[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 113 (Monday, June 14, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33102-33179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12706]



[[Page 33101]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Parts 223 and 224



Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Listing Determinations for 
27 ESUs of West Coast Salmonids; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 33102]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 040525161-4161-01; I.D. No. 052104F]
RIN 0648-AR93


Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Listing 
Determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast Salmonids

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 26 West 
Coast salmon (chum, Oncorhynchus keta; coho, O. kisutch, O. nerka; 
chinook, O. tshawytscha; pink, O. gorbuscha) and O. mykiss (inclusive 
of anadromous steelhead and resident rainbow trout) Evolutionarily 
Significant Units (ESUs) previously listed as threatened and endangered 
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as one ESU that 
was designated as a candidate species, for a total of 27 ESUs. 
Following a September 2001 U.S. District Court ruling that rejected how 
NMFS treats hatchery stocks in its listing determinations, the agency 
received several petitions seeking to delist, or to redefine and list, 
17 salmon and steelhead ESUs on the basis of the Court's ruling. In 
response to these petitions NMFS initiated status reviews for 16 of 
these ESUs, and elected to conduct status reviews for an additional 11 
ESUs. Based on these reviews, NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to 
list four ESUs as endangered and 23 ESUs as threatened. Collectively, 
these 27 ESUs include 162 artificial propagation programs. NMFS also 
proposes amending existing protective regulations, promulgated under 
section 4(d) of the ESA, for threatened ESUs.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. P.S.T. on 
September 13, 2004. (See ADDRESSES.) NMFS will announce the dates and 
locations of public hearings in California, Oregon, Washington, and 
Idaho in a separate Federal Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Chief, Protected Resources 
Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon Street--Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-
2737. Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted by e-mail. The 
mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is [email protected]. 
Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following 
document identifier: 040525161-4161-01. Comments may also be submitted 
via facsimile (fax) to 503-230-5435, or via the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ibrm. Comments may also be submitted electronically 
through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this 
proposed rule contact Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 231-
2005; Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, (562) 980-4021; or Marta 
Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Organization of This Proposed Rule

    This Federal Register notice describes the proposed listing 
determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss under the 
ESA. The pages that follow review the information considered in 
formulating the proposed listing determinations. To assist the reader, 
this section briefly outlines the organization and content of this 
notice. Section headings listed in this outline are denoted in bold 
text, and subheadings in italics in the body of the notice.

I. Review of necessary Background information
     Statutory basis for Listing Species Under the 
Endangered Species Act
     NMFS' Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West 
Coast Salmonids
     NMFS' Past Practice in Pacific Salmonid ESA Listing 
Determinations
     Recent court decisions (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans) 
and a Summary of Petitions seeking listing/delisting actions that 
precipitated the Initiation of Coast-wide ESA Status Reviews for 
Pacific Salmonids
     Overview of the Life History of West Coast Salmonids
II. Consideration of specific issues in Assessing Extinction Risk 
for Pacific Salmonids
     Consideration of Artificial Propagation in Listing 
Determinations
     Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in 
Listing Determinations
     Consideration of Recent Ocean Conditions in Listing 
Determinations
III. Treatment of the four listing determination steps for each ESU 
under review
    (1) Determination of ``Species'' under the ESA
    (2) Review of the best available information for Updated 
Viability Assessments of ESUs
    (3) Evaluation of Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast 
Salmon and O. mykiss
    (4) Proposed Listing Determinations of ``threatened,'' 
``endangered,'' or ``not warranted,'' based on the foregoing 
information
IV. Take Prohibitions and Protective Regulations:
     Overview of the take prohibitions and protective 
regulations that presently apply to listed ESUs
     Description of a proposed amendment to these protective 
regulations
V. Summary of agency efforts in designating Critical Habitat for 
listed salmon and O. mykiss ESUs
VI. Description of the Public Comments Solicited and other 
opportunities for public involvement in this rulemaking process
VII. Description of the Classification, NMFS' compliance with 
various laws and executive orders with respect to this proposed 
rulemaking (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory 
Flexibility Act)
VIII. Description of proposed amendments to the Code of Federal 
Regulations. This section itemizes the specific changes to federal 
law being proposed based on the foregoing information
     Proposed amendments to the list of threatened and 
endangered species
     Proposed amendment to the protective regulations for 
threatened West Coast salmon and O. mykiss

Background

Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act

    NMFS is responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or 
distinct population segments (DPSs) of Pacific salmon and steelhead are 
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq). To be considered for listing under the ESA, a 
group of organisms must constitute a ``species,'' which is defined in 
section 3 of the ESA to include ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or 
plants, and any distinct population segment [emphasis added] of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' 
In this notice, NMFS is proposing listing determinations for DPSs of 
Pacific salmon and O. mykiss. NMFS has determined that, to qualify as a 
DPS, a Pacific salmon or O. mykiss population must be substantially 
reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations and 
represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the 
biological species. A population meeting these criteria is considered 
to be an ESU (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). In its listing 
determinations for Pacific salmonids under the ESA, NMFS has treated an 
ESU as constituting a DPS, and hence a ``species,'' under the ESA. The 
terms ``DPS'' and ``ESU'' are used synonymously in this document.

[[Page 33103]]

    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' The statute 
lists factors that may cause a species to be threatened or endangered 
(ESA section 4(a)(1)): (a) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (b) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (c) disease or predation; (d) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (e) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires NMFS to make listing 
determinations 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 efforts being made to protect the species (in 
this proposed rule the term ``status'' is used in the statutory 
context, referring to the ESA listing status of ``threatened,'' 
``endangered,'' or listing not warranted). Accordingly, NMFS follows 
three steps in making its listing determinations for Pacific salmon and 
O. mykiss: (1) NMFS first determines whether a population or group of 
populations constitutes an ESU, that is, whether the population(s) are 
a ``species'' within the meaning of the ESA; (2) NMFS then determines 
the viability of the ESU and the factors that have led to its decline; 
and (3) NMFS assesses efforts being made to protect the ESU, 
determining if these efforts are adequate to mitigate threats to the 
species. Based on the foregoing information and the statutory listing 
criteria, NMFS then proposes a listing determination of whether the 
species is threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its 
range.

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Salmonids

    Pacific salmon and O. mykiss ESUs in California and the Pacific 
Northwest have suffered broad declines over the past hundred years. (In 
this document the scientific name ``O. mykiss'' refers to both 
anadromous steelhead and resident rainbow trout life-history forms). 
NMFS has conducted several ESA status reviews and status review updates 
for six biological species of Pacific salmon and O. mykiss in 
California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, identifying 51 ESUs and 
listing 26 of these ESUs to date. Table 1 summarizes the previous NMFS 
scientific reviews of the viability of salmon and steelhead and the ESA 
listing determinations for the 27 ESUs addressed in this proposed rule.

   Table 1.--Summary of Previous ESA Listing Actions Related to the 27 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West
                                Coast Salmon and Oncorhynchus Mykiss Under Review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Previous
 Evolutionarily Significant Unit   Current endangered    Year       Previous ESA listing          scientific
              (ESU)                species act (ESA)    listed     determinations--Federal    viability  reviews
                                         status                      Register citations          and updates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       ........   56 FR 58619; 11/20/1991
                                                                  (Final rule).
Snake River sockeye ESU.........   Endangered........      1991   56 FR 14055; 04/05/1991     NMFS 1991a
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........   64 FR 14528; 03/25/1999     NMFS 1998d
                                                                  (Final rule).
Ozette Lake sockeye ESU.........   Threatened........      1999   63 FR 11750; 03/10/1998     NMFS 1997f
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........   59 FR 440; 01/01/1994
                                                                  (Final rule).
                                                       ........   57 FR 27416; 06/19/1992
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........   55 FR 49623; 11/30/1990
                                                                  (Final rule).
                                                       ........   55 FR 12831, 04/06/1990
                                                                  (Emergency rule).
                                                       ........   55 FR 102260; 03/20/1990
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........   54 FR 10260; 08/04/1989
                                                                  (Emergency rule).
Sacramento River winter-run        Endangered........      1994   52 FR 6041; 02/27/1987
 chinook ESU.                                                     (Final rule).
                                                       ........   64 FR 50394; 09/16/1999     NMFS 1998b.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Central Valley spring-run          Threatened........      1999   63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998     NMFS 1999d.
 chinook ESU.                                                     (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........   64 FR 50394; 09/16/1999     NMFS 1998b.
                                                                  (Final rule).
California Coastal chinook ESU..   Threatened........      1999   63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998     NMFS 1999d.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  ..........................   NMFS 1998b.
                                                       ........   64 FR 14308; 03/24/99       NMFS 1998e.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Upper Willamette River chinook     Threatened........      1999   63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998     NMFS 1999c.
 ESU.                                                             (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  ..........................   NMFS 1998b.
                                                       ........   64 FR 14308; 03/24/99       NMFS 1998e.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Lower Columbia River chinook ESU   Threatened........      1999   63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998     NMFS 1999c.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
Upper Columbia River spring-run    Endangered........      1999
 chinook ESU.
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1998b.
                                                       ........  64 FR 14308; 03/24/99       NMFS 1998e.
                                                                  (Final rule).
                                                       ........  63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998     NMFS 1999c.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).

[[Page 33104]]

 
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1998b.
                                                       ........  64 FR 14308; 03/24/99       NMFS 1998e.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Puget Sound chinook ESU.........  Threatened.........      1999  63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998     NMFS 1999c.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  63 FR 1807; 0/12/1998
                                                                  (Proposed withdrawn).
                                                       ........  59 FR 66784; 12/28/1994
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  59 FR 42529; 08/18/1994
                                                                  (Emergency rule).
                                                       ........  57 FR 23458; 06/03/1992
                                                                  (Correction).
                                                       ........  57 FR 14653; 04/22/1992     NMFS 1991c.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Snake River fall-run chinook ESU  Threatened.........      1992  56 FR 29547; 06/27/1991     NMFS 1999d.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  63 FR 1807; 0/12/1998
                                                                  (Proposed withdrawn).
                                                       ........  59 FR 66784; 12/28/1994
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  59 FR 42529; 08/18/1994
                                                                  (Emergency rule).
                                                       ........  57 FR 23458; 06/03/1992
                                                                  (Correction).
                                                       ........  57 FR 34639; 04/22/1992     NMFS 1991b.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Snake River spring/summer-run     Threatened.........      1992  56 FR 29542; 06/27/1991     NMFS 1998b.
 chinook ESU.                                                     (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  61 FR 56138;- 10/31/1996    Bryant 1994
                                                                  (Final rule).
Central California Coast coho
 ESU.
                                  Threatened.........      1996  60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995     NMFS 1995a.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1997a.
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1996c.
                                                       ........  62 FR 24588; 05/06/1997     NMFS 1996e.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Southern Oregon/Northern          Threatened.........      1997  60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995     NMFS 1995a.
 California Coast coho ESU.                                       (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  69 FR 19975; 04/15/2004
                                                                  (Candidate list).
                                                       ........  63 FR 42587; 08/10/1998     NMFS 1997a.
                                                                  (Final rule).
                                                       ........  62 FR 24588; 05/06/1997     NMFS 1996b.
                                                                  (Proposed withdrawn).
                                                       ........  61 FR 56138; 10/31/1996 (6  NMFS 1996d.
                                                                  mo. extension).
Oregon Coast coho ESU...........  Threatened*........      1998  60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995     NMFS 1995a.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
Lower Columbia River coho ESU...  Candidate..........      1995  69 FR 19975; 04/15/2004     NMFS 1996e.
                                                                  (Candidate list).
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1995a.
                                                       ........  60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995     NMFS 1991a.
                                                                  (Not warranted).
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1997e.
                                                       ........  64 FR 145008; 03/25/1999    NMFS 1999b.
                                                                  (Final rule) 3.
Columbia River chum ESU.........  Threatened.........      1999  63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998     NMFS 1999c.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1996d.
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1997e.
                                                       ........  64 FR 14508; 03/25/1999     NMFS 1999b.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU..  Threatened.........      1999  63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998     NMFS 1999c.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  67 FR 21568; 05/01/2002
                                                                  (Redefinition of ESU).
                                                       ........  62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997     NMFS 1996b.
                                                                  (Final rule).

[[Page 33105]]

 
Southern California steelhead     Endangered.........      1997  61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996     NMFS 1997b.
 ESU.                                                             (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997     NMFS 1996b.
                                                                  (Final rule).
South-Central California Coast    Threatened.........      1997  61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996     NMFS 1997b.
 steelhead ESU.                                                   (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997     NMFS 1996b.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Central California Coast          Threatened.........      1997  61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996     NMFS 1997b.
 steelhead ESU.                                                   (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1996b.
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1997b.
                                                       ........  63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998     NMFS 1997c.
                                                                  (Final rule).
                                                       ........  62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6  NMFS 1997d.
                                                                  mo. extension).
California Central Valley         Threatened.........      1998  61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996     NMFS 1998a.
 steelhead ESU.                                                   (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  65 FR 36074; 06/07/2000
                                                                  (Final rule).
                                                       ........  65 FR 6960; 02/11/2000      NMFS 1996b.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998     NMFS 1997c.
                                                                  (Not Warranted).
                                                       ........  62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6  NMFS 1998a.
                                                                  mo. extension).
Northern California steelhead     Threatened.........      2000  61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996     NMFS 2000.
 ESU.                                                             (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  64 FR 14517; 03/25/1999     NMFS 1996b.
                                                                  (Final rule).
                                                       ........  63 FR 11798; 03/10/1998     NMFS 1997d.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
Upper Willamette River steelhead  Threatened.........      1999  62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6  NMFS 1999a.
 ESU.                                                             mo. extension).
                                                       ........  61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996     NMFS 1999c.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........                              NMFS 1996b.
                                                       ........  63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998     NMFS 1997c.
                                                                  (Final rule).
                                                       ........  62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6  NMFS 1997d.
                                                                  mo. extension).
Lower Columbia River steelhead    Threatened.........      1998  61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996     NMFS 1998a.
 ESU.                                                             (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  64 FR 14517; 03/25/1999     NMFS 1996b.
                                                                  (Final rule).
                                                       ........  63 FR 11798; 03/10/1998     NMFS 1997d.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6  NMFS 1999a.
                                                                  mo. extension).
Middle Columbia River steelhead   Threatened.........      1999  61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996     NMFS 1999c.
 ESU.                                                             (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997     NMFS 1996b.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Upper Columbia River steelhead    Endangered.........      1997  61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996     NMFS 1997b.
 ESU.                                                             (Proposed rule).
                                                       ........  62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997     NMFS 1996b.
                                                                  (Final rule).
Snake River Basin steelhead ESU.  Threatened.........      1997  61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996     NMFS 1997b.
                                                                  (Proposed rule).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*But see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2004).


[[Page 33106]]

Past Practice in Pacific Salmonid ESA Listing Determinations

    In past ESA listing determinations, NMFS followed the four step 
approach described above. In the past, NMFS focused on whether the 
naturally spawned fish are, by themselves, self-sustaining in their 
natural ecosystem over the long term. NMFS listed as ``endangered'' 
those ESUs whose naturally spawned populations were found to have a 
present high risk of extinction, and listed as ``threatened'' those 
ESUs whose naturally spawned populations were found likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future (that is, whose present risk of 
extinction was not high, but whose risk of extinction was likely to 
become high within a foreseeable period of time).
    In its listing determinations, NMFS did not explicitly consider the 
contribution of the hatchery fish to the overall viability of the ESU, 
or whether the presence of hatchery fish within the ESU might have the 
potential for reducing the risk of extinction of the ESU or the 
likelihood that the ESU would become endangered in the foreseeable 
future. (The listing of Snake River fall chinook, however, is an 
exception. See 57 FR 14653; April 22, 1992.) NMFS frequently evaluated 
artificial propagation only as a factor in the decline of the naturally 
spawned populations within an ESU.
    For each ESU where hatchery fish were present, NMFS reviewed the 
associated hatchery populations to determine how closely related the 
hatchery populations were to the naturally spawned populations. This 
review focused on the origin of the hatchery fish and their similarity 
to locally adapted naturally spawned fish. Factors included in this 
consideration were: Genetic, life history, and habitat use 
characteristics; the degree to which the characteristics of the wild 
population may have been altered over time; and other factors that 
would affect the biological usefulness of hatchery fish for recovery.
    Since 1993, NMFS has applied an interim policy on how it will 
consider artificial propagation in the listing and recovery of Pacific 
salmon and steelhead under the ESA (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993). The 
1993 policy provided guidance on the use of artificial propagation to 
assist in the conservation of these listed species and to help avoid 
additional species listings. The policy also provided guidance for 
evaluating artificial propagation in section 7 consultation, section 10 
permitting, and recovery planning pursuant to the ESA.
    When NMFS determined that an ESU should be listed as threatened or 
endangered, it applied its interim artificial propagation policy for 
Pacific salmon and steelhead. That policy provided that hatchery salmon 
and steelhead found to be part of the ESU would not be listed under the 
ESA unless they were found to be essential for recovery (i.e., if NMFS 
determined that the hatchery population contained a substantial portion 
of the genetic diversity remaining in the ESU). The result of this 
policy was that a listing determination for an ESU depended solely upon 
the relative health of the naturally spawning component of the ESU. In 
most cases, hatchery fish within the ESUs were not relied upon to 
contribute to recovery, and therefore were not listed.
    In addition, resident O. mykiss populations (i.e., rainbow trout) 
included in steelhead ESUs were not listed when it was determined that 
the steelhead warranted listing because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) retains ESA jurisdiction over resident rainbow trout.

Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans

    In September 2001, the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, in 
Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans (161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, D. Oreg. 2001; 
Alsea decision), set aside NMFS' 1998 ESA listing of Oregon Coast coho 
salmon (63 FR 42587; 08/10/1998). The Court ruled that the ESA does not 
allow NMFS to list a subset of an ESU, and that NMFS had improperly 
excluded stocks from the listing once it had decided that certain 
hatchery stocks were part of the ESU. Although the Court's ruling 
affected only one ESU, the interpretive issue raised by the ruling 
called into question nearly all of NMFS' Pacific salmonid listing 
determinations. The Court struck down the 1998 final rule listing 
Oregon coast coho as a threatened species, thus removing the ESU from 
the protections of the ESA. The Court remanded the case to NMFS for 
reconsideration consistent with the Alsea decision. NMFS did not 
contest the Court's ruling and informed the Court it would comply. In 
November 2001 intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the U.S. Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. Pending resolution of the appeal, the Ninth 
Circuit stayed the District Court's remand order and invalidation of 
the 1998 listing. While the stay was in place, the Oregon Coast coho 
ESU was again afforded the protections of the ESA (Alsea Valley 
Alliance v. Evans, 9th Circuit appeal, No. 01-36071, December 14, 
2001). On February 24, 2004, the Appeals Court dismissed the appeal, 
and dissolved its stay of the District Court's ruling in Alsea.
    Following the District Court's ruling in the Alsea case, NMFS 
received several petitions (summarized below) addressing 17 listed 
salmonid ESUs, including five steelhead ESUs. These petitions cited the 
Alsea ruling and focused on NMFS' past practice of excluding certain 
ESU hatchery stocks from listing protection. Various litigants have 
also challenged the failure to list resident populations included in 
threatened and endangered steelhead ESUs. The anadromous form of O. 
mykiss (i.e., steelhead) is presently under NMFS' jurisdiction, while 
the resident freshwater forms, usually called ``rainbow'' or 
``redband'' trout, are under FWS jurisdiction. In Environmental Defense 
Center et al. v. Evans et al. (EDC v. Evans, SACV-00-1212-AHS (EEA)), 
the plaintiffs argue that NMFS failed to include resident populations 
in the endangered listing of the Southern California steelhead ESU (62 
FR 43937; August 18, 1997). In Modesto Irrigation District et al. v. 
Evans et al. (MID v. Evans, CIV-F-02-6553 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal)), the 
plaintiffs seek to invalidate NMFS' 1997 threatened listing of the 
Central Valley California steelhead ESU (63 FR 13347; March 19, 1998) 
for failing to list hatchery and resident populations identified as 
part of the ESU. This same factual situation is found in all listed 
steelhead ESUs; the listings do not include hatchery and/or resident 
populations considered to be part of the ESUs. For the proposed listing 
determinations detailed in this proposed rule to be compliant with the 
Court's ruling in the Alsea case, all populations or stocks (natural, 
hatchery, resident, etc.) included in an ESU must be listed if it is 
determined that the ESU is threatened or endangered under the ESA.

Summary of Petitions

    Following the ruling in the Alsea case, NMFS received several 
petitions seeking to delist, or to redefine and list, ESUs of Pacific 
salmon and steelhead. The petitioners made reference to the Alsea 
decision in arguing for NMFS to reconsider the listing status for 
certain ESUs. Between September 2001 and April 2002 NMFS received eight 
separate petitions addressing a total of 17 listed salmon and steelhead 
ESUs.
    On September 19, 2001, NMFS received a petition from Interactive 
Citizens United to delist coho salmon in Siskiyou County, California. 
These fish are part of a larger ESU of Southern Oregon/Northern 
California Coast coho

[[Page 33107]]

salmon. NMFS determined that the Interactive Citizens United petition 
was not warranted, finding that it failed to present substantial 
scientific or commercial information to suggest that delisting may be 
warranted (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002). On March 18, 2002, NMFS 
received a duplicate petition from the California State Grange to 
delist coho salmon in Siskiyou County, California. NMFS made a negative 
finding on the California State Grange petition (67 FR 40679; June 13, 
2002), for the same reasons as for its finding on the Interactive 
Citizens United petition.
    During October 2001, NMFS received 5 additional delisting petitions 
addressing 15 ESUs. On October 22, 2001, NMFS received a petition from 
the Washington State Farm Bureau, on the behalf of a coalition of 
agricultural organizations in Washington State, to delist 12 Pacific 
salmon ESUs including: One sockeye ESU (the endangered Snake River 
sockeye ESU); six chinook ESUs (the threatened Puget Sound, Snake River 
spring/summer, Snake River fall, and Lower Columbia River chinook ESUs, 
as well as the endangered Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU); 
two chum ESUs (the threatened Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River 
chum ESUs); and four steelhead ESUs (the threatened Lower Columbia 
River, Middle Columbia River, and Snake River steelhead ESUs, as well 
as the endangered Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU). On October 17, 
2001, NMFS received a petition on behalf of the Columbia-Snake River 
Irrigators' Association to delist seven Pacific salmon ESUs including: 
One sockeye ESU (the endangered Snake River sockeye ESU); three chinook 
ESUs (the threatened Snake River fall and Snake River spring/summer 
chinook ESUs, as well as the endangered Upper Columbia River spring-run 
chinook ESU); and three steelhead ESUs (the threatened Middle Columbia 
River and Snake River steelhead ESUs, as well as the endangered Upper 
Columbia River steelhead ESUs). On October 17, 2001, NMFS received a 
petition on behalf of the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners and the 
Skagit County Cattlemen's Association to delist the threatened Puget 
Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum ESUs. On October 23, 2001, 
NMFS received a petition on behalf of seven individuals to delist the 
threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU. On 
October 24, 2001, NMFS received a petition on behalf of the Greenberry 
Irrigation District to delist the threatened Upper Willamette River 
chinook and steelhead ESUs. NMFS determined that these petitions, in 
light of the Alsea decision, presented substantial scientific and 
commercial information indicating that delisting may be warranted for 
14 of the 15 petitioned ESUs (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002). In the 
case of the Snake River sockeye ESU, NMFS determined that the 
Washington State Farm Bureau and Columbia-Snake River Irrigators' 
Association petitions failed to present substantial scientific and 
commercial information that delisting may be warranted.
    On March 14, 2002, NMFS received a petition from the Central Coast 
Forest Association to delist the threatened Central California Coast 
coho salmon ESU. On April 29, 2002, NMFS received two petitions from 
Trout Unlimited and several co-petitioners seeking to redefine and list 
a total of 15 ESUs including: Six chinook ESUs (the threatened Puget 
Sound, Upper Willamette River, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River 
fall, and Lower Columbia River chinook ESUs, as well as the endangered 
Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU); two chum ESUs (the 
threatened Hood Canal summer and Columbia River chum ESUs); two coho 
ESUs (the threatened Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern 
California Coast coho ESUs); and five steelhead ESUs (the threatened 
Upper Willamette River, Snake River, Middle Columbia River, and Lower 
Columbia River steelhead ESUs, as well as the endangered Upper Columbia 
River steelhead ESU). The two Trout Unlimited petitions sought to 
redefine and list these ESUs as including only natural fish. NMFS 
determined that these three petitions presented substantial scientific 
and commercial information to suggest that the petitioned actions may 
be warranted (67 FR 48601; July 25, 2002).
    The ESA requires that, as a consequence of accepting the above 
petitions, NMFS promptly commence a review of the species' status and 
make a finding within 12 months after receiving the petition, whether 
the petitioned action is warranted (ESA section 4(b)(3)). There are 16 
ESUs (described above for the various accepted petitions) for which 
NMFS has statutory deadlines for the completion of ESA status reviews 
and listing determinations: Seven chinook ESUs (the Upper Willamette 
River, Lower Columbia River, Upper Columbia River spring-run, Puget 
Sound, Snake River fall-run, and Snake River spring/summer-run chinook 
ESUs); three coho ESUs (the Central California Coast, Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast, and Oregon Coast coho ESUs); two chum ESUs 
(the Columbia River and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESUs); and 
five steelhead ESUs (the Upper Willamette River, Lower Columbia River, 
Middle Columbia River, Upper Columbia River, and Snake River Basin 
steelhead ESUs).

Initiation of Coast-Wide ESA Status Reviews

    The ESUs addressed in this proposed rule include 26 previously 
listed West Coast salmon and steelhead ESUs, and one ESU designated as 
a candidate species (the Lower Columbia coho ESU). As part of its 
response to the ESA interpretive issues raised by the ruling in the 
Alsea case, NMFS elected to initiate status reviews for a total of 27 
ESUs: 11 ESUs in addition to the 16 ESUs for which it had accepted 
delisting/listing petitions. As announced in a Federal Register notice 
published on February 11, 2002 (67 FR 6215), these 11 additional ESUs 
are: One sockeye ESU (the threatened Ozette Lake sockeye ESU); three 
chinook ESUs (the endangered Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU, 
as well as the threatened Central Valley spring-run and California 
coastal chinook ESUs); three coho ESUs (the threatened Central 
California Coast and Oregon Coast coho ESUs, as well as the candidate 
Lower Columbia River coho ESU); and four steelhead ESUs (the threatened 
South-Central California Coast, Central California Coast, California 
Central Valley, and Northern California steelhead ESUs) (as noted 
above, NMFS subsequently accepted petitions addressing the Central 
California and Oregon Coast coho ESUs). On December 31, 2002, NMFS 
announced that it would also elect to review the ESA listing status of 
Snake River sockeye and Southern California steelhead ESUs (67 FR 
79898). NMFS elected to conduct these additional status reviews to 
address any errors in the listing determinations brought to light by 
the Alsea decision, as well as to consider the most recent information 
available for these ESUs. At the time of the Alsea decision, NMFS was 
conducting a status review for the candidate Lower Columbia River coho 
ESU in response to a July 24, 2000, petition from Oregon Trout and co-
petitioners (see 65 FR 66221, November 3, 2000). Accordingly, NMFS 
elected to include the Lower Columbia River coho ESU in this status 
review effort for the other 26 ESUs. NMFS did not elect to conduct 
status reviews for any other candidate ESUs (e.g., the Puget Sound/
Strait of Georgia coho, Central Valley fall and late-fall chinook, and 
Oregon Coast steelhead

[[Page 33108]]

ESUs) or ESUs that NMFS previously determined did not warrant ESA 
listing.
    NMFS solicited information to ensure that the review of the ESA 
status for the 27 ESUs under review was based on the best available and 
most recent scientific and commercial data. Following an initial 60-day 
public comment period concerning 25 of the ESUs, which commenced on 
February 11, 2002 (67 FR 6215), NMFS re-opened the public comment 
period for an additional 30 days on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40679). A 60-
day public comment period was also opened concerning 16 petitioned ESUs 
with the published findings on the Central Coast Forest Association and 
Trout Unlimited et al. petitions on July 25, 2002 (67 FR 48601). 
Information and comment was solicited during an additional 60-day 
public comment period when NMFS announced that it would also be 
reviewing the status of the Snake River sockeye and Southern California 
steelhead ESUs (67 FR 79898; December 31, 2002). In this latter public 
comment period NMFS specifically requested information concerning 
resident O. mykiss populations in the 10 steelhead ESUs under review 
(67 FR at 79900).

Life History of West Coast Salmonids

    Pacific salmon and steelhead are anadromous fish, meaning adults 
migrate from the ocean to spawn in freshwater lakes and streams where 
their offspring hatch and rear prior to migrating to the ocean to 
forage until maturity. The migration and spawning times vary 
considerably among and within species and populations (Groot and 
Margolis, 1991). At spawning, adults pair to lay and fertilize 
thousands of eggs in freshwater gravel nests or ``redds'' excavated by 
females. Depending on lake/stream temperatures, eggs incubate for 
several weeks to months before hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval life 
stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac 
absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles called 
``fry'' and begin actively feeding. Depending on the species and 
location, juveniles may spend from a few hours to several years in 
freshwater areas before migrating to the ocean. The physiological and 
behavioral changes required for the transition to salt water result in 
a distinct ``smolt'' stage in most species. Enroute to the ocean the 
juveniles may spend from a few days to several weeks in the estuary, 
depending on the species. The highly productive estuarine environment 
is an important feeding and acclimation area for juveniles preparing to 
enter marine waters.
    Juveniles and subadults typically spend from 1 to 5 years foraging 
over thousands of miles in the North Pacific Ocean before returning to 
freshwater to spawn. Some species, such as coho and chinook salmon, 
have precocious life-history types (primarily male fish) that mature 
and spawn after only several months in the ocean. Spawning migrations 
known as ``runs'' occur throughout the year, varying in time by species 
and location. Most adult fish return or ``home'' with great fidelity to 
spawn in their natal stream, although some do stray to non-natal 
streams. Salmon species die after spawning, while anadromous O. mykiss 
may return to the ocean and make repeat spawning migrations.
    Below we provide brief descriptions of the life histories of the 
Pacific salmonid species under review. More complete descriptions can 
be found in the status review documents listed in Table 1.
West Coast Sockeye Salmon
    Spawning populations of sockeye salmon range from the Columbia 
River in the south to the Noatak River in the north in North America, 
and from Hokkaido, Japan in the south to the Anadyr River in the north 
in Asia (Atkinson et al., 1967; Burgner, 1991). Most sockeye salmon 
spawn in either inlet or outlet streams of lakes or in lakes 
themselves. The offspring of these ``lake-type'' sockeye salmon use 
lake environments for juvenile rearing for 1 to 3 years and then 
migrate to sea, returning to the natal lake system to spawn after 
spending 1 to 4 years in the ocean.
    Certain self-perpetuating, nonanadromous populations of O. nerka 
that become resident in lake environments over long periods of time are 
called kokanee in North America. Genetic differentiation among sockeye 
salmon and kokanee populations indicates that kokanee have arisen from 
sockeye salmon on multiple independent occasions, and that kokanee and 
sockeye salmon may have either overlapping or distinct distributions. 
Numerous studies (reviewed in Gustafson et al., 1997) indicate that 
sockeye salmon and kokanee exhibit a suite of heritable differences in 
morphology, early development rate, seawater adaptability, growth and 
maturation that appear to be divergent adaptations that have arisen 
from different selective regimes associated with anadromous vs. 
nonanadromous life histories. These studies also provide evidence that 
overlapping populations of sockeye salmon and kokanee can be both 
genetically distinct and reproductively isolated (see citations in 
Gustafson et al., 1997). Occasionally, a proportion of juveniles in an 
anadromous sockeye population will remain in the rearing lake 
environment throughout life and will be observed on the spawning 
grounds together with their anadromous siblings. Ricker (1938) first 
used the terms ``residual sockeye'' and ``residuals'' to refer to these 
resident, non-migratory progeny of anadromous sockeye salmon.
West Coast Chinook Salmon
    Chinook salmon, also commonly referred to as king, spring, quinnat, 
Sacramento, California, or tyee salmon, is the largest of the Pacific 
salmon (Myers et al., 1998). The species historically ranged from the 
Ventura River in California to Point Hope, Alaska, and in northeastern 
Asia from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia (Healey, 1991). 
Additionally, chinook salmon have been reported in the Mackenzie River 
area of Northern Canada (McPhail and Lindsey, 1970). Chinook salmon 
exhibit diverse and complex life history strategies (Healey, 1986). Two 
generalized freshwater life-history types were initially described by 
Gilbert (1912): ``stream-type'' chinook salmon reside in freshwater for 
a year or more following emergence, whereas ``ocean-type'' chinook 
salmon migrate to the ocean predominately within their first year.
    Of the two life history types, ocean-type chinook salmon exhibit 
the most varied and flexible life-history trajectories. Ocean-type 
chinook salmon juveniles emigrate to the ocean as fry, subyearling 
juveniles (during their first spring or fall), or as yearling juveniles 
(during their second spring), depending on environmental conditions. 
Ocean-type chinook salmon also undertake distinct, coastally oriented, 
ocean migrations. The timing of the return to freshwater and spawning 
is closely related to the ecological characteristics of a population's 
spawning habitat. Five different run times are expressed by different 
ocean-type chinook salmon populations: Spring, summer, fall, late-fall, 
and winter. In general, early run times (spring and summer) are 
exhibited by populations that use high spring flows to access headwater 
or interior regions. Ocean-type populations within a basin that express 
different run times appear to have evolved from a common source 
population.
    Stream-type populations appear to be nearly obligate yearling 
outmigrants (although some 2-year-old smolts have been identified), 
undertake extensive off-shore ocean migrations, and

[[Page 33109]]

generally return to freshwater as spring-or summer-run fish. Stream-
type populations are found in northern British Columbia and Alaska, and 
in the headwater regions of the Fraser River and Columbia River Basin 
inland tributaries.
West Coast Coho Salmon
    Coho salmon is a widespread species of Pacific salmon, occurring in 
most major river basins around the Pacific Rim from Monterey Bay, 
California, north to Point Hope, Alaska, through the Aleutians, and 
from the Anadyr River south to Korea and northern Hokkaido, Japan 
(Laufle et al., 1986). From central British Columbia south, the vast 
majority of coho salmon adults are 3-year-olds, having spent 
approximately 18 months in fresh water and 18 months in salt water 
(Gilbert, 1912; Pritchard, 1940; Sandercock, 1991). The primary 
exceptions to this pattern are ``jacks,'' sexually mature males that 
return to freshwater to spawn after only 5 to 7 months in the ocean. 
However, in southeast and central Alaska, the majority of coho salmon 
adults are 4-year-olds, having spent an additional year in fresh water 
before going to sea (Godfrey et al., 1975; Crone and Bond, 1976). The 
transition zone between predominantly 3-year-old and 4-year-old adults 
occurs somewhere between central British Columbia and southeast Alaska.
    West Coast coho smolts typically leave freshwater in the spring 
(April to June) and re-enter freshwater when sexually mature from 
September to November, and spawn from November to December and 
occasionally into January (Sandercock, 1991). Stocks from British 
Columbia, Washington, and the Columbia River often have very early 
(entering rivers in July or August) or late (spawning into March) runs 
in addition to ``normally'' timed runs.
West Coast Chum Salmon
    Chum salmon has the widest natural geographic and spawning 
distribution of any Pacific salmonid, primarily because its range 
extends further along the shores of the Arctic Ocean than other 
salmonids. Chum salmon have been documented to spawn from Korea and the 
Japanese island of Honshu, east, around the Pacific rim, to Monterey 
Bay, California. Presently, major spawning populations are found only 
as far south as Tillamook Bay on the Northern Oregon coast. The 
species' range in the Arctic Ocean extends from the Laptev Sea in 
Russia to the Mackenzie River in Canada. Chum salmon may historically 
have been the most abundant of all salmonids; prior to the 1940s, it is 
estimated that chum salmon contributed almost 50 percent of the total 
biomass of all salmonids in the Pacific Ocean (Neave, 1961).
    Chum salmon spawn primarily in freshwater, and apparently exhibit 
obligatory anadromy, as there are no recorded landlocked or naturalized 
freshwater populations (Randall et al., 1987). Chum salmon generally 
spend more of their life history in marine waters than other Pacific 
salmonids. Chum salmon usually spawn in coastal areas, and juveniles 
out-migrate to seawater almost immediately after emerging from the 
gravel that covers their redds (Salo, 1991). This ocean-type migratory 
behavior contrasts with the stream-type behavior of some other species 
in the genus Oncorhynchus (e.g., coastal cutthroat trout, anadromous O. 
mykiss, coho salmon, and most types of chinook and sockeye salmon), 
which usually migrate to sea at a larger size, after months or years of 
freshwater rearing. This means survival and growth in juvenile chum 
salmon depends less on freshwater conditions than on favorable 
estuarine conditions.
West Coast O. mykiss
    Steelhead is the name commonly applied to the anadromous form of 
the biological species O. mykiss. The present distribution of steelhead 
extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east to Alaska, and down to the U.S.-
Mexico border (Busby et al., 1996; 67 FR 21586, May 1, 2002). O. mykiss 
exhibit perhaps the most complex suite of life history traits of any 
species of Pacific salmonid. They can be anadromous, or freshwater 
residents (and under some circumstances, apparently yield offspring of 
the opposite form). Those that are anadromous can spend up to 7 years 
in fresh water prior to smoltification, and then spend up to 3 years in 
salt water prior to first spawning. O. mykiss is also iteroparous 
(meaning individuals may spawn more than once), whereas the Pacific 
salmon species are principally semelparous (meaning individuals 
generally spawn once and die).
    Within the range of West Coast steelhead, spawning migrations occur 
throughout the year, with seasonal peaks of activity. In a given river 
basin there may be one or more peaks in migration activity; since these 
``runs'' are usually named for the season in which the peak occurs, 
some rivers may have runs known as winter, spring, summer, or fall 
steelhead. For example, large rivers, such as the Columbia, Rogue, and 
Klamath rivers, have migrating adult steelhead at all times of the 
year. There are local variations in the names used to identify the 
seasonal runs of steelhead; in Northern California, some biologists 
have retained the use of the terms spring and fall steelhead to 
describe what others would call summer steelhead.
    Steelhead can be divided into two basic reproductive ecotypes, 
based on the state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry and 
duration of spawning migration (Burgner et al., 1992). The ``stream-
maturing'' type (summer steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and Northern 
California) enters fresh water in a sexually immature condition between 
May and October and requires several months to mature and spawn. The 
``ocean-maturing'' type (winter steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and 
Northern California) enters fresh water between November and April with 
well-developed gonads and spawns shortly thereafter. In basins with 
both summer and winter steelhead runs, it appears that the summer run 
occurs where habitat is not fully utilized by the winter run or a 
seasonal hydrologic barrier, such as a waterfall, separates them. 
Summer steelhead usually spawn farther upstream than winter steelhead 
(Withler, 1966; Roelofs, 1983; Behnke, 1992). Coastal streams are 
dominated by winter steelhead, whereas inland steelhead of the Columbia 
River Basin are almost exclusively summer steelhead. Winter steelhead 
may have been excluded from inland areas of the Columbia River Basin by 
Celilo Falls or by the considerable migration distance from the ocean. 
The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin may have historically had 
multiple runs of steelhead that probably included both ocean-maturing 
and stream-maturing stocks (CDFG, 1995; McEwan and Jackson, 1996). 
These steelhead are referred to as winter steelhead by the California 
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); however, some biologists call them 
fall steelhead (Cramer et al., 1995).
    Inland steelhead of the Columbia River Basin, especially the Snake 
River Subbasin, are commonly referred to as either ``A-run'' or ``B-
run.'' These designations are based on a bimodal distribution of 
migration period of adult steelhead at Bonneville Dam (235 km from the 
mouth of the Columbia River) and differences in age (1 versus 2 years 
in the ocean) and adult size observed among Snake River steelhead. It 
is unclear, however, if the life history and body size differences 
observed upstream are correlated back to the groups forming the bimodal 
migration observed at Bonneville Dam. Furthermore, the relationship 
between patterns observed at the dams and the distribution of adults in 
spawning areas throughout the

[[Page 33110]]

Snake River Basin is not well understood. A-run steelhead are believed 
to occur throughout the steelhead-bearing streams of the Snake River 
Basin and the inland Columbia River. B-run steelhead are thought to be 
produced only in the Clearwater, Middle Fork Salmon, and South Fork 
Salmon Rivers (IDFG, 1994).
    The ``half-pounder'' is an immature steelhead that returns to fresh 
water after only 2 to 4 months in the ocean, generally overwinters in 
fresh water, and then outmigrates again the following spring. Half-
pounders are generally less than 400 mm and are reported only from the 
Rogue, Klamath, Mad, and Eel Rivers of Southern Oregon and Northern 
California (Snyder, 1925; Kesner and Barnhart, 1972; Everest, 1973; 
Barnhart, 1986); however, it has been suggested that as mature 
steelhead, these fish may only spawn in the Rogue and Klamath River 
Basins (Cramer et al., 1995). Various explanations for this unusual 
life history have been proposed, but there is still no consensus as to 
what, if any, advantage it affords to the steelhead of these rivers.

Assessing Extinction Risk for Pacific Salmonids

    Section 4(b) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) to make listing determinations after conducting a review of 
the status of the species, and after taking into account those efforts, 
if any, being made to protect the species. Such efforts being made to 
protect the species include ``conservation'' practices, defined by the 
ESA to include propagation and transplantation methods and procedures 
(section 3(3)). The ESA requires that listing determinations be made 
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data 
available to the Secretary. The ESA further requires that listing 
decisions must take into account all members of the defined species 
(Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, D. Oreg. 2001).
    NMFS' Pacific Salmonid Biological Review Team (BRT) (an expert 
panel of scientists from several federal agencies including NMFS, FWS, 
and the U.S. Geological Survey) reviewed the viability and extinction 
risk of naturally spawning populations in the 27 ESUs that are the 
subject of this proposed rule (NMFS, 2003b). The BRT evaluated the risk 
of extinction based on the performance of the naturally spawning 
populations in each of the ESUs under the assumption that present 
conditions will continue into the future. The BRT did not explicitly 
consider artificial propagation in its evaluations.
    The BRT assessed ESU-level extinction risk (as indicated by the 
viability of the naturally spawning populations) at two levels: first, 
at the simpler population level; then, at the overall ESU level. The 
BRT used criteria for ``Viable Salmonid Populations'' (VSP; McElhany et 
al., 2000) to guide its risk assessments. The VSP criteria were 
developed to provide a consistent and logical reference for making 
viability determinations and are based on a review and synthesis of the 
conservation biology and salmon literature. Individual populations were 
evaluated according to the four VSP criteria: Abundance, growth rate/
productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. These four parameters 
are universal indicators of species' viability, and individually and 
collectively function as reasonable predictors of extinction risk. 
After reviewing all relevant biological information for the populations 
in a particular ESU, the BRT ascribed an ESU-level risk score for each 
of the four VSP criteria.
    The viability of salmon and steelhead ESUs is characterized by the 
health, abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and genetic/
behavioral diversity of the individual populations within the ESU 
(McElhany et al., 2001). An ESU with a greater abundance of productive 
populations will be more tolerant to environmental variation, 
catastrophic events, genetic processes, demographic stochasticity, 
ecological interactions, and other processes than one with a single or 
a few populations (Caughley and Gunn, 1996; Foley, 1997; Meffe and 
Carroll, 1994; Lande, 1993; Middleton and Nisbet, 1997). Similarly, an 
ESU that is distributed across a variety of well-connected habitats can 
better respond to environmental perturbations including catastrophic 
events, than ESUs in which connectivity between populations has been 
restricted or lost (Schlosser and Angermeier, 1995; Hanski and Gilpin, 
1997; Tilman and Lehman, 1997; Cooper and Mangel, 1999). Genetic and 
behavioral diversity and the maintenance of local adaptations within an 
ESU allow for the exploitation of a wide array of environments, protect 
against short-term environmental changes, and provide the raw material 
for surviving long-term environmental change (Groot and Margolis, 1991; 
Wood, 1995).
    ESUs with fewer populations have greater risk of becoming extinct 
due to catastrophic events, and have a lower likelihood that the 
necessary phenotypic and genotypic diversity will exist to maintain 
future viability than ESUs with more populations. ESUs with limited 
geographic range are similarly at increased extinction risk due to 
catastrophic events. ESUs with populations that are geographically 
distant from each other, or are separated by severely degraded habitat, 
may lack the connectivity to function as metapopulations and are more 
likely to become extinct than populations that can function as 
metapopulations. ESUs with limited life-history diversity are more 
likely to become extinct as the result of correlated environmental 
catastrophes or environmental change that occurs too rapidly for an 
evolutionary response. ESUs comprised of a small proportion of 
populations meeting or exceeding these viability criteria may lack the 
``source'' populations to sustain the non-viable ``sink'' populations 
during environmental downturns. ESUs consisting of a single population 
are especially vulnerable in this regard.
    Assessing an ESU involves evaluating the current biological 
viability of the populations that comprise the ESU. The fact that the 
current biological status of an ESU does not reflect historical 
abundance, productivity, spatial structure or diversity does not mean 
that it is currently not viable, but historical status serves as an 
informative benchmark against which to weigh viability. Whether, upon 
assessment, the biological status of an ESU meets the ESA's standard 
for listing as either threatened or endangered--i.e., the ESU is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range or is likely to become so in the foreseeable future--depends on 
which viability criteria it fails to meet, what the past trend has 
been, whether that trend is likely to continue, and how far below the 
benchmark it is.
    Factors considered in relating the population-level VSP criteria to 
ESU-level risk include: the total number of viable populations; the 
geographic distribution of these populations; the connectivity among 
populations; and the genetic, behavioral, and ecological diversity 
among populations. ESUs with fewer populations are more likely to 
become extinct due to catastrophic events, and have a lower likelihood 
that the necessary phenotypic and genotypic diversity will exist to 
maintain future viability. ESUs with limited geographic range are 
similarly at increased extinction risk due to catastrophic events. ESUs 
with populations that are geographically distant from each other, or 
are separated by severely degraded habitat, may lack the connectivity 
to function as metapopulations (i.e., a group of interconnected 
subpopulations) and are more likely to become extinct. ESUs with 
limited

[[Page 33111]]

diversity are more likely to go extinct as the result of correlated 
environmental catastrophes or environmental change that occurs too 
rapidly for an evolutionary response. ESUs comprised of a small 
proportion of populations meeting or exceeding VSP criteria may lack 
the source populations to sustain the non-viable declining populations 
during environmental down-turns. ESUs consisting of a single population 
are especially vulnerable in this regard. These considerations are 
described in the BRT's report (NMFS 2003b), and further detailed in 
McElhany et al. (2000) (and references therein). In short, a viable ESU 
has a negligible risk (over a time scale of 100 years) of going extinct 
as a result of normal environmental variation, genetic change, 
catastrophic events and human activity. Viable ESUs and populations 
have sufficient growth rates, possess variation in traits, and are 
spatially distributed to survive environmental variation and natural 
and human catastrophes.
    After describing the ESU-level risk for each of the VSP criteria, 
the BRT assessed ESU-level extinction risk based on the performance of 
the naturally spawning populations. The BRT's assessment of ESU-level 
extinction risk uses categories that correspond to the definitions of 
endangered species and threatened species, respectively, in the ESA: in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or neither. As 
discussed above, these evaluations do not include consideration of 
hatchery stocks included in ESUs, and do not evaluate efforts being 
made to protect the species. Therefore, the BRT's findings are not to 
be considered recommendations regarding listing. The BRT's ESU-level 
extinction risk assessment reflects the BRT's professional scientific 
judgment, guided by the analysis of the VSP criteria, as well as by 
expectations about the likely interactions among the individual VSP 
criteria. For example, a single VSP criterion with a ``High Risk'' 
score might be sufficient to result in an overall extinction risk 
assessment of ``in danger of extinction,'' but a combination of several 
VSP criteria with more moderate risk scores could also lead to the same 
assessment, or a finding that the ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered.''

Consideration of Artificial Propagation in Listing Determinations

    In proposed listing determinations described in this proposed rule, 
artificial propagation has been considered in (1) determining what 
constitutes an ESU, and (2) when evaluating the extinction risk of an 
entire ESU. NMFS' previous policy for these considerations for Pacific 
salmon and steelhead (58 FR 17573; April 5, 1993) requires revision due 
to the District Court's ruling in the Alsea case. In its February 2002 
response to the Alsea decision and various petitions (67 FR 6215; 
February 11, 2002), NMFS announced its plans to revise this policy. 
NMFS had intended that rulemaking for the revised policy be completed 
prior to the formulation of the proposed listing determinations 
described in this notice. However, development of the revised policy 
has been delayed as NMFS resolved complex scientific and policy issues. 
Statutory and litigation deadlines compel NMFS to issue this proposed 
rule together with proposed policy guidance on the consideration of 
artificial propagation in its ESA listing determinations. A revised 
policy for the consideration of artificial propagation in ESA listing 
determinations (hereafter referred to as the proposed Hatchery Listing 
Policy) is proposed elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. 
The consideration of artificial propagation in the subject proposed 
listing determinations is based on the proposed Hatchery Listing 
Policy. Below, we summarize how artificial propagation was evaluated in 
determining ESU membership and evaluating extinction risk of an entire 
ESU. For further discussion of artificial propagation in the context of 
ESA listing decisions, the reader is directed to the proposed Hatchery 
Listing Policy.
Determining What Constitutes an ESU
    In the Alsea ruling the Court affirmed NMFS' interpretation of what 
constitutes a ``distinct population segment'' (i.e., the ESU Policy; 56 
FR 58612; November 20, 1991), as a ``permissible agency construction of 
the ESA'' (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 1612 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1161 
(D. Oreg. 2001)). NMFS believes that the ESU policy provides 
appropriate guidance for the consideration of what populations (natural 
as well as hatchery or resident populations) constitute an ESU, and 
hence a ``species'' under the ESA. Under the ESU policy, a DPS of a 
Pacific salmonid species is considered an ESU if it meets two criteria: 
(a) It must be substantially reproductively isolated from other 
conspecific population units; and (b) it must represent an important 
component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. A key feature of 
the ESU concept is the recognition of genetic resources that represent 
the ecological and genetic diversity of the species. These genetic 
resources can reside in a fish spawned in a hatchery (hatchery fish) as 
well as in a fish spawned in the wild (natural fish).
    In delineating an ESU that is to be considered for listing, NMFS 
has identified all populations that are part of the ESU including 
populations of natural fish (natural populations), populations of 
hatchery fish (hatchery populations), and populations that include both 
natural fish and hatchery fish (mixed populations). Hatchery fish with 
a level of genetic divergence between the hatchery stocks and the local 
natural populations that is no more than what would be expected between 
closely related populations within the ESU (hereafter described as 
``genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural 
population'') are considered part of the ESU and are considered in 
determining whether an entire ESU warrants listing under the ESA. 
Therefore, these hatchery fish must be included in any listing of the 
ESU (See proposed Hatchery Listing Policy published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register).
    To assist NMFS in determining the ESU membership of individual 
hatchery stocks, a Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Assessment Group 
(SSHAG), composed of NMFS scientists from the Northwest and Southwest 
Fisheries Science Centers, evaluated the best available information 
describing the relationships between hatchery stocks and natural ESA-
listed salmon and anadromous O. mykiss populations in the Pacific 
Northwest and California. The SSHAG produced a report, entitled 
``Hatchery Broodstock Summaries and Assessments for Chum, Coho, and 
Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Stocks within Evolutionarily Significant 
Units Listed under the Endangered Species Act'' (NMFS, 2003a), 
describing the relatedness of each hatchery stock on the basis of stock 
origin and the degree of known or inferred genetic divergence between 
the hatchery stock and the local natural population(s). NMFS used the 
information presented in the SSHAG Report to determine the ESU 
membership of those hatchery stocks determined to be within the 
historical geographic range of a given ESU. NMFS' assessment of 
individual hatchery stocks and its findings regarding the ESU 
membership are detailed in the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects 
Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b). The hatchery stocks included in a 
given ESU are listed below in the

[[Page 33112]]

``Determination of Species Under the ESA'' section.

Evaluating ESU Extinction Risk

    Once ESU membership is determined, NMFS must assess the extinction 
risk faced by an entire ESU. As described above, the BRT evaluated the 
extinction risk for the naturally spawned component of an ESU. The 
proposed Hatchery Listing Policy published elsewhere in this issue of 
the Federal Register provides that status determinations for Pacific 
salmonid ESUs will be based on the status of an entire ESU (including 
both hatchery and natural components). For those ESUs with associated 
hatchery programs, the BRT's findings represent a partial assessment of 
the ESU's extinction risk. To assess the viability of an entire ESU, 
NMFS has also assessed the contributions of within-ESU hatchery 
programs to the viability of an ESU in-total.
    There are, however, several reasons why long-term deleterious 
consequences of such supplementation may outweigh the short-term 
advantage of increased population size (NRC, 1995). In recent years, 
various studies and scientific works have identified some potential 
adverse effects of artificial propagation, including behavioral 
differences that result in diminished fitness and survival of hatchery 
fish relative to naturally spawned fish; genetic effects resulting from 
poor broodstock and rearing practices (e.g., inbreeding, outbreeding, 
domestication selection); incidence of disease; and increased rates of 
competition with and predation on naturally spawned populations. In 
assessing the risks to any particular population, however, it is often 
difficult to demonstrate conclusively that adverse effects are actually 
occurring, and, if they are demonstrated, how serious they are (CDFG/
NMFS, 2001).
    In response to these concerns, there have been recent changes in 
hatchery practices seeking to mitigate risks and enhance benefits of 
artificial propagation. Continued scientific work is necessary to 
identify and to measure these risks and benefits more completely, and 
to assess the operations of hatcheries that implement modern management 
practices. In light of the developing science on the positive and 
negative effects of hatchery programs on natural populations, the 
legacy of hatchery programs and the existing requirements to maintain 
many of them present a challenge for developing a framework for 
consideration of hatchery fish in listing determinations.
    Because NMFS must base its listing determinations for Pacific 
salmon and steelhead on the risk of extinction of the entire ESU, 
including both natural and hatchery fish, the agency must consider the 
likelihood that the hatchery and naturally spawned components will 
contribute to the continued existence of the ESU into the future.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of ESU hatchery programs on ESU 
viability and extinction risk is presented in the Salmonid Hatchery 
Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b). The Report 
evaluates the effects of hatchery programs on the likelihood of 
extinction of an ESU on the basis of the four VSP criteria (i.e., 
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity) and how 
artificial propagation efforts within the ESU affect those criteria. In 
April 2004, NMFS convened an Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
of federal scientists and managers with expertise in salmonid 
artificial propagation. The Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
reviewed the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003a), evaluated the Salmonid 
Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b), and 
assessed the overall extinction risk of ESUs with associated hatchery 
stocks. Representatives of the BRT and NMFS' Northwest and Southwest 
Fisheries Science Centers attended the workshop in an advisory capacity 
to ensure that the BRT's findings were appropriately and accurately 
considered, as well as to help ensure that the workshop participants 
were aware of the best available scientific information. The 
discussions and conclusions of the Artificial Propagation Evaluation 
Workshop are detailed in a workshop report (NMFS, 2004c).
Finding on Trout Unlimited et al. Petitions
    Two petitions from Trout Unlimited and co-petitioners, received by 
the agency on April 29, 2002, sought to redefine 15 ESUs as including 
only natural fish (i.e., naturally spawned fish and their progeny, 
exclusive of all hatchery fish), and to list these redefined ESUs as 
threatened or endangered species under the ESA, as appropriate. In a 
Federal Register notice published on July 25, 2002 (67 FR 48601), NMFS 
found that these petitions presented substantial scientific and 
commercial information to suggest that the petitioned actions may be 
warranted. Although proposed listing determinations for the subject 
ESUs are included in this proposed rule, NMFS first addresses the 
petitioners' arguments that the ESUs should be redefined to include 
only natural fish.
    The Trout Unlimited et al. petitions argue that hatchery stocks 
should not be included in ESUs containing natural fish. The petitioners 
contend that hatchery stocks are functionally distinct and 
reproductively isolated from naturally spawned populations. The 
petitioners present a substantial body of scientific information 
describing the potential threats posed by hatchery stocks to natural 
populations. Additionally, the petitioners present scientific 
information documenting differences between hatchery and natural 
populations in behavior, genetic composition, and reproductive fitness.
    NMFS finds that the petitioners' argument that hatchery stocks are 
functionally distinct and reproductively isolated from naturally 
spawned populations is unsubstantiated. The derivation of hatchery 
stocks from local natural populations and the established practice of 
incorporating natural fish as hatchery broodstock results in hatchery 
and natural populations that share the same evolutionary genetic and 
ecological legacy. The SSHAG Report (NMFS, 2003a) and the Salmonid 
Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b) describe 
the relationship of hatchery stocks to local natural populations, on 
the basis of stock origin and the degree of known or inferred genetic 
divergence between the hatchery stock and the local natural 
population(s). The shared evolutionary legacy of certain hatchery 
stocks with natural populations does not support the exclusion of these 
hatchery stocks from ESUs containing natural fish. Such an approach 
would also be inconsistent with NMFS' interpretation of the ESA that is 
contained in its ESU policy, a policy that was affirmed by the Alsea 
Court decision.
    NMFS recognizes that artificial propagation under certain 
circumstances can pose threats to natural populations. However, it is 
not appropriate to include a consideration of the threats faced by an 
ESU (such as any risks posed by artificial propagation) when 
determining what constitutes a species under the ESA. Rather, such an 
evaluation of threats is conducted after the ``species'' has been 
defined, and the likelihood of extinction for the defined species is 
being assessed. NMFS also recognizes that hatchery stocks may exhibit 
differences in behavior, genetic composition, morphological traits, and 
reproductive fitness from natural populations. Indeed, the presence of 
such differences provides a valuable indicator of

[[Page 33113]]

divergence for determining whether a particular hatchery stock is 
representative of the evolutionary legacy of an ESU.
    NMFS concludes that the best available scientific and commercial 
information does not support a finding that all hatchery stocks in the 
15 petitioned ESUs should be redefined as distinct ESUs separate from 
the naturally spawned populations from which they are derived. 
Accordingly, NMFS finds that the action sought by the Trout Unlimited 
et al. petitions is not warranted.

Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing 
Determinations

    In addition to an anadromous O. mykiss life history (i.e., 
steelhead), O. mykiss exhibits nonanadromous or resident forms (i.e., 
rainbow trout). Where the two forms co-occur, the offspring of resident 
fish may migrate to the sea, and the offspring of anadromous fish may 
remain in streams as resident fish. The change from the anadromous life 
form to the resident life form can also result from imposed physical or 
physiological barriers to migration. Genetic differences, when studied, 
have indicated greater differences among geographically separated O. 
mykiss populations of the same life-history form, than between 
anadromous and resident life-history forms in the same geographical 
area. No suite of morphological or genetic characteristics has been 
found that consistently distinguishes between the two life-history 
forms. As is the case with hatchery fish, it is important to determine 
the relationship of these resident fish to anadromous populations in 
the O. mykiss ESUs under consideration.
    In its previous status reviews of steelhead ESUs (see Table 1), 
NMFS concluded that the available data suggest that resident rainbow 
trout and steelhead in the same area generally share a common gene pool 
(at least over evolutionary time periods), and included resident and 
anadromous populations in the same ESU. Resident populations above 
long-standing natural barriers, and those populations that have 
resulted from the introduction of non-native rainbow trout, were not 
considered part of these ESUs. In the case of resident populations 
upstream of impassable human-caused migration barriers (e.g., large 
mainstem hydroelectric dams), NMFS found insufficient information to 
merit their inclusion in steelhead ESUs. The agency generally concluded 
that resident populations upstream of impassable manmade barriers must 
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as more information becomes 
available on their relationships to below-barrier populations, or on 
the role these above-barrier resident populations might play in 
conserving below-barrier populations of O. mykiss.
    In its previous steelhead ESA listing determinations, although NMFS 
considered co-occurring resident and anadromous populations as a single 
ESU, NMFS did not list resident populations when it was determined that 
the ESU in-total warranted listing. As noted above, the Alsea court has 
rejected listing under the ESA only a subset of an ESU or DPS. For the 
purposes of reviewing the viability of naturally spawned O. mykiss 
populations in this proposed rule, the BRT adopted a framework for 
determining the ESU/DPS membership of resident O. mykiss geographically 
associated with listed steelhead ESUs. These evaluations were guided by 
the same biological principles used to define ESUs of natural fish and 
determine ESU membership of hatchery fish: the extent of reproductive 
isolation and biological divergence from other populations within the 
ESU. Ideally, each resident population would be evaluated individually 
on a case-by-case basis, using all available biological information. In 
practice, little or no information is available for most resident O. 
mykiss populations. To facilitate determinations of the ESU/DPS 
membership of resident O. mykiss, the BRT identified three different 
cases, reflecting the range of geographic relationships between 
resident and anadromous forms within different watersheds: (1) No 
obvious physical barriers to interbreeding between resident and 
anadromous forms; (2) long-standing natural barriers (e.g., a 
waterfall) between resident and anadromous forms; and (3) relatively 
recent (e.g., within the last 100 years) human-imposed barriers (e.g., 
a dam without a fish ladder) between resident and anadromous forms.
    The BRT adopted the following working assumptions about ESU 
membership of resident fish falling in each of these three cases. Where 
there was no obvious physical barrier to interbreeding between the two 
life-history forms, resident fish were considered part of the ESU. 
Empirical studies show that resident and anadromous O. mykiss are 
typically very similar genetically when they co-occur with no physical 
barriers to migration or interbreeding. Where long-standing natural 
barriers separate resident and anadromous forms, resident populations 
were not regarded as part of the ESU. Many populations in this category 
have been isolated from contact with anadromous populations for 
thousands of years. Empirical studies show that in these cases the 
resident fish typically show substantial genetic and life-history 
divergence from the nearest downstream anadromous populations. In cases 
where the resident fish were separated from the anadromous form by 
relatively recent human actions (e.g., impassable dams and culverts), 
the BRT was unable to justify any particular default assumption. The 
two life-history forms most likely coexisted without any barriers to 
interbreeding prior to the establishment of the manmade barrier(s). 
However, as a result of rapid divergence in a novel environment, or 
displacement by or genetic introgression from non-native hatchery 
rainbow trout, these resident populations may no longer represent the 
evolutionary legacy of the O. mykiss ESU. Given these uncertainties, 
the BRT left unresolved the ESU membership of O. mykiss above recent 
(usually man-made) impassable barriers. In the absence of information 
indicating that they are part of a common ESU, NMFS does not find such 
above-barrier populations to be part of the O. mykiss ESUs under 
review.
    The BRT reviewed available information about individual resident 
populations of O. mykiss to determine which of the above scenarios best 
defined the level of reproductive isolation between the life-history 
forms, and whether any information exists to override the default 
assumptions described above about the ESU membership of resident 
populations. The best available information concerning resident O. 
mykiss in Columbia River Basin ESUs is summarized in the report ``The 
Biological Implications of Non-Anadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in 
Columbia Basin Steelhead ESUs'' (Kostow, 2003).
    As noted above, little or no population data are available for most 
resident O. mykiss populations, greatly complicating assessments of 
ESU-level extinction risk. Where available, the BRT incorporated 
information about resident populations into their analyses of the four 
VSP criteria and their assessments of extinction risk for O. mykiss 
ESUs. As was often the case, no data on the abundance, productivity, 
spatial structure, or diversity were available for resident populations 
in an ESU. The BRT noted that the presence of relatively numerous 
resident populations can significantly reduce risks to ESU abundance. 
However, there is considerable scientific uncertainty as to how the 
resident form affects

[[Page 33114]]

extinction risk through its influence on ESU productivity, spatial 
structure, and diversity. The threats to O. mykiss ESUs extend beyond 
low population size and include declining productivity, reduced 
resilience of productivity to environmental variation, curtailed range 
of distribution, impediments to population connectivity and 
reproductive exchange, depleted diversity stemming from loss or 
blockage of habitat and associated erosion of local adaptation, and 
erosion of the diversity of expressed migratory behaviors. Thus, the 
BRT concluded that, despite the reduced risk to abundance for certain 
O. mykiss ESUs due to numerically abundant residents, the collective 
contribution of the resident life-history form to the viability of an 
ESU in-total is unknown and may not substantially reduce extinction 
risks to an ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004). Based on present scientific 
understanding, the BRT could not exclude the possibility that complete 
loss of anadromous forms from within an ESU may be irreversible.

Consideration of Recent Ocean Conditions in Listing Determinations

    In the last decade, evidence has shown: (1) Recurring, decadal-
scale patterns of ocean-atmosphere climate variability in the North 
Pacific Ocean (Zang et al., 1997; Mantua et al., 1997); and (2) 
correlations between these oceanic productivity ``regimes'' and salmon 
population abundance in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (Hare et al., 
1999; Mueter et al., 2002). There is little doubt that survival rates 
in the marine environment are strong determinants of population 
abundance for Pacific salmon and O. mykiss (NMFS, 2003b). It is also 
generally accepted that for at least two decades, beginning about 1977, 
marine productivity conditions were unfavorable for the majority of 
salmon and O. mykiss populations in the Pacific Northwest (in contrast, 
many populations in Alaska attained record abundances during this 
period). Finally, there is evidence that an important shift in ocean-
atmosphere conditions occurred around July 1998. One indicator of the 
ocean-atmosphere variation for the North Pacific is the Pacific Decadal 
Oscillation index (PDO). Negative PDO values are associated with 
relatively cool ocean temperatures (and generally high salmon 
productivity) off the Pacific Northwest, and positive values are 
associated with warmer, less productive conditions. These favorable 
ocean conditions may also be correlated with favorable conditions in 
the freshwater environment (e.g., above-average rainfalls resulting in 
improved flow regimes for smolt outmigration). Increases in many salmon 
populations in recent years may be largely a result of more favorable 
ocean conditions. PDO values were mostly positive during the two 
decades preceding 1998, and this regime was generally characterized by 
less productive ocean conditions and declining salmonid abundances. 
Between July 1998 and July 2002 the PDO exhibited mostly negative 
values, associated with higher ocean productivity and increasing 
returns for many salmonid populations. It is worth noting that from 
August 2002 to April 2004 the PDO has exhibited positive values. It is 
not clear what impact, if any, these most recent conditions will have 
on salmonid populations. Although these facts are relatively well 
established, much less certainty can be attached to any predictions 
about what this means for the viability of salmon and O. mykiss ESUs 
into the future.
    The confidence with which we can project ocean-climate regimes into 
the future is limited, and consequently so is our ability to project 
the future influence of ocean-climate conditions on salmonid 
productivity. There exists about a century of empirical evidence for 
``cycles'' in the PDO, marine productivity, and salmon abundance. Such 
a timeseries represents only about three PDO periods of 20 to 40 years 
in duration. There are four main difficulties in inferring future 
behavior of a complex system from data records spanning only a couple 
cycles. First, the duration and magnitude of past cycles may not be 
indicative of future dynamics. Second, the past decade has seen 
particularly wide fluctuations not only in climatic indices (e.g., the 
1997-1998 El Nino was in many ways the most extreme ever recorded, and 
the 2001 drought was one of the most severe on record), but also in 
abundance of salmon populations. In general, as the magnitude of 
fluctuations in species' abundance increases, species extinction rates 
increase. Third, if there is anthropogenically caused climate change, 
it could affect future ocean productivity; however, how such change 
might be manifested cannot be predicted with any certainty (IPCC 2001). 
Finally, changes in the pattern of ocean-atmosphere interactions do not 
affect all species (or even all populations of a given species) in the 
same way (Peterman et al., 1998).
    Given all these uncertainties, the BRT was reluctant to make any 
specific assumptions about the future behavior of the ocean-atmospheric 
systems or their effects on the distribution and abundance of salmon 
and O. mykiss. The BRT was concerned, however, that even under the most 
optimistic scenario, increases in abundance might be only temporary and 
could mask a failure to address underlying factors for decline. The 
real conservation concern for West Coast salmon and O. mykiss is not 
how they perform during periods of high marine survival, but how 
prolonged periods of poor marine survival affect the VSP parameters of 
abundance, growth rate, spatial structure, and diversity. It is 
reasonable to assume that salmon populations have persisted over time, 
under pristine conditions through many such cycles in the past. Less 
certain is how the populations will fare in periods of poor ocean 
survival when their freshwater, estuary, and nearshore marine habitats 
are degraded.

Treatment of the Listing Determination Steps for Each ESU Under Review

Determinations of ``Species'' Under the ESA

    To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, a 
population (or group of populations) of West Coast salmonids must be 
considered a ``species'' as defined 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'' (ESA section 3(16)). 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 (or group of populations) will be considered a DPS, and 
hence a ``species'' under the ESA, if it represents an ESU of the 
biological species. An ESU 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 unit contributes substantially to the ecological and 
genetic diversity of the species in-total. Guidance on the application 
of this policy is contained in 56 FR 58612 (November 20, 1991) and 
Waples (1991). As noted in the ``Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans'' 
section above, all components included in an ESU (natural populations, 
hatchery stocks, resident populations, etc.) must be listed if it is 
determined that the ESU in-

[[Page 33115]]

total is threatened or endangered under the ESA.
    NMFS has reviewed the ESU relationships of hatchery salmon and 
anadromous O. mykiss stocks (NMFS, 2004b), as well as of resident O. 
mykiss populations. Hatchery stocks and resident populations are 
included in an ESU if it is determined that they are not reproductively 
isolated from populations in the ESU, and they are representative of 
the evolutionary legacy of the ESU (see the ``Consideration of 
Artificial Propagation in Listing Determinations'' section above). 
Hatchery stocks are not considered representative of the evolutionary 
legacy of an ESU, and hence not included in the ESU, if it is 
determined that they are genetically no more than moderately divergent 
from the natural population (See proposed Hatchery Listing Policy 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). If a 
hatchery stock is more divergent from the local natural population, 
this indicates that the hatchery stock is reproductively isolated from 
the ESU. Co-occurring anadromous and resident O. mykiss populations 
below impassable barriers are likely not reproductively isolated, so 
that both represent important components of the evolutionary legacy of 
the species, and hence are considered an ESU (see the more detailed 
discussion above in the ``Consideration of Resident O. mykiss 
Populations in Listing Determinations'' section).
    The hatchery and resident components are detailed below for each 
ESU, as applicable. More detailed descriptions of the hatchery stocks 
included in the ESUs below can be found in the Salmonid Hatchery 
Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b). More detailed 
descriptions of the impassible barriers and resident populations 
associated with O. mykiss ESUs are provided in the final BRT Report 
(NMFS, 2003b) as well as in ``The Biological Implications of Non-
Anadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in Columbia Basin Steelhead ESUs'' 
(Kostow, 2003).
    A given hatchery stock determined to be part of an ESU may be 
propagated at multiple sites. To more clearly convey the hatchery fish 
that are included in a given ESU, the ESU descriptions below list the 
artificial propagation programs that propagate hatchery stocks 
determined to be part of the ESUs under review. A list of those 
specific artificial propagation programs by ESU is provided for 
reference in Table 2 at the end of this section.
    The following descriptions of the 27 Pacific salmon and O. mykiss 
ESUs addressed in this document generally reaffirm the ESU 
determinations for naturally spawning populations detailed in previous 
ESA status reviews and listing determinations (see Table 1). The BRT 
focused primarily on risk assessments of the naturally spawned 
component of ESUs. Apart from the consideration of hatchery stock and 
resident O. mykiss populations, NMFS did not reconsider the geographic 
boundaries of the ESUs under review. There was no significant 
scientific and commercial information indicating that specific ESUs 
boundaries warrant reconsideration.
Snake River Sockeye ESU
    The Snake River sockeye ESU includes populations of anadromous 
sockeye salmon from the Snake River Basin, Idaho (extant populations 
occur only in the Stanley Basin) (56 FR 58619; November 20, 1991), 
residual sockeye salmon in Redfish Lake, Idaho, as well as one captive 
propagation hatchery program (Table 2). Artificially propagated sockeye 
salmon from the Redfish Lake Captive Propagation program are considered 
part of this ESU. NMFS has determined that this artificially propagated 
stock is genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural 
population (NMFS, 2004b).
    Subsequent to the 1991 listing determination for the Snake River 
sockeye ESU, a ``residual'' form of Snake River sockeye (hereafter 
``residuals'') was identified. The residuals often occur together with 
anadromous sockeye salmon and exhibit similar behavior in the timing 
and location of spawning. Residuals are thought to be the progeny of 
anadromous sockeye salmon, but are generally nonanadromous. In 1993 
NMFS determined that the residual population of Snake River sockeye 
that exists in Redfish Lake is substantially reproductively isolated 
from kokanee (i.e., nonanadromous populations of O. nerka that become 
resident in lake environments over long periods of time), represents an 
important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological 
species, and thus merits inclusion in the Snake River sockeye ESU. 
Constituents and co-managers were subsequently advised that residual 
sockeye salmon in Redfish Lake are part of the ESU and are listed as an 
endangered species ``subject to all the protection, prohibitions, and 
requirements of the ESA that apply to Snake River sockeye salmon'' 
(letter from Acting NMFS Director Nancy Foster to Constituents, dated 
March 19, 1993).
Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU
    The Ozette Lake sockeye ESU includes all naturally spawned 
populations of sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake and streams and 
tributaries flowing into Ozette Lake, Washington (64 FR 14528; March 
25, 1999). Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be 
part of this ESU (Table 2): the Umbrella Creek and Big River sockeye 
hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially 
propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent 
from the natural population (NMFS, 2004b).
Sacramento Winter-run Chinook ESU
    The Sacramento winter-run chinook ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento 
River and its tributaries in California (59 FR 440; January 1, 1994), 
as well as two artificial propagation programs (Table 2): winter-run 
chinook from the Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH), and 
winter run chinook in a captive broodstock program maintained at 
Livingston Stone NFH and the University of California Bodega Marine 
Laboratory. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated 
stocks are no more than moderately diverged from the local natural 
population (NMFS 2004b).
Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU
    The Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of spring-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento 
River and its tributaries in California (64 FR 50394; September 16, 
1999). This ESU does not include any artificially propagated spring-run 
chinook stocks that reside within the historical geographic range of 
the ESU.
California Coastal Chinook ESU
    The California Coastal chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned 
populations of chinook salmon from rivers and streams south of the 
Klamath River to the Russian River, California (64 FR 50394; September 
16, 1999). Seven artificial propagation programs are considered to be 
part of the ESU (Table 2): the Humboldt Fish Action Council (Freshwater 
Creek), Yager Creek, Redwood Creek, Hollow Tree, Van Arsdale Fish 
Station, Mattole Salmon Group, and Mad River Hatchery fall-run chinook 
hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially 
propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent 
from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).

[[Page 33116]]

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU
    The Upper Willamette River chinook ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of spring-run chinook salmon in the Clackamas River 
and in the Willamette River, and its tributaries, above Willamette 
Falls, Oregon (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). Seven artificial 
propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): 
the McKenzie River Hatchery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(ODFW) stock  24), Marion Forks/North Fork Santiam River (ODFW 
stock  21), South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW stock  23) 
in the South Fork Santiam River, South Santiam Hatchery in the 
Calapooia River, South Santiam Hatchery in the Mollala River, 
Willamette Hatchery (ODFW stock  22), and Clackamas hatchery 
(ODFW stock  19) spring-run chinook hatchery programs. NMFS 
has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are 
genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural 
populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU
    The Lower Columbia River chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned 
populations of chinook salmon 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, exclusive of spring-run chinook salmon in the 
Clackamas River (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). Seventeen artificial 
propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): 
the Sea Resources Tule chinook Program, Big Creek Tule chinook Program, 
Astoria High School (STEP) Tule chinook Program, Warrenton High School 
(STEP) Tule chinook Program, Elochoman River Tule chinook Program, 
Cowlitz Tule Chinook Program, North Fork Toutle Tule chinook Program, 
Kalama Tule chinook Program, Washougal River Tule chinook Program, 
Spring Creek NFH Tule chinook Program, Cowlitz spring chinook Program 
in the Upper Cowlitz River and the Cispus River, Friends of the Cowlitz 
spring chinook Program, Kalama River spring chinook Program, Lewis 
River spring chinook Program, Fish First spring chinook Program, and 
the Sandy River Hatchery (ODFW stock 11) chinook hatchery 
programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks 
are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural 
populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook ESU
    The Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU includes all 
naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon 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 (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). Six 
artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU 
(Table 2): the Twisp River, Chewuch River, Methow Composite, Winthrop 
NFH, Chiwawa River, and White River spring-run chinook hatchery 
programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks 
are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural 
populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Puget Sound Chinook ESU
    The Puget Sound chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned 
populations of chinook salmon 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 (64 FR 
14208; March 24, 1999). Twenty-two artificial propagation programs are 
considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Kendal Creek Hatchery, 
Marblemount Hatchery (fall, spring yearlings, spring subyearlings, and 
summer run), Harvey Creek Hatchery, Whitehorse Springs Pond, Wallace 
River Hatchery (yearlings and subyearlings), Tulalip Bay, Soos Creek 
Hatchery, Icy Creek Hatchery, Keta Creek Hatchery, White River 
Hatchery, White Acclimation Pond, Hupp Springs Hatchery, Voights Creek 
Hatchery, Diru Creek, Clear Creek, Kalama Creek, Dungeness/Hurd Creek 
Hatchery, Elwha Channel Hatchery chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has 
determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no 
more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 
2004b).
Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU
    The Snake River fall-run chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned 
populations of fall-run chinook salmon in the mainstem Snake River and 
in the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, Salmon River, 
and Clearwater River subbasins (57 FR 14653, April 22, 1992; 57 FR 
23458, June 3, 1992). Four artificial propagation programs are 
considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Lyons Ferry Hatchery, 
Fall Chinook Acclimation Ponds Program, Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery, and 
Oxbow Hatchery fall-run chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has determined 
that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than 
moderately divergent from the natural population (NMFS, 2004b).
Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook ESU
    The Snake River spring/summer-run chinook ESU includes all 
naturally spawned populations of spring/summer-run chinook salmon in 
the mainstem Snake River and the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, 
Imnaha River, and Salmon River subbasins (57 FR 23458; June 3, 1992). 
Fifteen artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of 
the ESU (Table 2): the Tucannon River conventional Hatchery, Tucannon 
River Captive Broodstock Program, Lostine River, Catherine Creek, 
Lookingglass Hatchery Reintroduction Program (Catherine Creek stock), 
Upper Grande Ronde, Imnaha River, Big Sheep Creek, McCall Hatchery, 
Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement, Lemhi River Captive 
Rearing Experiment, Pahsimeroi Hatchery, East Fork Captive Rearing 
Experiment, West Fork Yankee Fork Captive Rearing Experiment, and the 
Sawtooth Hatchery spring/summer-run chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has 
determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no 
more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 
2004b).
Central California Coast Coho ESU
    The Central California Coast coho ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of coho salmon from Punta Gorda in northern 
California south to and including the San Lorenzo River in central 
California, as well as populations in tributaries to San Francisco Bay, 
excluding the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system (61 FR 56138; October 
31, 1996). Four artificial propagation programs are considered part of 
this ESU (Table 2): the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Captive Broodstock 
Program, Scott Creek/King Fisher Flats Conservation Program, Scott 
Creek Captive Broodstock Program, and the Noyo River Fish Station Egg-
take Program coho hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these 
artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately 
divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU
    The Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU includes all

[[Page 33117]]

naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in coastal streams between 
Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California (62 FR 24588; May 6, 
1997). Three artificial propagation programs are considered to be part 
of the ESU (Table 2): the Cole Rivers Hatchery (ODFW stock  
52), Trinity River Hatchery, and Iron Gate Hatchery coho hatchery 
programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks 
are no more than moderately diverged from the local natural populations 
(NMFS, 2004b).
Oregon Coast Coho ESU
    The Oregon Coast coho ESU includes all naturally spawned 
populations of coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams south of the 
Columbia River and north of Cape Blanco (63 FR 42587; August 10, 1998). 
Five artificial propagation programs are considered part of the ESU 
(Table 2): the North Umpqua River (ODFW stock  18), Cow Creek 
(ODFW stock  37), Coos Basin (ODFW stock 37), 
Coquille River (ODFW stock  44), and North Fork Nehalem River 
(ODFW stock  32) coho hatchery programs. NMFS has determined 
that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than 
moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Lower Columbia River Coho ESU
    In NMFS' 1991 status review of Lower Columbia River (LCR) coho 
(NMFS, 1991d), the BRT limited the geographic scope of its review to 
the subject of the motivating listing petition: the LCR excluding the 
Willamette River. The 1991 BRT concluded that historical LCR coho 
populations were probably reproductively isolated from other coho 
populations, but the BRT was unable to identify whether an historical 
coho ESU still existed in the LCR. In the 1995 status review of West 
Coast coho salmon (NMFS, 1995a), the BRT considered new information 
suggesting that LCR coho may be part of a larger ESU, based on 
similarities in physical and biogeographical conditions, and 
preliminary genetic data. The 1995 BRT included LCR coho as part of a 
larger Southwestern Washington (SWW)/LCR coho ESU, and NMFS designated 
the SWW/LCR coho ESU as a candidate species (60 FR 38011; July 25, 
1995). In 1996, NMFS' West Coast Coho Salmon BRT updated the 1995 
status review, and concluded that the SWW/LCR ESU may warrant splitting 
into separate SWW and LCR ESUs (NMFS, 1996e).
    In 2001 the BRT reconvened to update information on the viability 
of LCR coho and concluded that LCR coho is a separate ESU from SWW coho 
(NMFS, 2001). This conclusion was supported by new tagging data and 
analyses indicating that SWW and LCR coho populations have differing 
marine distributions and are genetically distinct (Shaklee et al., 
1999; NMFS, 2001). This finding is consistent with the stock structure 
exhibited by LCR chinook and O. mykiss populations (Myers et al., 
2003). The 2001 BRT also concluded that the historical ESU still exists 
in the LCR. The primary evidence to support this conclusion is the 
consistent genetic and life history differences between LCR coho salmon 
and populations from other areas. The BRT concluded that, because of 
presumably very low survival rates, stock transfers from Oregon coastal 
populations 40 to 80 years ago probably had relatively little permanent 
effect on the genetic makeup of LCR coho salmon. Nevertheless, the BRT 
recognized that the ESU as it presently exists is much altered from 
historical conditions, and evidence of appreciable natural production 
is limited to two Oregon populations (in the Sandy and Clackamas 
rivers) that represent the clearest link (through more or less 
continuous natural production) to historical populations within the 
ESU. Based on available information, most of the adult coho salmon 
returning to natural or hatchery areas outside these two streams appear 
to have themselves been reared as juveniles in hatcheries, or to have 
had parents that were reared in hatcheries. The 2001 BRT concluded 
that, collectively, these hatchery-produced fish contain a significant 
portion of the historical diversity of LCR coho salmon, albeit in 
somewhat altered form. In determining the upstream boundary of the LCR 
coho ESU, the 2001 BRT concluded that Upper Columbia River coho (now 
extinct) were likely not part of the LCR coho ESU, and that the Cascade 
Crest represents the most likely eastern terminus of the LCR coho ESU. 
The 2003 Pacific Salmonid BRT did not revisit the 2001 ESU boundaries 
for the LCR coho ESU.
    Based on the foregoing, NMFS concludes that the LCR coho ESU 
includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in the 
Columbia River and its tributaries from the mouth of the Columbia up to 
and including the Big White Salmon and Hood Rivers. Twenty-one 
artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU 
(Table 2): the Grays River, Sea Resources Hatchery, Peterson Coho 
Project, Big Creek Hatchery, Astoria High School (STEP) Coho Program, 
Warrenton High School (STEP) Coho Program, Elochoman Type-S Coho 
Program, Elochoman Type-N Coho Program, Cathlamet High School FFA Type-
N Coho Program, Cowlitz Type-N Coho Program in the Upper and Lower 
Cowlitz Rivers, Cowlitz Game and Anglers Coho Program, Friends of the 
Cowlitz Coho Program, North Fork Toutle River Hatchery, Lewis River 
Type-N Coho Program, Lewis River Type-S Coho Program, Fish First Wild 
Coho Program, Fish First Type-N Coho Program, Syverson Project Type-N 
Coho Program, Sandy Hatchery, and the Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow complex 
coho hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially 
propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent 
from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Columbia River Chum ESU
    The Columbia River chum ESU includes all naturally spawned 
populations of chum salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries in 
Washington and Oregon (64 FR 14508; March 25, 1999). Three artificial 
propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): 
the Chinook River (Sea Resources Hatchery), Grays River, and Washougal 
River/Duncan Creek chum hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that 
these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than 
moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU
    The Hood Canal summer-run chum includes all naturally spawned 
populations of summer-run chum salmon in Hood Canal and its tributaries 
as well as populations in Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal 
and Dungeness Bay, Washington (64 FR 14508; March 25, 1999). Eight 
artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU 
(Table 2): the Quilcene NFH, Hamma Hamma Fish Hatchery, Lilliwaup Creek 
Fish Hatchery, Union River/Tahuya, Big Beef Creek Fish Hatchery, Salmon 
Creek Fish Hatchery, Chimacum Creek Fish Hatchery, and the 
Jimmycomelately Creek Fish Hatchery summer-run chum hatchery programs. 
NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are 
genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural 
populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Southern California O. mykiss ESU
    The Southern California O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of steelhead in streams from the Santa Maria River, 
San Luis Obispo County, California (inclusive) to the U.S.-Mexico 
Border (62 FR 43937,

[[Page 33118]]

August 18, 1997; 67 FR 21586, May 1, 2002). Resident populations of O. 
mykiss below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur 
with anadromous populations are included in the Southern California O. 
mykiss ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the 
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing 
Determinations section), the ESU membership of native resident 
populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but 
below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations 
are provisionally not considered to be part of the Southern California 
O. mykiss ESU, until such time that significant scientific information 
becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU 
relationships.
    This ESU does not include any artificially propagated O. mykiss 
stocks that reside within the historical geographic range of the ESU.
South-Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU
    The South-Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU includes all 
naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams from the Pajaro 
River (inclusive) to, but not including the Santa Maria River, 
California (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). Resident populations of O. 
mykiss below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur 
with anadromous populations are included in the South-Central 
California Coast O. mykiss ESU. According to the framework discussed 
above (See the Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in 
Listing Determinations section), the ESU membership of native resident 
populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but 
below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations 
are provisionally not considered to be part of the South-Central 
California Coast O. mykiss ESU, until such time that significant 
scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case 
evaluation of their ESU relationships.
    This ESU does not include any artificially propagated O. mykiss 
stocks that reside within the historical geographic range of the ESU.
Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU
    The Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of steelhead in California streams from the Russian 
River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo 
Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), excluding the Sacramento-
San Joaquin River Basin (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). Resident 
populations of O. mykiss below impassible barriers (natural and 
manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the 
Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU. According to the framework 
discussed above (see the Consideration of Resident O. mykiss 
Populations in Listing Determinations section), the ESU membership of 
native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable 
barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident 
populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Central 
California Coast O. mykiss ESU, until such time that significant 
scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case 
evaluation of their ESU relationships. Recent genetic data regarding 
three subpopulations of native fish above Rubber Dam 1 on Alameda Creek 
strongly suggest that they are part of the ESU. Nielson (2003) found 
that these subpopulations were most similar to each other and other 
populations within the ESU than they were to populations outside the 
ESU. NMFS, therefore, considers native resident O. mykiss populations 
above Dam 1 on Alameda Creek to be part of the Central California Coast 
O. mykiss ESU.
    Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of 
the ESU (Table 2): the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery, and Kingfisher Flat 
Hatchery/Scott Creek (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) steelhead 
hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially 
propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent 
from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU
    The California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin 
Rivers and their tributaries, excluding steelhead from San Francisco 
and San Pablo Bays and their tributaries (63 FR13347; March 19, 1998). 
Resident populations of O. mykiss below impassible barriers (natural 
and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in 
the California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU. According to the framework 
discussed above (see the Consideration of Resident O. mykiss 
Populations in Listing Determinations section), the ESU membership of 
native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable 
barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident 
populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the 
California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU, until such time that 
significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-
by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships.
    Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of 
the ESU (Table 2): the Coleman NFH, and Feather River Hatchery 
steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these 
artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately 
divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
    Two other artificial propagation programs, the Nimbus and Mokelumne 
River stocks, are derived from out-of-ESU broodstock, are genetically 
more than moderately divergent from the ESU populations, and are not 
considered part of this ESU.
Northern California O. mykiss ESU
    The Northern California O. mykiss ESU includes steelhead in 
California coastal river basins from Redwood Creek south to the Gualala 
River (inclusive) (65 FR 36074; June 7, 2000). Resident populations of 
O. mykiss below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur 
with anadromous populations are included in the Northern California O. 
mykiss ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the 
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing 
Determinations section), the ESU membership of native resident 
populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but 
below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations 
are provisionally not considered to be part of the Northern California 
O. mykiss ESU, until such time that significant scientific information 
becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU 
relationships.
    Two artificial propagation programs are considered part of the ESU 
(Table 2): the Yager Creek Hatchery, and North Fork Gualala River 
Hatchery (Gualala River Steelhead Project) steelhead hatchery programs. 
NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are 
genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural 
populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU
    The Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of winter-run steelhead in the Willamette River, 
Oregon, and its tributaries upstream from Willamette Falls to the 
Calapooia River (inclusive) (64 FR 14517; March 25, 1999). Resident 
populations of O.

[[Page 33119]]

mykiss below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur 
with anadromous populations are included in the Upper Willamette River 
O. mykiss ESU. Although there are no obvious physical barriers 
separating populations upstream of the Calapooia from those lower in 
the basin, resident O. mykiss in these upper basins are quite 
distinctive both phenotypically and genetically and are not considered 
part of the ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the 
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing 
Determinations section), the ESU membership of native resident 
populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but 
below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations 
are provisionally not considered to be part of the Upper Willamette 
River O. mykiss ESU, until such time that significant scientific 
information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of 
their ESU relationships.
    This ESU does not include any artificially propagated O. mykiss 
stocks that reside within the historical geographic range of the ESU. 
Hatchery summer steelhead occur in the Willamette Basin but are an out-
of-basin stock that is not included as part of the ESU.
Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU
    The Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of steelhead in streams and tributaries to the 
Columbia River between the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers, Washington 
(inclusive), and the Willamette and Hood Rivers, Oregon (inclusive). 
Excluded are steelhead in the upper Willamette River Basin above 
Willamette Falls and steelhead from the Little and Big White Salmon 
Rivers in Washington (62 FR43937; August 18, 1997). Resident 
populations of O. mykiss below impassible barriers (natural and 
manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the 
Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. According to the framework 
discussed above (see the Consideration of Resident O. mykiss 
Populations in Listing Determinations section), the ESU membership of 
native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable 
barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident 
populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Lower 
Columbia River O. mykiss ESU, until such time that significant 
scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case 
evaluation of their ESU relationships.
    Ten artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of 
the ESU (Table 2): the Cowlitz Trout Hatchery (in the Cispus, Upper 
Cowlitz, Lower Cowlitz, and Tilton Rivers), Kalama River Wild (winter- 
and summer-run), Clackamas Hatchery, Sandy Hatchery, and Hood River 
(winter- and summer-run) steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has 
determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no 
more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 
2004b).
Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU
    The Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of steelhead in streams from above the Wind River, 
Washington, and the Hood River, Oregon (exclusive), upstream to, and 
including, the Yakima River, Washington, excluding steelhead from the 
Snake River Basin (64 FR 14517; March 25, 1999). Resident populations 
of O. mykiss below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-
occur with anadromous populations are included in the Middle Columbia 
River O. mykiss ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see 
the Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing 
Determinations section), the ESU membership of native resident 
populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but 
below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations 
are provisionally not considered to be part of the Middle Columbia 
River O. mykiss ESU, until such time that significant scientific 
information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of 
their ESU relationships.
    Seven artificial propagation programs are considered part of the 
ESU (Table 2): the Touchet River Endemic, Yakima River Kelt 
Reconditioning Program (in Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches River, 
and Upper Yakima River), Umatilla River, and the Deschutes River 
steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these 
artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately 
divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU
    The Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally 
spawned populations of steelhead in streams in the Columbia River Basin 
upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the U.S.-Canada border 
(62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). Resident populations of O. mykiss below 
impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous 
populations are included in the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. 
According to the framework discussed above (see the Consideration of 
Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations section), the 
ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually 
man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not 
resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered 
to be part of the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU, until such time 
that significant scientific information becomes available affording a 
case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships.
    Six artificial propagation programs are considered part of the ESU 
(Table 2): the Wenatchee River, Wells Hatchery (in the Methow and 
Okanogan Rivers), Winthrop NFH, Omak Creek, and the Ringold steelhead 
hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially 
propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent 
from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU
    The Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally spawned 
populations of steelhead in streams in the Snake River Basin of 
southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho (62 FR 43937; August 
18, 1997). Resident populations of O. mykiss below impassible barriers 
(natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are 
included in the Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU. According to the 
framework discussed above (see the Consideration of Resident O. mykiss 
Populations in Listing Determinations section), the ESU membership of 
native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable 
barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident 
populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Snake 
River Basin O. mykiss ESU, until such time that significant scientific 
information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of 
their ESU relationships. Recent genetic data suggest that native 
resident O. mykiss above Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater 
River are part of this ESU. NMFS, therefore, considers native resident 
O. mykiss populations above Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater 
River to be part of the Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU. Hatchery 
rainbow trout that have been introduced to the Clearwater River and 
other areas within the ESU are not considered part of the ESU.
    Six artificial propagation programs are considered part of the ESU 
(Table 2): the

[[Page 33120]]

Tucannon River, Dworshak NFH, Lolo Creek, North Fork Clearwater, East 
Fork Salmon River, and the Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha River Hatchery 
steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these 
artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately 
divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).

  Table 2.--List of Artificial Propagation Programs Included in Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West
                                      Coast Salmon and Oncorhynchus mykiss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Evolutionarily significant unit    Artificial propagation
               (ESU)                         program                     Run                 Location (State)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snake River sockeye ESU............  Redfish Lake Captive    n/a........................  Stanley Basin (Idaho).
                                      Propagation Program.
Ozette Lake sockeye ESU............  Umbrella Creek          n/a........................  Ozette Lake
                                      Hatchery--Makah Tribe.                               (Washington).
                                     Big River Hatchery--    n/a........................  Ozette Lake
                                      Makah Tribe.                                         (Washington).
                                     Livingston Stone        Winter.....................  Sacramento River
                                      National Fish                                        (California),
                                      Hatchery (NFH)                                       Livingston Stone NFH
                                      Conservation Program                                 & Univ. of Calif.
Sacramento River winter-run chinook  Captive Broodstock      Winter.....................  Bodega Marine
 ESU.                                 Program.                                             Laboratory
                                                                                           (California).
Central Valley spring-run chinook    n/a...................
 ESU.
California Coastal chinook ESU.....  Freshwater Creek/       Fall.......................  Freshwater Creek,
                                      Humboldt Fish Action                                 Humboldt Bay
                                      Council.                                             (California).
                                     Yager Creek Hatchery..  Fall.......................  Yager Creek, Van Duzen
                                                                                           River (California).
                                                                                           Redwood Creek, South
                                                                                           Fork Eel River.
                                     Redwood Creek Hatchery  Fall.......................  (California).
                                     Hollow Tree Creek       Fall.......................  Eel River
                                      Hatchery.                                            (California).
                                     Mattole Salmon Group    Fall.......................  Squaw Creek, Mattole
                                      Hatchery.                                            River (California).
                                     Van Arsdale Fish        Fall.......................  Eel River
                                      Station.                                             (California).
                                     Mad River Hatchery....  Fall.......................  Mad River
                                                                                           (California).
Upper Willamette River chinook ESU.  McKenzie River          Spring.....................  McKenzie River
                                      Hatchery (Oregon                                     (Oregon).
                                      Department of Fish &
                                      Wildlife (ODFW) stock
                                      24).
                                     Marion Forks Hatchery   Spring.....................  North Fork Santiam
                                      (ODFW stock 21).
                                     South Santiam Hatchery  Spring.....................  South Fork Santiam
                                      (ODFW stock 23).
                                                             Spring.....................  Calapooia River
                                                                                           (Oregon).
                                                             Spring.....................  Mollala River
                                                                                           (Oregon).
                                     Willamette Hatchery     Spring.....................  Middle Fork Willamette
                                      (ODFW stock 22).
                                     Clackamas Hatchery      Spring.....................  Clackamas River
                                      (ODFW stock 19).
Lower Columbia River chinook ESU...  Sea Resources Tule      Fall.......................  Chinook River
                                      Chinook Program.                                     (Washington).
                                     Big Creek Tule Chinook  Fall.......................  Big Creek (Oregon).
                                      Program.
                                     Astoria High School     Fall.......................  Big Creek (Oregon).
                                      (STEP) Tule Chinook
                                      Program.
                                     Warrenton High School   Fall.......................  Big Creek (Oregon).
                                      (STEP) Tule Chinook
                                      Program.
                                     Elochoman River Tule    Fall.......................  Elochoman River
                                      Chinook Program.                                     (Washington).
                                     Cowlitz Tule Chinook    Fall.......................  Lower Cowlitz River
                                      Program.                                             (Washington).
                                     North Folk Toutle Tule  Fall.......................  Cowlitz River
                                      Chinook Program.                                     (Washington).
                                     Kalama Tule Chinook     Fall.......................  Kalama River
                                      Program.                                             (Washington).
                                     Washougal River         Fall.......................  Washougal River
                                      Chinook Program.                                     (Washington).
                                     Spring Creek NFH Tule   Fall.......................  Upper Cowlitz River
                                      Chinook Program.                                     (Washington).
                                                             Spring.....................  Cispus River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Friends of Cowlitz      Spring.....................  Upper Cowlitz River
                                      spring chinook                                       (Washington).
                                      Program.
                                     Kalama River spring     Spring.....................  Kalama River
                                      chinook Program.                                     (Washington).
                                     Lewis River spring      Spring.....................  Lewis River
                                      chinook Program.                                     (Washington).
                                     Fish First spring       Spring.....................  Lewis River
                                      chinook Program.                                     (Washington).
                                     Sandy River Hatchery    Spring.....................  Sandy River
                                      (ODFW stock 11).
Upper Columbia River spring chinook  Twisp River...........  Spring.....................  Methow Spring
 ESU.                                                                                      (Washington).
                                     Chewuch River.........  Spring.....................  Methow River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Methow Composite......  Spring.....................  Methow River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Winthrop NFH (Methow    Spring.....................  Methow River
                                      Composite stock).                                    (Washington).
                                     Chiwawa River.........  Spring.....................  Wenatchee River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     White River...........  Spring.....................  Wenatchee River
                                                                                           (Washington).
Puget Sound chinook ESU............  Kendall Creek Hatchery  Spring.....................  North Fork Nooksack
                                                                                           River (Washington).
                                     Marblemount Hatchery..  Fall.......................  Lower Skagit River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                                             Spring (Yearlings).........  Upper Skagit River
                                                                                           (Washington).

[[Page 33121]]

 
                                                             Spring (sub-yearlings).....  Upper Skagit River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                                             Summer.....................  Upper Skagit River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Harvey Creek Hatchery.  Summer.....................  North Fork
                                                                                           Stillaguamish River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Whitehorse Springs      Summer.....................  North Fork
                                      Pond.                                                Stillaguamish River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Wallace River Hatchery  Summer (yearlings).........  Skykomish River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                                             Summer (sub yearlings).....  Skykomish River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Tulalip Bay (Bernie     Summer.....................  Skykomish River/
                                      Kai-Kai Gobin                                        Tulalip Bay
                                      Hatchery/Tulalip                                     (Washington).
                                      Hatchery).
                                     Soos Creek Hatchery...  Fall.......................  Green River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Icy Creek Hatchery....  Fall.......................  Green River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Keta Creek--            Fall.......................  Green River
                                      Muckleshoot Tribe.                                   (Washington).
                                     White River Hatchery..  Spring.....................  White River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     White Acclimation Pond  Spring.....................  White River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Hupps Springs Hatchery  Spring.....................  White River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Voights Creek Hatchery  Fall.......................  Puyallup River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Diru Creek............  Fall.......................  Puyallup River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Clear Creek...........  Fall.......................  Nisqually River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Kalama Creek..........  Fall.......................  Nisqually River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Dungeness/Hurd Creek    Spring.....................  Dungeness River
                                      Hatchery.                                            (Washington).
                                     Elwha Channel Hatchery  Fall.......................  Elwha River
                                                                                           (Washington).
Snake River fall-run chinook ESU...  Lyons Ferry Hatchery..  Fall.......................  Snake River (Idaho).
                                     Fall Chinook            Fall.......................  Snake River (Idaho).
                                      Acclimation Ponds
                                      Program--Pittsburg,
                                      Captain John, and Big
                                      Canyon ponds.
                                     Nez Perce Tribal        Fall.......................  Snake and Clearwater
                                      Hatchery--including                                  Rivers (Idaho).
                                      North Lapwai Valley,
                                      Lakes Gulch, and
                                      Cedar Flat Satellite
                                      facilities.
                                     Oxbow Hatchery........  Fall.......................  Snake River (Oregon,
                                                                                           Idaho).
Snake River spring/summer-run        Tucannon River          Spring.....................  Tucannon River
 chinook ESU.                         Hatchery                                             (Idaho).
                                      (conventional).
                                     Tucannon River Captive  Spring.....................  Tucannon River
                                      Broodstock Program.                                  (Idaho).
                                     Lostine River (captive/ Summer.....................  Grande Ronde (Oregon).
                                      conventional).
                                     Catherine Creek         Summer.....................  Grande Ronde (Oregon).
                                      (captive/
                                      conventional).
                                     Lookingglass Hatchery   Summer.....................  Grande Ronde (Oregon).
                                      (reintroduction).
                                     Upper Grande Ronde      Summer.....................  Grande Ronde (Oregon).
                                      (captive/
                                      conventional).
                                     Imnaha River..........  Spring/Summer..............  Imnaha River (Oregon).
                                     Big Sheep Creek.......  Spring/Summer..............  Imnaha River (Oregon).
                                     McCall Hatchery.......  Spring.....................  South Fork Salmon
                                                                                           River (Idaho).
                                     Johnson Creek           Spring.....................  East Fork South Fork
                                      Artificial                                           Salmon River (Idaho).
                                      Propagation
                                      Enhancement.
                                     Lemhi River Captive     Spring.....................  Lemhi River (Idaho).
                                      Rearing Experiment.
                                     Pahsimeroi Hatchery...  Summer.....................  Salmon River (Idaho).
                                     East Fork Captive       Spring.....................  East Fork Salmon River
                                      Rearing Experiment..                                 (Idaho).
                                     West Fork Yankee Fork   Spring.....................  Salmon River (Idaho).
                                      Captive Rearing
                                      Experiment.
                                     Sawtooth Hatchery.....  Spring.....................  Upper Mainstem Salmon
                                                                                           River (Idaho).
Central California Coast coho ESU..  Don Clausen Fish        n/a........................  Dry Creek, Russian
                                      Hatchery Captive                                     River (California).
                                      Broodstock Program.
                                     Scott Creek/Kingfisher  n/a........................  Big Creek, Scott Creek
                                      Flat Hatchery                                        (California).
                                      Conservation Program
                                      (Monterey Bay Salmon
                                      and Trout Project).
                                     Scott Creek Captive     n/a........................  NOAA Southwest
                                      Broodstock Program.                                  Fisheries Science
                                                                                           Center, Santa Cruz
                                                                                           (California).
                                     Noyo River Fish         n/a........................  Noyo River
                                      Station egg-take                                     (California).
                                      program.
Southern Oregon/Northern California  Cole Rivers Hatchery    n/a........................  Rogue River (Oregon).
 Coast coho ESU.                      (ODFW stock 52).
                                     Trinity River Hatchery  n/a........................  Trinity River
                                                                                           (California).
                                     Iron Gate Hatchery....  n/a........................  Klamath River
                                                                                           (California).
Oregon Coast coho ESU..............  North Umpqua River      n/a........................  Umpqua River (Oregon).
                                      (ODFW stock 55).
                                     Cow Creek (ODFW stock   n/a........................  Umpqua River (Oregon).
                                      18).
                                     Coos Basin (ODFW stock  n/a........................  Coos Basin (Oregon).
                                      37).

[[Page 33122]]

 
                                     Coquille River/Bandon   n/a........................  Coquille River
                                      Hatchery (ODFW stock                                 (Oregon).
                                      44).
                                     North Fork Nehalem      n/a........................  Nehalem River
                                      River (ODFW stock                                    (Oregon).
                                      32).
Lower Columbia River coho ESU......  Grays River...........  Type-S.....................  Grays River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Sea Resources Hatchery  Type-S.....................  Grays River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Peterson Coho Project.  Type-S.....................  Grays River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Big Creek Hatchery      n/a........................  Big Creek (Oregon).
                                      (ODFW stock 13).
                                     Astoria High School     n/a........................  Youngs Bay (Oregon).
                                      (STEP) Coho Program.
                                     Warrention High School  n/a........................  Youngs Bay (Oregon).
                                      (STEP) Coho Program.
                                     Elochoman Type-S Coho   Type-S.....................  Elochoman River
                                      Program.                                             (Washington).
                                     Elochoman Type-N Coho   Type-N.....................  Elochoman River
                                      Program.                                             (Washington).
                                     Cathlamet High School   Type-N.....................  Elochoman River
                                      FFA Type-N Coho                                      (Washington).
                                      Program.
                                     Cowlitz Type-N Coho     Type-N.....................  Upper Cowlitz River
                                      Program.                                             (Washington).
                                     Cowlitz Type-N Coho     Type-N.....................  Lower Cowlitz River
                                      Program.                                             (Washington).
                                     Cowlitz Game and        n/a........................  Lower Cowlitz River
                                      Anglers Coho Program.                                (Washington).
                                     Friends of the Cowlitz  n/a........................  Lower Cowlitz River
                                      Coho Program.                                        (Washington).
                                     North Fork Toutle       Type-S.....................  Cowlitz River
                                      River Hatchery.                                      (Washington).
                                     Lewis River Type-N      Type-N.....................  North Fork Lewis River
                                      Coho Program.                                        (Washington).
                                     Lewis River Type-S      Type-S.....................  North Fork Lewis River
                                      Coho Program.                                        (Washington).
                                     Fish First Wild Coho    n/a........................  North Fork Lewis River
                                      Program.                                             (Washington).
                                     Fish First Type-N Coho  Type-N.....................  North Fork Lewis River
                                      Program.                                             (Washington).
                                     Syverson Project Type-  Type-N.....................  Salmon River
                                      N Coho program.                                      (Washington).
                                     Sandy Hatchery (ODFW    Late.......................  Sandy River (Oregon).
                                      stock 11).
                                     Bonneville/Cascade/     n/a........................  Lower Columbia River
                                      Oxbow Complex (ODFW                                  Gorge (Oregon)
                                      stock 14).
Columbia River chum ESU............  Chinook River/Sea       Fall.......................  Chinook River
                                      Resources Hatchery.                                  (Washington).
                                     Grays River...........  Fall.......................  Grays River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Washougal Hatchery/     Fall.......................  Washougal River
                                      Duncan Creek.                                        (Washington).
Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU.....  Quilcene/Quilcene NFH.  Summer.....................  Big Quilcene River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Hamma Hamma Fish        Summer.....................  Western Hood Canal
                                      Hatchery.                                            (Washington).
                                     Lilliwaup Creek Fish    Summer.....................  Southwestern Hood
                                      Hatchery.                                            Canal (Washington).
                                     Union River/Tahuya....  Summer.....................  Union River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     Big Beef Creek Fish     Summer.....................  North Hood Canal
                                      Hatchery.                                            (Washington).
                                     Salmon Creek Fish       Summer.....................  Discovery Bay
                                      Hatchery.                                            (Washington).
                                     Chimacum Creek Fish     Summer.....................  Port Townsend Bay
                                      Hatchery.                                            (Washington).
                                     Jimmycomelately Creek   Summer.....................  Sequim Bay
                                      Fish Hatchery.                                       (Washington).
Southern California O. mykiss ESU..  n/a...................
South-Central California Coast O.    n/a...................
 mykiss ESU.
Central California Coast O. mykiss   Scott Creek/Monterey    Winter.....................  Big Creek, Scott Creek
 ESU.                                 Bay Salmon and Trout                                 (California).
                                      Project, Kingfisher
                                      Flat Hatchery.
                                     Don Clausen Fish        Winter.....................  Russian River
                                      Hatchery.                                            (California).
 California Central Valley O.         Coleman NFH..........   Winter....................   Battle Creek,
 mykiss ESU.                                                                               Sacramento River
                                                                                           (California).
                                      Feather River           Winter....................   Feather River
                                      Hatchery.                                            (California).
 Northern California O. mykiss ESU.   Yager Creek Hatchery.   Winter....................   Yager Creek, Van
                                                                                           Duzen River
                                                                                           (California).
                                      North Fork Gualala      Winter....................   North Fork Gualala
                                      River Hatchery/                                      River (California).
                                      Gualala River
                                      Steelhead Project.
 Upper Willamette River O. mykiss    n/a...................
 ESU.
 Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU   Cowlitz Trout           Late Winter...............   Cispus River
                                      Hatchery.                                            (Washington).
                                      Cowlitz Trout           Late Winter...............   Upper Cowlitz River
                                      Hatchery.                                            (Washington).
                                      Cowlitz Trout           Late Winter...............   Tilton River
                                      Hatchery.                                            (Washington).
                                      Cowlitz Trout           Late Winter...............   Lower Cowlitz River
                                      Hatchery.                                            (Washington).
                                      Kalama River Wild....   Winter....................   Kalama River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     ......................  Summer.....................  Kalama River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                      Clackamas Hatchery      Late Winter...............   Clackamas River
                                      (ODFW stock 122).
                                      Sandy Hatchery (ODFW    Late Winter...............   Sandy River (Oregon).
                                      stock 11).
                                      Hood River (ODFW        Winter....................   Hood River (Oregon).
                                      stock 50).
                                     ......................  Summer.....................  Hood River (Oregon).
Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU   Touchet River Endemic   Summer....................   Touchet River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                      Yakima River Kelt      Summer.....................   Satus Creek
                                      Reconditioning                                       (Washington).
                                      Program.

[[Page 33123]]

 
                                     ......................  Summer.....................  Toppenish Creek
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     ......................  Summer.....................  Naches River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                     ......................  Summer.....................  Upper Yakima River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                      Umatilla River (ODFW    Summer....................   Umatilla River
                                      stock 91).                                  (Oregon).
                                      Deschutes River (ODFW   Summer....................   Deschutes River
                                      stock 66).                                  (Oregon).
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU.   Wenatchee River        Summer.....................   Wenatchee River
                                      Steelhead.                                           (Washington).
                                     Wells Hatchery          Summer.....................  Methow River
                                      Steelhead.                                           (Washington).
                                     ......................  Summer.....................  Okanogan River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                      Winthrop NFH           Summer.....................   Methow River
                                      Steelhead (Wells                                     (Washington).
                                      Steelhead).
                                     Omak Creek Steelhead..   Summer....................  Okanogan River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                      Ringold Hatchery        Summer....................   Middle Columbia River
                                      (Wells Steelhead).                                   (Washington).
Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU....   Tucannon River.......   Summer....................   Tucannon River
                                                                                           (Washington).
                                      Dworshak NFH.........   Summer....................   South Fork Clearwater
                                                                                           River (Idaho).
                                      Lolo Creek...........   Summer....................   Salmon River (Idaho).
                                      North Fork Clearwater   Summer....................  North Fork Clearwater
                                                                                           River (Idaho).
                                      East Fork Salmon        Summer....................   East Fork Salmon
                                      River.                                               River (Idaho).
                                      Little Sheep Creek/     Summer....................   Imnaha River
                                      Imnaha River Hatchery                                (Oregon).
                                      (ODFW stock 29).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Updated Viability Assessments of ESUs

    NMFS' Pacific Salmonid BRT evaluated the risk of extinction faced 
by naturally spawning populations in each of the ESUs addressed in this 
proposed rule (NMFS, 2003b). As noted above, the BRT did not explicitly 
consider hatchery stocks or protective efforts in their evaluations. 
For each ESU the BRT evaluated overall extinction risk after assessing 
ESU-level risk for the four VSP criteria: abundance, productivity, 
spatial structure, and diversity. NMFS then assessed the effects of ESU 
hatchery programs on ESU viability and extinction risk relative to the 
BRT's assessment for the naturally spawning component of the ESU 
(Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report; NMFS, 
2004b). The effects of hatchery programs on the extinction risk of an 
ESU in-total was evaluated on the basis of the factors that the BRT 
determined are currently limiting the ESU (e.g., abundance, 
productivity, spatial structure, and diversity), and how artificial 
propagation efforts within the ESU affect those factors. The Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop (NMFS, 2004c) reviewed the BRT's 
findings (NMFS, 2003a), evaluated the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and 
Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b), and assessed the overall 
extinction risk of ESUs with associated hatchery stocks. The BRT and 
the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop expressed the extinction 
risk for the naturally spawning populations in an ESU, and for the ESU 
in-total, respectively. The level of extinction risk was categorized 
into three categories: ``in danger of extinction;'' ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future;'' or ``not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future.'' Although these overall risk categories resemble the 
definitions of ``endangered'' and ``threatened'' as defined in the ESA, 
the BRT and the Workshop did not evaluate protective efforts in 
assessing ESU extinction risk (efforts being made to protect the 
species are evaluated in the ``Evaluation of Protective Efforts'' 
section, below). Thus, the extinction risk assessments described in 
this section are not necessarily indicative of whether an ESU warrants 
listing as a threatened or endangered species. The reader is referred 
to the BRT's report (NMFS, 2003b), the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and 
Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b), and the Workshop Report (NMFS, 
2004c) for more detailed descriptions of the viability of individual 
natural populations and hatchery stocks within these ESUs.
Snake River Sockeye ESU
    The residual form of Redfish Lake sockeye, determined to be part of 
the ESU in 1993, is represented by a few hundred fish. Snake River 
sockeye historically was distributed in four lakes within the Stanley 
Basin, but the only remaining population resides in Redfish Lake. Only 
16 naturally produced adults have returned to Redfish Lake since the 
Snake River sockeye ESU was listed as an endangered species in 1991. 
All 16 fish were taken into the Redfish Lake Captive Propagation 
Program, which was initiated as an emergency measure in 1991. The 
return of over 250 adults in 2000 was encouraging; however, subsequent 
returns from the captive program in 2001 and 2002 have been fewer than 
30 fish.
    The BRT found extremely high risks for each of the four VSP 
categories. Informed by this assessment, the BRT unanimously concluded 
that the Snake River sockeye ESU is ``in danger of extinction.''
    There is a single artificial propagation program producing Snake 
River sockeye salmon in the Snake River basin. The Redfish Lake sockeye 
salmon stock was originally founded by collecting the entire anadromous 
adult return of 16 fish between 1990 and 1997, the collection of a 
small number of residual sockeye salmon, and the collection of a few 
hundred smolts migrating from Redfish Lake. These fish were put into a 
Captive Broodstock program as an emergency measure to prevent 
extinction of this ESU. Since 1997, nearly 400 hatchery-origin 
anadromous sockeye adults have returned to the Stanley Basin from 
juveniles released by the program. Redfish Lake sockeye salmon have 
also been reintroduced into Alturas and Pettit Lakes using progeny from 
the captive broodstock program. The captive broodstock program 
presently consists of several hundred fish of different year classes 
maintained at facilities in Eagle (Idaho) and Manchester (Washington).
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that the Redfish Lake Captive Broodstock 
Program does not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU 
in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
noted that the Captive

[[Page 33124]]

Broodstock Program has prevented likely extinction of the ESU. This 
program has increased the total number of anadromous adults, attempted 
to increase the number of lakes in which sockeye salmon are present in 
the upper Salmon River (Stanley Basin), and preserved what genetic 
diversity remains in the ESU. Although the program has increased the 
number of anadromous adults in some years, it has yet to produce 
consistent returns. The majority of the ESU now resides in the captive 
program composed of only a few hundred fish. The long-term effects of 
captive rearing are unknown. The consideration of artificial 
propagation does not substantially mitigate the BRT's assessment of 
extreme risks to ESU abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 
diversity. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' 
assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on the viability of 
the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
concluded that the Snake River sockeye ESU in-total is ``in danger of 
extinction'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU
    Evaluating extinction risk for the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU is 
complicated by incomplete data with uncertain errors and biases. The 
Makah Tribe's fisheries program, however, is engaged in significant 
efforts to improve sampling techniques and to adjust for biases in 
historical data. The number of returning adults has increased in recent 
years, but is believed to be well below historical levels. An uncertain 
fraction of the returns is of hatchery origin, generating uncertainty 
in evaluating the productivity of the naturally spawning component of 
the ESU. Accurately assessing trends in natural spawners is further 
complicated by the poor visibility in the lake. Habitat degradation, 
siltation, and a declining lake level have resulted in the loss of 
numerous beach spawning sites. The BRT expressed concern that the 
reduction in the number of spawning aggregations poses risks for ESU 
spatial structure and diversity.
    The BRT expressed moderately high concern for each of the VSP risk 
categories. Informed by this risk assessment, the majority opinion of 
the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the Ozette Lake 
sockeye ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future,'' with the minority being split between ``in danger of 
extinction'' and ``not in danger of extinction or likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.''
    There are two artificially propagated stocks considered to be part 
of the Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU (Table 2). The program, operated 
by the Makah Tribe, is derived from native broodstock and has the 
primary objective of establishing viable sockeye salmon spawning 
aggregations in two Ozette Lake tributaries where spawning has not been 
observed for many decades, if ever. The program includes research, 
monitoring, and evaluation activities designed to determine success in 
recovering the propagated populations to viable levels, and to 
determine the demographic, ecological, and genetic effects on target 
and non-target (i.e., Ozette Lake beach) spawning aggregations. The 
Makah Program will sunset after 12 years of operation.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that the Makah supplementation program at 
Umbrella Creek and Big River does not substantially reduce the 
extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The program has 
increased the abundance of natural spawners and natural-origin sockeye 
in the Ozette Lake tributaries. However, it is unknown whether these 
tributaries were historically spawning habitat. The program (by design) 
has not increased the abundance of natural spawners or natural origin 
beach spawners in Ozette Lake. Despite the relative increases in 
abundance due to the supplementation program, the total ESU abundance 
remains small for a single sockeye population. The contribution of 
artificial propagation to ESU productivity is uncertain. Only since 
2000 have the hatchery returns been sufficient to meet the program's 
broodstock goals. The Makah program at present serves as an important 
genetic reserve with the continuing loss of beach spawning habitat. The 
reintroduction of spawners to Ozette Lake tributaries reduces risks to 
ESU spatial structure. However, the isolation of the hatchery program 
and adaptation to tributary habitats may cause the tributary spawning 
aggregations to diverge from founding beach spawning aggregations. 
Although the program has a beneficial effect on ESU abundance and 
spatial structure, it has neutral or uncertain effects on ESU 
productivity and diversity. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 
2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Ozette Lake sockeye 
ESU in-total is ``likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook ESU
    The Sacramento River winter-run ESU is represented by a single 
extant naturally spawning population that has been completely displaced 
from its historical spawning habitat by the construction of Shasta and 
Keswick Dams. The remaining spawning habitat is artificially maintained 
by cold-water releases from the reservoir behind Shasta Dam. The 
naturally spawning component of the ESU has exhibited marked 
improvements in abundance and productivity in recent years. The recent 
increases in abundance are encouraging, relative to the years of 
critically low abundance of the 1980s and early 1990s; however, the 
recent 5-year geometric mean is only 3 percent of the peak post-1967 5-
year geometric mean. The BRT was particularly concerned about risks to 
the ESU's diversity and spatial structure. Construction of Shasta Dam 
merged at least four independent winter-run chinook populations into a 
single population, representing a substantial loss of genetic 
diversity, life-history variability, and local adaptation. Episodes of 
critically low abundance, particularly in the early 1990's, for the 
single remaining population imposed ``bottlenecks'' that further 
reduced genetic diversity. The BRT found extremely high risk for each 
of the four VSP risk categories. Informed by this risk assessment, the 
majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of 
the Sacramento winter-run ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' The 
minority opinion of the BRT was that the ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.''
    Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of 
the Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU (Table 2; NMFS, 2004b). The 
artificial propagation of winter-run chinook is carried out at the 
Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH) on the mainstem 
Sacramento River above Keswick Dam. The captive broodstock program is 
maintained at two locations: the Livingston Stone NFH and at the 
University of California's Bodega Marine Laboratory. These programs 
have been operated for conservation purposes since the early 1990's and 
both were identified as high priority recovery actions in NMFS' 1997 
Draft Recovery Plan for this ESU. The artificial propagation program 
was established to supplement the abundance of the naturally spawning 
winter-run chinook

[[Page 33125]]

population and thereby assist in its population growth and recovery. 
The captive broodstock program was established in the early 1990s when 
the naturally spawning population was at critically low levels (less 
than 200 spawners) in order to preserve the ESU's remaining genetic 
resources and to establish a reserve for potential use in the 
artificial propagation program. Because of increased natural escapement 
over the last several years, consideration is being given to 
terminating the captive broodstock program.
    An assessment of the effects of these artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU in-total concluded that they 
decrease risk to some degree by contributing to increased ESU abundance 
and diversity, but have a neutral or uncertain effect on productivity 
and spatial structure of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). Spawning escapement of 
winter-run has increased since the inception of the program and may 
account for up to 10 percent of the total number of fish spawning 
naturally in a given year. Improvements in freshwater habitat 
conditions, harvest management, as well as improved ocean conditions, 
however, are thought to be the major factors responsible for the 
increased abundance of the ESU since the early 1990s. Effects on 
productivity are uncertain, but studies are underway to assess the 
effect of artificial propagation on fitness and productivity of 
artificially propagated fish. Although abundance of spawners has 
increased, in part due to artificial propagation, the spatial 
distribution of spawners has not expanded. The primary reason is that 
the naturally spawning population is artificially maintained by cool 
water releases from Shasta/Keswick dams, and the spatial distribution 
of spawners is largely governed by water year type and the ability of 
the Central Valley Project to manage water temperatures in the upper 
Sacramento River. A second naturally spawning population is considered 
critical to the long-term viability of this ESU, and plans are underway 
to eventually establish a second population in the upper Battle Creek 
watershed using the artificial propagation program as a source of fish. 
However, the program has yet to be implemented because of the need to 
complete habitat restoration efforts in that watershed. The artificial 
propagation program has contributed to maintaining diversity of the ESU 
through careful use of spawning protocols and other tools that maximize 
genetic diversity of propagated fish and minimize impacts on naturally 
spawning populations. In addition, the artificial propagation and 
captive broodstock programs collectively serve as a genetic repository 
which serves to preserve the genome of the ESU.
    Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment 
of the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of 
the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
concluded that this ESU in-total is ``in danger of extinction'' (NMFS, 
2004c).
Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU
    Extensive construction of dams throughout the Sacramento-San 
Joaquin basin has reduced the California Central Valley spring chinook 
ESU to only a small portion of its historical distribution, generating 
concerns about risks to the spatial structure and diversity of the ESU. 
The ESU has been reduced to only three extant natural populations from 
an estimated 17 historical populations. The remaining naturally 
spawning spring-run chinook populations (Mill, Deer, and Butte creek 
tributaries to the Sacramento River) are in close geographic proximity, 
increasing the ESU's vulnerability to disease or catastrophic events. 
The BRT was also concerned that the Feather River spring-run chinook 
hatchery population, which is not considered part of the ESU (see Table 
2; NMFS, 2004b), represents a risk factor for the extant ESU natural 
populations. The Feather River Hatchery produces spring chinook fish 
that are genetically more similar to fall chinook, probably due to 
hybridization at the hatchery. The off-site release location for fish 
produced at the hatchery is believed to contribute to a high straying 
rate of hatchery fish which increases the likelihood of non-ESU 
hatchery fish interacting negatively with the extant natural 
populations in the ESU. Furthermore, few of the Feather River Hatchery 
fish are marked (approximately 10 percent), making their impact on ESU 
spring-run chinook populations difficult to resolve. Although the 
recent 5-year mean abundance for the three naturally spawning 
populations in the ESU remains small (ranging from nearly 500 to over 
4,500 spawners), short- and long-term productivity trends are positive, 
and population sizes have shown continued increases over the abundance 
levels of the 1980s (with 5-year mean population sizes of 67 to 243 
spawners). The BRT noted moderately high risk for the abundance, 
spatial structure, and diversity VSP criteria, and a lower risk for the 
productivity criterion reflecting recent positive trends. Informed by 
this risk assessment, the strong majority opinion of the BRT was that 
the Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.'' The minority opinion of the 
BRT was that the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' There are no 
artificially propagated populations of spring chinook in this ESU that 
mitigate the BRT's assessment that the ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.''
California Coastal Chinook ESU
    Evaluation of the viability of the naturally spawning component of 
the California Coastal chinook ESU is hindered by the limited 
availability of data, particularly regarding the abundance and spatial 
distribution of natural populations within the ESU. Additionally, the 
data that are available are of varying type, quality and temporal 
coverage, and are generally not amenable to rigorous estimation of 
abundance or robust statistical analyses of trends. The little 
historical and current abundance information that is available 
indicates that (putative) natural ESU population abundance levels 
remain depressed relative to historical levels. Evidence suggests that 
populations have been extirpated or nearly extirpated in the southern 
part of the ESU, or are extremely low in abundance. This observation, 
in combination with the apparent loss of the spring-run chinook life 
history in the Eel River Basin and elsewhere in the ESU, indicates 
risks to the diversity of the ESU. Recently available natural abundance 
estimates in the Russian River are in excess of 1,300 fish for 2000-
2002. These data suggest either the presence of a naturally producing 
population in the Russian River, or represent straying from other 
basins or ESUs. No data are available to assess the genetic 
relationship of the Russian River fish to populations in this or other 
ESUs. The BRT found moderately high risks for all VSP risk categories, 
and underscored a strong concern due to the paucity of information and 
the resultant uncertainty generated in evaluating ESU viability. 
Informed by this risk assessment and the related uncertainty, the 
majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of 
the California Coastal chinook ESU is ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future.'' The minority opinion of the BRT was 
that the naturally spawned component of the ESU is ``in danger of 
extinction.''
    Seven artificial propagation programs that produce chinook salmon 
are considered to be part of the California Coastal chinook ESU (Table 
2; NMFS,

[[Page 33126]]

2004b). Six of these programs (Freshwater Creek, Yager Creek, Redwood 
Creek, Hollow Tree Creek, Mattole River Salmon Group, and Mad River 
Hatchery) are relatively small programs with production goals of less 
than 80,000 fish that have been operated for restoration purposes for 
more than 20 years. Because of state funding limitations, it is likely 
that these programs will be terminated after 2004. These programs are 
small-scale supplementation facilities operated by local groups or 
companies in cooperation with the CDFG under its cooperative hatchery 
program. The Van Arsdale Fish Station has been operated for over 30 
years by CDFG for supplementation purposes in the upper Eel River. 
Because of State funding limitations, the operations at the Station 
were terminated in 2003. The seven hatchery programs are primarily 
located in the northern portion of the ESU's range and most are in the 
Eel River.
    An assessment of the effects of these small artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU in-total concluded that they 
collectively decrease risk to some degree by contributing to local 
increases in abundance, but have a neutral or uncertain effect on 
productivity, spatial structure or diversity of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). 
There have been no demonstrable increases in natural abundance from the 
five cooperative hatchery programs, with the possible exception of 
increased abundance in the Freshwater Creek natural population and as a 
result of the rescue and rearing activities by the Mattole Salmon 
Group. In part, this is because there is limited natural population 
monitoring in the watersheds where the hatchery programs are located. 
No efforts have been undertaken to assess the productivity of hatchery 
produced fish or to assess the effects of hatchery produced fish on 
natural origin fish productivity. The seven hatchery populations in 
this ESU are primarily located in the northern portion of the ESU's 
range and overlap with natural origin fish populations. With the 
exception of Freshwater Creek where local distribution may have 
expanded in association with the natural population increase, there are 
no demonstrable beneficial effects on spatial structure. The six 
cooperative programs use only natural-origin fish as broodstock and 
mark all production with an adipose fin clip to ensure there is limited 
hatchery selection on fish that are released.
    Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment 
of the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of 
the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
concluded that this ESU in-total is ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c).

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU

    There are no direct estimates of natural-origin spawner abundance 
for the Upper Willamette River chinook ESU. The abundance of adult 
spring chinook salmon (hatchery and natural fish) passing Willamette 
Falls has remained relatively steady over the past 50 years (ranging 
from approximately 20,000 to 70,000 fish), but is only a fraction of 
peak abundance levels observed in the 1920s (approximately 300,000 
adults). Interpretation of abundance levels is confounded by a high but 
uncertain fraction of hatchery produced fish. The McKenzie River 
population has shown substantial increases in total abundance (hatchery 
origin and natural origin fish) in the last 2 years, while trends in 
other natural populations in the ESU are generally mixed. With the 
relatively large incidence of naturally spawning hatchery fish in the 
ESU, it is difficult to determine trends in productivity for natural-
origin fish. The BRT estimated that despite improving trends in total 
productivity (including hatchery origin and natural origin fish) since 
1995, productivity would be below replacement in the absence of 
artificial propagation. The BRT was particularly concerned that 
approximately 30 to 40 percent of total historical habitat is now 
inaccessible behind dams. These inaccessible areas, however, represent 
a majority of the historical spawning habitat. The restriction of 
natural production to just a few areas increases the ESU's 
vulnerability to environmental variability and catastrophic events. 
Losses of local adaptation and genetic diversity through the mixing of 
hatchery stocks within the ESU, and the introgression of out-of-ESU 
hatchery fall-run chinook, have represented threats to ESU diversity. 
However, the BRT was encouraged by the recent cessation of the fall-run 
hatchery, as well as by improved marking rates of hatchery fish to 
assist in monitoring and in the management of a marked-fish selective 
fishery.
    The BRT found moderately high risks for all VSP categories. 
Informed by this risk assessment, the strong majority opinion of the 
BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the Upper Willamette 
River chinook ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' The minority opinion was that this ESU is ``in 
danger of extinction.''
    Seven artificial propagation programs in the Willamette River 
produce fish that are considered to be part of the Upper Willamette 
River chinook ESU. All of these programs are funded to mitigate for 
lost or degraded habitat and produce fish for harvest purposes.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). An increasing proportion of hatchery-origin returns has 
contributed to increases in total ESU abundance. However, it is unclear 
whether these returning hatchery and natural fish actually survive 
overwintering to spawn. Estimates of pre-spawning mortality indicate 
that a high proportion (>70 percent) of spring chinook die before 
spawning in most ESU populations. In recent years, hatchery fish have 
been used to reintroduce spring chinook back into historical habitats 
above impassible dams (e.g., in the South Santiam, North Santiam, and 
McKenzie Rivers), slightly decreasing risks to ESU spatial structure. 
Within-ESU hatchery fish exhibit differing life-history characteristics 
from natural ESU fish. High proportions of hatchery-origin natural 
spawners in remaining natural production areas (i.e., in the Clackamas 
and McKenzie Rivers) may thereby have negative impacts on within and 
among population genetic and life-history diversity. Collectively, 
artificial propagation programs in the ESU have a slight beneficial 
effect on ESU abundance and spatial structure, but neutral or uncertain 
effects on ESU productivity and diversity. Informed by the BRT's 
findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of 
artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 
2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that 
the Upper Willamette River chinook ESU in-total is ``likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU
    Many populations within the Lower Columbia River chinook ESU have 
exhibited pronounced increases in abundance and productivity in recent 
years, possibly due to improved ocean conditions. Abundance estimates 
of naturally spawned populations in this ESU, however, are uncertain 
due to a high (approximately 70 percent) fraction of naturally spawning 
hatchery fish and a low marking rate (only 1 to 2 percent) of hatchery 
produced fish. Abundance estimates of naturally produced spring chinook 
have improved since 2001 due

[[Page 33127]]

to the marking of all hatchery spring chinook releases, allowing for 
the enumeration of hatchery spring chinook at weirs, traps and on 
spawning grounds. Despite recent improvements, long term trends in 
productivity are below replacement for the majority of populations in 
the ESU. It is estimated that 8 to 10 historical populations in the ESU 
have been extirpated or nearly extirpated. Although approximately 35 
percent of historical habitat has been lost in this ESU due to the 
construction of dams and other impassable barriers, this ESU exhibits a 
broad spatial distribution in a variety of watersheds and habitat 
types. Natural production currently occurs in approximately 20 
populations, although only one population has a mean spawner abundance 
exceeding 1,000 fish. The BRT expressed concern that the spring-run 
populations comprise most of the extirpated populations. The 
disproportionate loss of the spring-run life history represents a risk 
for ESU diversity. Additionally, of the four hatchery spring-run 
chinook populations considered to be part of this ESU, two are 
propagated in rivers that are within the historical geographic range of 
the ESU but that likely did not support spring-run populations. High 
hatchery production in the Lower Columbia River poses genetic and 
ecological risks to the natural populations in the ESU, and complicates 
assessments of their performance. The BRT also expressed concern over 
the introgression of out-of-ESU hatchery stocks.
    The BRT found moderately high risk for all VSP categories. Informed 
by this risk assessment, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the 
naturally spawned component of the Lower Columbia River chinook ESU is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future,'' with the 
minority being split between ``in danger of extinction'' and ``not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.''
    There are seventeen artificial propagation programs releasing 
hatchery chinook salmon that are considered to be part of the Lower 
Columbia River chinook ESU (Table 2). All of these programs are 
designed to produce fish for harvest, with three of these programs also 
being implemented to augment the naturally spawning populations in the 
basins where the fish are released. These three programs integrate 
naturally produced spring chinook salmon into the broodstock in an 
attempt to minimize the genetic effects of returning hatchery adults 
that spawn naturally.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). Hatchery programs have increased total returns and numbers of 
fish spawning naturally, thus reducing risks to ESU abundance. Although 
these hatchery programs have been successful at producing substantial 
numbers of fish, their effect on the productivity of the ESU in-total 
is uncertain. Additionally, the high level of hatchery production in 
this ESU poses potential genetic and ecological risks to the ESU, and 
confounds the monitoring and evaluation of abundance trends and 
productivity. The Cowlitz River spring chinook salmon program produces 
parr for release into the upper Cowlitz River basin in an attempt to 
re-establish a naturally spawning population above Cowlitz Falls Dam. 
Such reintroduction efforts increase the ESU's spatial distribution 
into historical habitats, and slightly reduce risks to ESU spatial 
structure. The few programs that regularly integrate natural fish into 
the broodstock may help preserve genetic diversity within the ESU. 
However, the majority of hatchery programs in the ESU have not 
converted to the regular incorporation of natural broodstock, thus 
limiting this risk-reducing feature at the ESU scale. Past and ongoing 
transfers of broodstock among hatchery programs in different basins 
represent a risk to within and among population diversity. 
Collectively, artificial propagation programs in the ESU provide slight 
benefits to ESU abundance, spatial structure, and diversity, but have 
neutral or uncertain effects on ESU productivity. Informed by the BRT's 
findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of 
artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 
2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that 
the Lower Columbia River chinook ESU in-total is ``likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook ESU
    All populations in the Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU 
exhibited pronounced increases in abundance in 2001. These increases 
are particularly encouraging following the last decade of steep 
declines to record, critically low escapements. Despite strong returns 
in 2001, both recent 5-year and long term productivity trends remain 
below replacement. The five hatchery spring-run chinook populations 
considered to be part of this ESU (Table 2) are programs aimed at 
supplementing natural production areas. These programs have contributed 
substantially to the abundance of fish spawning naturally in recent 
years. However, little information is available to assess the impact of 
these high levels of supplementation on the long-term productivity of 
natural populations. Spatial structure in this ESU was of little 
concern as there is passage and connectivity among almost all ESU 
populations. The current geographical range of the ESU is approximately 
the same as its historical range. During years of critically low 
escapement (1996 and 1998) extreme management measures were taken in 
one of the three major spring chinook producing basins by collecting 
all returning adults into hatchery supplementation programs. Such 
actions reflect the ongoing vulnerability of certain segments of this 
ESU. The BRT expressed concern that these actions, while appropriately 
guarding against the catastrophic loss of populations, may have 
compromised ESU population structure and diversity.
    The BRT's assessment of risk for the four VSP categories reflects 
strong concerns regarding abundance and productivity, and comparatively 
less concern for ESU spatial structure and diversity. The BRT's 
assessment of overall extinction risk faced by the naturally spawned 
component of the Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU was 
divided between ``in danger of extinction'' and ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future,'' with a slight majority 
opinion that the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.''
    Six artificial propagation programs in the Upper Columbia River 
basin produce spring-run chinook in the Methow and Wenatchee Rivers 
that are considered to be part of the Upper Columbia River spring-run 
chinook ESU (Table 2). The Entiat NFH operating in the Entiat River is 
not included in the ESU, and is intended to remain isolated from the 
local natural population. The within-ESU hatchery programs are 
conservation programs intended to contribute to the recovery of the ESU 
by increasing the abundance and spatial distribution of naturally 
spawned fish, while maintaining the genetic integrity of populations 
within the ESU. Three of the conservation programs incorporate local 
natural broodstock to minimize adverse genetic effects, and follow 
broodstock protocols guarding against the overcollection of the natural 
run. The remaining within-ESU hatchery programs are captive broodstock 
programs. These programs also adhere

[[Page 33128]]

to strict protocols for the collection, rearing, maintenance, and 
mating of the captive brood populations. All of the six artificial 
propagation programs considered to be part of the ESU include extensive 
monitoring and evaluation efforts to continually evaluate the extent 
and implications of any genetic and behavioral differences that might 
emerge between the hatchery and natural stocks.
    Genetic evidence suggests that the within-ESU programs remain 
closely related to the naturally spawned populations and maintain local 
genetic distinctiveness of populations within the ESU. The captive 
broodstock programs may exhibit lower fecundity and younger average 
age-at-maturity compared to the natural populations from which they 
were derived. However, the extensive monitoring and evaluation efforts 
employed afford the adaptive management of any unintended adverse 
effects. Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) with the Chelan and Douglas 
Public Utility Districts and binding mitigation agreements ensure that 
these programs will have secure funding and will continue into the 
future. These hatchery programs have undergone ESA section 7 
consultation to ensure that they do not jeopardize the continued 
existence of the ESU, and they have received ESA section 10 permits for 
production through 2007. Annual reports and other specific information 
reporting requirements ensure that the terms and conditions as 
specified by NMFS are followed. These programs, through adherence to 
best professional practices, have not experienced disease outbreaks or 
other catastrophic losses.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). Overall, the hatchery programs in the ESU have increased the 
total abundance of fish considered to be part of the ESU. Specifically, 
the two hatchery programs in the Wenatchee Basin have contributed to 
reducing abundance risk. However, it is uncertain whether the four 
programs in the Methow Basin have provided a net benefit to abundance. 
The contribution of ESU hatchery programs to the productivity of the 
ESU in-total is uncertain. The overall impact of the hatchery programs 
on ESU spatial structure is neutral. The Wenatchee Basin programs are 
managed to promote appropriate spatial structure, and they likely 
reduce spatial structure risk in that basin. The Methow Basin hatchery 
programs, however, concentrate spawners near the hatchery facilities, 
altering population spatial structure and increasing vulnerability to 
catastrophic events. Overall, within-ESU hatchery programs do not 
moderate risks to ESU diversity. The Wenatchee Basin programs do help 
preserve population diversity though the incorporation of natural-
origin fish into broodstock. The Methow Basin programs, however, 
incorporate few natural fish with hatchery-origin fish predominating on 
the spawning grounds. Additionally, the presence of out-of-ESU Carson 
stock chinook in the Methow Basin remains a concern, although the stock 
is in the process of being terminated. The out-of-ESU Entiat hatchery 
program is a source of significant concern to the ESU. The Entiat stock 
may have introgressed significantly with or replaced the native 
population. Although the artificial propagation programs in the ESU 
have a slight beneficial effect on ESU abundance, they do not mitigate 
other key risk factors identified by the BRT. Informed by the BRT's 
findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of 
artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 
2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that 
the Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU in-total is ``in danger 
of extinction'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Puget Sound Chinook ESU
    Assessing extinction risk for the Puget Sound chinook ESU is 
complicated by high levels of hatchery production and a limited 
availability of information on the fraction of natural spawners that 
are of hatchery-origin. Although populations in the ESU have not 
experienced the dramatic increases in abundance in the last 2 to 3 
years that have been evident in many other ESUs, more populations have 
shown modest increases in escapement in recent years than have declined 
(13 populations versus 9). Most populations have a recent 5-year mean 
abundance of fewer than 1,500 natural spawners, with the Upper Skagit 
population being a notable exception (the recent 5-year mean abundance 
for the Upper Skagit population approaches 10,000 natural spawners). 
Currently observed abundances of natural spawners in the ESU are 
several orders of magnitude lower than estimated historical spawner 
capacity, and well below peak historical abundance (approximately 
690,000 spawners in the early 1900s). Recent 5-year and long-term 
productivity trends remain below replacement for the majority of the 22 
extant populations of Puget Sound chinook. The BRT was concerned that 
the concentration of the majority of natural production in just a few 
sub-basins represents a significant risk. Natural production areas, due 
to their concentrated spatial distribution, are vulnerable to 
extirpation due to catastrophic events. The BRT was concerned by the 
disproportionate loss of early run populations and its impact on the 
diversity of the Puget Sound chinook ESU. The Puget Sound Technical 
Recovery Team has identified 31 historical populations (Ruckelshaus et 
al., 2002), nine of which are believed to be extinct, most of which 
were ``early run'' or ``spring'' populations. Past hatchery practices 
that transplanted stocks among basins within the ESU and present 
programs using transplanted stocks that incorporate little local 
natural broodstock represent additional risk to ESU diversity. In 
particular, the BRT noted that the pervasive use of Green River stock, 
and stocks subsequently derived from the Green River stock, throughout 
the ESU may reduce the genetic diversity and fitness of naturally 
spawning populations.
    The BRT found moderately high risks for all VSP categories. 
Informed by this risk assessment, the strong majority opinion of the 
BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the Puget Sound chinook 
ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' 
The minority opinion was in the ``not in danger of extinction or likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future'' category.
    There are currently 22 programs artificially propagating Puget 
Sound chinook salmon that are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 
2). Eight of the programs are directed at conservation, and are 
specifically implemented to preserve and increase the abundance of 
native populations in their natal watersheds where habitat needed to 
sustain the populations naturally at viable levels has been lost or 
degraded. Each of these conservation hatchery programs includes 
research, monitoring, and evaluation activities designed to determine 
success in recovering the propagated populations to viable levels, and 
to determine the demographic, ecological, and genetic effects of each 
program on target and non-target salmonid populations. The remaining 
programs considered to be part of the ESU are operated primarily for 
fisheries harvest augmentation purposes (some of which also function as 
research programs) using transplanted within-ESU-origin chinook salmon 
as broodstock.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction

[[Page 33129]]

risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do not 
substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). The conservation and hatchery augmentation programs 
collectively have increased the total abundance of the ESU. The 
conservation programs have increased the abundance of naturally 
spawning chinook, and likely have reduced abundance risks for these 
populations. The large numbers of chinook produced by the harvest 
augmentation programs, however, have resulted in considerable numbers 
of strays. Any potential benefits from these programs to abundance 
likely are offset by increased ecological and genetic risks. There is 
no evidence that any of the twenty-two ESU hatchery programs have 
contributed to increased abundances of natural-origin chinook, despite 
decades of infusing natural spawning areas with hatchery fish. The 
contribution of ESU hatchery programs to the productivity of the ESU 
in-total is uncertain. Four programs are planting hatchery fish above 
impassible dams, providing some benefit to ESU spatial structure. 
However, the ongoing practice of transplanting stocks within the ESU 
and incorporating little natural local-origin broodstock continues to 
pose significant risks to ESU spatial structure and diversity. The 
conservation hatchery programs function to preserve remaining genetic 
diversity, and likely have prevented the loss of several populations. 
Among the harvest augmentation programs are yearling chinook release 
programs. Yearling chinook programs may be harmful to local natural-
origin populations due to increased risks of predation and the 
reduction of within-population diversity. Collectively, artificial 
propagation programs in the ESU provide a slight beneficial effect to 
ESU abundance and spatial structure, but neutral or uncertain effects 
to ESU productivity and diversity. Informed by the BRT's findings 
(NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the 
Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Puget 
Sound chinook ESU in-total is ``likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU
    The abundance of natural-origin spawners in the Snake River fall-
run chinook ESU for 2001 (2,652 adults) was in excess of 1,000 fish for 
the first time since counts began at the Lower Granite Dam in 1975. The 
recent 5-year mean abundance of 871 naturally produced spawners, 
however, generated concern that despite recent improvements, the 
abundance level is very low for an entire ESU. With the exception of 
the marked increase in 2001, the ESU has fluctuated between 
approximately 500 to 1,000 natural spawners since 1975, suggesting a 
higher degree of stability in growth rate at low population levels than 
is seen in other salmonid populations. Increasing returns reflect 
improved ocean conditions, improved management of the mainstem 
hydrosystem flow regime, decreased harvest, and an increasing 
contribution from the Lyons Ferry Hatchery supplementation program. 
However, due to the large fraction of naturally spawning hatchery fish, 
it is difficult to assess the productivity of the natural population. 
Depending upon the assumption made regarding the reproductive 
contribution of hatchery fish, long-term and short-term trends in 
productivity are at or above replacement. It is estimated that 
approximately 80 percent of historical spawning habitat was lost with 
the construction of a series of Snake River mainstem dams. The loss of 
spawning habitats and the restriction of the ESU to a single extant 
naturally spawning population increase the ESU's vulnerability to 
environmental variability and catastrophic events. The diversity 
associated with populations that once resided above the Snake River 
dams has been lost, and the impact of straying out-of-ESU fish has the 
potential to further compromise ESU diversity. Recent improvements in 
the marking of out-of-ESU hatchery fish and their removal at Lower 
Granite Dam have reduced the impact of these strays. However, 
introgression below Lower Granite Dam remains a concern. The BRT voiced 
concern that the practice of collecting fish below Lower Granite Dam 
for broodstock incorporates non-ESU strays into the Lyons Ferry 
Hatchery program, and poses additional risks to ESU diversity. Straying 
of out-of-ESU hatchery fall chinook salmon from outside the Snake River 
basin was identified as a major risk factor in the late 1980's to mid 
1990's. Out-of-ESU hatchery strays have been much reduced due to the 
removal of hatchery strays at downstream dams, and a reduction in the 
number of fish released into the Umatilla River (where the majority of 
out-of-ESU strays originated).
    The BRT found moderately high risk for all VSP categories. Informed 
by this risk assessment, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the 
naturally spawned component of the Snake River fall-run chinook ESU is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' The 
minority opinion assessed ESU extinction risk as ``in danger of 
extinction,'' although a slight minority fell in the ``not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future'' category.
    There are four artificial propagation programs producing Snake 
River fall chinook salmon in the Snake River basin, all based on the 
Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock and considered to be part of the Snake River 
fall-run chinook ESU (Table 2). When naturally spawning fall chinook 
declined to fewer than 100 fish in 1991, most of the genetic legacy of 
this ESU was preserved in the Lyons Ferry Hatchery broodstock (NMFS, 
1991c). These four hatchery programs are managed to enhance listed 
Snake River fall chinook salmon and presently include the Lyons Ferry 
Hatchery, Fall Chinook Acclimation Ponds Program, Nez Perce Tribal 
Hatchery, and Oxbow Hatchery (an Idaho Power Company mitigation 
hatchery). These existing programs release fish into the mainstem Snake 
River and Clearwater River which represent the majority of the 
remaining habitat available to this ESU.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). These hatchery programs have contributed to the recent 
substantial increases in total ESU abundance, including both natural-
origin and hatchery-origin ESU components. Spawning escapement has 
increased to several thousand adults (from a few hundred in the early 
1990's) due in large part to increased releases from these hatchery 
programs. These programs collectively have had a beneficial effect on 
ESU abundance in recent years. The BRT noted, however, that the large 
but uncertain fraction of naturally spawning hatchery fish complicates 
assessments of ESU productivity. The contribution of ESU hatchery 
programs to the productivity of the ESU in-total is uncertain. As ESU 
abundance has increased in recent years, ESU spatial distribution has 
increased. The Snake River fall-run chinook hatchery programs 
contributed to this reduction in risk to ESU spatial distribution. The 
Lyons Ferry stock has preserved genetic diversity during critically low 
years of abundance. However, the ESU-wide use of a single hatchery 
broodstock may pose long-term genetic risks, and may limit adaptation 
to different habitat areas. Although the

[[Page 33130]]

ESU likely historically consisted of a single independent population, 
it was most likely composed of diverse production centers. 
Additionally, the broodstock collection practices employed pose risks 
to ESU spatial structure and diversity. Release strategies practiced by 
the ESU hatchery programs (e.g., extended captivity for about 15 
percent of the fish before release) is in conflict with the Snake River 
fall-run chinook life history, and may compromise ESU diversity. 
Collectively, artificial propagation programs in the ESU provide slight 
benefits to ESU abundance, spatial structure, and diversity, but have 
neutral or uncertain effects on ESU productivity. Informed by the BRT's 
findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of 
artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 
2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that 
the Snake River fall-run chinook ESU in-total is ``likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook ESU
    The aggregate return (including hatchery and natural-origin fish) 
of Snake River spring/summer-run chinook in 2001 exhibited a large 
increase over recent abundances. Many, but not all, of the 29 natural 
production areas within the ESU experienced large abundance increases 
in 2001 as well, with two populations nearing the abundance levels 
specified in NMFS' 1995 Proposed Snake River Recovery Plan (NMFS, 
1995b). However, approximately 79 percent of the 2001 return of spring-
run chinook, was of hatchery origin. Short-term productivity trends 
were at or above replacement for the majority of natural production 
areas in the ESU, although long-term productivity trends remain below 
replacement for all natural production areas, reflecting the severe 
declines since the 1960s. Although the number of spawning aggregations 
lost in this ESU due to the establishment of the Snake River mainstem 
dams is unknown, this ESU has a wide spatial distribution in a variety 
of locations and habitat types. The BRT considered it a positive sign 
that the out-of-ESU Rapid River broodstock has been phased out of the 
Grande Ronde system. There is no evidence of wide-scale straying by 
hatchery stocks, thereby alleviating diversity concerns somewhat. 
Nonetheless, the high level of hatchery production in this ESU 
complicates the assessments of trends in natural abundance and 
productivity.
    The BRT found moderately high risk for the abundance and 
productivity VSP criteria, and comparatively lower risk for spatial 
structure and diversity. Informed by this risk assessment, the majority 
opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the 
Snake River spring/summer-run chinook ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.'' The minority opinion 
assessed ESU extinction risk as ``in danger of extinction,'' although a 
slight minority concluded that the ESU is ``not in danger of extinction 
or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future'' 
category.
    There are fifteen artificial propagation programs producing spring/
summer-run chinook salmon that are considered to be part of the Snake 
River spring/summer-run chinook ESU (Table 2). A portion of these 
programs are managed to enhance listed natural populations, including 
the use of captive broodstock hatcheries in the upper Salmon River, 
Lemhi River, East Fork Salmon River, and Yankee Fork populations. These 
enhancement programs all use broodstocks founded from the local native 
populations. Currently, the use of non-ESU broodstock sources is 
restricted to Little Salmon/Rapid River (lower Salmon River tributary), 
mainstem Snake River at Hells Canyon, and the Clearwater River. These 
non-ESU programs appear to be isolated from natural production areas 
and are thought to have little negative impact on this ESU.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). Overall, these hatchery programs have contributed to the 
increases in total ESU abundance and in the number of natural spawners 
observed in recent years. The contribution of ESU hatchery programs to 
the productivity of the ESU in-total is uncertain. Some reintroduction 
and outplanting of hatchery fish above barriers and into vacant habitat 
has occurred, providing a slight benefit to ESU spatial structure. All 
of the within-ESU hatchery stocks are derived from local natural 
populations and employ management practices designed to preserve 
genetic diversity. The Grande Ronde Captive Broodstock programs likely 
have prevented the extirpation of the local natural populations. 
Additionally, hatchery releases are managed to maintain wild fish 
reserves in the ESU in an effort to preserve natural local adaptation 
and genetic variability. Collectively, artificial propagation programs 
in the ESU provide benefits to ESU abundance, spatial structure, and 
diversity, but have neutral or uncertain effects on ESU productivity. 
Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of 
the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the 
ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
concluded that the Snake River spring/summer-run chinook ESU in-total 
is ``likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 
2004c).
Central California Coast Coho ESU
    Information on the abundance and productivity trends for the 
naturally spawning component of the Central California Coast coho ESU 
is extremely limited. There are no long-term time series of spawner 
abundance for individual river systems. Analyses of juvenile coho 
presence-absence information, juvenile density surveys, and irregular 
adult counts for the South Fork Noyo River indicate low abundance and 
long-term downward trends for the naturally spawning populations 
throughout the ESU. Improved ocean conditions coupled with favorable 
stream flows and harvest restrictions have contributed to increased 
returns in 2001 in streams in the northern portion of the ESU, as 
indicated by an increase in the observed presence of fish in 
historically occupied streams. Data are particularly lacking for many 
river basins in the southern two-thirds of the ESU where naturally 
spawning populations are considered to be at the greatest risk. The 
extirpation or near extirpation of natural coho salmon populations in 
several major river basins, and across most of the southern historical 
range of the ESU, represents a significant risk to ESU spatial 
structure and diversity. Artificial propagation of coho salmon within 
the Central California Coast ESU has declined since the ESU was listed 
in 1996 though it continues at the Noyo River and Scott Creek 
facilities, and two captive broodstock populations have recently been 
established. Genetic diversity risk associated with out-of-basin 
transfers appears to be minimal, but diversity risk from domestication 
selection and low effective population sizes in the remaining hatchery 
programs remains a concern. An out-of-ESU artificial propagation 
program for coho was operated at the Don Clausen hatchery on the 
Russian River through the mid 1990's, but was terminated in 1996. 
Termination of this program was considered by the BRT a positive 
development for naturally produced coho in this ESU. For the naturally

[[Page 33131]]

spawning component of the ESU, the BRT found very high risk for the 
abundance, productivity, and spatial structure VSP parameters and 
comparatively moderate risk with respect to the diversity VSP 
parameter. The lack of direct estimates of the performance of the 
naturally spawned populations in this ESU, and the associated 
uncertainty this generates, was of specific concern to the BRT. 
Informed by the VSP risk assessment and the associated uncertainty, the 
strong majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned 
component of the Central California Coast coho ESU was ``in danger of 
extinction.'' The minority opinion was that this ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.''
    Four artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of 
the Central California Coast coho ESU (Table 2; NMFS, 2004b). The Noyo 
River program is an augmentation program located in the northern 
portion of the ESU which regularly incorporates local natural-origin 
fish into the broodstock and releases fish into the Noyo River 
watershed. The program has been in operation for over 50 years, but the 
program has recently been discontinued. The Monterey Bay Salmon and 
Trout Project is an artificial propagation program that is operated as 
a conservation program designed to supplement the local natural 
population, located in the southern portion of the ESU (south of San 
Francisco) where natural populations are at the highest risk of 
extinction. Relatively small numbers of fish are spawned and released 
from this program on Scott Creek, but natural-origin fish are routinely 
incorporated into the broodstock. Recently, captive broodstock programs 
have been established for the Russian River and Scott Creek populations 
in order to preserve the genetic resources of these two naturally 
spawning populations and for use in artificial programs. Artificially 
propagated fish from these two captive broodstock programs will be 
outplanted in the Russian River and Scott Creek watersheds to 
supplement local natural populations. The Russian River program is 
integrated with a habitat restoration program designed to improve 
habitat conditions and subsequent survival for outplanted coho 
juveniles.
    An assessment of the effects of these four artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU in-total concluded that they 
decrease risk of extinction to some degree by contributing to increased 
ESU abundance and diversity, but have a neutral or uncertain effect on 
the productivity or spatial structure of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The 
three conservation programs are considered crucial to the recovery of 
this ESU, but it is unclear if they have had any beneficial effect on 
natural spawner abundance. The Noyo River program which had been 
operated for over 50 years is being terminated because it has not met 
CDFG's goal of increasing coho salmon abundance. Productivity of coho 
salmon in the Noyo River is thought to be reduced or unaffected by long 
term artificial propagation in that watershed. It is uncertain how 
effective the captive broodstock and rearing programs in the Russian 
River and Scott Creek will be in increasing productivity, but efforts 
in the Russian River are coupled with a major habitat restoration 
effort which may improve natural population productivity. The two 
captive broodstock programs will hopefully contribute to future 
abundance and improved spatial structure of the ESU, but outplanting 
has yet to be implemented so long term benefits are uncertain. The 
Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Program is thought to be responsible for 
sustaining the presence of natural origin coho salmon in Scott Creek, 
which is at the southern extent of the ESU's range. Both of the captive 
broodstock programs, particularly the Scott Creek program, are genetic 
repositories which serve to preserve the genome of the ESU thereby 
reducing genetic diversity risks. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 
2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Central California 
Coast coho ESU in-total is ``in danger of extinction'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU
    The only reliable time series of adult abundance for the naturally 
spawning component of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 
coho ESU is for the Rogue River population in southern Oregon. The 
California portion of the ESU is characterized by a paucity of data, 
with only a few available spawner indices and presence-absence surveys. 
The recent 5-year mean abundance for the Rogue River is approximately 
5,000 natural spawners and is the highest such abundance for the Rogue 
River data series (since 1980). Both long- and short-term productivity 
trends for Rogue River natural spawners are above replacement. The BRT 
concluded, based on an analysis of pre-harvest abundance, however, that 
these positive trends for the Rogue River population reflect the 
effects of reduced harvest rather than improved freshwater conditions 
and population productivity. Less reliable indices of spawner abundance 
in several California populations suggest flat or declining trends. 
Relatively low levels of observed presence in historically occupied 
coho streams (32-56 percent from 1986 to 2000) indicate continued low 
abundance in the California portion of this ESU. Indications of 
stronger 2001 returns in several California populations, presumably due 
to favorable freshwater and ocean conditions, is encouraging but must 
be evaluated in the context of more than a decade of generally poor 
performance. Nonetheless, the high occupancy rate of historical streams 
in 2001 suggests that much habitat remains accessible to coho salmon. 
Although extant populations reside in all major river basins within the 
ESU, the BRT was concerned about the loss of local populations in the 
Trinity, Klamath, and Rogue river systems. The high hatchery production 
in these systems may mask trends in ESU population structure and pose 
risks to ESU diversity. The recent termination of several out-of-ESU 
hatcheries in California is expected to result in decreased risks to 
ESU diversity. The BRT found moderately high risks for abundance and 
productivity VSP categories, with comparatively lower risk for spatial 
structure and diversity. Informed by this risk assessment, the strong 
majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of 
the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' The minority opinion 
assessed ESU extinction risk as ``in danger of extinction,'' although a 
slight minority concluded that the ESU is ``not in danger of extinction 
or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future'' 
category.
    There are three artificial propagation programs releasing hatchery 
coho salmon that are considered to be part of the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast Coho ESU. The Rogue River hatchery in Oregon 
and the Trinity River and Iron Gate hatcheries (Klamath River) in 
California are all mitigation programs designed to produce fish for 
harvest, but they integrate naturally produced coho salmon into the 
broodstock in an attempt to minimize the genetic effects of returning 
hatchery adults that spawn naturally. All three programs have been in 
operation for several decades with smolt production goals ranging from 
75,000 to 500,000 fish.

[[Page 33132]]

    An assessment of the effects of these three artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU in-total concluded that they 
decrease risk of extinction by contributing to increased ESU abundance, 
but have a neutral or uncertain effect on the productivity, spatial 
structure and diversity of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). Abundance of the ESU 
in-total has been increased as a result of these artificial propagation 
programs, particularly in the Rogue and Trinity Rivers. In the Rogue 
River, hatchery origin fish have averaged approximately half of the 
returning spawners over the past 20 years. In the Trinity River, most 
naturally spawning fish are thought to be of hatchery origin based on 
weir counts at Willow Creek. The effects of these artificial 
propagation programs on ESU productivity and spatial structure are 
limited. Only three rivers have hatchery populations and natural 
populations are depressed throughout the range of the ESU. The effects 
of these hatchery programs on ESU diversity are likely limited. Natural 
origin fish have been incorporated into the broodstock but the 
magnitude of natural fish use is unknown. Informed by the BRT's 
findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS'' assessment of the effects of 
artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 
2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that 
the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU in-total is 
``likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 
2004c).
Oregon Coast Coho ESU
    The abundance of natural spawners in the Oregon Coast coho ESU for 
2001 and 2002 (163,000 and 264,000 spawners, respectively) far exceeded 
the abundance observed for the past several decades, and preliminary 
projections for 2003 (approximately 118,000 spawners) suggest that 
these substantial increases may be sustained. Furthermore, increases in 
natural spawner abundance have occurred in many populations in the 
northern portion of the ESU, populations that were the most depressed 
at the time of the last review (NMFS, 1997a). However, when the 
abundance data are evaluated by coho brood year, it is apparent the 
strong year-classes of the last three years were preceded by three 
years of recruitment failure. Recruitment failure (meaning that a given 
year class of natural spawners failed to replace itself when its 
offspring returned to the spawning grounds 3 years later) occurred for 
the 1994, 1995, and 1996 brood years returning in 1997, 1998, and 1999, 
respectively. These three years of recruitment failure are the only 
such instances that have been observed in the entire time series of 
data collected for Oregon Coast coho salmon. Although the recent 
dramatic increases in spawner abundance are encouraging, the long-term 
trends in ESU productivity are still negative due to the poor 
performance of the 1994-1996 brood years. The majority of the BRT felt 
that the recent increases in coho returns were most likely attributable 
to favorable ocean conditions and reduced harvest rates. The BRT was 
uncertain as to whether such favorable marine conditions would continue 
into the future. Despite the likely benefits to spawner abundance 
levels gained by the dramatic reduction of direct harvest of Oregon 
Coast coho populations (PFMC, 1998), harvest management can no longer 
compensate for declining productivity due to other factors. The BRT was 
concerned that if the long-term decline in productivity reflects 
deteriorating conditions in freshwater habitat, this ESU could face 
very serious risks of local extirpations if ocean conditions reverted 
back to poor productivity conditions. Approximately 30 percent of the 
ESU has suffered habitat fragmentation by culverts and thermal 
barriers, generating concerns about ESU spatial structure. 
Additionally, the lack of response to favorable ocean conditions for 
some populations in smaller streams, and the distinct patterns between 
north and south coast populations may indicate compromised connectivity 
among populations. The degradation of many lake habitats, and the 
resultant impacts on several lake populations in the Oregon Coast coho 
ESU, also poses risks to ESU diversity. The BRT noted that hatchery 
closures, reductions in the number of hatchery smolt releases, and 
improved marking rates of hatchery fish have reduced risks to diversity 
associated with artificial propagation.
    The BRT found high risk in the productivity VSP category, and 
comparatively lower risk for the other VSP categories. Informed by this 
risk assessment, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally 
spawned component of the Oregon Coast coho ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.'' However, a substantial 
minority of the BRT concluded that the ESU is ``not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future.'' The minority felt that the large number of spawners in 2001-
2002, and the high projected abundance for 2003, demonstrate that this 
ESU is not ``in danger of extinction'' or ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future.'' Furthermore, the minority felt that 
recent strong returns following 3 years of recruitment failure 
demonstrate that populations in this ESU exhibit considerable 
resilience.
    At present, there are five coastal coho artificial propagation 
programs that are considered to be part of the Oregon Coast coho ESU 
(Table 2). All of these programs are operated by the State of Oregon to 
provide harvest opportunities. Substantial changes in coho salmon 
propagation have occurred over the previous 10 years to achieve a 
balance between obligations to help conserve coastal coho and to 
mitigate for habitat degradation, and maintain fishing opportunities. 
These changes include a dependence on local origin fish for broodstock, 
management actions to reduce straying (10 percent is the objective), 
and the cessation of stocking coho in five coastal rivers. Coastal coho 
stocking has decreased by 84 percent since 1993. These programs are not 
managed to contribute to ESU abundance, productivity, spatial 
structure, or diversity.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). Although these hatchery programs contribute to the increased 
total abundance for 4 of the 19 ESU populations, the effect on the 
abundance of the ESU in-total is slight. In an attempt to avoid 
potentially adverse effects of naturally spawning hatchery fish on ESU 
natural populations, the State of Oregon manages these hatchery 
populations to limit the numbers of hatchery fish on the spawning 
grounds. The contribution of ESU hatchery programs to the productivity 
of the ESU in-total is uncertain, however, given the low proportion of 
naturally spawning hatchery fish in the ESU, any contribution is likely 
negligible. There is little to no effect of the ESU hatchery programs 
on the spatial structure of the ESU in-total, as most populations are 
not affected by artificial propagation. The spatial distribution of 
some natural populations, however, is negatively affected by the 
operation of hatchery facilities and weirs. There is little to no 
benefit of the Oregon Coast coho hatchery programs to ESU diversity. 
Those programs that incorporate natural fish into the broodstock are 
contributing to reducing past risks to ESU diversity posed by 
artificial propagation. Two out-of-ESU hatchery programs (the Salmon 
River (ODFW stock  33) and

[[Page 33133]]

Trask River (ODFW stock  34) hatchery programs), however, do 
not incorporate natural fish into the broodstock and remain a threat to 
ESU diversity. Collectively, artificial propagation programs in the ESU 
provide a slight beneficial effect to ESU abundance, but have neutral 
or uncertain effects on ESU productivity, spatial structure, and 
diversity. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' 
assessment of the effects of artificial propagation programs on the 
viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation 
Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Oregon Coast coho ESU in-total 
is ``likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 
2004c).
Lower Columbia River Coho ESU
    There are only two extant populations in the Lower Columbia River 
coho ESU with appreciable natural production (the Clackamas and Sandy 
River populations), from an estimated 23 historical populations in the 
ESU. Although adult returns in 2000 and 2001 for the Clackamas and 
Sandy River populations exhibited moderate increases, the recent 5-year 
mean of natural-origin spawners for both populations represents less 
than 1,500 adults. The Sandy River population has exhibited recruitment 
failure in 5 of the last 10 years, and has exhibited a poor response to 
reductions in harvest. During the 1980s and 1990s natural spawners were 
not observed in the lower tributaries in the ESU. Coincident with the 
2000-2001 abundance increases in the Sandy and Clackamas populations, a 
small number of coho spawners of unknown origin have been surveyed in 
some lower tributaries. Short- and long-term trends in productivity are 
below replacement. Approximately 40 percent of historical habitat is 
currently inaccessible, which restricts the number of areas that might 
support natural production, and further increases the ESU's 
vulnerability to environmental variability and catastrophic events. The 
extreme loss of naturally spawning populations, the low abundance of 
extant populations, diminished diversity, and fragmentation and 
isolation of the remaining naturally produced fish confer considerable 
risks to the ESU. The paucity of naturally produced spawners in this 
ESU is contrasted by the very large number of hatchery produced adults. 
The abundance of hatchery coho returning to the Lower Columbia River in 
2001 and 2002 exceeded one million and 600,000 fish, respectively. The 
BRT expressed concern that the magnitude of hatchery production 
continues to pose significant genetic and ecological threats to the 
extant natural populations in the ESU. However, these hatchery stocks 
at present collectively represent a significant portion of the ESU's 
remaining genetic resources. The twenty-one hatchery stocks considered 
to be part of the ESU (Table 2), if appropriately managed, may prove 
essential to the restoration of more widespread naturally spawning 
populations.
    The BRT found extremely high risks for each of the VSP categories. 
Informed by this risk assessment, the strong majority opinion of the 
BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the Lower Columbia 
River coho ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' The minority opinion was 
that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future.''
    All of the 21 hatchery programs included in the Lower Columbia 
River coho ESU are designed to produce fish for harvest, with two small 
programs designed to also augment the natural spawning populations in 
the Lewis River Basin. Artificial propagation in this ESU continues to 
represent a threat to the genetic, ecological, and behavioral diversity 
of the ESU. Past artificial propagation efforts imported out-of-ESU 
fish for broodstock, generally did not mark hatchery fish, mixed 
broodstocks derived from different local populations, and transplanted 
stocks among basins throughout the ESU. The result is that the hatchery 
stocks considered to be part of the ESU represent a homogenization of 
populations. Several of these risks have recently begun to be addressed 
by improvements in hatchery practices. Out-of-ESU broodstock is no 
longer used, and near 100-percent marking of hatchery fish is employed 
to afford improved monitoring and evaluation of broodstock and 
(hatchery- and natural-origin) returns. However, many of the within-ESU 
hatchery programs do not adhere to best hatchery practices. Eggs are 
often transferred among basins in an effort to meet individual program 
goals, further compromising ESU spatial structure and diversity. 
Programs may use broodstock that does not reflect what was historically 
present in a given basin, limiting the potential for artificial 
propagation to establish locally adapted naturally spawning 
populations. Many programs lack Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans 
that establish escapement goals appropriate for the natural capacity of 
each basin, and that identify goals for the incorporation of natural-
origin fish into the broodstock.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that hatchery programs collectively mitigate 
the immediacy of extinction risk for the Lower Columbia River coho ESU 
in-total in the short term, but that these programs do not 
substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in the foreseeable 
future (NMFS, 2004c). At present, within ESU hatchery programs 
significantly increase the abundance of the ESU in-total. Without 
adequate long-term monitoring, the contribution of ESU hatchery 
programs to the productivity of the ESU in-total is uncertain. The 
hatchery programs are widely distributed throughout the Lower Columbia 
River, reducing the spatial distribution of risk to catastrophic 
events. Additionally, reintroduction programs in the Upper Cowlitz 
River may provide additional reduction of ESU spatial structure risks. 
As mentioned above, the majority of the ESU's genetic diversity exists 
in the hatchery programs. Although these programs have the potential of 
preserving historical local adaptation and behavioral and ecological 
diversity, the manner in which these potential genetic resources are 
presently being managed poses significant risks to the diversity of the 
ESU in-total. At present, the Lower Columbia River coho hatchery 
programs reduce risks to ESU abundance and spatial structure, provide 
uncertain benefits to ESU productivity, and pose risks to ESU 
diversity. Overall, artificial propagation mitigates the immediacy of 
ESU extinction risk in the short-term, but is of uncertain contribution 
in the long term.
    Over the long term, reliance on the continued operation of these 
hatchery programs is risky (NMFS, 2004b). Several Lower Columbia River 
coho hatchery programs have been terminated, and there is the prospect 
of additional closures in the future. With each hatchery closure, any 
potential benefits to ESU abundance and spatial structure are reduced. 
Risks of operational failure, disease, and environmental catastrophes 
further complicate assessments of hatchery contributions over the long 
term. Additionally, the two extant naturally spawning populations in 
the ESU were described by the BRT as being ``in danger of extinction.'' 
Accordingly, it is likely that the Lower Columbia River coho ESU may 
exist in hatcheries only within the foreseeable future. It is uncertain 
whether these isolated hatchery programs can persist without the 
incorporation of natural-origin fish into the broodstock. Although 
there are

[[Page 33134]]

examples of salmonid hatchery programs having been in operation for 
relatively long periods of time, these programs have not existed in 
complete isolation. Long-lived hatchery programs historically required 
infusions of wild fish in order to meet broodstock goals. The long-term 
sustainability of such isolated hatchery programs is unknown. It is 
uncertain whether the Lower Columbia River coho isolated hatchery 
programs are capable of mitigating risks to ESU abundance and 
productivity into the foreseeable future. In isolation, these programs 
may also become more than moderately diverged from the evolutionary 
legacy of the ESU, and hence no longer merit inclusion in the ESU. 
Under either circumstance, the ability of artificial propagation to 
buffer the immediacy of extinction risk over the long-term is 
uncertain. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' 
assessment of the short- and long-term effects of artificial 
propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the 
Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Lower 
Columbia coho ESU in-total is ``likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Columbia River Chum ESU
    Approximately 90 percent of the historical populations in the 
Columbia River chum ESU are extirpated or nearly so. During the 1980s 
and 1990s, the combined abundance of natural spawners for the Lower and 
Upper Columbia River Gorge, Washougal, and Grays River populations was 
below 4,000 adults. In 2002, however, the abundance of natural spawners 
exhibited a substantial increase evident at several locations in the 
ESU. The preliminary estimate of natural spawners is approximately 
20,000 adults. The cause of this dramatic increase in abundance is 
unknown. Improved ocean conditions, the initiation of a supplementation 
program in the Grays River, improved flow management at Bonneville Dam, 
favorable freshwater conditions, and increased survey sampling effort 
may all have contributed to the elevated 2002 abundance. However, long- 
and short-term productivity trends for ESU populations are at or below 
replacement. The loss of off-channel habitats and the extirpation of 
approximately 17 historical populations increase the ESU's 
vulnerability to environmental variability and catastrophic events. The 
populations that remain are low in abundance, and have limited 
distribution and poor connectivity.
    The BRT found high risks for each of the VSP categories, 
particularly for ESU spatial structure and diversity. Informed by this 
risk assessment, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally 
spawned component of the Columbia River chum ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future,'' with a minority opinion 
that it is ``in danger of extinction.''
    There are three artificial propagation programs producing chum 
salmon considered to be part of the Columbia River chum ESU. These are 
conservation programs designed to support natural production. The 
Washougal Hatchery artificial propagation program provides artificially 
propagated chum salmon for re-introduction into recently restored 
habitat in Duncan Creek, Washington. This program also provides a 
safety-net for the naturally spawning population in the mainstem 
Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, which can access only a portion of 
spawning habitat during low flow conditions. The other two programs are 
designed to augment natural production in the Grays River and the 
Chinook River in Washington. All these programs use naturally produced 
adults for broodstock. These programs were only recently established 
(1998-2002), with the first hatchery chum returning in 2002.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). The Columbia River chum hatchery programs have only recently 
been initiated, and are beginning to provide benefits to ESU abundance. 
The contribution of ESU hatchery programs to the productivity of the 
ESU in-total is uncertain. The Sea Resources and Washougal Hatchery 
programs have begun to provide benefits to ESU spatial structure 
through reintroductions of chum salmon into restored habitats in the 
Chinook River and Duncan Creek, respectively. These three programs have 
a neutral effect on ESU diversity. Collectively, artificial propagation 
programs in the ESU provide a slight beneficial effect to ESU abundance 
and spatial structure, but have neutral or uncertain effects on ESU 
productivity and diversity. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 
2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Columbia River chum 
ESU in-total is ``likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Hood Canal Summer Chum ESU
    Adult returns for some populations in the Hood Canal summer-run 
chum ESU showed modest improvements in 2000, with upward trends 
continuing in 2001 and 2002. The recent 5-year mean abundance is 
variable among populations in the ESU, ranging from one fish to nearly 
4,500 fish. Hood Canal summer-run chum are the focus of an extensive 
rebuilding program developed and implemented since 1992 by the state 
and tribal co-managers. Two populations (the combined Quilcene and 
Union River populations) are above the conservation thresholds 
established by the rebuilding plan. However, most populations remain 
depressed. Estimates of the fraction of naturally spawning hatchery 
fish exceed 60 percent for some populations, indicating that 
reintroduction programs are supplementing the numbers of total fish 
spawning naturally in streams. Long-term trends in productivity are 
above replacement for only the Quilcene and Union River populations. 
Buoyed by recent increases, seven populations are exhibiting short-term 
productivity trends above replacement. Of an estimated 16 historical 
populations in the ESU, seven populations are believed to have been 
extirpated or nearly extirpated. Most of these extirpations have 
occurred in populations on the eastern side of Hood Canal, generating 
additional concern for ESU spatial structure. The widespread loss of 
estuary and lower floodplain habitat was noted by the BRT as a 
continuing threat to ESU spatial structure and connectivity. There is 
some concern that the Quilcene hatchery stock is exhibiting high rates 
of straying, and may represent a risk to historical population 
structure and diversity. However, with the extirpation of many local 
populations, much of this historical structure has been lost, and the 
use of Quilcene hatchery fish may represent one of a few remaining 
options for Hood Canal summer-run chum conservation.
    The BRT found high risks for each of the VSP categories. Informed 
by this risk assessment, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the 
naturally spawned component of the Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future,'' with a 
minority opinion that the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.''
    There are currently eight programs releasing summer chum salmon 
that are considered to be part of the Hood Canal summer chum ESU (Table 
2). Six of the

[[Page 33135]]

programs are supplementation programs implemented to preserve and 
increase the abundance of native populations in their natal watersheds. 
These supplementation programs propagate and release fish into the 
Salmon Creek, Jimmycomelately Creek, Big Quilcene River, Hamma Hamma 
River, Lilliwaup Creek, and Union River watersheds. The remaining two 
programs use transplanted summer-run chum salmon from adjacent 
watersheds to reintroduce populations into Big Beef Creek and Chimacum 
Creek, where the native populations have been extirpated. Each of the 
hatchery programs includes research, monitoring, and evaluation 
activities designed to determine success in recovering the propagated 
populations to viable levels, and to determine the demographic, 
ecological, and genetic effects of each program on target and non-
target salmonid populations. All the Hood Canal summer-run chum 
hatchery programs will be terminated after 12 years of operation.
    NMFS'' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS 
2004c). The hatchery programs are benefiting ESU abundance by 
increasing total ESU abundance as well as the number of naturally 
spawning summer-run chum salmon. Several of the programs have likely 
prevented further population extirpations in the ESU. The contribution 
of ESU hatchery programs to the productivity of the ESU in-total is 
uncertain. The hatchery programs are benefiting ESU spatial structure 
by increasing the spawning area utilized in several watersheds and by 
increasing the geographic range of the ESU through reintroductions. 
These programs also provide benefits to ESU diversity. By bolstering 
total population sizes, the hatchery programs have likely stemmed 
adverse genetic effects for populations at critically low levels. 
Additionally, measures have been implemented to maintain current 
genetic diversity, including the use of native broodstock and the 
termination of the programs after 12 years of operation to guard 
against long-term domestication effects. Collectively, artificial 
propagation programs in the ESU presently provide a slight beneficial 
effect to ESU abundance, spatial structure, and diversity, but 
uncertain effects to ESU productivity. The long-term contribution of 
these programs after they are terminated is uncertain. Despite the 
current benefits provided by the comprehensive hatchery conservation 
efforts for Hood Canal summer-run chum, the ESU remains at low overall 
abundance with nearly half of historical populations extirpated. 
Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS'' assessment of 
the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the 
ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
concluded that the Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU in-total is ``likely 
to become endangered in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Southern California O. mykiss ESU
    Assessing the extinction risk for the Southern California O. mykiss 
ESU is made difficult by the general lack of historical or recent data 
for this ESU, and the uncertainty generated by this paucity of 
information. The historical steelhead run for four of the major river 
systems in the ESU is estimated to have been between 32,000 and 46,000 
adults. Recent run size for the same four systems, however, has been 
estimated to be fewer than 500 total adults. Run sizes in river systems 
within the ESU are believed to range between less than five anadromous 
adults per year, to less than 100 anadromous adults per year. However, 
the available data are insufficient to estimate abundance levels or 
trends in productivity. Of 65 river drainages where O. mykiss is known 
to have occurred historically, between 26 and 52 percent are still 
occupied (uncertainty in this estimate is the result of the 
inaccessibility of 17 basins to population surveys). Colonization 
events of O. mykiss were documented during 1996-2002 in Topanga and San 
Mateo Creeks. These colonization events were represented by few 
spawning adults or the observation of a single individual. Twenty-two 
basins are considered vacant, extirpated, or nearly extirpated due to 
dewatering or the establishment of impassable barriers below all 
spawning habitats. Except for the colonization of a small population in 
San Mateo Creek in northern San Diego County, the anadromous form of 
the Southern California O. mykiss ESU appears to have been completely 
extirpated from nearly all systems in the southern portion of the ESU 
from Malibu Creek to the Mexican border. Recently, the presence and 
spawning of anadromous O. mykiss has been observed in two streams south 
of Malibu Creek (in Topanga and San Mateo Creeks), prompting the 
extension of the ESU's boundaries to the U.S.-Mexico border in 2000 (67 
FR 21586; May 1, 2002).
    Historically, resident fish are believed to have occurred in all 
areas in the ESU used by steelhead, although the current distribution 
is more restricted. Little or no information is available regarding 
resident populations considered to be part of this ESU. Due to the 
extremely low numbers of anadromous fish in this ESU, resident 
populations may comprise a substantial proportion of fish in the ESU. 
For some BRT members, the presence of relatively numerous resident fish 
reduces risks to ESU abundance, but provides an uncertain contribution 
to ESU productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (NMFS, 2003b; 
2004a).
    The BRT found extremely high risks for each of the four VSP 
categories. Informed by this assessment, the strong majority opinion of 
the BRT was that the Southern California O. mykiss ESU is ``in danger 
of extinction.'' The minority opinion was that the ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' There are no 
artificially propagated populations of O. mykiss in this ESU that 
mitigate the BRT's assessment that the ESU is ``in danger of 
extinction.''
South-Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU
    There is a paucity of abundance information for the South-Central 
California Coast O. mykiss ESU. Data are not available for the two 
largest river systems in the ESU, the Pajaro and Salinas basins. These 
systems are much degraded and are expected to have steelhead runs 
reduced in size from historical levels. Data available for the Carmel 
River underscore the population's vulnerability to drought conditions, 
as well as its dependence on the intensive management of the river 
system. The most recent 5-year mean abundance of fish in the Carmel 
River is approximately 600 adults. Despite observed and inferred 
declines in abundance, the current spatial distribution of the 
anadromous life form in the ESU does not appear to be much reduced from 
what occurred historically. O. mykiss are present in approximately 86 
to 95 percent of historically occupied streams (the uncertainty in the 
estimated occupancy is due to three streams that could not be accessed 
for population surveys). The BRT was concerned, however, that the 
larger Pajaro and Salinas basins are spatially and ecologically 
distinct from other ESU populations, such that further degradation of 
these areas will negatively impact ESU spatial structure and diversity. 
Historically, resident fish are believed to have occurred in all areas 
in the ESU used by steelhead, although current distribution is more 
restricted. For some BRT members,

[[Page 33136]]

presence of relatively numerous resident fish reduces risks to ESU 
abundance, but provides an uncertain contribution to ESU productivity, 
spatial structure, and diversity (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a). The BRT found 
high risks for each of the four VSP categories, particularly for 
spatial structure. Informed by this assessment, the strong majority 
opinion of the BRT was that the South-Central Coast O. mykiss ESU is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' The 
minority opinion was that the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' There 
are no artificially propagated populations of O. mykiss in this ESU 
that mitigate the BRT's assessment that the ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.''
Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU
    There are no time series of population abundance data for the 
naturally spawning component of the Central California Coast O. mykiss 
ESU. The naturally spawning population in the largest river system in 
the ESU, the Russian River, is believed to have declined seven-fold 
since the mid-1960s. Juvenile density information is available for five 
``representative'' populations, and each exhibits a downward decline 
over the last 8 years of available data. Predation by increasing 
numbers of California sea lions at river mouths and during the ocean 
phase was noted as a recent development also posing significant risk. 
Juvenile O. mykiss have been observed in approximately 82 percent of 
historically occupied streams, indicating that the ESU continues to be 
spatially well distributed. However, impassible dams have cut off 
substantial portions of spawning habitat in some basins, generating 
concern about the spatial structure of the naturally spawning component 
of the ESU. Historically, resident fish are believed to have occurred 
in all areas in the ESU used by steelhead, although current 
distribution is more restricted. For some BRT members, the presence of 
resident fish reduces risks to ESU natural abundance, but provides an 
uncertain contribution to ESU productivity, spatial structure, and 
diversity (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a). The BRT found moderately high risk for 
the abundance and productivity VSP risk categories for naturally 
spawning fish, and comparatively less risk for the spatial structure 
and diversity categories. Informed by this risk assessment, the 
majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of 
the Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.'' The minority opinion was 
that the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.''
    Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of 
the Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU (Table 2; NMFS, 2004b). One 
program is located in the northernmost river in the ESU (Don Clausen 
hatchery on the Russian River), while the other is located in the 
southern portion of the ESU (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project on 
the Scott River) where the extinction risk for local populations is 
thought to be higher. The hatchery on the Russian River is a relatively 
large-scale mitigation program which is primarily intended to support 
recreational fisheries for steelhead in this watershed. This program 
was established primarily with local broodstock, but has not integrated 
natural-origin fish into the broodstock since 2000, and is, therefore, 
isolated from the natural spawning component of the ESU. Escapement to 
the hatchery is substantial, but there are no estimates of overall 
Russian River O. mykiss abundance, nor are there any estimates of the 
contribution of hatchery-origin fish to overall abundance. The 
artificial propagation program on Scott Creek is much smaller than the 
Russian River program. It incorporates natural-origin fish from Scott 
Creek and nearby San Lorenzo Creek for broodstock and is currently 
operated for the purpose of restoring the local natural population.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of these two artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU in-total concluded that they 
decrease risk to some degree by contributing to increased ESU fish 
abundance, but have neutral or uncertain effects on productivity, 
spatial structure or diversity of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). Hatchery 
origin steelhead from the Don Clausen hatchery program on the Russian 
River have been increasing in abundance for the past several years, but 
many fish return to the hatchery or are harvested and there is no 
information documenting the extent to which hatchery origin fish spawn 
naturally. Though there is natural spawning of steelhead in the Russian 
River system, the abundance of spawners has not been documented. There 
is no information documenting whether the Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout 
Project program is increasing local abundance of natural steelhead, but 
the program was recently converted from one that supported a fishery to 
one that is attempting to restore the local natural population. Effects 
of these artificial propagation programs on productivity are uncertain, 
and no efforts are currently underway to assess the effects of 
productivity on the naturally spawning component of the ESU. The Don 
Clausen hatchery population has been increasing in abundance and has a 
relatively high level of productivity, but it is managed to support a 
fishery rather than to augment naturally spawning local populations. 
Hatchery origin steelhead from both programs generally occur in the 
same areas as natural origin fish, and there is no information 
indicating that either program has resulted in an expanded distribution 
of the ESU in-total, thus effects to ESU spatial structure are likely 
neutral. The Don Clausen program uses only hatchery-origin fish for 
broodstock, and this is likely to lead to divergence of the hatchery 
stock from the local natural population and pose a risk to local 
populations. The Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Program uses wild 
broodstock to minimize domestication effects and is operated to assist 
in the restoration of local stocks. However, it is uncertain to what 
extent the program serves to preserve genetic diversity in the ESU. 
Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of 
the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the 
ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
concluded that the Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU in-total is 
``likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 
2004c).
California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU
    Little information is available regarding the viability of the 
naturally spawning component of the California Central Valley O. mykiss 
ESU. Anadromous O. mykiss spawning above the Red Bluff Diversion Dam 
(RBDD) have a small population size (the most recent 5-year mean is 
less than 2,000 adults) and exhibit strongly negative trends in 
abundance and population growth rate. However, there have not been any 
escapement estimates made for the area above RBDD since the mid 1990's. 
The only recent ESU-level estimate of abundance is a crude 
extrapolation from the incidental catch of out-migrating juvenile 
steelhead captured in a midwater-trawl sampling program for juvenile 
chinook salmon below the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin 
Rivers. The extrapolated abundance of naturally spawning female 
steelhead involves broad assumptions about female fecundity (number of 
eggs produced per female) and egg-to-smolt survival rates. Based on 
this extrapolation, it is estimated that on average during 1998-2000, 
approximately 181,000 juvenile

[[Page 33137]]

steelhead were produced naturally each year in the Central Valley by 
approximately 3,600 spawning female steelhead. It is estimated that 
there were 1 to 2 million spawners in the Central Valley prior to 1850, 
and approximately 40,000 spawners in the 1960s. Although it appears 
that O. mykiss remain widely distributed in Sacramento River 
tributaries, the vast majority of historical spawning areas are 
currently above impassable dams. The BRT also expressed concern about 
the effects of significant production of out-of-ESU hatchery steelhead 
in the American (Nimbus Hatchery) and Mokelumne (Mokelumne River 
Hatchery) Rivers. Historically, resident fish are believed to have 
occurred in all areas in the ESU used by steelhead, although current 
distribution is more restricted. For some BRT members, the presence of 
resident fish reduces risks to ESU abundance somewhat, but provides an 
uncertain contribution to ESU productivity, spatial structure, and 
diversity (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a). The BRT found high risk for the 
abundance, productivity, and spatial structure VSP categories, and 
moderately high risk for the diversity category. Informed by this risk 
assessment, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally 
spawned component of the California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU is 
``in danger of extinction.'' The minority opinion was that the 
naturally spawned component of the ESU is ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future.''
    There are two artificial propagation programs considered to be part 
of the Central Valley O. mykiss ESU (Table 2; NMFS, 2004b). Both 
programs are located in the Sacramento River Basin and are large-scale 
mitigation facilities intended to support recreational fisheries for 
steelhead rather than to supplement naturally spawning populations. The 
Coleman NFH is located on Battle Creek, a tributary in the upper 
Sacramento River. The program has been in operation for several decades 
and has a production goal of 600,000 smolts per year. Broodstock was 
originally derived from local or nearby Sacramento River stocks, and 
all hatchery production is marked to facilitate harvest management and 
minimize impacts on natural origin fish. The natural population of O. 
mykiss in Battle Creek is integrated with the hatchery population, 
though the hatchery bypasses natural origin fish into the upper portion 
of the watershed above the hatchery. The Feather River Hatchery is 
located on the Feather River, a major tributary in the upper Sacramento 
River basin. The program has also been operated for several decades and 
has a production goal of 400,000 smolts per year. Broodstock was 
originally derived from local or nearby stocks, and all hatchery 
production is marked to allow harvest and also minimize impacts on 
natural origin fish. The natural population in the Feather River is 
integrated with the hatchery population.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of these two artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU in-total concluded that they 
decrease risk to some degree by contributing to increased abundance of 
the ESU, but have a neutral or uncertain effect on productivity, 
spatial structure and diversity of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). Both the 
Coleman NFH and Feather River hatchery programs have increased 
abundance of fish in the ESU in-total; however, both programs are 
operated to support recreational harvest rather than to supplement 
natural spawning populations. Thus, much of the production is targeted 
for harvest and for use as broodstock, and the contribution to 
naturally spawning populations is uncertain. In the future, Coleman NFH 
may use some hatchery fish as part of an effort to supplement steelhead 
production in Upper Battle Creek above the hatchery. Effects of these 
programs on ESU diversity are uncertain, but both programs incorporate 
natural origin fish into the broodstock to minimize divergence from 
naturally spawning local populations. The available genetic information 
suggests that both hatchery populations are genetically similar to 
natural origin fish in the upper Sacramento River basin. Effects on 
productivity are uncertain, but the Coleman NFH program is conducting a 
study to evaluate hatchery origin steelhead productivity relative to 
natural origin fish in Battle Creek. There is limited spawning habitat 
in both the Feather River and lower Battle Creek, so it is possible 
that high returns of hatchery fish to these watersheds will compete 
with local natural origin spawners for habitat, thereby reducing 
overall productivity. The Feather River hatchery program does not 
affect ESU spatial structure, however, the Coleman NFH program may have 
some limited beneficial effects in the future. The hatchery currently 
passes all natural origin fish into the upper Battle Creek watershed, 
but may supplement this with hatchery origin fish in coordination with 
ongoing restoration efforts in upper Battle Creek. Informed by the 
BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of 
artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 
2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that 
the California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU in-total is ``in danger of 
extinction'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Northern California O. mykiss ESU
    There is little historical abundance information for the naturally 
spawning portion of the Northern California O. mykiss ESU. However, the 
available data (dam counts on the Eel and Mad Rivers) indicate a 
substantial decline from the abundance levels of the 1930s. The three 
available summer steelhead data sets exhibit recent 5-year mean 
abundance levels from three to 418 adults, and exhibit downward short- 
and long-term trends. The short- and long-term abundance trends for the 
one current winter steelhead data series show a slightly positive 
trend. However, the recent 5-year mean abundance level is extremely low 
(32 adults). The juvenile density data for six of ten (putative) 
independent populations exhibit declining trends. Despite low abundance 
and downward trends, O. mykiss appears to be still widely distributed 
throughout this ESU. The BRT expressed concern about ESU diversity due 
to the low effective population sizes in the ESU, and concern over 
interactions with the Mad River Hatchery stock that is not considered 
to be part of the ESU. This hatchery program is being terminated in 
2004. Thus potential genetic risks associated with propagation of this 
non-ESU stock will decline in the future. Historically, resident fish 
are believed to have occurred in all areas in the ESU used by 
steelhead, although current distribution is more restricted. In this 
ESU, resident fish do not substantially increase the total ESU 
abundance. The BRT did not consider resident fish to reduce risks to 
ESU abundance, and their contribution to ESU productivity, spatial 
structure, and diversity is uncertain (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a). The BRT 
found high risk for the abundance VSP category, and moderately high 
risk for productivity. The ESU spatial structure and diversity 
categories were of comparatively lower concern. Informed by this 
assessment, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally 
spawned component of the Northern California O. mykiss ESU is ``likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' The minority BRT 
opinion was split between the ``in danger of extinction'' and ``not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become

[[Page 33138]]

endangered within the foreseeable future.''
    There are two small artificial propagation programs producing 
steelhead considered to be part of the Northern California O. mykiss 
ESU (Table 2; NMFS, 2004b). These propagation programs (Yager Creek and 
N.F. Gualala River hatchery) are very small ventures aimed at 
augmenting local steelhead abundance, and both were in operation for 
over two decades. The Yager Creek hatchery has not been in operation 
for the past few years, and there are currently no plans to reopen it. 
The Gualala River Project has terminated the hatchbox portion of its 
operation but is continuing with a juvenile rescue and rearing program.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of these two artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU in-total concluded that they may 
decrease risk to some degree by contributing to increased abundance of 
the ESU, but have a neutral or uncertain effect on productivity, 
spatial structure and diversity of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). Both programs 
may have increased local natural population abundance to a limited 
degree in the past, but with the termination of the artificial 
propagation activities in both programs' future, benefits to ESU 
abundance are unlikely to continue. Effects on ESU productivity are 
uncertain, but continuation of the rescue and rearing program by the 
Gualala River project may provide some limited benefits locally through 
the salvage of fish that would otherwise be lost from the population. 
There is no information to assess whether either program had any effect 
on ESU spatial structure, but because of their relatively small size it 
is unlikely to have had much effect. Past operations at both hatchery 
facilities used local stock and incorporated only local natural origin 
fish in the broodstock. Thus adverse effects on local population 
diversity were minimized. The juvenile rescue and rearing program 
operated by the Gualala River project rescues up to 15,000 fish of all 
year classes in some years. Thus it can serve to preserve local genetic 
diversity that would otherwise be lost due to adverse habitat 
conditions. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' 
assessment of the effects of artificial propagation programs on the 
viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation 
Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Northern California O. mykiss 
ESU in-total is ``likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT was encouraged by significant increases in adult returns 
(exceeding 10,000 total fish) in 2001 and 2002 for the Upper Willamette 
River O. mykiss ESU. The recent 5-year mean abundance, however, remains 
low for an entire ESU (5,819 adults), and individual populations remain 
at low abundance. Long-term trends in abundance are negative for all 
populations in the ESU, reflecting a decade of consistently low returns 
during the 1990s. Short-term trends, buoyed by recent strong returns, 
are positive. Approximately one-third of the ESU's historically 
accessible spawning habitat is now blocked. Notwithstanding the lost 
spawning habitat, the ESU continues to be spatially well distributed in 
the ESU, occupying each of the four major subbasins (the Mollala, North 
Santiam, South Santiam, and Calapooia Rivers). There is some 
uncertainty about the historical occurrence of O. mykiss in the Oregon 
Coastal Range drainages. Coastal cutthroat trout is a dominant species 
in the Willamette Basin, and thus O. mykiss is not expected to have 
been as widespread in this ESU as they are east of the Cascade 
Mountains. The BRT considered the cessation of the ``early'' winter-run 
hatchery program a positive sign for ESU diversity risk, but remained 
concerned that releases of non-native summer steelhead continue. 
Because coastal cutthroat trout is dominant in the basin, resident O. 
mykiss are not as abundant or widespread here as in the inland O. 
mykiss ESUs. The BRT did not consider resident fish to reduce risks to 
ESU abundance, and their contribution to ESU productivity, spatial 
structure, and diversity is uncertain (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a).
    The BRT found moderate risks for each of the VSP categories. Based 
on this risk assessment, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the 
Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU is ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future.'' The minority BRT opinion was that the 
ESU is ``not in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future.''
Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU
    Some anadromous populations in the Lower Columbia River O. mykiss 
ESU, particularly summer-run steelhead populations, have shown 
encouraging increases in abundance in the last 2 to 3 years. However, 
population abundance levels remain small (no population has a recent 5-
year mean abundance greater than 750 spawners). The BRT could not 
conclusively identify a single population that is naturally viable. A 
number of populations have a substantial fraction of hatchery-origin 
spawners, and are hypothesized to be sustained largely by hatchery 
production. Long-term trends in spawner abundance are negative for 
seven of nine populations for which there are sufficient data, and 
short-term trends are negative for five of seven populations. It is 
estimated that four historical populations have been extirpated or 
nearly extirpated, and only one-half of 23 historical populations 
currently exhibit appreciable natural production. Although 
approximately 35 percent of historical habitat has been lost in this 
ESU due to the construction of dams or other impassible barriers, the 
ESU exhibits a broad spatial distribution in a variety of watersheds 
and habitat types. The BRT was particularly concerned about the impact 
on ESU diversity of the high proportion of hatchery-origin spawners in 
the ESU, the disproportionate declines in the summer steelhead life 
history, and the release of non-native hatchery summer steelhead in the 
Cowlitz, Toutle, Sandy, Lewis, Elochoman, Kalama, Wind, and Clackamas 
Rivers. Resident fish are not as abundant in this ESU as they are in 
the inland O. mykiss ESUs. The BRT did not consider resident fish to 
reduce risks to ESU abundance, and their contribution to ESU 
productivity, spatial structure, and diversity is uncertain (NMFS, 
2003b; 2004a).
    The BRT found moderate risks in each of the VSP categories. 
Informed by this assessment the majority opinion of the BRT was that 
the naturally spawned component of the Lower Columbia River O. mykiss 
ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' 
The minority opinion was that the ESU is ``not in danger of extinction 
or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.''
    There are 10 artificial propagation programs releasing hatchery 
steelhead that are considered to be part of the Lower Columbia River O. 
mykiss ESU (Table 2). All of these programs are designed to produce 
fish for harvest, but several are also implemented to augment the 
natural spawning populations in the basins where the fish are released. 
Four of these programs are part of research activities to determine the 
effects of artificial propagation programs that use naturally produced 
steelhead for broodstock in an attempt to minimize the genetic effects 
of returning hatchery adults that spawn naturally. One of these 
programs, the Cowlitz River late-run winter steelhead

[[Page 33139]]

program, is also producing fish for release into the upper Cowlitz 
River Basin in an attempt to re-establish a natural spawning population 
above Cowlitz Falls Dam.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). The hatchery programs have reduced risks to ESU abundance by 
increasing total ESU abundance and the abundance of fish spawning 
naturally in the ESU. The contribution of ESU hatchery programs to the 
productivity of the ESU in-total is uncertain. It is also uncertain if 
reintroduced steelhead into the Upper Cowlitz River will be viable in 
the foreseeable future, as outmigrant survival appears to be quite low. 
As noted by the BRT, out-of-ESU hatchery programs have negatively 
impacted ESU productivity. The within-ESU hatchery programs provide a 
slight decrease in risks to ESU spatial structure, principally through 
the re-introduction of steelhead into the Upper Cowlitz River Basin. 
The eventual success of these reintroduction efforts, however, is 
uncertain. Harvest augmentation programs that have instituted locally-
adapted natural broodstock protocols (e.g., the Sandy, Clackamas, 
Kalama, and Hood River programs) have reduced adverse genetic effects 
and benefited ESU diversity. Non-ESU hatchery programs in the Lower 
Columbia River remain a threat to ESU diversity. Collectively, 
artificial propagation programs in the ESU provide a slight beneficial 
effect to ESU abundance, spatial structure, and diversity, but 
uncertain effects to ESU productivity. Informed by the BRT's findings 
(NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the 
Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Lower 
Columbia River O. mykiss ESU in-total is ``likely to become endangered 
in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c).
Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU
    The abundance of natural populations in the Middle Columbia River 
O. mykiss ESU has increased substantially over the past 5 years. The 
Deschutes and Upper John Day Rivers have recent 5-year mean abundance 
levels in excess of their respective interim recovery target abundance 
levels (NMFS, 2002). Due to an uncertain proportion of out-of-ESU 
strays in the Deschutes River, the recent increases in this population 
are difficult to interpret. (It is worth noting that these interim 
recovery targets articulate the geometric mean of natural-origin 
spawners to be sustained over a period of 8 years or approximately two 
salmonid generations, as well as a geometric mean natural replacement 
rate greater than one). The Umatilla River recent 5-year mean natural 
population abundance is approximately 72 percent of its interim 
recovery target abundance level. The natural populations in the Yakima 
River, Klickitat River, Touchet River, Walla Walla River, and 
Fifteenmile Creek, however, remain well below their interim recovery 
target abundance levels. Long-term trends for 11 of the 12 production 
areas in the ESU were negative, although it was observed that these 
downward trends are driven, at least in part, by a peak in returns in 
the middle to late 1980s, followed by relatively low escapement levels 
in the early 1990s. Short-term trends in the 12 production areas were 
mostly positive from 1990 to 2001. The continued low number of natural 
returns to the Yakima River (10 percent of the interim recovery target 
abundance level, historically a major production center for the ESU) 
generated concern among the BRT. However, anadromous and resident O. 
mykiss remain well distributed in the majority of subbasins in the 
Middle Columbia River ESU. The presence of substantial numbers of out-
of-basin (and largely out-of-ESU) natural spawners in the Deschutes 
River, raised substantial concern regarding the genetic integrity and 
productivity of the native Deschutes population. The extent to which 
this straying is an historical natural phenomenon is unknown. The cool 
Deschutes River temperatures may attract fish migrating in the 
comparatively warmer Columbia River waters, thus inducing high stray 
rates. The BRT noted the particular difficulty in evaluating the 
contribution of resident fish to ESU-level extinction risk. Several 
sources indicate that resident fish are very common in the ESU and may 
greatly outnumber anadromous fish. The BRT concluded that the 
relatively abundant and widely distributed resident fish in the ESU 
reduce risks to overall ESU abundance, but provide an uncertain 
contribution to ESU productivity, spatial structure, and diversity 
(NMFS, 2003b; 2004a).
    The BRT found moderate risk in each of the VSP categories, with the 
greatest relative risk being attributed to the ESU abundance category. 
Informed by this assessment, the opinion of the BRT was closely divided 
between the ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future'' and ``not in danger of extinction or likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future'' extinction risk categories.
    There are seven hatchery steelhead programs considered to be part 
of the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. These programs propagate 
steelhead in three of 16 ESU populations, and improve kelt (post-
spawned steelhead) survival in one population. There are no artificial 
programs producing the winter-run life history in the Klickitat River 
and Fifteenmile Creek populations. All of the ESU hatchery programs are 
designed to produce fish for harvest, although two are also implemented 
to augment the natural spawning populations in the basins where the 
fish are released. The artificial propagation programs that produce 
these latter two hatchery stocks in the Umatilla River (Oregon) and the 
Touchet River (Washington) use naturally produced adults for 
broodstock. The remaining programs do not incorporate natural adults 
into the broodstock.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). ESU hatchery programs may provide a slight benefit to ESU 
abundance. Artificial propagation increases total ESU abundance, 
principally in the Umatilla and Deschutes Rivers. The kelt 
reconditioning efforts in the Yakima River do not augment natural 
abundance, but do benefit the survival of the natural populations. The 
Touchet River hatchery program has only recently been established, and 
its contribution to ESU viability is uncertain. The contribution of ESU 
hatchery programs to the productivity of the three target populations, 
and the ESU in-total, is uncertain. The hatchery programs affect a 
small proportion of the ESU, providing a negligible contribution to ESU 
spatial structure. Overall the impacts to ESU diversity are neutral. 
The Umatilla River program, through the incorporation of natural 
broodstock, likely limits adverse effects to population diversity. The 
Deschutes River hatchery program may be decreasing population 
diversity. The recently initiated Touchet River endemic program is 
attempting to reduce adverse effects to diversity through the 
elimination of out-of-ESU Lyons Ferry Hatchery steelhead stock. 
Collectively, artificial propagation programs in the ESU provide a 
slight beneficial effect to ESU abundance, but have neutral or 
uncertain effects on ESU productivity, spatial structure, and

[[Page 33140]]

diversity. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' 
assessment of the effects of artificial propagation programs on the 
viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation 
Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss 
ESU in-total is ``likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future'' (NMFS, 2004c).

Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU

    The last 2-3 years have seen an encouraging increase in the number 
of naturally produced fish in the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. 
The 1996-2001 average return through the Priest Rapids Dam fish ladder 
(just below the upper Columbia steelhead production areas) was 
approximately 12,900 total adults (including both hatchery and natural 
origin fish), compared to 7,800 adults for 1992-1996. However, the 
recent 5-year mean abundances for naturally spawned populations in this 
ESU are 14 to 30 percent of their interim recovery target abundance 
levels. Despite increases in total abundance in the last few years, the 
BRT was frustrated by the general lack of detailed information 
regarding the productivity of natural populations. The BRT did not find 
data to suggest that the extremely low replacement rate of naturally 
spawning fish (0.25-0.30 at the time of the last status review in 1998) 
has appreciably improved. The predominance of hatchery-origin natural 
spawners (approximately 70 to 90 percent of adult returns) is a 
significant source of concern for ESU diversity, and generates 
uncertainty in evaluating trends in natural abundance and productivity. 
However, the natural component of the anadromous run over Priest Rapids 
Dam has increased from an average of 1,040 (1992-1996) to 2,200 (1997-
2001). This pattern however is not consistent for other production 
areas within the ESU. The mean proportion of natural-origin spawners 
declined by 10 percent from 1992-1996 to 1997-2001. For many BRT 
members, the presence of relatively numerous resident fish reduces 
risks to ESU abundance, but provides an uncertain contribution to ESU 
productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a).
    The BRT found high risk for the productivity VSP category, with 
comparatively lower risk for the abundance, diversity, and spatial 
structure categories. Informed by this risk assessment, the slight 
majority BRT opinion concerning the naturally spawned component of the 
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU was in the ``in danger of 
extinction'' category, and the minority opinion was that the ESU is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.''
    Six artificial propagation programs that produce hatchery steelhead 
in the Upper Columbia River basin are considered to be part of the 
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. These programs are intended to 
contribute to the recovery of the ESU by increasing the abundance of 
natural spawners, increasing spatial distribution, and improving local 
adaptation and diversity (particularly with respect to the Wenatchee 
River steelhead). Research projects to investigate the spawner 
productivity of hatchery-reared fish are being developed. Some of the 
hatchery-reared steelhead adults that return to the basin may be in 
excess of spawning population needs in years of high survival 
conditions, potentially posing a risk to the naturally spawned 
populations in the ESU. The artificial propagation programs included in 
this ESU adhere to strict protocols for the collection, rearing, 
maintenance, and mating of the captive brood populations. The programs 
include extensive monitoring and evaluation efforts to continually 
evaluate the extent and implications of any genetic and behavioral 
differences that might emerge between the hatchery and natural stocks. 
Genetic evidence suggests that these programs remain closely related to 
the naturally-spawned populations and maintain local genetic 
distinctiveness of populations within the ESU. HCPs (with the Chelan 
and Douglas Public Utility Districts) and binding mitigation agreements 
ensure that these programs will have secure funding and will continue 
into the future. These hatchery programs have undergone ESA section 7 
consultation to ensure that they do not jeopardize the recovery of the 
ESU, and they have received ESA section 10 permits for production 
though 2007. Annual reports and other specific information reporting 
requirements are used to ensure that the terms and conditions as 
specified by NMFS are followed. These programs, through adherence to 
best professional practices, have not experienced disease outbreaks or 
other catastrophic losses.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that hatchery programs collectively mitigate 
the immediacy of extinction risk for the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss 
ESU in-total in the short term, but that the contribution of these 
programs in the foreseeable future is uncertain (NMFS, 2004c). The ESU 
hatchery programs substantially increase total ESU returns, 
particularly in the Methow Basin where hatchery-origin fish comprise on 
average 92 percent of all returns. The contribution of hatchery 
programs to the abundance of naturally spawning fish is uncertain. The 
contribution of ESU hatchery programs to the productivity of the ESU 
in-total is uncertain. However, large numbers of hatchery-origin 
steelhead in excess of broodstock needs and what the available spawning 
habitat can support may decrease ESU productivity in-total. With 
increasing ESU abundance in recent years, naturally spawning hatchery-
origin fish have expanded the spawning areas being utilized. Since 1996 
efforts are being undertaken to establish the Wenatchee Basin programs 
separately from the Wells steelhead hatchery program. These efforts are 
expected to increase ESU diversity over time. There is concern that the 
high proportion of Wells hatchery steelhead spawning naturally in the 
Methow and Okanogan Basins may pose risks to ESU diversity by 
decreasing local adaptation. The Omak Creek program, although small in 
size, likely will increase population diversity over time. There has 
been concern that the early spawning components of the Methow and 
Wenatchee hatchery programs may represent a risk to ESU diversity. The 
recent transfer of these early-run components to the Ringold Hatchery 
on the mainstem Columbia River will benefit the diversity of the 
tributary populations, while establishing a genetic reserve on the 
mainstem Columbia River. Collectively, artificial propagation programs 
in the ESU benefit ESU abundance and spatial structure, but have 
neutral or uncertain effects on ESU productivity and diversity. 
Benefits of artificial propagation are more substantial in the 
Wenatchee Basin for abundance, spatial structure, and diversity. 
Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of 
the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the 
ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
concluded that the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU in-total is 
``likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 
2004c).
Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU
    The paucity of information on adult spawning escapement for 
specific tributary production areas in the Snake River Basin O. mykiss 
ESU makes a quantitative assessment of viability difficult. Annual 
return estimates are limited to counts of the aggregate return over 
Lower Granite Dam, and spawner estimates for the Tucannon, Grande 
Ronde, and Imnaha Rivers. The 2001 Snake River steelhead return over 
Lower Granite Dam was substantially higher

[[Page 33141]]

relative to the low levels seen in the 1990s; the recent 5-year mean 
abundance (14,768 natural returns) is approximately 28 percent of the 
interim recovery target level. The abundance surveyed in sections of 
the Grande Ronde Imnaha and Tucannon Rivers was generally improved in 
2001. However, the recent 5-year abundance and productivity trends were 
mixed. Five of the nine available data series exhibit positive long- 
and short-term trends in abundance. The majority of long-term 
population growth rate estimates for the nine available series were 
below replacement. The majority of short-term population growth rates 
were marginally above replacement, or well below replacement, depending 
upon the assumption made regarding the effectiveness of hatchery fish 
in contributing to natural production. The BRT noted that the ESU 
remains spatially well distributed in each of the 6 major geographic 
areas in the Snake River Basin. The BRT was concerned that the Snake 
River Basin steelhead ``B-run'' (steelhead with a 2-year ocean 
residence and larger body size that are believed to be produced only in 
the Clearwater, Middle Fork Salmon, and South Fork Salmon Rivers) was 
particularly depressed. The BRT was also concerned about the 
predominance of hatchery produced fish in this ESU, the inferred 
displacement of naturally produced fish by hatchery-origin fish, and 
the potential impacts on ESU diversity. High straying rates exhibited 
by some hatchery programs generated concern about the possible 
homogenization of population structure and diversity within the Snake 
River Basin ESU. Recent efforts to improve the use of local broodstock 
and release hatchery fish away from natural production areas, however, 
are encouraging. For many BRT members, the presence of relatively 
numerous resident fish reduces risks to ESU abundance, but provides an 
uncertain contribution to ESU productivity, spatial structure, and 
diversity (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a).
    The BRT found moderate risk for the abundance, productivity, and 
diversity VSP categories, and comparatively lower risk in the spatial 
structure category. Informed by this risk assessment, the majority 
opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the 
Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU is ``likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future.'' The minority BRT opinion was split between 
the ``in danger of extinction'' and ``not in danger of extinction or 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future'' extinction 
risk categories.
    There are six artificial propagation programs producing steelhead 
in the Snake River Basin that are considered to be part of the Snake 
River Basin O. mykiss ESU (Table 2). Artificial propagation enhancement 
efforts occur in the Imnaha River (Oregon), Tucannon River 
(Washington), East Fork Salmon River (Idaho, in the initial stages of 
broodstock development), and South Fork Clearwater River (Idaho). In 
addition, Dworshak Hatchery acts as a gene bank to preserve the North 
Fork Clearwater River ``B''-run steelhead population, which no longer 
has access to historical habitat due to construction of Dworshak Dam.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU 
extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do 
not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). Snake River Basin hatchery programs may be providing some 
benefit to the local target, but only the Dworshak-based programs have 
appreciably benefited the number of total adult spawners. The Little 
Sheep hatchery program is contributing to total abundance in the Imnaha 
River, but has not contributed to increased natural production. The 
Tucannon and East Fork Salmon River programs have only recently been 
initiated, and have yet to produce appreciable adult returns. The 
overall contribution of the hatchery programs in reducing risks to ESU 
abundance is small. The contribution of ESU hatchery programs to the 
productivity of the ESU in-total is uncertain. Most returning Snake 
River Basin hatchery steelhead are collected at hatchery weirs or have 
access to unproductive mainstem habitats, limiting potential 
contributions to the productivity of the entire ESU. The artificial 
propagation programs affect only a small portion of the ESU's spatial 
distribution and confer only slight benefits to ESU spatial structure. 
Large steelhead programs, not considered to be part of the ESU, occur 
in the mainstem Snake, Grande Ronde, and Salmon Rivers and may 
adversely affect ESU diversity. These out-of-ESU programs are currently 
undergoing review to determine the level of isolation between the 
natural and hatchery stocks and to define what reforms may be needed. 
Collectively, artificial propagation programs in the ESU provide a 
slight beneficial effect to ESU abundance and spatial structure, but 
have neutral or uncertain effects on ESU productivity and diversity. 
Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of 
the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the 
ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop 
concluded that the Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU in-total is ``likely 
to become endangered in the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 
CFR part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary 
of Commerce (Secretary) must determine, through the regulatory process, 
if a species is endangered or threatened because of 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 
educational 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 previously detailed 
the impacts of various factors contributing to the decline of Pacific 
salmon and O. mykiss (e.g., citations for ESU listing determinations in 
Table 1; NMFS 1997c, ``Factors Contributing to the Decline of Chinook 
Salmon--An Addendum to the 1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors for 
Decline Report;'' NMFS 1996a, ``Factors for Decline--A Supplement to 
the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead Under the 
Endangered Species Act''). These Federal Register notices and technical 
reports conclude that all of the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) 
of the ESA have played a role in the decline of West Coast salmon and 
O. mykiss ESUs. The reader is referred to the above Federal Register 
notices and technical reports for a more detailed treatment of the 
relevant factors for decline for specific ESUs. The following 
discussion briefly summarizes findings regarding the principal factors 
for decline across the range of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss. While 
these factors are treated in general terms, it is important to 
underscore that impacts from certain factors are more acute for 
specific ESUs.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range
    West Coast salmon and O. mykiss have experienced declines in 
abundance over the past several decades as a result of loss, damage or 
change to their natural environment. Water diversions for agriculture, 
flood control, domestic,

[[Page 33142]]

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 historical riparian 
habitat has been eliminated (Botkin et al., 1995; Norse, 1990; Kellogg, 
1992; California State Lands Commission, 1993). The destruction or 
modification of estuarine areas has resulted in the loss of important 
rearing and migration habitats. Washington and Oregon wetlands are 
estimated to have diminished by one-third, while California has 
experienced a 91 percent loss of its wetland habitat. Losses of habitat 
complexity and habitat fragmentation have also contributed to the 
decline of West Coast salmonids. For example, in national forests 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 (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 (e.g., timber harvests, 
road building, livestock grazing, and urbanization) is recognized as a 
primary cause of habitat degradation throughout the range of West Coast 
salmon and O. mykiss.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or 
Educational Purposes
    Historically, salmon and O. mykiss were abundant in many western 
coastal and interior waters of the United States. These species have 
supported, and continue to 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 salmonids, prior to extensive modifications and degradation of 
natural habitats. However, following the degradation of many west coast 
aquatic and riparian ecosystems, exploitation rates were higher than 
many 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 and 
lakes. Predation by marine mammals (principally seals and sea lions) is 
also of concern in areas experiencing dwindling run sizes of salmon and 
O. mykiss. However, although fishes form the principal food sources of 
many marine mammals, salmonids appear to be a minor component of their 
diet (Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Jameson and Kenyon, 1977; Graybill, 
1981; Brown and Mate, 1983; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Hanson, 1993). 
Predation by marine mammals may significantly influence salmonid 
abundance in some local populations when other prey species are absent 
and physical conditions lead to the concentration of salmonid adults 
and juveniles (Cooper and Johnson, 1992). Predation by seabirds can 
also influence the survival of juvenile salmon and O. mykiss in some 
locations. For example, it has been estimated that Caspian terns 
(Sterna caspia) in the lower Columbia River and estuary consume 
approximately 13 percent of the out-migrating smolts reaching the 
estuary in some years (Collis et al., 2001).
    Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult 
and juvenile salmon and O. mykiss survival. Salmonids 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, 
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 West Coast salmonids (Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979; 
Leek, 1987; Foott et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer, undated). In 
general, very little current or historical information exists to 
quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates attributable 
to these diseases. 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 salmon and O. 
mykiss populations have co-evolved with specific communities of these 
organisms, but the widespread use of artificial propagation has 
introduced exotic organisms not historically present in a particular 
watershed. Habitat conditions such as low water flows and high 
temperatures can exacerbate susceptibility to infectious diseases.
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 
salmon and O. mykiss, and the quality of their habitats. The adequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms is treated below in the context of 
evaluating the likelihood of implementation and effectiveness of 
efforts being made to protect West Coast salmon and O. mykiss, 
including specific regulatory measures (see the ``Efforts Being Made to 
Protect West Coast Salmon and O. mykiss'' section).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
    Variability in ocean and freshwater conditions can have profound 
impacts on the productivity of salmon and O. mykiss populations. 
Natural climatic conditions have at different times exacerbated or 
mitigated the problems associated with degraded and altered riverine 
and estuarine habitats (see the ``Consideration of Recent Ocean 
Conditions in Listing Determinations'' section).
    Extensive hatchery programs have been implemented throughout the 
range of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss. While some of these programs 
have succeeded in providing fishing opportunities and increasing the 
total number of fish on spawning grounds, the long-term impacts of 
these programs on native, naturally reproducing stocks are not well 
understood. Artificial propagation may play an important role in salmon 
and O. mykiss recovery. The state natural resource agencies (CDFG, 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and 
Game, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) have adopted 
or are implementing natural salmonid policies designed to ensure that 
the use of artificial propagation is conducted in a manner consistent 
with the conservation and recovery of natural, indigenous salmon and O. 
mykiss stocks. While these efforts are encouraging, the careful 
monitoring and management of current programs, and the scrutiny of 
proposed programs is necessary to minimize impacts on listed species.

Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Salmon and O. mykiss

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make 
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available after taking into account efforts being made 
to protect a species.

[[Page 33143]]

Therefore, in making its listing determinations, NMFS first assesses 
ESU extinction risk and identifies factors that have led to its 
decline. NMFS then assesses existing efforts being made to protect the 
species to determine if those measures ameliorate the risks faced by 
the ESU.
    In judging the efficacy of existing protective efforts, NMFS relies 
on the joint NMFS-FWS ``Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts 
When Making Listing Decisions'' (``PECE;'' 68 FR 15100; March 28, 
2003). PECE provides direction for the consideration of protective 
efforts identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans, 
management plans, or similar documents (developed by federal agencies, 
State and local governments, Tribal governments, businesses, 
organizations, and individuals) that have not yet been implemented, or 
have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The 
policy articulates several criteria for evaluating the certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness of protective efforts to aid in 
determination of whether a species warrants listing as threatened or 
endangered. Evaluations of the certainty an effort will be implemented 
include whether: the necessary resources (e.g., funding and staffing) 
are available; the requisite agreements have been formalized such that 
the necessary authority and regulatory mechanisms are in place; there 
is a schedule for completion and evaluation of the stated objectives; 
and (for voluntary efforts) the necessary incentives are in place to 
ensure adequate participation. The evaluation of the certainty of an 
effort's effectiveness is made on the basis of whether the effort or 
plan: establishes specific conservation objectives; identifies the 
necessary steps to reduce threats or factors for decline; includes 
quantifiable performance measures for the monitoring of compliance and 
effectiveness; incorporates the principles of adaptive management; and 
is likely to improve the species' viability at the time of the listing 
determination.
    The PECE also notes several important caveats. Satisfaction of the 
above mentioned criteria for implementation and effectiveness 
establishes a given protective effort as a candidate for consideration, 
but does not mean that an effort will ultimately change the risk 
assessment. The policy stresses that just as listing determinations 
must be based on the viability of the species at the time of review, so 
they must be based on the state of protective efforts at the time of 
the listing determination. The PECE does not provide explicit guidance 
on how protective efforts affecting only a portion of a species' range 
may affect a listing determination, other than to say that such efforts 
will be evaluated in the context of other efforts being made and the 
species' overall viability. There are circumstances where threats are 
so imminent, widespread, and/or complex that it may be impossible for 
any agreement or plan to include sufficient efforts to result in a 
determination that listing is not warranted.
Evaluation of Protective Efforts
    As discussed above, NMFS assesses ESU viability on the basis of the 
four VSP criteria: abundance, productivity, spatial structure and 
diversity (McElhany et al., 2000). These four parameters are universal 
indicators of species viability and individually and collectively 
function as reasonable predictors of extinction risk. NMFS evaluated 
protective efforts on the basis of these four VSP criteria. The efforts 
addressing habitat, harvest and fish passage issues are organized by 
regional protective efforts, followed by federal and non-federal 
protective efforts in the individual states. The collective 
contribution of all protective efforts in mitigating ESU-level 
extinction risk for each ESU is described in the ``Proposed Listing 
Determinations'' section that follows.
Regional Protective Efforts
    Federal Efforts--NMFS conducts hundreds of ESA section 7 
consultations concerning ongoing and proposed activities that may 
affect salmonid habitats within the range of listed West Coast salmon 
and O. mykiss ESUs. Biological assessments (BAs) and biological 
opinions cover a wide range of management activities, including forest 
and/or resource area-wide routine and non-routine road maintenance, 
hazardous tree removal, range allotment management, watershed and 
instream restoration, special use permits (e.g., mining, ingress/
egress), flood control, water supply/irrigation, and timber sale 
programs (e.g., green tree, fuel reduction, thinning, regeneration, and 
salvage). These BAs and biological opinions include region-specific 
best management practices, necessary measures to minimize impacts for 
listed anadromous salmonids, monitoring, and environmental baseline 
checklists for each project. In addition to the numerous consultations 
involving Federal land management actions, NMFS has also consulted on a 
variety of activities involving private actions requiring Federal 
authorization or approval. Examples of these actions include 
significant instream projects such as building boat ramps and docks, 
water withdrawals, and dredging activities. NMFS' involvement in these 
consultations, and the resultant biological opinions, have resulted in 
a more consistent approach to management of public lands throughout the 
range of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss ESUs.
    The 2000 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) biological 
opinion incorporates 199 alternative actions addressing operation of 
the FCRPS and 19 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) projects. The alternative 
actions are aimed at protecting or improving the survival of listed 
salmon and O. mykiss stocks. The actions span a wide range of 
activities, including updating annual operations of the FCRPS, short- 
and long-term construction at FCRPS projects, early action offsite 
mitigation proposals, and research efforts aimed at gaining future 
improvements. The biological opinion outlines comprehensive monitoring 
and evaluation programs, as well as specific research actions. 
Additionally, discretionary conservation measures are suggested to 
minimize or avoid the potential adverse effects of a proposed action on 
listed species, to minimize or avoid adverse modification of critical 
habitat, to develop additional information, or to assist the Federal 
agencies in complying with the obligations under section 7(a)(1) of the 
ESA. These recommendations include: conduct research to identify and 
address factors for decline; conduct research on requirements for spill 
operation, intake screen, bypass system, and turbine operation to 
improve the survival of migrating salmonids through the Snake River/
Lower Columbia hydropower system; improve water quality management of 
Columbia River total dissolved gas and temperature; improve management 
of mainstem Columbia River instream flows; institute predator controls; 
improve spawning and rearing habitats in the mainstem Columbia River 
and its tributaries; reduce habitat blockages in Columbia River 
tributaries; reduce the negative effects of hatchery practices on wild 
salmonid stocks; reduce the negative impacts of harvest on wild stocks; 
and improve estuary habitat and reduce deleterious Columbia River plume 
effects. These objectives, if achieved, would significantly increase 
downstream/upstream and migrant survival, increase spawning and rearing 
survival, provide access to currently blocked or degraded habitat, and 
allow for the expression of a wider range of life-history strategies 
and run timing. Recently in National Wildlife Federation

[[Page 33144]]

et al. v. NMFS, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon 
remanded the 2000 FCRPS biological opinion to NMFS. While NMFS 
reconsiders the biological opinion, it remains in place. It is worth 
noting that the conservation program under the FCRPS biological opinion 
has significant overlap with the Northwest Power and Conservation 
Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (NPCC-FWP, discussed further below) 
and should not be considered as an entirely independent effort.
    The NPCC-FWP works to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and 
wildlife of the Columbia River Basin. Locally developed subbasin plans, 
scheduled to be completed by May 2004, are being written in 62 
subbasins in the Columbia River system. Once adopted by the Council, 
the plans are intended to guide Bonneville Power Administration funding 
of projects for the NPCC-FWP. The completed subbasin plans are intended 
to provide a resource for use by NMFS and FWS as part of threatened and 
endangered species recovery planning. The success of the subbasin 
planning process depends on adequate funding and on high quality plans 
in compliance with the Council's ``Technical Guide for Subbasin 
Planning.'' Implementation of these plans may contribute to 
improvements in fish passage at road crossing and irrigation diversion 
dams, and the further screening of irrigation withdrawals--two 
significant limiting factors for Columbia Basin ESUs. It is less clear 
if the plans, and the supporting Fish and Wildlife Program, will help 
resolve other limiting factors, particularly low stream flow and 
riparian habitat protection.
    NMFS (and FWS) are also engaged in an ongoing effort to assist in 
the development of multiple species Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) 
for state and privately owned lands. While section 7 of the ESA 
addresses species protection associated with Federal actions and lands, 
Habitat Conservation Planning under section 10 of the ESA addresses 
species protection on non-Federal lands. HCPs are particularly 
important since much of the habitat in the range of West Coast salmon 
and O. mykiss ESUs is in non-Federal ownership. Within the range of 
currently-listed salmonids there are approximately 11 completed HCPs, 
and approximately 50 HCPs under development. Where HCPs are in place, 
NMFS expects that the activities they cover will be consistent with the 
recovery of salmon and O. mykiss ESUs.
    Under the Northwest Forest Plan, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have established protective riparian 
reserves beside streams, implemented habitat restoration actions (e.g., 
large wood placement, channel restoration, culvert replacements and 
removals), revised road construction guidelines, and adopted other best 
management practices. These efforts have been undertaken to reduce 
adverse effects to aquatic and riparian dependent species, including 
salmon and O. mykiss, and to mitigate for past adverse effects 
resulting from Federal land management activities (e.g., timber 
harvest, roads, recreation). NMFS has consulted on the standards of the 
Northwest Forest Plan and concluded that where the standards are 
implemented, the resulting conditions will be consistent with the 
recovery of salmon and O. mykiss ESUs.
    PACFISH is a cooperative effort between USFS and BLM to develop 
coordinated Management and Land Use Plans for the Federal lands they 
manage in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of 
Northern California. PACFISH is intended to provide protection of 
anadromous fish aquatic and riparian habitat conditions while a longer 
term, basin scale aquatic conservation strategy is developed. PACFISH 
provides objective standards and guidelines that are applied to all 
Federal land management activities such as timber harvest, road 
construction, mining, grazing, and recreation.
    Ocean fisheries are managed by the Pacific Fishery Management 
Council (PFMC). Since the listings of Pacific salmon and O. mykiss 
under the ESA, substantial harvest reform has been instituted to reduce 
impacts to listed stocks from ocean fisheries. Each year the PFMC 
develops fishing regulations that are within the guidelines established 
by NMFS in section 7 consultations for listed ESUs in California, 
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The ocean fisheries have been 
implemented consistent with NMFS' requirements and have been effective 
at reducing harvest impacts to listed salmon and O. mykiss ESUs.
    The 1999 Agreement between Canada and the United States under the 
Pacific Salmon Treaty resulted in a major restructuring of the fishery 
management approach for ocean chinook fisheries off the west coast of 
Canada and in Southeast Alaska. Most notably, the ``fixed ceiling'' 
approach, which formerly resulted in higher harvest rates in years of 
lower overall abundance, was replaced with an abundance-driven 
approach. Harvest rates in major chinook fisheries in the ocean off 
Canada and Southeast Alaska now vary in response to annual fluctuations 
in abundance, resulting in a general lowering of harvest rates in years 
of reduced abundance. The new approach also includes additional 
measures that will further reduce fishery impacts if identified natural 
stocks fail to achieve escapement objectives. The 1999 Agreement 
prescribes a complementary regime for the ocean chinook fisheries off 
Washington and Oregon and in terminal areas. There, specific reductions 
in harvest rates must be implemented in chinook fisheries as necessary 
to meet established escapement goals for key indicator (natural) 
stocks. The 1999 Agreement also resulted in a major change in the 
management of coho fisheries, primarily those affecting Washington and 
British Columbia stocks, by prescribing an abundance-based approach 
driven by the annual abundance of natural coho salmon.
Protective Efforts in California
    Federal Efforts--Since 2000 NMFS has conducted approximately 2,300 
ESA section 7 consultations with over 20 Federal action agencies that 
fund, conduct, or authorize projects in California. Of this total, 
approximately 1,500 consultations involved projects in coastal 
watersheds occupied by listed coho, chinook, and O. mykiss ESUs. The 
remaining section 7 consultations addressed projects in California's 
Central Valley within the range of listed chinook and O. mykiss ESUs. 
NMFS has also provided technical assistance to Federal agencies on 
hundreds of additional projects throughout the State of California. The 
vast majority of consultations have been with the BOR, U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers (USACE), Federal Highway Administration, FWS, USFS, BLM, 
and Bureau of Indian Affairs. These consultations have evaluated 
impacts to ESA-listed salmonid ESUs from a wide variety of Federal 
projects including: irrigation and water diversion, timber harvest, 
watershed restoration, fish passage, gravel mining, grazing, and 
transportation projects. In addition to consulting with other Federal 
agencies, NMFS has also consulted with itself regarding the effects of 
recreational and commercial ocean salmon fishing on listed salmonid 
ESUs. These consultations have improved, or minimized adverse impacts 
to, listed salmonid and their habitats throughout coastal and central 
valley watersheds in California.
    Several significant consultations have been conducted on water 
projects in coastal watersheds and in the central valley. Among the 
most important have been consultations on the Klamath Project, Potter 
Valley Project (Eel and

[[Page 33145]]

Russian Rivers), Cachuma Project (Santa Ynez River), Robles Diversion 
Dam (Ventura River) and the Central Valley Project (Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Basin). Other important water projects related consultations 
are ongoing in the Russian River (USACE and Sonoma County Water Agency) 
and on the Santa Clara River (United Water Conservation District).
    The Central Valley Project consultation, in particular, likely has 
contributed to recent improvements in the Sacramento River winter-run 
chinook ESU. In 1992 NMFS issued a jeopardy biological opinion to the 
BOR that addressed long-term operation of the Central Valley Project 
and its impacts on winter-run chinook salmon. Since that time, 
implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternative contained in 
the 1992 opinion has provided substantial benefits to winter-run 
chinook by improving habitat and fish passage conditions in the 
Sacramento River and Delta. The improved habitat conditions provided by 
the reasonable and prudent alternative have likely been a major factor 
contributing to substantial increases in population abundance and 
productivity over the past decade. Key elements of the reasonable and 
prudent alternative which have benefited winter run chinook include: 
(1) Allocation of water to contractors using a more conservative water 
supply forecast approach; (2) maintenance of higher end-of-year 
reservoir storage levels in Lake Shasta; (3) maintenance of minimum 
flows in the Sacramento during the fall and winter months; (4) 
implementation of specified ramp-down criteria when flows from Keswick 
Dam are reduced; (5) establishment of water temperature criteria to 
support spawning and rearing in the mainstem Sacramento River upstream 
of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam and water releases from Shasta Dam 
designed to meet the specified temperature criteria; (6) re-operation 
of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam gates to provide improved adult and 
juvenile passage; (7) closures of the Delta Cross Channel gates to 
divert juveniles from the Delta; and (8) constraints on Delta water 
exports to reduce impacts on juvenile outmigrants.
    The Northwest Forest Plan was implemented in 1994 and represents a 
coordinated ecosystem management strategy for Federal lands 
administered by the USFS and the BLM within the range of the Northern 
spotted owl which overlaps considerably with the freshwater range of 
listed coho, chinook and O. mykiss ESUs in northern California. The 
most significant element of the Northwest Forest Plan for anadromous 
fish is its Aquatic Conservation Strategy, a regional-scale aquatic 
ecosystem conservation strategy that includes: (1) Special land 
allocations, such as key watersheds, riparian reserves, and late-
successional reserves, to provide aquatic habitat refugia; (2) special 
requirements for project planning and design in the form of standards 
and guidelines; and (3) new watershed analysis, watershed restoration, 
and monitoring processes. These Strategy components collectively are 
designed to support Federal land management actions in achieving a set 
of nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, including salmon 
habitat conservation. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy strives to 
maintain and restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape scales 
to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species and 
resources and to restore currently degraded habitats. The approach 
seeks to prevent further degradation and to restore habitat on Federal 
lands over broad landscapes. The Northwest Forest Plan region-wide 
management direction was either amended or was incorporated into the 
land and resource management plans (LRMPs) for the National Forests and 
BLM Resources Areas in northern California within the range of listed 
coho, chinook and O. mykiss ESUs. Through programmatic and site-
specific ESA section 7 consultation efforts, NMFS has worked with the 
USFS and the BLM over the last several years to ensure the Northwest 
Forest Plan and its Aquatic Conservation Strategy is implemented in 
California. NMFS believes that continued implementation of the 
Northwest Forest Plan will result in substantially improved habitat 
conditions for listed coho, chinook and O. mykiss ESUs over the next 
few decades and into the future. Improved habitat conditions will 
result in increased survival of the freshwater life stages of these 
fish. The components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy include 
watershed analysis, watershed restoration, reserve and refugia land 
allocations, and development of associated standards and guidelines. 
Implementation of actions consistent with the Aquatic Conservation 
Strategy objectives will provide high levels of aquatic ecosystem 
understanding, protection, and restoration for aquatic-habitat 
dependent species.
    Under the authority of the 1984 Trinity River Fish and Wildlife 
Management Act, the Trinity River Task Force was convened to develop a 
plan to restore fish and wildlife populations on the Trinity River. The 
December 2000 plan includes flow allocations, direct in-channel 
actions, as well as continued watershed restoration activities, 
replacement of bridges and structures in the flood plain, monitoring 
and adaptive management. Implementation of the plan has been delayed 
pending further analysis of effects of alternatives on California's 
energy supply and Central Valley water users.
    The Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force was established by the 
Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act of 1986 to 
provide recommendations to the Secretary of Interior on the 
formulation, establishment, and implementation of a 20-year program to 
restore anadromous fish populations in Klamath Basin to optimal levels. 
NMFS participates as a member of the Task Force as well as of the 
Technical Work Group which provides technical and scientific input to 
the Task Force. In 1991, the Task Force developed the Long Range Plan 
for the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration 
Program to help direct fishery restoration programs and projects 
throughout the Klamath River. Several sub-basin watershed restoration 
plans have been developed since the inception of the Klamath Act, 
including the Lower Klamath River Sub-Basin Watershed Restoration Plan 
developed by the Yurok Tribe in 2000 and the Mid-Klamath Sub-Basin 
Fisheries Resource Recovery Plan in 2001.
    The Redwood National and State Parks have developed several plans 
that will help to protect and enhance anadromous salmonid habitats, 
including the Redwood National and State Park General Management Plan 
(1999) and the Redwood National Park Final Management Plan (1999). 
These plans identify actions that the National and State Parks will 
undertake to restore aquatic and terrestrial ecological functions 
within Park(s) boundaries. Recently, the state parks, in conjunction 
with several environmental organizations, raised funds to purchase Mill 
Creek, a lower tributary to the Smith River, from Rellim Redwood 
Company. A management plan has also been developed for the Mill Creek 
Watershed, which is the largest tributary producing coho salmon in the 
Smith River Basin. Humboldt Redwoods State Park has also developed a 
State Park General Plan (2001) which will provide the vision and 
management direction for the next 20 or more years. One of the many 
goals for the state park plan is to restore and protect terrestrial and 
aquatic habitats and species in accordance with Federal and state laws.

[[Page 33146]]

    Two dam removal projects in southern California will provide 
benefits to the Southern California O. mykiss ESU (the Matilija Dam and 
Rindge Dam projects). The Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration project is 
being undertaken by a consortium of Federal, state and local agencies 
with the goal of removing the dam, restoring instream habitat above and 
below the dam site, and restoring natural sediment transport to the 
mainstem Ventura River below the dam. The Rindge Dam Ecosystem 
Restoration project is being undertaken by the USACE and the California 
Department of Parks and Recreation. There are no current projections 
for completing a Feasibility Study or commencement of the project, 
though there remains strong support for the project by the local/non-
federal sponsor. If implemented, the project would include removal of 
Rindge Dam, restoration of the instream habitats above and below the 
dam, and restoration of steelhead access to approximately 12 miles 
(19.3 km) of suitable spawning and rearing habitat in Malibu Creek.
    In the Central Valley of California, there are two large, 
comprehensive conservation programs that provide a wide range of 
ecosystem and species-specific protective efforts that provide benefits 
to listed chinook (winter run and spring run) and O. mykiss ESUs. These 
include the California Bay-Delta Authority Program (or CALFED) and the 
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Central Valley PIA).
    CALFED is a cooperative effort of more than 20 state and Federal 
agencies that work with local communities to improve water quality and 
reliability of California's water supplies, while reviving the San 
Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem. This partnership was formed in 1994 and 
provides policy direction and process oversight for: water quality 
standards formulation; coordination of the State Water Project and the 
Central Valley Project operations; and long-term solutions to Bay-Delta 
estuary problems. Full implementation of the CALFED program is 
anticipated to take 30 years, but much progress has already been made 
through close collaboration with local agencies, stakeholders, and 
special interest groups. There are four key program objectives: water 
quality, ecosystem quality, water supply and levee system integrity. 
The main components that make up the four objectives are: (1) Improve 
and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve ecological 
functions in support of sustainable populations of diverse and valuable 
plant and animal species; (2) reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta 
water supplies and current and projected beneficial uses dependent on 
the Bay-Delta system; and (3) reduce the risk to land use and 
associated economic activities, water supply, infrastructure to protect 
the ecosystem from catastrophic breaching of Delta levees. The 
ecosystem restoration element of CALFED is being achieved through the 
Ecosystem Restoration Program. The Program has funded projects 
involving: habitat restoration; flood plain restoration and/or 
protection; instream habitat restoration; riparian habitat restoration/
protection; fish screening and passage projects; research on and 
eradication of non-native species; research on and management of 
contaminants; research on and monitoring of fishery resources; and 
watershed stewardship and education outreach efforts. In addition to 
implementation of restoration actions as part of the Ecosystem 
Restoration Program, the CALFED program established the Environmental 
Water Account that is used to offset losses of juvenile fish at the 
Delta pumps, and to provide higher instream flows for salmon and 
steelhead in the Yuba River, Stanislaus River, American River, and 
Merced River.
    The Central Valley PIA attempts to balance the priorities of fish 
and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation with irrigation, 
domestic water use, fish and wildlife enhancement, and power 
generation. Since passage of the Central Valley PIA, the BOR and the 
FWS, with the assistance of many partners, have conducted numerous 
studies and investigations, implemented hundreds of actions 
representing significant progress towards achieving the Central Valley 
PIA's goals and objectives. These actions include: modification of 
Central Valley Project operations; management and acquisition of water 
for fish and wildlife needs; mitigation for water export pumping plant 
operations; resolution of fish passage problems; improvement in flow 
management for fish migration and passage (e.g., pulse flows, increased 
flows, and seasonal fish barriers); replenishment of spawning gravels; 
restoration of riparian habitats; and diversion screening.
    The Central Valley PIA is the cornerstone of many actions aimed at 
restoring natural production of anadromous fish in the Central Valley. 
Emphasis in the Delta has been on offsetting effects of Central Valley 
Project and State Water Project operations (entrainment, impingement, 
diversion, and increased predation) on all anadromous species. In the 
Sacramento River tributaries, actions have focused on riparian and 
shaded riverine aquatic habitat restoration, improved access to 
available upstream habitat, improvement of instream flows, and 
reductions in loss of juveniles at diversions, particularly for spring 
chinook and O. mykiss. In the mainstem Sacramento River, actions have 
focused on flow and temperature control, restoration of spawning 
habitat, reduction of juvenile losses at diversions, and acquisition of 
riparian lands to improve spawning and rearing habitat, especially for 
winter-run chinook salmon. In the San Joaquin River and its 
tributaries, actions have focused on improvement in instream flows, 
restoration of river channels, spawning gravels, and riparian cover, 
and elimination of predator habitat. Most of these actions have been on 
the tributaries to the San Joaquin River.
    Habitat restoration efforts under the Central Valley PIA are 
generally divided into two categories: anadromous fish habitat 
restoration measures, and anadromous fish structural measures. Habitat 
restoration efforts that have been implemented include the acquisition 
of water for instream flows, channel restoration and enhancement, 
removal of dams and blockages that interfere with migration, gravel 
replenishment, acquisition and restoration of riparian habitat, and 
erosion control to protect spawning gravels. Anadromous fish structural 
measures include construction or modification of devices to: improve 
instream habitat (such as the Shasta Dam temperature control device); 
improve access or reduce mortality during fish migrations (such as fish 
ladders on dams and screening of diversions); and to supplement fish 
populations (such as the improvements to Coleman National Fish Hatchery 
and construction of the Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery for 
winter-run chinook salmon). A large number of structural projects have 
been completed and others are in progress.
    Another protective effort in the central valley is the Delta 
Pumping Plant Fish Protection Agreement (known as the Four Pump 
Agreement) which was adopted as part of the mitigation package for the 
State Water Project in 1986. Projects that have been completed or that 
will be implemented include: screening of unscreened diversions in 
Suisun Marsh, Butte Creek, and tributaries to the San Joaquin River; 
enhanced law enforcement efforts to reduce illegal fish harvest; 
installation of seasonal barriers to guide fish away from undesirable 
spawning habitat or migration corridors; water exchange projects on 
Mill and Deer Creek to provide passage flows for adult

[[Page 33147]]

and juvenile chinook and steelhead; the design and construction of fish 
ladders for improved passage on Butte Creek; spawning gravel 
replacement and maintenance on the Sacramento River and tributaries to 
the San Joaquin River; and a wide range of other salmonid habitat 
restoration projects to improve spawning and rearing habitat, eliminate 
predator habitat, and improve riparian habitat. About a third of the 
approved funding for salmonid projects specifically target spring run 
chinook in the upper Sacramento River tributaries; however, many of 
these projects also provide benefits to O. mykiss and other chinook 
runs.
    The Tracy Fish Collection Mitigation Agreement is also a source of 
funding for habitat restoration and other projects which provide 
benefits to salmon and O. mykiss in the central valley. In 2000, the 
BOR and the State of California revised this agreement to reduce and 
offset direct losses of chinook salmon associated with operation of the 
Tracy Pumping Plant and fish collection facility (part of the Central 
Valley Project). The agreement provides for improving operations at the 
fish collection facility, making necessary structural modifications, 
and annual funding to the State for various mitigation projects. Among 
the projects funded from this program were the design and permitting 
phases of the Western Canal Siphon Project on Butte Creek which 
resulted in the removal of four dams and improved fish passage for 
chinook and steelhead. The agreement also funded several other 
engineering and design efforts on tributaries that support spring 
chinook including Battle Creek, Clear Creek, Butte Creek, and the Yuba 
River. Additional funding has been recommended to implement further 
habitat restoration that would benefit spring chinook and/or O. mykiss 
in Butte Creek, the Yuba River, Suisun Marsh, and tributaries on the 
San Joaquin River.
    The Battle Creek Restoration project is a cooperative approach to 
solving environmental problems through the CALFED ecosystem restoration 
process. Stream reaches being restored are located in upper Battle 
Creek where Pacific Gas and Electric operates a series of nine 
hydroelectric dams and canals affecting 42 miles (67.6 km) of habitat 
suitable for chinook salmon (winter, spring and fall) and O. mykiss. 
This 42-mile (67.6 km) reach of upper Battle Creek will be fully 
restored under an agreement between the power company and resource 
agencies. Of the nine diversion dams, five will be removed and their 
water rights dedicated to the environment. The remaining dams will have 
the required minimum instream flows increased to levels substantially 
above current legal minimums yielding habitat increases of 500 to 800 
percent. The structures on the remaining dams will be modified to 
include optimally designed fish ladders and fish screens. Other 
activities include a project to restore the meander belt and riparian 
forest on the lowest 5 miles of the creek and a re-evaluation of 
Coleman National Fish Hatchery to ensure its operation is integrated 
with the Battle Creek restoration program.
    NMFS is responsible for management of ocean salmon fisheries under 
the Pacific Coast Ocean Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. As a result of the many salmon and O. mykiss ESU 
listings on the west coast, NMFS has initiated formal ESA section 7 
consultations and issued numerous biological opinions which consider 
the impacts of ocean fishing. In some cases, consultation has 
determined that existing protections in the FMP will not jeopardize 
listed ESUs, whereas in other instances reasonable and prudent 
alternatives have been developed which avoid jeopardizing the listed 
ESUs. The conservation objectives that NMFS implements for each listed 
salmon ESU is either contained in the FMP or specified in a biological 
opinion.
    Under the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program, NMFS provides 
annual grants to the State of California to assist salmon recovery 
efforts in coastal watersheds from the Oregon border to southern 
California. The State integrates these funds with its state salmon 
restoration funds and issues grants for habitat restoration, watershed 
planning, salmon enhancement, research and monitoring, and outreach and 
education in coastal watersheds that support listed salmonids. Funded 
projects include fish passage barrier removals, stream bank 
stabilization, fish habitat improvements that increase the frequency of 
pools, removal of and/or storm-proofing of roads that contribute 
sediment to streams, stabilizing eroding hill slope area adjacent to 
stream channels, revegetation of upslope areas and riparian areas, 
monitoring programs to provide baseline and/or population trend data, 
and support of local watershed organizations and education projects. 
The Federal funds provided to the state and California Tribes (e.g., 
the Yurok, Karuk, and Hoopa Valley Tribes) have been instrumental in 
furthering conservation efforts in coastal watersheds, especially north 
of San Francisco and in the Klamath River Basin. These funds have been 
successfully used to leverage additional State and local salmon 
recovery funding sources, and have precipitated a substantial increase 
in overall funding state wide.
    Non-Federal Efforts--Several management efforts are currently being 
implemented to protect listed salmonid ESUs in California. These 
include: Restrictions on the Klamath River fall chinook harvest rate to 
protect coastal chinook; restricted exploitation rates on Rogue River/
Klamath River hatchery stocks to protect SONCC and central California 
coho; no retention take prohibitions for coho off California; and 
seasonal constraints on sport and commercial fisheries south of Point 
Arena, California, for Central Valley winter run chinook salmon. The 
fishery constraints designed to protect winter run chinook are thought 
to also provide protection to central valley spring chinook. NMFS 
believes that these harvest protective measures being implemented to 
protect listed salmonid ESUs in California will contribute to achieving 
long-term recovery of these populations.
    The State of California has also listed the Sacramento River 
winter-run and Central Valley spring-run chinook under the State's 
California Endangered Species Act, and, therefore, has established 
specific in-river fishing regulations and no retention prohibitions 
which are designed to protect these stocks, and also to allow harvest 
of unlisted fall run chinook. In the case of Sacramento River winter-
run chinook, the management measures consist of time and area closures, 
gear restrictions, and zero bag limits in the Sacramento River. These 
measures have been in place since 1990 when the winter run chinook ESU 
was listed by NMFS. For Central Valley spring run chinook, the state 
has also implemented protective measures, including fishing method and 
gear restrictions, bait limitations, seasonal closures, and zero bag 
limits, particularly in several primary tributaries such as Deer Creek, 
Big Chico Creek, Mill Creek, and Butte Creek which support spring 
chinook. In addition, CDFG has implemented enhanced enforcement efforts 
in spring-run chinook tributaries and adult holding areas which have 
significantly reduced illegal harvest.
    Measures to protect listed O. mykiss throughout the State of 
California have been in place since 1998. A wide range of measures have 
been implemented including 100 percent marking of all hatchery 
steelhead, zero bag limits for unmarked steelhead, gear restrictions, 
closures, and size limits designed to protect smolts. NMFS has worked 
continuously with the State to review

[[Page 33148]]

and improve inland fishing regulations through its biennial planning 
cycle to better protect both anadromous and resident O. mykiss 
populations throughout the State.
    A major concern in risk assessments for salmonid ESUs in California 
has been the lack of comprehensive abundance and trend data for coastal 
salmonids and for steelhead in the Central Valley. In the past year, 
the state's habitat restoration grant program funded a major coastal 
salmonid monitoring program development effort that is being carried 
out by the CDFG and NMFS. The development of a statewide, coastal 
monitoring program plan is critical to assessing the viability of 
listed ESUs and their response to extensive habitat restoration efforts 
and other conservation efforts. The program is expected to be developed 
within the next year; however, long-term funding for implementation is 
uncertain. Recently, the CALFED program funded a similar effort for 
steelhead in the Central Valley. As with coastal salmonids, the 
development and implementation of a monitoring and assessment program 
for Central Valley steelhead is critically important in order to assess 
population viability and responses to extensive habitat restoration 
efforts being funded by CALFED and the Central Valley PIA.
    An extensive network of Resource Conservation Districts exists 
within the range of ESA-listed salmonid ESUs along the northern 
California coast. These Districts represent an important vehicle 
through which the agricultural community can voluntarily address and 
correct management practices that impact ESA-listed salmonids and their 
habitats. Working with individual landowners or through organizations 
such as the California Farm Bureau, these Resource Conservation 
Districts can assist landowners in developing and implementing best 
management practices that are protective of salmonids. Such active 
participation of the agriculture community is critical to the 
conservation and recovery of ESA-listed ESUs in California.
    In response to a proposed state listing of coho in January 2003 
under the California ESA, the State of California convened two recovery 
teams and tasked them with developing a recovery plan that would 
identify and address the recovery needs of coho salmon and habitats 
throughout the State. A draft recovery plan was prepared and released 
for public review in August 2003. The comprehensive plan includes a 
broad range of coho range-wide recommendations addressing stream flow, 
water rights, fish passage, water temperatures, recruitment of large 
woody debris, riparian vegetation, watershed planning, and gravel 
mining. In addition, specific watershed recommendations were identified 
for all watershed units supporting coho throughout the state from the 
Smith River south to the San Lorenzo River. Because of special water 
use issues in the Shasta and Scott River watershed and the importance 
of these watersheds in the Klamath River system, the plan includes a 
pilot program that has specific recommendations for water management, 
water augmentation, water use efficiency, and habitat management (e.g. 
fish passage barriers, spawning gravel, riparian vegetation, water 
temperature, etc.). The final recovery plan was formally approved and 
adopted by the California Fish and Game Commission on February 5, 2004, 
and a decision was made to formally list coho salmon under the 
California ESA. A final decision to move forward with the 
administrative process leading to a listing of coho under the 
California ESA is expected in June 2004. The state is in the process of 
developing an implementation plan that will prioritize recovery actions 
contained in the plan and estimate implementation costs. The 
implementation plan will be presented to the Commission at its meeting 
in June 2004. In the short term, the state is using existing staff and 
financial resources to implement the plan, but is expected to pursue 
additional financial resources after the implementation plan is 
completed. To facilitate implementation, the CDFG has integrated the 
coho recovery plan with its coastal salmonid habitat restoration grant 
program by ensuring that high priority recovery plan actions in high 
priority watersheds receive a greater likelihood of funding. If it is 
successfully implemented, the State recovery plan will provide 
substantial benefits to both the Central California Coast and Southern 
Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESUs. However, the long-term 
prospects for plan funding and implementation are uncertain.
    The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board is in the 
process of updating its north coast basin plan which will establish 
water quality standards for all of the northern California rivers and 
streams. These plans will also incorporate newly developed Total 
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards that are being developed for those 
water bodies that are listed as 303d impaired under section 303(d) of 
the Clean Water Act. Most of the major rivers in northern California 
are listed as TMDL impaired, primarily for sediment and temperature. It 
is anticipated that by 2008, all TMDL-listed streams in northern 
California will have TMDL plans, which likely will help to reduce human 
impacts to the aquatic environments and thus protect ESA listed 
salmonids.
    The Rangeland Management Advisory Committee has developed a 
management plan for inclusion in the state's Non-point Source 
Management Plan. Its purpose is to maintain and improve the quality and 
associated beneficial uses of surface water as it passes through and 
out of rangeland resources in the state. The programmatic emphasis is 
on a voluntary, cooperative approach to water quality management. This 
includes appropriate technical assistance, planning mechanisms, program 
incentives, and regulatory authorities. This Plan has been favorably 
received by the State Water Resources Control Board, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and the California State Board of Forestry.
    Long-term sustained gravel mining plans have been, or are being, 
developed by three northern California counties (Del Norte, Humboldt, 
and Mendocino), which comprise a substantial portion of the range of 
several listed ESUs. The intent is for the impacts of all gravel 
extraction projects to be evaluated at the watershed scale. Approved 
projects (by the USACE) will require annual monitoring reports on 
gravel recruitment, river geomorphology, and fisheries impacts. 
Humboldt County currently has an approved plan in place, and Del Norte 
and Mendocino Counties are in the process of obtaining plan approval. 
NMFS will be working with the counties and the USACE to ensure that any 
approved plans for gravel mining are sufficiently protective of coho 
salmon.
    NMFS has developed a Memorandum of Understanding with five northern 
California counties (Siskiyou, Trinity, Del Norte, Humboldt, and 
Mendocino) to develop a standardized county routine road maintenance 
manual to assist in the protection of ESA listed species and their 
habitat. This manual includes best management practices for reducing 
impacts to listed species and the aquatic environment, a five-county 
inventorying and prioritization of all fish passage barriers associated 
with county roads, annual training of road crews and county planners, 
and a monitoring framework for adaptive management. NOAA has also 
provided nearly $750,000 in grants to support this program over the 
past 3 years and has worked with the counties in developing a 
prioritization process for inventorying and ranking all fish barriers 
in

[[Page 33149]]

anadromous waters associated with county roads. NMFS is working with 
the counties to make their routine road maintenance manuals approvable 
under the limits described in NMFS' ESA 4(d) protective regulations (67 
FR 1116, January 9, 2002; 50 CFR 223.203(b)(14) through (b)(22)).
    A voluntary certification program has been developed by the 
Sotoyome Resource Conservation District for grape growers in Sonoma and 
Mendocino counties who implement land management practices that 
decrease soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams. The development 
of the Fish Friendly Farming Program was a 2-year effort which involved 
grape growers, representatives from government agencies, and 
environmental groups. The result of this effort was the creation of a 
workbook of Beneficial Management Practices with a farm plan template. 
The workbook is designed to assist grape growers to inventory and 
assess the natural features of their farms, as well as their current 
management practices and implement improved practices. The growers 
participate in a series of workshops to develop and finalize a farm 
plan that is presented to a certification team comprised of NMFS, CDFG, 
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
    FishNet 4C is a regional, multi-county group comprised of 
representatives from Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo and Santa Cruz 
counties, in addition to individuals from planning and public works 
staff, local, state and federal agencies, and other key entities such 
as water agencies, Resource Conservation Districts, and watershed 
groups. The program has been active for 5 years, coordinating county 
efforts such as road maintenance, fish barrier assessment and removal, 
riparian and grading ordinances, erosion control, implementation of 
bioengineering projects and the development of guidelines that enhance 
or protect salmonid habitat for public works departments. FishNet 4C is 
developing Road Maintenance Guidelines similar to that of the Five 
County Roads Program (above).
    The Sonoma County Water Agency is currently constructing vortex 
weirs on the West Branch Russian River. This passage project provides 
passage at a flashboard dam site that has been down-cut over the last 
40 years, creating a barrier to anadromous salmonids. This project will 
provide passage for chinook salmon and steelhead to an additional 15 to 
20 miles (24.1-32.2 km) of spawning and rearing habitat in the upper 
Russian River watershed.
    Local watershed councils and other groups throughout the state have 
successfully developed restoration plans and have worked to implement 
habitat restoration projects that are expected to contribute to the 
conservation of listed salmonid ESUs. In northern California, these 
groups include: The Scott River Watershed Committee and French Creek 
Watershed Advisory Group in the Scott River watershed; the Shasta River 
CRMP Project (Shasta River watershed); the South Fork Trinity River 
Restoration council (South Fork Trinity River); Salmon River Learning 
and Understanding Group; the Humboldt Bay Watershed Advisory Committee 
for Humboldt Bay watersheds; the Eel River Watershed Improvement Group 
that focuses on the lower Eel River; the Van Duzen River and South Fork 
Eel River; the Mainstem Eel River Group; the Yager/Van Duzen 
Environmental Stewards; the Eel River Salmon Restoration Project; and 
the Mattole Restoration Council and Group (Mattole River). In the 
central coast area there are additional watershed groups addressing 
Tomales Bay, Lagunitas Creek and the Russian River.
    In 2003, the Santa Clara Valley Water District initiated the 
Fisheries Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort for Coyote Creek, 
Stevens Creek, and the Guadalupe River in Santa Clara County. The 
program will provide for improved stream flows and temperatures below 
District reservoirs, remediation of fish passage barriers, and habitat 
restoration. The program is among the most comprehensive, well funded, 
long-term protective efforts in California.
    In cooperation with the CDFG and the Alameda Creek Fisheries 
Restoration Workgroup, NMFS is working towards re-establishing 
steelhead in Alameda Creek on the eastern side of south San Francisco 
Bay. Alameda Creek is the largest drainage in south San Francisco Bay 
and provides water supplies to several municipalities. San Francisco 
has also begun discussions with NMFS regarding the development of an 
HCP that will address water operations at their two reservoirs in the 
watershed. High quality spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead 
exists in upper Alameda Creek, Niles Canyon and its tributaries, and 
the Arroyo Mocho. Genetic testing strongly suggests that viable 
resident trout populations in these creeks are descended from native 
steelhead.
    Many other sub-watershed groups, landowners, environmental groups 
and non-profit organizations are conducting habitat restoration and 
planning efforts in several watersheds that may also contribute to the 
conservation of listed salmonids. These efforts include, but are not 
limited to, Trout Unlimited, landowners such as Mendocino Redwood 
Company and Hawthorne Campbell Timberlands, Ten Mile Forest Landowners 
Association, Noyo Watershed Alliance, Garcia Watershed Council, Redwood 
Creek Landowners Association, Sonoma Ecology Center, Occidental Arts 
and Ecology Center, West Sonoma County Watershed Group, Salmon River 
Restoration Council, Mill Valley Streamkeepers, Friends of Corte Madera 
Creek, Coastal Watershed Council in Gazos Creek, Pescadero Conservation 
Alliance, Peninsula Open Space District, Committee for Green Foothills 
in San Mateo County, and the Coastal Watershed Council. Several 
watershed groups are actively working to improve habitat conditions for 
chinook and O. mykiss in tributary streams to the Sacramento River, 
including the Deer Creek Watershed Conservancy, Big Chico Creek 
Watershed Alliance, Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy, and Mill Creek 
Watershed Conservancy. Activities conducted by the various watershed 
groups include development and implementation of watershed assessments 
and management plans, support for and implementation of fish passage 
projects and water diversion screening projects, acquisition of habitat 
work to improve fish passage, various types of outreach efforts, and 
coordination with state and Federal resource agencies.
    The Pacific Lumber Company HCP contributes to the conservation of 
listed salmonid ESUs, including Northern California O. mykiss, Southern 
Oregon/Northern California Coast coho, and California Coastal chinook. 
This multi-species HCP covers approximately 210,000 acres of industrial 
timberlands in northern California and includes activities related to 
timber management, forest road development and maintenance and 
commercial rock quarrying. The Pacific Lumber HCP is habitat-based with 
a defined goal of achieving or trending towards properly functioning 
aquatic habitat conditions, relying heavily on watershed-scale 
analysis, monitoring, and adaptive management.
    NMFS and FWS have held technical and policy discussions with Green 
Diamond Resource Company (formerly the Simpson Resource Company) 
regarding the development of an HCP for much of its industrial timber 
operations in northern California. Currently, NMFS and FWS are 
considering approval of an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to authorize 
incidental take pursuant to the plan.

[[Page 33150]]

The Services expect issuance of the Permits by summer 2004.
    The Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (which supplies water to 
both domestic and industrial users in the greater Humboldt Bay area) 
HCP provides for maintenance of river flows that exceed historical 
summer low-flows. In no case will the District allow the river to dry 
up due to their operations.
Protective Efforts in Oregon
    Federal Efforts--In the last 2 years, NMFS has completed hundreds 
of ESA section 7 consultations with Federal agencies on proposed 
projects within the range of listed ESUs in the state of Oregon. These 
consultations have improved or successfully minimized impacts to 
salmonids and their habitats. Specifically, NMFS' interim biological 
opinion and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing 
biological opinion for several Clackamas River hydroelectric projects 
under the authority of FERC and Portland General Electric will provide 
protective benefits to the Lower Columbia River chinook and coho, and 
Upper Willamette River chinook and O. mykiss ESUs. The biological 
opinion establishes improvements for upstream passage of adults, 
downstream passage of juveniles, temperature management, spawning 
habitats, and the maintenance of in-stream flows. NMFS will continue to 
work with these and other agencies to facilitate projects that promote 
the conservation of listed ESUs.
    Although not existing protective efforts, the removal of the Marmot 
and Little Sandy dams, scheduled for 2007, will restore free fish 
passage in the Sandy River and open currently inaccessible spawning and 
rearing habitats for the Lower Columbia River chinook, O. mykiss, and 
coho ESUs. The removal of the Powerdale dam on the Hood River by 2010, 
including interim measures to improve passage and in-stream flows, will 
provide survival benefits to the Lower Columbia River chinook and O. 
mykiss ESUs in the short term, and will allow improved access to 
spawning and rearing habitats in the longer term.
    The USACE has undertaken feasibility studies and constructed over 
25 projects within the Willamette Basin and lower Columbia River to 
improve habitat for salmonids. Over the last 2 years the USFS has 
completed eight aquatic habitat restoration projects to improve 
salmonid habitat within the range of the Upper Willamette River ESUs 
and 17 projects within the range of the Lower Columbia River ESUs. The 
FWS, through their Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, over the 
last two years has funded eight restoration projects that have restored 
many acres of stream habitats, adjacent wetlands, and riparian habitats 
in the Upper Willamette and Lower Columbia River chinook and O. mykiss 
ESUs.
    The FWS, through their Greenspaces Program, is funding various 
habitat enhancement programs. The City of Portland's Watershed 
Revegetation Program, the City of Gresham, and the community are using 
these funds to enhance at least 20 contiguous riparian and upland acres 
of the site by removing and reducing invasive non-native species 
including Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), reed canarygrass 
(Phalaris arundinaceae), and non-native pasture grasses. The Three 
Rivers Land Conservancy is using these funds to create a strategy to 
identify how, why and where they should protect land, with a focus on 
fish and wildlife habitat priorities that will supplement and 
complement regional and local acquisition and natural resource 
protection efforts. The City of Sherwood and local partners are using 
these funds to continue the Raindrops to Refuge Program to ensure the 
preservation of natural areas within the City of Sherwood and 
surrounding areas for the benefit of fish, wildlife and the community 
by developing an overall strategy to guide and coordinate natural 
resource conservation, habitat restoration, environmental education and 
community outreach efforts. The John Inskeep Environmental Learning 
Center is using these funds to coordinate activities of students and 
professors from three universities in their efforts to conduct a 
watershed assessment, and develop a management and restoration strategy 
for the Newell Creek watershed. The Nature Conservancy with these funds 
is continuing a multi-year project involving the removal of invasive, 
non-native species in Multnomah and Clackamas counties in the Sandy 
River Gorge and its tributaries, and in the Willamette Narrows 
(including Little Rock Island in the Willamette River and Camassia 
preserve). Portland Metro will use these funds to conduct upland and 
riparian habitat assessments along 50 stream sites and aquatic 
macroinvertebrate sampling on properties primarily owned and managed by 
local park providers in Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties in 
Oregon to establish a Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B-IBI). 
The City of Wilsonville is using these funds to implement a project to 
enhance 4.5 acres (1.8 ha) of upland and riparian areas on a parcel of 
public property adjacent to Boeckman Creek, a tributary to the 
Willamette River. Clackamas County Water Environment Services and ODFW 
will use these funds to: (1) Evaluate the abundance and distribution of 
fish species in urban streams within two Clackamas County special 
districts; (2) conduct surveys to evaluate the effects of several 
previous habitat restoration projects; and (3) conduct aquatic habitat 
surveys within Clackamas County tributaries of the Tualatin River. 
Clackamas County Water Environment Services is conducting a 
macroinvertebrate survey and analysis to supplement water chemistry 
data that have been collected since 1993. The biological data will 
provide more insight about the biological conditions of the streams 
under their jurisdiction. The Tualatin Riverkeepers is coordinating a 
salmon carcass placement project to restore marine-derived nutrients to 
3 to 6 miles (4.8-9.6 km) of salmonid spawning reaches on the main stem 
of the Tualatin River and two of its tributaries, Dairy Creek and Gales 
Creek. Nutrient enrichment is also expected to enhance the overall 
ecology of the upper Tualatin by increasing fish and wildlife 
productivity. Funds will be used by aquatic science students of 
Portland's Central Catholic High School to support habitat restoration 
work along Johnson Creek near Powell Butte in southeast Portland, 
collecting water, vegetation and soil condition data to monitor the 
effects of habitat enhancement activities. Gresham's Alpha High School 
students will use funds to engage in a comprehensive habitat 
restoration effort on a 3-acre (1.2 ha) section along Johnson Creek 
known as Gresham Woods.
    Within the range of the Lower Columbia and Upper Willamette River 
ESUs, FWS funded 8 projects during FY 2001-2002 through the Jobs in the 
Woods Program. These projects will accomplish the following: 48 fish 
passage barriers will be removed to allow fish access to over 70 miles 
(112.6 km) on habitat; 2.5 miles (4.0 km) of instream habitat will be 
restored; 23 acres (9.3 ha) of riparian habitat will be restored; and 
33 miles (53.1 km) of forest roads will be decommissioned and improved 
to reduce erosion and sedimentation. During FY 2003, projects were 
funded through the program that will remove six fish passage barriers 
to allow fish access to over 30 miles of habitat.
    FWS manages three estuarine national wildlife refuges (Siletz Bay, 
Nestucca Bay, Bandon Marsh) within the range of the Oregon Coast coho 
ESU. With

[[Page 33151]]

coastal wetland loss in the U.S. exceeding 20,000 acres (8,093 ha) per 
year, these refuges preserve estuarine habitat important to a variety 
of species, including Oregon Coast coho salmon. Though largely limited 
to stocks inhabiting the local watersheds, benefits to coho salmon 
include preservation of important migratory and rearing habitat.
    The EPA has funded a restoration project in Portland to restore 
vegetation to the Smith and Bybee Lakes complex, that will provide 
flood refugia to anadromous salmonids. The EPA has also funded three 
habitat projects in the Lower Columbia River (Scappoose Bay watershed, 
Roster Rock State Park wetlands and Deep River in Washington) to 
improve salmonid habitat.
    The USACE has undertaken the Tillamook Bay & Estuary Feasibility 
Study to identify and evaluate the problems and opportunities 
associated with flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration in 
Tillamook Bay. Implementation of ecosystem restoration based on this 
study is not assured and is highly reliant on the allocation of 
adequate funding and the cooperation of private land owners.
    The USACE's regulatory program strives to provide protection of the 
aquatic environment, including wetlands. This program issues permits 
under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act for projects 
within its jurisdiction, including many beneficial restoration actions. 
The USACE's jurisdiction has recently been redefined to exclude 
isolated wetlands. This change may have deleterious effects on water 
quality and quantity in area streams and rivers with hyporheic flow.
    Since 1997, the PFMC has developed and implemented a management 
plan for listed Oregon Coast coho salmon, and the plan has been 
approved by NMFS through a section 7 consultation with itself. Under 
this management plan harvest rates have decreased from 60 to 80 percent 
during the 1970s and 1980s to less than 15 percent at present. 
Fisheries are reviewed annually to ensure that harvest impacts are 
within the specified limits. A comprehensive review of the harvest 
management plan occurred in 2000, which included some important 
refinements to the plan based on new information and analyses.
    Non-Federal Efforts--The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 
(CREP) is an effort, jointly funded by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and the State of Oregon, designed to improve riparian 
conditions on agricultural lands. Under the CREP, agricultural 
landowners can enroll eligible riparian lands into a 10-15-year CREP 
contract and receive annual conservation payments for the contract 
period, for up to 75 percent of the eligible costs of restoration 
practices, in addition to other financial incentives. Initiated in 
1998, the Oregon CREP program continues to encourage greater 
participation.
    The City of Portland has undertaken an effort to delineate fish 
habitat within the lower Willamette River to determine usage by 
salmonids, in an effort to better assess potential impacts to salmonids 
from City activities and to identify important areas to protect and 
restore. The City has also been working to develop an HCP for the 
City's water supply in the Bull Run River. The emphasis of the HCP is 
on adequate flows in the Bull Run River and restoring salmonid habitat 
in the Sandy River Basin, to mitigate for lost habitat resulting from 
installation in the early 1900's of the two dams that currently supply 
the City of Portland with potable water.
    The Oregon Department of Transportation over the last 2 years has 
undertaken several projects to restore fish passage above barriers. The 
projects have opened over 11 miles (17.7 km) of salmonid habitat, and 
improved passage for over 25 miles (40.2 km) within the range of the 
Upper Willamette and Lower Columbia River chinook and O. mykiss ESUs.
    The City of Portland Office of Transportation submitted its Routine 
Road Maintenance Program (RMP) to NMFS for approval under 4(d) Limit 10 
on March 21, 2003. A 30-day public notice of availability of the 
program for comments was published on May 5, 2003 (68 FR 23696). Marion 
County, Department of Public Works, submitted its RMP to NMFS for 
approval under Limit 10 of the 4(d) protective regulations (65 FR 
42422, July 10, 2000; 50 CFR 223.203(b)(1) through (b)(13)) on November 
6, 2003. A 30-day public notice of availability of the program for 
comments was published on March 28, 2003 (68 FR 15153). Prior to final 
approval or disapproval of the program, NMFS must complete the NEPA 
review of the program and the ESA section 7 consultation. The RMP 
guides routine road activities that might affect ESUs of threatened 
salmon and O. mykiss. The RMP is designed to be protective of salmonids 
and their habitat through the implementation of Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) developed to protect water quality and habitat. For 
example, BMPs minimize the movement of soil into streams and restrict 
other activities based on their proximity to streams and wetlands. The 
program is already being implemented and improved. The RMP provides a 
small contribution toward salmon conservation; the activities are 
limited to the City of Portland transportation and Marion County 
jurisdiction. The program will contribute to overall conservation but, 
as with many protective efforts under consideration, it cannot be 
evaluated how much the program will contribute to salmon abundance, 
productivity, spatial structure or diversity.
    South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve in Charleston, OR 
is the only designated marine protected area (MPA) within the range of 
the Oregon Coast coho ESU. Managed by a commission appointed by the 
governor, with the administrative support of the Division of State 
Lands (DSL), activities in the reserve are regulated, including the 
prohibition of commercial bait gathering, discharge of chemicals or 
other pollutants, road-building, dredging or filling, and commercial 
timber harvest. Commercial oystering is the only commercial activity 
permitted within the reserve. The reserve provides protection of 
valuable estuarine habitat to coho salmon during migration, as well as 
rearing. Research in South Slough has documented juvenile salmon 
presence during periods commonly considered outside the migration 
period.
    The City of Cannon Beach (City) has been working for more than a 
year to develop a plan under Limit 12 of the ESA 4(d) protective 
regulations (municipal, residential, commercial, industrial). So far, 
they have described their environmental baseline and examined the ways 
that City practices and City land use have affected and/or continue to 
affect fish and aquatic habitat. Protection of riparian habitat, water 
quality (water treatment issues) and water supply issues have been 
identified as areas that need the most work. The City is currently 
working with a consultant and its residents to develop and implement 
solutions to these problems.
    The Oregon Plan--The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon 
Plan or Plan, below) is a ``framework of state laws, rules, and 
executive orders designed to enhance and protect watershed health, at-
risk species, and water quality by governing forest and agricultural 
practices, water diversions, wetlands, water quality, and fish and 
wildlife protections'' (Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, OWEB, 
2002). The mission of the Plan is ``to restore the watersheds of Oregon 
and recover the fish and wildlife populations of those watersheds to 
productive and sustainable levels in a

[[Page 33152]]

manner that provides substantial environmental, cultural, and economic 
benefits'' (IMST, 2002). The Oregon Plan seeks to address factors for 
decline related to habitat loss and degradation by focusing on human 
infrastructure and activities that can adversely affect watersheds and 
salmonid fishes, e.g., fisheries management, hatchery practices, fish 
passage barriers, forestry, agriculture, livestock grazing, water 
diversions and effectiveness of fish screens, urbanization, permitted 
pollutant discharges, removal and fill permits.
    The Oregon Plan encourages efforts to improve habitat conditions 
for salmon through non-regulatory means, including significant efforts 
by local watershed councils and private landowners. Since the Oregon 
Coast coho ESU was listed in 1998, OWEB has implemented over 1000 
habitat improvement projects to increase and improve habitat for 
anadromous fish in Oregon rivers and tributaries. State regulatory 
agencies also actively contribute to the Oregon Plan and its 
implementation. For example, ODFW has revised fisheries management and 
hatchery practices, and implemented a comprehensive monitoring program 
for salmon and O. mykiss populations in Oregon.
    The Oregon Plan includes several pre-existing activities and 
programs, as well as additional coordination, compliance, investment, 
monitoring, and voluntary involvement that are provided under the 
umbrella of the Plan. Included under this umbrella is the Oregon 
Agricultural Water Quality Management Act, passed as Senate Bill 1010 
in 1993 by the Oregon State Legislature. Under this Act the Oregon 
Department of Agriculture provides landowners technical assistance to 
develop watershed-based plans to prevent and control water pollution 
resulting from agricultural activities. The Agricultural Water Quality 
Management Act promotes coordinated watershed planning, while 
maintaining needed flexibility for landowners to address site-specific 
water quality issues.
    The IMST, the entity that provides scientific oversight for the 
Oregon Plan, has reviewed the adequacy of various elements of the Plan 
in conserving salmon and O. mykiss populations at the state-wide scale 
(e.g., IMST 1998; 1999; 2002a; 2002b). A comprehensive ESU-scale 
analysis of the effectiveness of actions and measures under the Oregon 
Plan, specifically in conserving the Oregon Coast Coho ESU, is being 
conducted, but is not yet complete. In a coordinated effort through the 
Oregon Governor's Office, including all state natural resource agencies 
and several Federal partners, the State of Oregon has undertaken a 
comprehensive analysis of the adequacy of actions under the Plan, 
specifically in the context of conserving and recovering the Oregon 
Coast coho ESU. As this substantial effort is currently underway and 
not scheduled to be completed until later in 2004, the proposed listing 
determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU described in this notice 
has not been informed by this ESU-scale analysis. If information is 
made available to NMFS suggesting that the Oregon Plan and/or other 
conservation efforts substantially mitigate ESU extinction risk, NMFS 
will take such opportunity to re-initiate a status review for the 
Oregon Coast coho ESU to consider the best and most recent scientific 
and commercial information available.
    The ODFW has developed several fishery management plans that have 
been approved by NMFS for listed salmon and O. mykiss ESUs in Oregon. 
ODFW has developed a comprehensive harvest plan for the Oregon Coast 
coho ESU that was included in the Oregon Plan. This fishery management 
plan was subsequently adopted by the PFMC (described above). A 
Fisheries Management Evaluation Plan (FMEP) was developed by ODFW for a 
coho salmon fishery in Siltcoos and Tahkenitch Lakes on the Oregon 
Coast. This FMEP was approved by NMFS in 2001 under Limit 4 of the ESA 
4(d) rule (65 FR 42422; July 10, 2000) and remains in effect. ODFW has 
developed two FMEPs under limit 4 of the 4(d) rule for listed spring 
chinook and winter steelhead in the Willamette River Basin, as well as 
an additional 4 FMEPs for listed chinook, O. mykiss, coho and chum in 
the Lower Columbia River. Under these FMEPs, only adipose-fin clipped 
fish can be harvested, and all wild fish must be released unharmed. 
This management change has resulted in a 75-percent decrease in harvest 
impacts to spring chinook returning to the Willamette Basin. For listed 
Willamette River winter O. mykiss, harvest rates have been reduced to 
1-2 percent. Although these six FMEPs have yet to be approved by NMFS, 
they have resulted in a reduction of overall fisheries impacts in the 
Lower Columbia River of over 50 percent.
Protective Efforts in Washington State
    Federal Efforts--Since 2000, NMFS has consulted on over 1,000 
Federal actions, and private actions requiring Federal authorization, 
that potentially affected listed ESUs in Washington State. These 
consultations covered a broad range of activities including water 
withdrawals, dock construction, road construction, the full suite of 
forest management activities, and stream channel restoration. Federal 
agencies were able to effectively minimize the potential adverse 
impacts of activities through the consultation process. For example, 
consultations have led to substantial improvements to stream flows in 
three streams occupied by the Upper Columbia River ESUs, and to 
improved design standards for new docks in the Columbia River. Another 
significant outcome of the consultation process has been the marked 
improvement in the quality of the proposals submitted for consultation. 
Federal agencies are including more effective minimization measures in 
their proposed actions before requesting consultation. The installation 
of spill deflectors as part of the Chief Joseph Dam gas abatement 
project will likely increase juvenile survival for the Upper Columbia 
River chinook and O. mykiss ESUs, and to a lesser extent the Middle 
Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. A settlement agreement with the FERC will 
restore fish passage above Pacificorp's Cowlitz Dam and improve in-
stream flows. Pacificorp has also committed to the removal of Condit 
Dam on the White Salmon River, or to otherwise establish fish passage 
to currently blocked spawning and rearing habitat for Lower Columbia 
River chinook and Middle Columbia O. mykiss ESUs.
    Over the past 2\1/2\ years, the majority of NMFS' ESA section 7 
consultations have concerned ongoing and proposed activities in Puget 
Sound. Completed section 7(a)(2) consultations cover a wide range of 
management activities with 26 Federal action agencies, including 
Federal land management, USACE permits for shoreline modifications, and 
habitat restoration projects. Each action that NMFS found would not 
jeopardize Puget Sound chinook included sufficient conservation 
measures to avoid or minimize substantial adverse effects, and many 
actions included restorative elements. For example, as integral parts 
of several major infrastructure projects, over the past decade or so 
and with greater emphasis since chinook were ESA-listed in Puget Sound, 
the Port of Seattle has constructed 3.7 acres of aquatic habitat 
restoration and enhancement areas and made other environmental 
improvements. The Port also improved light penetration in shallow water 
areas, removed barriers to migrating juvenile fish, reshaped shoreline 
to improve aquatic habitat, replaced several thousand creosote-

[[Page 33153]]

treated wooden pilings that had contaminated fish habitats with fewer 
concrete and steel pilings, restored and enhanced habitat, and cleaned 
up contaminated sediments.
    Over the past 2\1/2\ years, NMFS has consulted on hundreds of 
ongoing and proposed activities that may affect salmonid habitats 
within the Washington area of the Lower Columbia River domain. 
Completed ESA section 7(a)(2) consultations cover a wide range of 
management activities with at least 11 Federal action agencies, 
including Federal land management, USACE permits for shoreline 
modifications, and habitat restoration projects. Each action that NMFS 
found would not jeopardize the listed Lower Columbia ESUs included 
sufficient conservation measures to avoid or minimize substantial 
adverse effects, and many actions included restorative elements. For 
example, separate, state-wide Programmatic Consultations with the USACE 
and FWS provide technical guidance for restoring fish passage and other 
habitat restoration projects that receive a variety of Federal funds.
    As previously mentioned, the NPCC-FWP has invested BPA funds in 
passage and flow improvements within Columbia River Basin. More 
recently, the BOR, as part of its responsibilities under the FCRPS 
Biological Opinion, has deployed staff within the Basin to begin 
addressing passage and flow problems. Presently, the BOR lacks 
authority to fund projects, and has instead been providing technical 
assistance and engineering support to irrigators. The BOR anticipates 
soon having authority to fund construction and purchase water. In spite 
of present limitations, the BOR is involved in designing two projects 
that could meaningfully resolve instream flow problems in two 
significant tributaries.
    BPA, Mitchell Act, and Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds have 
also been used to screen irrigation withdrawals throughout the Columbia 
Basin. The vast majority (in terms of the volume of water diverted) of 
water withdrawals in the Basin are screened. However, a number of these 
screens do not meet current criteria. All screens require periodic 
inspection and maintenance. ESA-compliant screens of gravity water 
diversions are in place on two of the six sites routinely inspected by 
the WDFW. There are an unknown number of other screens on gravity 
diversions that are not inspected by WDFW.
    Over 80 percent of the land within the Methow, Entiat, and 
Wenatchee Subbasins is publicly owned, but private ownership is 
concentrated along the valley bottoms and represents a disproportionate 
share of the habitats occupied by the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss 
and spring chinook ESUs. In the Okanogan Basin, nearly all of the 
habitat currently available to O. mykiss is in private or Tribal 
ownership. Several lesser independent Columbia River tributaries drain 
lands managed by the Department of the Army or the BOR.
    The Department of the Army has significantly improved range 
management conditions on its lands, to the betterment of fish habitat. 
Serious water quality problems persist in streams receiving 
agricultural return flows from BOR facilities. National Forest lands 
within the range of the Upper Columbia ESUs are managed according to 
Northwest Forest Plan or PACFISH standards. Continued adherence to 
these standards is expected to result in conditions on Federal land 
consistent with salmon and O. mykiss recovery. An ongoing concern is 
that most of the National Forest lands outside of designated wilderness 
areas contain very high road densities. These roads are a major source 
of sediment to chinook and O. mykiss spawning streams, and many road 
crossings impede fish passage. The USFS improves roads and stream 
crossings as it can, but present budgets are inadequate to remedy these 
problems in the near term.
    The upper reaches of several major streams lie in wilderness, but 
wilderness areas are generally upstream of Upper Columbia O. mykiss and 
spring chinook production areas. Wilderness areas and the non-
wilderness portions of the National Forest attract substantial 
recreational activity. Most of the Forest Lands within the ranges of 
the Upper Columbia River ESUs are within a few hours' drive of the 
major population centers of western Washington. Throughout the summer, 
thousands of recreational users crowd the banks of major O. mykiss and 
chinook production areas, destroying riparian vegetation and harassing 
listed fish during summer low flows. Again, the USFS has endeavored to 
minimize these impacts by relocating and closing some camping areas, 
but budgets have been inadequate to control the problem. The recently 
enacted program of charging fees for using many sites in the Forest and 
using those receipts to improve recreational facilities will likely 
help to lessen recreational impacts. Many of the National Forest lands 
within the ranges of the Upper Columbia River ESUs are grazed. Although 
NMFS consults on grazing leases, there is ongoing concern about 
compliance with lease requirements.
    Non-Federal Efforts--NMFS has recently approved a Routine Road 
Maintenance under Limit 10 of the ESA 4(d) rule for approximately 
thirty cities and counties across the State. This approval will ensure 
that routine road maintenance activities, done according to specified 
conditions, will avoid and minimize possible ``take'' of threatened 
salmon and O. mykiss.
    The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board has identified over 260 
salmonid habitat improvement projects in the last 12 years that were 
completed by various private and local government entities within the 
range of the Lower Columbia River ESUs.
    HCPs with the Chelan and Douglas County public utility districts 
for the Wells, Rocky Reach, and Rock Island dams will: increase the 
survival of juveniles migrating through the projects; improve spawning 
and rearing habitat in the Okanogan, Methow, and Entiat basins; and 
ensure that related hatchery programs are operated in a manner 
consistent with the overall objective of rebuilding natural 
populations. NMFS is working with two agricultural irrigation districts 
in the Methow Basin to develop HCPs. The HCPs are likely to be narrowly 
focused on water use and the maintenance of minimum instream flows. 
Another large irrigation district has also expressed interest in 
developing an HCP to cover the full suite of its management activities. 
A county government within the range of the Upper Columbia River ESUs 
has also expressed an interest in an HCP that would enable any county 
resident willing to comply with the terms of the HCP to thereby achieve 
compliance with the ESA under a section 10 permit held by the county. 
An Upper Columbia River watershed group has expressed a similar 
interest, but has not been able to identify a suitable permit holder. 
At present, it is uncertain whether any of these efforts will lead to 
the issuance of a section 10 permit.
    Approximately 1.1 million acres (445,146 ha) of forest lands and 
two municipal watersheds are covered by HCPs within the Puget Sound 
domain (ESUs include Puget Sound chinook, Hood Canal summer-run chum, 
and Ozette Lake sockeye); NMFS has determined that these HCPs comply 
with ESA section 10(a)(2)(B). The HCPs are West Fork Timber, Plum Creek 
Timber (Central Cascades), Port Blakely Tree Farms, WA Department of 
Natural Resources (WA DNR, discussed in more detail below), Green 
Diamond Resource Company (formerly, Simpson Timber)--Shelton 
Timberlands, City of Seattle Cedar River Watershed, and City of Tacoma 
Green River Water Supply. All

[[Page 33154]]

of the forestry HCPs address long-term salmonid survival on industrial 
forest lands and are designed to provide properly functioning habitat 
conditions--thereby ensuring healthy watersheds and riparian areas. 
They also give landowners long-term management clarity and certainty. 
Specific HCP conservation measures focus on attaining mature forest 
conditions in riparian areas, minimizing sediment input to streams, 
protecting and recovering floodplain functions, and protecting water 
quality during timber management and associated road operations. Of the 
seven HCPs in Western Washington State, two include protection of 
instream flows for anadromous salmonids (Cedar and Green rivers). 
Instream flows are also provided, through agreements negotiated with 
the FERC, on the Skagit, Sultan, Snoqualmie (ramping rates only) and 
Nisqually rivers. Recently installed screens on gravity water 
diversions at five sites on the Dungeness River are consistent with 
current standards for fish passage. The number of additional gravity 
water diversions in other sub-basins, and whether any are compliant 
with fish passage, are unknown. Two long-standing hydroelectric dams on 
the Elwha River are slated for removal starting in 2007. Congress has 
authorized funds for current phases of the complex effort that requires 
construction of several new water supplies. Dam removal will restore 
about 70 miles (112.6 km) of mainstem and tributary habitat. Fish 
passage is also being restored to 17 miles (27.4 km) of mainstem and 
tributary habitats on the Cedar River as part of the City of Seattle's 
HCP, 7 miles (11.2 km) on Goldsborough Creek, as well as many other 
small streams.
    The WA DNR HCP is the largest of the HCPs, providing conservation 
benefits to multiple species including ESA-listed and currently 
unlisted anadromous salmonids. The WA DNR will use riparian management 
zone (RMZ) buffers on both sides of fish bearing streams to address 
riparian functions that influence the quality of salmonid freshwater 
habitat. The RMZ consists of an inner riparian buffer (minimum 100 ft 
(30.5 m), or on-site tree height, whichever is greater), and an outer 
wind buffer (between 50-100 ft (15.2-30.5 m), depending on stream size) 
where needed to protect the inner buffer. No harvest will be allowed in 
the first 25 ft (7.6 m) of buffer, ``minimal harvest'' will be allowed 
in the next 75 ft (22.9 m), and ``low harvest'' will be allowed in the 
remaining buffer more than 100 ft (30.5 m) from the active channel 
margin. It has been demonstrated that errors in stream classifications 
are quite common, and that incorrectly classifying streams as non-fish-
bearing waters could have significant adverse effects on salmonid 
habitat. In order to avoid such effects, a 100-ft (30.5 m) wide 
riparian buffer was applied on both sides of perennial streams believed 
to be non-fish-bearing. Additionally, stream typing will be examined or 
verified in the field before harvest.
    The WA DNR's Road Management Strategy will be implemented to: (1) 
Minimize further road-related degradation of riparian, aquatic, and 
identified species habitat; (2) plan, design, construct, use, and 
maintain a road system that serves the DNR's management needs; and (3) 
remove unnecessary road segments from the road network. Comprehensive 
road maintenance plans will include annual inventories of road 
conditions; aggressive maintenance, stabilization, and access control 
to minimize management and environmental problems; and limits on road 
network expansion. The standards for new road construction and 
appropriate placement will be consistently applied and updated. The DNR 
will initially focus on improving roads in the more sensitive areas of 
a landscape giving priority to locations on steep slopes with unstable 
soils and high precipitation, and locations within 100 feet of fish-
bearing streams and wetlands. In order to keep new roads to a minimum, 
log yarding will be allowed through the harvest zone in the RMZ. 
Specific measures for this yarding (and any other management in the 
RMZs) will be developed by DNR and reviewed by NMFS/FWS. Such 
management would be based on detailed, site-specific conservation 
objectives, and sufficient monitoring would be included to ensure that 
the RMZs will continue to adequately provide the desired riparian 
functions.
    Protections of seasonal non-fish-bearing streams include: (1) Those 
streams crossing unstable slopes will be protected (no timber harvest) 
to minimize potential for landslides and other mass-wasting activities; 
(2) those streams crossing stable ground will be protected where 
necessary to maintain important elements of the aquatic ecosystem; and 
(3) an aggressive, 10-year research program will study the effects on 
aquatic resources of forest management along such streams. At the end 
of 10 years, a long-term conservation strategy for forest management 
along seasonal non-fish-bearing streams will be developed and 
incorporated into the HCP. Potential sediment introductions to streams 
will be minimized by placing harvest restrictions near those streams 
flowing on unstable slopes and in areas with a high risk of mass 
wasting. Also, a comprehensive landscape-based road network will be 
developed to identify fish blockages caused by stream crossings and 
prioritize their retrofitting or removal. Adverse effects on salmonid 
habitat caused by rain-on-snow floods will be minimized by maintaining 
two-thirds of DNR-managed forest lands within each sub-basin in a 
forest condition that is hydrologically mature with respect to rain-on-
snow events. In addition, improved road management will decrease 
adverse effects on natural hydrologic function.
    The DNR will monitor the WA DNR HCP to determine whether its 
conservation strategies are implemented as written and whether that 
implementation results in anticipated habitat conditions. 
Implementation monitoring will document the types, amounts, and 
locations of forest management activities carried out on DNR-managed 
lands in the five westside and Olympic area planning units. Research 
monitoring in riparian habitats will focus on determining how to design 
wind buffers, evaluating forest practices along seasonal non-fish-
bearing waters not associated with unstable slopes, designing timber 
harvest in riparian buffers and mass wasting areas, and developing 
basic information on the relationship among forest practices, riparian 
ecosystems, and basin hydrology. Implementation of these measures will 
likely lead to properly functioning conditions on commercial state-
owned timberlands.
    The CREP is an effort, jointly funded by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and Washington State, designed to improve riparian 
conditions on agricultural lands. Under the program, farmers are paid 
to plant and maintain, for a period of up to 15 years, streamside 
buffers. In spite of the availability of more than $200 million, 
participation in CREP within Washington State has been very low. The 
State and the Department of Agriculture are in the process of modifying 
the Washington State program to allow smaller buffers, to encourage 
greater participation. The current program requires that buffer widths 
vary according to local geomorphic features, while the proposed changes 
would allow the application of fairly narrow static-width buffers, 
independent of a site's geomorphic context. It is unclear whether 
lowering the minimum standards will encourage greater

[[Page 33155]]

participation, and in turn lead to improved riparian conditions.
    The Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) is 
intended to fund efforts to protect and restore salmonid habitat. The 
SRFB is supported by a combination of state general fund and Federal 
Coastal Salmon Recovery dollars. The scope of SRFB projects is 
essentially the same as NPCC habitat projects, and often, funds from 
both sources are pooled on individual projects. In the Columbia Basin, 
the state is attempting to harmonize SRFB efforts with the NPCC program 
and has granted funding to local groups in support of subbasin 
planning. Working in concert, these two programs will form a powerful 
vehicle for habitat protection and restoration within the range of the 
ESU.
    State and private forest practices are subject to new Washington 
State Forest and Fish Report regulations, which will reduce forest 
practices impacts relative to those rules in effect when the species in 
Washington were listed. These regulations are among the most 
restrictive in the country and require the retention of substantial 
riparian zones and the remediation of forest road problems.
    Although forest practices on private lands are not now compliant 
with ESA regulations, the Washington State Forest Practice Rules were 
changed in 2000. Those rules are now being developed into an HCP (68 FR 
12676; March 17, 2003). Effective July 2001, these new rules covered a 
wide variety of forest practices and include: a new, more functional 
classification of rivers and streams on non-Federal forest land; 
improved plans for properly designing, maintaining, and upgrading 
existing and new forest roads; additional protections for unstable 
slopes; greater protections for riparian areas intended to maintain 
properly functioning conditions; and a process for adaptive management.
    The State of Washington has established a water rights acquisition 
program intended to secure water rights for the purpose of improving 
stream flows for fish. The program is endowed with $5.5 million in 
State and Federal funds, which are to be used only in 16 priority 
subbasins. Two of these subbasins are within the range of the Upper 
Columbia River ESUs. Unlike the BOR program under FCRPS Biological 
Opinion's Action 149, the state's effort has established guidelines for 
prioritizing how the funds are spent. Portions of the program's funds 
have been used to lease water in the Okanogan River Basin as part of a 
cooperative effort between a local irrigation district, the Colville 
Tribes, and non-profit organization. That effort put flows in lower 
Salmon Creek in early 2003, allowing anadromous O. mykiss to spawn 
there for the first time in nearly a century.
    WDFW's Yakima Screen shop has installed and maintained numerous 
screens within the ranges of salmon and O. mykiss ESUs, using a 
combination of BPA, Mitchell Act, and state funds. Their progress in 
fabricating and installing screens has been impeded by insufficient 
funding and staff. The status of the state's budget is such that it is 
uncertain if the State will continue to fund screen construction in the 
future.
    The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) is responsible for 
ensuring that water quality meets the standards required by the Clean 
Water Act (CWA). However, every subbasin within the ranges of the Upper 
Columbia River ESUs contains streams or stream reaches that do not meet 
CWA standards, and water quality remains a significant limiting factor. 
There are 109 streams or stream segments listed under CWA 303(d) as 
impaired with respect to water quality. Nineteen of these are listed as 
impaired for lack of instream flows, and a number of others are listed 
for temperature problems that occur as indirect effect of water 
withdrawals. Water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture are the most 
significant sources of water quality degradation within the Upper 
Columbia River. TMDLs are the most effective tools for addressing these 
non-point source pollution problems. Presently, the only TMDL effort 
underway in the Upper Columbia River is in the Wenatchee Subbasin, 
although there are a number of TMDL efforts underway across the state 
outside of the Columbia Basin. Lack of staff resources at DOE is a 
major impediment to the development of additional TMDLs. During its 
2003 session, the Washington State Legislature acted to limit DOE's 
authority to regulate water withdrawals for the protection of in-stream 
flows. While DOE had not exercised this authority until 2002, its first 
attempt to do so resulted in the subject legislation. It is now 
doubtful that the CWA, implemented by DOE, will be used to resolve in-
stream flow problems in Washington State.
    Recovery planning for listed salmonids in Puget Sound is being 
conducted through a voluntary, collaborative process called the Puget 
Sound Shared Strategy. Federal agencies, tribal governments, state and 
local governments, private businesses, and environmental organizations 
are working together through the Shared Strategy to complete a recovery 
plan for listed Puget Sound chinook by 2005. This effort is focused on 
the development of local watershed recovery plans, each of which will 
describe specific actions within a given watershed necessary to recover 
the local listed salmon populations. In addition to the individual 
watershed recovery plans, an inter-disciplinary group of planners, 
scientists, and government agency staffs are preparing a plan for the 
recovery of nearshore and estuarine habitats in Puget Sound. Drafts of 
these plans will be completed by June 2004. The plans will be included, 
to the maximum extent practicable, as part of the Puget Sound chinook 
ESU recovery plan to be completed by the summer of 2005.
    In the Lower Columbia River, WDFW has developed an FMEP for listed 
chinook salmon, listed O. mykiss, and listed chum salmon under Limit 4 
of the 4(d) rule. The FMEP was approved by NMFS in December 2003. Under 
the FMEP only adipose fin-clipped chinook, O. mykiss, chum and coho 
salmon may be harvested. All unmarked wild fish must be released 
unharmed. Changes in trout fishing regulations reduce harvest rates on 
juvenile steelhead to less than 2 percent.
Protective Efforts in Idaho
    Federal Efforts--The USFS is currently in the process of revising 
its Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) across the Snake River 
Basin. This LRMP revision will be used by the USFS to replace the 
existing protective efforts of PACFISH, INFISH, and the related LRMP 
biological opinions, providing comparable protection for ESA-listed 
fish species but at a site-specific scale. LRMPs have recently been 
revised for the Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests 
(Southwest Idaho Ecogroup), and will soon be revised on the Clearwater, 
Wallowa-Whitman, and Salmon-Challis National Forests. Direction 
provided by these LRMPs will guide all management activities across 
applicable National Forest lands for the next 10 to 15 years. As in the 
revision for the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup, each of these LRMPs will 
likely include some form of an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), a 
strategy designed to ensure that future management activities work to 
maintain and restore proper functioning fish habitat conditions.
    To accomplish this goal, LRMPs will provide guidelines for timber 
harvest, road maintenance, and other activities. They will include but 
not be limited to: (1) Placing restrictions on the types and magnitude 
of management activities across the forest or within individual

[[Page 33156]]

watersheds; (2) placing restrictions on the location and extent of 
ground-disturbing activities in a watershed (including road network 
development); (3) allocating important watersheds to listed fish 
species for restoration emphasis versus commodity production; (4) 
identifying watershed restoration needs and priorities; (5) 
establishing a process for riparian reserve network delineation; and 
(6) incorporating an adaptive management process to ensure that 
restoration priorities remain current.
    Success of habitat restoration efforts on Federal lands will depend 
upon adequate funding. NMFS believes that implementation of the LRMPs 
for National Forest lands in the Snake River Basin will continue to 
provide substantial benefits to Snake River O. mykiss and chinook 
salmon. While the LRMP covers a very large area, the overall 
effectiveness of efforts on Federal lands in conserving Snake River O. 
mykiss and chinook salmon is somewhat limited by the extent of Federal 
lands and the fact that Federal land ownership is not uniformly 
distributed in watersheds within the ranges of affected ESUs. 
Therefore, long-term habitat protection within the range of this ESU 
continues to depend on improvement in non-Federal land management, 
particularly those lands used for timber harvest and agriculture.
    To date, three HCPs are under development within the range of Snake 
River O. mykiss, fall and spring/summer chinook and sockeye, one by 
Plum Creek Timber Company and the other two by the Upper Salmon River 
and Lemhi River Irrigators. However, only the Plum Creek HCP has been 
formally submitted to NMFS. The success of HCPs depends on funding and 
implementation of restoration activities basinwide.
    The Idaho Screen Shop in Salmon, Idaho, is very active in screening 
diversions throughout the Salmon River basin. The screen shop is run by 
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, with funding from BPA and NMFS under 
the Mitchell Act. The BOR provides technical assistance in design. This 
program has been effective in reducing fish losses to irrigation 
systems.
    The BOR is responsible for addressing flow, passage and screening 
problems on non-public land pursuant to the 2000 FCRPS Biological 
Opinion. In 2002, BOR facilitated the completion of ten projects in the 
Lemhi River, and two projects in the East Fork Salmon River to replace 
headgates, consolidate diversions, and install screens in an effort to 
eliminate fish passage barriers. In 2003, BOR began work in the upper 
Salmon River, and as a result completed two projects on Upper and Lower 
Beaver Creek. Additionally, BOR has contacted landowners in other 
subbasins to locate and remove fish passage barriers. BOR is currently 
designing several projects to remove fish passage barriers in the upper 
Salmon River subbasin. The objective of BOR's action is to restore 
flows needed to avoid jeopardy to listed species, screen all 
diversions, and resolve all passage obstructions within each of 16 
priority subbasins. Water acquisition will occur through water purchase 
or lease. This program may be highly successful in opening additional 
spawning and rearing habitat and increasing flows for out-migrating 
anadromous fish. Success depends upon sufficient funding, 
identification of problem areas and adequate design and implementation. 
BOR has in the past and will continue to consult with NMFS and the FWS 
when designing projects to eliminate fish passage barriers.
    Non-Federal Efforts--Demands for Idaho's groundwater resources have 
caused groundwater levels to drop and reduced flow in springs for which 
there are senior water rights. The Idaho Department of Water Resources 
is continuing studies and has promulgated rules that address water 
right conflicts and demands on a limited resource. The studies have 
identified aquifer recharge as a mitigation measure with the potential 
to affect the quantity of water in certain streams, particularly those 
essential to listed species. Idaho continues to address the potential 
to improve flows for fish passage through state programs. Idaho water 
law has been changed to allow water rentals and the retention of 
instream flows for fish in the Lemhi River. Idaho and local irrigators 
have negotiated short-term agreements to ensure minimum in-stream flows 
through 2003 and have committed to developing a long-term HCP with NMFS 
for the Lemhi River. However, Idaho has not yet augmented flows to any 
significant extent in subbasins other than the Lemhi. Efforts to 
recover listed salmon are likely to be impeded until Idaho begins to 
explore opportunities to address the limitations of state water law to 
increase flows in other subbasins.
    In 2001, the Idaho state legislature extended for one year BOR's 
authority to rent water from Idaho's water rental pools, for delivery 
to BOR's flow augmentation program. In recent years, BOR rented up to 
about 250,000 acre-feet from these rental pools of the total 427,000 
acre-feet delivered for salmon flow augmentation. While this 
legislation allowed such rentals to continue during 2001, a severe 
drought occurred in 2001 and very little water was available for 
rental. In 2001-2003 water was rented in the Lemhi River.
    The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality continues to 
establish court-required TMDLs in the Snake River Basin, a program 
regarded as having positive water quality effects. TMDLs were completed 
in 2001 in the following subbasins: South Fork Clearwater River, Mid-
Salmon Panther (completed and approved), Mid-Salmon Chamberlain 
(approval pending), and South Fork Salmon (approval pending). TMDLs 
were completed in 2002 in the following subbasins: Pahsimeroi (1 
sediment, 1 temperature), Mid-Salmon Chamberlain [(Crooked Creek) (1 
segment temperature) (EPA requested changes; resubmitted September 
2002)], and South Fork Salmon (assessment complete; no new TMDLs; 
existing 1991 TMDL on mainstem remains in effect). Additionally the 
following work is underway: South Fork Clearwater (Subbasin assessment/
TMDL loading analysis underway), Snake River-Hells Canyon (submittal 
pending; TMDLs for temperature, sediment loads at mouths of 
tributaries, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved gas), 
Potlatch (starting assessment) and small tributaries of the Clearwater 
on Nez Perce Reservation (developing work plans). An agreement 
establishing a schedule for completion of TMDLs in Idaho was reached in 
2002. Corrective actions to meet TMDL targets will need to be 
identified, funded, and implemented.

Summary of Protective Efforts Addressing Habitat, Harvest, and Passage 
Issues

    In summary, the ESA listings of salmon and O. mykiss ESUs have 
provided the incentive for numerous protective efforts. While many 
causes of decline in salmon and O. mykiss ESUs are being addressed 
(e.g., providing fish passage above artificial barriers), habitat 
degradation and destruction has been slowed but not prevented. The 
protective efforts described above are directed toward addressing the 
numerous factors that limit recovery of threatened and endangered 
ESUs--water quality and quantity, safe migration, riparian vegetation, 
food, predation dynamics and complex stream channels, and floodplain 
connectivity. These actions all will aid in improving these factors 
within the area of each project. Cumulative effects of these and other 
protective efforts, and any additional measures necessary to address 
the ESUs' factors for decline

[[Page 33157]]

and extinction risk, are being evaluated through recovery planning.

Proposed Listing Determinations

    The ESA defines a species as including any subspecies, or any 
distinct population segment of a vertebrate species, which interbreeds 
when mature. The ESA further 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. 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 taking into account those efforts, if any, being 
made to protect such species.
    The proposed listing determinations are described below for each of 
the 27 ESUs of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss under review, as defined 
in the section ``Determinations of ``Species'' Under the ESA.'' 
Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b), NMFS' assessment of the 
effects of artificial propagation programs on ESU viability (NMFS, 
2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop conclusions 
regarding the extinction risk of ESUs in-total (NMFS, 2004c), and after 
considering the efforts being made to protect these ESUs, NMFS has 
determined that four ESUs warrant listing as endangered species, and 23 
ESUs warrant listing as threatened species. Collectively, these ESUs 
include 162 artificial propagation programs. Informed by the Alsea 
ruling and consistent with the proposed Hatchery Listing Policy 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, any 
artificial propagation programs considered to be part of an ESU will be 
included in the listing if it is determined that the ESU in-total is 
threatened or endangered. Table 3 at the end of this section provides a 
summary of the proposed listing determinations.
    In many of these ESUs, adult returns have been significantly higher 
in the last 1 to 3 years than has been observed in the past decade or 
more. These recent improvements, principally in ESU abundance and 
productivity, are encouraging and represent a relative reduction in 
extinction risk. However, the favorable responses observed in recent 
years are often uneven across populations within these ESUs. 
Additionally, the causes for the recent increases in abundance and 
productivity are not well understood, and in many (perhaps most) cases 
may be primarily due to unusually favorable conditions in the marine 
environment rather than more permanent reductions in the factors that 
have led to the widespread declines in salmonid abundance over the past 
century (See NMFS, 2003b for further discussion). For ESUs limited by 
factors affecting their spatial structure, improvements in fish passage 
and other issues are difficult to obtain and are slow to show a 
biological response. Reform of harmful hatchery practices has 
alleviated threats to the diversity of many ESUs, but it is uncertain 
the degree to which past harmful effects are reversible.
Snake River Sockeye ESU
    The BRT unanimously concluded that the Snake River sockeye ESU is 
``in danger of extinction.'' Although the Redfish Lake captive 
broodstock program was instrumental in rescuing the ESU from 
extinction, it does not substantially mitigate the BRT's assessment of 
risk. Actions under the 2000 FCRPS Biological opinion, as well as other 
protective efforts in the region and the State of Idaho, have improved 
habitat conditions for the ESU. Nonetheless, risks to the ESU's 
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity remain 
extremely high. NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation on the ESU's extinction risk concluded that the Redfish 
Lake captive broodstock program does not substantially reduce the 
extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, 
as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty 
of implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the 
Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU 
is ``in danger of extinction.'' NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is 
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and proposes that the Snake River sockeye ESU remain listed 
under the ESA as an endangered species.
Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the 
Ozette Lake sockeye ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' The Makah Tribe's artificial propagation program 
has improved the ESU's overall abundance and spatial structure, but 
these efforts likely have not mitigated the risks faced by the beach 
spawning sockeye aggregations. Uncertainties and biases in the 
available data continue to confound evaluations of abundance and 
productivity trends in the ESU. NMFS' assessment of the effects of 
artificial propagation on the ESU's extinction risk concluded that the 
within-ESU hatchery programs do not substantially reduce the extinction 
risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as 
evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is ``likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' Although the WA 
DNR HCP, Washington State Forest Practice Rules, and other protective 
efforts are encouraging signs, these efforts have yet to demonstrate 
substantive improvements to Ozette Lake habitat conditions. NMFS 
concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and proposes that the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU remain listed 
under the ESA as a threatened species.
Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the 
Sacramento winter-run chinook ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' 
Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and the assessment of 
artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 
2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that 
the Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU in-total is presently ``in 
danger of extinction'' (NMFS 2004c). Major efforts have been undertaken 
by NMFS and others over the past decade to: Assess the viability of, 
and conduct research on, the winter run chinook population; implement 
freshwater and ocean harvest management conservation efforts; and 
implement a wide range of habitat conservation measures. The State of 
California has listed winter-run chinook under the California 
Endangered Species Act, implemented freshwater harvest management 
conservation measures, and increased monitoring and evaluation efforts 
in support of conserving this ESU. Harvest and habitat conservation 
efforts have substantially benefited the ESU's abundance and 
productivity over the past decade. These efforts include: Changes in 
Central Valley Project and State Water Project operations and other 
actions undertaken pursuant to implementation of the Central Valley 
Project biological opinion that have increased freshwater survival; 
changes in salmon ocean harvest pursuant to the ocean harvest 
biological opinion that have increased ocean survival and adult

[[Page 33158]]

escapement; implementation of habitat restoration efforts throughout 
the central valley as a result of the CALFED program and other central 
valley habitat restoration projects. A key concern of the BRT was the 
lack of diversity within this ESU and the fact that it is represented 
by a single extant population at present. However, significant efforts 
are underway through the CALFED ecosystem restoration program to 
restore habitat and anadromous fish access to Battle Creek which would 
provide an opportunity for this ESU to establish a second population. 
The two artificial propagation programs that are part of this ESU also 
provide benefits to the ESU's viability by contributing to abundance 
and by preserving the genetic diversity of the ESU through careful use 
of spawning protocols and other tools that maximize genetic diversity 
of propagated fish and minimize impacts on naturally spawning fish. The 
Livingston Stone NFH program also safeguarded the natural population 
during a period of critically low abundance in the early 1990s, and 
preserved the genetic and behavioral characteristics of the extant 
natural population. NMFS believes that the protective efforts being 
implemented for this ESU, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, provide 
sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to alter the 
BRT's and Artificial Propagation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is 
``in danger of extinction.'' NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is 
not in danger of extinction, but is likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Accordingly, NMFS proposes that the Sacramento River winter-run 
chinook ESU, presently listed as an endangered species, be listed as a 
threatened species under the ESA.
Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU
    The BRT concluded that the Central Valley Spring-run chinook ESU is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 
2003b). There are no artificial propagation programs producing spring 
chinook that are considered to be part of the ESU, and therefore, the 
Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop did not consider this ESU. 
The BRT was particularly concerned about the loss of the ESU's 
diversity caused by extirpation of populations in most portions of the 
Central Valley, as well as the geographic proximity of the relatively 
small populations that remain. NMFS believes that the various habitat 
restoration efforts in the Central Valley have contributed 
substantially to improving the viability of the remaining spring 
chinook populations. Current efforts in Battle Creek and elsewhere are 
likely to provide additional habitat for spring chinook. In addition, 
the State of California has listed spring run chinook under the 
California Endangered Species Act and has implemented freshwater 
harvest management measures, as well as increased its monitoring and 
evaluation of naturally spawning populations. However, the blockage of 
historical spawning habitat, the limited distribution of natural 
production areas, and the risks posed by the non-ESU Feather River 
hatchery program remain to be addressed. Protective efforts, as 
evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's assessment that the 
ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' 
NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and therefore, proposes that the Central Valley spring-
run chinook ESU remain listed as threatened under the ESA.
California Coastal Chinook ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the 
California Coastal chinook ESU is ``likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future.'' Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) 
and the assessment of artificial propagation programs on the viability 
of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation 
Workshop concluded that the California Coastal Chinook ESU in-total is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 
2004c). Some coastal habitat protective efforts have provided benefits 
to the ESU, most notably: the State's habitat restoration grant 
program, which is funded in large part by the Pacific Coast Salmon 
Restoration Fund; the multi-county conservation planning and 
implementation efforts which have focused on fixing migration barriers 
and improving road maintenance programs; and implementation of the 
Pacific Lumber Company HCP, which is expected to contribute to 
achieving properly functioning habitat conditions in some watersheds 
occupied by this ESU. Collectively, however, these programs do not 
substantially reduce risks to the ESU. Implementation of the Potter 
Valley hydroelectric project biological opinion by FERC and completion 
of the Russian River consultation addressing water project operations 
in the Russian River are expected to benefit this ESU in the future. 
Similarly, ongoing efforts by NMFS and CDFG to develop a coastal salmon 
and steelhead monitoring program are expected to substantially improve 
the amount and quality of available information on the abundance and 
spatial distribution of naturally spawning populations in the future, 
thereby allowing improved long-term assessment of population viability 
and trends. Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do 
not provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to 
alter the BRT's and the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's 
assessments that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. NMFS proposes that the California 
Coastal chinook ESU remain listed as a threatened species under the 
ESA.
Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the Upper 
Willamette River chinook ESU is ``likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future.'' NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation on the ESU's extinction risk concluded that the within-ESU 
hatchery programs do not substantially reduce the extinction risk of 
the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as evaluated 
pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is ``likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' Efforts under 
FWS' Greenspaces Program, the Oregon Plan, hatchery reform efforts, and 
other protective efforts are encouraging signs. However, restoration 
efforts in the ESU are very local in scale, and have yet to provide 
benefits at the scale of watersheds or at the larger spatial scale of 
the ESU. The blockage of historical spawning habitat and the 
restriction of natural production areas remain to be addressed. NMFS 
concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and proposes that the Upper Willamette River chinook ESU remain 
listed under the ESA as a threatened species.

[[Page 33159]]

Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the Lower 
Columbia River chinook ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation on the ESU's extinction risk concluded that the within-ESU 
hatchery programs do not substantially reduce the extinction risk of 
the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as evaluated 
pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is ``likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' Planned dam 
removals on the Sandy River, federally funded habitat restoration 
efforts, the WA DNR HCP, and other protective efforts are encouraging 
signs in addressing the ESU's factors for decline, but they do not as 
yet substantially reduce threats to the ESU. NMFS concludes that the 
ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
proposes that the Lower Columbia River chinook ESU remain listed under 
the ESA as a threatened species.
Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook ESU
    The BRT was divided on the extinction risk faced by the naturally 
spawned component of the Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU 
between ``in danger of extinction'' and ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future,'' with a slight majority finding that 
the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' NMFS' assessment of the effects 
of artificial propagation on the ESU's extinction risk concluded that 
the within-ESU hatchery programs do not substantially reduce the 
extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, 
as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty 
of implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the 
Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU 
is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future. Actions under the 2000 FCRPS biological opinion, federally 
funded habitat restoration efforts, and other protective efforts are 
encouraging signs in addressing the ESU's factors for decline, but they 
do not as yet substantially reduce the ESU's extinction risk.
    NMFS is concerned that artificial propagation practices within the 
geographic range of the ESU are not fully supporting the conservation 
and recovery of Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook. In particular, 
NMFS is concerned that the non-ESU Entiat NFH has compromised the 
genetic integrity of the native natural population of spring-run 
chinook in the Entiat basin. NMFS concludes that the Upper Columbia 
River spring-run chinook ESU in-total is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. NMFS proposes 
that the Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU remain listed 
under the ESA as an endangered species.
Puget Sound Chinook ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the Puget 
Sound chinook ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation on the ESU's extinction risk concluded that the within-ESU 
hatchery programs do not substantially reduce the extinction risk of 
the ESU in-total (NMFS 2004c). In particular, NMFS is concerned that 
the pervasive use of the Green River derived hatchery stocks throughout 
the range of the ESU in proximity to locally adapted naturally spawning 
populations continues to erode the ESU's spatial structure and 
diversity. Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do 
not provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to 
alter the BRT's and the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's 
assessments that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' There have been significant and positive actions 
to address factors limiting the viability of Puget Sound chinook 
including: implementation of the Forest and Fish agreement for timber 
practices; DOT's Routine Road Maintenance 4(d) limit and its 
implementation by local governments; changes to harvest management; 
hatchery reform; and habitat restoration and conservation actions by 
local governments and voluntary organizations. However, the degradation 
and loss of estuarine, riparian, and freshwater habitats through past 
and present urbanization, agricultural activities, man-made impassible 
barriers, and forest practices remain significant limiting factors in 
this ESU. NMFS is encouraged by the parties working in the Shared 
Strategy process and will consider the results of this process provided 
they: address the limiting factors caused by past actions; address 
future losses from human population growth; and contain sufficient 
commitments over necessary time frames to evaluate the certainty of 
implementation. Without the necessary commitments to address the ESU's 
limiting factors, NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. NMFS proposes that the Puget Sound 
chinook ESU remain listed under the ESA as a threatened species.
Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU
    The BRT concluded that the Snake River fall-run chinook ESU is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' The 
within-ESU propagated stocks derived from the Lyons Ferry Hatchery 
stock have contributed to some encouraging increases in total ESU 
abundance in recent years; however, NMFS' assessment of the effects of 
artificial propagation on the ESU's extinction risk concluded that the 
within-ESU hatchery programs do not substantially reduce the extinction 
risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as 
evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is ``likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' Nonetheless, 
actions under the 2000 FCRPS biological opinion and improvements in 
hatchery practices have provided some encouraging signs in addressing 
the ESU's factors for decline. Other protective efforts, such as 
measures associated with the FERC relicensing of the Idaho Power 
Company's Hells Canyon Complex, are under development or ongoing. NMFS 
concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. NMFS proposes that the Snake River fall-run chinook ESU remain 
listed under the ESA as a threatened species.
Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook ESU
    The BRT concluded that the Snake River spring/summer-run chinook 
ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' 
NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on the ESU's 
extinction risk concluded that the within-ESU hatchery programs do not 
substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not 
provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to

[[Page 33160]]

alter the BRT's and the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's 
assessments that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' Nonetheless, actions under the 2000 FCRPS 
biological opinion, and improvements in hatchery practices have 
provided some encouraging signs in addressing the ESU's factors for 
decline. NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. NMFS proposes that the Snake River 
spring/summer-run chinook ESU remain listed under the ESA as a 
threatened species.
Central California Coast Coho ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the 
Central California Coast coho ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' 
Informed by the BRT findings (NMFS, 2003b) and the assessment of 
artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 
2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that 
the Central California Coast coho ESU in-total is ``in danger of 
extinction.'' The State of California has initiated the process for 
listing coho salmon under the California ESA and is expected to make a 
final listing decision in June 2004. In conjunction with this 
California ESA listing process the State has also developed a 
comprehensive, state-wide coho salmon recovery strategy and plan. This 
recovery strategy and plan was developed by the CDFG in 2003 and 
approved by the California Fish and Game Commission in February 2004. 
The plan is comprehensive in scope, addresses a wide range of factors 
responsible for the decline of coho throughout the State, and was 
developed by a broad range of stakeholders who will be responsible for 
the plan's implementation. The CDFG is in the process of developing an 
implementation plan that will prioritize recovery actions and estimate 
implementation costs. In the short-term, CDFG is using existing staff 
and financial resources to implement the plan, but is expected to 
pursue additional financial resources after the implementation plan is 
completed. In addition, CDFG has integrated the coho recovery plan with 
its coastal habitat restoration grant program by ensuring that high 
priority recovery plan actions in high priority watersheds receive a 
greater likelihood of funding.
    Although NMFS believes the plan will provide substantial benefits 
to this ESU over the long-term if it is implemented, the long-term 
prospects for plan funding and implementation are uncertain. Both 
freshwater and ocean harvest impacts to coho salmon have also been 
reduced, which has contributed to reducing extinction risk for the ESU. 
Other protective efforts that have provided benefits to this ESU 
include: Implementation of numerous freshwater habitat restoration 
projects funded through the State's habitat restoration grant program; 
efforts by multi-county conservation planning groups to inventory, 
prioritize, and fix salmonid migration barriers and to modify road 
maintenance activities throughout the range of the ESU; and the 
completion of numerous ESA section 7 consultations for gravel mining 
and other habitat impacting actions. Several future projects are 
expected to provide benefits to this ESU, including completion and 
implementation of the Russian River consultation addressing water 
project operations in the Russian River, and completion and approval of 
the Green Diamond Resource Company and Mendocino Redwoods timber 
harvest HCPs. Ongoing efforts by NMFS and CDFG to develop a coastal 
salmon and steelhead monitoring program are also expected to 
substantially improve the amount and quality of available information 
on the abundance and spatial distribution of naturally spawning 
populations in the future, thereby allowing much improved long-term 
assessment of population viability and trends. Although the artificial 
propagation programs that are part of this ESU were not found to 
substantially affect the viability of the ESU in-total, implementation 
of these programs in conjunction with the other protective efforts that 
are addressing habitat related factors for decline are expected to 
provide benefits to the ESU in the long term. Nonetheless, NMFS 
believes that protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do 
not provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to 
alter the BRT's and the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's 
assessments that the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' NMFS 
concludes, therefore, that the ESU in-total is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Accordingly, NMFS 
proposes that the Central California Coast coho salmon ESU, presently 
listed as a threatened species, be listed as an endangered species 
under the ESA.
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' Informed by the BRT 
findings (NMFS, 2003b) and the assessment of artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast coho ESU is ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c). The State of California 
has initiated the process for listing coho salmon within this ESU under 
the California ESA and is expected to make a final listing decision in 
June 2004. The State also developed a comprehensive, state-wide coho 
salmon recovery strategy and plan that was approved by the California 
Fish and Game Commission in February 2004. NMFS believes the plan will 
provide substantial benefits to the California portion of this ESU over 
the long-term if it is successfully implemented, but the long term 
prospects for plan funding and implementation are uncertain. In both 
Oregon and California, changes to freshwater and ocean harvest 
management have reduced impacts to coho salmon, which have contributed 
to reducing extinction risk for the ESU. Other protective efforts that 
have provided benefits to this ESU include: implementation of numerous 
freshwater habitat restoration projects in California through the 
state's habitat restoration grant program; efforts by the Five County 
conservation planning group to inventory, prioritize, and fix salmonid 
migration barriers and to modify road maintenance activities throughout 
the California portion of the ESU; implementation of the Oregon Plan in 
the Oregon portion of the ESU; implementation of the long-term Klamath 
Project biological opinion; and implementation of the Pacific Lumber 
Company HCP.
    NMFS and the State of California are developing a coastal salmon 
and steelhead monitoring program, which if implemented is expected to 
substantially improve the amount and quality of available information 
on the abundance and spatial distribution of naturally spawning 
populations in California, which would enhance the long-term assessment 
of population viability and trends. Although a wide range of important 
protective efforts have been implemented in both Oregon and California, 
these protective efforts, as yet, do not reduce threats sufficiently to 
the ESU. Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not 
provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to 
alter the BRT's and the Artificial

[[Page 33161]]

Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is ``likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' NMFS concludes 
that the ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. NMFS proposes that the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 
coho ESU remain listed under the ESA as a threatened species.
Oregon Coast Coho ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the 
Oregon Coast coho ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' Following recruitment failure for the 1994-1996 
brood years (returning in 1997-1999, respectively), the ESU has seen 
near record recruitment for the 1997-1999 brood years (returning in 
2000-2002, respectively). These recent returns are extremely 
encouraging; however, these increases need to be sustained through 
additional brood years to resolve remaining uncertainties regarding the 
ESU's viability. Additional data demonstrating that the freshwater 
habitat can support high abundances of natural spawners and sustain 
recent abundance levels would help resolve uncertainties regarding the 
ESU's resilience under less favorable ocean conditions.
    The artificial propagation programs producing coho populations 
considered to be part of the ESU have undergone substantial changes in 
the last 10 years to limit adverse effects to natural Oregon Coast coho 
populations. However, they are not managed to contribute to the ESU's 
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. NMFS' 
assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on the ESU's 
extinction risk concluded that the within-ESU hatchery programs do not 
substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). The severe reduction of harvest levels for Oregon Coast coho 
populations since 1998 has contributed to the increased abundance of 
natural spawners. Hatchery reform and the reduction of harvest 
represent effective management tools that can quickly yield results. 
However, once implemented, there is limited management flexibility to 
respond to future declines in the ESU's productivity if caused by 
deteriorating ocean or freshwater conditions.
    The Oregon Plan has made or encouraged significant contributions 
toward conserving salmon and steelhead populations in the state of 
Oregon. As noted in the Protective Efforts in Oregon section, an ESU-
scale analysis of the effectiveness of measures under the Oregon Plan 
in conserving the Oregon Coast Coho ESU is underway but not yet 
completed. In the absence of this analysis, the information available 
as evaluated pursuant to the PECE does not provide sufficient certainty 
of implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the 
Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU 
is ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' Based 
upon the information currently available, which does not include the 
findings from Oregon's analysis of the Oregon Plan with respect to this 
ESU, NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. NMFS, therefore, proposes that the 
Oregon Coast coho ESU be listed under the ESA as a threatened species. 
If, upon completion of the analysis, information is made available to 
the agency showing that the Oregon Plan and/or other conservation 
efforts substantially mitigate ESU extinction risk, NMFS will re-
initiate a status review for Oregon Coast coho to consider the best and 
most recent scientific and commercial information available.
Lower Columbia River Coho ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the Lower 
Columbia River coho ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' The BRT 
observed that although the scale of artificial propagation poses 
genetic and ecological threats to the two extant natural populations in 
the ESU, the within-ESU hatchery programs represent a substantial 
proportion of the genetic resources remaining in the ESU. However, the 
manner in which the majority of these hatchery fish are being produced 
does not adhere to best management practices, and may be compromising 
the integrity of these genetic resources. NMFS' assessment of the 
effects of artificial propagation on the ESU's extinction risk 
concluded that hatchery programs collectively mitigate the immediacy of 
extinction risk for the Lower Columbia River coho ESU in-total in the 
short term, but that these programs do not substantially reduce the 
extinction risk of the ESU in the foreseeable future (NMFS, 2004c). 
Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not provide 
sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to alter the 
Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessment that the ESU is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' However, 
several conservation measures represent encouraging signs in addressing 
the ESU's factors for decline. The expected dam removals on the Sandy 
River, once accomplished, would restore fish passage and open up 
currently inaccessible spawning and rearing habitats. Federal, state, 
and locally funded projects have improved fish passage, river flow 
management, and instream and riparian habitat conditions at many 
locations. The WA DNR HCP will benefit riparian zone habitats, improve 
road and forest management practices, and encourage improved monitoring 
efforts.
    NMFS recognizes that the genetic resources that reside in the ESU's 
hatchery programs may play a vital role in the future in expanding the 
distribution of naturally spawning coho populations in the Lower 
Columbia River. The manner in which these genetic resources are being 
managed, however, poses significant risks to the sustainability of 
these programs in the foreseeable future, as well as the ESU in-total. 
NMFS strongly encourages the reform of existing hatchery practices to 
provide better stewardship over the ESU's remaining diversity. 
Potentially effective improvements in hatchery practices by the Oregon 
and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife include: (1) Ending the 
transfer of eggs among basins; (2) use of broodstock that reflects what 
was historically present in a given basin, (3) development of Hatchery 
and Genetic Management Plans that reflect the natural escapement goals 
for each basin, and that identify how the hatchery programs will 
incorporate natural-origin fish into their broodstock; (4) commitments 
to continue 100 percent marking of released hatchery fish; (5) 
commitments to continue monitoring of natural production and the 
proportion of hatchery-origin fish on spawning grounds; and (6) 
development of a program to evaluate the reproductive success of 
naturally spawning hatchery coho and their contribution to the 
productivity of the natural populations.
    NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future over all or a significant portion of its 
range, and proposes that Lower Columbia River coho ESU be listed under 
the ESA as a threatened species.
Columbia River Chum ESU
    The BRT concluded that the Columbia River chum ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' NMFS' assessment of 
the effects of artificial propagation on the ESU's extinction risk 
concluded that the

[[Page 33162]]

within-ESU hatchery programs do not substantially reduce the extinction 
risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as 
evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is ``likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' However, flow 
management under the 2000 FCRPS biological opinion, federally funded 
habitat restoration efforts, the WA DNR HCP, and other protective 
efforts are encouraging signs in addressing the ESU's factors for 
decline. NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, and proposes that the Columbia River 
chum ESU remain listed under the ESA as a threatened species.
Hood Canal Summer Chum ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the Hood 
Canal summer-run chum ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation on the ESU's extinction risk concluded that the within-ESU 
hatchery programs do not substantially reduce the extinction risk of 
the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as evaluated 
pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is ``likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' Habitat 
improvements, HCPs, and other protective efforts are nonetheless 
encouraging signs in addressing the ESU's factors for decline. NMFS 
concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and proposes that the Hood Canal summer chum ESU remain listed 
under the ESA as a threatened species.
Southern California O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT concluded that the Southern California O. mykiss ESU is 
``in danger of extinction'' (NMFS, 2003b). For some BRT members, the 
presence of relatively numerous resident fish reduces risks to the 
ESU's abundance, but provides an uncertain contribution to the ESU's 
productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. There are no artificial 
propagation programs producing hatchery O. mykiss populations within 
the geographic range of the ESU, and therefore, the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop did not evaluate this ESU. The most 
important protective efforts in this ESU have resulted from ESA section 
7 consultations and habitat restoration projects funded by the State of 
California. Habitat restoration efforts in the Lower Santa Ynez River 
and new fish passage facilities at the Robles Diversion Dam on the 
Ventura River are recent efforts that are expected to provide benefits 
to O. mykiss. Other conservation efforts such as the Matilija and 
Rindge Dam removal projects have long-term potential to benefit the 
ESU, but their implementation is uncertain. Other habitat restoration 
or protective efforts are very local in scale, and so they do not 
provide benefits at the scale of large watersheds or the ESU in-total. 
Blockage of historical spawning and rearing habitat in both large and 
small watersheds and instream flow conditions remain to be addressed on 
a broad scale in this ESU. Information on the abundance and 
distribution of steelhead and resident O. mykiss remains limited and is 
a major concern since there are not comprehensive monitoring efforts 
being implemented. Efforts are underway by NMFS and the State, however, 
to develop a coastal salmonid monitoring program that, if implemented 
for this ESU, will likely allow improved long-term assessment of 
spatial distribution and abundance trends. Protective efforts, as 
evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's assessment that the 
ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' NMFS, therefore, concludes that the 
ESU in-total is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. NMFS proposes that the Southern California O. 
mykiss ESU remain listed under the ESA as an endangered species.
South-Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the 
South-Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2003b). For some BRT 
members, presence of relatively numerous resident fish reduces risks to 
the ESU's abundance, but provides an uncertain contribution to the 
ESU's productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. No artificial 
propagation programs are considered to be part of this ESU, and 
therefore, the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop did not 
evaluate this ESU. Protective efforts in the Carmel watershed appear to 
have contributed, at least in part, to a substantial increase in the 
steelhead escapement to the Carmel River since the mid-1990s. 
Recreational harvest of O. mykiss has been reduced by the State in 
recent years and the outplanting of hatchery fish from the Monterey Bay 
Salmon and Trout Project into this ESU has been halted. Both of these 
protective efforts have provided benefits to the ESU. Other restoration 
efforts and protective efforts, such as ESA section 7 consultations and 
habitat restoration projects funded by the State have provided benefits 
on a local scale, but have not reduced extinction risk at the scale of 
the ESU. The BRT expressed particular concern about the degraded 
habitat conditions in the Pajaro and Salinas river basins. No 
significant protective efforts are currently being implemented in 
either watershed. Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the 
PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation and 
effectiveness to alter the BRT's assessment that the ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' NMFS concludes that 
the ESU in-total is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. NMFS 
proposes that the South-Central Coast O. mykiss ESU remain listed under 
the ESA as a threatened species.
Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the 
Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU is ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future.'' For some BRT members, the presence of 
resident fish reduces risks to the ESU's natural abundance, but 
provides an uncertain contribution to the ESU's productivity, spatial 
structure, and diversity. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) 
and the assessment of artificial propagation programs on the viability 
of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation 
Workshop concluded that the Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 
2004c). There are two artificial propagation programs that are 
considered to be part of the ESU. These two programs likely provide 
some limited benefits to the ESU's viability by contributing to local 
population abundance, but do not substantially reduce the ESU's 
extinction risk. Resident O. mykiss populations above Dam 1 on Alameda 
Creek are genetically similar to below-dam populations that are part of 
the ESU, and therefore, are considered to be part of the ESU. Although 
these above-

[[Page 33163]]

dam resident populations are considered part of the ESU, it is unclear 
how and to what extent these resident populations contribute to the 
viability of the ESU in-total. Protective efforts that have provided 
benefits to this ESU include implementation of numerous habitat 
restoration projects as part of the state's habitat restoration grant 
program as well as ESA section 7 consultations for gravel mining and 
other habitat impacting activities. Protective efforts that are 
expected to have benefits to this ESU include completion and 
implementation of the Russian River water project operations 
consultation with the USACE, and ongoing local county planning and 
restoration efforts that are addressing migration barriers and routine 
road maintenance activities. Although some of the habitat protective 
efforts have provided benefits to the ESU, most notably the state's 
habitat restoration grant program and the multi-county restoration 
efforts, they do no reduce the ESU's extinction risk. Changes in the 
management of recreational angling on the north coast since the late 
1990's have reduced impacts to naturally spawning O. mykiss and likely 
contributed to reducing the ESU's extinction risk. In addition, the 
cessation of O. mykiss planting from the Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout 
Project into the adjacent South-Central Coast ESU is a positive 
development. Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do 
not provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to 
alter the BRT's and the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's 
assessments that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' NMFS therefore concludes that the ESU in-total is 
``likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range, and therefore, proposes that the 
Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU remain listed as a threatened 
species under the ESA.
California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT concluded that the California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU 
is ``in danger of extinction.'' For some BRT members, the presence of 
resident fish reduces risks to the ESU's abundance somewhat, but 
provides an uncertain contribution to the ESU's productivity, spatial 
structure, and diversity. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) 
and the assessment of artificial propagation programs on the viability 
of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation 
Workshop concluded that the California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU is 
``in danger of extinction'' (NMFS, 2004c). The two artificial 
propagation programs considered to be part of the ESU provide some 
limited benefits to the ESU's abundance, but they do not substantially 
reduce the ESU's extinction risk. The BRT was concerned that two out-
of-ESU hatchery programs may pose ecological and diversity risks to the 
natural O. mykiss populations in this ESU. All out-of-ESU hatchery 
production, however, is marked and releases occur in relatively close 
proximity to the hatchery facilities. These measures likely minimize 
straying and genetic introgression from the out-of-ESU hatchery stocks. 
In addition, in-river harvest of hatchery steelhead is encouraged by 
complete marking of all hatchery production, and State fishing 
regulations which allow retention of marked fish only. Nonetheless, it 
is uncertain the degree to which these out-of-ESU hatchery programs are 
an ecological risk and compromise the ESU's diversity. The loss of most 
historical spawning and rearing habitat above impassable dams 
throughout the California Central Valley, the restriction of natural 
production areas, the apparent continuing decline in O. mykiss 
abundance, and the lack of any monitoring efforts designed to assess O. 
mykiss abundance and trends remain major concerns for this ESU. A 
positive development is that CALFED has recently approved funding to 
develop a monitoring program for O. mykiss in the Central Valley. 
Development of this program and its subsequent implementation is a 
critically important action needed to assess the response of O. mykiss 
to habitat restoration efforts in the Central Valley. Major efforts 
have been undertaken over the past decade by Federal and state agencies 
to improve habitat conditions in the Central Valley and the major 
tributaries supporting spring chinook salmon. These efforts have also 
provided benefits to O. mykiss as well. These efforts include projects 
implemented as part of the CALFED program and the Central Valley 
Project Improvement Act. Restoration efforts have been implemented and 
are ongoing in Battle Creek, Butte Creek, Little Chico Creek, Clear 
Creek, and the Yuba River. In addition, local watershed groups are 
working in many of these watersheds to improve habitat conditions that 
provide benefits to both spring chinook and O. mykiss. NMFS has worked 
closely with the state over the past several years to ensure that in-
river harvest impacts on natural O. mykiss are minimized and efforts 
are continuing to develop a fishing management and evaluation plan for 
O. mykiss in the central valley. NMFS believes that the protective 
efforts being implemented for this ESU, as evaluated pursuant to the 
PECE, provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness 
to alter the BRT's and the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's 
assessments that the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' NMFS concludes 
that the ESU in-total is not in danger of extinction, but is likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Accordingly, NMFS proposes that the 
California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU remain listed as a threatened 
species under the ESA.
Northern California O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the 
Northern California O. mykiss ESU is ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future.'' The BRT did not consider resident fish 
to reduce risks to the ESU's abundance, and their contribution to the 
ESU's productivity, spatial structure, and diversity is uncertain. 
Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and the assessment of 
artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 
2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that 
the Northern California O. mykiss ESU is ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c). The two artificial 
propagation programs considered to be part of the ESU may provide some 
benefit to the abundance of local populations, but they affect only a 
small portion of the ESU in-total and do not substantially reduce the 
ESU's extinction risk. Although some protective efforts aimed at 
reducing threats to habitat and harvest impacts have benefited this 
ESU, most notably the State's habitat restoration grant program and 
multi-county conservation planning efforts aimed primarily at fixing 
migration barriers and improving road maintenance activities, these and 
other programs collectively do not substantially reduce the ESU's 
extinction risk. These protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the 
PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation and 
effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the Artificial Propagation 
Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.'' NMFS concludes that the ESU 
in-total is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable

[[Page 33164]]

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. NMFS 
proposes that the Northern California O. mykiss ESU remain listed as a 
threatened species under the ESA.
Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT concluded that the Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU is 
``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' The BRT 
did not consider resident fish to reduce risks to the ESU's abundance, 
and their contribution to the ESU's productivity, spatial structure, 
and diversity is uncertain. There are no artificial propagation 
programs producing hatchery O. mykiss populations that are considered 
to be part of the ESU. Protective efforts under FWS' Greenspaces 
Program, the Oregon Plan, and other efforts are encouraging signs. 
However, restoration efforts in the ESU are very local in scale, and 
have yet to provide benefits at the scale of watersheds or the larger 
spatial scale of the ESU. The blockage of historical spawning habitat 
and the restriction of natural production areas remain to be addressed. 
Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not provide 
sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to alter the 
BRT's assessment that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future.'' NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range, and proposes that the Upper 
Willamette River O. mykiss ESU remain listed under the ESA as a 
threatened species.
Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the Lower 
Columbia River O. mykiss ESU is ``likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future.'' The BRT did not consider resident fish to 
reduce risks to the ESU's abundance, and their contribution to the 
ESU's productivity, spatial structure, and diversity is uncertain. 
NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on the ESU's 
extinction risk concluded that the within-ESU hatchery programs do not 
substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not 
provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to 
alter the BRT's and the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's 
assessments that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' Nonetheless, the expected dam removals on the 
Sandy River, federally funded habitat restoration efforts, and the WA 
DNR HCP are encouraging signs in addressing the ESU's factors for 
decline. NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, and proposes that the Lower Columbia 
River O. mykiss ESU remain listed under the ESA as a threatened 
species.
Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT was closely divided on the extinction risk faced by the 
naturally spawned component of the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU 
between ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future'' 
and ``not in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future.'' The BRT concluded that the relatively 
abundant and widely distributed resident fish in the ESU reduce risks 
to overall ESU abundance, but provide an uncertain contribution to the 
ESU's productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. The improved 
viability of the ESU is attributable, in part, to recent improvements 
in ocean and freshwater conditions. The principal improvements in 
viability over the last 5 years include: Dramatic increases in 
abundance throughout the ESU; and positive short-term productivity in 
all production areas. However, there is insufficient certainty that 
these encouraging trends will continue into the future. Despite recent 
increases, the natural populations in the Yakima, Klickitat, and 
Touchet Rivers remain well below their interim recovery target 
abundance levels, and long-term trends for 11 of 12 production areas in 
the ESU remain negative. Although adult returns in the Deschutes River 
have increased, the presence of substantial numbers of out-of-basin 
hatchery strays may pose risks to the productivity and diversity of 
this population.
    NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on the 
ESU's extinction risk concluded that the within-ESU hatchery programs 
do not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total 
(NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, 
do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness 
to alter the BRT's and the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop's 
assessments that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' Ongoing actions under the 2000 FCRPS biological 
opinion, federally funded habitat restoration efforts, and other 
protective efforts continue to benefit the ESU, but do not as yet 
substantially reduce threats to the ESU.
    Continued and additional conservation efforts are needed to address 
threats to the ESU to the point that the protections afforded under the 
ESA are no longer necessary. Conservative harvest and hatchery 
management, continued riparian zone and habitat restoration efforts, 
improvements in fish passage and the management of instream flows, and 
adherence to best management practices for grazing, forestry, 
artificial propagation, mining, and recreational activities are all 
critical to the recovery of the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. 
NMFS concludes that the ESU is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and proposes that the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU remain 
listed as a threatened species.
    Although NMFS believes that the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU 
at present still warrants listing under the ESA, the risk assessments 
by the BRT and the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop were 
almost evenly divided on whether the ESU is likely to become endangered 
in the foreseeable future. NMFS recognizes that the decision to propose 
retaining the threatened listing was a close one. NMFS views the 
improved viability of the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU as an 
exceptional opportunity to secure specific conservation measures that 
would help ensure the ESU's viability over the long term, and likely 
bring the ESU to the point where the protections of the ESA are no 
longer necessary. NMFS is interested in assuring that certain major 
threats are addressed through firm commitments, plans, and funding. In 
addition to continued habitat protections, the following specific 
actions are likely to have the greatest influence on the viability of 
this ESU: (1) Continued funding by the Bonneville Power Administration 
of ESU-wide riparian zone and instream habitat restoration efforts, 
consistent with its Fish and Wildlife Program's portion of the subbasin 
and recovery plans being developed; (2) adherence of the BLM to best 
management practices for grazing, mining, and recreational activities 
ESU-wide; (3) adherence of the USFS to best management practices for 
grazing, forestry, and mining activities ESU-wide; (4) continued 
conservative fisheries management by the Washington Department of Fish 
and Wildlife within the range of this ESU, and its development and 
implementation of a long-term approach

[[Page 33165]]

that balances natural and hatchery production across the ESU; (5) 
continued conservative fisheries management by ODFW in this ESU 
(particularly in the John Day River subbasin), its development and 
implementation of management approaches to reduce the straying of out-
of-basin stocks into Deschutes and John Day spawning areas, and its 
development and implementation of a long-term approach that balances 
natural and hatchery production across the ESU; (6) improved passage 
and flow management by the BOR in the Yakima River and the Umatilla 
River subbasins, including the establishment of fish passage into 
significant tributaries; (7) establishment of passage in the Deschutes 
River subbasin above the Pelton/Rounde Butte complex, the restoration 
of the downstream water temperature regime to historical levels, and 
the restoration and enhancement of upstream/downstream habitats by the 
FERC; (8) improvements in fish passage, screening and flow management 
in the Walla Walla River subbasin by the USACE, as well as altering the 
flood operating rule for Mill Creek or alternatively screening the 
diversion into Bennington Lake; (9) continued conservative hatchery and 
harvest management and adherence to best land management practices by 
the Yakama Nation; (10) continued conservative hatchery and harvest 
management by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation; and 
(11) continued adherence to best land management practices by the 
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation in the Deschutes 
River subbasin.
    In the event that such actions are undertaken to address these 
factors prior to making our final listing determination, and adequate 
commitments are made that they will be continued, NMFS will take such 
opportunity to re-initiate a status review for the Middle Columbia 
River O. mykiss ESU. If such actions were taken following a final 
determination to list this ESU, NMFS may similarly reinitiate a status 
review to consider the best and most recent scientific and commercial 
information available.
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT was divided on the extinction risk faced by the naturally 
spawned component of the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU between 
``in danger of extinction'' and ``likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future,'' with a majority finding that the ESU is ``in 
danger of extinction.'' For many BRT members, the presence of 
relatively numerous resident fish reduces risks to the ESU's abundance, 
but provides an uncertain contribution to the ESU's productivity, 
spatial structure, and diversity. NMFS' assessment of the effects of 
artificial propagation on the ESU's extinction risk concluded that 
hatchery programs collectively mitigate the immediacy of extinction 
risk for the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU in-total in the short 
term, but that the contribution of these programs in the foreseeable 
future is uncertain (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as evaluated 
pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the Artificial Propagation 
Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.'' Actions under the 2000 
FCRPS biological opinion, federally funded habitat restoration efforts, 
and other protective efforts are encouraging signs in addressing the 
ESU's factors for decline, but do not as yet substantially reduce the 
ESU's extinction risk. NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. NMFS proposes that the Upper Columbia 
River O. mykiss ESU, presently listed as an endangered species, be 
listed under the ESA as a threatened species.
Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU
    The BRT concluded that the naturally spawned component of the Snake 
River Basin O. mykiss ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' For many BRT members, the presence of relatively 
numerous resident fish reduces risks to the ESU's abundance, but 
provides an uncertain contribution to the ESU's productivity, spatial 
structure, and diversity. Native resident O. mykiss populations above 
Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater River are genetically similar 
to below-dam populations that are part of the ESU, and, therefore, are 
considered to be part of the ESU. Although these above-dam resident 
populations are considered part of the ESU, it is unclear how and to 
what extent these resident populations contribute to the viability of 
the ESU in-total. NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation on the ESU's extinction risk concluded that the within-ESU 
hatchery programs do not substantially reduce the extinction risk of 
the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as evaluated 
pursuant to the PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the BRT's and the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop's assessments that the ESU is ``likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' Nonetheless, 
actions under the 2000 FCRPS biological opinion and improvements in 
hatchery practices have provided some encouraging signs in addressing 
the ESU's factors for decline. NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total is 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. NMFS proposes that the Snake 
River Basin O. mykiss ESU remain listed under the ESA as a threatened 
species.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Number of
                                                                                                    artificial
                                          Current Endangered Species       Proposed listing         propagation
  Evolutionarily significant unit (ESU)        Act (ESA) status              determination           programs
                                                                                                    included in
                                                                                                      the ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snake River sockeye ESU.................  Endangered................  Endangered................               1
Ozette Lake sockeye ESU.................  Threatened................  Threatened................               2
Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU.  Endangered................  Threatened................               2
Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU...  Threatened................  Threatened................               0
California Coastal chinook ESU..........  Threatened................  Threatened................               7
Upper Willamette River chinook ESU......  Threatened................  Threatened................               7
Lower Columbia River chinook ESU........  Threatened................  Threatened................              17
Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook   Endangered................  Endangered................               6
 ESU.
Puget Sound chinook ESU.................  Threatened................  Threatened................              22
Snake River fall-run chinook ESU........  Threatened................  Threatened................               4
Snake River spring/summer-run chinook     Threatened................  Threatened................              15
 ESU.

[[Page 33166]]

 
Central California Coast coho ESU.......  Threatened................  Endangered................               4
Southern Oregon/Northern California       Threatened................  Threatened................               3
 Coast coho ESU.
Oregon Coast coho ESU...................  Threatened *..............  Threatened................               5
Lower Columbia River coho ESU...........  Candidate.................  Threatened................              21
Columbia River chum ESU.................  Threatened................  Threatened................               3
Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU..........  Threatened................  Threatened................               8
Southern California O. mykiss ESU.......  Endangered................  Endangered................               0
South-Central California Coast O. mykiss  Threatened................  Threatened................               0
 ESU.
Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU..  Threatened................  Threatened................               2
California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU.  Threatened................  Threatened................               2
Northern California O. mykiss ESU.......  Threatened................  Threatened................               2
Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU....  Threatened................  Threatened................               0
Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU......  Threatened................  Threatened................              10
Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU.....  Threatened................  Threatened................               7
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU......  Endangered................  Threatened................               6
Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU.........  Threatened................  Threatened................              6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* But see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2004).

Findings on Delisting Petitions
    With regard to the six petitions (detailed above in the ``Summary 
of Petitions'' section) seeking to delist a total of 15 salmon and O. 
mykiss ESUs, NMFS finds on the basis of the best available scientific 
and commercial information that the petitioned actions are not 
warranted. NMFS finds that listing is warranted for all of the 15 
petitioned ESUs: six chinook ESUs (the Snake River spring/summer-run, 
Snake River fall-run, Puget Sound, Lower Columbia River, Upper 
Willamette River, and Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESUs); 
two coho ESUs (the Central California Coast and Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast coho ESUs); two chum ESUs (the Hood Canal 
summer-run and Columbia River chum ESUs); and five O. mykiss ESUs (the 
Upper Columbia River, Snake River Basin, Middle Columbia River, Lower 
Columbia River, and Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESUs).

Prohibitions and Protective Regulations

    ESA section 9(a) take prohibitions (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B)) apply 
to all species listed as endangered. Hatchery stocks determined to be 
part of endangered ESUs are afforded the full protections of the ESA. 
In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the 
Secretary's discretion whether and to what extent to extend the 
statutory 9(a) ``take'' prohibitions, and directs the agency to issue 
regulations it considers necessary and advisable for the conservation 
of the species. NMFS has flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor 
protective regulations based on the contributions of available 
conservation measures. 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.
    Even though existing protective efforts and plans, including 
certain artificial propagation programs and their associated hatchery 
stocks, are not sufficient to preclude the need for listing the subject 
ESUs at this time, they are nevertheless valuable for improving 
watershed health and restoring fishery resources. In those cases where 
regulations or conservation programs are in place, which will 
adequately protect threatened ESUs, NMFS may choose to limit the 
application of the take prohibitions for those ESUs. NMFS has already 
adopted ESA 4(d) rules that exempt a range of activities from the take 
prohibitions for threatened salmon and O. mykiss ESUs (62 FR 38479, 
July 18, 1997; 65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000; 65 FR 42485, July 10, 2000; 
67 FR 1116, January 9, 2002; see description of the current 4(d) 
protective regulations for threatened salmonids in the following 
section).
    NMFS intends to use the flexibility of the ESA to respond 
appropriately to the biological condition of each ESU and to the 
strength of regulations and conservation programs to protect them. The 
Court ruled in the Alsea case that NMFS may not list only a portion of 
an ESU when making its ESA listing determinations. Informed by the 
Court's ruling, hatchery stocks considered to be part of an ESU will be 
listed if it is determined that the ESU in-total is threatened or 
endangered. This approach, however, presents some challenges to 
hatchery and fisheries management. While the ESA requires NMFS to list 
all populations within a threatened or endangered ESU, it does not 
require NMFS to implement protective regulations equally among 
populations within threatened ESUs. NMFS has discretion under the ESA 
to allow for the take of hatchery fish, considered to be part of a 
threatened ESU, provided that such take is not inconsistent with the 
recovery of the ESU.

Current ESA 4(d) Protective Regulations for Threatened Salmonids

    Currently there are a total of 29 ``limits'' to ESA Section 9(a) 
``take'' prohibitions for threatened salmonid ESUs. Comprehensive 
descriptions of each 4(d) limit are contained in ``A Citizen's Guide to 
the 4(d) Rule'(available on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/final4d.htm), and in previously published Federal 
Register notices (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997; 65 FR 42422, July 10, 
2000; 65 FR 42485, July 10, 2000; 67 FR 1116, January 9, 2002).
    The first six of these limits promulgated (50 CFR 223.204(b)(1) 
through (b)(6)) were published as an interim rule in 1997 for the 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU (62 FR 38479, July 
18, 1997). These six limits allow for the take of coho salmon in Oregon 
and California, under certain circumstances, if the take is: part of 
approved fisheries management plans; part of an approved hatchery 
program; part of approved fisheries research and monitoring activities; 
or part of approved habitat restoration activities.

[[Page 33167]]

    In 2000, NMFS promulgated 13 limits affecting, in total, 14 ESUs in 
California, Oregon, and Washington (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000; 50 CFR 
223.203(b)(1) through (b)(13)). These ``limits'' include: paragraph 
(b)(1) activities conducted in accordance with ESA section 10 
incidental take authorization; paragraph (b)(2) scientific or 
artificial propagation activities with pending applications at the time 
of rulemaking; paragraph (b)(3) emergency actions related to injured, 
stranded, or dead salmonids; paragraph (b)(4) fishery management 
activities; paragraph (b)(5) hatchery and genetic management programs; 
paragraph (b)(6) activities in compliance with joint tribal/state plans 
developed within United States (U.S.) v. Washington or U.S. v. Oregon; 
paragraph (b)(7) scientific research activities permitted or conducted 
by the states; paragraph (b)(8) state, local, and private habitat 
restoration activities; paragraph (b)(9) properly screened water 
diversion devices; paragraph (b)(10) routine road maintenance 
activities; paragraph (b)(11) certain park pest management activities 
in Portland, Oregon; paragraph (b)(12) certain municipal, residential, 
commercial, and industrial development and redevelopment activities; 
and paragraph (b)(13) forest management activities on state and private 
lands within the State of Washington. The Southern Oregon/Northern 
California Coasts coho ESU was included under two of these 13 limits 
(limits 50 CFR 223.203(b)(1) and (b)(3)). The limits published in 2000 
that addressed fishery and harvest management, scientific research, and 
habitat restoration activities did not supersede the 6 limits for the 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU promulgated in the 
1997 interim rule, despite addressing the same types of activities 
(although for different ESUs). Also in 2000, NMFS issued a limit for 
all threatened ESUs exempting activities undertaken consistent with an 
approved tribal resource management plan (65 FR 42485, July 10, 2000; 
50 CFR 223.209).
    In 2002, NMFS added an additional nine limits (67 FR 1116, January 
9, 2002; 50 CFR 223.203(b)(14) through (b)(22)) addressing four 
salmonid ESUs in California: the Central Valley spring-run chinook, 
California Coastal chinook, Central California Coast coho, and Northern 
California O. mykiss ESUs. These limits are essentially identical to 
limits previously promulgated in 2000. These additional nine limits 
similarly address emergency actions, fishery management activities, 
artificial propagation programs, scientific research, habitat 
restoration activities; properly screened water diversions, routine 
road maintenance activities, and development and redevelopment 
activities. Rather than including the four California ESUs under the 
limits promulgated in 2000, these ESUs were treated under separate 
limits.

Proposed Amendment to 4(d) Protective Regulations for Threatened 
Salmonid ESUs

    NMFS proposes to amend existing 4(d) regulations to provide the 
necessary flexibility to ensure that fisheries and artificial 
propagation programs are managed consistently with the conservation 
needs of ESA-listed ESUs. NMFS proposes to apply section 4(d) 
protections to unmarked anadromous fish with an intact adipose fin. 
(The clipping of adipose fins in hatchery fish just prior to release 
into the natural environment is a commonly employed method for the 
marking of hatchery production). Hatchery fish that are surplus to the 
recovery needs of an ESU, and that are otherwise distinguishable from 
naturally spawned fish in the ESU (e.g., by run timing or location) may 
be exempted from the section 4(d) protections under limits (b)(4) and 
(b)(6) under 50 CFR 223.203 for fishery management plans, as well as 
under 50 CFR 223.209 for tribal resource management plans. NMFS 
believes this approach provides needed flexibility to appropriately 
manage artificial propagation and direct take of threatened salmon and 
O. mykiss for the conservation and recovery of these ESUs. Not all 
hatchery stocks considered to be part of listed ESUs are of equal value 
for use in conservation and recovery. Certain ESU hatchery stocks may 
comprise a substantial portion of the genetic diversity remaining in a 
threatened ESU, and thus are essential assets for ongoing and future 
recovery efforts. If released with adipose fins intact, hatchery fish 
in these populations would be afforded protections under 4(d). NMFS, 
however, may need to allow take of listed hatchery stocks to manage the 
number of hatchery fish allowed to spawn naturally to limit potential 
adverse effects to spawning natural-origin fish. Other hatchery stocks, 
although considered to be part of a threatened ESU, may be of limited 
or uncertain conservation value. Artificial propagation programs 
producing within-ESU hatchery populations could release adipose-fin-
clipped fish, such that protections under 4(d) would not apply, and 
these populations could fulfill other purposes (e.g., fulfilling 
Federal trust and tribal treaty obligations) while preserving all 
future recovery options. It may be determined through ongoing recovery 
planning efforts that these hatchery stocks are essential for recovery.

Simplification of Existing 4(d) Protective Regulations for Threatened 
Salmonids

    Although the ESA section 4(d) regulations for threatened salmonids 
have proven effective at appropriately protecting threatened salmonid 
ESUs and permitting certain activities, several of the limits described 
therein are redundant, outdated, or are located disjunctly in the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR). The resulting complexity of the existing 
4(d) regulations unnecessarily increases the administrative and 
regulatory burden of managing protective regulations for threatened 
ESUs, and does not effectively convey to the public the specific ESUs 
for which certain activities may be exempted from the take prohibitions 
under 4(d). As part of this proposed rulemaking, NMFS proposes to 
clarify the existing section 4(d) regulations for threatened salmonids 
so that they can be more efficiently and effectively accessed and 
interpreted by all affected parties.
    NMFS proposes simplifying the ESA 4(d) regulations by making the 
following clarifying changes: (1) NMFS proposes to apply the same set 
of limits to all threatened ESUs by bringing the Snake River fall-run 
chinook, Snake River spring/summer-run chinook, Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast coho, Central Valley spring-run chinook, 
California Coastal chinook, Central California Coast coho, Lower 
Columbia River coho, and Northern California O. mykiss ESUs under the 
13 limits promulgated in 2000; (2) for those ESUs currently listed as 
endangered but being proposed for threatened status (the Sacramento 
River winter-run chinook, Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook, and 
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESUs), NMFS also proposes to apply the 
4(d) protections and 13 limits promulgated in 2000; (3) NMFS proposes 
to amend an expired limit (50 CFR 223.203(b)(2)) to apply to the Lower 
Columbia River coho ESU; and (4) NMFS proposes moving the limit for 
Tribal Resource Management Plans (50 CFR 223.209) so that it appears in 
the CFR next to the 4(d) rule. These four clarifying changes are 
described in further detail below.
    NMFS believes that the clarity and consistency of the existing ESA 
4(d) regulations would be improved by including all threatened salmonid 
ESUs under the same set of limits, rather than maintaining separate and 
partially

[[Page 33168]]

redundant sets of limits for different ESUs. As noted in the previous 
section, the limits added in 2002 are essentially identical to limits 
promulgated in 2000. Removing the nine limits promulgated in 2002 (67 
FR 1116, January 9, 2002; limits 50 CFR 223.203 (b)(14) through 
(b)(22)) and consolidating them under the limits promulgated in 2000 
will simplify and clarify the existing 4(d) regulations, reduce their 
regulatory and administrative impact, while remaining equally 
protective of the affected ESUs: the Central Valley spring-run chinook, 
California Coastal chinook, Central California Coast coho, and Northern 
California O. mykiss ESUs.
    NMFS also proposes to apply the limits promulgated in 2000 to the 
Snake River fall-run and spring/summer-run chinook ESUs. Currently, 
these ESUs are afforded the section 9(a) take prohibitions and the 
limit exempting activities with ESA section 10 incidental take 
authorization (50 CFR 223.203(b)(1)). However, the remaining 12 limits 
promulgated in 2000 do not apply (50 CFR 223.203 (b)(2) through 
(b)(13)). At the time of the 2000 rulemaking, NMFS stated that the 4(d) 
protective regulations for the two Snake River chinook ESUs provided 
the necessary flexibility to support research, monitoring, and 
conservation activities. However, the take limits provided by the 2000 
rulemaking have proved extremely useful in managing other threatened 
ESUs, including the Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU, which has an 
overlapping geographic range with the two Snake River chinook ESUs. 
NMFS proposes including these two ESUs under limits 50 CFR 
223.203(b)(3) through (b)(13) to provide consistency with other 
threatened ESUs and to encourage regulations and conservation programs 
that are consistent with their conservation and recovery.
    Section 4(d) of the ESA states that whenever any species is listed 
as a threatened species, ``the Secretary shall issue such regulations 
as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of 
the species.'' NMFS proposes to apply the 4(d) protections and 13 
limits promulgated in 2000 to the Lower Columbia River coho ESU, being 
proposed for threatened status. These protections are necessary to 
promote the conservation of the remaining natural populations in the 
ESU (i.e., the Sandy and Clackamas River populations). However, 
extending the 4(d) protective regulations to the Lower Columbia River 
coho ESU will not represent an additional administrative or regulatory 
burden. The ESU has an overlapping geographic range with four 
threatened ESUs that are currently subject to the 2000 4(d) protective 
regulations (i.e., the Columbia River chum, Lower Columbia River 
chinook, Upper Willamette River chinook, and Lower Columbia River O. 
mykiss ESUs). The 21 hatchery programs included in the ESU all employ 
100 percent marking by adipose-fin clip. Extending the 4(d) protective 
regulations to the Lower Columbia River ESU is necessary to provide the 
needed flexibility to appropriately manage artificial propagation and 
direct take consistent with the conservation and recovery of the ESU.
    NMFS proposes to remove the six limits of the 1997 interim rule for 
the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU (62 FR 38479, 
July 18, 1997; 50 CFR 223.204), and to bring the ESU under the limits 
promulgated in 2000 (65 FR 42422; July 10, 2000; limits 50 CFR 223.203 
(b)(1) through (b)(13)). The 1997 interim rule was the first 
``limited'' ESA 4(d) regulation promulgated by NMFS for a salmonid ESU. 
The limits promulgated in 2000 addressed the same types of activities 
addressed in the 1997 interim rule, as additional activities determined 
to be consistent with the conservation and recovery of threatened 
salmonid ESUs.
    Including the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho ESU 
under the 2000 ESA 4(d) limits will result in two substantive changes 
in the take prohibitions afforded. The first change concerns the use of 
electrofishing in research and monitoring activities. In lieu of agency 
technical guidance on how to minimize the adverse effects of 
electrofishing on salmonids, the 1997 interim rule specifically 
prohibits the use of electrofishing (50 CFR 223.204(a)(5)). In 2000, 
NMFS released its ``Guidelines for Electrofishing Waters Containing 
Salmonids Listed Under the Endangered Species Act'' (Electrofishing 
Guidelines; NMFS, 2000b; available online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/4ddocs/final4d/electro2000.pdf), based on NMFS' 
research expertise, as well as input from fishery researchers and 
specialists in electrofishing technology. NMFS believes that exempting 
the use of electrofishing in research and monitoring activities for the 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU, consistent with the 
Electrofishing Guidelines, will adequately protect fish in the ESU. 
Additionally, this action will provide consistency by permitting 
similar activities for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 
coho ESU as are permitted for other ESUs within the same geographical 
range that are covered under the limits promulgated in 2000.
    The second substantive change in the protective regulations for the 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU concerns certain 
scientific research activities. Under the 1997 interim ESA 4(d) rule 
for this ESU (50 CFR 223.204(a)(4)) take of the listed species 
associated with certain fisheries research and monitoring activities 
conducted by ODFW and CDFG personnel are not prohibited, pending NMFS' 
review and approval. This limit is not extended beyond ODFW and CDFG, 
such that take for all other research (e.g., research conducted by 
academic researchers, contractors, and consultants) can only be 
exempted under section 10(a)(1). However, a limit promulgated in 2000 
(specifically 50 CFR 223.203 (b)(7)) provides for a take limitation to 
any party conducting research under a state permit. NMFS has determined 
that the impact on listed species is the same whether take is afforded 
under section 4(d) or section 10. However, requiring parties to seek 
take exemptions under section 10 increases the regulatory and 
administrative burden without providing additional protections or 
safeguards for listed fish. Accordingly, this proposed change will 
streamline the permitting processes for research activities, while 
remaining equally protective of the Southern Oregon/Northern California 
Coasts coho ESU.
    Limit 50 CFR 223.203(b)(2) exempts scientific or artificial 
propagation activities with pending applications at the time of 2000 
rulemaking (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000; 67 FR 1116, January 9, 2002). 
The deadline associated with this exemption has expired. The proposed 
amendment of this expired limit will not impact in any way the 
protective regulations for the threatened ESUs addressed in the 2000 
rulemaking. NMFS proposes to amend limit Sec.  223.203(b)(2) to apply 
to the Lower Columbia River coho ESU, which is presently not a listed 
species but is being proposed for threatened status. NMFS proposes to 
amend limit Sec.  223.203(b)(2) to allow for research on Lower Columbia 
River coho to continue for 6 months, provided the researcher submits an 
application within 30 days of the effective date of the final ESA 4(d) 
rule.
    The limit for certain tribal resource management plans (50 CFR 
223.209) is separated by several sections in the CFR from the other 
limits (50 CFR 223.203). Although this does not diminish the 
applicability of the limit to certain activities under tribal plans, 
its appearance in the CFR as a disjunct

[[Page 33169]]

section does not clearly convey to tribal governments the opportunities 
associated with these plans. NMFS proposes to move the limit for tribal 
plans, so that it appears in the CFR next to the 13 ESA 4(d) limits. 
This reorganization will improve the clarity of the ESA 4(d) 
regulations, but will not modify the limit for tribal plans in any way.
    NMFS believes that the ESA section 9(a) take prohibitions, which 
are applicable for endangered species, are to some extent necessary and 
advisable for the conservation of the Sacramento winter-run chinook, 
Lower Columbia River coho, and Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESUs, 
which are being proposed for threatened status. However, the take of 
listed fish in these ESUs need not be prohibited when it results from 
activities which are in accordance with adequate regulations and 
conservation programs. NMFS therefore proposes to apply ESA section 
9(a) prohibitions to these three ESUs, and to apply the 13 limits 
promulgated in 2000. No change is needed in 50 CFR 223.209 to include 
these three ESUs under the limit for Tribal Resource Management Plans. 
Limit 50 CFR 223.209(a) applies the limit for tribal plans to all 
threatened species listed in 50 CFR 223.203(a).
    Certain ESA 4(d) limits are regional in scope and are not 
necessarily applicable to those ESUs outside the area of coverage. 
These limits are for: activities in compliance with joint tribal/state 
plans developed within United States (U.S.) v. Washington or U.S. v. 
Oregon (50 CFR 223.203(b)(6)); certain park pest management activities 
in Portland, Oregon (50 CFR 223.203(b)(11); and forest management 
activities on state and private lands within the State of Washington 
(50 CFR 223.203(b)(13)).
    NMFS emphasizes that these take limits are not prescriptive 
regulations. The fact that an activity is not conducted within the 
specified criteria for a take limit does not automatically mean that 
the activity violates the ESA or the proposed regulation. Many 
activities do not affect the threatened ESUs covered by this proposed 
rule, and, therefore, need not necessarily be conducted within a given 
limit to avoid section 9 take violations. Nevertheless, there is 
greater certainty that an activity or program is not at risk of 
violating the section 9 take prohibitions, and at risk of enforcement 
actions, if it is conducted in accordance with these take limits.
    Jurisdictions, entities, and individuals are encouraged to evaluate 
their practices and activities to determine the likelihood of whether 
take is occurring. NMFS can provide ESA coverage through ESA section 
4(d) rules, section 10 research, enhancement, and incidental take 
permits, or through section 7 consultation with Federal agencies. If 
take is likely to occur, then the jurisdiction, entity or individual 
should modify its practices to avoid the take of these threatened 
salmonid ESUs, or seek protection from potential ESA liability through 
section 7, section 10, or section 4(d) procedures.
    Jurisdictions, entities, and individuals are not required to seek 
coverage under an ESA 4(d) limit from NMFS. In order to reduce its 
liability, a jurisdiction, entity, or individual may also informally 
comply with a limit by choosing to modify its programs to be consistent 
with the evaluation considerations described in the individual limits. 
Finally, a jurisdiction, entity, or individual may seek to qualify its 
plans or ordinances for inclusion under a take limit by obtaining a 
4(d) take limit authorization from NMFS.
    NMFS will continue to work collaboratively with all affected 
governmental entities to recognize existing management programs that 
conserve and meet the biological requirements of listed salmonids, and 
to strengthen other programs toward the conservation of listed ESUs. 
Any final rule resulting from this proposal may be amended (through 
proposed rule making and public comment) to add new limits on the take 
prohibitions, or to amend or delete adopted take limits as 
circumstances warrant.

Other Protective Regulations

    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 proposed Federal action may 
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS. Examples of 
Federal actions likely to affect salmon and O. mykiss include 
authorized land management activities of the USFS and the BLM, as well 
as operation of hydroelectric and storage projects of the BOR and the 
USACE. Such activities include timber sales and harvest, permitting 
livestock grazing, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control. 
Federal actions, including the USACE section 404 permitting activities 
under the Clean Water Act, USACE 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 ``take'' 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 salmon 
and O. mykiss ESUs 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 FWS, 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

[[Page 33170]]

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 salmon or O. mykiss from any 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; or
    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'' salmon or 
O. mykiss (see ESA 3(19) and 50 CFR 222.102 [harm]) 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 salmon or O. mykiss 
habitats 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 salmon or O. mykiss habitats 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 salmon or O. mykiss in any proposed ESU;
    4. Violation of discharge permits;
    5. Pesticide applications;
    6. Interstate and foreign commerce of salmon or O. mykiss from any 
of the proposed ESUs and import/export of salmon or O. mykiss from any 
ESU without a threatened or endangered species permit;
    7. Collecting or handling of salmon or O. mykiss 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; or
    8. Introduction of non-native species likely to prey on salmon or 
O. mykiss 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 salmon or O. mykiss 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(b)(2) of the ESA requires NMFS to designate critical 
habitat for threatened and endangered species ``on the basis of the 
best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat.'' This section grants the Secretary [of Commerce] discretion 
to exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines ``the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
area as part of the critical habitat.'' The Secretary's discretion is 
limited, as he may not exclude areas if it ``will result in the 
extinction of the species.'' In addition, the Secretary may not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan under Section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the 
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to 
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation (see 
section 318(a)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act, Pub. L. 
108-136).
    The ESA defines critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) as:
    ``(I) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by 
the species, at the time it is listed * * *, 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 at the time it is listed * * * upon a determination by the 
Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.''
    Once critical habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires 
Federal agencies to ensure they do not fund, authorize or carry out any 
actions that will destroy or adversely modify that habitat. This 
requirement is in addition to the other principal section 7 requirement 
that Federal agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the 
continued existence of listed species.
    On February 16, 2000, NMFS published a final rule designating 
critical habitat for 19 ESUs of west coast salmon and O. mykiss (65 FR 
7764). The designations included more than 150 river subbasins in WA, 
OR, ID, and CA. Within each occupied subbasin, NMFS designated as 
critical habitat those lakes and river reaches accessible to listed 
fish along with the associated riparian zone, except for reaches on 
Indian land. Areas considered inaccessible included areas above long-
standing natural impassable barriers and areas above impassable dams, 
but not areas above ephemeral barriers such as failed culverts.
    In considering the economic impact, NMFS determined that the 
critical habitat designations would impose very little or no additional 
costs beyond those already imposed by the listing of the species 
themselves. NMFS reasoned that since it was designating only occupied 
habitat, there would be few or no actions that adversely modified 
critical habitat that also did not jeopardize the continued existence 
of the species. Therefore, there would be no economic impact as a 
result of the designations (65 FR 7764, 7765; February 16, 2000).
    The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) challenged the 
designations in District Court in Washington, DC, as having 
inadequately considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designations (National Association of Homebuilders v. Evans,

[[Page 33171]]

2002 WL 1205743 No. 00-CV-2799 (D.D.C.). NAHB also challenged NMFS' 
designation of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) (Pacific Coast Salmon 
Fishery Management Plan, 2000). While the NAHB litigation was pending, 
the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued its decision in New 
Mexico Cattlegrowers' Association v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001) (NMCA). In that case, the Court rejected 
the FWS' approach to economic analysis, which was similar to the 
approach taken by NMFS in the final rule designating critical habitat 
for 19 ESUs of west coast salmon and O. mykiss. The Court ruled that 
``Congress intended that the FWS conduct a full analysis of all of the 
economic impacts of a critical habitat designation, regardless of 
whether those impacts are attributable co-extensively to other 
causes.'' Subsequent to the 10th Circuit decision, NMFS entered into 
and sought judicial approval of a consent decree resolving the NAHB 
litigation. That decree provided for the withdrawal of critical habitat 
designations for the 19 salmon and O. mykiss ESUs and dismissed NAHB's 
challenge to the EFH designations. The District Court approved the 
consent decree and vacated the critical habitat designations by Court 
order on April 30, 2002 (National Association of Homebuilders v. Evans, 
2002 WL 1205743 (D.D.C. 2002).
    As a result of the Court's decision, NMFS removed critical habitat 
designations for the following 19 ESUs of salmon and O. mykiss: One 
sockeye ESU (the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU); six chinook ESUs (the Puget 
Sound, Lower Columbia River, Upper Willamette River, Upper Columbia 
River, California Central Valley spring-run, and California coastal 
chinook ESUs); one coho ESU (the Oregon Coast coho ESU); two chum ESUs 
(the Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River chum ESUs; and nine O. 
mykiss ESUs (the Southern California, South-Central California Coast, 
Central California Coast, California Central Valley, Upper Columbia 
River, Snake River Basin, Lower Columbia River, Upper Willamette River, 
and Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESUs) (68 FR 55900; September 29, 
2003). NMFS is currently compiling information to prepare critical 
habitat proposals for the 19 ESUs vacated by the Court in April 2002, 
as well as for the Northern California O. mykiss ESU listed as 
threatened on February 12, 2001 (66 FR 9808). If new information 
warrants, the agency also may later revise, subject to appropriate 
regulatory procedures, existing critical habitat designations for six 
ESUs (the Snake River sockeye, Sacramento River winter-run chinook, 
Central California Coast coho, Southern Oregon/Northern California 
Coast coho, Snake River spring/summer-run chinook, and Snake River 
fall-run chinook ESUs) that were not subject to the Court's decision in 
National Association of Homebuilders v. Evans. See 68 FR 55926 
(September 29, 2003) for further detail on NMFS' efforts in designating 
critical habitat for West Coast salmon and O. mykiss.

Public Comments Solicited

    To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be as accurate and effective as possible, and informed by the best 
available scientific and commercial information, NMFS is soliciting 
information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any 
other interested parties. Public hearings will be held in several 
locations in the range of the proposed ESUs; details regarding the 
locations, dates and times will be published in a forthcoming Federal 
Register document.
    NMFS recognizes that in several instances there are serious limits 
to the quantity and quality of available information, and accordingly 
NMFS has exercised its best professional judgment in developing this 
proposed rule. NMFS will appreciate any additional information 
regarding: (1) The relatedness of specific hatchery stocks to the 27 
subject ESUs; (2) biological or other relevant data concerning the 
viability and/or threats to Pacific salmon and O. mykiss ESUs, 
including the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity 
of the subject ESUs; (3) current or planned activities in the subject 
areas and their possible impact on these species; (4) the relationship, 
range, distribution, and habitat-use patterns of anadromous and 
resident O. mykiss populations; (5) genetic or other relevant data 
indicating the amount of exchange and the degree of relatedness between 
anadromous and resident O. mykiss life-history forms; (6) the existence 
of natural and artificial barriers to anadromous O. mykiss populations, 
and the relationship of resident fish located above natural and manmade 
impassible barriers to anadromous and resident populations below such 
barriers; (7) efforts being made to protect salmonid populations in 
California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho; and (8) suggestions for 
specific regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA to apply to 
threatened salmon and O. mykiss ESUs, including the description of 
``limits'' or activities that should not be subject to the take 
prohibitions for these threatened species. Additionally, NMFS seeks 
comment on: (a) The divergence threshold used for determining whether 
hatchery stocks should be considered part of a salmonid ESU (i.e., 
excluding from ESUs those hatchery stocks that exhibit substantial 
genetic divergence from the natural population(s)); (b) NMFS' BRT 
assessment of the viability and extinction risk of the naturally 
spawned component of the subject ESUs; (c) NMFS' consideration of 
artificial propagation and hatchery stocks in evaluating the extinction 
risk of ESUs in-total; (d) NMFS' assessment of the benefits and risks 
provided by artificial propagation programs and hatchery stocks; (e) 
NMFS' overall assessments of ESU-level extinction risk and ESA listing 
status for the subject ESUs; and (f) NMFS' proposed approach for 
managing protective regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA for 
threatened species.
    NMFS invites and will consider all pertinent information and 
comment. NMFS requests that information and comments be organized and 
identified as relating to issues (1)-(8) and (a)-(f) listed above to 
ensure that it is most effectively and efficiently considered in the 
development of the final rule. It is further requested that data, 
information, and comments be accompanied by: Supporting documentation 
such as maps, logbooks, bibliographic references, personal notes, and/
or reprints of pertinent publications; and the name of the person 
submitting the data, the address, and any association, institution, or 
business that the person represents.

Public Hearings

    Joint Commerce--Interior ESA implementing regulations state that 
the Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any 
person who requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed 
regulation to list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 
CFR 424.16(c)(3)). In a forthcoming Federal Register document, NMFS 
will announce the dates and locations of public meetings to provide the 
opportunity for the interested individuals and parties to give 
comments, exchange information and opinions, and engage in a 
constructive dialogue concerning this proposed rule. NMFS encourages 
the public's involvement in such ESA matters.

References

    A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is 
available upon

[[Page 33172]]

request (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ProposedListings/References.html.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    Proposed ESA listing decisions are exempt from the requirement to 
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement 
under the NEPA. See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.03(e)(1) and 
Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981). 
Thus, NMFS has determined that the proposed listing determinations for 
27 ESUs of Pacific salmonids described in this notice are exempt from 
the requirements of the NEPA of 1969. NMFS has conducted an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) under the NEPA analyzing the proposed 
amendments to the 4(d) protective regulations for Pacific salmonids. 
Copies of the EA are available from NMFS upon request (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT and ADDRESSES, above).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that the proposed rule issued under authority of ESA 
section 4, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. As a result, no regulatory 
flexibility analysis for the proposed listing determinations contained 
in this rule has been prepared.
Basis and Purpose of the Proposed Rule
    Under section 4(d) of the ESA, NMFS is required to adopt such 
regulations as it deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of 
species listed as threatened, including prohibiting ``take'' of the 
listed species. With respect to the listing determination itself, 
economic impacts cannot be considered, as noted in the Conference 
Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA. Therefore, the economic 
analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are not 
applicable to the listing process. Adoption of regulations under ESA 
section 4(d), in contrast, contains elements of discretion and, 
therefore, it is appropriate to consider its impacts on small entities.
    NMFS has previously adopted ESA 4(d) rules prohibiting take, except 
in certain circumstances, of all salmon and steelhead (salmonid) 
species listed as threatened under the ESA. Pursuant to a court order, 
NMFS is now proposing to list all hatchery fish considered part of the 
listed species. In most cases, it is not necessary or advisable for the 
conservation of the listed species to prohibit the take of hatchery 
fish. Moreover, if NMFS does not amend the current rules, take of 
hatchery fish will be prohibited once they are listed. West coast 
commercial and recreational fisheries primarily harvest hatchery 
salmonids.
    NMFS is proposing to revise the current ESA section 4(d) rule so 
that take is prohibited only of fish with an intact adipose fin. 
Hatchery managers typically mark fish intended for harvest by removing 
the small fin near the tail on the fish's back. This visible mark 
allows harvesters to distinguish and release naturally spawned fish 
while retaining clipped fish.
    NMFS is also proposing to amend the rule to protect two species 
that were previously listed as endangered but are now proposed for 
threatened status; to protect one species newly proposed for listing; 
and to consolidate certain provisions of the existing rules that 
provide exceptions to the take prohibition in certain circumstances.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Rule Applies
    The proposed rule applies to Non-tribal commercial salmon fisheries 
including ocean troll, Puget Sound seine and gillnet, Washington 
coastal bays gillnet, and lower Columbia non-Indian gillnet. Most of 
the entities involved in these fisheries are small entities. In 
Washington, California and Oregon combined, there were 2,840 troll 
licenses as of 2003; in the Columbia River there were 588 gillnet 
licenses as of 2003; and in Washington there were 1,274 purse seine and 
gillnet licenses as of 2000. Not all of these licenses are actively 
fished. In 2003 the total number of vessels reporting landings in all 
ocean fisheries was 1120. In 2003, the value of commercial landings of 
west coast salmon in all fisheries was $33 million. Ocean harvest 
accounted for $19 million of that total, with $12 million in the troll 
fishery. The average ex-vessel value of landings per vessel was 
$17,567.
    Recreational salmon fisheries include ocean, inland marine and 
freshwater as far inland as Idaho. The entities that service the 
recreational fisheries include bait and tackle suppliers, guides, 
outfitters, charter boat operators, and lodging and related service 
providers. These entities range in size from multi-national 
corporations and chain stores to small local family businesses. Except 
for the multi-national corporations and chain stores, most of these 
entities are small businesses. According to the Northwest Sportfishing 
Industry Association, salmon and steelhead anglers spend over $600 
million per year in the Northwest. (Other sources provide lower and 
higher estimates.)
    Tribal salmon fisheries are conducted by over 30 west coast Indian 
tribes with treaty and other rights to fish. Tribes range in size from 
a few hundred to several thousand individuals. Tribal members rely on 
salmon fisheries for ceremonial and subsistence needs as well as for 
economic benefit. The value of ceremonial and subsistence fisheries is 
incalculable. The value of salmon harvest for commercial sale is 
included in the figures available for commercial fisheries generally.
Economic Impacts
    The revisions NMFS is proposing will largely preserve the existing 
regulatory regime. Currently, hatchery fish are not listed, so their 
take is not prohibited. The proposed revisions will allow hatchery fish 
to continue to be available for harvest by not prohibiting their take. 
Currently, for the two species listed as endangered, all take is 
prohibited by section 9(a) of the ESA. The proposed revisions will 
maintain take prohibitions but with the greater flexibility allowed by 
a section 4(d) rule. Currently, the species listed as threatened are 
covered under a mix of 4(d) rules with varying degrees of flexibility. 
The proposed revisions will consolidate all of the species under one 
rule and apply the set of prohibitions and exceptions NMFS has found 
most flexible. For one species, Columbia River Coho, the proposed 
revisions will impose take prohibitions where none previously existed. 
NMFS has concluded that this revision will not have significant impacts 
on small entities. Since take of hatchery fish will not be prohibited, 
fisheries will be largely unaffected. Landowners will not be affected 
because the range of the newly listed coho ESU overlaps that of 
already-listed species whose take is already prohibited.

Conclusion

    NMFS concludes that the proposed rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because it largely 
leaves intact the existing regulatory scheme. Moreover, failure to 
adopt the revisions would have a large adverse impact on small 
businesses by prohibiting take of newly-listed hatchery fish.
    If you believe that this proposed rule will impact your economic 
activity, please comment on whether there is a preferable alternative 
that would meet

[[Page 33173]]

the statutory requirements of ESA section 4(d) (see ADDRESSES). Please 
describe the impact that alternative would have on your economic 
activity and why the alternative is preferable.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.
    This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information 
requirement for purposes of the PRA of 1980.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The proposed listing determinations and amendments to the ESA 4(d) 
protective regulations addressed in this rule have been determined to 
be significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866. NMFS has prepared a 
Regulatory Impact Review which was provided to the OMB.

E.O. 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    E.O. 13084 requires that if NMFS issues a regulation that 
significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal 
governments and imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those 
communities, NMFS must consult with those governments or the Federal 
government must provide the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. This proposed rule 
does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on the communities 
of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule. Nonetheless, 
NMFS intends to inform potentially affected tribal governments and to 
solicit their input on the proposed rule. NMFS will continue to give 
careful consideration to all written and oral comments received on the 
proposed rule and will continue its coordination and discussions with 
interested tribes as the agency moves forward toward a final rule.

E.O. 13132--Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take into account any federalism 
impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific 
consultation directives for situations where a regulation will preempt 
state law, or impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and 
local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of those 
circumstances is applicable to this proposed rule. In fact, this notice 
proposes mechanisms by which NMFS, in the form of 4(d) limits to take 
prohibitions, may defer to state and local governments where they 
proved necessary protections for threatened salmonids.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 223

    Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species, 
Restrictions applicable to threatened marine and anadromous species.

50 CFR Part 224

    Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    Dated: May 28, 2004.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 
are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.12 also 
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    2. In Sec.  223.102, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (a) Marine and anadromous fish.
    The following table lists the common and scientific names of 
threatened species, the locations where they are listed, and the 
citations for the listings and critical habitat designations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Species \1\                                              Citation(s) for    Citation(s) for
----------------------------------------------------      Where listed           listing        critical habitat
          Common name              Scientific name                            determinations      designations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Gulf sturgeon...............  Acipenser           Everywhere...........  56 FR 49653, Sep.  68 FR 13370, Mar.
                                  oxyrinchus                                 30, 1991.          19, 2003.
                                  desotoi.
(2) Ozette Lake sockeye........  Oncorhynchus nerka  U.S.A., WA, including  64 FR 14528, Mar.  NA [vacated 9/29/
                                                      all naturally          25, 1999, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned populations    CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      of sockeye salmon in   PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      Ozette Lake and        FINAL RULE].
                                                      streams and
                                                      tributaries flowing
                                                      into Ozette Lake,
                                                      Washington, as well
                                                      as two artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: The
                                                      Umbrella Creek and
                                                      Big River sockeye
                                                      hatchery programs.
(3) Sacramento winter-run        Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., CA, including  [FR CITATION WHEN  58 FR 33212, June
 chinook.                         tshawytscha.        all naturally          PUBLISHED AS A     16, 1993.
                                                      spawned populations    FINAL RULE]..
                                                      of winter-run
                                                      chinook salmon in
                                                      the Sacramento River
                                                      and its tributaries
                                                      in California, as
                                                      well as two
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: Winter-run
                                                      chinook from the
                                                      Livingston Stone
                                                      National Fish
                                                      Hatchery (NFH), and
                                                      winter run chinook
                                                      in a captive
                                                      broodstock program
                                                      maintained at
                                                      Livingston Stone NFH
                                                      and the University
                                                      of California Bodega
                                                      Marine Laboratory.
(4) Central Valley spring-run    Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., CA, including  64 FR 50394, Sep.  NA [vacated 9/29/
 chinook.                         tshawytscha.        all naturally          16, 1999, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned populations    CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      of spring-run          PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      chinook salmon in      FINAL RULE].
                                                      the Sacramento River
                                                      and its tributaries
                                                      in California.

[[Page 33174]]

 
(5) California Coastal chinook.  Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., CA, including  64 FR 50394, Sep.  NA [vacated 9/29/
                                  tshawytscha.        all naturally          16, 1999, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned populations    CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      of chinook salmon      PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      from rivers and        FINAL RULE].
                                                      streams south of the
                                                      Kalmath River to the
                                                      Russian River,
                                                      California, as well
                                                      as sever artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: The
                                                      Humboldt Fish Action
                                                      Council (Freshwater
                                                      Creek), Yager Creek,
                                                      Redwood Creek,
                                                      Hollow Tree, Van
                                                      Arsdale Fish
                                                      Station, Mattole
                                                      Salmon Group, and
                                                      Mad River Hatchery
                                                      fall-run chinook
                                                      hatchery programs.
(6) Upper Willamette River       Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., OR, including  64 FR 14308, Mar.  NA [vacated 9/29/
 chinook.                         tshawytscha.        all naturally          24, 1999, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned populations    CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      of spring-run          PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      chinook salmon in      FINAL RULE].
                                                      the Clackamas River
                                                      and in the
                                                      Willamette River,
                                                      and its tributaries,
                                                      above Willamette
                                                      Falls, Oregon, as
                                                      well as seven
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: The
                                                      McKenzie River
                                                      Hatchery (Oregon
                                                      Department of Fish
                                                      and Wildlife (ODFW)
                                                      stock  24),
                                                      Marion Forks/North
                                                      Fork Santiam River
                                                      (ODFW Stock  21), South
                                                      Santiam Hatchery
                                                      (ODFW stock  23) in the South
                                                      Fork Santiam River,
                                                      South Santiam
                                                      Hatchery in the
                                                      Calapooia River,
                                                      South Santiam
                                                      Hatchery in the
                                                      Mollala River,
                                                      Willamette Hatchery
                                                      (ODFW stock  22), and
                                                      Clackamas hatchery
                                                      (ODFW stock  19) spring-run
                                                      chinook hatchery
                                                      programs.
(7) Lower Columbia River         Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., OR, WA,        64 FR 14308, Mar.  NA [vacated 9/29/
 chinook.                         tshawytscha.        including all          24, 1999, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      naturally spawned      CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      populations of         PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      chinook salmon from    FINAL RULE].
                                                      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, exclusive of
                                                      spring-run chinook
                                                      salmon in the
                                                      Clackamas River, as
                                                      well as seventeen
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: The Sea
                                                      Resources Tule
                                                      chinook Program, Big
                                                      Creek Tule chinook
                                                      Program, Astoria
                                                      High School (STEP)
                                                      Tule chinook
                                                      Program, Warrenton
                                                      High School (STEP)
                                                      Tule chinook
                                                      Program, Elochoman
                                                      River Tule chinook
                                                      Program, Spring
                                                      Creek NFH Tule
                                                      chinook Program,
                                                      Cowlitz Tule Chinook
                                                      Program, North Fork
                                                      Toutle Tule chinook
                                                      Program, Kalama Tule
                                                      chinook Program,
                                                      Washougal River Tule
                                                      chinook Program,
                                                      Spring Creek NFH
                                                      Tule Chinook
                                                      Program, Cowlitz
                                                      spring chinook
                                                      Program in the Upper
                                                      Cowlitz River and
                                                      the Cispus River,
                                                      Friends of the
                                                      Cowlitz spring
                                                      chinook Program,
                                                      Kalama River spring
                                                      chinook Program,
                                                      Lewis River spring
                                                      chinook Program,
                                                      Fish First spring
                                                      chinook Program, and
                                                      the Sandy River
                                                      Hatchery (ODFW stock
                                                      11) chinook
                                                      hatchery programs.
(8) Puget Sound chinook........  Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., WA including   64 FR 14308, Mar.  NA [vacated 9/29/
                                  tshawytscha.        all naturally          24, 1999, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned populations    CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      of chinook salmon      PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      from rivers and        FINAL RULE].
                                                      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, as well
                                                      as twenty-two
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: The Kendal
                                                      Creek Hatchery,
                                                      Marblemount Hatchery
                                                      (fall, spring
                                                      yearlings, spring
                                                      subyearlings, and
                                                      summer run), Harvey
                                                      Creek Hatchery,
                                                      Whitehorse Springs
                                                      Pond, Wallace River
                                                      Hatchery (yearlings
                                                      and subyearlings),
                                                      Tualip Bay, Soos
                                                      Creek Hatchery, Icy
                                                      Creek Hatchery, Keta
                                                      Creek Hatchery,
                                                      White River
                                                      Hatchery, White
                                                      Acclimation Pond,
                                                      Hupp Springs
                                                      Hatchery, Voights
                                                      Creek Hatchery, Diru
                                                      Creek, Clear Creek,
                                                      Kalama Creek,
                                                      Dungeness/Hurd Creek
                                                      Hatchery, Elwha
                                                      Channel Hatchery
                                                      Chinook Hatchery
                                                      program.

[[Page 33175]]

 
(9) Snake River fall-run         Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., OR, WA, ID,    57 FR 34639, Apr.  58 FR 68543, Dec.
 chinook.                         tshawytscha.        including all          22, 1992; 57 FR    28, 1993.
                                                      naturally spawned      23458, Jun. 3,
                                                      populations of fall-   1992, [FR
                                                      run chinook salmon     CITATION WHEN
                                                      in the mainstem        PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      Snake River and in     FINAL RULE].
                                                      the Tucannon River,
                                                      Grande Ronde River,
                                                      Imnaha River, Salmon
                                                      River, and
                                                      Clearwater River, as
                                                      well as four
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: The Lyons
                                                      Ferry Hatchery, Fall
                                                      Chinook Acclimation
                                                      Ponds Program, Nez
                                                      Perce Tribal
                                                      Hatchery, and Oxbow
                                                      Hatchery fall-run
                                                      chinook hatchery
                                                      programs.
(10) Snake River spring/summer-  Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., OR, WA, ID,    57 FR 34639, Apr.  58 FR 68543, Dec.
 run chinook.                     tshawytscha.        including all          22, 1992; 57 FR    28, 1993. 64 FR
                                                      naturally spawned      23458, Jun. 3,     57399, Oct. 25,
                                                      populations of         1992 [FR           1999.
                                                      spring/summer-run      CITATION WHEN
                                                      chinook salmon in      PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      the mainstem Snake     FINAL RULE].
                                                      River and the
                                                      Tucannon River,
                                                      Grande Ronde River,
                                                      Imnaha River, and
                                                      Salmon River
                                                      subbasins, as well
                                                      as fifteen
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the
                                                      Tucannon River
                                                      conventional
                                                      Hatchery, Tucannon
                                                      River Captive
                                                      Broodstock Program,
                                                      Lostine River,
                                                      Catherine Creek,
                                                      Lookingglass
                                                      Hatchery, Upper
                                                      Grande Ronde, Imnaha
                                                      River, Big Sheep
                                                      Creek, McCall
                                                      Hatchery, Johnson
                                                      Creek Artificial
                                                      Propagation
                                                      Enhancement, Lemhi
                                                      River Captive
                                                      Rearing Experiment,
                                                      Pahsimeroi Hatchery,
                                                      East Fork Captive
                                                      Rearing Experiment,
                                                      West Fork Yankee
                                                      Fork Captive Rearing
                                                      Experiment, and the
                                                      Sawtooth Hatchery
                                                      spring/summer-run
                                                      chinook hatchery
                                                      programs.
(11) Oregon Coast coho.........  Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., OR, including  63 FR 42587, Aug.  NA [vacated 9/29/
                                  kisutch.            all naturally          10, 1998 [FR       03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned populations    CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      of coho salmon in      PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      Oregon coastal         FINAL RULE].
                                                      streams south of the
                                                      Columbia River and
                                                      north of Cape
                                                      Blanco, as well as
                                                      five artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the North
                                                      Umpqua River (ODFW
                                                      stock 18),
                                                      Cow Creek (ODFW
                                                      stock 37),
                                                      Coos Basin (ODFW
                                                      stock 37),
                                                      Coquille River (ODFW
                                                      stock 44),
                                                      and North Fork
                                                      Nehalem River (ODFW
                                                      stock 32)
                                                      coho hatchery
                                                      programs.
(12) Southern Oregon/Northern    Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., CA, OR,        62 FR 24588, May   64 FR 24049, May
 California Coast coho.           kisutch.            including all          6, 1997 [FR        5, 1999.
                                                      naturally spawned      CITATION WHEN
                                                      populations of coho    PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      salmon in coastal      FINAL RULE].
                                                      streams between Cape
                                                      Blanco, Oregon, and
                                                      Punta Gorda,
                                                      California, as well
                                                      three artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the Cole
                                                      Rivers Hatchery
                                                      (ODFW stock 52), Trinity River
                                                      Hatchery, and Iron
                                                      Gate Hatchery coho
                                                      hatchery programs.
(13) Lower Columbia River coho.  Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., OR, WA,        [FR CITATION WHEN  NA.
                                  kisutch.            including all          PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      naturally spawned      FINAL RULE].
                                                      populations of coho
                                                      salmon in the
                                                      Columbia River and
                                                      its tributaries in
                                                      Washington and
                                                      Oregon, from the
                                                      mouth of the
                                                      Columbia up to and
                                                      including the Big
                                                      White Salmon and
                                                      Hood Rivers, as well
                                                      as twenty-one
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs; the Grays
                                                      River, Sea Resources
                                                      Hatchery, Peterson
                                                      Coho Project, Big
                                                      Creek Hatchery,
                                                      Astoria High School
                                                      (STEP) Coho Program,
                                                      Warrenton High
                                                      School (STEP) Coho
                                                      Program, Elochoman
                                                      Type-S Coho Program,
                                                      Elochoman Type-N
                                                      Coho Program,
                                                      Cathlamet High
                                                      School FFA Type-N
                                                      Coho Program,
                                                      Cowlitz Type-N Coho
                                                      Program in the Upper
                                                      and Lower Cowlitz
                                                      Rivers, Cowlitz Game
                                                      and Anglers Coho
                                                      Program, Friends of
                                                      the Cowlitz Coho
                                                      Program, North Fork
                                                      Toutle River
                                                      Hatchery, Lewis
                                                      River Type-N Coho
                                                      Program, Lewis River
                                                      Type-S Coho Program,
                                                      Fish First Wild Coho
                                                      Program, Fish First
                                                      Type-N Coho Program,
                                                      Syverson Project
                                                      Type-N Coho Program,
                                                      Sandy Hatchery, and
                                                      the Bonneville/
                                                      Cascade/Oxbow
                                                      complex coho
                                                      hatchery programs.
(14) Columbia River chum.......  Oncorhynchus keta.  U.S.A., OR, WA,        64 FR 14508, Mar.  NA [vacated 9/29/
                                                      including all          25, 1999 [FR       03; 68 FR
                                                      naturally spawned      CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      populations of chum    PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      salmon in the          FINAL RULE].
                                                      Columbia River and
                                                      its tributaries in
                                                      Washington and
                                                      Oregon, as well as
                                                      three artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the
                                                      Chinook River (Sea
                                                      Resources Hatchery),
                                                      Grays River, and
                                                      Washougal River/
                                                      Duncan Creek chum
                                                      hatchery programs.

[[Page 33176]]

 
(15) Hood Canal summer-run chum  Oncorhynchus keta.  U.S.A., WA, including  64 FR 14508, Mar.  NA [vacated 9/29/
                                                      all naturally          25, 1999 [FR       03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned populations    CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      of summer-run chum     PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      salmon in Hood Canal   FINAL RULE].
                                                      and it tributaries
                                                      as well as
                                                      populations in
                                                      Olympic Peninsula
                                                      rivers between Hood
                                                      Canal and Dungeness
                                                      Bay, Washington, as
                                                      well as eight
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the
                                                      Quilcene NFH, Hamma
                                                      Hamma Fish Hatchery,
                                                      Lilliwaup Creek Fish
                                                      Hatchery, Union
                                                      River/Tahuya, Big
                                                      Beef Creek Fish
                                                      Hatchery, Salmon
                                                      Creek Fish Hatchery,
                                                      Chimacum Creek Fish
                                                      Hatchery, and the
                                                      Jimmycomelately
                                                      Creek Fish Hatchery
                                                      summer-run hatchery
                                                      programs.
(16) South-Central California    Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., CA, including  64 FR 43937, Aug.  NA [vacated 9/29/
 Coast Oncorhynchus mykiss.       mykiss.             all naturally          18, 1997 [FR       03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned anadromous     CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      O. mykiss              PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      (steelhead)            FINAL RULE].
                                                      populations, as well
                                                      as co-occurring
                                                      resident O. mykiss
                                                      (rainbow trout)
                                                      populations, below
                                                      natural and manmade
                                                      impassible barriers
                                                      in streams from the
                                                      Pajaro River
                                                      (inclusive) to, but
                                                      not including the
                                                      Santa Maria River,
                                                      California.
(17) Central California Coast    Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., CA, including  64 FR 43937, Aug.  NA [vacated 9/29/
 Oncorhynchus mykiss.             mykiss.             all naturally          18, 1997 [FR       03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned anadromous     CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      O. mykiss              PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      (steelhead)            FINAL RULE].
                                                      populations, as well
                                                      as co-occurring
                                                      resident O. mykiss
                                                      (rainbow trout)
                                                      populations, below
                                                      natural and manmade
                                                      impassible barriers
                                                      in California
                                                      streams from the
                                                      Russian River to
                                                      Aptos Creek, and the
                                                      drainages of San
                                                      Francisco and San
                                                      Pablo Bays eastward
                                                      to the Napa River
                                                      (inclusive),
                                                      excluding the
                                                      Sacramento-San
                                                      Joaquin River Basin,
                                                      as well as two
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the Dan
                                                      Clausen Fish
                                                      Hatchery, and
                                                      Kingfisher Flat
                                                      Hatchery/Scott Creek
                                                      (Monterey Bay Salmon
                                                      and Trout Project)
                                                      steelhead hatchery
                                                      programs. Native
                                                      resident O. mykiss
                                                      above Rubber Dam 1
                                                      on Alameda Creek are
                                                      also considered part
                                                      of the ESU.
(18) California Central Valley   Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., CA, including  [FR CITATION WHEN  NA [vacated 9/29/
 Oncorhynchus mykiss.             mykiss.             all naturally          PUBLISHED AS A     03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned anadromous     FINAL RULE].       55900].
                                                      O. mykiss
                                                      (steelhead)
                                                      populations, as well
                                                      as co-occurring
                                                      resident O. mykiss
                                                      (rainbow trout)
                                                      populations, below
                                                      natural and manmade
                                                      impassible barriers
                                                      in the Sacramento
                                                      and San Joaquin
                                                      Rivers and their
                                                      tributaries,
                                                      excluding steelhead
                                                      from San Francisco
                                                      and San Pablo Bays
                                                      and their
                                                      tributaries, as well
                                                      as two artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the
                                                      Coleman NFH, and
                                                      Feather River
                                                      Hatchery steelhead
                                                      hatchery programs.
(19) Northern California         Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., CA, including  65 FR 36074, June  NA.
 Oncorhynchus mykiss.             mykiss.             all naturally          7, 2000, [FR
                                                      spawned anadromous     CITATION WHEN
                                                      O. mykiss              PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      (steelhead)            FINAL RULE].
                                                      populations, as well
                                                      as co-occurring
                                                      resident O. mykiss
                                                      (rainbow trout)
                                                      populations, below
                                                      natural and manmade
                                                      impassible barriers
                                                      in California
                                                      coastal river basins
                                                      from Redwood Creek
                                                      south to the Gualala
                                                      River (inclusive),
                                                      as well as two
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the Yager
                                                      Creek Hatchery, and
                                                      North Fork Gualala
                                                      River Hatchery
                                                      (Gualala River
                                                      Steelhead Project)
                                                      steelhead hatchery
                                                      programs.
(20) Upper Willamette River      Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., OR, including  62 FR 43937, Aug.  NA [vacated 9/29/
 Oncorhynchus mykiss.             mykiss.             all naturally          18, 1997, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned anadromous     CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      O. mykiss              PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      (steelhead)            FINAL RULE].
                                                      populations, as well
                                                      as co-occurring
                                                      resident O. mykiss
                                                      (rainbow trout)
                                                      populations, below
                                                      natural and manmade
                                                      impassible barriers
                                                      in the Willamette
                                                      River, Oregon, and
                                                      its tributaries
                                                      upstream from
                                                      Willamette falls to
                                                      the Calapooia River
                                                      (inclusive).

[[Page 33177]]

 
(21) Lower Columbia River        Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., OR, WA,        63 FR 13347, Mar.  NA [vacated 9/29/
 Oncorhynchus mykiss.             mykiss.             including all          19, 1998, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      naturally spawned      CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      anadromous O. mykiss   PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      (steelhead)            FINAL RULE].
                                                      populations, as well
                                                      as co-occurring
                                                      resident O. mykiss
                                                      (rainbow trout)
                                                      populations, below
                                                      natural and manmade
                                                      impassible barriers
                                                      in streams and
                                                      tributaries to the
                                                      Columbia River
                                                      between the Cowlitz
                                                      and Wind Rivers,
                                                      Washington
                                                      (inclusive), and the
                                                      Willamette and Hood
                                                      Rivers, Oregon
                                                      (inclusive), as well
                                                      as ten artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the
                                                      Cowlitz Trout
                                                      Hatchery (in the
                                                      Cispus, Upper
                                                      Cowlitz, Lower
                                                      Cowlitz, and Tilton
                                                      Rivers), Kalama
                                                      River Wild (winter-
                                                      and summer-run),
                                                      Clackamas Hatchery,
                                                      Sandy Hatchery, and
                                                      Hood River (winter-
                                                      and summer-run)
                                                      steelhead hatchery
                                                      programs. Excluded
                                                      are O. mykiss
                                                      populations in the
                                                      upper Willamette
                                                      River Basin above
                                                      Willamette Falls,
                                                      Oregon, and from the
                                                      Little and Big White
                                                      Salmon Rivers,
                                                      Washington.
(22) Middle Columbia River       Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., OR, WA,        57 FR 14517, Mar.  NA [vacated 9/29/
 Oncorhynchus mykiss.             mykiss.             including all          25, 1999, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      naturally spawned      CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      anadromous O. mykiss   PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      (steelhead)            FINAL RULE].
                                                      populations, as well
                                                      as co-occurring
                                                      resident O. mykiss
                                                      (rainbow trout)
                                                      populations, below
                                                      natural and manmade
                                                      impassible barriers
                                                      in streams from
                                                      above the Wind
                                                      River, Washington,
                                                      and the Hood River,
                                                      Oregon (exclusive),
                                                      upstream to, and
                                                      including, the
                                                      Yakima River,
                                                      Washington,
                                                      excluding O. mykiss
                                                      from the Snake River
                                                      Basin, as well seven
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the
                                                      Touchet River
                                                      Endemic, Yakima
                                                      River Kelt
                                                      Reconditioning
                                                      Program (in Satus
                                                      Creek, Toppenish
                                                      Creek, Naches River,
                                                      and Upper Yakima
                                                      River), Umatilla
                                                      River, and the
                                                      Deschutes River
                                                      steelhead hatchery
                                                      programs..
(23) Upper Columbia River        Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., WA, including  62 FR 43937, Aug.  NA [vacated 9/29/
 Oncorhynchus mykiss.             mykiss.             all naturally          18, 1997, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      spawned anadromous     CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      O. mykiss              PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      (steelhead)            FINAL RULE].
                                                      populations, as well
                                                      as co-occurring
                                                      resident O. mykiss
                                                      (rainbow trout)
                                                      populations, below
                                                      natural a-d manmade
                                                      impassible barriers
                                                      in streams in the
                                                      Columbia River Basin
                                                      upstream from the
                                                      Yakima River,
                                                      Washington, to the
                                                      U.S.-Canada border,
                                                      as well six
                                                      artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the
                                                      Wenatchee River,
                                                      Wells Hatchery (in
                                                      the Methow and
                                                      Okanogan Rivers),
                                                      Winthrop NFH, Omak
                                                      Creek, and the
                                                      Ringold steelhead
                                                      hatchery programs.
(24) Snake River Basin           Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., OR, WA, ID,    62 FR 43937, Aug.  NA [vacated 9/29/
 Oncorhynchus mykiss.             mykiss.             including all          18, 1997, [FR      03; 68 FR
                                                      naturally spawned      CITATION WHEN      55900].
                                                      anadromous O. mykiss   PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      (steelhead)            FINAL RULE].
                                                      populations, as well
                                                      as co-occurring
                                                      resident O. mykiss
                                                      (rainbow trout)
                                                      populations, below
                                                      natural and manmade
                                                      impassible barriers
                                                      in streams in the
                                                      Snake River Basin of
                                                      southeast
                                                      Washington,
                                                      northeast Oregon,
                                                      and Idaho, as well
                                                      six artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the
                                                      Tucannon River,
                                                      Dworshak NFH, Lolo
                                                      Creek, North Fork
                                                      Clearwater, East
                                                      Fork Salmon River,
                                                      and the Little Sheep
                                                      Creek/Imnaha River
                                                      Hatchery steelhead
                                                      hatchery progrmas.
                                                      Native resident O.
                                                      mykiss above
                                                      Dworshak Dam on the
                                                      North Fork
                                                      Clearwater River are
                                                      also considered part
                                                      of the ESU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

    3. In Sec.  223.203, paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and 
(b)(2) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  223.203  Anadromous fish.

* * * * *
    (a) Prohibitions. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA 
(16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1) relating to endangered species apply to unmarked 
anadromous fish with an intact adipose fin that are part of the 
threatened species of salmonids listed in Sec.  223.102(a)(2) through 
(a)(24).
    (b) Limits on the prohibitions. The limits to the prohibitions of 
paragraph (a) of this section relating to threatened species of 
salmonids listed in Sec.  223.102(a) are described in subparagraphs 
(b)(1) through (b)(13) below:
    (1) * * *
    (2) The prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to 
threatened species of salmonids listed in Sec.  223.102(a)(2) through 
(a)(24) do not apply to activities specified in an application for a 
permit for scientific purposes or to enhance the conservation

[[Page 33178]]

or survival of the species, provided that the application has been 
received by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), no 
later than [date 60 days after the publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register]. The prohibitions of this section apply to these 
activities upon the AA's rejection of the application as insufficient, 
upon issuance or denial of a permit, or [date 6 months after the 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], whichever 
occurs earliest.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  223.203, paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(13), and (c), 
the references in the sections listed in the first column below are 
amended according to the directions in the second and third columns.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Section                         Remove                                 Add
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   223.203(b)(1)................  Sec.   223.102(a)(1)     Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
                                       through (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(22).
Sec.   223.203(b)(3) introductory     Sec.   223.102(a)(4)     Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
 text.                                 through (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(b)(4) introductory     Sec.   223.102(a)(5)     Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
 text.                                 through (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(b)(5) introductory     Sec.   223.102(a)(5)     Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
 text.                                 through (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(b)(6) introductory     Sec.   223.102(a)(7),    Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
 text.                                 (a)(8), (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(b)(7) introductory     Sec.   223.102(a)(5)     Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
 text.                                 through (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(b)(8) introductory     Sec.   223.102(a)(5)     Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
 text.                                 through (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(b)(9) introductory     Sec.   223.102(a)(5)     Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
 text.                                 through (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(b)(10) introductory    Sec.   223.102(a)(5)     Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
 text.                                 through (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(b)(11) introductory    Sec.   223.102(a)(5)     Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
 text.                                 through (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(b)(12) introductory    Sec.   223.102(a)(5)     Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
 text.                                 through (a)(10), and
                                       (a)(12) through
                                       (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(b)(13) introductory    Sec.   223.102(a)(12),   Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a) (24).
 text.                                 (a)(13), (a)(16),
                                       (a)(17), and (a)(19).
Sec.   223.203(c)...................  Sec.   223.102(a)(3),    Sec.   223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24).
                                       (a)(5) through
                                       (a)(10), and (a)(12)
                                       through (a)(22).
Sec.   223.203(c)...................  Sec.   223.209(a)......  Sec.   223.204(a).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  223.203  [Amended]

    5. Remove Sec.  223.203(b)(14) through (b)(22).


Sec.  223.204  [Removed]

    6. Remove Sec.  223.204.


Sec.  223.209  [Redesignated]

    7. Redesignate Sec.  223.209 as Sec.  223.204, and reserve Sec.  
223.209.

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
    2. Revise Sec.  224.101(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  224.101  Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (a) Marine and anadromous fish.
    The following table lists the common and scientific names of 
endangered species, the locations where they are listed, and the 
citations for the listings and critical habitat designations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Species \1\                                               Citations for
----------------------------------------------------     Where listed            listing        Critical habitat
          Common name              Scientific name                          determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortnose sturgeon.............  Acipenser           Everywhere..........  32 FR 4001, Mar.    NA
                                  brevirostrum.                             11, 1967.
Smalltooth sawfish.............  Pristis pectinata.  U.S.A...............  68 FR 15674, Apr.   NA
                                                                            1, 2003.
Totoaba........................  Cynoscion           Everywhere..........  44 FR 29480, May    NA
                                  macdonaldi.                               21, 1979.
Atlantic salmon................  Salmo salar.......  U.S.A., ME, Gulf of   65 FR 69459, Nov.   NA
                                                      Maine population,     17, 2000.
                                                      which includes all
                                                      naturally
                                                      reproducing
                                                      populations and
                                                      those river-
                                                      specific hatchery
                                                      populations
                                                      cultured from them.
Snake River sockeye............  Oncorhynchus nerka  U.S.A., ID,           56 FR 58619, Nov.   58 FR 68543, Dec.
                                                      including all         20, 1991, [FR       28, 1993.
                                                      anadromous and        CITATION WHEN
                                                      residual sockeye      PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      salmon from the       FINAL RULE].
                                                      Snake River Basin,
                                                      Idaho, as well as
                                                      artificially
                                                      propagated sockeye
                                                      salmon from the
                                                      Redfish Lake
                                                      captive propagation
                                                      program.

[[Page 33179]]

 
Upper Columbia River Spring-run  Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., WA,           64 FR 14308, Mar.   NA [vacated 9/29/
 chinook.                         tshawytscha.        including all         24, 1999, [FR       03; 68 FR
                                                      naturally spawned     CITATION WHEN       55900].
                                                      populations of        PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      chinook salmon in     FINAL RULE].
                                                      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),
                                                      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, as well
                                                      as six artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the Twisp
                                                      River, Chewuch
                                                      River, Methow
                                                      Composite, Winthrop
                                                      NFH, Chiwawa River,
                                                      and White River
                                                      spring-run chinook
                                                      hatchery programs.
Central California Coast coho..  Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., CA,           61 FR 56138, Oct.   64 FR 24049, May
                                  kisutch.            including all         31, 1996, [FR       5, 1999.
                                                      naturally spawned     CITATION WHEN
                                                      populations of coho   PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      salmon from Punta     FINAL RULE].
                                                      Gorda in northern
                                                      California south to
                                                      and including the
                                                      San Lorenzo River
                                                      in central
                                                      California, as well
                                                      as populations in
                                                      tributaries to San
                                                      Francisco Bay,
                                                      excluding the
                                                      Sacramento-San
                                                      Joaquin River
                                                      system, as well as
                                                      four artificial
                                                      propagation
                                                      programs: the Don
                                                      Clausen Fish
                                                      Hatchery Captive
                                                      Broodstock Program,
                                                      Scott Creek/King
                                                      Fisher Flats
                                                      Conservation
                                                      Program, Scott
                                                      Creek Captive
                                                      Broodstock Program,
                                                      and the Noyo River
                                                      Fish Station egg-
                                                      take Program coho
                                                      hatchery programs.
Southern California              Oncorhynchus        U.S.A., CA,           62 FR 43937, Aug.   NA [vacated 9/29/
 Oncorhynchus mykiss.             mykiss.             including all         18, 1997, [FR       03; 68 FR
                                                      naturally spawned     CITATION WHEN       55900].
                                                      anadromous O.         PUBLISHED AS A
                                                      mykiss (steelhead)    FINAL RULE].
                                                      populations, as
                                                      well as co-
                                                      occurring resident
                                                      O. mykiss (rainbow
                                                      trout) populations,
                                                      below natural and
                                                      manmade impassible
                                                      barriers in streams
                                                      from the Santa
                                                      Maria River, San
                                                      Luis Obispo County,
                                                      California,
                                                      (inclusive) to the
                                                      U.S.-Mexico Border.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-12706 Filed 6-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P