneity on all pairwise 

comparisons of 20 collections from the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River 

Steelhead ESUs in the WDFW database. ..................................................................................................................183

Table C-11. Genetic distances among 19 collections from the Lower Columbia River and Upper 

Willamette River Steelhead ESUs, based on the NMFS database.............................................................................184

Table C-12. Results of Williams-corrected G tests for allele-frequency heterogeneity on all pairwise 

comparisons of 19 collections from the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River ESUs 

in the NMFS database................................................................................................................................................187

Table C-13. Collections from the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU included in the WDFW 

database. ....................................................................................................................................................................187

Table C-14. Loci included in the WDFW chum salmon database............................................................................187

Table C-15. Genetic distances among 10 collections from the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon 

ESU included in the WDFW database.......................................................................................................................189

Table C-16. Pairwise G-test results for the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU.........................................191

Table D-1. Samples of coho salmon from Oregon and Washington. .......................................................................194

xiv
Executive Summary 

The Population Identification Subcommittee of the Willamette-Lower Columbia 

Technical Recovery Team (WLC-TRT) convened in 2000 to review information relevant to the 

identification of historical, demographically independent populations (DIPs) of listed Chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead (O. mykiss) and chum salmon (O. keta) within 

their recovery domain. In 2004 coho salmon (O. kisutch) were included in response to the 

proposed listing of lower Columbia River coho salmon under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. 

These are the preliminary conclusions of the subcommittee: 

• In the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU), 32 

DIPs—23 fall and late fall runs and nine spring runs—existed historically. 

• In the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU, seven DIPs existed historically. 

• In the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU, 23 historical DIPs were identified. 

• In the Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU, four historical DIPs were identified. 

• In the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, 24 historical DIPs were identified. 

• No coho salmon DIPS existed historically in the upper Willamette River. 

• In the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU, 17 historical DIPs were identified. 

• No chum salmon DIPs existed historically in the upper Willamette River. 

Providing the TRT with an historical perspective is seen as an essential first step in 

developing delisting criteria as part of an overall recovery strategy. 

Results 

Chinook Salmon 

There was an extensive volume of information on Chinook salmon, more than any other 

species discussed. Abundance, age structure, and genetic information have been collected for 

nearly all major Chinook salmon-bearing rivers for several decades. Hatchery production 

information, including spawn timing, fecundity, and population transfers covers more than a 

century. Tagging studies undertaken at these hatcheries for nearly 40 years provided a wealth of 

information on oceanic migration patterns and homing fidelity. 

Chinook salmon exhibit considerable diversity in major life history traits: run timing, 

spawn timing, and juvenile life history. Within the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon 

ESU, run timing was the predominant life history criteria used in identifying DIPs. Three 

distinct run times, spring, fall, and late fall, were identified. The distribution of populations with 

xv
distinct run times varied among the three ecological subregions. Fall Chinook salmon 

historically were found throughout the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU, while 

spring Chinook salmon historically were only found in the upper portions of basins with 

snowmelt driven flow regimes (western Cascade Crest and Columbia Gorge tributaries). Late 

fall Chinook salmon were identified in only two basins in the western Cascade Crest tributaries. 

In general, late fall Chinook salmon also matured at an older average age than either lower 

Columbia River spring or fall Chinook salmon, and had a more northerly oceanic migration 

route. Within the Upper Willamette Chinook Salmon ESU, only spring Chinook salmon 

historically were present, although fall-run fish have been introduced from outside of the ESU. 

Based on the analysis of Chinook salmon populations with minimal out-of-basin influence, 

basins encompassing more than 250 km2 appeared capable of maintaining sustainable genetically 

distinct populations, which suggested demographic independence. 

In the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU, 32 historical DIPs (23 fall and late 

fall runs and nine spring runs) historically existed. In the Coast Range tributaries, seven fall 

Chinook salmon historical DIPs were identified. In the western Cascade Crest tributaries, 10 

fall, two late fall, and seven spring Chinook salmon historical DIPs were identified. The 

construction of large impassable or partially passable barriers in the western Cascade Crest 

tributaries has led to the likely extirpation or amalgamation of several historical DIPs, 

complicating the characterization of historical populations. In the Columbia Gorge tributaries 

four fall and two spring Chinook salmon historical DIPs were identified. Historical life history 

and abundance information on specific populations generally was limited, with the exception of 

those populations that were associated with hatcheries or major fisheries. Within the Gorge 

tributaries, habitat degradation, especially the construction of Condit Dam on the White Salmon 

River and the flooding of tributaries upstream of Bonneville Dam, has extirpated at least one DIP 

and severely reduced the abundance of naturally produced fish in the remaining populations. 

Hatchery programs also have resulted in the introgression of nonlocal Chinook salmon 

populations. While these effects were seen in other ecological subregions, they were most 

pronounced in the Columbia Gorge. 

In the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU, seven historical DIPs were thought 

to have existed. All seven are contained within a single ecological subregion, the western 

Cascade Crest tributaries. The construction of several dams on tributaries to the Willamette 

River has eliminated much of the historical spawning habitat, resulting in an increasing reliance 

on hatchery production to sustain populations. Interhatchery transfers of eggs and fish within the 

Willamette River basin has resulted in the probable loss of between-population diversity. 

Analysis of contemporary populations marginally was useful in interpreting historical population 

characteristics. There also are several tributaries that drain the Coastal Range to the west in the 

upper Willamette River basin where spring Chinook salmon have been observed intermittently. 

Chinook salmon observed in these west-side tributaries are thought to have originated from one 

of the seven upper Willamette River DIPs, and although adults occasionally may reproduce 

successfully, these fish do not constitute a self-sustaining population. 

Steelhead 

The Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU exhibits two distinct life history strategies: 

summer- and winter-run timing. In general, west of the Cascade Crest the winter-run timing is 

xvi
more common, while east of the Cascade Crest summer steelhead are found almost exclusively. 

Summer steelhead are somewhat analogous to spring Chinook salmon in that they utilize spring 

and summer flow conditions to access the upper portions of many river basins. Summer 

steelhead also return to freshwater well in advance of spawning, in contrast to winter steelhead 

that return from the ocean at an advance stage of maturation and spawn within a few weeks. 

Summer steelhead spawning areas in the lower Columbia River are found above waterfalls and 

other features that create seasonal barriers to migration. Where no temporal barriers exist, the 

winter-run life history dominates. The Cowlitz River, Clackamas River, and Sandy River basins 

are large drainages that support spring and fall Chinook salmon, but in the absence of temporal 

barriers only contain winter steelhead. Only winter steelhead historically existed in the Upper 

Willamette River Steelhead ESU, although summer steelhead have been introduced. Flow 

conditions over Willamette Falls allowed only late winter steelhead to ascend the falls prior to 

the construction of a fish ladder in the early 1900s. 

Steelhead exhibit considerable variability in their age at ocean emigration and their age at 

first maturation (steelhead, unlike the Pacific salmon do not die after spawning). Much of this 

age structure variability exists within rather than between most populations; therefore it was of 

limited use in distinguishing between putative populations. There is a considerable genetic 

database available for steelhead in the lower Columbia and upper Willamette rivers. Except in 

areas where hatchery transfers potentially have obscured historical genetic differences between 

populations, this database was very useful in determining population structure. Steelhead 

undertake extensive oceanic migrations, however, in spite of large-scale tagging efforts, little is 

known of their migratory patterns. Tags from marked steelhead seldom are recovered in coastal 

fisheries, indicating that steelhead quickly move offshore where the probability of recovery is 

low. It is unclear from existing databases if run timing or population-specific migration patterns 

exist. 

In the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU, 23 historical DIPs were identified. In the 

western Cascade Range tributaries ecological subregion, there were four summer and 14 winter 

steelhead historical DIPs. Within this subregion, the Cowlitz River basin historically was a 

major center of abundance and diversity, containing seven of the 14 winter steelhead DIPs. The 

Columbia Gorge tributaries historically contained three winter and two summer steelhead DIPs. 

In the Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU, four historical DIPs were thought to have 

existed. Resident and anadromous O. mykiss currently are found in a number of tributaries that 

drain the west side of the upper Willamette River basin. Analysis of historical observations, 

hatchery records, and genetic analysis strongly suggested that many of these spawning 

aggregations are the result of recent introductions and do not represent a historical DIP. It was 

recognized, however, that these tributaries may provide juvenile rearing habitat or may be 

temporarily (one or more generations) colonized during periods of high abundance. Similarly 

summer steelhead have become established in the McKenzie River, where historically no 

steelhead existed. Introduced McKenzie River steelhead were not considered in the 

identification of historical DIPs. 

Criteria employed to designate the steelhead population boundaries were similar to those 

used for Chinook salmon. Some TRT members felt that because steelhead utilize more 

side-channel habitat than Chinook salmon, ascend farther upstream in most tributaries, and reside 

xvii
longer in their natal freshwater habitat, the geographic template size for distinct steelhead 

populations probably was smaller than the 250 km2

 for Chinook salmon. 

Coho Salmon 

Coho salmon historically existed throughout the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon 

ESU. Early historical coho salmon population records are scarce, because coho salmon were not 

initially considered a desirable commercial species. With the decline of the Columbia River 

Chinook salmon runs in the early 1900s, more attention was given to coho salmon by 

commercial fisherman and state and federal biologists. 

In response to increased sport and commercial harvest and declining habitat conditions, 

the hatchery production of coho salmon has expanded significantly throughout the ESU in the 

past 50 years. Hatchery stocks were exchanged routinely within the lower Columbia River, 

resulting in a homogenization of hatchery broodstocks. Habitat degradation, loss of accessible 

habitat, and overharvest also have reduced the abundance of naturally spawning coho salmon to 

critically low levels. As a result of the interactions between large runs of relatively genetically 

homogeneous hatchery fish and remnant naturally produced coho salmon populations, recent 

genetic analyses provide little information to discriminate populations. Much of the life history 

information collected from hatchery-origin fish or feral hatchery fish provides little insight into 

the characteristics of historical populations. 

Coho salmon exhibit two major life history strategies: early and late timing. As with 

Chinook salmon and steelhead, run timing is correlated strongly with other important life history 

traits (spawn timing, habitat utilization, oceanic migration patterns). In general, late coho 

salmon spawn in smaller rivers or the lower reaches of larger rivers. Late-run fish also undertake 

oceanic migrations to the north of the Columbia River, extending as far as northern British 

Columbia and southeast Alaska. As a result, late coho salmon are known as “Type N” coho. 

Alternatively, early coho salmon spawn in the upper reaches of larger rivers in the lower 

Columbia River and in most rivers inland of the Cascade Crest. Historically early coho salmon 

also were found in the interior portion of the Columbia River basin, migrating as far as Kettle 

Falls on the Columbia River and into many of the lower Snake River tributaries. During their 

oceanic migration, early coho salmon migrate to the south of the Columbia River and are known 

as “Type S” coho salmon. They may migrate as far south as the waters off northern California. 

While the ecological significance of run timing in coho salmon is fairly well understood, it is not 

clear how important ocean migratory pattern is to overall diversity. Additionally, the correlation 

between ocean migration and run timing is somewhat tenuous. 

The relative historical abundance of late run (Type N) and early run (Type S) life 

histories largely is unknown. The divergence of run times in coho salmon is not thought to be of 

a sufficient magnitude to warrant consideration as distinct populations. Within a basin, these 

distinct life history types are considered subpopulations, rather than distinct DIPs. Presently, no 

basins contain self-sustaining aggregations of both life history types. Thus it is not possible to 

understand the level of interaction or isolation between late and early run fish in the same basin. 

As self-sustaining populations are recovered, the dynamics of sympatric populations of early and 

late run coho salmon will be better understood. 

In the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, 24 historical DIPs were estimated. In 

the Coastal Range tributaries subregion, seven historical DIPs were identified. It was estimated 

xviii
that coho salmon in these DIPs would have included late-timed runs. In the western Cascade 

Range tributaries, 14 DIPs were thought to have existed. Many of these DIPs historically would 

have contained both early- and late-run coho salmon. In the Columbia Gorge subregion, three 

historical DIPs were identified. The majority of coho salmon in these DIPs likely would have 

exhibited an early-run life history. While there is considerable information about existing 

spawning aggregations in the lower Columbia River, the extensive programs of hatchery releases 

and interbasin transfers between hatcheries, in tandem with the small number of naturally 

produced fish, places some uncertainty on the population-specific historical accuracy of these 

DIP designations. In general, the coho salmon populations were considered more similar to 

steelhead populations than Chinook salmon, reflecting the tendency of coho salmon to use 

smaller tributaries and mainstem side channels for spawning and extended rearing. 

Chum Salmon 

Of the four species examined, information about historical and existing chum salmon 

populations is the most limited. This is in part because of the near extirpation of chum salmon in 

the 1940s, and the relatively low commercial value of the species. In the Lower Columbia River 

Chum Salmon ESU, the predominant life history type is the fall-run timing, although a summer 

chum life history also has been identified in the lower Columbia River. Chum salmon exhibiting 

additional run times may have been historically present, but were either extirpated or currently 

are at very low numbers. 

Unlike other the species, chum salmon spawning aggregations were identified in the 

mainstem Columbia River. These aggregations generally were included in the DIP associated 

with the nearest river basin. Much of the structure of historical populations in the Columbia 

River Coho Salmon ESU was inferred using population boundaries derived for fall Chinook 

salmon. New information on chum salmon, especially genetic information, has been analyzed 

from recently sampled spawning aggregations. Although much of this information suggests that 

considerable genetic variation exists in the ESU, it is unclear whether this variation is 

representative of historical patterns or is the result of random genetic drift related to protracted 

declines in population abundance. 

In the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU, an estimated 17 DIPs historically were 

identified. Seven historical DIPs, all fall runs, were identified in the Coast Range tributaries 

subregion. Eight historical DIPs, seven fall runs and one summer run, were thought to have 

existed in the western Cascade Range tributaries subregion. Fall and summer chum salmon DIPs 

in the Cowlitz River were considered distinct based on run timing and spawning habitat. 

Summer chum salmon appear to have migrated farther upstream in the Cowlitz River than fall 

chum salmon. In the Columbia Gorge tributaries subregion, only two fall chum salmon DIPs 

were identified. 

Methods 

By definition DIPs consist of one or more spawning aggregations that are linked 

sufficiently by an exchange of spawners such that they share a common demographic fate 

(McElhany et al. 2000). Effectively the criteria for demographic isolation are similar to those 

employed for reproductively isolation in establishing biological populations. As a biologically 

xix
based subunit of ESUs, DIPs are useful components in recovery planning. The historical 

distribution of DIPs in each of the listed ESUs also provides a proven benchmark for 

sustainability. Understanding the distribution and characteristics of the historical DIPs that 

comprised an ESU may help recovery planners in setting criteria for recovery. 

The authors relied on a number of types of information to identify historical populations. 

In general, there were six different types of information utilized: 

1) geography, 

2) migration fidelity, 

3) genetic attributes, 

4) life history patterns and morphological characteristics, 

5) population dynamics, and 

6) environmental and habitat characteristics. 

Historical information on hatchery transfers and releases also was valuable in interpreting life 

history and genetic characteristics exhibited by present-day populations. 

The historical population boundaries and designations provided are intended to be 

approximations of the range and diversity of populations for each species in the listed ESUs, not 

necessarily an exact reconstruction. The geographic population boundaries presented delimit the 

basin area accessible to adults for spawning. It is understood that many of the populations share 

areas for juvenile rearing, migration corridors, and ocean feeding. 

In addition to defining the geographic boundaries of historical population, characterizing 

the biological characteristics of each population, especially life history diversity, was considered 

important. Changes in population life history characteristics may explain observed declines in 

productivity and abundance, especially when associated with habitat changes. In the absence of 

comprehensive historical studies of individual populations, information was gleaned from a 

number of sources. Biological surveys of salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia 

River basin began in the 1850s with the U.S. exploring expeditions. These early documents gave 

general descriptions of the species found and identified areas where Native Americans had 

established seasonal fishing camps. In the 1880s, state and federal agencies began documenting 

commercial fishing and canning activities. This information was useful in estimating the 

regional abundance of many species prior to large-scale alterations in freshwater habitat and the 

initiation of hatchery operations. A number of biological surveys by the Bureau of Commercial 

Fisheries (the precursor of NOAA Fisheries Service) identified suitable sites for hatchery 

construction. These surveys focused on rivers with large numbers of salmon (primarily Chinook 

salmon), and included descriptions of run and spawn timing for Chinook salmon and other 

salmon species. During the early decades of the 1900s, much of the information concerning the 

biology and abundance of salmon and steelhead was collected at hatcheries throughout the 

Northwest. In general, however, historical documentation on the life history characteristics, 

distribution, or abundance of populations prior to 1940 is extremely limited. 

Considerable biological information has been gathered during the past three decades, 

although there is some uncertainty in relating the biological characteristics and distribution of 

xx
existing populations to those that existed historically in the same basins. This dilemma is due in 

part to the widespread transfer of eggs and fry between watersheds by state and federal agencies 

during the past 100 years. Habitat degradation and the creation or the removal of migration 

barriers also have altered the distribution and life history characteristics of many salmonid DIPs. 

Genetic information similarly is affected by artificial-propagation activities, except in those few 

basins where there has been little or no activity. Many of the geographic criteria for identifying 

historical DIPs were established using information from relatively unimpacted basins in the 

Pacific Northwest. 

The boundaries for historical DIPs were in part established using information related to 

different isolating mechanisms: homing fidelity and migration timing. Homing fidelity was 

examined to estimate the extent of adult exchange among putative spawning populations. 

Analysis of the recoveries of adult marked hatchery fish suggests that there is little straying of 

adults beyond 50 RKM from their juvenile site of release, however, estimates derived from 

hatchery fish may be higher than naturally produced fish. Many of the recoveries also occurred 

at hatchery collection facilities where one-way traps collect “stray” fish that might have 

otherwise returned to the site of their release. Husbandry practices also can affect homing 

fidelity. Insufficient acclimation prior to release or inappropriate release timing can influence 

the likelihood of an adult accurately returning to its release site. Within a basin, temporal 

differences in return migration and spawn timing provided a mechanism for establishing 

demographically (and reproductively) isolated populations. Adult run timing often is 

coordinated with stream hydrology. For example, spring Chinook salmon return to freshwater 

when stream flows are high and normally impassable barriers (e.g., waterfalls or cascades) can 

be jumped. Similarly differences in maturation and spawn timing limit the potential for the 

interbreeding of spring and fall Chinook salmon in many basins. Major run-timing differences 

were used as one criterion in distinguishing DIPs. 

Ecological subregions were identified because they describe major geographic areas 

within the ESUs with distinct ecological characteristics. For those traits where life history 

information was available, populations in different subregions did exhibit differences in life 

history diversity, even within a single run time. The authors concluded that the ecological 

conditions in these subregions historically created the conditions for the evolution of substantial 

differences in life history traits among endemic populations in the different subregions. Where 

historical life history information was absent, ecological subregions provided a useful tool for 

implying differences in life history traits. The TRT also has recognized the importance of these 

subregions in recovery planning. Ensuring that DIPs are recovered in each of the subregions 

provides a mechanism for conserving life history diversity to the ESU. 

The TRT relied heavily on geographic and ecological information to establish proposed 

population and ecological subregion boundaries. Major stream features such as branching, 

cascades, falls, or canyons were considered as potential isolating mechanisms between 

populations. Basin area also was used a general criteria for establishing population boundaries. 

Analysis of less developed regions indicated that DIPs exist in basins that are sufficiently sized 

to provide reproductive isolation from other populations and exhibit adequate productivity to 

support sufficient numbers of fish and ensure long-term sustainability. This geographic template 

established minimum basin size guidelines for each species. Geographic characteristics such as 

elevation also were used as indicators of differences in stream hydrology (snow vs. rain 

xxi
influenced flows), streamside ecology, water temperature, and overall productivity. Ecological 

subregions were in part adapted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ecoregions 

(Omernik 1987). Ecoregions provided a simplified summary of environmental characteristics 

such as elevation, soil type, vegetative land cover, rainfall, and climate. 

Overall the information utilized in the identification of historical DIPs contributes to our 

understanding of how these populations functioned. An understanding of the historical structure 

of each population, its abundance, and the interaction between historical habitat and life history 

characteristics provides a baseline for analyzing the present status of populations, the changes 

that have affected them, and, potentially, the actions that may be necessary to conserve or restore 

them. 

In addition to identifying historical DIPs for listed ESUs in the lower Columbia River and 

upper Willamette River basins, maps were created for each DIP showing historical and current 

accessibility. Historical accessibility was based on maximum stream gradients ascended by each 

species. Current accessibility was based on presence as reported by state agencies and location 

of known barriers to migration (i.e. inaccessible culverts, screened access points, dams). Of the 

four species, chum salmon are most limited by stream gradients, coho salmon and Chinook 

salmon are intermediate (utilizing gradients up to 7%), and steelhead occupy the highest stream 

gradient areas (up to 12%). Except where major barriers exist (large culverts or impassable 

dams), there has not been a substantial change in the area accessible to fish; however, in many 

cases while the quantity of available habitat is unchanged, the quality of that habitat has been 

severely degraded. In some cases poor habitat conditions (high temperature or low flow) may 

effectively create seasonal barriers to migration that are not represented on the maps. 

xxii
Acknowledgments 

The authors wish to thank biologists from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

the Washington Department of Fish and Game (WDFW), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

U.S. Geologic Survey, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, who provided information and 

technical review. 

Many of the genetic baseline samples are the result of fieldwork carried out by WDFW 

biologists and technicians. We thank WDFW Genetics Lab technicians from 1988 to 2001 who 

conducted lab operations and collected genetic data for the samples. WDFW current and former 

staff members Bruce Baker, Joe Hymer, Larry LeClair, Stevan Phelps, Jim Shaklee, and Sewall 

Young were principal researchers for genetic studies and contributed to sampling design, genetic 

data statistical analyses, and results interpretation and reporting. We also appreciate the work of 

John Sneva, who scale-aged many adult fish collected for genetic samples. 

The authors also acknowledge the efforts of David Kuligowski, Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center (NWFSC), in the collection and analysis of many of the coho salmon genetics 

samples, and Laurie Weitkamp, NWFSC, for providing many of the coho salmon tissues for 

genetic analysis and for her generosity in allowing us to reprint large section of the coho salmon 

status review. 

The authors also thank technical editors Andrea Jarvela, Winston Martin, and Gordon 

Sholtys. 

xxiii
xxiv
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CWT coded-wire tag 

SCTC Salmon Culture Technology Center 

DIP demographically independent population 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESU evolutionarily significant unit 

GDU genetic diversity unit 

LRB lower river bright 

NFH National Fish Hatchery 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOR natural-origin recruit 

ODF Oregon Department of Fisheries 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

PNRBC Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission 

PIT passive integrated transponder 

PSTRT Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 

RKM River kilometer 

SASSI Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory 

SaSI Salmon and Steelhead Inventory 

TRT Technical Recovery Team 

UPGMA unweighted pair group method with mathematic averages 

URB upriver bright 

USBF U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geologic Survey 

VSP viable salmonid population 

WDF Washington Department of Fisheries 

WDG Washington Department of Game 

WDFG Washington Department of Fish and Game 

xxv
xxvi
Introduction 

The goal of the Willamette-Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team (WLC-TRT) is 

to identify historical and extant independent populations of salmonids in listed evolutionarily 

significant units (ESUs). Understanding population size and spatial extent is critical for the 

viability analyses, which are a necessary step in recovery planning and conservation assessments 

for any species. The Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) et al. (1993) identified Salmon 

and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) populations in Washington,1 and the Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (Kostow 1995) identified populations in Oregon. It is likely that, 

in many cases, the populations we identify will be the same as those identified by state agencies 

and tribal governments. Alternatively, different population identifications may result from 

several inherent differences in the population definitions employed and the underlying 

management purpose for each classification scheme. In the end, it is not possible to verify the 

accuracy of the historical populations presented in this technical memorandum. We do, 

however, present a likely scenario that can then be analyzed as part of recovery planning. 

The populations ultimately identified are the historical demographically independent 

units (DIPs) for which the viability of extant populations will be estimated. These populations 

are the independent groups of fish whose historical and present conditions will be characterized 

in future papers. For each population, where possible, we will describe the historical abundance 

and productivity, life history and phenotypic diversity, and spatial distribution of spawning and 

rearing groups. We also estimate habitat capacity for each population under historical and 

present conditions. In the ultimate recovery goals expressed, the populations identified in this 

technical memorandum are those considered when answering the question: “How many and 

which populations are necessary for persistence of the ESU?” 

Definition of a Population 

The definition of a population that we apply is set forth in the viable salmonid population 

(VSP) document prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for use in 

conservation assessments for Pacific salmonids (McElhany et al. 2000). In the VSP context, 

NMFS defines an independent population much along the lines of Ricker’s (1972) definition of a 

stock. That is, an independent population is a group of fish of the same species that spawns in a 

particular lake or stream (or portion thereof) at a particular season and, which, to a substantial 

degree, does not interbreed with fish from any other group spawning in a different place or in the 

same place at a different season. For our purposes, not interbreeding to a “substantial degree” 

means that two groups are isolated to such an extent that exchange of individuals among the 

 

1

 2002 Salmon and Steelhead Inventory (SaSI) (WDFW 2003), an updated version of the 1993 SASSI document, is 

online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape. The 1993 SASSI report was extensively utilized in the 

preparation of this document and is still widely available; therefore references to the 1993 SASSI were retained 

with notations where the newer 2002 SaSI population structure differed. 
populations do not substantially affect the population dynamics or extinction risk of the 

independent populations over a 100-year period (McElhany et al. 2000). The exact level of 

reproductive isolation that is required for a population to have substantially independent 

dynamics is not well understood, but some theoretical work suggests that substantial 

independence will occur when the proportion of a population that consists of migrants is less 

than about 10% (Hastings 1993). Thus independent populations are units for which it is 

biologically meaningful to examine extinction risks that are intrinsic factors, such as 

demographic, genetic, or local environmental stochasticity. In general, the isolation conditions 

necessary to maintain demographic independence are not as strict as the conditions to maintain 

reproductive or genetic independence at the population level. 

Structure above the Population Level 

Just as there may be substructuring within a population, there may be structure above the 

level of a population. This is explicitly recognized in the designation of an ESU. An ESU may 

contain multiple populations that are connected by some small degree of migration, however, a 

population cannot be larger than an ESU. Thus organisms can be grouped in a hierarchical 

system in which we define the levels of individual, subpopulation, population, ESU, and finally 

species. Other hierarchical systems with more or fewer levels could be constructed. Although 

reproductive isolation forms a continuum, it probably is not a smooth continuum, and there is a 

biological basis for designating a hierarchy of subpopulations, populations, and ESUs. 

A population is described as a group of fish that is isolated reproductively “to a 

substantial degree” (McElhany et al. 2000). As a criterion for defining fish groups, the degree of 

reproductive isolation is a relative measure, however, and can vary continuously from the level 

of fish pairs to the degree of reproductive isolation separating species. The population defined in 

this technical memorandum is therefore not the only biologically logical grouping that can be 

constructed. 

Structure below the Population Level 

Below the population level, for example, some fish groups may be isolated 

reproductively to some degree from other fish groups within the population, but they are not 

sufficiently isolated to be considered independent by the criteria adopted for this technical 

memorandum. These fish groups are referred to as subpopulations. Few populations have been 

studied sufficiently in depth to characterize their component subpopulations. The existence and 

interaction of subpopulations can have important consequences for characterizing a VSP, and 

population spatial structure is proposed as one of four key parameters for eventually evaluating 

the status of a population. Furthermore, subpopulations play an important role in the 

sustainability and evolution of populations. 

Independent populations generally (but not always) will be smaller than a whole ESU and 

generally will inhabit geographic ranges on the scale of whole river basins or major subbasins 

that are relatively isolated from outside migration. 

2
Conceptual Approach to Identifying Populations 

The definitive information needed to identify populations is intergroup migration rates 

and the demographic consequences of those migration rates. In practice, information about 

straying of salmon between streams rarely is available. Our approach in identifying population 

structure is to use diverse sources of information that are proxies for understanding the degree of 

reproductive isolation between fish groups. Each type of information contributes to our 

understanding of population boundaries, but none alone provides us with much confidence in our 

answer. In the following six subsections we briefly outline the different information sources we 

used to help in identifying salmon populations. They are discussed in order of strength of 

inference we believe possible to make about population structure from each indicator, beginning 

with relatively high inference that can be made with geographic and migration-rate indicators. 

Depending on the particular data quality and the genetic and demographic history of salmon in 

different regions, the usefulness of these indicators in any one area can vary. 

Geography 

The boundaries of a salmon population will be defined in part by the spatial distribution 

of its spawning habitat. Physical features such as a river basin’s topographical and hydrological 

characteristics dictate to a large degree where and when salmon can spawn and delimit the 

spatial area over which a single group of fish can be expected to interact. Geographic constraints 

on population boundaries (such as distance between streams) can provide a useful starting point, 

but geographic constraints will not generally support strong inferences at a fine scale (e.g., 

distinguishing separate populations within a small river basin). In addition, biogeographic 

characteristics and historical connections between river basins on geological time scales can be 

informative in defining population boundaries. 

Migration Rates 

The extent to which individuals move between populations will determine the degree 

of reproductive isolation and, therefore, demographic independence among sites. Estimates of 

stray rates are particular to the group of fish, season, and streams in which they are made, thus 

they provide useful information about straying under current conditions. In contrast, it is not 

possible to estimate the magnitude of their variation over long time periods (e.g., 100 years). 

Furthermore, there have been substantial changes in fish density within populations and 

geographic connectivity between populations during the past century. Migration rates usually 

are calculated using the recovery of tagged adults. Fish are tagged using a variety of external 

tags or internal coded-wire tags (CWTs) or passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. Compared 

to mark-recapture and other direct estimates of straying, genetically based estimates of 

intergroup isolation can be used to better estimate straying that has occurred between fish groups 

integrated over longer time periods. 

Genetic Attributes 

Neutral genetic markers are useful in identifying salmon populations, because they 

indicate the extent of reproductive isolation among groups. Neutral markers can be difficult to 

interpret because patterns may reflect hatchery breeding practices or nonequilibrium conditions, 

3
so they should be interpreted with caution. Neutral and adaptive genetic differences among fish 

groups (as indicated by quantitative traits or molecular markers) are more difficult to document 

than discrete marker differences. Since the degree of isolation necessary to maintain genetic 

independence is much higher than that for demographic independence, genetic information will 

tend to give a more conservative measure of demographic population structure. That is, some 

populations that appear to be linked genetically may be largely independent demographically. 

Patterns of Life History and Phenotypic Characteristics 

Technically only those phenotypic traits based on underlying genetic variation (rather 

than environmentally induced variation) are informative in identifying populations (defined on 

the basis of reproductive isolation and demographic independence). Variations in spawning 

time, age at juvenile emigration, age at maturation, and ocean distribution are, to some degree, 

genetically influenced (Myers et al. 1998). Environmental conditions may restrict variability in 

the life history traits expressed. Hydrological conditions (i.e., water temperature, times of peak 

and low flows, etc.) influence the time of emigration and return migration and spawning. 

Conditions in many rivers (especially short coastal rivers) during the summer months do not 

provide suitable habitat for juvenile fish to extend their freshwater rearing beyond late spring. 

Similarly, if habitat is not available for returning adults to oversummer prior to spawning, the 

spring- or summer-run life history strategies would not be feasible. Phenotypic variation can be 

used as a proxy for genetically based variation, and it may indicate similarities in the selective 

environments experienced by salmonids in different streams. In some cases, similarities in 

phenotype may arise independently in distinct populations (e.g., spring run timing or possibly 

resistance to the parasite Ceratomyxa shasta). However, phenotypic differences in life history 

traits between populations (especially those that recently have diverged) could be the result of 

differences in habitat utilization and geographic separation. 

Population Dynamics 

Abundance data can be used to explore the degree to which demographic trajectories of 

two fish groups are independent of one another. All else being equal, the less correlated time 

series of abundance is between two fish groups, the less likely they are to be part of the same 

population. Complicating interpretation of correlations in abundance between fish groups is the 

potentially confounding influence of correlated environmental characteristics, such as shared 

ocean conditions or regionwide drought. Harvest effects also may result in correlations of 

abundance when distinct populations share oceanic and inshore migratory routes. Similarly, 

hatchery releases can confound any correlation between two populations, especially if the 

magnitude of releases is different and the relative contribution of hatchery fish to escapement is 

unknown or subject to a high degree of uncertainty. When fish groups that are in close proximity 

are not correlated in abundance over time, they are not likely to be linked demographically. The 

reverse is not always easy to argue—when correlations in abundance between fish groups are 

detected, more work is needed to rule out confounding sources of correlation. 

Environmental and Habitat Characteristics 

In identifying independent demographic populations, environmental characteristics can 

influence population structure in two ways. First, environmental characteristics can directly 

4
isolate populations. Thermal or flow conditions in a river can create migrational barriers that 

prevent interactions between populations (e.g., Willamette Falls and Lyle Falls). Second, 

environmental conditions may exert a selective influence on salmon populations, which in turn 

may influence the expression of life history characteristics. The strength of the correlation 

between habitat and life history characteristics may be related to homing fidelity and the degree 

to which populations in ecologically different freshwater habitats are effectively isolated 

reproductively. If immigrants are less fit, they will not contribute to the long-term demographics 

of the receiving population. 

Identifying Historical Populations of Salmonids 

The first goal of the WLC-TRT’s Population Identification Subcommittee was to identify 

historical populations of salmonids in the listed ESUs. An understanding of the number, 

abundance, life history diversity, and distribution of historical populations is an important step in 

formulating recovery scenarios. It was understood that the historical organization and status of 

populations in an ESU were not static but dynamic, however, the historical structure does 

provide the only proven prototype of sustainability. It is not the WLC-TRT’s task to restore 

historical conditions completely, but to determine in general the population structure necessary 

to restore the needed aspects of life history diversity, population distribution, and abundance in 

order to provide for a sustainable ESU into the foreseeable future. 

Criteria for Identifying the Distribution of Historical Populations 

The task of identifying historical populations in the lower Columbia River and upper 

Willamette River ESUs is challenging, because anthropogenic factors (e.g., hatchery operations, 

stock transfers, harvest effects, and habitat degradation and elimination) (Appendix A, pages 

121–154) have influenced population structure and interaction significantly. Few extant 

populations in these ESUs provide information directly relevant to determining historical 

population structure and number (Appendix B, pages 155–160). Where available, information 

concerning salmonid populations in the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River 

ESUs and others (primarily Puget Sound) was useful in developing a template for the general 

geographic and ecological characteristics of an independent population. A geographic template 

was developed to infer selective and isolating factors that may have led to DIPs in lieu of 

relevant biological information for historical salmonid populations. In general, four criteria were 

used to establish the distribution of historical populations: 

1) documented historical use, 

2) temporal isolation (different run or spawn timing), 

3) geographic isolation (geographic template), and 

4) basin-specific information (e.g., barrier falls). 

In some instances presumptive populations that did not meet the criteria for DIPs, but that 

exhibited one or more of the characteristics of distinct populations, were designated as 

subpopulations. Subpopulation designations were intended to highlight areas where some level 

of population structuring may exist and where further study should be directed, rather than 

identify true biological subpopulations. 

5
Geographic Template Criteria 

For an independent population to persist in the face of environmental fluctuations it must 

maintain a sufficiently large population size. Whether an independent population must contain 

hundreds or thousands of individuals still is under debate, but at a minimum, hundreds of 

individuals are necessary. Thus one measure of the potential for a watershed to sustain an 

independent population is its size. Basin-size estimates generally were acquired from U.S. 

Geologic Survey (USGS) stream-gauge databases (Table 1). The size of a basin (square 

kilometers) and the topography of the river to which it belongs also may influence homing 

accuracy. The presence of a seasonal or complete migration barrier or barriers provides an added 

degree of reproductive isolation. 

Minimum basin-size estimates were derived from the examination of other ESUs where 

native, naturally produced populations (primarily Chinook salmon [Oncorhynchus tshawytscha]) 

still exist. Additionally, boundaries between distinct populations could be inferred where rivers 

diverge into distinct major tributaries. Tributary basins, if large enough, may provide 

ecologically distinctive habitats and characteristic homing (olfactory) cues that promote the 

establishment of independent populations. For example, based on genetic analysis alone there 

are several isolated reproductively Chinook salmon groups in northern Puget Sound. The 

Nooksack River basin contains two populations of Chinook salmon, each of which represents a 

different WDFW genetic diversity unit (GDU), the north fork (743 km2

) and south fork (477 

km2) (Marshall et al. 1995). 

Within the Stillaguamish River basin (1,774 km2), the North Fork Stillaguamish River 

drainage covers 738 km2 and contains a population of Chinook salmon with significant genetic 

and life history differences relative to Chinook salmon in the main stem and South Fork 

Stillaguamish River (Marshall et al. 1995). The Skagit River basin is the largest in Puget Sound 

(8,270 km2), slightly larger than the Cowlitz River basin in the lower Columbia River basin, and 

presently contains as many as six DIPs. Historically the Skagit possibly contained an additional 

two or three (now extinct) independent populations (WDF et al. 1993). The Puget Sound 

Technical Recovery Team (PSTRT 2001) identified three spring-run populations in the Skagit 

River basin: 

1) Cascade River (390 km2

), 

2) Suiattle River (873 km2), and 

3) upper Sauk River (762 km2

).

Other basins that historically may have contained independent populations have basin areas 

larger than 250 km2

 (e.g., the North Fork Skokomish [304 km2] and Dungeness rivers [524 

km2]). Basin productivity depends on a variety of factors other than size, however, it would 

require special circumstances for rivers with basin areas smaller than 250 km2 to sustain a 

population large enough to be demographically independent under variable environmental 

conditions. Differences in life history characteristics among Chinook salmon, coho salmon (O. 

kisutch), chum salmon (O. keta), and winter and summer steelhead (O. mykiss) probably 

significantly influence the minimum basin size described above. These differences are discussed 

in the subsequent species sections. 

6
Table 1. Lower Columbia River ESU tributary basin, distance from mouth of the Columbia River, and 

basin size. 

Tributary basin RKMa Basin (km2

)

b USGS gauge 

Lower Columbia River (coastal tributaries) — — — 

Lewis and Clark River 12.9 — — 

Youngs River 16.1 103.8 14251500 

Wallooskee River 22.5 — — 

Klaskanine River 27.4 36.2 14252000 

Chinook River 9.6 30.2 CBIC 1967 

Deep River 32.3 32.4 CBIC 1967 

Grays River 33.8 156.9 14250000 

Big Creek 37.0 82.6 14248500 

Bear Creek 40.0 8.6 14248700 

Skamokawa Creek 54.7 45.0 14248000 

Elochoman River 60.0 170.3 14247500 

Plympton Creek 63.0 — — 

Clatskanie River — 137.2 14247000 

Beaver Creek — — — 

Mill Creek 85.2 73.3 14246500 

Abernathy Creek 86.9 52.6 14246000 

Germany Creek 90.1 59.3 14245500 

Coal Creek 99.8 69.6 Hymer et al. 1992

Goble Creek 119.1 — — 

Tide Creek 120.6 — — 

Milton Creek 144.0 85.4 Willis et al. 1960

McNulty Creek 146.0 — Willis et al. 1960

Scappoose Creek 150.0 152.7 Willis et al. 1960

Cowlitz River 106.2 6,420.4 14245150 

Cispus River +148.0 831.0 14231900 

Tilton River +102.0 403.9 14236500 

Upper Cowlitz River — 3,008.3 14235000 

Ohanapecosh River +214.0 261.5 14224000 

Toutle River +27.4 1,322.9 14242690 

North Fork Toutle River (with Green River) +20.9 735.2 14241101 

North Fork Toutle River (without Green River) +20.9 396.1 14241101 

Green River +41.8 339.1 14241000 

South Fork Toutle River +20.9 310.7 14241500 

Coweeman River +12.1 308.1 14245000 

Kalama River 115.8 523.0 14223600 

Little Kalama River +21.9 29.8 CBIC 1967 

Gobar Creek +31.4 54.9 CBIC 1967 

Lewis River 141.0 2,718.4 CBIC 1967 

North Fork Lewis River +8.0 1,892.5 14220500 

Cedar Creek +25.3 143.7 CBIC 1967 

Muddy River +96.7 349.5 14216350 

East Fork Lewis River +8.0 390.9 14216500 

Willamette River 164.1 — Willis et al. 1960

Johnson Creek +29.0 134.1 04211550 

Mount Scott and Kellogg creeks +29.2 — 14211130 

7
Table 1 continued. Lower Columbia River ESU tributary basin, distance from the mouth of Columbia 

River, and basin size. 

Tributary basin RKMa Basin (km2

)

b USGS gauge 

Willamette River continued 

Clackamas River +39.9 2,4180.0 — 

Mainstem and upper Clackamas River — — — 

Oakgrove Fork — >310.0 — 

Collawash River +131.5 >368.0 — 

Salmon Creek 151.2 208.9 14144000 

Sandy River 193.6 1,315.0 — 

Bull Run River +25.7 277.0 14140000 

Little Sandy River +46.3 — 14140500 

Salmon River +56.0 274.4 14135500 

Zigzag River +64.4 80.3 14131500 

Washougal River 194.9 279.6 14143500 

Mainstem Washougal River — — — 

Little Washougal River +9.1 60.1 14144000 

West Fork Washougal River +23.1 78.5 14143000 

Columbia Gorge tributaries — — — 

Mainstem Columbia River — — — 

Bridal Veil Creek — — — 

Wahkeena Creek — — — 

Hardy Creek 228.2 — CBIC 1967 

Hamilton Creek 229.0 30.5 — 

Multnomah Creek — — — 

Moffer Creek — — —

Tanner Creek — — —

Eagle Creek 236.5 — —

Rock Creek 243.0 106.1 CBIC 1967 

Herman Creek 243.0 — —

Gorton Creek — — —

Viento Creek — — —

Lindsey Creek — — —

Phelps Creek — — —

Wind River 249.4 582.5 14128500 

Panther Creek +6.9 106.1 CBIC 1967 

Trout Creek +17.4 78.4 CBIC 1967 

Little White Salmon 260.7 346.9 14125500 

Big White Salmon River 270.3 696.4 14123000 

Rattlesnake Creek +12.1 144.2 CBIC 1967 

Trout Lake Creek +41.8 179.4 CBIC 1967 

Hood River 271.9 722.3 14120000 

East Fork Hood River +18.5 279.6 14115500 

West Fork Hood River +18.5 247.5 14118500 

a

 Distances (RKM) are from the mouth of the Columbia River to the mouth of the tributary. Distances with a + 

indicate the distance from the mouth of the parent stream to branching of the tributary. 

b Basin sizes were obtained from information describing USGS flow-monitoring stations (where given), otherwise, 

basin sizes were obtained from CIBC 1967, Willis et al. 1960, and Hymer et al. 1992. 

8
Ecological Information 

The fidelity with which salmonids return to their natal streams implies a close association 

between a specific stock and its freshwater environment. The selective pressures of different 

freshwater environments may be responsible for differences in life history strategies among 

stocks. Miller and Brannon (1982) hypothesized that local temperature regimes are the major 

factor influencing life history traits. If the boundaries of distinct freshwater habitats coincide 

with differences in life histories, it would suggest a certain degree of reproductive isolation. 

Therefore, identifying distinct freshwater, terrestrial, and climatic regions may be useful in 

identifying distinct populations. As a first step in identifying historical independent salmonid 

populations, the lower Columbia River was divided into three geographic/ecological subregions: 

1) coastal, 

2) western Cascades, and 

3) Columbia Gorge (eastern Cascades). 

Differences in geography, hydrology, precipitation, vegetation, and geology probably are 

substantial enough to have differentially selected for variations in life history strategy and 

provided the geographic separation for reproductive isolation. Within these large subregions, 

identifying historical independent populations is more problematical. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a system of ecoregion 

designations (Figure 1) based on soil content, topography, climate, potential vegetation, and land 

use (Omernik 1987). These ecoregions are similar to the physiographic provinces determined by 

the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission (PNRBC 1969). Similarly, there is a strong 

relationship between ecoregions and freshwater fish assemblages (Hughes et al. 1987). Also 

included in the physiographic descriptions for each region is information presented in PNRBC 

(1969), present-day water use information (USGS 1993), river-flow information (Hydrosphere 

Products, Inc. 1993), and climate data from the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC 1968). 

Biological Data 

Homing fidelity is a major determinant of population structure and plays a key role in 

defining a population’s geographic bounds. Migration rates (homing fidelity) were estimated 

using CWT-marked fish releases (primarily from hatcheries) (PFMC 2000). Spatial homing 

fidelity was measured as the relative proportion of freshwater recoveries that occurred in the 

river basin of origin. Methods for calculating migration (stray) rates followed that used by van 

der Haegen and Doty (1995). Freshwater recoveries of adults at hatcheries, fish traps, terminal 

(tributary) fisheries, and spawner surveys were considered in the migration estimation. 

Mainstem Columbia River recoveries (net and sports fisheries) were excluded from the analysis. 

In general, only CWT releases during the 1980s that produced more than 100 expanded 

freshwater recoveries were used. At least three CWT release groups were used for each release 

location. Only releases of fish that were produced from adults returning to that release site 

(hatchery) were considered. Since many hatcheries were founded originally by transfers from 

other sites, genetically determined aspects of their oceanic migration may reduce the precision 

with which they return to their “new” natal stream. Furthermore, many aspects of hatchery 

rearing and release programs probably reduce the homing fidelity of returning hatchery fish. 

9
Figure 1. EPA Level III ecoregions for the lower Columbia and upper Willamette rivers. 

Source: Omernik 1987. 

Additionally, although the proportion of freshwater recoveries at a nonnatal site may be high, the 

impact on the population receiving the strays is related to the number of strays, the number of 

indigenous spawners, and the relative reproductive success of the strays. 

The marine distribution of Chinook salmon groups was estimated through recoveries of 

CWT-marked fish in ocean fisheries. CWT information supports a strong genetic basis for ocean 

migration patterns. These patterns represent an important form of resource partitioning and are 

based on ancestral feeding routes that are significant to the evolutionary success of the species. 

To minimize variability in ocean conditions and fishery effort, recoveries were analyzed for a 

minimum of three groups from any release site. Only groups released from 1980 to 1989 that 

had at least 100 oceanic recoveries (expanded) were considered, and no groups from one site 

could be released during the same year. Recoveries were assigned to six regional oceanic areas: 

1) Alaska, 

2) British Columbia, 

3) Washington coast, 

4) Puget Sound, 

10
5) Oregon coast, and 

6) California coast. 

The marine distributions were compared using hierarchical clustering analysis.2 With few 

exceptions, groups came from hatchery populations, which may not be representative of 

historical populations depending on the history of stock transfers for each hatchery. Because of 

the difficulties in relating current oceanic distribution to historical patterns, this analysis was 

only used to ascertain whether general patterns of oceanic distribution were correlated to 

geographic proximity or life history similarities. 

Analysis of scales from naturally spawning adults was utilized to identify similarities in 

age at marine emigration and maturation of proposed populations. This information was used 

with caution, because of the unknown origin of unmarked naturally spawning fish, the impact of 

harvest on age structure, and the modification or loss of habitats that would preclude specific 

juvenile life history strategies.

Historical documentation of fish presence and abundance (Table 2) was based on U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) surveys carried out in the 1930s and 1940s (Bryant 1949, 

Parkhurst et al. 1950) and additional reports by Mattson (1948 and 1955), Craig and Townsend 

(1946), Wallis (1961), and others. Hatchery and fisheries records also provided valuable insight 

into historical abundance and life history characteristics. 

Hatchery operations in the lower Columbia and upper Willamette rivers have left a 

legacy of transplanted or homogenized stocks, with the exception of chum salmon. Very few 

remaining salmonid populations are unchanged by these activities. Thus it is difficult to estimate 

historical life history characteristics from fish that currently occupy river systems in this area. 

Furthermore, because of the magnitude of hatchery releases, similarities or differences in 

abundance trends do not necessarily indicate demographic independence or lack thereof. 

Hatchery fish influence demographic data in three ways: 

1. When present on natural spawning grounds, they inflate the abundance of naturally 

spawning fish. 

2. Large releases of hatchery fish may reduce the survival of naturally produced juveniles. 

3. They reduce estimates of natural productivity by adding more adults to the 

adult-to-spawner relationship. 

Although the genetic analysis of spawning aggregations normally provides a quantitative 

method for establishing population boundaries, the influence of hatchery introgression and the 

reduced abundance of naturally spawning populations likely has dramatically affected the 

genetic structure of historical populations in the Columbia and Willamette rivers. Genetic 

analysis of contemporary populations (Appendix C, pages 161–192, Appendix D, pages 

193–198) was useful is corroborating the population structure derived from other sources, 

especially when hatchery influence was minimal. 

 

2

 JMP 3.0, Statistical Analysis System Institute, Cary, NC. 

11
Table 2. Chinook, chum, and coho salmon and steelhead historical natural escapement estimates for 

lower Columbia River ESU tributaries.a

Tributary basin Chinook Coho Chum Steelhead 

Lower Columbia River (coastal tributaries) — — — — 

Lewis and Clark River — rptb rpt 10 

Youngs River rpt rpt rpt rpt 

Wallooskee River — — — — 

Klaskanine River rpt rpt rpt 12 

Chinook River rpt rpt — — 

Deep River nvc nv nv nv 

Grays River 34 >100 6,286 >100 

Big Creek rpt rpt rpt rpt 

Bear Creek — rpt rpt — 

Skamokawa Creek — obsd rpt obs 

Elochoman River — 371 158 7 

Plympton Creek — rpt rpt — 

Clatskanie River rpt rpt rpt rpt 

Beaver Creek — rpt rpt rpt 

Mill Creek — rpt rpt 1 

Abernathy Creek — — 92 obs 

Germany Creek — obs obs obs 

Coal Creek — — rpt rpt 

Tide Creek — — rpt rpt 

Goble Creek — — — — 

Milton Creek — rpt rpt rpt 

McNulty Creek nv nv nv nv 

Scappoose Creek 60 rpt rpt rpt 

Cowlitz River basins — — — — 

Cispus River 130 120 — obs 

Tilton River 212 407 — rpt 

Upper Cowlitz River — — — — 

Ohanapecosh River rpt rpt — — 

Toutle River rpt rpt rpt obs 

North Fork Toutle River 

(without Green River) 

— — — — 

Green River — — — — 

South Fork Toutle River — — — — 

Coweeman River 1,746 2 rpt rpt 

Kalama River 20,000e 1,422 rpt 37 

Lewis River rpt rpt rpt rpt 

North Fork Lewis River 259 7,919 259 — 

Muddy River — — — — 

East Fork Lewis River 40 1,166 — — 

Willamette River basins 

Mainstem and upper Clackamas River obs obs — obs 

Oakgrove Fork — — — — 

Collawash River — — — — 

Johnson Creek rpt — — rpt 

Salmon Creek 19 16 rpt rpt 

Sandy River — — — — 

Bull Run River — — rpt rpt 

12
Table 2 continued. Chinook, chum, and coho salmon and steelhead historical natural escapement 

estimates for lower Columbia River ESU unit tributaries.a

Tributary basin Chinook Coho Chum Steelhead 

Willamette River basins continued 

Little Sandy River — — — — 

Salmon River rpt rpt — rpt 

Zigzag River — — — rpt 

Washougal River rpt rpt — 539 

Mainstem Washougal River — — — — 

Little Washougal River — — — — 

West Fork Washougal River — — — — 

Columbia Gorge tributaries — — — — 

Mainstem Columbia River — — — — 

Bridal Veil Creek — — — — 

Wahkeena Creek — — — — 

Hardy Creek — — — — 

Hamilton Creek — — — rpt 

Multnomah Creek — — — — 

Moffer Creek — — — — 

Tanner Creek rpt — — — 

Eagle Creek rpt — — — 

Rock Creek rpt — — rpt 

Herman Creek rpt — — — 

Wind River 200 — — obs 

Gorton Creek — — — — 

Little White Salmon River rpt — — rpt 

Viento Creek — — — — 

Lindsey Creek — — — — 

Big White Salmon River — — — — 

Hood River rpt — — rpt 

East Fork Hood River — — — — 

West Fork Hood River rpt — — rpt 

a

 The numbers presented represent fish counted during surveys and are not expanded to estimate run size. Surveys 

did not necessarily correspond to the time of peak spawning. USFWS Columbia River surveys were done 

intermittently from 1936 to 1946 (Bryant 1949, Parkhurst et al. 1950).

b

 Rpt stands for species presence reported to the survey teams by local biologists. c

 Nv stands for not validated. 

d

 Obs stands for juveniles or adults that were observed but not enumerated. 

e

 The hatchery superintendent reported that 13,000 Chinook had been collected at the hatchery rack and another 

7,000 passed over the rack to spawn naturally in 1936. 

Population Boundaries for Fish and Habitat 

In describing the population boundaries, two types of maps were generated for each 

population. One map delineates the area of a basin that is used for spawning and initial rearing, 

that portion of the basin that the fish directly occupy. A second map delineates the entire basin, a 

portion of which is occupied by fish from the population. This second map identifies the 

watershed that influences stream habitat conditions in the occupied portion of the basin. It is 

13
Table 3. Species-specific stream gradient utilization and barrier passability. Dark gray denotes gradients 

used for spawning and rearing, gray denotes gradients used for passability, white denotes 

gradients that act as barriers for upstream passage for each species or life history strategy. 

Source: WDFW 2000. 

Gradient strata (%) 

Species 0–1 1–3 3–5 5–7 7–12 12–16 16–20 

Chum salmon 

Pink salmon 

(O. gorbuscha) 

Coho salmon 

Sockeye salmon 

(O. nerka) 

Chinook salmon 

Steelhead 

Cutthroat trout 

(O. clarkii) 

(anadromous) 

Bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) 

Trout 

important to consider, historically and contemporarily, conditions in headwater areas and the 

impact on the abundance and life history strategies of downstream fish assemblages. 

Fish-based population boundaries include different information to identify accessible 

stream reaches. Tribal, state, and local management agencies used direct observations of fish 

presence where possible. In lieu of direct observation, we used stream gradients to identify 

passage barriers. These species-specific gradient barriers are based on estimates described in 

Table 3 (WDFW 2000). Historical major barriers also were utilized to define fish access. 

Seasonal barriers such as Willamette, Shearers, Dougan, Salmon, and Punchbowl falls limited 

access to specific run times for some species. Habitat-based population boundaries are based on 

the USGS level 6 hydrological unit codes (HUCs). 

All populations included multiple level 6 HUC basins. Population habitat and historical 

presence maps are presented in Appendix E (pages 199–311). 

14
Chinook Salmon 

Life History 

Chinook salmon—also referred to as king, spring, quinnat, Sacramento, California, or 

tyee salmon—is the largest of the Pacific salmon (Netboy 1958). The species distribution 

historically ranged along the west coast of North America from the Ventura River in California 

to Point Hope in Alaska, and in northeastern Asia from Hokkaido, Japan, to the Anadyr River in 

Russia (Healey 1991). Chinook salmon also have been reported in the Mackenzie River area of 

northern Canada (McPhail and Lindsey 1970). The Lower Columbia River and Upper 

Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESUs exist near the center of the species’ North America 

distribution. 

Of the Pacific salmon, Chinook exhibit arguably the most diverse and complex life 

history strategies. Healey (1986) described 16 age categories for Chinook salmon, seven total 

ages with three possible freshwater ages. Two generalized freshwater life history types were 

initially described by Gilbert (1912): 

1) stream Chinook salmon that reside in freshwater for a year or more following emergence, 

and 

2) ocean Chinook salmon that migrate within their first year. 

Healey (1983 and 1991) has promoted the use of broader definitions for ocean type and stream 

type to describe two distinct races of Chinook salmon. Using Healey’s definition, Chinook 

salmon native to the lower Columbia and upper Willamette rivers are considered to be ocean 

type (Myers et al. 1998). 

Juvenile Emigration 

Ocean-type juveniles enter saltwater during one of three major phases. Immediate fry 

migrate to the ocean soon after yolk resorption, at 30–45 mm in length (Lister et al. 1971, Healey 

1991). In most river systems, however, the majority of ocean-type emigrants are represented by 

fry that migrate at 60–150 days posthatching and fingerlings that migrate in the late summer or 

autumn of their first year. When environmental conditions are not conducive to subyearling 

emigration, ocean-type Chinook salmon may remain in freshwater for their entire first year, 

emigrating to the ocean during their second spring. Distance of migration to the marine 

environment, stream stability, stream flow and temperature regimes, stream and estuary 

productivity, and general weather regimes have been implicated in the evolution and expression 

of specific emigration timing. 

The majority of naturally produced fall Chinook salmon from the lower Columbia and 

lower Willamette rivers emigrate to the marine environment as subyearlings (Reimers and 

Loeffel 1967, Howell et al. 1985, Hymer et al. 1992, Olsen et al. 1992, WDF et al. 1993). A 

15
16

 

portion of returning adults whose scales indicate a yearling smolt migration may be the result of 

extended hatchery-rearing programs rather than natural volitional yearling emigration (Table 4). 

It also is possible that modifications in the river environment altered the duration of freshwater 

residence. The natural timing of spring Chinook salmon emigration similarly is obscured by 

hatchery releases of spring Chinook salmon juveniles late in their first autumn or early in their 

second spring. Age analysis based on scales from naturally spawning spring adults from the 

Kalama and Lewis rivers indicated a significant contribution to escapement by fish that entered 

saltwater as subyearlings (Hymer et al. 1992). This subyearling smoltification pattern also may 

be indicative of life history patterns for the Cowlitz River spring run, because the Kalama and 

Lewis rivers have received considerable numbers of transplanted fish from the Cowlitz River. 

Life history data from the Clackamas and Sandy rivers is very limited, and transplantation 

records indicate that these rivers have received overwhelmingly large numbers from the Upper 

Willamette River Spring Chinook ESU (Nicholas 1995). 

Recent analysis of scales from adults returning to the upper Willamette River basin 

indicated that the majority of fish had emigrated to saltwater as yearlings (Table 5 and Table 6). 

This estimate is biased by the overwhelming hatchery contribution to escapement, more than 

90% of total escapement (Myers et al. 1998). Hatchery fish are released late in their first autumn 

or second spring (Nicholas 1995, Willis et al. 1995). Scales sampled from returning adults in 

1941 indicated that the fish had entered saltwater no earlier than the autumn of their first year 

(Craig and Townsend 1946). Mattson (1963) found that returning adults that had emigrated as 

fingerling (subyearling) smolts made up a significant proportion of the 3-year-old age-class, with 

fingerling emigrants making up a smaller proportion of the older age-classes. 

Studies have indicated that Willamette River spring Chinook salmon have a physiological 

smoltification window during their first autumn. Large numbers of fry and fingerlings have been 

observed migrating downriver from the Willamette River and its tributaries (Craig and 

Townsend 1946, Mattson 1962, Howell et al. 1988). Based on the examination of scale patterns 

from returning adults, it appears that these fry do not immediately enter the estuary or do not 

survive the emigration. Emigrating fry were affected severely by high water temperatures and 

industrial waste discharges in the lower Willamette River throughout much of the twentieth 

century, especially during periods of low river flow in late spring and early summer (Craig and 

Townsend 1946, Mattson 1962, USGS 1993). More recently, fry migrants constituted a 

relativeall proportion of the smolt emigration (compared to the artificially propagated fingerling 

and yearling contribution), thus their potential contribution to returning adults should be quite 

low. In a 1998 offshore study, subyearling Willamette River spring-run juveniles were identified 

through genetic mixed-stocks analysis in the Columbia River plume.3

 Alternatively, many of 

these fry migrants could have been rearing in the Columbia River prior to emigrating to the 

marine environment (Craig and Townsend 1946, Mattson 1962). 

3

 D. Teel, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. Pers. commun., January 2000. 
Table 4. Age structure for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

Age designationa

Subyearling migrants Yearling migrants 

Collection site/run 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 

Klaskanine River fall 0.000 0.306 0.694 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Plympton Creek fall 0.084 0.708 0.193 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Big Creek fall 0.013 0.371 0.567 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 Gnat Creek fall 0.006 0.651 0.283 0.030 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lewis and Clark River fall 0.050 0.469 0.481 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Grays River fall 0.137 0.294 0.510 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Elochoman River fall 0.132 0.501 0.340 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cowlitz River spring 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.175 0.100 0.528 0.191 0.006 Cowlitz River fall 0.032 0.165 0.580 0.193 0.004 0.001 0.016 0.008 0.000 0.000 Coweeman River fall 0.015 0.007 0.312 0.645 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Kalama River late fallb 0.029 0.330 0.424 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.036 0.009 0.000 

Lewis River late fallb 0.132 0.196 0.419 0.212 0.008 0.000 0.003 0.018 0.009 0.001 Lewis River fall 0.123 0.193 0.468 0.202 0.005 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.000 Washougal River fall 0.022 0.198 0.628 0.151 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 Sandy River late fallb, c 0.043 0.182 0.533 0.236 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sandy River fall 0.026 0.283 0.592 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

a Age information is based on scales recovered from naturally spawning Chinook salmon. In the age designation numeral (X.Y) in the 

age at maturation, and Y is the age at ocean emigration (0 = subyearling, 1 = yearling). 

b Late fall or bright. c Juvenile age structure was not available for Sandy River fish, but it is assumed to be mostly subyearling migrants (partially based on 

et al. 1985). 

17
Table 5. Chinook salmon CWT-recovery distribution in ocean fisheries.a Source: Bishop 1995 and PSMFC 2000. 

Hatchery stock (release site)/run Alaska 

British 

Columbia 

Washington 

coast 

Puget 

Sound 

Ore

coa

Grays River fall 0.10 0.62 0.20 0.00 0.0Elochoman River fall 0.07 0.46 0.22 0.06 0.Big Creek fall (SABb) 0.00 0.31 0.15 0.03 0.4

Big Creek fall 0.05 0.63 0.27 0.00 0.0Cowlitz River spring 0.05 0.44 0.32 0.06 0.Cowlitz River fall 0.12 0.44 0.23 0.02 0.Kalama River fall 0.10 0.72 0.16 0.00 0.0Lewis River late fall 0.19 0.54 0.12 0.03 0.0Lewis River summer 0.19 0.46 0.29 0.00 0.0Washougal River fall 0.08 0.63 0.24 0.00 0.0Bonneville Hatchery fall 0.00 0.55 0.24 0.08 0.Spring Creek fall 0.05 0.47 0.24 0.13 0.South Santiam River spring (1)c 0.30 0.55 0.14 0.00 0.0

North Santiam River spring (1)c 0.42 0.40 0.17 0.00 0.0McKenzie River Hatchery spring (0)d 0.52 0.41 0.07 0.00 0.0McKenzie River Hatchery spring (1)c 0.41 0.48 0.09 0.00 0.0Clackamas River spring (1)c 0.24 0.47 0.20 0.00 0.0Clackamas River spring (1990s)e 0.46 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.North Santiam River spring (1990s)e 0.77 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.0South Santiam River spring (1990s)e 0.67 0.23 0.09 0.00 0.0McKenzie River Hatchery spring (1990s)e 0.59 0.25 0.10 0.00 0.0Upper Columbia River fall 0.33 0.62 0.02 0.02 0.0

a CWT Chinook salmon were released from hatcheries in the lower Columbia and upper Willamette rivers. Recoveries for each releas

three release groups, each of which had at least 100 tag recoveries (expanded) in ocean fisheries. Except where noted, all tagged gro

1980 and 1989.

b SAB stands for select area bright fall run (Rogue River). c 1 stands for yearling release. d 0 stands for subyearling release. e 1990s stands for yearlings released, 1990–1994. 

18
a Age information is based on scales recovered from returning adults. In the age designation numeral (X.Y) in the column headings, X 

and Y is the age at ocean emigration (0 = subyearling, 1 = yearling, 2 = 2-year-old smolt, etc.).

Age designationa

2-year-old 3-year-old 4-year-old 5-year-old 6-year-old 

Collection site Year 

No. 

of fish 2.0 2.1 3.0 3.1 4.0 4.1 5.0 5.1 6.0 6.1 

Lower Willamette 

River (sport fishery) 

1946–1951 590 — — 0.017 0.015 0.082 0.148 0.055 0.554 0.001 0.10

Willamette River 

(sport fishery) 

1970–1977 8,936 — — — 0.024 — 0.484 — 0.476 — 0.01

Willamette River 

(sport fishery) 

1978–1988 13,070 — — — 0.018 — 0.559 — 0.412 — 0.01

Willamette River 

(escapementb) 

1968–1980 — 0.080 — 0.025 — 0.448 — 0.434 — 0.01

Clackamas River 

(sport fishery) 

1979–1988 3,033 — — 0.045 — 0.668 — 0.285 — 0.00

Clackamas River 

(escapement) 

1976–1980 — — — 0.039 — 0.649 — 0.307 — 0.00

North Santiam River 

(spawning grounds) 

1996–1997 125c 0.000 — 0.000 — 0.414 — 0.555 — 0.02

McKenzie River 

(spawning grounds) 

1996–1997 63d 0.000 — 0.000 — 0.444 — 0.556 — 0.00

19

Table 6. Age structure for spring populations in the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

b Escapement estimates based on age data from hatchery and naturally spawning adults. c Fish exhibiting subyearling emigration (N = 50) were classified as fall Chinook salmon and not included, all but two were 3-year-old d Does not include marked hatchery fish. 
Ocean Distribution 

Ocean-type Chinook salmon tend to migrate along the coast, while stream-type Chinook 

salmon appear to move far off the coast into the central North Pacific Ocean (Healey 1983 and 

1991, Myers et al. 1984). Studies of prerecruit fish (<71 cm) in the marine fisheries off 

southeastern Alaska indicate that differences in migration speed, timing, and growth were related 

to the life history type, age, and general geographic origin of the stocks (Orsi and Jaenicke 

1996). The causal basis for these differences is unknown, but for the more northerly 

(stream-type) populations the differences may be based on poor coastal feeding conditions 

during past glacial events. 

Marine CWT recoveries for lower Columbia River ESU stocks tend to occur off the 

British Columbia and Washington coasts, with a small proportion of tags recovered from Alaska 

(Table 5). Marine recoveries of CWT-marked Willamette River spring-run fish occur off the 

British Columbia and Alaska coasts, with a much larger component (>30%) of recoveries from 

Alaska relative to lower Columbia River ESU stocks (Table 5). Age of release (subyearling 

versus yearling) does not appear to influence the general oceanic distribution of fish (Myers et al. 

1998). 

Return Migration 

The timing of return to freshwater, and ultimately spawning, provides a temporal 

isolating mechanism for populations. Furthermore, return timing is often correlated with 

spawning location. Salmonids that return in the early spring often take advantage of high flows 

from snowmelt to access the upper reaches of many rivers. Differences in return migration 

timing provide a geographic isolating mechanism. 

The freshwater component of the adult return migratory process is under significant 

genetic influence. The underlying genetic influence on run timing was initially demonstrated by 

Rich and Holmes (1928), when spring Chinook salmon from the McKenzie River in Oregon 

were reared, marked, and released from a predominantly fall-run watershed. The transplanted 

Chinook salmon displayed no apparent alteration in their normal time of return or spawning, 

although there was an apparent decrease in homing fidelity. Subsequent stock transplantations 

further substantiated the heritable nature of run timing. Heritability estimates for return timing 

among early and late returning pink salmon runs in Alaska, for example, were 0.4 for females 

and 0.2 for males (Gharrett and Smoker 1993). In one experiment, upriver fall Chinook salmon 

were captured and spawned and the subsequent progeny reared and released from a downriver 

site (McIsaac and Quinn 1988). A significant fraction of the returning adults from the upriver 

bright progeny group bypassed their rearing site and returned to their “traditional” spawning 

ground, 370 km farther up the Columbia River. This migration pattern may be related to the 

relative timing of freshwater entry and spawning rather than a geographic sense of where the 

salmon’s traditional home is. Returning to the home stream may reflect local adaptation and 

reproductive isolation. 

Run designations are based on when adults enter freshwater, however, distinct runs 

also may differ in degree of maturation at river entry and spawning time. Early spring 

(stream-maturing) Chinook salmon tend to enter freshwater as immature or bright fish, migrate 

20
upriver (holding in suitable thermal refuges for several months), and finally spawn in late 

summer and early autumn. Late fall (ocean-maturing) Chinook salmon enter freshwater at an 

advanced stage of maturity, move rapidly to their spawning areas on the main stem or lower 

tributaries, and spawn within a few days or weeks of freshwater entry (Fulton 1968, Healey 

1991). Summer-run fish show intermediate characteristics of spring and fall runs, spawning in 

large- and medium-sized tributaries and not showing the extensive delay in maturation exhibited 

by spring Chinook salmon (Fulton 1968). There is no record of summer-run fish historically 

spawning within the ESU boundaries of the lower Columbia or upper Willamette rivers. All 

temporal runs, especially those that migrate into freshwater well in advance of spawning, utilize 

resting pools. These pools provide an energetic refuge from river currents, a thermal refuge from 

summer and autumn high temperatures, and a refuge from potential predators (Berman and 

Quinn 1991, Hockersmith et al. 1994). Furthermore, utilization of resting pools may maximize 

the success of the spawning migration through decreases in metabolic rate and potential 

reduction in susceptibility to pathogens (Bouck et al. 1975, Berman and Quinn 1991). Therefore, 

the existence or absence of resting pools may be an important determinant in the success of 

certain run times in specific basins. 

Run timing is in part a response to stream-flow characteristics. Rivers such as the 

Klickitat or Willamette historically had waterfalls that were impassable to upstream migration, 

except during late winter or spring high flows, while other falls are passable only during low 

flows (WDF et al. 1993). For example, low river flows on the southern Oregon coast during the 

summer result in barrier sandbars that block migration. The timing of migration and ultimately 

spawning must be cued to the local thermal regime. Eggs must be deposited at a time that will 

ensure fry emerge during the following spring, when river or estuary productivity is sufficient for 

juvenile survival and growth. The strong association between run timing and ecological 

conditions made this trait useful in considering potential ESU boundaries. 

The fall run currently is predominant in the lower Columbia River, although historically, 

spring-run fish may have been nearly as numerous. Fall-run fish return to the river in 

mid-August and spawn within a few weeks (WDF et al. 1993, Kostow 1995). These fall 

Chinook salmon often are called tules, they are distinguished by their dark-skin coloration and 

advanced state of maturation at the time of freshwater entry. Tule fall Chinook salmon 

populations historically may have spawned from the mouth of the Columbia River to the White 

Salmon and Hood rivers. There is substantial disagreement on whether fall Chinook salmon 

historically existed in the lower Klickitat River. Among other fall-run populations, a later 

returning component of the fall Chinook salmon run exists in the Lewis and Sandy rivers (WDF 

et al. 1993, Kostow 1995, Marshall et al. 1995). Because of the longer time interval between 

freshwater entry and spawning, Lewis and Sandy rivers fall Chinook salmon are less mature at 

freshwater entry than tule fall Chinook salmon at river entry, they are commonly termed lower 

river brights (Marshall et al. 1995). Presently a number of other fall Chinook salmon in the 

lower Columbia River are referred to as brights. Hatchery records and genetic analyses indicate 

that these fish are the descendants of introduced fall Chinook salmon from the Rogue River 

(Oregon coast) and the upper Columbia River (Priest Rapids Hatchery). Except for late fall runs 

in the Lewis and Sandy rivers, we know of no information to indicate that this life history form 

historically was present anywhere in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

21
Spring Chinook salmon in the lower Columbia River, like those from coastal stocks, 

enter freshwater in March and April, well in advance of spawning in August and September. An 

Oregon Department of Fisheries (ODF) report stated that “this variety is known the world over 

as the ‘Royal Chinook,’ and may truly be called the king of the salmon. Those taken from the 

Columbia River during the months of April, May and June are claimed to be superior to any 

found elsewhere” (ODF 1900). 

Fish migrations historically were synchronized with high rainfall or snowmelt periods to 

provide access to upper reaches of most tributaries where fish would hold until spawning (Fulton 

1968, Olsen et al. 1992, WDF et al. 1993). Early fishery biologists recognized the relationship 

between flow and run timing: “Another peculiarity in connection with the habits of this species 

of salmon is that they will not enter any stream which is not fed by snow water ...” (ODF 1900). 

Willamette Falls (RKM 42) historically limited access to the upper Willamette River, 

thus it defines the boundary of a distinct geographic region. High flows over the falls provided a 

window for returning Chinook salmon in the spring, while low flows prevented fish from 

ascending the falls in the autumn (Howell et al. 1985). Returning Willamette River spring 

Chinook salmon enter the Columbia River in February and March, but they do not ascend 

Willamette Falls until April and May. The migration past the falls generally coincides with a 

rise in river temperatures above 10°C (Mattson 1948, Howell et al. 1985, Nicholas 1995). 

Spawning generally begins in late August and continues into early October, with spawning peaks 

in September (Mattson 1948, Nicholas 1995, Willis et al. 1995). 

Run timing was used as a criterion for distinguishing independent populations. 

Freshwater entry timing differences resulted in geographic separation, because of flow-related 

access windows at barrier falls or cascades. Furthermore, spring Chinook salmon utilize upper 

watershed areas with distinct thermal regimes, resulting in spawn timing (and possibly 

embryonic development) differences relative to fall-run fish in the same watershed. 

Age at Maturation 

Adults return to tributaries in the lower Columbia River predominately as 3- and 

4-year-olds for fall-run fish and 4- and 5-year-olds for spring-run fish. This may be related to the 

predominance of yearling smolts among spring-run stocks. In general Willamette River spring 

Chinook salmon mature in their fourth and fifth years, with slightly more 4-year-old fish. 

Historically 5-year-old fish comprised the dominant portion of the run (Mattson 1963). 

Differences in age at maturation were of limited use in distinguishing independent 

populations. It is possible that older, larger fish are more successful at ascending barriers, or 

younger, smaller fish may be able to utilize off-side-channel habitat more effectively, however, 

no conclusive information substantiates this, and age structure was highly variable in most 

populations. Given the high degree of hatchery intervention in most river systems, the intensity 

of selective forces on many life history traits may have been reduced or redirected to an 

unknown degree. 

22
Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU 

Historical Independent Populations 

Coast Range Tributaries 

The Coast Range tributaries region extends from the mouth of the Columbia River to 

Coal Creek (RKM 99.8) on the Washington side and Scappoose Creek (RKM 140) on the 

Oregon side (Figure 2). Chinook salmon spawning in this region were placed in seven 

population clusters, based on historical population abundance estimates and watershed size. 

Coast Range tributaries are relatively short, less than 40 km (Table 1). The lower reaches 

tend to be low gradient, slow-moving systems that are under tidal influence. Many tributaries 

enter the Columbia River through a series of sloughs that offer little usable spawning habitat. 

The rivers and creeks drain low elevation hills, with peaks less than 1,000 m. Rainfall averages 

200–240 cm per year. In the absence of substantial snowpack or groundwater sources, the river 

flows are correlated strongly with rainfall (peak flows occur in December and January), and 

summer flows can be very low (low flows occur in August). Presently, there are no naturally 

spawning spring Chinook salmon in this subregion, and given the relatively short length of these 

rivers and creeks and their rainfall-dominated hydrology, there is little suitable habitat for spring 

Chinook salmon. It is unlikely that distinctive run times or geographically isolated populations 

could have developed in one of these systems. Furthermore it is possible that during extended 

periods of poor ocean conditions or extremes in climate (floods or droughts) many of the smaller 

systems experience short-term extirpations. 

The distribution of historical populations in this portion of the lower Columbia River was 

initially derived using the geographic clustering of the watersheds listed (those historically 

known to contain Chinook salmon). In some cases it is unclear whether Chinook salmon 

historically were present (Table 2). For example, spawner surveys in the 1930s and 1940s 

documented Chinook salmon in the Chinook River. However, a hatchery was established in the 

watershed in 1894 using adults captured in the mouth of the Columbia River, and the fish 

observed are most likely descendants of those hatchery fish. Jordan (1904) quotes H. S. Davis, 

who described the Chinook River as “a small sluggish stream [that] has never been frequented by 

Chinook salmon, although considerable numbers of silver and dog salmon enter it late in the 

fall.” The Washington Department of Fish and Game (WDFG 1916) suggested that the Chinook 

River did not have an indigenous Chinook salmon population prior to establishment of the 

hatchery run. Marshall et al. (1995) suggested that many rivers in this region did not support 

Chinook salmon populations. 

The Chinook River basin was not included in any of the DIPs identified in this stratum, 

but it was identified as an area that may provide an intermittent contribution to the stratum 

overall. In his surveys of Pacific coast fisheries, Collins (1892) specifically lists the Lewis and 

Clark River and Youngs River as supporting runs of Chinook salmon. Gilbert and Evermann 

(1895) noted that “fish of the fall run enter the Columbia a short time only before they are ready 

to spawn. So far as we now know, the majority of these turn directly into streams near the mouth 

23
Figure 2. Lower Columbia River basin. 

of the river and spawn a short time after their entrance into the Columbia.” R. E. Clanton, master 

fish warden of Oregon, suggested locating a hatchery near the falls on the Youngs River because 

“very few Chinook enter this stream” (Clanton 1911). The absence of detailed historical 

documentation may be related to the emphasis on fisheries (and studies) targeting spring 

Chinook salmon during the late 1800s and early 1900s. In contrast to the spring run, fall 

Chinook salmon entered freshwater at an advanced stage of maturation, and there was initially 

little demand for these poor quality fish. Spring Chinook salmon sold to salmon packers in 1894 

for $.05 a pound, whereas fall Chinook salmon and chum salmon sold for $.03–.05 per fish 

(Smith 1895). The preference for spring Chinook salmon also influenced hatchery policies. 

“The opinion also prevails that the fish hatched from the eggs of the fall run will return to the 

river in the fall and be the undesirable fish, and the hope is general that no attempts will be made 

to propagate the late fish, but that the efforts will be centered on the spring and summer broods, 

which alone are suitable for canning” (Smith 1895). 

Chinook salmon studies were conducted on Gnat Creek in Oregon from 1956 to 1962 

(Willis 1962). In 1955 construction of a weir on the lower portion of the creek enabled 

24
biologists to enumerate and measure returning adults, as well as sample emigrating juveniles, 

except during high flow periods. During the study, average Chinook escapement was only 39 

fish. Peak juvenile outmigration by subyearling juveniles was observed during February and 

March, no yearling migrants were observed. 

Genetic analysis was limited because of the large numbers of hatchery-origin fish 

released into these basins from outside the specific watershed (Appendix C, Table C-6 and Table 

C-7, pages 177–178). Straying between these spawning aggregations was estimated using CWT 

recoveries from naturally spawning fish, fish returning to hatchery racks, or fishery recoveries 

from the tributaries. It is believed that there was a high degree of exchange between all the 

populations in the smaller coastal tributaries of the lower Columbia River, but less so between 

populations in this region and those in other regions within the lower Columbia River ESU. For 

example, of the freshwater recoveries of marked fish released from the Grays River Hatchery, 

only 32.3% were recovered in the Grays River basin, 10.3% in Skamokawa Creek, 23.0% in the 

Elochoman River, 33.0% in Big Creek, and less than 1.0% of recoveries were upstream of the 

Cowlitz River (Figures 3, 4, and 5). Low levels of homing fidelity also were observed for fish 

released from the Abernathy Creek Salmon Culture Technology Center (SCTC), and the 

Elochoman River and Big Creek hatcheries. In general, a significant proportion (>10%) of the 

freshwater recoveries occurred within 50 km of the release site. These rates may be substantially 

higher than historical levels because of: 

• use of mixed-origin lower Columbia River ESU fish by most hatchery programs, 

• poor water quality or low attraction flows in many of the rivers or hatcheries, and 

• attraction of fish to assemblages of fish (i.e., fish in hatchery holding ponds). 

Additionally, fish that enter hatchery traps or are intercepted in terminal fisheries are 

considered strays, despite the fact that fish naturally often hold temporarily in nonnatal streams 

or may test tributaries for homing cues. In general, fall Chinook salmon spawn in the lower 

reaches of the tributaries, just above the extent of tidal influence (Parkhurst et al. 1950, Merrell 

1951). This may increase the likelihood of movement by spawning adults between basins. 

Life history information (spawn timing, age at maturation, ocean migration) was 

relatively useful, given the degree of hatchery transplantation and the high apparent rate of 

interchange (Figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Table 7, also see Appendix A, Table A-1). There were 

slight differences in peak spawning time for populations in this subregion, and presently there is 

considerable overlap in spawning distribution for populations in this subregion (Figure 8). 

Similarly, there is no clear overall trend in age at maturation. However, fall-run fish from the 

Grays and Klaskanine rivers and Big Creek tend to cluster together in the unweighted pair group 

method with arithmetic averages (UPGMA) dendrogram (Figure 9, Table 7) for the Lower 

Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU, as do fall Chinook salmon from Plympton and Gnat 

creeks and the Lewis and Clark and Elochoman rivers. Analysis of CWT recoveries in marine 

fisheries was not informative in life history distinctions beyond the level of run timing (Figure 

10), except that ocean recovery distribution was similar among hatcheries that had exchanged 

large numbers of fish. 

25
Figure 3. Incidence, as a percentage of all freshwater recoveries, and distance of adult recovery to 

juvenile release location of Chinook salmon returning to the lower Columbia River. Each graph 

represents the averaged results from at least three CWT groups (each with at least 100 freshwater 

recoveries) released from a specific hatchery, 1980–1990. Source: PSMFC 2000, Fuss et al. 

1994, and van der Haegen and Doty 1995. 

Big Creek Hatchery fall-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Grays River Hatchery fall-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 50 100 150

100

Percentage of recoveries

Elochoman Hatchery fall-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Percentage of recoveries

Cowlitz River Hatchery fall-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Kalama River Hatcheries fall-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150 200

Distance (km)

Cowlitz River spring-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Distance (km)

Percentage of recoveries

Elochoman Hatchery fall Cowlitz River Hatchery fall 

Cowlitz River Hatchery spring Kalama River hatcheries fall 

Distance (km) Distance (km) 

Grays River Hatchery fall Big Creek Hatchery fall 

 Percentage of recoveries Percentage of recoveries Percentage of recoveries 

100

26
Figure 4. Incidence, as a percentage of all freshwater recoveries, and distance of adult recovery to 

juvenile release location of Chinook salmon returning to the lower Columbia River. Each graph 

represents the averaged results from at least three CWT groups (each with at least 100 freshwater 

recoveries) released from a specific hatchery, 1980–1990. Source: PSMFC 2000, Fuss et al. 

1994, and van der Haegen and Doty 1995. 

Lewis River spring-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Percentage of recoveries

Lewis River wild fall-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Clackamas River spring-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Di t (k )

North Fork Santiam River recoveries (yearling)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Distance (km)

Washougal River Hatchery fall-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Percentage of recoveries

Spring Creek NFH fall-run recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Distance (km) Distance (km)

Clackamas River spring North Fork Santiam River spring 

Washougal River Hatchery fall 

Lewis River spring Lewis River fall 

Percentage of recoveries 

Spring Creek Hatchery fall 

Percentage of recoveries Percentage of recoveries 

27
Figure 5. Incidence, as a percentage of all freshwater recoveries, and distance of adult recovery to 

juvenile release location of Chinook salmon returning to the lower Columbia River. Each graph 

represents the averaged results from at least three CWT groups (each with at least 100 freshwater 

recoveries) released from a specific hatchery, 1980–1990. Source: Source: PSMFC 2000, Fuss et 

al. 1994, and van der Haegen and Doty 1995. 

South Fork Santiam River recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Distance (km)

McKenzie River spring (subyearlings) South Fork Santiam River spring 

Distance (km)

Percentage of recoveries 

Distance (km) 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Very little information is available for the cluster of populations from Tide Creek to 

Scappoose Creek, other than that indicating fall Chinook salmon historically were present in 

most of these systems. Fall Chinook salmon were thought to spawn in Milton Creek during the 

late 1950s (Willis et al. 1960). Scappoose Creek is the only basin that contains enough habitat to 

potentially sustain large numbers of fish (Table 1). Willis et al. (1960) reported that 100 fall 

Chinook salmon were observed spawning in the 2 two miles of Scappoose Creek. Ecologically, 

the Oregon tributaries that drain the Coast Range are different from the larger Washington 

tributaries (e.g., the Cowlitz and Kalama rivers) that drain the Cascade Range (Figure 1). 

The seven DIPs proposed (listed at the end of this subsection) in this region are distinct 

based solely on geographic separation. In general, genetic information from recently collected 

fish is of limited value because of the high proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds 

(Figures 6 and 7) and the large numbers of nonnative hatchery fish introduced into the region 

(Appendix A, Table A-1). 

The DIPs in this technical memorandum represent, in the absence of definitive historical 

documentation, the most probable scenario for the coastal tributaries stratum. We have assumed 

that homing fidelity was substantially higher than currently is observed in hatchery populations. 

Additionally, anecdotal information suggests that fish tend to orient along the riverbank, and in 

the lower Columbia River a fish was more likely to stray to an adjacent system rather than across 

the river. It is reasonable to assume that distinct independent populations did not exist on a scale 

smaller than the seven populations. It also may be reasonable to assume that because of 

28
Skamokawa Creek

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Unknown Big Creek

Grays River

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Unknown Grays River Hatchery

Perc t entage of escapemen

Elochoman River

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Unknown Elochman

Hatchery

Big Creek

Hatchery

Percentage of escapement

Abernathy Creek

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Unknown Abernathy

Hatchery

Elochoman

Hatchery

Big Creek

Hatchery

Elochoman River Abernathy Creek

Grays River Skamokawa Creek

Percentage 

of escapement 

Percentage 

of escapement 

Figure 6. Estimated origin of naturally spawning Chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries based on 

recoveries of adults in spawner surveys. Unknown fish may consist of naturally produced 

(unmarked) fish or unmarked hatchery fish for which no CWT were recovered. Source: Harlan 

1999. 

geographic and ecological factors, at a minimum these clusters formed one independent 

population on each side. 

Individual population maps are in Appendix E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented 

in Figure 10. Letter designations indicate possible subpopulation designations within the 

numbered populations. Populations identified in WDF et al. (1993) as a SASSI stock are 

indicated. 

1. Youngs Bay fall (Figure E-22) 

a. Lewis and Clark River 

b. Youngs River 

c. Wallooskee River 

d. Klaskanine River 

2. Grays River fall (SASSI) (Figure E-12) 

a. Deep River 

b. Grays River 

29
Green River

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Unknown Toutle Hatchery

Co r wlitz Rive

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Unknown Cowlitz Hatchery Kalama Falls

Hatchery

P nt ercentage of escapeme

Lewis River

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Unknown Washougal

Hatchery

Elcohoman

Hatchery

Washougal River

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Unknown Washougal Hatchery

P t ercentage of escapemen

Ka r lama Rive

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Unknown Kalama

Falls

Hatchery

Fallert

Creek

Hatchery

Washougal

Hatchery

Bonneville

Hatchery

Percentage of escapement

Cowlitz River Green River 

Kalama River Lewis River 

Washougal River

Percentage 

of esca

pement 

Percentage 

of esca

pement 

Percentage 

of esca

pement 

Figure 7. Estimated origin of naturally spawning Chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries based on 

recoveries of adults in spawner surveys. Unknown fish may consist of naturally produced 

(unmarked) fish or unmarked hatchery fish for which no CWT were recovered. Source: Harlan 

1999. 

30
Table 7. Summary of the number and source of juveniles released into selected rivers in the Lower 

Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESUs through 1995. Source: 

Myers et al. 1998. 

ESU releases 

Water body Run 

Native/ 

locala (%) Insideb Outside Total 

Chinook River Fall 0.477 0.518 0.006 17,621,483 

Youngs River Fall 0.000 0.618 0.382 1,245,379 

Grays River Fall 0.269 0.731 0.000 83,901,280 

Big Creek Fall 0.611 0.363 0.027 202,843,377 

Elochoman River Fall 0.654 0.345 0.001 120,559,102 

Cowlitz River Fall 0.926 0.074 0.000 164,273,295 

Toutle River Fall 0.635 0.365 0.000 87,615,600 

Kalama River Fall 0.941 0.046 0.012 235,348,662 

Lewis River Fall 0.762 0.184 0.054 21,785,757 

Clackamas River Fall 0.000 0.913 0.087 60,051,486 

Washougal River Fall 0.485 0.508 0.007 172,296,250 

Sandy River Fall 0.067 0.933 0.000 32,815,098 

Tanner Creek Fall 0.000 0.911 0.089 673,455,947 

Hood River Fall 0.000 1.000 0.000 2,656,380 

Cowlitz River Spring 0.959 0.027 0.014 71,004,079 

Toutle River Spring 0.996 0.004 0.000 2,672,655 

Kalama River Spring 0.881 0.119 0.000 10,367,665 

Lewis River Spring 0.621 0.322 0.057 15,809,691 

Sandy River Spring 0.151 0.189 0.660 14,533,110 

Molalla River Spring 0.000 0.000 0.000 10,987,335 

Santiam River Spring 0.793 0.191 0.016 193,191,761 

North Santiam River Spring 0.673 0.313 0.014 113,735,118 

South Santiam River Spring 0.700 0.300 0.000 39,619,551 

McKenzie River Spring 0.967 0.027 0.007 218,331,567 

Middle Fork Willamette River Spring 0.311 0.654 0.035 57,693,187 

a

 Releases designated as “native/local” include the progeny of nonnative fish (and their descendants) that returned to 

a local hatchery and were incorporated into the hatchery broodstock. 

b

 Inside includes the proportion of fish that originated from within the ESU, not including the local population. 

3. Big Creek fall (Figure E-2) 

a. John Day River 

b. Mill Creek (Oregon) 

c. Big Creek 

d. Bear Creek 

4. Elochoman River fall (Figure E-9) 

a. Skamokawa Creek (SASSI) 

b. Elochoman River (SASSI) 

31
Cowlitz River spring

Kalama River spring

Lewis River spring

Grays River fall

Skamokawa Creek fall

Elochoman River fall

Mill Creek fall

Abernathy Creek fall

Germany Creek fall

Cowlitz River fall

Coweeman River fall

Kalama River fall

Lewis River (LRB)

East Fork Lewis River fall

Washougal River fall

Lewis and Clark River fall

Youngs River fall

Klaskanine River fall

Walluskee River fall

John Day River fall

Clackamas River fall

Clackamas River spring

Sandy River fall

Sandy River (LRB)

Sandy River spring

North Santiam River spring

South Santiam River spring

McKenzie River spring

Variance accounted for 

by dendrogram branching.

Figure 8. Standardized dendrogram for migration timing and spawning for Lower Columbia River and 

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU stocks (top). Distributions for each stock were 

based on estimated time of freshwater entry (by week) and time of peak spawning activity (by 

week). Migration and spawning time were based on data from various sources compiled during 

the 1980s. The contribution of each branch to overall variation is presented in the lower figure. 

LRB stands for lower river brights. Source: Meyers et al. 1998. 

5. Clatskanie River fall (Figure E-5) 

a. Plympton Creek 

b. Clatskanie River 

c. Beaver Creek 

32
Figure 9. UPGMA dendrogram for Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU based on percentage 

overlap in spawner age distributions (age at maturation and age at ocean emigration). Age 

structure is based on scales from naturally spawning fish. Difference represents the proportion of 

total variance accounted for by differences in age structure between clusters of populations at 

different branch points. Source: Myers et al. 1998. 

7. Scappoose Creek fall (Figure E-19) 

6. Mill Creek (Washington) fall (Figure E-16) 

33

a. Mill Creek (SASSI) 

b. Abernathy Creek (SASSI) 

c. Germany Creek (SASSI) 

d. Coal Creek 

a. Tide Creek 

b. Goble Creek 

c. Milton Creek 

d. McNulty Creek 

e. Scappoose Creek 

0.0 11 06 0.6 0.8 1.0

Cowlitz River spring 

Coweeman River fall 

Grays River fall 

Klaskanine River fall 

Big Creek fall 

Cowlitz River fall 

Sandy River late fall 

Washougal River fall 

Sandy River fall 

Kalama River fall 

Lewis River late fall 

Lewis River fall 

Plympton Creek fall 

Gnat Creek fall 

Lewis and Clark River fall 

Elochoman River fall 
Figure 10. Historical fall DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

34
Western Cascade Range Tributaries 

Rivers in the western Cascade Range are larger than those found in the coastal region, 

with headwaters high in the Cascade Mountains. Many rivers are more than 100 km long, with 

basins covering 1,000 km2

 or more (Table 1). Snowmelt and groundwater sources are substantial 

and maintain good year-round flows and cool water temperatures. River flows peak in 

December or January and sustain at least 50% of peak for six months or more. The lower 

reaches of rivers are relatively low gradient, but high gradient sections are common in the middle 

and upper reaches. Elevation plays a relatively important role in delineating the boundaries of 

EPA ecological regions (Figure 1). 

This region extends from the Cowlitz River (RKM 106.2) to the Washougal River (RKM 

194.9) on the Washington side and from the Willamette River (RKM 162.5) to the Sandy River 

(RKM 193.6) on the Oregon side. There appears to have been several major spawning 

aggregations in this region, based on historical population abundance information and watershed 

size (Table 1 and Table 2). 

Considerable biological information is available for populations in this region. More 

importantly, this information is less affected by hatchery influences relative to populations in the 

coastal region. This is due in part to the larger size of Chinook salmon populations, making 

them more resilient to the effects of hatchery transfers. Several populations have had little or no 

direct hatchery influence (e.g., Coweeman River fall run, Lewis River late fall run or runs, and 

Sandy River late fall run) (Table 7, also see Appendix A, Table A-1) and give some indication of 

the historical diversity in genetic and life history characteristics. 

Three basic life history types of Chinook salmon are found in this region: spring run, 

early fall run (tule), and late fall run (bright). Spring Chinook salmon historically were found in 

the Cowlitz, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy rivers, tule fall-run fish were found throughout the 

region, and late fall-run fish were found in the Lewis and Sandy rivers. Spring-run fish in the 

Clackamas River are part of the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU and are discussed 

in that ssubsection. Spring and early fall-run spawning adults historically were separated 

geographically and temporally, whereas the early fall- and late fall-run spawners primarily were 

separated temporally. Rivers in this region also provide sufficient habitat for juvenile Chinook 

salmon to extend their rearing through the summer months. 

Analysis of scales collected from naturally spawning fall-run adults indicated that a small 

proportion (<10%) of fish do not emigrate until their second spring. Spring-run fish probably 

emigrated as subyearlings and yearlings. However, recent scale collections are biased heavily by 

releases of primarily yearling hatchery fish. It is apparent that spring-run juveniles in this region 

are capable of emigrating to saltwater during their first year, in contrast to spring-run populations 

upstream of the Cascade Crest, which appear to be obligate yearling migrants. In 1955 and 

1956, juvenile Chinook salmon were sampled emigrating from the upper Cowlitz River basin as 

fry during their first spring, as fingerlings during the autumn, and as yearling smolts during their 

second spring (Stockley 1961). The majority of downstream migrants were fry and the temporal 

mode of emigration took place during June. However, it is not known whether these fry were 

migrating to the ocean or to downstream rearing sites. Analysis of ocean distribution, based on 

the CWT recovery location and age, indicates that only the Lewis River late fall run of Chinook 

35
salmon was distinct, with a more northerly distribution (Table 4, Figure 11). Late fall-run 

populations in the Lewis and Sandy rivers also tend to mature at an older age than early fall 

(tule) Chinook salmon (Table 5). 

Fall and spring Chinook salmon in the Cowlitz River are similar genetically to 

populations in the Kalama and Lewis rivers. This similarity may be because of the geographical 

proximity of the rivers. However, in the case of spring-run populations, this similarity is more 

likely related to the infusion of Cowlitz Hatchery spring Chinook salmon into the hatchery 

programs in the Kalama and Lewis rivers (Appendix C, pages 161–192). Dams on the Cowlitz 

and Lewis rivers have eliminated migration access to the majority of historical 

spring-run spawning habitat. Genetic analysis of spring Chinook salmon from the Sandy River 

indicates that they are intermediate genetically between spring-run fish in the Lewis and upper 

Willamette rivers (Appendix C). Any present association between fish in the Sandy and upper 

Willamette rivers is due, in part, to extensive introductions of Willamette River fish into the 

Sandy River (Table 7). 

Genetic similarities between spring- and early fall-run fish may be because of the 

monophyletic nature of temporal runs in lower Columbia River tributaries (Myers et al. 1998). 

Alternatively, there may have been natural hybridization between the temporal runs, because of 

the loss of geographic separation following dam construction or artificial hybridization in the 

hatchery because of the overlap in spawning time between the runs (Marshall et al. 1995, Myers 

et al. 1998). Cowlitz, Kalama, and Lewis rivers spring Chinook salmon are all part of WDFW’s 

middle and lower Columbia spring Chinook salmon GDU (Marshall et al. 1995). 

Migration between basins in this region is substantially lower than between populations 

in the coastal region (Figures 3, 4, and 5). This may be because of a higher degree of homing 

fidelity for fish returning to larger basins. Overall, for the hatchery releases analyzed from this 

region, more than 90% of the freshwater recoveries occurred in their natal river basin, and there 

were few recoveries of any significance beyond 25 km from the release site (Figures 3, 4, and 5). 

Suckley (1858) cited reports of “banks and sand bars of the Cowlitz River—a stream 

emptying the Columbia at a comparatively short distance from the ocean—lined with dead and 

dying salmon.” Gilbert and Evermann (1895) reported that quinnat (Chinook) salmon were 

obtained from the Cowlitz River in great numbers. Fall Chinook salmon populations still exist in 

the Cowlitz River basin, although much of the current escapement is the result of hatchery 

production. The Cowlitz River Historically was the primary producer in the Lower Columbia 

River Chinook Salmon ESU (Bryant 1949), however, little information is available on the size of 

various tributary runs prior to the 1940s. In 1946 WDF and WDG estimated that 14,000 fall 

Chinook salmon were spawning in the Cowlitz River above the proposed site of Mayfield Dam 

(RKM 84), representing a total run of 63,612. 

Fall Chinook salmon in the Coweeman River represent one of the few remaining 

populations in the ESU sustained through natural production. In 1951 it was estimated that 

5,000 spawning fall Chinook were in the Coweeman River, with a total spawning escapement of 

31,000 fall Chinook salmon throughout the Cowlitz basin (WDF 1951). Recently escapement 

into the Coweeman River has averaged 800 fish. However, there has been minimal contribution 

to escapement by hatchery strays (ODFW 1998). Fall Chinook salmon populations in the Toutle 

36
Cowlitz River spring

Lewis River fall

Spring Creek fall

Big Creek (fall, SAB)

Bonneville Hatchery fall

Elochoman River fall

Grays River fall

Kalama River fall

Lewis River spring

Washougal River fall

McKenzie River spring (1)

South Santiam River spring (1)

North Santiam River spring

McKenzie River spring (0)

Clackamas River spring (1)

Big Creek (fall, tule)

North Santiam River spring (90s)

McKenzie River spring (90s)

Variance accounted for by 

dendrogram branching

Cowlitz River fall

Clackamas River spring (90s)

South Santiam River spring (90s)

Figure 11. Standardized dendrogram of CWT ocean-recovery distributions for hatchery populations in 

the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESUs. Distributions for 

each stock were based on at least three release groups (with 100 ocean recoveries [expanded]). 

Unless indicated, all groups were released from 1981 to 1990: 0 represents subyearling release, 1 

represents yearling release, 90s represents release groups from 1991 to 1994, SAB represents 

Rogue River fall Chinook salmon released from Big Creek. The contribution of each branch to 

overall variation is presented in the lower figure. Source: Meyers et al. 1998. 

River basin nearly were extirpated as a result of the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980. Chinook 

salmon runs were reestablished in the basin by natural recolonization and introductions of fish 

from the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery. 

In the Cowlitz River spawner surveys, Bryant (1949) found fall-run fish spawning as far 

upriver as the lower reaches of the Tilton and Cispus rivers (RKM 102 and RKM 148, 

respectively) (WDF 1951). Evermann and Meek (1898) reported that fall Chinook salmon 

entered the Toutle River in “considerable numbers,” and could be expected after 1 September. 

Fall Chinook salmon also were observed in the Toutle River (RKM 27.4) and Coweeman River 

(RKM 12.1) basins. Given the distinctiveness of the existing Coweeman River fall Chinook 

salmon population relative to the mainstem Cowlitz River fall population or populations (which 

is heavily influenced by hatchery releases), we propose that historically distinct populations of 

fall Chinook salmon existed in the Coweeman, Toutle, and mainstem Cowlitz rivers. Possibly 

more than one population existed in the mainstem Cowlitz River, with the steep canyons that 

existed near the site of the present-day Mayfield Dam providing some degree of geographic 

37
separation. Furthermore, given the large size of the Toutle River basin (1,200 km2

), distinct 

populations also may have existed in the North and South Fork Toutle rivers (Table 1). 

Substantial numbers of naturally spawning spring Chinook salmon returned to the 

Cowlitz River basin through the 1960s. Geographically, the Cispus, Tilton, upper Cowlitz, and 

Toutle rivers are large enough to have had enough production capacity to be self-sustaining. 

Habitat capacity estimates for these basins ranged from the thousands to tens of thousands of fish 

(Bryant 1949). In 1946 the spawning escapement for spring Chinook salmon in the Cowlitz 

River basin above the then-proposed Mayfield Dam site was estimated to be 9,000 fish. 

Adjusting for harvest, this estimate represented a total run size of 32,490 fish (WDF and WDG 

1946). WDF (1951) estimated that the spawning escapement for the entire Cowlitz River basin 

was 10,400 spring Chinook salmon, with 8,100 spawning in the Cispus River, 400 in the upper 

Toutle River, 200 in the Tilton River, and 1,700 in the upper Cowlitz River. Peak spawner 

counts for the Ohanapecosh (upper Cowlitz) and Cispus rivers averaged 145.2 and 140.6 for the 

years 1950–1962, based on index survey areas of 5.6 km and 40 km, respectively (Birtchet and 

Meekin 1962). There may have been three or more independent populations of spring Chinook 

salmon in the Cowlitz River basin. The Cispus and upper Cowlitz rivers appear to have the 

geographic and abundance criteria necessary to have supported independent populations. It is 

less clear whether habitats in the Tilton River and Toutle River basins are suited to spring 

Chinook salmon life history needs. In contrast to the Cispus River and upper Cowlitz River 

basins, the Tilton River basin lacks extensive mainstem spawning areas and is not influenced 

glacially. Thus there is some uncertainty whether spring Chinook salmon in the Tilton River 

constituted their own historical DIP, or they were part of either the Cispus River or upper 

Cowlitz River DIPs. 

The Toutle River basin is large enough geographically to have sustained a spring 

population, but it may have lacked the persistent cold-water sources that normally distinguish 

spring Chinook salmon spawning habitat. Gilbert and Evermann (1895) described the Toutle 

River as being highly suitable for establishing a salmon hatchery (they based this assessment on 

reports of a large run of salmon in the river and observed water conditions, 15°C on 27 August). 

Evermann and Meek (1898) reported that salmon were present in the Toutle River in August, but 

residents indicated that the run increased after 1 September. If spring Chinook salmon were 

present they would have been located in headwater areas at the time of the survey. Furthermore, 

it is unlikely that residents could have observed returning spring Chinook salmon during high 

spring flows. Bryant (1949) reported a number of large, spawned-out Chinook salmon carcasses 

on 4 September 1940 in Coldwater Creek, a tributary to the North Fork Toutle River. Based on 

the advanced state of deterioration, the author speculated that the fish spawned and died before 

mid-August. 

The Kalama River historically had and currently maintains a very large population of fall 

Chinook salmon. Although only a small spring-run population exists in the Kalama River, 

anecdotal information suggests that the run was once considerably larger (WDF 1951). There is, 

however, considerable debate on this matter. Although a hatchery was established in the Kalama 

River basin in 1895 (located 7 km from the town of Kalama, Washington), the site was upstream 

of the primary fall Chinook salmon spawning ground (WDFG 1902). Geographically, there are 

few large tributaries to the Kalama River, and none has the capacity to support a spawning 

aggregation large enough to be considered an independent population. 

38
The Lewis River currently supports three temporal Chinook salmon runs, a spring run, 

early fall run, and late fall run. The early fall Chinook salmon return primarily to the East Fork 

Lewis River in August and September, and they spawn from late September to November 

(Marshall et al. 1995), although early fall Chinook salmon also are observed in the North Fork 

Lewis River. Draft versions of this document combined early fall Chinook salmon in the Lewis 

River with those in Salmon Creek, however, based on the professional opinion of local 

biologists, these two basins were split into separate DIPs. There is some evidence that Salmon 

Creek supported a salmon run of some note. John Crawford, Washington State superintendent of 

hatcheries stated, “About 6 miles from Vancouver flows a stream called Salmon Creek, so 

named from the fact that it was a favorite stream for spawning salmon. Every species of the 

Pacific Coast salmon, except the blueback (or sockeye) spawned in both Salmon Creek and the 

Lewis River” (Crawford 1911). Late fall Chinook salmon return to the North Fork and East Fork 

Lewis rivers from August to October, and spawning extends from October to January. 

Evermann and Meek (1898) reported that Chinook salmon were not seen in the Lewis River until 

after 10 August (the beginning of the closed fishing season). Marshall et al. (1995) report 

Chinook salmon spawning as late as April. A late fall Chinook salmon population also exists in 

the Sandy River (Oregon), and it is genetically similar to the Lewis River populations. In 1906 

Crawford visited the Lewis River to establish a new hatchery (WDFG 1907). He surveyed some 

16 km upstream of Woodland, Washington, on 3 September and 2 October (peak spawning time 

for early fall Chinook) but did not observe any Chinook salmon. This suggests that early fall 

Chinook salmon might not be native to the Lewis River. An alternative explanation is that river 

conditions were not conducive to surveying salmon in the lower river. 

Spring Chinook salmon historically were found in the North Fork Lewis River, however, 

access to historical habitat was eliminated following the construction of Merwin Dam (RKM 31) 

in 1931. Evermann and Meek (1898) reported that river conditions in the South Fork [East Fork] 

Lewis River were very different from the north fork, and that only fall Chinook salmon were 

present. WDFG (1913) reported that the majority of spring Chinook salmon spawning occurred 

in tributaries to the Muddy Fork (also called “The Muddy”) of the Lewis River. Furthermore, 

there was little apparent spawning by fall Chinook salmon above the hatchery location (Cedar 

Creek). In April 1926 WDF biologists surveyed the confluence of the Muddy Fork and North 

Fork Lewis River (WDFG 1928). They observed a “goodly number” of large steelhead 

spawning in addition to spring “royal” Chinook salmon. During the summers of 1926 and 1927, 

hatchery personnel returned to the site and were able to capture and spawn 48 and 72 female 

spring Chinook salmon, respectively (273,000 and 407,050 eggs). There are no distinctive 

geographic features or major tributaries that suggest more than one spring-run independent 

population existed in the Lewis River. 

Fall Chinook salmon also were native to the lower Willamette River and its principal 

tributary, the Clackamas River. A tule fall run existed in the lower Clackamas River until the 

1930s, when poor water-quality conditions below Willamette Falls presented a barrier to 

returning fall Chinook salmon (Parkhurst et al. 1950, Gleeson 1972). Stone (1878) reported 

intercepting salmon on 1 September 1877 just above Clear Creek (RKM 13), which “appeared to 

lack a week or two yet of being ripe.” Ripe fish were observed by Stone (1878) on 12 September 

1877, with fish spawning above and below the Clear Creek site. In 1902 following construction 

of a new weir across the river, 10,018,000 fall Chinook salmon eggs were collected between 22 

September and 8 November 1902 (Titcomb 1904). Egg collection peaked on 15 October 1902, 

39
when 412,000 eggs were taken from 94 females. Dimick and Merryfield (1945) reported that 

these fish entered the Willamette River in September and October and spawned soon after 

entering the Clackamas River. Willis et al. (1960) speculated that fall Chinook salmon spawned 

throughout the length of the Clackamas River and in nearly all accessible large tributaries. Fall 

Chinook salmon from lower Columbia River hatchery stocks were introduced into the 

Clackamas River from 1952 to 1981 to reestablish the run. Available data on fall Chinook 

salmon in the Clackamas River were collected after reestablishment of the run and therefore 

were of little use in characterizing the historical run. Fall Chinook salmon probably spawned in 

the lower reaches of the Clackamas River and other Willamette River tributaries below 

Willamette Falls (e.g., Johnson and Abernathy creeks), they may have collectively comprised a 

single demographic population. 

The Washougal River is 59 km long and drains a basin of 413 km2. Salmon (RKM 23) 

and Dougan falls (RKM 34) may have been migration barriers to fall Chinook salmon during 

low water periods. The majority of Chinook salmon currently spawn in a 6-km reach below 

Salmon Falls. Parkhurst et al. (1950) estimated that sufficient habitat existed below Salmon 

Falls for approximately 5,000 pairs of spawning salmon. The Washougal River branches into the 

Little Washougal and West Fork Washougal rivers. However, neither tributary appears to be 

large enough to maintain independent populations of fall Chinook salmon. Estimates of stray 

rates for fish released from the Washougal Hatchery are relatively high, with 27% of the 

recoveries in basins other than the Washougal (Figures 3, 4, and 5). Given the large number of 

nonnative, fall Chinook salmon released from the Washougal Hatchery, this may not be 

reflective of an historical homing fidelity. Despite the potential influence of hatchery transfers, 

fall Chinook salmon sampled from the Washougal River were different genetically from fish 

from other basins. Furthermore, there is a general correlation between the geographic proximity 

of other basins and the genetic similarity among fish spawning in those basins. Historically, fall 

Chinook salmon returning to the Washougal River most likely constituted an independent 

population. 

Fall and spring Chinook salmon are native to the Sandy River. As in the Lewis River, 

there are two types of fall Chinook salmon: early returning (tule) fall run and late returning 

(bright) fall run. There is some debate about whether the tule fall-run fish are native to the basin 

or are descendants of hatchery releases from lower Columbia River hatcheries. The late fall-run 

returns in September and October and spawns throughout December and January (Howell et al. 

1985). There are reports of a winter run in the Sandy River, although Kostow (1995) suggested 

that the run has been extirpated. It also is possible that the winter Chinook salmon observed are 

the “tail-end” of the late returning fall-run fish. Late returning brights in the Lewis River have 

been observed spawning in April (Marshall et al. 1995). The run of late-returning fall-run fish 

historically may have exceeded 5,000 fish, compared with a recent survey (1997) that observed 

1,125 adults (Whisler et al. 1998). There has been no artificial supplementation of the 

late-returning fall run. Genetic analysis indicates a strong association between Lewis and Sandy 

rivers late fall Chinook salmon, and that these two populations form a cluster within the general 

group of other ESU populations in the lower Columbia River. 

The Sandy River historically had a very large run of spring Chinook salmon (Table 8). 

Total run size for the Sandy River basin may have been in excess of 12,000 fish (Mattson 1955). 

40
Table 8. Salmon escapement estimates for Sandy River tributaries.a

 Blank spaces indicate no estimates 

provided. 

Species/tributaries Historicalb 1954c 1995d 1998e

Chinook salmon 

Spring run 

Mainstem Sandy River 5,000 750 2,606 

Salmon River 2,000 <50 

Zigzag River Fair Unknown 

Bull Run River 5,000 200 

Little Sandy River Unknown 0 

Fall run 

Mainstem Sandy River 10,000 2,500 

Salmon River 500 0 

Bull Run River Unknown 500 

Gordon Creek Unknown 200 

Chum salmon 

700 

Mainstem Sandy River Unknown 200 

Beaver Creek Unknown <100 

1,900 

<100 

Coho salmon 

Mainstem Sandy River 15,000 3,000 

Bull Run River 5,000 400 

Little Sandy River Good Few 

Salmon River Good 300 

Zigzag River Good Unknown 

Gordon Creek Good 250 

Cedar Creek Unknown 500 

Beaver Creek Unknown 250 

261 

Steelhead 

Mainstem Sandy River 20,000 6,000 

Bull Run River 5,000 400 

Little Sandy River Good Few 

Salmon River 2,000 600 

Zigzag River Excellent 200 

Gordon Creek Good 400 

Cedar Creek Unknown 400 

Beaver Creek Good 300

584 

a Numbers estimate naturally spawning escapement and may include hatchery-reared Chinook 

salmon. 

b

 Mattson 1955. 

c

 Mattson 1955. 

d

 Nicholas 1995. 

e

 Chinook salmon estimate based on a five-year average (ODFW 1998), coho salmon data for 

1998, Marmot Dam (Weitkamp et al. 2001), steelhead counts for 1998, Marmot Dam wild 

counts (Chilcote 2001a). 

41
Mattson (1955) estimated that the Sandy River main stem and tributaries sustained large 

numbers of spring Chinook salmon: Bull Run (5,000), Salmon (3,000–4,000), and mainstem 

Sandy (3,000–5,000) rivers. The ODF (1903) described the Salmon River “as a natural 

spawning stream from its confluence with the Sandy River to its source.” The Salmon River was 

described as being a “very good stream for the early run of Chinook salmon, being second to the 

Clackamas” (ODF 1900). 

Genetic analysis of naturally spawning spring-run fish from the Sandy River suggested 

that this population is intermediate between Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU and 

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU spring-run populations (NMFS 1998a). 

Furthermore, there was little genetic resemblance between the spring- and bright 

fall-run fish in the Sandy River basin. In other lower Columbia River ESU and Coast Range 

basins, different run times in a basin tend to have evolved from a common source. The Sandy 

River basin is a deviation from this pattern, although it is probable that the existing spring run is 

not representative of the historical population. Microsatellite DNA data indicated that Sandy 

River spring Chinook salmon genetically are distinguishable from the Clackamas Hatchery 

spring-run broodstock, however, the degree of differentiation was much less than that between 

spring runs in the Sandy and Yakima rivers. Bentzen et al. (1998) concluded that although some 

interbreeding between the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU and Sandy River 

stocks has occurred, the Sandy River population still retains some of its original genetic 

characteristics. The NMFS Biological Review Team (BRT) concluded that although fish from 

the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU probably have interbred with indigenous 

spring-run fish in the Sandy River, this population still retains some genetic characteristics from 

the native population (NMFS 1998a). 

Information about life history characteristics for spring-run fish from the Sandy River 

basin is limited. Hatchery collections of spring Chinook salmon in the Salmon River began in 

1896. Fish were observed spawning from mid-July to early September, somewhat earlier than 

spring-run fish in the Cowlitz, Kalama, and Lewis rivers. During the first year of operation 

(1896), the hatchery collected 2.6 million eggs (@ 5,000 eggs/female = 520 females [Craig and 

Suomela 1940]). In 1901, 413 Chinook salmon females were spawned between 18 July and 3 

September, with peak spawning occurring between 15 and 24 August 1901 (ODF 1903). 

Fall Chinook salmon also were observed migrating as far as the hatchery weir on the Salmon 

River (Mattson 1955). A few fall Chinook salmon were spawned between 1 and 16 October 

1904 (ODF 1904). 

A distinct population of spring Chinook salmon certainly existed in the Sandy River 

basin. It is unclear, however, whether spawning aggregations in the Salmon, Zigzag and Bull 

Run rivers constituted independent populations or subpopulations. Late fall Chinook salmon 

were separated temporally and geographically from spring-run fish. Since the late fall-run fish 

spawn in the lower portions of the Sandy River, it is unlikely that more than one population 

existed. There is some uncertainty regarding the historical existence of early fall Chinook in the 

Sandy River basin. 

Individual population maps are in Appendix E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented 

in Figure 10 and Figure 12. Letter designations indicate possible subpopulation designations 

42
Figure 12. Historical spring DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

within the numbered populations. Populations identified in WDF et al. (1993) as a SASSI stock 

are so indicated. (Numbering sequence continued from the list of populations on page 33.) 

 8. Upper Cowlitz River fall run (SASSI) (Figure E-8) 

 9. Lower Cowlitz River fall run (SASSI) (Figure E-7) 

10. Coweeman River fall run (SASSI) (Figure E-6) 

11. Toutle River fall run (Figure E-20) 

a. North Fork Toutle (Green) River fall run (SASSI) 

b. South Fork Toutle River fall run (SASSI) 

12. Upper Cowlitz River spring run (SASSI) (Figure E-26) 

13. Cispus River spring run (Figure E-25) 

14. Tilton River spring run (Figure E-31) 

43
15. Toutle River spring run (Figure E-32) 

a. North Fork Toutle (Green) River spring run 

b. South Fork Toutle River spring run 

16. Kalama fall run (SASSI) (Figure E-14) 

17. Kalama spring run (SASSI) (Figure E-28) 

18. Lewis River early fall run (Figure E-15) 

a. North Fork Lewis River early fall run 

b. East Fork Lewis River early fall run 

19. Lewis River late fall run (brights) (Figure E-15) 

a. East Fork Lewis River late fall run (SASSI) 

b. North Fork Lewis River late fall run (SASSI) 

20. Lewis River spring run (SASSI) (Figure E-29) 

21. Salmon Creek early fall run (Figure E-17) 

22. Clackamas River fall run (Figure E-4) 

23. Washougal River fall run (SASSI) (Figure E-21) 

24. Sandy River early fall run (Figure E-18) 

a. Bull Run River early fall run 

b. Little Sandy River early fall run 

c. Mainstem Sandy River early fall run 

25. Sandy River late fall run (Figure E-18) 

26. Sandy River spring run (Figure E-30) 

a. Bull Run River spring run 

b. Salmon River spring run 

c. Mainstem Sandy River spring run 

Columbia Gorge Tributaries 

The Columbia Gorge tributaries region extends from east of the Washougal River (RKM 

194.9) through the White Salmon River (RKM 270) on the Washington side and from east of the 

Sandy River (RKM 193.6) to the Hood River (RKM 272) on the Oregon side. Rivers in this 

region of the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU are influenced heavily by the steeply 

sloped sides of the Columbia Gorge. Most streams are relatively short. Impassable falls limit 

accessible habitat to less than a half mile on most small creeks. Larger rivers contain falls or a 

series of cascades in their lower reaches, which may present migrational barriers during all or 

most of the year. Physiographically, this region marks a transition between the high rainfall 

44
areas of the Cascades and the drier areas to the east. Stream flows can be intermittent and water 

temperatures can be limiting, especially during the summer. 

Little information is available about the Chinook salmon populations that historically 

inhabited this region. The majority of the river systems historically had little accessible habitat 

for Chinook salmon. Much of the habitat that historically was available was inundated with the 

filling of the Bonneville Pool. Furthermore, after nearly a century of hatchery releases from a 

variety of sources into this region there may be little resemblance between fish currently utilizing 

many of the smaller creeks and those that historically were present. Shipherd Falls on the Wind 

River eliminated access to all but the lower 5 or 6 km of the river. Little is known about the fall 

run that utilized this area. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries (USBF) hatchery records indicate that 

several million eggs were collected annually. 

The Big White Salmon River (RKM 270) historically supported runs of spring and fall 

Chinook salmon prior to the construction of Condit Dam (RKM 4) in 1913 (Fulton 1968). 

Evermann and Meek (1898) observed the beginning of the tribal fishery at the mouth of the Big 

White Salmon River. Hatchery records indicate that fall Chinook salmon in the Little and Big 

White Salmon rivers began spawning in early September, with peak egg collections in the later 

part of the month (21 September 1901), 12,840,700 eggs were collected in 1901 (Bowers 1902). 

Anadromous fish historically may have been able to ascend the Big White Salmon River as far as 

Trout Lake (RKM 45.4) (WDF 1951). LeMier and Smith (1955) evaluated the capacity of the 

Big White Salmon River to support salmon if passage were provided. Under conditions existing 

in 1955, they estimated the river could support 732 spring Chinook salmon and 452 fall Chinook 

salmon. It should be noted that conditions in the Big White Salmon River were degraded 

substantially in 1955 relative to historical levels. Additionally, LeMier and Smith (1955) 

interviewed a long-time resident who was unable to confirm the presence of spring Chinook 

salmon in the basin. 

Fall-run fish from the Big White Salmon River were used to establish the nearby Spring 

Creek National Fish Hatchery (NFH) broodstock in 1901 (Hymer et al. 1992). Although a 

number of different hatchery stocks were transferred to the Spring Creek NFH, this stock still is 

most closely affiliated with other Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall-run 

populations (NMFS 1999b). The Spring Creek NFH stock of fall Chinook salmon still may 

retain some historical genetic and life history characteristics. The life history characteristics of 

fall Chinook salmon from the Spring Creek NFH differ somewhat from other Lower Columbia 

River Chinook Salmon ESU stocks. Furthermore, Spring Creek NFH fall Chinook salmon are 

somewhat distinct genetically from the cluster of Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU 

populations. Historical information would indicate that all of the fall-run populations exhibited 

an early fall-run (tule) life history. Existing late fall (bright) Chinook salmon that spawn in this 

region appear to be the descendants of hatchery transfers from populations in the upper 

Columbia River (Marshall et al. 1995). 

Fall and spring Chinook salmon are native to the Hood River basin. Large runs of 

Chinook salmon historically existed in the Hood River basin. However, these runs have declined 

dramatically and, despite supplementation efforts, remain at critically low levels. Fish from the 

Round Butte Hatchery (Deschutes River, Middle Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU spring 

run) currently are being released into the Hood River basin as part of a reintroduction program. 

45
Fish from the Round Butte introductions and their descendants are not considered part of the 

Lower Columbia River ESU. Differences in water conditions in the East and West Fork Hood 

rivers may have provided a selective force for local adaptation, resulting in differences in 

spawning time and other factors. There is some question as to whether large numbers of spring 

Chinook salmon were ever in the East Fork Hood River. Differences in timing and duration of 

peak flows, temperature, and headwater sources between the Hood and White Salmon rivers 

probably limited any substantial gene flow between the two rivers. 

A number of smaller creeks (RKM 194–270) in this region would have provided 

spawning habitat for fall Chinook salmon from Columbia River. With the exception of the 

White Salmon and Hood rivers, no single creek appears to provide enough habitat or the 

geographic separation necessary to support a DIP. Evermann and Meek (1898) observed 

“considerable numbers” of Chinook salmon in the Little White and Big White Salmon rivers and 

Eagle and Tanner creeks. No Chinook salmon were observed at the mouth of the Big White 

Salmon River during a visit on 6 August 1896, but “quite a number” were observed during a 

return visit on 4 September 1896, at which time Native Americans already had established 

fishing camps (Evermann and Meek 1898). A salmon culture station was established on the 

Little White Salmon River in 1896, and during its first year of full operation (1897), 12 million 

eggs were collected (@ 5,000 eggs/female = 2,400 females). Eagle Creek was described by 

ODF (1903) as “rocky and full of boulders [but] its waters are perfect and even in the state in 

which it is at present it is sought after by the July and August Chinooks for spawning purposes.” 

Bowers (1902) reported that Chinook salmon had entered Eagle and Tanner creeks by 18 

September 1901 and that enough fish were present to provide 2–3 million eggs (@ 5,000 

eggs/female = 600 females). Furthermore, these spawning areas would be susceptible to 

flooding by the Columbia River, and many may have occasionally suffered short-term 

extinctions in the past. 

Evermann and Meek (1898) noted that Hamilton and Hardy creeks, which normally 

contained a “good many salmon,” were blocked to salmon by large quantities of wood. Also 

included are fall Chinook salmon that historically may have spawned in the mainstem Columbia 

River. There is substantial evidence that Chinook salmon historically (and presently) spawned in 

the mainstem Columbia River upstream of the site of the former Celilo Falls (Fulton 1968), 

however, little historical documentation exists for spawning populations in the main stem below 

the falls. Stone (1878) reported that the fall Chinook salmon frequently spawned on the “sand 

beds” of the main river, within 80.5 km of the sea (approximately the limit of tidal influence in 

the Columbia River). There are aggregations of early fall and late (bright) fall Chinook salmon 

and chum salmon currently spawning below Bonneville Dam in the vicinity of Ives Island (van 

der Naald et al. 2001). Although the original source of these spawning fish is unclear, the ability 

of salmon to use mainstem habitat is well established. The late fall Chinook salmon appear to be 

related most closely to the upriver fall Chinook populations (summer and fall runs from the 

Upper Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU), and are probably the progeny of hatchery strays 

(Marshall 1998, NMFS 1998a). Whether historical flow conditions in the main stem would have 

created similar situations is unknown. Additionally, if mainstem spawning were a significant 

component of the ESU, the relationship between fish spawning in the main stem and nearby 

tributaries would need to be established. 

46
Individual population maps are in Appendix E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented 

in Figure 7 and Figure 9. Letter designations indicate possible subpopulation designations within 

the numbered populations. Populations identified in WDF et al. (1993) as a SASSI stock are so 

indicated. (Numbering sequence continued from the list of populations on page 44.) 

27. Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries fall run (Figure E-10) 

a. Mainstem Columbia River 

b. Bridal Veil Creek 

c. Wahkeena Creek 

d. Hardy Creek 

e. Hamilton Creek 

f. Multnomah Creek 

g. Moffer Creek 

h. Tanner Creek 

i. Eagle Creek 

j. Rock Creek 

28. Columbia River upper Gorge tributaries tule fall run (Figure E-11) 

a. Main stem 

b. Herman Creek 

c. Wind River(SASSI) 

d. Gorton Creek 

e. Little White Salmon River 

f. Viento Creek 

g. Lindsey Creek 

h. Phelps Creek 

29. Big White Salmon River tule fall run (SASSI) (Figure E-3) 

30. Big White Salmon River spring run (Figure E-24) 

31. Hood River fall run (Figure E-13) 

32. Hood River spring run (Figure E-27) 

a. West Fork Hood River 

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU 

Historical Independent Populations 

The Willamette River basin historically provided sufficient spawning and rearing habitat 

for large numbers of spring Chinook salmon (Table 9). The predominant tributaries to the 

Willamette River that historically supported spring Chinook salmon, including the Molalla 

(RKM 58), Calapooia (RKM 192), Santiam (RKM 174), McKenzie (RKM 282), and Middle 

Fork Willamette (RKM 301) rivers, all drain the Cascade Range to the east (Figure 10) (Mattson 

1948, Nicholas 1995). There are no direct estimates of the size of Chinook salmon runs in the 

47
Table 9. Chinook salmon escapement estimates for Willamette River tributaries.a

Tributary 1936–46b 1947 1960c 1995d 1999e

Fall run

Clackamas River — — — — —

Spring run

Clackamas River 800 — 433 1,000 818 

Willamette Falls — 45,000 — — —

Tualatin River 

(Gales Creek) 

rptf — — — —

Molalla River basin — 550 — Insignificant — 

Molalla River 993 500 — — —

Pudding River 

(Abiqua Creek) 

200 50 — — —

North Santiam River basin — 2,830 2,100 <300 — 

Little North Santiam River 500 380 287 — 11 redds 

North Santiam River 2,200 2,450 — — 176 redds 

South Santiam River basin 1,300 — Insignificant — 

South Santiam River 392 1,100 — — 15 redds 

Thomas and Crabtree creeks 155 200 — — — 

Calapooia River 20 30 — — — 

McKenzie River 

(above racks) 

250 4,780 — 1,000 — 

Blue River rpt — — — — 

Middle Fork 

Willamette River basin 

— 2,550 — Insignificant — 

Middle Fork 

Willamette River 

500 2,490 — — —

Fall Creek rpt 60 — — —

a Numbers estimate naturally spawning escapement and may include hatchery-reared Chinook salmon.

b

 Parkhurst et al. 1950. 

c

 Willis et al. 1960. 

d

 Nicholas 1995. 

e

 Schroeder et al. 2000. 

f

 Rpt stands for reported. 

Willamette River basin prior to the 1940s (Table 9). Wilkes (1845) estimated that the fishery at 

Willamette Falls could yield up to 800 barrels (122,000 kg) of salmon. Collins (1892) reported 

that 16,874 salmon (138,060 kg) were shipped to Portland, Oregon, from the Willamette Falls 

fishery in April and May 1889. This estimate would not include tribal harvest or harvest that 

was shipped to markets other than Portland. Clanton (1911) reported that 8 tons (7,272 kg) of 

salmon (888 fish) were confiscated in a single night on 22 April 1910 from fishermen fishing 

below Willamette Falls. McKernan and Mattson (1950) presented anecdotal information that the 

Native American fishery at Willamette Falls may have yielded 909,000 kg of salmon (100,000 

fish @ 9.09 kg). Mattson (1948) estimated that the spring Chinook salmon run in the 1920s may 

have been five times the existing run size of 55,000 fish (in 1947) or 275,000 fish, based on egg 

collections at salmon hatcheries. 

48
Prior to the laddering of Willamette Falls, passage by returning adult salmonids (RKM 

37) was only possible during winter and spring high flow periods. The early run timing of 

Willamette River spring Chinook salmon relative to other Lower Columbia River Chinook 

Salmon ESU spring-run populations is viewed as an adaptation to flow conditions at Willamette 

Falls. Chinook salmon begin appearing in the lower Willamette River in February, but the 

majority of the run ascends Willamette Falls in April and May, with a peak in mid-May. Wilkes 

(1845) reported that the salmon run over the falls peaked in late May. Low flows during the 

summer and autumn months prevented fall-run salmon from reaching the upper Willamette River 

basin. Since the Willamette Valley was not glaciated during the last epoch (McPhail and 

Lindsey 1970), the reproductive isolation provided by the falls probably has been uninterrupted 

for a considerable time. Willamette Falls may have been formed by the receding waters of the 

Bretz Floods (12,000–15,000 years before present) (Nigro unpubl. data). This isolation has 

provided the potential for significant local adaptation relative to other Columbia River 

populations. Mattson (1963) discussed the existence of a late spring Chinook salmon that 

ascended the falls in June. These fish were apparently much larger (11.4–13.6 kg) and older 

(presumably 6-year-olds) than the earlier part of the run. Mattson (1963) speculated that this 

portion of the run “intermingled” with the earlier run fish on the spawning ground and did not 

represent a distinct run. The disappearance of the June run in the 1920s and 1930s was 

associated with the dramatic decline in water quality in the lower Willamette River. Similarly, 

the extirpation of the fall run in the Clackamas River during this time period was associated with 

pollution in the lower Willamette River. The migration of spring Chinook salmon over 

Willamette Falls currently extends into July and August (overlapping with the beginning of the 

introduced fall run of Chinook salmon), however, present-day salmon ascend the falls via a fish 

ladder. Passage over the falls historically may have been marginal in June because of 

diminishing flows, and only larger fish would have been able to ascend. 

The juvenile life history characteristics of Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU 

spring-run populations appear to be highly variable. Mattson (1962) determined that fry emerge 

from February to March, although sometimes as late as June (Table 9). Emigration from the 

tributaries into the mainstem Willamette River occurred in three distinct phases: 

1) late winter to early spring as fry, 

2) fall to early winter (October through December) as fingerlings, and, 

3) late winter to spring (February through early May) as yearlings. 

Dimick and Merryfield (1945) reported that large numbers of fry were observed in the mainstem 

Willamette River from February through early April. It is possible that emigration also occurred 

during the summer, but pollution (specifically eutrophication and hypoxia) in the lower 

Willamette River from the 1920s to 1940s may have extirpated that life history form. In general, 

Chinook salmon returning to the upper Willamette River basin currently mature at 4 and 5 years 

old (Table 6). 

Spring Chinook salmon populations in the upper Willamette River basin and Clackamas 

River have been influenced strongly by extensive hatchery transfers of fish throughout the Upper 

Willamette River Spring Chinook ESU for nearly 100 years (Table A-3). Much of the genetic 

diversity that existed between populations has been homogenized. Historical spawning times 

can be inferred from hatchery records, but much of the life history data that was collected in the 

49
1940s already was biased by hatchery operations. Ecologically, all major spring-run-bearing 

waters drain the Cascades to the east and share the same Level IV EPA ecoregions. Historical 

population distribution for the spring Chinook salmon in this region was determined using 

biogeographic information, life history information, and historical estimates of abundance and 

habitat productivity. 

The Willamette River basin covers approximately 29,800 km2 (11,500 mi2). Major 

tributaries include the Clackamas, Molalla, Santiam, Calapooia,4

 McKenzie, and Middle Fork 

rivers (Cascade Range), and the Tualatin, Yamhill, Luckiamute, Marys, and Long Tom rivers 

(Coast Range) (Figure 13, Table 10). The basin is composed of 30% valley floor (below 154 m) 

and 60% Cascade Range foothills and slopes (up to 3,000 m), the remaining area consists of part 

of the Coast Range (up to 1,200 m). The Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU differs 

biogeographically from many other ESUs in the Pacific Northwest in that it was not glaciated 

during the late Pleistocene. Climatically, a rain shadow effect, similar to the one influencing the 

Puget Sound lowlands, limits rainfall to about 120 cm per year, with minimum rainfalls in July, 

August, and September. River flows peak in December and January and are sustained at 50% of 

peak flow for 6 or 7 months of the year. Low flows occur in August and September, although 

the volume is generally 20% of the peak flow. Summer flows in the Coast Range tributaries are 

especially low because of the general absence of any substantial snowpack, and these tributaries 

historically may never have sustained Chinook salmon populations (Dimick and Merryfield 

1945). 

The Clackamas River historically contained spring Chinook salmon, but relatively little 

information about that native run exists. ODF (1903) reported that “the Clackamas River is, as 

has always been conceded, the greatest salmon breeding stream of water that our state affords.” 

Barin (1886) observed a run of Chinook salmon that “commences in March or April, sometimes 

even in February.” Smith (1895) estimated that 140 tons of Chinook were caught in the 

Clackamas River between April and May 1893 (127,270 kg @ 10.34 kg = 12,302 fish). 

Abernethy (1886) reported that some 3,500 Chinook salmon were caught in the Clackamas River 

between 10 April and 10 July 1885, however, he noted that no fishing was done in the river in 

March when the run was apparently very large. There are various accounts of when the springrun adults spawned in the Clackamas River. Barin (1886) mentioned fish spawning in 

September, although his observations were in the vicinity of Clear Creek (RKM 13). He most 

likely observed fall-run fish spawning. The U.S. Fish Commission operated two hatcheries, one 

on the upper Clackamas River at Oak Grove Fork (RKM 95) and the other on the lower 

Clackamas River (RKM 6). Eggs were collected at the upper Clackamas station beginning 17 

July and ending 26 August, with some 5 million eggs collected (Ravenel 1898). At the lower 

Clackamas station, ripe fish were not collected until 15 September and by 7 November 1897 only 

spawned-out fish were collected (Ravenel 1898). Murtagh et al. (1992) suggested that fish 

collected at the lower Clackamas station probably were fall (tule) Chinook salmon. The State of 

Oregon took over operation of the upper Clackamas station at the turn of the century and 

spawned 1,121 female spring Chinook salmon between 12 July and 4 September 1901, with peak 

 

4

 The Calapooia River (Willamette River basin) also is spelled Calapooya in a number of historical documents. It 

should not be confused with the Calapooya River in the Umpqua River basin. 

50
Figure 13. Willamette River basin. 

spawning occurring between 2 August and 16 August 1901 (ODF 1903). Naturally spawning 

spring Chinook salmon currently spawn from September to October (Olsen et al. 1992). 

51
Table 10. Willamette River tributary distance (RKM) from river mouth and basin size (km2

). 

River basin RKMa Basin (km2

) USGS gauge 

Willamette River 

(mouth of Columbia River to Willamette River) 

162.5 — — 

Clackamas River 39.9 2,418 14211000 

Collawash River — >368 14208300 

Oakgrove Fork — 320 14209000 

Molalla River 57.9 2,273 — 

Molalla River +0.0b 901 14200000 

Pudding River +1.2 1,372 14202000 

Santiam River 173.6 4,730 — 

North Santiam River 173.6+18.8 1,905 14184100 

Breitenbush River +91.7 280 14179000 

North Santiam River above Detroit Dam +91.7 558 14178000 

Little North Santiam River +45.1 290 14182500 

South Santiam River 173.6+18.8 >1,657 — 

South Santiam River above Foster 173.6+18.8 449 14185000 

Middle Santiam River +67.6 741 14186000 

Quartzville Creek +79.7 256 14185900 

Calapooia River 192.3 968 14173500 

McKenzie River 281.6 3,366 14159000 

Mohawk Creek +16.1 458 14165000 

Blue River +88.5 277 14162200 

South Fork McKenzie River +93.3 >539 14159500 

Horse Creek +103.0 386 14159100 

Middle Fork Willamette River 304.1 3,495 14152000 

Fall Creek +17.7 >481 14151000 

North fork of Middle Fork Willamette River +57.9 637 14147500 

Salt Creek +66.0 293 14146500 

Middle Fork Willamette River above Oakridge — 668 14144800 

a

 Distances (RKM) are given from the mouth of the Willamette River to the mouth of the tributary, unless otherwise 

noted. 

b

 Distances with a plus (+) sign are from the mouth of a tributary to its secondary tributary. 

The majority of historical spring Chinook salmon production probably came from the 

mainstem Clackamas and Collawash rivers (Willis et al. 1960). The Warm Springs Tribe 

considered the Big Bottom area of the Collawash River (a tributary to the upper Clackamas River) 

to contain the choicest salmon spawning grounds. Only the lower 3.8 km of the North Fork 

Clackamas River, 1 km of South Fork Clackamas River, and 4.8 km of the Oak Grove Fork were 

accessible (Willis et al. 1960). 

Genetic analysis of naturally produced fish from the upper Clackamas River by NMFS 

indicated that this stock was similar to hatchery stocks from the upper Willamette River basin 

(Appendix C, pages 161–192) (Myers et al. 1998). This finding agrees with an earlier 

comparison of naturally produced fish from the Collawash and upper Willamette rivers hatchery 

stocks (Schreck et al. 1986). Fish introduced from the upper Willamette River have introgressed 

52
significantly into, if not overwhelmed, spring-run fish native to the Clackamas River basin and 

obscured any genetic differences that existed prior to hatchery transfers. 

ODFW (1998) suggested that spring-run fish returning to the upper Willamette River 

basin historically may have strayed into the Clackamas River when conditions at Willamette Falls 

prevented upstream passage. Therefore similarities between Clackamas River and Upper 

Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU spring-run fish may reflect an historical/evolutionary 

association between the two groups, rather than a recent artifact of human intervention. 

Recoveries of returning adults released from the Clackamas River have occurred at a number of 

sites outside this river. This may reflect the introgression of other Upper Willamette River 

Chinook Salmon ESU spring-run hatchery stocks into the Clackamas Hatchery, the relative 

downriver location of the releases (compared to historical spawning sites), or other aspects of the 

propagation of these fish prior to release. 

The Molalla River is located above Willamette Falls, 50 km from the mouth of the 

Willamette River (Figure 13). By 1903 the abundance of Chinook salmon in the Molalla River 

already had decreased dramatically (ODF 1903). Surveys in 1940 and 1941 recorded 882 and 

993 spring Chinook salmon, respectively (Parkhurst et al. 1950). Craig and Townsend (1946) 

collected a number of juveniles moving downstream from the Molalla River. Mattson (1948) 

estimated the run size to be 500 in 1947 (Table 9). In 1940, 200 spring Chinook salmon were 

observed in Abiqua Creek (Pudding River) during surveys (Table 8) (Parkhurst et al. 1950). 

Parkhurst et al. 1950 estimated that there was sufficient habitat in the Molalla to accommodate at 

least 5,000 salmon adults (Figure 10). Dimick and Merryfield (1945) reported that spring 

Chinook salmon spawn from early September into October, but some spawning may take place 

in the Clackamas and Molalla rivers as early as late July. 

Spring Chinook salmon are native to the Santiam River basin. The Oregon Fish 

Commission (OFC) attempted egg-taking operations in 1906 and 1909, but it was not until 1911 

that adults were captured for spawning (Wallis 1963c). The hatchery rack was located near 

Jefferson, Oregon, below the confluence of the North Santiam and Breitenbush rivers and below 

most of the natural-spawning areas (except for the Little North Santiam River). It was general 

hatchery policy to capture as much broodstock as possible. In 1911, 1.5 million eggs were 

collected. The largest egg collection was 13.2 million eggs in 1934 (@ 3,200 eggs/female = 

4,125 females) (Wallis 1963c). The estimated run size for the entire North Santiam River basin 

was 2,830 in 1947 (Mattson 1948). Within the North Santiam River, the principal spawning 

areas were located from 2 km above the town of Stayton, Oregon, up through the Breitenbush 

River (Mattson 1948). Between 1911 and 1960, the overwhelming majority of hatchery fish 

released into the North Santiam River basin came from adults captured in the watershed. Other 

introductions came from the South Santiam River, McKenzie River, and Willamette River 

hatcheries (Wallis 1963b). Parkhurst et al. (1950) estimated that there was sufficient habitat in 

the North Santiam River to accommodate at least 30,000 salmon adults. 

The earliest recorded observation of spawning occurred at the North Fork Santiam River 

hatchery rack on 22 August 1947, which is earlier than was observed at the McKenzie or Middle 

Willamette rivers hatchery racks (Mattson 1948). These spawning differences were ascribed to 

lower temperatures at the Santiam racks relative to other sites. During 1998 spawner surveys, no 

redds were observed prior to 1 September (Lindsay et al. 1999), 115 redds were observed in the 

53
North Santiam River, and an additional 39 redds were observed in the Little North Santiam 

River. 

Juvenile spring Chinook salmon historically began downstream emigration at various 

ages and sizes. Studies by Craig and Townsend (1946) in 1941 indicated that juveniles in the 

North Santiam River began moving downstream in March, soon after emergence. There 

appeared to be more or less continuous emigration through summer and autumn, with no 

previous-year juveniles present in tributaries by March of the following year. Analysis of scales 

from adults returning to the North Santiam River indicated that only 10% (six of 65) had entered 

the ocean as subyearlings, suggesting that a large proportion of juveniles observed emigrating 

downstream overwintered in the mainstem Willamette or Columbia rivers (Mattson 1963) 

(Table 6). 

Genetic analysis of naturally produced juveniles from the North Santiam River indicated 

that the naturally produced fish were related most closely to, although still significantly distinct 

from, other naturally and hatchery produced spring Chinook salmon from the upper Willamette 

and Clackamas rivers (Appendix C, pages 161–192) (NMFS 1998a). Recoveries of returning 

fish occur primarily in the North Santiam River (95%) (Figures 3, 4, and 5), and there are few 

recoveries outside the upper Willamette River basin. 

Spring Chinook salmon are native to the South Santiam River. Egg collection activities 

began in 1923, when a weir was placed across the river near the town of Foster, Oregon (Wallis 

1961), well below the natural holding and spawning areas (Mattson 1948). River conditions did 

not allow the weir to be put in place until June, and it is possible that a considerable portion of 

the run already had moved upstream. Wallis (1961) noted that the inefficient operation of the 

weir often allowed a number of adults to move upstream. In some years the weir was not put in 

place at all. Escapement to the South Santiam River was estimated to be 1,300 in 1947 (Mattson 

1948). Spawning also was reported by Mattson (1948) in Thomas Creek (above the Jordan 

Dam), and Crabtree Creek (above the state hatchery). Chinook salmon were observed as far 

upstream as Tamolitsh Falls (Craig and Townsend 1946, Mattson 1948). Wallis (1961) 

estimated that because of poor husbandry practices, releases from the South Santiam Hatchery 

did not significantly contribute to escapements. In fact the hatchery may have been mining 

returning naturally produced adults for broodstock each year. 

There is little historical information about the life history characteristics of spring 

Chinook salmon from the South Santiam River. Juvenile studies by Craig and Townsend (1946) 

indicated more or less continuous downstream migration of fish from the time of emergence 

through the winter. Other life history characteristics are assumed to be similar to other 

populations in the upper Willamette River basin. In 1976 Foster Dam (RKM 77) blocked access 

to nearly all historical spring Chinook salmon spawning areas (Middle Santiam River, 

Quartzville Creek, and South Santiam River [Mattson 1948]). 

A population of spring Chinook salmon historically existed in the Calapooia River. 

Parkhurst et al. (1950) estimated suitable habitat for 9,000 fish (Figure 10), although Willis et al. 

(1960) estimated the run at only 100–500 fish. Parkhurst et al. (1950) reported the 1941 run was 

approximately 200 adults, Mattson (1948) estimated the run at 30 in 1947. More recently, 

Nicholas (1995) considered the run extinct, with limited future production potential. 

54
Spring Chinook salmon are native to the McKenzie River basin. Historical natural 

spawning areas included the mainstem McKenzie River, Smith River, Lost Creek, Horse Creek, 

South Fork McKenzie River, Blue River, and Gate Creek (Figure 11) (Mattson 1948, Parkhurst 

et al. 1950, ODFW 1990). ODF (1903) surveyed much of the McKenzie River to site a hatchery 

and collection rack. The report stated: “It has been generally reported by settlers and those living 

along the river that salmon can be seen spawning during the months of August and September all 

along the river, but principally from Leaburg post office up to its source.” The McKenzie River 

currently is the only basin above Willamette Falls to sustain any level of natural production. The 

McKenzie River Hatchery (RKM 52), which began egg collections operations in 1902, had a 

peak collection of 25.1 million eggs in 1935 (Wallis 1961) from an estimated 7,844 females (@ 

3,200 eggs per female). Mattson (1948) estimated 4,780 adults returned to the McKenzie River, 

which constituted 40% of the entire run above the Willamette Falls. Parkhurst et al. (1950) 

estimated there was suitable habitat for 80,000 fish in the entire McKenzie River basin. In 1958 

the OFC survey observed 3,198 Chinook salmon redds in the McKenzie River basin (Willis et al. 

1960). 

The construction of Cougar Mountain Dam (RKM 101) in 1963 eliminated 56 km of 

spawning habitat on the South Fork McKenzie River. The south fork generally was believed to 

be the best salmon-producing stream in the McKenzie River drainage (USFWS 1948). Mattson 

(1948) reported that the principal spawning area in the south fork was located 7–13 km from the 

mouth. In 1956, 805 Chinook salmon redds were observed in the south fork (Willis et al. 1960). 

The Blue River Dam (1968, RKM 88) prevented access to an additional 32 km of spawning 

habitat. 

McKenzie River spring Chinook salmon historically began spawning in mid-August 

through mid-October, with peak spawning occurring around 10 September (Willis et al. 1995). 

In 1902 the McKenzie River Hatchery spawned 138 females between 19 August and 20 October, 

peaking in mid-September (ODF 1903). Mattson (1963) reported that a female was spawned as 

early as 14 August 1935 at the McKenzie River Hatchery. Stream surveys in the McKenzie 

River observed redds as early as 15 August and as late as 20 October. Juveniles were observed 

moving downstream beginning in February and continuing throughout the year (Craig and 

Townsend 1946, Cramer et al. 1996). Analysis of scales from adults returning to the McKenzie 

River in 1947 indicated that 13.5% (eight of 59) entered the ocean as subyearlings (Mattson 

1963). 

Genetic analysis of juveniles from the McKenzie River indicated that the naturally 

produced fish were related most closely to other natural and hatchery produced spring Chinook 

from the upper Willamette and Clackamas rivers (Appendix C, pages 161–192) (NMFS 1998a). 

Based on the recoveries of CWT fish released from the McKenzie River Hatchery, very little 

straying is apparent, with more than 97% of all freshwater recoveries occurring in the McKenzie 

River basin. 

The Middle Fork Willamette River also supported historical populations of spring 

Chinook salmon. Spawning aggregations were in Fall Creek, Salmon Creek, North Fork Middle 

Willamette River, mainstem Middle Fork Willamette River, and Salt Creek (Mattson 1948, 

Parkhurst et al. 1950). Based on records (1909–present) from the Willamette River Hatchery 

(Dexter Ponds), the largest egg collection, 11,389,000 in 1918 (Wallis 1962), corresponds to 

55
3,559 females (@ 3,200 eggs/female). Mattson (1948) estimated the middle fork run size to be 

2,550 in 1947. 

The construction of Lookout Point and Dexter dams (RKM 328) in 1953 eliminated 

access to almost 345 km of salmon habitat (Cramer et al. 1996). Only the Fall Creek basin 

remains accessible to anadromous salmonids. Although Parkhurst et al. (1950) estimated the 

Fall Creek basin could support several thousand salmon, by 1938 the run already had been 

depleted severely. In 1947 the run had dwindled to an estimated 60 fish (Mattson 1948). 

Construction of the Fall Creek Dam (1965) included fish passage facilities, but efficient passage 

is only possible during high flow years (Connolly et al. 1992). Nicholas (1995) concluded that 

the native spring-run population was extinct, although some natural production, presumably by 

hatchery-origin adults, may still occur. 

Studies of juvenile emigration from the Middle Fork Willamette River in 1941 indicated 

that downstream migration occurred on a more or less continuous basis from March through 

autumn (Craig and Townsend 1946). Genetic analysis of naturally produced juveniles from the 

Dexter Ponds trap indicated that the fish were related most closely to other naturally and 

hatchery produced spring Chinook from the upper Willamette and Clackamas rivers (Appendix 

C, pages 161–192) (NMFS 1998a). 

Dimick and Merryfield (1945) reported occasional sightings of adult Chinook salmon in 

west-side tributaries of the Willamette River (draining the Coast Range), however they 

concluded that these fish were accidental strays and that several years of extensive sampling had 

failed to observe any young salmon. Parkhurst et al. (1950) also failed to observe Chinook 

salmon in any tributaries draining the Coast Range during their surveys in the 1930s and 1940s, 

despite a number of efforts to introduce spring Chinook salmon into the west-side tributaries. 

USFWS (1948) reported that suitable spawning gravel existed in the lower Row River and 

Mosby Creek. Additionally, based on interviews with “older residents,” spring Chinook salmon 

did occur in the Row River but apparently were exterminated by flash dams constructed during 

logging operations. The USFWS (1948) concluded that there were no anadromous fish in either 

the Long Tom or Luckiamute rivers. Reports of Chinook salmon in west-side tributaries have 

continued to the present, however, it is unlikely that spawner abundance in any of these 

tributaries constitutes a DIP. 

There is little life history or genetic information for Willamette River spring Chinook 

salmon populations that is not potentially influenced by artificial propagation programs, 

migration barriers, and habitat destruction or degradation. In a comparison of the size and age 

structure of spring Chinook salmon returning to hatcheries in the upper Willamette River, 

Mattson (1963) observed a larger proportion of 3-year-old jacks returning to the Willamette 

Hatchery on the Middle Fork Willamette River: 19.3%, relative to the McKenzie River (7.6%) or 

North Santiam River hatcheries (10.6%) (Table 6). Mattson (1963) noted some discrepancy in 

the identification of jacks at the different hatcheries. Differences in hatchery-rearing protocols 

could easily have affected the age structure of returning fish. There was no apparent difference 

in the body size of fish returning to the McKenzie or North Santiam rivers, although the sample 

sizes were rather small (18–33 fish) (Mattson 1963). 

56
The size of the Willamette River and its constituent tributaries, combined with the 

preference of spring Chinook salmon to spawn in headwater areas, provides a strong geographic 

mechanism for reproductive and demographic isolation. Current straying rates for 

hatchery-reared Willamette River Chinook salmon indicate a high degree of homing fidelity. 

Therefore, it is possible that there were a number of historical DIPs in the Upper Willamette 

River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

Individual population maps are in Appendix E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented 

in Figure 14. Letter designations in the following list indicate possible subpopulation within the 

numbered populations. 

1. Clackamas River (Figure E-35) 

a. Collawash River 

b. Upper Clackamas River 

2. Molalla River (Figure E-37) 

a. Molalla River 

b. Pudding River 

3. North Fork Santiam River (Figure E-38) 

a. Breitenbush River 

b. Marion Fork 

c. Little North Santiam River 

d. Mainstem North Fork Santiam River 

4. South Fork Santiam River (Figure E-39) 

a. South Fork Santiam River 

b. Middle Fork Santiam River 

c. Quartzville Creek 

5. Calapooia River (Figure E-34) 

6. McKenzie River (Figure E-36) 

a. Mohawk Creek 

b. Blue River 

c. South Fork McKenzie River 

d. Horse Creek 

7. Middle Fork Willamette River (Figure E-40) 

a. Fall Creek 

b. North fork Middle Fork Willamette River 

c. Salt Creek 

d. Mainstem Middle Fork Willamette River 

57
Figure 14. Historical spring DIPs in the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

58
Steelhead 

Life History 

The life history of steelhead is highly variable. In the lower Columbia River, at first 

spawning most wild steelhead are 4–6 years of age, 50–91 cm in length, and 2–8 kg in weight 

(Table 11). However, they can attain the age of 9 years and reach lengths of more than 

100 cm (12 kg) (Busby et al. 1996). Steelhead may spawn more than once, although the 

frequency of repeat spawners is relatively low. At least nine different initial and 13 different 

repeat age-classes were identified for the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU (Leider et al. 

1986). 

Two distinct races of steelhead, summer and winter runs, historically were and currently 

are found in the lower Columbia River. However, while summer- and winter-run life history 

types currently exist in the Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU, only winter steelhead were 

present historically. The life histories of summer and winter steelhead overlap considerably. 

Both rear in freshwater for 1–4 years prior to smolting, select similar habitat for freshwater 

rearing, and spend 1–4 years in the ocean. However, substantial differences separate these races 

at adult freshwater entry: degree of sexual maturity at entry, spawning time, and frequency of 

repeat spawning. 

Each year the majority of naturally produced summer-run fish from the Lower Columbia 

River Steelhead ESU enter freshwater between May and October. These fish are sexually 

immature upon return to their natal streams. Fish spawn between January and June, with peak 

spawning between late February and early April (Leider et al. 1986, Busby et al. 1996). The 

repeat spawner rate is about 5.9% for wild summer steelhead (Hulett et al. 1993). In contrast 

wild winter steelhead enter freshwater as sexually mature fish between December and May. 

Spawning occurs between February and June, with peak spawning time in late April and early 

May, almost two months later than wild summer steelhead (Leider et al. 1986, Busby et al. 

1996). The repeat spawner rate for wild winter steelhead is 8.1% on the Kalama River, double 

that of wild summer steelhead (Hulett et al. 1993). 

On average, there is a two-month difference in peak spawning time between winter and 

summer steelhead, although there is probably an overlap in the spawning distribution (Busby et 

al. 1996). Furthermore, within the same watershed, winter and summer steelhead spawn in 

geographically distinct areas. Summer steelhead populations occur above barrier falls, which are 

generally impassable during the winter-run migration. Watersheds that historically had summer 

steelhead populations include the Kalama, North Fork Lewis, East Fork Lewis, Washougal, 

Wind, and Hood rivers (Figure 2). The long duration of prespawning holding in freshwater may 

result in a high mortality, putting summer steelhead at a competitive disadvantage relative to 

winter steelhead. Therefore, in basins where winter and summer steelhead are present, the 

59
Table 11. Primary (most common) and secondary age-structure patterns reported for populations in the 

Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESUs. 

Age structure (frequency)c

Populationa

Run 

typeb Primary Secondary 

Sample 

size Source 

Toutle River o 2/2 (0.73) 2/3 (0.11) 37 Howell et al. 1985 

Cowlitz River o 2/2 (0.55) 2/3 (0.34) 56 Howell et al. 1985 

Kalama River o 2/2 (0.65) 2/3 (0.18) 1,363 Howell et al. 1985 

Kalama River s 2/2 (0.67) 2/1 (0.17) 909 Howell et al. 1985 

Willamette River o 2/2 (0.92) 3/2 (0.08) 141 Howell et al. 1985 

Clackamas River o 4 (0.71) 5 (0.26) na Chilcote 1997 

Sandy River o 4 (0.71) 5 (0.26) na Chilcote 1997 

Washougal River s 2/2 (0.71) 2/1 & 

2/3d

(0.14) 7 Howell et al. 1985 

Wind River s 2/2 (0.58) 2/3 (0.26) 19 Howell et al. 1985 

Hood River o 2/2 (0.58) 2/3 (0.19) 1,018 Olsen et al. 1994 

Hood River s 2/2 (0.65) 3/2 (0.16) 467 Olsen et al. 1994 

Klickitat River s 2/2 (0.75) 2/1 (0.14) 148 Howell et al. 1985 

a

 Populations generally are arranged from north to south. 

b

 O represents ocean maturing (winter run), s represents stream maturing (summer run). c The frequency of occurrence in the sample is shown in parentheses. Format used is freshwater age/ocean age at 

first spawning migration. 

d

 Both age structures are equally common. 

summer steelhead life history strategy appears only to be able to persist above barrier falls that 

exclude winter steelhead. Because summer steelhead return to specific areas above barrier falls, 

they may require a higher homing fidelity relative to Chinook salmon or winter steelhead. 

Winter and summer steelhead prefer to spawn in smaller streams and side channels as compared 

to Chinook salmon. This may result in a finer level of population structuring than occurs in 

Chinook salmon. Utilizing smaller stream systems also provides more spawning and rearing 

habitat for steelhead than may be available to Chinook salmon. These factors suggest that the 

minimum basin size for steelhead may be smaller than the 250 km2

 derived for Chinook salmon. 

Phelps et al. (1997) examined the relationship between coastal summer and winter 

steelhead populations. In their genetic analysis, the summer and winter runs within the GDU 

were more closely related to each other than to collections from other GDUs, indicating that the 

run-timing characteristics evolved from a single evolutionary line within each basin. However, 

significant differences in allele frequencies indicate that summer and winter runs in the same 

basin should be treated as separate populations. Sharpe et al. (2000) detected significant genetic 

differences between Kalama River wild winter and summer steelhead, confirming the earlier 

work by Phelps et al. (1997). 

Parkinson (1984) indicated that significant differences in genetic variation were observed 

among steelhead populations in adjacent streams, and this pattern of variation supports the 

view that steelhead are subdivided into a large number of semi-isolated populations. Analysis of 

the historical distribution of summer steelhead in the lower Columbia River indicates that 

60
self-sustaining populations were present in relatively small drainage areas, such as the East Fork 

Lewis River above Horseshoe Falls (130 km2

). The East Fork Lewis River summer steelhead 

population is considered isolated reproductively from adjacent spawning populations in the 

Kalama (93.3 km distant), North Fork Lewis (109.4 km), and Washougal (138.4 km) rivers. It is 

unclear whether the larger basins, such as the Kalama, Wind, Washougal, and North Fork Lewis 

rivers, supported more than one summer steelhead population. However, the East Fork Lewis 

River population is an indication that steelhead populations may persist in drainages as small as 

130 km2, half the minimum drainage area estimated for Chinook salmon. 

In identifying historical independent populations of steelhead, the lower Columbia River 

was divided into two geographic/ecological subregions, the western Cascade Range and 

Columbia Gorge. The Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU does not include the coastal areas 

of the Columbia River basin or the White Salmon River (Busby et al. 1996). 

There has been considerable discussion about incorporating resident rainbow trout (O. 

mykiss) into steelhead populations. In general, resident and anadromous life histories are 

considered components of a population unless they have been isolated reproductively from each 

other because of life history differences or long-standing natural barriers. For example, rainbow 

trout in the McKenzie River (McKenzie redsides) have been identified as being genetically 

distinct from winter steelhead in the Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU (NMFS 1999a), 

although the mechanisms for this isolation are unclear. The expression of a nonmigratory 

(residual) life history strategy may be important to long-term persistence of steelhead 

populations, especially during periods of poor ocean conditions or in the event of otherwise 

catastrophic short-term barriers to anadromous migrations. Many of the issues related to 

resident/anadromous population are the result of anthropogenic activities (e.g., dams, stock 

transfers, etc.) and do not affect the designation of historical population boundaries. Overall, the 

effect of resident rainbow trout on population boundaries and estimates of historical or presentday abundances probably is relatively minor. The relationship between resident and residual 

rainbow trout is discussed in greater detail in Kostow (2003). 

Cutthroat trout appear to be the predominant resident salmonid throughout the lower 

Columbia and upper Willamette rivers. Where resident cutthroat and rainbow trout are 

sympatric, cutthroat trout appear to have a competitive advantage. For example, Dimick and 

Merryfield (1945) suggested that the cutthroat trout “has the greatest overall distribution of any 

of the salmonids in the Willamette River system. In some areas the distribution overlaps that of 

the rainbow trout. In many of the small creeks, the cutthroat trout is present while the rainbow is 

entirely lacking.” There are a number of basins where impassable structures have been built, and 

self-sustaining resident or residualized populations have been established above the barriers. 

There appears to be a close genetic association between these residualized populations and the 

anadromous steelhead population below the structure. This relationship may be of interest for 

recovery efforts that may wish to utilize this genetic reserve. Maps presented in this technical 

memorandum reflect historical access and include these residual areas. Finally, where longstanding natural barriers exist, independent resident populations of O. mykiss may occupy 

upstream areas. These resident populations generally are isolated reproductively and 

demographically from the downstream anadromous populations discussed in this technical 

memorandum: they are not included in the population distribution maps (Appendix E, Figures 

E-41–E-71). 

61
Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU 

Historically Independent Populations 

Western Cascade Range Tributaries 

Rivers in this region are larger than those found in the coastal region, with headwaters 

high in the Cascade Mountains. Many rivers are more than 100 km long, with basins covering 

1,000 km2

 or more. Snowmelt and groundwater sources are substantial and maintain good 

year-round flows and cool water temperatures. River flows peak in December or January and 

sustain at least 50% of peak for 6 months or more. The lower reaches of these rivers are 

relatively low gradient, but high gradient sections are common in the middle and upper reaches. 

This region extends from the Cowlitz River (RKM 106.2) up to and including the 

Washougal River (RKM 194.9) on the Washington side and from the Willamette River (RKM 

162.5) up to and including the Sandy River (RKM 193.6) on the Oregon side. In considering 

historical population abundance estimates and watershed size (Figure 1), it was concluded that 

this region contained several major populations. 

In general, little life history information is available to distinguish steelhead populations 

other than traits associated with winter and summer run timing (NFMS 1998b). Historical 

references to steelhead rarely made any distinction between summer and winter runs. The 

majority of steelhead are believed to have emigrated to saltwater as 2-year-old fish and returned 

to spawn as 4-year-old adults (e.g., having spent 2 years in the ocean). The ability of steelhead 

to ascend waterfalls and cascades has given them a wide distribution in many basins that are not 

readily accessible to other anadromous salmonids. There is a considerable genetics database for 

the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU. However, a number of the naturally spawning and 

hatchery populations have been influenced strongly by transfers of fish from Puget Sound 

hatcheries (Puget Sound Steelhead ESU), the Big Creek Hatchery (Southwest Washington 

Steelhead ESU), and the Skamania Hatchery (Phelps et al. 1995). Winter steelhead populations 

in this ESU that have been subjected to extensive introgression by Puget Sound steelhead 

(Chambers Creek Hatchery) transfers display an earlier run and spawn timing compared to native 

or “late” winter steelhead. 

Despite the large size of the Cowlitz River basin, the absence of seasonal barrier falls 

probably precluded the evolution of a summer steelhead run. Late winter steelhead appear to 

have been present throughout the basin. In addition to the late winter steelhead, Bryant (1949) 

reported “spring” steelhead in Lake and Lunch creeks, spawning in June and July, rather than in 

April and May for late winter steelhead. There historically were at least 20,000 winter steelhead 

in the Cowlitz River (Hymer et al. 1992). The Cowlitz River basin covers approximately 6,000 

km2 and drains the slopes of Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Adams (Table 1). 

The construction of Mossyrock and Mayfield dams eliminated approximately 50% of the 

historical spawning habitat. WDF and WDG (1946) estimated the steelhead spawning 

escapement above the Mayfield Dam site at 11,000 fish (including harvest, this represented a 

total run of 22,000 fish). The eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 dramatically altered habitat 

in the Toutle River basin. However, naturally spawning populations still exist in the lower 

mainstem Cowlitz River, Coweeman River, and Toutle River basins. Based on the observed 

62
distribution of steelhead throughout the basin in the 1930s and 1940s (Table 2), it was concluded 

that suitable habitat was available (Table 1) and geographically arranged in a way that a number 

of large, independent steelhead populations could have existed historically in the Cowlitz River 

basin. 

Analysis of allozyme variation indicates that there are significant differences between 

late native winter steelhead in the mainstem Cowlitz, Green (North Fork Toutle), and South Fork 

Toutle rivers (Appendix C, pages 161–192) (Phelps et al. 1997). The mainstem Cowlitz River 

population may represent the homogenized genetic resources of all winter-run populations from 

the upper and lower Cowlitz, Cispus, and Tilton basins. Samples from Green River (Cowlitz 

River basin) steelhead clustered with hatchery samples known to be influenced strongly by 

introductions of Chambers Creek (Puget Sound) winter steelhead. Therefore, Green River winter 

steelhead may not be representative of the historical population. 

Summer and winter steelhead are native to the Kalama River basin. A waterfall (Lower 

Kalama Falls) at RKM 17.7 historically may have been accessible only during periods of low 

flow. A set of high falls at RKM 56.3 (e.g., Kalama Falls) marks the limit of upstream 

migration.5 The entire Kalama River basin covers 523 km2, with 226 km2 of basin lying between 

Lower Kalama and Kalama falls. In the absence of major geographic features, such as tributaries 

and others, it was estimated that only one independent population of summer and winter 

steelhead existed in the Kalama River basin. 

Summer and winter steelhead are native to the Lewis River basin. A large part of the 

historical spawning habitat on the North Fork Lewis River was blocked following construction 

of the Ariel-Merwin (1931), Yale (1953), and Swift (1958) dams. For a number of years prior to 

the construction of the Yale Dam, adult steelhead were passed over the Ariel Dam to spawn 

(Parkhurst et al. 1950). Some spawning currently takes place in the main stem below the dam 

and in Cedar Creek, a tributary to the Lewis River below the dam (Howell et al. 1985). Smoker 

et al. (1951) estimated that prior to construction of the dams the combined summer and winter 

steelhead escapement was more than 1,000 fish. In the East Fork Lewis River, steelhead 

historically migrated above Sunset Falls (RKM 51). Modifications to the falls have improved 

steelhead access to the upper watershed. 

Winter steelhead are native to the Clackamas River basin. Although summer steelhead 

currently are present and spawn naturally in this system, they originated from releases of 

Skamania Hatchery summer steelhead stock (Appendix A, Table A-3, page 132) (Murtagh 

et al. 1992, Chilcote 1997). It was determined that of the artificially propagated stocks released 

into the Clackamas Basin only the Clackamas Hatchery stock (ODFW #122) is part of the Lower 

Columbia River Steelhead ESU (NMFS 1999b). The Big Creek Hatchery stock of winter 

steelhead returns to the Clackamas River earlier (October–early March) than the native winter 

steelhead (February–June) (Murtagh et al. 1992). The peak spawning period for Big 

 

5 Flow conditions and the structure of the falls determine passage at various falls. Some falls (e.g., Willamette) are 

passable during periods of high flow, when the lower portion of the falls is flooded or nearshore routes become 

available. Other falls (Kalama, Horseshoe, Duggan, and Shipherd) present a jump or velocity barrier during high 

flow periods but are passable during low flows. 

63
Creek-derived fish is January to early March, compared with May and June for native Clackamas 

River winter steelhead. Stone (1878) reported that “steelhead spawning in the Willamette River 

peaks in May, but may extend as late as August in the Klackamas [sic] River.” Barin (1886) 

observed that “the steel-head [sic] salmon commences its run from the middle of October, and 

begins spawning about the first of May.” Several population configurations have been suggested 

for the Clackamas River. One alternative includes the Clackamas River main stem and 

tributaries below North Fork Dam as the lower Clackamas River winter steelhead DIP. Upper 

tributaries to the Clackamas River may have had the capacity to sustain large populations of 

steelhead: whether the upper Clackamas River (above North Fork Dam), including the 

Collawash River, was able to sustain a DIP is unclear. 

Johnson and Mount Scott creeks were included as a subpopulation of the Clackamas 

River winter steelhead historical DIP. Although these creeks are not tributaries to the Clackamas 

River, their proximity to the mouth of the Clackamas River and the relatively large abundance of 

Clackamas River steelhead may have resulted historically in a substantial exchange of 

individuals between these water basins. It also has been suggested that Johnson and Mount Scott 

creeks historically were part of a DIP that included small tributaries to the Willamette River, 

below the Clackamas River and along the Columbia River. Steelhead were noted in both creeks 

during surveys conducted in the 1930s (Bryant 1949) and 1950s (Willis et al. 1960). The Oregon 

Game Commission collected steelhead broodstock from Crystal Springs Creek, a tributary to 

Johnson Creek (Willis et al. 1960). 

Summer and winter steelhead are native to the Washougal River basin (Bryant 1949). 

Two falls, Salmon (RKM 28) and Dougan (RKM 34), present barriers to returning adult 

steelhead during low water periods (Parkhurst et al. 1950, Hymer et al. 1992). The U.S. Bureau 

of Commercial Fisheries operated an egg-taking station on the Washougal River during the 

1920s. From 13 April to 23 May 1923, 834,000 eggs were collected, presumably from winterrun fish (@ 4,000 eggs/female = 209 females) (Howell et al. 1985). Additionally, a large 

number of immature (most likely summer steelhead) were passed over the weir (Mitchell 1924). 

In July 1935, a survey counted 539 summer steelhead in resting holes below Salmon Falls 

(Parkhurst et al. 1950). WDF (1951) provided no escapement estimates, but did estimate that the 

Washougal River basin contributed 55,000 kg to the fishery (prior to construction of the 

Skamania Hatchery). The West Fork Washougal (RKM 20.9) is 37 km long, but a 5.5-m 

waterfall at RKM 8.9 is considered impassable. Bryant (1949) estimated there was suitable 

spawning habitat for approximately 2,000 fish in the West Fork Washougal River. 

Winter and summer steelhead are present in the Sandy River basin, although only winter 

steelhead are recognized as being native (Kostow 1995). Anecdotal reports exist of a summer 

steelhead population historically occurring in the Sandy River, however, we know of no 

documentation to substantiate this. Winter steelhead escapement historically may have been in 

excess of 20,000 fish (Mattson 1955). Winter steelhead were spawned at the Salmon River 

Hatchery from 25 February to 28 May 1902, although the vast majority were spawned after 

2 April 1902 (ODF 1903). Loss of spawning habitat in the Bull Run River and Little Sandy 

River basins, in combination with the effects of dams on the mainstem Sandy River, reduced the 

run to 4,400 in 1954. The Bull Run River alone historically may have produced 5,000 adults 

(Table 8) (Mattson 1955). More recently the estimated wild escapement of hatchery fish over 

Marmot Dam (RKM 43) was 851 in 1997, although distinguishing between naturally produced 

64
65

and hatchery-derived winter steelhead has been difficult (Chilcote 1997). ODF (1903) identified 

a number of tributaries to the upper Sandy River that supported steelhead: “The Salmon River, 

which is a fork of the Sandy River, I found to be a good stream for artificial work . . . is 

frequented by the Winter Steelheads.” The ODF (1903) report also stated that Zigzag “Creek” 

(River) and Still Creek are “very desirable steelhead streams, and could be worked nicely for that 

variety of fish in connection with a work that may be going on at the eyeing station.” Mattson 

(1955) estimated that the Salmon River historically produced 2,000 steelhead and simply 

concluded that the Zigzag River was an “excellent producer of steelhead.” 

There are potentially four or five subpopulations of winter steelhead in the Sandy River 

basin: mainstem Sandy, Bull Run, Little Sandy, Zigzag, and Salmon rivers. It is possible that the 

geographic separation (Table 1) and physiographic differences (e.g., elevation, temperature, and 

hydrology) (Figure 1) between the lower tributaries (Bull Run and Little Sandy rivers) and upper 

tributaries (Zigzag and Salmon rivers) could have resulted in demographic and reproductive 

isolation between the two areas. 

Individual population maps are in Appendix E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented 

in Figure 15 and Figure 16. Letter designations indicate possible subpopulation designations 

within the numbered populations. Populations identified in WDF et al. (1993) as a SASSI stock 

are so indicated. In 1997 WDFW proposed numerous revisions to the SASSI population list. 

The DIPs listed below that correspond to redefined SASSI populations are identified by “SASSI 

1997” (WDFW 1997). The DIPs that correspond to the original SASSI list are identified by 

“SASSI 1993” (WDF et al. 1993). 

 1. Cispus River winter run (Figure E-49) 

 2. Tilton River winter run (Figure E-62) 

 3. Upper Cowlitz River winter run (Figure E-53) 

 4. Lower Cowlitz River winter run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-54) 

 5. North Fork Toutle River (Green River) winter run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-63) 

a. North Fork Toutle River winter run (SASSI 1993) 

b. Green River winter run (SASSI 1993) 

 6. South Fork Toutle River winter run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-64) 

 7. Coweeman River winter run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-51) 

 8. Kalama River winter run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-57) 

 9. Kalama River summer run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-43) 

10. North Fork Lewis River winter (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-59) 

11. East Fork Lewis River winter run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-58) 
Figure 15. Historical winter DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU. 

66
Figure 16. Historical summer DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU. 

67
12. North Fork Lewis River summer run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-45) 

13. East Fork Lewis River summer run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-44) 

14. Clackamas River winter run (Figure E-50) 

a. Johnson Creek 

b. Eagle Creek 

c. Mainstem and upper Clackamas River winter run 

d. Collawash River 

15. Salmon Creek winter run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-60) 

16. Sandy River winter run (Figure E-61) 

a. Bull Run River winter run 

b. Little Sandy winter run 

c. Salmon River winter run 

d. Zigzag River winter run 

17. Washougal River winter run (SASSI 1993) (Figure E-65) 

a. Mainstem Washougal River

b. West (North) Fork Washougal River 

18. Washougal River summer run (SASSI 1997) (Figure E-46) 

a. Mainstem Washougal River(SASSI 1993) 

b. West (North) Fork Washougal River(SASSI 1993) 

Columbia Gorge Tributaries 

The Columbia Gorge tributaries region extends from east of the Washougal River 

(RKM 195) to the Wind River (RKM 250) on the Washington side and from east of the Sandy 

River (RKM 194) to the Hood River (RKM 272) on the Oregon side. River basins in this region 

of the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU are influenced by the steeply sloped sides of the 

Columbia Gorge. Most streams are relatively short. Impassable waterfalls limit accessible 

habitat to less than a half mile on most small creeks. Larger rivers contain falls or cascades in 

their lower reaches, which may present migrational barriers during all or most of the year. This 

region marks a transition between the high rainfall areas of the Cascades and the drier areas to 

the east. Stream flows can be intermittent, especially during the summer. 

Spawning steelhead were observed in several small creeks that line the Columbia Gorge 

during surveys conducted in the 1930s and 1940s. None provides sufficient habitat for large 

spawning aggregations of fish, and it is unlikely that any individual creek represented an 

independent population. 

Summer and winter steelhead are native to the Wind River basin. Shipherd Falls 

(RKM 3) presented a migratory barrier to Chinook salmon but not to steelhead (Hymer et al. 

1992). Shipherd Falls historically prevented most winter steelhead from reaching the upper 

68
watershed, and there was not sufficient habitat to support a DIP in the lower portion of the Wind 

River. Winter steelhead spawning in the Wind River were included as part of the Columbia 

River upper Gorge winter steelhead DIP. WDFW (1997) consolidated winter steelhead in the 

Wind and Washougal rivers into one population and included the Columbia River lower Gorge 

tributaries into a separate population centered around Hamilton Creek. At the time of the 

USFWS surveys (Bryant 1949), summer steelhead abundance already was depressed greatly, but 

information gathered during interviews indicated that Panther and Cedar creeks historically were 

“good producers” of summer steelhead. A lumber mill dam at RKM 22.5 on the mainstem Wind 

River blocked upstream passage until 1947. In 1956 fish passage facilities were constructed at 

Shipherd Falls, and additional modifications were made to a number of other falls and cascades 

in order to provide greater access throughout the watershed. 

Steelhead escapement for the Wind River in 1951 was estimated at 2,000 fish. Busby 

et al. (1996) reported summer steelhead escapement to the Wind River averaged 600 fish, half of 

which were of hatchery origin. Genetic analysis indicates the Wind River summer and winter 

steelhead resemble fish from the Kalama River (NMFS 1997). 

Winter and summer steelhead are native to the Hood River basin (Kostow 1995). The 

combined escapement for winter and summer steelhead (excluding known hatchery fish) 

averaged around 1,000 fish during the 1950s and 1960s (Howell et al. 1985). Native summer 

steelhead escapement was 181 in 1997 and may have been as low as 80 in 1998 (Chilcote 1997). 

Winter steelhead are not found in the West Fork Hood River. Punchbowl Falls (RKM 0.6) 

prevents winter-run fish from ascending into the west fork (Olsen et al. 1992). 

Some creeks listed may not have sustained steelhead, but the creeks may have 

occasionally—historically and currently—been utilized by steelhead sometime during their life 

history, and are included for general inventory purposes. Individual population maps are in 

Appendix E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented in Figures 15 and 16. Letter designations 

indicate possible subpopulations within the numbered populations. Populations identified in 

WDF et al. (1993) as a SASSI stock are so indicated. In 1997 WDFW proposed numerous 

revisions to the SASSI population list. The DIPs listed below that correspond to redefined 

SASSI populations are identified by “SASSI 1997” (WDFW 1997). The DIPs that correspond to 

the original SASSI list are identified by “SASSI 1993” (WDF et al. 1993). (Numbering 

sequence continued from the population list on page 68.) 

19. Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries (winter run) (SASSI 1997) (Figure E-54) 

a. Duncan Creek 

b. Bridal Veil Creek 

c. Wahkeena Creek 

d. Hardy Creek 

e. Hamilton Creek (SASSI 1993) 

f. Multnomah Creek 

g. Moffer Creek 

h. Tanner Creek 

69
20. Columbia River upper Gorge tributaries (winter run) (Figure E-55) 

a. Eagle Creek 

b. Rock Creek 

c. Wind River 

d. Herman Creek 

e. Gorton Creek 

f. Viento Creek 

g. Lindsey Creek 

h. Phelps Creek 

21. Wind River summer run (SASSI 1997) (Figure E-47) 

a. Little Wind River 

b. Panther Creek (SASSI 1993) 

c. Trout Creek (SASSI 1993) 

22. Hood River winter run (Figure E-56) 

23. Hood River summer run (Figure E-42) 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU 

Historical Independent Populations 

Of the three temporal runs of steelhead currently found in the Upper Willamette River 

Steelhead ESU only the late winter steelhead is considered to be native. The same flow 

conditions at Willamette Falls that only provided access for spring Chinook salmon also 

provided an isolating mechanism for this unique run time of steelhead. Late winter steelhead 

enter the Willamette River beginning in January and February, but they do not ascend to their 

spawning areas until late March or April (Dimick and Merryfield 1945). Spawning takes place 

from April to 1 June. Redd counts for late winter steelhead in the Willamette River basin are 

conducted in May (Howell et al. 1985). The ODFW currently uses 15 February to discriminate 

between native and nonnative (Big Creek) winter steelhead at Willamette Falls (Kostow 1995). 

It generally is agreed that steelhead did not emigrate historically farther upstream than the 

Calapooia River (Dimick and Merryfield 1945, Fulton 1970). Historically, the character of the 

Willamette River at Albany, Oregon, changed from a highly braided, relatively shallow system 

upstream, to a more centralized channel, deep-river system downstream (Benner and Sedell 

1997). Returning winter steelhead may have found upstream passage difficult past the 

confluence of the Calapooia River, whereas spring Chinook salmon (which delay final 

maturation until the late summer/early fall) could hold in mainstem or off-channel habitat until 

passage upstream was possible. Stone (1878) reported that steelhead began arriving at the base 

of Willamette Falls around Christmas, but were most abundant in April. Spawning peaked in 

May and was complete by June. 

There is limited information with which to estimate the historical abundance of fish in the 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU. Wilcox (1898) reported that of the fish taken in the 

Willamette River (below the falls) the catch consisted of 50% Chinook salmon, 40% steelhead, 

and 10% coho salmon. If the ratio Wilcox (1898) described applies to steelhead passing over 

70
Willamette Falls, then approximately 220,000 steelhead historically would have passed the falls, 

based on an estimate of 275,000 spring Chinook salmon ascending the falls. Of the four major 

tributaries that currently, and historically, supported steelhead, the North and South Santiam 

rivers are thought to have been major producers of steelhead (USFWS 1948). Howell et al. 

(1985) reported that the relative distribution of steelhead spawning in the upper Willamette River 

during the 1960s was 8% in the Calapooia River, 57% in the Santiam River, and 35% in the 

Molalla River. Allocating the estimated escapement using this proportion yields 77,000 in the 

Molalla River, 125,400 in the Santiam River (with approximately 75,240 and 50,160 in the North 

and South Santiam rivers, respectively, based on a 60:40 split), and 17,600 in the Calapooia 

River. 

Native steelhead currently are distributed in a few, relatively small, naturally spawning 

aggregations. In 1982 it was estimated that 15% of the late winter steelhead ascending 

Willamette Falls were of hatchery origin (Howell et al. 1985). Counts of native late winter 

steelhead past Willamette Falls had a five-year geometric mean abundance of slightly more than 

3,000 fish through 1997 (ODFW 1998). 

Surveys in 1940 reported anecdotal information that steelhead spawned in Gales Creek, a 

tributary to the Tualatin River (Parkhurst et al. 1950). Early winter steelhead (Big Creek stock) 

and late winter steelhead (North Santiam River stock) have been introduced numerous times into 

the Tualatin River, but it is unclear whether the existing fish represent native or introduced 

lineages, or whether steelhead even existed historically in the Tualatin River. Naturally 

spawning winter steelhead are found currently in several Willamette River west-side tributaries, 

however, there is considerable debate about the origin of these fish. With the exception of Gales 

Creek, a tributary to the Tualatin River, Parkhurst et al. (1950) did not report the presence of any 

salmon or steelhead in these systems. Most of the surveys were conducted during the summer, 

when adult steelhead would not be present. Hatchery records indicate that large numbers of 

early winter steelhead were stocked into the Luckiamute and Yamhill rivers. ODFW suggested 

that, based on spawn timing, late winter steelhead may have recently colonized the Yamhill 

River (NMFS 1999b). Other than cutthroat trout and the occasional (introduced) coho salmon, 

surveys conducted during the 1950s did not observe any anadromous salmonids (e.g., Chinook 

salmon or steelhead), nor were any reported in the North Fork Yamhill River, Marys River, or 

Long Tom River basins (Willis et al. 1960). 

Recent genetic analysis of presumptive steelhead from the west-side tributaries indicated 

that fish from the Yamhill River and Rickreall Creek were genetically most similar to steelhead 

populations from the lower Columbia River basin, suggesting the influence of Big Creek winter 

steelhead or Skamania summer steelhead (Appendix C, pages 161–192, and Figure E-71, page 

269) (NMFS 1999a). The sample from the Luckiamute River had no clear affinity with any 

other steelhead population, and may be descended from native resident rainbow trout. Because 

of the ecological similarities among the Willamette River west-side tributaries, fish occurring in 

these basins were grouped together. With the exception of the Tualatin River, little evidence 

suggests that sustained spawning aggregations of steelhead may have existed historically in the 

Willamette River basin west-side tributaries. Dimick and Merryfield (1945) concluded that, 

“Oddly, the cutthroat trout is the only salmonid, except for an occasional stray salmon and the 

presumably artificial establishment of silver salmon in the Tualatin River and of the steelhead 

trout in Rickreall Creek, inhabiting the west-side tributaries having their sources in the Coast 

71
Range. These streams include the Tualatin River, Yamhill River, Rickreall Creek, Luckiamute 

River, Marys River, Long Tom River, and the Coast Fork above Cottage Grove.” The recent 

occurrence of steelhead in many of these tributaries may be related to changes in stream 

hydrology caused by the construction of numerous dams in these basins. In general, the dams 

tend to alter stream hydrographs, increasing summer flows and moderating winter floods. It is 

unlikely that historically these tributaries, individually or collectively, were large enough to 

constitute a DIP. While not supporting a sustainable population, the west-side tributaries were 

included in the population maps as a population sink area. This designation recognizes that 

winter steelhead may intermittently utilize some of these basins for spawning or rearing and 

underscores the influence of these tributaries on water conditions in the mainstem Willamette 

River. 

The Molalla River currently contains three distinct steelhead runs: native late winter, 

introduced early winter (from Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU populations), and 

introduced Skamania summer steelhead (Chilcote 1997). In 1957 a spawning ground survey 

observed 370 adult steelhead and 623 redds in the 94.1 km of the Molalla River basin surveyed 

(Willis et al. 1960). Willis et al. (1960) also noted that several hundred steelhead entered Abiqua 

Creek annually. Small tributaries above Willamette Falls (e.g., Abernethy Creek) most likely 

would have been part of the Molalla River winter steelhead population historically. 

Native late winter and introduced Skamania summer steelhead are present in the North 

Santiam River (Chilcote 1997). In 1940 surveys estimated the steelhead run was at least 2,000 

fish (Parkhurst et al. 1950). Parkhurst et al. (1950) also reported that larger steelhead runs 

existed in the Breitenbush, Little North Santiam, and Marion Fork rivers. Native steelhead were 

artificially propagated at the North Santiam Hatchery beginning in 1930, when a record 

2,860,500 eggs (686 females @ 4,170 eggs/female) were taken (Wallis 1963c). The release of 

hatchery-propagated late winter steelhead in the North Santiam River was discontinued in 1998 

(NMFS 1999b). Escapements to the North Santiam River through 1994 averaged 1,800 fish of 

mixed hatchery and natural origin (Busby et al. 1996). 

Native late winter and introduced Skamania summer steelhead are present in the South 

Santiam River. Hatchery operations began in 1926, and in 1940 a record 3,335,000 eggs were 

taken (800 females @ 4,170 eggs/female). However, river conditions did not allow the weir to 

be set in place until after a portion of the steelhead run already had passed (Wallis 1961). The 

ODFW considers the late winter steelhead in the South Santiam River to be one population of 

native origin. However, the abundance trends for populations above and below Foster Dam are 

very different. The number of redds below Foster Dam has remained relatively stable (albeit at a 

low level), while the redd count above Foster Dam declined dramatically in recent years. Live 

counts of naturally produced (unmarked) fish passing Foster Dam (1996–2000) have averaged 

296 fish, with 728 passing above Foster Dam in 2001 (Nigro unpubl. data). 

Genetic analysis indicates a close affinity between winter steelhead populations in the 

Santiam, Molalla, and Calapooia rivers. Steelhead descended from summer- (Skamania) and 

early winter-run (Big Creek) hatchery populations are distinct from the native steelhead 

(Appendix C, pages 161–192) (NMFS 1997). Late winter steelhead are native to the Calapooia 

River. Parkhurst et al. (1950) reported that steelhead ascended the Calapooia as far as 87 km 

upstream, although passage at the Finley Mill Dam (RKM 42) may not have been possible 

72
73

during low flow periods. A survey conducted in 1958 from the town of Holley, Oregon, to the 

mouth of Potts Creek (31.7 km) recorded 73 steelhead adults (live and dead) and 427 redds 

(Willis et al. 1960). There is no hatchery program on the Calapooia River. Chilcote (1997) 

estimated that contribution of hatchery fish to escapement (strays from other upper Willamette 

River releases) is less than 5%. This population has declined to very low levels since the late 

1980s. 

Individual population maps of upper Willamette River winter steelhead are in Appendix 

E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented in Figure 17. Letter designations for the following 

populations indicate possible subpopulation designations within the numbered populations. 

1. Molalla River (Figure E-68) 

a. Pudding River 

b. Molalla River 

2. North Fork Santiam River (Figure E-69) 

a. Breitenbush River 

b. Marion Fork River 

c. Little North Santiam River 

3. South Fork Santiam River (Figure E-70) 

a. South Fork Santiam River 

b. Thomas and Crabtree creeks 

c. Middle Santiam River 

d. Quartzville Creek 

4. Calapooia River (Figure E-67) 

5. West-side tributaries6 (Figure E-71) 

a. Tualatin River and Gales Creek 

b. South Fork Yamhill River 

c. Rickreall Creek 

d. Luckiamute River 

 

6

 Spawning winter steelhead have been reported in the west-side tributaries; however the west-side tributaries are 

not considered to have historically constituted a DIP.
74

Figure 17. Historical winter DIPs in the Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU. The west-side 

tributaries were not designated as an independent population but are included because of their 

importance to the ESU as a whole.
Coho Salmon 

Coho salmon populations in the lower Columbia River have undergone a number of 

dramatic changes during the past 200 years. Natural production has diminished greatly, and 

hatchery activities, which account for the majority of escapement, probably have altered the 

genetic structure of populations within the ESU. Only the Clackamas and Sandy rivers currently 

support self-sustaining populations of more than 1,000 fish. Numerous other smaller spawning 

aggregations probably exist, but difficulties in observing spawning adults or recovering carcasses 

during the late fall spawning season limit the utility of survey-based abundance measures. 

Life History 

Populations in the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU display one of two major 

life history types, early or late adult return time to fresh water (Table 12). Early returning coho 

salmon (Type S) return to freshwater from August to October and spawn from October to 

November. The Type S designation is based on the recovery of CWT hatchery fish to the south 

of the Columbia River (approximately 40% of ocean recoveries, Figure 18) (Weitkamp et al. 

1995 and 2001). The other major life history type, late returning or Type N coho salmon, returns 

to freshwater from October through November or December and spawns primarily from 

November through January, with some fish spawning to March (WDF et al. 1951). Type N coho 

salmon generally travel to the north of the Columbia River during their ocean migration. It 

generally is thought that early returning coho salmon migrate to headwater areas and late 

returning fish migrate to the lower reaches of larger rivers or into smaller streams and creeks 

along the Columbia River. Where possible we provided historical information about the spawn 

timing of coho salmon populations, however, this information generally is limited to whether 

survey parties observed fish holding or spawning. Most of the recent information also is 

influenced strongly by the presence of hatchery fish, which may have been introduced from 

another basin or may have undergone significant changes in spawn timing through continued 

hatchery propagation (WDF et al. 1993, Fuss et al. 1998). 

The two coho salmon life history types in the lower Columbia River could be considered 

analogous to distinct run times of Chinook salmon and steelhead in that there is some level of 

reproductive isolation and ecological specialization. In contrast to Chinook salmon and 

steelhead, however, coho salmon run timing does not appear to be related to migration barriers. 

There is some uncertainty regarding the level of importance to place on the early and late coho 

salmon diversity. Some tributaries historically supported spawning by both run types. In 

contrast to Chinook salmon and steelhead, run timing was not used to establish different life 

history strata within ecological stratum. Anthropogenic effects may have influenced the 

distribution of coho salmon run types throughout the Columbia River, so it is difficult to 

establish whether early and late coho salmon within the same basin constituted different DIPs. 

75
Table 12. Lower Columbia River coho salmon population overview. 

Strata Population Run types 

Coast Range Youngs Bay Type N 

Grays River Type N 

Big Creek Type N 

Elochoman Creek Type N 

Clatskanie River Type N 

Mill, Germany, and Abernathy creeks Type N 

Scappoose Creek Type N 

Western Cascade Range Cispus River Type N and S 

Upper Cowlitz River Type N and S 

Tilton River Type N and S 

Lower Cowlitz River Type N 

North Fork Toutle River Type N and S 

South Fork Toutle River Type N and S 

Coweeman River Type N 

Kalama River Type N and S*

North Fork Lewis River Type N and S 

East Fork Lewis River Type N and S 

Salmon Creek Type N 

Clackamas River Type N and S 

Washougal River Type N and S*

Sandy River Type N and S 

Columbia Gorge Lower Gorge tributaries Type N 

Upper Gorge tributaries Type S 

Big White Salmon River Type S 

Hood River Type S 

* It is unlikely that Type S coho salmon were present in these basins. Source: WDF 1951. 

Regardless of whether run timing is an element of diversity on a subpopulation or population 

level, it should be considered in recovery planning. 

There does not appear to be much variation in age at emigration to the ocean or age at 

maturation. In general, Columbia River coho salmon smolt during their second spring and return 

to freshwater after one or two years in the ocean. Zero-age outmigrants have been observed, but 

they do not appear to contribute to adult escapement (Sandercock 1991). One-year ocean fish 

are predominantly males (jacks). Analysis of coho salmon scales from adults captured in the 

Columbia River fishery in 1914 (Figure 19) also revealed the presence of 2-year-old smolts 

(Marr 1943), although they were thought to have originated from rivers in the upper Columbia 

River and Snake River basins. Two-, 3-, and 4-year-old migrants have been observed in colder, 

less productive environs such as northern and interior British Columbia and Alaska. 

In general, Coast Range rivers historically are thought to have contained only late 

returning, Type N, coho salmon. Within the Cascade Range stratum, information from a variety 

of sources indicates that several river basins probably contained early and late returning coho 

76
77

Southeast Alaska 

British Columbia 

Puget Sound 

Hood Canal 

Strait of Juan de Fuca 

Washington Coast 

Washington side 

Oregon side 

Oregon Coast 

Cape Blanco 

California

 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent recovery by state or province 

Crystal Lake

Little Port Walter

Kitimat River

Bella Bella

Port Hardy

Puntledge River

Big Qualicum River

Robertson Creek

Rosevall Creek

Capilano River

Seymour River

Chiliwack River

Nooksack

Skookum Creek

Samish

Skagit (Clark Creek)

Skykomish

Issaquah

Green River

Puyallup-Voight Creek

Garrison Springs

Minter Creek

George Adams

Hood Canal

Quilcene NFH

Dungeness

Lower Elwha

Makah NFH

Soleduck

Quinault NFH

Humptulips

Simpson

Willapa

Nemah

Naselle

Grays River

Elochoman

Cowlitz

Toutle

Kalama

Lower Kalama

Lewis River

Speelyai

Willard NFH

Klickitat

Oxbow

Cascade

Bonneville

Eagle Creek NFH

Sandy

Big Creek

Klaskanine

S.F. Klaskanine

Nehalem

Trask

Salmon River

Siletz

Fall Creek, Alsea

Rock Creek, Umpqua

Butte Falls

Cole Rivers, Rogue

Iron Gate, Klamath

Trinity River 

Mad River

Warm Springs, Russian R.

Figure 18. Distribution of ocean recoveries of CWT coho salmon released from locations in Alaska 

(medium dark gray), British Columbia (light gray), Washington (medium gray), Oregon (white), 

and California (dark gray). Source: Reprinted from Weitkamp et al. 1995. 
0

20406080

100120140160

34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 

Length (cm)

Number of adults

2.1 3.1 3.2 4.2

Figure 19. Length distribution of different age-classes of coho salmon adults sampled near the mouth of the Columbia Riv

structure is denoted as total age in years and years in freshwater (i.e., 3.2 indicates 3-year-old fish that spent 2 year

Source: Data from Marr 1943. 

78
salmon: the upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, North Fork Toutle, South Fork Toutle, North Fork 

Lewis, East Fork Lewis, Clackamas, Sandy, and Washougal DIPs. 

Genetic analysis of coho salmon populations provides only limited information about 

population distinctiveness. In the absence of historical baselines for populations, and in light of 

the extensive nature of hatchery transfers, it is difficult to distinguish natural from anthropogenic 

genetic patterns. While the genetic variability patterns within the Lower Columbia River Coho 

Salmon ESU have been disrupted, substantial differences still exist between the Lower Columbia 

River and Coastal Coho Salmon ESUs stocks (Weitkamp et al. 2001). Kostow (1995) indicated 

that coastal coho salmon are susceptible to Ceratomyxia shasta, a parasite common to the 

Columbia River, while native Columbia River coho are resistant. This parasite may have limited 

the success of coho salmon transfers and reduced the amount of genetic introgression. 

Coho salmon generally spawn in smaller tributaries and side channels and are thought to 

exhibit a higher homing fidelity relative to fall Chinook salmon. Sandercock (1991) indicated 

that, on average, straying rates for coho salmon to another basin were on the order of 0.1%. A 

summary of spawner surveys in the lower Columbia River (Ruggerone 1999) found that 81.8% 

of the hatchery-origin coho salmon carcasses recovered in streams were recovered within 8 km 

of a hatchery. Marking techniques did not distinguish between hatcheries, in general, the 

recovery of coho salmon carcasses in the wild is poor. Analysis of 23 CWT groups released 

from lower Columbia River hatcheries in Washington and Oregon indicated that 93.7% of all 

terminal freshwater recoveries occurred at the release site (Figure 20). Given the low intensity of 

spawner surveys on both sides of the Columbia River, it is likely that more fish may have 

returned to sites other than the hatcheries, nevertheless it is apparent that homing fidelity is at 

least as strong in coho salmon as in Chinook salmon. 

Much of the historical population structure was based on methods utilized for Chinook 

salmon and steelhead. The authors generally believe that the homing fidelity of coho salmon 

was more similar to steelhead than to Chinook salmon or chum salmon. The preference of coho 

salmon to spawn in smaller side-channel habitats may result in a higher degree of local 

adaptation. 

Introduced Populations above Willamette Falls 

A number of contemporary references document the presence of coho salmon in 

tributaries to the Willamette River above Willamette Falls. Parkhurst et al. (1950) noted the 

presence of coho salmon in the Tualatin Basin in 1940, specifically Gales and Scoggins creeks. 

Willis et al. (1960) indicated that spawning adult coho salmon and juveniles were observed in the 

Tualatin, Molalla, Yamhill, and Luckiamute rivers. In all cases the first recorded occurrence of 

coho salmon followed introductions of lower Columbia River fish into those basins. Parkhurst 

et. al. (1950) noted some uncertainty, however, about the origin of coho salmon in the Tualatin 

River, stating “the origin of silver salmon in the Tualatin River system remains obscure. Some 

old-time residents claim that silver salmon were not present in the stream prior to about 1920, 

when they were introduced with plants from Bonneville Hatchery.” Dimick and Merryfield 

(1945) also asserted that coho salmon above Willamette Falls were an “artificial establishment 

from hatchery-reared fish.” In general, it is unlikely that coho salmon historically could have 

ascended Willamette Falls before it was laddered. 

79
Figure 20. Relative proportion (percent) of recoveries and distance from the release site for 23 CWT 

coho salmon groups released from lower Columbia River hatcheries. Not shown are three fish 

recovered more than 200 km from their release sites in the lower Columbia River (two were 

recovered in Puget Sound and one in the Snake River). Source: PSMFC 2000. 

Historical Populations above The Dalles 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Distance from release site (km)

Percentage of recoveries 

There were a number of coho salmon populations historically above the existing 

boundaries of the lower Columbia River TRT domain. Coho salmon appear to have been present 

in most of the Columbia River tributaries as far upstream as the Spokane River, and up the Snake 

River as far as the Grande Ronde and Clearwater rivers (Fulton 1970). Girard (1858) does not 

describe coho salmon among the type of fish captured at Kettle Falls. Gilbert and Evermann 

(1895) reported the catch of a silverside salmon (coho) at the mouth of the Yakima River on 20 

August; it was apparently the “first of the season” for the fisherman involved. Evermann and 

Meek (1898) reported that the catch of coho salmon at a single fish wheel at Celilo Falls for 4 

days between 17 and 23 September totaled only 55 fish (averaging 3.2 kg [7 lb]). About half the 

fish examined were at an advanced state of maturity. The catch increased: from 25 September to 

13 October, 1,911 coho salmon were caught in the fish wheel. Some of these fish contained 

loose (ripe) eggs (Evermann and Meek 1898). 

The OFC operated a weir and hatchery on the Grande Ronde River. During the 1901 

spawning season, 7.5 million coho salmon eggs were collected from 2,511 females from 14 

October to 8 December (ODF 1902). The distribution of females spawned appeared bimodal: 

the numbers peaked in late October and late November. A survey of Oregon rivers during the 

early 1900s indicated that coho salmon were very abundant in the John Day River (ODF 1903). 

A rack also was installed across the Umatilla River to collect Chinook salmon “but succeeded in 

stopping nothing but the ‘Silverside’ variety” (ODF 1903). The WDF collected coho salmon 

eggs at a number of hatcheries above Celilo Falls. During the early 1900s coho eggs were 

collected on the Methow and Wenatchee rivers (Mayhall 1925). 

80
Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon Historical Populations 

Coast Range Tributaries 

The coastal region extends from the mouth of the Columbia River to Coal Creek (RKM 

99.8) on the Washington side and to Scappoose Creek (RKM 140) on the Oregon side (Figure 

21). Coho salmon spawning in this region were placed in seven population clusters, based on 

historical population abundance estimates and watershed size. 

All Coast Range tributaries are relatively short, less than 40 km. The lower reaches tend 

to be low gradient, slow-moving systems that are under tidal influence. Many of the tributaries 

enter the Columbia River through a series of sloughs that offer little usable spawning habitat. 

The rivers and creeks drain low elevation hills, with peaks less than 1,000 m. Rainfall averages 

200–240 cm per year. In the absence of substantial snowpack or groundwater sources, the river 

flows are correlated strongly with rainfall (peak flows occurring in December and January), and 

summer flows can be very low (low flows occur in August). It is unlikely that distinctive run 

times or geographically isolated populations could have developed in one of these systems. It is 

possible that many of the smaller systems experience short-term extirpations during extended 

periods of poor ocean conditions or extremes in climate (floods or droughts). 

Fulton (1970) indicated that coho salmon historically were present in all major tributaries 

to the Columbia River in the coastal stratum. There is little historical record of most 

populations’ size or characteristics because of the relatively small size of the coho salmon runs in 

each tributary and the difficulty of observing or enumerating returning adult coho. Coho salmon 

also were not the species of choice for fisheries or hatchery activities during the late 1800s and 

early 1900s, which limited the information collected.

The Youngs Bay coho salmon DIP includes fish spawning in the Lewis and Clark, 

Youngs, and Klaskanine rivers. Parkhurst et al. (1950) indicated that fair-sized runs of coho 

salmon existed in the Youngs and Klaskanine rivers. Beginning in 1925, the Klaskanine 

Hatchery began collecting coho salmon eggs (Wallis 1963b). In addition to local broodstock, 

large numbers of coho salmon eggs were transferred from the Oregon coast. During the 1950s 

coho salmon were spawned from mid-October to mid-December (Wallis 1963b), although 

natural spawning reportedly continued into the winter. Recent spawner surveys reported 

unmarked (naturally produced) coho salmon spawning from December through February. 

Available information suggests that the existing native coho salmon population was more similar 

to Type N. Coho salmon from the Youngs Bay DIP (Lewis and Clark River) are most similar 

genetically to coho salmon from the Big Creek and Klaskanine hatcheries (Weitkamp et al. 

2001). In light of the substantial number of fish transferred between basins, it is unclear whether 

this similarity is indicative of the historical pattern or simply reflects hatchery transfers 

(Weitkamp et al. 1995). There are no estimates for total spawner abundance in this DIP, but 

surveys of index areas since the 1970s indicate that abundance levels have been critically low, 

failing to observe any adults in some years (Weitkamp et al. 2001). During recent surveys 

(2000–2002) a number of unmarked (naturally produced) fish were observed spawning in late 

November through December (van der Naald 2001, Brown et al. unpubl. data). 

81
82

Figure 21. Proposed historical DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU. 

Coho salmon are native to the Grays River basin, although the current population is 

considered to be of mixed origin (WDF et al. 1993). Jordan (1904) quoted H. S. Davis, who 

described the Chinook River as “a small sluggish stream [that has] never been frequented by 

Chinook salmon, although considerable numbers of silver and dog salmon enter it late in the 

fall.” Surveys conducted in 1946 indicated that silver salmon spawned throughout much of the 

Chinook River basin. Large numbers of Type S (Toutle River Hatchery) have been released 

from the Grays River Hatchery. The Grays River Hatchery broodstock is considered to be an 

early run, which is apparently similar to the original wild coho in the Toutle River. A small run 

of coho salmon was reported spawning below water falls 21 km above the mouth of the Grays 

River in October 1944 (Bryant 1949). USFWS surveys during mid-November 1936 observed 

several hundred coho spawning in tributaries to the Grays River (Bryant 1949). Current 

broodstock collection occurs in September and October. The spawn timing for the current 

population is distinct from the native population, a late returning Type N, described by the WDF 

(1951). Escapement in 1951 was estimated to be 2,500. Spawn timing still reflects some 

influence from native or introduced Type N fish, although the ocean distribution of CWTs from 

Grays River Hatchery fish is similar to Type S populations (WDF et al. 1993). Grays River coho 

salmon are similar genetically to other lower Columbia River coho salmon. There is some 

affinity to other geographically proximate populations, specifically the Clatskanie and Cowlitz 

rivers and Big Creek (Weitkamp et al. 2001). Nonnative introductions most likely altered the 

present genetic and life history characteristics of Grays River coho salmon, especially run 

timing, with the influx of Type S coho salmon.
Coho salmon historically were present in the numerous small Columbia River tributaries 

in this area. Coho were cultured and released from the Big Creek Hatchery beginning in 1938. 

Transfers into this broodstock occurred in 1944 and 1951 from the Klaskanine Hatchery, in 1970 

from Sandy River Hatchery, and in 1984 from the Bonneville Hatchery. Otherwise all 

broodstock were collected at Big Creek. Coho salmon in Gnat Creek spawn from November 

through February (Willis 1962). From 1954 to 1959 the peak juvenile outmigration occurred 

during the first 3 weeks in May (Willis 1962). The population of naturally spawning coho in the 

lower Columbia River declined sharply in the 1970s and has remained at low levels. Recent 

examination of returning adults revealed that very few wild coho return to the Big Creek weir 

(fewer than 20 in the best years). During surveys (2000–2002) a number of unmarked (naturally 

produced) coho were observed spawning in late November through December (van der Naald 

2001, Brown et al. unpubl. data). 

Big Creek coho salmon are similar genetically to other lower Columbia River coho 

populations (Weitkamp et al. 2001). Coho salmon from Grays Creek and the Lewis and Clark 

River most closely resemble coho salmon from Big Creek. Given the relatively low level of 

out-of-basin introductions, recent genetic analysis may be helpful in describing historical 

population characteristics. 

Coho salmon are native to the Elochoman River DIP. USFWS surveys in December 

1935 observed several hundred coho salmon spawning in the “Alochomin” (Elochoman) River. 

Bryant (1949) commented that the spawners observed in December represented the later portion 

of the run. WDF (1951) reported the presence of late returning coho salmon in the Elochoman 

River and Skamokawa Creek, with fish spawning from October to March. The current spawning 

aggregations in Skamokawa Creek and the Elochoman River are considered to be of mixed 

origin (WDF et al. 1993). Large numbers of early returning Type S and late returning Type N 

coho salmon have been released from the Elochoman Hatchery. Late returning coho salmon are 

present currently in the basin, however, they are believed to be progeny of Cowlitz River late 

returning coho salmon released from the hatchery (Hymer et al. 1992) and may not be instructive 

in describing the historical population. The Elochoman Hatchery broodstock is collected 

between September and February, but it is considered to be a late run hatchery stock (Type N). 

Present ocean CWT recoveries from Elochoman Hatchery releases are indicative of a Type N 

population (WDF et al. 1993). 

Merrell (1951) reported coho salmon spawning in the Clatskanie River above Clatskanie 

Falls and in Carcus Creek, a Clatskanie River tributary. Peak spawning activity was observed 

during December. Carcus and Page creeks were used as index streams for lower Columbia River 

coho salmon surveys. The numbers of spawning adults were relatively stable until the early 

1970s, after which no spawning adults were observed for several years (Howell et al. 1985). 

Parkhurst et al. (1950) observed numerous juvenile coho salmon in Beaver Creek during 1946 

surveys. While spawner surveys found few or no adult fish in recent years, recent juvenile 

surveys consistently have found small numbers of coho salmon in the Clatskanie River 

(Weitkamp et al. 2001). Coho salmon in the Clatskanie River are considered a late run Type N 

population. During recent surveys (2000–2002) a number of unmarked (naturally produced) 

coho salmon were observed spawning in late November through December (van der Naald 2001, 

Brown et al. unpubl. data).

83
Clatskanie River coho salmon are most similar genetically to Grays River coho salmon 

(Weitkamp et al. 2001). It is not known to what extent coho salmon in the Clatskanie River are 

representative of the historical population, but recent low abundance levels make this population 

susceptible to genetic introgression by hatchery strays and genetic drift. 

Coho salmon were observed in Germany Creek during November 1936 surveys, 

however, none was observed in either Abernathy or Mill creeks during the same period 

(anecdotal information indicated that coho were present in these basins, but presumably at low 

levels) (Bryant 1949). According to WDF (1951), late returning coho salmon were native to 

Abernathy, Mill, and Germany creeks. Monitoring at instream weirs indicated that from 1952 to 

1955 coho salmon entered Abernathy Creek from October to February, with the majority of the 

run passing during November and December (Birtchet and LeMier 1955). Although current run 

timing is similar to historical (1951), existing late returning coho salmon are thought to have 

been influenced by transfers of Type N hatchery stocks into the basin or straying by hatchery 

fish. WDF et al. (1993) considered coho salmon in Mill, Abernathy, and Germany creeks to be 

of mixed origin because of introgression by hatchery populations. The relatively low 

productivity of the streams in this system makes them highly prone to introgression from 

nonnative sources. 

Coho salmon are native to Scappoose Creek and surrounding creeks draining to the 

mainstem Columbia River, with the earliest survey records indicating the presence of coho 

salmon in 1945 (Parkhurst et al. 1950). Coho salmon were reported as the predominant salmon 

in this area (Willis et al. 1960). Siercks and Raymond creeks (Scappoose Creek basin) and 

Milton and Salmon creeks (Milton Creek tributary) have been surveyed annually in December 

since 1949 as part of a lower Columbia River index (Willis et al. 1960, Weitkamp et al. 2001). 

Surveys reported returns in the tens and hundreds of fish until the 1970s, when abundance 

dropped considerably. Low abundance levels may have resulted in the loss of genetic variability. 

Based on spawner survey timing, coho salmon in this DIP were probably Type N (Howell et al. 

1985). 

The Scappoose Creek coho salmon DIP (based on 1991 samples from Scappoose and 

Milton creeks) relatively is distinct genetically from other lower Columbia River populations 

(Weitkamp et al. 2001). This distinctiveness may reflect natural patterns of variability or could 

be the result of genetic drift because of the very small size of the breeding population in recent 

years. The Scappoose Creek basin is relatively isolated geographically and may be less prone to 

receiving strays from other basins. 

Individual population maps are in Appendix E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented 

in Figure 21. Letter designations for the following populations indicate possible subpopulation 

designations within the numbered populations. Populations identified in WDF et al. (1993) as a 

SASSI stock are so indicated. 

1. Youngs Bay late run (Type N) (Figure E-96) 

a. Lewis and Clark River 

b. Youngs River 

c. Wallooskee River 

d. Klaskanine River 

84
2. Grays River late run (Type N) (SASSI) (Figure E-83) 

a. Deep River 

b. Grays River 

3. Big Creek late run (Type N) (Figure E-73) 

a. John Day River 

b. Mill Creek (Oregon) 

c. Big Creek 

d. Bear Creek 

4. Elochoman River late run (Type N) (Figure E-81) 

a. Skamokawa Creek (SASSI) 

b. Elochoman River (SASSI) 

5. Clatskanie River late run (Type N) (Figure E-77) 

a. Plympton Creek 

b. Clatskanie River 

c. Beaver Creek 

6. Mill Creek (Washington) late run (Type N) (Figure E-88) 

a. Mill Creek (SASSI) 

b. Abernathy Creek (SASSI) 

c. Germany Creek (SASSI) 

d. Coal Creek 

7. Scappoose Creek late run (Type N) (Figure E-91) 

a. Tide Creek 

b. Goble Creek 

c. Milton Creek 

d. McNulty Creek 

e. Scappoose Creek 

Western Cascade Range Tributaries 

The western Cascade Range tributaries region extends from the Cowlitz River (RKM 

106.2) to the Washougal River (RKM 194.9) on the Washington side and from the Willamette 

River (RKM 162.5) to the Sandy River (RKM 193.6) on the Oregon side. There appears to have 

been several major spawning aggregations in this region, based on historical population 

abundance information and watershed size. 

Rivers in this region are larger than those in the coastal region, with headwaters high in 

the Cascade Mountains. Many rivers are more than 100 km long, with basins covering 

1,000 km2

 or more (Table 1). Snowmelt and groundwater sources are substantial and maintain 

good year-round flows and cool water temperatures. River flows peak in December or January 

and are sustained at least 50% of the peak flow for six months or more. The lower reaches of 

85
rivers are relatively low gradient, but high gradient sections are common in the middle and upper 

reaches. Elevation plays a relatively important role in delineating the boundaries of EPA 

ecological regions (Figure 1). 

Upper Cowlitz River tributaries 

Much of the historical information available for the upper Cowlitz River basin coho 

salmon population is not specific to any one of the three historical populations, rather, it 

describes coho salmon moving upstream into one of the many larger tributaries with higher 

elevation headwaters. Gilbert and Evermann (1895) listed coho salmon and Chinook salmon as 

being present in the Cowlitz River basin. Moore and Clarke (1946) estimated that the total coho 

salmon run size in the Cowlitz River was 77,000, and they indicated that two coho salmon runs 

entered the Cowlitz River, an early run in late August and September and a later, larger run from 

October through winter. The early run was thought to spawn in headwater reaches, while the 

later run spawned throughout the basin (Moore and Clarke 1946). Bryant (1949) described the 

Cowlitz River as the “greatest silver salmon producing area in the entire Columbia River 

watershed.” Coho salmon escapement to the entire Cowlitz River basin was estimated at 32,500 

in 1956 (Smith 1956). Upstream monitoring of coho salmon beyond the Mayfield Dam site 

(below the Cispus, Tilton, and upper Cowlitz rivers) indicated the run peaked during September 

(30% of the run) but extended from August to January (Smith 1956). 

Juvenile emigration was monitored during the 1950s, before Mayfield Dam was built. 

Stockley (1961) observed that subyearling coho salmon moved downstream in relatively small 

numbers throughout their first spring. Yearling coho salmon moved downstream in two pulses, 

one in December and a second, larger pulse in May. Scale data from returning adults indicate 

that coho salmon reach the ocean during their second spring, so it is thought that the subyearling 

migration may be to rearing habitat in the lower Cowlitz River or mainstem Columbia River, or 

that the subyearling smolts do not successfully transition to the ocean.

Early and late coho salmon historically were found in the upper Cowlitz River basin, 

above the Mayfield Dam site. Spawner surveys conducted in 1961 (on fish passed around 

Mayfield Dam) identified early and late coho salmon in Cispus River tributaries (Birtchet and 

Meekin 1962). Bryant (1949) conducted the majority of surveys during the spring and summer, 

so for most basins the only information available is the presence of coho juveniles in the streams 

surveyed. Surveys conducted on 22 October and 23 October 1936 observed 85 coho in 

Yellowjacket Creek. These fish were not yet spawning, the majority was resting in a pool. Live 

and dead coho salmon were observed in the North Fork Cispus River during surveys on 30 

October and 1 November 1945 (Bryant 1949). 

WDF hatchery records (1930–1942) indicate that coho salmon eggs were collected 

throughout October at a station on the upper Cowlitz River (this timing conforms to early 

returning, Type S, coho salmon populations). Kiona Creek appears to have been a major 

producer of coho salmon historically. Bryant (1949) reported that in July 1937 “silver salmon 

fingerlings were so abundant in this section that the stream resembled a hatchery rearing pond.” 

Early and late coho salmon were surveyed in Kiona Creek from 1956 to 1961 (Birtchet and 

Meekin 1962). Numerous juvenile coho salmon also were reported by Bryant (1949) in Silver, 

Lake, Butter, Skate, and Burton creeks during surveys in the late 1930s. WDF (1951) reported 

86
that early returning coho salmon moved into the upper basin tributaries, while late returning coho 

salmon spawned in the lower tributaries. 

Recent attempts have been made to reintroduce coho salmon above Mayfield and 

Mossyrock dams on the Cowlitz River. Since 1996 several thousand predominantly late coho 

salmon have been transported to the upper Cowlitz basin each year (Dammers et al. unpubl. 

data). During the 2001–2002 spawning season, 16,654 adult female coho salmon were 

transferred to the upper Cowlitz and Cispus rivers (Serl and Morrill 2002). Juveniles produced 

from transported adults and introduced hatchery juveniles are collected at the Cowlitz Falls 

collection facility. Adults have been transferred into the Tilton River basin along with juveniles 

collected at Mayfield Dam. Although naturally produced juveniles have been collected from the 

Tilton, Cispus, and upper Cowlitz rivers, there has been very little opportunity for these 

populations to adapt to local conditions and more than 96% of the adults transported in 2001–

2002 were of hatchery origin (Serl and Morrill 2002). Natural production from these transported 

adults in the upper Cowlitz and Cispus rivers for 2000 and 2001 was estimated at 106,869 and 

334,740 smolts, respectively (Serl and Morrill 2002). 

Much of the available information concerning Tilton River coho salmon comes from 

hatchery records. The WDF operated a hatchery on the Tilton River from 1915 to 1921. During 

the 1917 season (a broodyear that did not include returning hatchery-reared returning adults), 

689 females were spawned.7 Bryant (1949) reported that survey parties counted 407 adult coho 

salmon in the Tilton River from 16 October to 20 October 1936. Coho fingerlings also were 

reported throughout the Tilton River basin during surveys conducted during July 1937. 

Lower Cowlitz River tributaries 

Lower Cowlitz River tributaries historically contained considerable coho salmon runs. 

Bryant (1949) identified Arkansas, Ostrander, and Lacamas creeks as primary producers of coho 

salmon. Birtchet and LeMier (1955) reported that 329 coho salmon were counted entering 

Arkansas Creek from October through December 1954, until high flood waters washed out the 

weir in December. WDF et al. (1993) considered current coho salmon to be of mixed origin. 

Hatchery introductions or the amalgamation of native populations following construction of 

Mayfield and Mossyrock dams likely are causes for this mixture. Analyses of coho salmon 

returns to the Cowlitz, Washougal, Lewis, and Elochoman hatcheries indicated a significant 

delay in return timing, at a rate of approximately 1.7 days per year of propagation (Fuss et al. 

1998). Although this may be because of selection in the hatchery, the authors also suggested that 

timing of in-river harvest could have caused this effect. Run and spawn timing observed in 

current Cowlitz River coho salmon may reflect the hybridization of early and late returning 

populations. There appears to be minimal influence from out-of-basin hatchery introductions. 

Ocean CWT recoveries suggest a Type N migration pattern (WDF et al. 1993). Habitat 

degradation and loss (because of migration barriers) also limit natural production (WDF et al. 

1993), and life history diversity may be further constrained by these factors. 

 

7

 Records only indicate the number of females spawned and the number of eggs obtained. How many coho salmon 

were intercepted at the hatchery weir is not known. 

87
Coho salmon were listed as one of the species that comprised a considerable fall run into 

the Toutle River basin (Gilbert and Evermann 1895, Evermann and Meek 1898). There were 

“extensive” runs in the North Fork Toutle River basin (Bryant 1949), but by 1941 they had 

diminished considerably. During surveys in the late 1930s and early 1940s juvenile coho salmon 

were observed in a number of tributaries. Early and late returning coho salmon were found in 

the North Fork Toutle River (WDF 1951). Birtchet and Meekin (1962) identified 899 early coho 

salmon in Spirit Lake tributaries. The North Fork Toutle River basin was affected substantially 

by the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. Following the eruption, a number of hatchery 

introductions reestablished coho salmon in devastated areas. Type S coho salmon from other 

lower Columbia River hatcheries were used, because they were believed to be the dominant type 

in the Toutle River basin. Ocean CWT recoveries suggested a Type S migration pattern, with a 

substantial proportion of recoveries off the Oregon coast (WDF et al. 1993). WDF et al. (1993) 

considered this population to be of mixed origin and sustained through hatchery and natural 

production. 

Bryant (1949) conducted limited surveys in the South Fork Toutle River during May 

1941. The survey parties did not observe any juvenile coho salmon but did report that runs 

existed in the basin. There is little historical information concerning coho salmon in this basin. 

WDF et al. (1993) considered this population to be of mixed origin. Type S coho salmon from 

the Green River (North Fork Toutle River) were introduced throughout the North and South Fork 

Toutle rivers, and are thought to have influenced populations in the south fork (WDF et al. 

1993). The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruptions influenced the South Fork Toutle River less than 

the north fork. 

A few coho salmon were observed in the Coweeman River (Bryant 1949) during surveys 

conducted in late September 1936, although this would be somewhat early for late coho salmon. 

WDF (1951) reported that the Coweeman River contained predominantly late returning fish. 

The existing population of coho salmon is considered to be of mixed origin (WDF et al. 1993) as 

a result of widespread transfers between basins, although hatchery transfers largely were 

eliminated by the early 1990s. 

Cascade tributaries other than the Cowlitz River 

Coho salmon are native to the Kalama River basin, although little is known about their 

historical distribution. Crawford (1911) described how trout and yearling salmon readily preyed 

on Chinook salmon released from the Kalama Hatchery in 1897. Yearling salmon most likely 

would have been coho salmon. Hatchery records indicated that during the 1920s and 1930s coho 

salmon eggs were collected from late December through February, a spawn timing typical of 

Type N populations. Although incomplete, WDF records indicate that more than 10 million 

coho eggs of unidentified origin were introduced into the Kalama River in the early to 

mid-1920s. Production records suggest that these eggs may have come from the Washington 

coast or Puget Sound (the success of these transplants is unknown). WDF (1951) reported that 

early and late coho salmon were present in the Kalama River. Bar spacing at a hatchery weir 

installed at RKM 3 to collect fall Chinook salmon from 1 August to 15 October currently allows 

coho salmon to swim past the weir. 

88
Kalama Falls (RKM 16) was not thought to be passable historically for coho salmon, thus 

coho salmon would not have had access to the headwater regions that were more suitable to Type 

S fish. A fish ladder was built in the early 1900s, although current access to the upper river is 

still limited with only a few coho salmon able to jump Kalama Falls. Since historical use of this 

area was limited, coho salmon that currently reach Kalama Falls Hatchery are returned to the 

lower river. WDF (1951) indicated that the early run often is prevented from ascending Kalama 

Falls by the placement of the hatchery weir, which normally is removed by the time the late run 

arrives. In 1951, the WDF estimated that 3,000 coho salmon returned annually (1,500 fish in 

each of the two run timings). Birtchet and LeMier (1955) observed coho salmon entering the 

Little Kalama River from October through December, with 60% of the run entering in October 

(Figure 22). Ocean CWT recoveries from the Kalama Falls Hatchery indicate a pattern that is an 

intermediate of Type N and Type S populations (WDF et al. 1993). The Kalama Falls Hatchery 

historically reared Type N, and the Lower Kalama Hatchery reared Type S (Hymer et al. 1992). 

Current run and spawn timing for Kalama River coho salmon exhibit characteristics of both 

types. 

Coho salmon are native to the North Fork Lewis River basin although little is known 

about their historical distribution. Evermann and Meek (1898) noted that a “good many” silver 

salmon enter the North Fork Lewis River. John Crawford, Washington State superintendent of 

hatcheries, stated: “Every species of the Pacific Coast salmon, except the blueback (or sockeye) 

spawned in Salmon Creek and the Lewis River (Crawford 1911).” Type N and Type S may have 

been present historically, with Type S fish exploiting upper river and headwaters areas and Type 

N fish spawning in the lower river. Smith (1940) stated that coho salmon were decidedly the 

most widely distributed of the three salmon species normally spawning in the Lewis River. 

WDF (1951) reported that early and late coho salmon spawned throughout the Lewis River 

basin, although the majority of the late run fish appeared to migrate to the East Fork Lewis 

River, while the early run fish were found in the mainstem North Fork Lewis River. Hatchery 

records (North Fork Lewis River) indicate that during the 1920s and 1930s coho salmon eggs 

were collected from early October to early December. Smith (1940) reported that during the 

1930s coho salmon enter the hatchery trap from September through December. During its first 

year of operation the Ariel Dam trap collected nearly 30,000 coho salmon. Peak spawning 

(1933–1937) for coho salmon collected at the Ariel Dam trap was during the last week in 

October and the first week in November (Smith 1940). Ocean distribution of Lewis River 

Hatchery coho salmon (based on CWT recovery) is typical of Type S populations (WDF et al. 

1993). 

Much of the coho salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the North Fork Lewis River 

currently is inaccessible behind Merwin Dam, with Cedar Creek providing the majority of the 

remaining habitat. The overwhelming majority of coho salmon in the north fork presently are 

hatchery produced. Genetic analysis of Type N and Type S coho salmon broodstocks from the 

Lewis River Hatchery indicate substantial differences exist (Weitkamp et al. 2001). This is 

mostly likely because the hatchery established broodstocks from different rivers (in most cases, 

under natural conditions temporal runs within a river have evolved from a single source). Of the 

two Lewis River runs, the late returning Type N is most similar to proximate geographic 

populations in the Cowlitz and Clackamas rivers. The early returning Type S hatchery 

broodstock is somewhat distinct but most similar to Willard NFH (Columbia River upper Gorge 

tributaries) and Southwestern Washington Coho Salmon ESU stocks (Weitkamp et al. 2001). 

89
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

9/1 9/29 10/27 11/24 12/22 1/19 2/16 3/16 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/6 8/3 8/31

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

9/1 9/29 10/27 11/24 12/22 1/19 2/16 3/16 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/6 8/3 8/31

0.75 

0.50 

0.25 

0

1932

0.75 

0.50 

0.25 

0 y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

9/1 9/29 10/27 11/24 12/22 1/19 2/16 3/16 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/6 8/3 8/31

1934

1935

0.75 

0.50 

0.25 

0 y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

9/1 9/29 10/27 11/24 12/22 1/19 2/16 3/16 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/6 8/3 8/31

1929 

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

9/1 9/29 10/27 11/24 12/22 1/19 2/16 3/16 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/6 8/3 8/31

0.75 

0.50 

0.25 

0

1930

0.75 

0.50 

0.25 

0

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

9/1 9/29 10/27 11/24 12/22 1/19 2/16 3/16 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/6 8/3 8/31

0.75 

0.50 

0.25 

0

1931

Percenta

ge of fish s

pawned 

Figure 22. Distribution of eggs taken from coho salmon spawned at the Kalama Hatchery, 1929–1935. 

The presence of an early spawning component in 1930 and 1934 is thought to be the result of 

early fish introduced from out of basin. Source: WDFW unpubl. data. 

Coho salmon historically were present in the East Fork Lewis River. Little is known 

about this population’s characteristics. Evermann and Meek (1898) reported no salmon 

spawning below La Center, Washington, because of the muddy condition of the river channel, 

but that in general a “good many” coho salmon entered the Lewis River basin. In 1936 a 

USFWS survey team counted 1,166 coho salmon below Lucia Falls (RKM 33.8). WDF et al. 

(1993) considered East Fork Lewis River coho salmon to be of mixed origin because of a variety 

of hatchery introductions. WDF (1951) estimated that the majority of fish entering the East Fork 

Lewis River were late returning coho salmon. Hatchery transfers from outside the basin were 

terminated in the 1990s. 

The Salmon Creek basin historically supported coho salmon as noted by John Crawford, 

Washington State superintendent of hatcheries (Crawford 1911). Salmon Creek differs from 

many other basins in the western Cascades stratum, in that it is a low gradient system (0.24%) 

throughout much of its course. The headwaters are at a relatively low elevation and provide little 

spring runoff. Sixteen coho salmon were observed on 27 October 1936 during USFWS surveys 

90
(Bryant 1949). At the time of the 1951 WDF survey, habitat in the Salmon Creek basin already 

was degraded severely (WDF 1951), although spawning coho salmon were reported in 

Burntbridge and Mill creeks. 

The Clackamas River currently contains early and late coho salmon. Barin (1886) 

observed that coho salmon entered the river in mid-September and began spawning about 

mid-January. Abernethy (1886) observed that the coho salmon run in the Clackamas River 

lasted from mid-September to mid-December and that it was equal in quantity to the Chinook 

salmon run. Coho salmon passage at North Fork Dam historically was unimodal 

(mid-November peak), but the distribution currently is bimodal, with peak passage in September 

and January (Cramer and Cramer 1994). Of the two runs, the late run is thought to be native, 

while the early run is believed to be the result of hatchery introductions (Olsen et al. 1992). 

Survey teams observed 30 spawning adult coho on 10 December 1957 in Clear Creek, below 

River Mill Dam (Willis et al. 1960). In Deep Creek, another lower Clackamas River tributary, 

64 spawning coho salmon were observed on 11 December 1951 (Willis et al. 1960). Coho 

salmon passage at River Mill Dam was estimated at several hundred to more than a thousand fish 

during the 1950s (Willis 1960). Late coho salmon in the Clackamas River are larger at spawning 

than other lower Columbia River populations (Weitkamp et al. 1995). The Clackamas River 

coho salmon DIP includes Johnson and Mount Scott creeks. Willis et al. (1960) indicated that 

small runs utilized both creeks. Juvenile coho salmon and nine adults were observed in Johnson 

Creek during surveys in 1959, and a few adult salmon were observed consistently in Mount Scott 

Creek during surveys in the 1950s (Willis et al. 1960). 

Early and late coho salmon in the Clackamas River are relatively distinct from one 

another, although both cluster with other lower Columbia River populations. Early Clackamas 

River coho salmon are related closely to stocks from the Eagle Creek NFH on Eagle Creek, a 

Clackamas River tributary (Weitkamp et al. 2001). 

Coho salmon historically were present in the Washougal River basin, however, early 

records are scarce primarily because of the low abundances following fires in 1902 that 

devastated the basin (there were additional burns in 1912, 1927, and 1929). In November 1934, 

the first good coho salmon run in many years was reported (Bryant 1949). The existing coho 

salmon population in the Washougal River basin is thought to be of mixed origin, the result of 

extensive hatchery introductions (WDF et al. 1993). The late returning coho salmon appear to 

have been the dominant run in the Washougal River (WDF 1951). Most of the spawning took 

place in tributaries below Salmon Falls (Little Washougal River, Winkler Creek, and the West 

Fork Washougal River), although it was thought that some coho salmon were able to ascend 

Salmon Falls. Alternatively, coho salmon were not able to ascend Duggan Falls (approximately 

3 km above the Washougal Salmon Hatchery). Run timing for late returning coho salmon 

generally extended from October through December, with spawning extending from late 

November to March. 

Coho salmon are native to the Sandy River basin. Mattson (1955) estimated that the 

Sandy River historically produced spawning runs of 10,000–15,000. We know little about their 

historical characteristics, although OFC spawning operations at the Sandy River Hatchery 

(Figure 23) took eggs from 95 coho salmon females from 1 to 22 November (ODF 1903). 

91
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1-Jan

15-Jan

2

9-Jan

12-Feb

2

6-Feb

12-

M

ar

26-

M

ar

9-

Apr

23-

Apr

7-M

a

y

21-M

ay

4-Jun

18-Jun

2-Jul

16-Jul

30-Jul

13-Aug

2

7-Aug

10-S

e

p

24-Sep

8-Oct

2

2-Oct

5-N

o

v

19-N

o

v

3-

D

ec

17-D

ec

31-D

ec

Number of eggs

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

1-Jan

15-Jan

29-Jan

12-

F

e

b

26-

Feb

12-M

ar

26-M

ar

9-A

pr

23-Apr

7-

M

a

y

21-

May

4-Jun

18-Jun

2-Jul

16-Jul

30-Jul

13-Aug

27-Aug

10-S

e

p

24-S

e

p

8-

Oct

22-Oct

5-N

o

v

19-

N

o

v

3-D

ec

17-D

ec

31-D

ec

Figure 23. Distribution of eggs taken from coho salmon spawned at ODF hatcheries in the Sandy River 

(top) and Grande Ronde River (bottom) basins in 1901. Source: ODF 1903. 

Returning adults pass Marmot Dam (RKM 43) from September through December, with peak 

passage during October and November (Howell et al. 1985). Below Marmot Dam, coho salmon 

historically maintained a large run in the Bull Run River basin (Craig and Suomela 1940). Craig 

and Suomela (1940) also estimated that the Salmon River supported the largest run in the Sandy 

River. Sandy River coho salmon mainly have been unaffected by out-of-basin introductions 

(Weitkamp et al. 2001). The Sandy River Hatchery broodstock is considered to consist primarily 

of local-origin fish (Kostow 1995). Sandy River coho salmon somewhat are distinct genetically 

from other Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU stocks, but they are distinct from coastal 

(out of ESU) populations (Weitkamp et al. 2001). 

Individual population maps are in Appendix E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented 

in Figure 21. Letter designations indicate possible subpopulations within the numbered 

populations. Populations identified in WDF et al. (1993) as a SASSI stock are so indicated. 

(Numbering sequence is continued from the list of populations on page 85.) 

 8. Upper Cowlitz River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (SASSI) (Figure E-80) 

 9. Cispus River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (SASSI) (Figure E-75) 

92
10. Tilton River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (SASSI) (Figure E-92) 

11. North Fork Toutle (Green) River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (Figure E-93) 

a. North Fork Toutle River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (SASSI) 

b. Green River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (SASSI) 

12. South Fork Toutle River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (SASSI) (Figure E-94) 

13. Lower Cowlitz River late run (Type N) (SASSI) (Figure E-79) 

14. Coweeman River late run (Type N) ( SASSI) (Figure E-78) 

15. Kalama River late run (Type N) and possibly early run (Type S) (SASSI) (Figure E-85) 

16. North Fork Lewis River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (SASSI) (Figure E-87) 

17. East Fork Lewis River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (SASSI) (Figure E-86) 

18. Salmon Creek late run (Type N) (SASSI) (Figure E-89) 

19. Clackamas River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (Figure E-76) 

a. Eagle Creek 

b. Upper Clackamas River 

20. Washougal River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (SASSI) (Figure E-95) 

21. Sandy River early and late runs (Type S and Type N) (Figure 90) 

a. Bull Run River 

b. Salmon River 

c. Mainstem Sandy River 

Columbia Gorge Tributaries 

The Columbia Gorge tributaries region extends from east of the Washougal River 

(RKM 194.9) to the White Salmon River (RKM 270) on the Washington side and from east of 

the Sandy River (RKM 193.6) to the Hood River (RKM 272) on the Oregon side. Rivers in this 

region are influenced heavily by the steeply sloped sides of the Columbia Gorge. Most streams 

are relatively short. Impassable falls limit accessible habitat to less than a half mile on most 

small creeks. Larger rivers contain falls or a series of cascades in their lower reaches, which 

may present migrational barriers during all or most of the year. Physiographically, this region 

marks a transition between the high-rainfall areas of the Cascades and the drier areas to the east. 

Stream flows can be intermittent, especially during the summer. 

In its lower Columbia River coho salmon management plan, ODFW recognized three 

DIPs: Columbia Gorge tributaries, Big White Salmon River, and Hood River (Chilcote 2001b). 

This is based in part on the limited current spawning and rearing habitat available to coho salmon 

on the Oregon side of the Columbia Gorge area. Initially the TRT had identified four DIPs in 

93
this ecological region: Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries, Columbia River upper Gorge 

tributaries, Big White Salmon River, and Hood River. Based on available information, the TRT 

and ODFW have identified the following interim DIPs. 

Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries 

The Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries DIP extends upstream of the Sandy and 

Washougal rivers to the historical location of the Cascade Rapids (approximately at the current 

location of Bonneville Dam). There are very few natural-origin coho salmon populations in this 

area, and there is very little habitat available for them. Hatchery fish may stray into these areas. 

Tanner and Eagle creeks, two of the larger creeks, are blocked by hatchery weirs. WDF et al. 

(1993) identified a number of small tributaries on the Washington side where coho salmon are 

known to spawn: Gibbons, Duncan, Hardy, and Hamilton creeks. Coho salmon spawning in 

these creeks were considered to be late (Type N) coho salmon. WDF (1951) estimated that 

escapement to these minor tributaries near the Washougal River accounted for 2,050 adults. The 

USFWS has monitored naturally spawning coho salmon in Gibbons Creek for a number of years 

and although abundances have been low (less than 100), they have been consistently present 

(Brandt et al. 2003). Spawn surveys conducted in 1998 and 1999 observed peak spawner and 

redd abundances in mid-November (Brandt et al. 2003). 

Washington upper Gorge tributaries and Big White Salmon River 

The Columbia River upper Gorge tributary DIP extends from the historical location of 

the Bonneville Rapids (Cascades) to the ESU’s eastern boundary. Larger rivers contain falls or 

cascades in their lower reaches that may present migration barriers during all or most of the year. 

Spawning coho salmon were observed in several small creeks that line the Columbia Gorge 

during the surveys conducted during the 1930s and 1940s (Bryant 1949). None of these streams 

provides sufficient habitat for large spawning aggregations of fish, and it is unlikely that there 

were any independent populations. WDF (1951) estimated the spawning run in Rock Creek at 

200 adults. Fulton (1970) identified coho salmon as being present in most of this area’s small 

tributaries. Escapement in Eagle, Herman, and Lindsey creeks was estimated at 3,000, 250, 

and 300, respectively (Howell et al. 1985), however, estimates for Eagle Creek include 

hatchery-origin fish returning to the Cascade Hatchery. 

There is little historical information on coho salmon in the Big White Salmon River 

(RKM 270). The construction of Condit Dam (RKM 4) in 1913 eliminated anadromous access 

to the majority of the basin (Fulton 1968). Anadromous fish historically may have been able to 

ascend the Big White Salmon River as far as Trout Lake (RKM 45.4) (WDF 1951). Stream 

surveys conducted in the 1950s suggested that suitable coho salmon spawning habitat existed in 

Rattlesnake, Buck, and Trout Lake creeks, but because of low summer and early autumn flows 

only late run (Type N) coho salmon would be suitable (LeMeir and Smith 1955). LeMeir and 

Smith (1955) also estimated that the existing habitat could support about 200 coho salmon. 

Oregon upper Gorge tributaries and Hood River 

Coho salmon are indigenous to the Hood River basin and are found throughout the basin 

except for the West Fork Hood River above Punchbowl Falls. Fulton (1970) indicated that Neal 

94
Creek supported much of the run. Run-timing data suggests that the Hood River coho salmon 

are an early returning Type S population, with peak passage past Powerdale Dam in September 

and October (Howell et al. 1985, Olsen et al. 1992). Spawning begins in October and goes into 

November (OSGC 1963 cited in Howell et al. 1985). Counts at Powerdale Dam were in the 

hundreds of fish during the 1960s (Howell et al. 1985), but there have been fewer than a hundred 

fish during the past few years (ODFW 2004). 

Recent coho spawner surveys estimated that on the Oregon side of the Gorge tributaries 

there were only 11 miles of coho spawning habitat (Suring et al. 2005). This estimate does not 

include habitat above weirs on Eagle and Tanner creeks, nor does it include habitat that was lost 

because of the filling of the Bonneville Pool. Culverts along Interstate 84 also may limit current 

accessible habitat. Geographically, the majority of the tributaries in this area, with the exception 

of the Hood River, are very short and may have historically only contained a few hundred meters 

of usable habitat. Estimates by Maher et al. (2005) indicate that the Oregon tributaries to the 

upper Gorge (excluding the Hood River) historically contained 11 km of coho salmon spawning 

and rearing habitat. Based on the opinion of ODFW biologists and the absence of historical 

information on the abundance of coho salmon in this area, the TRT determined that (at a 

minimum) a combination of upper Gorge tributaries in addition the Hood River provided 

sufficient habitat and geographical structure to support a DIP. 

Individual population maps are in Appendix E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented 

in Figure 21. Letter designations indicate possible subpopulation designations within the 

numbered populations. No populations were identified in WDF et al. (1993) as a SASSI stock. 

Please note that with the redelineation of the Gorge tributaries, the former upper Gorge 

tributaries (Figure E-83) now are divided into Washington and Oregon tributaries associated with 

the Big White Salmon River (E-74) and Hood River (E-85). (Numbering sequence is continued 

from the list of populations on page 93.) 

22. Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries early run (Type S) (Figure E-82) 

a. Bridal Veil Creek 

b. Wahkeena Creek 

c. Hardy Creek 

d. Hamilton Creek 

e. Multnomah Creek 

f. Moffer Creek 

g. Tanner Creek 

h. Eagle Creek 

i. Rock Creek 

23. Washington upper Gorge tributaries and Big White Salmon River early run (Type S) 

(Figure E-74) 

a. Wind River 

b. Spring Creek 

c. Little White Salmon River 

95
24. Oregon upper Gorge tributaries and Hood River early run (Type S) (Figure E-84) 

a. Herman Creek 

b. Gorton Creek 

c. Viento Creek 

d. Lindsey Creek 

e. Phelps Creek 

96
Chum Salmon 

Life History 

Chum salmon have the widest natural geographic and spawning distribution of any 

Pacific salmonid, primarily because their range extends farther along the shores of the Arctic 

Ocean than other salmonids (Groot and Margolis 1991). Chum salmon have been documented 

spawning from Korea and the island of Honshu, Japan, east around the rim of the North Pacific 

Ocean to Monterey Bay, California. Chum salmon also grow to be among the largest of Pacific 

salmon, second only to Chinook salmon in adult size, with individuals reported up to 108.9 cm in 

length and 20.8 kg in weight (Pacific Fisherman 1928). Average size for the species is around 

3.6–6.8 kg (Salo 1991). 

Chum salmon usually spawn in coastal areas and juveniles emigrate almost immediately 

after emerging from the gravel (Salo 1991). This ocean-rearing migratory behavior contrasts 

with the stream-rearing behavior of some other species of Oncorhynchus (e.g., coastal cutthroat 

trout, steelhead, coho salmon, and most types of Chinook salmon and sockeye salmon), which 

usually migrate to sea at a larger size after months or years of freshwater rearing. This means 

that survival and growth of chum salmon in the first year depend less on freshwater conditions 

than on favorable estuarine conditions, unlike the behavior of other salmonids (coho salmon, 

steelhead, and stream-type Chinook salmon) that depend heavily on freshwater habitats. Another 

behavioral difference between chum salmon and species that rear extensively in freshwater is 

that chum salmon juveniles form schools, presumably to reduce predation (Pitcher 1986). 

In Asia and North America, chum salmon spawn commonly in the lower reaches of 

rivers, with redds usually dug in the main stem or side channels of rivers from just above tidal 

influence to nearly 100 km from the sea. In some areas they typically spawn where groundwater 

percolates through the redds (Bakkala 1970, Salo 1991). Some chum salmon even spawn in 

intertidal zones of streams, especially in Alaska, where tidal fluctuation is extensive and 

upwelling of groundwater in intertidal areas may provide preferred spawning sites.8

 Bailey 

(1964) reported that chum salmon eggs in Olsen Creek in Alaska could survive exposure to 

tidewater up to 55% of the time during embryonic development. Chum salmon were observed 

spawning in the intertidal zone of Walcott Slough in Hood Canal, Washington (O’Malley 1922). 

It also was noted that chum salmon spawn where springwater seepage occurs, and the developing 

embryos may be exposed to relatively low concentrations of salt water in these areas of 

freshwater upwelling. 

 

8 J. Helle, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau, AK. Pers. commun., April 1995. 

97
Chum salmon spawn primarily in the lower reaches of rivers, because they usually show 

little persistence in surmounting river blockages and falls. However, in some Pacific Northwest 

streams, such as the Skagit River in Washington, chum salmon routinely migrate over long 

distances, at least 170 km.9

 In the Yukon River in Alaska and the Amur River in Russia chum 

salmon migrate more than 2,500 km inland. Although these distances are impressive, both rivers 

have low gradients and no extensive falls or other blockages to migration. In the Columbia 

River basin, reports indicate that chum salmon may historically have spawned in the Umatilla 

and Walla Walla rivers, more than 500 km from the sea (Nehlsen et al. 1991). However, these 

fish would have had to pass the Cascades and Celilo Falls, a web of rapids and cascades that 

once existed in the Columbia River, which would have presented a considerable migration 

obstacle. In the Columbia River, adults typically enter freshwater in October with spawning 

activity extending from early November through December (Johnson et al. 1997). Chum salmon 

returning to the Grays River (and the Columbia River in general) mature at 3 or 4 years of age. 

The Columbia River historically contained large runs of chum salmon, which supported a 

substantial commercial fishery in the first half of the twentieth century (Figure 24). These 

landings represented a harvest of more than 500,000 chum salmon in some years. There are 

presently neither recreational nor directed commercial fisheries for chum salmon in the 

Columbia River, although some chum salmon are taken incidentally in the gill-net fisheries for 

coho salmon and Chinook salmon, and there has been minor recreational harvest in some 

tributaries (WDF et al. 1993). Hymer (1993 and 1994) and WDF et al. (1993) monitored returns 

of chum salmon to three streams in the Columbia River basin and suggested a few thousand, 

perhaps up to 10,000, chum salmon may spawn annually in the basin. Kostow (1995) identified 

23 spawning populations on the Oregon side but provided no estimates of the spawner numbers 

in these populations. Spawner surveys conducted by ODFW during the autumn and winter of 

2000–2001 only found a single chum salmon in the 29 streams surveyed (van der Naald 2001), 

although a number of chum salmon apparently were observed at hatchery weirs on the Oregon 

side during the 2000–2001 return year. 

An estimate of the minimum run size for chum salmon returning to the Oregon and 

Washington sides was calculated by summing harvest, spawner surveys, Bonneville Dam counts, 

and returns to the Sea Resources Hatchery on the Chinook River in Washington (ODFW and 

WDFW 1995). This estimate suggests that the chum salmon run size in the Columbia River has 

been relatively stable (albeit at a very low level) since the run collapsed in the mid-1950s (Figure 

24). The minimum estimate for the Columbia River run size in 1999 was 2,400 adult fish (Keller 

2001). 

 

9

 D. Hendrick, Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Mount Vernon, WA. Per. commun., January 1996. 

98
Thousands of pounds 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0

1866 1876 1886 1896 1906 1916 1926 1936 1946 1956 1966 1976 1986 

Year

Figure 24. Commercial landings of chum salmon in the Columbia River, 1886–1993. Source: 

Johnson et al. 1997. 

Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU 

Historical Independent Populations 

Coast Range Tributaries 

Chum salmon are native to rivers and creeks near the mouth of the Columbia River. 

There is little information about the size or distribution of chum salmon populations in specific 

river basins prior to the 1930s, and by that time chum abundance already was severely in decline. 

From 1936 to 1945, chum salmon were observed in the Chinook, Deep, Elochoman, and 

Grays rivers, and Mill, Abernathy, and Germany creeks (Table 2) (Parkhurst et al. 1950). The 

Chinook River is small relatively and may have represented an important transition between the 

Washington coast and Columbia River populations, but there is no historical information to 

establish its relationship with the other populations. Jordan (1904) quoted H. S. Davis, who 

described the Chinook River as “a small sluggish stream . . . [that has] never been frequented by 

Chinook salmon, although considerable numbers of silver and dog [chum] salmon enter it late in 

the fall.” It tentatively is clustered with the Grays River, the most important tributary remaining 

for chum salmon in this area. In 1936 survey crews observed more than 6,200 chum salmon 

adults in the Grays River (Parkhurst et al. 1950). The WDF (1951) estimated that average chum 

salmon escapement to the Grays River was 7,500, with an additional 1,200 fish spawning in 

nearby tributaries to the Columbia River. Spawning chum salmon also were observed in the 

Elochoman River and Abernathy Creek during the 1936 survey. In general, spawning chum 

salmon were reported in most rivers and creeks in this area. WDF (1951) estimated average 

99
escapement for the Elochoman River and Abernathy Creek basins at 4,000 and 2,700 adults, 

respectively. Birtchet and LeMier (1955) observed chum salmon returning to Abernathy Creek 

in 1954 with all fish arriving at the weir between 2 November and 12 November. Recent genetic 

analysis of samples from the Grays River were similar to samples from the Columbia River 

(Hardy and Hamilton creeks), but distinct from coastal and Puget Sound populations (Phelps et 

al. 1994b). 

Parkhurst et al. (1950) reported that chum salmon were present in almost every watershed 

from the Lewis and Clark River to Scappoose Creek (Table 2), but no abundance estimates were 

presented and most information was anecdotal. Records show that between 1950 and 1960 an 

average of 607 chum salmon were intercepted at the Big Creek Hatchery rack annually, with a 

maximum of 2,430 chum salmon encountered in 1958 (Wallis 1963a). Chum salmon also were 

captured at the Klaskanine Hatchery rack. Although no adult numbers were recorded, a 

maximum of 1,481,294 eggs was obtained in 1940 (@ 2,800 eggs/female = 530 females) (Wallis 

1963b). Wallis (1963a) also noted that chum salmon utilized the South Fork Klaskanine River, 

but not the north fork. Willis et al. (1960) reported that Milton Creek was the greatest producer 

of chum salmon (about 200 per year) in the area surrounding Scappoose Creek. The ODFW 

identified 23 populations on the Oregon side of the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU, 

although this inventory apparently was based on incidental observations rather than set criteria 

for populations (Kostow 1995). 

Western Cascade Range and Columbia Gorge Tributaries 

Chum salmon historically were distributed widely in tributaries below Celilo Falls. Barin 

(1886) observed that dog salmon (chum salmon) appeared in the Clackamas River by November 

and spawned soon afterward. By 1944 chum salmon were not found during biological surveys of 

the Clackamas River (Dimick and Merryfield 1945). Probably the same water-quality problems 

that had extirpated the early fall Chinook salmon eliminated chum salmon. Chum salmon also 

were present historically in the Sandy River basin (Mattson 1955). At the time of his review, 

Mattson estimated that approximately 200 chum salmon returned annually to the Sandy River. 

Although there are no current estimates, chum salmon have been reported in recent surveys of 

this river.10

Chum salmon are native to tributaries in this area, although their current abundance is a 

fraction of historical levels. Hatcheries in the lower Columbia River basin made little effort to 

collect chum salmon, primarily because of their low market value in the commercial fishery. 

Most eggs were collected at the Lewis River Hatchery (up to 750 females spawned in any one 

year). Transfers of chum salmon from outside the Columbia River basin, however, were 

substantial. Between 1913 and 1918 some 30 million chum fry (predominantly from the 

Chehalis River) were released throughout the Columbia River (including a number of sites above 

Celilo Falls and in the Methow and Walla Walla rivers) (WDFG 1916, 1918). Hatchery 

practices at the time emphasized releasing unfed fry, and the success of many of these transfers, 

especially those far upriver, is doubtful. 

 

10 O. Johnson, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. Per. commun., January 2000. 

100
The WDF (1951) annual escapement estimates were 1,000 in the Cowlitz River, 600 in 

the Kalama River, 3,000 in the Lewis River, and 1,000 in the Washougal River in 1951 (when 

chum salmon populations already were well in decline). Within the Cowlitz River basin, chum 

salmon migrated beyond the Mayfield Dam site and spawned in the lower tributaries of the 

Cowlitz River: Coweeman River, Ostrander Creek, Arkansas Creek, Toutle River, Salmon 

Creek, Olequa Creek, and Lacamas Creek (WDF 1951). Adult chum salmon were observed 

migrating past a weir on Arkansas Creek (lower Cowlitz River) from 1 November to 13 

December 1954, when the trap was rendered inoperable by high waters (Birtchet and LeMier 

1955). Emigrating chum salmon fry were sampled at the Mayfield Dam site in 1955 and 1956 

(Stockley 1961). Chum salmon recently were recovered in the mainstem Cowlitz River below 

the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery and at the hatchery rack. The Cowlitz River chum salmon that are 

recovered near the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery have an early “summer” run timing and spawn 

considerably earlier than downstream populations of fall chum salmon. It is unclear how the 

construction of Mayfield Dam may have altered conditions in the lower Cowlitz River and 

affected the expression of this trait. Unpublished genetic analysis of Cowlitz River chum salmon 

indicates that this spawning aggregation is distinct from fall chum salmon in the Cowlitz River 

and nearby tributaries. Whether summer chum salmon constitute a DIP or are perhaps the sole 

representative of a summer-run stratum needs to be studied further, but this run timing represents 

an important component of ESU diversity. 

Naturally spawning populations of chum salmon currently exist in Hardy (RKM 228) and 

Hamilton creeks (RKM 229), and in man-made spawning channels associated with these creeks. 

These small Columbia River tributaries are located just downstream of Bonneville Dam. 

Returning chum salmon adults were spawned incidentally at the Bonneville and Oxbow 

hatcheries (Tanner and Herman creeks) from the 1930s to the 1950s. Chum salmon also were 

spawned incidentally at the USBF’s Little White Salmon Hatchery, especially when Chinook 

salmon egg collections did not fill incubation capacity. In 1917 the Little White Salmon 

Hatchery collected 1,447,500 chum salmon eggs (Smith 1919) (@ 2,250 eggs/female = 

approximately 643 females [Howell et al. 1985]). There is no indication what proportion of the 

run was collected. 

There are few current estimates of chum salmon abundance in tributaries to the lower 

Columbia River. Aside from the Grays River and Hamilton and Hardy creeks, chum salmon 

have been observed in a number of rivers (Cowlitz, Lewis, and mainstem Columbia) on the 

Washington side (Keller 2001). It is probable that chum salmon exist at low abundance levels in 

many of their historical watersheds. In 1998 and 1999 only 195 and 135 chum salmon, 

respectively, were observed ascending the fish ladder at Bonneville Dam (Keller 2001, NMFS 

2000). 

Little genetic or life history information for chum salmon is available for reconstructing 

the historical population structure in the lower Columbia River (Small et al. 2004). Genetic 

information currently exists only for the Grays River and Hamilton and Hardy creeks 

populations. Similarities between fish from Hamilton and Hardy creeks relative to Grays River 

samples would be expected given the proximity of these watersheds and the relatively small size 

of the populations. No differences in age structure of the three spawning aggregations are 

apparent, 3-year-old fish predominate (Keller 2001). Analysis of scales taken from chum salmon 

returning to the Columbia River in 1914 also indicated that 3-year-old fish constituted 70.4% of 

101
102

the run (Marr 1943), however, the 1914 sample was obtained from the net fishery, which may 

have provided a biased sample. Peak spawning activity for chum salmon in the Grays River and 

Hamilton and Hardy creeks differs by about a month (8 November and 8 or 10 December each 

year, respectively, providing considerable geographic and temporal isolation (Keller 2001). 

Differences in spawning times may be related to differences in water sources between Grays 

River and Hamilton and Hardy creeks (rainfall vs. groundwater). The preference of chum 

salmon to spawn in the lower river reaches and mainstem Columbia River increases the 

likelihood of migration between local populations, especially given the large historical 

populations that existed in the Columbia River. It also is possible, however, that if salmon were 

returning to a specific site, such as a mainstem groundwater seep, they would need a high degree 

of homing fidelity. Tributaries to the Columbia River in the coastal region also are under tidal 

influence and salmon would have to move some distance upstream to find adequate spawning 

areas, providing some degree of geographic isolation between basins. 

Analysis of the correlation between allozyme allelic frequencies for fall chum salmon 

populations in British Columbia and the distance between populations suggested that populations 

farther apart than 250 km do not genetically influence one another through migration (Tallman 

and Healey 1994, Johnson et al. 1997). This distance should be considered an upper bound, 

since genetic independence is much more sensitive to migration than demographic independence. 

The British Columbia data may not be applicable to the current situation in the lower Columbia 

River because of the proximity of neighboring populations in British Columbia relative to the 

lower Columbia River. 

It is clear from the historical record that chum salmon were present in most tributaries to 

the lower Columbia River and to an unknown extent present in the main stem. Without an 

understanding of the dynamics of migration between populations, however, it is difficult to 

identify discrete populations. Life history similarities between fall Chinook salmon and chum 

salmon were used to establish the population boundaries in the Lower Columbia River Chum 

Salmon ESU. Additionally, since chum salmon prefer lower mainstem and off-channel 

spawning areas, no attempt was made to establish multiple population boundaries within a single 

basin. Further study is needed to establish the relationship of chum salmon spawning in the 

mainstem Columbia River to tributary spawners. It currently is assumed that there is a close 

association between mainstem spawners and geographically proximate basins. In the case of 

chum salmon that spawn near the Interstate-205 bridge, for example, we decided to associate this 

spawning aggregation with the Washougal River, the nearest major river terminus, rather than 

the Salmon Creek population boundary to which it is adjacent. 

Individual population maps are in Appendix E (pages 199–311), and strata are presented 

in Figure 25. Letter designations in the following list of populations indicate possible 

subpopulation designations within the numbered populations. Populations identified in WDF et 

al. (1993) as a SASSI stock are so indicated. 

1. Youngs Bay fall run (Figure E-113) 

a. Lewis and Clark River 

b. Youngs River 

c. Wallooskee River 

d. Klaskanine River 
Figure 25. Historical DIPs in the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU. 

103
 2. Grays River fall run (SASSI) (Figure E-105) 

a. Chinook River 

b. Deep River 

c. Grays River 

 3. Big Creek (Figure E-98) 

a. Big Creek 

b. Bear Creek 

 4. Elochoman River fall run (Figure E-102) 

a. Skamokawa Creek 

b. Elochoman River 

 5. Clatskanie River fall run (Figure E-100)

a. Plympton Creek 

b. Clatskanie River 

c. Beaver Creek 

 6. Mill Creek fall run (Figure E-108) 

a. Mill Creek

b. Abernathy Creek

c. Germany Creek

d. Coal Creek

 7. Scappoose Creek fall run (Figure E-111) 

a. Tide Creek 

b. Goble Creek 

c. Milton Creek 

d. McNulty Creek 

e. Scappoose Creek 

 8. Cowlitz River summer run (Figure E-101) 

 9. Cowlitz River fall run (Figure E-101) 

10. Kalama River fall run (Figure E-106) 

11. Salmon Creek fall run (Figure E-109) 

12. Lewis River fall run (Figure E-107) 

13. Clackamas River fall run (Figure E-99) 

14 Washougal River fall run (Figure E-112) 

15. Sandy River fall run (Figure E-110) 

104
16. Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries fall run (Figure E-103)

a. Mainstem Columbia River 

b. Bridal Veil Creek 

c. Wahkeena Creek 

d. Hardy Creek (SASSI) 

e. Hamilton Creek (SASSI) 

f. Multnomah Creek 

g. Moffer Creek 

h. Tanner Creek 

17. Columbia River upper Gorge tributaries fall run (Figure E-104) 

a. Eagle Creek 

b. Rock Creek 

c. Herman Creek 

d. Wind River 

e. Gorton Creek 

f. Little White Salmon River 

g. Viento Creek 

h. Lindsey Creek 

i. Phelps Creek 

j. Big White Salmon River 

k. Hood River 

105
106
References

Abernethy, A. S. 1886. Salmon in the Clackamas River. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 8:332. 

Aebersold, P. B., G. A. Winans, D. J. Teel, G. B. Miller, and F. M. Utter. 1987. Manual for starch gel 

electrophoresis: A method for the detection of genetic variation. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Rep. NMFS 61. 

Bailey, J. E. 1964. Intertidal spawning of pink and chum salmon at Olsen Bay, Prince William Sound, 

Alaska. Manuscr. Rep. MR 64–6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biology Laboratory, Auke Bay, 

AK. 

Bakkala, R. G. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on the chum salmon, (Oncorhynchus keta) (Walbaum) 

1792. FAO Fish. Synop. 41, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circ. 315. 

Barin, L. T. 1886. Salmon in the Clackamas River. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 8:111–112. 

Benner, P. A., and J. R. Sedell. 1997. Upper Willamette River landscape: A historic perspective. In D. 

Dunnette and A. Laenen (eds.), River quality: Dynamics and restoration. Lewis Publishers/CRC 

Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. 

Bennett, D. E. 1987. Willamette River spring Chinook salmon run. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife. 

(Available from ODFW, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Bennett, D. E. 1988. Willamette River spring Chinook run. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, 88-031. 

(Available from ODFW, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Bentzen, P., J. Olsen, and J. Britt. 1998. Microsatellite DNA polymorphism in spring Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from Clackamas Hatchery, the upper Sandy River and Bull Run 

River and its implication for population structure. Final rep. to City of Portland, Bureau of Water 

Works, Portland, OR. (Available from Marine Molecular Biotechnology Laboratory, Univ. 

Washington, Seattle.) 

Berman, C. H., and T. P. Quinn. 1991. Behavioral thermoregulation and homing by spring Chinook 

salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in the Yakima River. J. Fish Biol. 39:301–312. 

Birtchet, R., and E. LeMier. 1955. Summary of weir and trap observations on several lower Columbia 

streams January through April, 1955. Washington Dept. Fisheries rep. (Available from WDF, 

115 General Administration Building, Olympia, WA 98504.) 

Birtchet, R., and T. Meekin. 1962. Spawning ground surveys, Cowlitz and North Fork Lewis Rivers, 

1961. Washington Dept. Fisheries memo. (Available from WDF, 115 General Administration 

Building, Olympia, WA 98504.) 

Bishop, S. M. 1995. Distribution of West Coast Chinook stocks or hatchery groups. Report submitted to 

the ESA Administrative Record for West Coast Chinook salmon. August 1995. (Available from 

NMFS, Environmental and Technical Services Division, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, 

OR 97232.) 

107
Bouck, G. R., A. V. Nebeker, and D. G. Stevens. 1975. Effects of holding temperatures on reproductive 

development in adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). In J.R. Donaldson (ed.), 26th 

Annual Northwest Fish Culture Conference, Otter Rock, OR, p. 24–40. 

Bowers, G. M. 1902. Little White Salmon Station, Washington. Report of the Commissioner, U.S. 

Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington D.C. 

Brandt, S., J. Taylor, T. Coley, B. Ensign, J. Stone, and M. Yoshinaka. 2003. Determinates of Gibbons 

Creek watershed condition and health: Results of the Gibbons Creek watershed analysis, 

1997–1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Online at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/

columbiariver/pdfdocs/habitat/gibbons99.pdf [accessed June 2005]. 

Brown, E. T., S. E. Jacobs, and D. A. Kreager. Unpubl. data. Assessment of the status of Oregon 

populations of natural coho salmon spawners in the Lower Columbia River, 2002. Sept. 2003 

draft. (Available from ODFW, 3406 Cherry Drive NE, Salem, OR 97303.) 

Bryant, F. G. 1949. A survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries with special references to 

management of its fishery resources. 2. Washington streams from the mouth of the Columbia 

River to and including the Klickitat River (Area I). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Sci. 

Rep. No. 62. 

Busack, C. Unpubl. data. Letter. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

Busack, C., and A. R. Marshall. 1995. Defining units of genetic diversity in Washington salmonids. In 

C. Busack and J. B. Shaklee (eds.), Genetic diversity units and major ancestral lineages of 

salmonid fishes in Washington. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife Tech. Rep. No. RAD 

95–02. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and I. V. 

Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of West Coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 

and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and A. W. F. Edwards. 1967. Phylogenetic analysis: Models and estimation 

procedures. Evolution 21:550–570. 

CBIC (Columbia Basin Interagency Committee). 1967. River mile index. Cowlitz, Lewis, Klickitat, and 

minor right bank Columbia River tributaries. Columbia Basin Interagency Committee. 

(Available from NMFS, Environmental and Technical Services Division, 525 NE Oregon St., 

Portland, OR 97232.) 

Chilcote, M. W. 1997. Conservation status of steelhead in Oregon. Draft rep., Aug. 1997. (Available 

from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Chilcote, M. W. 2001a. Conservation assessment of steelhead populations in Oregon. (Available from 

ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Chilcote, M. W. 2001b. Oregon Dept. Wildlife’s endangered species management plan for lower 

Columbia Gorge coho salmon conservation assessment of steelhead populations in Oregon. 

(Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Chilcote, M. W., S. A. Leider, and J. J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive success of hatchery and 

wild summer-run steelhead under natural conditions. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115:726–735. 

Clanton, R. E. 1911. Annual report of the Oregon Master Fish Warden. Pacific Fisherman, April 1911, 

p. 33–37. 

108
Collins, J. W. 1892. Report on the fisheries of the Pacific coast of the United States. In Report of the 

Commissioner for 1888, p. 3–269. U.S. Commission Fish and Fisheries, Washington, DC. 

Collins, M. D. 1980. The 1979 Willamette River spring Chinook salmon run. (Available from ODFW, 

P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Connolly, P. J., M. G. Wade, J. M. Hutchinson, and J. S. Ziller. 1992. Middle Fork Willamette subbasin 

fish management plan. (Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Craig, J. A., and L. D. Townsend. 1946. An investigation of fish-maintenance problems in relation to the 

Willamette Valley Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Sci. Rep. 33:74. 

Craig, J. A., and A. J. Suomela. 1940. A survey of the Sandy River and its tributaries, 1940, with 

reference to fish management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Sci. rep. No. 14. 

Cramer, D. P., and S. P. Cramer. 1994. Status and population dynamics of coho salmon in the 

Clackamas River. Tech. rep. Portland General Electric Co., Portland, OR. 

Cramer, S. P., C. F. Willis, D. P. Cramer, M. Smith, T. Downey, and R. Montagne. 1996. Status of 

Willamette River spring Chinook salmon in regards to the federal Endangered Species Act (Part 

II). S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc., Gresham, OR. (Available from S. P. Cramer & Associates, 

Inc., 300 SE Arrow Creek Lane, Gresham, OR 97080.) 

Crawford, J. M. 1911. Destruction of salmon fry in non-hatchery streams. Pacific Fisherman., p. 27–31. 

Dammers, W., P. Foster, M. Kohn, C. Morrill, J. Serl, and G. Wade. Unpubl. data. Cowlitz River 

subbasin summary. 2002 draft. (Available from Northwest Power Planning Council, 851 S.W. 

Sixth Ave., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204.) 

Dimick, R. E., and F. Merryfield. 1945. The fishes of the Willamette River system in relation to 

pollution. Oregon State College, Engineering Experiment Station, Corvallis. 

Evermann, B. W., and S. E. Meek. 1898. A report upon salmon investigations in the Columbia River 

basin and elsewhere on the Pacific Coast in 1896. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 17:15–84. 

Fulop, J. Unpubl. data. Age structure of Sandy River Chinook salmon. Information faxed to NWFSC in 

2000. (Available from J. Myers, NWFSC, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112.) 

Fulton, L. A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in 

the Columbia River basin—past and present. U.S. Dept. Commer., NMFS, Special Sci. Rep. No. 

571. 

Fulton, L. A. 1970. Spawning areas and abundance of steelhead trout and coho, sockeye, and chum 

salmon in the Columbia River basin—past and present. U.S. Dept. Commer., NMFS, Special 

Sci. Rep. No. 618. 

Fuss, H., J. Byrne, and C. Ashbrook. 1998. Stock characteristics of hatchery-reared salmonids at 

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Columbia River hatcheries. Annual rep. H98-03. 

Washington Dept. Fish Wildlife, Hatcheries Program, Olympia. 

Fuss, H. J., R. Fuller, M. A. Kimbel, A. E. Appleby, S. A. Hammer. 1994. Annual Coded Wire Tag 

Program (Washington) Missing Production Groups. Washington Dept. Fisheries annual report 

1994, Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 1989BI01873, Project No. 

198906600 (BPA report DOE/BP-01873-2). Online at http://www.efw.bpa.gov/Publications/ 

A01873-2.pdf [accessed June 2005]. (Available from BPA, Environment, Fish and Wildlife 

Division, P.O. Box 3621, 905 NE 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97208.) 

109
Gharrett, A. J., and W. W. Smoker. 1993. Genetic components in life history traits contribute to 

population structure. In J. G. Cloud and G. H. Thorgaard (eds.), Genetic conservation of 

salmonid fishes, p. 197–201. Plenum, London. 

Gilbert, C. H. 1912. Age at maturity of Pacific coast salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus. Bull. U.S. Fish 

Comm. 32:57–70. 

Gilbert, C. H., and B. W. Evermann. 1895. A report upon investigations in the Columbia River basin, 

with descriptions of four new species of fishes. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm.. 14:169–205. 

Girard, C. 1858. Fishes. Explorations and surveys for a railroad route from the Mississippi River to the 

Pacific Ocean. U.S. War Dept., Washington, DC. 

Gleeson, G. W. 1972. The return of a river, the Willamette River, Oregon. WRRI-13. Oregon State 

Univ., Water Resources Research Institute, Corvallis. 

Good, T. P., R. S. Waples, and P. Adams (eds.). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West 

Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66. 

Gower, J. C. 1966. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate 

analysis. Biometrika 53:325–338. 

Groot, C., and L. Margolis (eds.). 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia 

Press, Vancouver, Canada. 

Harlan, K. 1999. Washington Columbia River and tributary stream survey sampling results, 1997. 

Columbia River Progress Rep., 99-09. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, 

WA 98501.) 

Hastings, A. 1993. Complex interactions between dispersal and dynamics: Lessons from coupled logistic 

equations. Ecology 74:1362–1372. 

Healey, M. C. 1983. Coastwide distribution and ocean migration patterns of stream- and ocean-type 

Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Can. Field-Nat. 97:427–433. 

Healey, M. C. 1986. Optimum size and age at maturity in Pacific salmon and effects of size selective 

fisheries. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 89:39–52. 

Healey, M. C. 1991. The life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In C. Groot and 

L. Margolis (eds.), Life history of Pacific salmon, p. 397–405. University of British Columbia 

Press, Vancouver, Canada. 

Hockersmith, E., J. Vella, L. Stuehrenberg, R. N. Iwamoto, and G. Swan. 1994. Yakima River 

radio-telemetry study: Spring Chinook salmon, 1991–1992. U.S. Dept. Energy, Bonneville 

Power Administration project no. 89-089, Portland, OR. (Available from BPA, P.O. Box 3621, 

Portland, OR 97208.) 

Howell, P., J. Hutchinson, and R. Hooton. 1988. McKenzie subbasin fish management plan. (Available 

from ODFW, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Howell, P., K. Jones, D. Scarnecchia, L. Lavoy, W. Kendra, and D. Ortmann. 1985. Stock assessment of 

Columbia River anadromous salmonids. Volume II: Steelhead stock summaries, stock transfer 

guidelines—Information needs. Final rep., Project no. 83-355. U.S. Dept. Energy, Bonneville 

Power Administration, Portland, OR. (Available from BPA, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 

97208.) 

Hughes, R. M., E. Rexstad, and C. E. Bond. 1987. The relationship of aquatic ecoregions, river basins, 

and physiographic provinces to the icthyogeographic regions of Oregon. Copeia 1987:423–432. 

110
Hulett, P. L., R. H. Bradford, C. W. Wagemann, and S. A. Leider. 1993. Studies of hatchery and wild 

steelhead in the lower Columbia region. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife Management 

Division 93–12. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

Hydrosphere Products, Inc. 1993. Hydrodata regional CD-ROMs: USGS daily values, Vols. West 1, 

West 2. (Available from Hydrosphere Products, Inc., 1002 Walnut St., Suite 200, Boulder, CO 

80302.) 

Hymer, J. 1993. Estimating the natural spawning chum population in the Grays River basin, 1944–1991. 

Columbia River Research Laboratory progress rep. 93-17. (Available from WDFW, Columbia 

River Research Laboratory, P. O. Box 999, Battle Ground, WA 98604.) 

Hymer, J. 1994. Estimating chum salmon population in Hardy Creek, 1957–1993. Columbia River 

Research Laboratory progress rep. 94-11. (Available from WDFW, Columbia River Research 

Laboratory, P. O. Box 999, Battle Ground, WA 98604.) 

Hymer, J., R. Pettit, M. Wastel, P. Hahn, and K. Hatch. 1992. Stock summary reports for Columbia 

River anadromous salmonids. Volume III: Washington subbasins below McNary Dam. Project 

no. 88-108. U.S. Dept. Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. (Available 

from BPA, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208.) 

Johnson, O. W., W. S. Grant, R. G. Kope, K. Neely, F. W. Waknitz, and R. S. Waples. 1997. Status 

review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32. 

Jordan, D. S. 1904. Salmon of the Pacific. Pacific Fisherman II(1):13–16. 

Keller, K. 2001. 1999 Columbia River chum return. Columbia River Research Laboratory progress rep. 

2000-6. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 98501. 

Kostow, K. 1995. Biennial report on the status of wild fish in Oregon. (Available from ODFW, P.O. 

Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Kostow, K. 2003. Evolutionarily significant unit boundaries and status assessment in a highly 

polymorphic species, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in the Columbia Basin. 18 August 2003 draft rep. 

NOAA Fisheries Service and Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife. (Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 

59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Kostow, K. E., A. R. Marshall, and S. R. Phelps. 2003. Naturally spawning hatchery steelhead 

contribute to smolt production, but experience low reproductive success. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 

132:780–790. 

Kruskal, J. B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. 

Psychrometricka 29:1–27. 

Leider, S. A., P. L. Hulett, J. J. Loch, and M. W. Chilcote. 1990. Electrophoretic comparison of the 

reproductive success of naturally spawning transplanted and wild steelhead trout through the 

returning adult stage. Aquaculture 88:239–252. 

Leider, S. A., J. J. Loch, and P. L. Hulett. 1986. Studies of hatchery and wild steelhead in the lower 

Columbia Region. Washington Dept. Game and Fish Management Division rep. 86-14. 

(Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

LeMier, E. H., and W. E. Smith. 1955. Biological appraisal of the Big White Salmon River. Research 

Division rep., Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

Lessa, E. P. 1990. Multidimensional analysis of geographic genetic structure. Syst. Zool. 39:242–252. 

111
Lister, D. B., C. E. Walker, and M. A. Giles. 1971. Cowichan River Chinook salmon escapements and 

juveniles production 1965–1967. Fish. Serv. Pac. Reg. Tech. Rep. 1971-38. 

Lindsay, R. B., K. R. Kenaston, R. K. Schroeder, J. T. Grimes, M. G. Wade, K. Homolka, and L. 

Borgerson. 1997. Spring Chinook salmon in the Willamette and Sandy rivers. Annual progress 

rep. F-163-R-01, Task 1.2—The proportion of wild fish in natural spawning populations. 

(Available from ODFW, P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Lindsay, R. B., R. K. Schroeder, and K. R. Kenaston. 1999. Spring Chinook salmon in the Willamette 

and Sandy rivers. Annual progress rep. F-163-R-03. (Available from ODFW, P. O. Box 59, 

Portland, OR 97207.) 

Maher, M., M. B. Sheer, E. A. Steel, and P. McElhany. 2005. Atlas of salmon and steelhead habitat in 

the Oregon lower Columbia and Willamette basins. NOAA Fisheries. Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, Seattle, WA. Available online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/atlas_salmon 

.htm [accessed 6 December 2005]. 

Marr, J. C. 1943. Age, length, and weight studies of three species of Columbia River salmon 

(Oncorhynchus keta, O. gorbuscha, and O. kisutch). Stanford Ichthyol. Bull. 2:157–197. 

Marshall, A. 1998. Genetic analysis of mainstem Columbia River, below Bonneville Dam, Chinook 

spawners. Memo. to K. Harlan, 9 Feb. 1998. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., 

Olympia, WA 98501.) 

Marshall, A. R., M. Miller, C. Busack, and S. R. Phelps. 1991. Genetic stock identification analysis of 

three 1990 Washington ocean and Strait of Juan de Fuca Chinook salmon fisheries. GSI 

summary rep. 91-1. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

Marshall, A. R., C. Smith, R. Brix, W. Dammers, J. Hymer, and L. LaVoy. 1995. Genetic diversity units 

and major ancestral lineages for Chinook salmon in Washington. In C. Busack and J. B. Shaklee 

(eds.), Genetic diversity units and major ancestral lineages of salmonid fishes in Washington. 

Tech. rep. RAD 95-02. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 

98501.) 

Mattson, C. R. 1948. Spawning ground studies of Willamette River spring Chinook salmon. Fish 

Commission Research Briefs, Oregon Fish Commission, Clackamas 1(2):21–32. (Available from 

ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Mattson, C. R. 1955. Sandy River and its anadromous salmonid populations. Unpubl. manuscr. Oregon 

Fish Commission, Clackamas. (Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Mattson, C. R. 1962. Early life history of Willamette River spring Chinook salmon. Oregon Fish 

Commission, Clackamas. (Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Mattson, C. R. 1963. An investigation of adult spring Chinook salmon of the Willamette River system. 

Oregon Fish Commission, Clackamas. (Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 

97207.) 

Mayhall, L. E. 1925. Review of hatchery operations in Washington. Thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth annual 

reports of the Washington Dept. Fisheries, p. 17–30. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way 

N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable 

salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42. 

112
McIsaac, D. O., and T. P. Quinn. 1988. Evidence for a hereditary component in homing behavior of 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45:2201–2205. 

McKernan, D. L., and C. R. Mattson. 1950. Observations on pulp and paper effluents and the probable 

effects of this pollutant on the fisheries resources of the Willamette River in Oregon. Fish 

Commission Research Briefs. Oregon Fish Commission, Clackamas, 3(1):14–21. 

McPhail, J. D., and C. C. Lindsey. 1970. Freshwater fishes of northwestern Canada and Alaska. Bull. 

Fish. Res. Board Can. 173:381. 

Merrell, T. R. 1951. Stream improvement as conducted in Oregon on the Clatskanie River and its 

tributaries. Fish Commission Research Briefs. Oregon Fish Comm. 3:41–47. 

Miller, R. J., and E. L. Brannon. 1982. The origin and development of life history patterns in Pacific 

salmon. In E. L. Brannon and E. O. Salo (eds.), Proceedings of the Salmon and Trout Migratory 

Behavior Symposium, p. 296–309. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Mitchell, H. C. 1924. Clackamas (Ore.) Station and substations. In Report of the United States 

Commissioner of Fisheries for the Fiscal Year 1923, p. 33–37. Washington, DC. 

Moore, M., and D. Clarke. 1946. A report on the fisheries problems in connection with the proposed 

hydro-electric development of the Cowlitz River, Lewis County, Washington. Washington Dept. 

Fisheries and Washington Dept. Game, Olympia. 

Murtagh, T., R. Rohrer, M. Gray, E. Olsen, R. Rien, and J. Massey. 1992. Clackamas subbasin fish 

management plan. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Portland. (Available from ODFW, P. O. Box 

59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, B. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant, 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. 

Myers, K. W., D. E. Rogers, C. K. Harris, C. M. Knudsen, R. V. Walker, and N. D. Davis. 1984. Origins 

of Chinook salmon in the area of the Japanese mothership and land-based driftnet salmon 

fisheries in 1975–1981. Univ. Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle. 

Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: Stocks at 

risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries (Bethesda, Maryland) 

16(2):4–21. 

Nei, M. 1978. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of 

individuals. Genetics 89:583–590. 

Netboy, A. 1958. Salmon of the Pacific Northwest: Fish vs. dams. Binfords & Mort, Portland, OR. 

Nicholas, J. 1995. Status of Willamette spring-run Chinook salmon relative to the federal Endangered 

Species Act. Rep. to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, 

Portland. (Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Nigro, T. 2001. Unpubl. data. Letter to J. Myers regarding historical population document comments 

from the Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, 20 July 2001. (Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, 

Portland, OR 97207.) 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. Status review update for deferred and candidate ESUs 

of West Coast steelhead. Memo from West Coast Steelhead Biological Review Team. 

(Available from NMFS, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232.) 

113
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998a. Conclusions regarding the status of hatchery 

populations in deferred ESUs of West Coast steelhead. Memo to W. Stelle (Northwest Region, 

NMFS) and W. Hogarth (Southwest Region, NMFS) from M. Schiewe (Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center), 13 January 1998. (Available from NMFS, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, 

Portland, OR 97232.) 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998b. Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California: 

Hatchery populations. (Lower Columbia River, Klamath Mountains Province, Northern 

California, and Central Valley). Memo from the West Coast Steelhead Biological Review Team, 

5 January 1998. (Available from NMFS, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232.) 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999a. BRT conclusions regarding the updated status 

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) of the upper Willamette River and middle Columbia River 

ESUs. Memo to W. Stelle (Northwest Region, NMFS) and W. Hogarth (Southwest Region, 

NMFS) from M. Schiewe (Northwest Fisheries Science Center), 12 January 1999. (Available 

from NMFS, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232.) 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999b. Evaluation of the status of Chinook and chum 

salmon and steelhead hatchery populations for ESUs identified in final listing determinations. 

Memo from the Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 4 March 

1999. (Available from NMFS, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232.) 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Biological opinion. Reinitiation of consultation on 

operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, including the Juvenile Fish 

Transportation Program, and 19 Bureau of Reclamation projects in the Columbia Basin. 

Endangered Species Act—Section 7 consultation. (Available from NMFS, 525 NE Oregon St., 

Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232.) 

NRC (Natural Resource Consultants). 1996. Artificial propagation of anadromous Pacific salmonids, 

1950 to present. Chinook salmon. Contract rep. to U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA, NMFS, 

February 1996. (Available from NMFS, Environmental and Technical Services Division, 525 

N.E. Oregon St., Portland, OR 97232.) 

ODF (Oregon Dept. Fisheries). 1900. Report of fish commissioner. Annual reports of the Dept. of 

Fisheries of the State of Oregon 1901. State of Oregon, Salem. 

ODF (Oregon Dept. Fisheries). 1902. Report of the master fish warden. Annual reports of the Dept. 

Fisheries of the State of Oregon to the Legislative Assembly, Twenty-First Regular Session. 

State of Oregon, Salem. 

ODF (Oregon Dept. Fisheries). 1903. Report of master fish warden. Annual reports of the Dept. 

Fisheries of the State of Oregon. State of Oregon, Salem. 

ODF (Oregon Dept. Fisheries). 1904. Report of master fish warden. Annual reports of the Dept. 

Fisheries of the State of Oregon. State of Oregon, Salem. 

ODFW (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 1990. McKenzie River, Willamette River subbasin. Salmon 

and steelhead production plan. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. (Available 

from Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 851 SW Sixth Ave. Suite 1100, Portland, OR 

97204.) 

ODFW (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 1998. Documents submitted to the ESA Administrative 

Record for West Coast Chinook salmon by J. W. Greer, 13 October 1998. Salem, Oregon. 

(Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

114
ODFW (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2004. Implementation of the lower Columbia River coho 

endangered species management plan. April 2004. Salem, OR. (Available from ODFW, P.O. 

Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

ODFW and WDFW (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife and Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 1995. 

Status report: Columbia River fish runs and fisheries, 1938–94. (Available from ODFW, P. O. 

Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Olsen, E. A., R. A. French, and J. A. Newton. 1994. Hood River and Pelton Ladder evaluation studies. 

Annual report 1993. U.S. Dept. Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

(Available from BPA, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208.) 

Olsen, E., P. Pierce, M. McLean, and K. Hatch. 1992. Stock summary reports for Columbia River 

anadromous salmonids. Volume I: Oregon. Project no. 88-108. U.S. Dept. Energy, Bonneville 

Power Administration, Portland, OR. (Available from BPA, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 

97208.) 

O’Malley, H. 1922. Investigations and experiments, fertilization of salmon eggs in natural spawning, p. 

27–29. Rep. United States Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1921. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, DC. 

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 

77:118–125. 

Orsi, J. A., and H. W. Jaenicke. 1996. Marine distribution and origin of prerecruit Chinook salmon 

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in southeastern Alaska. Fish. Bull. 94(3):482–497. 

Pacific Fisherman. 1928. Record chum caught off Quadra. Pacific Fisherman 1928(Oct.):13. 

Parkhurst, Z. E., F. G. Bryant, and R. S. Nielson. 1950. Survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries. 

Part 3. USFWS Special Sci. Rep.-Fish., No. 36. Online at http://www.fishlib.org/ 

Subbasins/ssrfsurvey.html [accessed 24 January 2006]. 

Parkinson, E. A. 1984. Genetic variation in populations of steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Trans. 

Am. Fish. Soc. 70:209–220. 

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2000. Review of 1999 Ocean Fisheries Salmon Fisheries. 

(Available from PFMC, 2130 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.) 

Phelps, S. R., B. M. Baker, P. L. Hulett, and S. A. Leider. 1994a. Genetic analysis of Washington 

steelhead: Initial electrophoretic analysis of wild and hatchery steelhead and rainbow trout. 

WDFW rep. 94-9. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia WA 98501.) 

Phelps, S. R., L. L. LeClair, S. Young, and H. L. Blankenship. 1994b. Genetic diversity patterns of 

chum salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51(Suppl. 1):65–83. 

Phelps, S. R., S. A. Leider, P. L. Hulett, B. M. Baker, and T. Johnson. 1997. Genetic analyses of 

Washington steelhead: Preliminary results incorporating 36 new collections from 1995 and 1996. 

Progress rep. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

Phelps, S., J. Uehara, D. Hendrick, A. Blakley and R. Brix. 1995. Genetic diversity units and major 

ancestral lineages for chum salmon in Washington. In C. Busack and J. B. Shaklee (eds.), 

Genetic diversity units and major ancestral lineages of salmonid fishes in Washington. WDFW 

rep. 95-02. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

Pitcher, T. J. 1986. Functions of shoaling in teleosts. In T. J. Fisher (ed.), The behavior of teleost fishes, 

p. 294–337. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 

115
PNRBC (Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission). 1969. Columbia-North Pacific region 

comprehensive framework study of water and related lands. Appendix II. The Region. Pacific 

Northwest River Basins Commission, Vancouver, WA. 

PSMFC. 2000. Regional mark information. Online at http://www.rmis.org [accessed June 2005]. 

PSTRT (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team). 2001. Independent populations of Chinook salmon in 

Puget Sound. Puget Sound TRT public review draft, 11 April 2001. (Available from NWFSC, 

2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112.) 

Ravenel, W. 1898. Report on the propagation and distribution of food-fishes. U.S. Fish commissioner’s 

annual rep. for year ending June 30, 1897, Part XXIII, p. vii–xxix. U.S. Interior Dept., 

Washington, DC. 

Reimers, P. E., and R. E. Loeffel. 1967. The length of residence of juvenile fall Chinook salmon in 

selected Columbia River tributaries. Oregon Fish Commission, Res. Briefs 13(1):5–19, 

Clackamas. 

Rice, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tables. Evolution 43:223–225. 

Rich, W. H., and H. B. Holmes. 1928. Experiments in marking young Chinook salmon on the Columbia 

River, 1916 to 1927. U.S. Bur. Fish. Bull. 44:215–264. 

Ricker, W. E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid populations. In R. 

C. Simon and P. A. Larkin (eds.), The stock concept in Pacific salmon, p. 27–160. University of 

British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Canada. 

Rohlf, F. J. 1994. NTSYSpc: Numerical taxonomy and multivariate system. Exeter Software, Setauket, 

NY. 

Ruggerone, G. T. 1999. Abundance and stock origin of coho salmon on spawning grounds of lower 

Columbia River tributaries. Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. Contract no. 97-2, Pacific States 

Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). (Available from PSMFC, 205 SE Spokane St., 

Portland, OR 97202.) 

Salo, E. O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). In C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), 

Pacific salmon life histories, p. 233–309. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 

Canada. 

Sandercock, F. K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). In C. Groot and L. 

Margolis (eds.), Pacific salmon life histories, p. 397–445. University of British Columbia Press, 

Vancouver, Canada. 

Schreck, C. B., H. W. Li, C. S. Sharpe, K. P. Currens, P. L. Hulett, S. L. Stone, and S. B. Yamada. 1986. 

Stock identification of Columbia River Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Project No. 83-45. 

U.S. Dept. Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. (Available from BPA, P.O. 

Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208.) 

Schroeder, R. K., K. R. Kenaston, and R. B. Lindsay. 2000. Spring Chinook salmon in the Willamette 

and Sandy rivers. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife annual progress rep. F-163-R-04. (Available 

from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Serl, J., and C. Morrill. 2002. Draft annual report for the Cowlitz Falls project. Bonneville Power 

Administration contract no. 96BI92557. (Available from BPA, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 

97208.) 

116
Shaklee, J. B., F. W. Allendorf, D. C. Morizot, and G. S. White. 1990. Gene nomenclature for 

protein-coding loci in fish. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 188:218–227. 

Shaklee, J. B., T. D. Beacham, L. Seeb, and B. A. White. 1999. Managing fisheries using genetic data: 

Case studies from four species of Pacific Salmon. Fish. Res. 43:45–78. 

Sharpe, C., P. Hulett, and C. Wagerman. 2000. Studies of hatchery and wild steelhead in the lower 

Columbia region. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife rep. no. FPA 00-10. (Available from 

WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

Small, M., A. Frye, J. Von Bargen, and S. Young. In press. Genetic structure of chum salmon 

(Oncorhynchus keta) populations in the lower Columbia River: Are chum salmon in Cascade 

tributaries remnant populations? Conserv. Genetics. 

Small, M., J. Von Bargen, A. Frye, S. Young. 2004. Population genetic structure in lower Columbia 

River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) inferred from microsatellite DNA. Lower Columbia 

chum Rep. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital 

Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

Smith, H. M. 1895. Notes on a reconnoissance [sic] of the fisheries of the Pacific coast of the United 

States in 1894. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. XIV(1894):223–288. 

Smith, H. M. 1919. Report of the United States Commissioner of Fisheries for the Fiscal Year 1917. 

U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, DC. 

Smith, T. 1940. Report on the Lewis River Salmon Conservation Program. Washington Dept. Fisheries 

rep., Olympia. 

Smith, W. 1956. Cowlitz River salmon escapements. Washington Dept. Fisheries rep., Olympia. 

Smoker, W. A., J. M. Hurley, and R. C. Meigs. 1951. Compilation of observations on the effect of Ariel 

Dam on the production of salmon and trout in the Lewis River. Washington Dept. Fisheries rep, 

Olympia. 

Sneath, P. H. A., and R. R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. 

Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry, the principles and practice of statistics in biological 

research (2nd ed.). W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. 

Stockley, C. E. 1961. The migration of juvenile salmon past the Mayfield Dam site, Cowlitz River, 1955 

and 1956. Washington Dept. Fisheries rep., Olympia. 

Stone, L. 1878. The salmon fisheries of the Columbia River. In Report of the Commissioner, U.S. 

Commission of Fish and Fisheries, p. 801–823. U.S. Dept. Interior, Washington, DC. 

Suckley, G. 1858. Fishes. Report upon the fishes collected on the survey. Explorations and surveys for 

a railroad route from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. U.S. War Dept., Washington, 

DC. 

Suring, E. J., E. T. Brown, and K. M. S. Moore. Lower Columbia River coho status report 2002–2004, 

Population abundance, distribution, run timing, and hatchery influence. Rep. no. OPSW-ODFW2005-1. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Salem. (Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, Portland, 

OR 97207.) 

Swofford, D. L., and R. B. Selander. 1981. BIOSYS-1: A FORTRAN program for the comprehensive 

analysis of electrophoretic data in population genetics and systematics. J. Hered. 72:281–283. 

117
Tallman, R. F., and M. C. Healey. 1994. Homing, straying, and gene flow among seasonally separated 

populations of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51(3):577–588. 

Teel, D. J., D. M. Van Doornik, D. R. Kuligowski, and W. S. Grant. 2003. Genetic analysis of juvenile 

coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) off Oregon and Washington reveals few Columbia River 

wild fish. Fish. Bull. 101:640–652. 

Titcomb, J. W. 1904. Report on the propagation and distribution of food-fishes. In Report of the 

Commissioner, U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, p. 22–47. U.S. Interior Dept. 

Washington, DC. 

USDOC (U.S. Dept. Commer.) 1968. Climate atlas of the United States. Natl. Climatic Data Center 

(NOAA reprint 1983), Asheville, NC. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1948. Willamette Valley Project Oregon. Preliminary 

evaluation report on fish and wildlife resources. U.S. Dept. Interior. (Available from USFWS, 

911 NE 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232.) 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1993. National water summary 1990–91. Hydrologic events and 

stream water quality. U.S. Dept. Interior, USGS paper 2400. (Available from USGS Store, 

online at http://store.usgs.gov/ [accessed 24 January 2006].) 

van der Haegen, G., and D. Doty. 1995. Homing of coho and fall Chinook salmon in Washington. 

Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife rep. H95-08. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., 

Olympia WA 98501.) 

van der Naald, W. D., 2001. Chum survey data. Unpubl. data. (Available from ODFW, P.O. Box 59, 

Portland, OR 97207.) 

van der Naald, W. D., B. Spellman, and R. Clark. 2001. 1998–1999 Evaluation of fall Chinook and 

chum salmon spawning below Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and McNary dams. Report 

DOE/BP-15007-1. U.S. Dept. Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

(Available from BPA, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208.) 

Wallis, J. 1961. An evaluation of the McKenzie River Salmon Hatchery. Oregon Fish Commission. 

Research Laboratory rep. Clackamas. 

Wallis, J. 1962. An evaluation of the Willamette River Salmon Hatchery. Oregon Fish Commission. 

Research Laboratory rep. Clackamas. 

Wallis, J. 1963a. An evaluation of the Big Creek Salmon Hatchery. Oregon Fish Commission. Research 

Laboratory rep. Clackamas. 

Wallis, J. 1963b. An evaluation of the Klaskanine Salmon Hatchery. Oregon Fish Commission. 

Research Laboratory rep. Clackamas. 

Wallis, J. 1963c. An evaluation of the North Santiam River Salmon Hatcheries. Oregon Fish 

Commission. Research Laboratory rep. Clackamas. 

Waples, R. S. 1990. Conservation genetics of Pacific salmon. I. Temporal changes in allele frequency. 

Conserv. Biol. 4:144–156. 

WDF (Washington Dept. Fisheries). 1951. Planning reports. Lower Columbia River Fisheries 

Development Program. Washington. Unpubl. manuscr. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

WDF and WDG (Washington Dept. Fisheries and Washington Dept. Game). 1946. A report on the 

fisheries problems in connection with the proposed hydro-electric development of the Cowlitz 

River, Lewis County, Washington. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

118
WDF, WDG, and WWTIT (Washington Dept. Fisheries, Washington Dept. Game, and Western 

Washington Treaty Indian Tribes). 1993. 1992 Washington salmon and steelhead stock 

inventory (SASSI). Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

WDFG (Washington Dept. Fish and Game). 1902. Thirteenth annual report of the State Fish 

Commissioner to the Governor of the State of Washington, Seattle. 

WDFG (Washington Dept. Fish and Game). 1907. Sixteenth and seventeenth annual reports of the State 

Fish Commission to the Governor of the State of Washington. 1905–1906. Washington Dept. 

Fish and Game, Olympia. 

WDFG (Washington Dept. Fish and Game). 1913. Twenty-second and twenty-third annual reports of the 

State Fish Commission to the Governor of the State of Washington. 1911–1912. Washington 

Dept. Fish and Game, Olympia. 

WDFG (Washington Dept. Fish and Game). 1916. Twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth annual reports of the 

State Fish Commission to the Governor of the State of Washington from April 1, 1913 to March 

31, 1915. Washington Dept. Fish and Game, Olympia. 

WDFG (Washington Dept. Fish and Game). 1918. Twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh annual reports of 

the State Fish Commission to the Governor of the State of Washington from April 1, 1914 to 

March 31, 1917. Washington Dept. Fish and Game, Olympia. 

WDFG (Washington Dept. Fish and Game). 1928. Thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh annual reports of the 

State Dept. of Fisheries and Game, Division of Fisheries from April 1, 1925 to March 31, 1927. 

Washington Dept. Fish and Game, Olympia. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 1997. Preliminary stock status update for steelhead in the 

lower Columbia River, Washington. Unpubl. manuscr. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital 

Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.) 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2000. Fish passage barrier and surface water diversion 

screening assessment and prioritization manual. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Program, Environmental Restoration Division, Salmonid Screening, Habitat Enhancement, and 

Restoration (SSHEAR) Section, Olympia. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2003. Washington salmonid stock inventory (SaSI). 

Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

Weitkamp, L., P. Busby, B. Iwamoto, O. Johnson, R. Kope, P. Lawson, G. Matthews, P. McElhany, R. 

Reisenbichler, M. Schiewe, D. Teel, T. Wainwright, B. Waknitz, R. Waples, J. Williams. 2001. 

Status review update for Lower Columbia River coho salmon. Unpubl. manuscr. (Available 

from L. Weitkamp, NWFSC, Conservation Biology Division, Hatfield Marine Science Center, 

2032 SE OSU Dr., Newport, OR 97303.) 

Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, T. G. Kope, and R. S. Waples. 

1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24. 

Whisler, J., B. Morgan, and K. Melcher. 1998. Oregon lower Columbia River fall and winter Chinook 

spawning ground surveys, 1948–1997. (Available from ODFW, 2501 SW First Ave., P.O. Box 

59, Portland, OR 97207.) 

Wilcox, W. A. 1898. Notes of the fisheries of the Pacific Coast in 1895. Report of the commissioner for 

the year ending June 30, 1896. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, DC. 

119
Wilkes, C. E. 1845. Narrative of the United States exploring expedition. During the years 1838, 1839, 

1840, 1841, 1842. Volume 4. Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia. 

Willis, R. A. 1962. Gnat Creek weir studies. Final rep., Oregon Fish Commission, Research Division, 

Clackamas. 

Willis, C. F., S. P. Cramer, D. Cramer, M. Smith, T. Downey, and R. Montagne. 1995. Status of 

Willamette River spring Chinook salmon in regards to the federal Endangered Species Act. Part 

1. Portland General Electric Company and Eugene Water and Electric Board. (Available from S. 

P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. 300 SE Arrow Creek Lane, Gresham, OR 97080.) 

Willis, R. A., M. D. Collins, and R. E. Sams. 1960. Environmental survey report pertaining to salmon 

and steelhead in certain rivers of eastern Oregon and the Willamette River and its tributaries. Part 

II. Survey reports of the Willamette River and its tributaries. Oregon Fish Commission, 

Research Division, Clackamas. 

120
Appendix A: Salmonid Hatchery Releases for the 

Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette 

River ESUs 

The sources for Tables A-1 through A-5 are NRC (1996) and Good et al. (2005). 

Chinook Salmon 

Table A-1. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall runs. 

Total ESU releases 

Watershed Durationa Year

b

Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1964, 1971 Big Creek Hatchery 1,150,865 

1981–1993 Chinook Hatchery 8,403,778 

1989 1 Elochoman Hatchery 124,700 

1970 1 Issaquah Creek Hatchery 97,511 

1982 1 Lower Columbia River 

Hatchery (WA) 

830,589 

1953, 1,105,550 

1988–1989 

Lower Kalama Hatchery 

and Kalama Falls Hatcheryc

1965–1983 4 Spring Creek NFH 3,146,137 

1970–1980 3 Toutle River Hatchery 1,177,853 

1972–1979 4 Unknownd 2,473,102 

1987, 1990 3 Washougal River Hatchery 1,584,500 

Chinook River 

Totals 19,997,074 97,511 

1980, 1993 2 Cowlitz Hatchery/ 

Kalama Riverc Deep River 960,456 

Totals 960,456 

1968–1983 9 Abernathy NFH 8,795,726 

1977–1984 2 Big Creek Hatchery 1,406,632 

1981–1984 3 Bonneville Dam Hatchery 4,970,683 

1980, 1986 2 Cowlitz Hatchery 4,018,755 

1967–1989 5 Elochoman Hatchery 3,434,258 

Grays River 

1966–1993 26 Grays River Hatchery 22,542,491 

1986 1 Grays River Hatchery/ 

Elochoman Hatcheryc

102,000 

1981, 1993 2 Kalama River/ 

Grays River Hatcheryc

190,073 

1981 1 Klickitat Hatchery 225,134 

1981, 1982 2 Lower Columbia River (WA) 5,768,516 

1957, 1966 2 Lewis River Hatchery 1,400,329 

1953, 1954 2 Lower Kalama Hatchery 399,997 

1968–1993 8 Lower Kalama Hatchery 9,578,125 

121 
Table A-1 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall runs. 

Total ESU releases 

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1987 1 Skamokawa Creek 107,000 

1953–1992 15 Spring Creek NFH 17,437,295 

1980 1 Toutle Hatchery 1,951,871 

1984–1987 4 Washougal Hatchery 1,572,395 

Grays River 

continued 

Totals 1 83,901,280 

Skamokawa Creek 1958 3 Klickitat Hatchery 237,380 

Totals 237,380 

1966–1978 Abernathy NFH 709,546 

Basin Stocks 2,928,957 

1964 1 Big Creek Hatchery 2,049,806 

1980 1 Cowlitz Hatchery 2,310,420 

1974 1 Elk River Hatchery 30,070 

1956–1993 26 Elochoman Hatchery 78,855,922 

1986 1 Elochoman Hatchery/ 

Kalama Riverc

1,194,177 

1980 1 Elochoman Hatchery/ 

Toutle Hatcheryc 2,411,131 

1956 1 Green River Hatchery 67,484 

1975–1993 5 Kalama Falls Hatchery 5,392,994 

1958, 1982 2 Klickitat Hatchery 1,759,005 

1982 1 Lower Columbia River (WA) 1,300,072 

1956–1966 3 Lewis River Hatchery 3,007,696 

1953–1954 2 Lower Kalama Hatchery 400,080 

1971 1 Nemah Hatchery 132,750 

1987 1 Skamokawa Creek 511,300 

1953–1967 12 Spring Creek NFH 14,699,029 

1975, 1980 2 Toutle Hatchery 2,337,931 

1974 1 Trask Hatchery 38,974 

1955 1 Unknownd 3,758 

1988 1 Washougal Hatchery 418,000 

Elochoman River 

Totals 120,490,058 69,044 

1974–1994 21 Abernathy NFH 29,120,068 

1977 1 Spring Creek NFH 5,090 

1960–77 18 Unknownd 15,273,548 

Abernathy Creek 

Totals 44,398,706 

Columbia River 

RM 29 

1971, 1977, 

1979 

3 Abernathy NFH 3,481,359 

1979 1 Carson NFH 966,240 

1979 1 Cascade Hatchery 25,617 

1980 1 Cowlitz Hatchery 7,565,885 

1957, 1958 2 Klickitat Hatchery 731,595 

1980 1 Lower Columbia River (WA)c 50,414 

1968 1 Lower Kalama Hatchery 77,693 

1971 1 Priest Rapids Hatchery 1,804,000 

1957–1969 4 Spring Creek NFH 5,183,331 

1969 1 Toutle Hatchery 500,396 

1990, 1991 2 Tule stocksc 1,000 

122 
Table A-1 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall runs. 

Total ESU releases 

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1960–1985 10 Unknownd 471,660,276 

1971 1 Wells Hatchery 1,784,000 

1979 1 Willard NFH 148,575 

Columbia River 

RM 29 continued 

Totals 490,392,381 3,588,000 

1981 1 Big Creek Hatchery (OR) 807,000 

1981 1 Bonneville Hatchery 4,217,937 

1961–1993 27 Cowlitz Hatchery 152,192,405 

1953–1981 3 Lower Kalama Hatchery 2,830,087 

1953, 1955 2 Spring Creek NFH 586,673 

1968, 1979 2 Toutle Hatchery 1,008,357 

1978, 1990 2 Washougal Hatchery 2,606,330 

1952 1 Carson NFH 24,506 

Cowlitz River 

Totals 164,273,295 

1967 1 Big Creek Hatchery (OR) 463,459 

1952 1 Carson NFH 1,164,070 

1991, 1993 2 Cowlitz Hatchery 641,382 

1989 1 Elochoman Hatchery 868,700 

1988 1 Grays River Hatchery 3,937,000 

1966–1975 4 Green River Hatchery 8,024,234 

1957 1 Lewis River Hatchery 348,799 

1953–1993 5 Lower Kalama Hatchery/ 6,880,135 

Kalama Falls Hatcheryc

1953–1960, 

1993 

8 Spring Creek NFH 9,400,907 

1953–1993 28 Toutle Hatchery 55,647,988 

1964, 1965 2 Unknownd 6,479,628 

1987, 1993 2 Washougal Hatchery 987,600 

1960 1 Willard NFH 795,932 

Toutle River 

Totals 95,639,834 

1978 1 Big Creek Hatchery (OR) 88,568 

1977, 1982 2 Bonneville Hatchery 734,074 

1958–1993 31 Kalama Falls Hatchery 169,592,860 

1956 1 Lewis River Hatchery 661,447 

1952–1984 28 Lower Kalama Hatchery 51,969,100 

1976–1981 3 Priest Rapids Hatchery 280,209 

1972 1 Ringold Hatchery 190,316 

1978–1984 6 Snake River 2,194,002 

1959, 1960 2 Spring Creek NFH 5,168,368 

1978, 1979 2 Toutle Hatchery 4,286,684 

1980 1 Tucannon River 183,034 

Kalama River 

Totals 232,684,135 2,847,561 

Lewis River 1979 1 Grays River Hatchery 23,567 

1952–1993 30 Lewis River Hatchery 15,283,070 

1954 1 Lower Kalama Hatchery 41,128 

1954, 1974 2 Lower Kalama Hatchery 274,978 

1961–1979 3 Speelyai Hatchery 1,315,749 

1959–1981 3 Spring Creek NFH 3,121,717 

1948–1951 4 Unknownd 510,252 

1984, 1985 2 Upriver brightsc 1,187,029 

123 
Table A-1 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall runs. 

Total ESU releases 

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

Lewis River 1980 1 Washougal Hatchery 28,267 

continued Totals 20,598,728 1,187,029 

1969 1 Lower Kalama Hatchery 3,000 

1969 1 Toutle Hatchery 3,000 

Salmon Creek 

Totals 6,000 

1967, 1986 2 Abernathy NFH 2,239,237 

1971 1 Big Creek Hatchery (OR) 856,650 

1977–1983 3 Bonneville Hatchery 4,437,019 

1980, 1986 2 Cowlitz Hatchery 7,489,190 

1986 1 Elochoman Hatchery 75,600 

1985 1 Grays River Hatchery 79,750 

1966–1985 7 Kalama Falls Hatchery 8,996,220 

1981 1 Lower Columbia River 

(OR/WA)c

5,509,822 

1955–1966 4 Lewis River Hatchery 2,449,402 

1953 1 Lower Kalama Hatchery 175,000 

1989 1 Priest Rapids Hatchery 1,216,800 

1958–1965 8 Spring Creek NFH 21,186,454 

1992 1 Spring Creek/Toutle Hatcheryc 5,522,700 

1969–1980 5 Toutle Hatchery 7,451,494 

1979 1 Toutle Hatchery/Washougal 

Hatcheryc 5,342,147 

1964, 1967 2 Unknownd 4,776,903 

1959–1993 24 Washougal Hatchery 83,605,011 

Washougal River 

Totals 160,192,599 1,216,800 

1992, 1993 2 Bonneville Hatchery 857,601 

1978–1988 9 Lower Columbia River (WA) 653,305 

1992 1 Little White Salmon NFH (URB) 1,628,987 

1977 1 Priest Rapids Hatchery 241,000 

1977 1 Snake River (WA) 3,326 

1955–1979 4 Unknownd 1,510,096 

Columbia River 

RM 141 

1982 1 Washougal Hatchery 49,034 

Totals 3,070,036 1,873,313 

Hamilton Creek 1977 1 Spring Creek NFH 50,160 

Totals 50,160 

Wind River 1952–1968 11 Unknownd 54,803,553 

1976 1 Carson NFH 668,692 

Totals 55,472,245 

Spring Creek NFH 1979–1984 5 Abernathy NFH 29,113,699 

1985–1991 7 Bonneville Hatchery 44,276,578 

1991 1 Clackamas River (early) 3,292,304 

1987, 1988 2 Lower Columbia River (WA)c 10,771,008 

1987 1 Little White Salmon NFH 973,610 

1987 1 Priest Rapids Hatchery 1,100,000 

1973–1994 18 Spring Creek NFH 228,514,095 

1988 1 Tule stockc 1,084,816 

1988 1 Unknownd 217,350 

Totals 318,243,460 1,100,000 

124 
Table A-1 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall runs. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1985 Bonneville Hatchery 203,996 

1994 Carson NFH 1,797,922 

1976–1985 9 Little White Salmon NFH 

1978, 1994 2 Spring Creek NFH 5,937,253 

1983 1 Tule stockc 8,430,082 

1951–1979 16 Unknownd 152,096,514 

1983–1993 11 Upriver brightsc 20,708,020 

Little White 

Salmon River 

Totals 255,114,904 20,708,020 

1994 1 Carson NFH 325 

1981 1 Little White Salmon NFH 37,400 

1979 1 Unknownd 265,472 

Columbia River 

RM 164 

Totals 303,197 

Big White Salmon 

River 

1976–1984 4 Abernathy NFH 8,231,545 

1979 1 Lower Columbia River (WA) 101,896 

1981 1 Little White Salmon NFH 1,084,839 

1954, 1979 2 Spring Creek NFH 3,082,047 

1950–1979 18 Unknownd 74,351,025 

1979 1 Willard NFH 98,597 

Totals 86,949,949 

Skipanon River 1987 1 Klaskanine Hatchery 15,500 

Totals 15,500 

Lewis and Clark 

River 

1951, 1952 2 Lower Columbia River (OR) 146,230 

1950 1 Unknownd 61,600 

Totals 207,830 

Youngs River 1988, 1991 2 Big Creek Hatchery 621,005 

1986 1 Bonneville Hatchery 26,397 

1989–1992 3 Cole Rivers Hatchery 

1961, 1989 2 Klaskanine Hatchery 122,625 

475,352 

Totals 770,027 475,352 

Klaskanine River 1979 1 Abernathy NFH 56,260 

1950–1989 10 Big Creek Hatchery 33,173,221 

1931 1 Big White Salmon River 737,702 

1929, 1936 2 Bonneville Hatchery 5,955,830 

1978–1986 9 Bonneville Hatchery 32,704,826 

1975 1 Chetco River 41,079 

1983–1988 6 Cole Rivers Hatchery 572,601 

1925–1978 13 Klaskanine Hatchery 16,042,881 

1927, 1928 2 Klaskanine Hatchery/USBFc 2,145,108 

1960, 1962 1 Klaskanine Hatchery/ 

Willard NFHc

1,993,540 

1932–1966 8 Lower Columbia River (OR)c 11,302,002 

1933, 1942 2 Lower Columbia River (OR)/ 

Willamette Hatcheryc 7,371,078 

1931–1939 4 Lower Columbia River (WA)/ 

Willamette Hatcheryc 9,209,991 

1946, 1958 2 Oxbow Hatchery 860,537 

1959 1 Spring Creek NFH 965,428 

125 
Table A-1 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall runs. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1975 1 Trask Hatchery 39,369 

1923–1977 5 Unknownd 13,334,263 

Klaskanine River 

continued 

Totals 119,271,598 17,234,118 

1944–1993 31 Big Creek Hatchery 123,924,819 

1946, 1948 2 Big Creek Hatchery/ 

Bonneville Hatcheryc

1,573,622 

1959, 1960 2 Big Creek Hatchery/ 

Willard NFHc

3,171,214 

1943 1 Bonneville Hatchery 338,500 

1981–1987 3 Bonneville Hatchery 14,313,343 

1984–1994 11 Cole Rivers Hatchery 3,519,553 

1941 1 McKenzie River Hatchery 1,290,875 

1950, 

1968–1976 

9 Unknownd 54,142,951 

1942 1 Willamette Hatchery 568,500 

Big Creek 

Totals 197,464,449 5,378,928 

Gnat Creek 1952 1 Big Creek Hatchery 29,520 

1954–1957 4 Bonneville Hatchery 150,769 

1957, 1958 2 Trask Hatchery 52,220 

Totals 180,289 52,220 

Clatskanie River 1951–1953 3 Big Creek Hatchery 208,200 

Totals 208,200 

Mid-Columbia River 

(OR) 

1979–1984 5 Abernathy NFH 965,896 

1964, 1987 2 Big Creek Hatchery 1,949,466 

1978–1983 4 Bonneville Hatchery 5,806,919 

1939, 1954 2 Bonneville Hatchery/ 

Oxbow Hatcheryc 2,714,025 

1965 1 Carson NFH 411,965 

1978, 1981 2 Cascade Hatchery 5,625,444 

1978 1 Deschutes River (OR) 73,092 

1910 1 Lower Columbia River (OR) 15,170,324 

1981 1 Little White Salmon NFH 25,933 

1940, 1941, 

1963 

3 Oxbow Hatchery 5,246,079 

1977–1980 3 Spring Creek NFH 3,359,797 

1966 1 Tule stock 377,520 

1940, 1969, 

1970 

Unknownd 1,119,151 

1987–1991 5 Upriver brightsc 1,804,107 

1966 1 Willamette Hatchery 11,025 

Totals 42,772,519 1,888,224 

Scappoose Creek 1952, 1953 2 Big Creek Hatchery 69,450 

Totals 69,450 

Clackamas River 1952–1954 3 Bonneville Hatchery 2,160,060 

1981 1 Bonneville Hatchery 4,080 

1965 1 Lower Columbia River (OR) 921,545 

1955, 1965 2 Oxbow Hatchery 1,214,851 

126 
Table A-1 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall runs. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1960 1 Spring Creek NFH 1,012,607 

1960–1972 7 Unknownd 16,585,148 

Clackamas River 

continued 

Totals 21,898,291 

Eagle Creek 1938, 1953 2 Bonneville Hatchery 630,000 

1961, 1967 2 Cascade Hatchery 10,923,441 

1949, 

1960–1965 

4 Lower Columbia River (OR)c 20,420,776 

1962 1 Lower Columbia River (OR)/ 

Mount Shasta Hatcherye 4,853,922 

1929 1 Lower Columbia River (OR)/ 

Willamette Hatcherye

1934–1965 7 Unknownd 978,056 

347,000 

Totals 32,952,273 5,200,922 

1938–1954 3 Bonneville Hatchery 4,057,279 

1966 1 Cascade Hatchery 174,648 

1945–1965 8 Lower Columbia River (OR)c 18,696,769 

1960 1 Lower Columbia River 

(OR/WA)c

2,919,481 

1955–1964 5 Sandy Hatchery 2,207,995 

1934–1977 12 Unknownd 4,758,926 

Sandy River 

Totals 32,815,098 

Multnomah Creek 1951 1 Lower Columbia River (OR)c 50,400 

1953 1 Oxbow Hatchery 152,064 

Totals 65,832,660 

Tanner Creek 1990–1992 3 Big Creek Hatchery 14,585,543 

1928–1966 14 Bonneville Hatchery 106,965,953 

1977–1993 14 Bonneville Hatchery 130,296,696 

1912–1961 14 Bonneville Hatchery mixc 80,763,654 

1945 1 Bonneville Hatchery 4,601,000 

and Rock Creek Hatcherye

1958 1 Bonneville Hatchery/ 

Trask Hatcherye 4,225,234 

1965 1 Bonneville Hatchery/unknownc,d 9,601,000 

1940–1967 6 Lower Columbia River (OR) 34,203,415 

1955–1962 3 Lower Columbia River 

(OR/WA)c 27,961,223 

1979–1981 3 Snake River (OR)c 512,440 

1957 1 Trask Hatchery 3,756,712 

1986–1991 3 Tule stockc 2,894,909 

1918–1977 21 Unknownd 206,351,204 

1978–1993 16 Priest Rapids Hatchery 46,736,964 

Totals 613,623,597 59,832,350 

Herman Creek 1918 1 Bonneville Hatchery 3,937,598 

1928–1954 4 Lower Columbia River (OR)c 4,402,471 

1958 1 Lower Columbia River 

(OR/WA)c 2,348,962 

1951–1967 12 Oxbow Hatchery 39,619,232 

1925–1968 3 Unknownd 8,998,412 

Totals 59,306,675 

127 
Table A-1 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall runs. 

Total ESU releases 

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1938–1954 7 Bonneville Hatchery 1,473,180 

1951 1 Lower Columbia River (OR)c 503,200 

1934–1937 4 Unknownd 680,000 

Hood River 

Totals 2,656,380 

Fifteenmile Creek 1949 1 Lower Columbia River (OR)c 80,500 

Totals 80,500 

a

 Duration is the time frame of the releases. 

b

 Years is the total number of years that fish actually were released within the time frame. The majority of oceantype, fall and summer Chinook salmon were released as subyearlings. No releases of eggs or fry (<5 g) are 

included. Data before 1950 are not necessarily complete (NRC 1996). 

c

 A mix of two or more stocks from the same area. 

d

 Stocks of unknown origin are assumed to be from within the ESU. Fish releases derived from adults returning to 

that river also are assumed to be native regardless of past introductions, unless the hatchery broodstock is known 

to be from outside the ESU. 

e

 A mix of stocks from different areas. 

128 
Table A-2. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU spring runs. 

Total ESU releases 

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

Grays River 1977 1 Kalama Falls Hatchery 116,800 

Totals 116,800 

1975 1 Abernathy NFH 91,744 

1969, 1975 Unknownd 90,050 

Abernathy Creek 

Totals 181,794 

1968–1993 26 Cowlitz Hatchery 68,063,606 

1979 1 Little White Salmon NFH 224,590 

1948–1970 4 Unknownd 1,716,588 

1968, 1969 2 Willamette Hatchery 999,295 

Cowlitz River 

Totals 70,004,784 999,295 

1974–1984 7 Cowlitz Hatchery 2,661,471 

1953 1 Unknownd 11,184 

Toutle River 

Totals 2,672,655 

1964 1 Ancient wild stocks 46,657 

1964, 1966 2 Bitter Creek 147,074 

1967, 1981 2 Cowlitz Hatchery 525,909 

1969–1993 25 Kalama Falls Hatchery 9,084,007 

1965 1 Klaskanine Hatchery 195,800 

1972, 1973 2 Lower Columbia River mixc 99,175 

1978 1 Little White Salmon NFH 136,989 

1964 1 Sherwood Creek 132,054 

Kalama River 

Totals 10,367,665 

Lewis River 1973–1981 4 Carson NFH 702,708 

1972–1987 9 Cowlitz Hatchery 2,476,235 

1981–1993 5 Kalama Falls Hatchery 2,415,550 

1975, 1976 2 Klickitat Hatchery 203,660 

1977–1993 11 Lewis River Hatchery 6,999,862 

1980 1 Lewis River Hatchery/ 

Kalama Riverc 807,408 

1977–1982 4 Speelyai Hatchery 2,011,325 

1948–1951 4 Unknownd 192,943 

Totals 14,903,323 906,368 

1978–1988 8 Lower Columbia River (WA)c 959,953

1973–1990 14 Snake River (WA)c 1,412,152 

Columbia River 

(Beacon Rock) 

Totals 959,953 1,412,152 

1978 1 Carson NFH 76,060 

1980 1 Kooskia Hatchery 62,300 

1978, 1980 2 Rapid River Hatchery 35,000 

1973–1977 4 Snake River (WA) 425,801 

North Hatchery 

Bonneville Dam 

(bypass system 

tests) 

Totals 599,161 

Columbia River 1974, 1994 2 Carson NFH 5,350 

RM 164 Totals 5,350 

1976 1 Abernathy NFH 82,697 

1979 1 Lower Columbia River (WA)c 45,014 

1956–1975 19 Unknownd 27,098,613 

Wind River 

Totals 27,226,324 

Spring Creek NFH 1993 1 Kalama Falls Hatchery/ 

Ringold Hatchery/ 

Carson NFHe

669,400

Totals 669,400 

129 
Table A-2 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU spring 

runs. 

Total ESU releases 

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1985 1 Abernathy NFH 946,959 

1986–1994 7 Carson NFH 9,819,820 

1976–1989 13 Little White Salmon NFH 13,759,232 

1966–1975 8 Unknownd 4,807,330 

Little White Salmon 

River 

Totals 5,754,289 23,579,052 

Big White 

Salmon River 

1986–1994 8 Carson NFH 4,880,790 

1982 1 Cowlitz Hatchery 149,071 

1991 1 Little White Salmon NFH 942,804 

Totals 149,071 5,823,594 

Youngs River 1991, 1992 2 Clackamas River early 242,534 

1994 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 301,361 

1989–92 4 Willamette Hatchery 1,048,266 

Totals 1,592,161 

Klaskanine River 1931 1 Big White Salmon River 158,643 

1991 1 Clackamas River (early) 119,627 

1994 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 109,974 

1928–1934 3 McKenzie River Hatchery 4,404,514 

1994 1 Santiam River 100,000 

1930 1 Trask Hatchery 953,400 

1920–1924 3 Unknownd 14,548,862 

1989–1992 3 Willamette Hatchery 577,944 

1927 1 Willamette Hatchery mixedc 2,101,000 

Totals 14,548,862 8,525,102 

Big Creek 1985 1 Clackamas River (early) 20,449 

Totals 20,449 

Mid-Columbia 1980 1 Carson NFH 44,344 

River (OR) 1991 1 Lookingglass Hatchery 8,398 

1946 1 Unknownd 605,750 

Totals 605,750 70,651 

1930 Marion Forks Hatchery/ 

Trask Hatcherye

Scappoose Creek 60,000

Totals 60,000 

Clackamas River 1975 1 Carson NFH 289,710 

1977, 1978 2 Cascade Hatchery 195,203 

1985, 1992 2 Clackamas River 232,947 

1978–1994 14 Clackamas River (early) 11,595,754 

1979 1 Clackamas River (late) 98,461 

1975–1987 5 Eagle Creek NFH 1,294,822 

1978 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 188,261 

1979–1988 4 Santiam River 1,653,231 

1939–1989 30 Unknownd 25,649,266 

1982–1989 6 Willamette Hatchery 4,319,098 

Totals 25,844,469 19,672,284 

Sandy River 1990 1 Bonneville Hatchery 258,629 

1978 1 Carson NFH 57,861 

1979–1993 11 Clackamas River (early) 3,067,038 

130 
Table A-2 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU spring 

runs. 

Total ESU releases 

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1948, 1949 2 Lower Columbia River (OR)c 441,169 

1942, 1959 2 McKenzie River Hatchery 1,066,949 

1952–1960 7 Sandy Hatchery 2,192,294 

1939–1947 4 Sandy Hatchery/ 

McKenzie River Hatcherye

3,903,646 

1957 1 Sandy Hatchery/ 

Willamette Hatcherye

40,475 

1979, 1981, 

1986 

3 Santiam River 305,729 

1920–1984 8 Unknownd 2,007,960 

1973, 1974 2 USFWS-unspecified 37,483 

1982–1988 4 Willamette Hatchery 1,153,877 

Sandy River 

continued 

Totals 4,937,535 9,595,575 

1925–1945 8 Bonneville Hatchery/ 

Willamette Hatcherye 27,815,501 

1930 1 Marion Forks Hatchery/ 

Trask Hatcherye

1,710,240 

1920–1922 3 Unknownd 15,861,909 

Tanner Creek 

Totals 15,861,909 29,525,741 

Herman Creek 1920–1935 3 Bonneville Hatchery 7,119,680 

1924 1 Oxbow Hatchery 3,963,540 

1921–1972 19 Unknownd 50,327,069 

Totals 61,410,289 

Hood River 1919 1 Bonneville Hatchery 291,860 

1946–1947 2 Oxbow Hatchery 680,750 

1984–1985 2 Clackamas Hatchery 53,920 

1985–1992 6 Carson Hatchery 871,406 

1993–1994 2 Deschutes River 69,127 

Totals 972,610 994,453 

Totals for ESU #9 3,607,547,163 226,965,239 

a

 Duration is the time frame of the releases. 

b

 Years is the total number of years that fish actually were released within the time frame. The majority of 

spring Chinook salmon were released as yearling smolts. No releases of eggs or fry (<5 g) are included. Data 

before 1950 are not necessarily complete (NRC 1996). 

c

 A mix of two or more stocks from the same area. 

d

 Stocks of unknown origin are assumed to be from within the ESU. Fish releases derived from adults returning to 

that river also are assumed to be native regardless of past introductions, unless the hatchery broodstock is known 

to be from outside the ESU. 

e

 A mix of stocks from different areas. 

131 
Table A-3. Hatchery releases for the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

Total ESU releases 

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1975 Carson NFH 289,710 

1977, 1978 

1 

2 Cascade Hatchery 195,203 

1985, 1992 2 Clackamas River 232,947 

1978–1994 14 Clackamas River (early) 11,595,754 

1979 1 Clackamas River (late) 98,461 

1975–1987 5 Eagle Creek NFH 1,294,822 

1978 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 188,261 

1979–1988 4 Santiam River 1,653,231 

1939–1989 30 Unknownc 25,649,266 

1982–1989 6 Willamette Hatchery 4,319,098 

Clackamas River 

Totals 45,321,550 195,203 

1991 1 Clackamas River (early) 469,890 

1964 1 McKenzie River Hatchery 72,975 

1981–1992 3 Santiam River 2,032,335 

1964–1965 2 Unknownc 375,209 

1982–1992 10 Willamette Hatchery 7,520,897 

Molalla River 

Totals 10,471,306 

1964 1 McKenzie River Hatchery 62,550 

1983–1985 3 Willamette Hatchery 453,479 

Pudding River 

Totals 516,029 

1968 1 Unknownc Luckiamute River 88,128 

Totals 88,128 

1965–1982 7 Carson NFH 1,416,271 

1980, 1981 2 Clackamas River (early) 752,939 

1967–1975 4 Hagerman NFH 645,175 645,175 

Santiam River 

1923–1994 53 Marion Forks Hatchery 87,932,370 

1936, 

1937 

2 Marion Forks Hatchery/ 

McKenzie River Hatcheryd

8,441,800 

1961–1978 7 McKenzie River Hatchery 1,009,442 

1941, 1948 2 McKenzie River Hatchery/ 

Santiam Riverd

1,663,717 

1932–1994 46 Santiam River 61,605,990 

1963, 1964 2 Santiam River/ 

Willamette Hatcheryd

1,989,604 

1962 1 Spring Creek NFH 191,298 

1918–1981 26 Unknownc 16,976,462 

1981–86 6 Willamette Hatchery 10,566,693 

Totals 191,584,192 2,252,744 

Willamette River 1952, 

1962–1967 

4 Marion Forks Hatchery 343,676 

1949, 1978 2 McKenzie Hatchery 50,003 

1955 1 McKenzie Hatchery/ 

Willamette Hatcheryd

1,173,991 

1953, 1987 2 Santiam River 420,240 

1916–1977 14 Unknownc 12,567,419 

1955–1967 7 Willamette Hatchery 9,457,376 

132 
Table A-3 continued. Hatchery releases for the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

Total ESU releases 

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

Willamette River 1979–1992 11 Willamette Hatchery 10,089,414 

continued Totals 34,102,119 

1981, 1985 2 Santiam River 46,188 

1982–1985 4 Willamette Hatchery 500,522 

Calapooia River 

Totals 546,710 

1969–1975 7 Hagerman NFH 1,424,563 

1966 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 47,418 

1952 1 Marion Forks Hatchery/ 

McKenzie Hatchery 

1,125,897 

1966 1 Marion Forks Hatchery/ 

Willamette Hatcheryd

3,030 

1902–1969 62 McKenzie Hatchery 192,671,426 

1978–1994 17 McKenzie Hatchery 15,997,516 

1951–1965 4 McKenzie Hatchery/ 

Willamette Hatcheryd

1,309,620 

1972–1991 4 Santiam River 288,820 

1918–1977 17 Unknownc 4,144,703 

1966–1984 4 Willamette Hatchery 1,318,574 

McKenzie River 

Totals 216,907,004 1,424,563 

1974 1 Hagerman NFH 41,379 

1920–1976 4 Lower Columbia River (OR)/ 

Willamette Hatcheryd

1,885,217 

1983, 1990 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 290,174 

1979–1990 4 McKenzie Hatchery 1,038,153 

1928, 1952 2 McKenzie Hatchery/ 

Willamette Hatchery 

8,310,778 

1958 1 Nehalem River/ 

Willamette Hatcheryd

19,962 

1978–1991 7 Santiam River 3,439,419 

1952–1966 6 Santiam River/ 

Willamette Hatchery 

6,984,701 

1950–1977 9 Unknownc 17,681,493 

1958 1 Wenatchee River/ 

Willamette Hatcheryd

67,827 

1921–1994 59 Willamette Hatchery 17,934,084 

Middle Fork 

Willamette River 

Totals 55,678,802 2,014,385 

Molalla River 1965, 1967 2 Big Creek Hatcherye 1,397,158 

1958 1 Bonneville Hatchery/ 

Trask Hatcheryd, e

100,000 

1978 1 Cascade Hatcherye 2,111,600 

1959, 1960 2 Lower Columbia River (OR)/ 

Willamette Hatcheryd, e

401,858 

1967 1 Oxbow Hatcherye 500,132 

1957 1 Trask River 

(Bonneville Hatchery)e 75,000 

1964–76 11 Unknownc, e 9,310,823 

Totals 13,896,571 

133 
Table A-3 continued. Hatchery releases for the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb Broodstock origination Inside Outside 

1974, 1976 2 Unknownc, e Luckiamute River 1,945,098 

Totals 1,945,098 

Marys River 1970 1 Oregon coaste 176,400 

Totals 176,400 

1966 1 Big Creek Hatcherye 1,000,848 

1921, 1951 2 Bonneville Hatchery/ 

Oxbow Hatcheryd, e

1,669,444 

1966 1 Cascade Hatcherye 350,000 

1956, 1957 2 Klickitat Hatcherye 175,974 

1958, 1966 2 Oxbow Hatcherye 599,911 

1964–1976 11 Unknownc, e 54,236,434 

Santiam River 

Totals 58,032,611 

Willamette River 1953–1956 4 Bonneville Hatcherye 2,922,337 

1977–1993 16 Bonneville Hatcherye 88,960,581 

1949 1 Bonneville Hatchery/ 

Trask Hatcheryd, e

8,776 

1970 1 Oregon coaste 14,560 

1965–1985 13 Willamette Hatcherye 34,294,598 

Totals 126,200,852 

McKenzie River 1966 1 Bonneville Hatcherye 510,150 

1966 1 Cascade Hatcherye 650,454 

1964–1968 3 Unknownc, e 3,399,591 

Totals 4,560,195 

Totals for ESU #10: 555,215,840 210,698,622 

a

 Duration is the time frame of the releases. 

b

 Years is the total number of years that fish actually were released within the time frame. The majority of spring 

Chinook salmon were released as yearling smolts. The majority of ocean-type, fall and summer Chinook salmon 

were released as subyearlings. No releases of eggs or fry (<5 g) are included. Data before 1950 are not necessarily 

complete (NRC 1996). 

c

 Stocks of unknown origin are assumed to be from within the ESU. Fish releases derived from adults returning to 

that river also are assumed to be native regardless of past introductions, unless the hatchery broodstock is known 

to be from outside the ESU. 

d A mix of stocks from different areas. 

e

 Nonnative fall Chinook salmon. 

134 
Steelhead 

Table A-4. Hatchery steelhead releases, listed by ESU. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Runc

Southwest Washington ESU

Beaver Creek (WA) 1959–1973 12 Unknownd 834,116 na 

1986–2000 3 Elochoman River 86,673 s 

1983 1 Kalama River 10,750 s 

1993 1 North Fork Lewis River 33,840 s 

1968–1981 4 Unknownd 90,601 s 

1984–1997 7 Washougal River 1,143,957 s 

1984–1994 8 Skamania Hatchery 1,115,780 s 

1986–1997 6 Beaver Creek 

(WA, Elochoman) 

829,057 w 

1982–1983 2 Bogachiel River 157,038 w 

1982–2000 15 Elochoman Hatchery 1,374,575 w 

1985 1 Green River (WDFW) 19,976 w 

1993 1 Kalama River 19,040 w 

1994–1996 1 Lewis River Hatchery 57,270 w 

1959–1981 19 Unknownd 1,232,901 w 

1990 1 Washougal River 4,950 w 

Totals 4,432,637 2,577,887 

Grays River 1993–2000 3 Elochoman Hatchery 125,748 w 

1995–1997 3 Beaver Creek Hatchery 115,975 w 

1995–1999 3 Lewis River Hatchery 78,947 w 

Totals 320,670 

Skamokawa Creek 1996-1997 2 Beaver Creek Hatchery 12,107 w 

1995 1 Lewis River Hatchery 5,100 w 

Totals 17,207 

Big Creek 1968–1975 5 Unknownd 312,493 na 

1976–2002 27 Big Creek 2,073,024 w 

1972–1977 4 Unknownd 262,244 w 

Totals 3,323,515 

Gnat Creek (OR) 1965, 1966 2 Alsea River and tributaries 405,905 na 

1961 1 Carson NFH 75,273 na 

1961–1964 4 Columbia River (OR, early) 481,114 na 

1971 1 Deschutes River 27,375 na 

1961–1971 9 Cedar Creek Hatchery (OR) 825,522 na 

1961–1966 6 Hood River 375,461 na 

1968 1 Nestucca River 1,498 na 

1971–1973 4 Deschutes River 138,545 s 

1974–1976 3 Foster Reservoir 365,720 s 

1978–1992 15 South Santiam Hatchery 3,311,941 s 

1977 1 Unknownd 204,949 s 

1966 1 Alsea River and tributaries 10,268 w 

1976–1992 15 Big Creek 7,077,693 w 

135 
Table A-4 continued. Hatchery steelhead releases, listed by ESU. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Runc

Southwest Washington ESU continued

Gnat Creek (OR) 

continued 

1967–1975 9 Cedar Creek Hatchery (OR) 2,509,075 w 

1991–2000 10 Gnat Creek Hatchery 408,360 w 

1982 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 23,492 w 

1777 1 Unknown 354,942 w 

Totals 7,840,995 8,756,138

Elochoman River 1999 1 Elochoman Hatchery 4,690 s 

1998 1 Skamania Hatchery 24,314 s 

1996 1 Beaver Creek Hatchery 7,100 w 

1999–2001 3 Elochoman Hatchery 322,913 w 

Totals 330,013 25,004

Klaskanine River 1978–1996 15 Big Creek 875,134 w 

1991–2002 12 Klaskanine Hatchery 651,189 w 

1972–1977 5 Unknownd 228,231 w 

1991–1993 2 West Fork Washougal River 42,000 s 

Totals 1,103,365 42,000

Germany Creek 1995 1 Lewis River Hatchery 5,000 w 

1996–1997 2 Beaver Creek Hatchery 17,498 w 

1998 1 Elochoman Hatchery 6,998 w 

Totals 24,496 5,000

Coal Creek 1996–1997 2 Beaver Creek Hatchery 9.677 w 

1999 1 Cowlitz Hatchery 1,326 w 

Totals 9,677 1,326

Trojan Pond 1987–1990 4 Big Creek 240,137 w 

Totals 240,137 

Scappoose Creek 1991–1996 6 Gnat Creek Hatchery 60,353 w 

Totals 60,353 

Lower Columbia River ESU

Cowlitz River basin

Coweeman River 1984–2001 15 Elochoman Hatchery 1,077,354 w 

Pond 1999 1 Kalama Hatchery 12,240 w 

1995, 1999 2 Lewis River Hatchery 33,650 w 

1995 1 Skamania Hatchery 4,645 w 

1986 1 Mixed coastal 8,927 w 

Totals 54,817 1,081,999

South Fork Toutle 

River 

1984–1990 4 Washougal River 359,850 s 

1986–1994 5 West Fork Washougal 

River 

379,940 s 

1971–1981 11 Unknownd 286,160 s 

1968–1985 2 Beaver Creek 58,079 w 

Totals 1,084,029 

136 
Table A-4 continued. Hatchery steelhead releases, listed by ESU. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Runc

Lower Columbia River ESU continued

Cowlitz River 

(Trout) 

1976–2001 23 Cowlitz River (WDFW) 6,382,923 s 

1971–1981 11 Unknownd 1,311,165 s 

Totals 11,150,732 1,889,558

North Fork Toutle 

River 

1985 1 Elochoman River 6,345 w 

1980–1996 3 Beaver Creek Hatchery 32,991 w 

1980 1 Cowlitz Hatchery 27,436 w 

1988–1997 6 Washougal Hatchery 208,707 s 

1972–2001 10 Skamania Hatchery 403,446 s 

Totals 27,436 651,489

Kalama River basin

Gobar Pond 1985 1 Cowlitz River (WDFW) 50,726 s 

1975–1981 7 Unknownd 447,285 s 

2000–2001 2 Kalama River 114,357 s 

1982–2001 17 Skamania Hatchery 2,684,402 s 

1982 1 Chambers Creek Hatchery 219,746 w 

1984–2001 15 Elochoman River 2,357,158 w 

1985 1 Green River 

(Cowlitz River tributary) 

169,395 w 

1995 1 Cowlitz River Hatchery 61,776 w 

1993–2001 4 Kalama River 299,075 w 

1995–1998 3 Skamania Hatchery 48,525 w 

Totals 644,603 5,807,842 

Lewis River basin

Lewis River 1953–2001 12 Lewis River (WDFW) 1,748,523 w 

1948–1951 4 Unknownd 95,434 na 

1979–1981 3 Unknownd 93,944 s 

1984–2001 17 Skamania Hatchery 1,578,269 s 

1997 1 Beaver Creek Hatchery 50,600 w 

1983 1 Chambers Creek Hatchery 41,000 w 

1998–2001 3 Cowlitz River Hatchery 24,534 w 

1988–1991 3 Elochoman River 114,325 w 

1979–1981 3 Unknownd 104,100 w 

1984–1993 4 Skamania Hatchery 324,564 w 

Totals 2,066,535 2,108,758 

East Fork 1996–2001 3 Beaver Creek Hatchery 313,895 w 

Lewis River 1995–2001 4 Skamania Hatchery 279,999 w 

1996–1999 2 Lewis River Hatchery 204,856 w 

1995–2001 7 Skamania Hatchery 293,306 s 

Totals 204,856 887,200 

Salmon Creek basin

Salmon Creek 1979 1 Big Creek Hatchery 12,323 w 

1996–2001 4 Beaver Creek Hatchery 50,777 w 

137 
Table A-4 continued. Hatchery steelhead releases, listed by ESU. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Runc

Lower Columbia River ESU continued

Salmon Creek basin continued

Salmon Creek 

continued 

1996–1999 3 Lewis River Hatchery 35,040 w 

1995–2000 3 Skamania Hatchery 56,052 w 

Totals 35,040 119,152 

Washougal River basin

Skamania Hatchery 1953–1966 12 Unknownd 145,158 na 

1985 1 Chambers Creek Hatchery 56,169 s 

1983 1 Columbia River (WA, upper) 39,492 s 

1985 1 Cowlitz River (WDFW) 2,660 s 

1980–2001 21 Skamania Hatchery 9,097,157 s 

1985 1 Skykomish River (WDFW) 75,053 s 

1957–1981 25 Unknownd 3,564,653 s 

1985 1 Willamette River (ODFW) 4,988 s 

1983 1 Wind River 115,605 s 

1983 1 Bogachiel River 1,745,308 w 

1982, 1986 2 Chambers Creek 214,731 w 

1985, 1986 2 Cowlitz River (WDFW) 622,435 w 

1984–2001 6 Beaver Creek Hatchery 2,417,319 w 

1957–1981 13 Unknownd 1,908,187 w 

1996–1997 2 Lewis River Hatchery 191,979 

1985 1 Washougal River 1,697 w 

1984–1994 11 West Fork Washougal River 4,506,909 w 

Totals 4,700,585 7,023,585 

Vancouver Hatchery 1950–1965 12 Unknownd 751,528 na 

1951–1980 7 Unknownd 1,033,052 s 

1982–1993 11 Washougal River 5,427,645 s 

1985, 1986 2 Skamania Hatchery 1,064,254 s 

1994 1 Skamania Hatchery 60,667 w 

1964–1979 8 Unknownd 618,829 w 

Totals 7,831,054 1,124,921 

Wallace Pond 1989–1994 5 Cowlitz River (WDFW) 677,570 w 

Totals 677,570 

Bonneville Hatchery 1979 1 Big Creek 12,323 w 

Totals 12,323 

Clackamas River basin

Clackamas River 1992 1 South Santiam Hatchery 38,756 s 

1981–1999 8 Big Creek Hatchery 358,686 w 

1992–2002 11 Clackamas Hatchery 1,718,722 s 

1986–2002 7 Clackamas River late 860,567 w 

1991–1996 6 Gnat Creek Hatchery 833,735 s 

1991–1996 6 Gnat Creek Hatchery 782,748 w 

1997–1999 3 Bonneville Hatchery 89,288 

Totals 949,855 3,732,647 

138 
Table A-4 continued. Hatchery steelhead releases, listed by ESU. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Runc

Lower Columbia River ESU continued

Clackamas River basin continued

Eagle Creek NFH 1977 1 Big Creek Hatchery 84,103 na 

1979 1 Clackamas River late run 162,067 na 

1959 1 Unknownd 34,267 na 

1978 1 Big Creek Hatchery 51,714 w 

1989–2001 11 Clackamas River early run 2,678,134 w 

1960–1988 27 Unknownd 6,448,482 w 

Totals 6,644,816 2,813,951 

Collawash River 1991–1994 3 Gnat Creek Hatchery 45,851 w 

1997–2002 2 Bonneville Hatchery 248,979 w 

Totals 248,979 45,851 

Rock Creek basin

Rock Creek 1989–1994 3 West Fork Washougal 23,020 w 

1991 1 Elochoman Hatchery 10,000 w 

Totals 23,020 10,000 

Sandy River basin

Sandy River 1939–1946 7 Marmot Dam 4,254,606 na 

1900–1909 9 Salmon River fry 2,644,018 na 

1955–1958 4 Sandy + unknownd na 

1976 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 9,758 w 

1977 1 Unknownd 7,980 w 

1993–1994 2 Gnat Creek Hatchery 65,647 s 

1991–1996 6 Gnat Creek Hatchery 997,554 w 

1998–2000 3 Oak Springs Hatchery 111,985 s 

1997–2000 4 Bonneville Hatchery 443,769 w 

1991–1997 7 Clackamas Hatchery 214,123 

Totals 7,120,727 1,628,713 

Cedar Creek 1998–2002 4 Sandy Hatchery 274,533 s 

1988–2000 2 STEP Projecte 99,119 s 

1997–2002 6 Sandy Hatchery 472,450 w 

1998–2000 3 STEP Projecte 48,107 w 

Totals 520,557 373,652 

Zig Zag River 1991–1997 7 Oak Spring Hatchery 71,281 s 

Totals 71,281 

Salmon River 1992–1994 3 Gnat Creek Hatchery 116,786 s 

1991–1997 7 Oak Springs Hatchery 293,023 s 

Totals 409,809 

Wind River basin

Wind River 1964–1969 4 Goldendale Hatchery 241,080 s 

1965 1 Wild stockf 27,770 s 

1963–1997 23 Skamania Hatchery 1,596,987 s 

1985–1993 8 Vancouver Hatchery 

(Washougal) 

297,715 s 

1956–1970 5 Carson NFH 145,731 na 

139 
Table A-4 continued. Hatchery steelhead releases, listed by ESU. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Runc

Lower Columbia River ESU continued

Wind River basin continued

1959–1962 3 Skamania Hatchery 101,245 na 

1951 1 Vancouver Hatchery 

(unknownd

) 

7,520 na 

1961,1963 2 Skamania Hatchery 35,740 w 

Totals 856,801 1,510,536 

Lower Gorge tributaries

Hamilton Creek 1995 1 Beaver Creek Hatchery 5,440 w 

1995–1997 2 Skamania Hatchery 14,006 w 

Totals 19,446 

Tanner Creek 2000–2001 2 Bonneville Hatchery 44,003 s 

2002 1 Bonneville Hatchery 3,580 w 

2002 1 Irrigon Hatchery 23,968 w 

Totals 27,548 44,003 

Big White Salmon River basin

Big White Salmon 

River 

1983 1 Upper Columbia River 21,001 s 

1982–1987 2 Washougal River 30,144 s 

1984–1993 5 West Fork Washougal River 224,935 s 

1985 1 Willamette River 10,006 s 

1991–1992 2 Beaver Creek Hatchery 79,260 w 

1982 1 Chambers Creek Hatchery 32,901 w 

1985–1986 2 Cowlitz River Hatchery 123,841 w 

1984 1 Elochoman Hatchery 10,047 w 

1994 1 North Fork Washougal River 10,047 w 

1990–1994 4 Washougal River 129,838 w 

Totals 518,805 153,215 

Hood River basin

Hood River 

Hatchery 

1958–1966 8 Hood River 147,375 s 

1991–2002 12 Skamania Hatchery 1,760.699 s 

1999–2002 4 Blackberry Hatchery 136,726 s 

2000 1 Oak Springs Hatchery 4,762 s 

1984–1991 8 Big Creek Hatchery 233,467 w 

1992–2001 9 Hood River 426,133 

Totals 714,996 235,228 

Upper Willamette River ESU

Molalla River 1984–1997 7 Skamania Hatchery 909,134 s 

1970–1996 10 Gnat Creek Hatchery 497,922 w 

1976–1993 17 Big Creek Hatchery 908,516 w 

1979–1974 4 Alsea River 156,683 w 

1957–1977 6 Marion Forks/S. Santiam 270,912 w 

1982 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 23,492 w 

Totals 294,404 2,472,255 

140 
Table A-4 continued. Hatchery steelhead releases, listed by ESU. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Runc

Upper Willamette River ESU continued

North Santiam River 

Leaburg 

1970–1976 3 Foster Reservoir 107,650 s 

1980–1994 15 McKenzie River 1,257,715 s 

1978–1985 8 South Santiam Hatchery 677,723 s 

1991–1997 7 Roaring River Hatchery 799,121 s 

1998–2001 2 Marion Forks Hatchery 324,346 s 

Totals 3,166,555 

North Santiam River 

Marion Forks 

1931–1985 18 Marion Forks Hatchery 

11,528,482 

na 

1968–1975 4 Unknownd 394,191 na 

1998–2001 3 South Santiam Hatchery 324,346 s 

1976–1998 16 Marion Forks Hatchery w 

1984 1 South Santiam Hatchery w 

1969–1977 5 Unknownd w 

Totals 14,565,857 324,346 

Roaring River 1971 1 Foster Reservoir 84 na 

1975 1 Hagerman 8,022 na 

1960 1 Roaring River 9,620 na 

1965 1 Wickiup Reservoir 16,592 na 

1971 1 Foster Reservoir 84 na 

1973–1976 4 Foster Reservoir 388,568 s 

1978–1992 15 South Santiam Hatchery 1,867,166 s 

1977 1 Unknownd 2,750 s 

1959 1 Wickiup Reservoir 16,133 s 

1968, 1969 2 Wickiup Reservoir 54 s 

1972, 1976 2 Alsea River and tributaries 114,976 w 

1976–1992 12 Big Creek Hatchery 1,630,062 w 

1985–1988 3 Klaskanine River 222,317 w 

1972, 1977 2 Unknownd 149,024 w 

Totals 183,342 4,242,026 

South Santiam 

River 

1929 1 Rogue River 411,056 na 

1928–1944 13 South Santiam Hatchery 13,697,599 na 

1969–1975 3 Unknownd 350,192 na 

1976–2002 26 South Santiam Hatchery 4,348,730 s 

1972–1977 4 Unknownd 641,043 s 

1981 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 26,489 w 

Totals 14,074,280 5,400,829 

McKenzie River 1913 1 Trask Hatchery fingerlings 90,551 na 

1911 1 Unknownd 35,000 na 

1991–2002 12 Leaburg Hatchery 1,386,686 s 

1983–1996 11 McKenzie River 1,652,584 s 

1982–1992 10 South Santiam Hatchery 811,307 s 

Totals 35,000 3,941,128 

141 
Table A-4 continued. Hatchery steelhead releases, listed by ESU. 

Total ESU releases

Watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Runc

Upper Willamette River ESU continued

Middle Fork 

Willamette River 

1957–1959 3 Alsea River and tributaries 182,218 na 

1956 1 Oak Springs 1,069 na 

1972 1 Unknownd 20,936 na 

1955, 1957 2 Willamette River 102,271 na 

1994–1998 5 Willamette Hatchery 719,811 s 

1984–2002 4 South Santiam Hatchery 266,152 s 

1987 1 Big Creek 82,211 w 

Totals 412,953 182,218 

Fall Creek 1992–2000 8 Dexter Ponds 155,750 s 

1995–1997 2 North Santiam 42,608 w 

Totals 662,048 1,506,149 

West-side tributaries

Tulatin River 1991–1996 6 Gnat Creek Hatchery 117,543 w 

1991–1996 6 Big Creek Hatchery 60,055 w 

1975–1990 16 Big Creek/Gnat Creek 

Hatcheries 

554,666 w 

Yamhill River 1958–1991 18 Big Creek Hatchery 429,497 w 

1968 1 Marion Forks Hatchery 9,976 w 

Luckiamute River 1979 1 Big Creek Hatchery 55,211 w 

1957 1 Sandy River Hatchery 119,211 w 

Totals 9,976 1,336,183 

a

 Duration is the time frame of the releases. 

b

 Years is the total number of years that fish actually were released within the time frame. No releases of eggs or fry 

(<5 g) are included. Data before 1950 are incomplete (NRC 1996). 

c W is for winter run, s is for summer run. 

d

 Stocks of unknown origin are assumed to be from within the ESU. Fish releases derived from adults returning to 

that river also are assumed to be native regardless of past introductions, unless the river historically never 

contained a run. 

e STEP stands for Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program. 

f “Wild stock” — WDG broodstock nomenclature, source unknown, but likely collected from naturally produced 

steelhead returning to the Wind River. 

142 
Coho Salmon 

Table A-5. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

Youngs Bay DIP

Lewis and Clark 

River 

1981, 1987 2 Bonneville Hatchery 110,280 F 

1948–1952 4 Klaskanine Hatchery 391,504 F, Y 

1978 2 Big Creek Hatchery 156,632 Y 

1961 1 Gnat Creek 44,695 F 

1980–1983 4 Sandy River 406,757 F, Y 

Youngs River 1953, 1959, 

1987, 

1991–1992 

5 Big Creek Hatchery 783,122 F, Y 

1988–1993 6 Clackamas River 

(early) 

5,561,484 F, Y 

1984 1 Cowlitz Hatchery 110,176 F 

1992 1 Kalama Falls 405,976 Y 

1983, 1989, 

1992, 

1996–1999 

6 Sandy River 2,433,337 Y 

1987, 

1993–1999 

8 Bonneville Hatchery 9,430,860 F, Y 

1951, 1955, 

1958, 

1991–1994 

7 Klaskanine Hatchery 808,463 Y 

1991–1994 4 Eagle Creek NFH 5,828,402 Y 

Klaskanine River 1953–2002 7 Big Creek Hatchery 2,448,532 F, Y 

1981–1989 5 Bonneville Hatchery 4,857,320 F, Y 

1925–2002 54 Klaskanine Hatchery 91,222,392 F, Y 

1988–1989 2 Clackamas River 

(early) 

671,922 Y 

1984 1 Cowlitz (WA) 61,651 F 

1981–1984 3 Eagle Creek NFH 1,914,816 Y 

1981–1983, 

1987, 

1989–1991 

7 Sandy River 2,839,393 F, Y 

1990 1 Siletz River 37,603 Y 

1957 1 Trask River 56,586 Y 

1985–1986 2 Tanner Creek 2,230,033 Y 

1921–1988 11 Unknownd 15,739,186 F, Y 

Totals 148, 456,933 94,189 

Grays River DIP

Grays River 1951 1 Ancient wild stock 16,800 F 

1956–1957 2 Big Creek Hatchery 

(OR) 

138,072 F, Y 

143 
Table A-5 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

Grays River DIP continued

Grays River 1973–1993 13 Columbia River 7,042,419 F, Y 

continued 1958, 1981 2 Elochoman Hatchery 119,526 F 

1954 1 Green River 140,037 F 

1963–1964 2 Klaskanine Hatchery 

(OR) 

1,374,284 Y 

1957 1 Lewis River 42,986 F 

1955–1976 5 Toutle River 543,552 F, Y 

1973–1978, 

1980–1981 

8 Cowlitz (Type N) 4,573,325 F, Y 

1956–2000 20 Toutle (Type S) 8,768,501 F, Y 

1957–1981 19 Grays River (Typed

) 18,675,358 F, Y 

1977 1 Washougal 446,031 Y 

1997 1 Chehalis River 

(Type N) 

4,005 F 

1996–2001 5 Grays Hatchery 

(Type S) 

587,311 Y 

Chinook River 1996 1 Grays Hatchery 

(Type N) 

6,400 F 

1997–1998 2 Grays Hatchery 

(Type S) 

97,600 F 

1968–1973 5 Grays Hatchery 

(Typed

) 

151,378 F, Y 

1980–1992 8 Chinook River 429,412 F, Y 

1986–1993 Columbia River 

(general) 

1,036,880 F, Y 

1995 1 Toutle River (Type S) 500,000 F 

Deep River 1995–2001 4 Grays Hatchery 

(Type S) 

799,239 Y 

1995–2001 4 Toutle River (Type S) 1,050,999 Y 

Totals 46,540,110 4,005 

Big Creek DIP

Big Creek 1938–2002 58 Big Creek Hatchery 60,137,909 F, Y 

1986 1 Bonneville Hatchery 844,434 Y 

1950–1977 9 Unknownd 7,602,148 F, Y 

1981 1 Umpqua 65,292 Y 

Gnat Creek 1952, 1956 2 Big Creek Hatchery 37,914 F 

1963–1964 2 Unknownd 123,500 Y 

Tongue Point 2000–2002 2 Big Creek/ 

Bonneville Hatcherye

2,077,553 F,Y 

Blind Slough 2001–2002 2 Sandy River Hatchery 643,253 F,Y 

2000 Bonneville Hatchery 299,411 

Totals 71,766,122 65,292 

144 
Table A-5 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

Elochoman River DIP

Elochoman River 1963 1 Ancient wild stock 97,696 Y 

 1956 Big Creek (OR) 51,327 F 

 1981–1993 Columbia Rivere 3,035,832 Y 

 1961 Eagle Creek 

NFH (OR) 

896,668 Y 

 1955–1988 26 Elochoman River 26,487,577 F, Y 

 1954, 1957, 

1961 

3 Green River 289,803 F 

 1962–1965 4 Klaskanine Hatchery 

(OR) 

2,706,042 F, Y 

 1957 1 Lewis River 100,701 F 

 1955, 1958, 

1961 

3 Toutle River 162,213 F 

 1972, 

1974–1987, 

1989–1992 

19 Cowlitz Hatchery 

(Type N) 

30,135,913 F, Y 

 1966, 

1968–1981, 

1986, 

1990–1992 

19 Toutle River 

(Type S) 

25,558,411 F, Y 

 1959, 1960 2 Washougal River 100,061 F, Y 

 1995–2000 4 Elochoman River 

(Type N) 

1,138,363 F, Y 

 1998–2000 3 Lewis River Hatchery 

(Type N) 

1,409,482 F, Y 

 1995–2001 6 Elochoman Hatchery 

(Type S) 

1,769,461 F, Y 

 1998 1 Grays Hatchery 

(Type S) 

313,125 Y 

 2000–2001 2 Kalama Hatchery 

(Type S) 

308,300 Y 

1999, 2001 2 Toutle River (Type S) 51,675 Y 

Skamokawa Creek 1957–1965 3 Big Creek Hatchery 83,664 F 

 1955 1 Green River 29,965 F 

 1975 1 Cowlitz Hatchery 363,343 F 

 1965–1966 2 Elochoman Hatchery 458,998 F, Y 

 1954–1957 3 Toutle (Type N) 61,404 F 

1964–1965 2 Klaskanine Hatchery 338,772 F 

Totals 95,948,796 

Clatskanine River DIP

Clatskanine River 1949, 

1951–1953, 

1955–1959 

9 Big Creek Hatchery 695,324 F 

145 
Table A-5 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

Clatskanine River DIP continued

Clatskanine River 

continued 

1984 1 Cowlitz Hatchery 

(WA) 

109,037 F 

1986 1 Klaskanine River 230,300 

1980, 

1982–1983, 

1988 

4 Sandy River 969,774 F, Y 

1981, 1987 2 Bonneville Hatchery 992,337 F 

Totals 2,996,772 

Mill Creek DIP

Abernathy Creek 1955 1 Lewis River Hatchery 80,000 Y 

1955–1988 7 Elochoman River 899,549 Y 

1957–1958 2 Big Creek Hatchery 96,665 F 

1969–1974 7 Unknownd 464,962 F, Y 

Germany Creek 1955–1988 10 Elochoman River 993,682 Y 

1963 1 Kalama River 100,172 Y 

1957 1 Big Creek Hatchery 30,030 Y 

1955 1 Green River 

(Puget Sound) 

30,008 Y 

1958 1 Lewis River 50,511 Y 

1956 1 Toutle River 

(Type N) 

20,000 Y 

Mill Creek 1955–1988 9 Elochoman River 819,366 Y 

1972 1 Cowlitz River 301,600 Y 

1974–1976 Grays River 154,477 Y 

1955 1 Green River 

(Puget Sound) 

35,212 

1957 1 Big Creek 40,040 F 

1958 1 Lewis River 59,055 F 

1965 1 Klaskanine River 25,956 F 

Totals 4,136,065 65,220 

Lower Columbia River DIP

Cowlitz River 1956–1957, 

1964 

3 Big Creek Hatchery 

(OR) 

98,952 F, Y 

1969–1993 24 Cowlitz River Hatchery 120,965,049 F, Y 

1956–1969 3 Toutle (Type N) 404,785 F 

1974 1 Elochoman Hatchery 31,838 Y 

1954–1966 5 Green River 

(Puget Sound) 

569,724 F, Y 

1965–1971 3 Kalama Hatchery 1,246,024 Y 

1962, 1965 2 Klaskanine Hatchery 

(OR) 

669,756 F, Y 

146 
Table A-5 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

Lower Columbia River DIP

Cowlitz River 

continued 

1954, 1958, 

1990 

3 Lewis River Hatchery 249,246 F, Y 

1995–1999 5 Cowlitz Hatchery 

(Type N) 

28,129,260 F, Y 

Riffe Lake 1995–1999 5 Cowlitz Hatchery 

(Type N) 

3,110,589 Y 

1982–1992 11 Cowlitz Hatchery 3,035,832 F, Y 

Totals 157,941,331 569,724 

Upper Cowlitz River DIP

Upper Cowlitz River 1972–1989 17 Cowlitz Hatchery 17,776,163 F, Y 

Ohanapecosh River 1972–1993 23 Cowlitz Hatchery 3,909,445 F, Y 

Totals 21,685,608 

Tilton River DIP

Tilton River 1954–1984 12 Cowlitz Hatchery 

(Type N) 

2,618,815 F, Y 

Totals 2,618,815 

Cispus River Dip

North Fork 

Cispus River 

1972–1986 7 Cowlitz Hatchery 1,088,985 F 

Iron Creel 1976–1986 9 Cowlitz Hatchery 685,252 F 

1972–1992 20 Cowlitz Hatchery 4,945,686 F, Y 

1954 Toutle River (Type N) 24,050 Y 

Totals 6,743,973 

North Fork Toutle River DIP

North Fork 

Toutle River 

1960–1965 2 Green River 

(Puget Sound) 

113,884 F, Y 

1993 1 Columbia Rivere 174,801 Y 

1954–1991 14 Toutle River 2,952,917 F, Y 

2001 1 Toutle River (Type S) 242,060 Y 

Hoffstadt Creek 1954–1966 8 Toutle River (Type N) 238,165 Y 

1965 1 Green River 

(Puget Sound) 

42,924 Y 

Green River 1966 1 Green River 

(Puget Sound) 

122,991 Y 

1986–1993 4 Columbia Rivere 3,288,700 F, Y 

1972–1977 5 Cowlitz Hatchery 1,130,173 Y 

1967 1 Grays River 90,100 F 

1974–2001 12 Toutle River(Type S) 9,307,798 F, Y 

1954–1980 16 Toutle River (Type N) 14,494,434 F, Y 

1967–1979 11 Toutle River 12,891,750 Y 

Totals 44,810, 898 279,799 

147 
Table A-5 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

South Fork Toutle River DIP

South Fork 

Toutle River 

1960 1 Green River 

(Puget Sound) 

22,440 F 

1963 1 Klaskanine Hatchery 96,228 Y 

1954–1975 16 Toutle (Type N) 1,786,192 F, Y 

Totals 1,904,860 

Coweeman River DIP

Coweeman River 1981–1989 4 Cowlitz Hatchery 638,000 F 

1965–1971 3 Kalama River 447,416 F, Y 

1963–1965 2 Klaskanine Hatchery 390,261 Y 

1957–1972 4 Toutle River(Type N) 129,307 Y 

1955 1 Green River 

(Puget Sound) 

45,560 F 

Totals 1,604,984 45,560 

Kalama River DIP

Kalama River 1962, 1965 2 Klaskanine Hatchery 

(OR) 

139,024 F, Y 

1981–1989 4 Columbia Rivere 1,786,440 F, Y 

1957–1980 Kalama River 18,352,325 F, Y 

1954–1966 7 Lewis River Hatchery 1,711,962 F, Y 

1956–1966 9 Toutle River 

(Type N, Type S) 

2,681,290 F, Y 

1973–1992 19 Type N (Cowlitz) 20,173,931 F, Y 

1967–1992 24 Type S (Toutle) 37,655,135 F, Y 

1960–1961 2 Washougal River 1,635,134 F, Y 

1995–2001 Kalama Hatchery 

(Type N) 

4,915,605 Y 

1995–2001 Fallert Creek Hatchery 

(Type S) 

3,339,720 Y 

2001 Elochoman Hatchery 

(Type N) 

258,500 Y 

Gobar Creek 1966–1974 4 Kalama River 503,608 F, Y 

1986–1993 3 Columbia Rivere 2,875,000 F, Y 

Fallert Creek 1958–1980 7 Kalama River 5,272,938 F, Y 

1984–1992 5 Columbia Rivere 2,337,700 Y 

1990–1991 2 Toutle River (Type S) 1,086,986 Y 

1969–1977 3 Washougal River 2,183,728 Y 

Totals 106,909,026 

North Fork Lewis River DIP

Lewis River 1963 1 Abernathy NFH 518,056 F 

1965 1 Big Creek Hatchery 

(OR) 

163,548 Y 

1963 1 Eagle Creek NFH (OR) 2,624,122 F 

148 
Table A-5 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

North Fork Lewis River DIP continued

Lewis River 

continued 

1963, 1966 2 Kalama Falls Hatchery 167,152 F, Y 

1962, 1965 2 Klaskanine Hatchery 

(OR) 

272,148 F, Y 

1952–1980 28 Lewis/Speelyai 

Hatcherye

33,148,667 F, Y 

1958 1 Toutle River 15,878 Y 

1975–1992 18 Cowlitz Hatchery 

(Type N) 

65,681,281 F, Y 

1967–1992 26 Toutle River (Type S) 58,287,123 F, Y 

1981–1993 10 Unknownd 9,461,447 F, Y 

1963 1 Washougal River 96,110 F 

Cedar Creek 1965 1 Big Creek Hatchery 83,349 Y 

1986 1 Columbia Rivere 88,200 F 

1986–1993 3 Cowlitz River Hatchery 454,000 F 

1952–1973 8 Lewis River Hatchery 676,960 F, Y 

Speelyai Creek 1986–1993 7 Columbia Rivere 2,771,722 F, Y 

1976–1993 3 Cowlitz River Hatchery 124,280 Y 

1959–1979 9 Speelyai Hatchery 1,990,244 F, Y 

North Fork 

Lewis River 

1997, 2001 2 Cowlitz River Hatchery 

(Type N) 

1,282,287 Y 

1995–2001 7 Lewis River Hatchery 

(Type N) 

15,029,281 F, Y 

1995–2001 7 Lewis River Hatchery 

(Type S) 

7,294,310 F, Y 

Totals 200,230, 165 

East Fork Lewis DIP

East Fork Lewis 1952–1975 7 Lewis River Hatchery 454,230 F, Y 

Copper Creek 1974–1979 3 Lewis River Hatchery 482,184 F 

1985 1 Cowlitz River Hatchery 49,900 F 

Green Fork 1974–1979 3 Lewis River Hatchery 953,697 F 

1985 1 Cowlitz River Hatchery 33,200 F 

Totals 1,973,211 

Scappoose Creek DIP

Goble Creek 1950–1959 5 Big Creek Hatchery 107,214 F, Y 

1980–1983 3 Sandy River Hatchery 135,116 F 

Scappoose Creek 1950–1959 Big Creek 430,862 F, Y 

1952 Bonneville/Cascade 

Hatcherye

75,000 F 

1980–1983 Sandy Hatchery 465,125 F 

Totals 1,213,317 

149 
Table A-5 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

Clackamas River DIP

Clackamas River 1936–1987 8 Bonneville Hatchery 2,603,675 F 

1983 1 Cascade Hatchery 402,447 F 

1988–1989 2 Clackamas River (late) 40,107 Y 

1984 1 Cowlitz River Hatchery 

(WA) 

140,429 F 

1983 1 Gnat Creek Hatchery 395,776 F 

1981–1987 4 Oxbow Hatchery 1,541,870 F 

1965–1991 17 Sandy River 5,448,809 F, Y 

1936 1 Ten Mile Lakes 25,000 

1967 1 Trask River 165,000 F 

1967–1980 8 Unknownd 1,451,031 190,000 F, Y 

2001 1 Eagle Creek NFH 53,720 Y 

1998–2001 4 Sandy Hatchery 274,437 Y 

Eagle Creek 1976–1999 18 Clackamas (early) 15,593,378 Y 

1959–1980 10 Cascade (Bonneville/ 

Cascade Hatchery)e

12,287,935 F, Y 

1960–1988 28 Eagle Creek NFH 

(unknownd

) 

30,814,193 Y 

1991 1 Big Creek Hatchery 26,440 F, Y 

2001 1 Eagle Creek NFH 711,927 Y 

1992 1 Sandy River 292,041 Y 

1995 1 Toutle River (Type S) 71,749 Y 

1960–1985 6 Unknownd 581,346 F, Y 

Totals 72,731,310 

Salmon Creek DIP

Salmon Creek 1959 1 Green River 

(Puget Sound) 

79,107 F 

1962 1 Big Creek Hatchery 150,782 F 

1965–1975 2 Kalama River Hatchery 83,400 F, Y 

1958–1965 5 Toutle River (Type N) 359,713 F, Y 

1960–1992 5 Washougal River 307,733 F, Y 

Totals 901,628 79,107 

Sandy River 1950–2003 42 Sandy River Hatchery 35,703,130 F, Y 

1918–1952 5 Bonneville Hatchery 518,725 F 

1939–1945 6 Marmot Dam 1,581,626 

Totals 37,803,481 

Washougal River DIP

Washougal River 1962 1 Big Creek Hatchery 

(OR) 

565,553 F 

1961 1 Eagle Creek NFH (OR) 60,000 Y 

150 
Table A-5 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

Washougal River DIP

Washougal River 

continued 

1954 1 Green River 

(Puget Sound) 

70,022 F 

1954 1 Lewis River Hatchery 100,000 F 

1955–1965 4 Toutle River 1,942,243 F, Y 

1974–1992 18 Cowlitz River Hatchery 

(Type N) 

30,046,629 F, Y 

1967–1989 22 Toutle River (Type S) 41,062,608 F, Y 

1995–1999 4 Lewis River Hatchery 

(Type N) 

1,063,525 Y 

1960–2001 27 Washougal River 

(Type N) 

34,574,152 F, Y 

1998 1 Big Creek Hatchery 

(Type S) 

1,090 Y 

2000 1 Lewis River Hatchery 

(Type S) 

93,193 Y 

1998 1 Toutle River (Type S) 1,048 Y 

West Fork 

Washougal River 

1981–1985 2 Columbia Rivere 207,000 F 

1982–1993 6 Cowlitz River Hatchery 470,000 F, Y 

1966–1975 6 Washougal Hatchery 690,423 F, Y 

Totals 110,877,464 70,022 

Lower Gorge tributaries DIP

Hamilton Creek 1962–1963 4 Big Creek Hatchery 150,450 Y 

1965 1 Toutle River (Type N) 19,200 Y 

1964–1965 2 Washougal River 87,500 Y 

Duncan Creek 1962 1 Big Creek Hatchery 75,360 Y 

1983–1993 4 Cowlitz River Hatchery 529,000 F, Y 

1965 1 Toutle River Hatchery 

(Type N) 

44,226 Y 

1964–1965 2 Washougal River 65,000 Y 

Gibbons Creek 1985–1992 2 Cowlitz River Hatchery 92,100 F 

Tanner Creek 1934–2002 26 Bonneville Hatchery 25,950,267 F, Y 

1965–1984 9 Cascade Hatchery 4,172,087 Y 

1978–1993 17 Tanner Creek 30,616,462 F, Y 

1935–1945 6 Ten Mile Lakes 6,685,948 F 

1944–1990 11 Coast and Columbia 

Mixture 

12,959,488 F, Y 

1918–1977 14 Unknownd 26,929,536 F, Y 

Totals 88,731,188 19,645,436 

Washington upper Gorge tributaries and Big White Salmon River DIP

Wind River 1977, 1979 2 Unknownd 416,890 F 

1961–1969 5 Unknownd 5,418,784 Y 

1973 1 Carson NFH 1,540,600 Y 

151 
Table A-5 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

Washington upper Gorge tributaries and Big White Salmon River DIP

Wind River 

continued 

1951, 

1953–1954 

 3 Lewis River Hatchery 407,598 F 

1982 1 Cowlitz River Hatchery 

(Type N) 

59,064 F 

1967–1968, 

1971, 1973, 

1980 

 5 Toutle River (Type S) 4,212,293 F 

1987–1988 2 Willard WFH 2,930,46 F, Y 

Klickitat River 1995–1999 4 Lewis River (Type N) 6,687,347 Y 

1995–2001 7 Washougal River 

(Type N) 

5,935,923 Y 

2001 1 Elochoman River 

(Type N) 

6,044 Y 

1998 1 Big Creek Hatchery 

(S Type) 

544,415 Y 

2001 1 Cascade Hatchery 

(Type S) 

220,000 Y 

1997 1 Eagle Creek NFH 790,000 Y 

1997–2001 2 Elochoman Hatchery 343,718 Y 

2001 Kalama Hatchery 140,722 Y 

2000 1 Lewis River Hatchery 

(Type S) 

93,193 Y 

1998 1 Toutle River (Type S) 1,048 Y 

Little White 

Salmon River 

2000 1 Lewis River Hatchery 

(Type N) 

547,398 Y 

1977 1 Abernathy NFH 600,000 F 

1981–1987 2 Toutle River (Type N) 2,384,439 Y 

1981–1987 3 Toutle River (Type S) 5,966,788 Y 

1998 1 Bonneville Hatchery 1,294,749 Y 

1996 1 Kalama Hatchery 256,083 Y 

1997 1 Klaskanine Hatchery 948,562 Y 

1976–1999 10 Little White Salmon 

NFH 

46,332,868 Y 

1994–1997 4 Carson NFH 3,803,485 Y 

1951–1975 17 Unknownd 31,991,783 F, Y 

1984–2001 5 Willard NFH 8,946,021 Y 

Totals 134,973,834 5,289,920 

Big White 

Salmon River 

1985, 1987 2 Cowlitz River Hatchery 629,880 F 

1981–1987 7 Cowlitz River Hatchery 

(Type N) 

2,630,650 F, Y 

1971, 1980 2 Toutle River (Type S) 1,047,841 F, Y 

1973 1 Unknownd 336,704 F 

Totals 4,645,075 

152 
Table A-5 continued. Hatchery releases for the Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU, listed by DIP. 

DIP/ Total ESU releases

watershed Durationa Yearsb

Broodstock 

origination Inside Outside Stagec

Oregon upper Gorge tributaries and Hood River DIP

Herman Creek 1940–1965 8 Oxbow Hatchery 1,815,639 Y 

1938 1 Bonneville Hatchery/ 

Ten Mile Lakese

5,289,920 

1954–1961 1 Bonneville Hatchery 337,912 Y 

Hood River 1963 1 Oxbow Hatchery 546,858 

1960 1 Big Creek/ 

Bonneville Hatcherye

54,721 Y 

Totals 601,579 

Columbia River (main stem)f

1984–1993 8 Tanner Creek 13,545,394 Y 

1967–1993 8 Sandy River Hatchery 4,406,725 Y 

1977–1980 2 Little White Salmon 

NFH 

211,034 Y 

1984 1 Cowlitz River Hatchery 714,186 F 

1983–1987 3 Big Creek 1,468,064 F 

1978–1983 3 Cascade River 

Hatchery 

3,284,531 Y 

1937–1977 3 Unknownd 3,778,887 Y 

RKM 227 1978–1980 3 Columbia Rivere 125,711 

Totals 27,534,532 

a

 Duration is the time frame of the releases. No releases of eggs or fry (<5 g) are included. Data before 1950 are 

incomplete (NRC 1996). 

b

 Years is the total number of years that fish actually were released within the time frame. 

c

 Stage of fish at time of release. F is for fingerling, Y is for yearling. 

d

 Stocks of unknown origin are assumed to be from within the ESU. Fish releases derived from adults returning to 

that river also are assumed to be native regardless of past introductions, unless the river historically never 

contained a run. 

e

 A mix of stocks from different areas. 

f

 These are fish released in the main stem. They are not associated with any DIP. 

153 
154 
Appendix B: Summary of Information Used 

to Determine Historical Salmonid DIPs in Listed 

Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette 

River ESUs 

Tables B-1 through B-8 summarize the information utilized to determine historical DIPs. 

Information categories address these fundamental questions about the population: 

• Historical presence: Is there documentation that the population in question occupied or 

utilized the river basin? 

• Historical abundance: Is there evidence that the population in question historically was 

large enough to be demographically independent? 

• Life history characteristics: Is there evidence that the population in question exhibited life 

history characteristics that would indicate local adaptation or would provide reproductive 

isolation from other populations? 

• Genetics: Is there genetic evidence that the population in question was or is genetically 

distinct from other populations (e.g., isolated reproductively to some degree)? 

• Geography: Are there any aspects of river morphology that would promote population 

isolation, or is the basin large enough to produce a sustainable population, or is the 

population sufficiently distant from other populations to reduce the rate of migration 

between populations? 

Each population was given a distinct code, which was used to identify watershed or 

population boundaries on maps in the document. Within each data category, information 

quantity and quality was scored on a scale from 0 to 3. 

Information scale: 

0 no information available, 

1 some information but of limited quality or quantity, 

2 information available but of limited use because of quality issues (i.e., hatchery, 

nonnative stock influences, environmental degradation, etc.), and 

3 good information directly pertaining to historical populations or to present populations 

that are representative of historical populations. 

155 
Chinook Salmon 

Table B-1. Historical fall populations in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

Population 

Map 

code 

Historical 

presence 

Historical 

abundance

Life history 

characteristics Genetics Geography

Youngs Bay YOUN-KF 2 2 1 0 2 

Grays River GRAY-KF 3 2 1 1 3 

Big Creek BIGC-KF 2 1 1 1 2 

Elochoman River ELOC-KF 2 1 1 1 2 

Clatskanie River CLAT-KF 2 1 1 0 2 

Mill Creek MILL-KF 2 1 1 2 2 

Scappoose Creek SCAP-KF 2 1 0 0 2 

Upper Cowlitz River UCWL-KF 3 1 2 1 3 

Lower Cowlitz River LCWL-KF 3 2 2 2 3 

Coweeman River COWE-KF 3 2 3 3 3 

Toutle River TOUT-KF 3 2 1 0 3 

Kalama River KALA-KF 3 2 2 2 3 

Lewis River early LEWE-KF 2 1 1 3 3 

Salmon Creek SALM-KF 2 1 0 1 2 

Lewis River late LEWL-KF 3 2 3 3 3 

Clackamas River CLCK-KF 2 1 1 2 3 

Washougal River WASH-KF 2 2 2 2 3 

Sandy River early SNDE-KF 1 0 0 0 2 

Sandy River late SNDL-KF 2 2 2 3 3 

Columbia River lower 

Gorge tributaries 

LGRG-KF 2 2 1 0 2 

Columbia River upper 

Gorge tributaries 

UGRG-KF 2 2 1 0 2 

Big White Salmon 

River 

BWSR-KF 2 1 1 2 3 

Hood River HOOD-KF 2 1 1 0 3 

Table B-2. Historical spring populations in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

Population 

Map 

code 

Historical 

presence 

Historical 

abundance

Life history 

characteristics Genetics Geography

Upper Cowlitz River UCWL-KS 3 2 1 2 3 

Cispus River CISP-KS 3 2 1 0 3 

Tilton River TILT-KS 3 2 1 0 3 

Toutle River TOUT-KS 3 2 1 0 3 

Kalama River KALA-KS 2 1 0 2 3 

Lewis River LEWS-KS 3 2 1 1 3 

Sandy River SAND-KS 3 2 2 0 3 

Big White Salmon River BWSR-KS 2 0 0 0 3 

Hood River HOOD-KS 3 2 1 0 3 

156 
Table B-3. Historical spring populations in the Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU. 

Population 

Map 

code 

Historical 

presence 

Historical 

abundance 

Life history 

characteristics Genetics Geography

Clackamas River CLCK-KS 3 2 2 1 3 

Molalla River MOLA-KS 3 1 1 0 3 

North Santiam River NSNT-KS 3 2 2 1 3 

South Santiam River SSNT-KS 2 2 1 1 3 

Calapooia River CALA-KS 3 1 1 0 3 

McKenzie River MCKZ-KS 3 2 2 2 3 

Middle Fork 

Willamette River 

MFWL-KS 3 2 2 0 3 

Steelhead 

Table B-4. Historical winter populations in the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU. 

Population 

Map 

code 

Historical 

presence

Historical 

abundance

Life history 

characteristics Genetics Geography

Cispus River CISP-SW 3 1 0 0 3 

Tilton River TILT-SW 3 1 0 0 3 

Upper Cowlitz River UCWL-SW 3 2 0 0 2 

Lower Cowlitz River LCWL-SW 3 1 1 1 2 

North Fork Toutle River 

(Green River) 

NTOU-SW 3 1 0 1 2 

South Fork Toutle River STOU-SW 3 1 0 0 2 

Coweeman River COWE-SW 3 1 0 0 2 

Kalama River KALA-SW 3 2 2 1 3 

North Fork Lewis River NLEW-SW 3 2 1 1 3 

East Fork Lewis River ELEW-SW 3 2 1 1 3 

Clackamas River CLCK-SW 3 2 2 2 3 

Salmon Creek SALM-SW 2 0 0 0 2 

Sandy River SAND-SW 3 2 1 0 3 

Washougal River WASH-SW 3 1 1 0 3 

Columbia River lower 

Gorge tributaries 

LRG-SW 2 0 0 0 3 

Columbia River upper 

Gorge tributaries 

UGRG-SW 2 0 0 0 2 

Hood River HOOD-SW 3 2 1 0 3 

157 
Table B-5. Historical provisional summer populations in the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU. 

Population 

Map 

code 

Historical 

presence 

Historical 

abundance

Life history 

characteristics Genetics Geography

Kalama River KALA-SS 3 2 2 2 3 

North Fork Lewis River NLEW-SS 3 1 1 1 3 

East Fork Lewis River ELEW-SS 2 1 2 1 3 

Washougal River WASH-SS 3 2 1 1 3 

Wind River WIND-SS 3 1 1 1 3 

Hood River HOOD-SS 3 1 1 0 3 

Table B-6. Historical provisional winter populations in the Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU. 

Population 

Map 

code 

Historical 

presence 

Historical 

abundance

Life history 

characteristics Genetics Geography

West-side tributaries WEST-SW 1 1 0 1 2 

Molalla River MOLA-SW 3 1 1 2 3 

North Santiam River NSNT-SW 3 2 2 2 3 

South Santiam River SSNT-SW 3 2 2 2 3 

Calapooia River CALA-SW 3 1 1 2 3 

158 
Coho Salmon 

Table B-7. Historical winter populations in the Lower Columbia River Coho ESU. 

Population 

Map 

code 

Historical 

presence

Historical 

abundance

Life history 

characteristics Genetics Geography

Youngs Bay YOUN-CS 3 2 1 2 2 

Grays River GRAY-CS 3 2 1 2 3 

Big Creek BIGC-CS 2 2 2 2 2 

Elochoman River ELOC-CS 2 1 1 0 2 

Clatskanie River CLAT-CS 2 1 1 2 2 

Mill Creek MILL-CS 2 1 1 0 2 

Scappoose Creek SCAP-CS 2 1 1 2 2 

Cispus River CISP-CS 3 1 1 0 3 

Tilton River TILT-CS 3 1 1 0 3 

Upper Cowlitz River UCWL-CS 3 2 1 2 3 

Lower Cowlitz River LCWL-CS 3 2 1 2 3 

North Fork Toutle River 

(Green River) 

NTOU-CS 3 1 1 0 3 

South Fork Toutle River STOU-CS 3 1 0 0 3 

Coweeman River COWE-CS 3 1 0 0 3 

Kalama River KALA-CS 3 2 2 0 3 

North Fork Lewis River NLEW-CS 3 2 1 2 3 

East Fork Lewis River ELEW-CS 3 2 1 2 3 

Clackamas River CLCK-CS 3 2 2 3 3 

Salmon Creek SALM-CS 3 1 1 0 2 

Sandy River SAND-CS 3 2 2 3 3 

Washougal River WASH-CS 2 2 1 0 3 

Columbia River lower 

Gorge tributaries 

LCRG-CS 2 1 1 0 2 

Columbia River upper 

Gorge tributaries 

UCRG-CS 2 1 1 0 2 

Hood River HOOD-CS 2 1 1 0 3 

159 
Chum Salmon 

Table B-8. Historical populations in the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU. 

Population 

Map 

code 

Historical 

presence 

Historical 

abundance

Life history 

characteristics Genetics Geography

Chinook River CHIN-CM 2 1 0 0 1 

Youngs Bay YOUN-CM 3 1 0 0 2 

Grays River GRAY-CM 3 1 2 3 3 

Big Creek BIGC-CM 3 1 0 0 2 

Elochoman River ELOC-CM 3 1 0 0 2 

Clatskanie River CLAT-CM 3 1 0 0 2 

Mill Creek MILL-CM 3 1 0 0 2 

Scappoose Creek SCAP-CM 2 1 0 0 2 

Cowlitz River fall COWF-CM 3 2 2 0 3 

Cowlitz River summer COWS-CM 1 1 1 2 2 

Kalama River KALA-CM 3 1 0 0 3 

Salmon Creek SALM-CM 2 0 0 0 3 

Lewis River LEWS-CM 3 2 1 0 3 

Clackamas River CLCK-CM 3 1 1 0 3 

Washougal River WASH-CM 3 1 0 3 

Sandy River SAND-CM 3 1 1 0 3 

Columbia River lower 

Gorge tributaries 

LGRG-CM 3 1 2 2(?) 2 

Columbia River upper 

Gorge tributaries 

UGRG-CM 3 1 1 0 2 

160 
Appendix C: Genetic Data Available on Salmonid 

Populations in the Lower Columbia River 

and Upper Willamette River ESUs 

Introduction 

This document describes and summarizes the genetic data currently available on the 

following salmonids ESUs: 

• lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, 

• upper Willamette River Chinook salmon, 

• lower Columbia River steelhead, 

• upper Willamette River steelhead, and 

• lower Columbia River chum salmon. 

Although DNA data likely will become available on at least some of these populations in the 

next few years, all the currently available data are from electrophoretic analysis of soluble 

enzymes (e.g., Aebersold et al. 1987), often called allozyme data. All data described herein were 

produced by the genetics labs of either the WDFW in Olympia and the Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center in Seattle or its research station in Manchester, Washington. 

Standards for data consistency and quality (informally called the coastwide process) 

between these three laboratories and others in the region were developed during the past 15 years 

(Shaklee and Phelps 1990), ensuring that data from the two groups can be combined. The only 

exception is for steelhead, for which some standardization work remains to be done.11 Data from 

a number of laboratories throughout the region were combined to produce the NMFS status 

reviews on chum salmon, Chinook salmon, and steelhead. The databases are described in the 

tables in this appendix. Most of the data already have appeared in the status reviews, but there is 

a considerable amount of new data for some species and ESU combinations. 

The collections available may seem to be a reasonably comprehensive sampling of the 

populations for the regions in the lower Columbia and upper Willamette rivers, but a subtle bias 

to sampling can be potentially important in the TRT’s review of these data. Genetic sampling 

has been done largely to characterize differences between groups that already were viewed as 

distinct stocks, not as a means of delineating populations. The reason for this distinction is that 

the initial impetus for genetic work on these fish, especially Chinook salmon, was analysis of 

mixed-stock fisheries (e.g., Marshall et al. 1991). The bias results from the fact that the smaller 

the stock, the less important it would be to the fishery, and thus the less likely it was to be 

 

11 D. Teel, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. Pers. commun., May 2000. 

161 
sampled. Thus there is circularity: we have data because we thought groups of fish were 

different, and now we use that data to determine that these groups are different. Since ESA 

listings began, there has been a sampling strategy change in terms of small populations that, if 

not for ESA significance, would get little attention from fish management agencies, however, it 

is important to consider how our view of populations may have been shaped by this sampling 

strategy. 

The states of Washington and Oregon formally have described populations (not 

necessarily genetically distinct) of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and chum salmon and genetic 

groupings of these populations. These population designations and genetic groupings may be of 

some use in TRT population identification work. WDF, WDG, and tribal biologists (WDF et al. 

1993) have defined stocks for salmon and steelhead in the Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory 

(SASSI, now known as the Salmonid Stock Inventory [SaSI]). WDFW genetic groupings, called 

major ancestral lineages (MALs) and genetic diversity units (GDUs), are described for Chinook 

salmon in Marshall et al. (1995), for chum salmon in Phelps et al. (1995), and for steelhead in 

Phelps et al. (1994a and 1997). Population designations and genetic management groups for 

salmon and steelhead in Oregon are described in Kostow (1995). 

Genetic population structure usually is a continuum rather than a set of discrete steps. 

Therefore there are no established, widely accepted criteria for describing genetic groupings, just 

guidelines that can differ from place to place and can involve a fair degree of subjectivity. In 

Washington, biologists were asked to develop groupings that captured the “basic genetic 

essence” of the species (Busack and Marshall 1995), the idea being that if only one population 

per GDU survived, the basic genetic structure of the species still would be preserved. In the 

absence of distinctive life history differences, population groups often were described based on 

cluster analysis of allozyme data. A similar process was followed in Oregon (Kostow 1995). To 

date, no attempt has been made below the ESU level to describe genetic groupings that include 

Washington and Oregon populations. 

An important feature to be aware of in reviewing the genetic data is that more data are 

available on Washington populations of all three species than on Oregon populations. 

Analyses 

There are two ways of examining the data in this technical memorandum: 

• ordination of populations or collections, and 

• testing for genetic differences between populations or collections. 

Both methods are based on allele frequency differences among populations, so to this 

extent they are not independent. 

Ordination 

Allele-frequency differences among collections or groups of collections are summarized 

as genetic distances. Two genetic distance statistics are presented in tables: Nei’s unbiased 

genetic distance (Nei 1978) and Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards chord distance (Cavalli-Sforza and 

Edwards 1967), hereafter called CSE chord distance. The genetic distances are then presented 

graphically as dendrograms, using unweighted pair-group method cluster analysis (Sneath and 

162 
Sokal 1973) or in nonmetric multidimensional scaling (MDS) diagrams (Kruskal 1964). Genetic 

distances were calculated using the BIOSYS-1 program (Swofford and Selander 1981). 

Dendrograms were created using BIOSYS-1 or NTSYS (Rohlf 1994). MDS diagrams were 

created using NTSYS. Principal coordinate analysis (Gower 1966) was used to provide an initial 

ordination for generation of MDS diagrams. 

The two types of genetic distance statistics assume two different modes of population 

differentiation. Nei’s assumes differences arise primarily through mutation, while the CSE 

method assumes differences arise primarily through genetic drift. Nei distances have a long 

history in the literature, and Nei’s is unbiased. The CSE chord distance does have some bias 

problems (Busack unpubl. data), but the drift mechanism it incorporates probably is a more 

accurate model for genetic differentiation in salmon and steelhead than mutation. CSE distances 

have been used extensively in the NMFS status reviews. In this technical memorandum, we 

present Nei’s unbiased distances and CSE chord distances, but we use the latter exclusively for 

ordination. 

The two ordination methods used in this technical memorandum, dendrograms and MDS 

diagrams, distort relationships between populations to some extent. Dendrograms are created by 

the stepwise addition of populations to clusters and then by recomputing distances between 

clusters and unclustered populations. Thus distances change as the clustering proceeds. The 

technique also forces populations into clusters. Gradual allele frequencies over a geographical 

area cannot be depicted accurately in dendrograms (Lessa 1990). MDS is simpler conceptually. 

Given all the pairwise distances, MDS attempts to draw a “map” of relationships in two- or 

three-dimensional space. MDS diagrams may be more challenging to interpret than 

dendrograms, but they have the advantages of being able to depict allele-frequency clines, and 

they do not generate artifactual clusters. However, the scaling of distances in dendrograms does 

not appear in MDS diagrams. 

Tests of Allele-frequency Heterogeneity 

All pairwise combinations of populations and collections were tested for allele-frequency 

differences by log-likelihood tests using the G statistic (Sokal and Rohlf 1981). The distribution 

of the G approximates the Χ2

 distribution. Williams’s correction (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) is 

included in the tests to make the approximation closer. Tests are done for each locus and then 

summed for the final G value. Test results are presented as p values, that is, the probability of 

the null hypothesis of both samples representing random draws from the same gene population. 

Thus we leave determining levels of statistical significance, including Bonferroni corrections 

(e.g., Rice 1989) for multiple tests, to the reader. 

Two caveats need to be considered in evaluating these test results: 

• Power is strongly influenced by sample size. Small samples may yield large p values 

despite biologically meaningful allele-frequency differences. Conversely, very large 

samples may yield small p values that are not biologically meaningful. We have 

attempted in these analyses to avoid tests involving sample-size extremes. 

• Low p values indicate only that the null hypothesis of random draws from the same gene 

pool probably is violated, and there are a variety of reasons the null hypothesis can be 

untrue. There may be significant levels of gene flow between populations that show 

sizable allele-frequency differences. Different year classes from the same population also 

163 
may differ in allele frequency. This is to be expected actually (Waples 1990) and thus is 

not necessarily a reflection of the population being ill-defined genetically. This 

phenomenon makes comparisons of populations sampled in different years problematic. 

With enough information about the age structure of the populations being compared, test 

statistics can be adjusted for the temporal scale of allele-frequency comparisons (Waples 

1990). We have not attempted that in this technical memorandum. 

Results 

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU 

Two databases were available for evaluation of the Lower Columbia River Chinook 

Salmon ESU genetic structure: one from WDFW and one from NMFS (Table C-1). The overlap 

between the databases is large, with a substantial portion of the data in the NMFS database 

contributed by WDFW. There is a major geographical difference in coverage, however, with the 

NMFS database also including data on populations in the Upper Willamette River Chinook 

Salmon ESU. The WDFW database contains more recent data on Washington populations that 

are not included in the NMFS database. The two databases differ in locus and allele coverage 

(Table C-2). The WDFW database was developed specifically for TRT use, to provide the most 

complete set of genetic data for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU currently 

possible. The WDFW database includes fewer loci than the NMFS database (29 vs. 37), but the 

reduction resulted from excluding loci that were not variable in the Lower Columbia River 

Chinook Salmon ESU. The WDFW database also includes alleles scored confidently but not yet 

included in the coastwide NMFS database. 

Table C-3 presents matrices of genetic distances among all pairwise combinations of 

populations in the WDFW database. The genetic distance relationship among these populations 

is summarized by a dendrogram (Figure C-1) and by multidimensional scaling (Figure C-2). The 

most conspicuous group on the dendrogram is the lower cluster consisting of hatchery stocks 

from Abernathy, Big, and Spring creeks. The hatcheries at Big and Spring creeks are large with 

a rich history of stock mixing, whereas Abernathy is a small research station that has received 

fish from several stocks. That this is a genetically distinct group (see also the group’s position 

on the MDS in Figure C-2) is obvious, but exactly what it represents is unclear. It is possible 

that it represents an historical lineage, possibly reflecting the genetic composition of the Big 

White Salmon fall Chinook founders of the Spring Creek Hatchery population, but it is more 

likely that it is just a genetically distinct amalgam of several populations. The ancestry of this 

group needs additional study through examination of hatchery records. This group is considered 

a GDU (mid-Columbia River tule fall) by Marshall et al. (1995). 

Excluding that cluster, there are two other major groups apparent in both figures: spring 

Chinook salmon and all other fall Chinook salmon populations. In the spring Chinook cluster, 

Cowlitz probably represents a blend of the pre-dam, Cowlitz spring Chinook salmon populations. 

This population has been large since the dams were constructed and has received very few 

hatchery introductions (Appendix A, Table A-1). However, because of incomplete separation by 

164 
Table C-1. Collections from the Lower Columbia River (LC) and Upper Willamette River (UW) 

Chinook Salmon ESUs included in the WDFW and NMFS databases. 

Population sampled ESU State 

Collection 

codea

Collection 

year 

Life 

stageb

Sample 

size Database 

Cowlitz Hatchery spring LC WA S0053 1982 A 50 NMFS 

W87QA 1987 A 102 Both 

LC WA W88QZ 1988 A 99 Both 

S0045 1982 A 50 NMFS 

Cowlitz Hatchery fall 

S0049 1981 A 49 NMFS 

North Fork Lewis River spring LC WA W88XF 1988 A 135 Both 

North Fork Lewis River 

fall (bright) 

LC WA W90CZ 1990 A 120 Both 

Kalama Hatchery spring LC WA W90BK 1990 A 109 Both 

S0113 1982 A 50 NMFS 

Big Creek Hatchery LC OR W90CM 1990 A 100 Both 

S0012 1982 J 50 NMFS 

Elochoman River fall LC WA W95EP 1995 A 35 WDFW 

W97EY 1997 A 84 WDFW 

LC WA W95EO 1995 A 43 WDFW 

W97EX 1997 A 41 WDFW 

Abernathy Creek fall 

W98DY 1998 A 30 WDFW 

Abernathy Hatchery fall LC WA W95EK 1995 A 100 WDFW 

Coweeman River fall LC WA W96CF 1996 A 76 WDFW 

W97FE 1997 A 14 WDFW 

LC WA W88AB 1988 A 49 WDFW 

W89BG 1989 A 100 WDFW 

Kalama Hatchery fall 

S0116 1982 J 50 Both 

LC WA W95EQ 1995 A 12 WDFW 

W96DV 1996 A 63 WDFW 

East Fork Lewis River fall (early) 

W97FC 1997 A 33 WDFW 

Washougal River fall LC WA W95ER 1995 A 65 WDFW 

W96EA 1996 A 39 WDFW 

LC OR W90DA 1990 A 54 Both 

W91FN 1991 A 36 Both 

W92FA 1992 A 50 Both 

Sandy River fall (bright) 

W93ET 1993 A 14 WDFW 

LC WA W87AL 1987 A 104 Both 

W90CL 1990 A 150 Both 

S0012 1982 J 50 NMFS 

Spring Creek NFH fall 

S0261 1982 J 50 NMFS 

Sandy River spring LC OR S1099 1997 J —c NMFS 

Dexter Hatchery spring UW OR W87AJ 1987 A 100 NMFS 

McKenzie Hatchery spring UW OR S0157 1982 A 38 NMFS 

W88QP 1988 A 110 NMFS 

McKenzie River spring UW OR S1098 unknown —d 100 NMFS 

North Santiam River spring UW OR S1135 1998 J 99 NMFS 

Clackamas Hatchery spring UW OR W88AD 1988 A 100 NMFS 

165 
166 

Table C-1 continued. Collections from the Lower Columbia River (LC) and Upper Willamette River 

(UW) Chinook Salmon ESUs included in the WDFW and NMFS databases. 

Population sampled ESU State 

Collection 

codea

Collection

year 

Life 

stageb

Sample 

size Database 

North Fork Clackamas River spring UW OR S1091 1997 J 80 NMFS 

Marion Forks Hatchery spring UW OR W90CK 1990 A 100c NMFS 

a Codes beginning with S signify collections analyzed by NMFS, collection codes beginning with W signify 

collections analyzed by WDFW. 

b

 A stands for adult, J stands for juvenile. 

c

 Number of fish sampled is either unknown or approximated. 

d

 Life stage is unknown. 

Table C-2. Chinook salmon loci included in the NMFS and WDFW databases. Loci nomenclature 

follows conventions of Shaklee et al. (1990). 

Locus Database Locus Database Locus Database 

mAAT-1 Both GPI-B2 Both sMEP-2 NMFS 

mAAT-2 WDFW GPIB-2a NMFS MPI Both 

sAAT-1,2 NMFS GPIr NMFS PEPA Both 

sAAT-3 Both GR Both PEPB-1 Both 

sAAT-4 Both bHEX NMFS PEPD-2 Both 

ADA-1 Both IDDH1 NMFS PEP-LT Both 

ADA-2 NMFS mIDHP-2 Both PGDH NMFS 

ADH NMFS sIDHP-1 Both PGK-2 Both 

mAH-1 NMFS sIDHP-2 Both PGM-1 Both 

mAH-3 NMFS LDHB-1 NMFS PGM-2 Both 

mAH-4 Both LDHB-2 NMFS mSOD NMFS 

sAH Both LDH-C Both sSOD-1 Both 

ALAT NMFS mMDH-2 Both sSOD-2 WDFW 

FDHG Both sMDHA-1,2 NMFS TPI-3 NMFS 

GAPDH-2 NMFS sMDH-B1,2 Both TPI-4 Both 

GPI-A Both sMEP-1 Both 

run timing, Cowlitz spring and fall Chinook have been crossed at the hatchery. The similarity of 

the other two populations to Cowlitz may be natural. The case is easiest to make for the Kalama 

River, which has used 88% native fish (Table 3 and Table 4) in the hatchery, and which also has 

a natural production component. The Lewis River spring stock has received far more out-ofbasin introductions, and it has long been thought that the original spring Chinook salmon run 

either died out or was largely replaced by introduced fish. The cluster of spring Chinook salmon 

makes geographical sense, however. The three basins are neighbors and all three had spring runs 

historically. 
Table C-3. Genetic distances among 15 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU populations, based on the WDFW d

the dashes are Nei’s (1978) unbiased distances, figures below the dashes are CSE (1967) chord distances. 

Population 1 2 3 4 5 6 

1. Cowlitz Hatchery spring — 0.0033 0.0003 0.0083 0.0050 0.0032 02. North Fork Lewis River spring 0.0614 — 0.0025 0.0115 0.0032 0.0045 03. Kalama Hatchery spring 0.0505 0.0569 — 0.0088 0.0049 0.0035 04. Big Creek Hatchery fall 0.0939 0.1018 0.0866 — 0.0051 0.0019 05. Elochoman River fall 0.0869 0.0765 0.0777 0.0771 — 0.0008 06. Abernathy Creek fall 0.0774 0.0786 0.0701 0.0550 0.0450 — 07. Abernathy Hatchery fall 0.1012 0.1075 0.0908 0.0371 0.0800 0.0575 8. Coweeman River fall 0.1074 0.1023 0.1066 0.1143 0.0740 0.0839 09. Cowlitz Hatchery fall 0.0644 0.0612 0.0615 0.0827 0.0517 0.0574 0

10. Kalama Hatchery fall 0.0771 0.0790 0.0692 0.0529 0.0438 0.0305 0

11. East Fork Lewis River early fall 0.0861 0.0745 0.0780 0.1054 0.0642 0.0711 0

12. North Fork Lewis River fall LRB 0.0781 0.0696 0.0695 0.0978 0.0543 0.0610 0

13. Washougal River fall 0.0762 0.0718 0.0715 0.0877 0.0438 0.0581 014. Sandy River fall LRB 0.0901 0.0767 0.0822 0.0923 0.0601 0.0666 0

15. Spring Creek fall NFH 0.1088 0.1166 0.0999 0.0377 0.0932 0.0685 0

167 
Table C-3 continued. Genetic distances among 15 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU populations, based on the 

Figures above the dashes are Nei’s (1978) unbiased distances, figures below the dashes are CSE (1967) chord dista

Population 9 10 11 12 13 14 

 1. Cowlitz Hatchery spring 0.0012 0.0037 0.0061 0.0035 0.0034 0.0052 0.0 2. North Fork Lewis River spring 0.0027 0.0058 0.0032 0.0028 0.0036 0.0037 0.0 3. Kalama Hatchery spring 0.0010 0.0040 0.0059 0.0036 0.0039 0.0055 0.0 4. Big Creek Hatchery fall 0.0060 0.0020 0.0138 0.0106 0.0068 0.0090 0.0 5. Elochoman River fall 0.0017 0.0013 0.0029 0.0016 0.0008 0.0017 0.0 6. Abernathy Creek fall 0.0013 0.0000 0.0052 0.0028 0.0015 0.0026 0.0 7. Abernathy Hatchery fall 0.0072 0.0032 0.0165 0.0127 0.0090 0.0115 0.0 8. Coweeman River fall 0.0073 0.0084 0.0010 0.0022 0.0033 0.0018 0.0

 9. Cowlitz Hatchery fall — 0.0013 0.0035 0.0016 0.0010 0.0029 0.0

10. Kalama Hatchery fall 0.0516 — 0.0057 0.0034 0.0015 0.0033 0.011. East Fork Lewis River early fall 0.0659 0.0695 — 0.0002 0.0016 0.0009 0.012. North Fork Lewis River LRB fall 0.0548 0.0575 0.0423 — 0.0006 0.0006 0.013. Washougal River fall 0.0503 0.0495 0.0496 0.0412 — 0.0007 0.014. Sandy River fall LRB 0.0682 0.0626 0.0550 0.0517 0.0520 — 0.015. Spring Creek fall NFH 0.0987 0.0718 0.1229 0.1141 0.1062 0.1105 

168 
169 

Figure C-1. UPGMA dendogram of CSE (1967) chord distances among 15 Washington populations in the Lower Columbi

Salmon ESU. The number in parenthesis corresponds to the numbers in Figure C-2. 

0.100 0.083 0.067 0.050 0.033 0.017 0.000 

Cowlitz HatcheKalama HatcheNorth Fork LewElochoman RivAbernathy Cree

Kalama HatcheCowlitz River HEast Fork LewiNorth Fork LewWashougal RivSandy River faCoweeman RivBig Creek Hatc

Abernathy Cree

Spring Creek H
Figure C-2. Multidimensional scaling analysis for the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU with 

minimum spanning tree of CSE (1967) chord distances at 30 allozyme loci. Triangles are spring 

populations, circles are fall populations. 

1. Cowlitz Hatchery spring 9. Cowlitz Hatchery fall 

2. North Fork Lewis River spring 10. Kalama Hatchery fall 

3. Kalama Hatchery spring 11. East Fork Lewis River early fall 

4. Big Creek Hatchery fall 12. North Fork Lewis River fall bright 

5. Elochoman River fall 13. Washougal River fall 

6. Abernathy Creek fall 14. Sandy River Bright fall 

7. Abernathy Creek Hatchery fall 15. Spring Creek Hatchery fall 

8. Coweeman River fall 

In the fall Chinook salmon cluster, the most distinct population is Coweeman River. This 

distinctiveness likely reflects natural genetic variation. This is a wild population, with little or no 

hatchery influence, and it has remained distinctive from the Cowlitz Hatchery fall Chinook 

salmon run. This probably means that historically it was a separate population from the 

mainstem Cowlitz. The remaining fall Chinook salmon are in two clusters that are not so 

apparent on the MDS diagram: one consisting samples from of the Lewis, Sandy, and Washougal 

rivers, and the other consisting samples from the Elochoman, Cowlitz, and Kalama rivers, and 

Abernathy Creek. These patterns may reflect some level of natural differentiation over the 

geographical area sampled, however, the lack of an obvious cline, coupled with the large amount 

of genetic exchange known to have occurred among hatcheries in the area, make risky any 

inferences about the resemblance of these patterns to original patterns. The only possible 

exception is the relationship between the two LRB populations (Lewis and Sandy rivers) and to 

tules from the Lewis and Washougal rivers. Either there is some gene flow (in one or both 

directions) or the bright populations have not diverged from the tule populations. 

170 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

14

0.040

0.043

0.042

0.047

0.048

0.045

0.049

0.058

0.050

0.039

0.036

0.038

0.043

0.052

1. Cowlitz Hatchery spring 9. North Santiam River spring 

2. Cowlitz Hatchery fall 10. Clackamas Hatchery spring 

3. Kalama Hatchery spring 11. North Fork Clackamas River spring 

4. Kalama Hatchery fall 12. Marion Forks Hatchery spring 

5. Lewis Hatchery spring 13. Sandy River spring 

6. Lewis Hatchery fall 14. Sandy River fall 

7. McKenzie and Dexter hatcheries spring 

8. McKenzie River spring 

15. Spring Creek and Big Creek 

hatcheries 

Figure C-3. Multidimensional scaling analysis for the Lower Columbia River and the Upper 

Willammette River Chinook salmon ESUs with minimum spanning tree of CSE (1967) chord 

distances at 37 allozyme loci. Triangles are spring populations, circles are fall populations. 

The G-test results (Table C-4) offer additional insight in several respects. First, although 

most values were very low (less than 0.00005), the few high p values help scale the diagrams. 

Although significance levels are not denoted explicitly in the table, any p value greater than 0.05 

can be taken as insignificant, no matter what level of correction for multiple tests is done. Thus 

most clusters on the dendrogram created at a genetic distance of less than 0.05 are insignificant. 

Second, they back up the observation that at least the Lewis River brights are not very different 

from tules from the Washougal and Lewis rivers: they are, in fact, insignificantly different. 

There are other data that could have been included on presumed nonnative fish that have 

had some genetic impact on fish in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU. These 

include samples of “upriver brights” (URBs) spawning in the mainstem Columbia River and 

from the Little White Salmon and Bonneville hatcheries, and also Rogue River bright fall 

Chinook salmon that have been released from Youngs Bay net pens and from Big Creek 

Hatchery for several years. 

Relationships between some of the same populations are presented in an MDS diagram 

based on the NMFS database (Figure C-3), along with the addition of Sandy River spring 

Chinook salmon. The Sandy River population is shown to be quite distinctive from the 

downstream populations and appears to be a transitional population between the Lower 

171 
Table C-4. Results of Williams-corrected G tests (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) for allele-frequency 

heterogeneity on all pairwise comparisons of 15 collections from the Lower Columbia River 

Chinook Salmon ESU in the WDFW database. Values shown are p values. Only values greater 

than 0.00005 are shown. 

Comparison P value

Big Creek Hatchery fall vs. Abernathy Hatchery fall 0.2297 

Abernathy Creek fall vs. Kalama Hatchery fall 0.6238 

East Fork Lewis River early fall vs. North Fork Lewis River fall LRB 0.0699 

North Fork Lewis River late bright fall vs. Washougal River fall 0.0922 

Big Creek Hatchery fall vs. Spring Creek NFH fall 0.0190 

Elochoman River fall vs. Abernathy Creek fall 0.0075 

Elochoman River fall vs. Kalama Hatchery fall 0.0012 

Elochoman River fall vs. Washougal River fall 0.0095 

Abernathy Hatchery fall vs. Spring Creek NFH fall 0.0096 

Cowlitz Hatchery spring vs. Kalama Hatchery spring 0.0004 

Elochoman River fall vs. Cowlitz Hatchery fall 0.0001 

Cowlitz Hatchery fall vs. Washougal River fall 0.0007 

East Fork Lewis River early fall vs. Washougal River fall 0.0001 

Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESUs. However, the large 

number of releases of Willamette River spring Chinook salmon from the Sandy River Hatchery 

(Table 3 and Table 4) may account for much if not all of the resemblance to the Upper 

Willamette River populations, making it unclear how different from more downstream 

populations the Sandy River population originally was. 

Figure C-4, a CSE dendrogram of most of the Chinook salmon populations in 

Washington, puts the genetic diversity observed among Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon 

ESU stocks in perspective. Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU populations are 

included in the grouping designated by WDFW as MAL II, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU 

stocks comprise MAL IV. Note that the Puget Sound populations fall in large part into major 

groupings that have a geographical basis: Nooksack, Skagit and Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and 

White rivers, and South Sound and Hood Canal. Assuming that the distance at which branch 

points occur approximates the level of diversity among populations comprising the cluster, it can 

be seen that the diversity in the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU is far less than that 

in the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. Based only on this diagram, the diversity in the 

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU fall populations appears to be about the same as 

that among fall populations in the South Puget Sound and Hood Canal Chinook Salmon ESUs, a 

group notable for extensive impacts of hatchery stocking. However, the Lower Columbia River 

Chinook Salmon ESU data included in this analysis that this diagram is based on does not 

include data from the Coweeman River, one of the most distinctive Lower Columbia Chinook 

Salmon ESU populations, or from any of the Oregon populations. Thus the Lower Columbia 

River Chinook Salmon ESU populations probably are more differentiated than the southern 

Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU populations. 

172 
Figure C-4. UPGMA dendrogram of Washington Chinook salmon populations, based on CSE (1967) 

chord distances. Source: Modified from Marshall et al. 1995. 

 CSE (1967) chord genetic distance

Chewach River spring 

Twisp River spring 

Nason River spring 

Chiwawa River spring 

White (Wen) River spring 

Tucannon River spring 

Puget 

Sound 

Chinook 

salmon 

Columbia 

ocean-type 

Chinook

salmon 

Columbia 

River 

streamtype 

Chinook 

salmon 

Columbia 

River 

ocean-type 

Chinook 

salmon 

American River spring 

Naches River spring 

Upper Yakima River spring 

Similkameen River summer 

Wenatchee River summer 

Hanford Reach fall 

Yakima River fall 

Klickitat River summer 

Lyons Ferry Hatchery fall 

Marion Drain fall 

Klickitat River spring 

North Fork Lewis River spring 

Cowlitz Hatchery spring 

Kalama Hatchery spring 

Cowlitz Hatchery fall 

Kalama Hatchery fall 

North Fork Lewis River fall 

Spring Creek Hatchery fall 

Suiattle River spring 

Upper Sauk River spring 

Upper Skagit River summer 

N. F Stillaguamish River summer 

Lower Skagit River fall 

Lower Sauk River summer 

Skagit Hatchery spring 

Bridal Veil Falls summer 

Skykomish River HW summer 

Sultan River fall 

Snoqualmie River fall 

Deschutes Hatchery fall 

Green River Hatchery fall 

Newaukum Creek fall 

Issaquah Hatchery fall 

Skagit River Hatchery fall 

Puyallup River Hatchery fall 

Skykomish River Hatchery fall 

South Prairie Creek fall 

Hoodsport Hatchery fall 

White River (PS) fall 

North Fork Nooksack River spring 

South Fork Nooksack River spring 

Hoko River fall 

Hoh River fall 

Queets River fall 

Quinault Hatchery fall 

Humptulips Hatchery fall 

Wishkah River fall 

Wynoochee River fall 

East Fork Satsop River fall 

Naselle Hatchery fall 

Skookumchuck River spring 

Elwha River fall

Washington 

coastal 

Chinook 

salmon 

173 
174 

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU 

The Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU has not been sampled genetically 

nearly as extensively as the Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU. Distances are shown 

in Table C-5, an MDS diagram is presented in Figure C-3, and G-test results are presented in 

Table C-6. All comparisons have fairly low p values, indicating substantial differences, but there 

is no geographical pattern to the diversity. Moreover, the relationship between wild fish and 

hatchery fish is surprising. Clackamas River wild fish appear to be very different from 

Clackamas Hatchery fish. McKenzie River wild appear very similar to fish from Marion Forks 

Hatchery, a facility on the Santiam River. North Santiam River wild are quite distinct from 

Marion Forks Hatchery fish. These results indicate either that the wild fish are genetically 

distinct from the hatchery fish, which seems unlikely given the low levels of wild production and 

high relative level of hatchery production, or that the wild fish samples have given misleading 

results. This could be the case if they were the progeny of few spawners, which is quite possible 

in these Willamette River tributaries. The fact that at least two of these wild collections 

(Clackamas and North Santiam) were juveniles also may be a contributing factor. As juveniles, 

they likely represent a single year class. A population’s year classes can vary significantly if 

effective size is low or if the adult age distribution is heavily weighted toward a single age. If 

the wild collections were excluded from Figure C-3, the remaining collections would show far 

less diversity, about as much as the spring populations in the Lower Columbia River Chinook 

Salmon ESU. 

The available information on stock transfers suggests there has been enough genetic 

exchange among hatcheries in the Willamette River basins to justify considering Upper 

Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU spring populations at present as a single gene pool 

(Kostow 1995, Table A-2 and Table C-5). If so, any diversity observed would be solely a 

reflection of small amounts of drift creating ephemeral genetic differences among the hatchery 

stocks. The amount of diversity observed, including the low p values, is not inconsistent with 

this hypothesis. Alternatively, if the hatcheries now are attempting to limit transfers, they would 

presumably start drifting apart. 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU 

Two databases were used again to examine genetic relationships among populations in 

the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESUs: a WDFW database 

focusing on the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU and a NMFS database covering both 

ESUs (Table C-7). Also, as in the case of Chinook salmon, overlap between the databases is 

considerable. Loci used are presented in Table C-8. Genetic distances among the Lower 

Columbia River Steelhead ESU collections in the WDFW database are shown in Table C-9, and 

a dendrogram appears in Figure C-5. In cases in which populations were sampled more than 

once, data from the multiple collections were pooled. 

Hatchery fish have been used extensively on the Washington side of the Lower Columbia 

River Steelhead ESU, but as in the case with steelhead hatchery plants throughout Western 

Washington, only two stocks have been used: the Chambers Creek winter stock from the Puget 

Sound Steelhead ESU, based on fish from Chambers Creek, and the Skamania Hatchery summer 

stock, based on fish from the Washougal River and Klickitat River basins. Samples from 

Chambers Creek Hatchery and from Beaver Creek Hatchery, a Chambers Creek derivative in the 
Table C-5. Genetic distances among 15 Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESUs popul

NMFS database. Figures above the dashes are Nei’s (1978) unbiased distances, figures below the dashes are CSE 

Population 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 1. Cowlitz Hatchery spring — 0.0005 0.0001 0.0016 0.0026 0.0023 0 2. Cowlitz Hatchery fall 0.0432 — 0.0007 0.0006 0.0019 0.0010 0 3. Kalama Hatchery spring 0.0395 0.0541 — 0.0022 0.0018 0.0022 0 4. Kalama Hatchery fall 0.0510 0.0425 0.0607 — 0.0037 0.0023 0 5. Lewis Hatchery spring 0.0474 0.0531 0.0487 0.0656 — 0.0017 0 6. Lewis River fall 0.0602 0.0483 0.0621 0.0507 0.0602 — 0 7. McKenzie/Dexter hatcheries spring 0.0846 0.0927 0.0760 0.0974 0.0850 0.1098  8. McKenzie River spring 0.0977 0.1081 0.0901 0.1065 0.1041 0.1229 0 9. North Santiam River spring 0.0969 0.1009 0.0894 0.1055 0.1001 0.1176 010. Clackamas Hatchery spring 0.0781 0.0893 0.0709 0.0898 0.0851 0.1027 011. North Fork Clackamas River spring 0.0872 0.0941 0.0812 0.0924 0.0893 0.1127 012. Marion Forks Hatchery spring 0.0947 0.1019 0.0873 0.1016 0.0992 0.1140 013. Sandy River spring 0.0646 0.0682 0.0585 0.0679 0.0730 0.0807 014. Sandy River fall 0.0704 0.0631 0.0746 0.0606 0.0644 0.0448 015. Spring Creek and Big Creek 

hatcheries fall 

0.0665 0.0720 0.0711 0.0491 0.0835 0.0869 0

175 
Table C-5 continued. Genetic distances among 15 Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon E

on the NMFS database. Figures above the dashes are Nei’s (1978) unbiased distances, figures below the dashes ardistances. 

Population 9 10 11 12 13 14 

 1. Cowlitz Hatchery spring 0.0094 0.0059 0.0073 0.0089 0.0037 0.0033  2. Cowlitz Hatchery fall 0.0084 0.0054 0.0066 0.0083 0.0032 0.0019  3. Kalama Hatchery spring 0.0076 0.0045 0.0055 0.0072 0.0025 0.0035  4. Kalama Hatchery fall 0.0110 0.0067 0.0076 0.0100 0.0049 0.0029  5. Lewis Hatchery spring 0.0110 0.0080 0.0082 0.0109 0.0058 0.0018  6. Lewis River fall 0.0128 0.0094 0.0117 0.0127 0.0068 0.0003  7. McKenzie/Dexter hatcheries spring 0.0009 0.0023 0.0015 0.0018 0.0011 0.0118  8. McKenzie River spring 0.0015 0.0021 0.0009 0.0003 0.0016 0.0150  9. North Santiam River spring — 0.0030 0.0030 0.0024 0.0018 0.0139 

10. Clackamas Hatchery spring 0.0595 — 0.0018 0.0017 0.0014 0.0108 11. North Fork Clackamas River spring 0.0633 0.0564 — 0.0008 0.0015 0.0128 12. Marion Forks Hatchery spring 0.0605 0.0553 0.0384 — 0.0019 0.0142 13. Sandy River spring 0.0624 0.0542 0.0604 0.0614 — 0.0084 14. Sandy River fall 0.1167 0.1051 0.1115 0.1158 0.0890 — 15. Spring Creek and Big Creek 

hatcheries fall 

0.1061 0.0861 0.0829 0.0976 0.0718 0.0914 

176 
Table C-6. Results of Williams-corrected G tests (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) for allele-frequency 

heterogeneity on all pairwise comparisons for 15 collections from the Lower Columbia River and 

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESUs in the NMFS database. Values shown are p 

values. Only values greater than 0.00005 are shown. 

Comparison P value

Cowlitz Hatchery spring vs. Cowlitz Hatchery fall 0.0001 

Cowlitz Hatchery spring vs. Kalama Hatchery spring 0.0004 

Lewis River fall vs. Sandy River fall 0.0001 

McKenzie/Dexter hatcheries spring vs. McKenzie River spring 0.0005 

McKenzie/Dexter hatcheries spring vs. North Fork Clackamas River spring 0.0001 

McKenzie River spring vs. Marion Forks Hatchery spring 0.0091 

McKenzie River spring vs. North Fork Clackamas River spring 0.0069 

North Fork Clackamas River spring vs. Marion Forks Hatchery spring 0.0039 

Southwest Washington Steelhead ESU, were included in the analysis to provide insight on 

hatchery influences, along with two samples of the Skamania Hatchery summer stock, one of 

them from the Santiam River. Low reproductive success of the Skamania Hatchery stock was 

demonstrated in the Kalama River (Chilcote et al. 1986, Leider et al. 1990) and Clackamas River 

basins (Kostow et al. 2003). 

Some caveats are in order before discussing the steelhead results. Unlike Chinook 

salmon, most steelhead collections are of juveniles. Because of this, they tend to be of a single 

year-class. If effective size is small or the population is dominated by a particular age-class, 

there may be sizable differences in allele frequency among broodyears, and thus among annual 

samples of juveniles from a single population. Thus a single year’s collection representing a 

single broodyear, which often is all that is available, may be inadequate for understanding 

genetic relationships between it and other populations. Also, juvenile steelhead samples may be 

mixed collections of resident and anadromous fish or of different run times if both occur in the 

same basin. A final consideration is that the sample sizes tend to be lower than for Chinook 

salmon, thus the variance of allele-frequency estimates is higher. 

Several interesting population clusters are apparent in Figure C-5. The uppermost cluster 

consists of the two Skamania summer steelhead collections. The next cluster down, containing 

collections from the Kalama (a juvenile sample probably containing winter and summer fish), the 

Lewis, and the Toutle, also may reflect Skamania Hatchery influence, as this stock is heavily 

used in all three basins. The next cluster consists of two summer-run collections from the Wind 

River and a collection of Cowlitz summers, two more basins in which the Skamania stock has 

been heavily used. However, the inclusion of the Wind collections also may indicate a natural 

genetic affinity to the Skamania stock in that the Wind basin neighbors the Washougal and the 

Klickitat, populations from which the Skamania stock is derived. 

The next large cluster is of winter steelhead hatchery stocks, all Chambers Creek 

derivatives, and Green (Toutle) River and Cedar Creek. The latter two streams have received 

considerable numbers of hatchery winter steelhead, but the Green River has not been planted 

177 
Table C-7. Collections from the Lower Columbia (LC) River and Upper Willamette (UW) River 

Steelhead ESUs included in the WDFW and NMFS databases. 

Population sampled Runa ESU State 

Collection 

codeb

Collection 

year 

Life 

stagec

Sample 

size Database

Clackamas 

at Eagle Creek Hatchery 

w LC OR W96ED 1996 J 50 WDFW 

Clackamas River w LC OR C95AM 1995–1997 A 68 WDFW 

Clatskanie River w LC OR CLATS 1996 – 40 NMFS 

Cowlitz Hatchery s LC WA W96EM 1996 J 50 WDFW 

Cowlitz Hatchery early w LC WA W96EN 1996 J 50 WDFW 

Cowlitz Hatchery late w LC WA W96EO 1996 J 70 WDFW 

East Fork Lewis River s LC WA W96DK 1996 J 59 WDFW 

East Fork Lewis River w LC WA W96DL 1996 J 59 WDFW 

Green River (Toutle) w LC WA W96DP 1996 J 50 WDFW 

Kalama River s, w LC WA C94BR 1994 J 95 Both 

North Fork Lewis River 

(Cedar Creek) 

w LC WA W96DS 1996 J 59 WDFW 

South Fork Toutle River w LC WA W96DM 1996 J 49 WDFW 

Skamania Hatchery w LC WA W93CA 1993 J 50 Both 

Skamania Hatchery s LC WA C91AA 1991,1994 A 197 Both 

Washougal River s LC WA C93CS 1993 J 110 Both 

Wind River (Panther 

Creek) s LC WA W94CU 1994 J 55 Both 

Wind River (Trout Creek) s LC WA W93CR 1993 J 50 Both 

Wind River s LC WA W94BU 1994 J 54 Both 

Chambers Creek Hatchery w PS WA W93CD 1993 –f 50 WDFW 

Beaver Creek Hatchery w SWW WA W93CB 1993 J 47 WDFW 

Calapooia River w UW OR 32445 1997 J 39 NMFS 

Luckiamute River w UW OR 32439 1997 J 31 NMFS 

Marion Forks Hatchery w UW OR 32548 1998 J 40 NMFS 

Middle Fork Willamette 

River (resident trout) 

r UW OR 32547 1998 J 31 NMFS 

North Fork Molalla River w UW OR 32311 1996 J 50 NMFS 

North Santiam River w UW OR SANTI 1997 J 36 NMFS 

Rickreall Creek 

(Canyon Creek) 

w UW OR 32440 1997 J 34 NMFS 

South Santiam River 

(Wiley Creek) 

w UW OR 32444 1997 J 40 NMFS 

Skamania Hatchery at 

South Santiam River 

s UW OR W95AN 1995 J 51 WDFW 

Upper McKenzie River 

(Deer Creek) 

(resident trout) 

r UW OR 32546 1998 J 33 NMFS 

Yamhill River 

Willamina Creek) 

w UW OR 32442 1981 J 49 NMFS 

a W is for winter, s is for summer, r is for resident form. 

b Entirely alphabetical or entirely numerical codes signify collections analyzed by NMFS, collections codes 

beginning with W signify collections analyzed by WDFW. 

c

 J is for juvenile, A is for adult, – is for unknown. 

178 
179 

Table C-8. Loci included in the NMFS and WDFW steelhead databases. Loci nomenclature follows 

conventions of Shaklee et al. (1990). 

Locus Database Locus Database Locus Database

mAAT-1 Both GAPDH-3 Both sMDH-A12 Both 

sAAT-12 Both bGLUA Both sMDH-B12 Both 

sAAT-3 NMFS GPI-A Both mMEP-1 Both 

ADA-1 Both GPI-B1 Both MPI Both 

ADA-2 Both GPI-B2 Both NTP Both 

ADH Both G3PDH-1 Both PEPA Both 

mAH-3 WDFW IDDH-1 Both PEPB-1 Both 

sAH Both IDDH-2 Both PEPD-1 Both 

ALAT Both mIDHP-1 NMFS PEP-LT NMFS 

CK-A1 NMFS mIDHP-2 Both PGK-2 Both 

CK-A2 NMFS sIDHP-1 Both PGM-1 Both 

CK-C2 WDFW sIDHP-2 Both PGM-2 NMFS 

FDHG NMFS LDH-B1 NMFS sSOD-1 Both 

FH NMFS LDH-B2 Both TPI-3 Both 

since 1980.12 The remaining clusters on the dendrogram include populations that are more 

genetically distinct from the hatchery stocks than those discussed above. Forming a singlepopulation cluster is Clackamas wild winter steelhead. The next cluster contains Trout Creek, a 

Wind River tributary where hatchery fish have been largely excluded by a trap, and Washougal 

River, collected from above partial barriers where hatchery fish are unlikely to stray. The last 

two collections on the dendrogram probably reflect additional genetic distinctiveness from the 

complex of hatcheries rearing Skamania Hatchery and Chambers Creek Hatchery stocks, but not 

necessarily distinctiveness from hatchery stocks in general. The Clackamas River at Eagle Creek 

Hatchery collection is of Eagle Creek Hatchery/Big Creek Hatchery stock, possibly with some 

Clackamas River influence (Kostow et al. 2003), but the Cowlitz Hatchery late winter run 

spawns sufficiently late enough that interbreeding with Chambers Creek Hatchery fish is 

unlikely. 

Overall, this figure is not overly informative, probably showing two genetically 

distinctive populations—Cowlitz and Clackamas rivers winter steelhead—and some other 

possible reflections of original genetic relationships. However, it does not show anything close 

to a good separation of several populations that correlates well with geography. The G tests are 

not very informative (Table C-10). No inferences can be drawn from them about population 

groupings. Table C-11 displays genetic distances among collections in the NMFS database, and 

a dendrogram appears in Figure C-6. Two samples from outside the ESU, the Clatskanie and 

Grays rivers, are included in this database. The clustering of Lower Columbia River Steelhead 

ESU collections provides no additional insight over that gleaned from the WDFW database. 

 

12 D. Rawding, WDFW, Region 5, Vancouver, WA. Pers. commun., May 2000. 
Table C-9. Genetic distances among 20 Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU collections, based on the WDFW database. 

dashes are Nei’s (1978) unbiased distances, figures below the dashes are CSE (1967) chord distances. This two-pa

horizontally. 

Population 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 1. Skamania Hatchery summer — 0.0081 0.0023 0.0055 0.0049 0.0056 0.005 0.002 2. Washougal River summer 0.0906 — 0.0063 0.0051 0.0057 0.0036 0.0047 0.005 3. Kalama River summer and winter 0.0797 0.0908 — 0.0029 0.0017 0.0017 0.0029 0.000 4. Skamania Hatchery winter 0.0861 0.0906 0.0854 — 0.0019 0.0013 0.0053 0.003 5. Beaver Creek Hatchery winter 0.1033 0.0955 0.0832 0.069 — 0.0004 0.0055 0.002 6. Chambers Creek Hatchery winter 0.0944 0.0894 0.072 0.0644 0.0644 — 0.0046 0.001 7. Trout-Wind summer 0.1012 0.0915 0.0985 0.1142 0.1194 0.1124 — 0.001 8. Wind River summer 0.0726 0.0919 0.0782 0.0911 0.1053 0.0935 0.074 —  9. Panther Creek summer 0.087 0.0976 0.0769 0.09 0.1044 0.0904 0.0863 0.06710. Skamania/Santiam hatcheries summer 0.0663 0.0814 0.0835 0.0864 0.0983 0.0955 0.1084 0.08111. East Fork Lewis River summer 0.0758 0.0965 0.0739 0.0893 0.1042 0.0915 0.1071 0.08212. East Fork Lewis River winter 0.0826 0.0883 0.0625 0.0922 0.094 0.0778 0.0995 0.08213. South Fork Toutle River winter 0.0805 0.0874 0.0691 0.0823 0.0872 0.083 0.1018 0.08914. Green-North Fork Toutle River winter 0.0916 0.0896 0.0765 0.0832 0.0837 0.0894 0.1101 0.08915. Cedar Creek winter 0.0801 0.1012 0.0707 0.0638 0.0707 0.0686 0.1068 0.08816. Eagle Creek Hatchery winter 0.1161 0.1071 0.0858 0.1031 0.0998 0.0963 0.1209 0.11317. Cowlitz Hatchery summer 0.0722 0.1051 0.0737 0.0838 0.0952 0.0802 0.11 0.07518. Cowlitz Hatchery early winter 0.087 0.1098 0.0772 0.0719 0.0858 0.0897 0.1177 0.09219. Cowlitz Hatchery late winter 0.1089 0.1179 0.0999 0.0939 0.115 0.1129 0.1304 0.10520. Clackamas River winter 0.0987 0.0961 0.0801 0.107 0.1099 0.1019 0.1091 0.091

180 
Population 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 

 1. Skamania Hatchery summer 0.0031 0.0041 0.0022 0.004 0.002 0.0069 0.0022 0.002 2. Washougal River summer 0.0076 0.0056 0.0033 0.0058 0.0074 0.0064 0.0087 0.009 3. Kalama River summer and winter 0.0018 0.0006 0.0015 0.0003 0.0004 0.0014 0.001 0.000 4. Skamania Hatchery winter 0.0045 0.0042 0.0031 0.0031 0.002 0.0043 0.0032 0.002 5. Beaver Creek Hatchery winter 0.0028 0.0018 0.0026 0.0009 0.0018 0.0027 0.0018 0.001 6. Chambers Creek Hatchery winter 0.003 0.0014 0.0023 0.0011 0.0017 0.0018 0.0028 0.003  7. Trout-Wind summer 0.0043 0.0038 0.0028 0.0035 0.0041 0.0041 0.0046 0.005  8. Wind River summer 0.002 0.0012 0.0025 0.0008 0.0013 0.0027 0.0014 0.002 9. Panther Creek summer 0.0023 0.0016 0.0044 0.0004 0.0013 0.0017 0.0005 0.00110. Skamania/Santiam hatcheries summer 0.0042 0.0044 0.002 0.0045 0.0032 0.0078 0.0033 0.00311. East Fork Lewis River summer — 0.0016 0.0029 0.0018 0.0022 0.0038 0.0015 0.00212. East Fork Lewis River winter 0.0687 — 0.0025 0.0004 0.0017 0.0017 0.0024 0.00213. South Fork Toutle River winter 0.0841 0.0815 — 0.0025 0.0017 0.0039 0.0037 0.00214. Green-North Fork Toutle River winter 0.0814 0.0783 0.0817 — 0.001 0.0008 0.0016 0.00115. Cedar Creek winter 0.0841 0.0798 0.0751 0.0727 — 0.0027 0.0019 0.00016. Eagle Creek Hatchery winter 0.104 0.098 0.0893 0.0872 0.0955 — 0.0038 0.0017. Cowlitz Hatchery summer 0.0797 0.0852 0.0949 0.0881 0.0816 0.1147 — 0.00018. Cowlitz Hatchery early winter 0.0874 0.0908 0.0815 0.072 0.0553 0.0968 0.0804 — 19. Cowlitz Hatchery late winter 0.1013 0.1132 0.1018 0.0899 0.0914 0.1222 0.1025 0.08420. Clackamas River winter 0.1018 0.0867 0.0962 0.0934 0.0946 0.1013 0.1093 0.105Table C-9 continued. Genetic distances among 20 Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU collections, based on the WDFW 

above the dashes are Nei’s (1978) unbiased distances, figures below the dashes are CSE (1967) chord distances. Tcontinued horizontally. 

181 
Figure C-5. Cluster analysis UPGMA of genetic distances for WDFW samples from the Lower Columbia 

River Steelhead ESU. 

Skamania Hatchery summer 

Skamania/Santiam hatcheries summer 

Kalama River summer and winter 

East Fork Lewis River winter 

East Fork Lewis River summer 

South Fork Toutle River winter 

Wind River summer 

Panther Creek summer 

Cowlitz Hatchery summer 

Skamania Hatchery winter 

Chambers Creek Hatchery winter 

Beaver Creek Hatchery winter 

Green-North Fork Toutle River winter 

Cedar Creek-North Fork Lewis River fall 

Cowlitz Hatchery early winter 

Clackamas River winter 

Washougal River summer 

Trout Creek Hatchery winter 

Eagle Creek Hatchery winter 

Cowlitz Hatchery late winter

Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU 

Based on their placement in the dendrogram (Figure C-6), Upper Willamette River 

Steelhead ESU collections appear more diverse genetically than those from the Lower Columbia 

River Steelhead ESU. Most distinctive (bottom cluster) are the two samples of resident trout 

from the upper Mackenzie and Middle Fork Willamette rivers. The Luckiamute River collection 

is distinctive from most other Willamette River collections, and distinctive from the other 

west-side collections (Rickreall Creek and Yamhill River), which cluster with the Clatskanie 

River collection. Possibly this reflects lower-river hatchery influence. The remaining Upper 

Willamette River Steelhead ESU collections cluster together. It is not clear how much the 

relationships among them may reflect hatchery activity, but they appear to be more distinct from 

each other than are the Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU collections. 

As was the case with the collections in the WDFW database, G-test p values (Table C-12) 

are almost all very low, and thus not informative. 

Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU 

Chum salmon probably occur in very low numbers in many streams on both sides of the 

lower Columbia River. Until recently, chum salmon were seen in numbers large enough for 

meaningful allozyme analysis only in two regions, Grays River and just downstream of 

182 
183 

Table C-10. Results of Williams-corrected G tests (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) for allele-frequency 

heterogeneity on all pairwise comparisons of 20 collections from the Lower Columbia River and 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESUs in the WDFW database. 

Comparison P value*

Cedar Creek winter 1996 vs. Cowlitz Hatchery early winter 1996 0.0465 

Skamania Hatchery winter 1993 vs. Chambers Creek Hatchery winter 1993 0.0026 

Beaver Creek Hatchery winter 1993 vs. Chambers Creek Hatchery winter 1993 0.0064 

Wind River summer 1994 vs. Panther Creek summer 1994 0.0063 

Kalama River summer 1994 vs. East Fork Lewis River winter 1996 0.0001 

Kalama River summer 1994 vs. South Fork Toutle River winter 1996 0.0002 

Skamania Hatchery winter 1993 vs. Beaver Creek Hatchery winter 1993 0.0001 

Skamania Hatchery winter 1993 vs. Cedar Creek winter 1996 0.0004 

Chambers Creek Hatchery winter 1993 vs. Cedar Creek winter 1996 0.0001 

Panther Creek summer 1994 vs. Cowlitz Hatchery summer 1996 0.0001 

Green-North Fork Toutle River winter 1996 vs. Cowlitz Hatchery early winter 1996 0.0005 

South Fork Toutle River winter 1996 vs. Cedar Creek winter 1996 0.0001 

South Fork Toutle River winter 1996 vs. Green-North Fork Toutle River winter 0.0001 *

 Values shown are p values. Only values greater than 0.00005 are shown. 

Bonneville Dam. In the latter area, spawning was observed in Hamilton and Hardy creeks. 

Several collections of spawning adults, totaling several hundred fish, were made from these sites 

from 1992 to 2000 (Table C-13). More recently, spawning was observed in the mainstem 

Columbia River at Ives Island, a spot just off Hamilton and Hardy creeks. Small numbers of 

Ives Island adults and juveniles were collected in 1998 and 1999, and a large number was 

collected in 2000. Fish also were observed spawning in seep areas of the Columbia River at 

Vancouver near the Interstate 205 bridge, and a large collection was made in 2000–2001. Small 

numbers of chum salmon, also not yet analyzed, were collected in the Elochoman and Cowlitz 

rivers in 2000. 

Loci used in the genetic analysis are presented in Table C-14. Genetic distances among 

11 chum salmon collections are presented in Table C-15 and a dendrogram based on the CSE 

chord distances is presented in Figure C-7. Three small collections from the Ives Island area 

were not included in the analysis, because small sample sizes might not adequately characterize 

the populations. Two collections from Hamilton Creek also were pooled to avoid 

small-sample-size problems. The cluster analysis clearly separates the samples into three 

groups: Grays River, the below-Bonneville Dam area (Hamilton and Hardy creeks, Ives Island, 

and the Interstate 205 seeps), and the Sea Resources Hatchery on the Chinook River. At the time 

it was sampled, this hatchery was propagating a non–Columbia River chum salmon stock from 

southwestern Washington (it has since switched to a Grays River stock). Thus there appear to be 

two Columbia River chum salmon groups, in agreement with the GDU designations of Phelps 

et al. (1995). There is, however, no clear distinction among the below–Bonneville Dam 

collections. 

G-test results (Table C-16) support the cluster analysis. The maximum p value between 

the Grays River collections and any other collection was 0.0001, showing good separation 
Table C-11. Genetic distances among 19 collections from the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhe

NMFS database. Figures above the dashes are Nei’s (1978) unbiased distances, figures below the dashes are CSE This two-page table is continued horizontally. 

Population 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 1. Clatskanie River 1996 — 0.0012 0.0015 0.0057 0.0055 0.0035 0.0020 0.00 2. Grays River 1994 0.0751 — 0.0017 0.0094 0.0098 0.0062 0.0028 0.00 3. Kalama River 1994 0.0850 0.0625 — 0.0044 0.0040 0.0050 0.0010 0.00 4. North Fork Molalla River 1993 0.0851 0.1002 0.0833 — 0.0014 0.0099 0.0065 0.00 5. North Santiam River 1997 0.0958 0.1138 0.0916 0.0754 — 0.0080 0.0051 0.00 6. Washougal River 1993–1994 0.0936 0.0841 0.0816 0.1048 0.0992 — 0.0038 0.00 7. Wind River 1993–1994 0.1002 0.0814 0.0717 0.1006 0.0993 0.0750 — 0.00 8. Panther Creek 1994 0.0911 0.0766 0.0676 0.0941 0.1029 0.0873 0.0595 —  9. Skamania Hatchery summer 1991 0.0926 0.0850 0.0708 0.0883 0.0917 0.0816 0.0722 0.07

10. Skamania Hatchery winter 1991 0.0722 0.0634 0.0793 0.0940 0.0984 0.0817 0.0899 0.0711. Beaver Creek Hatchery 1993 0.0896 0.0609 0.0761 0.1025 0.1146 0.0841 0.0925 0.0812. Luckiamute River 1997 0.0916 0.1013 0.1095 0.1076 0.1258 0.1300 0.1256 0.1113. Rickreall Creek 1997 0.0777 0.0936 0.1104 0.1196 0.1209 0.1078 0.1134 0.1014. Yamhill River 1997 0.0715 0.0898 0.0931 0.0834 0.0878 0.1074 0.1066 0.10

15. South Santiam River 1997 0.1013 0.0975 0.1016 0.0823 0.0896 0.1065 0.1061 0.1116. Marion Forks Hatchery 1998 0.0947 0.1175 0.0925 0.0639 0.0707 0.1095 0.1049 0.1017. Calapooia River 1997 0.1113 0.1238 0.1081 0.0807 0.0857 0.1159 0.1101 0.1018. Upper McKenzie River1998 0.1668 0.1764 0.1635 0.1480 0.1428 0.1772 0.1755 0.1619. Middle Fork Willamette River 1998 0.1604 0.1780 0.1682 0.1402 0.1400 0.1686 0.1726 0.17

184 
Table C-11 continued. Genetic distances among 19 collections from the Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette Riv

based on the NMFS database. Figures above the dashes are Nei’s (1978) unbiased distances, figures below the das

chord distances. This two-page table is continued horizontally. 

Population 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

 1. Clatskanie River 1996 0.0015 0.0065 0.0030 0.0019 0.0075 0.0057 0.0083 0.0 2. Grays River 1994 0.0012 0.0061 0.0038 0.0047 0.0091 0.0098 0.0130 0.0 3. Kalama River 1994 0.0013 0.0076 0.0066 0.0032 0.0067 0.0045 0.0077 0.0 4. North Fork Molalla River 1993 0.0067 0.0117 0.0147 0.0035 0.0024 0.0000 0.0014 0.0 5. North Santiam River 1997 0.0079 0.0134 0.0146 0.0026 0.0035 0.0003 0.0011 0.0 6. Washougal River 1993–1994 0.0049 0.0165 0.0089 0.0070 0.0114 0.0095 0.0107 0.0 7. Wind River 1993–1994 0.0032 0.0111 0.0061 0.0048 0.0079 0.0057 0.0076 0.0 8. Panther Creek 1994 0.0018 0.0059 0.0041 0.0037 0.0086 0.0067 0.0097 0.0 9. Skamania Hatchery summer 1991 0.0042 0.0132 0.0115 0.0061 0.0097 0.0057 0.0081 0.0

10. Skamania Hatchery winter 1991 0.0016 0.0064 0.0061 0.0014 0.0078 0.0064 0.0088 0.011. Beaver Creek Hatchery 1993 — 0.0069 0.0064 0.0049 0.0086 0.0080 0.0117 0.012. Luckiamute River 1997 0.1088 — 0.0097 0.0057 0.0149 0.0132 0.0186 0.013. Rickreall Creek 1997 0.1075 0.1088 — 0.0075 0.0144 0.0138 0.0178 0.014. Yamhill River 1997 0.1031 0.0927 0.0921 — 0.0046 0.0036 0.0055 0.015. South Santiam River 1997 0.1049 0.1214 0.1184 0.0867 — 0.0029 0.0034 0.016. Marion Forks Hatchery 1998 0.1167 0.1187 0.1263 0.0933 0.0999 — 0.0003 0.017. Calapooia River 1997 0.1269 0.1451 0.1367 0.1130 0.0948 0.0003 — 0.018. Upper McKenzie River1998 0.1732 0.1741 0.1806 0.1536 0.1432 0.0243 0.0229 19. Middle Fork Willamette River 1998 0.1733 0.1844 0.1741 0.1546 0.1315 0.0184 0.0172 0.0

185 
186 

Figure C-6. UPGMA dendogram of CSE (1967) chord distances among 19 collections from the Lower Columbia River an

River Steelhead ESUs. 

 +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ 0.200 0.180 0.160 0.140 0.120 0.100 0.080 0.060 0.040 0.020 0.000 

ClatskaYamhill RickreaGrays RSkamanBeaver Kalama Wind RiPanther SkamanWashouNorth FMarion North SCalapooSouth SLuckiamUpper MMiddle F
Table C-12. Results of Williams-corrected G tests (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) for allele-frequency 

heterogeneity on all pairwise comparisons of 19 collections from the Lower Columbia River and 

Upper Willamette River ESUs in the NMFS database. 

Comparison P value*

North Fork Molalla River 1993 vs. Marion Forks Hatchery 1998 0.0152 

Clatskanie River 1996 vs. Grays River 1994 0.0011 

Clatskanie River 1996 vs. Skamania Hatchery winter 1991 0.0035 

Grays River 1994 vs. Beaver Creek Hatchery 1993 0.0086 

North Santiam River 1997 vs. Marion Forks Hatchery 1998 0.0042 

Clatskanie River 1996 vs. Yamhill River 1997 0.0002 

Grays River 1994 vs. Kalama River 1994 0.0004 

Grays River 1994 vs. Panther Creek 1994 0.0001 

Grays River 1994 vs. Skamania Hatchery winter 1991 0.0010 

North Fork Molalla River 1993 vs. North Santiam River 1997 0.0008 

Wind River 1993 and 1994 vs. Panther Creek 1994 0.0006 

Skamania Hatchery 1991 winter vs. Beaver Creek Hatchery 1993 0.0003 

*

 Values shown are p values. Only values greater than 0.00005 are shown.

Table C-13. Collections from the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU included in the WDFW 

database. 

Population sampled State 

Collection 

codes 

Collection 

year 

Life 

stage 

Sample 

size 

Grays River WA W92HA 1992 Adult 100 

Grays River WA W97FT 1997 Adult 136 

Grays River WA W98KG 1998 Adult 79 

Hamilton Creek WA W92HB 1992 Adult 100 

Hamilton Creek WA W96FS 1996 Adult 38 

Hamilton Creek WA W97FR 1997 Adult 65 

Hamilton Creek WA W98LF 1998 Adult 100 

Hardy Creek WA W96FR 1996 Adult 97 

Hardy Creek WA W97FS 1997 Adult 100 

I-205 seeps WA W00KY 

W00PT 

2000 Adult 86 

Ives Island area WA W00LC 2000 Adult 94 

Sea Resources Hatchery WA W96EC 1996 Adult 100 

Table C-14. Loci included in the WDFW chum salmon database. Loci nomenclature follows 

conventions of Shaklee et al. (1990). 

mAAT-1 

 sAAT-1,2 

 sAAT-3 

 mAH-1 

 mAH-2 

 mAH-3 

ALAT 

 CKA-1 

ESTD-2 

 GAPDH-2 

 GPI-A 

 G3PDH-1 

G3PDH-2 

 mIDHP-1 

 sIDHP-1 

 sIDHP-20 

LDH-A1 

 LDH-A2 

LDH-B1 

 mMDH-3 

 sMDHA-1 

 sMDHB-1,2

 mMEP-2 

 

sMEP-1 

MPI 

 PEPA 

 PEPB-1 

 PGDH 

 SSOD1 

 TPI-1 

 TPI-3 

 TPI-4 

 ESTD-1 

187
188

between this population and all others. Several comparisons within the below–Bonneville Dam 

collections undoubtedly are not significant. Especially important are comparisons of collections 

made the same year. Similarly there are several high p value comparisons among the Hardy and 

Hamilton creeks collections. At this point, there is good evidence that the Grays River and 

below–Bonneville Dam populations are isolated reproductively to a large degree, but there is no 

such evidence for isolation among the below–Bonneville Dam areas. Therefore there appears to 

be at least two genetically distinct populations, Grays River and below–Bonneville Dam 

mainstem and tributary spawners. The similarity between the collections from the Interstate 205 

seeps and the more upstream collections seem to indicate opportunistic colonization of a new 

area. 
Table C-15. Genetic distances among 10 collections from the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU included in the W

Figures above the dashes are Nei’s (1978) unbiased distances, figures below the dashes are CSE (1967) chord dista

Population 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 1. Columbia I-205 seeps — 0.0000 0.0029 0.0003 0.0070 0.0007 0.0007 0.0036  2. Columbia Ives Island 0.0349 — 0.0028 0.0006 0.0070 0.0000 0.0008 0.0035  3. Grays River 1992 0.0706 0.0692 — 0.0025 0.0023 0.0020 0.0011 0.0000  4. Hamilton Creek 1992 0.0408 0.0420 0.0596 — 0.0077 0.0011 0.0008 0.0026  5. Sea Resources 1996 0.0755 0.0820 0.0701 0.0821 — 0.0057 0.0039 0.0023 

 6. Hardy Creek 1996 0.0382 0.0304 0.0615 0.0391 0.0727 — 0.0007 0.0023  7. Hardy Creek 1997 0.0431 0.0447 0.0510 0.0433 0.0691 0.0383 — 0.0015  8. Grays River1997 0.0685 0.0681 0.0293 0.0583 0.0664 0.0602 0.0515 — 

9. Hamilton Creek 1998 0.0447 0.0466 0.0578 0.0451 0.0708 0.0441 0.0272 0.0579 

10. Hamilton Creek 

1996/1997 

0.0351 0.0356 0.0601 0.0364 0.0764 0.0277 0.0400 0.0614 

189
190

Figure C-7. UPGMA dendrogram of CSE (1967) chord distances (scale) among 10 collections from the Lower Columbia R

Chum Salmon ESU. 

Columbia River I-205 seeps 2000 Columbia River Ives Island 2000 Hardy Creek 1996 Hamilton Creek 1996/1997 Hamilton Creek 1992 Hardy Creek 1997 Hamilton Creek 1998 Grays River 1992 Grays River 1997 Sea Resources Hatchery 1996 

+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ 0.075 0.062 0.050 0.038 0.025 0.013 0.000
Table C-16. Pairwise G-test results for the Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU. Only 

comparisons with p values greater than 0.00005 are shown. 

Comparisons for Columbia River Interstate 205 seeps 2000 

Pair p value

Columbia River I-205 seeps vs. Columbia River Ives Island 0.2292

Columbia River I-205 seeps vs. Hamilton Creek 1996/1997 0.0652

Columbia River I-205 seeps vs. Hamilton Creek 1992 0.0031

Columbia River I-205 seeps vs. Hardy Creek 1996 0.0098

Columbia River I-205 seeps vs. Hardy Creek 1997 0.0003

Columbia River I-205 seeps vs. Hamilton Creek 1998 0.0001

Comparisons for Columbia River Ives Island 2000 

Pair p value

Columbia River Ives Island vs. Hardy Creek 1996 0.4493

Columbia River Ives Island vs. Hamilton Creek 1996/1997 0.1709

Columbia River Ives Island vs. Hamilton Creek 1992 0.0045

Columbia River Ives Island vs. Hardy Creek 1997 0.0005

Columbia River Ives Island vs. Hamilton Creek 1998 0.0001

Comparisons for Hardy and Hamilton creeks 

Pair p value

Hardy Creek 1996 vs. Hamilton Creek 1996/1997 0.5684

Hardy Creek 1997 vs. Hamilton Creek 1998 0.7875

Hamilton Creek 1992 vs. Hardy Creek 1996 0.0131

Hamilton Creek 1992 vs. Hamilton Creek 1996/1997 0.0423

Hardy Creek 1996 vs. Hardy Creek 1997 0.0277

Hardy Creek 1997 vs. Hamilton Creek 1996/1997 0.0144

Hamilton Creek 1998 vs. Hamilton Creek 1996/1997 0.0262

Hamilton Creek 1992 vs. Hardy Creek 1997 0.0014

Hardy Creek 1996 vs. Hamilton Creek 1998 0.0011

Hamilton Creek 1992 vs. Hamilton Creek 1998 0.0001

Other comparisons 

Pair p value

Grays River 1992 vs. Grays River 1997 0.4458

Grays River 1992 vs. Hardy Creek 1997 0.0001

191
192
Appendix D: Lower Columbia River 

Coho Salmon Genetics 

In this updated review,13 we examined the genetic relationships of coho salmon 

populations from the lower Columbia River and southwest Washington coast by analyzing an 

allozyme data set consisting of 84 samples from populations in Oregon, Washington, and British 

Columbia (Table D-1). The data set includes samples from the 1994 status review (Weitkamp 

et al. 1995), and 28 more recent samples collected by NMFS, ODFW, and WDFW. 

In this analysis, we used the following 61 polymorphic gene loci to compute CSE (1967) 

chord distances between all pairs of samples (locus nomenclature follows Shaklee et al. 1990): 

sAAT-1,2* CK-A1* bGALA* mIDHP-1* sMDH-A1,2* PGK-2* 

sAAT-3* CK-A2* GAPDH-2 mIDHP-2* sMDH-B1,2* PGM-1* 

sAAT-4* CK-B* GAPDH-3* sIDHP-1* MPI* PGM-2* 

ADA-1* CK-C1* GAPDH-4* sIDHP-2* PEPA* PK2* 

ADA-2* CK-C2* GAPDH-5* LDH-A1* PEPB-1* PNP-1* 

mAH-1* EST-1* bGLUA* LDH-A2* PEPC* sSOD-1* 

mAH-2* FBALD-3* GPI-A* LDH-B1* PEPD-2* TPI-1* 

mAH-3* FBALD-4* GPI-B1* LDH-B2* PEPLT* TPI-2* 

sAH* FDHG* GPI-B2* LDH-C* PGDH* TPI-3* 

AK* FH* GR* aMAN* PGK-1* TPI-4* 

ALAT* 

The electrophoretic procedures and method of genetic distance computation were as described in 

the status review. 

We constructed a dendrogram based on the pairwise genetic distance values to depict 

genetic relationships (Figure D-1), using UPGMA. Five major clusters, which separated at chord 

genetic distances ranging from 0.058 to 0.067, were identified that are largely distinct 

geographically. A cluster of samples from southwest Washington coastal populations is 

differentiated from a cluster of samples mostly from lower Columbia River sources at a distance 

of 0.058. Samples from Bear River (number 42) and Chehalis River Oakville Fishery (47) of 

southwest Washington coastal populations and one Sol Duc Hatchery (57) from the Olympic 

Peninsula are included in this cluster of lower Columbia River samples. A large cluster of 

samples from middle Oregon coastal populations diverges at a distance of 0.059 from a large 

cluster of samples from Georgia Basin populations that includes sources in the Olympic 

Peninsula, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, Puget Sound, and southern British Columbia. Six 

 

13 This section is reproduced from Weitkamp et al. 2001. Further information and analysis can be found in Teel et 

al. 2003.

193
Table D-1. Samples of coho salmon from Oregon and Washington. Samples numbers correspond to 

sample numbers used in Figures D-1 and D-2. 

Sample 

no. Name Location 

Year 

collected Na

Oregon coast 

 1 Sixes Crystal and Edson creeks 1993 44 

 2 New Bether and Morton creeks 1993 62 

 3 Coquille Butte Falls Hatchery, stock #44 1993 100 

 4 Coos Cole River Hatchery, stock #37, 

South Fork Coos River 

1993 129 

 5 Coos Millicoma Rivera

, Marlow Creek 1993, 1997b 50 

 6 Umpqua Rock Creek Hatchery, stock #55 1993 100 

 7 Umpqua North Umpqua Rivera

, Williams Creek 1993, 1997b 67 

 8 Umpqua Butte Falls Hatchery, stock #18 1993 100 

 9 Eel Butte Falls Hatchery, stock #63 1993 100 

10 Ten Mile Big Creek, Noble Creek, Ten Mile Lake 1992 56 

11 Smith Smith River, Halfway Creek 1993 40 

12 Tahkenitch Fall Creek Hatchery, stock #113 1993 100 

13 Siuslaw Siuslaw River 1996 51 

14 Alsea Fall Creek Hatchery, stock #31 1993 100 

15 Alsea Fall Creek Hatchery, stock #43 1993 95 

16 Alsea Alsea Rivera 1996b 62 

17 Beaver Beaver Creek 1993 62 

18 Yaquina Yaquina Rivera 1996b 54 

19 Siletz Salmon River Hatchery, stock #33 1993 100 

20 Siletz Forth of July, Sunshine, and Buck creeks 1993 50 

21 Salmon Salmon River Hatchery, stock #36 1993 100 

22 Trask Trask River Hatchery, stock #34 1992, 1993 220 

23 Nehalem Nehalem River Hatchery, stock #99 1992 80 

24 Nehalem Nehalem River Hatchery, stock #32 1993 100 

Columbia River 

25 Lewis and Clark Lewis and Clark River 1991, 1993 36 

26 Klaskanine Klaskanine Hatchery 1992 100 

27 Big Big Creek Hatchery 1991 80 

28 Grays Grays River Hatchery 1987, 1991 200 

29 Clatskanie Clatskanie River, Carcus Creek 1991, 1992, 1996 113 

30 Cowlitz early Cowlitz Hatchery 1991 80 

31 Cowlitz late Cowlitz Hatchery 1991 180 

32 Scappoose Siercks, Raymond, and Milton creeks 1991 44 

33 Lewis early Lewis River Hatchery 1991 80 

34 Lewis late Lewis River Hatchery 1991 80 

35 Eagle Eagle Creek Hatchery 1991, 1992 180 

36 Clackamas early North Fork Clackamas River 1998b 48 

37 Clackamas late North Fork Clackamas River 1999b 45 

38 Sandy Sandy River Hatchery 1991, 1992 180 

39 Sandy Sandy River, Still Creek 1991, 1992, 1996 124 

40 Bonneville Bonneville Hatchery 1991, 1992 180 

41 Willard Willard Hatchery 1991 80 

194
Table D-1 continued. Samples of coho salmon from Oregon and Washington. Samples numbers 

correspond to sample numbers used in Figures D-1 and D-2. 

Sample 

no. Name Location 

Year 

collected Na

Southwest Washington coast

42 Bear Bear River 1995 37 

43 Naselle Naselle River Hatchery 1991 100 

44 Nemah Nemah River Hatchery 1991 100 

45 Willapa Willapa River Hatchery 1991 100 

46 Chehalis Stillman Creek 1995 71 

47 Chehalis Oakville Fishery 1995b 79 

48 Chehalis Satsop River, Bingham Creek 1995 98 

49 Chehalis Bingham Creek Hatchery 1991,c 1992,c

1995 

180 

50 Chehalis Upper Chehalis River 1995 91 

51 Chehalis Hope Creek 1994, 1995, 1996 171 

Olympic Peninsula 

52 Queets Queets River 1995 99 

53 Clearwater Clearwater River 1995 100 

54 Quillayute Bogachiel River 1987 80 

55 Sol Duc Sol Duc Hatchery summer 1994c 80 

56 Sol Duc Sol Duc River summer 1995 120 

57 Sol Duc Sol Duc Hatchery fall 1995b 80 

58 Hoko Hoko River 1987 96 

Puget Sound 

59 Dungeness Dungeness Hatchery 1987 80 

60 Quilcene Quilcene Hatchery 1994b 100 

61 Skokomish North Fork Skokomish River 1994,c

 1995c 126 

62 Dewatto Dewatto River 1994,c

 1995,c

1996c

169 

63 Minter Minter Creek Hatchery 1992, 1995c 80 

64 Soos Soos Creek Hatchery 1994, 1995,c

 1996 680 

65 Snohomish Pilchuck River, Little Pilchuck Creek 1987 120 

66 Snohomish Snoqualmie River, Harris Creek 1987 120 

67 Snohomish Snoqualmie River, Grizzly Creek 1994,c

 1995,c

1996c

215 

68 Snohomish North Fork Skykomish River, Lewis Creek 1995c 102 

69 Stillaguamish North Fork Stillaguamish River, Fortson Creek 1987, 1989 200 

70 Stillaguamish North Fork Stillaguamish River, McGovern Creek 1987 40 

71 Skagit Upper Skagit River 1993 127 

72 Skagit Carpenter Creek 1993 139 

73 Skagit West Fork Nookachamps Creek 1987, 1993 220 

74 Skagit Baker River 1992c 303 

75 Skagit Suiattle River, All Creek 1987, 1993 200 

76 Skagit Upper Sauk River 1992, 1993 200 

77 Skagit Upper Cascade River 1992, 1993 224 

78 Samish Samish River, Ennis Creek 1994,c

 1995,c

1996c

167 

195
Table D-1 continued. Samples of coho salmon from Oregon and Washington. Samples numbers 

correspond to the sample numbers used in Figures D-1 and D-2. 

Sample 

no. Name Source

Year 

collected Na

South British Columbia

79 Chilliwack Chilliwack River Hatchery 1984 100 

80 Cowichan Cowichan River Hatchery 1984 80 

81 Big Qualicum Big Qualicum Hatchery 1989, 1991 180 

82 Robertson Robertson Creek Hatchery 1984 100 

83 Capilano Capilano Hatchery 1989, 1991 200 

84 Squamish Squamish River Hatchery 1988b 98 a

 N is the number of samples. 

b

 Samples collected subsequent to the Status Review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California 

(Weitkamp et al. 1995). c

 Samples taken from adult fish, others are from juvenile coho salmon genetic distance matrix. 

samples from northern Oregon coastal populations form a genetically diverse cluster and are 

differentiated from all other samples in the analysis at a distance of 0.067. 

We also performed a MDS analysis of the genetic distances (Rohlf 1994). MDS provides 

a means of representing genetic relationships in two or three dimensions, in contrast, a 

dendrogram provides a one-dimensional view of the data. Additionally, we computed a 

minimum spanning tree (MST) of Table D-1. When superimposed on an MDS plot, an MST can 

be useful to detect distortions—pairs of points that look close together in the plot but actually are 

not. 

Results of the MDS and MST for samples from southwest Washington coastal and lower 

Columbia River populations are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5 of this technical memorandum. 

Samples from the southwest Washington coast, including those from Bear River (42) and 

Chehalis River Oakville Fishery (47), cluster separately from samples from the lower Columbia 

River. Within the southwest Washington coastal group, samples from Naselle, Nemah, and 

Willapa hatcheries (43, 44, and 45) are genetically similar to each other and distinct from 

samples from the Chehalis River (46–51). Two clusters are apparent within the group of lower 

Columbia River samples. One cluster contains samples from several populations in Washington 

(28, 30, 31, 33, 34, and 41) and also the samples from the Clatskanie River (29) and the late run 

in the Clackamas River (37). A second cluster contains all other samples from lower Columbia 

River populations in Oregon (25–27, 32, 35, 36, and 38–40). 

A study conducted by Dr. Terry Beacham of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada (Shaklee et al. 1999) provided additional information on the genetic relationships of 

coho salmon populations in the lower Columbia River and southwest Washington coast. The 

authors used four microsatellite DNA loci and one major histocompatibility locus and presented 

a neighbor-joining dendrogram based on CSE (1967) chord distances for 53 coho salmon 

populations from southern British Columbia and Washington. Their analyses included two 

samples from the lower Columbia River (Cowlitz and Lewis rivers), and two samples from the 

196
0.060 0.048 0.036 0.024

1

9

10

3

2

4

5

6

7

8

12

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57*

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

Middle 

Oregon coast

Georgia Basin

Lower 

Columbia River

Southwest 

Washington 

coast

Northern 

Oregon coast

Chord genetic distance

Figure D-1. UPGMA tree of CSE (1967) chord distances based on 61 allozyme loci between 84 

composite samples of coho salmon from populations extending from Oregon to British Columbia. 

Sample numbers correspond to those in Table D-1. 

southwest Washington coast clustered closely with several samples from the Olympic Peninsula 

and were distinct from the lower Columbia River samples. 

197
-1.6 -0.8 0.0 0.8 1.6

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

43 42

44

47

51

46

49

48

25

26

27

28

29

30 31

32

33

34

35

36

 37

38

39

40 41

Southwest Washington coast

Lower Columbia River

45

50

Figure D-2. Multidimensional scaling and minimum spanning tree of pairwise chord distance values 

(CSE 1967) among 27 samples of coho salmon from the lower Columbia River and southwest 

Washington coast. Analysis was based on data for 61 gene loci. Numeric codes correspond to 

those in Table D-1. Samples from lower Columbia River populations are identified by white 

squares, those from southwest Washington are identified by black squares. 

198
Appendix E: Historical Accessibility Maps 

This appendix contains historical accessibility maps for the following populations: 

• lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon, Figure E-1 through Figure E-22 

• lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, Figure E-23 through Figure E-32 

• upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon, Figure E-33 through Figure E-40 

• lower Columbia River summer steelhead, Figure E-41 through Figure E-47 

• lower Columbia River winter steelhead, Figure E-48 through Figure E-65 

• upper Willamette River winter steelhead, Figure E-66 through Figure E-71 

• lower Columbia River coho salmon, Figure E-72 through Figure E-96 

• lower Columbia River chum salmon, Figure E-97 through Figure E-113 

Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook Salmon Historical Accessibility 

Figure E-1. Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon population areas. 

199
Figure E-2. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to Big Creek. 

200
Figure E-3. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Big White Salmon River. 

201
Figure E-4. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Clackamas River. 

202
Figure E-5. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Clatskanie River. 

203
Figure E-6. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Coweeman River. 

204
Figure E-7. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the lower Cowlitz River. 

205
Figure E-8. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the upper Cowlitz River. 

206
Figure E-9. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Elochoman River. 

207
Figure E-10. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries. 

208
Figure E-11. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Columbia River upper Gorge tributaries. 

209
Figure E-12. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Grays and Chinook rivers. 

210
Figure E-13. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Hood River. 

211
Figure E-14. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Kalama River. 

212
Figure E-15. Historical accessibility of fall and late fall Chinook salmon to the Lewis River. 

213
Figure E-16. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to Mill, Abernathy, and Germany creeks. 

214
Figure E-17. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to Salmon Creek. 

215
Figure E-18. Historical accessibility of fall and late fall Chinook salmon to the Sandy River. 

216
Figure E-19. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Scappose Creek. 

217
Figure E-20. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Toutle River. 

218
Figure E-21. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to the Washougal River. 

219
Figure E-22. Historical accessibility of fall Chinook salmon to Youngs Bay. 

220
Lower Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon Historical Accessib

Figure E-23. Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon population areas. 

221
Figure E-24. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Big White Salmon River. 

222
Figure E-25. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Cispus River. 

223
Figure E-26. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the upper Cowlitz River. 

224
Figure E-27. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Hood River. 

225
Figure E-28. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Kalama River. 

226
Figure E-29. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the North Fork Lewis River. 

227
Figure E-30. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Sandy River. 

228
Figure E-31. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Tilton River. 

229
Figure E-32. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Toutle River. 

230
Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook Salmon Historical 

Accessibility 

Figure E-33. Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon population areas. 

231
Figure E-34. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Calapooia River. 

232
Figure E-35. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Clakamas River. 

233
Figure E-36. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the McKenzie River. 

234
Figure E-37. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Molalla River. 

235
Figure E-38. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the North Fork Santiam River. 

236
Figure E-39. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the South Fork Santiam River. 

237
Figure E-40. Historical accessibility of spring Chinook salmon to the Middle Fork Willamette River. 

238
Lower Columbia River Summer Steelhead Historical Accessibilit

Figure E-41. Summer steelhead population areas. 

239
Figure E-42. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the Hood River. 

240
Figure E-43. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the Kalama River. 

241
Figure E-44. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the East Fork Lewis River. 

242
Figure E-45. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the North Fork Lewis River. 

243
Figure E-46. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the Washougal River. 

244
Figure E-47. Historical accessibility of summer steelhead to the Wind River. 

245
Lower Columbia River Winter Steelhead Historical Accessibility 

Figure E-48. Lower Columbia River winter steelhead population areas. 

246
Figure E-49. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Cispus River. 

247
Figure E-50. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Clackamas River. 

248
Figure E-51. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Coweeman River. 

249
Figure E-52. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the lower Cowlitz River. 

250
Figure E-53. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the upper Cowlitz River. 

251
Figure E-54. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries. 

252
Figure E-55. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Columbia River upper Gorge tributaries. 

253
Figure E-56. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Hood River. 

254
Figure E-57. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Kalama River. 

255
Figure E-58. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the East Fork Lewis River. 

256
Figure E-59. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the North Fork Lewis River. 

257
Figure E-60. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to Salmon Creek. 

258
Figure E-61. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Sandy River. 

259
Figure E-62. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Tilton River. 

260
Figure E-63. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the North Fork Toutle River. 

261
Figure E-64. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the South Fork Toutle River. 

262
Figure E-65. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Washougal River. 

263
264

Upper Willamette River Winter Steelhead Historical Accessibility 

Figure E-66. Upper Willamette River winter steelhead population areas. The west-side tributaries were 

not designated as an independent population but are included because of their importance to the 

ESU as a whole.
Figure E-67. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Calapooia River. 

265
Figure E-68. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the Molalla River. 

266
Figure E-69. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the North Fork Santiam River. 

267
Figure E-70. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the South Fork Santiam River. 

268
Figure E-71. Historical accessibility of winter steelhead to the west-side tributaries. 

269
270

Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon Historical Accessibility 

Figure E-72. Coho salmon population areas.
Figure E-73. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to Big Creek. 

271
Figure E-74. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Washington upper Gorge tributaries and Big White Salmon Riv

272
Figure E-75. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Cispus River. 

273
Figure E-76. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Clackamas River. 

274
Figure E-77. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Clatskanie River. 

275
Figure E-78. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Coweeman River. 

276
Figure E-79. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the lower Cowlitz River. 

277
Figure E-80. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the upper Cowlitz River. 

278
Figure E-81. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Elochoman River. 

279
Figure E-82. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries. 

280
Figure E-83. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Grays and Chinook rivers. 

281
Figure E-84. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Oregon upper Gorge tributaries and Hood 

River. 

282
Figure E-85. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Kalama River. 

283
Figure E-86. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the East Fork Lewis River. 

284
Figure E-87. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the North Fork Lewis River. 

285
Figure E-88. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Mill, Abernathy, and Germany creeks. 

286
Figure E-89. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to Salmon Creek. 

287
Figure E-90. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Sandy River. 

288
Figure E-91. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Scappose Creek. 

289
Figure E-92. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Tilton River. 

290
Figure E-93. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the North Fork Toutle River. 

291
Figure E-94. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the South Fork Toutle River. 

292
Figure E-95. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to the Washougal River. 

293
Figure E-96. Historical accessibility of coho salmon to Youngs Bay. 

294
Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon Historical Accessibility 

Figure E-97. Chum salmon population areas. 

295
Figure E-98. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to Big Creek. 

296
Figure E-99. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Clatckamas River. 

297
Figure E-100. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Clatskanie River. 

298
Figure E-101. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Cowlitz River. 

299
Figure E-102. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Elochoman River. 

300
Figure E-103. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Columbia River lower Gorge tributaries. 

301
Figure E-104. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Columbia River upper Gorge tributaries. 

302
Figure E-105. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Grays and Chinook rivers. 

303
Figure E-106. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Kalama River. 

304
Figure E-107. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Lewis River. 

305
Figure E-108. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to Mill, Abernathy, and Germany creeks. 

306
Figure E-109. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to Salmon Creek. 

307
Figure E-110. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Sandy River. 

308
Figure E-111. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Scappose Creek. 

309
Figure E-112. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to the Washougal River. 

310
Figure E-113. Historical accessibility of chum salmon to Youngs Bay. 

311

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

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

Recent NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS

published by the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS-NWFSC72 Keller, A.A., E.L. Fruh, K.L. Bosley, D.J. Kamikawa, J.R. Wallace, B.H. Horness, V.H. Simon, and V.J.

Tuttle. 2006. The 2001 U.S. West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of groundfish resources off

Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length composition. U.S.

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-72, 175 p. NTIS number pending.

71 Nash, C.E., P.R. Burbridge, and J.K. Volkman (editors). 2005. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment

of marine fish aquaculture. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-71, 90 p. NTIS

number pending.

70 Keller A.A., T.L. Wick, E.L. Fruh, K.L. Bosley, D.J. Kamikawa, J.R. Wallace, and B.H. Horness.

2005. The 2000 U.S. West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of groundfish resources off

Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length composition. U.S.

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-70, 163 p. NTIS number pending.

69 Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L.L. Johnson, and D.L. Bottom. 2005. Role of the estuary in the recovery of

Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead: An evaluation of the effects of selected factors on salmonid

population viability. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-69, 105 p. NTIS number

pending.

68 Bottom, D.L., C.A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A.M. Baptista, D.A. Jay, K.K. Jones, E. Casillas, and M.H.

Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at river's end: The role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of Columbia

River salmon. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-68, 246 p. NTIS PB2006-

101123.

67 Holmes, E.E., W.F. Fagan, J.J. Rango, A. Folarin, J.A. Sorensen, J.E. Lippe, and N.E. McIntyre.

2005. Cross validation of quasi-extinction risks from real time series: An examination of diffusion

approximation methods. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-67, 37 p. NTIS

number pending.

66 Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West

Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66, 598 p. NTIS

PB2005-110650.

65 Fleischer, G.W., K.D. Cooke, P.H. Ressler, R.E. Thomas, S.K. de Blois, L.C. Hufnagle, A.R. Kronlund,

J.A. Holmes, and C.D. Wilson. 2005. The 2003 integrated acoustic and trawl survey of Pacific hake,

Merluccius productus, in U.S. and Canadian waters off the Pacific coast. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-65, 45 p. NTIS PB2005-110651.