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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42230-42232]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17903]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0726; Product Identifier 2017-SW-097-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Leonardo S.p.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Finmeccanica
S.p.A., AgustaWestland S.p.A.) Model AW109SP helicopters. This proposed
AD would require inspecting and altering the rescue hoist. This
proposed AD is prompted by a report of a damaged hoist cable that
detached after load application. The actions of this proposed AD are
intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 22,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0726; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued AD No. 2017-0025, dated February 14, 2017,
to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. (formerly
Finmeccanica S.p.A, AgustaWestland S.p.A.) Model AW109SP helicopters.
EASA advises that a hoist cable became snagged behind a hoist handle
assembly nut and broke during a dummy load application. EASA further
advises that this condition could result in detachment of an external
load, and subsequent personal injury or injury to persons on the
ground. To address this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires
inspecting the hoist cable, modifying the rescue hoist handle, and
amending the rescue hoist pre-flight inspection described in the
rotorcraft flight manual.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information
and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop
on other helicopters of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico No. 109SP-110,
dated February 13, 2017 (BT 109SP-110), which contains procedures for
inspecting the hoist handle, the passenger-side cabin doorframe, and
the hoist cable. This service information also specifies replacing the
attaching hardware on the rescue hoist handle and adding a temporary
pre-flight check of the hoist cable to the Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 10 hours time-in-service
(TIS) or before the next hoist operation, whichever occurs first,
inspecting the hoist handle assembly and the upper section of the cabin
doorframe for chafing caused by the hoist cable. If there is any
chafing, this proposed AD would require, before further flight,
repairing the damage and inspecting the first 6 meters (20 feet) of the
hoist cable for cable diameter, broken wires, kinks, bird caging,
flattened areas, abrasion, and necking. If the cable dimension is less
than 4.70 mm (0.185 inch), or if there are any broken wires, kinks,
bird caging, flattened areas, abrasion, or necking, this proposed AD
would require, before the next hoist operation, replacing the hoist
cable.
    This proposed AD would also require, within 25 hours TIS, replacing
the rescue hoist handle attaching hardware.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires amending the rotorcraft flight manual by
adding a daily rescue hoist cable preflight inspection, this proposed
AD does not since the actions in this proposed AD would correct the
unsafe condition.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 30 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that
operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this
AD. Inspecting the hoist handle assembly, cabin doorframe, and hoist
cable would require about 2 hours, for a cost of $170 per helicopter
and $5,100 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing the hardware on the hoist
handle assembly would require about 1 hour and required parts cost
would be minimal, for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $2,550 for the
U.S. fleet.
    If required, replacing a hoist cable would require about 3 hours
and required parts would cost $3,150, for a cost per helicopter of
$3,405.
    According to Leonardo Helicopter's service information some of the
costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby
reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control
warranty coverage by Leonardo Helicopters. Accordingly, we have
included all costs in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Leonardo S.p.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Finmeccanica
S.p.A, AgustaWestland S.p.A): Docket No. FAA-2018-0726; Product
Identifier 2017-SW-097-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model AW109SP helicopters, certificated in
any category, with a rescue hoist part number 109-B810-16-101 or
109-B810-16-201 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as chafing of a rescue
hoist cable. This condition could result in detachment of an
external load and subsequent injury to persons being lifted.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 22, 2018.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) or before the next
hoist operation, whichever occurs first, inspect the rescue hoist
handle assembly and the upper part of the cabin doorframe for
chafing. The inspection area of the cabin doorframe is depicted in
Figure 3 of Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico No. 109SP-110,
dated February 13, 2017 (BT 109SP-110). Examples of chafing are
shown in Figures 10 and 11 of BT 109SP-110. If there is any chafing,
before further flight, repair the chafed areas and inspect the first
6 meters (20 feet) of the hoist cable as follows:
    (i) Measure the diameter of the hoist cable as described in the
Compliance Instructions, Part I, paragraphs 3.4.1 through 3.4.2 of
BT 109SP-110.
    (ii) Average the two measurements at each location. If at any
location the diameter of the hoist cable is less than 4.7 mm (0.185
inch), before the next hoist operation, remove the hoist cable from
service.
    (iii) Inspect the hoist cable for broken wires, kinks, bird
caging, flattened areas, abrasion, and necking, referencing the
examples shown and depicted in Figures 5 through 9 of BT 109SP-110.
If there are any broken wires, kinks, bird caging, flattened areas,
abrasion, or necking, before the next hoist operation, remove the
hoist cable from service.
    (2) Within 25 hours TIS, replace the rescue hoist handle
attaching hardware as described in the Compliance Instructions, Part
II, paragraphs 3 through 6, of BT 109SP-110.

(f) Special Flight Permits

    A one-time special flight permit may be granted provided that
the hoist is not used.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section,
Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0025, dated February 14, 2017. You may
view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in
the AD Docket.

 (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: Cabin/Equipment
Furnishings.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 6, 2018.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-17903 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P