[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11482-11520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5484]



[[Page 11481]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Commerce





_______________________________________________________________________



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Parts 222, 226, and 227



Endangered and Threatened Species: West Coast Chinook Salmon; Listing 
Status Change; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 1998 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 11482]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 222, 226, and 227

[Docket No. 980225050-8050-01; I.D. 022398C]
RIN 0648-AK65


Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Endangered Status for 
Two Chinook Salmon ESUs and Proposed Threatened Status for Five Chinook 
Salmon ESUs; Proposed Redefinition, Threatened Status, and Revision of 
Critical Habitat for One Chinook Salmon ESU; Proposed Designation of 
Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat in California, Oregon, Washington, 
Idaho

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed redefinition; proposed designation and 
revision of critical habitat; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of west coast 
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, or O. tshawytscha) 
populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California in response to 
petitions filed to list chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). Based on this review, NMFS identified a total of 15 
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of chinook salmon within this 
range, including two Snake River ESUs already listed under the ESA, one 
previously identified ESU (mid-Columbia River summer/fall run) for 
which no listing was proposed, and one population (Sacramento River 
winter run) that was listed as a ``distinct population segment'' prior 
to the formulation of the NMFS ESU policy. With respect to the 12 ESUs 
that are the subject of this proposed rule, NMFS has concluded that two 
ESUs are at risk of extinction and five ESUs are at risk of becoming 
endangered in the foreseeable future. NMFS also concluded that one 
currently listed ESU should be redefined to include additional chinook 
salmon populations and that this redefined ESU is at risk of becoming 
endangered in the foreseeable future. NMFS also concluded that four 
ESUs are not at risk of extinction nor at risk of becoming endangered 
in the foreseeable future. Finally, NMFS also renamed the previously 
identified Mid-Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU as the Upper Columbia 
River summer/fall-run ESU.
    NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to list two ESUs as endangered, 
five ESUs as threatened, and to redefine one currently listed ESU to 
include additional chinook populations, under the ESA. The endangered 
chinook salmon are located in California (Central Valley spring-run 
ESU) and Washington (Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU). The 
threatened chinook salmon are dispersed throughout California, Oregon, 
and Washington. They include the California Central Valley fall-run 
ESU, the Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU, the Puget Sound 
ESU, the Lower Columbia River ESU, and the Upper Willamette River ESU. 
NMFS also proposes to redefine the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon 
ESU to include fall chinook salmon populations in the Deschutes River, 
and proposes to list this redefined ESU as a threatened species. This 
proposal does not affect the current definition and threatened status 
of the listed Snake River fall chinook salmon ESU.
    In each ESU identified as threatened or endangered, only naturally 
spawned, non-introduced chinook salmon are proposed for listing. Prior 
to the final listing determinations, NMFS will examine the relationship 
between hatchery and natural populations of chinook salmon in these 
ESUs and assess whether any hatchery populations are essential for the 
recovery of the natural populations and thus will be listed.
    NMFS is proposing to designate critical habitat for the chinook 
salmon ESUs newly proposed for listing within this notice, and for the 
Snake River fall-run ESU, proposing to revise its existing critical 
habitat. At this time, proposed critical habitat for these ESUs is the 
species' current freshwater and estuarine range, certain marine areas, 
and includes all waterways, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones 
below longstanding, impassible, natural barriers.
    NMFS is requesting public comments on the issues pertaining to this 
proposed rule. NMFS is also requesting suggestions and comments on 
integrated local/state/tribal/Federal conservation measures that will 
achieve the purposes of the ESA to recover the health of chinook salmon 
populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Should the 
proposed listing be made final, NMFS will adopt protective regulations 
and a recovery plan under the ESA.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 8, 1998. NMFS will announce 
the dates and locations of public hearings in Washington, Oregon, 
Idaho, and California in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. 
Requests for additional public hearings must be received by April 23, 
1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule, requests for reference 
materials, and requests for public hearings should be sent to Chief, 
Protected Species Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, 
Portland, OR 97232-2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, Craig 
Wingert, 562-980-4021, or Joe Blum, 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Chinook

    West Coast chinook salmon have been the subject of many Federal ESA 
actions. In November 1985, NMFS received a petition to list Sacramento 
River winter-run chinook salmon from the American Fisheries Society 
(AFS). NMFS determined that the petitioned action might be warranted 
and announced it would conduct a review of the run's status (51 FR 
5391, February 13, 1986). In its status review, NMFS determined that 
Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon was a ``species'' for the 
purposes of the ESA, but based upon the conservation and restoration 
efforts by California and other Federal resource agencies, declined to 
list the winter-run chinook at that time (52 FR 6041, February 27, 
1987). Subsequent low returns prompted NMFS to adopt an emergency rule 
listing Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon as a threatened 
species under the ESA (54 FR 10260, August 4, 1989). NMFS then issued a 
proposed rule to list Sacramento River winter-run chinook as a 
threatened species under the ESA (55 FR 102260, March 20, 1990), and 
also published a second emergency rule listing the winter-run chinook 
as threatened to avoid any lapse in ESA protections while considering 
the proposed rule (55 FR 12191, April 2, 1990). On November 5, 1990, 
NMFS completed its listing determination for Sacramento River winter-
run chinook, and published a final rule listing the run as a threatened 
species under the ESA (55 FR 46515).
    In June 1991, AFS petitioned NMFS to reclassify the winter-run as 
an endangered species. Based on the information submitted by AFS, and 
after reviewing all other available data, NMFS determined that the 
petitioned action may be warranted, and announced its intention to 
review the status of the winter-run chinook (56 FR 58986, November 7, 
1991), and then published a proposed rule to reclassify

[[Page 11483]]

winter-run chinook salmon as endangered under the ESA (57 FR 27416, 
June 19, 1992). Critical habitat for Sacramento winter-run chinook 
salmon was designated on June 16, 1993 (58 FR 33212). After several 
extensions of the listing determination and the comment period, NMFS 
finalized its proposed rule and re-classified the winter-run chinook as 
an endangered species under the ESA (59 FR 440, January 4, 1994).
    While NMFS was reviewing and reclassifying the status of Sacramento 
River chinook, NMFS also received a petition from Oregon Trout and five 
co-petitioners on June 7, 1990, to list Snake River spring/summer and 
fall chinook salmon as threatened species under the ESA. On September 
11, 1990, NMFS determined that the petition presented substantial 
scientific information indicating that the proposed action may be 
warranted, and initiated a status review (55 FR 37342). NMFS published 
a proposed rule listing two Snake River chinook salmon runs as 
threatened under the ESA on June 27, 1991 (56 FR 29542 and 56 FR 
29547). NMFS finalized its rule listing these Snake River chinook 
salmon runs as threatened species on April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14653).
    Meanwhile, on June 3, 1993, American Rivers and 10 other 
organizations petitioned NMFS to add Mid-Columbia River summer chinook 
salmon to the list of endangered species. NMFS determined that this 
petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that 
the petitioned action may be warranted, and initiated a status review 
(58 FR 46944, September 3, 1993). Subsequently, NMFS determined that 
mid-Columbia River summer chinook salmon did not qualify as an ESU, and 
therefore was not a ``distinct population segment'' under the ESA (59 
FR 48855, September 23, 1994). However, NMFS determined that mid-
Columbia River summer chinook salmon were part of a larger ESU that 
included all late-run (summer and fall) Columbia River chinook salmon 
between McNary and Chief Joseph dams. NMFS also concluded that this ESU 
did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species (59 FR 
48855, September 23, 1994).
    Immediately prior to that determination, NMFS determined that a 
petition filed on March 14, 1994, by Professional Resources 
Organization-Salmon (PRO-Salmon) to list various populations of chinook 
salmon in Washington contained substantial scientific information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (59 FR 46808, 
September 12, 1994). NMFS then announced that it would commence a 
coast-wide status review of all west coast chinook salmon (59 FR 
46808). Shortly after initiating this comprehensive coast wide status 
review for chinook and other salmon species, NMFS received a petition 
from Oregon Natural Resource Council and Dr. Richard Nawa on February 
1, 1995, to list chinook salmon throughout its range. NMFS determined 
that this petition contained substantial scientific information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and reconfirmed 
its intention to conduct a comprehensive coast wide status review of 
west coast chinook salmon (60 FR 30263, June 8, 1995).
    In the intervening period between the two most recent petitions to 
list various populations of west coast chinook salmon, NMFS published 
an emergency rule on August 18, 1994 (59 FR 42529) after determining 
that the status of Snake River spring/summer-run and Snake River fall-
run chinook salmon warranted reclassification as endangered, based on 
projected declines and low abundance levels of adult chinook salmon. 
Because emergency rules under the ESA have a maximum duration of 240 
days (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7) and 50 CFR Sec. 424.20(a)), NMFS 
published a proposed rule reclassifying listed Snake River spring/
summer-run and Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESUs as endangered 
on December 28, 1994 (59 FR 66784). Since publishing that proposed 
rule, a congressional moratorium on listing activities, a large ESA 
listing determination backlog and other delays prevented NMFS from 
completing its assessment of the proposed rule. During this period, 
abundance of both stocks of Snake River chinook salmon has increased. 
Based on these increases, along with improved management activities 
affecting these chinook salmon, NMFS concluded that the risks facing 
these chinook salmon ESUs are lower than they were at the time of the 
proposed rule, and thus NMFS withdrew the proposed reclassification (63 
FR 1807, January 12, 1998).
    During the coast wide chinook salmon status review initiated in 
September, 1994, NMFS assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial data, including technical information from Pacific Salmon 
Biological Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and interested parties in 
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The PSBTCs consisted 
primarily of scientists (from Federal, state, and local resource 
agencies, Indian tribes, industries, universities, professional 
societies, and public interest groups) possessing technical expertise 
relevant to chinook salmon and their habitats.
    A NMFS Biological Review Team, composed of scientists from NMFS' 
Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers, NMFS' Northwest and 
Southwest Regional Offices, as well as a representative of the National 
Biological Service, completed a coast wide status review for chinook 
salmon [Memorandum to W. Stelle and W. Hogarth from M. Schiewe, 
December 18, 1997, Chinook Salmon Status Review Report]. The review 
(summary follows) evaluates the status of 15 chinook salmon ESUs in the 
four states. The complete results of NMFS' status review for chinook 
salmon populations will be published in a forthcoming NOAA Technical 
Memorandum (Myers et al., 1998).

Chinook Salmon Life History and Ecology

    Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) are easily distinguished from other 
Oncorhynchus species by their large size. Adults weighing over 120 
pounds have been caught in North American waters. Chinook salmon are 
very similar to coho salmon (O. kisutch) in appearance while at sea 
(blue-green back with silver flanks), except for their large size, 
small black spots on both lobes of the tail, and black pigment along 
the base of the teeth. Chinook salmon are anadromous and semelparous. 
This means that as adults, they migrate from a marine environment into 
the fresh water streams and rivers of their birth (anadromous) where 
they spawn and die (semelparous). Adult female chinook will prepare a 
spawning bed, called a redd, in a stream area with suitable gravel 
composition, water depth and velocity. Redds will vary widely in size 
and in location within the stream or river. The adult female chinook 
may deposit eggs in 4 to 5 ``nesting pockets'' within a single redd. 
After laying eggs in a redd, adult chinook will guard the redd from 4 
to 25 days before dying. Chinook salmon eggs will hatch, depending upon 
water temperatures, between 90 to 150 days after deposition. Stream 
flow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the 
survival of developing chinook salmon eggs. Juvenile chinook may spend 
from 3 months to 2 years in freshwater after emergence and before 
migrating to estuarine areas as smolts, and then into the ocean to feed 
and mature. Historically, chinook salmon ranged as far south as the 
Ventura River, California, and their northern extent reaches the 
Russian Far East.
    Among chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved. One race, 
described

[[Page 11484]]

as a ``stream-type'' chinook, is found most commonly in headwater 
streams. Stream-type chinook salmon have a longer freshwater residency, 
and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their 
natal streams in the spring or summer months. The second race is called 
the ``ocean-type'' chinook, which is commonly found in coastal streams 
in North America. Ocean-type chinook typically migrate to sea within 
the first three months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in 
freshwater prior to emigration. They also spend their ocean life in 
coastal waters. Ocean-type chinook salmon return to their natal streams 
or rivers as spring, winter, fall, summer, and late-fall runs, but 
summer and fall runs predominate (Healey, 1991). The difference between 
these life history types is also physical, with both genetic and 
morphological foundations.
    Juvenile stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon have adapted to 
different ecological niches. Ocean-type chinook salmon tend to utilize 
estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for juvenile rearing. The 
brackish water areas in estuaries also moderate physiological stress 
during parr-smolt transition. The development of the ocean-type life 
history strategy may have been a response to the limited carrying 
capacity of smaller stream systems and glacially scoured, unproductive, 
watersheds, or a means of avoiding the impact of seasonal floods in the 
lower portion of many watersheds (Miller and Brannon, 1982).
    Stream-type juveniles are much more dependent on freshwater stream 
ecosystems because of their extended residence in these areas. A 
stream-type life history may be adapted to those watersheds, or parts 
of watersheds, that are more consistently productive and less 
susceptible to dramatic changes in water flow, or which have 
environmental conditions that would severely limit the success of 
subyearling smolts (Miller and Brannon, 1982; Healey, 1991). At the 
time of saltwater entry, stream-type (yearling) smolts are much larger, 
averaging 73-134 mm depending on the river system, than their ocean-
type (subyearling) counterparts and are therefore able to move offshore 
relatively quickly (Healey, 1991).
    Coastwide, chinook salmon remain at sea for 1 to 6 years (more 
commonly 2 to 4 years), with the exception of a small proportion of 
yearling males (called jack salmon) which mature in freshwater or 
return after 2 or 3 months in salt water (Rutter, 1904; Gilbert, 1912; 
Rich, 1920; Mullan et al., 1992). Ocean- and stream-type chinook salmon 
are recovered differentially in coastal and mid-ocean fisheries, 
indicating divergent migratory routes (Healey, 1983 and 1991). Ocean-
type chinook salmon tend to migrate along the coast, while stream-type 
chinook salmon are found far from the coast in the central North 
Pacific (Healey 1983 and 1991; Myers et al., 1984). Differences in the 
ocean distribution of specific stocks may be indicative of resource 
partitioning and may be important to the success of the species as a 
whole.
    There is a significant genetic influence to the freshwater 
component of the returning adult migratory process. A number of studies 
show that chinook salmon return to their natal streams with a high 
degree of fidelity (Rich and Holmes 1928; Quinn and Fresh, 1984; 
McIssac and Quinn, 1988). Salmon may have evolved this trait as a 
method of ensuring an adequate incubation and rearing habitat. It also 
provides a mechanism for reproductive isolation and local adaptation. 
Conversely, returning to a stream other than that of one's origin is 
important in colonizing new areas and responding to unfavorable or 
perturbed conditions at the natal stream (Quinn, 1993).
    Chinook salmon stocks exhibit considerable variability in size and 
age of maturation, and at least some portion of this variation is 
genetically determined. The relationship between size and length of 
migration may also reflect the earlier timing of river entry and the 
cessation of feeding for chinook salmon stocks that migrate to the 
upper reaches of river systems. Body size, which is correlated with 
age, may be an important factor in migration and redd construction 
success. Roni and Quinn (1995) reported that under high density 
conditions on the spawning ground, natural selection may produce stocks 
with exceptionally large-sized returning adults.
    Early researchers recorded the existence of different temporal 
``runs'' or modes in the migration of chinook salmon from the ocean to 
freshwater. Freshwater entry and spawning timing are believed to be 
related to local temperature and water flow regimes (Miller and 
Brannon, 1982). Seasonal ``runs'' (ie., spring, summer, fall, or 
winter) have been identified on the basis of when adult chinook salmon 
enter freshwater to begin their spawning migration. However, distinct 
runs also differ in the degree of maturation at the time of river 
entry, the thermal regime and flow characteristics of their spawning 
site, and their actual time of spawning. Egg deposition must occur at a 
time to ensure that fry emerge during the following spring when the 
river or estuary productivity is sufficient for juvenile survival and 
growth.

Other Life History Traits

    Pathogen resistance is another locally adapted trait. Chinook 
salmon from the Columbia River drainage were less susceptible to 
Ceratomyxa shasta, an endemic pathogen, than stocks from coastal rivers 
where the disease is not known to occur (Zinn et al., 1977). Alaskan 
and Columbia River stocks of chinook salmon exhibit different levels of 
susceptibility to the infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) 
(Wertheimer and Winton 1982). Variability in temperature tolerance 
between populations is likely due to selection for local conditions; 
however, there is little information on the genetic basis of this trait 
(Levings, 1993).

Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA

    To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the 
identified populations of chinook salmon must be considered ``species'' 
under the ESA. The ESA defines a ``species'' to include ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature.'' NMFS published a policy (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991) 
describing the agency's application of the ESA definition of 
``species'' to anadromous Pacific salmonid species. NMFS' policy 
provides that a Pacific salmonid population will be considered distinct 
and, hence, a species under the ESA if it represents an ESU of the 
biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be 
considered an ESU, it must be reproductively isolated from other 
conspecific population units, and it must represent an important 
component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The 
first criterion, reproductive isolation, need not be absolute, but must 
be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to 
accrue in different population units. The second criterion is met if 
the population contributes substantially to the ecological and genetic 
diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance on the application of 
this policy is contained in a scientific paper ``Pacific Salmon 
(Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition of `Species' under the 
Endangered Species Act'' (Waples, 1991) and a NOAA Technical Memorandum 
``Definition of `Species' Under the Endangered Species Act: Application 
to Pacific Salmon'' (NMFS F/NWC-194) which are available upon request 
(see ADDRESSES). The following sections

[[Page 11485]]

describe the genetic, ecological, and life history characteristics, as 
well as human-induced genetic changes that NMFS assessed to determine 
the number and geographic extent of chinook salmon ESUs.

Reproductive Isolation

    Genetic data provide useful indirect information on reproductive 
isolation because they integrate information about migration and gene 
flow over evolutionarily important time frames.
    Genetic information obtained from allozyme, DNA, and chromosomal 
sampling indicate strong differentiation between chinook salmon ESUs, 
and were largely consistent with those described in previous studies of 
chinook salmon. Puget Sound populations of chinook salmon appear to 
constitute a genetically distinct group, a conclusion that is 
consistent with the results of Utter et al. (1989) and Marshall et al. 
(1995). In NMFS' analyses, Washington coastal populations appeared to 
form a genetically distinct group that was most similar to, but still 
distinct from, Oregon coastal populations. The Washington coastal group 
included the Hoko River population in the western part of the Strait of 
Juan de Fuca. Chinook salmon in the Elwha River, which also drains into 
the Strait of Juan de Fuca, were genetically intermediate between Puget 
Sound and Washington coastal populations.
    Chinook salmon populations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers appear 
to be separated into two large genetic groups: those producing ocean-
type outmigrants and those producing stream-type outmigrants. The first 
group includes populations in lower Columbia River tributaries, with 
both spring-run and fall-run (``tule'') life histories. These ocean-
type populations exhibit a range of juvenile life history patterns that 
appear to depend on local environmental conditions. The Willamette 
River hatchery populations form a distinct subgroup within the lower 
Columbia River group. Ocean-type chinook salmon populations east of the 
Cascade Range Crest include both summer-and fall-run (``bright'') 
populations, and are genetically distinct from lower Columbia River 
ocean-type populations. Fall-run populations in the Snake River, 
Deschutes River, and Marion Drain (Yakima River) form a distinct 
subgroup.
    The second major group of chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake 
River drainage consists of spring- or summer-run fish. Based on 
analysis of genetic clusters, three relatively distinct subgroups 
appeared within these stream-type populations. One subgroup includes 
spring-run populations in the Klickitat, John Day, Deschutes, and 
Yakima Rivers of the mid-Columbia River. A second subgroup includes 
upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon in the Wenatchee and 
Methow Rivers, but also includes spring-run fish in the Grande Ronde 
River and Carson Hatchery. This is likely due to the releases of exotic 
Carson hatchery stock in these basins, rather than to natural genetic 
similarities. A third subgroup consists of Snake River spring- and 
summer-run populations in the Imnaha and Salmon Rivers, as well as 
those in the Rapid River and Lookingglass Hatcheries. The Klickitat 
River spring-run population appears to be genetically intermediate 
between upper and lower Columbia River groups.
    All populations of chinook salmon south of the Columbia River 
drainage appear to consist of ocean-type fish. Populations along the 
north coast of Oregon form a genetically distinct group, consisting of 
populations north of and including the Elk River, except for the Rock 
Creek Hatchery spring-run population, which show greater genetic 
affinity to southern Oregon coastal populations. A southern coastal 
group includes populations south of the Elk River to and including 
populations in the lower Klamath River in northern California. However, 
Euchre Creek, which is located near the Rogue River and has been 
planted extensively with Elk River stock, is more similar to 
populations north of Cape Blanco. Upper Klamath River populations of 
chinook salmon are genetically distinct from other northern California, 
southern Oregon and California Central Valley populations.
    Sacramento and San Joaquin River populations are genetically 
distinct from northern California coastal and Klamath River 
populations. Previous studies grouped populations in the Sacramento 
River with those in the San Joaquin River (Utter et al., 1989; Bartley 
and Gall, 1990; Bartley et al., 1992). However, Hedgecock et al. 
(1995), Banks (1996), and Nielsen (1995 and 1997) surveyed DNA markers 
and these results indicate that the winter, spring, fall, and late-fall 
runs may be genetically distinct from one another.

Genetic Changes Due to Human Activities

    The effects of artificial propagation and other human activities 
such as harvest and habitat modification, can be relevant to ESA 
listing determinations in two ways. First, such activities can 
genetically change natural populations so much that they no longer 
represent an evolutionarily significant component of the biological 
species (Waples, 1991). For example, in 1991, NMFS concluded that, as a 
result of massive and prolonged effects of artificial propagation, 
harvest, and habitat degradation, the agency could not identify natural 
populations of coho salmon (O. kisutch) in the lower Columbia River 
that qualified for ESA listing consideration (56 FR 29553, June 27, 
1991). Second, risks to the viability and genetic integrity of native 
salmon populations posed by human activities may contribute to their 
threatened or endangered status (Goodman, 1990; Hard et al., 1992). The 
severity of these effects on natural populations depends both on the 
nature of the effects (e.g., harvest rate, gear size, or type of 
hatchery practice) and their magnitude (e.g., duration of a hatchery 
program and number and life-history stage of hatchery fish involved).
    For example, artificial propagation is a common practice to 
supplement chinook salmon stocks for commercial and recreational 
fisheries. However, in many areas, a significant portion of the 
naturally spawning population consists of hatchery-produced chinook 
salmon. In several of the chinook salmon ESUs, over 50 percent of the 
naturally spawning fish are from hatcheries. Many of these hatchery-
produced fish are derived from a few stocks which may or may not have 
originated from the geographic area where they are released. However, 
in several of the ESUs analyzed, insufficient or uncertain information 
exists regarding the interactions between hatchery and natural fish, 
and the relative abundance of hatchery and natural stocks.
    Artificial propagation is important to consider in ESA evaluations 
of anadromous Pacific salmonids for several reasons. First, although 
natural fish are the focus of ESU determinations, possible effects of 
artificial propagation on natural populations must also be evaluated. 
For example, stock transfers might change the genetic bases or 
phenotypic expression of life history characteristics in a natural 
population in such a way that the population might seem either less or 
more distinctive than it was historically. Artificial propagation can 
also alter life history characteristics such as smolt age and migration 
and spawn timing (e.g., Crawford, 1979, NRC 1996). Second, artificial 
propagation poses a number of risks to natural populations that may 
affect their risk of extinction or endangerment. Finally, if any 
natural populations are listed under the ESA, then it will be necessary 
to determine the ESA status of

[[Page 11486]]

all associated hatchery populations. This latter determination would be 
made following a proposed listing and is not considered further in this 
document.
    The impacts of hatchery activities on specific ESUs is discussed in 
the Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs and Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species sections.

Ecological and Genetic Diversity

    Several types of physical and biological evidence were considered 
in evaluating the contribution of chinook salmon from Washington, 
Oregon, Idaho, and California to the ecological and genetic diversity 
of the biological species throughout its range. Factors examined 
included: (1) The physical environment--geology, soil type, air 
temperature, precipitation, river flow patterns, water temperature, and 
vegetation; (2) biogeography--marine, estuarine, and freshwater fish 
distributions; and (3) life history traits--age at smolting, age at 
spawning, river entry timing, and spawning timing. An analysis of the 
physical environment and life history traits provides important insight 
into the ecological and genetic diversity of the species and can 
reflect unusual or distinctive adaptations that promote evolutionary 
processes.
    The predominant differentiation in chinook salmon life history 
types is that between ocean- and stream-type chinook salmon. Ocean-type 
populations typically migrate to the ocean in their first year of life 
and spend most of their marine life in coastal waters, whereas stream-
type populations migrate to sea as yearlings and often make extensive 
ocean migrations.
    In some areas within the Columbia River Basin, stream- and ocean-
type chinook salmon stocks spawn in relatively close proximity to one 
another but are separated by run timing. Stream-type chinook salmon 
include spring-run populations in the Columbia River and its 
tributaries east of the Cascade Crest, and spring- and summer-run fish 
in the Snake River and its tributaries. Ocean-type chinook salmon 
include fall-run chinook salmon in both the Columbia and Snake River 
Basins, summer-run chinook salmon from the Columbia River, and spring-
run fish from the lower Columbia River. There are substantial genetic 
differences between stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon in both the 
Fraser and Columbia River Basins, and the genetic analyses show clearly 
that the two life history forms represent two major evolutionary 
lineages.
    Adult run-time has also long been used to identify different 
temporal ``races'' of chinook salmon. In cases where the run-time 
differences correspond to differences between stream- and ocean-type 
fish (e.g., in the Columbia and Fraser River Basins), relatively large 
genetic differences (as well as ecological and life history 
differences) can be found between the different runs. In most coastal 
areas, however, life history and genetic differences between the runs 
are relatively modest, relative to the larger differences used in 
designating other ESUs. Although many populations have some fraction of 
yearling migrants, all the coastal populations are part of the ocean 
lineage, and spring- and fall-run fish are very similar in ocean 
distribution.
    Among basins supporting only ocean-type chinook salmon, the 
Sacramento River system is somewhat unusual in that its large size and 
ecological diversity historically allowed for substantial spatial as 
well as temporal separation of different runs. Genetic and life history 
data both suggest that considerable differentiation among the runs has 
occurred in this basin. The Klamath River Basin, as well as chinook 
salmon in Puget Sound, shares some features of coastal rivers but 
historically also provided an opportunity for substantial spatial 
separation of different temporal runs. As discussed below, the 
diversity in run timing made identifying ESUs difficult in the Klamath 
and Sacramento River Basins.
    NMFS considers differences in life history traits as a possible 
indicator of adaptation to different environmental regimes and resource 
partitioning within those regimes. The relevance of the ecologic and 
genetic basis for specific chinook salmon life-history traits as they 
pertain to each ESU is discussed in the brief summary that follows.

ESU Determinations

    The ESU determinations described here represent a synthesis of a 
large amount of diverse information. In general, the proposed 
geographic boundaries for each ESU (i.e., the watersheds within which 
the members of the ESU are typically found) are supported by several 
lines of evidence that show similar patterns. However, the diverse data 
sets are not always entirely congruent (nor would they be expected to 
be), and the proposed boundaries are not necessarily the only ones 
possible. For example, in some cases (e.g., in the Middle Columbia 
River near the Cascade Crest), environmental changes occur over a 
transition zone rather than abruptly.
    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, 
NMFS has identified 15 ESUs of chinook salmon from Washington, Oregon, 
Idaho, and California, including 11 new ESUs, and one redefined ESU. 
The 15 ESUs are briefly described and characterized below. Genetic data 
(from studies of protein electrophoresis and DNA) were the primary 
evidence considered for the reproductive isolation criterion, 
supplemented by inferences about barriers to migration created by 
natural geographic features and human-induced changes resulting from 
artificial propagation and harvest. Factors considered to be most 
informative in evaluating ecological and genetic diversity include data 
pertaining to the physical environment, ocean conditions and upwelling, 
vegetation, estuarine and freshwater fish distributions, river entry, 
and spawning timing.
    Most of the ESUs described below include multiple spawning 
populations of chinook salmon, and most also extend over a considerable 
geographic area. This result is consistent with NMFS' species 
definition paper, which states that, in general, ``ESUs should 
correspond to more comprehensive units unless there is clear evidence 
that evolutionarily important differences exist between smaller 
population segments'' (Waples, 1991, p. 20). However, considerable 
diversity in genetic or life history traits or habitat features exists 
within most ESUs, and maintaining this diversity is critical to their 
overall health. The descriptions below briefly summarize some of the 
notable types of diversity within each ESU, and this diversity is 
considered in the next section in evaluating risk to the ESUs as a 
whole.

(1) Sacramento River Winter-Run ESU

    This run was determined to be a distinct population segment by NMFS 
in 1987, prior to development of the NMFS species policy. The NMFS 
concluded that this run meets the criteria to be considered an ESU. It 
includes chinook salmon entering the Sacramento River from November to 
June and spawning from late-April to mid-August, with a peak from May 
to June. No other chinook salmon populations have a similar life 
history pattern. In general, winter-run chinook salmon exhibit an 
ocean-type life-history strategy, with smolts emigrating to the ocean 
after 5 to 9 months of freshwater residence (Johnson et al., 1992) and 
remaining near the coasts of California and Oregon. Winter-run chinook 
salmon also mature at a

[[Page 11487]]

relatively young age (2-3 years old). DNA analysis indicates 
substantial genetic differences between winter-run and other chinook 
salmon in the Sacramento River.
    Historically, winter-run populations existed in the Upper 
Sacramento, Pit, McCloud, and Calaveras Rivers. The spawning habitat 
for these stocks was primarily located in the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion 
(Omernik, 1987). Construction of dams on these rivers in the 1940s led 
to the extirpation of populations in the San Joaquin River Basin and 
displaced the Sacramento River population to areas below Shasta Dam.

(2) Central Valley Spring-Run ESU

    Existing populations in this ESU spawn in the Sacramento River and 
its tributaries. Historically, spring chinook salmon were the dominant 
run in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Clark, 1929), but 
native populations in the San Joaquin River have apparently all been 
extirpated (Campbell and Moyle, 1990). This ESU includes chinook salmon 
entering the Sacramento River from March to July and spawning from late 
August through early October, with a peak in September. Spring-run fish 
in the Sacramento River exhibit an ocean-type life history, emigrating 
as fry, subyearlings, and yearlings. Recoveries of hatchery chinook 
salmon implanted with coded-wire-tags (CWT) are primarily from ocean 
fisheries off the California and Oregon coast. There were minimal 
differences in the ocean distribution of fall- and spring-run fish from 
the Feather River Hatchery (as determined by CWT analysis); however, 
due to hybridization that may have occurred in the hatchery between 
these two runs, this similarity in ocean migration may not be 
representative of wild runs.
    Substantial ecological differences in the historical spawning 
habitat for spring-run versus fall- and late-fall-run fish have been 
recognized. Spring chinook salmon run timing was suited to gaining 
access to the upper reaches of river systems (up to 1,500 m elevation) 
prior to the onset of prohibitively high water temperatures and low 
flows that inhibit access to these areas during the fall. Differences 
in adult size, fecundity, and smolt size also occur between spring- and 
fall/late fall-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River.
    No allozyme data are available for naturally spawning Sacramento 
River spring chinook salmon. A sample from Feather River Hatchery 
spring-run fish, which may have undergone substantial hybridization 
with fall chinook salmon, shows modest (but statistically significant) 
differences from fall-run hatchery populations. DNA data show moderate 
genetic differences between the spring and fall/late-fall runs in the 
Sacramento River; however, these data are difficult to interpret in the 
context of this broad status review because comparable data are not 
available for other geographic regions.

(3) Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-Run ESU

    This ESU includes fall and late-fall chinook salmon spawning in the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. These 
populations enter the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers from July 
through April and spawn from October through February.
    Both runs are ocean-type chinook salmon, emigrating predominantly 
as fry and subyearlings and remaining off the California coast during 
their ocean migration.
    Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin chinook salmon are genetically and 
physically distinguishable from all other coastal forms (Clark, 1929; 
Synder, 1931). Ecologically, the Central Valley also differs in many 
important ways from coastal areas. There were also a number of life-
history differences noted between Sacramento and San Joaquin River 
Basin fall/late fall-run populations. In general, San Joaquin River 
populations tend to mature at an earlier age and spawn later in the 
year than Sacramento River populations. These differences could have 
been phenotypic responses to the generally warmer temperature and lower 
flow conditions found in the San Joaquin River Basin relative to the 
Sacramento River Basin. There was no apparent difference in the 
distribution of marine CWT recoveries from Sacramento and San Joaquin 
River hatchery populations, nor were there genetic differences between 
Sacramento and San Joaquin River fall/late fall-run populations (based 
on DNA and allozyme analysis) of a similar magnitude to that used in 
distinguishing other ESUs. This apparent lack of distinguishing life 
history and genetic characteristics may be due, in part, to large scale 
transfers of Sacramento River fall/late fall-run chinook salmon into 
the San Joaquin River Basin.

(4) Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU

    This ESU includes all naturally spawned coastal spring and fall 
chinook salmon spawning from Cape Blanco (inclusive of the Elk River) 
to the southern extent of the current range for chinook salmon at Point 
Bonita (the northern landmass marking the entrance to San Francisco 
Bay). The Cape Blanco region is a major biogeographic boundary for 
numerous species (e.g., steelhead and coho salmon). Chinook salmon 
spawn in several small tributaries to San Francisco Bay, however it is 
uncertain whether these small populations are part of this ESU, or 
wanderers from Central Valley chinook salmon ESUs.
    Chinook salmon from the Central Valley and Klamath River Basin 
upstream from the Trinity River confluence are genetically and 
ecologically distinguishable from those in this ESU. Chinook salmon in 
this ESU exhibit an ocean-type life-history; ocean distribution (based 
on marine CWT recoveries) is predominantly off of the California and 
Oregon coasts. Life-history information on smaller populations, 
especially in the southern portion of the ESU, is extremely limited. 
Additionally, only anecdotal or incomplete information exists on 
abundance of several spring-run populations including, the Chetco, 
Winchuck, Smith, Mad, and Eel Rivers. Allozyme data indicate that this 
ESU is genetically distinguishable from the Oregon Coast, Upper Klamath 
and Trinity River, and Central Valley ESUs. This data also shows some 
divergence between chinook populations north and south of the Klamath 
River, but the available information is incomplete to describe chinook 
salmon south of the Klamath River as a separate ESU. Life history 
differences also exist between spring- and fall-run fish in this ESU, 
but not to the same extent as is observed in larger inland basins.
    Ecologically, the majority of the river systems in this ESU are 
relatively small and heavily influenced by a maritime climate. Low 
summer flows and high temperatures in many rivers result in seasonal 
physical and thermal barrier bars that block movement by anadromous 
fish. The Rogue River is the largest river basin in this ESU and 
extends inland into the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Ecoregions.

(5) Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU

    Included in this ESU are all Klamath River Basin populations from 
the Trinity River and the Klamath River upstream from the confluence of 
the Trinity River. These populations include both spring- and fall-run 
fish that enter the Upper Klamath River Basin from March through July 
and July through October and spawn from late August through September 
and September through early January, respectively. Body morphology

[[Page 11488]]

(vertebral counts, lateral-line scale counts, and fin-ray counts) and 
reproductive traits (egg size and number) for populations from the 
Upper Klamath River differ from those of populations in the Sacramento 
River Basin. Genetic analysis indicated that populations from the Upper 
Klamath River Basin form a unique group that is quite distinctive 
compared to neighboring ESUs. The Upper Klamath River crosses the 
Coastal Range, Sierra Nevada, and Eastern Cascades Ecoregions, although 
dams prevent access to the upper river headwaters of the Klamath River 
in the Eastern Cascades Ecoregion.
    Within the Upper Klamath River Basin, there are statistically 
significant, but fairly modest, genetic differences between the fall 
and spring runs. The majority of the spring- and fall-run fish emigrate 
to the marine environment primarily as subyearlings. Recoveries of CWTs 
indicate that both runs have a coastal distribution off of the 
California and Oregon coasts. There was no apparent difference in the 
marine distribution of CWT recoveries from fall-run (Iron Gate and 
Trinity River Hatcheries) and spring-run populations (Trinity River 
Hatchery).
    NMFS was concerned that the only estimate of the genetic 
relationship between spring and fall runs in this ESU is from a 
comparison of hatchery stocks that may have undergone some 
introgression during hatchery spawning operations, thus blurring the 
distinguishable traits between spring- and fall-run chinook in this 
ESU. NMFS acknowledges that the ESU determination should be revisited 
if substantial new information from natural spring-run populations 
becomes available.

(6) Oregon Coast ESU

    This ESU contains coastal populations of spring- and fall-run 
chinook salmon from the Elk River north to the mouth of the Columbia 
River. These populations exhibit an ocean-type life-history and mature 
at ages 3, 4, and 5. In contrast to the more southerly ocean 
distribution pattern shown by populations from the lower Columbia River 
and farther south, CWT recoveries from populations within this ESU are 
predominantly from British Columbia and Alaska coastal fisheries. There 
is a strong genetic separation between Oregon Coast ESU populations and 
neighboring ESU populations. This ESU falls within the Coastal 
Ecoregion and is characterized by a strong maritime influence, with 
moderate temperatures, high precipitation levels, and easy migration 
access.

(7) Washington Coast ESU

    Coastal populations spawning north of the Columbia River and west 
of the Elwha River are included in this ESU. These populations can be 
distinguished from those in Puget Sound by their older age at maturity 
and more northerly ocean distribution. Allozyme data also indicate 
geographical differences between populations from this area and those 
in Puget Sound, the Columbia River, and the Oregon coast ESUs. 
Populations within this ESU are ocean-type chinook salmon and generally 
mature at age 3, 4, and 5. Ocean distribution for these fish is more 
northerly than that for the Puget Sound and Lower Columbia River ESUs. 
The boundaries of this ESU lie within the Coastal Ecoregion, which is 
strongly influenced by the marine environment: high precipitation, 
moderate temperatures, and easy migration access.

(8) Puget Sound ESU

    This ESU encompasses all naturally spawned spring, summer and fall 
runs of chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region from the North Fork 
Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula, inclusive. 
Chinook salmon in this area all exhibit an ocean-type life history. 
Although some spring-run chinook salmon populations in the Puget Sound 
ESU have a high proportion of yearling smolt emigrants, the proportion 
varies substantially from year to year and appears to be 
environmentally mediated rather than genetically determined. Puget 
Sound stocks all tend to mature at ages 3 and 4 and exhibit similar, 
coastally-oriented, ocean migration patterns. There are substantial 
ocean distribution differences between Puget Sound and Washington coast 
stocks, with CWT recoveries of Washington coastal chinook found in much 
larger proportions from Alaskan waters. The marine distribution of 
Elwha River chinook salmon most closely resembled other Puget Sound 
stocks, rather than Washington coast stocks.
    The NMFS concluded that, on the basis of substantial genetic 
separation, the Puget Sound ESU does not include Canadian populations 
of chinook salmon. Allozyme analysis of North Fork and South Fork 
Nooksack River spring chinook salmon identified them as outliers, but 
most closely allied with other Puget Sound samples. DNA analysis 
identified a number of markers that appear to be restricted to either 
the Puget Sound or Washington coastal stocks. Some allozyme markers 
suggested an affinity of the Elwha River population with the Washington 
coastal stocks, while others suggested an affinity with Puget Sound 
stocks.
    The boundaries of the Puget Sound ESU correspond generally with the 
boundaries of the Puget Lowland Ecoregion. Despite being in the 
rainshadow of the Olympic Mountains, the river systems in the western 
portion of Puget Sound maintain high flow rates due to the melting 
snowpack in the surrounding mountains. Temperatures tend to be 
moderated by the marine environment. The Elwha River, which is in the 
Coastal Ecoregion, is the only system in this ESU which lies outside 
the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Furthermore, the boundary between the 
Washington Coast and Puget Sound ESUs (which includes the Elwha River 
in the Puget Sound ESU) corresponds with ESU boundaries for steelhead 
and coho salmon. In life history and genetic attributes, the Elwha 
River chinook salmon appear to be transitional between populations from 
Puget Sound and the Washington Coast ESU.

(9) Lower Columbia River ESU

    This ESU includes all naturally spawned chinook populations from 
the mouth of the Columbia River to the crest of the Cascade Range, 
excluding populations above Willamette Falls. Celilo Falls, which 
corresponds to the edge of the drier Columbia Basin Ecosystem and 
historically may have presented a migrational barrier to chinook salmon 
at certain times of the year, is the eastern boundary for this ESU. Not 
included in this ESU are ``stream-type'' spring chinook salmon found in 
the Klickitat River (which are considered part of the Mid-Columbia 
River spring-run ESU) or the introduced Carson spring-chinook salmon. 
``Tule'' fall chinook salmon in the Wind and Little White Salmon Rivers 
are included in this ESU, but not introduced ``upriver bright'' fall 
chinook salmon populations in the Wind, White Salmon, and Klickitat 
Rivers. Available information suggests that spring chinook salmon 
presently in the Clackamas and Sandy Rivers are predominantly the 
result of introductions from the Willamette River ESU and are thus 
probably not representative of spring chinook salmon found 
historically.
    In addition to the geographic features mentioned above, genetic and 
life-history data were important factors in defining this ESU. 
Populations in this ESU are considered ocean type. Some spring-run 
populations have a large proportion of yearling migrants, but this 
trend may be biased by yearling hatchery releases. Subyearling migrants 
were found to contribute to the

[[Page 11489]]

escapement. CWT recoveries for Lower Columbia River ESU populations 
indicate a northerly migration route, but with little contribution to 
the Alaskan fishery. Populations in this ESU also tend to mature at age 
3 and 4, somewhat younger than populations from the coastal, upriver, 
and Willamette ESUs. Ecologically, the Lower Columbia River ESU crosses 
several ecoregions: Coastal, Willamette Valley, Cascades and East 
Cascades.

(10) Upper Willamette River ESU

    This ESU includes naturally spawned spring-run populations above 
Willamette Falls. Fall chinook salmon above the Willamette Falls are 
introduced and although they are naturally spawning, they are not 
considered a population for purposes of defining this ESU. Historic, 
naturally spawned populations in this ESU have an unusual life history 
that shares features of both the stream and ocean types. Scale analysis 
of returning fish indicate a predominantly yearling smolt life-history 
and maturity at 4 years of age, but these data are primarily from 
hatchery fish and may not accurately reflect patterns for the natural 
fish. Young-of-year smolts have been found to contribute to the 
returning 3 year-old year class. The ocean distribution is consistent 
with an ocean-type life history, and CWT recoveries occur in 
considerable numbers in the Alaskan and British Columbian coastal 
fisheries. Intra-basin transfers have contributed to the homogenization 
of Willamette River spring chinook salmon stocks; however, Willamette 
River spring chinook salmon remain one of the most genetically 
distinctive groups of chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin.
    The geography and ecology of the Willamette Valley is considerably 
different from surrounding areas. Historically, the Willamette Falls 
offered a narrow temporal window for upriver migration, which may have 
promoted isolation from other Columbia River stocks.

(11) Mid-Columbia River Spring-Run ESU

    Included in this ESU are stream-type chinook salmon spawning in the 
Klickitat, Deschutes, John Day, and Yakima Rivers. Historically, 
spring-run populations from the Hood, Walla Walla, and Umatilla Rivers 
may have also belonged in this ESU, but these populations are now 
considered extinct. Chinook salmon from this ESU emigrate to the ocean 
as yearlings and apparently migrate far off-shore, as they do not 
appear in appreciable numbers in any ocean fisheries. The majority of 
adults spawn as 4-year-olds, with the exception of fish returning to 
the upper tributaries of the Yakima River, which return predominantly 
at age 5. Populations in this ESU are genetically distinguishable from 
other stream-type chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. 
Streams in this region drain desert areas east of the Cascades 
(Columbia Basin Ecoregion) and are ecologically differentiated from the 
colder, less productive, glacial streams of the upper Columbia River 
spring-run ESU and from the generally higher elevation streams of the 
Snake River.

(12) Upper-Columbia River Summer-and Fall-Run ESU

    This ESU was first identified as the Mid-Columbia River summer/fall 
chinook salmon ESU. Previously, Waknitz et al. (1995) and NMFS (1994) 
identified an ESU that included all ocean-type chinook salmon spawning 
in areas between McNary Dam and Chief Joseph Dam (59 FR 48855, 
September 23, 1994). However, NMFS has now concluded that the 
boundaries of this ESU do not extend downstream from the Snake River. 
In particular, NMFS concluded that Deschutes River fall chinook salmon 
are not part of this ESU. The ESU status of the Marion Drain population 
from the Yakima River is still unresolved. NMFS also identified the 
importance of obtaining more definitive genetic and life history 
information for naturally spawning fall chinook salmon elsewhere in the 
Yakima River drainage.
    Chinook salmon from this ESU primarily emigrate to the ocean as 
subyearlings but mature at an older age than ocean-type chinook salmon 
in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. Furthermore, a greater 
proportion of CWT recoveries for this ESU occur in the Alaskan coastal 
fishery than is the case for Snake River fish. The status review for 
Snake River fall chinook salmon (Waples et al., 1991; NMFS, 1992) also 
identified genetic and environmental differences between the Columbia 
and Snake Rivers. Substantial life history and genetic differences 
distinguish fish in this ESU from stream-type spring chinook salmon 
from the mid- and upper-Columbia Rivers.
    The ESU boundaries fall within part of the Columbia Basin 
Ecoregion. The area is generally dry and relies on Cascade Range 
snowmelt for peak spring flows. Historically, this ESU likely extended 
farther upstream; spawning habitat was compressed down-river following 
construction of Grand Coulee Dam.

(13) Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESU

    This ESU includes stream-type chinook salmon spawning above Rock 
Island Dam--that is, those in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers. 
All chinook salmon in the Okanogan River are apparently ocean-type and 
are considered part of the Upper Columbia River summer- and fall-run 
ESU. These upper Columbia River populations exhibit classical stream-
type life-history strategies: yearling smolt emigration with only rare 
CWT recoveries in coastal fisheries. These populations are genetically 
and ecologically well separated from the summer- and fall-run 
populations that exist in the lower parts of many of the same river 
systems.
    Rivers in this ESU drain the east slopes of the Cascade Range and 
are fed primarily by snowmelt. The waters tend to be cooler and less 
turbid than the Snake and Yakima Rivers to the south. Although these 
fish appear to be closely related genetically to stream-type chinook 
salmon in the Snake River, NMFS recognized substantial ecological 
differences between the Snake and Columbia Rivers, particularly in the 
upper tributaries favored by stream-type chinook salmon. Allozyme data 
demonstrate even larger differences between spring chinook salmon 
populations from the mid- and upper-Columbia River.
    Artificial propagation programs have had a considerable influence 
on this ESU. During the Grand Coulee Fish-Maintenance Project (GCFMP, 
1939-1943), all spring chinook salmon reaching Rock Island Dam, 
including those destined for areas above Grand Coulee Dam, were 
collected and they or their progeny were dispersed into streams in this 
ESU (Fish and Hanavan, 1948). Some ocean-type fish were undoubtedly 
also incorporated into this program. Spring-run escapements to the 
Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers were severely depressed prior to 
the GCFMP but increased considerably in subsequent years, suggesting 
that the effects of the program may have been substantial. 
Subsequently, widespread transplants of Carson stock spring chinook 
salmon (derived from a mixture of Columbia River and Snake River 
stream-type chinook salmon) have also contributed to erosion of the 
genetic integrity of this ESU.
    In spite of considerable homogenization, this ESU still represents 
an important genetic resource, in part because it presumably contains 
the last remnants of the gene pools for populations from the headwaters 
of the Columbia River.

[[Page 11490]]

(14) Snake River Fall-Run ESU

    This ESU, which includes ocean-type fish, was identified in an 
earlier status review (Waples et al., 1991; NMFS, 1992). In that status 
review and in a later review of mid-Columbia River summer chinook 
salmon (Waknitz et al., 1995), the ESU status of populations from 
Marion Drain and the Deschutes River was not resolved, so these issues 
were considered in the current review.
    Both populations show a greater genetic affinity to Snake River 
fall chinook salmon than to other ocean-type Columbia River populations 
such as the Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU. After evaluation, 
NMFS concluded that chinook salmon spawning in the Marion Drain could 
not be assigned to any historic or current ESU with any certainty.
    However, after further review, NMFS has concluded that the 
Deschutes River chinook salmon population should be considered part of 
the Snake River fall-run ESU. The Deschutes River historically 
supported a population of fall chinook salmon, as evidenced by counts 
of fish at Sherars Falls in the 1940s. Genetic and life history data 
for the current population indicate a closer affinity to fall chinook 
salmon in the Snake River than to those in the Columbia River. 
Similarities were observed in the distribution of CWT ocean recoveries 
for Snake River and Deschutes River fall-run chinook salmon; however, 
information on Deschutes River fish was based on a limited number of 
releases over a relatively short time frame. CWT recovery data indicate 
that straying by non-native chinook salmon into the Deschutes River is 
very low and does not appear to be disproportionately influenced by 
Snake River fall-run chinook salmon (Hymer et al., 1992). Fall-run 
chinook populations from the John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers 
would also be included in this ESU, but are believed to have been 
extirpated.

(15) Snake River Spring- and Summer-Run ESU

    This ESU, which includes populations of spring- and summer-run 
chinook salmon from the Snake River Basin (excluding the Clearwater 
River), was identified in a previous status review (Matthews and 
Waples, 1991; NMFS, 1992). These populations show modest genetic 
differences, but substantial ecological differences, in comparison with 
Mid- and Upper Columbia River spring- and summer-run chinook salmon 
populations. Populations from this ESU emigrate to the ocean as 
yearlings, mature at ages 4 and 5, and are rarely taken in ocean 
fisheries. The majority of the spawning habitat occurs in the Northern 
Rockies and Blue Mountains ecoregions.

Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs

    The ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is defined as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' In previous status reviews (e.g., Weitkamp et al., 1995), NMFS 
has identified a number of factors that should be considered in 
evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU, including: (1) Absolute 
numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal distribution; (2) 
current abundance in relation to historical abundance and current 
carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance; (4) natural 
and human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival and 
abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity (e.g., from strays 
or outplants from hatchery programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a 
drought or changes in harvest management) that have predictable short-
term consequences for abundance of the ESU.
    During the coastwide status review for chinook salmon, NMFS 
evaluated both qualitative and quantitative information to determine 
whether any proposed ESU is threatened or endangered according to the 
ESA. The types of information used in these assessments are described 
below, followed by a summary of results for each ESU.

Qualitative Evaluations

    Qualitative assessments of the status of chinook salmon stocks have 
been published by agencies or conservation groups (Nehlsen et al., 
1991; Higgins et al., 1992; Nickelson et al., 1992; WDF et al., 1993; 
Huntington et al., 1996). Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered salmonid 
stocks throughout Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California and 
enumerated all stocks that they found to be extinct or at risk of 
extinction. Nehlsen et al. (1991) classified stocks as extinct, 
possibly extinct, at high risk of extinction, at moderate risk of 
extinction, or of special concern. They considered it likely that 
stocks at high risk of extinction have reached the threshold for 
classification as endangered under the ESA. Stocks were placed in this 
category if they had declined from historic levels and were continuing 
to decline, or had spawning escapements less than 200. Stocks were 
classified as at moderate risk of extinction if they had declined from 
historic levels but presently appear to be stable at a level above 200 
spawners. They felt that stocks in this category had reached the 
threshold for threatened under the ESA. They classified stocks as of 
special concern if a relatively minor disturbance could threaten them, 
insufficient data were available for them, they were influenced by 
large releases of hatchery fish, or they possess some unique 
characteristic.
    Higgins et al. (1992) used the same classification scheme as 
Nehlsen et al. (1991) but provided a more detailed review of some 
northern California salmonid stocks. In this review, their evaluation 
is relevant only to the Southern Oregon and California Coastal and 
Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESUs.
    Nickelson et al. (1992) rated wild coastal (excluding Columbia 
River Basin) Oregon salmon and steelhead stocks on the basis of their 
status over the past 20 years, classifying stocks as ``healthy,'' 
``depressed,'' ``of special concern,'' or ``unknown''.
    WDF et al. (1993) categorized all salmon and steelhead stocks in 
Washington on the basis of stock origin, production type, and status 
(``healthy,'' ``depressed,'' ``critical,'' or ``unknown'').
    Huntington et al. (1996) surveyed the condition of healthy native 
or wild stocks of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and 
California. Stocks were classified as healthy based upon abundance, 
self-sustainability, and not having been previously identified as at 
substantial risk of extinction. Healthy stocks were described at two 
levels: ``adult abundance at least two-thirds as great as would be 
found in the absence of human impacts'' (Level I); and ``adult 
abundance between one-third and two-thirds as great as expected without 
human impacts'' (Level II).
    There are problems in applying results of these studies to ESA 
evaluations. A major problem is that the definition of ``stock'' or 
``population'' varied considerably in scale among studies, and 
sometimes among regions within a study. Identified units range in size 
from large river basins (e.g., ``Sacramento River'' in Nehlsen et al., 
1991), to minor coastal streams and tributaries. A second problem is 
the definition of categories used to classify stock status. Only 
Nehlsen et al. (1991) and Higgins et al. (1992) used categories 
intended to relate to ESA ``threatened'' or ``endangered'' status, and 
they applied their own interpretations of these terms to individual 
stocks, not to

[[Page 11491]]

ESUs as defined here. WDF et al. (1993) used general terms describing 
status of stocks that cannot be directly related to the considerations 
important in ESA evaluations. A third problem is the selection of 
stocks or populations to include in the review. Nehlsen et al. (1991) 
and Higgins et al. (1992) did not discuss stocks not perceived to be at 
risk, so it is difficult to determine the proportion of stocks they 
considered to be at risk in any given area. For chinook salmon, WDF et 
al. (1993) included only stocks considered to be substantially ``wild'' 
and included data only for the ``wild'' component for streams that have 
both hatchery and natural fish escaping to spawn, giving an incomplete 
evaluation of chinook salmon utilizing natural habitat.

Quantitative Evaluations

    Quantitative evaluations of data included comparisons of current 
and historical abundance of chinook salmon, calculation of recent 
trends in escapement, and evaluation of the proportion of natural 
spawning attributable to hatchery fish. Historical abundance 
information for these ESUs is largely anecdotal. Time series data are 
available for many populations, but data extent and quality varied 
among ESUs. NMFS compiled and analyzed this information to provide 
several summary statistics of natural spawning abundance, including 
(where available) recent total spawning escapement, percent annual 
change in total escapement (both long-term and most recent ten years), 
recent naturally produced spawning escapement, and average percentage 
of natural spawners that were of hatchery origin.
    Although this evaluation used the best data available, there are a 
number of limitations to these data, and not all summary statistics 
were available for all populations. For example, spawner abundance was 
generally not measured directly; rather, it often had to be estimated 
from catch (which itself may not always have been measured accurately) 
or from limited survey data.
    Sport and commercial harvest impacts were compiled from a variety 
of sources. In presenting this information, NMFS has tried to maintain 
a clear distinction between harvest rates (usually calculated as catch 
divided by catch plus escapement for a cohort or brood year) and 
exploitation rates (age-specific rates of exploitation in individual 
fisheries).
    Stream surveys for chinook salmon spawning abundance have been 
conducted by various agencies within most of the ESUs considered here. 
The methods and time-spans of the surveys vary considerably among 
regions, so it is difficult to assess the general reliability of these 
surveys as population indices. For most streams where these surveys are 
conducted, they are the best local indication of population trends.
    Dam counts provide quantitative estimates of run size, but in most 
cases, these counts cannot be resolved to the individual population 
level and are subject to errors stemming from fallback, run 
classification, and unaccounted mortality. Run reconstructions 
providing estimates of both adult spawning abundance and fishery 
recruits are being prepared for many stream-type chinook salmon 
populations in the Columbia River Basin (Beamsderfer et al., 1997 draft 
report), but were not available in final form for this review.
    As noted above, NMFS attempted to distinguish natural and hatchery 
production in these evaluations. Doing this quantitatively would 
require good estimates of the proportion of natural escapement that was 
of hatchery origin, and knowledge of the effectiveness of spawning by 
hatchery fish in natural environments. Unfortunately, this type of 
information is rarely available, and for most ESUs NMFS is limited to 
reporting whatever estimates of escapement of hatchery fish to natural 
systems that were made available.

Computed Statistics

    To represent current run size or escapement where recent data were 
available, NMFS computed the geometric mean of the most recent five 
years reported, while trying to use only estimates that reflect the 
total abundance for an entire river basin or tributary, avoiding index 
counts or dam counts that represent only a small portion of available 
habitat.
    Recent average abundance is reported as the geometric mean of the 
most recent 5 years of data. Where time-series data were not available, 
NMFS relied on recent estimates from state agency reports; time periods 
included in such estimates varied considerably.
    Historic run size estimates from cannery pack data were made by 
converting the largest number of cases of cans packed in a single 
season to numbers of fish in the spawning run.
    NMFS calculated recent trends from the most recent 10 years, using 
data collected after 1984 for series having at least 7 observations 
since 1984. No attempt was made to account for the influence of 
hatchery-produced fish on these estimates, so the estimated trends 
include the progeny of naturally spawning hatchery fish.
    After evaluating patterns of abundance drawn on these quantitative 
and qualitative assessments, and evaluating other risk factors for 
chinook salmon from these ESUs, NMFS reached the following conclusions 
summarized below.
(1) Sacramento River Winter-Run ESU
    Presently listed as endangered under the California and Federal 
Endangered Species Acts, this ESU has been extensively reviewed by NMFS 
(NMFS 1987, 1989, 1990a,b, 1994b). That information is only summarized 
and updated here.
    Historically the winter run was abundant and comprised populations 
in the McCloud, Pit, Little Sacramento, and Calaveras Rivers. 
Construction of Shasta Dam in the 1940s eliminated access to all of the 
historic spawning habitat for winter-run chinook salmon in the 
Sacramento River Basin. Since then, the ESU has been reduced to a 
single spawning population confined to the mainstem Sacramento River 
below Keswick Dam (Reynolds et al., 1993).
    The fact that this ESU is comprised of a single population with 
very limited spawning and rearing habitat increases risk of extinction 
due to local catastrophe or poor environmental conditions. There are no 
other natural populations in the ESU to buffer it from natural 
fluctuations.
    Because the Sacramento River winter-run ESU is currently listed as 
an endangered species, NMFS did not review its previous risk conclusion 
here.
(2) Central Valley Spring-Run ESU
    Native spring chinook salmon have been extirpated from all 
tributaries in the San Joaquin River Basin, which represents a large 
portion of the historic range and abundance of the ESU as a whole. The 
only streams considered to have wild spring-run chinook salmon are Mill 
and Deer Creeks, and possibly Butte Creek (tributaries to the 
Sacramento River), and these are relatively small populations with 
sharply declining trends. Demographic and genetic risks due to small 
population sizes are thus considered to be high.
    Habitat problems are the most important source of ongoing risk to 
this ESU. Spring-run fish cannot access most of their historical 
spawning and rearing habitat in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River 
Basins (which is now above impassable dams), and current spawning is 
restricted to the mainstem and a few river tributaries in the 
Sacramento River. The remaining spawning habitat accessible to fish is 
severely degraded. Collectively, these

[[Page 11492]]

habitat problems greatly reduce the resiliency of this ESU to respond 
to additional stresses in the future. The general degradation of 
conditions in the Sacramento River Basin (including elevated water 
temperatures, agricultural and municipal diversions and returns, 
restricted and regulated flows, entrainment of migrating fish into 
unscreened or poorly screened diversions, and the poor quality and 
quantity of remaining habitat) has severely impacted important juvenile 
rearing habitat and migration corridors.
    There appears to be serious concern for threats to genetic 
integrity posed by hatchery programs in the Central Valley. Most of the 
spring-run chinook salmon production in the Central Valley is of 
hatchery origin, and naturally spawning populations may be 
interbreeding with both fall/late fall- and spring-run hatchery fish. 
This problem is exacerbated by the increasing production of spring 
chinook salmon from the Feather River and Butte Creek Hatcheries, 
especially in light of reports suggesting a high degree of mixing 
between spring- and fall/late fall-run broodstock in the hatcheries. In 
addition, hatchery strays are considered to be an increasing problem 
due to the management practice of releasing a larger proportion of fish 
off station (into the Sacramento River delta and San Francisco Bay).
    The only previous assessment of risk to stocks in this ESU is that 
of Nehlsen et al. (1991), who identified several stocks as being at 
risk or of special concern. Four stocks were identified as extinct 
(spring/summer-run chinook salmon in the American, McCloud, Pit, and 
San Joaquin (including tributaries) Rivers) and two stocks (spring-run 
chinook salmon in the Sacramento and Yuba Rivers) were identified as 
being at a moderate risk of extinction.
    As discussed above, habitat problems were considered to be the most 
important source of ongoing risk to this ESU. However, NMFS is also 
quite concerned about threats to genetic integrity posed by hatchery 
programs in the Central Valley, as well as related harvest regimes that 
may not be allowing recovery of this at-risk population. Based on this 
risk, NMFS concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are in danger of 
extinction.
(3) Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-Run ESU
    Although total population abundance in this ESU is relatively high, 
perhaps near historic levels, NMFS identified several concerns 
regarding its status. The abundance of natural fall chinook salmon in 
the San Joaquin River Basin is low leading NMFS to conclude a large 
proportion of the historic range of this ESU is severely degraded. 
Habitat blockage is not as severe for fall/late fall-run chinook salmon 
as it is for winter- and spring-run chinook salmon in this region 
because most of fall/late fall-run spawning habitat was below dams 
constructed in the region. However, there has been a severe degradation 
of the remaining habitat, especially due to agricultural and municipal 
water use activities in the Central Valley (which result in point and 
non-point pollution, elevated water temperatures, diminished flows, and 
smolt and adult entrainment into poorly screened or unscreened 
diversions). Additionally, stray rates are high because many hatchery 
fish are released off-station to avoid adverse river conditions, 
resulting in a much larger proportion of hatchery chinook salmon 
present in the natural spawning population.
    A mitigating factor for the overall risk to the ESU is that a few 
of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin tributaries are showing 
recent, short-term increases in abundance. However, the streams 
supporting natural runs considered to be the least influenced by 
hatchery fish have the lowest abundance and the most consistently 
negative trends of all populations in the ESU. In general, high 
hatchery production combined with infrequent monitoring of natural 
production make assessing the sustainability of natural production 
problematic, resulting in substantial uncertainty in assessing the 
status of this ESU.
    Other concerns facing chinook salmon in this ESU are the high ocean 
and freshwater harvest rates in recent years, which may be higher than 
is sustainable by natural populations given the productivity of the ESU 
under present habitat conditions. The mixed stock ocean salmon off 
California fisheries are managed to achieve spawning escapement goals 
for two main indicator stocks: Sacramento River fall chinook and 
Klamath River fall chinook. Harvest may be further constrained to meet 
NMFS' ESA requirements for listed species, including Sacramento River 
winter chinook, Central California Coastal and Southern Oregon/Northern 
California coho, and Snake River fall chinook. Since 1993, the need to 
address Indian fishing rights in the Klamath River Basin has required 
significant reductions in the ocean harvest rate on Klamath River fall 
chinook. As a result of the need to constrain ocean harvest rates on 
Klamath River fall chinook, commercial fisheries have not been allowed 
to harvest Central Valley stocks to the extent that would be permitted 
by the management goal for Sacramento River fall chinook alone (122,000 
to 180,000 adult hatchery and natural spawners). Spawning escapements 
have been well above the goal range in recent years. A record number of 
adults (324,000) returned in 1997. The harvest rate on Central Valley 
stocks is indicated by the Central Valley Harvest Rate Index, which is 
computed as the chinook harvest south of Point Arena divided by the sum 
of the chinook harvest south of Point Arena and Central Valley adult 
chinook spawning escapement of the same year. This harvest rate index 
has averaged 0.73 over the past 10 years and declined somewhat in 1996 
and 1997 to 0.64 and 0.66 respectively.
    The only previous assessment of risk to stocks in this ESU is that 
of Nehlsen et al. (1991), who identified two stocks (San Joaquin and 
Cosumnes Rivers) as of special concern.
    Even though total population abundance in this ESU is relatively 
high, perhaps near historical levels, the abundance of natural fall 
chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River Basin is low. Habitat problems 
were considered to be the most important source of ongoing risk to this 
ESU, although NMFS is extremely concerned about threats to genetic 
integrity posed by hatchery and harvest programs related to fall/late 
fall-run chinook salmon. Therefore, NMFS concluded that chinook salmon 
in this ESU are not presently in danger of extinction but are likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable future.
(4) Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU
    This ESU contains chinook salmon from the Elk River, Oregon south 
to the northern cape forming San Francisco Bay. Chinook salmon spawning 
abundance in this ESU is highly variable among populations, with 
populations in California and spring-run chinook salmon throughout the 
ESU being of particular concern. There is a general pattern of downward 
trends in abundance in most populations for which data are available, 
with declines being especially pronounced in spring-run populations. 
The extremely depressed status of almost all coastal populations south 
of the Klamath River is an important source of risk to the ESU. NMFS 
has a general concern that no current information is available for many 
river systems in the southern portion of this ESU, which historically 
maintained numerous large populations. Although these California 
coastal

[[Page 11493]]

populations do not form a separate ESU, they represent a considerable 
portion of genetic and ecological diversity within this ESU.
    Habitat loss and/or degradation is widespread throughout the range 
of the ESU. The California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead 
Trout (CACSST) reported habitat blockages and fragmentation, logging 
and agricultural activities, urbanization, and water withdrawals as the 
most predominant problems for anadromous salmonids in California's 
coastal basins (CACSST, 1988). They identified associated habitat 
problems for each major river system in California. CDFG (1965, Vol. 
III, Part B) reported that the most vital habitat factor for coastal 
California streams was ``degradation due to improper logging followed 
by massive siltation, log jams, etc.'' They cited road building as 
another cause of siltation in some areas. They identified a variety of 
specific critical habitat problems in individual basins, including 
extremes of natural flows (Redwood Creek and Eel River), logging 
practices (Mad, Eel, Mattole, Ten Mile, Noyo, Big, Navarro, Garcia, and 
Gualala Rivers), and dams with no passage facilities (Eel, and Russian 
Rivers), and water diversions (Eel and Russian Rivers). Such problems 
also occur in Oregon streams within the ESU. The Rogue River Basin in 
particular has been affected by mining activities and unscreened 
irrigation diversions (Rivers, 1963) in addition to the problems 
resulting from logging and dam construction. Kostow (1995) estimated 
that one-third of spring chinook salmon spawning habitat in the Rogue 
River was inaccessible following the construction of Lost Creek Dam 
(River Kilometer (RKm) 253) in 1977. Recent major flood events 
(February 1996 and January 1997) have probably affected habitat quality 
and survival of juveniles within this ESU. Although NMFS has little 
information on these floods specific to this ESU, effects are probably 
similar to those discussed below for the Oregon and Washington Coastal 
Region.
    Artificial propagation programs in the Southern Oregon and Coastal 
California ESU are less extensive than those in Klamath/Trinity or 
Central Valley ESUs. The Rogue, Chetco and Eel River Basins and Redwood 
Creek have received considerable releases, derived primarily from local 
sources. Current hatchery contribution to overall abundance is 
relatively low except for the Rogue River spring run. The hatchery-to-
total run ratio of Rogue River spring chinook salmon, as measured at 
Gold Ray Dam (RKm 201), has exceeded 60% in some years (Kostow, 1995).
    Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified 
several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991) 
identified seven stocks as at high extinction risk and seven stocks as 
at moderate extinction risk. Higgins et al. (1992) provided a more 
detailed analysis of some of these stocks, and identified nine chinook 
salmon stocks as at risk or of concern. Four of these stocks agreed 
with the Nehlsen et al. (1991) designations, while five fall chinook 
salmon stocks were either reassessed from a moderate risk of extinction 
to stocks of concern (Redwood Creek, Mad River, and Eel River) or were 
additions to the Nehlsen et al. (1991) list as stocks of special 
concern (Little and Bear Rivers). Fall chinook salmon in the Rogue 
River represent the only relatively healthy population(s) NMFS could 
identify in this ESU (Huntington et al., 1996).
    There is a general pattern of downward trends in abundance in most 
populations for which data are available, with declines being 
especially pronounced in spring-run populations within this ESU. The 
lack of population monitoring, particularly in the California portion 
of the range, led to a high degree of uncertainty regarding the status 
of these populations. NMFS concluded that the extremely depressed 
status of almost all coastal populations south of the Klamath River is 
an important source of risk to the ESU. Overall, NMFS concluded that 
chinook salmon in this ESU are likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future.
(5) Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU
    The question of overall risk was difficult to evaluate because of 
the large disparity in the status of spring- and fall-run populations 
within the ESU. Spring-run chinook salmon were once the dominant run 
type in the Klamath-Trinity River Basin. Most spring-run spawning and 
rearing habitat was blocked by the construction of dams in the late 
1800s and early 1900s in the Klamath River Basin, and in the 1960s in 
the Trinity River Basin. As a result of these and other factors, 
spring-run populations are at less than 10 percent of their historic 
levels, and at least 7 spring-run populations that once existed in the 
basin are now considered extinct. The remaining spring runs have 
relatively small population sizes and are isolated in just a few areas 
of the basin, resulting in genetic and demographic risks.
    Fall-run chinook populations in this ESU are stable or increasing 
slightly. Substantial numbers of fall-run chinook salmon spawn 
naturally in many areas of the ESU. However, natural populations have 
frequently failed to meet modest spawning escapement goals despite 
active harvest management. In addition to habitat blockages, there 
continues to be severe degradation of remaining habitat due to mining, 
agricultural and forestry activities, and water storage and transfer. 
Furthermore, hatchery production in the basin is substantial, with 
considerable potential for interbreeding between natural and hatchery 
fish. NMFS is concerned that hatchery fish spawning naturally may mask 
declines in natural populations.
    Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified 
several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991) 
identified seven stocks as extinct, two stocks (Klamath River spring 
chinook salmon and Shasta River fall chinook salmon) as at high 
extinction risk, and Scott River fall chinook salmon as of special 
concern. Higgins et al. (1992) provided a more detailed analysis of 
some of the stocks identified by Nehlsen et al. (1991), classifying 
three chinook salmon stocks as at risk. Additionally, three chinook 
salmon stocks were identified as of special concern. Of these, one 
(Scott River fall run) agreed with Nehlsen et al. (1991), while two 
were additions (Trinity River spring run and South Fork Trinity River 
fall run).
    In summary, the question of overall risk was difficult to evaluate 
because of the large disparity in the status of spring- and fall-run 
populations within the ESU. However, NMFS has concluded that, because 
of the relative health of the fall-run populations, chinook salmon in 
this ESU are not at significant risk of extinction, nor are they likely 
to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
(6) Oregon Coast ESU
    Production in this ESU is mostly dependent on naturally-spawning 
fish, and spring-run chinook salmon in this ESU are in relatively 
better condition than those in adjacent ESUs. Long-term trends in 
abundance of chinook salmon within most populations in this ESU are 
upward.
    In spite of a generally positive outlook for this ESU, several 
populations are exhibiting recent and severe (>9 percent per year) 
short-term declines in abundance. In addition, there are several 
hatchery programs and Salmon and Trout Enhancement Programs (STEP) 
releasing chinook salmon throughout the ESU, and many of the fish 
released are derived from a single stock (Trask River). Most 
importantly, there is a lack of clear information on

[[Page 11494]]

the degree of straying of these hatchery fish into naturally-spawning 
populations. There are also many populations within the ESU for which 
there are no abundance data; thus NMFS is concerned about the uncertain 
risk assessment given these data gaps. Finally, exploitation rates on 
chinook salmon from this ESU have been high in the past, and the level 
of harvest could be a significant source of risk if it continues at 
historically high rates. Also, freshwater habitats are generally in 
poor condition, with numerous problems such as low summer flows, high 
temperatures, loss of riparian cover, and streambed changes.
    Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified 
several as being at risk or of concern; however, the preponderance of 
stocks have been identified as healthy. Nehlsen et al. (1991) 
identified two stocks as at high extinction risk (South Umpqua River 
and Coquille River spring-run), one stock as at moderate extinction 
risk (Yachats River fall-run) and five stocks as of special concern. Of 
the 44 stocks within this ESU considered by Nickelson et al. (1992), 26 
were identified as healthy, 2 as depressed (South Umpqua River and 
Coquille River spring chinook salmon), 7 as of special concern due to 
hatchery strays, and 9 of unknown status (4 of which they suggested may 
not be viable). Huntington et al. (1996) identified 18 stocks in their 
survey: 6 healthy Level I and 12 healthy Level II stocks.
    Abundance of this ESU is relatively high, and fish are well 
distributed among numerous, relatively small river basins. Long-term 
trends in abundance of chinook salmon within most populations in this 
ESU are upward. NMFS has concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are 
neither presently in danger of extinction nor are they likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future.
(7) Washington Coast ESU
    Long-term trends in population abundance have been predominantly 
upward for the medium and larger populations but are sharply downward 
for several of the smaller populations. In general, abundance and trend 
indicators are more favorable for stocks in the northern portion of the 
ESU, and more favorable for fall-run populations than for spring- or 
summer-run fish. This disparity was a source of concern regarding the 
overall health of the ESU.
    All basins are affected by habitat degradation, largely related to 
forestry practices. Tributaries inside Olympic National Park are 
generally in the best condition regarding habitat quality. Special 
concern was expressed regarding the status of spring-run populations 
throughout the ESU and fall-run populations in Willapa Bay and parts of 
the Grays Harbor drainage.
    Hatchery production is substantial in several basins within the 
range of the ESU, and several populations are identified as being of 
composite production. There is considerable potential for hatchery fish 
to stray into natural populations, especially since some hatcheries are 
apparently unable to effectively attract returning adults. Hatchery 
influence is greatest in the southern part of the ESU region, 
especially in Willapa Bay, where there have been numerous introductions 
of stocks from outside of the ESU. Furthermore, the use of an exotic 
spring-run stock at the Sol Duc Hatchery was cited as a cause of 
concern.
    Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified 
several as being at risk or of concern, but more stocks have been 
identified as healthy than at risk. Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified 
one stock as extinct (Pysht River fall run), one as possibly extinct 
(Ozette River fall run), and one as at high risk of extinction 
(Wynoochee River spring run), although there is some question whether 
the Wynoochee River spring run ever existed (WDFW, 1997a). WDF et al. 
(1993) considered the status of 18 native stocks, and concluded that 11 
were healthy, 4 were depressed, and 3 were unknown. Huntington et al. 
(1996) identified 12 stocks in their survey: 1 healthy Level I stock 
(Quillayute/Bogachiel River fall run) and 11 healthy Level II stocks.
    Recent abundance has been relatively high, although it is less than 
estimated peak historical abundance in this region. Chinook salmon in 
this ESU are distributed among a relatively large number of 
populations, most of which are large enough to avoid serious genetic 
and demographic risks associated with small populations. NMFS concluded 
that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in danger of 
extinction nor are they likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future.
(8) Puget Sound ESU
    Overall abundance of chinook salmon in this ESU has declined 
substantially from historical levels, and many populations are small 
enough that genetic and demographic risks are likely to be relatively 
high. Both long- and short-term trends in abundance are predominantly 
downward, and several populations are exhibiting severe short-term 
declines. Spring chinook salmon populations throughout this ESU are all 
depressed.
    Habitat throughout the ESU has been blocked or degraded. In 
general, upper tributaries have been impacted by forest practices and 
lower tributaries and mainstem rivers have been impacted by agriculture 
and/or urbanization. Diking for flood control, draining and filling of 
freshwater and estuarine wetlands, and sedimentation due to forest 
practices and urban development are cited as problems throughout the 
ESU (WDF et al., 1993). Blockages by dams, water diversions, and shifts 
in flow regime due to hydroelectric development and flood control 
projects are major habitat problems in several basins. Bishop and 
Morgan (1996) identified a variety of important habitat issues for 
streams in the range of this ESU, including changes in flow regime (all 
basins), sedimentation (all basins), high temperatures (Dungeness, 
Elwha, Green/Duwamish, Skagit, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers), 
streambed instability (most basins), estuarine loss (most basins), loss 
of large woody debris (Elwha, Snohomish, and White Rivers), loss of 
pool habitat (Nooksack, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers), and 
blockage or passage problems associated with dams or other structures 
(Cedar, Elwha, Green/Duwamish, Snohomish, and White Rivers). The Puget 
Sound Salmon Stock Review Group (PFMC) provided an extensive review of 
habitat conditions for several of the stocks in this ESU (PFMC, 1997a). 
They concluded that reductions in habitat capacity and quality have 
contributed to escapement problems for Puget Sound chinook salmon, 
citing evidence of curtailment of tributary and mainstem habitat due to 
dams, and losses of slough and side-channel habitat due to diking, 
dredging, and hydromodification.
    Nearly 2 billion fish have been released into Puget Sound 
tributaries since the 1950s. The preponderance of hatchery production 
throughout the ESU may mask trends in natural populations and makes it 
difficult to determine whether they are self-sustaining. This 
difficulty is compounded by the dearth of data pertaining to proportion 
of naturally-spawning fish that are of hatchery origin. There has also 
been widespread use of a limited number of hatchery stocks, resulting 
in increased risk of loss of fitness and diversity among populations. 
WDF et al. (1993) classified 11 out of 29 stocks in this ESU as being 
sustained, in part, through artificial propagation. The vast majority 
of these have been derived from local returning fall-run adults. 
Returns to hatcheries have accounted for over half of the total 
spawning escapement,

[[Page 11495]]

although the hatchery contribution to spawner escapement is probably 
much higher than that, due to hatchery-derived strays on the spawning 
grounds. In the Stillaguamish River, summer chinook have been 
supplemented under a wild broodstock program for the last decade. In 
some years, returns from this program have comprised up to 30-50% of 
the natural spawners, suggesting that the unaided stock is not able to 
maintain itself (NWIFC, 1997). Almost all of the releases into this ESU 
have come from stocks within this ESU, with the majority of within ESU 
transfers coming from the Green River Hatchery or hatchery broodstocks 
that have been derived from Green River stock (Marshall et al., 1995). 
The electrophoretic similarity between Green River fall-chinook salmon 
and several other fall chinook salmon stocks in Puget Sound (Marshall 
et al., 1995) suggests that there may have been a significant effect 
from some hatchery transplants. Overall, the pervasive use of Green 
River stock throughout much of the extensive hatchery network that 
exists in this ESU may reduce the genetic diversity and fitness of 
naturally spawning populations.
    Harvest impacts on Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks are quite 
high. Ocean exploitation rates on natural stocks averaged 56-59%; total 
exploitation rates average 68-83% (1982-89 brood years) (Pacific Salmon 
Commission (PSC), 1994). Total exploitation rates on some stocks have 
exceeded 90% (PSC, 1994).
    Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified 
several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991) 
identified four stocks as extinct, four stocks as possibly extinct, six 
stocks as at high risk of extinction, one stock as a moderate risk 
(White River spring run), and one stock (Puyallup River fall run) as of 
special concern. WDF et al. (1993) considered 28 stocks within the ESU, 
of which 13 were considered to be of native origin and predominantly 
natural production. The status of these 13 stocks was: 2 healthy (Upper 
Skagit River summer run and Upper Sauk River spring run), 5 depressed, 
2 critical (South-Fork Nooksack River spring/summer run and Dungeness 
River spring/summer run), and 4 unknown.
    Overall abundance of chinook salmon in this ESU has declined 
substantially from historical levels, and both long-and short-term 
trends in abundance are predominantly downward. Several populations are 
exhibiting severe short-term declines. Spring chinook salmon 
populations throughout this ESU are all depressed. NMFS concluded that 
chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in danger of extinction, 
but they are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
(9) Lower Columbia River ESU
    Apart from the relatively large and apparently healthy fall-run 
population in the Lewis River, production in this ESU appears to be 
predominantly hatchery-driven with few identifiable naturally spawned 
populations.
    All basins are affected (to varying degrees) by habitat 
degradation. Major habitat problems are primarily related to blockages, 
forest practices, urbanization in the Portland and Vancouver areas, and 
agriculture in floodplains and low-gradient tributaries. Substantial 
chinook salmon spawning habitat has been blocked (or passage 
substantially impaired) in the Cowlitz (Mayfield Dam 1963, RKm 84), 
Lewis (Merwin Dam 1931, RKm 31), Clackamas (North Fork Dam 1958, RKm 
50), Hood (Powerdale Dam 1929, RKm 7), and Sandy (Marmot Dam 1912, RKm 
48; Bull Run River dams early 1900s) Rivers (WDF et al., 1993; Kostow, 
1995).
    Hatchery programs to enhance chinook salmon fisheries abundance in 
the lower Columbia River began in the 1870s, expanded rapidly, and have 
continued throughout this century. Although the majority of the stocks 
have come from within this ESU, over 200 million fish from outside the 
ESU have been released since 1930. A particular concern at the present 
time is the straying by Rogue River fall chinook salmon, which are 
released into the lower Columbia River to augment harvest 
opportunities. Available evidence indicates a pervasive influence of 
hatchery fish on natural populations throughout this ESU, including 
both spring-and fall-run populations (Howell et al., 1985; Marshall et 
al., 1995). In addition, the exchange of eggs between hatcheries in 
this ESU has led to the extensive genetic homogenization of hatchery 
stocks (Utter et al., 1989). The large numbers of hatchery fish in this 
ESU make it difficult to determine the proportion of naturally produced 
fish. In spite of the heavy impact of hatcheries, genetic and life 
history characteristics of populations in this ESU still differ from 
those in other ESUs. The loss of fitness and diversity within the ESU 
as an important concern.
    Harvest rates on fall-run stocks are moderately high, with an 
average total exploitation rate of 65 percent (1982-89 brood years) 
(PSC, 1994). The average ocean exploitation rate for this period was 46 
percent, while the freshwater harvest rate on the fall run has averaged 
20 percent, ranging from 30 percent in 1991 to 2.4 percent in 1994. 
Harvest rates are somewhat lower for spring run stocks, with estimates 
for the Lewis River averaging 24 percent ocean and 50 percent total 
exploitation rates in 1982-89 (PSC, 1994). In inriver fisheries, 
approximately 15 percent of the lower river hatchery stock was 
harvested, 29 percent of the lower river wild stock was harvested, and 
58 percent of the Spring Creek hatchery stock was harvested, while the 
average inriver exploitation rate on the stock as a whole was 29 
percent during the 1991-1995 period (PFMC, 1996b).
    Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified 
several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991) 
identified two stocks as extinct (Lewis River spring run and Wind River 
fall run), four stocks as possibly extinct, and four stocks as at high 
risk of extinction. WDF et al. (1993) considered 20 stocks within the 
ESU, of which only 2 (Lewis River and East Fork Lewis River fall runs) 
were considered to be of native origin, predominantly natural 
production, and healthy. Huntington et al. (1996) identified one 
healthy Level I stock in their survey (Lewis River fall run).
    There have been at least six documented extinctions of populations 
in this ESU, and it is possible that extirpation of other native 
populations has occurred but has been masked by the presence of 
naturally spawning hatchery fish. Long-and short-term trends in 
abundance of individual populations are mostly negative, some severely 
so. About half of the populations comprising this ESU are very small, 
increasing the likelihood that risks due to genetic and demographic 
drift processes in small populations will be important. NMFS concluded 
that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in danger of 
extinction but are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future.
(10) Upper Willamette River ESU
    While the abundance of Willamette River spring chinook salmon has 
been relatively stable over the long term, and there is evidence of 
some natural production, it is apparent that at present production and 
harvest levels the natural population is not replacing itself. With 
natural production accounting for only \1/3\ of the natural spawning 
escapement, it is questionable whether natural spawners would be 
capable of replacing themselves even in the absence of fisheries. While 
hatchery programs in the Willamette River Basin have maintained 
broodlines that are

[[Page 11496]]

relatively free of genetic influences from outside the basin, they may 
have homogenized the population structure within the ESU. The 
introduction of fall-run chinook salmon into the basin and laddering of 
Willamette Falls have increased the potential for genetic introgression 
between wild spring-and hatchery fall-run chinook salmon, but there is 
no direct evidence of hybridization (other than an overlap in spawning 
times and spawning location) between these two runs. Prolonged 
artificial propagation of the majority of the production from this ESU 
may also have had deleterious effects on the ability of Willamette 
River spring chinook salmon to reproduce successfully in the wild.
    Habitat blockage and degradation are significant problems in this 
ESU. Available habitat has been reduced by construction of dams in the 
Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette River Basins, and these 
dams have probably adversely affected remaining production via thermal 
effects. Agricultural development and urbanization are the main 
activities that have adversely affected habitat throughout the basin 
(Bottom et al., 1985, Kostow, 1995).
    Another concern for this ESU is that commercial and recreational 
harvests are high relative to the apparent productivity of natural 
populations. The average total harvest mortality rate was estimated to 
be 72 percent in 1982-89, with a corresponding ocean exploitation rate 
of 24 percent (PSC, 1994). This estimate does not fully account for 
escapement, and ODFW is in the process of revising harvest rate 
estimates for this stock; revised estimates may average 57 percent 
total harvest rate, with 16 percent ocean and 48 percent freshwater 
components (Kostow,1995). The inriver recreational harvest rate 
(Willamette River sport catch/estimated run size) for the period from 
1991 through 1995 was 33 percent (data from PFMC, 1996b).
    The only previous assessment of risk to stocks in this ESU is that 
of Nehlsen et al. (1991), who identified the Willamette River spring-
run chinook salmon as of special concern. They noted vulnerability to 
minor disturbances, insufficient information on population trend, and 
the special character of this stock as causes for concern.
    NMFS concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in 
danger of extinction but are likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future. Total abundance has been relatively stable at 
approximately 20,000 to 30,000 fish; however, recent natural escapement 
is less than 5,000 fish and has been declining sharply. Furthermore, it 
is estimated that about two-thirds of the natural spawners are first-
generation hatchery fish, suggesting that the natural population is 
falling far short of replacing itself. Another concern for this ESU is 
that commercial and recreational harvest are high relative to the 
apparent productivity of natural populations.
(11) Middle Columbia River Spring-Run ESU
    Total abundance of this ESU is low relative to the total basin 
area, and 1994-96 escapements have been very low. Several historical 
populations have been extirpated, and the few extant populations in 
this ESU are not widely distributed geographically. In addition, there 
are only two populations (John Day and Yakima Rivers) with substantial 
run sizes. However, these major river basins are predominantly 
comprised of naturally produced fish, and both of these exhibit long-
term increasing trends in abundance. Additionally, recent analyses done 
as part of the PATH process indicates that productivity of natural 
populations in the Deschutes and John Day Rivers has been more robust 
than most other stream-type chinook salmon in the Columbia River 
(Schaller et al., 1995).
    Habitat problems are common in the range of this ESU. The only 
large blockage of spawning area for spring chinook salmon is at the 
Pelton/Round Butte dam complex on the Deschutes River, which probably 
eliminated a natural population utilizing the upper Deschutes River 
Basin (Kostow, 1995; Nehlsen, 1995). Spawning and rearing habitat are 
affected by agriculture including water withdrawals, grazing, and 
riparian vegetation management. Mainstem Columbia River hydroelectric 
development has resulted in a major disruption of migration corridors 
and affected flow regimes and estuarine habitat.
    Hatchery production accounts for a substantial proportion of total 
escapement to the region. However, screening procedures at the Warm 
Springs River weir apparently minimize the potential for hatchery-wild 
introgression in the Deschutes River basin. Although straying is less 
of a problem with returning spring-run adults, the use of the 
composite, out-of-ESU Carson Hatchery stock to reestablish the Umatilla 
River spring run would be a cause for concern if fish from that program 
stray out of the basin.
    Stocks in this ESU experience very low ocean harvest rates and only 
moderate instream harvest. Harvest rates have been declining recently 
(PSC, 1996).
    Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified 
several as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991) 
identified five stocks as extinct, one as possibly extinct (Klickitat 
River spring chinook salmon), and one as of special concern (John Day 
River spring chinook salmon). WDF et al. (1993) considered five stocks 
within the ESU, of which three, all within the Yakima River Basin, were 
considered to be of native origin and predominantly natural production 
(Upper Yakima, Naches, and American Rivers). Despite increasing trends 
in these three stocks, these stocks and the two remaining (not native/
natural) stocks were considered to be depressed on the basis of 
chronically low escapement numbers (WDF et al., 1993).
    Despite low abundances relative to estimated historical levels, 
long-term trends in abundance have been relatively stable, with an 
approximately even mix of upward and downward trends in populations. 
NMFS concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in 
danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future.
(12) Upper Columbia River Summer- and Fall-Run ESU
    The status of this ESU was recently reviewed by NMFS (Waknitz et 
al., 1995). In the earlier review, this ESU was determined to be 
neither at risk of extinction nor likely to become so. However, new 
data shows the proportion of naturally spawning summer chinook salmon 
of hatchery origin has been increasing rapidly in areas above Wells 
Dam. There is corresponding concern about the possible genetic and/or 
life-history consequences to the sustainability of natural populations 
in that area from the shift in hatchery releases from subyearlings to 
yearlings.
    Nearly 38 million summer-run fish have been released from the Wells 
Dam Hatchery since 1967. Efforts to establish the Wells Dam summer-run 
broodstock removed a large proportion of the spawners (94 percent of 
the run in 1969) destined for the Methow River and other upstream 
tributaries (Mullan et al., 1992). Additionally, a number of fall-run 
fish have been incorporated into the summer-run program, especially 
during the 1980s (Marshall et al., 1995). Large numbers of fall chinook 
salmon have been released into the mainstem Columbia River and into the 
Yakima River. Although no hatcheries operate on the Yakima River, 
releases of upriver bright fall-run chinook salmon into the

[[Page 11497]]

lower Yakima River (below Prosser Dam) are thought to have overwhelmed 
local naturally spawning stocks (WDF et al., 1993; Marshall et al., 
1995). Fall chinook salmon also spawn in the mainstem Columbia River; 
this occurs primarily in the Hanford Reach portion of the Columbia 
River, with additional spawning sites in the tailrace areas of mainstem 
dams. Upriver bright fall chinook salmon hatchery stocks represent a 
composite of stocks intercepted at various dams. This stock has also 
been released in large numbers by hatcheries on the mainstem Columbia 
River. Although the upriver bright stocks incorporated representatives 
from the mainstem spawning populations in the Hanford Reach and those 
displaced by the construction of Grand Coulee Dam and other mainstem 
dams, they have also incorporated individuals from the Snake River 
fall-run ESU (Howell et al., 1985). The mixed genetic background of 
upriver bright stocks may result in less accurate homing (McIssac and 
Quinn 1988; Chapman et al., 1994). However, the naturally spawning 
Hanford Reach fall-run population appears to stray at very low levels 
(Hymer et al., 1992b).
    Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified 
several as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991) 
identified six stocks as extinct, one as a moderate extinction risk 
(Methow River summer chinook salmon), and one as of special concern 
(Okanogan River summer chinook salmon). WDF et al. (1993) considered 10 
stocks within the ESU, of which 3 were considered to be of native 
origin and predominantly natural production. The status of these three 
stocks was two healthy (Marion Drain and Hanford Reach fall-runs) and 
one depressed (Okanogan River summer-run). Huntington et al. (1996) 
identified one healthy Level I stock in their survey (Hanford Reach 
fall run).
    In an earlier review, NMFS concluded that this ESU was not in 
danger of extinction, nor likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future. None of the information reviewed in this assessment 
provides a basis for NMFS to change this earlier conclusion. However, 
if negative trends in this ESU continue, NMFS will reevaluate the 
status of these chinook salmon.
(13) Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESU
    Access to a substantial portion of historical habitat was blocked 
by Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. There are local habitat problems 
related to irrigation diversions and hydroelectric development, as well 
as degraded riparian and instream habitat from urbanization and 
livestock grazing. Mainstem Columbia River hydroelectric development 
has resulted in a major disruption of migration corridors and affected 
flow regimes and estuarine habitat. Some populations in this ESU must 
migrate through nine mainstem dams.
    Artificial propagation efforts have had a significant impact on 
spring-run populations in this ESU, either through hatchery-based 
enhancement or the extensive trapping and transportation activities 
associated with the GCFMP. Prior to the implementation of the GCFMP, 
spring-run chinook salmon populations in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and 
Methow Rivers were at severely depressed levels (Craig and Suomela, 
1941). Therefore, it is probable that the majority of returning spring-
run adults trapped at Rock Island Dam for use in the GCFMP were 
probably not native to these three rivers (Chapman et al., 1995). All 
returning adults were either directly transported to river spawning 
sites or spawned in one of the National Fish Hatcheries (NFHs) built 
for the GCFMP.
    In the years following the GCFMP, several stocks were transferred 
to the NFHs in this area. Naturally spawning populations in tributaries 
upstream of hatchery release sites have apparently undergone limited 
introgression by hatchery stocks, based on CWT recoveries and genetic 
analysis (Chapman et al. 1995). Artificial propagation efforts have 
recently focused on supplementing naturally spawning populations in 
this ESU (Bugert, 1998), although it should be emphasized that these 
naturally spawning populations were founded by the same GCFMP 
homogenized stock. Furthermore, the potential for hatchery-derived non-
native stocks to genetically impact naturally spawning populations 
exists, especially given the recent low numbers of fish returning to 
rivers in this ESU. Risks associated with interactions between wild and 
hatchery chinook salmon are a concern, because there continues to be 
substantial production of the composite, non-native Carson stock for 
fishery enhancement and hydropower mitigation.
    Harvest rates are low for this ESU, with very low ocean and 
moderate instream harvest. Harvest rates have been declining recently 
(ODFW and WDFW, 1995).
    Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified 
several as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991) 
identified six stocks as extinct. Due to lack of information on chinook 
salmon stocks that are presumed to be extinct, the relationship of 
these stocks to existing ESUs is uncertain. They are listed here based 
on geography and to give a complete presentation of the stocks 
identified by Nehlsen et al. (1991). WDF et al. (1993) considered nine 
stocks within the ESU, of which eight were considered to be of native 
origin and predominantly natural production. The status of all nine 
stocks was considered depressed. Populations in this ESU have 
experienced record low returns for the last few years.
    Recent total abundance of this ESU is quite low, and escapements in 
1994-1996 were the lowest in at least 60 years. At least 6 populations 
of spring chinook salmon in this ESU have become extinct, and almost 
all remaining naturally-spawning populations have fewer than 100 
spawners. In addition to extremely small population sizes, both recent 
and long-term trends in abundance are downward, some extremely so. NMFS 
concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are in danger of extinction.
(14) Snake River Fall-Run ESU
    Snake River fall-run chinook salmon are currently listed as a 
threatened species under the ESA (57 FR 14653, April 22, 1992). As 
discussed above, NMFS concluded that the Snake River fall-run ESU also 
includes fall chinook salmon in the Deschutes River and, historically, 
populations from the John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers that 
have been extirpated in the twentieth century.
    Almost all historical Snake River fall-run chinook salmon spawning 
habitat in the Snake River Basin was blocked by the Hells Canyon Dam 
complex; other habitat blockages have also occurred in Columbia River 
tributaries. Hydroelectric development on the mainstem Columbia and 
Snake Rivers continues to affect juvenile and adult migration. 
Remaining habitat has been reduced by inundation in the mainstem Snake 
and Columbia Rivers, and the ESU's range has also been affected by 
agricultural water withdrawals, grazing, and vegetation management.
    The continued straying by non-native hatchery fish into natural 
production areas is an additional source of risk to the Snake River 
chinook salmon.
    Assessing extinction risk to the newly-configured ESU is difficult 
because of the geographic discontinuity and the disparity in the status 
of the two remaining populations. NMFS also notes considerable 
uncertainty regarding the origins of fall chinook salmon in the lower 
Deschutes River and their relationship to fish in the upper Deschutes 
River. Historically, the

[[Page 11498]]

Snake River populations dominated production in this ESU; total 
abundance is estimated to have been about 72,000 in the 1930s and 
1940s, and it was probably substantially higher before that. Production 
from the Deschutes River was presumably only a small fraction of 
historic production in the ESU. In contrast, recent (1990-96) returns 
of naturally spawning fish to the Deschutes River (about 6,000 adults 
per year) have been much higher than in the Snake River (5-year mean 
about 500 adults per year, including hatchery strays). The relatively 
recent extirpation of fall-run chinook in the John Day, Umatilla and 
Walla Walla Rivers is also a factor in assessing the risk to the 
overall ESU.
    Long term trends in abundance are mixed--slightly upward in the 
Deschutes River and downward in the Snake River. Short-term trends in 
both remaining populations are upward. After considering the addition 
of the Deschutes River fall chinook populations to the listed Snake 
River fall-run chinook salmon ESU, NMFS concluded that the ESU as a 
whole is likely to become an endangered species within in the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, in spite of the relative health of the Deschutes River 
population.
(15) Snake River Spring- and Summer-Run ESU
    This ESU has been extensively reviewed by NMFS (Matthews and 
Waples, 1991; NMFS, 1995b). The Snake River Spring and summer-run ESU 
is listed as a threatened species and NMFS did not review its previous 
risk conclusion here.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 2(a) of the ESA states that various species of fish, 
wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as 
a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate 
concern for ecosystem conservation. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the 
listing regulations (50 CFR Part 424) set forth procedures for listing 
species. NMFS must determine, through the regulatory process, if a 
species is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a combination 
of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education 
purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    NMFS has prepared two supporting documents which address the 
factors that have led to the decline of chinook salmon and other 
salmonids. The first is entitled ``Factors for Decline: A Supplement to 
the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996). 
That report, available upon request (see ADDRESSES), concluded that all 
of the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a 
role in the decline of steelhead and other salmonids, including chinook 
salmon. The report identifies destruction and modification of habitat, 
overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes, and natural 
and human-made factors as being the primary reasons for the decline of 
west coast steelhead, and other salmonids including chinook salmon. The 
second document is a supplement to the document referred to above. This 
document, entitled ``Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast 
Chinook Salmon: An Addendum to the 1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors 
for Decline Report'' (NMFS, 1998 In prep.) discusses specific factors 
affecting chinook salmon. In this report, NMFS concludes that all of 
the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role 
in the decline of chinook salmon, and other salmonids. The report 
identifies destruction and modification of habitat, overutilization for 
recreational purposes, and natural and human-made factors as being the 
primary reasons for the decline of chinook salmon.
    The following discussion summarizes findings regarding factors for 
decline across the range of chinook salmon. While these factors have 
been treated here in general terms, it is important to underscore that 
impacts from certain factors are more acute for specific ESUs. For 
example, impacts from hydropower development are more pervasive for 
ESUs in the Columbia River Basin than for some coastal ESUs.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    Chinook salmon on the west coast of the United States have 
experienced declines in abundance in the past several decades as a 
result of loss, damage or change to their natural environment. Water 
diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower 
purposes (especially in the Columbia River and Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Basins) have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible 
habitat, and degraded remaining habitat.
    Forestry, agriculture, mining, and urbanization have degraded, 
simplified, and fragmented habitat. Studies indicate that in most 
western states, about 80 to 90 percent of the historic riparian habitat 
has been eliminated (Botkin et al., 1995; Norse, 1990; Kellogg, 1992; 
California State Lands Commission, 1993). Washington and Oregon 
wetlands are estimated to have diminished by one-third, while 
California has experienced a 91 percent loss of its wetland habitat. 
Loss of habitat complexity and habitat fragmentation have also 
contributed to the decline of chinook salmon. For example, in national 
forests within the range of the northern spotted owl in western and 
eastern Washington, there has been a 58 percent reduction in large, 
deep pools due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures 
such as boulders and large wood (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment 
Team (FEMAT), 1993). Similarly, in Oregon, the abundance of large, deep 
pools on private coastal lands has decreased by as much as 80 percent 
(FEMAT, 1993). Sedimentation from extensive and intensive land use 
activities (timber harvests, road building, livestock grazing, and 
urbanization) is recognized as a primary cause of habitat degradation 
in the range of west coast chinook salmon.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or 
Educational Purposes

    Historically, chinook salmon were abundant in many western coastal 
and interior waters of the United States. Chinook salmon have 
supported, and still support important tribal, commercial and 
recreational fisheries throughout their range, contributing millions of 
dollars to numerous local economies, as well as providing important 
cultural and subsistence needs for Native Americans. Overfishing in the 
early days of European settlement led to the depletion of many stocks 
of chinook and other salmonids even before extensive habitat 
degradation. However, following the degradation of many west coast 
aquatic and riparian ecosystems, exploitation rates were higher than 
many chinook populations could sustain. Therefore, harvest may have 
contributed to the further decline of some populations.

C. Disease or Predation

    Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have 
resulted in increased predator populations in numerous rivers. 
Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in areas experiencing 
dwindling chinook salmon

[[Page 11499]]

runsizes. However, salmonids appear to be a minor component of the diet 
of marine mammals (Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Jameson and Kenyon, 1977; 
Graybill, 1981; Brown and Mate, 1983; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Hanson, 
1993). Principal food sources are small pelagic schooling fish, 
juvenile rockfish, lampreys (Jameson and Kenyon, 1977; Roffe and Mate, 
1984), benthic and epibenthic species (Brown and Mate, 1983) and 
flatfish (Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Graybill, 1981). Predation may 
significantly influence salmonid abundance in some local populations 
when other prey are absent and physical conditions lead to the 
concentration of adults and juveniles (Cooper and Johnson, 1992).
    Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult 
and juvenile chinook salmon survival. Chinook salmon are exposed to 
numerous bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic organisms in 
spawning and rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and the 
marine environment. Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease 
(BKD), ceratomyxosis, columnaris, furunculosis, infectious 
hematopoietic necrosis virus, redmouth and black spot disease, 
erythrocytic inclusion body syndrome, and whirling disease, among 
others, are present and are known to affect chinook salmon (Rucker et 
al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Foott et al., 1994; Gould and 
Wedemeyer, undated). Very little current or historical information 
exists to quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates 
attributable to these diseases for chinook salmon. However, studies 
have shown that naturally spawned fish tend to be less susceptible to 
pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et 
al., 1992). Native chinook salmon have evolved with certain of these 
organisms, but the widespread use of artificial propagation has 
introduced exotic organisms not historically present in particular 
watersheds. Scientific studies may indicate that chinook salmon are 
more susceptible to disease organisms than other salmonids. Habitat 
conditions such as low water flows and high temperatures can exacerbate 
susceptibility to disease.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    A variety of Federal, state, tribal, and local laws, regulations, 
treaties and measures affect the abundance and survival of west coast 
chinook salmon and the quality of their habitat. NMFS prepared a 
separate report entitled ``West Coast Steelhead Conservation Measures, 
A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead 
Under the Endangered Species'' which summarizes many of these existing 
measures and their effect on steelhead and other salmonids, including 
chinook salmon. This report is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES 
section). The following sections briefly discuss other regulatory 
measures designed to conserve chinook and other salmonids (see also 
Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon and 
Conservation Measures sections).
1. Federal Land and Water Management
    The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a Federal management policy with 
important benefits for chinook salmon. While the NFP covers a very 
large area, the overall effectiveness of the NFP in conserving chinook 
salmon is limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that 
Federal land ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds 
within the affected ESUs. The extent and distribution of Federal lands 
limits the NFP's ability to achieve its aquatic habitat restoration 
objectives at watershed and river basin scales and highlights the 
importance of complementary salmon habitat conservation measures on 
nonfederal lands within the subject ESUs.
    On February 25, 1995, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management adopted Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing 
Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, 
Idaho, and portions of California (known as PACFISH). The strategy was 
developed in response to significant declines in naturally-reproducing 
salmonid stocks, including chinook salmon, and widespread degradation 
of anadromous fish habitat throughout Federal lands in Idaho, 
Washington, Oregon, and California outside the range of the northern 
spotted owl. Like the NFP, PACFISH is an attempt to provide a 
consistent approach for maintaining and restoring aquatic and riparian 
habitat conditions which, in turn, are expected to promote the 
sustained natural production of anadromous fish. However, as with the 
NFP, PACFISH is limited by the extent of Federal lands and Federal land 
ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within all the 
affected ESUs.
    Within the range of several chinook salmon ESUs (i.e., Southern 
Oregon and California Coastal, Lower Columbia River, and Puget Sound), 
much of available chinook salmon habitat is covered by the requirements 
of the NFP. These existing conservation efforts have resulted in 
improvements in aquatic habitat conditions for salmonids within this 
region.
    Since the adoption of the NFP, NMFS has consulted with the BLM and 
USFS on ongoing and proposed activities that may affect anadromous 
salmonids, including chinook salmon and their habitats. During this 
period of time, NMFS has reviewed thousands of activities throughout 
northern California, Oregon, and Washington and helped develop numerous 
programmatic biological assessments (BAs) with the BLM and the USFS. 
These BAs cover a wide range of management activities, including forest 
and/or resource area-wide routine and non-routine road maintenance, 
hazard tree removal, range allotment management, watershed and instream 
restoration, special use permits (e.g., mining, ingress/egress), timber 
sale programs (e.g., green tree, fuel reduction, thinning, 
regeneration, and salvage), and BLM's land tenure adjustment program. 
Numerous other project-specific BAs were also consulted and conferenced 
upon. These National Forest and BLM Resource Area-wide BAs include 
region-specific best management practices, all necessary measures to 
minimize impacts for all listed or proposed anadromous salmonids, 
monitoring, and environmental baseline checklists for each project. 
These BA's have resulted in a more consistent approach to management of 
Federal lands throughout the NFP and PACFISH areas.
2. Federal/State Land and Water Management in California
    California's Central Valley chinook salmon have been the subject of 
many conservation efforts aimed at restoring the Sacramento and San 
Joaquin Rivers over several decades. Past efforts have generally been 
unsuccessful at reducing the risks facing Central Valley chinook 
salmon. Despite a long history of unproductive conservation and 
protection efforts, Federal, state and private stakeholders joined to 
urge Congressional passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement 
Act (CVPIA) in 1992, followed by the signing of the CALFED Bay-Delta 
Accord (Accord) in December 1994. The Bay-Delta Accord detailed interim 
measures for environmental protection and paved the way for the 
development of the long-term CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The CALFED Bay-
Delta Program which began in June of 1995 is a planning effort between 
state and federal agencies for developing a long-range, comprehensive 
solution for the Bay-Delta Estuary and its watershed. Collectively, the 
CVPIA and CALFED Bay-Delta conservation programs may

[[Page 11500]]

provide a comprehensive conservation response to the extensive ecologic 
problems facing at-risk salmonids. The CVPIA and the CALFED Bay-Delta 
Program are described in more detail in the Efforts Being Made to 
Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon section.
3. State Land Management
    The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) 
enforces the State of California's forest practice rules (CFPRs) which 
are promulgated through the Board of Forestry (BOF). The CFPRs contain 
provisions that provide significant protection for chinook salmon if 
fully implemented. However, NMFS believes the CFPRs do not secure 
properly functioning riparian habitat. Specifically, the CFPRs do not 
adequately address large woody debris recruitment, streamside tree 
retention to maintain bank stability, and canopy retention standards 
that assure stream temperatures are properly functioning for all life 
stages of chinook salmon. The current process for approving Timber 
Harvest Plans (THPs) under the CFPRs does not include monitoring of 
timber harvest operations to determine whether a particular operation 
damaged habitat and, if so, how it might be mitigated in future THPs. 
The CFPR rule that permits salvage logging is also an area where better 
environmental review and monitoring could ensure better protection for 
chinook salmon. For these reasons, NMFS is working to improve the 
condition of riparian buffers in ongoing habitat conservation plan 
negotiations with private landowners.
    The Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA), while modified in 1995 and 
improved over the previous OFPA, does not have implementing rules that 
adequately protect salmonid habitat. In particular, the current OFPA 
does not provide adequate protection for the production and 
introduction of large woody debris (LWD) to medium, small and non-fish 
bearing streams. Small non-fish bearing streams are vitally important 
to the quality of downstream habitats. These streams carry water, 
sediment, nutrients, and LWD from upper portions of the watershed. The 
quality of downstream habitats is determined, in part, by the timing 
and amount of organic and inorganic materials provided by these small 
streams (Chamberlin et al. in Meehan, 1991). Given the existing 
depleted condition of most riparian forests on non-Federal lands, the 
time needed to attain mature forest conditions, the lack of adequate 
protection for non-riparian LWD sources in landslide-prone areas and 
small headwater streams (which account for about half the wood found 
naturally in stream channels) (Burnett and Reeves, 1997 citing Van 
Sickle and Gregory, 1990; McDade et al., 1990; and McGreary, 1994), and 
current rotation schedules (approximately 50 years), there is a low 
probability that adequate LWD recruitment could be achieved under the 
current requirements of the OFPA. Also, the OFPA does not adequately 
consider and manage timber harvest and road construction on sensitive, 
unstable slopes subject to mass wasting, nor does it address cumulative 
effects. These issues, and other concerns about the OFPA have been 
analyzed in detail in a recent document prepared by NMFS. The document, 
entitled ``A Draft Proposal Concerning Oregon Forest Practices'' was 
submitted to the Oregon Board of Forestry Memorandum of Agreement 
Advisory Committee and to the Oregon Governor's Office to advance 
potential improvements in Oregon forest practices (OFP) (NMFS OFP 
Draft, February 17, 1998).
    The Washington Department of Natural Resources implements and 
enforces the State of Washington's forest practice rules (WFPRs) which 
are promulgated through the Forest Practices Board. These WFPRs contain 
provisions that can be protective of chinook salmon if fully 
implemented. This is possible given that the WFPRs are based on 
adaptive management of forest lands through watershed analysis, 
development of site-specific land management prescriptions, and 
monitoring. Watershed Analysis prescriptions can exceed WFPR minimums 
for stream and riparian protection. However, NMFS believes the WFPRs, 
including watershed analysis, do not provide properly functioning 
riparian and instream habitats. Specifically, the base WFPRs do not 
adequately address LWD recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream 
bank integrity and channel networks within floodplains, and chronic and 
episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitats that 
are properly functioning for all chinook salmon life stages.
4. Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction Programs
    The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates removal/fill activities 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which requires that the 
COE not permit a discharge that would ``cause or contribute to 
significant degradation of the waters of the United States.'' One of 
the factors that must be considered in this determination is cumulative 
effects. However, the COE guidelines do not specify a methodology for 
assessing cumulative impacts or how much weight to assign them in 
decision-making. Furthermore, the COE does not have in place any 
process to address the additive effects of the continued development of 
waterfront, riverine, coastal, and wetland properties.
5. Water Quality Programs
    The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), enforced in part by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is intended to protect 
beneficial uses, including fishery resources. To date, implementation 
has not been effective in adequately protecting fishery resources, 
particularly with respect to non-point sources of pollution.
    Section 303(d)(1)(C) and (D) of the CWA requires states to prepare 
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all water bodies that do not meet 
State water quality standards. TMDLs are a method for quantitative 
assessment of environmental problems in a watershed and identifying 
pollution reductions needed to protect drinking water, aquatic life, 
recreation, and other use of rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs may 
address all pollution sources including point sources such as sewage or 
industrial plant discharges, and non-point discharges such as runoff 
from roads, farm fields, and forests.
    The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for 
establishing TMDLs. However, EPA is required to do so if a state does 
not meet this responsibility. In California, as a result of recent 
litigation, the EPA has made a legal commitment guaranteeing that 
either EPA or the State will establish TMDLs that identify pollution 
reduction targets for 18 impaired river basins in northern California 
by the year 2007. California has made a commitment to establish TMDLs 
for approximately half the 18 river basins by 2007. The EPA will 
develop TMDLs for the remaining basins and has also agreed to complete 
all TMDLS if the State fails to meet its commitment within the agreed 
upon time frame.
    State agencies in Oregon are committed to completing TMDLs for 
coastal drainages within 4 years, and all impaired waters within 10 
years. Similarly ambitious schedules are being developed for Washington 
and California.
    The ability of these TMDLs to protect chinook salmon should be 
significant in the long term; however, it will be difficult to develop 
them quickly in the short term and their efficacy in protecting chinook 
salmon habitat will be unknown for years to come.

[[Page 11501]]

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Natural climatic conditions have exacerbated the problems 
associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats. 
Persistent drought conditions have reduced already limited spawning, 
rearing and migration habitat. Climatic conditions appear to have 
resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during more productive 
periods, may offset poor productivity caused by degraded freshwater 
habitat conditions.
    In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat, extensive hatchery 
programs have been implemented throughout the range of west coast 
chinook salmon. While some of these programs have succeeded in 
providing fishing opportunities, the impacts of these programs on 
native, naturally-reproducing stocks are not well understood. 
Competition, genetic introgression, and disease transmission resulting 
from hatchery introductions may significantly reduce the production and 
survival of native, naturally-reproducing chinook salmon (NMFS, 1996a). 
Collection of native chinook salmon for hatchery broodstock purposes 
often harms small or dwindling natural populations. Artificial 
propagation may play an important role in chinook salmon recovery and 
some hatchery populations of chinook salmon may be deemed essential for 
the recovery of threatened or endangered chinook salmon ESUs (see 
Proposed Determination section).
    In the past, non-native chinook salmon stocks have been introduced 
as broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal 
rivers and streams throughout the range of the proposed chinook salmon 
ESUs (Bryant, 1994; Myers et al., 1998). Because of problems associated 
with this practice, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 
developed its Salmon and Steelhead Stock Management Policy. This policy 
recognizes that such stock mixing is detrimental and seeks to maintain 
the genetic integrity of all identifiable California stocks of chinook 
salmon and other salmonids, as well as minimize interactions between 
hatchery and natural populations. To protect the genetic integrity of 
salmon and steelhead stocks, this policy directs CDFG to evaluate each 
salmon and steelhead stream and classify it according to its probable 
genetic source and degree of integrity.
    Hatchery programs and harvest management have strongly influenced 
chinook salmon populations in the Central Valley, California ESU, the 
Puget Sound ESU, the Lower Columbia River ESU, the Upper Willamette 
ESU, and the Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU. Hatchery programs 
intended to compensate for habitat losses have masked declines in 
natural stocks and have created unrealistic expectations for fisheries.
    The three state agencies (California Department of Fish and Game, 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department 
of Fish and Wildlife) have adopted and are implementing natural 
salmonid policies designed to limit hatchery influences on natural, 
indigenous chinook salmon. While some limits have been placed on 
hatchery production of anadromous salmonids, more careful management of 
current programs and scrutiny of proposed programs is necessary in 
order to minimize impacts on listed species.

Efforts Being Made To Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to 
make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific 
and commercial data available and after taking into account efforts 
being made to protect a species. Therefore, in making its listing 
determinations, NMFS first assesses chinook salmon status and 
identifies factors that have lead to its decline. NMFS then assesses 
existing conservation actions to determine if those measures ameliorate 
the risks faced by chinook salmon.
    In judging the efficacy of existing conservation efforts, NMFS 
considers the following: (1) The substantive, protective, and 
conservation elements of such efforts; (2) the degree of certainty such 
efforts will be reliably implemented; and (3) the presence of 
monitoring provisions that permit adaptive management (NMFS 1996b). In 
some cases, conservation efforts may be relatively new and may not have 
had time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases, 
provisions for adequate monitoring and funding of conservation efforts 
are essential to ensure intended conservation benefits are realized 
(see NMFS 1996b, see also 62 FR 24602-24607, May 6, 1997).
    During a previous status review for west coast steelhead, NMFS 
reviewed an array of protective efforts for steelhead and other 
salmonids, including chinook salmon, ranging in scope from regional 
strategies to local watershed initiatives. NMFS summarized some of the 
major efforts in a document entitled ``Steelhead Conservation Efforts: 
A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead 
Under the Endangered Species Act.'' (NMFS, 1996). This document is 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
    Several more recently developed protective efforts have been 
directed towards the conservation of various salmonids and the 
watersheds supporting them. These efforts may affect recovery of 
chinook salmon in California, Oregon and Washington.

State of California Protective Measures for Central Valley Chinook

    Spring- and fall/late fall-run chinook salmon in California's 
Central Valley are beginning to benefit from two major conservation 
initiatives that are under development and simultaneously being 
implemented to conserve and restore salmonid and other fishery 
resources in the rivers and streams of the Central Valley, including 
the Bay-Delta region. The first of these initiatives is the Central 
Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) which Congress passed in 1992. 
The CVPIA is intended to remedy habitat and other problems associated 
with the construction and operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's 
(BOR) Central Valley Project. The CVPIA has two key habitat restoration 
features related to the recovery of chinook salmon in the Central 
Valley. First, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and 
implement a program that makes all reasonable efforts to double natural 
production of anadromous fish in Central Valley streams (Section 
3406(b)(1)) by the year 2002. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 
approached implementation of this CVPIA directive through development 
of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP). The AFRP contains a 
total of 172 actions and 117 evaluations. The Department of the 
Interior (DOTI) intends to finalize the AFRP in 1998 upon completion of 
the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which is required by 
Section 3409 of the CVPIA. Secondly, the CVPIA annually dedicates up to 
800,000 acre feet (AF) of water flows for fish, wildlife, and habitat 
restoration purposes (Section 3406(b)(2)), and provides for the 
acquisition of additional water to supplement the 800,000 AF (Section 
3406(b)(3)). The FWS, in consultation with other Federal and State 
agencies, directs the use of these dedicated water flows.
    On November 20, 1997, DOI released its final administrative 
proposal on the management of Section 340(b)(2) water and a set of 
flow-related actions for the use of so-called (b)(2) water during the 
next five years. These plans will be continuously updated to include 
new information, consistent with the

[[Page 11502]]

adaptive management approach described in the AFRP. To make restoration 
efforts as efficient as possible, the AFRP has committed to coordinate 
restoration efforts with those developed and implemented by other 
groups or programs, including the CALFED Bay-Delta program.
    Federal funding has been appropriated since 1995 to implement 
restoration projects identified through the AFRP planning and 
development process, or through complementary programs such as the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. In 1996, a total of $1.9 million was 
obligated for 11 restoration projects or evaluations identified through 
the AFRP planning process. These projects included restoration 
management planning efforts in the lower Tuolumne River, Deer Creek, 
and Butte Creek, modification of a fish ladder on the Yuba River, 
acquisition of riparian property and easements on Pine Creek and Big 
Chico Creek, water exchange pump and riparian restoration projects on 
Mill Creek, and several monitoring and evaluation projects. In 1997, 
$9.7 million was obligated for over 30 projects located throughout the 
Central Valley. The AFRP's projected budget for restoration projects in 
the Central Valley in 1998 is $8.2 million. The ARFP's 1998 work plan 
identifies 27 high priority projects for funding, and an additional 14 
projects which will proceed contingent on additional funding. An 
estimated $20 million to $35 million will be spent on AFRP restoration 
actions per year for 25 years ($500 million to $875 million estimated 
total), most of which will be closely integrated with funding for 
habitat restoration activities as part of the CALFED Bay-Delta program.
    During 1996 and 1997, the AFRP implemented several fish flow and 
habitat restoration actions using the CVPIA provisions. Specific 
actions included limiting Delta water exports for fisheries protection, 
closing the Delta Cross Channel gates to minimize the diversion of 
juvenile chinook salmon from the Sacramento River into the Delta, and 
modifying the operation of water project facilities in the Delta to 
evaluate the benefits of actions taken to protect juvenile chinook 
salmon. NMFS expects that similar fisheries protection measures will be 
implemented in 1998 depending on actual hydrological conditions.
    The second and very ambitious initiative that benefits Central 
Valley spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon is the CALFED Bay-Delta 
Program. In June 1994, state and Federal agencies signed a framework 
agreement that pledged all agencies to work together to formulate water 
quality standards to protect the Bay-Delta, coordinate state and 
Federal water project operations, and develop a long-term Bay-Delta 
restoration program. In December 1994, a diverse group of State and 
Federal agencies, water agencies and environmental organizations signed 
The Bay-Delta Accord which set out specific interim (3-year) measures 
for environmental protection, including protection for Central Valley 
chinook stocks. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which began in June, 
1995, is charged with developing the long-term Bay-Delta solution and 
restoration program.
    Three types of environmental protection and restoration measures 
are detailed in the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord: (1) The control of 
freshwater outflow in the Delta to improve estuarine conditions in the 
shallow-water habitat of the Bay-Delta estuary (Category I measures), 
(2) the regulation of water project operations and flows to minimize 
harmful environmental impacts of water exports (Category II measures), 
and (3) the funding and implementation of projects to address non-flow 
related factors affecting the Bay-Delta ecosystem such as unscreened 
diversions, physical habitat degradation, and pollution (Category III 
measures). Many of the Category I and II measures identified in the 
agreement were implemented by a Water Quality Control Plan that was 
adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 1995. Efforts 
were also initiated to implement Category III non-flow projects 
beginning in 1995 and these have continued to the present.
    In 1995 and 1996, the Category III program approved a total of 
$21.1 million in funding for a large number of habitat restoration, 
fish screening, land acquisition, research and monitoring, watershed 
planning, and fish passage projects distributed throughout the 
Sacramento/San Joaquin River basins, their tributaries and the Bay-
Delta system. Additional funding was provided for most of these 
projects from the CVPIA or other funding sources, and many constitute 
specific restoration actions identified in the draft Ecosystem 
Restoration Program Plan (ERPP) that is being developed as part of the 
comprehensive long-term CALFED Bay-Delta program. The total funding 
obligation for these projects exceeded $40 million. A description of 
these projects, the project proponent, the funding commitments, and the 
project status are described in a March 1997 summary document. In 1997, 
the CALFED Bay-Delta program announced its intention to fund a total of 
51 additional projects using nearly $61 million in Category III 
funding. Additional funding of nearly $40 million was also available as 
a cost share for other projects if additional high priority projects 
could be identified. The selection of these 51 projects were intended 
to address specific stressors or factors for decline that were 
identified in the planning process leading to development of the ERPP. 
The vast majority of these funds (nearly 77 percent) were allocated to 
projects addressing floodplain/marsh plain changes and changes in river 
channel form. An additional 10 percent was targeted at entrainment 
problems, while 8 percent addressed water quality problems. Of the 
total funds committed to new projects, 87 percent will be expended for 
implementation projects, with the balance expended for watershed 
planning, monitoring, and research.
    Central Valley spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon have 
benefited from the expenditure of these restoration program funds 
through the placement of new fish screens, modifications of barriers to 
fish passage, and habitat restoration projects, and additional benefits 
are expected to accrue to these populations in the future as new 
projects are implemented. In the long-term, NMFS is hopeful that the 
CVPIA and CALFED Bay-Delta conservation programs described above can be 
focused and implemented to provide a comprehensive conservation 
response to the extensive habitat problems facing chinook salmon and 
other species in the Central Valley. To date, however, projects funded 
by these programs have focused on addressing habitat problems facing 
these and other species, and have placed an emphasis on problems 
associated with freshwater and ocean harvest or hatchery management 
practices. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program's draft ERPP acknowledges that 
current hatchery practices and freshwater and ocean harvest management 
practices are stressors (or risk factors) that are adversely affecting 
natural chinook salmon populations in the Central Valley. It also 
identifies general changes that may be needed to reduce the impacts of 
these stressors, and incorporates the need for improved harvest and 
hatchery management in its programmatic implementation plan. However, 
no Category III funding has been targeted at these problems to date, 
and a focused plan with both a near- and long-term implementation 
strategy to deal with these problems still needs to be developed. Many 
habitat restoration projects or activities identified in the ERPP have 
been funded and are in the

[[Page 11503]]

process of being implemented as discussed above. Other components of 
the restoration plan will be carried out as part of its long-term 
implementation. NMFS is encouraged by the ecosystem planning and 
restoration strategy developed for chinook salmon in Central Valley and 
Bay-Delta ecosystem. However, several risk factors that have been 
identified by NMFS as adversely affecting chinook salmon in the Central 
Valley have not been adequately addressed, and plans for their 
implementation needs to be developed. These risk factors include large 
hatchery programs and practices that are adversely affecting natural 
populations of spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon, and masking 
our ability to confidently assess the status of naturally spawning 
populations; and ocean and freshwater harvest rates on natural stocks 
of spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon stocks (hatchery and 
natural) that may exceed the basin's ability to naturally sustain these 
ESUs.
    Because the full scope and implementation strategy for the CALFED 
Bay-Delta Program's long-term restoration program have yet to be 
finalized and a focused strategy to address impacts from harvest and 
hatchery practices has yet to be adequately developed, NMFS believes 
that the conservation benefits provided for by the CALFED restoration 
program and other complementary programs are not currently sufficient 
to reduce the substantial risks facing Central Valley spring-run and 
fall/late fall-run chinook salmon. NMFS is committed to working closely 
with the State and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to build on the draft 
ERPP and its implementation strategy to ensure that all risks to 
spring-run and fall/late fall-run chinook salmon, including those 
resulting from current hatchery and harvest practices, are properly 
addressed in the future.

State of Oregon Conservation Measures

    In April 1996, the Governor of Oregon completed and submitted to 
NMFS a comprehensive conservation plan directed specifically at coho 
salmon stocks on the Coast of Oregon. This plan, termed the Oregon Plan 
for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) (formerly known as the Oregon Coastal 
Salmon Restoration Initiative) has recently been expanded to include 
conservation measures for coastal steelhead stocks (Oregon, 1998). For 
a detailed description of the OPSW, refer to the May 6, 1997, listing 
determination for Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62 
FR 24602-24606). The essential features of the OPSW include the 
following:
    1. Identifies and addresses all factors for decline of coastal coho 
and steelhead, most notably, those factors relating to harvest, 
habitat, and hatchery activities.
    2. State agencies whose activities affect salmon are held 
accountable for coordinating their programs in a manner that conserves 
and restores the species and their habitat.
    3. Developed a framework for prioritizing conservation and 
restoration efforts.
    4. Developed a comprehensive monitoring plan that coordinates 
Federal, state, and local efforts to improve current knowledge of 
freshwater and marine conditions, determine populations trends, 
evaluate the effects of artificial propagation, and rate the OPSW's 
success or failure in restoring the salmon.
    5. Actions to conserve and restore salmon must be worked out by 
communities and landowners--those who possess local knowledge of 
problems and who have a genuine stake in the outcome.
    6. The principle of adaptive management coordinates the 
prioritization, monitoring and implementation elements of this 
conservation plan. Through this process, there is an explicit mechanism 
for learning from experience, evaluating alternative approaches, and 
making needed changes in the programs and measures.
    7. The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) provides 
an independent audit of the OPSW's strengths and weaknesses. The IMST 
assists the adaptive management process by compiling new information 
into an annual review of goals, objectives, and strategies, and by 
recommending changes.
    8. The annual report made to the Governor, the legislature, and the 
public will help the agencies make the adjustments described for the 
adaptive management process.
    While NMFS recognizes that many of the ongoing protective efforts 
are likely to promote the conservation of chinook and other salmonids, 
in the aggregate, they have not yet achieved chinook salmon 
conservation at a scale that is adequate to protect and conserve the 
eight ESUs proposed for listing (seven newly defined ESUs and one 
redefined ESU). NMFS believes that most existing efforts lack some of 
the critical elements needed to provide a high degree of certainty that 
the efforts will be successful. These elements include: (1) 
identification of specific factors for decline; (2) immediate measures 
required to protect the best remaining populations and habitats and 
priorities for restoration activities; (3) explicit and quantifiable 
objectives and time lines; (4) adequate and reliable funding; and (5) 
monitoring programs to determine the effectiveness of actions, 
including methods to measure whether recovery objectives are being met 
(NMFS Coastal Salmon Conservation: Working Guidance For Comprehensive 
Salmon Restoration Initiatives on the Pacific Coast, September 15, 
1996).
    The best available scientific information on the biological status 
of the species supports a proposed listing of eight chinook salmon ESUs 
under the ESA (see Proposed Determination). NMFS concludes that 
existing protective efforts at this time are inadequate to alter the 
proposed determination of threatened or endangered for these eight 
chinook salmon ESUs. However, during the period between publication of 
this proposed rule and publication of a final rule, NMFS will continue 
to solicit information regarding existing protective efforts (see 
Public Comments Solicited). NMFS also will work with Federal, state and 
tribal fisheries managers to evaluate and enhance the efficacy of the 
various salmonid conservation efforts.

Proposed Determination

    The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1532(6) and (20)). Section 4(b)(1) 
of the ESA requires that the listing determination be based solely on 
the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a 
review of the status of the species and after taking into account those 
efforts, if any, being made to protect such species.
    Based on results from its coastwide assessment, NMFS has concluded 
that on the west coast of the United States, there are 15 ESUs of 
chinook salmon which constitute ``species'' under the ESA, including 12 
newly identified ESUs. After evaluating the status of these 12 ESUs, 
NMFS has determined that two ESUs (Central Valley spring-run and the 
Upper Columbia River spring-run ESUs) are in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. NMFS has also 
determined that five ESUs (Central Valley fall/late fall-run, Southern 
Oregon and California Coastal, Puget Sound, Lower Columbia River, Upper 
Willamette River ESUs) are likely to

[[Page 11504]]

become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of their range. NMFS proposes to list 
these ESUs as such at this time.
    The listed Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU is proposed to 
be redefined to include additional fall-run chinook populations from 
the Deschutes River. NMFS has determined this redefined ESU is likely 
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. This proposed 
reclassification of the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU does 
not affect the threatened status of the currently defined ESU (see 63 
FR 1807, January 12, 1998).
    NMFS has also renamed one ESU which was previously reviewed for 
listing. The Middle Columbia summer and fall-run ESU is renamed the 
Upper Columbia River summer and fall-run ESU to reflect the inclusion 
of the fall-run chinook salmon populations from the Columbia River 
above The Dalles Dam in the newly configured Snake River fall-run ESU. 
The geographic boundaries for these ESUs (i.e., the watersheds within 
which the members of the ESU spend their freshwater residence) are 
described under ``ESU Determinations.''
    NMFS also proposes to designate critical habitat for each of the 
proposed chinook salmon ESUs, as described in the following section 
entitled Critical Habitat for Pacific Coast Chinook Salmon. Proposed 
critical habitat for each chinook salmon ESU proposed for listing has 
been characterized in that section, as well as in tables attached to 
this notice. Existing critical habitat for Snake River fall-run chinook 
salmon is proposed to be revised to include the geographic areas of the 
redefined Snake River fall-run ESU.
    Only naturally spawned chinook salmon are being proposed for 
listing as threatened or endangered species in each of the 8 ESUs. 
Prior to the final listing determination, NMFS will examine the 
relationship between hatchery and natural chinook salmon populations in 
these ESUs, and assess whether any hatchery populations are essential 
for their recovery. This may result in the inclusion of specific 
hatchery populations as part of a listed ESU in NMFS' final 
determination.

Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures that may apply to listed species as 
endangered or threatened under the ESA include conservation measures by 
tribes, states, local governments, and private organizations, Federal, 
tribal, and state recovery actions, Federal agency consultation 
requirements, prohibitions on taking, and recognition. Recognition 
through listing promotes public awareness and conservation actions by 
Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and 
individuals.
    Based on information presented in this proposed rule, general 
protective measures that could be implemented to help conserve the 
species are listed below. This list does not constitute NMFS' 
interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) of the ESA.
    1. Measures could be taken to promote land management practices 
that protect and restore chinook salmon habitat. Land management 
practices affecting chinook salmon habitat include timber harvest, road 
building, agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban development.
    2. Evaluation of existing harvest regulations could identify any 
changes necessary to protect chinook salmon populations.
    3. Artificial propagation programs could be required to incorporate 
practices that minimize adverse impacts upon native populations of 
chinook salmon.
    4. Efforts could be made to ensure that existing and proposed dam 
facilities are designed and operated in a manner that will not 
adversely affect chinook salmon populations. For example, NMFS could 
require that fish passage facilities at dams effectively pass migrating 
juvenile and adult chinook salmon.
    5. Water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff gauge 
structures installed to control and monitor water usage accurately. 
Water rights could be enforced to prevent irrigators from exceeding the 
amount of water to which they are legally entitled.
    6. Irrigation diversions affecting downstream migrating chinook 
salmon could be screened. A thorough review of the impact of irrigation 
diversions on chinook salmon could be conducted.
    NMFS recognizes that, to be successful, protective regulations and 
recovery programs for chinook salmon will need to be developed in the 
context of conserving aquatic ecosystem health. NMFS believes in some 
cases, Federal lands and Federal activities may bear a preponderance of 
the burden in preserving proposed populations and the ecosystems upon 
which they depend. However, throughout the range of the eight ESUs 
proposed for listing, chinook salmon habitat occurs and is affected by 
activities on state, tribal or private land. Agricultural, timber, and 
urban management activities on nonfederal land could and should be 
conducted in a manner that avoids adverse effects to chinook salmon 
habitat.
    NMFS encourages nonfederal landowners to assess the impacts of 
their actions on potentially threatened or endangered salmonids. In 
particular, NMFS encourages the formulation of watershed partnerships 
to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem principles. These 
partnerships will be successful only if state, tribal, and local 
governments, landowner representatives, conservationists, and Federal 
and nonfederal biologists all participate and share the goal of 
restoring chinook salmon to the watersheds.
    Several conservation efforts are underway that may reverse the 
decline of west coast chinook salmon and other salmonids. These include 
the Northwest Forest Plan (on Federal lands within the range of the 
northern spotted owl), PACFISH (on all additional Federal lands with 
anadromous salmonid populations), Oregon's Plan for Salmon and 
Watersheds focussing on coho salmon and steelhead, Washington's Wild 
Stock Restoration Initiative, the Central Valley Project Improvement 
Act and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (a joint effort by California and 
several Federal agencies to restore the Sacramento and San Joaquin 
River estuary), Wy-Kam-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (The Spirit of the Salmon): 
The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan from the four 
Native American treaty tribes that configure the Columbia River Inter-
tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) (CRITFC, 1996), and NMFS'' Proposed 
Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon, and a Draft Recovery Plan for 
Sacramento winter-run Chinook Salmon.

State of California Conservation Measures

    As discussed in the section entitled Efforts Being Made to Protect 
West Coast Chinook Salmon above, the CALFED Bay-Delta program is 
developing a comprehensive long-term restoration plan and 
implementation strategy that is intended to restore the ecosystem 
health and improve water management for the beneficial uses of the Bay-
Delta ecosystem. This planning effort is focused on addressing four 
critical resource areas: ecosystem quality, water quality, system 
integrity, and water supply reliability. In addition, substantial 
planning has been directed at developing alternatives for water 
conveyance and storage that are consistent with the objectives of the 
long-term plan. A draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental 
Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) is under

[[Page 11505]]

development by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program that will assess the 
impacts of the entire CALFED Bay-Delta long-term plan and provide 
additional public opportunity for comment. The DEIS/EIR is expected to 
be released during the spring of 1998.
    A major component of the long-term CALFED Bay-Delta Program is the 
Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan (ERPP) which is being developed to 
address the ecosystem quality element of the long-term plan. The draft 
ERPP is comprised of three components. The first component, Visions for 
Ecosystem Elements (CALFED Bay-Delta Program, ERPP Volume I, June 
1997), presents the visions for ecological processes and functions, 
fish and wildlife habitats, and stressors that impair the health of the 
processes, habitats, and species. The second component, Visions for 
Ecological Zones (CALFED Bay-Delta Program, ERPP Volume II, July 1997), 
presents the visions for the 14 ecological zones and their respective 
ecological units throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin River basins and 
Delta and contains implementation objectives, targets, and programmatic 
actions. The third component, Vision for Adaptive Management (CALFED 
Bay-Delta Program, ERPP Volume III, August 1997) provides the ERPP 
approach to adaptive management and contains the proposed plans to 
address indicators of ecological health, a monitoring program to 
acquire and evaluate the data needed regarding indicators, a program of 
focused research to acquire additional data needed to evaluate program 
alternatives and options, and the approach to phasing the 
implementation of the ERPP over its 25 year time span.
    The draft ERPP addresses the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, 
their upper watersheds, and the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Within this large 
geographic area, the ERPP identifies 14 ecological zones where the 
majority of restoration actions will occur. Ecosystem functions that 
are important to anadromous salmonids and that are addressed in the 
ERPP include: the quantity and quality of Central Valley streamflow and 
temperatures, natural sediment supply, stream meander corridor, natural 
floodplain, flood and watershed processes, Bay-Delta hydraulics and 
aquatic food chain, tidal and nontidal perennial aquatic habitat, 
sloughs, quantity and quality of estuarine, wetland, riverine, and 
riparian habitats. Environmental stressors, or risk factors, that are 
identified and addressed in the ERPP include: water diversions, quality 
and quantity of water, habitat blockages due to dams and other manmade 
structures, dredging and sediment disposal, gravel mining, encroachment 
of nonendemic species, predation and competition, contaminants, legal 
and illegal harvest, artificial fish propagation, and land disturbance.
    The total cost for implementing the ERPP has been estimated at $1.5 
billion, of which about half should be available through state 
Proposition 204 bonds and expected federal appropriations. These funds 
will be used to provide the initial infusion of funding to move the 
implementation of the ERPP forward. The ERPP implementation assumes 
that the $390 million identified in Proposition 204 will become 
available for expenditure after the CALFED Bay-Delta Program long-term 
restoration plan is formally adopted by the CALFED agencies through 
filing of a Record of Decision for the Federal EIS and certification of 
the EIR by the California Resources Agency by late 1998. The ERPP 
assumes that these funds will be encumbered and expended during the 25 
year period of implementation which provides for a pro-rated 
availability of $15 million per year. Category III funding is assumed 
to complete the expenditure of $180 million during the first five years 
on actions identified for early implementation. Other sources of 
funding are expected to be available through Federal appropriations and 
through the CVPIA.
    NMFS intends to continue working closely with the State of 
California through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in their efforts to 
formulate a long-term restoration plan and an associated implementation 
strategy for the Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration. This habitat-focused 
conservation effort, if combined with State efforts addressing hatchery 
and harvest reform (i.e., reductions in hatchery production, increased 
marking of hatchery fish, changes in release practices to reduce 
straying, improved monitoring of escapement and stray rates, and 
reductions in ocean and freshwater harvest rates) could ameliorate the 
risks facing fall/late-fall chinook salmon stocks in the Central 
Valley. The degree to which these conservation efforts provide 
reliable, measurable and predictable reductions in the identified 
factors for decline, may provide NMFS with direct and substantial 
information pertinent to making final listing determinations for 
Central Valley chinook stocks.
    In the San Joaquin River Basin, collaboration between water 
interests and State/Federal resources agencies has led to a 
scientifically-based adaptive fisheries management plan known as the 
Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP). The VAMP proposes to use 
current knowledge to provide interim protections for San Joaquin fall-
run chinook salmon smolts; to gather scientific information on the 
effects of various San Joaquin River flows and Delta water export rates 
on the survival of salmon smolts through the Delta; and to provide 
environmental benefits in the San Joaquin River tributaries, lower San 
Joaquin River, and Delta. This 12-year plan will be implemented through 
experimental flows in the San Joaquin Basin and operational changes at 
the Delta pumping plants during the peak salmon smolt outmigration 
period, approximately April 15 to May 15. Additional attraction flows 
for adult fall-run chinook upstream passage are targeted for October. 
In coordination with VAMP, the California Department of Water Resources 
will be installing and operating a barrier at the Head of Old River to 
improve the survival of juvenile chinook emigrating from the lower San 
Joaquin River. Although initial implementation of the VAMP is scheduled 
for spring 1998, negotiations regarding some aspects of the program 
continue. Although the VAMP does address flow conditions in the lower 
San Joaquin River during the spring smolt outmigration period, water 
quality concerns in the San Joaquin Basin still remain. NMFS expects 
that additional information regarding the long-term commitment of all 
participating parties to fully implement the plan will be available to 
prior to the final listing determination for Central Valley fall/late-
fall chinook salmon.

State of California Conservation Measures for Coastal Chinook

    In 1997, the California State legislature introduced and passed 
Senate Bill (SB) 271 which initiated a north coast salmonid habitat 
restoration program in California. This program is expected to provide 
significant benefits for coastal chinook salmon populations, in 
addition to other coastal salmonids beginning this year. SB 271 
specifically created the Salmon and Steelhead Trout Restoration 
Account, and directed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 
to expend these funds on a wide range of watershed planning, on-the-
ground habitat restoration projects, and other restoration-related 
efforts for the purpose of restoring anadromous salmonid populations in 
California's coastal watersheds, primarily north of San Francisco. SB 
271 immediately transferred $3 million to the Account for CDFG to 
expend on the program in 1997 and 1998, and directed that $8 million be 
transferred to the Account annually for five years (beginning in fiscal 
year

[[Page 11506]]

1998-99 and continuing through fiscal year 2002-03) to continue funding 
this program. In total, SB 271 will provide $43 million in funding for 
north coast restoration projects over this six year period.
    SB 271 requires that nearly 90 percent of the $43 million in 
funding be spent on project grants issued through CDFG's existing 
Fishery Restoration Grants Program, and allows CDFG to use the 
remaining funds for project contract administration activities and 
biological support staff necessary to achieve the restoration 
objectives of the legislation. SB 271 specifies that: (1) funded 
projects emphasize the development of coordinated watershed improvement 
activities, (2) the highest priority be given to funding projects that 
restore habitat for salmon and/or steelhead that are eligible for 
protection as listed or candidate species under the State or Federal 
ESA, and (3) funded projects treat causes of fish habitat degradation 
and be designed to restore the structure and function of fish habitat. 
In addition, SB 271 specifically allocates: (1) at least 65 percent of 
all Account funding for salmonid habitat protection and restoration 
projects, with at least 75 percent of that funding used for upslope 
watershed and riparian area protection and restoration activities, and 
(2) up to 35 percent of the Account funding for projects such as 
watershed evaluation, assessment, and planning, project monitoring and 
evaluations, support to watershed organizations, project maintenance 
and monitoring, private sector training, and watershed/fishery 
education.
    In July 1997, California's Governor also signed Executive Order W-
159-97 that created a Watershed Restoration and Protection Council 
(WPRC) that was charged with: (1) providing oversight of State 
activities aimed at watershed protection and enhancement including the 
conservation and restoration of anadromous salmonids in California, and 
(2) directing the development of a Watershed Protection Program which 
provides for anadromous salmonid conservation. In furtherance of 
implementing the Governor's Executive Order and the development of a 
Watershed Protection Program for anadromous salmonids, CDFG established 
and began implementing its own Watershed Initiative in 1997 and 1998. 
As described above, CDFG received $3 million in funding from SB 271 in 
1997-98 which was used to fund its Watershed Initiative for coastal 
anadromous salmonids. These funds are currently in the process of being 
dispersed, together with a relatively limited amount of funds from 
other sources (e.g. Proposition 70, Proposition 99, Commercial Salmon 
Stamp Account, Steelhead Catch-Restoration Card, and Wildlife 
Conservation Board), in the form of grants through CDFG's Fishery 
Restoration Grants Program.
    CDFG expects to allocate these grant funds as follows: (1) at least 
$1.3 million for watershed and riparian habitat restoration, (2) up to 
$425,000 for instream habitat restoration, and (3) up to $900,000 for 
watershed evaluation, assessment, planning, restoration project 
maintenance and monitoring, and a wide range of other activities. Other 
State agencies that have responsibilities as a result of the Governor's 
Executive Order are modifying existing budgets and preparing budget 
proposals for the upcoming fiscal year (1998-99) to assist in 
implementing the State's coastal watershed initiative. For fiscal year 
1998-99, CDFG has submitted a Budget Change Proposal for its Watershed 
Initiative which calls for the expenditure of $8.0 million in SB 271 
funds for: (1) eight new positions to assist in watershed planning 
efforts and grant proposal development ($1.0 million), and (2) habitat 
restoration and watershed planning projects in the form of grants ($7.0 
million). CDFG anticipates that SB 271 funding will be expended in a 
similar manner and level through fiscal year 2002-03 to support the new 
staff resources created in the current year. The funding of these 
current and near term watershed planning and habitat restoration 
efforts is expected to provide significant benefits to chinook salmon 
stocks in California's coastal watersheds and in the Klamath/Trinity 
Basin. Over the next year, NMFS expects to work with the State in the 
development of its Watershed Protection Program and the implementation 
of its Watershed Initiative. NMFS is encouraged by their efforts and 
will consider them in its final listing determination for the Southern 
Oregon and California Coastal ESU.

State of Washington Conservation Measures

    The State of Washington is currently in the process of developing a 
statewide strategy to protect and restore wild steelhead and other 
salmon and trout species. In May of 1997, Governor Gary Locke and other 
State officials signed a Memorandum of Agreement creating the Joint 
Natural Resources Cabinet (Joint Cabinet). This body is comprised of 
State agency directors or their equivalents from a wide variety of 
agencies whose activities and constituents influence Washington's 
natural resources. The goal of the Joint Cabinet is to restore healthy 
salmon, steelhead and trout populations by improving those habitats on 
which the fish rely. The Joint Cabinet's current activities include 
development of the Lower Columbia Steelhead Conservation Initiative 
(LCSCI), which is intended to comprehensively address protection and 
recovery of steelhead in the lower Columbia River area.
    The scope of the LCSCI includes Washington's steelhead stocks in 
two transboundary ESUs that are shared by both Washington and Oregon. 
The initiative area includes all of Washington's stocks in the Lower 
Columbia River ESU (Cowlitz to Wind rivers) and the portion of the 
Southwest Washington ESU in the Columbia River (Grays River to Germany 
Creek). When completed, conservation and restoration efforts in the 
LCSCI area will form a comprehensive, coordinated, and timely 
protection and rebuilding framework. Benefits to steelhead and other 
fish species in the LCSCI area will also accrue due to the growing bi-
state partnership with Oregon.
    Advance work on the Initiative was performed by the Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). That work emphasized harvest 
and hatchery issues and related conservation measures. Consistent with 
creation of the Joint Cabinet, conservation planning has recently been 
expanded to include major involvement by other state agencies and 
stakeholders, and to address habitat and tributary dam/hydropower 
components.
    The utility of the LCSCI is to provide a framework to describe 
concepts, strategies, opportunities, and commitments that will be 
critically needed to maintain the diversity and long term productivity 
of steelhead in the lower Columbia River for future generations. The 
initiative does not represent a formal watershed planning process; 
rather, it is intended to be complementary to such processes as they 
may occur in the future. The LCSCI details a range of concerns 
including natural production and genetic conservation, recreational 
harvest and opportunity, hatchery strategies, habitat protection and 
restoration goals, monitoring of stock status and habitat health, 
evaluation of the effectiveness of specific conservation actions, and 
an adaptive management structure to implement and modify the plan's 
trajectory as time progresses. It also addresses improved enforcement 
of habitat and fishery regulations, and strategies for outreach and 
education.
    The LCSCI is currently a ``work-in-progress'' and will evolve and 
change

[[Page 11507]]

over time as new information becomes available. Input will be obtained 
through continuing outreach efforts by local governments and 
stakeholders. Further refinements to strategies, actions, and 
commitments will occur using public and stakeholder review and input, 
and continued interaction with the State of Oregon, tribes, and other 
government entities, including NMFS. The LCSCI will be subjected to 
independent technical review. In sum, these input and coordination 
processes will play a key role in determining the extent to which the 
eventual conservation package will benefit wild steelhead.
    NMFS intends to continue working with the State of Washington and 
stakeholders involved in the formulation of the LCSCI. Ultimately, when 
completed, this conservation effort may ameliorate risks facing many 
salmonid species in this region. In the near term, for steelhead and 
other listed species, individual components of the conservation effort 
may be utilized in promulgating protective regulations under section 
4(d) of the ESA.

State of Oregon Conservation Measures

    As discussed in the section entitled Efforts Being Made to Protect 
West Coast Chinook Salmon, the Governor of Oregon completed and 
submitted to NMFS a comprehensive conservation plan directed 
specifically at coho salmon and steelhead stocks on the Coast of 
Oregon. The OPSW contains conservation elements that may apply to the 
needs of chinook salmon in Oregon streams.
    The elements of the OPSW most likely to benefit chinook salmon 
conservation include: (1) a framework for prioritizing conservation and 
restoration efforts; (2) a comprehensive monitoring plan that 
coordinates Federal, state, and local efforts to improve current 
knowledge of freshwater and marine conditions, determine populations 
trends, evaluate the effects of artificial propagation, and evaluate 
the OPSW's success or failure in restoring chinook salmon; (3) a 
recognition that actions to conserve and restore salmon must be worked 
out by communities and landowners--those who possess local knowledge of 
problems and who have a genuine stake in the outcome. Watershed 
councils, soil and water conservation districts, and other grassroots 
efforts are the vehicles for getting this work done; (4) an explicit 
mechanism for learning from experience, evaluating alternative 
approaches, and making needed changes in the programs and measures; (5) 
the IMST whose purpose is to provide an independent audit of the OPSW's 
strengths and weaknesses; and (6) a yearly report be made to the 
Governor, the legislature, and the public. This will help the agencies 
make the adjustments prescribed for the adaptive management process.

Native American Tribal Conservation Efforts

    A comprehensive salmon restoration plan for Columbia Basin salmon 
was prepared by the Nez Perce, Warm Springs, Umatilla and Yakama Indian 
Nations. This plan, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (The Spirit of the 
Salmon)(CRITFC, 1996) is more comprehensive than past draft recovery 
plans for Columbia River basin salmon in that it proposes actions to 
protect salmon not currently listed under the ESA. The tribal plan sets 
goals and objectives to meet the restoration needs of the fish, as well 
as some of the multiple needs of these sovereign nations. The plan also 
provides some guidance for management of tribal lands within the range 
of anadromous salmon. NMFS will work closely with the four tribes as 
conservation measures related to at-risk Columbia Basin salmonids are 
further developed and implemented.
    NMFS is encouraged by these efforts and believes they may 
constitute significant strides in regional efforts to develop a 
scientifically well grounded conservation plan for these stocks, and 
for chinook salmon. NMFS intends to support and work closely with these 
efforts. The degree to which these conservation efforts are able to 
provide reliable, scientifically well grounded improvements through a 
variety of measures to provide for the conservation of these stocks may 
have a direct and substantial effect on any final listing determination 
of NMFS.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

    Section 4(d) of the ESA requires NMFS to issue regulations it finds 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a listed 
species. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits violations of protective 
regulations for threatened species promulgated under section 4(d). The 
4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to threatened 
species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA 
prohibits with respect to endangered species. These 9(a) prohibitions 
and 4(d) regulations apply to all individuals, organizations, and 
agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. NMFS intends to have final 4(d) 
protective regulations in effect at the time of final listing 
determinations for eight proposed west coast chinook salmon ESUs. The 
process for completing the 4(d) rule will provide the opportunity for 
public comment on the proposed protective regulations.
    In the case of threatened species, NMFS also has flexibility under 
section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations based on the contents of 
available conservation measures. Even though, in several ESUs, existing 
conservation efforts and plans are not sufficient to preclude the need 
for listings at this time, they are nevertheless valuable for improving 
watershed health and restoring fishery resources. In those cases where 
well-developed, reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose to 
incorporate them into the recovery planning process, starting with the 
protective regulations. NMFS has already adopted 4(d) rules that exempt 
a limited range of activities from take prohibitions. For example, the 
interim 4(d) rule for the Southern Oregon/Northern California coho (62 
FR 24588, May 7, 1997) exempts habitat restoration activities conducted 
in accordance with approved plans and fisheries conducted in accordance 
with an approved state management plan. In the future, 4(d) rules may 
contain limited take prohibitions applicable to activities such as 
forestry, agriculture, and road construction when such activities are 
conducted in accordance with approved conservation plans.
    These are all examples where NMFS may apply take prohibitions in 
light of the protections provided in a strong conservation program. 
There may be other circumstances as well in which NMFS would use the 
flexibility of section 4(d). For example, in some cases there may be a 
healthy population of salmon or steelhead within an overall ESU that is 
listed. In such a case, it may not be necessary to apply the full range 
of prohibitions available in section 9. NMFS intends to use the 
flexibility of the ESA to respond appropriately to the biological 
condition of each ESU and to the strength of programs to protect them.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies confer 
with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 
For listed species, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure 
that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal

[[Page 11508]]

agency must enter into consultation with NMFS.
    Examples of Federal actions likely to affect chinook salmon include 
authorized land management activities of the USFS and BLM, as well as 
operation of hydroelectric and storage projects of the BOR and COE. 
Such activities include timber sales and harvest, permitting livestock 
grazing, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control. Federal 
actions, including the COE section 404 permitting activities under the 
CWA, COE permitting activities under the River and Harbors Act, FERC 
licenses for non-Federal development and operation of hydropower, and 
Federal salmon hatcheries, may also require consultation.
    Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with 
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions. 
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be 
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that 
involves a directed take of listed species. A directed take refers to 
the intentional take of listed species. NMFS has issued section 
10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permits for currently listed chinook 
salmon (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon and Sacramento River winter-
run chinook salmon) for a number of activities, including trapping and 
tagging, electroshocking to determine population presence and 
abundance, removal of fish from irrigation ditches, and collection of 
adult fish for artificial propagation programs.
    Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities performing activities which may incidentally take 
listed species. The types of activities potentially requiring a section 
10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the operation and release of 
artificially propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded 
hatcheries, state or academic research not receiving Federal 
authorization or funding, the implementation of state fishing 
regulations, logging, road building, grazing, and diverting water into 
private lands.

NMFS Policies on Endangered and Threatened Fish and Wildlife

    On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, published a series of policies regarding listings under the 
ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 
34270) and a policy to identify, to the maximum extent possible, those 
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 
of the ESA (59 FR 34272).

Role of Peer Review

     The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings 
are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Prior 
to a final listing, NMFS will solicit the expert opinions of at least 
three qualified specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. 
Independent peer reviewers will be selected from the academic and 
scientific community, Native American tribal groups, Federal and state 
agencies, and the private sector.

Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of 
Section 9 of the ESA

    NMFS and the FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall identify, to the maximum extent 
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that 
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The 
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of 
this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' 
range. At the time of the final rule, NMFS will identify to the extent 
known specific activities that will not be considered likely to result 
in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will be 
considered likely to result in violation. NMFS believes that, based on 
the best available information, the following actions will not result 
in a violation of section 9:
    1. Possession of chinook salmon from any chinook salmon ESU listed 
as threatened which are acquired lawfully by permit issued by NMFS 
pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the terms of an incidental 
take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
    2. Federally funded or approved projects that involve activities 
such as silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam 
construction and operation, discharge of fill material, stream 
channelization or diversion for which section 7 consultation has been 
completed, and when activities are conducted in accordance with any 
terms and conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take statement 
accompanying a biological opinion.
    Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm chinook salmon 
in any of the proposed ESUs, and result in a violation of the section 9 
take prohibition include, but are not limited to:
    1. Land-use activities that adversely affect chinook salmon habitat 
in any proposed ESU (e.g., logging, grazing, farming, urban 
development, road construction in riparian areas and areas susceptible 
to mass wasting and surface erosion).
    2. Destruction/alteration of the chinook salmon habitat in any 
proposed ESU, such as removal of large woody debris and ``sinker logs'' 
or riparian shade canopy, dredging, discharge of fill material, 
draining, ditching, diverting, blocking, or altering stream channels or 
surface or ground water flow.
    3. Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants 
(e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting 
the chinook salmon in any proposed ESU.
    4. Violation of discharge permits.
    5. Pesticide applications.
    6. Interstate and foreign commerce of chinook salmon from any of 
the proposed ESUs and import/export of chinook salmon from any ESU 
without a threatened or endangered species permit.
    7. Collecting or handling of chinook salmon from any of the 
proposed ESUs. Permits to conduct these activities are available for 
purposes of scientific research or to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species.
    8. Introduction of non-native species likely to prey on chinook 
salmon in any proposed ESU or displace them from their habitat.
    These lists are not exhaustive. They are intended to provide some 
examples of the types of activities that might or might not be 
considered by NMFS as constituting a take of chinook salmon in any of 
the proposed ESUs under the ESA and its regulations. Questions 
regarding whether specific activities will constitute a violation of 
the section 9 take prohibition, and general inquiries regarding 
prohibitions and permits, should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently 
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. NMFS 
has determined that sufficient information exists to propose 
designating critical habitat for the seven proposed chinook salmon 
ESUs. NMFS will consider all available information and data in 
finalizing this proposal.
    Use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this Notice refers to 
critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be confused with 
the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

[[Page 11509]]

Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Definition of Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i) 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
* * * on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon 
a determination by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) that such 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.'' (see 16 
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section 
3(3) of the ESA, means `` * * * to use and the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to this Act are no longer necessary.'' (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
    In proposing to designate critical habitat, NMFS considers the 
following requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and 
population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, 
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; 
(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing 
of offspring; and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from 
disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and 
ecological distributions of this species (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In 
addition to these factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and 
biological features (primary constituent elements) within the 
designated area that are essential to the conservation of the species 
and may require special management considerations or protection. These 
essential features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, 
food resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation 
(see 50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

    The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation 
will be considered and evaluated in this proposed rulemaking. NMFS will 
identify present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify 
the area(s) being considered or be affected by a designation. An area 
may be excluded from a critical habitat designation if NMFS determines 
that the overall benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the 
species (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
    The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental 
impacts specifically resulting from a critical habitat designation, 
above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the 
species or resulting from other laws and regulations. Since listing a 
species under the ESA provides significant protection to a species' 
habitat, the economic and other impacts resulting from the critical 
habitat designation, over and above the impacts of the listing itself, 
are minimal. In general, the designation of critical habitat highlights 
geographical areas of concern and reinforces the substantive protection 
resulting from the listing itself.
    Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the 
``take'' prohibitions contained in section 9 of the ESA and associated 
regulations. ``Take,'' as defined in the ESA, means to harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 
attempt to engage in any such conduct (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm 
can occur through destruction or modification of habitat (whether or 
not designated as critical) that significantly impairs essential 
behaviors, including breeding, feeding, rearing, or migration.

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat

    The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself, 
restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific 
management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation 
contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important 
areas and by describing the features within those areas that are 
essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to 
the area's importance. Under the ESA, the only regulatory impact of a 
critical habitat designation is through the provisions of section 7. 
Section 7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement (e.g., 
authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does not 
affect exclusively state or private activities.
    Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat 
would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or adversely 
modify designated critical habitat. Activities that destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are defined as those actions that 
``appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the 
survival and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Regardless 
of a critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
the proposed species. Activities that jeopardize a species are defined 
as those actions that ``reasonably would be expected, directly or 
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival 
and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Using these 
definitions, activities that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat would also be likely to jeopardize the species. Therefore, the 
protection provided by a critical habitat designation generally 
duplicates the protection provided under the section 7 jeopardy 
provision. Critical habitat may provide additional benefits to a 
species in cases where areas outside the species' current range have 
been designated. When actions may affect these areas, Federal agencies 
are required to consult with NMFS under section 7 (see 50 CFR 
402.14(a)), a requirement which may not have been recognized but for 
the critical habitat designation.
    A designation of critical habitat provides a clear indication to 
Federal agencies as to when section 7 consultation is required, 
particularly in cases where the action would not result in immediate 
mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed species (e.g., an 
action occurring within the critical area when a migratory species is 
not present). The critical habitat designation, describing the 
essential features of the habitat, also assists in determining which 
activities conducted outside the designated area are subject to section 
7 (i.e., activities that may affect essential features of the 
designated area).
    A critical habitat designation will also assist Federal agencies in 
planning future actions, since the designation establishes, in advance, 
those habitats that will be given special consideration in section 7 
consultations. With a designation of critical habitat, potential 
conflicts between Federal actions and endangered or threatened species 
can be identified and possibly avoided early in the agency's planning 
process.
    Another indirect benefit of a critical habitat designation is that 
it helps focus Federal, state, and private conservation and management 
efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address special 
considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation 
regulations to restrict private as well as Federal activities. The 
economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the 
time of those proposed regulations and, therefore, are not considered 
in the critical habitat

[[Page 11510]]

designation process. Other Federal, state, tribal and local management 
programs, such as zoning or wetlands and riparian lands protection, may 
also provide special protection for critical habitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

    Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three 
main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species are 
evaluated and habitat areas and features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species are identified. If alternative areas exist 
that would provide for the conservation of the species, such 
alternatives are also identified. Second, the need for special 
management considerations or protection of the area(s) or features is 
evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and other impacts of 
designating these essential areas as ``critical habitat'' are 
evaluated. After considering the requirements of the species, the need 
for special management, and the impacts of the designation, the 
proposed critical habitat is published in the Federal Register for 
comment. The final critical habitat designation, considering comments 
on the proposal and impacts assessment, is typically published within 
one year of the proposed rule. Final critical habitat designations may 
be revised, using the same process, as new information becomes 
available.
    A description of the critical habitat, need for special management, 
impacts of designating critical habitat, and the proposed action are 
described in the following sections.

Critical Habitat of Pacific Coast Chinook Salmon

    Biological information for proposed chinook salmon can be found in 
NMFS species' status reviews (Myers et al., 1998; Waknitz et al., 1995; 
Waples et al., 1991); species life history summaries (Ricker, 1972; 
Taylor, 1991; Healey, 1991; Burgner, 1991); and in Federal Register 
notices of proposed and final listing determinations (55 FR 102260, 
March 20, 1990; 56 FR 29542 and 29544, June 27, 1991; 57 FR 36626, 
August 14, 1992; 57 FR 57051, December 2, 1992; 59 FR 42529, August 18, 
1994; 59 FR 48855, September 23, 1994; 59 FR 66784, December 28, 1994; 
63 FR 1807, January 12, 1998).
    The current geographic range of chinook salmon from California, 
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho includes vast areas of the North Pacific 
Ocean, nearshore marine zone, and extensive estuarine and riverine 
areas. The marine distribution for stream-type chinook salmon includes 
extensive areas far from the coast in the central North Pacific. Ocean-
type chinook salmon typically migrate along coastal waters. Coastal 
chinook populations originating from south of Cape Blanco tend to 
migrate south, while those chinook salmon populations originating in 
coastal streams north of Cape Blanco tend to migrate northerly (Bakun 
1973, 1975; Nicholas and Hankin, 1988; Healey 1983 and 1991; Myers et 
al., 1984).
    In California, major estuaries and bays known to support Central 
Valley chinook salmon include San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and 
Suisun Bay. Within the Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon ESU, 
major rivers and estuaries known to support chinook salmon include the 
Sacramento River, American River, Feather River, Yuba River, and Deer, 
Mill, Butte, Clear and Antelope Creeks. Within California's Central 
Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon ESU, major rivers and 
estuaries known to support chinook salmon include the Sacramento River; 
its tributaries including but not limited to the American River, 
Feather River, Yuba River, and Deer, Mill, Battle and Clear Creeks; as 
well as the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, including but not 
limited to the Mokelumne, Consumnes, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced 
Rivers. Within the California portion of the Southern Oregon and 
California Coastal chinook salmon ESU, major rivers, estuaries, and 
bays known to support chinook salmon include the Smith River, lower 
Klamath River, Mad River, Redwood Creek, Humboldt Bay, Eel River, 
Mattole River, and the Russian River. Many smaller streams in the 
California portion of this ESU also contain chinook salmon.
    In Oregon, major rivers, estuaries, and bays known to support 
chinook salmon within the Oregon portion of the Southern Oregon and 
California Coastal chinook salmon ESU include the Rogue River and 
several of its tributaries, and the Pistol, Chetco and Winchuck Rivers. 
Within the range of the Oregon portion of the lower Columbia River 
chinook salmon ESU, major rivers, estuaries, and bays known to support 
chinook salmon include Youngs Bay, Klaskanine River, and the Clackamas, 
Sandy and Hood Rivers. Major rivers known to support chinook salmon 
within the upper Willamette River ESU include the Mollala River, North 
Santiam River and McKenzie River. Major rivers known to support chinook 
salmon within the Oregon portion of the Snake River fall-run chinook 
salmon ESU include the Deschutes River, the lower Grande Ronde River, 
the Imnaha River, and the Oregon portion of the Columbia and Snake 
Rivers.
    In Washington, major rivers, estuaries, and bays known to support 
chinook salmon within the lower Columbia River ESU include the Grays 
River, Elochoman River, Kalama River, Lewis River, Washougal River and 
White Salmon River. Major rivers, estuaries, and bays known to support 
chinook salmon within the Puget Sound ESU include the Nooksack River, 
Skagit River and many of its tributaries, the Stilliguamish River, 
Snohomish River, Duwamish River, Puyallup River, and the Elwha River. 
Major estuarine, bay and marine areas known to support chinook salmon 
within the Puget Sound ESU also include the South Sound, Hood Canal, 
Elliott Bay, Possession Sound, Admiralty Inlet, Saratoga Passage, 
Rosario Strait, Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and the Strait of Juan 
De Fuca. Major rivers known to support chinook salmon within the upper 
Columbia River spring-run ESU include the Wenatchee River, Entiat 
River, and Methow River.
    In parts of Oregon, Washington and Idaho, major rivers known to 
support chinook salmon within the Snake River fall-run ESU include the 
lower Grande Ronde River, the Columbia River, the Snake River, the 
lower Salmon River, and the lower Clearwater River below its confluence 
with Lolo Creek.
    Many smaller rivers and streams in each ESU also provide essential 
spawning, rearing and estuarine habitat for chinook salmon, but use and 
access can be constrained by seasonal fluctuations in hydrologic 
conditions.
    Defining specific river reaches that are critical for chinook 
salmon is difficult because of the current low abundance of the species 
and of our imperfect understanding of the species' freshwater 
distribution, both current and historical. This is due, in large part, 
to the lack of comprehensive sampling effort dedicated to monitoring 
the species.
    In California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho, several recent efforts 
have been made to characterize the species' distribution (Healey, 1983 
and 1991, Bryant and Olson, in prep.; The Wilderness Society (TWS), 
1993; Bryant, 1994; McPhail and Lindsey 1970; Yoshiyama et al., 1996; 
Myers et al., 1998) or to identify watersheds important to at-risk 
populations of salmonids and resident fishes (FEMAT, 1993). However, 
the limited data across the range of all ESUs, as well as 
dissimilarities in data types within the ESUs, make it difficult to 
define this species' distribution at a fine scale. Chinook salmon, 
though considerably reduced in population size, are still

[[Page 11511]]

distributed or have the potential for distribution throughout nearly 
all watersheds within the geographic range of each ESU. Notable 
exceptions are areas above several impassable dams (see Barriers Within 
the Species' Range).
    Any attempt to describe the current distribution of chinook salmon 
must take into account the fact that existing populations and densities 
are a small fraction of historical levels. Many chinook salmon stocks 
are extremely depressed relative to past abundance and there are 
limited data to assess population numbers or trends. Several of these 
stocks are heavily influenced by hatcheries and apparently have little 
natural production in mainstem reaches.
    Within the range of all chinook salmon ESUs, the species' life 
cycle can be separated into five essential habitat types: (1) Juvenile 
summer and winter rearing areas; (2) juvenile migration corridors; (3) 
areas for growth and development to adulthood; (4) adult migration 
corridors; and (5) spawning areas. Areas 1 and 5 are often located in 
small headwater streams, while areas 2 and 4 include these tributaries 
as well as mainstem reaches and estuarine zones. Growth and development 
to adulthood (area 3) occurs primarily in near- and off-shore marine 
waters, although final maturation takes place in freshwater tributaries 
when the adults return to spawn. Within all of these areas, essential 
features of chinook salmon critical habitat include adequate: (1) 
substrate, (2) water quality, (3) water quantity, (4) water 
temperature, (5) water velocity, (6) cover/shelter, (7) food, (8) 
riparian vegetation, (9) space, and (10) safe passage conditions. Given 
the vast geographic range occupied by each of these chinook salmon ESUs 
and the diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is 
not practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of 
these essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these 
environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed 
to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by 
CDFG, 1965; CACSST, 1988; Brown and Moyle, 1991; Bjornn and Reiser, 
1991; Nehlsen et al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992; California State 
Lands Commission (CSLC), 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; NMFS, 1996; and 
Spence et al., 1996.
    At the time of this proposed rule, NMFS believes that chinook 
salmon's current freshwater, estuarine, and certain marine range 
encompasses all essential habitat features and is adequate to ensure 
the species' conservation. Therefore, designation of habitat areas 
outside the species' current range is not indicated. Habitat quality in 
this current range is intrinsically related to the quality of upland 
areas and of inaccessible headwater or intermittent streams which 
provide key habitat elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, water 
quality) crucial for chinook salmon in downstream reaches. NMFS 
recognizes that estuarine habitats are important for rearing and 
migrating chinook salmon and has included them in this designation. 
Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward of the mouth 
of coastal rivers) are also vital to the species, and ocean conditions 
are believed to have a major influence on chinook salmon survival (see 
review in Pearcy, 1992). In most cases, NMFS believes there is no need 
for special management consideration or protection of this habitat. In 
the case of the Puget Sound ESU, due to the unique combination of 
geographic features, proximity to a large number of rivers and streams 
supporting chinook salmon, and wide range of human activities occurring 
within Puget Sound's marine area, it appears to be necessary to include 
the marine areas described above. NMFS is not proposing to designate 
other critical habitat in marine areas at this time. If additional 
information becomes available that supports the inclusion of such 
areas, NMFS may revise this designation.
    Based on consideration of the best available information regarding 
the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the preferred 
approach to identifying the freshwater and estuarine portion of 
critical habitat is to designate all areas (and their adjacent riparian 
zones) accessible to the species within the range of each ESU. NMFS has 
taken this approach in previous critical habitat designations for other 
species (e.g., Snake River salmon, Umpqua River cutthroat trout, and 
proposed for two coho salmon ESUs) which inhabit a wide range of 
freshwater habitats, in particular small tributary streams (58 FR 
68543, December 28, 1993; 63 FR 1388, January 9, 1998; 62 FR 62741, 
November 25, 1997). NMFS believes that adopting a more inclusive, 
watershed-based description of critical habitat is appropriate because 
it (1) recognizes the species' use of diverse habitats and underscores 
the need to account for all of the habitat types supporting the 
species' freshwater and estuarine life stages, from small headwater 
streams to migration corridors and estuarine rearing areas; (2) takes 
into account the natural variability in habitat use (e.g., some streams 
may have fish present only in years with plentiful rainfall) that makes 
precise mapping difficult; and (3) reinforces the important linkage 
between aquatic areas and adjacent riparian/upslope areas.
    An array of management issues encompasses these habitats and their 
features, and special management considerations will be needed, 
especially on lands and streams under Federal ownership (see Activities 
that May Affect Critical Habitat and Need for Special Management 
Considerations or Protection sections). While marine areas are also a 
critical link in this cycle, NMFS does not believe that special 
management considerations are needed to conserve the habitat features 
in these areas. Hence, except for the Puget Sound ESU, only the 
freshwater and estuarine areas are being proposed for critical habitat 
at this time.

Barriers Within the Species' Range

    Within the range of all threatened and endangered ESUs, chinook 
salmon face a multitude of barriers that limit the access of juvenile 
and adult fish to essential freshwater habitats. While some of these 
are natural barriers (e.g., waterfalls or high-gradient velocity 
barriers) that have been in existence for hundreds or thousands of 
years, more significant are the manmade barriers that have been created 
in the past century (CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; 
National Research Council, 1996). The extent of such barriers as 
culverts and road crossing structures that impede or block fish passage 
appears to be substantial. For example, of 532 fish presence surveys 
conducted in Oregon coastal basins during the 1995 survey season, 
nearly 15 percent of the confirmed ``end of fish use'' were due to 
human barriers, principally road culverts (OCSRI, 1997). Pushup dams/
diversions and irrigation withdrawals also present significant barriers 
or lethal conditions (e.g., high water temperatures) to chinook salmon 
in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. However, because these 
manmade barriers can, under certain flow conditions, be surmounted by 
fish or present only a temporary/seasonal barrier, NMFS does not 
consider them to delineate the upstream extent of critical habitat.
    Since these man-made impassible barriers are widely distributed 
throughout the range of each ESU, they can have a major downstream 
influence on chinook salmon. Such impacts can include the following: 
Depletion and storage of natural flows, which can drastically alter 
natural hydrological cycles; increase juvenile and adult mortality due 
to migration delays resulting from insufficient flows or

[[Page 11512]]

habitat blockages; stranding of fish resulting from rapid flow 
fluctuations; entrainment of juveniles into poorly screened or 
unscreened diversions; and increased mortality resulting from increased 
water temperatures (CACSST, 1988; Bergren and Filardo, 1991; CDFG, 
1991; Reynolds et al., 1993; Chapman et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; 
NMFS, 1996). In addition to these factors, reduced flows negatively 
affect fish habitats due to increased deposition of fine sediments in 
spawning gravels, decreased recruitment of large woody debris and 
spawning gravels, and encroachment of riparian and non-endemic 
vegetation into spawning and rearing areas, resulting in reduced 
available habitat (CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995; 
NMFS, 1996). These dam-related factors will be effectively addressed 
through section 7 consultations and the recovery planning process.
    Numerous hydropower and water storage projects have been built 
which block access to former spawning and rearing habitats used by 
chinook salmon, or alter the timing and quantity of waterflow to 
downstream river reaches. NMFS has identified a total of 44 dams within 
the range of the ESUs that currently block upstream or downstream 
passage for chinook salmon (see Hydrolic Unit Tables 10-17). Blocked 
habitat can constitute as much as 90 percent of the historic range of 
each ESU. While these blocked areas are proportionally significant in 
certain basins (e.g., California's Central Valley and the Snake River), 
NMFS concludes at this time that currently available habitat may be 
sufficient for the conservation of the affected chinook salmon ESUs. 
NMFS solicits comments and scientific information on this issue and 
will consider such information prior to issuing any final critical 
habitat designation. This may result in the inclusion of areas above 
some man-made impassible barriers in a future critical habitat 
designation. NMFS may also re-evaluate this conclusion during the 
recovery planning process and in section 7 consultations.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

    In order to assure that the essential areas and features are 
maintained or restored, special management may be needed. Activities 
that may require special management considerations for freshwater, 
estuarine, and marine life stages of proposed chinook salmon include, 
but are not limited to (1) land management; (2) timber harvest; (3) 
point and non-point water pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5) habitat 
restoration; (6) irrigation water withdrawals and returns; (7) mining; 
(8) road construction; (9) dam operation and maintenance; and (10) 
dredge and fill activities. Not all of these activities are necessarily 
of current concern within every watershed, estuary, or marine area; 
however, they indicate the potential types of activities that will 
require consultation in the future. No special management 
considerations have been identified for proposed chinook salmon while 
they are residing in the ocean environment, except as noted for the 
Puget Sound ESU.

Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat

    A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat 
requirements of proposed chinook salmon (see Summary of Factors for 
Decline section above for a more in-depth discussion). These activities 
include water and land management actions of Federal agencies, 
including the USFS, BLM, COE, BOR, the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHA), the EPA, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and 
related or similar actions of other federally regulated projects and 
lands, including livestock grazing allocations by the USFS and BLM; 
hydropower sites licensed by the FERC; dams built or operated by the 
COE or BOR; timber sales conducted by the USFS and BLM; road building 
activities authorized by the FHA, USFS, and BLM; and mining and road 
building activities authorized by the states of California, Oregon, 
Washington, and Idaho. Other actions of concern include dredge and 
fill, mining, and bank stabilization activities authorized or conducted 
by the COE. Additionally, actions of concern could include approval of 
water quality standards and pesticide labeling and use restrictions 
administered by the EPA.
    The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this 
critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, BOR, COE, FHA, EPA, 
and FERC. This designation will provide these agencies, private 
entities, and the public with clear notification of critical habitat 
designated for proposed chinook salmon and the boundaries of the 
habitat and protection provided for that habitat by the section 7 
consultation process. This designation will also assist these agencies 
and others in evaluating the potential effects of their activities on 
proposed chinook salmon and their critical habitat and in determining 
when consultation with NMFS is appropriate.

Expected Economic Impacts

    The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat 
designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation 
above the economic impacts attributable to either listing or to laws 
and regulations other than the ESA (see Consideration of Economic and 
Other Factors section of this notice). Incremental impacts result from 
special management activities in areas outside the present distribution 
of the proposed species that have been determined to be essential to 
the conservation of the species. However, NMFS has determined that the 
species' present freshwater, estuarine, as well as certain marine areas 
within the species' range, contains sufficient habitat for conservation 
of the species. Therefore, the economic impacts associated with this 
critical habitat designation are expected to be minimal.
    USFS, BLM, BOR, and the COE manage areas of proposed critical 
habitat for the proposed chinook salmon ESUs. The COE and other Federal 
agencies that may be involved with funding or permits for projects in 
critical habitat areas may also be affected by this designation. 
Because NMFS believes that virtually all ``adverse modification'' 
determinations pertaining to critical habitat would also result in 
``jeopardy'' conclusions, designation of critical habitat is not 
expected to result in significant incremental restrictions on Federal 
agency activities. Critical habitat designation will, therefore, result 
in few, if any, additional economic effects beyond those that may have 
been caused by listing and by other statutes.

Public Comments Solicited

    NMFS has exercised its best professional judgement in developing 
this proposal to list eight chinook salmon ESUs and designate their 
critical habitat under the ESA. To ensure that the final action 
resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and effective as 
possible, NMFS is soliciting comments and suggestions from the public, 
other governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and 
any other interested parties. NMFS will appreciate any additional 
information regarding, in particular: (1) the biological or other 
relevant data concerning any threat to chinook salmon; (2) the range, 
distribution, and population size of chinook salmon in all identified 
ESUs; (3) current or planned activities in the subject areas and their 
possible impact on this species; (4) chinook salmon escapement, 
particularly escapement data partitioned

[[Page 11513]]

into natural and hatchery components; (5) the proportion of naturally-
reproducing fish that were reared as juveniles in a hatchery; (6) 
homing and straying of natural and hatchery fish; (7) the reproductive 
success of naturally-reproducing hatchery fish (i.e., hatchery-produced 
fish that spawn in natural habitat) and their relationship to the 
identified ESUs; (8) efforts being made to protect native, naturally-
reproducing populations of chinook salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho 
and California; and (9) suggestions for specific regulations under 
section 4(d) of the ESA that should apply to threatened chinook salmon 
ESUs. Suggested regulations may address activities, plans, or 
guidelines that, despite their potential to result in the take of 
listed fish, will ultimately promote the conservation and recovery of 
threatened chinook salmon.
    NMFS is also requesting quantitative evaluations describing the 
quality and extent of freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats for 
juvenile and adult chinook salmon as well as information on areas that 
may qualify as critical habitat in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 
California for the proposed ESUs. Areas that include the physical and 
biological features essential to the recovery of the species should be 
identified. NMFS recognizes that there are areas within the proposed 
boundaries of some ESUs that historically constituted chinook salmon 
habitat, but may not be currently occupied by chinook salmon. NMFS is 
requesting information about chinook salmon in these currently 
unoccupied areas (in particular) and whether these habitats should be 
considered essential to the recovery of the species, or else be 
excluded from designation. Essential features include, but are not 
limited to: (1) Habitat for individual and population growth, and for 
normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other 
nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) 
sites for reproduction and rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that 
are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic 
geographical and ecological distributions of the species.
    For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is 
requesting information describing: (1) The activities that affect the 
area or could be affected by the designation, and (2) the economic 
costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures 
likely to result from the designation.
    The economic cost to be considered in the critical habitat 
designation under the ESA is the probable economic impact ``of the 
[critical habitat] designation upon proposed or ongoing activities'' 
(50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider the incremental costs specifically 
resulting from a critical habitat designation that are above the 
economic effects attributable to listing the species. Economic effects 
attributable to listing include actions resulting from section 7 
consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy to the species and from 
the taking prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA. Comments concerning 
economic impacts should distinguish the costs of listing from the 
incremental costs that can be attributed to the designation of specific 
areas as critical habitat.
    NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information 
regarding the status of the chinook salmon ESUs described herein and, 
as required under the ESA, will complete a final rule within 1 year of 
this proposed rule. The availability of new information may cause NMFS 
to reassess the status of chinook salmon ESUs, or to reassess the 
geographic extent of critical habitat.
    Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the 
Secretary ``shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any 
person so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed 
regulation to list * * * or to designate or revise critical habitat.'' 
(see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). Public hearings on the proposed rule will be 
scheduled and announced in a forthcoming Federal Register Notice. These 
hearings will provide the opportunity for the public to give comments 
and to permit an exchange of information and opinion among interested 
parties. NMFS encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters. 
Written comments on the proposed rule may also be submitted to Garth 
Griffin (see ADDRESSES and DATES).

References

    A complete list of all cited references is available upon request 
(see ADDRESSES).

Classification

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 
1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from 
environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.
    NMFS has also determined that an Environmental Assessment or an 
Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for 
this critical habitat designation. See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3D 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996).
    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has 
determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 
12866.
    NMFS is proposing to designating only the current range of this 
species as critical habitat. The current range encompasses a wide range 
of habitats, including small tributary reaches, as well as mainstem, 
off-channel, estuarine and marine areas. Areas excluded from this 
proposed designation include historically occupied areas above 
impassible dams, and headwater areas above impassable natural barriers 
(e.g., long-standing, natural waterfalls). NMFS has concluded that at 
the time of this proposal, currently inhabited areas within the range 
of west coast chinook salmon are the minimum habitat necessary to 
ensure conservation and recovery of the species.
    Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species 
as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional 
requirements or economic effects upon small entities, beyond those 
which may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1536(a)(2)). The consultation 
requirements of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the 
time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with 
NMFS and ensure their actions do not jeopardize a species once it is 
listed, regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
    In the future, if NMFS determines that designation of habitat areas 
outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation and 
recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action and 
assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis 
would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of 
the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and 
governments.

[[Page 11514]]

    Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and 
Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the 
proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact 
of a substantial number of small entities, as described in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    This rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement 
for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    At this time NMFS is not promulgating protective regulations 
pursuant to ESA section 4(d). In the future, prior to finalizing its 
4(d) regulations for these threatened ESUs, NMFS will comply with all 
relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.
    The AA has determined that the proposed listing and designation is 
consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the approved 
Coastal Zone Management Program of the States of California, Oregon, 
and Washington. This determination has been submitted for review by the 
responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone 
Management Act.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 222

    Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened 
wildlife, Exports, Imports, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, 
Transportation.

50 CFR Part 226

    Endangered and threatened species.

50 CFR Part 227

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine 
mammals, Transportation.

    Dated: February 26, 1998.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 222, 226, and 
227 are amended to read as follows:

PART 222--ENDANGERED FISH OR WILDLIFE

    1. The authority citation of part 222 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart D, Sec. 222.32 also 
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 222.23, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the second 
sentence and by adding five sentences in its place to read as follows:


Sec. 222.23  Permits for scientific purposes or to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the affected endangered species.

    (a) * * * The species listed as endangered under either the 
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 or the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973 and currently under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
Commerce are: Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum); Totoaba 
(Cynoscian macdonaldi), Snake River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus 
nerka), Umpqua River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki); 
Southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which includes all 
naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in 
streams from the Santa Maria River, San Luis Obispo County, California 
(inclusive) to Malibu Creek, Los Angeles County, California 
(inclusive); Upper Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), 
which includes the Wells Hatchery stock and all naturally spawned 
populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in streams in the Columbia 
River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the United 
States--Canada Border; Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), which includes all naturally spawned 
populations of chinook (and their progeny) in the Sacramento River and 
its tributaries in California. Also included are river reaches and 
estuarine areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, all waters from 
Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay, 
Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters of San Pablo 
Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco 
Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay 
to the Golden Gate Bridge. Excluded are areas above specific dams 
identified in Table 10 of this part or above longstanding, naturally 
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least 
several hundred years); Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), which includes all naturally spawned 
populations of chinook (and their progeny) in all river reaches 
accessible to chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries upstream of 
the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, 
excluding the Okanogan River. Also included are river reaches and 
estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight line connecting 
the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the 
west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream 
to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington. Excluded are areas above specific 
dams identified in Table 16 of this part or above longstanding, 
naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence 
for at least several hundred years); Sacramento River winter-run 
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); Western North Pacific 
(Korean) gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Blue whale (Balaenoptera 
musculus), Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Bowhead whale 
(Balaena mysticetus), Right whales (Eubalaena spp.), Fin or finback 
whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), Sperm 
whale (Physeter catodon); Cochito (Phocoena Sinus), Chinese river 
dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer); Indus River dolphin (Platanista minor); 
Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis); Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus 
schauinslandi); Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus); Saimaa 
seal (Phoca hispida saimensis); Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), 
western population, which consists of Steller sea lions from breeding 
colonies located west of 144 deg. W. long.; Leatherback sea turtle 
(Dermochelys coriacea); Pacific hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys 
imbricata bissa); Atlantic hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata 
imbricata); and Atlantic ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). * * *
* * * * *

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

    3. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

    4. Section 226.28 is added to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec. 226.28  Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha), Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Southern Oregon and California coastal 
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Lower Columbia River chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Upper Willamette River chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook 
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Snake River fall-run chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

    Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent 
riparian zone of accessible estuarine and riverine reaches, as well as 
some marine areas, in hydrologic units and counties identified in 
Tables 10 through 17 of this part for all of the chinook salmon ESUs 
listed above. Accessible reaches

[[Page 11515]]

are those within the historical range of the ESUs that can still be 
occupied by any life stage of chinook salmon. Inaccessible reaches are 
those above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural 
waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years) and 
specific dams within the historical range of each ESU identified in 
Tables 10 through 17 of this part. Adjacent riparian zones are defined 
as those areas within a slope distance of 300 ft (91.4 m) from the 
normal line of high water of a stream channel or adjacent off-channel 
habitats (600 ft or 182.8 m, when both sides of the channel are 
included). Hydrologic units are those defined by the Department of the 
Interior (DOI), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic 
Unit Maps, Water Supply Paper 2294, 1986,'' and the following DOI, 
USGS, 1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit maps: State of California (1978), 
State of Idaho (1981), State of Oregon (1974), and State of Washington 
(1974) which are incorporated by reference. This incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
of the USGS publication and maps may be obtained from the USGS, Map 
Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may be inspected at NMFS, 
Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, 
OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or at the Office of the Federal 
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (a) Central Valley Spring-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to 
include all river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in the 
Sacramento River and its tributaries in California. Also included are 
river reaches and estuarine areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 
all waters from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including 
Honker Bay, Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters 
of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of 
San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from 
San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge. Excluded are areas above 
specific dams identified in Table 10 of this part or above 
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls 
in existence for at least several hundred years).
    (b) Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to 
include all river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries in California. 
Also included are river reaches and estuarine areas of the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta, all waters from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez 
Bridge, including Honker Bay, Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez 
Strait, all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, 
and all waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland 
Bay Bridge from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge. Excluded are 
areas upstream of the Merced River and areas above specific dams 
identified in Table 11 of this part or above longstanding, naturally 
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least 
several hundred years).
    (c) Southern Oregon and California Coastal chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is 
designated to include all river reaches and estuarine areas accessible 
to chinook salmon in the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, 
westward to the Golden Gate Bridge, and includes all estuarine and 
river reaches accessible to proposed chinook salmon on the California 
and southern Oregon coast to Cape Blanco (inclusive). Excluded are the 
Klamath and Trinity Rivers upstream of their confluence. Also excluded 
are areas above specific dams identified in Table 12 of this part or 
above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural 
waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
    (d) Pudget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all 
marine, estuarine and river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in 
Puget Sound. Puget Sound marine areas include South Sound, Hood Canal, 
and North Sound to the international boundary at the outer extent of 
the Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait and the Straits of Juan De Fuca to a 
straight line extending north from the west end of Freshway Bay, 
inclusive. Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 
13 of this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers 
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred 
years).
    (e) Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 
Geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all 
river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Columbia River 
tributaries between the Grays and White Salmon Rivers in Washington and 
the Willamette and Hood Rivers in Oregon, inclusive. Also included are 
river reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight 
line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon 
side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington 
side) upstream to The Dalles Dam. Excluded are areas above specific 
dams identified in Table 14 of this part or above longstanding, 
naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence 
for at least several hundred years).
    (f) Upper Willamette River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to 
include all river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in the 
Willamette River and its tributaries above Willamette Falls. Also 
included are river reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia River 
from a straight line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty 
(south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north 
jetty, Washington side) upstream to and including the Willamette River 
in Oregon. Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 
15 of this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers 
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred 
years).
    (g) Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha) Geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to 
include all river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Columbia 
River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of 
Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, excluding the Okanogan River. Also 
included are river reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia River 
from a straight line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty 
(south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north 
jetty, Washington side) upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington. 
Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 16 of this 
part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., 
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
    (h) Snake River Fall-run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 
Geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all 
river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in the Columbia River from 
The Dalles Dam upstream to the confluence with the Snake River in 
Washington (inclusive). Critical habitat in the Snake River includes 
its tributaries in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (exclusive of the 
upper Grande Ronde River and the Wallowa

[[Page 11516]]

River in Oregon, the Clearwater River above its confluence with Lolo 
Creek in Idaho, and the Salmon River upstream of its confluence with 
French Creek in Idaho). Also included are river reaches and estuarine 
areas in the Columbia River from a straight line connecting the west 
end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of 
the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream to The Dalles 
Dam. Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 17 of 
this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., 
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
    5. Tables 10 through 17 are added to part 226 to read as follows:

Table 10 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties1 Containing Critical Habitat for Endangered Central Valley,
 California Spring-Run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Counties contained in                                         
       Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic     hydrologic unit and               Dams (reservoirs)          
                                     unit No.      within range of ESU                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Pablo Bay....................     18050002  San Mateo, CA, Alameda     San Pablo Reservoir.                 
                                                 (CA), Contra Costa (CA),                                       
                                                 Marin (CA), Somona (CA),                                       
                                                 Napa (CA), Solano (CA).                                        
San Francisco Bay................     18050004  Santa Clara (CA), San      .....................................
                                                 Mateo (CA), Alameda                                            
                                                 (CA), Contra Costa (CA),                                       
                                                 Marin (CA).                                                    
Coyote...........................     18050003  Santa Clara (CA), San      Calavera Reservoir.                  
                                                 Mateo (CA), Alameda (CA).                                      
Suisun Bay.......................     18050001  Contra Costa (CA), Solano  .....................................
                                                 (CA), Napa (CA).                                               
Lower Sacramento.................     18020109  Solano (CA), Sacramento    .....................................
                                                 (CA), Yolo (CA), Placer                                        
                                                 (CA), Sutter (CA).                                             
Lower American...................     18020111  Sacramento (CA), El        Nimbus Dam.                          
                                                 Dorado (CA), Placer (CA).                                      
Upper Coon-Upper Auburn..........     18020127  Placer (CA)..............  .....................................
Lower Bear.......................     18020108  Placer (CA), Sutter (CA),  Camp Far West Dam.                   
                                                 Yuba (CA).                                                     
Lower Feather....................     18020106  Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA),    Oroville Dam.                        
                                                 Butte (CA).                                                    
Lower Yuba.......................     18020107  Yuba (CA)................  Englebright Dam.                     
Lower Butte......................     18020105  Sutter (CA), Butte (CA),   .....................................
                                                 Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA).                                       
Sacramento-Stone Corral..........     18020104  Yolo (CA), Colusa (CA),    .....................................
                                                 Sutter (CA), Glenn (CA),                                       
                                                 Butte (CA).                                                    
Upper Butte......................     18020120  Butte (CA), Tehama (CA)..  .....................................
Sacramento-Lower Thomes..........     18020103  Glenn (CA), Butte (CA),    Black Butte Dam.                     
                                                 Tehama (CA).                                                   
Mill-Big Chico...................     18020119  Butte (CA), Tehama (CA),   .....................................
                                                 Shasta (CA).                                                   
Upper Elder-Upper Thomes.........     18020114  Tehama (CA)..............  .....................................
Cottonwood Headwaters............     18020113  Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).  .....................................
Lower Cottonwood.................     18020102  Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).                                       
Sacramento-Lower Cow-Lower Clear.     18020101  Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).  Keswick Dam, Shasta Dam.             
Upper Cow-Battle.................     18020118  Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).  Whiskeytown Dam.                     
Sacramento-Upper Clear...........     18020112  Shasta (CA)..............  .....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as critical
  habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and
  basin boundaries.                                                                                             


                                                                                                                
   Table 11 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties \1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Central  
  Valley, California Fall-Run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical  
                                                     Habitat                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Counties within                                            
       Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic     hydrologic unit and               Dams (reservoirs)          
                                     unit No.      within range of ESU                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Pablo Bay....................     18050002  San Mateo, CA, Alameda     San Pablo Reservoir.                 
                                                 (CA), Contra Costa (CA),                                       
                                                 Marin (CA), Somona (CA),                                       
                                                 Napa (CA), Solano (CA).                                        
San Francisco Bay................     18050004  Santa Clara (CA), San      .....................................
                                                 Mateo (CA), Alameda                                            
                                                 (CA), Contra Costa (CA),                                       
                                                 Marin (CA).                                                    
Coyote...........................     18050003  Santa Clara (CA), San      Calavera Reservoir.                  
                                                 Mateo (CA), Alameda (CA).                                      
Suisun Bay.......................     18050001  Contra Costa (CA), Solano  .....................................
                                                 (CA), Napa (CA).                                               
San Joaquin Delta................     18040003  Stanislaus (CA), San       .....................................
                                                 Joaquin (CA), Alameda                                          
                                                 (CA), Contra Costa (CA),                                       
                                                 Sacramento (CA).                                               
Middle San Joaquin-Lower Merced-      18040002  Merced (CA), Stanislaus    Crocker Diversion La Grange.         
 Lower Stanislaus.                               (CA), San Joaquin (CA).                                        
Lower Calaveras-Mormon Slough....     18040004  Stanislaus (CA), San       New Hogan.                           
                                                 Joaquin (CA), Calaveras                                        
                                                 (CA).                                                          
Lower Consumnes-Lower Mokelumne..     18040005  San Joaquin (CA),          Camanche.                            
                                                 Calaveras (CA), Amador                                         
                                                 (CA), Sacramento (CA),                                         
                                                 El Dorado (CA).                                                
Upper Consumnes..................     18040013  Sacramento (CA), Amador,   .....................................
                                                 (CA), El Dorado (CA).                                          
Lower Sacramento.................     18020109  Solano (CA), Sacramento    .....................................
                                                 (CA), Yolo (CA), Placer                                        
                                                 (CA), Sutter (CA).                                             
Lower American...................     18020111  Sacramento (CA), El        Nimbus.                              
                                                 Dorado (CA), Placer (CA).                                      
Upper Coon-Upper Auburn..........     18020127  Placer (CA).               .....................................
Lower Bear.......................     18020108  Placer (CA), Sutter (CA),  Camp Far West.                       
                                                 Yuba (CA).                                                     
Lower Feather....................     18020106  Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA),    Oroville.                            
                                                 Butte (CA).                                                    
Lower Yuba.......................     18020107  Yuba (CA)                  Englebright.                         
Lower Butte......................     18020105  Sutter (CA), Butte (CA),   .....................................
                                                 Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA).                                       

[[Page 11517]]

                                                                                                                
Sacramento-Stone Corral..........     18020104  Yolo (CA), Colusa (CA),    .....................................
                                                 Sutter (CA), Glenn (CA),                                       
                                                 Butte (CA).                                                    
Upper Butte......................     18020120  Butte (CA), Tehama (CA).   .....................................
Sacramento-Lower Thomes..........     18020103  Glenn (CA), Butte (CA),    Black Butte.                         
                                                 Tehama (CA).                                                   
Mill-Big Chico...................     18020119  Butte (CA), Tehama (CA),   .....................................
                                                 Shasta (CA).                                                   
Upper Elder-Upper Thomes.........     18020114  Tehama (CA)..............  .....................................
Cottonwood Headwaters............     18020113  Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).  .....................................
Lower Cottonwood.................     18020102  Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).  .....................................
Sacramento-Lower Cow-Lower Clear.     18020101  Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).  Keswick Dam Shasta.                  
Upper Cow-Battle.................     18020118  Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).  Whiskeytown.                         
Sacramento-Upper Clear...........     18020112  Shasta (CA).               .....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as       
  critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific  
  county and basin boundaries.                                                                                  


  Table 12 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties \1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Southern  
   Oregon and California Coastal Chinook Salmon; Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical   
                                                     Habitat                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Counties contained in                                         
       Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic     hydrologic unit and               Dams (reservoirs)          
                                     unit No.      within range of ESU                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomales-Drakes Bay...............     18050005  Marin (CA), Somona (CA)..  Kent Lake Dam Nicasio Reservoir.     
Bodega Bay.......................     18010111  Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA)..                                       
Russian..........................     18010110  Somona (CA), Mendocino     Lake Mendocino.                      
                                                 (CA).                                                          
Gualala-Salmon...................     18010109  Somona (CA), Mendocino                                          
                                                 (CA).                                                          
Big-Navarro-Garcia...............     18010108  Mendocino (CA)...........                                       
Upper Eel........................     18010103  Mendocino (CA), Lake                                            
                                                 (CA), Glenn (CA), Trnity                                       
                                                 (CA).                                                          
Middle Fork Eel..................     18010104  Mendocino (CA), Trinity    Lake Pillsbury.                      
                                                 (CA), Humboldt (CA).                                           
Lower Eel........................     18010105  Mendocino (CA), Humboldt                                        
                                                 (CA).                                                          
South Fork Eel...................     18010106  Mendocino (CA), Humboldt                                        
                                                 (CA).                                                          
Mattole..........................     18010107  Lake (CA), Mendocino (CA)                                       
Mad-Redwood......................     18010102  Humboldt (CA), Trinity                                          
                                                 (CA).                                                          
Lower Klamath....................     18010209  Humboldt, (CA), Del Norte                                       
                                                 (CA), Siskiyou (CA).                                           
Smith............................     18010101  Del Norte (CA), Curry                                           
                                                 (OR).                                                          
Chetco...........................     17100312  Curry (OR), Del Norte                                           
                                                 (CA).                                                          
Sixes............................     17100306  Curry (OR), Coos (OR).                                          
Illinois.........................     17100311  Josephine (OR), Del Norte                                       
                                                 (CA).                                                          
Lower Rogue......................     17100310  Curry (OR), Josephine                                           
                                                 (OR) Jackson (OR).                                             
Applegate........................     17100309  Josephine (OR), Jackson    Applegate Dam.                       
                                                 (OR) Del Norte (CA).                                           
Middle Rogue.....................     17100308  Jackson (OR), Douglas      Savage Rapids Dam.                   
                                                 (OR).                                                          
Upper Rogue......................     17100307  Jackson (OR), Klamath      Lost Creek Dam.                      
                                                 (OR).                                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as       
  critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific  
  county and basin boundaries.                                                                                  


  Table 13 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties\1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Puget Sound 
            Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Counties contained in                                         
       Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic     hydrologic unit and               Dams (reservoirs)          
                                     unit No.      within range of ESU                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nisqually........................     17110015  Pierce (WA), Thurston                                           
                                                 (WA).                                                          
Deschutes........................     17110016  Thurston (WA), Lewis (WA)                                       
Puyallup.........................     17110014  Pierce (WA), King (WA)...                                       
Duwamish.........................     17110013  King (WA), Pierce (WA)...  Howard Hanson.                       
Lake Washington..................     17110012  King (WA), Snohomish (WA)  Cedar Falls Dam.                     
Puget Sound......................     17110019  Thurston (WA), Mason                                            
                                                 (WA), Kitsap (WA),                                             
                                                 Pierce (WA), King (WA),                                        
                                                 Snohomish (WA),                                                
                                                 Jefferson (WA), Skagit                                         
                                                 (WA).                                                          
Skokomish........................     17110017  Mason (WA), Jefferson      Cushman Dam.                         
                                                 (WA), Grays Harbor (WA).                                       
Hood Canal.......................     17110018  Mason (WA), Jefferson                                           
                                                 (WA), Kitsap (WA).                                             
Snoqualmie.......................     17110010  King (WA), Snohomish (WA)  Tolt Dam.                            
Skyhomish........................     17110009  King (WA), Snohomish (WA)                                       
Snohomish........................     17110011  Snohomish (WA)...........                                       
Stillaguamish....................     17110008  Snohomish (WA), Skagit                                          
                                                 (WA).                                                          

[[Page 11518]]

                                                                                                                
Sauk.............................     17110006  Snohomish (WA), Skagit                                          
                                                 (WA).                                                          
Upper Skagit.....................     17110005  Skagit (WA), Whatcom (WA)                                       
Lower Skagit.....................     17110007  Skagit (WA), Snohomish                                          
                                                 (WA).                                                          
Nooksack.........................     17110004  Skagit (WA), Whatcom (WA)                                       
Fraser...........................     17110001  Whatcom (WA).............                                       
Strait of Georgia................     17110002  Skagit (WA), Whatcom (WA)                                       
San Juan Islands.................     17110003  San Juan (WA)............                                       
Dungeness-Elwha..................     17110020  Jefferson (WA), Clallam    Elwha Dam.                           
                                                 (WA).                                                          
Crescent-Hoko....................     17110021  Clallam (WA).............                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as       
  critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific  
  county and basin boundaries.                                                                                  


    Table 14 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties \1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Lower   
     Columbia River Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Counties within                                            
       Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic     hydrologic unit and               Dams (reservoirs)          
                                     unit No.      within range of ESU                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia...................     17080006  Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum                                         
                                                 (WA), Clatsop (OR).                                            
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie........     17080003  Wahkiakum (WA), Cowlitz                                         
                                                 (WA), Skamania (WA),                                           
                                                 Clatsop (OR), Columbia                                         
                                                 (OR).                                                          
Lower Cowlitz....................     17080005  Cowlitz (WA), Lewis (WA),  Mayfield Dam.                        
                                                 Skamania (WA).                                                 
Lewis............................     17080002  Cowlitz (WA), Clark (WA),  Merwin Dam, Yale Dam Cougar Dam.     
                                                 Skamania (WA), Klickitat                                       
                                                 (WA).                                                          
Lower Columbia-Sandy.............     17080001  Clark (WA), Skamania       Bull Run Dam.                        
                                                 (WA), Multnomah (OR),                                          
                                                 Clackamas (OR).                                                
Lower Willamette.................     17090012  Columbia (OR), Multnomah                                        
                                                 (OR), Clackamas (OR).                                          
Clackamas........................     17090011  Clackamas (OR), Marion     Oak Grove Dam.                       
                                                 (OR).                                                          
Middle Columbia--Hood............     17070105  Hood River (OR), Wasco     Condit Dam.                          
                                                 (OR), Klickitat (WA),                                          
                                                 Skamania (WA).                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as       
  critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific  
  county and basin boundaries.                                                                                  


    Table 15 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties\1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Upper    
    Willamette River Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Counties within                                            
       Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic     hydrologic unit and               Dams (reservoirs)          
                                     unit No.      within range of ESU                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia...................     17080006  Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum                                         
                                                 (WA), Clatsop (OR).                                            
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie........     17080003  Wahkiakum (WA), Cowlitz                                         
                                                 (WA), Skamania (WA),                                           
                                                 Clatsop (OR), Columbia                                         
                                                 (OR).                                                          
Lower Columbia-Sandy.............     17080001  Clark (WA), Skamania                                            
                                                 (WA), Multnomah (OR),                                          
                                                 Clackamas (OR).                                                
Lower Willamette.................     17090012  Columbia (OR), Multnomah                                        
                                                 (OR), Clackamas (OR).                                          
Tualatin.........................     17090010  Yamhill (OR), Washington                                        
                                                 (OR), Tillamook (OR),                                          
                                                 Clakamas (OR), Multnomah                                       
                                                 (OR), Columbia (OR).                                           
Middle Willamette................     17090007  Polk (OR), Marion (OR),                                         
                                                 Yamhill (OR), Washington                                       
                                                 (OR), Clakamas (OR).                                           
Yamhill..........................     17090008  Lincoln (OR), Polk (OR),                                        
                                                 Yamhill (OR), Tillamook                                        
                                                 (OR), Washington (OR).                                         
Molalla-Pudding..................     17090009  Marion (OR), Clakamas                                           
                                                 (OR).                                                          
North Santiam....................     17090005  Marion (OR), Linn (OR)...                                       
Upper Willamette.................     17090003  Polk (OR), Benton (OR),                                         
                                                 Lane (OR), Linn (OR),                                          
                                                 Lincoln (OR).                                                  
South Santiam....................     17090006  Linn (OR)................  Green Peter Dam, Foster Dam.         
McKenzie.........................     17090004  Lane (OR), Linn (OR).....  Cougar Dam.                          
Middle Fork Willamette...........     17090001  Lane (OR), Douglas (OR)..  Dexter Dam.                          
Coast Fork Willamette............     17090002  Lane (OR), Douglas (OR)..                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as       
  critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific  
  county and basin boundaries.                                                                                  


[[Page 11519]]


    Table 16 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties \1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Endangered Upper    
   Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical   
                                                     Habitat                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Counties contained in                                         
       Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic     hydrologic unit and               Dams (reservoirs)          
                                     unit No.      within range of ESU                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia...................     17080006  Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum    .....................................
                                                 (WA), Clatsop (OR).                                            
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie........     17080003  Wahkiakum (WA), Cowlitz    .....................................
                                                 (WA), Skamania (WA),                                           
                                                 Clatsop (OR), Columbia                                         
                                                 (OR).                                                          
Lower Columbia-Sandy.............     17080001  Clark (WA), Skamania       Bull Run Dam.                        
                                                 (WA), Multnomah (OR),                                          
                                                 Clackamas (OR).                                                
Middle Columbia-Hood.............     17070105  Hood River (OR), Wasco     Condit Dam.                          
                                                 (OR), Klickitat (WA),                                          
                                                 Skamania (WA).                                                 
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula.....     17070101  Gilliam (OR), Morrow       .....................................
                                                 (OR), Sherman (OR),                                            
                                                 Umatilla (OR), Benton                                          
                                                 (A), Klickitat (WA),                                           
                                                 Walla Walla (WA).                                              
Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids.....     17020016  Benton (WA), Franklin      .....................................
                                                 (WA), Grant (WA).                                              
Upper Columbia--Entiat...........     17020010  Chelan (WA), Douglas       .....................................
                                                 (WA), Grant (WA),                                              
                                                 Kittias (WA).                                                  
Wenatchee........................     17020011  Chelan (WA).                                                    
Chief Joseph.....................     17020005  Chelan (WA), Douglas       Chief Joseph.                        
                                                 (WA), Okanogan (WA).                                           
Methow...........................     17020008  Okanogan (WA).                                                  
Okanogan.........................     17020006  Okanogan (WA).                                                  
Similkameen......................     17020007  Okanogan (WA).                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as       
  critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific  
  county and basin boundaries.                                                                                  


 Table 17 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties \1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Snake River 
        Fall-Run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Counties contained in                                         
       Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic     hydrologic unit and               Dams (reservoirs)          
                                     unit No.      within range of ESU                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia...................     17080006  Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum                                         
                                                 (WA), Clatsop (OR).                                            
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie........     17080003  Wahkiakum (WA), Cowlitz                                         
                                                 (WA), Skamania (WA),                                           
                                                 Clatsop (OR), Columbia                                         
                                                 (OR).                                                          
Lower Columbia-Sandy.............     17080001  Clark (WA), Skamania       Bull Run Dam.                        
                                                 (WA), Multnomah (OR),                                          
                                                 Clackamas (OR).                                                
Middle Columbia-Hood.............     17070105  Hood River (OR), Wasco     Condit Dam.                          
                                                 (OR) Klickitat (WA),                                           
                                                 Skamania (WA).                                                 
Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula.....     17070101  Gilliam (OR), Morrow       .....................................
                                                 (OR), Sherman (OR),                                            
                                                 Umatilla (OR), Benton                                          
                                                 (A), Klickitat (WA),                                           
                                                 Walla Walla (WA).                                              
Lower Deschutes..................     17070306  Jefferson (OR), Wasco      Pelton Dam Round Butte.              
                                                 (OR), Sherman (OR).                                            
Trout............................     17070307  Crook (OR), Jefferson      .....................................
                                                 (OR), Wasco (OR).                                              
Lower John Day...................     17070204  Crook (OR), Wheeler (OR),  .....................................
                                                 Jefferson (OR), Grant                                          
                                                 (OR), Gilliam (OR),                                            
                                                 Morrow (OR) Sherman                                            
                                                 (OR), Wasco (OR).                                              
Upper John Day...................     17070201  Wheeler (OR), Grant (OR),  .....................................
                                                 Harney (OR).                                                   
North Fork--John Day.............     17070202  Grant (OR), Wheeler (OR),                                       
                                                 Morrow (OR), Umatilla                                          
                                                 (OR).                                                          
Middle Fork--John Day............     17070203  Grant (OR).                .....................................
Willow...........................     17070104  Morrow (OR), Gilliam       .....................................
                                                 (OR).                                                          
Umatilla.........................     17070103  Morrow (OR), Umatilla      .....................................
                                                 (OR).                                                          
Walla Walla......................     17070102  Umatilla (OR), Wallowa     .....................................
                                                 (OR), Walla Walla (WA),                                        
                                                 Columbia (WA).                                                 
Lower Snake......................     17060110  Franklin (WA), Columbia    .....................................
                                                 (WA), Walla Walla (WA).                                        
Lower Snake-Tucannon.............      7060107  Columbia (WA), Whitman     .....................................
                                                 (WA) Garfield (WA),                                            
                                                 Asotin (WA).                                                   
Lower Snake--Asotin..............     17060103  Wallowa (OR), Garfield     .....................................
                                                 (WA), Asotin (WA) Nez                                          
                                                 Perce (ID).                                                    
Lower Salmon.....................     17060209  Valley (ID), Idaho (ID),   .....................................
                                                 Lewis (ID), Nez Perce                                          
                                                 (ID).                                                          
Clearwater.......................     17060306  Nez Perce (ID), Lewis      .....................................
                                                 (ID), Clearwater (ID)                                          
                                                 Latah (ID)..                                                   
Lower Grande Ronde...............     17060106  Union (OR), Wallowa (OR),  .....................................
                                                 Columbia (WA), Garfield                                        
                                                 (WA), Asotin (WA).                                             
Imnaha...........................     17060102  Baker (OR), Union (OR),    .....................................
                                                 Wallowa (OR), Columbia                                         
                                                 (WA), Walla Walla (WA).                                        
Hells Canyon.....................     17060101  Wallowa (OR), Idaho (ID).  Hells Canyon, Oxbow Dam Brownlee.    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats identified as        
  critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific  
  county and basin boundaries.                                                                                  


[[Page 11520]]

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

    6. The authority citation for part 227 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 227.12 also 
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    7. In Sec. 227.4, paragraph (g) is revised, paragraph (p) is added 
and reserved, and paragraphs (q) through (u) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 227.4  Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *
    (g) Snake River fall-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). 
Includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon (and their 
progeny) from the Columbia River and its tributaries upstream from a 
transitional point between Washington and Oregon east of the Hood River 
and the White Salmon River, to its confluence with the Snake River, and 
also includes the Snake River and its tributaries upstream to Hells 
Canyon Dam. These tributaries include the lower Grande Ronde, Imnaha, 
lower Salmon and lower Clearwater Rivers in parts of Oregon, Washington 
and Idaho.
* * * * *
    (p) [Reserved]
    (q) Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha). Includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook 
salmon (and their progeny) in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River 
Basins and their tributaries, east of Carquinez Strait, California.
    (r) Southern Oregon and California coastal chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Includes all naturally spawned populations 
of chinook salmon (and their progeny) from rivers and streams between 
Cape Blanco, Oregon south to the northern entrance of San Francisco 
Bay, California.
    (s) Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Includes 
all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon (and their progeny) 
from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound including the Straits 
of Juan De Fuca from the Elwha River, eastward, including rivers and 
streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the 
Strait of Georgia in Washington.
    (t) Lower Columbia River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). 
Includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon (and their 
progeny) from the Columbia River and its tributaries from its mouth at 
the Pacific Ocean upstream to a transitional point between Washington 
and Oregon east of the Hood River and the White Salmon River, and 
includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon.
    (u) Upper Willamette River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha). Includes all naturally spawned spring-run populations of 
chinook salmon (and their progeny) in the Willamette River, and its 
tributaries, above Willamette Falls, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 98-5484 Filed 3-2-98; 2:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P