[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


    Analysis of Salmon and Steelhead
    Supplementation
    Part 1. Emphasis on Unpublished Reports and                                                      Present Programs
    Part 2. Synthesis of Published Literature
    Part 3 - Concepts for a Model to Evaluate Supplementation






















                                                                                                      Technical
                                                                                                      Report
                                                                                                      1990


                                                                                                      U.S. Department of Energy
                                                                                                      Bonneville Power Administration
                                                                                                      Division of Fish & Wildlife


                                                                                                      U.S. Department of Interior
                                                                                                        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                                                                                         Dworshak Fisheries Assistance
                                                                                                         Office




                                                                                                      September 1990


















               This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
               U.S. Department of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate,
               and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation
               of hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The
               views in this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the
               views of BPA.

               For copies of this report, write to:


                                     Bonneville Power Administration
                                     Division of Fish and Wildlife - PJ
                                     P.O. Box 3621
                                     Portland, OR 97208














                    ANALYSIS OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD SUPPLEMENTATION





                    PART 1: Emphasis on Unpublished Reports and Present Programs

                              PART 2: Synthesis of Published Literature

                      PART 3: Concepts for a Model to Evaluate Supplementation




                                             Prepared by:
                                          William H. Miller



                                 Dworshak Fisheries Assistance Office
                                    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service




                                             Prepared for

                                     Thomas Vogel, Project Leader





                                              Funded by

                                       U.S. Department ofEnergy
                                   Bonneville Power Administration
                                    Division of Fish and Wildlife
                                       Portland, Oregon 97208


                                    Cotract No. DE-A179-88BP92663
                                          Project No. 88-100

                                            September 1990

















                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS










             PART I ................ Emphasis on Unpublished Reports and Present Programs






             PART II  ............... Synthesis on Published Literature






             PART III  .............. Concepts of a Model to Evaluate Supplementation









                          ANALYSIS OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD
                            SUPPLEMENTATION: EMPHASIS ON
                    UNPUBLISHED REPORTS AND PRESENT PROGRAMS






                                            PART 1





                                          Prepared by:
                                        William H. Miller
                                         Travis C. Coley
                                        Howard L. Burge
                                        Tom T. Kisanuki






                                Dworshak Fisheries Assistance Office
                                   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                         Ahsahka,ldaho





                                          Submitted to:
                                    U.S. Department of Energy
                                  Bonneville Power Administration





                                        Project No. 88-100




                                         September 1990











                                                     CONTENTS



                                                                                            PAGE


                     Preface   .............................................                i

                     Acknowledgements     .......... ..........................             ii

                     Abstract   .............................................               iii


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


                     Methods     ............................................               2


                     Study Area    ...........................................              2

                     General Overview     .....................................             2


                     Results   .............................................                3
                       General    ...........................................               3
                       Oregon   ............................................                4
                       Washington    .........................................              8
                       Idaho   ..............................................               12
                       California  ..........................................               16
                       Alaska   .............................................               21
                       British Columbia   .....................................             26
                       New England Atlantic Salmon Program        ...................       31

                     Conclusions    .........................................               36


                     Recommendations       .....................................            41
                       Recommended Research       ...............................           41


                     Literature Cited   .......................................             43




                     Appendix A - Database for unpublished and ongoing supplementation projects"
                                    reviewed for "Analysis of Salmon and Steelhead Supplementation:
                                    Emphasis on Unpublished Reports and Present Programs."










                                                  PREFACE


             This report was part of a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) funded project to
             summarize information on supplementation of salmon and steelhead, Project No. 88-100.
             BPA project officer for this contract was Tom Vogel. Primary geographic area of
             concern was the Northwestern U.S. with special emphasis on the Columbia River Basin.

             There were three reports prepared under this BPA project:

                1. Analysis of Salmon and Steelhead Supplementation: Emphasi on Unpublished
                   Report and Present Program by W.H. Miller, T.C. Coley, H.L. Burge and T.T.
                   Kisanuki.


                2. Supplementation of Salmon and Steelhead Stocks With Hatche Fish: A
                   Synthesi of Published Literature by C.R. Steward and T.C. Bjornn.

                3. Concepts for a Model to Evaluate Supplementation of Natural Salmon and
                   Steelhead Stocks With Hatche Fish by T.C. Bjornn and C.R. Steward.

             The two reports by Steward and Bjornn were contracted studies with the Idaho
             Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Idaho in Moscow,
             Idaho. The overall objectives of the BPA funded project were: (1) summarize and
             evaluate past and current supplementation of salmon and steelhead; (2) develop a
             conceptual "model" of processes affecting the results of supplementation; and (3) make
             recommendations regarding future supplementation research.











                                          ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


             We thank the many Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California, Alaska, British Columbia,
             and New England fishery biologists for their contribution of time and knowledge. Tom
             Macy, Karen Smith, Phil Wampler, and Jon Anderson of the Fish and Wildlife Service's
             (FWS) Vancouver and Olympia Fisheries Assistance Offices assisted in data collection.
             Diane Praest, FWS Dworshak Fisheries Assistance Office, typed many drafts and the
             final manuscript.










                                                      ABSTRACT


              Supplementation or planting salmon and steelhead into various locations in the
              Columbia River drainage has occurred for over 100 years. All life stages, from eggs to
              adults, have been used by fishery managers in attempts to establish, rebuild, or maintain
              anadromous runs. This report summarizes and evaluates results of past and current
              supplementation of salmon and steelhead. Conclusions and recommendations are made
              concerning supplementation.

              Hatchery rearing conditions and stocking methods can affect post release survival of
              hatchery fish. Stress was considered by many biologists to be a key factor, in survival of
              stocked anadromous fish. Smolts were the most common life stage released and size of
              smolts correlated positively with survival. Success of hatchery stockings of eggs and pre-
              smolts was found to be better if they are put into productive, underseeded habitats.
              Stocking time, method, species stocked, and environmental conditions of the receiving
              waters, including other fish species present, are factors to consider in supplementation
              programs.

              The unpublished supplementation literature was reviewed primarily by the authors of this
              report. Direct contact was made in person or by telephone and data compiled on a
              computer database. Areas covered included Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska,
              California, British Columbia, and the New England states working with Atlantic salmon.
              Over 300 projects were reviewed and entered into a computer database. The database
              information is contained in Appendix A of this report.

              Our conclusions based on the published literature and the unpublished projects reviewed
              are as follows:


               -Examples of success at rebuilding self-sustaining anadromous fish runs with hatchery
                 fish are scarce. We reviewed 316 projects in the unpublished and ongoing work.
                 Only 25 were successful for supplementing natural existing runs, although many were
                 successful at returning adult fish.
               -Successes from outplanting hatchery fish were primarily in harvest augmentation, a
                 term we use to -describe stocking where the primary purpose is to return adults for
                 sport, tribal or commercial harvest.
               -Adverse impacts to wild stocks have been shown or postulated for about every type of
                 hatchery fish introduction where the intent was to rebuild runs.
               -Reestablishing runs or introductions to areas not inhabited by wild/natural populations
                 have shown g6od successes.
               -Tlie stock of fish is an important factor to consider when supplementing. The closer
                 the hatchery stock is genetically to the natural stock, the higher the chances for
                 success.






                                                           iii









              -Chinook are one of the most difficult salmon species to supplement. A return rate,
                 smolt or pre-smolt-to-adult, of 3-5 percent is considered good by most managers for
                 this species.
              -Salmon species with the shortest freshwater life cycle, e.g., chum and pink, have shown
                 higher success from supplementation, than longer freshwater cycle salmon.
              -Short-run stocks of salmon and steelhead have responded more positively to
                 supplementation than longer-run stocks.
              -Wild/natural fish have consistently shown a much higher smolt-to-adult survival rate
                 than hatchery fish.
              -Overstocking of hatchery fish may be a significant problem in many supplementation
                 projects.
              -The use of wild broodstock by British Columbia has shown success in their chinook and
                 steelhead supplementation programs.
              -Both Alaska and British Columbia are having some success using streamside incubation
                 boxes and subsequent outplanting of fry.

              Overall, we concluded that protection and nurturing of wild/natural runs needs to be a
              top management priority. There are no guarantees that hatchery supplementation can
              replace or consistently augment natural production. For the Columbia River system, we
              concluded that all hatchery fish should be marked for visual identification. This will not
              only permit a more precise harvest management, but also better broodstock management
              and supplementation evaluation. Currently only hatchery steelhead are marked to
              identify hatchery fish.

              We recommended that supplementation efforts in the Northwest be annually
              summarized. There are several supplementation projects where future information will
              be of great benefit. All investigators are encouraged to evaluate the supplementation
              projects they are conducting and write up formal reports. We found a heavy bias toward
              not reporting negative or unsuccessful results.
















                                                          iv










                                                 INTRODUCTION


              We summarized and evaluated supplementation of salmon and steelhead with special
              reference to the Pacific Northwest. In some cases projects were reviewed where natural
              runs had been extirpated and,were being reestablished or where runs were being
              established in areas upstream of barriers. In Alaska, the term "enhancement" is used
              when referring to supplementation. However, the Alaska enhancement includes many
              fish stocking scenarios which are for increasing commercial harvest opportunities and do
              not address supplementing natural runs. We have termed this type of hatchery
              production as "harvest augmentation." Harvest augmentation occurs in many other areas
              including the Columbia River.

              The following definitions are used in this report:

                Supplementation - Planting all life stages of hatchery fish to enhance wild/natural
                     stocks of anadromous salmonids.

                Restoration - Planting hatchery products and/or improving habitat to reestablish
                     extirpated runs or runs that are critically low in numbers.

                Enhancement - A general term that describes many stocking and habitat improvement
                     scenarios used to improve fish runs. Enhancement can include supplementation,
                     colonization, restoration and harvest augmentation.

                Colonization - Describes establishing anadromous salmonids in areas where historically
                     the species was not endemic.

                Harvest augmentation - The stocking of anadromous fish where the primary purpose is
                     to return adults for sport, tribal or commercial harvest.

                Rebuilding - Planting hatchery products to augment natural runs of salmon and
                     steelhead. In this report used synonymously with supplementation.

                Hatchery stock - Having been hatched and partially reared in a hatchery or other
                     artificial production facility.

                Wild stock - Naturally reproducing stocks of fish that have not been supplemented or
                     augmented with hatchery fish.

                Natural stock - Naturally reproducing stocks of fish that have been at one time
                     supplemented with hatchery- fish.











                                                   METHODS


             The following key species are included in this report: steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
             chinook salmon (0. tshayqtscha), coho salmon (0. kisutch), sockeye salmon (0. nerka),
             pink salmon (0. gorbuscha), chum salmon (0. keta), cutthroat trout (0. clarki) and
             Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Of the above species, we emphasized review of work on
             steelhead and chinook salmon. These two species were identified as priority species for
             supplementation research work in the proposed Five-Year Work Plan (Supplementation
             Technical Work Group, 1988).

             We reviewed current supplementation efforts and unpublished literature by making
             contact with fishery biologists throughout the study area. Agency projects and annual
             reports were reviewed where available. Data were recorded on a standardized form. and
             then entered into a computerized database. Appendix A contains specific information on
             the individual supplementation projects we reviewed. Although we attempted to contact
             all the key workers involved with supplementation in the study area, we undoubtedly
             overlooked some individuals. In addition to project reports, research and management
             biologists were interviewed to determine their opinions on how to have successful
             supplementation.



                                                  STUDY AREA


             We emphasized the Pacific Northwest in our review of the unpublished literature and
             ongoing supplementation work. We included work being done in Oregon, Washington,
             Idaho, California, Alaska, and British Columbia. Some limited information is also
             included from the Eastern U.S. on Atlantic salmon.



                                             GENERAL OVERVIEW


             Anadromous salmonids have been artificially propagated in the Pacific Northwest for
             over 100 years. Fishery managers have used hatchery production to maintain fisheries
             and to rebuild runs. The question for the Columbia River Basin is "How can hatchery
             production be used to rebuild depleted natural runs of salmon and steelhead in this large
             altered river system and maintain the genetic integrity of the various stocks and races of
             fish?"


             During the past 20-30 years, salmon and steelhead hatchery propagation in the Columbia
             River has dramatically increased. Raymond (1988) estimated that beginning in 1970 new
             hatcheries were then doubling the number of smolts, in the Snake River. While, in the
             mid-Columbia River, this doubling number was attained by 1975. Thus, after 1975 the
             majority of salmon and steelhead entering the Columbia River, from the Snake and Mid-
             Columbia, are of hatchery origin. For the Snake River Basin 80 to 90 percent of


                                                         2








              steelhead and 90+ percent of the chinook salmon smolts passing Lower Granite Dam in
              recent years, (1988 and 1989), are of hatchery origin.' Also, during the past 20-30 years
              wild/natural escapement has declined.

              The Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Plan of 1987 established the goal of doubling the
              salmon and steelhead runs from 2.5 million to 5 million. A cornerstone of this program
              is to fully utilize available habitat to increase wild/natural production. Although we
              have been producing hatchery fish for many years in the Columbia River Basin, there
              are still many unanswered questions concerning the use of hatchery fish for
              supplementation. The 1987 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Section,
              700 (h), recognizes this problem and stated, "Bonneville shall fund research to determine
              the best methods of supplementing naturally spawning stocks with hatchery fish,
              particularly in the upper main stem Snake and Columbia rivers." This analysis of
              supplementation was undertaken to assist in directing which areas of research needs to
              be prioritized for supplementation in the upper Columbia River. Priority species are
              upriver chinook salmon and steelhead. The Snake River is the drainage of highest
              priority.



                                                     RESULTS


                                                      General


              Our review points out the importance of a potential genetic impact from
              supplementation with hatchery fish. The concern expressed in the published literature
              review (Steward and Bjornn 1990) and from interviews, indicate that hatchery fish
              introduction could adversely impact the natural stock.

              Researchers are attempting to document any genetic impacts of supplementation.
              Procedures which are being used to minimize adverse genetic impacts include:

                1. Using a proportion of the adults in the wild or natural run as broodstock.

                2. Stocking practices should mirror the natural environment, i.e., size, timing, stocking
                    density, and donor stock.

                3. Limit the density of stocked fish to prevent displacement or competition with
                   wild/natural fish.

              There are different perceptions to which supplementation procedures work. The
              adequacy of supplementation procedures vary regionally. Alaska hatcheries produce and


                  'Larry Basham, Fish Passage Center, Portland, Oregon, pers. comm., March, 1989.

                                                         3









             supplement with smolts, where appropriate. The Columbia Basin states are considering
             supplementing more with sub-smolts -- fry and fingerling. This can be explained to some
             extent by the intent of supplementation. In the Columbia River Basin, much of the
             supplementation effort is intended to enhance wild/natural runs. The emphasis in
             Alaska is to produce more adults for "harvest augmentation" while protecting wild stocks.
             In Alaska, they are trying to separate hatchery introductions from wild populations by
             time of return and release locations. Columbia Basin supplementation managers are
             trying to match hatchery production with the environmental constraints of wild/natural
             populations.

             We included 316 projects in our review of the unpublished and ongoing supplementation
             (Appendix A). Of this number, 26 were supplementation, as defined on page 1.
             Twenty-five of the 26 supplementation projects we reviewed were considered successful
             by the principal investigator. Eighteen of the 26 projects were quantitatively evaluated.
             Of the 18, 14 are ongoing and four are supplementation evaluation studies. We found
             no evaluated projects that had rebuilt wild/natural runs to self-sustaining levels.


                                                       Oregon

             Background

             Oregon waters support natural populations of chinook, coho, sockeye, chum salmon,
             steelhead and cutthroat trout. Anadromous waters encompass 50 river and lake systems
             in coastal systems or tributaries flowing into the Columbia River (Anon. 1982a). There
             is a small run of introduced sockeye in the Willamette River and a small run of natural
             chum in Tillamook Bay.

             Artificial production of anadromous fish began in 1877 on the Clackamas and Rogue
             Rivers (Anon. 1982a). There are currently 34 state fish hatcheries and 3 or 4 private
             anadromous hatcheries ("ocean ranchers") operating in the state. The State hatcheries
             produced a total of 75 million fish in release year 1988 (Table 1).

                Table 1. Oregon's 1988 State hatchery releases of anadromous salmonids (excluding
                      STEP).


                  Summer            Winter                              Spring            Fall
                 Steelhead        Steelhead           Coho             Chinook          Chinook

                 3,906,110        3,186,256         12,674,018        11,743,330       43,395,333-

                  Primarily Columbia River releases.




                                                          4







              Oregon has recently taken a major @bold) fishery management step with the adoption of
              its natural production and wild fish management policy. Oregon's policy states that the
              maintenance of wild stocks is a biological necessity to insure the future abundance of
              both naturally and artificially produced runs (Anon. 1990a). Biologists believe that,
              despite past stocking practices, distinct stocks of wild indigenous fish are still viable.
              Their managers also state that prior to 1960, the majority of hatchery fish released did
              not live to reproduce. These failures primarily resulted from improper stocking
              practices, i.e., time and size at release; poor quality fish and/or stocking fish poorly
              adapted for the environment (Anon. 1982a).

              We reviewed 51 projects in Oregon; only 2 were considered supplementation, both were
              successful.


              Steelhead


              Endemic runs of summer and winter races of steelhead occur in Oregon. Winter
              steelhead are primarily coastal, whereas the summer steelhead range encompasses
              coastal as well as interior streams.

              Release size for Oregon steelhead smolts is 5-6 fish/lb (60-90 g; 200-215 mm). Oregon
              managers note that larger smolts produce greater adult returns. However, it was also
              noted that larger smolts stray at increased rates.


              Hatchery philosophy in Oregon over much time (1890-1960) centered around releases of
              unfed fry and pre-smolts. These hatchery fish were usually superimposed on healthy
              stocks of natural fish in good habitat with ineffective or counterproductive results (Smith
              1987). Smith (1987) also noted that outplanting unfed fry and short-fed pre-smolts
              probably presents the highest potential for interference with. indigenous fish.

              Oregon biologists are currently experimenting with sterilization of summer steelhead in
              the Willamette Subbasin to prevent interaction of hatchery summer steelhead with wild
              winter steelhead juveniles. The hatchery summers provide a sport fishery while the wild
              winter run rebuilds.'


              Coho


              Coho salmon in Oregon occur primarily in coastal streams and in the Columbia River
              (lower river tributaries). Based on historical catch records, one can easily deduce that
              the Columbia River once produced at least as many coho as Oregon coastal streams.


                  'Ken Kenaston, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon, pers.
                  comm., April, 1990.

                                                           5








             Oregon's hatchery releases have increased from 7.5 million in 1960 to 12 million in 1988
             (excluding private releases). Coho production occurs at 18 public and 4 private
             hatcheries. Most natural production now occurs in coastal streams. Wild stocks
             comprised approximately 46 percent of the ocean harvest in 1969. They comprised only
             25 percent for the period 1977-80 (Anon. 1982b). Coho produced in Oregon contributes
             to a number of commercial and sport fisheries.

             Tbe Oregon coho hatchery program was enlarged in the 1960s, which generated much
             optimism. In the late 60s, adult coho fluctuations became prevalent between years. In
             1977, coho abundance dropped to the lowest level since 1962. This downward trend in
             adult production occurred in spite of increased hatchery production. The theories of why
             coho production went the opposite of predictions are numerous. After 30 years of
             intensive artificial production, enhancement projects have been unable to equal the
             historic level of natural production.

             There is currently a downward trend in adult escapements of wild and hatchery stocks in
             a time of increasing hatchery smolt releases. Because of this, ODFW has taken actions
             to determine the mechanisms responsible for mortality. ODFW addressed these
             concerns by designing seven management objectives in their coho management plan
             (Anon. 1982b). Several of these include supplementation strategies. Oregon's new
             directive is to supplement natural runs with indigenous broodstock as per wild fish policy
             and to explore methods to improve hatchery fish.

             Oregon recently determined that they can significantly increase densities of juvenile coho
             at the end of the summer rearing period in most streams. However, releases of hatchery
             pre-smolts has reduced the density of wild juvenile coho by 40-50 percent (Solazzi et al.
             1983). Stocking hatchery pre-smolts produced a net loss for adult returns (Nickelson
             1981). The results showed that hatchery pre-smolts should only be stocked in habitat
             that is greatly underseeded.

             Release size for coho vary between 35-38 g (12-13 fish /lb) for hatcheries with survival
             rates less than two percent. When survival is greater than two percent Oregon managers
             recommend releasing 23-25 g (23-25 fish/lb) fish. Size at release becomes less critical in
             years with high ocean upwelling (Johnson 1982).

             Chinook


             Fall - The fall chinook salmon of coastal Oregon are healthy and populations are as high
             or higher than at anytime in the last century. The landings during 1986, 1987, and 1988
             have never been higher during the 70 years that they have been activity fished in the
             ocean (Nicholas and Hankin 1989). The complexities of natural processes make it
             impossible to state for sure how this happened. However, one sure statement is that
             hatchery programs were not responsible. The vast majority of coastal rivers are presently
             supporting wild chinook populations at levels equal to anything in the past century


                                                        6








              (Nicholas and Hankin 1989). Oregon biologists believe that the credit belongs to the
              natural healing, in the past three decades, in many lower main stem rivers and estuaries.
              The recovery of coastal chinook salmon has occurred with little or no "tweaking" from
              agencies. The famous Elk River study concluded that wild and hatchery systems were
              only weakly compatible. These data were collected over 20 years from a hatchery that
              was meticulously managed to mirror the wild run. This study makes the point, "hatchery
              and natural production systems could coexist if hatchery management practices take
              extraordinary care not to reduce the productive capacity of the ecosystem" (Nicholas and
              Downey 1989). Based on the results of the study, we conclude that coastal chinook
              salmon stocks are healthy and productive because they have productive habitat and have
              not been affected by hatcheries.

              Sprin - Oregon's spring chinook management primarily focuses on releases of smolts.
              Outplanting oversize smolts has generated excessive returns of subjacks and increased
              straying (Smith 1987).

              The Willamette River historically produced the major portion of the run in the Columbia
              Basin. Dam construction 'and years of habitat degradation has reduced the wild run
              contribution to a small percentage of the spring chinook salmon return. Approximately
              95 percent of the adult return are from hatchery releases. Evaluation of the status of
              wild stocks of spring chinook salmon in the Willamette Subbasin has not been
              completed.

              Spring chinook salmon supplementation evaluation programs statewide are inconclusive.
              However, smolt (180-190 mm) releases have produced the most successful adult returns.

              STEP


              Oregon's Salmon Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) recruits the services of volunteer
              citizens to assist with habitat improvement projects, population and spawning surveys,
              and strearnside hatch boxes. The STEP program began in 1982 and in 1988-89 the hatch
              box segment released a total of 2.6 million salmonid fry (Table 2).

                  Table 2. Total salmonid fry released in 1988-89 Oregon STEP program.


               Sprin Chinook Fall Chinook Coho             Winter Steelhead      Chum        Cutthroat

                  168,023           571,372       1,035,223      686,653         23,612       113,076


              This program involves individuals and conservation groups throughout the state;
              however, coastal streams provide the major production.



                                                           7








             Prior to STEP, Oregon biologists could not document substantial adult return from fry
             releases. While STEP evaluations are incomplete and difficult to document, the adult
             contributions are disappointing at best.

             Summary

             Oregon placed much emphasis on coho enhancement in the 1960s and 70s with little
             success. While coho was in the limelight, coastal fall chinook received little or no
             enhancement attention. However, coastal fall chinook rebounded to near historic levels
             when left to fend for themselves. Protection and healing of mainstream rivers and
             estuaries probably deserve most of the credit. The fact that healthy populations of fall
             chinook reestablished themselves when provided adequate habitat deserves a closer look
             by supplementation proponents.

             The STEP citizen volunteer program focuses primarily on fry releases. Early evaluations
             have shown disappointing adult returns.

             Biologists have documented that larger smolts result in greater numbers of returning
             adults. Also, they have documented that hatchery fish can adversely affect wild stocks.

             Since there is a preponderance of evidence on the inadequacies of rebuilding runs with
             hatchery fish, Oregon recently established a new natural production and wild fish
             management plan. It is too early for the results of this program to be obvious.
             However, using indigenous wild/natural broodstock for hatchery programs certainly must
             be evaluated.



                                                   Washington

             Background

             Anadromous fish runs in Washington include chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, pink salmon,
             steelhead, and cutthroat trout. Systems that support anadromous runs include tributaries
             to the Columbia River, coastal systems, and Puget Sound.

             Artificial production of anadromous salmonids in Washington is conducted by state,
             federal and tribal hatcheries. Over 340 million fish were released in Washington in
             1987, (Table 3).

             We reviewed 129 projects in Washington; 3 were considered true supplementation, only
             1 of these was evaluated.






                                                         8








               Table 3. Numbers of anadromous salmonids released in Washington in 1987.


                Winter        Summer           Fall         Spring
               Steelhead      Steelhead       Chinook       Chinook           Coho         Chum


                1,803,646     3,349,917     139,359,630     17,896,634     88,363,656    90,171,973



              Steelhead


              The Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) manages the steelhead runs in
              Washington. The WDW raises smolts almost exclusively and more than 6 million are
              released annually. This stocking effort is mainly to increase harvestable numbers, not to
              rebuild natural or wild runs. The operational procedures of WDW hatcheries have
              created a separation between the run timing of hatchery produced winter steelhead and
              naturally produced winter steelhead. They are presently managed as separate runs. The
              early run consists primarily of domesticated hatchery stocks and the later run primarily
              wild stock.


              While wild steelhead broodstock are not normally,used in WDW hatchery programs,
              some winter steelhead programs do utilize wild/natural fish. Some examples include
              ongoing programs on the Wynoochee and Skookumchuck Rivers (tributaries to the
              Chehalis system), the Nooksack River in northeastern Puget Sound and the Soleduck
              River on the north coast. Recently, wild/natural broodstock have also been used on the
              Humptulips, Satsop and Sauk Rivers. These programs have been a mixture of true
              supplementation and harvesf augmentation. Unfortunately, the supplementation
              programs were not rigorously evaluated. The contribution of the hatchery
              supplementation to the overall return and especially to the spawning escapement was not
              determined. In areas where wild stock was not incorporated, the intent was to separate
              wild and hatchery fish.

              Escapement data for wild summer steelhe.ad is less detailed although the Toutle, Wind
              and Wenatchee systems have shown favorable responses.

              Many WDW biologists believe that wild winter stocks are responding favorably to the
              current management practices. In the Kalama River, 58 percent of the total winter
              steelhead run consists of wild fish. The Elwha River, which is completely blocked by the
              Elwha Dam at River mile 5.3, averages only 14 percent wild fish in the total run.






                                                        9









             Since 1984 marked hatchery fish are stocked in areas where the wild run is known or
             strongly suspected (where definitive data are unavailable) to be underescaped. In these
             areas fishing regulations require the release of all unmarked fish.'

             There is mixing of wild and hatchery stocks and WDW estimates that 44 percent of the
             wild summer steelhead returning to the Kalama River are the direct offspring of
             naturally spawning hatchery fish. The WDW has also found that in the Kalama River,
             wild summer steelhead appear to be 8.6 times as effective as hatchery fish in producing
             adult returnees (Leider et al. 1989).

             Survival rates for hatchery winter steelhead range from 16.9 percent for the 1984 brood
             year in the Quillayute River to 0.21 percent for 1980 brood year in Cook Creek, tributary
             to the Quinault River. An average return rate for hatchery winter steelhead is 5.3
             percent (based on data on smolt return rates for nine western Washington rivers).

             Salmon


             The Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) manages most of the salmon runs in
             Washington. State salmon programs are developing guidelines that will give the
             supplementation programs management direction. These guidelines will allow WDF to
             document, plan, coordinate, and evaluate ongoing and future activities. They are
             currently attempting a more focused evaluation on drainages managed as natural; i.e.,
             Gray Harbor, Queets, Quillayate, Skagit, Snohomish, and Stillaguarnish Rivers.

             Hatchery management programs are conducted by the state in South Puget Sound
             drainages. Most of these drainages are supplemented to meet higher salmon harvest
             rates, maximize seeding and realize hatchery goals. These programs are primarily
             operational with little or no evaluation. Harvest augmentation is a management goal in
             many of these programs.

             Within Washington, off station releases accounted for 22 percent of all releases by state
             and federal hatcheries in 1985 and 1986 (Anon. 1987a). This amounted to more than
             154 million salmon, 60 percent coho, 26 percent chum, 13 percentfall chinook, and 0.4
             percent spring chinook.

             In some instances where the chinook runs have declined they are utilizing hatchery fish
             in an effort to rebuild runs.


             Wild broodstock programs have been attempted with chinook and coho. WDF had
             problems with wild broodstock in hatchery production situations. Wild coho broodstock



                 'James Nielsen, Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, pers.
                  comm., August, 1990.

                                                          10








              had low fry-to-smolt survival. The Stillaguamish River summer chinook program is
              currently set up to incorporate wild broodstock. The program is also shifting from fry
              plantings to smolt plantings with higher survival rates.

              Chinook - The majority of supplementation work on chinook in Washington is being
              conducted by Indian tribes; outplanting approximately 9,000,000 juvenile chinook
              annually. The main purpose of this outplanting is to enhance or establish a fishery.
              Most of the fish are stocked as fingerlings ( > 7,000,000), with survival rates for fingerling-
              to-adult ranging from slightly less than 1.0 percent to 0.1 percent. Outplanted smolts
              have slightly higher survival rates, estimated at around 1.0 percent (Appendix A). The
              Yakima Enhancement Study documented survival for wild chinook smolts-to-adults at 4.4
              percent in 1983, compared to only 0.05 percent for hatchery releases. Trapped
              outmigrating smolts had a higher survival rate for those fish that were acclimated and
              volitional released. However, the survival to adults was the same as those not
              acclimated (Fast et al. 1988).

              Summer chinook salmon are managed primarily for natural production in the
              Wenatchee, Methow, Okanogan, and Similkameen Rivers.

              One negative aspect of supplementation recently described was the "pied piper" effect of
              planting hatchery fish on wild fish. Hillman and Mullan (1989) found that hatchery
              releases of age-0 spring chinook salmon in the Wenatchee River "caused" 38 to 78
              percent of wild chinook and 15 to 45 percent of wild age-0 steelhead to join hatchery
              migrants unless wild fish could not see them. This early migration of wild age-0 salmon
              and steelhead was considered a loss to production.

              Chu - Most chum supplementation efforts in Washington are concentrated in South
              Puget Sound and its small drainages. Like chinook, a number of Indian tribes are
              conducting supplementation work to enhance or provide a fishery. Review of the
              database (Appendix A) revealed that within Washington over 20,000,000 chum fry are
              outplanted annually with 0.07 to 1.0 percent return to hatchery.

              Coho - Coho fry are widely stocked in many small streams in Washington with no
              separation or differentiation made between hatchery and wild fish. Over 92,000,000
              juveniles were outplanted, in 1985 and 1986 combined, to augment harvest with little or
              no evaluation. Releases of 395,800 yearlings to the Nisqually River has realized a 10-14
              percent return to the fishery (Appendix A). Fry outplants in the Chehalis Basin are
                                                                                          2
              estimated to be 0.05 to 0.09 percent to catch as adults, depending upon stock.




                 2Rick Brix, Washington Department of Fisheries, Montesano, Washington, pers.
                  comm., April, 1990.

                                                         11









              The )NDF collected wild broodstock for rebuilding coho runs on the Quillayute, Hoh and
              Queets, River System. They have estimated that cost per spawned female averaged $330.
              Juvenile fish are reared to fry, then restocked into systems that are below full seeding
              levels. The limited data indicates low survival from fry planting to smolt emigration.
              This method produced a net loss of smolt production, compared to allowing the adults to
              spawn naturally (Anon. 1987a).

              WDF has outplanted yearling coho in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. This was used to
              reduce hatchery surplus and improve wild production. However, releases of yearlings
              were not cost effective and was discontinued.


              Summary

              Supplementation projects may detrimentally impact other anadromous and resident
              salmonids. A coho enhancement project in Puget Sound was at least circumstantially
              linked to a major decline (50 percent) in the pink salmon run in a nearby river. This
              evidence is substantiated by statistics that show the rest of Puget Sound pink runs
              increased by 38 percent for the same period (Ames 1980).

              Steelhead management in Washington has benefitted from the marking of hatchery
              produced fish. This immediate sight identification of hatchery and wild fish allows
              implementation of selective fishery regulations needed to protect underescaped wild
              runs. Further separation of hatchery and wild fish is realized by a difference in run
              timing. Temporal separation allows managers to collect hatchery broodstock and limit
              spawmng'interaction between wild and hatchery fish. Return timing is also useful in
              commercial harvest management. Hatchery fish can be fished at a high rate without
              adversely impacting wild runs.



                                                        Idaho


              Background

              Idaho stocks of anadromous fish are in a very depressed state. Restoration more
              accurately describes Idaho's efforts, which focus primarily on chinook salmon and
              steelhead. Historically, Idaho supported runs of steelhead, sockeye and coho salmon as
              well as three races of chinook salmon; spring, summer and fall. Hydroelectric dams,
              habitat degradation, and overfishing have contributed to the decline of Idaho's
              anadromous fish run. Coho salmon no longer enter Idaho and can be considered
              extirpated from the state. The last coho to pass Lower Granite Dam was a single adult
              in 1986, and only two fish passed in 1985. Sockeye salmon are now being considered by
              the National Marine Fisheries Service for endangered or threatened species designation
              in the upper Snake River. In 1989, only two adult sockeye salmon passed Lower Granite
              Dam. Thus, sockeye. may also be extinct in Idaho. Fall chinook salmon are not being


                                                           12








              actively managed in Idaho. The Snake River, from below Hells Canyon Dam
              downstream to the confluence of the Clearwater River, is the only area where there are
              still significant numbers of fall chinook in Idaho. 'ne Washington Department of
              Fisheries, who share management responsibilities on this section@ of the'Snake River,
              started a monitoring program on fall chinook for this river section.

              Idaho is primarily managing three groups of anadromous fishes; summer steelhead,
              summer chinook salmon, and spring chinook salmon. Steelhead and spring chinook
              salmon receive most of the management emphasis. In 1989, over 23, million hatchery
              fish were released above Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River. Most of these
              hatchery fish originated from production facilities located in Idaho. Some came from
              Oregon's Grande Ronde and Imnaha River systems. Of the 23 + million, 9.6 million
              were spring chinook and 9.9 million were steelhead -- the 2 major hatchery species
              reared in the state.


              We reviewed 10 projects in Idaho; 2 were considered true supplementation, neither of
              them was evaluated.


              Steelhead


              The potential Snake River steelhead run, based on run strength from 1954-1967, was
              estimated for the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) as 114,800 (Herrig
              1990). In 1988, 99,714 steelhead were counted over Ice Harbor Dam. Although this
              number is approaching the LSRCP goal, it is estimated that 70-80 percent of the
              steelhead run returning to the Snake River are hatchery fish.'

              Adult returns to the Snake River above Lower Granite in the past three years (1986-
              1989) have demonstrated a greater survival of wild fish over hatchery fish. Data for
              steelhead indicate that 20 to 34 percent of the adult fish crossing over Lower Granite
              Dam are wild. These returns are from an estimated 10 to 18 percent wild smolts passing
              Lower Granite Dam (Koski et al. 1990). This indicates as much as a two-fold survival
              advantage of wild/natural steelhead sm-olts above Lower Granite Dam.

              Idaho Fish and Game's Anadromous Fish Plan (Anon. 1985) established goals of
              returning steelhead and salmon. Steelhead adult returns indicate that the state is
              nearing their goal of a smolt-to-adult survival of 2 percent for wild/natural and 1 percent
              for hatchery fish. However, the total number of wild/natural fish returning to Idaho is
              considered well below carrying capacity of the available habitat.

              Idaho is in a very large hatchery program. Most of the stocking and outplanting has
              been done with smolts. Most smolts have been released at hatchery racks and have been


                 'Larry Basham, Fish Passage Center, Portland, Oregon, pers. comm., April, 1990.

                                                         13








              used for mitigation, harvest augmentation, and broodstock development.
              Supplementation of wild/natural runs has recently been receiving more emphasis. In
              recent years, hatchery fish have been outplanted into streams. This program was usually
              the result of extra hatchery production. Evaluations are underway on some of these
              programs, including the South Fork of the Salmon and South Fork of the Clearwater
              Rivers. Evaluation entail late summer fry and yearling snorkel counts primarily.

              The Pahsimeroi River was one of the earliest locations where steelhead were outplanted.
              This program introduced runs from the mid-Snake River to this tributary on the Salmon
              River. Introducing the mid-Snake River run was made necessary by the construction of
              three dams in the Hells Canyon section of the Snake River. These dams provide no fish
              passage. Returning adult steelhead are collected at the Pahsimeroi trap, but all natural
              fish and some hatchery fish (to total one-third of run) are released upstream for natural
              spawning. Adipose fin clips permit separation of hatchery fish and wild/natural fish. All
              hatchery steelhead are adipose fin clipped in Idaho. The Pahsimeroi River project
              releases approximately 900,000 smolts annually with an estimated adult return to Idaho
                             2
              of 1.18 percent. Hatchery fish make up approximately 93 percent of the sportsman
              catch on the Salmon River.' Sport fishery regulations require that all wild/natural
              steelhead (those with an adipose fin) be returned to the river.

              Chinook


              Sprin - Historically the Snake River system produced most of the spring chinook salmon
              in the Columbia River Basin (Fulton 1968). Today this run is only a remnant of what
              used to occur. Ile LSRCP spring-summer adult goals for the Snake River were
              established using the 1954-1967 counts at Ice Harbor Dam. The highest count was used
              as the potential production for the Snake River. For spring-sumn-ier chinook salmon, the
              potential run was estimated at 122,200 adults (Herrig 1990). In 1988, the spring chinook
              salmon returning upstream of Ice Harbor Dam, the first dam in the Snake River, totaled
              34,394 (Anon. 1989a). It was estimated that up to 80 percent of these spring chinook
              were hatchery fish.

              With very limited data, estimates were made that less than 10 percent of the chinook
                                                                   4
              salmon smolts passing Lower Granite Dam are wild. Data on the separation of
              wild/natural from hatchery fish are being collected at upriver dams on the Snake River.




                   2Kent Ball, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Salmon, Idaho, pers. comm.,
                   January, 1990.

                   3ibid.

                   4Basham, p. 13.

                                                          14








              For spring chinook, the survival of wild fish may be as much as three or fourfold greater
              than hatchery fish. For instance, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game has estimated
              wild spring chinook smolt survival to adult in Marsh Creek at 1.2 percent back to Idaho
              with good flows at Lower Granite Dam. Rapid River Hatchery spring chinook salmon on
              the other hand recorded smolt-to-adult survival of 0.3 percent with good flows at the
              dam.5 Hatchery returns of 0.3 percent on good flow years and 0.03 on low water years
              indicates that adequate flows are necessary to enhance upriver stocks.

              Within the last few years, a number of satellite fish rearing stations have been
              established in the Clearwater and Salmon River drainages (both tributaries of the Snake
              River). These satellite stations are used for trapping adults and also for partial rearing
              of juveniles. Satellite stations are programmed to augment the wild/natural runs present
              in some of the tributaries. Evaluations on the effectiveness of the satellite stations in
              Idaho have not been determined, primarily because of the relative newness on the
              program. However, escapement data and snorkeling counts of yearly fish are being
              documented.


              Summer - Supplementation of both spring and summer chinook salmon is a relatively
              new program in Idaho. Summer chinook salmon are supplemented primarily on the
              South Fork of the Salmon River. McCall Hatchery, which started releasing summer
              chinook smolts to the South Fork in 1980, has produced significant numbers of smolts.
              The goal of that facility is 1 million smolts per year. During 1988 and 1989 1,060,400
              and 975,000 summer chinook smolts were released into the South Fork from McCall Fish
              Hatchery. The program in the South Fork entails a weir on the stream where the adults
              are trapped and eggs are taken. One-third of the fish are taken for hatchery production
              and the other two-thirds are passed upstream for natural production. Return rates from
              coded-wire tagged summer chinook salmon'released at McCall Fish Hatchery indicate a
              smolt-to-adult survival of 0.80 percent for brood year (BY) 1981, 0.44 percent for BY
              1982, and 0.46 percent for BY 1983 (Herrig 1990).

              Idaho Department of Fish and Game removed natural barriers to allow passage of adult
              chinook salmon to Johnson Creek, a tributary to the East Fork of the Salmon River.
              Summer chinook fry were outplanted annually from 1986 to 1989. In the fall of 1889, 15
              chinook redds were counted above the removed barriers. Stocking of Johnson Creek is
              planned to be continued until natural spawning of adults seed the area adequately.

              Summary

              Idaho is workinglo rebuild runs of summer steelhead, spring and summer chinook
              salmon in the Snake River Basin. Some streams aredesignated wild streams where no


                  -'Charlie Petrosky, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho, pers. comm.,
                  February, 1990.

                                                            15








              hatchery fish are planted. These are the Middle Fork of Salmon, South Fork of Salmon,
              and Selway Rivers. Outplanting is also restricted in other areas. The marking of all
              hatchery steelhead has aided Idaho managers in evaluating hatchery programs and in
              documenting the status of wild steelhead. Steelhead smolt-to-adult survival goals of 1
              percent for hatchery fish and 2 percent for wild fish are being achieved. However, the
              numbers of wild fish are less than needed for natural habitat seeding.

              Spring chinook salmon runs (hatchery and wild stocks) are very depressed in Idaho.
              Hatchery supplementation, to date, has not succeeded in rebuilding natural runs.
              Managers are not getting close to their goal of returning 0.8 percent for hatchery fish.
              Right now most hatchery fish returns are nearer 0.2 percent or only 25 percent of the
              goal.



                                                      California


              Background

              Anadromous salmonids native to California are chinook, coho, sockeye, pink, chum
              salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. Historically, chinook salmon and.steelhead runs
              were widespread and abundant throughout the state. Habitat degradation, dam
              construction, water developments, watershed alteration, and overfishing contributed to
              the decline of salmonids throughout the state.

              Hatcheries-were built to mitigate for these losses and are operated by the California
              Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). Eggs
              were obtained from various California and out-of-state sources to reestablish or
              supplement dwindling stocks. The mixing of non-endemic stocks throughout California
              have likely altered the composition of distinct gene pools. Despite this, hatchery
              production efforts have either maintained or increased spawner escapements in many
              waters. Anadromous fish stocking in California is in a restoration phase. They are also
              in'a harvest augmentation phase to provide fish for commercial, sport, and tribal harvest.


              During the  past two decades, private groups have become involved in habitat restoration
              projects. Private propagation programs have expanded, particularly in affected areas
              where state involvement was minimal or lacking.

              The federal and state management agencies, and private groups have all focused on the
              importance of restoring fall chinook salmon and winter steelhead. These two species are
              receiving the highest attention in both habitat rehabilitation and supplementation efforts.
              In coastal areas where coho runs prevailed historically, interest has increased in
              reestablishing these stocks. The distributions and abundance of sockeye, pink, and chum
              salmon are so limited that propagation efforts for these species has not been practical.


                                                           16








              Government and private efforts are attempting to rebuild salmonid runs through stock
              management, supplementation, and habitat rehabilitation programs. Although efforts are
              ongoing to restore wild spawning populations, the major emphasis is the production of
              hatchery fish for harvest augmentation. With this emphasis, the rebuilding of wild stocks
              may be limited to some coastal waters and a few subbasin streams within California's
              major river systems.

              The role of supplementation may become more crucial in California if wild runs of
              chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead continue their statewide declining trends.

              We reviewed 75 projects in California; 6 were considered true supplementation, only 3
              were evaluated.


              Steelhead


              Steelhead are widely distributed throughout California. The majority of California's
              stocks from the larger river systems (Sacramento, Klamath/Trinity) are augmented or
              sustained by hatchery operations. Within these basins and in other coastal streams,
              numerous waters have remnant or depressed runs of wild winter stee'lhead. The winter
              run is the dominant form in California. The Middle Fork of Eel River has the only
              native Tun of summer steelhead in the state. This native stock is not supplemented. A
              Washougal River (Washington) stock of summer steelhead was introduced into the Mad
              River and has been established as a small naturally spawning run. In some years these
              adult fish enter the Mad River Hatchery and are propagated independently from winter
              steelhead.


              Steelhead propagation ranks second to the chinook salmon for all anadromous salmonid
              releases. The CDFG and FWS are the main producers of steelhead. The Indian tribes
              do not propagate steelhead.

              Coleman National Fish Hatchery (NFH) raises about one million winter steelhead
              annually. These fish are released as yearlings on-site and off-site (downstream or
              estuarine). Contribution rates for on-site releases ranged from 0.10 percent to 0.25
              percent, and 0.10 percent to 0.50 percent for off-site releases! The Forest Service
              operates two spawning channels, Kelsey and Indian Creek. -Although intended primarily
              for fall chinook salmon, these channels are also utilized by steelhead and coho salmon.

              Except for the Merced River Fish Facility, winter steelhead are raised in every CDFG
              anadromous hatchery. The estimated annual production is about 4.5 million from these
              facilities. The steelhead are released as yearling smolts. Release strategies vary by


                  'Gene Forbes, U.S., Fish and Wildlife Service, Anderson, California, pers. comm.,
                  March, 1990.

                                                        17








              facility and also in response to the continuing drought. In wet years, in the Sacramento
              River system steelhead are trucked to the San Francisco Bay estuary. The on-site
              steelhead releases from Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery also serve as put-and-take
              fishery, while the off-site releases are trucked to Rio Vista (delta area) or the estuary.
              Reliable return rates to the Sacramento River Basin hatcheries were not available.
              However, based on results achieved with chinook salmon, off-site (downstream or
              estuarine) releases are assumed to yield higher ocean and inland returns.

              Private programs (includes county and local projects) produced 338,089 steelhead in
              1989. The largest programs were (average annual production): Rowdy Creek Fish
              Hatchery, 75,000; the Mendocino County Fish & Game Commission, 70,000; Monterey
              Bay Salmon and Trout Project, 45,000; and Gualala River Steelhead Project, 30,000.

              Chinook

              Winter chinook salmon are known only to the upper Sacramento River and this race is a
              federally listed threatened species. Coleman NFH represents the only entity propagating
                                                                                     2
              winter chinook. Only one adult pair was spawned at Coleman in 1989.

              Spring chinook salmon are native in the Klamath and Sacramento River Basins and are
              represented by hatchery and wild stocks. The status of the wild stocks are not well-
              known and may be tenuous. The South Fork Trinity River spring chinook salmon
              abundance has declined and this geographical stock may become a candidate for state
              listing as a threatened species.

              Fall chinook salmon are the dominant anadromous salmonid in California. The CDFG
              and FWS are the largest producers of fall chinook salmon, annually releasing
              approximately 30 million and 16 million juveniles, respectively. The U.S. Forest Service,
              U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, various Indian tribes, and private groups also propagate
              fall chinook salmon. Private groups produce over 1 million fall chinook annually (Table
              4).

              Federal and state hatcheries commonly truck their releases, particularly in the
              Sacramento River system. Trucking reduces fish loss at numerous water pumping
              stations and diversions. Sacramento River fish are usually trucked to San Francisco Bay
              or the river delta. Another outplanting technique used to enhance survival is to divide
              release groups and plant into adjacent drainages or different locations within the same
              drainage. Outplanted and trucked release chinook groups have exhibited higher survival
              than those released on-site. Private programs have also experienced higher ocean
              contribution rates and inland return success from yearling-sized releases rather than
              fingerling releases.



                 2ibid.

                                                          18








              Table 4. Estimated releases of anadromous salmo     nids from private California projects
                         (permit and contract categories) during 1989.


                                          Fall Chinook       Coho     Winter Steelhea      Cutthroat

               Rearing
                  Independent production      186,350        77,225         76,310              500
                  Eggs from CDFG              163,000            -          13,999               -
                  Ocean Pen-rearing             51,082           -            -                  -
               Natal stocks
                  Yearlings                   246,189       188,956        247,780            14,000
                  Smolts                      479,712            -            -                  -

                  TOTALS                     1,126,333      266,181        338,089           14,500

                  Natal stocks releases are progeny of broodstock taken from natural populations.


              A late fall chinook population occurs in the upper Sacramento River and is propagated
              auColeman NFH. This late fall population may be declining in abundance.

              Coho


              Coho salmon utilize coastal streams for spawning. They are native to the Russian,
              Klamath, and Eel Rivers, and other coastal streams. In contrast to the known historical
              status and distribution, the present wild populations are remnant. The status of some
              stocks are uncertain.


              Coho are propagated by CDFG and private groups. Federal agencies and Indian
              Nations are not propagating coho salmon in California. In recent years, CDFG has
              annually released about 1 million coho yearlings into state waters. The CDFG operates
              the Noyo River Egg Collection Station on the South Fork Noyo River. Eggs taken from
              this station have been used to supplement or reestablish coho runs to other coastal
              waters.


              Prairie Creek Fish Hatchery (PCFH) releases about 100,000 coho annually and
              represents the largest level of production from 3a non-CDFG agency. Recent adult return
              rates to PCFH for coho salmon was 3 percent. Tle city of Arcata rears coho salmon
              and steelhead in a wastewater marsh aquaculture project. The yearlings are then



                  3Steve Sanders, Humboldt County, Orick, California, pers. comm., February, 1990.

                                                           19









             released into a stream adjacent to the marsh. Coho releases average 5,000 annually and
                                                                      4
             adult returns range from about 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent.

             The 1989 coho salmon production from private projects (including county and local
             programs) contributed 266,181 yearlings to California waters. The Humboldt Fish
             Action, Council (HFAC), and the Monterey Bay Salmon and Steelhead Project are the
             two largest private coho producers, releasing about 25,000, and 23,000 yearlings annually,
             respectively. The HFAC's coho releases contributed an estimated 0.2 percent to the
             1989 ocean fishery, the inland recovery rate was also 0.2 percent.5

             Coastal Cutthroat Trout


             The coastal cutthroat trout occurs in coastal waters from the Eel River drainage and
             northward. The present range may be identical to the known historical distribution.
             However, while their abundance has declined considerably, existing populations are
             believed to be stable, There are about 120 streams with cutthroat, comprising about 700
             miles of habitat (Gerstung 1981). Although cutthroat trout are not as popular as other
             anadromous species, increasing harvest pressure on the other species may elevate the
             importance of cutthroat as a sport fish.

             The Fisheries Department of Humboldt State University (HSU) has begun propagating
             anadromous coastal cutthroat to enhance sport fishing in local Humboldt County
             lagoons. The first release of 14,000 juveniles is scheduled for the spring of 1990. They
             are reared at the HSU hatchery then trucked to release sites. Humboldt County and
             HSU are the only entities propagating coastal cutthroat in California. About 500
             cutthroat trout are released annually by Humboldt County. These cutthroat are released
             as yearlings and will hopefully contribute to the local inland sport fisheries.

             Summary

             There is considerable interest in supplementation, especially among private groups.
             Consensus among private groups expressed a need for additional programs, to
             rehabilitate waters which formerly produced salmonids. They also voiced the need to
             work together with the state to meet common objectives. The majority of the state
             personnel interviewed were in agreement with the private faction.





                 4David Hull, City of Arcata, Dept. of Public Works, Arcata, California, pers. comm.,
                 February, 1990.
                 5Jud Ellinwood, Humboldt Fish Action Council, Eureka, California, pers. comm.,
                 March, 1990.

                                                         20








              One concern that was apparent among virtually all groups contacted was the issue of
              inter-basin transfers of salmonid stocks. Although most people were aware of the
              biological implications, some felt that inter-basin transfers were necessary to attain their
              goals. Others expressed a need to end all inter-basin transfers of all life stages.
              Although CDFG has a formal policy against inter-basin transfer of stocks, this
              supplementation review indicated that the practice is common and widespread. The
              CDFG has transferred stocks for restoration purposes to establish and maintain runs.
              Some private programs have received both endemic and non-endemic eggs from CDFG,
              particularly in waters with depressed or extirpated stocks.

              The state's intent ha@ been to supplement and expand dwindling or geographically extinct
              wild stocks. However, a formally organized statewide active program to increase wild
              stocks (through supplementation) was not apparent from the state personnel interviewed.
              Maintaining high production levels is the driving force within the hatchery management
              system. Many personnel from all sectors expressed concern about the proper levels
              (density) of stocking. Additionally, various measures to promote the survival and return
              of hatchery stocks (such as trucking juveniles downstream) have been successful.
              However, there is little done to aid natural production.

              Although private projects are also motivated to maximizing their production, they have
              not deviated from their grass-roots objectives of rebuilding local remnant stocks. The
              private projects are limited by economics; the materials, personnel, technology, and
              funding necessary to define the capability and nature of these projects. California's
              private sector has the potential to increase present levels of supplementation with
              additional funding.

              Guidelines among public agencies and private groups on the biologically appropriate
              levels of production and supplementation are lacking. This problem needs to be
              addressed to promote an organized and scientifically sound approach to rebuilding
              salmonid stocks.



                                                         Alaska


              Background

              Alaska has two entities doing enhancement of salmon and steelhead, private non-profit
              (PNP) hatcheries and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fisheries
              Rehabilitation Enhancement and Development (FRED) Division hatcheries. PNP
              hatchery programs provide a structure for fishermen to be involved with the commercial
              fisheries programs. The PNP hatcheries are supported by Regional Aquaculture
              Associations and produce fish for commercial harvest. There are seven regional
              aquaculture associations in Alaska. The PNP rear pink, chum, coho, chinook and
              sockeye salmon at their hatcheries. In 1988, PNP hatcheries took more than 1 billion


                                                           21








              eggs and released 819 million fry and smolts (Holland 1989). Most releases were pink
              and chum salmon fry, approximately 626 million pink fry and 186 million chum fry. In
              1988, there were 22 PNP hatcheries in Alaska. The Regional Aquaculture Associations
              are supported by a tax on the commercial salmon harvest (landing fee). They also
              market excess fish returning to the PNP hatcheries.

              Alaska's FRED Division focuses on the development of new enhancement technology,
              hatchery production, technical services, permitting, and habitat restoration and
              rehabilitation. ne PNP hatchery program is administered by FRED under a permitting
              system.

              The FRED system operates 16 hatcheries and several ancillary hatchery facilities. In
              1988, FRED hatcheries released 412.6 million fry and smolts of which 407 million were
              salmon and steelhead (Holland 1989). Of the total release (1989) 320 million were pink
              and chum salmon (Table 5).

              Most of PNP hatcheries produce pink and chum salmon with some sockeye, coho, and
              chinook. Plans are moving forward to produce more sockeye smolts at some PNP and
              FRED operated facilities.

              Table 5. Releases of fry and smolts, salmon and steelhead, from Public Non-profit
                        (PNP) and Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FRED Division hatcheries,
                        1988. (Holland 1989).



                     PNP Hatcheries                        FRED Division Hatcheries
                 Species    Number (x1,000                 Specie        Number Lx1.000

                 Chum       186,050                        Chum          106,531
                 Pink       625,820                        Pink          213,580
                 Sockeye       1,000                       Sockeye         68,142
                 Coho          4,720                       Coho            14,441
                 Chinook       2,210                       Chinook           4,115
                                                           Steelhead           271


                 TOTAL      819,800                          TOTAL       407,080


              Biologists are attempting to rebuild or supplement some wild/natural runs of salmon and
              steelhead. However, most of the hatchery effort is to increase runs for harvest
              augmentation. Fish are released directly from the hatchery or introduced to areas where
              the adults can be harvested while wild stocks are managed for escapement. Efforts are
              underway to introduce salmon to unutilized production areas where barriers or other
              factors have restricted access to fish. New programs will examine means to bring fish


                                                          22








              back to areas just for a specific type of harvest - sport, commercial or subsistence. Fry,
              fingerling, and smolts are released directly into ocean bays, small streams, lakes or rivers
              to key adults back to a terminal fishery.

              Alaska's hatchery program is rated quite successful because it is providing more stability
              in the commercial fisheries program. In 1987, roughly 25 percent of the total statewide
              salmon harvest was from salmon produced by public programs (FRED & PNP). In 1988,
              this figure was 24 percent (Hartman et al. 1988). To separate wild from hatchery stocks
              in a mixed stock fishery, many hatchery fish are marked with coded-wire tags (CWT). In
              some fisheries, hatchery fish are separated by timing into a fishery area and by location
              of return. Overall, fisheries management in Alaska is directed primarily for wild fish
              escapement with hatchery releases directed for harvest augmentation.'

              We reviewed 24 projects in Alaska; 2 were considered true supplementation, both were
              evaluated.


              Steelhead


              Very little steelhead supplementation has occurred in Alaska. No specific evaluation
              information was found.


              Chinook


              Hatchery cbinook salmon programs have not been as successful as some of the other
              hatchery programs in Alaska. When comparing adult returns with the Columbia River
              system, Alaska does as well or better. Chinook salmon adult returns in the 2-4 percent
              range from smolt plants have been common (Dudiak and Boyle 1988). Alaska biologists
              expect to get 3 percent or better adult returns for smolt releases of chinook, coho, and
              sockeye salmon. Programs to build fisheries in selected areas for chinook salmon harvest
              has worked quite well in Alaska. Chinook salmon smolt releases in Prince William
                                                      2
              Sound return in the 4-5 percent range.

              Alaskan biologists use indigenous broodstock almost exclusively for supplementation.
              Fry, fingerling and smolts have been outplanted to natural areas. In the Kasilof River,
              biologists have stocked chinook salmon smolts into areas with wild stock and noted no
              impacts on wild stocks. They did note that survival of hatchery fish was about one-half
              of what they thought it should be (Kyle and Litchfield 1989).



                   'Keith Pratt, FRED Divisions, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage,
                   Alaska, pers. comm., February, 1990.
                   2Bruce Suzurnota, Prince William Sound Aquaculture Association, pers. comm.,
                   February, 1990.

                                                           23








              Managers in Alaska are doing some lake rearing of chinook with fish from the Gulkana
              Hatchery, a Copper River stock. Fed fry are taken out by plane and planted into lakes
              in the upper Copper River. This pilot study has just started so no data on survival is
              available at this time.


              Sockeye

              Sockeye salmon are the premier commercial fish with outstanding market value.
              Therefore, production has increased in PNP and FRED hatcheries. Early hatchery
              programs suffered from chronic losses to IHN disease; however, techniques for managing
              around IHN have now been improved. Also, techniques of both lake fertilization and
              lake production modelling have progressed so managers can strive for maximum
              production from rearing waters.

              Sockeye salmon in Alaska are planted into barren lakes or lakes with adult barriers and
              to supplement existing stocks. Lakes are usually only a few miles from salt water. A
              program of lake fertilization is done following a liminological study to identify needed
              fertilizers. Again, natural broodstock are used where possible. Excellent adult returns
              have been realized with smolt releases. Adult returns as high as 35 percent were
              documented at Big Lake. Biologists are expanding sockeye smolt releases because of the
              phenomenal successes.

              Following are survival rates of various stocking techniques:

                   Sockeye stockings of unfed fry into lakes; expecting a greater than 1 percent survival
                   in the Gulkana River area. Sockeye stocked in Summit Lake of the Gulkana
                                                                               3
                   drainage as unfed fry have returned at 0.8 percent as adults.

                   Some sockeye smolt stocking into Big Lake have adult returns at a rate as high as 35
                   percent.

                   Planting eyed eggs in upper Thumb River, a tributary of Karluk Lake, has increased
                   adult returns to Karluk Lake and spawners to upper 'numb River. Eyed egg survival
                   to fry is reported as exceeding survivals commonly obtained from natural spawners
                   (White 1986).

                   Fingerling sockeye released into Hidden Lake built up the production for the lake. It
                   was believed spawning area was the limiting factor. Fingerling-to-smolt survival
                   averaged about 20 percent and smolt-to-adult survival averaged around 15 percent
                   (Litchfield and Flagg 1988).



                   3Ken Roberson, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Glennallen, Alaska, pers.
                   comm., January, 1990.

                                                          24








              Strearnside hatching facilities at Gulkana for sockeye and chinook salmon also appear
              to be working exceptionally well. Groundwater from the stream is directed through
              large units of Kitoi egg boxes loaded with sockeye and chinook eggs. As fry hatch,
              they are washed into a trapping and enumeration area and from there outplanted.
              Fry hatch at a similar time as natural spawned eggs. This is a low technology, low
              cost method of salmon fry production.

           Coho


           Coho salmon are stocked into lakes, streams, and net pens for enhancement purposes.
           Stocking and enhancement procedures in lakes are similar to the sockeye salmon
           supplementation effort. Some limited success has been achieved with coho lake stocking,
           but this program is still in the evaluation stage. Also, some coho work is being done
           with net pens in the inlets and salt water areas. PNP reports of 15 to 20 percent adult
           survival for some coho salmon smolt releaseS.4

           Examples of coho salmon adult returns from hatchery releases follows:

              Fingerling-to-adult from Seldovia Lake approximately 1 percent (Dudiak and Boyle
              1988).

              Fingerling-to-adult from Caribou Lake approximately 2-3 percent (Dudiak and Boyle
              1988).

              Up to 4 percent return from smolts on Homer spit (Dudiak and Boyle 1988).

              In the Yukon River hatchery fingerling produced adult returns of 4.0-8.5 percent and
              13.4 percent for wild fish (Raymond 1986).

              Smolts released from net pens in Prince William Sound returned at a rate in the 15-
                            5
              20 percent range.

           Pink and Chum


           Pink and chum salmon are released as fry (fed or unfed) and go directly to the ocean.
           Releases can occur directly from hatcheries or from other sites where fish migrate
           directly to the ocean. Some net pens are used with feeding programs and match release
           of fry with plankton peaks. The key to success is to get fish to the estuary at peak
           plankton production.



              4ibid.

              5Suzurnota, p. 23.

                                              25









             In Tutka Bay, Boyle and Dudiak (1986) recorded survival rates of hatchery released pink
             salmon fry at 12.5 percent for fed fry and 14.5 percent for unfed fry. Most other releases
             have shown a higher return for fed fry. Lower rates near 1-3 percent for unfed fry are
             common for both pink and chum fry releases (Kohler 1984; McDaniel et al. 1984).
             Feeding fry a few weeks and releasing with plankton peaks contribute to higher survival.
             Survival as high as 14 percent were seen, with several groups returning at 8 percent.

             Summary

             Supplementation in Alaska is primarily what we have classified as harvest augmentation.
             Their management scheme is to manage for wild stock escapement and use
             supplementation to increase salmon runs for commercial fisheries. In a few cases,
             natural sockeye stocks have been rebuilt. Most of the impetus for this rebuilding was for
             harvest.


             Separating hatchery stocks from wild stocks has occurred by bringing salmon back to
             areas where no natural population exist and by separating time of run return.

             Ideas that apply to supplementation in the Columbia River Basin include: (a) streamside
             spawning and incubation units, Kiotoi boxes, and outplanting of fry, (b) lake fertilization
             and fry planting schemes for sockeye, (c) separating hatchery stocks from wild stocks by
             place and time of return, and (d) managing for wild stock escapement with hatcheries
             keyed to harvest augmentation.



                                                British Columbia


             Background

             British Columbia (BC) probably comes closer to true supplementation than any area in
             the Northwest. Their Fraser River Basin is similar to our Columbia River Basin.
             However, BC does not have as many dams and associated fish passage problems. BC's
             Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP) began in 1977 to double their salmonid
             production. SEP's responsibilities are divided between two agencies. The Federal
             Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages the five species of Pacific salmon.
             Steelhead and cutthroat trout are managed by the Provincial Ministry of the
             Environment.


             SEP supplements natural production by the most natural means and thereby reduces
             cost. Currently SEP has a moratorium on new hatchery construction. They concentrate
             primarily on using existing hatcheries to incubate gametes from indigenous broodstock.
             They employ strearnside upwelling incubation units and groundwater fed side channels to
             produce rearing habitat. They also utilize spawning channels to extend the amount of
             spawning area available. These channels are of particular value for sockeye, pink, and


                                                        26








               chum salmon. The spawning channels also provide rearing habitat for other species such
               as chinook and coho salmon.

               In the late 1970s, SEP, in its infancy, developed facility targets in a piecemeal fashion.
               The present system evolved by dividing the geographic regions into management units.
               Each unit reviewed the individual stocks as to the status, ability to manage and capacity
               for additional production potential. There are three area planning committees that
               develop recommendations, the South Coast Division, Fraser River - Yukon Division, and
               the North Coast Division. When a project shows promise, the management unit outlines
               the expected economic and social benefits and submits it to the Treasury Board. For
               allocation of construction and operating dollars, the project has a goal of 1.5:1
               benefit/cost ratio (Hurst and Blackman 1988). Each project uses estimated survival rates
               for each type of enhancement strategy and is sized accordingly.

               Federal fisheries biologists have increased productivity of lakes and streams by the
               application of fertilizers. This technique is used in situations when there are sufficient
               sockeye salmon spawners and suitable habitat is available. The fertilization promotes
               increased growth of the basic components of the salmonid food chain. SEP also
               concentrates on habitat improvements for enhancing salmonid productivity by some basic
               stream improvements. These improvements may require physical cleanup, placement of
               boulders, planting of streamside vegetation, flow control, and eliminate possible pollution
               sources.


               We reviewed 18 projects in BC; 9 were considered true supplementation, 8 were
               evaluated. One of these projects was considered not successful in contributing to natural
               production.

               Steelhead


               BC's total steelhead hatchery production for 1989 was only 2.4 million fish. These were
               planted into 28 systems. Steelhead are released at three life history stages: smolt, parr,
               and fry. The strategy of the smolt programs is to grow the smolts as large as possible
               (60-100 g or 190-220 mm), then outplant during late April to late May. The smolt-to-
               adult survival varied from 1 percent for small smolts to almost 10 percent for 60 g smolts
               (BC's program released 800,000 smolts in 1987). They determined that they could gain
               30-40 percent smolt-to-adult survival by lower river releases, i.e., tide water. They had
               much lower survival for groups released only 10 km upstream. BC's major limitation in
               steelhead research is returning adult enumeration.

               Parr - BC released 355,000 parr from brood year 1987. They use two strategies for parr
               releases, both with 15 g fish (30/lb). This program began in 1987 and the return data
               for the Coquihalla River demonstrated a parr-to-adult survival of 2.6 percent. They
               expected 3.2 percent parr-to-adult survival. Based on cost comparisons to produce 100



                                                            27









             adults BC concluded that if you have the habitat, parr are more cost effective over fry or
             smolts.


             fr.
               y - BC stocks steelhead fry for two primary reasons: colonization - defined as releasing
             fry above anadromous barriers, and supplementation - stocking fry in underseeded
             stream reaches.

             From the 1987 brood year BC released 1.2 million; 2.0 g fry (200/lb) into 28 systems. A
             typical release method is by helicopter to enhance dispersal. BC fry stocking began in
             the early 1980s. Criteria used for survival of fry-to-smolt are largely dependent on:
             1. age at smolting, 2. amount of physically suitable habitat for all life history stages,
             3. size of fish released, 4. productivity of different streams, (i.e., total alkalinity can very
             from 4 to 200 mg/1), and 5. presence of competitors or predators. Biologists we
             interviewed stated that in the early fry programs they overstocked. They used no
             prescribed stocking formula in these early programs and the results were disappointing.
             BC biologists went back to streams, developed site specific biostandards for stocking
             densities, and now release fish at more conservative stocking densities. Now they
             consider total usable area rather than the older method of total wetted area. They cite
             many examples of overstocking resulting in decreases in growth performance of both
             hatchery and wild juveniles. The results from the Coquihalla River are encouraging with
             fry-to-adult survival ranging from 0.4 to 1.3 percent. Expected survival was estimated at
             1.3 percent (Ptolemy 1986). They measured a fourfold increase in standing crop of
             juveniles following the fry released.

             Salmon


             In release year 1988, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) recorded releases
             of approximately 530 million pink, chum, coho, sockeye, and chinook salmon (Table 6).
             DFO biologists use indigenous broodstock to ensure against stocking maladapted fish.
             They release the progeny from wild fish into the parent watershed after adipose clipping.

             Broodstock are spawned (streamside) 1:1 male/female ratio and gametes taken to
             hatcheries. Biologists verify carrying capacities of life stage to be stocked in terms of
             usable habitat before outplanting progeny.

             Chinook


             In 1988, DFO released 63.6 million chinook salmon of various life stages. Production of
             chinook salmon (stream and ocean types) for stocking is primarily through hatchery
             operations (federal, provincial, and community economic development programs). These
             hatcheries do not recycle broodstock. DFO biologists also develop groundwater side
             channels with upwelling incubation for chinook production. These groundwater channels
             also provide critical rearing habitat.



                                                          28








              Table 6. British Columbia's salmonid production from SEP facilities, 1988 release year.


                     Specie         Juveniles Released       EVected Adult        Canadian Catch

                     Pink            62,713,919              1,325,423             7271357
                     Chum           213,391,888              2,535,674             1,163,013
                     Coho             18,470,120             1,099,88 i            707,648
                     Sockeye        171,988,081              2,063,346             812,754
                     Chinook         63,624,513                895,503             483,376
                     Cutthroat          238,680                 20,584               13,792
                     Steelhead        2,371,647                 45,407               26,944


                     TOTAL          532,798,848              7,985,818             3,934,884

                   From SEP 1988-89 update booklet.


              Sockeye Chum and Pink

              Spawning channels, lake fertilization, barrier removal, and habitat improvements are the
              primary enhancement methods for sockeye, pink, and. chum salmon. DFO biologists
              recently constructed a new spawning channel at Glendale Cove on Knight Inlet that will
              potentially produce 1 million adult pink salmon annually. Channel production has
              realized an egg-to-fry survival of 81 percent (Anon. 1989b). The channel addresses
              natural low flow problems by drawing water through a pipeline from Tom Browne Lake.

              Lake fertilization increases production in the enhancement of sockeye, pink, and chum
              salmon. Fertilization takes the place of the thousands of carcasses from spawned out
              adults that once fertilized these lakes.


              Coho


              Biologists from DFO primarily use natural and semi-natural enhancement and secondary
              hatchery production to supplement coho salmon stocks. We visited a new construction
              site on the Englishman River (Vancouver Island). The Englishman River utilizes side
              channel production for the lower river and coho salmon colonization for the inaccessible
              reaches. Spawning and rearing channels built in 1988 use groundwater and infiltration
              galleries to provide water flows. In areas not accessible to spawners, coho salmon fry
              obtained from a nearby hatchery were stocked. For succeeding years, wild stocks from
              the Englishman River are the preferred donor stocks.




                                                           29








              Eight streams that empty into Baynes Sound have been the traditional backbone of the
              Georgia Strait coho sports fishery. However, commercial fisheries and an aggressive
              sport fishery targeting on these runs have led to depressed stocks through overfishing.
              They became the focus of rebuilding in 1988. It became impractical to manage the eight
              streams separately because of extreme exploitation. Biologists now manage them as one
              unit with stocks treated as a single gene pool. BC biologists believe the small genetic
              differences do not justify managing each stream separately. Also, too few fish return to
              attempt separate stock management for each stream. Thirty pairs of wild adults,
              collected from the eight streams, provide smolt production. All outplanted smolts are
              adipose clipped to facilitate wild broodstock collection in subsequent years using this
              management strategy. Fry are never more than one generation removed from wild stock.
              The use of wild broodstock each generation in SEP supplementation more than pays for
              the additional labor. We believe this procedure may be of benefit in the Columbia
              Basin where possible to implement.

              Public Participation

              BC provides an opportunity for many citizens to volunteer their time in enhancing
              salmonids. The SEP sponsors one of the most unique public participation program in
              North America. This program provides community advisors, stationed throughout the
              province, to give technical and financial assistance. Individuals, clubs, schools, service
              organizations, and community groups may apply for this program.

              Opportunities for such participation lie in maintaining, restoring, and improving the
              stream habitat essential to salmonid production. Through public participation,
              enhancement projects also offer a unique opportunity to develop a greater awareness of
              the salmonid resource and man's influence on the stream environment.


              Summary

              In the 13 years since the SEP began, BC biologists have recorded real progress toward
              meeting their goals of doubling the runs. Their total budget for 1988/89 was
              approximately $42 million. They de-emphasize recycling hatchery broodstock and placed
              a moratorium on new hatchery construction. They developed objectives and goals to
              utilize natural production and semi-natural production in supplementing their stocks.

              It would be tempting at this juncture to dismiss SEP's objectives as unrealistic in the
              Columbia Basin. However, their upper Fraser and Thompson River stocks of steelhead
              and chinook salmon migrate hundreds of miles inland to spawning grounds. SEP
              biologists still practice the same sound genetic principles as with coastal stocks. The
              Whitehorse Rapids Hatchery on the Yukon River continues to collect wild broodstock in
              view of adult immigrations of 3520 Km (2200 miles). We believe the judicious use of
              wild broodstock for BC supplementation work has been a positive factor in their
              successes.




                                                            30








              We, in the Columbia Basin, should be envious of their management predicament.
              Biologists only have to coordinate between two agencies, the Department of Fisheries
              and Oceans and the Ministry of Environment, to manage supplementation in BC. The
              provincial government manages steelhead and DFO oversees salmon management. They
              do not have to run the gauntlet of countless agencies and committees that currently exert
              management authority in the Columbia Basin. It appears that BC's bureaucracy may be
              down to fighting weight.


                                                    New England

                                              Atlantic Salmon Program

              This information was obtained from the New England Atlantic Salmon Program Annual
              Progress Reports for 1987 and 1988 and the 1989 Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic
              Salmon Assessment Committee (Anon. 1987b, 1988, 1990b). Telephone conversations
              with the various program coordinators also clarified overall direction.

              Background

              Historically, Atlantic salmon thrived in rivers from Maine to Connecticut, with major
              runs found in the Connecticut, Merrimack and Penobscot Rivers. By the late 18th
              Century, the Atlantic salmon was essentially extirpated from these areas due to the
              Industrial Revolution and overfishing. While the Atlantic salmon was never totally
              eliminated from all Maine Rivers, their numbers were severely depressed, and by 1872
              the federal government began stocking rivers in Maine. During the period 1872-1959,
              more than 63,340,000 juvenile Atlantic salmon were released into drainages throughout
              Maine.


              Today's program receives much of its direction from the Atlantic Sea-Run Salmon
              Commission, which was formed in 1947. The overall goal of the program is to restore a
              self-sustaining population of Atlantic salmon by the year 2021. The Atlantic Salmon
              Program is divided into four major programs involving state and federal agencies, private
              industry and conservation organizations. Collectively, about 5.5 million juvenile Atlantic
              salmon were released into 15 New England rivers in 1989. The Maine program received
              36 percent of the releases, 34 percent Went to the Connecticut River program, 23 percent
              to the Merrimack River program and 7 percent to the Pawcatuck River program. The
              stocking summary for 1989 is shown in Table 7. From 1980 through 1988, almost 27
              million juvenile salmon had been stocked into New England rivers. Almost 50 percent
              of the fish released were fry and about 25 percent were age-1 smolts. During this same
              9-year-period, 33,486 adult Atlantic salmon have returned to 16 rivers in New England.





                                                         31









               Of these returns, 80 percent has been to the Penobscot River in Maine. Ten percent of
               the returns to the Penobscot River are from natural production.'

               Table 7. Atlantic salmon stocking summary by program in 1989.


               Progra                FU          0 + Parr       1Parr      1smolt          2Smolt       Total

               Maine
                  USA                   580,000   430,500       282,200    524,300,        80,200     1,897,200
                  Canada                 66,000         -           -           -          10,300       76,300

               Merrimack River       1,033,000      60,000        88,600    58,200            -       1,239,800

               Pawcatuck River              -     379,900         35,900      6,400                     422,200

               Connecticut River     1,242,000    272,900       116,300    221,000            -       1,852,200


                  TOTAL              2,921,000    1,143,300     523,000    809,900         90,500     5,487,700


               Atlantic salmon cannot be harvested in the Connecticut or Pawcatuck Rivers.            Fishing is
               allowed in parts of the Merrimack watershed. However, there were no reported catches
               in 1989. Total catch of Atlantic salmon in Maine was reported at 1,007 fish in 1989, 520
               of those were released. The Penobscot River produced 86 percent of the total catch.
               An exploitation rate of 10 percent was set to help accelerate the restoration of the
               Penobscot salmon run.


               In Maine, the Dennys, E. Machias, Machias, and Narraguagus Rivers are designated
               "wild" but still receive releases of fry, parr, and smolts. In 1989, they were supplemented
               with 270,800 juverffle salmon. Returns to these rivers are believed to be mostly of wild
               origin, primarily from natural reproduction, with very few originating from fry releases.
               In New England "wild" generally refers not only to fish produced naturally, but also to
               fish produced from fry stockings.

               While all of the programs receive various life stages of Atlantic salmon, each of the four
               programs has a different emphasis. The Maine program is mainly a smolt stocking
               program while the Merrimack River receives mainly fry. The Connecticut River program




                   'Jerry Marancik, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Orland, Maine, pers. comm.,
                   February, 1990.

                                                               32








               receives a combination of fry and smolts and the Pawcatuck River has a parr stocking
               program.

               We reviewed nine projects in the New England states; two were considered true
               supplementation, both were evaluated.

               Fry Stocking

               Restoration in the Merrimack River relies mainly on fry that are scatter planted into
               nearly all suitable rearing habitat. Roughly 250 miles of stream are presently included in
               the program. In 1989 and 1988, over 1.0 million and 1.7 million fry respectively were
               released in the river basin. The fry stocking goal for the Merrimack River Basin is 1.8
               million.


               The majority of returning salmon are trapped and held to be used for spawning.
               Domesticated captive broodstock and reconditioned kelts are also used to obtain the
               number of eggs desired for the program. All fry stocked into Merrimack drainages in
               1987 were of Merrimack River origin.

               Fry are stocked at 20 to 50 fry per 100 square meter unit depending on the quality of
               habitat, etc. Seven index sites are then monitored for growth and survival, condition
               factors and water quality.

               Since 1982, roughly 40 percent of the adult returns to the Merrimack River have
               originated from the fry stocking program. Seventy-four percent of these fry emigrate as
               two-year-old smolts. The contribution of the fry program was 66 percent of returns in
               1988 and 67 percent in 1989. It should be noted that total fish for 1088 and 1989 was 65
               and 84, respectively. These are the first and second lowest full-season totals since
               salmon returns to the river were first documented in 1982. The range of adult returns to
               the Merrimack for 1983 to 1987 is 103 to 214 with a mean of 137. Total return through
               1989 numbers 860. The adult return rate for 1984 fry plants surviving to 1+ parr was
               estimated at 0.04 percent. Total return fry-to-adult was 0.005 percent for 1984 releases.
               Of the adults returning to the Merrimack, 78 percent return as 2-sea-winters, 18 percent
               as 1-sea-winters and 4 percent as 3-sea-winters.

               The Connecticut River program utilizes fry releases in its restoration efforts with a
               stocking goal of 2.0 million fry. In 1989 and 1988, over 1.2 million and 1.3 million fry,
               respectively, were released in the river basin. Minta et al. (1987) found the survival of
               "wild" smolts (smolts produced from fry releases) -to-adults was nearly 10 times greater
               than hatchery smolt-to-adult return rates for a Connecticut River tributary in 1984.
               These "wild" fish comprised 36 percent of the total run. Y. Cote, a Quebec biologist,
               found that flow for 30 to 40 days after stocking is a critical factor in fry survival.




                                                            33









             Parr Stocking

             While Atlantic salmon parr are stocked in a number of locations in New England, they
             are mostly incidental by-products that are graded out of one year smolt programs. The
             Pawcatuck River program in Rhode Island is an exception in that parr are stocked
             almost exclusively. The Pawcatuck program is unique in a number of other ways also.
             ne watershed is near the southern extent of the range of Atlantic salmon; therefore, it
             is not a typical cold water river, as found farther north. Furthermore, predator species,
             abundant in this drainage, exact a heavy loss on salmon fry. The Pawcatuck program is
             also the smallest of the four Atlantic salmon programs, hence the smallest budget. For
             these reasons, the program has decided that   Farr stockings are the most cost effective
             method of developing their salmon program. Further problems have developed from
             the parental source of these parr. The program currently uses only domesticated captive
             broodstock (fish that have never gone to sea) as their egg source. There is evidence that
             this strain is inferior to sea run parents (Gibson 1989); thus producing poor return rates
             in the progeny. Return rates for the program range from 0.0 percent to 0.009 percent
             with a mean of 0.003 percent. Releases in 1989 numbered over 400,000 parr, which is
             the largest number of fish stocked into this system since the program began in 1979.

             Smolt Stocking

             The smolt program is the most successful of the various programs. The Penobscot River
             in Maine received over 416,000 smolts in 1989 (47 percent of the smolts released).
             Overall adult returns to the Penobscot have ranged from 0.23 percent to 1.32 percent
             with a mean of 0.71 percent. In 1989, 2719 fish returned to traps in the Penobscot, 813
             were 1-sea-winter fish, 1,864 were 2-sea-winter fish, 4 were 3-sea-winter fish, and 38 were
             previous spawners. The Maine stocking program utilizes returning salmon and
             domesticated captive broodstock for egg takes. Additionally, returning adults not needed
             for egg takes are released to spawn naturally. In 1988, this amounted to 2,141 out of
             2,688 fish trapped in the Penobscot River.

             The long-term objectives for the Penobscot River are:

               1. Achieve an annual production of 185,000 wild smolts.
               2. Ensure a minimum of 6,000 adults will be available for spawning annually.
               3. Provide a minimum of 2,000 adult salmon for sport harvest annually.

             The Connecticut River program also utilizes smolts in its restoration effort with 10 to 32
             percent of total releases being smolts. This program released 221,000 and 395,300 smolts
             in 1989 and 1988, respectively. The smolt stocking goal for the Connecticut program is



                 2Mark Gibson, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, W. Kingston, Rhode
                  Island, pers. comm., March, 1990.

                                                          34








              590,000. Smolt-to-adult return rates for hatchery smolts released in the Connecticut
              River Basin ranges from 0.006 to 0.159 percent depending upon year and location.

              Smolts in Connecticut are generally stocked from hatchery trucks via "quick release"
              hoses or netted off trucks directly into ponds. In 1989, one lot of coded-wire tagged
              smolts (22,500 fish) was placed into a 15-by-15 meter net pen in the lower Connecticut
              River. The net pen was towed two kilometers into Long Island Sound where the smolts
              were released. The primary purpose of this project is to compare return rates of salmon
              that were not subjected to river related mortality. Data on the success of this technique
              will not be available for a few years.

              Tagged Atlantic salmon smolts and parr are used to help determine the contribution of
              the New England Atlantic salmon programs to the ocean harvest. Ta     gging also allows
              sight identification and a method to ascertain the contribution of various life stages to
              the run.


              Summary

              While adult return rates are generally low for the Atlantic salmon program, it should be
              remembered that the program is a restoration effort because of degraded river systems.
              Furthermore, the program does not base its success in terms of adult returns, but on
              what is learned and the directions then taken. While the progress is slow, it is
              continuing to move forward. Wild fry or smolts were found to survive to adults at a
              much higher rate than hatchery smolts.

              The reuse of kelts for egg taking was a new procedure we have not considered for
              steelhead in the Columbia Basin.

              River flow at time of fry release seemed to be a factor to consider in the success of fry
              plants.

              Broodstock that has never gone to the ocean produced inferior results when compared to
              sea run broodstock. Again, the genetics of the broodstock should be a factor when
              implementing supplementation programs.

              Releases of smolts returned more adults than releases of other life stages in the Atlantic
              salmon program. The average smolt-to-adult return rate for the Penobscot River is 0.71
              percent. However, the ability to establish self-sustaining runs is still being evaluated for
              all the programs.







                                                         35











                                                 CONCLUSIONS

              Supplementation has provided positive results in the following:

                a) BC is having success with chinook, coho, and steelhead by using only wild
                    broodstock and scatter planting the hatchery produced fish through the
                    supplemented area.
                b) BC also concluded that in some instances parr stocking of steelhead was more cost
                    effective than either fry or smolts.
                c) Alaska and BC are having success using strearnside incubation boxes with stream
                    water diverted through boxes. Fry are scatter planted and spot planted from these
                    stream incubator systems.

              However, when we consider the overall anadromous fish programs we reviewed,
              examples of successes at rebuilding self-sustaining fish runs with hatchery fish are scarce.
              The successes we recorded in the unpublished literature were mainly in harvest
              augmentation, not rebuilding runs.

              In an earlier review of supplementation, Beck (1987) makes it clear that the
              supplementation strategies most often used are not necessarily related to success. Most
              supplementation projects we reviewed were poorly evaluated and documented, especially
              projects that were failures. Many well meaning evaluations remain in file cabinets as
              raw data. Smith et al. (1985) certainly did a commendable literature review (published
              and gray). We concur with his conclusions and cannot shed much new light on
              supplementation. We turned over scores of gray literature stoneswithout finding any
              significant new evidence that supplementation can consistently enhance natural
              populations.

              A few studies we reviewed demonstrated adverse impacts to wild/natural stocks from
              hatchery stocking. However, when hatchery fish were released into Virgin areas; barren
              lakes, above falls or barriers, in new geographic areas, directly into estuaries or coves,
              they performed quite well. In these cases, managers usually were not attempting to build
              a self-perpetuating run, but merely producing adult fish for augmenting harvest. When
              managers attempt to introduce hatchery fish on top of an existing population to build or
              rebuild the run to "historic" levels of production or to "full seeding" levels of production,
              problems seem to develop. The hatchery fish do not perform as well as the wild/natural
              fish and adverse impacts to the wild/natural stocks have been indicated and
              demonstrated (Reisenbichler and McIntyre 1977; Chilcote et al. 1986).

              Based on our review of the data and from recent interviews, we believe that hatchery
              production needs to be divided into two distinct categories. These would be: (1)
              hatchery production for "harvest augmentation," and (2) supplementation which is
              "natural production augmentation." We believe this separation does in fact now exist but
              that success has mainly been in number (1), production for harvest augmentation.


                                                         36








              Time, effort, and knowledge needed to accomplish harvest augmentation is much less
              than that needed for natural production supplementation. In order to supplement
              natural production, managers need to know several factors. They need to know the
              ecology of the area, the factors limiting present production, the unique qualities of the
              stock of fish to be supplemented, and the most efficientmeans for supplementation. The
              time frames for determining success stretches into multiple life cycles for natural
              production supplementation while for harvest augmentation we can determine success in
              one generation.

              Fishery agencies have been stocking anadromous fish for many years in the Pacific
              Northwest. There have been reports of increasing adult returns from various types of
              planting strategies. Outplantings of smolts return the highest percentage of adults for
              both salmon and steelhead. However, there are mixed results on the ability to rebuild or
              increase natural runs by supplementing with hatchery fish. A few examples suggest that
              it is possible to supplement natural runs with hatchery fish without adverse effects. For
              instance - in Oregon, the Elk River run of fall chinook has been supplemented for
              approximately 20 years. Although no major adverse effects have been noted from this
              highly controlled supplementation program, the natural run of fall chinook did not
              significantly increase either. Managers believed the Elk River wild run was at carrying
              capacity prior to supplementation.

              In Idaho, plants of steelhead fry in some upper Salmon River drainages is believed to
              have contributed to the building up of natural spawning fish in a few of the drainages.
              Streams with no apparent spawning were planted with excess fry and in subsequent years
              spawning adults were noted. No numerical information is available for these
              observations, and straying can not be ruled out. In BC, Coquilialla River biologists,
              supplementing with hatchery fry, have documented steelhead fry-to-adult survival as high
              as 1.3 percent and parr-to-adult survival of 2.6 percent for hatchery fish. After releasing
              hatchery fry, a fourfold increase in standing crop of the stream was noted. Long range
              build-up of natural production was not shown because of the continuous annual stocking
              programs. In New England, work with Atlantic salmon demonstrates how difficult it is to
              rebuild and reestablish anadromous fish runs. Stockings of fry and smolts, have both
              returned adults but natural production has not really taken off.

              Following are conclusions we arrived at based on our review of supplementation:

              -Chinook salmon, particularly upriver stocks, are the most difficult to supplement
                 successfully with hatchery fish. This is because of the greater distance from the ocean
                 and the longer freshwater life cycle.
              -The stock of fish is an important factor to consider when supplementing. The closer the
                 hatchery stock is to the supplemented stock or original natural stock, the better
                 chances are for success. Ideally, the hatchery supplementation brood fish should be
                 taken from the natural stock that is to be supplemented.



                                                           37









              -Salmon species with shorter freshwater life cycle have shown a higher success rate from
                  hatchery supplementation. They also have less negative impacts on wild/natural
                  populations. Pink and chum salmon supplementation projects in Alaska and BC are
                  examples of this success.
              -Short-run stocks of salmon and steelhead have responded more positively to
                  supplementation than longer-run stocks. In some cases, it was shown that introducing
                  hatchery stock to a river system a few kilometers closer to the estuary significantly
                  increased rate of adult returns.
              -Wild/natural fish have higher survival rates than hatchery fish. This has been
                  demonstrated with pink salmon in Alaska, Atlantic salmon in Maine, coho salmon on
                  the coast, and upriver chinook salmon in the Columbia. Where tests were made to
                  compare survival to adult, wild/natural produced fish had higher survival rates than
                  associated hatchery produced fish.
              -Overstocking of hatchery fish may be a significant problem in a lot of supplementation
                  projects. If hatchery fish are overstocked in a system, the result is decreased
                  performance of both hatchery and wild/natural fish.
              -Scattering or distributing the supplemented hatchery stock is more successful than single
                  spot techniques which tend to overstock areas of planting and leave unplanted areas
                  understocked.
              -There is a need to evaluate more supplementation programs. We found 18 projects that
                  were all or partially evaluated out of 26 projects classified as supplementation. In
                  order to do hatchery evaluation work or compare survival, hatchery fish need to be
                  identified uniquely from wild/natural stock. There is a need to have a unique visual
                  mark for hatchery produced chinook salmon in the Columbia River.
              -Successful techniques for establishing, rebuilding, and supplementing sockeye salmon
                  populations have been developed in Alaska and BC. Most of these programs
                  integrate lake fertilization with fry plantings of appropriate stocks. Some of these
                  techniques may prove useful in rebuilding Columbia River sockeye populations.
              -Hatchery broodstock management for supplementation needs to be stressed. The
                  "Summary of Recommendations Regarding Hatchery Production Principles" in draft
                  form, June 6, 1989, System Planning Oversight Committee, reflect many of the
                  concerns with hatchery broodstock management for supplementation.
              -Genetic considerations should be an initial concern of all supplementation efforts aimed
                  at rebuilding existing runs of anadromous fish.
              -Interpretation of genetic studies of hatchery/wild interaction will be difficult, and long-
                  term in order to obtain the necessary second and third generation data - maybe 15 to
                  20 years. Also, the opportunity for documenting the genetic "identity" of many native
                  stocks is already lost.
              -Overall, conclusions from our review of supplementation show that there are many
                  documented cases of introduced hatchery fish returning as adults to a specific area.
                  However, little data were found on the capability or probability of supplemented
                  hatchery fish building up and sustaining wild/natural populations. Figure 1
                  summarizes some of the factors mentioned relative to supplementation success.



                                                           38








                   Figure 1. General success of supplementation with hatchery fish to returning adult.


                      Good
                      Success -- >     --------------------- > ---------------------- >  --------------------- > Poor Success
                                          Increasing length of freshwater residency

                      Good
                      Success -->     --------------------- > ---------------------->   --------------------- > Poor Success
                                               Increasing distance from ocean

                      Good
                      Success        >--------------------- > ---------------------->   --------------------- > Poor Success
                                          Increasing distance between stocks used

                      Good
                      Success        >--------------------- > ---------------------->   --------------------- > Poor Success
                                      Lake rearing Main river rearing Stream rearing


                   Introduced hatchery fish will augment the number of returning adults to a particular
                   area, but if the factors which originally caused the natural runs to decline are not
                   corrected, production will not significantly change. In fact, in some cases the presence of
                   additional hatchery adults can lead to increased exploitation; thus decreasing the natural
                   production even faster. In some studies, wild/natural stocks were shown to be more
                   viable than hatchery stocks. Thus, replacing wild/natural fish with hatchery fish, and
                   cross breeding wild/natural and hatchery fish, can result in less viable production.
                   (Bjorrm and Steward 1990).

                   If supplementation is ever going to be successful with hatchery fish, we must make major
                   changes in hatchery management. We must make the fish as compatible with the
                   environment (outplanting site) as possible. The hatchery mind-set works against fish-
                   environment compatibility. Changes that appear insignificant at the hatchery, e.g.,
                   rearing program, outplant timing, and marking etc., can seriously affect the success of
                   supplementation. However, when hatchery experts were questioned, 53 percent
                   responded that fish culture decisions are based primarily on human efficiency not
                   resource concerns (Diggs 1984).

                   Does supplementation of anadromous fish work? We believe that it can work, although
                   success varies dramatically by (1) species, (2) stock, (3) area, and (4) method or type of
                   supplementation. Also, success depends on goals we are trying to achieve. If we look at
                   natural production, we have very few successful examples. The two basic questions
                   asked in the supplementation "Proposed Five-Year Work Plan", prepared by the
                   Supplementation Technical Work Group (1988), are considered still quite valid. "What


                                                                               39








               are the best techniques for supplementing wild/natural stocks and what are the effects of
               supplementation on endemic populations?" We consider the information presented in
               Smith et al. (1985) in their "Outplanting Anadromous Salmonids - A Literature Survey"
               to be very pertinent. The survey does in fact contain representative information we have
               found to be substantiated in our own literature work and interviews.


               We concur with Smith et al. (1985) that no supplementation procedures should be
               attempted in wild/natural fish only streams. These streams are best enhanced by habitat
               protection and harvest control.

               We believe that plans to double anadromous fish runs in the Columbia River Basin, as
               stated in the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act, may be placing too much
               emphasis on hatchery production. This effort may continue to erode -the genetic integrity
               of wild stock. We believe that the only way to "double the runs" in the Columbia Basin
               is to provide optimum habitat for natural producing stocks with limited hatchery
               supplementation. Equally important is the need to improve mainstream passage
               conditions by providing adequate flows and reducing losses at the dams. In addition,
               some hatchery programs should probably divert their efforts at "harvest augmentation"
               with no or minimal impacts to natural production. If hatchery production, as we know it
               today, could solve the production problem in the Columbia Basin, we would have
               doubled the runs 50 years ago.

               We may have created an "environmental predicament" where "man's ability to modify the
               environment increases faster than his ability to foresee the effects of his activities" (Bella
               and Overton 1972). We must make every effort to reduce the genetic consequences of
               large scale outplanting. We believe that in many instances anadromous fish could do a
               better job of rebuilding if we would place a moratorium on "helping" them for several
               generations. We need to refocus our efforts to protect and enhance habitat. We have
               tried for 100 years "to have our cake and eat it too," the time is ripe for more innovative
               methods of hatchery outplanting.

               Again, we may need to look at what factors caused the runs to decr      *ease in the first
               place. If we have not ameliorated the problems which caused the runs to decrease, we
               will not be able to build up natural runs by just planting hatchery fish. Also, if harvest
               management is not linked with supplementation, the increased harvest on supplemented
               fish may in fact put increased harvest pressure on natural stocks. Thus, the overall result
               would be a negative impact to natural production.









                                                             40










                                             RECOMMENDATIONS

              1. A means needs to be established for annually summarizing and updating
                 supplementation efforts by geographic area. Many supplementation projects are
                 underway or planned throughout the northwest. Since supplementation projects
                 normally span a number of years, it is important to update our information base
                 annually. A state-by-state annual summary based on the format of the New England
                 Atlantic salmon program annual reports is suggested.

              2. A means of identifying hatchery salmon from wild/natural salmon needs to be
                 instituted for the Columbia River Basin. A visual mark is needed so hatchery and
                 wild/natural escapement and production can be monitored and runs manage
                 separately.

              3. Factors related to hatchery fish survival need to be studied. Hatchery spring chinook
                 salmon were found to be the least successful species to supplement. We believe from
                 our discussion with workers in the Basin that BKD is a major factor contributing to
                 this poor success. Therefore, BKD research on spring chinook salmon should be a
                 high priority.

                                             Recommended Research

              1. Assessment of factors limiting wild/natural production by area and species in
                 association with carrying capacity.

              2. Impact of hatchery smolt releases on wild/na tural smolt production and migration.

              3. Develop a hatchery rearing broodstock program for stock rebuilding that minimizes
                 adverse genetic impacts to wild/natural stocks. Explore use of wild/natural stocks.
                 Sperm cryopreservation and other innovations could be used to direct hatchery
                 production to a more compatible product. Using kelts for wild steelhead production
                 could be investigated.

              4. Need to determine natural production parameters for stocks to be supplemented.

              5. Need to develop a means of identifying hatchery from wild/natural fish for salmon in
                 Columbia River Basin.


              6. Need to explore use of strearnside upwelling incubation boxes or systems to match
                 natural production timing.






                                                        41










                                          LITERATURE CITED



            Ames, J. 1980. Salmon stock interactions in Puget Sound: A preliminary took. pp 84-
                95. In: M.A. Miller. Southeast Alaska coho salmon research and management
                review and planning workshop. May 18-19, 1982. Alaska Department of Fish and
                Game Report.

            Anonymous. 1982a. Comprehensive plan for production and management of Oregon's
                anadromous salmon and trout: Part 1. General considerations. Oregon Department
                of Fish and Wildlife.


            Anonymous. 1982b. Comprehensive plan for production and management of Oregon's
                anadromous salmon and trout: Part 11. Coho salmon plan. Oregon Department of
                Fish and Wildlife.


            Anonymous. 1985. Fisheries 1986-1990 management plan. Idaho Department of Fish
                and Game. Draft.


            Anonymous. 1987a. Supplementation overview - does it work? Washington
                Department of Fisheries.

            Anonymous. 1987b. The New England Atlantic salmon program annual progress report.
                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Region 5.

            Anonymous. 1988. The New England Atlantic salmon program annual progress report.
                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Region 5.

            Anonymous. 1989a. Annual fish passage report - 1988. North Pacific Division Corps of
                Engineers, Portland, Oregon.

            Anonymous. 1989b. Salmonid enhancement program 1989 update. Department of
                Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver BC.

            Anonymous. 1990a. Natural production and wild fish management rules. Oregon
                Department of Fish and Wildlife.

            Anonymous. 1990b. 1989 annual report of the U.S. Atlantic salmon assessment
                committee. U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee.


            Beck, R.W. 1987. Review of hatchery supplementation methods and effects. Appendix
                IV in Yakima and Klickitat River central outplanting facility proposed master plan.
                Report to Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.



                                                     42








              Bell a, D.A-, and W.S. Overton. 1972. Environmental planning and ecological
                  possibilities. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 98(SA3):
                  579-592.


              Bjornn, T.C., and C.R. Steward. 1990. Concepts for a model to evaluate
                  supplementation of natural salmon and steelhead stocks with hatchery fish. U.S.
                  Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration Project 88-100.

              Boyle, L., and N. Dudiak. 1986. Tutka Lagoon Hatchery 1981 adult return evaluation.
                  Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FRED Division, No. 61.

              Chilcote, M.W., S.A. Leider, and J.J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive success of
                  hatchery and wild summer-run steelhead under natural conditions. Transactions of
                  the American Fisheries Society 115:726-735.

              Diggs, D.H. 1984. A "Delphi" survey into the methods and practices of spring chinook
                  salmon culture. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dworshak Fisheries Assistance
                  Office, Ahsahka, Idaho.

              Dudiak, N., and L. Boyle. 1988. Homer area sport fisheries enhancement. Alaska
                  Department of Fish and Game, FRED Division, Vol. 3, No. 6.

              Fast, D.E., J.D. Hubble, and M.S. Kohn. 1988. Yakima River spring chinook
                  enhancement study. 1988 Annual Report to Bonneville Power Administration,
                  Contract No. 82-16.


              Fulton, L. A. 1968. Spawning area and abundance of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
                  tshavqtscha) in the Columbia River Basin--past and present. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                  Service Scientific Report, Fisheries No. 571.

              Gerstung, E.R. 1981. Status and management of the coast cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki
                  clarki. Cal-Nev Wildlife transactions.


              Gibson, M.R. 1989. Atlantic salmon restoration studies January 1, 1988 to December
                  31, 1988. Performance Report. Job No. 111-4. Rhode Island Division of Fish and
                  Wildlife.


              Hartman, J.L., J.S. Holland, Jr., M. Kaill, and J.L. Madden. 1988. Enhancement and
                  rehabilitation, a successful investment in Alaska's fisheries. In: Alaska Fish and
                  Game 21:4-8.


              Herrig, D.M. 1990. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan - A review of the
                  compensation program (Draft). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Snake River
                  Compensation Plan Office, Boise, Idaho.


                                                           43








             Hillman, T.W., and J.W.'Mullan. 1989. Effect of hatchery releases on the abundance
                and behavior of wild juvenile salmonids in a large Washington river. Submitted to
                North American Journal of Fisheries Management.

             Holland, J.S. 1989. FRED 1988 annual report to the Alaska State Legislature. Alaska
                Department of Fish and Game, FRED Division, Juneau, Alaska.

             Hurst, R.E., and B.G. Blackman. 1988. Coho Colonization Program: Juvenile studies
                1984 to 1986. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No.
                1968.


             Johnson, S.L. 1982. A review and evaluation of release strategies for hatchery reared
                coho salmon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Information Reports (Fish)
                82-5, Portland, Oregon.

             Kohler, T. 1984. Pink and chum salmon adult returns from releases at Cannery Creek
                and Main Bay Hatcheries: 1983 field season. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
                FRED Division, No. 34.

             Koski, C.H., S.W. Pettit, and J.L. McKern. 1990. Fish transportation oversight team
                annual report - FY 1989. Transport operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers.
                NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSF/NWR-27.

             Kyle, G.B., and D.S. Litchfield. 1989. Enhancement of Crooked River chinook salmon
                (Oncorhynchus tshauytscha) and development of a sport fishery on the Kasilof River.
                Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FRED Division, No. 97.

             Leider, S.A., J.J. Loch, and P.L. Hulett. 1989. Studies of hatchery and wild steelhead in
                the lower Columbia region. 1989 Progress Report. Washington Department of
                Wildlife. Report 89-5.

             Litchfield, D.S., and L.B. Flagg. 1988. Hidden Lake sockeye salmon investigations,
                1983-1984. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FRED Division, No. 86.

             McDaniel, T.R., T. Kohler, and D.M. Dougherty. 1984. Results of pink salmon
                (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) fry transplants to Holo Creek, Prince William Sound,
                Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FREEi Division, No. 33.

             Minta, P., S. Gephard, and R. VanNostrand. 1987. Anadromous fish enhancement
                restoration. 1987 Annual Performance Report, F-50-D-8. CT DEP/Marine
                Fisheries, Waterford, CT.





                                                      44








             Nicholas, J.W., and T.W. Downey. 1989. Looking Back on tow decades of work at Elk
                River Hatchery: Has there been harmony between the natural and artificial
                production systems? And has Elk River been a prototype conservation hatchery.
                (First Draft). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

             Nicholas, J.W., and D.G. Hankin. 1989. Chinook salmon populations in Oregon coastal
                river basins. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Information Report 88-1,
                Portland, Oregon.

             Nickelson, T.E. 1981. Coho pre-smolt program for Oregon coastal streams. Oregon
                Department of Fish and Wildlife Information Report (Fish) 81-1, Portland, Oregon.

             Ptolemy, R.A. 1986. , Assessment of highway construction impacts and fisheries
                mitigation in the Coquihalla River near Hope, British Columbia: progress in 1985.
                BC Fisheries Project Report No. FIU-04.

             Raymond, H.L. 1988. Effects of hydroelectric development and fisheries enhancement
                on'spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
                North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:1-24.

             Raymond, J.A. 1986. Growth of wild and hatchery juvenile coho salmon in an interior
                Alaska stream. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FRED Division. No. 60.

             Reisenbichler, R.R., and J.D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and
                survival of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout, Salmo gairdnefi. Journal
                Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:123-128.

             Smith, E.M. 1987. Outplanting experience in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and
                Wildlife.


             Smith, E.M., B.A. Miller, J.D. Rodgers, and M.A. Buckman. 1985. Outplanting
                anadromous salmonids - a literature survey. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville
                Power Administration Project No. 85-68.

             Solazzi, M.F., S.L. Johnson, and T.E. Nickelson. 1983. T'he effectiveness of stocking
                hatchery coho pre-smolts to increase the rearing density of juvenile coho salmon in
                Oregon coastal streams. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information
                Report 83-4, Portland, Oregon.

             Steward, C.R., and T.C. Bjornn. 1990. Supplementation of salmon and steelhead stocks
                with hatchery fish: A Synthesis of published literature. U.S. Department of Energy,
                Bonneville Power Administration Project 88-100.




                                                       45









             Supplementation Technical Work Group. 1988. Supplementation research - proposed
                five-year work plan. Unpublished document.

             White, L.E. 1986. Sockeye salmon rehabilitation at upper Thumb River, Karluk Lake,
                Alaska 1978-1984. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FRED Division, No. 69.









































                                                     46

























 I















                      APPENDIX A































                                                 APPENDIX A


                                                    PART I


                    Table of the 26 projects considered true supplementation (for codes used in data
                                 entry and reporting see Part 3 of Appendix A).












                                                                                                   SUPPLEMENTATION REPORT

                                           LIFE           MAJOR       SUB                    PRINCIPAL                                  #/YEAR
             SPECIES RACE    STOCK         STAGE         DRAINAGE DRAINAGE    EVAL   AGENCY CONTACT                PHONE              RELEASED           PURPOSE OF PROJECT


       6.    AS              MIXED         SM,FY,PR      Mc                   ON     FWS     JERRY MARANCIK        (207)469-6701       1900000  SUPPLEMENTATION, RESTORATION
       7.    AS              MIXED         SM,FY,PR      Mc                   ON     MSRSC   ED BAUM               (207)941-4452       1900000  SUPPLEMENTATION, RESTORATION
       10.   CH                            AD            BC                   ON     ABREC   J. FEE                                       2150  SUPPLEMENTATION EVALUATION STUDY
       11.   CH                            FY            BC                   ON     CFSO    GORDON BEREZAY        (604)666-2600        125000  SUPPLEMENTATION
       14.   CH              BR            FY,SM         BC                   ON     CFSO    GORDON   BEREZAY      (604)666-2600        107344  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  RUNS
       26.   CH              MT            PS,FN         cc         18010108  ON     MWSSG   GARY PETERSON         (707)629-3514         30000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       36.   CH       FAL    CH            EG,FY,SM      OC         17100306  ON     ODFW    JAY NICHOLAS          (503)737-4431        400000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  RUNS
       50.   CH       FAL    HR            YR            cc         18010112  ON     PCFFA   MITCH FARRO           (707)839-5664         30000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  RUNS
       52.   CH       FAL    LR            SM            cc         18010108  ON     PCFFA   MITCH FARRO           (707)839-5664         50000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  RUNS
       73.   CH       SPR                  FN,SM         CR                          FWS     BILL MILLER           (208)476-7242        200000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  RUNS
       94.   CH       SUM    ST            FN            PS         17110008  OA     STIL    KIP KILLEBREW         (206)435-8770         81093  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  RUNS
       120.  CO                            FY            BC                   ON     CFSO    ROBERT HURST          (604)756-7296          9500  SUPPLEMENTATION,    STOCK EVALUATION
       161.  CO              MT            YR,SM         cc         18010108  ON     MWSSG   GARY PETERSON         (707)629-3514          8000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       180.  CO              TM            Ps'sm         Oc         17100304  ON     ODFW    PAUL REIMERS          (503)888-5515        180000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       182.  CO              TR            FY            BC                   ON     CFSO    ROBERT HURST          (604)756-7296          7500  SUPPLEMENTATION
       210.  CU       SEA    RW            YR            cc         18010102  OA     HBCO    STEVE SANDERS         (707)488-2253            500 SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       219.  SH                            FY            BC                   ON     MEBC    JEREMY HUME           (604)660-1812              0 SUPPLEMENTATION
       234.  SH              KR            SM            ac                   ON     MEBC    BRUCE WARD            (604)660-1812         20000  SUPPLEMENTATION
       238.  SH              NP            YR            cc         .18050002 ON     NRS     GEORGE CARL           (707)252-1440          7000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  RUNS
       248.  SH              YK,SK,RI,PR   SM,FY         CR         17030002  QA     WDW     JIM CUMMINS           (509)575-2740              0 SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       251.  SH       SUM                  AD,FY,SM      CR                   QA     FWS     BILL MILLER           (208)476-7242       1000000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  RUNS
       256.  SH       SUM    NR            FY            BC                   ON     MEBC    BRAIN BLACKMAN        (604)565-6413         23550  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  PRODUCTION
       257.  SH       SUM    sc            FY            Bc                   ON             BOB GRIFFITH          (604)387-3660         11400  SUPPLEMENTATION
       288.  SH       WIN    CH,BG         SM,FY         WC         17100101  ON     WDW     BILL FREYMOND         (206)533-9335        171711  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  WILD STOCKS
       312.  SO                            FN            AC                   ON     ADFG    DAVID LITCHFIELD      (907)262-9369       1400000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  RUN
       313.  So                            EG            AC                   ON     ADFG    LORNE WHITE           (907)486-4791       6000000  SUPPLEMENTATION,    ENHANCE  NATURAL RUN




     I








     I























                                                APPENDIX A


                                                   PART 2


                   Summary of the 26 projects considered true supplementation (for codes used in
                              data entry and reporting see Part 3 of Appendix A).







                                                         I







        6.    SPECIES: AS RACE:       STOCK(S): MIXED
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: MC      SUB DRAINAGE: 15 RIVERS IN MAINE
        CONTACT: JERRY MARANCIK       PHONE: (207)469-6701
        AGENCY: FWS    ADDRESS: GRAIG BROOK NFH, E. ORLAND, ME 04431
        PROJECT: MAINE ATLANTIC SALMON PROGRAM
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, RESTORATION                                ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QN : 26,790 FISH HAVE RETURNED TO MAINE RIVERS
        SURVIVAL: SEE PROJECT # 7
        STOCKING DETAILS:
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: 10% OF RETURNS TO THE PENOBSCOT R. IS FROM NATURAL PRODUCTION
        IMPACTS; OPINION:
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: 2,141 OUT OF 2,688 FISH (IN 1988) ALLOWED TO SPAWN NATURALLY




        7.    SPECIES: AS RACE:       STOCK(S): MIXED
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: MC      SUB DRAINAGE: 15 RIVERS IN MAINE
        CONTACT: ED BAUM              PHONE: (207)941-4452
        AGENCY: MSRSC ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1298, BANGOR, ME 04401
        PROJECT: MAINE ATLANTIC SALMON PROGRAM
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, RESTORATION                                ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QN :
        SURVIVAL: ADULT RETURNS RANGE FROM .23 TO 1.32%, MEAN = .71%
        STOCKING DETAILS: MAINLY SMOLT STOCKING
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: 47% OF RELEASES TO THE PENOBSCOT RIVER
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: FISH UNNEEDED FOR EGG TAKES ARE ALLOWED TO SPAWN NATURALLY
        IMPACTS; OPINION: RETURNS TO "WILD" RIVERS ARE PRIMARILT OF WILD ORIGIN
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: MAINE PRODUCED ALL OF THE SPORT CATCH IN 1989, 86% OF THAT FROM THE
         PENOBSCOT RIVER




        10.   SPECIES: CH RACE:       STOCK(S):
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: BC      SUB DRAINAGE: SHUSWAP RIVER
        CONTACT: J. FEE               PHONE:
        AGENCY: ABREC ADDRESS: VICTORIA, B.C.
        PROJECT: EVALUATION OF CHINOOK & COHO OUTPLANTING OPPORTINUITY, SHUSWAP RIVER
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION EVALUATION STUDY                            ONGOING: N
        EVALUATION: QN : POSSIBLE RETURN OF 240-430 FISH
        SURVIVAL: PRE-SUPPLEMENTATION WORK (SEE COMMENTS
        STOCKING DETAILS: NEED TO STOCK TO DENSITIES OF @.O AND 6.0 G/SQ. METER
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: WOULD FULLY SEED USUABLE REARING HABITATS
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
        IMPACTS; OPINION:
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: BC DOES RECONNAISSANCE REPORTS ON ALL STREAMS BEFORE SUPPLEMENTATION
         TO DETERMINE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESTORATION & ENHANCEMENT OF ENDIMICS




        ii.   SPECIES: CH RACE:       STOCK(S):
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: BC      SUB DRAINAGE: UPPER FRASER RIVER
        CONTACT: GORDON BEREZAY       PHONE: (604)666-2600
        AGENCY: CFSO ADDRESS: 555 W HASTINGS ST., VANCOUVER, BC V6B 5G3
        PROJECT: PENNY CHINOOK PILOT HATCHERY, OPERATIONAL HISTORY, 1980-83
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION                                             ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QN :
        SURVIVAL: EGGS TO FRY = 74-90%, FRY TO ADULT = 0 -.10%
        STOCKING DETAILS: VIA HELICOPTER IN OXYGENATED 360 LITER TANKS
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS: BROODSTOCK COLL. FROM & FRY TRANSPORTED TO NATAL STREAMS
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: FRY TAGGED @ 1-2 G
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: LOW SUR. TO ADULT INDICATES THE PROD. STRATEGY SHOULD BE REASSESSED
        IMPACTS; OPINION: MODIFY PROGRAM TO INCREASE POST-RELEASE SURVIVAL
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: OPERATION RESULTED IN SUCCESSFUL REARING OF CHINOOK FRY IN COLD
         WATER 1-5 oC





                                                    A2-1








       14.   SPECIES: CH RACE:      STOCK(S): BR
       MAJOR DRAINAGE: BC     SUB DRAINAGE: HARRISONRIVER
       CONTACT: GORDON BEREZAY      PHONE: (604)666-2600
       AGENCY: CFSO ADDRESS: 555 W. HASTINGS ST., VANCOUVER, BC V6B 5G3
       PROJECT: BIRKENHEAD RIVER CHINOOK HATCHERY OPERATIONAL HISTORY 1977-86
       PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS                             ONGOING: Y
       EVALUATION: QN : LOW RETURNS INDICATE VERY POOR MARINE SURVIVAL
       SURVIVAL: LOW TAG RETURNS FOR 77-81 BROODS 0-0.3%
       STOCKING DETAILS: FRY RELEASED 2-4G BY 1984 AND 5-7G LATER
       ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
       OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
       IMPACTS; RESEARCH: BIRKENHEAD HATCHERY UNABLE TO MEET GOALS DUE TO LOW ESCAPEMENT
       IMPACTS; OPINION: PROBLEM AGGRAVATED BY HIGH EXPLOTATION RATE IN INDIAN FISHERY
       CONTROL DETAILS: LOW TAG RETURNS MAY BE RESULT OF INSUFICIENT TAGGED FISH
       OTHER COMMENTS: LIMITED COHO & STEELHEAD PRODUCTION





       26.   SPECIES: CH RACE:      STOCK(S): MT
       MAJOR DRAINAGE: CC     SUB DRAINAGE: MATTOLE RIVER
       CONTACT@ GARY PETERSON       .PHONE: (707)629-3514
       AGENCY: MWSSG ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 188, PETROLIA, CA 95538
       PROJECT: MATTOLE WATERSHED SAI14ON SUPPORT CROUP
       PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS                      ONGOING: Y
       EVALUATION: QN : CWT PROGRAM(2 YEARS);JUVENILE TRAPPING; SPAWNING SURVEYS
       SURVIVAL: POPULATIONS STATIC
       STOCKING DETAILS: DUSK OR EVENING RELEASE WITH NEW MOON PHASE
       ACCLIMATION DETAILS: TEMPERATURE ACCLIMATION
       OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: FISH TAKEN OFF FEED AND SALTED PRIOR TO STOCKING
       IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
       IMPACTS; OPINION: POPULATIONS ARE STATIC- NO  INCREASE OR DECREASE
       CONTROL DETAILS:
       OTHER COMMENTS: STOCKS MAY BE STATIC DUE TO JUVENILE BOTTLENECK IN ESTUARY





       36.   SPECIES: CH RACE: FAL STOCK(S): CH
       MAJOR DRAINAGE: OC     SUB DRAINAGE: ELK RIVER CHETCO RIVER
       CONTACT: JAY NICHOLAS        PHONE: (503)737-4431
       AGENCY: ODFW ADDRESS: 28655 HWY 34, CORVALLIS, OR 97330
       PROJECT: ELK RIVER STUDY
       PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS                             ONGOING: Y
       EVALUATION: QN : EST. SURVIVAL RATE DOES NOT INCLUDE OCEAN CATCH
       SURVIVAL: MEAN ADULT = 2.42% RETURN TO ELK RIVER (MOUTH) (68-78 BROOD)
       STOCKING DETAILS: TRUCK SMOLTS AND FRY, USE HATCH BOXES
       ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
       OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: PRE HATCHERY EVALUATION WAS COMPLETED
       IMPACTS; RESEARCH: BROODSTOCK SEINED FROM CHETCO R., 25,000 CWT STOCK ASSESSMENT
       IMPACTS; OPINION: FEEL THAT IT STABALIZES RUN
       CONTROL DETAILS: N@A
       OTHER COMMENTS: PU LIC HAS INFLUENCED ALLOCATION INCREASES TO THE CHETCO, AS WELL AS
        INCREASES IN MARKING AND EVALUATION




       50.   SPECIES: CH RACE: FAL STOCK(S): HR
       MAJOR DRAINAGE: CC     SUB DRAINAGE: TRINITY RIVER
       CONTACT: MITCH FARRO         PHONE: (707)839-5664
       AGENCY: PCFFA ADDRESS: 216 H ST., EUREKA, CA 95501
       PROJECT: KLAMATH-TRINITY FALL CHINOOK ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
       PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION ENHANCE RUNS                              ONGOING: Y
       EVALUATION: QN : USDI SPAWNING SURVEYS SINCE 1981; CWT PROGRAM
       SURVIVAL: N/A
       STOCKING DETAILS: FISH NOT HANDLED DURING RELEASE; RELEASED AFTER 1ST STORMS
       ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
       OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: FOREST SERVICE HAS ESTIMATED CARRYING CAPACITY
       IMPACTS; RESEARCH: MARK RETURNS INDICATE PROGRAM IS SUCCESSFUL
       IMPACTS; OPINION:
       CONTROL DETAILS:
       OTHER COMMENTS:






                                                  A2-2







        52.   SPECIES: CH RACE: FAL STOCK(S): IR
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: CC     SUB DRAINAGE: LITTLE RIVER
        CONTACT: MITCH FARRO          PHONE: (707)839-56,64
        AGENCY: PCFFA ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 291, TRINIDAD, CA 95570
        PROJECT: LITTLE RIVER FALL CHINOOK ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS                               ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QN : CWT PROGRAM; SPAWNING GROUND SURVEYS SINCE 1985
        SURVIVAL: NIA
        STOCKING DETAILS: 100% CWT; TRUCKED; LATE EVENING RELEASES WITH LUNAR PHASE
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS: TEMPERATURE ACCLIMATION
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: FIRST RETURNS CAME IN 1988,SHOWS PROJECT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO RUNS
        IMPACTS; OPINION:
        CONTROL DETAILS: SPLIT RELEASE STRATEGY (LOWER VS. UPPER RIVER)
        OTHER COMMENTS: LAND USE PRACTICES CAN IMPACT PROJECT; ADULT MALES USED ONLY
        ONCE; ONLY MARKED FISH ARE SPAWNED



        73.   SPECIES: CH RACE: SPR STOCK(S):
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: CR     SUB DRAINAGE: LOCHSA RIVER
        CONTACT: BILL MILLER          PHONE: (208)476-7242
        AGENCY: FWS   ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 18, AHSAHKA, ID 83520
        PROJECT: UPPER LOCHSA ON THE CLEARWATER RIVER
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS                               ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: : STATE RUN WIER FIRST OPERATED IN 1989, NO PAST EVALUATION
        SURVIVAL: IDAHO DEPT. OF FISH & GAME OPERATES WIER
        STOCKING DETAILS: TRUCKED FROM DWORSHAK NFH TO POWELL & RELEASED
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS: RAISED ON NF CLEARWATER R., CURRENTLY RAISED AT POWELL
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: CHINOOK CWTed IN 1989, 60,000 OUT OF 200,000 RELEASED
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
        IMPACTS; OPINION:-
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: MAY HAVE HAD 1 OCEAN RETURNS IN 1989 BUT WEIR WAS NOT OPERATED DUE
         TO CONSTRUCTION




        94.   SPECIES: CH RACE: SUM STOCK(S): ST
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: PS     SUB DRAINAGE: STILLAGUAMISH RIVER
        CONTACT! KIP KILLEBREW        PHONE: (206)435-8770
        AGENCY: STIL ADDRESS: 3439 STOLUCKQUAMISH LN, ARLINGTON, WA 98223
        PROJECT: STILIAGUAMISH  CHINOOK
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS                               ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QA : SPAWNING SURVEYS DONE ANNUALLY
        SURVIVAL: RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES TO BE EVALUATED
        STOCKING DETAILS: DUMP PLANTED INTO MAINSTEM & MOUTHS OF TRIBS
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS: 41,115 FN AT FORTSON POND FOR 16 DAYS AVG. IN 89
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: TRY TO MATCH PLANTINGS TO TIME & SIZE OF WILD OUTMIGR
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
        IMPACTS; OPINION: ANY INCREASE IS A BENEFIT, RUN IS SLOWLY INCREASING
        CONTROL DETAILS: 405,998 FISH TAGGED WITH CWT
        OTHER COMMENTS: ADDL. STREAMS: ARMSTRONG,HARVEY,CANYON,BEAVER,PERRY,& PALMER




        120. SPECIES: CO RACE:        STOCK(S):
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: BC     SUB DRAINAGE: CRAIG CREEK
        CONTACT: ROBERT HURST         PHONE: (604)756-7296
        AGENCY: CFSO ADDRESS: 3225 STEPHENSON PT RD, NANAIMO, BC V9T 4P7
        PROJECT: CRAIG CREEK
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, STOCK EVALUATION                           ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QN : WILD BROODSTOCK COLLECTED FROM CRAIG CK & REARED IN HATCHERY
        SURVIVAL: WILD=4.2%, HATCHERY=3.2%
        STOCKING DETAILS: STOCKS DIFFERENTLY MARKED & RELEASED INTO CRAIG CK HEADWATER
        ACCLI14ATION DETAILS:
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: WILD FRY .2 C LARGER THAN HATCHERY FRY
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: SURVIVAL OF WILD FISH SIG HIGHER THAN HATCHERY
        IMPACTS; OPINION: STOCKING DENSITIES WERE EXCESSIVE, RESULTING IN LOW SURVIVAL
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: OBJECTIVES: (1)DETERMINE DECLINE IN FRY TO SMOLT SURVIVAL RATE
         (2)PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFO ON OPTIMUM STOCKING DENSITIES FOR COHO




                                                     A2-3







        161. SPECIES: CO RACE:       STOCK(S): MT
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: CC     SUB DRAINAGE: MATTOLE RIVER
        CONTACT: GARY PETERSON       PHONE: (707)629-3514
        AGENCY: MWSSG ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 188, PETROLIA, CA 95538
        PROJECT: MATTOLE WATERSHED SALMON SUPPORT GROUP
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS                      ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QN : CWT PROGRAM(2 YEARS); JUVENILE TRAPPING; SPAWNING SURVEYS
        SURVIVAL: POPULATIONS STATIC
        STOCKING DETAILS: DUSK OR EVENING RELEASES WITH NEW MOON PHASE
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS: TEMPERATURE ACCLIMATION
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: FISH TAKEN OFF FEED AND SALTED PRIOR TO STOCKING
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
        IMPACTS; OPINION: POPULATIONS ARE STATIC- NO INCREASE OR DECREASE
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: PROJECT HAS ESTABLISHED RUNS IN DIFFERENT TRIBUTARIES





        180. SPECIES: CO RACE:       STOCK(S): TM
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: OC     SUB DRAINAGE: EEL LAKE
        CONTACT: PAUL REIMERS        PHONE: (503)888-5515
        AGENCY: ODFW ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 5430, CHARLESTON, OR 97420
        PROJECT: EEL LAKE COHO STUDIES
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS                      ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: N : CWT PROGRAM; SURVIVAL BASED ON CONTRIBUTION AND RETURNING ADULTS
        SURVIVAL: 1.?7% TO ADULTS
        STOCKING DETAILS: STOCK AFTER THE BASS ACTIVITY SLOWS DOWN
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: FISH GET PHENOMENAL GROWTH WHEN REARED IN THE LAKE
        IMPACTS; OPINION:
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: THIS PROGRAM UTILIZES EEL LAKE AS A REARING AREA; WILD FISH
         ARE CONTINUALLY FUSED INTO THIS PROGRAM TO MAINTAIN THE GENETICS




        182. SPECIES: CO RACE:       STOCK(S): TR
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: BC     SUB DRAINAGE: TRENT RIVER, CANADA
        CONTACT: ROBERT HURST        PHONE: (604)756-729b
        AGENCY: CFSO ADDRESS: 3225 STEPHENSON PT RD, NAMAIMO, BC V9T 4P7
        PROJECT: TRENT RIVER - COLONIZATION
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION                                           ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QN : DOWN STREAM SMOLT TRAP ON BRADLEY LK,
        SURVIVAL: BRADLEY LK, FRY TO SMOLT=19%, OUTPLANTED FRY IN TRENT R-5.4%
        STOCKING DETAILS: STOCKED FORM 81-86 ONLY EVALUATED IN 86
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS: N/A
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: BRADLEY L HAS GOOD SMOLT PROD. POTENTIAL & PRODUCED LARGER SMOLTS
        IMPACTS; OPINION: 2-2.5 G COHO FRY DO WELL IN LAKES W1 FEW PREDATORS & LOW GRADIENT STS
        CONTROL DETAILS: N/A
        OTHER COMMENTS:





        210. SPECIES: CU RACE: SEA STOCK(S): RW
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: CC     SUB DRAINAGE: REDWOOD CREEK
        CONTACT: STEVE SANDERS       PHONE: (707)488-2253
        AGENCY: HBCO ADDRESS: PRARIE CREEK FISH HATCHERY, ORICK, CA 95555
        PROJECT: PRARIE CREEK FISH HATCHERY
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS                      ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QA :
        SURVIVAL: INCREASE IN CUTTHROATS IN LOST MAN CREEK
        STOCKING DETAILS: RELEASE WITH NEW MOON PHASE
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
        IMPACTS; OPINION: INCREASE IN ABUNDANCE OF COASTAL CUTTHROAT IN LOST MAN CREEK
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS:





                                                    A2-4








        219. SPECIES: SH RACE:      STOCK(S):
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: BC     SUB DRAINAGE: VANCOUVER,,ISLAND & MAINLAND
        CONTACT: JEREMY HUME        PHONE: (604)660-1 2
        AGENCY: MEBC ADDRESS: 2204 MAIN MALL, UNIV. OF B.C., VANCOUVER, B.C. V6T 1W5
        PROJECT: EFFECTS OF VAR. STOCKING STRATEGIES & GROWTH OF HEADWATER STOCKED SH
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION                                           ONGOING: N
        EVALUATION: QN :
        SURVIVAL: SURVIVAL TO 2+ SMOLTS WAS HIGHER FOR LATER REL & LARGER FRY
        STOCKING DETAILS: STOCK ABOUT 0.1 FRY/SQ METER
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: ABOVE 0.7 FRY/SQ M. THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN PROD.
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: FRY FROM HIGH DENSITY GROUPS SMALLER THAN THOSE IN LOW, MED GROUPS
        IMPACTS; OPINION:
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: ASSUME WILD/NATURAL BROODSTOCK




        234. SPECIES: SH RACE:      STOCK(S): KR
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: BC     SUB DRAINAGE: KEOUGH RIVER
        CONTACT: BRUCE WARD         PHONE: (604)660-1812
        AGENCY: MEBC ADDRESS: 2204 MAIN MALL, UNIV. OF B.C., VANCOUVER, BC V6T 1W5
        PROJECT: PEN-REARED STEELHEAD FROM RIVERINE, ESTUARINE & MARINE RELEASES
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION                                           ONGOING: N
        EVALUATION: QN :
        SURVIVAL: RETURNS ARE RIVERINE=7-11%, OCEAN=10% TIDAL--10%
        STOCKING DETAILS: FOUR SITES USED, 2 IN RIVER, i IN ESTUARY, 1 IN OCEAN
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS: SMOLT RELEASE CONINCIDED WITH MIGRATION OF WILD SMOLTS
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: HAT. SM MIGRATING THROUGH WEIR WERE COUNTED W/ WILD SM
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
        IMPACTS; OPINION:
        CONTROL DETAILS: WILD FISH
        OTHER COMMENTS: WILD FISH WERE SHOCKED FROM KEOUGH R. & PROGENY USED FOR STUDY





        238. SPECIES: SH RACE:      STOCK(S): NP
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: CC     SUB DRAINAGE: SAN PABLO BAY
        CONTACT: GEORGE CARL        PHONE: (707)252-1440
        AGENCY: NRS   ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 2726, NAPA, CA 94558
        PROJECT: NAPA RIVER STEELHEAD ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS                             ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QN : SPAWNING GROUND SURVEYS
        SURVIVAL: N/A
        STOCKING DETAILS: TRUCKED; FIN CLIPPING LAST 3 YEARS
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: INCREASE IN ADULT RETURNS
        IMPACTS; OPINION:
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: PLANTING EFFORTS HAVE BROADENED THE DISTRIBUTION OF RETURNING
        ADULTS TO THE NAPA RIVER BASIN




        248. SPECIES: SH RACE:      STOCK(S): YK,SK,RI,PR
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: CR     SUB DRAINAGE: NACHES RIVER
        CONTACT: JIM CUMMINS        PHONE: (509)575-2740
        AGENCY: WDW   ADDRESS: 2802 FRUITVALE BLVD., YAKIMA, WA 98902
        PROJECT: YAKIMA WDW
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS                      ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QA : WILD TO HATCHERY SMOLTS, 80% WILD SINCE 1981, SMOLTS AT DAMS
        SURVIVAL:
        STOCKING DETAILS: TRUCKED
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS: NET OFF SECTIONS OF TOPPENISH CR
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: YAKIMA ABOVE ROSA NOT STOCKED
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
        IMPACTS; OPINION: NUMBERS WITHIN THE SYSTEM INCREASING
        CONTROL DETAILS: N/A
        OTHER COMMENTS: LOOKING AT USING WILD STOCKS IN THE FUTURE





                                                   A2-5








        251. SPECIES: SH RACE: SUM STOCK(S):
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: CR    SUB DRAINAGE: CLEARWATER RIVER
        CONTACT: BILL MILLER         PHONE: (208)476-7242
        AGENCY: FWS   ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 18 AHSAHKA, ID 83520
        PROJECT: LOLO CREEK ON THE CLEARWATER RIVER
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS                             ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QA : SNORKLING DATA
        SURVIVAL:
        STOCKING DETAILS: TRUCKED AND RELEASED
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS: SMOLTS ON NF CLEARWATER R. WATER 2-3 WKS PRIOR TO RELEASE
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
        IMPACTS; OPINION:
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: ADULTS UNUSED IN HATCHERY EGG TAKES ARE OUTPLANTED THEIR
         EFFECTIVENESS IS UNKNOWN




        256. SPECIES: SH RACE: SUM STOCK(S): NR
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: BC    SUB DRAINAGE: NAMAIMO RIVER
        CONTACT: BRAIN BLACKMAN      PHONE: (604)565-6413
        AGENCY: MEBC ADDRESS: 1011 4TH AVE., PRINCE GEORGE, B.C. V2L 3H9
        PROJECT: STEELHEAD FRY HEADWATER STOCKING EVALUATION
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE PRODUCTION                       ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QN : EVALUATION OF SCATTER VS. POINT RELEASE
        SURVIVAL: FRY TO 1+PARR 35 & 48%, EST. 50% FROM 1+ PARR TO SMOLT
        STOCKING DETAILS: SCATTER PLANTED W/ BACKPACK NO MORE THAN 500/ GROUP,
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: FRY SCATTERED IN 81 WERE DOUBLE THE WT. OF POINT RELS.
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: POINT STOCKING RESULTED IN POOR DISPERSAL & OVERUSE NEAR REL SITES
        IMPACTS;.OPINION:
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: WILD BROODSTOCK CAPTURED FROM NANAIMO R. BY HOOK AND LINE, OPTIMUM
         STOCKING DENSITIES FOR THIS SYSTEM = 0.4 FRY/SQ. METER @ 1.5 GMS.



        257. SPECIES: SH RACE: SUM STOCK(S): SC
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: BC    SUB DRAINAGE: SILVERHOPE CREEK
        CONTACT: BOB GRIFFITH        PHONE: (604)387-3660
        AGENCY:       ADDRESS: VICTORIA, BC
        PROJECT: ENHANCEMENT OF SUMMER RUN STEELHEAD IN SILVERHOPE CREEK
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION                                           ONGOING: N
        EVALUATION: QN :
        SURVIVAL: SINGLE POINT RELEASES = 63%, SUB SATURATION RELEASES = 77%
        STOCKING DETAILS: 5,700 SINGLE POINT RELEASE, 5.700 UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH: POINT RELEASES RESULTED IN FRY BIOMASS DENSITY OF 5.87 G/SQ METER
        IMPACTS; OPINION:
        CONTROL DETAILS:
        OTHER COMMENTS: UPSTREAMING OF LARGE FRY & DOWNSTREAMING OF SMALL FRY WAS EVIDENCED
         ABOUT POINT RELEASE SITE, LESS DEFINITE MIGRATIONS FOR SCATTER RELEASES




        288. SPECIES: SH RACE: WIN STOCK(S): CH,BG
        MAJOR DRAINAGE: WC    SUB DRAINAGE: QUILLAYUTE RIVER
        CONTACT: BILL FREYMOND       PHONE- (206)533-9335
        AGENCY: WDW   ADDRESS: REGION 6 965 E. HERON, ABERDEEN, WA 98520
        PROJECT: QUILIAYUTE
        PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS                      ONGOING: Y
        EVALUATION: QN : WILD BROOD RETURN CALCULATED
        SURVIVAL: 1-SALT RETURNS=8 20%, 3-SALT=2.30%, OTHER AGES=.48%
        STOCKING DETAILS: +/- 100,600 SMOLTS VOLITIONALLY RELASED FROM PONDS
        ACCLIMATION DETAILS: REARED TO SMOLTS IN BOGACHIEL & CALAWAH PONDS
        OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO: 10-15,000 TRUCKED FROM BOGACHIEL POND TO CALAWAH DRA.
        IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
        IMPACTS; OPINION: MINIMAL IMPACTS ON WILD FISH DUE TO TIMING DIFFERENCES
        CONTROL DETAILS: 622,696 AD & VENT. CLIPS TO AID IN HARVEST MANAG. DETER.
        OTHER C014MENTS: WDW CONCERN OF OVERHARVEST ON EARLY WILD FISH ON SOLEDUCK
         MOST SPORT HARVEST IS WITHIN 3 MILES OF RELEASE SITE AT BOGACHIEL PONDS.





                                                    A2-6








         312. SPECIES: SO RACE:      STOCK(S):
         MAJOR DRAINAGE: AC    SUB DRAINAGE: KENAI RIVER
         CONTACT: DAVID LITCHFIELD   PHONE: (907)262-9369
         AGENCY: ADFG ADDRESS: 34828 KALIFORSKY BEACH RD, SUITE B SOLDOTNA, AK 99669
         PROJECT: HIDDEN LAKE SOCKEYE SALMON INVESTIGATIONS, 1983-A4
         PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUN                             ONGOING: Y
         EVALUATION: QN :
         SURVIVAL: FINGERLING TO SMOLT = 20%, SMOLT TO ADULT = 15%
         STOCKING DETAILS: STOCKED FINGERLING FROM HATCHERY, ADULTS TAKEN AT LAKE
         ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
         OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
         IMPACTS; RESEARCH:
         IMPACTS; OPINION: INCREASE PRODUCTION AND ADULT RUN BY PLANTING FINGERLINGS
         CONTROL DETAILS:
         OTHER COMMENTS: LAKE LACKED ADEQUATE SPAWNING AREA




         313. SPECIES: SO RACE,:     STOCK(S):
         MAJOR DRAINAGE: AC    SUB DRAINAGE: KARLUK LAKE
         CONTACT: LORNE WHITE        PHONE: (907)486-4791
         AGENCY: ADFG ADDRESS: 211 MISSIONROAD, KODIAK, AK 99615
         PROJECT: SOCKEYE SA114ON REHABILITATION AT UPPER THUMB RIVER, KARLUK LAKE
         PURPOSE: SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE NATURAL RUN                     ONGOING: Y
         EVALUATION: QN :
         SURVIVAL: EYED EGG PLANT SURVIVAL TO FRY AVERAGED 41.2% (1.4 TO 61.3%)
         STOCKING DETAILS: USED AN EGG PLANTING DEVICE, BACKPACKED EGGS TO AREAS
         ACCLIMATION DETAILS:
         OTHER PRE STOCKING INFO:
         IMPACTS; RESEARCH: NO MARKS FOR CONTIBUTION
         IMPACTS; OPINION: USED INCREASE IN SPAWNING ESCAPEMENT TO RATE SUCCESS
         CONTROL DETAILS:
         OTHER COMMENTS: TRIED USING FRY PLANTS BUT HAD PROBLEMS, DISEASE LOOSES AT
         HATCHERIES, ETC.









































                                                     A2-7











                 APPENDIX A, Part 3. Codes used in data entry and reporting of supplementation projects.

                          SPECIES                           RACE                     STOCK


                          AS      ATLANTIC SALMON                                    MIXED
                          CM      CHUM
                                                                             BJ      BLACKJACK CREEK
                                                                             CH      CHAMBERS CREEK
                                                                             CW      COWLING CREEK
                                                                             EL      ELWHA
                                                                             EN      ENETAI
                                                                             ES      ELSON CREEK
                                                                             Fl      FINCH CREEK
                                                                             GA      GEORAGE ADAMS
                                                                             GO      GOVERS CREEK
                                                                             GR      GREEN RIVER
                                                                             GS      GARRISON SPRINGS
                                                                             HD      HOOD CANAL
                                                                             ic      JOHNS CREEK
                                                                             KC      KETA CREEK
                                                                             KY      KENNEDY CREEK
                                                                             NO      NOOKSACK
                                                                             NO      NISQUALLY
                                                                             QU      QUILCENE
                                                                             WC      WALCOTT
                                                                             WL      WALCOTT SLOUGH
                          CO      COHO
                                                                             AL      ALSEA
                                                                             BC      BIG CREEK
                                                                             BL      BLACK CREEK
                                                                             CK      CLARKS CREEK


                                                                             ca      COQUILLE
                                                                             CZ      COWLITZ
                                                                             DN      DUNGENESS
                                                                             EL      ELWHA
                                                                             FR      FRENCH CREEK
                                                                             GA      GEORGEADAMS
                                                                             GH      GRAYS HARBOR
                                                                             GR      GREEN RIVER
                                                                             HO      HOH
                                                                             HU      HUMPTULIPS
                                                                             IC      INDIAN CREEK
                                                                             JG      JOLLY GIANT CREEK
                                                                             KL      KLASKANINE
                                                                             KA      KALAMA CREEK
                                                                             LM      LOST MAN CREEK
                                                                             LW      LEWIS RIVER HATCHERY
                                                                             ml      MILLSTONE RIVER
                                                                             MN      MINTER CREEK
                                                                             NO      NOOKSACK
                                                                             NY      NOYO
                                                                             PR      PRARIE CREEK
                                                                             PU      PUYALLUP
                                                                             OC      QUILCENE
                                                                             ON      QUINAULT
                                                                             OU      QUINSAM
                                                                             SD      SANDY
                                                                             SK      SKAGIT
                                                                             so      SKOOKUMCHUCK
                                                                             ST      SCOTT RIVER
                                                                             SR      SALMON RIVER
                                                                             SY      SKYKOMISH
                                                                             Sz      SILETZ
                                                                             TM      TEMILE LAKES







                                                                         A3-1











               APPENDIX A, Part 3. Codes used in data entry and reporting of supplernentation projects. (Cont.)



                                                                            TR      TRENT RIVER
                                                                            WL      WALCOTT SLOUGH
                                                                            WR      WALLACE
                        CH      CHINOOK
                                                  FAL      FALL
                                                                            AB      ABERNATHY
                                                                            AM      AMERICAN RIVER
                                                                            BC      BIG CREEK
                                                                            BO      BONNEVILLE
                                                                            BT      BATTLE CREEK
                                                                            BW      BIG WHITE SALMON
                                                                            CH      CHETCO RIVER
                                                                            ER      EEL RIVER
                                                                            FT      FEATHER RIVER
                                                                            FW      FRESHWATER CREEK
                                                                            HL      HOLLOW CREEK (EEL RIVER)
                                                                            HR      HORSE LINTO CREEK
                                                                            IC      INDIAN CREEK
                                                                            KM      KLAMATH RIVER
                                                                            LF      LYONS FERRY
                                                                            LR      LITTLE RIVER
                                                                            LW      LITTLE WHITE SALMON
                                                                            mc      MERCED RIVER
                                                                            MD      MAD RIVER
                                                                            MO      MOKELUMME RIVER
                                                                            MT      MATTOLE RIVER
                                                                            RC      ROWDY CREEK
                                                                            RS      RUSSIAN RIVER
                                                                            RW      REDWOOD CREEK
                                                                            SC      SPRING CREEK
                                                                            ST      SCOTT RIVER
                                                                            TN      TRINITY RIVER
                                                                            UR      UP RIVER BRIGHT
                                                                            WM      WILLAMETTE
                                                  LFA      LATE FALL
                                                                            BT      BATTLE CREEK
                                                                            HP      HIGH PRARIE CREEK (KLAMATH)
                                                                            Om      OMAGAR CREEK (KLAMATH)


                                                  SPR      SPRING
                                                                            BO      BONNEVILLE
                                                                            CA      CARSON
                                                                            CL      CLEARWATER
                                                                            Cz      COWLITZ
                                                                            EC      EAGLE CREEK
                                                                            ET      ENTIAT
                                                                            FT      FEATHER RIVER
                                                                            HD      HOODSPOT
                                                                            KO      KOOSKIA (=CLEAR CREEK)
                                                                            LE      LEAVENWORTH
                                                                            LW      LITTLE WHITE SALMON
                                                                            MK      MCKENZIE
                                                                            NK      NOOKSACK
                                                                            RG      ROUGH RIVER
                                                                            @Rll    RAPID RIVER
                                                                            SS      SOUTH SANTIAM
                                                                            SU      SOLEDUCK
                                                                            TN      TRINITY RIVER
                                                                            TR      TRASK
                                                                            WM      WILLAMETTE
                                                                            WS      WARM SPRINGS
                                                                            WT      WINTHROP








                                                                       A '3 1)











                APPENDIX A, Part 3. Codes used in data entry and, reporting of supplernentation projects. (Cont.)

                                                 sum      SUMMER
                                                                          MC      Mc CALL
                                                 WIN      WINTER
                                                                          SA      SACRAMENTO RIVER
                                                 UNK      UNKNOWN
                        PIK      PINK SALMON
                        so       SOCKEYE
                        SH       STEELHEAD
                                                 sum      SUMMER
                                                                          DS      DESCHUTES RIVER
                                                                          DW      DWORSHAK "B"
                                                                          EF      EAST FORK "B?'
                                                                          EL      EEL RIVER
                                                                          HC      HELLS CANYON "A"
                                                                          LE      LEAVENWORTH
                                                                          LF      LYONS FERRY
                                                                          MK      MCKENZIE
                                                                          PA      PAHSIMER01 "A"
                                                                          PB      PAHSIMER01 "B"
                                                                          RS      RUSSIAN RIVER
                                                                          SK      SKAMANIA
                                                                          SS      SOUTH SANTIAM
                                                                          Sw      SAWTOOTH "A"
                                                 WIN      WINTER
                                                                          AL      ALSEA
                                                                          BC      BIG CREEK
                                                                          CQ      COQUILLE
                                                                          EC      EAGLE CREEK
                                                                          FH      FISHHAWK
                                                                          KL      KLASKANINE
                                                                          KR      KEOGH RIVER
                                                                          MA      MAKAH
                                                                          MF      MARION FORKS
                                                                          NH      NEHALEM
                                                                          NN      NORTH NEHALEM
                                                                          NS      NORTH SANTIAM
                                                                          NU      NORTH UMPQUA


                                                 UNK      UNKNOWN
                                                                          AC      ADOBE CREEK
                                                                          AM      AMERICAN RIVER
                                                                          BC      BIG CREEK
                                                                          BT      BATTLE CREEK
                                                                          ER      EEL RIVER
                                                                          FT      FEATHER RIVER
                                                                          GR      GARCIA RIVER
                                                                          IC      INDIAN CREEK
                                                                          JG      JOLLY GIANT CREEK
                                                                          MO      MOKELUMNE RIVER
                                                                          NP      NAPA RIVER
                                                                          RC      ROWDY CREEK
                                                                          RS      RUSSIAN RIVER
                                                                          SL      SALT CREEK
                                                                          SM      SMITH RIVER
                                                                          SN      SAN LORENZO RIVER
                                                                          ST      SCOTT RIVER
                                                                          TU      TULE
                        CU       CUTTHROATTROUT
                                                 SEA      SEA-RUN
                                                                          AL      ALSEA
                                                                          CO      COASTAL
                                                                          SH      SHELTON
                                                                          so      STONE LAGOON










                APPENDIX A, Part 3. Codes used in data entry and reporting of supplernentation projects. (Cont.)

                         ANY SPECIES
                                                                           WI      WILD/NATiVE
                                                                           LINK    UNKNOWN
                                                                           MIXED



                         EVALUATION                                        NA      NOT ATTEMPTED
                                                                           QN      QUANTITATIVE
                                                                           QA      QUALITATIVE



                         LIFE STAGES                                       DRAINAGE


                         EG      EGG                                       CIR     COLUMBIA RIVER
                         FY      FRY                                       PS      PUGET SOUND DRAINAGES
                         FN      FINGERLING                                OC      OREGON COAST DRAINAGES
                         PS      PRE-SMOLTS                                WC      WASHINGTON COAST DRAINAGES
                         Sm      SMOLTS                                    BC      BRITISH COLUMBIA DRAINAGES
                         10      1 OCEAN                                           AC      ALASKA COAST DRAINAGES
                         20      2 OCEAN                                           cc      CALIFORINA COAST DRAINAGES
                         30      3 OCEAN                                           SIR     SACRAMENTO RIVER
                         AD      ADULTS                                    CT      CONNETICUT RIVER
                         YR      YEARLING                                  MR      MERRIMACK RIVER
                         VA      VARIABLE                                  MC      MAINE COAST DRAINAGES
                         PR      PARR                                      PR      PAWCATUCK RIVER


                         AGENCIES


                         ABREC            ALPHA BIO-RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
                         ADFG             ALASKA DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME
                         BIA              BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
                         CCSE             CENTRAL COAST SALMON ENHANCEMENT
                         CDEP             CONNETICUT DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                         CDFG             CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME
                         CFSO             CANADA DEPT. OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS - OPERATIONS
                         COAPW            CITY OF ARCATA-DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS
                         CRSA             CARMEL RIVER STEELHEAD ASSOCIATION
                         FBSRA            FORT BRAGG SALMON RESTORATION ASSOC.
                         FOG              FRIENDS OF GARCIA
                         FWS              US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
                         GRC              GARBERVILLE ROTARY CLUB
                         GRSP             GUALALA RIVER STEELHEAD PROJECT
                         HBCO             HUMBOLDT COUNTY
                         HFAC             HUMBOLDT FISH ACTION COUNCIL
                         HOH              HOH INDIAN TRIBE
                         HSU              HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY
                         HVBC.            HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL
                         IDFG             IDAHO DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME
                         LUMM             LUMMI INDIAN TRIBE
                         MBSTP            MONTEREY BAY SALMON/TROUT PROJECT
                         MCFG             MENDOCINO COUNTY FISH AND GAME
                         MEBC             MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, BRITISH COLUMBIA
                         MFM              MAKAH FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
                         MSRSC            MAINE SEA RUN SALMON COMMISSION
                         MUCK             MUCKLESHOOT TRIBE
                         MWSSG            MATTOLE WATERSHED SALMON SUPPORT GROUP
                         NCIDC            NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
                         NISQ             INISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE
                         NOOK             NOOKSACKTRIBE
                         NIRS             NAPA RIVER STEELHEAD
                         ODFW             OREGON DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
                         PCFFA            PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION FISHERMAN S ASSOC.
                         PNPT             POINT NO POINT TREATY COUNCIL










                  APPENDIX A, Part 3. Codes used in data entry and reporting of supplementation projects. (Cont.)

                           PSID              PETULUMA SCHOOL DISTRICT
                           PUT               PUYALLUP TRIBE
                           RHSI              RURAL HUMAN SERVICES, INC.
                           RIDFW             RHODE ISLAND DIV. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
                           SFU               SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
                           SKAG              SKAGIT SYSTEMS COOPERATIVE
                           SOC               STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                           SQAX              SQUAXIN TRIBE
                           SRKC              SMITH RIVER KIWANS CLUB
                           STIL              STILLAQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
                           SUQ               SUQUAMISH TRIBE
                           TCSF              TYEE CLUB OF SAN FRANCISCO
                           TULA              TULALIP INDIAN TRIBE
                           USFS              US FOREST SERVICE
                           VDFW              VERMONT DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
                           WDIF              WASHINGTON DEPT. OF FISHERIES
                           WDW               WASHINGTON DEPT. OF WILDLIFE
                           YAKI              YAKIMA INDIAN TRIBE























































                                                                          A3-5



































                                                 APPENDIX A


                                                    PART 4


                   Table of all projects included in database (for codes used in data entry and
                                      reporting see Part 3 of Appendix A).




























     I












                                                                                              SUPPLEMENTATION REPORT

                                         LIFE           MAJOR      SUB                   PRINCIPAL                                #/YEAR
            SPECIES RACE    STOCK        STAGE        DRAINAGE DRAINAGE   EVAL   AGENCY CONTACT               PHONE             RELEASED          PURPOSE OF PROJECT


       1.   AS              MIXED        FY           CT                  ON     FWS     CARL BARREN          (802)826-4438       100000 RESTORATION
       2.   AS              MIXED        FY           CT                  ON     USFS    STEVE ROY            (802)773-0300       205000 RESTORATION
       3.   AS              MIXED        FY           CT                  ON     VDFW    KEN COX              (802)886-2215            0 RESTORATION
       4.   AS              MIXED        SM   FY      CT                  ON     CDEP    STEVE GEBHARD        (203)443-0166            0 RESTORATION
       5.   AS              MIXED        FY:SM,PR     CT                         FWS     TED MEYERS           (413)863-3555      2000000 RESTORATION
       6.   AS              MIXED        SM,FY,PR     MC                  ON     FWS     JERRY MARANCIK       (207)469-6701      1900000 SUPPLEMENTATION, RESTORATION
       7.   AS              MIXED        SM,FY,PR     MC                  ON     MSRSC   ED BAUM              (207)941-4452      1900000 SUPPLEMENTATION, RESTORATION
       8.   AS              MIXED        FY,SM,PR     MR                  ON     FWS     LARRY STOLTE         (603)225-1411      1500000 REESTABLISH RUNS
       9.   AS              MIXED        PR           PR                  ON     RIDFW   MARK GIBSON          (401)789-0281       400000 RESTORATION
       10.  CH                           AD           ac                  ON     ABREC   J. FEE                                      2150 SUPPLEMENTATION EVALUATION STUDY
       ii.  CH                           FY           BC                  ON     CFSO    GORDON BEREZAY       (604)666-2600       125000 SUPPLEMENTATION
       12.  CH                                        cc                         SRKC    BOB WILLS            (707)487-3443       150000 ENHANCE FISHERIES
       13.  CH              AM           SM           SR        18040005  ON     CDFG    RON DUCEY            (916)355-0666      4000000 MITIGATION
       14.  CH              BR           FY,SM        BC                  ON     CFSO    GORDON BEREZAY       (604)666-2600       107344 SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS
       15.  CH              CA           SM           CR        17030001  NA     YAKI    TOM SCRIBNER         (509)865-5121            0 ENHANCE RUN AND FISHERY
       16.  CH              cc           SM           AC                  ON     ADFG    GARY KYLE            (907)262-9369       146420 HATCHERY EVALUATION
       17.  CH              cc           SM           AC                  ON     ADFG    NICK DUDIAK          (907)235-8191        90000 ENHANCE FISHERY
       18.  CH              cc           SM           AC                  ON     ADFG    NICK DUDIAK          (907)235-8191       150000 ENHANCE FISHERY
       19.  CH              cc           SM           AC                  ON     ADFG    NICK DUDIAK          (907)235-8191       100000 ENHANCE FISHERY
       20.  CH              CR           FN,FY        CR        17070105         ODFW    LARRY DIMMICK        (503)374-8540       900000 MITIGATION
       21.  CH              EG           FY           AC                  ON     ADFG    KEN ROBERSON         (907)822-5520        16000 ENHANCE PRODUCTION
       22.  CH              FR           PR,SM        BC                  ON     SFU     G.E. ROSBERG         (604)438-1712            0 STOCK EVALUATION
       23.  CH              FT           FN           cc        18050002  ON     TCSF    HACK COLLINS         (415)454-7754        50000 ENHANCE FISHERY
       24.  CH              Ic           SM           cc        18010206  ON     USFS    BILL BEMIS           (916)842-6131          7000 PROVIDE SPAWNING HABITAT
       25.  CH              MIXED        SM           Oc                  OA     ODFW    JAY NICHOLAS         (503)737-4431            0 RESEARCH
       26.  CH              MT           PS'Fw        cc        18010108  ON     MWSSG   GARY PETERSON        (707)629-3514        30000 SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
       27.  CH              RC           YR           cc        18010209  ON     SOC     TOM GREENER          REFER TO TEXT        50000 EDUCATION
       28.  CH              RW           YR           cc        18010102  ON     HBCO    STEVE SANDERS        (707)488-2253        50000 PROVIDE SALMON FOR.OFF-SHORE FISHERIES
       29.  CH              ST           SM           cc        18010208  ON     USFS    JACK WEST            (916)842-6131        25000 PROVIDE SPAWNING HABITAT
       30.  CH              TH           FRY          BC                  ON     CSFO    D.C. SEBASTIN            )   -                0 HABITAT EVALUATION
       31.  CH              WI           SM           AC                  ON     ADFG    BOB CHLUPACH         (907)892-6816       260000 RESEARCH
       32.  CH              WI           PS           OC        17100304  ON     ODFW    JAY NICHOLAS         (503)737-4431      1000000 RESEARCH
       33.  CH       FAL                 SM           cc        18010102         HFAC    JUD ELLINWOOD        (707)444-8903        12000 ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
       34.  CH       FAL    BC           SM           CR        17080006  OA     ODFW    QUENTIN SMITH        (503)325-3653      4000000 MITIGATION
       35.  CH       FAL    BT           Ps'sm        SR        18020118  ON     FWS     GENE FORBES          (916)365-8622     16000000 MITIGATION
       36.  CH       FAL    CH           EG,FY,SM     OC        17100306  ON     ODFW    JAY NICHOLAS         (503)737-4431       400000 SUPPLEMENTATION ENHANCE RUNS
       37.  CH       FAL    CH           SM           Oc        17100312  ON     ODFW    AL MCGIE             (503)737-4431            0 RESEARCH, ENHANEE FISHERY
       38.  CH       FAL    EL                        OC                  NA     ODFW    GARY SUSAC           (503)332-4744       185000 ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
       39.  CH       FAL    ER           SM           cc        18010106  ON     CDFG    ROYCE GUNTER         (707)433-6325       200000 RE-ESTABLISH RUN, ENHANCE RUNS
       40.  CH       FAL    ER           SM,FY,YR     OC        17100306  NA     ODFW    GARY SUSAC           (503)332-4744      1000000 ENHANCE FISHERY
       41.  CH       FAL    FT           SM           SR        18020125  ON     CDFG    DON SCHLICTING       (916)538-2222     12000000 MITIGATION
       42.  CH       FAL    FT           FY,SM        SR        18050002  ON     FWS     MARTY KJELSON        (209)466-4421       800000 STOCKING EVALUATION
       43.  CH       FAL    FW           YR           cc        18010102  ON     HFAC    CHRISTOPHER TOOLE    (707)443-8369        14000 ENHANCE RUNS
       44.  CH       FAL    GR,NQ        FN           PS        17110015  ON     NISQ    WILLIAM THOMAS       (206)456-5221      1317610 ENHANCE FISHERY AND RUN
       45.  CH       FAL    GR,PU,DS,ES  FN           PS        17110019  GA     SOAX    JOHN BARR            (206)426-9783       330792 ESTABLISH FISHERY
       46.  CH       FAL    GR,SS        FY           PS        17110013  NA     MUCK    DENNIS MOORE         (206)939-3311      1606484 PROVIDE FOR FISHERY, UTILIZE HABITAT
       47.  CH       FAL    GV,CH,GR,GS  SM           PS        17110019  ON     SUQ     PAUL DORN            (206)598-3311      1308170 PROVIDE FOR FISHERY
       48.  CH       FAL    HD,DS,F1,GA  FY,FN        PS        17110017  NA     PNPT    CHRIS WELLER         (206)297-3422       872667 ENHANCE RUN AND FISHERY
       49.  CH       FAL    HL           FN,SM        cc        18010106  ON     FBSRA   WAYNE O'BRYANT       (707)925-6458       100000 ENHANCE RUNS, PROVIDE STOCK FOR ELSEWHERE
       50.  CH       FAL    HR           YR           cc        18010112  ON     PCFFA   MITCH FARRO          (707)839-5664        30000 SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS
       51.  CH       FAL    KM           YR           cc        18010206  ON     BIA     DELMAR ROBINSON      (916)246-5141          9000 RE-ESTABLISH RUNS
       52.  CH       FAL    LR           SM           cc        18010108  ON     PCFFA   MITCH FARRO          (707)839-5664        50000 SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS
       53.  CH       FAL    MA           FN           PS        17110019  ON     FWS     DAVID ZAJAC          (206)753-9460       450000 ENHANCE RUNS
       54.  CH       FAL    MC           SM,YR        cc        18040009  ON     CDFG    MICHAEL COZART       (209)563-6410       800000 MITIGATION
       55.  CH       FAL    MD           YR           cc        18010105  ON     CDFG    BRUCE BARNGROVER     (707)822-0592       200000 ENHANCE RUNS
       56.  CH       FAL    MO           SM           cc        18050002  ON     CDFG    DON ESTEY            (209)759-3383      2500000 MITIGATION, ENHANCEMENT
       57.  CH       FAL    NO,GR,SM,SO  FN,PS        PS        17110004  ON     LUMM    STEVE SEYMOUR        (206)734-8180      1242593 ENHANCE FI HERIES
       58.  CH       FAL    PU,GR,DS     FN           PS        17110014  NA     PUT     RUSSELL LADLEY       (206)593-0254       384002 ENHANCE FISHERIES
       59.  CH       FAL    SS, GR       FN,FR        PS        17110013  OA     MUCK    DENNIS MOORE         (206)939-3311       387630 PROVIDE FOR FISHERIES,
       60.  CH       FAL    SY,GR,sm     FN           PS        17110019  ON     TULA    CLIFF BENGSTON       (206)653-7477       925000 PROVIDE FOR FISHERIES
       61.  CH       FAL    TN           SM,YR        cc        18010212  ON     CDFG    GERALD BIDELL        (916)778-3931      1400000 MITIGATION
       62.  CH       FAL    TN           YR           cc        18010212  ON     HVBC    MICHAEL ORCUTT       (916)625-4268        35000 ENHANCE RUNS
       63.  CH       FAL    UM,AL        SM           OC        17100303  NA     ODFW    JERRY SWAFFORD       (503)496-3484       100000 ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
       64.  CH       FAL    LINK         FN           SR        18020104  ON     FWS     JAMES SMITH          (916)527-3043        50000 HATCHERY EVALUATION











                                                                                            SUPPLEMENTATION REPORT

                                       LIFE          MAJOR      SUB                   PRINCIPAL                                #/YEAR
          SPECIES  RACE   STOCK        STAGE        DRAINAGE  DRAINAGE  EVAL   AGENCY CONTACT               PHONE             RELEASED          PURPOSE OF PROJECT


    65.   CH       FAL    UR           SM           CR        17030001  NA     YAKI   T014 SCRIBNER         (509)865-5121      302000  ENHANCE  RUN
    66.   CH       FAL    URB          FY,FN        CR        17080001  NA     WDF    DICK JOHNSON          (206)837-3311             0HABITAT  UTILIZATION
    67.   CH       LFA    HP           SM           cc        18010208  NA     NCIDC  RONNIE PIERCE         (707)839-3637       15000  RE-ESTABLISH RUNS
    68.   CH       LFA    KM           PS           cc        18010208  ON     NCIDC  WALTER LARA JR.       (707)482-4535         8000 RE-ESTABLISH RUNS, TRIBAL FISHERY
    69.   CH       LFA    OM           WM           cc        18010208  NA     NCIDC  RONNIE PIER6E         (707)839-3637       15000  RE-ESTABLISH RUNS
    70.   CH       LFA    SA           YR           SR        18020118  ON     FWS    GENE FORBES           (916)365-8622      900000  MITIGATION, ESTABLISH RUN
    71.   CH       SPR                 PR           BC                         CFSO   GORDON BEREZAY        (604)666-8648             0HATCHERY EVALUATION
    72.   CH       SPR                 SM,FY,PS     CR        17030001  ON     YAKI   DAVE FAST             (509)865-5121      100000  ENHANCE RUNS
    73.   CH       SPR                 FN,SM        CR                         FWS    BILL MILLER           (208)476-7242      200000  SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS
    74.   CH       SPR                 SM,FN        CR                         FWS    BILL MILLER           (208)476-7242      375000
    75.   CH       SPR                 FY,FN,SM,AD  CR                         IDFG   BURT BOWLER           (208)743-6502       80000
    76.   CH       SPR                 FY,EG        CR                         IDFG   DICK SKULLY           (208)334-3791       99900  ESTABLISH RUN
    77.   CH       SPR    FR           PR           BC                  ON     CFSO   GORDON BEREZAY        (604)666-8646             0EVALUATION
    78.   CH       SPR    FT           SM           SR        18020125  ON     CDFG   DON SCHLICTING        (916)538-2222     2000000  MITIGATION
    79.   CH       SPR    HD,CZxNK,SU  SM           PS        17110018  ON     FWS    DAVID ZAJAC           (,206)753-9460     150000  ASSIST THREATENED SPECIES
    80.   CH       SPR    LE           FN,FY        CR        17020011         FWS    JIM MULLEN            (509)548-7573      780000  ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
    81.   CH       SPR    LO           AD           CR        17060104  ON     ODFW   RICH CARMICHAEL       (503)963-1777             0PROVIDE TRIBAL ADULTS
    82.   CH       SPR    MK           Ps'sm        CR        17090004  QA     ODFW   SCOTT LUSTED          (503)896-3513     1100000  MITIGATION
    83.   CH       SPR    NO           FN,PS        PS        17110004  GA     LUMM   STEVE SEYMOUR         (206)734-8180       80719  ESTABLISH FISHERY
    84.   CH       SPR    NO           FY           PS        17110004  NA     NOOK   PAT PETUCHOV          (206)592-5176      200000  PROVIDE FOR FISHERY
    85.   CH       SPR    RG           AD           OC        17100307  ON     ODFW   MIKE EVENSON          (503)878-2235             0RESEARCH, ENHANCE RUNS AND FISHERY
    86.   CH       SPR    RG           SM           OC        17100307  ON     ODFW   MIKE EVENSON          (503)878-2235      100000  ENHANCE FISHERY
    87.   CH       SPR    SS           FY           CR        17090004  NA     OOFW   DENNIS WISE           (503)378-6925      400000  EDUCATION, ENHANCEMENT
    88.   CH       SPR    TN           SM,YR        cc        18010212  ON     CDFG   GERALD BIDELL         (916)778-3931     2000000  MITIGATION
    89.   CH       SPR    TR           FY           Oc                  OA     ODFW   JOHN CASTEEL          (503)842-2741      200000  ENHANCEMENT
    90.   CH       SPR    WM           Ps'sm        CR        17090009  ON     ODFW   808 SOHLER            (503)782-2933     3300000  MITIGATION
    91.   CH       SPR    WM           Ps           CR        17090001  ON     ODFW   MAX SMITH             (503)726-3517     1000000  MITIGATION
    92.   CH       sum                 SM           CR                         IDFG   KENT BALL             (208)756-2271      950000
    93.   CH       SUM    SF           FY           CR        17060208  ON     IDFG   DICK SKULLY           (208)334-3791      178640  ESTABLISH RUN
    94.   CH       SUM    ST           FN           PS        17110008  OA     STIL   KIP KILLEBREW         (206)435-8770       81093  SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS
    95.   CH       LINK                YR           cc        18060006         CCSE   PAUL CLEVELAND        (805)773-3316       50000  ESTABLISH RUN
    96.   CH       LINK   ER           SM           cc        18010106         PCFFA  SCOTT DOWNIE          (707)923-3459      100000  REESTABLISH RUNS
    97.   CH       WIN    SA           PS           SR        18020103  ON     FWS    GENE FORBES           (916)365-8622             0ASSIST THREATENED SPECIES
    98.   CM                           FY           AC                         ADFG   TOM KOHLER                               469000  HARVEST AUGMENTATION
    99.   cm                           FY           AC                  ON     ADFG   JOHN MCNAIR                             3549811  EVALUATION
    100.  cm              CL           FY           CR        17090007  NA     ODFW   WAYNE BOWERS          (503)657-6822             0ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
    101.  Cm              EL,QC,WL,EN  EG,FY        PS        17110019  QA     PNPT   CHRIS WELLER          (206)297-3422     1166286  ENHANCE RUN AND FISHERY
    102.  CM              ES,JC        FY,EG        PS        17110019  ON     SOAX   JOHN BARR             (206)426-9783      402767  ESTABLISH FISHERY INITIALIZE RUN
    103.  CM              FI,HD ,GR,KC FY           PS        17110013  ON     MUCK   DENNIS MOORE          (206)939-3311      530350  PROVIDE FOR FISHEky
    104.  CM              FI,KC        FY           PS        17110013  ON     MUCK   DENNIS MOORE          (206)939-3311      114467  PROVIDE FOR FISHERIES
    105.  CM              MA           FY           PS        17110019  NA     FWS    DAVID ZAJAC           (206)753-9460     1400000  ENHANCE RUNS M
    106.  CM              NO                        AC                  GA     ADFG   JIM RAYMOND           (907)452-1531      750000  RESEARCH
    107.  CM              NO           FY,EG        PS        17110004  ON     NOOK   GARY MACWILLIAMS      (206)592-5176       81000  ENHANCE  FISHERY
    108.  CM              NO           FY           PS        17110004  QA     NOOK   GARY MACWILLIAMS      (206)592-5176      299275  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERIES DEVELOP SURPLUS
    109.  CM              NO,QC        FY           PS        17110004  QA     LUMM   STEVE SEYMOUR         (206)734-8180      183859  DEVELOP  SURPLUS FOR SfOCKING
    110.  cm              PU,HD,GA,CH  FY           PS        17110014  GA     PUT    RUSSELL LADLEY        (206)593-0254      325050  ENHANCE  FISHERIES
    ill.  cm              ST           FY           PS        17110008  ON     STIL   KIP KILLEBREW         (206)435-8770      460450  ENHANCE  FISHERIES, INITIALIZE RUNS
    112.  CM              wC           FY           PS        17110018  NA     FWS    DAVID ZAJAC           (206)753-9460     2300000  PROVIDE  TRIBAL ADULTS
    113.  CM              WL           FY           PS        17110018  ON     FWS    DAVID ZAJAC           (206)753-9460     3693760  ENHANCE  FISHERIES
    114.  CM       ENL    CW,GO,BJ     EG,FY        PS        17110019  OA     SUO    PAUL DORN             (206)598-3311     3620000  REESTABLISH FISHERY
    115.  CM       L      NO           EG           PS        17110015  OA     NISQ   WILLIAM THOMAS        (206)456-5221      542133  REESTABLISH RUNS
    116.  CM       N      KY           FR,EG        PS        17110015  QA     NISQ   WILLIAM THOMAS        (206)456-5221      312760  REESTABLISH RUNS
    117.  CM       N,L    ES,JC,GS     FY,EG        PS        17110019  OA     SQAX   JOHN BARR             (206)426-9783     1906732  ESTABLISH FISHERY, REESTABLISH RUNS
    118.  CM       N,L    WL           FY           PS        17110019  ON     TULA   CLIFF BENGSTON        (206)653-7477     4000000  PROVIDE FOR FISHERIES
    119.  CO                           FN           AC                  ON     ADFG   JIM RAYMOND           (907)452-1531      125000  RESEARCH
    120.  CC                           FY           BC                  ON     CFSO   ROBERT HURST          (604)756-7296         9500 SUPPLEMENTATION STOCK EVALUATION
    121.  CC                           FN           cc        18010102         HFAC   JUD ELLINWOOD         (707)444-8903       25000  ENHANCE WILD ST6CKS
    122.  CO                           YR           cc        18010102  QA     COAPW  DAVID HULL            (707)822-5957          1500 ENHANCE RUNS
    123.  CO                           FY           CR        17020011         FWS    JIM MULLAN            (509)548-7573       61800  SMOLT PRODUCTION
    124.  CO                           FN           CR        17080002  NA     WDF    ROBIN NICHOLAY        (206)225-7413     2000000  ENHANCE RUNS (HATCHERY)
    125.  CO                           YR           PS        17110008         WDF    JIM AMES              (205)753-0196             0SUPPLEMENT TRIBAL,COMMERCIAL,NON-INDIAN SPORT FISHERY
    126.  CO              AL           sm           OC        17100205  ON     ODFW   MARIO SOLAZZI         (503)737-4431      300000  RESEARCH
    127.  CC              AL,SZ,CO     FY           OC        17100206  ON     ODFW   MARIO SOLAZZI         (503)737-4431             0RESEARCH
    128.  CO              BC           SM           CR        17080006         ODFW   DAVE RIEBEN           (503)458-6512             0MITIGATION












                                                                                               SUPPLEMENTATION REPORT

                                         LIFE          MAJOR       SUB                   PRINCIPAL                                 #/YEAR
            SPECIES RACE    STOCK        STAGE        DRAINAGE   DRAINAGE  EVAL  AGENCY CONTACT               PHONE              RELEASED           PURPOSE OF PROJECT


      129.  CC              BC,ST        SM           cc         18060012  ON    MBSTP   DAVE STREIG          (408)458-3095          3000  ENHANCE  WILD STOCKS, DEVELOP SURPLUS
      130.  CC              BG           FN,PS,SM     AC                   ON    ADFG    BOB CHLUPACH         (907)892-6816       1500000
      131.  CC              cc           FN           AC                   ON    ADFG    NICK DUDIAK          (907)235-8191        200000  ENHANCE  FISHERY
      132.  CO              cc           SM           AC                   ON    ADFG    NICK DUDIAK          (907)235-8191        120000  ENHANCE  FISHERY
      133.  CO              CH                        BC                   QN    CFSO    MATTHEW FOY          (604)666-3678              0 INCREASE HABITAT
      134.  co              CK           FY           PS         17110004  ON    WOF     DON HENDRICK         (206)336-9538        160500  RESEARCH, MITIGATION
      135.  CC              CK           FY           PS         17110004  ON    WDF     DON HENDRICK         (206)336-9538         78700  RESEARCH, MITIGATION
      136.  co              CK           FY           PS         17110004  ON    WDF     DON HENDRICK         (206)336-9538         65400  RESEARCH MITIGATION
      137.  CO              CK,WL,GA,WR  SM           PS         17110015  ON    NISO    WILLIAM THOMAS       (206)456-5221        395800  PROVIDE POR FISHERY
      138.  CO              CM           SM           WC         17100204  QN    ODFW    MARIO SOLAZZI        (503)737-4431        240000  RESEARCH
      139.  CC              CR           SM           CR                   NA    ODFW    WAYNE STENDROSKY     (503)374-8381        850000  INITIALIZE RUN
      140.  CC              EL           FY           si         17110020  OA    PNPT    CHRIS WELLER         (206)297-3422        788060  ENHANCE RUN AND FISHERY
      141.  CC              EL,DN        FY           si         17110021  QA    PNPT    CHRIS WELLER         (206)297-3422         94500  ENHANCE RUN AND FISHERIES, RESEARCH
      142.  CC              FC           SM'Ps        Oc         17100205        ODFW    TIM SCHAMBER         (503)487-4152              0 ENHANCE FISHERY
      143.  CC              FR           FY           sc                   ON    CFSO    ROBERT HURST         (604)756-7296         10000  HABITAT EVALUATION
      144.  CC              HL           YR           cc         18010106        GRC     JIM JOHNSON          (707)928-2293         15000  REESTABLISH RUNS
      145.  CC              HO,QN        FY,FN        WC         17100101  QN    HOH     JIM JORGENSEN        (206)374-6582         83942  ENHANCE FISHERIES
      146.  CC              HU           FY           WC         17100103  ON    WDF     DAVE SEILER          (206)586-1994        132000
      147.  CC              Ic           FN,YR        cc         18010206  ON    USFS    BILL BEMIS           (916)842-6131          7000  PROVIDE SPAWNING HABITAT
      148.  CO              JG           FN,YR        cc         18010102  ON    COAPW   DAVID HULL           (707)822-5957          5000  REESTABLISH RUNS, RESEARCH
      149.  Co              KL,BC        SM           CR         17080006  OA    ODFW    QUENTIN SMITH        (503)325-3653       1400000  MITIGATION
      150.  CC              LM           YR           cc         18010102  ON    HBCO    STEVE SANDERS        (707)488-2253        100000  PROVIDE SALMON FOR OFF-SHORE FISHERIES
      151.  CC              LR           FY           cc         18010108  ON    PCFFA   MITCH FARRO          (707)839-5664         15000  INITIALIZE RUN, EDUCATION
      152.  Co              LS           SM,FN        AC                   ON    ADFG    BOB CHLUPACH         (907)892-6816        450000
      153.  CO              MA           FY           PS         17110019        MFM     MARK LARIVIERE       (206)645-2201        244531  ENHANCE FISHERY
      154.  Co              14A          S14          Ps         17110019  ON    FWS     DAVID ZAJAC          (206)753-9460        265000  ENHANCE RUNS (HATCHERY)
      155.  CO              MI           Fy           BC                   ON    CFSO    ROBERT HURST         (604)756-7296         26000  HABITAT UTILIZATION
      156.  CC              MI           FY           PS         17110019  OA    SUO     PAUL DORN            (206)598-3311        335370  ENHANCE FISHERY
      157.  CC              MI           SM           PS         17110019  OA    SUQ     PAUL DORN            (206)598-3311         57053  PROVIDE FOR FISHERY, ENHANCE FISHERY
      158.  CC              MI,PU,WR,KA  FY           PS         17110015  ON    NISO    WILLIAM THOMAS       (206)456-5221        332600  INITIALIZE RUNS
      159.  CC              MIXED        SM           Oc                   QA    ODFW    JAY NICHOLAS         (503)737-4431              0 RESEARCH
      160.  CO              MN           FY FN        PS         17110019  ON    WDF     CHUCK BARANSKI       (206)753-0197         25000  RESEARCH
      161.  CC              MT           YR:SM        cc         18010108  ON    MWSSG   GARY PETERSON        (707)629-3514          8000  SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
      162.  CC              NE           SM,FY        OC         17100202        ODFW    GARY YEAGER          (503)368-6828        800000  ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
      163.  CO              NO,SY,SK,SO  FN,PS        PS         17110004  ON    LUMM    STEVE SEYMOUR        (206)734-8180       1014080  ENHANCE FISHERY
      164.  CC              NY           YR           cc         18010102  ON    CDFG    ALLAN GRASS          (707)743-1535         30000  ENHANCE RUNS, DEVELOP STOCKS
      165.  CC              NY           YR           cc         18010105  ON    CDFG    BRUCE BARNGROVER     (707)822-0592        225000  INITIATE AND ENHANCE RUNS
      166.  CC              NY,PR        YR           cc         18010102  ON    HFAC    CHRISTOPHER TOOLE    (707)443-8369         22000  ENHANCE RUNS
      167.  CC              PU           FY           PS         17110014  QA    PUT     RUSSELL LADLEY       (206)593-0254        269455  ENHANCE FISHERIES
      168.  CO              Qc           SM           PS         17110018  ON    FWS     DAVID ZAJAC          (206)753-9460        500000  ENHANCE FISHERIES
      169.  CC              QU,BL        FY           BC                   ON    CFSO    ROBERT HURST         (604)756-7296          8500  ENHANCE RUNS
      170.  CC              RC           YR           cc         18010209  ON    SOC     TOM GREENER          REFER TO TEXT          4000  EDUCATION
      171.  CC              RS           FN,YR        cc         18010106  ON    CDFG    ROYCE GUNTER         (707)433-6325        120000  MITIGATION
      172.  CC              SD           FY           CR         17090008  ON    ODFW    DENNIS WISE          (503)378-6925        750000  EDUCATION, INITIALIZE RUN
      173.  CC              SN           SM           cc         18060005  ON    MBSTP   DAVE STREIG          (408)845-3095         20000  ENHANCE RUNS
      174.  Co              SR           SM,AD        CR         17080001        ODFW    DICK WHITLATCH       (503)668-4222              0 MITIGATION
      175.  CC              SR           FY           CR         17090007  NA    ODFW    WAYNE BOWERS         (503)657-6822              0 ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
      176.  CC              ST           FN,YR        cc         18010208  ON    USFS    JACK WEST            (916)842-6131         15000  PROVIDE SPAWNING HABITAT
      177.  CC              ST,SK        FN           PS         17110008  OA    STIL    KIP KILLEBREW        (206)435-87'70        46999  ENHANCE FISHERIES
      178.  CC              SY,SK        SM           PS         17110019  ON    TULA    CLIFF BENGSTON       (206)653-7477        718000  PROVIDE FOR FISHERIES
      179.  CC              TM           FY,SM        OC         17100304  ON    ODFW    PAUL REIMERS         (503)888-5515         30000  RESEARCH, ENHANCE RUNS
      180.  CC              TM           Ps'sm        OC         17100304  ON    ODFW    PAUL REIMERS         (503)888-5515        180000  SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
      181.  CC              TM,NY        SM,YR        cc         18010209        SRKC    BOB WILLS            (707)487-3443         10000  ENHANCE RIVER & OCEAN FISHERIES
      182.  CC              TR           FY           sc                   ON    CFSO    ROBERT HURST         (604)756-7296          7500  SUPPLEMENTATION
      183.  CC              WA           SM           CR         17070106  NA    WDF     DICK JOHNSON         (206)837-3311       2500000  ENHANCE RUNS (HATCHERY)
      184.  CC       FAL    CZ           FN           CR         17070105  ON    WDF     DAVE SEILER          (206)586-1994        505000  PASSAGE EVALUATION
      185.  CC       FAL    CZ           FN           CR         17070105  ON    WDF     DAVE SEILER          (206)586-1994              0 PASSAGE EVALUATION
      186.  co       FAL    DN           SM           PS         17110018  ON    WDF     TIM FLINT            (206)753-0198         64850  HATCHERY EVALUATION
      187.  CC       FAL    DN           FY           PS         17110018  ON    WDF     TIM FLINT            (206)753-0198         27447
      188.  CC       FAL    GH           FN           WC         17100103  ON    WDF     RICK BRIX            (206)249-4628        716000  RESEARCH
      189.  Co       FAL    GH           SM           WC         17100105  ON    WDF     RICK BRIX            (206)249-4628              0 EVALUATION
      190.  Co       FAL    GH           PS           WC         17100105  ON    WDF     RICK BRIX            (206)249-4628        257000  EVALUATION
      191.  Co       FAL    GR           FY           PS         17110019  QA    WDF     TIM FLINT            (206)753-0198         58000  HATCHERY EVALUATION
      192.  CC       FAL    GR           FY           Ps         17110013  ON    WDF     DAVE SEILER          (206)586-1994       3099080  PASSAGE EVALUATION











                                                                                               SUPPLEMENTATION REPORT

                                         LIFE          MAJOR      SUB                    PRINCIPAL                                  #/YEAR
           SPECIES  RACE   STOCK         STAGE        DRAINAGE  DRAINAGE  EVAL   AGENCY CONTACT                PHONE              RELEASED          PURPOSE OF PROJECT

     193.  CO       FAL    GR,PU         SM           PS        17110015  ON     WDF     TIM FLINT             (206)753-0198        196750
     194.  CO       FAL    HU            PS           wC        17100105  ON     WDF     RICK BRIX             (206)249-4628              0RESEARCH
     195.  CO       FAL    LW            FY,SN        CR        17080002  ON     WDF     GREG JOHNSON          (206)753-3956        161805 RESEARCH
     196.  CO       FAL    MI            FN           PS        17110019  ON     WOF     TIM FLINT             (206)753-0198         36000 RESEARCH
     197.  CO       FAL    PU            SM           PS        17110015  ON     WDF     TIM FLINT             (206)753-0198         53150 HATCHERY EVALUATION
     198.  CO       FAL    PU,MI         FY           PS        17110016  ON     WDF     TIM FLINT             (206)753-0198      1457265  ENHANCE RUNS
     199.  CO       FAL    QC,MI         FY           PS        17110018  ON     WDF     RICH KOLB             (206)586-9344              0
     200.  CO       FAL    SO            FY           Wc        17100101  ON     WDF     DAVE SEILER           (206)586-1994              0HATCHERY EVALUATION
     201.  CO       FAL    SD,QT         FY           wC        17100101  ON     WDF     DAVE SEILER           (206(586-1994              0HATCHERY EVALUATION
     202.  CO       FAL    SD,SR         FY           wC        17100102  ON     WDF     DAVE SEILER           (206)586-1994        123731 HATCHERY EVALUATION
     203.  CO       FAL    SY            SM           PS        17110016  ON     WDF     TIM FLINT             (206)753-0198              0ENHANCE RUN
     204.  CO       FAL    TOUTLE        FN           CR        17080005  ON     WDF     GREG  JOHNSON         (206)753-3956      1200000  MITIGATION    ENHANCE  FISHERIES
     205.  CU       SEA    CO            SM,FN        wC        17100103  GA     WDW     BILL  FREYMOND        (206)533-9335         23400 PROVIDE FOA   FISHERY
     206.  CU       SEA    CO            SM,FN        WC        17100104  QA     WDW     BILL  FREYMOND        (206)533-9335         26090 PROVIDE FOR   FISHERY
     207.  CU       SEA    CO            SM,FN        WC        17100105  OA     WDW     BILL  FREYMOND        (206)533-9335          7325 PROVIDE FOR   FISHERY
     208.  CU       SEA    CO            SM FN        WC        17100105  GA     WDW     BILL  FREYMOND        (206)533-9335          6792 PROVIDE FOR   FISHERY
     209.  CU       SEA    CO            SM:FN        WC        17100101  OA     WDW     BILL  FREYMOND        (206)533-9335          3000 PROVIDE FOR   FISHERY
     210.  CU       SEA    RW            YR           cc        18010102  OA     HBCO    STEVE SANDERS         (707)4a8-2253           500 SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
     211.  CU       SEA    SH            SM,FN        PS        17110019  OA     WDW     BILL FREYMOND         (206)533-9335          1000 PROVIDE FOR FISHERY
     212.  CU       SEA    SH            sm           PS        17110018  GA     WDW     BILL FREYMOND         (206)533-9335         29905 PROVIDE FOR FISHERY
     213.  CU       SEA    SH            SM,FN        PS        17110017  OA     WDW     BILL  FREYMOND        (206)533-9335         35820 PROVIDE FOR   FISHERY
     214.  CU       SEA    SO            YR           cc        18010102  ON     HSU     ERIC  LOUDENSLAGER    (707)826-3445         40000 ESTABLISH FISHERY
     215.  PK                            FY           AC                  ON     ADFG    TIM MCDANIEL                             1200000  ESTABLISH A RUN
     216.  PK                                         AC                  ON     ADFG    TOM KOHLER                                       0HARVEST AUGMENTATION
     217.  PK              ST            FY           PS        17110008  ON     STIL    KIP KILLEBREW         (206)435-8770        172500 ENHANCE FISHERIES
     218.  PK              TU            FY           AC                  ON     ADFG    NICK DUDIAK           (907)235-8191        300000 ENHANCE FISHERY
     219.  SH                            FY           BC                  ON     MEBC    JEREMY HUME           (604)660-1812              0SUPPLEMENTATION
     220.  SH                            SM,YR        cc        18010109  NA     GRSP    DON MCDONALD          (707)884-3884         30000 ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
     221.  SH              AC            FN,YR        cc        18010110  NA     PSD     TOM FURRE             (707)778-4703              0REESTABLISH RUNS
     222.  SH              AL            sm           Oc                  ON     ODFW    KEN KENASTON          (503)737-4431        280000 RESEARCH
     223.  SH              AM            TY           SR        18040005  ON     CDFG    RON DUCEY             (916)355-0666        450000 MITIGATION
     224.  SH              AR            SM,FN        AC                         ADFG    NICK DUDIAK           (907)235-8191         10000 ENHANCE FISHERY
     225.  SH              BC,ST         SM           cc        18060012  ON     MBSTP   DAVE STREIG           (408)458-3095          5000 ENHANCE WILD RUNS
     226.  SH              CM            YR           CR        17020008  ON     WDW     JOE FOSTER            (506)754-4624              0MITIGATION
     227.  SH              CR            PS,SM,20,30  CC        18060012  NA     CRSA    ROY THOMAS            (408)625-2255         14000 ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
     228.  SH              ER            YR           cc        18010106         GRC     JIM JOHNSON           (707)923-2293         25000 REESTABLISH RUNS
     229.  SH              ER            YR           cc        18010102  ON     HBCO    STEVE SANDERS         (707)488-2253         50000 ENHANCE IN-RIVER FISHERY
     230.  SH              FT            FN,YR        SR        18020125  ON     CDFG    DON SCHLICTING        (916)538-2222      3000000  MITIGATION     -
     231.  SH              GR            YR           cc        18010108  NA     FOG     CRAIG BELL            (707)882-2150         30000 ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
     232.  SH              Ic            YR           cc        18010206  ON     USFS    BILL BEMIS            (916)842-6131           250 PROVIDE SPAWNING HABITAT
     233.  SH              ic            FN,YR        cc        18010102  ON     COAPW   DAVID HULL            (707)822-5957          2000 REESTABLISH RUNS, RESEARCH
     234.  SH              KR            SM           BC                  ON     MEBC    BRUCE WARD            (604)660-1812         20000 SUPPLEMENTATION
     235.  SH              MA            FY           PS        17110019         MFM     MARK LARIVIERE        (206)645-2201         96359 ENHANCE FISHERY
     236.  SH              MD            YR           cc        18010105  NA     CDFG    BRUCE BARNGROVER      (707)822-0592        400000 ENHANCE RUNS
     237.  SH              MO            YR           cc        18050002  NA     CDFG    DON ESTEY             (209)759-3383         50000 MITIGATION, ENHANCEMENT
     238.  SH              NP            YR           cc        18050002  ON     NRS     GEORGE CARL           (707)252-1440          7000 SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS
     239.  SH              RC            YR           cc        18010209         soc     TOM GREENER           REFER TO TEXT         50000 EDUCATION
     240.  SH              RS            YR           cc        18010109  NA     MCFG    BILL TOWNSEND         (707)462-5228         70000 ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
     241.  SH              RS            YR           cc        18010106  NA     CDFG    ROYCE GUNTER          (707)433-6325        200000 MITIGATION
     242.  SH              SM            PS           sc        18010209  NA     RHSI    DENNIS CONGER         (707)464-7441           800 EDUCATION
     243.  SH              SMITH RIVER                cc                         SRKC    BOB WILLS             (707)487-3443         75000 ENHANCE FISHERIES
     244.  SH              SN            SM           cc        18060005  ON     MBSTP   DAVE STREIG           (408)458-3095         40000 ENHANCE RUNS
     245.  SH              ST            VA           cc        18010208  ON     USFS    JACK WEST             (916)a42-6131           400 PROVIDE SPAWNING HABITAT
     246.  SH              TU,BC,SL      YR           cc        18010112  ON             DAVID REIELS          (916)628-5012          6000 RESCUE STRANDED FISH
     247.  SH              VA            SM           Oc                  ON     ODFW    KEN KENASTON          (503)737-4431      1000000  RESEARCH
     248.  SH              YK,SK,R1,PR   SM,FY        CR        17030002  OA     WDW     JIM CUMMINS           (509)575-2740              0SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
     249.  SH       sum                  FN           CR                  ON     IDFG    KENT BALL             (208)756-2271        790000
     250.  SH       sum                  SM AD        CR        17060305  ON     FWS     BILL MILLER           (208)476-7242      1200000  MITIGATION
     251.  SH       sum                  AD:FY,SM     CR                  OA     FWS     BILL MILLER           (208)476-7242      1000000  SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUNS
     252.  SH       SUM    CH            sm           PS        17110015  QA     WDW     BOB LELAND            (206)753-5700         23632 PROVIDE FOR FISHERY, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
     253.  SH       SUM    DS            SM           CR        17070306  ON     ODFW    JIM NEWTON            (503)296-4628        162000 MITIGATION
     254.  SH       SUM    DS            SM           CR        17070306  ON     ODFW    BOB LINDSAY           (503)737-4431        127000 RESEARCH, ENHANCE FISHERY
     255.  SH       SUM    MK,SS         SM           CR        17090004  OA     ODFW    SCOTT LUSTED          (503)896-3513        120000 MITIGATION
     256.  SH       SUM    NR            FY           BC                  ON     MEBC    BRAIN BLACKMAN        (604)565-6413         23550 SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE PRODUCTION












                                                                                              SUPPLEMENTATION REPORT

                                         LIFE          MAJOR      SUB                   PRINCIPAL                                #/YEAR
            SPECIES  RACE   STOCK        STAGE        DRAINAGE  DRAINAGE  EVAL   AGENCY CONTACT              PHONE              RELEASED          PURPOSE OF PROJECT


       257. SH       sum    SC           FY           BC                  ON            BOB GRIFFITH         (604)387-3660        11400  SUPPLEMENTATION
       258. SH       SUM    SK           SM           CR,       17090004  QA     OOFW   JOHN HOSKINS         (503)896-3294       108000  INITIALIZE RUN,  ENHANCE RUN
       259. SH       SUM    SK           SM           Oc        17090006         OOFW   GREG LIPSIEA         (503)367-3437       220000  MITIGATION
       260. SH       SUM    SK           SM           PS        17110005  QA     WOW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700        25350  PROVIDE FOR FISHERY
       261. SH       SUM    SR           SM,FY,FN,AD  CR                  QA     IDFG   KENT BALL            (208)756-2271       900000  REESTABLISH RUN, RELOCATION
       262. SH       WIN                 FY           CR        17090007  NA     ODFW   WAYNE BOWERS         (503)657-6822              0ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
       263. SH       WIN                 SM'Ps        OC        17090008         ODFW   LYLE CURTIS          (503)994-8606        80000  REESTABLISH RUNS
       264. SH       WIN    AL           SM           OC        17100304         ODFW   PAUL REIMERS         (503)888-5515        30000  INITIALIZE RUN, ENHANCE RUNS
       265. SH       WIN    AL,CQ        SM           OC        17100205         ODFW   TERRY FISHER         (503)487-7240       675000  ENHANCEMENT
       266. SH       WIN    BC           SM           CR        17080003         ODFW   MEL KELLY            (503)455-2234       570000  MITIGATION
       267. SH       WIN    BC           SM           Oc        17090005         ODFW   DAN BARRETT          (503)394-2496        75000  ENHANCE RUNS
       268. SH       WIN    BC  KL       SM           CR        17080006  QA     ODFW   QUENTIN SMITH        (503)325-3653       650000  MITIGATION
       269. SH       W N    BG:QN,CH     Sm           Wc        17100105  ON     WOW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335        85825  PROVIDE FOR FISHERY,   ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       270. SH       WIN    BT,SA        YR           SR        18020118  ON     FWS    GENE FORBES          (916)365-8622      1000000  MITIGATION
       271. SH       WIN    CC           sm           OC        17090008         ODFW   CHARLIE STANLEY      (503)392-3485       340000  ENHANCE RUN
       272. SH       WIN    CH           SM           PS        17110019  QA     SOAX   JOHN BARR            (206)426-9783        44258  ESTABLISH FISHERY
       273. SH       WIN    CH           SM           PS        17110018  ON     WDW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335        80840  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       274. SH       WIN    CH           SM           PS        17110017  ON     WOW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335        24310  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       275. SH       WIN    CH           SM           PS        17110014  ON     WDW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700       142080  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       276. SH       WIN    CH           SM           PS        17110013  ON     WOW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700       192580  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       277. SH       WIN    CH           Sm           PS        17110012  ON     WDW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700        58515  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       278. SH       WIN    CH           SM           PS        17110007  ON     WDW    808 LELAND           (206)753-5700       248260  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       279. SH       WIN    CH           SM           PS        17110002  ON     WDW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700        37255  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       280. SH       WIN    CH           SM           PS        17110019  QA     TULA   CLIFF BENGSTON       (206)653-7477        60000  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERIES
       281. SH       WIN    CH           sm           PS        17110019  ON     WOW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700        22667  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY
       282. SH       WIN    CH           SM           PS        17110016  ON     WOW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700        35000  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY
 D>    283. SH       WIN    CH           SM           PS        17110008  OA     WOW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700       110425  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY
 4@1   284. SH       WIN    CH           SM           si        17110020  ON     WOW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335          3610 PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY   ENHANCE WILD   STOCKS
       285. SH       WIN    CH           SM           si        17110020  ON     WDW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335        69100  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY:  MITIGATION
       286. SH       WIN    CH           SM           si        17110021  ON     WDW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335        63925  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE WILD   STOCKS
       287. SH       WIN    CH           SM           WC        17100104  ON     WOW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335        17795  ENHANCE  FISHERY AND WILD STOCKS
       288. SH       WIN    CH,BG        SM,FY        WC        17100101  ON     WOW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335       171711  SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE WILD STOCKS
       289. SH       W N    CH,NO        SM           PS        17110004  ON     WOW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700       115600  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY
       290. SH       WIN    CH,SK        SM           PS        17110007  QA     SKAG   JIM GIBSON           (206)466-3163        50000  ENHANCE  FISHERY
       291. SH       WIN    CH,SN        SM           PS        17110009  QA     WOW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700       339925  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       292. SH         N    CH SN        SM           PS        17110010  OA     WDW    BOB LELAND           (206)753-5700       339925  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY   ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       293. SH       WWIN   CH:SN        sm           PS        17110011  OA     WDW    808 LELAND           (206)753-5700       339925  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY:  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS,
       294. SH       WIN    CH,SO        SM           WC        17100104  ON     WOW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335        65793  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS, MITIGATION
       295. SH       WIN    CH'VW        SM           Wc        17100104  ON     WOW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335        11250  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       296. SH       W 1 N  CH WK        Sm           Wc        17100104  ON     WOW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335        51492  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS
       297. SH       W      CH:WY        SM           Wc        17100104  ON     WDW    BILL FREYMOND        (206)533-9335        63267  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY,  ENHANCE  WILD  STOCKS, MITIGATION
       298. SH       WIN    CL           SM           CR        17090011         ODFW   GEORGE NANDOR        (503)630-7210        30000  MITIGATION
       299. SH       WIN    CO'CH        SM,EG        CR        17070105  NA     WDW    ULF RASSMUSSEN       (206)837-3131       300000  ENHANCE  FISHERY
       300. SH       W IN   EL           FN           Ps        17110017  OA     PNPT   CHRIS WELLER         (206)297-3422        71545  ENHANCE  RUN AND FISHERY HATCHERY     EVALUATION
       301. SH       WIN    GR GS        FN           PS        17110013  NA     MUCK   DENNIS MOORE         (206)939-3311        30035  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY, UTILIZE HABITAT
       302. SH       WIN    GS:CH,GR     SM           PS        17110013  ON     MUCK   DENNIS MOORE         (206)939-3311        31665  PROVIDE  FOR FISHERY
       303. SH       WIN    KR                        BC                  ON     CFSO   PAT A. SLANEY        (604)228-1158              0ENHANCE  PRODUCTION
       304. SH       WIN    MA           SM           Ps        17110019  ON     FWS    DAVID ZAJAC          (206)753-9460        65000  ENHANCE  RUNS (HATCHERY)
       305. SH       WIN    MF           FY           CR        17090005  ON     OOFW   DENNIS WISE          (503)378-6925       150000  EDUCATION, ENHANCEMENT
       306. SH       WIN    NS           FY           CR        17090008  ON     ODFW   DENNIS WISE          (503)378-6925       150000  EDUCATION, ENHANCEMENT
       307. SH       WIN    NS           SM           OC        17090005         ODFW   RANDY WINTERS        (503)854-3522       220000  MITIGATION
       308. SH       WIN    Pu'QN        FN           PS        17110014  OA     PUT    RUSSELL LADLEY       (206)593-0254        35778  ENHANCE FISHERIES
       309. SH       W IN   QN,GV        SM           Ps        17110019  ON     SUQ    PAUL DORN            (206)598-3311        36715  DEVELOP SURPLUS FOR STOCKING
       310. SH       WIN    WI           FY           PS        17110019  ON     WDW    TOM JOHNSON          (206)765-3979              0RESEARCH
       311. SO                           FN,FY        AC                  ON     ADFG   NICK DUDIAK          (907)235-8191      2000000  ENHANCE FISHERY
       312. SO                           FN           AC                  ON     ADFG   DAVID LITCHFIELD     (907)262-9369      1400000  SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE RUN
       313. SO                           EG           AC                  ON     ADFG   LORNE WHITE          (907)486-4791      6000000  SUPPLEMENTATION, ENHANCE NATURAL RUN
       314. SO              GU           FY           AC                  OA     ADFG   KEN ROBERSON         (907)822-5520      9999999  PROVIDE BROCIDSTOCK AND.ENHANCE FISHERIES
       315. SO              GU           FRY          AC                  ON     ADFG   KEN ROBERSON         (907)822-5520      9999999  ENHANCE FISHERIES
       316. SO              GU           FY           AC                  QA     ADFG   KEN ROBERSON         (907)822-5520      3000000  EVALUATE ENHANCEMENT










                                       Technical Report 90-1



                     SUPPLEMENTATION OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD STOCKS

                                       WITH HATCHERY FISH:

                              A SYNTHESIS OF PUBLISHED LITERATURE






                                                  by

                                     C.R. Steward and T.C. Bjornn

                            Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
                               University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho





                                                  for

                                   The Office,of Information Transfer
                                     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                         Fort Collins, Colorado

                                  Dworshak Fisheries Assistance Office
                                     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                            Ahasaka, Idaho

                                                 and

                                    Bonneville Power Administration
                                           Portland, Oregon














                                                 1990











                                                  Preface

                 This report was prepared as part of a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
              funded project to summarize information on supplementation of salmon and
              steelhead stocks with hatchery fish, Project No. 88-100. Tom Vogel was BPA
              project officer. The primary geographic area of concern was the northwestern
              United States with special emphasis on the Columbia River basin.

                 Three reports were prepared for the BPA project:

                        1 .Analysis of Salmon and Steelhead Supplementatign: Emohasis on
                           Unpublished RepQrts and Present Programs, by W.H. Miller, T.C.
                           Coley, H.L. Burge, and T.T. Kisanuki.
                        2. Supplementation of Salmon and Steelhead Stocks with HatchM
                           Fish: A Synthesis of Published Literature, by C.R. Steward and
                           T.C. Bjornn.

                        3. Concel2ts for a Model to Evaluate Supplementation of Natural
                           Salmon and Steelhead $tocks with Hatchery Fish, by T.C. Bjornn
                           and C.R. Steward.

                 Reports 2 and 3 were prepared under contract with the Idaho Cooperative
              Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Idaho. The U.S. Fish and
              Wildlife Service, Office of Information Transfer helped fund the preparation of
              Report2.

                 The overall objectives of the BPA funded project were to: (1) summarize and
              evaluate past and current supplementation of salmon and steelhead, (2)
              develop a conceptual model of processes affecting the results of
              supplementation, and (3) make recommendations relative to future
              supplementation research and needs.










                                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                                    Page
                   Preface     ................................................................................................         i

                   Abstract       .............................................................................................         ii

                   Introduction        ........................................................................................         1
                           Scope of the Review              .....................................................................       1
                           Goals of Supplementation                ..............................................................       1
                           Some Definitions           ..........................................................................        2
                           Sources of Information              ..................................................................       2

                   Genetic Concerns           ................................................                                          3
                           Overview       .....................................................................................         3
                           Genetic Variation         ........................
                                                                                 ..................................................     4
                           Hatchery Stocks           .........................................................................      16
                           Source of Broodstock              ..................................................................     17
                           Size of Stock         .............................................................................      17
                           Selection      ...................................................................................       21
                           Inbreeding        .................................................................................      23
                           Genetic Impacts on Wild Fish                  .......................................................    25
                           Environmental Effects             ..................................................................     32
                           Recommendations               ......................................................................     33

                   Ecological Relations           ............................................................................      35
                           Overview        ...................................................................................      35
                           Competition         ...............................................................................      36
                           Dispersal       ...................................................................................      37
                           Habitat Use        ................................................................................      39
                           Behavior      ....................................................................................       40
                           Feeding      .....................................................................................       42
                           Interspecific Competition               .............................................................    43
                           Growth       .....................................................................................       44
                           Survival    ......................................                                                ....... 45
                           Salmon and Steelhead in the Marine Environment                             ............................  50
                           Adults in Freshwater             ...................................................................     54
                           Predation       ...................................................................................      56
                           Fishing Mortality          .........................................................................     61
                           Disease      .....................................................................................       62

                   Supplementation Methodology                     .............................................................    66
                           Rearing and Stocking Procedures                     ..................................................   66
                           Stocking Densities and Rates                ........................................................     68
                           Age and Size at Release                ..............................................................    69
                           Time and Location at Release                  .......................................................    72

                   Acknowledgements               ............................................................................      74

                   References        ........................................................................................       75










                                                   Abstract

                        A synthesis of information related to the supplementation of
                      salmon and steelhead stocks with hatchery fish was prepared
                      from a review of published literature. We located few studies
                      where the effects of supplementation (defined as the use of
                      hatchery-propagated fish to augment naturally producing stocks)
                      were directly assessed. However, a large number of related
                      studies contained useful information. We focused on hatchery x
                      wild fish interactions and various ecological and methodological
                      factors that influence them.

                        Genetic and ecological effects, and changes in productivity of
                      the native stocks that can result from supplementation remain
                      largely unmeasured. Releases of hatchery fish into areas
                      inhabitated by wild stocks can theoretically cause a loss of
                      genetic variation and adaptedness when wild and hatchery fish
                      interbreed, and a reduction in stock size resulting from
                      competitive interactions, increased predation (including fishing),
                      and the introduction of disease.

                        For many stocks of salmon and steelhead under consideration
                      for supplementation, the environments that they migrate through
                      and in which they must spawn and rear no longer exist in a
                      pristine state. The environmental changes have created a new
                      assortment of selective pressures to which the stocks must
                      respond. Adaptations that formerly enhanced survival and
                      reproduction may prove to be inadequate or even maladaptive in
                      the altered habitats. Supplementation, if done improperly, can
                      be an added burden for the native stocks attempting to adapt to
                      significant environmental changes.

                        Based on principles of -population genetics and a limited
                      number of empirical observations, offspring of matings between
                      hatchery x wild spawners would be expected to perform less
                      well on average than pure wild-strain progeny, unless the
                      hatchery fish are indistinguishable from the wild fish.
                      Hybridization can break down complex genetic adaptations to
                      specific environments, and thereby reduce the fitness of
                      progeny of hatchery x wild matings. Many fisheries geneticists,
                      therefore, recommend that locally adapted wild fish be used to
                      start and replenish hatchery broodstocks. Management
                      practices that promote genetic or phenotypic divergence
                      between hatchery and wild stocks are discouraged where the
                      hatchery fish are going to be used to supplement wild stocks of
                      fish. Gene flow into non-targeted wild stocks due to straying
                      should also be minimized to maintain and strengthen the
                      adaptation of stocks to their environment.

                        The risk of hatchery stocks developing undesirable genetic
                      characteristics increases when small numbers of closely related
                      individuals are used as broodstock, when there is purposeful









                      selection for specific traits, and when outcrossing with wild fish
                      does not occur routinely. If the traits responsible for poor
                      performance by hatchery fish have a genetic basis, and hatchery
                      and wild fish subsequently interbreed, the wild gene pool may
                      be diluted or otherwise altered. Potentially negative impacts
                      include the introduction or increase in frequency'of undesirable
                      alleles, the disruption of locally adapted gene complexes, and
                      the swamping or homogenization of the indigenous gene pool
                      through substantial and repeated introductions of hatchery fish.
                      Even when reproductively isolated from the wild stock, hatchery
                      fish can act as agents of natural selection if they interaction
                      with other components of the ecosystem that interact with the
                      wild fish.

                        Most stocks of anadromous salmonids used for
                      supplementation do not appear to have experienced significant
                      population bottlenecks or inbreeding effects, but there have
                      been instances of maladaptive selection. An example is the
                      lower reproductive success observed among naturally spawning
                      hatchery fish that have been selected for early spawning.
                      Hatchery fish and their progeny are more likely to encounter
                      unfavorable conditions, and therefore experience higher natural
                      mortality, when they spawn earlier than normal in a given
                      environment.

                        Once released from the hatchery, stocked salmonids may
                      interact with their environment, including wild fish, through
                      competition, predator-prey, parasite-host, and pathologic
                      relationships. Hatchery and wild fish have similar ecological
                      requirements and therefore are potential competitors, but the
                      competitiveness of hatchery fish varies with broodstock,
                      hatchery history, fish health, and environment. In general, the
                      longer a fish has been held in the hatchery the less likely it will
                      be able to compete successfully with wild fish once released. In
                      the absence of natural stimuli, fish in the hatchery fail to acquire
                      learned recognition of natural food and predators. Stocked
                      hatchery fry experience high mortality (as do wild fry), but are
                      thought to be least impaired by hatchery conditioning. Hatchery
                      fish stocked as smolts tend to fare well because of reduced
                      competitive pressures, if they are healthy and migrate to the sea
                      soon after release.

                        Whether hatchery fish significantly alter the behavior, growth,
                      and survival of wild fish remains a controversial subject.
                      Recently introduced hatchery fish, even those poorly adapted to
                      the environment, may elicit high levels of activity and stress
                      among wild fish. Although rare, wild fish may be displaced
                      under certain circumstances. Hatchery fish may out compete
                      smaller wild fish, especially if they are stocked as fry or
                      fingerlings prior to emergence of the wild fish.





                                                       iv










                       Growth and survival of salmon and trout that rear for
                     extended periods in freshwater is believed to be density-
                     dependent. The potential for density-dependent effects depends
                     on the abundance and distribution of hatchery and wild fish
                     relative to the carrying capacity of the environment. A few
                     studies have reported lower growth or survival among wild fish
                     following supplementation.

                       Adding hatchery salmon and steelhead to drainages can also
                     affect the status of other taxa, particularly closely related
                     salmonid species, through competition and predation. Even
                     when they are not pisciverous, hatchery salmonids may
                     indirectly increase predation mortality among wild fish. Large
                     concentrations of hatchery fish may attract larger than normal
                     numbers of bird, fish, and human predators.

                       Disease must be considered in an evaluation of
                     supplementation because it is a major cause of mortality in
                     hatchery fish and the hatchery fish may serve as disease
                     vectors. Fish immunogenetic defense systems are often
                     species- and stock-specific, providing another argument for
                     using native or closely related salmonid stocks for hatchery
                     broodstock.

                       Survival of hatc hery- produced fish in streams depends on the
                     match of the stocks with environmental conditions, rearing
                     procedures, the method of stocking, stocking densities, size or
                     age at release, and time and location of release.
                     Supplementation managers must consider stocking densities and
                     schedules in light of program objectives and resources, the
                     carrying capacity of the ecosystem, the proportion of limiting
                     resources used by competitors, and the viability (survival and
                     reproductive success) of hatchery-produced fish.










                                                    Introduction

                 Scope of the Review

                    Anadromous salmonids are artificially propagated in many parts of the world
                 to supplement natural production. In the Pacific Northwest, supplementation is
                 used to maintain commercial and recreational fisheries at acceptable levels and
                 to rebuild natural stocks that have been weakened by overharvest or habitat
                 alteration. The effectiveness of supplementation is currently the subject of
                 much debate and controversy. There have been successes in restoring and
                 supplementing natural runs of salmonids using hatchery-produced fish (Miller et
                 al. 1990). However, the general failure of supplementation to achieve
                 management objectives is evident from the continued decline of wild stocks in
                 some areas despite, and perhaps partly due to, increases in hatchery
                 production (Hankin 1982; National Council on Gene Resources 1982; Nelson
                 and Soule 1987).

                    The purpose of this report is to provide a synthesis of existing knowledge of
                 supplementation based on a review of published scientific literature. The
                 success of supplementation hinges on the post-stocking growth, survival, and
                 reproduction of hatchery fish, their subsequent integration into existing runs of
                 wild fish, and the subsequent productivity of the wild-hatchery stock. We
                 consider, therefore, not only the consequences of superimposing hatchery-
                 produced fish on wild stocks, but how intrinsic (behavioral, physiological, and
                 morphological) and extrinsic (hatchery procedures, release strategies and
                 conditions) factors affect the ecological performance of hatchery fish. We note
                 where appropriate those observations that appear to lack a firm scientific basis.

                    Of particular interest with regard to supplementation are the potential genetic
                 and disease implications of stocking, the degree and types of ecological
                 interactions (chiefly competition and predation), and the exploitation and
                 management of mixed-stock fisheries. We discuss stocking parameters and
                 release strategies that are likely to affect interactions between hatchery and
                 naturally-produced fish. This review does not provide comment on economic,
                 political, or social constraints affecting management decisions, even though
                 these factors have a strong bearing on the direction and success of
                 supplementation programs.

                    Emphasis is on anadromous stocks of salmon and steelhead from the Pacific
                 Northwest. Where possible, we report findings from studies of Columbia and
                 Snake River salmonid stocks. Investigations of other salmonid species and
                 geographic locales are discussed if they provide useful information.


                 Goals of Supplementation

                    Supplementation is usually undertaken to provide harvestable surpluses of
                 fish from stocks that may not otherwise naturally produce sufficient fish to
                 meet the demand from fishermen. Management opportunities range from
                 rebuilding threatened or endangered wild stocks to bolstering already self-
                 sufficient natural runs. Hatchery fish used to supplement wild stocks of
                 salmonids are stocked at egg, fry, fingerling, smolt, and adult life stages.
                    Although the emphasis and practical details may vary, several goals are
                 common to most supplementation programs:










                    1. protect or restore the genetic integrity and productivity of natural
                         stocks,

                    2. optimize use of natural habitats (through stocking and management
                         for optimum spawning escapements), and

                    3. maximize cost-effectiveness, and

                    4. provide a harvestable surplus of fish.

                The attainment of these goals requires an understanding of the genetic and
             ecological consequences of overlapping and possibly interbreeding stocks of
             hatchery and wild fish, and a resourcefulness and commitment on the part of
             managers in applying this knowledge. Acceptable levels of productivity and
             ecosystem stability require management policies that are based on an
             understanding of long-term effects and requirements to conserve the gene
             resources of natural stocks. Habitat alterations, increased fishing demand
             (recreational, commercial, and subsistence), and increased consumption of fish
             will amplify the need to consider supplementation as a means of producing
             more fish. Better information than is now available will be needed to improve
             the effectiveness of supplementation, including the operation of existing and
             proposed hatcheries and fisheries management (Davidson et al. 1989).

             Some Definitions

                 In this report, we distinguish salmonids that are naturally produced from
             those that are artificially-propagated. Naturally-produced fish are those that
             result from natural spawning in streams and are usually of three types: (1)
             stocks that have been present in a drainage for several thousand years and are
             usually referred to as native or indigenous stocks, (2) stocks that have been
             established in vacant areas or restored in depopulated areas by man during the
             last 200 years and have developed into self-perpetuating stocks that some may
             call feral stocks, and (3) a stock that has been supplemented (regularly or
             sporadically) and includes fish of types 2 or 3 above and hatchery fish that
             spawn naturally (mating with each other) and produce offspring that spend
             their lives in the natural environment. We use the term wild synonymously
             with natural to refer to naturally-produced fish without regard to the origin or
             genetic history of the parental stock (Hankin 1981; Leider et al. 1984, 1986).

             Hatchery fish are those that, regardless of parent stock, have been spawned,
             incubated, hatched or reared in a hatchery or other artificial production facility.
             The divergence between hatchery and wild stocks that may be supplemented
             depends in large part on the origin of the hatchery broodstock and the duration
             and history of their captivity.

             Sources of Information

                 References used in this review were obtained through computer-aided
             searches of the following literature databases: Biosis, Dissertation Abstracts,
             Aquatic Sciences Abstracts, Aquaculture, and Water Resources. Separate
             searches were made of FISHLIB - the fisheries literature database maintained by
             the Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit - and various published
             reviews which addressed supplementation issues. The bibliography of this
             report contains references that we consider relevant to supplementation, even


                                                      2









                  if they are not specifically mentioned in the text. With few exceptions, the
                  references cited in the review and listed in the bibliography are published
                  articles from journals and symposia.

                     Worthy of special recognition are several reviews and symposia proceedings
                  which describe the propagation and stocking of anadromous salmonids. Of the
                  literature reviews obtained, Kelly et al. (1 988a, b) summarized interactions
                  between hatchery and wild salmonids, giving particular attention to genetic and
                  management concerns. Potter et aL (1982) reviewed the effects of stocking
                  on the population and structural parameters,of native and non-native
                  salmonids. Kelly et al. (1988) and Potter et al. (1982) discuss management
                  techniques and criteria for evaluating the success of stocking programs.
                  Competition and predator-prey interactions are reviewed in Miller (1958) and
                  Clady (1973). Post-stocking movements of fish are discussed by Cresswell
                  (1981). Clady (1973) reviews management procedures influencing the return
                  to the creel of stocked catchable-size rainbow trout.

                     Prominent among the supplementation literature are several papers
                  presented at the Symposium on the Role of Fish Culture in Fisheries
                  Management (R.H. Stroud [editor] 1986). The symposium proceedings contain.
                  a surfite of information on subjects related to the stocking of cold and
                  warmwater fish species. We recommend i       't as a companion piece to this
                  report. Also recommendedare the collection of papers presented in the book
                  "Population Genetics and Fishery Management," edited by Nils Ryman and Fred
                  Utter 0 987).


                                                   Genetic Concerns

                  Overview

                     Genetic resources are important to the well-being of hatchery and wild
                  salmon and trout stocks and the fisheries they support (National Council on
                  Gene Resources 1982). Increases in fishing intensity and gear selectivity,
                  developments in hatchery technology and stocking programs, and habitat
                  alterations -and losses are all suspected to have affected the genetic
                  composition of hatchery and wild stocks (Philipp et al. 1986; Nelson and Soule
                  1987). The effects may be precipitous, as when stocks are overfished (Berst
                  and Simon 1981), decimated by disease (O'Brien and Evermann 1989), or
                  otherwise rapidly reduced to a few individuals. Genetic material may also be
                  lost more gradually through intraspecific hybridization, inbreeding, genetic drift
                  and artificial selection (Kapuscinski and Jacobson 1987).

                     Salmonid species consist of numerous, more or less reproductively isolated
                  subpopulations, that we refer to as stocks, each adapted in varying degrees to
                  their respective environments (Ihssen et al. 1981; Kapuscinski and Philipp
                  1988). Genetic variability arising from within- and between-stock differences in
                  genetic composition is important for two reasons. First, genetic diversity is
                  necessary if species are to successfully adapt to future natural and man-caused
                  environmental changes (Thorpe et al. 1981). Preventing the erosion of existing
                  genetic diversity is essential if stock productivity is to be maintained (Wilkins
                  1981). Second, genetic diversity is the basis of artificial selection programs
                  (National Council on Gene Resources 1982; Davidson et al. 1989). Best results



                                                           3









             are obtained when the hatchery stock contains a large amount of genetic
             variability (Allendorf and Ryman 1987).

                 A certain amount of selection is inevitable in all aquaculture ventures,
             including supplementation. Selection, intentional or otherwise, increases the
             risk that hatchery fish will perform poorly under natural conditions. If the
             phenotypic traits responsible for the poor performance are heritable, and
             hatchery and wild fish subsequently interbreed, the gene pool of the wild stock
             may be altered and performance of the resulting population lowered. Hatchery
             fish can altering the genetic structure of wild stocks through interbreeding, and
             can also alter the natural selection factors through their interaction with other
             components of the ecosystem (Krueger and Menzel 1979; Tiedje et al. 1989).
             Thus, supplementation has the potential for reducing the long-term fitness and
             productivity of existing wild stocks.

                 In the following sections, we discuss some of the consequences of altering
             the genetic makeup of hatchery stocks, and the potential effects of using
             hatchery fish to supplement genetically different wild stocks. We also consider
             the role of microevolutionary processes (recombination, gene flow, and genetic
             drift) in the context of hatchery x wild fish interactions. Potentially harmful
             genetic effects include the loss of genetic variability, the breakdown of
             adaptive gene combinations, an increase in the frequency of undesirable
             "hatcheryn  genes, and interspecific hybridization (Allendorf et al. 1987). The
             effect of supplementation on wild gene pools had not been measured and
             described in the literature we reviewed, but there was there were numerous
             warnings that the potential exists for damaging the genetic resources of wild
             stocks through poorly planned releases of hatchery fish.

             Genetic Variation

                 Evidence for intraspecies variability in growth and survival rates, food and
             habitat preferences, morphology, age and size at maturity, disease resistance,
             catchability, and other phenotypic traits is provided in the studies listed in
             Table 1. The influence of selective forces in shaping the characteristics of
             stocks is evident in the studies listed and underscores the need to consider
             stock-specific morphological, life-history, and genetic attributes when choosing
             hatchery stocks for supplementation purposes.

                 Several factors are responsible for the intraspecific structuring of salmonid
             stocks. Meteorologic, geologic, and anthropomorphic events affect genetic
             differentiation by influencing the distribution of stocks. Natural selection
             ensures that genes and genotypes associated with fitness-enhancing traits
             increase in relative frequency and thus stocks adapt to local environmental
             conditions (Sibly and Calow 1986). The tendency of anadromous salmonids to
             home to their natal streams or lakes to spawn helps to maintain and strengthen
             stock differences (Davidson 1934; Scheer 1939; Brannon 1967; Ricker 1972;
             Barns 1972; Grant et al. 1980; MacLean and Evans 1981).

                 Because anadromous salmonids encounter diverse habitats during their life
             cycle, they experience multiple and possibly conflicting selective pressures.
             The degree to which a stock is adapted to its environment is limited by
             environmental uncertainty, gene flow (e.g., straying or introductions of




                                                      4












                           Table 1. Evidence for between-stock variability in adaptive characteristics.



                                Species                            Stock Differences                                                      References



                                Pink                      Odd-year spawning stocks from southern                                   Beacham and Murray
                                salmon                    British Columbia varied with respect to egg                              (1986).
                                                          size, egg survival, and alevin and fry size
                                                          parameters.


                                                          Adults from aerly-spawning northern stocks                               Beacham and Murray
                                                          in British Columbia had higher growth rates                              (1988).
                                                          but were smaller than adults from late-
                                                          spawning stocks.


                                Chum                      Incubation rates at different water temp-                                Tallman (1986).
                                salmon                    eratures varied between autumn- and
                                                          winter-spawning stocks from British Columbia.


                                                          Differences in egg size, developmental rates,                            Beacham and Murray
                                                          incubation survival, and alevin and fry size                             (1987).
                                                          were found among seasonally distinct British
                                                          Columbia stocks. Head, fin, and caudal peduncle
                                                          size of adults increased with river size.


                                                          Adult Yukon River salmon matured at a smaller                            Beacham et al.
                                                          size and had smaller fins and caudal peduncles                           (1988).
                                                          than fish from British Columbia stocks. They
                                                          were also less fecund, had smaller eggs, and
                                                          their embryos took less time to reach hatching
                                                          and emergence than did British Columbia stocks.


                                Sockeye                   The downstream and upstream migration behavior                           Brannon (1967).
                                salmon                    of recently-emerged fry from inlet- and outlet-
                                                          spawning stocks was under genetic control.. ,


                                                          Two stocks occur in the same river system in                             Craig (1985).
                                                          in southeast Alaska; fish in the early-spawning
                                                          stock entered freshwater in a less advanced
                                                          state of sexual maturity, had smaller eggs,
                                                          and migrated further upstream than fish from
                                                          the late-spawning stock.


                                                          When compared to coastal-spawning stocks, fish                           Beacham and Murray
                                                          from interior-spawning stocks exhibited higher                           (1988).
                                                          survival, faster developmental rates, and
                                                          larger alevin or fry size at lower incubation
                                                          temperatures.


                                                          Female investment into egg production was                                Fleming and Gross
                                                          greater in hatchery as opposed to wild spawners                          (1989).
                                                          as a consequence of reduced breading competition.




                                                                                           5














                    Table 1. (continued).



                          Coho                      Several morphological characters were found to                            Hjort and Scrack
                          salmon                    very significantly among 35 stocks from the                               (1982).
                                                    Pacific Northwest, allowing discrimination of
                                                    five major groups of stocks. Hatchery and wild
                                                    stocks were differentiated on the basis of
                                                    phenotypic traits.


                                                    Juveniles from coastal British Columbia streams                           Taylor and McPhail
                                                    had faster burst swimming speeds but less                                 0 985a, b).
                                                    stamina than individuals from interior streams.
                                                    They were also more robust-bodied than fish
                                                    from inland stocks.


                                                    Interpopulation differences in agonistic behavior                         Roseneu and McPhail
                                                    were recorded for juveniles from two tributaries                          (1987).
                                                    to the lower Fraser River (British Columbia).


                                                    Female morphological characters associated with                           Fleming and Gross
                                                    swimming and spawning performance varied with                             (1989).
                                                    migration distance to spawning areas and degree
                                                    of hatchery domestication.


                                                    Stream-rearing juveniles had different body                               Swain and Holtby
                                                    shapes. fin positions, and fin coloration than                            (1989).
                                                    did lake-rearing fish. Aggressive behaviors
                                                    were more pronounced among strearri-rearing fish.
                          Chinook                   Juveniles of three life history types in a                                Cad and Healey
                          salmon                    British Columbia river exhibited different                                (1984).
                                                    morphologies and allelic frequencies.


                                                    Application of a discriminate function developed                          Winans (1984).
                                                    from several morphometric measurements correctly
                                                    classified juveniles to their respective stocks
                                                    86-90% of the time.


                                                    Interpopulation variation in juvenile aggressive                          Taylor and Larkin
                                                    behavior was observed in 10 stocks of stream-                             (1986).
                                                    and ocean-type salmon.


                                                    Differences in levels of aggression between                               Taylor 0 988).
                                                    stream- and ocean-type salmon were demon-
                                                    strated to be inherited.


                                                    Embryos of interior-spawning stocks survived                              Beacham and Murray
                                                    better, developed faster, and attained larger                             (1988).
                                                    size at hatching and emergence at lower incubation
                                                    temperatures in comparison to coastal stocks.
                                                    Eggs of red-fleshed salmon survived better than
                                                    those of white-fleshed salmon when incubated at
                                                     higher temperatures.





                                                                                     6













                           Table 1. (continued).




                                                           Juvenile salmon living in fast water trib-                                Beacham at al.
                                                           utaries of the Yukon River had larger fins                                (1989).
                                                           and more streamlined bodies than fish living
                                                           in slower velocity streams.


                                 Atlantic                  Genetic variation in length and weight after                              Refstie and Steins
                                 salmon                    the freshwater phase was measured in 32                                   (1978).
                                                           Norwegian stocks.


                                                           Growth in the ocean varied among 37 Norwegian                             Gunnes and Gjedrem
                                                           stocks.                                                                   (1978).


                                                           Differences between stocks in the proportion                              Naevdal at al.
                                                           of grilse (fish which mature after only one                               (1978).
                                                           year in the sea) were observed.


                                                           Adaptive, genetically controlled differences                              Riddell and Leggett
                                                           in juvenile body morphology were found between                            (198 1); Riddell at
                                                           fish from different tributaries of the Miramichi                          al. 0 98 1).
                                                           River, Now Brunswick. Timing of downstream
                                                           migration also differed significantly.


                                                           The lower temperature limit for juvenile growth                           Jensen and Johnson
                                                           was stock-specific for fish from three Norwegian                          (1986).
                                                           streams.


                                                           Growth rate and allelic frequency differences                             Haggberget at al.
                                                           were found among presmolts from different                                 (1986).
                                                           sections of a large Norwegian river.


                                 Steelhead                 Juveniles from the Thompson River had greater                             Tsuyukiand
                                 trout                     swimming stamina and higher LDH-A (lactate                                Willis-croft
                                                                                                                                     dehydrogenase) allele
                           frequencies than                (1977).
                                                           juveniles from the Vedder River
                                                           (British Columbia).


                                                           Differences in tolerance to high temperatures                             Redding and Schreck
                                                           between interior and coastal stocks were                                  (1979).
                                                           attributed to adaptive variation in IDH (iso-
                                                           citrate dehydrogenese) allelic frequencies.


                                 Rainbow                   Meristic characters and LDH                                               Northcote et al.
                                 trout                     genotypic frequencies varied in                                           0 970); Northcote
                                                           populations of rainbow trout living above and Kelso 0 98 1).
                                                           below a waterfall in two British Columbia
                                                           streams. Directional response to water current
                                                           differed between two homozygous LDH phenotypes.







                                                                                           7














                     Table 1. (continued).



                                                    Swimming endurance varied significantly                                   Tsuyuki and Willis-
                                                    between two groups of resident rainbow trout                              croft 0 977).
                                                    that were homozygous for alternate LDH alleles.


                          Cutthroat                 The direction of migration of cutthroat trout                             Raleigh and Chapman
                          trout                     fry from incubation gravel to rearing areas                               (1971); Raleigh
                                                    following emergence from inlet and outlet                                 (1971); Bowler
                                                    spawning streams was genetically determined.                              (1975).


                          Brown                     Survival when exposed to low pH varied among                              Swartz at al.
                          trout                     stocks.                                                                   (1979).


                                                    Freshwater resident and anadromous stocks from                            Skeels and Naevdal
                                                    Norwegian rivers were found to have different                             (1989).
                                                    genetic compositions.


                          Brook                     Tolerance to low pH levels varied among gene-                             Gjedrem (1976).
                          trout                     tically distinct stocks.


                          Lake                      Retention of swimbladder gas differed between                             lhssen and Tait
                          trout                     between two populations.                                                  (1974).



                     hatchery fish), mutation, and selective advantages for rare alleles (Tiedje et al.
                     1989).

                          The genetic basis for the observed phenotypic variability among salmonid
                     stocks has not been well documented (Allendorf et al. 1987). There is a lack
                     of standardization in methods used to differentiate genetic and environmental
                     components of variation for phenotypic traits (Gjedrem 1983; Bailey and
                     Loudenslager 1986). Correlations between measured genetic makeup and
                     phenotypic traits tend to be weak and difficult to interpret when environmental
                     factors predominate in the selection process. Environmentally-mediated
                     variation in phenotype may override or at least modify the effect of the
                     genome. Genotype x environment interactions have been'demonstrated for
                     several traits among salmonids, most notably growth and survival (Aulstad et
                     al. 1972; Ricker 1972; Ayles 1975; Ayles and Baker 1983; Naevdal 1983;
                     Iwamoto et al. 1986; Beacham and Murray 1987, 1988; Beacham 1988).

                          Genetic variation, its distribution among stocks, and the need to use
                     hatchery fish that are genetically similar to wild stocks are important elements
                     of supplementation programs. Genetic variation has been positively correlated
                     with survival for hatchery stocks (Altukhov 1983). Large differences in the
                     genetic structure of hatchery and wild stocks can potentially lead to lower
                     survival (Altukhov et al. 1980; Altukhov and Salmenkova 1987) and
                     undesirable alterations of the wild gene pool (Allendorf and Ryman 1987). A
                     summary of studies in which the stock structure of salmonid species was
                     deduced from genetic relationships is provided in Table 2. In several instances,
                     hatchery stocks have been found to be more closely related to each other than
                     to local wild stocks (Stahl 1983; Hjort and Schreck 1982; and Taylor 1986).



                                                                                     8










                Table 2. Electrophoretic and DNA-level studies of the population structure of selected anadromous salmonid species within the Pacific
                region.



                Species                     Geographical                               Comments                                                                    References
                                            area




                Pink
                salmon
                                                                       Genetic variability was greater on a temporal                                               Altukhov et al.
                                                                       rather than a geographic scale.                                                             (1983).

                                            Northeast                  An analysis of 32 populations from Washington                                               Aspinwall
                                                                                                                                                                   (1974).
                                            Pacific                    to Alaska indicated genetic differences
                                                                       between even- and odd-year races.

                                            British                    Heterogeneity of allelic frequencies was                                                    Beacham et al.
                                            Columbia,                  greater among even- and odd-year broodlines                                                 0 985a).
                                            Washington                 than among stocks within each broodline.
                                                                       Significant interpopulation variation was
                                                                       observed only within the odd-year broodline.

                                            Northwest                  Bering Sea and Aleutian Island stocks were                                                  Gharrett et al.
                                            Alaska                     genetically distinct from the Kodiak Island                                                 (1988).
                                                                       stock. The genetic profile of Norton Sound
                                                                       fish more closely resembles Asian stocks than
                                                                       North American stocks to the southeast.


                Chum salmon
                                            Washington,                Stocks from north Puget Sound and Georgia                                                   Okazaki
                                            British                    Strait were distinguishable from those of                                                   (1981).
                                            Columbia                   south Puget Sound.

                                            Southern                   Stocks from four regions could be genetically                                               Beacham
                                            British                    differentiated; there was significant hetero-                                               et al.
                                            Columbia                   geneity in allelic frequencies within regions.                                              0 985a)











              Table 2. (continued)



              Species                    Geographical                                Comments                                                                  References
                                         area



                                         British                    differentiated; there was significant hetero-                                              (1985).
                                         Columbia                   geneity in allelic frequencies within regions.

                                         British                    Five major regio   nal groups of chum salmon were                                          Beacham et al.
                                         Columbia                   discriminated.                                                                             (1987).


              Sockeye
              salmon
                                         Alaska                     Kasilof River stocks were genetically differ-                                              Grant et al.
                                                                    entiated from Kenai and Susitna River stocks                                               0980).
                                                                    in Alaska. Within-drainage heterogeneity
     0                                                              among allelic frequencies was found in all
                                                                    but the Kasilof River populations.

                                                                    Identified genetically distinct populations                                                Wilmot and
                                                                    from the Russian and Karluk River systems in                                               Burger
                                                                    Alaska. Within-river differences were also                                                 (1984).
                                                                    found among early- and late-spawning stocks.


              Coho
              salmon
                                         Washington                 Interdrainage genetic variation indicated                                                  Reisenbichler
                                                                    stock differentiation, but within-drainage                                                 and
                                                                    variation was also high.                                                                   Phelps 1987.



                                         British                    Stock separation was possible on a regional                                                Wehrhahn and
                                         Columbia,                  basis. The mean heterozygosity of southern BC                                              Powell 0 987).
                                         Oregon                     stocks was an order of magnitude less than
                                                                    values reported for wild Oregon coho.











               Table 2. (continued)



               Species                     Geographical                                Comments                                                                   References
                                           area




               Chinook
               salmon


                                           Alaska                     Observed inter- and intra-drainage genetic                                                  Beacham et al.
                                                                      differences among populations from the Yukon                                                (1989).
                                                                      -and Alsek Rivers.


                                           British                    Allozyme differences among three stocks                                                     Carl and
                                           Columbia                   from the Nanaimo River were related to                                                      Healey
                                                                      juvenile life history.                                                                      (1984).

                                           Alaska,                    Stocks from southeast Alaska had genetic                                                    Gharrett et al.
                                           British                    profiles that were intermediate to those                                                    (1987).
                                           Columbia                   of more western and southern stocks.


                                           Oregon,                    Significant genetic differ   'ences were found                                              Kristiansson
                                           Washington                 between races of spring and fall chinook in                                                 and
                                                                      the Columbia River.                                                                         McIntyre
                                                                                                                                                                  111977).

                                           Washington                 Interdrainage variation among stocks from                                                   Reisenbichler
                                                                      four coastal drainages was not observed.                                                    and
                                                                      However, differences occured between summer                                                 Phelps 0 987).
                                                                      and fall run fish, between hatchery and wild
                                                                      stocks, and between year classes.

                                           Pacif ic                   Identified nine major stock groups distri-                                                  Utter et al.
                                           Northwest                  buted from the Sacramento River northward                                                   (1989).
                                                                      to the Skee   na River.











            Table 2. (continued)



            Species                 Geographical                          Comments                                                         References
                                    area



                                    Alaska,                 Mitochondrial DNA analysis of fish from seven                                  Wilson et al.
                                    British                 stocks corroborated earlier electrophoretic                                    (1987).
                                    Columbia                studies.


            Rainbow
            trout
                                    California              High within-stock and low between-stock                                        Berg and Gall
                                                            genetic variation was measured in 31                                           (1988).
                                                            coastal populations.

                                    Washington              Wild steelhead trout from the Yakima River                                     Campton and
                                                            had genetic profiles that were intermediate                                    Johnston
                                                            to introduced hatchery stocks and inland                                       (1985).
                                                            stocks native to other areas of the Columbia
                                                            River basin.


                                    Washington              Summer and winter run steelhead from the                                       Chilcote et al.
                                                            Kalama River could not be differentiated.                                      (1980).


                                    British                 Three major regional groups of steelhead                                       Parkinson
                                                            Columbia were identified. Significant genetic                                  11984).
                                                            variation frequently occurred among stocks
                                                            from adjacent streams.

                                    Midwest                 Reported genetic divergence of steelhead                                       Krueger and
                                    U. S. A.,               stocks from ten drainages in the Lake                                          May(l 987).
                                    Ontario                 Superior watershed and among several streams
                                                            in a single large river system. Fall- and
                                                            spring-run fish could not be differentiated.











            Table 2. (continued)



            Species                 Geographical                          Comments                                                          References
                                    area



                                    British                 Mitochondrial DNA analysis indicated increas-                                   Wilson et al.
                                    Columbia                ing levels of genetic divergence between pop-                                   (1985).
                                                            ulations of (1) steelhead, (2) steelhead and
                                                            resident rainbow trout, and (3) rainbow and
                                                            cutthroat trout.


                                                            Significant variation was detected between                                      Wishard et al.
                                                            hatchery and wild stocks of resident rainbow                                    (1984).
                                                            trout, coastal steelhead stocks and resident
                                                            "redband" rainbow trout.


            Cutthroat Trout


                                    Washington              Anadromous cutthroat trout populations in the                                   Campton and
                                                            Puget Sound area differed genetically                                           Utter
                                                            on both regional and drainage-wide basis.                                       (1987).

                                    Western                 Based on an analysis of mitochondrial DNA,                                      Gyllensten and
                                    U.S.A.,                 two subspecies of cutthroat trout could be                                      Wilson (1987).
                                    Sweden                  differentiated from three stocks of rainbow
                                                            trout.


                                    Western                 Considerable genetic divergence was detected                                    Leary et al.
                                    U. S. A.                among coastal, Lahontan, and westslope sub-                                     11987).
                                                            species of cutthroat trout, but little
                                                            heterogeneity occurred among Colorado River,
                                                            finespotted, greenback, and Yellowstone sub-
                                                            species. The first three subspecies were
                                                            genetically more similar to resident rainbow
                                                            trout than to other cutthroat trout subspecies.











             Table 2. (continued)


             Species                   Geographical                             Comments                                                               References
                                       area



                                       Montana                   Little introgressive hybridization between                                            Marnell et al.
                                                                 native and introduced cutthroat trout was                                             (1987).
                                                                 observed among lake populations in Glacier
                                                                 National Park.


             Atlantic
             salmon
                                       Newfoundland              Anadromous and resident stocks could not be                                           Birt et al.
                                                                 differentiated from an analysis of mitochon-                                          (1986).
                                                                 drial DNA patterns.

                                       United                    The existence of two races of salmon in the                                           Child et al.
                                       Kingdom                   British Isles was postulated on the basis of                                          (1976).
                                                                 differences in transferrin allele frequencies.

                                       Northern                  Analysis revealed considerable genetic                                                Crozier and
                                       Ireland                   variation in wild stocks within and between                                           Moffett
                                                                 several river systems.                                                                (1989).


                                       Norway                    Electrophoretic analysis of presmolts indi-                                           Heggberget et
                                                                 cated that separate stocks exist within the                                           al. 0 986).
                                                                 River Alta.


                                       United                    Northern and southern stocks in the UK were                                           Hovey et al.
                                       Kingdom                   electrophoretically distinct, but populations                                         (1989).
                                                                 from the north-east and north-west could
                                                                 not be differentiated.


                                       Eastern                   Three major groups were identified on the
                                       Canada                    basis of transferrin allele frequencies:                                              Moller 0 970)











              Table 2. (continued)



              Species                 -Geographical                         Comments                                                          References
                                      area



                                                              Newfoundland/Labrador, New Brunswick/
                                                              Nova Scotia, and Maine.

                                      Baltic Sea              Separate stocks were identified within                                          Stahl 0 981;
                                                              and between major drainages.                                                    1983).

                                                              Based on genetic distance values, major                                         Stahl 0 987).
                                                              stock groups correspond to Western Atlantic,
                                                              Eastern Atlantic, and Baltic Sea drainages.
                                                              Further subdivisions were identified.


                                      Newfoundland            Genetically distinct and reproductively                                         Verspoor and
                                                              isolated stocks of anadromous and resident                                      Cole 0 988).
     Ln                                                       salmon coexisted in a lake.









                Other investigators have suggested that: (1) most of the total gene diversity
             resides within individual stocks (Ryman 1983; Kreuger and May 1987; Hindar
             et al. in press; brown trout appear to be the exception - Ferguson 1989), (2)
             genetic variation tends to be greater between stocks of different regions than
             between stocks within regions (Beacham et al. 1987; Stahl 1987; Verspoor and
             Jordan 1989), (3) gene flow may be restricted over very short distances
             (Parkinson 1984; Skaala and Naevdal 1989), (4) some stocks have lower
             genetic variability than others (Wehrhahn and Powell 1987; Winans 1989; Utter
             et al. 1989), and (5) intraspecific gene flow between anadromous and non-
             migratory populations is limited (Davidson et al. 1989; Foote et al. 1989).

               Genetic differences are not always discerned between stocks from different
             drainages, even when phenotypic differences are apparent. The fish may
             actually belong to the same stock (Berg and Gall 1988), or they may be
             discrete stocks that cannot be differentiated because of sampling problems,
             unsuitable genetic markers, limitations of electrophoretic techniques, and
             inappropriate statistical analyses (Hallerman and Beckmann 1988). The effect
             of electrophoretic proteins on survival and production characteristics is a
             subject of considerable debate (Gauldie 1984; Kapuscinski and Jacobson
             1987). Discrete stocks probably exist when electrophoretic data and statistical
             results indicate clear genetic differences, but the lack of electrophoretically
             detectable differences does not preclude the existence of important genetic
             differences or status as separate stocks (Riddell et al. 1981).

               Effective supplementation requires additional information about the
             organization, temporal stability, and ecological significance of genetic variation
             within salmonid species (Kapuscinski and Lannan 1986). Continued emphasis
             should be placed on obtaining reliable estimates of genetic patterns and
             behavior in hatchery and wild stocks. Recently developed techniques using
             DNA-level polymorphisms (as opposed to allozyme markers) have been used to
             identify intraspecific relationships among salmonids and should improve our
             ability to select genetically suitable stocks for supplementation (Hallerman and
             Beckmann 1988; Ferris and Berg 1987; Davidson et al. 1989; Hynes et al.
             1989).

             Hatchery Stocks

                The success of supplementation depends on the viability of the hatchery
             stocks used to augment natural production. Stock viability can be defined as
             the collective fitness, or reproductive capacity, of fish comprising the stock.
             From a genetics standpoint, the viability of a stock is affected by evolutionary
             forces operating both within and outside the confines of the hatchery.

                 Hatchery fish that survive and return as adults following their release into
             the wild may eventually breed with naturally-spawning fish. The genetic
             composition of the wild stock will be altered unless the hatchery stock is
             genetically equivalent to the wild fish (Evans and Smith 1986). Genetic
             equivalency is affected by the source of hatchery broodstock, by mating     and
             rearing conditions within the hatchery environment, and by the "culling"    effect
             of natural selection. Many of the potential genetic effects of supplementation
             depend on answers to the following questions (Kincaid 1983). Are some
             species or races of salmonids better suited to supplementation than others?
             Where will the brood stock be obtained? How many individuals will be used,
             both initially and on an ongoing basis, in the breeding program? Will a breeding


                                                      16









                  program be used which emphasizes specific production traits? What protocols
                  will be followed to minimize genetic problems?

                  Source of Broodstock

                     The source of fish used to start and maintain a hatchery stock is an
                  important component of supplementation programs. With evidence
                  accumulating that stocking maladapted fish may be counterproductive (Ricker
                  1972; Altukhov and Salmenkova 1987), greater consideration has been given
                  to genetic resources in the design and operation of hatcheries (Heard and
                  Crone 1976; Reimers 1979).

                     Broodstocks for new hatcheries are obtained in a variety of ways: transfers
                  between hatcheries, crosses between broodstocks, selection programs that
                  emphasize the enhancement of specific traits, and collection of fish from
                  natural stocks (Kincaid and Berry 1986). Locally adapted fish, when used to
                  establish and maintain hatchery stocks, are likely to be better for
                  supplementation than are fish from other populations (Bams 1976;
                  Reisenbichler 1981; Altukhov and Salmenkova 1987). Smolt-adult return rates
                  generally decrease with increasing distance from the natal stream for stocked
                  chinook salmon (Reisenbichler 1988), Atlantic salmon (Ritter 1975), and chum
                  salmon (Kijima and Fujo 1982).

                     Some species appear to be less sensitive to transplanting than others,
                  perhaps a function of the species' dependency on freshwater habitats. Pink
                  salmon may be more easily supplemented that other species because they are
                  efficient colonizers of new habitats (Beacham et al. 1985), possess a relatively
                  uniform or "unspecialized" genetic structure (Ryman 1983; Utter et al. 1980;
                  Altukhov and Salmenkova 1987), and do not require extensive freshwater
                  rearing. Because they migrate to the ocean soon after emergence, pink salmon
                  would presumably receive minimal exposure to selection in the hatchery over
                  time. Following similar reasoning, "ocean type" populations of chinook salmon,
                  defined as those producing subyearling smolts (Gilbert 1913; Healey 1983),
                  may be more tolerant to artificial propagation than would "stream type"
                  (yearling and older smolts) chinooks. Interior stocks of anadromous salmonids
                  may be more uniquely adapted to their respective drainages than are coastal
                  populations due to a tendency for smolting age to increase with shorter and
                  colder growing seasons (Beacham et al. 1989).

                  Size of Stock

                     The number of spawners used to propagate hatchery stocks for
                  supplementation purposes should be maintained at levels that ensure that most
                  of the genetic variability is passed from one generation to the next (Wilkins
                  1981). If appreciable amounts of genetic diversity are lost then the viability of
                  the hatchery stock may decline, wild stock adaptability may be impaired, and
                  supplementation goals may be thwarted. These predictions are based on
                  studies which show that even minimal losses of genetic variability can result in
                  lower survival and productivity (Kincaid 1983; Allendorf and Ryman 1987).

                     All finite populations, hatchery and natural, experience some genetic drift
                  (the direction of change is random but may include permanent losses of rare
                  alleles) due to natural genetic processes that occur in each generation. The
                  potential for unwanted genetic change increases whenever too few or too


                                                          17









             closely related individuals are chosen for breeding. Genetic material can be
             replenished only through mutation or infusions of fish from outside the
             hatchery.

                The rate at which genetic variability is lost in a hatchery stock depends on
             the number, relative reproductive contribution, and genetic similarity of
             individuals used for breeding purposes. The proportion of fish that are
             heterozygous (having two different alleles at the same locus), within a
             population of size N decreases at the rate of 1 - (11 /2N) in each generation,
             assuming that each individual spawns successfully. For example, where a large
             number (100 or more) of individuals are randomly mated, a reduction of less
             than 0.5% of the original genetic variation is expected after one generation
             (Figure 1). All else being equal, no more than 5% of the heterozygosity will be
             lost in large populations after 10 generations. When 10 fish are used as
             broodstock, 5% of the initial heterozygosity is lost in the first generation alone,
             and 40% is lost after 10 generations.

                Loss of genetic variability is also reflected by the reduction in the mean
             number of alleles per locus, expressed as a percentage of the alleles originally
             present (allelic diversity; Denniston 1977). The number of alleles expected to
             be retained by loci with varying numbers of alleles is a function of breeding
             population size (Figure 2). The potential reduction in allelic diversity is most
             dramatic (up to 50%) at moderately polymorphic loci when the number of
             breeding individuals is small.

                Several authors have noted that genetic diversity is low in salmonids
             (Ryman 1983; Allendorf and Ryman 1987; Davidson et al. 1989). Examples of
             reductions in genetic variability within hatchery stocks, ranging to 20-30%
             below wild stock levels, are common for non-anadromous salmonid species and
             Atlantic salmon (Table 3). We found few cases of reduced levels of genetic
             variability among hatchery stocks of Pacific salmon and steelhead trout.
             Busack et al. 0 979) and Thompson (11985) observed levels of genetic variation
             in hatchery stocks of cutthroat and rainbow trout that were in some cases
             greater than that present in wild stocks.

               Because not all fish within a stock have equal reproductive capacities, the
             effective population size (Ne - the number of successfully reproducing adults)
             rather than the total population size actually determines how much genetic
             variation is lost from one generation to the next. Age, fecundity, fertility, sex,
             and the degree and magnitude of environmental "accidents" (including those
             perpetrated by man) affect the reproductive contribution of each individual
             relative to other fish in the stock.

               An example of a reduction in the effective population size of a hatchery stock
             attributed to spawning technique was given by Gharrett and Shirley (11985).
             Milt from adult male pink salmon spawned under identical conditions varied
             substantially in its ability to fertilize eggs, the most plausible explanation being
             unequal states of maturation among the male subjects. For this reason, the
             common practice of simultaneously adding the milt of several males to the @eggs
             of a single female cannot be expected to yield progeny with genotypes
             proportional to the ratio of males to females used. For species like chinook
             salmon and steelhead trout, where large numbers of spawners are frequently
             unavailable, the best insurance against unequal potencies among spawners is
             to fertilize the eggs of each


                                                      18









          Ne= 1000
      100 ---- 0.
             N =100
      go- Ne = 50
      (D
      Z8()- Ne=1
      Z   e=5
      <70-

      Ld 60-N2
      Q@e Ne=3
      W50-
      U
      Z40-

      30-

      020- Ne=1

      10-



        It 'r-,TIIIII
        2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
        GENERATION
   Figure 1. Rate of loss of genetic variance (heterozygosity) per generation as a
   function of effective population size. Taken from Me.ffe (1986).







      0.8-


             10




      A


      0.4 -

             4

      Q2 -   2



        5 10 Is  20 25


          0



   Figure 2. Proportion of allelic diversity (A) remaining following a single
   generation bottleneck in population size of 2, 4, 10, and 25 individuals. Initial
   allelic frequencies are assumed to be equal. Modified from Allendorf and
           0


       @Z@@@2
             5






             0








             4













   Ryman (11987).




           19












                      Table 3. A summary of findings from studies which evaluated changes in genetic variability within hatchery populations
                      of anedromous salmonids. Taken in part from Table S. 1 Allendorf and Ryman (1987).



                            Species                Genetic Attributes                                                                      References



                            Coho                   Although statistically insignificant, the mean                                          Wehrhahn and
                            salmon                 heterozygosity of fish from Capilano Hatchery                                           PowellO 987).
                                                   was 2.7 times greater than that of wild stocks
                                                   from nearby coastal mainland streams of southern
                                                   British Columbia.


                            Chinook                The mean haterozygosity and allelic diversity                                           Utter at al.
                            salmon                 between 7 hatchery and 6 wild stocks from the                                           (1989).
                                                   Oregon coast were not significantly different.


                            Atlantic               Haterozygosity and allelic diversity were reduced                                       Cross and
                                                                                                                                           King (1983)
                            salmon                 in a hatchery population five generations removed
                                                   from the wild (western Ireland).


                                                   In eastern Canada, mean haterozygosity and                                              Verspoor
                                                   allelic diversity averaged 26% and 12%, respec-                                         (1988).
                                                   tively, lower in fi rst-gans ration hatchery
                                                   smolts than in wild stocks.


                                                   Hatchery stocks exhibited 20% lower levels of                                           Stahl (1983;
                                                   genetic variability than natural populations                                            1987).
                                                   from the Baltic Son.


                                                   Mean heterozygosity was not reduced in a hatchery                                       Crozier and
                                                   stock in Northern Ireland.                                                              Moff Ott
                                                                                                                                           (1989).


                            Rainbow                Inbreeding was suspected as a cause of a reduc-                                         Allendorf and
                            trout                  tion in genetic variation.                                                              Utter (1979).


                                                   Higher levels of mean heterozygosity were                                               Thompson
                                                   observed in several hatchery stocks compared to                                         (1985).
                                                   wild stocks.


                                                   Little loss of genetic variability in two                                               Berg and Gall
                                                   hatchery populations was observed.                                                      (1988).


                            Cutthroat              Hatchery stock retained about 80% of the mean                                           Allendorf and
                            trout                  haterozygosity of the wild founder stock.                                               Phelps
                                                                                                                                           (1980).


                                                   Number of polymorphic loci, allelic diversity,                                          Leary at al.
                                                   and average haterozygosity were reduced by 57%.                                         (1985).
                                                   29%, and 21 %, respectively.






                                                                                        20













                           Table 3. (continued)




                                Species               Genetic Attributes                                                                 References


                                Brown                 Proportion of polymorphic loci reduced by up                                       Ryman and
                                trout                 to 50%.                                                                            Stahl
                                                                                                                                         (1980; 1981).


                                                      Mean heterozygosity reduced by 33%.                                                Vuorinen
                                                                                                                                           (1984)


                                                      Mitochondrial DNA heterozygosity in Swedish                                        Gyllensten
                                                      hatchery stocks was 25% of the variability of                                      and Wilson
                                                      natural stocks.                                                                    (1987)



                           female with the milt from a single male, each fish being used just once.

                                Effective population sizes that have been recommended to maintain genetic
                           diversity vary widely (Ryman and Stahl 1980; Allendorf and Phelps 1980;
                           Hynes et al. 1981; Kreuger et al. 1981; Allendorf and Ryman 1987;
                           Kapuscinski and Jacobson 1987); the minimum acceptable value probably
                           depends on the environment and the reproductive biology of the species
                           (Simon et al. 1986). Theory (Allendorf and Ryman 1987) and empirical
                           (Verspoor 1988) evidence suggests that little (< 1 %) genetic variability will be
                           lost in most salmonid species if Ne of the founding population is > 50.
                           Conservative Ne values recommended by two groups of fish population
                           geneticists are higher: Kapuscinski and Jacobson (1987) suggest 100 fish,
                           whereas Allendorf and Ryman (1987) recommend 200 individuals, split evenly
                           by sex, as a lower population bound for hatchery stocks that are used to
                           supplement wild stocks.

                              Reductions in Ne among wild or hybridized hatchery and wild stocks may
                           derive from individual variation in breeding success and decreases in total
                           population size. Effective population sizes are less than the observed number
                           of spawners whenever the sex ratio is unbalanced. However, straying, multiple
                           age spawning, polygamy, and overlapping generations among wild stocks tend
                           to maintain Ne and genetic diversity'at higher levels than would be possible for
                           isolated populations made up of monogamous spawners of uniform age (Helle
                           1981; Gall 1983; Simon et al. 1986).

                                Wehrhahn and Powell 0 987) and Winans 0 989)'speculated that the low
                           levels of genetic diversity which they measured within present day wild stocks
                           of coho salmon in British Columbia and chinook salmon in the Snake River
                           drainage resulted from historical population bottlenecks. Plausible explanations
                           included natural and man-caused reductions in effective population sizes.

                           Selection

                                Selective breeding is frequently used in aquaculture to increase the
                           incidence of one or more desired traits in the hatchery stock (Hynes et al.
                           1981). Directional or intentional selection may, through the elimination of
                           specific alleles and genotypes, alter the existing genetic composition and lower


                                                                                        21









              genetic diversity. For reasons stated above, the gene pool of wild stocks can
              be altered if they hybridize with genetically distinct or impoverished hatchery
              fish.

                 Salmonid fishes have several characteristics that facilitate artificial selection
              in hatcheries: external fertilization, high fecundity, high fertility, short
              generation interval, ease of hybridization, moderately high heritability for some
              important traits, and large phenotypic variability (Wilkins 1981; Kincaid and
              Berry 1986; Parker 1986). These qualities, exploited under diverse aquaculture
              programs, have resulted in the development of a large number of hatchery
              strains (Busack and Gall 1980; Kincaid 1983). Strain-specific differences have
              been documented for several traits, including, but not limited to, egg size and
              number, growth rate, body composition, and feed conversion (Kincaid and
              Berry 1986).

                Genetic protocols and objectives associated with supplementation using
              anadromous salmonids differ from conventional fish farming techniques applied
              to captive stocks of non-anadromous salmonids (Allendorf and Ryman 1987).
              Management goals, rearing and breeding strategies, and criteria used to gauge
              the success of the two programs, the one emphasizing ecosystem integrity and
              the other production within a closed artificial system, are largely incompatible.
              Kapuscinski and Jacobson (1987) and others (Calaprice 1969; Simon 1970;
              Purdom 1972) review culture techniques such as selective breeding,
              development of inbred lines (i.e., the intentional reduction of heterozygosity),
              and heterosis (hybrid vigor due to overdominance and heterozygosity at many
              loci) that have been used to improve the production traits of fish used primarily
              for aquaculture purposes. Hynes et al. (1981), Simon (1986), Kapuscinski and
              Jacobson (1987), and Kapuscinski and Philipp (1988) have summarized key
              issues that are relevant to the design and implementation of artificial selection
              programs. The general impression imparted by these authors is that selective
              breeding will eventually become an effective and important tool in
              supplementation efforts, although as recently as 1987 it was the opinion of
              Allendorf et al. (1987; p. 19) that "...genetic conservation and (intentional and
              inadvertent) selection cannot be achieved simultaneously..." To give but one
              example: selective breeding for increased survival of hatchery coho salmon may
              have inadvertently contributed to an overall decline in stock fitness (McIntyre et
              al. 1988).

                 More information is needed of life history, ecological, and genetic
              characteristics and interactions of hatchery and wild stocks before artificial
              selection can be safely and effectively used in supplementation programs.
              Kapuscinski and Philipp (1988) recommend a conservative approach involving
              manipulation of no more than a few traits, adherence to procedures which
              maximize genetic diversity, and careful monitoring and evaluation of post-
              selection effects.

                 Recently developed genetic engineering techniques appear to hold promise
              as a means of bestowing desirable traits, such as disease resistance or faster
              growth, on hatchery stocks (Kapuscinski and Jacobson 1987). Although the
              relative merits and demerits of gene transfers are still unclear (relatively few
              structural genes have actually been transferred), genetic engineering may
              eventually prove useful in supplementation programs (Davidson et al. 1989).
              Potential impacts associated with the introduction of transgenic fish are
              discussed by Kapuscinski and Hallerman (1990).


                                                    22









                     A certain amount of unintentional selection is unavoidable in all fish rearing
                  operations, including programs and facilities used for supplementation (Hynes
                  et al. 1981)(Table 4). There is evidence that many of the observed changes
                  are maladaptive in a natural environment. Selection for early run timing of
                  returning hatchery spawners is a frequently cited example (Ayerst 1977;
                  Rosentreter 1977; Smoker 1985; Reisenbichler 1986a; Lbider et al. 1986).
                  Hatchery managers frequently select for early sexual maturation by taking fish
                  from the early portion of the returning run of adults. There are practical
                  benefits to advancing the time of spawning and incubation in the hatchery:
                  adult mortalities are decreased by reducing the time they are held prior to
                  spawning, more time is available to grow fish before they are released on a
                  fixed date or, alternatively, fish can be reared to acceptable sizes for release
                  earlier in the season (Zaugg et al. 1986; Reisenbichler 1986a).

                     However, selection for early spawning can have unwelcome results when
                  hatchery fish attempt to spawn naturally. Early spawners may encounter
                  temperature and flow conditions that adversely affect intragravel and post-
                  emergence survival (Cederholm 1984) and they may out compete later
                  emerging wild fish (Chandler and Bjornn 1988).

                     Genes coding for traits selected for in the hatchery environment may be part
                  of larger coadapted gene complexes (Dobzhansky 1970). Selection may
                  disrupt these systems, leading to reduced genetic variance and population
                  fitness (Strickberger 1976; Reisenbichler 1984, 1986b; Chilcote et al. 1986).
                  This type of genetic disturbance, as yet undocumented in hatchery stocks,
                  .merits future research.

                  Inbreeding

                     Inbreeding occurs when spawning pairs of fish are more closely related to
                  each other than to other individuals in the population (Gall 1987). A potential
                  cause of loss of genetic variability at both the individual and population level,
                  inbreeding is promoted by directional and unintentional selection and the use of
                  small numbers of fish to establish and perpetuate the hatchery stock. Gall
                  (1987) provides an excellent discussion of the theory of inbreeding as it applies
                  to hatchery management.

                     Although inbreeding has long been recognized as a potential problem in
                  hatcheries, only recently have studies documented its negative effects on
                  salmonid stocks (Ryman and Stahl 1980; Allendorf and Phelps 1980; Gall
                  1983). Kincaid (1983) reviewed a number of studies in which inbreeding
                  depression, defined as an increase in the percentage of individuals that are
                  homozygotes for recessive deleterious alleles, had a detrimental effect on
                  fitness measures such as survival, reproductive capacity, physiological
                  efficiency, and the occurrence of deformities in hatchery stocks. However,
                  there is little evidence of extensive inbreeding depression among hatchery
                  stocks of Pacific salmon used for supplementation. Likewise, an infusion of
                  deleterious alleles into wild stocks via supplementation has not been
                  demonstrated.

                    A positive aspect of artificial propagation of hatchery stocks is that problems
                  associated with selection, inbreeding, and loss. of genetic variation can often be
                  remedied through careful management. New broodstock can be obtained,
                  hatchery operations altered, and objectionable selective forces alleviated to


                                                         23









              Table 4. Phenotypic traits that were purportedly altered by inadvertent
              selection in the hatchery.


              Trait                                      References


              Body morphology                            Fleming and Gross (1989).

              Deformities                                Aulstad and Kittlesen (1971);
                                                         Kincaid (1976, 1983).

              Secondary sexual characters                Fleming and Gross (1989).

              Sex ratio                                  Altukhov 1981; Doyle (1983).

              Age at maturation                          Rosentreter (1977); Fraser (1981).

              Spawning timing                            Millenbach (1973); Hjort and
                and duration                             Schreck 0 982); Nickelson et al.
                                                         (1986); Rosentreter (1977);
                                                         Leider et al. 0 986).

              Repeat spawning                            Rosentreter 0 977); Leider et al.
                                                         (1986).

              Reproduction (fecundity,                   Aulstad et al. (1972); Fleming and
                egg size, etc.)                          Gross 1989; Gall and Gross (1978);
                                                         Kincaid 1976, 1983.

              Physiology (temperature                    Greene (1952); Vincent (1960);
                tolerance; stamina, etc.)                Hynes et al. (1981).

              Stress resistance                          Vincent 0 960), Barton et al.
                                                         (1986); Woodward and Schreck
                                                         (1987).

              Behavior (docility,                        Vincent (1960); Moyle (1969);
                habitat preference, etc.)                Doyle and Talbot (1986).

              Catchability                               Flick and Webster 0 962).

              Growth                                     Webster and Flick (1964; 1975, 1976);
                                                         Reisenbichler and McIntyre (1977);
                                                         Gjerde 1983; Kincaid (1976, 1983).

              Survival                                   Greene (1952); Gall (1969); Aulstad
                                                         and Kittlesen (1971); Flick and
                                                         Webster 0 976); Reisenbichler and
                                                         McIntyre 0 977); Chilcote et al. (198 1);
                                                         Hynes et al. (1981); Ryman (1982);
                                                         Kincaid (1976, 1983); Gjerde (1983).




                                                          24









                  produce the desired effect in a relatively brief period of time, owing to the short
                  life cycle and high reproductive rate of the species.

                  Genetic Impacts on Wild Fish

                     The genetic impacts of superimposing hatchery fish on natural runs can be
                  detrimental, benign, or beneficial. Because few studies have measured the
                  long-term genetic response of wild stocks to supplementation, there exists
                  more conjecture than fact on this subject. Negative consequences tend to be
                  stressed in the scientific literature; the disruption of adaptive genes or gene
                  combinations (coadapted systems; Reisenbichler 1984, 1986b; Chilcote et al.
                  1986; Taggart and Ferguson 1986), genetic homogenization caused by the
                  swamping of native gene pools (Temple 1978; Utter et al. 1989; Hindar et al.
                  in press), and interspecific hybridization (Behnke 1972; Busack and Gall 1981;
                  Leary et al. 1984; Allendorf and Leary 1988). Genetic risks to wild stocks
                  increase whenever nonadaptive traits are selected in the hatchery stock, or
                  genetic variation within the hatchery stock is small relative to the wild stock
                  (Lannan and Kapuscinski 1984). The extent to which wild stocks are affected
                  depends on the level of genetic dissimilarity, the reproductive contribution of
                  hatchery and wild fish, the amount of interbreeding, and the relative fitness of
                  progeny. Hatchery fish not only are @capable of influencing genetic structure
                  through interbreeding, they are also likely to effect genetic change through
                  their interaction with the ecosystem, especially as competitors and predators
                  Kreuger and Menzel 1979).

                     Obviously, the introduction of hatchery-produced individuals carrying
                  maladapted genes is not a productive supplementation strategy. The potential
                  for unwanted genetic impacts increases when non-local stocks are used to
                  establish and maintain hatchery stocks. Even small differences in adaptive
                  traits may cause problems if significant interbreeding occurs. For example,
                  Bams (11976) found that the accuracy of return by adult pink salmon to native
                  tributaries was greatest among progeny of resident wild fish, intermediate
                  among progeny created by crossing non-native and resident fish, and least
                  among offspring of non-native stock. Unpredictable migrational responses,
                  including straying, among hatchery fish not only undermines efforts to
                  supplement wild stocks but may also affect the productivity of non-targeted
                  stocks in nearby rivers (Calaprice 1969; Ricker 1972; Barns 1976).

                     Wohlfarth (1986) reviewed six studies in wh    ich researchers evaluated the
                  relative performance of hatchery, wild, and hybrid (hatchery x wild) salmonids.
                  Performance data from these studies and one by Mason et al. (1967) are
                  summarized in Table 5. Hybrid progeny of nonanadromous cutthroat and brook
                  trout had greater viability, in terms of better survival, faster growth, or both
                  relative to purebred hatchery and wild stocks. In most cases the performance
                  of pure strain hatchery fish was worse than that of hybrid and wild fish (Mason
                  et al. 1967).

                     The two studies reviewed by Wohlfarth (1986) which involved anadromous
                  species give a clear impression that the long term fitness of interspecific
                  hybrids may be less than that of purebred wild fish. Reisenbichler and
                  McIntyre (1977) demonstrated significantly greater survival among offspring of
                  wild steelhead trout compared with hatchery x wild progeny stocked in natural
                  streams. Barns (11976) did not observe any survival advantage of native pink
                  salmon over progeny created by mating fish from separate wild stocks, but


                                                           25









             Table 5. A summary of seven studies which evaluated the relative performance of hatchery, wild and hybrid salmonids (from
             Woh1farth 1986).



                                                            Cutthroat trout (Donaldson et al. 1957)

             Background: Parental strain and reciprocal (F - female, M - male) crossbreds of age-0 hatchery (H) and wild (W) cutthroat trout
             were stocked into Lake Whatcom, Washington. Mean weight and the numbers of fish caught on opening day of the fishing
             season were measured over the next two years.

                                                      Individual weight (Q)                         Percent caught
                                   Number             Initial
             Stock                 stocked            (Age 0)        AQe 1        Age 2             Age 1       Age 2


             HFxHM                 3006                 5.2          98.4         289.3             1.0         0.3
             HFxWM                 2213                 5.4          79.2         256.0             5.6         0.9
             WF x HM               4802                 5.2          88.5         338.3             6.2         0.4
             WF x WM               5890                 3.5          66.2         321.3             1.7         0.8


                                                                 Brook trout (Mason et al. 1967)

             Background: A comparison was made of the survival, growth and harvest of age-0 brook trout progeny of hatchery, wild, and
             reciprocal (F = female, M = male) hatchery x wild matings that were stocked into five Wisconsin streams. Sources of stock: H
             = Osceola hatchery; W-L = hatchery-reared progeny of wild Lawrence Creek stock; W-R = naturally produced progeny of wild
             Big Roche-a-Cri stock.

                                                 Percent survival                          Mean length (in.)
                                                                                                                                Percentage
                                       1 year after           2 years after        At time                1 year after          caught by
             Stock                     stocking               stocking             of stocking              stocking             an-glers


             H                           38.0                    0.4                    5.6                  9.6                  21.0
             HFxWM                       40.0                    2.6                    5.1                  8.6                  15.1
             HMxWF                       29.9                    4.5                    4.6                  8.5                   -
             W-L                         25.3                    9.8                    3.6                  7.3                   4.9
             W-R                         54.8                    10.8                   3.3                  6.7                   6.9










             Table 5. (continued)


                                                              Brook trout (Flick and Webster 1976)

             Background: The survival and growth of purebred stocks of hatchery (New York strain) and wild (Assinica and Temiscamie
             strains) brook trout stocked at age-O into Bay Pond, New York, was compared against the performance of progeny from a HF x
             WM (Assinica) mating.

                                                    Number caught (Mean weight/fish in grams)

                                                                        Age in years

                               Number                                                                                             Total Number
             Stock             stocked              1                 2                 3                 4                  5      caught 0/6)


             HNY                2995             2   (77)                              58(349)            4(422)           -       -     64 (2.1)
             HNY x WA           3050             7(136)             242(572)          38(803)            13(826)           26(844)      326 (10.7)
             WA                 3126                                 31 (354)           8(603)           12(826)             8(640)      59 (1.9)
             WT                 1351             2(122)              30(367)            4(626)            8(640)             5(644)      42 (3.1)



                                                              Brook trout (Webster and Flick    1981)

             Background: Growth and survival was estimated for pure hatchery (Cortland stock), pure wild (Assinica, Honnedaga, Long Island
             Pond, 'and Temiscamie stocks) and hybrid (four wild x hatchery crossbreds) age-O brook trout stocked into Laramie Pond, Now
             York. We report weighted means for percent survival, instantaneous growth rate (= In(weight at recovery - In(weight at
             stocking))/number of days), and R/S        total weight recovered/total weight stocked).

                                           Total                                         Instantaneous
                                           number                 Percent                 growth                 Mean
             Stock                         stocked                survival                rate                   R/S

             Hatchery                         750                   41.3                  13.5                   1.6
             Hatchery x Wild                 1895                   68.1                  16.2                   3.0
             Wild                            1747                   52.2                  17.0                   2.5










            Table 5. (continued)
                                                                       Brook trout (Fraser 198 1)

            Background: Growth and survival was estimated for pure hatchery (HH = Hill's Lake stock), pure wild (WN = Nippigon; WD
            Dickson) and hybrid (HH x WN; HH x WD; and WN x WD crossbreds) brook trout stocked into nine lakes in Algonquin Park,
            Ontario. We report weighted means for percent survival, instantaneous growth rate (= In(weight at recovery - In(weight at
            stocking)) /number of days), and R/S          total weight recovered/total weight stocked).
                                             Total                                          Instantaneous
                                             number                  Percent                  Growth                  Mean
            Stock                            stocked                  recovery                rate                    Bi-S

            H                                636                       4.5                    10.6                    0.9
            H x WN                           264                       7.4                    16.3                    8.0
            H x WD                           217                       7.2                    13.4                    2.1
            WN                                 63                      3.4                    12.7                    1.1
            WD                               134                      11.8                    14.4                    6.4
            WN x WD                            46                      9.9                    15.8                    9.9

                                                         Steelhead trout (Reisenbichler and McIntyre 1977)
    Co
            Background: Measured relative performance of hatchery, hybrid, and wild steelhead trout stocked as embryos and swim-up fry in
            a hatchery pond and in four tributaries of Deschutes River, Oregon. H = hatchery fish were progeny of wild steelhead captured
            in the Deschutes River and reared in a hatchery; W            wild Deschutes River steelhead.
                                                                                                                                            Mean length
                                             Total number                    Percent                         Percent                         of final
                                             stocked                         survival                       recovered                        samr)lg (mm)
                            Life
            Stock           stage            Stream          Pond,           Stream           Pond            Stream         Pond             Stream Pond

            H               Egg              24000            -              78.4             -               2.9             -               62            -
                            Fry              7500            6000             -               -               5.5            3.3              63          60

            HxW             Egg              24000            -              79.5             -               3.3             -               62            -
                            Fry              7500            6000             -               -               5.6            2.6              65          56

            W               Egg              24000            -              86.1             -               3.7             -               62            -
                            Fry              7500            6000             -               -               7.2            2.4              63          56










           Table 5. (continued)
                                                           Pink salmon (Bams 1976)

           Background: Measured relative performance of purebred donor (wild Kakweiken River stock) and donor x natal (wild Tsolum River
           stock) pink salmon released into the Tsolum River. A = green to eyed egg stage, B = eyed egg to fry emergence.

                                       Percent survival                                 Total number recovered


                                                                      Number
                                     Green to        Eyed egg        marked and
           Stock                     eyed egg        to swim-up       released          Offshore        Rivers

           Donor                      72.0            96.2            109658             205            45

           Donor x natal              84.2            96.3            124792             247            236






    Co









              suggested that the lower homing accuracy of the hybrid salmon was indicative
              of a reduction in overall fitness.

                Wolhfarth (1986), however, chose to discount this evidence and concluded,
              as Moav et al. (1978) had previously, that heterosis (hybrid vigor) confers
              distinct advantages in performance in the natural environment among first
              generation interstrain crossbreds. These authors envision a continual
              "upgrading" of the genetic resources of wild stocks through repeated
              introductions of nonendemic hatchery fish in subsequent generations.

                Kapuscinski and Philipp (1988) concluded that more study of the long-term
              genetic effects of supplementation is needed before contemplating such a
              strategy. One approach would be to label hatchery fish with one or more
              genetic marks and then monitor marker frequencies in subsequent generations.
              It is dangerous to infer significant changes in individual and stock fitness from
              measurements of survival or reproductive success made over brief time
              intervals. The assumption that maximizing short-term growth, survival, or
              reproductive success is equivalent to maximizing the long-term viability of the
              stock may be untenable since additional factors are probably involved on an
              evolutionary time scale.

                We were unable to locate any published studies in which the fitness of
              progeny of hatchery x wild matings was measured over multiple generations
              and compared with the fitness of the original hatchery and wild parental
              stocks. Chilcote et al. (11986) presented evidence that the survival to smolt age
              of naturally spawned progeny of hatchery steelhead trout was approximately
              28% that of offspring from wild spawners. Krueger and Menzel (1979) and
              Wishard et al. (1984) also documented poor reproductive success among
              nonanadromous hatchery brook trout and rainbow trout.

                The belief that native fish are always genetically superior to hatchery stocks
              has been disputed (Kapuscinski and Lannan 1984). Many stocks of wild fish
              have been subjected to intense selection triggered by recent environmental
              changes. Some fisheries geneticists (J. Lannan, pers. comm) contend that
              fishing, habitat alteration, pollution and other environmental factors may pose a
              greater threat to the genetic integrity and persistence of wild stocks than do
              current supplementation practices. Large hatchery stocks may be more
              capable than small wild stocks of adapting to major environmental changes
              such as reduced flows at critical migration periods, pollution, or altered
              community structure.

                Gene flow from a hatchery stock might have beneficial consequences when
              the wild stock has become so small that it has lost or is threatened with the
              loss of genetic variation through inbreeding, genetic drift, etc. Under these
              circumstances, hybridization of genetically divergent hatchery and local stocks
              may constitute the best management option. A potential drawback: genetic
              diversity is promoted at the stock level, but is lost at the species level. To
              quote Nelson and Soule (11987), "the effect of gene exchange between
              subpopulations is to increase the variance within groups, decrease the variance
              between groups, and decrease the total variance."

                It is debatable whether genetic losses can be reversed once supplementation
              is stopped and natural production is restored to adequate levels. High
              reproductive rates potentially lead to a greater absolute number of mutations


                                                      30









                 and recombinations within the population. This, in concert with gene flow,
                 would theoretically provide favorable alleles which can be selected for and
                 spread through the  .population, thus restoring genetic variability (Lovejoy
                 1977). However, recent evidence suggests that mutations occur and spread
                 very slowly through salmonid populations (Chakraborty and Leimar 1987;
                 Davidson et al. 1989).

                    An important question, as yet unanswered, concerns the rate and extent to
                 which fish of hatchery origin naturalize, that is, develop a level of adaptation to
                 local conditions approaching that of the wild stock. Krueger and May (1987)
                 noted that nonindigenous brown trout stocked in Lake Superior tributaries in
                 the early 1900s have segregated into genetically distinct stocks within 80
                 years. Riggs (1986),argued that naturalization is a complex process which
                 proceeds at variable rates depending on the selective agents and the genetic,
                 characteristics of the traits involved. The continual infusion of hatchery fish
                 into the breeding structure of a wild stock may further complicate and hinder
                 the process of naturalization. Until more empirical evidence is obtained
                 (through carefully controlled studies in confined ecological settings), a
                 conservative tack should be taken, to include maintaining acceptable population
                 sizes, avoiding unnatural selection, and preserving the genetic purity of wild,
                 stocks.

                    Given the potential for genetic destabilization within hatchery stocks and
                 hybridization between hatchery and wild stocks, why isn't there more
                 conclusive evidence of genetic damage among wild stocks that is directly
                 attributable to supplementation? Example's exist of gene flow from hatchery to
                 wild stocks (e.g.,. Campton and Johnston 1985; Taggart and Ferguson 1986;
                 Altukhov and Salmenkova 1987; Gyllensten and Wilson 1987) and of genetic
                 swamping through interspecific hybridization (Behnke 1972; Allendorf and
                 Leary 1988), but these results do not provide compelling evidence of genetic
                 harm. More disturbing are the few known cases where hatchery introductions
                 are thought to have caused the effacement of native gene pools at the
                 intraspecific level (Altukhov 1981; Campton and Johnston 1985; Gyllensten
                 and Wilson 1987; Allendorf and Leary 1988). Nonetheless, referring to the
                 impact of hatchery-produced chinook salmon on wild stocks in the Columbia
                 River, Utter et al. (1989)'remarked that "hatchery populations established from
                 (and still reflecting) exotic origins have not noticeably perturbed the allelic
                 distributions of adjacent populations having indigenous origins."

                    There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that wild stocks have genetically
                 benefitted from supplementation. We speculate as to why more definitive
                 evidence of genetic impact - good or bad - has not been obtained:

                    - Genetic differences between many hatchery and wild stocks may in
                       fact be small; hatchery practices may not have appreciably altered
                       historic genetic compositions in the comparatively short time that
                       anadromous salmon and trout have been cultured,

                    - The extent of genetic differences and subsequent introgression has
                       not been assessed or cannot be discerned using available
                       technology,





                                                         31









                - Hypothesized cause-and-effect relationships involving genetic
                  changes and stock viability have not been subjected to rigorous
                  experimentation,

                - The effects of gene flow cannot be distinguished from changes
                  prompted by natural selection or genetic drift,

                - Interbreeding and gene flow may not be extensive owing to poor
                  survival of hatchery fish, strong and rapid selection against unfit
                  genotypes, and genetic and life history mechanisms that help to
                  buffer the wild genome against deleterious change.



             Environmental Effects

                We consider the effects of various environmental factors on genetic
             resources because supplementation is often used or proposed as mitigation for
             production losses resulting from a variety of causes, and because these causes
             continue to influence the demographic and genetic characteristics of stocks.
             The need for supplementation in the Columbia River basin has arisen because
             of increased mortality rates from overfishing, habitat alteration, and changes in
             the biotic community.

                Wild stocks are at greater risk of genetic harm when subjected to
             environmental stress because more hatchery fish are produced that can interact
             with wild fish to compensate for the higher mortality rates in the wild stocks.
             If wild spawners breed with and are greatly outnumbered by spawners of
             hatchery origin, genetic instability and degradation may ensue. The results of
             supplemental stocking, even if hatchery fish are genetically equivalent to the
             native stock, may remain unsatisfactory unless the factors responsible for the
             decline of wild fish are removed. Appropriately, Ryder et al. (1981) suggest
             that if supplementation efforts are to succeed, equal consideration must be
             given to restoring degraded ecosystems to some semblance of their former
             state.

                Environmental perturbation, if severe enough, can result in the partial or
             total reproductive failure of a stock, with corresponding genetic effect. Wild
             stocks are susceptible to overexploitation in multistock fisheries, especially
             when hatchery fish are abundant. If stocks are depleted to low levels, the loss
             of genetic variation becomes a major concern (Nelson and Soule 1987). Even
             moderate levels of exploitation may result in the selective loss of certain
             phenotypes and a concomitant genetic response (Ricker 1958, 1973, 1981;
             Larkin 1963; Paulik et al. 1967; Loftus 1976; Ferguson 1989). Traits most
             likely to be affected would be those most desirable to the fishery, such as rapid
             growth (large fish) and high catchability (Favro et al. 1979; Ricker 1982).
             When intense selection is applied over several generations, genetic variability
             within and between stocks can be expected to decline, potentially lowering the
             viability and commercial value of the affected stocks.







                                                      32










                  Recommendations

                     The genetic impacts of supplementation need to be carefully addressed in
                  fisheries management planning and policy. Management decisions should be
                  based on a consideration of the underlying stock structure of the species and
                  an assessment of the genetic risks of proposed actions. It is important that
                  information on life history, ecological, genetic, and exploitation parameters be
                  obtained before and after supplementation commences, even if this means
                  program delays or added costs. Gene flow between hatchery and wild stocks,
                  ecological interactions, and long-term impacts on natural production should be
                  evaluated (Kapuscinski and Philipp 1988).

                     Supplementation is a positive and viable strategy as long as it does not
                  compromise the genetic integrity of existing wild stocks. Supplementation can
                  play an important role in restoring and maintaining the genetic resources of wild
                  stocks. However, where healthy stocks of wild fish exist (including non-target
                  species), deliberation should be given to maintaining natural production with no
                  interference from hatchery fish. Native stocks should be preserved for their
                  genetic, cultural, and aesthetic value (Wagner 1979; Hankin 1981; Martin
                  1984). Wild stock genomes may be preserved through the establishment of
                  refuges (Helle 1981) - streams and lakes that are maintained in pristine
                  condition - and "egg bank" programs (Gjedrem 1981). Cryo- preservation of
                  newly fertilized eggs, while not yet technically feasible (Parsons and Thorgaard
                  1985), may someday offer a means of restocking rivers with indigenous strains
                  (Hindar et al. in press).

                     Several management approaches to avoiding deleterious genetic impacts
                  from supplementation programs have been proposed (Reisenbichler 1986b).
                  One is to minimize the opportunity for hatchery and wild fish to interbreed.
                  This may be accomplished by keeping the ratio of hatchery to wild spawners
                  small, by either scaling back hatchery production, increasing the harvest of
                  hatchery adults, or increasing wild stock escapement through harvest
                  regulation (Leider et al. 1986; Reisenbi*chler 1986a). Reproductive isolation can
                  also be promoted through the careful selection of release sites, the use of
                  sterile fish, and by artificially manipulating the time of spawning of hatchery
                  fish so that they do not reproduce at the same time as wild fish.

                     In cases where interbreeding between hatchery and wild fish is desired,
                  genetic disturbances can be minimized by starting the hatchery stock with
                  locally-adapted fish, by continually "refreshing" the hatchery stock with wild
                  genes, and by limiting maladaptive selection in the hatchery environment
                  (Meffe 1986; Reisenbichler 1986b). The hatchery environment and rearing
                  protocols can be made to ensure that the hatchery stock remains well adapted
                  to the natural environment. Semi-natural spawning and rearing channels have
                  proven useful in this regard.

                     Nonadaptive mating and rearing practices in the hatchery should be
                  minimized, even if some production is forgone. Guidelines for mating and
                  rearing hatchery salmonids consistent with the goals of supplementing wild
                  stocks and maintaining desirable genetic characters include (Kapuscinski and
                  Philipp 1988): (1) collecting as many wild spawners as is feasible and selecting
                  parental pairs that are phenotypically representative of the associated stock,
                  and (2) selecting a subsample of fertilized eggs for rearing and subsequent
                  outplanting. Subsampling should be random at each step, and a surplus of


                                                          33









            gametes or fish available relative to hatchery rearing space or outplanting
            program needs. Hatchery fish should be released at an early age at sizes and
            densities that are compatible with those of wild fish and the carrying capacity
            of the streams. It is important that hatchery practices which might promote
            straying are avoided.

                Kreuger et al. (1981) and-Kincaid (1983) have proposed random mating and
            systematic line crossing strategies for selecting and maintaining hatchery
            stocks to reduce the risk of inbreeding. Inbreeding can be ameliorated and
            genetic drift counteracted by maintaining large effective population sizes and
            by periodically adding eggs or sperm from wild donor stock. Allendorf and
            Ryman (1987) suggest as'a rule of thumb a 10% contribution of wild genes
            every second or third generation to introduce new alleles and to minimize
            adaptation to the hatchery.

                The development and propagation of a hatchery stock intended to
            supplement remnant (i.e., endangered or threatened) stocks of wild fish
            requires special considerations (Meffe 1986; Kapuscinski and Philipp 1988). It
            may not be possible to use fish from an endangered population as source stock
            without causing unacceptable reductions in population size and genetic
            variation. Closely related stocks or, failing that, fish having similar life history
            requirements should be used to rebuild severely depleted stocks. Populations
            with high genetic diversity are preferred as donors. Hybridization with the
            indigenous stock should initially be carefully controlled so that the hybrid line
            can be terminated if results are unsatisfactory. Meffe (1986) provides several
            recommendations for managing the long-term genetic resources of endangered
            species (Table 6).

                In cases of local extinctions and severely altered habitat, Krueger et al.
            (1981) suggest crossbreeding fish from a large number of local stocks to create
            a single hatchery strain. This strategy would theoretically produce highly
            diverse genotypes among the progeny, some of which should be successful
            when stocked in the new environment. Marsden et al. (1989) describe a
            restoration program for Lake Ontario lake trout populations which aims to
            maximize genetic variability through multi-strain stocking.

                Current thinking, however, holds that extensive outcrossing may disrupt
            coadapted genes that are optimally beneficial when collectively expressed
            under conditions to which they are adapted (Reisenbichler 1984, 1986b;
            Chilcote et al. 1986; Nelson and Soule 1987). There is a current need for more
            information on the role and pervasiveness of coadapted gene complexes in fish.
            Until such information is forthcoming, the development of hatchery stocks
            through the homogenization of discrete gene pools should probably be
            restricted to situations in which the between-stock component of the total
            genetic variation is significant (Allendorf et al. 1987) and where significant
            gene flow is not expected to occur between the stocked fish and wild
            populations (Krueger et al. 1981).








                                                   34









                 Table 6. Steps that can be taken to minimize adverse genetic impacts when
                 supplementing endangered wild stocks. Based in part on Table 1 of Meffe
                 (1986).



                     1. Monitor genetics of wild and hatchery stocks.

                     2. Maintain largest feasible effective population size in wild and
                                  hatchery stocks.
                            Effects:
                                  Reduces the loss of genetic variation.
                                  Reduces the loss of rare alleles.
                                  Reduces the potential for inbreeding.

                     3. Integrate wild spawners from supplemented stock into hatchery
                                  broodstock.

                     4. Avoid inbreeding through selective mating.

                     5. Supplement with non-smolt life history stages.
                            Eff ects:
                                  Reduces selection for hatchery adapted traits.
                                  Reduces hatchery conditioning (domestication).
                                  Minimizes chances of catastrophic loss of stocks.

                     6. Do not use hatchery stock to supplement genetically dissimilar wild
                                  stocks.
                            Effect:
                                  Maintain among-population genetic variability.




                                                Ecological Relations

                 Overview

                   Once released from the hatchery, salmonids may interact with their
                 environment in several ways. Biological interactions include competition,
                 predator-prey, parasite-host, and pathologic (disease) relations between
                 salmonids and other organisms. Environmental factors, especially those that
                 influence system productivity and habitat characteristics, may exert complex
                 and variable control over each of these processes. In reviewing the effects of
                 biotic and abiotic factors,on supplementation, we extracted information from a
                 variety of sources including observations reported for closely related
                 nonanadromous species.

                     At the intraspecific level, hatchery and wild fish may: (1) compete directly
                 for food and space during the freshwater rearing phase, (2) prey on one
                 another, (3) transmit diseases or parasites to one another, (4) alter migratory
                 responses, (5) vie for food resources during estuarine and marine phases, (6)
                 redirect and amplify predation or exploitation, and (7) influence spawning



                                                         35









              success through differences in reproductive behavior, timing, and genetic
              exchange.

                 Few studies have been explicitly designed to evaluate the effects of
              supplementation on the ecology of wild fish. In most studies, the post-release
              behavior, food habits, growth and survival of hatchery fish have been
              compared against the normal ecological attributes (as we understand them) of
              wild salmonids. Freshwater environments have received the most attention
              since fish living in streams, and to a lesser extent lakes, can be readily
              observed and because the juvenile life stage is sensitive to compensatory
              regulatory mechanisms that are amenable to study (Ricker 1954). Considerably
              less is known about competition and predation in saltwater.

                 Supplementation also affects interspecific relations. High densities of
              hatchery fish that are larger than the coexisting species may affect the
              competition for resources.

                 Supplementation may increase the intensity of predation on both hatchery
              and wild fish by stimulating aggregative, reproductive, or preferential feeding
              responses among non-human predators. The role of man-as-predator is an
              important one since differences in fishing mortality among hatchery and wild
              stocks will affect the outcome of supplementation. Concerns about the
              transmission of disease from hatchery to wild fish and vice versa have
              increased coincident with recent outbreaks of infectious diseases in
              anadromous fish hatcheries of the Pacific Northwest.

              Competition

                 Competition between individuals of one or more species ensues when the
              demand for a resource in the environment exceeds its actual or perceived
              availability (Larkin 1956). The potential for intra- and interspecific competition
              between hatchery and wild stocks depends on the degree of spatial and
              temporal overlap in resource demand and supply. Several authors reported that
              hatchery fish, especially those reared in the hatchery for several months, were
              less efficient than wild salmonids in exploiting and defending limiting resources,
              and therefore at a competitive disadvantage (Clady 1973; Butler 1975; Krueger
              and Menzel 1979; Reisenbichler and McIntyre 1977; Vincent 1972, 1975,
              1987; Petrosky and Bjornn 1988). Direct competition with wild conspecifics is
              often cited as a reason that hatchery fish exhibit reduced growth and survival
              in the wild. Conversely, it has been argued that hatchery fish have thrived in
              some areas because of reduced competition from declining numbers of wild fish
              (Campton and Johnston 1985; Seelbach and Whelan 1988), or because the
              hatchery fish had a size or prior residence -advantage (Chandler and Bjornn
              1988).

                 The capacity for hatchery fish to significantly alter the behavior, growth and
              survival of wild fish via competition remains a controversial subject.
              Supplementation can lower wild stock production if large numbers of hatchery
              fish are released (Snow 1974; Thuember 1975; Bjornn 1978; McMullin 1982;
              Vincent 1975, 1987; Nickelson et al. 1986; Kennedy and Strange 1986;
              Petrosky and Bjornn 1988).

                 We conclude from the available data that hatchery fish kept in the hatchery
              for extended periods before release as pre-smolts may have different food and


                                                      36









                  habitat preferenda than wild fish, that they will be unlikely to out compete wild
                  fish, and that post-release growth rates and survival will be low if the wild
                  stock is at or near carrying capacity in abundance. Hatchery fish put out as
                  eyed eggs or released as swim-up fry can compete successfully with wild fish,
                  with the outcome depending on the abundance and size of both the wild and
                  hatchery fish. Competition from hatchery fish released as smolts could be
                  minimal if the fish are truly smolts and they are released at the appropriate time
                  so that they migrate seaward without undue delay. Hatchery steelhead
                  released as "smoltsm that do not migrate to the sea, for whatever reason, can
                  pose a competition threat to wild fish. In some years, large numbers of
                  hatchery steelhead residualize but often have trouble adapting to life in a
                  stream; many die within months.

                  Dispersal

                     Point releases of hatchery-reared presmolts (eggs, fry and parr) and smolts
                  are a commonly used supplementation technique (Hume and Parkinson 1987).
                  Limited dispersal or emigration may result in excessive local densities of fish,
                  underseeded sections of stream between stocking sites, and poor smolting
                  success (Reisenbichler 1986a). Dispersal patterns of wild and hatchery fish are
                  often either the cause or the effect of competitive interactions.

                     Several factors affect the post-stocking movements of hatchery@fish
                  (Cresswell 1981; Murphy and Kelso 1986): (1) species or strain of fish
                  stocked, (2) physiological status (i.e., readiness to smolt), (3) age, size, and
                  numbers of fish stocked, (4) water quality and discharge conditions, (5) habitat
                  quality and quantity, (7) food availability, and (8) interactions with resident fish.
                  The influence of many of these variables on the dispersal and subsequent
                  distribution of hatchery fish is poorly understood.

                     Hatchery fish stocked as presmolts are expected to move into vacant areas
                  to rear. Rapid and uniform dispersal following release presumably eases
                  competitive pressures and optimizes natural production. Although wild fish
                  seem to disperse within a stream in response to density or habitat availability
                  (Gerking 1959), the rate and pattern of dispersal of hatchery fish from the point
                  of release in streams is highly variable. In an Idaho stream where steelhead
                  trout were stocked as eyed eggs and as buttoned-up fry, dispersion from
                  stocking sites during the summer increased with increasing stocking densities
                  (Bjornn 1978). Jenkins (1969) and Hesthagen (1988) reported a positive
                  relationship between the movement of stocked brown trout and densities of
                  wild fish. Large groups of hatchery-reared rainbow trout migrated faster and
                  further from the point of liberation than did smaller groups of fish (Jenkins
                  1971). Dispersal distance was not related to stocking density of hatchery-
                  reared steelhead trout fry released into Hastings Creek, British Columbia (Hume
                  and Parkinson 1987). Petrosky and Bjornn (1988) reported that the proportion
                  of smolt-size hatchery rainbow trout that dispersed from release sites in an
                  Idaho stream was not related to stocking levels.

                     Several environmental facto   'rs have been implicated in the movement of
                  stocked fish. Hatchery fish are more prone to disperse under conditions of high
                  or fluctuating flow (Brynildson 1967; Irvine 1986; Reisenbichler 1986a;
                  Heggenes 1988; Havey 1974), low turbidity (Sigler et al. 1984) and extreme
                  water temperatures (Cooper 1952; Bjornn 1978). Channel morphology and the
                  abundance of instrearn cover may influence the post-release movement,


                                                           37









              distribution, and density of hatchery presmolts. Bilby and Bisson (11987) cited
              the availability of pools and cover as being more important than trophic
              conditions in determining the number of hatchery coho salmon fry remaining in
              western Washington streams after stocking. Dispersal may be more
              pronounced and rapid in streams with poor habitat.

                 Several researchers have reported that, at least initially, hatchery presmolts
              do not disperse readily from the point of release. Hume and Parkinson (1987)
              found that most of the steelhead fry released into a coastal British Columbia
              stream did not move into nearby vacant areas. Seelbach (1987) and Hillman
              and Chapman (1989) reported limited movement of stocked hatchery steelhead
              juveniles. In an Idaho stream, most hatchery-reared spring chinook salmon
              moved less than 2 km downstream of the point of release (Richards and
              Cernera 1989). Limited dispersal has been observed in stocked Atlantic salmon
              (Egglishaw and Shackley 1980), steelhead trout (Hume and Parkinson 1987),
              anadromous brown trout (Mortensen 1977; Solomon and Templeton 1976),
              chum salmon (Shustov et al. 1980) and various non-anadromous species and
              strains (Bjornn and Mallet 1964; Clady 1973; Cresswell 1981; Helfrich and
              Kendall 1982).

                 A possible cause of the lack of movement of hatchery salmonids is the
              social conditioning they are subjected to at the hatchery. Hatchery fish may be
              insensitive to density-dependent migrational stimuli (Symons 1969). Release
              methods may also a play a role. For example, dispersal of coho salmon smolts
              immediately after stocking was inversely related to the time spent in transit
              (Specker and Schreck 1980).

                 Hatchery presmolts that disperse following release tend to move
              downstream (Bilby and Bisson 1987; Mullan and McIntyre 1986; Hillman and
              Mullan 1989; Richards and Cernera 1989) under low light intensities (Elliott
              1987), but this again appears to vary with species (Moring and Buchanan
              1979), developmental stage and condition of the fish (Godin 1982; Thorpe
              1982). Upstream movements, generally over a limited distance, have also been
              documented (Ruggles 1966; Hearn and Kynard 1986; Hesthagen 1988;
              Spaulding et al. 1989). Juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout allowed to
              emigrate from laboratory streams did so mainly at night (Taylor 1988).

                 Water temperature and stream flow also affect the directional movements of
              stocked salmonids. Exceedingly warm or cold water temperatures may induce
              movement into cooler tributaries or into areas containing suitable overwintering
              habitat (Bjornn 1978). Cooper (1952) observed trout to move downstream
              when stocked at low water temperatures. Some investigators have observed
              greater downstream movements of stocked rainbow trout released under high
              discharge conditions (Brynildson 1967; Moring and Buchanan 1979), and
              greater upstream movement during low flow periods (Clothier 1953). Others,-
              however, have reported little or no effect of flow on dispersal patterns (Newell
              1957).

                 Hatchery- produced fish that are undergoing the physiological and behavioral
              changes associated with smoltification are likely to emigrate seaward soon
              after liberation (Hansen and Jonsson 1985). Timing of the smoltification
              process varies some by species and race of fish and is dependent on growth
              rate (Zaugg et al. 1986). Hatchery smolts come into contact with wild fish as
              they migrate down the larger river systems (Levings and Lauzier 1988), but


                                                     38








                 generally, the potential for intraspecific competition is minimized when smolts
                 are stocked if they migrate soon after release. In some anadromous species
                 (e.g., steelhead trout, Atlantic salmon) smoltification does not take place in all
                 fish at the same age, even under carefully controlled rearing conditions, and
                 large numbers of released fish may not be ready to migrate seaward when
                 released. Although their long-term chances of survival are often small
                 (Petrosky and Bjornn 1988), "residualized" hatchery fish may interact with wild
                 fish until they either emigrate or die.

                   Hatchery-released smolts may induce previous ly,stocked or wild fish to join
                 them in their seaward migration (Kuehn and Schumacher 1957; Hansen and
                 Jonsson 1984; Hillman and Mullan. 1989). This response may prove
                 detrimental to wild fish if they have not yet reached smolt stage or if it
                 increases their susceptibility to predation. A tendency to emigrate prematurely
                 has been associated with species-specific behavioral differences and the
                 presence of instrearn cover (Hillman and Mullan 1989).

                   Wild fish may be competitively displaced by hatchery fish early in life,
                 especially when the latter are more numerous, of equal or greater size, and
                 have taken up residency before wild fry emerge from redds. Naturally-
                 produced fry normally disperse soon after emergence; smaller fish may be
                 forced to emigrate under the influence of density- and size-dependent factors
                 (Chapman 1962; LeCren 1965; Mason and Chapman 1965; Lister and Genoe
                 1970; Stein et al. 1972; Elliott 1989; Chandler and Bjornn 1988). This may
                 explain why Hume and Parkinson (1987) found that young steelhead fry (0.2 g)
                 dispersed up to three times farther than did older hatchery fry (11 g) released
                 later. Salmonid post-sac fry that emigrate prematurely are not apt to survive in
                 some situations (Heland 1980a, 1980b; Slaney and Northcote 1974; Mason
                 1966; Chapman 1962; Gee et al. 1978).

                   We could not determine from the literature whether wild parr face significant
                 risk of displacement by introduced hatchery fish. A wide range of outcomes
                 from wild-hatchery fish interactions has been reported. Wild rainbow trout did
                 not migrate differentially from heavily stocked sections versus unstocked
                 sections of an Idaho stream (Petrosky and Bjornn 1989). Similarly,
                 introductions of hatchery-reared coho salmon or Atlantic salmon did not cause
                 wild salmonids in the vicinity to emigrate (Hillman and Chapman 1989; Hearn
                 and Kynard 1986). The distribution of wild steelhead parr in summer was
                 altered slightly when catchable-size hatchery trout were added to a stream
                 (Pollard and Bjornn 1973) and a small number of resident brown trout were
                 displaced by hatchery trout (Bachman 1984). Symons (1969) noted that wild
                 Atlantic salmon fry dispersed more readily than hatchery fry stocked
                 simultaneously at the same location. The movement of wild brown trout in a
                 creek in Montana increased substantially with the introduction of hatchery
                 rainbow trout. The fraction of brown trout which moved up to 400 m
                 increased from an average of 19% in non-stocking years to 33% in stocking
                 years. Brown trout moving over 400 rn increased from 2% to 10% for the
                 same periods (Vincent 1987).

                 Habitat Use

                   The use of habitat by hatchery trout and salmon is often indistinguishable
                 from that of wild fish, particularly when the hatchery fish are stocked as eggs,
                 f ry, or young parr (Bjornn - 1978), but may differ f rom that of wild f ish if the


                                                       39









             hatchery fish have been kept in the hatchery for an extended period.
             Divergence in habitat use may be caused by behavioral conditioning that occurs
             in the hatchery and by competition-related interactions after release. Pollard
             and Bjornn (11973) reported that stocked rainbow trout congregated in deeper
             water than did native steelhead trout in an Idaho river, similar to the
             observations of Hillman and Chapman (1989), who found the hatchery
             rainbows in pools and the wild steelhead in riffles, runs, and cascades. In both
             studies, hatchery and wild rainbow trout were spatially segregated.

               Petrosky and Bjornn (1988), after introducing catchable-size hatchery
             rainbows into two Idaho streams, concluded that hatchery fish did not use the
             same habitats as native cutthroat and wild rainbow trout. Bachman (1984)
             observed that hatchery brown trout, on average, used less energy-efficient
             foraging sites than did wild brown trout.

               Hatchery-reared fish often fail to seek cover after release (Raney and
             Lachner 1942; Vincent 1960). In stream tank studies, Dickson and
             MacCrimmon (1982) and Sosiak (1978, 1982) observed that hatchery Atlantic
             salmon parr occupied positions further from the substratum than did wild
             salmon. The higher stationing probably reflects the joint effects of hatchery
             conditioning and competition with resident fish. Since wild Atlantic salmon
             normally remain close to the streambed (Gibson 1973), and inasmuch that this
             behavior has energy and predation cost-minimization value (Fenderson et al.
             1968), we infer that such shifts in habitat use are detrimental to hatchery-
             reared fish.

               In the cases where hatchery fish are stocked as eggs, fry, or young parr,
             we would expect a high degree of habitat use overlap between wild and
             hatchery fish and significant competition for resources. Stocked steelhead fry
             competed effectively with wild rainbow trout in a productive Idaho stream, and
             the population in the stream was changed from wild rainbow trout to mainly
             juvenile steelhead after a few years of fry stocking (Bjornn 1978).

             Behavior

               The success of supplemention using presmolts hinges on the ability of the
             hatchery fish to behave in a way that will allow them to grow and survive
             following release. The differences in behavior between wild and hatchery fish
             appear to be minimal early-in life and increase with length of time spent in the
             hatchery. Differences in the behavior of hatchery and wild fish which seem to
             affect competitive interactions, habitat use, growth, and survival have been
             found (Sosiak et al. 1979; Dickson and MacCrimmon 1982). Ersbak and Haase
             (1983) have identified several behaviors that were successful in the hatchery
             rearing environment, but maladaptive in the wild: (1) a lack of wariness and a
             surface or mid-water orientation (Vincent 1960; Moyle 1969; Sosiak et al.
             1979; Legault and Lalancette 1985; Dickson and MacCrimmon 1982), (2) an
             inability to form social hierarchies or hold positions in the natural stream
             environment (Chapman 1966; Bachman 1984), (3) excessive activity (Moyle
             1969), and (4) high levels of aggression (Fenderson et al. 1968). To this list
             may be added sub-optimal foraging strategies (see the section on Feeding
             below). Some of these behavioral differences may be genetically based, but
             are more likely environmentally induced (Suboski and Templeton 1989).




                                                   40









                     Unusual physiological and behavioral characteristics of hatchery fish may
                  predispose them, as Fenderson et al. (1968) remarked, to "loss of feeding time,
                  excessive use of energy, and increased exposure to predators." Bachman
                  0 984) came to much the same conclusion, suggesting that excessive energy
                  expenditures were primarily responsible for the high mortality of hatchery
                  brown trout he observed in a Pennsylvania stream. Petrosky's (1984; p. 86)
                  description of the behavior of hatchery rainbow trout and resident wild
                  cutthroat trout in a natural stream is instructive:

                          "Upon release, hatchery rainbow trout formed aggregations in
                       generally deeper and swifter water in midstream than that preferred
                       by cutthroat trout ... Most hatchery trout remained in groups
                       segregated from wild cutthroat trout. These aggregates had no
                       apparent hierarchy. During infrequent feeding, several group
                       members pursued and fought over single items drifting past the
                       group ... Hatchery rainbow trout charged, drove, and nipped each
                       other proportionately more often than wild cutthroat trout."

                     Hatchery salmonids are apparently less adept at conserving energy, and
                  they do not perform as well as wild fish in stamina tests (Vincent 1960;
                  Reimers 1956; Miller 1955, 1958; Green 1964; Barns 1967; Cresswell and
                  Williams 1983). Horak (1972), working with nonanadromous rainbow trout,
                  found hatchery fish had more stamina than wild fish. Hatchery-reared fish
                  examined by Phillips et al. (1957) and Green (1964) had more fat and poorer
                  muscle tone than wild fish. Nutritional deficiencies, notably imbalances in fatty
                  acid composition, were suggested as a cause of reduced viability among
                  hatchery fish by Bolgova et al. (1977).

                     The high level of aggressive behavior observed among hatchery fish
                  following stocking (Fenderson et al. 1968; Moyle 1969; Fenderson and
                  Carpenter 1971; McLaren 1979; Dickson and MacCrimmon 1982; Swain and
                  Riddell 1990) may be misleading, and one must be careful in concluding that
                  hatchery fish are more aggressive than wild fish. Aggressive encounters
                  between wild fish begin immediately after emergence and occur as needed to
                  establish and maintain dominance hierarchies or territories. Natural aggressive
                  tendencies of salmon and trout may be suppressed in the hatchery, and the
                  high level of aggression observed following release should not be unexpected
                  when the fish are placed in an environment where there is diversity of habitat
                  and food for which to compete. Doyle and Talbot (1986), found that selection
                  for rapid growth in the hatchery did not result in higher levels of aggression;
                  using game theory analysis, the authors predicted that hatchery selection may
                  actually favor more docile fish. Elson (1975) hypothesized that newly stocked
                  hatchery juveniles would be less aggressive than resident wild fish and
                  therefore easily displaced. Swain and Riddell (1990) provide data which
                  suggest that differences in aggressiveness may be genetic. These authors
                  argue that hatchery juveniles may aggressively displace resident wild fish, only
                  to suffer high predation mortality as a result of their conspicuous behavior.
                  This hypothesis has yet to be tested.

                     Competitive bouts between hatchery and wild fish were usually more
                  inten'se or prolonged than similar encounters between wild individuals
                  (Fenderson et al. 1968; Dickson and MacCrimmon 1982). Excessive visual and
                  social contact between "unfamiliar" hatchery and wild fish may elicit high levels
                  of excitement and aggression in both groups (Li and Brocksen 1977). The


                                                         41









            sudden change in environment probably contributes to the social disorientation
            of recently released hatchery fish.

                From direct underwater observations, Shustov et al. (1981) concluded that
            2 to 4 weeks are necessary before hatchery-produced juvenile Atlantic salmon
            display normal territorial behavior in the wild. Fenderson et al. (11968), on the
            other hand, found that hatchery Atlantic salmon parr attained social dominance
            over wild salmon parr in aquaria within one or two days. We suspect that the
            relatively poor performance of the wild salmon in the latter study was caused
            by the combined stresses of electrofishing, handling and subsequent
            confinement in unnatural surroundings. Woodward and Strange (1987)
            reported that wild rainbow trout are more susceptible to stress than are
            hatchery trout. Bachman (1984) found that hatchery brown trout, although
            initially achieving social parity with wild fish, did not successfully penetrate the
            long-term social fabric of the wild stock.

            Feeding

                The foraging success of hatchery fish following their release into the wild
            depends on their experiences, feeding opportunities, and habitat quality.
            Dietary overlap and competition between hatchery and wild salmonids is
            influenced by differences in microhabitat use, differences in foraging tactics
            and abilities, and size-dependent differences in prey selection. As far as we
            know, the diet or feeding habits of wild fish are unaffected by the introduction
            of hatchery fish. Theoretically, the amount of food available to individual fish
            should decrease with supplementation, but that depends on how well the
            hatchery fish adapt to feeding in the natural environment.

                Salmonids have little opportunity to capture live prey while confined in
            hatchery raceways and ponds. Nevertheless, hatchery-reared fish appear
            capable of switching to a natural diet following release (Lord 1934; Raney and
            Lachner 1942; Jenkins et al. 1970; Ware 1971; Bryan 1973; Ringler 1979;
            Vinyard et al. 1982; Paszkowski and Olla 1985a, 1985b). Salmonids
            previously fed only hatchery pellets soon selected wild prey over artificial food
            when offered a choice (Bryan 1973; Paszkowski and Olla 1985b). In light of
            these results, suggestions by Kanid'yev (1970) and Suboski and Templeton
            (11989) to train hatchery fish to recognize natural food prior to release appear to
            be inappropriate.

                If hatchery fish are able to switch to natural food items, why is malnutrition
            and starvation so often the fate of some hatchery fish in the wild Klak 1941;
            Miller 1951; Reimers 1963; Ersbak and Haase 1983; Bachman 1984)? Again,
            a distinction must be made between hatchery fish released early in life (eggs,
            fry, young pard and those that are reared for an extented period in a hatchery.
            The former usually adapt to feeding in the wild and grow naturally (Bjornn
            1978), while the latter may have difficulty adapting fully to life in a stream,
            especially in relatively infertile streams where food likely limits production of
            fish. Hatchery fish that had spent significant time in the hatchery appear to be
            inefficient foragers that exist on suboptimal natural diets (Klak 1941; Reimers
            1963; Fenderson et al. 1968; Moyle 1969; Elliot 1975; Sosiak et al. 1979;
            Shustov et al. 1981; Bachman 1984; Marnell 1986). Ersbak and Haase (1983)
            suggested that hatchery trout may have greater difficulty in detecting and
            exploiting increasing densities of certain forage items than do wild trout.



                                                    42









                  Hatchery juvenile Atlantic salmon examined 1-3 months after release ate a less
                  varied diet than did wild fish (Sosiak et al. 1979).

                     Differences in stream microhabitats occupied by hatchery and wild
                  salmonids may account for dietary differences during presmolt stages.
                  Hatchery-reared juvenile Atlantic salmon assume positions higher in the stream
                  water column than do wild salmon (Sosiak 1978), reflecting a conditioned
                  response to feed at the surface (Peterson 1973). A comparison of the diets of
                  hatchery fingerling rainbow trout with wild rainbow, brook and brown trout in
                  the Salmon River of New York by Johnson (1981) revealed considerable dietary
                  overlap. Interestingly, the types of food eaten by hatchery rainbow trout more
                  closely resembled the diets of resident brook and brown trout than wild
                  rainbow trout.

                  Interspecific Competition

                     Interspecific competition within the context of supplementation has not
                  received much attention even though there are compelling reasons to consider
                  interactions between hatchery fish and other species of fish living in the
                  streams to be supplemented. Resident fish may affect the survival of the
                  hatchery fish, and, conversely, hatchery fish may affect the abundance or
                  productivity of coexisting species.

                     We presented evidence earlier that hatchery fish frequently segregate
                  spatially from wild conspecifics in streams. It is not known whether this
                  segregation is a product of intraspecific competition or hatchery conditioning,
                  but the use of different habitats by the hatchery fish may explain why the diet
                  of hatchery rainbow trout resembled that of wild brook and brown trout more
                  .that of wild rainbow trout in a New York stream (Johnson 1981).

                     Many of the behavioral anomalies of hatchery fish described in the sections
                  on intraspecific interactions are also liable to affect interactions with other
                  species. High densities of hatchery fish may suppress the normal behavior of
                  other species (Stringer 1952, cited by Fraser 1968).

                     Size differences between hatchery trout or salmon and other species of fish
                  affect competitive interactions and the partitioning of stream resources (Lister
                  and Genoe 1970; Everest and Chapman 1972; Griffith 1972; Allee 1982;
                  Cunjak and Green 1984). Petrosky (11984) reported that hatchery rainbow
                  trout occasionally challenged wild cutthroat trout for permanent feeding
                  .stations after stocking in an Idaho stream. Only a few hatchery fish - always
                  larger individuals - were successfully integrated into the size dominance
                  hierarchy of the wild cutthroat trout population.

                     The potential for interspecific competition depends on the relative
                  abundance of the stocked and resident fish species and the degree of niche
                  overlap between them. Growth and survival are affected when the stream is
                  "overseeded" and access to limiting shared resources is regulated by
                  competition. By experimentally manipulating the relative densities of steelhead
                  trout and coho salmon fry, Fraser (1968) observed inters lpecif ic effects on
                  growth and mortality at high stocking densities (14.22 fish/m2). Likewise,
                  LeCren (1965) found that the survival of stocked Atlantic salmon was inversely
                  proportional to the total density of brown trout and Atlantic salmon present;
                  the survival of resident brown trout did not vary with stocking level. Kennedy


                                                           43









              and Strange (11980, 1986), on the other hand, observed a large decline in
              brown trout fry populations in lagged response to repeated introductions of
              Atlantic salmon fry. Reductions in the growth and survival of trout fry were
              attributed to interspecific competition with older (age-1) salmon that had been
              stocked as fry. Reciprocal effects were also noted: stocked salmon fry
              survived better and grew faster when older age classes of trout had been
              removed. Interestingly, competition between salmon and trout fry did not
              appear to affect the survival of either species. In an Idaho stream, annual
              stocking of steelhead fry resulted in a substantial decrease in the abundance of
              wild (non-anadromous) rainbow trout, but had little effect on brook trout that
              were present (Bjornn 1978). In the same stream, removal of all fish larger that
              15 cm resulted in a doubling of the survival rate during the first summer of life
              for stocked steelhead fry (Horner 1978).

              Growth

                 When densities of presmolts are increased through supplementation, the
              result is usually a decrease in the amount of food available per individual (Colby
              et al. 1972). Freshwater growth among salmonids is apparently density-
              dependent (McFadden 1968; LeCren 1972; Mortensen 1977; Bjornn 1978) so
              we should expect growth rates of wild fish to decline following stocking if the
              hatchery fish begin feeding on natural foods and the abundance of fish is near
              carrying capacity of the stream. Unfortunately, we could find few instances
              where the growth rates of wild fish were measured coincidence with the
              stocking of hatchery fish. Vincent (1987) measured a decline in the annual
              growth rates of several age classes of wild brown trout after catchable-size
              rainbow trout were stocked in some Montana streams. In a productive Idaho
              stream, Petrosky and Bjornn (1988) reported that growth of wild rainbow trout
              was not reduced when catchable-size rainbow trout were stocked at a rate that
              doubled the density.

                 In other studies, wild salmonids reportedly grew more rapidly than hatchery
              fish in natural environments (Needham and Slater 1943), but more slowly in
              hatchery environments (Reisenbichler and McIntyre 1977). Nielson et al.
              (11956) reported that the hatchery-reared trout he studied grew as well as
              native trout in the wild. Subyearling hatchery steelhead stocked at different
              densities in a Vermont stream showed little evidence of compensatory growth
              (Wentworth and LaBar 1984). In an Idaho stream stocked with varying
              densities of steelhead fry and chinook salmon parr, the steelhead were 10 mm
              or more shorter at the end of summer when the highest densities of fish were
              present (1.5 fish/m2) compared to their length at lower densities (Bjornn 1978).
              Hume and Parkinson (1987) observed a weak (but significant) inverse
              correlation between the density and growth of outplanted steelhead fry and
              yearlings after one to two months of stream residence. Similarly, Egglishaw
              and Shackley 0 980) and Egglishaw 0 984) established that the growth of
              stocked underyearling Atlantic salmon was inversely related to the density of
              age-1 + salmon.

                 It is not uncommon for catchable-size hatchery trout and residualized
              steelhead smolts to lose weight during the weeks or months following stocking
              (Miller 1953, 1958; Ersbak and Haase 1983) and many do not survive to
              migrate seaward the following spring. In two studies where the growth of
              subyearling chinook salmon was monitored during the summer after stocking,
              the fish lost weight in one stream, and more than doubled their weight in the


                                                      44








                  other. Age-O chinook salmon stocked in an infertile stream in late July of two
                  years at mean total lengths of 71 and 75 mm and weights of 4.4 and 5.4 g,
                  lost about 20% of their weight during the remainder of the summer (Sekulich
                  1980). Smaller chinook salmon (55-60 mm in length) stocked in a productive
                  stream in June increased in length and more than doubled their weight during
                  the summer (Bjornn 1978). Negative or reduced growth experienced by
                  hatchery fish in some situations is a consequence of inadequate food supplies
                  in some cases, such as in infertile streams, but their inability to feed as
                  effectively as wild fish because of conditioning while in the hatchery probably
                  is a major factor that intensifies the longer a fish is kept in the hatchery.
                  Starvation and the metabolic costs of competing unsuccessfully for access to
                  food (Doyle and Talbot 1986; Miller 1952, 1958; Bachman 1984) can cause to
                  severe weight loss in the hatchery fish that ultimately leads to mortality
                  (Reimers 1963).

                     Salmon and steelhead reared to the smolt stage and then released may grow
                  a significant amount while migrating to the ocean if the rivers are relatively
                  clear, but may have to rely on body reserves if the rivers are turbid and food
                  items are not visible. Smolts that must migrate long distances from the upper
                  reaches of the Columbia River drainage, for example, probably have enough
                  energy reserves unless they are delayed migrating through the reservoirs and
                  are unable to find food.

                  Survival

                     Survival of hatchery fish following stocking is a function of several factors
                  ,including stream productivity, habitat quality, the physical condition of hatchery
                  fish and their ability to acclimatize to stream conditions, the size and stocking
                  density of hatchery relative to wild fish, depredation and disease, and stocking
                  practices and techniques (e.g., season, rate, and location) (Murphy and Kelso
                  1986; Schuck 1948; Nielson et al. 1957; Clady 1973).

                     The high post-stocking mortality that is characteristic of transplanted
                  anadromous (Table 7) and non-anadromous salmonids has been associated with
                  several unfavorable conditions. Physiological stress due to crowded rearing
                  conditions, transportation, handling, increased social interactions, and novel
                  environmental demands probably increases the mortality of stream-stocked
                  salmonids (Mason and Chapman 1965; Specker and Schreck 1980). Excessive
                  levels of stress can deplete energy reserves and upset osmoregulatory and
                  metabolic function (Wedemeyer 1972; Selye 1973; Mazeaud et al. 1977;
                  Strange et al. 1977). Miller (1958) found that hatchery rainbow trout
                  accumulated high levels of blood lactate levels following stocking and
                  suggested that socially-instigated stress may have contributed to their     poor
                  survival.

                     Lack of exercise in the hatchery environment has been suggested as a
                  cause of lowered vitality and a concomitant reduction in survival (Schuck
                  1948). A rapid decline in the condition of hatchery trout as energy stores are
                  depleted has been cited as a possible cause of generally poor survival in
                  streams (Klak 1941; Miller 1952, 1954, 1958; Reimers 1963; Ersbak and
                  Haase 1983). Miller (1951) found that 30% of age 3+ and 50% of age 2+
                  hatchery-reared cutthroat trout died during the first 40 d after release in
                  streams, apparently from exhaustion and starvation. The survival of fed coho



                                                           45










              Table 7. Estimates of post-stocking mortality reported for hatchery-produced Atlantic salmon and steelhead trout. Modified from Bley and
              Moring (1986).




                                                                  Life                        Percent
              Species                   Location                  stage                       survival                     Reference


              Atlantic                  Scotland                  Egg to fry                  11.1-14.8                  Egglishaw and Shackley (1980)
              salmon                                              Fry to 0+                    9.4-31.0
                                                                  0 + to 1 +                  51 (22-88)

                                        Scotland                  Egg to smolt                   1.0-3.0                 Egglishaw and Shackley (1971)

                                        N. Ireland                Green egg                          1.4                 Kennedy and Strange (198 1
                                                                  to f ry
                                        N. Ireland                Eyed egg                     6.8-37.1                  Kennedy and Strange (1980, 1984)
                                                                  to f ry
                                                                  Fry to 0 +                         16.7                Kennedy and Strange (1984)
                                                                ..0+ to 1 +                   14.3-31.7


                                        Ireland                   Smolt to adult               12.7-4.4                  Piggins (1980)

                                        Scotland                  Fry to 0 +                   1.3-23.3                  Mills 0 969)

                                        Scotland                  Fry to smolt                   2.4-3.1                 Mills 0 964)

                                        Scotland                  Egg to 0 +                     1.7-2.0                 Shearer 111961)
                                                                  Egg to 1 +                  0.08-0.46

                                        United                    Fry to 0 +                     1.7-8.8                 Stewart (1963)
                                        Kingdom                   Fry to 1 +                         3.6

                                        United                    Fry to smolt                 0.25-1.7                  Harris 0 973)
                                        Kingdom                   Smolt to adult                 2.1-3.8












              Table 7. Icontinued)



                                                                 Life                         Percent
              Species                   Location                 stage                       survival                       Reference



                                        France                   Eyed egg                          50-80                 Brunet (1980)
                                                                  to fry
                                                                 0+ to I +                      up to 90

                                        Sweden                   Smolt to adult                 0.4-13.1                 Wendt and Saunders 11973)


                                        Sweden                   Smolt to adult                      12.5                Larsson (1984)

                                        Ontario                  Fry to 0+             12.7 (10.7-14.6)                  MacCrimmon 11954)
                                                                 Fry to 1 +                9.2 (9.0-9.2)
                                                                 Fry to smolt                          3.0

                                        Quebec                   Fry to age-0 +                    5-72                   Cote and Pomerleau (1985)
     %J                                                          0+ to 1 +                         1 -31


                                        New                      Fry to 1 +                      8.0-12.0                Dickson and MacCrimmon 0 982)
                                        Brunswick


                                        Maine                    Smolt to adult                   0.7-1.4                Baum (1983)


              Steelhead
            .trout
                                        California               Egg to                            30-80                 Shapovalov J 1937).
                                                                  emergence


                                        Oregon                   Egg to                            18-99                 Phillips et al. (11975).
                                                                  emergence


                                        (daho                    Egg to                            40-95                 Bjornn (1978).
                                                                 emergence











             Table 7. (continued)



                                                                     Lif e                        Percent
              Species                    Location                    stage                        survival                        Reference


                                         California                  Emergence to:                                               Burns 0 97 1).
                                                                     age-0                                   27
                                                                     age-1 +                                 56

                                         Idaho                       Emergence to:                                               Bjornn (1978).
                                                                     age-0                               10-20
                                                                     age- 1                               6-41
                                                                     smolt                             0.4-3.8


                                         California                  Fingerling                               2                  Hallock et al. 0 961).
                                                                     to adult

    oo
                                         California                  Smolt to                           2.1-18                   Shapovalov (1967)
                                                                     adult


                                         Oregon                      Smolt to                             0-10                   Wagner (1963).
                                                                     adult


                                         Oregon                      Smolt to                        3.9-10.9                    Wagner (1968).
                                                                     adult


                                         Oregon                      Smolt to                          1.7-7.0                   Wagner 111969).
                                                                     adult


                                         British                     Smolt to                                 5                  Hume and Parkinson
                                         Columbia                    adult                                                       (1988).


              Coho salmon


                                         Western                     Fry (spring                         13-34                   Bilby and Bisson 0 987).
                                         Washington                  to autumn)









                  salmon fry was greater than unfed fry following stocking in Puget Sound
                  streams (T. Flint, pers. comm., cited by Wunderlich 1982).

                     The post-stocking survival of hatchery presmolts and smolts is sensitive to
                  the number of fish stocked (Wentworth and LaBar 1984; Hume and Parkinson
                  1987) and local densities of prior residents (Kennedy and Strange 1986). In a
                  Washington study (Royal .1972), a d e nsity-de pendent relation was found
                  between steelhead smolt production and adult returns for hatchery fish that
                  were forced to migrate long distances to the ocean. A freshwater mortality
                  agent was implicated (but never identified) when the survival rates of fish from
                  coastal hatcheries did not show similar trends. Although some biologists
                  consider density-dependent mortality during freshwater migration to be
                  negligible (Lichatowich and McIntyre 1987), supplementation managers should
                  consider the potential for unwanted density-dependent interactions between
                  hatchery and wild smolts.

                     Competition-induced shifts in habitat selection by hatchery trout may reduce
                  their chances of survival. High mortality of hatchery-reared salmonids has been
                  attributed to their selection of microhabitats which are not conducive to
                  survival (Vincent 1960; Dickson and MacCrimmon 1982; Petrosky and Bjornn
                  1988). Competition for preferred microhabitats can be dampened and feeding
                  opportunities increased by scattering fish in underseeded, high quality rearing
                  areas. Bilby and Bisson 0 987) concluded that the survival of hatchery fish
                  was enhanced by the presence of pools and instrearn cover. Greater structural
                  heterogeneity would reduce visual contact with potential competitors and
                  predators, and it might temper the effect of floods on stocked fish (Odonera
                  and Ueno 1961).

                     Overwinter survival of hatchery fish can be very low, often nil (Needham
                  and Slater 1944; Heimer et al. 1985; Petrosky 1984), although Adelman and
                  Bingham (1955) found little or no difference between hatchery and native
                  brook trout in their ability to survive the winter months. Overwinter survival
                  was highest for fall-stocked hatchery brook, brown and rainbow trout in
                  streams where surface ice was rare and cover was present (Brynildson and
                  Christenson 1961). Mason et al. (1967) noted higher overwinter survival of
                  hatchery fish relative to wild fish in 3 of 5 streams, which they attributed to
                  the larger size and good condition of hatchery fish going into winter. Reimers
                  (1963) discusses the nutritional status of stocked hatchery trout as it relates to
                  overwinter survival.

                    The survival to returning adult of hatchery-reared chinook salmon
                  (Reisenbichler et al. 1982), coho salmon (Salo and Bayliff 1958; Nickelson et
                  al. 1986) and steelhead trout (Wagner et al. 1963) was positively related to
                  their size at release. The liberation of large presmolts has at least two important
                  consequences with regard to their competitive abilities and subsequent
                  survival. First, a large average size at release may reduce the length of time
                  spent in the stream, thereby increasing chances for survival to smolt stage.
                  Second, hatchery fish, if larger than wild cohabitants, are more likely to be
                  successful in agonistic encounters. Flick and Webster (1964) and Mason et al
                  0 967) were able to demonstrate higher survival among hatchery salmonids
                  when they possessed a size and presumably a competitive advantage over wild
                  residents.





                                                          49









               As reported by Nickelson et al. (1986), juvenile hatchery coho salmon used
             to supplement wild stocks in Oregon streams averaged half again as large as
             resident wild coho (62 versus 39 mm in length) when released in late spring.
             Hatchery fish were larger due to earlier emergence and accelerated growth in
             hatchery facilities. Outplanting hatchery coho salmon presmolts increased by
             41 % the density of juveniles rearing in pools (the preferred habitat) during the
             summer following release. However, the average density of wild coho salmon
             declined by 44% over the same period. Nickelson et al. 0 986) suggested that
             the decline was due to the size advantage enjoyed by the larger hatchery coho
             salmon in competitive encounters with smaller wild fish. Based on additional
             studies (Chapman 1962; Mason and Chapman 1965; Chandler and Bjornn
             1988), differences in fish size are known to be important in determining the
             outcome of competitive interactions; larger salmonids
             generally grow and survive better than smaller ones.

                Studies by Miller (1954, 1958), Bjornn (1978), Petrosky and Bjornn (1988),
             and Vincent 0 987) illustrate the complex and somewhat unpredictable
             response of wild salmonids to supplementation. Miller (1954, 1958) found that
             wild fish were able to outcompete stocked trout without incurring additional
             mortality. Petrosky and Bjornn (1988) observed that the survival of wild
             salmonids declined only at very high stocking densities. A compensatory
             downward adjustment in the summer mortality rate of wild rainbow trout was
             observed when 400 catchable-size rainbow were released into a 146-m section
             of stream (Petrosky 1984). At low and intermediate stocking densities (50 and
             150 fish, respectively, per 106-m sections), densities of wild rainbow trout in
             Big Springs Creek were no different than in previous years of no stocking. This
             implies that hatchery vs. wild trout competition was muted due either to (1)
             significant losses (mortality or emigration) of hatchery trout, or (2) a non-
             limiting supply of resources. The former explanation seems justified: only 1 %
             of the hatchery trout remained in the study sections a year after their release.

                Vincent (1975, 1987) contended that hatchery fish had a significant effect
             on the survival of resident wild salmonids. A 49% decline in wild trout
             numbers in a previously unstocked section of O'Dell Creek, Montana, coincided
             with introductions of hatchery rainbow trout, and the abundance of age 2 and
             older brown trout and rainbow trout in the Madison River increased after
             stocking was terminated. In an Idaho stream, the number and percentage of
             older resident (non-anadromous) rainbow trout declined during 10 consecutive
             years of stocking of steelhead fry (Bjornn 1978). The steelhead fry competed
             successfully with the age-0 wild rainbow trout and reduced the number of wild
             fish that survived the first summer.

             Salmon and Steelhead in the Marine Environment

                In this section we discuss competitive interactions and the relative growth
             and survival of hatchery and wild anadromous salmonids in marine
             environments. Because few studies have addressed these topics within the
             context of supplementation, much of the following synthesis is based on
             results obtained from more general studies of marine salmonid ecology.

               . The ocean segment of the anadromous salmonid life cycle consists of
             several distinct migratory phases, including estuarine, coastal, offshore, high
             seas, and return to freshwater. During this time fish gain approximately 98%



                                                     50









                 of their final body weight (Peterman 1987) while survival rates are typically less
                 than 15% (Foerster 1968; Bley and Moring 1988).

                    In general, hatchery fish experience higher mortality rates than wild
                 salmonids from the same river system (Bley and Moring 1988; Raymond 1988;
                 Piggins 1989). Rates of return for hatchery spring chinook salmon and
                 steelhead trout from the Snake River were lower, by as much as one order of
                 magnitude, than return rates estimated for wild stocks during 1966-1984
                 (Figure 3A and B). The record 1982 return for hatchery steelhead stands in
                 sharp contrast to the extremely low rates recorded for hatchery spring chinook
                 salmon. Raymond (198.8) believes that disease-related mortality may have
                 decimated hatchery chinook salmon smolts either en route or upon entry into
                 saltwater.

                    In Ireland, Piggins (1989) reported a 3.6:1 ratio of wild-to-hatchery Atlantic
                 salmon returns. Isaksson 0 979, cited by Bley and Moring 1988) obtained
                 similar results (2.8:1) for Atlantic salmon escapement to Icelandic streams.
                 Bley and Moring (1988) summarized references (included in Table 7) and
                 reported an average smolt-to-adult survival of wild steelhead trout of 13%,
                 compared to 5% for hatchery-produced fish. Marine survival rates have on
                 occasion been higher for hatchery-produced fish than for wild fish. In an
                 Oregon study (Aho et al. 1979), hatchery and wild steelhead trout were reared
                 to smolt stage in a hatchery, released, and enumerated upon their return as
                 adults. Return rates were,higher for progeny of hatchery fish in one year, and
                 for progeny of "wild" fish in a second year.

                   Competition between hatchery and wild salmonids in the ocean has not been
                 unequivocally demonstrated, because there is little or no competition, or
                 perhaps because of the complexity of factors involved (see Mathews 1984 for
                 a review), a paucity of experimental data, and natural variability in the
                 occurrence of competition and its effects. Nevertheless, noting'that(l)
                 hatchery-reared fish forage successfully upon reaching the ocean (Paszkowski
                 and Olla 1985a, 1985b), (2) food production is frequently patchy in time and
                 space (Healey and Groot 1987), (3) migratory salmonids remain in fairly
                 cohesive groups (Pearcy 1984), (4) migration routes of different stocks and
                 species may overlap, and (5) ocean distributions do not change significantly
                 either seasonally or with fish age (Healey 1986; Healey and Groot 1987), one
                 could conclude that competition is possible between hatchery and wild fish in
                 the ocean, particularly in nearshore areas and during periods of low
                 productivity.

                   Peterman, in a series of publications (1977, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1987,
                 1989), has championed the view that, for many salmonid species, survival and
                 growth rates in the ocean depend on stock abundance. Interpretations of the
                 data available have been conflicting. Analyses provided by McGie (1981,
                 1984), ODFW (1981), McCarl and Rettig (1983), Peterman and Routledge
                 (1983), and Emlen and Reisenbichler 0 988) favor the interpretation that marine
                 survival of Oregon coho salmon has been limited by density-dependent factors.
                 The opposite conclusion, drawn from the same data set but based on different
                 model specifications and data manipulations, was reached by Peterman 0 981),
                 ODFW 0 98 1), Clark and McCarl (11983), and Nickelson (1986), who provided a
                 synopsis of the debate. The failure of the escapement of adult coho salmon
                 from the Oregon Production Index Area to continue rising despite increased
                 releases of hatchery-produced smolts since about 1970 (Figure 4) added to the


                                                       51







                                                                         Chinook Salmon

                                7.0




                                8.0
                                                                                                    Wild fish


                                                                                                    Hatchery fish
                                5.0




                                4.0


                    Adult Return
                                3.0




                                2.0




                                1.0




                                0.0


                                                  as                   70                75                  so                 85


                                                                         Steelhead Trout

                                7.0




                                6.0




                                5.0




                                4.0


                    Adult Return

                                3.0




                                2.0


                                1.0           B.


                                0.0

                                                   65                  70                 75                 80                  85


                                                                          Year of Return


                     Figure 3. A comparison of the 1964-1984 rates of return of hatchery and wild
                    spring chinook salmon (A) and steelhead trout (B) from the Snake River
                    drainage. Data are from Raymond (1988).



                                                                            52














                                  7








                                                                 SMOLrs






                             z
                               z
                                  4




                                                         4



                                                               ADULI'S
                             Cr
                             UJ Ui                         to

                                  2
                                     V                         ItV"


                                  0                 L
                                   1960    1965    1910      1975
                                           YEAR OF SMOLT MIGRATION


               Figure 4. Recent (1976-1985) trends in the number of hatchery smolts
               released and the escapement of adult coho salmon from the Oregon Production
               Index Area. Taken from Nickelson (1986).


               debate about density-dependent survival in the ocean. The marine survival of
               hatchery coho salmon released during years of strong coastal upwelling was
               about twice that in weak upwelling years, but survival of both hatchery and
               wild fish was lower during years when sea-surface temperatures were lower
               than average (Nickelson 1986, Peterman 1989). McGie (1984) and Peterman
               and Routledge (1983) reported a non-linear relationship between smolts
               released and adult production for years of weak upwelling, implying density-
               dependent mortality, at least during low productivity periods.
                                   I
                  Additional evidence of density-dependent growth or survival in saltwater has
               been presented by Anderson and Bailey (1974), Anderson and Wilen (1985),
               Rogers (1980, 1984), McDonald and Hume (1984), Eggers et al. (1984), and
               Reisenbichler 0 985). Of particular interest are data which suggest that
               interspecific competition between adult chum and pink salmon in Puget Sound
               may affect their mutual survival (Reisenbichler 1985).

                  Levy and Northcote (1981) concluded that the marine survival of chinook
               salmon was determined to a large extent by the duration and quality of
               estuarine residence. Length of estuarine residence is dependent on species,
               developmental stage, food quantity and quality (Mason 1974), river discharge
               and tidal influences, and estuarine topography (Iwamoto and Salo1977).
                                                                  "'0'- rS
















                                                               ADUIIS












































               Levings et al. (1986) reported that the presence of hatchery chinook salmon
               did not affect residency times and growth rates of wild juveniles in a British
               Columbia estuary and the adjacent foreshore region. Hatchery fish used the


                                                     53










             estuary for about one-half the length of time that wild fry were present (40-50
             d). Other investigators provide evidence that competition between hatchery
             and wild salmonids could occur and cause growth and survival to be density-
             dependent in estuaries (Reimers 1973; Bailey et al. 1975; Levy and Levings
             1978; Healey 1979, 1982; Simenstad et al. 1979; Neilson et al. 1985).

             Adults in Freshwater

               Anadromous salmon and trout are renowned for their homing abilities and the
             reliable timing of their spawning migrations. Reviews of these topics may be
             found in Banks (1969), Leggett (11977), Brannon (11982), and Hasler and Scholz
             (1983). Although recent research has advanced our understanding of how
             salmonids are guided in their movements (McIssac and Quinn 1988), there
             have been few comparative studies of the migratory abilities or inriver survival
             of hatchery versus wild adults. The obvious question, "Does supplementation
             adversely affect the spawning migration of wild salmonids?" cannot be
             definitively answered from the information at hand.

                Migratory tendencies and homing accuracy varies considerably between
             species and strains of salmonids (Webster and Flick 1981; Kincaid and.Berry
             1986). Straying of wild fish was the means of colonizing most drainages
             covered by the last ice sheet and still represents a potential source of new
             genetic material. Straying by hatchery fish, however, may be a detrimental
             infusion of genes into a wild stock if large numbers of hatchery fish stray and if
             their genetic makeup is significantly different from the wild stocks. There is
             evidence that the progeny of transplanted pink (Bams 1976) and Atlantic
             salmon (Stabell 1981, 1984) home less precisely than locally adapted stocks,
             but such was not the case for coho salmon (Reisenbichler 1988).

                The accuracy with which hatchery fish return to the hatchery or stream into
             which they are stocked is influenced by stocking and transportation practices.
             Straying rates increase if the release from the hatchery is delayed until after
             smolt transformation is complete (Peck 1970; Larson and Ward 1954; Scholz et
             al. 1978), if portions of the downstream migration route are bypassed (Hansen
             et al. 1989), and as the distance between the hatchery or parental stream and
             release site increases (Lister et al. 1981; Gunnerod et al. 1988). Hatchery fish
             can return with high fidelity to the stream where they were planted, and to the
             area of release (Wagner 1969).

                A high incidence of straying is generally unacceptable from a
             supplementation standpoint because of harvest complications and the
             possibility that, if spawning occurs, wild stocks might be adversely affected
             (Buchanan and Moring 1986; Evans and Smith 1986). Assuming that stocked
             hatchery fish can be induced to home with some precision, managers may be
             able to (1) reduce the sport harvest of wild stocks while increasing the catch of
             hatchery-produced fish, (2) optimize the distribution of naturally spawning fish,
             and (3) better seed the streams with naturally-produced fry.

                Behavioral interactions between migrating hatchery and wild salmonids
             appear to have little effect on supplementation programs. Overcrowding in
             prime holding areas may increase the dispersal of adults (Cramer 1981),
             possibly to the detriment of displaced fish.




                                                    54










                     We found little information to evaluate the claim that natural mortality rates
                 differ, between upstream hatchery and wild migrants. Leider et al. (1986)
                 argued that the lower abundance of repeat spawners among hatchery-produced
                 steelhead trout relative to wild fish was due to higher mortalities of hatchery
                 steelhead during repeat spawning migrations. The basis for this conclusion
                 was not determined, but the authors suggested that energetic bankruptcy
                 among hatchery fish   following the initial migration may have contributed to
                 their poorer survival. Rosentreter (1977) also reported a low incidence of
                 repeat spawners for hatchery winter steelhead in an Oregon stream.

                     Surplus hatchery spawners have at times been returned to the river to
                 provide anglers with an additional opportunity to harvest them (Buchanan and
                 Moring 1987). Adults transported and released downstream from their natal
                 hatchery usually return rapidly and offer little opportunity to anglers (Bjornn
                 1986). Adults distributed upstream may also return to the site where they
                 were released as smolts, but the likelihood of doing so diminishes as the
                 transportation distance increases (Reingold 1975; Cramer 1981). The primary
                 drawback of returning surplus adults to the fishing areas is the possibility that
                 the fish will not be caught and may stray into spawning areas where they are
                 not wanted (Buchanan and Moring 1987).

                     The relative success of wild and hatchery fish spawning in natural
                 environments has been studied in recent years, and there is evidence that
                 hatchery adults may produce fewer smolts and returning adults than wild adults
                 (Leider et al. 1986; Chilcote et al. 1986; Nickelson et al. 1986). In studies of
                 steelhead in the Kalama River (Washington), Leider et al. 0 986) and Chilcote et
                 al. (1986) found low reproductive success among naturally spawning hatchery
                 fish compared to wild spawners. Although hatchery spawners outnumbered
                 wild spawners by at least 4.5 to 1, only 62% of the naturally produced
                 steelhead smolts were offspring of hatchery fish. Differences in viability were
                 thought to be a consequence of earlier than normal spawning by hatchery
                 steelhead.

                     Stocking of coho salmon presmolts into selected, Oregon coastal streams
                 boosted juvenile densities (at the expense of juvenile wild coho salmon), but
                 did not increase the number of returning spawners compared to unstocked
                 streams. The adults returning from presmolt releases spawned several weeks
                 earlier than wild fish, and Nickelson et al. (1986) concluded that the early
                 spawners, primarily hatchery fish, contributed little to natural production. The
                 density of the later spawning wild coho salmon returning to the stocked
                 streams was about half that observed in unstocked streams. After stocking
                 ceased, densities of naturally produced salmon fry averaged 32% less in the
                 formerly stocked streams than were found in the streams that had never been
                 stocked.

                   Whether hatchery and wild fish interbreed depends on their relative
                 abundance, the degree of spatial and temporal overlap, and the outcome of
                 sexual competition for mates and spawning sites. In the study of steelhead in
                 the Kalama River, the spatial and temporal overlap among hatcheryand wild
                 spawners was sufficient to permit crossbreeding (Leider et al. 1984).
                 Differences in primary (e.g., egg size and fecundity) and secondary (e.g., body
                 coloration and size) sexual characters between hatchery and wild spawners
                 may lead to unequal reproductive contributions by members of the respective
                 groups (Schroeder 1981; Gross 1985; Fleming and Gross 1989; Foote 1989).


                                                         55











             Precfation

                Predation is a major source of mortality for anadromous salmonids both in
             freshwater and in the ocean - estimates range as high as 98% (Fresh et al.,
             unpubl. manuscript).

                Fish are believed to be the'major predators of hatchery and wild salmonids,
             but predation by birds and mammals can be substantial (Elson 1962; Fraser
             1974; Mace 1983; Ruggerone 1986; Wood 1987). Few direct estimates of the
             severity of these losses are available. Based on dietary studies and relative
             abundance estimates, the primary freshwater consumers of hatchery fish in the
             Pacific northwest include salmonid, cyprinid, and cottid fishes, and mergansers,
             kingfishers, and gulls. Blue sharks, sea lions, and harbor seals are encountered
             in coastal regions, whereas sharks and lampreys are major predators in the high
             seas (Ricker 1976).

                Losses to predation may be higher for hatchery fish than for wild salmonids
             because of inappropriate avoidance and foraging behaviors, an inability to
             accurately assess predation risks, secondary stress effects, and a general
             unfamiliarity with their new surroundings for the hatchery fish. Several studies
             (MacCrimmon 1954; Piggins 1959; Kanidyev 1966; Larsson 1985) have
             revealed intense post-release predation mortality among hatchery-reared
             salmonids. Brown trout, for example, prey heavily on stocked Atlantic salmon
             fry during the first few days after stocking (Mills 1964). Kanid'yev (1966)
             reported that predators consumed 14-30% more hatchery-reared chum salmon
             than wild chum fry during the first month following release. Studies by Bams
             0 967) and Mead and Woodall 0 968) suggest that artificially-propagated
             sockeye salmon fry are more prone than wild sockeye fry to predation.
             Hatchery fish were found to be more vulnerable to kingfisher predation than
             were wild salmonids (Male 1966).

                Predation mortality may increase when physiological stress, either natural or
             man-caused, is induced in hatchery-reared and wild fish (Congleton et al.
             1985). Juvenile salmonids, while stressed, may have impaired swimming
             ability (Schreck et al. 1985). Sources of stress include poor water quality,
             disease pathogens and parasites, overcrowding, handling, transportation
             (Specker and Schreck 1980), and situations requiring extraordinary physical
             exertion (e.g., passage through dams and diversions; Fresh et al., unpub.
             manuscript).

                Environmental factors such as light intensity, discharge, turbidity and water
             temperature play important roles in determining the magnitude of predation
             mortality (Ginetz and Larkin 1976; Sylvester 1971). Variation in the amount of
             predation by resident brown trout on planted Atlantic salmon fry was found to
             depend on habitat type (MacCrimmon 1954). Tagmaz'yan (1971) noted that
             predation was less severe in larger rivers than in small streams due to their
             frequently turbid nature, fast current, and larger volume of water. Predation
             rates during seaward migrations appear to be negatively correlated with stream
             discharge (Hvidsten and Hansen 1988), presumably because transit times are
             shortened and higher turbidities reduce the chance of detection by predators.

                Salmonids released from hatcheries at sizes larger than wild residents are
             potential predators, whereas fish stocked as smaller individuals are potential
             prey. The apparent susceptibility of small fry to predation suggests that older


                                                     56









                 life stages may have greater survival potential (Mead and Woodall 1968;
                 Warner 1972). Cannibalism of hatchery-reared salmonid fry by wild resident
                 fish is common (Symons and Heland 1978; Kennedy and Strange 1986; Semko
                 1954a, 1954b). Conversely, hatchery salmonids may prey on wild fish or
                 cannibalize their own; as, for example, when yearling fish are released when
                 wild fry are emerging from redds (Reisenbichler 1986b; Nietzel and Fickeisen
                 1990). Sholes and Hallock (1979) reported that 0.5 million yearling chinook
                 salmon stocked in the Feather River, California, ate 7.5 million wild chinook and
                 steelhead fry. Levings and Lauzier (1988), however, found no evidence of
                 cannibalism of emigrating wild chinook fry by larger hatchery smolts in the
                 Nicola River, British Columbia. The authors suggested that wild fry avoided
                 predation by remaining in the shallow margins of the river.

                     The extent of predation upon non-salmonid species by hatchery salmonids is
                 not well-known (Evans and Smith 1986). Pisciverous hatchery-reared brown
                 trout, however, were observed to consume fish of other species roughly in
                 proportion to their abundance (Garman and Nielsen 1982). Millard and
                 McCrimmon 0 972) suggested that, in some cases, intra- and interspecific
                 predation may be buffered by the presence of stocked fish.

                     Even when they are not pisciverous, hatchery salmonids may expose wild
                 fish to greater predation risks. Competitively displaced wild fish may be more
                 conspicuous through their movements or residence in suboptimal habitats.
                 Large concentrations of hatchery fish may adversely affect wild juveniles by
                 stimulating numerical (e.g., at dams, river mouths, etc.) and functional
                 responses among bird and fish predators. In many cases predation mortality is
                 nonlinear and depensatory so that the proportion of fish eaten is greater when
                 prey populations are small (Figure 5A, 513) (Neave 1953; Hunter 1959;
                 Peterman and Gatto 1978; Mace 1983; Wood 1984). This type of predation
                 mortality was termed type-11 predation by Holling 1973. An alternate form of
                 predation, called type-III predation, may be compensatory at low prey
                 abundance, but depensatory at higher densities (Figure 5C). Since wild smolts
                 are frequently dwarfed in number by hatchery releases, we would expect
                 disproportionately higher mortality rates among the wild fish.

                     The vulnerability of hatchery and wild salmonids to predation depends on a
                 number of factors. During underwater observations of predatory attacks by
                 large rainbow trout on mixed groups of outmigrating hatchery and wild chinook
                 salmon in the Wenatchee River, Washington, Hillman and Mullan (1989)
                 reported that wild fish were preferentially preyed upon, probably because they
                 were half the size of the hatchery fish. In 23 attempts (all successful), the
                 trout caught and ate wild fry on all but one occasion, when a hatchery chinook
                 salmon was taken. In other studies, there was either no difference (Hvidsten
                 and Lund 1988) or higher levels (Osterdahl 1969; Ruggles 1980) of predation
                 on hatchery-produced smolts compared to wild smolts.

                     The effect of predation on hatchery and natural salmonid production has
                 been further revealed by predator removal experiments. Better survival of
                 stocked Atlantic salmon fry was obtained by reducing the population of
                 predators in several Scottish streams (Mills 1969). Survival of hatchery
                 steelhead fry stocked in an Idaho stream doubled following removal of fish
                 predators (Horner 1978). Sekulich (1980) found that 49% of the age 0 spring
                 chinook salmon introduced into another Idaho stream remained in pools from
                 which predaceous brook and steelhead trout had been removed, compared to


                                                         57














                                                                       A

                                        80-


                                        60-

                                     OL    -
                                     0        0
                                     U  40-

                                     0

                                        20


                                         01
                                           0       200       480
                                                No. Chinook Fry





                                         6
                                     E        0
                                     Ln  4

                                     0
                                     0        \0\0
                                         2


                                         0
                                           0       100       200        300
                                              Smolt density (thousands)



                                        100-
                                        8
                                         0-
                                     0
                                     2  60
                                     C
                                        40

                                        20
                                     d-  01
                                     ',e
                                     o     0   0.6  1.2   1.8  2.4  3.0
                                                  Fry (millions)




               Figure 5. Examples of predation mortality rates of juvenile salmon. Percentage
               of chinook fry captured by (A) Bonaparte's gulls during 5-minute trials (after
               Mace 1983), and (B) mergansers on a daily basis. (C) Percent daily predation
                                              0







































               on pink salmon fry by coho salmon smolts and trout. Taken from Peterman
               (1987).


                                                         58










                 only 15% in unmanipulated pools. The survival of Atlantic salmon to adult
                 stage. was three times higher when smolts were released in the ocean rather
                 than upstream in the river to bypass predation during downstream migration
                 (Hvidsten and Mokkelgjerd 1987).

                    Similar reductions in predation mortality have been reported when avian
                 predators were removed or reduced in abundance. Huntsman (1941) and Elson
                 0 962) were able to increase Atlantic salmon smolt production by 200-500%
                 by reducing the number of pisciverous birds (primarily mergansers). Avian
                 predators such as gulls and mergansers are opportunistic foragers (MacDonald
                 et al. 1988); if juvenile salmonids are abundant or otherwise conspicuous
                 relative to other species, they become the preferred prey (Wood 1987).
                 Further, bird predators congregate.in favorable feeding areas, such as near
                 hatchery release points ('Mace 1983). In the Columbia River, ring-billed gulls
                 flock to hydroelectric facilities during the spring to feed on migrating salmonids
                 that are killed, wounded, or disoriented as the pass through or over the dams
                 (Ruggerone 1986).

                    Dams on the Columbia River and other regulated streams of the Pacific
                 Northwest have created conditions'that are generally unfavorable for migrating
                 salmonids. The number and diversity of piscivorous fishes has increased in
                 mainstem reservoirs. Exotic species such as the walleye, smallmouth bass, and
                 channel catfish - all predators of juvenile salmonids - have become prominent in
                 reservoir fish communities (Maule and Horton 1984; Gray and Rondorf 1986).
                 At the same time, reservoir refill operations and the backwater effects of dams
                 have increased the length oftime that smolts are exposed to predators during
                 their seaward migrations.

                    The northern squawfish preys on both wild and hatchery juvenile salmonids
                 in lower sections of the Columbia and Snake Rivers (Thompson 1959; Sims et
                 al. 1977; Gray et al. 1983, 1984, 1986; Nigro et al. 1985; Palmer et al. 1986).
                 Squawfish concentrate in tailrace areas of dams where they are able to feed on
                 seaward migrants (Palmer et al. 1986; Faler et al. 1988). Sims et al. (1977)
                 found, salmonid remains in 21 % of squawf ish captured directly below Lower
                 Granite Dam on the Snake River. Squawfish predation on salmonids was
                 higher in fish collected near dams on the lower Columbia River than in those
                 collected away from dams (Gray et al. 1983). Near stocking locations and
                 during periods of hatchery releases, Thompson (11959) reported that juvenile
                 salmonids made up 87% of the fish consumed by northern squawfish in the
                 lower Columbia River. Buchanan et al. (1981), on the other hand, found
                 salmonid remains in only 2% of the squawfish collected in free-flowing sections
                 of the lower Willamette River.

                    As prey populations  become more prolific, diverse, and stable in the
                 Columbia and Snake River reservoirs, the abundance of predators will no.longer
                 be constrained by short-term annual supplies of outmigrating wild smolts.
                 Shifts in predator type and abundance that come with altered species
                 associations, and perhaps with increased hatchery production, have led to
                 higher predation mortalities among wild juveniles during migration (Li et al.
                 1987). Theoretically, inflated predator populations can decimate wild stocks,
                 either trapping them at low levels of abundance or pushing them toward
                 extinction (Peterman and Gatto 1978; Ney and Orth 1986; Peterman 1987).




                                                         59










                 The effect of adding large numbers of hatchery fish to a basin, such as the
              Columbia River, on predation in the estuary and marine environments has not
              been studied to our knowledge. Mortality from predation is variable during the
              estuarine phase. Several North American workers reported that predation on
              salmonids in estuaries is low (Myers 1978; Simenstad et al. 1982; McCabe et
              al. 1983; Myers and Horton 1982). But in recent studies by Norwegian
              researchers, predation losses in estuaries ranged up to 25% of the smolt
              population (Hvidsten and Mokkelgjerd 1987; Hvidsten and Lund 1988). No
              significant difference was found in the predation rate (20%) on wild and
              hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts in the estuary of the River Orkla,
              Norway. Piggins and Mills (1985), however, observed that hatchery-produced
              smolts survived less well at sea than wild smolts by a factor of four which the
              authors theorized was due in part to differences in predator avoidance
              behavior.

                 The intensity and magnitude of predation in estuaries depends in part on the
              duration of residence, the types and numbers of predators present, and the
              bathymetric and hydrographic properties of the estuary. For some species, the
              smaller the fish is upon reaching the estuary, the longer the duration of
              estuarine residence (Simenstad et al. 1982). Levings et al. (1986) reported
              that wild juvenile chinook fry remained in the Campbell River estuary for up to
              twice as long (2 months) as larger hatchery chinook. The stay in the estuary of
              some salmonid species may, in fact, lost for a much shorter period. Healey
              (1979) estimated residence times of 0 - 18 d for chum fry in a small British
              Columbia estuary. Hvidsten and Mokkelgjerd (1987) suggested that Atlantic
              salmon smolts migrated through the River Surna ,(Norway) estuary in less than
              a day. Other authors (Fried et al. 1978; McCleavb 1978) have reported
              relatively rapid estuarine migrations, with the direction and rate of seaward
              movement being strongly influenced by wind and tide-induced currents.

                 A negative correlation between abundance of pink salmon and the
              production of coho salmon in hatcheries in Hood Canal, Washington, was put
              forth as evidence of predation by the larger coho salmon on pink salmon fry
              shortly after their release (Ames 1981). Gunsolus (1978) suggested that
              predation of coho adults on coho smolts influences coho survival. Favorite and
              Laevastu (1979) proposed that sockeye salmon smolts are less vulnerable to
              predation when strong upwelling currents transport them offshore away from
              predators. Increased predation mortality among salmonids may occur during
              years when more preferred prey are scarce (Holtby 1988). Variations in
              predation mortality rather than decreased food supply has been suggested as
              the primary factor affecting Oregon coast coho salmon cohort strength (Fisher
              and Pearcy 1988).

              Fishing Mortality

                 The relative susceptibility to angling of wild versus hatchery juvenile fish,
              and the effect of adding hatchery fish to a drainage on the harvest of wild fish
              varies with the situation. In some circumstances, hatchery fish are more
              vulnerable to angling than wild fish (Parker 1986; Marnell 1986; Boles 1960;
              Flick and Webster 1962; Calhoun 1966; Cordone and Frantz 1968; McLaren
              and Butler 1970; Rawstron 1972; Hunt 1979; Dwyer and Piper 1984). In
              others, such as for brook trout in several Michigan lakes, fishing mortality was
              greater for wild than for hatchery brook trout (Gowing 1978). Based on
              underwater observations of the faster reaction times by wild steelhead trout


                                                     60










                 compared to hatchery rainbow trout when presented with lures, Hillman and
                 Chapman (1989) concluded that wild juvenile steelhead were more vulnerable
                 to angling.

                     Hatchery trout stocked in areas with wild trout could theoretically play a
                 variety of roles in influencing the harvest of the wild fish. Increased numbers
                 of anglers may be attracted to streams where large numbers of hatchery
                 steelhead smolts or catchable-size rainbow trout are released and overharvest
                 juvenile wild steelhead unless they are protected by regulations that prevent
                 their harvest. Pollard and Bjornn (1973) reported that the number of wild
                 steelhead trout caught from Crooked Fork, Idaho, was unaffected by the
                 presence of catchable-size hatchery trout; the wild trout were caught more
                 readily than the hatchery trout, and the hatchery trout did not buffer harvest of
                 the wild fish. Hazzard and Shetter (1938) reported that the catch of wild
                 rainbow trout increased following the stocking of legal-size hatchery trout,
                 presumably because of increased fishing effort. The harvest of larger
                 anadromous presmolts by angling could lead to- fewer adult returns due to
                 reduced smolt production and greater mortality among the remaining, small
                 smolts (Wagner 1968). Even if harvesting wild fish is prohibited, catch and
                 release fishing can have negative consequences, including delayed hooking
                 mortality (Wydoski 1977), increased susceptibility to natural mortality, and
                 disruptions of existing social hierarchies (Lewynsky and Bjornn 1987).

                     The effect of supplementation on angling related mortality for adult wild
                 salmonids can be severe if large numbers of hatchery fish are available for
                 harvest and the wild fish are not protected in some way. Catch-and-release is
                 commonly used to protect the wild fish, and can be quite effective, but even so
                 angling-induced stresses and mortalities can be significant (Wydoski et al.
                 1976; Bouck and Ball 1966; Stringer 1967). Stress caused by hooking did not
                 affect the homing accuracy of hatchery steelhead trout (Reingold 1975). Pettit
                 (1977) found no difference in the viability and development of eggs from
                 female steelhead that had been caught, released, and survived to enter the
                 hatchery versus fish that had not been caught.

                     When hatchery fish are produced to supplement a natural run, a common
                 management goal is to maximize harvest while maintaining a desired level of
                 natural production. Fishing pressure usually increases as the total availability of
                 fish increases, requiring careful regulation of exploitation rates and fishing
                 seasons to avoid over-harvesting the wild stock (Evans and Smith 1986).
                 Excessive harvest of the naturally-produced fish can be avoided either by
                 restricting the catch (Reisenbichler 1986a), by marking all hatchery fish and
                 requiring that unmarked wild fish be released (Reisenbichler 1986b), by
                 adjusting the timing and distribution of harvest through stock selection and
                 hatchery practices, by trapping and releasing hatchery adults into protected
                 areas, and by establishing terminal (i.e., spatially distinct) fisheries (Evans and
                 Smith 1986).

                 Disease

                    Disease must be considered within the framework of supplementation
                 because of its role as a mortality agent. The is copious amounts of information
                 on the incidence and effects of disease on salmonids within hatcheries. Our
                 understanding of the effects of disease on free-ranging hatchery and wild fish
                 is much more tenuous. Disease is thought to result in significant post-release


                                                           61









             mortality among hatchery fish, being either directly responsible or predisposing
             fish to mortality from other causes. We have found little evidence to suggest
             that the transmission of disease from infected hatchery fish to wild salmonids is
             widespread. However, there has not been much research on this subject and
             since most disease-related losses probably go undetected (Goede 1986), we
             conclude that the full impact of disease on supplemented stocks is probably
             underestimated.

                 Fishery managers are generally aware of the potential for introducing
             infectious microparasites (defined to include viruses, fungi, bacteria, and many
             protozoans) and macroparasites (protozoans, helminths, and arthropods) into
             natural or wild salmonid stocks through the production and release of fish from
             hatcheries. Infectious diseases can theoretically be transmitted between two or
             more stocks, hatchery-produced or wild, having susceptible fish which come in
             contact with the pathogen. For example, hatchery stocks may be
             contaminated by fish, eggs, or water transported from other facilities. Surface
             water supplies used and discharged by hatcheries are rarely pathogen-free
             (Wolf 1972; Frantsi et al. 1975), so that water-borne diseases are not easily
             treated or contained. Hatcheries may act as reservoirs of infection due to
             conditions or practices which increase the vulnerability of fish to infection and
             maintain pathogen populations at infective levels (Goede 1986). Disease
             problems may persist in hatcheries as a consequence of contaminated water
             supplies and reproductive or vertical transmission of intracellular pathogens
             such as viruses. The perpetuation of infectious hernatopoietic necrosis virus
             OHNV) among many species of salmonids in Columbia River basin hatcheries is
             an example (Mulcahy et al. 1983; Groberg and Fryer 1983).
                 Hatchery stocks which show no outward sign of disease or parasitism may
             nevertheless contain fish carrying latent and infective doses of disease.
             Avoiding detection, subclinically infected fish are probably released into natural
             waters more often than is realized (Marnell 1986). Even under favorable
             conditions, latent infections may limit the success of hatchery fish released into
             natural habitats. At worst, virulent pathogens may be introduced into areas
             where they previously did not exist, causing catastrophic losses and the
             decimation of entire stocks of fish. Exposure to pathogens may potentially
             affect both hatchery and wild salmonids by (1) increasing levels of mortality,
             (2) increasing sensitivity to stressors, (3) impairing performance, and (4)
             modifying the genetic composition of the infected population. We direct the
             reader to Goede 0 986) for an excellent summary of these problems.

                 Disease outbreaks are a relatively common occurrence in hatcheries, often
             requiring therapeutic treatment and sometimes the wholesale destruction of
             diseased fish. These efforts do not always meet with success. Recent results
             point to the failure of control methods to eliminate epizootics of bacterial
             kidney disease (BKD) among hatchery stocks of Columbia River spring chinook
             salmon (Elliott et al. 1989). Average rates of return of hatchery-produced
             spring chinook salmon adults were negatively correlated (r = -0.72; calculated
             from data presented in Table 2 of Raymond (1988)) with the number of
             hatchery smolts migrating past the uppermost dam on the Snake River during
             1966-1984. During the same period, wild chinook salmon returned at an 80%
             higher rate than did hatchery fish (2.3% vs. 1.3% average rate of return).
             Even during years of improved in-river survival of hatchery smolts, the return of
             adults was lower than expected. From this, Raymond (1988) concluded that
             problems other than mortalities at dams were affecting hatchery stocks of


                                                      62









                  spring chinook salmon. Most researchers (e.g., Raymond 1988; Williams
                  1989) now believe that low stress tolerance coupled with a high incidence of
                  BKD in yearling chinook salmon smolts is the major factor limiting spring
                  chinook salmon production at Snake River basin hatcheries. Experimental
                  evidence suggests that BKD interferes with the ability of salmonid smolts to
                  acclimate to seawater, and that exposure to seawater actually accelerates
                  mortality among infected fish (Fryer and Sanders 1981; Banner et al. 1983;
                  Banner et al. 1986; Congleton et al. 1985). Banner et al. (1983, 1986) and
                  Congleton et al. (1985) present data indicating that BKD-infected spring
                  chinook smolts from several Oregon and Idaho hatcheries suffered heavy
                  mortalities (up to 85%) after being held for several months in seawater. Many
                  questions remain regarding the relationships between the. incidence of disease
                  in wild and hatchery stocks, physiological changes associated with smolt
                  transformation, and survival in early ocean life.

                     Smoltification, the handling and confinement of fish during transportation,
                  delays in downstream fish passage at dams, entry into saltwater and numerous
                  other factors (e.g., temperature, pollution, etc.) all represent potential causes of
                  stress in salmonids (Sanders et al. 1978; Wederneyer et al. 1980; Specker and
                  Schreck 1980; Fryer and Sanders 1981; Banner et al. 1983; Congleton et al.
                  1985; Li et al. 1987). The role of stress in reducing the ability of the salmonid
                  immune system to respond to pathogens and other environmental stressors is
                  well documented (Wedemeyer 1970; Wederneyer and Wood 1974; Schreck
                  1981; Murphy and Kelso 1986). For example, stress-induced increases in
                  plasma cortisol are known to lower the natural resistance of fish to disease
                  pathogens (Pickering and Duston 1983; Angelidis et al. 1987). Aeromonas
                  hydrophila epizootics are precipitated by stress conditions (Bullock et al. 1971);
                  infections in salmonids are usually associated with stressful (i.e., elevated)
                  water temperatures (Groberg et al. 1978).

                     Survival, growth, swimming ability, and other performance measures are
                  compromised by the presence of disease, particularly in marginal habitats, after
                  hatchery fish are released (Goede 1986). Smith and Margolis (1970) and
                  Boyce (1979) found that juvenile sockeye salmon infested with tapeworm
                  (Eubothrium salvelinil were more prone to exhaustion, lower growth rates, and
                  higher mortalities than were unparasitized juveniles. Repeated measurements
                  on two groups of brook trout, one carrying the IPN virus and the other not, 2.5
                  y after their release into a lake indicated that the carrier fish were smaller by 5
                  to 8% (Yamamoto 1975). However, size differences were not apparent 6
                  years after stocking (Yamamoto and Kilistoff 1979).

                     The generally poor ecological performance of hatchery fish following
                  stocking (discussed in a previous section) may increase their vulnerability to
                  diseases prevalent outside of the hatchery. Hatchery fish are presumably
                  stressed by agonistic encounters with wild fish but to our knowledge no one
                  has addressed the effects of such stress in epidemiological terms. Social
                  interactions and status have a significant bearing on the severity of the stress
                  response in salmonids (Li and Brocksen 1977; Ejike and Schreck 1980).
                  Socially inferior hatchery fish may be more susceptible to infection following
                  release. A similar argument can be made for situations in which wild trout are
                  dominated by introduced hatchery fish. Petrosky and Bjornn (1988), however,
                  saw no evidence of extended periods of stress in resident rainbow trout
                  following the introduction of large numbers of hatchery trout.



                                                           63










                In spite of the comparatively high incidence of disease among some
             hatchery fish stocks, there is little evidence to suggest that diseases or
             parasites are routinely transmitted from hatchery to wild fish. Work by
             Yamamoto and Kilistoff 0 979) indicates that the IPN virus is not readily
             transmitted to noninfected brook trout in natural systems. Spread of BKD from
             heavily infected (100%) Atlantic salmon in the hatchery to wild fish was very
             limited (< 1 % infected; Pippy 1969). From experimental stocking of hatchery-
             reared brook trout infected with BKD and furunculosis, Allison (1961) and
             McDermott and Berst (1968), respectively, concluded that there was little or no
             communication of pathogens to resident wild brook trout. Mitchum et al.
             (1979) suggested that wild (feral) brook trout were infected with BKD by
             hatchery stocks, but did not provide conclusive evidence; hatchery trout last
             stocked in 1963 were inferred to have been the source of an epizootic among
             wild fish in 1976. Horizontal transmission of BKD from infected wild brook
             trout to stocked salmonids in natural waters has also been reported (Mitchum
             and Sherman 1981). Little is known of the prevalence of vertically transmitted
             diseases among progeny of naturally spawning hatchery or hatchery x wild
             salmonids.

                The outcome of exposing wild stocks to infected hatchery stock - whether it
             is fatal, debilitating, or benign - depends on ecological parameters which
             influence the spread and pathology of the disease. If the incidence of wild
             salmonids being infected by hatchery fish is low, it may be due to a reduced
             probability of contact between individuals outside the confines of the hatchery,
             a greater natural resistance to pathogens among wild salmonids, and
             environmental conditions which are inimical to the survival and transmission of
             the pathogen. Marnell (1986) suggests that the constraining influence of high
             intermediate host-specificity among many fish parasites may limit their
             distribution and abundance.

                Natural immunity to diseases and parasites appears to vary among species
             and stocks of salmonids (Sanders et al. 1970; Heggberget and Johnsen 1982;
             Babey and Berry 1989; LaPatra et al. 1990). For example, it has been
             postulated that members of the genus Onchorynchus may be more susceptible
             to BKD than are species of the former Salmo genus (Evelyn et al. 1988).
             Epizootics of the IHN virus occur in sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, and
             steelhead trout, but coho salmon are immune (Li et al. 1987). Winter et al.
             (1980) reported differences in BKD resistance among stocks of steelhead trout
             and coho salmon. They also found that individual stocks may be resistant to
             one disease (BKD) but highly susceptible to another (vibriosis). Variable
             susceptibility to infection by the protozoan Ceratomyxa shasta, and
             corresponding pre-spawning adult mortality, has been demonstrated for coho
             salmon (Sanders et al. 1972; Hemmingsen et al. 1986), chinook salmon (Zinn
             et al. 1977; Ratliff 1981) and summer-run steelhead (Buchanan et al. 1983).
             Infection frequencies in stocks of these species from the lower Columbia River
             and its tributaries appear to be much lower than in stocks from streams in
             which the protozoan is absent (Hemmingsen et al. 1986). Johnels (1984; cited
             by Stahl 1987) suggested that the introduction of hatchery-propagated Atlantic
             salmon from Sweden (Baltic Sea stocks) was responsible for the rapid spread of
             the skin parasite, Gyrodactylus salaris, in stocks of less resistant salmon in
             Norway (Eastern Atlantic stocks).

                Evidence is accumulating that resistance to pathogens among salmonids is
             an inherited trait resulting from selection pressures. Immunity to several


                                                   64









                  diseases has been demonstrated to have a heritable basis in fish (Gjedrem
                  1983), although specific host cellular genes which confer a regulatory effect on
                  the outcome of disease in fish have yet to be discovered. McIntyre and Amend
                  (1978) demonstrated strong heritability for resistance to IHN in sockeye
                  salmon. BKD resistance in coho salmon differs among transferring genotypes
                  (Suzurnoto et al. 1977; Winter et al. 1980).

                     As is true of other vertebrate species (O'Brien and Evermann 1989),
                  salmonids have developed an elaborate array of immunogenetic defenses
                  against pathogens with which they have co-evolved, but may be hypersensitive
                  to exotic pathogens communicated by conspecifics and other closely related
                  hosts (Barbehenn 1969; Marnell 1986). Widespread use of chemotherapy to
                  control disease in hatcheries may result in the development of new, drug-
                  resistant strains of viral and bacterial pathogens by natural selection. The
                  consequences of exposing Wild stocks to novel pathogens that are both virulent
                  and readily transmitted may extend well beyond the economic impacts of the
                  disease. Epizootics, if severe enough, can affect both the genetic structure and
                  persistence of a species. Besides selecting for genotypes that confer immunity
                  on surviving fish, disease outbreaks can alter the frequencies of alleles at loci
                  affecting disease resistance (Allendorf et al. 1987), particularly when a large
                  contraction in population size occurs. An inverse correlation between
                  susceptibility to disease and genetic variability (allelic diversity) is suspected
                  because immune system response appears to be coded by genes that are
                  highly polymorphic (R. Waples, NMFS, pers. comm.). Significant losses of
                  allelic diversity at loci associated with disease resistance are likely to increase a
                  stock's susceptibility to epizootics.

                     Marnell (1986) has identified several conditions which, if met, increase the
                  probability of damage to natural immune systems: (1) fish have no
                  evolutionary association with a harmful pathogen present in the receiving
                  water, (2) hybridization occurs between hatchery fish and the wild stock, and
                  (3) long periods of time elapse between epizootics. The primary implication of
                  using hatchery and wild stocks which have different genetically determined
                  immune systems is that their progeny may be less resistant to endemic
                  diseases. Hemmingsen et al. (1986) demonstrated that the susceptibility to
                  infection by C. shasta by progeny of crossbred coho salmon was almost always
                  intermediate between the susceptibilities of fish from the parental stocks.

                     The specificity of fish immunogenetic defense systems may dictate that only
                  native or closely related stocks of salmonids be used for propagation.
                  Regardless of the source of broodstock used, stocking programs should include
                  monitoring and prophylactic treatment as needed to prevent the spread of
                  potentially harmful diseases (Griffiths 1983; Murphy and Kelso 1986). Fish
                  that are diagnosed as having a disease, or are even suspected of carrying a
                  disease, should not be stocked into waters where that disease has never been
                  detected (Evans and Smith 1986).



                                            Supplementation Methodology

                     In this section we discuss various stocking variables that, through their
                  effect on the interaction and survival of hatchery and wild fish, can strongly
                  influence the success of supplementation programs. Supplementation


                                                           65









               techniques that offer relatively easy and cost-effective means of regulating
               contact between hatchery and wild fish include, but are not limited to, stocking
               rates, size or age at release, and time and location of release. Successful
               supplementation requires knowledge of stock-specific life histories and habitat
               requirements; if the goal is minimize impacts to wild stocks, then hatchery fish
               should be produced that are qualitatively similar to those stocks.


               Rearing and Stocking Procedures

                  The quality of fish released from hatcheries influences their subsequent
               survival and contribution as adults to the fishery and the spawning population
               (Burrows 1969). Insight into the effects of hatchery rearing and stocking
               procedures on the post-release survival of hatchery fish has been reported in
               several studies, but we were unable to locate quantitative information which
               describes the effects of various rearing and stocking procedures on wild or
               supplemented stocks. Our discussion, therefore, focuses primarily on the
               performance of hatchery fish.

                  Several abiotic and biotic factors affect the quality and production of
               salmonids in hatcheries (Table 8). Environmental conditions can be controlled
               within limits determined by site-specific factors (e.g., chemistry of water
               source, and physical facilities) and hatchery operations. Rearing and feeding
               (nutrition, frequency of feeding) techniques have improved to the point where
               hatcheries are able to produce better quality fish, minimize disease problems,
               and increase survival, without unduly sacrificing the quantity of fish produced.
               Nevertheless, much work remains to be done to define and develop optimum
               rearing strategies that conserve genetic resources and allow fish to survive,
               grow, and reproduce following their release into streams (Reisenbichier 1986a).

               Table 8. Environmental factors known to affect the quality and production of
               salmonids in hatcheries (Parker 1986).


                  Physical                        Chemical                Biological

                  Temperature               Dissolved Gases               Species
                  Pressure                  pH                            Genetics
                  Photoperiod               Nitrogenous wastes            Sex
                  Water Velocity            Inorganic Ions                Age
                  Cover                     Hardness                      Health
                  Substrate                 Alkalinity                    Physiological status
                                            Salinity
                                            Contaminants



                  Methods of stocking may affect the post-release survival of hatchery fish.
               In some cases the stocking is relatively easy on the fish, as when fish are
               released at the hatchery and allowed to leave the hatchery voluntarily. When
               fish are stocked away from the hatchery, the juveniles are captured at a
               hatchery, loaded into tank trucks, transported, and released into a lake or
               stream (Barton et al. 1980). Several components of the latter process may
               affect the subsequent performance and survival of hatchery-reared fish. Of


                                                          66









                  special concern is the amount and duration of stress which fish are subjected
                  to by, handling, confinement, transportation and release procedures. From the
                  by Specker and Schreck (1980) and Barton et al. (1980) we believe that
                  properly conducted stocking operations do not represent severe stressors to
                  fish.

                     Environmental stressors, while not necessarily lethal in themselves, may
                  disturb endocrine, metabolic, and osmoregulatory homeostasis (see Mazeaud et
                  al. (1977) for a review), leading to reduced fitness and subsequent mortality.
                  Handling and crowding can elicit a strong stress response in salmonids
                  (Wedemeyer 1972; Schreck et al. 1977; Strange et al. 1978), and may be the
                  most stressful aspects of the stocking operation (Specker and Schreck 1980;
                  Barton et al. 1980; Barton and Peter 1982; Congleton et al. 1984). In a study
                  of delayed mortality of stocked rainbow trout in Oregon, Horton (11956)
                  observed a pattern of gradually increasing mortality until the third or fourth
                  day, followed by a decrease and cessation by the end of a week's time.
                  Average delayed mortality in Oregon stocking operations ranged as high as
                  10% of the fish transported.

                     Tagging operations are probably significant causes of stress (Yamada et al.
                  1979) and mortality. Berg (1977) reported that the additional step of weighing
                  Atlantic salmon smolts at time of tagging reduced returns from 14% to 2.2%.
                  Tagged fish, if their appearance or swimming abilities are altered by external
                  marks, may not be able to interact normally in social and predatory situations.

                     The type of transport employed may influence stocking success. Air-
                  dropped brook trout yearlings experienced lower survival than trout released at
                  ground level in Ontario lakes (Fraser 1968). Congleton et al. (1984) reported
                  that chinook salmon smolts transported by barge from collection facilities on
                  the Snake River to the Columbia River estuary had significantly lower plasma
                  cortisol concentrations than did smolts transported by truck.

                     Variations in loading density apparently have little effect on stress levels or
                  mortality among transported salmonids, provided that water quality is not
                  compromised. Congleton et al. (1984) found no difference in plasma cortisol
                  concentrations in chinook salmon smolts held for up to 24 hours at three
                  loading densities (0.12, 0.25, and 0.50 pound/gal in transportation collection
                  facilities. Survival rates did not differ among test groups of coho salmon
                  smolts confined at low (12 g/L) and high (120 g/L) densities following
                  transportation (Specker and Schreck 1980).

                     Primary and secondary stress responses in salmonids associated with
                  outplanting operations can be ameliorated by ensuring good water quality
                  during shipment and avoiding excessive handling, crowding, and transit times.
                  High dissolved oxygen levels, reduced water temperatures, and salt
                  concentrations which help maintain osmotic balance are recommended for
                  transport and recovery water (McCraren and Millard 1978; Nikinmaa et al.
                  1983; Parker 1986).

                     Because hatchery salmonids require prolonged periods, up to a week in
                  some cases, to recover from a stressful situation (Strange et al. 1978; Barton
                  et al. 1980), it may be necessary to provide a recovery area following
                  transportation, particularly, if conditions in the receiving water would not allow
                  the fish to recover (Parker 1986). In a study designed to evaluate the effects


                                                           67










              of post-stocking acclimation on hatchery-reared brown trout released into three
              Welsh rivers, Cresswell and Williams (1982) observed less dispersal and higher
              percentages of recapture among acclimated fish, but only under low flow
              conditions. Miller (1954) found that hatchery-reared rainbow trout conditioned
              in a stream survived better than unconditioned, pond-reared fish. Shustov et
              al. (198 1) attributed poor dispersal by hatchery Atlantic salmon released into
              the Kuzreka River (Kola peninsula, USSR) to poor physical conditioning and a
              lack of endurance.

              Stocking Densities and Rates

                 Optimal stocking densities and rates depend on (1) the objectives of the
              project (e.g., enhancement vs restoration), (2) the distribution and carrying
              capacity of the habitats into which hatchery fish are to be introduced, (3) the
              proportion of limiting resources already used by resident fish, and (4) the
              viability (survival and reproductive success) of hatchery- produced fish.
              Determining the proper stocking rates for supplementation is more complicated
              than that for stock establishment or restoration in that consideration must be
              given to the abundance of wild fish relative to the carrying capacity of the
              stream.

                 Optimal stocking densities for steelhead fry and Atlantic salmon have been
              estimated by Hume and Parkinson (1987) and Cote and Pomerleau (11985; cited
              by Bley and Moring 1988). Symons and Heland (1978) refined stocking
              densities for hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon on the basis of age-specific
              habitat requirements. Because space, food, and cover requirements vary with
              fish size (e.g., Everest and Chapman 1972), the productivity and availability of
              size-specific habitats must be considered when supplementing species which
              spend more than one year in freshwater. Carrying capacities are higher and
             -hatchery fish are more likely to learn to feed successfully in productive streams
              than in infertile streams (Bjornn 1986). Aquatic productivity is determined by a
              host of environmental factors, some of the more important being stream
              morphology, flow regime, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, acidity,
              allochthonous input, and the composition of the resident biota. In order to fully
              utilize the productive potential of the stream and to reduce energetic costs and
              predation losses, supplementation is probably best accomplished by releasing
              fish in small groups in several locations (Cote and Pomerleau 1985 - cited by
              Bley and Moring 1988; Hume and Parkinson 1987; Richards and Cernera
              1989).

                 Hatchery managers should gauge the potential effects of releasing large
              numbers of presmolts or smolts on predator populations. Relatively high
              threshold densities of smolts may need to be released in order to significantly
              reduce the risk of predation (Peterman 1977; Ruggerone and Rogers 1984;
              McIntyre et al. 1989). Sufficient production of hatchery and wild fish
              combined with prudent harvest management is required to avoid depensatory
              losses to predators (including man), and to prevent the potential collapse and
              equilibration of wild stocks at relatively low population levels (Peterman 1987).

              Age and Size at Release

                 Most anadromous hatchery fish, including those reared for supplementation
              purposes, are released as smolts with the expectation that they will migrate
              seaward soon after release (Bjornn 1986; Lichatowich and McIntyre 1987).


                                                      68









                   Alternate strategies include stocking underutilized habitats with eggs, fry, or
                   parr (presmolts) and surplus adult fish. Each management approach is species
                   and situation specific and involves economic and biological tradeoffs.
                   Production costs are inversely related to the length of time that fish are reared
                   at the hatchery, but fish grown to a larger size generally return at higher rates
                   (Potter and Barton 1986). Production of wild salmonid smolts is less affected
                   by raising hatchery fish to smolt size before outplanting (Wagner 1967). There
                   are, however, genetic and disease burdens associated with prolonged hatchery
                   residencies (see earlier sections).

                       Stocking strategies other than smolt stocking require that the hatchery
                   juveniles rear in freshwater for a period before emigrating to the ocean (Bjornn
                   1986). Supplementation of natural stocks with presmolt life stages has
                   become a valuable management tool because: (1) it allows for greater
                   flexibility, efficiency, and volume in hatchery production, (2) more fish can be
                   produced from natural rearing areas, and (3) the potential for detrimental
                   genetic alteration is reduced. From a consideration of expected survival rates
                   and production costs, Hume and Parkinson (1988) advised releasing smaller
                   presmolts (fry) when the area to be stocked is small and a large number of
                   eggs are available. Stocking larger fish may be the best supplementation
                   technique when brood stock is scarce and a large amount of habitat is
                   available. If the population size of wild fish is dangerously low (i.e., small
                   relative to its potential), a conservative strategy might be to release smaller fish
                   into underseeded habitats at densities which are unlikely to result in the
                   displacement of the wild fish.

                       Several experiments have been reported or are currently underway to
                   evaluate the effects of age and size at release on supplementation. Seidel et
                   al. 0 988) noted that poststocking survival-to-adult of fall chinook fingerlings
                   raised in Washington hatcheries jumped from approximately 0.2% to 1.2%
                   when mean size at release was increased from 4 to 6 g. Reimers 0 979)
                   reported that survival to return of yearling chinook salmon released from the Elk
                   River hatchery (2.2%), although lower than that of wild salmon (4.3%), was
                   substantially higher than survival of fish released as underyearlings (0.3%).
                   Survival of fall-run chinook salmon from hatcheries on the Sacramento River
                   also appears to be positively related to release size (Reisenbichler et al. 1982).
                   Seelbach (1987) found that large yearling steelhead trout stocked in a Lake
                   Michigan tributary in the fall survived to smolt stage at a much higher rate than
                   did smaller fall-planted fingerlings and similar size, spring-planted yearlings. It
                   is not clear whether the results apply to other hatchery programs since the
                   experimental fish used in this study were first-generation offspring of wild
                   steelhead.

                       It is difficult to differentiate the effects of size of release from time of
                   release. Work by Bilton et al. (1982, 1984) indicated that release size and time
                   jointly affect the survival and average size of salmon returning to coastal
                   hatcheries. From an evaluation of survival rates for three graded size groups of
                   juvenile coho salmon released simultaneously on four separate occasions during
                   the spring and summer, Bilton et al. (1982) concluded that adult returns would
                   be maximal for late June releases of large juveniles. For the range of release
                   sizes and dates typically available to hatchery managers, time of release
                   apparently has a greater effect on survival than does size (Bilton et al. 1982,
                   1984; Mathews and Ishida 1989).



                                                              69









                 Size at release may also affect the size of adults returning to the hatchery
              and, presumably, to spawn naturally; larger, faster growing smolts tend to
              return at an earlier age and are smaller in size (Hager and Noble 1976; Bilton et
              al 1982; Bilton 1984). Supplementation efforts may fail to produce the desired
              results if early-maturing hatchery fish are unable to compete effectively for wild
              mates or spawning sites.

                 Green (newly fertilized) or eyed eggs of hatc hery-s pawned anadromous
              salmonids are frequently stocked in streams and artificial incubation channels
              with the goal of augmenting natural production (Thomas 1975; Egglishaw and
              Shackley 1980; Kennedy and Strange 1980, 1981). Survival to the fry stage
              was lower for Atlantic salmon green eggs (1.4%) than for eyed eggs (10.3%)
              stocked in a Scottish stream (Kennedy and Strange 1981). Egg-to-fry survival
              varied inversely with stream gradient and resident fish densities (Kennedy and
              Strange 1980, 1984). Overwinter survival rates of embryos and yolk-sac
              larvae of wild and hatchery brook trout have been found to be similar (Flick and
              Webster 1964).

                 Egg planting reduces the exposure of fish to artificial selection in the
              hatchery but does not guarantee favorable results. Atlantic salmon from a
              Scottish hatchery that were stocked as eggs in two streams in northern Spain
              contributed significantly less to the adult in-river fishery than did native salmon.
              The lower performance of the non-native eggs was thought to have resulted
              from a combination of poor genetic adaptat.ion and inadequate stocking
              methods (Garcia de Leaniz et al. 1989). Planting technique has been shown to
              affect the survival of salmonid eggs and embryos; direct plants of eyed eggs of
              brown trout produced more sac and swim-up fry than did Whitlock Vibert box
              plants (Harshbarger and Porter 1982).

                 Although substantial mortality of outplanted eggs can be expected even
              under the best conditions, optimal results are obtained when fertilization and
              stocking mimic natural spawning times. Foerster (1938) and Bjornn (1978)
              found no difference in the efficiency of supplementation of sockeye salmon and
              steelhead trout, respectively, using egg planting and releasing button-up fry.

                 A variation of the egg outplanting technique is the stocking of strearnside
              incubation boxes with fertilized eggs of hatchery or wild stock origin. If a
              reliable supply of eggs from wild spawners can be obtained, egg boxes offer an
              attractive means of supplementing natural production, with less dependence on
              hatche ry-propa gated stocks of fish. Egg boxes require fewer resources, and
              are simpler and more portable than more conventional methods of artificial
              propagation, but do require reasonably good water quality.

                 Stocks can be supplemented successfully with age-O salmonids, particularly
              in productive, underseeded habitats (Bjornn 1978). Fry fed for a short period
              before release may survive better than unfed fry (Stewart 1963), if the fry
              normally kept in the hatchery readily feed on the hatchery diet and do well.
              Slaney et al. (1980) reported substantial yields from stocking steelhead trout
              fry (mean weight 0.3 g) above migration barriers in a high-gradient stream.
              Results from other studies, however, indicate that stocking hatchery fish at the
              fry stage yields low survival rates and, consequently, low percentages of adult
              returns (Wagner and Stauffer 1978; Seelbach 1987; Hume and Parkinson
              1988). Hume and Parkinson (1988) found that larger and presumably less
              vulnerable age-O steelhead released late in the growing season almost always


                                                       70









                 survived better than did smaller fish released earlier. The relative importance of
                 size and time-at-release could not be distinguished because they were highly
                 correlated.

                    The average size of fry released from the hatchery relative to that of
                 resident wild fry may affect the subsequent survival of both groups of fish. If
                 hatchery fish are stocked or emerge earlier than wild fish, they may enjoy a
                 competitive advantage (Fenderson et al. 1968) and reduce the survival of wild
                 fish emerging at the normal time (Solazzi et al. 1983; Nickelson et al. 1986;
                 Chandler and Bjornn 1988). Size-related effects can be avoided by imposing
                 spawning, incubation, and feeding schedules that ensure that the hatchery fish
                 are not present in the stream ahead of the wild fish and they are not larger than
                 the wild fish (Reisenbichler 1986a).

                    Size at release has also been found to correlate with poststocking survival
                 of older presmolts and smolts for steelhead (Larson and Ward 1954; Wagner
                 1968; Bjornn 1986; Seelbach 1987) Atlantic salmon (Meister 1969; Chadwick
                 1987) coho salmon (Hager and Noble 1976; Mahnken et al. 1982; Bilton et al.
                 1982) and chinook salmon (Hosmer et al. 1979; Seidel et al. 1988). Holtby
                 0 988), however, reported that larger wild coho salmon smolts survived no
                 better than smaller smolts from the same stock. Body size and smolt
                 transformation status may influence the rate and path of migration taken by
                 spring chinook salmon smolts released into the lower Columbia River (W.
                 Zaugg, NMFS, pers. comm.). Larger fish tended to migrate in mid-river,
                 whereas smaller fish remained close to shore. Migration rates were positively
                 correlated with size at release.

                    Body size has an effect on the percentage of fish of a given age that
                 become smolts and perhaps on the timing of seaward migration, particularly for
                 species that normally spend more than one year in freshwater. Even in the
                 presence of conducive exogenous stimuli (e.g., photoperiod), steelhead and
                 Atlantic salmon are likely to remain in freshwater for additional periods of time
                 if threshold sizes for smolting have not been attained (Bjornn 1986). For many
                 species, hatchery programs have been successfully implemented to shorten the
                 time required to reach smolt stage. Freshwater rearing periods for steelhead
                 and Atlantic salmon, normally lasting two or more years, have been reduced to
                 one year by providing increased temperatures and thereby growth rates in
                 some hatcheries. Similar efforts to produce viable age-0, rather than yearling,
                 coho and chinook salmon smolts have been less effective (Bilton and Jenkinson
                 1980; Bjornn 1986). Bilton et al. (1982) reported that "accelerated" age-O
                 coho salmon smolts returned at 'one-tenth the rate of age-1 (the normal
                 smolting age) smolts that had been released on the same day. Bjornn (11986)
                 observed that chinook salmon which normally became smolt as yearlings in the
                 spring, became smolts and migrated downstream in the spring about 9 months
                 after spawning if growth and development were accelerated in a hatchery, but
                 returned at lesser rates than yearling smolts from the same population. In both
                 cases, age-O fish were smaller than the corresponding age-1 smolts; probably
                 too small to survive in the ocean (13jornn 1986).

                 Time and Location of Release

                    Time and location of release are important in supplementation of wild stocks
                 because those two factors can help regulate the extent and magnitude of
                 interactions between hatchery and wild fish. Smolt releases from anadromous


                                                       71









            fish hatcheries are usually timed to coincide with the outmigration of wild
            conspecifics (Reimers 1979; Levings and Lauzier 1988). This practice yields
            conflicting results: it helps to preserve genetic integrity and ensures higher
            survival by mimicking natural outmigration, but it also increases the risk of
            density-related mortality and undesirable interactions between hatchery and
            wild fish. The objective and the result in most cases is the rapid movement of
            hatchery smolts to the ocean, where density-dependent effects are presumed
            to be less likely or less intense (Reisenbichler 1986a).

               Chinook salmon and steelhead smolt releases from hatcheries in the Snake
            River drainage are also scheduled to coincide with flow (i.e., "Water Budget")
            releases and barge transportation schedules. Releases are timed to avoid
            overlap between the two species because the smaller chinook may be stressed
            by steelhead during transportation. Releases from Oregon hatcheries are based
            on time with size criteria; release times are hatchery and species specific
            (Nietzel and Fickeisen 1990).

               Although smolt transformation is under the control of the seasonal
            photoperiod cycle (Clarke et al. 1981), considerable variability in the timing of
            the seaward migration of wild smolts occurs with fluctuation in temperature,
            flow, and other proximate factors in the environment (Grau 1981; Solomon
            1981; Holtby et al. 1989). Rapid migration and a decreased risk of competition
            and predation may be facilitated by nighttime releases of larger fish under
            conditions of high turbidity and flow (Ginetz and Larkin 1976). Unfortunately,
            there are few data on ecological interactions between hatchery and wild
            smolts, so the impact of supplementation at this life stage remains poorly
            understood.

               Time of release may affect the distribution of the fish in the marine
            environment (Irvine and Ward 1989) and the timing of adult returns (Evans and
            Smith 1986). For example, delayed smolt releases have been used to obtain
            "non-migrating" stocks of salmon in the Puget Sound (Mahnken and Joyner
            1973). Delayed releases may have the benefit of hastening downstream
            migrations of hatchery smolts (Zaugg 1981, 1982; Zaugg et al. 1986), but also
            risk causing increased residualism, lower survival, and increased straying of
            returning adults if delayed for too long (Scholz et al. 1978). Fish released into
            the Columbia and Snake Rivers from upriver hatcheries after the spring runoff
            may have difficulty migrating through the reservoirs and be subjected to
            increased turbine-related mortality (Seidel et al. 1988).

               A portion of the hatchery fish released may either fail to emigrate or exhibit
            a protracted downstream migration lasting for weeks or months (Levings and
            Lauzier 1988). The survival of hatchery nresiduals" is generally thought to be
            low (Seelbach 1987), although Reimers and Concannon 0 977) recorded higher
            survival among chinook salmon that remained in the river for several months
            following a June release from an Oregon hatchery. Mitans (1970)
            recommended early spring stocking of smolt-age Atlantic salmon to allow non-
            migrants more rearing time in freshwater. Studies by Wagner (1968), however,
            suggest that early releases may be inappropriate; adult returns from smolt-size
            steelhead trout yearlings stocked in February and March were much lower than
            returns from releases in late April (the natural time of emigration). Hemmingsen
            et al. (1986) demonstrated a similar reduction in survival when the release date
            of coho salmon was advanced from July to May. Early releases of coho



                                                    72










                 salmon can increase predation on natural ly-prod uced pink and chum fry
                 (Johnson 1974).

                    Choices concerning the streams, stream reaches, and sites within a reach to
                 be stocked depend on management goals, accessibility, and the characteristics
                 of the receiving water. Release locations may be chosen with the aim of
                 minimizing losses of hatchery fish to predation (Thompson and Tufts 1964), to
                 dam-related mortality (Ebel 1970), and to lessening competition between
                 hatchery and wild fish (Nietzel'and Fickeisen 1990). Because anadromous
                 salmonids generally home to the stream, and often to the release area, from
                 which they emigrated as smolts (Wagner 1969; Hasler 1971; Power and
                 McCleave 1980), release locations can be chosen to facilitate the segregation
                 ,or mixing of hatchery and wild stocks, depending on program goals. Careful
                 selection of release sites can help protect non-targeted wild stocks by
                 minimizing interactions, by diverting fishing pressure away from vulnerable
                 stocks, and by enhancing the opportunity to catch hatchery fish (Cramer
                 1981). Stocking programs set up solely to produce fish for harvest can lessen
                 effects on wild fish by concentrating releases in streams outside sensitive
                 natural production areas.

                    Integration of hatchery fish into wild stocks requires careful planning of the
                 number and size of fish stocked, and the areas and time of stocking. Streams
                 or reaches where natural spawning has been deficient are obvious choices for
                 consideration. Stocking the fish in a single location may produce satisfactory
                 results in small streams containing few wild fish (Elson 1957) or poor physical
                 habitat (Bilby and Bisson 1987). Elson (1957) reported that stocked Atlantic
                 salmon fry survived as well to smolt stage whether they were stocked in one
                 location or scattered over 1/2 mile of stream. For streams possessing better
                 quality habitat or significant wild fish populations, it is. recommended that
                 stocking sites be widely distributed to promote the equitable distribution of
                 juveniles into available habitat and to lessen competition (Wentworth and LaBar
                 1984; Kennedy and Strange 1978; Bilby and Bisson 1987). Resident fish are
                 less likely to be affected if stocking rates and locations are planned to exploit
                 unused food and habitat resources without exceeding the carrying capacity of
                 the stream.
























                                                        73













                                            Acknowledgernents

                Funding for this review of published literature was provided by the Office of
             Information Transfer and the Dworshak Fisheries Assistance Office of the U.S.
             Fish and Wildlife Service, with funds from the Bonneville Power Administration.
             Contribution No. 526 of Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station,
             University of Idaho.












































                                                    74











                                               References


                Adelman, H.M., and J.L. Bingham. 1955. Winter survival of hatchery-
                     reared and native brook trout. Progressive Fish-Culturist 17:177-180.

                Aho, R.S., G.L. Concannon, J.S. Ziller, S. Pribyl, R.K. Schroeder, K.
                     Anderson, R. Hill, and D. Ratliff. 1979. An ecological and fish cultural
                     study of Deschutes River salmonids. Oregon Department Fish and
                     Wildlife, Annual Progress Report, Fish Research Project F-88-R-9,
                     Portland.

                Allee, B.A. 1982. The role of interspecific competition in the distribution of
                     salmonids in streams. Pages 111-122 in E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo,
                     editors. Proceedings of the salmon and trout migratory behavior
                     symposium. School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle.

                Allendorf, F.W., and S.R. Phelps. 1980. Loss of genetic variation in a
                     hatchery stock of cutthroat trout. Transactions of the American
                     Fisheries Society 109:537-543.

                Allendorf, F.W., and S.R. Phelps. 1981. Isozymes and the preservation of
                     genetic variation in salmonid fishes. Pages 37-52 in N. Ryman, editor.
                     Fish gene pools: preservation of genetic resources in relation to wild
                     fish stocks. Sweden Commission for Research on Natural Resources,
                     Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research,
                     Stockholm.

                Allendorf, F.W., and R.F. Leary. 1988. Conservation and distribution of
                     genetic variation in a polytypic species, the cutthroat trout.
                     Conservation Biology 2:170-184.

                Allendorf, F.W., and N. Ryman. 1987. Genetic management of hatchery
                     stocks. Pages 141-160 in N. Ryman and F. Utter, editors. Population
                     Genetic,s and Fishery Management. University of Washington Press,
                     Seattle.

                Allendorf, F.W., N. Ryman, and F. Utter. 1987. Genetics and fishery
                     management. Pages 1-20 in N. Ryman, and F. Utter, editors.
                     Population Genetics and Fishery Management. University of
                     Washington Press, Seattle.

                Allendorf, F.W., and F.M. Utter. 1979. Population genetics. Pages 407-
                     454 in W.S. Hoar, D.J. Randall, and J.R. Brett, editors. Fish
                     Physiology. Academic Press, New York.

                Allison, L.N. 1961. The fate of kidney disease among hatchery brook trout
                     stocked in natural waters. Progressive Fish-Culturist 23:76-78.

                Altukhov, Y.P. 1983. Genetic Processes in Populations. Nauka, Moscow.

                Altukhov, Y.P. 1981. The stock concept from the viewpoint of population
                     genetics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                     38:1523-1538.


                                                   75











             Altukhov, Y.P., E.A. Salmenkova, G.D. Ryabova, and N.I. Kulikova. 1980.
                   Genetic differentiation of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)
                   populations and effectiveness of some acclimatization measures.
                   Marine Biology (Vladivostok) 3:23-28.
             Altukhov, Y.P., E.A. Salmenkova, V.T. Omel'chenko, and V.N. Efanov.
                   1983. Genetic differentiation and population structure in the pink
                   salmon of Sakhalin-Kuril region. Biologiya Morya (Vladivostok)
                   1983(2):46-51.

             Altukhov, Y.P., and E.A. Salmenkova. 1987. Stock transfer relative to
                   natural organization, management, and conservation of fish
                   populations. Pages 333-343 in N. Ryman and F. Utter, editors.
                   Population Genetics and Fishery Management. University of
                   Washington Press, Seattle.

             Anderson, A.D., and D.D. Bailey. 1974. The return of chum salmon stocks
                   to the Johnstone Strait-Fraser River study area, and prospects for
                   1974. Canada Fisheries and Marine Service, Technical Report Series
                   PAC/T-14-15, Vancouver, Canada.

             Anderson, J.L., and J.E. Wilen. 1985. Estimating the population dynamics
                   of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) using pooled time-series and
                   cross-sectional data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                   Sciences 42:459-467.

             Anderson, R.B. 1962. Comparison of returns from fall and spring stocked
                   hatchery-reared lake trout in Maine. Transactions of the American
                   Fisheries Society 91:425-427.

             Aspinwall, N. 1974. Genetic analysis of North American populations of the
                   pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha): Possible evidence for the
                   neutral mutation-random drift hypothesis. Evolution 28:295-305.

             Aulstad, D., T. Gjedrem, and H. Skjervold. 1972. Genetic and
                   environmental sources of variation in length and weight of rainbow
                   trout (Salmo gairdnerij. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
                   Canada 29:237-241.

             Aulstad, D., and A. Kittelsen. 1971. Abnormal body curvatures of rainbow
                   trout (Salmo gairdnerij in inbred fry. Journal of the Fisheries Research
                   Board of Canada 28:1918-1920.

             Ayerst, J.D. 1977. The role of hatcheries in rebuilding steelhead runs of
                   the Columbia River system. Pages 84-88 in E. Schwiebert, editor.
                   Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead. American Fisheries Society,
                   Bethesda, Maryland.

             Ayles, G.B. 1975. Influence of the genotype and the environment on
                   growth and survival of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in central
                   Canadian aquaculture lakes. Aquaculture 6:181-188.



                                                  76









                 Ayles, G.B., and R.F. Baker. 1983. Genetic differences in growth and
                      survival between strains and hybrids of rainbow trout (Salmo gaircfnerll
                      stocked in aquaculture lakes in the Canadian prairies. Aquaculture
                      33:269-280.

                 Babey, G.J., and C.R. Berry. 1989. Post-stocking performance of three
                      strains of rainbow trout in a reservoir. North American Journal of
                      Fisheries Management 9:309-315.

                 Bachman, R.A. .1984. Foraging behavior of free ranging,wild and hatchery
                      brown trout, Salmo trutta, in a stream. Transactions of the American
                      Fisheries Society' 113:1 -32.

                 Bailey, J.K., and E.J. Loudenslager. 1986. Genetic and environmental
                      components of variation for growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo
                      salar). Aquaculture 57:125-132.

                 Baily, J.E., B.L. Wing, and C.R. Mattson. 1975. Zooplankton abundance
                      and feeding habits of fry of pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha,
                      and chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, in Traitors Cove, Alaska, with
                      speculations on the carrying capacity of the area. Fishery Bulletin
                      73:846-861.

                 Barns, R.A. 1967. Differences in performance of naturally and artificially
                      propagated sockeye salmon migrant fry, as measured with swimming
                      and predator tests. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                      24:1117-1153.

                 Barns, R.A. 1972. A quantitative evaluation of survival to the adult stage
                      and other characteristics of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)
                      produced by a revised hatchery method which simulates optimal
                      natural conditions. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                      29:1151-1167.

                 Barns, R.A. 1976. Results of a pink salmon transplant using males native
                      to the recipient stream. Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report
                      No. 642.

                 Banks, J.W. 1969. A review of the literature on the upstream migration of
                      adult salmonids. Journal of Fish Biology 1:85-136.

                 Banks, J.L. 1989. A review of rearing density experiments:. can hatchery
                      effectiveness be improved? Proceedings from a paper presented at the
                      Spring Chinook Salmon Workshop, Pasco, Washington.

                 Banner, C.R., J.J. Long, J.L. Fryer, and J.S. Rohovec. 1986. Occurrence
                      of salmonid fish infected with Renibacterium salmoninarum in the
                      Pacific Ocean. Journal of Fish Disease 9:273-275.

                 Banner, C.R., J.S. Rohovec, and J.L. Fryer. 1983. Renibacterium
                      salmoninarum as a cause of mortality among chinook salmon in salt
                      water. Journal of World Mariculture Society 14:236-239.



                                                       77









              Barbehenn, K.R. 1969. Host-parasite relationships and species diversity in
                   mammals: an hypothesis. Biotropica 1:29-35.

              Bartley, D.M., Gall, G.A.E. 1990. Genetic structure and gene flow in
                   chinook salmon populations of California. Transactions of the
                   American Fisheries Society 119:55-71.


              Barton, B.A., R.E. Peter, and C.R. Paulencu. 1980. Plasma cortisol levels
                   of fingerling rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneril at rest, and subjected to
                   handling, confinement, transport, and stocking. Canadian Journal of
                   Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:805-811.

              Barton, B.A., C.B. Schreck, and L.A. Sigismondi. 1986. Multiple acute
                   disturbances evoke cumulative physiological stress responses in
                   juvenile chinook salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries
                   Society 115:245-251.

              Baum, E.T. 1983. Atlantic salmon research and management report.
                   Pages 34-37 in 1982 Northeast Atlantic Salmon Workshop. Maine
                   Atlantic Salmon Federation Publication Series.

              Beacham, T.D. 1988. A genetic analysis of early development in pink
                   (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) at
                   three different temperatures. Genome 30:89-96.

              Beacham, T.D., A.P. Gould, R.E.Withler, C.B. Murray, and L.W. Barner.
                   1987. Biochemical gentic survey and stock identification of chum
                   salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of
                   Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:1702-1713.

              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. Canadian Journal of
                   Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:244-261.

              Beacham, T.D., C.B. Murray, and R.E. Withler. 1988. Age, morphology,
                   developmental biology, and biochemical genetic variation of Yukon
                   River fall chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, and comparisons with
                   British Columbia populations. Fishery Bulletin 86(4):

              Beacham, T.D., and C.B. Murray. 1986. Comparative developmental
                   biology of pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, in southern British
                   Columbia. Journal of Fish Biology 28:233-246.

              Beacham, T.D., and C.B. Murray. 1988. Genetic analysis of growth and
                   maturity in pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Genome 30:529-
                   535.

              Beacham, T.D., and C.B. Murray. 1989. Variation in developmental biology
                   of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and chinook salmon (0.
                   tshawytscha) in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology
                   67:2081-2089.



                                                    78









                Beacham, T.D., R.E. Withler, and A.P. Gould. 1985. Biochemical genetic
                      stock identification of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) in
                      southern British Columbia and Puget Sound. Canadian Journal of
                      Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:11474-1483.

                Beacham, T.D., R.E. Withler, and A.P. Gould. 1985. Biochemical genetic
                      stock identification of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in southern
                      British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                      42:437-448.

                Behnke, R.J. 1972. The systematics of salmonid fishes of recently
                      glaciated lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                      29:639-671.

                Berg, M. 1977. Pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum) in
                      Norway. Institute of Freshwater Research Drottningholm Report 56.

                Berg, W.J., and S.O. Ferris. 1984. Restriction endonuclease analysis of
                      salmonid mitochondrial DNA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                      Aquatic Sciences 41:1041-1047.

                Berg, W.J., and G.A. E. Gall. 1988. Gene flow and genetic differentiation
                      among California coastal rainbow trout populations. Canadian Journal
                      of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:122-131.

                Berst, A.H., and R.C. Simon. 1981. Introduction to the proceedings of the
                      1980 stock concept international symposium. Canadian Journal of
                      Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1457-1458.

                Bilby, R.E., and P.A. Bisson. 1987. Emigration and production of hatchery
                      coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) stocked in streams draining an
                      old-growth and a clear-cut watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
                      and Aquatic Sciences 44:1397-1407.

                Bilton, H.T. 1984. Returns of chinook salmon in relation to juvenile size at
                      release. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                      1245.

                Bilton, H.T., D.F. Alderdice, and J.T. Schnute. 1982. Influence of time and
                      size at release of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on
                      returns at maturity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                      Sciences 39:426-447.

                Bilton, H.T., and D.W. Jenkinson. 1980. Returns to the fishery and
                      escapement of adult coho salmon from accelerated and normally
                      reared juveniles. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic
                      Sciences 925.

                Bilton, H.T., R.B. Morley, A.S. Coburn, and J. Van Tine. 1984. The
                      influence of time and size at release of juvenile coho salmon
                      (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on returns at maturity; results of releases from
                      Quinsam River Hatchery, B.C. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries
                      and Aquatic Sciences 1306.


                                                    79










             Birt, T.P., J.M. Green, and W.S. Davidson. 1986. Analysis of
                  mitochondrial DNA in allopatric anadromous and nonanadromous
                  Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:118-
                  120.

             Bjornn, T.C. 1986. Important parameters for assessing anadromous fish
                  stocking programs. Pages 315-322 in R.H. Stroud, editor. Fish
                  Culture in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society,
                  Bethesda, Maryland.

             Bjornn, T.C. 1978. Survival, production, and yield of trout and chinook
                  salmon in the Lemhi River, Idaho. Forest, Wildlife and Range
                  Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Bulletin 27, Moscow.
             Bjornn, T.C., and J. Mallet. 1964. Movements of planted and wild trout in
                  an Idaho river system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                  93:70-76.

             Blackett, R.F. 1979. Establishment of sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and
                  chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon runs at Frazer Lake,
                  Kodiak Island, Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
                  Canada 36:1265-1277.

             Bley, P.W., and J.R. Moring. 1988. Freshwater and ocean survival of
                  Atlantic salmon and steelhead: a synopsis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                  Service, Biological Report 88(9), 22 pp.

             Boles, H.D. 1960. Experimental stocking of brown trout in a California
                  Lake. 334-349 Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Western
                  Association Game and Fish Commission.

             Bolgova, O.M., V.S. Sidorov, Y.A. Smirnov, and K.F. Sorvachev. 1977.
                  The fatty acid composition of the cavity fat of juvenile salmon, Salmo
                  salar, under natural conditions and in hatchery rearing. Journal of
                  Ichthyology 17:918-923.

             Bouck, G.R., and R.C. Ball. 1966. Influence of capture methods on blood
                  characteristics and mortality in the rainbow trout (Salmo gairdnerl).
                  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 95:170-176.

             Bowler, B. 1975. Factors influencing genetic control in lakeward
                  migrations of cutthroat trout fry. Transactions of the American
                  Fisheries Society 104:474-482.

             Boyce, R.R. 1986. Comprehensive plan for rehabilitation of anadromous
                  fish stocks in the Umatilla River basin. Oregon Department of Fish and
                  Wildlife, Final report 1985, Corvallis.

             Brannon, E.L. 1967. Genetic control of migrating behavior of newly
                  emerged salmon fry. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries
                  Commission Bulletin.







                                                  80










                 Brannon, E.L. 1982. Orientation mechanisms of homing salmonids. Pages
                      219-228 in E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo, editors. Proceedings of the
                      salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium. School of Fisheries,
                      University of Washington, Seattle.

                 Bryan, J.E. 1973. Feeding history, parental stock and food selection in
                      rainbow trout. Behaviour 45:123-153.

                 Brynildson, O.M. 1967. Dispersal of stocked trout in five Wisconsin
                      streams. Wisconsin Conservation Department, Research and Planning
                      Division, Research Report No. 26, Madison.

                 Brynildson, O.M., and L.M. Christenson. 1961. Survival, yield, growth and
                      coefficient of condition of hatchery-reared trout in Wisconsin waters.
                      Wisconsin Conservation Department, Miscellaneous Report No. 3,
                      Madison.

                 Buchanan, D.V., and R.M., Morin, J.R. Hooton. 1981. Northern squawfish
                      (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) predation on juvenile salmonids in sections
                      of the Willamette River basin, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
                      and Aquatic Sciences 38:360-364.

                 Buchanan, D.V., J.E. Sanders, J.L. Zinn, and J.L. Fryer. 1983. Relative
                      susceptibility of four strains of summer steelhead to infection by
                      Ceratomyxa shasta. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                      112:541-543.

                 Buchanan, D.V., and J.R. Moring. 1986. Management problems with
                      recycling of adult summer steelhead trout at Foster Reservoir, Oregon.
                      Pages 191-200 in R.H. Stroud, editor. Fish culture in fisheries
                      management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

                 Bullock, G.L., D. Conroy, and S.F. Snieszko. 1971. Bacterial diseases of
                      fishes Book 2A. S.F. Snieszko, and H.R. Axelrod, editors. Diseases of
                      fishes. T.F.H. Publications, Inc., Neptune, New Jersey.

                 Burrows, R.E. 1969. The influence of fingerling quality on adult salmon
                      survivals. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 98:777-784.

                 Busack, C.A., and G.A. E. Gall. 1980. Ancestry of artificially propagated
                      California rainbow trout strains. California Fish and Game 66:17-24.

                 Busack, C., R. Halliburton, and G.A. E. Gall. 1979. Electrophoretic
                      variation and differentiation in four strains of domesticated rainbow
                      trout (Salmo gairdnerl). Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology
                      21:81-94.

                 Butler, R.L. 1975. Some thoughts on the effects of stocking hatchery trout
                      on wild trout populations. Page 83-87 in W. King, editor. Proceedings
                      of the Wild Trout Management Symposium, Trout Unlimited,
                      Incorporated.





                                                      81










             Butler, R.L., and D.P. Borgeson. 1965. California "catchable" trout
                  fisheries. California Department of Fish and Game, Bulletin 127,
                  Sacramento.

             Caillouet, C.W., Jr. 1968. Lactic acidosis in channel catfish. Journal of
                  the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 25:15-23.

             Calaprice, J.R. 1969. Production and genetic factors in managed salmonid
                  populations. Pages 377-388 in Symposium on Salmon and Trout
                  Streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. University of British
                  Columbia, Vancouver.

             Calhoun, A. 1966. Inland fisheries management. California Department
                  Fish and Game, Sacramento.

             Campton, D.E., and J.M. Johnston. 1985. Electrophoretic evidence for a
                  genetic admixture of native and nonnative rainbow trout in the Yakima
                  River, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                  114:782-793.

             Campton, D.E., and F.M. Utter. 1987. Genetic structure of anadromous
                  cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarkil populations in the Puget Sound
                  area: evidence for restricted gene flow. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
                  and Aquatic Sciences 44:573-582.

             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. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                  41:1070-1077.

             Cederholm, C.J. 1984. Clearwater River wild steelhead spawning timing.
                  Pages 257-268 in J. Walton and D.B. Houston, Proceedings of the
                  Olympic wild fish conference. Peninsula College, Fisheries Technology
                  Program, Port Angeles, Washington.

             Chadwick, E.M. P. 1987. Causes of variable recruitment in a small Atlantic
                  salmon stock. Pages M.J. Dadswell, R.J. Klauda, C.M. Moffitt, and
                  R.L. Saunders, editors. Common strategies of anadromous and
                  catadromous fishes. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

             Chakraborty, R., and 0. Leimar. 1987. Genetic variation within a
                  subdivided population. Page   's 89-120 in N. Ryman and F. Utter,
                  editors. Population genetics and fisheries management. University of
                  Washington, Washington Sea Grant Program, Seattle.

             Chandler, G.L., and T.C. Bjornn. 1988. Abundance, growth, and
                  interactions of juvenile steelhead relative to time of emergence.
                  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:432-443.

             Chandler, G.L., and T.C. Bjornn. 1989. Survival and growth of subyearling
                  steelhead homozygous for alternative alleles at the dipeptidase locus.
                  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:74-77.



                                                   82










                 Chapman, D.W. 1962. Aggressive behavior in juvenile coho sal         mon as a
                       cause of emigration. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
                       Canada 19:1047-1080.

                 Chapman, D.W. 1966. Food and space as regulators of salmonid
                       populations in streams. American Naturalist 100:345-357.

                 Chilcote, M.W., B.A. Crawford, and S.A. Leider. 1980. A genetic
                       comparison of sympatric populations of summer and winter steelhead.
                       Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:203-206.

                 Chilcote, M.W., S.A. Leider, and J.J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive
                       success of hatchery and wild summer-run steelhead under'natural
                       conditions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:726-
                       735.

                 Child ,A.R., A.M. Furnell, and N.P. Wilkens. 1976. The existence of two
                       races of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the British Isles. Journal of
                       Fish Biology 8:35-43.

                 Clady, M.D. 1973. Catchable trout: a literature survey and
                       recommendations for use. Oregon State Game Commission, Federal
                       Aid Progress Report, Project F-94-R-1, Portland.

                 Clark, J., and B. McCarl. 1983. An investigation of the relationship
                       between Oregon coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) hatchery
                       releases and adult production utilizing law of the minimum regression.
                       Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:516-523.

                 Clarke, W.C., J.E. Shelbourn, and J.R. Brett. 1981. Effects of artificial
                       photoperiod cycles, temperature and salinity on growth and smolting in
                       underyearling coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chinook (0. tshawytscha),
                       and sockeye (0. nerka) salmon. Aquaculture 22:105-116.

                 Clothier, W.D. 1963. Fish loss and movement in irrigation diversions from
                       the West Gallatin River, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management
                       17:144-158.

                 Colby, P.J., G.R. Spangler, D.A. Hurley, and A.M. McCombie. 1972.
                       Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:975-983.
                 Congelton,,J.L., T.C. Bjornn, B.H. Burton, B.D. Watson', J.1. Irving, and R.R.
                       Ringe. 1985. Effects of handling and crowding on the stress
                       response and viability of chinook salmon parr and smolts. Bonneville
                       Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Project 82-5,
                       Portland, Oregon.

                 Congleton, J.L., T.C. Bjornn, B.H. Burton, B.D. Watson, Irving, J.I., and
                       R.R. Ringe. 1985. Effects of handling and crowding on the stress
                       response and viability of chinook salmon parr and smolts. Bonneville
                       Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Project 82-5,
                       Portland, Oregon.



                                                         83.










             Cooper, E.L. 1952. Returns from plantings of legal-sized brook, brown,
                   and rainbow trout in the Pigeon River, Otsego County, Michigan.
                   Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 82:265-280.

             Cordone, A.J., and T.C. Frantz. 1968. An evaluation of trout planting in
                   Lake Tahoe. California Fish and Game 54:68-69.

             Cote, Y., and C. Pomerleau. 1985. Survie et dispersion d' alevins de
                   saumon atlantique (Salmo salar) ensemences en milieu natural.
                   Naturaliste Can. (Rev. Ecol. Syst.) 112:549-557.

             Craig, P.C. 1985. Identification of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)
                   stocks in the Stikine River based on egg size measurements. Canadian
                   Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:1696-1701.

             Cramer, D.P. 1981. Effect of smolt release location and displacement of
                   adults on distribution of summer steelhead trout. Progressive Fish-
                   Culturist 43:8-11.

             Cresswell, R.C. 1981. Post-stocking movements and recapture of
                   hatchery-reared trout released into flowing waters-a review. Journal
                   of Fish Biology 429-442.

             Cresswell, R.C., and R. Williams. 1982. Post-stocking movements and
                   recapture of hatchery-reared trout released into flowing waters: effect
                   of time and method of stocking. Fisheries Management 13:97-103.

             Cresswell, R.C., and R. Williams. 1983. Post stocking movements and
                   recapture of hatchery-reared trout released into flowing water effect of
                   prior acclimation to flow. Journal of Fish Biology 23:265-276.

             Cresswell, R.C., and R. Williams. 1984. Post-stocking movements and
                   recapture of hatchery-reared trout released into flowing waters - effect
                   of a resident wild population. Fisheries Management 15:9-14.

             Cross, T.F., and J. King. 1983. Genetic effects of hatchery rearing in
                   Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 33:33-40.

             Cunjak, R.A., and J.M. Green. 1984. Species dominance by brook trout
                   and rainbow trout in a simulated stream environment. Transactions of
                   the American Fisheries Society 113:737-743.

             Daly, J.G., and R.M. W. Stevenson. 1985. Importance of culturing several
                   organs to detect Aeromonas salmonicida in salmonid fish.
                   Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:909-910.

             Davidson, F.A. 1934. The homing instinct and age at maturity of the pink
                   salmon. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 48,

             Davidson, F.A., E. Vaughan, S.J. Hutchinson, and A.L. Pritchard. 1943.
                   Factors affecting the upstream migration of pink salmon. Ecology
                   24:149-168.




                                                  84









                 Davidson, W.S., T.P. Birt, and J.M. Green. 1989. A review of genetic
                      variation in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., and its importance for
                      stock identification, enhancement programmes and aquaculture.
                      Journal of Fish Biology 34:547-560.

                 Denniston, C.D. 1978. Small population size and genetic diversity:
                      implications for endangered species. Pages 281-289 in S.A. Temple,
                      editor. Endangered birds: management techniques for preserving
                      threatened species. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

                 Dickson, T.A., and H.R. MacCrimmon. 1982. Influence of hatchery
                      experience on growth and behavior of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo
                      salar) within allopatric and sympatric stream populations. Canadian
                      Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:1453-1458.

                 Doyle, R.W. 1983. An approach to the quantitative analysis of
                      domestication selection in aquaculture. Aquaculture 33:167-186.

                 Doyle, R.W., and A.J. Talbot. 1986. Artificial selection on growth and
                      correlated selection on competitive behaviour in fish. Canadian
                      Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1059-1064.

                 Dwyer, W.P., and R.G. Piper. 1984. Three-year hatchery and field
                      evaluation of four strains of rainbow trout. North American Journal of
                      Fisheries Management 4:216-221.

                 Ebel, W.J. 1970. Effect of release location on survival of juvenile fall
                      chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Transactions of the
                      American Fisheries Society 99:672-676.

                 Egglishaw, H.J. 1984. Salmon smolt stock enhancement in the River
                      Tummel, Scotland. EIFAC Technical Paper 42.

                 Egglishaw, H.J., and P.E. Shackley. 1977. Growth, survival and
                      production of juvenile salmon and trout in a Scottish stream, 1966-75.
                      Journal of Fish Biology 11:647-672.

                 Egglishaw, H.J., and P.E. Shackley. 1980. Survival and growth of salmon,
                      Salmo salar (L.), planted in a Scottish stream. Journal of Fish Biology
                      16:565-584.

                 Ejike, C., and C.B. Schreck. 1980. Stress and social hierarchy rank in coho
                      salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109:4423-
                      426.

                 Elliott, J.M. 1975. Weight of food and time required to satiate brown trout
                      (Salmo trutta). Freshwater Biology 5:51-64.

                 Elliot, J.M. 1987. The distances travelled by downstream-moving trout fry,
                      Salmo trutta, in a Lake District stream. Freshwater Biology 17:491-
                      499.





                                                       85










             Elliott, J.M. 1989. The critical-period concept for juvenile survival and its
                   relevance for population regulation in young sea trout, Salmo trutta.
                   Journal of Fish Biology 35:91-98.

             Elson, P.F. 1975. Atlantic salmon rivers, smolt production and optimal
                   spawning: an overview    'of natural production. New England Atlantic
                   Salmon Restoration Conference, Special Publication Series Number 6.

             Elson, P.F. 1957. The importance of size in the change from parr to smolt
                   in Atlantic salmon. Canadian Fish Culturist 21:1-6.

             Elson, P.F. 1957. Using hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon to best
                   advantage. Canadian Fish Culturist 21:7-17.

             Elson, P.F. 1962. Predator-prey relationships between fish eating birds and
                   Atlantic salmon. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 133,
                   Ottawa.

             Emlen, J., and R. Reisenbichler. 1988. A re-evaluation of models predicting
                   density-dependent survival at sea for coho salmon. Pages 197-200 in
                   B.G. Shepherd, Rapporteur. Proceedings of the 1988 Northeast Pacific
                   chinook and coho salmon workshop. North Pacifc International
                   Chapter American Fisheries Society, Bellingham, Washington.

             Ersbak, K., and B.L. Haase. 1  '983. Nutritional deprivation after stocking as
                   a possible mechanism leading to mortality in stream-stocked brook
                   trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3:142-151.

             Evans, D.R., and RZ Smith. 1986. Considerations in reprogramming
                   hatchery production to improve harvest management: a case study in
                   the Pacific Northwest. Pages 109-118 in R.H. Stroud, editor. Fish
                   culture in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society,
                   Bethesda, Maryland.

             Evelyn, T.P. T., J.E. Ketcheson, and L. Prosperi-Porta. 1988. Trials with
                   anti-bacterial kidney disease vaccines in two species of Pacific salmon.
                   Page 38 in Conference Handbook, International Fish Health
                   Conference, Vancouver, Canada, 1988. Fish Health Section, American
                   Fisheries Society, Washington, D.C.

             Everest, F.H., and D.W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial
                   interaction by juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho
                   streams. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:91-
                   100.

             Faler, M.P. 1988. Effects of variation in flow on distributions of northern
                   squawfish in the Columbia River below McNary Dam. North American
                   Journal of Fisheries Management 8:30-35.

             Favorite, F., and T. Laevastu. 1979. A study of the ocean migrations of
                   sockeye salmon and estimation of the carrying capacity of the North
                   Pacific using a dynamical salmon ecosystem model (NOPASA).
                   National Marine Fisheries Service, NWAFC Processed Report 79-16.



                                                   86









                Favro, L.D., P.K. Kuo, and J.F. McDonald. 1979. Population-genetic study
                     of the effects of selective fishing on the growth rate of trout. Journal
                     of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:552-561.

                Fenderson, O.C., Carpenter, M.R. 1971. Effects of crowding on the
                     behaviour of juvenile hatchery and wild landlocked Atlantic salmon
                     (Salmo salar L.). Animal Behavior 19:439-447.

                Fenderson, O.C., W.H. Everhart, and K.M. Muth. 1968. Comparative
                     agonistic and feeding behavior of hatchery-reared and wild salmon in
                     aquaria. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 25:1-14.

                Ferguson, A. 1989. Genetic differences among brown trout, Salmo trutta,
                     stocks and their importance for the conservation and management of
                     the species. Freshwater Biology 21:35-46.

                Ferris, S.D., and W.J. Berg. 1987. The utility of mitochondrial DNA in fish
                     genetics and fishery management. Pages 277-299 in N. Ryman and F.
                     Utter, Population genetics and fishery management. University of
                     Washington Press, Seattle.

                Fisher, J.P., and W.G. Pearcy. 1988. Growth of juvenile coho salmon
                     (Oncorhynchus kisutch) off Oregon and Washington, USA, in years of
                     differing coastal upwelling. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                     Sciences 45:1036-1044.

                Fleming, I.A., and M.R. Gross. 1989. Evolution of adult female life history
                     and morphology in a Pacific salmon (Coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch).
                     Evolution 43:141-157.

                Flick, W.A., and D.A. Webster. 1962. Problems in sampling wild and
                     domestic stocks of brook trout. Transactions of the American
                     Fisheries Society 91:140-144.

                Flick, W.A., and D.A. Webster. 1964. Comparative first year survival and
                     production in wild and domestic strains of brook trout. Transactions of
                     the American Fisheries Society 93:58-69.

                Foerster, R.E. 1938. An investigation of the relative efficiencies of natural
                     and artificial propagation of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) at
                     Cultus Lake, British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
                     of Canada 4:151-161.

                Foerster, R.E. 1968. The sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Fisheries
                     Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 162, Ottawa.

                Foote, C.J. 1987. Male mate choice depende   nt on male size in salmon.
                     Behavior 106:63-80.

                Foote, C.J., C.C. Wood, and R.E. Withler. 1989. Biochemical genetic
                     comparison of sockeye salmon and kokanee, the anadromous and
                     nonanadromous forms of Oncorhynchus nerka. Canadian Journal of
                     Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:149-158.



                                                    87









             Frantsi, C., J.A. Ritter, and P.F. Elson. 1977. Effect of Corynebacterial
                   kidney disease on ocean survival and return of Atlantic salmon (Salmo
                   salar). Conservation and International Exploration of the Sea
                   1 979/M: 29-.

             Fraser, F.J. 1969. Population density effects on survival and growth of
                   juvenile coho salmon and steelhead trout in experimental stream
                   channels. Pages 253-265 in T.G. Northcote, editor. Symposium on
                   salmon and trout in streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries,
                   University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

             Fraser, J.M. 1968. Differential recovery of brook trout planted by hand
                   and by air-drop. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                   97:32-36.

             Fraser, J.M. 1972. Recovery of planted brook trout, splake, and rainbow
                   trout from selected Ontario lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research
                   Board of Canada 29:129-142.

             Fraser, J.M. 1974. An attempt to train hatchery-reared brook trout to
                   avoid predation by the common loon. Transactions of the American
                   Fisheries Society 103:815-818.

             Fraser, J.M. 1978. The effect of competition with yellow perch on the
                   survival and growth of planted brook trout, splake, and rainbow trout
                   in a small Ontario lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                   107:505-517.

             Fraser, J.M. 1981. Comparative survival and growth of planted wild,
                   hybrid and domestic strains of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in
                   Ontario lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                   38:1672-1684.

             Fried, S.M., J.D. McCleave, and G.W. LaBar. 1978. Seaward migration of
                   hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, smolts in the Penobscot
                   River estuary, Maine: riverine movements. Journal of the Fisheries
                   Research Board of Canada 35:76-87.

             Fryer, J.L., and J.E. Sanders. 1981. Bacterial kidney disease of salmonid
                   fish. Annual Review of Microbiology 35:273-298.

             Gall, G.A. E. 1983. Genetics of fish: a summary of discussion.
                   Aquaculture 33:383-394.

             Gall, G.A. E. Inbreeding. Pages 47-88 in N. Ryman and F. Uter, editors.
                   Population genetics and fisheries management. University of
                   Washington, Washington Sea Grant Program, Seattle.

             Garcia De Leaniz, C., E. Verspoor, and A.D. Hawkins. 1989. Genetic
                   determination of the contribution of stocked and wild Atlantic salmon,
                   Salmo salar L., to the angling fisheries in two Spanish rivers. Journal
                   of Fish Biology 35:261-270.



                                                    88









                 Garman, G.C., and L.A. Nielsen. 1982. Piscivority by stocked brown trout
                      (Salmo trutta) and its impact on the nongame fish community of
                      Bottom Creek, Virginia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                      Sciences 39:862-869.

                 Gauldie, R.W. 1984. Allelic variation and fisheries management. New
                      Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Bulletin 26.

                 Gee, A.S., N.J. Milner, and R.J. Hernsworth. 1978. The effect of density
                      on mortality in juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Journal of
                      Animal Ecology 47:497-505.

                 Gharrett, A.J., and S.M. Shirley. 1985. A genetic examination of spawning
                      methodology in a salmon hatchery. Aquaculture 47:245-256.

                 Gharrett, A.J., and M.A. Thomason. 1987. Genetic changes in pink
                      salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) following their introduction into the
                      Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                      44:787-792.

                 Gharrett, A.J., S.M. Shirley, and G.R. Tromble. 1987. Genetic
                      relationships among populations of Alaskan chinook salmon
                      (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                      Aquatic Sciences 44:765-774.

                 Gharrett, S.C., A.J. McGregor, and P.B. Holmes. 1988. Genetic
                      relationships of even-year northwestern Alaskan pink salmon.
                      Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:536-545.

                 Gibson, R.J. 1981. Interactions of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.)
                      and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinafis Mitchell). Pages 181-202 in
                      International Atlantic Salmon Symposium.

                 Gilbert, C.H. 1913. Age at maturity of Pacific coast salmon of the genus
                      Oncorhynchus. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 32:57-70.

                 Ginetz, R., and P.A. Larkin. 1976. Factors affecting rainbow trout (Salmo
                      gairdneril predation on migrant fry of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
                      nerka). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:19-24.

                 Gjedrem, T. 1981. Conservation of fish populations in Norway. Pages 33-
                      36 in N. Ryman, editor. Fish gene pools. Ecological Bulletins,
                      Stockholm.

                 Gjedrem, T. 1983. Possibilities of genetic changes in the salmonids.
                      Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych, Seria H. 100(3):65-78.

                 Glova, G.J. 1986. Interaction for food and space between experimental
                      populations of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and
                      coastal cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) in a laboratory stream.
                      Hydrobiologia 131:155-168.




                                                      89









             Godin, J.J. 1981. Migration of salmonid fishes during early life history
                  phases: daily and annual timing. Pages 22-50 in E.L. Brannon and
                  E.O. Salo, editor. Proceedings of the salmon and trout migratory
                  behavior symposium. School of Fisheries, University of Washington,
                  Seattle.

             Goede, R.W. 1986. Management considerations in the stocking of
                  diseased or carrier fish. Pages 349-356 in R.H. Stroud, editor. Fish
                  culture in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society,
                  Bethesda, Maryland.

             Gowing, H. 1978. Survival, growth, and production of domestic and
                  assinica strain brook trout in four Michigan lakes. Michigan
                  Department of Natural Resources, Project F-035-R-04, Lansing.

             Grant, W.S., G.B. Milner, P. Krasnowski, and F.M. Utter. 1980. Use of
                  biochemical genetic variants for identification of sockeye salmon
                  (Oncorhynchus nerka) stocks in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Canadian Journal
                  of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:1236-1247.

             Grau, E.G. 1981. Is the lunar cycle a factor timing the onset of salmon
                  migration? Pages 184-189 in E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo, editors.
                  Proceedings of the salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium.
                  School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle.

             Gray, G.A., and D.W. Rondorf. 1986. Predation on juvenile salmonids in
                  Columbia basin reservoirs. Pages 178-185 in G.E. Hall, editor.
                  Reservoir fisheries management: strategies for the 80's. American
                  Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

             Gray, G.A., G.M. Sonnevil, H.C. Hansel, C.W. Huntington, and D.E. Palmer.
                  1982. Feeding activity, rate of consumption, daily ration and prey
                  selection of major predators in the John Day Pool. Annual Report to
                  the Bonneville Power Administration. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
                  National Fisheries Research Center, Cook, Washington.

             Gray, G.A., G.M. Sonnevil, H.C. Hansel, C.W. Huntington, D.E. Palmer.
                  1983. Feeding activity, rate of consumption, daily ration and prey
                  selection of major predators in John Day Reservoir. Annual report to
                  Bonneville Power Administration. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
                  National Fisheries Research Center, Cook, Washington.

             Green, D.M. 1964. A comparison of stamina of brook trout from wild and
                  domestic parents. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                  93:96-100.

             Greene, C.W. 1952. Results from stocking brook trout of wild and
                  hatchery strains at Stillwater Pond. Transactions of the American
                  Fisheries Society 81:43-52.

             Griffith, J.S. 1972. Comparative behavior and habitat utilization of brook
                  trout and cutthroat trout in small streams in northern Idaho. Journal of
                  the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:265-273.



                                                  90









                Griffiths, R.H. 1983. Stocking practices and disease control. Special
                      Publication 83-2, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor,
                      Michigan.

                Groberg, W.J., and J.L. Fryer. 1983. Increased occurrences of infectious
                      hernatopoietic necrosis virus in fish at Columbia River basin hatcheries.
                      Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Paper No. 6620,
                      Corvallis.

                Groot, C., P. Quinn, and T. Hara. 1986. Responses of migrating sockeye
                      salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) to population-specific odours. Canadian
                      Journal of Zoology 64:926-932.

                Gross., M.R. 1985. Disruptive selection for alternative life histories in
                      salmon. Nature (London) 313:47-48.

                Gunnerod, T.B., N.A. Hvidsten, and T.G. Heggberget. 1988. Open sea
                      releases of Atlantic salmon smolts, Salmo salar, in central Norway,
                      1973-83. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                      45:1340-1345.

                Gunsolus, R.T. 1978. The status of Oregon coho and recommendations for
                      managing the production, harvest, and escapement of wild and
                      hatchery-reared stocks. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
                      Proceedings Report, Portland.

                Gyllensten, U., and A.C. Wilson. 1987. Mitochondrial DNA of salmonids.
                      Inter-and intraspecific variability detected with restriction enzymes.
                      Pages 301-317 in N. Ryman and F. Utter, editors. Population Genetics
                      and Fishery Management. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

                Hager, R.C., and R.E. Noble. 1976. Relation of size at release of hatchery-
                      reared coho salmon at age, size, and sex composition of returning
                      adults. Progressive Fish-Culturist 38:144-147.

                Hallerman, E.M., and J.S. Beckmann. 1988. DNA-level polymorphism as a
                      tool in fisheries science. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                      Sciences 45:1075-1087.

                Hankin, D.G. 1981. Salmon enhancement strategies and wild stocks:
                      evaluation of enhancement success and wild stock impacts. Pages 52-
                      61 in T.J. Hassler, editor. Proceedings: Propagation, Enhancement,
                      and Rehabilitation of Anadromous Salmonid Populations and Habitat in
                      the Pacific Northwest. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

                Hankin, D.G. 1982. Estimating escapement of Pacific salmon
                      (Oncorhynchus spp) using marking practices to discriminate wild and
                      hatchery fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                      111:286-298.

                Hansen, L.P., and B. Jonsson. 1985. Downstream migration of hatchery-
                      reared smolts of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the River Imsa,
                      Norway. Aquaculture 45:237-248.



                                                     91










              Hansen, L.P., B. Jonsson, and K.B. Doving. 1984. Migration of wild and
                   hatchery reared smolts of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar through lakes.
                   Journal of Fish Biology 25:617-623.

              Hansen, L.P., B. Jonsson, and R. Andersen. 1989. Salmon ranching
                   experiments in the River Imsa: is homing dependent on sequential
                   imprinting of the smolts? Pages 19-29 in E. Brannon and B. Jonsson,
                   editors. Proceedings of the Salmonid Migration and Distribution
                   Symposium. School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle.

              Harris, G.S. 1973. Rearing smolts in mountain lakes to supplement salmon
                   stocks. International Atlantic Salmon Foundation Special Publication
                   4:237-252.

              Hartman, G.F. 1965. The role of behavior in the ecology and interaction of
                   underyearling coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout
                   (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                   22:1035-1081.

              Hasler, A.D. 1971. Orientation and fish migration. Pages 429-500 in
                   Volume VI. Academic Press, London.

              Hasler, A.D., and A.T. Scholz. 1983. Olfactory imprinting and homing in
                   salmon. Springer-Veriag. New York, New York.

              Havey, K.A. 1974. Population dynamics of landlocked salmon, Salmo
                   salar, in Love Lake, Maine. Transactions of the American Fisheries
                   Society 103:448-456.

              Hazzard, A.S. 1941. Results from plantings of marked trout of legal size in
                   streams and lakes of Michigan. Transactions of the American Fisheries
                   Society 70:446-468.

              Hazzard, A.S., and D.S. Shetter. 1938. Results from experimental
                   plantings of legal-sized brook trout (Salvelinus fontinafis) and rainbow
                   trout (Salmo irideus). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                   68:196-210.

              Healey, M.C. 1979. Detritus and juvenile salmon production in the
                   Nanaimo estuary: 1. Production and feeding rates of juvenile chum
                   salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
                   of Canada 36:488-496.

              Healey, M.C. 1982. Timing and relative intensity of size-selective mortality
                   of juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) during early sea life.
                   Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:952-957.

              Healey, M.C. 1986a. Optimum size and age at maturity in Pacific salmon
                   and effects of size-selective fisheries. Pages 39-52 in D.J. Meerburg,
                   editor. Salmonid age at maturity. Canadian Special Publication of
                   Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 89.




                                                    92









                Healey, M.C. 1986b. Regional and seasonal attributes of catch in the
                     British Columbia troll fishery. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries
                     and Aquatic Sciences 1494.

                Healey, M.C., and C. Groot. 1987. Marine migration and orientation of
                     ocean-type chinook and sockeye salmon. Pages 298-312 in M.J.
                     Dadswell, R.J. Klauda, C.M. Moffitt, R.L. Saunders, R.A. Rulifson, and
                     J.E. Cooper, editors. Common strategies of anadromous and
                     catadromous fishes. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

                Heard, W.R., and R.A. Crone. 1976. Raising coho salmon from fry to
                     smolts in estuarine pens, and returns of adults from two smolt
                     releases. Progressive Fish-Culturist 38:171-174.

                Hearn, W.E. 1987. Interspecific competition and habitat segregation
                     among stream-dwelling trout and salmon: a review. Fisheries 12:24-
                     31.

                Hearn, W.E., and B.E. Kynard. 1986. Habitat utilization and behavioral
                     interaction of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and rainbow trout
                     (S. gairdneril in tributaries of the White River of Vermont. Canadian
                     Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1988-1998.

                Heggberget, T.G., and B.O. Johnsen. 1982. Infestations by Gyrodactylus
                     sp. of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in Norwegian rivers. Journal of
                     Fish Biology 21:15-26.

                Heggberget, T.G., N. Ryman, and G. Stahl. 1986. Growth and genetic
                     variation of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from different sections of the
                     River Alta, north Norway. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                     Sciences 43:1828-1835.

                Heggenes, J. 1988. Effects of short-term flow fluctuations on
                     displacement of, and habitat use by, brown trout in a small stream.
                     Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:336-344.

                Heggenes, J., and T. Traaen. 1988. Downstream migration and critical
                     water velocities in stream channels for fry of four salmonid species.
                     Journal of Fish Biology 32:717-727.

                Heimer, J.T., W.M. Frazier, and J.S. Griffith. 1985. Post-stocking
                     performance of catchable-size hatchery rainbow trout with and without
                     pectoral fins. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:21-
                     25.

                Heland, M. 1980a. La devalaison des alevins de truite commune Salmo
                     trutta L. 1. Caracterisation en milieu artificiel. Annales de Limnologie
                     16:233-245.

                Heland, M. 1980b. The downstream migration of the brown trout Salmo
                     trutta L. fry 2. Activity of downstream migrants compared with that of
                     non-migrants. Annales de Limnologie 16:247-254.



                                                    93









             Helfrich, L.A., and W.T. Kendall. 1982. Movements of hatchery reared
                  rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneril brook trout (Salvefinus fontinafis) and
                  brown trout (Salmo trutta) stocked in Virginia, USA, mountain stream.
                  Progressive Fish-Culturist 44:3-7.

             Helle, J.H. 1981. Significance of the stock concept in artificial propagation
                  of salmonids in Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                  Sciences 38:1665-1671.

             Hemmingsen, A.R., R.A. Holt, R.D. Ewing, and J.D. McIntyre. 1986.
                  Susceptibility of progeny from crosses among three stocks of coho
                  salmon to infection by Ceratomyxa shasta. Transactions of the
                  American Fisheries Society 115:492-495.

             Hesthagen, T. 1988. Movements of brown trout, Salmo trutta, and
                  juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in a coastal stream in northern
                  Norway. Journal of Fish Biology 32:639-653.

             Hillman, T.W., and D.W. Chapman. 1989. Abundance, growth, and
                  movement of juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
                  and steelhead (0. mykiss) in an Eastern-Cascades River. Canadian
                  Journal of Zoology

             HillmanIT.W., and J.W. Mullan. 1989. Effect of hatchery releases on the
                  abundance and behavior of wild juvenile salmonids. Pages 266-281 in
                  Summer and Winter Ecology of Juvenile Chinook Salmon and
                  Steelhead Trout in the Wenatchee River, Washington. Don Chapman
                  Inc., Boise, Idaho.

             Hindar, K., N. Ryman, and F. Utter. (in press). Genetic effects of
                  aquaculture on natural fish populations. Submitted to Canadian
                  Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

             Hjort, R.C., and C.B. Schreck. 1982. Phenotypic differences among stocks
                  of hatchery and wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon,
                  Wahington, and California, USA. Fisheries Bulletin 80:105-120.

             Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual
                  Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23.

             Holtby, L.B. 1988. The importance of smolt size to marine survival of coho
                  salmon. Pages 211-219 in 1988 Northeast Pacific Chinook and Coho
                  Salmon Workshop Proceedings.

             Holtby, L.B., T.E. McMahon, and J.C. Scrivener. 1989. Stream
                  temperatures and inter-annual variability in the emigration timing of
                  coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolts and fry and chum salmon
                  (0. keta) fry from Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Journal
                  of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1396-1405.

             Horak, D.L. 1972. Survival of hatchery-reared rainbow trout, Salmo
                  gairdneri, in relation to stamina tunnel ratings. Journal of Fisheries
                  Research Board of Canada 29:1005-1009.



                                                 94










                Horner, N.J. 1978. Survival, densities and behavior of salmonid fry in
                     streams in relation to fish predation. Master's thesis. University of
                     Idaho, Moscow.

                Horton, H.F. 1956. An evaluation of some physical and mechanical factors
                     important in reducing delayed mortality of hatchery-reared rainbow
                     trout. Progressive Fish-Culturist 18:3-14.

                Hosmer, M.J.-,J.G. Stanley, and R.W. Hatch. 1979. Effects of hatchery
                     procedures on later returns of Atlantic salmon to rivers in Maine.
                     Progressive Fish-Culturist 41:115-118.

                Hume, J.M. B., and E.A. Parkinson. 1987. Effect of stocking density on
                     the survival, growth, and dispersal of steelhead trout fry (Salmo
                     gairdnerl). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                     44:271-281.

                Hume, J.M. B., and E.A. Parkinson. 1988. Effects of size at and time of
                     release on the survival and growth of steelhead fry stocked in streams.
                     North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:50-57.

                Hunt, R.L. 1979. Removal of woody streambank vegetation to improve
                     trout habitat. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical
                     Bulletin No. 115, Madison.

                Hunter, J.G. 1959. Survival and production of pink and chum salmon in a
                     coastal stream. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                     28:1921.

                Huntsman, A.G. 1941. Cyclical abundance and birds versus salmon.
                     Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 5:227-235.

                Hvidsten, N.A., and L.P. Hansen. 1988. Increased recapture rate of adult
                     Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., stocked as smolts at high water
                     discharge. Journal of Fish Biology 32:153.

                Hvidsten, N.A., and R.A. Lund. 1988. Predation on hatchery-reared and
                     wild smolts of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in the estuary of River
                     Orkla, Norway. Journal of Fish Biology 33:121-126.

                Hvidsten, N.A., and P.I. Mokkelgjerd. 1987. Predation on salmon smolts
                     (Salmo salar L.) in the estuary of the River Surna, Norway. Journal of
                     Fish Biology 30:273-280.

                Hynes, J.D., E.H. Brown, J.H. Helle, N. Ryman, and D.A. Webster. 1981.
                     Guidelines for the culture of fish stocks for resource management.
                     Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1867-1876.

                Hynes, R.A., E.J. Duke, and P. Joyce. 1989. Mitochondrial DNA as a
                     genetic marker for brown trout, Salmo trutta L., populations. Journal
                     of Fish Biology 35:687-701.




                                                    95









            Ihssen, P.E., H.E. Booke, J.M. Casselman, J.M. McGlade, N.R. Payne, and
                 F.M. Utter. 1981. Stock identification: materials and methods.
                 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1838-1855.

            Ihssen, P.E., and J.S. Tait. 1974. Genetic differentiation in retention of
                 swi,mbladder gas between two populations of lake trout (Salvefinus
                 namaycush). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                 31:1351-1354.

            Irvine, J.R. 1986. Effects of varying discharge on the downstream
                 movement of salmon fry, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Walbaum.
                 Journal of Fish Biology 28:17-28.

            Irvine, J.R., and B.R. Ward. 1989. Patterns of timing and size of wild coho
                 salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolts migrating from the Keogh River
                 watershed on northern Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of
                 Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1086-1094.

            Isaksson, A. 1979. Salmon ranching in Iceland. Pages 131-156 in J.E.
                 Thorpe, editor. Salmon ranching. Academic Press, London.

            Iwamoto, R.N., J.M. Myers, and W.K. Hershberger. 1986. Genotype-
                 environment interactions for growth of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri.
                 Aquaculture 57:153-161.

            Iwamoto, R.N., and E.O. Salo. 1977. Estuarine survival of juvenile
                 salmonids: a review of the literature. Report to Washington
                 Department of Fisheries, Seattle.

            Iwata, M., and S. Komatsu. 1984. Importance of estuarine residence for
                 adaptation of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) fry to seawater.
                 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:

            Jenkins, T.M., Jr. 1969. Social structure, position choice and
                 microdistribution of two trout species (Salmo trutta and S. gairdneril
                 resident in mountain streams. Animal Behaviour Monograph 2:57-123.

            Jenkins, T.M., Jr. 1971. Role of social behaviour in dispersal of introduced
                 rainbow trout. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                 28:1019-1027.

            Jenkins, T.M., Jr., C.R. Feldmeth, and G.V. Elliott. 1970. Feeding of
                 rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneril in relation to abundance of drifting
                 invertebrates in a mountain stream. Journal of the Fisheries Research
                 Board of Canada 27:2356-2361.

            Jensen, A.J., and B.O. Johnsen. 1986. Different adaption strategies of
                 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations to extreme climates with
                 special reference to some cold Norwegian rivers. Canadian Journal of
                 Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:980-984.





                                                96









                 Johannes, R.E., and P.A. Larkin. 1961. Competition for food between
                       redside shiners (Richardsonius balteatus) and rainbow trout (Salmo
                       gairdneril in two British Columbia lakes. Journal of the Fisheries
                       Research Board of Canada 18:203-220.

                 Johnels, A.G. 1984. Masken som hotar laxen (Gyrodactylus salaris), a
                       parasite threatening the Atlantic salmon. Svenskt Fiske 9 84:42-44.
                       In Swedish.

                 Johnsen, B.O., and A.J. Jensen. 1986. Infestations of Atlantic salmon,
                       Salmo salar, by Gyrodactylus salaris in Norwegian rivers. Journal of
                       Fish Biology 29:233-241.

                 Johnson, J.H. 1981. Food interrelationships of coexisting brook trout and
                       yearling rainbow trout in tributaries of the Salmon River, New York.
                       New York Fish and Game Journal 28:88-99.

                 Johnson, R.C. 1974. Effects of hatchery coho on native Puget Sound
                       stocks of chum salmon fry. Pages 102-109 in D.R. Harding, editor.
                       Proceedings of the 1974 Northeast Pacific Pink and Chum Salmon
                       Workshop. Department of Environmental Fisheries, Vancouver.

                 Joyner, T. 1973. Salmon for New England fisheries, Part III: Developing a
                       coastal fishery for Pacific salmon. Marine Fisheries Review 35:9-13.

                 Kanid'yev, A.N. 1966. Tolerance of hatchery-reared juvenile chum
                       (Oncorhynchus keta) to rate of flow and to predaceous fishes. Tr
                       Murmansk Morsk Biology Institute 12:101 -111.

                 Kapuscinski, A.R., and E.M. Hallerman. 1990. Transgenic fish and public
                       policy: anticipating environmental impacts of transgenic fish. Fisheries
                       15:2-11.

                 Kapuscinski, A.R., and L.D. Jacobson. 1987. Genetic guide for fisheries
                       management. Minnesota Sea Grant Research Report 17, Department
                       of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

                 Kapuscinski, A.R. D., and J.E. Lannan. 1986. A conceptual genetic fitness
                       model for fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                       Aquatic Sciences 43:1606-1616.

                 Kapuscinski, A.R., and D.R. Philipp. 1988. Fisheries genetics: issues and
                       priorities for research and policy development. Fisheries 13:4-10.

                 Kelly, M.D., W.J. Wilson, and P.O. McMillan. 1989a. Interactions between
                       wild and hatchery-reared produced salmon in Northwest North
                       America, and issues and concerns over Sikusuilaq Springs Hatchery on
                       the Noatak River, Alaska: Annotated Bibliography. Arctic
                       Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska,
                       Anchorage.





                                                        97










             Kelly, M.D., W.J. Wilson, and P.O. McMillan. 1989b. Interactions between
                  wild and hatchery-produced salmon in Northwest North America, and
                  issues and concerns over Sikusuilaq Springs Hatchery on the Noatak
                  River, Alaska. Artic Environmental Information and Data Center,
                  University of Alaska, Anchorage.

             Kennedy, G.J. A., and C.D. Strange. 1978. Seven years on- A continuing
                  investigation of salmonid stocks in Lough Erne tributaries. Journal of
                  Fish Biology 12:325-330.

             Kennedy, G.J. A., and C.D. Strange. 1980. Population changes after two
                  years of salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocking in upland trout (Salmo trutta
                  L.) streams. Journal of Fish Biology 17:577-586.

             Kennedy, G.J. A., and C.D. Strange. 1981. Comparative survival from
                  salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocking with eyed and green ova in an upland
                  stream. Fisheries Management 12:43-48.

             Kennedy, G.J. A., and C.D. Strange. 1986. The effects of intra- and inter-
                  specific competition on the survival and growth of stocked juvenile
                  Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., and resident trout, Salmo trutta L., in
                  an upland stream. Journal of Fish Biology 28:479-490.

             Kennedy, G.J. A., C.D. Strange, R.J. D. Anderson, and P.M. Johnston.
                  1984. Experiments on the descent and feeding of hatchery-reared
                  salmon smolts (Salmo salar L.) in the River Bush. Fisheries
                  Management 15:15-25.

             Kijima, A., and Y. Fujio. 1984. Relationship between average
                  heterozygosity and river population size in chum salmon. Bull. Jpn.
                  Soc. Sci. Fish. 50:603-608.

             Kincaid, H.L. 1983. Inbreeding in fish populations used for aquaculture.
                  Aquaculture 33:215-227.

             Kincaid, H.L., and C.R. Berry. 1986. Trout broodstocks used in
                  management of national fisheries. Pages 211-222 in R.H. Stroud,
                  editor. Fish culture in fisheries management. American Fisheries
                  Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

             Klak, G.E. 1941. The condition of brook trout and rainbow trout from four
                  eastern streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                  70:282-289.

             Kristiansson, A.C., and J.D. McIntyre. 1976. Genetic variation in chinook
                  salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from the Columbia River and
                  three Oregon coastal rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries
                  Society 105:620-623.

             Krueger, C.C., A.J. Gharrett, T.R. Dehring, and F.W. Allendorf. 1981.
                  Genetic aspects of fisheries rehabilitation programs. Canadian Journal
                  of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1877-1881.



                                                   98









                  Krueger, C.C., and B. May. 1987a. Stock identification of naturalized
                        brown trout in Lake Superior tributaries: differentiation based on
                        allozyme data. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                        116:785-794.

                  Krueger, C.C., and B. May. 1987b. Genetic comparison of naturalized
                        rainbow trout populations among Lake Superior tributaries:
                        differentiation based on allozyme data. Transactions of the American
                        Fisheries Society 116:795-806.

                  Krueger, C.C., and B.W. Menzel. 1979. Effects of stocking on genetics of
                        wild brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations. Transactions of the
                        American Fisheries Society 108:277-287.

                  Kuehn, J.H., and R.E. Schumacher. 1957. Preliminary report on a two-year
                        census on four southeastern Minnesota streams. Minnesota
                        Department of Conservation, Division of Game Fisheries,
                        Investigational Report 186.

                  Lannan, J.E., and A.R. Kapuscinski. 1984. Genetic guidelines for
                        evaluation and selection of enhancement projects under the Salmon
                        and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act. Department of
                        Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University Report for the
                        Enhancement Planning Team, Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission,
                        Newport.

                  LaPatra, S.E., Groberg, W.J., Rohovec, J.S., and J.L. Fryer. 1990. Size-
                        related susceptibility to two strains of infectious hernatopoetic necrosis
                        virus. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:25-30.

                  Larkin, P.A. 1956. Interspecific competition and population control in
                        freshwater fish. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                        13:327-342.

                  Larkin, P.A. 1963. Interspecific competition and exploitation. Journal of
                        the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 20:647-678.

                  Larkin, P.A., and S.B. Smith. 1954. Some effects of the introduction of the
                        redside shiner on the Kamloops trout in Paul Lake, British Columbia.
                        Transactions of The American Fisheries Society 83:161-175.

                  Larson, R.W., and J.M. Ward. 1955. Management of steelhead in the
                        State of Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                        84:261-274.

                  Larsson, P.O. 1985. Predation on migrating smolt as a regulating factor in
                        Baltic salmon, Salmo salar L., populations. Journal of Fish Biology
                        26:391-397.

                  Leary, R.F., F.W. Allendorf, and K.L. Knudsen. 1985. Developmental
                        instability as an indicator of reduced genetic variation in hatchery
                        trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:230-235.



                                                         99










             Leary, R.F., F.W. Allendorf, S.R. Phelps, and L. Knudsen. 1984.
                  Introgression between westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout in the
                  Clark Fork River drainage, Montana. Proceedings of the Montana
                  Academy of Sciences 43:1-18.

             Leary, R.F., F.W. Allendorf, and K.L. Knudsen. 1987. Genetic divergence
                  and identification of seven cutthroat trout subspecies and rainbow
                  trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:580-587.

             LeCren, E.D. 1965. Some factors regulating the size of populations of
                  freshwater fish. International Association of Theoretical and Applied
                  Limnology 13:88-105.

             LeCren, E. D. 1972. Fish production of f reshwaters. Pages 115-133 in
                  Symposium of the Zoological Society of London.

             Legault, M., and L.M. Lalancette. 1985. Time of adjustment of buoyancy
                  of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) compared with buoyancy of hatchery-
                  reared and wild salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                  Sciences 42:619-623.

             Leggett, W.C. 1977. The ecology of fish migrations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
                  8:285-308.

             Leider, S.A., M.W. Chilcote, and J.J. Loch. 1986. Comparative life history
                  characteristics of hatchery and wild steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneril
                  of summer and winter races in the Kalama River, Washington.
                  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1398-1409.

             Leider, S.A., M.W. Chilcote, and J.J. Loch. 1984. Spawning
                  characteristics of sympatric populations of steelhead trout (Salmo
                  gairdneril: evidence for partial reproductive isolation. Canadian Journal
                  of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:1454-1462.

             Leider, S.A., J.J. Loch, and P.L. Hulett. 1986. Studies of hatchery and
                  wild steelhead in the Lower Columbia region. Washington State Game
                  Department, Report 86-14, Olympia.

             Lemmien, W.A., P.I. Tack, and W.F. Morofsky. 1957. Results from
                  planting brown trout and rainbow trout in Augusta Creek, Kalamazoo
                  County, Michigan. Quarterly Bulletin of the Michigan State University
                  Agricultural Experimentation Station 40:242-249.

             Levings, C., and R. Lauzier. 1988. Migration patterns of wild and hatchery-
                  reared juvenile chinook salmon in the Nicola River, British Columbia.
                  Pages 267-275 in B.G. Shepherd, Rapporteur. Proceedings of the
                  1988 Northeast Pacific chinook and coho salmon workshop. North
                  Pacific International Chapter American Fisheries Society, Bellingham,
                  Washington.

             Levings, C.D., C.D. McAllister, and B.D. Chang. 1986. Differential use of
                  the Campbell River estuary, British Columbia, by wild and hatchery-
                  reared juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
                  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1386-1397.


                                                100











                 Levy, D.A., and C.D. Levings. 1978. A description of the fish community
                      of the Squamish River estuary, British Columbia: relative abundance,
                      seasonal changes, and feeding habits of salmonids. Canadian Fisheries
                      and Marine Service Manuscript Report No. 1475.

                 Levy, D.A., and T.G. Norihcote. 1982. Juvenile salmon residency in a
                      marsh area of the Fraser River estuary. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
                      and Aquatic Sciences 39:270-276.

                 Lewynsky, V.A., and T.C. Bjornn. Response of cutthroat and rainbow trout
                      to experimental catc h-a nd -release fishing. R.A. Barnhart and T.D.
                      Roelofs, editors. Proceedings of a national sport fishing symposium on
                      catc h-a nd -release fishing, a decade of experience. Humboldt State
                      University, Arcata, California.

                 Li, H.W., and R.W. Brocksen. 1977. Approaches to the analysis of
                      energetic costs of intraspecific competition for space by rainbow trout
                      (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of Fish Biology 11:329-341.

                 Lichatowich, J.A., and J.D. McIntyre. 1987. Use of hatcheries in the
                      management of Pacific anadromous salmonids. Pages 131-136 in M.J.
                      Dadswell, R.J. Klauda, C.M. Moffitt, R.L. Saunders, R.A. Rulifson, and
                      J.E. Cooper, editors. Common strategies of anadromous and
                      catadromous fishes. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

                 Lister, D.B., and H.S. Genoe. 1970. Stream habitat utilization by
                      cohabitating underyearlings of chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
                      and coho (0. kisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicurn River, British
                      Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                      27:1215-1224.

                 Lister, D.B., D.G. Hickey, and 1. Wallace. 1981. Review of the effects of
                      enhancement strategies on the homing, straying and survival of Pacific
                      salmonids. Volumes I and 11. Report prepared for the Canadian
                      Department of Fisheries and Oceans. D.B. Lister & Associates, Ltd.,
                      Vancouver.

                 Loftus, K.H. 1976. Science for Canada's fisheries rehabilitation needs.
                      Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:1822-1857.

                 Lord, R.F. 1934. Hatchery trout as foragers and game fish. Transactions
                      of the American Fisheries Society 70:282-289.

                 Lovejoy, T.E. 1977. Genetic aspects of dwindling populations: a review.
                      Pages 275-279 in The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

                 MacCrimmon, H.R. 1954. Stream studies on planted Atlantic salmon.
                      Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 11:362-403.

                 MacDonald, J.S., I.K. Birtwell, and G.M. Kruzynski. 1987. Food and
                      habitat utilization by juvenile salmonids in the Campbell River estuary.
                      Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:1233-1246.


                                                     101










             Mace, P.M. 1983. Bird predation on juvenile salmonids in the Big Qualicurn
                   River, Vancouver Island, Canada. Canadian Technical Report of
                   Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1176.

             MacLean, J.A., and D.O. Evans. 1981. The stock concept, discreteness of
                   fish stocks, and fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
                   and Aquatic Sciences 38:1889-1898.

             Mahnken, C., E. Prentice, W. Waknitz, G. Monan, C. Sims, and J. Williams.
                   1982. The application of recent smoltification research to public
                   hatchery releases: an assessment of size/time requirements for
                   Columbia River hatchery coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
                   Aquaculture 28:251-268.

             Marnell, L.F. 1986. Impacts of hatchery stocks on wild fish populations.
                   Pages 339-347 in R.H. Stroud, editor. Fish culture in fisheries
                   management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

             Marnell, L.F., R.J. Behnke, and F.W. Allendorf. 1987. Genetic
                   identification of cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki, in Glacier National Park,
                   Montana. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                   44:1830-1839.

             Marsden, J.E., and C.C. Krueger. 1989. Identification of parental origins of
                   naturally produced lake trout in Lake Ontario: application of mixed-
                   stock analysis to a second generation. North American Journal of
                   Fisheries Management 9:257-268.

             Martin, J.T. 1984. Social value of wild fish. Pages 297-301 in J.M.
                   Walton, and D.B. Houston, editors. Proceedings of the Wild Fish
                   Conference.

             Mason, J.C. 1974. Behavioral ecology of chum salmon fry (Oncorhynchus
                   keta) in a small estuary. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
                   Canada 41:70-92.

             Mason, J.W., O.M. Brynildson, and P.E. Degarse. 1967. Comparative
                   survival of wild and domestic strains of brook trout in streams.
                   Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 96:313-319.

             Mason, J.C., and D.W. Chapman. 1965. Significance of early emergence,
                   environmental rearing capacity, and behavioral ecology of juvenile
                   coho salmon in stream channels. Journal of the Fisheries Research
                   Board of Canada 22:173-190.

             Mathews, S.B. 1983. Variability of marine survival of Pacific salmonids: a
                   review. Pages 161-182 in W.G. Pearcy, editor. The influence of
                   ocean conditions on production of salmonids in the North Pacific.
                   Oregon State University, Oregon Sea Grant Program, Corvallis.

             Mathews, S.B., and Y. Ishida. 1989. Survival, ocean growth, and ocean
                   distribution of differentially timed releases of hatchery coho salmon
                   (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                   Sciences 46:1216-1226.


                                                   102










                Maule, A.G., and H.F. Horton. 1984. Feeding ecology of walleye,
                     Stizostedion vitreum vitreum, in the mid-Columbia River, with emphasis
                     on the interactions between walleye and juvenile anadromous fishes.
                     Fishery Bulletin 82:411-418.

                Mazeaud, M.M., F. Mazeaud, and E.M. Donaldson. 1977. Primary and
                     secondary effects of stress in fish, some new data with a general
                     review. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106:201-212.

                McCarl, B.A., and R.B. Rettig. 1983. Influence of hatchery smolt releases
                     on adult salmon production and its variability. Canadian Journal of
                     Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:1880-1886.

                McCleave, J.D. 1978. Rhythmic aspects of estuarine migration of
                     hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. Journal of Fish
                     Biology 12:559-570.

                McCraren, J.P., and J.L. Millard. 1978. Transportation of warmwater
                     fishes. Pages 43-88 in Manual of fish culture, Section G: Fish
                     transportation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

                McDermott, L.A., and A.H. Berst. 1968. Experimental plantings of brook
                     trout from furunculosis-infected stock. Journal of the Fisheries
                     Research Board of Canada 25:2643-2649.

                McDonald, J., and J.M. Hume. 1984. Babine Lake sockeye salmon
                     (Oncorhynchus nerka) enhancement program: testing some major
                     assumptions. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                     41:70-92.

                McFadden, J.T. 1969. Dynamics and regulation of salmonid populations in
                     streams. Pages 313-329 in T.G. Northcote, editor. Salmon and trout
                     in streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries, University of British
                     Columbia, Vancouver.

                McGie,.A.M. 1981. Trends in escapement and production of fall chinook
                     and coho salmon in Oregon. Population Dynamics Statistical Service
                     Section, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division
                     Information Report 81-7, Portland.

                McGie, A.M. 1984. Commentary: evidence for density dependence among
                     coho salmon stocks in the Oregon Production Index Area. Pages 37-
                     49 in W.G. Pearcy, editor. The influence of ocean conditions on the
                     production of salmonids in the North Pacific: a workshop. Oregon
                     State University, Oregon Sea Grant Program, Corvallis.

                McIntyre, J.D., and D.F. Amend. 1978. Heritability of tolerance for
                     infectious hernatopoietic necrosis in sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
                     nerka). Transactions of.the American Fisheries Society 107:305-308.

                McIntyre, J.D., A.R. Hemmingsen, and R.C. Simon. 1988. Selection to
                     increase survival of smolts in four successive broods of coho salmon.
                     Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:90-92.


                                                   103











              McIntyre, J.D., R.R. Reisenbichler, J.M. Emlen, R.L. Wilmot, and J.E. Finn.
                   1989. Predation of Karluk River sockeye salmon by coho salmon and
                   char. Fishery Bulletin 86:611-616.

              Mclsaac, D.O., and T.P. Quinn. 1988. Evidence of a hereditary component
                   in homing behavior of chinook, salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
                   Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:2201-2205.

              McLaren, J.B. 1979. Comparative behavior of hatchery-reared and wild
                   brown trout and its relation to intergroup competition in a stream.
                   Doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

              McLaren, J., and R.L. Butler. 1970. The Spruce Creek catch-and-release
                   study. Trout Unlimited.

              McMullin, S.L. 1982. Inventory and survey of the waters of the Bighole
                   and Beaverhead drainage. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
                   Parks, DJ Job Completion Report F-9-11-30, Helena.

              Mead, R.W., and W. Woodall. 1968. Comparison of sockeye salmon fry
                   produced by hatcheries, artificial channels, and natural spawning
                   areas. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, Progress
                   Report No. 20.

              Meffe, G.K. 1986. Conservation genetics and the management of
                   endangered fishes. Fisheries 11:14-23.

              Meister, A.J. 1962. Atlantic salmon production in Cove Brook, Maine.
                   Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 91:208-212.

              Millard, T.J., and H.R. MacCrimmon. 1972. Evaluation of the contribution
                   of supplemental  'plantings of brown trout, Salmo trutta L., to a self-
                   sustaining fishery in the Sydenharn River, Ontario, Canada. Journal of
                   Fish Biology 4:369-384.

              Millenbach, C. 1973. Genetic selection of steelhead trout for management
                   purposes. Washington State Department of Game, Olympia.

              Miller, R.B. 1952. Survival of hatchery-reared cutthroat trout in an Alberta
                   stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 81:35-42.

              Miller, R.B. 1954. Comparative survival of wild and hatchery-reared
                   cutthroat trout in a stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries
                   Society 83:120-130.

              Miller, R.B. 1955. Trout management research in Alberta. Pp. 242-252 in
                   Transactions of the 20th North American Wildlife Conference.

              Miller, R.B. 1958. The role of competition in the mortality of hatchery
                   trout. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada 15:27-45.





                                                    104









                 Mills, D.H. 1964. The ecology of young stages of the Atlantic salmon in
                       the River Bran, Rosshire. Department of Agriculture Fisheries of
                       Scotland, Freshwater Salmon Fisheries Research 32.

                 Mills, D.H. 1969. The survival of hatchery-reared salmon fry in some
                       Scottish streams. Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries Research 39.

                 Mitans, A.R. 1973. Dwarf males and the sex structure of a Baltic salmon
                       (Salmo salar L.) population. Journal of Ichthyology 13:192-197.

                 Mitans, A.R. 1977. Investigations on wild and hatchery salmon of the river
                       Daugava. Ann. Biol. Copenh. 32:156-157.

                 Mitchum, D.L., L.E. Sherman, and G.T. Baxter. 1979. Bacterial kidney
                       disease in feral populations of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown
                       trout (Salmo trutta), and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneril. Journal of
                       the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:1370-1376.

                 Mitchum, D.L., and L.E. Sherman. 1981. Transmission of bacterial kidney
                       disease from wild to stocked hatchery trout. Canadian Journal of
                       Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:547-551.

                 Moav, R., T. Brody, and G. Hulata. 1978. Genetic improvement of wild
                       fish populations. Science 201:1090-1094.

                 Moller, D. 1970. Transferrin polymorphism in Atlantic salmon (Salmo
                       salar). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 27:1617-
                       1625.

                 Moring, J.R., and D.V. Buchanan. 1979. Downstream movements and
                       catches of two strains of stocked trout. Journal of Wildlife
                       Management 42:329-333.

                 Mortensen, E. 1977a. The population dynamics of young trout (Salmo
                       trutta L.) in a Danish brook. Journal of Fish Biology 10:23-33.

                 Mortensen, E. 1977b. Density dependent mortality of trout fry (Salmo
                       trutta L.) and its relationship to the management of small streams.
                       Journal of Fish Biology 11:613-617.

                 Moyle, P.B. 1969. Comparative behavior of young brook trout of domestic
                       and wild origin. Progressive Fish-Culturist 31:51-56.   -

                 Mulcahy, D., R.J. Pascho, and C.K. Jenes. 1983. Titre distribution
                       patterns of infectious hernatopoietic necrosis virus in ovarian fluids of
                       hatchery and feral salmon populations. Journal of Fish Diseases
                       6:321-330.

                 Mullan, J.W., and J.D. McIntyre. 1986. Growth and survival.of salmon
                       and steelhead in a controlled section of Icicle Creek. U.S. Fish and
                       Wildlife Service, Information Report FRI/FAO-86-14, Seattle,
                       Washington.




                                                       105









             Murphy, B.R., and W.E. Kelso. 1986. Strategies for evaluating fresh-water
                  stocking programs: Past practices and future needs. R.H. Stroud,
                  editor. Fish culture in fisheries management. American Fisheries
                  Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

             Myers, K.W. 1978. Comparative analysis of stomach contents of cultured
                  and wild juvenile salmohids in Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Pages 155-162
                  in S.J. Lipovsky and C.A. Simensted, editors. Fish food habits studies.
                  Proceedings of the Second Pacific Northwest Technical Workshop.
                  Washington Sea Grant Publications, University of Washington, Seattle.

             Myers, K., and H. Horton. 1982. Temporal use of an Oregon estuary by
                  hatchery and wild juvenile salmon. Pages 377-392 in V. Kennedy,
                  editor. Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York.

             National Council on Gene Resources. 1982. Anadromous salmonid genetic
                  resources: an assessment and plan for California. California Gene
                  Resources Program, Report for California Department of Food and
                  Agriculture, Berkeley.

             Neave, F. 1953. Principles affecting the size of pink and chum salmon
                  populations in British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Research
                  Board of Canada 9:450-491.

             Needham, P.R., and D.W. Slater. 1944. Survival of hatchery-reared brown
                  and rainbow trout as affected by wild trout populations. The Journal
                  of Wildlife Management 8:22-36.

             Needham, P.R., and D.W. Slater. 1945. Seasonal changes in growth,
                  mortality, and condition of rainbow trout following planting.
                  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 73:117-124.

             Neilson, J.D., G.H. Geen, and D. Bottom. 1985. Estuarine growth of
                  juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) as inferred from
                  otolith microstructure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                  Sciences 42:899-908.

             Neitzel, D.A., and D.H. Fickeisen (Facilitators). 1990. Proceedings of the
                  anadromous fish release strategies workshop. December 11 - 14,
                  1989. Project No. 86-118, Prepared for the U.S. Department of
                  Energy, Bonneville Power Administration.

             Nelson, K., and M. Soule. 1987. Genetical conservation of exploited
                  fishes. Pages 345-368 in N. Ryman and F. Utter, editors. Population
                  genetics and fishery management. University of Washington Press,
                  Seattle.

             Newell, A.E. 1957. Two-year study of movements of stocked brook trout
                  and rainbow trout in a mountain trout stream. Progressive Fish-
                  Culturist 19:76-80.







                                                  106









                Ney, J.J., and D.J. Orth. 1986. Coping with future shock: matching
                     predator stocking programs to prey abundance. Pages 81-92 in R.H.
                     Stroud, editor. Fish culture in fisheries management. American
                     Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

                Nickelson, T.E. 1986. Influences of upwelling, ocean temperature, and
                     smolt abundance on marine survival of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
                     kisutch) in the Oregon Production Area. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
                     and Aquatic Sciences 43:527-535.
                Nickelson, T.E., M.F. Solazzi, and S.L. Johnson. 1986. Use of hatchery
                     coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) presmolts to rebuild wild
                     populations in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
                     and Aquatic Sciences 43:2443-2449.

                Nielson, R.S., N. Reimers, and H.D. Kennedy. 1956. A six-year study of
                     the survival and vitality of hatchery-reared rainbow trout of catchable
                     size in Convict Creek, California. California Fish and Game 43:1-42.

                Nikinmaa, M., A. Soivio, T. Nakari, and S. Lindgren. 1983. Hauling stress
                     in brown trout (Salmo trutta): physiological responses to transport in
                     fresh water or salt water, and recovery in natural brackish water.
                     Aquaculture 34:93-99.

                Nilsson, N.A. 1967. Interactive segregation between fish species. Pages
                     293-313 in S.D. Gerking, editor. The biological basis of freshwater
                     fish production. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, England.

                Northcote, T.G., and B.W. Kelso. 1981. Differential response to water
                     current by two homozygous LDH phenotypes of young rainbow trout
                     (Salmo gaircfnerij. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                     38:348-352.

                Northcote, T.G., S.N. Williscroft, and H. Tsuyuki. 1970. Meristic and
                     lactate dehydrogenase genotype differences in stream populations of
                     rainbow trout below and above a waterfall. Journal of the Fisheries
                     Research Board of Canada 27:1987-1995.

                Onodera, K., and T. Ueno. 1961. On the survival of trout fingerlings
                     stocked in a mountain brook. 11. Survival rate measured and scouring
                     effect of flood as a cause of mortality. Freshwater Fisheries Research
                     Laboratory No. 107.

                Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1981. Comprehensive plan for
                     production and management of Oregon's anadromous salmon and
                     trout: Part III, Coho Salmon Plan.

                Osterdahl, L. 1968. The smolt run of a small Swedi'sh river. Pages 205-
                     215 in T.4G. Northcote, editor. Symposium on salmon and trout in
                     streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. University of British
                     Columbia, Vancouver.






                                                   107









             Palmer, D.E., H.C. Hansel, J.M. Beyer, S.C. Vigg, W.T. Yasutake, P.T. Lofy,
                   S.D. Duke, M.J. Parsley, M.G. Mesa, L.A. Prendergast, R. Burkhart, C.
                   Burley, D.W. Eib, and T.P. Poe. 1986. Feeding activity, rate of
                   consumption, daily ration and prey selection of major predators in John
                   Day Reservoir, 1985. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of
                   Fish and Wildlife, Project No. 82-3, Portland, Oregon.

             Parker, N.C. 1986. Physical and biological factors influencing growth and
                   survival of stocked fish. Pages 235-242 R.H. Stroud, editor. Fish
                   culture in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society,
                   Bethesda, Maryland.

             Parkinson, E.A. 1984. Genetic variation in populations of steelhead trout
                   (Salmo gairdneril in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
                   and Aquatic Sicences 41:1412-1420.

             Parsons, J.E., and G.H. Thorgaard. 1985. Production of androgenetic
                   diploid rainbow trout. Journal of Heredity 76:177-181.

             Paszkowski, C.A., and B.L. Olla. 1985a. Foraging behavior of hatchery-
                   produced coho salmon (Oncorhyunchus kisutch) smolts on live prey.
                   Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:1915-1921.

             Paulik, G.J., A.S. Hourston, and P.A. Larkin. 1967. Exploitation of multiple
                   stocks by a common fishery. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
                   of Canada 24:2527-2537.

             Pearcy, W.G. 1984. Where do all the coho go? The biology of juvenile
                   coho salmon off the coasts of Oregon and Washington. Pages 50-60
                   in W.G. Pearcy, editor. The influence of ocean conditions on the
                   production of salmonids in the North Pacific: a workshop. Oregon
                   State University, Oregon Sea Grant Program, Corvallis.

             Pearcy, W.G., and J.P. Fisher. 1988. Migrations of coho salmon
                   (Oncorhynchus kisutch) during their first summer in the ocean.
                   Fisheries Bulletin

             Peck, J.W. 1974. Migration, food habits, and predation on yearling coho
                   salmon in a Lake Michigan tributary and bay. Transactions of the
                   American Fisheries Society 103:10-14.

             Peterman, R.M. 1977. A simple mechanism that causes collapsing stability
                   regions in exploited salmonid populations. Journal of the Fisheries
                   Research Board of Canada 34:1130-1142.

             Peterman, R.M. 1978. Testing for density-dependent marine survival in
                   Pacific marine salmonids. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
                   Canada 35:1434-1450.

             Peterman, R.M. 1981. Form of random variation in salmon smolt-to-adult
                   relations and its influence on production estimates. Canadian Journal
                   of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1113-1119.



                                                  108










                Peterman, R.M. 1982. Nonlinear relation between smolts and adults in
                     Babine Lake sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and implications
                     for other salmon populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                     Aquatic Sciences 39:904-913.

                Peterman, R.M. 1987. Review of the components of recruitment of Pacific
                     salmon. Pages 417-429 in M.J., Klauda, R.J., Moffitt, C.M.,
                     Saunders, R.L., Rulifson, R.A., Cooper, J.E. Dadswell, editors.
                     Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes. American
                     Fisheries Society Symposium 1. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
                     Maryland.

                Peterman, R.M. 1989. Application of statistical power analysis to the
                     Oregon coho salmon (Oncorhynchus k.;sutch) problem. Canadian
                     Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1183-1187.

                Peterman, R.M., and M. Gatto. 1978. Estimation of functional responses
                     of predators on juvenile salmon. Journal of the Fisheries Research
                     Board of Canada 35:797-808.

                Peterman, R., and R.D. Routledge. 1983. Experimental management of
                     Oregon coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch): designing for yield of
                     information. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science
                     40:1212-1223.,

                Peterson, H.H. 1973. Smolt rearing methods, equipment and techniques
                     used successfully in Sweden. International Atlantic Salmon
                     Foundation Special Publication Series, 2.

                Petrosky, C.E. 1984. Competitive effects from stocked catchable-size
                     rainbow trout on wild trout population dynamics. Doctoral
                     dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow.

                Petrosky, C.E., and T.C. Bjornn. 1988. Response of wild rainbow (Salmo
                     gairdneril and cutthroat trout (S. clarki) to stocked rainbow trout in
                     fertile and infertile streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                     Sciences 45:2087-2105.

                Pettit, S.W. 1977. Comparative reproductive success of caught-and-
                     released and unplayed hatchery female steelhead trout (Salmon
                     gairdneri) from the Clearwater River, Idaho. Transactions of the
                     American Fisheries Society, 106:431-436.

                Philipp, D.P., C.C. Kruegar, G.H. Thorgaard, E.T. Wattendorf, and J.E.
                     Claussen. 1986. Fisheries genetics: where should we be going?
                     Fisheries 11(3):14-17.

                Phillips, A.M., Jr., D.R. Brockway, F.E. Lovelace, and H.A. Podoliak. 1957.
                     A chemical comparison of hatchery and wild brook trout. Progressive
                     Fish-Culturist 19:19-25.






                                                   109










              Pickering, A.D., and J. Duston. 1983. Administration of cortisol to brown
                   trout, Salmo trutta L., and its effects on'the susceptability to
                   Saprolegnia infection and furunculosis. Journal of Fish Biology
                   23:163-175.

              Piggins, D.J. 1959. Investigation on predators of salmon smolts and parr.
                   Salmon Research Trust Ireland 5, Appendix 1.

              Piggins, D.J., and C.P. R. Mills. 1985. Comparative aspects of the biology
                   of naturally produced and hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts
                   salmo-salar. Aquaculture 45:321-334.

              Piper, D., B.L. Nicholson, and J. Dunn. 1973. Immunofluorescent study of
                   the replication of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in trout and
                   Atlantic salmon cell cultures. Infect. Immun. 8:249-254.

              Pippy, J.H. C. 1969. Kidney disease in juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo
                   salar) in the Margaree River. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
                   of Canada 26:2535-2537.

              Pollard, H.A., and T.C. Bjornn. 1973. The effects of angling and hatchery
                   trout on the abundance of juvenile steelhead trout. Transactions of
                   the American Fisheries Society 102:745-752.

              Potter, B.A., and B.A. Barton. 1986. Stocking goals and criteria for
                   restoration and enhancement of cold-water fisheries. Pages 147-160
                   in R.H. Stroud, editor. Fish culture in fisheries management.
                   American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

              Potter, B.A., B.R. Zalewski, B.A. Barton, and N.C. Fraser. 1982. Summary
                   and annotated bibliography of salmonine stocking investigations,
                   stocking assessment methodology and stocking policies in North
                   America. Fisheries Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
                   Toronto.

              Power, J.H., and J.D. McCleave. 1980. Riverine movements of hatchery-
                   reared Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) upon return as adults.
                   Environmental Biology of Fishes 5:3-13.

              Pritchard, A.L. 1936. Stomach contents analysis of fishes preying upon
                   the young of Pacific salmon during the fry migration at McClinton
                   Creek, Masset Inlet, British Columbia. Canadian Field-Naturalist
                   50:104-105.

              Pritchard, A.L. 1947. Efficiency of natural propagation of Pacific salmon.
                   Canadian Fish Culturist 1:22-26.

              Purdom, C.E. 1972. Induced polyploidy in plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)
                   and its hybrid with the flounder (Platicthys fiesus). Heredity 29:11-24.

              Quinn, T.P., and K. Fresh. 1984. Homing and straying in chinook salmon
                   (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from Cowlitz River Hatchery,
                   Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                   41:1078-1082.


                                                   110










                 Quinn, T.P., and W.C. Leggett. 1987. Perspectives on the marine
                      migrations of diadromous fishes. Pages 377-388 in M.J., Klauda, R.J.,
                      Moffitt, C.M., Saunders, R.L., Rulifson, R.A., Cooper, J.E. Dadswell,
                      editors. Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes.
                      American Fisheries Society Symposium 1. American Fisheries Society,
                      Bethesda, Maryland.

                 Quinn, T.P., and G.M. Tolson. 1986. Evidence of chemically mediated
                      population recognition in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
                      Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:84-87.

                 Raleigh, R.F. 1971. Innate control of migration of salmon and trout fry
                      from natal gravels to rearing areas. Ecology 52:291-297.

                 Raleigh, R.F., and D.W. Chapman. 1971. Genetic control in lakeward
                      migration in cutthroat trout fry. Transactions of the American
                      Fisheries Society 100:33-40.

                 Raney, E.C., and E.A. Lachner. 1942. Autumn food of recently planted
                      young brown trout in small streams of central New York. Transactions
                      of the American Fisheries Society 71:106-111.

                 Ratliff, D.E. 1981. Ceratomyxa shasta: epizootiology in chinook salmon of
                      central Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                      110:507-513.

                 Rawstron, R.R. 1972. Harvest, survival, and cost of two domestic strains
                      of tagged rainbow trout stocked in Lake Berryassa, California.
                      California Fish and Game 58:44-49.

                 Raymond, H.L. 1988. Effects of hydroelectric developoment and fisheries
                      enhancement on spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead in
                      the Columbia River basin. North American Journal of Fisheries
                      Management 8:1-24.

                 Redding, J.M., and C.B. Schreck. 1983. Influence of ambient salinity on
                      osmoregulation and cortisol concentration in yearling coho salmon
                      during stress. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                      112:800-807.

                 Reimers, N. 1963. Body condition, water temperature, and over-winter
                      survival of hatchery-reared trout in Convict Creek, California.
                      Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 92:39-46.

                 Reimers, N. 1957. Some aspects of the relation between stream foods and
                      trout survival. California Fish and Game 43:43-69.

                 Reimers, P.E. 1973. The length of residence of juvenile fall chinook salmon
                      in Sixes River, Oregon. Fisheries Commission of Oregon, Research
                      Report 4.









             Reimers, P.E. 1979. Success in a hatchery program with fall chinook
                   salmon by simulating the natural life history of the stock. Progressive
                   Fish-Culturist 41:192-195.

             Reingold, M. 1975. Effects of displacing, hooking, and releasing on
                   migrating adult steelhead trout. Transactions of the American
                   Fisheries Society 104:458-460.

             Reisenbichler, R.R. 1977. Effects of artificial propagation of anadromous
                   salmonids on wild populations. Pages 2-3 in T.J. Hassler, and R.R.
                   VanKirk, editors. Proceedings of the genetic implications of steelhead
                   management symposium. Humboldt State University, Arcata,
                   California.

             Reisenbichler, R.R. 1981. Columbia River salmonid broodstock
                   management - annual progress report (unpublished). National Fishery
                   Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seattle, Washington.

             Reisenbichler, R.R. 1984. Outplanting: potential for harmful genetic change
                   in naturally spawning salmonids. Pages 33-39 in J.M. Walton, and
                   D.B. Houston, editors. Proceedings of the Olympic wild fish
                   conference. Peninsula College, Port Angeles, Washington.

             Reisenbichler, R.R. 1985. Use of hatcheries in management of anadromous
                   fish. Pages *124-136 in Y.P. Yakovleva, editor. Aquaculture in USSR
                   and USA. Proceedings of the Soviet-American symposium on
                   aquaculture. National Fisheries Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                   Service, Seattle, Washington.

             Reisenbichler, R.R. 1988. Relation between distance transferred from natal
                   stream and recovery rate for hatchery coho salmon. North American
                   Journal of Fisheries Management 8:172-174.

             Reisenbichler, R.R., and J.D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in
                   growth and survival of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout,
                   Salmo gairdneri. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                   34:123-128.

             Reisenbichler, R.R., J.D. McIntyre, and R.J. Hallock. 1982. Relation
                   between size of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) released
                   at hatcheries and returns to hatcheries and ocean fisheries. California
                   Fish and Game 68:57-59.

             Reisenbichler, R.R., and J.D. McIntyre. 1986. Requirements for integrating
                   natural and artificial production of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific
                   Northwest. Pages 365-374 in R.H. Stroud, editor. Fish culture in
                   fisheiies management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
                   Maryland.

             Reisenbichler, R.R., and S.R. Phelps. 1987. Genetic variation in chinook,
                   Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and coho, 0. kisutch, salmon from the
                   north coast of Washington. Fishery Bulletin 85:681-701.



                                                   112









                 Reisenbichler, R.R., and S.R. Phelps. 1989. Genetic variation in steelhead
                       (Salmo gairdnerl) from the north coast of Washington. Canadian
                       Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:66-73.

                 Richards, C., and P.J. Cernera. 1988. Movement and abundance of
                       hatchery-reared and naturally-spawned juvenile chinook salmon in an
                       Idaho stream. Submitted to North American Journal of Fisheries
                       Management

                 Ricker, W.E. 1941. The consumption of young sockeye salmon by
                       predaceous fish. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                       5:293-313.

                 Ricker, W.E. 1954. Stock and recruitment. Journal of the Fisheries
                       Research Board of Canada 11:559-623.

                 Ricker, W.E. 1958. Maximum sustained yield from fluctuating
                       environments and mixed stocks. Journal of the Fisheries Research
                       Board of Canada 15:559-623.

                 Ricker, W.E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain
                       salmonid populations. Pages 19-160 in R.C. Simon, and P.A. Larkin,
                       editors. The stock concept in Pacific salmon. H.R. MacMillan Lectures
                       in Fisheries. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

                 Ricker, W.E. 1976. Review of the rate of growth and mortality of Pacific
                       salmon in saltwater and non-catch mortality caused by fishing.
                       Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:1483-1524.

                 Ricker, W.E.  1981. Changes in the average size and average age of Pacific
                       salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1636-
                       1656.

                 Ricker, W.E.  1982. Size and age of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)
                       in relation to environmental factors and the fishery. Canadian
                       Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1115.

                 Riddell, B.E., and W.C. Leggett. 1981. Evidence of an adaptive basis for
                       geographic variation in body morphology and time of downstream
                       migration of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal
                       of Fisheries. and Aquatic Sciences 38:308-320.
                 Riddell, B.E., W.C. Leggett, and R.L. Saunders. 1981. Evidence of adaptive
                       polygenic variation between two populations of Atlantic salmon (Salmo
                       salar) native to tributaries of the S.W. Miramichi River, New Brunswick
                       Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:321-333.

                 Riggs, L.A. 1986. Genetic considerations in salmon and steelhead
                       planning. Final report for the Northwest Power Planning Council,
                       Berkeley, California.

                 Riley, G.F. 1953. Theory of growth and competition in natural populations.
                       Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 10:211-223.



                                                      113










             Ringler, N.H. 1979. Selective predation by drift feeding brown trout (Salmo
                   trutta). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:392-
                   403.

             Ritter, J.A. 1975. Lower ocean survival rates for hatchery-reared Atlantic
                   salmon (Salmo salar) stocks released in rivers other than their native
                   streams. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
                   Publications, 26.

             Rogers, D.E. 1980. Density-dependent growth of Bristol Bay sockeye
                   salmon. Pages 267-283 in W.J. McNeil, and D.C. Himsworth, editors.
                   Salmonid ecosystems of the North Pacific. Oregon State University,
                   Oregon Sea Grant Program, Corvallis.

             Rogers, D.E. 1984. Trends in abundance of northeastern Pacific stocks of
                   salmon. Pages 100-127 in W.G. Pearcy, editor. The influence of
                   ocean conditions on the production of salmonids in the north Pacific.
                   Oregon State University, Oregon Sea Grant Program, Corvallis.

             Rosenau, M.L., and J.D. McPhail. 1987. Inherited differences in agonistic
                   .behavior between two populations of coho salmon. Transactions of
                   the American Fisheries Society 116:646-654.

             Rosentreter, N. 1977. Characteristics of hatchery fish: Angling, biology,
                   and genetics. Pages 79-83 in E. Schwiebert, editor. Columbia River
                   salmon and steelhead. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
                   Maryland.

             Royal, L.A. 1972. An examination of the anadromous trout program of the
                   Washington State Game Department. Unpublished manuscript.
                   Washington Department of Game.

             Ruggerone, G.T. 1986. Consumption of migrating juvenile salmonids by
                   gulls foraging below a Columbia River dam. Transactions of the
                   American Fisheries Society 115:736-742.

             Ruggerone, G.T., and D.E. Rogers. 1984. Arctic charr predation on
                   sockeye salmon smolts at Little Togiak River, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin
                   82:401-409.

             Ruggles, C.P. 1980. A review of the downstream migration of Atlantic
                   salmon. Canadian Technical Report Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                   9852.

             Ruggles, P.F. 1966. Depth and velocity as a factor in stream rearing and
                   production of juvenile coho salmon. Canadian Fish Culturist 38:37-53.

             Ryder, R.A., S.R. Kerr, W.W. Taylor, and P.A. Larkin. 1981. Community
                   consequences of fish stock diversity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
                   and Aquatic Sciences 38:1856-1866.

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



                                                   114









                 Ryman, N., and G. Stahl. 1980. Genetic changes in hatchery stocks of
                       brown trout (Salmo trutta). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                       Sciences 37:82-87.

                 Ryman, N., and G. Stahl. 1981. Genetic perspectives of identification and
                       preservation of Scandinavian stocks of-fish. Canadian Journal of
                       Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1562-1575.

                 Ryman, N., and F. Utter. 1987. University of Washington Press. Seattle.

                 Salo, E.O., and W.H. Bayliff. 1958. Artificial and natural production of
                       silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) at Minter Creek, Washington.
                       Washington Department of Fisheries, Research Bulletin 4, Olympia.

                 Sanders, J.E., J.L. Fryer, D.A. Leith, and K.D. Moore. 1972. Control of the
                       infectious protozoan Ceratomyxa shasta by treating hatchery water
                       supplies. Progressive Fish-Culturist 34:13-16.

                 Sanders, J.E., J.L. Fryer, and R.W. Gould. 1970. Occurrence of the
                       myxosporidan parasite Ceratomyxa shasta in salmonid fish from the
                       Columbia River basin and Oregon coastal streams. Pages 133-141 in
                       American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

                 Sanders, J.E., K.S. Pilcher, and J.L. Fryer. 1978. Relation of water
                       temperature to bacterial kidney disease in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
                       kisutch), sockeye salmon (0. nerka), and steelhead trout (Salmo
                       gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35:8-11.

                 Scheer, B.T. 1939. Homing instinct in salmon. Quarterly Review of
                       Biology 14:408-420.

                 Scholz, A.T., C.K. Gosse, J.C. Cooper, R.M. Horrall, A.D. Hasler, R.I. Daly,
                       and R.J. Poff. 1978. Homing of rainbow trout transplanted in Lake
                       Michigan: a comparison of three procedures used for imprinting and
                       stocking. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107:439-
                       443.

                 Schreck, C.B. Stress and compensation in teleostean fishes: response to
                       social and physical factors. 295-321 Academic Press, London.

                 Schreck, C.B., R. Patino, C.K. Pring, J.R. Winton, and J.E. Holway. 1985.
                       Effects of rearing density on indices of smoltification and performance
                       of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Aquaculture 45:345-358.

                 Schroder, S.L. 1981. The role of sexual selection in determining overall
                       mating patterns and mate choice in chum salmon. Doctoral
                       dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle.

                 Schuck, H.A. 1948. Survival of hatchery trout in streams and possible
                       methods of improving the quality of hatchery trout. Progressive Fish-
                       Culturist 10:3-14.






                                                      115










             Seelbach, P.W. 1987. Effect of winter severity on steelhead smolt yield in
                   Michigan: an example of the importance of environmental factors in
                   determining smolt yield. Pages 441-450 in M.J., Klauda, R.J., Moffitt,
                   C.M., Saunders, R.L., Rulifson, R.A., Cooper, J.E. Dadswell, editors.
                   Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes. American
                   Fisheries Society Symposium 1. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
                   Maryland.

             Seelbach, P.W. 1987. Smolting success of hatchery-raised steelhead
                   planted in a Michigan tributary of Lake Michigan. North American
                   Journal of Fisheries Management 7:223-231.

             Seelbach, P.W., and G.W. Whelan. 1988. Identification and contribution of
                   wild and hatchery steelhead stocks in Lake Michigan tributaries.
                   Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:444-451.

             Seidel, P., P. Appleby, H. Fuss, and M. Kimbel. 1988. Washington
                   Department of Fisheries Columbia River fall chinook salmon studies.
                   Pages 240-246 in B. Shepherd, Rapporteur. 1988 Northeast Pacific
                   chinook and coho salmon workshop proceedings. North Pacific
                   International Chapter American Fisheries Society, Bellingham,
                   Washington.

             Sekulich, P.T. 1980. The carrying capacity of infertile forest streams for
                   rearing juvenile chinook'salmon. Doctoral dissertation. University of
                   Idaho, Moscow.

             Selye, H. 1973. The evolution of the stress concept. American Scientist
                   61:692-699.

             Semko, R.S. 1954a. A method for determining the consumption of
                   predators of the young Pacific salmon during early stages of
                   development. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Translation Series
                   No. 215:124-134.

             Shearer, W.M. 1961. Survival rate of young salmonids in streams stocked
                   with green ova. Council Meeting of the International Council for the
                   Exploration of the Sea, 98.

             Shetter, D.S. 1947. Further results frorrf spring and fall planting of legal-
                   sized, hatchery-reared trout in streams and lakes of Michigan.
                   Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 74:35-58.

             Shetter, D.S., and A.S. Hazzard. 1941. Results from plantings of marked
                   trout of legal size in streams and lakes of Michigan. Transactions of
                   the American Fisheries Society 70:446-468.

             Sholes, W.H., and R.J. Hallock. 1979. An evaluation of rearing fall-run
                   chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, to yearlings at Feather
                   River Hatchery, with a comparison of returns from hatchery and
                   downstream releases. California Fish and Game 64:239-255.





                                                    116









                 Shustov, Y.A., I.L. Shchurov, and Y.A. Smirnov. 1980. Adaptation times
                       of hatchery salmon, Salmo salar, to river conditions. Journal of
                       Ichthyology 20:156-159.

                 Sigler, J.W., T.C. Bjornn, and F.H. Everest. 1984. Effects of chronic
                       turbidity on density and growth of steelhead and coho salmon.
                       Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150.

                 Silby, R.M., and P. Calow. 1986. Physiological ecology of animals.
                       Blackwell, Oxford, England.

                 Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget
                       Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific
                       salmon: An unappreciated function. Pages 343-364 in V. Kennedy,
                       editor. Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York.

                 Simenstad, C.A., B.S. Miller, C.F. Nyblade, K. Thornburgh, and L.J.
                       Bledsoe. 1979. Food web relationships of northern Puget Sound and
                       the Strait of Juan de Fuca: A synthesis of the available knowledge.
                       MESA Puget Sound Project, Marine Ecosystems Analysis Program,
                       Environmental Research Laboratories, DOC/EPA Interagency
                       Energy/Environment Research and Development Program Report EPA-
                       600/7-79-259.

                 Simon, R.C. 1970. Genetics and marine aquaculture. Pages 53-63 in W.J.
                       McNeil, editor. Marine aquaculture. Oregon State University Press,
                       Corvallis.

                 Simon, R.C. 1986. Improving strains and species genetically for higher
                       production, faster growth, and increased survival. Pages 223-227 in
                       R.H. Stroud, editor. Fish culture in fisheries management. American
                       Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

                 Skaala, 0., and G. Nevdal. 1989. Genetic differentiation between
                       freshwater resident and anadromous brown trout, Salmo trutta, within
                       watercourses. Journal of Fish Biology 34:597-605.

                 Slaney, P.A., S.J. Billings, and H.A. Smith. 1980. Experimental stocking of
                       steelhead fry above barriers in a high gradient tributary of the Keogh
                       River: Progress 1978 and 1979. Ministry of the Environment, Fisheries
                       Technical Circular 48, Victoria, Canada.

                 Slaney, P.A., and T.G. Northcote. 1974. Effects of prey abundance on
                       density and territorial behavior of young rainbow trout (Salmo
                       gairdneril in laboratory stream channels. Journal of the Fisheries
                       Research Board of Canada 31:1201-1209.

                 Smith, H.D., and L. Margolis. 1970. Some effects of Eubothrium salvenfini
                       (Schrank 1790) on sockeye salmon, Onchorhynchyus nerka
                       (Walbaum), in Babine Lake, British Columia. Journal of Parasitology,
                       Section 11 56:321-322.





                                                       117










              Smoker, W.W. 1985. Review of literature on impacts of salmon hatcheries
                   in Alaska. School of Fisheries and Science, University of Alaska, Final
                   report for University of Alaska-Juneau Research Council, Juneau.

              Snieszko, S.F. 1974. The effects of environmental stress on outbreaks of
                   infectious diseases of fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 6:197-208.

              Snow, H.E. 1974. Effects of stocking northern pike in Murphy's Flowage.
                   Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 79.

              Solazzi, M.F., S.L. Johnson, and T.E. Nickelson. 1983. The effectiveness
                   of stocking hatchery coho presmolts to increase the rearing density of
                   juvenile coho salmon in Oregon Coastal streams. Oregon Department
                   of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division, Information Reports Number 83-1,
                   Portland.

              Solomon, D.J. 1981. Migration and dispersion of juvenile brown and sea
                   trout. Pages 136-145 in E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo, editors.
                   Proceedings of the salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium.
                   School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle.

              Solomon, D.J., and R.G. Templeton. 1976. Movements of brown trout,
                   Salmo trutta L., in a chalk stream. Journal of Fish Biology 9:411-423.

              Sosiak, A.J. 1982. Buoyancy comparisons between juvenile Atlantic
                   salmon and brown trout of wild and hatchery origin. Transactions of
                   the American Fisheries Society 111:307-311.

              Sosiak, A.J. 1978. The comparative behaviour of wild and hatchery-reared
                   juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Master's thesis. University of
                   New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada.

              Sosiak, A.J., R.G. Randall, and J.A. McKenzie. 1979. Feeding by
                   hatchery-reared and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) parr in streams.
                   Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:1408-1412.

              Specker, J.L., and C.B. Schreck. 1980. Stress responses to transportation
                   and fitness for marine survival in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
                   smolts. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:765-
                   769.

              Specker, J.L., and C.B. Schreck. 1980. Stress responses to transportation
                   and fitness for marine survival in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
                   smolts. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:765-
                   769.

              Stabell, O.B. 1981. Homing of Atlantic salmon in relation to olfaction and
                   genetics. Pages 238-246 in E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo, editors.
                   Salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium. School of Fisheries,
                   University of Washington, Seattle.

              Stabell, O.B. 1984. Homing and olfaction in salmonids: a critical review
                   with special reference to the Atlantic salmon. Biological Review
                   59:333-388.


                                                   118










                  Stahl, G. 1981. Genetic differentiation among natural populations of
                       Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in northern Sweden. Pages 95-105 in N.
                       Ryman, editor. Fish gene pools.' Ecological Bulletins, Stockholm,
                       Sweden.

                  Stahl, G. 1983. Differences in the amount and distribution of genetic
                       variation between natural populations and hatchery stocks of Atlantic
                       salmon. Aquaculture 33:23-32.

                  Stahl, G. 1987. Genetic population structure of Atlantic salmon. Pages
                       121-140 in N. Ryman and F. Utter,. editors. Population genetics and
                       fisheries management. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

                  Stein, R.A., P.E. Reimers, and J.D. Hall. 1972. Social interaction between
                       juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and fall chinook salmon
                       (0, tshawytscha) in Sixes River, Oregon. Journal of the Fisheries
                       Research Board of Canada 29:1737-1748.

                  Stewart, L. 1963. Investigations into migratory fish propagation in the area
                       of the Lancashire River Board. Lancaster, Barber, United Kingdom.

                  Strange, C.D., and G.J. A. Kennedy. 1979. Yield to anglers of spring and
                       autumn stocked, hatchery-reared and wild brown trout. Fisheries
                       Management 10:45-52.

                  Strange, R.J., C.B. Schreck, and J.T. Golden. 1977. Corticoid stress
                       responses to handling and temperature in salmonids. Transactions of
                       the American Fisheries Society 106:213-217.

                  Strange, R.J., C.B. Schreck, and R.D. Ewing. 1978. Cortisol
                       concentrations in confined juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
                       tshawytscha). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
                       107:812-819.

                  Strickberger, M.W. 1976. Genetics. Macmillan, New York, New York.

                  Stringer, G.E. 1967. Comparative hooking mortality using three types of
                       terminal gear on rainbow trout from Pennask Lake, British Columbia.
                       Canadian Fish Culture 39:17-21.

                  Stringer, G.F. 1952. An experimental study of some visually released
                       behaviour patterns in young coho salmon and Kamloops trout.
                       Master's thesis. Department of Zoology University of British Columbia,

                  Stroud, R.H. 1986.' Fish culture in fisheries management. Fish Culture
                       Section, Fisheries Mangagement Section, American Fisheries Society.
                       Bethesda, Maryland.

                  Suboski, M.D., Templeton, J.J. 1989. Life skills training for hatchery fish:
                       social learning and survival. Fisheries Research 7:343-352.




                                                       119










             Suzurnoto, B.K., C.B. Schreck, and J.D. McIntyre. 1977. Relative
                   resistances of three transferrin genotypes of coho salmon
                   (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and their hernatological responses to bacterial
                   kidney disease. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                   34:1-8.

             Swain, D.P., Riddell, B.E. 1990. Variation in agonistic behavior between
                   newly emerged juveniles from hatchery and wild populations of coho
                   salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                   Aquatic Sciences 47:566-571.

             Swain, D.P., and L.B. Holtby. 1989. Differences in morphology and
                   behavior between juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) rearing
                   in a lake and in its tributary stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                   Aquatic Sciences 46:1406-1414.

             Sylvester, J.R. 1973. Effect of light on vulnerability of heat-stressed
                   sockeye salmon to predation by coho salmon. Transactions of the
                   American Fisheries Society 102:139-142.

             Symons, P.E. K. 1969. Greater dispersal of wild compared with hatchery-
                   reared juvenile Atlantic salmon released in streams. Journal of the
                   Fisheries Research Board of Canada 26:1867-1876.

             Symons, P.E. K., and M. Heland. 1978. Stream habitats and behavioral
                   interactions of underyearling and yearling Atlantic salmon (Salmo
                   salar). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board Canada 35:175-183.

             Taggart, J.B., and A. Ferguson. 1986. Electrophoretic evaluation of a
                   supplemental stocking program for brown trout (Salmo trutta).
                   Aquaculture Fish Managment 17:155-162.

             Tagmaz'yan, Z.1. 1971. Relationship between the density of the
                   downstream migration and predation of young pink salmon
                   (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Journal of Ichthyology 11:984-987.

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

             Taylor, E.B. 1988. Adaptive variation in rheotactic and agonistic behavior
                   in newly emerged fry of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha,
                   from ocean- and stream-type populations. Canadian Journal of
                   Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:237-243.

             Taylor, E.B., and P.A. Larkin. 1986. Current response and agnostic
                   behavior in newly emerged fry of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus
                   tshawytscha, from stream- and ocean-type populations. Canadian
                   Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:565-573.

             Taylor, E.B., and J.D. McPhail. 1985a. Variation in body morphology
                   among British Columbia populations of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus
                   kisutch. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:2020-
                   2028.


                                                  120










                Taylor, E.B., and J.D. McPhail. 1985b. Variation in burst and prolonged
                     swimming performance among British Columbia populations of coho
                     salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                     Aquatic Sciences 42:2029-2033.

                Taylor, P.B. 1986. Experimental evidence for geomagnetic orientation in
                     juvenile salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Walbum. Journal of Fish
                     Biology 28:607-623.

                Thomas, A.E. 1975. Effect of egg concentration in an incubation channel
                     on survival of chinook salmon fry. Transactions of the American
                     Fisheries Society 104:335-337.

                Thompson, D. 1985. Genetic identification of trout strains. Aquaculture
                     46:341-351.

                Thompson, R.B. 1959. Food of the squawfish Ptychocheflus oregonensis
                     (Richardson) of the lower Columbia River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                     Service, Fishery Bulletin 158:42-58.

                Thompson, R.B., and D.F. Tufts. 1964. Predation by,Dolly Varden and
                     Northern squawfish on hatchery-reared sockeye salmon in Lake
                     Wenatchee, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries
                     Society 96:424-427.

                Thorpe, J.E. 1982. Migration in salmonids, with special reference to
                     juvenile movements in freshwater. Pages 86-97 in E.L. Brannon and
                     E.O. Salo, editors. Proceedings of the salmon and trout migratory
                     behavior symposium. School of Fisheries, University of Washington,
                     Seattle.

                Thorpe, J.E., J.F. Koonce, D. Borgeson, B. Henderson, A. Lamsa, P.S.
                     Maitland, M.A. Ross, R.C. Simon, and C.J. Walters. 1981. Assessing
                     and managing man's impact of fish genetic resources. Canadian
                     Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1899-1907.

                Thuember, T. 1975. Fish and the blue ribbon streams. Wisconsin
                     Conservation Bulletin 40.

                Tiedje, J.M., R.K. Colwell, Y.L. Grossman, R.E. Hodson, R.E. Lenski, R.N.
                     Mack, and P.J. Regal. 1989. The planned introduction of genetically
                     engineered organisms: ecological considerations and recommendations.
                     Ecology 70:298-315.

                Tsuyuki, H., and S.N. Williscroft. 1977. Swimming stamina differences
                     between genotypically distinct forms of rainbow (Salmo gaircfneril and
                     steelhead trout. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                     34:996-1003.








                                                   121










            Utter, F.M., D.E. Grant, W.S. Campton, G.B. Milner, J.E. Seeb, and L.N.
                 Wishard. 1980. Population structures of indigenous salmonid species
                 of the Pacific Northwest. W.J. McNeil, and D.C. Himsworth, editors.
                 Salmonid ecosystems of the North Pacific. Oregon State University,
                 Oregon Sea Grant Program, Corvallis.

            Utter, F.M., G.B. Milner, G. Stahl, and D.J. Teel. 1989. Genetic population
                 structure of chinook salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Fishery Bulletin
                 87:239-264.

            Verspoor, E. 1986. Reduced genetic variability in hatchery stocks of
                 Atlanic salmon in eastern Canada. Mini-symposium on population
                 genetics in regard to fisheries and mariculture. Council Meeting of the
                 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen,
                 Denmark.

            Verspoor, E. 1988. Reduced genetic variability in first-generation hatchery
                 populations of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of
                 Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1686-1690.

            Verspoor, E., and L.J. Cole. 1988. Genetically distinct sympatric
                 populations of resident and anadromous Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar.
                 Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:1453-1461.

            Verspoor, E., and W.C. Jordan. 1989. Genetic variation at the Me-2 locus
                 in the Atlantic salmon within and between rivers: evidence for its
                 selective maintenance. Journal of Fisheries Biology 35:205-213.

            Vincent, E.R. 1972. Effect of stocking catchable trout on wild trout
                 populations. Pages 602-608 in Proceedings of the annual conference
                 of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners.

            Vincent, E.R. 1975. Effects of stocking catchable trout on wild trout
                 populations. Pages 88-91 in W. King, editor. Proceedings of the wild
                 trout management symposium. Trout Unlimited.

            Vincent, E.R. 1987. Effects of stocking catchable-size hatchery rainbow
                 trout on two wild trout species in the Madison River and O'Dell Creek,
                 Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:91-105.

            Vincent, E.R. 1960. Some influences of domestication upon three stocks
                 of brook trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 89:35-
                 52.

            Vinyard, G.L., R.W. Drenner, and D.A. Hanzel. 1982. Feeding success of
                 hatchery reared kokanee salmon when presented with zooplankton
                 prey. Progressive Fish-Culturist 44:37-39.

            Vuorinen, J. 1984. 'Biochemical genetic studies on salmonid populations.
                 Joensuun Yliopiston Luonnontieteellisia Julk 2:1-11.





                                                122









                 Wagner, E., and P. Ingram. 1973. Evaluation of fish facilities and passage
                       at Foster and Green Peter dams on the South Santiam River drainage in
                       Oregon. Fisheries Commission of Oregon, Final Report to U.S. Army
                       Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACW57-68-C-0013.

                 Wagner, H.H. 1968. Effect of stocking time on survival of steelhead trout,
                       Salmo gairdnerli, in Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries
                       Society 97:374-379.

                 Wagner, H.H. 1969. Effect of stocking location of juvenile steelhead trout,
                       Salmo gairdnerfi, on adult catch. Transactions of the American
                       Fisheries Society 98:27-34.

                 Wagner, H.H. 1967. A summary of investigations of the use of hatchery-
                       reared steelhead in the management of a sport fishery. Oregon State
                       Game Commission, Fisheries Report 5.

                 Wagner, H. 1979. Why wild coho? Oregon Wildlife 34(12):3-7.

                 Wagner, H.H., R.L. Wallace, and H.J. Campbell. 1963. The seaward
                       migration and return of hatchery-reared steelhead trout, Salmo
                       gairdneri Richardson, in the Alsea River, Oregon. Transactions of the
                       American Fisheries Society 92:202-210.

                 Wagner, W.C.   'and T.M. Stauffer. 1978. Survival of rainbow trout stocked
                       in a Lake Superior tributary, 1971-1973. Michigan Department of
                       Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 1859, Ann Arbor.

                 Walters, C.J., R. Hilborn, R.M. Peterman, and M.J. Staley. 1978. Model
                       for examining early ocean limitation of Pacific salmon production.
                       Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35:1303-1315.

                 Ware, D.M. 1971. Predation by rainbow trout (salmo gairdnerl): the effect
                       of experience. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
                       28:1847-1852.

                 Warner, K. 1972. Further studies of fish predation on salmon stocked in
                       Maine lakes. Progressive Fish-Culturist 34:217-221.

                 Webster, D.A., and W.A. Flick. 1981. Performance of indigenous, exotic
                       and hybrid strains of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in waters of the
                       Adirondack Mountains, New York. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                       Aquatic Sciences 38:1701-1707.

                 Wedemeyer, G. 1970. Stress of anesthesia with MS-222 and benzocaine
                       in -rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research
                       Board of Canada 27:909-914.

                 Wedemeyer, G. 1972. Some physiological consequences of handling stress
                       in the juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead
                       trout (Salmo gairdneril. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
                       Canada 29:1780-1783.




                                                       123










             Wedemeyer, G.A., Saunders, R.L., and W.C. Clarke. 1980. Environmental
                   factors affecting smoltification and early marine survival of
                   anadromous salmonids. Marine Fisheries Review 42:1-14.

             Wedemeyer, G., and J. Wood. 1974. Stress as a predisposing factor in
                   fish diseases. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish Disease Leaflet 38.

             Wehrhahn, C.F., and R. Powell. 1987. Electrophoretic variation, regional
                   differences, and gene flow in the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
                   of southern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                   Aquatic Sciences 44:822-831.

             Wentworth, R.S., and G.W. LaBar. 1984. First-year survival and growth of
                   steelhead stocked as fry in Lewis Creek, Vermont. North American
                   Journal of Fisheries Management 4:103-110.

             Wilkins, N.P. 1981. The rationale and relevance of genetics in aquaculture:
                   an overview. Aquaculture 22:209-228.

             Williams, J.G. 1989. Snake River spring and summer chinook salmon: can
                   they be saved? Regulated Rivers; Research and Management 4:17-26.

             Wilmot, R.L., and C.V. Burger. 1984. Genetic differences among
                   populations of Alaskan sockeye salmon.

             Wilson, G.M., W.K. Thomas, and A.T. Beckenbach. 1985. Intra- and
                   interspecific mitochondrial DNA sequence divergence in Salmo:
                   rainbow, steelhead, and cutthroat trouts. Canadian Journal of Zoology
                   63:2088-2094.

             Wilson, G.M., W.K. Thomas, and A.T. Beckenbach. 1987. Mitochondrial
                   DNA analysis of Pacific Northwest populations of Oncorhynchus
                   tshawytscha. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
                   44:1301-1305.

             Winans, G.A. 1989. Genetic variability in chinook salmon stocks from the
                   Columbia River Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries
                   Management 9:47-52.
             Winans, G.A. 1984. Multivariate morphometric variability in Pacific
                   salmon: technical demonstration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                   Aquatic Sciences 41:1150-1159.

             Winter, G.W., C.B. Schreck, and J.D. McIntyre. 1980. Resistance of
                   different stocks and transferrin genotypes of coho salmon,
                   Oncorhynchus kisutch, and steelhead trout, Salmo gairdneri, to
                   bacterial kidney disease and vibriosis. Fishery Bulletin 77:795-802.

             Wishard, L.N., J.E. Seeb, F.M. Utter, and D. Stefan. 1984. A genetic
                   investigation of suspected redband trout populations. Copeia
                   1984:120-132.

             Wohlfarth, G.W. 1986. Decline in natural fisheries -- A genetic analysis
                   and suggestion for recovery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                   Aquatic Sciences 43:1298-1306.


                                                  124











                  Wolf, K. 1972. Advances in fish virology: a review 1966-1971. Pages
                        305-331 in Diseases of fish. Symposium of the Zoological Society of
                        London 30.

                  Wood, C.C. 1984. Foraging behaviour of common mergansers (Mergus
                        merganser) and their dispersion in relation to the availability of juvenile
                        Pacific salmon. Doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia,
                        Vancouver.

                  Wood, C.C. 1987. Predation of juvenile Pacific salmon by the common
                        merganser (Mergus merganser) on eastern Vancouver Island. 1.
                        Predation during the seaward migration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
                        and Aquatic Sciences 44:941-949.

                  Wood, J. 1974. Stress as a predisposing factor in fish diseases. U.S. Fish
                        and Wildlife Service, Fish Disease Leaflet 38.

                  Woodward, C.C., and R.J. Strange. 1987. Physiological stress responses
                        in wild and hatchery-reared rainbow trout. Transactions of the
                        American Fisheries Society 116:574-579.

                  Wunderlich, R. 1982. A review of literature on the feasibility of outplanting
                        hatchery-reared fry, fingerling, and smolts, with emphasis on coho and
                        spring chinook salmon outplanting in the Puget Sound region.
                        (Unpublished manuscript) United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
                        Fisheries Assistance Office, Olympia, Washington.

                  Wydoski, R.S. 1977. Relation of hooking mort       ality and sublethal hooking
                        stress to quality fishery management. Pages 43-87 in R.A. Barnhart
                        and T.D. Roelofs, editors. Proceedings of the catch-and-release fishing
                        symposium. Humbolt State Univeristy, Arcata, California, USA.

                  Wydoski, R.S., G.A. Wedemeyer, and N.C. Nelson. 1976. Physiological
                        response to hooking stress in hatchery and wild rainbow trout (Salmo
                        gairdneril, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 105:601-
                        606.

                  Yamada, S.B., T.J. Mulligan, and S.J. Fairchild. 1979. Strontium marking
                        of hatchery-reared coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch, Walbaum).
                        Journal of Fishery Biology 14:267-275.

                  Yamamoto, T. 1975. Frequency of detection and survival of in        fectious
                        pancreatic necrosis virus in a carrier population of brook trout
                        (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a lake. Journal of the Fisheries Research
                        Board of Canada 32:568-573.

                  Yamamoto, T. 1974. Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus occurrence at a
                        hatchery in Alberta. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
                        Canada 31:397-402.

                  Yamamoto, T., and J. Kilistoff. 1979. Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus:
                        quantification of carriers in lake populations during a 6-year period.
                        Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:562-567.


                                                         125











              Zaugg, W.S. Freshwater gill Na + -K + ATPase activities and migration of
                    coho and fall chinook salmon from selected hatcheries. Page 32 in
                    Prentice et al., editor. A study to assess status of smoltification and
                    fitness for ocean survival of chinook and coho salmon and steelhead.
                    National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
                    Fisheries Service, Seattle.

              Zaugg, W.S. 1982. Some changes in smoltification and seawater
                    adaptability of salmonids resulting from environmental and other
                    factors. Aquaculture 28:143-152.

              Zaugg, W.S., E. Wold, J.E. Bodle, and J.E. Manning. 1986. Smolt
                    transformation and seaward migration in 0-age progeny of adult spring
                    chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) matured early with
                    photoperiod control. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
                    Sciences 43:885-888.

              Zinn, J.L., K.A. Johnson, J.E. Sanders, and J.L. Fryer. 1977.
                    Susceptibility of salmonid species and hatchery strains of chinook
                    salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawymcha) to infections by Ceratomyxa
                    shasta. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:933-
                    936.






































                                                      126













                                    TECHNICAL REPORT 90-2





                   CONCEPTS FOR A MODEL TO EVALUATE SUPPLEMENTATION

                         OF NATURAL SALMON AND STEELHEAD STOCKS

                                     WITH HATCHERY FISH,





                                              by

                                  T.C. Bjornn and C.R. Steward

                         Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
                            University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho







                                              for

                               Dworshak Fisheries Assistance Office
                                  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                        Ahasaka, Idaho

                                              and

                                 Bonneville Power Administration
                                        Portland, Oregon










                                             1990













                                                    Preface

                This report was prepared as part of a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
             funded project to summarize information on supplementation of salmon and
             steelhead stocks with hatchery fish, Project No. 88-100. Tom Vogel was BPA
             project officer. The primary geographic area of concern was the northwestern
             United States with special emphasis on the Columbia River basin.

                 Three reports were prepared for the BPA project:

                   1 .Analysis of Salmon and Steelhead Sur)121ementation: Emphasis on
                       Unpublished Rel2orts and Present Programs, by W.H. Miller, T.C.
                       Coley, H.L. Burge, and T.T. Kisanuki.

                   2. Supplementation of Salmon and Steelhead Stocks with Hatchery
                       Fish: A Synthesis of Published Literature, by C.R. Steward and
                       T.C. Bjornn.

                   3. Concepts for a Model to Evaluate Sugplementation of Natural
                       Salmon and Steelhead Stocks with Hatchery Fish, by T.C. Bjornn
                       and C.R. Steward.

                Reports 2 and 3 were prepared under contract with the Idaho Cooperative
             Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Idaho. The U.S. Fish and
             Wildlife Service, Office of Information Transfer helped fund the preparation of
             Report 2.

                The overall objectives of the BPA funded project were to: (1) summarize and
             evaluate past and current supplementation of salmon and steelhead, (2)
             develop a conceptual model of processes affecting the results of
             supplementation, and (3) make recommendations relative to future
             supplementation research and needs.









                                                                                              2




                     Abstract.-Concepts and the basic components for a model that
                     could be used to evaluate supplementation of native or naturally
                     produced salmon and steelhead stocks with hatchery fish are
                     presented and discussed with an example of a model in
                     spreadsheet form. The example we developed, and the final
                     model should be similar in form and function to the life-history
                     model being used for system planning by the Northwest Power
                     Planning Council, except that additional genetic groups of fish
                     must be tracked through multiple generations. The number of
                     genetic groups monitored should be held to less than 10, we
                     suggest 6. Coefficients used for the system planning model will
                     provide a basis for selecting coefficients for individual stocks.
                     Managers should participate in determining the level of
                     resolution desired from the model and the range of values for
                     coefficients.



                Supplementation of native stocks of salmon and steelhead with hatchery fish
              has occurred, and will occur more frequently in the Columbia River drainage
              with increased efforts to increase the size of the fish runs. The benefits and
              costs associated with supplementation are not easily assessed, in part because
              of our incomplete knowledge of the outcome of the many interactions that can
              occur between native and hatchery fish (see reviews by Miller et al 1990 and
              Steward and Bjornn 1990). There are numerous examples of large numbers of
              adult salmon and steelhead being produced from hatchery operations. In some
              cases, however, hatchery fish have been shown to be less fit in natural
              systems than the local native fish (Reisenbichler and McIntyre 1977; Chilcote
              et al. 1986), leading to offspring of native X hatchery crosses that may have
              reduced fitness (Kapuscinski and Lannan 1986) relative to native fish. The
              challenge is to maintain or improve the genetic quality of hatchery fish and
              determine the best ways to use natural and hatchery production to increase the
              abundance of anadromous fish in the Columbia River basin.

                There are a number of terms used to describe groups of salmon and
              steelhead. Listed below are our definitions of most of the terms and their use
              in this report:

                   Species: a taxonomic unit that may be further divided into subspecies,
                     races, demes, or stocks. Examples, chinook salmon Oncorhynchus
                     tschawytscha, and steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss.

                   Subspecies, race, deme, and stock: terms that we use synonymously to
                     identify groups of fish that are reproductively isolated in space or time
                     and that may have developed a unique genome. We prefer the term
                     stock. Examples, the Lemfii River stock of the spring-run of Columbia
                     River chinook salmon, and the Grande Rhonde stock of group-A
                     steelhead.

                   Population and run: terms used to describe a group of fish usually of the
                     same species that are together in a specific time or place. Examples,
                     the spring-run of chinook salmon and the group-A run of steelhead as








                                                                                                 3


                      they migrate up the Columbia River, and a population of juveniles in a
                      stream or in the ocean. Note that populations or runs may be made up
                      of individuals from one or more stocks.

                   Native, indigenous, and endemic: terms often used synonymously to
                      identify the groups of fish that naturally colonized stream or lake
                      systems and were present when man began to alter the habitat and
                      biota of the Columbia River drainage in the 19th and 20th centuries.
                      Examples, the native Warm River stock(s) (Deschutes River tributary) of
                      spring-run chinook salmon, and the native upper Snake River stock of
                      fall-run chinook salmon. We prefer and will use the term native when
                      we wish to identify naturally produced fish of indigenous stock
                      ancestry.

                   Wild and natural: terms used to identify fish that have been naturally
                      produced (parents spawned naturally and fish grew up in streams or
                      lakes and eventually the ocean) without regard to ancestry (native or
                      alien or hatchery stock). The term wild is often used synonymously
                      with native, and for that reason we will avoid use of the term wild, and
                      use the term natural to describe naturally produced fish where that is
                      the only distinction we wish to make, or where we are unsure of
                      ancestry. Examples, the natural steelhead in the South Fork of the
                      Clearwater River that may be offspring of: (1) adults from prior releases
                      of hatchery smolts, (2) hatchery adults released to spawn naturally, or
                      (3) crosses of hatchery and natural adults.

                   Hatchery: a term we will apply to fish that have spent any part of their life
                      in a hatchery. On one end of the spectrum of hatchery fish is a fish
                      that resulted from gametes taken from native parents, incubated in a
                      hatchery only to the eyed-stage, and then placed back in its stream to
                      complete its life cycle. The other extreme could be a hatchery program
                      started with an alien stock where the fish were selected to perform best
                      in the given hatchery environment or to meet other management goals,
                      the fish are reared in the hatchery till the smolt stage, adults return to
                      the hatchery, and the program has continued for many generations.
                      Examples, steelhead returning to the Lochsa River that originally were
                      stocked in the stream as fry or as smolts would be hatchery adults,
                      perhaps with different abilities to produce viable offspring, but still
                      hatchery fish as we define them.

                To supplement the native stocks of salmon and steelhead with hatchery fish
              is to add production to, or make up for a deficiency in production of native fish.
              In general, the goal is to produce more adult fish that will be available in
              fisheries in preferred areas. More adults can be produced by more fully using
              the capacity of freshwater production areas (reduce the deficiency), and by
              releasing smolts to exceed that capacity (add production to that naturally
              possible). Natural production in freshwater could be limited in various habitats
              and life stages; the number of fry produced may be limited by the amount and
              quality of spawning and incubation areas rather than by the number of
              spawners, the number of smolts produced could be limited by habitat used in
              summer by feeding juveniles or by habitat used in winter by juveniles seeking
              security. If production by the native fish is significantly below the carrying
              capacity of the environment because there are too few spawners or too few
              juveniles produced, then supplementation by stocking hatchery adults, eggs,








                                                                                                    4


              fry, or sub-smolts should increase the number of smolts produced.
              Supplementation by stocking smolts could insure full use of the natural
              production capacity and could result in more adults produced than would be
              possible with full natural production because the number of hatchery smolts
              stocked is constrained by hatchery capacity and not the carrying capacity of a
              stream system.

                 Unfortunately, supplementation is not simply an additive process whereby
              the number of fish produced is equal to the normal native production plus the
              hatchery fish stocked. For the species that spend months or years in
              freshwater before going to the ocean, hatchery juveniles (and naturally
              produced offspring of hatchery origin) will compete with and displace some
              native juveniles. The number of fish displaced will depend on the proportion of
              the capacity that is unused, abundance of native fish, number of hatchery fish
              stocked or produced from hatchery adults, the size and time of stocking, and
              fitness (relative measure of adaptation to a particular environment) of the
              hatchery fish.

                 If there is little or no difference in fitness and other important characteristics
              between the stock of fish to be supplemented and the hatchery stock, then
              displacement of the native fish may be of little consequence. If there are
              differences between the native and hatchery fish, however, then
              supplementation may lead to reduced production of native fish, an overall
              reduced fitness of naturally produced fish, and less production of adults than
              anticipated.

                 A modelling approach to assessing the long-term effects of supplementation
              on genetic makeup and productivity of salmon and steelhead stocks has utility
              because the field studies to evaluate supplementation will be difficult to
              conduct (replication and length of time). Concepts, factors, and variables that
              should be included in a multi-generation, multi-genetic group model that can be
              used to predict the outcome and evaluate various supplementation scenarios
              are presented below. A discussion should be held with managers to decide
              which variables to include in a model and the degree of stock definition that is
              necessary.


                                          Concepts for Consideration

              Factors to Include in a Model

                 There are many factors that are explicitly or implicitly expressed in a life-
              history type model that can be used to predict and evaluate the effects of
              supplementation. Some factors are labelled and readily recognized in the
              model, but some are expressed through a coefficient or relation used to link
              components of the model. The following is a listing of factors that should be
              considered for inclusion in a model for evaluating supplementation.

                 A- Life history stages:

                         Spawner to eggs deposited,
                         Eggs to fry that emerge,
                         Fry to parr produced,
                         Parr to smolts produced,








                                                                                              5


                        Smolts to recruits, and
                        Recruits to spawners.

                13- Types of fish:

                        Species of fish,
                        Native, endemic, or indigenous,
                        Naturally produced (wild) from native, hatchery, or mixed parents,
                        Hatchery fish.

                C- Stock parameters:

                        Age structure,
                        Proportion females,
                        Eggs per female,
                        Survival rates and relations for each life stage,


                D- Genetic factors:

                        Relative fitness of hatchery versus wild or native fish,
                        Rate of change in fitness over time in hatchery and streams,
                        Origin and history of hatchery broodstock,
                        Frequency of wild fish addition to hatchery broodstock,
                        Intensity of selection in the hatchery and natural environment,
                        Effective population size,
                        Gene flow between wild and hatchery stocks, and
                        Definition of a genetically distinct group,

                E- Environment of the stocks:

                        Quality and quantity of habitat,
                        Presence of other species that are competitors or predators,
                        Carrying capacity for each life stage,
                        Recent changes in environment that affect genome of native fish,
                        Variability of factors affecting survival,

                F- Supplementation methods:

                        Life stage of fish stocked,
                        Proportion of area stocked,
                        Duration of stocking,
                        Size and number of stocked fish relative to natural fish,
                        Time and method of release of hatchery fish,
                        Number of sub-smolts stocked relative to carrying capacity, and
                        Number of smolts stocked relative to carrying capacity.

                G- Interactions between hatchery and wild or native fish:

                        Mating overlap in time and space,
                        Use of summer and winter habitat by juveniles,
                        Competition for food and space,
                        Predator-prey interactions,
                        Transmission of disease,









                                                                                                   6


                          Alteration of fishing patterns and harvest rates,
                          Response of wild or native fish to hatchery fish, and
                          Differences in behavior of wild versus hatchery fish.

                 The relative importance of the various factors and variables listed above can
              only be estimated at -the present time because of the lack of definitive data.
              Once a model has been constructed, sensitivity testing can be undertaken to
              determine which factors and interactions have the largest potential for
              changing the number and type of fish produced. For example, we suspect that
              releasing smolts will result in more adults returning and more interactions with
              native fish than if fry were stocked, but the outcome of the interactions depend
              on the fitness of the hatchery fish, number stocked, size of fish stocked, time
              of stocking, etc. and cannot be estimated easily without a model.

                 The reliability of the coefficients that are needed to run a model to evaluate
              supplementation strategies is fair, at best, but can be estimated with enough
              accuracy to use a model and feel confident that the predicted outcomes are
              likely within the 'ballpark', and certainly useful for relative comparisons.
              Attempting to operate the model will quickly reveal where there is little or no
              empirical data to use in developing values for the necessary coefficients, and
              thereby identify where research is needed.

                 The life history model that we propose herein can be illustrated as a series of
              linked relations that define the number of fish  produced at each life stage
              (Figure 1). All of the variables that affect the production of fish and are to be
              included in the model must be expressed as a     coefficient incorporated into one
              or more of the linked relations. For example,    if hatchery fish produced
              offspring that were less likely to survive than wild fish because they spawned
              at a less optimum time, the fitness coefficient in the egg to fry life-stage
              relation should reduce the slope of the line in the relation and the number of fry
              produced.


              Groups to Follow in the Model

                 The number of groups of fish of various genetic ancestries can     become large
              when there is mating overlap and interbreeding between hatchery and native
              fish and the offspring are followed for more than a few generations. For
              example, if we started in generation 0 with spawning. by native adults (NO),
              and a release of hatchery fry at the time progeny from the No spawners
              entered the stream, there would be two groups of spawners at the next
              generation (Nj and H-1), assuming the hatchery fish survived and returned as
              adults. With continued stocking of fry, and interbreeding between the various
              genetic groups, there would be four groups by the generation 2, 11 by the
              third, 67 by the fourth (Table 1), 2,271 by the fifth, and 2,577,585 by the
              sixth (Figure 2). The -foregoing numbers were calculated with sex of the native
              or hatchery fish ignored in interbreeding. If sex and genetic ancestry must be
              considered in the ma  'tings, the number of groups at each generation would be
              nearly double those presented.









                                                                                             7





                                         Eggs


                                                   Spawners



                                                                              Wild
                    3::                                            Fry
                                                                                    a-Itc h ery
                   V)     Recruits                                           Eggs

                    Cn

                    :3
                                                                  Parr


                          Smolts                                               Fry


                                       SM01ts:



                                                      Parr



             Figure 1. The life-history relations that would be the primary components of a
             model to evaluate strategies to supplement wild stocks of salmon and steelhead
             with hatchery fish. The dashed line in the egg-to-fry relation illustrates how the
             production of fry from hatchery spawners would be less than that from wild
             spawners if the hatchery fish were less fit.



                The foregoing numbers also assume that all fish resulting from a brood year
             mature and spawn in the same year, which is not true. For example, adult
             chinook salmon from a single brood year usually return in three subsequent
             years after spending 1, 2, or 3 years in the ocean (Table 2). Steelhead adults
             from a single brood year could return in as many as 7 subsequent years,
             because they spend 1-4 years in fresh water before becoming smolts, and up
             to 4 years in the ocean (Table 3). If we tried to keep track of the groups
             resulting from interbreeding, by sex of spawners, and by the age of the
             spawners, the number of groups would be larger still.

                In our opinion, it is not necessary to follow each and every group that could
             be identified through a number of generations in order to evaluate the
             outcomes of supplementation. Our present knowledge of the fitness of
                                                                              W
                                                                              _1 I <d
                                                                                      c





































             offspring of hatchery or native X hatchery crosses would not allow us to
             distinguish between anything but general groups. The primary issues of









                                                                                                 8


              general overall fitness, changes in fitness over time, and the number of fish
              with reduced fitness can be monitored and evaluated if the offspring from given
              matings were placed into general groups based on initial fitness generation, and
              then followed as a groups over time.

                 To illustrate the general grouping than might be undertaken, we have
              combined all of the genetic groups in Table 1 into six groups with viabilities of
              0.50-0.59, 0.60-0.69, 0.70-0.79, 0.80-0.89, 0.90-0-99. and 1.00. Groups
              would be assigned a fitness equal to the mid-point of the range. The frequency
              distribution of the groups listed in Table 1 would be as listed in Table 4 when
              grouped into the general groups described above. With different assumptions
              from those used in preparing Table 1, the frequency distribution would change,
              as illustrated for the case where the gap in hatchery-native fish fitness is
              reduced by one-fourth with each generation of natural spawning and rearing
              (Table 4). The important point is that the number of groups is reduced to a
              manageable number.

                 The general functioning of a model to monitor supplementation results, with
              fitness groupings, is illustrated in the spreadsheet depicted in Table 5. Native
              fish in a particular drainage are assigned a fitness of 1.0 on a relative scale,
              and the fitness of hatchery fish at first natural spawning must be estimated. If
              only native fish were present, only the native column in the spreadsheet would
              be used because the fitness would always be 1.0. If hatchery fish with a
              fitness of less than 1.0 are added to the drainage, then other columns in the
              spreadsheet would be used. In the example presented in the Table 5
              spreadsheet, hatchery fry equal in number to the initial number of native fry
              were added each year starting in generation 1.

                 When adults from the stocking of hatchery fry return to spawn they are
              placed in fitness groups based on their fitness and on the fitness of the fish
              they may mate with; sibling hatchery fish and native fish were the only options
              in generation 2 of the example. We assigned a fitness of 0.55 to the returning
              hatchery adults. If they mated with siblings, their offspring would have a
              fitness of (0.55+0.55)/2 = 0.55. If they mated with native fish, their
              offspring would have a fitness of (1.0+0.55)/2 = 0.775.

                 The number of adults involved in each type of mating (native X hatchery,
              etc.) depends on the number of adults in each group and the amount of mating
              overlap (full overlap in our example). At the end of generation 1, there were
              1214 adults produced, 821 (67.63%) native adults and 393 (32.37%) adults
              from the stocking of hatchery fry. The number of native X native matings
              equal (0.6763 *0.6763) * 1214 = 555 spawners placed at the top of the native
              fish column of the spreadsheet for generation 2. The number of hatchery X
              hatchery matings equal (0.3237*0.3237)*1214 = 127 spawners placed in the
              fitness group 0.55 column. The number of hatchery X native matings equals
              (0.3237*0.6763)*1214 = 532 spawners placed in the fitness group 0.75
              column. Sex ratios for native and hatchery fish were similar.

              Fitness values for each life stage of the fish represented in the model, must be
              set so that the product of the individual values is equal to the overall fitness
              (spawners to adult progeny) value for the group (0.55, 0.65, etc.). In the
              example, we selected values for each stage that








                                                                                                                     9



                 Table 1. List of groups of adults available to spawn and their relative fitness in each generation
                 with native (N) and hatchery (H) fish spawning in the first generation. Fitness of native fish
                 1.0, first generation hatchery spawners = 0.5   'and the gap in fitness between native and
                 hatchery fish, or their crosses, is reduced by half with each generation of natural reproduction.



                 Generations                           Generations
                  Genetic groups              1         2         3         4



                 Generation 1
                  Nj                                     1.00
                                                         0.50


                 Generation 2
                  N2                                                        1.00
                  H12                                                       0.75
                  H21                                                       0.50
                  Nj XH11                                                   0.88

                 Generation 3
                  N3                                                                       1.00
                  H13                                                                      0.88
                  H22                                                                      0.75
                  (Nj X Hl 1)2                                                             0.94
                  N2 X H12                                                                 0.94
                  N2 X H21                                                                 0.88
                  N2 X (Nj X Hl 1)                                                         0.97
                  H1 2 X H21                                                               0.81
                  H12 X (Nj X Hl 1)                                                        0.91
                  H21 X (Nj   X Hl 1)                                                      0.84
                  H31                                                                      0.50

                 Generation 4
                  N4                                                                                      1.00
                  H14                                                                                     0.04
                  H23                                                                                     0.88
                  (Nj X Hl 1)3                                                                            0.97
                  (Nj X H12)2                                                                             0.97
                  (N2 X H21)2                                                                             0.94
                  (N2 X (Nj X Hl 1))2                                                                     0.98
                  (H 12 X H21)2                                                                           0.91
                  (1-112 X (Nj X Hl 1)2                                                                   0.95
                  (1-121 X (Nj X Hl 1))2                                                                  0.92
                  H32                                                                                     0.75
                  N3 X H13                                                                                0.97
                  N3 X H22                                                                                0.94
                  N3 X (Nj X Hl 1)2                                                                       0.98
                  N3 X (N2 X H12)                                                                         0.98
                  N3 X (N2 X H21)                                                                         0.97
                  N3 X (N2 X (Nj X Hl 1))                                                                 0.99
                  N3 X (H12 X H21)                                                                        0.95
                  N3 X (1-112 X (Nj X Hl 1))                                                              0.98








                                                                                                                                                           10



                       Table 1. continued


                       Generations                                        Generations
                         Genetic groups                       1            2            3            4

                         N3 X (H21 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                                0.96
                         N3 X H31                                                                                                                0.88
                         H13 X H22                                                                                                               0.91
                         H1 3 X (Nj X H1 1)2                                                                                                     0.95
                         H13 X (N2 X H12)                                                                                                        0.95
                         H13 X (N2 X H21)                                                                                                        0.94
                         HII 3 X (N2 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                              0.96
                         H13 X (H12 X H21)                                                                                                       0.92
                         H13 X (H1 2 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                              0.95
                         H1 3 X (H21 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                              0.93
                         H13 X H31                                                                                                               0.84
                         H22 X (Nj X H1 1)2                                                                                                      0.92
                         H22 X (N2 X H12)                                                                                                        0.92
                         H22 X (N2 X H21)                                                                                                        0.91
                         H22 X (N2 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                                0.93
                         H22 X (H12 X H21)                                                                                                       0.89
                         H22 X (H1 2 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                              0.91
                         H22 X (H21 X (N 1 X H 11))                                                                                              0.90
                         H22 X H31                                                                                                               0.81
                         (N 1  X H1 1)2 X (N2 X HII 2)                                                                                           0.97
                         (N 1  X H1 1)2 X (N2 X H21)                                                                                             0.95
                         (N 1  X H1 1)2 X (N2 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                     0.98
                         (N 1  X H1 1)2 X (H12 X H21)                                                                                            0.94
                         (N 1  X H1 1)2 X (HII 2 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                  0.96
                         (N 1  X H1 1)2 X (H21 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                    0.95
                         (N 1  X H1 1)2 X H31                                                                                                    0.86
                         (N2 X H12) X (N2 X H21)                                                                                                 0.95
                         (N2 X H12) X (N2 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                         0.98
                         (N2 X HII 2) X (H1 2 X H21)                                                                                             0.94
                         (N2 X H1 2) X (H1 2 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                      0.96
                         (N2 X H12) X (H21 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                        0.95
                         (N2 X H12) X H31                                                                                                        0.86
                         (N2 X H21) X (N2 X (Nj X Hl 1))                                                                                         0.96
                         (N2 X H21) X (H12 X H21)                                                                                                0.92
                         (N2 X H21) X (H12 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                        0.95
                         (N2 X H21) X (H21 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                        0.93
                         (N2 X H21) X H31                                                                                                        0.84
                         (N2 X (Nj X H1 1)) X (H12 X H21)                                                                                        0.95
                         (N2 X (Nj X H1 1)) X (H1 2 X (Nj X Hl 1))                                                                               0.97
                         (N2 X (Nj X H1 1)) X (H21 X (Nj X Hl 1))                                                                                0.95
                         (N2 X (Nj X H1 1)) X H31                                                                                                0.87
                         (H1 2 X H21) X (HII 2 X (Nj X Hl 1))                                                                                    0.93
                         (H1 2 X H21) X (H21 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                                      0.91
                         (H12 X H21) X H31                                                                                                       0.83
                         (H12 X (Nj X H1 1)) X (H21 X (Nj X H1 1))                                                                               0.94
                         (H12 X (Nj X H1 1)) X H31                                                                                               0.85
                         (H21 X (N 1 X H 11)) X H31                                                                                              0.84
                         H41                                                                                                                     0.50













                                                                   2271





                            Cn


                            0



                            0                               67


                            E

                            z





                                               4
                                 1      2


                                 1      2      3      4              6
                                              Generation




            Figure 2. The number of genetic groups that would be present in each
            generation, starting with only native fish spawning in the first generation,
            hatchery adults spawning naturally at start of the second generation, and all
            potential crosses occurring in subsequent generations. Sex and age at
            spawning ignored.


            represented our perception of where the largest fitness gap might exist.

               In the spreadsheet example, we allowed fitness to increase by 10 units (from
            0.55 to 0.65 for example) for each full generation of natural spawning and
            rearing. Fish that originated as hatchery fish became the same as native fish in
            terms of fitness when their combination of generations of natural reproduction
            and matings with fish of higher fitness resulted in fitness values of 1.


            Fitness of Native and Hatchery Fish

            Differences in fitness, the ability to live and develop under normal conditions,
            between native and hatchery fish can be large or small depending on the origin
            of the hatchery stock, number of generations of domestication, and the type
            and intensity of selection in the hatchery. For a given spawning and nursery
            area, the native stock would have the highest fitness, the result of generations
            of adaptation to environmental








                                                                                                12




                 Table 2. Examples of the age groups of chinook salmon that would contribute
                 to spawning runs from each brood year.



                                            Years of return and age of adults
                 Brood year      1985       1986       1987       1988       1989       1990



                 Fall and some summer chinook salmon, age 0 smolts


                    1980            5
                    1981            4          5
                    1982            3          4          5
                    1983            2          3          4         5
                    1984                       2          3         4          5
                    1985                                  2         3          4           5
                    1986                                            2          3           4
                    1987                                                       2           3
                    1988                                                                   2


                 Spring  and some summer chinook salmon, age 1 smolts


                    1980            6
                    1981            5          6
                    1982            4          5          6
                    1983            3          4          5         6
                    1984                       3          4         5          6
                    1985                                  3         4          5           6
                    1986                                            3          4           5
                    1987                                                       3           4
                    1988                                                                   3




                 conditions in the natal area and the migration paths. In areas where the
                 environment has been changed significantly, the fitness of native fish may be
                 reduced, but would still be higher than non-native stocks that might be
                 introduced, 'unless the environmental changes were so drastic that past
                 adaptations were of no value or were even maladaptive.

                    Hatchery stocks developed from the stock to be supplemented would likely
                 have the least difference in fitness, initially at least, from the native stock.
                 Theoretically, the size of the gap in fitness between the native stock and the
                 hatchery stock would depend on the type and severity of selection in the
                 hatchery, the frequency of native stock additions to the hatchery stock that
                 would improve the fitness of the hatchery stock, and the additions of hatchery
                 fish to the native stock that may lower the fitness of the native stock.
                 Hatchery stocks developed from nearby stocks with similar characteristics and
                 environments would appear to be next in preference to use of the local stock
                 for development of hatchery stocks used for supplementation because they
                 would likely have less difference in fitness than distant stocks from different
                 types of environments (Reisenbichler 1984).








                                                                                               13




             Table 3. An example of the age groups of steelhead that could contribute
             to spawning runs from each brood year, and the number of years in which
             contributions would occur.



             Brood year                       Years of return and age of adults
                Smolt age    1986     1987      1988     1989        1990      1991      1992


             1980
                   1          6
                   2          6         7
                   3          6         7        a
                   4          6         7        8         9
             1981
                   1          5         6
                   2          5         6        7
                   3          5         6        7         8
                   4                    6        7         8         9
             1982
                   1          4         5        6
                   2          4         5        6         7
                   3                    5        6         7         8
                   4                             6         7         8         9
             1983
                   1          3         4        5         6
                   2                    4        5         6         7
                   3                             5         6         7         8
                   4                                       6         7         8         9
             1984
                   1                    3        4         5         6
                   2                             4         5         6         7
                   3                                       5         6         7         8
                   4                                                 6         7         8
             1985
                   1                             3         4         5         6
                   2                                       4         5         6         7
                   3                                                 5         6         7
                   4                                                           6         7
             1986
                   1                                        3         4        5         6
                   2                                                  4        5         6
                   3                                                           5         6
                   4                                                                     6
             1987
                                                                      3        4         5
                   2                                                           4         5
                   3                                                                     5
                   4








                                                                                                14




                 Table 4. Frequency distribution of genetic groups by fitness groupings in
                 each generation from Table 1 with fitness of native fish = 1.0, first
                 generation hatchery spawners = 0.5, and the gap in fitness between native
                 and hatchery fish or their crosses reduced by half with each generation of
                 natural reproduction, and where the gap is reduced by one-fourth.



                 Generations          Fitness range       Gap reduced by    Gap reduced by
                   Groups                                 half (Table 1)        one-fourth


                 Generation 1
                   Group  1               1.00                    1                      1
                   Group  2             0.90-0.99                 0                      0
                   Group  3             0.80-0.89                 0                      0
                   Group  4             0.70-0.79                 0                      0
                   Group  5             0.60-0.69                 0                      0
                   Group  6             0.50-0.59                 1                      1


                 Generation 2
                   Group 1                1.00                    1                      1
                   Group 2              0.90-0.99                 0                      0
                   Group 3              0.80-0.89                 1                      1
                   Group 4              0.70-0.79                 1                      0
                   Group'5              0.6o-6.69                 .0                     1
                   Group 6              0.50-0.59                 1                      1


                 Generation 3
                   Group  1               1.00                    1                      1
                   Group  2             0.90-0.99                 4                      1
                   Group  3             0.80-0.89                 4                      5
                   Group  4             0.70-0.79                 1                      2
                   Group  5             0.60-0.69                 0                      1
                   Group  6             0.50-0.59                 1                      1


                 Generation 4
                   Group  1               1.00                    1                      1
                   Group  2             0.90-0.99                 52               10
                   Group  3             0.80-0.89                 12               35
                   Group  4             0.70-0.79                 1                      17
                   Group  5             0.60-0.69                 0                      3
                   Group  6             0.50-0.59                 1                      1



                   To date, the difference in fitness between native or natural and hatchery
                 stocks of salmon and steelhead has been only partially assessed in a few cases
                 (Reisenbichler and McIntyre 1977; Chilcote et al. 1986). The results of these
                 studies have raised the concern about supplementing native stocks of fish with
                 hatchery stocks if the fitness of the hatchery fish is significantly less than the
                 native stock. In the examples we provide, we have assigned the native stock a
                 fitness of 1.0 and a lesser rate to the hatchery fish. The fitness of the progeny
                 of native X hatchery matings depends primarily on the fitness of the parents.








                                                                                                                                                              15


                            Table 5. An example of a spreadsheet model with life history stages and the necessary
                       coefficients for each stage to estimate the numbers of fish produced by each fitness group
                       in each generation.

                                                                                                                  Generation I
                       Parameters:                   Values      Symbols               B-H parameters
                        Proportion females               0.67         Pf
                        Eggs/female                      6000         f
                        Egg-fry survival                  0.5         Ef
                        Parr capacity                1000000          CP               I.OOE-06    =aI
                        Parr prod rate                    0.2         PO                         5 -bI
                        Smolt capacity               500OW            cs               2.OOE-06    --a2
                        Smolt prod rate                   0.1         so                         10 -b2
                        Smolt-rec survival               0.112        Sr
                        Recr-spawn survival              0.33         Ra

                                                                                                                 Natural fish fitness groups
                       Ufe stages                                            Stociced
                        Variables                    Symbol        Native    hatchery      0.95          0.85      0.75        0.65       0.55         0.45       0.35

                       Spawners-"gs deposited
                        Number of spawners               A            1000
                        Fitness-spawners                 Fs              1                       1       0.98       0.97        0.96        0.95
                        Eggs deposited                   E       4020000             0           0         0           0           0           0           0           0

                       Eggs-fry emerged
                        Fftness-eggs                     Fe              1                   0.99        0.98       0.96        0.95          0.9
                        Fry. emerged/stocked             F       2010000     2010000             0         0           0           0           0           0           0

                       Fry-parr
                        Fitness-fry                      Ff              1         0.7       0.98        0.95       0.92        0.88        0.85
                        Adjusted fry number                      2010000     1407000             0         0           0           0           0           0           0
                        Parr produced/stkd               P        238W2      167162              0         0           0           0           0           0           0

                       Parr-smolt
                        Fftness-parr                     Fp              1         0.8       0.99        0.96       0.93          0.9       0.89
                        Adjusted parr number                      238802     133729              0         0           0           0           0           0           0
                        Smolts produced/sM               S         22224       12446             0         0           0           0           0           0           0

                       Smolt-recruit.
                        Fitness-smolts                   Fs              1         0.9       0.99        0.98       0.96        0.94          0.9
                        Adjusted smoft number                      22224       11201             0         0           0           0           0           0           0
                        Recruits produced                R            2489       1255            0         0           0           0           0           0           0

                       Recruft-spawner
                        Fitness-recrults                 Fr              1       0.95            1       0.99       0.98        0.97        0.94
                        Adjusted recruit no.                          2489       1192            0         0           0           0           0           0           0
                        Spawners produced                A            821         393            0         0           0           0           0           0           0

                           Relative overall fitness
                             Adult to adult                           0.82                   ERR         ERR        ERR         ERR         ERR          ERR         ERR
                             Fry to adult                          0.0004    0.4788          ERR         ERR        ERR         ERR         ERR          ERR         ERR
                             Smolt to adult                        0.0370    0.8550          ERR         ERR        ERR         ERR         ERR          ERR         ERR

                             Total smolts produced                 33425     Percent native                66
                             Total adults produced                    1215   Percent native                68









                                                                                                                                                               16


                             Table 5. Continued.




                                                                                                                   Generation 2
                        Parameters:                              Symbols B-H parameters
                         Proportion females               0.67         Pf
                         Eggstfemale                      6000         f
                         Egg-try survival                   0.5        Ef
                         Parr capacity                1DO0000          CP    1.OOE-06   -at
                         ParT prod rate                     0.2        PO            5  =bI
                         SMOR capacity                 500000          Cs   2.OOE-06    -a2
                         Smoh prod rate                     0.1        so           10  =b2
                         Smoft-rec survival               0.112        Sr
                         Rea-spawn survival               0.33         Fla

                                                                                                                   Natural fish fitness groups
                        Ufe stages                                            Stocked
                         Variables                     Symbol          Native  hatchery     0.95        0.85       0.75        0.65       0.55         0.45        0.35

                        Spawners-eggs deposited
                         Number of spawners               A            555                        0         0        532            0          127          0          0
                         Fftness-spawners                 Fs              1                       1      0.98        0.97        0.96          0.95
                         Eggs deposited                   E      2232946              0           0         0    2074121            0     486307            0          0

                        Eggs-fry emerged
                         FlIness-eggs                     Fe              1                   0.99       0.98        0.96        0.95          0.9
                         Fry emerged/stocked              F      1116473      2010000             0         0      995578           0     218838            0          0

                        Fry-parr
                         Fitness-fry                      Ff              1         0.7       0.98       0.95        0.92        om            0.85
                         Adjusted fry number                     1116473      1407000             0         0      915932           0     186012            0          0
                         Parr produoed/stkd               P            129440  163123             0         0      106190           0     21566             0          0

                        Parr-smolt
                         Fitness-parr                     Fp              1         0.8       0.99       0.96        0.93          0.9         0.89
                         Adjusted parr number                          129440  130498             0         0      98757            0     19193             0          0
                         Smolts produced/stkd             S            12034    12133             0         0        9182           0          1784         0          0

                        Smolt-recrult
                         Fitness-smob                     Fs              1         0.9       0.99       0.98        0.96        0.93          0.9
                         Adjusted smolt number                         12034    10920             0         0        8814           0          1606         0          0
                         Recruits produced                R            1348       1223            0         0        987            0          180          0          0

                        Recruit- spawner
                         Fftness-;emlts                   Fr              1       0.95            1      0.99        0.98        0.97          0.94
                         Adjusted recrult no.                          1348       M2              0         0        967            0          169          0          0
                         Spawners produced                A            445         383            0         0        319            0          56           0          0

                            Relative overall fitness
                               Adult to adult                          0.80                   ERR        ERR         0.75        ERR           0.55       ERR        ERR
                               Fry to adult                            0.0004   0.4788        ERR        ERR       0.8049        ERR      0.6400          ERR        ERR
                               Smoft to adult                          0.0370   0.8550        ERR        ERR       0.9408        ERR      0.8460          ERR        ERR


                               Total smolts produced                   33374   Percent native               36
                               Total adults produced                   1203    Percent native               37









                                                                                                                                                                  17


                             Table 5. Continued.




                                                                                                                     Generation 3
                        Parameters:                               Symbols B-H parameters
                          Proportion females              0.67          Pf
                          Eggstfemale                     6000          f
                          Egg-fry survival                   0.5        Ef
                          Parr capacity                1000000          Cp    I.OOE-06    -al
                          Parr prod rate                     0.2        PO             5  =b1
                          SMOR capacity                 500000          Cs    2.OOE-06    -G2
                          Smoft prod rate                    0.1        so            10  =b2
                          Smolt-rec survival              0.112         Sr
                          Recr-spawn survival             0.33          Ra

                                                                                                                     Natural fish fitness groups
                        Ufe stages                                             Stocked
                          Variables                     Symbol          Native  hatchery       0.95       0.85       0.75        0.65        0.55         0.45        0.35

                        Spawners-eggs deposited
                          Number of spawners              A             555                    218           38        511           18          125          0           0
                          FlIness-spawners                Fs               1                       1       0.98        0.97          0.96      0.95
                          Eggs deposited                  E       2232946              0       876154   150060     1994430       70382       478591           0           0

                        Eggs-fry emerged
                          Fftness-eggs                    Fe               1                   0.99        0.98        0.96          0.95        0.9
                          Fry emerged/stocked             F       1116473 2010000              433696     73529      957327      33432       215366           0           0

                        Fry-parr
                          Fitness-try                     Ff               1         0.7       0.98        0.95        0.92          0.88      0.85
                          Adjusted fry number                     M6473        1407000         425022     69853      880740      29420       183061           0           0
                          Parr produced/stkd              P             122534   154419        46646       7666      96662           3229    20091            0           0

                        Parr-smoft
                          Fftness-parr                    Fp               1         0.8       0.99        0.96        0.93          0.9       0.89
                          Adjusted parr number                          122534   123535        46180       7360      89895           2906    17881            0           0
                          Smolts produced/stkd            S             11324    11417         4268        680         8308          269       1653           0           0

                        Smolt--recruft
                          Fftness-smotts                  Fs               1         0.9       0.99        0.98        0.96          0.93        0.9
                          Adjusted smolt number                         11324    10275         4225        667         7976          250       1487           0           0
                          Remits produced                 R             1268       1151        473           75        893           28          167          0           0

                        Recrult-spawner
                          Fhnes&-recruits                 Fr               1       0.95            1       0.99        0.98          0.97      0.94
                          Adjusted recruit no.                          1268       1093        473           74        875           27          157          0           0
                          Spawners produced               A             419         361        156           24        289             9          52          0           0

                            Relative overall fitness
                               Adult to adult                           0.75                   0.95        0.85        0.75          0.65      0.55         ERR         ERR
                               Fry to adult                             0.0004   0.4788        0.9605    0.8848      0.8049      0.7145      0.6400         ERR         ERR
                               Srnoft to adult                          0.0370   0.8556        0.9900    0.9702      0.9408      0.9021      0.8460         ERR         ERR

                               Total smolts; produced                   36203    Percent native              31
                               Total adults produced                    1309     Percent native              32









                                                                                                                                                                 18


                             Table 5. Continued.




                                                                                                                    Generation 4
                        Parameters:                               Symbols B-H parameters
                          Proportion females              0.67          Pf
                          Eggs/female                     6000          f
                          Egg-try survival                   0.5        Ef
                          Parr capacity                1000000          Cp   1.OOE-06 -at
                          Parr prod rate                     0.2        PO           5 =b1
                          Smolt capacity                500000          Cs   2.OOE-06     -a2
                          Smolt prod rate                    0.1        so           JO   -_b2
                          Smoft-rec survival              0.112         Sr
                          Recr-apawn survival             0.33          Ra

                                                                                                                    Natural fish fitness groups
                        Ufe stages                                             Stocked
                          Variables                     Symbol          Native  hatchery       0.95     0.85        0.75        0.65        0.55         0.45       0.35

                        Spawners-eggs deposited
                          Number of spawners              A             653                    197           85        446           18          108         0           0
                          Fitness-spawners                Fs               1                       1       0.98        0.97        0.96          0.95
                          Eggs deposited                  E       2626764              0       790028   334620    1739676       70275       413849           0           0

                        Eggs-fry emerged
                          Fftness-eggs                    Fe               1                   0.99        0.98        0.96        0.95          0.9
                          Fry emerged/stocked             F       1313382     2010000          391064   163964      835044      33381       186232           0           0

                        Fry-parr
                          Fitness-fry                     Ff               1         0.7       0.98        0.95        0.92        0.88          0.85
                          Adjusted fry number                     1313382      1407000         383243   155766      768241      29375       158297           0           0
                          Parr produced/stkd              P             142522  152681         41588    16903       83366         3188      17178            0           0

                        Parr-smolt
                          Fitness-W                       Fp               1         0.8       0.99        0.96        0.93         0.9          0.89
                          Adjusted parr number                          142522  122145         41172    16227       77530         2869      15288            0           0
                          Smolts produced/stkd            S             13153    11273         3800        1498        7155         265          1411        0           0

                        Smolt-recrult
                          Fitness-smolts                  Fs               1         0.9       0.99        0.98        0.96        0.93          0.9
                          Adjusted smolt number                         13153    10145         3762        1468        6869         246          1270        0           0
                          Recruits produced               R             U73        1136        421         164         769           28          142         0           0

                        Recrult-spawner
                          Fitness-recrults                Fr               1       0.95            1       0.99        0.98        0.97          0.94
                          Adjusted recruit no.                          1473       1079        421         163         754           27          134         0           0
                          Spawners produced               A             486         356        139           54        249            9          44          0           0

                            Relative overall fitness
                               Adult to adult                           0.74                   0.95        0.85        0.75        0.65          0.55      ERR         ERR
                               Fry to adult                             0.0004   0.4788        0.9605   O.BM        0.8049      0.7145      0.6400         ERR         ERR
                               Smolt to adult                           0.0370   0.8550        0.9900   0.9702      0.9408      0.9021      0.8460         ERR         ERR

                               Total smolts produced                    36913   Percent native               36
                               Total adults produced                    1337    Percent native               36









                                                                                                                                                             19


                            Table 5. Continued.




                                                                                                                  Generation 5
                       Parameters:                              Symbols B-H parameters
                         Proportion females              0.87        Pf
                         Eggs/female                     6000        f
                         Egg-fry survival                  0.5       Ef
                         Parr capacity               1000000         CP     1.00E-06   -at
                         Parr prod rate                    0.2       PO             5  =bi
                         SMOR capacity                500000         Cs    2.OOE-06    -a
                         Smolt prod rate                   0.1       so            10  =b2
                         Smoft-rec suMvgd                0.112       Sr
                         Recr-spawn survival             0.33        Ra

                                                                                                                  Natural fish fitness groups
                       Life stages                                           Stocked
                         Variables                    Symbol       Native    hatchery     0.95        0.85        0.75       0.65        0.55         0.45       0.35

                       Spawners-eggs deposited
                         Number of spawners              A           641                     186          73        451           16         105          0           0
                         Fitness-spawners                Fs              1                      1       0.98        0.97        o.96       0.95
                         Eggs deposited                  E      2576365              0    747193      289301    1758214      80M         400228           0           0

                       Eggs-fry emerged
                         Fitness-eggs                    Fe              1                   0.99       0.98        0.96        0.95         0.9
                         Fry emergedIstocked             F      1288183      2010000      369861      141758      843943     28553       180103           0           0

                       Fry-pw
                         Fitness-fry                     Ff              1         0.7       0.98       0.95        0.92        0.88       0.85
                         Adjusted fry number                    1288183      1407000      362463      134670      776427     25126       153087           0           0
                         Parr produced/stKd              P         140832     153822      39627       14723       84884        2747      16736            0           0

                       Parr-smolt
                         Fitness-parr                    Fp              1         0.8       0.99       0.96        0.93         0.9       0.89
                         Adjusted parr number                      140832     123057      39230       14134       78942        2472      14895            0           0
                         Smotts produce&stkd             S         13007       11366         3623       1305        7291         228       1376           0           0

                       Smolt-fecruit
                         Fftness-smob                    Fs              1         0.9       0.99       0.98        0.96        0.93         0.9
                         Adjusted smolt number                     13007       10229         3587       1279        6999         212       1238           0           0
                         Recruits produced               R           1457        1146        402        143         784           24         139          0           0

                       Recrult-spawner
                         Fitness-recrults                Fr              1       0.95           1       0.99        0.98        0.97       0.94
                         Adjusted recruit no.                        1457        1088        402        142         768           23         130          0           a
                         Spawners produced               A           481          359        133          47        254            8          43          0           0

                           Relative overall fitness
                              Adult to adult                         0.75                    0.95       0.85        0.75        0.65       0.55         ERR         ERR
                              Fry to adult                         0.0004     0.4788      0.9605      0.8848      0.8049     0.7145      0.6400         ERR         ERR
                              Smolt to adult                       0.0370     0.85W       0.9900      0.9702      0.9408     0.9021      0.8460         ERR         ERR

                              Total smolts produced                36553      Percent native              36
                              Total adults produced                  1323     Percent native              36








                                                                                                                                                                20


                            Table 5. Continued.




                                                                                                                    Generation 6
                       Parameters:                               Symbols B-H parameters
                         Proportion females              0.67          Pf
                         Eggstfemale                     6000          f
                         Egg-fry survival                   0.5        Ef
                         Parr capacity                1000000          Cp    1.00E-06   -at
                         Parr prod rate                     0.2        PO             5 =bI
                         Smoft capacity                500000          Cs    2.OOE-06   --a2
                         Smolt prod rate                    0.1        so           10  =b2
                         Srnolt-rec survival             0.112         Sr
                         Recr-spawn survival             0.33          Ra

                                                                                                                    Natural fish fitness groups
                       We stages                                              Stocked
                         Variables                     Symbol       Native    hatchery        0.95     0.85         0.75       0.65        0.55         0.45        0.35

                       Spawners-eggs deposited
                         Number of spawners              A             638                    186           71        455           15          1w           0           0
                         Fitness-spawners                Fs               1                       1       0.98        0.97        0.96          0.95
                         Eggs deposited                  E       2563737              0       749352   279013     1774354      58065       407612            0           0

                       Eggs-fry emerged
                         Fltness-eggs                    Fe               1                   0.99        0.98        0.96        0.95          0.9
                         Fry emerged/stocked             F       1281869      2010000         370929   136716       851690     27581       183425            0           0

                       Fry-parr
                         Fitness-fry                     Ff               1         0.7       0.98        0.95        0.92        0.88          0.85
                         Adjusted fry number                     1281869      1407000         363510   129881       783555     24271       155911            0           0
                         Parr produced/stkd              P          140156     153838         39745    14201        85672        2654      17047             0           0

                       Parr-smott
                         Fitness-parr                    Fp               1         0.8       0.99        0.96        0.93         0.9          0.89
                         Adjusted parr number                       140156     123070         39348    13633        79675        2388      15172             0           0
                         Smolts produced/stkd            S          12945       11367         3634        1259        7359         221          1401         0           0

                       Smolt-recrult
                         Fitness-smolts                  Fs               1         0.9       0.99        0.98        0.96        0.93          0.9
                         Adjusted smolt number                      12945       10230         .3598       1234        7065         205          1261         0           0
                         Recruits produced               R             1450       1146        403         138         791           23          141          0           0

                       Recrult-spawner
                         Fitness-49oruits                Fr               1       0.95            1       0.99        0.98        0.97          0.94
                         Adjusted recruit no.                          1450       1089        403         137         775           22          133          0           0
                         Spawners produced               A             478         359        133           45        256             7         44           0           0

                           Relative overall fitness
                              Adult to adult                           0.75                   0.95     - 0.85         0.75        0.65          0.55       ERR        ERR
                              Fry to adult                          O.DO04      0.4788        0.9605   0.8848       0.8049     0.7145      0.6400          ERR         ERR
                              Smoft to adult                        0.0370      0.8550        0.9900   0.9702       0.9408     0.9021      0.8460          ERR        ERR


                              Total smolts produced                 36538      Percent native               35
                              Total adults produced                    1323    Percent native               36









                                                                                                21



             Changes in Fitness over Time

                If the fitness of hatchery fish used to supplement a native stock is less than
             the native fish, then one of the questions that arises is the rate at which the
             fitness of natural progeny of hatchery fish (or crosses) converges on the fitness
             of native fish. Theoretically, with each succeeding generation that progeny of
             hatchery fish reproduce naturally their fitness should increase through natural
             selection (Figure 3).

                In the example provided in Table 1, we assumed that half the gap in fitness
             between native fish and hatchery or crosses with hatchery fish had been closed
             with each generation completed in the natural environment. Thus hatchery fry
             stocked in the example and returning to spawn as adults (group H1 1 in Table
             1) had a fitness of 0.5 at the start of the first generation, a fitness of 0.75
             (group H 12) at the start of the second generation if they were the progeny. of a
             H1 1 X H1 1 mating, a fitness of 0.88 (group H13) at the start of the third
             generation if they were the progeny of a H 12 X H 12 mating, and a fitness of
             0.94 (group H1 4) at thestart of generation 4 if they were the progeny of a H 13
             X H 13 mating. In a model to evaluate supplementation, a procedure to adjust
             the fitness coefficients (overall and for each life stage) must be included to
             account for changes due to cross breeding, repeated natural reproduction, and
             changes that may occur in the hatchery stock.


             Operational Time Frame for Model

                Models to evaluate supplementation could be set up to operate on year-to-
             year or generation-to-generation time frames. If it were important to track the
             contribution of each age group in every brood year, then the year by year
             approach would be necessary. If we can assume, for modeling purposes, a
             relatively constant age and sex ratio at maturity, a generation-to-generation
             model could, be used. The model should probably be able to monitor all groups
             for 20 or more generations, to allow ample time to reach equilibrium levels for
             given conditions, and the opportunity to evaluate mid period changes in
             conditions.


             Life-Stage Compartments of Model

                A life-history type model appears to be the most logical approach to
             estimating the abundance of salmon and steelhead resulting from
             supplementation, because hatchery fish of more than one life stage will be
             added to streams. Relations can be developed for each of the life stages to
             allow estimation of fish numbers of each type (native, hatchery, and those from
             each fitness group) at each stage and to incorporate the effects of various
             conditions through stage-specific coefficients, including those for fitness. With
             life stage modeling, an assessment of the effects of supplementation can be
             made for any stage, including number of fish produced and overall fitness.









                                                                                              22




                           1    W X W
                                                                               ......................... . .A

                         0.9-


                                        H  X W
                                                   F@ X  H,
                         0.8-                                                   mate with sibs

                     V)
                     V)
                     LLJ
                     27- 0.7-
                                                                           Keep mating with
                     LL-                                                   first generation hatchery

                         0.6 -




                         0.5-




                         0.4-                                   -T-
                               1          2           3           4           5           6
                                                     GENERATIONS





                 Figure 3. Examples of fitness values for fish with various genetic
                 backgrounds and changes over time depending on parentage and rate of
                 improvement in fitness with each succeeding generation of natural
                 reproduction. In this example, the assumptions are as listed for groups in
                 Table 1.


                    For the salmon and steelhead stocks of the Columbia River, the life cycle can
                 be divided into many stages, but the stages listed below are probably the ones
                 needed to evaluate supplementation:

                        1. Adult to del2osited egg: the stage that incorporates the number, sex
                           ratio, fecundity, and fitness of the spawners, mating overlap
                           between groups, and the limitation, if any, of available spawning area
                           in estimating the number of eggs deposited in redds by each group of
                           fish or type of mating. This would be the starting stage for all
                           naturally produced fish and the start when supplementation is done
                           with hatchery adults.

                        2. Del2osited egg to emergent fry: the stage that includes the number
                              \H





































                           and fitness of the eggs deposited and quality of the redd environment
                           (survival rate) to estimate the number of fry of each group that
                           would emerge from the redds. The initial generation for hatchery fish








                                                                                                   23



                          would start with this stage if supplementation was done with newly
                          fertilized or eyed eggs.

                      3. Fry to fingerling pre-smolt: the number and fitness of emergent-fry is
                          related to the carrying capacity, density dependent, and density
                          independent mortality factors of the environment to estimate the
                          number of fish that reach the fingerling pre-smolt (parr) stage. The
                          pre-smolt stage is a user defined point in the life cycle between
                          emergent fry and smolt, that would correspond with the time when
                          pre-smolts might be stocked to supplement the native stock. For
                          spring chinook salmon that migrate to the sea as yearlings in the
                          spring, a pre-smolt stage might be the middle or end of the first
                          summer. For steelhead, it might be the end of the first, second, or
                          @third summer, depending primarily on the time pre-smolts are stocked
                          and on the age of fish at smolting. When supplementation is done
                          with fry, this stage would be the start of the initial generation for the
                          hatchery fish.

                      4. Pre-smolt to smolt: the stage that is created to facilitate evaluation of
                          supplementation with pre-smolts. It is necessary to estimate the
                          number of naturally produced pre-smolts produced so that a
                          comparison with hatchery pre-smolts can be made. The number and
                          fitness of the pre-smolts must be related to the carrying capacity and
                          mortality factors in the environment.

                      5. Smolt to recruit: the stage that includes the number and fitness of
                          natural and hatchery (if stocked) smolts, mortality rates during the
                          seaward migration, and mortality at sea up to   'the time the fish are
                          first recruited to the fisheries. If smolts are used for
                          supplementation, this stage would be the start of the initial hatchery
                          generation.

                      6. Recruit to sgawner: the periods from first recruitment to the fisheries,
                          migration upstream to the spawning areas, and the holding time prior
                          to spawning are included in this stage.

                 The relations for each of the life stages would be based on information
               available from prior studies, or lacking that, on the judgement of experts. For
               example, there is information available on the sex ratios, age composition, and
               fecundity of many of the stocks of fish that would be supplemented and those
               used for supplementing. Information on survival relations for each of the life
               stages is not generally available, especially for each and every stock, but there
               is enough information to make reasonable estimates of the relations. Relations
               and coefficients used in the system planning model (Monitoring and Evaluation
               Group 1989) developed by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) could
               be used as a starting point.

                 Coefficients used to express the effects of fitness of the offspring of each
               type of mating (native X native, hatchery X native, etc.), the amount of mating
               overlap, and of such factors as size and health of fish used for supplementation
               would be developed for each life stage (see example inTable 5 spreadsheet).
               Native fish might be assigned a fitness coefficient of 1.0, for example, and
               hatchery fish a lower value if less fit or a higher value if more fit for survival









                                                                                             24



                than the native fish. Relative fitness of the hatchery fish or progeny of
                hatchery X native matings may vary by life stage.

                   Incorporating survival relations for each of the life stages provides the
                flexibility to take into account the special conditions that might be present in
                spawning areas, streams used for rearing, river and reservoir migration routes,
                and fisheries for each stock. For example, survival to

                the smolt stage of spring chinook salmon rearing in headwater streams appears
                to be a density-dependent asymptotic relation, whereas the relation for fall
                chinook rearing in mainstem reservoirs could be a linear relation if density-
                independpnt predation was the major cause of mortality.


                Probability of Mating

                   The probability of mating between native and hatchery fish depends on the
                number of native and hatchery adults, the sex ratio of both groups, and the
                degree of overlap in time and location of spawning. Other factors could affect
                the probability of mating, such as size of fish, general health, and willingness to
                compete for mates, but we have assumed such factors will be similar for both
                native and hatchery fish.

                   If only native fish were present, then the probability of mating between two
                native fish would be 1.0 X 1.0 = 1.0. If equal numbers of native and hatchery
                fish were present, the age and sex ratios were equal for both groups, and there
                was full overlap in time and location of spawning the probability for each of the
                four possible matings would be 0.25 (example 2, Table 6). If all else stayed
                equal, but the numbers of each group changed, to say, three-fourths native
                females and one-fourth hatchery, the probabilities would change to 0.563 for
                the NF X NIVI cross, 0. 188 for the NF X HIVI and HF X NIVI crosses, and 0.063
                for the HF X HIVI cross (example 3, Table 6). As long as the sex ratios were
                similar for each of the groups being considered, the proportion of the
                population of males used in the calculations would be the same as for females.
                It would not matter if there were more or less males than females, as long as
                the ratio was the same for both groups.

                   If there were differences in the sex or age ratios between native and
                hatchery groups, the probabilities of mating would be affected as illustrated in
                example 4 in Table 6. In this example, native females continued to make up
                75% of the females, but the sex ratio of the native fish was set at 0.667
                females and 0.333 males, and that of hatchery fish at 0.5 females and 0.5
                males. In the total population of males then, native fish made up 0.6 and
                hatchery fish 0.4. The proportion of N X H crosses increased relative to
                example 3, because there were more hatchery males available to spawn.

                If the degree of overlap in time or location of spawning is less than complete,
                the probabilities of N X H crosses decreases because the fish are not all
                together when spawning occurs. In example 5 (Table 6), we setoverlap at
                50%; only half of the native and hatchery fish were spawning at the same time
                or place. The matings between native females and native males includes those
                from the half of the population that did not spawn at the same time or place as
                the hatchery fish (probability 0.375) and those from fish that had the
                opportunity to mate with hatchery fish, but didn't because of chance (0.281).








                                                                                             25




             Table 6. Probabilities of mating for native and hatchery fish with varying
             degrees of overlap in spawning time and location.



                              Proportion in aroup     Over- Non-                Prob-
             Example              Female    Male      lap    overlap          abilities



             1. All native or all hatchery fish (sex ratio unimportant)
                        NF X NM = 1.00 X 1.00 X 1.00                              1.000
                        HF X HM = 1.00 X 1.00 X 1.00                              1.000


             2. Half native and   half hatchery fish (equal sex ratio, full overlap)
                        NF X NM = 0.50 X    0.50 X 1.00                           0.250
                        NF X HM. =0.50 X    0.50 X 1.00                           0.250
                        HF X NM = 0.50 X    0.50 X 1.00                           0.250
                        HF X HM = 0.50 X    0.50 X 1.00                           0.250


             3. Females:   3/4 native and  1/4 hatchery (sex ratio same, full   overlap)
                        NF X NM = 0.75 X    0.75 X 1.00                           0.563
                        NF X HM = 0.75 X    0.25 X 1.00                           0.188
                        HF X NM = 0.25 X    0.75 X 1.00                           0.188
                        H FX HM = 0.25 X    0.25 X 1.00                           0.063


             4. Females:   0.75 native and  0.25 hatchery, males: 0.6 native and 0.4
                 hatchery, (full overlap)
                        NF X NM = 0.75 X    0.60  X 1.00                          0.450
                        NF X HM = 0.75 X    0.40  X 1.00                          0.300
                        HF X NM = 0.25 X    0.60  X 1.00                          0.150
                        HF X HM = 0.25 X    0.40  X 1.00                          0.100


             5. Females and males: 0.75    native and 0.25 hatchery (50% overlap)
                        NF X NM = 0.75   X                      0.5               0.375


                        NF X NM = 0.75   X  0.75  X 0.50                          0.281
                        NF X HM = 0.75   X  0.25  X 0.50                          0.094
                        HF X NM = 0.25   X  0.75  X 0.50                          0.094
                        HF X HM = 0.25   X  0.25  X 0.50                          0.031


                        HF X HM = 0.25   X                      0.5               0.125


             6. Females and males: 0.75    native and 0.25 hatchery (10% overlap)
                        NF X NM = 0.75   X                      0.9               0.675


                        NF X NM = 0.75   X  0.75  X 0.10                          0.056
                        NF-X HM = 0.75   X  0.25  X 0.10                          0.019
                        HF X NM = 0.25   X  0.75  X 0.10                          0.019
                        HF X RM = 0.25   X  0.25  X 0.10                          0.006


                        HF X HM = 0.25   X                      0.9               0.225









                                                                                             26



                 Methods of Supplementation

                   The methods of supplementation will be dictated by each manager's
                 perception of the best way to increase production, and by the factors
                 regulating the availability of fish from hatcheries. Unless the native stock has
                 been reduced to low levels of abundance, the best way to minimize the
                 potential for genetic damage to the supplemented stock is to use the local
                 stock as the source for the hatchery stock, add native/natural fish to the
                 hatchery broodstock periodically, avoid hatchery practices that select for a
                 segment of the population, and do not overwhelm the native stock with
                 hatchery fish. Hatchery fish from a genetically sound supplementation program
                 should have higher fitness values than those from hatchery stocks that are not
                 so managed.

                   Hatchery fish at many life stages have been used to supplement or restore
                 salmon and steelhead populations. Adults from hatcheries have been released
                 in streams or spawning channels to spawn naturally, newly fertilized and eyed
                 eggs have been placed in streams or incubation

                 channels, unfed fry and other pre-smolt juveniles have been released in'streams
                 to continue rearing, and smolts have been released to migrate seaward and
                 then return to spawn in the stream of release. The model must accommodate
                 the addition of hatchery fish at all of these life stages, which is a reason for the
                 recommended life-stage compartments.

                   The size and health of hatchery fish relative to the natural fish, season and
                 location of supplementation, and the effect of other species on the hatchery
                 fish can be accounted for in the fitness coefficient. If the hatchery fish are
                 more vulnerable to predation or angling, or less able to secure favorable living
                 space than their native counterparts, the reduced survival could be expressed
                 in a lower fitness coefficient.


                 Supplementation and the Carrying Capacity of Streams

                   For all forms of supplementation where the hatchery fish are expected to
                 spend a significant period of time in the natural environment before spawning
                 or becoming a smolt, the concept of a carrying capacity for fish must be
                 considered. There may be a limited number of spawning sites in a stream or
                 lake shore. Most streams and perhaps some large rivers or reservoirs have an
                 upper limit on the number (or biomass) of fish that can be supported during the
                 summer. The winter carrying capacity of streams may be different than that in
                 summer because of the factors involved.

                   Carrying capacities become important for species like chinook and coho
                 salmon and steelhead that spend a significant period of time in streams before
                 migrating to the ocean. During the freshwater phase dens ity-dependent forms
                 of mortality limit the number of smolts that can be produced in a given natural
                 environment. If a habitat is fully seeded by native fish and hatchery fish are
                 added, there will be a reduction in the number of native smolts produced to
                 compensate for the number of hatchery fish that compete successfully and
                 become smolts. A more critical concern is the case where there is a relatively
                 small number of native fish, a large number of hatchery fish are added, and the









                                                                                                  27



               native fish become further depressed because of the added competition they
               must endure.

                 In a supplementation model the number of native, hatchery, and other
               .genetic types of smolts produced is a function of the initial numbers of each
               type of fish, their relative fitness, and the carrying capacity of the environment.
               Non-native fish can be equated to native fish by multiplying their abundance by
               their fitness coefficients. This adjusted initial number of non-native fish would
               then be added to the number of native fish to obtain the effective initial number
               of fish at the beginning of a life stage. The number of native and non-native
               fish produced at the end of the life stage would then be the total number
               produced multiplied by the proportion of each type at the beginning.


               Effects of Supplementation on Other Species

                 Hatchery fish released in a stream to supplement one species may affect
               other species. To assess the effect of supplementation on non-target species
               the model must be able to track each of the species of interest through each
               life stage and generation, and there must be a way to express the results of the
               interactions that occur between the species. The severity of the interaction
               effect would depend on the degree of niche overlap between two or more
               species, what factors limit production, and the abundance of the fish relative to
               the carrying capacity. A coefficient could be attached to each of the relations
               for each life stage to modify the survival rate according to the effect of
               interspecific interactions.

               Deterministic versus Stochastic Models

                 A deterministic model would be used to evaluate the effects of
               supplementation without the confounding effects of environmental variability.
               A stochastic model would be useful to determine if environmental variability
               would affect the outcome of supplementation, or to determine the likelihood of
               extermination of stocks with marginal levels of abundance.


                                            General Model Structure

                 A model (as described above) to evaluate supplementation of salmon and
               steelhead stocks could be designed and constructed on a computer
               spreadsheet (as the preliminary example in Table 5), or it could be a model
               constructed with program code in the manner of the system planning model. In
               either case, the basic components (life stages) of the model would be similar to
               those of the system planning model, but the model would differ in the need to
               keep track of selected genetic groups over time. At present, the system
               planning model used by the NPPC keeps track of hatchery and native fish
               throughout their life cycle, but only for the first generation. A spreadsheet
               model used by Byrne and Bjornn (1988) to evaluate supplementation for a
               steelhead population was constructed to keep track of hatchery and native fish
               for many generations, but all fish with a hatchery origin were combined in a
               single group regardless of the length of time since coming from the hatchery.

                 The ultimate model to evaluate supplementation would be able to track each
               genetic group generated by matings between native, hatchery, and hatchery X









                                                                                            28



                native parents; with age and sex of spawners considered. With such a model,
                we would have more than 5,000 groups to monitor by the sixth generation,
                and more than 5 million by the seventh generation. We might be able to
                program present-day computers to monitor that many groups, but we would
                likely have trouble providing coefficients that would be sufficiently
                discriminating for each of the groups. From a practical viewpoint, it is probably
                not necessary to monitor a large number of genetic groups to adequately
                assess the success of a supplementation program.

                   Outputs of the model must include the number of fish of each genetic group
                at the end of each life stage for each generation.


                                           Coefficients for Variables

                   The coefficients provided with the documentation for the NPPC's system
                planning model (Monitoring and Evaluation Group 1989) are a good starting
                point in providing values needed for a supplementation model. Additional
                information has been developed for many of the subbasins in the Columbia
                River drainage as part of the system planning process. It will probably be
                necessary to develop stock specific coefficients, which may or may not be
                readily available, for use in a supplementation model. The coefficients
                developed for the system planning process will at least be helpful in selecting
                coefficients that are reasonable and similar to those found or used for other
                stocks of fish.

                   In addition to survival rates for each life stage, fitness values for each of the
                genetic groups must be assigned as a modifier of the survival rates.
                Unfortunately there are few measures of relative fitness for the various stocks
                of native and hatchery salmon and steelhead. In most cases, the progeny of
                hatchery or hatchery X native parents would likely have a fitness coefficient
                equal to or less than 1.0 if native fish were assigned a value of 1.0.
                Theoretically, the fitness values for the introduced fish could range from 0.0 to
                larger than 1.0. There have been cases where introduced fish did not survive
                and reproduce. Conceivably, excellent hatchery smolts could have a higher
                fitness coefficient than native fish for the first generation, if for example, the
                larger size they attained in the hatchery allowed them to survive at a higher
                rate than native smolts. Such benefits would not continue into succeeding
                generations when their offspring would be limited in the same ways as other
                naturally produced fish. We have not discussed heterosis or the breakdown of
                coadapted genetic systems that might affect fitness in complex ways, because
                we do not know how they might operate or how to include them in the model
                at this stage.


                                               Recommendations

                   We recommend that a model be developed soon to help in the assessment of
                the effects of supplementation of wild stocks of salmon and steelhead with
                hatchery fish. The model could be developed to run as a spreadsheet program,
                similar to the example we provided, or it could be developed as a stand alone
                program similar to the sub-basin planning model, perhaps even a modification
                of that model.









                                                                                            29



               We recommend that meetings be held, as needed, with a group of managers
             to review progress on model development, to determine the resolution required,
             and to evaluate the coefficients used in the model. These meetings are needed
             to insure that the model and its components meet the needs of the managers
             and that the predictions are as close to reality as possible.

               Once the model is functional, it should be distributed to those interested, it
             should be used to conduct sensitivity tests, and various supplementation
             senerios should be run on a comparative basis to provide estimates of the
             relative outcomes of various management strategies.


                                           Acknowledge ments

             Contribution No. 527 of Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station,
             University of Idaho.








                                                                                               30






                                                   References

                 Byrne, A., and T.C. Bjornn. 1988. An evaluation of supplementing wild stocks
                      of steelhead with hatchery fish using a life history model. Technical
                      Report 88-3, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University
                      of Idaho, Moscow.

                 Chilcote, M.W., S.A. Leider, and J.J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive
                      success of hatchery and wild summer-run steelhead under natural
                      conditions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:726-735.

                 Kapuscinski, A.R.D., and J.E. Lannan. 1986. A conceptual genetic fitness
                      model for fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
                      Aquatic Sciences 43:1606-1616.

                 Monitoring and Evaluation Group. 1989. System planning model
                      documentation. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

                 Reisenbichler, R.R. 1984. Outplanting: potential for harmful genetic change in
                      naturally spawning salmonids. Pages 33-39 in J.M. Walton and D.B.
                      Houston, editors. Proceedings of the Olympic Wild Fish Conference.
                      Peninsula College, Port Angeles, Washington.

                 Reisenbichler, R.R., and J.D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences and survival
                      of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout, Salmo gairdneri. Journal of
                      the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:123-128.























































































                                             I




                                                                       -1011111110
                                                                          3 6668 00004 0594