Figure 1. Map showing major rivers and other key geographic features discussed.
Figure 2. Diagram of potential smolting and maturation strategies utilized by chinook salmon.
Figure 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ecoregions for California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Figure 4. Average annual precipitation for selected areas of Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
Figure 5. Average annual flow per area for selected river basins in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
Figure 6. Timing of annual peak flow for selected river basins in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
Figure 7. Duration of high flows for selected river basins in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
Figure 8. Timing of annual low flow for selected river basins in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
Figure 9. Annual maximum monthly stream temperatures for selected river basins in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, California, Oregon, and Idaho.
Figure 10. Month of peak spawning activity for spring-, summer-, fall-, and winter-run chinook salmon in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
Figure 11. Proportional distribution of subyearling and yearling smolts for selected runs of chinook salmon in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
Figure 12. Distribution of age at maturation for selected populations of chinook salmon in Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
Figure 13. Marine recoveries by age and state or province of coded-wire-tagged chinook salmon from selected hatchery and wild populations.
Figure 14. Percentage passage of emigrating juvenile chinook salmon and their corresponding length for spring, fall, late-fall, and winter runs on the Sacramento River.
Figure 15. Percentage of adults sampled at various times during their return migration to the Lower Columbia River that had emigrated as yearling smolts.
Figure 16. Length distribution for Snake River male and female chinook salmon sampled at Salmon Falls.
Figure 17. The nine genetically defined regional groups of chinook salmon proposed by Utter et al. (1989).
Figure 18. Locations of sample sites used in genetic analysis.
Figure 19. Multidimensional scaling plot (MDS) of Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards (1967) chord distances based on 29 allozyme loci between 193 composite samples of chinook salmon from populations extending from Alaska to California.
Figure 20. Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic averages (UPGMA) tree of Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards (1967) chord distances based on 31 allozyme loci between 83 composite samples of chinook salmon from coastal populations extending from British Columbia to northern California.
Figure 21. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) of Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards (1967) chord distances based on 31 allozyme loci between 83 composite samples of chinook salmon from coastal populations extending from British Columbia to northern California.
Figure 22. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) of Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards (1967) chord distances based on 31 allozyme loci between 55 composite samples of chinook salmon from populations in the Columbia River drainage.
Figure 23. Map of the approximate geographic ranges of proposed evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) for west coast ocean-type chinook salmon.
Figure 24. Map of the approximate geographic ranges of proposed evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) for west coast stream-type chinook salmon.
Figure 25. Comparisons between proposed ESU boundaries for ocean-type chinook salmon and ESU boundaries of coho salmon and steelhead for coastal populations in Washington, Oregon, California, the Sacramento and Klamath River Basins, and the Columbia River Basin.
Figure 26. Comparison between proposed ESU boundaries for stream-type chinook salmon and ESU boundaries for inland steelhead for populations in the Upper Columbia River Basin.
Figure 27. Annual releases of juvenile chinook salmon from artificial propagation facilities in different North American regions from 1950-90.
Figure 28. Schematic diagram of mixing of naturally- and hatchery-produced fish in natural habitat.
Figure 29. Recent 5-year geometric mean spawning escapement for chinook salmon populations in Sacramento River Winter-Run, Central Valley Spring-Run, and Central Valley Fall-Run ESUs.
Figure 30. Trends in abundance for chinook salmon populations in Sacramento River Winter-Run, Central Valley Spring-Run, and Central Valley Fall-Run ESUs.
Figure 31. Recent 5-year geometric mean spawning escapement for chinook salmon populations in Southern Oregon and California Coastal, and Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESUs.
Figure 32. Trends in abundance for chinook salmon populations in Southern Oregon and California Coastal, and Upper Klamath and Trinity ESUs.
Figure 33. Recent 5-year geometric mean spawning escapement for chinook salmon populations in Oregon Coast ESU.
Figure 34. Trends in abundance for chinook salmon populations in Oregon Coast ESU.
Figure 35. Recent 5-year geometric mean spawning escapement for chinook salmon populations in Washington Coast ESU.
Figure 36. Trends in abundance for chinook salmon populations in Washington Coast ESU.
Figure 37. Recent 5-year geometric mean spawning escapement for chinook salmon populations in Puget Sound ESU.
Figure 38. Trends in abundance for chinook salmon populations in Puget Sound ESU.
Figure 39. Recent 5-year geometric mean spawning escapement for chinook salmon populations in Lower Columbia and Upper Willamette River ESUs.
Figure 40. Trends in abundance for chinook salmon populations in Lower Columbia and Upper Willamette River ESUs.
Figure 41. Recent 5-year geometric mean spawning escapement for stream-type chinook salmon populations in Middle Columbia River Spring-Run and Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESUs.
Figure 42. Trends in abundance for stream-type chinook salmon populations in Middle Columbia River Spring-Run and Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESUs.
Figure 43. Recent 5-year geometric mean spawning escapement for ocean-type chinook salmon populations in Upper Columbia River Summer- and Fall-Run, and Snake River Fall-Run ESUs.
Figure 44. Trends in abundance for ocean-type chinook salmon populations in Upper Columbia River Summer- and Fall-Run, and Snake River Fall Run ESUs.
Figure 45. Recent 5-year geometric mean spawning escapement for stream-type chinook salmon populations in Snake River Spring- and Summer-Run ESU.
Figure 46. Trends in abundance for stream-type chinook salmon populations in Snake River Spring- and Summer-Run ESU.
Table 1. Freshwater migration and spawning timing for selected chinook salmon from Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
Table 2. Gene diversity for chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and other species of salmon.
Table 3. Samples of chinook salmon used in the genetic analyses for this report.
Table 4. How genetic diversity units (GDUs) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's major ancestral lineages (MALs) correspond to ESUs.
Table 5. How ESUs and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's genetic conservation groups (GCG) correspond.
Table 6. Summary of hatchery releases of juvenile chinook salmon by ESU during selected years.
Table 7. Summary of major west coast chinook salmon artificial propagation facilities.
Table F1. Example of a blank risk matrix.
Table F2. Summary of main risk categories for ESUs.