Oncorhynchus kisutch - (Walbaum, 1792)
Coho Salmon
Other English Common Names: Silver Salmon
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum, 1792) (TSN 161977)
French Common Names: saumon coho
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102595
Element Code: AFCHA02030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Fishes - Bony Fishes - Salmon and Trouts
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Actinopterygii Salmoniformes Salmonidae Oncorhynchus
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Concept Reference: Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B91ROB01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Oncorhynchus kisutch
Taxonomic Comments: Apparently does not comprise genetically distinct, temporally segregated runs within a single river drainage, such as those that characterize the chinook salmon and steelhead trout; however, each coastal stream probably has a distinctive strain adapted to local conditions (Moyle et al. 1989). NMFS (1995) determined that there are six major stock groupings in the region extending from southern British Columbia to southern California.

Moyle et al. (1989) divided coho populations in California into two groups: "big river coho salmon" and "short-run coho salmon" (see GMIGRCOM).
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 28Dec2017
Global Status Last Changed: 28Dec2017
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Still widespread around the margins of the North Pacific Ocean, and abundant in some areas, but logging and poor watershed management have caused many local extirpations and numerous declines; many runs are reported as now being of less than 25-50 individuals each.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (05Dec1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4N5B,N5N,N5M (28Dec2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alaska (S5), Arizona (SNA), California (S2?), Colorado (SNA), Idaho (SNA), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maine (SNA), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Nevada (SNA), New Mexico (SNA), New York (SNA), North Dakota (SNA), Oregon (S3), Pennsylvania (SNA), South Dakota (SNA), Washington (S3), West Virginia (SNA), Wisconsin (SNA), Wyoming (SNA)
Canada British Columbia (S4), Nova Scotia (SNA), Ontario (SNA), Quebec (SNA), Saskatchewan (SNA), Yukon Territory (S3S4)

Other Statuses

Implied Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): PS
Comments on USESA: NOAA Fisheries has identified 7 evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of coho salmon in Washington, Oregon and California. Each ESU is treated as a separate species under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS is currently monitoring the following populations of the Coho salmon as of Feb. 2012:

Listing status: Endangered
Population location: Central California Coast ESU-U.S.A. (CA), including all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon from Punta Gorda in northern California south to and including the San Lorenzo River in central California, as well as populations in tributaries to San Francisco Bay, excluding the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system, as well as four artificial propagation programs.

Listing status: Threatened
Population location: Oregon Coast ESU-U.S.A. (OR), all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams south of the Columbia River and north of Cape Blanco, including the Cow Creek (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife stock #37) coho hatchery program.

Listing status: Threatened
Population location: Lower Columbia River ESU- U.S.A. (OR, WA), including all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon, from the mouth of the Columbia up to and including the Big White Salmon and Hood Rivers, and includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, as well as 25 artificial propagation programs.

Listing status: Threatened
Population location: Southern Oregon-Northern California Coast ESU-U.S.A. (CA,OR), including all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in coastal streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California, as well as three artificial propagation programs. In a 90-day petition finding to delist this ESU, NMFS (Federal Register, 31 July 2013) found the petition to not be warranted.

In addition, NOAA is monitoring the following as of Feb. 2012: Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU is a Species of Concern; Southwest Washington is Undetermined and Olympic Peninsula is Not Warranted.

Implied Status under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC):PS:T
Comments on COSEWIC: The Interior Fraser population is designated Threatened.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Native range includes the Pacific Ocean and tributary drainages, in eastern Asia from the Anadyr River south to northern Japan and in North America from Point Hope, Alaska, south to central California and infrequently at sea as far south as Baja California. The species is most abundant between Oregon and southeastern Alaska, rare south of central California. It has been widely stocked in lakes and reservoirs throughout North America and elsewhere.

See Frissell (1993) for a map indicating present and former distribution in the Pacific Northwest and California. See Moyle et al. (1989) for further information on distribution in California.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: In a survey of populations in the contiguous U.S., Huntington et al. (1996) identified only three healthy native stocks, all in Washington.

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but relatively large.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Many populations have been negatively impacted by logging, agricultural activities, overgrazing, urbanization, stream channelization, wetland loss, and poor watershed management practices that increase stream temperatures, cause siltation, or otherwise destroy or degrade habitat; road construction also has negatively altered many smaller coastal streams; dams, water withdrawals, and unscreened diversions for irrigation also have contributed to the decline. Poor ocean conditions (e.g., El Nino conditions) are believed to have played a prominent role in the decline of populations in Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS 1995). The effects of extended drought on water supplies and water temperatures are a major concern for California populations of coho salmon. Native populations are most at risk in the southern and eastern parts of the range, largely as a result of the effects of successful hatchery programs (Nehlsen et al. 1991). Potential problems associated with hatchery programs include genetic impacts on indigenous, naturally reproducing populations, disease transmission, predation on wild fishes, difficulty in determination of wild run status due to incomplete marking of hatchery releases, and replacement (rather than supplementation) of wild stocks through competition and continued annual introductions of hatchery fishes (NMFS 1995). It is difficult to assess the degree to which recreational and commercial harvest have contributed to the decline. Spawning fish can withstand moderate disturbance. See NMFS (Federal Register, 6 May 1997) for further information on threats.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Of 2594 stocks in British Columbia and Yukon, Slaney et al. (1996) categorized 29 as extirpated, 214 as high risk, 22 as moderate risk, 21 as special concern, 1024 as unthreatened, and 1284 as unknown status. In the 1900s, indigenous, naturally reproducing populations are believed to have been extirpated in nearly all Columbia River tributaries and to be in decline in numerous coastal streams in Washington, Oregon, and California; at least 33 populations have been identified by agencies and conservation groups as being at moderate to high risk of extinction (NMFS 1995); at least 15 stocks in the contiguous U.S. have been extirpated (Nehlsen et al. 1991). Wild fish are increasingly rare throughout the range, especially at the southern and eastern parts of the range (see Nehlsen et al. 1991 for a review of the status and declines of these populations). Stable or increasing in a portion of northern California and in northwestern Washington; special concern, threatened, endangered, or extirpated elsewhere (see map in Frissell 1993). In California, populations fluctuate, but the general trend seems to be downward for wild, short-run populations in small coastal streams.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Survey potential spawning streams for evidence of successful reproduction.

Protection Needs: Protect spawning and rearing (juvenile) habitats. See Nehlsen et al. (1991) for general protection and management recommendations for anadromous salmonids.

Global Range: Native range includes the Pacific Ocean and tributary drainages, in eastern Asia from the Anadyr River south to northern Japan and in North America from Point Hope, Alaska, south to central California and infrequently at sea as far south as Baja California. The species is most abundant between Oregon and southeastern Alaska, rare south of central California. It has been widely stocked in lakes and reservoirs throughout North America and elsewhere.

See Frissell (1993) for a map indicating present and former distribution in the Pacific Northwest and California. See Moyle et al. (1989) for further information on distribution in California.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, AZexotic, CA, COexotic, IDexotic, ILexotic, INexotic, KYexotic, MEexotic, MIexotic, MNexotic, NDexotic, NMexotic, NVexotic, NYexotic, OR, PAexotic, SDexotic, WA, WIexotic, WVexotic, WYexotic
Canada BCnative and exotic, NSexotic, ONexotic, QCexotic, SKexotic, YT

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CA Humboldt (06023), Marin (06041), Mendocino (06045), Santa Cruz (06087), Sonoma (06097)
OR Benton (41003), Clackamas (41005), Clatsop (41007), Columbia (41009), Coos (41011), Curry (41015), Douglas (41019), Hood River (41027), Jackson (41029), Josephine (41033), Lane (41039), Lincoln (41041), Marion (41047), Multnomah (41051), Polk (41053), Tillamook (41057), Wasco (41065), Washington (41067), Yamhill (41071)
WA Clallam (53009), Clark (53011), Cowlitz (53015), Grays Harbor (53027), Island (53029), Jefferson (53031), King (53033), Kitsap (53035), Klickitat (53039), Lewis (53041), Mason (53045), Pacific (53049), Pierce (53053), San Juan (53055), Skagit (53057), Skamania (53059), Snohomish (53061), Thurston (53067), Wahkiakum (53069), Whatcom (53073)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
17 Chief Joseph (17020005)*, Methow (17020008), Lake Chelan (17020009), Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010), Wenatchee (17020011)*, Moses Coulee (17020012)*, Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids (17020016), Upper Yakima (17030001), Naches (17030002), Lower Yakima, Washington (17030003), Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)*, Lower Grande Ronde (17060106)*, Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (17070101), Walla Walla (17070102)*, Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105)+, Klickitat (17070106)+, Lower Deschutes (17070306), Lower Columbia-Sandy (17080001)+, Lewis (17080002)+, Lower Columbia-Clatskanie (17080003)+, Lower Cowlitz (17080005)+, Lower Columbia (17080006)+, Middle Willamette (17090007)+, Yamhill (17090008), Molalla-Pudding (17090009), Tualatin (17090010), Clackamas (17090011)+, Lower Willamette (17090012)+, Hoh-Quillayute (17100101)+, Queets-Quinault (17100102)+, Upper Chehalis (17100103)+, Lower Chehalis (17100104)+, Grays Harbor (17100105)+, Willapa Bay (17100106)+, Necanicum (17100201)+, Nehalem (17100202)+, Wilson-Trusk-Nestuccu (17100203)+, Siletz-Yaquina (17100204)+, Alsea (17100205)+, Siuslaw (17100206)+, Siltcoos (17100207)+, North Umpqua (17100301)+, South Umpqua (17100302)+, Umpqua (17100303)+, Coos (17100304)+, Coquille (17100305)+, Sixes (17100306)+, Upper Rogue (17100307)+, Middle Rogue (17100308)+, Applegate (17100309)+, Lower Rogue (17100310)+, Illinois (17100311)+, Chetco (17100312)+, Fraser (17110001)+, Strait of Georgia (17110002)+, San Juan Islands (17110003)+, Nooksack (17110004)+, Upper Skagit (17110005)+, Sauk (17110006)+, Lower Skagit (17110007)+, Stillaguamish (17110008)+, Skykomish (17110009)+, Snoqualmie (17110010)+, Snohomish (17110011)+, Lake Washington (17110012)+, Duwamish (17110013)+, Puyallup (17110014)+, Nisqually (17110015)+, Deschutes (17110016)+, Skokomish (17110017)+, Hood Canal (17110018)+, Puget Sound (17110019)+, Dungeness-Elwha (17110020)+, Crescent-Hoko (17110021)+
18 Smith (18010101)+, Mad-Redwood (18010102)+, Upper Eel (18010103), Middle Fork Eel (18010104), Lower Eel (18010105), South Fork Eel (18010106), Mattole (18010107)+, Big-Navarro-Garcia (18010108)+, Gualala-Salmon (18010109)+, Russian (18010110)+, Bodega Bay (18010111), Upper Klamath (18010206)+, Shasta (18010207), Scott (18010208), Lower Klamath (18010209), Salmon (18010210), Trinity (18010211), South Fork Trinity (18010212), Mccloud (18020004)*, Sacramento-Lower Cow-Lower Clear (18020101)*, Sacramento-Lower Thomes (18020103)*, Sacramento-Stone Corral (18020104)*, Lower Sacramento (18020109)*, Sacramento-Upper Clear (18020112), Suisun Bay (18050001)*, San Pablo Bay (18050002), Tomales-Drake Bays (18050005)+, San Francisco Coastal South (18050006), San Lorenzo-Soquel (18060001)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Basic Description: A salmon, not more than 1 meter long, that has pink or red sides during the breeding season.
General Description: Numerous scales; one dorsal fin plus one adipose fin; no spines in fins; small black spots on back and upper lobe of tail fin; no dark pigment along gum line of lower jaw; gill rakers rough and widely spaced; lateral line nearly straight. In the ocean, coho salmon are dark metallic blue or greenish on the upper side, with silver sides and a whitish belly. During the spawning season, males are dusky green on the back and head, with red sides and a black belly; they develop a strongly hooked snout and large teeth. Spawning females have bronze to pink-red sides. Total length to around 108 cm.
Reproduction Comments: Spawning occurs mainly November-January in California, mainly in December in southern Oregon and northern California, most frequently in January south of the Mattole River, and September-December (mainly November-December) in Washington and Oregon

Female may guard nest for up to 2 weeks. Eggs incubate in winter and hatch in 1.5-4 months, depending on temperature. Young emerge from gravel 2-10 weeks after hatching.

Adults die soon after spawning, at age 2-5 years (usually at three years in Washington, Oregon, and California, 4 years in southeastern Alaska); some males return to spawn after only 6 months at sea.

Stocked populations usually do not reproduce.

Ecology Comments: Fry initially form schools, later become territorial after attaining parr stage. Tends to form schools in ocean.
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Adults migrate up streams typically in late summer and fall (late fall through mid-winter in the far south), when heavy fall rains result in flows strong enough to breach sand bars at the mouths of coastal streams (Moyle et al. 1989).. Some populations, now considered extinct, may have migrated hundreds of miles inland to spawn in tributaries of the upper Columbia River in Washington and the Snake River in Idaho (NMFS 1995).

See NMFS (1995) for information on the oceanic distributions of the different spawning stocks in Washington, Oregon, and California.

In California, "big river coho salmon" begin entering streams typically in September or October, migrate upstream 100-200 km or more to spawning sites; "short-run coho salmon" rarely migrate more than 100 km upstream (Moyle et al. 1989). In California, juveniles begin migration downstream to ocean in early spring; migrate in schools of 10-50 (Moyle et al. 1989).

Marine Habitat(s): Near shore, Pelagic
Estuarine Habitat(s): Bay/sound, River mouth/tidal river
Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Pool, Riffle
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water, Shallow water
Habitat Comments: Coho salmon usually spend 2 (range 1-3) growing seasons in the ocean before spawning. In the ocean, they remain over the continental shelf and generally stay within 30 km of their natal stream (but some may range up to several hundred kilometers away).

Spawning occurs in just about any accessible coastal stream, generally in forested areas, usually at 6-12 C in loose coarse gravel at heads of riffles (or tails of pools) in rounded troughs excavated by females where water is 10-54 cm deep. Females construct and deposit eggs in each of several redds. Individuals generally spawn in their natal stream; however, rapid colonization of newly accessible habitat has been observed.

Young spend a few weeks to 2 years (varies geographically) in freshwater streams before migrating to the sea (young in the north spend a longer time in fresh water than do those in the south). Often this period is substantial and amounts to approximately half of the life cycle. Hatchlings that have left the spawning site seek shallow water, usually along stream margins. Older juveniles prefer pools and runs with good cover, high oxygen levels, and abundant invertebrate populations. Fry may summer in brackish water in southeastern Alaska.

Stocked populations in lakes and reservoirs migrate upstream to spawn or more commonly do not reproduce (must be restocked annually).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore, Piscivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore, Piscivore
Food Comments: Fry feed on a variety of small invertebrates. Parr feed on aquatic insects and their larvae, terrestrial insects, and some small fishes. At sea, preys primarily on other fishes (Moyle 1976), also inverts (see Hassler 1987 for details).
Phenology Comments: Feeding activity of juveniles reduced in winter.
Length: 61 centimeters
Weight: 6000 grams
Economic Attributes
Economic Comments: Provides extensive commercial and sport fishery (Hassler 1987). Comprised around 10% of the commercial Pacific salmon catch in the 1970s, with several million caught in North America waters (see Sandercock 1991).
Management Summary
Restoration Potential: Recovery in the southern part of the range will be difficult due to the large number of small coastal streams in which changes in logging and road construction plans would have to be made (Moyle et al. 1989).
Management Requirements: Hatcheries contribute to much of production (Hassler 1987). Meffe (1992) gave reasons why the hatchery approach to recovery ultimately will fail, and he emphasized that overharvest and habitat destruction need to be addressed in a major landscape-level effort. See Thomas et al. (1993) for information on habitat management for this and other at-risk fish species in the Pacific Northwest.

To regulate fishery for optimum yield, California, Washington, and Oregon have limited entry of new fishing boats into fleet and have instituted catch quotas (Hassler 1987).

Stocks transplanted to non-native streams exhibit reduced survival (see Williams et al. 1992).

Allendorf et al. (1997) proposed criteria for prioritizing Pacific salmon stocks for conservation; data limitations introduce subjectivity into the process, so expert judgment and peer review should be incorporated into the process.

Monitoring Requirements: Waples and Teel (1990) emphasized the importance of monitoring the genetic consequences of the large-scale artificial propagation programs involving Pacific salmon (see also Waples 1990).
Biological Research Needs: Determine genetic variation among wild populations in different streams.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Group Name: Fishes with Anadromous Populations

Use Class: Freshwater
Subtype(s): Rearing & Migration Area, Spawning & Rearing Area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including eggs and larvae) in appropriate habitat. For anadromous populations, occurrences are based on collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more spawning adults, redds, other evidence of spawning, or larvae or juveniles in appropriate spawning/rearing habitat.
Mapping Guidance: Conceptually, the occurrence includes the entire freshwater area used by the population, including spawning, rearing, and migration areas. For anadromous populations, an occurrence should extend from the most upstream spawning areas downstream to the ocean. However, it is desirable (and practical) to subdivide this sometimes very large occurrence, sometimes overlapping with many other spaghetti-like occurrences extending down from the upstream spawning areas to the ocean, into separate source features or sub-occurrences, labeled with a feature label that reflects the life history stage in that area. Moreover, it may make practical sense to treat the areas downstream of spawning and/or rearing areas as a mixed element animal assemblage: Freshwater Salmon Migration Corridor. This negates the need to separately map each occurrence down to the ocean from its upstream spawning location. Information about areas with different life-history uses can be generated by using best professional judgment by district or regional fish biologists and may or may not incorporate specific locational information from spawning surveys or other surveys.
Separation Barriers: Dam lacking a suitable fishway; high waterfall; upland habitat that is very unlikely to be submerged even during periods of exceptionally high water (e.g., 100-year flood or 1% flood).
Alternate Separation Procedure: For anadromous populations and migratory populations that have distinct and separate spawning and nonspawning areas, the area used by each population whose spawning area is separated by a gap of at least 10 stream-km from other spawning areas within a stream system is potentially mappable as a distinct occurrence that extends down to the ocean (but see mapping guidance), regardless of whether the spawning areas are in the same or different tributaries.

For other (e.g., nonanadromous) populations in streams, separation distance is 10 stream-km for both suitable and unsuitable habitat. However, if it is known that the same population occupies sites separated by more than 10 km (e.g., this may be common for migratory, nonanadromous populations), those sites should be included within the same occurrence. In lakes, occurrences include all suitable habitat that is presumed to be occupied (based on expert judgment), even if documented collection/observation points are more than 10 km apart. Separate sub-occurrences or source features may usefully document locations of critical spawning areas within a lake.

Separation Justification: The separation distance is arbitrary but was selected to ensure that occurrences are of manageable size but not too small. Because of the difficulty in defining suitable versus unsuitable habitat, especially with respect to dispersal, and to simplify the delineation of occurrences, a single separation distance is used regardless of habitat quality.

"Restricted movement is the norm in populations of stream salmonids during nonmigratory periods," but there is considerable variation in movements within and among species (Rodriguez 2002). Redband trout in Montana had October-December home ranges of 5-377 m, consistent with small movements observed for radio-tagged brook trout and cutthroat trout during fall and winter (Muhlfeld et al. 2001). For nonanadromous populations, little is known about juvenile dispersal (e.g., how far fishes may move between between their embryonic developmental habitat and eventual spawning site).

In summer and fall, radio-tagged cutthroat trout in Strawberry Reservoir in Utah had single-month home ranges that were usually about 3-4 km in maximum length (Baldwin et al. 2002). In the Blackfoot River drainage, Montana, radio-tagged westslope cutthroat trout moved 3-72 km (mean 31 km) to access spawning tributaries (Schmetterling 2001). This indicates that migratory but nonanadromous populations may use extensive areas and that one should not invoke the 10-km separation distance without considering the full extent of the population.

Date: 25Nov2009
Author: Hammerson, G., and L. Master
Notes: This Specs Group comprises fish species that include anadromous populations (may also include nonanadromous populations), such as lampreys, sturgeons, herrings, shads, salmonids, and smelts.

Criteria for marine occurrences (Location Use Class: Marine) have not yet been established. These may not be needed for marine occurrences of species that likely will be dealt with as mixed element assemblages (e.g., Salmonid Marine Concentration Area).

Feature Descriptor Definitions:

Spawning Area: area used for spawning but not for rearing or migration.

Rearing Area: area used for larval/juvenile development but not for spawning or migration.

Migration Corridor: area used for migration but not for rearing or spawning.

Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 21Jan2010
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: T. Hopkins, P. Moyle, and G. Hammerson
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 21Jan2010
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

  • Allendorf, F. W., D. Bayles, D. L. Bottom, K. P. Currens, C. A. Frissell, D. Hankin, J. A. Lichatowich, W. Nehlsen, P. C. Trotter, and T. H. Williams. 1997. Prioritizing Pacific salmon stocks for conservation. Conservation Biology 11:140-152.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des poissons du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 9 pages.

  • B.C. Ministry of Environment. Recovery Planning in BC. B.C. Minist. Environ. Victoria, BC.

  • Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp.

  • Berg, D. R. 1995. Riparian silvicultural system design and assessment in the Pacific Northwest Cascade Mountains, USA. Ecological Applications 5:87-96.

  • COSEWIC. 2002. Canadian Species at Risk, May 2002. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 34 pp. Available online: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/

  • COSEWIC. 2002e. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch (Interior Fraser population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 34 pp.

  • Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania. Penn State Univ. Press, University Park, PA.

  • Everhart, W. H. and W. R. Seaman. 1971. Fishes of Colorado. Colorado Game, Fish and Parks.

  • Frissell, C. A. 1993. Topology of extinction and endangerment of native fishes in the Pacific Northwest and California (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology 7(2):342-354.

  • Hassler, T.J. 1987. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest)--coho salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.70).

  • Hjort, R. C. and C. B. Schreck. 1982. Phenotypic Differences Among Stock of Hatchery and Wild Coho Salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch in Oregon, Washington and California. Fishery Bulletin 80(1):105-119.

  • Huntington, C., W. Nehlsen, and J. Bowers. 1996. A survey of healthy native stocks of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and California. Fisheries 21(3):6-14.

  • Johnson, J.H. and N.H. Ringler. 1981. Natural reproduction and juvenile ecology of Pacific salmon and rainbow trout in tributaries of the Salmon River, New York. New York Fish and Game J. 28(1):49-60.

  • La Rivers, I. 1994. Fishes and fisheries of Nevada. University of Nevada Press, Reno. 782 pp.

  • Lee, D. C., and J. Hyman. 1992. The stochastic life-cycle model (SLCM): simulating the population dynamics of anadromous salmonids. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Paper INT-459, Ogden, Utah. 30 pp.

  • Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.

  • Legendre, V. et J.F. Bergeron. 1977. Liste des poissons d' eau douce du Québec. MLCP, Service Aménage. Expl. Faune. Rap. dact. 6

  • Lufkin, A., editor. 1991. California's salmon and steelhead, the struggle to restore an imperiled resource. University of California Press, Berkeley. 305 pp.

  • Marshall, T.L. and R.P. Johnson. 1971. History and results of fish introductions in Saskatchewan: 1900 - 1969. Fisheries Report No 8. Fisheries and Wildlife Branch, Department of Natural Resources, Province of Saskatchewan.

  • Meffe, G. K. 1992. Techno-arrogance and halfway technologies: salmon hatcheries on the Pacific coast of North America. Conservation Biology 6:350-354.

  • Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage, AK. 248 pp.

  • Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pp.

  • Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. xv + 502 pp.

  • Moyle, P. B., J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1989. Fish species of special concern of California. Final report submitted to California Dept. of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova. 222 pp.

  • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1995. Proposed threatened status for three contiguous ESUs of coho salmon ranging from Oregon through central California. Federal Register 60(142):38011-38030.

  • Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16(2):4-21.

  • Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

  • Nielsen, J. L., editor. 1995. Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, Bethesda, Maryland. xii + 435 pp.

  • Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

  • Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.

  • Rodriguez, M. A. 2002. Restricted movement in stream fish: the paradigm is complete, not lost. Ecology 83(1):1-13.

  • Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395-445 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. xv + 564 pp.

  • Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 184. 966 pp.

  • Shapovalov, L. and A.C. Taft. 1954. The life history of the steelhead rainbow trout and silver salmon with special reference to Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations for their management. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 98:1-375.

  • Simon, Thomas P. 2011. Fishes of Indiana. Indiana University Press. Bloomington, 345 pp.

  • Simpson, J. and R. Wallace. 1982. Fishes of Idaho. The University Press of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 238 pp.

  • Slaney, T. L., K. D. Hyatt, T. G. Northcote, and R. J. Fielden. 1996. Status of anadromous salmon and trout in British Columbia and Yukon. Fisheries 21(10):20-35.

  • Smith, C.L. 1985. The Inland Fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 522pp.

  • Stearley, R. F. 1992. Historical ecology of Salmoninae, with special reference to Oncorhynchus. Pages 622-658 in R.L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 pp.

  • Stow, C. A., S. R. Carpenter, L. A. Eby, J. F. Amrhein, and R. J. Hesselberg. 1995. Evidence that PCBc are approaching stable concentrations in Lake Michigan fishes. Ecological Applications 5:248-260.

  • Thomas, J. W., Ward, J., Raphael, M.G., Anthony, R.G., Forsman, E.D., Gunderson, A.G., Holthausen, R.S., Marcot, B.G., Reeves, G.H., Sedell, J.R. and Solis, D.M. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. The report of the Scientific Analysis Team. USDA Forest Service, Spotted Owl EIS Team, Portland Oregon. 530 pp.

  • Waples, R. S. 1990a. Conservation genetics of Pacific salmon. II. Effective population size and the rate of loss of genetic variability. Journal of Heredity 81:267-276.

  • Waples, R. S. 1990b. Conservation genetics of Pacific salmon. III. Estimating effective population size. Journal of Heredity 81:277-289.

  • Waples, R. S., and D. J. Teel. 1990. Conservation genetics of Pacific salmon. I. Temporal changes in allele frequency. Conservation Biology 4:144-156.

  • Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. 258 pp.

  • Werner, R.G. 1980. Freshwater fishes of New York State. N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. 186 pp.

  • Williams, J. E., J. A. Lichatowich, and W. Nehlsen. 1992b. Declining salmon and steelhead populations: new endangered species concerns for the West. Endangered Species Update 9(4):1-8.

  • Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. The University of Washington Press, Seattle. 220 pp.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Master, L. L. 1996. Synoptic national assessment of comparative risks to biological diversity and landscape types: species distributions. Summary Progress Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 60 pp.

  • Master, L. L. and A. L. Stock. 1998. Synoptic national assessment of comparative risks to biological diversity and landscape types: species distributions. Summary Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 36 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.