Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0068-0043
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-09-22T04:00Z

180
ASSESSMENT
OF
EXTINCTION
RISK
Background
The
U.
S.
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA)
(
Section
3)
defines
the
term
"
endangered
species"
as
"
any
species
which
is
in
danger
of
extinction
throughout
all
or
a
significant
portion
of
its
range."
The
term
"
threatened
species"
is
defined
as
"
any
species
which
is
likely
to
become
an
endangered
species
within
the
foreseeable
future
throughout
all
or
a
significant
portion
of
its
range."
NMFS
considers
a
variety
of
information
in
evaluating
the
level
of
risk
faced
by
an
ESU.
Important
considerations
include
1)
absolute
numbers
of
fish
and
their
spatial
and
temporal
distribution;
2)
current
abundance
in
relation
to
historical
abundance
and
carrying
capacity
of
the
habitat;
3)
trends
in
abundance,
based
on
indices
such
as
dam
or
redd
counts
or
on
estimates
of
spawner­
recruit
ratios;
4)
natural
and
human­
influenced
factors
that
cause
variability
in
survival
and
abundance;
5)
possible
threats
to
genetic
integrity
(
e.
g.,
selective
fisheries
and
interactions
between
hatchery
and
natural
fish);
and
6)
recent
events
(
e.
g.,
a
drought
or
a
change
in
management)
that
have
predictable
short­
term
consequences
for
abundance
of
the
ESU.
Additional
risk
factors,
such
as
disease
prevalence
or
changes
in
life­
history
traits,
may
also
be
considered
in
evaluating
risk
to
populations.

According
to
the
ESA,
the
determination
of
whether
a
species
is
threatened
or
endangered
should
be
made
on
the
basis
of
the
best
scientific
information
available
regarding
its
current
status,
after
taking
into
consideration
conservation
measures
that
are
proposed
or
are
in
place.
In
this
review,
we
did
not
evaluate
likely
or
possible
effects
of
conservation
measures.
Therefore,
we
do
not
make
recommendations
as
to
whether
identified
ESUs
should
be
listed
as
threatened
or
endangered
species,
because
that
determination
requires
evaluation
of
factors
not
considered
by
us.
Rather,
we
have
drawn
scientific
conclusions
about
the
risk
of
extinction
faced
by
identified
ESUs
under
the
assumption
that
present
conditions
will
continue
(
recognizing,
of
course,
that
natural
demographic
and
environmental
variability
is
an
inherent
feature
of
"
present
conditions").
Conservation
measures
will
be
taken
into
account
by
the
NMFS
Northwest
and
Southwest
Regional
Offices
in
making
listing
recommendations.
Also,
as
noted
in
the
"
Introduction"
above,
this
review
does
not
attempt
to
fully
evaluate
causal
factors
leading
to
the
present
status
of
chinook
salmon,
nor
to
rank
the
importance
of
such
factors.
In
this
report,
such
factors
are
considered
only
to
the
extent
that
they
contribute
to
an
evaluation
of
risk
presently
facing
these
stocks.
A
separate
document
identifies
factors
for
decline
of
chinook
salmon
from
Washington,
Oregon,
California,
and
Idaho,
and
is
prepared
subsequent
to
any
proposed
listing
recommendation.

Aspects
of
several
of
these
risk
considerations
are
common
to
all
chinook
salmon
ESUs.
These
are
discussed
in
general
below;
more
specific
discussion
of
factors
for
each
of
the
15
ESUs
under
consideration
here
can
be
found
in
the
following
sections.
Status
reviews
have
previously
181
been
conducted
for
some
of
the
ESUs
identified.
Reevaluation
of
the
risk
faced
by
these
ESUs
was
limited.

Absolute
Numbers
The
absolute
number
of
individuals
in
a
population
is
important
in
assessing
two
aspects
of
extinction
risk.
For
small
populations
that
are
stable
or
increasing,
population
size
can
be
an
indicator
of
whether
the
population
can
sustain
itself
into
the
future
in
the
face
of
environmental
fluctuations
and
small­
population
stochasticity;
this
aspect
is
related
to
the
concept
of
minimum
viable
populations
(
MVP)
(
Gilpin
and
Soulé
1986,
Thompson
1991).
For
a
declining
population,
the
present
abundance
is
an
indicator
of
the
expected
time
until
the
population
reaches
critically
low
numbers;
this
aspect
is
related
to
the
concept
of
"
driven
extinction"
(
Caughley
1994).
In
addition
to
total
numbers,
the
spatial
and
temporal
distribution
of
adults
is
important
in
assessing
risk
to
an
ESU.
Spatial
distribution
is
important
both
at
the
scale
of
river
basins
within
an
ESU
and
at
the
scale
of
spawning
areas
within
basins
("
metapopulation"
structure).
Temporal
distribution
is
important
both
among
years
as
an
indicator
of
the
relative
health
of
different
broodyear
lineages
and
within
seasons
as
an
indicator
of
the
relative
abundance
of
different
life­
history
types
or
runs.

Traditionally,
assessment
of
salmonid
populations
has
focused
on
the
number
of
harvestable
and/
or
reproductive
adults,
and
these
measures
comprise
most
of
the
data
available
for
Pacific
salmon
and
steelhead.
In
assessing
the
future
status
of
a
population,
the
number
of
reproductive
adults
is
the
most
important
measure
of
abundance,
and
we
focus
here
on
measures
of
the
number
of
adults
escaping
to
spawn
in
natural
habitat.
However,
total
run
size
(
spawning
escapement
+
harvest)
is
also
of
interest
because
it
indicates
potential
spawning
in
the
absence
of
harvest.
Data
on
other
life­
history
stages
(
e.
g.,
freshwater
smolt
production)
can
be
used
as
a
supplemental
indicator
of
abundance.

Because
the
ESA
(
and
NMFS
policy)
mandates
that
we
focus
on
viability
of
natural
populations,
we
attempted
to
distinguish
natural
fish
from
hatchery­
produced
fish
in
this
review.
All
statistics
are
based
on
data
that
indicate
total
numbers
or
density
of
adults
that
spawn
in
natural
habitat
("
naturally
spawning
fish").
The
total
of
all
naturally
spawning
fish
("
total
escapement")
is
divided
into
two
components
(
Fig.
28):
"
hatchery
produced"
fish
are
reared
as
juveniles
in
a
hatchery
but
return
as
adults
to
spawn
naturally;
and
"
natural"
fish
are
progeny
of
naturally
spawning
fish.
This
approach
does
not
distinguish
natural
fish
of
hatchery
heritage
from
those
of
strictly
native,
natural
origin.
Although,
such
a
distinction
would
be
useful,
in
our
experience
there
is
rarely
information
available
on
which
to
make
such
a
distinction.
To
the
extent
that
stocking
records
and/
or
hatchery
practices
shed
light
on
this
distinction,
that
information
is
taken
into
account
in
considering
genetic
integrity
of
the
population
(
discussed
below).
182
Figure
28.
Schematic
diagram
of
mixing
of
naturally
(
N)
and
hatchery­
(
H)
produced
fish
in
natural
habitat.
Ovals
represent
the
total
spawning
in
natural
habitat
each
generation.
This
total
is
composed
of
naturally
produced
and
hatchery­
produced
offspring
of
individuals
in
the
previous
generation.
183
Historical
Abundance
and
Carrying
Capacity
Knowing
the
relationship
of
present
abundance
to
present
carrying
capacity
is
important
for
evaluating
the
health
of
populations;
but
the
fact
that
a
population
is
near
its
current
capacity
does
not
necessarily
signify
full
health.
A
population
near
capacity
implies
that
short­
term
management
may
not
be
able
to
increase
fish
abundance.
This
also
implies
that
competition
and
other
interactions
between
hatchery
and
natural
fish
may
be
an
important
consideration
for
increasing
the
abundance
of
naturally
spawning
populations,
because
releases
of
hatchery
fish
may
further
increase
population
density
in
a
limited
habitat.

The
relationship
of
current
abundance
and
habitat
capacity
to
historical
levels
is
an
important
consideration
in
evaluating
risk.
Knowledge
of
historical
population
conditions
provides
a
perspective
for
understanding
the
conditions
under
which
present
populations
evolved.
Historical
abundance
also
provides
the
basis
for
scaling
long­
term
trends
in
populations.
Comparison
of
present
and
past
habitat
capacity
can
also
indicate
long­
term
population
trends
and
problems
of
population
fragmentation.

In
this
review,
application
of
these
principles
was
limited
by
lack
of
reliable
estimates
of
historic
abundance
and
historic
or
current
capacity
for
most
chinook
salmon
populations.

Trends
in
Abundance
Short­
and
long­
term
trends
in
abundance
are
a
primary
indicator
of
risk
in
salmonid
populations.
Trends
may
be
calculated
from
a
variety
of
quantitative
data,
including
dam
or
weir
counts,
stream
surveys,
and
catch
data.
Regular
sampling,
of
one
kind
or
another,
has
been
conducted
on
chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
larger
basins
within
the
reviewed
area.
These
data
sources
and
methods
are
discussed
in
more
detail
below,
under
"
Approach."
Interpretation
of
trends
in
terms
of
population
sustainability
is
difficult
for
a
variety
of
reasons:
First,
chinook
salmon
are
harvested
in
heavily
managed
fisheries,
and
shifting
harvest
goals
directly
affect
trends
in
spawning
escapement.
Second,
environmental
fluctuations
on
short
timescales
affect
trend
estimates,
especially
for
shorter
trends;
this
is
a
particular
problem
in
this
review
because
numerous
abundance
data
series
began
in
the
mid­
1980s,
a
period
of
relatively
high
chinook
salmon
abundance
throughout
much
of
the
West
Coast.
Third,
artificial
propagation
has
a
strong
influence
on
trends
of
many
chinook
salmon
populations.

Naturally­
spawning
hatchery
fish
Waples
(
1991a,
b)
and
Hard
et
al.
(
1992)
discussed
the
role
of
artificial
propagation
in
ESU
determination
and
emphasized
the
need
to
focus
on
natural
production
in
the
threatened
or
endangered
status
determination.
Because
of
the
ESA's
emphasis
on
ecosystem
conservation,
this
analysis
focuses
on
naturally
reproducing
fish.
An
important
question
in
evaluating
risk
is
184
thus:
Is
natural
production
sufficient
to
maintain
the
population
without
the
constant
infusion
of
artificially
produced
fish?
A
full
answer
to
this
question
is
difficult
without
extensive
studies
of
relative
production
and
interactions
between
hatchery
and
natural
fish.
When
such
information
is
lacking,
the
presence
of
hatchery
fish
in
natural
populations
leads
to
substantial
uncertainty
in
evaluating
the
status
of
the
natural
population.
One
method
of
approaching
this
issue
involves
calculating
the
natural
cohort
replacement
ratio,
defined
as
the
number
of
naturally
spawning
adults
that
are
naturally
produced
in
one
generation
divided
by
the
number
of
naturally
spawning
adults
(
regardless
of
parentage)
in
the
previous
generation.
Data
for
chinook
salmon
are
rarely
sufficient
for
this
calculation,
and
we
have
not
attempted
to
estimate
this
ratio
in
this
report.
However,
the
ratio
can
be
approximated
from
the
average
population
trend
if
the
degree
of
hatchery
contribution
to
natural
spawning
can
be
estimated.
Where
such
estimates
were
available,
the
presence
of
hatchery
fish
among
natural
spawners
was
taken
into
consideration
in
evaluating
the
sustainability
of
natural
production
for
individual
populations
in
this
review.

Habitat
A
major
determinant
of
trends
in
salmon
abundance
is
the
condition
of
the
freshwater,
estuarine,
and
ocean
habitats
on
which
salmon
depend.
While
we
rarely
have
sufficient
information
to
predict
the
population­
scale
effects
of
habitat
loss
or
degradation
with
any
precision,
it
is
clear
that
habitat
availability
imposes
an
upper
limit
on
the
production
of
salmon,
and
any
reduction
in
habitat
reduces
potential
production.
Even
in
areas
where
we
have
no
information
on
trends
in
population
abundance,
evidence
of
widespread
loss
of
habitat
can
indicate
a
serious
risk
for
sustainability
of
natural
populations.
The
National
Research
Council
Committee
on
Protection
and
Management
of
Pacific
Northwest
Anadromous
Salmonids
(
NRCC
1996)
identified
habitat
problems
as
a
primary
cause
of
declines
in
wild
salmon
runs.
NMFS
(
1996b)
identified
habitat
concerns
as
one
of
a
suite
of
factors
affecting
the
decline
of
salmon
occurring
within
the
range
of
West
Coast
steelhead.
Some
of
the
habitat
impacts
identified
were
the
fragmentation
and
loss
of
available
spawning
and
rearing
habitat,
alteration
of
streamflows
and
streambank
and
channel
morphology,
migration
delays,
degradation
of
water
quality,
alteration
of
ambient
stream
water
temperatures,
sedimentation,
loss
of
spawning
gravel,
pool
habitat
and
large
woody
debris,
removal
of
riparian
vegetation,
and
decline
of
habitat
complexity
(
CACSST
1988,
FEMAT
1993,
NMFS
1996b).
The
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council
(
PFMC
1995)
also
identified
loss
of
habitat
as
one
of
the
main
reasons
for
declines
in
salmon
stocks,
and
identified
fourteen
"
vital
habitat
concerns":
California's
Central
Valley
Water
Project,
San
Francisco
Bay
and
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
River
water
quality
standards,
Columbia­
Snake
River
hydropower
operations,
instream
flow,
unscreened
or
inadequately
screened
water
diversions,
inadequate
fish
passage
at
road
culverts,
water
spreading
(
unauthorized
use
of
federally
developed
water
supplies),
upland
land
use
practices
and
polluted
runoff,
fish
passage
at
existing
hydroelectric
projects,
agricultural
practices,
urban
growth
and
land
conversion,
contaminants
in
coastal
wetlands
and
estuaries,
offshore
oil
and
gas
development
and
transportation,
and
dredge
spoil
disposal.
Several
regional
reports
summarize
many
of
the
problems
related
to
habitat
for
chinook
salmon
(
for
example,
Bottom
et
al.
1985,
Reynolds
et
al.
1993,
Bishop
and
Morgan
1996).
There
are
numerous
other
studies
of
habitat
185
problems
in
local
areas,
many
of
which
are
cited
in
the
"
Analysis
of
Biological
Information"
below.
However,
a
full
evaluation
of
the
extent
to
which
habitat
conditions
or
other
factors
contribute
to
the
status
of
chinook
salmon
stocks,
and
identification
which
factors
that
are
most
important
contributors
to
risk,
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
review.

Assessing
the
effects
of
habitat
changes
on
future
sustainability
of
populations
is
difficult.
Human
populations
are
projected
to
continue
increasing
in
most
areas
of
the
West
Coast,
and
water
impoundments
and
diversions,
as
well
as
logging
and
agricultural
activities,
can
be
expected
to
continue
into
the
future
(
Gregory
and
Bisson
1997).
These
facts
indicate
that
there
will
be
some
continuing
losses
of
salmon
habitat
for
the
foreseeable
future.
By
contrast,
recent
changes
in
forest
and
agricultural
practices
and
improved
urban
planning
have
reduced
the
rate
of
habitat
loss
in
many
areas,
and
many
areas
are
recovering
from
severe
past
degradation.
Whether
natural
recovery
and
active
restoration
in
some
areas
will
compensate
for
continued
losses
in
other
areas
is
unknown.

Regional
perspective
Recent
trends
in
coastwide
chinook
salmon
abundance
provide
a
larger
perspective
for
this
review.
From
the
early
part
of
the
century
through
the
1980s,
coastwide
commercial
landings
of
chinook
salmon
have
declined
by
roughly
half,
but
this
may
reflect
changes
in
fisheries
as
much
as
declines
in
abundance.
In
the
early
part
of
the
century,
nearly
all
commercial
fisheries
in
this
region
operated
in
freshwater,
where
they
harvested
only
mature
salmon.
Most
recent
commercial
harvest
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
region
considered
in
this
review
occurs
in
saltwater
troll
fisheries,
where
immature
fish
are
harvested
at
smaller
sizes
than
mature
fish.
Over
the
same
period,
the
fraction
of
the
total
harvest
taken
by
recreational
fisheries
has
grown.
By
all
accounts,
however,
there
has
been
significant
replacement
of
natural
production
with
hatchery
fish.
Over
a
large
region
(
British
Columbia,
Washington,
Oregon,
California,
and
Idaho),
chinook
salmon
stocks
(
both
natural
and
hatchery)
have
exhibited
recent
decreases
in
survival
which
may
be
due
at
least
in
part
to
changes
in
climate
and
ocean
productivity.

Factors
Causing
Variability
Variation
in
production
and/
or
survival
is,
along
with
trend
and
abundance,
a
primary
determinant
of
demographic
extinction
risk.
Salmon
abundance
tends
to
be
highly
variable,
with
interannual
fluctuations
in
the
range
of
40­
70%
(
Bisson
et
al.
1997).
Variability
in
the
freshwater
and
marine
environments
is
thought
to
be
a
primary
factor
driving
fluctuations
in
salmonid
run­
size
and
escapement
(
Pearcy
1992,
Beamish
and
Bouillon
1993,
Lawson
1993).
Recent
changes
in
ocean
condition
are
discussed
below.
Because
salmon
have
evolved
and
are
adapted
to
variable
systems
(
Bisson
et
al.
1997),
variation
in
itself
is
not
an
indicator
of
risk
to
healthy
populations.
Habitat
degradation
and
harvest
have
probably
made
stocks
less
resilient
to
poor
climate
conditions,
but
these
effects
are
not
easily
quantifiable.
186
Threats
to
Genetic
Integrity
Artificial
propagation
poses
a
number
of
genetic
risks
for
natural
salmon
and
steelhead
populations
in
addition
to
the
complications
it
brings
to
evaluation
of
natural
replacement
rates.
These
risks
have
been
known
for
some
time
(
e.
g.,
Hynes
et
al.
1981,
Allendorf
and
Ryman
1987,
Hindar
et
al.
1991,
Waples
1991a),
but
no
consensus
has
emerged
on
how
best
to
incorporate
these
concerns
into
adaptive
management
because
of
difficulties
in
quantifying
the
risks,
a
paucity
of
empirical
data,
and
disagreements
about
how
to
proceed
given
these
uncertainties
(
Cuenco
et
al.
1993,
Campton
1995,
Hard
1995,
Currens
and
Busack
1995).
In
this
section
we
describe
some
of
the
adverse
genetic
effects
for
natural
populations
that
can
occur
as
a
result
of
artificial
propagation
and
briefly
discuss
the
factors
that
were
used
in
this
status
review
to
evaluate
these
risks.
This
is
an
important
component
to
the
overall
risk
analysis
because
these
effects
generally
would
not
be
reflected
in
other
indices
of
population
health
(
e.
g.,
abundance
and
trends).
For
example,
interbreeding
with
hatchery
fish
might
reduce
fitness
and
productivity
of
a
natural
population,
but
whether
this
had
occurred
would
be
difficult
to
determine
if
hatchery
fish
continued
to
spawn
naturally.

Busack
and
Currens
(
1995)
and
Campton
(
1995)
identified
several
types
of
genetic
risk
from
hatcheries
and
alternative
ways
of
describing
such
risks.
Interbreeding
of
hatchery
and
natural
fish
can
lead
to
loss
of
fitness
in
local
populations.
Grant
(
1997)
reviews
and
discusses
genetic
concerns
regarding
straying
by
non­
native
hatchery
fish.
Ricker
(
1972)
and
Taylor
(
1991)
summarized
some
of
the
evidence
for
local
adaptations
in
Pacific
salmonids
that
may
be
at
risk
from
interbreeding
of
hatchery
and
natural
fish.
Hatchery­
wild
interbreeding
can
also
lead
to
loss
of
genetic
diversity
among
populations.
Interpopulational
genetic
diversity
can
help
maintain
long­
term
viability
of
an
ESU
because
it
buffers
overall
productivity
against
periodic
or
unpredictable
changes
in
the
environment
(
Fagen
and
Smoker
1989,
Riggs
1990).

Various
fish
culture
and
management
practices
can
affect
the
frequency
and
magnitude
of
hatchery­
wild
genetic
interactions.
For
example,
stock
transfers
or
other
aspects
of
hatchery
programs
that
lead
to
substantial
straying
into
natural
populations
can
result
in
much
higher
rates
of
genetic
exchange
than
would
naturally
occur
among
populations.
Because
the
consequences
of
hatchery
straying
are
determined
by
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
of
hatchery
origin
rather
than
by
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
that
stray
(
Grant
1997),
the
effects
of
a
successful
hatchery
program
can
be
substantial
even
if
stray
rates
are
modest.
Management
actions
such
as
avoiding
stock
transfers,
adopting
release
strategies
that
minimize
straying,
and
marking
and
selectively
harvesting
hatchery
fish
can
substantially
reduce
adverse
effects
on
natural
populations.
The
degree
to
which
such
actions
succeed
in
isolating
natural
and
hatchery
production
varies
considerably
from
program
to
program
and
depends
on
a
variety
of
factors.

Similarly,
a
number
of
approaches
can
be
used
in
fish
culture
to
minimize
genetic
changes
and
hence
reduce
the
consequences
of
hatchery­
wild
genetic
interactions
when
they
do
occur.
For
example,
inbreeding
and
genetic
drift
are
well
understood
at
the
theoretical
level,
and
researchers
have
found
inbreeding
depression
in
various
fish
species,
including
some
salmonids
187
(
Allendorf
and
Ryman
1987).
There
is
also
good
reason
to
believe
that
inbreeding
can
be
an
important
concern
for
Pacific
salmon
hatcheries
(
Waples
and
Teel
1990,
Ryman
and
Laikre
1991,
Waples
and
Do
1994).
However,
we
are
not
aware
of
empirical
evidence
for
inbreeding
depression
or
substantial
loss
of
genetic
variability
in
any
natural
or
hatchery
populations
of
Pacific
salmon
or
steelhead
(
Hard
and
Hershberger
1995).
Furthermore,
some
fairly
straightforward
fish
culture
practices
(
especially
suitable
broodstock
collection
and
mating
protocols)
can
significantly
reduce
the
likelihood
that
hatchery
populations
will
increase
levels
of
inbreeding
(
Simon
et
al.
1986,
Allendorf
and
Ryman
1987,
Withler
1988,
Waples
and
Do
1994).
In
contrast,
selective
changes
arising
from
fish
culture
cannot
be
avoided
even
with
the
best
fish
culture
practices.
Because
the
selective
regime
in
the
hatchery
environment
differs
in
many
important
ways
from
that
in
the
wild,
and
because
a
successful
salmon
hatchery
profoundly
changes
the
mortality
profile
of
the
population,
some
genetic
divergence
of
a
cultured
population
from
a
natural
population
is
inevitable
(
Waples
1991a,
Busack
and
Currens
1995,
Campton
1995).
The
changes
that
do
occur
as
a
result
of
fish
culture
are
unlikely
to
be
beneficial
to
locally
adapted
natural
populations.

In
supplementation
programs,
which
involve
the
intentional
integration
of
hatchery
and
natural
production,
genetic
risks
posed
by
fish
culture
must
be
weighed
against
potential
benefits
to
the
natural
population
such
as
reducing
short­
term
extinction
risk
and
speeding
recovery.
Conducting
a
comprehensive
risk/
benefit
analysis
for
salmon
supplementation
should
be
an
integral
part
of
adaptive
management.
We
did
not
attempt
such
an
exercise
here
because
the
focus
of
this
report
is
on
evaluating
the
status
of
natural
populations
rather
than
the
merits
of
hatchery
programs.
Although
a
successful
supplementation
program
might
help
move
a
natural
population
toward
recovery,
the
existence
of
a
hatchery
program
designed
to
assist
recovery
can
be
taken
as
an
indication
that
the
natural
population
is
presently
at
some
risk
in
its
natural
habitat,
and
that
is
an
important
consideration
in
the
status
review.

Finally,
even
if
naturally
spawning
hatchery
fish
leave
few
or
no
surviving
offspring,
they
still
can
have
ecological
and
indirect
genetic
effects
on
natural
populations.
On
the
spawning
grounds,
hatchery
fish
may
interfere
with
natural
production
by
competing
with
natural
fish
for
territory
and/
or
mates
and,
if
they
are
successful
in
spawning
with
natural
fish,
may
divert
production
from
more
productive
natural
X
natural
crosses
(
Chapman
et
al.
1995).
The
presence
of
large
numbers
of
hatchery
juveniles
or
adults
may
also
alter
the
selective
regime
faced
by
natural
fish.

To
evaluate
genetic
risks
posed
by
artificial
propagation,
we
consider
a
variety
of
factors
related
to
the
nature,
scale,
and
duration
of
the
hatchery
programs
that
may
interact
with
natural
populations.
These
factors
include
the
source
of
hatchery
broodstock,
the
number
of
hatchery
fish
released,
the
number
of
years
hatchery
fish
have
been
released
into
the
system,
differences
in
genetic
and
life­
history
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
age
structure
and
body
size)
between
hatchery
and
natural
fish,
and
the
effectiveness
of
management
strategies
to
isolate
hatchery
and
natural
fish.
In
cases
where
it
is
available,
information
on
the
numbers
and
proportions
of
hatchery
and
natural
fish
spawning
naturally
and
their
relative
reproductive
success
is
also
considered.
Studies
that
188
monitor
genetic
characteristics
over
time
can
also
provide
valuable
insight
into
the
consequences
of
hatchery­
wild
interactions.

Human
actions
other
than
artificial
propagation
can
also
affect
the
genetic
characteristics
and
integrity
of
salmon
populations.
These
factors
include
size­
selective
harvest
regimes
(
Nelson
and
Soulé
1987,
Thorpe
1993),
introduction
of
non­
native
species,
alterations
of
freshwater
migration
corridors
by
hydropower
development,
and
other
types
of
habitat
modification.
Unfortunately,
empirical
information
for
these
types
of
genetic
changes
is
even
more
sparse
than
it
is
for
the
effects
of
artificial
propagation.

Recent
Events
A
variety
of
factors,
both
natural
and
human­
induced,
affect
the
degree
of
risk
facing
salmonid
populations.
Because
of
timelags
in
these
effects
and
variability
in
populations,
recent
changes
in
any
of
these
factors
may
affect
current
risk
without
any
apparent
change
in
available
population
statistics.
Thus,
consideration
of
these
effects
must
go
beyond
examination
of
recent
abundance
and
trends,
but
forecasting
future
effects
is
rarely
straightforward
and
usually
involves
qualitative
evaluations
based
on
informed
professional
judgement.
Events
affecting
populations
may
include
natural
changes
in
the
environment
or
human­
induced
changes,
either
beneficial
or
detrimental.
Possible
future
effects
of
recent
or
proposed
conservation
measures
have
not
been
taken
into
account
in
this
analysis,
but
we
have
considered
documented
changes
in
the
natural
environment.
A
key
question
regarding
the
role
of
recent
events
is:
Given
our
uncertainty
regarding
the
future,
how
do
we
evaluate
the
risk
that
a
population
may
not
persist?

Climate
conditions
are
known
to
have
changed
recently
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Most
Pacific
salmonid
stocks
south
of
British
Columbia
have
been
affected
by
changes
in
ocean
production
that
occurred
during
the
1970s.
Pearcy
(
1992)
and
Lawson
(
1993)
attribute
this
decline
largely
to
ocean
factors,
but
do
not
identify
specific
effects.
Much
of
the
Pacific
Coast
has
also
experienced
drought
conditions
in
recent
years,
which
may
depress
freshwater
production.
At
this
time,
we
do
not
know
whether
these
climate
conditions
represent
a
long­
term
shift
in
conditions
that
will
continue
affecting
stocks
into
the
future
or
short­
term
environmental
fluctuations
that
can
be
expected
to
be
reversed
in
the
near
future.
Although
recent
conditions
appear
to
be
within
the
range
of
historic
conditions
under
which
local
salmon
populations
have
evolved,
the
risks
associated
with
poor
climate
conditions
may
be
exacerbated
by
human
influence
on
these
populations
(
Lawson
1993).

Other
Risk
Factors
Other
risk
factors
typically
considered
for
salmonid
populations
include
disease
prevalence,
predation,
and
changes
in
life­
history
characteristics
such
as
spawning
age
or
size.
Such
factors
may
be
important
for
individual
populations,
as
noted
in
the
ESU
summaries
below.
189
Approach
None
of
the
elements
of
risk
outlined
above
are
easy
to
evaluate,
particularly
in
light
of
the
great
variety
in
quantity
and
quality
of
information
available
for
various
populations.
Two
major
types
of
information
were
considered:
previous
assessments
that
provided
integrated
reviews
of
the
status
of
chinook
salmon
populations
in
our
region,
and
data
regarding
individual
elements
of
population
status,
such
as
abundance,
trend,
hatchery
influence,
and
habitat
conditions.

A
major
problem
in
evaluations
of
risk
for
salmon
is
combining
information
on
a
variety
of
risk
factors
into
a
single
overall
assessment
of
risk
facing
a
population.
Formal
model­
based
population
viability
analysis
(
PVA)
attempts
to
do
this
integration
in
a
quantitative
manner,
resulting
in
a
single
estimate
of
extinction
risk.
Current
models
of
salmon
populations
are
inadequate
for
this
type
of
analysis.
In
the
absence
of
integrative
models,
it
is
still
possible
to
define
criteria
for
some
individual
risk
categories,
and
use
these
criteria
to
devise
simple
rules
for
categorizing
risk
levels;
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997)
advocated
such
an
approach.
However,
this
limits
assessment
to
those
factors
for
which
adequate
measurements
are
available
for
all
population
units
under
consideration.
As
our
ability
to
measure
some
of
the
important
risk
and
other
factors
is
limited,
data
is
often
lacking
for
the
populations
most
at
risk.
Our
researchers
need
methods
that
allow
inclusion
of
both
quantitative
and
qualitative
information.
In
this
review,
we
have
used
a
risk­
matrix
approach
through
which
the
BRT
members
applied
their
best
scientific
judgement
to
combine
qualitative
and
quantitative
evidence
regarding
multiple
risks
into
an
overall
assessment.
The
matrix
is
more
fully
described
in
Appendix
F.

It
is
also
possible
to
construct
simple
demographic
models
to
evaluate
risks
associated
with
population
abundance,
trend,
and
variability
(
e.
g.,
Goodman
in
press).
Such
models
can
provide
a
partial
quantification
of
risks
if
adequate
data
are
available.
We
have
not
attempted
to
construct
such
models
for
this
review
but
have
considered
results
from
such
efforts
where
available
(
e.
g.,
Emlen
1995,
Ratner
et
al.
1997).

Previous
Assessments
In
considering
the
status
of
the
ESUs,
we
evaluated
both
qualitative
and
quantitative
information.
Qualitative
evaluations
included
aspects
of
several
of
the
risk
considerations
outlined
above,
as
well
as
recent,
published
assessments
by
agencies
or
conservation
groups
of
the
status
of
chinook
salmon
stocks
(
Nehlsen
et
al.
1991,
Higgins
et
al.
1992,
Nickelson
et
al.
1992,
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Huntington
et
al.
1996).
These
evaluations
are
summarized
in
Appendix
E.
Additional
information
presented
by
the
petitioners
(
ONRC
and
Nawa
1995)
was
considered,
as
discussed
under
"
Summary
of
Information
Presented
by
the
Petitioners"
above.
190
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
considered
salmonid
stocks
throughout
Washington,
Idaho,
Oregon,
and
California
and
enumerated
all
stocks
that
they
found
to
be
extinct
or
at
risk
of
extinction.
Stocks
that
do
not
appear
in
their
summary
were
either
not
at
risk
of
extinction
or
the
researchers
lacked
sufficient
information
to
classify
them.
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
classified
stocks
as
extinct
(
X),
possibly
extinct
(
A+),
at
high
risk
of
extinction
(
A),
at
moderate
risk
of
extinction
(
B),
or
of
special
concern
(
C).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
considered
it
likely
that
stocks
at
high
risk
of
extinction
have
reached
the
threshold
for
classification
as
endangered
under
the
ESA.
Stocks
were
placed
in
this
category
if
they
had
declined
from
historic
levels
and
were
continuing
to
decline,
or
had
recent
spawning
escapements
less
than
200.
Stocks
were
classified
as
at
moderate
risk
of
extinction
if
they
had
declined
from
historic
levels
but
presently
appear
to
be
stable
at
a
level
above
200
spawners.
They
felt
that
stocks
in
this
category
had
reached
the
threshold
for
threatened
under
the
ESA.
They
classified
stocks
as
of
special
concern
if
a
relatively
minor
disturbance
could
threaten
them,
insufficient
data
were
available
for
them,
they
were
influenced
by
large
releases
of
hatchery
fish,
or
they
possessed
some
unique
character.
For
chinook
salmon,
they
classified
112
stocks
as
follows:
49
extinct,
10
possibly
extinct,
27
high
risk,
14
moderate
risk,
and
12
special
concern
(
Appendix
E).

Higgins
et
al.
(
1992)
used
the
same
classification
scheme
as
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
but
provided
a
more
detailed
review
of
some
northern
California
salmonid
stocks.
In
this
review,
their
evaluation
is
relevant
only
to
the
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
and
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
ESUs.
They
classified
15
chinook
salmon
populations
in
these
two
ESUs
as
follows:
6
high
risk,
1
moderate
risk,
and
8
as
stocks
of
special
concern
(
Appendix
E).

Nickelson
et
al.
(
1992)
rated
wild
coastal
(
excluding
Columbia
River
Basin)
Oregon
salmon
and
steelhead
stocks
on
the
basis
of
their
status
over
the
past
20
years,
classifying
stocks
as
"
healthy"
(
spawning
habitat
fully
seeded
and
stable
or
increasing
trends),
"
depressed"
(
spawning
habitat
underseeded,
declining
trends,
or
recent
escapements
below
long­
term
average),
"
of
special
concern"
(
300
or
fewer
spawners
or
a
problem
with
hatchery
interbreeding),
or
"
unknown"
(
insufficient
data).
The
following
additional
comments
were
noted
for
salmonid
populations
when
relevant:
"
1"
(
may
not
be
a
viable
population),
"
2"
(
hatchery
strays),
and
"
3"
(
small,
variable
run).
They
classified
55
chinook
salmon
populations
in
coastal
Oregon
as
follows:
30
healthy
(
2
with
small,
variable
runs),
8
depressed,
8
special
concern
due
to
hatchery
strays,
and
9
unknown
(
4
of
which
they
suggested
may
not
be
viable)
(
Appendix
E).

WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
categorized
all
salmon
and
steelhead
stocks
in
Washington
on
the
basis
of
stock
origin
("
native,"
"
non­
native,"
"
mixed,"
or
"
unknown"),
production
type
("
wild,"
"
composite,"
or
"
unknown"),
and
status
("
healthy,"
"
depressed,"
"
critical,"
or
"
unknown").
Status
categories
were
defined
as
follows:
healthy,
"
experiencing
production
levels
consistent
with
its
available
habitat
and
within
the
natural
variations
in
survival
for
the
stock",
depressed,
"
production
is
below
expected
levels...
but
above
the
level
where
permanent
damage
to
the
stock
is
likely",
and
critical,
"
experiencing
production
levels
that
are
so
low
that
permanent
damage
to
the
stock
is
likely
or
has
already
occurred."
Of
the
106
chinook
salmon
stocks
identified,
54
were
191
classified
as
healthy,
5
as
critical,
35
as
depressed,
and
12
as
unknown
(
Appendix
E).
Most
of
those
classified
as
unknown
are
small
stocks
without
large
fisheries.

Huntington
et
al.
(
1996)
surveyed
the
condition
of
healthy
native/
wild
stocks
of
anadromous
salmonids
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
and
California.
Stocks
were
classified
as
healthy
based
upon
abundance,
self­
sustainability,
and
not
having
been
previously
identified
as
facing
a
substantial
risk
of
extinction.
Healthy
stocks
were
separated
into
two
levels:
Level
I
("...
adult
abundance
at
least
two­
thirds
as
great
as
would
be
found
in
the
absence
of
human
impacts")
and
Level
II
("...
adult
abundance
between
one­
third
and
two­
thirds
as
great
as
expected
without
human
impacts").
Of
the
35
healthy
chinook
salmon
stocks
identified,
9
were
classified
as
Level
I
and
26
as
Level
II
(
Appendix
E).

There
are
problems
in
applying
results
of
these
studies
to
ESA
evaluations.
A
major
problem
is
that
the
definition
of
"
stock"
or
"
population"
varied
considerably
in
scale
among
studies,
and
sometimes
among
regions
within
a
study.
Identified
units
range
in
size
from
large,
complex
river
basins
(
e.
g.,
"
Sacramento
River"
in
Nehlsen
et
al.
1991),
to
minor
coastal
streams
and
tributaries.
A
second
problem
is
the
definition
of
categories
used
to
classify
stock
status.
Only
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
and
Higgins
et
al.
(
1992)
used
categories
intended
to
relate
to
ESA
"
threatened"
or
"
endangered"
status,
and
they
applied
their
own
interpretations
of
these
terms
to
individual
stocks,
not
to
ESUs
as
defined
here.
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
used
general
terms
describing
status
of
stocks
that
cannot
be
directly
related
to
the
considerations
important
in
ESA
evaluations.
For
example,
the
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
definition
of
healthy
could
conceivably
include
a
stock
that
is
at
substantial
extinction
risk
due
to
loss
of
habitat,
hatchery
fish
interactions,
and/
or
environmental
variation,
although
this
does
not
appear
to
be
the
case
for
any
Washington
chinook
salmon
stocks.
A
third
problem
is
the
selection
of
stocks
or
populations
to
include
in
the
review.
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
and
Higgins
et
al.
(
1992)
did
not
discuss
stocks
not
perceived
to
be
at
risk,
so
it
is
difficult
to
determine
the
proportion
of
stocks
they
considered
to
be
at
risk
in
any
given
area.
For
chinook
salmon,
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
included
only
stocks
considered
to
be
substantially
"
wild"
and
included
data
only
for
the
"
wild"
component
for
streams
that
have
both
hatchery
and
natural
fish
escaping
to
spawn,
giving
an
incomplete
evaluation
of
chinook
salmon
utilizing
natural
habitat.

Data
Evaluations
Quantitative
evaluations
of
data
included
comparisons
of
current
and
historical
abundance
of
chinook
salmon,
calculation
of
recent
trends
in
escapement,
and
evaluation
of
the
proportion
of
natural
spawning
attributable
to
hatchery
fish.
Historical
abundance
information
for
these
ESUs
is
largely
anecdotal.
Time
series
data
are
available
for
many
populations,
but
data
extent
and
quality
varied
among
ESUs.
We
compiled
and
analyzed
this
information
to
provide
several
summary
statistics
of
natural
spawning
abundance,
including
(
where
available)
recent
total
spawning
escapement,
percent
annual
change
in
total
escapement
(
both
long­
term
and
the
most
recent
ten
years),
recent
naturally
produced
spawning
escapement,
and
average
percentage
of
natural
spawners
that
were
of
hatchery
origin.
192
Although
this
evaluation
used
the
best
data
available,
it
should
be
recognized
that
there
are
a
number
of
limitations
to
these
data,
and
not
all
summary
statistics
were
available
for
all
populations.
For
example,
spawner
abundance
was
generally
not
measured
directly;
rather,
it
often
had
to
be
estimated
from
catch
(
which
itself
may
not
always
have
been
measured
accurately)
or
from
limited
survey
data.
In
many
cases,
data
to
separate
hatchery
production
from
natural
production
were
also
limited.
Specific
limitations
of
the
data
are
discussed
under
the
individual
ESUs
as
part
of
the
"
Analysis
of
Biological
Information"
below.

Quantitative
methods
Information
on
stock
abundance
was
compiled
from
a
variety
of
state,
federal,
and
tribal
agency
records.
We
believe
it
to
be
complete
in
terms
of
long­
term
adult
abundance
records
for
chinook
salmon
in
the
region
covered.
Principal
data
sources
were
angler
catch
estimates,
dam
or
weir
counts,
and
stream
surveys.
None
of
these
provides
a
complete
measure
of
adult
spawner
abundance
for
any
of
the
streams.
Specific
problems
are
discussed
below
for
each
data
type.

Data
types
For
chinook
salmon,
quantitative
abundance
estimates
are
available
on
a
limited
basis
and
the
quality
of
these
estimates
varies
considerably.
Quantitative
assessments
were
based
on
historical
and
recent
run­
size
estimates,
time
series
of
freshwater
spawner
survey
data,
harvest
rate
estimates,
and
counts
of
adults
migrating
past
dams.
Juvenile
survey
data
were
available
in
some
areas
but
data
coverage
was
insufficient
for
quantitative
assessment.
We
considered
this
information
separately
for
each
ESU.
Because
of
the
disparity
of
data
sources
and
quality
in
the
different
ESUs,
the
data
sources
and
analysis
are
described
separately
for
each
ESU;
here
we
present
only
a
brief
regional
overview
of
information
types
considered.

Quantitative
estimates
of
spawning
escapement
are
available
for
the
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
and
the
Klamath
River
Basins
in
California
and
for
most
coastal
and
Puget
Sound
rivers
in
Washington.
Within
the
Columbia
River
Basin,
quantitative
estimates
are
available
for
many
lower
Columbia
River
tributaries
in
Washington
and
for
the
Willamette
and
Deschutes
Rivers
in
Oregon.
On
the
mainstem
of
the
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers,
dam
counts
provide
quantitative
estimates
of
run­
size,
but
in
most
cases,
these
counts
cannot
be
resolved
to
the
individual
population
level
and
are
subject
to
errors
stemming
from
fallback,
run
classification,
and
unaccounted
mortality.
Run
reconstructions
providing
estimates
of
both
adult
spawning
abundance
and
fishery
recruits
are
being
prepared
for
many
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
(
Beamsderfer
et
al.
1997
unpubl.
draft
report),
but
were
not
available
in
final
form
for
this
review.

Sport
harvest
and
peak
index
spawner
survey
information
were
the
main
abundance
data
available
for
most
Oregon
coastal
populations.
In
1952,
Oregon
instituted
a
punchcard
system
to
record
all
salmon
and
steelhead
caught
by
species.
There
are
a
variety
of
problems
in
interpreting
193
abundance
trends
from
sport
harvest
data;
for
this
reason,
angler
catch
was
used
only
for
estimating
recent
abundance,
not
for
trend
analyses.

Dam
and
weir
counts
are
available
in
several
river
basins
along
the
coast.
These
counts
are
probably
the
most
reliable
estimates
available
of
total
spawning
run
abundance,
but
often
represent
only
small
portions
of
the
total
population
in
each
river
basin
and
may
be
biased
by
incomplete
(
less
than
24
hours
per
day)
counting,
fallback,
and
reascension.
As
with
angler
catch,
these
counts
typically
represent
a
combination
of
hatchery­
produced
and
natural
fish,
and
thus
are
not
a
direct
index
of
natural
population
trends.

Stream
surveys
for
chinook
salmon
spawning
abundance
have
been
conducted
by
various
agencies
within
most
of
the
ESUs
considered
here.
The
methods
and
time­
spans
of
the
surveys
vary
considerably
among
regions,
so
it
is
difficult
to
assess
the
general
reliability
of
these
surveys
as
population
indices.
For
most
streams
where
these
surveys
are
conducted,
they
are
the
best
local
indication
we
have
of
population
trends.

Information
on
harvest
impacts
were
compiled
from
a
variety
of
sources
(
see
citations
for
specific
ESUs
below).
In
presenting
this
information,
we
have
tried
to
maintain
a
clear
distinction
between
harvest
rates
(
usually
calculated
as
catch
divided
by
catch
plus
escapement
for
a
cohort
or
brood
year)
and
exploitation
rates
(
age­
specific
rates
of
exploitation
in
individual
fisheries).
Most
of
the
estimates
presented
here
are
for
harvest
rate.
We
have
also
classified
harvest
as
"
low"
(
average
harvest
rate
less
than
40%),
"
moderate"
(
rate
between
40%
and
60%)
or
"
high"
(
rate
above
60%)
as
an
aid
in
summarizing
information;
this
classification
is
not
meant
to
imply
an
associated
degree
of
risk.

As
noted
above,
we
attempted
to
distinguish
natural
and
hatchery
production
in
our
evaluations.
Doing
this
quantitatively
would
require
good
estimates
of
the
proportion
of
natural
escapement
that
was
of
hatchery
origin,
and
knowledge
of
the
effectiveness
of
spawning
by
hatchery
fish
in
natural
environments.
Unfortunately,
this
type
of
information
is
rarely
available,
and
for
most
ESUs
we
have
been
limited
to
reporting
whatever
estimates
of
escapement
of
hatchery
fish
to
natural
systems
that
were
made
available
to
us.

Computed
statistics
Recent
average
abundance
is
reported
as
the
geometric
mean
of
the
most
recent
five
years
of
data.
Where
totals
are
given
for
an
ESU
they
are
the
sum
of
these
geometric
means.
Because
the
year
of
the
most
recent
abundance
estimate
often
differs
for
components
of
an
individual
ESU,
if
abundances
were
totaled
for
the
ESU
and
a
geometric
mean
calculated
from
the
total,
the
most
recent
years
would
be
incomplete
in
most
cases.
We
opted
instead
to
calculate
sums
for
components
with
different
time
periods.
We
tried
to
use
only
estimates
that
reflect
the
total
abundance
for
an
entire
river
basin
or
tributary,
avoiding
index
counts
or
dam
counts
that
represent
only
a
small
portion
of
available
habitat.
For
Oregon
angler
catch
data
for
coastal
streams,
catch
was
expanded
to
total
run­
size
and
escapement
(
run­
size
minus
catch)
using
the
194
methods
and
harvest
rate
estimates
of
Nicholas
and
Hankin
(
1988).
Where
time­
series
data
were
not
available,
we
have
relied
on
recent
estimates
from
state
agency
reports.
Time
periods
included
in
such
estimates
varied
considerably.

Historic
run­
size
estimates
from
cannery
pack
data
were
made
by
converting
the
largest
number
of
cases
of
cans
packed
in
a
single
season
to
numbers
of
fish
in
the
spawning
run
(
Big
Eagle
et
al.
1995,
based
on
summary
tables
in
Shepard
et
al.
1985).
The
conversion
was
made
by
assuming
each
case
of
48
packed
(
454
g)
cans
represented
80
lb
(
36.3
kg)
of
salmon
landed,
the
average
weight
of
chinook
salmon
was
10
kg
(
Rich
1940b),
and
the
fishery
harvested
50%
of
the
run
(
PSC
1994).

Population
trends
were
calculated
by
least­
squares
linear
regression
of
the
natural
logarithm
of
abundance
on
year,
using
all
data
collected
after
1950.
This
assumes
that
the
individual
data
series
is
increasing
or
decreasing
exponentially
over
the
entire
period
of
record,
and
generates
an
estimate
of
the
rate
of
increase
or
decrease
as
a
fraction
of
abundance
per
year.
We
also
calculated
recent
trends
from
the
most
recent
10
years,
using
data
collected
after
1984
for
series
having
at
least
7
observations
since
1984.
No
attempt
was
made
to
account
for
the
influence
of
hatchery­
produced
fish
on
these
estimates,
so
the
estimated
trends
include
any
contribution
of
hatchery
fish
to
escapement.

Analysis
of
Biological
Information
Biological
information
related
to
risk
assessments
is
presented
below.
This
section
is
organized
by
broad
geographic
regions,
with
general
information
for
each
region
summarized
before
the
specific
analysis
for
each
ESU
within
the
regions.

Central
Valley
Region
Historically,
chinook
salmon
were
abundant
in
the
Central
Valley.
Early
estimates
did
not
differentiate
run
timing,
so
the
following
estimates
are
assumed
to
be
totals
for
all
runs.
Eggs
were
collected
from
at
least
30,000
adults
in
the
upper
Sacramento
River
in
1905;
the
total
run
in
the
Sacramento
River
could
have
been
10
times
higher
(
ca.
300,000)
(
Reynolds
et
al.
1993).
Gillnet
catches
suggest
peak
Central
Valley
chinook
salmon
in­
river
runs
may
have
been
800,000
to
1,000,000
fish,
with
average
run
size
about
600,000
fish
prior
to
1915
(
Reynolds
et
al.
1993).
Total
Central
Valley
chinook
salmon
spawning
escapement
was
estimated
in
1965
to
be
about
192
421,000
fish
(
332,000
fall­
&
late­
fall­
run,
61,000
winter­
run,
and
28,000
spring­
run)
(
CDFG
1995).

Chinook
salmon
in
this
region
have
been
strongly
affected
both
by
losses
and
alterations
of
freshwater
and
estuarine
habitats
and
by
a
long
history
of
hatchery
production.
Reynolds
et
al.
(
1993)
discussed
habitat
problems
extensively.
They
reported
a
95%
loss
of
Central
Valley
freshwater
salmon
habitat
due
to
damming,
migration
blockages,
or
severe
degradation.
The
most
severe
losses
began
in
1849
with
the
discovery
of
gold,
and
culminated
in
the
1970s
with
the
completion
of
major
water
diversion
and
conveyance
facilities.
Hydraulic
mining
caused
sedimentation
of
spawning
grounds,
water
diversions
blocked
migrations
and
depleted
flows,
and
explosive
human
population
growth
led
to
major
settlement
and
disturbance
(
including
logging
and
agricultural
activities)
along
Central
Valley
streams
and
rivers
(
CSLC
1993).
Construction
of
levees
for
flood
protection
reduced
off­
channel
habitat
availability.
By
the
1930s,
only
25%
of
the
valley
floor
was
subject
to
periodic
inundation.
Dam
and
water
project
construction
further
reduced
habitat
substantially
between
the
1930s
and
1960s.

Direct
relationships
exist
between
water
temperature,
water
flow,
and
survival
of
juvenile
salmonids.
Elevated
water
temperature
in
the
Sacramento
River
has
limited
the
survival
of
young
salmon
(
Mitchell
1987,
DWR
1988).
Survival
of
juvenile
salmon
in
the
Sacramento
River
is
also
positively
correlated
with
June
streamflow
and
June
and
July
delta
outflow
(
Dettman
et
al.
1987).

Since
1872,
chinook
salmon
have
been
continuously
produced
at
a
number
of
hatchery
facilities.
Millions
of
eggs
were
exported
from
the
region
during
the
1800s.
The
majority
of
fish
released
prior
to
1913
were
unfed
fry,
whose
contribution
to
the
run
was
probably
minimal
(
Clark
1929).
By
1919,
some
1.3
billion
chinook
salmon
fry
had
been
released
into
the
Sacramento
River
Basin
(
Cobb
1930).
Artificial
propagation
resources
have
been
devoted
primarily
to
fall­
run
chinook
salmon.
In
the
last
50
years,
1.6
billion
fall­
run
fish
have
been
released
into
the
Central
Valley;
this
is
approximately
40
times
more
than
the
number
of
spring­
run
fish
and
600
times
more
than
the
number
of
winter­
run
fish
released
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
The
production
of
springand
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
has
been
limited
by
the
lack
of
suitable
facilities
for
holding
returning
adults
during
the
summer
months.

Three
hatcheries
 
Coleman
NFH
(
1946),
Feather
River
Hatchery
(
1969),
and
Nimbus
Hatchery
(
1955)
 
have
been
responsible
for
most
of
the
chinook
salmon
produced
in
the
latter
half
of
this
century.
Fish
from
these
hatcheries
have
been
released
throughout
the
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
River
Basins
and
in
San
Francisco
Bay.

1)
Sacramento
River
Winter­
Run
ESU
This
ESU
has
been
extensively
reviewed
by
NMFS
(
1987,
1989,
1990a,
b,
1994b),
and
that
information
is
briefly
summarized
and
updated
here.
193
Historically,
the
winter
run
was
abundant
and
comprised
populations
in
the
McCloud,
Pit,
Little
Sacramento,
and
Calaveras
Rivers.
Construction
of
Shasta
Dam
in
the
1940s
eliminated
access
to
all
of
the
historic
spawning
habitat
for
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sacramento
River
Basin.
Since
then,
the
ESU
has
been
reduced
to
a
single
spawning
population
confined
to
the
mainstem
Sacramento
River
below
Keswick
Dam
(
Reynolds
et
al.
1993).
The
last
documented
sighting
of
adult
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Calaveras
River
was
made
in
1984
(
CDFG
1984).

Historic
abundance
has
been
estimated
from
anecdotal
accounts,
habitat
capacity,
and
river
gillnet
fishery
landings,
but
quantitative
estimates
of
run­
size
are
not
available
for
the
period
prior
to
the
completion
of
Red
Bluff
Diversion
Dam
in
1966.
CDFG
(
1965)
estimated
spawning
escapement
of
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
at
61,300
(
60,000
mainstem,
1,000
in
Battle
Creek,
and
300
in
Mill
Creek)
in
the
early
1960s,
but
this
estimate
was
based
on
"
comparisons
with
better­
studied
streams"
rather
than
actual
surveys.
Fish
ladders
at
Red
Bluff
Diversion
Dam
permitted
counting
of
the
spawning
runs
after
1966.
During
the
first
3
years
of
operation
of
the
counting
facility
(
1967­
69),
the
spawning
run
of
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
averaged
86,500
fish.
The
most
recent
3­
year
(
1994­
96)
average
run­
size
wa
s
830
fish.
Since
counting
began
in
1967,
the
population
has
been
declining
at
an
average
rate
of
18%
per
year,
or
roughly
50%
per
generation
(
Fig.
29).
The
trend
in
the
most
recent
10
years
has
been
the
same
as
the
trend
over
the
entire
27
years
of
data
(
Fig.
30,
Appendix
E).

The
focus
of
artificial
propagation
efforts
for
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
has
been
a
supplementation
and
captive
broodstock
program
initiated
in
1989.
Recently,
hatchery
efforts
may
have
resulted
in
the
hybridization
of
spring­
and
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
194
Figure
29.
Recent
5­
year
geometric
mean
spawning
escapement
for
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Sacramento
River
Winter
Run
(
1),
Central
Valley
Spring
Run
(
2),
and
Central
Valley
Fall
Run
(
3)
ESUs
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
195
Fig
ure
30.
Trends
(
percent
annual
change)
in
abundance
for
chinook
salmon
populations
in
196
Sacramento
River
Winter
Run
(
1),
Central
Valley
Spring
Run
(
2),
and
Central
Valley
Fall
Run
(
3)
ESUs
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
197
(
Hedgecock
1995).
Furthermore,
the
fish
reared
at
Coleman
NFH
(
Battle
Creek)
were
released
into
the
mainstem
Sacramento
River
where
the
winter
run
naturally
spawns
(
USFWS
1996b),
but
rather
than
returning
to
their
point
of
release
they
returned
to
Battle
Creek
where
no
suitable
spawning
habitat
exists.

Freshwater
harvest
is
negligible,
but
there
is
moderately
high
ocean
harvest
on
this
stock.
In
1994,
the
ratio
of
ocean
harvest
to
ocean
harvest
plus
escapement
(
catch
/(
catch
+
escapement))
was
estimated
from
CWT
recoveries
to
be
0.54.
This
estimate
was
similar
to
one
developed
in
the
early
1970s
from
a
fin­
clip
study.
The
recent
reductions
in
ocean
harvest
are
intended
to
insure
that
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
have
a
positive
population
growth
rate,
on
average.

Historically,
contribution
of
hatchery
fish
to
this
population
has
been
negligible.
Recently
a
captive­
broodstock
and
smolt
supplementation
program
has
been
initiated
as
part
of
recovery
efforts.

The
fact
that
this
ESU
is
comprised
of
a
single
population
with
very
limited
spawning
and
rearing
habitat
increases
its
risk
of
extinction
due
to
local
catastrophe
or
poor
environmental
conditions.
There
are
no
other
natural
populations
in
the
ESU
to
buffer
it
from
natural
fluctuations.

This
ESU
is
currently
listed
as
endangered
under
the
California
Endangered
Species
Act
and
was
listed
as
threatened
in
1989
and
reclassified
as
endangered
in
1994
under
the
US
Endangered
Species
Act
(
NMFS
1990a,
NMFS
1994b).
The
only
other
assessment
of
risk
to
stocks
in
this
ESU
was
that
made
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991),
who
identified
one
stock
(
Calaveras
River)
as
extinct.
Due
to
lack
of
information
on
chinook
salmon
stocks
that
are
presumed
to
be
extinct,
the
relationship
of
this
stock
to
the
existing
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
is
uncertain.
It
is
listed
here
based
on
geography
and
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
the
stocks
identified
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
(
Appendix
E).

2)
Central
Valley
Spring­
Run
ESU
Historically,
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
were
abundant
in
the
Sacramento
River
system
and
constituted
the
dominant
run
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin
(
Reynolds
et
al.
1993).
Clark
(
1929)
estimated
that
there
were
historically
6,000
stream
miles
of
salmonid
habitat
in
the
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
River
Basin,
but
only
510
miles
remained
by
1928.
Subsequently,
elimination
of
access
to
spawning
and
rearing
habitat
resulting
from
construction
of
impassable
dams
has
extirpated
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin
and
the
American
River.
Construction
of
impassible
dams
has
also
curtailed
access
to
habitat
in
the
upper
Sacramento
and
Feather
Rivers.

In
1939,
an
estimated
5,786
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
passed
the
Cottonwood­
Anderson
Dam
(
Redding)
on
the
upper
Sacramento
River
(
Hanson
et
al.
1940).
Calkins
et
al.
(
1940)
198
estimated
a
spawning
escapement
of
38,792
fish
for
the
Sacramento
River
based
on
fishery
landings.
In
the
mid­
1960s,
CDFG
(
1965)
estimated
total
spawning
escapement
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
to
be
28,500,
with
the
majority
(
15,000)
spawning
in
the
mainstem
Sacramento
River
and
the
remainder
scattered
among
Battle,
Cottonwood,
Antelope,
Mill,
Deer,
Big
Chico,
and
Butte
Creeks
and
the
Feather
River.
CDFG
(
1965)
reported
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
to
be
extinct
in
the
Yuba,
American,
Mokelumne,
Stanislaus,
Tuolumne,
Merced,
and
San
Joaquin
Rivers.
Today,
spawner
survey
data
are
available
for
the
mainstem
Sacramento
River,
Feather
River,
Butte
Creek,
Deer
Creek
and
Mill
Creek
(
Big
Eagle
&
Assoc.
and
LGL
Ltd
1995).
Small
populations
are
also
reported
in
Antelope,
Battle,
Cottonwood,
and
Big
Chico
Creeks
(
Campbell
and
Moyle
1990,
Reynolds
et
al.
1993,
Yoshiyama
et
al.
1996).

Spawning
escapement
has
been
estimated
by
a
combination
of
methods,
including
snorkel
surveys,
aerial
surveys,
boat
surveys,
foot
surveys,
and
fishway
counts
at
Red
Bluff
Diversion
Dam
(
Reavis
1985).
The
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
has
estimated
spawning
escapement
since
the
late
1940s
or
1950s
for
the
remaining
populations
except
those
in
the
mainstem
Sacramento
River,
which
has
been
counted
at
Red
Bluff
Diversion
Dam
since
1967.
The
sum
of
the
5­
year
geometric
mean
escapements
for
this
ESU
is
6,700
spawners,
of
which
4,300
(
64%)
have
returned
to
the
Feather
River
(
Fig.
29,
Appendix
E).
The
Feather
River
Hatchery
releases
several
million
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
annually,
with
the
bulk
of
their
production
released
off­
site
into
the
Sacramento
River
Delta.
Therefore,
the
origin
of
the
fish
returning
to
the
Feather
River
is
uncertain,
and
fish
from
these
releases
may
stray
to
other
parts
of
the
valley.
Of
the
remaining
2,400
spawners,
435
are
in
the
mainstem
Sacramento
River
where
their
spawning
overlaps
in
both
time
and
space
with
the
more
abundant
fall
run.
Sacramento
River
mainstem
spawners
have
declined
sharply
since
the
mid­
1980s,
from
5,000­
15,000
to
a
few
hundred
fish.
The
Feather
River
population
is
believed
to
be
hybridized
with
the
fall
run
in
the
Sacramento
River
(
Reynolds
et
al.
1993),
and
probably
includes
many
hatchery
strays
from
the
Feather
River
Hatchery
program.
The
remaining
three
natural
populations
(
Butte,
Deer,
and
Mill
Creeks)
are
small,
and
all
have
long­
term
declining
trends
in
abundance
(
Fig.
30,
Appendix
E).

Efforts
to
enhance
runs
of
Sacramento
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
through
artificial
propagation
date
back
over
a
century,
although
programs
were
not
continuously
in
operation
during
that
period.
We
found
no
recent
records
of
introduction
of
spring­
run
fish
from
outside
the
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
River
Basin.
In
the
1940s,
trapping
of
adult
chinook
salmon
that
originated
from
areas
above
Keswick
and
Shasta
Dams
may
have
resulted
in
stock
mixing,
and
further
mixing
with
fall­
run
fish
apparently
occurred
with
fish
transferred
to
Coleman
Hatchery.
Deer
Creek,
one
of
the
locations
generally
believed
most
likely
to
retain
essentially
native
springrun
fish,
was
a
target
of
adult
outplants
from
the
1940s
trapping
operation,
but
the
success
of
those
transplants
is
uncertain.
Since
1967,
artificial
production
has
focused
on
the
program
at
the
Feather
River
Hatchery
(
discussed
above).
Cramer
(
1996)
reported
that
half
of
the
hatcheryreared
spring­
run
fish
returning
to
the
Feather
River
did
not
return
to
the
hatchery,
but
spawned
naturally
in
the
river.
Given
the
large
number
of
juveniles
released
off
station,
the
potential
contribution
of
straying
adults
to
rivers
throughout
the
Central
Valley
is
considerable.
The
termination
of
CWT
marking
programs
for
hatchery­
derived
spring­
run
fish
and
the
absence
of
199
spring­
run
carcass
surveys
for
most
river
systems
prevented
the
accurate
estimation
of
the
contribution
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery
strays.
Cramer
(
1996)
reported
that
up
to
20%
of
the
Feather
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
are
recovered
in
the
American
River
sport
fishery.
Furthermore,
the
use
of
a
fixed
date
to
distinguish
returning
spring­
and
fall­
run
fish
at
the
Feather
River
Hatchery
may
have
resulted
in
considerable
hybridization
between
the
two
runs
(
Campbell
and
Moyle
1990).

Harvest
rates
appear
to
be
moderate.
Ocean
fishery
management
focuses
on
the
fall
run,
with
no
defined
management
objectives
for
spring­
run
fish.
Because
of
the
similarity
in
ocean
distribution
with
fall­
run
fish
and
smaller
average
size,
spring­
run
harvest
rates
are
probably
lower
than
those
for
the
fall
run.

Reynolds
et
al.
(
1993)
reported
that
spring­
run
fish
were
likely
to
have
interbred
with
fallrun
fish
in
the
mainstem
Sacramento
and
Feather
Rivers,
but
the
extent
of
hybridization
was
unknown.
They
also
reported
that
pure
strain
spring­
run
fish
may
still
exist
in
Deer
and
Mill
Creeks.

The
only
previous
assessment
of
risk
to
stocks
in
this
ESU
is
that
of
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991),
who
identified
several
stocks
as
being
at
risk
or
of
special
concern
(
Appendix
E).
Four
stocks
were
identified
as
extinct
(
spring/
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
American,
McCloud,
Pit,
and
San
Joaquin
[
including
tributaries]
Rivers)
and
two
stocks
(
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sacramento
and
Yuba
Rivers)
were
identified
as
being
at
a
moderate
risk
of
extinction.
Due
to
lack
of
information
on
chinook
salmon
stocks
that
are
presumed
to
be
extinct,
the
relationship
of
these
stocks
to
existing
ESUs
is
uncertain.
They
are
listed
here
based
on
geography
and
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
the
stocks
identified
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991).

3)
Central
Valley
Fall­
Run
ESU
The
historical
abundance
of
Central
Valley
fall­
and
late­
fall
run
chinook
salmon
is
poorly
documented.
For
the
San
Joaquin
River,
Reynolds
et
al.
(
1993)
reported
recent
abundance
to
be
only
a
remnant
of
the
historical
abundance.
They
estimated
that
production
(
ocean­
run
size)
of
San
Joaquin
River
fall­
and
late­
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
historically
approached
300,000
adults
and
probably
averaged
approximately
150,000
adults.
In
the
mid­
1960s,
escapement
to
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin
totaled
only
about
2,400
fish,
spawning
in
the
Stanislaus,
Tuolumne,
and
Merced
Rivers.

Calkins
et
al.
(
1940)
estimated
abundance
at
55,595
fish
in
the
Sacramento
River
Basin
during
the
period
1931­
39.
In
the
early
1960s,
adult
escapement
was
estimated
to
be
327,000,
predominantly
in
the
mainstem
Sacramento
River
(
187,000),
but
with
substantial
populations
in
the
Feather
(
50,000),
American
(
36,000),
and
Yuba
(
22,000)
Rivers
and
in
Battle
Creek
(
21,000);
remaining
escapement
was
scattered
among
numerous
tributaries
(
CDFG
1965).
At
that
time,
200
total
Central
Valley
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
escapement
(
including
the
Sacramento,
Mokelumne,
and
San
Joaquin
River
Basins)
was
estimated
at
331,700
adults
(
CDFG
1965).

Much
of
the
historical
fall­
run
spawning
area
in
the
Sacramento
River
was
below
major
dam
sites,
and
therefore
the
fall
run
was
not
as
severely
affected
by
early
water
projects
as
were
spring
and
winter
runs
(
Reynolds
et
al.
1993).
Extreme
stream
temperatures
are
a
major
limiting
factor
in
juvenile
production;
gravel
depletion,
fluctuating
flows,
flow
reversals
in
the
delta,
point
and
non­
point
source
pollution,
rearing
habitat
limitations,
and
losses
at
diversions
also
limit
natural
production
(
Dettman
et
al.
1987,
CACSST
1988).

Spawning
escapement
has
been
estimated
using
a
variety
of
survey
methods.
The
larger
spawning
populations
are
estimated
using
modified
Schaeffer
or
Jolly­
Seber
multiple
markrecapture
methods
with
tagged
carcasses
(
Reavis
1984).
The
fall
and
late­
fall
runs
in
the
mainstem
Sacramento
River
have
been
monitored
since
1967
by
counts
in
the
fishways
at
Red
Bluff
Diversion
Dam.
Since
1992,
the
dam
reservoir
has
been
drawn
down
until
May
to
allow
the
winter
run
to
pass
unimpeded.
This
has
precluded
counting
the
late­
fall
run
since
1992
and
has
only
permitted
monitoring
the
last
15%
of
the
winter
run.

The
bulk
of
the
spawning
escapement
has
been
to
the
Feather
and
American
Rivers
and
to
Battle
Creek
(
Fig.
29,
Appendix
E).
The
long­
term
trends
in
escapement
are
relatively
stable,
while
the
recent
trends
are
mixed
(
Fig.
30,
Appendix
E).
These
are
all
streams
with
major
salmon
hatcheries.
State
hatcheries
on
the
American
and
Feather
Rivers
transport
their
smolts
to
saltwater
for
release
to
avoid
mortality
in
the
delta
due
to
flow
reversals,
unscreened
diversion
dams,
and
predators.
Transportation
of
smolts
increases
the
straying
rate
of
adults
when
they
return
and
makes
it
more
difficult
to
account
for
hatchery
strays
in
the
spawning
escapement
(
Cramer
1989).
In
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin,
homing
fidelity
may
be
more
dependent
on
the
presence
of
sufficient
instream
flows
(
CDFG
1997f).

Estimates
of
the
relative
contribution
of
hatchery
and
natural
fish
to
spawning
escapements
are
difficult
to
obtain.
According
to
Dettman
et
al.
(
1987),
for
1978­
84
an
average
of
20%
of
the
ocean
catch
of
Central
Valley
salmon,
originated
at
Feather
River
Hatchery
and
24%
at
Nimbus
Hatchery.
For
the
same
period,
total
Sacramento
River
spawning
escapement
was
comprised
of
22%
Feather
River
Hatchery
origin
and
26%
Nimbus
Hatchery
origin;
78%
of
the
total
Feather
River
run
and
87%
of
the
American
River
run
were
hatchery
fish.
For
this
period,
natural
production
averaged
only
12,000
fish
in
the
Feather
River
and
8,000
fish
in
the
American
River.
An
alternative
analysis
(
Cramer
1989)
concluded
that
total
hatchery
contribution
to
the
Sacramento
River
run
for
1978­
87
was
only
about
one­
third,
and
hatchery
proportions
in
escapement
were
only
26%
in
the
Feather
River
and
29%
in
the
American
River.
Methods
used
in
both
studies
have
biases;
Dettman
and
Kelley's
estimates
were
biased
toward
hatchery
fish
and
Cramer's
estimates
toward
natural
fish.
Cramer
suggested
that
the
true
proportions
are
probably
somewhere
between
the
two
groups
of
estimates.
201
Fall­
and
late­
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Central
Valley
have
been
propagated
for
more
than
a
century.
In
general,
a
relatively
small
number
of
hatcheries
have
accounted
for
the
tens
of
millions
of
fall­
run
fish
planted
annually.
The
overwhelming
majority
of
fish
used
have
come
from
stocks
within
this
ESU
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
However,
the
practice
of
releasing
fish
off­
station,
especially
into
the
Sacramento
River
Delta
region,
has
resulted
in
widespread
straying
by
hatchery­
reared
fish
(
Bartley
and
Gall
1990,
Fisher
1995).
Hatchery
strays
represent
a
considerable
proportion
of
fish
spawning
naturally
in
many
rivers,
even
those
without
hatcheries.
Straying,
in
conjunction
with
frequent
exchanges
of
surplus
eggs
between
hatcheries,
may
be
responsible
for
the
low
levels
of
genetic
differentiation
among
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
stocks
in
the
Central
Valley
(
Bartley
and
Gall
1990).
The
high
contribution
of
hatchery
fish
to
naturally
spawning
escapement
may
be
due,
in
part,
to
the
high
survival
of
hatchery
fish
that
are
transported
to
the
Sacramento
River
Delta
(
Dettman
et
al.
1987).

In
contrast
to
the
situation
with
the
fall
run,
the
culture
of
late­
fall­
run
fish
has
been
relatively
limited.
The
majority
of
production
has
come
from
one
hatchery
(
Coleman
NFH)
and
only
within
the
last
20
years.
Late­
fall­
run
fish
releases
constituted
less
than
2%
of
the
combined
fall­
and
late­
fall­
run
releases
for
this
ESU.

Recent
(
1990­
94)
ocean
harvest
rate
indices
(
Central
Valley
Index=
catch
/
[
catch
+
escapement])
have
been
in
the
range
of
71­
79%
(
PFMC
1996b).
Freshwater
recreational
harvest
is
believed
to
be
increasing
and
approaching
25%
(
PFMC
1997).
Late
fall
fish
are
larger
in
size
and
experience
higher
harvest
rates.
The
Central
Valley
Index
is
not
a
true
harvest
rate
since
it
does
not
distinguish
between
races
or
cohorts,
does
not
include
freshwater
catch
or
ocean
catch
landed
north
of
Point
Arena,
California,
and
does
not
include
shaker
mortality
(
hook
and
release
mortality
of
undersized
fish).

Angler
harvest
in
the
Sacramento
River
Basin
was
estimated
by
creel
census
in
1991,
1992,
and
1993
(
Wixom
see
footnote
10,
Wixom
et
al.
1995).
The
creel
census
data
provide
a
harvest
estimate
of
approximately
20%
in
freshwater.

The
only
previous
assessment
of
risk
to
stocks
in
this
ESU
is
that
of
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991),
who
identified
two
stocks
(
San
Joaquin
and
Cosumnes
Rivers)
as
of
special
concern
(
Appendix
E).
The
Cosumnes
River
has
had
no
documented
spawning
escapement
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
since
1989,
and
surveys
in
1991
through
1994
have
failed
to
find
spawning
salmon
(
Big
Eagle
&
Assoc.
and
LGL
Ltd.
1995).

Southern
Coastal
Region
Historically,
chinook
salmon
were
abundant
in
this
region.
Early
estimates
based
on
peak
cannery
pack
suggest
a
total
run
size
in
excess
of
300,000
fish
in
the
1910s.
Total
chinook
salmon
spawning
escapement
for
the
California
portions
of
this
region
was
estimated
to
be
about
202
256,000
(
168,000
in
the
Klamath
River
Basin
and
88,000
elsewhere)
in
1965
(
CDFG
1995).
An
escapement
of
250,000
fish
in
1969
was
estimated
by
expanded
angler
catch.

Chinook
salmon
in
this
region
have
been
strongly
affected
both
by
losses
and
alterations
of
freshwater
habitats
and
by
a
long
history
of
hatchery
production.
PFMC
(
1995)
identified
all
of
the
major
rivers
in
this
area
as
having
chronic
instream
flow
problems.
Bottom
et
al.
(
1985)
cited
low
stream
flows
and
high
summer
temperatures
as
problems
throughout
the
southern
Oregon
coastal
area.
Timber
harvesting
and
associated
road
building
occur
throughout
the
region
on
federal,
state,
tribal
and
private
lands.
These
activities
may
increase
sedimentation
and
debris
flows
and
reduce
cover
and
shade,
resulting
in
aggradation,
embedded
spawning
gravel,
and
increased
water
temperatures
(
CACSST
1988,
NMFS
1996b).
The
Rogue
and
Klamath
River
Basins
have
been
sites
of
active
mining
since
the
mid­
1800s
and
suction
dredge
mining
still
occurs.

Hatchery
facilities
in
this
area
began
operations
late
in
the
nineteenth
century.
These
early
hatcheries
were
operated
by
private
companies
and
state
and
federal
agencies
with
the
goal
of
restoring
declining
fisheries.
With
the
exception
of
operations
on
the
Rogue
River,
which
propagated
spring­
run
chinook
salmon,
these
hatcheries
primarily
reared
fall­
run
chinook
salmon.
Dam
construction
and
habitat
degradation
reduced
or
eliminated
several
runs
and
forced
the
closure
of
a
number
of
hatcheries.
Currently
the
Cole
Rivers
Hatchery
and
Trinity
River
Hatchery
produce
the
majority
of
all
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
this
area.
A
number
of
smaller
hatcheries
release
locally
derived
fall­
run
chinook
salmon,
but
the
major
proportion
of
fall­
run
releases
comes
from
the
Iron
Gate
Hatchery
(
197
million
since
1966)
and
Trinity
River
Hatchery
(
69
million
since
1969)
(
Appendix
D).

4)
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
ESU
The
peak
historic
cannery
pack
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
range
of
this
ESU
was
31,000
cases
in
1917,
indicating
a
run­
size
of
about
225,000
at
that
time.
CDFG
(
1965)
estimated
escapement
for
the
California
portion
of
the
ESU
at
about
88,000
fish,
predominantly
in
the
Eel
River
(
55,500)
with
smaller
populations
in
the
Smith
River
(
15,000),
Redwood
Creek,
Mad
River,
Mattole
River
(
5,000
each),
Russian
River
(
500),
and
several
smaller
streams
in
Del
Norte
and
Humboldt
counties.
Based
on
the
1968
angler
catch
records
for
the
Oregon
portion
of
the
ESU
(
which
estimated
escapements
of
about
90,000
fish),
the
average
escapement
for
the
entire
ESU
in
the
1960s
was
estimated
to
be
178,000
fish.

Within
this
ESU,
recent
abundance
data
vary
regionally.
Dam
counts
of
upstream
migrants
are
available
on
the
South
Fork
Eel
River
at
Benbow
Dam
from
1938
to
1975,
and
at
Gold
Ray
Dam
on
the
Rogue
River
from
1944
to
the
present.
Counts
at
Cape
Horn
Dam
on
the
upper
Eel
River
are
available
from
the
1940s
to
the
present,
but
they
represent
a
small,
highly
variable
portion
of
the
run.
203
In
the
Oregon
portion
of
this
ESU,
coastal
rivers
are
monitored
by
surveys
of
index
reaches.
Surveys
were
begun
in
1948
with
the
intent
of
monitoring
trends
in
escapement
rather
than
estimating
total
escapement
(
Cooney
and
Jacobs
1994).
Because
the
original
selection
criteria
for
index
reaches
included
ease
of
access
and
availability
of
spawners,
spawner
densities
in
these
index
reaches
are
not
representative
of
spawner
densities
in
other
areas.
Consequently,
though
the
spawner
counts
in
index
reaches
may
be
relatively
precise,
they
are
not
accurate
for
assessing
abundance.

In
1953
Oregon
began
using
catch
report
cards,
called
"
punch
cards,"
to
report
angler
catch
in
rivers
and
estuaries
(
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988).
This
reporting
system
provides
precise
estimates
of
catch
on
a
river­
by­
river
basis,
which
can
be
expanded
by
the
harvest
rate
for
each
river
to
provide
estimates
of
terminal
run­
size.
Unfortunately,
freshwater
and
estuarine
harvest
rates
are
poorly
known
for
most
rivers,
and
vary
considerably.
Harvest
rates
depend
on
fishing
effort
and
angler
success
rates.
Fishing
effort
varies
with
run­
size,
weather,
river
conditions,
and
angler
success
rate.
Angler
success
rates,
in
turn,
depend
on
weather
and
river
conditions,
as
well
as
run­
size.
Nicholas
and
Hankin
(
1988)
used
estimates
of
average
angler
harvest
rates
to
convert
angler
catch
to
run­
size.
These
estimates,
although
imprecise,
are
probably
more
accurate
for
estimating
average
run­
size
than
expansions
based
on
peak
index
counts.

In
assessing
abundance
and
trends
we
used
expansions
of
angler
catch
from
ODFWs
punch
card
database
(
ODFW
1993)
and
Nicholas
and
Hankin's
(
1988)
average
harvest
rates
to
calculate
geometric
means
of
terminal
run­
size
and
spawning
escapement
for
the
most
recent
5­
year
period
(
1990­
94).
Trends
were
calculated
from
either
the
peak
index
counts
or
from
dam
counts,
where
they
were
available.

Expanded
angler
catch
data
produce
a
5­
year
geometric
mean
spawning
escapement
of
132,000
(
run­
size
of
148,000)
for
the
Oregon
portion
of
this
ESU.
The
majority
of
this
escapement
(
126,000)
has
been
the
spring
and
fall
runs
in
the
Rogue
River
(
Fig.
31,
Appendix
E).
No
total
escapement
estimates
are
available
for
the
California
portion
of
this
ESU,
although
partial
counts
indicate
that
escapement
in
the
Eel
River
exceeds
4,000.
Data
available
to
assess
trends
in
abundance
are
limited.
Recent
trends
have
been
mixed,
with
predominantly
strong
negative
trends
in
the
Rogue
and
Eel
River
basins,
and
mostly
upward
trends
elsewhere.
Longer
term
trends,
where
data
are
available,
are
flatter
(
e.
g.
Rogue
River)
(
Fig.
32,
Appendix
E).

Habitat
loss
and/
or
degradation
is
widespread
throughout
the
range
of
the
ESU.
The
California
Advisory
Committee
on
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Trout
(
CACSST
1988)
reported
204
Figure
31.
Recent
5­
year
geometric
mean
spawning
escapement
for
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
(
4)
and
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
rivers
(
5)
ESUs.
All
data
are
for
fall
run,
except
as
noted
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
205
206
Figure
32.
Trends
(
percent
annual
change)
in
abundance
for
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
(
4)
and
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
(
5)
ESUs.
All
data
are
for
fall
run,
except
as
noted
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
207
habitat
blockages
and
fragmentation,
logging
and
agricultural
activities,
urbanization,
and
water
withdrawals
as
the
most
predominant
problems
for
anadromous
salmonids
in
California's
coastal
basins.
They
identified
associated
habitat
problems
for
each
major
river
system
in
California.
CDFG
(
1965,
Vol.
III,
Part
B)
reported
that
the
most
critical
habitat
factor
for
coastal
California
streams
was
"
degradation
due
to
improper
logging
followed
by
massive
siltation,
log
jams,
etc."
They
cited
road
building
as
another
cause
of
siltation
in
some
areas.
They
identified
a
variety
of
specific
critical
habitat
problems
in
individual
basins,
including
extremes
of
natural
flows
(
Redwood
Creek
and
Eel
River),
logging
practices
(
Mad,
Eel,
Mattole,
Ten
Mile,
Noyo,
Big,
Navarro,
Garcia,
and
Gualala
Rivers),
and
dams
with
no
passage
facilities
(
Mad,
Eel,
and
Russian
Rivers),
and
water
diversions
(
Eel
and
Russian
Rivers).
We
expect
that
such
problems
also
occur
in
Oregon
streams
within
the
ESU.
The
Rogue
River
Basin
in
particular
has
been
affected
by
mining
activities
and
unscreened
irrigation
diversions
(
Rivers
1963)
in
addition
to
problems
resulting
from
logging
and
dam
construction.
Kostow
(
1995)
estimated
that
one­
third
of
springrun
chinook
salmon
spawning
habitat
in
the
Rogue
River
was
inaccessible
following
the
construction
of
Lost
Creek
Dam
(
RKm
253)
in
1977.
Recent
major
flood
events
(
February
1996
and
January
1997)
have
probably
affected
habitat
quality
and
survival
of
juveniles
within
this
ESU.
Although
we
have
little
information
on
the
effects
of
these
floods
in
this
ESU,
the
effects
are
probably
similar
to
those
discussed
for
the
Oregon
and
Washington
Coastal
Region
below.

Artificial
propagation
programs
have
been
less
extensive
in
the
Southern
Oregon
and
Coastal
California
ESU
than
in
neighboring
regions.
The
Rogue,
Chetco
and
Eel
River
Basins
and
Redwood
Creek
have
received
numerous
releases,
derived
primarily
from
local
sources.
In
contrast,
releases
into
the
Russian
River
have
been
predominately
from
a
variety
of
sources
from
outside
the
ESU
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
In
the
absence
of
genetic
information,
it
is
not
possible
to
evaluate
the
long­
term
impact
of
these
transfers
into
the
Russian
River.
San
Francisco
Bay
has
also
received
considerable
numbers
of
introduced
fish,
the
majority
of
which
are
off­
station
releases
of
Central
Valley
fall­
run
chinook
salmon.
Information
on
the
impact
of
hatchery­
derived
fish
on
naturally
spawning
populations
is
limited.
For
the
entire
ESU,
the
hatchery
contribution
to
total
spawning
escapement
is
probably
low.
However,
the
hatchery­
to­
wild
ratio
of
Rogue
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon,
as
measured
at
Gold
Ray
Dam
(
RKm
201),
has
exceeded
60%
in
some
years
(
Kostow
1995).
The
majority
of
the
hatchery
fish
counted
at
Gold
Ray
Dam
probably
return
to
Cole
Rivers
Hatchery
(
located
above
the
dam),
but
rates
of
straying
into
natural
spawning
habitat
are
unknown.

Ocean
harvest
rates
for
this
ESU
have
not
been
estimated,
but
should
be
comparable
to
ocean
harvest
rates
on
Klamath
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
(
21%
in
1991
[
PFMC
1996a]).
Freshwater
and
estuarine
harvest
rates
are
on
the
order
of
25­
30%
(
calculated
from
data
in
PFMC
1996b
­
Table
B4).

Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
stocks
as
being
at
risk
or
of
concern
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
seven
stocks
as
at
high
extinction
risk
and
seven
stocks
as
at
moderate
extinction
risk.
Higgins
et
al.
(
1992)
provided
a
more
detailed
analysis
of
some
of
these
stocks,
and
identified
nine
chinook
salmon
stocks
as
at
208
risk
or
of
concern.
Four
of
these
stocks
agreed
with
the
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
designations,
while
five
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
stocks
were
either
reassessed
from
a
moderate
risk
of
extinction
to
stocks
of
concern
(
Redwood
Creek,
Mad
River,
and
Eel
River)
or
were
additions
to
the
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
list
as
stocks
of
special
concern
(
Little
and
Bear
Rivers).
In
addition,
two
fall­
run
stocks
(
Smith
and
Russian
Rivers)
that
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
listed
as
at
moderate
extinction
risk
were
deleted
from
the
list
of
stocks
at
risk
by
Higgins
et
al.
(
1992),
although
the
USFWS
(
1997a)
reported
that
the
deletion
for
the
Russian
River
was
due
to
a
finding
that
the
stock
was
extinct.
Nickelson
et
al.
(
1992)
considered
11
chinook
salmon
stocks
within
the
ESU,
of
which
4
(
Applegate
River
fall
run,
Middle
and
Upper
Rogue
River
fall
runs,
and
Upper
Rogue
River
spring
run)
were
identified
as
healthy,
6
as
depressed,
and
1
(
Chetco
River
fall
run)
as
of
special
concern
due
to
hatchery
strays.
Huntington
et
al.
(
1996)
identified
three
healthy
Level
II
fall­
run
stocks
in
their
survey
(
Applegate
and
Middle
and
Upper
Rogue
Rivers).

5)
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
River
ESU
Peak
run­
size
in
this
ESU
was
estimated
to
be
about
130,000
chinook
salmon
in
1912
(
from
peak
cannery
pack
of
18,000
cases).
CDFG
(
1965)
estimated
spawning
escapement
of
chinook
salmon
within
the
range
of
this
ESU
to
be
about
168,000
adults,
split
about
evenly
between
the
Klamath
(
88,000)
and
Trinity
(
80,000)
Rivers.

Recent
spawning
escapements
and
run­
sizes
to
the
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
are
monitored
by
a
combination
of
state,
federal
and
tribal
agencies.
Hatchery
returns
to
Iron
Gate
and
Trinity
Hatcheries
are
enumerated
by
the
state.
CDFG
has
also
estimated
escapement
to
the
Trinity
River,
Scott
River,
Salmon
River,
and
Shasta
River
using
Petersen
estimates
from
marks
applied
to
upstream
migrants
at
weirs,
or
tags
applied
to
carcasses
in
stream
surveys
(
Pisano
1993,
Aguilar
et
al.
1996).
Escapement
to
smaller
tributaries
is
generally
estimated
from
redd
counts.
The
fall
run
on
the
Klamath
River
was
counted
at
Klamathon
Racks
beginning
in
1929,
but
these
counts
were
discontinued
when
Iron
Gate
Dam
was
constructed
and
the
mitigation
hatchery
began
operation
in
the
early
1960s.
Escapement
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
to
the
Shasta
River
has
been
counted
at
a
weir,
or
estimated
on
the
basis
of
recovery
of
marks
applied
at
the
weir,
since
1930
by
CDFG.
Escapement
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
to
the
Salmon
River
has
been
estimated
by
the
U.
S.
Forest
Service
by
snorkel
surveys
of
holding
habitat
in
the
summer
since
1980.
Tribal
commercial,
subsistence,
and
ceremonial
harvest
has
been
monitored
by
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
the
Hoopa
Valley
Tribe,
and
the
Yurok
Tribe.

The
5­
year
(
1992­
96)
geometric
mean
of
recent
spawning
escapements
to
natural
spawning
areas
was
about
48,000
fish
(
Fig.
31,
Appendix
E).
Fish
returning
to
the
two
hatcheries
in
the
basin
accounted
for
38%
of
the
total
(
natural
+
hatchery)
spawning
escapement.
Trends
in
escapement
are
relatively
stable
(
Fig.
32,
Appendix
E).
The
long­
term
trend
statistics
mask
the
fact
that
minimal
abundances
were
observed
in
all
areas
in
1989­
91,
and
populations
have
increased
sharply
since
then.
209
For
over
a
hundred
years,
hatcheries
have
operated
in
the
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
River
Basins.
Several
million
chinook
salmon
eggs
were
introduced
into
the
region
from
the
Central
Valley,
but
the
success
of
these
introductions
is
doubtful,
especially
given
the
practice
of
releasing
fry
during
the
early
part
of
this
century.
Dam
construction
on
the
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
led
to
the
construction
of
two
major
hatchery
complexes
(
Iron
Gate
Hatchery
and
Trinity
River
Hatchery)
to
mitigate
the
loss
of
spawning
and
rearing
habitat.
Within
the
last
30
years,
these
2
mitigation
hatcheries
have
accounted
for
the
overwhelming
majority
of
artificially
propagated
fish
in
this
region.
Between
1964
and
1994,
50
million
spring
and
236
million
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
(
almost
all
from
local
sources)
have
been
released
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
It
has
been
estimated
that
11.2%
of
the
spring­
run
fish
and
31.2%
of
the
fall­
run
fish
naturally
spawning
in
the
mainstem
Trinity
River
were
of
hatchery
origin
in
1994
(
Aguilar
1995).
Similarly,
Barnhart
(
1995)
reported
that
considerable
numbers
of
coded­
wire­
tagged
fish
from
the
Iron
Gate
Hatchery
are
recovered
among
naturally
spawning
populations
in
Bogus
Creek,
and
to
a
lesser
extent
in
the
Shasta
River.
Information
on
the
contribution
of
hatchery
fish
to
naturally
spawning
populations
in
other
tributaries
is
lacking.
Since
systematic
monitoring
of
spawning
escapement
began,
the
percentage
of
hatchery
returns
to
total
escapement
has
increased
from
18%
in
1978­
82
to
26%
in
1991­
95
(
PFMC
1996b).

The
current
management
goal
for
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Klamath
River
Basin
is
an
escapement
of
33­
34%
of
potential
spawners
in
each
brood
while
providing
a
minimum
of
35,000
adult
spawners
to
natural
spawning
areas
(
PFMC
1994).
Because
of
low
abundance,
recent
management
has
been
for
a
minimum
escapement
goal
rather
than
the
brood
escapement
rate.
As
a
result,
ocean
fishery
impact
rates
have
decreased
from
44­
65%
during
the
period
1986
to
1990
to
21%
in
1991.
Ocean
fishery
impact
rates
have
remained
below
20%
since
1991
(
PFMC
1996a).

Habitat
loss
and/
or
degradation
is
widespread
throughout
the
range
of
the
ESU.
Upper
basin
habitat
has
been
blocked
by
dam
construction
in
both
the
Klamath
and
Trinity
River
Basins
(
KRBFTF
1991).
NMFS
(
1996b)
cited
several
factors
affecting
the
habitat
in
this
region,
including
water
diversion/
extraction,
habitat
blockages,
hydropower
development,
and
logging,
mining,
and
agricultural
activities.
CDFG
(
1965,
Vol.
III,
Part
B)
identified
several
critical
habitat
factors:
water
diversions
and
resulting
low
flows
and
high
temperatures
(
Shasta,
Scott,
and
Trinity
Rivers),
logging
resulting
in
log
jams
and
siltation
(
Klamath
River),
and
small
dams
for
present
water
diversion
and
at
abandoned
gold
mines
(
Klamath
River).
They
also
cited
siltation
resulting
from
past
mining
activities
as
a
problem
in
the
Scott
River,
and
noted
that
habitat
in
the
Salmon
River
Basin
was
in
very
good
condition.
Timber
harvesting
and
associated
road
building
are
widespread
in
the
basin
and
result
in
increased
sedimentation
and
debris
flow
and
reduced
cover
and
shade
(
KRBFTF
1991).
Fifty
percent
of
the
spawning
habitat
in
the
Trinity
River
Basin
was
lost
following
the
construction
of
Lewiston
Dam
at
RKm
249
(
Moffett
and
Smith
1950).
Gold
mining
has
occurred
in
this
area
since
the
mid­
1800s.
Lode
mining
for
gold,
copper,
and
chromite,
which
may
introduce
cyanide
into
the
water
and
result
in
fish
kills,
continued
in
the
Klamath
River
Basin
until
1987.
Suction
dredge
mining,
which
directly
results
in
gravel
disturbance
and
sedimentation,
still
continues
in
the
basin
(
KRBFTF
1991).
210
Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
stocks
as
being
at
risk
or
of
concern
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
seven
stocks
as
extinct,
two
stocks
(
Klamath
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
and
Shasta
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon)
as
at
high
extinction
risk,
and
Scott
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
as
of
special
concern.
Due
to
lack
of
information
on
chinook
salmon
stocks
that
are
presumed
to
be
extinct,
the
relationship
of
these
stocks
to
existing
ESUs
is
uncertain.
They
are
listed
here
based
on
geography
and
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
the
stocks
identified
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991).
Higgins
et
al.
(
1992)
provided
a
more
detailed
analysis
of
some
of
the
stocks
identified
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991),
classifying
three
chinook
salmon
stocks
as
at
risk
or
of
concern.
Of
the
three
stocks
Higgins
et
al.
(
1992)
listed
as
at
high
risk
of
extinction,
two
matched
with
the
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
findings
(
Klamath
River
spring
run
and
Shasta
River
fall
run),
while
one
stock
was
added
to
the
list
(
South
Fork
Trinity
River
spring
run).
Additionally,
three
chinook
salmon
stocks
were
identified
as
of
special
concern.
Of
these,
Higgins
et
al.
(
1992)
classified
one
(
Scott
River
fall
run)
in
agreement
with
that
of
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991),
while
two
others
(
Trinity
River
spring
run
and
South
Fork
Trinity
River
fall
run)
were
additions
to
the
earlier
list.

Oregon
and
Washington
Coastal
Region
This
region
includes
the
Oregon
Coast,
Washington
Coast,
and
Puget
Sound
ESUs.
Chinook
salmon
were
abundant
in
this
region
near
the
turn
of
the
century,
when
estimates
based
on
peak
cannery
pack
suggested
peak
runs
of
near
one
million
fish
in
the
three
ESUs
combined.
This
region
includes
the
Coastal
Range
and
Puget
Lowlands
ecoregions
(
see
"
Ecological
Features"
above)
and
is
characterized
by
numerous
short
rivers
and
streams
draining
the
coast
ranges
and
west
slope
of
the
northern
Cascade
Mountains,
with
relatively
few
large
rivers
(
Umpqua,
Chehalis,
and
Skagit
Rivers).

Chinook
salmon
in
this
region
have
been
strongly
affected
by
losses
and
alterations
of
freshwater
habitats.
Bottom
et
al.
(
1985)
and
Bishop
and
Morgan
(
1996)
provide
thorough
reviews
of
habitat
problems.
Timber
harvesting
and
associated
road
building
occur
throughout
the
region
on
federal,
state,
tribal
and
private
lands.
These
activities
may
increase
sedimentation
and
debris
flows,
reduce
cover
and
shade,
and
may
reduce
recruitment
of
large
woody
debris
to
streams,
resulting
in
aggradation,
embedded
spawning
gravel,
loss
of
pools,
and
increased
water
temperatures.
Agriculture
is
also
widespread
in
the
lower
portions
of
river
basins
and
has
resulted
in
widespread
removal
of
riparian
vegetation,
rerouting
of
streams,
degradation
of
streambanks,
and
summer
water
withdrawals.
Urban
development
has
substantially
altered
watershed
hydrodynamics
and
affected
stream
channel
structure
in
many
parts
of
Puget
Sound
and
the
Oregon
Coast.

This
region
(
and
parts
of
the
southern
coastal
region
discussed
above)
has
experienced
severe
winter
floods
in
recent
years
which
could
have
affected
chinook
salmon
habitat
and
survival
of
in­
stream
juveniles
during
the
flood
events.
The
following
discussion
summarizes
information
available
regarding
floods
in
February
1996.
211
Between
November
1995
and
April
1996,
the
Pacific
Northwest
and
California
experienced
a
series
of
storm
and
flood
events.
High
winds,
heavy
rainfall,
rapid
snowmelt,
numerous
landslides
and
debris
torrents,
mobilization
of
large
woody
debris
and
high
runoff
occurred
over
portions
of
California,
Oregon,
Washington,
Idaho,
and
Montana
(
USFS
and
USBLM
1996).
These
storms
also
had
a
potentially
large
effect
on
northern
California
and
Oregon
coast
coho
salmon
and
their
freshwater
habitats.
Abnormally
high
rainfall
and
warm
temperature,
on
top
of
already
elevated
stream
levels
and
saturated
soils
resulted
in
the
floods
of
February
1996;
considered
to
be
100­
year
floods
in
many
Oregon
coastal
basins
(
USFS
and
USBLM
1996,
Bush
et
al.
1997).
USFS
and
USBLM
(
1996)
estimated
landscape­
scale
habitat
impacts
from
the
February
1996
flood
on
federal
lands
in
Washington
and
Oregon.
They
identified
the
Wilson­
Trask­
Nestucca,
Siuslaw,
and
Alsea
Basins
as
experiencing
landslides,
gullies/
surface
erosion,
bedload
deposition,
channel
migration,
and
LWD
deposition,
and
considered
the
Wilson­
Trask­
Nestucca
area
as
one
of
four
areas
with
the
highest
rates
of
disturbance
from
the
flood,
and
the
Siuslaw
as
one
of
four
areas
with
the
second
highest
rates
of
disturbance
from
the
flood.
Pacific
Watershed
Associates
(
PWA
undated)
conducted
aerial
surveys
to
provide
an
assessment
of
the
nature,
magnitude
and
spatial
distribution
of
watershed
erosion
and
impacts
to
streams
channels
in
the
middle
Coast
Range,
including
the
Smith
(
Umpqua),
Siuslaw,
Alsea,
and
Yaquina
Basins.
They
report
that
areas
with
the
greatest
impact
included
Hadsall
and
Knowles
Creeks
(
Siuslaw
River)
and
Lobster
Creek
(
Alsea
River),
and
those
watersheds
with
a
combination
of
steep
slopes,
unstable
bedrock
geology,
recent
timber
harvesting,
and
high
road
densities
within
an
altitude
range
where
precipitation
intensities
were
probably
the
greatest
(
500
m.
in
the
Coast
Range).
They
also
stressed
that
landslides
were
highly
correlated
with
forestry
management
activities
and
originated
from
recent
clear­
cuts
and
forest
roads
at
much
higher
frequencies
than
from
wilderness
or
unmanaged
areas.
In
addition
to
these
observations,
PWA
concluded
that
the
floods
may
have
had
long­
term
effects
on
watershed
habitats.
Siuslaw
National
Forest
(
SNF
1996)
staff
surveyed
500,000
hectares
of
central
Oregon
coast
forests
using
aerial
photographs
to
assess
the
frequency
and
character
of
landslides.
They
detected
1,686
slides,
41%
of
which
were
associated
with
roads,
36%
with
recent
(<
20
year
old)
clear
cuts,
and
23%
with
forested
areas.
They
also
found
that
subbasins
in
the
southern
portion
of
the
area
assessed
(
Coos,
Umpqua,
Siltcoos
and
Siuslaw)
experienced
from
1.5
to
2.5
times
more
landslides
by
area
than
more
northern
areas.
They
attribute
this
difference
to
both
landtype
associations
of
the
basins
and
the
differential
intensity
of
the
storm
as
it
moved
onshore.
They
also
determined
that
"
stabilized"
roads
(
those
treated
to
reduce
failure)
were
less
likely
to
be
the
source
of
large
(>
1700
m3)
landslides
than
untreated
roads.

With
regard
to
impacts
to
in­
stream
coho
salmon
habitat,
ODFW
has
conducted
random
resurveys
of
habitat
for
105
reaches
since
the
floods
(
Moore
and
Jones
1997).
This
survey
effort
indicated
that
along
the
North
Oregon
Coast
(
Salmon
River
to
Columbia
River),
7.5%
of
habitats
received
"
no
impact"
(
no
perceivable
impact),
60%
of
habitats
received
"
low
impact"
(
high
water
and
scour
and
deposition
impacts),
28%
received
"
moderate
impact"
(
channel
modified
impact),
and
3.4%
received
"
torrents"
(
and
of
these
levels
associated
with
debris
torrents
or
dam
break
floods).
Along
the
mid
coast
(
Siuslaw
River
to
Devils
Lake
tributaries),
2%
of
habitats
received
"
no
impact,"
91%
received
"
low
impact,"
7%
"
moderate
impact,"
and
0.1%
"
torrents."
Habitat
212
changes
included
both
positive
and
negative
effects,
depending
on
the
area.
Bush
et
al.
(
1997)
noted
that
there
were
substantial
changes
in
pool
and
riffle
areas,
large
woody
debris,
and
streambed
substrates
in
streams
following
the
floods,
based
on
differences
in
stream
reaches
initially
surveyed
in
1992­
95
and
resurveyed
in
1996.
Decreases
in
pool
area
ranged
from
10
to
50%,
and
largely
resulted
from
a
60%
loss
of
beaver
pond
habitat.
Large
woody
debris
decreased
by
approximately
25%
from
the
initial
surveys,
although
much
of
the
lost
wood
had
been
pushed
up
onto
the
floodplain
or
out
of
the
active
channel.
Overall,
large
amounts
of
gravel
were
added
to
most
streams,
and
new
gravel
bars
were
common.
Dewberry
et
al.
(
1996)
documented
changes
in
salmon
habitats
in
Knowles
Creek.
(
Siuslaw
River).
Twenty
four
debris
torrents
occurred
in
anadromous
fish­
bearing
reaches
of
the
basin,
four
of
which
exceeded
3,000
m2.
Although
the
floods
had
little
impact
on
parts
of
the
basin,
including
an
old­
growth
section,
other
areas
were
highly
affected.

Within
the
last
50
years,
over
2.5
billion
spring­,
summer­,
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
released
from
state,
federal,
and/
or
tribal
hatcheries
in
this
region,
with
the
fall
run
constituting
the
majority
of
these
releases.
In
addition,
large,
privately
owned
sea­
ranching
programs
operated
in
recent
years
on
the
Oregon
coast.
A
number
of
hatcheries
already
were
in
existence
on
rivers
around
Puget
Sound
by
the
turn
of
the
century,
and
many
of
those
are
still
in
operation.
In
coastal
areas,
the
earliest
and
most
intense
artificial
propagation
efforts
have
been,
and
continue
to
be,
in
coastal
rivers
near
the
mouth
of
the
Columbia
River.
The
majority
of
these
hatcheries
have
been
built
primarily
for
fisheries
enhancement,
rather
than
mitigation
for
habitat
loss.
However,
hatcheries
on
the
Skagit,
White,
Skokomish,
and
Elwha
Rivers
operate
to
mitigate
the
loss
of
habitat
due
to
dam
construction
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Kostow
1995).
Although
there
have
been
numerous
introductions
of
lower
Columbia
River
chinook
salmon
stocks
into
the
region,
the
majority
of
fish
released
have
been
derived
from
local
stocks
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
Some
artificial
propagation
programs
on
the
Oregon
and
Washington
coasts
have
recently
begun
to
alter
their
primary
mission
from
fisheries
enhancement
to
the
supplementation
of
natural
populations.

6)
Oregon
Coast
ESU
ODFW
has
identified
45
populations
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
range
of
this
ESU
(
Kostow
1995).
Historical
abundance
estimates
for
this
ESU
are
available
only
from
cannery
pack
data.
Peak
cannery
pack
was
30,967
cases
in
1896,
suggesting
a
peak
run­
size
of
about
225,000
fish
at
that
time.
Abundance
at
that
time
does
not
reflect
"
pristine"
conditions,
as
extensive
logging
with
associated
splash
dams
were
already
impacting
stream
habitat.

Types
of
data
available
in
this
ESU
were
much
the
same
as
within
the
Oregon
portion
of
the
Northern
California/
Southern
Oregon
ESU.
Punch
card
data
and
average
estimated
harvest
rates
were
used
to
estimate
recent
spawning
run­
size
from
freshwater
angler
harvest.
Survey
data
from
spawner
surveys
conducted
by
ODFW
were
used
to
estimate
trends
in
abundance.
The
only
other
data
available
that
provided
reasonably
long
time
series
were
fish
counts
of
spring
and
fall
runs
at
Winchester
Dam
on
the
North
Umpqua
River.
213
The
5­
year
geometric
mean
of
terminal
run­
size
calculated
from
angler
catch
was
approximately
170,000
fish
(
spawning
escapement
of
136,000)
distributed
among
numerous
spawning
populations
(
Fig.
33,
Appendix
E).
Most
long­
term
trends
in
escapement
indices
were
stable
or
increasing,
with
only
one
population
declining
at
more
than
10%
per
year;
short­
term
trends
were
more
variable,
with
a
mix
of
increases
and
decreases
(
Fig.
34,
Appendix
E).

Bottom
et
al.
(
1985)
cited
low
streamflows
and
high
summer
temperatures
exacerbated
by
water
withdrawals
as
problems
for
many
streams
(
notably
Tillamook
Bay
tributaries
and
Alsea,
Siletz,
Siuslaw,
and
Umpqua
Rivers)
and
noted
that
agricultural
and
logging
practices
have
led
to
serious
riparian
habitat
losses.
They
also
cited
serious
modification
of
stream
structure
by
logging,
splash
dams,
and
widespread
removal
of
beaver
dams,
but
concluded
that
recent
efforts
have
resulted
in
more
stream
miles
being
accessible
to
anadromous
fish
now
than
100
years
ago.
Effects
of
recent
floods
were
discussed
for
the
Oregon
and
Washington
Coastal
Region
above.

The
first
hatcheries
were
built
in
this
area
in
1902.
Since
the
1930s,
artificial
propagation
programs
have
released
nearly
400
million
fall­
and
spring­
run
fish
into
this
area,
with
nearly
onequarter
of
all
the
fish
released
coming
from
sources
outside
the
ESU
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
During
much
of
this
period,
the
impact
of
these
releases
may
have
been
reduced
by
the
large
size
of
naturally
spawning
runs
in
most
rivers.
However,
during
the
1940s
and
1950s
many
rivers
were
experiencing
record
low
natural
runs,
and
hatchery
releases
may
have
had
a
significant
impact
on
local
populations
during
this
period
(
Kostow
1995).
Chinook
salmon
from
the
Trask
River
have
been
used
to
establish
hatchery
broodstock
in
other
systems
in
the
Tillamook
and
Nestucca
River
Basins
(
Kostow
1995).

The
contribution
of
hatchery­
derived
fish
to
total
escapement
is
generally
thought
to
be
rather
low
(
Kostow
1995).
In
1990,
the
hatchery
contribution
to
the
Tillamook
Bay
fishery
was
only
15%
(
Kostow
1995).
In
contrast,
hatchery
contribution
to
total
spawning
escapement
has
been
reported
to
be
highest
(
approximately
50%)
among
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
Salmon
and
Elk
Rivers
(
ODFW
1995).
Additionally,
hatchery­
reared
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
constituted
50%
of
the
spring
run
on
the
North
Fork
Umpqua
River
in
the
1980s,
214
215
Figure
33.
Recent
5­
year
geometric
mean
spawning
escapement
for
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Oregon
Coast
(
6)
ESU.
All
data
are
for
fall
run,
except
as
noted
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
216
Figure
34.
Trend
s
(
percent
annual
change)
in
abundance
for
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Oregon
Coast
(
6)
ESU.
All
data
are
for
fall
run,
except
as
noted
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
217
although
currently
the
figure
may
be
as
low
as
30%
(
Kostow
1995).
Estimates
of
the
impact
of
hatchery
strays
is
limited,
but
in
the
Sixes
River,
hatchery
strays
were
reported
to
constitute
up
to
20%
of
the
natural
spawners
(
Kaczynski
and
Palmisano
1993).

Freshwater/
estuarine
harvest
rates
are
on
the
order
of
20­
25%
(
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988).
Ocean
exploitation
rates
have
ranged
from
24%
to
48%,
with
total
exploitation
rates
in
the
range
of
45­
68%,
and
an
average
near
60%
(
brood
years
1982­
89)
(
PSC
1994).

Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
stocks
at
risk
or
of
concern;
however,
the
preponderance
of
stocks
have
been
identified
as
healthy
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
two
stocks
as
at
high
extinction
risk
(
South
Umpqua
River
and
Coquille
River
spring
run),
one
stock
as
at
moderate
extinction
risk
(
Yachats
River
fall
run)
and
five
stocks
as
of
special
concern.
Of
the
44
stocks
within
this
ESU
considered
by
Nickelson
et
al.
(
1992),
26
were
identified
as
healthy
(
with
2
stocks
containing
small,
variable
runs),
2
as
depressed
(
South
Umpqua
River
and
Coquille
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon),
7
as
of
special
concern
due
to
hatchery
strays,
and
9
of
unknown
status
(
4
of
which
they
suggested
may
not
be
viable).
Huntington
et
al.
(
1996)
identified
18
stocks
in
their
survey:
6
healthy
Level
I
and
12
healthy
Level
II
stocks.

7)
Washington
Coast
ESU
Historical
harvest
of
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
reached
a
peak
in
1911,
when
26,490
cases
were
packed
at
canneries.
This
corresponds
to
a
peak
run­
size
of
about
190,000
fish.

At
the
present
time,
run­
size
and
spawning
escapement
in
this
ESU
are
monitored
by
WDFW
and
the
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes.
Management
objectives,
terminal
fisheries
and
monitoring
methods
vary
considerably
over
the
ESU.
Willapa
Bay
is
managed
for
hatchery
production
and
is
monitored
by
WDFW
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Since
1988,
65%
or
more
of
the
natural
escapement
in
Willapa
Bay
has
consisted
of
hatchery
fish
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Escapement
is
monitored
by
redd
counts,
and
natural
production
is
not
believed
to
be
selfsustaining
Monitoring
of
Grays
Harbor
is
also
conducted
by
WDFW
through
redd
counts.
Most
spawning
populations
in
Grays
Harbor
are
believed
to
have
little
hatchery
influence.

In
rivers
further
north,
monitoring
is
conducted
by
the
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes.
Time
series
of
spawning
escapement
estimates
are
relatively
short,
and
the
longest
abundance
data
series
are
from
tribal
net
fisheries
conducted
in
the
estuaries.
Most
spawning
stocks
are
believed
to
be
of
native
origin
with
little
hatchery
influence.
Notable
exceptions
are
Sol
Duc
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon,
which
are
an
introduced
stock,
and
the
Quinault
River
fallrun
chinook
salmon
stock,
which
is
propagated
as
a
Pacific
Salmon
Treaty
indicator
stock.

Recent
average
natural
spawning
escapement,
the
sum
of
5­
year
geometric
means
for
individual
populations,
has
been
over
50,000
spawners
(
Fig.
35,
Appendix
E).
Long­
term
trends
218
are
about
evenly
split
between
increases
and
declines,
but
with
most
larger
populations
increasing
(
Fig.
36,
Appendix
E).
Short­
term
trends
are
predominantly
negative,
strongly
so
in
the
Quillayute
Basin
and
Willapa
Bay
tributaries.

All
basins
are
affected
(
to
varying
degrees)
by
habitat
degradation.
Tributaries
inside
Olympic
National
Park
have
been
least
affected
by
human
activities
For
other
areas,
major
habitat
problems
are
related
primarily
to
forest
practices,
including
mass
wasting
resulting
in
sedimentation
in
spawning
grounds,
lack
of
large
woody
debris,
and
lack
of
streamside
shade.
For
example,
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
reported
that
the
Hoko
River
has
been
heavily
impacted
by
past
logging
practices,
with
over
300
mass­
wasting
events
recorded
in
the
last
50
years.
Clearing
of
instream
wood
was
common
practice
until
the
1970s,
resulting
in
channel
downcutting
and
bedload
scour
and
fill
which,
in
combination
with
moderate
to
high
levels
of
fine
sediments
in
gravel
beds,
affects
egg
survival
in
many
areas.
Bishop
and
Morgan
(
1996)
identified
a
variety
of
critical
habitat
issues
for
streams
in
the
range
of
this
ESU,
including
changes
in
flow
regime
(
Hoko
and,
Quillayute
Rivers),
sedimentation
(
Chehalis,
Hoh,
Hoko,
and
Quillayute
Rivers),
high
temperatures
(
Chehalis,
Hoko,
and
Quillayute
Rivers),
streambed
instability
(
Hoko
and
Quillayute
Rivers),
estuarine
loss
(
Chehalis
River),
loss
of
large
woody
debris
(
Hoko
River),
and
loss
of
pool
habitat
(
Hoko
River).
Of
the
streams
they
reviewed,
only
in
the
Queets
and
Quinault
River
Basins
were
chinook
salmon
not
considered
to
be
substantially
limited
by
habitat
problems.
Upper
basins
of
several
streams
in
this
region
lie
within
Olympic
National
Park
and
are
fully
protected
from
effects
of
logging
and
most
other
habitat
changes.
The
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Stock
Review
Group
(
PSSSRG
1997)
reviewed
causes
of
declines
in
western
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
and
described
habitat
conditions
for
rivers
in
that
portion
of
this
ESU,
concluding
that
timber
harvest
and
hydromodifications
have
reduced
both
capacity
and
quality
of
salmon
habitats.

WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
classified
9
out
of
31
stocks
in
this
ESU
as
having
cultured
or
composite
production
(
indicating
that
a
stock
is
sustained
to
some
extent
by
artificial
propagation).
Some
319
million
chinook
salmon
have
been
released
into
Washington
coastal
waters
since
1952.
Fall­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
propagated
in
much
larger
numbers
than
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
(
309
vs.
10
million).
On
average,
approximately
19%
of
all
hatchery
releases
have
been
from
sources
outside
of
the
ESU.
However,
the
Pysht,
Hoko,
and
Chehalis
Rivers
have
received
proportionally
larger
introductions
of
fish
from
outside
the
ESU.
Releases
into
these
three
rivers
constitute
more
than
half
of
the
total
of
all
non­
ESU
releases
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).

Significant
numbers
of
hatchery
strays
have
been
found
in
naturally
spawning
populations
in
the
Satsop
and
Willapa
Bay
Rivers
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995),
although
their
reproductive
success
is
unknown.
Furthermore,
there
has
been
considerable
interbreeding
between
the
non­
native
Sol
Duc
Hatchery
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stock
and
the
native
219
Figure
35.
Recent
5­
year
geometric
mean
spawning
escapement
for
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Washington
Coast
(
7)
ESU
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
220
221
Figure
36.
Trends
(
percent
annual
change)
in
abundance
for
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Washington
Coast
(
7)
ESU
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
222
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
run
in
the
Sol
Duc
River
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
With
the
exception
of
the
Sol
Duc
Hatchery
spring
run,
most
of
the
introductions
of
non­
native
spring­
run
fish
are
thought
to
have
been
unsuccessful
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).

Harvest
rates
on
Washington
coast
chinook
salmon
stocks
have
been
moderate,
with
ocean
exploitation
rates
averaging
44­
52%,
and
total
exploitation
rates
averaging
48­
56%
(
1982­
89)
for
Hoko
and
Sooes
stocks
(
PSC
1994).

Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
as
being
at
risk
or
of
concern,
but
more
stocks
have
been
identified
as
healthy
than
at
risk
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
one
stock
as
extinct
(
Pysht
River
fall
run),
one
as
possibly
extinct
(
Ozette
River
fall
run),
and
one
as
at
high
risk
of
extinction
(
Wynoochee
River
spring
run),
although
there
is
some
question
whether
the
Wynoochee
River
spring
run
ever
existed
(
WDFW
1997a).
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
considered
31
stocks
within
the
ESU,
of
which
18
were
reported
to
be
of
native
origin
and
predominantly
natural
production.
The
status
of
these
18
stocks
was
11
healthy,
4
depressed,
and
3
unknown.
The
status
of
the
remaining
(
not
native/
natural)
stocks
was
nine
healthy,
two
depressed,
and
two
unknown.
The
Sol
Duc
River
spring­
run
and
Raft
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
were
not
considered
an
ESA
issue
by
the
BRT
(
stocks
were
not
historically
present
in
the
watershed
or
current
stocks
are
not
representative
of
historical
stocks)
but
was
included
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
stocks
identified
by
WDF
et
al.
(
1993).
Huntington
et
al.
(
1996)
identified
12
stocks
in
their
survey:
1
healthy
Level
I
stock
(
Quillayute/
Bogachiel
River
fall
run)
and
11
healthy
Level
II
stocks.

8)
Puget
Sound
ESU
The
peak
recorded
harvest
landed
in
Puget
Sound
occurred
in
1908,
when
95,210
cases
of
canned
chinook
salmon
were
packed.
This
corresponds
to
a
run­
size
of
approximately
690,000
chinook
salmon
at
a
time
when
both
ocean
harvest
and
hatchery
production
were
negligible.
(
This
estimate,
as
with
other
historical
estimates,
needs
to
be
viewed
cautiously;
Puget
Sound
cannery
pack
probably
included
a
portion
of
fish
landed
at
Puget
Sound
ports
but
originating
in
adjacent
areas,
and
the
estimates
of
exploitation
rates
used
in
run­
size
expansions
are
not
based
on
precise
data.)
Recent
mean
spawning
escapements
totaling
71,000
correspond
to
a
run
entering
Puget
Sound
of
approximately
160,000
fish.
Based
on
an
exploitation
rate
of
one­
third
in
intercepting
ocean
fisheries,
the
recent
average
potential
run­
size
would
be
240,000
chinook
salmon
(
PSC
1994).

Currently,
escapement
to
rivers
in
Puget
Sound
and
Hood
Canal
is
monitored
by
WDFW
and
the
Northwest
tribes.
Populations
least
affected
by
hatcheries
are
in
the
northern
part
of
the
sound
in
the
Nooksack,
Skagit,
Stillaguamish,
and
Snohomish
River
systems.

The
Nooksack
River
has
spring/
summer
runs
in
the
north
and
south
forks.
The
North
Fork
escapement
is
monitored
by
carcass
surveys
and
is
influenced
by
a
hatchery
on
Kendall
Creek
223
(
part
of
a
native
stock
rebuilding
program).
Escapement
to
the
South
Fork
is
monitored
by
redd
counts,
and
the
stock
is
believed
to
have
little
hatchery
influence.
Both
stocks
are
considered
critical
by
WDFW
because
of
chronically
low
spawning
escapements.
The
Skagit
River
supports
three
spring
runs,
two
summer
runs,
and
a
fall
run.
Mean
spawning
escapement
of
the
summer/
fall
run
has
been
below
the
escapement
goal
and
declining
(
Fig.
37­
38,
Appendix
E).
Terminal
run­
size
has
been
declining,
and
escapement
has
been
maintained
at
the
expense
of
terminal
fisheries.
Of
the
five
stocks
identified
by
WDF
et
al.
(
1993),
two
are
rated
healthy,
two
depressed,
and
one
of
unknown
status.
On
the
Stillaguamish
River,
two
runs
have
been
identified.
The
combined
escapement
goal
has
been
met
only
twice
since
1978,
and
both
runs
are
considered
depressed.
Of
four
runs
identified
in
the
Snohomish
system,
two
are
rated
depressed,
one
unknown,
and
one
as
healthy.
The
single
stock
identified
as
"
healthy"
(
Wallace
River)
is
considered
to
be
derived
from
hatchery
strays
and
has
experienced
a
severe
recent
decline.

The
5­
year
geometric
mean
of
spawning
escapement
of
natural
chinook
salmon
runs
in
North
Puget
Sound
for
1992­
96
is
approximately
13,000
(
Fig.
37,
Appendix
E).
Both
long­
and
short­
term
trends
for
these
runs
were
negative,
with
few
exceptions.
In
south
Puget
Sound,
spawning
escapement
of
the
natural
runs
has
averaged
11,000
spawners
(
Fig.
37,
Appendix
E).
In
this
area,
both
long­
and
short­
term
trends
are
predominantly
positive.

In
Hood
Canal,
summer/
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
spawn
in
the
Skokomish,
Union,
Tahuya,
Duckabush,
Dosewallips
and
Hamma
Hamma
Rivers.
Because
of
transfers
of
hatchery
fish,
these
spawning
populations
are
considered
a
single
stock
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Fisheries
in
the
area
are
managed
primarily
for
hatchery
production
and
secondarily
for
natural
escapement;
high
harvest
rates
directed
at
hatchery
stocks
have
resulted
in
failure
to
meet
natural
escapement
goals
in
most
years
(
USFWS
1997a).
The
5­
year
geometric
mean
natural
spawning
escapement
has
been
1,100
(
Fig.
37,
Appendix
E),
with
negative
short­
and
long­
term
trends
(
except
in
the
Dosewallips
River).

The
ESU
also
includes
the
Dungeness
and
Elwha
Rivers,
which
have
natural
chinook
salmon
runs
as
well
as
hatcheries.
The
Dungeness
River
has
a
run
of
spring/
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
with
a
5­
year
geometric
mean
natural
escapement
of
105
fish
(
Fig.
37,
Appendix
E).
The
Elwha
River
has
a
5­
year
geometric
mean
escapement
of
1,800
fish
(
Fig.
37,
Appendix
E),
but
contains
two
hatcheries,
both
lacking
adequate
adult
recovery
facilities.
Egg
take
at
the
hatcheries
is
augmented
from
natural
spawners,
and
hatchery
fish
spawn
in
the
wild.
Consequently,
hatchery
and
natural
spawners
are
not
considered
discrete
stocks
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Both
of
these
populations
exhibit
downward
recent
trends
(
Appendix
E).

Habitat
throughout
the
ESU
has
been
blocked
or
degraded.
In
general,
upper
tributaries
have
been
impacted
by
forest
practices
and
lower
tributaries
and
mainstem
rivers
have
been
224
Figure
37.
Recent
5­
year
geometric
mean
spawning
escapement
for
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Puget
Sound
(
8)
ESU.
7A,
10,
and
13B
designate
combined
escapements
for
smaller
stream
systems
within
a
fishery
management
region.
All
data
are
for
summer/
fall
run,
except
as
noted
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
225
Figure
38.
Trends
(
percent
annual
change)
in
abundance
for
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Puget
Sound
(
8)
ESU.
7A,
10,
and
13B
designate
combined
escapements
for
smaller
stream
systems
within
a
fishery
management
region.
All
data
are
for
summer/
fall
run,
except
as
noted
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
226
impacted
by
agriculture
and/
or
urbanization.
Diking
for
flood
control,
draining
and
filling
of
freshwater
and
estuarine
wetlands,
and
sedimentation
due
to
forest
practices
and
urban
development
are
cited
as
problems
throughout
the
ESU
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Blockages
by
dams,
water
diversions,
and
shifts
in
flow
regime
due
to
hydroelectric
development
and
flood
control
projects
are
major
habitat
problems
in
several
basins.
Bishop
and
Morgan
(
1996)
identified
a
variety
of
critical
habitat
issues
for
streams
in
the
range
of
this
ESU
including
1)
changes
in
flow
regime
(
all
basins),
2)
sedimentation
(
all
basins),
3)
high
temperatures
(
Dungeness,
Elwha,
Green/
Duwamish,
Skagit,
Snohomish,
and
Stillaguamish
Rivers),
4)
streambed
instability
(
most
basins),
5)
estuarine
loss
(
most
basins),
6)
loss
of
large
woody
debris
(
Elwha,
Snohomish,
and
White
Rivers),
7)
loss
of
pool
habitat
(
Nooksack,
Snohomish,
and
Stillaguamish
Rivers),
and
8)
blockage
or
passage
problems
associated
with
dams
or
other
structures
(
Cedar,
Elwha,
Green/
Duwamish,
Snohomish,
and
White
Rivers).
The
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Stock
Review
Group
(
PSSSRG
1997)
provided
an
extensive
review
of
habitat
conditions
for
several
of
the
stocks
in
this
ESU.
It
concluded
that
reductions
in
habitat
capacity
and
quality
have
contributed
to
escapement
problems
for
Puget
Sound
chinook
salmon.
It
cited
evidence
of
direct
losses
of
tributary
and
mainstem
habitat,
due
to
dams;
of
slough
and
side­
channel
habitat,
caused
by
diking,
dredging,
and
hydromodification;
and
also
cited
reductions
in
habitat
quality
due
to
land
management
activities.

WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
classified
11
out
of
29
stocks
in
this
ESU
as
being
sustained,
in
part,
through
artificial
propagation.
Nearly
2
billion
fish
have
been
released
into
Puget
Sound
tributaries
since
the
1950s
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
The
vast
majority
of
these
have
been
derived
from
local
returning
fall­
run
adults.
Returns
to
hatcheries
have
accounted
for
57%
of
the
total
spawning
escapement,
although
the
hatchery
contribution
to
spawner
escapement
is
probably
much
higher
than
that,
due
to
hatchery­
derived
strays
on
the
spawning
grounds.
In
the
Stillaguamish
River,
summer­
run
chinook
have
been
supplemented
under
a
wild
broodstock
program
for
the
last
decade.
In
some
years,
returns
from
this
program
have
comprised
from
30%
to
50%
of
the
natural
spawners,
suggesting
that
the
unaided
stock
is
not
able
to
maintain
itself
(
NWIFC
1997a).
Almost
all
of
the
releases
into
this
ESU
have
come
from
stocks
within
this
ESU,
with
the
majority
of
within­
ESU
transfers
coming
from
the
Green
River
Hatchery
or
hatchery
broodstocks
that
have
been
derived
from
Green
River
stock
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
The
electrophoretic
similarity
between
Green
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
and
several
other
fall­
run
stocks
in
Puget
Sound
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995)
suggests
that
there
may
have
been
a
significant
effect
from
some
hatchery
transplants.
Overall,
the
pervasive
use
of
Green
River
stock
throughout
much
of
the
extensive
hatchery
network,
that
exists
in
this
ESU,
may
reduce
the
genetic
diversity
and
fitness
of
naturally
spawning
populations.

Harvest
impacts
on
Puget
Sound
chinook
salmon
stocks
have
been
quite
high.
Ocean
exploitation
rates
on
natural
stocks
average
56­
59%;
total
exploitation
rates
average
68­
83%
(
1982­
89
brood
years)
(
PSC
1994).
Total
exploitation
rates
on
some
stocks
have
exceeded
90%
(
PSC
1994).
227
Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
stocks
as
being
at
risk
or
of
concern
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
four
stocks
as
extinct,
four
stocks
as
possibly
extinct,
six
stocks
as
at
high
risk
of
extinction,
one
stock
as
at
moderate
risk
(
White
River
spring
run),
and
1
stock
(
Puyallup
River
fall
run)
as
of
special
concern.
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
considered
28
stocks
within
the
ESU,
of
which
13
were
considered
to
be
of
native
origin
and
predominantly
natural
production.
The
status
of
these
13
stocks
was:
2
healthy
(
Upper
Skagit
River
summer
run
and
Upper
Sauk
River
spring
run),
5
depressed,
2
critical
(
South­
Fork
Nooksack
River
spring/
summer
run
and
Dungeness
River
spring/
summer
run),
and
4
unknown.
The
status
of
the
remaining
(
composite
production)
stocks
was
eight
healthy,
two
depressed,
two
critical,
and
three
unknown.
The
Nooksack/
Samish
River
fall
run
and
Issaquah
Creek
summer/
fall
run
were
not
considered
an
ESA
issue
by
the
BRT
(
stocks
were
not
historically
present
in
the
watershed
or
current
stocks
are
not
representative
of
historical
stocks)
but
were
included
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
stocks
identified
by
WDF
et
al.
(
1993).

Lower
Columbia
River
Region
The
Lower
Columbia
River
Region
includes
portions
of
the
Coastal
Range,
Willamette
Valley,
and
Cascades
ecoregions
(
see
"
Ecological
Features,"
p.
12)
and
is
characterized
by
numerous
short­
and
medium­
length
rivers
and
streams
draining
the
coast
ranges
and
west
slope
of
the
Cascade
Mountains,
with
a
single
large
river
(
Willamette
River).
We
have
no
estimates
of
historic
abundance
of
chinook
salmon
in
this
region.
Peak
cannery
pack
for
the
entire
Columbia
River
Basin
occurred
in
1883,
when
629,400
cases
were
packed,
suggesting
a
total
run­
size
of
about
4.6
million
chinook
salmon.

Chinook
salmon
in
this
region
have
been
strongly
affected
by
losses
and
alterations
of
freshwater
habitats.
Bottom
et
al.
(
1985),
WDF
et
al.
(
1993),
and
Kostow
(
1995)
provide
reviews
of
habitat
problems.
Timber
harvesting
and
associated
road
building
occur
throughout
the
region
on
federal,
state,
and
private
lands.
These
activities
may
increase
sedimentation
and
debris
flows
and
reduce
cover
and
shade,
resulting
in
aggradation,
embedded
spawning
gravel,
and
increased
water
temperatures.
Timber
harvest
in
the
Oregon
portion
of
the
region
peaked
in
the
1930s,
but
habitat
impacts
remain
(
Kostow
1995).
Agriculture
is
also
widespread
in
the
lower
portions
of
river
basins,
and
has
resulted
in
widespread
removal
of
riparian
vegetation,
rerouting
of
streams,
degradation
of
streambanks,
and
summer
water
withdrawals.
Urban
development
has
had
substantial
impacts
in
the
lower
Willamette
Valley,
including
channelization
and
diking
of
rivers,
filling
and
draining
of
wetlands,
removal
of
riparian
vegetation,
and
pollution
(
Kostow
1995).

Intensive
hatchery
programs
were
initiated
more
than
100
years
ago
in
this
region.
Nearly
4.5
billion
hatchery­
derived
fish
have
been
released
during
the
last
70
years,
equal
to
the
total
for
all
the
other
regions
combined
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
The
majority
of
these
have
been
"
tule"
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
released
into
the
lower
Columbia
River
for
fisheries
enhancement.
Because
of
the
advanced
degree
of
maturation
that
"
tules"
exhibit
at
the
time
of
freshwater
entry,
228
the
economic
value
of
these
fish
is
rather
low;
therefore,
efforts
have
been
made
to
introduce
Rogue
River
"
bright"
fall­
run
chinook
and
upper
Columbia
River
upriver
"
bright"
fall­
run
chinook
into
this
region
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Kostow
1995,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
In
addition,
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
lower
Columbia
River
were
introduced
into
the
upper
Willamette
River
Basin
beginning
in
the
1950s
to
exploit
underutilized
habitat.

9)
Lower
Columbia
River
ESU
We
have
no
estimates
of
historic
abundance
for
this
ESU,
but
there
is
widespread
agreement
that
natural
production
has
been
substantially
reduced
over
the
last
century.
Currently,
spawning
escapement
to
populations
on
the
Washington
side
of
the
Columbia
River
are
monitored
primarily
by
peak
fish
counts
in
index
areas
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Peak
index­
area
spawning
counts
are
expanded
to
estimate
total
spawning
escapement.
In
most
lower
Columbia
River
tributaries
in
Oregon,
foot
surveys
are
conducted
and
escapement
estimates
are
based
on
peak
spawner
counts
or
redd
counts
(
Theis
and
Melcher
1995),
with
dam
counts
available
for
the
Sandy
and
Clackamas
Rivers.

For
fishery
monitoring
purposes,
these
individual
spawning
populations
are
combined
into
stock
groupings:
Lower
Columbia
River
Wild,
Lower
Columbia
River
Hatchery,
and
Spring
Creek
Hatchery
stocks
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
designated
for
fishery
management
purposes(
WDFW
and
ODFW
1994,
PFMC
1996b).

The
ESU
also
includes
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Cowlitz,
Lewis,
Kalama,
Sandy,
and
Clackamas
Rivers.
Estimates
of
spring
runs
to
the
mainstem
Columbia
River
tributaries
are
routinely
reported
by
fishery
management
agencies
(
WDFW
and
ODFW
1994,
PFMC
1996b),
with
the
exception
of
the
spring
run
to
the
Clackamas
River.
For
fishery
monitoring
purposes,
the
Clackamas
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
are
included
with
the
Willamette
River.
Cramer
et
al.
(
1996)
reported
escapement
to
the
Clackamas
River
(
as
hatchery
returns),
North
Fork
Dam
counts,
and
spawners
below
the
dam
(
from
Bennett
1994).

Recent
abundance
of
spawners
includes
a
5­
year
geometric
mean
natural
spawning
escapement
of
11,200
spring­
run
fish
(
1992­
96)
(
Fig.
39,
Appendix
E).
The
fall
run
includes
29,000
natural
spawners
(
Fig.
39,
Appendix
E)
and
37,000
hatchery
spawners
(
1991­
95),
but
according
to
the
accounting
of
PFMC
(
1996b),
approximately
68%
of
the
natural
spawners
are
first­
generation
hatchery
strays.
Long­
term
trends
in
escapement
for
the
fall
run
are
mixed,
with
most
larger
stocks
positive,
while
the
spring
run
trends
are
positive
or
stable
(
Fig.
40,
Appendix
E).
Short­
term
trends
for
both
runs
are
more
negative.

All
basins
are
affected
(
to
varying
degrees)
by
habitat
degradation.
Major
habitat
problems
are
related
primarily
to
blockages,
forest
practices,
urbanization
in
the
Portland
and
229
230
231
Vancouver
areas,
and
agriculture
in
floodplains
and
low­
gradient
tributaries.
Substantial
chinook
salmon
spawning
habitat
has
been
blocked
(
or
passage
substantially
impaired)
in
the
Cowlitz
(
Mayfield
Dam
1963,
RKm
84),
Lewis
(
Merwin
Dam
1931,
RKm
31),
Clackamas
(
North
Fork
Dam
1958,
RKm
50),
Hood
(
Powerdale
Dam
1929,
RKm
7),
and
Sandy
(
Marmot
Dam
1912,
RKm
48;
Bull
Run
River
dams
in
the
early
1900s)
Rivers
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Kostow
1995).

Hatchery
programs
to
enhance
chinook
salmon
fisheries
in
the
lower
Columbia
River
began
in
the
1870s,
expanded
rapidly,
and
have
continued
throughout
this
century.
Although
the
majority
of
the
stocks
have
come
from
within
this
ESU,
over
200
million
fish
from
outside
the
ESU
have
been
released
since
1930
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
A
particular
concern
at
the
present
time
is
straying
by
Rogue
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon,
which
are
released
into
the
lower
Columbia
River
to
augment
harvest
opportunities.
Available
evidence
indicates
a
pervasive
influence
of
hatchery
fish
on
natural
populations
throughout
this
ESU,
including
both
spring­
and
fall­
run
populations
(
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
In
addition,
the
exchange
of
eggs
between
hatcheries
in
this
ESU
has
led
to
the
extensive
genetic
homogenization
of
hatchery
stocks
(
Utter
et
al.
1989).

Harvest
rates
on
fall­
run
stocks
are
moderately
high,
with
an
average
total
exploitation
rate
of
65%
(
1982­
89
brood
years)
(
PSC
1994).
The
average
ocean
exploitation
rate
for
this
period
was
46%,
while
the
freshwater
harvest
rate
on
the
fall
run
has
averaged
20%,
ranging
from
30%
in
1991
to
2.4%
in
1994.
Harvest
rates
are
somewhat
lower
for
spring­
run
stocks,
with
estimates
for
the
Lewis
River
averaging
24%
ocean
and
50%
total
exploitation
rates
in
1982­
89
(
PSC
1994).
Inriver
fisheries
harvest
approximately
15%
of
the
lower
river
hatchery
stock,
29%
of
the
lower
river
wild
stock,
and
58%
of
the
Spring
Creek
hatchery
stock
(
PFMC
1996b).
The
average
inriver
exploitation
rate
on
the
stock
as
a
whole
is
29%
(
1991­
95).

Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
stocks
as
being
at
risk
or
of
concern
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
two
stocks
as
extinct
(
Lewis
River
spring
run
and
Wind
River
fall
run),
four
stocks
as
possibly
extinct,
and
four
stocks
as
at
high
risk
of
extinction.
The
Sandy
River
spring
run
and
Hood
River
spring
and
fall
runs
were
not
considered
an
ESA
issue
by
the
BRT
(
stocks
were
not
historically
present
in
the
watershed
or
current
stocks
are
not
representative
of
historical
stocks)
but
were
included
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
stocks
identified
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991).
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
considered
20
stocks
within
the
ESU,
of
which
only
2
were
considered
to
be
of
native
origin
and
predominantly
natural
production
(
Lewis
River
and
East
Fork
Lewis
River
fall
runs).
Nehlsen
et
al.
considered
the
status
of
these
two
stocks
to
be
healthy,
and
the
status
of
the
remaining
(
not
native/
natural)
stocks
as:
14
healthy
and
4
depressed.
Huntington
et
al.
(
1996)
identified
one
healthy
Level
I
stock
in
their
survey
(
Lewis
River
fall
run).

10)
Upper
Willamette
River
ESU
232
The
spring
run
has
been
counted
at
Willamette
Falls
since
1946
(
ODFW
and
WDFW
1995)
but,
counts
were
not
differentiated
into
adults
and
jacks
until
1952.
In
the
first
5
years
(
1946­
50),
the
geometric
mean
of
the
counts
for
adults
and
jacks
combined
was
31,000
fish.
The
most
recent
5­
year
(
1992­
96)
geometric
mean
escapement
above
Willamette
Falls
was
26,000
adults
(
Appendix
E).
Willamette
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
are
targeted
by
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
in
the
lower
Willamette
and
Columbia
Rivers.
During
the
same
5­
year
period,
the
geometric
mean
of
the
run­
size
to
the
mouth
of
the
Columbia
River
was
48,000
fish
(
PFMC
1997).
The
majority
of
the
Willamette
River
fish
are
hatchery
produced.

Estimates
of
the
naturally
produced
run
have
been
made
only
for
the
McKenzie
River
in
1994
and
1995
(
Nicholas
1995).
Nicholas
(
1995)
estimated
the
escapement
of
naturally
produced
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
McKenzie
River
to
be
approximately
1,000
spawners.
Primarily
on
the
basis
of
professional
judgement,
they
estimated
the
1994­
95
natural
escapement
of
springrun
chinook
salmon
to
the
entire
ESU
as
approximately
7,700
spawners,
with
2,100
to
3,500
naturally
produced
natural
spawners.
However,
Nicholas
(
1995)
included
the
Sandy
and
Clackamas
Rivers
in
their
Willamette
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
unit;
the
BRT
does
not
consider
these
introduced
populations
to
be
part
of
the
ESU.
Without
these
2
rivers,
the
remaining
escapement
was
approximately
3,900
natural
spawners,
with
approximately
1,300
of
these
spawners
naturally
produced
(
Fig.
39,
Appendix
E).
Long­
term
trends
of
escapement
are
mixed,
ranging
from
slightly
upward
to
moderately
downward
(
Fig.
40,
Appendix
E).
Short­
term
trends
are
all
strongly
downward.

Although
the
abundance
of
Willamette
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
has
been
relatively
stable
over
the
long
term,
and
there
is
evidence
some
of
natural
production,
it
is
apparent
that
at
present
production
and
harvest
levels
the
natural
population
is
not
replacing
itself.
With
natural
production
accounting
for
only
one­
third
of
the
natural
spawning
escapement,
it
is
questionable
whether
natural
spawners
would
be
capable
of
replacing
themselves
even
in
the
absence
of
fisheries.
Although
hatchery
programs
in
the
Willamette
River
Basin
have
maintained
broodlines
that
are
relatively
free
of
genetic
influences
from
outside
the
basin,
they
may
have
homogenized
the
population
structure
within
the
ESU.
Prolonged
artificial
propagation
of
the
majority
of
the
production
from
this
ESU
may
also
have
had
deleterious
effects
on
the
ability
of
Willamette
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
to
reproduce
successfully
in
the
wild.

Habitat
blockage
and
degradation
are
significant
problems
in
this
ESU.
Available
habitat
has
been
reduced
by
construction
of
dams
in
the
Santiam,
McKenzie,
and
Middle
Fork
Willamette
River
Basins,
and
these
dams
have
probably
adversely
affected
remaining
production
via
thermal
effects.
Agricultural
development
and
urbanization
are
the
main
causes
of
serious
habitat
degradation
throughout
the
basin
(
Bottom
et
al.
1985,
Kostow
1995).

Historically,
only
spring­
run
fish
were
able
to
ascend
Willamette
Falls
to
access
the
upper
Willamette
River
(
Fulton
1968).
Following
improvements
in
the
fish
ladder
at
Willamette
Falls,
some
200
million
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
introduced
into
this
ESU
since
the
1950s.
In
contrast,
the
upper
Willamette
River
has
received
relatively
few
introductions
of
non­
native
233
spring­
run
fish
from
outside
this
ESU
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
Artificial
propagation
efforts
have
been
undertaken
by
a
limited
number
of
large
facilities
(
McKenzie,
Marion
Forks,
South
Santiam,
and
Willamette
[
Dexter]
Fish
Hatcheries).
These
hatcheries
have
exchanged
millions
of
eggs
from
various
populations
in
the
upper
Willamette
River
Basin.
The
result
of
these
transfers
has
been
the
loss
of
local
genetic
diversity
and
the
formation
of
a
single
breeding
unit
in
the
Willamette
River
Basin
(
Kostow
1995).
Considerable
numbers
of
hatchery
spring­
run
strays
have
been
recovered
from
natural
spawning
grounds,
and
an
estimated
two­
thirds
of
natural
spawners
are
of
hatchery
origin
(
Nicholas
1995).
There
is
also
evidence
that
introduced
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
have
successfully
spawned
in
the
upper
Willamette
River
(
Howell
et
al
1985).
Whether
hybridization
has
occurred
between
native
spring­
run
and
introduced
fall­
run
fish
is
not
known.

Total
harvest
rates
on
stocks
in
this
ESU
are
moderately
high
with
the
average
total
harvest
mortality
rate
estimated
to
be
72%
in
1982­
89,
and
a
corresponding
ocean
exploitation
rate
of
24%
(
PSC
1994).
This
estimate
does
not
fully
account
for
escapement,
and
ODFW
is
in
the
process
of
revising
harvest
rate
estimates
for
this
stock;
revised
estimates
may
average
57%
total
harvest
rate,
with
16%
ocean
and
48%
freshwater
components
(
Kostow
1995).
The
inriver
recreational
harvest
rate
(
Willamette
River
sport
catch/
estimated
run
size)
for
the
period
from
1991
through
1995
was
33%
(
data
from
PFMC
1996b).

The
only
previous
assessment
of
risk
to
stocks
in
this
ESU
is
that
of
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991),
who
identified
the
Willamette
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
as
of
special
concern
(
Appendix
E).
They
noted
vulnerability
to
minor
disturbances,
insufficient
information
on
population
trend,
and
the
special
life­
history
characteristics
of
this
stock
as
causes
for
concern.

Upper
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers
Region
We
have
no
estimates
of
historic
abundance
of
chinook
salmon
specific
to
this
region,
but
there
is
widespread
agreement
that
natural
production
has
been
reduced
substantially
over
the
last
century.
Peak
cannery
pack
for
the
entire
Columbia
River
Basin
occurred
in
1883,
when
629,400
cases
were
packed,
suggesting
a
total
run­
size
of
about
4.6
million
chinook
salmon.
This
region
includes
all
or
part
of
the
Cascades,
Columbia
Basin,
Blue
Mountains,
Snake
River
Basin/
High
Desert,
and
Northern
Rockies
ecoregions
(
see
"
Ecological
Features,"
p.
12)
and
is
characterized
by
mostly
long
rivers
with
large,
semi­
arid
or
arid
drainage
basins.

Chinook
salmon
in
this
region
have
been
strongly
affected
by
losses
and
alterations
of
freshwater
habitats.
Bottom
et
al.
(
1985),
WDF
et
al.
(
1993),
Kostow
(
1995),
and
PFMC
(
1995)
reviewed
habitat
problems
in
the
region,
which
include
blockages
of
large
areas
by
major
dams,
hydrologic
modifications
of
main
migration
corridors
by
dam
and
reservoir
construction,
dewatering
of
rivers
by
irrigation
diversions,
unscreened
diversions,
and
degradation
of
spawning
and
juvenile
rearing
habitat
by
land
use
activities
including
logging,
grazing,
and
mining.
Bottom
et
al.
(
1985)
summarized
habitat
studies
in
the
Deschutes,
John
Day,
Umatilla,
and
Grande
Ronde
River
drainages
and
reported
that
1,594
miles
of
streams
in
those
drainages
were
in
need
of
234
habitat
restoration.
They
cited
temperature
extremes
and
low
flows
as
primary
limiting
factors
for
salmonid
production
in
eastern
Oregon
streams,
and
noted
adverse
effects
of
past
mining
activities
in
the
John
Day
River
and
Powder
River
Basins,
and
noted
severe
sedimentation
or
erosion
problems
in
the
Crooked,
John
Day,
Hood,
Malheur
River
Basins
and
in
the
Umatilla
Plateau
and
Wallowa
Mountain
regions.
They
also
cited
overgrazing
and
farming
as
causes
of
devastating
losses
of
streamside
vegetation.
In
contrast,
substantial
areas
of
chinook
salmon
habitat
in
the
Snake
River
Basin
are
in
designated
wilderness
areas
with
limited
human
impact
on
habitat
quality.

Artificial
propagation
facilities
in
this
region
were
constructed
primarily
to
mitigate
the
construction
of
dams
in
the
mainstem
Columbia
River
and
its
tributaries.
Hatchery
programs
were
not
prominent
in
this
region
until
the
authorization
of
the
GCFMP
and
the
construction
of
three
national
fish
hatcheries
in
1940
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).
The
LSRCP
and
mainstem
Columbia
River
Dam
mitigation
mandated
the
construction
of
several
more
hatcheries
in
the
1960s
through
the
1980s.
Initially,
many
of
these
hatcheries
utilized
local
stocks,
primarily
those
intercepted
at
the
dams
for
which
the
hatcheries
were
mitigating.
In
many
cases
these
broodstocks
were
supplemented
with
introductions
of
non­
native
fish
to
maintain
production
levels
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).

11)
Middle
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
We
have
no
estimates
of
historical
abundance
specific
to
this
ESU.
WDFW
monitors
five
spring­
run
stocks
geographically
located
within
this
ESU.
The
Wind
River
historically
had
no
spring
run
until
Shipperd
Falls
at
RKm
5
was
laddered
in
1956
and
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
were
introduced
at
Carson
Hatchery.
This
stock
was
not
considered
an
ESA
issue.
Spring­
run
escapements
to
the
Klickitat,
Upper
Yakima,
Naches,
and
American
Rivers
are
monitored
by
redd
counts.
Escapement
to
the
Upper
Yakima
River
is
also
counted
at
Roza
Dam
(
RKm
185)
above
the
confluence
of
the
Yakima
and
the
Naches
Rivers.

In
Oregon,
escapement
is
monitored
at
Pelton
trap
on
the
Deschutes
River
and
at
Warm
Springs
Hatchery
on
the
Warm
Springs
River.
Run­
size
is
estimated
as
the
sum
of
these
two
counts
and
the
catch
at
the
sport
and
tribal
fisheries
at
Sherars
Falls
(
RKm
69).
This
is
believed
to
account
for
most
of
the
spring
run
except
for
a
small
run
into
Shitike
Creek
(
Olsen
et
al.
1994a).
Escapement
trends
are
monitored
in
the
John
Day
River
by
redd
counts
(
Olsen
et
al.
1994d).
Populations
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
are
also
present
in
the
Hood
and
Umatilla
Rivers,
but
the
historic
populations
originally
present
were
believed
to
have
been
extirpated,
and
the
present
runs
are
not
representative
of
what
was
historically
there.
For
this
reason
they
were
not
considered
an
ESA
issue
by
the
BRT.

Although
exhaustive
estimates
of
spawning
escapements
are
not
routinely
made,
dam
passage,
hatchery
returns,
and
fishery
landings
are
regularly
monitored
(
WDFW
and
ODFW
1994).
By
subtracting
hatchery
returns
and
Zone
6
fishery
landings
from
the
difference
between
Bonneville
Dam
counts
and
the
sum
of
Priest
Rapids
and
Ice
Harbor
Dam
counts,
we
can
get
a
235
rough
estimate
of
the
total
in­
river
run
to
the
ESU.
The
5­
year
geometric
mean
of
this
damcount
based
estimate
is
approximately
25,000
adults
(
based
on
data
from
PFMC
1997).
This
estimate
does
not
account
for
recreational
harvest
or
prespawning
mortality
and
includes
the
Wind
River
and
Umatilla
River
stocks,
so
it
must
be
viewed
as
an
upper
bound
of
escapement
to
the
ESU.
The
two
largest
stocks
for
which
we
have
recent
average
(
1991­
96)
escapement
estimates
are
the
John
Day
River
(
2,400
spawners)
and
Yakima
River
(
1,100
spawners)
(
Fig.
41).
Trends
are
mixed,
with
long­
term
trends
mostly
negative
(
except
Klickitat,
Umatilla,
and
Yakima
Rivers)
and
short­
term
trends
more
strongly
negative
(
Fig.
42,
Appendix
E).

Habitat
problems
are
common
in
the
range
of
this
ESU.
The
only
large
blockage
of
spawning
area
for
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
is
at
the
Pelton/
Round
Butte
dam
complex
on
the
Deschutes
River,
which
probably
eliminated
a
natural
population
utilizing
the
upper
Deschutes
River
Basin
(
Kostow
1995,
Nehlsen
1995).
Spawning
and
rearing
habitat
are
affected
by
agricultural
activities
including
water
withdrawals,
grazing,
and
riparian
vegetation
management.
Mainstem
Columbia
River
hydroelectric
development
has
caused
a
major
disruption
of
migration
corridors
and
affected
flow
regimes
and
estuarine
habitat.

The
major
rivers
in
this
ESU
 
Klickitat,
Hood,
Deschutes,
John
Day,
Umatilla,
and
Yakima
Rivers
 
have
experienced
very
different
levels
of
artificial
propagation
activity.
Since
1950,
the
Klickitat
River
Hatchery
has
released
over
5
million
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Willamette
and
Wind
Rivers
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
The
degree
to
which
these
non­
local
stocks
were
represented
in
subsequent
releases
of
Klickitat
River
"
native"
stocks
from
the
hatchery
is
unknown.
Since
their
construction
in
the
1970s,
hatcheries
in
the
Deschutes
River
Basin
have
released
over
27
million
fish,
the
majority
of
which
were
derived
from
local
stocks.
The
Deschutes
River
also
contains
relatively
large
numbers
of
naturally
spawning
spring­
run
chinook
salmon.
Although
hatchery
fish
appear
to
stray
onto
Deschutes
River
spawning
grounds
in
some
areas,
all
hatchery
fish
are
removed
at
the
Warm
Springs
weir,
so
there
is
essentially
no
natural
spawning
of
hatchery
fish
in
the
upper
Warm
Springs
River
(
Kostow
1995).
Very
few
hatchery
strays
have
been
recovered
in
the
John
Day
River
(
Kostow
1995).
Currently,
there
are
no
springrun
chinook
salmon
hatchery
programs
on
the
Yakima
or
John
Day
Rivers.
It
has
been
estimated
that
the
influence
of
introduced
non­
native
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
these
rivers
has
been
minimal
(
Kostow
1995,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
In
contrast,
the
Umatilla
River
and
Hood
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stocks
were
extirpated,
and
a
number
of
non­
native
stocks
have
been
introduced
in
an
effort
to
reestablish
runs
in
these
rivers
(
Kostow
1995).
Although
more
236
Figure
41.
R
ecent
5­
year
geometric
mean
spawning
escapement
for
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
populations
in
237
Middle
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
(
11)
and
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
(
13)
ESUs.
All
data
are
for
spring
run
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
238
Figure
42.
Trends
(
percent
annual
change)
in
abundance
for
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Middle
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
(
11)
and
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
(
13)
ESUs.
All
data
are
for
spring
run
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
239
than
half
of
all
fish
released
came
from
outside
of
the
ESU,
this
estimate
is
strongly
biased
by
transplants
of
fish
into
the
Umatilla
River
Basin.
In
total,
hatchery
returns
account
for
36%
of
the
total
escapement
to
this
ESU
(
ODFW
and
WDFW
1995).

Stocks
in
this
ESU
experience
very
low
ocean
harvest
rates
and
only
moderate
instream
harvest.
Harvest
rates
have
been
declining
recently
(
PSC
1996).

Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
as
being
at
risk
or
of
concern
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
five
stocks
as
extinct,
one
as
possibly
extinct
(
Klickitat
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon),
and
one
as
of
special
concern
(
John
Day
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon).
Due
to
the
lack
of
information
on
chinook
salmon
stocks
that
are
presumed
to
be
extinct,
the
relationship
of
these
stocks
to
existing
ESUs
is
uncertain.
They
are
listed
here
based
on
geography
and
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
the
stocks
identified
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991).
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
considered
five
stocks
within
the
ESU,
of
which
three,
all
within
the
Yakima
River
Basin,
were
considered
to
be
of
native
origin
and
predominantly
natural
production
(
Upper
Yakima,
Naches,
and
American
Rivers).
Despite
increasing
trends
in
these
three
stocks,
these
stocks
and
the
two
remaining
(
not
native/
natural)
stocks
were
considered
to
be
depressed
on
the
basis
of
chronically
low
escapement
numbers
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
The
status
of
Wind
River
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
was
not
considered
an
ESA
issue
by
the
BRT
(
the
current
stock
was
not
historically
present
in
the
watershed
or
is
not
representative
of
historical
stock)
but
was
included
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
stocks
identified
by
WDF
et
al.
(
1993).

12)
Upper
Columbia
River
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
ESU
The
status
of
this
ESU
was
recently
reviewed
by
NMFS
(
Waknitz
et
al.
1995),
so
only
a
brief
summary
is
provided
here.
We
have
no
estimates
of
historical
abundance
specific
to
this
ESU.
Historic
estimates
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
upper
and
middle
Columbia
River
Basin
are
in
the
hundreds
of
thousands,
but
were
declining
due
to
harvest
by
1900
(
Mullan
1987).

Recent
abundance
is
monitored
by
a
combination
of
redd
counts
in
tributaries
and
counts
of
adult
salmon
passing
dams
on
the
mainstem
Columbia
River
and
on
tributary
rivers.
Total
recent
river
runs
for
the
ESU
averaged
58,000
adults
(
geometric
mean
for
1990­
94),
estimated
from
total
summer­
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
passing
McNary
Dam,
minus
fish
destined
for
the
Snake
River
(
Ice
Harbor
Dam
counts)
and
returns
to
Priest
Rapids
and
Wells
Hatcheries.
This
total
represents
a
large
contribution
by
natural
spawning
in
Hanford
Reach
(
about
51,000
fish)
and
the
Wenatchee
River
(
ave.
9,700
fish
in
1987­
91),
with
small
spawning
populations
in
the
Yakima,
Methow,
Okanogan,
and
Similkameen
Rivers
(
Fig.
43,
Appendix
E).
Long­
term
trends
for
the
three
largest
populations
are
positive,
while
those
for
the
smaller
populations
are
a
mix
of
positive
and
negative
(
Fig.
44,
Appendix
E).
240
Figure
43.
Recent
5­
year
geometric
mean
spawning
escapement
for
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Upper
Columbia
River
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
(
12)
and
Snake
River
Fall­
Run
(
14)
ESUs
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
241
Figure
44.
Trends
(
percent
annual
change)
in
abundance
for
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Upper
Columbia
River
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
(
12)
and
Snake
River
Fall
Run
(
14)
ESUs
see
(
Appendix
E
for
details).
242
Access
to
a
substantial
portion
of
historical
habitat
was
blocked
by
Chief
Joseph
(
RKm
877)
and
Grand
Coulee
(
RKm
961)
Dams.
The
construction
of
the
Grand
Coulee
Dam
blocked
2830+
kilometers
of
spawning
and
rearing
habitat
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948).
There
are
local
habitat
problems
related
to
irrigation
diversions
and
hydroelectric
development,
as
well
as
degraded
riparian
and
instream
habitat
from
urbanization
and
livestock
grazing.
Mainstem
Columbia
River
hydroelectric
development
has
resulted
in
a
major
disruption
of
migration
corridors
and
affected
flow
regimes
and
estuarine
habitat.

Artificial
propagation
activities
in
this
ESU
are
related
to
the
GCFMP
and
mainstem
dam
mitigation.
Trapping
operations
for
the
GCFMP
at
Rock
Island
Dam
effectively
combined
summer­
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
destined
for
the
upper
Columbia
River
(
Waknitz
et
al.
1995).
Furthermore,
there
was
probably
some
hybridization
between
spring­
and
summer­
run
fish
during
the
GCFMP
(
Fish
and
Hanavan
1948,
Mullan
1987),
although
recent
genetic
analysis
does
not
indicate
the
persistence
of
hybridization
effects
(
Chapman
et
al
1995).

Nearly
38
million
summer­
run
fish
have
been
released
from
the
Wells
Dam
Hatchery
since
1967
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
Efforts
to
establish
the
Wells
Dam
summer­
run
broodstock
removed
a
large
proportion
of
spawners
(
94%
of
the
run
in
1969)
destined
for
the
Methow
River
and
other
upstream
tributaries
(
Mullan
et
al.
1992).
Additionally,
a
number
of
fall­
run
fish
have
been
incorporated
into
the
summer­
run
program,
especially
during
the
1980s
(
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
Large
numbers
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
released
into
the
mainstem
Columbia
and
Yakima
Rivers
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
Although
no
hatcheries
operate
on
the
Yakima
River,
releases
of
"
upriver
bright"
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
into
the
lower
Yakima
River
(
below
Prosser
Dam)
are
thought
to
have
overwhelmed
local
naturally
spawning
stocks
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
Fall­
run
chinook
salmon
also
spawn
in
the
mainstem
Columbia
River;
this
occurs
primarily
in
the
Hanford
Reach
portion
of
the
Columbia
River,
with
additional
spawning
sites
in
the
tailrace
areas
of
mainstem
dams.
"
Upriver
bright"
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
represent
a
composite
of
stocks
intercepted
at
various
dams.
This
stock
has
also
been
released
in
large
numbers
by
hatcheries
on
the
mainstem
Columbia
River.
Although
the
"
upriver
bright"
stocks
incorporated
representatives
from
the
mainstem
spawning
populations
in
the
Hanford
Reach
and
those
displaced
by
the
construction
of
Grand
Coulee
Dam
and
other
mainstem
dams,
they
have
also
incorporated
individuals
from
the
Snake
River
Fall­
Run
ESU
(
Howell
et
al.
1985).
The
mixed
genetic
background
of
"
upriver
bright"
stocks
may
result
in
less
accurate
homing
(
McIsaac
and
Quinn
1988,
Chapman
et
al.
1994);
however,
the
naturally
spawning
Hanford
Reach
fall­
run
population
appears
to
stray
at
very
low
levels
(
Hymer
et
al.
1992b).

Harvest
rates
are
moderately
high,
with
an
average
39%
ocean
exploitation
rate
and
68%
total
exploitation
rate
(
brood
years
1982­
89)
(
PSC
1994),
although
these
may
be
overestimates
due
to
incomplete
accounting
of
escapement.
243
Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
as
being
at
risk
or
of
concern
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
six
stocks
as
extinct,
one
as
a
moderate
extinction
risk
(
Methow
River
summer­
run
chinook
salmon),
and
one
as
of
special
concern
(
Okanogan
River
summer­
run
chinook
salmon).
Due
to
the
lack
of
information
on
chinook
salmon
stocks
that
are
presumed
to
be
extinct,
the
relationship
of
these
stocks
to
existing
ESUs
is
uncertain.
They
are
listed
here
based
on
geography
and
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
the
stocks
identified
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991).
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
considered
10
stocks
within
the
ESU,
of
which
3
were
considered
to
be
of
native
origin
and
predominantly
natural
production.
The
status
of
these
three
stocks
was
two
healthy
(
Marion
Drain
and
Hanford
Reach
fall
runs)
and
one
depressed
(
Okanogan
River
summer
run).
The
status
of
the
remaining
(
not
native/
natural)
seven
stocks
was
six
healthy
and
one
depressed.
The
Klickitat
River
fall­
run
"
brights,"
and
Wind
and
White
Salmon
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
were
not
considered
an
ESA
issue
by
the
BRT
(
stocks
were
not
historically
present
in
the
watershed
or
current
stocks
are
not
representative
of
historical
stocks).
The
BRT
could
not
resolve
the
affinity
of
the
Marion
Drain
chinook
salmon
population,
and
it
is
not
included
in
this
ESU.
These
stocks
were
included
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
stocks
identified
by
WDF
et
al.
(
1993).
Huntington
et
al.
(
1996)
identified
one
healthy
Level
I
stock
in
their
survey
(
Hanford
Reach
fall
run).

13)
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
We
have
no
estimates
of
historical
abundance
specific
to
this
ESU.
WDFW
monitors
nine
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
stocks
geographically
located
within
this
ESU.
Escapements
to
most
tributaries
are
monitored
by
redd
counts,
which
are
expanded
to
total
live
fish
based
on
counts
at
mainstem
dams.

An
estimate
of
the
overall
run
returning
to
spawn
naturally
in
this
ESU
can
be
obtained
from
counts
of
adults
at
Priest
Rapids
Dam
minus
returns
to
hatcheries
above
the
dam.
The
5­
year
(
1990­
94)
geometric
mean
of
this
dam­
count­
based
estimate
is
approximately
4,880
spawners.
This
estimate
does
not
account
for
recreational
harvest
or
prespawning
mortality,
so
it
must
be
viewed
as
an
upper
bound
on
escapement
to
the
ESU.
Individual
populations
within
the
ESU
are
all
quite
small,
with
none
averaging
over
150
adults
in
recent
years
(
Fig.
41,
Appendix
E).

Sufficient
data
were
available
to
estimate
trends
in
abundance
for
ten
populations.
Longterm
trends
in
estimated
abundance
are
mostly
downward,
with
annual
rates
of
change
ranging
from
­
5%
to
+
1%
over
the
full
data
set.
All
ten
short­
term
trends
were
downward,
with
eight
populations
exhibiting
rates
of
decline
exceeding
20%
per
year
(
Fig.
42,
Appendix
E).

Access
to
a
substantial
portion
of
historical
habitat
was
blocked
by
Chief
Joseph
and
Grand
Coulee
Dams.
There
are
local
habitat
problems
related
to
irrigation
diversions
and
hydroelectric
development,
as
well
as
degraded
riparian
and
instream
habitat
from
urbanization
244
and
livestock
grazing.
Mainstem
Columbia
River
hydroelectric
development
has
resulted
in
a
major
disruption
of
migration
corridors
and
affected
flow
regimes
and
estuarine
habitat.
Some
populations
in
this
ESU
must
migrate
through
nine
mainstem
dams.

Artificial
propagation
efforts
have
had
a
significant
impact
on
spring­
run
populations
in
this
ESU,
either
through
hatchery­
based
enhancement
or
the
extensive
trapping
and
transportation
activities
associated
with
the
GCFMP.
Prior
to
the
implementation
of
the
GCFMP,
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
in
the
Wenatchee,
Entiat,
and
Methow
Rivers
were
at
severely
depressed
levels
(
Craig
and
Suomela
1941).
Therefore,
it
is
probable
that
the
majority
of
returning
spring­
run
adults
trapped
at
Rock
Island
Dam
for
use
in
the
GCFMP
were
probably
not
native
to
these
three
rivers
(
Chapman
et
al.
1995).
All
returning
adults
were
either
directly
transported
to
river
spawning
sites
or
spawned
in
one
of
the
NFHs
built
for
the
GCFMP.

In
the
years
following
the
GCFMP,
several
stocks
were
transferred
to
the
NFHs
in
this
area,
most
importantly
Carson
NFH
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
or
other
stocks
derived
from
the
Carson
NFH
stock
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Chapman
et
al.
1995,
Marshall
et
al.
1995).
Naturally
spawning
populations
in
tributaries
upstream
of
hatchery
release
sites
have
apparently
undergone
limited
introgression
by
hatchery
stocks,
based
on
CWT
recoveries
and
genetic
analysis
(
Chapman
et
al.
1995).
Utter
et
al.
(
1995)
found
that
the
Leavenworth
and
Winthrop
NFH
spring
runs
were
genetically
indistinguishable
from
the
Carson
NFH
stock,
but
distinct
from
naturally
spawning
populations
in
the
White
and
Chiwawa
Rivers
and
Nason
Creek.
Artificial
propagation
efforts
have
recently
focused
on
supplementing
naturally
spawning
populations
in
this
ESU
(
Bugert
1998),
although
it
should
be
emphasized
that
these
naturally
spawning
populations
were
founded
by
the
same
GCFMP
homogenized
stock.
Furthermore,
the
potential
for
hatchery­
derived
nonnative
stocks
to
genetically
impact
naturally
spawning
populations
exists,
especially
given
the
recent
low
numbers
of
fish
returning
to
rivers
in
this
ESU.
The
hatchery
contribution
to
escapement
has
been
estimated
at
greater
than
37%
in
one
instance;
however,
the
homing
fidelity
of
spring­
run
fish
may
moderate
the
potential
for
hybridization
(
Chapman
et
al.
1995).
For
example,
the
hatchery
contribution
to
naturally
spawning
escapement
was
39%
in
the
mainstem
Methow
River
(
where
the
hatcheries
are
located),
but
averaged
only
10%
in
the
tributaries
 
Chewuch,
Lost,
and
Twisp
Rivers
 
that
are
upstream
of
the
hatcheries
(
Spotts
1995).
In
contrast,
WDFW
(
1997a)
reports
that
in
1996
the
Chewuch
and
Twisp
runs
were
62%
and
78%
hatchery
fish,
respectively.

Howell
et
al.
(
1985),
Mullan
et
al.
(
1992),
Chapman
et
al.
(
1991),
and
Chapman
et
al.
(
1995)
have
suggested
that
the
prevalence
of
bacterial
kidney
disease
(
BKD)
in
upper
Columbia
and
Snake
River
hatcheries
is
directly
responsible
for
the
low
survival
of
hatchery
stocks.
These
authors
also
suggest
that
the
high
incidence
of
BKD
in
hatcheries
impacts
wild
populations,
and
reduces
the
survival
of
hatchery
fish
to
such
an
extent
that
naturally
spawning
adults
are
"
mined"
to
perpetuate
hatchery
stocks
(
Chapman
et
al.
1991).
There
may
also
be
direct
horizontal
transmission
of
BKD
between
hatchery
and
wild
juveniles
during
downstream
migration
245
(
specifically
in
smolt
collection
and
transportation
facilities)
or
vertical
transmission
from
hatchery­
reared
females
on
the
spawning
grounds.

Harvest
rates
are
low
for
this
ESU,
with
very
low
ocean
and
moderate
instream
harvest.
Harvest
rates
have
been
declining
recently
(
ODFW
and
WDFW
1995).

Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
as
being
at
risk
or
of
concern
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
six
stocks
as
extinct.
Due
to
lack
of
information
on
chinook
salmon
stocks
that
are
presumed
to
be
extinct,
the
relationship
of
these
stocks
to
existing
ESUs
is
uncertain.
They
are
listed
here
based
on
geography
and
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
the
stocks
identified
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991).
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
considered
nine
stocks
within
the
ESU,
of
which
eight
were
considered
to
be
of
native
origin
and
predominantly
natural
production.
The
status
of
all
nine
stocks
was
considered
depressed.
Populations
in
this
ESU
have
experienced
record
low
returns
for
the
last
few
years.

14)
Snake
River
Fall­
Run
ESU
The
Snake
River
portion
of
this
ESU
has
been
extensively
reviewed
by
NMFS
(
Waples
et
al.
1991b,
NMFS
1995b),
and
that
information
is
not
repeated
here.
We
discuss
populations
not
included
in
the
earlier
status
review,
and
have
updated
abundance
information
for
the
Snake
River
population.

Snake
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
adult
abundance
is
monitored
at
Lower
Granite
Dam
and
by
redd
counts
in
the
mainstem
Snake
River
between
Lower
Granite
and
Hells
Canyon
Dams.
Because
redd
counts
are
incomplete,
we
have
relied
primarily
on
the
dam
count
data.
Deschutes
River
summer­
and
fall­
run
adults
are
also
monitored
by
dam
counts
(
at
Pelton
Ladder,
RKm
160)
and
by
redd
counts
in
the
lower
river
(
Kostow
1995).
The
introduced
Umatilla
River
stock
is
also
monitored,
but
we
did
not
include
this
information
in
our
assessments.
In
recent
years
(
1992­
96),
returns
of
naturally
spawning
fish
to
the
Deschutes
River
(
about
6,000
adults
per
year)
have
been
higher
than
in
the
Snake
River
(
5­
year
mean
about
1,000
total
and
500
natural
adults
per
year)
(
Fig.
43,
Appendix
E).
However,
historically
the
Snake
River
populations
dominated
production
in
this
ESU,
with
total
abundance
estimated
to
be
about
72,000
in
the
1930s
and
1940s
and
probably
substantially
higher
before
that.
Trends
in
escapement
are
mapped
in
Figure
44
and
listed
in
Appendix
E,
and
exhibit
recent
increases
in
both
populations.

Almost
all
historical
spawning
habitat
in
the
Snake
River
was
blocked
by
the
Hells
Canyon
Dam
complex.
Remaining
habitat
has
been
reduced
by
inundation
from
lower
Snake
River
reservoirs.
Spawning
and
rearing
habitats
in
the
mid­
Columbia
River
region
are
affected
largely
by
agriculture
including
water
withdrawals,
grazing,
and
riparian
vegetation
management.
Mainstem
Columbia
and
Snake
River
hydroelectric
development
has
resulted
in
a
major
disruption
of
migration
corridors
and
affected
flow
regimes
and
estuarine
habitat.
246
The
two
components
of
this
ESU,
the
Snake
and
Deschutes
Rivers,
have
very
different
histories
of
artificial
propagation
effort.
The
hatchery
contribution
to
Snake
River
escapement
has
been
estimated
at
greater
than
47%,
although
nearly
all
of
the
releases
into
the
Snake
River
have
been
derived
stocks
within
the
ESU.
The
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery
has
been
the
primary
artificial
propagation
facility
for
fall­
run
fish
in
the
Snake
River
since
1984.
Considerable
numbers
of
hatchery
strays
from
outside
of
the
ESU
 
upriver
bright
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Umatilla
River
restoration
program
and
mainstem
Columbia
River
releases
 
have
been
observed
returning
to
the
Snake
River
(
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery
and
Lower
Granite
Dam)
(
Waples
et
al.
1991b,
LaVoy
and
Mendel
1996).
The
proportionally
high
level
of
hatchery
input,
small
population
size,
and
introgression
from
non­
native
hatchery
strays
pose
a
significant
risk
to
the
genetic
integrity
and
diversity
of
the
Snake
River
population.

In
contrast,
there
is
no
hatchery
on
the
Deschutes
River
and
the
historical
number
of
releases
into
the
river
relative
to
the
naturally
spawning
component
is
minimal
(
Appendix
D).
A
small
number
of
stray
hatchery
fish
are
recovered
annually
in
the
Deschutes
River
(
Olsen
et
al.
1992),
but
the
impact
of
these
is
probably
small
based
on
the
number
of
strays
relative
to
naturally
spawning
native
fish.

Harvest
rates
on
these
populations
were
moderate
in
1982­
89,
with
Snake
River
(
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery)
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
averaging
34.9%
ocean
exploitation,
26%
inriver
exploitation,
and
53%
total
exploitation
(
PSC
1994).
As
a
result
of
the
ESA
listing,
ocean
harvest
rates
for
the
Snake
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
decreased
to
11.5%
in
1995
and
23.0%
in
1996
(
PFMC
1997).
Harvest
rates
for
Hanford
Reach
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
have
averaged
39%
ocean
exploitation
and
64%
total
exploitation
(
PSC
1994).

Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
as
being
at
risk
or
of
concern
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
three
stocks
as
extinct
(
Umatilla
River,
Walla
Walla
River,
and
Snake
River
above
Hells
Canyon
Dam)
and
one
as
a
high
risk
of
extinction
(
Snake
River).
Due
to
lack
of
information
on
chinook
salmon
stocks
that
are
presumed
to
be
extinct,
the
relationship
of
these
stocks
to
existing
ESUs
is
uncertain.
They
are
listed
here
based
on
geography
and
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
the
stocks
identified
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991).
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
considered
one
stock
within
the
Snake
River
ESU,
which
was
considered
to
be
of
native
origin
and
predominantly
natural
production.
The
status
of
this
stock
was
considered
to
be
depressed.

15)
Snake
River
Spring­
and
Summer­
Run
ESU
This
ESU
has
been
extensively
reviewed
by
NMFS
(
Matthews
and
Waples
1991,
NMFS
1995b),
and
that
information
is
briefly
summarized
and
updated
here.

Recent
adult
abundance
is
monitored
by
a
combination
of
redd
counts
conducted
by
IDFG,
WDFW,
and
ODFW
(
Fig.
45)
and
counts
at
mainstem
Snake
River
dams.
The
most
recent
247
5­
year
(
1992­
96)
geometric
mean
abundance
(
based
on
counts
at
Lower
Granite
Dam
adjusted
by
estimated
hatchery:
natural
ratios)
was
3,820
naturally­
produced
spawners
(
PFMC
1997).
Both
short­
and
long­
term
trends
in
abundance
are
downward
for
all
populations
except
Asotin
Creek
(
Fig.
46,
Appendix
E).
WDFW
(
1997a)
reported
that
the
Asotin
Creek
population
has
recently
been
extirpated.
Historical
abundance
probably
exceeded
1.5
million
adults
in
some
years
in
the
1800s
(
Matthews
and
Waples
1991).

Mainstem
Columbia
and
Snake
River
hydroelectric
development
has
resulted
in
a
major
disruption
of
migration
corridors
and
affected
flow
regimes
and
estuarine
habitat.
There
is
habitat
degradation
in
many
areas
related
to
forest,
grazing,
and
mining
practices,
with
significant
factors
being
lack
of
pools,
high
temperatures,
low
flows,
poor
overwintering
conditions,
and
high
sediment
loads.
Substantial
portions
of
the
Salmon
River
subbasin
are
protected
in
wilderness
areas.

Summer­
and
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
are
propagated
in
a
number
of
artificial
propagation
facilities
throughout
the
Snake
River
Basin.
On
average,
61%
of
the
total
escapement
is
hatchery
derived.
Historically,
releases
originating
from
outside
of
the
ESU
have
constituted
a
small
proportion,
7%,
of
the
total
releases
(
Table
6,
Appendix
D).
The
Carson
NFH
stock
has
been
released
into
a
number
of
watersheds,
most
prominently
the
Grande
Ronde
River
Basin
(
Matthews
and
Waples
1991,
Keifer
et
al.
1992).
The
Rapid
River
Hatchery
stock,
initially
founded
by
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
above
the
Hells
Canyon
complex,
has
been
released
in
most
of
the
watersheds
in
the
Snake
River
Basin.
It
was
a
major
component
of
the
broodstock
used
to
reestablish
chinook
salmon
runs
in
the
Clearwater
River
Basin
via
the
Dworshak
and
Kooskia
Hatcheries
(
Chapman
et
al.
1991).
The
Rapid
River
Hatchery
stock
was
also
used
to
establish
the
broodstock
currently
being
used
at
the
Lookingglass
Hatchery
in
the
Grande
Ronde
Basin
(
Matthews
and
Waples
1991).
Since
1986,
approximately
75%
of
the
naturally
spawning
escapement
in
the
Grande
Ronde
River
has
consisted
of
hatchery
strays
or
returns
from
outplants
of
non­
native
stocks
(
NMFS
1995b).
Finally,
the
high
incidence
of
BKD
in
many
Snake
River
hatcheries
poses
many
of
the
same
risks
described
in
ESU
13
(
Chapman
et
al.
1991).

Harvest
on
these
populations
is
low,
with
very
low
ocean
harvest
and
moderate
instream
harvest
(
PFMC
1996b).
Inriver
harvest
has
been
substantially
restricted
since
1991.
At
present,
only
tribal
fisheries
are
permitted
in
the
Snake
River.
The
average
harvest
rate
from
1986­
90
was
estimated
to
be
10.7%,
and
the
1995
and
1996
harvests
were
estimated
to
be
6.1
and
5.5%,
respectively
(
PFMC
1997).

Previous
assessments
of
stocks
within
this
ESU
have
identified
several
stocks
as
being
at
risk
or
of
concern
(
Appendix
E).
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991)
identified
10
stocks
as
extinct,
4
as
at
high
risk
of
extinction,
and
2
as
at
moderate
extinction
risk
(
Grande
Ronde
River
spring­
run
and
248
Figure
45.
Recent
5­
year
geometric
mean
spawning
escapement
for
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Snake
River
Spring­
and
Summer­
Run
(
15)
ESU.
All
data
are
for
spring
run,
except
as
noted
(
see
Appendix
E
for
details).
249
250
Imnaha
River
spring/
summer­
run).
Due
to
the
lack
of
information
on
chinook
salmon
stocks
that
are
presumed
to
be
extinct,
the
relationship
of
these
stocks
to
existing
ESUs
is
uncertain.
They
are
listed
here
based
on
geography
and
to
give
a
complete
presentation
of
the
stocks
identified
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991).
WDF
et
al.
(
1993)
considered
two
stocks
within
the
ESU
that
were
considered
to
be
of
native
origin
and
predominantly
natural
production.
The
status
of
these
stocks
was
one
depressed
(
Tucannon
River
spring­
run)
and
one
critical
(
Asotin
Creek
spring­
run),
although
WDFW
(
1997a)
reported
that
the
Asotin
Creek
population
has
since
been
extirpated.

Discussion
and
Conclusion
on
ESU
Risk
Analysis
The
ESA
(
section
3)
defines
the
term
"
endangered
species"
as
"
any
species
which
is
in
danger
of
extinction
throughout
all
or
a
significant
portion
of
its
range."
The
term
"
threatened
species"
is
defined
as
"
any
species
which
is
likely
to
become
an
endangered
species
within
the
foreseeable
future
throughout
all
or
a
significant
portion
of
its
range."
According
to
the
ESA,
the
determination
of
whether
a
species
is
threatened
or
endangered
should
be
made
on
the
basis
of
the
best
scientific
information
available
regarding
its
current
status,
after
taking
into
consideration
conservation
measures
that
are
proposed
or
are
in
place.
In
this
review,
we
did
not
evaluate
likely
or
possible
effects
of
conservation
measures.
Therefore,
we
do
not
make
recommendations
as
to
whether
identified
ESUs
should
be
listed
as
threatened
or
endangered
species,
because
that
determination
requires
evaluation
of
factors
not
considered
by
us.
Rather,
we
have
drawn
scientific
conclusions
about
the
risk
of
extinction
faced
by
identified
ESUs
under
the
assumption
that
present
conditions
will
continue.

The
BRT
considered
a
variety
of
information
in
evaluating
the
level
of
risk
faced
by
each
ESU.
Important
considerations
include
1)
absolute
numbers
of
fish
and
their
spatial
and
temporal
distribution;
2)
current
abundance
in
relation
to
historical
abundance
and
carrying
capacity
of
the
habitat;
3)
trends
in
abundance,
based
on
indices
such
as
dam
or
redd
counts
or
on
estimates
of
spawner­
recruit
ratios;
4)
natural
and
human­
influenced
factors
that
cause
variability
in
survival
and
abundance;
5)
possible
threats
to
genetic
integrity
(
e.
g.,
selective
fisheries
and
interactions
between
hatchery
and
natural
fish);
and
6)
recent
events
(
e.
g.,
a
drought
or
a
change
in
management)
that
have
predictable
short­
term
consequences
for
abundance
of
the
ESU.
Additional
risk
factors,
such
as
disease
prevalence
or
changes
in
life­
history
traits,
may
also
be
considered
in
evaluating
risk
to
populations.
The
BRT
conclusions
for
each
chinook
salmon
ESU
follow.

1)
Sacramento
River
Winter­
Run
ESU
Presently
listed
as
Endangered
under
the
California
and
federal
Endangered
Species
Acts;
not
reviewed
further
here.
2)
Central
Valley
Spring­
Run
ESU
251
The
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
in
danger
of
extinction;
a
minority
felt
that
this
ESU
is
not
presently
in
danger
of
extinction,
but
is
likely
to
become
so
in
the
foreseeable
future.
The
BRT
identified
several
concerns
regarding
the
status
of
this
ESU.
Native
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
have
been
extirpated
from
all
tributaries
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin,
which
represents
a
large
portion
of
the
historic
range
and
abundance.
The
only
streams
considered
to
have
wild
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
are
Mill
and
Deer
Creeks,
and
possibly
Butte
Creek
(
tributaries
to
the
Sacramento
River),
and
these
are
relatively
small
populations
with
sharply
declining
trends.
Demographic
and
genetic
risks
due
to
small
population
sizes
are
thus
considered
to
be
high.

Habitat
problems
were
considered
by
the
BRT
to
be
the
most
important
source
of
ongoing
risk
to
this
ESU.
Spring­
run
fish
cannot
access
most
of
their
historical
spawning
and
rearing
habitat
in
the
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
River
Basins
(
which
is
now
above
impassable
dams),
and
current
spawning
is
restricted
to
the
mainstem
and
a
few
river
tributaries
in
the
Sacramento
River.
The
remaining
spawning
habitat
accessible
to
fish
is
severely
degraded.
Collectively,
these
habitat
problems
greatly
reduce
the
resiliency
of
this
ESU
to
respond
to
additional
stresses
in
the
future.
The
general
degradation
of
conditions
in
the
Sacramento
River
Basin
(
including
elevated
water
temperatures,
agricultural
and
municipal
diversions
and
returns,
restricted
and
regulated
flows,
entrainment
of
migrating
fish
into
unscreened
or
poorly
screened
diversions,
and
the
poor
quality
and
quantity
of
remaining
habitat)
has
severely
impacted
important
juvenile
rearing
habitat
and
migration
corridors.

The
BRT
also
expressed
concern
for
threats
to
genetic
integrity
posed
by
hatchery
programs
in
the
Central
Valley.
Most
of
the
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
production
in
the
Central
Valley
is
of
hatchery
origin,
and
naturally
spawning
populations
may
be
interbreeding
with
both
fall­
and
spring­
run
hatchery
fish.
This
problem
is
exacerbated
by
the
increasing
production
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
from
the
Feather
River
and
Butte
Creek
Hatcheries,
especially
in
light
of
reports
suggesting
a
high
degree
of
mixing
between
spring­
and
fall­
run
broodstock
in
the
hatcheries.
In
addition,
hatchery
strays
are
considered
to
be
an
increasing
problem
due
to
the
management
practice
of
releasing
a
larger
proportion
of
fish
off­
station
(
primarily
into
the
Sacramento
River
delta
and
San
Francisco
Bay).

3)
Central
Valley
Fall­
Run
ESU
A
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
not
in
danger
of
extinction
but
are
likely
to
become
so
in
the
foreseeable
future.
A
minority
of
the
BRT
felt
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
not
presently
at
significant
risk
or
were
undecided
on
its
status.
Although
total
population
abundance
in
this
ESU
is
relatively
high,
perhaps
near
historical
levels,
the
BRT
identified
several
concerns
regarding
its
status.
The
abundance
of
natural
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
Basin
is
low,
leading
a
number
of
BRT
members
to
conclude
that
a
large
proportion
of
the
historic
range
of
this
ESU
has
been
lost
or
is
in
danger
of
extinction.
Most
of
the
historical
spawning
habitat
for
this
ESU
is
downstream
from
impassable
252
dams,
so
habitat
blockage
is
not
as
severe
as
for
winter­
and
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
this
region.
However,
there
has
been
a
severe
degradation
of
the
remaining
habitat,
especially
due
to
agricultural
and
municipal
water
use
activities
in
the
Central
Valley
(
which
result
in
point
and
nonpoint
pollution,
elevated
water
temperatures,
diminished
flows,
and
smolt
and
adult
entrainment
into
poorly
screened
or
unscreened
diversions).

Natural
runs
throughout
the
ESU
are
very
depressed.
Returns
to
hatcheries
account
for
only
about
20%
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
spawners
in
the
Central
Valley;
however,
due
to
high
rates
of
straying
by
hatchery
fish
released
off­
station,
production
from
hatcheries
may
be
responsible
for
a
much
larger
proportion
of
natural
spawning
escapement.
A
mitigating
factor
for
the
overall
risk
to
the
ESU
is
that
a
few
of
the
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
River
Basin
tributaries
are
showing
recent,
short­
term
increases
in
abundance.
However,
those
streams
supporting
natural
runs
considered
to
be
the
least
influenced
by
hatchery
fish
have
the
lowest
abundance
and
the
most
consistently
negative
trends
of
all
populations
in
the
ESU.
In
general,
high
hatchery
production
combined
with
infrequent
monitoring
of
natural
production
make
assessing
the
sustainability
of
natural
production
problematic,
resulting
in
substantial
uncertainty
in
assessing
the
status
of
this
ESU.

Other
concerns
identified
by
the
BRT
are
the
high
ocean
and
freshwater
harvest
rates
in
recent
years,
which
may
be
higher
than
is
sustainable
by
natural
populations
given
the
productivity
of
the
ESU
under
present
habitat
conditions.

4)
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
ESU
The
BRT
was
unanimous
in
its
conclusion
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
likely
to
become
at
risk
of
extinction
in
the
foreseeable
future.
Overall
abundance
of
spawners
is
highly
variable
among
populations,
with
populations
in
California
and
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
throughout
the
ESU
being
of
particular
concern.
There
is
a
general
pattern
of
downward
trends
in
abundance
in
most
populations
for
which
data
are
available,
with
declines
being
especially
pronounced
in
spring­
run
populations.
The
BRT
felt
that
the
extremely
depressed
status
of
almost
all
coastal
populations
south
of
the
Klamath
River
is
an
important
source
of
risk
to
the
ESU.
There
was
a
general
concern
expressed
by
the
BRT
that
no
current
information
was
available
for
many
river
systems
in
the
southern
portion
of
this
ESU,
which
historically
maintained
numerous
large
populations.
These
populations
form
a
genetically
distinct
subgroup
within
the
ESU.
Although
(
as
discussed
above)
the
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
these
California
coastal
populations
do
not
form
a
separate
ESU,
they
represent
a
considerable
portion
of
genetic
and
ecological
diversity
within
this
ESU.

Current
hatchery
contribution
to
overall
abundance
is
relatively
low
except
for
the
Rogue
River
spring
run,
which
also
contains
almost
all
of
the
documented
spring­
run
abundance
in
this
ESU.
Fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Rogue
River
represent
the
only
relatively
healthy
population
we
could
identify
in
this
ESU.
The
BRT
questioned
whether
there
are
sustainable
populations
253
outside
the
Rogue
River
Basin.
All
river
basins
have
degraded
habitats
resulting
from
agricultural
and
forestry
practices,
water
diversions,
urbanization,
mining,
and
severe
recent
flooding.
The
BRT
was
very
concerned
about
the
risks
to
spring­
run
chinook
in
this
ESU;
their
stocks
are
in
low
abundance
and
they
have
continued
to
decline
dramatically
in
recent
years.
In
addition,
the
lack
of
population
monitoring,
particularly
in
the
California
portion
of
the
range,
led
to
a
high
degree
of
uncertainty
regarding
the
status
of
these
populations.

5)
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
ESU
A
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
not
at
significant
risk
of
extinction
nor
likely
to
become
so
in
the
forseeable
future.
One
minority
concluded
that
the
ESU
is
not
presently
in
danger
of
extinction
but
is
likely
to
become
so
in
the
foreseeable
future,
while
another
minority
was
undecided
about
the
status
of
this
ESU.
The
question
of
overall
risk
was
difficult
to
evaluate
because
of
the
large
disparity
in
the
status
of
spring­
and
fallrun
populations
within
the
ESU.

Spring­
run
chinook
salmon
were
once
the
dominant
run
type
in
the
Klamath­
Trinity
River
Basin.
Most
spring­
run
spawning
and
rearing
habitat
was
blocked
by
the
construction
of
dams
in
the
late
1800s
and
early
1900s
in
the
Klamath
River
Basin
and
in
the
1960s
in
the
Trinity
River
Basin.
As
a
result
of
these
and
other
factors,
spring­
run
populations
are
at
less
than
10%
of
their
historic
levels,
and
at
least
7
spring­
run
populations
that
once
existed
in
the
basin
are
now
considered
extinct.
The
remaining
spring
runs
have
relatively
small
populations
sizes
and
are
isolated
in
just
a
few
areas
of
the
basin,
resulting
in
genetic
and
demographic
risks.

On
a
more
positive
note,
trends
in
abundance
for
some
populations
in
this
ESU
are
stable
or
increasing
slightly.
Substantial
numbers
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
spawn
naturally
in
many
areas
of
the
ESU.
However,
natural
populations
have
frequently
failed
to
meet
modest
spawning
escapement
goals
despite
active
harvest
management.
In
addition
to
habitat
blockages,
there
continues
to
be
severe
degradation
of
remaining
habitat
due
to
mining,
agricultural
and
forestry
activities,
and
water
storage
and
transfer.
Furthermore,
hatchery
production
in
the
basin
is
substantial,
with
considerable
potential
for
interbreeding
between
natural
and
hatchery
fish.
The
BRT
expressed
concern
that
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
may
mask
declines
in
natural
populations.

In
summary,
all
BRT
members
were
concerned
about
the
depressed
status
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU,
and
the
loss
of
access
to
a
large
proportion
of
historical
habitat.
However,
the
majority
concluded
that,
because
of
the
relative
health
of
the
fall­
run
populations,
the
ESU
as
a
whole
is
not
currently
at
significant
risk
of
extinction.

6)
Oregon
Coast
ESU
254
The
BRT
unanimously
concluded
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
neither
presently
in
danger
of
extinction
nor
are
they
likely
to
become
so
in
the
foreseeable
future.
Abundance
of
this
ESU
is
relatively
high,
and
fish
are
well
distributed
among
numerous,
relatively
small
river
basins.
Some
suitable
spawning
habitat
remains
blocked,
but
access
of
chinook
salmon
to
spawning
areas
is
better
than
it
was
at
the
turn
of
the
century.

Production
in
this
ESU
is
mostly
dependent
on
naturally­
spawning
fish,
and
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
in
relatively
better
condition
than
those
in
adjacent
ESUs.
Longterm
trends
in
abundance
of
chinook
salmon
within
most
populations
in
this
ESU
are
upward.

In
spite
of
a
generally
positive
outlook
for
this
ESU,
the
BRT
identified
several
concerns
regarding
its
status.
First,
several
populations
are
exhibiting
recent
and
severe
(>
9%
per
year)
short­
term
declines
in
abundance.
In
addition,
while
hatchery
production
is
not
as
pervasive
as
in
other
ESUs,
there
are
several
hatchery
programs
and
Salmon
and
Trout
Enhancement
Programs
(
STEP)
releasing
chinook
salmon
throughout
the
ESU,
and
many
of
the
fish
released
are
derived
from
a
single
stock
(
Trask
River).
Most
importantly,
although
hatchery
production
is
thought
to
be
low
relative
to
natural
production,
there
is
a
lack
of
clear
information
on
the
degree
of
straying
of
these
hatchery
fish
into
naturally­
spawning
populations.
There
are
also
many
populations
within
the
ESU
for
which
there
are
no
abundance
data;
the
BRT
expressed
concern
about
the
uncertain
risk
assessment
given
these
data
gaps.
Third,
exploitation
rates
on
chinook
salmon
from
this
ESU
have
been
high
in
the
past,
and
the
BRT
felt
that
the
level
of
harvest
could
be
a
significant
source
of
risk
if
it
continues
at
historically
high
rates.
Finally,
freshwater
habitats
are
generally
in
poor
condition,
with
numerous
problems
such
as
low
summer
flows,
high
temperatures,
loss
of
riparian
cover,
and
streambed
changes.

7)
Washington
Coast
ESU
The
BRT
unanimously
concluded
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
not
in
danger
of
extinction
nor
are
they
likely
to
become
so
in
the
foreseeable
future.
Recent
abundance
has
been
relatively
high,
although
it
is
less
than
estimated
peak
historical
abundance
in
this
region.
Chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
distributed
among
a
relatively
large
number
of
populations,
most
of
which
are
large
enough
to
avoid
serious
genetic
and
demographic
risks
associated
with
small
populations.

Long­
term
trends
in
population
abundance
have
been
predominantly
upward
for
the
medium
and
larger
populations
but
are
sharply
downward
for
several
of
the
smaller
populations.
In
addition,
the
BRT
was
concerned
about
significant
short­
term
declines
in
abundance
that
have
been
observed
in
several
populations.
In
general,
abundance
and
trend
indicators
are
more
favorable
for
stocks
in
the
northern
portion
of
the
ESU,
and
more
favorable
for
fall­
run
populations
than
for
spring­
or
summer­
run
fish.
This
disparity
was
a
source
of
concern
to
the
BRT
regarding
the
overall
health
of
the
ESU.
255
Hatchery
production
is
substantial
in
several
basins
within
the
range
of
the
ESU,
and
several
populations
are
identified
as
being
of
composite
production.
There
is
considerable
potential
for
hatchery
fish
to
stray
into
natural
populations,
especially
since
some
hatcheries
are
apparently
unable
to
attract
returning
adults
effectively.
Hatchery
influence
is
greatest
in
the
southern
part
of
the
ESU
region,
especially
in
Willapa
Bay,
where
there
have
been
numerous
introductions
of
stocks
from
outside
of
the
ESU.
Furthermore,
the
use
of
an
exotic
spring­
run
stock
at
the
Sol
Duc
Hatchery
was
cited
as
a
concern.

All
basins
are
affected
by
habitat
degradation,
largely
related
to
forestry
practices.
Tributaries
inside
Olympic
National
Park
are
generally
in
the
best
condition
regarding
habitat
quality.
Special
concern
was
expressed
regarding
the
status
of
spring­
run
populations
throughout
the
ESU
and
fall­
run
populations
in
Willapa
Bay
and
parts
of
the
Grays
Harbor
drainage.

8)
Puget
Sound
ESU
A
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
not
presently
in
danger
of
extinction,
but
they
are
likely
to
become
so
in
the
foreseeable
future.
A
minority
concluded
that
this
ESU
is
not
presently
at
significant
risk
or
were
uncertain
about
its
status.
Overall
abundance
of
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
has
declined
substantially
from
historical
levels,
and
many
populations
are
small
enough
that
genetic
and
demographic
risks
are
likely
to
be
relatively
high.
Contributing
to
these
reduced
abundances
are
widespread
stream
blockages,
which
reduce
access
to
spawning
habitat,
especially
in
upper
reaches.
Both
long­
and
short­
term
trends
in
abundance
are
predominantly
downward,
and
several
populations
are
exhibiting
severe
short­
term
declines.
Spring­
run
chinook
salmon
populations
throughout
this
ESU
are
all
depressed.

Tens
of
millions
of
hatchery
fish
have
been
released
annually
throughout
the
ESU.
More
than
half
of
the
recent
total
Puget
Sound
escapement
returned
to
hatcheries.
The
BRT
was
concerned
that
the
preponderance
of
hatchery
production
throughout
the
ESU
may
mask
trends
in
natural
populations
and
makes
it
difficult
to
determine
whether
they
are
self­
sustaining.
This
difficulty
is
compounded
by
the
dearth
of
data
pertaining
to
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
fish
that
are
of
hatchery
origin.
There
has
also
been
widespread
use
of
a
limited
number
of
hatchery
stocks,
resulting
in
increased
risk
of
loss
of
fitness
and
diversity
among
populations.

Freshwater
habitat
throughout
the
range
of
the
ESU
has
been
blocked
or
degraded,
with
upper
tributaries
widely
affected
by
poor
forestry
practices
and
lower
tributaries
and
mainstem
rivers
affected
by
agriculture
and
urbanization.
There
also
is
concern
that
harvest
rates
of
natural
stocks
in
mixed­
stock
fisheries
may
be
excessive,
as
evidenced
by
recent
declines
in
most
stocks
managed
for
natural
escapement
despite
curtailed
terminal
fisheries.
Finally,
special
concern
was
expressed
regarding
the
status
of
spring­
and
summer­
run
populations.

9)
Lower
Columbia
River
ESU
256
A
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
not
presently
in
danger
of
extinction
but
are
likely
to
become
so
in
the
foreseeable
future.
A
minority
felt
that
this
ESU
is
not
presently
at
significant
risk
or
were
uncertain
as
to
its
status.
Estimated
overall
abundance
of
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
is
not
cause
for
immediate
concern.
However,
apart
from
the
relatively
large
and
apparently
healthy
fall­
run
population
in
the
Lewis
River,
production
in
this
ESU
appears
to
be
predominantly
hatchery­
driven
with
few
identifiable
native,
naturally
reproducing
populations.
Long­
and
short­
term
trends
in
abundance
of
individual
populations
are
mostly
negative,
some
severely
so.
About
half
of
the
populations
comprising
this
ESU
are
very
small,
increasing
the
likelihood
that
risks
due
to
genetic
and
demographic
processes
in
small
populations
will
be
important.
Numbers
of
naturally
spawning
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
are
very
low,
and
native
populations
in
the
Sandy
and
Clackamas
Rivers
have
been
supplanted
by
spring­
run
fish
from
the
Upper
Willamette
River.
There
have
been
at
least
six
documented
extinctions
of
populations
in
this
ESU,
and
it
is
possible
that
extirpation
of
other
native
populations
has
occurred
but
has
been
masked
by
the
presence
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery
fish.
The
BRT
was
particularly
concerned
about
the
inability
to
identify
any
healthy
native
springrun
populations.

The
large
numbers
of
hatchery
fish
in
this
ESU
make
it
difficult
to
determine
the
proportion
of
naturally
produced
fish.
In
spite
of
the
heavy
impact
of
hatcheries,
genetic
and
lifehistory
characteristics
of
populations
in
this
ESU
still
differ
from
those
in
other
ESUs.
The
BRT,
however,
identified
the
loss
of
fitness
and
diversity
within
the
ESU
as
an
important
concern.
There
was
a
special
concern
regarding
recent
releases
of
Rogue
River
fall­
run
fish
at
Youngs
Bay
and
their
documented
straying
into
many
tributaries
in
the
Lower
Columbia
River.

Freshwater
habitat
is
in
poor
condition
in
many
basins,
with
problems
related
to
forestry
practices,
urbanization,
and
agriculture.
Dam
construction
on
the
Cowlitz,
Lewis,
White
Salmon,
and
Sandy
Rivers
eliminated
access
to
a
substantial
portion
of
the
spring­
run
spawning
habitat,
with
a
lesser
impact
on
fall­
run
habitat.

10)
Upper
Willamette
River
ESU
A
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
not
presently
in
danger
of
extinction
but
are
likely
to
become
so
in
the
foreseeable
future.
A
minority
felt
that
this
ESU
is
not
presently
at
significant
risk
or
were
uncertain
as
to
its
status,
and
one
member
considered
this
ESU
to
be
at
risk
of
extinction.
Total
abundance
has
been
relatively
stable
at
approximately
20,000
to
30,000
fish;
however,
recent
natural
escapement
is
less
than
5,000
fish
and
has
been
declining
sharply.
Furthermore,
it
is
estimated
that
about
two­
thirds
of
the
natural
spawners
are
first­
generation
hatchery
fish,
suggesting
that
the
natural
population
is
falling
far
257
short
of
replacing
itself.
The
BRT
noted
a
similarity
between
these
population
dynamic
parameters
and
those
for
the
upper
Columbia
River
steelhead
ESU,
which
was
recently
listed
as
endangered
by
NMFS.

The
introduction
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
into
the
basin
and
laddering
of
Willamette
Falls
have
increased
the
potential
for
genetic
introgression
between
wild
spring­
and
hatchery
fallrun
chinook
salmon,
but
there
is
no
direct
evidence
of
hybridization
(
other
than
an
overlap
in
spawning
times
and
spawning
location)
between
these
two
runs.

The
proximate
sources
of
risk
to
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
habitat
blockage
of
large
areas
of
important
spawning
and
rearing
habitat
by
dam
construction.
Remaining
habitat
has
been
degraded
by
thermal
effects
of
dams,
forestry
practices,
agriculture,
and
urbanization.
Another
concern
for
this
ESU
is
that
commercial
and
recreational
harvest
are
high
relative
to
the
apparent
productivity
of
natural
populations.

11)
Middle
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
The
BRT
agreed
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
not
presently
in
danger
of
extinction
nor
likely
to
become
so
in
the
foreseeable
future.
The
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
the
ESU
is
not
at
significant
risk
at
the
present
time,
although
a
minority
of
BRT
members
felt
that
the
ESU
is
likely
to
become
at
risk
of
extinction
in
the
foreseeable
future.
Total
abundance
of
this
ESU
is
low
relative
to
the
total
basin
area,
and
1994­
96
escapements
have
been
very
low.
Several
historical
populations
have
been
extirpated,
and
the
few
extant
populations
in
this
ESU
are
not
widely
distributed
geographically.
In
addition,
there
are
only
two
populations
(
John
Day
and
Yakima
Rivers)
with
substantial
run­
sizes.

Despite
of
low
abundances
relative
to
estimated
historical
levels,
long­
term
trends
in
abundance
have
been
relatively
stable,
with
an
approximately
even
mix
of
upward
and
downward
trends
in
populations.
Two
major
river
basins
(
John
Day
and
Yakima
Rivers)
are
comprised
predominantly
of
naturally
produced
fish,
and
both
of
these
exhibit
long­
term
increasing
trends
in
abundance.
Recent
analyses
done
as
part
of
the
PATH
process
indicates
that
productivity
of
natural
populations
in
the
Deschutes
and
John
Day
Rivers
has
been
more
robust
that
most
other
stream­
type
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
River
(
Schaller
et
al.
1996).

Hatchery
production
accounts
for
a
substantial
proportion
of
total
escapement
to
the
region.
However,
screening
procedures
at
the
Warm
Springs
River
weir
apparently
minimize
the
potential
for
hatchery­
wild
introgression
in
the
Deschutes
River
basin.
Although
straying
is
less
of
a
problem
with
returning
spring­
run
adults,
the
use
of
the
composite,
out­
of­
ESU
Carson
Hatchery
stock
to
reestablish
the
Umatilla
River
spring
run
would
be
a
cause
for
concern
if
fish
from
that
program
stray
out
of
the
basin.
258
Spawning
and
rearing
habitat
has
been
affected
by
agriculture
(
water
withdrawals,
livestock
grazing,
and
agricultural
effluents)
throughout
the
range
of
the
ESU,
and
migration
corridors
have
been
affected
substantially
by
hydroelectric
development.
In
addition,
lack
of
agreement
between
run­
size
estimates
based
on
dam
counts
and
spawner
surveys
contribute
to
the
uncertainty
in
evaluating
this
ESU.

12)
Upper
Columbia
River
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
ESU
In
an
earlier
review,
this
ESU
was
determined
to
be
neither
at
risk
of
extinction
nor
likely
to
become
so.
Its
status
is
not
reviewed
in
detail
here.
However,
the
BRT
did
express
concern
regarding
new
data
that
show
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
of
hatchery
origin
has
been
increasingly
rapidly
in
areas
above
Wells
Dam.
This
raises
a
question
about
the
sustainability
of
natural
populations
in
that
area
and
is
also
a
concern
because
of
possible
genetic/
life­
history
consequences
of
the
shift
in
hatchery
releases
from
subyearlings
to
yearlings.

13)
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
ESU
The
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
are
in
danger
of
extinction.
A
minority
concluded
that
this
ESU
is
not
presently
in
danger
of
extinction,
but
it
is
likely
to
become
so
in
the
foreseeable
future.
Recent
total
abundance
of
this
ESU
is
quite
low,
and
escapements
in
1994­
96
were
the
lowest
in
at
least
60
years.
At
least
6
populations
of
springrun
chinook
salmon
in
this
ESU
have
become
extinct,
and
almost
all
remaining
naturally­
spawning
populations
have
fewer
than
100
spawners.
The
BRT
expressed
concern
about
the
genetic
and
demographic
risks
associated
with
such
small
populations.
In
addition
to
extremely
small
population
sizes,
both
recent
and
long­
term
trends
in
abundance
are
downward,
some
extremely
so.

Hydrosystem
development
has
substantially
affected
this
ESU.
Grande
Coulee
Dam
blocked
access
to
important
spawning
and
rearing
habitat,
and
downstream
dams
are
an
impediment
to
migration
(
both
juvenile
and
adult
fish
from
this
ESU
must
navigate
past
as
many
as
nine
mainstem
dams).
The
BRT
also
had
substantial
concerns
over
degradation
of
the
remaining
spawning
and
rearing
habitat.

Risks
associated
with
interactions
between
wild
and
hatchery
chinook
salmon
are
also
a
concern,
as
there
continues
to
be
substantial
production
of
the
composite,
non­
native
Carson
stock
for
fishery
enhancement
and
hydropower
mitigation.
For
example,
estimates
of
hatchery
contribution
to
natural
spawning
escapements
are
39%
in
the
Methow
River
Basin.
259
14)
Snake
River
Fall­
Run
ESU
Snake
River
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
are
currently
listed
as
a
threatened
species
under
the
ESA.
As
discussed
above,
the
BRT
concluded
that
the
Snake
River
fall­
run
ESU
also
includes
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Deschutes
River
and,
historically,
populations
from
the
John
Day,
Umatilla,
Walla
Walla
Rivers
that
have
been
extirpated
in
the
20th
century.

Assessing
extinction
risk
to
the
newly
configured
ESU
is
difficult
because
of
the
geographic
discontinuity
and
the
disparity
in
the
status
of
the
two
remaining
populations.
Historically,
the
Snake
River
populations
dominated
production
in
this
ESU;
total
abundance
is
estimated
to
have
been
about
72,000
in
the
1930s
and
1940s,
and
it
was
probably
substantially
higher
before
that.
Production
from
the
Deschutes
River
was
presumably
only
a
small
fraction
of
historic
production
in
the
ESU.
In
contrast,
recent
(
1990­
96)
returns
of
naturally
spawning
fish
to
the
Deschutes
River
(
about
6,000
adults
per
year)
have
been
much
higher
than
in
the
Snake
River
(
5­
year
mean
about
500
adults
per
year,
including
hatchery
strays).
Long
term
trends
in
abundance
are
mixed
 
slightly
upward
in
the
Deschutes
River
and
downward
in
the
Snake
River.
On
a
more
positive
note,
short­
term
trends
in
both
remaining
populations
are
upward.

In
spite
of
the
relative
health
of
the
Deschutes
River
population,
a
majority
of
the
BRT
concluded
that
the
ESU
as
a
whole
is
likely
to
be
in
danger
of
extinction
in
the
foreseeable
future,
with
the
remainder
being
undecided
on
its
status.
The
BRT
was
concerned
that
almost
all
historical
spawning
habitat
in
the
Snake
River
Basin
was
blocked
by
the
Hells
Canyon
Dam
complex,
and
other
habitat
blockages
have
occurred
in
Columbia
River
tributaries.
Hydroelectric
development
on
the
mainstem
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers
continues
to
affect
juvenile
and
adult
migration.
Remaining
habitat
has
been
reduced
by
inundation
in
the
mainstem
Snake
and
Columbia
Rivers,
and
the
ESU's
range
has
also
been
affected
by
agricultural
water
withdrawals,
grazing,
and
vegetation
management.

An
additional
source
of
risk
to
the
Snake
River
chinook
salmon
is
the
continued
straying
by
non­
native
hatchery
fish
into
natural
production
areas.
The
BRT
also
noted
that
considerable
uncertainty
regarding
the
origins
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
lower
Deschutes
River
and
their
relationship
to
fish
in
the
upper
Deschutes
River.

15)
Snake
River
Spring­
and
Summer­
Run
ESU
This
ESU
is
presently
listed
as
a
threatened
species
under
the
U.
S.
ESA
and
is
not
reviewed
further
here.
260
261
CITATIONS
Aguilar,
B.
1995.
Capture
and
coded­
wire
tagging
of
naturally
produced
chinook
salmon
in
the
Trinity
River
Basin.
Chapter
II
Job
II.
Calif.
Dep.
Fish
Game,
Inland
Fish.
Div.,
p.
35­
52.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
St.,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

Aguilar,
B.,
L.
D.
Davis,
L.
Hanson,
B.
Collins,
M.
Zuspan,
W.
Sinnen,
M.
Dean,
and
R.
Reavis.
1996.
Annual
report:
Trinity
River
basin
salmon
and
steelhead
monitoring
project.
1993­
1994
season.
Calif.
Dep.
Fish
Game,
Inland
Fish.
Div.,
266
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
St.,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
ADFG).
1997.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
F.
Rue,
February
1997,
9
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Alderdice,
D.
F.,
and
F.
P.
T.
Velsen.
1978.
Relation
between
temperature
and
incubation
time
for
eggs
of
chinook
salmon
(
O.
tshawytscha).
J.
Fish.
Res.
Board
Can.
35:
69­
75.

Allan,
R.
1996.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
Sol
Duc
Salmon
Hatchery
data.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Allendorf,
F.
W.,
and
N.
Ryman.
1987.
Genetic
management
of
hatchery
stocks.
In
N.
Ryman
and
F.
Utter
(
eds.),
Population
genetics
&
fishery
management,
p.
141­
159.
Univ.
Wash.
Press,
Seattle.

Allendorf,
F.
W.,
D.
Bayles,
D.
L.
Bottom,
K.
P.
Currens,
C.
A.
Frissel,
D.
Hankin,
J.
A.
Lichatowich,
W.
Nehlsen,
P.
C.
Trotter,
and
T.
H.
Williams.
1997.
Prioritizing
Pacific
Salmon
Stocks
for
Conservation.
Conserv.
Biol.
11(
1):
140­
152.

Appleby,
A.,
and
K.
Keown.
1994.
History
of
White
River
spring
chinook
broodstocking
and
captive
rearing
efforts.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
53
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

Appleby,
A.,
and
K.
Keown.
1995.
History
of
White
River
spring
chinook
broodstock
and
captive
brood
rearing
efforts.
In
T.
A.
Flagg
and
C.
V.
W.
Mahnaken
(
eds.),
An
262
assessment
of
the
status
of
captive
broodstock
technology
for
Pacific
salmon,
p.
1­
32.
Report
to
the
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Ashbrook,
C.,
and
H.
J.
Fuss.
1996.
Hatchery
operation
plans
and
performance
summaries,
Vol.
11,
No.
2
Coast.
Annual
Report.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
Wild.,
Assess.
Develop.
Div.,
Olympia.
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

Atkinson,
C.
E.
1960.
Fisheries
research:
its
organization
and
program
within
the
USSR.
U.
S.
Bur.
Fish.,
Seattle,
WA.

Bakun,
A.
1973.
Coastal
upwelling
indices,
west
of
North
America,
1946­
71.
NOAA
Tech.
Rep.
NMFS
SSRF­
671,
163
p.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112.)

Bakun,
A.
1975.
Daily
and
weekly
upwelling
indices,
West
Coast
of
North
America,
1967­
73.
NOAA
Tech.
Rep.
NMFS
SSRF­
693,
114
p.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112.)

Banks,
M.
A.,
B.
A.
Baldwin,
S.
M.
Blankenship,
and
D.
Hedgecock.
1996.
Unpublished
data
transmitted
to
NMFS
30
January
1996
from
the
Bodega
Marine
Laboratory,
Bodega
Bay,
California.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Ste.
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Barnhart,
R.
A.
1995.
Salmon
and
steelhead
populations
of
the
Klamath­
Trinity
Basin,
California.
In
T.
J.
Hassler
(
ed.),
Klamath
Basin
Fisheries
Symposium,
p.
73­
97.
California
Cooperative
Fishery
Research
Unit,
Humboldt
State
University,
Arcata,
CA.
(
Available
from
California
Cooperative
Fishery
Research
Unit,
Humboldt
State
University,
Arcata,
CA
95521.)

Bartlett,
H.
1995.
Summary
report
for
Methow
Basin
spring
chinook
salmon
hatchery
program.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
H96­
03,
46
p.
(
Available
from
Douglas
County
Public
Utility
District,
1151
Valley
Mall
Parkway,
East
Wenatchee,
WA
98802­
4497.)

Bartlett,
H.,
and
B.
Bugert.
1994.
Methow
River
Basin
spring
chinook
salmon
hatchery
program
evaluation.
1992
Annual
Report.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
35
p.
(
Available
from
Douglas
Public
Utility
District,
1151
Valley
Mall
Parkway,
East
Wenatchee,
WA
98802­
4497.)

Bartley,
D.,
B.
Bentley,
J.
Brodziak,
R.
Gomulkiewicz,
M.
Mangel,
and
G.
A.
E.
Gall.
1992.
Geographic
variation
in
population
genetic
structure
of
chinook
salmon
from
California
and
Oregon.
Fish.
Bull.,
U.
S.
90:
77­
100.
263
Bartley,
D.
M.,
and
G.
A.
E.
Gall.
1990.
Genetic
structure
and
gene
flow
in
chinook
salmon
populations
of
California.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
119:
55­
71.

Bartley,
D.
M.,
G.
A.
E.
Gall,
and
D.
B.
Bentley.
1990.
Biochemical
genetic
detection
of
natural
and
artificial
hybridization
of
chinook
and
coho
salmon
in
northern
California.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
119:
431­
437.

Beacham,
T.
D.,
and
C.
B.
Murray.
1985.
Effect
of
female
size,
egg
size,
and
water
temperature
on
developmental
biology
of
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
from
the
Nitinat
River,
British
Columbia.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
42:
1755­
1765.

Beacham,
T.
D.,
and
C.
B.
Murray.
1987.
Adaptive
variation
in
body
size,
age,
morphology,
egg
size,
and
developmental
biology
of
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
in
British
Columbia.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Res.
44:
244­
261.

Beacham,
T.
D.,
and
C.
B.
Murray.
1989.
Variation
in
developmental
biology
of
sockeye
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
nerka)
and
chinook
salmon
(
O.
tshawytscha)
in
British
Columbia.
Can.
J.
Zool.
67:
2081­
2089.

Beacham,
T.
D.,
C.
B.
Murray,
and
R.
E.
Withler.
1989.
Age,
morphology,
and
biochemical
genetic
variation
of
Yukon
River
chinook
salmon.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
118:
46­
63.

Beacham,
T.
D.,
R.
E.
Withler,
and
T.
A.
Stevens.
1996.
Stock
identification
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
using
minisatellite
DNA
variation.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
53:
380­
394.

Beamish,
R.
J.,
and
D.
R.
Bouillon.
1993.
Pacific
salmon
production
trends
in
relation
to
climate.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
50:
1002­
1016.

Beamesderfer,
R.
C.
P.,
H.
P.
Schaller,
M.
P.
Zimmerman,
C.
E.
Petrosky,
O.
P.
Langness,
and
L.
LaVoy.
1997.
Spawner­
recruit
data
for
spring
and
summer
chinook
salmon
populations
in
Idaho,
Oregon,
and
Washington.
Unpublished
draft
manuscript
dated
6/
23/
97,
78
p.
(
Compiled
and
edited
by
ESSA
Technologies
Ltd.,
Vancouver,
B.
C.)

Beauchamp,
D.
A.,
D.
E.
Pflug,
and
G.
Lucchetti.
1987.
Snohomish
River
juvenile
salmon
outmigration
study
1987.
Tulalip
Tribal
Fisheries,
126
p.
(
Available
from
Tulalip
Fisheries,
7615
Totem
Beach
Rd.,
Marysville,
WA
98271.)

Bennett,
D.
E.
1988.
Willamette
River
spring
chinook
run.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
88­
031,
34
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)
264
Bennett,
D.
E.
1994.
The
1993
Willamette
River
spring
chinook
salmon
run,
fisheries,
and
passage
at
Willamette
Falls.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Berg,
W.
J.,
and
S.
D.
Ferris.
1984.
Restriction
endoneuclease
analysis
of
salmonid
mitochondrial
DNA.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
41:
1041­
1047.

Berman,
C.
H.,
and
T.
P.
Quinn.
1991.
Behavioral
thermoregulation
and
homing
by
spring
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
in
the
Yakima
River.
J.
Fish
Biol.
39:
301­
312.

Big
Eagle
&
Associates,
and
LGL
Limited
(
BE
and
LGL).
1995.
Chinook
salmon
catch,
escapement,
and
historical
abundance
data.
Report
prepared
for
NOAA,
NMFS,
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112.)

Bishop,
S.,
and
A.
Morgan,
(
eds.).
1996.
Critical
habitat
issues
by
basin
for
natural
chinook
salmon
stocks
in
the
coastal
and
Puget
Sound
areas
of
Washington
State.
Northwest
Indian
Fisheries
Commission,
Olympia,
WA,
105
p.
(
Available
from
Northwest
Indian
Fisheries
Commission,
6730
Martin
Way
E.,
Olympia,
WA
98506.)

Bishop,
S.
M.
1995.
Distribution
of
west
coast
chinook
stocks
or
hatchery
groups.
Report
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
August
1995.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Bisson,
P.
A.,
G.
H.
Reeves,
R.
E.
Bilby,
and
R.
J.
Naiman.
1997.
Watershed
management
and
Pacific
salmon:
desired
future
conditions.
In
D.
J.
Stouder,
P.
A.
Bisson,
and
RJ.
Naiman
(
eds.),
Pacific
salmon
and
their
ecosystems:
status
and
future
options,
p.
447­
474.
Chapman
and
Hall,
New
York.

Bjornn,
T.
C.
1971.
Trout
and
salmon
movements
in
two
Idaho
streams
as
related
to
temperature,
food,
stream
flow,
cover,
and
population
density.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
100:
423­
428.

Bjornn,
T.
C.
1997.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon.
T.
Bjornn,
16
February
1997,
3
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)
265
Bjornn,
T.
C.,
D.
Ortmann,
D.
Corley,
and
W.
Platts.
1964.
Salmon
and
steelhead
investigations,
Job
3:
The
gathering
and
compilation
of
relevant
data
for
Idaho
salmon
and
steelhead
runs
(
salmon
spawning
ground
surveys­
1963).
Idaho
Dep.
Fish
Game.
(
Available
from
Idaho
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
600
South
Walnut,
Box
25,
Boise,
ID
83707­
0025.)

Bonneville
Power
Administration
(
BPA),
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW),
and
Yakama
Indian
Nation
(
YIN).
1996.
Yakima
fisheries
project.
Final
environmental
impact
statement.
DOE/
EIS­
0169,
152
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Public
Involvement
Manager,
P.
O.
Box
12999,
Portland,
OR
97212.)

Bottom,
D.
L.,
P.
J.
Howell,
and
J.
D.
Rodgers.
1985.
The
effects
of
stream
alterations
on
salmon
and
trout
habitat
in
Oregon.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
Portland,
OR,
70
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Bouck,
G.
R.,
A.
V.
Nebeker,
and
D.
G.
Stevens.
1975.
Effects
of
holding
temperatures
on
reproductive
development
in
adult
sockeye
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
nerka).
Annual
Northwest
Fish
Culture
Conference,
Otter
Rock,
OR,
17
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Bowers,
G.
M.
1900.
A
Manual
of
fish
culture,
based
on
the
methods
of
the
United
States
Commission
of
Fish
and
Fisheries,
with
chapters
on
the
cultivation
of
oysters
and
frogs.
U.
S.
Government
Printing
Office,
Washington,
D.
C.,
340
p.

Bowles,
E.,
and
E.
Leitzinger.
1991.
Salmon
supplementation
studies
in
Idaho
Rivers.
Project
No.
899882.
Bonn.
Power
Administration,
167
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Bradford,
M.
J.
1994.
Trends
in
the
abundance
of
Chinook
Salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
of
the
Nechako
River,
British
Columbia.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
51:
965­
973.

Brannon,
E.
L.,
and
W.
K.
Hershberger.
1984.
Elwha
River
fall
chinook
salmon.
In
J.
M.
Walton
and
D.
B.
Houton
(
eds.),
Proceedings
of
Olympic
wild
fish
conference,
p.
169­
172.
Port
Angeles,
WA.

Brannon,
E.
L.,
and
A.
Setter.
1987.
Marine
distribution
of
a
hatchery
fall
chinook
salmon
population.
In
E.
Brannon
and
B.
Jonsson
(
eds.),
Proceedings
of
the
Salmonid
Migration
and
Distribution
Symposium,
p.
63­
69.
Trondheim,
Norway.

Britton,
E.
W.,
and
D.
E.
Marshall.
1980.
Catalogue
of
salmon
streams
and
spawning
escapements
of
Statistical
Areas
9
and
10,
(
Rivers
Inlet
and
Smith
Inlet).
Can.
Data
Rep.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
222:
164.
266
Broddrick,
L.
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
CDFG
memorandum
to
Ms.
D.
McKee,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
October
13,
1995.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Bruner,
C.
J.
1951.
Characteristics
of
spawning
nests
of
Columbia
River
salmon.
1992
52:
95­
110.

Bryant,
F.
G.
1949.
A
survey
of
the
Columbia
River
and
its
tributaries
with
special
reference
to
its
fishery
resources­­
Part
II.
Washington
streams
from
the
mouth
of
the
Columbia
to
and
including
the
Klickitat
River
(
Area
I).
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
Spec.
Sci.
Rep.
62,
110
p.

Bryant,
F.
G.,
and
Z.
E.
Parkhurst.
1950.
Survey
of
the
Columbia
River
and
its
tributaries­­
Part
IV.
Area
III
Washington
streams
from
the
Klickitat
and
Snake
Rivers
to
Grand
Coulee
Dam,
with
notes
on
the
Columbia
and
its
tribuataries
above
Grand
Coulee
Dam.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
Spec.
Sci.
Rep.
Fish.
37,
108
p.

Bugert,
R.
1998.
Mechanics
of
supplementation
in
the
Columbia
River.
Fisheries
23:
11­
20.

Bugert,
R.,
and
B.
Hopley.
1989.
The
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon
egg
bank
program:
The
final
chapter.
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries,
7
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capital
Way
N.,
Olympia
WA
98501­
1091.)

Burck,
W.
A.
1967.
Mature
stream­
reared
spring
chinook
salmon.
Fish
Commission
of
Oregon,
Research
Briefs
13:
128.

Burck,
W.
A.,
and
P.
E.
Reimers.
1978.
Temporal
and
spatial
distribution
of
fall
chinook
salmon
spawning
in
Elk
River.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish.
Wildl.,
Information
Report
Series
78­
3,
14
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Burck,
W.
A.,
R.
B.
Lindsay,
B.
J.
Smith,
and
E.
A.
Olsen.
1979.
Spring
chinook
salmon
in
the
John
Day
River.
Annual
progress
report.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
DE­
AC79­
80BP18324,
63
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Burger,
C.
V.,
R.
L.
Wilmot,
and
D.
B.
Wangard.
1985.
Comparison
of
spawning
areas
and
times
for
two
runs
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
in
the
Kenai
River,
Alaska.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
42:
693­
700.
267
Burgner,
R.
L.
1991.
The
life
history
of
sockeye
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
nerka).
In
C.
Groot
and
L.
Margolis
(
eds.),
Life
history
of
Pacific
salmon,
p.
3­
117.
Univ.
B.
C.
Press,
Vancouver,
B.
C.

Busack,
C.
1990.
Yakima/
Klickitat
production
project
genetic
risk
assessment.
Appendix
A,
Yakima/
Klikitat
production
project
preliminary
design
report,
20
p.

Busack,
C.
A.,
and
K.
P.
Currens.
1995.
Genetic
risks
and
hazards
in
hatchery
operations:
Fundamental
concepts
and
issues.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
15:
71­
80.

Busack,
C.,
and
A.
R.
Marshall.
1995.
Defining
units
of
genetic
diversity
in
Washington
salmonids.
In
C.
Busack
and
J.
B.
Shaklee
(
eds.),
Genetic
diversity
units
and
major
ancestral
lineages
of
salmonid
fishes
in
Washington,
p.
1­
19.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
Tech.
Rep.
RAD
95­
02,
173
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capital
Way
N.,
Olympia
WA
98501­
1091.)

Busack,
C.
A.,
C.
Knudsen,
A.
Marshall,
S.
Phelps,
and
D.
Seiler.
1991.
Yakima
hatchery
experimental
design.
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
89­
082,
266
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Busby,
M.
S.
1991.
The
abundance
of
epibenthic
and
plantonic
macrofauna
and
feeding
habits
of
juvenile
fall
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
in
the
Mattole
River
estuary/
lagoon,
Humboldt
County,
California.
M.
S.
Thesis,
Humboldt
State
University,
Arcata,
California,
130
p.

Busby,
P.
J.,
T.
C.
Wainwright,
G.
J.
Bryant,
L.
J.
Lierheimer,
R.
S.
Waples,
F.
W.
Waknitz,
and
I.
V.
Lagomarsino.
1996.
Status
review
of
west
coast
steelhead
from
Washington,
Idaho,
Oregon,
and
California.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
27,
261
p.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center,
Coastal
Zone
and
Estuarine
Studies
Division,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112­
2097.)

Bush,
G.,
C.
McConnell,
C.
Cloyd,
K.
Musser,
and
B.
Metzer.
1997.
Assessment
of
the
effects
of
the
1996
flood
on
the
Siuslaw
National
Forest.
Siuslaw
Natl.
Forest,
Draft
Tech.
Rep.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Bustard,
D.
R.,
and
D.
W.
Narver.
1975.
Aspects
of
the
winter
ecology
of
juvenile
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
and
steelhead
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri).
J.
Fish.
Res.
Board
Can.
32:
667­
680.
268
California
Advisory
Committee
on
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Trout
(
CACSST).
1988.
Restoring
the
balance.
Calif.
Dep.
Fish
Game,
84
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
St.,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1965.
California
fish
and
wildlife
plan.
Three
volumes.
Sacramento,
CA.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
St.,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1984.
CDFG
memorandum
from
Fred
Meyer
to
file
re:
Calaveras
River
fishery
below
New
Hogan
Dam.
CDFG
Region
2,
May
1,
1984.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1995.
Klamath
River
fall
chinook
salmon
runsize
in­
river
harvest
and
spawner
escapement
­
1995
season.
Calif.
Dep.
Fish
Game,
Klamath­
Trinity
Program,
8
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
St.,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1996.
Trinity
River
Basin
salmon
and
steelhead
monitoring
project
annual
report:
1994­
95
season.
CDFG
report
dated
May
1996,
193
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
Street,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1997a.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
R.
Carpenter,
21
March
1997,
12
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1997b.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon.
A.
Baracco,
4
April
1997,
16
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1997c.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
C.
Harvey,
12
September
1997,
3
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1997d.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
G.
Neillands,
16
September
1997,
5
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)
269
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1997e.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
B.
Jong,
18
September
1997,
1
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1997f.
San
Joaquin
River
chinook
salmon
enhancement
project:
Annual
report
fiscal
year
1995­
96.
CDFG
Report
dated
April
1997,
104
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Region
4,
1234
East
Shaw
Avenue,
Fresno,
CA
93710.)

California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
CDFG).
1997g.
Trinity
River
Basin
salmon
and
steelhead
monitoring
project
annual
report:
1996­
97
season.
CDFG
draft
report,
27
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
Street,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

California
Department
of
Natural
Resources
(
CDNR).
1931.
Thirty­
first
biennial
report,
1928­
1930.
Div.
of
Fish
and
Game,
Sacramento,
CA,
96
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
St.,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

California
State
Lands
Commission
(
CSLC).
1993.
California's
rivers,
a
public
trust
report,
304
p.

Calkins,
R.
D.,
W.
F.
Durand,
and
W.
H.
Rich.
1940.
Report
of
the
board
of
consultants
on
the
fish
problem
of
the
upper
Sacramento
River.
Stanford
Univ.,
34
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Campbell,
E.
A.,
and
P.
B.
Moyle.
1990.
Historical
and
recent
populations
sizes
of
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
in
California.
In
T.
J.
Hassler
(
ed.),
Northeast
Pacific
chinook
and
coho
salmon
workshops
and
proceeding,
p.
155­
216.
Humbolt
State
University,
Arcata,
CA.

Campton,
D.
E.
1995.
Genetic
effects
of
hatchery
fish
on
wild
populations
of
Pacific
salmon
and
steelhead:
what
do
we
really
know?
Am.
Fish.
So.
Symp.
15:
337­
353.

Carie,
D.
1996.
Spring
and
summer
chinook
salmon
spawning
ground
surveys
on
the
Entiat
River,
1996.
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Report
dated
December
1996,
16
p.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Mid­
Columbia
River
Fisheries
Resource
Office,
12790
Fish
Hatchery
Rd.,
Leavenworth,
WA
98826.)

Carl,
L.
M.,
and
M.
C.
Healey.
1984.
Differences
in
enzyme
frequency
and
body
morphology
among
three
juvenile
life
history
types
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
in
the
Nanaimo
River,
British
Columbia.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
41:
1070­
1077.
266
Casteneda,
R.
1996.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Caughley,
G.
1994.
Directions
in
conservation
biology.
J.
Anim.
Ecol.
63:
215­
244.

Cavalli­
Sforza,
L.
L.,
and
A.
W.
F.
Edwards.
1967.
Phylogenetic
analysis:
Models
and
estimation
procedures.
Evolution
21:
550­
570.

Chakraborty,
R.
1980.
Gene
diversity
analysis
in
nested
subdivided
populations.
Genetics
96:
721­
726.

Chapman,
D.,
A.
Giorgi,
M.
Hill,
A.
Maule,
S.
McCutcheon,
D.
Park,
W.
Platts,
K.
Prat,
J.
Seeb,
L.
Seeb
and
others.
1991.
Status
of
Snake
River
chinook
salmon.
Pacific
Northwest
Utilities
Conference
Committee,
531
p.
(
Available
from
Don
Chapman
Consultants,
3653
Rickenbacker,
Ste.
200,
Boise,
ID
83705.)

Chapman,
D.,
A.
Giorgi,
T.
Hillman,
D.
Deppert,
M.
Erho,
S.
Hays,
C.
Peven,
B.
Suzumoto,
and
R.
Klinge.
1994.
Status
of
summer/
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
mid­
Columbia
region.
Report
for
Chelan,
Douglas,
and
Grant
County
PUDs.
412
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Don
Chapman
Consultants,
3653
Rickenbacker,
Ste.
200,
Boise,
ID
83705.)

Chapman,
D.,
C.
Peven,
A.
Giorgi,
T.
Hillman,
and
F.
Utter.
1995.
Status
of
spring
chinook
salmon
in
the
mid­
Columbia
River.
Don
Chapman
Consultants,
Inc.,
477
p.
(
Available
from
Don
Chapman
Consultants,
3653
Rickenbacker,
Ste.
200,
Boise,
ID
83705.)

Chapman,
W.
M.
1943.
The
spawning
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
main
Columbia
River.
Copeia(
3):
168­
170.

Cheng,
K.
M.,
I.
M.
McCallum,
R.
I.
McKay,
and
B.
E.
March.
1987.
A
comparison
of
survival
and
growth
of
two
strains
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
and
their
crosses
reared
in
confinement.
Aquaculture
67:
301­
311.

Clark,
G.
H.
1929.
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
fishery
of
California.
Calif.
Fish
Game
Bull.
17:
73.

Clarke,
W.
C.,
R.
E.
Withler,
and
J.
E.
Shelbourn.
1992.
Genetic
control
of
juvenile
life­
history
pattern
in
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
49:
2300­
2306.
267
Cobb,
J.
N.
1930.
Pacific
salmon
fisheries.
Report
of
the
U.
S.
Commissioner
of
Fisheries
for
1930.
Bureau
of
Fish.
Doc.
1092,
p.
409­
704.

Columbia
Basin
Fish
and
Wildlife
Authority
(
CBFWA).
1990a.
Integrated
system
plan
for
salmon
and
steelhead
production
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin.
Columbia
Basin
Fish
and
Wildlife
Authority,
449
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Columbia
Basin
Fish
and
Wildlife
Authority
(
CBFWA).
1990b.
Review
of
the
history,
development,
and
management
of
anadromous
fish
production
facilities
in
the
Columbia
river
basin.
Columbia
Basin
Fish
and
Wildlife
Authority,
Portland,
Oregon,
52
p.
(
Available
from
Columbia
Basin
Fish
and
Wildlife
Authority,
2501
SW
First
Ave.,
Suite
200,
Portland,
OR
97201.)

Columbia
Basin
Fish
and
Wildlife
Authority
(
CBFWA).
1996.
Impacts
of
artificial
salmon
and
steelhead
production
strategies
in
the
Columbia
River
basin.
Draft
Programmatic
Environmental
Impact
Statement.
(
Available
from
Columbia
Basin
Fish
and
Wildlife
Authority,
2501
SW
First
Ave.,
Suite
200,
Portland,
OR
97201.)

Conner,
W.
P.,
H.
L.
Burge,
and
W.
H.
Miller,
1994.
Rearing
and
emigration
of
naturally
produced
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon
juveniles.
In
D.
W.
Rondorf
&
W.
H.
Miller
(
eds.),
Identification
of
the
spawning,
rearing,
and
migratory
requirements
of
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin,
p.
92­
119.
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Cooney,
C.
X.,
and
S.
E.
Jacobs.
1994.
Oregon
coastal
salmon
spawning
surverys,
1992.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl,
Fish
Div.
Info.
Rep.,
No.
94­
2,
103
p.

Cope,
O.
B.,
and
D.
W.
Slater.
1957.
Role
of
Coleman
hatchery
in
maintaining
a
king
salmon
run.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
Res.
Rep.,
No.
47,
22
p.
(
Available
from
Superintendent
of
Documents,
United
States
Government
Printing
Office,
Washington,
D.
C.)

Craig,
J.
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
completed
questionnaires
for
Klamath
River,
Wooley
Creek,
Trinity
River,
New
River,
and
Blue
Creek;
age
composition
of
1991­
1994
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
fall
chinook
salmon.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Craig,
J.
A.,
and
Suomela.
1941.
Time
of
appearance
of
the
runs
of
salmon
and
steelhead
trout
native
to
the
Wenatchee,
Entiat,
Methow,
and
Okanogan
rivers.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
[
Reprinted
in
Mullan
et
al.
1992.]
268
Craig,
J.
A.,
and
L.
D.
Townsend.
1946.
An
investigation
of
fish­
maintenance
problems
in
relation
to
the
Willamette
Valley
Project.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Spec.
Sci.
Rep.
33:
74.

Craig,
J.
L.,
and
T.
S.
Fletcher.
1994.
Klamath
River
fisheries
assessment
program.
1992
Annual
report.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
AFF1­
FRO­
94­
03,
63
p.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Coastal
California
Fishery
Resource
Office,
Arcata,
California.)

Cramer,
S.
P.
1987.
Abundance
of
Rogue
River
fall
chinook
salmon.
Annual
progress
report.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
Fish
Res.
Project.
AFS
78­
1,
166
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Cramer,
S.
P.
[
1989].
Contribution
of
Sacramento
Basin
hatcheries
to
ocean
catch
and
river
escapement
of
fall
chinook
salmon.
S.
P.
Cramer
&
Associates,
113
p.
(
Available
from
S.
P.
Cramer
and
Associates,
Inc.,
300
S.
E.
Arrow
Creek
Land,
Gresham,
OR
97080.)

Cramer,
S.
P.
1996.
The
status
of
late­
fall
and
spring
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sacramento
River
Basin
in
regards
to
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
S.
P.
Cramer
&
Associates,
39
p.
(
Available
from
S.
P.
Cramer
&
Associates,
Inc.,
300
S.
E.
Arrow
Creek
Lane,
Gresham,
OR
97080.)

Cramer,
S.
P.,
C.
F.
Willis,
D.
Cramer,
M.
Smith,
T.
Downey,
and
R.
Montagne.
1996.
Status
of
Willamette
River
spring
chinook
salmon
in
regards
to
the
Federal
Endangered
Species
Act
(
Part
2).
Portland
General
Electric
Company
and
Eugene
Water
and
Electric
Board,
131
p.
(
Available
from
S.
P.
Cramer
&
Associates,
Inc.,
300
S.
E.
Arrow
Creek
Lane,
Gresham,
OR
97080.)

Crateau,
E.
1997.
Straying
of
hatchery
origin
spring/
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Grande
Ronde
Basin.
In
W.
S.
Grant
(
ed.),
Genetic
effects
of
straying
of
non­
native
hatchery
fish
into
natural
populations:
Proceedings
of
the
workshop,
p.
9­
15.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
30.

Crawford,
B.
A.
1979.
The
origin
and
history
of
the
trout
brood
stocks
of
the
Washington
Department
of
Game.
Washington
State
Game
Dep.,
Fishery
Research
Report,
76
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

Crawford,
J.
1894.
Fifth
annual
report
of
the
State
Fish
Commission
of
the
State
of
Washington.
Dep.
Fish.,
State
of
Washington,
12
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)
269
Cross,
C.
L.,
L.
Lapi,
and
E.
A.
Perry.
1991.
Production
of
chinook
and
coho
salmon
from
British
Columbia
hatcheries,
1971
through
1989.
Can
Tech.
Rept.
Fish
Aquat.
Sci.
1816,
48
p.

Cuenco,
M.
L.,
T.
W.
H.
Backman,
and
P.
R.
Mundy.
1993.
The
use
of
supplementation
to
aid
in
natural
stock
restoration.
In
J.
G.
Cloud
and
G.
H.
Thorgaard
(
eds.),
Genetic
conservation
of
salmonid
fishes,
p.
269­
293.
Plenum
Press
and
NATO
Scientific
Affairs
Division,
New
York.

Currens,
K.
P.,
and
C.
A.
Busack.
1995.
A
framework
for
assessing
genetic
vulnerability.
Fisheries.
20(
12):
24­
31.

Currens,
K.,
J.
Lannan,
B.
Riddell,
D.
Tave,
and
C.
Wood.
1996.
Responses
of
the
independent
scientific
panel
to
questions
about
the
interpretation
of
genetic
data
for
spring
chinook
salmon
in
Grand
Ronde
Basin.
Report
for
the
US
vs.
Oregon
Dispute
Resolution,
43
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Dahl,
T.
E.
1990.
Wetland
losses
in
the
United
States
1780'
s
to
1980'
s.
Report
to
Congress,
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
Washington,
D.
C.,
13
p.

Data
Access
in
Real
Time
Adult
Passage
(
DARTAP).
1997.
Columbia
River
Basin
Research,
University
of
Washington,
Seattle,
WA.
(
Available
through
Online
Internet
database
at
http://
www.
cqs.
washington.
edu/
dart/
adult.
html.)

Dauble,
D.
D.,
R.
L.
Johnson,
R.
P.
Mueller,
and
C.
S.
Abernathy.
1995.
Spawning
of
fall
chinook
salmon
downstream
of
Lower
Snake
River
hydroelectric
projects
1994.
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
14
p.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Walla
Walla
District,
Walla
Walla,
WA
99362.)

Davidson,
F.
A.
1953.
Historical
notes
on
development
of
Yakima
River
basin.
Yakama
Indian
Nation
Toppenish,
WA.
Mimeo
Report,
22
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Dean,
M.
1995.
Trinity
River
Basin
salmon
and
steelhead
monitoring
project
1992­
1993
season:
Job
VII
Life
History,
distribution,
run
size,
and
harvest
of
spring
chinook
salmon
in
the
South
Fork
Trinity
River
Basin.
Calif.
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fish.
Div.,
187­
226
p
.
(
Available
from
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
Street,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)
270
Delarm,
M.
R.,
and
R.
Z.
Smith.
1990a.
Assessment
of
present
anadromous
fish
production
facilities
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
Volume
1:
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Hatcheries.
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
89­
045,
106
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife­
PJ,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Delarm,
M.
R.,
and
R.
Z.
Smith.
1990b.
Assessment
of
present
anadromous
fish
production
facilities
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
Volume
2:
Idaho
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
Hatcheries.
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
89­
045,
77
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife­
PJ,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Delarm,
M.
R.,
and
R.
Z.
Smith.
1990c.
Assessment
of
present
anadromous
fish
production
facilities
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
Volume
3:
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
Hatcheries.
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
89­
045,
177
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife­
PJ,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Delarm,
M.
R.,
and
R
Z.
Smith.
1990d.
Assessment
of
present
anadromous
fish
production
facilities
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
Volume
4:
Washington
Department
of
Fish
Hatcheries.
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
89­
045,
130
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife­
PJ,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Department
of
Water
Resources
(
DWR).
1988.
Water
temperature
effects
on
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
with
emphasis
on
the
Sacramento
River:
A
literature
review.
Calif.
Dep.
Water
Res.,
Sacramento,
CA,
43
p.

Dettman,
D.
H.,
D.
W.
Kelley,
and
W.
T.
Mitchell.
1987.
The
influence
of
flow
on
Central
Valley
salmon.
Prepared
for
the
California
Dept.
of
Water
Resources.
Revised
July
1987,
66
p.
(
Available
from
D.
W.
Kelley
and
Associates,
8955
Langs
Hill
Rd.,
P.
O.
Box
634,
Newcastle,
CA
95658.)

Dewberry,
C.,
P.
Burns,
and
L.
Hood.
1996.
The
effects
of
the
storms
of
1996
on
anadromous
fish­
bearing
reaches
in
the
Knowles
Creek
Watershed.
Draft
Report
for
John
Hancock
Timber
Management
Group,
15
p.
+
tables.

Donaldson,
L.
R.,
and
K.
Bonham.
1970.
Effects
of
chronic
exposure
of
chinook
salmon
eggs
and
alevins
to
gamma
irradiation.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
99:
112­
119.

Donaldson,
L.
R.,
and
D.
Manasveta.
1961.
Selective
breeding
of
chinook
salmon.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
90:
160­
164.
271
Ducey,
R.
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
data
for
the
American
River.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Duker,
G.
J.
1981.
Instream
orientation
and
species
recognition
by
Pacific
salmon.
In
E.
L.
Brannon
and
E.
O.
Salo
(
eds.),
Salmon
and
trout
migratory
behavior
symposium,
p.
286­
295.
Univ.
Wash.
Press,
Seattle,
WA.

Dunston,
W.
1955.
White
River
downstream
migration.
Puget
Sound
stream
studies
(
1953­
1956).
Wash.
Dep.
Fish.
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

East
Bay
Municipal
Utility
District
(
EBMUD).
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
24
August
1995:
data
reports
for
the
Mokelumne
River.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

East
Bay
Municipal
Utility
District
(
EBMUD).
1997.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
J.
Miyamoto,
18
September
1997,
3
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Ellis,
C.
H.,
and
R.
E.
Noble.
1961.
Returns
of
marked
fall
chinook
salmon
to
the
Deschutes
River.
Annual
report.
Wash.
State
Fish.
Dep.
70
(
72­
75).
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

Emlen,
J.
M.
1995.
Population
viability
of
the
Snake
River
chinook
salmon.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
52:
1442­
1448.

Environment
Canada.
1977.
Water
temperatures:
British
Columbia
and
Yukon
Territory.
Inland
Waters
Directorate,
Vancouver,
Canada,
1874
p.

Environment
Canada.
1991.
HYDAT:
Surface
water
data
to
1990.
Version
CD
Rom
3.0.
Ottawa:
Environment
Canada,
Inland
Waters
Directorate,
Water
Resources
Branch.

Evermann,
B.
W.
1896.
A
preliminary
report
on
salmon
investigations
in
Idaho
in
1894.
Bull.
U.
S.
Fish.
Comm.
15:
253­
284.

Fagen,
R.,
and
W.
W.
Smoker.
1989.
How
large­
capacity
hatcheries
can
alter
interannual
variability
of
salmon
production.
Fish.
Res.
8:
1­
11.
272
Fast,
D.,
J.
Hubble,
M.
Kohn,
and
B.
Watson.
1991.
Yakima
River
spring
chinook
salmon
enhancement
study.
Final
report.
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
Project
No.
82­
16.
App.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Div.
Fish
Wildl.,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Fast,
D.,
M.
Hubble,
and
B.
Watson.
1986.
Yakima
River
spring
chinook
enhancement
study.
Annual
report
FY
1996.
Yakama
Indian
Nation,
Fisheries
Resource
Management.
Project
No.
82­
16.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Fish,
F.
F.,
and
M.
G.
Hanavan.
1948.
A
report
on
the
Grand
Coulee
Fish
Maintenance.
Project
1939­
1947.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
Spec.
Sci.
Rep
55.

Fisher,
F.
W.
1994.
Past
and
present
status
of
Central
Valley
chinook
salmon.
Conserv.
Biol.
8:
870­
873.

Fisher,
F.
W.
1995.
Central
Valley
coded­
wire
tag
recoveries
from
hatcheries
and
inland
waters,
1975
through
1994.
Draft
report.
Calif.
Dep.
Fish
Game,
Inland
Fish.
Div.,
49
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
St.,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

Flagg,
T.
A.,
F.
W.
Waknitz,
and
C.
V.
W.
Mahnken.
1995a.
The
captive
broodstock
concept:
Application
to
rearing
Pacific
salmon.
In
T.
A.
Flagg
and
C.
V.
W.
Mahnken
(
preparers),
An
Assessment
of
the
status
of
captive
broodstock
technology
for
Pacific
salmon.
Final
Report
to
the
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Portland,
OR,
p.
1­
60.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Flagg,
T.
A.,
F.
W.
Waknitz,
D.
J.
Maynard,
G.
B.
Milner,
and
C.
V.
Mahnken.
1995b.
The
effect
of
hatcheries
on
native
coho
salmon
populations
in
the
lower
Columbia
River.
In
H.
Schramm
and
B.
Piper
(
eds.),
Proceedings
of
the
American
Fisheries
Society
Symposium
on
the
uses
and
effects
of
cultured
fishes
in
aquatic
ecosystems,
March
12­
17,
1994,
Albuquerque,
NM.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
15:
366­
375.

Fleming,
I.
A.,
and
M.
R.
Gross.
1990.
Latitudinal
clines
a
trade­
off
between
egg
number
and
size
in
Pacific
salmon.
Ecology
71:
1­
11.

Foerster,
R.
E.
1968.
The
Sockeye
Salmon.
Fish.
Res.
Board
Can.
Bull.
162,
422
p.

Foote,
C.
J.
1990.
An
experimental
comparison
of
male
and
female
spawning
territoriality
in
Pacific
salmon.
Behavior
115:
283­
314.
273
Foote,
C.
J.,
W.
C.
Clarke,
and
J.
Blackburn.
1991.
Inhibition
of
smolting
in
precocious
male
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Can.
J.
Zool.
69:
1848­
1852.

Forbes,
G.
F.
1992.
Coleman
National
Fish
Hatchery
winter
chinook
salmon
brood
year
1991
production
report.
USFWS
report
submitted
to
the
administrative
record
for
coastal
chinook
salmon.
(
Available
from
USFWS,
Fisheries
Assistance
Office,
P.
O.
Box
667,
Red
Bluff,
CA
96080.)

Forest
Ecosystem
Management
Assessment
Team
(
FEMAT).
1993.
Forest
ecosystem
management:
an
ecological,
economic,
and
social
assessment.
U.
S.
Forest
Service,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
National
Park
Service,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Portland,
Oregon,
and
Washington
D.
C.
843
p.
+
app.

Fowler,
L.
G.
1972.
Growth
and
mortality
of
fingerling
chinook
salmon
as
affected
by
egg
size.
Prog.
Fish­
Cult.
34:
66­
69.

Fraser,
F.
J.,
P.
J.
Starr,
and
A.
Y.
Fedorenko.
1982.
A
review
of
the
chinook
and
coho
salmon
of
the
Fraser
River.
Can.
Tech.
Rep.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
1126:
130.

French,
R.
R.,
and
RJ.
Wahle.
1959.
Biology
of
chinook
and
blueback
salmon
and
steelhead
in
the
Wenatchee
River
system.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
Spec.
Sci.
Rep.
Fish.
304,
17
p.

Fryer,
J.
K.,
and
M.
Schwartzberg.
1990.
Experiments
in
identifying
hatchery
and
naturally
spawning
stocks
of
Columbia
Basin
spring
chinook
salmon
using
scale
pattern
analyses.
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
Portland.
Technical
Report
90­
3,
29
p.
(
Available
from
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission,
729
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Fryer,
J.
K.,
and
M.
Schwartzberg.
1991a.
Age
and
length
composition
of
Columbia
Basin
spring
chinook
salmon
at
Bonneville
dam
in
1990.
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
Portland.
Technical
Report
91­
1,
22
p.
(
Available
from
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission,
729
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Fryer,
J.
K.,
and
M.
Schwartzberg.
1991b.
Age
and
length
composition
of
Columiba
Basin
summer
chinook
salmon
at
Bonneville
dam
in
1990.
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
Portland.
Technical
Report
91­
4,
21
p.
(
Available
from
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission,
729
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Portland,
OR
97232.)
274
Fryer,
J.
K.,
and
M.
Schwartzberg.
1992.
Age
and
length
composition
of
Columbia
Basin
summer
chinook
salmon
at
Bonneville
dam
in
1991.
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
Portland.
Technical
Report
92­
4,
14
p.
(
Available
from
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission,
729
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Fryer,
J.
K.,
and
M.
Schwartzberg.
1993.
Age
and
length
composition
of
Columbia
Basin
spring
and
summer
chinook
salmon
at
Bonneville
dam
in
1992.
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
Portland.
Technical
Report
93­
3,
29
p.
(
Available
from
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission,
729
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Portland,
OR,
97232.)

Fryer,
J.
K.,
and
M.
Schwartzberg.
1994.
Age
and
length
composition
of
Columbia
Basin
spring
and
summer
chinook
salmon
at
Bonneville
dam
in
1993.
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
Portland,
Technical
Report
94­
1,
30
p.
(
Available
from
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission,
729
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Fryer,
J.
K.,
C.
Pearson,
and
M.
Schwartzberg.
1992.
Age
and
length
composition
of
Columbia
Basin
spring
chinook
salmon
at
Bonneville
dam
in
1991.
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
Portland.
Technical
Report
92­
1,
29
p.
(
Available
from
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission,
729
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Fulton,
L.
A.
1968.
Spawning
areas
and
abundance
of
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin­
Past
and
present.
U.
S.
Fish.
Wildl.
Serv.
Spec.
Sci.
Rep.
Fish.
571:
26.

Fuss,
H.
J.,
and
C.
Ashbrook.
1995.
Hatchery
operation
plans
and
performance
summaries.
Volume
I
(
2).
Puget
Sound.
Annual
Report.
Washington
Department
of
Fish
Wild.,
Assessment
and
Develop.
Div.,
Olympia.
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capital
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

Galbreath,
J.
L.
1965.
Timing
of
Willamette
River
spring
chinook
salmon
through
the
lower
Columbia
River.
Fish
Comm.
Oreg.,
Research
Briefs
11:
29­
41.

Galbreath,
J.
L.
1966.
Timing
of
tributary
races
of
chinook
salmon
through
the
lower
Columbia
River
based
on
analysis
of
tag
recoveries.
Fish
Comm.
Oreg.,
Res.
Briefs
12,
58­
80
p.

Galbreath,
J.
L.,
and
R.
L.
Ridenhour.
1964.
Fecundity
of
Columbia
River
chinook
salmon.
Fish
Comm.
Oreg.,
Research
Briefs
10,
16­
27
p.

Gall,
G.
A.
E.
1975.
Genetics
of
reproduction
in
rainbow
trout.
J.
Anim.
Sci.
40:
19­
28.

Garcia,
A.
P.,
W.
P.
Connor,
R.
D.
Nelle,
C.
Eaton,
R.
S.
Bowen,
P.
W.
Bigelow,
E.
A.
Rockhold,
and
R.
H.
Taylor.
1996.
Fall
chinook
salmon
spawning
ground
surveys
in
the
Snake
275
River,
1994.
In
D.
W.
Rondorf
and
K.
F.
Tiffan
(
eds.),
Identification
of
the
spawning,
rearing,
and
migratory
requirements
of
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin,
p.
1­
15.
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Gard,
M.
1995.
Upper
Sacramento
River
IFIM
study
scoping
report.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
14
p.

Gebhards,
S.
V.
1960.
Biological
notes
on
precocious
male
chinook
salmon
parr
in
the
Salmon
River
drainage,
Idaho.
Prog.
Fish­
Cult.
22:
121­
123.

Gharrett,
A.
J.,
and
W.
W.
Smoker.
1993.
Genetic
components
in
life­
history
traits
contribute
to
population
structure.
In
J.
G.
Cloud
and
G.
H.
Thorgaard
(
eds.),
Genetic
Conservation
of
Salmonid
Fishes,
p.
197­
201.
Plenum
Press,
London.

Gharrett,
A.
J.,
S.
M.
Shirley,
and
G.
R.
Tromble.
1987.
Genetic
relationships
among
populations
of
Alaskan
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
44:
765­
774.

Gharrett,
A.
J.,
C.
Smoot,
and
A.
J.
McGregor.
1988.
Genetic
relationships
of
even­
year
northwestern
Alaskan
pink
salmon.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
117:
536­
545.

Gilbert,
C.
H.
1912.
Age
at
maturity
of
Pacific
coast
salmon
of
the
genus
Oncorhynchus.
Bull.
U.
S.
Fish
Comm.
32:
57­
70.

Gilbert,
C.
H.
1922.
The
salmon
of
the
Yukon
River.
U.
S.
Bur.
Fish.,
Bull.
38:
317­
332.

Gilpin,
M.
E.,
and
M.
E.
Soule.
1986.
Minimum
viable
populations:
Processes
of
species
extinction.
In
M.
E.
Soule
(
ed.),
Conservation
Biology:
The
science
of
scarcity
and
diversity,
p.
19­
34.
Sinauer
Associates,
Sunderland,
MA.

Godfrey,
H.
1968.
Ages
and
physical
characteristics
of
maturing
chinook
salmon
on
the
Nass,
Skeena,
and
Fraser
Rivers
in
1964,
1965,
and
1966.
Fish.
Res.
Board
Can.
Manuscript
Report
967.

Goodman,
D.
In
press.
Population
viability
analysis:
the
risk
assessment
paradigm.
In
A.
D.
MacCall
and
T.
C.
Wainwright
(
eds.),
Assessing
Extinction
Risk
for
West
Coast
Salmon:
Proceedings
of
the
Workshop.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC.

Grant,
S.
(
ed.).
1997.
Genetic
effects
of
straying
of
non­
native
hatchery
fish
into
natural
populations.
Proceedings
of
the
NOAA
workshop,
June
1­
2,
1995,
Seattle,
WA.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
30.
276
Grass,
A.
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
questionaire
for
the
Noyo
River.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Gray,
P.
L.
1965.
Fecundity
of
the
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
related
to
size,
age,
and
egg
diameter.
M.
S.
Thesis,
Univ.
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA,
65
p.

Gregory,
S.
V.,
and
P.
A.
Bisson.
1997.
Degradation
and
loss
of
anadromous
salmonid
habitat
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
In
D.
J.
Stouder,
P.
A.
Bisson,
and
R.
J.
Naiman
(
eds.),
Pacific
salmon
and
their
ecosystems:
status
and
future
options,
p.
277­
314.
Chapman
and
Hall,
New
York
Gross,
M.
R.
1987.
Evolution
of
Diadromy
in
Fishes.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
1:
14­
25.

Gunter,
J.
E.
R.
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
data
for
the
Russian
River.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Hallock,
R.
J.,
and
F.
Fisher.
1985.
Status
of
winter­
run
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
in
the
Sacramento
River.
Calif.
Dept.
Fish
and
Fame,
Anad.
Fish.
Branch
Report,
28
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
St.,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

Hallock,
R.
J.,
and
D.
H.
Fry,
Jr.
1967.
Five
species
of
salmon,
Oncorhynchus,
in
the
Sacramento
River,
California.
Calif.
Fish
Game
53:
5­
22.

Hallock,
R.
J.
and
W.
F.
Vanwoert.
1959.
A
survey
of
anadromous
fish
losses
in
irrigation
diversions
from
the
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
Rivers.
Calif.
Fish
Game
45(
4):
227­
267.

Halupka,
K.
C.,
J.
K.
Troyer,
M.
F.
Wilson,
and
F.
H.
Everest.
1993.
Identification
of
unique
and
sensitive
salmonid
stocks
of
Southeast
Alaska.
U.
S.
Dep.
Agriculture,
92
p.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
2770
Sherwood
Lane
2A,
Juneau,
AK
99801­
8545.)

Hancock,
M.
J.,
A.
J.
Leaney­
East,
and
D.
E.
Marshall.
1983a.
Catalogue
of
salmon
streams
and
spawning
escapements
of
Statistical
Areas
4
(
Lower
Skeena
River)
including
coastal
streams.
Can.
Data
Rep.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
395,
422
p.
277
Hancock,
M.
J.,
A
J.
Leaney­
East,
and
D.
E.
Marshall.
1983b.
Catalogue
of
salmon
streams
and
spawing
escapements
of
Statistical
Area
4,
(
Upper
Skeena
River).
Can.
Data
Rep.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
394,
324
p.

Hankin,
D.
1997.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon.
D.
Hankin,
19
March
1997,
135
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Hankin,
D.,
and
R.
McKelvey.
1985.
Comment
on
fecundity
of
chinook
salmon
and
its
relevance
to
life
history
theory.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
42:
393­
394.

Hankin,
D.
G.,
J.
W.
Nicholas,
and
T.
W.
Downey.
1993.
Evidence
for
inheritance
of
age
of
maturity
in
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
50:
347­
358.

Hanson,
H.
A.,
O.
R.
Smith,
and
P.
R.
Needham.
1940.
An
investigation
of
fish­
salvage
problems
in
relation
to
Shasta
Dam.
U.
S.
Dep.
Interior,
Bureau
of
Fish.,
Special
Scientific
Report
10,
200
p.

Hard,
J.
J.
1995.
Genetic
monitoring
of
life­
history
characters
in
salmon
supplementation:
problems
and
opportunities.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
15:
212­
225.

Hard,
J.
J.,
and
W.
K.
Hershberger.
1995.
Quantitative
genetic
consequences
of
captive
broodstock
programs
for
anadromous
Pacific
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
spp.).
In
T.
A.
Flagg
and
C.
V.
W.
Mahnken
(
eds.),
An
assessment
of
the
status
of
captive
broodstock
technology
for
Pacific
salmon,
p.
2­
1
through
2­
75.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration
(
Project
No.
93­
56),
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
92708­
3621.)

Hard,
J.
J.,
R.
P.
Jones,
Jr.,
M.
R.
Delarm,
and
R.
S.
Waples.
1992.
Pacific
salmon
and
artificial
propagation
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.,
NMFS­
NWFSC­
2,
56
p.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center,
Coastal
Zone
and
Estuarine
Studies
Division,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112­
2097.)

Hard,
J.
J.,
R.
G.
Kope,
W.
S.
Grant,
F.
W.
Waknitz,
L.
T.
Parker,
and
R.
S.
Waples.
1996.
Status
review
of
pink
salmon
from
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
25,
131
p.
(
Available
from
Conservation
Biology
Division,
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112.)

Hartman,
G.
F.,
L.
B.
Holtby,
and
J.
C.
Scrivener.
1984.
Some
effects
of
natural
and
loggingrelated
winter
stream
temperature
changes
on
the
early
life
history
of
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
in
Carnation
Creek,
British
Columiba.
In
W.
R.
Meehan,
T.
R.
278
Merrill,
Jr.,
and
T.
A.
Hanley
(
eds.),
Fish
and
wildlife
relationships
in
old­
growth
forests,
p.
141­
149.
Am.
Instit.
Fish.
Biologists.

Healey,
M.
C.
1982.
Catch,
escapement,
and
stock­
recruitment
for
British
Columbia
chinook
salmon
since
1951.
Can.
Tech.
Rep.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
1107:
77.

Healey,
M.
C.
1983.
Coastwide
distribution
and
ocean
migration
patterns
of
stream­
and
oceantype
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Can.
Field­
Nat.
97:
427­
433.

Healey,
M.
C.
1986.
Optimum
size
and
age
at
maturity
in
Pacific
salmon
and
effects
of
sizeselective
fisheries.
Can.
Spec.
Publ.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
89:
39­
52.

Healey,
M.
C.
1991.
The
life
history
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha).
In
C.
Groot
and
L.
Margolis
(
eds.),
Life
history
of
Pacific
salmon,
p.
311­
393.
Univ.
B.
C.
Press,
Vancouver,
B.
C.

Healey,
M.
C.,
and
C.
Groot.
1987.
Marine
migration
and
orientation
of
ocean­
type
chinook
and
sockeye­
salmon.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
1:
298­
312.

Healey,
M.
C.,
and
W.
R.
Heard.
1984.
Inter­
and
intra­
population
variation
in
the
fecundity
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
and
its
relevance
to
life
history
theory.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
41:
476­
483.

Heard,
W.
R.
1985.
Chinook
salmon
fisheries
and
enhancement
in
Alaska:
a
1982
overview.
NOAA
Tech.
Report
NMFS
F/
NWC
27:
21­
28.

Heard,
W.
R.
1996.
Sequential
imprinting
in
chinook
salmon:
is
it
essential
for
homing
fidelity?
Bull.
Nat.
Res.
Inst.
Aquacult.
Suppl.
2:
59­
64.

Heard,
W.
R.,
R.
Burkett,
F.
Thrower,
and
S.
McGee.
1995.
A
review
of
chinook
salmon
resources
in
Southeast
Alaska
and
development
of
an
enhancement
program
designed
for
minimal
hatchery­
wild
stock
interaction.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.,
Bethesda,
MD.
15:
21­
37.

Heath,
D.
D.,
N.
J.
Bernier,
and
T.
A.
Mousseau.
1995.
A
single­
locus
minisatellite
discriminates
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
populations.
Mol.
Ecol.
4:
389­
393.

Heath,
D.
D.,
R.
H.
Devlin,
J.
W.
Heath,
and
G.
K.
Iwama.
1994.
Genetic,
environmental,
and
interaction
effects
on
the
incidence
of
jacking
in
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
(
chinook
salmon).
Heredity
72:
146­
154.

Hedgecock,
D.,
M.
A.
Banks,
S.
M.
Blankenship,
and
M.
J.
Calavetta.
1995.
Genetic
evidence
for
admixture
and
hybridization
of
spring­
and
winter­
run
chinook
salmon
in
an
artificial
279
propagation
program.
Unpublished
manuscript,
23
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Ste.
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Hedrick,
P.
W.,
D.
Hedgecock,
and
S.
Hamelberg.
1995.
Estimation
of
effective
population
size
in
winter­
run
chinook
salmon.
Conserv.
Biol.
9:
615­
624.

Hershberger,
W.
K.,
and
R.
N.
Iwamoto.
1984.
Genetics
of
age
at
maturity
in
chinook
salmon.
1984
International
Conference
on
Biology
of
Pacific
Salmon,
Victoria/
Aggassiz,
British
Columbia.

Hickey,
P.
L.
1983.
Analysis
of
the
genetic
variability
in
the
times
to
hatching
and
yolk
absorption
among
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
eggs
and
alevins.
M.
S.
Thesis,
Univ.
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA,
97
p.

Higgins,
P.,
S.
Dobush,
and
D.
Fuller.
1992.
Factors
in
northern
California
threatening
stocks
with
extinction.
Humboldt
Chapter
of
the
American
Fisheries
Society,
Arcata,
CA,
24
p.

Hillis,
D.
M.,
C.
Mortiz,
and
B.
K.
Mable,
(
eds.).
1996.
Molecular
systematics.
Second
edition.
Sinauer
Assoc.,
Sunderland,
MA.

Hillman,
T.
W.,
and
D.
W.
Chapman.
1989.
Abundance,
growth
and
movement
of
juvenile
chinook
salmon
and
steelhead.
Summer
and
winter
ecology
of
juvenile
chinook
salmon
and
steelhead
trout
in
the
Wenatchee
River,
Washington.
Final
report.
Chelan
County
PUD,
Washington.

Hillman,
T.
W.,
J.
S.
Griffith,
and
W.
S.
Platts.
1987.
Summer
and
winter
habitat
selection
by
juvenile
chinook
salmon
in
a
highly
sedimented
Idaho
stream.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
116:
185­
195.

Hindar,
K.,
N.
Ryman,
and
F.
Utter.
1991.
Genetic
effects
of
cultured
fish
on
natural
fish
populations.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquatic
Sci.
48:
945­
957.

Hockersmith,
E.,
J.
Vella,
L.
Stuehrenberg,
R.
N.
Iwamoto,
and
G.
Swan.
1994.
Yakima
River
radio­
telemetry
study:
spring
chinook
salmon,
1991­
1992.
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.
report
to
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
Project
No.
89­
089,
98
p.

Hoh
Indian
Tribe
(
HIT).
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
J.
Jorgensen,
August
1995.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)
280
Holtby,
L.
B.
1987.
The
effects
of
logging
on
the
coho
salmon
of
Carnation
Creek,
British
Columbia.
In
T.
W.
Chamberlin
(
ed.),
Proceedings
of
the
workshop:
Applying
15
years
of
Carnation
Creek
results,
p.
159­
174.
Pacific
Biological
Station,
Nanaimo,
B.
C.

Holtby,
L.
B.,
and
M.
C.
Healey.
1986.
Selection
for
adult
size
in
female
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
43:
1946­
1959.

Hoopa
Valley
Tribal
Council
(
HVTC).
1997.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon.
M.
Orcutt,
31
March
1997
response
to
the
November
22
1996
co­
manager's
draft
of
the
the
west
coast
chinook
salmon
status
review,
4
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Howell,
P.,
J.
Hutchinson,
and
R.
Hooton.
1988.
McKenzie
subbasin
fish
management
plan.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Howell,
P.,
K.
Jones,
D.
Scarnecchia,
L.
LaVoy,
W.
Knedra,
and
D.
Orrmann.
1985.
Stock
assessment
of
Columbia
River
anadromous
salmonids.
Vol:
I.
U.
S.
Dep.
Energy,
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
Project
No.
83­
335,
558
p.

Hughes,
R.
M.,
E.
Rexstad,
and
C.
E.
Bond.
1987.
The
relationship
of
aquatic
ecoregions,
river
basins,
and
physiographic
provinces
to
the
icthyogeographic
regions
of
Oregon.
Copeia
1987:
423­
432.

Huntington,
C.,
W.
Nehlsen,
and
J.
Bowers.
1996.
A
survey
of
healthy
native
stocks
of
anadromous
salmonids
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
and
California.
Fisheries
21(
3):
6­
14.

Huttunen,
D.
C.
1985.
Abundance,
age,
sex,
and
size
of
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
sp.)
catches
and
escapements
in
the
Kuskokwim
area,
1983.
Alaska
Dept.
Of
Fish
and
Game,
Technical
Report
No.
133,
94
p.
(
Available
from
Alaska
Dept.
Of
Fish
and
Game,
P.
O.
Box
3­
2000,
Juneau,
Alaska
99802.)

Hydrosphere
Data
Products,
Inc.
1993.
Hydrodata
Regional
CD­
ROMs:
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
daily
values,
Vols.
West
1,
West
2.
(
Available
from
Hydrosphere
Data
Products,
Inc.,
1002
Walnut,
Suite
200,
Boulder,
CO
80302.)

Hymer,
J.,
R.
Pettit,
M.
Wastel,
P.
Hahn,
and
K.
Hatch.
1992a.
Stock
summary
reports
for
Columbia
River
anadromous
salmonids.
Volume
III:
Washington
subbasins
below
McNary
Dam.
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
Project
No.
88­
108,
1077
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Public
Information
Officer
­
PJ,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR,
97208.)
281
Hymer,
J.,
R.
Pettit,
M.
Wastel,
P.
Hahn,
and
K.
Hatch.
1992b.
Stock
summary
reports
for
Columbia
River
anadromous
salmonids.
Vol.
IV:
Washington
subbasins
above
McNary
Dam.
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
Project
No.
88­
108,
375
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Public
Information
Officer
­
PJ,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR,
97208.)

Hynes,
J.
D.,
J.
E.
H.
Brown,
J.
H.
Helle,
N.
Ryman,
and
D.
A.
Webster.
1981.
Guidelines
for
the
culture
of
fish
stocks
for
resource
management.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquatic
Sci.
38:
1867­
1876.

Idaho
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(
IDFG).
1997.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon.
S.
Huffaker,
15
January
1997,
6
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Ivankov,
V.
N.
1983.
Causes
of
variation
in
fecundity
and
age
of
sexual
maturation
in
moncylic
fishes
with
examples
from
salmon,
genus
Oncorhynchus.
J.
Ichthyol.
23:
84­
92.

Iwamoto,
R.
N.
1982.
Strain­
photoperiod­
temperature
interactions
in
coho
salmon:
freshwater
growth,
smoltification,
and
seawater
adaptation.
Ph.
D.
Dissertation,
Univ.
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA,
380
p.

Johnson,
O.
W.
1988a.
Induced
triploidy
in
Pacific
salmon.
Ph.
D.
Dissertation,
Univ.
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA,
137
p.

Johnson,
R.
R.,
D.
C.
Weigand,
and
F.
W.
Fisher.
1992b.
Use
of
growth
data
to
determine
the
spatial
and
temporal
distribution
of
four
runs
of
juvenile
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sacramento
River,
California.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
AFF1/
FRO­
92­
15.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Northern
Central
Valley
Fishery
Resource
Office,
Red
Bluff,
CA
96080.)

Johnson,
S.,
T.
Richardson,
J.
Campbell,
S.
Parry,
V.
Segarich,
and
B.
Hodges.
1973.
Tehama­
Colusa
fish
production
facilities
spawning
channel
production
report.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
44
p.
(
Available
from
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
10950
Tyler
Road,
Red
Bluff,
CA,
96080.)

Johnson,
S.
L.
1988b.
The
effects
of
the
1983
El
Niño
on
Oregon's
coho
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
and
chinook
(
O.
tshawytscha)
salmon.
Fish.
Res.
6:
105­
123.

Johnson,
S.
W.,
J.
F.
Thedinga,
and
K.
V.
Koski.
1992a.
Life
history
of
juvenile
ocean­
type
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
in
the
Situk
River,
Alaska.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
49:
2621­
2629.
282
Jonasson,
B.
C.,
and
R.
B.
Lindsay.
1988.
Fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
Deschutes
River,
Oregon.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
Info.
Rep.
88­
6,
57
p.

Jones,
R.
N.,
and
R.
B.
Roseburg.
1995.
Adult
spring
chinook
salmon
returns
to
Dworshak­
Kooskia
NFH
complex
in
1995
and
prognosis
for
1996.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
12
p.

Kaczynski,
V.
W.,
and
J.
F.
Palmisano.
1993.
Oregon's
wild
salmon
and
steelhead
trout:
a
review
of
the
impact
of
management
and
environmental
factors.
Oregon
Forest
Industries
Council,
328
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Forest
Resources
Institute,
1440
SW
Third
Avenue,
Suite
305,
Portland,
Oregon
97201.)

Kaev,
A.
M.,
and
V.
E.
Kaeva.
1987.
Variability
in
fecundity
and
egg
size
in
chum
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
keta,
and
pink
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha,
in
relation
to
the
size­
age
structure
of
spawning
populations.
J.
Ichthyol.
27:
76­
86.

Keifer,
S.,
M.
Rowe,
and
K.
Hatch.
1992.
Stock
summary
reports
for
Columbia
River
anadromous
salmonids
Volume
V:
Idaho.
Project
report.
U.
S.
Dep.
Energy,
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Div.
Fish
Wildl.
Project
No.
88­
108.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
Oregon
97208.)

Kelly,
M.
D.,
P.
O.
McMillan,
and
W.
J.
Wilson.
1990.
North
Pacific
salmonid
enhancement
programs
and
genetic
resources:
Issues
and
concerns.
U.
S.
Dept.
Int.,
Nat.
Park
Serv.
Tech.
Rep.
NPS/
NRARO/
NRTR­
90/
03,
232
p.

Kirk,
S.
V.
1994.
Historical
Information
on
Redwood
Creek.
National
Park
Service,
U.
S.
Dep.
Interior,
32
p.

Kissner,
P.
D.
1982.
A
study
of
chinook
salmon
in
Southeast
Alaska.
Alaska
Dep.
Fish
Game,
Div.
Sport
Fish.,
Anadromous
Fish
Studies
41­
10,
53
p.
(
Available
from
Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Division
of
Sport
Fish.,
Juneau,
AK.)

Kissner,
P.
D.
1985.
A
study
of
chinook
salmon
in
Southeast
Alaska.
Alaska
Dep.
Fish
Game.
Anadromous
Fish
Studies
41­
12.
(
Available
from
Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Division
of
Sport
Fish,
Juneau,
AK.)

Kjelson,
M.
A.,
P.
F.
Raquel,
and
F.
W.
Fisher.
1982.
Life
history
of
fall­
run
juvenile
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
in
the
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
estuary,
California.
In
V.
S.
Kennedy
(
ed.),
Estuarine
Comparisons,
p.
393­
411.
Academic
Press,
New
York,
NY.

Klamath
River
Basin
Fisheries
Task
Force
(
KRBFTF).
1991.
Long
range
plan
for
the
Klamath
River
Basin
Conservation
Area
Fishery
Restoration
Program.
339
p.
+
app.
(
Available
283
from
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Klamath
River
Fishery
Resource
Office,
P.
O.
Box
1006,
Yreka,
CA
96097.)

Kondzela,
C.
M.,
C.
M.
Guthrie,
S.
L.
Hawkins,
C.
D.
Russell,
J.
H.
Helle,
and
A.
J.
Gharett.
1994.
Genetic
relationships
among
populations
of
chum
salmon
in
southeastern
Alaska
and
Northern
British
Columbia.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
51(
Suppl.
1):
50­
64.

Konovalov,
S.
M.
1980.
U.
S.
S.
R.
In
J.
E.
Thorpe
(
ed.).
Salmon
Ranching,
p.
63­
89.
Academic
Press,
New
York.

Koo,
T.
S.
Y.,
and
A.
Isarankura.
1967.
Objective
studies
of
scales
of
Columbia
River
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
(
Walbaum).
Fish.
Bull.
66:
165­
180.

Kostow,
K.
1995.
Biennial
Report
on
the
Status
of
Wild
Fish
in
Oregon.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
Rep.,
217
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Kostow,
K.
1996.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
K.
Kostow,
23
December
1996,
9
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Kreeger,
K.
Y.
1995.
Differences
in
the
onset
of
salinity
tolerance
between
juvenile
chinook
salmon
from
two
coastal
Oregon
river
systems.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
52:
623­
630.

Krisiansson,
A.
C.,
and
J.
D.
McIntyre.
1976.
Genetic
variation
in
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
from
the
Columbia
River
and
three
Oregon
coastal
rivers.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
105:
620­
623.

Kruskal,
J.
B.
1964.
Multidimensional
scaling
by
optimizing
goodness
of
fit
to
a
nonmetric
hypothesis.
Psychrometrika
29:
1­
27.

Kurras,
K.
1996.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Kutkuhn,
J.
H.
1963.
Estimating
absolute
age
composition
of
California
salmon
landings.
Calif.
Dep.
Fish
Game,
Fish
Bulletin
120,
47
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Sacramento,
CA.)

Kuznetzov,
I.
I.
1928.
Some
observations
on
spawning
of
the
Amur
and
Kamchatka
salmons.
Bull.
Pacific
Scientific
Fishery
Research
Station,
Vladivostock
2:
1­
196.
284
LaVoy,
L.,
and
G.
Mendel.
1996.
Stock
composition
of
fall
chinook
at
Lower
Granite
Dam
in
1995.
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Columbia
River
Progress
Report
No.
96­
13.

Lawson,
P.
W.
1993.
Cycles
in
ocean
productivity,
trends
in
habitat
quality,
and
the
restoration
of
salmon
runs
in
Oregon.
Fisheries
18(
8):
6­
10.

Leach,
G.
C.
1924.
Propagation
and
distribution
of
food
fishes
for
the
fiscal
year
1923.
In
H.
O'Malley
(
ed.),
Report
of
the
United
States
Commissioner
of
Fisheries
for
the
fiscal
year
1924.
Appendix
XIII,
p.
108.

Leach,
G.
C.
1928.
Propagation
and
distribution
of
food
fishes
for
the
fiscal
year
1927.
In
H.
O'Malley
(
ed.),
Report
of
the
United
States
Commissioner
of
Fisheries
for
the
fiscal
year
1927,
p.
683­
736.

Leach,
G.
C.
1932.
Propagation
and
distribution
of
food
fishes,
1931.
In
H.
O'Malley
(
ed.),
Report
of
the
United
States
Commissioner
of
Fisheries
for
the
fiscal
year
1931,
p.
627­
696.

Leach,
G.
C.
1941.
Propagation
and
distribution
of
food
fishes,
1939.
In
H.
O'Malley
(
ed.),
Report
of
the
United
States
Commissioner
of
Fisheries
for
the
fiscal
year
1939,
p.
555­
528.

Leider,
S.
A.,
P.
L.
Hulett,
and
T.
H.
Johnson.
1995.
Preliminary
assessment
of
genetic
conservation
management
units
for
Washington
steelhead.
Progress
report,
Wash.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
21
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Fish
Management
Program,
600
Capital
Way,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

Leidy,
R.
A.,
and
G.
R.
Leidy.
1984.
Life
stage
periodicities
of
anadromous
salmonids
in
the
Klamath
River
Basin,
northwestern
California.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
38
p.

Leitritz,
E.,
and
R.
C.
Lewis.
1980.
Trout
and
Salmon
Culture.
Univ.
Calif.,
Berkeley,
197
p.

Lessa,
E.
P.
1990.
Multidimensional
analysis
of
geographic
genetic
structure.
Syst.
Zool.
39:
242­
252.

Lever,
C.
1996.
Naturalized
Fishes
of
the
World.
Academic
Press,
New
York,
408
p.

Levings,
C.
D.
1993.
Requirements
for
genetic
data
on
adaptations
to
environment
and
habitats
of
salmonids.
In
J.
G.
Cloud
and
G.
H.
Thorgaard
(
eds.),
Genetic
Conservation
of
Salmonid
Fishes,
p.
49­
66,
Plenum
Press.
285
Levings,
C.
D.,
and
R.
Lauzier.
1989.
Migration
patterns
of
wild
and
hatchery­
reared
juvenile
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
in
the
Nicola
River,
British
Columbia.
In
B.
G.
Shepherd
(
ed.),
Proceedings
of
the
1988
Northeast
Pacific
chinook
and
coho
salmon
workshop,
p.
267­
275.
BC
Ministry
of
Environment,
3547
Skaha
Lake
Road,
Penticton,
B.
C.
V2A
7K2.

Levy,
D.
A.,
and
T.
G.
Northcote.
1982.
Juvenile
salmon
residency
in
a
marsh
area
of
the
Fraser
River
estuary.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
39:
270­
276.

Lewis,
R.
R.
1992.
Coastal
ecosystems.
Restor.
Manage.
News.
10(
1):
18­
20.

Lichatowich,
J.
A.,
and
J.
D.
McIntyre.
1987.
Use
of
hatcheries
in
the
management
of
Pacific
anadromous
salmonids.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.(
1):
131­
136.

Lindsay,
R.
B.,
W.
J.
Knox,
M.
W.
Flesher,
B.
J.
Smith,
E.
A.
Olsen,
and
W.
S.
Lutz.
1986.
Study
of
wild
spring
chinook
in
the
John
Day
River
System.
Report
of
the
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
to
Bonneville
Power
Administration.

Lindsay,
R.
B.,
J.
S.
Ziller,
R.
K.
Schroeder.
1982.
An
ecological
and
fish
cultural
study
of
Deschutes
River
salmonids.
Annual
progress
report
of
the
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
Fish
Research
Project
F­
88­
R­
13,
32
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Lindsay,
R.
C.,
B.
C.
Jonasson,
R.
K.
Schroeder,
and
B.
C.
Cates.
1989.
Spring
chinook
in
the
Deschutes
River,
Oregon.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
No.
89­
4,
92
p.

Lindsey,
C.
C.,
and
J.
D.
McPhail.
1986.
Zoogeography
of
fishes
of
the
Yukon
and
Mackenzie
Basins.
In
C.
H.
Hocutt
and
E.
O.
Wiley
(
eds.),
The
zoogeography
of
North
American
freshwater
fishes,
p.
639­
674.
Wiley
Interscience
Publication,
New
York.

Linley,
T.
J.
1993.
Patterns
of
life
history
variation
among
sockeye
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
nerka)
in
the
Fraser
River,
British
Columbia.
Thesis,
Univ.
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA,
162
p.

Lister,
D.
B.
1990.
Egg
size
and
fecundity
as
indicators
of
life­
history
patterns
in
southern
British
Columbia
chinook
stocks.
In
T.
J.
Hassler
(
ed.),
Northeast
Pacific
chinook
and
coho
salmon
workshops
and
proceedings,
p.
393­
411,
Humbolt
State
University,
Arata,
CA.

Lister,
D.
B.,
C.
E.
Walker,
and
M.
A.
Giles.
1971.
Cowichan
River
chinook
salmon
escapements
and
juvenile
production
1965­
1967.
Can.
Fish.
Serv.
1971­
3,
8
p.

Lummi
Indian
Business
Council,
(
LIBC).
1997.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon.
M.
Jefferson,
11
January
1997,
286
3
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Mahnken,
C.,
G.
Ruggerone,
W.
Waknitz,
and
T.
Flagg.
In
press.
A
Historical
Perspective
on
Salmonid
Production
from
Pacific
Rim
Hatcheries.
Proceedings
of
the
NPAFC,
Bulletin
No.
1,
"
Assessment
and
Status
of
Pacific
Rim
Salmonid
Stocks."

Major,
R.
L.,
and
J.
L.
Mighell.
1969.
Egg­
to­
migrant
survival
of
spring
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
in
the
Yakima
River,
Washington.
Fish.
Bull.
67:
347­
359.

Manzon,
C.
I.,
and
D.
E.
Marshall.
1980.
Catalogue
of
salmon
streams
and
spawning
escapements
of
Statistical
Area
8.
Can.
Data
Rep.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
1980:
1980.

Marshall,
A.
R.,
C.
Smith,
R.
Brix,
W.
Dammers,
J.
Hymer,
and
L.
LaVoy.
1995.
Genetic
diversity
units
and
major
ancestral
lineages
for
chinook
salmon
in
Washington.
In
C.
Busack
and
J.
B.
Shaklee
(
eds.),
Genetic
diversity
units
and
major
ancestral
lineages
of
salmonid
fishes
in
Washington,
p.
111­
173.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
Tech.
Rep.
RAD
95­
02.
(
Available
from
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capital
Way
N.,
Olympia
WA
98501­
1091.)

Mathews,
S.
B.,
and
T.
K.
Meekin.
1971.
Fecundity
of
fall
chinook
salmon
from
the
upper
Columbia
River.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish.
Tech.
Rep.
6,
29­
37
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
Washington,
98501­
1091.)

Matthews,
G.
M.,
and
R.
S.
Waples.
1991.
Status
review
for
Snake
River
spring
and
summer
chinook
salmon.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS
F/
NWC­
200,
75
p.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center,
Coastal
Zone
and
Estuarine
Studies
Division,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112­
2097.)

Mattson,
C.
R.
1948.
Spawning
ground
studies
of
Willamette
River
spring
chinook
salmon.
Fish
Comm.
Oreg.
1(
2):
21­
32.

Mattson,
C.
R.
1955.
Sandy
River
and
its
anadromous
salmonids.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Mattson,
C.
R.
1962.
Early
life
history
of
Willamette
river
spring
chinook
salmon.
Fish
Comm.
Oreg.,
50
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Mattson,
C.
R.
1963.
An
investigation
of
adult
spring
chinook
salmon
of
the
Willamette
River
system.
Fish
Comm.
Oreg.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)
287
Mayhall,
L.
E.
1925.
Review
of
hatchery
operations
in
Washington.
Thirty­
Fourth
and
Thirty­
Fifth
annual
reports
of
the
State
Supervisors
of
Fisheries,
17­
32
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capital
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

McBride,
D.
N.,
H.
H.
Hamner,
and
L.
S.
Buklis.
1983.
Age,
sex,
and
size
of
Yukon
River
salmon
catch
and
escapement,
1982.
Alaska
Dep.
Fish
Game.
No.
90,
1­
141
p.
(
Available
from
Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
CFMD
Division
­
Publications
Section,
P.
O.
Box
25526,
Juneau,
AK
99802­
5526.)

McDowall,
R.
M.
1994.
The
origin
of
New
Zealand's
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Mar.
Fish.
Rev.
56:
1­
7.

McGie,
A.
M.
1980.
Analysis
of
relationships
between
hatchery
coho
salmon
transplants
and
adult
escapement
in
Oregon
coastal
watersheds.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
Info.
Rep.
80­
6,
Portland,
OR.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

McGregor,
E.
A.
1922.
Observations
of
the
egg
yield
of
Klamath
River
king
salmon.
Calif.
Fish
Game
8:
161­
164.

McGregor,
E.
A.
1923a.
A
possible
separation
of
the
river
races
of
king
salmon
in
ocean­
caught
fish
by
means
of
anatomical
characters.
Calif.
Fish
Game
9:
138­
150.

McGregor,
E.
A.
1923b.
Notes
on
the
egg
yield
of
Sacramento
River
king
salmon.
Calif.
Fish
Game
9:
134­
138.

McIsaac,
D.
O.
1990.
Factors
affecting
the
abundance
of
1977­
1979
brood
wild
fall
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
in
the
Lewis
River,
Washington.
Ph.
D.
Dissertation,
Univ.
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

McIsaac,
D.
O.,
and
T.
P.
Quinn.
1988.
Evidence
for
a
hereditary
component
in
homing
behavior
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
45:
2201­
2205.

McLain,
D.
R.
1984.
Coastal
ocean
warming
in
the
Northeast
Pacific,
1976­
1983.
In
W.
G.
Pearcy
(
ed.),
The
influence
of
ocean
conditions
on
the
production
of
salmonids
in
the
North
Pacific,
p.
61­
86.
Oreg.
State
Univ.
Sea
Grant,
Corvallis,
Oregon.

McLeod,
D.
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
data
for
southern
Oregon
and
northern
California
coastal
rivers.
288
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

McNair,
M.
1996.
Alaska
fisheries
enhancement
program
1995
annual
report.
Alaska
Dept.
Fish
Game
Reg.
Info.
Rep.
5J96­
08,
43
p.

McNeil,
W.
J.
1977.
Artificial
recruitment
of
Pacific
salmon
in
Japan,
Republic
of
Korea,
and
the
Soviet
Union.
NWAFC
Processed
Report,
January,
1977.
(
Available
from
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112.)

McPhail,
J.
D.,
and
C.
C.
Lindsey.
1970.
Freshwater
fishes
of
Northwestern
Canada
and
Alaska.
Bull.
Fish.
Res.
Board
Can.
173:
381.

McPhail,
J.
D.,
and
C.
C.
Lindsey.
1986.
Zoogeography
of
freshwater
fishes
Cascadia
(
the
Columbia
Sytem
and
river
north
to
the
Stikine).
In
C.
H.
Hocutt
and
E.
O.
Wiley
(
eds.),
The
zoogeography
of
North
American
Freshwater
Fishes,
p.
615­
637.
Wiley
Interscience
Publication,
New
York.

Meehan,
W.
R.,
and
D.
B.
Sniff.
1962.
A
study
of
downstream
migrations
of
anadromous
fishes
in
the
Taku
River,
Alaska.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
91:
399­
407.

Mendel,
G.,
J.
Bumgarner,
D.
Milks,
L.
Ross,
and
J.
Dedloff.
1996.
Lyons
Ferry
Hatchery
evaluation:
fall
chinook.
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
Report,
H96­
09,
60
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capital
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

Mighetto,
L.,
and
W.
J.
Ebel.
1994.
Saving
the
Salmon:
a
history
of
the
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers'
efforts
to
protect
anadromous
fish
in
the
Columbia
and
Snake
rivers.
Historical
Research
Associates,
Seattle,
WA,
262
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Historical
Research
Associates
Inc.,
119
Pine
St.,
Suite
207,
Seattle,
WA
98101.)

Miller,
R.
J.,
and
E.
L.
Brannon.
1982.
The
origin
and
development
of
life­
history
patterns
in
Pacific
salmon.
In
E.
L.
Brannon
and
E.
O.
Salo
(
eds.),
Proceedings
of
the
Salmon
and
Trout
Migratory
Behavior
Symposium,
p.
296­
309.
Univ.
Wash.
Press,
Seattle,
WA.

Miller,
W.
H.,
T.
C.
Coley,
H.
L.
Burge,
and
T.
T.
Kisanuki.
1990.
Part
2:
emphasis
on
unpublished
reports
and
present
programs.
In
W.
H.
Miller
(
preparer),
Analysis
of
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Supplementation.
Final
Report
(
Project
88­
100)
to
the
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Public
Information
Officer
­
PJ,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)
289
Milner,
A.
M.,
and
R.
G.
Bailey.
1989.
Salmonid
colonization
of
new
streams
in
Glacier
Bay
National
Park,
Alaska.
Aquacult.
Fish.
Manage.
20:
179­
192.

Mitchell,
W.
T.
1987.
Evaluation
of
the
frequency
and
duration
of
exposure
of
downstream
migrant
chinook
salmon
to
high
water
temperatures
in
the
Sacramento
River.
Prepared
for
the
California
Department
of
Water
Resources,
DWR
563.
D.
W.
Kelley
and
Associates,
Newcastle,
CA,
10
p.

Moffett,
J.
W.
1949.
The
first
four
years
of
king
salmon
maintenance
below
Shasta
Dam,
Sacramento
River,
California.
Calif.
Fish
Game
35:
77­
102.

Moffett,
J.
W.,
and
S.
H.
Smith.
1950.
Biological
investigations
of
the
fishery
resources
of
Trinity
River,
California.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Spec.
Sci.
Rep.
Fish.
12,
71
p.

Moffit,
S.
D.,
C.
Rich,
and
J.
A.
Wilcock.
1994.
Salmon
catch
and
escapement
statistics
for
Copper
River,
Bering
River,
and
Prince
William
Sound,
1990.
Alaska
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Game,
Technical
Fishery
Report
94­
08,
164
p.
(
Available
from
Alaska
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Game,
P.
O.
Box
25526,
Juneau,
AK
99802­
5526.)

Moore,
K.
and
K.
Jones.
1997.
Assessment
of
1996
flood
impacts:
Channel
morphology
and
fish
habitat.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
Research
Sect.,
Draft
Report,
16
p.

Moore,
M.,
K.
McLeod,
and
D.
Reed.
1960.
Fisheries,
fish
farming,
fisheries
management.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish.,
Olympia,
349
p.

Mosser,
D.
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
questionaire
response
and
additional
data
for
the
Little
River.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Mullan,
J.
W.
1987.
Status
and
propagation
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
mid­
Columbia
River
through
1985.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
Biol.
Rep.
87:
111.

Mullan,
J.
W.,
A.
Rockhold,
and
C.
R.
Chrisman.
1992.
Life
histories
and
precocity
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
mid­
Columiba
River.
Prog.
Fish­
Cult.
54:
25­
28.

Myers,
K.
W.,
C.
K.
Harris,
C.
M.
Knudsen,
R.
V.
Walker,
N.
D.
Davis,
and
D.
E.
Rogers.
1987.
Stock
origins
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
area
of
the
Japanese
mothership
salmon
fishery.
N.
Am.
J.
Fish.
Manage.
7:
459­
474.

Myers,
K.
W.,
D.
E.
Rogers,
C.
K.
Harris,
C.
M.
Knudsen,
R.
V.
Walker,
and
N.
D.
Davis.
1984.
Origins
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
area
of
the
Japanese
mothership
and
landbased
driftnet
290
salmon
fisheries
in
1975­
1981.
Fisheries
Research
Institute,
204
p.
(
Available
from
Fisheries
Research
Institute,
University
of
Washington,
Seattle,
WA
98195.)

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1987.
Endangered
and
threatened
species;
winterrun
chinook
salmon.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
27
Febuary
1986]
52(
39):
6041­
6048.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1988.
Endangered
and
threatened
species;
winterrun
chinook
salmon.
Federal
Register
[
December
8,
1988
­
49722]
Vol
53(
237).

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1989.
Endangered
and
threatened
species;
critical
habitat;
winter­
run
chinook
salmon.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
90778­
9178]
54(
149):
32085­
32088.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1990a.
Endangered
and
threatened
species;
winterrun
chinook
salmon.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
90778­
0079]
55(
63):
12191­
12193.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1990b.
Endangered
and
threatened
species;
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
chinook
salmon.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
90778­
0275,
5
November
1990]
55(
214):
46515­
46523.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1991.
Policy
of
applying
the
definition
of
species
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act
to
Pacific
salmon.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
9120248­
1255,
20
November
1991]
56(
224):
58612­
58616.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1992.
Endangered
and
threatened
species;
threatened
status
for
Snake
River
spring/
summer
chinook
salmon,
threatened
status
for
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
910647­
2043,
22
April
1992]
57(
78):
14653­
14662.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1993.
Interim
policy
on
artificial
propagation
of
Pacific
salmon
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
921186­
2286,
5
April
1993]
58(
63):
17573­
17576.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1994a.
Endangered
and
threatened
species;
Mid­
Columbia
River
summer
chinook
salmon.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
940947­
4247,
23
September
1994]
59(
184):
48855­
48859.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1994b.
Endangered
and
threatened
species:
Status
of
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
chinook
salmon.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
930779­
930779­
3330;
I.
D.
051192B
January
4,
1994]
59(
2):
440­
450.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1994c.
Endangered
and
threatened
species;
status
of
Snake
River
spring/
summer
chinook
salmon
and
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon.
291
Emergency
interim
rule.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
940822­
4222
I.
D.
07594B,
18
August
1994].

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1994d.
Listing
endangered
and
threatened
species
and
designating
critical
habitat:
Initiation
of
status
reviews
for
pink
salmon,
chum
salmon,
chinook
salmon,
and
sea­
run
cutthroat
trout
populations
in
Washington,
Oregon,
Idaho,
and
California.
Federal
Register
[
I.
D.
081694D,
12
September
1994]
59(
175):
46808­
46810.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1995a.
Endangered
and
threatened
species;
status
of
Snake
River
spring/
summer
chinook
salmon
and
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon.
Final
Rule.
Federal
Register
[
Docket
No.
950412102­
5102­
01;
I.
D.
072594B]
60(
73):
19341­
19342.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1995b.
Proposed
recovery
plan
for
Snake
River
Salmon.
364
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1996a.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
J.
Harmon,
January
1996.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1996b.
Factors
for
decline:
A
supplement
to
the
Notice
of
Determination
for
West
Coast
Steelhead
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
NMFS
Protected
Species
Branch,
Portland,
OR,
82
p.
+
app.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1996c.
Recommendations
for
the
recovery
of
the
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
chinook
salmon.
NMFS
Southwest
Region,
Long
Beach,
CA,
228
p.
+
app.

National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
1997.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
M.
Dahlberg,
12
February
1997,
4
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

National
Research
Council
Committee
on
Protection
and
Management
of
Pacific
Northwest
Anadromous
Salmonids
(
NRCC).
1996.
Upstream:
Salmon
and
society
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
National
Academy
Press,
Washington,
DC,
452
p.
292
Natural
Resources
Consultants
(
NRC).
1996.
Artificial
propagation
of
anadromous
Pacific
salmonids,
1950
to
present.
Chinook
salmon.
Contract
report
to
U.
S.
Dept
Comm.,
NOAA,
NMFS,
February
1996.
Includes
electronic
database.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Neave,
F.
1958.
The
origin
and
speciation
of
Oncorhynchus.
Trans.
Royal
Soc.
Can.
52:
25­
39.

Needham,
P.
R.,
O.
R.
Smith,
and
H.
A.
Hanson.
1940.
Salmon
salvage
problems
in
relation
to
Shasta
Dam,
California,
and
notes
on
the
biology
of
the
Sacramento
River
salmon.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
70:
55­
69.

Nehlsen,
W.
1995.
Historical
salmon
and
steelhead
runs
of
the
upper
Deschutes
River
and
their
environments,
65
p.
(
Available
from
Portland
General
Electric
Company,
Hydro
Licensing
Department,
Attn:
Mary
May,
3WTCR04,
121
SW
Salmon
St,
Portland,
OR
97204.)

Nehlsen,
W.,
J.
E.
Williams,
and
J.
A.
Lichatowich.
1991.
Pacific
salmon
at
the
crossroads:
Stocks
at
risk
from
California,
Oregon,
Idaho,
and
Washington.
Fisheries
16(
2):
4­
21.

Nei,
M.
1972.
Genetic
distance
between
populations.
Am.
Nat.
106:
283­
292.

Nei,
M.
1973.
Analysis
of
gene
diversity
in
subdivided
populations.
Proc.
Nat.
Acad.
Sci.
U.
S.
70:
3321­
3323.

Nei,
M.
1978.
Estimation
of
average
heterozygosity
and
genetic
distance
from
a
small
number
of
individuals.
Genetics
89:
583­
590.

Neillands,
G.
W.
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
responses
to
questionnaires
for
the
Merced,
San
Joaquin,
Stanislaus,
and
Tuolumne
Rivers.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Nelson,
K.,
and
M.
Soulé.
1987.
Genetical
conservation
of
exploited
fishes.
In
N.
Ryman
and
F.
Utter
(
eds.),
Population
genetics
&
fishery
management,
p.
345­
368.
University
of
Washington
Press,
Seattle,
WA.

Nelson,
W.
R.,
and
J.
Bodle.
1990.
Ninety
years
of
salmon
culture
at
the
Little
White
Salmon
National
Fish
Hatchery.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
Biol.
Rep.
90:
22.

Netboy,
A.
1958.
Salmon
of
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Fish
vs.
Dams.
Binfords
&
Mort,
Portland,
OR,
119
p.
293
Nicholas,
J.
1995.
Status
of
Willamette
spring­
run
chinook
salmon
relative
to
Federal
Endangered
Species
Act.
Report
to
the
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.
Oreg.
Dep.
Wildl.,
44
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Nicholas,
J.
W.,
and
D.
G.
Hankin.
1988.
Chinook
salmon
populations
in
Oregon
coastal
river
basins:
Description
of
life
histories
and
assessment
of
recent
trends
in
run
strengths.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
Fish.
Div.
Info.
Rep.,
No.
88­
1,
359
p.

Nichols,
F.
H.,
J.
E.
Cloern,
S.
N.
Luoma,
and
D.
H.
Peterson.
1986.
The
modification
of
an
estuary.
Science
231:
567­
573.

Nickelson,
T.
E.,
J.
W.
Nicholas,
A.
M.
McGie,
R.
B.
Lindsay,
D.
L.
Bottom,
R.
J.
Kaiser,
and
S.
E.
Jacobs.
1992.
Status
of
anadromous
salmonids
in
Oregon
coastal
basins.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
Research
and
Development
Section
and
Ocean
Salmon
Management.
Unpubl.
manuscr.,
83
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Nielsen,
J.
1997.
Mitochondrial
DNA
and
nuclear
microsatellite
polymorphisms
in
chinook
salmon
from
the
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
Basin
1991­
1995.
Report
to
California
Division
of
Fish
and
Game,
29
p.
(
Available
from
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Inland
Fisheries
Division,
1416
Ninth
St.,
Sacramento,
CA
95814.)

Nielsen,
J.
L.
1995.
Mitochondrial
DNA
frequency
distributions
in
chinook
salmon
from
the
Sacramento­
San
Joaquin
Basin
and
Guadalupe
River
1992­
1994.
Hopkins
Marine
Station,
Stanford
University.

Nielson,
J.
L.,
C.
Gan,
and
W.
K.
Thomas.
1994.
Differences
in
genetic
diversity
for
mitochondrial
DNA
between
hatchery
and
wild
populations
of
Oncorhynchus.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
51:
290­
297.

Nooksack
Technical
Group
(
NTG).
[
1987].
Nooksack
River
spring
chinook
report.
101
p.
Unpublished
draft.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Northwest
Indian
Fisheries
Commission
(
NWIFC).
1997a.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
J.
Anderson,
7
February
1997,
22
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Northwest
Indian
Fisheries
Commission
(
NWIFC).
1997b.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
M.
Messenger,
19
September
294
1997,
1
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Olsen,
D.
E.
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
on
November
3,
1995.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Olsen,
M.
A.
1992.
Abundance,
age,
sex,
and
size
of
chinook
salmon
catches
and
escapement
in
Southeast
Alaska
in
1987.
Alaska
Dep.
Fish
Game
Tech.
Fish.
Rep.
92­
07,
126
p.
(
Available
from
Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Division
of
Commercial
Fisheries,
P.
O.
Box
25526,
Juneau,
AK
99802­
5526.)

Olsen,
E.,
P.
Pierce,
M.
McLean,
and
K.
Hatch.
1992.
Stock
Summary
Reports
for
Columbia
River
Anadromous
Salmonids
Volume
I:
Oregon.
U.
S.
Dep.
Energy.,
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
Project
No.
88­
108.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Public
Information
Officer
­
PJ,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Olsen,
E.
A.,
P.
M.
P.
Beamesderfer,
M.
L.
McLean,
and
E.
S.
Tinus.
1994a.
Salmon
and
steelhead
stock
summaries
for
the
Deschutes
River
Basin:
an
interim
report.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
204
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Olsen,
E.
A.,
P.
M.
P.
Beamesderfer,
M.
L.
McLean,
and
E.
S.
Tinus.
1994b.
Salmon
and
steelhead
stock
summaries
for
the
Grande
Ronde
Basin:
an
interim
report.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
Proj.
Rep.
88­
108,
132
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Olsen,
E.
A.,
P.
M.
P.
Beamesderfer,
M.
L.
McLean,
and
E.
S.
Tinus.
1994c.
Salmon
and
steelhead
stock
summaries
for
the
Imnaha
River
Basin:
an
interim
report.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
Proj.
Rep.
88­
108,
93
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Olsen,
E.
A.,
P.
M.
P.
Beamesderfer,
M.
L.
McLean,
and
E.
S.
Tinus.
1994d.
Salmon
and
steelhead
stock
summaries
for
the
John
Day
River
Basin:
an
interim
report.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
Proj.
Rep.
88­
108,
66
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Omernik,
J.
M.
1987.
Ecoregions
of
the
conterminous
United
States.
Ann.
Assoc.
Am.
Geographers
77:
118­
125.
295
Omernik,
J.
M.,
and
A.
L.
Gallant.
1986.
Ecoregions
of
the
Pacific
Northwest.
U.
S.
Environ.
Protec.
Agen.
Rep.
EA/
600/
3­
86/
033,
39
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1954.
Annual
report.
Fishery
Division
1954.
Oreg.
State
Game
Comm.,
184
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1990.
Effects
of
Lost
Creek
Dam
on
the
distribution
and
time
of
chinook
salmon
spawning
in
the
Rogue
River
upstream
of
Gold
Ray
Dam.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
39
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Street,
P.
O.
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1991.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1993.
Oregon
salmon
and
steelhead
catch
data,
1980­
92.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
Fish
Div.,
22
p.

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1995.
Letter
to
M.
Schiewe
regarding
west
coast
chinook
salmon
status
review
by
D.
McIsaac,
9
October
1997,
9
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1997a.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
R.
Berry,
17
January
1997,
5
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1997b.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
D.
Swartz,
23
April
1997,
10
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1997c.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
K.
Braun,
18
September
1997,
10
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)
296
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1997d.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
D.
Liscia,
19
September
1997,
1
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1997e.
Electronic
data
and
documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
S.
Jacobs,
16
and
19
September
1997.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
Unpublished.
Details
of
egg
and
fry
for
Oregon
hatcheries.
Preliminary
report
for
brood
year
1993,
94,
and
95.
3
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Avenue,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW),
and
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW).
1995.
Status
report:
Columbia
River
fish
runs
and
fisheries
1938­
94.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
Wash.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
291
p.

Oregon
Natural
Resources
Council
(
ONRC),
and
R.
K.
Nawa.
1995.
Petition
for
a
rule
to
list
chinook
salmon
as
threatened
or
endangered
under
the
endangered
Speices
Act
and
to
designate
critical
habitat.
Unpublished
manuscr.,
319
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Natural
Resources
Council,
522
SW
5th,
Suite
1050,
Portland,
OR
97204.)

Orrell,
R.
1976.
Skagit
chinook
race
differentiation
study.
NMFS
Proj.
Rep.
1­
98­
R,
53
p.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98122.)

Orsi,
J.
A.,
and
Jaenicke,
H.
W.
1996.
Marine
distribution
and
origin
of
prerecruit
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
in
southeastern
Alaska.
Fish.
Bulletin
94(
3):
482­
497.

Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council
(
PFMC).
1994.
Klamath
River
fall
chinook
report:
An
assessment
of
the
status
of
the
Klamath
River
fall
chinook
stock
as
required
under
the
salmon
fishery
management
plan.
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council,
20
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council,
2130
SW
Fifth
Avenue,
Suite
224,
Portland,
OR
97201.)

Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council
(
PFMC).
1995.
Vital
habitat
concerns.
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council,
Portland,
OR,
19
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council,
2130
SW
Fifth
Avenue,
Suite
224,
Portland,
OR
97201.)
297
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council
(
PFMC).
1996a.
Preseason
report
I:
Stock
abundance
analysis
for
1996
ocean
salmon
fisheries.
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council,
50
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council,
2130
SW
Fifth
Avenue,
Suite
224,
Portland,
OR
97201.)

Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council
(
PFMC).
1996b.
Review
of
the
1995
ocean
salmon
fisheries.
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council,
115
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council,
2130
SW
Fifth
Avenue,
Suite
224,
Portland,
OR
97201.)

Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council
(
PFMC).
1997.
Review
of
the
1996
ocean
salmon
fisheries.
PFMC,
275
p.
(
Available
from
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council,
2130
SW
Fifth
Ave.,
Suite
224,
Portland,
OR
97201.)

Pacific
Northwest
River
Basins
Commission
(
PNRBC).
1969.
Columbia­
North
Pacific
region
comprehensive
framework
study
of
water
and
related
lands.
Appendix
II.
The
Region.
Pacific
Northwest
River
Basins
Commission,
147
p.
(
Available
from
Pacific
Northwest
River
Basins
Commission,
1
Columbia
River,
Vancouver,
Washington..)

Pacific
Salmon
Commission
(
PSC).
1994.
Pacific
Salmon
Commission
Joint
Chinook
Technical
Committee
1993
annual
report.
Pacific
Salmon
Commission.
Report
Chinook
(
94)­
1,
121
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Pacific
Salmon
Commission,
600­
1155
Robson
St.,
Vancouver,
B.
C.
V6E
1B5.)

Pacific
Salmon
Commission
(
PSC).
1996.
Pacific
Salmon
Commission
Joint
Chinook
Technical
Committee
1994
annual
report.
(
96)­
1,
65
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Pacific
Salmon
Commission,
600­
1155
Robson
St.,
Vancouver,
B.
C.
V6E
1B5.)

Pacific
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission
(
PSMFC).
1997a.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
G.
Christofferson,
9
June
1997,
4
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Pacific
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission
(
PSMFC).
1997b.
Streamnet
Microsoft
Access
computerized
database
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
D.
Anderson,
May
1997.
(
Available
from
Pacific
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission,
45
SE
82nd
Drive,
Suite
100,
Gladstone,
OR
97027.)

Pacific
Watershed
Associates.
Undated.
Post­
storm
aerial
reconnaissance
of
the
middle
Oregon
Cascades
and
middle
Coast
Range.
Preliminary
executive
summary,
5
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)
298
Page,
W.
H.
1888.
The
most
recent
methods
of
hatching
fish
eggs.
Bull.
U.
S.
Fish
Comm.
8:
207­
218.

Pascual,
M.
A.,
and
T.
P.
Quinn.
1994.
Homing
and
straying
in
salmon.
Aquacult.
Fish.
Manage.
25:
17­
30.

Pearcy,
W.
1992.
Ocean
ecology
of
North
Pacific
salmonids.
Univ.
Wash.
Press,
Seattle,
WA.

Peven,
C.
M.
1994.
Spring
and
summer
chinook
spawning
ground
surveys
on
the
Wenatchee
River
basin,
1993.
Chelan
Co.
PUD,
Fish
Wildl.
Oper.,
30
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Chelan
Co.
PUD,
Fish
Wild.
Opert.,
P.
O.
Box
1321,
Wenatchee,
WA
98801.)

Peven,
C.
M.
and
T.
R.
Mosey.
1996.
Spring
and
summer
chinook
spawning
ground
surveys
on
the
Wenatchee
River
Basin,
1996.
Chelan
County
Public
Utility
District.
29
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Chelan
Co.
PUD,
Fish
Wild.
Oper.,
P.
O.
Box
1321,
Wenatchee,
WA
98801.)

Peven,
C.
M.,
and
K.
B.
Truscott.
1995.
Spring
and
summer
chinook
spawning
ground
surveys
on
the
Wenatchee
River
basin,
1994.
Chelan
County
Public
Utility
District.
30
p.
+
app.
(
Available
from
Chelan
Co.
PUD,
Fish
Wild.
Oper.,
P.
O.
Box
1321,
Wenatchee,
WA
98801.)

Phelps,
S.
R.,
L.
L.
LeClair,
S.
Young,
and
H.
L.
Blankenship.
1994.
Chum
salmon
genetic
diversity
patterns
in
Washington
and
southern
British
Columbia.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
51:
65­
83.

Pisano,
M.
1993.
Final
performance
report.
Salmon
and
steelhead
research,
management
and
enhancement
project:
Study
2.
Klamath
River
project.
Report
submitted
to
NMFS,
Southwest
Region.
Project
No:
NA26FA0244­
01,
20
p.

Pisano,
M.
1995.
Final
performance
report:
Salmon
and
steelhead
research,
management
and
enhancement
project,
Klamath
River
Project,
July
1,
1994­
June
30,
1995.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Pisarevsky,
G.
1978.
How
the
USSR
improves
on
nature
and
spreads
salmon
from
the
Pacific
to
the
Arctic.
Russian
ranching:
billion
fry
is
far
east
target.
Fish.
News
Int.
17(
9):
22­
23.

Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council
(
PNPTC).
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
N.
Lampsakis,
September
1995.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)
299
Professional
Resource
Organization­
Salmon
(
PRO­
Salmon).
1994.
Petition
for
a
rule
to
list
nine
Puget
Sound
salmon
populations
as
threatened
or
endangered
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act
and
to
designate
critical
habitat.
Unpublished
manuscr.,
86
p.
(
Available
from
PRO­
Salmon,
Washington
Public
Employees
Association,
124
10th
Ave.
S.
W.,
Olympia,
WA
98501.)

Puget
Sound
Salmon
Stock
Review
Group
(
PSSSRG).
1997.
An
assessment
of
the
status
of
Puget
Sound
chinook
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
coho
stocks
as
required
under
the
Salmon
Fishery
Management
Plan.
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council
Review
Draft,
78
p.
(
Available
from
the
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council,
2130
Fifth
Ave,
Ste.
224,
Portland,
OR
97201.)

Quileute
Tribe
Natural
Resources
(
QTNR).
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
S.
Haymes,
October
1995.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Quinault
Fisheries
Division
(
QFD).
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
S.
Chitwood,
October
1995.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Quinn,
T.
P.
1993.
A
review
of
homing
and
straying
of
wild
and
hatchery­
produced
salmon.
Fish.
Res.
18:
29­
44.

Quinn,
T.
P.,
and
S.
Bloomberg.
1992.
Fecundity
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
from
the
Waitaki
and
Rakaia
rivers,
New
Zealand.
New
Z.
J.
Mar.
and
Freshwater
Res.
26:
429­
434.

Quinn,
T.
P.,
and
K.
Fresh.
1984.
Homing
and
straying
in
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
from
Cowilitz
River
Hatchery,
Washington.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
41:
1078­
1082.

Quinn,
T.
P.,
R.
S.
Nemeth,
and
D.
O.
McIsaac.
1991.
Homing
and
straying
patterns
of
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
lower
Columbia
River.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
120:
150­
156.

Randall,
R.
G.,
M.
C.
Healey,
and
J.
B.
Dempson.
1987.
Variability
in
length
of
freshwater
residence
of
salmon,
trout,
and
char.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
1:
27­
41.

Ratner,
S.,
R.
Lande,
and
B.
B.
Roper.
1997.
Population
viability
analysis
of
spring
chinook
salmon
in
the
South
Umpqua
River,
Oregon.
Conserv.
Biol.
11:
879­
889.
300
Ravenel,
W.
de
C.
1899.
Report
on
the
propagation
and
distribution
of
food­
fishes.
In
U.
S.
Commissioner
of
Fish
and
Fisheries
(
ed.),
Report
of
the
Commissioner
of
Fisheries
for
the
year
ending
June
30,
1898,
p.
6­
72.

Reavis,
R.
1984.
Annual
report:
Chinook
salmon
spawning
stocks
in
California's
central
valley,
1983.
Draft.
Calif.
Dep.
Fish
Game,
Anadromous
Fisheries
Branch
Administrative
Report,
38
p.

Reavis,
R.
1985.
Annual
report:
Chinook
salmon
spawning
stocks
in
California's
central
valley,
1984.
Draft.
Calif.
Dep.
Fish
Game,
Anadromous
Fisheries
Branch
Administrative
Report,
51
p.

Refalt,
W.
1985.
Wetland
in
extremis:
A
nationwide
survey.
Wilderness
Winter
1985:
28­
41.

Reimers,
P.
E.
1971.
The
length
of
residence
of
juvenile
fall
chinook
salmon
in
Sixes
River,
Oregon.
Ph.
D.,
Oreg.
State
Univ.,
Corvallis,
OR,
99
p.

Reimers,
P.
E.
1973.
The
length
of
residence
of
juvenile
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sixes
River,
Oregon.
Oreg.
Fish
Comm.
4,
2­
43
p.

Reimers,
P.
E.,
and
R.
E.
Loeffel.
1967.
The
length
of
residence
of
juvenile
fall
chinook
salmon
in
selected
Columbia
River
tributaries.
Fish
Comm.
Oreg.
13,
5­
19
p.

Reisenbichler,
R.
R.
1986.
Use
of
spawner­
recruit
relations
to
evaluate
the
effect
of
degraded
environment
and
increased
fishing
on
the
abundance
of
fall­
run
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
in
several
California
streams.
Thesis,
Univ.
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA,
175
p.

Reisenbichler,
R.
R.
1997.
Genetic
factors
contributing
to
declines
of
anadromous
salmonids
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
In
D.
J.
Stouder,
P.
A.
Bisson,
and
R.
J.
Naiman
(
eds.),
Pacific
salmon
&
their
ecosystems:
status
and
future
options,
p.
223­
244.
Chapman
Hall,
New
York.

Reisenbichler,
R.
R.
and
J.
D.
McIntyre.
1977.
Genetic
differences
in
growth
and
survival
of
juvenile
hatchery
and
wild
steel
head
trout,
Salmo
gairdneri.
J.
Fish.
Res.
Board
Can.
34:
123­
128.

Reisenbichler,
R.
R.,
and
S.
R.
Phelps.
1987.
Genetic
variation
in
chinook,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
and
coho,
O.
kisutch,
from
the
north
coast
of
Washington.
Fish.
Bull.,
U.
S.
85:
681­
701.

Reynolds,
F.
L.,
T.
J.
Mills,
R.
Benthin,
and
A.
Low.
1993.
Restoring
central
valley
streams:
A
plan
for
action.
Calif.
Dep.
Fish
Game,
Sacramento,
CA,
184
p.
301
Rich,
W.
H.
1920a.
Early
history
and
seaward
migration
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
Columbia
and
Sacramento
Rivers.
U.
S.
Bur.
Fish.,
Bull.
37:
74.

Rich,
W.
H.
1920b.
Racial
differences
in
salmon.
Unpublished
manuscript,
8
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Rich,
W.
H.
1921.
The
relative
maturity
of
the
chinook
salmon
taken
in
the
ocean
along
the
Pacific
coast.
Calif.
Fish
Game
7:
13­
22.

Rich,
W.
H.
1925.
Growth
and
degree
of
maturity
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
ocean.
U.
S.
Bur.
Fish.,
Bull.
41:
15­
89.

Rich,
W.
H.
1940a.
The
future
of
the
Columbia
River
salmon
fisheries.
Stanford
Icthyol.
Bull.
2:
37­
47.

Rich,
W.
H.
1940b.
Seasonal
variations
in
weight
of
Columbia
River
chinook
salmon.
Copeia.
1:
34­
43.

Rich,
W.
H.,
and
H.
B.
Holmes.
1928.
Experiments
in
marking
young
chinook
salmon
on
the
Columbia
River
1916
to
1927.
U.
S.
Bur.
Fish.,
Bull.
44:
215­
264.

Ricker,
W.
E.
1972.
Hereditary
and
environmental
factors
affecting
certain
salmonid
populations.
In
R.
C.
Simon
and
P.
A.
Larkin
(
eds.),
The
Stock
Concept
in
Pacific
Salmon.
MacMillan
Lectures
in
Fisheries,
p.
27­
160.
Univ.
B.
C.,
Vancouver,
B.
C.

Ricker,
W.
E.
1981.
Changes
in
the
average
size
and
average
age
of
Pacific
salmon.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
38:
1636­
1656.

Riggs,
L.
A.
1990.
Principles
for
genetic
conservation
and
production
quality.
Report
to
Northwest
Power
Planning
Council.
GENREC/
Genetic
Resource
Consulting,
Berkeley,
CA.

Rivers,
C.
M.
1963.
Rogue
River
fisheres,
volume
1:
History
and
development
of
the
Rogue
River
Basin
as
related
to
its
fishery
prior
to
1941.
Oreg.
State
Game
Comm.
Portland,
OR.
Unpubl.
manuscr.,
264
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Roff,
D.
A.,
and
P.
Bentzen.
1989.
The
statistical
analysis
of
mitochondrial
DNA
polymorphisms:
C2
and
the
problem
of
small
samples.
Mol.
Biol.
Evol.
6:
539­
545.
302
Rogers,
J.
S.
1972.
Measures
of
genetic
similarity
and
genetic
distance.
Studies
in
Genetics
VII.
Univ.
Tex.
Publication
7213:
145­
153.

Rogers,
J.
S.
1991.
A
comparison
of
the
suitability
of
the
Rogers,
modified
Rogers,
Manhattan,
and
Cavalli­
Sforza
and
Edwards
distances
for
inferring
phylogenetic
trees
from
allele
frequencies.
Syst.
Zool.
40:
63­
73.

Roni,
P.
1992.
Life
history
and
spawning
habitat
in
four
stocks
of
large­
bodied
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.)
M.
S.
Thesis,
Univ.
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA,
96
p.

Roni,
P.,
and
T.
P.
Quinn.
1995.
Geographic
variation
in
size
and
age
of
North
American
chinook
salmon.
N.
Am.
J.
Fish.
Manage.
15:
325­
345.

Roppel,
P.
1982.
Alaska's
Salmon
Hatcheries,
1891­
1959.
Alaska
Historical
Commission
Studies
in
History
No.
20.
Alaska
Historical
Commission,
Juneau,
299
p.

Roseburg,
R.
B.
1996.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
Dworshak
spring
chinook
salmon
egg
size.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Rutter,
C.
1904.
Natural
history
of
the
quinnat
salmon.
Investigation
on
Sacramento
River,
1896­
1901.
Bull.
U.
S.
Fish
Comm.
22:
65­
141.

Ryman,
N.
1983.
Patterns
of
distribution
of
biochemical
genetic
variation
in
salmonids:
Differences
between
species.
Aquaculture
33:
1­
21.

Ryman,
N.,
and
L.
Laikre.
1991.
Effects
of
supportive
breeding
on
the
genetically
effective
populations
size.
Conserv.
Biol.
5:
325­
329.

Saitou,
N,
and
M.
Nei.
1987.
The
neighbor­
joining
method:
a
new
method
for
reconstructing
phylogenetic
trees.
Mol.
Biol.
Evol.
4:
406­
425.

Sankovich,
P.,
and
M.
L.
Keefe.
1996.
Salmon
exhibit
alternative
life
styles.
Fish
News
and
Views
2(
1):
7.

Schaller,
H.
A.,
C.
E.
Petrosky,
and
O.
P.
Langness.
1996.
Contrasts
in
stock­
recruitment
patterns
of
Snake
and
Columbia
River
spring
and
summer
chinook
populations.
In
D.
R.
Marmorek
(
ed.),
Plan
for
analyzing
and
testing
hypotheses
(
PATH):
Final
report
on
retrospective
analyses
for
fiscal
year
1996,
Chapter
3,
p.
1­
24.
(
Available
from
ESSA
Technologies
Ltd.,
Vancouver,
B.
C.)
303
Schluchter,
M.
D.,
and
J.
A.
Lichatowich.
1977.
Juvenile
life
histories
of
Rogue
River
spring
chinook
salmon
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
(
Walbaum),
as
determined
by
scale
analysis.
Oregon
Dept.
of
Fish
Wildl.
Info.
Rep.
Fish.
77­
5,
24
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Street,
P.
O.
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Schneirderhan,
D.
J.
1993.
Origins
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
Yukon
River
fisheries,
1990.
Alaska
Dep.
Fish
Game,
Tech.
Fish.
Rep.
92­
11,
34
p.
(
Available
from
Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Division
of
Commercial
Fisheries,
P.
O.
Box
25526,
Juneau,
AK
99802­
5526.)

Schreck,
C.
B.,
H.
W.
Li,
C.
S.
Sharpe,
K.
P.
Currens,
P.
L.
Hulett,
S.
L.
Stone,
and
S.
B.
Yamada.
1986.
Stock
identification
of
Columbia
River
chinook
salmon
and
steelhead
trout.
U.
S.
Dep.
Energy,
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
Project
No.
83­
45,
184
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Public
Information
Officer­
PJ,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Schubert,
N.
D.,
M.
K.
Farwell,
and
L.
W.
Kalnin.
1993.
Enumeration
of
the
1992
Harrison
River
chinook
salmon
escapement.
Dep.
Fish.
Oceans.,
Can.
Manusc.
Rep.,
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
2200,
33
p.

Sedell,
J.
R.,
and
J.
L.
Froggatt.
1984.
Importance
of
streamside
forests
to
large
rivers:
the
isolation
of
the
Willamette
River,
Oregon,
U.
S.
from
its
flood
plain
by
snagging
and
streamside
forest
removal.
Int.
Ver.
Theo.
Angew.
Limnol.
Verh.
22:
1828­
1834.

Seiler,
D.,
P.
Hanratty,
S.
Neuhauser,
P.
Topping,
M.
Ackley,
and
L.
E.
Kishimoto.
1995.
Wild
salmon
production
and
survival
evaluation.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
Prog.
Rep.
F­
112­
R­
2,
113
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA,
98501­
1091.)

Shebley,
W.
H.
1915.
Hatchery
and
fishery
notes.
Calif.
Fish
Game
3:
187­
189.

Shebley,
W.
H.
1922.
A
history
of
fishcultural
[
sic]
operations
in
California.
Calif.
Fish
Game
8:
62­
98.

Shepard,
M.
P.,
C.
D.
Shepard,
and
A.
W.
Argue.
1985.
Historical
statistics
of
salmon
production
around
the
Pacific
Rim.
Can.
Manusc.
Rep.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
No.
1819,
303
p.

Shepherd,
B.
G.,
J.
E.
Hillaby,
and
R.
J.
Hutton.
1986.
Studies
on
Pacific
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
spp.)
in
phase
I
of
the
salmonid
enhancement
program.
Volume
II:
Data
Appendices.
Can.
Tech.
Rep.
Fish.
Aqaut.
Sci.
1482:
1­
180.
304
Simon,
R.
C.,
J.
D.
McIntyre,
and
A.
R.
Hemingsen.
1986.
Family
size
and
effective
population
size
in
a
hatchery
stock
of
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
43:
2434­
2442.

Siuslaw
National
Forest.
1996.
'
96
Floods.
A
workshop
on
watershed
restoration
presented
by
Siuslaw
National
Forest,
Feb.
4,
1997,
Corvalis
Public
Library,
7
p.

Skagit
Cooperative
Council
(
SCC).
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
R.
Hayman,
October
1995.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Skaugstad,
C.,
and
B.
McKracken.
1991.
Fecundity
of
chinook
salmon,
Tanana
River,
Alaska.
Alaska
Dep.
Fish
Game.
91­
8,
23
p.

Slater,
D.
W.
1963.
Winter­
run
chinook
salmon
in
the
Sacramento
River,
California,
with
notes
on
water
temperature
requirements
at
spawning.
Fish
Wildlife
Service
Special
Science
Report
Fisheries
461:
9.

Smirnov,
A.
I.
1975.
Biologiya,
razmozhenie
i
razivitie
tikhookikh
lososei.
[
The
biology,
reproduction
and
development
of
the
Pacific
Salmon.]
Izd.
Mosk.
Univ.,
333
p.
[
Fisheries
and
Marine
Service
Translation
No.
3861.]
Department
of
the
Environment,
Fisheries
and
Marine
Service,
Pacific
Biological
Station,
Nanaimo,
B.
C.

Smirnov,
B.
P.,
V.
V.
Chebanova,
and
T.
V.
Vvedenskaya.
1994.
Adaptation
of
hatchery­
raised
chum
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
keta,
and
chinook
salmon,
O.
tshawytscha,
to
natural
feeding
and
effects
of
starvation.
J.
Ichthyol.
34:
96­
106.

Smith,
C.
J.,
and
B.
Sele.
1995a.
Introduction.
In
C.
J.
Smith
and
P.
Wampler
(
eds.),
Dungeness
River
Chinook
Salmon
Rebuilding
Project
Progress
Report
1992­
1993,
p.
1­
3.
Northwest
Fishery
Resource
Bulletin
Project
Report
Series
Project
Report
Series
3.
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA,
98501­
1091.)

Smith,
C.
J.,
and
B.
Sele.
1995b.
Stock
assessment.
In
C.
J.
Smith
and
P.
Wampler
(
eds.),
Dungeness
River
Chinook
Salmon
Rebuilding
Project
Progress
Report
1992­
1993,
p.
4­
14.
(
Available
from
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA,
98501­
1091.)

Smith,
E.
M.
1966.
A
study
to
identify
the
race
of
fall
chinook
whose
spawning
grounds
will
be
inundated
by
the
John
Day
Impoundment
on
the
Columbia
River.
Fish
Comm.
Oreg.
DA­
305
45­
164­
CCIVENG­
66­
5,
53
p.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Walla
Walla
District.)

Sneath,
P.
H.
A.,
and
R.
R.
Sokal.
1963.
Numerical
taxomony.
W.
H.
Freeman,
San
Francisco,
573
p.

Snyder,
J.
O.
1931.
Salmon
of
the
Klamath
River,
California.
Calif.
Fish
Game
Fish.
Bull.
34:
130.

Spotts,
J.
1995.
Chinook
salmon
stocks/
population
status
analysis.
Submitted
to
the
Administrative
Record
16
Nov.
1995,
21
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Steiner
Environmental
Consulting
(
SEC).
1997.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
D.
Ebert,
August
1997,
8
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Stevens,
T.
A.,
R.
E.
Withler,
S.
H.
Goh,
and
T.
D.
Beacham.
1993.
A
multilocus
probe
for
DNA
fingerprinting
in
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha),
and
comparisons
with
a
single­
locus
probe.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
50:
1559­
1567.

Steward,
C.
R.,
and
T.
C.
Bjornn.
1990.
Supplementation
of
salmon
and
steelhead
stocks
with
hatchery
fish:
A
synthesis
of
published
literature.
U.
S.
Dep.
Energy,
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Tech.
Rep.
90­
1.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Stone,
L.
1874.
Report
of
operations
during
1872
at
the
U.
S.
salmon­
hatching
establishment
on
the
McCloud
River,
and
on
the
California
salmonidae
generally;
with
a
list
of
specimens
collected.
Report
of
U.
S.
Commissioner
of
Fisheries
for
1872­
1873
2:
168­
215.

Stone,
L.
1897.
Artificial
propagation
of
salmon
on
the
Pacific
Coast
of
the
United
States
with
notes
on
the
natural
history
of
the
quinnat
salmon.
Bull.
U.
S.
Fish
Comm.
for
1896
16:
203­
235.

Stuehrenberg,
L.
C.,
G.
A.
Swan,
L.
K.
Timme,
P.
A.
Ocker,
M.
B.
Eppard,
R.
N.
Iwamoto,
B.
L.
Iverson,
and
B.
P.
Sanford.
1995.
Migrational
characteristics
of
adult
spring,
summer,
and
fall
chinook
salmon
passing
through
reservoirs
and
dams
of
the
mid­
Columbia
River.
Final
report.
CZES
Division,
NWFSC,
NMFS,
Seattle,
WA,
115
p.

Sullivan,
C.
1989.
Juvenile
life
history
and
age
composition
of
mature
fall
chinook
salmon
to
the
Klamath
River,
1984­
1986.
M.
S.
Thesis,
Humboldt
State
Univ.
Arcata,
CA,
69
p.
306
Swan,
G.
A.,
E.
M.
Dawley,
R.
D.
Ledgerwood,
W.
T.
Norman,
W.
F.
Cobb,
and
D.
T.
Hartman.
1988.
Distribution
and
relative
abundance
of
deep­
water
redds
for
spawning
fall
chinook
salmon
at
selected
study
sites
in
the
Hanford
Reach
of
the
Columbia
River.
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
59
p.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112.)

Taft,
A.
C.
1941.
Report
of
the
Bureau
of
Fish
Conservation.
Thirty­
Sixth
Biennial
Report
of
the
Division
of
Fish
and
Game
for
the
Years
1938­
1940:
14­
27.
(
Available
from
the
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Sacramento,
CA.)

Tallman,
R.
F.
1986.
Genetic
differentiation
among
seasonally
distinct
spawning
populations
of
chum
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
keta.
Aquaculture
57:
211­
217.

Taylor,
E.
B.
1988.
Adaptive
Variation
in
reheotactic
and
agonistic
behavior
in
newly
emerged
fry
of
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
from
ocean­
and
stream­
type
populations.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
45:
237­
243.

Taylor,
E.
B.
1989.
Precocial
male
maturation
in
laboratory­
reared
populations
of
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Can.
J.
Zool.
67:
1665­
1669.

Taylor,
E.
B.
1990a.
Environmental
correlates
of
life­
history
variation
in
juvenile
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
(
Walbaum).
J.
Fish
Biol.
37:
1­
17.

Taylor,
E.
B.
1990b.
Phenotypic
correlates
of
life­
history
variation
in
juvenile
chinook
salmon
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
J.
Anim.
Ecol.
59:
455­
468.

Taylor,
E.
B.
1991.
A
review
of
local
adaptation
in
Salmonidae,
with
particular
reference
to
Pacific
and
Atlantic
Salmon.
Aquaculture
98:
185­
207.

Taylor,
E.
B.,
and
P.
A.
Larkin.
1986.
Current
response
and
agonistic
behavior
in
newly
emerged
fry
of
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
from
ocean­
and
stream­
type
populations.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
43:
565­
573.

Theis,
L.,
and
K.
Melcher.
1995.
Oregon
Lower
Columbia
River
fall
and
winter
chinook
spawning
ground
surveys,
1948­
1994.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
13
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2501
SW
First
Ave.,
PO
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97207.)

Thomas,
W.
K.,
R.
E.
Withler,
and
A.
T.
Beckenback.
1986.
Mitochondrial
DNA
analysis
of
Pacific
salmonids
evolution.
Can.
J.
Zool.
64:
1058­
1064.

Thompson,
G.
G.
1991.
Determining
minimum
viable
populations
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS
F/
NWC­
198,
78
p.
307
Thorpe,
J.
E.
1993.
Impacts
of
fishing
on
genetic
structure
of
salmonid
populations.
In
J.
G.
Cloud
and
G.
H.
Thorgaard
(
eds.),
Genetic
conservation
of
salmonid
fishes,
p.
67­
80.
Plenum
Press
and
NATO
Scientific
Affairs
Division,
New
York.

Titcomb,
J.
W.
1904.
Report
on
the
propagation
and
distribution
of
food­
fishes.
In
G.
M.
Bower
(
ed.),
Report
of
the
Commissioner
of
Fisheries
for
the
year
ending
June
30,
1902,
p.
22­
110.

Titcomb,
J.
W.
1905.
Report
on
the
propagation
and
distribution
of
food
fishes.
In
G.
M.
Bowers
(
ed.),
Report
of
the
Bureau
of
Fisheries,
1904,
p.
25­
80.

Titcomb,
J.
W.
1917.
The
distribution
of
fish
and
fish
eggs
during
the
fiscal
year
1915.
In
H.
M.
Smith
(
ed.),
Report
of
the
United
States
Commissioner
of
Fisheries
for
the
fiscal
year
1915,
p.
138.

Tuss,
C.,
T.
Kisanuki,
J.
Larson,
J.
Polos,
and
T.
Frazer.
1987.
Klamath
River
fisheries
investigation
program.
Annual
report.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
93
p.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Fisheries
Assistance
Office,
Arcata,
California.)

Unwin,
M.
J.
1997.
Fry­
to­
adult
survival
of
natural
and
hatchery­
produced
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
from
a
common
origin.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
54:
1246­
1254.

U.
S.
Commissioner
for
Fish
and
Fisheries
(
USCFF).
1893.
Report
of
the
Commissioner
for
1889­
1891.
Department
of
Commerce
and
Labour,
1­
96
p.

U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce.
1968.
Climate
Atlas
of
the
United
States.
Natl.
Climatic
Data
Center
[
N.
O.
A.
A.
reprint
1983],
Asheville,
NC,
80
p.

U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS).
1978.
Tehama­
Colusa
Fish
Facilities
Spawning
Channel
Production
Report
1977­
1978
Season,
30
p.
(
Available
from
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
10950
Tyler
Road,
Red
Bluff,
CA,
96080.)

U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS).
1994.
Annual
Report:
Klamath
River
Fisheries
Investigation
Program,
1992.
Coastal
California
Fishery
Resource
Office,
63
p.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
Office,
Fisheries
Assistance
Office,
Arcata,
CA
95521.)

U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS).
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
annual
reports
of
Klamath
River
fisheries
investigation
program.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)
308
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS).
1996a.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
S.
Hamelberg,
April
1996.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS).
1996b.
Escapement
of
hatchery­
origin
winter
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
to
the
Sacramento
River,
California
in
1995,
with
notes
on
spring
chinook
salmon
in
Battle
Creek.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
18
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS).
1997a.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
D.
Finberg,
26
February
1997,
4
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS).
1997b.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
J.
Lang,
June
1997,
5
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

U.
S.
Forest
Service
(
USFS).
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
J.
Lowe,
November
1995.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

U.
S.
Forest
Service
(
USFS).
1997a.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
M.
McCain,
16
September
1997,
19
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

U.
S.
Forest
Service
(
USFS).
1997b.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
A.
Olson,
18
and
25
September
1997,
9
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

U.
S.
Forest
Service
and
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Land
Management
(
USFS
and
USBLM).
1996.
Storms
and
floods
of
the
winter
of
1995­
96.
USDA
Forest
Service
Pacific
Northwest
Region
and
Pacific
Northwest
Forest
and
Range
experiment
station
and
USDI
BLM
Oregon
state
office.
309
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(
USGS).
1990.
National
Water
Summary
1987.
Hydologic
events
and
water
supply
and
use.
U.
S.
Dep.
Interior,
U.
S.
Geological
Survery
Paper
235,
553
p.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Goverment
Printing
Office,
Washington
D.
C.)

U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(
USGS).
1993.
National
Water
Summary
1990­
91.
Hydologic
events
and
stream
water
quality.
U.
S.
Dep.
Interior,
U.
S.
Geological
Survery
Paper
2400,
590
p.
(
Available
from
U.
S.
Goverment
Printing
Office,
Washington
D.
C.)

Uremovich,
B.
1977.
Straying
of
fall
chinook
salmon
from
Elk
River
hatchery
into
Sixes
River,
1970­
1976.
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.
Info.
Rep.
77­
6,
7
p.
(
Available
from
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
59,
Portland,
OR
97027.)

Utter,
F.,
G.
Milner,
G.
Stahl,
and
D.
Teel.
1989.
Genetic
population
structure
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha),
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Fish.
Bull.
87:
239­
264.

Utter,
F.,
D.
Teel,
G.
Milner,
and
D.
McIsaac.
1987.
Genetic
estimates
of
stock
compositions
of
1983
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
harvests
off
the
Washington
coast
and
Columbia
River.
Fish.
Bull.
85:
13­
23.

Utter,
F.
M.
1996.
Review
of
co­
manager's
draft
of
the
west
coast
chinook
salmon
status
review
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
F.
Utter,
31
December
1996,
10
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Utter,
F.
M.,
D.
W.
Chapman,
and
A.
R.
Marshall.
1995.
Genetic
population
structure
and
history
of
chinook
salmon
of
the
Upper
Columbia
River.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
17:
149­
165.

Utter,
F.
M.,
W.
J.
Ebel,
G.
B.
Milner,
and
D.
J.
Teel.
1982.
Population
structures
of
fall
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
of
the
mid­
Columbia
and
Snake
Rivers.
U.
S.
Dep.
Commer.,
N.
O.
A.
A.,
Northwest
and
Alsaka
Fisheries
Center.
Processed
Report
82­
10,
14
p.
(
Available
from
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112.)

Utter,
F.
M.,
R.
S.
Waples,
and
D.
J.
Teel.
1992.
Genetic
isolation
of
previously
indistinguishable
chinook
salmon
populations
of
the
Snake
and
Klamath
Rivers:
limitations
of
negative
data.
Fish.
Bull.
90:
770­
777.

Vilkitis,
J.,
C.
Poly,
K.
Jones,
and
S.
Kocher.
1994.
Population
genetics
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
Salmon
River
system.
Unpublished
report.
14
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)
310
Vreeland,
R.
R.
1989.
Evaluation
of
the
contribution
of
fall
chinook
salmon
reared
at
Columbia
River
hatcheries
to
the
Pacific
salmon
fisheries.
Final
report.
Bonneville
Power
Admin.,
Div.
Fish.
Wildl.
Portland,
113
p.
(
Available
from
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
P.
O.
Box
3621,
Portland,
OR
97208.)

Vronskiy,
B.
B.
1972.
Reproductive
biology
of
the
Kamchatka
River
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
(
Walbaum).)
J.
Icthyol.
12:
259­
273.

Wagner,
H.
H.,
F.
P.
Conte,
and
J.
L.
Fessler.
1969.
Development
of
osmotic
and
ionic
regulation
in
two
races
of
chinook
salmon
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Comp.
Biochem.
Physiol.
29:
325­
341.

Wahle,
R.
J.,
and
R.
E.
Peterson.
1987.
A
listing
of
Pacific
Coast
spawning
streams
and
hatcheries
producing
chinook
and
coho
spawners.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS
F/
NWC­
122,
32
p.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center,
Coastal
Zone
and
Estuarine
Studies
Division,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112­
2097.)

Wahle,
R.
J.,
and
R.
Z.
Smith.
1979.
A
historical
and
descriptive
account
of
Pacific
coast
anadromous
salmonid
rearing
facilities
and
a
summary
of
their
releases
by
region,
1960­
1976.
NOAA
Tech.
Rep.
NMFS
SSRF­
736,
40
p.

Waknitz,
F.
W.,
G.
M.
Matthews,
T.
Wainwright,
and
G.
A.
Winans.
1995.
Status
review
for
Mid­
Columbia
River
summer
chinook
salmon.
NOAA
Tech.
Mem.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
22,
80
p.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center,
Coastal
Zone
and
Estuarine
Studies
Division,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112­
2097.)

Waldvogel,
J.
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon:
responses
to
questionnaire
and
additional
data
for
the
Smith
River
and
west
branch
Mill
Creek,
California.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Waldvogel,
J.
1997.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
16
September
1997,
4
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Waples,
R.
S.
1991a.
Genetic
interactions
between
hatchery
and
wild
salmonids:
Lessons
from
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
48(
Suppl.
1):
124­
133.
311
Waples,
R.
S.
1991b.
Pacific
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
spp.,
and
the
definition
of
"
species"
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
Marine
Fisheries
Review
53:
11­
22.

Waples,
R.
S.,
and
C.
Do.
1994.
Genetic
risk
associated
with
supplementation
of
Pacific
salmonids:
Captive
broodstock
programs.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
51
(
Suppl.
1):
310­
329.

Waples,
R.
S.,
and
D.
J.
Teel.
1990.
Conservation
genetics
of
Pacific
salmon.
I.
Temporal
changes
in
allele
frequency.
Conserv.
Biol.
4:
144­
156.

Waples,
R.
S.,
O.
W.
Johnson,
P.
B.
Aebersold,
C.
K.
Shiflett,
D.
M.
VanDoornik,
D.
J.
Teel,
and
A.
E.
Cook.
1993.
A
genetic
monitoring
and
evaluation
program
for
supplemented
populations
of
salmon
and
steelhead
in
the
Snake
River
Basin.
Annual
report.
Bonneville
Power
Administration.
DE­
A179­
89BP0091.

Waples,
R.
S.,
D.
J.
Teel,
and
P.
B.
Aebersold.
1991a.
A
genetic
monitoring
and
evaluation
program
for
supplemented
populations
of
salmon
and
steelhead
in
the
Snake
River
Basin.
Annual
report.
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
50
p.

Waples,
R.
S.,
J.
Robert,
P.
Jones,
B.
R.
Beckman,
and
G.
A.
Swan.
1991b.
Status
review
for
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS
F/
NWC­
201,
73
p.
(
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center,
Coastal
Zone
and
Estuarine
Studies
Division,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112­
2097.)

Ware,
D.
M.,
and
R.
E.
Thomson.
1991.
Link
between
long­
term
variability
in
upwelling
and
fish
production
in
the
Northeast
Pacific
Ocean.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
48:
2296­
2306.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF).
1934.
Forty­
second
and
forty­
fifth
inclusive
annual
reports
of
the
State
Department
of
Fisheries
for
the
period
from
April
1,
1931­
March
31,
1935,
fiscal
years
of
1931
to
1934
inclusive.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish.,
78
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF).
1936.
Annual
bulletin.
Dep.
Fish.,
State
of
Washington.
No.
36,
31
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF).
1937.
Annual
bulletin.
Dep.
Fish.,
State
of
Washington.
No.
37,
37
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF).
1938.
Annual
bulletin.
Dep.
Fish.,
State
of
Washington.
No.
39,
39
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF).
1939.
Annual
bulletin.
Dep.
Fish.,
State
of
Washington.
No.
39,
39
p.
312
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF).
1940.
Annual
bulletin.
Dep.
Fish.,
State
of
Washington.
No.
40,
51
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF).
1991.
Revised
stock
transfer
guidlines.
Memo,
28
May
1991,
Salmon
Culture
Division
Olympia,
WA,
10
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF),
Washington
Department
of
Game,
and
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Fisheries.
1938.
Report
of
the
preliminary
investigations
into
the
possible
methods
of
preserve
in
the
Columbia
River
salmon
and
steelhead
at
the
Grand
Coulee
Dam.
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries,
121
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF),
Washington
Department
of
Wildlife
(
WDW),
and
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes
(
WWTIT).
1993.
1992
Washington
State
salmon
and
steelhead
stock
inventory
(
SASSI).
Wash.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
Olympia,
212
p.
+
5
regional
volumes.
(
Available
from
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Game
(
WDFG).
1902.
Thirteenth
annual
report
of
the
State
Fish
Commission
to
the
Governor
of
the
State
of
Washington.
Dep.
Fish.
Game,
State
of
Washington,
92
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Game
(
WDFG).
1914.
Twenty­
second
and
twentythird
annual
reports
of
the
State
Fish
Commission
to
the
Governor
of
the
State
of
Washington
from
April
1,
1911
to
March
31,
1913.
Dep.
Fish.
Game,
State
of
Washington,
124
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Game
(
WDFG).
1916.
Twenty­
fourth
and
twenty­
fifth
annual
reports
of
the
State
Fish
Commission
to
the
Governor
of
the
State
of
Washington
from
April
1,
1913
to
March
31,
1915.
Dep.
Fish.
Game,
State
of
Washington,
171
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Game
(
WDFG).
1917.
Twenty­
Sixth
and
twentyseventh
annual
reports
to
the
State
Fisheries
Commissioners,
Olympia.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Game
(
WDFG).
1920.
Twenty­
eighth
and
twenty­
ninth
annual
reports
of
the
State
Fish
Commission
to
the
Governor
of
the
State
of
Washington
from
April
1,
1917
to
March
31,
1919.
Dep.
Fish.
Game,
State
of
Washington,
171
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Game
(
WDFG).
1921.
Thirtieth
and
thirty­
first
annual
reports
of
the
State
Fish
Commission
to
the
Governor
of
the
State
of
Washington
from
April
1,
1919
to
March
31,
1921.
Dep.
Fish.
Game,
State
of
Washington,
302
p.
313
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Game
(
WDFG).
1925.
Thirty­
fourth
and
thirty­
fifth
annual
reports
of
the
State
Fish
Commission
to
the
Governor
of
the
State
of
Washington
from
April
1,
1923
to
March
31,
1925.
Dep.
Fish.
Game,
State
of
Washington,
140
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Game
(
WDFG).
1928.
Thirty­
sixth
and
thirty­
seventh
annual
reports
of
the
State
Fish
Commission
to
the
Governor
of
the
State
of
Washington
from
April
1,
1925
to
March
31,
1927.
Fiscal
years
of
1925
and
1926.
Dep.
Fish.
Game,
State
of
Washington,
213
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW).
1995.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
B.
Tweit.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW).
1996.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
on
May
1996.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW).
1997a.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
B.
Crawford,
28
January
1997,
34
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW).
1997b.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
C.
Smith,
January,
March,
and
September
1997.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW).
1997c.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
C.
Busack,
February
1997.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW).
1997d.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
A.
Blakley,
May,
June,
and
September
1997.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW).
1997e.
Electronic
data
and
documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
R.
314
Woodard,
5
May
and
26
September
1997.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW).
1997f.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
R.
Brix,
18
September
1997.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW),
and
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
ODFW).
1994.
Status
report:
Columbia
River
fish
runs
and
fisheries
1938­
1993.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
Oreg.
Dep.
Fish
and
Wildl.,
271
p.

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW),
Puyallup
Indian
Tribe,
and
Muckleshoot
Indian
Tribe.
1996.
Recovery
plan
for
White
River
spring
chinook
salmon.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish
Wildl.,
81
p.
(
Available
from
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)

Wehrhahn,
C.
F.,
and
R.
Powell.
1987.
Electrophoretic
variation,
regional
differences,
and
gene
flow
in
the
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
of
southern
British
Columbia.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
44:
822­
831.

Weitkamp,
L.
A.,
T.
C.
Wainwright,
G.
J.
Bryant,
G.
B.
Milner,
D.
J.
Teel,
R.
G.
Kope,
and
R.
S.
Waples.
1995.
Status
review
of
coho
salmon
from
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
24,
258
p.
(
Available
from
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center,
Coastal
Zone
and
Estuarine
Studies
Division,
2725
Montlake
Blvd.
E.,
Seattle,
WA
98112­
2097.)

Wertheimer,
A.
C.,
and
J.
R.
Winton.
1982.
Differences
in
susceptibility
among
three
stocks
of
chinook
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha,
to
two
isolates
of
infectious
hematopoietic
necrosis
virus.
NMFS
Tech.
Rep.
22,
11
p.
(
Available
from
Northwest
and
Alaska
Fisheries
Center
Auke
Bay
Laboratory,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
NOAA,
P.
O.
Box
155,
Auke
Bay,
AK,
99821.)

Wilderness
Society.
1993.
The
living
landscape,
Vol.
2:
Pacific
salmon
and
federal
lands.
Bolle
Center
for
Forest
Ecosystem
Management,
Washington,
DC,
87
p.
(
Available
from
The
Wilderness
Society,
900
Seventeenth
Street,
N.
W.,
Washington,
DC
20406­
2596.)

Williams,
R.
W.,
R.
M.
Laramie,
and
J.
J.
Ames.
1975.
A
catalog
of
Washington
streams
and
salmon
utilization.
Volume
1.
Puget
Sound
Region.
Wash.
Dep.
Fish.
(
Available
from
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
600
Capitol
Way
N.,
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091.)
315
Willis,
C.
F.,
S.
P.
Cramer,
D.
Cramer,
M.
Smith,
T.
Downey,
and
R.
Montagne.
1995.
Status
of
Willamette
River
spring
chinook
salmon
in
regards
to
the
Federal
Endangered
Species
Act.
Part
1.
Portland
General
Electric
Company
and
Eugene
Water
and
Electric
Board,
74
p.
(
Available
from
S.
P.
Cramer
&
Associates,
Inc.
300
S.
E.
Arrow
Creek
Lane,
Gesham,
OR
97080.)

Wilson,
G.
M.,
W.
K.
Thomas,
and
A.
T.
Beckenbach.
1987.
Mitochondrial
DNA
analysis
of
Pacific
Northwest
Populations
of
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
44:
1301­
1305.

Winans,
G.
A.
1989.
Genetic
variability
in
chinook
salmon
stocks
from
the
Columbia
River
Basin.
N.
Am.
J.
Fish.
Manage.
9:
47­
52.

Winans,
G.
A.,
P.
B.
Aebersold,
S.
Urawa,
and
N.
V.
Varnavskaya.
1994.
Determining
continent
of
origin
of
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
using
genetic
stock
identification
techniques:
Status
of
allozyme
baseline
in
Asia.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
51
(
Suppl.
1):
96­
113.

Winans,
G.
A.,
P.
B.
Aebersold,
and
R.
S.
Waples.
1996.
Allozyme
variability
of
Oncorhynchus
nerka
in
the
Pacific
Northwest,
with
special
consideration
to
populations
of
Redfish
Lake,
Idaho.
Trans.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
125:
645­
663.

Winton,
J.,
and
R.
Hilborn.
1994.
Lessons
from
supplementation
of
chinook
salmon
in
British
Columbia.
N.
Amer.
J.
Fish.
Man.
14:
1­
14.

Withler,
R.
E.
1988.
Genetic
consequences
of
fertilizing
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
eggs
with
pooled
milt.
Aquaculture
68:
15­
25.

Withler,
R.
E.,
W.
C.
Clarke,
B.
E.
Ridell,
and
H.
Kreiberg.
1987.
Genetic
variation
in
freshwater
survival
and
growth
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha).
Aquaculture
64:
85­
96.

Wixom,
L.
H.,
J.
Pisciotto,
and
C.
Lake.
1995.
Final
performance
report
as
required
by
Federal
Aid
in
Sport
Fish
Restoration
Act,
Inland
and
Anadromous
Sport
Fish
Management
and
Research.
Federal
Aid
Project
F­
51­
R.
Project
27.
Sacramento
River
Systems
Sport
Fish
Catch,
76
p.

Wood,
C.,
B.
Riddell,
B.
T.
Rutherford,
and
R.
E.
Withler.
1994.
Biochemical
genetic
survey
of
sockeye
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
nerka)
in
Canada.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
51(
Suppl.
1):
114­
131.

Yakama
Indian
Nation
(
YIN).
1996.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
D.
Fast,
June
1996.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
316
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Yip,
G.
M.
1994.
Genetic
differentiation
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
runs
at
Trinity
River
Hatchery,
California.
M.
S.
Thesis,
Humboldt
State
Univ.,
Eureka,
CA.

Yip,
G.
M.,
T.
J.
Hassler,
S.
Riley,
E.
J.
Loudenslager.
1996.
Genetic
variation,
differentiation,
and
relationships
of
spring­
and
fall­
run
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
at
Trinity
River
Hatchery,
California.
Final
Report
RWO
30,
National
Biological
Service,
California
Cooperative
Fishery
Research
Unit,
Eureka,
California.

Yoshiyama,
R.
M.,
E.
R.
Gerstung,
F.
W.
Fisher,
and
P.
B.
Moyle.
1996.
Historical
and
present
distribution
of
chinook
salmon
in
the
Central
Valley
drainage
of
California.
Dep.
Wildl.,
Fish,
and
Conservation
Biology,
54
p.
(
Available
from
Department
of
Wildlife,
Fish,
and
Conservation
Biology,
University
of
California,
Davis,
CA
95616.)

Young,
D.
A.
1987.
Juvenile
chinook
salmon
abundance,
growth,
production,
and
food
habits
in
the
Mattole
River
lagoon,
California.
M.
S.
Thesis,
Humboldt
State
University,
Arcata,
CA,
73
p.

Young,
F.
R.,
and
W.
L.
Robinson.
1974.
Age,
size,
and
sex
of
Columbia
River
chinook,
1960­
1969.
Fish
Comm.
Oreg.,
Data
Report
Series
4,
31
p.

Yurok
Tribal
Fisheries
Program
(
YTFP).
1997a.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
Yurok
Tribal
Fisheries
Program,
31
January
1997,
27
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Yurok
Tribal
Fisheries
Program
(
YTFP).
1997b.
Documents
submitted
to
the
ESA
Administrative
Record
for
west
coast
chinook
salmon
by
D.
Gale,
17
and
19
September
1997,
11
p.
(
Available
from
Environmental
and
Technical
Services
Division,
Natl.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.,
525
N.
E.
Oregon
Street,
Suite
500,
Portland,
OR
97232.)

Zinn,
J.
L.,
K.
A.
Johnson,
J.
E.
Sanders,
and
J.
L.
Fryer.
1977.
Susceptibiility
of
salmonid
species
and
hatchery
stocks
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
infections
by
Ceratomyxa
shasta.
J.
Fish.
Res.
Board
Can.
34:
933­
936.
317
318
APPENDIX
A:

AGE
AT
SMOLTIFICATION
319
320
Appendix
A:
Comparative
percentages
of
returning
adults
that
emigrated
to
the
ocean
as
subyearlings,
yearlings,
and
2­
year­
olds.
Run
designations
are
Sp­
spring,
Su­
summer,
F­
fall,
and
W­
winter.
"
Time"
designates
the
timing
of
outmigration.
Age
at
smoltification
is
based
on
growth
patterns
from
scales
of
returning
adults.
Under
"
Age",
numbers
represent
percent
adults
that
emigrated
as
subyearlings
(
0)
and
yearlings
(
1),
and
2­
year­
old
smolts
(
2),
respectively.
An
"
X"
under
"
Age"
designates
the
prevalent
age
at
smoltification.
"
N"
designates
the
number
of
individuals
sampled
to
estimate
population
smolt
profile,
and
"
Year"
designates
the
year(
s)
the
samples
were
collected.

Age
at
Smoltification
River
Run
Time
0
1
2
N
Year
Reference
Asia
Kamchatka
R.
Su
X
Smirnov
1975
Paratunka
R.
Su
X
Smirnov
1975
Bol'shaya
R.
Su
X
Smirnov
1975
Alaskan
Coast
Kenai
R.
Sp/
Su
0
97
3
313
1989­
91
Roni
1992
Farragut
R.
Sp/
Su
3
96
1
152
1983­
85
Halupka
et
al.
1993
Situk
R.
Sp/
Su
July/
Aug
98
2
0
250
1988­
89
Johnson
et
al.
1992b
Yukon
River
Yukon
R.
Su
0
100
0
1920
Gilbert
1922
Yukon
R.
Su
0
100
0
1987
Beacham
et
al.
1989
Big
Salmon
R.
Su
0
96
4
1985­
87
Beacham
et
al.
1989
Nisutlin
R.
Su
0
95
5
1986­
87
Beacham
et
al.
1989
Whitehorse
R.
Su
0
17
83
1986­
87
Beacham
et
al.
1989
British
Columbian
Coast
Nass
R.
Su
May/
June
58
42
0
1964­
66
Godfrey
1968
Healey
1983
Kitsumkalum
R.
Su
May
1
99
0
73
1989­
91
Roni
1992
Skeena
R.
Su
52
48
0
1964­
66
Godfrey
1968
Healey
1983
Taku
R.
Su
May
<
1
99
0
2527
1984­
91
Meehan
and
Sniff
1962,
Halupka
et
al.
1993
Kitimat
R.
Su
Apr
88
12
0
Healey
1983,
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
Atnarko
R.
Su
June
86
14
0
Healey
1982
Wannock
R.
Su
June
99
1
0
97
1989­
91
Roni
1992
Qualicum
R.
Su
Mar/
Apr
100
0
0
Healey
1983,
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
Quinsam
R.
Su
99
1
0
Healey
1982
Nanaimo
R.
Su
95
5
0
Healey
1983
East
Coast
V.
I.
Su
100
0
0
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
Fraser
River
Appendix
A
(
Cont.).
321
Age
at
Smoltification
River
Run
Time
0
1
2
N
Year
Reference
Bowron
R.
Su
May
136
1980
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
Chilcotin
R.
Su
Bradford
1994
Cottonwood
R.
Su
Bradford
1994
Upper
Fraser
R.
Su
Bradford
1994
Holmes
R.
Su
Apr
Shepherd
et
al.
1986,
Bradford
1994
McGregor
R.
Su
Bradford
1994
Nechako
R.
Early
Su
Bradford
1994
Quesnel
R.
Su
Aug
380
1980
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
Slim
R.
Su
Apr
Bradford
1994
Torpy
R.
Su
May
54
1981
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
West
R.
Su
Bradford
1994
Willow
R.
Su
May
Bradford
1994
N.
F.
Thompson
R.
Su
Apr
4
96
0
400
1981
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
S.
F.
Thompson
R.
Mid
Su
34
67
0
817
1981
Fraser
et
al.
1982,
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
Lower
Fraser
R.
Su
May
X
Fraser
et
al.
1982
Harrison
R.
Late
Su
Fraser
et
al.
1982
Puget
Sound
N.
F.
Nooksack
R.
Su/
Sp
91
9
0
1425
1986­
91
WDFW
1995
S.
F.
Nooksack
R.
Su/
Sp
31
69
0
81
1993­
94
WDFW
1995
S.
F.
Nooksack
R.
Su/
Sp
84
16
0
73
NTG
(
unpubl.)
Upper
Skagit
R.
Su
X
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Seiler
et
al.
1995
Suiattle
R.
Sp
May/
June
18­
53
47­
82
0
Williams
et
al.
1975,
Orrell
1976,
WDF
et
al.
1993
Upper
Cascade
R.
Sp
May/
June
WDF
et
al.
1993
Sauk
R.
Sp
May/
June
55
45
0
142
WDF
1995
Stillaguamish
R.
Su/
F
Mar/
June
97
3
0
484
1980­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
Snohomish
R.
Su
(
Sp?)
Apr/
July
(
May/
June)
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Williams
et
al.
1975,
Beauchamp
et
al.
1987
Wallace
R.
Su/
F
Apr/
July
Williams
et
al.
1975,
WDF
et
al.
1993
Snohomish/
Snoqualmie
R.
F
Apr/
July
67
33
0
97
1993­
94
Williams
et
al.
1975,
WDFW
1995
Bridal
Veil
Cr.
F
Apr/
July
Williams
et
al.
1975,
WDF
et
al.
1993
Appendix
A
(
Cont.).
322
Age
at
Smoltification
River
Run
Time
0
1
2
N
Year
Reference
Cedar
R.
Su/
F
Mar/
July
Williams
et
al.
1975,
WDF
et
al.
1993
Issaquah
Cr.
Su/
F
Mar/
July
99
<
1
0
1518
1990­
93
Williams
et
al.
1975,
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDF
1995
White
R.
Sp
80
20
0
Dunston
1955,
WDF
et
al.
1993
White
R.
Su/
F
Feb/
Aug
Williams
et
al.
1975,
WDF
et
al.
1993
Puyallup
R.
F
97
3
0
100
WDF
et
al.
1993
Nisqually
R.
Su/
F
Feb/
June
99
1
0
508
Williams
et
al.
1975
South
Sound
Su/
F
Feb/
July
99
<
1
0
2602
WDFW
1995
Hood
Canal
Skokomish
R.
Su/
F
May/
June
98
2
0
159
Williams
et
al.
1975
San
Juan
de
Fuca
Hoko
R.
F
Mar/
Aug
100
0
0
1415
Williams
et
al.
1975
Dungeness
R.
Su/
Sp
Summer/
Fall
>
95
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Smith
and
Sele
1995a
Dungeness
R.
Sp
?
98
2
0
117
1986­
94
WDFW
1995
Elwha
R.
Su/
Fa
17­
55
45­
83
0
2480
1988­
91
Roni
1992
Washington
Coast
Ozette
R.
F
Mar/
Aug
Williams
et
al.
1975
Quillayute
R.(
gen)
Sp
44
56
0
4410
1989­
94
QTNR
1995
Quillayute
R.(
gen)
Su
73
27
0
1272
1989­
94
QTNR
1995
Quillayute
R.(
gen)
F
Mar/
Aug
92
8
0
1723
1984­
94
QTNR
1995
Hoh
R.
F
Mar/
Aug
X
Williams
et
al.
1975
Queets
R.
F
Mar/
Aug
99
1
0
1977­
93
Williams
et
al.
1975,
QFD
1995
Quinault
R.
Su/
Sp
96
4
0
1977­
94
QFD
1995
Quinault
R.
F
Mar/
Aug
99
1
0
1984­
94
Williams
et
al.
1975,
QFD
1995
Chehalis
R.
Sp
96
4
0
1987
QFD
1995
Humtulips
R.
F
Apr/
June
99
1
0
1976­
93
Williams
et
al.
1975
Chehalis
R.
F
Apr/
June
1983­
93
Williams
et
al.
1975,
QFD
1995
Lower
Columbia
River
Cowlitz
R.
Sp
X
1978­
84
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Kalama
R.
Sp
4
96
0
540
1982­
86
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Lewis
R.
Sp
12
88
0
373
1982­
86
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Appendix
A
(
Cont.).
323
Age
at
Smoltification
River
Run
Time
0
1
2
N
Year
Reference
Wind
R./
Carson
NFH
Sp
Spring
0
100
0
4389
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Klickitat
R.
Sp
Spring
X
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Lewis
&
Clark
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
100
0
0
39
1990­
91
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Klaskanine
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
97
3
0
29
1988
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Bear
Cr.
F
Summer/
Fall
100
0
0
188
1987­
91
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Big
Cr.
F
Summer/
Fall
99
<
1
0
334
1987­
91
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Gnat
Cr.
F
Summer/
Fall
100
0
0
93
1987­
91
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Plympton
Cr.
F
Summer/
Fall
100
0
0
192
1987­
91
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Grays
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
99
1
0
2425
1981­
84
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Elochoman
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
100
0
0
272
1981­
84
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Abernathy
Cr.
F
Summer/
Fall
>
90
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Cowlitz
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
98
2
0
1487
1981­
84
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Coweeman
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
100
0
0
118
1981­
84
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
S.
Fork
Toutle
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
>
90
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
N.
Fork
Toutle
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
>
90
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Kalama
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
94
6
0
1355
1981­
84
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Lewis
R.
F
Aug
(
Estuary)
97
3
0
2560
1981­
84
Hymer
et
al.
1992a,
Howell
et
al.
1985,
WDFW
1995
E.
Fork
Lewis
R.
F
Aug
(
Estuary)
99
1
0
308
1981­
88
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Washougal
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
99
<
1
0
500
1981­
84
WDF
et
al.
1991
Sandy
R.
F
(
late)
27
73
0
11
1980
Howell
et
al.
1985
White
Salmon
R.
(
Tule)
F
100
0
0
45
1979­
83
Hymer
et
al.
1992C
Willamette
River
Clackamas
R.
Sp
Summer/
Fall
X
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Santiam
R.
Sp
0
100
0
12863
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Willamette
R.
Sp
15
85
0
590
1946­
51
Mattson
1963,
Wagner
et
al.
1969,
Howell
et
al.
1985
Clackamas
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
X
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Mollalla
R.
F
Summer
X
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Up.
Willamette
R.
F
Summer/
Fall
100
0
0
1983­
86
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Upper
Columbia
River
Deschutes
R.
Sp
May
0
100
0
738
1978­
87
Lindsay
et
al.
1982,
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Lindsay
et
al.
1989
Appendix
A
(
Cont.).
324
Age
at
Smoltification
River
Run
Time
0
1
2
N
Year
Reference
Deschutes
R.
Sp
0
100
0
194
1989
Fryer
and
Schwartzberg
1990
N.
F.
John
Day
R.
Sp
Apr/
Aug
0
100
0
232
1978­
88
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Olsen
et
al.
1992,
Olsen
et
al.
1994c
M.
F.
John
Day
R.
Sp
Apr/
Aug
0
100
0
448
1978­
88
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Olsen
et
al.
1992,
Olsen
1994c
Upper
Yakima
R.
Sp
Apr
0
100
0
589
1989­
92
Howell
et
al.
1985,
WDFW
1995
Naches
R.
Sp
Apr
0
100
0
729
1989­
93
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
American
R.
Sp
Apr/
May
0
100
0
443
1989­
93
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Chiwawa
R.
Sp
May
0
100
0
287
1986­
93
French
and
Wahle
1959,
Chapman
et
al.
1995,
WDFW
1995
Nason
Cr.
Sp
0
100
0
269
1986­
93
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Little
Wenatchee
R.
Sp
May
0
100
0
20
1986­
93
French
and
Wahle
1959,
Chapman
et
al.
1995,
WDFW
1995
Wenatchee
R.
Sp
0
100
0
180
1989
Fryer
and
Schwartzberg
1990
White
R.
Sp
May
0
100
0
207
1986­
93
French
and
Wahle
1959,
Chapman
et
al.
1995,
WDFW
1995
Entiat
R.
Sp
May
0
100
0
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Methow
R.
Sp
May
0
100
0
20
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Twisp
R.
Sp
May
0
100
0
29
1986­
93
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Chewuch
R.
Sp
0
100
0
69
1986­
93
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Lost
R.
Sp
0
100
0
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Wenatchee
R.
Su
June­
Oct
88
12
0
1162
Chapman
et
al.
1994,
Peven
and
Truscott
1995
Appendix
A
(
Cont.).
325
Age
at
Smoltification
River
Run
Time
0
1
2
N
Year
Reference
Wenatchee
R.
Su
66
34
0
65
1990
Fryer
and
Schwartzberg
1993
Methow
R.
Su
Throughout
year
71
29
0
137
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
French
and
Wahle
1959,
Chapman
et
al.
1994
Similkameen
R.
Su
58
42
0
227
Chapman
et
al.
1994
Deschutes
R.
F
June
96
4
0
2644
Jonasson
and
Lindsay
1988
Yakima
R.
(
Bright)
F
95
5
0
300
1989­
91
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
WDFW
1995
Marion
Drain­
Yakima
R.
F
100
0
0
319
1989­
93
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
WDFW
1995
Hanford
Reach
F
June/
July
97
3
0
5601
1981­
88
Hymer
et
al.
1992b
Snake
River
Tucannon
R.
Sp
Apr/
May
0
100
0
487
1998­
94
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
WDFW
1995
M.
S.
Snake
R.
Sp
May
Healey
1991
Grande
Ronde
R.
Sp
May/
June
0
100
0
Olsen
et
al.
1992,
Olsen
et
al.
1994b
Lookingglass
Cr.
Sp
May/
June
0
100
0
216
1989
Fryer
and
Schwartzberg
1990,
Olsen
et
al.
1992,
Olsen
et
al.
1994b
Imnaha
R.
Sp
Apr/
May
0
100
0
105
1989
Fryer
and
Schwartzberg
1990,
Olsen
et
al.
1992,
Olsen
et
al.
1994c
Rapid
R.
Sp
May
X
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Salmon
R.
Sp
Spring
0
100
0
Bjornn
et
al.
1964
M.
F.
Salmon
R.
Sp
Spring
0
100
0
658
1961­
62
Keifer
et
al.
1992
S.
F.
Salmon
R.
Sp
Spring
0
100
0
361
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Rapid
R.
Su
Spring
0
100
0
437
196569
Howell
et
al.
1985
S.
F.
Salmon
R.
Su
0
100
0
56
1990
Fryer
and
Schwartzberg
1993
S.
F.
Salmon
R.
Su
0
100
0
363
1961­
62
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Snake
R.
F
June/
July
X
Chapman
et
al.
1991,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b
Snake
R.
F
Summer
X
1991­
92
Connor
et
al.
1994
Oregon
Coast
Rogue
R.
Sp
93
7
0
1974­
86
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Appendix
A
(
Cont.).
326
Age
at
Smoltification
River
Run
Time
0
1
2
N
Year
Reference
Trask
R.
Sp
X
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Umpqua
R.
Sp
Fall/
Spring
60
40
0
1986
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Alsea
R.
F
June/
Sept.
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Chetco
R.
F
100
0
0
30
1970
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Coos
R.
F
100
0
0
168
1980
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Coquille
R.
F
June
99
1
0
759
1978­
86
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Elk
R.
F/
W
July
97
3
0
5414
1968­
85
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Hunter
Cr.
F
X
1973­
74
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Miami
R.
F
X
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Nehalem
R.
Su/
F
Fall
99
1
0
127
1985­
86
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Nestucca
R.
F
94
6
0
80
1978­
87
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Nestucca
R.
Early
F
100
0
0
87
1957­
58
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Rogue
R.
F
July­
Sept.
87
13
0
1974­
86
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
Schlutcher
and
Lichatowich
1977
Salmon
R.
F
July/
Aug.
(
Estuary)
100
0
0
812
1975­
77
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Siletz
R.
F
99
1
0
235
1986
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Siuslaw
R.
F
100
0
0
283
1980­
86
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Sixes
R.
F
June/
July
97
3
0
378
1965,
1985
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
Reimers
1971
Tillamook
R.
F
X
1980­
85
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Trask
R.
F
97
3
0
76
1986
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Umpqua
R.
F
June/
July
X
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Wilson
R.
F
99
1
0
233
1982­
86
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Appendix
A
(
Cont.).
327
Age
at
Smoltification
River
Run
Time
0
1
2
N
Year
Reference
Yaquina
R.
F
Sp/
Su
100
0
0
374
1981­
82
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Klamath
River
Klamath
R.
F
Late
Summer/
Fall
87
13
0
5591
1919­
23
Snyder
1931
Klamath
R.
Sp
83
17
0
35
1920
Snyder
1931
S.
F.
Trinity
Sp
90
10
0
69
1992
Dean
1995
Central
Valley
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
R.
All
89
11
0
1747
1919,
1921
Clark
1929
Sacramento
R.
W
Sept­
Dec
X
Gard
1995
Sacramento
R.
Sp
Dec­
Mar
X
Gard
1995
Up.
Sacramento
R.
Sp
Spring
87
13
0
68
1939
Calkins
et
al.
1940
Sacramento
R.
Early
F
Dec­
June
X
Clark
1929,
Kjelson
et
al.
1982,
Gard
1995
Up.
Sacramento
R.
F
Feb­
June
&
Sept/
Dec.
90
10
0
857
1939
Calkins
et
al.
1940
329
APPENDIX
B:

AGE
AT
MATURATION
Appendix
B.
Comparative
percentages
of
age
at
maturation
for
selected
West
Coast
stocks
of
chinook
salmon.
Stocks
are
generally
arranged
from
north
to
south
by
geographic
area.
Run
designations
are
Sp­
spring,
Su­
summer,
and
F­
fall,
and
W­
winter.
Numbers
in
bold
indicate
the
most
common
age­
class.
Most
age
determinations
are
based
on
scale
analysis.
Where
discrepancies
in
the
age
structure
reported
by
different
sources
were
observed,
average
values
were
calculated.

Age
at
maturation
River
Run
2
3
4
5
6+
Year
Reference
Alaska
Coast
Kuskokwim
Sp/
Su
1
20
15
59/
4
(
6/
7+)
1983
Huttunen
1985
Kenai
R.
Early
Su
<
1
4
13
76
7
Burger
et
al.
1985,
Roni
1992
Copper
R.
Sp/
Su
<
1
6
27
56
11
1990
Moffitt
et
al.
1994
Situk
R.
Sp/
Su
19
22
59
Johnson
et
al.
1992a,
Olsen
1992
Farragut
R.
6
11
34
41
6
1983­
85
Halupka
et
al.
1993
Yukon
River
Basin
Yukon
R.
<
1
23
41
32/
4
(
6/
7)
1982
McBride
et
al.
1983
Upper
Yukon
R.
Su
78/
22
(
6/
7)
1987
Gilbert
1922,
Beacham
et
al.
1989,
Healey
1991
Big
Salmon
R.
Su
3
24
56/
18
(
6/
7)
1985­
87
Beacham
et
al.
1989,
Healey
1991,
Schneirderhan
1993
Nisutlin
R.
Su
3
22/
75
(
6/
7)
1986
Beacham
et
al.
1989,
Schneirderhan
1993
Whitehorse
R.
Su
8
27
57/
9
(
6/
7)
1986­
87
Beacham
et
al.
1989,
Schneirderhan
1993
British
Columbia
Coast
Kitsumkalum
R.
Su
3
23
58
16
1991
Hancock
et
al.
1983a,
Roni
1992
Skeena
R.
Su
4
7
35
34
20
Healey
1982,
Hancock
et
al.
1983b,
Healey
1991
Stikine
R.
Su
Kissner
1982
Taku
R.
Su
11
27
37
24
2
Kissner
1982
Kitimat
R.
Su
35
49
16
Healey
1982
Bella­
Coola/
Atnarko
R.
Su
1
8
50
39
2
Manzon
and
Marshall
1980,
Healey
1982,
Healey
1991
Wannock
R.
Su
6
22
72
1991
Britton
and
Marshall
1980,
Roni
1992
Qualicum
R.
Su
45
25
29
1
Healey
1982,
Lister
1990
Appendix
B
(
Continued).

River
Run
2
3
4
5
6+
Year
Reference
Robertson
Cr.
Su
38
25
16
21
Healey
1982,
Lister
1990
Quinsam
R.
Su
1
5
37
46
11
Healey
1982
Fraser
River
Basin
Bowron
R.
Su
11
89
1979­
91
Shepherd
et
al.
1986,
Bradford
1994
Chilko
R.
Early
Su
12
48
38
1979­
91
Healey
1982,
Bradford
1994
Nechako
R.
Su
9
40
51
1974­
91
Shepherd
et
al.
1986,
Bradford
1994
Quesnel
R.
Su
8
17
70
5
1974­
91
Shepherd
et
al.
1986,
Bradford
1994
Slim
R.
Su
28
72
1974­
91
Shepherd
et
al.
1986,
Bradford
1994
Torpy
R.
Su
14
84
2
1974­
91
Shepherd
et
al.
1986,
Bradford
1994
Willow
R.
Su
2
18
79
2
1974­
91
Shepherd
et
al.
1986,
Bradford
1994
SF
Thompson
R.
Su
<
1
1
51
44
4
Fraser
et
al.
1982,
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
Harrison
R.
Su
24
74
2
1982
Fraser
et
al.
1982,
Schubert
et
al.
1993
Puget
Sound
Nooksack
R.
Sp
5
34
51
9
<
1
1980­
94
WDFW
1995
NF
Nooksack
R.
Sp
<
1
4
75
20
1986­
94
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
SF
Nooksack
R.
Sp
1
10
61
28
1993­
94
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
Suiattle
R.
Sp
1
8
43
47
35
1986­
90
Orrell
1976,
WDF
et
al
1993,
WDFW
1995
Stillaguamish
R.
Su
4
30
59
7
1980­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
Skagit
R.
(
gen)
F/
Su/
Sp
10
73
2
1
1965­
72
Orrell
1976
Snoqualmie
R.
F
6
20
46
28
1993­
94
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
Puyallup
R.
F
2
16
76
6
1992­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
Issaquah
Cr.
Su/
F
2
47
48
3
1990­
93
WDF
et
al
1993
Green
R.
Su/
F
1
26
62
11
<
1
1984­
94
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
Puyallup/
White
R.
Sp(?)
9
55
36
1993
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
Nisqually
R.
Su/
F
24
45
31
1
1992­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
Deschutes
R.
Su/
F
3
32
56
5
<
1
1990­
93
WDFW
1995
South
Sound
Su/
F
7
46
42
4
1992­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
Skokomish
R.
Su/
F
20
33
43
4
<
1
1992­
94
PNPTC
1995,
WDFW
1995
Appendix
B
(
Continued).

River
Run
2
3
4
5
6+
Year
Reference
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Dungeness
R.
Sp
10
63
25
2
1986­
94
PNPTC
1995,
WDFW
1995
Elwha
R.
Su/
F
1
13
57
29
1
1992­
94
WDF
et
al.
1993,
PNPTC
1995,
WDFW
1995
Hoko
R.
F
2
9
43
40
7
1984­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993,
WDFW
1995
Washington
Coast
Quillayute
R.
(
gen)
Sp
6
35
50
10
1987­
94
QTNR
1995
Hoh
R.
Sp/
Su
6
25
54
15
1974­
94
WDF
et
al.
1993,
HIT
1995
Queets
R.
Sp/
Su
<
1
14
21
49
16
1974­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993,
QNTR
1995
Quillayute
R.
(
gen)
Su
2
28
52
18
1989­
94
QNTR
1995
Quillayute
R.
F
1
2
14
62
21
1984­
89
QNTR
1995
Queets
R.
F
<
1
17
30
43
10
1977­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993,
QNTR
1995
Quinault
R.
Sp/
Su
8
25
52
14
1977­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993,
QNTR
1995
Quinault
R.
F
<
1
17
40
35
8
1975­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993,
QNTR
1995
Humptulips
R.
F
<
1
13
25
46
16
1976­
93
QNTR
1995
Humptulips
R.
F
7
20
31
39
8
1970­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993
Chehalis
R.
F
<
1
17
24
50
10
1977­
93
QNTR
1995
Chehalis
R.
F
7
21
31
39
7
1970­
93
WDF
et
al.
1993
Chehalis
R.
F
2
16
27
45
9
1970­
94
QNTR
1995
John­
Elk
R.
F
WDF
et
al.
1993
Willapa
Bay
F
1
21
41
34
4
1970­
94
WDF
et
al.
1993
Lower
Columbia
River
Cowlitz
R.
Sp
32
35
33
1982
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Schreck
et
al.
1986,
WDF
et
al.
1993
Grays
R.
F
5
39
54
1
1978­
83
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a,
WDF
et
al.
1993
Elochoman
R.
F
2
47
49
1
1978­
83
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a,
WDF
et
Appendix
B
(
Continued).

River
Run
2
3
4
5
6+
Year
Reference
al.
1993
Cowlitz
R.
F
14
28
46
12
1982
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Kalama
R.
F
34
55
11
1982
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Lewis
R.
F
14
16
41
28
2
1978­
88
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Schreck
et
al.
1986,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a,
WDFW
1995
E.
F.
Lewis
R.
F
22
19
45
15
<
1
1970­
1984
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Lewis
&
Clark
R.
F
7
28
63
2
1985
Howell
et
al
1985,
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Big
Cr.
F
10
76
14
1985
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Gnat
Cr.
F
9
21
59
12
1985
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Plympton
Cr.
F
19
79
2
1985
Howell
et
al.
1985
Willamette
River
Clackamas
R.
Sp
5
67
29
<
1
1978­
87
Galbreath
1965,
Howell
et
al.
1985
Upper
Willamette
R.
F
4
60
34
1
1982
Howell
et
al.
1985
N.
Santiam
R.
Sp
4
54
42
1964­
69
Galbreath
1965,
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Olsen
et
al.
1992
M.
F.
Willamette
R.
Sp
2
56
41
1
1978­
87
Galbreath
1965,
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Bennett
1988
Mid­
Columbia
River
Hood
River
BPH
F
23
67
10
1981­
82
Howell
et
al.
1985
Wind/
L.
White
Salmon
R.
Sp
5
54
41
<
1
1971­
84
Howell
et
al
1985,
Schreck
et
al
1986,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Wind
R.
F
(
bright)
34
24
35
8
1970­
84
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Klickitat
R.
Sp
na
16
75
9
1980
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Klickitat
R.
F
(
tule)
5
32
45
22
1981­
82
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Deschutes
R.
Sp
3
57
43
1974­
82
Lindsay
et
al.
1989
Warm
Springs
R.
Sp
5
77
18
1975­
95
Olsen
1995
Deschutes
R.
Sp
2
86
12
1989
Fryer
and
Schwartzberg
1990
Deschutes
R.
F/
Su
??
34
30
32
5
<
1
1975­
80
Howell
et
al
1985,
Jonasson
and
Lindsay
1988
N.
F.
John
Day
R.
Sp
3
76
22
1978­
84
Burck
et
al.
1979
Appendix
B
(
Continued).

River
Run
2
3
4
5
6+
Year
Reference
M.
F.
John
Day
R.
Sp
2
81
17
1975­
80
Burck
et
al.
1979,
Olsen
1994d
M.
S.
John
Day
R.
Sp
4
77
19
Burck
et
al.
1979,
Olsen
1994d
Snake
River
Tucannon
R.
Sp
1
67
32
1992
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
WDFW
1995
Lyons
Ferry
Sp
2
67
32
<
1
1985­
94
WDFW
1995
Snake
R.
F
26
19
50
5
1985
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
WDF
et
al.
1993
M.
S.
Snake
R.
Sp
9
59
32
1983­
86
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Grande
Ronde
R.
Sp
4
79
17
<
1
1961­
76
Howell
et
al.
1985
Wenaha
R.
Sp
0
55
45
1986­
88
Chapman
et
al.
1991
Minam
R.
Sp
0
10
65
26
<
1
1961­
76
Howell
et
al.
1985
Imnaha
R.
Sp
5
40
50
1961­
76
Howell
et
al.
1985
M.
F.
Clearwater
R.
Sp
7
66
27
1969­
86
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Rapid
R.
Sp
11
71
19
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Schreck
et
al.
1986
Big
Sheep
Cr.
Sp
<
1
29
71
1986­
88
Chapman
et
al.
1991
M.
F.
Salmon
R.
Sp
3
38
59
1957­
62
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Salmon
R.
Sp
11
43
50
1957­
62
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Upper
Salmon
R.
Sp
18
29
54
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Little
Salmon
R.
Su
23
73
5
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Salmon
R.
Su
28
61
11
1980­
86
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Pahsimeroi
R.
Su
17
54
29
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Upper
Columbia
River
Basin
Upper
Yakima
R.
Sp
14
83
3
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b
Upper
Yakima
R.
Sp
3
94
3
<
1
1989­
92
WDFW
1995
Naches
R.
Sp
6
63
31
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b
Appendix
B
(
Continued).

Naches
R.
Sp
2
52
47
<
1
1989­
93
Major
and
Mighell
1969,
WDFW
1995
American
R.
Sp
2
24
74
<
1
Major
and
Mighell
1969,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
WDFW
1995
Yakima
R.
F
2
23
64
11
1991­
93
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
WDFW
1995
Marion
Drain
(
Yak.)
F
20
51
22
5
1989­
93
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
WDFW
1995
Hanford
Reach
F
16
27
35
22
1981­
82
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b
Chiwawa
R.
Sp
1
56
43
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Nason
Cr.
Sp
4
63
37
French
and
Wahle
1959,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Little
Wenatchee
R.
Sp
3
44
53
French
and
Wahle
1959,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Wenatchee
R.
Sp
5
76
19
1989
Fryer
and
Schwartzberg
1990
White
R.
Sp
<
1
63
37
French
and
Wahle
1959,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Wenatchee
R.
Su
<
1
8
34
46
3
French
and
Wahle
1959,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Wenatchee
R.
Su
<
1
3
44
54
<
1
1993
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Peven
and
Truscott
1995
Entiat
R.
Sp
1
72
28
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Methow
R.
Sp
4
59
38
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Methow
R.
Sp
7
62
32
USFS
1995
Twisp
R.
Sp
<
1
52
48
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Chewuch
R.
Sp
4
65
34
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Methow
R.
Su
9
27
57
5
Howell
et
al
1985,
Chapman
et
al.
1994
Okanogan
R.
Su
21
44
34
1
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Chapman
et
al.
1994
Oregon
Coast
Umpqua
R.
Sp
5
69
24
2
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Rogue
R.
Sp
8
25
40
23
4
1974­
75
Schluchter
and
Lichatowich
1977
Appendix
B
(
Continued).

Rogue
R.
Sp
8
18
65
9
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Nehalem
R.
Su/
F
2
12
26
57
4
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Wilson
R.
F
2
9
27
49
16
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Trask
R.
F
7
48
32
14
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Tillamook
R.
F
4
9
45
36
8
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Nestucca
R.
F
4
6
36
38
18
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Nestucca
R.
Early
(?)
5
9
38
48
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Salmon
R.
F
18
13
29
72
6
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Siletz
R.
F
1
8
27
48
20
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Yaquina
R.
F
7
21
48
25
1
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Alsea
R.
F
27
10
28
33
4
1977
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Siuslaw
R.
F
13
16
33
36
<
1
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Upper
Umpqua
R.
F
18
46
37
1
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Coquille
R.
F
18
18
44
24
1
1978­
80,
86
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Sixes
R.
F
6
15
47
32
2
Uremovich
1977,
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Elk
R.
F
26
17
40
17
2
Burck
and
Reimers
1978,
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Rogue
R.
F
27
27
40
6
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Pistol
R.
F
6
9
67
18
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Chetco
R.
F
22
19
26
33
1
1966,
86
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
California
Coast
Smith
R.
Late
F
17
30
41
11
1
1980­
95
Waldvogel
1995
Eel
R.
F
11
40
29
22
1920­
92
Grass
1995
Little
R.
F
8
53
34
5
1985­
95
Mosser
1995
Russian
R.
F
5
90
5
Gunter
1995
Klamath
River
Klamath
R.
Sp
13
82
5
1992
Tuss
et
al.
1987,
Craig
and
Fletcher
1994
Trinity
R.
Sp
20
35
39
8
1992­
93
Moffett
and
Smith
1950,
CDFG
1995
Appendix
B
(
Continued).

S.
F.
Trinity
R.
Sp
22
40
32
6
1992
Dean
1995
Klamath
R.
(
gen)
F
17
40
41
2
1978­
92
USFWS
1994
Klamath
R.
F
14
70
14
2
1919­
20,
1923
Snyder
1931
Klamath
R.
F
26
46
29
3
1979­
86
Tuss
et
al.
1987
Salmon
R.
F
18
46
34
1
<
1
1990­
93
USFWS
1995
Scott
R.
F
21
39
39
1
<
1
1977­
95
Leidy
and
Leidy
1984,
Pisano
1995,
USFWS
1995
Shasta
R.
F
20
39
40
1
<
1
1986­
94
CDFG
1995
Upper
Klamath
R.
F
6
17
70
6
1992
Leidy
and
Leidy
1984,
Craig
and
Fletcher
1994
Trinity
R.
F
20
45
33
2
1991­
94
Leidy
and
Leidy
1984,
USFWS
1995,
Craig
1995
SF
Trinity
R.
F
46
46
7
<
1
1984­
86
Sullivan
1989
California
Central
Valley
Central
Valley
All
1
16
47
33
2
1919,
21
Clark
1929
Sacramento
R.
W
1
91
8
Fisher
1994
Sacramento
R.
Sp
9
56
31
3
2
1939
Calkins
et
al.
1940
Sacramento
R.
Sp
2
87
11
Fisher
1994
Sacramento
R.
F
27
15
59
<
1
1939
Calkins
et
al.
1940
Sacramento
R.
F
3
77
20
Fisher
1994
Sacramento
R.
F
4
35
50
10
1
1950­
59
Reisenbichler
1986
Sacramento
R.
F
24
57
19
2
1973­
77
Reisenbichler
1986
Sacramento
R.
Late
F
2
57
41
Fisher
1994
American
R.
F
1
93
6
Clark
1929
San
Joaquin
R.
(
gen)
F
15
45
35
5
1990­
95
Neillands
1995
Toulumne
R.
F
30
50
19
1
1990­
95
Neillands
1995
Merced
R.
F
30
50
19
1
1990­
95
Neillands
1995
APPENDIX
C:

REPRODUCTIVE
TRAITS
339
Appendix
C.
Summary
of
female
fecundity
data
(
average
female
size,
average
fecundity
and
egg
size,
and
fecundity
and
egg
size
data
standardized
for
female
size)
for
selected
stocks
of
chinook
salmon
in
Asia
and
North
America.
Stocks
are
identified
according
to
run
timing
(
Sp­
spring,
Su­
summer,
F­
fall,
W­
winter),
life­
history
type
(
S­
stream,
O­
ocean),
and
geographic
location
(
C­
coastal,
I­
inland).
For
egg
weights,
(
d)
indicates
weight
was
estimated
from
egg
diameter,
and
(
w)
indicates
that
weight
was
directly
measured.
FL=
Fork
Length.
POH=
Post­
orbital
hyporal
length.

River
Run
Stream/
Ocean
Coastal/
Inland
FL
(
cm)
Fecundity
Fecundity
(
740
mm
POH)
Egg
Wt.
(
g)
Egg
Size
(
740
mm
POH)
Sample
Year(
s)
Reference
Asia
Kamchatka
R.
Su
S
C
90.3
6855
0.160
(
d)
1928
Kuznetov
1928
Kamchatka
R.
Su
S
C
6623
0.248
(
w)
Smirnov
1975
Alaska
Yukon
R.
Su
S
I
94.1
8668
8409
Healey
and
Heard
1984
Tanana
R.
Su
S
C
99.5
10061
8930
Skaugstad
and
McCraken
1991
Nushagak
R.
Su
S
C
98.1
10137
9427
Healey
and
Heard
1984
Cook
Inlet
Su
S
C
94.3
8341
8047
Healey
and
Heard
1984
Kenai
R.
Su
S
C
113.7
12884
8439
Roni
1992
Taku
R.
Su
S
C
92.7
5504
5469
Healey
and
Heard
1984
Nass
R.
Su
O/
S
C
117.5
6531
6203
Healey
and
Heard
1984
King
Salmon
R.
Su
S
C
85.9
5907
Halupka
et
al.
1993
Skeena
R.
Su
O/
S
C
117.5
6789
6108
Healey
and
Heard
1984
British
Columbia
Wannock
R.
Su
O/
S
C
107.3
9454
7614
0.421
(
d)
1991
Roni
1992
Quinsam
R.
Su
O
C
108.7
6720
4939
Healey
and
Heard
1984
Puntledge
R.
Su
O
C/
I
88.5
4604
5300
0.242
(
d)
0.241
(
d)
Healey
and
Heard
1984
Qualicum
R.
Su
O
C
93.2
4982
4031
0.376
(
d)
0.376
(
d)
Healey
and
Heard
1984,
Lister
1990
Robertson
Cr.
Su
O
C
89.8
4452
4568
Healey
and
Heard
1984
Nitinat
R.
Su
O
C
94.9
4991
4773
Healey
and
Heard
1984
Kitsumkalum
R.
Su
O
C
0.452
(
d)
1991
Roni
1992
Kitmit
R.
Su
O
C
99.0
0.376
(
d)
1986
Beacham
and
Murray
1989,
Roni
1992
Appendix
C
(
Cont.).

River
Run
Stream/
Ocean
Coastal/
Inland
FL
(
cm)
Fecundity
Fecundity
(
740
mm
POH)
Egg
Wt.
(
g)
Egg
Size
(
740
mm
POH)
Sample
Year(
s)
Reference
Bella
Coola
R.
Su
O
C
0.406
(
d)
1986
Beacham
and
Murray
1989
Quesnel
R.
Su
O
C
90.8
6653
0.242
(
d)
1986
Shepherd
et
al.
1986,
Beacham
and
Murray
1989
Torpy
R.
Su
S
I
0.185
(
d)
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
Slim
R.
Su
S
I
0.194
(
d)
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
Sturat
R.
Su
S
I
0.202
(
d)
Shepherd
et
al.
1986
Cheakamus
R.
Su
S
C
7300
0.253
(
d)
0.242
(
d)
Lister
1990
Harrison
R.
Su
O
C
92.9
0.286
(
d)
Lister
1990,
Roni
1992
Cowichan
R.
Su
O
C
0.362
(
d)
Lister
1990
Campbell
R.
Su
O
C
4900
0.391
(
d)
Lister
1990
Puget
Sound
Elwha
R.
F
O
C
89.3
7861
0.362
(
d)
1991
Roni
1992
UW­
Green
R.
F
O
C
0.298
(
d)
1992
Gray
1965,
Roni
1992
Nooksack
R.
Sp
O
C
4818
Fuss
and
Ashbrook
1995
Samish
R.
F
O
C
4618
0.301
(
d)
1978­
94
Kurras
1996,
Fuss
and
Ashbrook
1995
Skagit
R.
Su
O
C
4483
0.361
(
w)
1995
Kurras
1996,
Fuss
and
Ashbrook
1995
Skagit
R.
Sp
O
C
91.3
4063
0.249
(
w)
1994­
95
Kurras
1996,
Fuss
and
Ashbrook
1995
Wallace
R.
Su
O
C
4772
Fuss
and
Ashbrook
1995
Stilliguamish
R.
F
O
C
88.7
Roni
1992
White
River
R.
Sp
O
C
3385
0.258
(
w)
1991­
93
Appleby
and
Keown
1995
Washington
Coast
Humptulips
R.
F
O
C
0.378
(
w)
Fuss
and
Ashbrook
1995
Sol
Duc
R.
Sp
O
C
0.305
(
w)
Allan
1996
Quinault
R.
F
O
C
Appendix
C
(
Cont.).

River
Run
Stream/
Ocean
Coastal/
Inland
FL
(
cm)
Fecundity
Fecundity
(
740
mm
POH)
Egg
Wt.
(
g)
Egg
Size
(
740
mm
POH)
Sample
Year(
s)
Reference
Columbia
River
Basin
Big
Cr.
F
O
Lower
River
87.6
5504
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Abernathy
R.
F
O
Lower
River
85.5
5049
5292
0.275
(
d)
0.314
(
d)
1970
Fowler
1972
Cowlitz
R.
Sp
O
Lower
River
0.324
(
w)
Hymer
et
al.
1992a,
WDFW
1996
Cowlitz
R.
F
O
Lower
River
84.4
3898
0.378
(
w)
1983­
90
Hymer
et
al.
1992a,
WDFW
1996
Kalama
R.
Sp
O
Lower
River
84.9
4491
0.280
(
w)
1980'
s
Hymer
et
al.
1992a,
Casteneda
1996
Kalama
R.
F
O
Lower
River
87.1
4731
0.301
(
w)
Hymer
et
al.
1992a,
Casteneda
1996
Speelyai
R.
Sp
O
Lower
River
77.3
4083
1985
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Lewis
R.
F
O
Lower
River
87.6
4429
1982
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Carson
NFH
Sp
S
Lower
River
78.3
4300
1982
Hymer
et
al.
1992a
Clackamas
R.
?
O
Lower
River
5000
0.143
(
d)
1900
Bowers
1900
Clackamas
R.
Sp
O
Lower
River
5179
0.170
(
d)
1993­
95
Olsen
et
al.
1992,
ODFW
unpubl.
Willamette
R.
Sp
O
Lower
River
80.4
4258­
4800
1983
Rich
1940a,
Mattson
1963,
Howell
et
al.
1985
Bonn.
URB
F
O
Lower
River
81.0
4502
1977­
83
Howell
et
al.
1985
Deschutes
R.
F
O
Lower
River
80.0
4439
1977­
79
Howell
et
al.
1985,
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Warm
Springs
H.
Sp
S
Lower
River
71.5
3246
0.183
(
w)
1992­
95
Lindsay
et
al.
1989,
Watkins1
Klickitat
R.
Sp
S
Lower
River
85.8
4188
0.260
(
w)
Hymer
et
al.
1992a,
Roni
1992,
Anderson2
Yakima
R.
Sp
S
I
76.2
8711
Fast
et
al.
1986,
YIN
1996
Yakima/
Naches
R.
Sp
S
I
79.8
5245
1984
Fast
et
al.
1986
Upper
Yakima
R.
Sp
S
I
68.2
3523
1969
Major
and
Mighell
1969
Leavenworth
R.
Sp
S
I
78.4
4400
Hymer
et
al.
1992,
Roni
1992
Rock
Island
Dam
Su
O
I
83.5
4885
5425
1937
WDF
et
al.
1938
Appendix
C
(
Cont.).

River
Run
Stream/
Ocean
Coastal/
Inland
FL
(
cm)
Fecundity
Fecundity
(
740
mm
POH)
Egg
Wt.
(
g)
Egg
Size
(
740
mm
POH)
Sample
Year(
s)
Reference
Wells
H.
Su
O
I
90.4
5041
0.284
(
w)
1987­
82,
94,
95
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Moore
3
Wells
H.
Su
O
I
5568
Mathews
and
Meekin
1971
Methow
R.
Sp
S
I
77.1
4958
5893
1993­
94
Roni
1992,
Chapman
et
al.
1995
Methow
R.
Sp
S
I
83.0
4529
1993
Bartlett
and
Bugert
1994
Methow
R.
Sp
S
I
79.5
4380
0.253
(
w)
1992
Bartlett
and
Bugert
1994
Snake
River
Basin
Lyons
Ferry
H.
F
O
I
3102
4011
0.276
(
w)
1995
Mendel
et
al.
1996
Snake
R.
Sp
S
I
77.9
3923
1985­
87
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Tuccannon
R.
Sp
S
I
75.9
4007
1986­
87
Hymer
et
al.
1992b,
Roni
1992
Imnaha
R.
Sp
S
I
86.8
4927
1983­
85
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Grande
Ronde
R.
Sp
S
I
81.1
4086
1983­
89
Olsen
et
al.
1992
Dworshak
NFH
Sp
S
I
0.151
(
d)
1988­
90
Roseburg
1996
Rapid
R.
Sp
S
I
80.4
4535
1982­
91
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Sawtooth
R.
Sp
S
I
75.9
5315
1981­
91
Keifer
et
al.
1992
M.
F.
Salmon
R.
Sp
S
I
85.2
5607
1961­
69
Keifer
et
al.
1992
Pahsimeroi
R.
Su
S
I
5290
1973­
91
Keifer
et
al.
1992
S.
F.
Salmon
R.
Su
S
I
4100
1980­
94
Howell
et
al.
1985
Oregon
Coast
Alsea
R.
F
O
C
96.7
4994
4689
0.391
(
d)
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Chetco
R.
F
O
C
92.7
4218
4213
0.391
(
d)
0.396
(
d)
1972
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Elk
R.
F
O
C
90.2
4920
5168
0.345
(
d)
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Nestucca
R.
F
O
C
95.0
5242
5071
0.362
(
d)
0.361
(
d)
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Salmon
R.
F
O
C
100.2
5390
5016
0.407
(
d)
0.359
(
d)
1985
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
SixesR.
F
O
C
93.7
5359
5264
0.319
(
d)
0.314
(
d)
1985
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Trask
R.
F
O
C
5500­
6000
0.454
(
d)
1991
Kreeger
1995
Appendix
C
(
Cont.).

River
Run
Stream/
Ocean
Coastal/
Inland
FL
(
cm)
Fecundity
Fecundity
(
740
mm
POH)
Egg
Wt.
(
g)
Egg
Size
(
740
mm
POH)
Sample
Year(
s)
Reference
Trask
R.
F
O
C
93.9
5140
5058
0.302
(
d)
0.293
(
d)
1983
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Trask
R.
Sp
O
C
89.0
5190
5520
0.340
(
d)
0.370
(
d)
1986
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Umpqua
R.
Sp
O
C
82.1
3826
4994
0.292
(
d)
0.351
(
d)
1986
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Rogue
R.
Sp
O
C
­
3000­
3700
0.231
(
d)
1991
Kreeger
1995
Rogue
R.
F
O
C
­
4582
0.313
(
d)
1986
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Rogue
R.
Sp
O
C
83.9
3890
4443
0.318
(
d)
0.406
(
d)
1985
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988
Klamath
and
Trinity
River
Basins
Fall
Cr.
H.
F
O
I
73.6
2902
0.228
(
d)
­
Leitritz
and
Lewis
1980
Klamath
R.
F
O
C
82.6
3754
4381
0.391
(
d)
1919­
21
McGregor
1922,
Snyder
1931
Trinity
R.
F
O
C
77.1
3498
3998
1944­
45
Moffett
and
Smith
1950
Sacramento
and
San
Joaquin
River
Basins
Suisun
Bay
Mixed
O
I
92.4
7298
7334
1919­
21
McGregor
1923b
Tehama
F
O
I
83.1
7279
9287.2
1972­
73
Johnson
et
al.
1973,
USFWS
1978
Battle
&
Mill
Ck
Mixed
O
I
5477­
6534
1909­
38
Needham
et
al.
1940
Battle
Ck
Mixed
O
I
6253
1939
Needham
et
al.
1940
Baird
NFH
Sp
O
I
0.145
(
d)
1888
Page
1888
Feather
R.
Sp
O
I
5423
1993­
94
Broddrick
1995
Coleman
NFH
W
O
I
77.3
4495
6270.2
0.161
(
d)
1991­
92
USFWS
1996a
1
J.
Watkins,
Warm
Springs
NFH,
P.
O.
Box
790,
Warm
Springs,
OR
97761.
Pers.
commun.,
April
1996.

2
T.
Anderson,
Hatchery
Manager,
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Klickitat
Hatchery,
301
Fish
Hatchery
Road,
Glenwood,
WA
98619­
9102.
Pers.
commun.,
April
1996.

3
J.
Moore,
Hatchery
Manager,
WDFW,
Wells
Hatchery,
HC
88,
Azwell
Rt.
Box
2A,
Pateros,
WA
98846.
Pers.
commun.,
April
1996.
345
APPENDIX
D:

HATCHERY
RELEASES
346
347
Appendix
D:
Hatchery
chinook
salmon
releases,
listed
by
ESU.
Duration
indicates
the
time
frame
of
the
releases,
years
indicates
the
total
number
of
years
that
fish
were
actually
released
within
the
time
frame.
The
majority
of
spring­
run
salmon
were
released
as
yearling
smolts.
Most
ocean­
type
fall­
and
summer­
run
chinook
salmon
were
released
as
subyearlings.
Winter­
run
chinook
salmon
were
primarily
released
as
both
yearlings
and
subyearlings.
No
releases
of
eggs
or
fry
(<
5g)
are
included
here.
Data
before
1950
are
incomplete
(
NRC
1995).
Releases
in
bold
indicate
introductions
from
outside
(
o/
s)
the
ESU.
Stocks
of
unknown
origin
are
assumed
to
be
from
within
(
w/
i)
the
ESU.
Fish
releases
derived
from
adults
returning
to
that
river
are
also
assumed
to
be
native
regardless
of
past
introductions,
unless
the
river
historically
never
contained
a
run.

Abbreviations:

COOP
­
a
government
agency
and
private
entity
cooperative
project
H­
hatchery
Mix
­
a
mix
of
two
or
more
stocks
from
the
same
area
LCR­
lower
Columbia
R.

MCR
­
mid­
Columbia
R.

NFH­
National
Fish
Hatchery
SW­
fish
released
directly
into
saltwater
X­
A
cross
between
two
different
stocks
/
­
A
mix
of
stocks
from
different
areas
Total
Releases
Source
Percentage
Watershed
Duration
Years
Source
(
w/
i
ESU)
(
o/
s
ESU)
In
Out
1)
Sacramento
R.
Winter­
Run
ESU
Sacramento
R.
1962,64
2
Coleman
NFH
107,516
1979,83,90
3
Coleman
NFH
25,064
1966­
68
3
Keswick
Dam
69,300
1990­
94
5
Keswick
Dam
30,356
1992
1
Red
Bluff
Dam
12,328
1991,92
2
Sacramento
R.
12,439
1993­
95
3
Sacramento
R.
90,168
347,171
0
100
0
Totals
for
ESU
#
1:
347,171
0
100
0
2)
Central
Valley
Spring­
Run
ESU
Sacramento
R.
1983­
93
11
Feather
R.
H.
3,414,583
1943­
52
8
Sacramento
R.
6,988,658
10,403,241
0
100
0
Feather
R.
1969­
90
21
Feather
R.
H.
6,532,724
6,532,724
0
100
0
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
348
Yuba
R.
1978­
85
4
Feather
R.
H.
1,237,039
1,237,039
0
100
0
Lower
Sacramento
R.
1974­
80
4
Feather
R.
H.
1,370,475
1,370,475
0
100
0
Benicia
1982­
92
7
Feather
R.
H.
14,476,890
14,476,890
0
100
0
Vallejo
1983­
86
4
Feather
R.
H.
2,067,786
2,067,786
0
100
0
Maritime
Academy
1982­
85
4
Feather
R.
H.
169,796
169,796
0
100
0
San
Francisco
Bay
1987
1
Feather
R.
H.
440,725
440,725
0
100
0
Mokelumne
R.
1989,90
2
Feather
R.
H.
2,482,000
2,482,000
0
100
0
Totals
for
ESU
#
2:
39,180,676
0
100
0
3)
Central
Valley
Fall­
Run
ESU
Sacramento
R.
1944
1
Balls
Ferry
7,662,650
1966­
73
8
Battle
Cr.
55,930,000
1968­
94
25
Central
Valley
Mix
77,017,888
1950­
94
37
Coleman
NFH
783,350,901
1969­
94
26
Feather
R.
H.
32,814,226
1979
1
Mad
R.
H.
25,175
1988­
89
2
Merced
H.
4,190
1972­
88
13
mid­
Sacramento
R.
16,694,596
1991
1
Mokelumne
R.
H.
38,577
1976­
87
12
Sacramento
R.
11,841,587
1978
1
Trinity
H.
839,400
1975­
87
13
unknown
132,250,764
1,117,605,379
864,575
100
0
Feather
R.
1970,78
1
Coleman
NFH
990,388
1968­
94
25
Feather
R.
H.
56,255,861
1969­
92
9
Nimbus
H.
15,071,785
1978
1
Red
Bluff/
Coleman
NFH
78,188
1992
1
Samish
H.
11,700
72,396,222
11,700
>
99
<
1
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
349
Yuba
R.
1978­
87
3
Feather
R.
H.
82,117
1981­
89
4
Yuba
R.
130,397
212,514
0
100
0
American
R.
1958­
60
3
Coleman
NFH
2,998,897
1982­
89
4
Feather
R.
H.
362,188
1957­
94
33
Nimbus
H.
220,094,657
223,455,742
0
100
0
San
Joaquin
R.
1974­
94
15
Central
Valley
Mix
8,726,804
1954
1
Coleman
NFH
2,650
1976,94
2
Feather
R.
H.
99,760
1981­
94
8
Merced
H.
445,993
1979­
87
8
San
Joaquin
R.
1,595,476
1976
1
unknown
82,442
10,953,125
0
100
0
Merced
R.
1992
1
Feather
R.
H.
1,521,560
1971­
94
16
Merced
H.
2,376,880
1978­
93
6
San
Joaquin
R.
306,434
1971­
74
4
Stanislaus
R.
690,500
1977
1
unknown
100,000
4,995,374
0
100
0
Tuolumne
R.
1990,94
2
Merced
H.
237,106
1986­
91
4
San
Joaquin
R.
516,716
1990
1
Tuolumne
R.
81,285
835,107
0
100
0
Stanislaus
R.
1982­
89
3
Merced
H.
280,335
1986
1
San
Joaquin
R.
110,175
1988
1
Stanislaus
R.
206,370
596,880
0
100
0
Mokelumne
R.
1977­
94
14
Central
Valley
Mix
6,385,298
1954­
85
7
Coleman
NFH
3,964,013
1977­
94
16
Feather
R.
H.
31,363,711
1964­
94
15
Mokelumne
R.
H.
3,527,414
1976
1
unknown
166,300
45,406,736
0
100
0
Suisun
Bay
1981­
94
13
Central
Valley
Mix
43,134,918
1982­
92
3
Coleman
NFH
12,371,975
1978­
94
17
Feather
R.
H.
34,392,589
1984
1
Merced
H.
4,950
1988
1
mid­
Sacramento
R.
302,994
1992
1
Mokelumne
R.
H.
65,973
1983­
85
3
San
Joaquin
R.
102,212
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
350
1983
1
unknown
50,340
90,425,951
0
100
0
San
Pablo
Bay
1984­
94
9
Central
Valley
Mix
21,608,252
1982­
93
9
Feather
R.
H.
46,734,026
1985
1
Merced
H.
770,679
1981
1
Mokelumne
R.
H.
33,535
1980­
94
8
Nimbus
H.
17,356,190
1983,85
2
unknown
100,663
86,603,345
0
100
0
3)
Central
Valley
Late
Fall­
Run
ESU
Sacramento
R.
1983­
93
7
Battle
Cr./
Keswick
Dam
4,833,032
1986­
94
7
Coleman
NFH
4,483,565
1974­
94
13
Keswick
Dam
10,833,051
1975­
94
9
Sacramento
R.
1,806,690
1980­
88
8
unknown
7,822,934
29,779,272
0
100
0
San
Joaquin
R.
1993
1
Coleman
NFH
59,663
59,663
0
100
0
Totals
for
ESU
#
3:
1,683,325,310
876,275
>
99
<
1
4)
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
ESU
(
Fall
Run)

Small
Southern
Oregon
1988­
94
7
Elk
R.
H.
1,414,032
R.
Basins
0
1,414,032
0
100
Upper
Rogue
R.
1978
1
Applegate
R.
35,552
1957­
68
5
Butte
Falls
H.
199,108
1975­
91
10
Cole
Rivers
H.
530,274
1969­
71
3
Lobster
Cr.
370,279
1992,93
2
Lower
Rogue
R.
44,476
1966
1
unknown
39,994
1,219,683
0
100
0
Applegate
R.
1982
1
Applegate
R.
70,930
70,930
0
100
0
Big
Butte
Cr.
1955­
69
10
Butte
Falls
H.
416,524
1966
1
Rock
Cr.
H.
780
1954
1
unknown
27,562
444,086
780
100
0
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
351
Lower
Rogue
R.
1986,87
2
Cole
Rivers
H.
311,951
1968­
90
5
Lobster
Cr.
135,324
1973
1
unknown
5,100
452,375
0
100
0
Libby
Pond
1964,65
2
Coquille
R.
111,510
1966
1
Diamond
Lk.
138,656
1960
1
tules
24,156
162,812
111,510
59
41
Lobster
Cr.
1963,65
2
Coquille
R.
71,322
1967­
90
9
Lobster
Cr.
497,771
1966
1
unknown
41,362
539,133
71,322
88
12
Hunter
Cr.
1974
1
Chetco
R.
7,520
1990­
94
3
Hunter
Cr.
66,288
73,808
0
100
0
Pistol
R.
1988
1
Chetco
R.
14,931
1989­
94
5
Pistol
R.
94,775
109,706
0
100
0
Burnt
Hill
Cr.
1982
1
Applegate
R.
59,056
1980
1
Lobster
Cr.
99,032
1973
1
unknown
5,100
163,188
0
100
0
Chetco
R.
1955
1
Butte
Falls
H.
4,000
1974­
93
18
Chetco
R.
6,956,460
1985­
92
4
Coquille
R.
137,816
1974
1
Elk
R.
H.
35,460
1969­
77
6
unknown
1,448,675
8,409,135
173,276
98
2
Winchuck
R.
1988
1
Chetco
R.
10,070
10,070
0
100
0
Smith
R.
1973­
94
14
Smith
R.
1,871,032
1983
1
unknown
23,294
1,894,326
0
100
0
Jolly
Giant
Cr.
1985
1
Rowdy
Cr.
H.
1,027
1,027
0
100
0
Lower
Klamath
R.
1981­
93
12
Klamath
R.
1,077,603
1,077,603
0
100
0
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
352
Prairie
Cr.
1986­
93
4
Prairie
Cr./
Lostman
Cr.
205,245
1965,87
2
unknown
67,187
272,432
0
100
0
Redwood
Cr.
1984­
86
3
Lostman
Cr.
44,184
1985­
94
6
Redwood
Cr.
172,493
1992
1
Eel
R.
69,201
1964­
68
4
unknown
1,978,059
2,263,937
0
100
0
Little
R.
1986­
92
4
Little
R.
191,787
191,787
0
100
0
Strawberry
Cr.
1993
1
Freshwater
Cr.
10,000
10,000
0
100
0
Mad
R.
1974
1
Freshwater
Cr./
Mad
R.
H.
139,887
1972­
93
17
Mad
R.
H.
3,569,419
1971
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
648,120
1983
1
unknown
51,654
3,760,960
648,120
85
15
Freshwater
Cr.
1987
1
Cochran
Pond
14,189
1986­
94
7
Freshwater
Cr.
59,057
1988
1
Mad
R.
H.
4,088
1970­
72
3
unknown
584,000
661,334
0
100
0
Eel
R.
1973­
94
12
Eel
R.
2,147,443
1992­
93
2
Freshwater
Cr.
75,500
1972­
77
6
Iron
Gate
H.
625,853
1984­
88
4
Redwood
Cr.
20,986
2,243,929
625,853
78
22
Mattole
R.
1985­
92
6
Mattole
R.
137,714
137,714
0
100
0
Tenmile
R.
1986­
87
2
Tenmile
R.
14,000
14,000
0
100
0
Russian
R.
1956­
64
3
Coleman
NFH
1,999,400
1982­
94
6
Feather
R.
H.
1,154,161
1975
1
Iron
Gate
H.
73,800
1983
1
Mad
R.
H.
9,250
1990­
94
5
Nimbus
H.
648,242
1982
1
Ocean
King
Private
58,500
1983
1
Silver
King
Private
11,500
1969,70
2
unknown
879,885
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
353
1982­
93
8
Warm
Springs
H.
635,888
1985
1
Warm
Springs
H./
Wisconsin
98,400
1982­
86
5
Wisconsin
1,173,077
1,585,773
5,156,330
24
76
Bodega
Bay
1979
1
Feather
R.
H.
12,040
0
12,040
0
100
San
Francisco
Bay
1984­
87
4
American
R.
233,810
1976­
94
17
Feather
R.
H.
4,389,796
1980­
89
6
Central
Valley
Mix
1,696,784
1989
1
Merced
H.
867,700
1983,85
2
unknown
75,340
75,340
7,188,090
1
99
Davenport
Landing
1980­
85
6
unknown
922,491
922,491
0
100
0
Monterey
Bay
1992
1
Central
Coast
Salmon
1,628
1992
1
Feather
R.
H.
123,722
1,628
123,722
1
99
Moss
Landing
1992
1
Central
Coast
Salmon
429
1992
1
Feather
R.
H.
7,565
1992
1
Merced
H.
18,536
1993
1
Moss
Landing
COOP
31,975
32,404
26,101
55
45
Port
San
Luis
1987
1
Minnesota
51,082
1991
1
Oregon
Aqua
Foods
65,500
1991
1
Samish
H.
15,000
1991
1
San
Louis
R.
7,000
1991
1
unknown
500
7,500
131,582
5
95
Avila
Port
1992­
93
2
Feather
R.
H.
103,900
1985­
86
2
Minnesota
115,991
0
219,891
0
100
Pierpont
Bay
1992
1
Feather
R.
H.
4,600
0
4,600
0
100
Channel
Island
1990
1
unknown
40,000
40,000
0
100
0
4)
Southern
Oregon
and
Coastal
California
ESU
(
Spring
Run)

Applegate
R.
1980­
90
3
Cole
Rivers
H.
220,877
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
354
220,877
0
100
0
Big
Butte
Cr.
1972
1
Butte
Falls
H.
1,369
1,369
0
100
0
Rogue
R.
1963­
72
6
Butte
Falls
H.
498,402
1974­
93
20
Cole
Rivers
H.
22,213,191
1963
1
Roaring
R.
9,410
22,721,003
0
100
0
Burnt
Hill
Cr.
1983,89
2
Burnt
Hill
Cr.
363,396
1984­
88
5
Pacific
Salmon
Ranch
1,648,168
1980­
90
7
Rogue
R.
3,819,192
5,830,756
0
100
0
Chetco
R.
1986
1
Coquille
R.
8,568
0
8,568
0
100
Eel
R.
1979
1
Trinity
H.
5,000
0
5,000
0
100
Tenmile
R.
1979
1
Trinity
H.
400,418
0
400,418
0
100
Monterey
Bay
1985
1
Feather
R.
H.
50,056
0
50,056
0
100
Totals
for
ESU
#
4:
55,623,116
16,371,291
77
23
5)
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
ESU
(
Fall
Run)

Klamath
R.
1992
1
Eel
R.
13,824
1966­
94
27
Klamath
R.
197,632,629
1985
1
Mad
R.
H.
6,688
1992
1
Mattole
R.
6,100
1987
1
Redwood
Cr.
16,498
1976
1
Trinity
H.
819,000
1985­
86
2
unknown
10,297
198,461,926
43,110
100
0
Trinity
R.
1977­
86
3
Klamath
R.
258,446
1969­
94
26
Trinity
H.
68,248,736
68,507,182
0
100
0
Trinity
R.
1964­
69
6
Trinity
H.
(
spring/
fall
mix)
19,074,333
19,074,333
0
100
0
5)
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
ESU
(
Spring
Run)
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
355
Klamath
R.
1968­
77
10
Iron
Gate
H.
202,860
202,860
0
100
0
Trinity
R.
1969­
94
26
Trinity
H.
40,905,753
40,905,753
0
100
0
Totals
for
ESU
#
5:
286,246,301
43,110
>
99
<
1
6)
Oregon
Coast
ESU
(
Fall
Run)

Necanicum
R.
1978­
91
3
Cedar
Cr.
H.
(
Nestucca
R.)
208,037
1979­
89
4
Trask
H.
255,952
1976
1
unknown
38,880
502,869
0
100
0
Nehalem
R.
1938­
54
12
Bonneville
H.
8,732,060
1978,79
2
Cedar
Cr.
H.
(
Nestucca
R.)
171,158
1921­
25
2
Nehalem
R.
668,753
1927­
81
4
Trask
H.
1,251,421
1924­
76
7
unknown
2,616,379
4,707,711
8,732,060
35
65
Miami
R.
1937­
52
3
Bonneville
H.
543,460
1981
1
Trask
H.
36,530
36,530
543,460
6
94
Kilchis
R.
1937
1
Bonneville
H.
60,000
1948,49
2
LCR/
Coast
Mix
202,209
1981­
92
4
Trask
H.
90,664
1950
1
unknown
107,667
198,331
262,209
43
57
Wilson
R.
1948,49
2
LCR/
Coast
Mix
129,404
1983
1
Trask
H.
269,305
269,305
129,404
68
32
Trask
R.
1929
1
Cedar
Cr.
H.
(
Nestucca
R.)
and
Trask
H.
19,300
1968
1
Hagerman
NFH*
47,932
1928­
58
6
LCR/
Coast
Mix
3,588,122
1907­
23
7
Trask
H.
11,173,086
1961­
93
23
Trask
H.
7,489,573
1950­
77
9
unknown
2,338,557
21,020,516
3,636,054
85
15
Tillamook
R.
1952
1
Bonneville
H.
300,504
1967,68
2
Hagerman
NFH*
532,154
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
356
1969
1
LCR
(
tules)
8,370
1931­
49
4
LCR/
Coast
Mix
1,152,742
1918­
64
15
Trask
H.
7,686,029
1988,92
2
Trask
H.
300,296
1969
1
unknown
419,191
8,405,516
1,993,770
81
19
Three
R.
1980­
92
7
Cedar
Cr.
H.
(
Nestucca
R.)
447,403
1972
1
Coquille
R.
58,441
1971
1
Hagerman
NFH*
55,325
1970
1
Irrigon
H.
16,008
1976,77
2
unknown
110,083
615,927
71,333
90
10
Nestucca
R.
1955­
57
3
Butte
Falls
H.
85,786
1959­
93
17
Cedar
Cr.
H.
(
Nestucca
R.)
1,411,870
1974,75
2
Hagerman
NFH*
133,571
1968
1
Irrigon
H.
53,608
1948,49,58
3
LCR/
Coast
Mix
125,838
1950,76
2
unknown
124,281
1,536,151
398,803
79
21
Salmon
R.
1977­
93
16
Salmon
R.
3,411,870
3,411,870
0
100
0
Siletz
R.
1934­
52
5
Bonneville
H.
2,677,398
1948
1
LCR/
Coast
Mix
25,232
1950­
69
3
unknown
200,506
200,506
2,702,630
7
93
Yaquina
R.
1978
1
Alsea
H.
99,391
1934­
51
4
Bonneville
H.
457,231
1975
1
Elk
R.
H.
13,000
1978
1
Lake
Washington
157,287
1978­
84
5
Oregon
Aqua
Foods/
Yaquina
R.
1,081,234
1982­
89
6
Oregon
Aqua
Foods
3,085,826
1976­
81
3
Trask
H.
300,868
1980
1
Trask
H./
Yaquina
R.
151,915
1918
1
unknown
177,000
1978­
80
3
Yaquina
R.
116,200
5,025,434
614,518
89
11
Five
R.
1991
1
Alsea
H.
169,100
1949
1
Bonneville
H.
186,000
1948
1
LCR/
Coast
Mix
155,000
1950,51
2
unknown
422,094
591,194
341,000
63
37
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
357
Alsea
R.
1902­
40
12
Alsea
H.
8,230,775
1956­
93
23
Alsea
H.
2,268,725
1911
1
Alsea
H.
/
Rock
Cr.
H.
495,950
1932­
54
12
Bonneville
H.
8,434,032
1936,39
2
Bonneville
H./
Willamette
H.
1,946,140
1965
1
Carson
NFH
209,322
1974,75
2
Elk
R.
H.
141,753
1968­
74
6
Hagerman
NFH*
1,110,202
1944
1
Klaskanine
H.
756,370
1941,48
2
LCR/
Coast
Mix
2,336,506
1965
1
Roaring
R.
5,600
1981­
93
6
Salmon
R.
314,253
1974­
86
4
Trask
H.
401,502
1918­
77
9
unknown
2,541,412
14,399,970
14,792,572
49
51
Siuslaw
R.
1934­
51
4
Bonneville
H.
734,016
1983
1
Domsea
Farms
21,615
1952
1
LCR/
Coast
Mix
75,340
1979­
82
4
Siuslaw
R.
363,587
1950
1
unknown
49,105
434,307
809,356
35
65
Umpqua
R.
1941­
51
4
Bonneville
H.
578,808
1965
1
Butte
Falls
H.
63,442
1959
1
Carson
NFH
31,304
1976
1
Coquille
R.
6,600
1967­
72
5
Hagerman
NFH*
2,418,605
1914
1
LCR
(
OR)/
Willamette
H.
103,200
1957­
93
21
Rock
Cr.
H.
2,166,813
1950
1
unknown
49,105
2,222,518
3,195,359
41
59
Millicoma
R.
1949
1
Bonneville
H.
100,016
1975
1
Chetco
R.
29,546
1990
1
Coos
R.
47,825
1974,75
2
Elk
R.
H.
616,513
1950,73
2
unknown
398,165
1,062,503
129,562
89
11
Coos
R.
1978­
81
3
Alsea
H.
159,185
1983­
88
6
Anadromous
Inc.
22,334,350
1941­
53
5
Bonneville
H.
1,688,518
1980,81
2
Cedar
Cr.
H.
(
Nestucca
R.)
24,761
1974.
1975
2
Chetco
R.
213,625
1901­
57
40
Coos
R.
65,051,593
1979­
93
14
Coos
R.
1,252,432
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
358
1974,75
2
Elk
R.
H.
851,398
1981,82
2
Jordon
Pt.
(
Private)
156,432
1952,58
2
LCR
(
OR)/
Oregon
Coast
Mix
369,266
1985,86
2
Oregon
Aqua
Foods
155,068
1952
1
Oxbow
H.
625,117
1981,85
2
Tioga
Cr.
72,765
1959,80,81
3
Trask
H.
304,545
1909­
73
5
unknown
6,275,912
96,638,441
2,896,526
97
3
Coquille
R.
1941­
51
3
Bonneville
H.
801,760
1975
1
Chetco
R.
26,326
1902­
24
10
Coos
R.
15,244,822
1984­
93
7
Coquille
R.
603,172
1974­
1076
3
Elk
R.
H.
229,228
1950,73
2
unknown
340,611
16,417,833
828,086
95
5
Elk
R.
1990
1
Chetco
R.
37,673
1974­
93
18
Elk
R.
H.
9,281,569
1969­
77
8
unknown
2,872,178
12,153,747
37,673
100
0
6)
Oregon
Coast
ESU
(
Spring­
Run)

Nehalem
R.
1944,45
2
Klaskanine
H.
994,900
1923
1
LCR
(
OR)
969,625
1928,32,39
3
LCR
(
OR)/
Oregon
Coast
2,388,000
1935
1
Marion
Forks
H.
954,000
1942
1
McKenzie
R.
H.
1,960,000
1926
1
Nehalem
R.
803,000
1940,44
2
Nehalem
R./
Trask
H.
791,000
1926­
67
6
Trask
H.
3,591,400
1925­
72
3
unknown
2,331,927
7,517,327
7,266,525
51
49
Miami
R.
1931
1
LCR
(
OR)/
Oregon
Coast
15,000
1941
1
Trask
H.
150,000
150,000
15,000
91
9
Kilchis
R.
1931
1
LCR
(
OR)/
Oregon
Coast
30,000
1955­
90
5
Trask
H.
179,683
1974­
76
3
unknown
164,837
344,520
30,000
92
8
Wilson
R.
1988
1
Cedar
Cr.
H.
(
Nestucca
R.)
20,619
1931
1
LCR
(
OR)/
Oregon
Coast
150,000
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
359
1937­
55
3
Trask
H.
669,095
1978­
93
10
Trask
H.
908,547
1974,77
2
unknown
186,212
1,784,473
150,000
92
8
Trask
R.
1928­
30
3
Cedar
Cr.
H.
(
Nestucca
R.)
and
Trask
H.
8,265,248
1968
1
Hagerman
NFH*
17,918
1931­
52
7
LCR
(
OR)/
Oregon
Coast
Mix
5,939,765
1913
1
Rogue
R./
Trask
H.
1,747,530
1914­
67
26
Trask
H.
30,375,282
1978­
93
16
Trask
H.
4,215,811
1915
1
Trask
H./
Rock
Cr.
H.
2,883,428
1927
1
Trask
H./
Wilson
R.
2,100,521
1950­
77
10
unknown
2,824,990
50,665,280
7,705,213
87
13
Tillamook
R.
1931­
49
6
LCR
(
OR)
and
Oregon
Coast
Mix
13,534,607
1935
1
Marion
Forks
H./
Trask
H.
4,110,730
1931­
67
21
Trask
H.
22,187,802
1986­
95
5
Trask
H.
279,874
1969
1
unknown
55,833
22,523,509
17,645,337
56
44
Three
R.
1972,75
2
Hagerman
NFH*
19,084
1971
1
Irrigon
H.
15,000
1971­
90
5
Cedar
Cr.
H.
(
Nestucca
R.)
83,118
1977
1
unknown
11,625
94,743
34,084
74
26
Nestucca
R.
1973­
94
17
Cedar
Cr.
H.
(
Nestucca
R.)
1,200,855
1972
1
Deschutes
R.
(
OR)
22,662
1972­
75
3
Hagerman
NFH*
148,404
1969­
71
3
Irrigon
H.
104,101
1929­
30
2
Nestucca
R./
Trask
H.
2,535,000
1926
1
Trask
H.
20,000
1978­
87
5
Trask
H.
568,129
1976,77
2
unknown
260,190
4,584,174
275,167
94
6
Salmon
R.
1940
1
Trask
H.
50,000
50,000
0
100
0
Siletz
R.
1932
1
Bonneville
H./
Trask
H.
20,000
1935,36
2
McKenzie
R.
H.
190,500
1926
1
Trask
H.
80,000
1933,74
2
unknown
28,250
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
360
108,250
210,500
34
66
Yaquina
R.
1989
1
Anadromous
Inc.
1,142,162
1935­
38
3
McKenzie
R.
H.
234,500
1988
1
OAF/
Rogue
R.
21,389
1983
1
OAF/
Yaquina
R.
55,176
1984­
88
8
Oregon
Aqua
Foods
2,469,650
1987­
89
3
Rogue
R.
7,910,778
1975­
79
5
Trask
H.
(
Private)
1,111,259
1981
1
Yaquina
R.
(
Private)
89,026
4,867,273
8,166,667
37
63
Alsea
R.
1919­
27
6
Alsea
H.
9,444,978
1928­
36
4
LCR
(
OR)/
Oregon
Coast
5,118,886
1931
1
Marion
Forks
H.
814,520
1935,36
2
McKenzie
R.
H.
940,000
1930
1
Trask
H.
497,922
1916,74
2
unknown
659,056
1,156,978
6,873,406
14
86
Yachats
R.
1935
1
McKenzie
R.
H.
50,000
0
50,000
0
100
Siuslaw
R.
1935
1
McKenzie
R.
H.
100,000
1974
1
unknown
12,625
12,625
100,000
11
89
Umpqua
R.
1971
1
Hagerman
NFH*
164,000
1957­
93
26
Rock
Cr.
H.
6,181,564
1976,77
2
unknown
655,879
6,837,443
164,000
98
2
Coos
R.
1983­
89
7
Anadromous
Inc.
9,855,503
1931­
33
3
Coos
R.
1,745,572
1982,83
2
Jordon
Pt.
(
Private)
13,336
1979­
82
4
Rogue
R.
1,957,959
1926­
83
4
unknown
772,971
1935
1
Willamette
H.
1,413,860
12,387,382
3,371,819
79
21
Coquille
R.
1984­
92
7
Coquille
R.
140,385
140,385
0
100
0
Totals
for
ESU
#
6:
303,075,541
94,172,093
76
24
7)
Washington
Coast
ESU
(
Fall
Run)

Salt
Ck.
1975
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
100,800
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
361
1959
1
Elwha
R.
42,120
1971,73
2
Hood
Canal
H.
443,890
1972
1
Hood
Canal
H./
Elwha
R.
234,817
1974,75
Hood
Canal
H./
Sol
Duc
H.
104,830
1972
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
X
White
R.
153,016
0
1,079,473
0
100
Lyre
R.
1959
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
70,425
1963
1
Hood
Canal
H.
112,348
1958
1
Green
R.
H.
101,012
0
283,785
0
100
Deep
Ck.
1975
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
100,800
1975
1
Hood
Canal
H./
Sol
Duc
H.
25,774
0
126,574
0
100
Pysht
R.
1959
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
156,432
1953­
56
4
Elwha
R.
126,915
1958­
65
3
Green
R.
H.
444,831
1963,73
2
Hood
Canal
H.
408,950
1972
1
Hood
Canal
H./
Elwha
R.
234,366
1974,75
2
Hood
Canal
H./
Sol
Duc
H.
138,900
1972
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
X
White
R.
152,535
0
1,662,929
0
100
Clallam
R.
1961,75
2
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
193,185
1965,66
2
Green
R.
H.
504,940
1962­
73
7
Hood
Canal
H.
2,096,097
1972
1
Hood
Canal
H./
Elwha
R.
98,987
1964
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
302,000
1974,75
2
Sol
Duc
H.
226,234
226,234
3,195,209
7
93
Hoko
R.
1959,75
2
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
336,400
1953,55
2
Elwha
R.
84,456
1958,60
2
Green
R.
H.
226,416
1984­
94
10
Hoko
R.
1,805,115
1963­
73
3
Hood
Canal
H.
1,850,582
1972
1
Hood
Canal
H./
Elwha
R.
234,877
1974,75
2
Hood
Canal
H./
Sol
Duc
H.
172,348
1972
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
X
White
R.
153,027
1983
1
Sooes
R.
13,464
1,818,579
3,058,106
37
63
Sekiu
R.
1975
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
184,800
1971,73
2
Hood
Canal
H.
758,450
1971
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
524,221
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
362
0
1,467,471
0
100
Sail
R.
1980
1
Portage
Bay
2,000
0
2,000
0
100
Waatch
R.
1981
1
Sol
Duc
H.
83,000
83,000
0
100
0
Sooes
R.
1959
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
71,120
1958,60
2
Green
R.
H.
284,120
1971
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
519,440
1982­
94
12
Sooes
R.
8,822,053
1978­
79
2
unknown
555,000
9,377,053
874,680
91
9
Bogachiel
R.
1975
1
Bogachiel
R.
20,582
1958
1
Green
R.
H.
95,340
1988
1
Sol
Duc
H.
75,000
95,582
95,340
50
50
Sol
Duc
R.
1959
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
233,400
1958
1
Elwha
R.
67,520
1958,60
2
Green
R.
H.
459,870
1963­
73
3
Hood
Canal
H.
1,898,046
1971
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
211,968
1972
1
Nemah
H./
Lake
Quinault
H.
429,600
1973­
91
3
Quillayute
R.
578,127
1974­
93
12
Sol
Duc
H.
4,834,662
5,842,389
2,870,804
67
33
Quillayute
R.
1988­
92
6
Quillayute
R.
1,420,877
1993
1
Sol
Duc
H.
174,500
1,595,377
0
100
0
Hoh
R.
1959
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
144,000
1958­
60
2
Green
R.
H.
321,719
1976­
87
8
Hoh
R.
330,975
1977­
81
3
unknown
143,500
474,475
465,719
50
50
Queets
R.
1981­
82
2
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
840,528
1979
1
Green
R.
H./
Samish
H.
222,852
1975­
93
18
Queets
R.
3,150,159
1980
1
Queets
R./
Lake
QuinaultH.
357,345
1979­
80
2
Quillayute
R.
221,355
1979
1
Lake
Quinault
H.
28,876
1981
1
unknown
137,500
3,895,235
1,063,380
79
21
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
363
Raft
R.
1978
1
George
Adams
H.
and
Lake
Quinault
H.
584,853
1978
1
Green
R.
H
and
Lake
Quinault
H.
685,291
1978
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
610,247
1978
1
unknown
713,317
713,317
1,880,391
28
72
Quinault
R.
1981,82
2
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
1,240,704
1977
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)/
Nemah
H.
199,409
1975
1
Green
R.
H.
and
Quinault
NFH
31,979
1970­
74
3
Hoh
R./
Lake
Quinault
H.
607,352
1974
1
Hood
Canal
H./
Quinault
NFH
494,700
1969­
70
3
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
2,086,603
1975­
94
15
Lake
Quinault
H.
12,459,579
1972
1
Lake
Quinault
H./
Hoh
R.
454,700
1974
1
Nemah
H.
739,800
1976
1
Nemah
H./
QuinaultNFHR.
258,733
1989
1
Queets
R.
4,400
1968
1
Quilcene
NFH
770,626
1975,76
2
Quinault
NFH./
Willapa
H.
429,033
1982
1
Quinault
R./
Samish
H.
241,447
1973­
83
9
unknown
7,346,024
1974
1
Willapa
H.
696,897
22,996,518
5,065,468
82
18
Chehalis
R.
1991,93
2
Chehalis
R.
308,146
1964­
79
5
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
1,155,434
1957­
62
5
Green
R.
H.
1,578,225
1963­
74
4
Hood
Canal
H.
581,630
1969,70
2
Nemah
H.
647,390
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
449,203
1987,88
2
Wishkah
R.
107,739
1989­
93
5
Wynoochee
R.
462,440
1,525,715
3,764,492
29
71
Satsop
R.
1952
1
Carson
NFH
55,724
1964­
79
11
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
5,927,465
1972,73
2
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)/
Nemah
H.
363,224
1974
1
Elk
R.
H.
68,689
1955­
57
4
Green
R.
H.
2,513,296
1985­
89
5
Humptulips
H.
6,285,099
1974­
76
3
Nemah
H.
472,057
1955­
93
19
Simpson
H.
5,508,944
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
1,184,176
1975
1
Trask
H.
18,491
12,266,100
10,131,065
55
45
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
364
Wynoochee
R.
1973
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)/
Nemah
H.
8,110
1973
1
Simpson
H./
Hood
Canal
H.
10,000
1974
1
Trask
H.
20,000
1975
1
unknown
38,215
1993
Wynoochee
R.
80,000
118,215
38,110
76
24
Wishkah
R.
1988­
92
4
Wishkah
R.
285,119
285,119
0
100
0
Hoquiam
R.
1986
1
Hoquiam
R.
1,600
1991
1
Humptulips
H.
13,000
14,600
0
100
0
Humptulips
R.
1952
1
Carson
NFH
316,706
1955­
58
3
Green
R.
H.
1,184,691
1977­
93
16
Humptulips
H.
7,134,418
1966­
70
3
Satsop
Springs
H.
172,250
1973
1
Simpson
H./
Hood
Canal
H.
105,993
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
299,289
1977­
81
5
Willapa
H.
4,530,360
7,306,668
6,437,039
53
47
Johns
R.
1952
1
Carson
NFH
179,810
1970
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
172,800
1969
1
Satsop
Springs
H.
231,000
1973
1
Simpson
H./
Hood
Canal
H.
720,200
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
100,170
231,000
1,172,980
16
84
North
R.
1969­
88
7
Nemah
H.
2,015,540
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
96,565
1988­
93
5
Willapa
H.
5,309,000
7,324,540
96,565
99
1
Willapa
R.
1953­
66
14
Ancient
Wild
Stocks
6,143,013
1963­
70
7
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
3,027,371
1974
1
Elk
R.
H.
28,331
1954­
58
5
Green
R.
H.
3,721,882
1971,72,79
Hood
Canal
H.
1,391,346
1972­
88
5
Nemah
H.
857,741
1973
1
Nemah
H./
Minter
Cr.
H.
600,000
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
1,112,413
1974­
75
2
Trask
H.
48,509
1967­
74
6
unknown
4,306,161
1972­
93
22
Willapa
H.
51,185,897
62,492,812
9,929,852
86
14
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
365
Palix
R.
1955,57
2
Green
R.
H.
157,160
1969­
93
7
Nemah
H.
1,084,871
1973
1
Nemah
H./
Minter
Cr.
H.
20,082
1,084,871
177,242
86
14
Nemah
R.
1972
1
Abernathy
NFH
70,173
1954
1
Ancient
Wild
Stocks
5,197
1962­
67
5
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
1,342,905
1959
1
Elokomin
H.
102,276
1954­
58
5
Green
R.
H.
2,468,956
1958
1
Klickitat
H.
75,158
1955­
93
38
Nemah
H.
38,997,916
1984­
86
3
Nemah
H./
Willapa
H.
4,266,105
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
145,275
1987­
93
3
Willapa
H.
2,871,200
46,140,418
4,204,743
92
8
Naselle
R.
1953
1
Ancient
Wild
Stocks
19,000
1970
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
100,000
1955­
58
4
Green
R.
H.
545,905
1981­
93
10
Naselle
H.
31,902,250
1984­
86
3
Naselle
H./
Willapa
H.
8,285,802
1959­
89
12
Nemah
H.
7,413,499
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
363,419
1972,77
2
unknown
416,728
1981­
93
10
Willapa
H.
13,540,734
61,578,013
1,009,324
98
2
Bear
R.
1988
1
Naselle
H.
84,400
1972­
189
4
Nemah
H.
324,411
408,811
0
100
0
7)
Washington
Coast
ESU
(
Spring
Run)

Hoh
R.
1960
1
Dungeness
H.
100,000
1978­
85
5
Hoh
R.
157,165
1978
1
unknown
44,880
202,045
100,000
67
33
Sol
Duc
R.
1974
1
Cowlitz
H.
119,605
1972,73
2
Cowlitz
H.
X
Rock
Cr.
H.
(
OR)
255,085
1973­
88
9
Dungeness
H.
307,435
1985
1
Quillayute
R.
354,543
1976­
93
18
Sol
Duc
H.
7,987,992
8,342,535
682,125
92
8
Queets
R.
1976
1
Cowlitz
H.
72,953
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
366
0
72,953
0
100
Quinault
R.
1976,77
2
Cowlitz
H.
328,288
1977
1
Quillayute
R.
170,000
170,000
328,288
34
66
Satsop
R.
1977
1
Cowlitz
H.
2,576
0
2,576
0
100
Chehalis
R.
1977
1
Skookumchuck
R.
1,878
1,878
0
100
0
Wynoochee
R.
1977
1
Cowlitz
H.
59,200
1979
1
Sol
Duc
H.
40,314
40,314
59,200
41
59
Willapa
R.
1971
1
Cowlitz
H.
125,970
0
125,970
0
100
Naselle
R.
1982
1
Cowlitz
H.
270,000
0
270,000
0
100
Totals
for
ESU
#
7:
256,651,413
61,793,853
81
19
8)
Puget
Sound
ESU
(
Fall
Run)

San
Juan
SW
1984­
92
4
Glenwood
Springs
COOP
857,350
1980­
92
3
Samish
H.
452,207
1990,91
2
Skagit
H.
17,138
1983
1
unknown
15,000
1,341,695
0
100
0
San
Juan
Islands
1987­
91
4
Glenwood
Springs
COOP
1,357,800
1981­
93
4
Samish
H.
261,190
1991,92
2
Skagit
H.
11,700
1987­
91
3
Skykomish
H.
56,080
1,686,770
0
100
0
Lummi
Sea
Pond
1976­
89
7
Green
R.
H.
3,696,783
1986,91
2
Lummi
Bay
Sea
Ponds
154,000
1992,93
2
Nooksack
H.
1,881,729
1991
1
Nooksack
H./
Samish
H.
350,000
1979­
90
10
Samish
H.
11,551,579
17,634,091
0
100
0
Nooksack
R.
1984
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
26,603
1988,89
2
Glenwood
Springs
COOP
730,456
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
367
1956­
89
18
Green
R.
H.
33,650,357
1977­
79
3
Hood
Canal
H.
1,778,623
1979
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
399,000
1968
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
451,156
1955­
93
38
Nooksack
H.
48,817,932
1986,91
2
Nooksack
H./
Samish
H.
2,970,171
1955­
93
24
Samish
H.
97,363,151
1976­
85
3
Skagit
H.
952,976
1984
1
Skookum
Cr.
H.
1,390,000
1967,74
2
Skykomish
H.
962,181
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
977,297
1967
1
Toutle
H.
334,930
1951­
79
4
unknown
699,905
1985­
93
8
Whatcom
Cr.
1,266,518
191,459,029
1,312,227
99
1
Whatcom
Cr.
1985­
93
8
Whatcom
Cr.
1,266,518
1,266,518
0
100
0
Samish
R.
1987
1
Glenwood
Springs
COOP
49,680
1966­
81
8
Green
R.
H.
6,607,175
1973­
77
4
Green
R.
H./
Skagit
H.
2,744,647
1974
1
Humptulips
H./
Willapa
H.
508,421
1963
1
Klickitat
H.
886
1973
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
3,132,914
1970,74
2
Minter
Cr.
H.
3,045,999
1973,74
2
Minter
Cr.
H./
Skagit
H.
961,195
1953­
93
41
Samish
H.
140,016,207
1975,76
2
Skagit
H.
2,011,464
1967
1
Skykomish
H.
1,768,824
1953,60
2
Spring
Cr.
NFH
225,345
1960
1
unknown
14,506
160,861,032
226,231
100
0
Skagit
R.
1983
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
71,600
1988
2
Glenwood
Springs
COOP
792,500
1955­
90
18
Green
R.
H.
20,281,936
1972,73
2
Green
R.
H./
Skagit
H.
6,407,418
1963
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
1,469,018
1970
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
1,984,159
1973
1
Minter
Cr.
H./
Skagit
H.
3,401,731
1953­
90
16
Samish
H.
22,402,823
1957­
93
28
Skagit
H.
25,775,809
1981,82
2
Skykomish
H.
1,662,213
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
209,736
84,249,207
209,736
100
0
North
Puget
Sound
1984
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
10,000
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
368
SW
Releases
1989,90
2
Green
R.
H.
128,200
1984­
93
4
Samish
H.
771,646
1985­
91
3
Skagit
H.
197,750
1,107,596
0
100
0
Whidbey
Island
1975
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
275,000
1964­
71
4
Green
R.
H.
1,629,384
1962­
70
5
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
2,600,010
1962,64
2
Samish
H.
1,530,772
6,035,166
0
100
0
Whidbey
Island
SW
1984
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
26,000
1988
1
Glenwood
Springs
COOP
15,000
1989­
93
4
Samish
H.
142,950
1985­
91
5
Skagit
H.
156,337
1974,77
2
unknown
65,746
406,033
0
100
0
Stillaguamish
R.
1957­
74
11
Green
R.
H.
11,305,757
1974
1
Hood
Canal
H.
1,793,131
1963,66
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
1,230,133
1970
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
590,400
1989­
93
5
NF
Stillaguamish
R.
459,647
1958
1
Samish
H.
363,542
1973
1
Skykomish
H.
290,000
1981­
88
6
Stillaguamish
R.
578,074
16,610,684
0
100
0
Tulalip
Cr.
1983
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
1,059,000
1976­
93
8
Green
R.
H.
6,608,432
1975
1
Green
R.
H./
Skagit
H.
415,397
1979,80
2
Green
R.
H./
Skykomish
H.
1,468,292
1988
1
Green
R.
H./
Tulalip
H.
1,425,000
1983
1
Hood
Canal
H.
441,000
1976
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
998,000
1992
1
Samish
H.
1,188,000
1986
1
Samish
H./
Tulalip
H.
1,500,000
1974­
85
5
Skagit
H.
2,935,410
1977­
89
7
Skykomish
H.
4,986,792
1987
1
Snohomish
R.
1,057,660
1974,78
2
unknown
575,800
24,658,783
0
100
0
Mission
Cr.
1979­
80
2
Green
R.
H.
725,811
1979­
81
3
Green
R.
H./
Skykomish
H.
1,469,711
1979,81
2
Skykomish
H.
763,903
2,959,425
0
100
0
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
369
Skykomish
R.
1975­
86
4
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
1,841,582
1955­
88
12
Green
R.
H.
9,318,391
1975
1
Green
R.
H./
Skagit
H.
453,690
1959­
77
3
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
3,896,856
1953
1
Lower
Kalama
H.
654,464
1957
1
Puyallup
H.
895,007
1964,77
2
Samish
H.
1,751,994
1954­
93
37
Skykomish
H.
51,373,126
1976
1
Skykomish
H./
Cowlitz
H.
34,861
1973­
80
5
Snohomish
R.
2,194,208
1948­
51
4
unknown
981,399
72,706,253
689,325
99
1
Snoqualimie
R.
1963­
74
3
Green
R.
H.
1,267,977
1960
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
702,400
1966,73
2
Skykomish
H.
738,454
1977
1
unknown
20,216
2,729,047
0
100
0
Snohomish
R.
1960­
65
3
Green
R.
H.
693,119
1960
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
567,676
1966
1
Skykomish
H.
167,086
1990­
93
Samish
H.
26,100
1989
1
Skagit
H.
3,500
1,457,481
0
100
0
Lake
Washington
1953­
93
16
Green
R.
H.
15,535,797
1979
1
Green
R.
H.
X
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
2,712,063
1972,73
2
Green
R.
H.
X
White
R.
352,809
1953­
93
39
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
95,465,568
1972,73
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
X
White
R.
852,333
1988
1
Lake
Samamish
2,996,000
1972­
76
3
Lake
Washington/
B.
C.
837,330
1953
1
Lower
Kalama
H.
1,109,682
1965­
93
23
Portage
Bay
4,150,670
1955
1
Puyallup
H.
768,734
1958
1
Samish
H.
1,372,583
1972­
79
4
unknown
726,202
124,932,759
1,947,012
98
2
Duwamish
R.
1975
1
Capilano
H.
(
BC)
148,272
1977,82
2
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
2,181,726
1991,93
2
Green
R.
(
native)
5,728,805
1953­
93
41
Green
R.
H.
185,825,121
1972,73
2
Green
R.
H.
X
White
R.
832,352
1972,73
2
Green
R.
H./
Hoh
R.
279,851
1975
1
Green
R.
H./
Skagit
H.
49,361
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
370
1985
1
Grovers
Cr.
H.
789,600
1983
1
Hood
Canal
H.
29,550
1959
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
95,500
1972,73
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
/
B.
C.
494,013
1972
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
77,055
1973
1
Puyallup
H.
X
White
R.
208,400
1990
1
S.
Puget
Sound
3,770,574
1981,82
2
Skagit
H.
44,129
1981­
84
4
Skykomish
H.
2,860,559
1985
1
Sooes
R.
859,600
1973,74
2
unknown
348,000
202,840,732
1,781,736
99
1
Duwamish
R.
SW
1979
1
Cowlitz
H.
7,824
1984
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
43,679
1976
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
X
B.
C.
22,283
1988,89
2
Glenwood
Springs
COOP
73,099
1969­
91
6
Green
R.
H.
163,167
1981
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
14,787
1974,75
2
Minter
Cr.
H.
24,576
1956­
93
5
Samish
H.
199,305
1981­
91
6
Skagit
H.
279,913
1980­
83
3
Skykomish
H.
79,210
1977­
79
3
unknown
86,080
963,816
30,107
97
3
Seahurst
Park
1977­
79
3
unknown
13,799
13,799
0
100
0
Des
Moines
Cr.
1990,91
2
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
34,900
1993
1
Samish
H.
40,000
74,900
0
100
0
East
Puget
Sound
SW
1990
1
Green
R.
H.
400
SW
Releases
1974
1
unknown
8,000
8,400
0
100
0
Puyallup
R.
SW
1988­
90
3
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
66,120
1976
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
X
B.
C.
5,585
1989
1
Glenwood
Springs
COOP
24,200
1974,76
2
Minter
Cr.
H.
20,283
1987
1
Samish
H.
10,700
1990
1
Skagit
H.
29,500
1974
1
unknown
16,469
167,272
5,585
97
3
Puyallup
R.
1976­
90
5
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
4,351,976
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
371
1953­
90
17
Green
R.
H.
11,649,460
1975
1
Green
R.
H./
Skagit
H.
48,500
1974
1
Hood
Canal
H.
1,458,660
1973
1
Humptulips
R.
69,190
1960,72
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
1,676,163
1978
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
611,200
1953­
93
41
Puyallup
H.
64,999,696
1979
1
Puyallup
H./
Green
R.
H.
1,195,746
1979
1
Skagit
H./
Skykomish
H.
1,265,621
1967
1
Skykomish
H.
150,995
87,477,207
0
100
0
Chambers
Cr.
1988­
93
4
Chambers
Cr.
1,916,580
1976­
993
8
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
1,692,431
1975
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
X
B.
C.
45,000
1983­
91
11
Garrison
Springs
H.
6,613,859
1959­
88
7
Green
R.
H.
1,010,527
1981
1
Green
R.
H./
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
173,223
1960­
81
3
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
695,117
1973­
79
3
Minter
Cr.
H.
534,302
1976­
81
3
Portage
Bay
249,639
1980­
93
3
Puyallup
H.
819,320
1980
1
Puyallup
H./
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
349,342
1982
1
S.
Puget
Sound
866,378
1961,83
2
Samish
H.
847,200
1990,91
Skagit
H.
62,800
15,830,718
45,000
>
99
<
1
Nisqually
R.
1986
1
Coulter
Cr.
H.
1,000,000
1962,76­
92
12
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
14,395,312
1992
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
and
McAllister
Cr.
H.
1,339,800
1985,88
2
Garrison
Springs
H.
808,200
1956­
88
16
Green
R.
H.
16,117,962
1984,85
2
Grovers
Cr.
H.
484,400
1983,92
1
Hood
Canal
H.
2,239,040
1973
1
Hood
Canal
H.
X
White
R.
30,000
1960,71
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
700,230
1985­
91
7
McAllister
Cr.
H.
7,833,400
1971,73
2
Minter
Cr.
H.
1,688,760
1985­
93
4
Nisqually
R.
5,538,696
1984­
93
4
Nisqually
R./
Green
R.
H.
3,369,347
1957­
81
5
Puyallup
H.
985,482
1980
1
Puyallup
H./
Green
R.
H.
893,000
1984
1
Samish
H.
3,238,100
1982
1
Skykomish
H.
1,747,309
1994
1
unknown
770,000
63,179,038
0
100
0
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
372
Deschutes
R.
1982­
92
5
Coulter
Cr.
H.
1,335,656
1956­
93
31
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
110,062,126
1976
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
and
Hood
Canal
H.
460,157
1979
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
and
Minter
Cr.
H.
599,866
1968­
81
3
George
Adams
H.
2,550,360
1953­
91
19
Green
R.
H.
26,278,938
1984­
90
4
Grovers
Cr.
H.
2,953,500
1965­
84
11
Hood
Canal
H.
13,206,917
1974
1
Hood
Canal
H.
X
White
R.
17,917
1980
1
Hood
Canal
H./
Green
R.
H.
1,009,931
1967­
81
6
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
3,520,277
1986­
91
3
McAllister
Cr.
H.
3,414,450
1968­
92
6
Minter
Cr.
H.
3,827,326
1981,84
2
Puyallup
H.
767,652
1972­
88
6
S.
Puget
Sound/
Hood
Canal
H.
12,260,519
1981,84
2
Samish
H.
3,495,771
1982,86,90
3
Skagit
H.
313,343
1980­
83
4
Skykomish
H.
2,860,779
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
110,400
1972­
80
4
unknown
29,937,966
218,873,451
110,400
100
0
South
Puget
Sound
1960­
87
12
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
3,392,734
SW
Releases
1958,82
1
Green
R.
H.
365,485
1965,80
2
Hood
Canal
H.
511,700
1959
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
251,600
1971,92
2
Minter
Cr.
H.
1,003,180
1982
1
Puyallup
H.
282,577
1984
1
S.
Puget
Sound
5,050
1958,80
2
Samish
H.
511,020
6,323,346
0
100
0
South
Puget
Sound
1987
1
Coulter
Cr.
H.
18,930
1986­
93
8
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
5,410,874
1985­
87
2
Garrison
Springs
H.
176,800
1975­
91
5
Green
R.
H.
669,603
1985
1
Grovers
Cr.
H.
143,300
1972­
76
3
Hood
Canal
H.
416,388
1974­
93
4
Minter
Cr.
H.
242,093
1977­
82
4
Portage
Bay
546,712
1980,82
2
Puyallup
H.
381,299
1983­
92
3
Samish
H.
196,000
1991
1
Skagit
H.
19,000
1974,75
2
unknown
62,605
8,283,604
0
100
0
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
373
Coulter
Cr.
1981­
92
10
Coulter
Cr.
H.
8,595,982
1962­
91
3
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
1,063,007
1981
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
and
Minter
Cr.
H.
173,337
1980­
89
4
Green
R.
H.
1,859,518
1985
1
Grovers
Cr.
H.
373,500
1983
1
Hood
Canal
H.
685,343
1959
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
253,640
1993
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
1,082,500
1983
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
and
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
280,552
1957
1
Quilcene
NFH
2,805
1981,82
2
S.
Puget
Sound
1,836,054
1958
1
Samish
H.
188,020
16,394,258
0
100
0
Minter
Cr.
1984,88
2
Coulter
Cr.
H.
397,600
1959­
93
7
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
3,060,375
1975
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
X
B.
C.
140,256
1979
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
and
Minter
Cr.
H.
1,265,982
1955­
89
13
Green
R.
H.
10,829,986
1981
1
Green
R.
H./
Minter
Cr.
H.
182,908
1983­
90
6
Grovers
Cr.
H.
4,977,500
1965­
71
4
Hood
Canal
H.
1,008,202
1959,74
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
1,354,321
1974,75
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
X
B.
C.
103,402
1953­
92
38
Minter
Cr.
H.
45,810,377
1976
1
Portage
Bay
364,160
1974­
76
3
Rivers
Inlet
(
BC)
43,052
1980,82
2
S.
Puget
Sound
2,811,521
1958
1
Samish
H.
118,106
1971
1
unknown
29,025
72,253,115
243,658
100
0
Hupp
Springs
1981,84
2
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
143,728
1984,85
2
Grovers
Cr.
H.
224,500
1982­
88
4
Minter
Cr.
H.
568,864
937,092
0
100
0
West
Puget
Sound
1986
1
Chambers
Cr.
970,000
1961­
90
5
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
2,448,904
1959­
91
16
Green
R.
H.
8,615,741
1972
1
Green
R.
H.
X
White
R.
121,672
1983­
94
12
Grovers
Cr.
H.
H
15,869,199
1965,79
2
Hood
Canal
H.
506,003
1963,71
2
Issaquah
Cr.
349,190
1966
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
1,362,126
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
374
1969­
93
8
Minter
Cr.
H./
White
R.
8,816,635
39,059,470
0
100
0
West
Puget
Sound
1976
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
X
B.
C.
5,632
SW
Releases
1965
1
Green
R.
H.
52,500
1972,73
2
Green
R.
H.
X
White
R.
67,098
1970
1
Hood
Canal
H.
4,148
1963­
75
3
Minter
Cr.
H.
664,294
1972
1
Skykomish
H.
595,668
1973­
78
4
unknown
46,776
1,430,484
5,632
100
0
East
Hood
Canal
1960
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
249,600
1975
1
unknown
15,000
264,600
0
100
0
Big
Beef
Cr.
1982­
93
6
Big
Beef
Cr.
293,834
1983,84
2
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
227,337
1993
1
George
Adams
H.
49,387
1981
1
Hood
Canal
H.
1,224
1990
1
Portage
Bay
30,000
1972
1
unknown
400
602,182
0
100
0
Dewatto
R.
1960
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
409,100
1971
1
George
Adams
H.
150,200
1958,62
2
Green
R.
H.
1,326,428
1964,83
2
Hood
Canal
H.
531,806
1959
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
251,322
1958
1
Samish
H.
170,280
2,839,136
0
100
0
Tahuya
R.
1971,81
2
George
Adams
H.
239,100
1958­
62
3
Green
R.
H.
640,334
1983
1
Hood
Canal
H.
102,148
1959
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
250,680
1,232,262
0
100
0
Union
R.
1992
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
9,550
1971
1
George
Adams
H.
310,788
1990
1
Hood
Canal
H.
15,000
335,338
0
100
0
Skokomish
R.
1986
1
Big
Beef
Cr.
84,000
1959­
93
13
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
20,131,521
1985,92
2
Enetai
Cr.
H.
345,279
1960­
93
22
George
Adams
H.
31,990,130
1954­
81
1
Green
R.
H.
2,758,822
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
375
1962­
93
21
Hood
Canal
H.
32,426,037
1975­
93
5
Hood
Canal
H.
and
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
4,683,549
1975,88­
93
5
Hood
Canal
Mixed
13,143,630
1959,81
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
1,091,355
1984­
87
3
McKernan
H.
484,669
1980,81
2
S.
Puget
Sound
3,486,761
1982,86
2
S.
Puget
Sound/
Hood
Canal
H.
5,327,387
1958
1
Samish
H.
373,560
116,326,700
0
100
0
Finch
Cr.
1976­
92
3
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
123,690
1976
1
Deschutes
R./
George
Adams
H.
143,400
1953
1
Dungeness
H.
148,946
1974
1
George
Adams
H.
29,841
1954­
65
7
Green
R.
H.
4,945,959
1959­
93
35
Hood
Canal
H.
59,320,883
1971,72
2
Hood
Canal
H.
X
Cowlitz
H.
113,349
1973,74
2
Hood
Canal
H.
X
White
R.
146,575
1975
1
Trask
H.
8,991
1971
1
unknown
20,054
64,992,697
8,991
100
0
Sund
Cr.
1992
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
156,477
1992
1
Hood
Canal
H.
44,623
201,100
0
100
0
Hamma
Hamma
R.
1984,85
2
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
360,200
1987­
92
5
George
Adams
H.
1,139,100
1981
1
Green
R.
H.
and
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
503,846
1971­
89
7
Hood
Canal
H.
1,742,065
3,745,211
0
100
0
Duckabush
R.
1959­
85
4
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
912,250
1987­
92
6
George
Adams
H.
1,037,300
1958
1
Green
R.
H.
166,800
1971­
89
7
Hood
Canal
H.
2,058,271
4,174,621
0
100
0
Dosewallips
R.
1959­
85
4
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
961,720
1990­
92
3
George
Adams
H.
499,100
1958,72
2
Green
R.
H.
782,300
1963­
89
7
Hood
Canal
H.
2,230,447
1987
1
Nooksack
H.
54,629
4,528,196
0
100
0
Walcott
Slough
1978
1
Quilcene
NFH
648,858
1977,78
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
3,360,606
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
376
1960,61
2
unknown
923,354
4,932,818
0
100
0
Quilcene
R.
1975
1
Hood
Canal
H.
998,380
1975,76
2
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
1,139,624
1965­
79
12
Quilcene
NFH
15,673,927
1979
1
Skykomish
H.
557,710
1962­
64,86
4
unknown
6,432,131
24,801,772
0
100
0
Hood
Canal
SW
1992
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
29,140
1993
1
George
Adams
H.
217,600
1991
1
Hood
Canal
H.
211,020
457,760
0
100
0
Snow,
Salmon
and
Tarboo
Creeks
1993,93
2
George
Adams
H.
185,000
1958,65
1
Green
R.
H.
95,700
1965,70
2
Hood
Canal
H.
61,375
1971
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
311,823
653,898
0
100
0
Dungeness
R.
1959
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
298,235
1953­
62
6
Elwha
R.
303,600
1958­
67
5
Green
R.
H.
2,413,099
1963­
74
5
Hood
Canal
H.
1,688,427
1968
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
416,892
1971
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
629,694
5,749,947
0
100
0
Morse
Cr.
1989
1
Elwha
R.
198,100
1972
1
unknown
27,500
225,600
0
100
0
Elwha
R.
1955
1
Dungeness
H.
115,680
1953­
94
34
Elwha
R.
41,706,945
1960­
67
4
Green
R.
H.
2,061,771
1964­
70
3
Hood
Canal
H.
1,879,897
1968
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
366,109
1989­
90
3
Lower
Elwha
R.
1,044,550
1953
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
194,976
47,174,952
194,976
100
0
8)
Puget
Sound
ESU
(
Spring­
Run)

San
Juan
SW
1993
1
Nooksack
H.
170,900
170,900
0
100
0
Nooksack
R.
1981­
93
13
Nooksack
H.
5,125,660
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
377
1986­
92
4
Skookum
Cr.
H.
161,837
1977­
80
3
Sol
Duc
H.
288,180
5,287,497
288,180
95
5
Samish
R.
1954­
60
3
Skagit
H.
29,238
1982
1
Sol
Duc
H.
80,010
29,238
80,010
27
73
Skagit
R.
1978­
81
4
Buck
Cr.
(
Skagit
R.)
157,914
1953­
93
24
Skagit
H.
3,618,218
1989­
90
2
Suiattle
R.
(
Skagit
R.)
105,867
1962
1
unknown
27,192
3,909,191
0
100
0
North
Puget
Sound
1963
1
Dungeness
H.
278,280
SW
Releases
1955
1
Skagit
H.
218
278,498
0
100
0
Whidbey
Island
SW
1973
1
Cowlitz
H.
X
White
R.
19,303
0
19,303
0
100
Stillaguamish
R.
1953,54
2
Skagit
H.
250,810
250,810
0
100
0
Skykomish
R.
1972
1
Cowlitz
H.
X
White
R.
209,205
1973
1
Skykomish
H.
43,200
1976,77
2
Snohomish
R.
428,921
472,121
209,205
69
31
Lake
Washington
1986
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
8,000
1977
1
unknown
3,000
Duwamish
R.
1977
1
Cowlitz
H.
X
Rock
Cr.
H.
24,000
1973
1
Cowlitz
H.
X
White
R.
195,600
1977
1
Green
R.
H.
51,800
1977­
82
3
Hood
Canal
H.
164,376
1979
1
Skykomish
H.
22,500
1976
1
Skykomish
H.
X
Cowlitz
H.
98,714
1976,78
2
Sol
Duc
H.
1,266,790
238,676
1,585,104
13
87
Duwamish
R.
SW
1977
1
Sol
Duc
H.
13,855
0
13,855
0
100
White
R.
1974­
94
10
White
R.
2,480,424
2,480,424
0
100
0
Chambers
Cr.
1972
1
Skykomish
H.
19,125
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
378
19,125
0
100
0
Deschutes
R.
1976
1
Cowlitz
H.
X
Dungeness
H.
19,600
1977
1
Hood
Canal
H.
134,354
134,354
19,600
87
13
Hupp
Springs
1974­
94
17
White
R.
2,013,488
2,013,488
0
100
0
South
Puget
Sound
SW
1977
1
Hood
Canal
H.
50,541
50,541
0
100
0
West
Puget
Sound
SW
1977
1
unknown
9,270
9,270
0
100
0
Skokomish
R.
1974,75
2
Cowlitz
H.
247,251
1976
1
Cowlitz
H.
X
Dungeness
H.
90,900
1977
1
Hood
Canal
H.
108,097
108,097
338,151
24
76
Finch
Cr.
1973,74
2
Cowlitz
H.
54,027
1973
1
Cowlitz
H.
X
Dungeness
H.
25,435
1974
1
Cowlitz
H.
X
White
R.
19,612
1973­
93
4
Dungeness
H.
88,299
1976­
79
4
Hood
Canal
H.
414,110
1990­
93
4
Quilcene
NFH
198,468
1990­
93
4
Sol
Duc
H.
376,290
700,877
475,364
60
40
Dosewallips
R.
1974,75
2
Cowlitz
H.
299,798
1960­
72
5
Dungeness
H.
587,782
1979,82
2
Hood
Canal
H.
109,085
1977
1
Sol
Duc
H.
208,835
696,867
508,633
58
42
Quilcene
R.
1982­
85
4
Cowlitz
H.
X
Nooksack
H.
1,345,792
1960
1
Dungeness
H.
165,000
1980
1
Hood
Canal
H.
119,287
1986­
91
7
Quilcene
NFH
707,881
1990­
94
5
Sol
Duc
H.
593,611
992,168
1,939,403
34
66
Snow
Cr.
1975
1
Cowlitz
H.
30,000
0
30,000
0
100
Dungeness
R.
1950­
82
29
Dungeness
H.
11,480,061
1977,78
2
Sol
Duc
H.
186,760
11,480,061
186,760
98
2
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
379
Morse
Cr.
1975
1
Cowlitz
H.
10,000
0
10,000
0
100
Elwha
R.
1954­
73
4
Dungeness
H.
865,747
1977
1
Sol
Duc
H.
532,647
865,747
532,647
62
38
Totals
for
ESU
#
8:
1,757,915,434
13,046,831
99
1
9)
Lower
Columbia
R.
ESU
(
Fall
Run)

Chinook
R.
1964,71
2
Big
Cr.
H.
1,150,865
1981­
93
12
Chinook
H.
8,403,778
1989
1
Elokomin
H.
124,700
1970
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
97,511
1982
1
LCR
(
WA)
830,589
1953,88,89
3
Lower
Kalama
H.
and
Kalama
Falls
H.
1,105,550
1965­
83
4
Spring
Cr.
NFH
3,146,137
1970­
80
3
Toutle
H.
1,177,853
1972­
79
4
unknown
2,473,102
1987,90
2
Washougal
H.
1,584,500
19,997,074
97,511
>
99
<
1
Deep
R.
1980,93
2
Cowlitz
H./
Kalama
R.
960,456
960,456
0
100
0
Grays
R.
1968­
83
9
Abernathy
NFH
8,795,726
1977,84
2
Big
Cr.
H.
1,406,632
1981­
84
3
Bonneville
H.
4,970,683
1980,86
2
Cowlitz
H.
4,018,755
1967­
89
5
Elokomin
H.
3,434,258
1966­
93
26
Grays
R.
H.
22,542,491
1986
1
Grays
R.
H./
Elokomin
H.
102,000
1981,93
2
Kalama
R./
Grays
R.
H.
190,073
1981
1
Klickitat
H.
225,134
1981,82
2
LCR
(
WA)
5,768,516
1957,66
2
Lewis
R.
H.
1,400,329
1953,54
2
Lower
Kalama
H.
399,997
1968­
93
8
Lower
Kalama
H.
9,578,125
1987
1
Skamokawa
Cr.
107,000
1953­
92
15
Spring
Cr.
NFH
17,437,295
1980
1
Toutle
H.
1,951,871
1984­
87
4
Washougal
H.
1,572,395
83,901,280
0
100
0
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
380
Skamokawa
Cr.
1958
1
Klickitat
H.
237,380
237,380
0
100
0
Elokomin
R.
1966­
78
3
Abernathy
NFH
709,546
1981
1
Basin
Stocks
2,928,957
1964
1
Big
Cr.
H.
2,049,806
1980
1
Cowlitz
H.
2,310,420
1974
1
Elk
R.
H.
30,070
1956­
93
26
Elokomin
H.
78,855,922
1986
1
Elokomin
H./
Kalama
R.
1,194,177
1980
1
Elokomin
H./
Toutle
H.
2,411,131
1956
1
Green
R.
H.
67,484
1975­
93
5
Kalama
Falls
H.
5,392,994
1958,82
2
Klickitat
H.
1,759,005
1982
1
LCR
(
WA)
1,300,072
1956­
66
3
Lewis
R.
H.
3,007,696
1953­
54
2
Lower
Kalama
H.
400,080
1971
1
Nemah
H.
132,750
1987
1
Skamokawa
Cr.
511,300
1953­
67
12
Spring
Cr.
NFH
14,699,029
1975,80
2
Toutle
H.
2,337,931
1974
1
Trask
H.
38,974
1955
1
unknown
3,758
1988
1
Washougal
H.
418,000
120,490,058
69,044
>
99
<
1
Abernathy
Cr.
1974­
94
21
Abernathy
NFH
29,120,068
1977
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
5,090
1960­
77
18
unknown
15,273,548
44,398,706
0
100
0
Columbia
R.
­
RM
29
1971,77,79
2
Abernathy
NFH
3,481,359
1979
1
Carson
NFH
966,240
1979
1
Cascade
H.
25,617
1980
1
Cowlitz
H.
7,565,885
1957,58
2
Klickitat
H.
731,595
1980
1
LCR
(
WA)
50,414
1968
1
Lower
Kalama
H.
77,693
1971
1
Priest
Rapids
H.
1,804,000
1957­
69
4
Spring
Cr.
NFH
5,183,331
1969
1
Toutle
H.
500,396
1990,91
2
Tule
Stocks
1,000
1960­
85
10
unknown
471,660,276
1971
1
Wells
H.
1,784,000
1979
1
Willard
NFH
148,575
490,392,381
3,588,000
99
1
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
381
Cowlitz
R.
1981
1
Big
Cr.
H.
(
OR)
807,000
1981
1
Bonneville
H.
4,217,937
1961­
93
27
Cowlitz
H.
152,192,405
1953­
81
3
Lower
Kalama
H.
2,830,087
1953,55
2
Spring
Cr.
NFH
586,673
1968,79
2
Toutle
H.
1,008,357
1978,90
2
Washougal
H.
2,606,330
1952
1
Carson
NFH
24,506
164,273,295
0
100
0
Toutle
R.
1967
1
Big
Cr.
H.
(
OR)
463,459
1952
1
Carson
NFH
1,164,070
1991,93
2
Cowlitz
H.
641,382
1989
1
Elokomin
H.
868,700
1988
1
Grays
R.
H.
3,937,000
1966­
75
4
Green
R.
H.
8,024,234
1957
1
Lewis
R.
H.
348,799
1953­
93
5
Lower
Kalama
H.
and
Kalama
Falls
H.
6,880,135
1953­
60,93
8
Spring
Cr.
NFH
9,400,907
1953­
93
28
Toutle
H.
55,647,988
1964,65
2
unknown
6,479,628
1987,93
2
Washougal
H.
987,600
1960
1
Willard
NFH
795,932
95,639,834
92
8
Kalama
R.
1978
1
Big
Cr.
H.
(
OR)
88,568
1977,82
2
Bonneville
H.
734,074
1958­
93
31
Kalama
Falls
H.
169,592,860
1956
1
Lewis
R.
H.
661,447
1952­
84
28
Lower
Kalama
H.
51,969,100
1976­
81
3
Priest
Rapids
H.
280,209
1972
1
Ringold
H.
190,316
1978­
84
6
Snake
R.
2,194,002
1959,60
2
Spring
Cr.
NFH
5,168,368
1978,79
2
Toutle
H.
4,286,684
1980
1
Tucannon
R.
183,034
183,034
232,684,135
2,847,561
99
1
Lewis
R.
1979
1
Grays
R.
H.
23,567
1952­
93
30
Lewis
R.
H.
15,283,070
1954
1
Lower
Kalama
H.
41,128
1954,74
2
Lower
Kalama
H.
and
Kalama
Falls
H.
274,978
1961­
79
3
Speelyai
H.
1,315,749
1959­
81
3
Spring
Cr.
NFH
3,121,717
1948­
51
4
unknown
510,252
1984,85
2
Upriver
Brights
1,187,029
1980
1
Washougal
H.
28,267
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
382
20,598,728
1,187,029
95
5
Salmon
Cr.
1969
1
Lower
Kalama
H..
3,000
1969
1
Toutle
H.
3,000
6,000
0
100
0
Washougal
R.
1967,86
2
Abernathy
NFH
2,239,237
1971
1
Big
Cr.
H.
(
OR)
856,650
1977­
83
3
Bonneville
H.
4,437,019
1980,86
2
Cowlitz
H.
7,489,190
1986
1
Elokomin
H.
75,600
1985
1
Grays
R.
H.
79,750
1966­
85
7
Kalama
Falls
H.
8,996,220
1981
1
LCR
(
OR/
WA)
5,509,822
1955­
66
4
Lewis
R.
H.
2,449,402
1953
1
Lower
Kalama
H.
175,000
1989
1
Priest
Rapids
H.
1,216,800
1958­
65
8
Spring
Cr.
NFH
21,186,454
1992
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH/
Toutle
H.
5,522,700
1969­
80
5
Toutle
H.
7,451,494
1979
1
Toutle
H./
Washougal
H.
5,342,147
1964,67
2
unknown
4,776,903
1959­
93
24
Washougal
H.
83,605,011
160,192,599
1,216,800
99
1
Columbia
R.
 
RM
141
1992,93
2
Bonneville
H.
857,601
1978­
88
9
LCR
(
WA)
653,305
1992
1
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
1,628,987
1977
1
Priest
Rapids
H.
241,000
1977
1
Snake
R.
(
WA)
3,326
1955­
79
4
unknown
1,510,096
1982
1
Washougal
H.
49,034
4,699,023
244,326
95
5
Hamilton
Cr.
1977
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
50,160
50,160
0
100
0
North
Bonneville
Dam
1984
1
Abernathy
NFH
12,087
(
bypass
system
tests)
1987­
90
4
Bonneville
H.
7,915,781
1980,81
1
Snake
R
(
ID)
119,247
1973
1
Snake
R.
(
WA)
45,812
7,927,868
165,059
98
2
Wind
R.
1952­
68
11
unknown
54,803,553
1976
1
Carson
NFH
668,692
55,472,245
0
100
0
Spring
Cr.
NFH
1979­
84
5
Abernathy
NFH
29,113,699
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
383
1985­
91
7
Bonneville
H.
44,276,578
1991
1
Clackamas
R.
(
early)
3,292,304
1987,88
2
LCR
(
WA)
10,771,008
1987
1
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
973,610
1987
1
Priest
Rapids
H.
1,100,000
88,427,199
1,100,000
99
1
1973­
94
18
Spring
Cr.
NFH
228,514,095
1988
1
Tule
Stock
1,084,816
1988
1
unknown
217,350
229,816,261
0
100
0
Little
White
Salmon
R.
1985
1
Bonneville
H.
203,996
1994
1
Carson
NFH
1,797,922
1976­
85
9
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
86,649,137
1978,94
2
Spring
Cr.
NFH
5,937,253
1983
1
Tule
Stock
8,430,082
1951­
79
16
unknown
152,096,514
1983­
93
11
Upriver
Brights
20,708,020
255,114,904
20,708,020
92
8
Columbia
R.
­
RM
164
1994
1
Carson
NFH
325
1981
1
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
37,400
1979
1
unknown
265,472
303,197
0
100
0
Big
White
Salmon
R.
1976­
84
4
Abernathy
NFH
8,231,545
1979
1
LCR
(
WA)
101,896
1981
1
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
1,084,839
1954,79
2
Spring
Cr.
NFH
3,082,047
1950­
79
18
unknown
74,351,025
1979
1
Willard
NFH
98,597
86,949,949
0
100
0
Klickitat
R.
1986
1
Big
Cr.
H.
(
OR)
3,843,600
1978­
92
3
Bonneville
H.
7,746,095
1979
1
Cascade
H.
3,230,872
1971­
76
6
Cowlitz
H.
5,335,817
1972,84
2
Kalama
R.
1,625,300
1954­
92
27
Klickitat
H.
29,977,441
1979
1
Klickitat
H./
Cascade
H.
3,595,413
1952,86
2
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
718,027
1975,76
2
Lower
Kalama
H.
677,137
1991,92
2
Lyons
Ferry
H.
3,472,700
1964
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
5,687,976
1987­
93
7
Priest
Rapids
H.
23,987,100
1952­
83
25
Spring
Cr.
NFH
39,585,532
1966­
75
4
Toutle
H.
2,568,845
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
384
1951,68
2
unknown
3,171,742
1978
1
Washougal
H.
819,219
1977­
91
5
Wells
Dam
(
includes
Summer
Run)
2,069,109
102,895,040
35,216,885
75
25
Skipanon
R.
1987
1
Klaskanine
H.
15,500
15,500
0
100
0
Lewis
and
Clark
R.
1951,52
2
LCR
(
OR)
146,230
1950
1
unknown
61,600
207,830
0
100
0
Youngs
R.
1988,91
2
Big
Cr.
H.
621,005
1986
1
Bonneville
H.
26,397
1989­
92
3
Cole
Rivers
H.
475,352
1961,89
2
Klaskanine
H.
122,625
770,027
475,352
62
38
Klaskanine
R.
1979
1
Abernathy
NFH
56,260
1950­
89
10
Big
Cr.
H.
33,173,221
1931
1
Big
White
Salmon
R.
737,702
1929
1936
2
Bonneville
H.
5,955,830
1978­
86
9
Bonneville
H.
32,704,826
1975
1
Chetco
R.
41,079
1983­
88
6
Cole
Rivers
H.
572,601
1925­
78
13
Klaskanine
H.
16,042,881
1927,28
2
Klaskanine
H./
USBF
2,145,108
1960,62
1
Klaskanine
H./
Willard
NFH
1,993,540
1932­
66
8
LCR
(
OR)
11,302,002
1933,42
2
LCR
(
OR)/
Willamette
H.
7,371,078
1931­
39
4
LCR
(
WA)/
Willamette
H.
9,209,991
1946,58
2
Oxbow
H.
860,537
1959
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
965,428
1975
1
Trask
H.
39,369
1923­
77
5
unknown
13,334,263
119,271,598
17,234,118
87
13
Big
Cr.
1944­
93
31
Big
Cr.
H.
123,924,819
1946,48
2
Big
Cr.
H./
Bonneville
H.
1,573,622
1959,60
2
Big
Cr.
H./
Willard
NFH
3,171,214
1943
1
Bonneville
H.
338,500
1981­
87
3
Bonneville
H.
14,313,343
1984­
94
11
Cole
Rivers
H.
3,519,553
1941
1
McKenzie
R.
H.
1,290,875
1950,68­
76
9
unknown
54,142,951
1942
1
Willamette
H.
568,500
197,464,449
5,378,928
97
3
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
385
Gnat
Cr.
1952
1
Big
Cr.
H.
29,520
1954­
57
4
Bonneville
H.
150,769
1957,58
2
Trask
H.
52,220
180,289
52,220
78
22
Clatskanie
R.
1951­
53
3
Big
Cr.
H.
208,200
208,200
0
100
0
Mid­
Columbia
R.
OR
1979­
84
5
Abernathy
NFH
965,896
1964,87
2
Big
Cr.
H.
1,949,466
1978­
83
4
Bonneville
H.
5,806,919
1939,54
2
Bonneville
H./
Oxbow
H.
2,714,025
1965
1
Carson
NFH
411,965
1978,81
2
Cascade
H.
5,625,444
1978
1
Deschutes
R
(
OR)
73,092
1910
1
LCR
(
OR)
15,170,324
1981
1
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
25,933
1940,41,63
3
Oxbow
H.
5,246,079
1977­
80
3
Spring
Cr.
NFH
3,359,797
1966
1
Tules
Stock
377,520
1940,69,70
unknown
1,119,151
1987­
91
5
Upriver
Brights
1,804,107
1966
1
Willamette
H.
11,025
42,845,611
1,815,132
96
4
Scappoose
Cr.
1952,53
2
Big
Cr.
H.
69,450
69,450
0
100
0
Clackamas
R.
1952­
54
3
Bonneville
H.
2,160,060
1981
1
Bonneville
H.
4,080
1965
1
LCR
(
OR)
921,545
1955,65
2
Oxbow
H.
1,214,851
1960
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
1,012,607
1960­
72
7
unknown
16,585,148
21,898,291
0
100
0
Eagle
Cr.
1938,53
2
Bonneville
H.
630,000
1961,67
2
Cascade
H.
10,923,441
1949,60­
65
4
LCR
(
OR)
20,420,776
1962
1
LCR
(
OR)/
Mt
Shasta
H.
4,853,922
1929
1
LCR
(
OR)/
Willamette
H.
347,000
1934­
65
7
unknown
978,056
32,952,273
5,200,922
86
14
Sandy
R.
1938­
54
3
Bonneville
H.
4,057,279
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
386
1966
1
Cascade
H.
174,648
1945­
65
8
LCR
(
OR)
18,696,769
1960
1
LCR
(
OR/
WA)
2,919,481
1955­
64
5
Sandy
H.
2,207,995
1934­
77
12
unknown
4,758,926
32,815,098
0
100
0
Multnoma
Cr.
1951
1
LCR
(
OR)
50,400
1953
1
Oxbow
H.
152,064
65,832,660
0
100
0
Tanner
Cr.
1990­
92
3
Big
Cr.
H.
14,585,543
1928­
66
14
Bonneville
H.
106,965,953
1977­
93
17
Bonneville
H.
130,296,696
1912­
61
14
Bonneville
H.
Mix
80,763,654
1945
1
Bonneville
H.
and
Rock
Cr.
H.
4,601,000
1958
1
Bonneville
H./
Trask
H.
4,225,234
1965
1
Bonneville
H./
unknown
9,601,000
1940­
67
6
LCR
(
OR)
34,203,415
1955­
62
3
LCR
(
OR/
WA)
27,961,223
1979­
81
3
Snake
R.
(
OR)
512,440
1957
1
Trask
H.
3,756,712
1986­
91
3
Tule
Stock
2,894,909
1918­
77
21
unknown
206,351,204
1978­
93
16
Upriver
Brights
46,736,964
613,623,597
59,832,350
91
9
Herman
Cr.
1918
1
Bonneville
H.
3,937,598
1928­
54
4
LCR
(
OR)
4,402,471
1958
1
LCR
(
OR/
WA)
2,348,962
1951­
67
12
Oxbow
H.
39,619,232
1925­
68
3
unknown
8,998,412
59,306,675
0
100
0
Hood
R.
1938­
54
7
Bonneville
H.
1,473,180
1951
1
LCR
(
OR)
503,200
1934­
37
4
unknown
680,000
2,656,380
0
100
0
Fifteenmile
Cr.
1949
1
LCR
(
OR)
80,500
80,500
0
100
0
9)
Lower
Columbia
R.
ESU
(
Spring
Run)

Grays
R.
1977
1
Kalama
Falls
H.
116,800
116,800
0
100
0
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
387
Abernathy
Cr.
1975
1
Abernathy
NFH
91,744
1969,75
unknown
90,050
181,794
0
100
0
Cowlitz
R.
1968­
93
26
Cowlitz
H.
68,063,606
1979
1
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
224,590
1948­
70
4
unknown
1,716,588
1968,69
2
Willamette
H.
999,295
70,004,784
999,295
99
1
Toutle
R.
1974­
84
7
Cowlitz
H.
2,661,471
1953
1
unknown
11,184
2,672,655
0
100
0
Kalama
R.
1964
1
Ancient
Wild
Stocks
46,657
1964,66
2
Bitter
Cr.
147,074
1967,81
2
Cowlitz
H.
525,909
1969­
93
25
Kalama
Falls
H.
9,084,007
1965
1
Klaskanine
H.
195,800
1972,73
2
LCR
mix
99,175
1978
1
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
136,989
1964
1
Sherwood
Cr.
132,054
10,367,665
0
100
0
Lewis
R.
1973­
81
4
Carson
NFH
702,708
1972­
87
9
Cowlitz
H.
2,476,235
1981­
93
5
Kalama
Falls
H.
2,415,550
1975,76
2
Klickitat
H.
203,660
1977­
93
11
Lewis
R.
H.
6,999,862
1980
1
Lewis
R.
H./
Kalama
R.
807,408
1977­
82
4
Speelyai
H.
2,011,325
1948­
51
4
unknown
192,943
14,903,323
906,368
94
6
Columbia
R.
(
Beacon
Rock)
1978­
88
8
LCR
(
WA)
959,953
1973­
90
14
Snake
R.
(
WA)
1,412,152
959,953
1,412,152
40
60
North
Bonneville
Dam
(
bypass
system
tests)
1978
1
Carson
NFH
76,060
1980
1
Kooskia
H.
62,300
1978,80
2
Rapid
R.
H.
35,000
1973­
77
4
Snake
R.
(
WA)
425,801
0
599,161
0
100
Columbia
R.­
RM
164
1974,94
2
Carson
NFH
5,350
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
388
0
5,350
0
100
Wind
R.
1976
1
Abernathy
NFH
82,697
1979
1
LCR
(
WA)
45,014
1956­
75
19
unknown
27,098,613
27,226,324
0
100
0
Spring
Cr.
NFH
1993
1
Kalama
Falls
H./
Ringold
H.
and
Carson
NFH
669,400
0
669,400
0
100
Little
White
Salmon
R.
1985
1
Abernathy
NFH
946,959
1986­
94
7
Carson
NFH
9,819,820
1976­
89
13
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
13,759,232
1966­
75
8
unknown
4,807,330
19,513,521
9,819,820
67
33
Big
White
Salmon
1986­
94
8
Carson
NFH
4,880,790
1982
1
Cowlitz
H.
149,071
1991
1
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
942,804
1,091,875
4,880,790
18
82
Youngs
R.
1991,92
2
Clackamas
R.
early
242,534
1994
1
Marion
Forks
H.
301,361
1989­
92
4
Willamette
H.
1,048,266
242,534
1,349,627
15
85
Klaskanine
R.
1931
1
Big
White
Salmon
R.
and
McKenzie
R.
H.
158,643
1991
1
Clackamas
R.
(
early)
119,627
1994
1
Marion
Forks
H.
109,974
1928­
34
3
McKenzie
R.
H.
4,404,514
1994
1
Santiam
R.
100,000
1930
1
Trask
H.
953,400
1920­
24
3
unknown
14,548,862
1989­
92
3
Willamette
H.
577,944
1927
1
Willamette
H.
mix
2,101,000
14,668,489
8,405,475
64
36
Big
Cr.
1985
1
Clackamas
R.
(
early)
20,449
20,449
0
100
0
Mid­
Columbia
R.
OR
1980
1
Carson
NFH
44,344
1979,90
2
Clackamas
R.
(
early)
17,909
1991
1
Lookingglass
H.
8,398
1946
1
unknown
605,750
623,659
52,742
92
8
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
389
Scappoose
Cr.
1930
Marion
Forks
H./
Trask
H.
60,000
0
60,000
0
100
Clackamas
R.
1975
1
Carson
NFH
289,710
1977,78
2
Cascade
H.
195,203
1985,92
2
Clackamas
R.
232,947
1978­
94
14
Clackamas
R.
(
early)
11,595,754
1979
1
Clackamas
R.
(
late)
98,461
1975­
87
5
Eagle
Cr.
NFH
1,294,822
1978
1
Marion
Forks
H.
188,261
1979­
88
4
Santiam
R.
1,653,231
1939­
89
30
unknown
25,649,266
1982­
89
6
Willamette
H.
4,319,098
39,066,453
6,450,300
86
14
Sandy
R.
1990
1
Bonneville
H.
258,629
1978
1
Carson
NFH
57,861
1979­
93
11
Clackamas
R.
(
early)
3,067,038
1948,49
2
LCR
(
OR)
441,169
1942,59
2
McKenzie
R.
H.
1,066,949
1952­
60
7
Sandy
H.
2,192,294
1939­
47
4
Sandy
H./
McKenzie
R.
H.
3,903,646
1957
1
Sandy
H./
Willamette
H.
40,475
1979,81,86
3
Santiam
R.
305,729
1920­
84
8
unknown
2,007,960
1973,74
2
USFWS­
unspecified
37,483
1982­
88
4
Willamette
H.
1,153,877
8,004,573
6,528,537
55
45
Tanner
Cr.
1925­
45
8
Bonneville
H./
Willamette
H.
27,815,501
1930
1
Marion
Forks
H./
Trask
H.
1,710,240
1920­
22
3
unknown
15,861,909
15,861,909
29,525,741
35
65
Herman
Cr.
1920­
35
3
Bonneville
H.
7,119,680
1924
1
Oxbow
H.
3,963,540
1921­
72
19
unknown
50,327,069
61,410,289
0
100
0
Totals
for
ESU
#
9:
3,364,477,082
233,492,623
94
6
ESU
10)
Upper
Willamette
R.
Spring
ESU
Molalla
R.
1991
1
Clackamas
R.
(
early)
469,890
1964
1
McKenzie
R.
H.
72,975
1981­
92
3
Santiam
R.
2,032,335
1964­
65
2
unknown
375,209
1982­
92
10
Willamette
H.
7,520,897
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
390
Pudding
R.
1964
1
McKenzie
R.
H.
62,550
1983­
85
3
Willamette
H.
453,479
516,029
0
100
0
Luckiamute
R.
1968
1
unknown
88,128
88,128
0
100
0
Santiam
R.
1965­
82
7
Carson
NFH
1,416,271
1980,81
2
Clackamas
R.
(
early)
752,939
1967­
75
4
Hagerman
NFH*
645,175
645,175
1923­
94
53
Marion
Forks
H.
87,932,370
1936,37
2
Marion
Forks
H./
McKenzie
R.
H.
8,441,800
1961­
78
7
McKenzie
R.
H.
1,009,442
1941,48
2
McKenzie
R.
H./
Santiam
R.
1,663,717
1932­
94
46
Santiam
R.
61,605,990
1963,64
2
Santiam
R./
Willamette
H.
1,989,604
1962
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
191,298
1918­
81
26
unknown
16,976,462
1981­
86
6
Willamette
H.
10,566,693
190,831,253
3,005,683
98
2
Willamette
R.
1952,62­
67
4
Marion
Forks
H.
343,676
1949,78
2
McKenzie
R.
H.
50,003
1955
1
McKenzie
R.
H./
Willamette
H.
1,173,991
1953,87
2
Santiam
R.
420,240
1916­
77
14
unknown
12,567,419
1955­
67
7
Willamette
H.
9,457,376
1979­
92
11
Willamette
H.
10,089,414
34,102,119
0
100
0
Calapooya
R.
1981,85
2
Santiam
R.
46,188
1982­
85
4
Willamette
H.
500,522
546,710
0
100
0
McKenzie
R.
1969­
75
7
Hagerman
NFH*
1,424,563
1966
1
Marion
Forks
H.
47,418
1952
1
Marion
Forks
H.
and
McKenzie
R.
H.
1,125,897
1966
1
Marion
Forks
H./
Willamette
H.
3,030
1902­
69
62
McKenzie
R.
H.
192,671,426
1978­
94
17
McKenzie
R.
H.
15,997,516
1951­
65
4
McKenzie
R.
H./
Willamette
H.
1,309,620
1972­
91
4
Santiam
R.
288,820
1918­
77
17
unknown
4,144,703
1966­
84
4
Willamette
H.
1,318,574
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
391
216,907,004
1,424,563
99
1
M.
Fork
Willamette
R.
1974
1
Hagerman
NFH*
41,379
1920­
76
4
LCR
(
OR)/
Willamette
H.
1,885,217
1983,90
1
Marion
Forks
H.
290,174
1979­
90
4
McKenzie
R.
H.
1,038,153
1928,52
2
McKenzie
R.
H.
and
Willamette
H.
8,310,778
1958
1
Nehalem
R./
Willamette
H.
19,962
1978­
91
7
Santiam
R.
3,439,419
1952­
66
6
Santiam
R./
Willamette
H.
6,984,701
1950­
77
9
unknown
17,681,493
1958
1
Wenatchee
R./
Willamette
H.
67,827
1921­
94
59
Willamette
H.
17,934,084
55,678,802
2,014,385
97
3
10)
Willamette
R.
Spring
ESU
(
Fall
Run)

Molalla
R.
1965,67
2
Big
Cr.
H.
1,397,158
1958
1
Bonneville
H./
Trask
H.
100,000
1978
1
Cascade
H.
2,111,600
1959,60
2
LCR
(
OR)/
Willamette
H.
401,858
1967
1
Oxbow
H.
500,132
1957
1
Trask
R.
(
Bonneville
H.)
75,000
1964­
76
11
unknown
9,310,823
0
13,896,571
0
100
Luckiamute
R.
1974,76
2
unknown
1,945,098
0
1,945,098
0
100
Mary's
R.
1970
1
Hagerman
NFH*
176,400
0
176,400
0
100
Santiam
R.
1966
1
Big
Cr.
H.
1,000,848
1921,51
2
Bonneville
H./
Oxbow
H.
1,669,444
1966
1
Cascade
H.
350,000
1956,57
2
Klickitat
H.
175,974
1958,66
2
Oxbow
H.
599,911
1964­
76
11
unknown
54,236,434
0
58,032,611
0
100
Willamette
R.
1953­
56
4
Bonneville
H.
2,922,337
1977­
93
16
Bonneville
H.
88,960,581
1949
1
Bonneville
H./
Trask
H.
8,776
1970
1
Hagerman
NFH*
14,560
1965­
85
13
Willamette
H.
34,294,598
0
126,200,852
0
100
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
392
McKenzie
R.
1966
1
Bonneville
H.
510,150
1966
1
Cascade
H.
650,454
1964­
68
3
unknown
3,399,591
0
4,560,195
0
100
Totals
for
ESU
#
10:
498,670,045
204,811,727
71
29
ESU
11)
Mid­
Columbia
R.
Spring­
Run
ESU
Klickitat
R.
1964,65
2
Bitter
Cr.
1,119,891
1961­
87
7
Carson
NFH
1,465,349
1976­
84
4
Cowlitz
H.
2,731,131
1953­
93
39
Klickitat
H.
25,854,158
1966,67
2
unknown
499,910
26,354,068
5,316,371
83
17
Mid­
Columbia
R.
1978­
88
6
MCR
Mixed
(
WA)
317,051
(
McNary
Dam)
317,051
0
100
0
Yakima
R.
1964
1
Bitter
Cr.
85,280
1979­
85
4
Carson
NFH
393,088
1960
1
Dungeness
H.
154,000
1959
1
Klickitat
H.
20,000
1979
1
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
150,000
1997­
91
7
Leavenworth
NFH
2,362,187
1977
1
unknown
13,300
1994
1
Wenatchee
R.
17,913
1988
1
Yakima
R.
13,255
46,555
3,162,468
1
99
Marion
Drain
1976
1
Klickitat
H.
20,613
20,613
0
100
0
Mid­
Columbia
R.
1973­
92
9
Carson
NFH
5,715,196
(
Hanford
Reach)
1977­
82
5
Cowlitz
H.
3,244,442
1972­
90
4
Klickitat
H.
2,379,150
1978.
1983
2
Leavenworth
NFH
234,560
1980
1
MCR
Mixed
(
WA)
102,367
1985­
87
3
Methow
R.
108,644
1990
1
Priest
Rapids
H.
13,000
1977
1
Wells
H.
97,854
2,494,517
9,400,696
21
79
Mid­
Columbia
R.
1977,79
2
Carson
NFH
246,774
(
Priest
Rapids
Dam)
1976­
82
4
Leavenworth
NFH
803,721
1984­
86
3
MCR
(
WA)
176,378
176,378
1,050,495
14
86
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
393
Eagle
Cr.
1920­
77
7
unknown
1,755,347
1,755,347
0
100
0
Hood
R.
1985­
92
6
Carson
NFH
880,036
1979­
90
4
Clackamas
R.
(
early)
111,303
1993
1
Deschutes
R.
(
OR)
69,127
1987­
90
4
Lookingglass
H.
710,028
1919,49
2
unknown
341,860
341,860
1,770,494
16
84
Deschutes
R.
1949­
94
34
Deschutes
R.
(
OR)
12,510,365
1953,55
2
Deschutes
R.
(
OR)
and
Wenatchee
R.
162,318
1966
1
Marion
Forks
H.
11,266
1918­
88
25
unknown
13,670,162
1960­
67
6
Willamette
H.
751,123
1948­
58
3
Willamette
H./
Deschutes
R.
413,307
26,180,527
1,338,014
95
5
John
Day
R.
1978­
82
5
John
Day
R.
89,094
1952
1
Sandy
H.
19,957
89,094
19,957
82
18
Umatilla
R.
1986­
93
7
Carson
NFH
4,180,707
1988­
92
5
Lookingglass
H.
1,356,998
1990
1
Umatilla
R.
29,522
178,188
5,567,227
3
97
11)
Mid­
Columbia
R.
Spring­
Run
ESU­(
Fall
Run)

Umatilla
R.
1990
1
Bonneville
H.
143,728
1982
1
Bonneville
H.
2,828,835
1979
1
Chetco
R.
46,320
1982
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
978,336
1992
1
Umatilla
R.
504,369
1983­
93
11
Upriver
Brights
30,619,004
0
35,120,592
0
100
Totals
for
ESU
#
11:
57,954,198
62,746,314
48
52
12)
Upper
Columbia
R.
Summer
and
Fall­
Run
ESU
(
Fall
and
Late­
Fall
Run)

San
Poil
R.
1975
1
Chehalis
R.
94,391
1977
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
74,889
0
169,280
0
100
Turtle
Rock
1975
1
Chehalis
R.
41,639
1981
1
Elokomin
H.
296,127
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
394
1987­
93
5
Priest
Rapids
H.
1,069,467
1993
1
Priest
Rapids
H./
Wells
H.
1,522,000
1984­
86
3
Snake
R.
(
WA)
and
Priest
Rapids
H.
1,135,368
1984
1
Upriver
Brights
226,276
1987­
91
4
Wells
H.
1,377,502
4,195,245
1,473,134
74
26
Entiat
R.
1975
1
Chehalis
R.
673,250
0
673,250
0
100
Lake
Chelan
1978
1
Bonneville
H.
48,000
1975
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
50,188
1975
1
Green
R.
H./
Skagit
H.
21,000
1976
1
Issaquah
Cr.
H.
54,665
1976
1
Skykomish
H.
17,820
1974,77
2
Spring
Cr.
NFH
140,312
1990
1
Washougal
H.
123,023
1991­
93
3
Wells
H.
401,208
401,208
455,008
47
53
Priest
Rapids
Dam
1992,93
2
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
2,620,000
1975­
93
19
Priest
Rapids
H.
74,663,183
1960,62
2
unknown
4,275
1972­
84
9
Upriver
Brights
29,651,319
1991,92
2
Wells
H.
249,200
104,567,977
2,620,000
98
2
Hanford
Reach
1989­
93
5
Hanford
Reach
1,087,096
1962­
66
3
Klickitat
H.
397,911
1982­
88
6
MCR
Mixed
(
WA)
6,432,150
1964
1
Minter
Cr.
H.
132,804
1976­
86
4
Priest
Rapids
H.
3,601,626
1962­
74
3
Spring
Cr.
NFH
2,202,130
1968,72
2
unknown
3,031,529
14,152,401
2,732,845
84
16
Banks
Lake
1975
1
Deschutes
R.
(
WA)
35,510
1976
1
Skykomish
H.
26,400
1974
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
37,715
0
99,625
0
100
Yakima
R./
Hanford
Reach/
Battell
NW
1992
1
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
124,546
0
124,546
0
100
Yakima
R.
1994
1
Carson
NFH
1,703,892
1992,93
2
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
850,966
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
395
1988
1
Lyons
Ferry
H.
9,825
1987
1
Priest
Rapids
H.
1,000,059
1980­
91
9
Upriver
Brights
12,051,380
13,051,439
2,564,683
84
16
Marion
Drain
1976
1
Kalama
Falls
H.
138,360
0
138,360
0
100
12)
Upper
Columbia
R.
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
ESU
(
Summer
Run)

Similkameen
R.
1991­
93
3
Wells
H.
1,568,290
1,568,290
0
100
0
Methow
R.
1947
1
Entiat
NFH
112,100
1943,44
2
Leavenworth
NFH
77,200
1977­
93
7
Wells
H.
2,573,577
2,762,877
0
100
0
Columbia
R.
1976,86
2
Wells
H.
3,100,650
3,100,650
0
100
0
Wells
Dam
1974
1
LCR
(
WA)
2,447,800
1974­
93
19
Wells
H.
30,314,948
30,314,948
2,447,800
93
7
Turtle
Rock
1981­
83
3
Wells
H.
306,965
306,965
0
100
0
Entiat
R.
1945
1
Carson
NFH
8,200
1946­
64
19
Entiat
NFH
6,396,100
1941,45
2
GCFMP
175,700
1945
1
Methow
R.
27,000
1964
1
Spring
Cr.
NFH
990,800
27,000
999,000
3
97
Wenatchee
R.
1944
1
GCFMP
59,000
1947­
62
13
Leavenworth
NFH
602,800
1991­
93
3
Wenatchee
R.
1,035,619
1,697,419
0
100
0
Hanford
Reach
1979
1
Wells
H.
88,284
88,284
0
100
0
Yakima
R.
1961
1
Leavenworth
NFH
18,500
18,500
0
100
0
12)
Upper
Columbia
R.
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
ESU
(
Mixed
Spring
and
Summer
Runs)

Entiat
R.
1941,42
2
GCFMP
776,700
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
396
776,700
0
100
0
Methow
R.
1941
1
GCFMP
182,000
182,000
0
100
0
Wenatchee
R.
1941,42
2
GCFMP
336,300
336,300
0
100
0
Totals
for
ESU
#
12:
177,548,203
14,497,531
92
8
13)
Upper
Columbia
R.
Spring­
Run
ESU
Methow
R.
1979­
94
5
Carson
NFH
3,525,748
1994
1
Chinook
H.
2,587
1976
1
Cowlitz
H.
271,139
1950
1
Entiat
NFH
143,000
1941,43
2
GCFMP
379,842
1990
1
Klickitat
H.
203,472
1977,80
2
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
1,619,000
1944,82­
93
5
Leavenworth
NFH
1,951,361
1944­
94
30
Methow
R.
11,755,470
1977­
84
3
unknown
2,758,289
1977,78
2
Wells
H.
1,127,307
18,115,269
5,621,946
76
24
Entiat
R.
1976­
92
7
Carson
NFH
3,173,969
1976
1
Cowlitz
H.
436,634
1977­
94
14
Entiat
NFH
9,020,433
1942,44
2
GCFMP
1,034,800
1973,75
2
Klickitat
H.
189,200
1980,83
2
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
1,279,942
1977­
82
3
Leavenworth
NFH
701,672
1990
1
MCR
Mixed
(
WA)
53,306
1989,90
2
Methow
R.
386,176
11,196,387
5,079,745
69
31
Chelan
R.
1972,73
2
LCR
(
WA)
4,468,730
0
4,468,730
0
100
Wenatchee
R.
1971­
93
15
Carson
NFH
16,686,457
1991­
93
Chiwawa
R.
158,307
1976,78
2
Cowlitz
H.
1,935,263
1967,68
2
Eagle
Cr.
NFH
336,606
1943,44
2
GCFMP
1,171,195
1979,80
2
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
1,126,918
1944,76­
94
17
Leavenworth
NFH
32,921,882
1942
1
McKenzie
R.
H.
239,400
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
397
1980
1
MCR
Mixed
(
WA)
199,882
1971
1
unknown
64,350
34,515,616
3,638,187
90
10
Totals
for
ESU
#
13:
63,827,272
18,808,608
77
23
14)
Snake
R.
Fall­
Run
ESU
Clearwater
R.
1948­
54,74
7
unknown
279,462
279,462
0
100
0
Deschutes
R.
1945­
54
5
Bonneville
H.
1,253,706
1980
1
Cascade
H.
119,040
1969­
80
8
Deschutes
R.
(
OR)
908,415
1918­
76
6
unknown
2,139,341
3,047,756
1,372,746
69
31
Salmon
R.
1949­
51
3
unknown
55,760
55,760
0
100
0
Snake
R.
Reservoirs
1982
1
Snake
R.
70,272
1963­
92
13
unknown
1,751,757
1985
1
Snake
R.
124,119
1955­
70
9
unknown
3,453,526
5,399,674
0
100
0
Snake
R.
(
WA)
1982
1
Klickitat
H.
221,759
1985­
93
5
Lyons
Ferry
H.
17,123,090
1979­
84
6
Snake
R.
1,339,452
18,462,542
221,759
99
1
Totals
for
ESU
#
14:
27,245,194
1,594,505
94
6
15)
Snake
R.
Spring­
and
Summer­
Run
ESU­(
Spring
Run)

Clearwater
R.

1968­
82
10
Carson
NFH
5,226,748
1990
1
Clearwater
R.
307,103
1985­
94
9
Dworshak
NFH.
13,752,425
1981­
94
10
Kooskia
H.
7,807,437
1977­
86
5
Leavenworth
NFH
2,019,822
1982­
84
3
Little
White
Salmon
NFH
1,012,173
1993­
94
2
Powell
H.
398,611
1976­
94
17
Rapid
R.
H.
9,848,204
1990­
93
3
Red
R.
H.
650,759
1976
1
Santiam
R.
R
1,043,200
1986­
87
2
Sawtooth
H.
211,879
1963
1
Sweetwater
H.
125,000
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
398
1968­
93
24
Unknown
16,193,772
49,295,190
9,301,943
84
16
Lower
Salmon
R.

1968­
90
5
Rapid
R.
H.
556,370
1949­
51
3
McCall
H.
55,760
612,130
0
100
0
Rapid
R.

1969­
80,90
12
Rapid
R.
H.
25,311,919
25,311,919
0
100
0
Salmon
R.
(
unspecified)

1968­
1978
8
Unknown
3,542,213
3,542,213
0
100
0
East
Fork
Salmon
R.
(
spring)

1986­
94
Sawtooth
H.
1,683,344
1977
1
unknown
100,170
1,783,514
0
100
0
Main
Salmon
R.
(
below
Stanley)

1985­
86
2
Hayden
Cr..
259,717
1970­
1987
8
Pahsimeroi
H.
1,929,472
1971­
94
22
Rapid
R.
H.
54,484,159
1989­
91
4
Sawtooth
H.
1,998,947
1966­
81
11
unknown
7,013,172
65,685,467
0
100
0
Main
Salmon
R.
(
above
Stanley)

1983­
85
3
McCall
H.
841,705
1974­
77,84
6
Rapid
R.
H.
3,152,428
1982­
94
12
Sawtooth
H.
11,253,193
1989
1
unknown
174,434
15,421,760
0
100
0
Grande
Ronde
R.
1914
1
Bonneville
H.
1,000
1982­
87
6
Carson
NFH
6,880,696
1982
1
Fall
Cr.
Res.
460,744
1983­
91
6
Lookingglass
H.
2,096,340
1980­
94
9
Rapid
R.
H.
5,865,714
1972
1
unknown
17,339
7,979,393
7,342,440
52
48
Imnaha
R.
1984­
94
11
Imnaha
R.
4,215,385
4,215,385
0
100
0
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
401
Tucannon
R.

1964
1
Bitter
Cr.
H.
10,500
1962
1
Klickitat
H.
15,957
1987­
1993
7
Lyons
Ferry
H.
780,186
1988­
94
6
Tucannon
H.
698,283
1,478,469
26,457
98
2
Lower
Snake
R.

1963­
81
5
Carson
NFH
127,619
1979
1
Columbia
R.
Mixed
41,260
1963­
64
2
Klickitat
H.
20,640
1978
1
Kooskia
H.
439,201
1974,81
2
Leavenworth
NFH
274,586
1973­
89
9
unknown
582,750
1,021,951
464,105
69
31
Snake
R.

1971­
94
13
Rapid
R.
5,711,134
1961­
63,
87
4
Unknown
759,489
6,470,623
0
100
0
15)
Snake
R.
Spring­
and
Summer­
run
ESU­(
Summer
Run)

South
Fork
Salmon
R.

1976­
93
18
MCall
H.
12,200,695
1976
1
unknown
(
Eagle
Cr.
H.)
11,520
12,212,215
0
100
0
Main
Salmon
R.
(
below
Stanley)

1972­
94
18
Pahsimeroi
H.
5,984,084
5,984,084
0
100
0
Totals
for
ESU
#
15:
201,014,313
17,134,945
92
7
*
Hagerman
NFH.
­
Oregon
Department
of
Game
hatchery
release
records
contain
a
stock
code
that
identifies
the
Hagerman
NFH
as
the
source
(
according
to
the
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
stock
list).
We
have
found
no
other
supporting
documentation
for
these
transfers
and
conclude
that
it
is
unlikely
that
the
fish
originated
from
Hagerman
NFH
(
Idaho).
Oregon
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
is
currently
trying
to
clarify
the
origin
of
these
fish.
Appendix
D
(
Continued).
402
403
APPENDIX
E:

ABUNDANCE
DATA
404
Appendix
E:
Summary
of
chinook
salmon
abundance
data
considered,
by
ESU
and
River/
Stock.

ESU
Status
summaries3
Recent
abundance
Trends
River
Basin
Sub­
basin
Run1
Production2
A
B
C
D
E
P?
4
Data
Years
Data
type5
5­
Year
Geometric
mean6
Longterm7
Shortterm8
Data
References
1­
Sacramento
River
Winter
Run
¤
*
Sacramento
R
Wi
Natural
E
1967­
96
DC
628
­
18.1
­
8.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a,
b
San
Joaquin
R
Calaveras
R
Wi
X
P
2­
Central
Valley
Spring­
Run
¤
*
Sacramento
R
Sp
Natural
B
P
1967­
96
DC
435
­
9.9
­
35.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a,
b
American
R
Sp/
Su
X
¤
*
Feather
R
Sp
Mixed
P
1954­
96
TE
4,260
3.3
9.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997
Yuba
R
Sp
B
P
¤
*
Butte
Cr
Sp
Natural
P
1955­
96
TE
1,188
­
3.2
40.6BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a,
b,
CDFG
1997c
Big
Chico
Cr
Sp
P
¤
*
Deer
Cr
Sp
Natural
P
1949­
97
TE
564
­
4.5
+
17.1
(
1987­
97)
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a,
b,
CDFG
1997c
¤
*
Mill
Cr
Sp
Natural
P
1947­
96
TE
252
­
5.2
­
0.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a,
b
Antelope
Cr
Sp
P
McCloud
R
Sp/
Su
X
Pit
R
Sp/
Su
X
San
Joaquin
R
(&
tribs)
Sp/
Su
X
3­
Central
Valley
Fall­
Run
Sacramento
R
Early
Fa
P
Fa
Mixed
1967­
96
DC
78,996
0.5
0.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a
¤
*
Natural
1952­
96
TE
43,454
­
3.7
­
9.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a,
b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
*
Late
Fa
Mixed
P
1967­
94
DC
7,199
­
5.4
­
11.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997a
American
R
Fa
Natural
P
1944­
94
TE
20,638
0.8
1.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
1970­
96
TE
28,818
­
1.7
16.8PFMC
1997
Feather
R
Fa
Natural
P
1953­
94
TE
39,873
0.9
­
4.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
1970­
96
TE
38,141
­
1.0
0.5PFMC
1997
¤
*
Yuba
R
Fa
Natural
P
1953­
96
TE
10,515
1.2
3.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
Deer
Cr
Fa
Natural
1951­
94
TE
105
­
5.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a,
b
Mill
Cr
Fa
Natural
1947­
94
TE
1,333
­
3.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a,
b
Battle
Cr
Fa
Mixed
1946­
96
TE
36,256
2.1
8.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a,
b
*
Natural
1952­
96
TE
15,238
1.6
6.1PSMFC
1997a,
b
Clear
Cr
Fa
Natural
1953­
96
TE
2,524
1.6
13.0PSMFC
1997a,
b
Cottonwood
Cr
Fa
Natural
1953­
92
TE
774
­
0.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997a,
b
San
Joaquin
R
Fa
Natural
C
1947­
94
TE
2,796
­
2.8
­
16.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
1970­
96
TE
4,502
­
3.6
­
6.3PFMC
1997
¤
*
Mokelumne
R
Fa
Natural
P
1945­
96
TE
1,582
­
0.5
27.8BE
and
LGL
1995,
EBMUD
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Cosumnes
R
Fa
Natural
C
P
1941­
94
TE
245
­
6.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Stanislaus
R
Fa
Natural
P
1947­
96
TE
378
­
5.6
­
30.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
CDFG
1997d,
1997f,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Tuolumne
R
Fa
Natural
P
1940­
96
TE
595
­
5.4
­
15.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
CDFG
1997d,
1997f,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Merced
R
Fa
Mixed
P
1954­
96
TE
2,043
6.2
22.1BE
and
LGL
1995,
CDFG
1997d,
1997f,
PSMFC
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

4­
Southern
Oregon
and
California
Coastal
Euchre
Creek
Upper
Fa
Natural
A
D
P
1986­
96
PI
0.3
­
2.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Rogue
R
Sp
Natural
P
1968­
92
AC
30,426
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993
*
1942­
96
DC
7,365
­
1.9
­
12.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Fa
Natural
1977­
96
AC/
CS
95,379
­
1.1
­
18.9
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
*
1942­
96
DC
9,546
5.4
5.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Lower
Fa
A
D
P
Middle
Fa
H
H­
II
Upper
Sp
H
Fa
H
H­
II
Illinois
R
Fa
D
P
Applegate
R
Fa
H
H­
II
Hunter
Creek
Fa
A
D
P
Upper
Fa
Natural
1986­
96
PI
36.3
36.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Pistol
R
Deep
Cr
Fa
Natural
B
D
P
1960­
96
AC/
PI
163
3.6
20.1
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Chetco
R
Big
Emily
Cr
Fa
Natural
S­
2
P
1971­
96
AC/
PI
5,811
­
4.2
8.3
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
*
Winchuck
R
Bear
Cr
Fa
Natural
B
D
P
1964­
96
AC/
PI
592
­
2.3
12.0
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
Smith
R
Sp
A
A
Fa
B
P
South
Fork
Sp
P
1991­
97
SC
30.7
+
30.7
(
1987­
97)
USFS
1997a
Middle
Fork
Sp
P
1991­
97
SC
­
4.4
­
4.4
(
1987­
97)
USFS
1997a
North
Fork
Sp
P
1992­
96
SC
26.2
USFS
1997a
*
Mill
Cr
Fa
Mixed
1980­
96
SC
­
1.1
1.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
Waldvogel
1997
Klamath
R
Lower
tributaries
Fa
B
B
P
*
Blue
Cr
Fa
1988­
96
SN
14.9
14.9
YTFP
1997b
Redwood
Cr
Fa
B
C
P
Little
R
Fa
C
P
Mad
R
Fa
B
C
P
*
North
Fork
Fa
Mixed
1985­
93
SC
­
29.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Canon
Cr
Fa
Natural
1964­
97
PI
­
4.9
+
0.1
(
1987­
97)
PFMC
1997
Humboldt
Bay
Tributaries
Fa
A
A
P
¤
*
Eel
R
Fa
C
P
1951­
97
DC
16
3.6
­
29.7
(
1987­
97)
PSMFC
1997b,
SEC
1997
Lower
Fa
B
*
Sprowl
Cr
Fa
Natural
1967­
97
PI
­
4.7
­
12.4
(
1987­
97)
PFMC
1997
¤
*
Tomki
Cr
Fa
Natural
1964­
97
TE
25
­
15.6
­
37.5
(
1987­
97)
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
South
Fork
Fa
Natural
1938­
75
WC
4,022
­
0.2
BE
and
LGL
1995
Bear
R
Fa
C
P
Mattole
R
Fa
A
A
P
Russian
R
Fa
A
P
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

5­
Upper
Klamath
and
Trinity
Rivers
Klamath
R
Sp
A
A
¤
*
Fa
Natural
X(
OR)
1978­
96
TE
2,028
­
3.0
14.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
CDFG
1997a,
PSMFC
1997b
Lower
(
middle
tribs)
Fa
P
Clear
Cr
Sp
P
¤
*
Fa
Natural
1957­
93
TE
1,211
0.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Elk
Cr
Sp
P
Indian
Cr
Sp
P
Upper
(
mid
main\
tribs)
Fa
P
Wooley
Cr
Sp
P
¤
*
Salmon
R
Sp
Natural
(
A)
P
1980­
97
SN
1,317
9.7
+
17.9
(
1987­
97)
BE
and
LGL
1995,
USFS
1997b
¤
*
Fa
Natural
P
1978­
96
TE
3,421
6.5
2.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
CDFG
1997a,
PSMFC
1997b
Salmon
R,
S
Fk
Sp
P
Salmon
R,
E
Fk
of
S
F
Sp
P
Salmon
R,
N
Fk
Sp
P
¤
*
Scott
R
Fa
Natural
C
C
P
1978­
96
TE
5,955
0.8
7.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
CDFG
1997a,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Shasta
R
Fa
Natural
A
A
P
1930­
96
WC
2,433
­
2.4
5.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
CDFG
1997a,
PSMFC
1997b
Upper
(
main
&
Bogus
Cr)
Fa
P
¤
*
Bogus
Cr
Fa
Natural
1978­
96
TE
7,083
1.5
11.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
CDFG
1997a,
PSMFC
1997b
Williamson
R
Sp/
Su
X
Fa
X
Sprague
R
Sp/
Su
X
Fa
X
Wood
R
Sp/
Su
X
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

Fa
X
¤
*
Trinity
R
Mainstem
Sp
Natural
C
P
1978­
96
TE
3,163
­
0.8
­
18.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
CDFG
1996,
1997g,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Fa
Natural
1978­
96
TE
21,552
­
0.1
­
2.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
CDFG
1997a,
PSMFC
1997b
Lower
Mainstem
&
Tribs
Fa
P
South
Fork
Sp
A
P
1991­
97
SN
54.5
+
54.5
(
1987­
97)
CDFG
1997e,
YTFP
1997a
Fa
C
P
Hayfork
Cr
Sp
P
New
R
Sp
Natural
P
1989­
96
SN
16.4
16.4
USFWS
1997b
North
Fork
Sp
P
Canyon
Cr
Sp
P
Middle
Mainstem
&
Tribs
Fa
P
Upper
Mainstem
Fa
P
6­
Oregon
Coast
Nehamlem
Bay
Nehalem
R
Sp
H
Sp/
Su
P
Su
C
¤
*
Fa
Natural
H
1950­
96
AC/
PI
11,521
1.7
­
9.9
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
Cook
Cr
Fa
Natural
1986­
96
PI
­
9.5
­
10.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Salmonberry
R
Fa
Natural
U
1986­
96
PI
­
14.4
­
17.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
Cronin
Cr
Fa
Natural
1950­
96
PI
0.1
1.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

E
Humbug
Cr
Fa
Natural
1950­
96
PI
1.1
­
0.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
Nehalem
R,
N
Fork
Fa
H
Soapstone
Cr
Fa
Natural
1950­
96
PI
3.3
­
2.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Tillamook
Bay
Miami
R
Fa
Natural
H
H­
II
1976­
84
AC/
PI
612
7.8
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Kilchis
R
Sp
S­
2
P
¤
*
Fa
Natural
H
H­
I
1952­
96
AC/
PI
1,500
­
3.0
­
2.0
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Wilson
R
Sp
Natural
S­
2
P
1965­
97
AC/
RH
472
1.6
+
8.6
(
1987­
97)
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997c,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Wilson
R,
N
Fk
Fa
Natural
H
H­
I
1950­
96
AC/
PI
8,834
3.3
­
6.0
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Trask
R
Sp
Natural
S­
2
P
1965­
97
AC/
RH
3,039
2.8
­
14.5
(
1987­
97)
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997c,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Fa
Natural
H
H­
I
1978­
95
AC/
PI
16,177
2.5
­
7.5
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
*
Tillamook
R
Fa
Natural
H
H­
I
1952­
96
AC/
PI
3,296
1.5
­
16.3
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Nestucca
Bay
Nestucca
R
Sp
Natural
S­
2
P
1965­
97
AC/
RH
3,809
2.8
­
13.0
(
1987­
97)
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997c,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Fa
Natural
H
H­
I
1950­
96
AC/
PI
8,584
2.4
­
6.4
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
Little
Nestucca
R
Fa
H
H­
I
Neskowin
Cr
Fa
U­
1
¤
Salmon
R
Fa
Natural
S­
2
1968­
92
AC
5,129
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993
¤
Siletz
Bay
Siletz
R
Sp
Natural
H­
3
P
1968­
92
AC
660
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993
Sp/
Su
C
¤
*
Fa
Natural
H
H­
II
1952­
96
AC/
PI
4,283
2.3
8.3
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
Schooner
Cr
Fa
U
Drift
Cr
Fa
U
H­
II
Euchre
Cr
Fa
Natural
1952­
96
PI
3.8
0.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Yaquina
Bay
Yaquina
R
Fa
Natural
C
H
H­
II
1952­
96
AC/
PI
6,409
1.7
27.9
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

Grant
Cr
Fa
Natural
1950­
93
PI
3.3
­
12.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PFMC
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
Beaver
Cr
Fa
U­
1
¤
Alsea
Bay
Alsea
R
Sp
Natural
C
H­
3
P
1968­
92
AC
628
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993
¤
*
Fa
Natural
H
H­
II
1952­
96
AC/
PI
12,208
4.4
­
8.2
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
North
Fork
Fa
Natural
1952­
96
PI
6.9
2.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
Drift
Cr
Fa
Natural
H
H­
II
1952­
96
PI
0.8
­
10.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
Yachats
R
Fa
B
U
Big
Cr
Fa
U­
1
Siuslaw
Bay
Siuslaw
R
Sp
U­
1
P
¤
*
Fa
Natural
H
H­
II
1952­
96
AC/
PC
11,541
6.3
­
2.2
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997,
PSMFC
1997b
North
Fork
Fa
Natural
H
H­
II
1952­
96
PI
5.9
­
6.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
Umpqua
Bay
Smith
R
Fa
H
H­
II
¤
Umpqua
R
Sp
Natural
1968­
92
AC
3,330
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993
¤
Fa
Natural
1968­
92
AC
8,188
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993
*
N
Umpqua
R
Sp
Natural
H
P
1946­
96
DC
3,722
­
0.2
­
8.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Fa
Natural
H
1949­
96
DC
145
2.7
­
7.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

S
Umpqua
R
Sp
Natural
A
D
P
1961­
96
SN
­
0.2
2.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997d,
PSMFC
1997b
Fa
H
¤
*
Coos
Bay
Coos
R
Fa
Natural
C
H
1961­
96
AC/
PI
10,319
13.1
7.4
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
Williams
Cr
Fa
Natural
1961­
96
PI
10.4
14.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Millicoma
R,
W
Fk
Fa
Natural
H
H­
II
1961­
96
PI
6.4
19.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PFMC
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
Coquille
R
Sp
A
D
P
¤
*
Fa
Natural
H
H­
II
1952­
96
AC/
PC
9,760
3.0
0.8
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
South
Fork
Fa
Natural
H
H­
II
1959­
96
PI
9.3
0.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Floras
Cr
Fa
Natural
U
1959­
96
AC/
PI
591
­
0.8
­
0.6
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Sixes
R
Fa
Natural
S­
2
1967­
96
AC/
PC
1,676
­
1.5
2.8
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997e,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Elk
R
Fa
Natural
S­
2
P
1962­
92
AC
3,198
Nicholas
and
Hankin
1988,
ODFW
1993
7­
Washington
Coast
Pysht
R
Fa
X
(
P)
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
*
Hoko
R
Fa
Natural
NCD
P
1986­
96
TE
799
2.3
3.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997b,
1997d
Sooes
R
Fa
NCU
P
Ozette
R
Fa
A+

Quillayute
R
Basinwide
Sp/
Su
Natural
1976­
96
TE
1,152
­
1.8
0.8
PFMC
1997
Fa
Natural
1976­
96
TE
5,702
3.3
­
10.9
PFMC
1997
¤
*
Quillayute/
Bogachiel
R
Su
Natural
NWU
P
1980­
96
TE
114
­
0.9
­
10.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Fa
Natural
NWH
H­
I
1982­
96
TE
1,034
2.0
­
13.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Dickey
R
Fa
Natural
NWH
H­
II
1983­
96
TE
216
­
13.2
­
21.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
?
Sol
Duc
R
Sp
Mixed
XCH
1977­
96
HE
337
­
1.7
­
16.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Su
Mixed
NCH
H­
II
P
1980­
96
TE
686
3.1
1.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Fa
Mixed
NCH
1982­
96
TE
3,947
0.7
­
9.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Calawah
R
Su
Natural
NWU
P
1980­
96
TE
167
3.5
­
8.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Fa
Natural
NWH
H­
II
1982­
96
TE
1,653
3.0
­
8.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Hoh
R
Sp/
Su
Natural
NWH
H­
II
P
1968­
96
TE
1,297
1.4
­
9.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Fa
Natural
NWH
H­
II
1973­
96
TE
3,000
2.2
­
5.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Queets/

Clearwater
R
Sp
Natural
1969­
96
TE
602
­
0.5
­
9.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Fa
Natural
1967­
96
TE
3,535
2.8
­
11.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Queets
R
Sp/
Su
NWD
P
Fa
NWH
H­
II
Clearwater
R
Sp/
Su
NWD
P
Fa
NWH
H­
II
?
Raft
R
Fa
NWU
¤
*
Quinault
R
Sp/
Su
Natural
NWD
P
1987­
93
TE
650
­
2.8
­
2.8
BE
and
LGL
1995
¤
*
Fa
Natural
NWH
1977­
94
TE
3,231
7.8
0.3
BE
and
LGL
1995
Cook
Cr
Fa
Mixed
MCH
1977­
91
TE
3,550
10.7
26.5
BE
and
LGL
1995
¤
*
Grays
Harbor
Humptulips
R
Fa
Natural
MWH
1985­
96
TE
3,706
­
0.1
­
6.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
*
Hoquiam
R
Fa
Natural
NWH
H­
II
1985­
96
TE
593
­
2.5
­
6.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Chehalis
R
Sp
Natural
NWH
H­
II
P
1985­
96
TE
1,979
4.7
5.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Fa
Natural
MWH
1985­
96
TE
4,190
0.2
­
4.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Wishkah
R
Fa
Mixed
NCH
H­
II
1985­
96
TE
669
­
8.1
­
9.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Wynoochee
R
Sp
A
¤
*
Fa
Natural
NWH
H­
II
1985­
96
TE
1,884
­
4.6
­
10.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Satsop
R
Su
Natural
MWD
P
1985­
96
TE
70
­
11.2
­
7.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Fa
Mixed
MCH
1986­
96
TE
3,939
5.0
2.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Skookumchuck
R
Sp
Natural
1970­
81
TE
532
7.9
BE
and
LGL
1995
¤
*
Fa
Natural
1969­
81
TE
7,247
­
0.5
BE
and
LGL
1995
¤
*
Newaukum
R
Su/
Fa
Natural
1987­
93
TE
616
­
29.7
BE
and
LGL
1995
John/
Elk
&
S
Bay
Tribs
Fa
MWU
¤
*
Willapa
Bay
Fa
Mixed
MCH
1985­
96
TE
2,404
­
7.0
­
13.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Fall
R
Early
(
North
R)
Fa
Natural
NWD
1985­
96
TE
120
­
11.0
­
13.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Clearwater
Cr
(
Smith
Cr)
Fa
Natural
1981­
91
TE
2,103
8.3
­
3.9
BE
and
LGL
1995
8­
Puget
Sound
Misc
7A
Streams
Su/
Fa
Natural
1968­
96
TE
88
­
3.2
­
3.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
?
Nooksack/
Samish
Fa
XCU
¤
*
Nooksack
R
Su/
Fa
Natural
1968­
96
TE
134
­
10.0
­
32.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
Nooksack
R,
N.
F.
Sp/
Su
Mixed
A
NCC
1984­
96
CS
1.5
­
0.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997b
Nooksack
R,
S.
F.
Sp/
Su
Natural
A
NWC
1984­
96
TE
183
­
6.1
­
5.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997b
?
Samish
R
Su/
Fa
Natural
1968­
96
TE
562
­
0.5
­
9.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
*
Skagit
R
Sp
Natural
1968­
96
TE
1,198
­
0.6
­
3.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997b
¤
*
Su/
Fa
Natural
1968­
96
TE
7,537
­
2.6
­
3.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997b
Lower
Skagit
R
Fa
Natural
NWD
P
1974­
96
TE
1,023
­
5.9
­
11.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Upper
Skagit
R
Su
Natural
NWH
P
1974­
96
TE
5,619
­
1.4
­
1.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Lower
Sauk
R
Su
Natural
NWD
P
1974­
96
TE
309
­
6.9
­
11.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Upper
Sauk
R
Sp
Natural
NWH
P
1967­
96
TE
458
1.8
­
7.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Suiattle
R
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1967­
96
TE
247
­
3.6
­
12.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Upper
Cascade
R
Sp
Natural
NWU
P
1984­
96
PR
13.0
17.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Stillaguamish
R
Sp
A+
P
Su
Mixed
NCD
P
1985­
96
TE
648
­
2.8
0.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Su/
Fa
Natural
1968­
96
TE
953
1.1
1.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b,
d
Fa
Natural
UWD
P
1985­
96
TE
155
4.1
3.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Snohomish
R
Sp
X
P
Su
Natural
NWD
P
1979­
96
TE
664
­
3.2
­
2.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Su/
Fa
Natural
1968­
96
TE
3,576
­
1.6
­
1.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b,
d
Fa
Natural
NWD
P
1979­
96
TE
1,474
­
0.7
­
1.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Wallace
R
Su/
Fa
Mixed
MCH
P
1979­
96
TE
290
­
11.3
­
5.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Bridal
Veil
Cr
Fa
NWU
P
1992­
96
TE
634
19.3
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Misc
10
­
Seattle
Su/
Fa
Natural
1968­
91
TE
39
1.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
¤
*
Lk
Washington
Su/
Fa
Natural
1983­
96
TE
557
­
8.4
­
10.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b,
d
Cedar
R
Su/
Fa
Natural
NWU
P
1964­
96
TE
377
­
2.2
­
10.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
?
Issaquah
Cr
Su/
Fa
Mixed
XCH
1986­
96
CS
­
9.8
­
8.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
N
Lk
Washington
Tribs
Su/
Fa
Natural
NWU
P
1983­
96
TE
145
­
11.1
­
16.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

Duwamish/
Green
R
Sp
X
P
¤
*
Su/
Fa
Natural
MCH
P
1968­
96
TE
4,889
1.4
­
7.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
Duwamish
R
Unk
Natural
1965­
88
PI
5,216
­
1.4
BE
and
LGL
1995
Newaukum
Cr
Su/
Fa
MWH
P
Puyallup
R
Sp
X
¤
*
Su/
Fa
Natural
P
1968­
96
TE
2,518
2.5
8.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
Fa
Mixed
C
UCU
1953­
92
IT
0.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
White
R
Sp
Natural
B
NCC
1967­
96
TC
473
0.2
23.9
WDFW
1997b,
d
Su/
Fa
UWU
P
Nisqually
R
Sp/
Su
X
¤
*
Su/
Fa
Natural
MCH
P
1968­
96
TE
699
1.2
7.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997b,
d
?
Deschutes
R
Su/
Fa
Natural
(
P)
1972­
96
TE
1,479
20.6
24.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
South
Sound
Tribs.
Su/
Fa
Mixed
MCH
P
1972­
96
TE
5,449
15.3
8.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
Misc
13
­
S
Pug
Sound
Su/
Fa
Natural
(
P)
1984­
96
TE
452
­
1.9
­
10.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b
¤
*
Misc
13A
­
Carr
Inlet
Su/
Fa
Natural
(
P)
1968­
96
TE
563
8.9
8.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
¤
*
Misc
13B
Streams
Su/
Fa
Natural
1968­
96
TE
721
8.5
­
8.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
¤
*
Misc
10E
­
Port
Orchard
Su/
Fa
Natural
1968­
96
TE
519
4.5
7.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
Hood
Canal
Su/
Fa
Mixed
MCH
P
1968­
96
TE
1,194
­
2.6
­
6.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997d
¤
*
SE
Hood
Canal
Su/
Fa
Natural
1968­
96
TE
26
­
10.7
­
14.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
Skokomish
R
Sp
A+
P
¤
*
Su/
Fa
Natural
(
P)
1968­
96
TE
937
­
1.0
­
8.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
*
Hamma
Hamma
R
Su/
Fa
Natural
(
P)
1987­
96
TE
32
­
4.3
­
4.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
¤
*
Duckabush
R
Su/
Fa
Natural
(
P)
1987­
96
TE
7
­
16.7
­
16.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
Fa
A
Dosewallips
R
Sp
A+

¤
*
Su/
Fa
Natural
(
P)
1987­
96
TE
82
18.0
18.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
Fa
A
Dungeness
R
Sp
A
¤
*
Sp/
Su
Natural
NWC
1986­
96
TE
105
­
5.7
­
4.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997b,
d
Fa
A
Elwha
R
Sp
A+
P
¤
*
Su/
Fa
Natural
NCH
P
1976­
96
TE
1,768
5.4
­
14.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
NWIFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
9­
Lower
Columbia
River
Lower
Columbia
Small
Tribs.
Fa
A+

*
Youngs
Bay
Lewis
and
Clark
R
Fa
Natural
P
1948­
96
PI
9.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Natural
1978­
86
TE
277
63.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Youngs
R
Fa
Natural
P
1948­
96
PI
­
1.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Natural
1980­
86
TE
10
­
15.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Klaskanine
R
Fa
P
South
Fork
Fa
Natural
1968­
96
PI
­
2.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
North
Fork
Fa
Natural
1948­
96
PI
­
4.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Grays
R
Fa
Natural
MCH
P
1964­
96
TE
39
­
3.0
­
29.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997f
Bear
Cr
Fa
Natural
P
1983­
96
PI
­
29.3
­
29.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Big
Cr
Fa
Natural
P
1970­
96
PI
­
1.1
­
4.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
Natural
1977­
86
TE
2,663
19.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Gnat
Cr
Fa
Natural
P
1970­
96
PI
­
4.6
­
23.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Natural
1977­
86
TE
53
­
3.7
BE
and
LGL
1995
¤
*
Skamokawa
Cr
Fa
Natural
MCH
P
1964­
96
TE
148
­
9.5
­
22.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
Hunt
Cr
Fa
P
¤
*
Elochoman
R
Fa
Natural
MCH
P
1964­
96
TE
317
0.7
­
10.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
*
Plympton
Cr
Fa
Natural
P
1968­
96
PI
4.8
­
0.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Natural
1977­
86
TE
1,161
3.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Clatskanie
R
Fa
Natural
P
1948­
96
TE
6
1.2
­
13.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Mill
Cr
Fa
Natural
MCH
P
1984­
96
TE
117
24.1
­
24.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
*
Abernathy
Cr
Fa
Natural
MCH
P
1981­
96
TE
418
­
10.0
­
14.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
*
Germany
Cr
Fa
Natural
MCH
P
1981­
96
TE
183
­
0.6
­
12.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
*
Cowlitz
R
Sp
Natural
MCH
P
1980­
96
TE
169
­
4.3
­
7.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
*
Fa
Natural
A
MCH
P
1964­
96
TE
2,349
­
3.2
­
14.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
*
Coweeman
R
Fa
Natural
MCH
P
1964­
96
TE
679
5.5
17.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
Toutle
R
Sp
P
Fa
Natural
1964­
81
PI
­
8.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Toutle
R,
N
Fork
Fa
Natural
1964­
81
TE
478
­
10.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Green
R
Fa
Mixed
UCD
P
1964­
96
TE
358
­
7.7
35.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
Toutle
R,
S
Fork
Fa
Natural
UCD
P
1964­
96
TE
38
­
6.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
*
Kalama
R
Sp
Natural
MCH
P
1980­
96
TE
236
­
9.6
­
2.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
*
Fa
Natural
MCH
P
1964­
96
TE
3,496
0.3
­
14.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
*
Lewis
R
Sp
Natural
X
MCH
P
1980­
96
TE
662
­
1.9
­
28.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
*
Fa
Natural
NWH
H­
I
P
1964­
96
TE
9,995
0.1
­
6.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
East
Fork
Fa
Natural
NWH
P
1964­
96
TE
235
­
3.8
­
4.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
Milton
Cr
Fa
P
Scappoose
Cr
Fa
P
?
Clackamas
R
Sp
Mixed
P
1950­
95
DC
2,823
5.8
­
3.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Nicholas
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
?
Natural
1946­
94
TE
7,367
2.9
3.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Fa
Natural
P
1967­
94
RC
­
2.0
4.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
?
Sandy
R
Sp
Natural
A+
P
1977­
96
DC
2,750
11.8
5.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Nicholas
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Fa
Natural
A
1975­
87
TE
1,027
1.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Fa
(
bright)
Natural
P
1988­
96
PI
­
24.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Fa
(
tule)
Natural
P
1951­
94
PI
8.3
1.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Trout
Cr
Fa
Natural
1956­
96
PI
­
4.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Washougal
R
Fa
Natural
A+
MCH
P
1964­
96
TE
3,184
10.6
­
1.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
Wind
R
Fa
Natural
X
1960­
84
PI
­
0.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Fa(
tule)
Natural
MCD
P
1967­
96
TE
30
­
7.2
­
31.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
White
Salmon
R
Fa
Natural
A+
1965­
84
PI
­
4.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
*
Fa(
tule)
Natural
MCD
P
1965­
96
TE
127
­
9.2
­
9.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
?
Hood
R
Sp
Natural
A
P
1963­
94
DC
10
7.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
?
Fa
Natural
A
P
1963­
94
DC
10
1.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Herman
Cr
Fa
P
?
Klickitat
R
Fa(
tule)
Mixed
MCH
P
1964­
96
TE
1,148
­
6.3
0.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
10­
Upper
Willamette
River
Willamette
R
Sp
Natural
C
1946­
96
DC
25,979
0.2
­
14.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
?
Fa
Mixed
1954­
94
DC
5,823
17.6
­
7.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Molalla
R
Sp
Natural
P
1961­
93
TE
341
­
0.8
­
14.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
1961­
96
FM
­
1.1
­
15.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
?
Fa
Natural
1976­
88
TE
937
­
13.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Abiqua
Cr
Sp
P
Mill
Cr
Sp
P
?
Fa
Natural
1970­
88
TE
1,131
­
9.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
?
Santiam
R
Fa
Natural
1969­
87
TE
7,014
2.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
N
Santiam
R
Sp
Natural
P
1960­
88
DC
1,136
­
3.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Marion
Fks
Hatchery
Sp
P
S
Santiam
R
Sp
P
S
Santiam
Hatchery
Sp
P
¤
*
McKenzie
R
Sp
Natural
P
1970­
95
DC
2,720
1.0
­
12.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Nicholas
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
McKenzie
Hatchery
Sp
P
¤
*
Fall
Cr
Sp
Natural
1966­
87
DC
241
­
1.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

11­
Middle
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
Small
Tribs.
(
Bonneville
to
Priest
Rapids)
Sp
X
?
Wind
R
Sp
Natural
XCD
P
1970­
96
TE
162
­
2.9
0.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
White
Salmon
R
Sp
X
P
¤
*
Klickitat
R
Sp
Natural
A+
MCD
P
1970­
96
TE
214
3.5
­
12.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Deschutes
R
Sp
Natural
P
1977­
96
TC
42
­
3.9
­
7.2
ODFW
1997b
¤
*
Warm
Springs
R
Sp
Natural
1977­
96
WC
546
­
6.4
­
15.5
ODFW
1997b
Natural
1969­
96
RC
­
1.5
­
12.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
Metolius
R
Sp
X
¤
John
Day
R
Sp
Natural
C
P
1970­
94
TE
2,352
­
3.8
­
3.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
1964­
96
RM
4.7
­
4.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
North
Fork
Sp
Natural
P
1964­
96
RM
­
0.2
­
8.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
Granite
Cr
Sp
Natural
1959­
96
RM
­
2.4
­
4.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
Middle
Fork
Sp
Natural
P
1960­
96
RM
4.1
­
13.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
Clear
Cr
Sp
Natural
1959­
96
RM
­
3.8
­
7.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Combined
John
Day
R
Sp
Natural
1959­
96
RMC
­
2.5
­
7.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
Umatilla
R
Sp
Natural
X
P
1988­
94
DC
835
60.7
60.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Walla
Walla
R
Sp
X
¤
Yakima
R
Sp
Natural
1970­
96
DC
1,094
1.7
­
19.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
*
Upper
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1960­
96
RC
7.3
3.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

*
Naches
R
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1958­
96
RC
7.3
­
9.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
*
American
R
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1956­
96
RC
5.6
­
11.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
12­
Upper
Columbia
River
Summer­
and
Fall­
Run
?
Wind
R
Fa
(
bright)
Natural
UCH
P
1988­
96
TE
241
­
12.6
­
12.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
?
White
Salmon
R
Fa
(
bright)
Mixed
MCH
P
1988­
96
TE
1,225
­
5.2
­
5.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
?
Klickitat
R
Fa
(
bright)
XCH
P
Yakima
R
Su
X
Fa
(
bright)
UCH
¤
*
Fa
Mixed
1983­
94
TE
2,950
6.5
23.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
?
Marion
Drain
Fa
Natural
NWH
1983­
96
RC
­
9.4
­
5.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997b
¤
*
Hanford
Reach
Fa
Natural
NWH
H­
I
1964­
96
TE
47,010
3.5
­
9.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
Wenatchee
R
Su
Natural
MWH
1975­
95
TE
7,012
­
0.1
­
8.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997c
*
1956­
95
RC
1.5
­
5.4
Chapman
et
al.
1994,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Peven
and
Mosey
1996
Entiat
R
Su
X
?
Lake
Chelan
Fa
XWH
¤
Methow
R
Su
Natural
B
MWD
1963­
96
TE
666
­
5.4
0.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997c,
1997f
*
Natural
1956­
96
RC
­
2.5
3.0
Chapman
et
al.
1994,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997f
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

¤
Okanogan
R
Su
Natural
C
NWD
1977­
96
TE
491
­
5.2
­
8.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c,
f
*
Natural
1956­
96
RC
1.5
3.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
Similkameen
R
Su
Natural
1977­
96
TE
995
5.3
8.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c,
f
*
Natural
1957­
96
RC
4.6
8.0
Chapman
et
al.
1994,
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
Sanpoil
R
Fa
X
Spokane
R
Fa
X
Pend
Oreille
R
Fa
X
Kootenay
R
Fa
X
13­
Upper
Columbia
River
Spring­
Run
¤
Wenatchee
R
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1977­
95
TE
27
­
11.5
­
37.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c
*
Natural
1959­
96
RC
­
2.1
­
36.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Peven
and
Mosey
1996,
PSMFC
1997b
Icicle
Cr
Sp
Natural
1954­
90
PI
0.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Natural
1958­
96
RC
0.5
­
16.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Peven
and
Mosey
1996,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Chiwawa
R
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1977­
95
TE
134
­
8.1
­
29.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c
*
Natural
1958­
96
RC
­
3.1
­
35.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Peven
and
Mosey
1996,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Nason
Creek
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1977­
95
TE
85
­
9.0
­
26.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c
*
Natural
1958­
96
RC
­
4.1
­
20.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Peven
and
Mosey
1996,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Little
Wenatchee
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1978­
95
TE
57
­
5.5
­
25.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

*
Natural
1958­
96
RC
­
0.7
­
26.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Peven
and
Mosey
1996,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
White
R
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1977­
95
TE
25
­
10.6
­
35.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c
*
Natural
1958­
96
RC
0.9
­
25.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Peven
and
Mosey
1996,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Entiat
R
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1977­
95
TE
89
­
18.8
­
19.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c
*
Natural
1959­
96
RC
­
5.4
­
25.9
BE
and
LGL
1995,
Carie
1996,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Methow
R
Sp
Mixed
NCD
P
1977­
95
TE
144
1.1
­
15.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c
*
Natural
1959­
96
RC
­
1.3
­
8.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
Twisp
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1977­
95
TE
87
­
5.8
­
27.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c
*
Natural
1959­
96
RC
­
4.1
­
21.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
¤
Chewuch
R
(
Chewack)
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1977­
95
TE
62
­
5.1
­
28.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c
*
Natural
1960­
96
RC
­
2.1
­
22.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
WDFW
1997f
Early
Winters
Cr
Sp
Natural
1959­
96
RC
0.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c,
1997f
¤
Lost
R
Sp
Natural
NWD
P
1972­
95
TE
62
­
0.1
­
23.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c
*
Natural
1959­
96
RC
­
2.2
­
16.1
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997c,
1997f
Okanogan
R
Sp
X
Sanpoil
R
Sp/
Su
X
Spokane
R
Sp/
Su
X
Colville
R
Sp/
Su
X
Kettle
R
Sp/
Su
X
Pend
Oreille
R
Sp/
Su
X
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

14­
Snake
River
Fall­
Run
¤
*
Deschutes
R
Su
Unresolved
1957­
90
TC
57
­
1.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
*
Fa
Natural
P
1977­
96
TE
6,078
3.0
10.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997c,
PSMFC
1997b
John
Day
R
Fa
P
Umatilla
R
Fa
Natural
X
P
1983­
94
DC
402
60.4
34.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Walla
Walla
R
Fa
X
¤
*
Snake
R
Fa
Natural
A
NWD
1975­
96
TE
514
­
2.4
10.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
WDFW
1997f
Mixed
1975­
96
DC
1,020
2.7
6.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b,
DARTAP
1997
Snake
R
above
Hells
Canyon
Dam
Fa
X
15­
Snake
River
Spring­
and
Summer­
Run
¤
Tucannon
R
Sp
Natural
A
NWD
1986­
91
TL
190
­
11.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Natural
1957­
91
RC
­
1.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Asotin
Cr
Sp
Natural
A
NWC
P
1986­
91
TL
2
10.3
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
Grande
Ronde
R
Sp
Natural
B
1964­
90
TL
675
­
7.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Natural
1986­
93
TE
37
­
8.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
0
Natural
1964­
93
RC
­
5.5
­
7.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Wenaha
R
Sp
Natural
1957­
95
RC
­
8.2
­
23.6
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Wallowa
R
Sp
Natural
1957­
95
RC
­
8.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Minam
R
Sp
Natural
1986­
93
TE
69
­
9.1
­
14.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Natural
1957­
95
RC
­
5.9
­
29.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
Appendix
E
(
Cont.).

*
Lostine
R
Sp
Natural
1964­
95
RC
­
6.5
­
21.2
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
¤
Catherine
Cr
Sp
Natural
1986­
93
TE
45
­
22.5
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Natural
1957­
95
RC
­
1.8
­
26.7
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Salmon
R
Sp
Natural
A
1957­
96
RC
­
8.6
­
27.3
PSMFC
1997b
*
Su
Natural
A
1957­
96
RC
­
8.1
­
27.7
PSMFC
1997b
*
South
Fork
Su
Natural
1957­
96
RC
­
4.8
­
13.6
PSMFC
1997b
*
Middle
Fork
Sp/
Su
Unresolved
1957­
93
RC
­
7.2
­
7.1
BE
and
LGL
1995
*
Big
Cr
Sp
Natural
1957­
96
RC
­
7.2
­
34.2
PSMFC
1997b
*
Su
Natural
1957­
93
RC
­
11.2
­
27.9
PSMFC
1997b
*
Valley
Cr
Sp
Natural
1957­
96
RC
­
12.1
­
25.9
PSMFC
1997b
*
Su
Natural
1957­
96
RC
­
8.4
­
29.3
PSMFC
1997b
*
Lemhi
R
Sp
Natural
1957­
96
RC
­
10.6
­
27.4
PSMFC
1997b
*
East
Fork
Sp
Natural
1957­
96
RC
­
10.9
PSMFC
1997b
*
Su
Natural
1957­
96
RC
­
8.7
­
32.9
PSMFC
1997b
Upper
Sp
Natural
1957­
88
RC
­
8.1
BE
and
LGL
1995
¤
Imnaha
R
Sp/
Su
Mixed
B
1984­
90
TE
216
­
24.1
BE
and
LGL
1995
*
Unresolved
1957­
96
RC
­
4.6
­
10.8
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Big
Sheep
Cr
Sp
Natural
1957­
96
RC
­
11.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
*
Lick
Cr
Sp
Natural
1964­
95
RC
­
12.0
BE
and
LGL
1995,
ODFW
1997b,
PSMFC
1997b
Powder
R
Sp
X
Weiser
R
Sp
X
Payette
R
Sp/
Su
X
Malheur
R
Sp/
Su
X
Boise
R
Sp/
Su
X
Owyhee
R
Sp/
Su
X
Bruneau
R
Sp/
Su
X
?
Clearwater
R
Sp
Natural
X
1973­
83
TL
1,170
­
6.1
BE
and
LGL
1995
?
Natural
1950­
72
DC
2,006
28.4
BE
and
LGL
1995
?
Su
X
?
Fa
Natural
X
1952­
72
DC
41
27.6
BE
and
LGL
1995
?
Natural
1988­
94
RC
21.6
21.6
BE
and
LGL
1995
?
Lower
Sp
P
?
Dworshak
Hatchery
Sp
P
?
South
Fork
Sp
P
?
Kooksia
Hatchery
Sp
P
?
Lochsa
R
Sp
Mixed
P
1967­
91
RC
­
0.4
­
23.8
BE
and
LGL
1995
Lohsa
R,
Crooked
Fork
Sp
Natural
1969­
96
RC
­
5.8
­
19.4
BE
and
LGL
1995,
PSMFC
1997b
?
Selway
R
Sp
Natural
P
1969­
96
RC
­
8.9
­
12.3
PSMFC
1997b
NOTES
?
Not
an
ESA
issue
(
chinook
salmon
were
not
historically
present
in
the
watershed
or
current
stocks
are
not
representative
of
historical
stocks).

¤
Denotes
recent
abundance
mapped
in
Figures
28
­
45.

*
Denotes
long­
term
trend
mapped
in
Figures
28
 
45.
(
Only
data
with
an
adequate
time
series
were
mapped.)

1
Run
timing
designations:
Fa
­­
fall;
Sp
­­
spring;
Su
­­
summer;
Wi
­­
winter
(
as
reported
by
data
reference).

2
Production:
(
as
reported
by
data
reference).

3
Status
summaries
from
the
following
sources:

A­­
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991):

E,
endangered
(
US);
X,
extinct;
A+,
possibly
extinct;
A,
high
extinction
risk;
B,
moderate
extinction
risk;
C,
special
concern.

B­­
Higgins
et
al.
(
1992):

A,
high
risk
of
extinction;
B,
moderate
risk
of
extinction;
C,
stock
of
concern.

C­­
Nickelson
et
al.
(
1992):

H,
healthy;
D,
depressed;
S,
special
concern;
U,
unknown.

1,
May
not
be
a
viable
population;
2,
Hatchery
strays;
3,
Small,
variable
run.

D­­
WDF
et
al.
(
1993):
Three
characters
represent
stock
origin,
production
type,
and
status,
in
that
order.

Origin:
N,
native;
M,
mixed;
X,
non­
native;
U,
unknown;
­,
unresolved
by
state
and
tribes.

Production:
W,
wild;
C,
composite;
A,
cultured;
U,
unknown;
­,
unresolved.

Status:
H,
healthy;
D,
depressed;
C,
critical;
U,
unknown.