Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0068-0042
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-09-22T04:00Z

94
species
of
salmon
and
anadromous
trouts.
Chinook
salmon
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
tend
to
show
greater
levels
of
genetic
subdivision
among
populations
(
G
ST
11­
18%)
than
do
chum,
coho,
pink
salmon
(
G
ST
2­
9%),
and
steelhead
(
G
ST
1.7%)
in
many
of
the
same
areas.
Like
chinook
salmon,
sockeye
salmon
(
O.
nerka)
tend
to
show
a
greater
degree
of
genetic
subdivision
among
populations
(
G
ST
18%)
than
do
other
species
of
salmon.
Chinook
salmon
populations
in
Alaska
tend
to
show
less
genetic
differentiation
(
G
ST
5.9%)
than
do
southern
populations
in
British
Columbia,
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California.

New
Studies
To
examine
evidence
for
reproductively
isolated
populations
or
groups
of
populations,
we
analyzed
allelic
frequencies
collected
over
15
years
by
geneticists
at
NMFS,
University
of
California
at
Davis,
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
and
the
Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game.
This
set
of
data
included
both
published
and
unpublished
allelic
frequencies
collected
with
standardized
laboratory
procedures
and
compiled
for
use
by
participating
fishery
management
agencies.
Complete
sets
of
data
were
available
for
31
polymorphic
loci:
mAAT­
1*,
sAAT­
1,2*,
sAAT­
3*,
sAAT­
4*,
ADA­
1*,
ADA­
2*,
mAH­
4*,
sAH*,
GPI­
A*,
GR*,
HAGH*,
mIDHP­
2*,
sIDHP­
1*,
sIDHP­
2*,
LDH­
B2*,
LDH­
C*,
mMDH­
2*,
sMDH­
A1,2*,
sMDHB1,2
sMEP­
1*,
MPI*,
PEPA*,
PEPB­
1*,
PEPD­
2*,
PEPLT*,
PGDH*,
PGK­
2*,
PGM­
1*,
PGM­
2*,
sSOD­
1*,
TPI­
4*.
Two
loci,
mAH­
4*
and
GR*,
were
not
available
for
Alaska
chinook
salmon
samples,
so
analyses
including
these
samples
were
based
on
only
29
loci.
For
populations
sampled
more
than
1
year
 
some
as
many
as
3
or
4
years
 
allelic
frequencies
for
each
locus
were
combined,
and
the
pooled
frequencies
were
used
to
represent
the
population
frequencies.
In
several
instances,
allelic
frequencies
for
neighboring
populations
were
also
combined,
if
the
sum
of
the
individual
G­
tests
of
frequencies
between
samples,
divided
by
the
sum
of
the
degrees
of
freedom
was
not
significant.
(
This
data
set
also
serves
as
a
population
baseline
for
estimating
the
stock
contributions
of
chinook
salmon
to
mixed­
population
ocean
or
river­
mouth
harvests,
chiefly
along
the
coasts
of
Washington
and
Oregon.)
A
total
of
193
populations
extending
from
Alaska
to
California
were
included
in
the
present
analyses
(
Table
3
and
Fig.
18).
We
calculated
Rogers'
(
1972),
Nei's
unbiased
(
1978),
and
Cavalli­
Sforza
and
Edwards'
(
1967)
chord
distances
between
samples,
and
searched
for
genetically­
discrete
geographical
groups
with
multidimensional
scaling
in
three
dimensions
and
with
the
UPGMA
tree
algorithm.

Regional
patterns
of
genetic
variability
All
193
population
units
were
included
in
the
first
analysis
to
examine
large­
scale
geographical
patterns
of
genetic
structure
among
chinook
salmon
populations
from
Alaska
to
California.
A
major
feature
of
the
UPGMA
tree
and
MDS
analysis
(
Fig.
19)
of
these
samples
was
a
clear
genetic
separation
between
populations
with
stream­
type
life
histories
and
those
with
ocean­
type
life
histories.
Stream­
type
populations
extend
from
Alaska,
through
northern
British
95
Table
3.
Samples
of
chinook
salmon
used
in
the
genetic
analyses
for
this
report.
Samples
are
referred
to
in
figures
by
the
sample
codes
shown
here.
Genetic
data
were
provided
by
Lisa
Seeb
(
Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game;
Laboratory
1),
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
Laboratory
2),
Bartley
et
al.
(
1992)
(
University
of
California
at
Davis;
Laboratory
3),
and
Anne
Marshall
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife;
Laboratory
4).
Asterisks
indicate
combined
temporal
samples
from
the
same
location,
or
samples
from
neighboring
populations
that
were
combined
in
the
genetic
analysis
for
this
report.

Sample
No.
Source
Run
N
Date
Laboratory
Sacramento
River
Basin
1*
Mokelumne
and
Nimbus
Hatcheries
fall
350
1981,1984,
1988
2,3
2
Merced
Hatchery
fall
100
1988
3
3
Feather
Hatchery
fall
300
1981,1984,
1988
2,3
4
Feather
Hatchery
spring
244
1981,1984,
1988
2,3
5
Coleman
Hatchery
(
Battle
Creek
stock)
fall
200
1981,1987
2,3
6
Upper
Sacramento
River
winter
94
1987
3
California
Coast
7
Mattole
River
fall
150
1984,1987
2,3
8
Van
Duzen
River
fall
100
1987
3
9
Salmon
Creek
fall
96
1987
3
10
Redwood
Creek
(
Eel
River)
fall
93
1987
3
11
Benbow
Creek
fall
99
1987
3
12
Hollow
Tree
Creek
fall
100
1987
3
13
Mid
Fork
Eel
River
fall
95
1987
3
14
Mad
River
Hatchery
fall
149
1984,1987
2,3
15
North
Fork
Mad
River
fall
61
1987
3
16
Redwood
Creek
fall
195
1987
3
Klamath
and
Trinity
River
Basin
17
Iron
Gate
Hatchery
fall
247
1981,1984,1987
2,3
18
Trinity
Hatchery
fall
270
1981,1984,1987
2,3
19*
Salmon
and
Scott
Rivers
fall
198
1984,1987
2,3
20*
Shasta
River
and
Bogus
Creek
fall
259
1984,1987
2,3
21
South
Fork
Trinity
River
fall
100
1987
3
22
Blue
Creek
fall
100
1987
3
23
Omagar
Creek
Hatchery
fall
100
1988
3
South
Oregon
and
north
California
Coasts
24
Rowdy
Creek
Hatchery
fall
112
1984,1987
2,3
25
Mid
fork
Smith
River
fall
99
1987
3
26
Winchuck
River
fall
170
1984,1995
2
27
Chetco
River
fall
343
1981,1984,
1988,1996
2,3
28
Pistol
River
fall
200
1984,1995
2
29
Hunter
Creek
fall
100
1995
2
30
Cole
Rivers
Hatchery
spring
263
1981,1985,1995
2
Table
3
(
Cont.).
96
Sample
No.
Source
Run
N
Date
Laboratory
31
Applegate
River
fall
181
1984,1988
2,3
32
Rogue
River
at
Gold
Hill
fall
100
1988
3
Mid­
and
north
Oregon
Coast
33
Euchre
Creek
fall
57
1996
2
34*
Elk
River
and
Elk
River
Hatchery
fall
400
1981,1985,
1988,1995
2,3
35
Sixes
River
fall
268
1981,1983,1995
2
36
South
Fork
Coquille
River
fall
100
1988
3
37
Bandon
Hatchery
fall
59
1995
2
38
Millicoma
River
fall
100
1988
3
39
Morgan
Creek
Hatchery
fall
100
1988
3
40
Noble
Creek
Hatchery
fall
100
1995
2
41
Rock
Creek
Hatchery
spring
300
1981,1985,1995
2
42
Rock
Creek
Hatchery
fall
100
1995
2
43
Siuslaw
River
fall
160
1983,1996
2
44
Alsea
River
fall
181
1981,1983,1995
2
45
Fall
Creek
Hatchery
fall
300
1981,1985,1988
2,3
46
Trask
Hatchery
fall
300
1981,1985,1987
2,4
47
Nehalem
River
summer
53
1996
2
Lower
Columbia
River
48
Cowlitz
Hatchery
spring
152
1982,1987
2,4
49
Cowlitz
Hatchery
fall
198
1981,1982,1988
2,4
50
Kalama
Hatchery
spring
159
1982,1990
2,4
51
Kalama
Hatchery
fall
199
1982,1988,1989
2,4
52
Lewis
Hatchery
spring
135
1988
4
53
Lewis
River
fall
120
1990
4
54*
Mckenzie
and
Dexter
Hatcheries
spring
248
1982,1987,1988
2,4
55
Clackamas
Hatchery
spring
100
1988
4
56
North
Fork
Clackamas
River
spring
80
1996
2
57
Marion
Forks
Hatchery
spring
100
1990
4
58
Sandy
River
fall
140
1990,1991,1992
4
59*
Spring
Creek
and
Big
Creek
Hatcheries
fall
504
1982,1987,1990
2,4
Mid­
and
Upper
Columbia
River
spring
run
60
Carson
Hatchery
spring
250
1982,1989
2,4
61
Klickitat
River
spring
261
1990,1991,
1992,1993
4
62*
Warm
Springs
Hatchery
and
River
spring
210
1982,1987
2
63
Round
Butte
Hatchery
spring
159
1982,1990
2,4
64
North
Fork
John
Day
River
spring
85
1990,1991,1992
4
65*
Yakima
and
Cle
Elum
Rivers
spring
401
1986,1989,1990
4
66
American
River
spring
226
1986,1989,1990
4
67*
Naches,
Little
Naches,
and
Bumping
Rivers
spring
251
1989,1990
4
68
White
River
spring
137
1989,1991,1992
4
69
Nason
River
spring
122
1989,1992
4
Table
3
(
Cont.).
97
Sample
No.
Source
Run
N
Date
Laboratory
70
Chiwawa
River
spring
247
1989,1990,
1991,1992
4
71
Methow
River
spring
93
1993
4
72
Chewack
River
spring
151
1992,1993
4
73
Twisp
River
spring
107
1992,1993
4
Mid­
and
upper
Columbia
River
summer
and
fall
run
74
Klickitat
River
summer
324
1991,1992,
1993,1994
4
75
Klickitat
River
fall
250
1991,1992,
1993,1994
4
76
Bonneville
Hatchery
fall
200
1989,1990
4
77
Little
White
Salmon
Hatchery
fall
200
1989,1990
4
78
Deschutes
River
fall
179
1982,1985,1990
2,4
79
Yakima
River
fall
109
1990
4
80
Marion
Drain
fall
153
1989,1990
4
81
Hanford
Reach
fall
258
1982,1990
2,4
82
Priest
Rapids
Hatchery
fall
300
1981,1986,
1987,1990
2,4
83
Wenatchee
River
summer
350
1985,1988,
1989,1990
2,4
84
Similkameen
River
summer
206
1991,1992,1993
4
85
Methow
River
summer
59
1992,1993
4
Snake
River
86
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery
fall
399
1985,1986,
1987,1990
2,4
87
Tucannon
Hatchery
spring
758
1985,1986,1987,
1988,1989,1990
2,4
88
Rapid
River
spring
293
1982,1985,1990
2
89
Lookingglass
Hatchery
spring
100
1991
2
90
Minam
River
(
Grande
Ronde
River)
spring
100
1990
2
91
Lostine
River
(
Grande
Ronde
River)
spring
297
1989,1990,1991
2
92
Catherine
Creek
(
Grande
Ronde
River)
spring
100
1990
2
93
McCall
Hatchery
summer
350
1982,1989,
1990,1991
2
94
Secesh
River
summer
254
1989,1990,1991
2
95
Johnson
Creek
summer
316
1982,1989,
1990,1991
2
96
Marsh
Creek
spring
259
1989,1990,1991
2
97
Sawtooth
Hatchery
spring
350
1982,1989,
1990,1991
2
98
Valley
Creek
spring
279
1989,1990,1991
2
99
Upper
Salmon
River
at
Blaine
Bridge
spring
60
1989
2
100
Upper
Salmon
River
at
Frenchman
Creek
spring
60
1991
2
101
Upper
Salmon
River
at
Sawtooth
spring
100
1991
2
Table
3
(
Cont.).
98
Sample
No.
Source
Run
N
Date
Laboratory
102
Imnaha
River
and
Hatchery
summer
480
1989,1990,
1991
2
Washington
Coast
103
Naselle
Hatchery
fall
448
1987,1988,
1989,1990
4
104*
Wynoochee
River
and
Hatchery
fall
209
1990,1993
4
105
Wishkah
River
fall
96
1990,1993
4
106
East
Fork
Satsop
River
fall
102
1993
4
107
Skookumchuck
River
spring
74
1990,1991,
1992,1993
4
108
Humptulips
Hatchery
fall
103
1990
4
109
Quinault
Hatchery
fall
200
1981,1990
2,4
110
Queets
River
fall
190
1981,1990
2,4
111
Hoh
River
fall
176
1981,1982,1990
2,4
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
112
Hoko
River
fall
80
1993
4
113
Elwha
Hatchery
fall
200
1981,1988
2,4
114
Elwha
River
fall
200
1988,1991
4
Puget
Sound
115*
North
Fork
Nooksack
Hatchery
and
River
spring
255
1985,1988,1993
4
116
South
Fork
Nooksack
River
spring
51
1993
4
117
Skagit
Hatchery
spring
92
1990
4
118
Skagit
Hatchery
summer
90
1988
4
119
Skagit
Hatchery
fall
107
1987
4
120
Skagit
River
fall
69
1986,1987
4
121
Sauk
River
summer
74
1986
4
122
Suiattle
River
spring
543
1985,1986,1987,
1988,1989,1990
4
123
Sauk
River
spring
147
1986,1994
4
124
Cascade
River
spring
84
1993,1994
4
125
Skagit
River
summer
284
1986,1994
4
126
North
Fork
Stilliguamish
River
summer
106
1987,1988
4
127
Skykomish
River
summer
235
1987,1988,1989
4
128
Bridal
Veil
Creek
summer
87
1987,1988
4
129
Skykomish
Hatchery
fall
106
1987
4
130
Wallace
River
fall
82
1989
4
131
Sultan
River
fall
95
1987,1988,
4
132
Snoqualmie
River
fall
101
1988
4
133
Green
River
Hatchery
fall
398
1981,1987,
1988,1990
2,4
134
White
River
Hatchery
spring
400
1992,1993
4
135
South
Prairie
Creek
fall
86
1992,1993
4
136
Deschutes
Hatchery
fall
250
1981,1987
2,4
137
Hoodsport
Hatchery
fall
248
1981,1988
2,4
Table
3
(
Cont.).
99
Sample
No.
Source
Run
N
Date
Laboratory
Fraser
River
Basin
138*
Chehalis
Hatchery
and
Harrison
River
fall
440
1988,1989,1990
4
139
Chilliwack
Hatchery
fall
87
1989,1990
4
140
Coldwater
River
summer
162
1982,1987
2
141
Deadman
River
summer
80
1987
2
142
Spius
Creek
summer
158
1987
2
143
Bonaparte
River
summer
120
1987
2
144*
Salmon
River
and
Hatchery
summer
420
1985,1987,1988
2
145*
Eagle
River
and
Hatchery
summer
380
1985,1987,1988
2
147
Adams
River
summer
80
1987
2
148*
Clearwater
Hatchery
and
Horseshoe
River
summer
302
1982,1985,1987
2
149
Finn
Creek
summer
120
1987
2
150
Chilko
River
summer
227
1982,1987,1988
2
151
Chilcotin
River
summer
80
1987
2
152*
Quesnel
Hatchery
and
River
spring
676
1985,1987,
1988,1990
2
153
Lower
Cariboo
River
spring
120
1987
2
154
Upper
Cariboo
River
spring
180
1985,1987
2
155
Baezaeko
River
spring
260
1985,1987
2
156
Willow
River
spring
256
1985,1987
2
157
Walker
Creek
spring
80
1987
2
158
Morkill
River
spring
80
1987
2
159
Horsey
River
spring
120
1987
2
160
Swift
Creek
spring
80
1987
2
161
Fraser
River
at
Tete
Jaune
spring
137
1982,1988
2,4
South
British
Columbia
162
Tenderfoot
Hatchery
summer
435
1985,1988,
1991,1992
2,4
163
Bute
Inlet
fall
109
1991
4
164
Cowichan
Hatchery
fall
484
1988,1989,1990
4
165
Nanaimo
Hatchery
fall
241
1985,1988,
1989,1990
2,4
166
Nanaimo/
Nanaimo
Lake
summer
104
1989,1990
4
167
Big
Qualicum
Hatchery
fall
537
1981,1985,
1988,1989,
1990
2,4
168
Quinsam
Hatchery
fall
643
1981,1985,
1988,1989,
1990
2,4
169
Robertson
Creek
Hatchery
fall
300
1981,1985,
1991
2
170
Kennedy
River
fall
150
1991,1992
4
171*
Sucwoa
and
Conuma
Rivers
fall
180
1985,1992
2
Table
3
(
Cont.).
100
Sample
No.
Source
Run
N
Date
Laboratory
Central
British
Columbia
172
Wannock
River
fall
180
1988,1991
2
173
Kitimat
River
summer
190
1985,1988
2
174
Atnarko
River
spring
329
1985,1990,
1991
2
Skeena
River
Basin
175
Kitsumkalum
River
summer
281
1988,1989,1991
2
176
Cedar
River
spring
100
1991
2
177
Kitwanga
River
spring
111
1991
2
178
Bulkley
River
spring
192
1989,1991
2
179
Kispiox
River
spring
80
1989
2
180
Babine
River
spring
113
1982,1988
2
181
Bear
River
spring
218
1988,1991
2
Nass
River
Basin
182
Cranberry
River
spring
93
1988,1989
2
183
Damdochax
River
spring
75
1988
2
Stikine
River
Basin
184
Iskut
River
spring
73
1990
4
185
Little
Tahltan
River
spring
100
1990
4
Southeast
Alaska
186
Whitman
Lake
Hatchery
­
55
1994
1
187
Tahini
River
­
69
1992
1
Kenai
188
Crooked
Creek
­
82
1992
1
Kodiak
189
Ayakulik
River
­
98
1993
1
Bristol
Bay
190
Nushagak
River
­
53
1993
1
191
Togiak
River
­
62
1993
1
Kuskokwim
192
Tuluksak
River
­
50
1993
1
193
Kogrukluk
River
­
50
1993
1
101
Fi
gure
18.
Locations
of
sample
sites
used
in
genetic
analysis.
Sample
site
numbers
correspond
to
those
in
Table
3.
102
103
Columbia,
into
the
upper
Fraser
River,
and
into
the
mid­
and
upper
Columbia
River
Basin.
Ocean­
type
populations,
and
populations
showing
both
ocean­
and
stream­
type
juvenile
migration
(
mixed­
type
populations),
extend
from
central
British
Columbia
to
the
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
River
drainage
in
California.
The
transition
zone
from
ocean­
and
mixed­
type
populations
in
the
south
to
only
stream­
type
populations
in
the
north
occurs
along
the
central
coast
of
British
Columbia.
In
this
zone,
populations
such
as
those
in
the
Kitimat,
Atnarko,
and
Wannock
Rivers
were
intermediate
in
the
MDS
diagram
between
the
two
larger
clusters
representing
ocean­
and
stream­
type
populations.
Samples
from
populations
in
the
lower
and
South
Thompson
River,
a
Fraser
River
tributary,
also
clustered
in
an
intermediate
position.

Several
subclusters
appeared
within
stream­
type
chinook
salmon.
Six
samples
from
southcentral
and
northwestern
Alaska
were
genetically
distinct
from
all
other
samples.
These
Alaskan
samples
showed
surprisingly
little
genetic
differentiation
from
each
other,
even
though
they
were
collected
over
an
area
extending
from
Bristol
Bay
to
south­
central
Alaska.
The
amount
of
genetic
diversity
among
these
populations
was
considerably
less
than
that
among
populations
extending
over
comparable
areas
in
British
Columbia,
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California.
Two
samples
from
southeastern
Alaska
clustered
with
samples
from
northern
British
Columbia.
Geographical
patterns
were
also
apparent
among
the
remaining
stream­
type
samples.
Stream­
type
populations
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
were
genetically
distinct
from
stream­
type
populations
in
the
upper
Fraser,
Skeena,
Nass,
and
Stikine
Rivers
in
British
Columbia.

Several
distinct
subclusters
also
appeared
among
ocean­
type
samples
of
chinook
salmon.
Samples
from
southern
British
Columbia
and
from
Puget
Sound
rivers
fell
into
a
large
subcluster.
Another
subcluster
contained
samples
from
the
coastal
rivers
of
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California.
Samples
from
the
upper
Klamath
River
were
genetically
distinct
from
other
samples
of
ocean­
type
populations
and
clustered
near
the
convergence
of
the
two
life­
history
groups.
Other
distinct
subclusters
of
ocean­
type
fish
included
samples
from
the
Columbia
River
Basin
and
those
from
the
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
River
drainage.
The
following
analyses
of
subsets
of
these
samples
examine
these
groups
in
more
detail.

British
Columbia,
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California
A
subset
including
samples
from
83
ocean­
type
populations
in
southern
British
Columbia,
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California
was
analyzed
with
both
the
UPGMA
(
Fig.
20)
and
MDS
(
Fig.
21)
clustering
methods.
Since
the
purpose
of
analyzing
this
subset
of
samples
was
to
discern
relationships
among
coastal
populations,
Columbia
River
and
upper
Klamath
River
populations
were
not
included
because
they
were
genetically
very
different
from
coastal
populations.
In
the
subset
of
83
samples,
5
clusters
of
more
or
less
genetically
distinct
samples
appeared
in
both
analyses.
All
the
samples
from
British
Columbia,
including
samples
from
the
lower
Fraser
River,
Vancouver
Island,
and
southern
British
Columbia
mainland
clustered
together
in
the
MDS
diagram.
A
large
distinct
cluster
of
British
Columbia
populations
was
also
104
Figure
20.
Unweighted
pair
group
method
with
arithmetic
averages
(
UPGMA)
tree
of
Cavalli­
Sforza
and
Edwards
(
1967)
chord
distances
based
on
31
allozyme
loci
between
83
composite
samples
of
chinook
salmon
from
coastal
populations
extending
from
British
Columbia
to
northern
California.
105
Sample
numbers
correspond
to
those
in
Table
3.
Sample
41
(
asterisk)
is
from
a
population
located
in
middle
Oregon
which
clustered
with
samples
from
southern
Oregon.
106
Figure
21.
Multidimensional
scaling
(
Mds)
of
Cavalli­
Sforza
and
Edwards
(
1967)
chord
distances
based
on
31
allozyme
loci
between
83
composite
samples
of
chinook
salmon
from
coastal
populations
extending
from
British
Columbia
to
northern
California.
Sample
numbers
correspond
to
those
in
Table
3.
The
MDS
clustering
of
these
samples
had
a
stress
of
0.215,
which
represents
a
fair
fit
of
distances
between
samples
in
the
graph
and
the
original
genetics
distance
matrix.
107
apparent
in
the
UPGMA
tree.
However,
two
samples
from
the
lower
British
Columbia
mainland
grouped
separately.
In
both
the
MDS
and
UPGMA
clustering
methods,
geographically
nearby
samples
were
more
similar
to
each
other
than
were
more
distantly
separated
samples.
British
Columbia
samples,
as
a
group,
were
most
closely
related
to
samples
from
populations
in
Puget
Sound.

A
second
large
cluster
included
samples
from
populations
of
chinook
salmon
in
rivers
draining
into
Puget
Sound.
Four
groupings
within
this
cluster
were
apparent
in
the
UPGMA
tree:
1)
the
Elwha
River
populations,
2)
the
Nooksack
River
populations,
3)
populations
from
the
Skagit
and
Stilliguamish
Rivers,
and
4)
south
Puget
Sound
populations
and
Skagit
Hatchery
fallrun
and
summer­
run
populations.
In
the
three­
dimensional
MDS
diagram,
the
samples
from
the
Elwha
River
were
intermediate
between
the
Puget
Sound
samples
and
samples
from
the
coast
of
Washington.

A
third
large
UPGMA
cluster
included
all
samples
from
the
coast
of
Washington.
In
the
UPGMA
tree,
the
cluster
of
samples
from
rivers
along
the
Washington
coast
joined
with
a
cluster
of
samples
from
north
Oregon
coastal
rivers.
In
the
MDS
diagram,
however,
Washington
coastal
river
samples
were
situated
between
Puget
Sound
river
samples
and
Oregon
coastal
river
samples.
The
Washington
coastal
clusters
in
both
clustering
methods
contained
a
sample
from
the
Hoko
River,
which
drains
into
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
west
of
the
Elwha
River.
In
the
UPGMA
tree,
samples
from
the
Quinault,
Queets,
and
Hoh
Rivers
formed
a
subcluster
separate
from
other
samples
from
Washington
outer­
coastal
rivers.

In
both
the
MDS
diagram
and
the
UPGMA
tree,
a
fourth
cluster
included
samples
from
northern
and
mid­
Oregon
coastal
rivers
as
far
south
as
Euchre
Creek.
One
exception
was
the
sample
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Rock
Creek
Hatchery
on
the
Umpqua
River,
which
was
more
closely
related
to
samples
from
southern
Oregon
coastal
rivers
than
to
samples
from
mid­
Oregon.
Northern
and
mid­
Oregon
coastal
river
samples,
as
a
group,
appeared
to
be
more
closely
related
to
Washington
coastal
river
samples
than
to
samples
from
rivers
in
southern
Oregon
and
northern
California.

A
fifth
cluster
included
samples
from
southern
Oregon
coastal
rivers,
the
lower
Klamath
River,
and
coastal
rivers
in
northern
California.
Two
distinct
subclusters
of
samples
appeared
within
this
cluster.
One
contained
samples
from
populations
in
the
lower
Klamath
River
and
coastal
rivers
to
the
north.
This
subcluster
also
contained
the
spring­
run
sample
from
the
Rock
Creek
Hatchery
as
mentioned
above.
The
second
subcluster
contained
samples
from
coastal
rivers
south
of
the
Klamath
River.
The
sample
from
Omagar
Creek,
located
in
the
lower
Klamath
River,
did
not
appear
in
either
of
these
two
subclusters.
108
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers
We
analyzed
a
set
of
allelic
frequencies
for
31
loci
in
55
samples
from
the
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers
to
depict
population
structure
among
populations
in
these
drainages.
An
MDS
diagram
of
Cavalli­
Sforza
and
Edwards'
chord
genetic
distance
best
illustrated
the
major
features
of
this
analysis
(
Fig.
22).
Samples
in
this
analysis
were
separated
into
two
distinct
clusters:
ocean­
type
populations
and
stream­
type
populations;
except
for
a
sample
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Klickitat
River,
which
was
genetically
intermediate
between
the
two
clusters.

Additional
genetic
population
structure
was
apparent
within
these
two
life­
history
types.
Within
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon,
samples
of
spring­
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
lower
Columbia
River
were
distinct
from
all
inland
samples.
The
lower
Columbia
River
group
included
naturally
spawning
fish
from
the
Lewis
and
Sandy
Rivers
and
from
hatchery
brood
stock
derived
from
populations
west
of
the
Cascade
Mountain
Range.
Four
samples,
three
from
Willamette
River
hatcheries
and
one
from
the
North
Fork
Clackamas
River,
were
genetically
distinct
from
other
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
River
drainage.

Samples
of
ocean­
type
fish
from
localities
east
of
the
Cascade
Crest
included
fish
from
both
"
bright"
fall­
and
summer­
run
populations,
including
fall­
run
populations
at
the
Bonneville
and
Little
White
Salmon
hatcheries
and
in
the
Klickitat
River.
Although
these
populations
are
located
on
the
west
side
of
the
Cascade
Crest,
brood
stocks
used
in
the
hatchery
programs
in
these
rivers
were
derived
from
upriver
populations
of
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon.
The
Klickitat
River
summer­
run
population,
which
was
introduced
from
upriver
sources,
appeared
in
the
MDS
diagram
in
an
intermediate
position
between
inland
and
lower
Columbia
River
ocean­
type
populations.

The
arrangement
of
samples
of
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
in
the
MDS
diagram
(
Fig.
22)
is
largely
consistent
with
geographical
relationships
among
populations,
except
for
a
few
notable
samples.
Samples
of
ocean­
type
fish
(
lefthand
side
of
Figure)
were
clearly
separated
from
stream
type
fish
(
righthand
side
of
Figure).
A
genetically
diverse
group
of
samples
of
stream­
type
fish
(
squares)
from
the
Klickitat,
John
Day,
Deschutes,
and
Yakima
Rivers
of
the
mid
Columbia
River
were
positioned
between
the
extremes
of
ocean­
type
and
stream­
type
fish.
A
second
group
of
stream­
type
fish
(
inverted
triangles
plus
samples
90
and
91)
were
positioned
between
mid­
Columbia
River
spring­
run
fish
and
fish
from
spring­
and
summer­
run
populations
in
the
Snake
River.
This
group
included
geographically
diverse
samples
from
the
Wenatchee
and
Methow
Rivers
in
the
upper
Columbia
River,
as
well
as
two
samples
(
90,
91)
from
the
Grande
Ronde
River,
a
tributary
of
the
Snake
River.
The
inclusion
of
samples
from
the
Wenatchee,
Methow,
and
Grand
Ronde
River
tributaries
in
this
group
may
be
due
to
a
long
history
of
introducing
Carson
Hatchery
fish,
or
fish
derived
from
Carson
Hatchery
fish,
into
upper
Columbia
River
tributaries.
Carson
Hatchery
was
initially
stocked
with
fish
from
the
Snake
River,
and
introductions
followed
by
hybridization
may
have
produced
the
similarity
of
upper
Columbia
River
spring­
run
fish
to
Snake
River
fish.
The
third
cluster
of
stream­
type
Figure
22.
Multidimensio
nal
scaling
(
MDS)
of
Cavalli­
Sforza
and
Edwards
(
1967)
chord
distances
based
on
31
allozyme
loci
between
55
composite
samples
of
chinook
salmon
from
populations
in
the
Columbia
River
drainage.
Sample
numbers
correspond
to
those
in
Table
3.
The
MDS
clustering
of
these
samples
had
a
stress
of
0.078,
which
represents
a
good
fit
of
distances
between
samples
in
the
graph
and
the
original
genetics
distances
between
the
samples.
110
chinook
salmon
was
most
distantly
related
to
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
and
included
samples
from
Snake
River
populations
in
the
Salmon
and
Imnaha
Rivers,
and
Rapid
River,
and
Lookingglass
Hatcheries.

Summary
The
genetic
groupings
of
chinook
salmon
appearing
in
our
analyses
of
the
coast­
wide
set
of
allelic
frequencies
were
largely
consistent
with
those
described
in
previous
studies
of
chinook
salmon.
Our
results
for
populations
in
Alaska
agreed
with
those
of
Gharrett
et
al.
(
1987),
who
also
found
that
chinook
salmon
populations
in
south­
central
and
northwestern
Alaska
showed
less
inter­
population
genetic
diversity
than
did
populations
in
other
regions,
and
that
south­
central
and
northwestern
Alaska
populations
were
genetically
distinct
from
populations
in
southeastern
Alaska.
Populations
in
southeastern
Alaska
appear
to
be
genetically
most
similar
to
stream­
type
populations
in
northern
British
Columbia.
Our
analysis
and
that
of
Utter
et
al.
(
1989)
indicated
that
stream­
type
populations
in
the
upper
Fraser
River
were
closely
allied
with
stream­
type
populations
in
northern
British
Columbia.

Ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Vancouver
Island
rivers,
in
the
lower
Fraser
River,
and
in
rivers
in
southern
British
Columbia
form
a
genetically
distinct,
though
diverse,
group
of
populations.
Utter
et
al.
(
1989)
proposed
a
similar
grouping
of
populations,
but
placed
a
single
sample
from
west
Vancouver
Island
with
coastal
populations
to
the
south.
Puget
Sound
populations
of
chinook
salmon
appear
to
constitute
a
genetically
distinct
group,
a
conclusion
that
is
consistent
with
the
results
of
Utter
et
al.
(
1989)
and
Marshall
et
al.
(
1995).
In
our
analyses,
Washington
coastal
populations
appeared
to
form
a
genetically
distinct
group
that
was
most
similar
to,
but
still
distinct
from,
Oregon
coastal
populations.
The
Washington
coastal
group
included
the
Hoko
River
population
in
the
western
part
of
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Chinook
salmon
in
the
Elwha
River,
which
also
drains
into
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
were
genetically
intermediate
between
Puget
Sound
and
Washington
coastal
populations.
Marshall
et
al.
(
1995)
grouped
this
and
other
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
populations
with
Washington
coastal
populations.

Chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers
appear
to
be
separated
into
two
large
genetic
groups:
those
producing
ocean­
type
juvenile
outmigrants
and
those
producing
stream­
type
outmigrants.
The
subdivision
of
Columbia
River
Basin
populations
into
two
major
genetic
units
is
consistent
with
Waples
et
al.
(
1991a)
and
Marshall
et
al.
(
1995).
The
first
group
includes
populations
in
lower
Columbia
River
tributaries,
with
both
spring­
run
and
fallrun
"
tule"
life
histories.
These
ocean­
type
populations
exhibit
a
range
of
juvenile
life­
history
patterns
that
appear
to
depend
on
local
environmental
conditions.
The
Willamette
River
hatchery
populations
form
a
distinct
subgroup
within
the
lower
Columbia
River
group.
Ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
populations
east
of
the
Cascade
Range
Crest
include
both
summer­
and
fall­
run
"
bright"
populations,
and
are
genetically
distinct
from
lower
Columbia
River
ocean­
type
populations.
Fall­
run
populations
in
the
Snake
River,
Deschutes
River,
and
Marion
Drain
111
(
Yakima
River)
form
a
distinct
subgroup.
These
genetic
groupings
are
also
consistent
with
the
analyses
of
Waples
et
al.
(
1991a)
and
Marshall
et
al.
(
1995).

The
second
major
group
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
and
Snake
River
drainage
consists
of
spring­
or
summer­
run
fish.
Three
relatively
distinct
subgroups
appeared
within
these
stream­
type
populations.
One
subgroup
includes
populations
in
the
Klickitat,
John
Day,
Deschutes,
and
Yakima
Rivers
of
the
mid
Columbia
River.
A
second
subgroup
includes
upper
Columbia
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Wenatchee
and
Methow
Rivers,
but
also
springrun
fish
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
and
Carson
Hatchery.
A
third
subgroup
consists
of
Snake
River
spring­
and
summer­
run
populations
in
the
Imnaha
and
Salmon
Rivers,
and
in
the
Rapid
River
and
Lookingglass
Hatcheries.
These
groupings
are
consistent
with
those
found
by
Waples
et
al.
(
1991a).
However,
Marshall
et
al.
(
1995),
who
examined
only
populations
in
Washington
State
for
genetic
variability,
identified
three
groups
of
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
1)
Yakima
River,
2)
Wenatchee
and
Methow
Rivers,
and
3)
a
Snake
River
spring­
run
population
(
Tucannon
River).
The
Klickitat
River
spring­
run
population
appears
to
be
genetically
intermediate
between
upper
and
lower
Columbia
River
groups,
a
conclusion
consistent
with
that
of
Marshall
et
al.
(
1995).

All
populations
of
chinook
salmon
south
of
the
Columbia
River
drainage
appear
to
consist
of
ocean­
type
fish.
Populations
along
the
north
coast
of
Oregon
form
a
genetically
distinct
group,
consisting
of
populations
north
of
and
including
the
Elk
River,
except
for
the
Rock
Creek
Hatchery
spring­
run
population,
which
shows
greater
genetic
affinity
to
southern
Oregon
coastal
populations.
A
southern
coastal
group
includes
populations
south
of
the
Elk
River
to
and
including
populations
in
the
lower
Klamath
River
in
northern
California.
However,
Euchre
Creek,
located
near
the
Rogue
River,
has
been
stocked
extensively
with
Elk
River
stock
and
clustered
with
populations
north
of
Cape
Blanco.
A
California
coastal
group
consists
of
populations
south
of
the
Klamath
River.
These
genetic
groups
are
consistent
with
Bartley
et
al.
(
1992).
Upper
Klamath
River
populations
of
chinook
salmon
are
genetically
distinct
from
other
northern
California
populations.
The
results
of
Bartley
and
Gall
(
1990)
and
Bartley
et
al.
(
1992)
are
consistent
with
these
groupings
of
northern
California
and
southern
Oregon
populations.

Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
River
populations
are
genetically
distinct
from
northern
California
coastal
and
Klamath
River
populations.
Previous
studies
grouped
populations
in
the
Sacramento
River
and
with
those
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
(
Utter
et
al.
1989,
Bartley
and
Gall
1990,
Bartley
et
al.
1992).
However,
Hedgecock
et
al.
(
1995),
Banks
(
1996),
and
Nielsen
(
1995,
1997)
surveyed
DNA
markers
and
these
results
indicate
that
the
winter,
spring,
fall,
and
late­
fall
runs
are
genetically
distinct
from
one
another.

Discussion
and
Conclusions
on
ESU
Determinations
112
Most
of
the
ESUs
described
below
include
multiple
spawning
populations
of
chinook
salmon,
and
most
also
extend
over
a
considerable
geographic
area.
This
result
is
consistent
with
NMFS'
species
definition
paper,
which
states
that,
in
general,
"
ESUs
should
correspond
to
more
comprehensive
units
unless
there
is
clear
evidence
that
evolutionarily
important
differences
exist
between
smaller
population
segments"
(
Waples
1991b,
p.
20).
However,
considerable
diversity
in
genetic
or
life­
history
traits
or
habitat
features
exists
within
most
ESUs,
and
maintaining
this
diversity
is
critical
to
their
overall
health.
The
descriptions
below
briefly
summarize
some
of
the
notable
types
of
diversity
within
each
ESU,
and
this
diversity
is
considered
in
the
next
section
in
evaluating
risk
to
the
ESU
as
a
whole.

According
to
NMFS
policy,
populations
of
Pacific
salmon
will
be
considered
"
distinct"
(
and
hence
"
species"
as
defined
by
the
ESA)
if
they
represent
evolutionarily
significant
units
of
the
biological
species.
A
variety
of
factors
are
considered
in
evaluating
the
two
criteria
for
salmon
populations
or
groups
of
populations
to
be
considered
ESUs:
reproductive
isolation
and
substantial
contribution
to
ecological/
genetic
diversity
of
the
species
as
a
whole.

Previous
status
reviews
conducted
by
NMFS
have
identified
three
ESUs
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
River:
Snake
River
fall
(
Waples
et
al.
1991b),
Snake
River
spring
and
summer
(
Matthews
and
Waples
1991),
and
mid­
Columbia
River
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Waknitz
et
al.
1995).
In
addition,
prior
to
development
of
the
ESU
policy,
NMFS
recognized
Sacramento
River
winter
chinook
salmon
as
a
"
distinct
population
segment"
under
the
ESA
(
NMFS
1987).
In
reviewing
the
biological
and
ecological
information
concerning
west
coast
chinook
salmon,
the
Biological
Review
Team
identified
11
additional
ESUs
for
chinook
salmon
from
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California.
Genetic
data
(
from
protein
electrophoresis
and
DNA
analysis)
and
tagging
information
were
key
factors
considered
for
the
reproductive
isolation
criterion,
supplemented
by
inferences
about
barriers
to
migration
created
by
natural
features.
A
number
of
factors
were
considered
to
be
important
in
evaluations
of
ecological/
genetic
diversity.
Data
on
life­
history
characteristics
(
especially
age
at
smoltification,
ocean
distribution,
time
of
freshwater
entry,
and
age
at
maturation)
and
geographic,
hydrological,
and
environmental
characteristics
were
the
most
informative.

Evolutionary
Significance
of
Life­
History
Forms
The
predominant
differentiation
in
chinook
salmon
life­
history
types
is
between
ocean­
and
stream­
type
chinook
salmon.
Gilbert
(
1912)
initially
defined
ocean­
and
stream­
type
life­
history
types
to
discriminate
between
fish
that
emigrated
to
saltwater
as
subyearlings
(
ocean­
type)
and
those
that
emigrated
at
one
or
more
years
of
age
(
stream­
type).
Healey
(
1983,
1991)
utilized
a
number
of
additional
life­
history
traits
to
expand
this
process
to
describe
two
races
of
chinook
salmon.
In
Healey's
scheme,
ocean­
type
populations
typically
migrate
to
seawater
in
their
first
year
of
life
and
spend
most
of
their
oceanic
life
in
coastal
waters,
whereas
stream­
type
113
populations
migrate
to
sea
as
yearlings
and
often
make
extensive
oceanic
migrations.
Stream­
type
fish
spawn
in
the
upper
Fraser
River
and
Columbia
River
Basins,
as
well
as
coastal
areas
north
of
about
latitude
55
E
N
(
Healey
1983).
Ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
spawn
in
the
Sacramento
River
and
the
mainstem
and
lower
tributaries
of
the
Columbia,
Snake,
and
Fraser
River
Basins,
and
throughout
western
North
American
coastal
drainages
to
approximately
55
E
N.
In
this
review,
we
have
followed
Healey's
scheme,
which
focuses
on
populations
rather
than
individual
fish,
and
focuses
on
a
suite
of
genetic
and
life­
history
traits
rather
than
just
age
at
juvenile
outmigration.

In
some
areas
within
the
Columbia
River
Basin,
stream­
and
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
stocks
spawn
in
relatively
close
proximity
to
one
another
but
are
separated
by
run
timing.
Stream­
type
chinook
salmon
include
spring­
run
populations
in
the
Columbia
River
and
its
tributaries
east
of
the
Cascade
Crest,
and
spring­
and
summer­
run
fish
in
the
Snake
River
and
its
tributaries;
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
include
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
both
the
Columbia
and
Snake
River
Basins,
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Columbia
River,
and
spring­
run
fish
from
the
lower
Columbia
River.
Although
it
has
also
been
known
for
some
time
that
there
are
substantial
genetic
differences
between
stream­
and
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
in
both
the
Fraser
and
Columbia
River
Basins,
the
genetic
analyses
in
this
status
review
show
clearly
for
the
first
time
that
the
two
life­
history
forms
represent
two
major
(
and
presumably
monophyletic)
evolutionary
lineages.
Genetic
differences
between
the
two
forms,
as
measured
by
variation
in
allozymes,
are
of
the
same
order
of
magnitude
as
the
differences
found
between
the
inland
and
coastal
subspecies
of
steelhead
(
O.
mykiss)
and
between
even­
and
odd­
year
pink
salmon
(
O.
gorbuscha).

Adult
run
time
has
also
long
been
used
to
identify
different
temporal
"
races"
of
chinook
salmon.
In
cases
where
the
run­
time
differences
correspond
to
differences
between
stream­
and
ocean­
type
fish
(
e.
g.
in
the
Columbia
and
Fraser
River
Basins),
relatively
large
genetic
differences
(
as
well
as
ecological
and
life­
history
differences)
can
be
found
between
the
different
runs.
In
most
coastal
areas,
however,
life­
history
and
genetic
differences
between
the
runs
are
relatively
modest.
Although
many
populations
have
some
fraction
of
yearling
migrants,
all
the
coastal
populations
are
part
of
the
ocean­
type
lineage,
and
spring­
and
fall­
run
fish
are
very
similar
in
ocean
distribution
patterns
and
genetic
characteristics.

Among
basins
supporting
only
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon,
the
Sacramento
River
system
is
somewhat
unusual
in
that
its
large
size
and
ecological
diversity
historically
allowed
for
substantial
spatial
as
well
as
temporal
separation
of
different
runs.
Genetic
and
life­
history
data
both
suggest
that
considerable
differentiation
among
the
runs
has
occurred
in
this
basin.
The
Klamath
River
Basin
shares
some
features
of
coastal
rivers
but
historically
also
provided
an
opportunity
for
substantial
spatial
separation
of
different
temporal
runs.
As
discussed
below,
the
BRT
found
that
the
diversity
in
run
timing
made
identifying
ESUs
difficult
in
the
Klamath
and
Sacramento
River
Basins.

The
ecological
importance
and
underlying
genetic
basis
of
specific
life­
history
traits
has
been
discussed
in
a
previous
section.
The
BRT
considered
differences
in
life­
history
traits
as
a
114
possible
indicator
of
adaptation
to
different
environmental
regimes
and
resource
partitioning
within
those
regimes.

Major
Chinook
Salmon
Groups
Based
on
preliminary
information
indicating
substantial
ecological,
geographic,
and
genetic
differences
among
chinook
salmon
from
the
Columbia
and
Sacramento
Rivers
and
coastal
drainages,
the
BRT
considered
the
following
three
geographic
areas
separately
in
making
ESU
determinations:
California
Central
Valley,
coastal
basins
and
Puget
Sound,
and
Columbia
River.
Some
of
the
factors
considered
important
in
defining
ESUs
within
each
area
are
briefly
discussed
here,
followed
by
more
detailed
descriptions
of
each
of
the
proposed
ESUs.

California
Central
Valley
The
Sacramento
River
winter
chinook
salmon
was
designated
as
a
distinct
population
segment
(
NMFS
1987)
almost
entirely
on
its
unique
life­
history
features.
No
genetic
data
for
the
population
were
available
at
the
time
of
the
listing
determination,
and
the
NMFS
species
policy
had
not
been
formulated.
Recent
DNA
data
show
substantial
differences
between
the
winter
run
and
all
other
runs
in
the
basin.
The
BRT
concluded
that
the
life­
history
and
genetic
data
collectively
support
designation
of
the
winter
run
as
an
ESU.
The
DNA
data
also
show
significant
differences
between
spring­
run
fish
and
the
fall
and
late­
fall
runs.
Ecological
data
show
strong
evidence
for
historic
spatial
and
temporal
isolation
of
the
spring
run,
and
the
BRT
also
concluded
that
this
run
represents
an
ESU.
The
majority
of
the
BRT
felt
that
differences
between
fall
and
late­
fall
runs
were
consistent
with
diversity
within
a
single
ESU
and
did
not
warrant
the
creation
of
separate
ESUs
for
these
runs.

Coastal
basins
and
Puget
Sound
All
populations
of
chinook
salmon
in
Puget
Sound
and
coastal
drainages
of
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California
are
considered
ocean
type.
In
these
areas,
life­
history
differences
exist
between
spring­
and
fall­
run
fish,
but
not
to
the
same
extent
as
is
observed
in
larger
inland
basins,
and
genetic
data
indicate
the
two
run
types
are
polyphyletic
in
coastal
drainages.
Utter
et
al.
(
1989)
identified
three
genetic
groups
of
chinook
salmon
in
this
geographic
region:
Puget
Sound,
upper
Klamath
River
Basin,
and
other
coastal
streams
from
the
Olympic
Peninsula
to
northern
California.
Recent
genetic
data
indicate
the
presence
of
more
geographically
clustered
groups
along
the
coast.
Based
primarily
on
genetic
data,
geographic
and
environmental
features,
and
life­
history
traits,
the
BRT
identified
five
ESUs
in
this
area:
Puget
Sound,
Washington
Coast,
Oregon
Coast,
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coast,
and
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers.
A
minority
of
the
BRT
proposed
that
the
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coast
ESU
should
be
split
into
two
ESUs,
with
a
boundary
south
of
the
Klamath
River.
115
Columbia
River
As
noted
above,
a
major
phylogenetic
break
occurs
between
stream­
and
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
River.
Populations
from
both
types
were
included
in
ESUs
defined
in
previous
status
reviews.
Groups
whose
ESU
status
had
not
been
determined
previously
include
ocean­
type
fish
below
McNary
Dam,
stream­
type
fish
from
outside
the
Snake
River
Basin,
and
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
upper
Willamette
River.
Willamette
River
spring­
run
fish
are
isolated
from,
and
genetically
quite
distinct
from,
all
other
Columbia
River
chinook
salmon,
and
the
BRT
agreed
that
they
represent
an
ESU.
The
BRT
also
concluded
that
ocean­
type
fish
spawning
below
the
Cascade
Crest,
including
both
spring
and
fall
chinook
salmon,
were
part
of
a
single
ESU.
This
ESU
includes
the
"
tule"
fall
runs,
which
return
in
an
advanced
stage
of
maturation
and
exhibit
distinct
secondary
maturation
characteristics:
darkened
skin,
resorbed
scales,
and
pronounced
kype.
These
are
distinguishable
from
"
upriver
brights",
which
return
to
spawning
sites
above
the
Cascade
Crest
and
enter
freshwater
at
a
less
advanced
stage
of
maturation.

Four
geographic/
genetic
groups
of
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
can
be
identified
in
the
Columbia
River:
Snake
River,
Columbia
River
tributaries
from
Bonneville
Dam
to
the
Snake
River,
Yakima
River
Basin,
and
upper
Columbia
River
(
tributaries
upstream
of
the
Yakima
River).
The
latter
group
includes
all
populations
affected
by
the
Grand
Coulee
Fish
Maintenance
Project.
The
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
there
are
three
ESUs
in
this
area:
Snake
River,
upper
Columbia
River,
and
mid­
Columbia
River
(
Bonneville
Dam
to
Yakima
River,
inclusive).
Scenarios
favored
by
minorities
of
the
BRT
included
a
single
ESU
encompassing
all
stream­
type
chinook
salmon,
two
ESUs
(
Snake
River
and
Columbia
River),
and
four
ESUs
(
each
of
the
abovementioned
groups).

The
BRT
also
considered
several
populations
of
"
upriver
bright"
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
whose
ESU
status
had
not
been
resolved
in
previous
status
reviews.
Excluded
from
discussion
were
several
upriver
bright
chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
Wind,
White
and
Little
White
Salmon,
and
Klickitat
Rivers;
historical
records
(
e.
g.,
Fulton
1968)
do
not
document
native
populations
in
these
areas,
and
current
populations
are
believed
to
be
the
result
of
stock
transfers.
Native
fall­
run
populations
in
the
John
Day,
Umatilla,
and
Walla
Walla
Rivers
have
been
extirpated
(
Kostow
1995),
and
populations
that
are
presently
found
in
these
systems
are
also
considered
to
be
the
result
of
introductions.
Of
particular
interest
are
populations
in
the
Deschutes
River
and
Marion
Drain
in
the
Yakima
River
drainage
that
have
shown
a
genetic
affinity
with
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon
(
Waples
et
al.
1991b,
WDF
et
al.
1993).
A
minority
of
the
BRT
felt
that
the
Marion
Drain
population
should
be
considered
part
of
the
Snake
River
ESU,
but
the
majority
felt
that
the
origin
of
this
population
is
too
uncertain
to
determine
its
ESU
status.
A
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
the
Deschutes
River
population
should
be
considered
part
of
the
Snake
River
ESU,
whereas
a
minority
felt
that
this
population
was
historically
part
of
a
separate
ESU
that
included
populations
from
the
John
Day,
Umatilla,
and
Walla
Walla
Rivers.
All
members
felt
it
was
important
to
develop
more
definitive
information
about
the
Deschutes
River
population
and
its
possible
link
to
Snake
River
fish.
116
ESU
Descriptions
Most
of
the
ESUs
described
below
include
multiple
spawning
populations
of
chinook
salmon,
and
most
also
extend
over
a
considerable
geographic
area
(
Figs.
23
and
24).
This
result
is
consistent
with
NMFS'
species
definition
paper,
which
states
that,
in
general,
"
ESUs
should
correspond
to
more
comprehensive
units
unless
there
is
clear
evidence
that
evolutionarily
important
differences
exist
between
smaller
population
segments"
(
Waples
1991b,
p.
20).
However,
considerable
diversity
in
genetic
or
life­
history
traits
or
habitat
features
exists
within
most
ESUs,
and
maintaining
this
diversity
is
critical
to
their
overall
health.
The
descriptions
below
briefly
summarize
some
of
the
notable
types
of
diversity
within
each
ESU,
and
this
diversity
is
considered
in
the
next
section
in
evaluating
risk
to
the
ESUs
as
a
whole.

1)
Sacramento
River
Winter­
Run
ESU
This
run
was
determined
to
be
a
distinct
population
segment
by
NMFS
in
1987,
prior
to
development
of
the
NMFS
species
policy.
The
BRT
concluded
that
this
run
meets
the
criteria
to
be
considered
an
ESU.
It
includes
chinook
salmon
entering
the
Sacramento
River
from
November
to
June
and
spawning
from
late­
April
to
mid­
August,
with
a
peak
from
May
to
June.
No
other
chinook
salmon
populations
have
a
similar
life­
history
pattern.
In
general,
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
exhibit
an
ocean­
type
life­
history
strategy,
with
smolts
emigrating
to
the
ocean
after
five
to
nine
months
of
freshwater
residence
(
Johnson
et
al.
1992b)
and
remaining
near
the
coasts
of
California
and
Oregon.
Winter­
run
chinook
salmon
also
mature
at
a
relatively
young
age
(
2­
3
years
old).
DNA
analysis
indicates
substantial
genetic
differences
between
winter­
run
and
other
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sacramento
River.

Historically,
winter­
run
populations
existed
in
the
Upper
Sacramento,
Pit,
McCloud,
and
Calaveras
Rivers.
The
spawning
habitat
for
these
stocks
was
primarily
located
in
the
Sierra
Nevada
Ecoregion
(
Omernik
1987).
Construction
of
dams
on
these
rivers
in
the
1940s
led
to
the
extirpation
of
populations
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin
and
displaced
the
Sacramento
River
population
to
areas
below
Shasta
Dam.
117
Figure
23.
Map
of
the
approximate
geographic
ranges
of
proposed
evolutionarily
significant
units
(
ESUs)
for
west
coast
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon.
118
Figure
24.
Map
of
the
approximate
geographic
ranges
of
proposed
evolutionarily
significant
units
(
ESUs)
for
west
coast
stream­
type
chinook
salmon.
119
2)
Central
Valley
Spring­
Run
ESU
Extant
populations
in
this
ESU
spawn
in
the
Sacramento
River
and
its
tributaries.
Historically,
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
were
the
dominant
run
in
the
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
River
Basins
(
Clark
1929),
but
native
populations
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
have
apparently
all
been
extirpated
(
Campbell
and
Moyle
1990).
This
ESU
includes
chinook
salmon
entering
the
Sacramento
River
from
March
to
July
and
spawning
from
late
August
through
early
October,
with
a
peak
in
September.
Spring­
run
fish
in
the
Sacramento
River
exhibit
an
oceantype
life
history,
emigrating
as
fry,
subyearlings,
and
yearlings.
Coded­
wire­
tag
(
CWT)
recoveries
are
primarily
from
ocean
fisheries
off
the
California
and
Oregon
coast.
There
were
minimal
differences
in
the
ocean
distribution
of
fall­
and
spring­
run
fish
from
the
Feather
River
Hatchery
(
as
determined
by
CWT
analysis);
however,
due
to
hybridization
in
the
hatchery
between
these
two
runs,
this
similarity
in
ocean
migration
may
not
be
representative
of
wild
runs.
The
BRT
noted
substantial
ecological
differences
in
the
historical
spawning
habitat
for
spring­
run
vs.
falland
late­
fall­
run
fish.
The
spring
chinook
salmon
run
timing
was
suited
to
gaining
access
to
the
upper
reaches
of
river
systems
(
up
to
1,500
m
elevation)
prior
to
the
onset
of
prohibitively
high
water
temperatures
and
low
flows
that
inhibit
access
to
these
areas
during
the
fall.
Differences
in
adult
size,
fecundity,
and
smolt
size
are
also
observed
between
spring­
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sacramento
River.

No
allozyme
data
are
available
for
naturally
spawning
Sacramento
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon.
A
sample
from
Feather
River
Hatchery
spring­
run
fish,
which
may
have
undergone
substantial
hybridization
with
fall
chinook
salmon,
shows
modest
(
but
statistically
significant)
differences
from
fall­
run
hatchery
populations.
DNA
data
show
moderate
genetic
differences
between
the
spring
and
fall/
late­
fall
runs
in
the
Sacramento
River;
however,
these
data
are
difficult
to
interpret
in
the
context
of
this
broad
status
review
because
comparable
data
are
not
available
for
other
geographic
regions.

There
were
lengthy
discussions
by
the
BRT
concerning
the
disposition
of
spring
runs
in
the
Sacramento
River,
and
a
number
of
different
scenarios
were
considered.
The
majority
of
the
BRT
felt
that
the
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sacramento
River
represented
a
separate
ESU.
A
minority
felt
that
the
spring­
run
fish
are
part
of
a
larger
ESU
that
also
includes
the
fall
and
latefall
runs.
Based
largely
on
environmental
factors,
the
BRT
also
considered
the
possibility
that
spring­
run
fish
from
the
San
Joaquin
River
were
historically
part
of
a
separate
ESU,
but
little
lifehistory
and
genetic
information
was
available
to
evaluate
this
hypothesis.
The
BRT
felt
that
it
was
important
to
develop
additional
genetic
information
to
elucidate
the
status
of
the
remnant
spring­
run
populations
in
Butte,
Deer,
and
Mill
Creeks
and
their
relationship
to
spring­
run
fish
from
the
mainstem
Sacramento
and
Feather
Rivers.

3)
Central
Valley
Fall­
Run
ESU
120
This
ESU
includes
fall
and
late­
fall
chinook
salmon
spawning
in
the
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
Rivers
and
their
tributaries.
These
populations
enter
the
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
Rivers
from
July
through
April
and
spawn
from
October
through
February.
Both
runs
are
oceantype
chinook
salmon,
emigrating
predominantly
as
fry
and
subyearlings
and
remaining
off
the
California
coast
during
their
ocean
migration.
All
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sacramento/
San
Joaquin
Basin
are
genetically
and
physically
distinguishable
from
coastal
forms
(
Clark
1929,
Snyder
1931).
Ecologically,
the
Central
Valley
also
differs
in
many
important
ways
from
coastal
areas.

There
were
a
number
of
life­
history
differences
noted
between
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
River
Basin
fall­
run
populations.
In
general,
San
Joaquin
River
populations
tend
to
mature
at
an
earlier
age
and
spawn
later
in
the
year
than
Sacramento
River
populations.
These
differences
could
have
been
phenotypic
responses
to
the
generally
warmer
temperature
and
lower
flow
conditions
found
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin
relative
to
the
Sacramento
River
Basin.
There
was
no
apparent
difference
in
the
distribution
of
marine
CWT
recoveries
from
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
River
hatchery
populations,
nor
were
there
genetic
differences
between
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
River
fall­
run
populations
(
based
on
DNA
and
allozyme
analysis)
of
a
similar
magnitude
to
that
used
in
distinguishing
other
ESUs.
This
apparent
lack
of
distinguishing
life­
history
and
genetic
characteristics
may
be
due,
in
part,
to
large­
scale
transfers
of
Sacramento
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
into
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin.
There
was
some
concern
expressed
by
the
BRT
that
the
information
available
may
not
be
representative
of
fish
historically
occupying
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin.

A
majority
of
the
BRT
felt
that
fall
and
late­
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sacramento
River
represented
a
single
ESU.
Contrasting
minority
viewpoints
were
that:
1)
Spring­
run
fish
are
part
of
the
same
ESU
that
includes
the
fall
and
late­
fall
runs;
2)
fall
and
late­
fall
runs
constituted
separate
ESUs;
and
3)
fall­
run
fish
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin
constituted
their
own
ESU.

4)
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
ESU
All
coastal
spring
and
fall
chinook
salmon
spawning
from
Cape
Blanco
(
south
of
the
Elk
River)
to
the
southern
extent
of
the
current
range
comprise
this
ESU.
The
Cape
Blanco
region
is
a
major
biogeographic
boundary
for
numerous
species.
The
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
ESU
extends
to
the
southern
limit
of
the
Coastal
Range
Ecoregion.
Populations
from
the
Central
Valley
and
Klamath
River
Basin
upstream
from
the
Trinity
River
confluence
are
in
separate
ESUs.
Chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
exhibit
an
ocean­
type
life­
history;
ocean
distribution
(
based
on
marine
CWT
recoveries)
is
predominantly
off
the
California
and
Oregon
coasts.
Lifehistory
information
on
smaller
populations,
especially
in
the
southern
portion
of
the
ESU,
is
extremely
limited.
Additionally,
there
was
anecdotal
or
incomplete
information
on
the
existence
of
several
spring­
run
populations,
including
the
Chetco,
Winchuck,
Smith,
Mad,
and
Eel
Rivers.
Allozyme
data
indicate
that
this
ESU
is
genetically
distinguishable
from
the
Oregon
Coast,
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
River,
and
Central
Valley
ESUs.
121
Ecologically,
the
majority
of
the
river
systems
in
this
ESU
are
relatively
small
and
heavily
influenced
by
a
maritime
climate.
Low
summer
flows
and
high
temperatures
in
many
rivers
result
in
seasonal,
physical,
and
thermal
barrier
bars
that
block
movement
by
anadromous
fish.
The
Rogue
River
is
the
largest
river
basin
in
this
ESU
and
extends
inland,
into
the
Sierra
Nevada
and
Cascades
Ecoregions.

A
minority
of
the
BRT
felt
that
coastal
chinook
salmon
from
south
of
the
Klamath
River
should
be
considered
a
separate
ESU.
Allozyme
data,
which
show
some
level
of
genetic
divergence
between
coastal
chinook
salmon
populations
north
and
south
of
the
Klamath
River,
support
this
argument,
as
do
the
establishment
of
ESU
boundaries
for
steelhead
south
of
the
Klamath
River
and
for
coho
salmon
south
of
Punta
Gorda.
A
nearly
total
lack
of
biological
information
for
chinook
salmon
south
of
the
Eel
River
makes
this
issue
difficult
to
resolve.

The
BRT
also
considered
arguments
for
the
creation
of
separate
fall­
and
spring­
run
ESUs
in
this
and
other
coastal
regions,
but
the
consensus
of
the
BRT
was
that
this
was
not
warranted.

5)
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
ESU
Included
in
this
ESU
are
all
Klamath
River
Basin
populations
from
the
Trinity
River
and
the
Klamath
River
upstream
from
the
confluence
of
the
Trinity
River.
These
populations
include
both
spring­
and
fall­
run
fish
that
enter
the
Upper
Klamath
River
Basin
from
March
through
July
and
July
through
October
and
spawn
from
late
August
through
September
and
September
through
early
January,
respectively.
Body
morphology
(
vertebral
counts,
lateral­
line
scale
counts,
and
fin­
ray
counts)
and
reproductive
traits
(
egg
size
and
number)
for
populations
from
the
Upper
Klamath
River
differ
from
those
of
populations
in
the
Sacramento
River
Basin.
Genetic
analysis
indicated
that
populations
from
the
Upper
Klamath
River
Basin
form
a
unique
group
that
is
quite
distinctive
compared
to
neighboring
ESUs.
The
Upper
Klamath
River
crosses
the
Coastal
Range,
Sierra
Nevada,
and
Eastern
Cascades
Ecoregions,
although
dams
prevent
access
to
the
upper
river
headwaters
of
the
Klamath
River
in
the
Eastern
Cascades
Ecoregion.

Within
the
Upper
Klamath
River
Basin,
there
are
statistically
significant,
but
fairly
modest,
genetic
differences
between
the
fall
and
spring
runs.
The
majority
of
spring­
and
fall­
run
fish
emigrate
to
the
marine
environment
primarily
as
subyearlings,
but
have
a
significant
proportion
of
yearling
smolts.
Recoveries
of
CWTs
indicate
that
both
runs
have
a
coastal
distribution
off
the
California
and
Oregon
coasts.
There
was
no
apparent
difference
in
the
marine
distribution
of
CWT
recoveries
from
fall­
run
(
Iron
Gate
and
Trinity
River
Hatcheries)
and
spring­
run
populations
(
Trinity
River
Hatchery).
The
BRT
discussed
at
some
length
the
proposition
that
spring­
and
fall­
run
populations
should
be
in
separate
ESUs
based
on
differences
in
run
timing
and
habitat
utilization
and
reproductive
isolation.
The
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
both
run
types
should
be
considered
part
of
the
same
ESU;
a
minority
felt
that
separation
into
two
ESUs
was
warranted;
and
some
BRT
members
were
undecided
on
this
issue.
The
BRT
was
concerned
that
the
only
estimate
of
the
genetic
relationship
between
spring
and
fall
122
runs
in
this
ESU
is
from
a
comparison
of
hatchery
stocks
that
may
have
undergone
some
introgression
during
hatchery
spawning
operations.
The
BRT
acknowledged
that
the
ESU
determination
should
be
revisited
if
substantial
new
information
from
natural
spring­
run
populations
becomes
available.

6)
Oregon
Coast
ESU
This
ESU
contains
coastal
populations
of
spring­
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Elk
River
north
to
the
mouth
of
the
Columbia
River.
These
populations
exhibit
an
ocean­
type
life
history
and
mature
at
ages
3,
4,
and
5.
In
contrast
to
the
more
southerly
ocean
distribution
pattern
shown
by
populations
from
the
lower
Columbia
River
and
farther
south,
CWT
recoveries
from
populations
within
this
ESU
are
predominantly
from
British
Columbia
and
Alaska
coastal
fisheries.
There
is
a
strong
genetic
separation
between
Oregon
Coast
ESU
populations
and
neighboring
ESU
populations.
This
ESU
falls
within
the
Coastal
Ecoregion
and
is
characterized
by
a
strong
maritime
influence,
with
moderate
temperatures
and
high
precipitation
levels.

A
minority
of
the
BRT
felt
that,
because
of
similarities
in
life­
history
traits
and
environmental
features,
populations
from
the
Oregon
and
Washington
coasts
were
part
of
a
single
ESU.
A
separate
minority
felt
that,
based
primarily
on
genetic
information,
the
Oregon
Coast
ESU
should
be
divided
into
two
units,
with
populations
north
of
the
Umpqua
River
being
in
separate
ESUs.

7)
Washington
Coast
ESU
Coastal
populations
spawning
north
of
the
Columbia
River
and
west
of
the
Elwha
River
are
included
in
this
ESU.
These
populations
can
be
distinguished
from
those
in
Puget
Sound
by
their
older
age
at
maturity
and
more
northerly
ocean
distribution.
Allozyme
data
also
indicates
geographical
differences
between
populations
from
this
area
and
those
in
Puget
Sound,
the
Columbia
River,
and
the
Oregon
coast
ESUs.
Populations
within
this
ESU
are
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
and
generally
mature
at
ages
3,
4,
and
5.
Ocean
distribution
for
these
fish
is
more
northerly
than
that
for
the
Puget
Sound
and
Lower
Columbia
River
ESUs.
The
boundaries
of
this
ESU
lie
within
the
Coastal
Ecoregion,
which
is
strongly
influenced
by
the
marine
environment:
high
precipitation,
moderate
temperatures,
and
easy
migration
access.
As
noted
above,
a
minority
of
the
BRT
felt
that
this
ESU
should
be
combined
with
chinook
salmon
from
the
Oregon
coast.

8)
Puget
Sound
ESU
This
ESU
encompasses
all
runs
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
Puget
Sound
region
from
the
North
Fork
Nooksack
River
to
the
Elwha
River
on
the
Olympic
Peninsula.
Chinook
salmon
in
this
area
all
exhibit
an
ocean­
type
life
history.
Although
some
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
Puget
Sound
ESU
have
a
high
proportion
of
yearling
smolt
emigrants,
the
proportion
varies
substantially
from
year
to
year
and
appears
to
be
environmentally
mediated
123
rather
than
genetically
determined.
Puget
Sound
stocks
all
tend
to
mature
at
ages
3
and
4
and
exhibit
similar,
coastally­
oriented,
ocean
migration
patterns.
There
are
substantial
ocean
distribution
differences
between
Puget
Sound
and
Washington
coast
stocks,
with
CWTs
from
Washington
Coast
fish
being
recovered
in
much
larger
proportions
from
Alaskan
waters.
The
marine
distribution
of
Elwha
River
chinook
salmon
most
closely
resembled
other
Puget
Sound
stocks,
rather
than
Washington
coast
stocks.
The
BRT
concluded
that,
on
the
basis
of
substantial
genetic
separation,
the
Puget
Sound
ESU
does
not
include
Canadian
populations
of
chinook
salmon.
Allozyme
analysis
of
North
Fork
and
South
Fork
Nooksack
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
identified
them
as
outliers,
but
most
closely
allied
with
other
Puget
Sound
samples.
DNA
analysis
identified
a
number
of
markers
that
appear
to
be
restricted
to
either
the
Puget
Sound
or
Washington
coastal
stocks.
Some
allozyme
markers
suggested
an
affinity
of
the
Elwha
River
population
with
the
Washington
coastal
stocks,
while
others
suggested
an
affinity
with
Puget
Sound
stocks.

The
boundaries
of
the
Puget
Sound
ESU
correspond
generally
with
the
boundaries
of
the
Puget
Lowland
Ecoregion.
Despite
being
in
the
rainshadow
of
the
Olympic
Mountains,
the
river
systems
in
this
area
maintain
high
flow
rates
due
to
the
melting
snowpack
in
the
surrounding
mountains.
Temperatures
tend
to
be
moderated
by
the
marine
environment.
The
Elwha
River,
which
is
in
the
Coastal
Ecoregion,
is
the
only
system
in
this
ESU
which
lies
outside
the
Puget
Sound
Ecoregion.
Furthermore,
the
boundary
between
the
Washington
Coast
and
Puget
Sound
ESUs
(
which
includes
the
Elwha
River
in
the
Puget
Sound
ESU)
corresponds
with
ESU
boundaries
for
steelhead
and
coho
salmon.
In
life
history
and
genetic
attributes,
the
Elwha
River
chinook
salmon
appear
to
be
transitional
between
populations
from
Puget
Sound
and
the
Washington
Coast
ESU.

A
majority
of
the
BRT
considered
that
Elwha
River
chinook
salmon
were
part
of
the
Puget
Sound
ESU.
A
minority
of
the
BRT
felt
that
the
Elwha
River
chinook
salmon
belonged
in
the
Washington
Coast
ESU,
and
a
further
minority
was
undecided.

9)
Lower
Columbia
River
ESU
This
ESU
includes
all
native
populations
from
the
mouth
of
the
Columbia
River
to
the
crest
of
the
Cascade
Range,
excluding
populations
above
Willamette
Falls.
Celilo
Falls,
which
corresponds
to
the
edge
of
the
drier
Columbia
Basin
Ecosystem
and
historically
may
have
presented
a
migrational
barrier
to
chinook
salmon
at
certain
times
of
the
year,
is
the
eastern
boundary
for
this
ESU.
Not
included
in
this
ESU
are
"
stream­
type"
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
found
in
the
Klickitat
River
(
which
are
considered
part
of
the
Mid­
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU)
or
the
introduced
Carson
spring­
chinook
salmon
strain.
"
Tule"
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
Wind
and
Little
White
Salmon
Rivers
are
included
in
this
ESU,
but
not
introduced
"
upriver
bright"
fall­
chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
Wind,
White
Salmon,
and
Klickitat
Rivers.
Available
information
suggests
that
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
presently
in
the
Clackamas
and
Sandy
Rivers
are
predominantly
the
result
of
introductions
from
the
Willamette
River
ESU
and
124
are
thus
probably
not
representative
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
historically
found
in
these
two
rivers.

In
addition
to
the
geographic
features
mentioned
above,
genetic
and
life­
history
data
were
important
factors
in
defining
this
ESU.
Populations
in
this
ESU
are
considered
ocean
type.
Some
spring­
run
populations
have
a
large
proportion
of
yearling
migrants,
but
this
trend
may
be
biased
by
yearling
hatchery
releases.
Subyearling
migrants
were
found
to
contribute
to
the
escapement.
CWT
recoveries
for
Lower
Columbia
River
ESU
populations
indicate
a
northerly
migration
route,
but
with
little
contribution
to
the
Alaskan
fishery.
Populations
in
this
ESU
also
tend
to
mature
at
ages
3
and
4,
somewhat
younger
than
populations
from
the
coastal,
upriver,
and
Willamette
ESUs.
Ecologically,
the
Lower
Columbia
River
ESU
crosses
several
ecoregions:
Coastal,
Willamette
Valley,
Cascades
and
East
Cascades.

10)
Upper
Willamette
River
ESU
This
ESU
includes
native
spring­
run
populations
above
Willamette
Falls.
Fall
chinook
salmon
above
the
Willamette
Falls
were
introduced
and
are
not
considered
part
of
this
ESU.
Populations
in
this
ESU
have
an
unusual
life
history
that
shares
features
of
both
the
stream
and
ocean
types.
Scale
analysis
of
returning
fish
indicate
a
predominantly
yearling
smolt
life­
history
and
maturity
at
4
years
of
age,
but
these
data
are
primarily
from
hatchery
fish
and
may
not
accurately
reflect
patterns
for
the
natural
fish.
Young­
of­
year
smolts
have
been
found
to
contribute
to
the
returning
3­
year­
old
year
class.
The
ocean
distribution
is
consistent
with
an
ocean­
type
life
history,
and
CWT
recoveries
occur
in
considerable
numbers
in
the
Alaskan
and
British
Columbian
coastal
fisheries.
Intrabasin
transfers
have
contributed
to
the
homogenization
of
Willamette
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stocks;
however,
Willamette
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
remain
one
of
the
most
genetically
distinctive
groups
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin.

The
geography
and
ecology
of
the
Willamette
Valley
is
considerably
different
from
surrounding
areas
(
see
discussion
of
the
Willamette
Valley
Ecoregion).
Historically,
the
Willamette
Falls
offered
a
narrow
temporal
window
for
upriver
migration,
which
may
have
promoted
isolation
from
other
Columbia
River
stocks.

11)
Mid­
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
Included
in
this
ESU
are
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
spawning
in
the
Klickitat,
Deschutes,
John
Day,
and
Yakima
Rivers.
Historically,
spring­
run
populations
from
the
Hood,
Walla
Walla,
and
Umatilla
Rivers
may
have
also
belonged
in
this
ESU,
but
these
populations
are
now
considered
extinct.
Chinook
salmon
from
this
ESU
emigrate
to
the
ocean
as
yearlings
and
apparently
migrate
far
off­
shore,
as
they
do
not
appear
in
appreciable
numbers
in
any
ocean
fisheries.
The
majority
of
adults
spawn
as
4­
year­
olds,
with
the
exception
of
fish
returning
to
the
upper
tributaries
of
the
Yakima
River,
which
return
predominantly
at
age
5.
Populations
in
this
125
ESU
are
genetically
distinguishable
from
other
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers.
Streams
in
this
region
drain
desert
areas
east
of
the
Cascades
(
Columbia
Basin
Ecoregion)
and
are
ecologically
differentiated
from
the
colder,
less
productive,
glacial
streams
of
the
upper
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
and
from
the
generally
higher
elevation
streams
of
the
Snake
River.

There
were
two
different
minority
BRT
opinions
regarding
fish
from
this
area.
Some
BRT
members
felt
that
all
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
populations
from
the
Columbia
River
Basin
(
or
all
populations
outside
the
Snake
River)
are
part
of
a
single
ESU.
A
separate
minority
felt
that
the
Yakima
River
populations
should
be
considered
a
separate
ESU
from
spring­
run
populations
downstream
from
the
Snake
River.

12)
Upper­
Columbia
River
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
ESU
(
Formerly
known
as
the
Mid­
Columbia
River
Summer/
Fall
Chinook
salmon
ESU.)

Waknitz
et
al.
(
1995)
and
NMFS
(
1994a)
identified
an
ESU
that
included
all
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
spawning
in
areas
between
McNary
Dam
and
Chief
Joseph
Dam.
The
BRT
for
the
current
status
review
concluded
that
the
boundaries
of
this
ESU
do
not
extend
downstream
from
the
Snake
River.
In
particular,
the
BRT
concluded
that
Deschutes
River
fall
chinook
salmon
are
not
part
of
this
ESU.
The
ESU
status
of
the
Marion
Drain
population
from
the
Yakima
River
is
still
unresolved.
The
BRT
also
identified
the
importance
of
obtaining
more
definitive
genetic
and
life­
history
information
for
naturally
spawning
fall
chinook
salmon
elsewhere
in
the
Yakima
River
drainage.

Fish
from
this
ESU
primarily
emigrate
to
the
ocean
as
subyearlings
but
mature
at
an
older
age
than
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
in
the
Lower
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers.
Furthermore,
a
greater
proportion
of
CWT
recoveries
for
this
ESU
occur
in
the
Alaskan
coastal
fishery
than
is
the
case
for
Snake
River
fish.
The
status
review
for
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon
(
Waples
et
al.
1991b,
NMFS
1992)
also
identified
genetic
and
environmental
differences
between
the
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers.
Substantial
life­
history
and
genetic
differences
distinguish
fish
in
this
ESU
from
stream­
type
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
mid­
and
upper­
Columbia
Rivers.

This
ESU
falls
within
part
of
the
Columbia
Basin
Ecoregion.
The
area
is
generally
dry
and
relies
on
Cascade
Range
snowmelt
for
peak
spring
flows.
Historically,
this
ESU
may
have
extended
farther
upstream;
spawning
habitat
was
compressed
down­
river
following
construction
of
Grand
Coulee
Dam.

13)
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
This
ESU
includes
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
spawning
above
Rock
Island
Dam
 
that
is,
those
in
the
Wenatchee,
Entiat,
and
Methow
Rivers.
All
chinook
salmon
in
the
Okanogan
126
River
are
apparently
ocean­
type
and
are
considered
part
of
the
Upper
Columbia
River
Summerand
Fall­
Run
ESU.
These
upper
Columbia
River
populations
exhibit
classical
stream­
type
lifehistory
strategies:
yearling
smolt
emigration
with
only
rare
CWT
recoveries
in
coastal
fisheries.
These
populations
are
genetically
and
ecologically
well
separated
from
the
summer­
and
fall­
run
populations
that
exist
in
the
lower
parts
of
many
of
the
same
river
systems.
Morphological
differences
and
meristic
traits
also
distinguish
stream
and
ocean
types
in
the
Columbia
and
Snake
River
Basins
(
Schreck
et
al.
1986).

Rivers
in
this
ESU
drain
the
east
slopes
of
the
Cascade
Range
and
are
fed
primarily
by
snowmelt.
The
waters
tend
to
be
cooler
and
less
turbid
than
the
Snake
and
Yakima
Rivers
to
the
south.
Although
these
fish
appear
to
be
closely
related
genetically
to
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
in
the
Snake
River,
the
BRT
recognized
substantial
ecological
differences
between
the
Snake
and
Columbia
Rivers,
particularly
in
the
upper
tributaries
favored
by
stream­
type
chinook
salmon.
Allozyme
data
demonstrate
even
larger
differences
between
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
from
the
mid­
and
upper
Columbia
River.

Artificial
propagation
programs
have
had
a
considerable
influence
on
this
ESU.
During
the
Grand
Coulee
Fish­
Maintenance
Project
(
GCFMP
1939­
43),
all
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
reaching
Rock
Island
Dam,
including
those
destined
for
areas
above
Grand
Coulee
Dam,
were
collected,
and
they
or
their
progeny
were
dispersed
into
streams
in
this
ESU
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).
Some
ocean­
type
fish
were
undoubtedly
also
incorporated
into
this
program.
Spring­
run
escapements
to
the
Wenatchee,
Entiat,
and
Methow
Rivers
were
severely
depressed
prior
to
the
GCFMP
but
increased
considerably
in
subsequent
years,
suggesting
that
the
effects
of
the
program
may
have
been
substantial.
Subsequently,
widespread
transplants
of
Carson
stock
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
(
derived
from
a
mixture
of
Columbia
River
and
Snake
River
streamtype
chinook
salmon)
have
also
contributed
to
erosion
of
the
genetic
integrity
of
this
ESU.
Nevertheless,
the
majority
of
the
BRT
felt
that,
in
spite
of
considerable
homogenization,
this
ESU
still
represents
an
important
genetic
resource,
in
part
because
it
presumably
contains
the
last
remnants
of
the
gene
pools
for
populations
from
the
headwaters
of
the
Columbia
River.
A
minority
of
the
BRT
felt
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
area
should
be
considered
part
of
a
larger
ESU
that
includes
other
Columbia
River
(
and
perhaps
Snake
River)
populations
of
stream­
type
chinook
salmon.
14)
Snake
River
Fall­
Run
ESU
This
ESU,
which
includes
ocean­
type
fish,
was
identified
in
an
earlier
status
review
(
Waples
et
al.
1991b,
NMFS
1992)
based
on
genetic,
life
history,
and
ecological
differences
between
Columbia
and
Snake
River
populations.
In
that
status
review
and
in
a
later
review
of
mid­
Columbia
River
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Waknitz
et
al.
1995),
the
ESU
status
of
populations
from
Marion
Drain
and
the
Deschutes
River
was
not
resolved,
so
these
issues
were
considered
in
the
current
review.
Both
populations
show
a
greater
genetic
affinity
to
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon
than
to
other
ocean­
type
Columbia
River
populations.
127
As
the
origin
of
both
of
these
populations
is
uncertain,
the
BRT
considered
several
possible
alternative
hypotheses.
The
Marion
Drain
is
an
irrigation
channel
dug
early
in
this
century
that
is
used
to
return
irrigation
water
to
the
Yakima
River.
Perhaps
because
of
the
relative
inhospitability
of
the
mainstem
Yakima
River,
the
channel
appears
to
be
favored
by
spawning
chinook
salmon
and
other
species.
Obviously,
the
current
population
is
not
native
to
this
artificial
channel,
but
it
may
represent
a
native
population
that
at
one
time
inhabited
the
mainstem
Yakima
River
or
other
nearby
areas.
Under
this
scenario,
the
fish
in
Marion
Drain
might
better
reflect
the
historical
Yakima
River
fall
chinook
salmon
than
do
fish
currently
spawning
in
the
mainstem,
which
is
heavily
stocked
with
fish
from
the
Priest
Rapids/
Bonneville
Hatchery
upriver
"
bright"
stock.
The
genetic
affinity
between
the
Marion
Drain
and
Snake
River
fish
thus
might
reflect
a
historical
link
between
areas
that
share
some
ecological
similarities
(
e.
g.,
relatively
high
summer
water
temperatures).
Alternatively,
the
current
population
might
have
colonized
Marion
Drain
from
the
Snake
River
more
recently,
perhaps
as
Snake
River
fish
were
displaced
from
their
historic
spawning
areas
by
the
series
of
impassable
dams
in
Hells
Canyon
or
by
flooding
of
habitat
by
the
four
dams
on
the
lower
Snake
River.
Finally,
the
current
Marion
Drain
population
might
be
the
result
of
stock
transfers
during
the
past
several
decades.
Several
possible
scenarios
involving
stock
transfers
have
been
hypothesized,
but
the
BRT
found
no
direct
evidence
to
substantiate
them.
In
either
of
these
latter
two
scenarios,
the
Marion
Drain
fish
would
be
considered
an
introduced
population
and
therefore
not
an
ESA
issue,
except
perhaps
as
a
reserve
source
of
genetic
material
for
the
listed
Snake
River
population.

After
considerable
discussion,
the
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
chinook
salmon
spawning
in
the
Marion
Drain
could
not
with
any
certainty
be
assigned
to
any
historic
or
current
ESU.

The
Deschutes
River
historically
supported
a
population
of
fall
chinook
salmon,
as
evidenced
by
counts
of
fish
at
Sherars
Falls
in
the
1940s.
Genetic
and
life­
history
data
for
the
current
population
indicate
a
closer
affinity
to
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
Snake
River
than
to
those
in
the
Columbia
River.
Similarities
were
observed
in
the
distribution
of
CWT
ocean
recoveries
for
Snake
River
and
Deschutes
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon;
however,
information
on
Deschutes
River
fish
was
based
on
a
limited
number
of
releases
over
a
relatively
short
time
frame.
One
hypothesis
is
that
these
similarities
reflect
a
historic
relationship
between
populations
in
the
Deschutes
and
Snake
Rivers.
Another
hypothesis
is
that
displacement
of
Snake
River
fish
by
construction
of
John
Day
Dam
and/
or
the
lower
Snake
River
dams
led
to
colonization
of
the
Deschutes
River
by
Snake
River
fish
and
interbreeding
with,
or
replacement
of,
the
native
fish.
There
was
a
considerable
increase
in
the
run­
size
of
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
Deschutes
River
following
the
construction
of
John
Day
Dam,
although
it
has
been
suggested
that
these
fish
may
have
been
local
mainstem
spawners
whose
spawning
areas
were
inundated
(
Nehlsen
1995).
Coded­
wire­
tag
data
indicate
that
straying
by
non­
native
chinook
salmon
into
the
Deschutes
River
is
very
low
and
does
not
appear
to
be
disproportionately
influenced
by
Snake
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Hymer
et
al.
1992b).
128
After
considerable
discussion,
a
plurality
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
the
Deschutes
River
population
should
be
considered
part
of
the
Snake
River
Fall­
Run
ESU.
Separate
minorities
favored
two
other
scenarios:
1)
The
Deschutes
River
population
is
part
of
a
separate
ESU
that
historically
also
included
ocean­
type
fish
in
the
Umatilla,
John
Day,
and
Walla
Walla
Rivers.
Populations
in
the
later
three
rivers
are
considered
to
be
extinct
(
Kostow
1995).
2)
All
oceantype
chinook
salmon
upstream
of
the
historical
site
of
Celilo
Falls
(
approximately
the
location
of
the
Dalles
Dam)
belonged
to
one
ESU.
A
further
minority
was
undecided
on
the
ESU
status
of
these
populations.
All
of
the
BRT
members
were
concerned
about
the
lack
of
definitive
information
for
the
Deschutes
River
population(
s).

15)
Snake
River
Spring­
and
Summer­
Run
ESU
This
ESU,
which
includes
populations
of
spring­
and
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Snake
River
Basin
(
excluding
the
Clearwater
River),
was
identified
in
a
previous
status
review
(
Waples
1991,
NMFS
1992).
These
populations
show
modest
genetic
differences,
but
substantial
ecological
differences,
in
comparison
with
Columbia
River
stream­
type
populations.
Populations
from
this
ESU
emigrate
to
the
ocean
as
yearlings,
mature
at
ages
4
and
5,
and
are
rarely
taken
in
ocean
fisheries.
The
majority
of
the
spawning
habitat
occurs
in
the
Northern
Rockies
and
Blue
Mountains
ecoregions.
A
minority
of
the
BRT
felt
this
ESU
should
be
combined
with
streamtype
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Columbia
River.

Relationship
to
State
Conservation
Management
Units
Marshall
et
al.
(
1995)
identified
Major
Ancestral
Lineages
(
MALs)
and
Genetic
Diversity
Units
(
GDUs=
subsets
of
MALs)
for
chinook
salmon
in
Washington
State.
This
effort,
which
seeks
to
identify
the
existing
amount
and
patterns
of
genetic
diversity
within
the
state,
supports
the
goals
of
the
Wild
Salmonid
Policy
under
development
by
state
and
tribal
fishery
managers
and
is
intended
to
facilitate
its
implementation.
The
terminology
(
GDUs
and
MALs)
differs
somewhat
from
that
of
previous
documents
prepared
by
WDW
and
WDFW
(
Leider
et
al.
1995).
According
to
Busack
and
Marshall
(
1995),
GDU
designations
were
based
on
a
combination
of
genetic,
life
history/
ecological,
and
physiographic/
ecoregion
data.

ODFW
has
designated
Gene
Conservation
Groups
(
GCGs)
for
salmonid
and
non­
salmonid
fishes
(
Kostow
1995).
These
designations
are
part
of
the
implementation
of
the
Oregon
Wild
Fish
Management
Policy
and
Wild
Fish
Gene
Resource
Conservation
Policy.
The
definition
of
the
GCG
is
roughly
equivalent
to
WDFW's
GDU
and
considers
similar
criteria:
genetic,
meristic,
geographic,
and
life­
history
differences.
In
addition,
ODFW
has
presented
NMFS
with
specific
recommendations
for
ESU
boundaries
(
ODFW
1995).

Comparison
of
proposed
ESUs
with
state
conservation
management
groups
is
complicated
in
some
cases
by
the
restricted
scope
of
the
state
evaluations.
For
example,
ESUs
129
can
extend
across
state
(
or
even
international)
borders,
but
Washington
and
Oregon
generally
only
considered
populations
within
their
respective
state
boundaries.
Nevertheless,
comparison
of
proposed
ESUs
for
chinook
salmon
with
Washington's
GDUs
and
MALs
supports
the
prediction
by
Marshall
et
al.
(
1995)
that
individual
ESUs
would
often
include
multiple
GDUs
but
would
be
unlikely
to
include
multiple
MALs.
The
Puget
Sound
ESU
and
Washington
Coast
ESU
generally
correspond
to
the
WDFW
Puget
Sound
Chinook
salmon
MAL
and
Coastal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Chinook
salmon
MAL,
with
the
exception
of
the
Elwha
and
Dungeness
River
populations,
which
WDFW
placed
in
the
Coastal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
MAL
(
Table
4).

The
boundaries
for
ESUs
on
the
Oregon
coast
correspond
with
one
of
the
scenarios
recommended
by
ODFW.
The
Oregon
Coast
ESU
includes
five
GCGs
from
the
Elk
River
to
the
Nehalem
River
and
Elk
Creek.
The
Oregon
portion
of
the
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
ESU
is
composed
of
a
single
GCG
(
Table
5).

The
Lower
Columbia
River
ESU
incorporates
several
GCGs
and
generally
agrees
with
the
ODFW
recommendation
for
an
ESU.
The
Willamette
River
ESU
also
corresponds
to
an
ESU
suggested
by
ODFW;
however,
whereas
ODFW
considers
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Clackamas
and
Sandy
Rivers
to
be
part
of
this
ESU,
the
BRT
considered
these
to
be
introduced
populations.

The
Mid­
Columbia
Spring­
Run
ESU
contains
portions
of
the
Upper
Columbia
and
Snake
Spring
Chinook
Salmon
MAL
and
Upper
Columbia
Summer
and
Fall,
Snake
Fall,
and
Mid
&
Lower
Columbia
MAL.
The
Klickitat
River
was
determined
by
WDFW
to
belong
to
a
separate
Lower
and
Mid­
Columbia
MAL
relative
to
the
other
rivers
in
this
ESU,
in
contrast
to
ODFW's
recommendation
to
group
the
Klickitat,
Deschutes,
and
John
Day
Rivers
into
one
ESU.
ODFW
grouped
the
Deschutes
River
and
John
Day
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
into
the
Mid­
Columbia
Spring
GCG,
which
historically
would
have
also
included
the
now
extinct
Hood,
Umatilla,
and
Walla
Walla
River
spring
chinook
salmon
runs.
It
is
not
clear
whether
ODFW
considered
the
Yakima
River
in
their
evaluations.
The
Upper
Columbia
Spring­
Run
ESU
130
Table
4.
How
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife's
genetic
diversity
units
(
GDUs)
and
major
ancestral
lineages
(
MALs)
correspond
to
ESUs
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995).

MAL/
GDU
ESU
I.
Upper
Columbia
and
Snake
Spring
Chinook
MAL
1.
Snake
River
Spring
GDU
15
2.
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring
GDU
13
3.
Yakima
River
Spring
GDU
11
II.
Upper
Columbia
Summer
+
Fall,
Snake
Fall,
and
Mid
&
Lower
Columbia
Chinook
MAL
4.
Upper
Columbia
River
Summer
GDU
12
5.
Upper
Columbia
River
Fall
GDU
12
6.
Mid­
Columbia
and
Snake
River
Fall
GDU
12,14
7.
Mid­
&
Lower
Columbia
River
Spring
GDU
9,11
8.
Mid­
Columbia
River
"
Tule"
Fall
GDU
9
9.
Lower
Columbia
River
"
Bright"
Fall
GDU
9
10.
Lower
Columbia
River
"
Tule"
Fall
GDU
9
III.
Coastal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Chinook
MAL
11.
South
Coast
Fall
GDU
7
12.
Chehalis
River
Spring
GDU
7
13.
North
Coast
Fall
GDU
7
14.
North
Coast
Spring
GDU
7
15.
Western
Strait
GDU
7
16.
Eastern
Strait
GDU
8
IV.
Puget
Sound
Chinook
MAL
17.
South
Puget
Sound,
Hood
Canal,
&
Snohomish
River
Summer
+
Fall
GDU
8
18.
South
Puget
Sound
Spring
GDU
8
19.
Stillaguamish
&
Skagit
GDU
8
20.
South
Fork
Nooksack
Spring
GDU
8
21.
North
Fork
Nooksack
Spring
GDU
8
131
Table
5.
How
ESUs
and
the
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife's
genetic
conservation
groups
(
GCG)
correspond
(
Kostow
1995).

ESU
GCG
4)
So.
Oregon
and
California
Coast
South
Coast:
Euchre
Creek
to
Oregon/
California
6)
Oregon
Coast
Nehalem/
Ecola
River
North­
Mid
Coast:
Tillamook
Bay
to
Siuslaw
River
Umpqua
River
Basin
Mid­
South
Coast:
Coos
Bay
to
Elk
River
9)
Lower
Columbia
River
Lower
Columbia
Fall
Sandy
River
Fall
10)
Willamette
River
Spring
Willamette
River
Spring*

11)
Middle
Columbia
River
Spring
Run
Mid­
Columbia
River
Spring
14)
Snake
River
Fall
Run
Deschutes
River
Fall
15)
Snake
River
Spring
and
Summer
Run
Snake
Spring/
Summer
*
GCG
includes
Sandy
and
Clackamas
spring
run;
however,
these
populations
were
not
included
in
the
ESU.
132
corresponds
with
the
Upper
Columbia
Spring
Genetic
Diversity
Unit
(
GDU),
which
is
a
subunit
of
the
larger
Upper
Columbia
and
Snake
Spring
Chinook
salmon
MAL
designated
by
WDFW.

The
Upper
Columbia
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
ESU
boundaries
incorporate
two
GDUs
designated
by
WDFW
within
the
Upper
Columbia
Summer
and
Fall,
Snake
Fall,
and
Mid
&
Lower
Columbia
MAL.
The
WDFW
GDUs
include
introduced
"
upriver
bright"
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
Klickitat,
White
Salmon,
and
Wind
Rivers
that
were
not
considered
by
the
BRT.

The
Snake
River
Fall­
Run
ESU
is
geographically
a
component
of
the
Mid­
Columbia
and
Snake
Fall
Chinook
salmon
GDU
designated
by
WDFW.
This
GDU
includes
upriver
"
brights"
from
the
Hanford
Reach,
lower
Yakima
River,
and
Marion
Drain,
in
addition
to
the
Snake
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon.
ODFW
has
designated
separate
GCGs
for
Deschutes
and
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon,
and
recommend
that
the
Deschutes
River
fall
chinook
salmon
constitutes
its
own
ESU.

The
Snake
River
Spring­
and
Summer­
Run
ESU
includes
the
WDFW
Snake
River
Spring
GDU,
ODFW
Snake
Spring/
Summer
GCG,
and
other
populations
in
Idaho.

Relationship
to
ESU
Boundaries
for
other
Anadromous
Pacific
Salmonids
The
historic
distribution
and
life
history
of
chinook
salmon
most
closely
resembles
those
of
coho
salmon
and
steelhead.
Ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
prefer
to
spawn
in
mainstem
rivers
and
larger
tributaries
with
relatively
low
gradients
and
generally
have
a
shorter
freshwater
residence
time
than
do
coho
salmon
and
steelhead
in
the
same
geographic
area.
In
comparing
coastal
ESU
boundaries,
because
of
their
preference
for
smaller
systems
to
spawn
in
and
extended
freshwater
rearing
period,
steelhead
and
coho
salmon
probably
exhibit
a
finer
scale
of
ecological
adaptation
than
do
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon.
Conversely,
in
inland
regions
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
and
steelhead
express
similar
life­
history
strategies
and
there
is
a
greater
similarity
in
ESU
boundaries.
Differences
in
ESU
boundaries
among
these
species
may
also
be
related
to
artificial
propagation
practices
and
anthropogenic
changes
in
habitat
quality
or
access.

The
boundaries
for
the
Central
Valley
Fall­
Run
ESU
correspond
to
those
for
the
Central
Valley
Steelhead
ESU.
Chinook
and
coho
salmon
(
Weitkamp
et
al.
1995)
and
steelhead
(
Busby
et
al.
1996)
ESU
designations
for
coastal
California
and
southern
Oregon
are
quite
different,
except
that
all
three
share
a
common
boundary
at
Cape
Blanco,
on
the
Oregon
Coast
(
Fig.
25).
Cape
Blanco
is
a
recognized
biogeographical
transition
zone
for
aquatic
organisms.
In
the
steelhead
and
coho
salmon
ESU
determinations,
the
Klamath
River
Basin
was
incorporated
with
coastal
systems,
whereas
it
is
proposed
as
a
separate
ESU
for
chinook
salmon.
In
other
coastal
areas
the
Oregon
Coast
and
Puget
Sound
ESUs
were
generally
the
same
for
all
three
species.
Figure
25.
Compariso
ns
between
proposed
ESU
boundaries
for
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
and
ESU
boundaries
of
coho
salmon
(
Weitkamp
et
al.
1995)
and
steelhead
(
Busby
et
al.
1996)
for
coastal
populations
in
Washington,
Oregon,
California,
the
Sacramento,
Klamath,
and
Columbia
river
basins.
134
The
ESU
boundaries
for
the
chinook
salmon
Washington
Coast
ESU
encompasses
the
steelhead
Olympic
Peninsula
ESU
and
a
portion
of
the
Southwest
Washington
ESU,
as
well
as
the
coho
salmon
Olympic
Peninsula
and
Southwest
Washington
Coast
ESUs.

The
Lower
Columbia
River
ESU
incorporates
portions
of
ESUs
designated
for
coho
salmon
and
steelhead,
but
most
notably
shares
similar
geographic
boundaries
at
the
Willamette
Falls,
the
Oregon
Coast,
and
the
Cascade
Crest.
The
Willamette
River,
above
Willamette
Falls,
forms
a
geographically
defined
area
that
contains
separate
chinook
salmon
and
steelhead
ESUs.

Beyond
the
Cascade
Crest,
native
coho
salmon
populations
have
been
extirpated.
The
three
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
ESUs
east
of
the
Cascades
correspond
almost
exactly
with
those
for
steelhead
(
Fig.
26).
The
ESUs
for
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
east
of
the
Cascades
have
no
analogue
in
steelhead
ESU
designations.

Artificial
Propagation
NMFS
policy
(
Hard
et
al.
1992;
NMFS
1993)
stipulates
that
in
determining
1)
whether
a
population
is
distinct
for
purposes
of
the
ESA,
and
2)
whether
an
ESA
species
is
threatened
or
endangered,
attention
should
focus
on
"
natural"
fish,
which
are
defined
as
the
progeny
of
naturally
spawning
fish
(
Waples
1991a).
This
approach
directs
attention
to
fish
that
spend
their
entire
life
cycle
in
natural
habitat
and
is
consistent
with
the
mandate
of
the
ESA
to
conserve
threatened
and
endangered
species
in
their
native
ecosystems.
Implicit
in
this
approach
is
the
recognition
that
fish
hatcheries
are
not
a
substitute
for
natural
ecosystems.

Nevertheless,
artificial
propagation
is
important
to
consider
in
ESA
evaluations
of
anadromous
Pacific
salmonids
for
several
reasons.
First,
although
natural
fish
are
the
focus
of
ESU
determinations,
possible
effects
of
artificial
propagation
on
natural
populations
must
also
be
evaluated.
For
example,
stock
transfers
might
change
the
genetic
bases
or
phenotypic
expression
of
life­
history
characteristics
in
a
natural
population
in
such
a
way
that
the
population
might
seem
either
less
or
more
distinctive
than
it
was
historically.
Artificial
propagation
can
also
alter
lifehistory
characteristics
such
as
smolt
age
and
migration
and
spawn
timing
(
e.
g.,
Crawford
1979,
NRC
1996).
Second,
artificial
propagation
poses
a
number
of
risks
to
natural
populations
that
may
affect
their
risk
of
extinction
or
endangerment.
These
risks
are
discussed
below
in
the
"
Assessment
of
Extinction
Risk"
section,
p.
177.
Finally,
if
any
natural
populations
are
listed
under
the
ESA,
then
it
will
be
necessary
to
determine
the
ESA
status
of
all
associated
hatchery
populations.
This
latter
determination
would
be
made
following
a
proposed
listing
and
is
not
considered
further
in
this
document.
The
remainder
of
this
section
is
intended
to
provide
a
summary
of
the
nature
and
scope
of
artificial
propagation
activities
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
and
to
identify
influences
of
artificial
propagation
on
natural
populations.
Figure
26.
Comparison
between
proposed
ESU
boundaries
for
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
and
ESU
boundaries
for
inland
steelhead
(
Busby
et
al.
1996)
for
populations
in
the
Upper
Columbia
River
Basin
(
upstream
from
the
Cascade
Crest).
136
Overview
of
Artificial
Propagation
The
focus
of
the
Artificial
Propagation
section
concerns
the
culture
of
chinook
salmon
in
individual
ESUs.
To
provide
some
perspective
with
respect
to
the
magnitude
of
propagation
efforts
along
the
West
Coast,
a
brief
review
of
chinook
salmon
culture
in
areas
outside
the
continental
United
States
will
be
given
here.
In
addition,
we
will
provide
a
short
review
of
important
events
in
the
history
of
artificial
propagation
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
will
be
presented,
as
7
of
the
15
chinook
salmon
ESUs
are
located
in
this
large
river
system.

Asia
and
Oceania
Japan
 
Although
spawning
chinook
salmon
have
been
observed
in
Japanese
streams
(
Healey
1991),
there
appear
to
have
been
few,
if
any,
large­
scale
chinook
salmon
programs
in
Japanese
hatcheries,
although
experimental
releases
of
Washington
State
chinook
salmon
have
occurred
(
McNeil
1977).

Russia
 
Spawning
populations
of
chinook
salmon
are
found
in
large
rivers
of
eastern
Russia;
however,
the
overwhelming
majority
of
effort
regarding
artificial
propagation
has
been
devoted
to
sockeye
and
chum
salmon
(
Atkinson
1960,
Konovalov
1980).
Experiments
to
investigate
the
effects
of
hatchery
culture
on
chinook
salmon
biology
have
been
conducted
(
Pisarevsky
1978,
Smirnov
et
al.
1994)
with
the
goal
of
developing
hatchery
chinook
salmon
for
harvest
(
Smirnov
et
al.
1994).

New
Zealand
 
Attempts
to
introduce
chinook
salmon
to
New
Zealand
waters
in
the
1870s
were
not
successful;
however,
transplants
of
Sacramento
River
chinook
salmon
in
1901
successfully
established
self­
sustaining
anadromous
and
landlocked
populations,
as
well
as
providing
broodstock
for
subsequent
artificial
propagation
programs
(
McDowall
1994).
By
1925,
the
naturalized
chinook
salmon
had
produced
1.5
million
eggs
for
distribution
in
New
Zealand
streams
(
Lever
1996).
Artificial
propagation
of
chinook
salmon
in
New
Zealand
remains
an
important
component
of
management
of
the
species
(
Unwin
1997).

North
America
Alaska
 
Hatcheries
in
Alaska
have
been
used
to
mitigate
overharvest
and
to
provide
harvest
opportunities,
whereas
hatcheries
in
the
lower
48
States
have
usually
been
operated
to
mitigate
for
destruction
and
blockage
of
habitat.
In
the
early
days
of
the
Alaskan
salmon
fishery,
hatcheries
were
used
as
a
means
of
assurance
against
the
adverse
effects
of
commercial
fishing
(
Roppel
1982).
The
first
federal
hatchery
in
Alaska
was
built
on
a
lake
at
Yes
Bay
in
Southeast
Alaska
in
1905,
and
a
second
federal
facility
was
built
on
Afognak
Island
in
1908
(
Roppel
1982).
During
this
period,
legislation
in
Alaska
required
canneries
to
operate
hatcheries,
although
few
companies
complied.
Nonetheless,
by
1920
there
were
at
least
four
private
hatcheries
in
the
state,
137
as
well
as
several
federal
facilities
inovlved
in
the
propagation
of
Pacific
salmon
(
Heard
1985,
Heard
et
al.
1995).
Hatchery
efforts
were
directed
primarily
at
the
premier
commercial
species
in
Alaska,
sockeye
salmon;
other
salmon
species,
including
chinook
salmon,
were
reared
on
an
experimental
basis.

Occasional
attempts
to
establish
runs
of
non­
native
chinook
salmon
were
made
in
Alaska.
Between
1923
and
1926,
chinook
salmon
originating
from
the
Columbia
River
and
unspecified
locations
in
Washington
State
were
released
into
lakes
and
rivers
near
Cordova,
(
571,000
"
Washington"
chinook
salmon),
Seward
(
1,387,000
"
Washington"
chinook
salmon)
and
near
Ketchican
(
1,952,000
Kalama
River,
972,500
"
lower
Columbia
River,"
and
1,819,000
"
Washington"
chinook
salmon)
(
Roppel
1982).
Not
long
afterward,
Alaska
abandoned
the
concept
of
using
hatcheries
to
augment
natural
production,
as
hatchery
releases
had
not
resulted
in
increases
in
fish
abundance.
This
may
have
been
related
to
the
poor
hatchery
practices
of
that
era
and
general
large­
scale
increases
in
harvest
(
Roppel
1982).
After
a
hiatus
of
two
decades,
chinook
salmon
production
was
resumed
at
several
hatcheries
in
1955
in
Southeast
Alaska
and
near
Anchorage
(
Wahle
and
Smith
1979),
although
production
numbers
for
the
state
have
been
relatively
low
until
recently.
For
example,
between
1975
and
1982,
a
total
of
4.7
million
fish,
or
about
597,000
chinook
salmon
juveniles
annually,
were
released
in
Alaskan
waters.
Since
1983,
total
hatchery
production
has
increased
to
73
million
fish,
or
about
7.3
million
fish
per
year
(
Fig.
27).
Much
of
the
increased
production
has
resulted
from
legislation
permitting
the
operation
of
private,
non­
profit
hatcheries
(
McNair
1996).
As
of
1992,
seven
private,
three
state,
and
one
federal
hatchery
accounted
for
almost
all
chinook
salmon
hatchery
production
in
Alaska
(
NRC
1996).
In
Alaska,
the
majority
of
chinook
salmon
stocks
exhibit
a
stream­
type
life­
history,
therefore
the
majority
of
hatchery
fish
are
released
as
yearling
smolts
(
NRC
1996).

British
Columbia
 
The
first
British
Columbia
salmon
hatchery
was
constructed
in
1884
near
Westminster,
on
the
Fraser
River.
Although
sockeye
salmon
were
the
principal
focus
of
this
and
other
early
hatcheries
in
this
province,
a
few
chinook
salmon
were
released
as
well
(
Wahle
and
Smith
1979).
Between
1903
and
1927,
72
million
chinook
salmon
were
released
into
British
Columbian
waters,
three­
quarters
of
these
into
the
Fraser
River
Basin
(
Cobb
1930).
Production
during
this
period
peaked
in
1908
with
the
release
of
7.5
million
chinook
salmon
(
Cobb
1930).
However,
as
in
Alaska,
there
was
no
apparent
increase
in
the
abundance
of
sockeye
salmon,
and
it
became
apparent
that
the
artificial
propagation
of
sockeye
salmon
in
British
Columbia
did
not
result
in
a
significant
increase
in
efficiency
over
natural
production
in
areas
where
there
was
a
reasonable
expectation
of
successful
natural
propagation
(
Foerster
1968).
By
1930,
salmon
hatcheries
were
no
longer
operating
in
British
Columbia
(
Foerster
1968,
Wahle
and
Smith
1979).
Economic
restrictions
resulting
from
the
Great
Depression
and
World
War
II
further
constrained
the
ability
of
the
provincial
government
to
initiate
hatchery
programs.
Hatchery
production
of
salmonids
was
not
reestablished
in
British
Columbia
until
1967
with
the
construction
of
the
Big
Qualicum
Hatchery
on
Vancouver
Island
(
Wahle
and
Smith
1979).
Artificial
propagation
efforts
Figure
27.
Ann
ual
rele
ases
139
o
f
j
u
v
e
n
i
l
e
c
h
i
n
o
o
k
s
a
l
m
o
n
f
r
o
m
a
r
t
i
f
i
c
i
a
l
p
r
o
p
a
g
140
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
N
o
r
t
h
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
r
e
g
i
141
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
1
9
5
0
­
9
0
(
f
r
o
m
M
a
h
n
k
e
n
e
t
a
l
.
1
9
9
7
)
.
142
accelerated
after
the
launching
of
the
Salmonid
Enhancement
Program
(
SEP)
in
1977,
which
was
designed
to
double
harvest
levels
and
preserve,
rehabilitate,
and
enhance
natural
salmonid
stocks
(
Winton
and
Hilborn
1994).
Since
that
time,
the
total
chinook
salmon
hatchery
effort
in
British
Columbia
has
expanded
to
include
50
major
(>
40,000
juvenile
fish
released
annually)
and
about
20
minor
(<
40,000
juvenile
fish
released
annually)
fish
rearing
facilities
(
NRC
1996).
Total
chinook
salmon
production
for
the
period
1975
to
1982
was
about
94.7
million
juveniles
for
an
average
of
just
under
12
million
fish
per
year.
However,
to
meet
expanding
harvest
demands,
hatchery
production
between
1983
and
1992
increased
to
562
million
fish,
about
56
million
fish
annually.
New
propagation/
release
strategies
are
being
employed
to
rebuild
or
enhance
British
Columbia
chinook
salmon
stocks,
especially
in
lower
Georgia
Strait
streams.
These
new
methods
include
rearing
juveniles
to
smolt
in
net­
pens
in
lakes,
extended
rearing
of
smolts
in
sea
pens,
and
maintaining
captive
broodstocks
in
sea
pens
to
increase
egg
availability
(
Cross
et
al.
1991).
Unlike
many
chinook
salmon
hatcheries
in
the
United
States
(
see
below),
British
Columbia
hatchery
broodstocks
have
been
established
using
local
stocks,
although,
in
some
cases,
centralized
hatcheries
are
used
for
the
enhancement
of
many
different
river­
specific
stocks
within
a
region
(
Cross
et
al.
1991).
The
contribution
from
SEP
hatcheries
varied
between
5.3%
and
18.6%
of
the
total
British
Columbia
chinook
salmon
catch
from
1978
through
1989
(
Winton
and
Hilborn
1994).

Columbia
River
Basin
 
Artificial
propagation
in
the
Columbia
River
basin
initially
developed
following
the
expansion
of
the
commercial
fishery,
with
the
first
Columbia
River
hatchery
built
in
1876
on
the
Clackamas
River
and
operated
by
a
cannery
interest
(
CBFWA
1990b).
State
and
federal
hatchery
operations
to
enhance
commercial
fisheries
began
soon
afterward,
and
by
the
1890s,
many
hatcheries
and
egg­
taking
stations
were
in
operation
between
the
Chinook
River
at
the
mouth
of
the
Columbia
River
and
the
Little
Spokane
River
in
the
upper
basin
(
CBFWA
1990b).
By
1905,
about
62
million
fry
were
released
annually;
however,
due
to
poor
returns
to
these
hatcheries,
support
for
Columbia
River
hatcheries
waned
shortly
thereafter
(
CBFWA
1996).
After
the
late
1930s,
the
negative
effects
of
agricultural
development,
timber
activities
and
other
land
use
practices,
and
the
initial
development
of
the
Columbia
River
dam
complex,
resulted
in
an
increased
need
to
mitigate
for
reduced
natural
production
(
CBFWA
1990b).
Between
1957
and
1975,
eleven
new
mainstream
dams
were
constructed
on
the
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers,
resulting
in
further
loss
of
habitat
and
increased
migrational
mortality.
Although
fish
passage
facilities
were
generally
successful
at
low
dams,
their
efficacy
was
not
great
at
high
dams,
which
constituted
most
of
the
dams
built
during
this
later
period
(
CBFWA
1990b).
Therefore,
artificial
production
appeared
to
be
the
only
means
available
to
fish
managers
to
compensate
for
fish
losses
and
the
resulting
decline
in
fish
available
for
harvest.
Several
of
these
mitigation
programs
will
be
briefly
discussed
here.

Grand
Coulee
Fish
Maintenance
Project
 
After
the
construction
of
the
Grand
Coulee
Dam
(
RKm
959)
in
1939,
which
completely
eliminated
passage
of
anadromous
salmon
above
that
point,
the
federal
government
initiated
the
Grand
Coulee
Fish
Maintenance
Project
(
GCFMP),
which
lasted
from
1939
to
1943.
The
GCFMP
sought
to
maintain
fish
runs
in
the
Columbia
River
143
above
Rock
Island
Dam
(
RKm
730)
by
two
means:
1)
improving
salmonid
habitat,
and
2)
establishing
hatcheries
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).

Adult
chinook
salmon
passing
Rock
Island
Dam
from
1939
to
1943
were
taken
either
to
USFWS
hatcheries
on
the
Wenatchee
or
Methow
Rivers
for
artificial
spawning
or
to
fenced
reaches
of
the
Wenatchee
or
Entiat
Rivers
for
natural
spawning.
Juveniles
derived
from
adults
passing
over
Rock
Island
Dam
were
reared
at
USFWS
hatcheries
and
transplanted
into
the
Wenatchee,
Methow,
and
Entiat
Rivers.

Fish
trapping
operations
began
in
May
1939,
and
continued
through
late
fall
each
year
until
1943.
A
total
of
five
brood
years
were
affected.
Early­
run
fish
(
stream
type)
were
treated
separately
from
late­
run
fish
(
ocean
type),
but
few
distinctions
were
made
regarding
either
the
socalled
"
summer"
or
"
fall"
components
of
the
late
run,
as
all
late­
run
fish
were
captured.
The
GCFMP
continued
for
five
years
and
intercepted
all
chinook
salmon
passing
Rock
Island
Dam,
including
those
destined
for
now
inaccessible
spawning
areas
in
British
Columbia.
As
a
result,
all
present
day
chinook
salmon
above
Rock
Island
Dam
are
the
progeny
of
the
mixture
of
chinook
salmon
collected
at
Rock
Island
Dam
from
1939
to
1943
(
Waknitz
et
al.
1995).

Chinook
salmon
spawning
channels
 
Artificial
spawning
channels
for
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
were
operated
during
the
1960s
and
1970s
near
Priest
Rapids
(
1963­
71),
Turtle
Rock
(
1961­
69),
and
Wells
Dam
(
1967­
77),
but
were
discontinued
in
favor
of
more
traditional
hatchery
methods
due
to
high
pre­
spawning
mortality
in
adult
fish
and
poor
egg
survival
in
the
artificial
spawning
beds
(
CBFWA
1990b,
Chapman
et
al.
1994).

Mitchell
Act
 
In
1938,
in
response
to
the
construction
of
Bonneville
and
Grand
Coulee
Dams,
Congress
passed
the
Mitchell
Act,
which
required
the
construction
of
hatcheries
to
compensate
for
fish
losses
caused
by
these
dams
and
by
logging
and
pollution
(
Mighetto
and
Ebel
1994).
An
amendment
to
the
Mitchell
Act
in
1946
led
to
the
development
of
the
Lower
Columbia
River
Fishery
Development
Plan
(
CRFDP)
in
1948,
which
initiated
the
major
phase
of
hatchery
construction
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
(
CBFWA
1990b).
In
1956,
the
CRFDP
was
expanded
to
include
the
upper
Columbia
River
and
Snake
River
Basins.
Although
the
majority
of
lost
natural
salmonid
production
to
be
mitigated
by
the
Mitchell
Act
was
located
in
the
upper
Columbia
River
and
Snake
River
basins,
only
4
of
the
39
facilities
eventually
authorized
by
this
Act
were
constructed
above
Dalles
Dam
on
the
lower
Columbia
River,
partly
due
to
concerns
regarding
the
ability
of
fish
to
bypass
dams
in
the
upper
basin,
and
partly
because
the
primary
goal
was
to
provide
fish
for
harvest
in
the
ocean
and
lower
river
(
CBFWA
1990b,
1996).

Lower
Snake
River
Fish
and
Wildlife
Compensation
Plan
 
The
Lower
Snake
River
Fish
and
Wildlife
Compensation
Plan
(
LSRCP)
was
authorized
by
Congress
in
1976
to
replace
lost
salmonid
production
caused
by
fish
passage
problems
at
four
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineer
(
COE)
dams
in
the
lower
Snake
River
(
CBFWA
1990b).
To
date,
22
facilities
have
been
constructed
under
the
LSRCP,
including
hatcheries
and
acclimation
ponds.
In
general,
LSRCP
144
facilities
have
had
more
success
in
increasing
the
abundance
of
steelhead
than
chinook
salmon
(
Mighetto
and
Ebel
1994).

U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
 
The
Corps
of
Engineers
(
COE)
has
funded
the
construction
or
expansion
of
19
hatcheries
as
mitigation
for
fish
losses
caused
by
COE
hydroelectric
programs
throughout
the
entire
Columbia
River
basin,
including
the
building
of
12
dams
in
the
Willamette
River
basin
between
1941
and
1968
(
CBFWA
1990b).
Many
hatcheries
constructed
under
the
Mitchell
Act
were
funded
by
COE.

Public
and
private
power
generators
 
These
non­
governmental
entities
have
funded
the
construction
and/
or
operation
of
16
artificial
propagation
facilities
in
the
Columbia
River
basin
as
compensation
for
lost
fish
production
due
to
their
water­
use
projects.
Utilities
and
companies
participating
in
Columbia
River
fish
culture
operations
include
Chelan,
Douglas
and
Grant
County
PUDs
in
Washington
(
ESUs
12
and
13),
Idaho
Power
Company
(
ESUs
14
and
15),
Portland
General
Electric
(
ESUs
9
and
11),
Tacoma
City
Light
(
ESU
9),
and
Pacific
Power
and
Light
(
ESU
9)
(
CBFWA
1990b).

Scale
of
Hatchery
Production
West
Coast
hatchery
production
of
chinook
salmon
is
summarized
in
Table
6,
with
data
taken
from
a
database
developed
under
contract
to
NMFS
(
NRC
1996).
Some
release
information
presented
here
dates
back
to
the
turn
of
the
century,
but
any
data
prior
to
1950
 
when
hatchery
records
became
more
reliable
 
should
be
considered
incomplete.

The
ratio
of
hatchery­
to
naturally­
produced
chinook
salmon
on
the
West
Coast
varies
from
region
to
region,
as
well
as
from
watershed
to
watershed,
within
a
particular
ESU,
with
chinook
salmon
populations
dominated
by
hatchery
production
in
some
areas
and
maintained
by
natural
production
in
others
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Kostow
1995).
Large
hatchery
programs
have
produced
substantial
numbers
of
fish
relative
to
natural
production
in
many
West
Coast
regions,
especially
in
areas
where
hatcheries
have
been
used
to
create
or
enhance
harvest
opportunities.
These
areas
include
many
locations
in
Puget
Sound,
the
majority
of
watersheds
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin,
several
Oregon
coastal
streams,
the
Klamath
River
Basin,
and
the
Sacramento
River
Basin
(
Howell
et
al.
1985;
WDF
et
al.
1993;
PFMC
1994,1997;
Kostow
1995).
A
list
of
the
larger
chinook
salmon
artificial
propagation
facilities
operating
on
the
West
Coast
is
provided
in
Table
7.
145
Table
6.
Summary
of
hatchery
releases
of
juvenile
chinook
salmon
by
ESU
during
selected
years.
Releases
are
broken
down
into
those
originating
from
within
or
outside
the
geographic
boundaries
of
the
ESU.
For
reasons
explained
in
the
text,
these
figures
may
underestimate
the
percentage
of
fish
introduced
from
outside
the
ESU.
Data
for
years
before
1960
may
not
be
complete.
The
full
data
series
is
presented
in
Appendix
D.

ESU
Years
Within
ESU
(
1,000s)
Outside
ESU
(
1,000s)
%
of
Total
(
Outside
ESU)

1)
Sacramento
River
Winter
Run
1962­
95
347
0
0
2)
Sacramento
River
Spring
Run
1943­
93
39,180
0
0
3)
Central
Valley
Fall
Run
1944­
93
1,683,325
876
>
1
4)
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coast
1953­
93
55,623
16,371
23
5)
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
1964­
94
286,246
43
>
1
6)
Oregon
Coast
1907­
93
303,076
94,172
24
7)
Washington
Coast
1952­
93
256,651
61,794
19
8)
Puget
Sound
1953­
93
1,757,915
13,047
1
9)
Lower
Columbia
River
1910­
94
3,364,477
233,432
6
10)
Upper
Willamette
River
1902­
94
498,670
208,202
29
11)
Mid­
Columbia
River
Spring
Run
1919­
93
57,954
62,746
52
12)
Upper
Columbia
River
Summer
and
Fall
Run
1941­
93
177,548
14,497
8
13)
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring
Run
1941­
94
63,827
18,808
23
14)
Snake
River
Fall
Run
1945­
93
27,245
1,595
6
15)
Snake
River
Spring
and
Summer
Run
1914­
94
211,197
15,939
7
146
Table
7.
Summary
of
major
west
coast
chinook
salmon
artificial
propagation
facilities.
Agency
designations:
California
Fisheries
Commission
(
CFC),
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG),
facilities
cooperatively
operated
by
state
agencies
and
citizen's
groups
(
COOP),
Hoopa
Valley
Tribe
(
HVT),
Idaho
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
IDFG),
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS),
Oregon
Fisheries
Commission
(
OFC),
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW),
private
commercial
concerns
(
PRIV),
Shoshone­
Bannock
Tribes
of
Ft.
Hood
(
ShoBan),
U.
S.
Fisheries
Commission
(
USFC),
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS),
University
of
Washington
(
UW),
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF),
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW).

Facility
Agency
Years
Location
1)
Sacramento
River
Winter­
Run
ESU
Coleman
NFH
USFWS
1962­
present
Sacramento
River
2)
Central
Valley
Spring­
Run
ESU
Coleman
NFH
USFWS
1943
to
1952
Sacramento
River
Feather
River
Hatchery
CDFG
1983­
present
Feather
River
3)
Central
Valley
Fall­
Run
ESU
Baird
Hatchery
USFC
1872­
1936
McCloud
River
Sisson
(
Mt.
Shasta)
Hatchery
CFC
1888­
present
McCloud
River
Hat
Creek
Hatchery
CFC
1885­
1888
Pitt
River
Battle
Creek
Hatchery
CFC
1895­
1943
Battle
Creek
Coleman
NFH
USFWS
1943­
present
Sacramento
River
Tehama­
Colusa
Hatchery
CDFG
1972­
present
Sacramento
River
Mill
Creek
Hatchery
USFC
1902­
1945
Mill
Creek
Feather
River
Hatchery
CDFG
1968­
present
Feather
River
Nimbus
Hatchery
CDFG
1957­
present
American
River
Mokelumne
Hatchery
CDFG
1964­
present
San
Joaquin
River
La
Grange
Hatchery
CDFG
1991­
present
San
Joaquin
River
Tuolumne
Hatchery
CDFG
1990­
present
Tuolumne
River
Merced
River
Hatchery
CDFG
1971­
present
San
Joaquin
River
4)
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
ESU
Cole
Rivers
Hatchery
ODFW
1975­
present
Rogue
River
Butte
Falls
Hatchery
ODFW
1954­
1990
Rogue
River
Indian
Creek
Pond
COOP
1969­
present
Rogue
River
Pistol
River
Hatchery
ODFW
1989,
1990
Pistol
River
Jack
Creek
Hatchery
ODFW
1989­
1991
Chetco
River
Winchuck
River
Hatchery
ODFW
1989,
1990
Winchuck
River
Pacific
Salmon
Ranch
PRIV
1984­
1990
Burnt
Hill
Creek
Rowdy
Creek
Hatchery
CDFG
1985­
present
Smith
River
Cappel
Creek
Hatchery
USFWS
1987­
present
Klamath
River
High
Prairie
Creek
USFWS
1991­
present
Klamath
River
Redwood
Creek
CFC
1893­
1897
Redwood
Creek
Table
7
(
Cont.).
147
L
Pond
CDFG
1986­
1992
Little
River
Korbel
CFC
1893­
1897
Mad
River
Mad
River
Hatchery
CDFG
1971­
present
Mad
River
Price
Creek
CFC
1897­
1916
Eel
River
Copper
Mill
Creek
COOP
1988­
present
Eel
River
Van
Arsdale
Hatchery
CDFG
1972­
1984
Eel
River
Fort
Seward
CFC
1916­
1943
Eel
River
Redwood
Creek
Pond
CDFG
1985­
present
Eel
River
Hollow
Tree
Creek
Ponds
COOP
1980­
present
Eel
River
CA
Coop
COOP
1980­
present
Eel
River
Sprowel
Creek
Ponds
COOP
1984­
1988
Eel
River
Warm
Springs
Hatchery
CDFG
1982­
present
Russian
River
Tiburon
NMFS
1978­
1980
San
Francisco
Bay
Silverking
Farms
PRIV
1980­
1985
Davenport
Landing
5)
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
Spring­
and
Fall­
Run
ESU
Fall
Creek
CFC
1919­
1948
Klamath
River
Iron
Gate
CDFG
1966­
present
Klamath
River
Klamathon
CFC
1910­
1940
Klamath
River
Spruce
Creek
USFWS
1991,
1992
Klamath
River
Indian
Creek
CDFG
1981­
present
Klamath
River
Elk
Creek
CDFG
1989­
1991
Klamath
River
Bluff
Creek
CDFG
1989­
present
Klamath
River
Sawmill
Ponds
COOP
1987,
1988
Trinity
River
Mill
Creek
COOP
1986­
1988
Trinity
River
Supply
Creek
CDFG/
HVT
1985­
present
Trinity
River
Horse
Linto
Creek
CDFG
1986­
present
Trinity
River
Trinity
Hatchery
CDFG
1961­
present
Trinity
River
6)
Oregon
Coast
ESU
Nehalem
Hatchery
ODFW
1921­
1982
Nehalem
River
Trask
Hatchery
ODFW
1907­
present
Trask
River
Tuffy
Creek
Hatchery
ODFW
1989­
present
Trask
River
Cedar
Creek
Hatchery
ODFW
1959­
present
Nestucca
River
Salmon
River
Hatchery
ODFW
1977­
present
Salmon
River
Siletz
Hatchery
ODFW
1948­
1974
Siletz
River
Ore­
Aqua
Yaquina
PRIV
1975­
1989
Yaquina
Bay
Fall
Creek
Hatchery
ODFW
1975­
present
Alsea
River
Alsea
River
Hatchery
ODFW
1902­
1980
Alsea
River
Rock
Creek
Hatchery
ODFW
1956­
present
North
Umpqua
River
Umpqua
River
ODFW
1988­
present
South
Umpqua
River
Coos
River
ODFW
1901­
1958
Coos
River
Noble
Creek
ODFW
1990­
present
Coos
River
Anadromous
Inc.
PRIV
1978­
1989
Coos
Bay
Bandon
Hatchery
ODFW
1956­
present
Coquille
River
Elk
River
ODFW
1969­
present
Elk
River
Table
7
(
Cont.).
148
7)
Washington
Coast
ESU
Hoko
Pond
Makah
Tribe
1984­
present
Hoko
River
Makah
NFH
USFWS
1982­
present
Sooes
River
Bear
Springs
Hatchery
WDFW
1980­
present
Sol
Duc
River
Solduc
Hatchery
WDFW
1971­
present
Sol
Duc
River
Lonesome
Creek
Hatchery
Quillayute
Tribe
1988­
present
Quillayute
River
Chalaat
Creek
Hatchery
Hoh
Tribe
1977­
1985
Hoh
River
Salmon
River
Pond
Quinault
Tribe
1989,
1990
Queets
River
Quinault
Lake
Quinault
Tribe
1975­
present
Quinault
River
Quinault
NFH
USFWS
1969­
present
Quinault
River
Humptulips
Hatchery
WDFW
1977­
present
Humptulips
River
Simpson
Hatchery
WDFW
1950­
present
Chehalis
River
Satsop
Springs
Pond
WDFW
1980­
1989
Chehalis
River
Elama
Game
Association
Hatchery
COOP
1990­
present
Chehalis
River
Lower
Chehalis
Pond
WDFW
1987­
present
Chehalis
River
Long
Live
The
Kings
Hatchery
WDFW/
COOP
1990,
1991
Wishkah
River
Wishkah
Ponds
COOP
1988­
1992
Wishkah
River
Pacific
Trollers
COOP
1983­
1989
Chehalis
River
North
River
Protection
Association
COOP
1992­
present
North
River
Willapa
Hatchery
WDFW
1948­
present
Willapa
River
NWSSC
COOP
1988­
1990
Willapa
River
Bay
Center
COOP
1973­
present
Willapa
Bay
Willapa
Bay
Gillnetters
COOP
1977­
present
Willapa
Bay
Willapa
Bay
COOP
1992­
present
Willapa
Bay
Nemah
Hatchery
WDFW
1954­
present
Nemah
River
Naselle
Hatchery
WDFW
1948­
present
Naselle
River
8)
Puget
Sound
ESU
Nooksack
Hatchery
WDFW
1899­
present
Nooksack
River
Skookum
Creek
Hatchery
Lummi
Tribe
1974­
present
Nooksack
River
Mamoya
Ponds
Lummi
Tribe
1990­
present
Nooksack
River
NWSSC
(
Whatcom
Co)
COOP
1978­
1989
Nooksack
River
Glenwood
Springs
Hatchery
COOP
1984­
present
San
Juan
Island
San
Juan
Island
Net
Pens
COOP
1988­
1992
San
Juan
Island
Lummi
Sea
Ponds
Lummi
Tribe
1977­
present
North
Puget
Sound
Whatcom
Creek
Hatchery
COOP
1982­
present
East
Puget
Sound
Bowmans
Bay
Hatchery
WDFW
1948­
1964
North
Puget
Sound
Samish
Hatchery
WDFW
1899­
present
Samish
River
Skagit
Hatchery
WDFW
1945­
present
Skagit
River
Oak
Harbor
Net
Pens
COOP
1984­
present
North
Puget
Sound
Puget
Sound
Anglers
COOP
1991­
present
North
Puget
Sound
Stillaguamish
Tribal
Hatchery
Stillaguamish
T.
1981­
present
Stillaguamish
River
Skykomish
Hatchery
WDFW
1907­
present
Skykomish
River
Tulalip
Hatchery
Tulalip
Tribe
1974­
present
East
Puget
Sound
Table
7
(
Cont.).
149
NWSSC
(
Mukilteo)
COOP
1989­
present
East
Puget
Sound
Laebugten
Wharf
COOP
1987­
1991
East
Puget
Sound
Issaquah
Hatchery
WDFW
1933­
present
Lake
Washington
Classroom
Community
COOP
1981­
1990
Lake
Washington
UW
College
Of
Fisheries
UW
1950­
present
Lake
Washington
Shilshole
Bay
COOP
1990,
1991
East
Puget
Sound
Icy
Creek
Pond
WDFW
1977­
present
Green
River
Keta
Creek
Hatchery
Muckleshoot
T.
1979­
present
Green
River
Lake
Youngs
School
COOP
1989­
1991
Green
River
Crisp
Creek
Hatchery
Muckleshoot
T.
1981­
1991
Green
River
Green
River
Hatchery
WDFW
1905­
present
Green
River
Elliot
Bay
Seapens
COOP
1974­
present
Elliot
Bay
Seattle
Aquarium
COOP
1977­
1991
Elliot
Bay
NWSSC
(
Des
Moines)
COOP
1984­
present
East
Puget
Sound
White
River
Hatchery
Muckleshoot
T.
1990­
present
Puyallup
River
Puyallup
Hatchery
WDFW
1917­
present
Puyallup
River
Puyallup
Tribal
Hatchery
Puyallup
Tribe
1980­
present
Puyallup
River
Narrows
Marina
Net
Pens
COOP
1974­
1990
South
Puget
Sound
NWSSC
(
Pt
Defiance)
COOP
1989,
1990
South
Puget
Sound
Garrison
Springs
Hatchery
WDFW
1972­
present
Chambers
Creek
Schorno
Springs
Hatchery
WDFW
1977­
1989
Nisqually
River
Kalama
Creek
Hatchery
Nisqually
Tribe
1980­
present
Nisqually
River
Clear
Creek
Hatchery
Nisqually
Tribe
1991­
present
Nisqually
River
Mcallister
Creek
Hatchery
WDFW
1982­
present
Nisqually
River
Agate
COOP
1991­
present
South
Puget
Sound
Allison
Springs
Hatchery
WDFW
1978­
1992
South
Puget
Sound
Zittels
Marina
Net
Pens
COOP
1984­
1992
South
Puget
Sound
Deschutes
Facility
WDFW
1971­
present
Deschutes
River
South
Sound
Net
Pens
COOP
1974­
present
South
Puget
Sound
Squaxin
Island
Net
Pens
WDFW/
Squaxin
T.
1972­
1987
South
Puget
Sound
Fox
Island
Net
Pens
WDFW
1977­
present
South
Puget
Sound
Coulter
Creek
Hatchery
WDFW
1979­
present
West
Puget
Sound
Minter
Creek
Hatchery
WDFW
1936­
present
West
Puget
Sound
Hupp
Springs
Hatchery
WDFW
1981­
present
West
Puget
Sound
Gorst
Creek
Rearing
Pond
WDFW/
Suquamish
T.
1972­
present
West
Puget
Sound
Clear
Creek
Pond
Suquamish
T.
1988­
present
West
Puget
Sound
Websters
Suquamish
T.
1985­
present
West
Puget
Sound
Grovers
Creek
Hatchery
Suquamish
T.
1979­
present
West
Puget
Sound
Big
Beef
Creek
Hatchery
UW
1972­
1985
East
Hood
Canal
George
Adams
Hatchery
WDFW
1962­
present
Skokomish
River
Mckernan
Hatchery
WDFW
1980­
present
Skokomish
River
Skokomish
Tribal
Hatchery
Skokomish
Tribe
1981­
present
Skokomish
River
Hood
Canal
Hatchery
WDFW
1953­
present
West
Hood
Canal
Hood
Canal
Marina
COOP
1991­
present
West
Hood
Canal
Hoodsport
Marina
COOP
1992­
present
West
Hood
Canal
Table
7
(
Cont.).
150
Pleasant
Harbor
Net
Pens
COOP
1992,
1993
West
Hood
Canal
Glenn
Ayr
Net
Pens
COOP
1991­
present
West
Hood
Canal
Hood
Canal
Net
Pens
COOP
1991­
present
West
Hood
Canal
Quilcene
NFH
USFWS
1960­
present
Quilcene
River
Dungeness
Hatchery
WDFW
1948­
1979
Dungeness
River
Elwha
Hatchery
WDFW
1976­
present
Elwha
River
Lower
Elwha
Hatchery
Elwha
Tribe
1983­
present
Elwha
River
Hurd
Creek
Hatchery
WDFW
1981­
present
Elwha
River
Peninsula
College
COOP
1972­
present
Elwha
River
9)
Lower
Columbia
River
ESU
Sea
Resource
Net
Pens
COOP
1972­
present
Chinook
River
Youngs
Bay
Net
Pens
ODFW
1990­
present
Youngs
Bay
CEDC
ODFW
1987­
present
Youngs
Bay
Grays
River
Hatchery
WDFW
1962­
present
Grays
River
Weyco
Pond
WDFW
1976­
1986
Grays
River
Grays
River
Pond
WDFW
1982­
present
Grays
River
Big
Creek
Hatchery
ODFW
1941­
present
Big
Creek
Gnat
Creek
Hatchery
ODFW
1960­
1987
Lower
Columbia
River
Klaskanine
Hatchery
ODFW
1912­
1990
Klaskanine
River
Klaskanine
Pond
ODFW
1981­
present
Klaskanine
River
Elokomin
Hatchery
WDFW
1955­
present
Elokomin
River
Abernathy
NFH
USFWS
1960­
present
Abernathy
Creek
Cowlitz
Hatchery
WDFW
1967­
present
Cowlitz
River
Olequa
Creek.
Pond
COOP
1990,
1991
Cowlitz
River
Toutle
Hatchery
WDFW
1952­
present
Toutle
River
Speelyai
Hatchery
WDFW
1959­
present
Lewis
River
Lewis
Hatchery
WDFW
1909­
present
Lewis
River
Kalama
Falls
Hatchery
WDFW
1960­
present
Kalama
River
Gobar
Pond
WDFW
1975­
present
Kalama
River
Lower
Kalama
Hatchery
WDFW
1895­
present
Kalama
River
Sandy
Hatchery
ODFW
1901­
1977
Sandy
River
Clackamas
Hatchery
ODFW
1979­
present
Clackamas
River
Eagle
Creek
NFH
USFWS
1926­
present
Clackamas
River
Washougal
Hatchery
WDFW
1958­
present
Washougal
River
Bonneville
Hatchery
ODFW
1910­
present
Lower
Columbia
River
Cascade
Hatchery
ODFW
1960­
1980
Lower
Columbia
River
Oxbow
Hatchery
ODFW
1915­
1991
Lower
Columbia
River
Carson
NFH
USFWS
1955­
present
Wind
River
Lower
Wind
R
WDF
1899­
1938
Wind
River
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
USFWS
1898­
present
Little
White
Salmon
River
Willard
NFH
USFWS
1953­
present
Little
White
Salmon
River
Spring
Creek
NFH
USFWS
1901­
1986
Lower
Columbia
River
Big
White
Salmon
Pond
USFWS
1961­
present
Big
White
Salmon
River
Table
7
(
Cont.).
151
Klickitat
Hatchery
WDFW
1951­
present
Klickitat
River
10)
Upper
Willamette
River
ESU
Aumsville
Pond
ODFW
1971­
1977
North
Santiam
River
Marion
Forks
Hatchery
ODFW
1921­
present
North
Santiam
River
Stayton
Pond
ODFW
1969­
present
North
Santiam
River
South
Santiam
Hatchery
ODFW
1930­
present
South
Santiam
River
Leaburg
Hatchery
ODFW
1968­
present
McKenzie
River
Mckenzie
River
Hatchery
ODFW
1902­
present
McKenzie
River
Dexter
Ponds
ODFW
1970­
present
Middle
Fk.
Willamette
River
Willamette
River
Hatchery
ODFW
1920­
present
Middle
Fk
Willamette
River
11)
Middle
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
Metolius
Hatchery
OSFC
1948­
1973
Deschutes
River
Oak
Springs
Hatchery
ODFW
1967­
1982
Deschutes
River
Round
Butte
Hatchery
ODFW
1969­
present
Deschutes
River
Warm
Springs
NFH
USFWS
1980­
present
Deschutes
River
Nile
Springs
Ponds
WDFW/
Yakima
T.
1964­
1982
Naches
River
Bonifer
Pond
ODFW
1985­
1990
Umatilla
River
Umatilla
Hatchery
ODFW
1992­
present
Umatilla
River
Minthorn
Pond
Umatilla
Tribe
1986­
present
Umatilla
River
12)
Upper
Columbia
River
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
ESU
Similkameen
Pond
WDFW
1991­
present
Okanogan
River
Carlton
Rearing
Pond
WDFW
1992­
present
Methow
River
Wells
Dam
Hatchery
WDFW
1971­
present
Columbia
River
Entiat
NFH
USFWS
1942­
present
Entiat
River
East
Bank
Hatchery
WDFW
1991­
present
Columbia
River
Leavenworth
NFH
USFWS
1965­
present
Wenatchee
River
Dryden
Dam
WDFW
1993­
present
Wenatchee
River
Rocky
Reach
Hatchery
WDFW
1993­
present
Columbia
River
Turtle
Rock
Pond
WDFW
1975­
1990
Columbia
River
Priest
Rapids
Hatchery
WDFW
1971­
present
Columbia
River
Ringold
Pond
WDFW
1966­
present
Columbia
River
Yakima
Net
Pens
USFWS
1988­
1991
Yakima
River
13)
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
Winthrop
NFH
USFWS
1976­
present
Methow
River
Methow
Hatchery
WDFW
1992­
present
Methow
River
Entiat
NFH
USFWS
1942­
present
Entiat
River
Chiwawa
Rearing
Pond
WDFW
1991­
present
Wenatchee
River
Leavenworth
NFH
USFWS
1942­
present
Wenatchee
River
Table
7
(
Cont.).
152
14)
Snake
River
Fall­
Run
ESU
Hagerman
Hatchery
IDFG
1955­
1985
Snake
River
MaCay
Hatchery
IDFG
1983­
present
Salmon
River
Mullan
Hatchery
IDFG
1947­
1986
Clearwater
River
Irrigon
Hatchery
ODFW
1986­
present
Grande
Ronde
River
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery
WDFW
1985­
present
Snake
River
15)
Snake
River
Spring­
and
Summer­
Run
ESU
McCall
Hatchery
IDFG
1976­
present
Payette
River
Rapid
River
Hatchery
IDFG
1966­
present
Little
Salmon
River
Pahsimeroi
Hatchery
IDFG
1970­
present
Salmon
River
Sawtooth
Hatchery
IDFG
1983­
present
Salmon
River
Yankee
Fork
Ponds
ShoBan
Tribe
1988­
1991
Salmon
River
Lookingglass
Hatchery
ODFW
1983­
present
Grande
Ronde
River
Imnaha
Pond
ODFW
1990­
present
Grande
Ronde
River
Big
Canyon
Trap
ODFW
1988­
1990
Grande
Ronde
River
Powell
Hatchery
IDFG
1989­
present
Clearwater
River
Red
River
Hatchery
IDFG
1978­
present
Clearwater
River
Crooked
River
Pond
IDFG
1991­
present
Clearwater
River
Clearwater
Hatchery
IDFG
1993­
present
Clearwater
River
Kooskia
NFH
USFWS
1970­
present
Clearwater
River
Dworshak
NFH
USFWS
1981­
present
Clearwater
River
Tucannon
Hatchery
WDFW
1988­
present
Tucannon
River
153
Introduction
of
Non­
Native
Chinook
Salmon
into
Hatcheries
Chinook
salmon
have
often
been
transferred
among
watersheds,
regions,
states,
and
countries,
either
to
initiate
or
maintain
hatchery
populations
or
naturally
spawning
population
in
other
watersheds.
The
transfer
of
non­
native
fish
into
some
areas
has
shifted
the
genetic
profiles
of
some
hatchery
and
natural
populations
so
that
the
affected
population
is
genetically
more
similar
to
distant
hatchery
populations
than
to
local
populations
(
Kostow
1995,
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).

It
is
often
difficult
to
determine
the
proportion
of
native
and
non­
native
hatchery
fish
released
into
a
given
watershed.
Table
6
shows
estimates
of
the
proportion
of
non­
native
fish
introduced
into
each
ESU,
but
in
many
cases
they
will
be
underestimates
for
two
reasons.
First,
hatchery
or
outplanted
fish
that
were
designated
as
"
origin
unknown"
in
the
database
(
NRC
1996)
were
counted
as
native
fish,
even
though
in
some
cases
they
were
probably
not
native.
Second,
transplanted
hatchery
fish
routinely
acquire
the
name
of
the
river
system
into
which
they
have
been
transferred.
For
example,
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
released
from
the
Leavenworth
NFH
are
primarily
the
descendants
of
the
Carson
NFH
stock
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995),
but
are
designated
as
Leavenworth
stock
when
released
or
transferred
(
NRC
1996).
These
fish
were
counted
as
native
fish
in
this
review.
Sol
Duc
River
(
Washington
Coast
ESU)
spring
chinook
salmon
were
derived
from
a
hybrid
of
two
out­
of­
ESU
stocks
(
WDF
et
al.
1993),
but
were
identified
as
Sol
Duc
stock
when
released
from
the
Sol
Duc
Hatchery
or
when
transferred
to
other
ESUs,
such
as
Hood
Canal
(
Puget
Sound
ESU)
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
NRC
1996).
Similarly,
the
Russian
River
(
So.
Oregon
and
Coastal
California
ESU)
receives
fall
chinook
salmon
from
a
number
of
different
hatcheries
in
other
ESUs,
which
are
correctly
identified
by
hatchery
of
origin
at
release,
but
become
"
Russian
River"
stock
when
they
return
and
are
propagated
for
release
in
subsequent
generations
at
the
Warm
Springs
Hatchery
(
NRC
1996).

Until
recently,
the
transfer
of
hatchery
chinook
salmon
stocks
between
distant
watersheds
and
facilities
was
a
common
management
strategy
(
Matthews
and
Waples
1991,
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Kostow
1995).
Agencies
have
instituted
policies
to
reduce
the
exchange
of
non­
indigenous
genetic
material
among
watersheds.
In
1991,
chinook
salmon
co­
managers
in
Washington
adopted
a
statewide
plan
to
reduce
the
number
of
out­
of­
basin
hatchery­
to­
hatchery
transfers
of
salmon.
This
included
genetic
guidelines
specifying
which
transfers
between
areas
were
acceptable.
However,
these
policies
applied
only
to
transfers
between
hatcheries
and
did
not
explicitly
prohibit
introductions
of
non­
native
salmonids
into
natural
populations
(
WDF
1991).
At
present,
co­
managers
in
Washington
State
are
developing
guidelines
for
transfers
of
hatchery
chinook
salmon
into
natural
populations
(
WDFW
1994).
In
1992,
the
Oregon
Coastal
Chinook
Salmon
Management
Plan
was
implemented,
which
provides
guidelines
for
stock
transfers
(
Kostow
1995).
154
West
Coast
Artificial
Propagation
Activities
1)
Sacramento
River
Winter­
Run
ESU
Between
1962
and
1990,
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
were
occasionally
reared
at
Coleman
National
Fish
Hatchery
(
NFH).
In
1988,
the
Ten­
Point
Winter­
Run
Restoration
Plan,
which
called
for
the
artificial
propagation
of
winter­
run
chinook
salmon,
was
developed
by
NMFS,
USFWS,
CDFG,
and
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Reclamation
(
USBR)
(
NMFS
1988).
The
next
year,
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
were
listed
as
an
endangered
species
under
the
ESA.
As
part
of
an
artificial
propagation
program
intended
to
help
avoid
extinction
and
speed
recovery,
winter­
run
adults
have
been
collected
primarily
at
Red
Bluff
Diversion
Dam
(
RKm
391)
and
Keswick
Dam
(
RKm
486)
in
the
mainstem
Sacramento
River
and
then
transported
to
the
Coleman
NFH,
where
they
are
held
until
maturity.
Attempts
to
hold
winter­
run
adults
in
1989
and
1990
at
the
Coleman
NFH
facilities
were
generally
unsuccessful
due
to
epizootic
disease
and
fungal
infections
(
Forbes
1992).
The
1991
brood
year
effectively
marked
the
beginning
of
the
program.
Changes
in
husbandry
techniques
and
the
construction
of
new
holding
facilities
at
the
Coleman
NFH
greatly
improved
adult
survival
and
spawning
success
in
1991
(
Forbes
1992);
however,
the
presence
of
infectious
hemopoietic
necrosis
virus
(
IHNV),
Ceratomyxa
shasta,
and
other
pathogens,
may
limit
the
effectiveness
of
the
program.

Although
releases
of
as
many
as
1.5
million
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
smolts
per
year
have
been
proposed,
only
about
100,000
fish
have
been
released
during
the
current
recovery
effort
(
NRC
1996).
The
primary
constraint
to
increased
production
is
the
low
number
of
adults
available
for
spawning,
as
the
broodstock
collection
permit
for
the
program
under
the
ESA
allows
for
a
maximum
of
20
adults
to
be
taken
if
less
than
1,500
adults
are
expected
to
pass
Red
Bluff
Dam
(
Forbes
1992).
In
January
1992,
the
first
11,582
juvenile
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
that
were
reared
at
Coleman
NFH
were
released
directly
into
the
upper
Sacramento
River.
It
was
hoped
that
the
fish
would
imprint
on,
and
return
to,
their
release
site
rather
than
to
the
Coleman
NFH
or
Battle
Creek,
which
has
low
flow
and
high
temperature
conditions
during
the
time
of
the
adult
return
migration.
However,
it
appears
that
all
of
the
adults
recovered
from
these
releases
in
1995
returned
to
the
hatchery
site
rather
than
the
upper
Sacramento
River,
which
contains
suitable
natural
spawning
habitat
(
USFWS
1996b).

Winter­
run
adults
at
Keswick
and
Red
Bluff
Dams
are
selected
according
to
return
migration
timing,
and
presumptive
winter­
run
adults
are
further
distinguished
from
spring­
run
fish
by
their
spawning
time.
Natural
variability
in
spawning
time,
in
combination
with
the
use
of
hormones
to
induce
ovulation
and
spermiation,
may
result
in
the
misclassification
of
fish.
Based
on
DNA
analysis,
Hedgecock
et
al.
(
1995)
concluded
that
several
spring­
run
adults
had
been
accidentally
incorporated
into
the
winter­
run
broodstock
program.

In
addition
to
the
supplementation
program,
a
portion
of
the
juveniles
derived
from
adults
collected
as
broodstock
are
kept
at
the
hatchery
as
part
of
a
captive
broodstock
program,
which
provides
for
full­
term
rearing
to
the
adult
stage
(
Hedrick
et
al.
1995,
Flagg
et
al.
1995a).
The
155
captive
broodstock
program
was
also
initiated
in
1991.
The
primary
goals
of
the
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
captive
broodstock
initiative
are
to
provide
a
reserve
of
genetic
material,
should
the
natural
run
collapse,
and
to
provide
an
additional
source
of
eggs
for
the
Coleman
NFH
program
until
conditions
in
the
Sacramento
River
improve
(
CDFG
1995).
To
maximize
future
recovery
options
and
to
mitigate
against
the
risk
of
mechanical
failure,
about
1,000
juveniles
are
transferred
each
year
to
the
Bodega
Bay
Marine
Laboratory
(
University
of
California
at
Davis)
or
the
California
Academy
of
Science's
Steinhart
Aquarium.
The
goal
is
for
captive
broodstock
technology
to
provide
about
200
mature
adults
per
year
to
be
spawned
at
Coleman
NFH
(
CDFG
1995).
Based
on
results
obtained
to
date,
adult
growth,
survival,
and
gamete
quality
appear
to
be
lower
under
captive
culture
than
in
the
anadromous
program
(
USFWS
1996a).

2)
Central
Valley
Spring­
Run
ESU
The
propagation
of
Sacramento
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
began
in
1872
with
the
construction
of
the
U.
S.
Fisheries
Commission
Baird
NFH
on
the
McCloud
River,
a
tributary
of
the
Sacramento
River.
Livingston
Stone,
the
first
manager
of
the
station,
noted
that
the
spring
run
of
chinook
salmon
on
the
Sacramento
River
were
already
"
much
depleted,"
and
that
artificial
propagation
efforts
were
needed
to
revitalize
the
fishery
(
Stone
1874).
The
Baird
NFH
collected
eggs
from
returning
spring­
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon.
During
the
first
decade
of
operation
the
majority
of
the
eggs
were
shipped
to
the
East
Coast
in
an
effort
to
establish
runs
there
(
Shebley
1922).
Operations
were
suspended
from
1884­
1888
due
to
low
numbers
of
returning
adults.
Although
millions
of
eggs
were
collected,
generally
only
one­
quarter
of
the
eggs
were
reared
on
site,
with
the
surplus
transferred
to
other
stations
 
primarily
the
CDFG
Mt.
Shasta
Hatchery
(
Shebley
1922).
In
1902,
the
Baird
NFH
collected
7,375,520
eggs
from
the
spring
run;
some
two­
thirds
were
transferred
to
the
Eel
River
and
the
Mt.
Shasta
Hatchery
(
Titcomb
1905).
Until
1911,
it
was
hatchery
policy
to
release
chinook
salmon
shortly
after
yolk
sac
resorption
(
Clark
1929),
and
the
success
of
these
releases
was
probably
limited.
As
a
result
of
egg
transfers,
hatchery
practices,
and
irrigation
diversions
on
the
Sacramento
River,
the
spring
run
of
chinook
salmon
returning
to
the
McCloud
River
had
dramatically
dwindled
by
1914
(
Titcomb
1917,
Clark
1929).
During
the
1920s,
the
spring
run
egg­
take
at
the
Baird
NFH
rarely
exceeded
one
million
eggs,
and
there
were
several
years
when
no
eggs
were
obtained
(
Leach
1924,
1928,
1932).
The
hatchery
was
abandoned
in
1936
(
Leach
1941),
and
the
site
was
submerged
under
Lake
Shasta
following
the
completion
of
Shasta
Dam
in
1943.

In
an
effort
resembling
the
GCFMP,
from
1941
to
1946
chinook
salmon
attempting
to
migrate
to
areas
above
Keswick
and
Shasta
Dams
were
trapped
and
transported
to
Deer
Creek
to
spawn
naturally
(
spring­
run
only)
or
to
the
Coleman
NFH
on
Battle
Creek
for
artificial
propagation
(
Moffett
1949).
The
transportation
program
for
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
to
Deer
Creek
met
with
limited
success
(
Moffett
1949).
From
1943
to
1949
approximately
6,853,310
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
were
released
from
the
Coleman
NFH
(
Cope
and
Slater
1957).
Analysis
of
marked
spring­
and
fall­
run
fish
released
from
the
hatchery
suggested
that
16%
of
the
fish
returning
during
the
"
spring
run"
(
based
on
a
September
25
cut­
off
date)
were
the
progeny
of
156
fall­
run
parents,
and
19%
of
the
fish
returning
during
the
"
fall
run"
were
the
progeny
of
spring­
run
parents
(
Cope
and
Slater
1957).
Releases
from
the
Coleman
NFH
ceased
in
1953
(
Appendix
D).
Following
termination
of
the
Coleman
NFH
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
program,
there
was
no
artificial
propagation
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
until
1967
when
the
California
Fish
and
Game
hatchery
on
the
Feather
River
began
operation.
The
founding
stock
was
derived
from
a
run
of
fish
returning
to
the
Feather
River.
Since
that
time
over
32
million
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
propagated
at
the
Feather
River
Hatchery,
and
about
80%
of
those
have
been
released
outside
of
the
Feather
River
Basin
(
Appendix
D).
Furthermore,
half
of
all
spring­
run
releases
for
the
entire
Central
Valley
have
been
off­
station
and
these
fish
may
not
show
the
homing
fidelity
of
fish
released
from
their
home
stream.
Current
release
practices
increase
the
potential
for
hatchery
fish
to
interbreed
with
fish
from
naturally
spawning
populations.

3)
Central
Valley
Fall­
Run
ESU
The
United
States
Fisheries
Commission
Baird
NFH
collected
both
spring­
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
for
broodstock.
Over
the
years
of
its
operation,
1872­
1936,
the
proportion
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
relative
to
fish
from
the
spring
run
collected
at
the
Baird
NFH
increased
each
year.
Over
the
course
of
the
next
two
decades,
several
other
hatcheries
were
established
on
various
tributaries
of
the
upper
Sacramento
River,
collectively
taking
as
many
as
100
million
eggs
annually
from
fall­
run
and
late­
fall
run
chinook
salmon
(
Shebley
1922).
In
total,
317
million
eggs
(
spring­
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon)
were
collected
at
the
Baird
NFH
from
1872
to
1924,
and
801
million
eggs
(
fall­
run
chinook
salmon)
were
collected
at
the
Battle
Creek
and
Mill
Creek
fish
hatcheries
from
1895
to
1924
(
Clark
1929).
Of
these
eggs,
nearly
100
million
were
sent
overseas
and
to
the
eastern
seaboard
of
the
U.
S.,
and
61
million
eggs
and
fry
were
sent
to
the
Eel
River
(
Clark
1929).
Although
large
numbers
of
eggs
were
incubated
during
these
early
years,
hatchery
practices
severely
limited
the
survival
of
released
fish
(
this
was
especially
true
from
1895
to
1910
when
it
was
hatchery
policy
to
release
unfed
fry)
(
Clark
1929).

In
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin,
the
artificial
propagation
of
chinook
salmon
developed
much
later
than
in
the
Sacramento
River.
An
experimental
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
hatchery
was
located
in
Fresno
County
during
the
1920s
(
Taft
1941);
however,
it
was
not
until
1964
and
1971
that
the
Mokelumne
and
Merced
Hatcheries
began
operations,
respectively
(
NRC
1996).
Most
of
the
hatchery
stocks
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
used
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin
have
been
imported
from
Sacramento
River
hatcheries
(
Appendix
D).

From
1943
to
1946,
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
attempting
to
migrate
to
areas
above
Keswick
and
Shasta
Dams
were
trapped
and
transported
to
the
Coleman
NFH
on
Battle
Creek
for
artificial
propagation
(
Moffett
1949).
Some
10,566
transported
female
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
were
spawned
at
the
Coleman
NFH
between
1943
and
1946
(
Moffett
1949).
Several
thousand
additional
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
were
left
in
the
Sacramento
River
to
spawn,
or
transported
and
released
into
Battle
Creek
(
Moffett
1949).
157
From
the
late
1940s
to
the
present,
about
1.7
billion
hatchery­
produced
fall­
run
and
latefall
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
released
into
Central
Valley
streams
(
Table
6).
Almost
half
of
these
were
produced
at
Coleman
National
Fish
Hatchery
(
which
replaced
the
Battle
Creek
Hatchery
station
in
1944),
the
other
half
originated
primarily
from
Feather
River
and
Nimbus
Hatcheries
(
NRC
1996).
Since
the
early
1980s
tens
of
millions
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
released
into
the
extreme
lower
Sacramento
River
and
in
estuarine
areas
(
NRC
1996)
to
avoid
mortality
associated
with
juvenile
migration
past
irrigation
diversions
and
other
hazards.

Artificial
propagation
programs
in
the
Central
Valley
have
used
primarily
Sacramento
River
stocks;
less
than
1%
of
the
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
released
here
have
been
from
non­
Sacramento
River
stocks.
However,
because
of
the
large
area
occupied
by
this
ESU,
an
intra­
ESU
transfer
could
involve
transporting
and
releasing
fish
as
far
as
600
kilometers
away
from
their
hatchery
of
origin.

4)
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coast
ESU
The
artificial
propagation
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
began
in
southern
Oregon
on
the
Rogue
River
in
the
late
1880s
with
hatcheries
operated
by
canneries,
most
notably
canneries
owned
by
R.
D.
Hume
(
Cobb
1930,
Kostow
1995).
The
U.
S.
Fisheries
Commission
began
operating
the
Rogue
River
substation
in
1900
as
an
egg
collection
and
rearing
site
for
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Titcomb
1904).
Several
million
surplus
eggs
from
the
Rogue
River
substation
were
sent
to
a
private
hatchery
at
Wedderburn,
Oregon
on
the
Rogue
River
(
Titcomb
1904).
Additional
egg
collecting
stations
were
operated
intermittently
during
subsequent
years
in
the
Rogue
River
Basin
on
the
Applegate
River,
Illinois
River,
Elk
Creek,
and
Butte
Creek.
With
the
construction
of
the
Oregon
Game
Commission
Butte
Falls
Hatchery
in
1916,
salmon
propagation
on
the
Rogue
River
was
increasingly
dominated
by
state
programs.
By
1928,
85
million
chinook
salmon
had
been
released
into
the
Rogue
River
from
state,
federal,
and
private
hatcheries
(
Cobb
1930).

Although
the
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
hatchery
efforts
in
the
Rogue
River
Basin
did
not
begin
in
earnest
until
the
mid
1970s,
it
is
today
one
of
the
largest
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
hatchery
programs
on
the
west
coast
of
North
America
(
Kostow
1995),
with
about
23
million
hatchery­
produced
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
released
into
the
Rogue
River
since
the
completion
of
the
Cole
Rivers
Hatchery
in
1974
(
Appendix
D).
In
1993,
nearly
1.5
million
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
were
released
from
the
Cole
Rivers
Hatchery
alone
(
Kostow
1995).

Compared
to
many
of
the
other
ESUs,
the
influence
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
artificial
propagation
in
southern
Oregon
has
been
relatively
minor.
One
exception,
the
Chetco
River,
has
been
stocked
with
almost
9
million
fish
since
1974,
although
these
have
been
primarily
of
Chetco
River
stock
(
Appendix
D).
The
other
southern
Oregon
streams
have
received
a
total
of
about
5
million
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
during
the
same
period
(
Appendix
D).
The
Rogue
River,
for
example,
is
primarily
a
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stream
and
not
heavily
stocked
with
fall­
run
158
chinook
salmon;
hatchery
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
comprised
only
about
7%
of
the
total
adult
run
in
1987
(
Cramer
1987).

Fall­
run
chinook
salmon
hatchery
supplementation
programs
in
some
southern
Oregon
tributaries
(
Indian
Creek,
Rogue
River
Basin,
Hunter
Creek,
and
Pistol
River)
were
intended
to
increase
natural
production;
however,
the
results
have
been
disappointing
with
a
decrease
in
the
effective
population
size
for
each
river
over
the
course
of
these
programs
(
Kostow
1995).
Furthermore,
there
has
been
an
increase
in
the
incidence
of
hatchery­
derived
strays
between
rivers
in
the
region
(
Kostow
1995).
Similar
programs
have
been
conducted
in
the
Winchuck
and
Chetco
Rivers,
but
hatchery­
to­
wild
ratios
are
unknown
in
these
rivers.
The
Winchuck
River
hatchery
program
was
recently
terminated.
Hatchery
fall­
run
fish
released
into
Hunter
Creek
and
the
Pistol
River
are
now
being
marked
with
coded­
wire
tags
to
more
fully
evaluate
the
impact
of
these
programs
(
Kostow
1995).
In
December
of
1992,
the
ODFW
Coastal
Chinook
Salmon
Management
Plan
was
implemented
to
provide
guidelines
for
stock
transfers
and
to
identify
streams
where
stocking
of
hatchery
fish
should
be
excluded
(
Kostow
1995).

California
coastal
hatcheries
and
egg
collecting
stations
began
operating
on
several
coastal
streams
in
the
early
1890s,
but
the
first
permanent
facility
was
not
established
until
1910,
with
the
construction
of
the
Snow
Mountain
Station
(
currently
known
as
Van
Arsdale
Fisheries
Station)
on
the
Eel
River
(
Shebley
1922).
Facilities
on
the
Eel
and
Mad
Rivers
were
constructed
to
rehabilitate
depressed
north
coast
populations
(
Kelly
et
al.
1990).
A
total
of
95
million
chinook
salmon
fry
were
released
into
California
coastal
rivers
from
1875
to
1919,
the
majority
(
84
million)
into
the
Eel
River
(
Cobb
1930).
Hatchery
releases
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
since
the
1970s
have
been
relatively
small,
especially
when
compared
to
the
large
programs
in
the
adjacent
Sacramento
River
Basin
(
Appendix
D).
For
example,
the
Smith
River
has
received
about
133,000
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
per
year
(
NRC
1996),
a
fraction
of
the
number
of
fish
released
into
Sacramento
River
tributaries
of
similar
size.
The
majority
of
the
current
coastal
California
fall­
run
chinook
hatchery
programs
tend
to
use
stock
developed
within
basin,
although
these
stocks
may
not
be
wholly
native
due
to
the
long
history
of
interbasin
transfers
that
were
common
in
earlier
decades
(
CDNR
1931).
The
Russian
River
is
a
notable
exception
to
this
rule,
having
received
artificially
propagated
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
from
a
variety
of
sources,
most
commonly
Sacramento
River
stocks
and
the
Great
Lakes
(
which
were
stocked
with
a
myriad
of
populations
from
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California)
(
Appendix
D).
In
the
absence
of
existing
permanent
native
runs
of
chinook
salmon,
local
enhancement
efforts
south
of
San
Francisco
Bay
in
this
area
have
generally
used
Sacramento
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon,
although
stocks
from
Washington,
Oregon
and
the
Great
Lakes
have
been
released
there
as
well
(
NRC
1996).
Springrun
chinook
salmon
artificial
propagation
has
been
very
limited
in
the
coastal
river
basins
of
California,
with
the
exception
of
the
Klamath
River
Basin
(
see
ESU
#
5).

5)
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
ESU
Early
artificial
propagation
efforts
in
the
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
began
at
the
turn
of
the
century.
In
1896,
over
a
million
chinook
salmon
fry
were
introduced
into
the
Klamath
159
River
from
the
Sacramento
River
(
Snyder
1931).
In
1890,
a
fish
hatchery
at
Fort
Gaston
on
Minor
Creek,
a
tributary
to
the
Trinity
River,
was
established
(
Kirk
1994).
During
the
operation
of
this
hatchery
(
1890­
98)
eggs
were
collected
from
the
Trinity
and
Sacramento
(
Baird
NFH)
Rivers
and
Redwood
Creek,
and
the
majority
of
the
2
million
fry
produced
from
this
facility
were
released
into
the
Trinity
River
and
Redwood
Creek
(
Snyder
1931).
Several
canneries
near
the
mouth
of
the
Klamath
River
also
operated
small
hatcheries
on
an
intermittent
basis.
The
U.
S.
Fisheries
Commission
Hornbrook
Hatchery
(
later
known
as
the
Klamathon
Racks)
on
Cottonwood
Creek
(
a
tributary
of
the
Klamath
River)
initially
trapped
rainbow
trout
and
coho
salmon,
but
in
1914
trapping
operations
were
relocated
on
the
Klamath
River
to
intercept
chinook
salmon
(
Snyder
1931).
On
average,
several
million
eggs
were
collected
at
this
site
annually.
By
1916,
nearly
17
million
chinook
salmon
fry
had
been
released
into
the
Klamath
River
Basin
(
Cobb
1930).
Surplus
eggs
were
normally
transferred
to
the
CDFG
hatchery
at
Sisson,
California
(
later
named
the
Mt.
Shasta
Hatchery)
for
incubation
and
rearing
(
Snyder
1931).

To
mitigate
the
loss
of
spawning
habitat
caused
by
the
construction
of
COPCO
Dam
(
RKm
320)
on
the
Klamath
River
in
1917,
a
CDFG
hatchery
was
constructed
on
Fall
Creek
(
RKm
316)
and
supplied
with
eggs
from
the
Klamathon
egg
collection
site
(
Shebley
1922).
From
1916
to
1928,
over
118
million
chinook
salmon
eggs
had
been
collected
from
the
Klamath
River
(
Snyder
1931).
Although
a
substantial
proportion
of
the
fry
and
fingerlings
produced
from
these
eggs
were
returned
to
the
Klamath
River
Basin,
millions
of
eggs
and
fry
were
transferred
to
the
Sacramento,
Eel,
and
Mad
Rivers
(
Shebley
1915
1922;
Snyder
1931).
The
disposition
of
many
millions
of
additional
eggs
is
unclear.
The
Fall
Creek
Hatchery
was
closed
in
1948,
and
although
egg
collections
continued,
no
rearing
facilities
existed
on
the
Klamath
until
1966
(
KRBFTF
1991).

The
construction
of
Iron
Gate
Dam
on
the
Klamath
River
(
1962)
resulted
in
the
construction
of
the
Iron
Gate
Hatchery
(
1965).
Eggs
for
the
Iron
Gate
Hatchery
have
primarily
been
collected
from
adults
returning
to
the
hatchery,
although
the
hatchery
has
occasionally
relied
on
spawners
captured
in
the
nearby
Bogus
Creek.
Similarly
the
impact
of
the
completion
of
the
Lewiston
Dam
(
RKm
249)
on
the
Trinity
River
(
1964)
was
mitigated
by
the
construction
of
the
Trinity
River
Hatchery
(
RKm
247)
in
1963.
Prior
to
the
completion
of
the
hatchery
(
1958­
62),
returning
adult
chinook
salmon
had
been
trapped
downstream
from
the
dam
construction
site,
spawned,
and
their
eggs
incubated
at
Mt.
Shasta
Hatchery.

Iron
Gate
Hatchery
has
released
primarily
fall­
run
chinook
salmon.
Attempts
to
maintain
a
spring
run
from
adults
returning
to
the
hatchery
were
intermittent
and
eventually
abandoned.
The
Trinity
River
Hatchery
has
successfully
maintained
both
fall
and
spring
runs
of
chinook
salmon.
Both
hatcheries
have
relied
on
returning
adults
to
maintained
their
runs.
Since
1965,
the
upper
Klamath
River
has
received
about
7.3
million
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
juveniles
per
year;
almost
all
have
been
Klamath
River
stock
(
Appendix
D).
Since
1964,
about
2.6
million
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
and
1.5
million
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
released
in
the
Trinity
River
each
year
(
Appendix
D),
all
of
which
have
been
of
Trinity
or
Klamath
River
origin.
160
Pathogens,
specifically
infectious
hematopoietic
necrosis
virus
(
IHNV)
and
bacterial
kidney
disease
(
BKD),
which
are
caused
by
Renibacterium
salmoninarum,
have
been
detected
in
juvenile
and
returning
adult
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Trinity
River
Hatchery
(
PFMC
1994).
These
pathogens
may
have
significantly
limited
the
success
of
hatchery
programs
in
the
Klamath
River
Basin;
for
example,
IHNV
was
associated
with
the
loss
of
20%
of
the
spring­
run
chinook
juveniles
held
at
the
Trinity
River
Hatchery
(
PFMC
1994).
Another
consequence
of
artificial
propagation
in
this
ESU
has
been
the
inadvertent
hybridization
of
chinook
and
coho
salmon
at
the
Iron
Gate
Hatchery
(
Bartley
et
al.
1990).
However,
because
this
interspecies
hybrid
is
sterile
(
Johnson
1988a),
the
long­
term
genetic
effects
of
this
hybridization
are
minimal
while
ecological
effects
would
depend
on
the
hybridization
rate.

6)
Oregon
Coast
ESU
Artificial
propagation
efforts
for
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
began
in
the
late
1890s.
By
the
early
1900s,
there
were
hatcheries
or
egg­
taking
stations
on
most
of
the
larger
streams
along
the
Oregon
coast,
especially
the
Yaquina,
Alsea,
Siuslaw,
Umpqua,
Coos,
and
Coquille
Rivers
(
Cobb
1930,
Wahle
and
Smith
1979).
Before
1960,
a
substantial
portion
of
the
chinook
salmon
introduced
into
river
basins
in
this
ESU
came
from
lower
Columbia
River
(
LCR)
fall­
and
springrun
chinook
salmon
stocks
 
mostly
from
the
Bonneville
and
Clackamas
Hatcheries
(
Appendix
D).

Chinook
salmon
populations
in
this
ESU
were
considered
to
be
mostly
wild
prior
to
1960,
based
on
the
relatively
low
number
of
hatchery
fish
contributing
to
naturally
spawning
populations
(
Kaczynski
and
Palmisano
1993).
However,
the
contribution
of
hatchery­
reared
fish
relative
to
naturally
spawning
fish
in
this
ESU
has
apparently
increased
since
that
time
(
ODFW
1995).
Declining
numbers
of
wild
salmon
prompted
an
increase
in
artificial
propagation
efforts.
Improvements
in
hatchery
rearing
and
release
practices,
feed
formulation,
and
disease
treatment
have
allowed
hatcheries
to
produce
fish
that
are
larger,
more
fully­
smolted,
and
healthier
than
fish
produced
before
the
mid­
1960s
(
McGie
1980).
Releases
of
larger
smolts,
in
turn,
have
yielded
a
higher
survival
to
adulthood
than
previous
releases
of
fry
and
parr­
stage
fish
(
CBFWA
1990a).
Furthermore,
legislation
enacted
in
the
mid­
1970s
allowed
the
establishment
of
privately
operated,
for­
profit
hatcheries
in
Oregon
(
Wahle
and
Smith
1979).
Private
facilities
operated
in
the
Coos
River
and
Yaquina
River
Basins
until
1988
and
1989,
respectively
(
NRC
1996).
These
salmon
ranching
operations
released
millions
of
smolts
produced
from
spring­
and
fall­
run
broodstock
primarily
obtained
from
Oregon
coastal
rivers,
such
as
the
Rogue,
Trask,
and
Yaquina
(
NRC
1996).
In
addition,
a
number
of
smaller
cooperative
hatcheries,
built
to
restore
depleted
populations,
are
responsible
for
a
substantial
proportion
of
the
current
hatchery
production
(
Appendix
D).

Currently,
most
of
the
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
in
this
ESU
are
thought
to
have
been
minimally
influenced
by
hatchery
fish,
which
made
up
less
than
10%
of
the
spawning
population
(
Kostow
1995).
However,
hatchery
fish
are
thought
to
comprise
up
to
50%
or
more
of
the
naturally
spawning
fish
in
the
Salmon
and
Elk
Rivers
(
ODFW
1995);
Kaczynski
and
161
Palmisano
(
1993)
estimated
that
78%
of
natural
spawners
in
the
Elk
River
were
of
hatchery
origin.
Although
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
hatchery
programs
are
currently
in
operation
in
a
number
of
basins,
ODFW
(
1995)
concluded
"
hatchery
fish
are
not
thought
to
be
sustaining
natural
production,"
or
"
are
not
needed
to
sustain
natural
production"
in
most
streams
in
this
region.
The
influence
of
stray
hatchery
fish
between
basins
may
be
significant;
strays
constituted
some
20%
of
the
"
naturally
spawning"
run
in
the
Sixes
River
(
Kaczynski
and
Palmisano
1993).

Hatchery
programs
for
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
have
a
significant
impact
on
populations
in
the
Trask
and
Umpqua
River
Basins.
Hatchery
contributions
constituted
between
40
and
60%
of
the
total
run
in
the
North
Umpqua
River
(
ODFW
1995).
Furthermore,
the
broodstock
initially
collected
for
the
Rock
Creek
Hatchery
(
1955)
on
the
North
Fork
Umpqua
River
may
have
been
influenced
by
introductions
of
Rogue
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
1951.
Low
returns
of
adult
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
over
Winchester
Dam
(
RKm
116)
from
1946­
48
(
average,
2,404)
prompted
the
release
of
35,524
and
3,270
yearling
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Rogue
and
Imnaha
Rivers,
respectively
(
ODFW
1954).
Although
the
number
of
fish
released
was
small
during
this
period,
the
hatchery
fish
released
into
the
Rogue
River
contributed
20.9
and
12.6%
of
the
total
adult
run
in
1953
and
1954,
respectively,
due
to
their
large
size
at
release
(
ODFW
1954).
In
addition,
the
abundance
of
the
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
North
Fork
Umpqua
River
increased
from
12
in
1952
to
684
in
1955,
largely
related
to
introductions
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
from
hatcheries
on
the
Columbia
River
(
ODFW
1954).
Hatchery­
derived
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Wilson,
Nestucca,
and
South
Umpqua
Rivers
are
thought
to
now
be
abundant
enough
that
they
"
may
mask
[
abundance]
trends
in
wild
populations"
(
ODFW
1995).

Naturally
produced
fish
account
for
the
majority
of
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU;
however,
in
1993,
artificial
propagation
efforts
were
still
substantial,
with
releases
of
3,700,000
fall­
run
and
840,000
juvenile
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Kostow
1995).
Efforts
by
ODFW
to
utilize
locally
derived
stocks
in
artificial
propagation
programs
may
reduce
deleterious
wildhatchery
fish
interactions
provided
that
local
stocks
have
not
been
genetically
altered
by
previous
non­
native
introductions.

7)
Washington
Coast
ESU
In
response
to
declining
numbers
of
chinook
salmon
in
Grays
Harbor
drainages,
the
State
of
Washington
constructed
a
hatchery
on
the
lower
Chehalis
River
in
1897.
However,
the
facility
was
poorly
sited
and
soon
relocated
to
the
Satsop
River
(
WDFG
1902,
Moore
et
al.
1960).
In
1899,
a
hatchery
(
which
still
exists)
was
built
on
the
Willapa
River,
and
by
1917
additional
hatcheries
were
operating
on
the
Humptulips,
North,
and
Naselle
Rivers
(
WDFG
1920,
1921).
On
average,
several
million
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
were
released
annually
from
state
hatcheries
from
1917
to
1941.
The
early
years
of
artificial
propagation
in
the
Washington
Coast
ESU
were
marked
by
widespread
importations
of
non­
native
stocks
to
fill
hatcheries
to
capacity
(
WDFG
1916)
due
to
the
depressed
size
of
local
populations,
primarily
from
overharvest
(
WDFG
1921).
Initially,
the
Quinault
National
Fish
Hatchery
(
1914)
was
operated
primarily
as
a
sockeye
salmon
162
facility
(
Titcomb
1917),
although
releases
of
chinook
salmon
increased
steadily
through
the
years.
Most
of
the
effort
regarding
artificial
propagation
in
ESU
7
has
focused
on
fall­
run
chinook
salmon.
Hatcheries
on
the
Washington
coast
tend
to
be
located
near
areas
of
commercial
harvest,
with
two
facilities
in
operation
on
the
Quinault
River,
two
on
major
tributaries
entering
Grays
Harbor,
and
three
on
tributaries
to
Willapa
Bay.
In
general,
non­
native
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
stocks,
primarily
Green
River
hatchery­
derived
stocks,
were
used
in
ESU
7
watersheds
prior
to
1975.
Since
1980
there
has
been
a
shift
to
the
use
of
locally
returning
stocks
(
Appendix
D).

Hatchery­
reared
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
released
in
only
a
few
watersheds:
the
Sol
Duc,
Hoh,
Quinault,
and
Wynoochee
Rivers
(
NRC
1996).
The
impact
of
artificial
propagation
on
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
has
been
modest,
and
with
the
exception
of
the
Sol
Duc
River
(
which
has
received
more
than
9
million
hatchery
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
since
1972),
no
watershed
has
received
more
than
500,000
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
during
the
period
covered
by
our
database
(
Appendix
D).
The
Sol
Duc
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
was
originally
established
from
Cowlitz
River
x
Umpqua
River
hybrids,
with
subsequent
introductions
of
Dungeness
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
for
a
number
of
years
between
1973
and
1988
(
Appendix
D).
Although
the
Sol
Duc
River
is
managed
for
hatchery
production
only,
it
apparently
has
influenced
nearby
naturally
spawning
populations.
In
both
the
Sol
Duc
and
Quillayute
Rivers,
similarities
in
run
timing
and
a
substantial
incidence
of
natural
spawning
by
stray
Sol
Duc
Hatchery
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
may
have
resulted
in
significant
genetic
exchange
between
the
hatchery
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
and
natural
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
The
draft
scoping
document
for
a
proposed
wild
salmonid
policy
for
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW
et
al.
1994)
explains
the
value
of
the
Sol
Duc
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
as
follows
(
p.
V­
31):

There
are
a
number
of
unique
hatchery
stocks
that
have
developed
over
time,
out
of
a
variety
of
parent
stocks.
Spring­
run
chinook
at
the
Sol
Duc
Hatchery,
Deschutes
River
(
Washington)
chinook,
several
of
the
stocks
at
the
Quinault
National
Fish
Hatchery
and
others
represent
unique
genetic
units
that
deserve
some
protection
in
the
same
way
that
we
want
to
maintain
unique
wild
stocks
as
a
resource
for
future
needs.

In
general,
watersheds
that
enter
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
portion
of
this
ESU
have
not
been
stocked
with
hatchery
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
since
1981.
However,
the
Hoko
River,
which
was
stocked
with
Puget
Sound
and
Hood
Canal
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
stocks
from
1950
through
the
mid­
1970s,
has
been
stocked
since
1984
with
juveniles
produced
from
adults
returning
to
the
Hoko
River
and
reared
at
the
Makah
NFH
(
Appendix
D).

The
impact
of
artificial
propagation
on
coastal
systems
has
not
been
fully
evaluated.
There
appears
to
be
some
confusion
regarding
stock
origin
and
the
influence
of
hatchery
fish
in
some
populations
in
this
ESU,
especially
in
tributaries
of
Grays
Harbor.
For
example,
the
current
Humptulips
River
Hatchery
stock
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon,
which
was
derived
from
both
wild
spawners
and
hatchery
returns
(
the
hatchery
was
founded
from
a
variety
of
local
and
non­
ESU
sources
(
WDF
et
al.
1993))
has
been
designated
as
being
of
"
native"
stock
origin
(
Ashbrook
and
Fuss
1996),
while
naturally
spawning
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Humptulips
River
have
been
designated
as
of
"
mixed"
stock
origin,
due
to
mixing
with
non­
local
stocks
(
WDF
et
al.
1993),
although
no
non­
native
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
introduced
to
the
system
since
1981
(
Appendix
D).
In
addition,
a
recent
study
of
genetic
stock
diversity
of
Washington
chinook
salmon
populations
states:
"
All
of
the
spawning
populations
in
Grays
Harbor
[
six
were
identified]
are
considered
native
chinook
with
few
impacts
from
hatchery
releases
or
releases
from
outside
the
basin"
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995,
p.
D­
31).
Another
recent
study,
based
in
part
on
genetic
diversity
and
life­
history
characteristics,
determined
that
three
of
these
six
naturally
spawning
Grays
Harbor
populations
were
of
mixed
stock
origin
(
WDF
et
al.
1993),
suggesting
that
releases
from
outside
the
basin
have
had
some
impact
on
them.
It
appears
that
solid
data
regarding
the
influence
of
artificial
propagation
has
not
yet
been
compiled
for
at
least
some
naturally
spawning
populations
in
this
ESU.

8)
Puget
Sound
ESU
The
artificial
propagation
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
River
was
quickly
followed
by
the
establishment
of
hatcheries
on
Puget
Sound
tributaries,
with
state­
run
facilities
operating
in
the
Nooksack,
Skagit,
and
Samish
River
Basins
before
the
end
of
the
last
century.
James
Crawford,
then
Commissioner
of
the
Washington
State
Fish
Commission
(
WSFC),
wrote
(
Crawford
1894):

That
the
salmon
industry
is
in
great
danger,
by
reason
of
the
decrease
in
the
supply
of
salmon,
cannot
be
successfully
denied,
and
unless
some
steps
are
immediately
taken
to
repair
by
artificial
propagation
the
ravages
annually
made
by
the
different
fishing
appliances
on
our
salmon
supply,
this
industry
...
will
pass
into
history
.

By
1902,
eight
state­
run
and
two
federally­
run
chinook
salmon
hatcheries
were
operating
in
this
ESU,
and
new
facilities
were
being
constructed
every
few
years
(
Moore
et
al.
1960).
There
are
currently
about
46
state,
tribal,
and
federal
facilities
that
regularly
release
chinook
salmon
juveniles
into
Puget
Sound
tributaries
and
over
50
cooperative
state/
public
facilities
that
occasionally
produce
chinook
salmon
(
Appendix
D).
Transfers
of
chinook
salmon
eggs
to
Puget
Sound
from
other
geographic
regions,
primarily
the
lower
Columbia
River,
were
commonplace
in
the
early
history
of
artificial
propagation
in
this
region.
For
example,
by
1914,
Columbia
River
chinook
salmon
had
been
released
in
many
watersheds
throughout
Puget
Sound.
Increases
in
the
commercial
salmon
catch
subsequent
to
these
stock
transfers
were
assumed
to
be
directly
related
to
artificial
propagation
efforts:
"
The
most
convincing
results
are
apparent
from
the
practice
of
transplanting
surplus
eggs
from
one
hatchery
to
another,"
and
the
increased
abundance
of
Puget
Sound
chinook
salmon
at
that
time
was
seen
as
"
the
direct
result
of
the
transferring
of
the
surplus
chinook
salmon
egg
take
of
the
Columbia
River
to
Puget
Sound
and
other
districts."
(
WDFG
1914,
p.
17).
The
perceived
benefits
of
inter­
watershed
stock
transfers
had
a
long­
term
impact
on
hatchery
policies
in
Puget
Sound
and
elsewhere.
In
1924
state­
operated
hatcheries
in
Puget
Sound
collected
11,460,600
eggs
from
returning
adults;
however,
an
additional
6,000,000
eggs
were
transferred
to
Puget
Sound
from
outside
the
region
(
Mayhall
1925).
By
1928,
almost
290
million
chinook
salmon
fry,
fingerlings,
and
yearlings
had
been
released
into
Puget
Sound
tributaries
(
Cobb
1930).
The
emphasis
on
producing
fish
for
harvest
during
the
early
part
of
this
164
8
"
Mixed"
is
defined
by
Washington
co­
managers
as:
"
A
stock
whose
individuals
originated
from
commingled
native
and
non­
native
parents,
and/
or
by
mating
between
native
and
non­
native
fish
(
hybridization);
or
a
previously
native
stock
that
has
undergone
substantial
genetic
alteration"
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
p.
6).
century
resulted
in
widespread
movements
of
chinook
salmon
between
watersheds
in
this
ESU
(
NRC
1996)
(
Appendix
D).
However,
stock
integrity
and
genetic
diversity
have
recently
become
important
management
objectives
as
well,
and
policy
revisions
restricting
some
stock
transfers
have
been
initiated
to
reduce
the
impact
of
hatchery
fish
on
natural
populations
(
WDF
1991,
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Ashbrook
and
Fuss
1996).

The
Green
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
has
been
the
dominant
hatchery
stock
in
this
ESU
since
the
construction
of
the
Green
River
Hatchery
in
1907.
Substantial
numbers
of
Green
River
fish
have
long
been
released
in
many
rivers,
as
well
as
numerous
smaller
watersheds
and
saltwater
release
sites
throughout
Puget
Sound
(
Appendix
D),
raising
concerns
that
this
strategy
may
erode
genetic
diversity
(
Busack
and
Marshall
1995).
Although
reliance
on
this
stock
in
hatchery
programs
is
declining
as
a
result
of
recent
policy
changes
in
inter­
hatchery
transfer
of
chinook
salmon
(
WDF
1991),
20
hatcheries
and
10
net­
pen
programs
still
regularly
released
Green
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
as
late
as
1995
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
In
a
recent
determination
of
salmon
genetic
diversity
units
in
Washington,
Busack
and
Marshall
(
1995)
reported:
"
The
extensive
use
of
this
stock
has
undoubtedly
had
an
impact
on
among­
stock
diversity
within
the
South
Puget
Sound,
Hood
Canal,
and
Snohomish
summer/
fall
GDU
(
GDU
17),
but
may
also
have
impacted
GDUs
elsewhere
in
Puget
Sound
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca."

Chinook
salmon
abundance
in
watersheds
throughout
the
Puget
Sound
ESU
appears
to
be
closely
correlated
with
hatchery
effort.
The
recent
stock
assessment
by
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
identified
28
fall­
and
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stocks
in
Puget
Sound
from
the
Nooksack
River
to
the
Elwha
River
(
boundaries
of
NMFS
ESU
8).
Seventeen
of
these
28
stocks
were
reported
to
be
naturally
produced
runs,
reflecting
evidence
that
hatchery
fish
have
had
little
or
no
influence
on
the
spawning
grounds.
The
status
of
15
of
the
17
(
88%)
natural
Puget
Sound
chinook
salmon
stocks
was
classified
as
"
critical,"
"
depressed,"
or
"
unknown"
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
On
the
other
hand,
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
reported
that
6
of
the
28
Puget
Sound
chinook
salmon
stocks
were
of
"
mixed
production,"
based
on
a
conclusion
that
hatchery
fish
have
made
a
significant
contribution
to
the
spawning
population.
All
six
hatchery­
influenced
stocks
have
been
designated
as
"
healthy."
Therefore,
there
are
several
river
systems
in
which
a
constant
infusion
of
hatchery
fish
appears
to
have
maintained
population
abundance
to
the
point
that
the
stocks
have
been
determined
to
be
healthy,
albeit
"
mixed."
8
In
at
least
one
case,
artificial
propagation
appears
to
have
benefitted
a
declining
stock.
Spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
White
River
have
experienced
a
tremendous
decline
in
abundance
since
the
turn
of
the
century,
due
principally
to
pronounced
habitat
alterations,
although
the
harvest
rate
has
been
and
is
still
estimated
to
be
over
60%
(
WDFW
et
al.
1996).
Several
artificial
propagation
programs
were
initiated
in
the
1970s
to
boost
the
abundance
of
165
stocks
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon.
The
most
successful
of
these
was
the
propagation
of
White
River
spring­
run
by
culturing
fish
in
net­
pens
through
maturity
or
releasing
juveniles
from
a
remote
hatchery
site.
As
a
result
of
these
artificial
propagation
programs,
as
well
as
harvest
reductions
to
protect
returning
adults,
abundance
of
this
stock
has
steadily
increased
to
the
point
that
the
captive
broodstock
portion
is
currently
being
phased
out,
and
the
remote
hatchery
program
will
be
phased
out
in
the
future
(
WDFW
et
al.
1996).
On
the
other
hand,
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
recovery
programs
on
the
Nooksack,
Skagit,
and
Dungeness
Rivers
have
been
terminated
or
dramatically
curtailed
because
of
diminishing
returns
or
the
potential
for
interbreeding
between
different
hatchery
stocks
or
between
wild
and
hatchery
fish
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).

9)
Lower
Columbia
River
ESU
The
first
hatcheries
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
were
constructed
by
private
companies
in
response
to
the
declining
abundance
of
chinook
salmon
that
followed
habitat
destruction
and
overharvest.
The
first
hatchery
on
the
Oregon
side
was
constructed
on
the
Clackamas
River
in
1876,
and
the
first
Washington
hatchery
was
built
on
Baker's
Bay
near
the
mouth
of
the
Columbia
River
in
1894
(
Wahle
and
Smith
1979).
The
first
state­
operated
hatchery
in
Washington,
which
was
built
in
1895
on
the
Lower
Kalama
River,
is
still
in
operation.
In
Oregon,
several
hatcheries
were
built
around
the
turn
of
the
century
on
the
Clackamas
River,
although
none
of
these
is
still
in
operation.
The
oldest
operational
hatchery
on
the
Oregon
side
of
the
lower
Columbia
River
was
built
in
1909
near
the
town
of
Bonneville
(
Wahle
and
Smith
1979).
The
first
federal
chinook
salmon
hatchery
on
the
lower
Columbia
River
was
built
on
the
Little
White
Salmon
River
in
1897
(
Nelson
and
Bodle
1990).
The
first
half
of
the
twentieth
century
was
marked
by
an
explosive
increase
in
hatcheries
and
hatchery
production.
For
example,
from
1913
to
1930,
319
million
chinook
salmon
fry
were
released
into
the
lower
Columbia
River
by
Washington
State
hatcheries
alone
(
WDF
1934).
Oregon
state
and
federal
hatchery
efforts
were
on
a
similar
scale.
Federal
hatcheries
on
the
Big
White
Salmon
and
Little
White
Salmon
Rivers
collected
20­
40
million
eggs
annually,
and
a
large
number
of
these
were
transferred
to
various
Oregon
and
Washington
state
hatcheries.
Although
there
were
considerable
cutbacks
in
the
number
of
hatcheries
during
the
Great
Depression,
egg
production
reported
for
Washington
state
hatcheries
on
the
lower
Columbia
River
from
1935
to
1939
was
143,000,000
(
WDF
1936,
1937,
1938,
1939,
1940).
After
1938,
there
was
a
dramatic
increase
in
the
number
of
chinook
salmon
hatcheries
in
the
lower
Columbia
River,
due
primarily
to
federal
obligations
to
mitigate
harvest
opportunities
lost
as
result
of
the
construction
of
upper
Columbia
and
Snake
River
dams
(
Wahle
and
Smith
1979).
There
was
an
interruption
in
hatchery
operations
during
World
War
II,
when
production
declined
to
one­
tenth
of
the
prewar
years
at
Washington
State
hatcheries.
At
present,
about
25
ODFW,
WDFW,
and
USFWS
hatcheries
release
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU.
Since
the
1960s,
a
large
number
of
hatchery
programs
in
the
lower
Columbia
River
have
been
dedicated
to
mitigating
for
lost
production
(
Howell
et
al.
1985).

A
variety
of
stocks
were
released
from
the
early
hatcheries,
the
majority
being
of
lower
Columbia
River
origin
(
Howell
et
al.
1985),
although
some
upriver
stocks
were
propagated
as
166
well
(
Appendix
D).
Presently,
lower
Columbia
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
hatchery
stocks
continue
to
make
up
the
majority
of
all
chinook
salmon
in
ESU
9.
A
majority
of
spawners
in
Oregon
tributaries
to
the
Columbia
River
may
be
Big
Creek
Hatchery
strays,
based
on
CWT
analysis,
as
well
as
Rogue
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
released
in
lower
Columbia
River
streams
(
Kostow
1995).
Since
1960,
most
natural
fall
run
spawning
on
the
Oregon
side
of
the
lower
Columbia
River
has
been
attributed
to
hatchery
strays
(
Olsen
et
al.
1992).
In
fact,
straying,
along
with
habitat
degradation,
overharvest,
and
competition
from
hatchery
juveniles,
has
been
identified
as
one
of
the
major
problems
facing
naturally
spawning
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
Oregon's
lower
Columbia
River
tributaries
(
Kostow
1995).
Oregon
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
programs
use
a
number
of
different
broodstocks,
including
local
and
hatchery­
origin
"
tule"
stocks,
and
stocks
imported
from
other
areas.
The
Rogue
River
stock
was
introduced
into
several
Columbia
River
tributaries
to
produce
a
south­
migrating
stock
that
would
be
available
for
harvest
primarily
by
Oregon
fishers
(
Appendix
D)
(
Kostow
1995).
About
70­
75%
of
other
lower
Columbia
River
hatchery
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
turn
north
and
are
harvested
in
Alaska,
British
Columbia,
and
Washington
(
Vreeland
1989).

Similarly,
the
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Washington
tributaries
are
thought
to
be
essentially
one
widely
mixed
stock
as
a
result
of
straying
and
egg
transfers
between
hatcheries
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
The
majority
of
natural
spawners
in
the
Grays,
Elochoman,
Cowlitz,
Kalama,
Washougal,
and
Klickitat
Rivers
have
been
of
hatchery
origin,
and
strays
from
several
lower
Columbia
River
hatcheries
are
often
found
in
these
streams
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
Hatchery
strays
are
also
the
most
numerous
spawners
in
several
Washington
streams
not
believed
to
originally
have
had
a
native
run
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon,
such
as
Abernathy,
Germany,
Mill,
and
Skamokowa
Creeks
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
Strays
from
Oregon's
Rogue
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
program
at
Young's
Bay
have
been
observed
in
the
Elochoman
River
and
Abernathy
Creek
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
In
1982,
upriver
"
bright"
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
were
released
from
the
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
The
founding
broodstock
for
various
upriver
"
bright"
stocks
were
collected
by
intercepting
returning
adults
destined
for
Columbia
River
spawning
sites
above
the
Dalles
Dam.
Since
the
initiation
of
the
upriver
"
bright"
program
at
the
Little
White
Salmon
NFH,
large
numbers
of
upriver
"
bright"
strays
have
been
found
naturally
spawning
in
the
Wind,
White
Salmon,
and
Klickitat
Rivers
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Similarly,
in
1986
the
Klickitat
River
Hatchery
began
releasing
upriver
"
brights"
in
lieu
of
tule
fall­
run
chinook
salmon.

Spring­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
lower
Columbia
River
are
all
thought
to
be
heavily
influenced
by
hatchery
programs.
Approximately
1.5
and
10
million
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
were
released
from
Oregon
and
Washington
hatcheries,
respectively,
in
1993.
Populations
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sandy
and
Clackamas
Rivers
are
considered
by
Oregon
biologists
to
be
a
component
of
upper
Willamette
River
hatchery
populations
due
to
many
years
of
inter­
hatchery
transfer
(
Kostow
1995).
Dam
construction
and
volcanic
episodes
have
eliminated
most
of
the
historic
spawning
habitat
for
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
on
the
Washington
side
of
the
lower
Columbia
River
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
The
Cowlitz
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
has
received
only
limited
transfers
of
non­
native
stocks,
but
is
strongly
influenced
by
167
hatchery­
derived
fish
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Stocks
on
the
Lewis
and
Kalama
Rivers
are
a
composite
of
the
Cowlitz
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
and
other
lower
Columbia
and
Willamette
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stocks
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Numerically,
most
of
the
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
spawning
naturally
in
lower
Columbia
River
tributaries
on
the
Washington
side
are
now
hatchery
strays
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
All
Washington
populations
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
lower
Columbia
River
are
currently
managed
as
populations
of
mixed
origin
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).

10)
Upper
Willamette
River
ESU
Artificial
propagation
efforts
on
the
upper
Willamette
River
began
early
this
century,
when
the
state
of
Oregon
began
operating
a
hatchery
on
the
McKenzie
River
in
1902
(
Olsen
et
al.
1992).
From
1909
to
1942
eggs
were
collected
from
spring­
run
adults
returning
to
the
Santiam
and
Middle
Fork
Willamette
Rivers,
incubated
at
the
state's
Bonneville
Hatchery,
and
the
resulting
fry
returned
to
the
Willamette
River
Basin
(
Howell
et
al.
1985).
Egg
collections
from
the
four
primary
state­
run
stations
on
the
Willamette
River
Basin
 
North
Santiam,
South
Santiam,
McKenzie,
and
Middle
Fork
Willamette
River
stations
 
totalled
668
million
eggs
during
the
1918­
42
period
(
Craig
and
Townsend
1946).
These
eggs
were
largely
the
source
for
the
382
million
fingerlings
released
into
the
basin
during
that
interval.
Although
there
were
introductions
of
non­
native
fish
into
this
ESU
during
the
first
half
of
this
century,
the
vast
majority
of
the
eggs
used
originated
from
fish
returning
to
the
upper
Willamette
River
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Olsen
et
al.
1992).
Cramer
et
al.
(
1996)
provided
a
detailed
description
of
hatchery
development
in
the
Willamette
River
watershed.

Although
not
located
within
the
boundaries
of
the
Upper
Willamette
River
ESU,
the
Clackamas
River
contains
several
artificial
propagation
facilities
that
have
been
strongly
associated
with
the
upper
Willamette
River.
The
U.
S.
Fish
Commission
began
operating
a
hatchery
on
the
Clackamas
River
in
1888
(
USCFF
1893).
Several
million
eggs
were
obtained
annually
until
1893,
when
dam
construction
limited
spawner
access
to
the
hatchery
collection
facilities.
Egg
collecting
substations
on
the
upper
Clackamas
and
Salmon
Rivers
(
a
tributary
of
the
Sandy
River)
were
constructed
in
1894
and
1895,
respectively,
to
provide
eggs
for
the
main
Clackamas
Hatchery
(
Ravenel
1899).
Spawning
times
for
fish
arriving
at
these
substations,
July­
September,
were
considerably
earlier
than
those
recorded
at
the
Clackamas
River
Hatchery,
September­
October
(
Ravenel
1899).
Additionally,
egg
transfers
from
the
Baird
NFH
(
Sacramento
River)
and
the
Little
White
Salmon
Hatchery
substation
were
also
used
to
maintain
production
from
the
Clackamas
River
Hatchery.
Dam
construction
and
habitat
degradation
in
the
Clackamas
River
Basin
nearly
eliminated
the
spring
run
of
chinook
salmon.
Restoration
efforts
for
the
Clackamas
River
chinook
salmon
utilized
transfers
of
Mackenzie
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
and
the
construction
of
new
artificial
propagation
facilities:
the
USFWS
Eagle
Creek
NFH
in
1957,
and
the
ODFW
Clackamas
Hatchery
in
1979
(
Delarm
and
Smith
1990a,
c).
The
original
broodstocks
for
both
hatcheries
were
developed
from
stocks
originating
above
Willamette
Falls
(
Delarm
and
Smith
1990c,
Willis
et
al.
1995).
Between
1975
and
1987,
about
1.2
million
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
were
released
from
Eagle
Creek
NFH;
none
have
been
released
since
168
then.
The
Clackamas
River
Hatchery
continues
to
produce
between
0.5
and
1.2
million
fish
per
year
(
NRC
1996)
(
Appendix
D).
Several
broodstocks
were
originally
developed
from
populations
in
the
Clackamas,
Santiam,
McKenzie,
and
Middle
Fork
Willamette
Rivers;
interhatchery
stock
transfers
have
been
frequent
and
the
broodstocks
have
become
essentially
a
single,
homogenized
breeding
unit
(
Kostow
1995,
Cramer
et
al.
1996).
Therefore,
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
currently
inhabiting
the
Clackamas
River
are
thought
to
most
closely
resemble
hatchery
populations
throughout
the
Willamette
River
(
Cramer
et
al.
1996).

Current
hatchery
programs
in
this
ESU
were
initiated
or
expanded
to
mitigate
the
loss
of
natural
spawning
and
rearing
areas
lost
due
to
the
construction
of
dams
in
the
1950s
and
1960s
(
Cramer
et
al.
1996).
Most
of
the
historical
geographic
range
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Willamette
River
Basin
has
received
introductions
of
hatchery
fish
(
Cramer
et
al.
1996,
NRC
1996).
Due
to
the
large
and
continuous
nature
of
artificial
propagation
programs
in
the
Willamette
River
system,
wild
populations
are
thought
to
be
small
and
"
vastly
dominated
by
hatchery
fish"
(
Kostow
1995,
p.
44).
Hatchery
fish
have
been
observed
spawning
in
the
wild
and
appear
to
be
successfully
reproducing
(
Cramer
et
al.
1996).

Hatchery
practices
have
reduced
the
early
and
late
segments
of
the
spawning
cycle
in
this
ESU.
Historically,
the
several
wild
populations
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Willamette
River
spawned
sometime
between
mid­
July
and
late
October.
However,
current
Willamette
River
populations,
both
wild
and
hatchery,
all
spawn
at
the
same
time,
during
September.
Therefore,
the
majority
of
natural
spawners
are
now
thought
to
be
of
recent
hatchery
origin
(
Cramer
et
al.
1996).
In
addition,
hatchery
strays
are
thought
to
have
a
significant
impact
on
population
dynamics
in
this
ESU.
It
has
been
estimated
that
the
straying
rate
of
adults
returning
from
releases
of
trucked
juveniles
can
be
as
high
as
75%
(
Cramer
et
al.
1996).
These
strays
are
thought
to
contribute
to
the
naturally
spawning
population
(
Kostow
1995).

Although
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
are
not
indigenous
to
the
Willamette
River
Basin
(
Howell
et
al.
1985),
large
numbers
have
been
introduced
there.
Since
the
1950s,
about
200
million
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
introduced
into
this
ESU,
primarily
from
lower
Columbia
River
stocks
(
e.
g.,
the
ODFW
Bonneville
Hatchery),
in
addition
to
a
large
number
of
fish
from
the
Trask
River
(
Appendix
D).
Fall­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
distributed
into
nearly
all
watersheds
formerly
and
currently
occupied
by
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Appendix
D).
Currently,
the
only
facility
releasing
Bonneville
Hatchery
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
into
the
Willamette
River
above
the
falls
is
the
Stayton
Pond,
a
satellite
of
the
South
Santiam
Hatchery,
which
produces
about
5
million
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
each
year
for
release
into
various
Willamette
River
tributaries
(
Delarm
and
Smith
1990c,
NRC
1996).
Little
is
known
about
the
impact
of
introduced
fall­
run
chinook
salmon,
as
no
observations
of
upper
Willamette
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
were
included
in
a
recent
review
of
wild
chinook
salmon
stocks
in
Oregon
(
Kostow
1995).
However,
a
previous
review
reported
that
between
16%
and
46%
of
the
adult
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
upper
Willamette
River
were
of
natural
origin,
suggesting
at
least
a
moderate
amount
of
successful
reproduction
by
straying
hatchery
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Howell
et
al.
1985).
Spawning
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
upper
Willamette
River
has
been
169
observed
to
occur
primarily
during
September
(
Howell
et
al.
1985),
closely
overlapping
the
spawning
period
of
Willamette
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon.
We
found
no
studies
that
evaluated
genetic
or
ecological
interactions
between
fall­
and
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
upper
Willamette
River.

11)
Mid­
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
The
artificial
propagation
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
is
a
relatively
new
management
strategy
in
this
ESU.
A
hatchery
program
was
initiated
on
the
Klickitat
River
in
1899,
but
the
facility
was
poorly
sited
and
abandoned
shortly
thereafter
(
Mayhall
1925).
It
was
not
until
1950
that
a
hatchery
was
reestablished
on
the
Klickitat
River
(
Moore
et
al.
1960).
This
hatchery
was
the
first
Washington
hatchery
built
under
the
Lower
Columbia
River
Development
Plan
(
Moore
et
al.
1960).
Hatchery
operations
in
the
Deschutes
River
Basin
began
in
1947
with
the
construction
of
a
hatchery
and
weir
near
Spring
Creek
on
the
Metolius
River,
a
tributary
to
the
Deschutes
River
(
Nehlsen
1995).
During
the
next
12
years,
the
Metolius
Hatchery
released
an
average
of
125,000
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
juveniles
annually
(
Nehlsen
1995).
Additional
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
hatcheries
on
the
Deschutes
River
were
built,
in
part,
to
mitigate
for
natural
production
lost
as
a
result
of
the
construction
of
Pelton
and
Round
Butte
Dams.
The
Round
Butte
Hatchery
(
1972),
and
Pelton
Ladder
(
1974),
a
Round
Butte
satellite
facility,
are
operated
by
ODFW
(
Delarm
and
Smith
1990c).
The
Warm
Springs
NFH
(
1977)
is
operated
by
the
USFWS
(
Delarm
and
Smith
1990a).
Additionally,
the
Deschutes
River
has
received
over
20
million
fish
since
the
late
1940s.
The
majority
of
these
were
derived
from
native
Deschutes
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Howell
et
al.
1985),
although
a
relatively
limited
number
of
fish
from
the
Carson
NFH
and
Willamette
River
hatcheries
were
released
prior
to
1969
(
Olsen
et
al.
1992,
Kostow
1995,
NRC
1996).

Yakima
River
chinook
salmon
populations
were
not
directly
influenced
by
the
artificial
propagation
efforts
associated
with
the
Grand
Coulee
Fish
Maintenance
Project
during
the
1940s.
Despite
irrigation
diversion
screening
and
improvements
in
fish
ladders
on
the
Yakima
River
from
1936
to
1941,
massive
water
withdrawals
for
irrigation
were
the
primary
cause
for
the
continuous
decline
in
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
during
most
of
this
century
(
Davidson
1953),
and
eventually
necessitated
the
use
of
artificial
propagation
to
maintain
fish
numbers.
Native
Yakima
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
do
not
appear
to
have
been
significantly
affected
by
hatchery
supplementation
or
straying
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995),
even
though
the
number
of
hatchery
smolts
released
into
the
Yakima
River
during
the
1980s
may
have
exceeded
the
number
of
naturally
produced
smolts
migrating
downstream
(
Fast
et
al.
1991,
NRC
1996).
While
hatchery
smolts
were
sometimes
more
numerous
than
wild
smolts,
they
had
only
about
1/
80th
of
the
smolt­
to­
adult
survival
rate
of
naturally
produced
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Fast
et
al.
1991).
The
most
commonly
released
stock
in
the
Yakima
River
has
been
from
the
Leavenworth
NFH
(
Appendix
D),
but
these
fish
were
apparently
ill­
adapted
to
the
Yakima
River
(
based
on
their
extremely
poor
survival).
In
1976,
about
20,000
Klickitat
Hatchery
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
were
introduced
in
Marion
Drain,
a
tributary
of
the
lower
Yakima
River
(
Appendix
D).
In
general,
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
Yakima
River
have
been
almost
exclusively
170
maintained
by
natural
production
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
All
transfers
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
into
the
Yakima
ceased
in
1988
(
Appendix
D).

The
John
Day
River
has
been
stocked
with
just
a
few
fish,
mostly
from
local
stock,
and
has
not
been
stocked
at
all
since
1982
(
Appendix
D).
Few
hatchery
strays
from
other
river
systems
have
been
found
there.

Native
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
are
thought
to
be
extinct
in
the
Hood,
Umatilla,
and
Walla
Walla
Rivers
on
the
Oregon
side
of
this
ESU
(
Kostow
1995).
Reintroduction
programs
are
currently
underway
in
the
Hood
and
Umatilla
Rivers,
with
the
Carson
NFH
(
Wind
River)
and
Lookingglass
Hatchery
(
Grande
Ronde
River)
being
the
predominant
sources
for
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
used
in
these
programs
(
Appendix
D).
The
Umatilla
River
has
received
over
5
million
Carson
and
Lookingglass
Hatchery
fish
since
1986
(
NRC
1996).

Large
numbers
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
(
approximately
11.8
million)
have
been
released
directly
into
the
mainstem
Columbia
River
since
the
1970s,
principally
from
WDFW
Ringold
Hatchery
in
the
Hanford
Reach,
although
smaller
releases
have
occurred
in
the
vicinity
of
Priest
Rapids
Dam
(
Appendix
D).
The
stocks
most
commonly
used
in
the
Hanford
Reach
releases
have
been
from
the
Carson
NFH,
and
the
WDFW
Cowlitz
and
Klickitat
River
Hatcheries
(
Appendix
D).
There
is
no
documented
observation
of
spawning
by
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Hanford
Reach
nor
any
other
mainstem
locations
in
the
Columbia
River
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948,
Fulton
1968,
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Chapman
et
al.
1995).
It
is
probable
that
many
of
the
adults
produced
from
these
mainstem
releases
sought
out
tributary
spawning
areas.
Stuehrenberg
et
al.
(
1995)
observed
adult
hatchery
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Ringold
Hatchery
releases
passing
over
Priest
Rapids
Dam.
Spawned­
out
carcasses
from
Ringold
Hatchery
releases
have
been
recovered
in
the
Wenatchee
River
Basin
(
Peven
1994).

12)
Upper
Columbia
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
ESU
Artificial
propagation
in
this
ESU
began
in
1899,
when
hatcheries
were
constructed
on
the
Methow
and
Wenatchee
rivers
(
Mullan
1987).
The
Tumwater
Hatchery
on
the
Wenatchee
River
apparently
released
only
600,000
chinook
salmon
fry
in
1903,
while
a
hatchery
on
the
Methow
River
produced
primarily
coho
salmon,
but
a
few
chinook
salmon
were
released
as
well
before
it
was
closed
in
1913
(
Craig
and
Suomela
1941,
Nelson
and
Bodle
1990).
The
Leavenworth
State
Hatchery
operated
in
the
Wenatchee
River
Basin
between
1913
and
1931.
Eggs
were
procured
from
the
Willamette
River
(
spring­
run
chinook
salmon),
and
from
the
Chinook
Hatchery
on
the
lower
Columbia
River
(
probably
"
tule"
fall­
run
chinook
salmon),
apparently
due
to
difficulties
associated
with
collecting
native
stocks.
In
1915,
a
hatchery
at
Pateros
in
the
Methow
River
Basin
released
chinook
salmon
of
lower
river
origin,
but
Craig
and
Suomela
(
1941)
concluded
that
these
fish
probably
were
not
able
to
successfully
return
to
the
Methow
River
.
Between
1931
and
1939,
no
chinook
salmon
hatcheries
were
in
operation
above
Rock
Island
Dam.
Chinook
salmon
were
released
from
the
county
trout
hatchery
at
Kittitas,
Washington
from
about
1923
to
1931.
There
is
no
record
of
any
eggs
being
collected
at
this
site,
but
approximately
6,500,000
171
chinook
salmon
fry
(
most
likely
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Kalama
River
Hatchery)
were
released
into
the
Yakima
River
Basin
(
WDF
1934).

The
construction
of
Grand
Coulee
Dam
(
1941,
RKm
959)
prevented
thousands
of
adult
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
reaching
their
natal
streams.
In
an
effort
to
mitigate
the
loss
of
spawning
habitat
above
the
dam,
the
Grand
Coulee
Fish
Maintenance
Project
(
GCFMP)
was
authorized
by
the
federal
government.
The
GCFMP
sought
to
relocate
all
chinook
salmon
migrating
past
Rock
Island
Dam
(
RKm
730)
into
three
of
the
remaining
accessible
tributaries
to
the
Columbia
River:
the
Wenatchee,
Entiat,
and
Methow
Rivers.
As
a
part
of
this
relocation,
efforts
were
made
to
improve
salmonid
habitat
(
primarily
through
the
screening
of
irrigation
systems)
and
to
increase
run
sizes
through
artificial
propagation
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).
Several
hatchery
sites
were
designated
as
part
of
the
GCFMP;
the
primary
site
on
Icicle
Creek,
a
tributary
to
the
Wenatchee
River,
would
later
become
the
Leavenworth
NFH
(
1940).
Secondary
substations
were
to
be
located
on
the
Entiat
(
Entiat
NFH,
1941),
Methow
(
Winthrop
NFH,
1941),
and
Okanogan
Rivers.
The
hatchery
on
the
Okanogan
River
was
never
developed
due
to
the
lack
of
a
suitable
site
and
wartime
building
restrictions
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).

In
1938,
the
last
salmon
was
allowed
to
pass
upstream
through
the
uncompleted
Grand
Coulee
Dam.
The
trapping
of
adult
salmon
at
Rock
Island
Dam
began
in
May
1939
and
continued
until
the
autumn
of
1943.
Spring­
and
summer/
fall­
run
fish
were
differentiated
according
to
the
time
of
their
arrival
at
Rock
Island
Dam.
A
separation
date
of
9
July
was
established,
based
on
weekly
counts
observed
during
1933­
38
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).
However,
Mullan
(
1987)
estimated
that
23
June
was
a
more
accurate
discriminator
between
the
two
run
times.
It
is
likely
that
some
summer­
run
fish
were
misidentified
as
belonging
to
the
spring
run.
The
GCFMP
combined
all
late­
run
fish
passing
Rock
Island
Dam,
including
those
destined
for
now­
inaccessible
spawning
areas
in
Washington
and
British
Columbia
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).
Offspring
of
these
adults
were
reared
at
the
newly
constructed
Leavenworth,
Entiat,
and
Winthrop
NFHs,
and
transplanted
into
the
Wenatchee,
Methow,
and
Entiat
Rivers
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).
Furthermore,
a
number
of
late­
run
adults
were
transported
to
Nason
Creek,
a
tributary
to
the
Wenatchee
River,
and
the
Entiat
River
and
allowed
to
spawn
naturally.

The
only
tributary
above
Rock
Island
Dam
that
did
not
receive
spawning
adults
or
mixedstock
hatchery
juveniles
during
the
5­
year
GCFMP
was
the
Okanogan
River
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948,
Mullan
et
al.
1992).
Chinook
salmon
adults
destined
for
the
Okanogan
River
from
1939
to
1943
were
intercepted
and
included
in
the
GCFMP
mitigation
efforts.
With
the
exception
of
possibly
a
very
small
number
of
6­
year­
old
chinook
salmon,
native
Okanogan
River
fish
were
eliminated
or
absorbed
into
other
populations.
The
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
now
observed
in
the
Okanogan
River
are
likely
strays
originating
from
other
tributaries
or
from
the
mainstem
Columbia
River
(
Mullan
1987).

Spawning
channels
were
constructed
near
Wells,
Rocky
Reach,
and
Priest
Rapids
Dams
in
the
mid­
1960s
and
continued
operations
for
several
years,
but
were
eventually
abandoned
due
to
high
pre­
spawning
mortality
and
overall
poor
production
of
returning
adults;
these
facilities
were
172
converted
to
conventional
hatcheries
and
are
currently
in
operation
near
these
sites
(
Nelson
and
Bodel
1990).
In
addition,
several
acclimation
ponds
are
now
being
used
as
a
part
of
recent
management
changes
to
develop
local
stocks
for
Columbia
River
tributaries
above
Priest
Rapids
Dam
(
Chapman
et
al
1994).

Ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
have
been
mixed
considerably
over
the
past
five
decades,
not
only
among
stocks,
but
among
putative
"
runs"
as
well.
This
mixing
was
due
to
the
variety
of
methods
employed
to
collect
broodstock
at
dams,
hatcheries,
or
other
areas
and
as
a
result
of
juvenile
introductions
into
various
areas
(
reviewed
in
Chapman
et
al.
1994).
Recoveries
of
coded­
wire­
tagged
adults
derived
from
juvenile
releases
in
the
late
1970s
and
1980s
have
indicated
that
wild
and
hatchery
summer­
run
fish
originating
from
above
Rock
Island
Dam
have
spawned
extensively
with
fall­
run
fish
originating
from
the
Hanford
Reach
and
Priest
Rapids
Hatchery
(
Chapman
et
al.
1994).
Similarly,
a
recent
study
of
radio­
tagged
chinook
salmon
found
that
10%
of
summer­
run
fish
were
distributed
in
the
mainstem
upper
Columbia
River
(
typically
considered
fall­
run
spawning
habitat),
while
about
25%
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
(
released
from
below
the
Priest
Rapids
Dam)
were
recovered
as
summer­
run
fish
at
Wells
Hatchery
and
in
the
Okanogan
River
(
Stuehrenberg
et
al.
1995).
The
possibility
that
substantial
genetic
exchange
has
taken
place
between
chinook
salmon
populations
above
and
below
Rock
Island
Dam
was
hypothesized
nearly
50
years
ago
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).
Marshall
et
al.
(
1995)
and
Waknitz
et
al.
(
1995)
reported
that,
partly
as
a
result
of
hatchery
practices,
the
genetic
difference
between
summer­
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
was
"
relatively
small"
and
"
essentially
zero,"
respectively.
Modifications
in
hatchery
protocols
and
facilities
in
order
to
maintain
discrete
hatchery
stocks
have
only
recently
been
initiated
(
Utter
et
al.
1995).

There
are
currently
no
hatchery
facilities
on
the
Yakima
River
for
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon;
however,
the
Yakima
River
has
been
heavily
stocked
with
"
upriver
bright"
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
since
1980
(
Appendix
D).
These
transplanted
stocks
are
reported
to
stray
at
substantial
rates
(
Busack
1990,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Similarities
in
the
genetic
composition
among
Yakima
River,
Hanford
Reach,
and
Priest
Rapids
Hatchery
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995,
Waknitz
et
al.
1995)
are
thought
to
reflect
the
impact
of
hatchery
releases
of
Hanford
Reach/
Priest
Rapids
fish
on
Yakima
River
chinook
salmon
(
Busack
et
al.
1991).
An
average
of
1
million
"
upriver
bright"
chinook
salmon
(
none
of
which
were
derived
from
Yakima
River
returning
adults)
were
released
annually
into
the
Yakima
River
Basin
between
1980
and
1994
(
Appendix
D).
In
addition,
strays
from
other
programs,
primarily
the
Umatilla
River
restoration
effort,
have
been
observed
in
the
Yakima
River
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
State
and
tribal
management
agencies
have
designated
the
Yakima
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
as
of
"
unknown
origin"
and
composite
(
mixed
hatchery­
derived
and
natural)
production
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
There
have
been
a
limited
number
of
unsuccessful
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
introductions
into
the
Yakima
River
as
part
of
an
effort
to
restore
the
early
part
of
the
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
run
(
Appendix
D).
173
Hatchery
efforts
with
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
have
been
continuous
and
intensive
since
the
implementation
of
the
GCFMP,
with
numerous
hatcheries
constructed
beginning
in
1941
(
Waknitz
et
al.
1995).
From
1941
to
the
present,
over
200
million
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
have
been
released
into
ESU
12
as
either
0­
age
or
yearling
fish
(
Table
6).
The
percentage
of
non­
indigenous
stocks
incorporated
into
this
ESU
has
been
low
(
about
3%),
and
does
not
appear
to
have
had
a
significant
impact
on
the
integrity
of
this
ESU
(
Chapman
et
al.
1995,
Waknitz
et
al.
1995).
However,
the
scale
of
hatchery
chinook
salmon
elsewhere
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
may
pose
risks
for
populations
within
this
ESU.
For
example,
as
a
result
of
large
releases
of
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
in
the
mainstem
Columbia
River
and
in
the
Yakima
River
in
recent
years,
a
substantial
portion
(
approximately
50%)
of
the
adults
returning
to
ESU
12
appear
to
be
of
hatchery
origin
(
Miller
et
al.
1990).

13)
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
Early
attempts
to
establish
hatcheries
on
the
Columbia
River
above
the
confluence
of
the
Yakima
River
were
generally
unsuccessful.
Beginning
in
1899
with
the
construction
of
a
fish
hatchery
on
the
Wenatchee
River
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Game,
hatcheries
were
constructed
and
subsequently
abandoned
on
the
Colville,
Little
Spokane,
and
Methow
Rivers.
Hatchery
records
indicate
that
relatively
few
chinook
salmon
were
spawned
(
Craig
and
Suomela
1941).
Attempts
to
improve
the
spring
chinook
salmon
run
with
imported
eggs
(
most
notably
from
the
upper
Willamette
River)
were
also
apparently
unsuccessful
(
Craig
and
Suomela
1941).
By
the
1930s,
hatchery
propagation
of
spring­
run
fish
on
the
upper
Columbia
River
had
been
terminated
(
WDF
1934).

The
objectives
and
jurisdiction
of
the
GCFMP
are
described
in
the
previous
ESU
section.
Adults
collected
for
the
GCFMP
at
Rock
Island
Dam
were
either
transported
to
Nason
Creek
on
the
Wenatchee
River
to
spawn
naturally
(
1939­
43),
or
to
Leavenworth
NFH
for
holding
and
subsequent
spawning
(
1940­
43).
Over
the
course
of
4
years,
Nason
Creek
received
10,578
adult
fish,
of
which
an
estimated
63.6%
spawned
successfully
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).
Beginning
in
1940,
some
of
the
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
trapped
at
Rock
Island
Dam
were
spawned
at
the
Leavenworth
NFH.
Eggs
were
incubated
on
site
or
transferred
to
the
Entiat
and
Winthrop
NFH.
Almost
4
million
fry
and
fingerlings
were
produced
from
adults
collected
at
Rock
Island
Dam
and
subsequently
released
into
the
Wenatchee,
Entiat,
and
Methow
Rivers
between
1940
and
1944
(
Mullan
1987).
In
1944,
salmon
were
allowed
to
freely
pass
Rock
Island
Dam.
In
1944
and
1945,
a
small
number
of
spring­
run
adults
returned
to
the
Leavenworth
and
Winthrop
NFHs;
however,
counts
of
fish
migrating
past
Rock
Island
Dam
indicated
that
a
substantial
number
of
fish
probably
spawned
in
the
upriver
tributaries
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).

Artificial
propagation
efforts
at
Leavenworth
NFH
and
Entiat
NFH
focused
on
the
production
of
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
and
other
salmonids
after
1943.
In
contrast,
the
culture
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
using
local
stocks
continued
at
the
Winthrop
NFH
through
1961.
In
the
mid­
1970s,
there
was
a
renewed
effort
to
emphasize
the
production
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
at
the
three
NFHs.
In
addition
to
the
use
of
local
stocks,
there
were
large
174
transfers
of
spring­
run
stocks
from
non­
local
sources:
Carson
NFH
(
Carson
NFH
stock),
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
(
Carson
NFH
stock),
Klickitat
WDFW
hatchery
(
Klickitat
River
stock),
and
Cowlitz
WDFW
hatchery
(
Cowlitz
River
stock).
In
the
early
1980s,
imports
of
non­
native
eggs
were
reduced
significantly,
and
thereafter
the
Leavenworth,
Entiat,
and
Winthrop
NFHs
have
relied
on
adults
returning
to
their
facilities
for
their
egg
needs
(
Chapman
et
al.
1995).
Despite
the
current
use
of
"
local"
fish
in
these
hatcheries,
a
considerable
amount
of
genetic
introgression
has
probably
occurred.
Leavenworth,
Entiat,
and
Winthrop
NFH
stocks
are
considered
non­
native
(
WDF
et
al.
1993),
primarily
derived
from
Carson
NFH
stocks
(
Hymer
et
al
1992b,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
The
current
impact
of
hatchery
fish
on
naturally
spawning
populations,
especially
those
upriver
from
hatchery
locations,
appears
to
be
slight,
based
on
CWT
recoveries
from
carcasses
on
the
spawning
grounds
(
Chapman
et
al.
1995).

Hatchery
operations
at
the
three
NFHs
in
this
ESU
have
been
hampered
by
disease
outbreaks,
primarily
BKD
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Mullan
et
al.
1992,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995),
which
has
been
suggested
as
one
of
the
causes
of
the
generally
low
return
rates
observed
for
releases
from
these
hatcheries
(
Mullan
1987,
Chapman
et
al.
1995).

There
are
currently
two
hatcheries
in
this
ESU
operated
by
WDFW.
The
Methow
Fish
Hatchery
Complex
(
MFHC,
1992)
and
Rock
Island
Fish
Hatchery
Complex
(
RIFHC,
1989)
were
both
designed
to
implement
supplementation
programs
for
naturally­
spawning
populations
on
the
Methow
and
Wenatchee
Rivers,
respectively
(
Chapman
et
al.
1995).
The
RIFHC
uses
broodstock
collected
at
a
weir
on
the
Chiwawa
River.
Bugert
(
1998)
discusses
some
of
the
difficulties
these
programs
have
experienced.
Similarly,
the
MFHC
uses
returning
adults
collected
at
weirs
on
the
Methow
River
and
its
tributaries,
the
Twisp
and
Chewuch
Rivers
(
Chapman
et
al.
1995,
Bugert
1998).
Progeny
produced
from
these
programs
are
reared
at
and
released
from
satellite
sites
on
the
tributaries
where
the
adults
were
collected.
Numerous
other
facilities
have
reared
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
but
on
an
intermittent
basis.

14)
Snake
River
Fall­
Run
ESU
In
contrast
to
the
lower
and
upper
Columbia
River,
there
was
little
effort
directed
toward
the
propagation
of
Snake
River
anadromous
salmonids
from
the
turn
of
the
century
through
the
1960s,
although
a
facility
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
released
an
unknown
number
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
between
1903
and
1907
(
Howell
et
al.
1985).
Early
artificial
propagation
programs
for
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Snake
River
were
of
limited
scale
and
had
little
effect
prior
to
1976
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Waples
et
al.
1991b).
Releases
of
marked
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
(
acquired
from
the
Little
White
Salmon
NFH)
into
the
Salmon
River
in
the
1920s
did
not
result
in
any
observed
return
of
adults
(
Rich
and
Holmes
1928).
In
the
early
1960s,
eyed
eggs
from
Snake
River
stocks
were
released
above
and
below
dams
in
the
upper
Snake
River,
but
these
efforts
were
apparently
unsuccessful
(
Waples
et
al.
1991b).

In
1964,
the
Idaho
Power
Company
was
required
to
construct
the
Oxbow
Hatchery
below
Oxbow
Dam
to
mitigate
the
effects
of
the
dam
on
fish
returning
to
that
section
of
the
Snake
River
175
(
Wahle
and
Smith
1979).
Several
million
juveniles
were
released
in
the
upper
Snake
River
and
in
reservoirs
above
Oxbow
Dam,
but
few
returns
were
observed
and
the
program
was
abandoned
shortly
thereafter.
From
1955
to
the
present,
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
juveniles
have
been
released
in
reservoirs,
apparently
to
provide
sport
fishing
opportunities
(
Appendix
D).

In
1960
and
1970,
eyed
eggs
and
juveniles,
respectively,
from
the
Spring
Creek
NFH
were
introduced
into
the
Clearwater
River
Basin,
but
these
efforts
produced
limited
numbers
of
returning
adults
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Waples
et
al.
1991b).
From
1960
to
1967,
between
0.4
and
1.6
million
eggs
were
collected
annually
at
Oxbow
Dam
and
transferred
to
the
Clearwater
River,
but
probably
did
not
contribute
many
returning
adults
to
the
system
(
Waples
et
al.
1991b).
Egg
transfers
to
the
Clearwater
River
were
terminated
in
1968.

Hatchery
efforts
to
mitigate
the
effects
of
dam
construction
on
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
Snake
River
Basin
increased
after
the
initiation
of
the
Lower
Snake
River
Compensation
Plan
(
LSRCP)
in
1976
(
Mathews
and
Waples
1991).
This
program
included
the
development
of
an
egg
bank
program
to
ensure
the
genetic
integrity
of
Snake
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
prior
to
the
construction
of
propagation
facilities
dedicated
to
the
compensation
plan
(
Bugert
and
Hopley
1989,
Nelson
and
Bodle
1990).
This
program
involved,
in
part,
the
release
of
Snake
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Kalama
Falls
Hatchery
(
WDFW)
on
the
Kalama
River,
with
additional
egg
incubation
and
early
rearing
being
undertaken
at
the
Hagerman
NFH
in
Idaho
(
Waples
et
al.
1991b).
As
many
as
1,500
adult
Snake
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
returned
annually
to
the
Kalama
Falls
Hatchery
or
Ice
Harbor
Dam
from
1981
to
1986
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Waples
et
al.
1991b).

Broodstock
operations
were
transferred
to
the
WDFW
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery
when
it
began
operations
in
1984
(
Delarm
and
Smith
1990d,
Waples
et
al.
1991b).
The
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery
broodstock
was
derived
from
the
Kalama
Falls
egg
bank
program
and
fish
collected
at
Ice
Harbor
and
Lower
Granite
Dams
(
Chapman
et
al.
1991).
As
a
result
of
low
numbers
of
naturally
produced
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
and
an
increasing
number
of
hatchery­
produced
fish,
the
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon
run
was
thought
to
be
a
composite
of
hatchery­
and
naturally
produced
fish
by
the
mid­
1980s
(
Howell
et
al.
1985).
There
are
concerns
that
hatchery
fish
may
now
comprise
a
disproportionate
number
of
naturally
spawning
fish
throughout
the
Snake
River
Basin
(
ODFW
1991).
Tagged
fish
from
the
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery
have
been
recovered
from
the
mainstem
Snake
River
and
the
Tucannon
River
(
Nelson
and
Bodle
1990,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
Between
7%
and
67%
(
mean
38%)
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
passing
over
Lower
Granite
Dam
have
been
first­
generation
hatchery
fish
(
ODFW
1991).
In
addition,
strays
from
the
upper
Columbia
River
Basin
have
recently
been
observed
in
substantial
numbers
(
4%
to
39%)
at
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery,
Lower
Granite
Dam,
and
on
the
spawning
grounds
(
Waples
et
al.
1991b,
Garcia
et
al.
1996,
Mendel
et
al.
1996).
There
have
not
been
any
hatchery
programs
for
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
on
the
Oregon
side
of
the
lower
Snake
River,
although
strays
of
mixed
ancestry
from
the
reintroduction
program
on
the
Umatilla
River
(
Columbia
River
tributary)
have
been
observed
in
the
Snake
River
since
the
late
1980s
(
Chapman
et
al.
1991,
Mendel
et
al.
1996).
All
Umatilla
River
hatchery
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
are
now
being
marked
so
they
can
be
intercepted
at
the
176
Snake
River
dams
(
Kostow
1995).
Overall,
with
a
few
minor
exceptions,
native
stocks
have
been
used
in
Snake
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
hatchery
programs
(
Table
6).

ODFW
has
also
never
had
a
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
hatchery
on
the
Deschutes
River
(
Kostow
1995).
Small
numbers
of
locally­
derived
and
non­
native
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
were
released
into
the
Deschutes
River
up
to
the
late
1970s;
however,
the
success
of
these
introductions
is
believed
to
have
been
very
low
(
Howell
et
al.
1985).
A
limited
number
of
strays
from
hatcheries
on
other
rivers
have
been
observed
on
the
Deschutes
River
spawning
grounds
(
Kostow
1995).

15)
Snake
River
Spring­
and
Summer­
Run
ESU
Artificial
propagation
efforts
did
not
occur
in
ESU
15
as
early
as
in
other
regions,
nor
in
the
same
magnitude.
From
1921
to
1934,
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Fisheries
Commission
operated
a
hatchery
at
Salmon,
Idaho.
Eggs
were
collected
from
spring­
and
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
adults
returning
to
the
Lemhi
and
Pahsimeroi
Rivers
and
the
Yankee
Fork
of
the
Salmon
River
(
Bowles
and
Leitzinger
1991).
In
all,
26,483,000
eggs
were
collected
from
local
sources,
incubated,
and
the
progeny
released
into
local
waters.
An
additional
9,720,000
eggs
were
transferred
to
the
Salmon
River
Hatchery
(
Idaho)
substation
from
outside
sources
(
7,720,000
from
the
McKenzie
River
and
2,000,000
eggs
from
the
Little
White
Salmon
NFH).
The
majority
of
juvenile
fish
were
released
as
fingerlings.
Following
the
1934
broodyear,
the
Salmon
hatchery
was
primarily
devoted
to
trout
production
(
Wahle
and
Smith
1979).
Overall,
stock
transfers
into
the
Snake
River
Basin
were
minimal
prior
to
the
mid­
1900s
(
Matthews
and
Waples
1991).

Currently,
the
major
spring­
and
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
propagation
facilities
(
satellite
facilities
or
adult
collection
weirs
in
parentheses)
operating
in
the
Snake
River
Basin
area
are:
WDFW's
Tucannon
and
Lyons
Ferry
Hatcheries;
ODFW's
Lookingglass
and
Wallowa
(
Big
Canyon)
Hatcheries;
IDFG's
Sawtooth
(
East
Fork
Salmon
River),
McCall,
and
Clearwater
(
Powell,
Red
River)
Hatcheries;
IPC's
Rapid
River
and
Pahsimeroi
Hatcheries;
and
USFWS's
Dworshak
and
Kooskia
Hatcheries
(
Delarm
and
Smith
1990b).
Stocks
used
in
most
ESU
15
hatcheries
were
derived
from
mixtures
of
non­
indigenous
stocks,
or
from
a
mix
of
non­
indigenous
and
native
stocks.
Among
the
fish
released
into
various
Snake
River
Basins,
there
have
been
introductions
from
the
Carson,
Little
White
Salmon
and
Leavenworth
NFHs,
various
Willamette
River
hatcheries,
and
the
Cowlitz
and
Klickitat
state
hatcheries
(
Matthews
and
Waples
1991).
The
Tucannon
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
used
at
the
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery,
the
Imnaha
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
(
reared
at
the
Lookingglass
Creek
Hatchery,
but
released
into
the
Imnaha
River),
and
the
Upper
Salmon
River
Sawtooth
Hatchery
spring­
run
stock
appear
to
have
had
minimal
influence
from
out­
of­
basin
stocks
(
Matthews
and
Waples
1991,
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
Additionally,
the
South
Fork
Salmon
River
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
reared
at
the
McCall
Hatchery
has
probably
had
minimal
influence
from
outside
sources
(
Matthews
and
Waples
1991,
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
177
Spring­
and
summer­
run
stocks
currently
in
the
Clearwater
River
Basin
are
not
part
of
this
ESU,
but
artificial
propagation
activities
for
the
basin
are
covered
here
because
of
their
potential
impact
on
the
ESU.
Native
runs
of
spring­
and
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
on
the
Clearwater
River
were
probably
eliminated
following
the
construction
of
the
Lewiston
Dam
(
1927)
on
the
lower
Clearwater
River
(
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
Modifications
in
the
fish
migration
facilities
at
the
dam
were
made
in
1940,
and
from
1947
to
1953
approximately
100,000
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
eggs
from
the
Middle
Fork
Salmon
River
were
introduced
annually
into
the
Little
North
Fork
of
the
Clearwater
River
(
Fulton
1968,
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
Spawning
channels
on
the
Selway
River
were
used
in
restoration
efforts
in
the
Clearwater
River
Basin.
From
1961
to
1985
nearly
50
million
eggs
from
the
Rapid
River
Hatchery,
Carson
NFH,
Spring
Creek
NFH,
and
the
Salmon
River
were
placed
into
various
rearing/
spawning
channels
(
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
The
success
of
these
transfers
is
unknown.
In
an
effort
to
mitigate
the
effects
of
the
construction
of
the
Dworshak
Dam,
the
Kooskia
and
Dworshak
NFHs
were
constructed
in
1967
and
1969,
respectively
(
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
Broodstock
for
these
hatcheries
came
primarily
from
the
Rapid
River
Hatchery,
with
significant
contributions
from
Carson­
stock
hatcheries
(
Leavenworth,
Little
White
Salmon,
and
Carson
NFHs)
and
Willamette
River
hatcheries.
Millions
of
fish
have
been
released
from
the
Dworshak
and
Kooskia
Hatcheries,
primarily
as
yearling
smolts.
More
recently,
these
facilities
have
utilized
adults
returning
to
the
hatcheries
or
satellite
collection
sites
to
supply
gametes
for
their
programs
(
Keifer
et
al.
1992).

Prior
to
1985,
the
Tucannon
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
population
was
maintained
entirely
by
natural
production
(
Howell
et
al.
1985).
A
limited
number
of
non­
native
fish
were
introduced
in
the
Tucannon
River
 
16,000
Klickitat
River
and
10,500
Willamette
River
springrun
chinook
salmon
in
1962
and
1964,
respectively.
Native
broodstock
were
used
to
establish
the
Tucannon
Hatchery
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
population,
although
the
number
of
fish
available
was
limited
(
the
total
adult
run
size
was
approximately
200
fish
during
the
early
1980s)
(
Howell
et
al.
1985).
The
absence
of
other
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
propagation
facilities
nearby
has
probably
limited
introgression
by
non­
native
stocks,
although
a
limited
number
of
CWT­
tagged
hatchery­
derived
fish
from
the
Umatilla
River
and
Grande
Ronde
River
(
Rapid
River
stock)
have
been
recovered
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995).

Spring­
run
chinook
salmon
hatchery
programs
were
established
in
Oregon
in
the
early
1980s
as
part
of
the
LSRCP
(
ODFW
1991).
The
founding
stocks
used
were
transferred
from
the
Carson
NFH,
and
from
the
IDFG
Rapid
River
Hatchery,
which
was
founded
from
a
mixture
of
Snake
River
populations
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
ODFW
1991).
The
Lookingglass
Creek
Hatchery
initially
utilized
stock
from
the
Carson
NFH
in
1982;
however,
adult
returns
were
so
poor
and
straying
rates
so
high
that
the
use
of
Carson
stock
was
discontinued
(
Chapman
et
al.
1991,
Kostow
1995).
Carson
NFH
juveniles
were
also
released
into
several
non­
hatchery
streams
and
the
returning
adults
may
have
interbred
with
native
fish
(
ODFW
1991).
Several
years
ago
it
was
suggested
that
the
hatchery
programs
"
may
be
impeding
the
recovery
of
the
wild
populations
in
streams
where
hatchery
facilities
are
located
or
where
hatchery
fish
have
been
outplanted"
(
ODFW
1991,
p.
14).
Rapid
River
stock
was
subsequently
imported
during
the
late
1980s
178
(
Olsen
et
al.
1992).
Beginning
in
1989,
returning
adults
(
originating
primarily
from
the
Rapid
River
introductions)
to
Lookingglass
Hatchery
have
provided
gametes
to
produce
subsequent
releases
(
Olsen
et
al.
1992,
Kostow
1995).
Native
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Lookingglass
Creek
are
now
thought
to
be
extinct,
and
the
location
of
current
releases
of
the
Lookingglass
Hatchery
stock
has
been
restricted
to
prevent
further
introgression
(
Kostow
1995,
Currens
et
al.
1996).
For
the
past
several
years,
stray
hatchery
fish
of
Rapid
River
stock
origin
have,
on
average,
represented
about
half
of
all
natural
spawners
throughout
the
Grande
Ronde
Basin
(
Crateau
1997).
By
contrast,
the
Imnaha
River
Acclimation
Pond
facility
(
1982)
has
collected
gametes
only
from
adults
returning
to
the
river,
although
the
eggs
have
been
incubated
and
juveniles
reared
at
the
Lookingglass
Hatchery
before
being
returned
to
the
Imnaha
site
(
Chapman
et
al.
1991,
Olsen
et
al.
1992).

Several
facilities
for
the
propagation
of
spring­
and
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
exist
in
the
Salmon
River
Basin.
The
Rapid
River
facility
(
1964)
was
constructed
to
mitigate
the
loss
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
spawning
habitats
resulting
from
the
construction
of
the
Hells
Canyon
Dam
complex
(
Howell
et
al.
1985).
Broodstock
were
collected
from
a
trap
at
the
Hells
Canyon
Dam
on
the
Snake
River
from
1964
to
1969,
and
thereafter
from
broodstock
returning
to
the
hatchery
weir
on
the
Rapid
River
(
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
Fish
from
the
Rapid
River
Hatchery
and
satellite
facilities
have
been
released
in
considerable
numbers
in
the
Rapid,
Salmon,
Snake,
Clearwater,
and
Grande
Ronde
Rivers
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
The
Sawtooth
Hatchery
and
satellite
facilities
(
1985)
on
the
Upper
Salmon
River
have
collected
native
returning
spring
chinook
salmon
for
broodstock
purposes
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Delarm
and
Smith
1990b,
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
Rapid
River
fish
were
introduced
into
nearby
watersheds
through
the
1980s
(
Keifer
et
al.
1992)
and
were
used
initially
at
the
Sawtooth
Hatchery.

Summer­
run
chinook
salmon
are
propagated
at
McCall
Hatchery
(
1980)
and
Pahsimeroi
Hatchery
(
1969)
(
Delarm
and
Smith
1990b).
The
McCall
Hatchery
broodstock
was
initially
collected
at
Little
Goose
and
Lower
Granite
Dams
and
contained
a
mixture
of
Snake
River
summer­
run
stocks,
with
a
lesser
contribution
by
Snake
River
spring­
run
stocks
(
Chapman
et
al.
1991).
Since
1981,
a
satellite
facility
on
the
South
Fork
Salmon
River
has
collected
adults
(
which
consisted
of
returning
McCall
Hatchery
releases
and
summer­
run
fish
native
to
the
South
Fork
Salmon
River)
to
be
used
as
broodstock
for
the
McCall
Hatchery
(
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
The
McCall
Hatchery
has
been
responsible
for
the
majority
of
the
11
million
juvenile
summer
chinook
salmon
released
into
the
South
Fork
Salmon
River
(
Appendix
D).
The
Pahsimeroi
Hatchery
broodstock
was
founded
with
native
summer­
run
fish
returning
to
the
Pahsimeroi
River
(
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
However,
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
South
Fork
Salmon
River
(
McCall
Hatchery)
were
introduced
into
the
Pahsimeroi
River
during
1985­
90,
and
may
have
been
integrated
into
the
Pahsimeroi
Hatchery
broodstock
(
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
Spring­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Rapid
River
Hatchery
stock)
were
also
reared
and
released
at
the
Pahsimeroi
Hatchery
for
a
limited
time
during
the
1980s.
179
The
Carson
NFH
stock
has
had
a
poor
history
in
the
Snake
River
Basin,
not
only
for
stock
restoration,
but
also
when
used
as
a
hatchery
stock
to
increase
harvest
opportunities.
Abundance
in
streams
receiving
Carson
NFH
fish
is
less
than
or
no
different
than
unenhanced
streams
(
Chapman
et
al.
1991).