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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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