In a similar, earlier release from the same 

 site, all but one of seven lish moved up to the 

 vs^eir during the afternoon. Some fish then 

 dropped downstream about 1 km. after dark 

 but returned to the weir in the morning, at 

 which time only two were counted through the 

 gates. In three releases (total of 25 fish) 

 after the weir was removed, the fish moved 

 past the vacated site without hesitation. 



Sonic tags provided additional information 

 on rates of movement in the river. Fish took 

 from 26 to 120 hours to move upstream from 

 the release point to the monitor at the Payette 

 River mouth, which was 24 km. upstream. The 

 maximum rate of movement for the distance 

 was, therefore, slightly more than 0.8 km. per 

 hour, or 19 km. per day. The slowest fish 

 recorded by the monitor moved 13 km. up- 

 stream in 6 days; this was the same fish men- 

 tioned earlier, which had spent 4 days in the 

 release area before resuming migration. 



EXAMPLES OF PASSAGE 

 THROUGH LARGE NATUR.\L LAKES 



Because Brownlee Reservoir provides the 

 only evidence of chinook salmon passage 

 through a long, deep impoundment, we searched 

 for other examples of their passage capabilities 

 under comparable conditions. Passage of chi- 

 nook salmon through large, shallow impound- 

 ments, such as those formed by low-head dams 

 on the Columbia River, has long been estab- 

 lished. These impoundments pass tremendous 

 volumes of water and normally provide strong 

 directional currents that are usually absent in 

 large, deep reservoirs, such as Brownlee. What 

 was needed were examples of passage through 

 large bodies of water having low or no direc- 

 tional currents. Although large lakes with 

 inlets and outlets may differ from reservoirs, 

 the flow of water and limnological conditions 

 can be similar to those in large, deep impound- 

 ments. 



We discussed the passage of adult chinook 

 salmon through large, natural bodies of water 

 with biologists familiar with chinook salmon 

 runs in Alaska, British Columbia, and the 

 Yukon Territory. They estimated the sizes of 



sustained runs and provided data on the sizes 

 of lakes through which the species migrates to 

 reach spawning areas. 



We concluded that the size of a body of water 

 may not influence greatly the upstream migra- 

 tion of this species. In Bristol Bay, Alaska, 

 chinook (king) salmon have been observed in 

 the upper Wood River Lakes (Burgner, per- 

 sonal communication'). To reach this area, the 

 fish migrate through three connecting lakes — 

 about 30 km. through Aleknagik Lake, about 

 56 km. through Lake Nerka, and about 24 km. 

 through Lake Beverly. An average of 5,000 

 adults entered in 1957-62 and spawned in 

 tributaries to Naknek Lake (about 64 km. 

 long) (Jaenicke, personal communication^). 

 Some of these fish were observed at the Brooks 

 Lake weir in a tributary stream about 48 km. 

 above the outlet of Naknek Lake. 



In British Columbia (Fraser River system), 

 researchers " estimated that 500 to 1,000 adult 

 chinook salmon pass through Harrison Lake 

 (80 km.) into the Birkenhead River; about 

 5,000 migrate through Kamloops Lake (24 

 km.) and continue for 72 km. through Shuswap, 

 Eagle, and Mara Lakes to spawn. Some chi- 

 nook salmon pass 72 km. through Quesnel Lake 

 into the Mitchell River. Before Coulee Dam 

 was constructed on the Columbia River, large 

 runs of chinook salmon were reported by local 

 residents (Bryant and Parkhurst, 1950) to 

 have migrated through the lower Arrow Lake 

 (72 km.) and upper Arrow Lake (56 km.) to 

 spawn below Windermere Lake, 128 km. far- 

 ther upriver. 



More than 3,600 chinook salmon are esti- 

 mated by Elliott (personal communication'") 

 to enter LaBerge Lake on the Yukon River, 

 Yukon Territory. A small number enter a 

 tributary about halfway through the 56-km. 

 lake, but most continue through the lake to the 

 Takhini and McKlintock Rivers. Another run 



' Robert L. Buruner. 1963. Fisheries Research Institute, University of 

 Washington. Seattle, Wash, 



 Herbert W. Jaenicke. 1964. Fishery Biologist, ^Bureau of Commercial 

 Fisheries, .\uke Bay, -Alaska. 



» J. R. Brett, Fishery Research Board of Canada, Nanaimo, B. C; and 

 W. R. Hourston, D. MacKinnon, and B. M. Chatwin. Department of Fish- 

 eries. Canada. Vancouver, B. C. 



>»W. K. Elliot. 1964. Fishery Officer. Department of Fisheries, Canada. 

 Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. 



44 



U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



