30 



• Th« Lyon« F«rry H«tchory brood atock o£f«r» th« potential of 

 restocking wh»t remains of the Snake River fall Chinook* • natural 

 habitat while maintaining genetic integrity. Preaumably, the 

 exclueion of the Lyone Ferry Hatchery brood atock atema from the view 

 that the protectiona of the ESA ahould extend only to listed species 

 in the wild, not species that have been removed from natural 

 ecoayateae. However, the habitat of the Snake River fall chinook has 

 been draatically altered and the remaining freahwater spawning and 

 rearing habitat ia but a fraction of what waa available historically. 

 The progeny of "naturally" spawning fish are currently protected 

 under the ESA, even though they are routinely removed from the wild 

 and transported through the river migration corridor by truck or 

 barge. There ia no aound biological reaaon to exclude fish with the 

 same genetic lineage from the protectiona of the Act, merely because 

 they spawned and reared in the "unnatural" habitat of the Lyons Ferry 

 Hatchery. 



• The exclusion of the Lyons Ferry Hatchery brood atock leads to an 

 illogical result, by splitting a distinct population into a protected 

 and an unprotected class. 



• The exclusion of the Lyons Ferry Hatchery brood stock leads to an 

 illogical result, by creating a situation where members of a distinct 

 population segment move into and out of the ESU across generations. 

 Consequently, progeny of the distinct population segment may or may 

 not be afforded protection under the ESA, depending upon where they 

 reproduce. 



• The exclusion of the Lyona Ferry Hatchery brood atock meana that the 

 segovent of the population that is most similar to the historic 

 population segment is not protected under the ESA, while a population 

 that may be leas similar to the historic population aegment ia 

 protected. 



The level of genetic diatinctneaa (genetic diatance, see Waples et al. 

 1991) between Snake River fall chinook and Columbia River fall chinook 

 is small, but apparently this difference ia peraisting in the face of 

 Bubatantial atraying. Further, the Snake River historically provided 

 unique chinook habitat. For these reasons, although it may be prudent 

 to retain a distinct population segment of Snake River fall chinook 

 salmon, the focus and intent should be that fall chinook retain an 

 important role in the ecology of the Snake River ecosystem. The 

 protected population should include Snake River hatchery fish and fish 

 that spawn naturally in the Snake River. 



Because the Snake River habitat has been so altered by the construction 

 of daAs, adaptive evolution of the chinook population inhabiting thia 

 area will likely take place. In that vein, the paat and continued 

 straying of Columbia River fall chinook and the mixing of these fish 

 with the endemic Snake River fall chinook population may in the end be 

 beneficial as the population evolves and adapts to this severely altered 

 ecosystem. 



Although the question of changing the statua of Snake River fall chinook 

 from threatened to endangered waa addressed in this document from the 

 standpoint of the currently defined ESU, best available scientific and 

 commercial data indicates that the BSU itself need* redefinition. 

 Subsequent to redefinition of the ESU, the question of whether or not 

 the revised ESU should be included on the endangered species list; and, 

 if so, at what level, threatened or endangered, needa to be evaluated 

 and anawered baaed upon beat available acientific and commercial data. 



CONCLUSIONS 



The beat available scientific and commercial data indicatea that the 

 change in atatus of the currently defined Snake River fall chinook 

 aalmon ESU from threatened to endangered ia not appropriate. Status of 

 the currently defined ESU has improved since listing and the likelihood 

 of extinction has diminished. 



