Originally Posted By: Larry B
I believe it is important to know what criteria is being applied so as to be able to properly understand what constraints are at play.

Your "Is this (segregated) hatchery population still essential for recovery?" question is succinct and leads to further ask if it is any more essential than other hatchery origin Chinook stocks in Puget Sound. If not, then why not clip or simply discontinue raising those as hatchery fish? Those are rhetorical; next step will be to ask WDFW.

Again, thanks for your insight.

It appears that hatchery programs for indigenous Chinook populations in the Elwha, Dungeness, White, Stillaguamish and Nooksack Rivers were all designated as "essential for recovery" by NMFS. Here is the marking status for all those hatchery Chinook populations I could find:
Elwha R.: No Ad, Otolith marked
Dungeness: No Ad, Left Ventral mark
Nooksack: No Ad
Stillaguamish: Summer - Ad clipped; S.Fork Fall - Ad clipped
White River - We already discussed.

So, it is not unknown to ad clip hatchery populations that were designated essential for recovery. As it is the only early timed Chinook population in central/south Puget Sound, there is no question that a healthy White River early (spring) Chinook population is essential for recovering the PS Chinook ESU. There is also no question that the hatchery program at Hupp Springs and the captive broodstock programs at Manchester and (more significantly IMO) South Sound netpens kept this population from going extinct and provided a lot of fish for re-introduction into the White River. The question is that now that the population in the White River is its current size, is there a need for that second program outside of the White River? The recovery plan says that the Hupp Springs program will be continued until the recovery goals for this population are met, although those recovery goals are not specified.