Eyefish -
IMHO you are making way too much out of the Forks Creek study. As often is the case on these kinds of the issue the results depend on the circumstances of the situation. Clearly the segregation approach has some significant problems on Forks Creek but it does not necessaryily follow those problems will be the same in a different location and circumstances.

The fact that segregation is not working as desired in the Willapa example as you suggest indicates there has not been the environmental separation between the two stocks needed. Most commonly that lack of separation is due to the significant overlap in spwan timing and location. - Please note it is not run timing but spawn timing that is the determinate factor.

As some have suggested on a basin like the Skagit the Chambers Creek stock may be a more segregated stock. Why? because there is significant different spawning timing differences of the wild fish between Willapa River/Forks Creek and the Skagit. As stated in the study the wild fish spawn February to April on the Skagit the wild fish spawn from mid-March into July with a peak spawning activity typcially about the 3rd week in May. In fact on the Skagit one would not expect to see 10% of the wild redds to be have dug until late April (and in some years early May). I suspect an additional 6 to 8 weeks of separation in the timing hatchery and wild spawning may be a critical factor.

A WDFW study in the early 1990s looked at the genetic structuring of the Skagit steelhead sampled in various locations in the basin. As part of that study the genetists also looked the similiarity of the Skagit wild fish and Chambers Creek hatchery fish. They further looked how much that similiarity had changed from a previous study done in the mid-1970s with the results form the 1994 study. They found that there had been virtually no change over 3 fish generations in the amount of potential "hatchery influence" on the wild populations. A new genetic study in 2010 also looked at the potential "hatchery influence" on the Sauk from fish collected in the early 1980s with those collected in 2010. Again the results were similar - no change.

Without going into more detail at least in North Puget Sound the debate about hatchery/wild interaction have shift from a genetic concern to one of ecological interactions - are the hatchery fish spwaning in the wild producing juveniles that compete with the rear wild juveniles with a negative impact. The last study referred to above hoped to shed some light on that topic but it is too early for any conclusions.

BTW -
The Snider Creek program was not a segregated hatchery program. Rather it was a very poor intregrated program (the wild brood stock was hardly representative of the wild population as a whole) that was guaranteed to pass on any adverse hatchery effects to the wild population.

Tight lines
Curt